JESUS’ COMING IN THE GLORY

OF THE FATHER

JESUS’ COMING

IN THE GLORY OF THE FATHER

A STUDY OF THE TIME AND NATURE OF

CHRIST’S SECOND COMING

DON K. PRESTON

ANASTASIS PUBLICATIONS ARDMORE, OKLAHOMA

FOREWORD

One would have thought that with the passing of the turn of the century and millennium, with all of the fantastic predictions of the end of the world having failed, that such predictions would have died down. However, lamentably, with the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, these voices have reached a fever pitch. Popular prophecy prognosticators such as Jack Van Impe, John Hagee, Hal Lindsay, etc., claim that this is the generation that will not see death, the end is nearer than ever. Lindsey has declared that the Trade Towers horror is definitive proof that the end time saga has begun.

However, thankfully, calmer voices are beginning to be heard. There is a fast growing segment of Christianity that is now coming to realize that Jesus’ predictions of his coming, and of the end of the age, were fulfilled in the first century, just as Jesus foretold. This movement is called by different names. Some call it Realized Eschatology (not after Dodd), some call it Fulfilled Eschatology, some call it the Preterist Movement, some call it Transmillennialism, some call it Covenant Eschatology.

This movement, by whatever name, acknowledges and emphasizes that Jesus and the NT writers affirmed, repeatedly, that Jesus’ parousia and the end of the age were to occur in the first century generation. Advocates of Covenant Eschatology, the term preferred by this writer, affirm that all Bible prophecies of the Second Coming, Judgment, and Resurrection, were fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel in A.D. 70. Jesus kept his word!

Skeptics have repeatedly noted how the end of the literal world did not occur in the first century, therefore Biblical inspiration is a myth, and Jesus is a failed prophet.

Bible believers have resorted to all sorts of devices to counter the skeptical attacks. Some say that time means nothing with God. Some say that since Jesus did not know the day or the hour of his coming, that the disciples could not say it was truly near. Some have gone so far as to say that the early church actually made up the story of the Second Coming, and it was the church, not Jesus himself, that was mistaken.

There is no need to make excuses for Jesus or the Bible. There is a far simpler, Biblical answer. Jesus did not predict the end of literal creation. He did not predict that he was coming back on a literal cloud to destroy terra firma. Jesus said he was going to come in the glory of the Father. This means that Jesus was going to be revealed as God, and not as man at his parousia. This means he could not come again in the flesh. This work will demonstrate that truth, as well as to respond to those who call this view heresy.

Covenant Eschatology, preterism, is a rapidly growing movement. Bible students that have been perplexed and troubled over the seeming failure of Bible predictions are finally finding the answers to their questions. Answers that are Biblical, sound and logical. Finally, the skeptic can be answered definitively, with solid, exegetically based, and historically demonstrated argumentation.

However, not everyone welcomes this movement. The dispensational school, especially men such as John MacArthur, Thomas Ice, Grand Jeffrey, and others are openly leveling the charge of heresy against those who claim that Jesus kept his word. Others, in the Reformed movement, such as Kenneth Gentry, agree with the dispensationalists in calling advocates of Covenant Eschatology heretics. These are serious charges indeed.

v

This work seeks not only to positively present the case for believing that Jesus never predicted a destruction of physical creation and a visible bodily return on clouds, but, we will also respond to some of our critics, especially MacArthur, Ice, and Jeffrey.

Gentry is what is called a partial preterist. He holds that many Bible prophecies, including most of Revelation, were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. His argumentation on these passages is normally lucid, logical, and compelling. However, in condemning the “full preterist” posit, Gentry loses grasp of his logic. This has not escaped the notice of his dispensational opponents.

MacArthur says, “It is frankly hard to see how any preterist could ever give a credible refutation of hyper-preterism from Scripture, given the fact that the hermeneutical approach underlying both views is identical.”1 He proceeds to say, “Gentry’s own interpretation of Matthew 24:29-31 effectively eliminates all the major objections to hyper-preterism. If the promise of Christ’s return on the clouds in the Olivet Discourse pertains to a spiritual event already past, why not interpret all the New Testament references to His return in the same way?” (p. 227, n. 4) Why indeed! We shall demonstrate some of the contradictions in Gentry as we proceed.

As we prepared the final draft of this book, we received a new book by Grant Jeffrey.2 It purports to be a defense of a literal future coming of Christ, and a refutation of the preterist view. That prophecy pundits like MacArthur, Ice, Jeffrey and others are feeling compelled to address the issue demonstrates how dramatically Covenant Eschatology is growing.3 Jeffrey believes the preterist movement is heretical. In fact, he insists that the very existence of those such as the present author, who believe in fulfilled prophecy, is a sign that the end is near! We have addressed some of Jeffrey’s comments. One of his key arguments, the dating of Revelation, is refuted in our book Who Is This Babylon?. We will not address those issues herein.

It is our hope that the reader of this work will approach it with an open mind, an open Bible, and a courageous heart. Sometimes the charge of heresy is enough to keep some people from investigation, and to be sure, the verbiage of MacArthur and Ice seems, in some instances, intended to intimidate.

However, it is not wrong to question, to investigate. The Spirit long ago lauded and praised the Berean spirit of courage, and inquiry. The Reformation Movement began because of one man’s desire to be righteous, to know God and His Word, to find answers. The same is true of the American Restoration Movement.

Honest hearts were not satisfied with traditional answers that did not match Scriptures. Jesus’ challenge, “Search the Scriptures!” rang true for these great men and women, and it still rings true for countless believers today. That is why large numbers of believers are abandoning the futurist camps of all stripes, whether dispensationalism, postmillennialism, or amillennialism. These courageous souls have come to believe that Jesus not only predicted his return was going to be in the first century, but that He kept His word. Armed with this truth, and with the confidence it brings, they can confront and answer the skeptics, whether irreligious or religious.

This work may strike some people as somewhat polemic, and so it is. The charge of heresy is increasingly being leveled against advocates of Realized Eschatology. While we have attempted to set forth our views in a positive manner, we have not hesitated to challenge the popular futurist views of those who are doing the name calling, specifically Thomas Ice, Grant Jeffrey and John MacArthur. This book names names, and responds to the charge of heresy being thrown around by these popular prophecy teachers. They have thrown down the gauntlet. We accept the challenge.

While this book does not shrink from the controversy, we have nonetheless attempted to manifest the proper spirit. It is not our purpose nor desire to impugn motives, nor to question the sincerity of anyone. Our only purpose has been to present our case, examine the charges against our views, and provide a Biblical response. Hopefully, this work will be a positive contribution to the current discussion on eschatology.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgment pages are becoming a thing of the past. This is sad. The production of any book is a team process. No one writes a book alone.

All those who have written books, all those who have done research, the family, the financial contributors, the fellow learners, the advisers, the proof readers, all are present. So it is with this book. Words cannot properly express the appreciation that I feel for the support given to me. I must single out just a few of those who have aided in the production of this work.

My appreciation and thanks to the Ardmore church of Christ, for their eager and strong support of my ministry. Words seem inappropriate to express how wonderful it is to work with such a dedicated group of believers. The Berean spirit is alive and well in their hearts. As a congregation they know what it means to be the object of ridicule for having the courage to break with the traditions of the fathers, and to take a stand for Truth.

My wife is my Rock. She is my sounding board, one of my proof readers, but most of all my constant encouragement. Writing a book is a “24-7" job, as anyone who has done it will testify. Preoccupation with research and thought has meant that on more than one occasion “the lights were on but no one was home” when she was trying to talk to me. Her understanding and patience is inestimable.

A special word of thanks to the financial contributors who made the publication of this work possible. Without them, this book would not have been published.

A special thanks goes to my friend John Anderson of <www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com> for his helpful suggestions on issues to address, and questions to answer. I originally intended to write a short tract on this subject, but at his encouragement, decided to expand the work.

Thanks to the proof readers who have helped make this, hopefully, a correct production. My sharp eyed friend Lester Brown especially, deserves a word of thanks. He has been invaluable. If errors remain in this work, and there is no such thing as a perfect book, the mistakes are mine, not those of my proof readers.

Another special thanks to Paul Horton who designed the cover. Finally, a word of thanks to those who will read this book. Thank you for your interest in Truth. Thank you for your willingness to think “outside

the box.” Thank you for having the courage to think!

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 IN THE GLORY OF THE FATHER--Defining the terms / The Transfer of Judgment Prerogative, John 5:19-23 / How the Father Had Come / NT predictions of the Day of the Lord and Their O.T. Source, an Examination of Three Critical Texts. CHAPTER 2–PAGE 20 Does Time Determine the Nature of the Parousia, or Does the Nature of the Parousia Determine the Time? A Question of Interpretation / The problem of TIME: When the Bible says the end was to come / Identifying the Last Days, and their relevance to prophetic language / Does the Bible Mean What It Says, and Does It Say What It Means? CHAPTER 3–PAGE 48 The Parousia and the Nature of the Kingdom / Nine Points to Ponder: #1--Old Israel the Shadow of Better Things / #2--God’s eternal pattern, from natural to spiritual / #3--Jesus’ rejection of Jewish offer of the Kingdom / #4--Jewish Rejection of Jesus’ kingship / #5--Jesus’ Kingdom not of this world / #6--Kingdom does not come with observation / #7--Jesus’ Davidic Throne to be in heaven, not on earth / #8--Messianic Zion to be in heaven, not on earth / #9--Israel received fulfillment of her hope in the first century. CHAPTER 4–PAGE 60 The Parousia and the Deity of Jesus / The Second Coming to Reveal Jesus as God, Not Man CHAPTER 5–PAGE 63 The Parousia and Martyr Vindication / Matthew 23, The Controlling Text for Study of Martyr Vindication / The Parables and Martyr Vindication / Old Testament Predictions of Martyr Vindication at the Day of the Lord / Israel’s Salvation and Martyr Vindication / Identifying the Persecutors CHAPTER 6–PAGE 79 Paul, Parousia and Martyr Vindication / Paul as Last Days Martyr/ Paul as Prophet To Israel / Paul Prophet of Judgment / Paul and the Song of Moses: Israel’s Last Days Prophecy / Paul’s Message to Israel: Salvation Through Judgment

viii

CHAPTER 7–PAGE 90 The Great Paradox: Israel’s Salvation Through Judgment, Not From Judgment / Old Covenant Israel the Shadow of Better Things / The Shadow Was Not the Goal / The Better Things Were Spiritual / The Shadow To Be Removed To Reveal the Body / Shadow Removed When Israel Judged for Blood Guilt / Judgment for Blood Guilt at the Day of the Lord / Judgment for Blood Guilt in A.D. 70:The Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 / Day of the Lord in A.D. 70 CHAPTER 8–PAGE 132 A Tale of Two Cities / Jerusalem Destroyed, Jerusalem Delivered, Which? / The Bible Doctrine of Two Jerusalems / The Abrahamic Promises / The Nature of the New Jerusalem CHAPTER 9–PAGE 148 The Parousia and Covenant Transformation / Acts 3 and Hebrews 9 / The Restoration of Israel and the Time of Reformation; Greek Word Studies / The Nature of Israel’s Restoration / The Parousia and the End of the Age CHAPTER 10–PAGE 157 The Transfiguration and The Parousia / The Transfiguration as a Vision of the Parousia / What Was Not Seen / What Was Seen / When Did the Old Covenant Really Pass? / Paul and the Passing of the Old Testament: Ezekiel 37 and 2 Corinthians 3 CHAPTER 11–PAGE 175 Jesus’ Second Birth and the Parousia / The Necessity of Jesus’ Physicality / The Limitations of Jesus’ Physicality / Defining Jesus’ Second Birth CHAPTER 12–PAGE 179 Responding To Some Concerns / What About “In Like Manner” / What About “Every Eye Shall See Him?” / The Resurrection Body of Jesus CHAPTER 13–PAGE 184 A RESPONSE TO JOHN MACARTHUR’S, THE SECOND COMING: “Nine Reason’s Why Jesus Must Return,”

ix

Reason #1--The Promise of God Demands It Reason #2--The Teaching of Christ Demands It Reason #3-- The Testimony of the Holy Spirit Demands It Reason #4-- The Program for the Church Demands It Reason #5-- The Corruption of the World Demands It Reason #6-- The Future of Israel Demands It Reason #7-- The Vindication of Christ Demands It Reason #8-- The Destruction of Satan Demands It Reason #9-- The Hope of the Saints Demands It. MacArthur’s “Three Reasons for the Delayed Parousia”: Reason #1 For the Delayed Parousia-- To Give Man Full Opportunity to Develop His Schemes Reason #2 For the Delayed Parousia-- So That God Might Fully Display His Long-Suffering Reason #3 For the Delayed Parousia-- So That God Might Fully Test the Faith of His Own People. CHAPTER 14–PAGE 220 A RESPONSE TO THE CHARGE OF THE HYMENAEN HERESY / How is This Possible? An examination of some of the issues / Who was Hymenaeus and where did he get his ideas? / The time and nature of the resurrection CHAPTER 15–PAGE 238 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

1

IN THE GLORY OF THE FATHER: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE

NATURE OF CHRIST’S SECOND COMING © 2002

Don K. Preston www.eschatology.org

Scripture affirms that Christ’s Second Coming, the parousia, would be “in the glory of the Father” (Matthew 16:27). What does this mean?

Interestingly, the commentators often ignore this phrase. We have found only a few that actually take note of the phrase to any degree. Meyers says, “in the glory of the Father” means, “in the same glory as belongs to God.”4 Filson says the phrase means that Christ will come “with the splendor that surrounds the Father in heaven. He will appear as divine judge, and act for the Father.”5 France provides insight into the force of Jesus’ words,

“In the Old Testament, judgment is God’s prerogative, and the words from Psalms 62:12 (cf. Prov.24:12) which form the second part of this verse are words about God. Taken together with the ascription of a kingdom to the Son of Man in the next verse, this is quite a remarkable assumption of a divine role for Jesus in his future glory. His coming will be in the glory of the Father, in the sense that he shares that glory and authority.”6

This book will investigate the meaning and significance of Jesus’ prediction that he was to come in the glory of the Father. These words have Christological as well as eschatological meaning. In short, for Jesus to claim he was to come in the glory of the Father was nothing less than a claim to the true essence of Deity. Further, for Jesus to say he was coming in the glory of the Father positively defines the nature of his parousia, and, it does so in a way that challenges all futurist paradigms.

THE TRANSFER OF JUDGMENT PREROGATIVE In discussions of eschatology, i.e. the doctrine of the end times, most of the emphasis is placed on what is known as the Second Coming. This

emphasis is proper. However, what is often overlooked in the discussions is the purpose of the parousia.7 To say that the purpose of the Second Coming is overlooked is almost certain to raise a few eyebrows. Everyone knows that the coming of Christ

is for judgment, correct? And, everyone knows that the parousia would be to raise the dead, right? Further, almost everyone would agree, would they not, that the coming of the Lord would be to destroy “heaven and earth?”

These things are correct, when properly understood. However, they also omit one of the most fundamental reasons for the coming of Jesus, and that is to reveal him as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14; 19:15f)! The parousia would reveal Jesus as God.

In my studies on eschatology, one of the most ignored passages I have encountered is John 5:19-23. “Most assuredly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

2

For brevity, we will confine our comments on this text to the most important issues dealing with Christological and eschatological tenets. First, Jesus said that what the Father had done, the Son would do in like manner, and one specific issue involved is judgment. Second, the Father

would no longer exercise His prerogative of judgment, but committed that Sovereign prerogative to Jesus. Third, the reason Jesus was given the authority of judgment was for men to honor Him in the same way they honor the Father. Let’s take a closer look at what all this means.

JUDGMENT AND THE FATHER The text teaches that just as the Father had judged in the past, the Son would now judge in His stead. The question is, how had the Father judged

in the past? How had the Son seen the Father judge? This is important because Jesus said that as the Father had done in the past, the Son would now do “in like manner” (Greek, homoios). And the answer is that Jehovah had come, in judgment, many times in the past.

In what follows, we will establish three facts about the parousia of Jehovah in the Old Testament: 1.) The fact of His coming, along with the time and context of that event. 2.) The language of the Day of the Lord, 3.) The purpose of the coming of Jehovah

When Babylon was destroyed by the Assyrians,8 and again by the Medes (Isaiah 13), it was called the Day of the Lord, literally the day of Jehovah (v.6). When that great metropolis fell, the heaven and earth was shaken (v. 10, 13). We know this prophecy was against historical Babylon, because the text plainly tells us so (Isaiah 13:1-2).

The fact of Jehovah’s coming against Babylon is clearly asserted by the text of Isaiah (v. 6). Further, the time of the event was, as we will see, when the Assyrians, and then the Medes, invaded Babylon, bringing destruction. That means that the context of the Day of the Lord was an event in history, not an event to end history. Furthermore, the language used to describe the fall of Babylon is clearly metaphoric, since it is obvious that literal heaven and earth was not destroyed when Babylon fell (v. 9-10). We will see shortly the purpose of this and other “comings” of Jehovah.

At this juncture the presuppositions of the millennialists become evident. MacArthur, commenting on Isaiah 13, says, “This prophecy seems to have had an immediate application to the judgment and destruction of Babylon (v. 1, 17; cf. Daniel 5:30-31). Yet the full meaning of the prophecy clearly looks beyond Babylon to a yet-future eschatological fulfillment, as evidenced by two things: 1.) The cosmic and worldwide catastrophes spoken of in the prophecy (v. 10-13), and, 2.) Isaiah’s references to the Day of the Lord (v. 6) which is spoken of as a yet future reality long after the judgment of Babylon (cf. 2 Peter 3:10).” (1999, 227, n. 7)

MacArthur refuses to allow the Bible writers to use metaphoric hyperbole, even though it is well known that Hebraic thought tended toward this kind of expression. Thus, even though the prophecy specifically says it is about the destruction of Babylon (Isaiah 13:1f), MacArthur refuses to believe that this is all it is about.

MacArthur assumes that the term Day of the Lord refers to one event, the end of the current age. Instead of seeing the term as a nomen for any time God acted in judgment, he insists that it has to mean something more than the judgment of a kingdom. This hermeneutical presupposition refuses to allow the text to speak for itself. It determines the meaning of words, terms and phrases before the text is considered, and then imposes that definition on the text.

In the destruction of Egypt at the hands of the Assyrians under Sargon,9Jehovah rode on a swift cloud, and came into Egypt to judge the wicked (Isaiah 19-20). Historians know when this was accomplished. The text has nothing to do with the end of human history. It was a prediction of the judgment of Egypt that Jehovah accomplished at the hands of Assyria.

3

Once again, we find the fact of Jehovah’s coming. The time and context of His parousia was Assyria’s invasion under Sargon, king of Assyria. This means that the language of His coming, i.e. His riding on a cloud, was figurative language that was not fulfilled literally. The purpose of this coming is stated in Isaiah 19:21, “Then the Lord will be known to the Egyptians.” In other words, the coming of Jehovah in judgment of Egypt was to reveal God’s majesty and Sovereignty to that people.

When Assyria, under Sennecherib, invaded Israel, threatening Jerusalem with destruction, Isaiah promised deliverance at the coming of Jehovah with fire. Jehovah would “come down” out of heaven (Isaiah 30:30; 31:4) with a shout, and Assyria would be defeated (Isaiah 30:27-33; 31:4-8). There is no doubt whatsoever of the time and context of Jehovah’s presence in judgment. This was a historical event.

Of course, Jehovah did not bodily descend from heaven on the clouds, with fire, as a literal interpretation of the language would demand. The Lord of Hosts sent His destroying Angel into the Assyrian camp during the night, killing 185,000 soldiers (Isaiah 37). The Assyrians went home in chaos.

If Jehovah could describe the destruction of the Assyrians as a time when He came down out of heaven with a shout, with flaming fire and the sound of a trumpet, when creation would be destroyed, and if the Assyrians were destroyed, but none of the language of God’s coming was literally fulfilled, then it is abundantly clear that Jehovah had used highly figurative, exaggerated language to describe His actions.

The purpose of this coming of the Lord is established in Isaiah 37:18-20: “Truly, Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste to all the nations, and their lands, and have cast all their gods into the fire; for they were not gods, but the work of men’s hands–wood and stone. Therefore they destroyed them. Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you are the Lord, You alone.”

The purpose of Jehovah’s “coming” would be to reveal Him as the only True God! The Assyrians finally did destroy the ten northern tribes of Israel in B.C. 721 (2 Kings 17:5f, a totally different situation than in Isaiah 30-37), and when

he predicted that holocaust, Amos said Jehovah would roar out of Zion in judgment, with a shout (1:2). Micah, contemporary of Amos, also foretold the destruction of the northern tribes (Micah 1:6-7). He said that because of Israel’s sin, “The Lord (Jehovah) is coming out of His place; He will come down and tread on the high places of the earth. The mountains will melt under Him and the valleys split like wax before the fire.” (Micah 1:3-4). Assyria was God’s instrument, “the rod of My anger,” to bring judgment (Isaiah 10:5f). By means of the Assyrians, Jehovah came in judgment of Israel.

It is worthwhile at this juncture to compare the language of the earlier unsuccessful of Israel siege under Sennecherib, and what happened when Israel was finally conquered by the Assyrians.

In Isaiah 30, Jehovah promised that if Israel would trust in Him they would be saved. The promise that, “One thousand shall flee at the threat of one” (30:17), taken directly from Deuteronomy 32:30, was a Covenantal promise of protection based on their submission to Him. Further, the Lord promised that if they would trust quietly in Him, “There will be on every high mountain and on every high hill, rivers and streams of waters, in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, in the day that the Lord binds up the bruise of His people.”

What we find in this language is the language of “recreation” i.e., when God would bless creation. Now, in literal fashion, it would hardly be a blessing if the light of the sun was magnified seven times! In fact, that would be totally destructive to the earth. However, since the light of the sun is normally a blessing, then, to express the abundance of God’s blessings when He delivered them from Assyria, He expressed it in terms of increased light. Similarly, since water is, and certainly was in ancient times, considered the greatest of blessings, Jehovah said He would cause streams and rivers to flow on the tops of mountains!

4

Remember, this language was descriptive of the blessings on Israel when Jehovah would defend Israel from the Assyrian king Sennecherib. Israel did submit to Jehovah and trust Him for deliverance. He did deliver them! However, did Jehovah literally come out of heaven with fire, with hail, and a shout? No. Nor did rivers suddenly spring out on tops of the mountains, and, thankfully, the sun’s light was not magnified seven times!

On the other hand, when predicting the later destruction of Israel at the hands of the Assyrians, the language now takes a different turn. Instead of the language of re-creation, it is the language of de-creation! Instead of the earth bringing forth abundance of crops, plenty of water, and the blessings of the sun and moon, now, the Lord of Hosts would come down on the tops of the mountains, and the earth would be destroyed! Instead of rivers on the tops of the mountains, the mountains melt (Micah 1:3f). Instead of deliverance, “I will make Samaria a heap of ruins in the field” (Micah 1:6). Although the language sounded like the end of history, it was not intended to be taken literally.

The time and context of each of these Days of the Lord, the deliverance of Israel from Sennecherib, and the later destruction of Israel at the hands of Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17), are undeniable. The language is established as metaphoric, and the purpose of the Day of the Lord, whether in deliverance or judgment, was to reveal Jehovah as Lord of Lords!

Isaiah foretold the fall of the haughty, and their capital Bozrah at the time when the constellations of the heavens would melt and the earth would burn (Isaiah 34:3-4). The Lord’s sword was to come down from heaven (v. 5) in the Day of the Jehovah (v. 8). Obadiah, writing later, said the threatened Day of the Lord was near (v. 15-17). Historically, the Babylonians fulfilled that prophecy in B.C. 583,10 and Malachi looks back on the event as an accomplished reality (Malachi 1:2f). The Day of Jehovah had come by the means of the Babylonians.

Edom no longer exists, therefore any suggestion that the prophecy of the Day of the Lord is yet future is misplaced. The prophecy is about the destruction of Edom in the Day of the Lord. Now, Edom was destroyed (Malachi 1:2f). And, she was destroyed within a short time of Obadiah’s prediction to that effect (Obadiah 1:15f). We must conclude therefore, that Isaiah and the other prophets that foretold the Day of Jehovah against Edom, in which God would come and creation would be destroyed, used metaphoric language. You cannot project into the future the destruction of a nation/kingdom that does not exist, and that was destroyed long ago.

When Ezekiel threatened Jerusalem with destruction at the hands of Babylon, he called it the Day of the Lord’s (Jehovah) wrath (Ezekiel 7). Jeremiah described that invasion as the destruction of heaven and earth (Jeremiah 4:24f), and Zephaniah called it the Day of Jehovah. He called on Judah to humble herself in the presence of the Lord (Hebrew, Adonay, LXX, Zephaniah 1:7), because the Great Day of the Lord (Jehovah) was near (1:14). Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, destroyed Judah in A. D. 586. Adonay Jehovah, came, in judgment of Jerusalem, by means of the Babylonian army.

Many other examples of the coming of Jehovah could be listed. However, these will suffice to show how Jehovah, the Father in Christian parlance, had come in judgment before the Incarnation of Jesus. It should be clear that in not one case cited, or others that could be produced, did Jehovah ever bodily, visibly descend from heaven, on an actual cloud, with an audible shout, or the sounding of a Trumpet. Nor, we might emphasize in addition, was the literal heaven and earth ever destroyed.

At this time, we need to emphasize even more the purpose of the coming of Jehovah in the Old Testament. The book of Ezekiel is especially helpful in establishing the purpose of the parousia of Jehovah, and that purpose was, “so that they may know that I am the Lord!” No less than 74 times in that prophet’s book we find the expression, “So that they may know that I am the Lord”in connection with a Day of the Lord, whether against or for, Israel, or against some other nations. We will list but a few of those examples and leave the reader to discover the rest for themselves by use of the concordance. 1.) Ezekiel 6:7, 10, 13, 14– Jehovah would come against Jerusalem, and the dead bodies would lie in the streets “So that they will know that I am God.” (See also Ezekiel 7:4, 9, 27– same). This was stated in regard to the Day of the Lord that was coming against Jerusalem at the hands of

5

Nebuchadnezzer in B.C. 586. In other words, the fall of Jerusalem in B. C. 586 would demonstrate Jehovah’s Sovereignty, so that Israel would know that He was God! 2.) Ezekiel 11:10, 12– Against Jerusalem: “I will judge you in the borders of Israel, so that you may know that I am God.” 3.) Ezekiel 12:15-16–, 20 Against Jerusalem: “They shall know that I am the Lord when I scatter them among the nations.”; “The cities that are inhabited shall lie desolate and ye shall know that I am the Lord.” 4.) Ezekiel 20:33-39– Jehovah would purge out the rebels of Israel by judgment. They would not enter the land, “and ye shall know that I am the Lord.” Conversely, when he would restore the remnant (v. 42), “You shall know that I am the Lord when I bring you into the land.” 5.) Ezekiel 25:5-7 against Ammonites (v. 11), against Moabites (v. 14), against Edom (v. 14), and the Philistines: “They shall know that I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon them.” Each of these nations was to be destroyed at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar at the time he invaded and destroyed Israel. This is not an end of time, earth burning, universal catastrophe, although it was the Day of the Lord! El Shaddai used the Chaldean king to bring judgment on His enemies. Nebuchadnezzar was blissfully unaware that he was but a pawn in Jehovah’s hand. 6.) Ezekiel 28:22, 23, 24-- Against Sidon– “Behold I am against thee O Sidon, and I will be glorified in the midst of thee; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall have executed judgments in her.” Interestingly, in verses 25-26, Jehovah promised that when he judged the nations that had taken Israel into captivity, i.e. Assyria and Babylon, “Then they shall know that I am the Lord their God.” It will also be noted that not only was Jehovah’s name to be known by means of His coming against Sidon, in the midst of her.” This did not mean that the Sidonians would be converted, however, it meant that the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word glorified His name, even if and when the object of His wrath did not fully fathom what was happening! It was up to the discerning witness to understand that this truly was the Day of the Lord, and to honor His name! 7.) Ezekiel 29-30, the Day of the Lord against Egypt (30:3f). The text tells us that this Day of the Lord would come against Egypt, and that it would occur at the hands of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar (29:17f), “Egypt shall be desolate, and Egypt shall know that I am the Lord” (v. 9). “They shall know that I am the Lord when I have set fire to Egypt” (30:8, 19).

It is of special importance to note the language of chapter 30: 25. Jehovah said, “They shall know that I am the Lord when I have put my sword into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall stretch it out upon the land of Egypt.” There could hardly be a more clear-cut definition of the Day of the Lord. Jehovah was going to use the Babylonians as His instrument of judgment against Egypt. Patently this was not to be a literal visible coming of Jehovah on the clouds of heaven. Nonetheless, it was the Day of Jehovah! God came!11

As we have seen in the examples above, the purpose of Jehovah’s actions was clear, to reveal Him as Lord of Lords! It was to manifest His sovereignty and majesty among the nations. When He acted in judgment, His name was glorified, and men, at least the discerning, came to understand Who he was.

To briefly summarize, what we have seen in each of the cases above is that we can determine with clarity and without question the fact of the Lord’s coming, the timing and context of that event, the nature of the language of His parousia, and, the purpose of His coming.

The fact of His coming in each of these (and other) examples is clear-cut, and undeniable. The time and context of these predictions is equally plain. None of the predictions we have cited spoke of an end of time, earth burning, cosmos destroying event. These were all historical events, in which one army, being utilized by the Sovereignty of Jehovah, invaded and destroyed another nation. In acting on the behalf of Jehovah, they were said to be the staff of His anger (Isaiah 10:5f; Ezekiel 30:25). The language of the Day of the Lord is thereby established as consistently and harmoniously metaphoric, and non-literal. In not one prediction of the Day of the Lord was the language of His coming out of heaven on the clouds, with a shout, with the angels, in destruction of heaven and earth, ever literally fulfilled.

6

Finally, the purpose of Jehovah’s parousia in the Old Testament is clearly presented. He came either in judgment or vindication, to be glorified, and to be revealed as the One True God!

What occurred in these “comings” of Jehovah is called a theophany, a manifestation of God’s sovereignty in historical events. A theophany was any event in which the Lord revealed His power and identity. As the Anchor Bible Dictionary says, “God may be described in the form of a thunderstorm, unleashing lightning, hail, and torrents of rain, and at the same time as a warrior riding a chariot and leading heavenly armies into battle (Habakkuk 3:3-15).”12 From a pillar of fire, to an army, each of these events is, at one point or another, called the coming of Jehovah.

This background is particularly relevant when we come to one of the most significant eschatological texts in the New Testament, the Olivet Discourse. As Jesus left the magnificent Temple, after pronouncing the doom of the city (Matthew 23:29f), the disciples began to show him the incredible stones of that edifice. Jesus then stated, “The time is coming in which not one stone shall be left standing on another” (Matthew 24:2).

The disciples immediately queried, “Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia) and the end of the age?” (v. 3). It is highly important to consider the following facts, when attempting to interpret the disciples’ questions: 1.) Jerusalem had been destroyed at the Day of the Lord (Jehovah) at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 586. As seen above, the prophets described that coming in “end of the world” language. However, the language was metaphoric, to describe the theophany, manifestation, of Jehovah by means of the Chaldeans. 2.) According to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, “The hope of an imminent coming of the exalted Lord in the Messianic glory is, however, so much to the fore that in the NT the terms are never used for the coming of Christ in the flesh, and parousia never has the sense of return.”13 3.)Witherington says that Josephus, first century Jewish historian, “Uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies.”14 4.) As we will see below, Jesus cites Old Testament prophecies of the last days Day of Jehovah, in which the Lord would come in judgment on Jerusalem for shedding innocent blood. This is certainly the context for the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 23:29f).

What this means is that the Jews of the first century used the term parousia to refer to the historical Day of the Lord. The word parousia, as used by the disciples in Matthew 24:3 was not a word that meant a return, but a manifestation of the Divine glory. Further, Jesus’ referent to the Old Covenant predictions of the Day of the Lord against Jerusalem for her persecutorial ways all but demands that when the disciples asked about the sign of Christ’s parousia, they were not thinking of an end of time event. They were thinking of a “typical,” but consummative, in-history Day of the Lord against the Temple.

With this background of thought and usage of the term parousia, there is no justification for the common view that the disciples were asking about the end of the Christian Age. A growing number of scholars and Bible students are beginning to acknowledge the metaphoric language of the Day of the Lord.

R. T. France says, “The unwary reader is in danger of assuming a note of finality in the future hope of the Old Testament that is in fact foreign to it. The “eschatology” of the Old Testament prophets was not concerned with the end of the world, but with the decisive act of God which will bring to an end the existing order of things in the world, and inaugurate a new era of blessing, of a totally different order.”15 Brown, commenting on the language of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24:29f, concurs that this language is from the O.T., and that there is no justification for taking it literally. It is metaphoric language to describe Jehovah’s powerful intervention into history, not to end history.16

N. T. Wright agrees that Jesus’ use of the Day of the Lord language does not predict the end of creation. Instead, after an extensive review of the language he concludes, “It is crass literalism, in view of the many prophetic passages in which this language denotes socio-political and military catastrophe, to insist that this time (in the teaching of Jesus, DKP), the words must refer to the physical collapse of the space-time world.”17

7

Finally, Ladd, while maintaining a futuristic, and literal cosmic catastrophe, nonetheless posed some pertinent questions in light of the persistent use of the metaphoric Day of the Lord language,

“Does this not give us the reason to interpret all such language about the eschatological shaking of the world, collapse of the heavens, etc. as the poetical language used to depict the indescribable glory of the final theophany? The importance of this question can be seen by the fact that this terminology provides the conceptual material for the ‘apocalyptic’ of the New Testament eschatology with its view of a cosmic catastrophe bringing this age to a close and introducing the age to come. Is such language anything more than traditional language of Old Testament poetry used to describe the majesty of God?”18

Wright is correct to say that it would amount to “crass literalism” to take the language of the Day of the Lord, so well attested in the Old

Testament, literally, when found on the lips of Jesus. Ladd’s question is pertinent. Given the consistently metaphoric use of the Day of the Lord language in the O.T., do we not have the right to ask if that identical language should be used in the same way in all NT texts?

This is a good question in light of the fact that even some millennialists are now beginning to acknowledge that scripture uses metaphoric language to describe God’s actions in the world. MacArthur, with whose work this book will interact, admits, “It is certainly true that the apocalyptic sections of scripture are filled with symbolic language.”19 He even says, “Most would agree there is a degree of symbolism in Matthew 24:29). (p. 122). He even admits that when Jesus used the language of the darkening of the sun and moon, etc. “That the disciples’ thoughts, when they heard mention of the cosmic signs, would have gone immediately to the Old Testament prophecies of the Day of the Lord. They knew Scriptures long foretold a time when God would shake the heavens, just as Jesus was prophesying here (cf. Isaiah 13:13; Joel 3:16).” (1999, 126).

Strangely, MacArthur agrees that a strict literalism would lead to an illogical view that the moon would literally have to turn to blood. However, he then insists that we must apply Matthew 24:29f in large part literally because, “Christ was predicting cosmic signs” (p. 122). The problem is that MacArthur admits on the one hand that the prophets used symbolic language, but then insists that the language that describes “cosmic disturbances” could not have been used metaphorically. The solution is to see that the predictions of “cosmic signs” are the symbolic language of apocalyptic. MacArthur allows that Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, Daniel, etc. are “filled with apocalyptic language.” The fact is that the NT writers that MacArthur insists must be taken literally, cite and quote extensively from those apocalyptic (non literal) prophecies of the O.T.

For instance, MacArthur cites the prediction of Haggai (2:6-7) as proof of a yet future shaking of literal creation. The problem is that in Hebrews 12:18-28, the writer applies that prophecy to the removal of the Old Covenant world of Israel! He says that at Sinai, the Lord shook the earth when He gave the Law. He then says that He was about to shake heaven and earth, so that the unshakable might remain. The unshakable was the kingdom of heaven (Daniel 7:13-14; 2:44). They were even then in the process of receiving that kingdom (v. 28). In other words, the Old Covenant kingdom, the old heaven and earth, would be shaken so that the unshakable kingdom would remain. The unshakable kingdom was being delivered. Therefore, the heaven and earth were being removed. This is a clear-cut example of the inspired writers referring to the removal of the Old Covenant System as the destruction of heaven and earth. They used the metaphoric language of the prophets, to describe covenant transformation.

It is fair to ask: If the NT writers cite O.T. prophecies that are demonstrably metaphoric, how should we understand the NT prediction? Patently, if a Biblical writer--if any writer--uses language that has a documented history of usage, then the rules of hermeneutic would suggest that the language is being used in the same manner as always. Thus, when the NT writers quote from O.T. prophecies of the Day of the Lord, and give no indication of changing the use of language, there is no justification for changing language that has consistently been metaphoric to literal.

Further, France’s comment above is worth repeating here, “In the Old Testament, judgment is God’s prerogative, and the words from Psalms 62:12 (cf. Prov.24:12) which form the second part of this verse are words about God. Taken together with the ascription of a kingdom to the Son of

8

Man in the next verse, this is quite a remarkable assumption of a divine role for Jesus in his future glory. His coming will be in the glory of the Father, in the sense that he shares that glory and authority.”20 (My emphasis)

The Jews of Jesus’ day would have thought in terms of the Father in reference to the term Day of Jehovah. They would also have thought of theophany, not a literal coming. Thus, for Jesus to claim the prerogatives of the Father, to come in judgment, was a claim to Deity. It was not however, a claim that he was coming bodily and visibly.

What must not be missed is not only the nature of Jehovah’s parousia in the Old Testament, but that the Old Testament also foretold that Jehovah would come in the “last days,” and avenge the blood of His saints. In that coming, He would be revealed as God, “then shall they know that I am God.”

In Joel 2-3, we find the prediction of the last days, when the Spirit would be poured out before the Great Day of the Lord (Jehovah, 2:28f). When the Lord would come, he would shake the heavens and earth (Joel 3:15-16), as He had shaken the heaven and earth when He came against Babylon (Isaiah 13). At His coming, He would cleanse the blood guilt of Israel (Joel 3:21), “The Lord also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; the heavens and earth will shake; but the Lord will be a shelter for His people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So you shall know that I am the Lord your God” (Joel 3:16-17). As we shall see, Israel’s blood-guilt would only be cleansed by the spirit of fire and the spirit of judgment (Isaiah 4:4).

We have here the identical language of the Day of the Lord that was employed against Babylon, against Edom, Israel, Jerusalem, Sidon, etc.. The question that needs to be asked is, upon what basis can one determine that whereas in the Old Testament, the Day of Jehovah was an “in history event” but that the last days Day of the Lord must be a history ending event?

We have the testimony of Jesus and Paul, that Jehovah’s coming to cleanse the blood of the martyrs was the consummative Day of the Lord. However, Jesus also tells us that the Father had committed that judgment to him, and he would act as the Father had acted! Jesus’ coming would be the fulfillment of those Old Testament predictions of the final Day of the Jehovah. In other words, the last days Day of the Lord was to be exactly like the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament!

PREDICTIONS OF THE DAY OF JEHOVAH We will now examine three New Testament prophecies, and their Old Covenant source, of the many that could be studied, to demonstrate that

Jesus, Paul and Peter, all utilized the Old Testament concept of the Day of the Lord to speak of the work of Christ in judgment.

MATTHEW 16:27-28 (Isaiah 62)

One of the most significant Old Testament predictions of the last days Day of Jehovah is found in Isaiah 62. “The Lord (Jehovah) has proclaimed to the end of the world: Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Surely your salvation is coming; Behold his reward is with Him, and His work before Him. And they shall call them the Holy People, the Redeemed of the Lord; and you shall be called Sought Out, a City Not Forsaken.’”

In this prophecy, Jehovah would come in judgment to reward the people. See the comments above about the allusion also to Psalms 62.

9

In Matthew 16:27, Jesus quotes this prophecy, only now, instead of Jehovah coming to reward, it is Jesus as Lord! Jesus said the Father had committed all judgment to him, and he is here predicting that the Old Testament prophecies of the coming of Jehovah would be fulfilled by Him as the Lord. Jesus was to appropriate the functions of the Father.

Jesus emphatically posits his coming within the lifetime of his audience, “Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here, who shall not taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (v. 28). This passage has caused no little consternation among the commentators.

While some attempt to say that the Transfiguration, Jesus’ resurrection, or even Pentecost was the fulfillment of these words, all of these suggestions fail to acknowledge that the coming of the kingdom would be the coming of Christ in judgment to reward every man.21 (See 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 11:15f, etc.). What Jesus was predicting in Matthew 16:27-28 was his coming in judgment. This patently did not happen at the Transfiguration, at the resurrection, or on Pentecost.

The Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia according to 2 Peter 1:16f. More on this later. However, it was not the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. As a vision of the parousia, it is important to note that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the end of time, or the destruction of the universe. It was a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant glory of Moses, and the transcendence of the glory of Christ. The Transfiguration vision identified Jesus as Deity, because the Bath Kohl, the voice of God said, “This is my beloved Son!”

The Transfiguration (and the resurrection and Pentecost for the same reason), could not be the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise due to the time element involved. Beasley-Murray is correct, “It hardly seems realistic to suppose that Jesus would state that some standing there with him would not taste death before they would see the arrival of the kingdom of God if he were referring to an event that was to take place six days later. Despite the arguments of some scholars to the contrary, the natural implication of the language is that while certain individuals will survive to see the kingdom, others will die before the event, and that suggests a lapse of years rather than days prior to the fulfillment of the prediction.”22 (His emphasis)

Furthermore, the Transfiguration could not be the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction because of the Greek text. In Mark 9:1, Jesus’ words are, literally, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the kingdom after it has come with power.” (NASV) The normal rendering of the text is,“ there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God come with power and great glory.” As Gentry notes however, “Here, ‘come’ is not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here employed.”23 In other words, some, in the huge multitude standing with Jesus (Mark 8), would live to look back upon the establishment of the kingdom as an accomplished reality.

Now, the millennialist insists that the Transfiguration was a vision of the ultimate, yet future establishment of the kingdom at the initiation of the millennium.24 However, Jesus did not say that only a small portion of that large crowd would live six days to see a vision of the future establishment of the kingdom! He said “some,” intimating that only a minority of that crowd would live to look back on the reality of the establishment of the kingdom in a vindication of Jesus as the Son of God.

What Jesus was foretelling in Matthew 16:27-28 and parallels, was his vindication and glorification. In Matthew 16:21f, Jesus foretold his death at the hands of the authorities. And, he then called his disciples to follow him, to the same death if necessary. He then assured them that some of them would live to see him acting in the same Divine Sovereign manner as the Father. He would come as Lord, as promised by Isaiah. In so doing, the injustice of his rejection would be avenged and he would be vindicated. As McKnight says, “Before Jesus’ disciples died they would see Jesus vindicated as the true prophet of God to the nation. It is reasonable, then, to argue that this vindication took place when Jerusalem was sacked by Rome as God’s punishment for covenant unfaithfulness.”25

10

Allow us to re-emphasize that the promise of Matthew 16:27-28 is the promise of the vindication of Jesus’ suffering and passion. Jesus promised that he was about to die, but that some event, in which he would act in Sovereign authority, would vindicate that death. However, the Transfiguration occurred before Jesus’ passion! How could it serve as a vindication of the passion when it occurred before the passion occurred?

In John 16:4, Jesus told his disciples “These things--the promise of persecution, DKP--I have spoken to you that when the hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them.” In other words, the fulfillment of the promise would cause them to look back to his promise. The view that the Transfiguration was the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27-28 however, demands that the disciples continue to look forward to fulfillment instead of, as Mark 9:1 demands, looking back on fulfillment. As a promise that the disciples would look back on some event as the vindication of Jesus’ (and their!) suffering, the Transfiguration does not qualify, because it occurred before Jesus’(or his disciples’) suffering. Only an event that took place after the Passion, and a period of persecution of the disciples, could fulfill the promise of Matthew 16:27-28.

It is thus the judgment aspect of this promised coming that eliminates the resurrection, Pentecost, and the Transfiguration as candidates for the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. For, as we have seen, Jesus did not come in judgment in the Transfiguration, resurrection, or on Pentecost.26

These postulates also fail to acknowledge that Matthew 16:27 relates to God’s Soteriological and Eschatological promises to Israel! Scholars like McKnight and Wright27 are correct to call Bible students to the realization that Jesus

was a prophet of Israel, and a prophet to Israel (cf. Matthew 15:24). Jesus was a servant of the circumcision to “confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Romans 15:8). These were the Old Covenant promises made to the fathers of Israel. Until Bible students begin to examine the work of Jesus in this context, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of his work, and of the scripture, is guaranteed. This is true of Matthew 16:27.

Matthew 16:27 is a citation of Isaiah 62:11. There, Jehovah promised to come and to save Israel. And yet, in Matthew 16:27, it is Jesus saying that he was the one coming in judgment! The point is, one cannot sever Matthew 16:27 from its connection to Israel’s eschatological and soteriological promises. Those paradigms that have no place for Israel in their eschatology, e.g. the amillennial and postmillennial views, cannot offer a, Biblical explanation of Matthew 16:27-28, for they extend the fulfillment of the text into a yet distant future, all the while insisting that Israel’s promises were all fulfilled at the Cross/Pentecost. We agree with McKnight in his statement, if not with his application of the statement: “In his vision of human history, Jesus saw no further than A.D. 70, and to this date he attached visions of the final salvation, the final judgment, and the consummation of the kingdom of God in all its glory.”28

Those who divorce Israel from eschatology see no such significance.29 On the one hand they hold that the judgment of Matthew 16:27 is future, and on the other hand, they sever it from the promises made to Israel. Further, they change the nature of the Day of the Lord from an in-history judgment--in the glory of the Father--to a history terminating event.

To ignore the Jewish context of the prophecy of the Day of the Lord in Isaiah 62 is misguided. And, to ignore or alter the nature of the Day of the Lord motif from an in-history event to an end of history cataclysm is without merit. Jesus’ statement in John 5, that he was to judge in the stead of the Father, should be a guiding principle in defining the nature of Christ’s parousia. This is confirmed by the Apocalypse, where Jesus again cites Isaiah 62. In the closing paranesis (exhortation) of the book of Revelation, Jesus reiterates the words of Matthew 16:27, only this time adding extra urgency, “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give to every one according to his works” (Revelation 22:12). There are some things that this citation and promise should tell us.

An eschatology divorced from the last days of Israel, and the hope of Israel is not Biblical eschatology!

11

First, John tells us that the parousia and New Creation in view would be the fulfillment of what the prophets had foretold (Revelation 10:7f; 22:6). In other words, Revelation is about the consummation of the prophetic hopes of Israel.30 It is about the consummation of Covenant History, not Historical Eschatology.

Second, Jesus, in Matthew 16, said his coming in judgment to fulfill Isaiah 62 would occur in his generation. He now proclaims that the time had come (Revelation 1:1-3). He was coming quickly.

Third, Jesus’ parousia, as depicted in Revelation, is his Apocalupsis, it is, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass, ...the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:1-3). The book of Revelation reveals Jesus. But what does Revelation reveal about Jesus? In addition to revealing when he was to come, his coming on the clouds reveals who he is.

Revelation 19 describes the coming of “The Word of God,” and, “the armies in heaven...followed him on white horses...he treads out the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, (Greek, pantokratoros), and he has on his robe and on his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 19:13-15). The parousia of Christ reveals him to be God, the Lord.

In the Old Covenant, the Father, the Lord of Hosts (Jehovah Tsebaoth), that is, the Lord of the armies of heaven, is the one that came in judgment. He was called the Almighty, (El Shaddai). In Revelation, however, immediately following the promise, “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and they also that pierced Him. And all tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen,” Jesus then says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8, my emphasis).

The revelation as the Lord of Hosts, riding of the horses of heaven is an important motif. Are we to believe that Jesus will come out of heaven on a literal white stallion? It is important to see that in the O.T., when the Lord of Hosts appeared with the horses of heaven, the physical eye could not see that event! The Lord had to open the viewer’s eyes to allow them to see the armies of heaven!

In 2 Kings 6, Elisha and his servant were in the city of Dothan. The king of Syria encompassed the city during the night to kill the prophet. In the morning Elisha’s servant went out, saw the forces of Syria, and ran back to Elisha lamenting their imminent death. Elisha took the young man back out, and prayed to the Lord: “open his eyes that he might see” (v. 17). The Lord “opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around.”

Were these physical horses? They most assuredly were the horses of heaven, the horses that Jesus as Lord of Hosts would ride in his coming against Babylon! Yet, it is abundantly clear that these horses and chariots were invisible to the human eye unless and until the Lord opened the eyes of the viewer. (Compare Deuteronomy 33:2 with Psalms 68:17f also). Why should we think that the coming of Jesus in Revelation has to be an event in the realm of optical visibility? In the Old Testament, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, acted in history to destroy His enemies. The horses and chariots of heaven were present, but not optically visible unless Jehovah opened the eyes of the viewer. In Revelation, Jesus is depicted as riding out of heaven on a white horse, with the armies of heaven in tow, and that coming reveals him as the Lord of lords and King of kings. We suggest that the association of Jesus with the armies and horses of heaven, with the Old Testament theophany of the Lord of Hosts, denies that Revelation 19 depicts an optically visible event. Rather, it demonstrates Jesus’ coming in the glory of the Father.

The Jews knew that only Jehovah rode on the clouds (Psalms 104). Only Jehovah commanded the armies of heaven. This explains the exclamation of Caiaphas when Jesus said that he was going to see Him (Jesus) coming on the clouds (Matthew 26:64-66).31 Caiaphas knew that Jesus was claiming to be Deity! There could have been nothing more shocking to the self-righteous High Priest. Jesus was claiming that he was coming in judgment just as the Father had come. He was claiming to be what Caiaphas inquired of, the Son of God! Likewise, Revelation 1:7 presents Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven, and coming in judgment on those who pierced him!

12

Here, at the introduction of the Revelation, (1:7-8), we are told that the Lord’s coming was to be in judgment of those who had slain him.32 This agrees with Jesus’ words to Caiaphas, and with the fact that Revelation is about the judgment of the great city “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8). In other words, just as Jehovah, with the heavenly horses, in judgment, on the clouds in the past-to avenge shed blood--now, Jesus was to come in judgment of those who had killed the prophets (Revelation 16:6f), Him, and his apostles (Revelation 18:20-24).33

The bond between Revelation 1:7 and verse 8 must not be severed. The promise that Jesus was coming on the clouds of heaven, in judgment of those who had pierced him, was a claim to be “The Alpha and the Omega...the Almighty” (pantokratoros). Jesus said the Father had committed all judgment to him, and that he was going to act in judgment as the Father had acted, so that men would know him and honor him as they did the Father (John 5:19f).

The Father came as the Lord of Hosts, manifesting Himself as El Shaddai, (The Almighty). Revelation reveals Jesus as the Lord of Hosts, coming with the heavenly armies, in judgment of those who pierced him. In that action, he was revealed to be the Almighty (pantokratoros), the King of kings and Lord of lords!

This shows that Revelation is not about the bodily, visible coming of Jesus at the end of human history. Revelation is about the epiphany (shining forth) of Jesus, being revealed as Lord of lords, as he came in judgment, as his Father had come repeatedly before. The Father had come in the Day of the Lord to judge the nations by means of an invading army from another nation. Now, however, it is the Son who comes in the Day of the Lord. The Son was to come in judgment of Israel, by means of the Romans, because she had become the Lord’s enemy.

The conflation of Isaiah 62, with Matthew 16 and Revelation has an impact on our view of the parousia. Jesus places the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological hopes in his generation, and, he identifies himself as the Lord coming in judgment and salvation. The coming in view however, is not an end of time, earth burning event, it was a historical event, the coming of Jesus in judgment of Old Covenant Israel.

2 THESSALONIANS 1:4-12 (ISAIAH 2-4)

Before we can examine 2 Thessalonians 1, we must examine Isaiah 2-4 the source of Paul’s prediction. Isaiah 2-4 foretold that in the last days, “The Day of the Lord (Jehovah) of Hosts shall come on everything proud and lofty”(Isaiah 2:12). In that

day, “They shall go into the holes of the rocks and into the caves of the earth, from the terror of the Lord (Jehovah) and the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily” (v. 12, 19, 21).34

This prophecy is definitely about a historical Day of the Lord judgment on Israel for it would be a time when men could flee to the mountains from the presence of the Lord (2:10, 12, 19f). It would be a time of famine (3:1f), when Jehovah would judge His people (3:8, 13f), in the time of “the war” (3:25), when “your men shall fall by the edge of the sword” (3:25). This last days judgment would also be when Jehovah would remove Israel’s blood guilt from her (4:4f).

It is sad that the millennialists take the promise of Isaiah 2-4 totally out of its context. Pentecost insists that Isaiah 4 speaks of the salvation of Israel from judgment just before the millennium.35 Ice, says that a “major error” of the preterist paradigm is the confusion of judgment and salvation in relation to the nation of Israel.36 The tragedy is that, for instance, when Pentecost cites Isaiah 4 to prove that Israel will be saved from judgment, he completely omits Isaiah’s words, “by the spirit of fire, and the spirit of judgment.” In other words, Pentecost appeals to Isaiah 4 to prove that Israel will be saved from judgment, yet, Isaiah says Israel’s salvation would come through judgment.

We must take a brief side trip, to be expanded later, to see the significance of the issue of the cleansing of the blood from Israel, or put another way, the vindication of the blood of the righteous.

13

Isaiah has a lot to say about the vindication of the blood of the righteous, a theme close to the heart of Jesus. Isaiah (Jeremiah also, 2:34; 7:6, etc.), said Israel’s hands were full of the blood of the widows, orphans, the poor and the prophets (1:15; 59:3,7), but in the day of salvation, and resurrection (26:1-2), the earth would disclose her blood (26:21), and, in the last days, Israel’s blood guilt would be removed, in the Day of Jehovah, by the spirit of fire and judgment (4:4).

Jesus came in the last days foretold by Isaiah (Hebrews 1:1). He said Jerusalem was guilty of shedding all the blood of all the righteous, and that blood would be required on her in his generation (Matthew 23:29-39). The Lord often rehearsed Israel’s history of persecuting the righteous (Matthew 21; 22, etc.). But, he invariably promised vindication of that righteous blood in his generation.

This theme of vindication is prominent also in the Apocalypse, (6:9f; 14:15f; 18; 20), and Jesus’ promise to vindicate the martyrs and judge the oppressors in his generation should be normative for the interpretation of the Revelation. For our purposes here, the time and manner of the vindication of the blood of the righteous is paramount.

The blood of Israel could only be purged by judgment. This was the law of Blood Atonement (Numbers 35), which said the murderer had to die for his crime. Isaiah 2-4 predicted that in the last days, Jehovah would purge Israel’s blood guilt, her guilt for murdering the prophets. (Let it be remembered here that Joel posited the time of the cleansing of Israel’s blood guilt, when He would acquit the blood, at the Day of the Lord, Joel 3:14-21). This was a prophecy of the Day of the Lord when Jehovah would arise to shake the earth mightily (Isaiah 2:19-21). Jesus posited the vindication of the martyrs for his generation. This means, emphatically, that the Day of the Lord was to occur in Jesus’ generation.

Jesus posited vindication of the blood of the martyrs at the judgment on Israel. That is, in a historical Day of the Lord. This fits the pattern of the Day of the Lord language examined above perfectly, and belies the literalistic application of apocalyptic language. A return to Isaiah 2-4 confirms our application of that prophecy to an in-history Day of the Lord in judgment on Israel.

In Luke 23:28-31, Jesus alluded to Isaiah 2:12, 19, 21, (parallel Hosea 10:8), as he was led to his death. He said the time was coming when they would run to the mountains and cry, “Fall on us!” The Lucan passage is widely acknowledged to apply to the impending judgment of Jerusalem, “The judgment of which Jesus was warning the women of Jerusalem was the devastation which would result from the city’s rejection of him as the true king, and his message as the true way of peace. His own death at the hands of the Romans was the clearest sign of the fate in store for the nation that had rejected him.”37

Further, Isaiah 3:25 says, “Your men shall fall by the sword, and your mighty men in the war.” This verse is cited by Jesus in his prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction (Luke 21:24). Thus, at least two verses from Isaiah 2-4 are either alluded to or quoted by Jesus to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem that was to occur in his generation.

Not only does Jesus apply Isaiah 2-4, and its prediction of the Day of Jehovah to his generation, Paul does also. In 2 Thessalonians 1:4-12, the apostle promised the Christians who were suffering tribulation (thlipsis, pressure), that they would receive “rest, (anesis), “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in flaming fire,38 taking vengeance (ekdekesis) on them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel...these shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” Verse nine is an exact quote from the Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 2:12, 19, 21.

Isaiah foretold the Day of the Lord against Israel in the last days, when Jehovah would judge her for shedding innocent blood. Jesus appeared in the last days, foretold the judgment of Israel, for shedding innocent blood, and said it would occur in his generation. He described that event as the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven.

Before progressing to what Paul said about this issue, it is of importance here to remind the reader that in the Old Testament, Jehovah came in judgment of Israel, and Jerusalem, for shedding innocent blood. Ezekiel said the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians was the

14

Day of the Lord (Ezekiel 7:19). It was not only the Day of the Lord’s Wrath, it was coming on them because they had shed innocent blood (Ezekiel 9:9).

The time and context of this Day of the Lord was the in history judgment of Jerusalem in B. C. 586 at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans. The language of that Day of the Lord was clearly metaphoric. Jehovah did not literally, visibly come, and destroy earth and end time. He came to avenge the innocent blood shed by Jerusalem (Ezekiel 9:9). The purpose of His coming was,“Then you shall know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 11:10f; 12:20, etc.). Remember also at this juncture, that Jehovah said that in the last days, He was coming, to shake heaven and earth, and avenge the blood guilt of Israel. We turn now to what Paul had to say about this Day of the Lord to avenge the blood of His saints.

Paul, living in the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11), promised the Thessalonians that their suffering would be vindicated, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven” to bring tribulation on their tormentors. Paul said their persecutors, “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power.” Further, the apostle said that in his coming, Jesus would be glorified among the saints (v. 10). In other words, he would be revealed as Lord!

2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a direct quote from the prophecy in Isaiah that Jesus applied to his coming against Jerusalem in that generation! It is patently obvious that Jesus did not apply Isaiah’s prediction to an end of time Day of the Lord, as we have seen. The chart will illustrate the direct parallels between Isaiah, Jesus and Paul.

ISAIAH 2-4

JESUS

PAUL

Last days (2:2f)

Last days (Hebrews 1:1; 9:26)

In the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11)

Day of the Lord (Jehovah)

Coming of the Son of Man

Day of the Lord

Against Israel (Isaiah 3:13-25)

Against Israel (Luke 23:28f)

Against Israel (1 Thessalonians 2:15f)

For shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 4:1-4)

For shedding innocent blood (Matthew 23:29f)

For shedding innocent blood (1 Thessalonians 2:15f; 2 Thess. 1:7f)

This generation (Matthew 23:34f)

“to you, rest with us” (2 Thessalonians 1:7f)

15

The question is, upon what basis can the interpreter say that Paul was speaking of an event totally different and far removed in time from how Jesus applied it? Paul gives no indication that he is applying Isaiah differently than Jesus. As a matter of fact, the motif of vindication of the martyrs is identical. This is important. Witherington has this to say, “It has often been conjectured, probably rightly, that Paul has taken over the ‘Day of the Lord’ phrase from the Septuagint, and instead of using it to refer to Yahweh he now predicates it of Christ. That such a transfer has been made is clear from comparing 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 to 5:2. Whether Paul is the first to make this transfer of the Yom Yahweh language is uncertain. However, this usage is perfectly logical in view of the early Christian confession ‘Jesus is Lord,’ which Paul takes up and uses. It is simply a matter of pursuing the logic of the confession to its end. The Christological importance of this transfer of the titles of Yahweh to Christ should not be minimized as it means that, for Paul, Christ is to be confessed and worshiped as in some sense God. In the use of the Yom Yahweh language, however, the focus is on Christ taking over the functions of Yahweh, bringing in the final judgment and redemption that is predicated of Yahweh in the Old Testament.” (1992, 163)

We find then, that the Old Testament predictions of the Day of Jehovah, have become, in Paul and the rest of the NT, the Day of the Lord, Jesus Christ! Jesus said that he had been granted judgment authority, and that he would judge as he had seen the Father judge (John 5). As we have shown above, the Father had never come literally, bodily, and visibly, to end time and destroy the cosmos. He had always acted in history, in judgment, by means of His chosen instruments.

Isaiah 2-4--the source of Paul’s citation in 2 Thessalonians, clearly is a prediction of a historical Day of Jehovah on Israel. It is not a prediction of the end of time. This would be a radical redefinition of that language, as we have seen. Surely, if the New Testament writers were giving the Day of Jehovah a totally different meaning we would have some indication. However, Minear has correctly stated that we find no such indication of a change in the use and meaning of that language, “As one recalls Old Testament passages like these, (Day of Jehovah passages, DKP), one is forced to conclude that every essential feature in the New Testament prophecies was an echo of these. No Christian prophet tried to explain the meaning of these references to solar disasters, a fact that suggests that the audience was expected to understand the language. The vocabulary was fully indigenous to the community in which the prophet functioned. Modern readers, therefore, must compare this idiom not with modern views of the cosmos but with an ancient outlook within which an intelligible message was conveyed without undue difficulty.”39

Witherington and Minear are both correct in the things they say, but they both violate their own statements by claiming that Jesus anticipated his bodily, visible coming--at the Day of the Lord.40 If, however, Jesus was given the judgment authority, and would judge in the stead of the Father, and if neither he nor his disciples ever inform us of a redefinition of the language of the Day of the Lord, does it not follow that Jesus was to come in the same sense that he had seen the Father come many times?

Here then is what we have in 2 Thessalonians. Paul promises vindication of the suffering saints, and vengeance against the persecutors, at the coming of the Lord, Jesus Christ. The source for his promise is Isaiah 2:12-21, the promise that in the last days, in the Day of the Lord, Jehovah would judge Israel for shedding the blood of the righteous (Isaiah 4:2f).

Isaiah’s prediction is patently not an end of time prophecy, but a prediction of a historical Day of the Lord. Jesus cites the identical verses that Paul quotes to predict the fall of Jerusalem for shedding his blood.

Thus, Isaiah 2-4 predicted a historical Day of the Lord. Jesus applied Isaiah 2-4 to a historical Day of the Lord. Paul quotes the same verses from Isaiah that Jesus does, and promises the same thing, vindication/vengeance, as Isaiah and Jesus did. It seems almost inconceivable that Paul would be applying Isaiah to a Day of the Lord totally different in nature, and far removed in time, than where Isaiah and Jesus placed it. We conclude that

16

Paul was not radically transforming Isaiah’s prediction. Rather, he too was anticipating the Day of the Lord against Israel, and that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Just as Jehovah came in judgment of Israel for shedding the innocent blood of His saints, when He destroyed Israel and Judah, and in those comings He was revealed as the Lord, He said that in the last days, He would come, consummatively, and avenge the blood of His saints. Jesus said that the Father had committed all judgment to him, and that he would judge as the Father had judged, so that men would honor him as the honor the Father. Paul also said that when Jesus, as Lord, came in judgment of the persecutors (the Jews 1Thessalonians 2:15f), that He would be “glorified among His saints” (2 Thessalonians 1:10), and would be revealed as “King of kings, and Lord of Lords,” and “our Great God and Savior” (1 Timothy 6:16; Titus 2:14f). There is no reason whatsoever to see in Paul a prediction of a literal, visible coming of Jesus Christ on the cumulus clouds of heaven, to destroy earth and end time. Jesus was to come in the glory of the Father.

2 PETER 3 (ISAIAH 64-66)

Of all the New Testament prophecies of Christ’s parousia, 2 Peter 3 is used the most to prove that at some future time the material creation will be destroyed, and time will end. However, 2 Peter 3 is a classic description of the Day of the Lord, “The Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works therein shall be burnt up” (2 Peter 3:10).

It must be emphasized that whatever else Peter believed about the Day of the Lord, he believed it was near. He tells his readers that this second epistle is simply a reminder of what he had written in the first epistle (2 Peter 3:1-2). What had he already written about the time of the end?

He wrote that the salvation anticipated by the Old Covenant prophets, the salvation they longed to see, but were told it was not for their day (1 Peter 1:10-12),41 was now “ready (Greek, hetoimos42) to be revealed in the last times” (1:1:5f). Further, he insisted that Jesus was even then “ready (hetoimos) to judge the living and the dead” (1 Peter 4:5), “the end of all things has drawn near” (panton de to telos eggiken). He insisted that, “the time (kairos, appointed time) has come for the judgment (to krima) to begin” (1 Peter 4:17). Needless to say, the judgment of the living and dead, and the end of all things is nothing less than the Day of the Lord when He would judge the wicked in 2 Peter 3.

Another thing to be noted is that like Paul, Peter calls the attention of his readers to the fact that he is reiterating the predictions of the Old Covenant prophets about the Day of the Lord (2 Peter 3:1-2). In other words, Peter’s doctrine of the Day of the Lord and the New Creation, was foretold by the Old Covenant prophets. These were promises made to Israel.

Israel knew that Jehovah had promised to come and save them, to save them from bondage and sin. In the Old Covenant, they even prayed, “O, that you would rend the heavens! That you would come down! That the mountains might shake at Your presence as fire burns brushwood, as fire causes water to boil--to make your name known to Your adversaries, that the nations might tremble at Your presence! When you did awesome things for which we did not look, you came down, the mountains shook at your presence” (Isaiah 64:1f).

Israel prayed for Jehovah to come, as He had come in the past in deliverance, and destroy “heaven and earth.” It is clear that Jehovah had never bodily, visibly come in the past. Israel was not praying for the Lord to visibly come out of heaven and destroy the physical creation!

Jehovah responded that He would come, but not as they hoped (65:6). He was coming, not to restore them, but to destroy. Because Israel would fill the measure of their sin (65:6f) He would destroy them as a people (65:13f), and create a new people in a New Heavens and Earth (v. 17f).43 He would come, and He would destroy Heaven and Earth. He would destroy Israel’s World. He would then create a New Heavens and Earth (65:17).

17

The coming of Jehovah, to create a New Heavens and Earth, the New Creation that Peter anticipated, is, therefore, posited by Scripture within the context of the Day of the Lord against Israel. However, the New Creation, Israel’s salvation, is also thereby placed within the context, not of a visible coming of the Lord to destroy literal creation, it is placed squarely within the well documented context of the actions of God in history by means of His instruments of wrath.

It should be emphasized, as Minear notes, that Peter does not explain his use of the Day of the Lord language. He takes it for granted that his audience would understand it. He does not change the well attested definition of the Day of the Lord as an intervention in history. Yet, historically, the greater part of the Bible reading public has understood Peter to be predicting the end of time. Snyder astutely suggests that, “In the Hellenistic world this apocalyptic form was understandably misunderstood. In some instances it was literalized dualistically so that a struggle between flesh and spirit resulted. In some instances it was literalized chronologically so that an actual end of time was expected.”44

It is justifiable to ask, that if Peter was anticipating what Isaiah foretold--and he says he was, (2 Peter 3:13)--and since it is clear that what Isaiah foretold was not the end of human history, but a coming of the Lord in the same manner as He had come in the past, just what is the basis for the modern view that Peter was, in fact, foretelling the end of material creation? It appears that modern literal concepts have altered, radically, the concept of the Day of the Lord.

We have examined three key New Testament texts that predicted the Day of the Lord, and found that, 1.) They all spring from Jehovah’s promises to and about Israel. This means, whatever else it might suggest, that Biblical eschatology is inextricably linked with the last days of Israel. 2.) They all use the well attested Old Testament metaphoric language to describe the intervention of Jehovah into history. That language, to risk being repetitious, was never used to speak of a visible, bodily descent of Jehovah out of heaven to end time. The Day of the Lord was an in-time event, not an end of time event, 3.) Jesus and the New Testament writers, when citing Old Covenant promises of the coming of Jehovah, posit Jesus as the Lord who was to come.

It will be rejoined that while the New Testament uses Old Testament language to speak of the coming of Christ, that his Second Coming must be a literal, bodily descent out of heaven on a literal cloud. However, we suggest that this argument fails to understand the purpose of the parousia in its full import, the revelation of Jesus as true Deity. To help understand this, we now turn to a study of the nature of the parousia of Christ, for, without question, the nature of the parousia is at the heart and core of the controversy surrounding Covenant Eschatology. Did Jesus predict that He was to return physically, bodily, on literal clouds at the end of time, or did he predict a “spiritual”45 coming?

In April of 1997, I attended a debate between dispensationalist Thomas Ice and postmillennialist Gary DeMar on the question “Are We Living in the Last Days?” Ice, in an attempt to show that Christ’s coming could not have occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, insisted (repeatedly) that the Incarnation is the definitive proof that Jesus must return physically at a yet future end of the age. Christ’s first coming was in the flesh, therefore, his second coming must be in the flesh, he argued. Popular theologian John MacArthur has stated,

“I believe Christ will literally return victoriously to earth one day in bodily, visible form. My convictions on this point are as emphatic as my belief in Christ Himself. My faith in the future return of Christ is as firm as my certainty about the past redemptive history. Furthermore, I would argue that the fact of the Second Coming is a cardinal doctrine of Christianity. It is the end and goal of God’s purpose on earth, and the divine climax will be as precise and purposeful as every other revelation of God. Those who abandon the hope of Christ’s bodily return have in effect abandoned true Christianity.”46

However, as we have seen thus far, the coming of Christ was to reveal him as the Son of God, acting in the stead of Jehovah, not as fleshly man. The epiphany of Jesus was not to reveal him as man, but as God. As such, we contend that it would be impossible that Jesus appear in the flesh, “no one has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). For Jesus to be revealed as God, and not man, has direct implications for the nature of the

18

parousia, because Paul says “no man has seen or can see” God (1 Timothy 6:16). Jesus’ actions in history, were to reveal him, not in a body of flesh, but in the realm of the Spirit.

19

CHAPTER 2 DOES TIME DETERMINE THE NATURE,

OR DOES MANNER DETERMINE THE TIME? As we begin this study it is critical to address a critical issue. Without doubt the New Testament writers affirm that the coming of Christ was near

in the first century. The language is unmistakable. MacArthur says, “James, Peter, John and Paul, and the writer of Hebrews all believed Christ’s return was very near--‘at the door’ (James 5:9); ‘at hand’ (Philippians 4:5; 1 Peter 4:7); ‘approaching’ (Hebrews 10:25); ‘coming quickly’ (Revelation 3:11; 22:7).” (Coming, 56)

Ice concurs, “A survey of the New Testament enables one to realize that there is an expectancy regarding the return of Christ and the consummation of His plan not found in the Old Testament.” (Tribulation, 117). We are justified to ask, Why? Why is there such an air of expectancy if all of the time statements do not in fact express nearness of the consummation?

The thorny issue raised by this first century nearness of the end, what the German scholars call the Naherwartung, cannot be lightly dismissed. MacArthur notes the problem, “Some argue that Christ’s coming could not possibly have been imminent for the early church, given the obvious fact that 2000 years later He still has not returned. Skeptics often ridicule Christianity or challenge the inerrancy of scripture on that very ground...How can it be, then, that 2000 years later Christ still has not returned? Could the disciples have been in error about the timing?” (Coming, 56+) He then claims that the NT writers were not mistaken and that, “The judge is still at the door. The day is still at hand.” To claim however, that events that were near, and to occur soon in the first century are still near today, is specious and illogical.47 As the Proverb writer said, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick!” (Proverbs 13:12)

The problem is acute. As MacArthur notes, skeptics have and do challenge the Deity of Jesus and the inspiration of the Scripture because of these time statements that indicate Jesus’ coming was to occur in the first century. How do we handle this perplexing issue? Do we agree that Jesus failed, as is common among modern scholars? Do we seek, like Ice and MacArthur, to mitigate and redefine all the time statements in scripture, claiming that, after all, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day” (2 Peter 3:8)? Do we claim with Ice, that the manner (a literal physical return) determines the time of the parousia, or do all of the time statements about when the epiphany was to occur force us to reevaluate our concept of the manner of that event?

The millennialist claims that the manner of Christ’s coming, which they insist must be physical, determines the time of the parousia. In essence, the argument is that the time statements must be mitigated to conform to a futuristic expectation of a literal physical parousia. Since Jesus did not come, physically, in the first century as a literal reading of the text suggests, then the time statements must be reapplied to a later generation. MacArthur’s logic for placing Matthew 24:29f in our future is simple, “No great cosmic signs like this ever occurred in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” (1999, 121).

A determination to force the Biblical text into a rigid mold of literalism has closed the eyes of some to the power of apocalyptic. MacArthur holds that allow the language to be understood metaphorically, “Divests the Olivet Discourse of any real significance. Turning the great cosmic signs into mere metaphors about the transition between covenants.” (1999, 121). To suggest that the use of metaphors, symbols, and figurative language strips scripture of any real meaning, is to totally misunderstand the significance and power of symbols.

When David offered thanksgiving to Jehovah for deliverance from Saul, he described that deliverance in the following manner: “The earth shook and trembled; the foundations of the hills also quaked and were shaken, Because He was angry. Smoke went up from his nostrils and devouring fire from His mouth; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also and came down with darkness under His feet. And He rode on a cherub and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind...The most High uttered His voice, hailstones and coals of fire. He sent

20

out His arrows and scattered the foe, lightnings in abundance, and He vanquished them. Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were uncovered.” (Psalms 18:7-15).

David said Jehovah rode out of heaven on the clouds, with fire, and heaven and earth were removed at His presence! It is clear from the historical story of David’s deliverance however, that none of this happened literally. David was expressing himself as the poet extra ordinaire. Have Bible students through the ages claimed that David “divested the text of any real significance” by expressing himself so metaphorically? Is it not true that the normal concept of language and literature is that metaphor, hyperbole, and figurative expressions add meaning to language, rather than divest it of significance?

As seen above, Isaiah foretold the destruction of ancient Babylon,“The burden against Babylon” (Isaiah 13:1), in the language of cosmic disturbances: “the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine” (13:10). MacArthur admits “This prophecy seems to have had an immediate application to the judgment and destruction of Babylon (vv. 1, 17; Cf. Daniel 5:30-31). Yet the full meaning of the prophecy clearly looks beyond Babylon to a yet-future eschatological fulfillment” (1999, 227).

This is hardly convincing. When one notes the use of the conjunctions in the text, it is apparent that there is a direct association between the prediction against Babylon and the Day of the Lord. There is a direct grammatical link from verse to verse. There is no gap of thousands of years between the verses. This is an unbroken prediction of the fall of Babylon, and that was accomplished. And, we might note, the millennial suggestion of a rebuilt Babylon at the hands of Saddam Hussein is irrelevant. The prediction of Isaiah 13-14 deals with the Chaldean kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, not a modern day metropolis. Ancient Babylon was the focus of the prediction, and that kingdom was destroyed. Her world came to an end. The “day of His fierce anger” was accomplished. And, as we shall see, it was common for the Biblical writer to refer to historical judgments as the “Day of the Lord’s anger.”

Jeremiah also predicted the fall of Babylon, and it is important to examine what he said in light of the millennial use of his prediction, since it impinges on a very important doctrine, the identity of Babylon of Revelation. Thomas Ice and Tim LaHaye contend that “the weight of Bible prophecy convincingly requires the literal rebuilding of Babylon,”48 “Watch for Babylon to become a dominant force in the world religiously, commercially, and governmentally.”49 The idea that many of the ancient civilizations must be restored is a necessary part of the millennial program, but this receives little critical attention.

Although ancient Babylon was destroyed long ago, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 50-51, the millennial insistence on the literal interpretation of scripture demands that since Revelation speaks of the fall of Babylon, it must be a literal, restored city. However, a closer look at the prediction presents some insurmountable problems for the millennial view.

Ice and LaHaye insist that Jeremiah predicted a yet future destruction of a restored Babylon, based on a Rabbinic “law of double reference.” (2001, 105) This law supposedly says that when the Bible mentions a subject twice, it must happen twice. As DeMar says, however, “While ‘an ancient rabbinic rule of interpretation’ is an interesting subject of study, there is no such rule in the Bible. The Bible is our authority, not the opinions of Rabbis who have dismissed more than three hundred prophecies that point to Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.”50

Ice and LaHaye do not apply that “law of double reference” consistently. The Old Testament mentions the death of Jesus many times. Would Ice affirm that Jesus must die again? The 400 year Egyptian captivity of Israel, is mentioned several times in the O.T., as is the Assyrian captivity of B. C. 721. Do Ice and LaHaye provide for a future restoration of Assyria and Egypt to take Israel into captivity again? So far as we can determine, they do not.

21

Jeremiah’s prediction of the fall of Babylon makes it clear that a literal future fulfillment cannot be in view, and, the description of that event gives us insight into the prophetic use of the Day of the Lord language.

Jeremiah says, twice, that it would be the Medes that would destroy Babylon (Jeremiah 51:11, 28). Does Ice believe the Medes will be revived as a nation? Jeremiah says, five times, that the weapons of the war would involve horses, chariots, bows and lances. Very clearly, this is an ancient conflict, not a modern invasion and destruction. Consider the wonder of the modern weaponry being brought to bear, as I write, against the terror network of Osama Ben Laden. Smart bombs, heat seeking missiles, night vision weapons, unmanned drones, etc. These hardly fall into the category of bows and lances. If Ice and LaHaye are going to be consistent in their application of their “law of double reference” then the future surely holds an incredible restoration of currently extinct nations, and the restoration of ancient weapons of war.

Jeremiah’s description of the fall of Babylon is, as suggested, helpful in understanding the nature of apocalyptic language and the Day of the Lord. He calls the impending destruction of the Chaldean capitol the time of “the wrath of the Lord (Jeremiah 50:13); “it is the time of the vengeance of the Lord” (Jeremiah 50:15). Jehovah said “I will punish the king of Babylon and his land” (Jeremiah 50:18), and yet, it was to be the Medes that accomplished His purpose. The prophet said, “Their day has come, the time of their punishment. The voice of those who escape from the land of Babylon declares in Zion the vengeance of the Lord our God, the vengeance of His Temple.” (Jeremiah 50:28); “this is the time of the Lord’s vengeance” (Jeremiah 51:6, 11).

Jehovah called Babylon “My battle axe and weapon of war” the instrument by which he had judged the nations (Jeremiah 51:20f). However, he had accomplished His purposes with her. It was now time for her to be judged. It is fascinating and significant that some millennialists are acknowledging that this destruction was a historical Day of the Lord, and does not refer to a future event. Ronald Showers, a contributor to LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible says that the prediction of the fall of Babylon (Isaiah 13, the parallel to Jeremiah) is one of many “past Days of the Lord” (cited in DeMar, Fiction, 119).

Jeremiah describes the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Medes in language of the Day of the Lord. Yet, the Medes did capture the Babylonians (Daniel 5:30-31). This Day of the Lord against Babylon (Isaiah 13:6) did not involve literal cosmic disturbances as a literal interpretation would suggest. But that is the point. The language was not intended to be taken literally. It is emotive language, hyperbolically expressing the catastrophic end to a social order, the end of a kingdom. But, it is not predictive of the end of time and space.

Well before Isaiah predicted the Day of the Lord’s Wrath against Babylon, Rehoboam led Israel into sin, and Jehovah brought the Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak against him. Notice the language: “You have forsaken me, and therefore I also have left you in the hand of Shishak.” When threatened with this judgment, the leaders of Jerusalem repented, and as a result, Jehovah said: “They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance. My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak” (2 Chronicles 12:5-7). The Egyptians were Jehovah’s instrument. Until Israel repented, the Day of Wrath was coming against them by the hand of Shishak.

What this language tells us is that God is said to act, and to act personally, when He used “ordinary” means to accomplish His purposes. Jehovah’s use of Shishak was a manifestation of His Wrath. It would have been the Day of the Lord’s Wrath, had Israel not repented. This terminology is important to remember as we examine Isaiah 13, because the predicted judgment against Babylon was called “the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, the day of His fierce anger” (Isaiah 13:13). If the Bible writers could call the threatened destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Shishak the time of the wrath of God, why could not Isaiah call the impending historical destruction of Babylon the Day of the Lord’s wrath?

If Ice and LaHaye are going to be consistent in their application of their “law of double reference” then the future holds an incredible restoration of currently extinct nations, and the restoration of ancient weapons of war.

22

Another example from Isaiah helps us to understand the customarily metaphoric nature of the Day of the Lord language. The year was B. C. 701. The Assyrians had triumphantly conquered nation after nation. Now, they had come into Israel, destroying 46 cities, and were on their way to Jerusalem.51 Destruction seemed almost inevitable.

However, Jehovah had some wonderful promises for His people. If they would trust in Him--something they were loathe to do– He would deliver them (Isaiah 30:15-16). He promised that instead of the weeping they had been experiencing, they would weep no more (Isaiah 30:19f). Further, he promised that if they would trust Him in the midst of this crisis: “There will be on every high mountain and on every high hill rivers and streams of waters, in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall. Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold as the light of seven days” (Isaiah 30:25f). This would be if they submitted to Him.

On the other hand, Jehovah had something in store for Assyria. They had been “the rod of My anger” (Isaiah 10:5f), as He had used them to punish Israel, but now, He would not allow them to come into Jerusalem. Instead, Jehovah was coming in judgment against them.

Isaiah promised, “Behold the name of the Lord comes from afar, Burning in His anger and His burden is heavy; His lips are full of indignation and His tongue like a devouring fire...The Lord will cause His glorious voice to be heard, and show the descent of His arm with the indignation of His anger and the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering tempest, and hailstones, for through the voice of the Lord Assyria will be beaten down” (Isaiah 30:27-31).

The prophet continued to exhort Israel to trust the Lord instead of trusting the faltering power of Egypt (Isaiah 31:1f). Although powerful in the past, Egypt was now in decline and was unable to help. (Not to mention the incredible irony of the situation of Israel’s ambassadors traveling once again across the same wilderness they had once traversed to escape from that oppressor! Now, they were crossing that wilderness to ask for Egypt’s help, but it would be to no avail.)

Isaiah 31 provides a lesson to all who place their reliance on visual things. Egypt looked powerful, and the suggestion that Israel’s salvation from the awful Assyrian invasion was submission and patient waiting on the Lord, seemed ridiculous. However, Jehovah reminded Israel, “The Egyptians are men and not God, and their horses are flesh and not spirit.” (Isaiah 31:3). Jehovah was calling on Israel to see the unseen, for He wanted them to know: “The Lord of Hosts will come down to fight for Mount Zion and for its hill. Like birds flying about, so will the Lord of Hosts defend Jerusalem...then Assyria shall fall by a sword not of man, and a sword not of mankind shall devour him” (Isaiah 31:4-5).

Isaiah predicted the Day of the Lord. Jehovah would come out of heaven, with a shout, in flaming fire, with hailstones, with a scattering tempest, in the Day of His Wrath. Further, this reversal of Israel’s fortunes and the Assyrian judgment was to happen “in a very little while” (Isaiah 29:17f). Isaiah 37:36f records the fulfillment of the prophecy. During the night, the angel of the Lord silently and invisibly invaded the Assyrian camp, and killed 185,000 soldiers. The king, Sennacherib, left the land of Israel, and was later killed by his own sons.

Was the language of the Day of the Lord fulfilled literally? No, there was no bodily coming of Jehovah out of heaven. There was no audible shout. There was no rain of flaming fire or hail. In fact, the citizens of Jerusalem did not even know what had occurred in the Assyrian camp until scouts discovered it the next morning! Furthermore, even though Assyria was defeated, and Israel delivered, the sun did not become seven times brighter than normal (thankfully!), and the moon did not become as bright as the sun. Nor did rivers and streams suddenly break out on the tops of the mountains and hills.

The point is, the language used to describe the Day of Jehovah’s coming was not intended to be taken literally. As McGuiggan says, “We must allow the prophets to speak their way rather than in terms of strict logic or as ‘strict positivists.’ They are storytellers. The language of judgment is the language of devastated valleys, wasted forests, rolled up skies and crepe-draped heavenly bodies. The language of blessing is the opposite.”52

23

It is worth noting, that the time indicator of when this judgment was to occur was literal. The time statement was literal, the description of the Day of the Lord was highly wrought, exaggerated language, used to emphasize the glory of God’s actions. In other words, manner did not determine time, rather, time indicated manner. Further, the prophet clearly did not believe that the use of such language stripped his prophecy of any meaning or power.

Nor did Jeremiah have to express himself in strict prose to lament the downfall of Jerusalem in B.C. 586: “How the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger! He cast down from heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and did not remember His footstool in the day of His anger” (Lamentations 2:1). In this single verse, we find the historical judgment of Jerusalem, in the Day of the Jehovah’s Wrath, described as the casting down of Israel from the heavens.

In fact, a close examination of Lamentations, coupled with the prophecies of Jerusalem’s fall in B. C. 586, reveals a literary pattern that provides help in understanding the nature of prophetic language in the New Testament. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah all foretold the same event, the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians.53

Ezekiel told the nation that the time of judgment was near, “An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land...A day of trouble has come, Behold, the day! Behold, it has come!...They will throw their silver into the streets and their gold will be like refuse; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord” (Ezekiel 7:2, 5-7, 10, 19).

Significantly, when Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s contemporaries heard the news of the impending disaster, they sought to mitigate the “at hand” statements. They insisted that “at hand” did not really mean the event was near. It might be a long time away (Ezekiel 12:21f)! However, when they did this, Jehovah condemned them. He expected them to take His time statements very seriously. In other words, the time statements about the Day of the Lord against Jerusalem were prose. The language that described that destruction in words that sounded like the end of time and the destruction of the creation was metaphoric.

Jeremiah prophetically foresaw: “I beheld the earth and indeed it was without form, and void; and the heavens had no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled and all the hills moved back and forth...at the presence of the Lord, by His fierce anger.” (Jeremiah 4:23f).

Zephaniah called the impending destruction the day of the Lord’s wrath, a day of devastation (1:15). It was to be a day of the sounding of the Trumpet, a day of clouds. It was the Great Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-18).

The millennial camp is inconsistent when it comes to the language of the prophets. MacArthur acknowledges that the old prophets sometimes used apocalyptic language, but refuses to allow the NT writers to do so. He seems to reason that if the term Day of the Lord is used with the language of cosmic destruction that it must refer to a yet future literal event. On the other hand, Ice allows a range of meanings for the term Day of the Lord, and his allowances provide the ground for the denial of the entire millennial posit.

Ice says the term Day of the Lord, “has a broad range of prophetic meaning...In the Old Testament the phrase was used by the prophets to refer to a coming time of judgment. In some cases that judgment is now past, and in others it is yet future.”54 He cites Ryrie who lists Zephaniah 1:14f as a referent to the historical Day of the Lord against Jerusalem in B. C. 586.

What the reader of Ice misses is the change in hermeneutic. On the one hand Ice agrees that the Day of the Lord phrase described the intervention of Jehovah into history, in other words the language was metaphoric. On the other hand, he insists that the Day of the Lord is yet future, and that we must understand the Day of the Lord language literally. That is a redefinition of the language.

How is a person to know if the Day of the Lord language in Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. was metaphoric? These prophets said that Day of the Lord was near. They said it was the day of His anger. They all said He was coming out of his place. They said He was coming with the clouds, with a shout, etc. Yet, Ice and other millennialists admit that Day of the Lord is in the past, fulfilled. On the other hand, Ice insists that the language

24

of the Day of the Lord in Isaiah 13, which predicted the fall of Babylon, has not yet been fulfilled because the sun, moon and stars are all still in place. This is inconsistency exemplified.

Ezekiel and Jeremiah gave as the reason for the impending disaster the fact that Israel was guilty of shedding innocent blood. Jeremiah said of Jerusalem, “Your sword has devoured your prophets like a destroying lion,” and, “in your skirts is found the blood of the lives of the poor innocents” (Jeremiah 2:30, 34).

Thus, these prophets foretold the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar as the Day of the Lord’s anger. It was the Day of the Lord. They said heaven and earth would be moved. They called it “an end.” They said this judgment was coming as a result of Jerusalem’s guilt in slaying the prophets and innocent. The destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 586 was to be a vindication of the martyrs of God.

After Nebuchadnezzar had captured Jerusalem, Jeremiah surveyed what had happened. He said Jehovah had cast Israel down from the heavens (Lamentations 2:1). He had come in the day of His fierce anger (Lamentations 2:1, 22). He judged them for their blood guilt (Lamentations 4:13), and scattered them before His face (Lamentations 4:16). The end did come quickly (Lamentations 4:18) as predicted. He had come by means of the Babylonians. If Jeremiah could use such highly metaphoric language to describe a past event, why must we take that language literally when it predicted the event beforehand? Plainly, Jeremiah, Zephaniah and Ezekiel called the fall of Jerusalem the Day of the Lord.

Did the hyperbolic and figurative language used by these prophets divest the text of its power? Hardly. To read Zephaniah’s description is to feel tremendous sadness, and the power of the text is legendary. If Jeremiah could describe the fall of Jerusalem in B.C. 586 as the casting down of Israel from the heavens, and the abandonment of God’s footstool, surely Jesus could describe the destruction of Israel in the last days as the destruction of heaven and earth.

Jeremiah called the B.C. 586 judgment the Day of Jehovah’s anger. That was when Jehovah came to judge Israel for shedding innocent blood (Jeremiah 7; Ezekiel 9, etc.). Could John (Revelation 6:12f), foretelling the judgment of the city guilty of shedding the blood of God’s saints, not describe the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as the Great Day of the Lord’s anger? If Jeremiah could, why couldn’t John? If we can learn anything from the destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 586, it is that metaphoric language was the order of the day to describe the destruction, but, the time language was literal.

A closer look at the prediction of Edom’s demise confirms this. Isaiah (circa B.C. 713) foretold the fall of Edom. Note that he did not say that her destruction was near. The language describing Edom’s demise is graphic and powerful. It sounds like the destruction of literal creation (Isaiah 34:1-4). The earth would be both burned up, and melted, depending on which verse one reads (Isaiah 34: 7 with v. 10). As a matter of fact, if the language is taken literally, there are contradictions in the text. How could the dust be blood soaked, and the streams be turned to pitch, burning night and day forever, and at the same time, the land be a habitation for wild animals and weeds? A literal interpretation of the language demands fire-proof animals and plant life!

Jeremiah, writing long after Isaiah, continued the condemnation of Edom. He said Jehovah would bring Nebuchadnezzar against Edom (and 18 other nations). That destruction was now near (25:29f). Jehovah said He was acting “in the fierce anger of the Lord” (25:38), and, “He has left His lair like the lion” (25:38), and, “The Lord will roar from on high, and utter His voice from His holy habitation” (25:30). (See also Ezekiel 25).

Obadiah picked up on Jeremiah’s prophecy. He noted that Edom was so powerful that, “you set your nest among the stars” (Obadiah v. 4). Jehovah was going to “bring them down to the ground” (v. 3), although they believed no one was able to do so. In spite of, and perhaps because of this pride, the prophet said, “The Day of the Lord upon all nations is near” (v. 15). The “all nations” are all the nations enumerated in Jeremiah 25 and Ezekiel 25. The Lord was coming out of heaven with a shout to bring vengeance on Edom in the Day of the Lord.

25

The story of Edom provides strong evidence for two things. One, the prosaic use of time statements by the inspired writers. Second, the highly symbolic nature of the language used to describe her fall.

When the fall of Edom was not near, the writers did not say it was near. However, when that destruction was at hand, the writers said it was near. And, within a very short time of Obadiah’s prediction, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Edom. The time statements were prose, the descriptions of Edom’s demise, in the Day of the Lord, were metaphoric.

The fact that Edom was destroyed shortly after Obadiah’s prediction proves that Isaiah’s descriptive language was metaphoric. That is, unless we are willing to deny that Edom was destroyed. Interestingly, the millennialists, because of the insistence on a rigid literalism, actually posit the restoration of Edom in the future “last days” period. Ice holds that, “In the Tribulation, Edom will again be prominent as a foe of Israel. Because of Edom’s intense animosity toward Israel, it will undergo total destruction in the campaign of Armageddon that will continue through the millennium (Joel 3:19; Obadiah 10).” (1997, 73)

Yet, Malachi, writing years after the Babylonian invasion says, “Esau have I hated and laid waste his mountains and his heritage for the jackals of the wilderness” (Malachi 1:3). Just as Isaiah 34 said that in the Day of the Lord against Edom, the earth would be wasted and a habitation for the jackals, Malachi looks back at her destruction, and says she was a habitation for the jackals of the field. Prophecy fulfilled. There is no justification for the fantastic suggestion of the restoration of a kingdom that perished long ago.55

These examples help to answer our question of whether time indicates manner, or whether manner determines time. In these predictions of the Day of the Lord, the time statements were to be taken literally. In fact, when the people who heard the “at hand” warnings did not take the statements literally, Jehovah condemned them. It is also evident that the language describing the Day of the Lord, the language of cosmic disturbances, the Voice of the Lord, the shaking of the earth, etc., was not intended to be taken literally. As a matter of fact, when taken literally, the language becomes self-contradictory.

Furthermore, to disparage the significance of covenant transformation, as MacArthur does, is to miss the story of Biblical eschatology. Worse, to seek to mitigate an entire body of scriptural words, terms and phrases, e.g. temporal statements about the parousia, reveals a willingness to create doctrine instead of discovering Biblical truth.

Thus, while Ice, MacArthur, et. al., admit that the NT writers express a sense of nearness not found in the O. T. writings, they insist it was not true nearness being communicated, but imminence! Of course, the lexicons do not support the idea of “imminent but not near,” so they invent that definition out of whole cloth, and then claim that the dictionaries do support it.

Ice and Jeffrey differ on the point above. Ice (and MacArthur), says there is a sense of nearness in the NT not found in the Old, while Jeffrey says the O.T. prophets used the language of imminence the same way as the NT! This is a serious conflict. If the New Testament contains a sense of nearness not found in the Old, then Ice must explain the difference between the Day (s) of the Lord that were near in the O.T., and the Day of the Lord that was near in the New. What is the difference between “The Day of the Lord is near” (Zephaniah 1:14f), and, “The coming of the Lord is at hand” (James 5:8)? On the other hand, if the language does convey the same sense of nearness, then the failure of (literal) imminent fulfillment must be addressed, or, it must be explained how the writers could say something was near when so many other prophecies had to be fulfilled beforehand.

For Ice, the imminence of the Rapture in the first century simply means that there was (is) no other prophetic event that had (has) to transpire before the Rapture, therefore it could happen at any moment. This means the Rapture has been imminent, but not near, for the last 2000 years. Ice cites with approval the definition of Showers:

26

“An imminent event is one that is always ‘hanging overhead, is constantly ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 1901, v. 66.) Thus, imminence carries the sense that it could happen at any moment. Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before it happens then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency...As I hope you can see by now, ‘imminent’ is not equal to ‘soon’.”56

Jeffrey, citing Pierson, concurs, “Imminence is the combination of two conditions, viz., certainty and uncertainty. By an imminent event we mean one which is certain to occur at some time, uncertain at what time.” (Return, 2001, 188). Jeffrey proceeds to give an example of his idea of imminence: “An example of a current imminent event would be the promise of a traveler to return to his family at any time between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Once Thanksgiving occurs, his return is imminent. The traveler will return at any moment after Thanksgiving but he promises that he will return before Christmas. No other event must occur before his appearance in fulfillment of his promise.” (2001, 188f).

There are serious flaws in this illustration. First, when the traveler says he will return between Thanksgiving and Christmas, he is declaring the generation, although not the day and hour, in which he will return. Second, will the family assume that the traveler’s return will, or even could, happen 2000 years away? If the traveler does not return between Thanksgiving and Christmas, will the family not believe that either he broke his promise, or something terrible happened? They most assuredly will know that something is wrong! Third, to suggest that the imminence in the illustration does not denote nearness, is patently wrong. When Thanksgiving arrives, the family knows that the traveler is coming soon, he is at hand, the time has drawn near.

Jeffrey continues to discount the objective nature of the time statements of scripture by claiming that in the Old Testament, the prophets spoke of the Day of the Lord as if it was near, when in fact, that Day has yet to occur, “The language of these inspired prophets contain phrases such as ‘near,’ and ‘at hand,’ yet these inspired prophecies were given by God twenty five centuries ago.” (2001, 107). The reader must be aware of Jeffrey’s presuppositions.

Jeffrey takes for granted, without seeking to prove his case, that the term Day of the Lord, is an event that must refer to only one event, the coming of Jesus at the end of the Jewish Age, to establish the Millennium. Second, he assumes that the language describing the Day of the Lord, language that sounds like destruction of creation, must be taken literally. Third, he assumes that this coming of Jesus must be a literal, bodily coming of Jesus. Given these basic presuppositions, Jeffrey’s position sounds impressive. It is, however, fatally flawed, as an examination of his proof-texts shows. He lists eight passages: 1.) Isaiah 13:6--“Howl, for the Day of the Lord is at hand!” See Gentry’s comments on this text. He shows that there was an invasion of Babylon that was truly at hand. However, Jeffrey assumes his position without proving it, petitio principii, and assumes that his readers will not consider other options. 2.) Ezekiel 30:3--“For the Day is near, even the Day of the Lord.” This was a prediction of the destruction of Egypt at the hands of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar (v. 10f)! Compare Jeremiah 42-43. It was fulfilled long ago, or else Nebuchadnezzar will one day be resurrected, restore his armies, and crush a restored Egypt! The time statement concerning Egypt’s imminent demise was fulfilled literally. 3.) Joel 1:15--“Alas, for the Day of the Lord is at hand!” The dating of Joel is not certain, but what is certain is that there were two different Days of the Lord predicted. One was near, the other was not. In chapters 1-2, the author speaks of the Day that was near. However, he also speaks of the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord that was to come “afterward” or “in the last days ” (v. 28f). Given this contrast in temporal statements, one is all but forced to concede the objective nature of the statements. If “near” or “at hand” were not intended to be understood objectively, but were merely expressions of certainty, then the inspired writer could have said that both Days were near and at hand. However, the fact that he delineated

27

between a soon coming event and another Day that was not near proves that his time statements must be taken at face value. They prove exactly the opposite of what Jeffrey seeks to establish. 4.) Joel 2:1f--see our comments on chapter 1:15. 5.) Joel 3:14--“Multitudes in the valley of decision, for the Day of the Lord is near in the Valley of Decision.” This Day is the second one mentioned by Joel, and was not near. Why then does it say “for the Day of the Lord is near?” Because we have here an example of projected imminence. Joel was taken by inspiration to see the events of the last days (Joel 2:28). He was not in the last days himself, but was given a vision of the last days, and, in his vision, when the last days would arrive, the Day of the Lord would be near.

The fact that Peter quotes from Joel 2:28 and says “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” proves two things. First, what Joel saw really was not near when he wrote his prophecy, the predicted events were really to come later, as he was told. Second, it proves that Peter was right when he said he was in the last days foretold by Joel, and that the millennialists, who claim the last days of Joel were not present in Acts 2, are wrong. 6.) Obadiah 1:15–“For the Day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen.” As we show just above, this prophecy was fulfilled within three years! Nebuchadnezzar came into Edom and destroyed her, and at the same time destroyed and pillaged the heathen nations mentioned in Jeremiah 25. The time statement was very literal, Edom was destroyed very soon. 7.) Zephaniah 1:7, 14--“The great Day of the Lord is near.” Zephaniah, contemporary of Jeremiah and Habakkuk, foretold the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and as we have shown, the prophets described that destruction as the Day of the Lord’s Wrath, and the time when Israel was cast down from the heavens (Lamentations 2:1). One thing that is apparent from the text is that this Day of the Lord was to be against Israel (Zephaniah 1:2-4). This hardly conforms, therefore, to the millennial view of the Day of the Lord when Israel is supposedly saved from judgment. Zephaniah’s Day of the Lord was to be the time when “I will stretch out My hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.” 8.) Zechariah 14:1--“Behold, the Day of the Lord cometh.” First, let it be noted that Zechariah definitely does not say, “The Day of the Lord cometh quickly,” or, “The Day of the Lord is at hand.” Second, see our extended discussion of this text below, in which we show that this is a prediction of the A.D. 70 catastrophe.

We have thus examined each of Jeffrey’s proof-texts in which he seeks to prove that the Old Testament prophets predicted the Day of the Lord. Jeffrey’s point is that each of these passages speaks of the same event, a yet future, literal coming of Jesus. Since that Day has not come, per Jeffrey, we are forced to accept the “imminent but not near” view of the time statements. We have shown that these prophecies speak of different events, yet events that are all called the Day of the Lord, and events that were in fact, near when the prophets wrote.

Jeffrey makes an incredible claim, “It is significant that no scholar has ever objected to the language of these Old Testament prophets on the basis that these predictions referred to events far in the future despite the fact that the prophets used the language that described events as though they were about to be fulfilled.”

Jeffrey is simply wrong. We have shown that the time statements of these prophecies was literal, and fulfilled within a short time of when given. Further, for Jeffrey to claim that no scholar has ever had a problem with the language of nearness, even though the predictions supposedly concerned events far in the future, is a misrepresentation of the facts, and demonstrates once again Jeffrey’s presuppositional approach.

In fact, the language of nearness in these O.T. passages has caused many scholars problems. Space will not permit an investigation of this, but the historical fact is indisputable that many scholars have struggled with this language, many coming to the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired because these predictions were not fulfilled within the time constraints demanded by the language.

28

What Jeffrey has failed to communicate to his readers also, is that scholars who take the same position about the time statements that he does have never objected to these times statements. What this amounts to is “measuring himself by himself.” There is no doubt that it is common in the scholarly world to seek to mitigate these time statements. See my book Who Is This Babylon? for a full investigation of these various attempts. However, to claim that no one has ever had a problem with the language is simply false. The fact that scholar after scholar seeks to explain why the language was not literal proves, prima facia, that they do have a problem with the language! They realize that if taken literally, the language is destructive to their futuristic paradigms. Thus, the words must not be elasticized into ambiguity.

One thing is certain, the “imminent but not near” concept backfires in light of the Old Testament predictions, if these passages foretold a yet future coming of Jesus. Remember, according to Jeffrey, Ice, MacArthur, etc. an imminent event means there is no other prophetic event that must take place beforehand. Well, if Isaiah was predicting the coming of Jesus at the Rapture, or the Second Coming, this means that there could not be another prophetic event that had to transpire from the time of Isaiah until the coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the age! Are these men suggesting that no further prophetic events had to take place from when Isaiah said the “Day of the Lord is near,” until that Day comes? There were, even according to millennialists, many prophecies that had to be fulfilled after these “Day of the Lord is near” predictions.

It is impossible, logically, for Jeffrey to say that the O.T. prophets were using the language of nearness in the same way as the NT writers, and still maintain the idea that no other prophetic events had to occur between the imminent event and fulfillment. Thus, while Jeffrey attempts to destroy the objective nature of the language of nearness by appealing to the Old Testament predictions, he actually destroys his own argument.

The contention that any intervening prophetic event eliminates the concept of imminence is false. Ice affirms that 14 NT verses prove Christ’s coming was “imminent” (but of course, not near!) in the first century. However, the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem was, by Ice’s admission, a predicted event that had to happen before the Rapture! Therefore, the prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, per Ice’s logic, means that Christ’s coming was not actually “imminent” like the New Testament writers affirmed. The millennial definition of imminence is destroyed.

Consider the significance of the World Mission in regard to the end of the age.57 The disciples asked Jesus for a sign of the end of the age (Matthew 24:3). Jesus actually gave them two major signs that the end would be near, the fulfillment of the World Mission, and the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation. Concerning the World Mission, Jesus said, “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to the nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14).

The completion of the Mission would be a clear sign of the nearness of Christ’s parousia. Jesus told the disciples, “when you see these things come to pass, then know that it (he) is near, even at the door” (Matthew 24:32). Thus, the completion of the World Mission would indicate that the end of the age was truly near. The fulfillment of the Mission was not to give a false sense of the nearness of the end. The fulfillment was to give knowledge that the end was near. And, by MacArthur’s own admission, the disciples proclaimed the fulfillment of the Mission to such an extent that they then proclaimed, “It is the last hour!” (1 John 2:18).

Historically, millennialists have insisted that the World Mission has never been completed, and will not be completed until the time of the Great Tribulation. (Pentecost, 142) Of course, the trouble is that Paul teaches emphatically that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century. In

If any prophetic event intervening between an imminent event and fulfillment destroys the idea of imminence, how could Joel, Isaiah, Zephaniah, etc. say “the Day of the Lord is near?” According to the millennialists, there were many prophetic events between these prophets and the Day of the Lord!

29

my book, Into All the World, Then Comes the End, I demonstrate that every Greek word (translated world, earth, nations, etc.), that Jesus used to command and foretell the preaching of the Gospel into all the world, is used by Paul to say that it the Gospel had been preached in all the world.

It is of interest that Gentry uses the Great Commission to destroy the premillennial doctrine of imminence, but that MacArthur attempts to evade that argument, by actually suggesting that the World Mission had been sufficiently fulfilled so that the disciples could anticipate the soon coming of Jesus. In other words, the postmillennialist Gentry tries to use an unfulfilled Mission to disprove the millennial doctrine of imminent but not near, while the millennialist tries to use the fulfilled Mission to counter the postmillennialist. This is strange indeed. MacArthur says:

“It has often been objected by postmillennialists that in view of our Lord’s declaration (Matthew 24:14, DKP), it was impossible for the disciples to be expecting Christ to return in their own lifetime. But this objection is disposed of by several passages recorded in the New Testament itself. ...In Colossians 1:5-6 we are told, ‘for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto to you, as it is in all the world,’ and in verse 23 of the same chapter, ‘be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven.’ From this it is abundantly clear that no such formidable hindrance as imagined by postmillennialists interposed between the gospels and the hope of the imminent return of the Redeemer. Scripture thus affords positive evidence that the Gospel had been so widely diffused by the apostles themselves that nothing further necessarily and inevitably intervened between them and the realization of their hope.” (1999, 202)

Ice (Tribulation, 134), in a display of the willingness of the millennial camp to deny the emphatic statements of scripture, says all that Paul meant by his statements that the Gospel had been preached in all the world, and “to every creature under heaven” (Colossians 1:5-7, 23), is, “We learn that the evangelization of the world has only just begun in the first century and is making great progress.” Paul said the gospel “has been preached to every creature under heaven”, and the millennialists says all that this means is that the preaching of the Gospel “has only just begun.” Did Paul not know the difference between done and begun?

The point is that MacArthur and Ice attempt to argue that the passages in Paul support their theory of “imminent, but not near” by arguing that “the Gospel had been so widely diffused by the apostles themselves that nothing further necessarily and inevitably intervened between them and the realization of their hope.” What was to be the realization of the apostle’s hope? It was the parousia. And, Jesus told them that when the Gospel had been preached into all the world, “then comes the end.” The apostles declared the Gospel had been preached into all the world, and they said the end was near (Romans 16:25-26 Romans 13:11ff; Titus 2:11-14, etc.).

It is inconsistency exemplified to argue that the Gospel had been preached into all the world to such an extent that the apostles could know that nothing else stood between them and the parousia, and then to suggest that the apostles’ declarations of the nearness of the end were not objective statements of reality. Jesus did not say, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, and then thousands of years later, the end will come.” Jesus did not say the end would be near when the Gospel had begun to be preached to the world. He said the end would come after the completion of the World Mission. The apostles said the gospel had been preached to all the world, and the end was near!

As a matter of fact, if the gospel had not been actually preached into the world as foretold and commanded by Jesus, the disciples had no business saying it had, and that as a result the end was near.

The disciples were aware that Jesus had condemned premature warnings that the end was near (Luke 21:8). He warned them that some believers would come proclaiming that the end was near, when it was not near. Jesus told his disciples however, that by watching the signs, they could know,

Jesus did not say the end would be near when the Gospel had begun to be preached to the world. He said the end would come at the completion of the World Mission. The apostles said the gospel had been preached to all the world, and the end was near!

30

and proclaim, when the end was truly near (Matthew 24:32). A major sign of the nearness of the end was the completion of the World Mission (Matthew 24:14). Thus, when the disciples, who had been

warned against making premature statements of the nearness of the end, confidently said that the Gospel had been preached into all the world, and that the end was near, we can rest assured that they were not saying the Gospel had just begun to be preached! For them to say the end was near, when the Gospel had just begun to be preached would have made them guilty of the very thing Jesus condemned, making premature declarations of the nearness of the end!

Further, the disciples were aware of the words that Jesus had used to describe the “world,” “earth,” and “nations,” to whom the gospel was to be preached, and, as noted, they used every one of those words to describe the extent to which the Gospel had been preached. If they were using the words used by Jesus in a totally different way than Jesus, then we are not told. This would be a highly suspect practice, however. To suggest that the disciples, when discussing the same subject as Jesus, the World Mission, used the same words that he did, and yet defined them in a totally different way, strains credulity.

Thus, again, if the Gospel had not been preached into all the world as commanded by Jesus, then the disciples were wrong to say that it had been sufficiently preached so as to signify that the parousia was at hand. Were the disciples wrong in their assessment of how widely the Gospel had been spread? Were they changing the definition of the words used by Jesus? Were they wrong when they said the Gospel had been preached into all the world, and therefore the end was near?

If the gospel had been, “so widely diffused by the apostles themselves that nothing further necessarily and inevitably intervened between them and the realization of their hope,” then one thing is certain, there is no need or expectation of a yet future fulfillment of the World Mission. If the inspired apostles believed that the Gospel had been sufficiently spread into all the world, as commanded by Jesus, so that they could declare his coming to be near, then it is prima facia evident that there is not another greater fulfillment of the World Mission necessary. Jesus did not say that there would be two fulfillments of the World Mission,58 one to indicate that the end was “imminent but not near,” and another fulfillment, millennia removed from the first, that would indicate that the parousia was “imminent, but truly near.”

The completion of the World Mission was one of those things, concerning which Jesus said, “When you see these things come to pass, know that it is near, even at the door. The disciples saw it come to pass, and declared “The judge is standing right at the door!” (James 5:9). These declarations concerning the fulfillment of the World Mission refute the millennial doctrine of “imminent but not near.”

There is another issue present in Titus 2:13f that we must address. Ice, LaHaye, et. al., insist that the NT writers affirmed the imminence, (but of course, not the nearness) of the Rapture, because there were no other prophetic events that had to be fulfilled before the Rapture. What follows below will further refute this, but for the moment consider this important issue. The millennialists say that the first century church was eagerly expecting the Rapture, but not the Second Coming! LaHaye, says “We shall see that the Glorious Appearing of Christ to this earth to set up his millennial kingdom is not imminent, in fact it cannot happen today, for there are at least thirty prophesied events that must occur before Christ comes physically to this earth...while the Glorious Appearing is not imminent, the Rapture of the Church very definitely is.”59

In the first place, there is no Biblical support for a two-phased coming of the Lord, one spiritual and invisible, and one physical and visible. There is but one end of the age parousia taught in scripture. It was his appearing in the glory of the Father, and it was not physical.

However, the millennialists try to use Titus 2:13 to prove their concept of two different comings of the Lord. Paul wrote: “Looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” The millennialists believe the “blessed hope” is the Rapture, while “the Glorious Appearing” is the Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the seven year tribulation (Charting, p. 85).

31

There are many problems for this view, and the main one is this text itself. The Greek grammar of the text forbids an understanding of two comings. According to Granville Sharpe’s rule,60 in order for two comings to be present, the text would have to read “looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing.” While some translations provide two definite articles, there is but one in the Greek standing before “the blessed hope.” This means that the one definite article controls both subjects. In other words, they were looking for one thing, the blessed hope, which was the glorious appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ!61 This means then, that the Second Coming really was imminent in the first century. The first century church, according to Ice, LaHaye, Lindsay, etc. was not supposed to be looking for the Second Coming, but according to Paul, they were not only looking for it, they were expecting it!

Paul used a distinctive and powerful word when he said they were “looking” for Christ’s coming. It is from the Greek word prosdekomai (πρoσδεχoµαι), and means “expectantly awaiting.” (Knight, 1992, 321). This word controls both the “blessed hope” and “glorious appearing.” In other words, it actually does not matter if “blessed hope” and “glorious appearing” were two events, the word “looking” demands that they were eagerly expecting both of them soon! Whereas the millennialist says that the early church was eagerly looking for the “blessed hope” they were not eagerly looking for the glorious appearing, the text says they were eagerly looking for the “blessed hope, the glorious appearing!” You cannot distort the text into saying the Cretan Christians were looking for one event but were not looking for the other! This is a violation of the grammar of the text.

Thus, the first century church was eagerly expecting one event, the Second Coming. But, if the first century church was eagerly expecting the Second Coming, which is supposed to be seven years after the Rapture, then the millennial house of cards comes tumbling down! Their doctrine of imminence is shown to be specious.

The grammar of the text not only shows that “the blessed hope and the glorious appearing” are one and the same event, but it also shows that Titus was predicting what Jesus foretold in Matthew 16:27-28. Jesus said he was coming in the glory of his father, and that event would be in the lifetime of his contemporaries. Mounce62 shows that the grammar of the text actually indicates that Paul was saying that they were eagerly looking for “the appearing of the glory of the great God” rather than the appearing of the great God.

In Matthew 16:27-28 Jesus said he was coming “in the glory of the Father,” and it would be in his generation: “there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming.” Matthew 16:27 cannot be divided from verse 28. Jesus said he was coming “in the glory of the Father,” and Paul said the Christians on Crete were eagerly expecting “the appearing of the glory of the great God.” Jesus said he was coming in his generation. Paul said the Cretan Christians were eagerly expecting that appearing. Jesus’ “this generation” promise of the appearing of the glory of the great God controls Titus 2. This means that the Cretans were looking for the “Second Coming,” and, LaHaye’s contention that they were looking for the Rapture, and not the glorious appearing, is false.

Gentry poses another problem for the millennial definition of imminence. He notes that many millennialists, “Are convinced that the entirety of the Church Age up into the 1900s is outlined in the Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation 2 and 3! How could the return of Christ have been imminent before the 1900s, if the 1900s are foreshadowed in Revelation 2-3?” (1992, 328) In other words, as DeMar queries, “How could the church believe the Lord could come at any moment and also believe that Jesus could not come until the last of the seven representative churches (Laodicea) appeared? This destroys the doctrine of imminency.”63

Ice says the restoration of Israel had to occur before the rapture (Prophecy, 56+). He says that restoration occurred in 1948. How then could the New Testament writers have affirmed, as Ice says they did, that the rapture was imminent in the first century? After all, per Ice, the necessity for the fulfillment of any prophecy before the “imminent” event destroys the idea of imminence. Let’s put it in simple form: The necessity for the fulfillment of any prophecy before the “imminent” event destroys the idea of imminence (Ice). But the restoration of Israel, in 1948, was a

32

prophetic necessity before the Rapture (Ice). Therefore, the necessity for the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel, in 1948 per Ice, destroyed the idea of imminence in the first century.

The problem is real. The overwhelming sense of the nearness of the end of the age found in the New Testament must be met squarely, giving full sway to the time indicators. We must not seek to stand on the icy slope of questionable eisegesis and redefinition of the Greek text to avoid the conundrum.64 Space will not permit a complete critique of the attempts, especially those of Ice (Tribulation, 100+), to mitigate these time statements. However, Gentry does a fine job,65 and we recommend our Who Is This Babylon? for a complete refutation. Just a few comments here must suffice.

As Ice, MacArthur, Jeffrey,66 etc. admit, it is clear that the writers and first century disciples firmly believed and taught that Christ’s coming and consummation of the ages was near.67 While we could list numerous passages in which the NT says the coming of the Lord was “at hand” or “near,” and show that the millennial redefinition of the terms is a distortion of the text, we would instead focus on a few particularly significant issues.

It is a fact--even admitted by Ice-- that the New Testament contains a sense of expectation of the soon coming end that is not found in the Old Covenant. This contrast in the sense of nearness of the end is perhaps illustrated best in the final book of the canon. In Revelation 22:10, John was told, “do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (ho kairos gar engus estin). Now, virtually every scholar and Bible student recognizes that John’s revelation is the reiteration of the prophecies of Daniel. This makes the time statements in Revelation devastating to all futurist paradigms.

Daniel, writing some 600 years before John, was told to seal up the prophecy of his book because the time was not near (Daniel 10:14; 12:4-12). Yet, John, who wrote 2000 years ago, was told not to seal up the vision of his book, because the time for fulfillment was at hand, it was to shortly come to pass. Are we supposed to believe that the 2000 years from John to now was being called “at hand”? He caused Daniel’s book to be sealed when 600 years was involved. Surely a time period of almost four times that long also qualifies as a long time.

It will not do to appeal to God’s timelessness: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day” (2 Peter 3:8). In Daniel, we have concrete facts to work with. God called that 600 years from Daniel to John a long time. Thus, it is inconsistent to say that 2000 years from John to now, when speaking of the identical prophecies, could be called “at hand” “quickly,” and “shortly come to pass!” This temporal contrast between “not at hand” in Daniel and “at hand” cannot be ignored. Further, this is not the only time that the Biblical writers contrast the “not near” time of the Old Testament prophets with “the time is at hand” standing of the first century saints.

The Old Testament prophets were told that the object of their hope was “far off” (Hebrews 11:13-16). Jesus was “not near” when Balaam spoke of him (Numbers 24:17-19). The things of which the O.T. prophets spoke were not for their days (1 Peter 1:12). The prophets were told that they would not experience the fulfillment of their predictions. The prophecies were for days far off (Daniel 10:14; 12:4).

In direct contrast, the New Testament writers affirmed that they were living in the last days foretold by the prophets (Acts 2:15f; 3:23f). No New Testament prophet/author was ever told that his predictions were not for his day. None were ever told that their generation would not live to see them, therefore, they should seal their predictions. This is weighty evidence indeed.

When John and Jesus proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled,” they were saying something that had never been said before. As Luke says, “The Law and the prophets were until John, since then the kingdom of heaven is proclaimed.” Until John, the kingdom was always simply anticipatory. It was always far off. Now, however, what the prophets had longed to see , was being proclaimed (Matthew 13:16-17).68 The time had come!

33

Jesus appeared at the end of the age (Hebrews 1:1; 9:26), and that end was near (1 Corinthians 10:11). Repeatedly, the New Testament writers say “the end of all things has drawn near,” and, the time had arrived for the judgment (1 Peter 4:5,7, 17). Jesus positively stated that his predictions would be fulfilled in the lifetime of his first century audience (Matthew 16:27-28; 23:34; 24:34).

The temporal contrast, admitted by Ice, between the Old Testament and the New must be honored. If the meaning of “I come quickly,” simply means that Jesus would ride a fast cloud, and does not indicate the time of His coming, did the Old Testament saints not know that when God finally got around to acting He would act swiftly? Why did the Old Testament prophets not speak of the coming of the Kingdom in the same way that the New Testament prophets did? Why did not one Old Covenant prophet declare, “The kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” as John and Jesus did? Why did not one single Old Testament prophet ever say, “The end of the age has come upon us,” as Paul did? If there is a contrast in the sense of expectation between the Old Testament and the New, then it must be due to the fact that the New Testament writers affirmed the end was actually near. And, if it was near in their generation, then it cannot be near today.

The significance of the fact that the New Testament writers claim that they were living in the last days foretold by the Old Prophets cannot be overemphasized, for it objectifies the statements of the nearness of the end. If they were truly in the last days as they say, then the end really was near, and not in some elastic, “imminent but not near” sense. Their affirmation that the last days had come is destructive to the millennial (or any futurist), view of a yet future last days period.

Contra Ice (Prophecy, 9+), and other millennialists who claim that scripture speaks of two last days periods, i.e. the last days of Israel that are still future, and the last days of the Christian Age that are also still impending, scripture speaks only of one consummative last days period. Further, the NT writers claim that those days had arrived.

In Acts 2:15f, Peter quotes the critical prophecy of Joel 2:28f, about the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, and emphatically says, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (my emphasis). Pentecost claims, “It seems better to understand that Peter is not citing the experience before them as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, so that they must be considered to be in the kingdom, but rather Peter is citing Joel’s prophecy to substantiate the fact, which Israel knew through her scriptures, that such an experience as filling by the Spirit was possible.”69 MacArthur says Peter “probably meant merely that Pentecost was a preview of the Day of the Lord outpouring.” (1999, 228). Ice claims that Joel 2 was “partially fulfilled at the day of Pentecost” (Prophecy, 137), but will be actually fulfilled during the Tribulation period (Prophecy, 194).70 Finally, Jeffrey, commenting on the events of Pentecost says, “This supernatural empowerment of the Spirit was only the foretaste of the coming millennial kingdom.”

The problem is that Peter did not say what the millennialists say he did. What he did say is devastating to the millennial view. Peter, by inspiration, affirmed that the last days foretold by the prophets were present in the first century. It is wrong to say that they are yet future today. Peter’s words could not be clearer: “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” He did not say “this is what it will be.” He did not say “this is a foretaste of fulfillment.” Nor did he say that the outpouring of the Spirit that day was only partial fulfillment of a yet future complete fulfillment of Joel. He did not say “Virtually nothing of what you are seeing was predicted in Joel!”

The millennial dilemma is acute. Peter said “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” but the millennialist says what he should have said, or what he really meant was, “This is not that which Joel predicted, this is only a foretaste of what Joel predicted.” If Peter wanted to say that Joel was truly being fulfilled that day, would his words have effectively communicated that idea? What is there about what Peter said that indicates Joel was not being fulfilled?

“This is that” does not mean “This is not that!” Peter was right, and the millennialist is wrong, or, the millennialist is right, and Peter was wrong! There is no middle ground.

34

Now, clearly, the Day of the Lord did not occur on Pentecost. MacArthur offers this as proof that Pentecost could not have been the actual fulfillment of Joel. But, Joel did not say the outpouring of the Spirit would occur on the Day of the Lord, he said it would occur as a sign of the Day of the Lord, and occur before the Great and Terrible Day!

Peter not only affirmed, in Acts 2, that the last days had arrived in the first century, he repeated this in Acts 3. He said that all of the prophets, from Samuel forward, “foretold these days” (Acts 3:24).

Keep in mind that the millennialists do not believe that the church age was foretold by the Old Testament prophets. Pentecost, commenting on Colossians 1:24f says, “In this passage the apostle Paul very clearly calls the divine program developed in the church a mystery, something which was not formerly revealed, and therefore unknown, but now is made known by God.” He continues: “The concept must stand that this whole age with its program was not revealed in the Old Testament, but constitutes a new program and a new line of revelation in this present age....It has been illustrated how this whole age existed in the mind of God without having been revealed in the Old Testament.” (1980, 134-136). However, to suggest that the church, or the church program, was not foretold by the Old Testament prophets presents some daunting problems for the millennial view of the last days.

If the Old Testament never predicted the church age, then clearly, the Old Testament did not predict the end of the church age, or “the last days” of the church age. In fact, we are told that the Old Testament prophecies of the last days must refer exclusively to the last days of Israel. This can only mean one thing. When the New Testament writers affirmed that the last days foretold by the Old Testament writers were present, they must have been referring to the last days of Israel!

If Israel’s last days were present in the first century, after the Cross, then Daniel’s 70 week clock was not stopped. God’s countdown was not suspended. It means the time of fulfillment was truly in the first century as the New Testament writers constantly affirmed. Peter’s emphatic declaration that the last days foretold by Joel, and all the other prophets, were present in his day is prima facia proof that the millennial postponement theory, and extension of the last days into the future, is misplaced.

Hebrews 9:26 also deals a crippling blow to the idea that the last days are yet future, and that the time statements of imminence must be relegated to some yet future time. The writer says Jesus, “has appeared once, at the end of the age (hapax epi sunteleia ton aionon) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The question is: at the end of what age did Jesus appear? He surely did not appear at the end of the Christian Age. And, the millennialists insist that he did not appear at the end of the Jewish Age, because that is supposedly yet future. So, what age was in its last days when Jesus appeared?

Jesus appeared under the Law (Galatians 4:4), in the fullness of time. He thus appeared in the last days of the age of the Law, the last days of Israel. But, if Jesus appeared in the last days of the Jewish Age, then the millennial claim that the last days of Israel are yet future is discredited. Unless one can identify some other age, other than the Jewish Age, or the Christian Age, that was in its last days in the first century, then it is irrefutably true that the last days of Israel were in the first century, and are not for the future time.

There are other passages that prove that Israel’s last days were in fact present in the first century. One of the best is to examine of one the pivotal O.T. predictions of Israel’s last days, Deuteronomy 32.

The introduction of this chapter tells us that in Israel’s last days, she would become “utterly corrupt” (Deuteronomy 31:29), and the text itself informs us that it is about the “last end,” and “latter end” (Deuteronomy 32:20, 29) of the nation. Millennialists are correct to insist that this chapter

If the Old Testament did not predict the church age, then clearly, it did not predict the “last days” of the church age!

35

is not about the Church per se, it is about Israel. It is indeed a sad testimony that this chapter is so little discussed in eschatological arena, for it is eschatological to the core.

We will make only one argument from this chapter, of several that could be made, as it relates to Israel’s last days. In verses 21f, Jehovah foretold what would happen in Israel’s last days, “I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation” (32:21). This text serves as the foundation for Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.

In Romans 10:19; 11:14, Paul discusses his mission to the Gentiles and the Jewish response. He quotes Deuteronomy 32:21 to justify his mission to the Gentiles. Jehovah said that in the last days, and that is Israel’s last days, He would provoke Israel to jealousy by bringing in the Gentiles. Paul justified his ministry to the Gentiles by directly appealing to God’s promise in Deuteronomy 32. Therefore, Israel’s last days were present at the time of Paul’s ministry.

If Paul was not in Israel’s last days, and if his ministry was not the fulfillment of the Deuteronomic prophecy about Israel’s last days, why did he appeal to Deuteronomy twice in his discussion of his ministry to the Gentiles? Remember, Paul preached the hope of Israel. Paul also insisted that he was living in the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11).

The timing of Romans (circa A. D. 57), is crucial. Remember that the millennialists claim that Israel’s last days were suspended with the rejection of Jesus. Ice says that the 69th week of Daniel ended with Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem in A.D. 33, and the 70th week will not begin counting until the Man of Sin signs a peace treaty with Israel at some point after the Rapture (Charting, 67). In other words, Israel’s last days were not supposed to be in existence during Paul’s ministry. Yet, Paul directly appeals to a prophecy of Israel’s last days, and says his ministry was the fulfillment of that prophecy!

If it is true that Paul’s ministry was God’s instrument to provoke Israel to jealousy, in the last days, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 32, then it must be true that Israel’s last days were in existence during the ministry of Paul. Paul said his ministry was fulfilling Deuteronomy 32. Therefore, Israel’s last days were existence during the ministry of Paul.

Isaiah 2-4 is another last days prophecy of the Old Testament, and one that Ice and MacArthur, for instance, apply to Israel’s (future) last days. The prophecy foretold the establishment of the kingdom, and the consummation of the last days in the Day of the Lord (Isaiah 2:10-20). Isaiah 4:4f predicted that Israel’s blood guilt--the guilt for shedding innocent blood--would be removed (in the last days), at the day of the Lord. But, in Matthew 23:29f, Jesus, who appeared in the last days, said the blood guilt of Israel would be finally filled up, and avenged at his coming, in his generation.71 Therefore, the consummation of Israel’s last days would be in Jesus’ generation. This is indisputable proof that Israel’s last days existed and were consummated at the fall of Jerusalem in the first century.

Further, Paul affirmed that Jesus appeared “in the fullness of time,” and that this fullness of time was “under the law” (Galatians 4:4). The New Testament writers also say that Jesus appeared “in the last days” (Hebrews 1:1). Thus, the argument is: Jesus appeared in the last days. Jesus appeared under the Old Covenant Age of Israel. Therefore, Jesus appeared in the last days of the Old Covenant Age of Israel. Once again, this proves that the last days existed in the first century, and that the reference cannot be to the Christian Age, but to the last days of Israel as foretold by the prophets.

The New Testament writers repeatedly state that they were living in the end of the age. What age did they refer to? What age was about to end? At this juncture, we need to introduce three critical points that have a tremendous bearing on the issue before us. We cannot develop these points here, but do so in a larger work that is currently in progress. Those three points are as follows: 1.) The Jews believed in only two ages, “this age” and “the age to come.” Even J. N. Darby agreed: “Really, this (The Christian Age, DKP), is not a dispensation. The Jews had a “this world” and “a world to come.” Messiah was to bring the age to come. The age of the law went on and the

36

Messiah did come, but they would not have Him, and the whole thing stopped; then comes the church between that and His second coming; and this is why I said this is not strictly a dispensation, but when Messiah comes again, it will close this time, and then will be the last day of this age.”72 Jesus concurred with the belief in only two ages (Matthew 12; Mark 10, etc.) He certainly did not agree with the rest of Darby’s comments, however. 2.) The Jews believed that “this age” was the age of Moses and the Law. They believed “the age to come” was the age of Messiah and the New Covenant. See Hebrews 2:5.73 DeMar cites the excellent comments of Hill: “Time was divided by the Jews into two great periods, the age of the law, and the age of the Messiah. The conclusion of the one was the beginning of the other, the opening of that kingdom which the Jews believed the Messiah was to establish.” (1994, 54). 3.) The Jews believed that “this age” would end, but that “the age to come,” the Age of the New Covenant, would never end (cf. Matthew 24:35; Ephesians 3:20-21).74 Thus, when the disciples asked about the end of the age, in the words of DeMar, “The ‘end of the age’ refers to the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system with its attendant sacrifices and rituals. ...The ‘end of the age’ refers to the termination of the exclusive Jewish entitlement to the covenant promises and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the blessings of the covenant and the privileges of the gospel and kingdom.” (1994, 55).

These facts are devastating to the dispensational view that the last days are still future. It is improper to speak of the end of the current endless age, and, since Jesus and his disciples were living in the end of Israel’s age in the first century, then the last days of Israel cannot be posited into the future.

If Jesus and his disciples believed in only one age that would end, and that was the Jewish Age, and if they said they were living in the end of the age, then they believed they were living in the last days of the Jewish Age. The impact of this for the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is profound.

Millennialists, as well as most evangelicals, take it for granted that when the disciples asked about the end of the age (Matthew 24:3), they had in mind the end of the church age. However, the church age is the age of Christ and the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), and as we have seen, is endless. The only age that the disciples believed would end, and end with the destruction of the Temple, was the Old Covenant Age, the age in which they were living. It is misplaced then, to interpret Matthew 24 as predictive of the end of the Christian Age.

Patently, the first century writers were not living in the last days of the Christian Era, yet they stated, in the strongest terms possible, “It is the last hour, and as you have heard that the antichrist must come, even now there are many antichrists, whereby you know it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). John’s declaration is emphatic, the last time had arrived. He did not say it would come some day by and by. He did not say it would be the last hour at some point when the real antichrists would come, nor did he say that the presence of those antichrists was a foretaste of the last days appearance of the real antichrists. He said “You have heard that antichrist must come. Antichrists are here. It is the last hour!”

Ice (Prophecy, 10), says that 1 John 2:18 applies to the last days of the Christian Age. But, how can this be? John was not living in the last generation of earth’s history, and it is more than certain that he was not living in the last days of the Christian/Church Age. John did not say, when the antichrists come, it will be the last hour. He was not projecting himself into the future and speaking of distant events. He was speaking of his situation, his time, and it was the last hour. John’s affirmation that the predicted antichrists were present cannot be divorced from its eschatological context.

Paul stated “the end of the ages has come upon us” (1 Corinthians 10:11). Hebrews 1:1 speaks of “these last days,” and Peter affirmed that he and his readers were living in “these last times” (1 Peter 1:20). Jude, citing Peter’s prediction that scoffers were to come “in the last days” (2 Peter 3:3), declares unambiguously that those predicted scoffers were already present (Jude 18). Once again, Ice, (Prophecy, 10) applies this passage to the

37

last days of the Christian Age. Well, if this is true, then there is no way scripturally to extend that prophecy into the future, for Jude said that he and his contemporaries were in the last days.

The term last days does not suggest an extended period of time. The term signifies the terminal generation. Ice and most millennialists, insist that Hebrews 1:1; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:20; Jude 18; 2 Peter 3; 1 John 2:18, etc., “speak of the condition within Christianity near the end of the age.” (Prophecy, 49) Now, if these passages speak of the condition of the church near the end of the church age, then most assuredly the end of the Church Age was present when John, Jude Peter and Paul wrote, for they said they were living in “these last days,” and insisted that “it is the last hour!” Are we supposed to believe that the Christian Age was coming to an end so soon after being established, only 30 or so years earlier?

If the Jewish Age was to end, but the Christian Age has no end, what age was about to end? What last days were they living in? This is critical, because Paul wrote in the mid-50s A.D., well after Israel’s last days were supposedly suspended, per the millennial posit. For Paul, however, some age was on the edge of passing, and since it could not be the Christian Age, that leaves but one, the Age of Israel. Paul was living in Israel’s last days. And this means, definitely, that the last days of Israel are not in the future.

All attempts by the millennialists, to mitigate the “at hand” statements are futile. The reality that the end of the age truly was near in the first century demands that we honor all of the “I come quickly” statements. This raises anew the acute problem of the so-called delay of the parousia, or, in reality, the nature of the Lord’s coming. If, as the majority of evangelical Christianity insists, Jesus promised to physically return, and bring human history to an end in the first century, then, as Barclay says, “He was mistaken, for He did not return in the lifetime of the generation which was listening to His words.”75 The time statements are too emphatic to allow any other conclusion.

However, if, as we are proposing in this work, Jesus never predicted a physical visible return to end human history, then the time indicators of the New Testament can be taken at face value. Further, the consistent use of metaphoric prophetic language can be honored, as we have seen. Jesus’ promise to come in judgment as the Father had come, precludes the idea of an end of history, physical coming.

Thus, our questions: Do time statements determine the nature of the parousia?, or, Does the nature of the parousia rule the time statements?, are not questions answered with a simple yes or no.76

In reality, it is the consistently metaphoric use of Day of the Lord language, coupled with the time statements, that determines the nature of the coming of Christ. While text after text utilizes “end of the world language,” we have no example of a literal, physical descent of God out of heaven to destroy literal creation. Yet, this is the common language of the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the New Testament writers, to describe the Day of the Lord.

It is not enough to say that scripture must be interpreted literally, or that a “straightforward reading of the text” demands a literal coming of Jesus. One must honor the Biblical use of language. It is interesting that Thomas Ice, in a debate with Kenneth Gentry, responded to the many O.T. passages presented by Gentry in which Jehovah was described as coming on the clouds. Gentry demonstrates that the consistent O.T. use of this language is metaphoric. Ice said, “I do not have a problem with Gentry’s understanding of these passages as they are used in their Old Testament context.”77 MacArthur says that when Jesus used the language of cosmic disturbances in Matthew 24, “The disciple’s thoughts, when they heard mention of the cosmic signs, would have gone immediately to the Old Testament prophecies of the Day of the Lord.” This is significant.

What right does the student have to acknowledge the consistently metaphoric language of the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament, and then insist that this identical language must now, in the New Testament, be understood literally? The disciples knew that the Day of the Lord against Edom had been fulfilled, and yet, the cosmic disturbances foretold in that prophecy were not literal. They knew the Lord came in the destruction of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc., and yet, the sun, moon and stars remained in the sky. They knew, in other words, that the predictions of cosmic

38

disturbances were not predictions of the end of the material cosmos. To suggest that they did is a wooden hermeneutic based on presuppositions. It is theologically, not exegetically, driven.

Further, to re-emphasize, the time indicators of scripture confront every Bible student. The consistently prosaic use of time statements, and the emphatic New Testament declarations of the nearness of the end must be confronted. They cannot be brushed aside, nor need they be. Honoring Jesus’ language, and his statement that he was to come in judgment as the Father had done, eliminates the problem of time, and honors the language of prophecy.

What this means of course, is that Jesus did not predict that he was coming to end human history, or that he was coming physically on the clouds of the sky. He was coming by means of the Roman army in judgment of Old Covenant Israel. Biblical eschatology is Covenant Eschatology, not Historical Eschatology. This view of Christ’s coming is supported by the following studies of the nature of Christ’s parousia.

39

CHAPTER 3 THE PAROUSIA AND THE NATURE OF THE KINGDOM

Historically, one of the greatest failures in eschatological exegesis is the failure to correlate the nature of the parousia with the nature of the kingdom.

There is, of course, a tremendous controversy in the eschatological world between the millennialists, who insist that the kingdom predicted by the Old Covenant prophets must be a restored nationalistic Israel, and the amillennial and postmillennial camp that insists the kingdom was established in the church, and is a spiritual reality. Several things testify to the spiritual nature of the kingdom and thus, the parousia. 1.) Old Covenant Israel was the shadow of good things to come and not the substance (Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 9:24-25; 10:1-4, etc). The shadow is never the thing hoped for and never supersedes the “body.” As the mere foreshadowing of the reality, Old Covenant, national Israel was never the goal of God’s Scheme of Redemption. The failure to honor the shadow versus reality of Old Covenant Israel is the root cause of many of today’s eschatological misunderstandings. More on this later. 2.) God’s modus operandi has always been from the natural to the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46). The millennial view of a restored national kingdom says that God established Israel, cast her off in favor of the spiritual entity of the church, and then will ultimately restore the “natural” kingdom. This implies that the natural is favored by God over the spiritual. There are direct implications here for the parousia as well. Jesus was manifested in the flesh, raised in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18), and again, his appearing was to reveal him, not as man in the flesh, but as true Deity. And, God is not flesh! 3.) Jesus’ rejection of the Jewish offer of the kingship (John 6:15). One of the most overlooked--or ignored--truths is that the Jews offered to make Jesus their king, but it was He that rejected them. Clearly, the Jews wanted a king, and Jesus came to be king. Yet, when He fed the multitudes and the crowd was about to make him king, Jesus withdrew from them. Their nationalistic fervor was precisely what millennialists insist must be necessary for Jesus to reign in the future. Yet, again, it was Jesus who refused the offer.

Why? Why did Jesus reject this populist movement? Did he not come to be king? Surely! He told Pilate that he came into the world to be king (John 18:36-37). Well, here was the golden opportunity for him! The crowd is at a fever pitch. The Messianic enthusiasm is raging! Why did Jesus reject their offer if this is why he came? 4.) The Jewish rejection of Jesus’ kingship. This sounds almost antithetical to the point just made. However, when properly understood it is a dynamic point. The Jews wanted a militaristic king to restore their national glory. And, Ice claims, “An earthly kingdom with a physical presence and rule by the Messiah-King is foretold throughout the pages of the Bible. This promise was not fulfilled in the first coming of Jesus Christ because though offered, the kingdom was rejected by Israel.” (Prophecy, 231).

If an earthly kingdom was what the Jews wanted, and what Jesus offered, we ask, why did the Jews reject Jesus? The Jews did not reject Jesus as king until they understood His rejection of their offer to be king. The Jews wanted the kind of a king that the millennialist says he came to be. Yet when they offered this to Jesus he refused. It was then that the reality of the nature of Christ’s kingship began to dawn on the Jews, and they began to reject His offer of the kingdom.

Ice, and most millennialists, says, “I believe the Scriptures teach that Israel could have obtained her much sought after Messianic kingdom by recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. We all know the sad reality--the Jews rejected Jesus. As a result, the kingdom is no longer near78 but postponed,

The parousia was to reveal Jesus as God, not man! This means Jesus could not appear in the flesh!

40

awaiting Jewish belief, which will occur at the end of the Tribulation.” (Tribulation, 115) However, this view contradicts Ice’s own view of a gap between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week.

The end of Daniel’s countdown, the end of the 70th week, would bring in the everlasting kingdom of God, “the close of the Seventy Sevens must coincide with the end of the present order of things and the beginning of the Coming or Millennial Age.”79 Millennialists feel the need for a postponed prophetic clock, i.e. a gap in the countdown of the 69th and 70th week, however, because according to the millennialists, Jesus did not

establish the kingdom due to the Jewish rejection. Ice says, “There can be no pre-tribulational rapture, great tribulation, or rebuilt temple without a gap.” (Internet article, #1) In other words, no gap, no pre-tribulational millennialism! Ice goes to great length to prove “there are textual reasons for a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week!”80

According to Ice, the first 69 weeks of Daniel ended “March 30th, A.D. 33,” and we are still awaiting the restarting of the prophetic clock. However, Jesus most assuredly was looking forward to the end of the 70th

week, because his message was, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mark 1:15). Surely, no one knew the countdown of Daniel’s weeks better than Jesus. He knew that the kingdom was to come at the end of the 70th week, did He not? If Jesus knew the kingdom was to come at the end of Daniel’s 70th week, and if he said “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (literally, ‘has drawn near’), then most assuredly the end of the 70th week of Daniel was at hand! If Jesus knew that there was to be a 2000 year gap between the 69th and the 70th week, he was out of line to say “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Ice says that had the Jews not rejected Jesus, he would have established the kingdom. However, this cannot be true. If there is a gap in the text of Daniel 9, of so far 2000 years, between the 69th and 70th week, then if Jesus would have established the kingdom at his first coming, that gap of Daniel 9 would have been violated! In other words, if it is true that Daniel 9 contains a divinely mandated gap between the 69th and 70th week, then Daniel’s prophecy would have failed if Jesus would have established the kingdom when he came. Yet, contrary to this, Ice says Jesus did offer the kingdom, it was near when he said it was, and he would have established the kingdom had the Jews not rejected him!

The millennialist cannot have it both ways. Either the kingdom was objectively near in the first century as Jesus said it was, but if this is true, then there could not have been a prophesied gap between the 69th and 70th week. Or, if there was a divinely ordained gap in Daniel 9, then the kingdom was not postponed, as Ice says it was. However, if there was a gap in Daniel’s prediction, divinely ordained by God, then Jesus had no right to ignore that gap and claim that the establishment of the kingdom, posited for the end of the 70th week, was near.

Let us summarize the choices and implications in regard to the possibility of a gap: There either is, or, is not a gap, of 2000 years, in the text of Daniel 9:24-27, between the 69th and 70th week.

If there is a gap, of (at least) 2000 yrs, in the text of Daniel 9, then: Jesus either did or did not know about it.

If there is a gap, of 2000 years, in Daniel 9, and, if Jesus knew, then when he announced the nearness of the kingdom, (i.e. the end of the 70th week), he was purposely giving the wrong impression to his audience, or, he did not know how long the gap was to be.

If there is a gap in Daniel 9, and Jesus knew of it, he should have known that he could not even truthfully offer the kingdom to Israel! If there is a gap of 2000 years, and Jesus knew of it, then he had to know that the kingdom was not near, and he could not truthfully offer Israel the fulfillment of her hope.

The doctrine of the postponed kingdom, due to the Jewish rejection, is one of the greatest theological tragedies of all time.

41

If there is a gap in Daniel 9, then, even if Jesus did ostensibly offer the kingdom, Israel could not accept that offer, because the prophecy of the kingdom was not truly for Jesus’ generation!

If there is a gap in Daniel 9, and Jesus knew, but did not know how long it was supposed to be, his knowledge of Daniel’s prophecy is impugned. Yet, for Jesus to say that the end of the 70th week was near, demands that he thought he knew what Daniel actually predicted. If he thought he knew, but didn’t, clearly, this impugns his Deity. Jesus clearly claimed to know what time it was!

If there is no gap, of 2000 yrs, in the text of Daniel 9:24-27, and, Jesus said the kingdom, which is to come at the end of the 70th week, was at hand, then Jesus was right to say the kingdom, for the end of the 70th week, was near.

If there is no gap in the text of Daniel 9, but, the kingdom was postponed due to Jewish rebellion, then it must be true that the Lord created a gap between the 69th and 70th, that was not originally in the text of Daniel 9. This means that Daniel’s original prediction failed. This also means Jesus failed, in his prediction of the nearness of the kingdom. This means that God failed, since He supposedly sent his Son “at just the right time” to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy.

If there is no gap, and, if Jesus would have established the kingdom, (Ice Tribulation, 115), had the Jews not rejected him, means that Jesus was right to say the kingdom, and thus the end of the 70th week, was at hand. But if there is no gap, and Jesus was right to say the kingdom was near, then if the kingdom was not established, Daniel’s prophecy failed. Jesus failed. God failed.

One thing is certain beyond doubt, Jesus knew the prophecy of Daniel better than anyone. Therefore, his declaration that the establishment of the kingdom was near, is the divine interpretation of the time of the 70th week. And, since he said “the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” this can only mean that there was not a 2000 year gap in the text of Daniel 9:24-27. And this in turn can only mean one thing, to cite Thomas Ice again: “There can be no pre-tribulational rapture, great tribulation, or rebuilt temple without a gap.” In other words, no gap, no pre-tribulational millennialism! It is clear that Jesus did not think there was a gap in Daniel’s prophecy, therefore, there is no pre-tribulational millennialism!

The issue involves the Deity of Jesus. If there was a long temporal gap in Daniel, and Jesus knew it, but presented a message that indicated that the terminus a quem, i.e. the end of the vision, was at hand, then he lied to his contemporaries, and violated the text of Daniel’s prediction. This impugns his Deity. On the other hand, if there is a gap in Daniel’s prediction, as posited by Ice, and Jesus did not know about it, this impugns his Deity. The only way to maintain the inspiration and Deity of Jesus is to admit that he was right to declare that the kingdom, and thus, the end of Daniel’s 70 weeks, was truly near in the first century, and that God kept His word and established the kingdom.

In my estimation, the millennial posit of a postponed kingdom, due to the Jewish rejection, is one of the greatest theological tragedies of all time. To suggest that God, in His omniscience, looked down the stream of time, chose what He thought was “just the right time” (Romans 5:6; Galatians 4:4; 1 Timothy 2:6, etc.), sent His Son to establish the Kingdom, only to discover that it could not be done because of the Jewish recalcitrance, most assuredly calls His omniscience into question. However, as my friend John Anderson says, “‘OOPS!’ is one word that is not in God’s vocabulary!”

Scripture says God set the time for the kingdom (Daniel 2; 9) and that Jehovah knew His Son was to be rejected (Psalms 2; Daniel 9:26f), but in spite of that, He said He would not alter His word, and in fact, He would laugh at man’s attempts to thwart His plan (Psalms 2; 89:34f).

Jesus sent his disciples out with the message of the soon coming kingdom, knowing full well the message would be rejected. But, he told them to tell the rebellious cities to which they were sent, “nevertheless (in spite of your rejection

If the kingdom was to come at the end of the 70th week, and if Jesus said the kingdom was near, then, the end of the 70th week was near!

42

of the message, DKP) the kingdom of God has come near to you.” (Luke 10:9-11). Jesus taught that the Jewish rejection of the kingdom offer would not postpone the kingdom! The word nevertheless in the context of the Jewish rejection, denotes God’s intention to proceed in spite of that rejection. The Jews could not derail God’s kingdom plans.

Even the most famous Old Testament prophecy of the kingdom, Daniel 9, with its delineation of the 70 weeks, anticipated the rejection of Jesus, for it foretold the “cutting off of the Messiah.” The millennialists insist that the 70th week was suspended due to the (unforeseen) Jewish rejection of God’s plan. Yet, the passage foretold the rejection of Jesus, and included it within the pivotal 70 week prediction! Now, if the 70 weeks were determined to fulfill God’s purposes, and included the death of Jesus, it can hardly be suggested that the Jewish rejection of Jesus stopped the prophetic clock.

It is clear therefore, that God sent His Son to establish the kingdom knowing full well that the Jews would reject and crucify him. However, this rejection would not postpone the kingdom, it was the means by which God would accomplish the task (Acts 2:29-34). The suggestion of Ice that Jesus would have established the kingdom if the Jews would not have rejected him, suggests that the Cross got in the way of God’s plan!

The scriptural truth is that the Cross was God’s plan from all eternity (1 Peter 1:20f).81 This calls into serious question the position of the father of modern day Dispensationalism, Darby, who said of the Cross, “It is Satan, and not Christ, who is now the prince and god of this world...The cross was the one grand demonstration--and there never was such a demonstration before--that Satan is the prince and god of this world. Until Christ had been rejected, Satan was never called the prince of this world. Before that, Jesus was on earth, and in the temple was the Shekinah glory. But when at last He came into this world in the person of Christ, and the world rejected Him, then from that time Satan is the prince of this world.”82 It is clear that Darby believed the Cross was the defeat of God rather than Jehovah’s instrument to accomplish His purposes.

How could the Cross demonstrate that Satan was the god of this world, if Jehovah, in the prophetic scriptures foretold that Cross, and in fact, Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8, etc.)? God not only knew His Son was to die, He sent Him to die! Thus, the Cross did not show that Satan was in control, the Cross was the means by which Jesus triumphed over Satan (Colossians 2:14-16)!

The fact that God intended to use the Crucifixion as the means of enthroning His Son as king is a powerful testimony that the kingdom he was to establish was not the kind of kingdom desired by the Jews. They wanted a conquering warrior to slaughter the Romans, and to re-establish the nationalistic prowess of Israel, and that is what they were offering in John 6. The posit that Jesus would have established the kingdom if the Jews would have recognized him as Messiah runs afoul of God’s plan, for the rejection of Jesus was integral to God’s plan. The fact is that the Jews, in John 6, did recognize Jesus as the one they wanted as their military deliverer and king! However, it was Jesus that rejected that populist movement.

Let us reiterate: The Jews did not reject Jesus’ offer of the kingdom until Jesus first rejected the Jewish offer of the kingdom. Now, if Jesus came to be the nationalistic king over Israel as the millennialists claim, one has to ponder long and hard to explain why the Jews demanded Jesus’ blood. If Jesus came to be the kind of king the Jews wanted, then there simply is no logical explanation for their later rejection of him.

Daniel’s 70 week prophecy included the rejection of Jesus (v. 26). That rejection therefore, was no surprise to God, and was part of the 70 week calculation! The crucifixion did not suspend the “prophetic clock,” it was part of the countdown!!

43

Not surprisingly, John 6:15 is virtually ignored in the millennial literature. Pentecost ignores it, as does Beiderwolf’s Second Coming Bible. Blaising and Bock, interestingly enough, suggest that in John 6:9-14, Jesus confirmed the Jewish expectations, but they totally ignore verse 15!83

The question that lies at the root of the Jewish rejection of Jesus is the nature of the kingdom that they offered him, and that he rejected. If Jesus came to be a nationalistic king, and if the Jews offered him that kind of kingdom, there is no way to logically explain either Jesus’ rejection of the offer, or the Jewish rejection of Jesus. The question is, just how did Jesus confirm (approve) the Jewish expectation of a nationalistic restoration by rejecting their offer to be a militaristic king? If Jesus wanted to put his stamp of approval on their nationalistic hopes, should he not have accepted their offer? Should he not have gone with them, instead of withdrawing from them? 5.) Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Pilate had Jesus on trial because the Jews threatened to tell Caesar that he, Pilate had refused to try a would be king. In the Roman world many things could be overlooked; rivals against Caesar could not. Pilate found Jesus “not guilty” of any political charges even though Jesus admitted that he was a King! Pilate was acutely aware of the nationalistic hopes of his Jewish subjects. Why would he endanger his own life and career--something he was paranoid about protecting in all other cases--by releasing a political king over these troublesome Jews?

It can only be that he took Jesus seriously when he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The fact that Pilate gave Jesus over to the Jews does not negate Jesus’ innocence in regard to the kingdom. Pilate was notorious for killing innocent people. His testimony, “I find no fault with this man” stands as powerful testimony to the fact that Pilate did not see Jesus as a political rival to Caesar.

Paul reiterated Jesus’ position about the nature of the kingdom in a way that reflects directly on the Jewish expectation of the kingdom. While the Jews expected a kingdom in which there was to be a literal banquet of wonderful foods, all within the context of their understanding of the Mosaic mandates, Paul, addressing the Roman Christians struggling over the question of whether Gentiles should submit to those Old Covenant strictures, told them “the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking” (Romans 14:17).

Jeffrey seeks to counter Romans 14:17 by citing Luke 14, and Luke 22, where reference is made to eating and drinking in the kingdom (2001, 101). Of course, he takes for granted, without exegetical demonstration, that these are referents to eating literal banquet meals. Further, the kind of “meat and drink” i.e. Jewish food regulations and practices, are the very kind of regulations that Jeffrey believes will be restored in the millennium. The problem is that these are the regulations that Paul said do not constitute the kingdom.

If the Jewish, (and Judaizing), expectation of the kingdom was of a physical banquet, then Paul’s dictates belie those expectations. And, we reiterate, while some seek to say that Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes confirmed the Jewish expectation of the kingdom, Jesus’ rejection of the Jewish multitude contradicts this posit. Jesus did not “affirm these expectations,” he flatly rejected them. 6.) Jesus declared, “The kingdom does not come with observation...the kingdom is within you” (Luke 17:20-21). This was stated in direct response to the inquiry of the Pharisees as to when the kingdom was to be established. They fully expected a nationalistic restoration; Jesus flatly rejected their expectation.

Jeffrey says “Jesus was not stating that the holy kingdom of God existed in the hearts or spirits of the wicked Pharisees who rejected His Messianic claims.” (2001, 100). In other words, the kingdom could not have been “among you” or “within you,” because this would mean that it was in the hearts of the wicked Pharisees. He then cites the Amplified Bible that renders this verse “the kingdom of God is within you and among you.”

If Jesus came to be a nationalistic king, why did he refuse the offer when the Jews tried to make him king? Wasn’t this what he came for? Was Jesus or the Jews confused about the nature of the kingdom?

44

This citation proves the opposite of what Jeffrey needs it to say. It affirms the then present reality of the kingdom. Jesus used the present tense verbs to speak of the kingdom’s presence. He did not say “the kingdom will be among you.” He did not even say, “the kingdom will be within you.” Jesus was not addressing whether the Pharisees were members of the kingdom or not, he was stating unequivocally that the kingdom was present, and that it was totally different therefore, from their nationalistic expectation.

Further, it cannot be overlooked that Jeffrey’s view of the kingdom demands that it come “with observation.” He believes the kingdom will come after the observable Great Tribulation, after the observable Armageddon, and after the observable parousia, and he thinks that the kingdom itself is a geographically centered, religio-politico nationalistic entity. Everything about the millennial kingdom is suggestive of that which is seen, and stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ divine declaration, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation.” 7.) Jesus’ throne was never predicted to be on earth, but in heaven. A great deal of ink is applied trying to prove that Jesus must sit on David’s literal throne in Jerusalem. Jeffrey insists that at the parousia, “Jesus will finally take His rightful place as King of kings upon the throne of David.” (2001, 156). He proceeds to claim that Jesus must rule from literal Jerusalem. The truth is that Peter affirmed the Messiah’s Davidic throne would be in heaven (Acts 2:22-36.)

Peter said Jesus had been raised from the dead, and had received the promise made to David. That promise was that the Messiah would sit on the throne of David (v. 31). Peter affirms that the promise was not that David would sit on the throne, but that one of his descendants would rule. Peter also affirms that David had not ascended to receive the promise made to him (v. 34), but Jesus, whom Jehovah had made “both Lord and Christ” when He raised Him from the dead and sat Him on His right hand of the majesty on high. Jehovah had enthroned the Messiah in heaven in fulfillment of His promise to David!

The argument from Acts 2 is powerful. David said God would raise up the Messiah to sit on David’s throne, and he would sit and rule in the midst of his enemies until the enemies were destroyed (Acts 2:29-31). The promise to raise up the Messiah to sit on the throne was the promise of the resurrection (v. 31, This means, of course, that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus did not catch God off-guard or postpone the kingdom. The Passion was God’s means of enthroning the Messiah.) God had raised Jesus from the dead, exalted him to His right hand, and gave him the promise made by the Spirit, the Throne of David. He was even then sitting at the Father’s right hand, ruling in the midst of his enemies, in fulfillment of Psalms 110:1f. He had been made both Lord and Christ. The promises to David were fulfilled; the Messiah was on the throne of David.

Peter did not say, as the millennialists sometimes do, that Jesus was made Messiah in potentia. The millennialists have Peter saying that Jesus was raised from the dead to return to heaven so that one day, he will be enthroned. They thus insert another gap into the Biblical text where none is

indicated. Or, they say that Jesus was raised from the dead to rule over the church until he can come and be enthroned on the Davidic throne.

But Peter did not say that Jesus will one day receive the promise made to David. He said that God’s promise to raise up the Messiah to sit on David’s throne spoke of the resurrection of Jesus. The millennialists insist Jesus’ passion postponed his enthronement. But how could, or why would, the prophecies of the enthronement of the Messiah have been

postponed, if in fact, those prophecies actually spoke of his resurrection? And, if Jesus was exalted to sit on a different throne than David’s, why did Peter quote the promises to David? If the exaltation to the right hand of the Father was not the fulfillment of Psalms 110, why did Peter say that Jesus was where the prophecy said the Messiah would be, sitting on David’s throne? Finally, if the Old Testament never foretold the church age, then it most assuredly did not foretell the resurrection of Christ to sit and rule over the church. Yet, Peter affirms that the prophecies that the

The Messiah was to sit on David’s throne in heaven, not on earth!

45

Messiah would be raised to sit on the throne had been fulfilled. This can only mean that the Davidic throne promises were the ones that were fulfilled.

The point cannot be missed that Peter affirms that Jesus was on the throne, he was on the throne of David, and that Jesus was not on earth, but in heaven. This is totally devastating to the millennial view.

The fact that the Davidic throne is in heaven and not on earth in God’s kingdom prophecies is also confirmed in Acts 15. In that text, James rehearsed the work of Peter in the conversion of Cornelius. He said the calling of the Gentiles was the fulfillment of prophecy: “After this I will return and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even the Gentiles who are called by My Name.” (Acts 15:16-17).

James’ citation of Amos 9:11f is important in establishing the nature of the kingdom and parousia. His argument is clear. Peter had begun the conversion of the Gentiles. This was in fulfillment of Amos 9:11f. Amos predicted that the Tabernacle of David (the Davidic Sovereignty) would be restored so that Gentiles could be saved. Gentiles were being saved. Therefore, the Davidic Sovereignty was restored.

Jesus had received “the sure mercies of David” (Acts 13:34-35) as a result of his resurrection. But, those “sure mercies,” were not in literal geographical Jerusalem, not on a physical throne. Jesus, by his resurrection, had been “born again” (Acts 13:32-33), and left the realm of the flesh, to enter forever the “world above.” This speaks eloquently to the nature of the Messianic reign, and the nature of His parousia, for Jesus, after receiving that throne, was to act in judgment as the Father had acted from His throne. 8.) The City and Mountain of Messiah, Zion, (Jerusalem) is heavenly, not earthly.

In prophecy, the Messiah would be enthroned in Zion (Psalms 2), and from there the Lord would rule over the kingdom (Isaiah 24:21-23). The Messianic Banquet would be spread in Zion for those raised from the dead (Isaiah 25:6-8). Zion/Jerusalem would be the “world capital” of Messiah’s reign (Isaiah 2:2f). In other words, the New Jerusalem, Zion, would be the center of the Messianic kingdom. Of course, the millennialists insist that Jesus will rule in the literal Jerusalem, and that it will remain an earthly city. However, as just seen, the Messianic throne of David was never intended to be on earth, nor does the Bible place prophetic Zion on earth.84

As we will show more in detail below, the doctrine of the New Jerusalem is one of Paul’s favorite doctrines, and one developed extensively in the NT as a whole. In Galatians 4, Paul discusses the Two Jerusalems, and shows that the Old Jerusalem, representative of Old Covenant Israel, was to be shortly cast out, and that the New Jerusalem, “which is above” was to be revealed as the true city of God. There could not be a more dramatic contrast between world views.

The millennialist places his hopes on the earthly city and the restoration of the physical lineage of Abraham, while Paul says of that Old City and Seed “cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the children of the bondwoman will not be heir with the children of the free” (Galatians 4:30). Not a hint of a restored national Jerusalem. Not a hint of a geographically located Zion being the locus of the Messiah’s reign. There is only rejection, but more, there is the identification of the True Jerusalem, and it is heavenly, not earthly.

Paul said the True Jerusalem is “above,” and is the “mother of us all” meaning that the New Jerusalem was the capital of the True Seed of Abraham. The problem for the millennial view is that the True Seed of Abraham, in Paul’s view, and remember that he preached nothing but the “hope of Israel,” was no longer those who could trace their physical lineage to that patriarch! The True Seed were not those who still looked to the earthly Jerusalem as the city of their citizenship. Paul wanted them to realize that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20f).

For Paul, the True Israel belonged to the spiritual seed of Abraham, those who had become the children of God, and of Abraham, by faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:6-14, 26-29). As a spiritual seed they now had a New Jerusalem. They had come to realize “we have here no abiding city, but seek one that is about to come” (Hebrews 13:14). The Jerusalem that they now sought was the one that Abraham saw “far off,” and it is called

46

“heavenly” by the Hebrew author (Hebrews 11:16). In other words, the Zion of prophecy was not earthly, but heavenly. Not only was that city heavenly, not geocentric, they were on the cusp of fully entering that city.

In Hebrews 12, the writer draws a powerful contrast between the Old System and the New. He contrasts two mountains, Sinai and Zion. It cannot be overemphasized at this juncture that there is only one Zion in Messianic prophecy. There are not two New Jerusalems, not two thrones of David, not two kingdoms of the Messiah. Thus, what the Hebrew writer affirms about Zion is incredibly significant, and, he says that his readers had come to Zion.

Hebrews was written to encourage the Jewish Christian readers from apostatizing back into Judaism. They were being persecuted for their faith (Hebrews 10:32f), and the pressure to return to their former ways was great. The writer sought to impress on them that Jesus and his New Covenant, his temple, his sacrifice, etc. were far better than the Old World. What Jesus offered them was the fulfillment of their prophetic hopes. They needed to lift their eyes from the things of this world, and see that Jesus was truly the Christ foretold by the prophets.

In the context of this exhortation the writer tells them, “You have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire” (Hebrews 12:18), an obvious referent to Sinai.85 His point is that Jesus did not call them to remain in the Old Covenant World. The Messiah’s world was not an extension of the physical Abrahamic seed line, identified by its association with a certain mountain, confined to a geocentric polis. What Jesus was offering was the fulfillment of the vision foreseen by Abraham when he saw the heavenly city.

It is important to allow the author to express himself clearly, “You have not come to the mountain that may be touched86...but you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22f). We reiterate that the prophecies of old did not foretell the establishment of two Zions, in which Jesus would rule as king and priest. Thus, since the prophets of Israel foretold the establishment of only one Messianic Zion in which the King would rule, and since the author of Hebrews said the brethren were on the verge of receiving that Zion, (“you have come to Mount Zion”), then it must be true that the Messianic predictions of Mount Zion were finding their fulfillment in the first century, and in “the church” (Hebrews 12:23).

It is important to see this text in its proper temporal setting, in light of the millennial paradigm. The millennialists, of course, suggest that Jesus came to establish the Davidic kingdom on earth and to rule from literal Jerusalem/Zion. Unfortunately, the Jewish rejection prevented this from happening. Thus, Jehovah withdrew the kingdom offer, ostensibly in Matthew 12, and established the church instead. And, from Pentecost forward none of the apostles or disciples ever offered the Messianic kingdom. The church, we are told, in no way is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies to Israel.

However, if we are to believe the author of Hebrews, he believed that the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies concerning Zion were on the verge of fulfillment.87 The prophets said that in the last days Zion would be established. The Hebrew writer said he was in the last days (Hebrews 1:1f), and “you have come to Mount Zion.” Now, unless the writer had another Zion in mind than did David in Psalms 2, than did Isaiah in chapter 2, 24, 65, etc., and unless he had a different last days in mind than did these writers (more on this below), his statement that they were on the verge of fully receiving the abiding city, the heavenly Zion, demands a rejection of the modern view that the Messiah must reign in literal Jerusalem. The city of the Messiah was/is a spiritual city, heavenly in origin and nature. It is in this city, in the same nature as this city, that Messiah was to be revealed in his parousia. 9.) The elect of Israel was receiving the fulfillment of Israel’s hope (Romans 11:7). This is an insurmountable fact. If the hope of Israel was the kingdom88 --and that kingdom was nationalistic restoration per the millennial view--then the nationalistic kingdom of Israel was being restored when Paul wrote Romans. This clearly is not the case. Israel was finding her Messianic hopes fulfilled in Christ. The nature of the kingdom is spiritual.

47

These and many other facts establish the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ. The amillennialists and postmillennialists are adamant in teaching that the kingdom arrived on Pentecost, and did so as a spiritual reality. It is

even taught that Christ came in a spiritual sense at that time according to Mark 9:1. Thus, in this paradigm the coming of Christ in the kingdom is an unseen reality because of the spiritual nature of the kingdom.

A strange thing happens however, when the parousia is discussed. The amillennialist and postmillennialists believe that the “everlasting kingdom” (2 Peter 1:11) comes at the time of Christ’s parousia. Instead of the kingdom coming without observation this time however, it is insisted that Christ will be visible to every person on the globe at the same instant, and the kingdom will be revealed in visible glory!

The amillennialist says Jesus’ Pentecost kingdom coming (Matthew 16:28), was perceptual, not optical. Yet, they then insist that Jesus’ end of the age kingdom coming must be “optical” (2 Timothy 4:1). This is a total change in hermeneutic. It is a radical change in the definition and nature of the Day of the Lord language.

What principle of hermeneutic changes the unseen, spiritual coming of Christ in the kingdom on Pentecost into the visible to every eye, physical coming of Christ in the kingdom at the end of the age? Is the kingdom to come at the parousia different than that of Pentecost? Does the kingdom change from a “not with observation” nature to a “come with observation” nature? Does the kingdom change from a spiritual to a physical nature?

We need to interject an issue of importance. Joel predicted the outpouring of the Spirit in the last days, when the kingdom would be established. Peter said that on Pentecost the Spirit was being poured out in fulfillment of Joel. However, what was seen that day was not what the language predicted. In other words, the people on Pentecost did not see the actual Spirit. They saw the sign of the outpouring of the Spirit. Likewise, they did not see the kingdom, they saw the sign of the kingly activity of Jesus: “He has shed forth this that you see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Thus, while the prophecies foretold the outpouring of the Spirit, and the coming of the kingdom, and while there were optically visible events that took place on Pentecost, what was seen was not the Spirit nor the kingdom. What was seen was the sign of these things. This idea is important, for the NT writers tell us that the fall of Jerusalem was to be the sign of the Son of Man in heaven (Matthew 24:30). Something was optical to be sure, the fall of Jerusalem, but what was optical was the sign of something greater.

The application here is, hopefully, evident. Scripture describes the Day of the Lord in terms that sounded like the end of time and creation. The language sounded like an optical event, and, optical events were present. However, what was seen optically was not what the words described. The witnesses to the Day of the Lord did not see Jehovah literally riding on a cloud, or hear Him literally shout, and they did not see the sun turn seven times brighter than normal. They did not see, optically, the heaven and earth melted. They saw, optically, armies invading countries, cities destroyed, kingdoms falling. And in those optical events, those who had eyes to see, saw, perceptually, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, at work. Those who did not have eyes to see saw only the wars and conflicts, the optical events, “Lord, when your hand is lifted up, they will not see” (Isaiah 26:9-11).

Thus, the nature of the coming/manifestation of Jehovah in the O.T. is important as a backdrop for understanding the parousia of Messiah. Jesus’ statement that all judgment was given to him, and that he would judge in like manner as the Father should force us to a closer examination of the O.T. Day of the Lord. Yet, this relationship is misunderstood or ignored by many Bible students today.

48

CHAPTER 4 JESUS’ PAROUSIA AND HIS DEITY

Jesus came into the world claiming to be the God of Israel. By His resurrection, he was declared to be, “the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness” (Romans 1:4). However, Jesus also claimed that His parousia would show Him to be God indeed.

In Matthew 24:30, Jesus said: “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven” (NKJV). This is a somewhat unhappy rendering. The ASV says, “Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.” The NASV says, “then the sign of the Son of Man in heaven will appear in the sky.” DeMar has shown that, “In heaven does not modify sign. Jesus was not telling them to look for Himself in the sky. He told them that they would see a sign that proved He was in heaven, sitting at His Father’s right hand.” (1994, 159). In other words, Jesus was telling them that in the events he was foretelling, they would come to realize that He truly is the Son of God.

As the Father had manifested His sovereignty by judging the nations, the Son had been granted judgment (John 5:19f), and would judge in the same way as the Father. The leaders of the Jews recognized this, though they did not like it.

When Jesus was on trial before Caiaphas, that conniver challenged him, “I adjure you by the Living God that You tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). Jesus’ response shocked the high priest, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). Jesus’ claim to come on the clouds elicited an immediate response “He has spoken blasphemy!”Why such a reaction?

As we have seen above, Caiaphas understood that only Deity rides the clouds (see Psalms 104:3). Jehovah makes His way in the whirlwind (Nahum 1:3). Only God rode the clouds into Egypt (Isaiah 19:1). Only the Almighty makes His abode in the clouds (Psalms 97:2). The coming on the clouds of heaven was linked with Deity (Cf. DeMar, 154). For Jesus, therefore, to claim that He was going to come on the clouds of heaven was not a claim to come physically, nor visibly with the human eye. It was a claim to Deity. Jesus would come on the clouds just as His Father had. Jesus’ application, to himself, of the Old Testament predictions of the Day of Jehovah, was astounding. Such claims called forth the charge of blasphemy, as we have just seen.

Paul confirmed that the parousia was linked with Jesus’ claim to Deity. In 1 Timothy 6:14-15, the apostle told his favorite “son ” to remain faithful until the appearing (epiphany) of Jesus, “which shall manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings.” Jesus’ parousia would prove that He is the Son of God, because He would do what the Father had always done!

This text takes on extra meaning when we see that Paul says the epiphany of Jesus, would reveal, “He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords.” He then describes the attributes of this One: “Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” (My emphasis)

Many believe that Paul was speaking here of the Father, and that the parousia would reveal Him. We have no doubt that this is partially true. However, it fails to consider that Jesus is the Son of God, and that the parousia was for the purpose of revealing Him as Deity. Twice, Revelation says Jesus is “The King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The Father had committed all judgment to the Son so that all men would honor the Son as they honor the Father. Jesus shares the glory of the Father, as King of kings, as God.

The parousia therefore, was not to reveal Jesus as man. Jeffrey is wrong to claim, “Christ’s glorious return will demonstrate both His humanity and His divinity.” (2001, 156). Christ’s coming was to reveal Him in the glory of the Father. Jesus left the world of the flesh, never to enter it again (Hebrews 9:12, 28). He entered once again into the world of the Father, the world of the Light. The Father gave Him the glory He had shared with Him before time, the glory of God (John 17:5). Are we to ignore the fact that Paul said no man can see God, and the fact that Jesus was to be revealed as God?

49

Remember that in the Old Testament Day of the Lord, Jehovah was revealed. His majesty, power, righteousness, and Name were revealed by His sovereign acts of judgment (Isaiah 26:9f), not by His visible appearance! Jehovah was invisible as far as optical appearance is concerned, yet, He “came down out His place” (Micah 1:3f), against Israel. He rode “on a swift cloud” into Egypt (Isaiah 19:1f). He came with a shout, with the fiery blast, and the trumpet (Isaiah 30:30; 31:4f), against the Assyrians. In these and other epiphanies, the world saw but did not see, God coming. Thus, just as the invisible God manifested Himself in historical acts of judgment against His enemies, and was said to come, on the clouds, with the angels, with a shout, in flaming fire, etc., Jesus said that at His coming, He was coming in the glory of the Father, to be revealed as King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus was not coming as a man. He was to be revealed as God, as the invisible God! A comparative chart may help to visualize the direct correlation between the parousia of Jehovah, and the parousia of Jesus.

Old Testament Day of Lord (Jehovah)

New Testament Day of the Lord, Jesus Christ

Came on the clouds

Would come on the clouds

With a shout

With a shout

Came with fire

Come with fire

Came with His “mighty ones”

Come with His “mighty ones”

Destroyed “heaven and earth”

Destroy “heaven and earth”

Avenged innocent blood

Avenge innocent blood

Came to be Glorified in His actions

Would be glorified at his coming

His parousia revealed Him as Lord, “They shall know that I am the Lord.”

His parousia would reveal Him as Lord of lords.

His appearance was not a literal, bodily coming

A literal, physical coming ??????????????????????

To emphasize the humanity of Jesus in regard to the parousia is misguided. Christ’s coming was to reveal Him as King of kings and Lord of lords!

50

This comparison chart shows that we have every right to ask for the hermeneutical principle that changes the entire history of the Day of the Lord

language, to the prediction of a literal, end of time epiphany of Jesus, being revealed as King of kings and Lord of lords, in the New Testament. The fact that Jesus said he was coming “in the glory of the Father” and that he was going to act in judgment as he had seen the Father act, should be determinative for defining the nature of Christ’s parousia. His coming, to reveal him as God, is at the core of the issue of the nature of his parousia. Yet, this issue is virtually ignored in theological literature today.

Titus 2:13, is one of the most powerful statements about the identity of Jesus in his appearing, “Looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing (epiphany) of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Knight says, “This is one of the infrequent, but important, occasions where Jesus is specifically designated theos, ‘God.’ The use of theos makes explicit what is implicit elsewhere in the NT, where Jesus is said to have the attributes of God, to do the work of God, and to receive the worship and allegiance due only to God.”89

Some have attempted to mitigate Titus 2 as a referent to the revelation of Jesus as “the Great God” because, simply stated, they do not believe in the Deity of Jesus. However, Mounce examines Titus 2:13f in-depth, analyzing the Greek text and the suggested interpretations, and demonstrates that the only grammatically correct, contextually justified rendering of the text is that Paul was speaking of the appearing (epiphany) of Jesus as the Great God.90 Jesus’ actions would reveal Him to be God!

As seen above, this is confirmed in Revelation. The Son of Man comes on the clouds of heaven in judgment against the mystical city Babylon (Revelation 1:7; 14:8f), and is revealed to be “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 17:14; 19:11-16), in His judgment against the city, “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8).

The association of the cloud coming of Jesus with the claim to Deity and, therefore, authority of judgment, is critical to understanding the nature of the parousia. Just as Jehovah came on the clouds many times, but was never visibly seen, Jesus, the Son of God, would manifest His Deity by coming on the clouds in judgment. This flies in the face of the futurist view about the nature of the Lord’s coming.

As we have seen, Ice suggests that Jesus’ Incarnation as a physical human being demands a physical parousia. He further cites Ryrie, “Why is an earthly kingdom necessary? Did he not receive the inheritance when he was raised and exalted to heaven? Is not His present rule His inheritance? Why does there need to be an earthly kingdom? Because He must be triumphant in the same arena where He was seemingly defeated. His rejection by the rulers of this world was on this earth (1 Corinthians 2:8) His exaltation must be on this earth.” (Prophecy, 231)

Bock suggests the same principle, emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, his physical healings, the feeding of the multitudes, and Jesus’ resurrection. (Bock, 241+). However, as we shall see, the physicality of Jesus’ Incarnation is the very reason why his parousia, to reveal him as Deity, could not be a physical coming. First, however, we must address the issue of Jesus’ victory within the realm of his humiliation.

51

CHAPTER 5 THE PAROUSIA AND MARTYR VINDICATION

We have already touched on this issue above, but it is necessary to emphasize it here as it directly relates to the nature of the parousia. Jesus warned his followers that if they would truly be his disciples they must “take up your cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). He warned them that the world would hate them, and would, as a matter of fact, believe that killing them would be a service to God (John 16:2).

The threat of persecution was, however, also followed, in passage after passage, by the promise of vindication and relief.91 Further, that promised vindication is invariably posited in the context of Christ’s judgment coming in the glory of the Father. A survey of some of the key New Testament passages that contain this motif is in order.

Before we begin this investigation however, we must take special note, once again, of Matthew 23:29f, for it is especially significant for helping us identify the realm, the nature, and the time of the martyrdom vindication. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? He prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (KJV)

There are several points that make this passage so meaningful. First, Jesus emphatically places on Israel the guilt for the historical persecution of Jehovah’s elect. Remember that the northern tribes were judged for shedding the blood of the innocent (Isaiah 1:15), and Jerusalem was called a city with blood of the prophets and innocent on her hands (Jeremiah 2:30, 34; 7:6). Thus, Jesus’ accusation against Jerusalem and Israel in Matthew 23 could be called a “typical” prophetic denuciation, well in line with the prophets that went before him. Second, Jesus said that the blood guilt extended all the way back to Creation! As Hagner says, “The Jewish religious leadership, represented by the scribes and Pharisees, will not only be guilty of the blood of Jesus and those whom he sends, but will also be considered in principle guilty of the blood of the O.T. prophets murdered by their fathers. Because of their solidarity with their fathers’ evil deeds, they become guilty of pan aima dikaion, ‘all innocent blood,’ from that of the first person murdered in the O.T. to the last.”92

Further, what needs to be seen in Jesus’ comprehensive statement is that the consummative judgment on Israel, that predicted by Moses in his Song (Deuteronomy 32) for the last days, was what he was predicting. While Jehovah had judged Israel in the past for killing the innocent, Moses had predicted a “final judgment” to bring Israel’s bloody history to its close. This is what Jesus was contemplating. Third, Jesus said that Israel had killed the prophets, would kill him (Matthew 21-22), and would kill the prophets that he would send. Fourth, Jesus said Israel’s bloody history would reach its zenith, finally filling up the measure of her guilt. Although, as seen, Jehovah had punished Israel for her sanguine ways before, He had never made a full end of her (Jeremiah 4:27). However, Daniel had foretold that Israel would eventually fill up the measure of her sin, and the “full end,” the overwhelming flood would bring her history to its end (Daniel 9:24-27).

52

Fifth, Jesus said Israel would fill the measure of her guilt in “this generation”; that was Jesus’ generation. Sixth, Jesus said judgment for that bloody history would occur in his generation. It must not be forgotten at this juncture that when Jehovah judged Israel and Judah for shedding innocent blood, that it was called the Day of Jehovah. He came out of heaven and walked on the mountains (Micah 1:3f, and the earth became without form and void (Jeremiah 4:25f). Yet, as we have seen, the language was metaphoric, and spoke of in history events, not time ending, cosmos destroying appearances of Jehovah. Not only is this true, but remember, the Old Testament also predicted that in the last days Jehovah would come, and finally judge the blood guilt of Israel (Isaiah 2:10-12; 19-21; 4:1-4). There is no reason whatsoever to see Jesus’ prediction of his coming against Jerusalem, in judgment for shedding the blood of the prophets, and killing him, in any other light than an in history parousia. Seventh, it is almost universally admitted that in these verses Jesus spoke of the judgment coming on Israel. As seen, even dispensationalists agree that this text is “an undeniable reference to A.D. 70.” (Tribulation, 103).

Matthew 23:29f serves as the normative, controlling text in the NT93 for the discussion of martyr vindication, and as such, demands a radical re-evaluation of the “Second Coming” predictions. The martyrs of God would be vindicated, and their persecutors judged, in Jesus’ generation. However, the rest of the NT says t the martyrs of God would be vindicated, and their persecutors judged, at the parousia of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the parousia of Jesus Christ would be in Jesus’ generation!

We turn now to a demonstration of the fact that the NT posits the vindication of the martyrs in Jesus’ generation, and in the context of the parousia. For brevity, we cannot comment on every NT text that contains the motif of martyrdom/suffering and vindication. We can only briefly comment on some texts, while emphasizing some of the other, more significant and controversial ones. MATTHEW 10:22-23 Jesus warned his disciples that as they went proclaiming the kingdom they would be persecuted. He assured them however, that as they fled throughout the cities of Israel, before their flight was completed, the Son of Man would come. Clearly, the passage deals with Jesus’ disciples that were alive at the time, and to whom he gave the specific commission. It is untenable to suggest, as does the millennialist, that Jesus was not addressing the disciples around him at that time, but was instead speaking of people and times far removed from them.

It is equally untenable to suggest, as some, noted by Beiderwolf,94 that Jesus had in mind a long extended mission, beginning in his day, and continuing until the end of the world centuries later. McKnight is correct to state, “It simply will not do to suggest that Jesus envisioned an indeterminate time, stretching perhaps for millennia, for the mission to the Jews. This attributes nonsense to Jesus; why suggest to fleeing missionaries that they may, after all, never be delivered from their flight if the Son of Man waits for millennia?” (Vision, 134)

The point is, Jesus told his disciples they were going to face certain persecution (cf. Matthew 24:9f; John 16, etc.), but, they could rest assured in the promise that He was coming to vindicate them and bring vengeance on their persecutors. Vindication of martyrdom/suffering is very much present in the text. Knight says it well, “The disciples will escape persecution because God will act to vindicate Jesus, as the Son of Man, by permitting Rome to wreak God’s vengeance on a disobedient people. Accordingly, Jesus implies in this logion that the time is short for Israel to respond.” (Vision, 135). The Parables of Jesus In parabolic form, Jesus recounted the bloody history of Israel in rejecting Jehovah’s messengers, and in fact, killing the righteous. In these parables, he also taught that God was about to act in vindication of His suffering servants. It is a tragedy of great proportions,95

Matthew 23 is the controlling text for discussions of the vindication of God’s martyrs, and the judgment of their persecutors.

53

only lately being corrected in some of the literature, that the eschatological content of Jesus’ parables is given little attention, or is greatly distorted.96

Marshall stated: “There is no doubt that Jesus saw His own ministry as a time of crisis for his contemporaries, and it is generally admitted that He looked ahead to a developing situation which involved disaster for the Jewish nation.” (Parables, 35) While Marshall said many commentators recognize that the parables taught about the impending judgment on Israel, to actually read the commentaries suggests that they thought this aspect of Jesus’ message was all but insignificant. We will only give a short notice to three eschatological parables that touch on the idea of the avenging of the saints.

Matthew 21:33-46 A Master let out his vineyard to caretakers. When the time of harvest arrived, the Master sent his servants to collect the fruit. The servants were beaten and rejected. This occurred repeatedly until the Master sent his son. The son was not only rejected, but slain. Jesus posed the question “when he comes, what will he do to those vine dressers?” The Jews spoke their own condemnation when they said the Master would utterly destroy them. Jesus agreed. The coming of the Master to avenge his servants is clearly a prediction of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70. Matthew 22:1-14 The Father prepared a wedding banquet for His son, and sent his servants to invite those who had already been invited. The

servants were mistreated and killed. The father then sent his armies and burnt the city of the wicked men. Hagner is certainly correct to say, “It is virtually impossible for post-70 readers of the Gospel not to see the destruction of Jerusalem alluded to in these words.” (Matthew, 630) Luke 18:1-8 Jesus told his disciples to“ pray and not faint” because of the trying times coming on them (17:24f). The parable of the Unjust

Judge, who vindicated the Widow woman lays the foundation for Jesus’ promise, “Shall not God avenge his elect, who cry day and night unto Him, though He bear long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily.” Jesus promised that the suffering saints would be vindicated “speedily.” Jesus’ promise in Matthew 23 determines the meaning of “speedily.” Jesus said all the martyrs would be vindicated in his generation.97 Thus, the

“speedily” must be seen within the context of that generation. Unless one can prove conclusively that Matthew 23 and Luke 18 refer to different martyrs, and a different vindication, at a different time, then Jesus’ promise, that all of the martyrs, all the way back to Creation, would be vindicated in the judgment of Israel, must control Luke 18. This means that the promise of the parousia, in Luke 18, was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

In these parables, it is clear that Jesus is referring to Israel’s long history of killing the prophets, as he does in Matthew 23. It is undeniable that Jesus saw Israel’s time of reckoning for violent crimes against the righteous as near. The time of the harvest had arrived (Matthew 3; John 4), all things were ready for the feast!

The idea of the vindication of the martyrs is presented in these three parables in the context of the “coming” of the Master (Matthew 21:39-40), at the time of the Wedding. (Please note that the wedding was not postponed due to the recalcitrance of the invited guests!), and the coming of Christ {from erchomai, Luke 18:8}. This is devastating for the millennial view).

The vindication of the martyrs of God, and judgment of the persecutors, is, therefore, clearly presented in an eschatological context. It is presented in the context of the coming of the Lord and the Messianic Banquet. In Luke 18:1-8, we not only find the promise of vindication, but evidence that this vindication was coming very soon, at the parousia of Jesus Christ. In each of the parables examined, the vindication refers to the judgment of Israel in A. D. 70.

We turn now to consider one of the major eschatological promises of the New Testament, which, upon first blush, does not seem to discuss the vindication of the martyrs or judgment of the persecutors. However, to miss this connection is to fail to understand the text.

54

ROMANS 11:25-28

The question of what exactly Paul had in mind, when he predicted the salvation of Israel, continues to perplex commentators. In the brief comments to follow, we hope to present some material that will be helpful in understanding this passage as it relates to Pauline eschatology.

Our theme under consideration is the vindication of the martyrs and judgment of the oppressors as these topics relate to the nature of the parousia. It is our contention that the time of the vindication/judgment was the historical Day of the Lord against Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and is not, Biblically, related to an end of time, physical coming of Christ.

It might be suggested that Romans 11:25f has no bearing on our topic. However, a proper understanding of the prophetic background of the text gives every reason to see vindication and judgment in this passage. In fact, properly understood, the salvation of Israel, set forth here, must be understood as only coming through eschatological transformation. Put another way, Israel’s salvation would only come through Israel’s judgment.

Paul says, “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” Paul alludes here to three Old Covenant promises, Isaiah 27; Isaiah 59, and Jeremiah 31. We will focus our attention on the two passages in Isaiah.

Isaiah did foretell the salvation of Israel. However, contrary to Ice98 and most dispensationalists who insist that God would deliver her from destruction and judgment, the scripture is clear that God would save Israel by means of judgment, by means of transforming her.

Wright says, “There was a belief hammered out, not in abstract debate, but in and through poverty, exile torture and martyrdom, that Israel’s sufferings might be, not merely a state from which she would, in YHWH’s good time, be saved and redeemed, but paradoxically, under certain circumstances and in certain sense, part of the means by which that redemption would be effected.” (Victory, 591)

In Isaiah 2-4, as we have seen above, the prophet stated that God would take away the blood-guilt of Israel, “by the spirit of fire and the spirit of judgment.” That theme of removing the blood guilt is carried through in Isaiah 24-29, and in chapters 26-27.

Israel’s blood guilt is one of the recurrent themes in Isaiah’s last days predictions. Jehovah promised that in the last days, the Lord would, “come out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, for the earth will disclose her blood, and will no more cover her slain” (26:19f). It is Israel, and her land, that is depicted as being “full of blood”(Isaiah 1:15). Yet, in the last days, Jehovah would come in judgment, and that blood guilt would be removed. See again our discussion above on the law of Blood Atonement.

Blood guilt could only be atoned by the death of the murderer (Numbers 35). There could be no ransom or deliverance from judgment (Numbers 35:21). In the prophetic scriptures, Israel is depicted as the murderer of God’s elect (cf. Nehemiah 9:26). Isaiah predicted that in the last days Israel would finally fill the measure of her sin, judgment would fall, and she would be destroyed in the Day of the Lord (Isaiah 65:6-17). This theme of atonement by destruction is foretold in Isaiah 27, one of the source passages for Paul’s prediction of Israel’s salvation.

The prophet says, “By this the iniquity of Jacob shall be covered; And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar like chalk stones that are beaten to dust, wooden images and incense altars shall not stand.” Israel’s’s sin would be atoned when she was judged in such a way that her altar was destroyed, turned into dust!99

Our point in regard to Romans 11 is this. Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel. One of the sources for his prediction was Isaiah 27. Yet, Isaiah 27 foretold Israel’s salvation through, not from, judgment, at the coming of the Lord-- because of her blood guilt. And, Jesus said Israel’s blood guilt would reach its zenith, and be avenged in his generation with the destruction of Jerusalem. Thus, Israel would be “saved through judgment,” the judgment that would come because of blood guilt, at the coming of the Lord against Israel in A. D. 70.

55

This amounts to a clear-cut demonstration that the parousia was not to be a literal coming of Jesus in a physical body. He was to come “in the glory of the Father” by means of the Romans. Just as the Father had come against Israel, in the Day of Jehovah by means of the Assyrians, due to her blood guilt (Amos 5; Isaiah 1; Micah 1), and had come against Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord due to her blood guilt (Jeremiah 2:30-34; Zephaniah 1:14f), by means of the Babylonians, Jesus, the Son of God would come in the glory of the Father, against Israel, by means of the Romans, for shedding righteous blood.

We would interject the following. Blood atonement on Israel at the parousia does not fit the millennial scheme, for they do not predict that Israel will persecute the church before the Second Coming. Yet, it is at the Day of the Lord that Israel would be judged for shedding innocent blood. As we have seen, the millennialists (normally) freely admit that Jesus’ dire predictions of Israel’s judgment in Matthew 23 refers to the A.D. 70 judgment. This is, in fact, a fatal admission, for the judgment of Matthew 23 is comprehensive, encompassing all the martyrs back to Creation, as well as Christian martyrs. If the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70 was so time and martyr inclusive, then it hardly leaves room for a yet future judgment of the persecutors and vindication of the martyrs.

Further, according to Luke 21:20-24, a text that virtually all millennialists agree speaks of A. D. 70, the judgment of A. D. 70 fulfilled all of God’s promises concerning vengeance. This is devastating to the millennial paradigm. Jesus emphatically stated, “These (the days of the A. D. 70 judgment, DKP) be the days of vengeance when all things that are written must be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22). Now, if the judgment of A. D. 70 fulfilled all things that were written concerning vengeance (even if you limit that vengeance to vengeance on Israel100), then patently, this includes the predictions that in the last days God would save Israel by the spirit of judgment (Isaiah 2-4), when He smashed their altars (Isaiah 27) and when He came out of Zion to avenge their blood guilt (Isaiah 59). What part of “all things that are written” is excluded from Jesus’ prediction in Luke 21?

Millennialists admit the future holds vengeance against Israel. Ice even admits that before the parousia, Jerusalem is destroyed (Zechariah 14), to such an extent that, “Tragically, according to Zechariah 13:7-9, two-thirds of the Jewish population will have been killed during the tribulation.” (Prophecy, 194). But how could this be? Jesus said that “all (not some, or most! DKP) things that are written” would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events A.D. 70 judgment.

Further, the millennialists claim that the yet future Great Tribulation will be the greatest the world has ever seen, surpassing WWI and II, and most assuredly, we are told, the A.D. 70 judgment. It is asserted that the yet future catastrophe is foretold in Matthew 24:21. This means of course, that although Jesus foretold the A. D. 70 judgment, and said that in it “all (again, not some, or most!, DKP) things that are written must be fulfilled,” he did not really mean all things that are written, because, in the millennial paradigm, many, if not most, of the Old Testament predictions concerning Israel and vengeance were not fulfilled at that time! (e.g. Isaiah 2-4, Isaiah 24-29, Isaiah 34-35, Isaiah 60-66, Daniel 9-12, Zechariah 12-14, etc., are passages that contain predictions of vengeance on Israel, passages that millennialists posit as future.)

Jesus said “all things that are written” would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22). Yet, the millennial view says that in that event very little of what was written was actually fulfilled, and none of the last days predictions were fulfilled. This is incongruous, scripturally, given the demonstration above that Jesus appeared in the last days foretold by the prophets, he came to fulfill their predictions, and said that in the fall of Jerusalem all things written would be fulfilled. The millennial posit alters the words of Jesus. He said all things written would be fulfilled; the millennialists says little of what was written was fulfilled.

56

It is sad to see how far millennialists will go to maintain their doctrine. Commenting on Luke 21:20-24, MacArthur says, “Yet those were not, in the words of Luke 21:22, ‘the days of vengeance, (when) all things which are written may be fulfilled. Christ did not return visibly in A.D. 70. The opposing armies were not defeated by His presence. All Israel was not saved.” (1999, 104).

Do you catch what MacArthur said? In spite of the fact that he agrees that Luke 21:20-24 speaks of the A.D. 70 event, and in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said, “These be the days of vengeance when all things that are written may be fulfilled,” MacArthur, denies the Lord’s words because of his preconceived ideas of the parousia and the nature of Israel’s salvation. Could anything more clearly demonstrate the need to bring preconceived ideas into line with the inspired text? Anytime man is willing to deny what Jesus said, in order to support a traditional doctrine, there is something dramatically wrong with the doctrine!101

To return to the discussion of Isaiah 27, therefore, we reiterate our point. Paul anticipated the salvation of Israel in fulfillment of Isaiah 27. Isaiah 27 foretold the salvation of Israel through judgment, not from judgment. That judgment would be at the coming of the Lord when He came in judgment because of Israel’s blood guilt. But, Jesus said that Israel would fill up her blood guilt and be destroyed in his generation. Therefore, the coming of the Lord to judge/save Israel for her blood guilt, would occur in the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70. This is further strengthened by an examination of the main prophecy cited by Paul, Isaiah 59.

ISAIAH 59, BLOOD ATONEMENT, AND ISRAEL’S SALVATION

Isaiah 59 naturally breaks itself into three divisions: Accusation, Acknowledgment, Action. Let us briefly explain each of these divisions. • ACCUSATION In verses 1-8, Jehovah accuses Israel of being almost hopelessly sinful. Among her sins, “Your hands are defiled with blood” (v. 3) Hosea, contemporary of Isaiah, described her blood guilt, “they break all restraint. With bloodshed upon bloodshed” (Hosea 4:2). • ACKNOWLEDGMENT In verses 9-15, Israel confesses her sin. Salvation is far from her, “justice is far from us, nor does righteousness over take us, we look for light and there is none, ....justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off, truth is fallen in the streets.” (v. 9, 15). • ACTION Jehovah “Saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no justice...therefore,... He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad in zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay. Fury to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; the coast lands He will fully repay. So shall they fear the name of the Lord...The Redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob” (v. 16f).

Isaiah 59 then, Paul’s main source of appeal for the salvation of Israel, is in fact, a prediction of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. This fits the context of Romans 11 quite well.

Romans 10-11 sets forth the recalcitrance of Israel toward the gospel (10:16f), the message of their salvation. In 10:21, Paul directly quotes from Isaiah 65:2 to speak of Israel’s rebellion. The significant thing about this is that in Isaiah 65, the prophet foretold that Israel was going to fill the measure of her sin and be destroyed. Israel’s rebellion--including the shedding of innocent blood--would reach its height, and Jehovah would come and destroy her. However, this

Jesus said “all things that are written” would be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22). Yet, the millennial view says that in that event very little of what was written was actually fulfilled, and none of the last days predictions were fulfilled!

Anytime man is willing to flatly deny what Jesus said, in order to support a traditional doctrine, there is something dramatically wrong with the doctrine!

57

destruction would result in, and be followed by, the New Creation (65:6-19). In the first century generation, as the gospel went forth “to the Jew first, and then to the Greek” (Romans 1:16-17), the Jews not only refused to

accept the message of a Torah free, Gentile equal, kingdom, they killed the messengers who proclaimed that message. Remember that Paul was writing in the midst of persecution (Romans 5, 8, 12) that was instigated by the Jews. Paul himself had been a persecutor of the Way, killing and imprisoning followers of Christ on the behalf of the leadership of Israel (cf. Acts 21-22; Galatians 1; 1 Timothy 1).

Thus, in Romans 10-11, Paul directly quotes from two Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s salvation, and those prophecies anticipated the Lord’s judgment coming against Israel for shedding the blood of the righteous. This is significant in light of Matthew 23.

Jesus said Israel would fill the measure of her sin, the sin of shedding the blood of the righteous, and be destroyed, in his generation. The martyrs created by Israel’s blood guilt, described in Isaiah, would be included in Jesus’ promise that all of the martyrs all the way back to Creation would be avenged in his generation. If they are included, and who could exclude them, then one cannot exclude the promises of Isaiah from the purview of Jesus in Matthew 23---or Luke 21:22!

Isaiah (2-4, 24-29, 59, and 65-66) said Israel would be saved when she was judged for her blood guilt. Paul said Israel would be saved when Isaiah 27 and 59 was fulfilled (Romans 11:26f). Jesus said Israel would be judged for her blood guilt in his generation, in the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 23). This can only mean that Paul’s prediction of Romans 11:26f was fulfilled in the Day of the Lord against Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

There are only a few limited ways to discount these conclusion. 1.) It would have to be shown that Matthew 23 is unrelated to the predictions of Isaiah. However, Isaiah’s predictions foretold the very things Jesus spoke of, and Jesus came to confirm the promises to Israel. He came in the last days, the time foretold by Isaiah. It would be next to impossible to delineate therefore, between the prophecies of Isaiah and Matthew, in spite of the fact that many futurists ignore the connection. 2.) It would have to be shown that while Paul cites Isaiah, he did not have the actual prophecies in mind. In other words, Paul just happened to use the language, without intending to appeal to the actual prophecy, of Isaiah. This accuses Paul of a degree of deception, since any reader aware of the predictive context from which he quotes would naturally believe that his citation of those texts had the purpose of bringing the prophecies to mind. 3.) It would have to be shown that while Paul does quote from Isaiah, there are actually two different comings of the Lord under discussion, the judgment on Israel for persecuting the elect, per Matthew 23, and a yet future parousia, unrelated to that foretold by Isaiah. Of course, this means that Paul did not inform his readers that he was predicting a different coming of the Lord than the one foretold in the prophecy he quotes! 4.) Somewhat related to #1, if one takes the position that Isaiah’s prophecies remain unfulfilled, per millennialism, then it would be necessary to teach that in the future, Israel will once again be guilty of persecuting the saints of God, and will be judged at Christ’s parousia. This flies in the face of the millennial view, because it is suggested that immediately before the parousia, Israel is in distress, ready to be annihilated, but suddenly repents, calls on the Lord, and is delivered from her enemies, specifically the Antichrist. Jesus appears from heaven and delivers Israel from that evil one.

Of course this paradigm completely convolutes Isaiah’s predictions. In Isaiah’s predictions, it is the Lord who comes in judgment because of Israel’s sin, not because of her repentance. Further, as noted, in Isaiah, it is Jehovah who attacks Israel, but in the millennial view, it is the Antichrist who attacks them, and Jehovah who delivers.

Does the millennial view provide for Israel to again be the persecutor of the elect? I have not found this idea in the millennial literature. Further, if that view were espoused it would mean that Israel would not be the focus of Christ’s redemptive work, but the elect.

58

Does the millennial posit provide for Israel to be the persecuted or the persecutor? Clearly, the millennial view is that in the future, Israel becomes the persecuted (along with Christians, cf. Prophecy, 60), but the point is, that millennialism ignores the evidence that in the prophecies we have cited, Israel is the focus of God’s judgment. And, she is the focus of that judgment for persecuting God’s faithful servants. It is not some Antichrist depicted in Isaiah 2-4, 26-29, 59-66; Zechariah 12-14, etc. that is guilty of persecuting Israel, it is Israel that is guilty of the persecution! This does not fit the millennial view.

Even in Zechariah 12-14, we find that it would be those who pierced the Messiah that would mourn (cf. Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7). This suggests, as Revelation 1:7 indicates in its citation of Zechariah 12:10, that Israel would be the focus of the judgment parousia.102

In the Old Testament predictions, the topic is the Day of the Lord. However, modern commentators, especially the millennialists, divorce the Day of the Lord from the first century destruction of Jerusalem, even though Jesus plainly said that in that event all of the Old Testament predictions of vengeance on Israel for shedding the blood of the righteous were to be fulfilled. Clearly, if the Old Covenant prophets said the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was to be in the Day of the Lord, and if Jesus said the judgment on Israel for shedding the blood of the righteous was to occur in his generation, then this is nothing less than a statement that the Day of the Lord was to occur in Jesus’ generation.

The prediction of Christ’s coming in the fall of Jerusalem positively identifies the nature of the Day of the Lord. In Matthew 23, Jesus was not, as admitted by virtually all commentators,103 predicting that he was coming physically, to end time, and destroy the universe. He was coming to be sure, in the glory of the Father, by means of the Romans. This judgment coming would be the time of Israel’s final salvation.

IDENTIFYING THE PERSECUTORS AND THE PERSECUTED At the risk of being redundant, we must emphasize what perhaps might already seem apparent from the study just above. That is, the vitally

important question of the identity of the persecutors and the persecuted in the eschatological theme of the vindication of the martyrs. This is important because, for instance, in the millennial paradigm, in the last days it is Israel that is the object of persecution at the hands of the infamous Man of Sin. Although millennialism makes some brief mention of Christian martyrs in the tribulation period, it is chiefly Israel that is set forth as the object of persecution. Thus, in the millennial view of things, Israel is the persecuted, and the persecution of the church is only a peripheral concept. However, this is not the Biblical concept.

As we have just shown, in the O.T. predictions of the last days vindication of the blood of the righteous, it is invariably Israel that is depicted as being guilty of shedding the blood of God’s elect. There is no pagan anti-christ or Man of Sin spoken of in Isaiah 2-4 or 24-29, or in Isaiah 65-66. The same is true of Zechariah 12-14. In Zechariah 12:10f, mention is made of those who would look on him whom they had pierced. This is, as we shall see, a judgment on Israel for killing Jesus, not a deliverance of Israel from judgment. In other words, it identifies Israel as the persecutor, not as the persecuted.

Jesus came, in the last days, and said Israel was to be judged, for killing the righteous, in his generation, and in that judgment, “all things that are written” would be fulfilled. Clearly, the Day of the Lord was coming in Jesus’ generation, in the fall of Jerusalem!

59

The same idea is more finely developed in the New Testament. Throughout his parabolic teaching, as seen above, Jesus pointed the finger at Israel, never at any foreign power, never at any mystical Antichrist, never at any Man of Sin,104 as the single entity guilty of shedding the blood of the saints, “It is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem!” (Luke 13:31f).

If Israel is the focus of the last days judgment for persecuting the saints, upon what basis is it claimed that Israel is persecuted in the last days? On November 25, 2001, on the radio program Voice of Reason,105 I debated Thomas Ice. He insisted that Matthew 24 speaks of the deliverance of Israel from the Great Tribulation persecution of verses 15f.. His idea for this is that Matthew 24 has no reference to first century events. Of course, this view denies the text. We must address the idea that Matthew 24 speaks of the deliverance of Israel from persecution.

The context of Matthew 24 is most assuredly Jesus’ prediction that, “Not one stone shall be left standing on top of another” (Matthew 24:2). To suggest, as Ice did in the debate, that it is an “assumption” that Matthew 24 discusses what Jesus had just predicted, and what the disciples had asked about, is rather remarkable. It is rather presumptuous to claim that Jesus did not answer the questions about the topic that he had introduced! In the millennial view of Matthew 24, Jesus brought up the topic of the Temple’s destruction, the disciples asked about it, but he refused to say anything about it!

Nonetheless, in the Olivet Discourse, Israel is in fact persecuted. However, it is not according to the millennial scheme. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus lamented the fact that he had desired to “gather” Israel to him as a mother hen gathers her chicks. Matthew used a very distinct word to speak of that gathering. It is a cognate of the Greek word episunagogee (_πισυvαγει). It is a compound form of the word from whence comes the normal word synagogue. See the lexicons. For now, we wish to make a few very quick observations.

Jesus said that he had desired to “gather together” Israel to him (Matthew 23:37). However, Israel refused, and the result was, “Behold, your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38). Israel’s refusal to be synagogued with Jesus meant their Temple was doomed. Jesus then turned to his disciples and foretold further the demise of that Temple. The disciples inquired about when it would occur and the signs of its coming. We have shown that the Jews associated the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age and the parousia.

Jesus began to warn his disciples that he was going to send them out to proclaim the gospel (Matthew 24:14), and as they went they were to be persecuted, “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you” (Matthew 24:9). In the parallel text of Mark 13:9, Jesus told them they would be brought before the councils (sunedria, i.e. Sanhedrins), and beaten in the synagogues. This is Jewish persecution of the followers of Jesus. This is not a persecution of Israel by the Antichrist or the Man of Sin.

However, Jesus promised the disciples that when they saw the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place, they were to flee because then would come the tribulation promised by Daniel 9:24-27. What must not be missed is that the Abomination of Desolation can only be viewed as a judgment on Israel. It was not to result from some imaginary broken treaty between a Man of Sin and Israel.106 In other words, the Abomination of Desolation was proof, not of Israel’s special status before God, it was proof of her sin before God (cf. Leviticus 26:14, 17f)! As such, Israel was not going to be delivered from the judgment that Jesus was bringing on them! It was Jesus coming in judgment of Israel. To suggest that Israel was going to be delivered from the persecution that He was bringing on them for their sin is tantamount to saying that Jesus was going to deliver Israel from Himself!

That judgment was the beginning of the desolation of the house of Israel anticipated in Matthew 23:38, that was the result of Israel’s persecution of the church. As Goldenberg has correctly noted, “Numerous Biblical passages make clear that the prophets insistently asserted a connection

In scripture, Israel would be persecuted for persecuting the church. And, she is never delivered from that persecution, as is the church. Instead, Israel is destroyed “from the presence of the Lord.” (2 Thessalonians 1). There is no Biblical doctrine of the deliverance of Israel from end times persecution.

60

between national wickedness and national disaster; they are described as having repeated over and over again that Israel was violating its Covenant obligations and could only expect catastrophe in return.107

The Abomination of Desolation, and the resulting fall of Jerusalem, are not divorced from Israel’s persecution of the church, they are inextricably linked together. Israel had rejected being gathered to Christ into his synagogue, and would attempt to destroy his new Temple. However, the tables

would be turned, and the persecutors, Israel, would become the persecuted. In typical apocalyptic language, as demonstrated above, Jesus described the demise of

Israel’s Theocracy. Her sun would be darkened, her moon would not give its light, and the powers of the heaven would be shaken (Matthew 24:29f). Then, Jesus said he would send forth the angels “and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds” (Matthew 24:31). The word rendered “gather together” is the same word used in Matthew 23:37.

What we have then, in Matthew 23-24, is book-end usages of the same distinctive word. Jesus desired to synagogue Israel to him. She refused however, and as a result, she was

doomed to desolation. The message of the coming destruction was to be taken into all the world, as a witness to what was about to happen. The Old Synagogue was to be crushed. In its place, Jesus was sending forth the message, the invitation to all men, Jew and Gentile alike, to be gathered together in “one body in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10; 2:12f). What Matthew 24:31 describes is the ultimate salvation of Israel through eschatological transformation, as foretold by the prophets. It is not however, a nationalistic restoration, but a gathering of the remnant, along with the Gentiles, to form the New Synagogue.

Just as the gathering of Matthew 23:37 was a spiritual gathering into the blessings of Christ’s body, the gathering of Matthew 24:31 was a spiritual gathering as well. To suggest that Jesus radically altered the meaning of episunagogee in Matthew 23:37, from a spiritual gathering, to a literal, physical gathering in Matthew 24:31, would be a violation of hermeneutical principles.

What we are suggesting therefore, is that Israel is indeed the object of persecution in Matthew 24. However, contra Ice and the millennial view, Israel is persecuted for persecuting the church, the New Synagogue of Messiah. Israel is not delivered from that persecution in the Olivet Discourse. She is posited as the persecutor and, as a result, then becomes the persecuted. Her rejection is definitive and final, not temporary.

The idea of Old Israel as the persecutor of God’s True Israel, and the horrible and eternal consequences of this blood guilt, is carried out in the rest of the NT. We have already examined 2 Thessalonians 1 above, and will do so further below. However, it is necessary to quickly note a few pertinent issues. When Paul was in Thessalonica, the Jews stirred up the masses to persecute him, and they continued that persecution after he left (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). There is no doubt that the Jews were the movers and shakers of that persecution.

In 2 Thessalonians 1, the apostle writes back to the young church, experiencing the pressure of social ostracism and physical violence, in order to reassure and comfort them. Four times he uses the present participial form of thlipsis (θλιπσις) to speak of what they were experiencing. He told them “it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who are troubling (θλιπσις) you” (2 Thessalonians 1:6). God was going to give to their persecutors what their persecutors were giving them. They were persecuting the Christians, God was going to give them persecution.

This is the pattern of the Olivet Discourse. The Thessalonians were experiencing the persecutions that Jesus said would befall his first century disciples (Matthew 24:9f; Mark 13:9f). They were being persecuted by the Jews. However, just as Jesus foretold in the Olivet Discourse, the tables were to be turned, and the Jews were to become the persecuted. Further, that persecution of the Jews would be a manifest token that they were being “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Israel was not to be restored nationally, Israel was to be destroyed. It is impossible to find a future restoration of national Israel in 2 Thessalonians 1.

What must not be missed is that the Abomination of Desolation can only be viewed as the judgment on Israel for persecuting the “apostles and prophets” sent to her by Jesus.

61

Revelation also identifies the persecutor of God’s people as Israel, and depicts the identical pattern of the Olivet Discourse and Thessalonians. The enigmatic city of Babylon was guilty of killing the prophets (Revelation 16:6f), the apostles (18:20, 24), Jesus (11:8), and, “in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain on the earth” (18:24).108 This latter verse is all but a quote of Jesus’ words concerning Jerusalem, “That upon you, may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from righteous Abel unto Zecharias, son of Berechias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar” (Matthew 23:35). Further, Jesus’ words that he was going to send “apostles and prophets” (Luke 11:49f), to Jerusalem/Israel, and they would be slain like the early prophets, confirms the identity of Babylon as first century Israel/Jerusalem. The words of Jesus can scarce be ignored, “It is not possible that a prophet perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33).

Thus, Jerusalem is identified as the persecutor in Revelation. However, just as in the Olivet Discourse, and in Paul, the tables would be turned. The bloody city, once in partnership with the beast to persecute the saints, would now taste the bitterness of rejection, because her former compatriots in the persecution would now turn on her, hate her, and burn her with fire (Revelation 17:14f). The city once dressed in purple and scarlet, the colors of the high priest’s garments, and that had become drunken with the blood of the saints (Revelation 17:4f), is now utterly destroyed. She is now a widow, consigned to doom, for “her sins have reached unto heaven” (18:5f). Those slain by her, those under the altar that had cried out, “How long O Lord, will you not avenge us on those who dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:9f), are now told, “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her” (Revelation 18:20). Israel, the persecutor, becomes the persecuted. She is not delivered from persecution, she is consigned to persecution. The importance of recognizing that Israel would be the focus of God’s last days judgment, for persecuting the saints, can hardly be over-emphasized.

The millennial paradigm totally convolutes the Biblical scheme. The millennial scheme has Israel as the unfortunate and “innocent” victim of persecution by the Antichrist or Man of Sin, but then, finally delivered in the sudden appearance of Jesus on the clouds at the battle of Armageddon. Contrary to this, the consistent theme of scripture is that in the last days, Israel would be the object of persecution, because she was the actual persecutor of God’s prophets and saints. Old Israel became the “pagan” enemy of God, guilty of persecuting the True Israel, those who had accepted the Messiah! The wicked, guilty of this persecution, would perish, but, the remnant would be saved. This is God’s scheme. This is confirmed by a study of the life and mission of the apostle Paul.

62

CHAPTER 6 PAUL, PAROUSIA AND MARTYR VINDICATION

In a text that has caused endless speculation, Paul declares that he (emphatically he) was commissioned to fill up what was lacking in the afflictions of Christ, “I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. I became its servant according to God's commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints” (Colossians 1:24f).

Dunn says: “Paul understood his apostleship in eschatological terms as the last act on the stage of this world before (as we would say) the final curtain (particularly 1 Corinthians 4:9). It was because Paul saw himself as a major actor in the final drama of God’s reconciling purpose that he could also see his all too real sufferings as somehow bringing to completion what was still outstanding of the sufferings of Christ.”109

Paul’s claim to be the final player in the eschatological scheme magnifies the ubiquitous New Testament problem of the naherwartung--the imminent expectation of the parousia. Given Paul’s view of himself110 as the critical “last days” figure, Green’s posit that, “There was a sense of imminence of the Return, which was not however, associated with temporal proximity,”111 is untenable. Paul believed, even as MacArthur concedes, that the end was near. Was Paul just another of the many Messianic zealots of the first century? Or can we accept his claims, and find a first-century fulfillment of his expectations?

I suggest that Paul played a role as pivotal, end-time martyr in the fulfillment of eschatological expectation. Others have made helpful suggestions in this area, but have stopped short of the conclusions merited by the evidence.

WHAT IS LACKING IN THE AFFLICTIONS OF CHRIST Paul did not believe that Jesus’ vicarious passion was somehow lacking (Colossians 2:9-10). For him to admit such a deficiency would have fallen

into the hands of his opponents at Colossae. What then did Paul’s referent to what was “lacking in the afflictions of Christ” mean? O’Brien says: “The presence of the definite article τ_ suggests that the phrase ‘what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions’ refers to something well

known and agrees with the apocalyptic notion of a definite measure of affliction to be endured in the last days. As God had set a definite measure in time (Mark 13:5-27), and the limit of the tribulations at the end, so there is a definite measure of suffering that is to be filled up. That limit of messianic woes has not yet been reached. There are still deficiencies which Paul through his sufferings is in the process of completing.”112

Robertson misses Paul’s distinctive eschatological role when he suggests that Paul’s sufferings were the “leftovers” and that, “There is plenty left for Paul and for each of us in his time.”113 Paul’s “I” is emphatic; it is his office (stewardship, oικovoµιαv) to fill the measure of the afflictions of Christ.114 He is insistent that, “God has set forth us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death” (1 Cor. 4:9).115 Robertson says Paul’s language suggests “there is a great pageant in which the Apostles form the ignominious finale, consisting of doomed men who will have to fight in the arena till they are killed.”116

This passage, 1 Corinthians 4:9, conflates with Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 23, in a powerful way. Jesus emphasized that the measure of sin would be filled by Israel when he sent his apostles to her, and she killed them. And, in Corinthians, Paul says that the apostles had been set forth by God, last of all, as men condemned to die.

Paul does not mean that he and the apostles would be the last to ever suffer martyrdom. He meant that the eschatological measure of suffering would be filled by their death, and then God’s eschatological Wrath-- the Day of the Lord, our Point #5 -- would come. Just as Revelation 6:9-11 promised the martyrs vindication when the full number of martyrs was reached, Paul posited the apostles as the pivotal players, and he

63

emphatically, as the last ones to die. To extend the filling of the measure of the “afflictions of Christ” into a distant future is to ignore Paul’s emphasis on his distinctive role, and, it ignores the limitations set by Jesus.

The eschatological nature of Paul’s task is seen in the word θλιπσις, examined above. In response to the disciple’s question about a sign of the end, Jesus promised that they would be delivered up to “tribulation,” (Matthew. 24:9, 21; cf. Daniel 12:1). This word is never used of Christ’s expiatory work. O’Brien says of θλιπσις: “They are the travail out of which the messianic age is born. God has set a limit to these sufferings, prescribing a definite measure for the afflictions which the righteous and the martyrs must suffer.” ( O’Brien, p. 79).

Further, the eschatological nature of Paul’s afflictions is supported by the corollary concept of filling the measure of sin. Put another way, God has three cups: the Cup of Sin, filled with the transgressions of God’s enemies; the Cup of Suffering, containing the blood of those who suffer for the Word of God; and the Cup of Wrath. While the specific words are not used in Matthew 23, the ideas are fully present. The blood of the martyrs, killed by Israel, was filling The Cup of Suffering. Israel’s violent ways of killing the prophets was filling The Cup of Sin, and, The Cup of Wrath was about to fall of them.

Many commentators recognize the eschatological nature of Paul’s afflictions. Yet, the Biblical testimony concerning Israel’s central role in filling the measure of that suffering and sin is ignored. The three key passages, paralleled in the chart above, demonstrate this vital truth.

The parallelism between Matthew 23, 1 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation is more than coincidental, or verbal. It is an exact parallelism in thought, in theme, in terminology, and chronology.

Surprisingly, however, not one commentator consulted correlates Paul’s statement in Colossians to Matthew 23. Only two correlate Colossians with Revelation and Thessalonians. Yet, all these texts contain the identical motif. Note particularly the parallel history of the persecution, prophets, Jesus, apostles in all three texts. Both Jesus and Paul charged the Jews with filling the measure of sin. Paul’s emphasis on his personal apostolic role in filling the measure of afflictions, and the corresponding Jewish culpability (Matthew 23; Revelation 11:8) in that suffering, indicates that Babylon in Revelation is Jerusalem.

Paul’s personal and pivotal role as end time martyr, in light of Israel as the key player in that persecution, sheds light on the nature of the eschatological “wrath to come” so eagerly anticipated by the apostle.

PAUL, PERSECUTION, AND PAROUSIA

Further confirmation that Paul viewed his afflictions--and those of the first-century church--within the context of end-time sufferings is his constant emphasis that the affliction was to be short-lived. Jesus was about to bring relief and redemption.

In Romans, he speaks of the “sufferings of the present time” in contrast with the “glory that is about to be (µ_λλoυσαv117) revealed to us” (Romans 8:18, NRSV). In 2 Corinthians 4:17, he speaks of “our light afflictions” (θλιπσις) which were only “momentary.” The resolution to the momentary suffering mentioned by Paul was the transition from the tabernacle made with hands to the heavenly tabernacle (2 Corinthians 5:1f). In other words, Paul promised that they would only have to endure those afflictions (θλιπσις) for a short while longer until the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:4f), and the Day of the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:10), delivered them from that persecution. It is a great disservice to Biblical exegesis to see Paul’s reference to suffering as the normal problems of human existence. Paul was not speaking of heart attacks, cancer, natural disasters, etc. He was speaking of suffering for the cause of Christ, suffering that was very real in the lives of the first century saints.

As we have seen in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-8, Paul presents the θλιπσις versus _vεσις contrast. Thlipisis (θλιπσις) is pressure; anesis (_vεσις) is relief from pressure.118 When these words appear together, _vεσις is relief from whatever pressure is being endured. Paul speaks of the

64

tribulation being endured by the Thessalonians. This affliction was a “manifest token” of the tribulation (θλιπσις) coming upon the persecutors (v. 4-5). Paul promised that the Thessalonians would be given “rest (_vεσις) with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance on those that know not God.” The eschatological nature of the “afflictions of Christ” is undeniable.

Significantly, the Thessalonian’s persecutors would receive “in kind” what they were giving the Thessalonians (v. 6). They were “pressuring” (θλιπσις) the Thessalonians. However, at the parousia, Jesus would give “pressure” (θλιπσις) to them. This is, of course, exactly what Jesus foretold in Matthew 23:33-36, as well as in Matthew 24:9-21. The tables would be turned, the persecutors would become the persecuted. Needless to say, this is precisely what happened in the Jewish/Roman War.

Bales wrote, “Not only was wicked Israel punished in the destruction of Jerusalem, but she ceased as a persecutor of the church, and the cessation of the temple worship helped remove any temptation of Jewish Christians to return to such worship and also definitely showed that the Old Testament temple system had ended.”119 (my emphasis) Riecke concurs: “Jewish attacks on Christians are known from the period in which the Zealots were active, but not from the years after the Jewish war.”120

The same promise of imminent eschatological deliverance from affliction is found in Hebrews 10:32-38: “You endured a great conflict of sufferings (παθηµ_τωv)...partly through reproaches and tribulations (θλιπσις). Ye have need of endurance so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what was promised, For yet in a very little while (µικρ_v _σov _σov) He who is coming, will come and will not delay” (NASV). The Hebrews had become “sharers” (κoιvωvo_) in this affliction with the author of Hebrews (v. 33-34). If the writer is Paul, they were sharing with him in the “afflictions of Christ.”121

The consistent New Testament testimony is that the first-century saints, being persecuted for Christ, were about to receive vindication and relief from their persecution at the parousia. Either this promise was the expression of a hope ultimately disappointed, or it was meaningful and objective. The promise fits well however, into the framework of Paul’s concept that the measure of suffering was about to be fulfilled through his personal office. And, this in turn fits perfectly Jesus’ framework and time frame for the filling the measure of sin in Matthew 23. The question, of course, is whether or not the promise of eschatological vindication was fulfilled. To help answer this question, we must look a little closer at Paul’s apostolic call and function.

PAUL: LAST-DAYS MISSIONARY TO ISRAEL Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8-9). What is often overlooked or ignored, however, is Paul’s distinctive role as last-days

prophet to Israel. Why was it that in Paul’s ministry, “the Jews were told the good news first; only when they refused to believe did the apostle turn to the

Gentiles.”122 Was it simply because of his great love for Israel (Romans10:1f)? Was it just because he found in the synagogues a ready audience of people with an interest in spiritual things? No.

Paul declares this “to the Jew first” paradigm to be a divine necessity (Romans1:16).123 At Antioch, Paul preached to the Jews first, but they rejected it with malice. Thus Paul declared, “It was necessary (δε_ ) that the word of God should first (πρ′τov) have been spoken to you; but seeing that you put it from you and count yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). The word δε_, “is a favorite word among apocalyptists to show that God Himself is committed to these plans.”124 See also Acts 18:6. As Thompson has shown, πρ′τov refers to “an order of events in the eschatological expectation.”125

Paul had to go to the Jew first because he preached “the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). He anticipated--by his missionary efforts-- the realization of “the promise made by God to our fathers” (Acts 26:6, cf. Romans 11:15). Contra the view that Israel was cut off at the Cross,

65

Paul did not preach a gospel divorced from Israel (Romans 11:1, 25-26). As Davies suggests, “For a Jew such as Paul ... concern with the future of Israel was not vestigal, but endemic and essential if not primary.”126

The Gentiles could only participate in Israel’s salvation. They had no salvation apart from Israel: “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). The necessity for the “to the Jew first and then the Greek” mission was divinely established. Thus, while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, he understood that he had to preach to the Jews first, because God’s eschatological schema demanded this. Paul did not divorce himself from Israel, he proclaimed the fulfillment of Israel’s salvation. Furthermore, he saw his mission to the Gentiles as part of that fulfillment, and, he even saw the suffering he endured as a result of that mission, as a vital part of his function as a prophet.

PAUL: PROPHET OF JUDGMENT What scholars call the “Deuteronomic Tradition” lies at the core of Paul’s mentality. This tradition, underlying Jesus’ thought as well, is

defined by Scott as containing the following elements: (1) Israel has been persistently rebellious throughout her history (cf. Matt. 23:29-33); (2) God consistently sent His prophets to Israel to call them to repentance (cf. Matt. 15:24; Lk. 19:10);. (3) Israel continued in her obduracy and killed the prophets (Neh. 9:26f; cf. Matt. 21:33f); (4) God’s wrath was poured out on Israel for her rebellion, thus the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (compare Jesus’ prediction of impending judgment in the Olivet Discourse); (5) The possibility, in spite of judgment, that Israel could repent; and (6) If Israel would truly repent, God would restore them.127

In regard to Nos. 5 and 6, both Isaiah (65:1-15)128 and Daniel (9:24-27) foresaw that Israel would fill the measure of her sin in the last days and as a result, “The Lord God will slay you, and call His servants by another name” (Isaiah 65:13-15). Paul cites Isaiah 65 as he considers Israel’s rejection of his gospel (see Romans 10:21; cf. Isaiah 65:2). Paul was not developing a new doctrinal system divorced from Israel. He was showing how the fulfillment of Israel’s promises was the driving force of his gospel of Jesus Christ.

Three significant texts reveal Paul’s role as eschatological prophet to Israel.129 In Acts 13:26f, 18:6 and 28:19f, after the rejection of his gospel by the Jews, Paul cites three Old Testament texts (Habakkuk 1:5, Ezekiel 33:1-5 and Isaiah 6:9f) to warn his audience of the fate that awaits them. Paul was threatening Israel with judgment. As Nanos has observed, however, Paul was not warning them because Israel had already been cast off (Romans 11:1), but: “He was warning them ... not to fail to recognize that the restoration of Israel was taking place before their very eyes, made manifest not so much by the gospel going to Israel, but by the gospel going to the gentiles as a sign of Israel’s eschatological mission, and thus a sign that Israel’s restoration had begun.”130

Paul’s appeal to the “Deuteronomic Tradition” of “Blessing and Cursing” (Deut. 28-32) shows that his Gentile ministry and his suffering as a prophet lay within Israel’s Old Covenant framework (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 11:11f), but at “the end of the ages” (1 Corinthians 10:11). As Nanos says: “Israel continued to be Paul’s unmistakable priority even though his apostleship was to the gentiles.” (1996, 240).

PAUL’S MINISTRY AND THE SONG OF MOSES Other than Isaiah, no prophetic text influenced Paul’s missionary consciousness more than the Song of Moses (Deut. 32)--and the

underlying Blessings and Cursings of Deuteronomy 28-30. Hays says:

66

“The Song of Moses, read as a prophetic prefiguration of God’s dealings with Israel through the gospel, becomes in Paul’s hands a hermeneutical key of equal importance with the prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah. The song describes in sequence God’s election of and care for Israel (Deut. 32:6-14), Israel’s inexplicable rebellion (Deut. 32:15-18, cf. 32:5), God’s judgment upon them (Deut. 32:19-35), and ultimately--and mysteriously--God’s final deliverance and vindication of his own people (Deut. 32:36-43) ... In Deuteronomy Paul finds not only the prophecy of Israel’s lack of faith and ultimate restoration but also the prefiguration of God’s intention to ‘stir them to jealousy’ through embracing the Gentiles (Deut. 32:21), who are invited to join with his people in praise (Deut. 32:43). It is hardly coincidental that Paul quotes both of these verses explicitly (Romans 10:19; 15:10). Deuteronomy 32 contains Romans in nuce.”131

The Song of Moses, then, was paradigmatic for Paul, as it was for Jesus.132 He affirmed that he was living in the last days foretold by Moses.

He asserted that Moses’ prediction that Israel would become “utterly corrupt” was being fulfilled (1 Thessalonians. 2:14-16). He stood at the end of the long line of prophets sent to call Israel to repentance and was rejected, just as the prophets before him. His rejection was part of the last days messianic woes necessary to fill up the afflictions of Christ.

Paul realized that Moses had said of Israel, “their vine is of the vine of Sodom” (Deuteronomy 32:32; cf. Revelation 11:8), and consequently, “Vengeance is Mine ... for the Lord will judge His people” (Deuteronomy 32:34-36, NKJ; cf. Romans 12:19; Hebrews 10:30). As we have already seen, Moses predicted that the last days judgment at the coming of the Lord would be in vindication of the shed blood of the martyrs (Deuteronomy 32:43), and of course, this links directly with Paul’s belief about his own suffering for Christ. The judgment on Israel was the judgment that Paul said was near in his generation. It was the Day of the Lord.

Let us summarize and conclude. Paul’s statement that God had given him personally the stewardship of filling the measure of the afflictions

of Christ must be seen as eschatological for the following reasons: (1) Paul’s suffering was θλιπσις, a word designating end-time suffering; (2) Paul saw himself as the last in the line of prophets to suffer, and thus fill the measure of suffering; (3) Paul operated in light of the Deuteronomic Tradition and Song of Moses predicting judgment on Israel in the last days; (4) Paul believed he was living in the last days foretold by the Song of Moses; (5) Paul constantly quoted from O.T. prophecies of coming judgment on Israel; (6) It was Israel that persecuted the prophets, and Paul, filling the measure of her sin. The eschatological judgment would fall when the measure was full; (7) It was his mission to the Gentiles--the cause of his persecution--that would lead to Israel’s salvation (Romans 11:15-27). However, that salvation would only come when Israel was judged.

The judgment on Israel in A.D. 70 satisfies Paul’s naherwartung. It was God’s eschatological judgment of the nation that had served its purpose and reached its goal (Galatians 3:19f). The Old Covenant was a covenant of death (2 Corinthians 3:6f), unable to give life and righteousness (Galatians 3:21; Hebrews 8:6f). The destruction of the Temple signaled that God’s covenantal with Israel was now fulfilled. He had kept His Word and, “brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:9f). The “law of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1-3), now stood triumphant over the law that was “the strength of sin,” (Romans 7:7f).

Israel had made the outer “shadow” observances the focal point of their affections instead of the spiritual realities of the Messiah. They persecuted with vigor the messengers sent to proclaim the kingdom of the Messiah. In persecuting the messengers of Jesus, and penultimately

67

Paul, the Jews were bringing swiftly to a climax their long and bloody history of killing the prophets. Their rejection of the king and kingdom was necessary before the king could destroy the Old World.

Paul, then, in declaring himself to be the critical end time martyr stands vindicated in his eschatological expectation. And, as the final player in God’s eschatological schema, Paul’s ministry dove-tails into the plan outlined by Jesus in Matthew 23. Jesus said his generation would see Israel’s guilt for shedding the blood of the martyrs filled, when he sent his apostles to her. Paul was the last of the apostles, born out of due season (1 Corinthians 15:8), and sent to suffer for the cause of Christ. In his suffering, Paul affirmed that he was filling the eschatological measure of suffering.

The Great Paradox, that Israel would be saved by passing under judgment, has been established. (More on this just below). While the concept strikes the modern reader as strange, it is Biblical. Israel’s shadow form had to pass, but in passing, the body of Christ, the real Israel, was revealed. God had saved the remnant--what constituted all Israel-- as promised. Jehovah did come, as promised by the prophets, but He did not come as Israel expected. He did not come to deliver them from judgment, he came to judge them because they had become His enemy. The nation had held tenaciously to the shadow form of her existence, and persecuted the Lord’s servants sent to bring her into her inheritance. The elect responded, accepted, and entered as the true people of God. The rebellious perished in the Day of the Lord.

Judgment came on the nation that had filled the measure of sin and filled the Cup of Suffering of God’s martyrs. God’s eschatological wrath--The Day of the Lord-- came in the fall of Jerusalem as Jesus predicted: “For these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22, NKJ; cf. Revelation 15:8; 16:17f), and, “Upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth...verily I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:35-36).

The evidence presented above, and the conclusion drawn from it, answers definitively Ice’s contention that Jesus’ victory must be in the same realm as his humiliation. Ice, (1998, 231) citing Ryrie says, “Why is an earthly kingdom necessary? Did he not receive his inheritance when He was raised and exalted to heaven? Is not His present rule His inheritance? Why does there need to be an earthly kingdom? Because He must be triumphant in the same arena where he was seemingly defeated. His rejection by the rulers of this world was on this earth (1 Corinthians 2:8). His exaltation must also be on this earth. And so it shall be when He comes again to rule in righteousness.”

The argument here is that Jesus’ humiliation was on earth in the flesh, therefore his parousia and reign must be on earth in the flesh. However, such an argument overlooks and denies the Biblical teaching.

First of all, let it be noted, unequivocally, that Jesus’ victory over those who crucified him, “the rulers of this age” (1 Corinthians 2:8), was definitely manifested in the same arena as his humiliation.

Remember the martyr’s cry in Revelation 6:9f, “How long, O. Lord, holy and true, do you not avenge us on those who dwell on the earth?” The martyrs are depicted as being in the spiritual realm, but they wanted vengeance poured out on their persecutors on the earth. The response to their prayer was to be “the great Day of His Wrath” (Revelation 6:16-17). What must not be missed is that Revelation 6 anticipated the fulfillment of the Day of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 2-4. In Revelation 6:15, the writer alludes directly to Isaiah 2:10, 19-21. We have already demonstrated that Isaiah 2-4 is a prediction of the A.D. 70 judgment on Israel for shedding the blood of the martyrs.

Remember that as Jesus was led out to his crucifixion, he cited Isaiah 2 to foretell the impending fall of Jerusalem, as a result of their persecution of him (Luke 23:28-31). Thus, Isaiah 2-4 foretold the time of the judgment of Israel, and the vindication of the martyrs, in the last days, at the Day of the Lord, and Jesus applied it to the fall of Jerusalem. Further, Jesus strengthened the identification of the time of the vindication of the martyrs in Matthew 23, as we have seen extensively above.

68

Thus, Revelation 6:9-17 says that the martyrs of God would be vindicated at the Great Day of the Lord, in fulfillment of Isaiah 2-4. Jesus applied Isaiah 2-4 to the judgment on Israel in A.D. 70 (Luke 23:28-31). Therefore, the Great Day of the Lord (Revelation 6:9-17), when the martyrs would be vindicated, was the time of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70.

The time of the judgment of Israel in A. D. 70 was the time when the martyrs of God were vindicated. But the time of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70, when the martyrs were vindicated, was the Day of the Lord (Isaiah 2-4/ Revelation 6:17). This means that the Day of the Lord was manifested in the arena of Jesus’ (and his martyrs) humiliation. And, while it was definitely the Day of the Lord, it was not a physical return of Christ.

Consider a final passage in regard to the first century vindication of the martyrs, James 5. The writer addresses, in one of few Biblical passages that does so, the wicked. He calls on them to weep and mourn because of “your miseries that are coming upon you!” (5:1). He then gives the reason for the impending judgment: “you have heaped up treasures in the last days” (5:3), at the expense of God’s children, “The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out: and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Saboath” (5:4); “you have condemned, you have murdered the just” (5:6). The sin is oppression and killing God’s saints. The penalty would be judgment at the parousia, and it was near.

The social situation described by James fits the first century Judaean world well. James is not speaking of a time far distant from him. He was writing about very real problems being confronted by the poor of his day. They were being oppressed, even killed. When James accused the rich of “killing the just,” it is possible that this echoes the martyrdom of James the Just in A.D. 62. Even if this is not a reflection of the martyrdom of James the Just, it assuredly is a picture of first century Judea and Israel when the church was being persecuted by Israel. (See James 1:2; 2:6, etc.).

Notice that James places the events before him in the last days (5:3). He did not say “when the last days finally arrive,” the rich would commit the crimes of which he speaks. The last days were already present. And, it needs to be noted that he could not be, if the millennial paradigm is correct, referring to the last days of the Mosaic Law, because, per the millennialists, that ended at the Cross. James was not living in the last days of the Christian Age. Thus, the only last days that are possible are the last days of Israel. However, if James was referring to the last days of Israel as present in the first century, long after the establishment of the church, then it cannot be true that Israel’s last days were suspended at the Cross to be reinstated at some future day.

This is important because Ice and LaHaye list James 5 as predictive of the last days of the church age. In their colorful book, Charting the End Times, they say, “All the strikes and unrest we see in the various parts of the world today are not just a disruption to society, they are a fulfillment of prophecy for the last days. By themselves they might not seem like much, but together with all the other signs of the end of the age, they add weight to the mounting evidence that Jesus’ coming could be soon.” (2001, 120).

It is strange that on the one hand Ice insists that, “It would be too strong to say that there are signs of the end of the church age” (Watch, 11), and then, on the other hand, speaks of “all these other signs of the end of the age.” For Ice and LaHaye, James was not speaking of contemporary oppression and martyrdom. He was speaking of events 2000 years removed from his audience. Such eisegetical manipulation is totally without contextual justification.

The language James uses is typical prophetic denunciation indicative of a historical Day of the Lord. He alludes to “the day of slaughter,” an allusion to Jeremiah 12:3, where the prophet foretold Jerusalem’s destruction in B. C.586, for the same crimes that James accuses his audience. Jeremiah foretold a historical Day of the Lord upon the oppressors of God’s people, those tyrannizing the poor and killing the

The vindication of Jesus and his martyrs was at the Day of the Lord in A. D. 70 (Isaiah 2-4/Matthew 23:29f), and this vindication did occur in the same realm as his humiliation. However, He did not have to come visibly and physically to accomplish that Day of the Lord!

69

righteous (Jeremiah 2, 7, 22, etc.). James condemns the wealthy of his day for oppressing the poor and killing the righteous, and threatens them with the fact that the cry of the sufferers has come into the ears of the Lord of Saboath.

When James says that the cry of the workers had come into the ears of the Lord of Saboath (Lord of Hosts), this is a clear echo of several other significant passages relating to relief and vindication of martyrs. We have examined Matthew 23, but call attention once again to how Jesus predicted that all of the blood of all the martyrs, all the way back to creation, would be vindicated in his generation. He said this would be done after the prophets and wise men that he sent to Israel were persecuted, and Israel had filled the measure of her sin. It must be remembered of course, that James was writing, it is generally believed, to and about the Christians in the land of Israel enduring persecution from their brethren. Jesus’ prediction of judgment on the nation of Israel, as the persecuting power, and vindication of his martyrs must be the controlling interpretative key for James.

Further, in Luke 18, Jesus told the parable of the persistent widow who begged the judge for vindication. Jesus’ point was that the righteous ought to pray, amidst persecution, because the Lord heard their prayer, and was going to answer them: “Shall God not avenge His elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily” (Luke 18:7-8). The “speedily” (en tachei, εv ταχει) of Luke is defined by the “this generation” of Matthew 23:34. The martyrs were to be vindicated in Jesus’ coming against Israel in A.D. 70.

James offers imminent hope to his audience also. He assures them that their cry for vindication has been heard by the Lord of Hosts, and thus:

“Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming (parousia) of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming (parousia) of the Lord is at hand (_γγικεv, literally, has come near). Do not grumble against one another brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the judge is standing at the door!”

There is no indication that James was not addressing his contemporary situation. There is no justification for ripping the text from the first century, and making it a prediction of events 2000 years removed. Why tell people 2000 years ago to, “be patient until the coming of the Lord,” when the coming of the Lord was not near? They could not be patient “until” (_ως) the coming of the Lord unless the Lord was coming in their lifetime. Why tell them the parousia “has drawn near” when it was two millennia away? Why give those brethren a false hope of relief from persecution when no relief was near? Why tell them the Lord was standing right at the door, an unmistakable indication of His nearness, when the judgment was not at the door?

The promise of a soon coming vindication for suffering saints in the first century is a topic that is greatly ignored in the literature, or, if it is discussed the temporal indications of a soon coming vindication at the parousia is placed into one of two classifications. Modern commentators insist that the NT writers did believe Jesus was coming back very soon to give them relief. But of course, he did not come back we are told, so the church, including the apostles and NT writers, were mistaken. Or, as most millennial writers, the occasional nature of the epistles is completely ignored or distorted, as in the case of LaHaye and Ice, and the many passages that spoke of vindication of the martyrs being near are ripped from their historical context and applied to the current generation.

It is time for modern Bible students to let the Bible writers address their contemporary audiences. Modern students need to exercise the most basic rules of hermeneutic. Presuppositional hermeneutics create interpretative nightmares that only confuse. To acknowledge that the NT writers constantly affirmed that Jesus was returning within their generation, to vindicate the martyrs, is vital to a proper understanding of

70

Biblical eschatology, and yet, is, as we have seen, in most cases, ignored or misplaced. For the majority of Biblical exegetes, it is as if Jesus never said that the vindication of all the martyrs was to occur in his generation. But he did make that prediction, and, he kept his word!

It is abundantly plain that the Day of the Lord in A.D. 70 was not a physical return of Jesus on literal clouds. However, if we are to accept the words of Jesus, that is without question the time of the vindication of all the martyrs, including Jesus (Matthew 23). As Caird says,

“Jesus was called by God to be the agent of his purpose, and he himself had been sent to bring about that reformation without which Israel could not fulfill her national destiny. If the nation, so far from accepting that calling, rejected God’s messenger and persecuted those who responded to his preaching, how could the assertion of God’s sovereignty fail to include an open demonstration that Jesus was right and the nation was wrong? How could it fail to include the vindication of the persecuted and the cause they lived and died for?”133

As we have seen, Paul’s distinctive role powerfully confirms Jesus’ teaching that Biblical eschatology deals with the last days of Israel, and God’s judgment on her for persecuting the New Israel. Paul’s declaration that the end was near, that he and the apostles stood as the last in the line of pre-ordained martyrs, to fill up the measure of suffering, and that Israel was the focus of that wrath, lends strong support to the thesis of this book.

Jesus did triumph in the same arena that he was humiliated. He did come, but, He came in the glory of the Father. Just as the Father had come many times, and manifested His sovereignty and majesty, Jesus came in judgment showing Himself to be the King of kings and Lord of lords, triumphing over those who had slain him.

Israel then, would be saved by means of judgment, not saved from judgment. Judgment was God’s designated means of taking away the shadowy world of Israel to reveal the inner, true reality that was His eschatological and soteriological goal.

When we speak of the salvation of Israel through judgment, eyebrows will undoubtedly raise, for this is not a commonly held view. Nonetheless, however strange this may strike a person at first, it is an undeniable Biblical truth. The short discourse above should be sufficient to demonstrate this. However, we must explain more about salvation through judgment.

71

CHAPTER 7 THE GREAT PARADOX:

SALVATION THROUGH JUDGMENT To help us determine the nature of the parousia, in light of martyr vindication, and God’s promises to Israel, we will present and follow the

following outline: •P0INT #1 Old Testament Israel was a shadow of good things to come. •P0INT #2 The anticipated good things to come were God’s ultimate purpose, and the goal of Israel’s eschatological and soteriological hopes. •P0INT #3 The anticipated good things to come were spiritual as opposed to nationalistic and physical. •P0INT #4 Old Covenant Israel, the shadow, or type, had to be removed to reveal the better things. •P0INT #5 Old Testament Israel, the shadow of better things, would reach her soteriological and eschatological zenith, when she was judged, for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs. •P0INT #6 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs would occur at the Day of the Lord. •P0INT #7 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs was to occur in Jesus’ generation in A.D. 70. •P0INT #8 Therefore, the nature of the Day of the Lord, in bringing Israel’s salvation history to a climax, is defined as the time when Jesus came, by means of the Romans, in judgment of Israel, for shedding innocent blood.

NATIONAL ISRAEL: THE SHADOW OF BETTER THINGS P0INT #1 The millennialist believes that nationalistic Israel134 remains as the key to God’s redemptive schema. And, make no mistake,

Israel was integral to that Scheme, for “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). However, the question is, is national Israel still the key to God’s plan, or is the church the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel? In the millennial view, the church is, supposedly, almost an unfortunate interlude. As we have seen, the millennialists believes that Jesus came to establish the kingdom, but, “when offered by Jesus, the kingdom was rejected” (Prophecy, 266).

One of the inherent contradictions of millennialism is that on the one hand they claim that if the Jews had not rejected him, Jesus would have established the kingdom, and reigned on a literal throne in Jerusalem (Tribulation, 115). On the other hand, it is affirmed, “Christ’s ministry has two phases that revolve around his two comings. Phase one took place at Christ’s first coming when He came in humiliation to suffer. (My emphasis, DKP) Phase two will begin at Christ’s second coming when He will reign on earth in power and glory.” (Prophecy, 99). These are irrefutably self-contradictory positions! If Jesus came to suffer, then, clearly that suffering was part of God’s plan when He sent him to establish the kingdom! If Jesus came to establish the kingdom, and if the Crucifixion was included in God’s plan, how can it be possible to say, “But we all know the sad reality--the Jews rejected Jesus, as a result the kingdom is no longer near, but postponed” (Tribulation, 115)?

If God sent Jesus to die, then patently, the Jewish rejection of Jesus did not catch God off guard, so that he had to establish the church, instead of the kingdom! If God could establish the church--which is the kingdom (Colossians 1:13!)-- based on the death of Jesus, why could He not establish the kingdom, when, even by millennial admission, he sent His Son for the purpose of suffering? It is illogical to affirm that God sent His Son to suffer, and to establish the kingdom, and then claim that the suffering of His Son caused Him to change His plans about the kingdom.

72

All of this is directly related to the nature of the kingdom, and the parousia. The question of the nature of the parousia, as it relates to the vindication of the martyrs at Christ’s coming, is clearly pertinent to our study. We have established, and will further, that martyr vindication--including that of Jesus- at the parousia is clearly taught in scripture, and that Jesus posited this as occurring in his generation. Yet, the millennialists claim that Christ’s second coming will be to save Israel from judgment, not to judge her for shedding the blood of the martyrs. We are suggesting however, that Israel’s salvation would come only through eschatological transformation, a change from the shadow to the reality, from the flesh to the spirit, from the outward to the inward.

The millennialists, however, maintains that Old Covenant, national Israel, in spite of her present rejection, remains the chosen people of God, and that her present partial restoration heralds her full restoration in the millennium. Pentecost claims, “During this present age, then, while the King is absent, the theocratic kingdom is in abeyance in the sense of actual establishment on earth. Yet it remains as the determinative purpose of God.” (Pentecost, 471) Thus, for the millennialist, the church is only an interim entity, to be set aside when the Kingdom actually comes.

The presuppositional approach to O.T. prophecy, concerning the nation of Israel, and how it should be approached in the New Testament, is demonstrated in a three page paper sent to me by Thomas Ice.135 The paper was written by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, who takes note of Kenneth Gentry’s appeal to the dictum, “The Christian exegete must allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament.” Fruchtenbaum says that this approach is only valid if the NT is viewed “in such a way as not to change the meaning of the original Old Testament passage through reinterpretation in the New Testament (i.e. the church replaces Israel in O. T. passages.” In other words, in the view of Fruchtenbaum, the O.T. could not have made predictions concerning Israel that had a spiritual meaning, and if any NT writer seems to indicate that the original intent of the O.T. passage was spiritual, then this is a “reinterpretation” that must be rejected. This approach means that Israel could never have been representative of something else, could not have been a shadow of better things to come. By all means, the O.T. literalistic interpretation must be maintained!

One problem for this view is that, after his resurrection, Jesus had to open the eyes of the disciples to understand the scriptures concerning the role of his suffering and the establishment of the kingdom (Luke 24:24-26, 44f). If the disciples had the literalistic view of the kingdom as asserted by the millennialists, why did Jesus have to open their eyes to understand what the prophecies meant? If the Old Testament prophecies were as straightforward as the millennialists suggest, why did Peter say that the Old Prophets did not understand what they were predicting (1 Peter 1:10f)? The millennial refusal to allow the NT writers to interpret the Old Testament prophecies leads to overt denial of many emphatic declarations by the inspired apostles and authors.136

Old Covenant Israel was never God’s determinative goal. It was God’s eternal intent to remove the Old Covenant nation, with its Temple and cultus, with something far better.

This truth is taught in a passage that is virtually ignored in the literature, Genesis 28:12-15, Jehovah appeared to Jacob in the famous dream of the “stairway to heaven”:

“And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all

Millennialism is the boldest form of “replacement theology,” for it teaches that natural Israel will replace the blood bought spiritual body of Christ!

73

the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.”

This text is Messianic since Jesus applied it to his work of redemption in John 1:51. Furthermore, Paul may well have had the motif of this text in mind when he said it was God’s eternal purpose to reunite heaven and earth in the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:9-10).137

Not only this, but Genesis 28 is a reiteration of the Abrahamic promise to multiply the seed of Jacob, and to bless the nations in his seed. There can be no doubt, essentially, of the nature of this promise.

Thus, Genesis 28 is not focused on Jacob individually and locally. It is focused on God’s promises made to Abraham and the nation, both nationally and Messianic. Notice then what Jehovah says “I will not leave you, until I have done that which I have spoken.” (My emphasis) This text says that when God had fulfilled His purposes and plan for Israel that He would then leave them! Jehovah was foretelling the time when His Covenantal dealings with the nation would be terminated, and that would be when He had fulfilled His Messianic promises to her. Israel was not, therefore, the determinative purpose of God. She was preparatory to the determinative purpose of God.

The vision of the ladder to heaven, and what it signified, the reconciliation of heaven and earth, and access to God from earth, sends us back to Hebrews 9:6-10. There, the inspired writer says that the Old Covenant System stood as a barrier between heaven and earth. In other words, Israel’s very existence, with her cultus, was a reminder that the “stairway to heaven” was not yet a reality! That Old System would remain valid until “ the time of reformation” when God’s ultimate purpose would be realized, and man could then enter His presence. This teaches us, very clearly, that the physical seed of Abraham, worshiping under that world of types and shadow could not be the ultimate purpose of Jehovah. That world was destined to pass, it had to pass, so that man could approach the Lord! It would be at that point, when the ladder to heaven was setup, that Old Covenant Israel’s typological purpose was fulfilled, and her house was desolated.

Fruchtenbaum rejects the Shadow-v-Reality view of Israel. He either does not see, or rejects, the idea that Old Covenant National Israel was only the shadow of greater spiritual things. He either does not see, or rejects, Paul’s declaration that God’s modus operandi, as already noted, is from the natural to the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46). To suggest that national Israel will supercede the spiritual body of Christ is a tragic violation of that natural to spiritual methodology. Furthermore, not only is it the rejection of a natural to spiritual methodology, the millennial posit is the clearest form of replacement theology!

Nothing stirs the heart of the millennialist, in a negative way, more than the suggestion that the church has replaced Israel in God’s Scheme. Yet, what does the millennialist suggest? It is taught that the church will be replaced by the restored nation of Israel! Ice is clear about the millennial view of this: “The purpose of the rapture is to end the church age so that God may return and complete His program with Israel.” (Fast Facts, 158)

It is admitted by the millennialists that Jesus did not die to restore the nation of Israel in a literalistic way. Indeed, as we have shown, the millennialist will aver that if it were not for his death, Jesus would have established that literal kingdom! It is clear that Jesus’ death was not for the purpose of restoring national Israel. His death was to purchase the church, wherein Jew and Gentile become one body in Christ (Ephesians 2:12f). Thus, the millennial paradigm is that natural Israel will replace the blood bought spiritual body of Christ. This is the boldest form of replacement theology imaginable!

The apostle Paul and the NT writers were under no such literalistic presuppositional constraints, however. They teach, repeatedly, that Old Covenant Israel was never God’s determinative goal. Israel was but a shadow that was to pass at the appearance of the Body. Israel was the natural body, the church is the spiritual body.

74

Fruchtenbaum, and the millennial school as a whole, has missed the typological nature of Israel’s existence. Could it be that in their refusal to allow the NT writers to affirm the original, spiritual intent and fulfillment of O.T. prophets, that they are claiming that they actually know more about prophecy than the NT writers? The “tunnel vision” approach to the interpretation of prophecy, demanding that all prophecy be fulfilled literally, is a rejection of the testimony of the New Testament apostles and prophets who clearly did view Israel as a prophetic type. It is tantamount to a claim to inspiration itself, for it essentially says that what Paul said did not matter, Israel is not a mere shadow, she is the “determinative purpose!”

The stakes here are high. Either Paul was right to affirm that Israel and her world were not determinative, and was not God’s ultimate goal, or the millennialist is right, and the church, the blood bought body, and gospel of Jesus, is, in reality, the unforeseen stop gap measure only set in place until the Old World can be reestablished.

These issues need to be heralded to all of dispensational Christianity. The need to recognize these truths is tragically driven home by the World Trade Center bombings. It is a fact that American foreign policy has been influenced by the (misguided) belief that Israel remains God’s chosen people. Isaiah 54:17 is often cited as the reason why America must stand by Israel at all costs. To listen to the evangelists on Trinity Broadcasting, one would get the impression that America will be destroyed if we do not stand with Israel.

The dispensational community donates millions of dollars to support the state of Israel, believing they are supporting God’s people. One program, entitled, “On the Wings of Eagles” urged viewers to send contributions to help Jews leave Russia, and thereby, “show the world that God’s chosen people, the Jews, are loved by the church.” Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and many of our presidents have believed that Israel must be supported to do the will of God.

It is ironic however, that the nation claiming to be Israel is, in fact, not even ethnic Israel. They are not the seed of Abraham. Modern Israel is not the Israel of scripture. The Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 12, p. 1054) 1973 says, “The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race.” Jewish author, Camille Honig, editor of The Jewish Voice, wrote (Nov, 1953), “It is sheer nonsense, as well as unscientific, to speak of a Jewish race. Jews do not belong to a single homogeneous group.” This raises the relevant question: If modern Israel is not Biblical Israel, how is it possible to say that in 1948 Israel was restored?

Scholars of all stripes know that the Ashkenaz Jews of today were, in fact, Gentiles in origin. Ashkenaz Jews, who comprise the vast majority of those calling themselves Jews today, trace their lineage back to Gomer, who in turn was descended from Japheth, the son of Noah (Genesis 10:3; 1 Chronicles 1:4f). However, the lineage of Abraham came through Noah’s son Shem, not Japheth! Thus, for modern prophecy teachers to proclaim that Israel remains the chosen people of God, is a falsehood. This is incredibly important, and yet, is being essentially ignored by most Bible students today.

Another, vitally critical bit of evidence for the standing of modern Israel is being totally manipulated and ignored by the dispensational community. It relates to the modern attacks on Israel during her Holy Days.

On Wednesday, 3-27-02, a suicide bomber walked into a hotel in Israel and killed himself, and over 20 Israeli’s. This began a series of escalating attacks against Israel, and led to serious retaliation by Israel. What many may be missing, in fact, some will not want to hear, is that the attack taking place on Passover, has tremendous theological implications.

Hal Lindsay insists that Israel remains the chosen people of God. It is no secret that one of the pillars of modern dispensationalism is the view that Israel remains God’s chosen, exclusive people.

In 1967 the Arab league, led by Egypt, attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This is one of Israel’s most holy days of the year. It seemed, in the first day or two, that Israel was doomed. However, that war lasted, due to Israel’s amazing military prowess, only 6

75

days. Millennialists hailed Israel’s victory as a positive sign that Jehovah was protecting her, and that, of course, we must be living in the last days! Let’s take a closer look.

Instead of being a proof that Israel remains as God’s chosen people, the attack in 1967, and the recent attack on Passover, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is not in covenant relationship with Jehovah!

Read Exodus 34:23f: “Three times in the year all your men shall appear before the Lord, the Lord God of Israel. For I will cast out the nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither will any man covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.”

The promise here is simple and profound. As long as Israel was in covenant relationship with Jehovah, her enemies would not attack her during the holy feast days! On a recent Trinity Broadcast, I heard Grant Jeffrey saying, “For 1500 years of Israel’s history, there is no record of a single attack against her on any of her Holy Feast Days.” Of course, Jeffrey made no mention of the 1967 Yom Kippur attack! That would have proven more than a little embarrassing, for his point was to show how God had protected Israel for so long, and his citation of the 1500 years of protection was in that context.

It is tremendously important to realize that Jeffrey was (partially) correct. For almost 1500 years there were no attacks against Israel during her feast days. However, there were significant exceptions.

In B. C. 586 the Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and according to Josephus and other Jewish sources, that happened during the Feast of Pentecost. What is so significant is the fact, as we have seen, the prophets of the day, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc. clearly enunciated why God was about to send Jerusalem into exile. She had broken her covenant! The fall of Jerusalem was proof positive of Israel’s alienation from Jehovah!

According to first century Jewish historian Josephus, an eyewitness to the event, the ultimate and final destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 also took place during Pentecost, one of Israel’s three special feast days. What are the implications of that destruction in light of Exodus 34? Jesus very clearly said the reason Jerusalem was to be devastated in A.D. 70 was because of her disobedience (Matthew 23-24). Specifically, as the early church writers repeatedly observe, Jerusalem was destroyed for crucifying her Messiah.

Furthermore, and this is important, Jesus, followed by Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers, claimed that the Old Covenant World of Israel was to be finally cast out in that cataclysm of A.D. 70. Israel was to be finally cast out, for filling the measure of her sin (Matthew 23:29f; Galatians 4:22f). Her special covenant relationship with Jehovah would be forever terminated. This makes the events of 1967 and the present day event more significant. The protective umbrella of Exodus 34 would be removed forever.

The Seven Day War of 1967 took place on Yom Kippur, Israel’s most Holy Day. What are the implications in light of Exodus 34? They are clear and undeniable. And now, the attack on Passover on 3-27-02. What are the ramifications of this attack, on Israel’s Holy Day?

As David said long ago, “By this I know that You are well pleased with me, when my enemies do not triumph over me” (Psalms 41). David’s confidence sprang from the promise of Exodus. And yet, the reverse is also true. Anytime Israel was attacked on her Most Holy Days, it meant she was out of relationship with Him!

If Israel is still God’s chosen people, that Palestinian bomber should never have been allowed, by Jehovah, to attack during the Passover. If Israel is still God’s chosen people the attack of 1967 should never have happened. Instead of Israel’s victory at that time being a sign of her elect status, it was, and is, a sign of the direct opposite! It proved, and proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Covenantal promise of Exodus 34 is no longer applicable! But if the Covenantal promise of Exodus 34 is no longer applicable, then the other promises of that Covenant, i.e., the promises of national restoration (e.g. Deuteronomy 30), are also now invalid, abrogated by Jehovah Himself.

76

Further, the attacks on Yom Kippur, and now Passover, also prove something else, a direct corollary to everything else. Either the Covenant promise of Exodus 34 is no longer valid, or, the people claiming to be Israel today are not the people of the Covenant of Exodus 34. If the Covenant of Exodus is still valid, but the people in Israel today were attacked in violation of Exodus 34, then what does it say about the identity of the people in Israel today? It says that they cannot be the people of the Covenant of Exodus 34!

Every time, and any time, that the Palestinians attack Israel during any of her three feast days, Bible students everywhere should be trumpeting the Biblical fact, that this proves, emphatically, and unequivocally, that Israel is no longer the chosen people of God.

And, importantly from the evangelical perspective, modern Israel is the avowed enemy of Jesus Christ. Evangelism in Jerusalem is prohibited, and yet Israel gladly takes the millions of dollars contributed to them by the Christian community, the community that preaches the Name that they hate.

What is even worse is that the Arab nations hold America directly responsible for what they perceive to be the terrorist state of Israel. After the Trade Tower bombings, Arab representatives were interviewed. One Arab spokesman said that in the mind of the Islamic world, “America and Israel are as one.” Another said the bombing is the direct result of America’s support of Israel against the Arabs.

The question of whether America should support Israel is a legitimate political question. However, the fact that modern day Israel is not Old Covenant Israel, not the ethnic seed of Abraham, not the chosen people of God, should be driven home to our political leaders. Old Covenant Biblical Israel, descended from Abraham, does not exist today. That nation served her purpose, and Jehovah removed her in A.D. 70.

The death of the thousands of victims in the Towers loudly proclaims that it is time for the Christian community to come to grips with this truth. If America feels it is proper to support Israel on the basis of national interest that is one thing. However, to continue to support Israel, the nation that is not God’s nation, upon the misguided premise that she remains as the chosen people of God, is wrong, and has, to this point, been a costly and tragic policy.

The fact that Old Covenant nationalistic Israel was never intended to be God’s determinative purpose is proven by the undeniable fact that she was but a shadow of the good things to come. And, it was the body, not the shadow that was the goal of God’s Scheme of Redemption

Many New Testament passages affirm that Israel, and her cultus were mere anticipations of God’s ultimate goal. Colossians 2:14f--Paul, addressing Gentile Christians being pressured to obey the Old Covenant laws about feast days, Sabbaths and

circumcision, told them that they must not allow themselves to be judged in respect to these things. Those practices were, “a shadow of good things that are about to come.” John had written earlier: “The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus” (John. 1:17f). This did not mean that the Law of Moses was not truth. Moses foreshadowed the reality of Christ. Israel’s world contained within itself the seeds of transformation--from shadow to reality.

As we shall show below, these praxis are the very things that the millennialists insist will be mandatory for all people, including the Gentiles, in the millennium. The millennialist believes that Gentiles will be judged in respect to the Feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, etc. in the millennium (per their view of Zechariah 14). Yet, Paul taught that those practices had no value compared to the better things of Jesus.

The meaning of this can hardly be overemphasized. The things mentioned by Paul are the heart and soul of the markers of Israel. They identified Israel. Yet, for Paul, they were mere shadows.

It cannot be argued that these things will one day become memorials, as opposed to being anticipatory in Paul’s day. The very nature of a shadow is that it is transitory. It is clear that for Paul, entrance into Christ, and the perfection of Christ’s work, negated the obligation to observe these commandments for religious reasons.138 He gave no hint that these mandates were to be temporarily set aside, or altered in

77

form, only to be re-instituted, and then observed as a memorial rather than anticipations of coming things. Those commands and regulations were shadows, shadows of better things, and the better things did not include the observance of the shadows.

Hebrews 3-4-- The writer argues that Israel’s exodus, and her entrance into the Land were typological events being played out in the first century experience of the early church. As Old Israel had entered into the Land, but had not entered into the Rest, the author points his readers away from the physical realities of Israel to the spiritual realities--the true rest--of Christ.

This chapter would have provided the Hebrew writer with a grand opportunity to speak of a yet future restoration of Israel to her land. Instead, he speaks of Israel in the land, yet longing for the promised rest promised by Jehovah. Although Israel did possess all the land promised to her (Joshua 21:43f; 1 Kings 4:20-21), that land was not the promised rest. It was not the ultimate goal to which the land pointed. Even Abraham understood this, and looked beyond the terra firma promises, to a better, heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13f).

Hebrews 8-- Israel’s Temple was the center of their world. Josephus says it was called “heaven and earth.”139 And while Israel took great pride, rightly so to a degree, in that edifice, Jehovah wanted them to look beyond that marvelous building to the greater Temple. In his speech to the angry crowd and Jewish leaders, Stephen called their attention to the fact that the Lord had always told them that He did not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48f). Thus, even in the Old Testament (Isaiah 66), God indicated that the physical Temple pointed to something else, something greater.

The Hebrew author says that the greater, True Tabernacle had come. It was not a restored physical edifice. It was the spiritual Temple of the church of Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:5f). When Hebrews was written, Herod’s grand edifice was still standing in Jerusalem as the glory of the Jews, and a wonderment to the world. Yet, the Hebrew author, writing in the midst of a controversy about the identity of the True People of God and the True Temple, points his readers away from that earthbound city and Temple, to the True Temple in the heavenly realm. Jesus serves in the True Tabernacle that the Lord pitched, and not man.

It is significant to note how the writer emphasizes that the Lord built this Temple. This was the promise of Zechariah 6:12-13. The Messiah would build the Temple, and be a king and priest on his throne. In Hebrews, the writer stresses that the Lord was even then building the True Tabernacle, and that he is king and priest (Hebrews 1:8f; 8:4f). He is careful however, to note that Jesus could not serve in the earthly Temple. He could not be a priest on earth (Hebrews 8:4), because of the legislation of the Old Covenant.

Thus, the Old Temple was not the focus of Israel’s Old Testament prophetic hopes, even though they may have mistakenly held that view. It served as a mere shadow and type of the better, eternal, heavenly Temple in which Jesus already serves. The contrast between a Temple “made with hands,” and the True Tabernacle “that the Lord pitched and not man,” is sufficient to show conclusively that the Old Temple was never the determinate goal of God’s kingdom. For all those believers today that anticipate--and contribute toward!--the future rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem,140 this is a critical truth. No future edifice, no matter how glorious, could ever approach in splendor the True Tabernacle built by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:6-28--In these critical verses, the writer sets forth several times the fact that Israel’s priesthood, sacrifices, and in fact, her entire cultic world, was a shadow of better things. Those sacrifices, those feast days, that world, was only imposed “until the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10). Very clearly the writer’s contrast is between the typological and temporary nature of the Old Covenant Word, and the New Covenant World of Jesus, which is the True Order anticipated by the Old.

As we will show below, the term “time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10, from διoρΘoσις, diorthosis) is a synonym for another important Biblical term, restoration (from απoκαταστασις). This time of reformation was the goal of Israel’s prophetic hope. It was the time when God

78

would restore her. It was the time when she would finally receive forgiveness, and God would bring man into His presence. Her exile would be over. Allow a few brief introductory thoughts in this regard.

In Isaiah 62:7, in the LXX, Jehovah promised the restoration of Israel. Jerusalem would be established (διoρΘoσις, diorthosis). This restoration would occur at the coming of Jehovah, in judgment and salvation (Isaiah 62:11f). Now, it is of great importance to see that Isaiah’s promise of the coming of Jehovah in judgment, as we have seen earlier, is the basis of Jesus’ promise that he was coming in judgment (Matthew 16:27). The point to see here is that the διoρΘoσις was the time of Israel’s restoration. However, the Hebrew writer lets us know in no uncertain terms when that διoρΘoσις would occur. It would not be in the restoration of the Old Covenant Cultus, or the restoration of any form of the Old Covenant World. It would in fact, be when that Old World was terminated!

Read Hebrews 9:6-10 again very carefully. It states that the then present cultic, ceremonial world was symbolic (prophetic) of coming better realities. And, this is what is so devastating to the millennial view. The writer shows that the time of reformation would be at the end of the Old Covenant World, not at the restoration of that Order. That Old World would foreshadow, and endure until the time of reformation. Furthermore, the writer goes to great pains to show that the promises made to Israel about the time of her restoration, i.e. a New Covenant, a New Tabernacle, a New Priesthood, etc., were already realities in Christ, and that the Old Order stood on the brink of passing away (Hebrews 7:12; 8:6-13; 12:18-28). Now, if the anticipated goal of the promises to Israel was to arrive at the end of the Old Order, per chapter 9:10, and if the Old Order was passing away, then this can only mean one thing, the shadow was giving way to the reality. And, further, this can only mean that the reality is Christ and the church, not a restored literal Temple, City, sacrifice, etc.

The argument based on Israel’s anticipated διoρΘoσις (diorthosis) is extremely powerful. Israel’s διoρΘoσις, her “establishment” (Isaiah 62:7), would arrive at the coming of the Lord in judgment and salvation (Isaiah 62:11f). But Israel’s διoρΘoσις would arrive when Israel’s Old Covenant, typological, ceremonial world was fulfilled and passed away (Hebrews 9:10)! Therefore, the restoration of Israel, her διoρΘoσις, was not to be the restorartion of her national existence, including her cultic, ceremonial system. That Old System was but a shadow of better things, and the Old was to give way forever at the coming of the Lord.

Other passages also show that Old Covenant Israel was intended to be a temporary, although vital, entity in God’s scheme. To suggest that one day God will restore that Old Cultus is to miss completely the temporary, ineffective, typological, and shadow nature of that Old Order.

Thus, our Point #1 is established: Old Testament Israel was a shadow of good things to come. Point #2 THE BODY, NOT THE SHADOW, THE GOAL, & Point #3 THE GOAL WAS SPIRITUAL NOT PHYSICAL

The millennial insistence that national Israel must be restored in earthly splendor is to miss God’s ultimate purpose for Israel. She was not the goal, Israel was the foreshadowing image, the precursor if you will, of what God was preparing. He used Israel to prepare the way for the “better things,” fully intending that when those better things arrived, the Old Covenant form would be cast aside. Having fulfilled her purpose, God’s exclusive Theocratic relationship with her would end. Berkoff wrote of Old Covenant Israel, “The theocratic nation itself was merely a type, a shadow of the spiritual realities of a better day, and, therefore, destined to vanish as soon as the antitype made its appearance. The restoration of the ancient theocracy in the future would simply mean the recurrence of the type.”141

Many Old Testament prophecies spoke of Israel’s ultimate destruction (Isaiah 65-66; Daniel 9:27; 12:7, etc.). This proves that nationalistic Israel was not God’s ultimate purpose. He promised a New Heaven and New Earth, only after Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 65:6-19). The New Creation was the focus, not Old Covenant Israel.

79

The fact that the New Testament writers anticipated the passing of the Old System, and the arrival of the New, shows that Old Israel was not God’s determinative purpose. The O. T. prophets went so far as to say that the time was coming when the Old World would not even be brought to mind, in comparison with the work that God was going to do (Jeremiah 3:14f; Isaiah 65:19f; cf. John 4). These hardly strike one as predictions of the re-establishment of that Old World.

Sadly, however, the dispensational world seems intent on maintaining and re-establishing the shadow, and removing the body. And make no mistake, the millennial paradigm does teach that in the millennium, the church, with all of its distinctive tenets, advantages and blessings, will be set aside, and nationalistic Israel, with her distinctives, will be reinstated. Pentecost is clear for instance, in teaching that whereas in the current church age, equality between Jew and Gentile in Christ is the order of the day, in the millennium, Jew and Gentile distinctions will be restored: “Objection is sometimes raised that God has forever broken down the barrier that separates Jew and Gentile and makes them one. This view arises from the failure to realize that this is God’s purpose for the present age, but has no reference to God’s program in the millennial age.” (Pentecost, 528)

Further, the millennialists insist that Israel’s land, city, Temple, sacrifices, her Sabbaths, and even circumcision, will be re-established in the millennial age. In fact, it is striking that the millennialists speak so insistently of the restoration of Israel, and then turn around and say, “The sacrifices of the millennial temple will not be a return to the Mosaic Law, since the Law has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ.” (Prophecy, 258). Pentecost concurs, “The millennial age will not see the re-establishment of Judaism.” (Pentecost, 522).

The inherent contradictions of millennialism become apparent in regard to the restoration of Israel. On the one hand, Ice, (Watch, 60) says that during the first 3 ½ years of the 7 year period before the millennium, “Judaism is revived, and the traditional sacrifices and ceremonies are re-instituted in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.” However, he then insists that during the millennium, Judaism is not restored, since the Mosaic Law, “has been forever fulfilled and discontinued in Christ” (Watch, 258). Thus, the Mosaic System--“which has been forever fulfilled and discontinued”--will be restored for 3 ½ years prior to the millennium, but it cannot be restored during the millennium, because it “has been forever fulfilled and discontinued in Christ.” If the Law of Moses and Judaism has been, and currently is, “forever discontinued,” then there surely is no place for the restoration of the Judaism and the “traditional sacrifices and ceremonies” at any point in the future!

In Ice’s scheme, it is clear that there must be two future restorations of Israel The first is a revival of Judaism and the traditional sacrifices and ceremonies, i.e. a revival of the Mosaic cultus, and the other, which is not a revival of Judaism, because the Mosaic Law has been forever removed.

So, what the millennialists claim is that Israel will be restored in the millennium, but will actually be radically transformed. It is the same people, the same land, the same city, a new, but literal, temple, with the same animal sacrifices,142 the same Sabbaths, the same circumcision, a different priesthood143 and a new covenant.144 Ice, seeking to dispel the difficulties in positing the restoration of the Mosaic institutes, says, (citing Fruchtenbaum), “The sacrificial system of the Millennium must not be viewed as a re-institution of the Mosaic system, because it is not. It will be a new system that will contain some things old and some things new, and will be instituted for an entirely different purpose.” (1998, 258).The trouble for this view is that Jesus emphatically condemned the idea of joining the Old with the New.

In Mark 2:21f, Jesus said, “No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old garment, or else the new piece pulls away the old, and the tear is made worse. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But the new wine must be put into new wineskins.” The idea that in the millennium, some elements of the Mosaic Covenant will be incorporated, and some deleted, while new elements are added, is a direct violation of Jesus’ words. Scripture makes no provision for the establishment of a modified, quasi-restored, some new/some old, nation and cultus of Israel.

80

As we have and will see, nationalistic Israel, with her cultus, was never intended to be the ultimate focus of God’s Scheme of Redemption. She was but a shadow, a foretaste of better things. The better things that she foreshadowed were the ultimate goal. This is demonstrable from many scriptures, many of which the millennialists claim speak of the restoration of physical Israel.

Consider briefly, for instance, the subject of circumcision. Isaiah 52:1f speaks of the anticipated New Jerusalem, the millennial city, per dispensationalists. Isaiah said that no one uncircumcised would

enter the city. Here is an example of where the type and antitype, the shadow versus the reality is revealed to us in a fine way, and proves that what Israel foreshadowed was the ultimate goal, not the physical nation.

Paul taught that the New Jerusalem was a present, but not perfected reality. He contrasted the heavenly city with the literal city, always positing the Old City in a negative light compared to the New. In Hebrews 12-13, he urged his readers to realize that the Old City was nothing when compared to the glory of the heavenly city (Hebrews 12:18f), and, in chapter 11 he taught that the heavenly city was that to which Abraham actually (ultimately) looked, not the physical land or a literal city. The heavenly Jerusalem is eternal, the old city was doomed to destruction, “we have here no abiding city” (Hebrews 13:14).

Paul’s view of literal Jerusalem was that she was “in bondage with her children,” and was to be cast out, for persecuting the church (Galatians 4:22f). He teaches that it is the spiritual seed of Abraham that receives the promises made to him, not the physical lineage (Galatians 3:14f).

In Philippians 3, Paul also posits literal Jerusalem in a negative light compared to the heavenly home-city of those who, like him, were willing to “count all things but loss” to know Christ.145

The point is, that for Paul, the Old Covenant promises of a New Jerusalem, were being fulfilled in Christ and the church. And, he agreed that no uncircumcised would enter that New Jerusalem. However, Paul’s view of circumcision was opposed to the literalistic view.

In Colossians 2:11-14, the apostle confronted the Judaising teaching that demanded that the Gentile Christians submit to physical circumcision. He reminded them that in fact, they had been circumcised. They had also, as a matter of fact, died, been buried, put off the body of flesh,146 and were resurrected! “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Colossians 2:11-13, KJV)

Remember, Paul did not preach an altered message from the prophets. He anticipated the resurrection that was the hope of the twelve tribes (Acts 26), he preached the New Creation, he preached the New Jerusalem, he preached the Abrahamic promises (Galatians 3).

In Colossians, Paul discourses on the New Creation, which is integral to Israel’s eschatological aspirations. And, he rejects the necessity of physical circumcision, but demands the circumcision of the heart, that takes place by faith, in baptism. Thus, a fundamental element of Israel’s eschatological hope is shown to be spiritual to the core. Paul did not spiritualize a literal prophecy. He showed that Israel’s literal things foreshadowed spiritual things. He showed that the true intent of those prophecies was spiritual all the time.

No controversy was more heated, or pressing, in the first century than that of circumcision, and whether the Gentiles had to submit to those Mosaic mandates (Acts 15). For Paul, who preached the hope of Israel, entrance into the New Jerusalem definitely demanded circumcision, but not circumcision of the flesh, nor submission to the Old Covenant legislation. Instead, he insisted that while the anticipated New Creation was being

81

formed in his day (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2, etc.), he said entrance into that New Order demanded circumcision of the heart. In other words, Paul understood Old Covenant Israel’s literal circumcision as typological of the New Covenant circumcision of the heart.

The millennialists like to emphasize that the Abrahamic Land Covenant takes precedence over the Mosaic Covenant, because the Abrahamic Covenant was made before the Mosaic. That is why it is argued that the Mosaic Covenant could pass, and yet, per the millennialists, the Land promise to Israel still be valid. However, this presents a daunting problem in regard to circumcision. Circumcision was a command of God to Abraham, a sign of His covenant with him (Genesis 17:7-17f). So meaningful was the sign that Jehovah said any man not circumcised was to have no inheritance in the land or the people. Serious stuff indeed.

Our point is that when Paul argued that physical circumcision was invalid, this was not simply an argument against the Mosaic Law per se. It was a refutation of reliance on the physical promises made to Abraham. Circumcision, in a real sense, gave Israel title deed and right to possess the land, what the millennialists call the Palestinian Covenant. This being true, when Paul said that “circumcision avails nothing,” (Galatians 5:4-6), this amounted to a direct statement that God’s land promises had been fulfilled, and that God considered that Covenant fulfilled. If God removed circumcision, the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Land Promise, then the Land Covenant was null and void. No first century Jew could imagine the abrogation of circumcision without correlating that with the removal of their right to the land, and the one key praxis that identified them as children of God. No wonder the outrage on the part of the Jews! No wonder Paul said, “If I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased” (Galatians 5:11).

The importance of this issue can hardly be overstated. The millennialists like to maintain that when Paul discusses the promises to Abraham in the NT, that he is focused on the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the blessings in Christ in the church, because the physical nation had been temporarily set aside. Paul was not focused on the nationalistic promises because he knew the nation was not supposed to be the focus of the church age, in other words. However, this will not work, for Paul is focused on circumcision, and in scripture that related, not to the spiritual seed, but to the physical seed, and the physical land promises! Why would Paul focus his attention on the centerpiece of God’s physical promises to Abraham, and pointedly reject the importance of that practice, all the while saying that he was proclaiming the fulfillment of God’s Abrahamic Covenant? If circumcision was related to the physical promises, why does Paul even bother discussing it, when discussing the spiritual blessings in Christ? Why does Paul condemn the practice of physical circumcision, and why does he say that true circumcision is spiritual? Why does he identify the true Jew as one circumcised in the heart and not the flesh (Romans 2:28-29), and those who ”put no confidence in the flesh” as the true circumcision (Philippians 3:1f)?

Paul did not indicate that circumcision had been only temporarily set aside until God finally fulfills the land promises to Israel. He unequivocally condemned the religious practice of circumcision. For Paul, the attempt to practice circumcision amounted to nothing less than a rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The foundation of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the physical promises, was unconditionally rejected and condemned by the Apostle of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham.

The removal of circumcision meant that the reality that the land promise pointed to typologically, was now come. The shadow would pass, and the sign and seal of that covenant would pass, when the ultimate goal to which the sign pointed became a reality. Circumcision was removed by God, not because His promises to Israel--or to Abraham-- were postponed, but because He had kept His promises to Abraham. The shadow passed because the heavenly reality to which they pointed was becoming a reality (Hebrews 11:13f).

The removal of circumcision is the removal of the Land Promise to Abraham. The only way that could happen is for that Covenant to be fulfilled, and the greater Land of which it was a shadow had become a reality.

82

It cannot be argued that the Mosaic Law has been removed, but that the Land promises to Abraham remain valid.147 Circumcision predated the Mosaic Covenant and was vitally integral to the Land promise to Abraham. Thus, for Paul to reject circumcision has profound implications for the study of the Abrahamic Covenant. No NT writer wrote more about the Abrahamic Covenant or circumcision than Paul. Yet, Paul rejected the necessity of circumcision.

Circumcision and the land promises to Abraham did, of course, precede the Mosaic Covenant. Therefore, for Paul and the NT writers--and don’t forget that they were by and large Jews fully conversant with the Abrahamic Covenant-- to reject physical circumcision was nothing short of incredible. It signaled that they understood that God had kept His promises, and that the fulfillment of those promises that would allow the sign of the Covenant to be annulled was spiritual. The Abrahamic Covenant said, “No circumcision, no land” (cf. Joshua 5). Yet, now, Paul says, if you are circumcised Christ profits you nothing. To enter Christ was to enter the promised land foreshadowed by the Abrahamic Land Promise, but, it was to also renounce the earthly land.

The rejection of circumcision declared that the Land promises were fulfilled, and that Israel no longer had title deed to the physical land. The ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was spiritual, not territorial. The millennial insistence that the Abrahamic Land promise remains valid, and that circumcision will be re-instituted in the millennium can mean but one thing, Paul’s doctrine concerning circumcision must become a false doctrine.

The doctrine of the re-establishment of physical circumcision is one element of the millennial paradigm that is seldom addressed. However, in Ezekiel 44:9f, which supposedly describes the literal millennial temple, anyone not circumcised in heart or flesh is forbidden to worship at the temple. Thus, circumcision, the sign of division between Jew and Gentile in the New Testament corpus, is re-established in the millennium. Whereas Paul preached the “hope of Israel,” he nonetheless uncompromisingly fought the Judaizers over whether Gentiles had to be circumcised. Yet, per the millennial view, the millennium is a world in which Jehovah becomes the Divine Judaizer! What He forbad to occur in Christ, He will demand in the millennium! Jerome’s concern, expressed long ago, describes the millennial paradigm. Jerome believed that the idea of a restored sacrificial system in Jerusalem would Judaize Christianity, instead of Christianity Christianizing the adherents of Judaism.148

If then the mandates of the Old Covenant are restored, this means that the first century Judaizers were just way ahead of their time! In the millennium, their doctrine will be truth, Gentiles do have to be circumcised. Paul’s doctrine that, “If you become circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing,”149 “If any man is circumcised, he is a debtor to keep the whole law,” “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails,” (Galatians 5:1-6), will be abrogated, and falsified, while the Judaizer’s mantra, “The Gentiles must be circumcised!” will be proclaimed. Those laws that Paul called “the weak and beggarly elements of the world,” will be restored, and man--this time both Jew and Gentile--will be held in bondage to them once again.150

Clearly, for Paul, physical circumcision was no longer a litmus test of kingdom, Son ship, or of the promises of God. He knew that Jehovah had promised that in the last days the kingdom would be established, with a New Creation, and that the uncircumcised could not enter. However, Paul taught that the promised New Creation was already a reality, if not a perfected one. He taught that a person could not enter that New Jerusalem without being circumcised. But, he believed that the required circumcision was that of the heart. Paul did not spiritualize a literalistic promise, he showed that the real meaning, the true goal of God’s scheme was spiritual.

Another text that was important to Paul, and one that he interprets contrary to the literalism of millennialism, is Ezekiel 37.

Were the Judaizers that Paul resisted so vehemently, and condemned so stridently, in reality, just ahead of their time?

83

Ezekiel 37 is one of the foundational texts appealed to by the millennial camp to prove that one day God will establish a new covenant with Israel, and re-establish the literal temple (Prophecy, 256). However, in the mind of Paul, the prediction of Ezekiel stands fulfilled in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3-6 is Paul’s inspired commentary on the prophecy of Ezekiel 37. It cannot be over-emphasized, by way of reminder, that Paul insisted that he proclaimed one message “the hope of Israel” (Acts 24-28). It is strange that, if Paul believed Israel’s promises had been deferred into the distant future, he never indicated a future return to the land, to a rebuilt temple, to a restored circumcision, a re-established Sabbath, etc. He never hinted at a failed mission of Jesus, a postponed kingdom. Further, he absolutely forbad his Gentile converts to observe the Judaistic mandates. This is exceedingly important.

Instead of discussing a postponed kingdom, or a future restoration of national Israel, Paul presents his message of the gospel, the message of Jew and Gentile equality in Christ, as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. And, the passage before us is an example of Paul appealing to Israel’s promises of salvation, and insisting that those promises were being fulfilled, not in nationalistic restoration, but in the spiritual body of Christ.

Jehovah promised that when He saved Israel, He would make a New Covenant of peace with them (Ezekiel 37:26). Ezekiel’s contemporary, Jeremiah, made the same promise (Jeremiah 31). The millennialist insists that Jehovah has not yet made that covenant, and will not do so until the national restoration of Israel in the millennium. However, in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul has a totally different view of things.

In chapters 3-6, Paul iterates the elements of Ezekiel 37, resurrection, the outpouring of the Spirit, the New Covenant, the New Tabernacle. It is incredible to think that Paul, minister of the hope of Israel, would appeal to one of the central eschatological prophecies of Israel, and say that Christ had established what that prophecy foretold, the New Covenant, and yet, actually believe and teach that the prediction had not been fulfilled.

The millennialists hold that God’s promise to Israel, to make a New Covenant with them (Ezekiel 37; Jeremiah 31), has not yet been fulfilled, and will not be realized until the millennium (Prophecy, 252). However, Paul’s discussion of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3f is based on Ezekiel 37 (including Exodus 34). Did Paul have two New Covenants in mind? If the Covenant established by Jesus’ death (Matthew 26:26-28) was not the New Covenant predicted by Ezekiel, why did Paul appeal to Ezekiel when discussing that New Covenant established by Jesus?

If the New Covenant Paul discusses in 2 Corinthians 3 was not the Covenant promised in Ezekiel 37, why did he not delineate between Ezekiel’s promises and the Covenant he was discussing? Why did he not tell his readers that Jesus’ New Covenant was not, in reality, what Ezekiel promised. If the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 was not the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, then this chapter would have provided Paul with a great opportunity to speak of the postponement of Israel’s promises, and the establishment of an interim New Covenant. Instead, the proclaimer of the hope of Israel presents the work of Christ in establishing the New Covenant of the gospel, as the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promises to Israel.

What this means is that Israel’s Old Covenant, that established her as a nationalistic entity, was, in Paul’s theology, fulfilled and removed in Christ’s New Covenant. For Paul, what Christ was doing was what those Old Testament predictions foretold. Further, it means that for Paul, the Old Covenant form of Israel “had no glory” compared to the gospel covenant.

In 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8, the writer affirms: 1.) God’s promises to establish a New Covenant with Israel, 2.) The imminent (to him) passing of the Old Covenant, 3.) The reality of the New Covenant. Now, why would the inspired penman call his reader’s attention to God’s promises of a New Covenant, tell them the Old was on the verge of passing away, tell them that what Christ was establishing (Hebrews 7:22), was better than the Old, and not have what the Old foretold in mind? 151 It would be confusing to say the least, to have the writers

84

constantly appeal to the O.T. promises of a New Covenant when discussing what Christ was already doing, when they knew that what Christ was doing was not what the O.T. predictions anticipated.

The millennial confusion on this issue is serious. Ice appeals to 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8 as proof that the Mosaic law has “forever been fulfilled and discontinued” (Prophecy, 258). 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8 allude to the promises of a New Covenant found in Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 31. 2 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 8 say that Christ established a New Covenant. Yet, the millennial view is that what Christ established in the Gospel is not what Ezekiel and Jeremiah promised!

In other words, the millennial view might look something like this: Ezekiel 37/Jeremiah 31 promised a New Covenant in the last days. Paul, (living in the last days), citing Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 31, says the Old Covenant was

“nigh to passing away” (Hebrews 8:13). Please note that the promise of the New Covenant necessitated the removal of the Old (Hebrews 8).152 Thus, for the NT writers to say that the Old Covenant was passing away could mean but one thing, the promised New Covenant was near.

The eschatological implications for the removal of the Old Covenant are incredible. Covenantal transformation would be nothing less than the “birth pangs of Messiah,” the commonly held view that before the kingdom could come--with the attendant New Covenant--Israel had to pass through a time of intense persecution. Thus, while salvation was promised in the New Covenant world, it was definitely believed that, “we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).153 Salvation lay on the other side of judgment (Isaiah 65:13-19).

Paul says Christ was establishing the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3/Hebrews 8). Paul says the New Covenant that Jesus was establishing was better than the Old Covenant (2 Corinthians 3/ Hebrews 8). However, according to the millennialist, the New Covenant that Christ was establishing was not what Ezekiel and Jeremiah foretold, and,

the gospel Covenant will one day be set aside so that a quasi-restored Old Covenant will be established. In brief form the millennial argument would look like this:

Promise of the New Covenant passing of the Old establishment of a New, better covenant, (but not the promised New Covenant) removal of the Interim New Covenant (the gospel) in the millennium establishment of the “real” New Covenant in the millennium. To say the very least, this is a disingenuous schema foreign to scripture.

Jeremiah promised that under the New Covenant God would forgive sin. Under Christ’s New Covenant, sin is forgiven in precisely the manner and to the degree, foretold by Jeremiah. This means that Jeremiah and Ezekiels’ prophecy of the New Covenant has been fulfilled! It means that Jesus, “has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much more he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6). Now, if Christ’s current New Covenant is a better covenant, and is built on better promises, then any discussion of the restoration of the nation of Israel and her cultus, no matter how modified the form of restoration, is to suggest the restoration of what was inherently inferior!

God’s ultimate purpose was, even admitted by the millennial school, the New Covenant of Peace and Forgiveness. Christ’s current New Covenant is, and offers, what Israel’s prophets foretold. But Christ’s current New Covenant is not about a restored nationalistic kingdom of Israel, but, instead, a New People encompassing all men. Further, Christ’s current New Covenant is clearly better than the Old Covenant. The conclusion is inescapable therefore, that Jesus’ current New Covenant was the focus of God’s ultimate and determinative purpose. National Israel was never the determinative purpose of God!

A New Covenant meant the Old had to pass. The Old was “nigh to passing.” This could mean but one thing, the promised New Covenant was near!

85

Not only did Ezekiel foretell the establishment of the New Covenant, he predicted the establishment of God’s tabernacle among men. This prophecy is considered one of the key proofs of a restored nationalistic Israel, with a literal temple standing on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Ice, citing Ezekiel 37, says, “The millennial temple will be the center from which the worship of Jesus Christ will be focused during the millennium...In the millennial temple, all that was prescribed and initiated in the Old Testament ceremonial and ritual activities will come to completion and their fullest meaning.” (Prophecy, 256).

Let it not be forgotten that the Hebrew writer clearly states that Israel’s Old Covenant Temple and cultus was a mere shadow of better things, our Point #1. They were not shadows or types of themselves. They foreshadowed heavenly realities, not earthly realities (Hebrews 9:6-24). They typified the true things, not the shadows. We are justified to ask therefore, in what way could a restored literalistic Temple, with its bloody animal sacrifices, its feast days and Sabbaths, be the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s predictions? Charles Spurgeon posed the following pertinent questions and thoughts,

“Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, or any of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of Tabernacles, or dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under new heavens and earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it”154

Spurgeon’s comment are challenging to the millennial view of things, but dead on in recognizing that Christ’s work--which removed that Old World--was the ultimate and determinative purpose of God.

The Old Covenant system was, from its inception, never God’s ultimate goal. Even under the later Old Covenant time, Jehovah challenged Israel to realize that her attachment to her temple cultus was misguided, and failed to look beyond the earthly things, “Heaven is my throne, earth is my footstool. Where is the house that you will build for me? And where is the place of my rest?” Israel was so enamored with the physical temple that they could not, or were not, focused on what that temple represented.

However, the fact that Jehovah promised that in the last days, “the mountain of the Lord’s house” (Isaiah 2:2f), would be established, and that He would save Israel by judgment, and establish His tabernacle among the people (Isaiah 4:4f), was indicative that the physical edifice was to be superceded. Just as the promise of a new priesthood demanded the removal of the Old (Hebrews 7:12), and just as the promise of a New Covenant demanded the removal of the Old (Hebrews 8:6f), the promise of a New Temple demanded the removal, not the restoration, of the Old Temple.

Jeremiah said the time was coming when the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and trips to the Holy City would not even be remembered; a new system would transcend the Old (Jeremiah 3:14f). Jesus echoed that prophecy with the woman at the well (John 4). He predicted that the time was coming when men would not go to Jerusalem. This timing of this prophecy is critical.

We are told by the millennialists that Matthew 12 marks the turning point of Jesus’ ministry. It was supposedly at that time, when Jesus realized that the leaders were opposed to him, that he withdrew the offer of the kingdom, and resigned himself to die. He then established the church as an interim measure until the establishment of the kingdom. However, John 4 deals with an early period in Jesus’ ministry, when he was supposedly still offering the establishment of the Messianic kingdom, and not the church. This means that in John 4, when Jesus foretold the de-centralization of worship, that he was saying that physical Jerusalem and her temple were not to be the center of worship in the kingdom!155 The Temple at Jerusalem was not God’s determinative purpose! It foreshadowed something better, and what it foreshadowed was the real goal of God’s purposes.

86

The Hebrew writer once again speaks to the shadow versus reality complex of ideas. He says Christ has become the “minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord erected, and not man” (Hebrews 8:2). Please note that the writer compares Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly temple with the Old Covenant Temple.

Ellingworth, commenting on Hebrews 8:2f, says, “The point is to show from scripture itself that the Mosaic tabernacle, and by implication the whole O.T. cultus, was only a copy of the heavenly reality.”156 Kistemaker, commenting on Hebrews 9:6f, says, “The writer sees the first tabernacle as an illustration of that which is real. The illustration itself, is not identical to reality.”157 As we have seen, scripture confirms all of these comments.

Paul says Israel’s New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths were (Greek present tense) a “shadow of good things that are about to (from mello) come” (Colossians 2:16. Israel’s cultus was not the reality, not the aim or goal of God’s schema. Her True Tabernacle was not a restored physical edifice, but the body of Christ, the church. Her True priesthood was not to be a Zadokite or Levitical, but that of the lineage of Jesus Christ by faith. Her sacrifices were not to be a restored bloody cultus, but the perfect one time for all time sacrifice of Jesus.

This can hardly be over-emphasized, for if the Old Covenant form of worship, the Old Covenant form of nation, the Old Covenant Temple, was not God’s determinative purpose, then to suggest that Christianity will be set aside to restore that old shadowy, typological system is misplaced.

Note that the Hebrew writer contrasts Jesus’ heavenly sacerdotal duties with the earthly temple cultus. The earthly was made with hands, Jesus’ heavenly service is not of the earth. The Old Temple was not the true Temple. How then could a restored physical Temple, no matter how glorious, ever compare to the heavenly Temple over which Jesus became the minister? No amount of sophistry, or argumentation can make an earthly edifice more glorious, or more important than the True Tabernacle in the heavenlies!

Finally, we have the definitive commentary on the identity and nature of the determinative purpose of God in regard to the Temple. We must return to 2 Corinthians 3-6.

As we have seen, Paul draws on the prophecy Ezekiel 37 in his discussion of the New Covenant, the ministry of the Spirit, resurrection, etc., and, for our purposes, the promise of the New Temple. He not only teaches that the predicted New Covenant was becoming a reality through his ministry, he also affirms, in no uncertain terms that the prediction of Ezekiel was being fulfilled!

In 2 Corinthians 6:14f, the Cilician apostle urges his brethren to live lives of holiness, and not to be bound to the idolatrous praxis of the world around them: “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’”

Let us emphasize again that Paul taught nothing but the hope of Israel. That hope was ever before him, and his constant reference to the Old Testament prophecies show that he maintained that hope throughout his ministry. Paul never abandoned the proclamation of the promises made to Israel! Nor did he distort or spiritualize predictions that were supposed to be literal. Paul, by inspiration proclaimed God’s determinative purpose, and the real meaning of His promises.

Thus, when Paul alludes to, cites, and quotes from the promises made to Israel, it is the responsibility of the reader to see how Paul applied the prophecy. The modern reader has no authority to say that Paul changed the original meaning of the prophecies, or to say that while Paul may have applied them in a spiritual way that the ultimate fulfillment will be literal. If Paul was an apostle, inspired by the Spirit, then his application of the promises made to Israel must be the definitive and final word on the application of the prophecies. And, what this means is that Ezekiel’s prediction of the New Temple has been fulfilled.

87

2 Corinthians 6:16 is a direct allusion to Ezekiel 37:26-27. (Also Leviticus 26). Paul says that the church was what Ezekiel predicted. This means that for Paul, the church, the spiritual body of Christ was the fulfillment of Israel’s last days soteriological hope for God’s dwelling place.

Ezekiel said that in the last days Jehovah would build His Temple among men. Paul lived in the last days, and said that God was building His Temple among men (cf. Ephesians 2:20f; 1 Peter 2:5f). He said “You are the Temple...as it is written,” and his prophetic source is Ezekiel 37. There could not be a clearer declaration of fulfilled prophecy. The Temple foretold by Ezekiel was God’s ultimate and determinative purpose, but the Temple that Ezekiel foretold, according to Paul, was the church of the Living God, not a rebuilt physical edifice in a restored physical Jerusalem.

The church, or spiritual body of Christ, was, per Paul, the fulfillment of the prediction of a New Temple (Ezekiel 37). The Temple as foretold in Ezekiel 37 was the determinative purpose of God. Therefore, the church, or spiritual body of Christ, was the determinative purpose of God.

Our Point #3 is, therefore, established: Israel’s anticipated good things to come, were spiritual as opposed to nationalistic and physical. Point #4 in our argument is: Old Covenant Israel, as the shadow, had to be removed to reveal the anticipated better things. This truth

is taught in a variety of different ways. Isaiah 65-66 plainly states that before the New Heavens and Earth could come, Israel had to be destroyed, at the coming of the Lord. These

two great passages contain several very significant tenets that are distorted by modern exegetes. A brief survey is in order. In Isaiah 64, Israel prayed for Jehovah to come out of heaven, as He had done so many times before in her behalf. Now, the millennialists

apply Isaiah 64:1-12 to the Great Tribulation when 2/3 of Israel has been destroyed by the Antichrist. Israel supposedly cries to the Lord in repentance, and Jehovah comes to deliver her.

Unfortunately for the millennial view, the text denies that construct. First, Israel wanted Jehovah to come as He had come in the past. Had Jehovah ever come out of heaven literally, in defense of Israel? Patently not. He had, however, as we have seen earlier, manifested His majesty by using nature, or invading armies to act in His behalf. Isaiah said He had come down, and that the mountains shook. However, this is metaphoric language. To suggest that Israel actually wanted Jehovah to literally come out of the sky and destroy the earth is to interject foreign, and modern, concepts into the text without justification.

Further, while Israel is depicted as praying for the Lord to come in deliverance, the text suggests that Israel is not in fact, repentant, she is guilty of sin, and her cry was a cry of “convenience.” They wonder “How long O Lord will you keep silent?” They are praying for the Lord to come and deliver them. However, the prophet laments the fact that “there is no one who calls on your name” (64:7). In chapter 65, the prophet gives the reason for the sad condition of the people, “I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, according to their own thoughts” (65:2). Paul applies this text to Israel of his day (Romans 10:21). Then, the promise/threat is made, “I will not keep silence, I will repay, even repay into their bosom--Your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together says the Lord, Who have burned incense on the mountains and blasphemed Me on the hills; Therefore, I will measure their former work into their bosom.”

Christ’s Temple, priesthood, sacrifice, land and city, is far better than Israel’s Old Covenant realities. Why then would God restore what has been superceded?

88

Israel wondered why God was silent in face of their prayer for deliverance, and wondered how long He would keep silent. The prophet said God would not keep silence forever, but that when He acted, it would not be as Israel wanted. He was coming to be sure (Isaiah 66:15f), but He was coming to judge and destroy Israel, not to deliver her, that is, except the remnant (65:8f).

The millennial school has turned the text on its head by claiming that it speaks of a literal coming of Jesus to save Israel from judgment when she cries to Him in repentance. Isaiah depicts Jehovah coming as He had come before, and He had never come literally before. The passage presents Israel praying--in the midst of their sin, not in repentance--for deliverance, when in fact, the Lord would come to destroy Israel.

Further, as seen, the millennialists claims that the text presents Israel in a repentant spirit. However, the text actually suggests that Israel’s measure of sin would be full. Isaiah predicted that Israel would ultimately fill the measure of her sin, “Your sins and the sins of your fathers will I measure into your bosom” (Isaiah 65:6f). Leupold says Isaiah 65:6-7, “indicates that there is such a thing as ‘mass guilt,’ where the sins of generation after generation are not completely broken with and the amount grows higher and higher. Ultimately, or time and again, it then happens that God visits the ‘sins of the fathers upon the children.’”158 Jackson says, “The idiom means that the Lord will fill their ‘sack’ with what they deserve. Israel’s sins had been accumulating over a long period of history, and the time of full payment would eventually come.”159

As we have seen, Jesus clearly taught that Israel would fill the measure of her sin in his generation. Paul taught the same thing (1 Thessalonians 2:15-17), and the Apocalypse reiterated it as well.160

Isaiah 64-65 does not then, as claimed by the millennialists, view Israel as repentant, calling on the Lord. It presents Israel reaching the zenith of sin, in the midst of trials, calling on the Lord to deliver them. However, instead of deliverance, Jehovah warned Israel, “You will leave your name for a curse to My chosen ones. And the Lord God will slay you. But My servants will be called by another name” (Isaiah 65:15). The Lord promised, however, that following this destruction, “I create a new heaven and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17-19). It is undeniable that the New Creation promised to Israel necessitated the destruction of Israel! Israel’s salvation could only be achieved “by the spirit of fire and the spirit of judgment” (Isaiah 4:4).

As we have seen above, the things that Israel foreshadowed and typified were the Lord’s ultimate goal. The New Temple, the New Covenant, the New Sacrifice, the New Priesthood (Isaiah 66:19f), etc.. What is often overlooked is that the scriptures affirm that the coming of the New necessitated the removal of the Old. In other words, inherent in Jehovah’s promise to bring Israel into the “Age to Come” was the awful reality that “This Age” had to pass, and this was to be a traumatic, horrifying, but necessary event.

The Hebrew writer tells us that the promise of a New Priesthood demanded the removal of the Old (Hebrews 7:12). The promise of the New City meant “we have here no abiding city” (Hebrews 13:14). The Old was doomed. The promise of the New Covenant meant the removal of the Old, and, in fact, that Old was “ready to pass away” (Hebrews 8:13). The promise of the Temple suggested that the Old would only stand until the New came (Hebrews 9:10).

Now, if the arrival of the New demanded the passing of the Old, then this demands, Point #4, that the passing of Old Covenant Israel was absolutely necessary for her to inherit her eschatological and soteriological promises. For Israel to inherit the reality, and ultimate goal of Jehovah’s promises, Old Covenant Israel, the shadow of the good things, had to pass!

This brings us to our Point #5, Old Testament Israel, the shadow of good things to come, would be removed, and reach her eschatological goal, when she was judged, for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs.

The promise of the New World necessitated the passing of the Old. This meant that for Israel to inherit her promises, her Old World had to pass, not be restored!

89

We have already covered this point to some extent above. However, it is important to review some texts that show, that in the last days, Israel’s salvation would come when she was judged for persecuting the elect. Isaiah 2-4 Jehovah promised that in the last days, He would establish “the mountain of the Lord’s house,” and all nations would flow into it (2:2f). The Day of the Lord (Jehovah) would come, and men would flee from His wrath (2:11-21). It would be a time of warfare, when Jehovah would “judge His people” (3:13), in “the war” when Israel’s men would fall by the edge of the sword” (3:25). It would be in that Day when Jehovah would wash away “the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purge the blood of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning” (4:4). When the Lord would remove Israel’s blood guilt, He would establish His tabernacle, and dwell with the people (4:5f).

We have here virtually every eschatological tenet one could imagine. The promise of the kingdom and salvation, the promise of the Day of the Lord and judgment, the purpose of that judgment, Israel’s blood guilt, the means of avenging that blood guilt, judgment, and the promise of God’s Tabernacle among men. Israel’s goal was kingdom. The road to the kingdom lay through judgment for shedding the blood of the righteous! Isaiah 24-29 Israel’s hands were defiled by blood (Isaiah 1:15). However, the Lord promised that the time was coming when He would judge that guilt. In the day of salvation, the “city of confusion” (24:10), would be destroyed because the people had “broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). Jehovah would reign on Mt. Zion (24:23), and the faithful would be rewarded (25:6f). At the time of judgment, when the Lord would come out of His place, however, the earth would disclose her blood, and the guilt of that violence could be concealed no longer (26:21). Jehovah would save Israel to be sure, but the means of that salvation would be “when He makes all the stones of the altar as chalk stones that are beaten to dust” (27:9).

Thus, just as in the last days prediction of Isaiah 2-4, the prophet continued to say that in the last days, Jehovah would indeed save Israel, but it would be a “marvelous work and a wonder” (29:14), one that they did not expect! Young says the force of the Hebrew text is that what God was to do would totally confound the wisdom of men,161 it would be a “strange” work by Jehovah, because it would not be what they expected. They would expect Jehovah to act on their behalf, in the way He had acted before. He would act, and it would be to accomplish His ultimate purposes, but, it would not be what Israel expected! It would be judgment, not deliverance!

Thus, Israel’s soteriological and eschatological goal is clearly couched within the context of judgment, of judgment for shedding the blood of the righteous. This is the great paradox, salvation by means of eschatological transformation. Isaiah 59 The passage to which advocates of a supposed future deliverance of Israel go, is in fact, a passage that teaches that Israel’s promised salvation would come at the time when she was judged for shedding the blood of the righteous.

The prophet says Israel’s hands were “defiled with blood” (59:3), “the act of violence is in their hand,” and they “make haste to shed innocent blood” (v. 7). See Jeremiah 2:30f; Ezekiel 7; Hosea 4:2, etc.

Jehovah saw Israel’s guilt, and their hopelessness (v. 9f). Her sins of violence were “increasing” (v. 12) indicating that they were filling up the measure. The Lord saw, and determined to act. He put on the “helmet of salvation, and the garments of vengeance” (v. 17), and promised “according to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies” (v. 18). The Redeemer would come to Zion to be sure (v. 20), but, not only would salvation accompany Him, He would bring wrath as well.162

Thus, our point #5, is taught with clarity in one of the most pivotal of all O.T. texts that promised salvation for Israel: Old Testament Israel, the shadow of better things, would achieve her soteriological goal at the time when she was judged for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs.

This brings us to our Point #6: The judgment of Israel for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs would occur at the Day of the Lord. There can be little dispute over the veracity of this claim.

90

In Isaiah 2-4, the prophet constantly uses the term “in that Day,” and as Young notes, “In the prophetic language this refers to the Day of the Lord” (1969, p.102). The Day of which he spoke was when God would arise “to shake the earth mightily” (2:19), and men would flee to the caves and mountains for safety and escape (v. 12-21). It goes without saying that the idea of flight is contradictory to the view of the “end of time” when the material creation is supposed to be burned to a crisp, in the twinkling of an eye! The Day of the Lord in view is, patently, a historical event, in time, not at the end of time. The prophet says that the Day in which the Lord would remove the filth of Zion and cleanse Israel would be the time of judgment upon Israel (4:1-4).

Isaiah 24-29 posits the salvation of Israel, when the land would disclose its blood, and Israel would be judged for that internecine guilt, as the time when “the Lord comes out of His place” (Isaiah 26:21). Likewise, Isaiah 59 places the avenging of the blood guilt at the time when Jehovah would come out/to of Zion (59:17-21).

The identical scenario is presented in Zechariah 12-14. The prophet foretold the time when Israel would look on the one that had been pierced, and mourn. Contrary to the millennial view that suggests that Israel would mourn in repentance,163 there is nothing in the text to suggest such an idea. As France says, the Jewish mourning would be caused by “the realization that the one whom they have rejected and killed has been given the dominion of the Son of Man, and is now their judge”164 Jesus’ application of the text in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, suggests, positively, that the mourning would be as a result of the coming in judgment of the one they crucified!

This is corroborated in Zechariah 13, where it is stated that “in that day,” the day in which they would look on the one that was pierced, there would be great mourning. The mourning would be because “it shall come to pass in all the land, Says the Lord, that two thirds in it shall be cut off and die, but one third shall be left in it” (13:8f). The reason for the mourning is not repentance, but judgment! A horrible holocaust was coming! The one they had slain was coming in judgment, to avenge His death! Thus, the motif of the avenging of the blood of the righteous is present in Zechariah’s prediction, just as it is in Isaiah and other prophecies.

This Day is, then, plainly called “the Day of the Lord” (14:1), the time when the Lord would come against Israel, and Jerusalem would be destroyed (14:2).

It will be noted of course, that the prophet also says that the Lord would fight for Jerusalem (12:8). How can this strange paradox be explained? How could the prophet say on the one hand that the city would be destroyed, with two-thirds of the people killed, and only a remnant remain, and then turn around and say that Jerusalem would be defended by Jehovah (Zechariah 12:8)? The answer is to be found in two Biblical truths, the doctrine of the Two Cities, i.e. the Two Jerusalems, and the doctrine of the remnant. We will present a special study of this topic under the heading of The Tale of Two Cities below, after we conclude our presentation of our 8 point argument. For the moment, it is sufficient to emphasize that Scripture calls the judgment of Israel, for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs, the Day of the Lord.

In one sense, it matters not whether one were to argue that this was in the O.T. when the ten tribes were judged and then when Judah was judged.165 This admission actually enhances our argument, for it sets the thematic and linguistic stage for applying the O.T. language to the judgment of Israel in the first century. If the O.T. called the judgment of Israel in B. C. 721 the Day of the Lord, and if the O.T. called the destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 586 the Day of the Lord, and both of these judgments were due to the shedding of innocent blood, then upon what basis could one say that the judgment that came on Israel in A.D. 70, for shedding innocent blood, was not the Day of the Lord? And, further, since the language of the Day of the Lord used to describe both of those historical Days of the Lord was not fulfilled literally, i.e., the Lord did not literally come out of the sky on a cloud, with an audible shout, and literal creation was not destroyed, then upon what basis does one argue that the Day of the Lord predicted in the NT have to be a literal time ending event?

91

This brings us to our Point #7: Judgment of Israel for shedding the blood of the martyrs was to occur in Jesus’ generation in the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem.

As we suggested earlier, we contend that Matthew 23 is the normative text for the discussion of the vindication of the martyrs. In no uncertain terms, Jesus recalls the history of Israel in shedding the blood of the innocent down through the ages. As a matter of fact, the Carpenter extends that guilt well beyond Israel’s historical existence as a nation, all the way back to the martyrdom of Abel, at the very dawn of Creation! He says that guilt for all the blood shed “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50f), was laid at the feet of Israel. This is more than remarkable.

It is not uncommon for commentators to negate the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem, and to relegate it to a strictly “local event” without eschatological or soteriological meaning. This is a grave mistake!

Jackson, attempting to discount the significance of A.D. 70, seeks to make an argumentum ad absurdum, “Were the people in South America judged in A.D. 70? By the way, what would the destruction of Jerusalem have meant to those people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, ‘Gentlemen, you had better repent.’ Why? ‘Because Jerusalem, hundreds of miles away is going to be destroyed in A.D. 70’ They likely would have said, ‘So what! What does that have to do with us?”166 This argument might sound impressive to a modern reader, unfamiliar with the Jewish mind set, it has no Biblical credence.

Jackson’s logic is superficial. Let’s just change one or two words in his argument that he considers so devastating: “Are the people in South America judged by the death of a Jew in A.D. 33? By the way, what would the death of a Jew in Jerusalem have meant to those people who were living in Athens, Greece? Paul says, ‘Gentlemen, you had better repent.’ Why? ‘Because a Jew was crucified in Jerusalem.’ They likely would have said, ‘So what! What does that have to do with us?” Jackson’s argument is that unless something was universally apparent then it had no universal significance. Clearly, the spatial dimensions of an event say nothing of its spiritual significance.

Further, this argument overlooks the fact that Jesus himself said the judgment of A.D. 70 was a universal event. Read Luke 21:25f: “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth (Greek ge, DKP) distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, (Greek, oikoumene, DKP)for the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

The careful reader will note that Jesus spoke of the trauma coming on the nations (ethne), and the earth (oikoumene), during the time preceding the actual destruction of Jerusalem. To suggest that the fall of Jerusalem had no theological significance is to grossly miss the point of scripture. In our point #3, we have shown that the good things of Israel, including the New Creation, could only come with the demise of that Old Covenant world.

It is refreshing to know that an increasing number of scholars and students are coming to appreciate the relationship between the fall of Jerusalem and Biblical eschatology and soteriology. Camp has noted the implications of the fall of Jerusalem. For one, it separated the church from Judaism:

“The fall of Jerusalem separated Judaism from Christianity. Judaism was a God-ordained religion. This made it possible for Judaizing teachers to deceive and confuse people as long as the temple existed. It was one thing to appeal to people to give up paganism with its religion as it was never approved by God. It was still another thing to call on the Jews to lay aside Judaism which

92

was given by God and at one time acceptable to God. It is easy to see how Judaizing teachers used this in opposing the church. But when Jerusalem fell, the temple was destroyed, and they could no longer use this as a means of trying to confuse people.”167

The relationship of the Temple with the identity of the Israel of God can hardly be overemphasized. Harnack noted the significance of the

fall of Jerusalem: “No Christian, even supposing he were a simple Jewish Christian, could view the catastrophe which befell the Jewish state, with its capital and sanctuary, as anything else than the just punishment of the nation for having crucified the Messiah. Strictly speaking, he ceased from that moment to be a Jew; for a Jew who accepted the downfall of his state and temple as a divine dispensation, thereby committed national suicide.”168 While he does not discuss the eschatological significance of the fall of Jerusalem, Stevenson nonetheless gives insight to the importance of the Temple in the thought of Israel: “As a symbol, the temple was a material representation of immaterial and ethereal realities, such as the existence of God, election, etc. The temple represented symbolically the existence of the Jews in relation to God, to the universe, to other nations, and to one another.”169 As a result of the way the Jews viewed the temple, Stevenson says “the destruction of the temple could be seen as tantamount to the destruction of the nation.” (2001, 168)

If the destruction of the temple could be viewed as the destruction of the nation, then in the context of the question about the identity of the True Israel, the fall of Jerusalem was incredibly important. Boettner cogently observes that one reason many modern students depreciate the meaning of A.D. 70 is, “They do not fully appreciate what a tremendously important event and landmark in history the break-up of the Old Testament economy really was. For a period of 1500 years God had worked with and through the Jewish people exclusively in matters pertaining to salvation. This had set Israel off very sharply from all the other nations...but with the advent of the Messiah all of that was ended.”170

Coffman says that other than the Passion of Christ, the destruction of Jerusalem, “was the greatest single event in a thousand years, and religiously significant beyond anything else that ever occurred in human history.”171 France adds, “The temple is the symbol of God’s relationship with his people; when that relationship is broken, the temple is abandoned” (1985, 332). R. C. Sproul, at the Legonier Ministry Conference, (Feb. 1999), said the fall of Jerusalem was “a moment of such radically important, decisive, redemptive historical significance, that we have all but missed in church history.”

What could be more important than the vindication of God’s martyrs? Revelation 11:15f gives insight to the vital nature of this issue. When the seventh angel sounded, John heard great voices saying, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever...and the nations were angry, and thy wrath has come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints.” The time when the martyred prophets would be vindicated and rewarded is the time of the kingdom, the time of the judgment, and the time of the resurrection.

Jesus said the time when the martyred prophets would be vindicated was his generation, and even Ice, remember, says that Jesus’ promise in Matthew 23:34f, is “an undeniable reference to A.D. 70.” (Tribulation, 103). Now if it is true that the time of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70 was the time of the vindication and reward of all the martyred prophets (Matthew 23:34-36), and if it is true that Revelation 11:15f, speaks of the time of the vindication and reward of the martyred prophets, then it must be true that Revelation 11:15f speaks of the time of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70.

What could be more important than the vindication of God’s martyrs? Connected with this theme is salvation, resurrection and eternal life! Are these unimportant doctrines?

93

We must re-emphasize that Jesus positively limited the time and the locus for the filling up of the measure of sin for killing the prophets. He recounted the history of Israel of killing the prophets, and said his generation would see the final filling up of the measure of sin, because he was going to send his own prophets to Israel (Matthew 23:29-36).

As we shall see below in detail, Paul reiterated Jesus’ words, and said that he was the last in the appointed line of the prophets to be sent and to suffer (1 Corinthians 4:9), for in his suffering, he was “filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ” (Colossians 1:24). This corresponds beautifully with the vision of the opening of the fifth seal. The martyred saints crying for vindication were told to rest, “for a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who should be killed as they were, was completed” (Revelation 6:11).

Furthermore, Jesus said that the locus of the judgment for shedding innocent blood was to be Israel. Revelation 11 places the location for the judgment of shedding innocent blood as the city “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8). And, Jesus said that the time for the judgment of the persecutors of the prophets and saints was to be his generation (Matthew 23:36), and John said that the time for the judgment of those guilty of shedding the blood of the prophets and apostles was at hand (Revelation 22:6, 10, 12).

In spite of the direct correspondence between Jesus, and the rest of the NT writers, commentators mostly ignore that association, insisting that Revelation remains unfulfilled, because it supposedly refers to the judgment of Rome,172 the Roman Catholic Church,173 a literal rebuilt city of Babylon,174 etc. This oversight, or rejection, of Jesus’ teaching, in Matthew 23, and its relationship to the rest of the NT corpus, is truly lamentable.

Thus, for Jesus to state, emphatically, that the vindication of all the martyrs was to occur in his generation, in the fall of Jerusalem, is a prophecy of unsurpassed eschatological import! Put another way, consider the following: The time of the vindication of the martyrs of God is the time of the Day of the Lord, judgment, and resurrection (2 Thessalonians 1:4f; Revelation 11:15; 20:1f). But the time of the vindication of the martyrs of God was the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 23:32f). Therefore, the time of the Day of the Lord, judgment and resurrection was at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Jesus teaches that all of the prior generations did not, in one sense, fill up the measure of Israel’s sin in killing the prophets and righteous. As Hagner says, Jesus’ words in v. 29-32, mean, “What the fathers began will be completed by their sons.”175 While Jehovah judged Israel in the past for shedding the blood of the poor, widows and orphans (e.g. Jeremiah 2, 7, Lamentations 4:13, etc.), those judgments were not the “last days” eschatological judgment forecast in Deuteronomy 32:41-43, and other prophecies such as Isaiah 2-4; 24-29; 59, 65-66, etc. Matthew 23 deals with the last days judgment. It is the consummative vindication of the martyrs foretold by Daniel 12.

Daniel was told that at the end of the age, the resurrection would occur (v. 2). However, he was told those events were not for his day. He was to go his way and rest, a euphemism for death, until the time of the end. At that time, “many shall be purified, made white, and refined.” as Keil says, “The being purified is effected through tribulation and afflictions, which the people shall endure to the end.”176 One can hardly fail to see the connection between this prediction, and Peter’s epistle. That apostle said his readers were living in the time of the end, were being purified through suffering, and were about to receive the incorruptible reward (1 Peter 1:5f177).

Daniel was promised that he would be raised at the time of the end to receive his reward (Daniel 12:13). In no uncertain terms, Daniel was told that all of these things would be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered” (Daniel 12:7). The time of the end, when the righteous martyrs would be vindicated and rewarded is, therefore, placed solidly in the context of the time of the judgment of Israel. This promise, of the vindication of the righteous, is what Jesus was reiterating in Matthew 23.

94

Jesus undeniably said that in his generation, Israel would fill up the measure of sin, the sin of killing the righteous prophets sent to her. This motif of finally filling the measure of sin, is found in several Old Testament passages that deal with the last days. In Isaiah 59:12, the prophet says of the sin of Israel depicted in the prophecy, “Our transgressions are multiplied before You.” As we have already seen, Isaiah 65:6f alludes to this concept. Further, many commentators suggest that the famous prophecy of Daniel 9 also foretold that Israel would fill the measure of her sin during the crucial 70 week period.

Daniel was told that the 70 weeks were determined to “finish the transgressions.” Lange says this phrase is, “a reference to the idea of completing or filling up,” and that this was the consensus of older commentators.178 McGuiggan concurs with this rendering saying, “To finish the transgression is to let transgression reach its peak or limit, see for example Matthew 23:32f; 1 Thessalonians 2:15f).”179 Keil, a millennialist, admitted that this view was common, although he objected to it. However, he did so on theological grounds, because he failed to see the connection between the salvation of Israel and judgment. (1975, 341) Gentry also says that the term finish the transgression, “has to do with Israel’s finishing, i.e., completing her transgressions against God.” (Dominion, 1992, 315)

If it is true that “to finish transgression” means to fill up the measure of sin, then the impact of Matthew 23:32f for the interpretation of Daniel 9 is profound. If it is true that “to finish the transgressions” means to fill the measure of sin, then, since Jesus clearly posited his generation, after his death, as the time when the measure of sin would be filled, then this means that the 70 weeks were not interrupted, for the filling of the measure of sin was to occur within the 70 week period. This means of course, that despite the millennial contention that the death of Jesus interrupted the 70 year countdown, Daniel’s teaching that Israel had to fill the measure of her sin within the 70 weeks, and that Jesus said this would not be done until after his death, but in his generation, then the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 were to be fulfilled in Jesus’ generation.

In the New Testament, the idea of filling the measure of sin is found in some very important texts. As seen above, the parables of Jesus show that Israel was to fill the measure of her sin in his generation. In Matthew 21, and the parable of the Wicked Husbandman, the master was patient even with the violent nature of his workers. However, the time came when He could no longer tolerate their rebellion, and He came in judgment. They had pushed Him too far. Israel finally filled the measure of her sin.

Commenting on Luke 11:49f, Guldenhuys says, “The Jews of former times who were responsible for the murder of the prophets and men of God were verily guilty and paid dearly for their misdeeds (through exile, national disasters, etc). But the Jewish generation that lived at the time of Jesus and the establishment of the Christian church were guilty in an absolute sense because they rejected the Son of God and caused Him to be crucified and afterwards persecuted His followers to the utmost during the years preceding the Jewish-Roman War.”180

Guldenhuys, with other commentators, at least state what Jesus did, Jesus’ generation was consummative in regard to the filling the measure of the sin of shedding the blood of the righteous. The failure of these commentators to see the eschatological implications of their comments can only be lamented.

There is never any other nation in God’s last days schema, that is ever accused of being guilty of shedding the innocent blood of the elect. It is ever and always, Israel, and Israel alone that the inspired writers point to as bearing that guilt. Even the Jews crying for the blood of Jesus, exonerated Pilate, whose hands were certainly red with the guilt of countless individuals, and said, “let his blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). Their prayer was answered, in that very generation. (It should go without saying that A.D. 70 fulfilled God’s Covenant Wrath on Israel. They are not under God’s curse today, and anti-Semitic philosophies that seek to discriminate against the “Jews”181 are misguided to say the very least.)

95

When Pilate threatened Jesus with his Roman authority, Jesus reminded him of his Divine authority, and then directed the guilt away from Pilate to the Jews: “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered Me to you has the greater guilt” (John 19:11). Jesus seemed almost unconcerned about the Roman participation in his trial. The guilt lay on Israel.

The fact that Jesus’ generation was to be the consummative generation in regard to the vindication of the martyrs is brought out in other passages. In 1 Thessalonians 2:15-17, it is difficult to believe that Paul did not have Jesus’ Temple discourse in mind. Speaking of the Jewish history of persecuting the saints, he says. The Jews had “both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us;...so as to always fill up the measure of their sins; but the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” Many commentators try to insist that the fellow countrymen of the Thessalonians must refer to the Gentiles. However, while he expresses caution, Witherington notes that it is possible that Paul is actually referring to Jewish persecution, “The fellow countrymen could be Jews who lived in or around Thessalonica, but perhaps it would be best not to press this suggestion.” (1992, 102). One fact is certain, it was the Jews that instigated the persecution against the church in Thessalonica (Acts 17). Nonetheless, please note that Paul does not say one word about the Gentiles filling up the measure of their sin by persecuting the church. It was as if he was not concerned about Gentile participation in what the Jews had for so long done and were now repeating.

Note that Jesus did not extend the possibility of filling the measure of sin for persecuting the saints beyond his generation, or beyond the scope of Jewish culpability. As far as Jesus was concerned, “It is not possible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33). He did not mean this in a wooden, literalistic manner. He well knew that he was sending Paul to the Gentiles, and that he would be persecuted. However, he also knew that it would be the Jews behind that persecution, no matter if that was in Lystra, Thessalonica, or Antioch of Pisidia.

Every element mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23 is present in Thessalonians. The Jews had killed the prophets. They had slain the Lord, and they were now persecuting the apostles and prophets sent by Jesus. In so doing, they were filling the measure of their sin, and doom was hanging over them. As a matter of fact, the apostle explicitly promised the Thessalonians that Jesus was about to bring the promised wrath on the ones responsible for their persecution.

As we saw earlier, in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-12, the apostle calls attention, four times, to the present suffering being endured by the Thessalonians. (Remember that the Jews had instigated that persecution, Acts 17.) He uses the Greek word thlipsis, translated tribulation, to speak of that persecution. This is the word used by Jesus to foretell what was to happen to his disciples prior to the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:9).

Thlipsis is used some 45 times in the NT, and in all but a few texts refers to persecution for the cause of Christ. The word originally meant pressure, and could refer to any kind of pressure, even financial pressure (2 Corinthians 8:13), or some other kind of “mundane” pressure. On the other hand, the antonym of thlipsis is anesis. This word, when used with thlipsis, invariably means relief from whatever kind of pressure is being endure. The significance of this in Thessalonians is tremendous.

Paul promised the Thessalonians that although they were enduring thlipsis, “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation (thlipsis) those who are troubling (thlipsis) you, and to give to you who are troubled (thlipsis) rest, (anesis) with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God.” The tables were going to be turned on the persecutors. They were about to become the persecuted.

Here is the coming of Jesus to bring “the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10), against those who had “killed the prophets, and the Lord Jesus, and now persecute us” (1 Thessalonians 2:15f). Jesus was coming in judgment to avenge the blood of the martyrs. He was coming to

96

judge those who were swiftly filling the measure of their sin by killing his “prophets, wise men, and scribes” (Matthew 23:32f). He was coming in judgment of Israel.

Rome was not swiftly filling the measure of her sin by killing the saints. In fact, Roman authorities were not interested in the religious squabbles of the Jews (Acts 18), and refused to get involved for sometime, that is, unless they caved in to the political pressure brought by the Jews as did Pilate. There is no justification whatsoever to apply 2 Thessalonians 1 to some future coming of Christ at the end of history to judge a yet future, as yet unknown, persecuting power. The persecuting power was known, it was Israel as either the direct persecutor or as the mover and shaker of pagan persecution.

Thessalonians was written as an “occasional letter,” that is, a specific historical occasion initiated the writing of the epistle. It was written to address a very specific, very real problem in the lives of living breathing humans in approximately A. D. 49-50. MacArthur misses this entirely when giving the reasons why Jesus must return to earth. He says the hope of the saints demands such a literal return, because, for instance, Paul encouraged the Thessalonian saints to hope for Christ’s return. (1999, 48) MacArthur and Bock (1993, 263), completely ignore the “occasional” nature of the Thessalonian epistle. Stott follows suit by saying, “First, when will God vindicate his justice and redress the present imbalance of human experience? Answer: This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels (v. 7b).”182

Even the postmillennialist Gentry, contra his normal practice of emphasizing the “occasional” nature of the NT texts, attempts to make 2 Thessalonians 1:4f into a prediction of a yet future event, while applying 2 Thessalonians 2:1f to A.D. 70:

“Though he speaks of the Second Advent just a few verses before (1:10), he is dealing with the issue here. In 2 Thessalonians 1:10, Paul even employs a different word (_λθ_, from ερχoµαι, DKP), from what he uses in 2:1 (parousia). There, the Second Advental judgment brings ‘everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord’ (1:9); here a temporal ‘destruction’ (2:8). There the Second Advent includes the ‘mighty angels’ (1:7); here the temporal judgment makes no mention of these mighty angels.’ Thus, the Second Advent provides an eternal resolution to their suffering; the A.D. 70 Day of the Lord affords a temporal resolution.” (1992, 386)

This is a remarkable comment from the same author who insists that Revelation was fulfilled in A.D. 70 because it was written, 1.) To specific first century saints, 2.) To saints who were enduring present tribulation and suffering; “the seven churches are already in tribulation”, 3.) To saints who were promised relief from that persecution at the Day of the Lord! (1999, 122+) “Revelation shows a deep concern with the expectant cry of the martyrs and the divine promise of their soon vindication.”

Was not Thessalonians written to specific first century saints, suffering present tribulations? And, is not the text specifically concerned with “the cry of the martyrs and the divine promise of their soon vindication” at the Day of the Lord? Indeed. Thus, the attempt by commentators, whether millennial, post-millennial, or amillennial, to make texts such as these refer to the timeless church, or to the “general human experience” is hermeneutical malfeasance.

Thessalonians was not written about the “present imbalance of the human experience,” as suggested by Stott. It was written to the Thessalonians who were being persecuted in their own city, 2000 years ago. They were not thinking of a yet future persecution against Christians in New York City, or the Trade Tower tragedy. Their persecution was on their own streets. And, Paul, by inspiration, promised relief from that persecution at the parousia.

There is no justification whatsoever to apply 2 Thessalonians 1 to a coming of Christ at the end of history to judge a yet future, as yet unknown, persecuting power.

97

MacArthur says, “God is not in the business of giving false hope” (1999, 48), and yet, Paul, by inspiration of the Spirit, promised the Thessalonians that Jesus was coming to give them relief from their then very present persecution. Was that a false hope? Did God disappoint the Thessalonians? This question demands a simple yes or no answer, and there can be no equivocation.

The writer of Proverbs said, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Proverbs 13:12). MacArthur says God is not in the business of giving false hope. Yet, it was Paul who gave the Thessalonians the hope that Jesus was coming in their lifetime to give them relief from persecution. Did God disappoint them? If Paul gave the Thessalonians a false hope, a hope not fulfilled by the coming of Jesus, then Paul was a false prophet, the inspiration of scripture fails, and Jesus is not the Son of God. The issue is that serious.

MacArthur asks, “Why was the fact of our Lord’s return presented in the language of imminency, but the exact date withheld?” (1999, 206). His answer is, “One reason was that He desired to keep His people on the very tiptoe of expectation, continually looking for Him.” Are we to believe that God--who is “not in the business of giving false hope”--wanted to keep the Thessalonians, the Romans, the Ephesians, the Galatians, et. al., “On the tiptoe of expectation,” that Jesus was coming to give them relief from their then present, all too real persecution, but that He did not keep His word? He did not fulfill their hope? He did not give them relief?

The suffering of the Thessalonians was real, and it was not at the hands of the Romans. If we accept the testimony of scripture, the only systematic persecutors of the church at this stage were the Jews who chased Paul from city to city making attempt after attempt on his life, and making life miserable for the nascent churches he established. Barclay says,“Again and again it was the Jews who informed against the Christians. The Jews stuck at nothing in their attempts to obliterate the Christian church.”183 Setzer says, “The notion of the Jews as plotters and contentious is a theme in the gospels and Acts. So is the docility of the Roman officials who do the Jew’s bidding out of fear or a desire to please them.”184 Wright says, “Persecution of Christians did not in fact, initially come from pagans.” He continues, “In fact, the earliest and best evidence we possess for serious and open hostility between Jews--especially Pharisees--and the nascent Christian movement is found in the earliest period for which we have evidence, namely in the letters of Paul. He, by his own admission, had persecuted the very early church with violence and zeal.”185

The interpretation of 2 Thessalonians hinges then on its relationship with the words of Jesus. Paul says that at the parousia, which he describes in typical Old Testament language of the Day of Jehovah, the persecutors would be persecuted, and, they would be cast out of the presence of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 1:10-12). Two questions help our understanding of this text.

First, who was it that the New Testament constantly refers to as the persecutor of the church, and that was to be rejected as a result of that persecution? Answer: It was Old Covenant Israel (Matthew 21; Acts 7:52f; Galatians 4:22f, etc.). Second, who was it that had dwelt in the presence of God, but was now being threatened with expulsion from that favored place? Answer: Old Covenant Israel. Nesbit, writing in 1787 recognized this truth, “Destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power’ appear to me to have a singular propriety in them, when applied to the ruin of the Jewish nation; which they could only forfeit by their wickedness, and their forsaking the covenant of their God. The Almighty said to Moses, the representative of the Jewish nation, Exodus 33:14, ‘My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest,’ which is interpreted in the 16th verse, of their being separated from all people that are upon the face of the earth. When afterwards they were

Hope deferred makes the heart sick (Proverbs 13:12). Paul promised the Thessalonians relief from their persecution “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.” Did Jesus disappoint the Thessalonians, and make their heart sick?

98

devoted to ruin for their iniquities, the language of the prophet Jeremiah is (23:39-40), ‘I will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and that city that I gave you and your fathers and cast you out of my presence: I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame which shall not be forgotten.’ The destruction from the glory of his power, in this connection, appears therefore to signify the withdrawing of those displays of power, which had so often been manifested in their behalf.”186

Nisbett’s words reflect an admirable understanding of the language. Far too few commentators give notice to the covenantal context of the apostles words. Yet, to divorce Paul from the prophetic background of Israel is to do exegesis a grave disservice.

Jesus said his disciples would be persecuted, but that their persecutors, the Jews, would have the tables turned against them in judgment. This is precisely the pattern of 2 Thessalonians. Further, there is no reason for delineating between the promised wrath against the persecutors in 1 Thessalonians 2:15f, and the promise against the persecutors in 2 Thessalonians 1. The chain of progression is direct, Matthew 23 1 Thessalonians 2:15-17 2 Thessalonians 1. Matthew 23 controls Thessalonians and the discussion of the vindication of the martyrs at the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ. That judgment was coming against Israel.

Matthew 23 is also the guiding text for the book that deals most extensively with the vindication of the martyrs, Revelation. The Apocalypse is about the coming of Jesus in judgment of those who pierced him, “Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, because of Him.” Jesus warned Caiaphas that the Sanhedrin would see him coming on the clouds of judgment (Matthew 26:64). Revelation describes that coming.

The blood of Jesus and God’s martyrs cried out for vengeance, “How long Oh Lord, holy and true, do you not avenge us on those who dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:9f). As we have seen, the Jews accepted responsibility for Jesus’ death, “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). John describes the answer to their request. Revelation describes the coming of the Lord in judgment of the city “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8).

The following chart illustrates the organic unity of the New Testament teaching in regard to the avenging of the martyrs of God. Matthew 23

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

Revelation (Babylon/Jerusalem 187)

History of killing the prophets (v.29)

History of killing the prophets

Killed the prophets (16:6f)

Jerusalem killed the Lord (chapter 21)

Jews killed the Lord

Killed the Lord (11:8)

Killed the apostles and prophets of Jesus (23:34)

Killed the apostles of Jesus

Killed the apostles and prophets of Jesus (18:20-24)

Measure of sin being filled (v.29f)

Measure of sin being filled

Measure of sin being filled (6:9-11;17:2-6)

99

Jewish culpability Jewish culpability Jewish culpability—“where the Lord was slain” (11:8)

Eschatological wrath imminent “This generation” (v. 36)

Eschatological wrath imminent “Wrath has come on them”

Eschatological wrath imminent-“Behold, I come quickly!”

There is no dichotomy between Matthew 23, 1 Thessalonians and the Apocalypse. All three are thematically identical. It is crucial to see that

Jesus’ statements in Matthew 23, and Paul’s in Thessalonians, confines the discussion of the filling up the measure of sin, and the avenging of the martyrs, to Israel, and the first century generation..

It is often assumed that Revelation is about the Roman persecution of the church, or, a supposed future Roman Catholic persecution of believers before the end, per what is sometimes called the Protestant interpretation.188 On the other hand, the millennialists insist that Babylon is the literal restored ancient city. (LaHaye/ Ice, Charting, 105)

The problem for the Protestant view is that Rome never killed the Old Covenant prophets, Rome is not “where the Lord was slain,” and, Jesus plainly placed the blame, even for killing his own “prophets, and apostles,” not at the doorstep of Rome, but at the feet of Israel (Matthew 23:34). And, need we say that the Catholic church never killed the prophets, or the Lord? Further, to posit a restored literal Babylon as the city guilty of slaying the apostles and prophets also violates Jesus’ emphatic words, not to mention history.

Unless one is willing to posit the reappearance of apostles and prophets in the future, and their subsequent persecution at the hands of Babylon, then any suggestion that literal Babylon is the Babylon of Revelation is misplaced. Further, if John was not speaking of Babylon as a city with a past history of killing the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles of Jesus, then clearly, he had to be speaking prophetically of a time yet future to him, when the enigmatic city would be established, and then, at that future time, be guilty of killing the prophets, Jesus, and Jesus’ apostles! But for this to be true, the Old Testament prophets would have to resurrected to experience martyrdom again. Jesus would have to be slain again after his parousia, his apostles would have to be martyred again as well!

It is illogical to posit Babylon as future to John, and then deny that Babylon will do what John describes, i.e. kill the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. If Babylon had not done that in John’s past, then she had to do it in John’s future. But, if one admits that Babylon had slain the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles in John’s past, then there can only be one viable candidate as Babylon, and that is Jerusalem. And, if one places Babylon in John’s future, then this demands the resurrection and “remartyrdom,” to coin a word, of the prophets, Jesus and his apostles.

To lay the blame for persecuting Jesus’ apostles and prophets anywhere except where Jesus himself placed it is to do so contrary to his authority. Jesus blamed but one people, one city, one nation, for those crimes, and that was Israel.

This is especially meaningful when we note that Revelation is, per Ogden’s beneficial book, about The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets.189 The destruction of the enigmatic city Babylon, was near because she was “drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the martyrs of Jesus,.” (17:6), and, “in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth!” (18:24). Her judgment brought forth the jubilant cry, “Rejoice over her, O heaven and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!” (18:20). These words are a clear echo of Jesus’ lamentation/accusation in Matthew 23:35, “on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth.”

100

This is a very significant point not only for the millennialists, but for the Reformed view as well. It is stoutly, and correctly we believe, taught by many millennialists as well as amillennialists and postmillennialists, that inspiration, via apostles and prophets, ceased in the first century. However, if it is suggested that the Roman Catholic church, or a restored literal city, is Babylon of Revelation, and will one day become once again the persecutor of the church, then, it must also be held that inspired apostles and prophets will reappear as well. The supposed yet future fall of Babylon, i.e. the Catholic church per the view, was/is, to come because of her guilt of killing the apostles and prophets (Revelation 18:20, 24). However, Jesus, followed by Paul, taught that Israel of his generation would fill up the measure of sin by killing the apostles and prophets. Paul said that he and the apostles were those whom God had set forth “last of all” as men condemned to die. How is it possible to divorce Jesus’ words from their historical context, and extrapolate 2000 years into the future, and apply John’s words to a city that cannot be guilty of killing the apostles and prophets unless God once again brings about an age of inspiration and miraculous gifts? Whoever Babylon was she existed in the age of the miraculous, when the apostles and prophets of Jesus were alive.

We are justified to ask, upon what basis one would change the identification of the persecuting power in Revelation from that identified by Jesus and by Paul? It will not do to argue a priori, that Revelation was written after the judgment of Jerusalem, therefore, it has to be about Rome or some other future entity. That is circular reasoning, it begs the question. Revelation is about the then imminent judgment of the great persecutor of God’s people. It is the city that had a long bloody history that had finally reached it’s gory zenith. Her cup of blood was full, the number of those to be slain was all but filled (6:11). The Son of Man was about to come with the clouds of heaven in judgment of those who had slain him, admitted that guilt, and asked that his blood by on their heads.

Our final point, then, point #8, has been established: The Day of the Lord occurred at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The weightiness of this conclusion is difficult to overestimate or emphasize. As we have shown in this work, in the Old Testament, it was Jehovah

that acted to judge the wicked, and it was Jehovah that promised that in the last days He would once again act, consummatively, to being Israel’s salvation history to a climax. Jesus came claiming that it was he that was to fulfill all of those parousia promises made to Israel. It was he to whom Jehovah had given all judgment prerogative. It was he that would be revealed to be “the King of kings and Lord of lords.” It was he that was/is to be honored as the Father is honored (John 5:19f).

The judgment of Israel in A.D. 70 then, was far more than the destruction of just another ancient city. It was, for those who will see, the coming of Jehovah out of His place (Isaiah 26:20f), to “shake the earth mightily” (Isaiah 2:19), when Isaiah’s prediction of 24:19-20, was fulfilled, “the earth was violently broken, the earth split open, the earth is shaken exceedingly the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall totter like a hut; Its transgression shall be heavy upon it , and it will fall, and not rise again” (Isaiah 24:19-20). Take note of this coming of the Lord.

Isaiah 26:9-11, says that in that predicted event, when Jehovah would come out of His place to shake the earth, and avenge the blood of the martyrs, that the righteous would see it and “learn righteousness.” However, although the wicked would see the event, they would “see but not see” (v. 10-11). They would not see the majesty of the Lord being revealed as they should. They would not see the righteousness of God at work as they should. They would see events occurring in their world to be sure. However, they would refuse to see that it was God at work!

Now, if the language of the text is taken literally, and Jehovah will literally come out of heaven on a cloud, the earth will split, and physical bodies come out of the ground, how could anyone, no matter how unrighteous, not realize that God was manifesting His glory? Our point is that the

To lay the blame for persecuting Jesus’ apostles and prophets anywhere except where Jesus himself placed it is to do so without, and contrary, to his authority. And, Jesus blamed no one but Israel for that crime!

101

Day of the Lord was to be an event that involved historical realities, and when it occurred, it took wisdom to comprehend Who was at work.. To see the events themselves one might think that it was just history at work. But, for the observant, it was to be the Day of the Lord.

As we have seen, there is a phrase found many times in the Old Testament in direct relation to the historical Days of the Lord. It is the phrase, “Then they shall know that I am God.” See our earlier discussion of this important issue.

The point is that when Jehovah acted in history, to accomplish His purposes, He was revealed to be God. He did not have to end history, come on literal clouds, and destroy literal creation for His actions to reveal Him as Lord.

This has profound implications for defining the nature of the parousia. When Jesus said, in John 5, that he had been given judgment prerogative, and that he was going to judge as he had seen the Father judge, and when we combine this with the examples of how the Father had always judged in the past, the nature of the Day of the Lord is definitively defined as a historical, in-time event.

When we honor Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 23, about the time and venue of the vindication of all the martyrs, and join that with the Old Testament predictions of the last days Day of the Lord for the vindication of the martyrs, there is no justification for any anticipation of a yet future, literal bodily coming of Jesus to end history.

Jesus’ emphatic declaration that the vindication of the martyrs was to occur in his generation, in the fall of Jerusalem, controls the entire body of New Testament predictions of the parousia, because virtually all of the NT predictions are, either directly or indirectly, related to the time of the vindication of the martyrs. Paul’s declaration that he was the last in the long progression of the foreordained martyrs, conflated with Jesus’ statements, put the final touches on this paradigm.

Unless one is able to invalidate one or all of the points in our argument, then the Day of the Lord is positively defined as the historical, in-time coming of Jesus, by means of the Roman army, to bring the long bloody history of Israel to a close. The nation had served her purpose. Her typological existence was now fulfilled in her Messiah that she, lamentably, refused to recognize and follow. In fulfillment of His promises, Jehovah cut off the disobedient, and saved those who heard the voice of the Messiah.

To refresh our argument we present it here again in it’s entirety: • P0INT #1 Old Testament Israel was a shadow of good things to come. • P0INT #2 The anticipated good things to come were God’s ultimate purpose, and the goal of Israel’s eschatological and soteriological hopes. • P0INT #3 The anticipated good things to come were spiritual as opposed to nationalistic and physical. • P0INT #4 Old Covenant Israel, the shadow, or type, had to be removed to reveal the better things. • P0INT #5 Old Testament Israel, the shadow of better things, would reach her soteriological and eschatological zenith, when she was judged, for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs. • P0INT #6 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs would occur at the Day of the Lord. • P0INT #7 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs was occur in Jesus’ generation in A.D. 70. • P0INT #8 Therefore, the nature of the Day of the Lord, in bringing Israel’s salvation history to climax, is defined as the time when Jesus came, by means of the Romans, in judgment of Israel, for shedding innocent blood.

We have demonstrated the veracity of each of the points above. Each point is demonstrably true. It follows therefore, that the Day of the Lord occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

In reality, we could have shortened our argument to the following salient points: • P0INT #1 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs would occur at the Day of the Lord.

102

• P0INT #2 Judgment for shedding the blood of God’s martyrs was to occur in Jesus’ generation in A.D. 70 in the judgment of Israel. • P0INT #3 Therefore, the Day of the Lord occurred in A.D. 70 in the judgment of Israel.

This identifies the Day of the Lord as a historical event, within time. It identifies Biblical eschatology as Covenant Eschatology. While we could have shortened our argument to these three points, we felt it necessary to provide a solid background and foundation upon which our argument stands.

The only way to disprove our argument is to disprove the premises. Yet, each of the premises is built on the foundation of express statements of scripture. Israel and her cultus was definitely a shadow of better things (Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 10:1f). The shadows had to pass for the better things to come (Hebrews 9:6f). Israel, the shadow, would pass due to shedding of innocent blood (Isaiah 2-4; 59; 65). That judgment would be The Day of the Lord (Isaiah 2-4; Isaiah 65). The time of that judgment would be the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 23). Thus, the Day of the Lord occurred in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The doctrine of martyr vindication in regard to the nature of the parousia is, therefore, critical, yet it is virtually ignored in the literature. The implications of this truth are profound for all futurist eschatologies. We have focused on the millennial view to expose its glaring weaknesses, but the doctrine of the vindication of the martyrs at the parousia impacts amillennialism and postmillennialism equally.

Many, perhaps most, of the passages upon which futurists rely to prove a yet future, bodily coming of Christ at the end of human history, are in fact, passages that deal, either explicitly or implicitly, with the vindication of the martyrs, and judgment of the persecutors! (e.g. Romans 8:18f; 2 Corinthians 4-5; Philippians 3-4; Thessalonians; Hebrews 10; James 5; 1 Peter 1:5f; 2 Peter 3; Revelation, etc.). Further, many of the New Testament passages that do not mention martyr vindication specifically, are based on O.T. predictions of the Day of the Lord in which that concept is found.

It is sad that modern commentators deny the Lord’s word as to the time and context of martyr vindication. Jackson for instance, argues that Revelation must be a book about the end of time, because the judgment on Jerusalem simply does not conform to his concept of things. In spite of the fact that Jesus limited the temporal parameters, the scope of the martyr measure/vindication, and the object of judgment, to his generation, to the martyrdom of the apostles, and judgment on Israel, Jackson refuses to correlate the vision of Revelation 6:9f with Jesus’ prediction.

Even though Revelation declares that the judgment of the persecutors was near, that the measure of sin and suffering was full, and that the guilty city was the one where the Lord was slain (Revelation 11:8), Jackson says the prayer of chapter 6, “appears to be answered in 19:11, when the divine Word comes riding on a white horse from heaven to ‘judge and make war’ on the enemies of his Cause, which is descriptive of the Judgment Day. Accordingly the expression ‘little time’ may be used in a relative sense; time, not as man sees it, but as such is viewed in the divine scheme of things (cf. 2 Peter 3:8).”190

Thus, per Jackson, we are to ignore the fact that: a.) Jesus spoke concretely about the time and venue of the vindication of the martyrs and judgment of their persecutors, b.) That Paul stated that he was the last in the line of God’s eschatological martyrs, c.)That it was the Jews responsible for that persecution, and, d.) That their judgment was near. We suggest that it is wrong to ignore these issues.

Our study of martyr vindication, and salvation through judgment, dove-tails together, and leads to the identical conclusion. The Day of the Lord foretold by the Old Covenant prophets, to occur in the last days, when Jehovah would act to save Israel, would entail judgment of Israel. That judgment would remove the outer shell of the Old Covenant World, and reveal the true body, the body of Christ. The judgment that was coming was the consummative Day of the Lord. Jesus the Messiah was given the divine prerogative of judgment to act in his Father’s stead.

This revelation would not be the revelation of Jesus as a man, riding on a cumulus cloud out of heaven, but Jesus, acting as the Father had acted many times before. This epiphany was to reveal Jesus as King of kings, and Lord of lords. It was to reveal Him as God.

103

The understanding of the Great Paradox, the salvation of Israel by means of judgment, helps us to understand, and to answer, what is to the millennialists, a problem. On the one hand, the Bible definitely speaks of the judgment of Jerusalem in the last days, and, on the other hand, speaks of the deliverance of Jerusalem in the last days. The millennialists insist that the preterist over-emphasizes judgment to the neglect of deliverance, and the non-millennialists insists that the millennialists emphasizes deliverance to the neglect of judgment. What is the answer to the seeming conundrum? It is the doctrine of the Two Jerusalems.

104

CHAPTER 8 THE TALE OF TWO CITIES

As noted above, there seems to be, in the mind of some, a problem in focusing on the judgment of Israel in the last days schema. The millennialists emphasize texts that speak of the deliverance of Israel. However, we have shown that the O.T. predicted the salvation of Israel by means of judgment. Thus, while the O.T. speaks of the judgment of Israel, it also speaks of the salvation of Israel. This is best understood by realizing that the Bible contains the doctrine of Two Jerusalems.

Simply stated, scripture teaches that the remnant of Israel would constitute the body of the saved of Israel in the last days, and that remnant, the true Seed due to their obedience, would join with the Gentiles to form the New Israel, while the Old Covenant, shadow form of Israel, was destroyed. Thus, Israel would be reconstituted, not along nationalistic lines, but according to their heart of faith and obedience to the call of God.

Isaiah said, “Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a very small remnant we would have become like Sodom, we would have been made like Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9). Paul quotes this text in Romans 9:29 to speak of the conversion of the Jews, or lack thereof, in his day. For Paul, Isaiah’s prediction anticipated the gathering of the remnant of Israel into the spiritual body of Christ. Isaiah continued in chapter 10:21f, by foretelling the salvation of the remnant, and, once again, Paul quotes that verse to speak of the mission to the Jews in his day, and their obedience to the Gospel of Christ. Yet again, Isaiah said that in the last days, “those who are left in Jerusalem” would be called holy, and would be the ones to enjoy the “living presence” of Jehovah in the New Tabernacle (Isaiah 4:3f).

In Romans 9 then, Paul calls on the Old Testament doctrine of the remnant, to speak of the Gospel proclamation among the Jews, calling them into Christ. It was not a call to nationalistic restoration, although it was a call to receive the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers (Romans 10:5-7). It was a call to inherit the Abrahamic promises, to inherit the world, (Romans 4:13), the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:13f). But to inherit these promises, the remnant had to leave the old city behind.

The apostle discusses the Two Jerusalems in at least three different passages. And let there be no mistake, Paul had no idea, nor hope, of a restored physical Jerusalem. His eyes were on the heavenly city and country promised to Abraham.

Galatians 4:22f The historical context of this passage is critical to proper understanding. The Judaizers were teaching that the Gentiles had to keep the Law of Moses to be saved. This is what the modern millennialists say will be done in the proposed millennium. Paul condemned this teaching. Instead of teaching that Old Israel was to ever be dominant over the Gentiles or be restored to nationalistic glory, Paul taught that Israel’s time had come, both positively and negatively.

In chapter 3, the apostle set forth the truth that Israel, her Law, and her institutes were intended to be temporary. That system was never intended as the “determinative purpose” of God (Galatians 3:23f). The goal was the system of faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! And, that system was even then in the process of being delivered. Israel’s anticipated hope was being fulfilled in the spiritual body of Christ, where Jew and Gentile, joined together by faith, comprised the true seed of Abraham, and received the promises made to him (Galatians 3:6-14, compare Matthew 3:9).

Millennialists concur that in Galatians, Paul discusses the end of the Mosiac institution. Bock says that in Galatians 3:16f, Paul discusses “the end of the Mosaic Covenant.” He goes so far as to say,

“He speaks of the Mosaic covenant as a steward in charge of children ‘until the date set by the Father,’ until they reach the age of inheritance (4:1-2). The implication is that when the age of adulthood is reached, the stewardship of the steward comes to an end. The coming of Jesus has done that for us in regard to the Mosaic covenant. Now that Jesus has come, has redeemed us and given us blessing of a new covenant (v. 6, the promised Holy Spirit), we are no longer under the stewardship of the Mosaic covenant (v. 7, cf. vv. 1-3).” (1993, 197)

105

Bock acknowledges that the system of faith, the Gospel, is the new covenant, and that it came at the time of the inheritance, and that it involved the reception of the Spirit. This is, in reality, a devastating acknowledgment, because Israel had one destiny, it was to be realized in the last days, in the kingdom of Christ, when the Son of David established the New Covenant.

Israel did not have two different times of the inheritance. Israel did not have two different ultimate goals. The New Covenant did not have a two-fold application to it, one for the church, and then another for Israel in a distant “last days.” If Paul taught, as Bock acknowledges, that the New Covenant, the promise of the Spirit, and the time of the inheritance had arrived, and was present when he wrote, then any discussion of a yet future outpouring of the Spirit, in another “last days” when the time is right, is specious. Israel’s goal, her destiny, was the kingdom of the Messiah and salvation in that kingdom, and Paul says this was reached in Christ.

Furthermore, Paul says that the Old System was now on the verge of being cast off, and the reason for that was two-fold. First, as just seen, she had reached, or was on the verge of reaching, the apex of her destiny. Second, because she had become, in not realizing--or rejecting-- the nature of her destiny, and persecuting those who did, the enemy of God. To those who insist that Israel remains the chosen people of God, the very suggestion that Israel could ever become the enemy of God is an alien idea. Nonetheless, it had happened before in her history, and it was to happen again, a final time.

ISRAEL: THE FRIEND TURNED ENEMY Without doubt, Israel held a special place in the eyes of Jehovah. She was the “apple” of His eye. This was not because of any special

righteousness on her part, but because of Jehovah’s love for Abraham, and His grace (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). While some believe that this special relationship was unconditional and eternal, the scriptures are clear that this distinctive and exclusive relationship was conditioned on Israel’s obedience to her covenant with Adonay. Even in the text just cited, the Lord reminded them that their chosen position demanded obedience. They needed to know that His blessings were for the obedient, “Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.” Stated succinctly, no obedience, no relationship.

As an understatement, Israel did not keep her covenant with Jehovah. Isaiah recounted Israel’s blessed, and tortured, history: “I will mention the loving kindnesses of the Lord...and the great goodness toward the house of Israel... In His love and his pity He redeemed them...But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; so He turned Himself against them as an enemy, and fought against them.” (Isaiah 63:7-10). The meaning is clear.

In her past, Israel had been blessed with a distinctive covenant relationship with Jehovah. He had blessed and protected her, expecting and demanding obedient righteousness in return. Sadly, this did not happen. She rebelled more and more, to such an extent that Isaiah said her citizens “take counsel... that they might add sin upon sin” (Isaiah 30:1-2). As a result of this rebellion, in the words of Watts, “God turned around. Instead of being their supporter and protector he became their enemy.”181 Micah, contemporary prophet Isaiah said of Israel, “Lately My people have risen up as an enemy–You pull off the robe with the garment from those who trust you, as they pass by” (Micah 2:8). In other words, Israel became cruel and violent, as we have seen earlier, they shed the blood of the innocent. Israel became the enemy of Jehovah by disobedience, so Jehovah became the enemy of Israel and fought against them.

At a later time, when Judah had apostatized into idolatry, thereby violating the Covenant, Jehovah brought the Chaldeans against Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord. Through the prophet, Jehovah told Jerusalem:

“Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands, with which you fight against the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans who besiege you outside the walls; and I will assemble them in the midst of this city. I Myself will fight against

106

you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger and fury and great wrath, I will strike the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; they shall die of a great pestilence.’ ” Jer 21:5-6 (NKJV)

This turnaround, from friend to foe, is seen in the words of Jeremiah as he looked back on the destruction of the once chosen city. In

Lamentations 2:3f the prophet said, “He has cut off in fierce anger every horn of Israel, He has drawn back His right hand from before the enemy...standing like an enemy, He has bent His bow; with His right hand, like an adversary, He has slain all who were pleasing in His sight; On the tent of the daughter of Zion, He has poured out His fury like fire.”

Israel had become the enemy of the Lord, and when Israel became the enemy of Jehovah, He became the enemy of Israel! The fact that Israel became the enemy of the Lord in these earlier times foreshadowed the fact that in the last days, she would fill the measure of her sin and become, ultimately, the enemy of God. This was forecast in the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32.

This remarkable chapter, as we have seen, anticipated Israel’s last days., and the time when Israel would become the enemy of Jehovah. Moses prophetically recounts Israel’s history of rebellion. That is, he speaks of her having a long history of sin and rebellion before she had actually exhibited that recalcitrance historically.

Jehovah says that He would have destroyed them had it not been for the potential taunts of the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 32:26f). He laments the fact that Israel seemed oblivious to her coming last days fate (v. 29f). He poses the question “How can one chase a thousand, except their Rock deserted them...Unless their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had surrendered them up?” Here is the principle that any destruction of Israel was proof that she was out of Covenant relationship with Jehovah.

The Lord promised that due to her sin, “The Lord shall judge His people” (v. 36). And, yet, in the midst of that awful promise, He nonetheless promised some good news for the righteous, He would “have compassion on His servants” (v. 36).

As he continued the prophetic forecast of Israel’s last days fate, Jehovah says “As I live forever, if I whet my glittering sword, and My hand takes hold of judgment, I will render vengeance to My enemies and repay those who hate Me.” (v. 41). The context here demands that the enemies under consideration are the rebels in Israel! It is Israel that He has called the “Vine of Sodom” (v. 32). It is Israel that He has castigated for eating “the fat of their sacrifices” of idols, and not serving Him (v. 37-38). The only enemy of Jehovah under consideration in this verse is Israel!

Israel would become the enemy of Jehovah in the last days, such an enemy indeed, that El Shaddai says, “I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and My Sword shall devour all flesh with the blood of the slain and the captives, from the heads of the leaders of the enemy” (v. 42).

It is at this juncture that the Lord promised, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, and render vengeance to His adversaries; He will provide atonement for His land and His people”182 (v. 43). It is important to note how the Gentiles, former enemies, are now called into a relationship with Jehovah, along with the repentant of His people (v. 21, v. 36f).183 This is the promise of the creation of a new people!

( Remember, that in Isaiah 59, the Lord promised “to put on the garments of vengeance,” and come in judgment of those who had shed innocent blood (Isaiah 59:3, 6, 7), He also promised that His coming would be good news for the righteous. These promises of judgment contained the promise of the salvation of the remnant. Isaiah is echoing the covenant promise of Deuteronomy 32 of God’s last days judgment of Israel).

The critical point to see of course, is that in the last days, Israel would indeed become the enemy of the Lord. How could the chosen people actually become the enemy? Quite simply, by breaking the Covenant, and this definitely included shedding innocent blood.

107

As a significant historical note, it is surely more than coincidental that Josephus, witnessing the destruction of his beloved city at the hands of the rebels, charged them with becoming the enemy of God through their rebellion. Titus had Josephus stand before the walls and appeal to those inside to spare the city. Josephus appealed to them with both sarcasm and patriotism: “To be sure thou hast kept this city wonderfully pure for God's sake; the temple also continues entirely unpolluted! Nor hast thou been guilty of any impiety against him for whose assistance thou hopest! He still receives his accustomed sacrifices! Vile wretch that thou art! if any one should deprive thee of thy daily food, thou wouldst esteem him to be an enemy to thee; but thou hopest to have that God for thy supporter in this war whom thou hast deprived of his everlasting worship; and thou imputest those sins to the Romans, who to this very time take care to have our laws observed, and almost compel these sacrifices to be still offered to God, which have by thy means been intermitted! Who is there that can avoid groans and lamentations at the amazing change that is made in this city? since very foreigners and enemies do now correct that impiety which thou hast occasioned; while thou, who art a Jew, and wast educated in our laws, art become a greater enemy to them than the others.”184

Josephus realized that the sins of his people had caused them to become the enemy of El Shaddai, and as a result the judgment now falling on them was fully justified. We would not argue that Josephus had heard the Christians proclaiming this message, for it is not necessary to postulate this. Josephus knew the prophets, and knew that through rebellion Israel had in the past, and was again, the enemy of the Lord. He knew also that judgment was the only and sure consequence of becoming His enemy.

Here is what we have. In the Old Testament, Israel became the enemy of God by their disobedience to the Law, by cruelty and violence. When Jehovah became the enemy of Israel, whether the 10 northern tribes or Jerusalem, He came against them in the Day of the Lord, a historical time of judgment when He acted, “so that they may know that I am the Lord.”And, of course, Moses said that Israel would, in her last days, become, finally, the enemy of God and be judged.

In the New Testament, Jesus castigated Israel for the same crimes that caused Jehovah to become her enemy in the former days (Matthew 23). Jesus promised that He, acting in the stead of the Father, was going to come in judgment (John 5), and avenge those crimes and sins. And, in his coming, he would be manifested as Lord. Now, if Jesus was going to come in judgment of Israel, for becoming the enemy of God, as Jehovah had come in the past, then surely, there is no justification to suggest that he was coming visibly, to destroy the material cosmos and end time.

Paul also identified the True Israel, not as those of the flesh and the Old Covenant, but as those who “have no confidence in the flesh, but rejoice in Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:2f). And, significantly, he said of the Jews “they are enemies of the Cross” (Philippians 3:18). Peter went so far as to say that those who did not obey Jesus were to be, in fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophetic command, “Cut off from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:18f; Acts 3:24f). They, Old Covenant Israel, would no longer be “the people,” but, the enemy of Jehovah. This fits Paul’s doctrine of the Two Jerusalem’s perfectly.

Paul speaks of the “Jerusalem that now is,” and the “Jerusalem that is above.” One Jerusalem was “of the flesh,” the other was “of the Spirit.” The Old Jerusalem had once been the chosen City, but was now the capital of oppression, cruelty and persecution against those following the Messiah. She had truly become the enemy, and as a result, Jesus, as Judge, was about to come against her, while at the same time “fighting for Jerusalem” i.e. the True Jerusalem. At this juncture, we return to Zechariah 12-14.

Paul knew that Zechariah 12-14 predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (Zechariah 13:8f; 14:1-2). He knew that only a remnant was to be saved (13:8f). He knew the remnant would be Israel. Yet, Paul taught, in Galatians 4, that Old Israel/Old Jerusalem was to be cast out. He taught that a remnant of Israel, those accepting Christ, was being saved. And, he taught that the remnant was joining with the Gentiles to form the New Israel. He taught that this “mystery” was not revealed in other times, as it was revealed to him (Romans 16:25-26; Ephesians 3:5f). Paul’s application of

108

O.T. prophecy is definitive, and, his application of Zechariah’s themes shows that Zechariah’s prediction of the salvation of Israel was “spiritual,” and not nationalistic.

Thus, for Paul, Israel stood on the brink of receiving the fulfillment of her promises. This was the positive goal of Israel’s destiny. However, the negative goal was also near. Many in Israel held to the Law, the shadow, refusing to recognize “the time of visitation” (Luke 19:42-44). They killed the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15), and his disciples, the True Seed. As a result, they filled up the measure of their father’s blood guilt (Deuteronomy 32:41-43;186 Matthew 23:29f), and brought the final Covenant Curse of the Law on their heads (Deuteronomy 28-30, 32; Acts 3:23). They had become the true enemy of the Messiah. This is what Paul had in mind when, as a result of the fact that “the children of the flesh persecuted the children of the promise, even so it is now,”187 he exclaimed, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the children of the bondwoman shall not be heirs with the children of the free woman.”

Paul did not say, simply, “Cast out the Covenant.” This is significant, because the millennialists agree that Galatians 4 teaches that the Mosaic Covenant has been “cast out.” It is claimed though, that Israel, the Covenant people, has not been cast out. This is not, however, what Paul said. He said, “Cast out the bondwoman and her children, for the children of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the children of the free.” Paul is not speaking simply of the Covenant. He is speaking of the Covenant people, the nation of Israel.

Paul’s discussion is the Abrahamic Inheritance. His declaration that the children of the bondwoman, Old Covenant national Israel, “shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” is a devastating critique of modern day dispensationalism. The modern day millennial view is that the Abrahamic promises belong exclusively to the physical lineage of Abraham in a restored nation, a restored city, a restored Temple. If Paul said that the fleshly descendants of Abraham were not the heirs of the Abrahamic promises, while holding onto the Old World, then the suggestion that the Old World must be restored so that Israel can inherit the Abrahamic promises is refuted.

The closing words of Galatians lend powerful support to what we have just said about the identity of the true seed of Abraham. As Paul closes out this epistle, he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but the new creation and as many as walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” We need to make two important observations here.

First, relative to the New Creation, Paul taught that the church, the body of Christ, is the New Creation. This is virtually undisputed by anyone in the theological world. And, here is what is so critical about this point: from Paul’s perspective, in the words of Bruce, “The new creation in its fulness belongs to the future, but to those who are in Christ it is already realized through the Spirit.”188 We would affirm that the New Creation was future to Paul, but, contra Bruce and all futurists, it is not still future.

In other words, Paul was living in the already-but-not-yet of the New Creation. The New Creation was in its infancy. The New Tabernacle of God was under construction (Ephesians 2:20f; 1 Peter 2:5f), but was not finished. The church, especially is this true at the early date when Galatians was written, was in its infancy, longing for the arrival of “a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” (Ephesians 4:13). They were awaiting the full arrival of the “Jerusalem that is above” (Galatians 4:26). It is the full arrival of the New Jerusalem that John was anticipating in the Apocalypse (Revelation 21), and this would occur when the Old Jerusalem was destroyed.

The millennialists, especially, must identify at what point of time, and with what event, future to Paul, the New Creation was to be perfected. And, what is so important is that, in that anticipated New Creation, what was true when Paul wrote, “In Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything” was to find full sway! Paul did not anticipate the abolition of his Torah free Gospel when the New Creation fully arrived. Where is such a hint in all of his writings? What had begun in Christ was to be completed, not terminated or replaced! And, what is even more important, is that this completion, not termination, was to occur at the parousia (Philippians 1:6).

109

Here is the problem for the millennialist. It is maintained that at the Rapture, and then at the parousia of Christ, the church, the New Creation of Christ, where “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails” will be displaced by Israel. At that juncture, circumcision once again avails, the Jew/Gentile distinction once again prevails. The New Creation is not perfected, it is terminated. Where then, and when, future to Paul, did that maturation of the body of Christ for which he longed, the full arrival of the New Jerusalem wherein circumcision does not avail, occur? The millennialist has no answer for this. Yet, if the full arrival of the New Creation was future to Paul, all eschatological paradigms must locate the time and occasion for that event.

As we have seen, Isaiah 65 directly links the New Heavens and Earth, and the New Jerusalem with the time of Old Covenant Israel’s judgment and destruction. Likewise, Paul associated that arrival with the casting out of the “Jerusalem that now is” (Galatians 4:25f), and John linked the arrival of the New Jerusalem to the fall of Babylon, the city “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8). Allow us to summarize once again the millennial problem in regard to the full arrival of the New Creation.

Under the Law of Moses, circumcision did avail, for it identified one as a child of Abraham. When Paul wrote, in the New Creation, circumcision no longer availed, God had abrogated that mandate. At some point future to Paul, the New Creation of Christ, wherein circumcision does not avail, would be perfected. That would be at the parousia (Philippians 1:6).

However, the millennialists claim that at the parousia, the church, wherein circumcision avails nothing, will not be perfected, but will be set aside, and once again, circumcision will be mandated by God, under penalty of condemnation for disobedience. Thus, Paul’s hope for the full arrival of the New Creation, wherein circumcision avails nothing, cannot, per the millennial view, be perfected at the parousia after all! Where then does the millennialist provide for the maturation of the New Creation, wherein circumcision avails nothing? Quite simply, they don’t. There is no place in the millennial paradigm for the full arrival of the New Creation of Christ where circumcision avails nothing. The millennialists insist that at the parousia, it is Israel and her distinctives that are restored. The full arrival (maturation) of the church, the body of Christ, at the parousia, and full realization of the unimportance of physical circumcision has no place in the millennial view. Yet, this was what Paul was eagerly anticipating.

The second point relative to Galatians 6:16, is directly related to what we have just said, and what will follow on Philippians 3. That is, Paul identified the true Israel, not as the physical lineage of Abraham, but as the body of Christ, those who were children of Abraham by faith. This was the true Israel of God. While the millennialists likes to say that Paul was sending a friendly greeting to national, rebellious Israel, this flies in the face of the entire context of the epistle.

As we have shown, the apostle goes out of his way to identify the True Seed of Abraham. The Judaizers insisted that the physical lineage of Abraham still comprised Israel. However, just as he did in Romans 2:28f; 9:6f, the apostle said “They are not all Israel that are of Israel.” Circumcision was of the heart, not of the flesh (Romans 2:28). In Galatians 3, Paul emphatically lays out the identity of the True Seed of Abraham. And it has nothing to do with national Israel, with a genealogy that could be traced back through the centuries to the patriarch. Now, the True Seed of Abraham, and thus, True Israel, were those who walked after the rule he had just laid down “in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.”

Clearly, national Israel did not walk by that rule. They hated and persecuted that rule! Was Paul saying “peace and mercy” to those whom he would, in a very short time, call “the enemies of the Cross”? Was he saying “peace and mercy” to those who were seeking to destroy those whom Paul had just identified as the True Seed of Abraham? Was he, after all, calling national Israel, the “children of the bondwoman,”the Israel of God? To suggest that Paul was still alluding to national Israel as the Israel of God flies in the face of everything he had written in this epistle!189 As Alford’s Greek Testament says, Paul was saying, “Not the Israel of the flesh among whom these teachers wish to enrol you, are blessed: but the ISRAEL OF GOD described in chapter 3.” (his emphasis).190

110

Paul’s words are hardly those of a person anticipating the restoration of the city and nation. These are not the words of an apostle who longed for physical Jerusalem, and the physical edifice of her cultus to once again be established--or to continue in supremacy. The fact that Paul proclaimed the “hope of Israel,” and yet heralded the imminent passing of the shadow form of Israel, amounts to proof positive that nationalistic restoration was the furthest thing from the mind and heart of the apostle. He could very easily have said that Israel was temporarily cast off, but would one day be restored nationally. He did not say anything closely resembling this, however, and as we have seen on Romans 11:25f, the only text in which he ever spoke of Israel’s restoration included salvation through judgment.

Thus, while Zechariah did speak of the salvation of Jerusalem in the last days, the doctrine of the Two Jerusalems, as presented by the apostle Paul, provides the definitive interpretation of Zechariah. We cannot make Zechariah teach something contrary to Paul, and Paul’s application of Zechariah’s motifs is plain. The heavenly Jerusalem would triumph over physical Jerusalem.

Finally, on Galatians 4, as well as the other texts to be noted, it will be observed that the contrast is between an earthly, physical city of Jerusalem and the heavenly city. The millennialist seeks to create a doctrine of two future Jerusalems, however.

Pentecost claims that in the millennium, “The heavenly Jerusalem is not the sphere of the living saved who go into the millennium, for they will look to the rebuilt earthly Jerusalem as their capital city, but is rather the dwelling place of the resurrected saints during the millennium. The living will realize the fulfillment of the national promises of the Old Testament in the millennium, while the resurrected will realize the fulfillment of the expectation of a ‘city which hath foundations’ during the millennial age.” (1958, 542) This doctrine is the creation of theological necessity, not of scripture. It violates the shadow versus reality truth as set forth by Paul. It contradicts the fact that Old Testament Israel was not the goal of God’s schema. It posits a restored earthly Jerusalem, and a heavenly Jerusalem, while scripture knows only of a destroyed earthly Jerusalem, and the revelation of the heavenly city.

Paul only knew of two Jerusalems. He knew only a “Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage,” the city that had once again become God’s enemy, and the heavenly city “the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:22f). Why did Paul not mention a yet future, restored earthly Jerusalem if that is the hope of Israel? And, did you notice that Paul said the heavenly Jerusalem is “the mother of us all?” According to the millennial view, the heavenly Jerusalem is not the mother of all, but only of the resurrected saints. The earthly Jerusalem is for those alive when the millennium is established. This demands that Paul, who longed for the fulfillment of the hope of Israel--ostensibly the restoration of Israel--will never enjoy the New Jerusalem in earthly form. As a Jew, Paul will never see the fulfillment of the restored Israel, for that is exclusively an earthly reality, and since he is dead, he will be resurrected and assigned to the heavenly Jerusalem.

The Biblical view of the Two Jerusalems leaves no place for a restored earthly city. Contra Ice, Fruchtenbaum and the millennial school as a whole, Zechariah’s prediction (Zechariah 12:8; 14:1f), must be viewed through the lens of New Testament inspiration, a revelation that predicted only one fate for the Old City. That fate was described by Jesus, “the time is coming in which not one stone shall be left standing on another” (Matthew 24:2).

Philippians 3 In this “prison epistle” the apostle set forth the identical contrast between the Two Jerusalems as he did in Galatians. Paul says, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Most commentators believe he is contrasting Philippi as a Roman colony to the heavenly Jerusalem. However, Hawthorne suggests that Paul was “conscious still of his contest with the Jews.” This is undeniable in the earlier verses, where he contrasts the true circumcision, and the true worshipers, with the “concision,” a derisive term probably coined by Paul to describe the Judaizers. Hawthorne says, “Jews made up their own politeumata (citizenship) where ever they settled, and that they were permitted to live

Paul did not say, simply, “cast out the bondwoman,” that is, just the Mosaic Covenant. He said, “Cast out the bondwoman and her children.” It was not only the Mosaic Covenant that was cast out, but the Covenant people!

111

according to their own laws, and follow their own religious practices. But Paul believed that these Jews, irrespective of what they themselves might have speculated about themselves, belonged to colonies that were linked to Palestinian Jerusalem, earthbound, time bound colonies without any enduring quality. By contrast he says that Christians are a colony of heaven.”191

Notice again that Paul speaks of those who put their confidence in circumcision, i.e., in the flesh, as “the enemies of the Cross” (v.18). What a turnaround! Those once called the children of God, distinguished from all other people by the sign of circumcision, and blessed by Jehovah by the presence of His Temple, are now called God’s enemies! Their minds were on “earthly things” which, in Paul’s polemic, was referent to the Old Covenant things of Israel. The point is that the “citizenship in heaven” that Paul contrasts with the enemies of the Cross, is a contrast between the Old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem.

Once again therefore, the apostle of Jesus speaks of the Two Jerusalems, and the fate of the Old was not restoration, but “destruction” (v. 19). To be sure, one Jerusalem was to be saved, as posited by Zechariah, but, another Jerusalem was doomed.

There was no place for a restored Jerusalem, restored circumcision, restored Temple cultus, etc., in Paul’s theology. He taught that Old Covenant Israel, her city and temple had one fate, and that was destruction at the end of the age. To proclaim the restoration of national Israel, based on Zechariah 12-14, or any other passage, flies in the face of Paul’s doctrine concerning Israel. Paul said that Israel had become the enemy of God! And, in this, he joined with his Master.

Jesus and the New Testament writers believed that Old Covenant Israel had become the pagan enemy of God by abandoning the Covenant. As a result, all of the Covenant curses contained in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28-30, 32, etc. were to come on her. In addition, passages that the Jews normally applied to the pagan enemies who would be judged in the Day of the Lord, Jesus and his disciples now applied to Israel!

France, (1982, p.147) has shown that Jesus identified he and his disciples as the true Israel, and therefore transferred to Old Israel the identification of the pagan persecuting power, “In rejecting Jesus, the Jews no less than the pagan empires, were the opponents of the kingdom of God.” Wright (1996, p.461) concurs, “Jesus saw the present Jewish rulers and teachers as the dupes of the accuser, and himself and his followers as the true Israel. He told Israel’s story, as prophets like Elijah and Michaiah ben Imlach had told it many centuries before, with the present rulers and their tame prophets as the opponents of the true people of the covenant god, himself as the agent, and divine spirit as his helper.” McKnight, (1999, 186f), speaking of Jesus’ call to the kingdom, says that Jesus, “Called some of his followers to leave families, but did so in light of his vision of the future kingdom.” In other words, Jesus identified his real family as those who obeyed him (Matthew 12:49-50), and this redefined the people of God as those who obeyed his call.

This definition, or re-definition of the identity of the True Israel, is addressed in Acts 3. Peter promised that Jesus would come at the climax of ”the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). (More on this later) He assured his audience that Jesus was the promised Messiah anticipated by all the prophets. He also warned them that the prophets said, “Him shall you hear in all things, whatever he says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22-23). For Peter, the True Israel, the True Covenant keepers, were those who followed Jesus. Those who rejected him were doomed to be cut off. They would no longer be the People.

We call attention to the fact that Paul contrasts the Judaizers, who were demanding that Gentile Christians be circumcised, in a distinctive manner. Speaking of the Christians, he says, “We are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Jesus Christ, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Philippians 3:3). We must recall the significance of circumcision in the controversy about the Abrahamic Promises.

The Jews and Judaizers would emphasize that without circumcision one could not be a child of Abraham, and could not inherit the land. They would be cut off from the people (Genesis 17:10f). They could not enter Jerusalem, or sacrifice at the Temple. To those emphasizing fleshly circumcision, that Abrahamic Covenant practice was mandatory in order to receive the Abrahamic Inheritance.

112

For Paul however, physical circumcision, typological of the circumcision of the heart (Colossians 2:11f), had fulfilled its purpose, and was now to be considered, as a religious act, as nothing less than self mutilation! He said that the true circumcision were those who were circumcised in the heart, and “put no confidence in the flesh.” Putting confidence in the flesh is precisely what the Jews and Judaizers of Paul’s day did, and what the millennialists of modern times, are doing!

The millennialists insist that Israel remains pre-eminent in God’s eyes, and the spiritual nation, the body of Christ, will one day be replaced by fleshly Israel. The millennialists maintain that the physical land of Israel is the determinative promise of God to Abraham, and deny that he had his eyes on the better, heavenly city. The millennialists claim that the physical city of Jerusalem, Paul’s “Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage,” with her children “according to the flesh” (my emphasis, Galatians 4:25), is preferred by God over the Jerusalem that is above, and the children born of the Spirit. The dispensational paradigm holds that the physical Temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the better, heavenly, True Tabernacle “not made with hands” (Hebrews 8:1f) will give way to the earthly Temple once more. Premillennialists espouse the view that the fleshly animal sacrifices will one day be re-instituted, albeit as a memorial of Jesus’ perfect, one time for all time sacrifice in the heavenlies (Hebrews 9:24f). Millennialism says that in the millennial kingdom, fleshly circumcision will be re-instituted as a mandate from God, and that those not circumcised will forfeit the right to worship Jehovah. The circumcision of the heart, spiritual circumcision, that Paul emphasized while rejecting the circumcision of the flesh, will be relegated to at least secondary status.

The bottom line is that modern day dispensational premillennialism does, in fact, put its confidence in the flesh. To put it another way, modern dispensationalism is simply a modified form of the Judaising movement of the first century! And remember, Paul fought that movement with every ounce of his being, insisting that to bind the Old Covenant mandates on Christians was a rejection of the grace of Christ.

The doctrine of a restored Jerusalem, based on an interpretation of Zechariah 12-14, must of necessity categorically reject Paul’s doctrine that true circumcision is that of the heart. It must reject his doctrine that the heavenly city is superior and true while the earthly city was typological. It must reject his doctrine that the children of the flesh would not be partakers of the Abrahamic Promise by holding onto the fleshly ordinances. Modern millennialism must do what Paul refused to do, place its confidence in the fleshly things of Israel.

It is a fair question to ask: what would be necessary, in regard to the Gospel of Jesus, for Jerusalem, the Temple, the sacrifices and circumcision to be restored? It is clear from the words of Jesus and Paul, that there is no place in the Gospel dispensation for animal sacrifices, for emphasis on a genealogically verified Levitical priesthood, for physical circumcision. However, as we have shown elsewhere, the millennialists insist that all of these things, including circumcision, must be restored in the millennium. Thus, we ask again, what happens in regard to the Gospel if circumcision, the Temple, and Jerusalem is restored?

If the feast days such as the New Moon, Feast of Tabernacles, etc. are restored, and, per the millennial view of Zechariah 14, mandatory to be pleasing to God, then Paul’s command, “Let no man judge you in respect to new moon, feast days or Sabbath” (Colossians 2:16), must become null and void. If physical Jerusalem once again becomes the center of God’s kingdom, then Paul’s contrast between the “Jerusalem that now is,” and the heavenly Jerusalem, becomes a false contrast. His statement, “Cast out the bondwoman and her children,” representing the casting out of Old Covenant Jerusalem, will be reversed. Instead of Old Jerusalem being cast out, it will be the “Jerusalem that is above” that is displaced! If Old Covenant national Israel is restored, and the Jew/Gentile distinction restored, as millennialists say, then Paul’s Gospel of Jew/Gentile equality in Christ (Ephesians 2:11f; Galatians 3:26-29) must give way

Modern dispensationalism is simply a modern form of the Judaising movement of the first century!

113

If circumcision is restored as a mandate from God, at any time in the future, then the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed by Paul, that says, “If you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing,” and, “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything” (Galatians 5:1-6; 6:15), must be categorically rejected.

Jesus affirmed that his Gospel will never pass away (Matthew 24:35). If Jesus’ Gospel, that Paul said meant rejection of animal sacrifices, feast days, circumcision, Temple worship, etc. will never pass away, then how can these things be restored, and the Gospel remain in effect? The only way to have a restored Jerusalem, Temple, and Temple worship in a future millennium is to replace and reject Paul and his Gospel.

If the Gospel of Jesus is in effect in the millennium, there can be no emphasis on earthly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:22f). There can be no imposition of circumcision (Galatians 5:1-6). There can be no Jew/ Gentile distinction. There can be no emphasis on genealogical purity (1 Timothy 1:4). There can be no obligation to forbid the eating of meats, or the imposition of feast days and the Sabbath (Colossians 2:14f). However, the millennialists tell us that all of these things will be mandatory again. This can only mean that the Gospel of Jesus cannot be in effect in the millennium! There is no way out of this conundrum.

Will those whom Paul called the enemies of the Cross actually displace Paul’s Gospel in the millennium? Paul withstood them in the strongest of ways, and said that his hope--as a man who had once placed his trust in being a physical descendant of Abraham--was no longer associated with the physical city or Temple. Yet, the millennialists tell us that the ordinances that the enemies of the Cross were imposing on Gentiles then, are the very things that will be imposed on Gentiles in the millennium! Will the things Paul now counted as dung, the Temple and its worship, be re-established in the future? It is difficult indeed to countenance a doctrine that rejects Paul’s Gospel of equality in Christ, that rejects his emphasis on heavenly realities as opposed to earthly, that re-establishes what Paul sought to displace.

To speak therefore, of the restoration of Israel, and her institutions, the institutions that Jesus and Paul relegated to history, is to take the side of those who rejected Jesus and identified themselves as the enemies of God.

Philippians 3, therefore, agrees perfectly with Galatians 4 in teaching that Old Covenant Israel had reached her desired goal, the Messiah Jesus, and as a result, the Old Covenant form was doomed to pass. While the apostle does speak of Two Jerusalems, he knows that one is doomed, and one is eternal in the heavens. He knows nothing of a restored earthly city.

Hebrews 12-13192 If ever there was a book that offered a perfect opportunity for the inspired writer to speak of a yet future restoration of Israel and her cultus, Hebrews is it. Yet, Hebrews says not one word of a restoration of Israel, the Temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, or anything else related to Israel. The only thing addressed by the Hebrew author is how superior Jesus’ New Covenant is to the Old Covenant, how the Old was never intended to endure, and was in fact, ready to vanish away.

In regard to the story of Two Jerusalems, it is important to realize that the writer is concerned about the promises made to Abraham. It was the patriarch that was promised a heavenly city and country, and these promises were made before the giving of the Old Covenant at Sinai (Romans 4). Bock (196), emphasizes these points, interestingly enough, all the while insisting that the Mosaic Law and system will never be restored, and that the Abrahamic Covenant is the determinative covenant. There is a severe dilemma for the millennialist in this posit, however.

Abraham never looked for, nor was he ever promised, a restored literal Jerusalem. It is clear from Hebrews 11:13f, that Abraham believed that God’s determinative purpose and goal for him was not the physical land of Palestine, but the heavenly city! While there is certainly no dispute as to

THE ONLY WAY TO RESTORE ISRAEL AND HER CULTUS IS TO REJECT AND REPLACE PAUL’S GOSPEL!

114

whether the Lord promised the physical land to Abraham (Genesis 15), the fact is that, 1.) That land promise was fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45), and, 2.) The reception and possession of that land was always a conditional promise (Genesis 18:19; 22:15-18), 3.) As we have seen above, the covenant of circumcision, that was a sign of God’s Land Covenant with Abraham, and the condition of entrance and possession of the Land for Israel, is annulled in Christ. Thus, it cannot be argued today, that Israel must possess the land in the millennium because those promises were never fulfilled historically.

The millennialists say that Israel must possess the physical land forever due to the Abrahamic Covenant. It is insisted that since the Abrahamic Covenant preceded the Mosaic Covenant, then it is possible for the Mosaic Covenant to be removed, and yet the Land promises, involving Jerusalem, to remain valid. There are a multitude of errors in this paradigm.

God’s ultimate purpose in the Abrahamic promise was not the physical land, or city. It was the heavenly city (Hebrews 11:13-16)! It is misguided to emphasize the Abrahamic Covenant as the ground for a future restoration of the physical city.

The predictions that millennialists appeal to for the restoration of Israel are not found in the Abrahamic Covenant contexts per se. They are found in the Mosaic Covenant, especially Deuteronomy 28-30! Deuteronomy 30 is especially emphasized. So, on the one hand, the millennialist says that the Mosaic Covenant has been forever removed, and on the other hand, they appeal to the Mosaic Covenant, to prove a future restoration of Israel!

This is strange indeed. LaHaye and Ice (Charting, 85), appealing to Deuteronomy 30:1-10,

contend that, just before the millennium, Israel will be regathered. However, to appeal to this text for a future restoration of Israel is wrong. Three times in these verses (v. 2, 8, 10), Moses sets forth the condition for the restoration being promised, and that condition is obedience to the Law of Moses! This is critically important. Moses emphatically said that Israel must return in obedience and, “obey His (Jehovah’s, DKP), Voice, according to all that I command you today” (v. 3).

The condition for Israel’s return to the land was obedience to the Mosaic Covenant. However, the Mosaic Covenant has been “forever fulfilled and removed in Christ” (LaHaye/Ice). Therefore, the condition for Israel’s restoration to the land has been “forever fulfilled and removed in Christ.” In other words, even if Israel were to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly today, it would do no good, because Jehovah Himself no longer recognizes the Mosaic Law as valid!

You cannot argue, logically, that Israel will one day be restored, based upon Deuteronomy 30 (and similar texts), while agreeing that the condition for that restoration has been removed! That would be somewhat akin to going into the state of Oklahoma today, laying claim to a section of land, and appealing to the land run law of 1889 for justification! The land run law has been forever removed, thus, your claim would be invalid. Likewise, the condition for the restoration of Israel, the return to the Law of Moses, has been forever removed. The promise of restoration is no longer applicable.

Bock makes a great deal of the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant, and that it has been forever removed (1993, 194+) He cites Matthew 5:17-18, and insists: “The specific terms of that covenant were not to be arbitrarily set aside (abolished). The covenant was legally binding down to the smallest letter or stroke until heaven and earth (the witness of the Covenant in Deuteronomy 4:30) (sic, DKP, should be 4:26) passed away. But Jesus introduced another until, ‘until all is accomplished.’ The accomplishing of the covenants, the prophecies, and the patterns of Scripture take place in his birth,

The divine condition for the restoration of Israel was obedience to the Mosaic Law. However, the Mosaic Law has been forever removed. Therefore, the necessary prerequisite for Israel’s national restoration no longer exists!

115

childhood, and adult pre-ascension ministry, some in His death, resurrection and ascension, some in his present session, and the rest in His future return and everlasting reign. It is in this ‘accomplishment’ of the covenants, the prophecies, and the patterns of scripture, that the Mosaic covenant as such is said to be fulfilled, and replaced by a new covenant which abides forever.” (1993, 195)

The trouble with this is that it flies in the face of not only his own statements, but the express words of Jesus. Jesus did say that not the smallest letter or stroke could not fall from the Law “until heaven and earth” passed away. For Bock to suggest that this is referent to literal creation however, demands that the Law is still in effect. If the Mosaic Covenant (including the Law and the prophets) could not pass, until literal heaven and earth passes away, then, creation has not passed away, it follows that not one jot or one tittle of the Mosaic Covenant (including the Law and the prophets) has passed away. This is inescapable.

Millennialists, insist that the Old Covenant prophecies are not fulfilled. Bock (1993, 195), says the accomplishing of the covenants, prophecies, and patterns of scripture will be accomplished fully “in his (Jesus’, DKP) return and everlasting reign.” Ice, (1998, p. 256) says, “In the millennial temple, all that was prescribed in the Old Testament ceremonial and ritual activities will come to completion and their fullest meaning.”

It will not do to say the Mosaic Law has passed, and then say the sacrifices of that Law have not been fulfilled. It will not do to say that the Mosaic Covenant has passed forever, and then insist that the Mosaic prophecies remain unfulfilled. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and the prophets, and that none, not the smallest dot, not the smallest stroke of that Old World would pass until it was all, not some, not part, not even most, but until it was all fulfilled. Bock (1993, 195), even admits that the word fulfill means to “accomplish” the predicted events of prophecy.

The millennialists, while stating that the Mosaic Law has passed forever, nonetheless, say that the full meaning of its sacrificial system has not yet been fulfilled. This can mean but one thing. No matter how vehemently the millennialists talk about the passing of the Mosaic Covenant, their insistence that the Temple cultus has never found its complete fulfillment, and that the prophecies remain unfulfilled, demands that the Mosaic Law remains in force! There is no escaping this fundamental fact.

The millennialist perhaps sees the difficulty in positing a future restoration of the Mosaic system per se. This is why they maintain the passing of the Mosaic Law, and the unconditional, and eternal nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, while we concur that the Abrahamic Covenant is the fundamental Covenant in scripture, we totally disagree with the millennial view of that Covenant, its interrelationship with the Mosaic Covenant, and the eschatological significance of the Mosaic Age.

Pentecost says, “Eschatological studies are not concerned with the minor covenants made by man with man, nor even with the Mosaic covenant made by God with man, inasmuch as these are temporary and non-determinative in regard to future things.” (1980, 67) We could hardly disagree more.

To suggest that the Mosaic Covenant is not related to the study of eschatology is, in one sense, to miss the story of eschatology. The Mosaic Law was not, to be sure, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. However, the Abrahamic promises would be fulfilled at the end of the Mosaic Age, not at the end of the Christian Age! This is Paul’s point in Galatians 3-4. Further, Jesus’ teaching about ”the end of the age” is posited firmly in the context of the end of the Mosaic Age (Matthew 13:39-43), with the attendant passing of the Temple (Matthew 24). Biblical eschatology is Covenant Eschatology. It is about the end of the Mosaic Covenant Age, the time when the Abrahamic Covenant promises would be realized.

There is no escape from this fact: If any Old Testament prophecies remain unfulfilled, then the Old Testament remains in force.

To suggest that the Mosaic Covenant is unrelated to the study of eschatology is to miss the story of Biblical eschatology!

116

Our point is, that when the Hebrew writer speaks of the inheritance of the Abrahamic promises he never mentions restoration to a physical land or a restored city and Temple. Although the writer was aware of Zechariah’s prophecies, he never hints at the restoration of the old cultic system. The writer speaks of the imminent passing of the Old Mosaic Covenant, and, it is in that context that he speaks of the reception of the Abrahamic promises (Hebrews 6-8). This supports what we just said. While the Mosaic Covenant did not fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant promises, those promises were due to come at the end of the Mosaic Covenant, and the Hebrew writer said they stood at the end of that Mosaic Age.

Not only does the Hebrew writer affirm that the end of the Mosaic Age was near, and that the Abrahamic promises were about to be realized, he identifies the land and city involved in those promises to be heavenly, and not earthly or nationalistic.

In chapters 11-13, the writer reminds his readers of the Abrahamic promises, and the nature of the ultimate goal of those promises: “He (Abraham, DKP) waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (v. 10), “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them far off, were assured of them, and embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who says such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had an opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God. For He has prepared a city for them.”

Why did the writer negate the significance of the land promises to Abraham, if those promises were the determinative purpose of God? Why did he say, in contrast to earthly promises, that Abraham looked for something better? If a restored nation, descended from Abraham’s physical lineage, was God’s ultimate goal, why did the writer so powerfully discount the earthly ties, and point his readers, those longing for fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, away from those nationalistically oriented promises and to the heavenly spiritual promises?

Instead, just as Zechariah 13-14 suggests, the Hebrew writer sets forth the fate of Two Jerusalems. He tells his readers, Jewish Christians familiar with the Old Covenant city, “You have not come to the mount that may be touched and that burned with fire...But you have come to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:18-24).

In the prophetic scripture, Zion is the locus of salvation, God’s Holy City. Here, the writer says they had come to that anticipated capital.193 The implications of this are incredible. Zion was the ultimate eschatological and soteriological goal of Israel’s prophetic scripture. And, here, the Hebrew writer says that the Hebrew Christians were on the brink of obtaining that goal! It is clear that the author did not have in mind the literal city of Zion/Jerusalem, nor a restored political nation of Israel, or a physical temple, where animal sacrifices would be offered. His eyes were on the heavenly realm, the spiritual realities of Jesus Christ.

The writer tells his audience that the “heaven and earth” that was created when Jehovah gave the Law at Sinai--Israel’s covenant world194-- was to be removed shortly, so that the unshakable kingdom of God would remain (12:25-28).195 This is eschatological to the core, and involves, not the dissolution of material creation, but the removal of the Old Covenant world, i.e. Covenant Eschatology. He then concludes by urging his readers to go to, Christ “outside the gate,” for, “we have here no continuing city, but seek one that is about to (from mello) come” (13:14).

As Bruce says, “In this context, the camp stands for the established fellowship and ordinances of Judaism. To abandon them, with all their sacred associations inherited from remote antiquity, was a hard thing, but it was a necessary thing. They had been accustomed to think of the camp and all that was inside it as sacred, while everything outside of it was profane and unclean. Were they to leave its sacred precincts and venture on to unhallowed ground? Yes, because in Jesus old values had been reversed. What was formerly sacred was now unhallowed, because Jesus had been expelled from it; what was formerly unhallowed was now sacred, because Jesus was there.”196

117

The reason they must go outside the camp was not only to associate themselves with Jesus, but because the Old City was doomed. The heavenly city was God’s ultimate promise to Abraham, and symbolized by the physical city, but now coming to reality. The Old City had not only served its purpose, it had also become the enemy of God, by holding onto the Old Covenant, and persecuting those who proclaimed the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises in Christ.

Thus, in this book so solidly concerned with the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises, we find no hint of a restored Jerusalem, a return to the Land, or a national restoration. We find only the prediction that the Lord was coming “in a very, very (hosan, hosan micron, 10:37) little while,” to “judge the people” in fulfillment of the Last Days prediction of the Song of Moses (Hebrews 10:30). And, it cannot go without notice, that the writer, citing the prediction of Deuteronomy, posits Jesus as the one coming in judgment, whereas in Deuteronomy it was Jehovah. We are once again reminded that “the Father has committed all judgment to the Son” (John 5:19f), and that Jesus was to come in the glory of the Father.

We cannot conclude this discussion of the Two Jerusalems without considering what John has to say in the Apocalypse, especially as it relates to Zechariah 12-14. There is little doubt that Zechariah plays a vital, and formative role in Revelation. Carrington says that besides Ezekiel, Zechariah has influenced the Apocalypse more than any other book.197

What the millennialists so often overlook is that Zechariah presents the theme of the judgment of the persecutors of God’s people. They see only a deliverance of Israel from the Great Tribulation. However, the fate of Israel in Zechariah is hardly a pleasant sight. That is, the fate of Old Covenant Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is indeed delivered, but delivered and vindicated against those who killed the Master!

In Zechariah 12:10, Jehovah said that the time was coming in which the tribes of Israel would mourn, “they will look on the one whom they have pierced, yes, they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for him as one mourns for a firstborn.”

In chapter 13:8f, this is the time when Jehovah would destroy the nation, and save only a remnant. Thus, in Zechariah, God would avenge the blood of his elect One, and save the remnant. This is the pattern of Revelation!

There is no question that Revelation is about a conflict between Two Women (chapter 12/ 17). It is a conflict between Two Cities (chapters 11, 18 -vs- chapter 21), and significantly, one of the cities is the “New Jerusalem.” Does this not of itself indicate that John is contrasting the Old Jerusalem with the New? It certainly seems incongruous to contrast a New Jerusalem with ancient Rome, or any other city that could never be classified as an Old Jerusalem!

In Revelation, the Harlot City Babylon thinks herself to have a chosen special relationship, i.e. that of wife “I am no widow!” What other city in all the world might make the claim that she was, at least once, married to Jehovah? That can only refer to Old Covenant Jerusalem. Yet, in the Apocalypse, there is a wedding taking place between Messiah, and the remnant of Israel (Revelation 7, 14), while the Old Harlot city is burned, as was proper and commanded under the Old Law for an adulteress wife of a priest (chapter 17)!

Thus, in Revelation, as in Paul’s writings, we find a contrast between Two Jerusalems, with the impending destruction of the Old Jerusalem for persecuting the saints. And, as we just noted, John uses Zechariah 12-14 extensively, as the chart shows.

118

ZECHARIAH 12-14

REVELATION

Judgment of those who killed the Lord (12:10; 13:8f)

Judgment of the city “where the Lord was slain” (11:8)

Salvation of the remnant (13:8)

Salvation of the remnant (7, 14)

Judgment at the Day of the Lord (14:1-5)

Judgment at the Day of the Lord (14:6f; chapts. 18-19)

Jehovah vindicated as King of Kings (14:9)

Jesus vindicated as King of kings (19:16), on the Throne (22:3)

No more curse (14:11)

No more curse (22:3) A direct allusion to Zechariah

River of Life flows from Jerusalem after the judgment of Jerusalem (14:8)

River of Life flows from Jerusalem after the judgment of Babylon (22:1-3)

Nations come to the delivered Jerusalem to worship (14:14f)

Nations come to the New Jerusalem to worship (21:24f)

As you can see, there is a point by point identicality between Zechariah and the Apocalypse. Undeniably, Zechariah posited those things at the

time of the judgment and salvation of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-2). The majority of Israel, i.e. the Old Jerusalem was to perish for her persecutorial ways. However, the remnant, the True Israel and Jerusalem, was to be saved. This is indeed a picture of Two Jerusalems!

Here is what is so important about Zechariah, as it relates to Revelation. In Revelation 1:7, the theme of Revelation is established as the judgment of those who killed the Lord. Furthermore, Revelation 1:7 is a direct citation of Zechariah 12:10! Note that Zechariah is about the judgment of those who pierced the Lord (12:10; 13:8f). Revelation is about the judgment of Babylon, “the city where the Lord was slain” (11:8).

If John chose to establish the theme of his book by directly quoting from a prophecy of the vindication of the martyrs at the judgment of Israel, how in the name of reason do we change the theme of Revelation to speak of something entirely different, at an event two or more millennia removed from what Zechariah anticipated? The millennial paradigm completely ignores, or denies, the fact that Old Jerusalem, by killing the “firstborn Son” was to become the enemy of God, doomed to destruction.

Thus, in Zechariah, a key O. T. text, we find a prophecy of the vindication of the martyrs, specifically God’s Son, and this text serves as the thematic verse for the book of Revelation. Now since Zechariah 12-14 clearly discuss the judgment on Israel for shedding the blood of Jesus, and

119

since John uses that key verse to set the theme of Revelation, we are justified to suggest that Revelation is about the judgment of the ones that killed the Lord, and that is none other than first century Jerusalem.

Furthermore, since John, in setting forth his divinely inspired explication of Zechariah’s prophecy, explains it in the context of Two Jerusalems, with the Old City to be destroyed and the Heavenly City redeemed, then we are fully justified to reject the millennial view that Zechariah predicts a yet future restoration of the Old Covenant City. John’s inspired application of Zechariah is definitive and authoritative.

Our point then, is that the Biblical story of Two Jerusalems does not support the millennial interpretation of Zechariah 12-14. Whereas the millennialists insist that Zechariah foretold a deliverance from judgment at the parousia, the New Testament interpretation of that prediction shows that it was the Old Covenant city that was to be destroyed, and the Heavenly Jerusalem, was to be revealed. Zechariah’s prediction that the city would be razed, a remnant would be saved, and salvation would come, is the theme of the New Testament writers as well. However, their application of those motifs, is that the remnant constituted the True Israel, those coming into Christ by leaving behind the Old Covenant system, and that the Old City was doomed. The New City, the spiritual body of Christ, was the goal of those Old Covenant predictions.

We have also seen that the New Testament writers were anticipating fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, and that they understood that those promises were spiritual in nature. They had nothing to do with the restoration of the Old City, the Old Temple, etc.. Thus, when the New Testament writers apply the Old Covenant predictions of the salvation of Israel to the salvation of the church, they are showing us that the true intent of those passages had nothing to do with national restoration. They spoke of the time when the Old Covenant shadow would pass, in the Day of the Lord. And, more specifically, they posited that judgment as the time when Israel was judged for shedding the blood of the righteous. In regard to this subject, as we have seen, the words of Jesus are unambiguous and determinative. The judgment on Israel for shedding the blood of all the martyrs was to occur in A.D. 70.

Finally, in agreement with this, is the fact that since it was not Old Covenant fleshly Israel that was to be restored, it was not to be a king on a physical throne that was to rule, and all things external of that Old World were to pass away, then it makes little sense to speak of a physical parousia of Christ. He was not to come in a literal kingdom, but to reveal his spiritual kingdom. His kingdom did not come with observation.

120

CHAPTER 9 THE PAROUSIA AS COVENANT ESCHATOLOGY

As we continue, we need to emphasize the dichotomy between the Biblical view of the parousia and the futurist views. The millennial, amillennial, and postmillennial view, is that the Second Coming brings the Christian Age to a close. However, this is not Biblical. We well recognize that this is a challenging statement. Nonetheless, as we have shown above, the Day of the Lord is clearly posited in the context of the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70, as the time of the vindication of the martyrs.

The belief that the parousia occurs at the end of the Christian Age is common to all three paradigms, although, in contrast to amillennialism and postmillennialism, the millennial view does not believe that Christ’s epiphany brings world history to an end. What the millennial view does believe is that Christ’s coming re-establishes Israel as the chosen people of God, and Jerusalem, with her rebuilt Temple, and Old Testament cultus, becomes the religious world center. For clarity, remember that it is insisted however, that it is not the Mosaic Law itself that is restored, “The kingdom expectation is based on the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the Palestinian Covenant, but is in no way based on the Mosaic Covenant.” (Pentecost, 518). See our discussion of circumcision and its implication for this view, however.

The millennialists, seeing the difficulty of teaching the literal re-establishment of the Mosaic Law, claim that in the millennial temple, the sacrifices, “will not be a return to the Mosaic law, since the law has forever been fulfilled and discontinued through Christ” (Prophecy, 258). It is surely contradictory to insist on one hand that the Mosaic Law has been forever “fulfilled and discontinued through Christ,” and then say that the Mosaic Covenant is the “prophetic road map” for Israel’s restoration.

If the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law are “forever fulfilled and discontinued through Christ,” why would any animal sacrifices be restored? Would the fact that animal sacrifices would not be offered under Moses’ mandates make them any more effective? No, for in regard to efficacy, all animal sacrifices are equally ineffective. If the bloody sacrifices under Moses were ineffective, what would make the animal sacrifices in the millennium any better? And, if Jehovah never had pleasure in bloody animal sacrifices before (Hebrews 10:5f), why would He have pleasure in them in the millennium?

If the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Aeon have found their fulfillment in Christ, then this must mean that the animal sacrifices in the millennium are the fulfillment of sacrifices from some other system that has not yet found fulfillment in Christ. What system of sacrifice might that be?

Ice constantly appeals to Deuteronomy 4:25f to prove that Israel must be restored in the future (Tribulation, 74f). If the Mosaic institutes, Law, and Covenant have been “completely fulfilled and forever discontinued in Christ,” then Deuteronomy 4 has been fulfilled in Christ, and, it is, therefore, inappropriate to appeal to Deuteronomy for a future fulfillment.

For the millennialist to claim that Israel will be restored to her land, with her Temple and her cultus, but that this will not be a restoration of the Mosaic Law is sophistry. Israel’s existence was based on the Mosaic Law. Her possession of the Land and the City was conditioned on obedience to the Law (Deuteronomy 28-30). Her right to the Temple was tied to the Law. Her right to worship God was tied to the Law. How then can it be said, with any degree of logic, that Israel, who found her identity in the Law, will be restored, but that the Law has been forever discontinued?

Further, the millennialist confuses the typological nature of the Law, saying, in effect, that the Law and its cultus was a type or shadow of itself. Ice says that in the millennial temple, “All that was prescribed and initiated in the Old Testament ceremonial and ritual activities will come to completion and their fullest meaning.” (Prophecy, 256). However, how it is possible to assert on the one hand that the Law has been completely fulfilled and forever removed, and then claim that the sacrifices of the Law will find their complete fulfillment in a future millennium?

121

The scripture is clear that Christ’s New Covenant, established by his blood, and perfected by his parousia, is the fulfillment of the typological, shadowy nature of the Old Covenant. Further, instead of teaching that Christ would re-establish national Israel at the parousia, it teaches that Christ’s coming would be at the end of the Old Covenant Age, when the typological significance of the Old Covenant World was fulfilled!

Israel would reach her predicted, anticipated goal, not through nationalistic restoration, but by Covenantal Transformation. This would be accomplished through the painful (traumatic!) crushing of the outer shell of Israel so that the “body” might be revealed. This is confirmed by a study and comparison of Acts 3 and Hebrews 9.

As Peter and John entered the Temple area the crippled man implored them for alms (Acts 3). Unable to give that, they gave him a far greater gift, his health. The excitement generated by this miracle gave rise to one of the most stirring promises, and theologically significant sermons, in scripture. “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, ̀ The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. ̀ And it shall be [that) every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.' Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days. "You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ̀ And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of) [you) from your iniquities.”

It is our intent to show from this text: 1.) The identity of what was to be restored; 2.) The nature of the restoration; 3.) Acts 3 and the passing of the Old Covenant; 4.) Acts 3 and the parousia as Covenant Eschatology.

THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS:

THE OBJECT OF RESTORATION Proper interpretation of Acts 3 depends on the definition of what was to be, or will be, restored. The word apokatastasis (restoration) means to restore,

to set back to the correct position.198 The word itself does not indicate the object or nature of restoration. It simply means to set aright what has gone wrong. Thayer’s lexicon says that it is, “the restoration not only of the true theocracy but also of that more perfect state of (even physical) things that existed before the fall.”199 We would agree that the focus of restoration in Acts 3 was Israel; not however, material creation. This is the overall message of Luke’s book.

If the Mosaic Law has been completely fulfilled and forever removed, then all of God’s promises to Israel have been fulfilled, for it is the Old Covenant that contains God’s promises to Israel!

122

THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL A quick over-view of Acts will show that, “The author appears to go out of his way to show the close connection between Christianity and its

antecedents in Judaism.”200 1.) Chapter 1:6--“Will you at this time restore201 the kingdom to Israel?”202 2.) Acts 2:29-37--God had fulfilled his promise to sit the Messiah on the throne of David. 3.) Acts 4:23-31--The disciples saw the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of Psalms 2. Yet Psalms 2 declared that the persecution of God’s anointed one would ensure--not prevent--the enthronement of the Messiah. 4.) Acts 5:31--Peter declares that God exalted Jesus “to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” 5.) Acts 13:15f--Paul shows that Jesus was given “the sure mercies of David” (v.34), and warns of judgment if Israel rejects him (v. 40-41). 6.) Acts 15:13--James cites Amos 9 as proof that God was fulfilling His promise to “rebuild the tabernacle of David that is fallen down.” The tabernacle of David had to be restored for the Gentiles to be saved. The Gentiles were being saved. Therefore the rule of David was being restored. 7.) Acts 17:3--Paul’s message was that Jesus is the Christ. The Messiah was to restore and save Israel, Isaiah 62. 8.) Acts 23-28--Paul says he was on trial for preaching what “Moses and the prophets” foretold (24:14). Paul’s Gospel was the message of the “hope of the promise made by God to our Fathers” (26:6). His message was the imminent fulfillment in Christ of “the hope of Israel” 28:20).

Patently, Luke’s concern in Acts is to chronicle, “The striking success (not the rejection) of the apostolic mission to Israel which represented the restoration of Israel as promised (Acts 15:13-18).”203 With the evidence above it would be surprising indeed if the “restoration of all things” in Acts 3:21 was not the restoration of Israel. This view is supported by the prophetic use of Luke’s word translated restoration.

RESTORATION IN THE PROPHETS When Israel sinned, Jehovah, in fulfillment of His covenantal promises of judgment, removed them from the land. Yet amid the judgment came

the promise of restoration. Those promises were both historical as well as Messianic. By this we mean that there was the promise of actual restoration to the land and the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem, and there were the promises of the coming of the Messiah to exalt Israel. The word Peter used to speak of “the restoration of all things” was one of the favorite words used by the prophets to promise these things.

In Jeremiah 16:13-15 Jeremiah told Judah that they were about to be removed from their beloved land. Yet he also promised “I will bring them back (LXX, 204 apokatastasis) into their land which I gave to their fathers.” (My emphasis, See also 24:6) This promise was fulfilled under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 1;5;6; Nehemiah 9:36f).

In addition, Jehovah also promised to restore Israel under the righteous “Branch,” of the line of David, under whom Judah and Israel would be restored (Jeremiah 23:5f). This Messianic prediction is parallel with the prophecy of Amos 9 and other such texts. Israel’s restoration under Messiah is the focus.

One of the most significant predictions of the “restoration” is found in Malachi 4:5-6. The Lord said that Elijah was to come and “he will turn (apokatastasis ) the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

Elijah, the restorer, was to urge Israel to “remember the Law of Moses.” Thus, the framework of “restoration” was within the confines of Israel’s world. He was not to be a prophet to the nations per se.

The work of Elijah was eschatological; he was to appear before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5-6).205 Thus, the work of restoration anticipated the Day of the Lord. This fits well with the context of Acts 3. Peter says Christ would come at the climax of restoration.

123

Notice that Peter said the restoration of all things was the object of the prophets, and they “spoke of these days”(Acts 3:24)--the days before the parousia. Thus, restoration before parousia, not parousia then restoration.

Elijah, as restorer, was to minister to Israel and (attempt to) turn them back to the Law before the Day of the Lord. In Acts 3, Peter says the prophets who spoke of restoration spoke of his days--those were the days in which John as Elijah had appeared. Israel was the focus of Elijah’s work of restoration; Israel was the focus of Peter’s ministry of repentance.

THE NATURE OF THE RESTORATION The nature of the restoration of Israel anticipated by the prophets is an important issue. The millennialists say there must be a national restoration.

Walvoord, commenting on what he calls the spiritualizing hermeneutic of amillennialism and postmillennialism, says, “A literal prophecy spiritualized is exegetical fraud.”206 Because Israel had a literal land, city, temple, priesthood, sacrifice, cultus, etc., and since the Old Testament foretold the restoration of Israel, then those physical realities must have been the focus of God’s promises. This view completely overlooks the typological reality, and purpose, of each of these elements.

While Israel was given physical realities, as King notes in response to Walvoord, “A spiritual promise literalized is exegetical fraud!” (His emphasis) Further, and here is the point, “God’s promise in Christ is a spiritual promise from the day it was made to Abraham. How then can that which is spiritual be spiritualized?”207 In other words, while God gave physical, literal promises to Abraham, and to Israel, those physical realities simply foreshadowed the greater spiritual realities. God’s promises to Abraham and to Israel were ultimately concerned with the spiritual, heavenly reality. The physical, national form was not the focus.

Israel, like the modern millennialist, is intent on focusing on the outward, nationalistic promises, instead of what those promises foreshadowed. The focus is the external, not the spiritual. Yet, God’s modus operandi has always been from the natural to the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46). The millennial paradigm however, suggests that God gave nationalistic promises to Israel, but has temporarily set those promises aside while He focuses on the spiritual body of the church. However, he will ultimately set the spiritual body of Christ aside, so that He can resume, and restore His focus on the physical.

As we have seen, Jesus rejected the overtures to be nationalistic king (John 6:15). He forcefully said his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). He said the kingdom was to be “within,” and “does not come with observation” (Luke 17:20-21).

In Acts 2, Peter shows that Christ had been raised to sit on David’s throne in heaven, not on earth. This was in fulfillment of the promise to David. In Acts 15, James affirmed that with the ascension of Jesus and the establishment of the church, the “Tabernacle of David” was being restored in fulfillment of Amos 9. Old Covenant Israel was the type and shadow of the “good things to come” (Colossians 2:14f; Hebrews 10:1-4), and was never intended to be the ultimate expression of God’s kingdom.

Jesus declared explicitly that John the Immerser was the anticipated Elijah/restorer (Matthew 17:10-12). Yet it is abundantly clear that John’s work, as Elijah, was relational and spiritual, not nationalistic.

The spiritual nature of the restoration--the fulfillment of the typological things of Israel-- is indicated in Acts 3. Peter says “repent, so that... he may send Jesus.” Notice the correlation between “repent so that He may send Jesus” and, “whom the heavens must receive until the restoration of all things.” The parousia was tied directly to (Israel’s) repentance/restoration. Peter says that God sent Jesus to Israel to bless them, not in national restoration, but in turning them from sin (Acts 3:26).

124

ACTS 3 AND THE PASSING OF THE OLD COVENANT Peter says the parousia could not occur until the prophetic declarations of restoration had been fulfilled. The prophets are the Old Covenant

prophets, including Moses, “and all those who have spoken, from Samuel forward.” Peter is emphatic about the divine necessity for the yet future to him, fulfillment of the Old Covenant. This is tacitly acknowledged by commentators who seemingly fail to grasp the significance of their comments. J. W. McGarvey says of the O.T. prophecies referred to by Peter “Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again.”208

In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus stated that “not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled.” Most amillennialists (e.g. McGarvey, 259) believe the Old Testament was removed at the Cross; yet they assert that the Old Testament prophecies will be valid until the parousia. How could the Old Testament have been removed at the Cross, and yet mankind still be awaiting its fulfillment at Christ’s coming? This is a major contradiction to say the least. Please notice now a series of arguments.

The Old Covenant could not pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). All of the Old Covenant had not been fulfilled at the time of Peter’s speech (Acts 3:21). Therefore the Old Covenant had not passed at the time of Peter’s speech in Acts 3.

The Old Covenant could not pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). All of the Old Covenant will be fulfilled at the parousia (Acts 3:21) Therefore, the Old Covenant will not pass until the parousia of Jesus.

The Old Covenant would remain valid until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). The Old Covenant was symbolic (prophetic) of coming things, and would remain valid until the time of reformation (i.e. the time of fulfillment, Hebrews 9:6-10). The Old Covenant System was still unfulfilled when Hebrews was written (Hebrews 9:9; circa A. D. 60+). Therefore, the Old Covenant System was still valid when Hebrews was written (A.D. 60+).

The Old Covenant System could not pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). But all of the Old Covenant would be fulfilled by the time of, and in the events of, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22). Therefore, the Old Covenant System could not pass until the time of, and in the events of, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

This truth was taught, though perhaps not fully appreciated, by the early church writers. Eusebius, fourth century church historian, wrote of the passing of the Old Covenant Law and the full establishment of the New:

“Moses himself foresaw by the Holy Spirit that when the New covenant was revived by Christ and preached to all nations, his own legislation would become superfluous, he rightly confined its influence to one place, so that if they were ever deprived of it and shut out of that national freedom, it might not be possible for them to carry out the ordinances of his law in a foreign country, and of necessity they would have to receive the new covenant announced by Christ. Moses had foretold this very thing and in due course Christ sojourned in this life, and the teaching of the new covenant was borne to all nations, and at once the Romans besieged Jerusalem and destroyed it and the Temple there. At once the whole of the Mosaic law was abolished, with all that remained of the Old Covenant, and the curse passed over to those who became lawbreakers because they obeyed Moses’ law, when its time had gone by, and still clung ardently to it, for at that very moment, the perfect teaching of the new Law was introduced in its place.”209 The astute student will immediately see the eschatological implications of Eusebius’ quote. In Matthew 24:14, after being asked for a sign of his

coming and the end of the age (v. 3), Jesus said “this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to the nations, then comes the end.” Eusebius clearly implies that the “end” was at the destruction of the Jewish polity.210

To affirm that the Old Testament prophetic hopes ended at the Cross, and that Christ gave a new set of eschatological predictions is to deny what Peter says. Peter’s hope of the parousia was tied inextricably to the fulfillment of Moses, Samuel and all the prophets.211 The parousia would bring those prophets to fulfillment.

125

If the prophecies of the “restoration of all things” foretold by the Old Testament have not been fulfilled the Old Covenant stands valid today (Matthew 5:17-18). After all, how could the Old Testament promises that Peter said must be fulfilled be valid if the Covenant was not still valid?

If the Old Covenant promises of the restoration of all things have been fulfilled--and the Law removed--Christ must have come. The parousia was to be the crowning act of fulfillment and restoration. Any attempt to posit the revelation of Christ into the future implicitly reestablishes the Old Covenant and Israel as the Covenant people awaiting her promises.

THE PAROUSIA AND THE END OF THE MOSIAC AGE As we have seen, the word translated restoration is a distinctive word used by the prophets. Another word, diorthosis, speaks of the same thing in

the Messianic prediction of Isaiah 62:7. Jehovah promised to “establish” Jerusalem, and make her a praise at the coming of the Lord in judgment, (v.11-12). Thus, the Old Covenant prophets, in speaking of the restoration of Israel under the Messiah, used apokatastasis and diorthosis as synonyms. The lexicons agree. Apokatastasis means “to put back into the original condition,”212 and diorthosis means “to restore something to its natural and normal condition.”213 Ellingworth says the words convey the same ideas.214 This is significant when we compare Acts 3 with Hebrews.

In Hebrews 9:6f, the writer speaks of the prophetic significance of the Old Testament cultus. Specifically, his focus is on the high priest and his service on the Day of Atonement, and then the wider application of the liturgical system that stood in “foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances until the time of reformation.”(diorthosis; 9:10).

It is imperative to honor the author’s chronological perspective. When he spoke of the O.T. system he says, “which is symbolic for the present time” (v.9). The “present time” was his first century generation, not our present day. Otherwise, we must believe that the Old Covenant cultus still stands as a type and shadow of the “good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1-4).

The writer emphasizes that as long as the Old Covenant cultus had215 validity216 there could be no access to the Presence of God (v.8). He shows that Christ sacrificed Himself and entered into the Most Holy to prepare it (v.23-24), and that he was to return “for salvation” to those who “eagerly await Him” (v.28). Christ would appear (the parousia) to bring man into the Presence of God--where the Old Covenant could never bring him.

The Hebrew writer’s point is that the Old Covenant system foreshadowed (prophesied) the coming of better things. It was not the determinative purpose of God. As long as the types and shadows had validity--as long as the Old Covenant stood unfulfilled--there was no access to the Father. Those Mosaic institutions were imposed until the time of their fulfillment--the time of “reformation” (v.10). It would, therefore, be through the fulfillment of the typological significance that the Old System would pass, and man would be brought into the Presence of the Father at the parousia (Hebrews 9:24-28). Notice the direct correlation with Acts 3.

Peter says Christ would come when all that the Old Covenant prophets predicted was fulfilled. Hebrews says the O.T. was typological, (prophetic) intended to stand only until what it foretold, was fulfilled. Peter anticipated the “restoration of all things”; Hebrews anticipated the “time of reformation.” The eschatological significance of this correlation cannot be over-emphasized. Consider carefully the following thoughts:

The Greek words apokatastasis (restoration, Acts 3:21) and diorthosis (reformation, Hebrews 9:10) are synonymous terms referring to the same time and event. (Remember that the Old Testament writers--in the LXX- used these words synonymously to speak of the restoration of Israel under the Messiah). Jesus’ Second Coming was to occur at the time of the apokatastasis (Acts 3:21); therefore, Jesus’ Second Coming was to occur at the time of the diorthosis (reformation, Hebrews 9:10), when man would be brought into the Presence of God (Hebrews 9:28).

Jesus was to come at the time of restoration/reformation, (Acts 3; Hebrews 9:10). But the time of reformation (diorthosis) was the end of the Old Covenant Age (Hebrews 9:10). Therefore, Jesus’ parousia would occur at the end of Old Covenant prophetic hope, not at the end of the Christian Age. This is prima fascia proof that the Second Coming of Christ cannot be for the purpose of restoring Old Covenant Israel.

126

Jeffrey (2001, 138), says Acts 3:19f is, “One of the most powerful prophetic passages in the Word of God,” that, according to Jeffrey, demands a return of Christ to restore Israel at the end of the Church Age. However, the parousia of Christ is placed, very firmly, by Acts 3 and Hebrews 9, in a context diametrically opposite of where Jeffrey places it. Instead of placing the parousia at the end of the Church Age, and positing the restoration of national Israel, Hebrews 9 and Acts 3 places Christ’s revelation at the end of Israel’s Age, and the removal of her cultus.

The Second Coming of Christ, for the purpose of bringing salvation, (Hebrews 9:28), would occur at the time of the restoration (apokatastasis) of all things (Acts 3:21). But the restoration/ reformation (diorthosis) would occur at the end of the Old Covenant Law and System (Hebrews 9:6-10). Therefore, the Second Coming of Christ for the purpose of bringing salvation, would occur at the end of the Old Covenant Law and System. And, if He has not come, the Law remains valid, man has no salvation. This demands that we understand eschatology as Covenantal and not Historical.

The parousia of Christ would occur at the end of the Old Covenant Law and System. But the Old Covenant Law and system would pass--as seen above-- at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Therefore, the parousia of Christ would occur at the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

The Covenantal framework of the parousia is undeniable. Christ’s parousia was to occur at the end of the Old Covenant Aeon--not at the end of time. The parousia was to be the final consummating act of the Old Covenant, to bring it to an end, and fully establish the New Covenant World of the Messiah. We turn now to examine another study that confirms what we have just seen.

127

CHAPTER 10 THE TRANSFIGURATION: DEFINING THE PAROUSIA

The nature of Christ’s coming is not only defined by the covenantal context of its occurrence, as just seen, it is also defined by the fact that inspired writers tell us they saw a vision of the parousia! But, what they saw was not what the religious world believes or teaches about the coming of the Lord!

THE POWER AND THE PAROUSIA In 2 Peter 1:16-18, the apostle refutes the scoffers who denied the parousia (2 Peter 3:2), "we have not followed cunningly devised fables when

we made known to you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” In speaking of the parousia, he then recalls the Transfiguration scene of the Gospels (Matthew 17/ Mark 9/ Luke 9). Clearly, Peter viewed the Transfiguration “as a vision of the advent of the kingdom at the end.”217

In both 2 Peter chapter 1 and 3, Peter is answering the charges of the scoffers. Since Peter says the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia, if we can define more clearly what the Transfiguration entailed, then we can better know what it was the scoffers were denying, and what Peter was describing in his language of 2 Peter 3. Further, we can better understand the nature of that event as well.

WHAT WAS NOT SEEN Before proceeding to describe what Peter and the other disciples saw on the Mount it is important to describe what they did not see.

First, the disciples did not see a vision of the destruction of material creation! The traditional view of the Parousia insists that Jesus' Second Coming is to destroy the earth and all the physical universe; yet where is such a thing in the vision on the Mount? Second, there is no record that the Transfiguration scene included a vision of a literal gathering of every individual of every nation into one geographical location. Yet we are told this is integral to the final judgment. Third, we have no indication that the disciples heard the sound of the Arch-Angel's Shout, or the sound of a literal Trumpet blowing. Fourth, there is total silence about the disciples seeing a vision of a resurrection of human corpses coming out of the terra firma! Fifth, the disciples did not see Jesus’ physical body floating on a cumulus cloud. And yet, we are told that when Jesus ascended, and the disciples were told he would come “in like manner” that he is to appear again precisely as he left. Yet, even a cursory comparison of Acts 1 and the Transfiguration shows that there is virtually no physical similarity between the two events! Sixth.) The Transfiguration was not a vision of Jesus on the physical throne of David in Jerusalem. Seventh.) The Transfiguration was not, as a corollary to the previous point, a vision of the reestablishment of national Israel in the Land! The implications of this are staggering for the millennialists. See below.

Make no mistake, the disciples did see a vision of the parousia. The Transfiguration was to Peter the proof positive (“we have the prophetic word made more sure” 2 Peter 1:19), of the yet future to him--in 2 Peter 1:16--parousia! But, what Peter and the disciples actually saw and the traditional views of the parousia do not agree. And, when we concentrate on what they did see we find the true Bible definition of the parousia!

WHAT THE DISCIPLES SAW On the Mount, the disciples were amazed to see Jesus’ countenance changed so radically that they could not gaze upon him. Some have suggested

that what happened when his appearance was transformed (µετεµoρφ_η) was the inner fullness of Deity shining forth. Whatever the explanation,

128

one would be hard pressed to call what the disciples saw, a physical body. What they saw on the Mount shared no similarity with the body of Jesus after his resurrection, or at his ascension. Jesus was not being revealed as a man on the Mount. The Bath Kohl, the Voice of God, said, “This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him!”

Then, incredibly, Moses and Elijah appeared with the Lord. What an awe inspiring vision! Peter, moved by the occasion, offered: “Let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah” (Matthew 17:4). It is easy to understand the significance of Moses and Elijah. Moses was the Lawgiver “par excellence”; Elijah was the epitome of the Old Covenant prophets. Ramsey correctly notes, “By appearing together Moses and Elijah sum up the entire drama of the old order from its beginning to its end; the one is the predecessor, the other is the precursor of the Messiah.”218 Peter's suggestion that tabernacles be made for the three suggests that Peter conceived of Jesus, Moses and Elijah as equals. But this was not to be.

Matthew tells us, “While he (Peter, DKP) was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!’” What did Peter and the other disciples see? To borrow the words of Boobyer, “The Transfiguration was a divine confirmation of the Messianic status of Jesus in the form of a visionary forecast of the parousia of Jesus--that moment when his divine Son ship and Messianic glory would be displayed in all their majesty as he came from heaven.”219 The disciples were seeing a vision of Jesus revealed as the Son of God! Jesus said the Father had committed all judgment to him so that all men might honor him as they honor the Father, and here, on the Mount, Jesus was revealed as true Deity.

Contra Boobyer, the contextual definition of the parousia--the time of the revelation of the Messianic Glory of Jesus--was not perceived by Peter or the other writers as an “end of time event.” Rather, it is the surpassing of the Old Covenant--the law and the prophets--by the transcendent glory of Jesus the "mediator of the New Covenant!”

Both Moses and Elijah appeared in glory with Jesus (Luke 9:30-31). However, the glory of Jesus out shined the glory of those two grand spokesman of the Old Order. There could be no mistake, the Father removed Moses and Elijah. Jesus alone remained, and the Father's voice clarified the issue, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: Hear Him!” What Peter and the others witnessed was the passing of the Old Covenant Glory and the establishing of the surpassing New Covenant Glory of Jesus!

Now back to 2 Peter 1 where the parousia was still future to the apostle. Peter said the Transfiguration established the parousia predictions beyond doubt, for on the Mount they saw a vision of the parousia. But the Transfiguration was a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant Glory of Moses to the New Covenant Glory of Jesus the Messiah. Therefore, the Biblical definition of the parousia is the time of the complete transformation from the Old Covenant World of Moses and Elijah to the New Covenant World of Jesus. And, this agrees perfectly with the information above from Acts 3 and Hebrews 9, that the coming of Christ was to come at the end of the Old Covenant World, not at the end of the material creation, or at the end of the Christian Era.

The implications of the Transfiguration for the millennial view are immense. Remember, the millennialist insists that the millennium is the restoration of Israel and her cultus.. We have shown the fallacy of this already, but feel it is important to emphasize, because, if the Transfiguration is a vision of the coming of Christ to initiate the millennium, since the Transfiguration is a vision of the end of the Old Covenant World, then this means that the Second Coming of Christ would not be to establish Israel, but to abolish that state!

Stated another way: The Transfiguration is a vision of the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel. But the Transfiguration is a vision of the coming of Christ at the beginning of the millennium (per millennialism). Therefore, the coming of Christ, at the beginning of the millennium, will be to end the Old Covenant World of Israel.

129

Remember, the millennial paradigm says that at his Second Coming, at the beginning of the millennium, the Christian Age ends, and Israel is re-established. This is not the Transfiguration message! The Transfiguration pictured the end, not of the Gospel of Grace and re-establishment of Old Testament Israel, but the passing of the Old World, and establishment of the New. This is the direct opposite of the millennial view.

Not only does the Transfiguration, as a vision of the parousia, deny the millennial paradigm, it also refutes the traditional amillennial and postmillennial views. Amillennialism and postmillennialism both say that Christ will appear at the end of the Christian Era. The contradictions in the amillennial camp, however, when it comes to the texts that deal with the Transfiguration and the parousia, are somewhat disconcerting.

Coffman, commenting on 2 Peter 1:16f says, “Peter’s mention of the Transfiguration in this context shows that he regarded it as ‘an event foreshadowing the power and majesty of the second advent and which could be regarded as a pledge of the glory to be revealed at the second coming.’”220 However, when commenting on Matthew 17, Coffman says that the Transfiguration scene is about covenantal transformation: “Moses the great Lawgiver and Elijah the great prophet, were there summoned from the dead to resign their commissions and to lay homage at his feet.”221 The logical implication is that the Mosaic System will remain valid until the parousia. If the Transfiguration is a vision of the parousia, and if the Transfiguration is a vision of Covenantal transformation from Moses to Christ, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn

The Transfiguration is patently not a vision of the end of the Christian Age, but of the end of the Mosaic Era, and yet, it is a vision of Christ’s parousia. This can only mean that Christ’s “Second Coming” occurred at the end of the Mosaic Age, and that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

THE ALREADY BUT NOT YET TRANSFORMATION: PAUL AND THE PASSING OF THE OLD LAW

It must be noted that what the disciples saw had not yet been accomplished; that is, the transformation from the Old to the New Covenant had not yet been realized. This will have to be admitted even by those who believe the Old Law passed at the Cross. The Transfiguration was a vision of what was to be. Jesus had already taught that the Old System could not pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). But Jesus' very presence signaled that the time of fulfillment had come (Mark 1:15; Galatians 4:4). The New Age had broken into the Old, but was not fully revealed and perfected. The disciples were living in the last days foretold by the prophets, and all things predicted would be consummated at the parousia (Acts 3:19-26). The transition from the Old to the New was taking place at that time and, “the revelation (apokalupsis) of Jesus Christ” in his New Covenant glory would be at the fall of Jerusalem.

It is traditionally argued that the Old Covenant was removed at the Cross.222 This misguided concept fails to read the passages of appeal closely. Paul does not say the Law was removed at the Cross. He says the obligation to keep the Law was removed by the power of the Cross, for those coming into Christ (Romans 7:1-4; Colossians 2:12-16; etc.). But, the apostle is equally emphatic that the Law itself was in the process of passing away.

2 CORINTHIANS 3: FROM GLORY TO GLORY In this great text Paul calls the Old Covenant the “Ministry of Death” (v. 7), it was the letter that “kills,” (v. 6), and was the “ministry of

condemnation” (v. 9). By way of contrast he calls the New Covenant that which gives life (v. 6), the ministry of righteousness (v. 9), and much more glorious, (v. 11). (What is it called when one is delivered from death to life? Resurrection! Thus, in 2 Corinthians 3, resurrection is very much present! And, when the disciples saw Jesus' glory transcend the glory of the Old Covenant “Law and Prophets” the identical thought is implicitly present).

130

In verses 11f, the apostle uses the present tense to describe the then present passing of the Old Law: “if what is passing away is glorious." In verse 12, he speaks of that passing: "therefore having such hope," now since hope involves that which is unrealized, and since Paul speaks of the passing of the Law as a hope, then the Law had not yet passed!

It is sometimes insisted that this hope was being spoken of from the Old Covenant perspective, and not from Paul's perspective post Cross. This is false since Paul said, “since we have such hope we speak boldly unlike Moses.” Paul clearly delineates between himself and Moses. He did not say that the passing was from Moses' perspective. He said it was his hope, unlike Moses! Further, notice verse 15, “for even to this day the same veil remains unlifted.” Paul is speaking of his time--the time when the hope for the passing of the ministry of death was real and imminent!

Finally, read verse 18 about the contrasting glory of the Old and New: “we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory.” Note the present tense. The transformation from the glory of the Old to the glory of the New was in process as Paul wrote years after the Cross!

One reason we must see the transition from the Old to the New as an on-going process empowered by the Cross, but not consummated at the Cross, is because that transformation was a “last days” work of the Spirit, and the work of the Spirit did not begin until after the Cross.

We return again to Ezekiel 37. In Ezekiel 37:14f, Jehovah promised to raise Israel from the dead (v. 14), establish a new everlasting covenant with her (v. 26), when “David” would be her king (v. 24), and God's Tabernacle would be among the people (v. 27). The inextricable link between the miraculous work of the Spirit and the transformation between the Old Covenant and New cannot be overlooked in this regard. This is so because Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3, said the change from glory to glory was being accomplished "as by the Spirit of the Lord" (3:18). The Holy Spirit had been given as the earnest of the change from an earthly house to the building of God “a house not made with hands” (2 Corinthians 5:1-6)--i.e. the New Tabernacle as promised by Ezekiel. The chart will illustrate the parallels between Ezekiel's promise and Paul's teaching.

Ezekiel 37 2 Corinthians 3-5

Promise of resurrection, (v. 14) deliverance from ministry of death, the law that killed, to New Covenant of life (3:6, 8)

Promise of a new covenant (v. 26)

Promise of a new covenant (3:6)

“David” to be king, (v. 24)

Jesus as Lord and Christ (3:16)

Promise of a New Tabernacle (v. 26-27)

Promise of a New Tabernacle (5:1-4)

Tabernacle to be eternal (v. 28) Tabernacle to be eternal (5:5)

Work accomplished by the Spirit, (v. 14

Work accomplished by the Spirit, “the Earnest” (5:5)

131

Patently, Paul has Ezekiel's prophecy in mind as he writes his second epistle, see again our discussion above. What is equally evident is that he

did not have an “end of time” scenario in mind. Covenantal change is what is at stake, a change being wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit! As William Bell has noted, “It is important that one place the Holy Spirit in the right time frame because in so doing, one will also define the time

of covenantal transformation, i.e. from the ministration of death to that of life. How can one teach that the Old Covenant was fulfilled at the cross before the Holy Spirit was ever poured out? Again, Paul teaches that it was through the Spirit that they were being transformed. How can one infer that the Spirit was given before the Cross? Such directly contradicts John 7:38, 39, and Peter's declaration on Pentecost that the prophecy of Joel relative to the Spirit had only then begun to be fulfilled. How can the Holy Spirit perform the work of transformation from a covenant that had ceased to exist? Yet this is what one must believe to accept the doctrine that the cross marked the end of the (old, DKP) covenant.·223 Thus, as the disciples on the Mount saw Jesus' glory transcend that of Moses, they were seeing it before it actually took place.

What they were seeing was a vision of the parousia (2 Peter 1:16). But what they were seeing was a vision of the transformation from the Old Covenant to the New. The parousia was still future to Peter (2 Peter 1:1-19). Therefore, that Covenantal transformation was still on-going, yet future to Peter. The Cross initiated the transformation. The Holy Spirit vitalized it. The parousia consummated it.

That the transformation from the Old to the New was not completed at the Cross is confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16. Peter said they had the prophetic word, i.e. the Old Covenant prophecies, made more sure by what was seen on the Mount. He added “whereunto you do well that ye take heed as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.” (my emp.) Just as Jesus said the Old Covenant would continue until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18), Peter affirmed the abiding validity of the Old Covenant until the Day of the Lord.

Peter told his readers to take heed to the Old Covenant until the coming of “the Day”; and this “Day” can only be when “the parousia hope (2 Peter 3:2), which some spoke of with disdain, would be fully vindicated.”224 If that parousia has not yet taken place, it must be true that the Old Covenant has not yet passed, since undeniably, that what the disciples saw on the Mount was a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant System.

As King says, however, “Where is the proof that the Old Testament prophecy serves as a light that shines throughout the Christian age (which would be the ‘dark place’) until finally the day dawns, and the day star arises? What is ‘better’ about a New Covenant that is so dark that it needs the light of Old Testament prophecy until finally there is the dawning of a new day in another age to come? Is this what is meant by Christ's ‘more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was based upon better promises?’”225

THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN IN HEAVEN The relationship between the destruction of Jerusalem, the parousia, and the passing of the Old Covenant World is one that has been too long

ignored. The wooden literalism of modern readers has divorced the “apocalyptic” language of the prophets from its metaphoric moorings, and created a distorted eschatological world view. It is high time that modern readers learn to honor the literary genre of the Jewish prophets, and allow them to speak. When we do so, we can better understand the relationship between the fall of Jerusalem and these other “end time” events.

In Matthew 24:30, Jesus told his disciples, “then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, then all the tribes of the earth will mourn.” (NKJV) This translation is somewhat unfortunate since it gives the impression that a sign would appear in the sky. As DeMar says, however, “‘in heaven’ does not modify sign. Jesus was not telling them to look for Himself in the sky. He told them that they would see a sign that proved he was

The Cross initiated Covenant Transformation. The Spirit vitalized it. The parousia consummated it!

132

in heaven, sitting at His Father's right hand (Acts 2:30-36). Those who would witness Jerusalem's destruction would see the sign of Jesus' enthronement when they saw Jerusalem's destruction.”226 As we have shown in this work, the parousia would reveal Jesus to be the King of kings, and Lord of lords. The passing of the Old World, would confirm the superiority of Christ’s New World. As Jesus said, in the context of the passing of the Old “heaven and earth” of the Temple, “heaven and earth will pass, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

It is important to interject here, a comment on Matthew 24:35. The Jews believed the Temple was the most important building in the world, and it was. It was, theologically speaking, the center of the world! Josephus, first century historian, and eye-witness of the Temple’s destruction, described the Tabernacle/Temple:

“This proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, Heaven peculiar to God; but the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live, and so this part is peculiar to the priests only”227

Now, if Josephus says that the Jews called the Temple the heaven and earth, it is certainly appropriate to ask whether or not Jesus, in his discussion of the Temple, could have said, in totally appropriate apocalyptic language, “Heaven and earth will pass, but my words will never pass away”?

Jesus had just walked out of the Temple complex, and was now sitting on the Mount of Olives directly east of the beautiful edifice. The disciples have heard his astounding prediction of the desolation of that building. They have asked for the time and the signs of that awful destruction, and Jesus has given a full discourse in response. The anticipated end of the age, and the arrival of the age to come is the topic. The Old Creation must pass, and the New Covenant World must come in. In this context, for Jesus to say, “Heaven and earth will pass, but my words will never pass” is not a contrast between material creation and Jesus’ words, as suggested by Gentry (Perilous, 40, n.12), it is a contrast between the Old Covenant Creation that was doomed to pass, and the New Covenant World that would stand triumphant.

As Gentry says, “As awful as the Jewish loss of life and the utter devastation of the ‘holy city’ Jerusalem, the Jews lament even more the final destruction of the Temple of God and the absolute cessation of the sacrificial system. The covenantal significance of the loss of the Temple stands as the most dramatic outcome of the War. It is an unrepeatable loss in that the Temple has never been rebuilt. Therefore, any Jewish calamity after A.D. 70 pales in comparison to the redemptive-historical significance of the Temple’s loss.” (Perilous, 66).

DeMar adds, “Jesus’ coming to destroy Jerusalem represented the passing of the Old Covenant.” (1994,157) Chilton concurs, “The divinely ordained cataclysm of A.D. 70 revealed that Christ had taken the kingdom from Israel and given it to the church; the desolation of the old Temple was the final sign that God had deserted it and was now dwelling in the new Temple, the church.”228 Thus, the fall of Jerusalem was the revelation of Jesus Christ in his New Covenant glory, and the full revelation of the passing of the Old Covenant “Heaven and Earth.”

While this truth seems to be lost on many today, it was nonetheless understood by at least some leading early church fathers. In the fourth century, Eusebius made the following comments: “Christ sojourned in this life, and the teaching of the New Covenant was borne to all the nations, and at once the Romans besieged Jerusalem, and destroyed it and the Temple there. At once the whole of the Mosaic law was abolished, with all that remained of the Old Covenant, and the curse passed over to those who became lawbreakers because they obeyed Moses’ law, when its time had gone by, and still clung ardently to it, for at that very moment the perfect teaching of the New Law was introduced in its place. And, therefore, our Lord and Savior rightly says to those who suppose that God ought only to be worshiped in Jerusalem, or in certain mountains, or some definite places” 229

133

Eusebius saw the significance of the fall of Jerusalem in regard to covenantal transformation. His observations about the time and occasion for that transformation are important to the study of eschatology. And, that is especially true when the Transfiguration is brought into the discussion.

The Transfiguration was a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant glory of Moses and the Prophets to the greater New Covenant glory of Jesus (Matthew 17). But the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia (2 Peter 1:16f). Therefore, the parousia was the passing of the Old Covenant glory of Moses and the Prophets to the greater New Covenant glory of Jesus.

The passing of the Old Covenant glory and the revelation of the New Covenant glory is the Bible definition of the parousia. But the passing of the Old Covenant glory, and the revelation of the New Covenant glory, occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:30). Therefore, the parousia occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

RELATED MATTERS

There are several implications of our view of the Transfiguration as it relates with other scriptures. We will present them, and interact with some of the objections that might be lodged against our view. 1.) It is critical to see that Peter's entire second epistle is written to respond to skeptics who were denying the parousia (cf. 1:16 and 3:2). Peter affirms that he was not following some cleverly devised fable, he and the other disciples had seen Christ on the Mount themselves. They were eyewitnesses of his “power and coming” (parousia).230

Peter writes to counter the scoffers by appealing to the Transfiguration. Since the Transfiguration defines the parousia as the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New, then this demands that we see 2 Peter 3 as a further defense of his basic approach. It also demands, therefore, that 2 Peter 3 must be seen as a highly apocalyptic, metaphoric description of the fall of the Old World of Israel.

In 2 Peter 1:16, the apostle said he had revealed the parousia to his audience. The Transfiguration was the guarantee of its coming reality. The Transfiguration defined the parousia as the passing of the Old Covenant glory to the New Covenant glory of Jesus. But the scoffers were denying the parousia (2 Peter 3:3). Therefore, the scoffers were denying the passing of the Old Covenant Glory to the New Covenant Glory of Jesus. This means that 2 Peter 3, is not discussing the passing of literal heaven and earth--but the Old Covenant Heaven and Earth of Israel.231

Unless one can demonstrate positively that Peter was predicting two parousias of contrasting natures, and separated by millennia--and the plural of the word does not appear in scripture--then since the Transfiguration defines the parousia that Peter was defending in 2 Peter 1:16, that definition must guide the interpretation of 2 Peter 3. 2.) Peter's anticipation of the “Day” identifies 2 Peter 1:16f as eschatological. There is, in the New Testament, the urgent expectation of the Day of the Lord. In Romans 13:12, Paul said “the night is far spent, the day is at hand.” In Ephesians 5:8-13, that same apostle encouraged his readers to faithfulness by reminding them that they were not to walk in darkness but in light, and urged them on with the warning, “the days are evil.” In his earlier Thessalonians epistle, he had reminded those brethren that they were not of the darkness but of the Day. He reminded them that they could by watchfulness escape the wrath of that coming Day (1 Thessalonians 5:1-6). John told his readers that the darkness was already passing away, and that the Day was already dawning. They knew that it was the last hour (1 John 2:8, 18).

The imminence factor in these texts is inescapable. The full arrival of the Day was not something for the distant future. The end was near! Another factor to be considered is how the writers characterized their then present age. It was the time of darkness; the light was just beginning to

break, it is true, but nonetheless they were living in the darkness of “this present evil age” (Galatians 1:4).

134

Now, if the writers were anticipating the end of the Gospel Age, then they were calling the Gospel Age the “present evil age,” and the time of “the darkness” that was passing! Does not the Bible suggest that it is the Gospel System that was/is the Light (John 3:17f; Acts 26:18f, etc.)? If the writers were anticipating the arrival of the “end of time,” therefore, were they not in reality anticipating the passing of the Light?

When we realize that the New Testament writers were living in the last days (Hebrews 1:1), in the end of the age (1 Corinthians 10:11-12), and that the end of the age in view was the full end of the Old Covenant System, then we can make better sense of passages like 2 Peter 1:16. It was the Old Covenant System that was likened to men living in darkness because of its inability to provide righteousness (Isaiah 59). But that Old Covenant anticipated the Day when God would shine upon His people in righteousness (Isaiah 58:8-12; 59:9-15; 60:1-3, etc.). This would be in the New Covenant World of Messiah--not at the end of time (Isaiah 60:2-3)!

Thus, when Peter exhorted his readers with the reminder of the coming Day of Light as opposed to the then present “dark place,” he was standing in the long line of prophets who foretold the arrival of the glorious Light. The difference was that Peter believed the end was at hand (1 Peter 1:3-13; 4:5, 7, 17). But Peter was not foreseeing the end of time. He was seeing the end of the Old Covenant System of Death and Darkness, and the full glorious arrival of the New Covenant System of Light and Life.

All of this gives greater credence to our suggestion that on the Mount, when Peter saw the glory of Moses and Elijah overshadowed, and Jesus' glory magnified, that while he was undeniably seeing a vision of the parousia, what he was in fact seeing was a vision of the coming transference from the Old Covenant Ministry to that of the New. He was seeing in vision the full arrival of “The Day” when the darkness of the Old would fully pass, and “the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine upon them,” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). 3.) Finally, we would note that the passing of the Old Covenant World of Israel “fits the bill” in every aspect of the language of eschatology. In other words, the transformation from the Old Covenant Glory of the Law and Prophets to the New Covenant is described in words such as resurrection, the end of the age, etc. This being the case, when we see the Transfiguration as the definition of the parousia there is a perfect consistency with the language of eschatology. Allow us to illustrate.

A.) The end of the Old Covenant Age is described as the “end of the world” (age). In Matthew 24:2, Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem. In verse 3, the disciples asked for the signs of “the end of the age.” In verse 14, Jesus told them the Gospel would be preached in all the world then comes the end.” The only “end” predicted by Jesus or asked about by the disciples, was the fall of Jerusalem (v. 2-3), the symbol of the Old Age. In verse 29-31, that event is described as the coming of the Lord. Verse 30, see comments above, shows that the fall of Jerusalem would be the revelation of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. Thus, the fall of Jerusalem--the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New is described as the end of the age. (Cf. Matthew 13:39f/ Daniel 12:3-7).

B.) As we have seen above, the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New is the passage from death to life (2 Corinthians 3-5), and that is nothing less than resurrection.

C.) In Matthew 23:29-39, a passage universally acknowledged to be predictive of the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus said all the blood of all the righteous all the way back to creation would be judged/vindicated in that generation. Here then is the fall of Jerusalem, the passing of the Old System, identified with the judgment of all men.

D.) In Matthew 24:29-31, the judgment on Jerusalem is described as the coming of the Lord, on the clouds, with the angels, with the sound of the Trumpet, and the gathering of the elect. These eschatological motifs of the Day of the Lord, destruction of creation, etc. are, as seen earlier, part of the “stock in trade” prophetic language to describe God's judgment on nations (Isaiah 13:9ff; 24:19f; 34, etc). There is no precedent for the literal application of this “end of the world” language in the Old Testament. That is, there is no Old Testament prophecy in which "end of the world"

135

language was used and fulfilled literally--(isn’t this obvious?). Why then should we expect that language to be literally fulfilled because it is used in the New Covenant?

It is not enough to criticize the preterist for honoring the symbolic nature of this “decreation” language. MacArthur (1999, 121+), castigates those who suggest that the language of the darkening of the sun, the moon turning to blood, etc. in Matthew 24 is metaphoric. Yet he, Ice, and other dispensationalists, has admitted that the prophets used metaphoric language! Well, if the prophets did sometimes use metaphoric language to describe God’s actions in history, one should be very cautious about condemning those who suggest He did so in Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, in other NT passages.

What is the justification for ignoring the Old Testament background of this language, since Jesus and the first disciples were faithful Jews, and would utilize and understand its metaphoric nature? In other words, it was natural for Jesus and the New Testament writers to describe the passing of the Old System as the destruction of heaven and earth. But by using “end of the world” language they did not mean literal creation was to be destroyed. Their heaven and earth was to pass to be sure, but material creation was not.

What we have shown then is that every eschatological motif normally associated with the so-called “end of time” is, in fact, appropriately applied to the passing of the Old Covenant World of Israel at the fall of Jerusalem. Thus, when on the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples saw the fading glory of Moses and the Prophets and the transcendent glory of Jesus it is not incongruous to say they saw the coming “end of the world.” But the world they saw passing was their Old Covenant World. 4.) Both Peter and John saw a vision of the parousia, and they both link it directly with the passing of the Old Covenant System. We have documented what Peter saw on the Mount. In Revelation, John saw “the revelation of Jesus Christ”; the word revelation (apocalupsis) means the unveiling. John describes a vision of Jesus, in Revelation 1:12f, that is remarkably similar to the Transfiguration. What is even more remarkable is that in John's description of the revelation of Jesus, he sees Jesus coming in judgment against BABYLON, the city “that crucified the Lord” (Revelation 11:8), the city drunken with the blood of “the prophets.” This designation excludes any city except Jerusalem.232 Thus, Revelation depicts the unveiling of Jesus at the passing of the Old Covenant City of Jerusalem, and in that judgment he is revealed to be “King of kings” (Revelation 19:16).

Peter tells us that what they saw on the Mountain was a vision of the parousia. That “mountain top experience” for the disciples was direct confirmation of Jesus' promise to return in judgment in that generation.

Peter says they saw a vision of the parousia–yet the parousia was still future to him in 2 Peter 1. What they saw on the Mount was the passing of the Old Covenant glory to the New. This is prima fascia evidence that the Old Law System did not pass at the cross or Pentecost.

We have shown that the passing of the Old Covenant System is described in scripture with all the language of decreation, that is, the passing of heaven and earth, resurrection, the end of the age, the revelation of Jesus, etc. It cannot be legitimately argued therefore, that the Transfiguration could not be a vision of the parousia.

Since Peter, in 2 Peter, tells us the Transfiguration was confirmation of the yet future to him parousia, and since he was writing to refute the scoffers who denied the parousia, since the Transfiguration defines the parousia as the passing of the Old Covenant System, then it must be true that the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 were denying the passing of the Old Covenant Glory, i.e. the fall of Jerusalem. This positively identifies the “heaven and earth” and the “elements” that were to pass as the old "heaven and earth" of Old Covenant Israel.

The Transfiguration must have been an awe-inspiring sight to behold, and, it is the definitive definition of the parousia. But as the definitive definition of the parousia the Transfiguration refutes the traditional views of eschatology. It refutes them all since they all hold to a yet future

136

cataclysmic end to material creation. It especially refutes millennialism since it is built upon the basis of a yet future reestablishment of Old Covenant Glory.

Peter describes what they saw on the Mount as a vision of the parousia. Since what they saw on the Mount was not a vision of the end of time or destruction of earth, but instead was a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant glory, then this is the inspired definition of the parousia! And since Peter, therefore, defines the parousia as the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New, if the parousia has not yet occurred the Old Covenant must still be in effect!

Finally, the Transfiguration, as a vision of Christ’s coming, refutes the modern concept of Jesus coming again as a man in the flesh. The appearance of Jesus on the Mount bears no resemblance either to the incarnate body of Jesus, or to the ascending Jesus! What we see on the Mount is the effulgent glory of the Son of God shining forth. As we have stressed in this work, the Transfiguration reveals that the parousia would not be a revelation of Jesus as a man, in the flesh, but a revelation of Jesus in the glory of the Father.

2 Peter 1:16f, and the Transfiguration, is often somewhat ignored in the overall discussion of eschatology. But for Peter, the Transfiguration could not be left out of that equation, to him it was definitive.

To this point, our examination of the themes of martyr vindication, the salvation of Israel, and covenantal transformation, has shown how important the fall of Jerusalem was in God’s eschatological scheme. That event was one of the most theologically significant events in history. Simply put, the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the time of the parousia of Jesus. Yet, far too many Bible students today remain unaware of its meaning.

McKnight offers this about what the fall of Jerusalem did in regards to the identity of Jesus, “The destruction of Jerusalem functioned as a massive, earthly demonstration that Jesus, the last prophet to Israel, was right after all. Through the Romans Jesus was vindicated as the true herald of God.” (Vision, 142) We would urge that Jesus was vindicated as far more than “the herald of God.” As Westcott says, “The Son has received the prerogative of judgment, and it is through the exercise of this power that men come to perceive His true majesty.”233 Jesus was in fact revealed as King of kings and Lord of lords!

To help drive this point home, it must be understood that Jesus was born into the world of the flesh by his physical birth, but born into the world of the Spirit by his resurrection. In that second birth, Jesus removed himself from the world of the flesh, and therefore, his apocalupsis, revealing, was to show that Jesus was no longer in the flesh, but is the invisible God.

137

CHAPTER 11 JESUS’ SECOND BIRTH AND HIS PAROUSIA

Jesus was born into the Old Covenant world of Israel, “born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). He was “the son of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:4).He appeared in the last days of that Old World (Hebrews 1:1f; 9:26). Jesus was not born into the world of the Gentiles. He was, “not sent, except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24).

This limitation of Jesus’ incarnation is often overlooked because of the emphasis placed on his “universal” kingdom. But we should not lose sight of the fact that Jesus “was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” (Romans 15:8). Jesus’ incarnation “restricted” him to the Old Covenant World, and at the same time denied Him the ability to function as Messiah in that world.

THE LIMITATION OF SERVICE Being born into the Old Covenant world of Israel had a definite restricting element in regard to Jesus’ work as Messiah. The Messiah was to be

both king and priest, (Zechariah 6:12-13). Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14). As a physical Israelite Jesus could never be the priest foretold by Zechariah, because, “if he were on earth he should not be priest, seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Hebrews 8:4). Jesus’ incarnate ministry prohibited him from fulfilling the prophecies of the priestly function of the Messiah, because his fleshly birth placed him outside the sanction of that Old Covenant in this regard.

THE NECESSITY OF JESUS’ PHYSICALITY While the incarnation placed restrictions on Jesus’ ability to function as Messiah in the flesh, the physical appearance of Christ was necessary.

What cannot, yet tragically is being, overlooked however, is the reason why Jesus had to appear in “flesh and blood.” He had to be the physical lineage of David to fulfill God’s promise (Psalms 89; Isaiah 11:1. Etc). In addition, “forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise, took part of the same” and, “it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest” (Hebrews 2:14, 17).

The Father sent the Son, “in the likeness of sinful flesh, to destroy sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3). Through His incarnation, Jesus entered the world of the flesh, the world of the Old Law. Paul discusses the problem of the Old Law. It was added that transgressions might abound (Romans 5:20). It was through the Law that there was the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20; 7). The Old Law was powerless to deliver from sin (Galatians 3:20-21), to such an extent that Paul called it “the ministration of death written and engraven in stone” (2 Corinthians 3:6f). Jesus was incarnated into that Old World of sin and death (Galatians 4:4). He appeared in the world of sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, to deal with the problem of sin. His incarnation identified him as “the Son of Man”; and it was absolutely essential that he appear in the flesh to accomplish these purposes. Yet, as seen above, while in the flesh, Jesus was restricted in what He could do.

JESUS’ SECOND BIRTH Clearly, Jesus could not completely fulfill the Messianic prophecies in his physical ministry. He could not be a priest, therefore, he could not be a

king on earth. But Jesus was born again into a realm/sphere where he could fulfill those prophecies. In Acts 13:26f, Paul preached about Jesus and his resurrection. In that resurrection, the apostle said, “God hath fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son, Today I have begotten You.’” Note that the Father, speaking of the Son’s resurrection says, “Today I have begotten You.” The resurrection of Jesus was his second birth.

138

In Romans 1:3-4, Paul contrasts the “births” of Jesus. He was “born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Jesus’ resurrection was another “birth,” a birth directly contrasted with his physical birth into the Old Covenant World of Israel.

The Hebrew writer tells us, “Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (9:24). Christ’s resurrection unto enthronement and priesthood was a birth into the heavenly realm where he can serve as king and priest. The Mosaic limitation of Christ’s physical birth is not applicable in the heavenly realm.

Jesus was, “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit,” (NASV, I Peter 3:18). Bell observes, “in the flesh” and “in the spirit” of I Pet. 3:18 are both locatives and, “refer to the realm or sphere in which the actions ‘put to death’ and ‘made alive’ occurred.”234 Michaels concurs, saying Jesus was raised, “not ‘as a spirit,’ but in a new sphere in which the Spirit and power of God are displayed without hindrance or human limitation. ...Jesus is set free to complete a mission of utmost importance for the readers of the epistle.”235

Paul says that Christ would no longer appear in the world of the “flesh.” In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:16, the apostle discusses the eschatological hope of the New Tabernacle “not made with hands.” This is the tabernacle contrasted with the tabernacle made with hands. The apostle’s discussion began in chapter 3 with his contrast between the flesh that kills, and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:5f). This is Paul’s typical contrast between the Old Covenant and the New World of Christ (see Galatians 3:1-5).

In his discussion of the transition from the “outer man” to the inner, from the temporal to the eternal, Paul says, “we do not look on the things that are seen, but on the things that are unseen” (2 Corinthians 4:16f). He patently cannot be saying that the resurrection change would be unperceived. It would be seen (perceptual) but unseen (not optical!).

When he discusses the appearing of Christ in judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10f), the apostle immediately says, “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Paul quite simply denies what the world affirms--a future “fleshly” reappearance of Christ. Specifically, Paul is saying Christ would never again appear in the Old Covenant World of Israel--the world of the flesh. Yet, it was Christ’s incarnation that identified Him with that Aeon. (Galatians 4:4)

Finally, one of the key texts normally used to prove a future physical coming of Christ proves just the opposite. In Hebrews 9, the author affirms that Christ appeared, “to put away sin” (v.26). This is a reference to his incarnation (cf. Romans 8:3). This is Christ’s appearance in the world of sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, for the purpose of dealing with sin.

However, in verse 28, the writer affirms that Christ would appear “a second time, apart from sin.” (My emp.) It is generally understood that this means Jesus would come again, “not for the purpose of atoning for sin.” While this is partly true, it is not the whole story.

As seen above, Jesus’ incarnation into the world of the flesh was absolutely essential. Yet he “died unto sin once” (Romans 6:10). Through His resurrection and ascension, Jesus left forever the world of sin and the flesh. He will forever be “apart from sin.” When He was “made alive in the spirit” he, “entered in once into the holy place” (Hebrews 9:12).

The word translated “once” is ephapax (_φ_παξ), and means once for all time. It is highly suggestive therefore, that Christ, in his ascension departing from the world of the flesh, entered the heavenlies “once for all time.” Ellingworth says the force of Christ’s entrance into the heavenly Most Holy Place “once” means, “The implication is, however, that Christ, having offered himself as sacrifice, does not return to earth, but remains in the ta hagia”236 (the holy place, DKP). Christ could not return to the world of His sacrifice. He had to be revealed--His parousia--as the minister of the Heavenly Holies.

Our argument then is that Jesus appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh. God, the pre-Incarnate Word, became flesh, and dwelt among me (John 1:14). However, his second appearing would be apart from sin, and thus, apart from the form of “the likeness of sinful

139

flesh.” His second appearing would reveal Him “alive in the Spirit,” the realm of the Spirit. Or, to put it another way, it would reveal His pre-Incarnate essence and Being, His Divinity.

Instead of Christ’s incarnation being the reason why He must appear physically at His parousia therefore, the incarnation is the very reason why He could not be manifested in the flesh at His parousia. To reappear in the flesh would be to re-identify with Old Covenant Israel and the world of the flesh. Yet as seen above, Christ’s parousia would be to manifest His deity as, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and He could not serve as fleshly King over Israel. He had to be revealed as King to be sure, yet that was not to be on earth (Acts 2:29-33)! He had to be revealed as “the minister of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man” (Hebrews 8:2). The Hebrew writer clearly affirms that Christ’s true tabernacle is heavenly, not earthly (Hebrews 9:24f).

It is the failure of the futurist camp to understand and honor Christ’s two births--and their covenantal context--that gives rise to the insistence on a future physical appearance of Jesus. To suggest, as does MacArthur, that to abandon a belief in the fleshly, bodily visible return of Christ is to abandon true Christianity, is in actuality, the complete opposite of Biblical truth! It is to ignore Jesus’ statement that he would judge in the same manner as the Father had judged. To insist on such a return of Christ is, in effect to reject the Biblical truth as to the purpose and true nature of His coming.

The question is appropriate: Will Christ reappear “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” or, was He to be revealed in the glory of the invisible God? Jesus said “God is spirit” (John 4), and that “a spirit does not possess flesh and bone” (Luke 24:39). Yet we are to believe that Jesus will one day return, in a body of flesh and bone! Scripture affirms that “no man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18). And yet, we are to believe that one day all the world will see Jesus, coming as the invisible God.

For Christ to reappear in the flesh would be to re-enter the Old World of the Flesh. For Jesus to reappear in the flesh would be to die to the World of the Spirit into which He was born through His resurrection. This would be to re-enter the world of sin and death. Jesus would have to be re-incarnated to once again come in the flesh! This He can never do. He left the world beneath, to go to the world above, and there receive the glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world (John 17:5). Paul affirms that the hope of the early church was “the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). They were not longing for the appearing of the man, Jesus, they were longing for the revelation of the Lord Jesus.

It is imperative that Bible students begin to appreciate the purpose of His incarnation and the purpose and realm of Christ’s parousia/ revelation. Jesus’ incarnation was to reveal him as the Son of Man (Hebrews. 2:14); His parousia was to reveal Him as Son of God (1 Timothy 6:16). He was not to return to the flesh, not in the flesh, not for the flesh. Thus, whereas most Bible students today believe that the incarnation and fleshly existence of Jesus provides the ground for His yet future physical return, Christ’s incarnation is the very reason why He could not come back in the flesh!

The question is appropriate: Would the parousia be to reveal Christ once again in the “likeness of sinful flesh,” or to reveal him “in the glory of the Father?”

140

CHAPTER 12 YES, BUT...CONSIDERING SOME QUESTIONS

WHAT ABOUT IN LIKE MANNER?

In spite of the evidence above, we are told that because the disciples, beholding the ascending Christ, were told that he would come “in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9f), this means he has to return in a physical body.

There are a variety of ways to counter this unfounded claim, including the fact that the Greek term (hon tropon) translated “in like manner” does not demand identicalness.237

As a matter of fact, those who press for the “in like manner” definition do not actually hold to a coming in identical manner as the ascent. Jesus left silently; yet, those who believe in a yet future parousia believe he will come with the literal sound of a trumpet. Jesus left, visible to only a handful of people. Yet, all futurists believe the Second Coming will be visible to every eye of every human on earth.

Jesus told his disciples, “Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but ye see me; because I live, you shall live also.” After his resurrection, Jesus appeared only to a select few (Acts 10:41), even including the 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15), and never appeared to the “world” at large again. And, here in John 14, he said that the world (kosmos) would never see him again. Jesus was never to appear in the flesh to the world again!

Jesus left without any “fanfare.” Yet, we are told that at the end of the present age, he will come with the destruction of material creation--which clearly did not happen at the ascension. And, he will come with 10,000 angels, when only one angel was present at the ascension.

There was no flaming fire, nor destruction of literal creation at the ascension. Yet, we are told that this is what happens when Christ returns in the future (2 Thessalonians 1; 2 Peter 3).

Jesus is supposedly to return in the physical body of his Incarnation, and yet, as we have seen, the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia (Matthew 17; 2 Peter 1:16-19), and Christ’s appearance at the Transfiguration in no way resembles his appearance at the Ascension!

Likewise, in Revelation 1:13f, Jesus appeared to John in his post ascension form, and that description, that apocalupsis of Jesus, in no way resembles the ascension appearance of Jesus: “In the midst of the seven lamp stands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and His hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; his feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.” (Revelation 1:13-16).

Notice that John saw “one like the Son of Man.” The One that John saw was so resplendently different than that One he had known, had seen, had touched (1 John 1:1-3), in his Incarnate existence, that John could only say that the One he now saw was like (_µoιov), the Son of Man.

Jesus did not ascend on a white horse, with a sword protruding from his mouth, leading the army of heaven. Yet, John says that at the Second Coming, Jesus rides a white horse, leads the armies of heaven, and has a sword coming out of his mouth (Revelation 19). Where is the “in like manner” comparison here?

Is it not abundantly clear that this appearance of Jesus was not Jesus in the flesh? This was not Jesus in his post resurrection earthly form. There is no physical, bodily likeness between this vision and what the disciples saw at the ascension. Thus, to press the “in like manner” of Acts 1:9f to identicalness is misplaced. Both the Transfiguration and John’s vision on Patmos reveal Jesus’ parousia epiphany, and there was nothing of his earthly form revealed in either vision. In both of these visions, we see Jesus revealed as Deity, not as a man.

141

Very clearly, there are very significant and material differences between the ascension of Christ and the traditionally taught Second Coming. Thus, the term “in like manner” should not be pressed too hard by those who insist on identicalness of manner.

WHAT ABOUT EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM?

Of course, it will be rejoined at this juncture that scripture affirms, “Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Amen” (Revelation 1:7).

The normal interpretation of this text is that it means Jesus will come at the end of time, and every person on the face of the earth will see him at the same time. One minister, confronted with the geographical problems presented by folks on the other side of the round globe being able to see Jesus, on the other side of the globe from them, said he had it figured out. At his descent, said the preacher, Jesus would cleave the earth cleanly in two, and lay the two halves side by side so that every person on the earth could then see him!

The failure to observe what is laying on the surface of Revelation 1:7 is indeed a great tragedy. Revelation 1:7 tells us emphatically that the focus and purpose of the Lord’s parousia would be judgment of those who killed him! David Chilton, even before coming to the full preterist view,238 wrote, “Verse 7 announces the theme of the book, which is not the Second Coming of Christ, but rather the Coming of Christ in judgment of Israel, in order to establish the Church as the new kingdom.”239

Revelation 1:7 shows that the Revelation, and the parousia of Christ, is not about any so-called end of time, but about the time of the end of Old Covenant Israel. It is about the Revelation of Jesus as the one to whom the Father committed all prerogatives of judgment, so that men might recognize and worship Him in the same way they do the Father (John 5). It is about the revelation of Jesus as God. And, as such, it has nothing to do with Jesus physically riding on cumulus clouds out of a clear blue sky!

As Jehovah had ridden on the clouds many times in the Old Testament, and was perceived but not visible, Jesus was coming on the clouds of heaven in judgment of those who pierced him. The Father had given all judgment to him, and he was to judge in the same manner as the Father had shown him (John 5:19f). By acting in the same manner as the Father had, Jesus would be revealed as, “The Almighty,” and, “The King of kings and Lord of lords.”

It is a misguided to make Revelation 1:7 foretell a future appearance of Jesus on literal clouds, seen by every inhabitant on earth.

THE PAROUSIA AND THE RESURRECTED BODY OF JESUS

Another important issue related to the nature of the parousia is the nature of the resurrected body of Jesus. It is often argued that the body of Jesus after his resurrection was different in nature than before his revivication. Murray Harris argues that at the resurrection, God “reanimated and transformed his (Jesus’ DKP) physical body.”240

The argument goes something like this: Jesus was raised in his incorruptible, immortal body, and this is the body that the disciples saw ascend into heaven. Thus, since it was Jesus’ resurrected body that ascended, his reappearing must be in the same fleshly, “physical” body. This argument is based entirely upon the mistaken idea that Jesus’ resurrection body was an immortal, incorruptible body. It is necessary to examine the arguments and evidence offered to prove that Jesus’ post resurrection body was in fact different than that of his pre-passion body. Argument #1 Walking through walls, appearing and disappearing.

142

In John 20:19f, the record says the disciples were within a room with the doors shut. Suddenly, “Jesus came and stood in the midst of them.” The argument for a glorified post resurrection body says that since Jesus passed through the walls of the locked room, this proves his body was of a different substance than before the resurrection. Corollary to this is the suggestion, based on the Biblical statements that “He disappeared,” that this could only be true if he was in his transformed body. However, this argument forgets some of the more remarkable miracles of Jesus pre-resurrection ministry.

In Luke 4:28-30, the inhabitants of Nazareth became so enraged at Jesus’ teaching that they, “thrust him out of the city; and they led him to the brow of the hill on which the city was built, that they might throw him down over the cliff. Then passing through the midst of them, he went his way.”

Did Jesus simply manage to run through the crowd to escape, or is there more to it than this? Marshall says, “It is not clear whether a miraculous escape is meant.”241 On the other hand, Meyers, though dissenting, accounts how many prominent commentators in history have strongly contended that this is an instance in which Jesus did become invisible, simply disappearing from the mob.242 Alford’s Greek Testament declares that this text, in contradistinction to the occasion in John 8:59, “Our Lord’s passing through the midst of them is evidently miraculous.”243

Now, if the story in Luke 4, presents an occasion in which Jesus “dematerialized” then clearly, the argument under consideration is seriously undermined. If Jesus could appear and disappear before the resurrection, then there certainly is no reason to see his appearances and disappearances post resurrection as something different in nature.

Even if one accepts a “natural” explanation of the events in Nazareth, there are other occasions in which Jesus manifested the same miraculous power over the laws of physics as he did in John 20.

Of several examples that could be offered, Matthew 14 demonstrates Jesus’ pre-resurrection sovereignty over the laws of physics more than any other. The disciples were in their boat, Jesus having sent them on before him, and encountered one of the infamous storms that can appear without warning on the sea of Galilee. Historians tell us that these storms are short-lived but ferocious, endangering any craft caught unawares.

Matthew tells us that during the fourth watch of the night, the boat was being tossed and, “Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.” Walking on water. What an incredible feat! I remember that when I was a young man, an Indian guru claimed to be able to perform this feat, and attempted to do so on a major news program, filmed before the nation. The guru stood on the edge of a plank suspended over a large tank of water. After several moments of contemplation he stepped off, and promptly sank to the bottom of the tank!

The point is, that the same body of Jesus that was able, by the power of God, to walk on water, could most assuredly pass through locked doors, and appear and disappear at will. If not, what is the difference?

Thus, while Jesus did disappear and reappear after the resurrection (e.g. Luke 24:31), there seems to be nothing more remarkable about this that is more incredible than his other miracles. At different times, Jesus manifested his authority over space (John 4), death (John 11), incurable disease (Mark 1), and nature (Matthew 14). Since it is certainly possible (Luke 4) that Jesus did disappear prior to his resurrection, and since the ability to walk on water is most assuredly on a par with passing through walls, this does not demonstrate that Jesus’ resurrected body was different than his pre-resurrected body. Argument #2 Jesus was not recognized by his own disciples after the resurrection (Luke 24); Jesus appeared in a different form

As two disciples walked along the road to Emmaeus (Luke 24/Mark 16), Jesus joined them, and engaged them in conversation. They lamented the death of the one that they had believed was to redeem Israel. The disciples did not recognize Jesus. Mark says Jesus appeared “in another form”

143

(morphe). It is thus argued that the failure to recognize Jesus proves he was different than before his resurrection. There are three issues at stake here, in our view.

First is the question of the different form that Jesus took. Does this prove a transformed resurrected body? We think not. Why? Consider the Transfiguration. On the Mount, Jesus was transfigured before the disciples in such an incredible way that he resembled no human being. The disciples were terrified at the transformation (Greek, metamorphisis). Our point is that before the resurrection Jesus not only could, but did appear in a radically different form. In fact, a form far different even than that of Mark 16:12. Thus, because he changed form after the resurrection does not prove that his body was an incorruptible, immortal body.

Second, there is the undeniable record of Luke 24:16 that tells us that the eyes of the disciples were prevented from recognizing Jesus. The record says “their eyes were restrained” from recognizing Jesus. Thus, while it is true that Jesus appeared in a different form, other factors were at work that do not demand a transformed body explanation of the appearance.

Third, there is the normal human psychological factor. Most of us have experienced this at one time or another. Here is what we mean. We are used to seeing certain people in certain contexts, dressed in certain ways. To see these same individuals out of normal context, dressed in different ways, makes it difficult to recognize them. Let me illustrate.

My hobby is the restoration of classic Ford Mustangs, but my profession is the ministry. In the past I have been the minister for congregations of 300-400+ members. Normally, those members saw me dressed in suit and tie, at the church building. However, on my days off, I like to be under an old Mustang, getting dirty and greasy.

On occasion, I ran to the parts store in that condition. Several times I encountered members of the congregation and greeted them. They would cordially, yet reservedly, return the greeting, but it was clear they did not have a clue who this “grease monkey” was that was being so friendly! I would persist, and they would finally look at me a little closer. Finally, recognition would dawn, and they would exclaim, “Hey, it’s the preacher! Man, I would never have known you!”

Our point is that context is very important at times in recognition. Consider the context of Luke 24. Although Jesus had been telling the disciples that he would rise from the dead, they did not grasp this unbelievable truth. And who would? Their hopes, dreams and prayers had been shattered. The cruel and unjust leaders have seemingly won. They are discussing the situation when a stranger, common to the roads surrounding Jerusalem, joins their conversation. Coupled with the “different form,” and the fact that their eyes were closed, evidently by an act of God, there is no wonder that they do not know Jesus. Nothing demands that Jesus appeared in a transformed, immortal, incorruptible body. Argument #3 Philippians 3:20f--Scripture affirms Jesus has a glorified body

In Philippians 3:20-31, Paul speaks of Christ’s “glorious body.” It is argued that Paul had in mind the body in which Jesus appeared to the disciples during the forty day period. However, for Paul to refer to Jesus’ “flesh and bone” body as a glorious body seems incongruous. The record seems clear that Jesus went out of his way to show to his disciples that the body that had come out of the tomb was the same body that had gone into it. We agree with Boobyer when he says, “The conception of the form of the resurrection body of Jesus held by the Gospel writers is not difficult to see. It is plain that they believed Jesus to have manifested himself after his death in a body resembling that of ordinary men.” (1942, 24).

Jesus challenged Thomas to touch him, and to confirm for himself that the wounds were real, not part of an apparition (John 20:27), and that, “It is I myself” (Luke 24:39). He told Thomas and the disciples that a spirit--and thus a spirit being!-- “does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). Is it not clear that the body before Thomas and the disciples was not a glorified, incorruptible body?

144

Harris offers somewhat of a disclaimer, “The reality of Jesus’ body when he appeared to various persons is not the issue here; that body clearly consisted of ‘flesh and bones’ (Luke 24:39) at such times, since he could be seen, touched and handled. The question is: ‘Was such a material body constantly his during the forty days?’” (Harris, 386) He continues by saying, “the material ‘flesh and bones’ that Jesus had during this encounter with his disciples were not integral to his ‘spiritual body’ but had been assumed temporarily, but none the less real, for evidential reasons.” (Harris, 392)

Harris is saying that during the majority of the forty days after the resurrection, Jesus was in heaven with the Father,244 and the appearances to the disciples were occasions when he, for lack of better terminology on my part, “re-took” the body of flesh and bone. Harris contends that when Jesus was with the Father he was invisible, and his body was “intangible and immaterial.” (Harris, 386) Thus, the body that Jesus showed to his disciples was physical flesh and bone, but it was not the incorruptible body of his glorified state, which he possessed during the times of invisibility (cf. Harris, 392).

We find merit to this, for it allows for the physicality of the resurrection appearances, while allowing that after the ascension, Jesus no longer had the physical body of the Incarnation. See our comments about John’s Patmos vision of Jesus. In this scenario, Jesus laid off the flesh of his incarnation, and re-entered the heavenly realm to abide forever with the Father.

The problem with the traditional application of Philippians 3:20f is that it takes for granted that Paul was calling the resurrected, pre-ascension body of Christ, his glorified body. This is something the text does not affirm. The question is one of timing. At what point did Jesus receive the “glorious body” of Philippians 3?

As we have indicated, it was not while he was appearing to the disciples during the forty days. Jesus himself said “ought not the Christ to suffer, and to enter into his glory?” Harris contends that it was at the resurrection that Jesus ascended and received glory. We would affirm, however, that Jesus’ glorification occurred in relationship to the ascension.

In John 7:37-39, Jesus’ glorification is coupled with the sending of the Spirit. The Spirit was not sent until Jesus was glorified. This links the glorification of Jesus with Pentecost, and thus, the ascension. This in no way mitigates the significance of the resurrection, it just recognizes that--as Harris himself asserts, the Crucifixion--Resurrection--Ascension of Jesus must be seen as “three consecutive moments in a single, indivisible process: the return of the Son to the Father and to his former glory.” (Harris, 176)

We would concur that the three Acts are all elements of one divine drama. However, we would not place the glorification of Jesus prior to the Ascension as Harris who says, “Throughout the New Testament, the exaltation of Christ is linked with the resurrection rather than the Ascension.” If we recognize the three Acts as part of one inseparable drama, then it is improper to posit glorification prior to the climax of the drama!

Thus, when Paul spoke of Christ’s glorious body, the flesh and bone body of his resurrection was not the glorious body Paul had in mind! Jesus actually had to lay off the physical body of his resurrection to enter into his glory in the heavenly realm.245

In sum then, to speak of Christ’s parousia in the terms of his glorified body, is by the very nature of the case, to demand that Christ not return in the body of flesh. And, in support of what we have stated above, Jesus’ parousia was to reveal him, not as man in the flesh, but as true Deity! The words of Athanasius, long ago, express well the thought: “For by his becoming Man the Savior was to accomplish both works of love; first, in putting death from us and renewing us again; secondly, being unseen and invisible, in manifesting and making himself Known by His works to be the Word of the Father, and the Ruler and King of the Universe.”246

As we have noted, Jesus was not to be revealed, again, as man, but with the glory of the Father, and to come in judgment and glory as the Father had come (John 5). To be revealed as God would be to be revealed as spirit (John 4:20f), for God is spirit. This all but demands that any suggestion of a “return” of Jesus in human fleshly form, is untenable.

145

A close look at the first epistle of John also helps us in our investigation. In John 1:1-3, the apostle speaks of the Incarnation of Jesus, and the disciples’ interaction with him: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life” Now, John was saying these things of the Jesus they walked and talked with for 3 ½ years. They knew him intimately, as a man of flesh and bones. And, it must also be stated that they had handled him, and seen him, and heard him, after the resurrection! As we have seen, Jesus went out of his way after the resurrection to convince them that, “It is I, even myself!”

However, in 1 John 3:1f, the apostle, writing years after the ascension, and speaking of the impending epiphany of the Christ, said, “It has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”

This is a tremendously important text. John did know what Jesus was like after the resurrection, for he, and the other disciples handled him, and looked upon him, and heard him. They even ate with him. However, Jesus had ascended to the Father, and John was now writing that he did not know what Christ was like!

Notice that John says “it does not yet appear what we shall be like” but, the revelation of Christ, the parousia, would reveal it. Now, if John knew what Jesus was like before the Ascension, but he did not know what He was like after the ascension, before the parousia, then it follows that what was beheld before and at the time of the ascension was not the same as what Jesus was to be at the parousia!

A note of reminder here in regard to Transfiguration. Remember that the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia according to Peter (2 Peter 1:16f). Yet, as we have seen, the vision of Jesus on the Mount in no way corresponds with the Incarnate body of Jesus, the resurrected body of Jesus, or the ascension body. When Paul spoke of the glorious transformed body of Jesus (Philippians 3:20f), it almost seems ludicrous to refer to Jesus’ ascension body in that manner, especially in light of the Transfiguration body of glory!

The Transfiguration body of Jesus was clearly not Jesus’ “mundane” human physical body. Yet it was a vision of the parousia! He was transformed so radically, so dramatically, that the apostles were terrified at the sight. The Transfiguration, as a vision of the parousia, is a clear-cut refutation of the idea that Jesus’ Second Coming would be in the flesh.

Furthermore, as we have also seen, the vision that John saw of Jesus’ parousia, while on Patmos, also refutes the concept of a physical bodily return of Jesus. This is corroborated in Revelation 19. The vision there is substantially like that in chapter 1, but in chapter 19:11-15 it is clearly of Christ’s epiphany. He appears, and “Behold a white horse. And he who sat on him was called Faithful and True...His eyes were like flame, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called the Word of God....Now out of His mouth goes a sharp two-edged sword that with it He should strike the nations.”

There can be little doubt that this is the parousia. Yet, does his appearance here bear any resemblance to how he appeared on the Ascension Mount? Where was the horse on the Mount? Where was Jesus’ sword? Where were the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:14)? Where was his robe dipped in blood? There appears in fact, to be little, if any, of the heralded “in like manner” comparison between Acts 1, Revelation 1, and Revelation 19. The coming described in Revelation 19 is nothing like the going of Acts 1!

What we see then, is that discussions of the parousia, in which it is insisted that Jesus must come again in the flesh because he was raised in the flesh, are misguided. They fail to consider the purpose of the parousia to reveal Christ as God, and they fail to consider that the NT writers maintain that Christ would never appear in the flesh again.

John knew what Jesus was like before and at the ascension, but he did not know what he would be at the parousia. Clearly, the ascension body and the parousia body are not the same!

146

CHAPTER 13 RESPONDING TO THE CRITICS:

A RESPONSE TO JOHN MACARTHUR We have interacted with some of our critics such as Ice, Jeffrey, and even MacArthur to some degree already. It is proper now to engage

MacArthur in detail. He claims, “Those who abandon the hope of Christ’s bodily return have in effect abandoned true Christianity.” (1999, 9). MacArthur is a talented writer, but his attempt to refute what he calls “Hyper-preterism,” falls far short of the mark. He gives nine reasons why he believes Jesus must return physically in the future. We will offer a Biblical refutation of each of his points.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #1-- THE PROMISE OF GOD DEMANDS IT

MacArthur’s first argument is based on several different presuppositions that the reader, unless alert to them, will not detect. The argument actually sounds plausible until it is examined in the light of cross-examination. Then, it falls apart at the seams.

Citing Old Testament predictions of the work of Jesus, that were fulfilled literally, MacArthur, concludes, “It stands to reason, then, that the remaining two-thirds of Old Testament Messianic prophecies of Jesus will also be fulfilled literally.” (1999, 30). The argument is, if some O.T. prophecies were fulfilled literally, then all O.T. prophecies must be fulfilled literally. And, since the O.T. predicts the parousia of Jesus, then that must be a literal (physical) event. This is specious to say the least.

To argue from the general to the specific can sometimes be done. However, it can also be a tenuous argument. For instance, if a person was raised in Angus cow country, and had never seen anything but Angus cows, he might well conclude, Angus cows are black, therefore, all cows must be black. It is easy to see the fallacy of such an argument.

The truth is that there are many O.T. prophecies that were not fulfilled in a literalistic, physical way. John was the “voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of our God” (Isaiah 40/ Luke 3). As that Voice, the task of the Immerser was to, “Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, the crooked places shall be made straight, and the rough places shall be made smooth.” (Isaiah 40:3-4). According to Luke, John was the direct fulfillment of that prediction.

Did John do highway construction work, literally? Was he a landscape engineer, or an earth-mover, literally and physically? Did John level any mountains or fill in any valleys? Just what crooked highways did John straighten out?

Patently, this is a figurative prediction of John’s work. John was in no way concerned with hi-way construction, or landscaping. By the way, the spiritual nature of the fulfillment of Isaiah 40 effectively refutes the incredible assertion by Jeffrey, “There is not one example in the Bible of a prophecy that was fulfilled in an allegorical, non-historical manner.” (2001, 100). Clearly, John was not a literal road builder. He was concerned with restoring men and women to a relationship with Jehovah. Thus, Isaiah 40 is a prophecy that was not fulfilled literally. Using MacArthur’s logic then, we might conclude, the prophecy of Isaiah 40 was fulfilled figuratively, thus the rest of O.T. prophecy must be fulfilled figuratively! Of course this would be as fallacious as MacArthur’s argument.

One prophecy cited by MacArthur is Isaiah 11. Isaiah said the Messiah would be the offspring of Jesse, and Jesus fulfilled this physically. MacArthur assumes therefore, (demands), that all predictions of Jesus must be fulfilled literally. A closer look will reveal that this is false.

Isaiah foretold the time when the lamb and the wolf would lie down together. The child would play on the hole of the poisonous snake and not be harmed, etc. The millennialists claim that this will come to pass in the millennium. However, according to the apostle Paul, the prediction has been

147

fulfilled. Isaiah said that “In that day” when the lion would eat straw, instead of livestock, “there shall be a root of Jesse who shall stand as a banner for the people for the Gentiles shall seek him” (Isaiah 11:10). Paul, in Romans 15:12, quotes this verse to justify his mission to the Gentiles! The argument would be: In the day that the wolf would lie down with the lamb, the banner of the Messiah would be raised so that Gentiles could be saved. The Gentiles were being saved by the ministry of Paul. Therefore, the day when the wolf would lie down with the lamb had arrived.

Patently, Paul was not concerned with whether wolves still ate sheep. He was concerned that people be reconciled to God and to one another, and he said his ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18f), was in direct fulfillment of the very prophecy that MacArthur insists has not been fulfilled! Paul viewed this part of Isaiah’s prediction as metaphoric.

The fact is that one has to interpret each prophecy in its context, and in light of certain genres of literature. Not only this, but one has to discern between the predictions of the Incarnate ministry of Jesus, and His coming in the stead of Jehovah, in the Day of the Lord.

We have already shown in this work that the O.T. writers commonly employed apocalyptic, metaphoric language to describe God’s actions in history. This is the vernacular of the prophets, and no a priori arguments about a literalistic hermeneutic to the contrary can change this fact. To refuse to allow the prophets to speak metaphorically is to assume that the reader knows more than the writer, and this is arrogance of the worst sort.

To the point, the prophecies of the Incarnation of Jesus are demonstrated to be fulfilled in the life of Jesus as a man. The predictions of the Day of the Lord are, as shown repeatedly above, predictions of God’s actions in history, manifesting His majesty, by means of historical events. The manifestation of the Day of the Lord was never literally fulfilled. The language, although sounding like the end of material creation, was descriptive of the end of the social order of the respective kingdoms under judgment. And, as we have seen, when Jesus was to come in the anticipated Day of the Lord foretold by the ancient prophets, he was not coming to be revealed as man, He was acting to be manifested as Deity.

MacArthur’s first point is therefore, moot. He assumes too much, he proves nothing, and he uses logic that is easily shown to be faulty.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #2-- THE TEACHING OF CHRIST DEMANDS IT

Once again, we must point out the assumptions underlying MacArthur’s writings. He assumes what he needs to prove. He asserts something to be true, assuming that the reader, already biased toward his view, will accept what he says without critical thinking. It is the responsibility of any disputant to prove, not merely assert, his arguments.

MacArthur’s assumptions under point #2 are two-fold. Jesus predicted a literal physical return, and, the fulfillment of that prophecy was future when the NT writers wrote, therefore, it is still future today.

One thing MacArthur says is true, taken in the proper perspective, “If Jesus doesn’t return He’s a liar.” (P. 34). We would only amend this to say, “If Jesus did not return when He said He would, He is a liar!” That is how serious this issue of eschatology truly is, the credibility of Jesus, and inspiration of scripture hinges on the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions.

It is interesting that to prove that Jesus must return physically, MacArthur cites Jesus’ words to the Sanhedrin, “You will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). Here is a prophecy spoken to a living breathing group of human beings. They, some of their group, not just Caiaphas, would see him. It is strange indeed that someone who insists on a literalistic interpretation of scripture, will suddenly abandon that hermeneutic and suggest something that is not even hinted at in the text. MacArthur’s view demands that what Jesus actually meant was, Caiaphas, you and your fellow jurists will all die, lie in the ground for over 2000 years (and counting), and then, at the end of the age, you will be raised physically to see me coming again!

148

MacArthur’s citation of this prophecy is inherently contradictory. The millennial view of resurrection is complicated, and we cannot develop it at length. However, Pentecost (1980, 411) says the order of the resurrection is: “(1.) The resurrection of Christ; (2) The resurrection of the church age saints at the Rapture; (3.) Resurrection of the Tribulation period saints, together with, (4.) The resurrection of Old Testament saints at the second advent of Christ to the earth; and finally, (5.) The final resurrection of the unsaved dead at the end of the millennial age.”

Here is the problem. Caiaphas , nor the Sanhedrin, fits the description of a church age saint, a Tribulation saint, or an Old Testament saint. Caiaphas was certainly not Jesus, therefore, that means that he was one of the unsaved dead to be raised at the end of the millennium. The problem is, Jesus said they would see him coming on the clouds of heaven. But, there is no coming of Jesus on the clouds of heaven at the end of the millennium! Unless MacArthur wants to re-classify Caiaphas as a “saint” to be raised before either the Rapture or the Second Coming, then his application of Jesus’ statement in Mark 14:62 is totally at odds with the millennial resurrection program.

MacArthur cites several NT passages, including Matthew 24:27-31, to prove that Jesus must return physically. The trouble is, Jesus clearly said that this prediction was to be fulfilled in his generation: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall by no means pass until all of these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34).

MacArthur sees, but rejects, the force of Matthew 24:34, “The reasonable mind quickly sees the folly of having to allegorize so many passages of Scripture just for the sake of interpreting one verse with such a rigid literalism. It is simply not necessary to insist that Christ meant that all of the Olivet Discourse signs must be fulfilled in that current generation” (p. 133).

In the first place, one need not allegorize any passage in order to interpret Matthew 24:34 literally. One has but to honor the genre of literature established by the prophets themselves! It is not allegorization to interpret metaphoric language metaphorically. It is however, wrong, to refuse to allow Hebrew writers the liberty and license to use metaphoric, figurative language. And, that is precisely what the millennial paradigm does.

Second, it is strange indeed to hear a millennialist complain of “literalism.” Book after book written by millennialists heralds the message that prophecy can only be understood literally. We are told that it is an abuse of scripture to interpret language any other way, especially prophetic language. However, when that principle is applied to the time language of scripture, all of a sudden, that cry for literalism vanishes. Indeed, one is cautioned against “wooden literalism!”

Were it not for the millennial refusal to honor the apocalyptic, metaphoric language of prophecy, there would be no such calls to ignore the time statements about the parousia. There would be no protests against “wooden literalism.”

It must be noted at this juncture that just because Jesus’ coming was still future when He made those predictions, this does not prove that they are still future to us today. “Once future, always future” is not a valid hermeneutic by which to interpret those prophecies! MacArthur concedes that Jesus, and all of the NT writers spoke and wrote about the parousia with a sense of urgency and imminence. In fact, he says, “So real was the hope of the Redeemer’s return to the heart of the apostle Paul and so imminent did this event appear to him that we find he included himself among those who might not fall asleep but be among the living saints when the assembly shout would be heard. Said he, ‘Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed’ (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)....The apostle Paul was not alone in this regard: we find that the other apostles also regarded the return of our Lord as something that might occur at any time. The apostle James wrote, ‘Be ye also patient; establish

your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh (James 5:8). There is no ambiguity about this language: such a statement not only argued the premillennial coming of Christ, inasmuch as His coming could not have been said to ‘draw nigh’ if a whole millennium intervened, but it also announced the imminence of His return--something that might be expected at any time.” (p. 204, his emphasis)

Tragically, the futurists have given the skeptics plenty of ammunition.

149

The problem confronting MacArthur, and all futurists, is that Paul, James, Peter, et. al., did not only hope that Jesus’ return was near, they said, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that it was near! MacArthur is surely correct to state that there is no ambiguity in their statements. Paul’s affirmation “we shall not all sleep” is a clear-cut statement that Jesus’ return and the resurrection was to occur in the lifetime of Paul’s reading audience. James’ declaration that the parousia “has drawn near” (Greek _γγικεv), also indicates something that was once not near, but has now approached, and is near. The nearness is objective and real. It is not simply a hope that it is near.

Furthermore, James’ admonition to patience must be seen in the light of martyr vindication. In the earlier verses he brought accusation against the wicked, “you have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you” (James 5:6). He then urges his readers to patience in light of the impending parousia. Not only that, he urges them, “Take my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience, Behold we count them happy that endure” (v. 10-11). James’ exhortation to patience in suffering, in light of the nearness of the Lord’s coming in judgment--“Behold the Judge is standing right at the door!”247 (v. 9)--must be seen in light of Jesus’ prediction that his followers were going to be persecuted, but that he was coming in vindication in that generation (Matthew 23:29f). There is no way to divorce James’ promise of the parousia from that framework. This means that the coming of the Lord truly was near.

MacArthur takes note of the fact that skeptics have used the NT teaching on the imminence of the parousia to discount inspiration: “The enemies of the faith have seized upon these very statements to show that the apostle Paul (and the other apostles, DKP), was in error, that he wrote by unaided human wisdom, that he merely recorded in his epistles his own beliefs, and that in some of these he was clearly mistaken. But such an objection is quite pointless to the saints who believe that ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.’” (p. 204). What is so remarkable however, is that the skeptic and the futurist say virtually the identical thing!

MacArthur cites one skeptic who wrote, “Paul himself, showed... that he was among those who awaited the imminent return of Christ.” (p.57). MacArthur agrees as to what Paul believed, “So real was the hope of the Redeemer’s return to the heart of the apostle Paul and so imminent did this event appear to him that we find he included himself among those who might not fall asleep but be among the living saints when the assembly shout would be heard.” (P.204). Thus, the skeptic and MacArthur agree that Paul believed that the parousia was to occur in his lifetime.

The skeptic continues, “As the history of that era clearly shows, all was for nought. No Messiah appeared.” (p. 57). MacArthur must concur, “Eighteen hundred years have run their weary course since then, and He has not yet returned!” (p. 211, his emp.). Thus, the skeptic and MacArthur agree that Jesus and the apostles taught that Christ’s appearing was to occur in the first century, and they both agree that it did not happen.

The difference between the skeptic and the futurist is that the futurist seeks to maintain Biblical inspiration by denying the actual nearness of the parousia in the first century.248 MacArthur says because Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only”(Matthew 24:36), that this excuses the non-occurrence of the parousia in the first century! Or, at the very least, it mitigates all of the statements about the nearness of that event. In other words, because Jesus, while on earth, could not circle a day on the calendar, this is taken to mean he could not know the generation of his appearing. Therefore, he was free to give the disciples the belief that his coming might be, and probably was going to be, at any moment, even though he did not know if it was or not!

MacArthur’s use of Matthew 24:36 is misguided. To suggest that because Jesus did not know the exact time of his coming while he was still on earth, does not mean that the disciples could not know, by inspiration, when it was actually near, after Jesus’ ascension and sending of the Spirit.

In John 16, Jesus told His disciples that there were many things He could not yet tell them, but that the Father would send the Spirit, who would reveal to them “things to come” (John 16:7). The Spirit was to reveal to the disciples what Jesus could not reveal to them while He was on earth. What was to be revealed was “things to come.” In other words, what Jesus did not know while He was on earth, was to be revealed by the Spirit

150

after Christ’s ascension! It is, therefore, a denial of the revelatory work of the Spirit to insist that because Jesus did not know the time of His coming while on earth, that this same “ignorance” prevailed after His ascension, and after the sending of the revelatory Spirit.

If, therefore, Jesus did send the Spirit, and he did, and if the Spirit revealed to the disciples things that Jesus could not reveal to them while he was on earth, and he did, then, when we read the epistles, all written after the sending of the revelatory Spirit, and they tell us that the coming of the Lord had drawn near, we must accept their statements as the inspired revelation of God. This means that their statements about the nearness of the parousia were true. They were not the statements of hope, or of personal belief versus fact. It means that what Jesus could not reveal while he was on earth, was now being revealed by the inspiration of the revelatory Spirit.

The futurists have inadvertently given the skeptics plenty of ammunition with their argumentation. The reality is that Paul, James, Peter, etc. did use language, that as MacArthur concedes, is not ambiguous. It is crystal clear. They believed and taught as truth, revealed and inspired by the Spirit that, “The (appointed,) time (καιρoς) has come for the judgment (τo κριµα) to begin” (1 Peter 4:17). Now the choices here are limited.

If the apostles wrote by inspiration of the Spirit, those statements of the nearness of the parousia are not mere expressions of hope. They are statements of fact, direct from the Father Himself! However, as statements from the Spirit,249 if they did not come to pass, then in the words of the skeptic cited by MacArthur, “We can only conclude that we are the victims of a cruel hoax!” (p. 57). MacArthur himself says that if Jesus does not come, “Jesus was a liar!”

The problem is that MacArthur removes Jesus’ coming from the time in which Jesus placed it. MacArthur cannot find a single text that indicates Jesus parousia was not going to be in that generation.

If those predictions failed, and clearly they did not come true in the literalistic sense that MacArthur says they were predicted, then this means that the Bible is not the inspired, infallible words of the Spirit. It means the skeptics’ claim about Paul and the other apostles is correct. Paul did, after all, write by, “unaided human wisdom, that he (Paul, DKP), merely recorded in his epistles his own beliefs, and that in some of these he was clearly mistaken” (p. 204). If Paul wrote by inspiration, and claimed that Jesus was coming bodily, on literal clouds, in that generation, to put an end to human history, then undeniably he was wrong. He was not in fact, inspired by the Spirit.

The only solution to the problem250 is the acknowledgment that Paul and the rest of the NT writers did not predict a literal, bodily return of Christ! They predicted that Jesus was coming in the glory of the Father, to act in judgment as the Father had acted many times before. He was going to use the Romans to bring an end, not to human history, but to Old Covenant history, and in doing so, He was going to vindicate Himself and His martyrs. To take any other view of prophecy opens the doors to the skeptical attacks against Scripture and the Deity of Jesus.

It does not take much to see through the common attempts to explain away the failure of futurist eschatological predictions. On the one hand, MacArthur says the Lord inspired all of the “unambiguous” statements of the nearness of His parousia because, “He desired to keep His people on the tiptoe of expectation, continually looking for Him.” (p. 206). On the other hand, it is insisted that, “It is not that He desires each succeeding generation to believe that He will certainly return in their lifetime, for He does not desire our faith and our practices to be founded on error, as, in that case, the faith and practice of all generations except the last would be. But it is a necessary element of the doctrine concerning (the Second Coming of Christ) that it should be possible at any time, that no generation should consider it improbable as theirs (Archbishop Trench).” (P. 207).

So, Jesus inspired the NT writers to say that the parousia had “drawn near,” that the time of the Judgment had come, and “we will not all sleep,” in order to keep the church on the “tiptoe of expectation,” but not too much so, lest they be disappointed, and their faith and practice be based on error! MacArthur calls this a “simple but sufficient solution” to the problem of the time statements of Scripture.251

151

In reality, while MacArthur’s intent is commendable, his argument is illogical and specious. It is untenable to argue on the one hand that God does not give a false hope, that He gave the statements of the imminent parousia to give each generation the hope of the soon coming Lord, and then argue that God does not intend that each generation expect the Second Coming will be in their time! If God puts each generation on the tiptoe of expectation, then it is God who is responsible for letting each generation down when that expectation is not fulfilled.

The truth is that God did not intend for successive generations to proclaim the nearness of the end. Jesus made it clear that the only generation that was to say that the end was near was the generation that would see the end. He could hardly have told his apostles to reject the message of those before them who proclaimed the nearness of the end, if in fact, the only reason for the message of the nearness of the end was to put the church in a state of expectation. If a sense of expectation was the goal, why couldn’t those who proclaimed the message before the apostles create that expectation as well as the apostles? But you see, the issue was not a mere sense of expectation. The goal was a properly timed sense of expectation! Jesus condemned the creation of a premature sense of expectation, and demanded that the sense of expectation be based on the correct observation of the signs.

The same issues are valid in response to the suggestion that the Biblical statements that the parousia was “at hand” simply indicate certainty.252 If “at hand” simply means certain to occur, then why would the apostles be commanded to reject the message of those before them who said, “the end is at hand?” (Of course, we have a right to ask, If “at hand” just means something was “certain to occur,” then what does “not at hand” mean? Would logic not demand that it meant uncertain to occur? This would mean that the coming of Christ was, after all, uncertain to occur! See Numbers 24:17f. The argument that suggests “at hand” means certain, is patently illogical.

When Jesus’ disciples asked him about the end of the age (Matthew 24:3), he began to explain the events that had to happen before that consummative event. However, he warned them that before the end would come there would be false signs, and false prophets saying the end was near when it was not actually near: “Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time has drawn near.’ Therefore, do not go after them.”

Jesus proceeded to give two major events that would signal the nearness of the end: “This Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to the nations, then comes the end. Therefore, when you see the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,...then let those who are in Judea flee.” After giving these signs, Jesus said, “When you see all these things, know that it is near, even at the door” (Matthew 24:33). The fulfillment of the World Mission, and the appearance of the Abomination would signal that the end truly had drawn near.

This is extremely important. Jesus was speaking to living breathing human beings, and told them that they would see these events. He was not speaking abstractly. He told his disciples that they would experience false teachers saying the end was near, (or present!), when in fact it was not. And, all of these things happened very early in the first century.

In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul had to write to the church to warn them not to believe the Lord had already come!253 Just as Jesus said false prophets would come saying the end had come, or had drawn near, before it was, Paul had to deal with that problem at an early time (circa A.D. 49).

Jesus told his disciples that they would see the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the Abomination of Desolation, and when they did, they would know that the end truly had drawn near. This is critical. In Romans, (57-59 A.D.), Paul said the Gospel had been preached into all the world.254 In Colossians 1:5-7, 23, Titus 2:11-13, etc. (60-62 A.D.), the apostle declared that the Gospel had been preached “to every creature under heaven” “to all men,” “all the world” etc. It is also at this time that Paul proclaimed that Jesus’ parousia was “at hand,” (Philippians 4:5), and that

The Biblical truth is that God did not intend for successive generations to claim that the end was near! He wanted only one generation to preach that message.

152

Peter--the author of 2 Peter 3:8-- stated “the end of all things has drawn near...the time has come for the judgment to begin” (1 Peter 4:7, 17), and that James wrote “the coming of the Lord has drawn near.”

This time line is critical. At an early time, false prophets appeared in fulfillment of Jesus predictions, saying the end had drawn near, or had come. The apostles, cognizant of Jesus’ warnings, rejected those prophets, reminding the disciples of what had to happen before the end could come. Then, some 10 years later, with the fulfillment of the first of the two major signs given by Jesus, the inspired writers say that the end had drawn near!

Jesus had said “When you see these things you will know it, (the parousia, DKP), is at the door” (Matthew 24:33). James, living at the time when he witnessed the fulfillment and appearance of the signs, and echoing the very words of Jesus said, “He is at the door!”(James 5:9).

This divine time line teaches us some important lessons. It shows that it truly was Jesus’ generation that was to see the signs Jesus foretold. Jesus was not saying that the fulfillment of the World Mission, or the appearance of the Abomination, was to be centuries in the future.

This time line, coupled with the apostles’ rejection of the message of those who said the end was already present, also shows that the events were fulfilled in the first century.

This time line, when related to the later epistles, after the fulfillment of the first of the two major signs given by Jesus, in which the inspired writers emphatically stated, “In a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not delay” (Hebrews 10:37), proves that their time statements must be taken literally. Jesus had told them

they could tell when the end had not drawn near, and he had told them when they could tell it had drawn near! Thus, when the Biblical writers, writing in light of Jesus’ warnings, said that what he had foretold was fulfilled, and that the end had drawn near,

we cannot stretch those statements two thousand years into the future. We cannot mitigate their statements of “at hand,” to meaninglessness. All statements that the end was near, made before the inspired writers said it was near, were false. All statements that the end is near, written or stated after the Biblical writers said it was near, are false statements. The only preachers, the only prophets, the only teachers who were ever given divine insight into the time of Jesus return were Jesus’ first century inspired disciples, and they said that the end had drawn near 2000 years ago! If their statements that the end was near were as wrong as those before them, then they too were false teachers.

Note again that Jesus told his disciples that fellow believers would prematurely say the end had drawn near (Luke 21:8). He told his apostles to reject those false prophets. However, he gave them the signs by which they could know the end was near (Matthew 24:32-33). The disciples, upon seeing the fulfillment of the first of those signs began to declare that the end was near. However, modern commentators tell us that they could not actually declare Christ’s coming was near. This means, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus’ apostles were just as guilty of false teaching concerning the time of the parousia as those who said it was near before they did!

What is the difference between the Christians, that Jesus called false teachers, who prematurely said the end was near, and the apostles, who heralded that very same message in the same generation? If those before the Bible writers were wrong, because their predictions were false, then the NT writers were wrong for the identical reason! Was there no difference between the message of those before the disciples who said “the end has drawn near,” and the message of the apostles themselves who said “the end has drawn near?” If Jesus was not speaking to his first century apostles about their generation, then their predictions, that the end had drawn near, have become the very predictions Jesus said must be rejected as false! If the predictions of those before the apostles, and those of the apostles failed, then the apostles do indeed stand as false teachers.

Only Jesus’ first century apostles were authorized to say when the end was near. Those before them who said it was near, were false. Those after them who say it is near are wrong. They are the only ones who could know, and they said it was near in the first century!

153

Jeffrey uses the long history of prophecy pundits’ claims that the end was near to prove his theory of the imminent end. He cites a fourth century writer, Ephraem: “We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have already been fulfilled, and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom...Brothers, the coming of the Lord is nigh, believe me because the end of the world is at hand, believe me because it is the very last time.” (2001, 175).255

Jeffrey also quotes Martin Luther: “I am satisfied that the last day must be before the door; for the signs predicted by Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul have now all been fulfilled, the trees put forth, the Scriptures are green and flourishing...We certainly have nothing now to wait for but the end of all things.”256 In other words, the fact that Martin Luther, and those preceding and following him, said that the end was near, proves the end is near today.

Jeffrey spends considerable time documenting from patristic writings that the early church, from the second century onward, believed that the end was near (2001, 56f). He also lays stress on the fact that the apostles also believed in the nearness of the end. Thus, for Jeffrey, the modern church is justified in believing in the soon coming end because the apostles believed the end was near, and those who followed them believed the end was near. In other words, believers today are to look back upon this history of failed predictions, and be confirmed in the faith that the Lord truly is coming, and soon! However, Luke 21 refutes such an idea.

Jesus told his disciples that other believers would come, before them, falsely saying that the end was near, and that they, his disciples listening to him that day, could know when the end had truly drawn near. The apostles therefore, stand as divinely and exclusively qualified to be the true proclaimers of whether the end was or was not near. They were to reject as false teachers those who came before them saying the end was near.

If the apostles’ declarations were no more true than those who pontificated before them, or no more true than Ephraem, than Luther, than William Miller, etc., then their inspiration means nothing at all. According to Jeffrey, MacArthur, Lindsay, et. al, those before the apostles, the apostles, and all prophecy pundits after the apostles stand together. But, if they all stand together, then they all fall together, for the predictions of those before the apostles, the apostles, and all those after the apostles have failed, if taken to refer to a literal physical return of Christ!

We must ask, did the inspiration of the apostles not set their predictions apart from those before or after them? Were the apostles not better qualified as discerners of the signs than those before, or after them? If not, in what way did the apostles differ from those whom Jesus told them to avoid, those proclaiming the end was near?

One thing is for sure, Jeffrey, Lindsay, Impe, MacArthur, etc. are no better at discerning the signs of the time than were the Montanists (2nd century), who insisted that all of the signs were fulfilled. No better than Ephraem of the fourth century, They are no better than the extremists of the eleventh century who insisted that all the signs were fulfilled as never before. They are no better than Martin Luther who said all the signs were fulfilled in the sixteenth century. They are no better than the Millerites/Adventists of the 19th century who carefully calculated the signs of the times, but failed. And, they are no better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the 19-20th century who proclaimed that without fail all of the signs were fulfilled, and that the Lord would positively come in 1874, (changed then to) 1914, (then changed to) 1925, (changed once again to) 1975, etc.! Jeffrey is no different than all of these, for he says, just as they did, “No other generation has ever witnessed so many prophecies fulfilled in its lifetime as we have witnessed” (2001, 184). Must we, indeed, take a view that says the apostles were guilty of such error?

Finally, the time line of Luke 21:8 destroys the commonly stated view that God caused the apostles to make all of the emphatic time statements about the nearness of the end in order to keep the church of each successive generation “on the tiptoe of expectation.” It also disproves the interpretation of Matthew 24:34, that Jesus did not mean his generation would see his coming, but instead, meant that the generation to see the signs would be the final generation, and that, when the signs would appear, believers could finally know that the end was truly near.

154

These views are wrong because Jesus emphatically condemned the pronouncement of the nearness of the end before it was actually near! And since the apostles did declare that the end was near in their generation, if the end was not truly near, then the NT writers are the very false teachers that Jesus warned about! He said many would come saying “The end has drawn near,” but condemned that premature message. In other words, the church throughout countless generations is not to have the continual message that the end is near! The only generation that was to proclaim the message of the soon coming end was to be the generation that would see the end! Believers were to reject any message of the imminent end that was not the inspired word of the apostles. To suggest that God gave all of the NT statements that the end was near to create a sense of urgency, when in fact the end was not near, flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching in Luke 21:8. Jesus clearly did not want believers to say the end was near until it was near. And this means that when He inspired them to say it was near, then, it was truly near.

All of this evidence proves conclusively that efforts to mitigate the many NT time statements, is wrong. God is faithful. God can tell time, and He speaks truthfully about time. Further, he inspired the apostles to speak truthfully about time.

The millennial school must come to grips with this historically indisputable fact also. The dispensational school has been greatly responsible for creating a false expectation of the imminent parousia from generation to generation. Year after year we hear the same mantra, “This is the generation that will see the Lord’s return!”; “No generation has ever seen all of the signs of the end like this generation!” And on and on it goes.257

If God is not in the business of giving false hope, and we certainly agree that He is not, then most assuredly the millennial school is guilty! From Darby to Scofield, from Lindsey to DeHaan, from Jack Van Impe, Grant Jeffery to John Hagee, and a host of other modern prophecy prognosticators the continuing cry is, “This is the generation of the end!” Without fail, they have all failed. And, the end will not come, because the end has already come!

MacArthur recognizes that the language of imminence is unambiguous. He says, “The verses cited at the beginning of this chapter do prove that James, Peter, John and Paul, and the writer of Hebrews all believed Christ’s return was very near--‘at the door’ (James 5:9); ‘at hand’ (Philippians 4:5); ‘approaching’ (Hebrews 10:25); ‘coming quickly’ (Revelation 3:11; 22:7).” (p. 56). Here is the problem. The apostles either got that expectation from God, and thus, the prophecy was wrong, since it did not occur per the literalistic expectations, or, they did not get that expectation from God. In either case, inspiration fails, and Jesus is impugned. On the other hand, as we contend, they not only got that expectation and belief from God, their hope was fulfilled, and Jesus was vindicated as the Lord, the Messiah.

It is not enough for MacArthur to cite numerous passages from the NT in which the inspired writers predicted the soon coming of the Son of Man. Just because it was future to them does not mean it is future to us. On the contrary, if it was near to them, it cannot be in our near future. To ignore their temporal standing, and rip those texts out of their occasional context, and apply them two thousand years later is a travesty of hermeneutics.

Yes, Jesus taught that he was returning, and his promise means it had to happen. But that does not mean that he is to return in the twenty first century. If it means anything, it means he was to return when he said he would, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until

If God puts each generation “on the tiptoe of expectation,” then it is God who is responsible for disappointing each generation when that expectation is not fulfilled!

If God is not in the business of giving false hope, and we certainly agree that He is not, then most assuredly the millennial school is guilty of giving false hope!

155

they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28). Our Lord said that two thousand years ago. He either fulfilled His word, and was revealed as the Lord when He came, or He lied, He was a lunatic, or He was deluded.

MACARTHUR’S POINT# 3-- THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT DEMANDS IT

MacArthur says, “Since God...cannot lie’ (Titus 1:2), His promise guarantees Christ’s return. ...It was the Holy Spirit who confirmed the testimony of Christ in them (the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 1:4-8, DKP), and it was the Holy Spirit who gave them their expectancy of Christ’s coming.” (p. 36) We fully agree that it was the Holy Spirit that gave the early church its expectation that the Lord was coming in their generation. This is the problem!

MacArthur lends credence to this by citing text after text that speaks of Christ coming “very, very soon” (Hebrews 10:37). However, what MacArthur, and most millennialists mean by imminence is not what the Bible means. MacArthur believes that the Biblical doctrine of imminence means that Jesus could, or may, come at any moment, not that he will come soon, “He may come back this year. Yet we cannot say that He will do so.” (p. 197) However, this “maybe,” “could be,” “hope so,” is not the language of Scripture!

The Bible writers are emphatic and unambiguous. They did not say the end of the age may come upon us, they said “the end of the age has come” (1 Corinthians 10:11). They did not say, “we hope the parousia has drawn near,” or “the coming of the Lord may have drawn near.” They said, “The parousia has drawn near” (James 5:8). They did not say, “Some who are alive in the final generation will not die until they see the coming of the Son of Man.” Jesus said, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming” (Matthew 16:28). The writers did not say, “The one who is coming might come in a very little while,” they said, “In a very, very little while, the one who is coming, will come, and will not delay!” (Hebrews 10:37).

For millennial authors to cite a host of passages that asserted the nearness of Christ’s apocalupsis 2000 years ago, and to say those texts mean he might, or might not, be near now, is the very height of anachronistic exegesis. Jeffrey for instance lists two pages of scriptural references to the parousia, passages that asserted Jesus’ coming was near 2000 years ago, and says, “As these passages attest, Christ’s return for His saints is truly imminent.” (2001, 192). This is the worst sort of textual manipulation. To claim that Jesus’ coming is imminent now, because it was imminent 2000 years ago is a major distortion of the meaning of language.

For sure, God cannot lie. The Holy Spirit did confirm the first century saints, and, furthermore, Paul said that He would continue to confirm the Corinthians “until the end, the Day of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:7-8). Are the Corinthians still alive? Did the Holy Spirit, through Paul, lie to the Corinthians when He said that the Corinthians would live until the Day of the Lord? It is not enough to say that God cannot lie. That truth is not in dispute among believers. What needs to be emphasized is the question that all futurists are ignoring or seeking to mitigate. Did God lie, when He caused the NT writers to say Jesus’ coming in glory was to occur in the lifetime of the first century believers? Did God, after all, give a false hope to the first century saints, who most assuredly did believe Jesus was coming in their lifetime?

To say that Jesus must return in our future because the Holy Spirit promised Jesus’ return proves nothing . To make such a claim is to misuse the Biblical predictions of the parousia. It is to ignore the context in which the predictions were made, and the time limitations contained in the prophecies. It is to rip those prophecies away from the very people to whom they were made, and the occasions which prompted them. It is to do a disservice to proper Biblical studies. As a result, modern believers hope for something that has already happened.

156

Finally, to remove the predictions of Jesus’ coming from the framework and time frame established by the Bible for its fulfillment gives the skeptics continuing cause to reject the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus. It is far past time for the Christian community to stop making excuses for the delayed parousia. It is time to honor the words of the Lord Himself, “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.” It is time to unabashedly proclaim, “He came!”

MACARTHUR’S POINT #4-- THE PROGRAM FOR THE CHURCH DEMANDS IT

MacArthur insists that Jesus must yet return because the church is currently betrothed to Him, and the Second Coming is necessary for the Wedding to take place (p. 37-40). It is exceedingly strange that he would offer this as a proof of a yet future coming. Such an argument demonstrates a woeful failure to examine the Biblical doctrine of the Wedding of Christ.

In the first place, it is fascinating that MacArthur would focus on the Wedding of the church as a primary reason why Jesus must yet return, because Biblically, the doctrine of the Wedding belongs to the Old Covenant promises made to Israel!258

It must be understood that the millennialists insist that God has two totally separate programs. The church and Israel are not to be confused, we are told, and the promises to one are not the promises to the other. Yet, Paul, who as we have seen proclaimed nothing but the hope of Israel, taught the doctrine of the Wedding of Christ to the church!

Space forbids a full discussion of the Wedding of the Lamb. However, a brief examination will demonstrate the folly of placing that event in the future. Scripture is abundantly clear that the Wedding of Christ was to occur at the end of the Old Covenant World, when the unfaithful wife was put away, and the beautiful bride, the church, was joined to her groom.

We have already commented briefly on Matthew 22, but need to return there for this discussion. Jesus told the story of a man that made a Wedding feast for his son. The servants were sent out to “invite the invited.” Tragically, the servants were mistreated and even killed, and in the words of France, this indicates, “Israel’s rejection of the prophets is in view.” (1985, 312). As a result of this (repeated) rejection, the Father sends out his army and burns the city of the rebellious invitees. The Wedding then takes place.

It is virtually impossible to deny that we have here a prediction of the judgment of Israel as a result of her persecution of the prophets. In other words, the doctrine of Blood Atonement, and Martyr Vindication is very much present. And, as we have seen, there is no doubt as to when Jesus said that judgment would come, or who was to be the focus of that judgment. It was Israel.

The Wedding of the Son would occur at the time of the judgment of those who refused the invitation to the Wedding and killed the servants sent to invite them. But the time of the judgment of those who refused the invitation to the Wedding and killed the servants sent to invite them was the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Therefore, the Wedding of the Son occurred at the time of the judgment of Israel in A. D. 70. The parable of the Wedding in Matthew 22 also helps us understand the parable of Matthew 25.

In both Matthew 22 and 25:1-13, the theme is the same, “the kingdom of heaven is like,” therefore, we are not dealing with two separate events, divided by millennial, and dealing with two different agendas on God’s part. There is but one Wedding of the Son!

The Wedding of Christ would occur at the time of the judgment of Babylon (Revelation 18-19:6). Jesus said His wedding would occur at the time of the judgment of Jerusalem (Matthew 22:1-10). Therefore, unless Jesus was going to get married twice at the fall of two different cities, then Babylon was Jerusalem! This means that Christ has come!

157

Matthew 22 posits the Wedding at the time of the judgment of the city of the ones who killed the servants sent to invite them to the Wedding. Matthew 25 places the Wedding at the time of the coming of the Groom, the Son of Man. Therefore, the Wedding is placed by Scripture in the context of the coming of the Son of Man in judgment of those who killed the servants sent to invite them to the Wedding.

Just a brief interjection here about the Cry, “The Bridegroom cometh!” (Matthew 25:6). All futurists insist this represents the message of the church through the ages, preaching the message that Jesus could come at any moment, in order to keep the church “on the tiptoe of expectation.” However, in the parable, the cry that the Bridegroom was coming did not go out until He was actually near! There was no continuing, on-going cry of his nearness. There was only the urgent proclamation that he was near! In other words, when the message was shouted, the Groom was near! No delay, no procrastination. No crying “Wolf,” from generation to generation! Thus, when the NT writers affirmed that the time for the Wedding had come, that the Bridegroom was coming “very, very soon,” we can be sure that the Wedding was truly at hand.

The millennial view of the Wedding presents some daunting problems. It must be remembered that according to the millennial paradigm, at the Rapture, the church age ends, since the church is removed from the earthly scene. Then, at the Second Coming, Israel is re-established as the dominant chosen people. How can MacArthur suggest that at the Second Coming the church is married to Jesus, when the millennial philosophy actually says that at the Second Coming the church is set aside in favor of Israel? This is no small problem! If it is the church that is the focus of the Wedding, and this occurs at the Second Coming, what of the doctrine that Israel is re-established as the chosen, specially favored people?

The idea of the Wedding definitely suggests that the church is taken as the Lord’s special people, not set aside. In Ephesians 5:25-27, Paul teaches that at the parousia Christ presents the church to himself, a glorious Bride! This hardly suggests the millennial idea that the church is set aside in favor of Israel. It proves just the opposite, for if Jesus marries the church at the Second Coming, then, this hardly suggests the reestablishment of Israel! Are we to believe that Jesus comes, removes the church from the earth in the Rapture, marries the church at the Second Coming, and then abandons the church, (whether in heaven or on earth), to rule on earth with Israel as his chosen people for 1000 years?

To return to our point, in both Matthew 22 and Matthew 25, the picture of the Wedding is that it occurs in the framework of the judgment on Israel. And this is corroborated in the Apocalypse. In Revelation, John describes the judgment of the Great Harlot city, Babylon (Revelation 18), and then announces,“Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready!” the Wedding of the Lamb takes place when the Harlot city is destroyed. Who is this Babylon?259

Simply put, Babylon is the city that killed the prophets (Revelation 16:6f / Matthew 23:31, 34)). She killed the Lord (Revelation 11:8 / Matthew 2133f). She killed the apostles of Jesus (Revelation 18:20, 24 / Matthew 23: 34), and in her was found all the blood of the righteous shed on the earth (Revelation 18:24). She was on the verge of filling up the measure of her sin of persecuting the righteous, and by filling the number of saints that had to die (Revelation 6:11). Only one city was guilty of this, it was Jerusalem.

Babylon is not, nor can she be, a future entity such as “the consummate false religious system” proposed by MacArthur (1999, 106). There is no future entity, no matter how cruel, that can ever be guilty of having killed the O.T. prophets, of having slain Jesus, or of having killed the apostles!

What we have then, is that in Revelation, the marriage of the Lamb occurs when the city that killed the prophets sent to her is destroyed at the coming of the Lord. This is precisely what we find in Matthew 22 and Matthew 25. In both of these passages the Wedding takes place after the judgment against the wicked servants who killed the messengers sent to them (or the servants (virgins) who were slothful. There is not another picture of the time of the Wedding presented in Scripture. The Wedding is clearly placed within the context of the judgment of the persecuting power, and that persecutor is/ was no other than Jerusalem!

It must be stressed that in the millennial paradigm, there is no room for a future destruction and judgment of Israel as depicted in Matthew 22 and Revelation 18. There is no room at all for a complete destruction of the power of the holy people, at the end of the age, as described in Daniel 12:7.

158

However, while there is no room in the millennial view for this destruction, it is patently clear that in God’s eschatological scheme, Israel assuredly was to be destroyed at the end of the age.

MacArthur’s contention therefore, that Christ must yet return because God’s program for the church demands it, is misplaced. That view overlooks or ignores what Scripture has to say about the time and place of the Wedding.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #5 THE CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD DEMANDS IT

“Here’s another reason Christ must return: to judge the world.” (p. 40). MacArthur proceeds to cite Matthew 16:27 as a proof that Jesus must yet come. The problem is that all of the verses he cites are limited to the first century generation time-frame! Remember, MacArthur admits that the NT writers believed that Jesus was coming in judgment in that generation. They were either right, or they were wrong.

In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus said, “The Son of Man will come in the glory of the Father with His angels, and then shall He reward each according to His works.” But, that is not all that Jesus said! In the very next verse he says, “Verily I say unto you, there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Jesus not only said what he was going to do, he said, unequivocally, when he was coming! It was to be in the lifetime of the audience standing around him, 2000 years ago.

To avoid the power of Jesus’ words, it is commonly argued that Matthew 16:27 speaks of the judgment to occur in the far distant future (from Jesus), but that verse 28 speaks of the Transfiguration that occurred six days later. Thus, a gap of at least two thousand years, and counting, is inserted in the period between verse 27 and verse 28.260

Let it be clearly understood that the only reason why such a division between the verses was ever invented was because Bible readers refused to change their preconceived ideas about what the judgment must be. Jesus’ words, as they stand, were not fulfilled literally as the reader’s presuppositional concepts demand, therefore, Jesus could not have actually meant that he was coming back in their lifetime!

For brevity, we will note only that there is no justification for placing a chronological gap between verse 27 and verse 28, and this is proven by the use of the word “Verily.” This word, used some 95 times in the NT, virtually without exception, emphasizes something that has just been said. It never introduces a new subject. It is not used as a topic break! It is a word that is used to bring emphasis and attention to what has already been stated. This means that in verse 27, Jesus stated what He was going to do, and in verse 28, to add emphasis, He said when he was going to do it!

Thus, MacArthur cites as proof of a yet future coming, a verse that proves positively that the judgment was to occur in Jesus’ generation. The same is true of another text that he cites.

MacArthur quotes 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, as proof that Jesus must yet come to judge the wicked. It is rather strange, and perhaps telling, that MacArthur begins his quote at verse 7. This is a common practice. However, it is unfortunate that the previous verses are omitted from the discussion.

We have already examined the passage, so we will only briefly note the following relevant facts: The Thessalonians were in the midst of very real, present persecution. Paul was not discussing some hypothetical far off persecution when he

spoke of the tribulation that you are enduring (2 Thessalonians 1:4-6). Under his point #9, MacArthur, citing 1 Peter 1:7 and 2 Thessalonians 1 again, says the Biblical writers, “Saw the promise of Christ’s return as a

great comfort in their times of trial.” (p. 48). What he is overlooking is that the Biblical writers positively affirmed that Christ was coming, and soon, to bring judgment against their persecutors!

159

Paul said that the persecutors of the Thessalonians were going to receive what they were giving, tribulation, as a result of persecuting the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 1:6-7).

The apostle said that the Thessalonians were going to receive relief (αvεσις) from their then on-going, then present, then very real, persecution, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”

Not only would the Thessalonians receive relief, but their then living, contemporary persecutors would receive tribulation “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.”

If the Lord did not come in the lifetime of the Thessalonians, giving them relief from their persecution, and give their persecutors tribulation, then, no amount of sophistry can avoid the reality that Paul lied to the Thessalonians.

Paul did not say the Thessalonians would die and go to heaven in order to get relief from their persecutors. He did not say their persecutors would die, go to hell, and there be punished for persecuting the Thessalonians. He did not say that the Thessalonians and their persecutors would all die, someday be raised at the parousia, and then receive relief or punishment.

The persecution of the Thessalonians was on-gong when Paul wrote, and would be on-going when the Lord Jesus was revealed from heaven! If the Thessalonians were not alive, and if they were not being actively persecuted at the time when the Lord Jesus would be revealed from heaven, then He could not give them relief from persecution! Jesus could not give them relief from something they were not experiencing. The text demands that the Thessalonians be under active persecution at the time of the parousia.

If “God is not in the business of giving false hope,” (and we agree that He is not!), then the choice is clear. Either Jesus did come in the first century generation, in judgment of the persecutors of the Thessalonians, or God lied to the Thessalonians. There is simply no other choice. It was God who gave the Thessalonians not only the hope, but the positively stated promise, that they were going to be given relief from their persecutors at the parousia. Since it was God who gave that promise and that hope, if He did not fulfill that promise and that hope, then He most assuredly was in the business of giving false hope!

Finally, to suggest that Jesus must come and end world history to put an end to world corruption, ignores the promise of God in Genesis 8. Jehovah had brought the Flood that had destroyed every air breathing creature. As Noah and his family emerged from the Ark, he offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving for deliverance. In Genesis 8:21, we find a very important, yet greatly ignored promise of God, “The Lord said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

The normal interpretation of this verse is that God looked at the carnage wrought by the Flood and decided that, while He will one day bring another worldwide cataclysm, this time He will do it by fire! However, this is not what the text says. The passage affirms, Jehovah affirms, that although man is evil, He will never again bring a judgment like the Flood. In other words, the world’s evil is not sufficient to bring another worldwide cataclysm. God knows man, and He knows man is evil. However, because He knows man is this way, He determined not to bring another judgment as massive as the Flood.

This is not to say that God would never bring judgment as a result of wickedness again. As we have demonstrated above, Scripture is abundantly clear that in the last days Israel would fill the measure of her sin, and as a result, the Day of the Lord would come on her. This is far different than saying that there will be another “world-wide” destruction.

Of course, the normal interpretation of Genesis is that El Shaddai was concerned with the methodology of destruction. He was not pleased with the manner in which He had destroyed His creation, so, He simply determined that instead of water, He would use fire the next time around. However, to suggest that God is more concerned with methods of destruction than He is manifesting mercy, is problematic. Are we to see, in

160

Genesis 8, that God was more concerned with how He will bring a future destruction, instead of surveying the carnage, and, being moved by His compassionate nature, promised to never bring that kind of suffering again? Which is more consistent with the nature of God, a concern over methods or mercy?

The point is that Genesis 8 reveals a God that surveyed the very heart of man, and realizing that man is always evil, promised that in spite of man’s evil, He would never again bring a “universal” destruction. The contention then, that Jesus must one day come to deal with world-wide corruption, flies in the face of Jehovah’s promise.

Thus, once again, MacArthur offers as proof of a yet future event, texts that actually prove that the parousia was to occur in the first century.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #6; THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL DEMANDS IT

Two passages are offered by MacArthur to prove that God’s promises to Israel demand a yet future return of Jesus. Those passages are Zechariah 12:10, and Romans 11:25-27. We have already examined both of these texts, therefore a brief re-capitulation will be sufficient.

Zechariah 12:10 spoke of the day in which Israel would look on the one they had pierced. The result of that piercing would be judgment so severe that two-thirds of the people shall perish (Zechariah 13:8f), and the city would be destroyed (Zechariah 14). Thus, whatever else Zechariah foretold, it foretold a time of judgment on Israel at the coming of the Lord! This is exactly what we propose in this book.

Second, Revelation 1:7, which quotes from Zechariah 12:10, corroborates this view. The Apocalypse says that at the time of the coming of the Lord, every eye shall see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn. Further, the book states, repeatedly, that Christ’s coming was near, “the time is at hand!”; “these things must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1-3). The coming of Christ in view is very plainly a coming in judgment of those who killed Him! It is not a deliverance from judgment, it is a coming in judgment, against Israel.

Likewise, Romans 11:25-27, when taken in proper context, is actually a prediction of the climax of Israel’s soteriological and eschatological history. As we have shown, the key passages that Paul quotes from, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 29, both predicted that God was coming in judgment of Israel for filling up the measure of her sin, the sin of killing Jehovah’s servants. In Matthew 23, Jesus emphatically posits the time and locus of that judgment. It was to be His coming against Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

MacArthur then, has carelessly cited two verses to support his contention of a yet future parousia, when in fact, the verses he cites support, and demand, a first century fulfillment at the time of the judgment of Israel.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #7: THE VINDICATION OF CHRIST DEMANDS IT

Like Ice, MacArthur insists that because Jesus was humiliated on earth, in fleshly form, that this demands that He return to earth in fleshly form for vindication. (See our discussion above). This argument is what the Latins would call a non sequitur, it does not logically follow.

Exactly why must Jesus be physically present to be vindicated? It is abundantly clear in the Old Testament that every time Jehovah acted in judgment, although He was not bodily present, He most assuredly was vindicated (Isaiah 26:9-12). When His righteousness was scorned on earth, even in His Temple, (Jeremiah 7), El Shaddai acted in judgment by means of the Babylonians to judge Israel. He was said to come out of heaven to

161

walk on the mountains and lay desolate the earth (Jeremiah 4:24f). Judgment, His vindication, occurred on earth, in the arena of His “humiliation,” yet He did not appear in a bodily fleshly form, nor did He have to do so!

Jesus tells us that the Father committed all judgment to him, and that he would act in judgment as his Father had acted (John 5:19-23). And, Jesus did act, in judgment, against those who humiliated him! Even the most ardent futurist will have to admit that in the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus was vindicated. His predictions as a prophet came true, his sufferings as a martyr were avenged, his claim to be the Son of God proven. As Wright says, “The destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand, and the rescue of the disciples on the other, would be the vindication of what Jesus had been saying throughout his ministry.” (1996, 338).

Not only was Jesus avenged, he was avenged in the very arena of his humiliation. As the saints under the altar prayed that the Lord avenge them on those who dwell on the earth (Revelation 6:11), that is the realm in which the judgment occurred. Jerusalem was the focus of the Lord’s Wrath. And, by acting in the stead of the Father, and in the way the Father had always acted, Jesus was manifesting his Deity, his association with the Father. He was not showing that he is still man, in the flesh, He was showing that He is “the eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5), whose prayer as a man, “And now, O Father, glorify me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:4-5) has been answered, and He is no longer associated with the world of the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:16). In the fall of Jerusalem Jesus was truly revealed to be the Son of God, enthroned in the heavens, surrounded by glory. He was vindicated in the realm of His humiliation, but He did not have to submit Himself to this realm once again in order to accomplish that vindication and glorification!

MACARTHUR’S POINT #8: THE DESTRUCTION OF SATAN DEMANDS IT

Like most futurists, MacArthur believes that Satan is in control of this world. He remains, per MacArthur, “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). As we have seen, (i.e. Darby) some millennialists believe that the Cross was actually the proof that Satan won, that he is in control. However, as we have shown, the millennialists is guilty of the worst sort of anachronistic hermeneutic. They take statements that were true at a given point in time in the first century, and apply them to the modern day, without considering whether those statements are still true.

It must be noted that the Biblical writers affirm that Jesus came to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8). Jesus came to “destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil, and deliver them, who through fear of death, were held in bondage” (Hebrews 2:14f). Jesus appeared to “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).

Did Jesus fail in his mission? Some would respond by saying, “Well, look around! Sin is still everywhere. Clearly Jesus did not destroy the works of the Devil!” This ad hominem argument fails to consider that the Biblical promises of the destruction of Satan and his works, speak of the work of God in creating a new creation, in which Satan’s works were to be annulled, but that, outside of that realm, evil would still exist!

It must be remembered that from the fall to Christ, there was no true sanctuary from sin. Sin and death reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14, and the entrance of the Law did not provide a true haven for man to escape “the pollution of the world” (2 Peter 2:20). The Law exacerbated the problem of sin and death (Romans 5:20; Galatians 3:19). Even the Temple, with its veil, stood as a constant reminder of man’s alienation and

Even the most ardent futurist must admit that Jesus was, at least in some sense, vindicated in the fall of Jerusalem. His predictions as a prophet came true, his sufferings as a martyr were avenged, his claim to be the Son of God proven.

162

separation from God. The sacrifices they made each year were a “reminder of sin” (Hebrews 9:6f; 10:1-3). While it is true that Israel was “closer” to God than were the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11f), there is no doubt that because of sin, Jew and Gentile alike stood guilty and hopeless.

The Lord promised however, that He was going to create a New Heaven and a New Earth, wherein righteousness dwells” (Isaiah 65; 2 Peter 3:13). What the Old Covenant World could never provide, righteousness (Galatians 3:20-21), the New Covenant Creation of Jesus not only could, but does provide. God created a New Sanctuary, a New Garden, wherein man is reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:18f). Yet, outside that sanctuary, outside the New Jerusalem, sin remains. Paul’s theological key, the term “in Christ,” is very much at issue here.

This truth seems all but lost on those, amillennialist, postmillennialist, and premillennialist alike, who all teach, in varying form, that at the time of the end, God would completely destroy sin, period. However, in the picture of the end presented in Revelation, sin is destroyed for those in the City. Remember, the gates of the City are open, and the nations of the world come into the City. Why? For healing (Revelation 22:2)! Why would the nations need healing if sin no longer existed anywhere? Outside the city are dogs,261 liars, and all those who work abominations (Revelation 21:27). It is inside the City where there is no unrighteousness. It is inside the City that Eden is restored!

It will be rejoined that in Revelation 20, Satan and his angels are cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, and thus, if that has happened, then there should be no sin today. This simply does not follow.

The NT writers are clear in laying the blame for sin on man’s own perversion (James 1:12f). In other words, man does not need Satan’s help to sin. Satan introduced evil into the world, but man has taken it from there! Once the “Pandora’s box” was opened, there was no going back.262

The problem many people today have is the problem that plagued the first century Pharisees, the problem of preconceived ideas. If they do not see something with their own eyes, then it cannot be true. If they do not see what their preconceived ideas insist must be true, then it cannot be true. There seems to be an unwillingness to change ideas about the nature of the kingdom and parousia, to bring them into conformity with the Biblical description of things, and the time when those things were to occur.

The first century Jews had a concept of the nature of the kingdom and the Messiah. They believed that the Messiah was to come as a conquering warrior, and whip the Romans, their oppressors, in a military conflict, and then establish himself on the throne of David in the literal city of Jerusalem. MacArthur claims that Jesus’ disciples held that view, “The disciples expectation of an immediate, literal earthly kingdom was so deeply ingrained in their thinking that even after Christ arose from the dead, they still expected Him to establish His earthly reign immediately. ...And notice that Jesus’ reply in Acts 1 is no rebuke for thinking the kingdom would be a literal, earthly one. In fact, He tacitly affirmed that His kingdom would indeed be established on earth, but not according to their timetable: ‘it is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the

Father has put into His own authority’ (Acts 1:7). Thus, without dashing their hope of an earthly kingdom He called them to a ready preparedness while they waited for God’s timing to be manifest.” (1999, 225, n.1) Such a view reveals a sad neglect of the actual context.

Contra MacArthur and others who believe that Jesus confirmed the disciple’s view of an earthly kingdom. Jesus emphatically rejected that concept. John 6:15 proves this beyond dispute. Let it be reiterated here for clarity: the millennialist has no proper explanation for the Jewish rejection of

the kingdom, if in fact they wanted what Jesus was offering. Nor is there a proper explanation for Jesus’ rejection of their offer of the kingship, if he wanted what they were offering. If Jesus wanted what they were offering, and if they wanted what Jesus was offering, there is no logical explanation for the Jewish rejection of the kingdom, nor of Jesus’ rejection of their offer of the kingdom!

The Pharisees clearly had the nationalistic hopes for the kingdom that the millennialists espouse today. Yet Jesus told them that the kingdom “does not come with observation, for the kingdom is within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Pilate killed many a would be anarchist that he thought desired

If Jesus offered what they wanted, and if they wanted what Jesus was offering, why did the Jews reject Jesus?

163

to overthrow Roman, yet, upon Jesus’ disavowal of political aspirations, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), Pilate would have let him go. There could hardly have been a more powerful declaration that Jesus’ kingdom is not a nationalistic entity.

Further, in Acts 1, Jesus had spent 40 days with the disciples, opening their eyes to the scriptures (Luke 24:27, 45), concerning the kingdom (Acts 1:4). Part of that eye-opening instruction was the absolute necessity for the Son of Man to suffer (Luke 24:44-47). In other words, the disciples, who previously saw the crucifixion as a blow to their kingdom hopes, (just as millennialists who say that God delayed the kingdom because of the crucifixion!), were now shown that the Crucifixion was not a setback to God’s kingdom plans (Luke 24:19-21). The rejection of Jesus was God’s pre-ordained manner of establishing the kingdom. It did not thwart nor delay God’s plans, it fulfilled them. Satan was not in charge at the Cross, in spite of appearances!

We have every right to ask whether modern believers are guilty of becoming the second coming of the Pharisees. Because the Pharisees had a preconceived idea of the kingdom and the king, they could not see what was transpiring before their eyes. Because their physical eyes did not see what they demanded to see, what they in fact insisted their own scriptures taught, they refused to accept the Son of God! Likewise, today, we are told that because modern believers did not see Jesus physically descend from heaven on a literal cloud, then that must mean he did not come. Or, we are told that since evil still exists in the world, that this means the Devil has not been destroyed.

Is the modern evangelical community guilty of the same Pharisaic attitude of, “My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing” mentality? On April 6, 2002, I engaged in a public debate in New York City.263 One of my opponents spoke for 45 minutes in rebuttal, and the entire thrust of his “argument” was that since he did not see Christ coming, then he must not have come! There was no attempt at exegesis, nor attempt to refute the scriptural affirmative arguments presented. The entire argument was, “My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing!” Such emotionally charged ad hominem arguments may sound good, but are logically bankrupt, and exegetically groundless. Similarly, the early Pharisees heard the message that the kingdom was near, even among them, yet, because what their eyes saw did not fit their preconceived ideas, they refused to believe! Likewise, even though the modern evangelical community acknowledges that Jesus predicted his coming was near in the first century, even in the lifetime of the first disciples, because we have no record of a physically optical event that matches the preconceived ideas of the modern students, it is declared that Jesus did not come!

As a result, the skeptic is taking the day, increasingly disillusioned believers are beginning to wonder, and, a world that needs the message of fulfillment and present salvation is instead simply fed another in a long line of excuses as to why the predictions did not come true. We believe Paul’s words to the Corinthians are apropos, and a call for the modern church to rethink, “Do you look on things according to the outward appearance?” (2 Corinthians 10:7). Sadly, it seems that this is precisely what is occurring. There is far too much emphasis on what is seen, or rather on what has not been seen, and not enough on what the Word says.

If one is going to judge the success of Jesus on what is visible to the human eye, then perhaps one should declare Jesus a miserable failure. He came to put away sin. Yet, sin patently exists, in abundance, therefore, Jesus must not have succeeded in putting away sin. Jesus came to take away the fear of death. Yet, millions of people still fear death. Thus, Jesus failed! Jesus came to give abundant life to all. Yet, the majority of the world does not have abundant life. Thus, again, Jesus must have failed.

These ad hominem arguments prove nothing, or they prove everything, depending on the reader’s perspective. If what the physical eye sees is the determinative factor, then plainly, Jesus did not do what he came to do. However, the Bible calls the believer to see things with different eyes.

The key word of the Christian is victory. Yet, this is an incongruous word to describe the small bands of believers in the first century. Comprised of slaves, social misfits, and outcasts, the Bible nonetheless told them that the world belonged to them (1 Corinthians 3:20f). They were kings (1

164

Corinthians 4:8). They were more than conquerors (Romans 8:32f)! Was that the way they were viewed by the world? Did it look like they were the judges of the world?

To the world, the Christians were hardly worth considering. For all appearances sake, they were the worst that society had to offer. Yet, the Bible writers called on the believers to see things with different eyes. They reminded them that they did not “look on the things that are seen, but the things that are not seen” (2 Corinthians 4:16f). Even though they had known Jesus after the flesh, they would not know him after the flesh anymore (2 Corinthians 5:16). They were to walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). They were called to believe in things that they had not seen, and things they could not see! More, they were called to believe things that their eyes told them were not true!

The words of Jesus to “doubting Thomas” are apropos. The disciples of Jesus had seen him, and reported that he was alive. Thomas, with what can actually be called a healthy dose of skepticism, said, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25). Eight days later, Jesus appeared to the disciples, with Thomas present, and invited the incredulous, and now convinced Thomas to “Touch me, and see that it is I, myself” (Luke 24:39). The former doubter exclaimed his belief that Jesus is Lord and God. In response, Jesus said, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).

Far too many believers refuse to believe that Jesus came when he said he would, or that Satan has been destroyed, because they do not see what their preconceived ideas demand. Like the Pharisees of old, who could not or would not believe in Jesus as the Christ because of their concepts of what the Messiah was to be, modern believers, with a misguided concept of what Christ’s coming and Satan’s destruction is supposed to be, reject the emphatic, repeated Biblical statements as to the nature of those events, the framework in which the events were to occur, and the time when those events were to occur.

Mind you, the Pharisees knew that the time was right for the appearance of the Messiah (cf. John 1:19f). However, the religious rulers of the day had what they considered to be scriptural reasons for rejecting Jesus: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”; “Will the prophet come out of Galilee?”; “Search and look, For no prophet has arisen out of Galilee!” (John 7:40-52). The Pharisees had lots of history, lots of tradition, lots of prejudice, that suggested that this Jesus could not be the promised Messiah. So, because he did not meet their expectations, he was rejected and crucified.

Likewise, today, the evangelical world heralds the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead in a physical body, and therefore, he must return in a physical body. He must be triumphant in the same arena as his humiliation (see above). His Incarnation supposedly demands a physical parousia.

These views seem unaware that Jesus said he had been given the Divine Judgment Prerogative, and that he was to judge as his Father had judged. These views completely ignore the Biblical testimony concerning the purpose of Christ’s parousia, to reveal him, not as man, but as God. These views seem oblivious to the nature of Christ’s Second Birth. They seem unaware of the implications of the Transfiguration, and John’s Patmos vision, as a vision of the parousia. The power of this presuppositional thinking continues to cloud the ubiquitous problem of the Naherwartung, the overwhelming sense of the nearness of the end of the age, and the defeat of Satan in the first century.

The NT is clear that the time had come for the destruction of Satan, no matter what the modern reader might, or might not, see with their physical eyes. During his personal ministry, when he sent out the 70, and they returned with reports of success, Jesus said, “I beheld Satan as lightning, falling from heaven” (Luke 10:17-19). When he cast out the demons, he told his audience that his actions proved beyond a doubt that Satan was even then being bound, and the kingdom was near (Luke 11:18-23).264 Immediately prior to his crucifixion, Jesus said Satan’s demise was truly near, “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out” (John 12:31; 16:11).

165

Jesus did not see his crucifixion as a manifestation of Satan’s power, he saw it as the means to his defeat! The world saw the crucifixion as putting an end to the troublesome band of misfit Jews, and another in a long line of would be anarchists. However, the Biblical testimony is, “He triumphed over them in it” (Colossians 2:14-16). Was Jesus wrong when he said Satan was on the verge of being cast out? Could Jesus have been so sadly mistaken? Just look around, right?

Paul echoed the idea that Satan’s demise was near. Now, it is imperative to be reminded of the visible circumstances in which Paul wrote. What they saw with the visible eyes did not match what the inspired writers and their audiences were seeing! In the midst of persecution (Romans 5:2-4), Paul wrote “And now, the God of Peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20). As Dunn says, “The hope of Satan being crushed under foot is part of the larger eschatological hope of the final binding or defeat of the angelic power hostile to God.”265 He continues to note that the promise of Satan’s crushing goes back to Genesis 3:15, and entails the “whole strand of Jewish hope.” He says, “It is hard to diminish the strong eschatological note here, and the note of imminence implied in the εv τ_χει” (905).266 Thus, Paul definitely taught that God’s promise to destroy Satan (Genesis 3:15) was about to be fulfilled. We ask again, Was Paul mistaken?

Unless Jesus, Paul and John were mistaken in their clearly enunciated view that Satan was about to be destroyed in the first century, it is the duty of the modern believer to bring their preconceived ideas into line with what Jesus and his followers not only believed, but taught. Satan was to be destroyed in the first century. No appeal to present sin in our world can change what Jesus and the Bible predicted. It behooves the modern student to discover the world in which God has removed sin and death, and the righteousness of Jesus Christ himself is imputed to the believer.

MACARTHUR’S POINT #9: THE HOPE OF THE SAINTS DEMANDS IT

MacArthur concludes his nine reasons why Christ must physically return to earth, “Here’s the final reason the Lord must return to earth: Only His glorious, triumphant return can fulfill the hope of the saints. God is not in the business of giving false hope....Peter saw the promise of Christ’s return as a great comfort for the people of God in their times of trial---‘that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it be tried by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ’” (p. 48). He cites 2 Thessalonians 1:4-7 once again.

Suffice it to say, as we have shown, that if God does not give false hope, and He doesn’t, then since it was God that gave the first century suffering saints the promise, that Jesus was coming very soon to avenge their suffering and take vengeance on their persecutors, then to avoid being guilty of giving false hope, Jesus had to return in the lifetime of those to whom the promise was made!

The NT was addressed to living, breathing human beings experiencing persecution because of their confession of Jesus as Messiah. It was to these suffering saints that God promised relief “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven” (2 Thessalonians 1:7f). It was to those enduring tribulations that Paul promised, “The night is far spent, the Day is at hand. Now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11f). It was to first century Christians suffering at the hands of the unrighteous, that James said, “Be patient therefore, brethren until the coming of the Lord, The coming of the Lord has drawn near,” “The judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:6-9). It was to those suffering for the Lord in Pontus, Galatia, etc., that Peter promised they would only have to suffer “for a little while” until the revelation of Jesus Christ, who was even then, “Ready to judge the living and the dead” because, “The end of all things has drawn near” (1 Peter 1:6; 4:5, 7). It was those with whom John was a brother in tribulation (Revelation 1:9), to whom the promise was made “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 22:6, 10, 12).

166

Any eschatology that removes these promises of vindication and relief from that persecution, at the parousia, outside of that first century context does violence to the inspired text. All futurist eschatologies, amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial, do precisely that, however.

To seek to justify a doctrine of a yet future coming of Christ on the clouds of heaven, based on first century promises, made to first century people, amid first century persecution, is simply wrong headed exegesis. It is the same as reading someone else’s mail, and applying the promises made to another person, living at another time, in another location, to people, times and locations unrelated to the recipients of the letters.

We have examined MacArthur’s nine reasons why Jesus must physically return to earth. We have shown that his arguments are based on a priori assumptions, faulty logic, and a hermeneutic of anachronism. He has removed promises made to first century people, suffering very real persecution, and applied what was promised to them personally, to a time far removed from them. He has effectively stripped the Bible of any contemporary significance for the people to whom it was addressed. We have shown in other words, that MacArthur’s nine reasons why Jesus must return, are no reasons at all.

Now to examine MacArthur’s reasons why the Lord has delayed his coming. MacArthur and others feel the force of the problem. On the one hand they affirm that scripture teaches an imminent coming. On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that the language of nearness has not been fulfilled. Thus, MacArthur asks, “Why has not the Redeemer returned long ere this? Is this not deeply mysterious? A world in which iniquity abounds more and more; an Israel without a home and without a king; a church rent by division and, like Samson shorn of its power; a groaning creation and a war-stricken earth--all unite in crying with the souls under the altar, ‘How long O Lord...’ ...Why then such delay? Eighteen centuries have run their weary course since then and He has not yet returned!” (1999, 211, His emphasis). MacArthur offers three reasons for the delay.

Before examining MacArthur’s explanation for the delay in the parousia, it is important to note that he, and other millennialists, are fully cognizant that the Lord has delayed His coming. Jeffrey, acknowledging the many NT time statements of the imminence of the parousia, and the skeptical arguments about them, says, “The question that must appear in the mind of every thoughtful reader is this: Since the Scriptures teach that the Second Coming of Christ for His church is imminent, why has the Lord delayed for almost two thousand years?” (2001, 193+).

These men are fully aware of the fact that the language of the New Testament, when given its natural meaning, is unambiguous, the first century church was told that Christ’s return was near.

Earlier in his book, MacArthur commented on the parable of the wicked servant that said “My Lord delays his coming” (Matthew 24:42f). MacArthur says, “The one who shall say in his heart ‘My Lord delayeth His coming’ is an ‘evil’ servant” (p. 199). And yet, MacArthur has to admit that in his view, the Lord has indeed delayed His coming. Is there not something wrong with a doctrine in which, on the one hand the person who said “My Lord delays His coming,” is castigated, and then, on the other hand, the fact of the Lord’s delay must be explained?

MACARTHUR’S REASON FOR DELAY #1: TO GIVE MAN FULL OPPORTUNITY

TO DEVELOP HIS SCHEMES MacArthur suggests that God has delayed the parousia in order to give man sufficient time to develop his own schemes, so that, when they failed,

man would realize his need for God’s rule. (p. 212). The problem is that, like most of his arguments noted above, MacArthur has ignored the Biblical testimony!

167

In Romans 1-3, Paul spends a great deal of time demonstrating that God had already allowed man sufficient time to develop his own schemes! He shows how Jehovah had allowed the Gentiles to seek him on their own terms, and the horrible immoral results of that “experiment” (Romans 1:18f). He then turns to consider the Jewish situation.

The Lord had given the Jews His covenant, so that they would not only know how to live themselves, but that they might be a light to others as well (Romans 2:19f). The problem was that man, whether Jew or Gentile, wound up in the same condition, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (see Romans 3:10-23). Paul’s point is that God had given man centuries, under contrasting covenant circumstances, to discover his weakness, and his need for a Savior. In Paul’s view, man had been given more then sufficient time to “develop his schemes and thereby demonstrate the world’s need of a competent Ruler.” This truth is supported by a number of passages all expressing that Jesus came at just the right time.

Paul states how Jehovah had been incredibly patient with man (3:25), more on this below, but that His patience in the past had now reached its climax in the manifestation of God’s scheme. Notice Paul’s emphasis on “now,” “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed” (3:21); ...“to demonstrate at this present time His righteousness” (Romans 3:26, my emphasis). Paul’s point is clear, God had allowed man to develop his own schemes, and had failed miserably. Thus, He had sent the Savior to bring salvation, and He would shortly send Him again to consummate what He had begun (Romans 8:18; 13:11-13; 16:20).

There is a little term in scripture, and especially Paul, that shows that God had allowed man sufficient time to develop his own themes, and having failed, the Lord sent Jesus to establish “justice and judgment” (Isaiah 9:6-9).

In Romans 5:6, the apostle says, “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” We cannot develop all the thought contained here, but this passage is an echo of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:35-36), that predicted God’s action in Israel’s last days for salvation and judgment.

Notice Paul’s allusion to “in due time” (κατ_ καιρ_v, Romans 5:6). What does this mean? It means, “At the right time,” “the propitious moment,” “the eschatological moment.” (Dunn, 1988, 254). As Robertson says, Romans 5:6 means, “Christ came into the world at the proper time, the fulness of time (Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; Titus 1:3).”267 Paul’s point is that God had allowed man to develop his own schemes. But, man had failed so miserably in fact, that in creating his own gods, his own gods had become corrupt, “It has been well said of the Greeks that it was not that men became so depraved that they abandoned their gods, but rather that the gods became so depraved that they were abandoned by men”268

It was indeed a horrific world in the first century. It was a world that had reached the end of its moral rope, and as a result of its failure to achieve justification, redemption, and salvation by its own methods and schemes, “Probably no period in the history of the world was better suited to receive the infant church than the first century A.D..” (Green, 13).

It was at this juncture that Jesus and John the Immerser came saying, “The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15). According to the Son of God himself, the time had come to fulfill God’s kingdom prophecies. As Bruce says, “These words express, among other things, the assurance that an ardently desired new order, long since foretold and awaited, was now on the point of realization.”269 It was this critical first century generation that God chose to send His Son, to bring man back to Him. John, Jesus and Paul all believed that man’s schemes had reached their end, and the time had come for God to act.

Thus, Paul’s statement that Jesus appeared at just the right time, is significant. It has tremendous implications for the millennial view that Jesus came on a mission from God, but, being rejected, did something else, i.e. the church, instead. Paul’s concept of Jehovah was that He was omniscient, and able to correctly choose the right time to send His Son.

168

As we proved earlier in this work, the rejection of Jesus on the part of the Jews did not catch Jehovah off guard, or cause Him to go to “Plan B.” The Lord had allowed man to devise his own salvation, proving to himself his utter weakness. Then, in His Sovereign, Divine, Omniscience, God sent His Son, at just the right time!

Whereas MacArthur says it is heresy to reject the idea of a physical return of Jesus, we would suggest that there is nothing quite so serious as the suggestion that God planned to do something, but could not do so because He miscalculated man’s response! Is the God of the Bible really so ignorant as to not know what was going to happen to His Son? Could he look down the stream of time, and think that He had chosen the right time, but then, lo, and behold, He was wrong? Could He have miscalculated so badly? Could He have mis-read the times so badly?

Jesus chided Israel for not being able to read the signs of the time (Matthew 16). Are we to believe that the God of heaven, the God of Time itself, was so tragically wrong that, after His Heavenly Counsel, He sent His Son, thinking it was the right time, when in fact, it was so wrong that His Son was killed? And make no mistake about it, if the Bible says Jesus came at the right time to accomplish God’s purpose, and of course it does, then, if he could not accomplish his task, it must not have been the right time after all! Thus, if the millennialist is right, that Jesus came to establish the kingdom, but could not do it because the Jews rejected him, then, it was not the right time! This can only mean that the Bible, it means that God, was wrong to say that Jesus came at the right time! There is no escaping this.

What kind of a God would be so incapable of proper calculation, in regard to such a profound purpose, that He could fail so miserably? Do we not have the right to at least raise a question about heresy in regard to this God demeaning doctrine?

There is no need for God to allow another long period of time to allow man to develop his own schemes, to demonstrate his need for a Savior. God has already done that! Any view that suggests there has to be another long period of time of preparation flies in the face of the Biblical testimony that God was going to consummate His work of redemption very quickly, “A short work will the Lord make on the earth” (Romans 9:28); “Now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed” Romans 13:11f); “he who has begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6).

It must be noted that if God was able, correctly, to determine the “fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4), and then cause that Gospel of His Son’s death to be proclaimed “at the right time” (Titus 1:3), then it is illogical to suggest that He was not able to choose the right time to send His Son to establish the Kingdom. The fact that the NT writers affirm, repeatedly, that God acted at just the right time, refutes MacArthur’s contention that God has delayed the parousia, until just the right time comes. Jesus did come at just the right time to initiate the Kingdom work, and was coming back very soon to perfect and consummate what He had begun.

We must notice a final point. MacArthur insists that the time of the harvest is still future (Revelation 14:15). Yet, the Bible is clear that the time of harvest was to be at the end of the Jewish Age. We have shown this already on Matthew 13:39f. John the Immerser said the instruments of harvest were already in Jesus’ hand (Matthew 3:10f), and Jesus said, “Do you not say within yourselves, there are four months, and then the harvest. The fields are ripe already unto harvest” (John 4:35f). He told his disciples that the harvest was already ripe and plentiful (Matthew 9:36f). Jesus himself was the firstfruits, and the firstfruits indicates that the time of the harvest has come! It does not mean the harvest will come season after season later!

The Hebrew writer affirmed, “In a very, very little while, the One who is coming, will come, and will not delay” (Hebrews 10:37). In spite of this, and other repeated affirmations that the parousia was not to be delayed, modern commentators feel compelled, because of their belief that Christ did not keep his promise of the soon to come parousia, that they must explain why He did in fact, delay! MacArthur asks, “Why then the delay?” (211), when the inspired text said there would be no delay!

169

MACARTHUR’S REASON FOR DELAY #2: THAT GOD MIGHT DISPLAY HIS PATIENCE

MacArthur asks, “Why is it that Christ has not long, long ago returned in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not His Gospel?” His answer is, “God is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish” (p. 214). What MacArthur overlooks is that in the NT, while we read of the patience of God, that patience had extended to the far distant past, but would now be exhausted in the very near future. It also presents the idea that the reason for God’s patience running out was the persecution of His saints!

See again Romans 3:25. Paul says that God’s forbearance was manifested in the fact that He had passed over the sins committed in the past. Likewise, in Acts 17:30-31, the apostle spoke of the sins of the past, and says, “The times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men, everywhere to repent, for He has appointed a Day in which He is about to (from µέλλει),270 judge the world in righteousness.” Again,His patience was extended to the past generations, but was now all but exhausted because He was about to bring judgment!

Notice again the idea of patience in some of the passages we have studied above. Matthew 21-- The story of the Wicked Husbandman, The master of the Vineyard definitely manifested a patience beyond normal. Yet the time

had come, with the murder of His Son, that His patience and longsuffering was exhausted. He had been very patient in the past, and manifested His patience still, but the end of that magnanimity was near.

Matthew 22-- The Story of the Wedding. What patience the Father exhibited even though His servants (the prophets) were mistreated and even slain. Clearly, the time of patience was quickly running out!

Matthew 23-- Jesus’ Temple Discourse, recounting the long history of Israel in killing the prophets is full of pathos and patience. God had allowed Israel to continually kill His servants, and now, even the Son had to cry, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee! How often I would have gathered your children together to me, as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but, you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate!” The time of patience had extended far back, even centuries. Now, however, patience was just about spent. That longsuffering would be exhausted in Jesus’ generation. Luke 18:1-8-- The Story of the Importunate Widow. Jesus told the story of the persistent widow, who continually pleaded with the Judge to avenge her. Finally, he did so. Jesus’ point to his disciples was that they were about to fall into tribulation so difficult that they would wish that they could see one of the peaceful former days of the Son of Man (Luke 17:22). They would not see such peaceful times again however. Thus, they were to pray for relief and vindication. And, Jesus said, “will not the Lord avenge His elect who cry out to him day and night, though he bear long with them? I tell you He will avenge them speedily.” In this text, Jesus includes the suffering elect who were and would cry for vengeance. His promise was that they would be avenged quickly! Matthew 23 tells us in no uncertain terms that this would be in that generation. Thus, the patience of God, while it had been longsuffering, was going to be depleted in that generation.

2 Thessalonians 1:4f-- Paul says that God’s patience toward the persecutors of His elect was about to run out, and that they were to receive tribulation, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.” It must be remembered that it was the Jews who were responsible for this persecution

God has never tested the patience of His saints by failing to keep His word at the time promised!

170

(1 Thessalonians 2:15). Their history of killing the prophets, Jesus, and now the apostles had all but emptied the Lord’s reserves of longsuffering. Judgment, the Wrath to come, was almost there.

Revelation-- The story of Revelation is, as shown, about the judgment of the city, “where the Lord was slain,” (Revelation 11:8), the city guilty of shedding the blood of the prophets and apostles (Revelation 16:6f; 18:20, 24). It is the city that was quickly now filling up the measure of her guilt for slaying God’s elect. Matthew 23 tells us that this can be no other city than Jerusalem, the city that God’s patience had endured for centuries, but now, her time was running out. Once again, the concept of God’s patience looked backward to a long period of long-suffering, and to the first century present when that longsuffering was spent.

In each of these cases and others that could be cited, the longsuffering of God that is the focus deals with a long prior history of testing God’s patience. He had patiently endured rebellion and sin. However, those NT passages that deal with His longsuffering also suggest that the time of patience had all but run out. There is no NT passage that extends God’s patience into a long indefinite future from the first century generation!

It is, therefore, improper exegesis for MacArthur to posit a delay in the Lord’s coming because He is still patient with mankind.

MACARTHUR’S REASON FOR DELAY #3: IN ORDER TO FULLY TEST THE FAITH OF HIS OWN PEOPLE

MacArthur asserts that it has always been God’s method to test the faith of His people, and in this he is partially correct. However, he makes a totally wrong application of his point!

The question is asked, “Why those years of waiting before Abraham received Isaac? Why that protracted bondage in Egypt when the chosen people groaned beneath the burdens imposed on them by their cruel taskmasters? Why those four centuries of silence between the ministries of Malachi and John the Baptist?” (p. 214) Actually, the answer to all of the above questions is easy, and totally scriptural. In each of the cases cited, God waited, because He had set the appointed time for fulfillment, and the time had not come!

Why the long wait waiting for the promised son to be born? Well, when the time was set, the promise was fulfilled on time (Genesis 17:21; 21:2). God did not test the faith of Abraham and Sarah by telling them something was going to happen“ soon,” “quickly,” and “without delay,” and then not keep his promise. Adonai told Abraham that in a year from the promise he would have a son, and a year later, Abraham had a son. To suggest that Jehovah tested Abraham’s faith by promising to give a son at a certain time, and then decided to test Abraham’s faith by not giving a son by the promised date, is specious. It misrepresents the Biblical testimony, not to mention the nature of God.

Likewise, Jehovah told Abraham that his descendants would spend four generations in Egypt (Genesis 15:16) and that while there they would be captives. What is so important is that “when the time for the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham,” God raised up Moses, in the promised fourth generation, and led Israel out of Egypt just as the Lord had promised. God kept His promise on time! God set the time for deliverance. He proclaimed the time of the deliverance. And, He kept His word. He did not delay to test the faith of His people by failing to deliver them when He said He would!

Why the four hundred year silence between Malachi and Matthew? Simply put, it was because the time appointed by the prophet (Daniel 2:44; 9:24f), had not yet come. That period was not a time of delay. It was part of the predicted countdown to the last days. It was part and parcel of the prophetic schema. To suggest that it was a delay in God’s plan, in order to test the faith of His people, is to suggest that the 70 weeks foretold by Daniel was unrelated to the countdown. Yet, Jesus’ statement that “the time is fulfilled” indicates, not a delay in fulfillment, but that God’s actions were exactly on time!

171

James addressed the issue of faith, patience and the parousia. He addressed first century saints undergoing severe times of trial. They were being persecuted for their faith (James 1:2; 2:6-7; 5:6-11). He encourages them amid that persecution, “Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming (parousia) of the Lord...You also be patient, because the coming of the Lord has drawn near...The Judge is standing right at the door...take my brethren, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience” (James 5:7-10).

James urged his contemporaries to be patient, as the Old Covenant prophets had been patient. However, it was not a patience that understood that the promised vindication might take a long time! It was a patience that was provided by the assurance that the parousia was in fact near, it was so near that they would live until that event! The suggestion that God was trying the patience of these saints by not coming, as promised, in relief of their suffering is foreign to the text.

Finally, consider 1 Peter in regard to the question of the trying of the patience of the saints. The apostle wrote to those in the midst of on-going persecution, and said that persecution was “trying” (from dokimos) their faith (1 Peter 1:5-7). As already noted, the connection between Daniel 12, and Peter must not be missed. Daniel foretold the last days, the time of the end (kairos sunteleias, LXX), when “many must be tested and thoroughly whitened, and tried with fire, and sanctified” (Daniel 12:10). The trials would lead them to the eternal inheritance (12;3, 12-13), and all of these things were to occur in the time when “the power of the holy people has been completely shattered” (12:7).

Peter wrote “in these last times” (eschatou ton kronon, 1:20), to those being sanctified (1:2), by being put through “manifold temptations” (poikilois peirasmois, many trials, 1:6). These trials were purifying their faith as gold tried by fire (1:7), so that they might receive the eternal inheritance (1:3-5) which was ready to be revealed (1:5-6). Peter wrote just a short time before the destruction of Israel, and said he was living in the days foretold by the prophets (1:10-12).

What Daniel had foretold for the last days was now being revealed and accomplished in Peter’s day. Daniel did not say that the patience of the saints would be accomplished by non-fulfillment or the delay of fulfillment, of God’s promises. He had said the faith of the saints would be tried by persecution in the last days, and Peter said that time had come. To suggest that God was going to test the faith of His saints by failing to keep His promises on time is to miss the point of Daniel’s prediction. On the contrary, Daniel set a time frame for the fulfillment of his promises, and if God did not fulfill those promises within that time frame--when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (Daniel 12:7)--then one cannot explain it away as His attempt to try the patience of the saints. It must be called one thing, and that is failure.

MacArthur poses another question, “Why did God permit knowledge of the Blessed Hope to be recovered almost a hundred years ago, and still the Bridegroom tarries?” The answer is that the truth of the Blessed Hope was not recovered almost a hundred years ago, unless one considers the work of J. S. Russell who wrote The Parousia, in which he set forth the truth that Christ did indeed come when he said he would. At the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Of course, this is not what MacArthur had in mind.

What he had in mind was the work of J. N. Darby, followed by Scofield and others. Yet, to be blunt, these men did not rediscover the truth of the Lord’s coming. They invented a contrived, tortured eschatological scheme that ignores the Biblical statements about Israel and the church, imposes a rigid literalism on the Biblical text, flatly denies inspired Biblical statements, and accuses the God of heaven of abject failure. They invented an eschatological paradigm in which, every single generation since, its proponents have said that, without fail, theirs was the generation that would see the end of the age, and the literal bodily coming of Jesus to establish an earthly kingdom. Yet, their predictions continue to fail.

However, men such as Lindsey, Hunt, Jeffrey, Impe, Hagee, et. al. continue to trumpet the loud and confident assertions that Jesus will definitely come in this generation.271 Lindsey continues to write books that flatly contradict his earlier writings, and the Christian public

God has never tested the faith of His children by failing to keep His promises to them on time!

172

seems blissfully unaware, or unwilling to hold him accountable. We suggest that it is high time for the Bible believing, God loving community to hold such men accountable for their continued failures. It is not

God that is testing His followers when men continually make false predictions! God said when a man made a prediction and it did not come true, that the man was not sent by Him (Deuteronomy 18:18f). Yet, Impe, Lindsey, Jeffrey, etc. have all made, and continue to make false predictions, and they justify their failures on the ground that God is testing His people!

God has never tested His people by making false prophecies to them. It does not test the faith of a people to make promises and not keep them. It destroys faith, because it shows that the one in whom you had trusted is not trustworthy.

For MacArthur to suggest that Jesus does not come when He promised to, because God wants to test the faith of His people, is sadly misguided. It fails to consider that while God has tested the faith of His people in times past, He has never done so by failing to keep His promises on time!

MacArthur’s three reasons for why Jesus delays his coming are specious. They are not based either on good logic, or solid exegesis. They are in fact, contrary to scriptural truth.

173

CHAPTER 14 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

MacArthur’s book is in response to what he calls the “hyper-preterist” movement, what he calls “heresy of the worst stripe” (p. 13). He says the idea that Christ has already returned, “Is exactly like that of Hymenaeus and Philetus...Paul was not reluctant to speak plainly about the seriousness of such soul-destroying error. Nor should we be hesitant to point out the dangers posed by such serious departure from biblical truth” (p. 13). The charge that Covenant Eschatology is a resurrection (small pun), and rehash of the Hymenaean Heresy is a serious charge indeed, and calls for a response.

THE CHARGE OF HYMENAEAN HERESY MacArthur is not alone in labeling Covenant Eschatology a heresy in the likeness of Hymenaeus. On the Internet site

<www.chalcedon.edu/report/97jul/s03.htm> dated February 14, 1999, Andrew Sandlin cites 2 Timothy 2:17f, and calls the full preterist view Hymenaeus Resurrected. He calls full preterists heretical preterists. At the R. C. Sproul Prophecy conference in Florida, February 1999, Keith Matheson also appealed to 2 Timothy 2 to condemn what he called the Hymenaean heresy.

In 2 Timothy 2, Paul told Timothy that Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching, “that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.” Is Covenant Eschatology a revival of the Hymenaean Heresy, or are those who appeal to this text guilty of a hermeneutic of anachronism? We will consider several areas of study to answer this question.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? One of the most critical questions about 2 Timothy seems to have escaped the notice of the adversaries of Covenant Eschatology. If the

resurrection is a time ending, earth burning event, when the material body of every person who has ever lived is instantaneously reconstructed and raised out of the ground, not to mention the sea, just how in the name of reason could anyone convince anyone that this had already occurred?272 Paul dealt with the same issue in Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

When Paul confronted error he always met issues head on, and went for the jugular. If Hymenaeus was teaching the wrong concept of the resurrection, how easily Paul could have negated him by showing that he was teaching the wrong kind of resurrection! Paul could have said, “Brethren, the resurrection is a physically observable event! Hymenaeus is teaching that it is a spiritual event. Hymenaeus does not even understand the nature of the resurrection!” But he did not do this! Why? The only reason can be that Paul and Hymenaeus were essentially on the same page in regard to the nature of the resurrection. Hymenaeus just had the chronology wrong! Paul did not correct the concept of the parousia/resurrection, he corrected the chronology!

Is it not abundantly clear that Hymenaeus was not saying that time had ended? He was not saying earth had burned up, he was not saying all of the physically dead had come out of the ground. As Bruce says, “It cannot be supposed that the Thessalonians...could have been misled...that the events of 1 Thessalonians had taken place.”273 How true if one insists on a literal fulfillment of 1 Thessalonians 4! Thus, as Knight suggests, “Their teaching apparently related the resurrection only to the inner spiritual life.”274

The fact that Paul corrected Hymenaeus’ chronology, and not his concept of the nature of the resurrection, is absolutely critical to any discussion of 2 Timothy, and yet, it is totally ignored by those who oppose Covenant Eschatology. It is time for those who would appeal to 2 Timothy 2 to try to explain how it is possible, given their literalistic view of resurrection, that anyone could believe that it had already happened!

174

THE ISSUES INVOLVED Another issue that has seemingly escaped the attention of those who attempt to use 2 Timothy 2 against Covenant Eschatology is verse 19. Paul

continues his discussion of the Hymenaean controversy by giving encouragement to those in Ephesus, “Nevertheless, the foundation of God stands, having this seal: ‘The Lord know those who are His,’ and, ‘Let every one who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

Knight and others have noted that Paul quotes here from the LXX275 of Numbers 16 and the rebellion of Korah.(NIGTC, 415). What relationship does that rebellion have to the situation in Ephesus?

The issue in Numbers was one of authority, a question of identity (Numbers 16:3-5). Was Moses to be the sole leader, or would others share in that authority? The issue in Timothy was, “Nevertheless,...The Lord knows who are His” (2 Timothy 2:19). It is a question of identity. At this juncture, we need to look a little closer at Hymenaeus to see the significance of Paul’s assurances in 2 Timothy 2:19.

WHO WAS HYMENAEUS AND WHERE DID HIS TEACHING COME FROM?

Was Hymenaeus a gnostic as proposed by Adam Clark?276 Lenski says this proposal is fairly common but claims the gnostic philosophy, “does not extend back into Paul’s time.”277 There is some debate about Lenski’s claims. However, we suggest that Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers.

The Judaizers accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They accepted the church as the kingdom. They also clung tenaciously to the Old Law, Old Jerusalem, and the Old Cultus. They, therefore, believed that the promised Messiah and His New World was inclusive of the Old.

The Judaizers, e.g. Hymenaeus, insisted that Old Covenant Israel’s things continued valid, that the Old World identified the true people, with the addition of Jesus as Messiah. The Judaizers believed that Israel remained the chosen seed, and that Gentiles had to be incorporated into that Old World. They believed that Gentiles could only find their identity as children of God by inclusion into Israel’s Old World. Therefore, they demanded that the Gentile converts, “keep the Law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved” (Acts 15:2).

Paul, however, knew, “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6f), that circumcision is that of the heart and not the flesh (Romans 2:28f). The question had to be settled as to whether the Old World remained as the chosen, or if Jehovah was in the process of creating a new people with a New Name (Isaiah 65:13-19). Who was the True Seed (Galatians 4:22f)?

The Old World could not deliver from death, it was the strength of sin (Romans 7:7f), and the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:6f). The Law was weak through the flesh, and could never deliver from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-4). While it was perfect for the purposes intended, the Law was imperfect to save (Romans 5:21; Galatians 3:32-21; Hebrews 8). For the Judaizers, therefore, to insist that Christ’s New World was inclusive of the Old Law was destructive to the salvation by grace that Paul taught.

The “resurrection,” Christ’s New World of Life and righteousness, could not be complete while the Old World remained (Hebrews 9:6-10). For Hymenaeus to suggest that the New World was perfected, inclusive of the Old World, was to say that the resurrection was past, and over throw the faith of some by insisting on the continued observance of the Old Law. It was to continue in Law, and not go on to Grace, and they could never be perfected by the Law (Galatians 3:1-5).

The controversy therefore, between the Judaizers and Paul was a question of identity, one of authority, just like the story of Korah. How was the controversy with Korah settled? We return to Numbers 16, where Paul has taken us.

175

GOD’S SIGN OF SON SHIP In the rebellion of Korah, Jehovah told Moses to inform the people, “Depart now from the tents of these wicked men! Touch nothing of theirs, lest

you be consumed in all their tents” (Numbers 16:26). The Lord would give a sign to settle the issue of His chosen. Moses said, “If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go alive into the pit, then you will understand that these men have rejected the Lord@ (Numbers 16:29f). (Interestingly, God calls the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70 an “unusual act,” meaning it would be something they did not expect, Isaiah 28:21.) As Moses said, “The Lord will show who is His, and who is holy” (Numbers 16:5). The Lord would settle the question about the identity of His chosen by bringing judgment on the rebellious!

The issue of Son ship is the burning issue in much of the New Testament. In Romans, Paul taught that the Abrahamic seed of the flesh was not true Israel (Romans 2:28f; 9:6f). In Galatians 4, his famous allegory is about Son ship, who are the chosen seed of Abraham? Is it the physical seed of Abraham or the spiritual? Paul’s declaration is emphatic, The Jerusalem that now is, and is in bondage with her children” (Galatians 4:25), was Israel according to the flesh, and was to be cast out (Galatians 4:30). In Philippians 3:3f, Paul addresses the church and says, “We are the circumcision,” a contrast and claim against the Judaizers as well as Israel.

The issue is Son ship and identity is in Revelation also. Jesus assured the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia that He was aware of their conflict with the synagogue of Satan and, “those who say they are Jews, but are not, for they are liars” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). The Lord assured them He was about to come and, “I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (3:9). The fall of Babylon, the city “where the Lord was slain” would be the ultimate sign of the identity of God’s true people278 The Lord would bring judgment on those claiming to be the Sons of God, but who were in fact, rebellious against God’s chosen.

Camp noted, “The fall of Jerusalem settled the question as to who are the sons of God. The struggle between the Jews, Judaizing teachers, and the apostles, especially the apostle Paul, runs through all the epistles.”279 The truth of this can hardly be denied, and there can be no doubt that in 2 Timothy 2:17-19, one of the issues is the identity of the Sons of God, for Paul takes note of Hymenaeus and then says “Nevertheless, God knows who are His” (my emp.). Paul was saying that in spite of Hymenaeus’ claims, God knows His children.

Thus, Paul’s use of Numbers contains the implicit but clear warning of impending judgment on the “false children.” Just as God gave Israel a sign, the destruction of Korah and his followers, that identified the true Sons of God, He was about to give another sign to confirm the identity of the True Israel. He would destroy the Old World, thus removing any argument of the Judaizers, Hymenaeus and his followers, not to mention the Jews, for maintaining that the Old World remained the focus of God’s attention.280 The Judaizer’s argument that God had completed His work, that the resurrection had been perfected and included the Old World, would be definitively shown to be false.

THE TIME AND NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION How would it be possible for Hymenaeus to teach what he did? Hymenaeus clearly thought he had support for his views. Was not Jesus the

firstfruits from the dead, and if the firstfruits had come, then had not the harvest time arrived? Did not Paul, himself, proclaim that resurrection from the dead was a present reality (Romans 6:3-5, 9-11; Ephesians 2:1-5; Philippians 3:9-16; Colossians 2:12-13; 3:1f)? Had Paul, himself, not told the Romans “reckon yourselves to be alive from the dead” (Romans 6:11)? Had he not told the Colossians that they had risen with Christ? Hymenaeus, therefore, ostensibly had somewhat of a case, for as King has well stated, “The question is not whether the eschatological resurrection had begun, but whether it was a completed or consummated work of the quickening Spirit?”

176

Did Hymenaeus have grounds for saying the time for the resurrection had come? Indeed. He knew Jesus had come at the end of the age (Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 9:26), and that the resurrection was to occur at the time of the end (Daniel 12:2-4). Thus, the time for the resurrection was present! He could hardly have been unaware that even Paul said, “the end of the ages has come upon us” (1 Corinthians 10:11). Was he not also aware that Peter said Jesus was, “ready (Greek, hetoimos281) to judge the living and the dead”? (1 Peter 4:5), and “the time has come for the judgment to begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17)? Thus, Jesus and his apostles clearly taught that the time for the resurrection was present.

In addition, Daniel predicted that the end time resurrection was to be associated with the judgment of Israel (Daniel 12:2-7). Scripture is clear that Israel’s salvation would come through judgment (Isaiah 4:4; Joel 2-3; Zechariah 12-14).

In Isaiah 24-25, Jehovah promised that at the time of the judgment of the “city of confusion” (24:10), for breaking “the everlasting covenant” (24:5), He would “swallow up death forever” (25:8). Thus, resurrection and the judgment of Israel are inextricably linked in prophecy. Hymenaeus even had a Jerusalem catastrophe to substantiate his claim that, if resurrection was associated with judgment on Jerusalem, then it had, in fact, occurred!

Actually, there were two events in Jerusalem that might have been used to convince the Thessalonians and Ephesians the day of the Lord had already come. Josephus282 says that sometime between 48-52 A. D. there was a riot in the Temple area of Jerusalem in which over 30,000 people were trampled to death in one day. Earlier, between 39-41 AD, occurred the infamous incident in which Caligula commanded that his statue be erected in the Temple at Jerusalem. This incident brought the nation to the brink of war.283 Either event, or both combined, could have been the basis of the claims of Hymenaeus. The incident involving Caligula's statue could have been understood as fulfillment of Paul’s teaching about the son of perdition (II Thessalonians 2:3-5), and the catastrophe involving all the deaths could have been understood as Christ's wrath on the Temple. Thus, the time was right, and events in Jerusalem suggested that the time had actually come!

But, Hymenaeus had even more evidence. The resurrection is inseparably linked with the establishment of the kingdom. This fact is sadly, and egregiously, missed by the amillennialist. Yet Scripture is plain, death would be destroyed when Jehovah established His rule in Zion (Isaiah 24-25)!

John saw the vision of the resurrection as the time when, “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15). Daniel saw the time when the books were opened as the time when the Son of Man received the kingdom (Daniel 7:9-14). John saw the time of the opening of the books as the time of the resurrection (Revelation 20:12f).284 Paul said Christ was about to (mello), “judge the living and the dead at His appearing and kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1), and the judgment of the nations is depicted as the time when the Son would “sit on the throne of His glory” (Matthew 25:31f). Thus, the kingdom and resurrection are Siamese twins. They cannot be separated.

When Jesus came proclaiming, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mark 1:15), this was nothing less than a declaration that the time for the resurrection had come. This is confirmed in the Immerser’s message. He proclaimed the imminence of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2), and said the instruments of the harvest were already in Jesus’ hand (Matthew 3:10f). The harvest is the time of the resurrection (Matthew 13:36-40)! If Hymenaeus knew this, and how could he not, then he knew that Christ himself said the resurrection would occur in that generation!

If the kingdom and the resurrection are related, what then is the nature of the resurrection? Is it discernible with the human eye? Why did Paul not tell Hymenaeus and the Ephesians, “My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing, Hymenaeus!”? Why did Paul not tell his readers to go to the cemetery and open their eyes? Because the resurrection is associated with the kingdom, it is not a visibly discernible event!

Jesus was approached by the Pharisees, who believed in a physical resurrection, and asked, “when the kingdom of God would come” (Luke 17:20). Jesus’ response is critical, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation.” If the kingdom and the resurrection are inseparably linked, and the kingdom is not with observation, why is the resurrection a visible event?

177

When Paul discussed the resurrection change from the outward man that was perishing to the inner man, “not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” in 2 Corinthians 4-5, he said, “we do not look on the things that are seen, but at the things that are unseen” (2 Corinthians 4:16f). This is an emphatic declaration that the resurrection was not to be a visibly discernible event! This is confirmed by Paul’s trial and conflict with the Pharisees.

In Acts 23:6f, Paul was on trial before the Sanhedrin. He ostensibly associated himself with the Pharisees in believing in the resurrection. The Pharisees accepted that testimony to such an extent that they initially sought to release Paul. However, just seven days later, the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection, were now seeking Paul’s life (Acts 24:13), because of Paul’s views on the resurrection! Why the radical change?285 We suggest that just as the Jews longed for the kingdom, but rejected Jesus when they discovered He was offering a kingdom that would not come with observation, the Pharisees, who initially welcomed Paul’s declaration of belief in the resurrection, soon discovered that Paul, like his Lord, was not offering the kind of kingdom and resurrection they desired! If Paul was preaching the resurrection the Pharisees wanted, why did they want to kill him for preaching the resurrection? Do you fire the preacher for preaching what you want to hear?

It is clear, therefore, that Jesus and Paul did not preach the kind of visible, discernible kingdom and resurrection desired by the Pharisees. They proclaimed, “The kingdom (and thus resurrection, DKP) does not come with observation” (Luke 17:20f). Hymenaeus proclaimed an accomplished spiritual resurrection. It is critical to state again that Paul did not correct Hymenaeus’ concept of the nature of the resurrection, and this is because Paul also proclaimed a spiritual resurrection.

Thus, for Hymenaeus, the words of Jesus, the testimony of Paul, the resurrection of Jesus, the arrival of the prophesied time, and historical events all seemed to suggest that the resurrection had indeed occurred. The resurrection did involve judgment on Israel, but what happened in 39-49 A.D. did not qualify as the destruction of the power of the holy people required by Daniel 12. The resurrection was “spiritual,” and involved conversion and the establishment of the body of Christ (Romans 6; Colossians 2, etc.).286 But, there was a futuristic element being ignored by Hymenaeus (Romans 6:5; Colossians 3:2-4). The resurrection did involve Old Covenant Israel, but it meant the dissolution of that old shadow world, not the inclusion into Christ’s New World. Hymenaeus had his timing off, and believed that Christ’s New Order included the Old World!

MacArthur and others use 2 Timothy 2:17-19 to refute Covenant Eschatology. Yet in doing so they are guilty of the worst sort of “proof texting.” They find a verse that sounds impressive, and use it to their advantage without investigating the true context. Those using this text to prove a yet future resurrection are failing to explain how anyone, given the literalistic view of resurrection, could believe it had already happened. They are ignoring the Biblically defined time for the resurrection, the first century. They take a text that was written just prior to the prophesied time of fulfillment, and insist that if it was future then it must be future now! The operative principle seems to be “once future, always future.” That is a hermeneutic of anachronism! They are ignoring the true context of the resurrection, the last days of Israel, and the time of her judgment. They are failing to see how Paul’s citation of the book of Numbers relates to the controversy with Hymenaeus. They are failing to give proper import to the relationship of the kingdom and the resurrection, and they are failing to see that Jesus and Paul emphatically stated that the kingdom and the resurrection were not optically discernable events.

To attempt to utilize 2 Timothy 2:17-19 to negate Covenant Eschatology is, therefore, unscholarly and specious. The failure to honor the true issues at stake in 2 Timothy 2 is leading to the false accusation of the resurrection of the Hymenaean Heresy. The proper understanding of these verses supports the A.D. 70 parousia and resurrection.

MacArthur and the others cited have used strong words in condemning the advocates of Covenant Eschatology. To accuse fellow Bible students of “heresy of the worst stripe” is very serious indeed. Those of us who espouse the preterist view believe firmly in the resurrection of Jesus, his Deity, and the inspiration of scriptures, as this work plainly shows. Whereas MacArthur feels compelled to condemn, perhaps it is time for him to

178

meet, in open public discussion, qualified representatives on the other side of the fence, so that the Bible believing audience can determine for themselves what is heresy and what is not.

It is disturbing to read MacArthur’s book. One can only wonder at some of his statements. He claims that hyper-preterists, “deny that Jesus truly ascended into heaven in bodily form” (1999, 12). To paint the preterist movement with such a broad brush stroke is simply improper. In fact, MacArthur makes several troubling statements that forces one to wonder if he understands the preterist movement at all!

He makes the claim that one Ward Fenley is “arguably hyper-preterism’s most influential author” (1999, 13). Now, while we would not negate the value of Fenley’s single book, to totally ignore the writings of J. S. Russell (1887), or the modern writings of Max R. King of Warren, Ohio,287 not to mention John Noe,288 Ed Stevens,289 Gene Fadeley,290 or this current author,291 is a cause of wonderment. Each of these men have more books than Fenley. Yet, MacArthur identifies Fenley as “arguably hyper-preterism’s most influential author.” The problem here is that MacArthur cites as “the most influential author,” a writer who has written less, and for fewer years, than many other writers espousing the view MacArthur is attacking.

In addition, MacArthur has made claims about what advocates of Covenant Eschatology believe, when the truth is that most advocates of the view do not take the position cited. For instance, I personally did not know of any preterists who deny that Jesus ascended in bodily form in Acts 1, until MacArthur cited Fenley! Another troubling thing is that MacArthur claims, without any documentation whatsoever, that “some extreme hyper-preterists even deny that Christ was raised bodily from the dead.” (1999, 12). Just for the record, this scribe knows not one preterist that denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and would, with MacArthur, consider that to be a very serious error.

One gets the impression that MacArthur, like many a good debater, set about to create a straw man, or to create panic on the part of his readers. If he can accuse the preterist movement of denying that Jesus ascended in bodily form, then this type of argument would turn many from an open investigation of the movement. Or, if he could single out a little known writer, then it would appear that the doctrine had suffered a crushing blow.

Such tactics are common debater’s tricks, but they are hardly becoming of someone that is seriously seeking to find, or defend the truth. What MacArthur needs to do is address the key elements, the fundamental issues, and advocates, of Covenant Eschatology. This he has failed to do.

CHAPTER 15 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study has shown several things about the Second Coming. It has shown that Jesus was given all prerogatives of judgment by the Father, and that he was going to judge in the same manner as the Father had

judged (John 5:19-23). The Father had judged many times in the past, and had even come on the clouds, and destroyed “heaven and earth” many times. Yet, not once had Jehovah ever literally, visibly descended out of heaven on a literal cloud or destroyed the material creation. Invariably, when Jehovah came, He came by means of instrumentality, i.e. by using an army, locust invasion, hail storms, etc. to invade and destroy a people that had become the objects of His wrath.

The purpose of Christ’s parousia would be to reveal him as Lord, as God (John 5, Matthew 24:30; 1 Timothy 6, Titus 2, etc). Scripture clearly affirms that Jesus could not be revealed in the flesh again (2 Corinthians 5:16). God is invisible, God is spirit, and spirit does not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). Thus, Jesus could not come in a fleshly body to be revealed as man.

The attempts to prove that Jesus must someday come again in the flesh fail to take these facts into consideration.

179

When scripture affirms that Jesus was to come “in the glory of the Father,” and that the Father had given all judgment to the Son, so that the Son would henceforth judge in the same manner as the Father had judged, these are statements that demand a radical re-evaluation of the traditional view of the Second Coming.

We have examined the doctrine of the Second Coming as it relates to the martyr vindication, and shown that the Bible is crystal clear as to the time and place where “all of the righteous blood shed on the earth” would be avenged. That time and place was at the end of the Old Covenant Age that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

We have examined the Biblical doctrine of the salvation of Israel that was to occur at the end of the age, and shown that Israel would be saved through eschatological transformation. She was to be changed from the shadow to the reality. That transformation would occur in the Day of the Lord, when Israel was judged for shedding the blood of the martyrs.

We have shown that scripture posits the coming of the Lord at the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel (Acts 3/ Hebrews 9), instead of at the end of the Christian Age. We have shown that the context of the coming of Christ is that of Covenant Transformation, not the end of material creation.

The Transfiguration experience was a vision of Jesus’ parousia according to Peter. Yet, what the disciples saw on the Mount, and what John saw on Patmos, in no way resembles the “in like manner” argument based on Acts 1. The vision revealed Christ’s epiphany to be at the time of the change from the Law and the Prophets to the New Covenant World. The parousia shows that Biblical eschatology is Covenant Eschatology.

We have examined the arguments offered for why Jesus must return to earth in the flesh, and shown that those arguments fail to consider the nature of Christ’s second birth, the nature of His kingdom, and the purpose of the parousia. The purpose of Christ’s apocalypsis would be to reveal Him as King of kings and Lord of lords, not to reveal Jesus as a man! It was to reveal Him as God. As such, He could not be revealed in the flesh.

Jesus was to come--and he did come!-- as the Father had come, by His sovereign act of judgment against the Old Covenant World of Israel in A.D. 70. By using the Romans as His instrument of wrath, Jesus was demonstrated to be Divine, to be Deity, to be God.292

When scripture affirms that Christ was to come in the glory of the Father, as we have seen, this has incredible Christological and Eschatological implications. McKnight has touched the hem of the garment by suggesting, “Until we tie the surviving remnant, the church, into Jesus’ predictions about both salvation and judgment, in connection with A. D. 70, his teaching about God, ethics, and kingdom cannot be given their proper historical significance.” (1999, 13)

We believe it is time for the modern church to re-examine the purpose and significance of the fall of Jerusalem, its relationship to the Deity of Christ, and the nature of the parousia. The popular views of eschatology see little or no relationship between these subjects. This is a tragedy of major proportions however, because, Biblically, these subjects cannot be divorced from one another.

180

END NOTES

1. John MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Coming and the End of the Age (Wheaton, Ill, Crossways, 1999)121

2. Grant Jeffrey, The Triumphant Return, (Toronto, Frontier Publications, 2001)78

3. In addition to MacArthur and Jeffrey’s books, on January 24, 2002, I had a radio debate with Thomas Ice, station KJSL, the Salt and Light Program. During that debate, Ice repeatedly called me a heretic, and revealed that he and Tim LaHaye are working on a 400-500 page book to refute preterism.. Ice said the book is to be released in the summer or fall of 2002. Doubtless, the millennialists are feeling the heat of Covenant Eschatology!

4. Heinrich Wilhelm August Meyers, Meyers Commentary on the New Testament, (New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1884)304

5. Floyd Filson, The Gospel According to Matthew, (London, Adam and Charles Black Publishers, 1971)190

6. R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Leicester, England, Inter-Varsity, 1985)261

7. The Greek word parousia is the normal word for the coming of Christ. In reality, the word does not denote an action of traveling at all. It speaks of the presence of the one under consideration.

8. See the excellent discussion of Kenneth Gentry on Isaiah 13, in his Great Tribulation, Past or Future, (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1999)185+. Gentry demonstrates that Isaiah 13-14 involved two different assaults on Babylon, by Assyria (B. C. 689), and the Medes(B. C. 539).

9. McGuiggan says that Isaiah 19 was written circa 711 to 701 B. C. And that history records that “both Sargon and Sennacherib, Assyrian kings, fought against the armies of Egypt and Ethiopia and both were accorded victories.” Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Isaiah, (Lubbock, Montex, 1985)131

10. See the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988)20. Article on Edom.

11. A very important fact in regard to Jehovah’s use of the nations for the purpose of manifesting His Sovereignty is that the nations He so used just did not get it! He used the Assyrians to judge Israel, yet, the Assyrians thought, and claimed, that it was their gods that gave the victory (Isaiah 10:5f).

12. Theodore Heibert, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, article, “Theophany in the Old Testament,” (New York, DoubleDay, 1992)505

13. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. V, parousia (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1973)865

181

14. Ben Witherington III, Jesus, Paul, and the End of the world, (Downer’s Grove, Ill., Inter-Varsity Press, 1992)151

15. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1982)84

16. Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, Regency Reference Library, Zondervan, 1986)35f

17. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1996)361

18. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974)62

19. John MacArthur, The Second Coming, (Wheaton, Ill., Crossways, 1999)122

20. R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Leicester, England, Inter-Varsity, 1985)261

21. See my Can You Believe Jesus Said This? for a full discussion of Matthew 16:27-28. The work examines the suggestions mentioned for fulfillment, i.e. the Transfiguration, Resurrection, Pentecost, and shows the fallacy of each of these posits. The only event that occurred within the generation of Jesus was his coming in judgment at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, where the Old World of the Law, Sin and Death, was judged, and Christ’s New Covenant World stood triumphant.

22. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, (Grand Rapids, Paternoster, Eerdmans, 1986)188

23. Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, (Tyler, Tx. Institute for Christian Economics, 1992)215+

24. In effect, the millennial view says that Jesus promised that some standing there would live six days to see the promise of a promise! Matthew 16:27-28 is the promise of the Kingdom. Yet, we are told that six days later the disciples saw the Transfiguration that was a powerful visionary promise of the Kingdom! Thus, the Transfiguration becomes a promise of a promise, instead of the fulfillment of the promise.

25. Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999)136

26. We do agree, that the Transfiguration, as we have emphasized, was a vision of the parousia, and thus judgment. It was not however, the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise.

27. Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Israel in National Context (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999); N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, (1992), and, Jesus and The Victory of God, (Minneapolis, fortress, 1996)

28. McKnight immediately adds that contrary to Jesus’ expectations “history took another course.” McKnight insists that this does not

182

mean that Jesus was in error. We would demur, however. If Jesus’ expectations were wrong, then clearly he was wrong!! However, we believe that Jesus, in his eschatological expectation was fully correct to see A.D. 70 as the consummation, and that God’s definitive actions at that time were exactly what God intended. We hold that eschatologically Jesus did not see beyond A.D. 70, but that in regard to history beyond that point, Jesus saw salvation flowing to all men, from that point forever.

29. It is important to note that many postmillennialists do apply Matthew 16:27-28 to the A.D. 70 parousia of Christ. DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, American Vision, 1994)34+ However, most who do so then appeal to passages such as 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13f for proof of a yet future literal parousia at the end of human history. They fail to see that by doing this, they are severing these texts from their mooring in Israel’s eschatological schema, and Paul emphatically declared that his eschatology was nothing but “the hope of Israel” (Acts 24-28).

30. See my Who Is This Babylon? for a fuller discussion of Revelation as the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. The Reformed view--shared by the majority of the amillennial perspective-- of Revelation as a polemic against the Roman Catholic church simply ignores this fundamental fact. Revelation is not about Roman Catholicism or the Pope. It is about the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. This does not exonerate Catholicism from its doctrinal or historical error. It just affirms that the proper hermeneutic for interpreting Revelation is being ignored.

31. It is sometimes argued by opponents of Covenant Eschatology that Caiaphas died before the judgment on Israel. Therefore, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 26:64 could not apply to that event. However, this argument fails to take note of the Greek text. When Caiaphas asked Jesus if he was the Son of God, and Jesus said, “You have said,” the “you” is in the second person singular. However, when Jesus said “And, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds” the word “you” is second person plural. Jesus had turned from Caiaphas and addressed the entire Sanhedrin, warning them that they would see his coming in judgment. Thus, it was not necessary for Caiaphas to personally live to see the event, and he was not the focus of Jesus’ prediction. The Sanhedrin as a body was in view. I am indebted to Ed Stevens of the International Preterist Society for pointing this out to me.

32. Even the reference to the “tribes of the earth” is indicative of judgment on Israel. The word tribes (phule) is used some 26 times in the NT, and almost always refers to the 12 tribes of Israel. In fact, it is safe to say, that unless there is a contextual qualifier that alters the reference, that all uses of phule in the NT are to the tribes of Israel. In Revelation 1:7, coupled with the referent to those who pierced him, the allusion is almost without doubt to the tribes of Israel.

33. MacArthur, Coming,128, completely misses the point when he says that Revelation 1:7 means “Earth’s tribes will ‘mourn’ His coming chiefly because they know that He brings judgment for them, and that judgment is just.” As our previous end note has shown, the word translated as tribes, is phule (φυλε). This word is used only 26 times or so in the NT, and almost invariably refers to the 12 tribes of Israel. It is not a generic universal word. Revelation 1:7 foretold judgment on the tribes of Israel, the nation guilty of slaying the Lord!

34. Other O.T. predictions of the Day of Jehovah that Jesus applies to his coming are Zechariah 14:5/ Matthew 24:31; Joel 2:28-32/ Matthew 24:29. In addition, Paul cites the prophecy of Isaiah 66:15f in 2 Thessalonians 1:7, and other passages as well. Space forbids a

183

fuller development of other prophetic texts. Paul favored the term Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 1:6) and “The Day,” indicating, as Witherington suggests, that for Paul, Jesus was in some very real sense, God.

35. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1980)506

36. Thomas Ice, Prophecy Watch, (Eugene, Ore, Harvest House, 1998)170

37. Wright, Victory, 569

38. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 is a citation of Isaiah 66:15 and the Lord’s coming with fire to judge the wicked. The passage, like Isaiah 2-4, is a prediction of the judgment on Israel. Thus, Paul not only directly quotes from Isaiah 2-4, and its prediction of the last days fall of Jerusalem, he also cites from Isaiah’s prediction of the fall of Jerusalem to bring in the New Heavens and Earth. This is sort of a “double whammy” that demands application of Thessalonians to A.D. 70.

39. Paul S. Minear, New Testament Apocalyptic, (Nashville, Abingdon, 1981)52+

40. Actually Witherington does not believe that Paul predicted the end of human history or the destruction of material creation. He says, “When Paul speaks of ‘the end’ he is not referring to the ‘end of the world’ in the sense of a complete destruction and termination of the earth and universe or the end of all human life or relationships...There can be little doubt that he does envision a future life happening on earth.” (1992, 166).

41. Peter’s statement that the Old Testament prophets were informed that the eschatological salvation was not for their day puts the lie to the oft repeated claim of the “liberal skeptics” who insist that the prophets did believe the end of time was coming in their generation. Peter clearly denies this. Further, this view supports the thesis of this work in that while the Old Testament prophets most assuredly did, very often, say that the Day of the Lord was near, see above, they were not predicting the eschatological and soteriological end envisioned by Peter. They were anticipating the historical actions of Jehovah in the Day of the Lord. In addition to those events that were for their day, they also anticipated the Day of the Lord that was for the last days (Joel 2:28f), in which Jehovah would establish the kingdom. Neither the Day of the Lord that was near in the day of the prophets, nor the Day of the Lord that was to bring the kingdom, involved the end of time. The concept of the Day of the Lord is always the same, remember, Jesus’ coming was to be in the same manner of the Father (John 5). There is not a Day of the Lord in history, and then a Day of the Lord to end history--that is, except the Day of the Lord to end Old Covenant History!

42. The Expositors Greek Testament vol. V, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970)7, says the Greek readers of this word, used in 1 Peter 4:5 to say Jesus was “ready to judge the living and the dead”, would understand Peter to be speaking of “the imminent judge.” In other words, the end was near!

43. Space forbids development of the Biblical theme that Israel’s salvation would only come through eschatological transformation, not national restoration. See my book Who Is This Babylon? for a fuller development of this vitally important concept, one that is totally ignored or denied by the great part of the religious world.

184

44. Graydon, S. Snyder, “The Literalization of the Apocalyptic Form In the New Testament Church,” (Chicago, Chicago Society of Biblical Research) Vol. 15, (1969)5-18 It is fascinating that Snyder faults the early church for the literalization of the apocalyptic form of language, and yet, still maintains, or so it seems, that the actual New Testament writers foretold the end of time. He says, “The problem of the delay of the parousia is a problem only so far as the early community misunderstood and literalized the apocalyptic form”, (meaning they wrongly expected the end of time, DKP). We do believe that literalization of the apocalyptic form is responsible for much of the modern, and ancient misunderstanding of scripture. However, we believe it is misguided to say that the New Testament writers were responsible for that error. In our view, the New Testament writers, by utilizing the standard apocalyptic form of the Old Testament prophets, signaled that the Day of the Lord language was not literal. The fact that later, especially Hellenistic readers, literalized that language is, in our view, more to the point, and cause of much of the later historical confusion of Biblical eschatology.

45. By “spiritual” we do not mean unreal. By spiritual we mean that God did in fact act and was present, but not in the literal sense of the words used to describe the actions. Very often in scripture, events transpired in the spiritual dimension, and could be seen only by those whose eyes had been opened by the Lord (2 Kings 6:16-17). Compare Acts 7 and the vision of Stephen, as well as the experience of Saul. There are many other examples in scripture in which the dimension beyond time and space was revealed, but only by an act of God wherein the eyes of mortals were enabled to see beyond. It is distinctly possible that this occurred in the fall of Jerusalem. See Josephus, Bk. VI, chapter V. He records that chariots and horses were seen in the sky, and that a voice shouted “Let us depart hence!”

46. MacArthur, Coming, introduction

47. See my Can God Tell Time? for a fuller discussion of the objective nature of the Biblical time statements. In that tract, I prove conclusively that when God said something was near, it was fulfilled in the generation to whom the promise was made.

48. It is significant that in his earlier book, The Beginning of the End, (Wheaton, Ill. Tyndale, 1973)148f, LaHaye said “when you follow the rules of Bible interpretation, it is not very difficult to figure out who ‘Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots’ is. The prophets were consistent in their use of prophetic symbols... it means an evil religious system..” Thus, on the one hand LaHaye says the rules of Bible interpretation demands that we interpret literally, and this means that ancient Babylon must be restored. On the other hand, he says if we follow the consistent rules of Bible interpretation, we must see that Babylon is a symbol for false religion! We have the right to ask, does LaHaye now believe in the consistent use of the prophetic symbols or strict literalism?

49. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting the End Times, (Eugene, Ore, Harvest House, 2001)105

50. Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction, A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology, (Atlanta, American Vision,2001)121

51. See the New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988)337+ for an excellent overview of Assyrian history.

52. Jim McGuiggan, The Book of Isaiah, (Lubbock, Montex, 1985)163

53. It is worthy of note that Jesus was thought to be Jeremiah (Matthew 16), and, his favorite description of himself was “Son of man.”

185

This term was God’s favorite for Ezekiel. See my Babylon book for a fuller discussion of the significance of Jesus as the second Ezekiel. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel were prophets of doom on Jerusalem. Jesus recapitulated their ministries! To miss the “living parable” relationship between Jesus, Jeremiah and Ezekiel is to miss much of what Jesus did.

54. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy, (Eugene, Ore, 1997)64+

55. When one pays attention, it becomes apparent that the millennial scheme absolutely demands the restoration/regeneration of many ancient kingdoms. Since the kingdom was to be restored in the days of the Roman Empire, but of course wasn’t per the millennial view, then, naturally they claim that the future will see the Revived Roman Empire. Likewise, Moab, Edom, Ammon, and a host of other historical enemies of Israel, that are the focus of Day of the Lord predictions in the O.T., must be revived if the literalism of millennialism stands true. This incredibly untenable aspect of the millennial view receives scant attention however.

56. Ice and Demy, Prophecy, 105+

57. For an in-depth examination of the significance of the World Mission to eschatology, see my book, Into All the World, Then Comes the End.

58. This truth is devastating to the postmillennial view of Gentry who, as we have seen, holds that the future will see the fulfillment of Matthew 28:18f in an unparalleled manner. However, Matthew 28:18 is the command to do what Matthew 24:14 predicted, and what the disciples said had been fulfilled! See my book Into All the World, Then Comes the End for a fuller discussion of the postmillennial view of the Great Commission.

59. Tim LaHaye, “The Case for the Imminent Rapture of the Church,” internet article of a speech delivered in Dallas, Tx. dated December 2000. Website: www.tyndale.edu/dirn/articles/rapture.html

60. For an extended scholarly discussion of the application of Sharpe’s rule and Titus 2:13, see George Knight III, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Paternoster, Eerdmans, 1992)321

61. As Knight observes, (1992, 322), the text can also be rendered as “the appearing of the glory of the Great God.” Paul’s point is that the parousia would be the manifestation of the Deity of Jesus. He was to come “in the glory of the Father.”

62. William Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46, Pastoral Epistles, (Nashville, Nelson, 2000)425

63. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, American Vision, 1994)185

64. Since Jesus did not come physically, on literal clouds as a literalistic interpretation demands, Ice suggests that we must take the time indicators as “qualitative indicators indicating how Christ will return” (Tribulation, 107), and not indicators of when Jesus was to come. In other words, when the Bible says that Christ was coming “quickly” (Revelation 22:12), this does not mean that his coming was near, it

186

meant that when he finally gets around to coming, he will ride a fast cloud! Gentry powerfully shows that Ice has mishandled the Greek text, and the lexicons, in their debate on the Great Tribulation.

65. In my Babylon book, I demonstrate that the Greek terms that Ice attempts to turn into “qualitative indicators” are in fact, temporal markers. For instance, the Greek term “en tachei.” Ice claims that it means with speed and not soon, and cites Acts 22:18, where Paul is told “make haste, get out of Jerusalem quickly.” Ice claims that the idea is not that Paul was to leave Jerusalem soon, but that the language is “descriptive of the manner in which action takes place.” In other words, Paul did not have to worry about when he left, he was just supposed to take the fastest chariot out of town when he finally got around to leaving!

66. One can only wonder if Jeffrey believes that Isaiah and the prophets thought that Jesus’ second coming was to occur in their lifetime? His contention that the O.T. writers used the language of nearness in the same way that the NT writers did, while admitting that the NT church believed the parousia was to occur in their generation, would seem to demand that Jeffrey believes that the O.T. prophets did, in fact, expect Christ’s coming in their generation. Of course, this flies in the face of Peter’s inspired declaration that the O.T. prophets were told the parousia and end of the age was not for their time (1 Peter 1:10f). This is a serious issue that is not being addressed by the millennialists.

67. It is proper at this juncture to note that MacArthur stands at odds with many other millennialists, and yet he has no qualms about giving the impression of unity with them. For instance, Gentry notes that Jesus said “this gospel of the kingdom must be preached into all the world, then comes the end” (Matthew 24:14). Gentry correctly notes that the disciples could hardly have believed in the “imminent” parousia, if, as the millennialists insist, the Great Commission has not yet been fulfilled. MacArthur counters by citing Acts 19:10; Colossians 1:5-6, 23) as proof that “The gospel had been so widely diffused by the apostles themselves that nothing further necessarily and inevitably intervened between them and the realization of their hope” (1999, 202). Thus, MacArthur essentially is arguing that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century! This flies in the face of the majority of millennial commentators who hold that Matthew 24:14 will not be fulfilled until the Tribulation period. Jeffrey says that the reason why the parousia has been delayed is to “allow the church to fulfill the Great Commission.” (2001, 194). It is exceedingly strange to have a millennialist argue for the fulfillment of the Great Commission. The meaning of this cannot go unnoticed. If the Great Commission was sufficiently fulfilled in the first century to the extent that the disciples could proclaim the nearness of the Lord’s parousia, it does not mean He might come soon, it mean that His coming was truly near. Jesus’ words are emphatic “This gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world, then comes the end” Where is the indication of a 2000 year gap?

68. This text is particularly important since, according to the millennial view, Jesus had actually withdrawn the kingdom offer in chapter 12, when he came to understand the opposition to that offer. Thus, from chapter 12 onward, what we supposedly find is Jesus telling of a postponed kingdom. What Matthew 13 should have said, if this scenario is correct, is, “Many prophets have desired to hear what you have hear. But you reject it, so it will not be proclaimed again for 2000 years!” However, there is no hint of a message of delay here. It is the message that what had been longed for was now being delivered!

69. Pentecost, Things To Come, 470

70. On November 25, 2001, I had a radio debate with Thomas Ice, and quoted from his Prophecy Watch, to the effect that Joel 2 was

187

“partially fulfilled” on Pentecost. This clearly bothered Ice, and he stated that if anyone wanted to know what he “really believes” about Joel, they needed to contact him personally. I continued to quote from his book, and he kept denying that he believed Joel was partially fulfilled and that this was not in his book. I then asked if this meant that he put his name on books with which he disagreed, and he said “Yes!” In follow up correspondence, I documented for Ice the page number of the quote, and he admitted that the book does say what I claimed, but that he had just missed that in the final editing. He then sent me a three page excerpt written by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, saying that it represents what he actually believes about Joel 2/Acts 2. Fruchtenbaum says that “Virtually nothing that happened in Acts 2 is predicted in Joel 2.” This is incredible. Peter says “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” but Ice and Fruchtenbaum, along with virtually all millennialists, have the temerity to say that what Peter actually meant was “This is not that which was spoken by the prophet Joel!” If Peter had wanted to express the fact that Joel was actually being fulfilled that day, we wonder, would Peter’s words have effectively communicated that idea? What is there about what Peter said that indicates that Joel was not being fulfilled?

71. Remember that Thomas Ice fully agrees that Jesus’ prediction of wrath on Israel, foretold in Matthew 23:34-36 is “an undisputed reference to A.D. 70.” (Tribulation, 104) Sproul (1998, 60), says of Matthew 23:34, “No commentator has ever proposed to understand this as referring to any other than the existing generation.”

72. J. N. Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Vol. 25. Pp. 243-244

73. There can be little doubt that some Jews believed that in the age to come, the Torah would continue to be observed, albeit perfectly. However, Paul’s concept of the age to come was that the age to come was the age of Christ’s New Covenant of grace, not Torah (cf. Galatians 2-5; Philippians 3, etc.)..

74. Some Jews believed that the Messianic Age was to be forty years long, others 1000. However, it is proper to say that the dominant view was that the “age to come” would be eternal. Further, one thing is abundantly clear, and that is that the Jewish concept of the Age to Come was that it did not involve the end of the time-space continuum. See Everyman’s Talmud, (New York, Schoken Books, 1995)356

75. William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, Matthew, Vol. 2 (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1958)347

76. We suggest a reading of John Noe’s, Beyond The End Times: The Rest of the Greatest Story Ever Told, (Bradford, Pa, Preterist Resources, 1999), for a fuller discussion of this question.

77. Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation: Past of Future?, (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1999)106

78. It is important to note that Ice says “the kingdom is no longer near.” This can only mean that when Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” that this meant it was objectively near. This is an important admission by Ice, for he goes to great length in other writings to convince his readers that the time indicators of scripture do not indicate time at all!! However, if Jesus actually meant that the kingdom was near when he said “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” then Ice cannot logically deny that the inspired writers meant that the parousia was actually near when they wrote “the parousia has drawn near.”

79. Thomas Ice is, as I write this, writing a series of articles on Daniel 9:24f, posted on the Internet. There are currently three articles.

188

The articles can be found at: <www.according2prophecy.org/seventy-weeks-pt1.html> The quote cited here is from part #1, p. 2.

80. Ice, internet article, part 2, p 13.

81. Few seem to realize that the millennial paradigm teaches, logically, that the rejection of Jesus created the need for the Second Coming. As we have seen, the millennialists claims that Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom (Prophecy, 231), and would have done so had the Jews not rejected him! However, since the Jews did reject him, he returned to heaven until such a time as when the Jews will be more receptive. At that time, the Second Coming, “That which was rejected at the time of His first coming will now be accepted and fully realized as He reigns on earth for 1000 years” (Prophecy, 260). Thus, had the Jews not rejected Jesus, there would have been no need for a “Second Coming,” for Christ would never have left earth in the first place! Further, in this scenario, the Second Coming should be the hope of Israel, not the church, since the church and Israel are two totally separate entities with different perspectives and hopes per millennialism. Yet, scripture says that the parousia was the hope of the first century church, and modern Christianity says it remains the hope of the church. The church is, therefore, supposedly eagerly awaiting the Second Coming, which is only necessary because Jesus failed in the first place! The point is, that in the millennial paradigm, the Second Coming should not be the hope of the church, but of Israel!

82. J. N. Darby, Lectures on the Second Coming, (London, Paternoster Row, 1868)31

83. Craig Blaising and Darrel Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, (Wheaton, Ill, Victor Books, 1993)242

84. See my two part article, “Zion, the Perfection of Beauty,” Living Presence, October and November issues, vol. 7, no. 3-4, (Warren, Ohio, 1996), for a fuller discussion of the prophetic significance of Zion, and how the NT writers affirm the fulfillment of the OT prophecies

85. See our fuller discussion of Hebrews 12, and the NT contrast between the two mountains in our Babylon work.

86. The millennialist believe that the millennial Jerusalem is definitely a city and a mountain that can be touched. It will supposedly be as physical, as earthly, with spiritual overtones to be sure, but earthly nonetheless, as was Old Covenant Sinai and Jerusalem. Thus, what the inspired writer of Hebrews urged his readers to forsake, the millennialists insist will be restored, and all mankind will be forced to go there!

87. This fact has tremendous implications for the doctrine of the resurrection. Zion was to be the center of resurrection life, and the Messianic Banquet would be spread when death was destroyed. Jesus often spoke of the Banquet being ready, and this would have conjured up in the minds of first century Jews the images of the anticipated Banquet, and resurrection. The declaration by the inspired writer of Hebrews that the first century saints had come to Zion, was therefore an emphatic statement that the resurrection was at hand.

88. It must be understood that from the millennial perspective, what Paul proclaimed, was not “the hope of Israel!” The millennial view

189

says that the church must be delineated from Israel, and that the church was never predicted, foreseen, or desired by the Old Testament prophets or Israel. Thus, when Paul, devout proclaimer of the hope of Israel, says that he preached nothing except the hope of Israel--and he preached salvation in Christ in the church-- it has profound implications for the millennial paradigm.

89. George W. Knight III, New International Greek Testament Commentary, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1992)326

90. William Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary, Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 46, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2000)425+

91. There is, in fact, a four-fold pattern found in scripture, emphasized in the Olivet Discourse, and manifested in the entire NT corpus. That pattern is: preaching, persecution, power, and parousia. Simply stated, Jesus sent his disciples to preach the gospel to the world (Matthew 24:14). He told them they would be persecuted as they preached (Mark 13:9f), but that they were not to give thought to their own defense, because they would receive power from the Spirit to give the proper defense (Mark 13:9f). He then promised that at his parousia their suffering would be avenged and their cause vindicated (Matthew 24:29f). I have developed this pattern at length in my book Into All The World, Then Comes The End.

92. Donald Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew vol. 33b (Dallas, Word, 1995)676

93. As we have seen earlier, Matthew 23 is based on the O.T. predictions that in the Last Days, Israel would fill up the measure of her sin and be destroyed in the Day of the Lord. See my Babylon book, as well as my Seal Up Vision and Prophecy work for a fuller explication and demonstration of this issue.

94. William Biederwolf, The Second Coming Bible, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1972)314. Interestingly, Beiderwolf applies Matthew 10:22-23 to the coming of Christ in judgment against Israel in A.D. 70.

95. I have been collecting literature on the parables for some time in anticipation of writing a book on the eschatology of the parables. It is amazing how little attention to actual exegesis most commentators give when it comes to the parables. It would seem, from a survey of the literature popularly available, that Israel and the Jews played little role in Jesus’ parabolic teaching. Some, e.g. Capon, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989, even though ostensibly writing about The Parables of Judgment, openly refuse to discuss the specific application and historical context of the parables, instead insisting on homeletic exercises. To this scribe, this smacks of intellectual snobbery.

96. Joachin Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (New York, Scribner, 1954) and Rediscovering the Parables, and C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, (New York, Scribner, 1961) are, clearly, exceptions to this rule. Both of these scholars called the attention of the Bible reader to the crisis content of the parables. They saw that Jesus was warning Israel of impending judgment if she did not repent. However, as valuable as these works are, they still fall short of presenting the full impact and eschatological fulfillment of the parables, because they, esp. Jeremias, believed, contra McKnight, that Jesus did foresee the “end of the world,” and in this was mistaken. I. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables, (London, Tnydale Press, 1963), rightly, in some regards, took issue with some of the errors of Dodd and Jeremias, but in his presentation did not (properly) address the nature of the parabolic eschatology. He assumed Jesus’ eschatology was Historic Eschatology, i.e. about the end of history, and not Covenant Eschatology, i.e. about the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel.

190

97. The conflation of Matthew 23 with Luke 18 not only proves that the parousia Christ was the historical judgment of Israel in A.D. 70, but it proves that the Greek term en tachei does not denote rapidity of action versus time of occurrence. Ice, (Tribulation, 113) seeks, of necessity to destroy the objective imminence of the Greek term. Yet, when Jesus identified his generation as the one in which the martyrs were to be vindicated, and promised that it would occur speedily, there is no way to remove Luke 18 beyond the temporal parameters of the first century.

98. Ice claims that a fatal flaw of the preterist view “is the confusion of judgment and salvation in relation to the nation of Israel. Preterism sees only judgment toward Israel in passages that speak of the tribulation, such as the Olivet Discourse...Except for Luke 21:20-24, which clearly speaks of A.D. 70 judgement upon Jerusalem, the rest of the passages picture Israel in a position from which God will deliver them from their enemies through His Second Coming.” (Prophecy, 170).

99. Many commentators believe that this judgment refers to the Assyrian destruction in B. C. 721. While this may have been the immediate historical context of the prophecy, it does not negate the principle of salvation through judgment. Rather, it enforces it. Further, the promise of the gathering, found in v. 13 is cited by Jesus in his Olivet prediction of the gathering of the elect (Matthew 24:30-31). Thus, the Messianic import of the passage is confirmed. If the historical context of the text is pressed, we would add that this proves categorically that metaphoric language is the lingua franca of the Day of the Lord predictions, because this time of judgment being forecast speaks of the time when the Lord would come out of His place (26:21).

100. It will not help to attempt to evade the force of this argument to say that what Jesus meant was that all things written concerning vengeance, or even, all things concerning vengeance on Israel, would be fulfilled in the A.D. 70 catastrophe. First, to say all things concerning vengeance would be fulfilled still demands that the O.T. predictions of vengeance in the last days were fulfilled at that time. Further, to argue that Jesus meant only that all things written concerning Israel’s judgment would be fulfilled, does not help either. Biblical eschatology never excludes, but always focuses on Israel’s promises! This includes the promises of the parousia, judgment and resurrection. Thus, to admit that all of Israel’s eschatological promises were fulfilled is to admit that all Biblical eschatological promises were fulfilled! There is no Biblical eschatology divorced from Israel’s eschatology.

101. As we saw on Acts 2:15f, the millennialist openly denies that Peter was correct when he said “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” MacArthur, Ice, Pentecost, and virtually all millennial writers deny that Joel actually began to be fulfilled that day. Why? Because their concept of what the fulfillment of Joel was to be did not match what happened on that Pentecost! Thus, rather than change their concepts of the nature of the kingdom and the parousia, they are willing to say that Peter, and even Jesus (Luke 21:22), were wrong!

102. While Zechariah 14 speaks of the deliverance of Jerusalem, it also speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. This conundrum has perplexed scholars for centuries. The best solution is to see that there are two Jerusalems at stake. Old Covenant Jerusalem is destroyed; New Covenant Jerusalem is redeemed. The concept of two Jerusalems is certainly Biblical (cf. Galatians 4:22f; Philippians 3; Hebrews 12; Revelation 18-21).

103. The trouble is that many commentators see two events in Matthew 23. They admit that verses 29-38 refer to A. D. 70, but, they then insist that in v. 39, Jesus was speaking of Israel’s future salvation at a literal coming of Christ at the beginning of the millennium. However, this is to misunderstand Jesus’ statement in v. 39. Jesus was telling them approximately when he was coming, at one of the

191

great feast days of Israel, when the song “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” would be sung. See my article “The Song of Ascent” in the Living Presence, (Warren, Ohio, Parkman Rd. Church of Christ, VOL. 5, NO. 8, (MARCH, 1995) Jesus was not foretelling a different event than that of v. 29-38, he was telling them, in very general terms, when that event was to occur.

104. Jesus’ consistent identification of Israel as the persecutor of the martyrs not only in the past but as the persecutor of his “apostles and prophets” (Luke 11:49f), has profound implications for identifying the “beast” and the Man of Sin. We cannot develop these suggestive ideas here.

105. The program was hosted by John Anderson. The debate is archived at <www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com>, or tapes of the debate can be obtained from me.

106. Space forbids a development of these themes. We recommend John Bray’s, Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians (P. O. Box 90129, Lakeland, Fl.33804). Further, it is abundantly clear that whoever the Man of Sin of Thessalonians was, he was alive and well in the first century, because the Restrainer was already having to hold him back “The mystery of iniquity is already at work,” and, “You know what is now restraining him” (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7).

107. Robert Goldenberg, “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” The Journal of Jewish Studies, pp. 517f, (1982) Goldenberg lists 2 Kings 17:13-14; 2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Jeremiah 14:4-5; Zechariah 7:12; Nehemiah 9:30 as just a few of the references in which national disaster is linked with Israel’s sin.

108. See my Who Is This Babylon? for a full discussion of the identity of Babylon as first century Jerusalem. Only first century Jerusalem qualifies as the city guilty of shedding the blood of the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus.

109. James D. G. Dunn, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996)114+

110. Some (e.g. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1974) 208+) maintain that in his early ministry Paul believed the end was near but that later in life he expressed more uncertainty. If, however, he saw his ministry as vital to the eschatological schema this posit is wrong. See Dunn, 116.

111. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970) 268

112. Peter O’Brien, Word Biblical Commentary, Colossians and Philemon (Waco, Word Publishers, 1982)80.

113. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Epistles of Paul, (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1931, Vol. IV) 484. So also Alford’s Greek Testament, in loc.

114. Paul does not mean that others were not contributing to filling the measure of suffering. In 2 Corinthians 1:4ff ; Philippians 1:29

192

and 2 Thessalonians 1:4ff he speaks of the afflictions of his brethren as an “evident token” of the impending judgment of God. Thus, while they all suffered together, Paul was the focal point in God’s scheme.

115. For further discussion of the graphic word picture involved in the Greek see Gordon Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, First Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987)174+

116. Robertson and Plummer, International Critical Commentary, First Corinthians, (Edinburgh, T and T Clark, 1978)85

117. “µ_λλειv with the infinitive expresses imminence” A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Blass and DeBrunner, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961)181

118. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz-Schneider, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1)97

119. James D. Bales, Hub of The Bible, (Rosemead, Ca, Old Paths Book Club, 1957)74

120. Bo Reicke, "Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem," Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in honor of Allen P. Wikgren, Lieden, E.J. Brill (1972)132. As is often the case with form critics, Riecke believes of Jesus’/Luke’s prophecy that: "It is not possible to reconcile these items with the Jewish war described by Josephus and other historians." As a matter of fact, one of the reasons Riecke gives for believing Luke was written before the fall of Jerusalem was because his prediction supposedly failed! Riecke’s underlying assumption is that a prophecy could only be a "genuine prophecy" if it failed!

The presuppositions of the historical/form critical school are suspect. See Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed Press, 1962) 456; also, I.H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables, (London, Tyndale Press, 1963)23; for a later work see Eta Linneman, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology, Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1990). These works, and others, question the arbitrary ways in which the form critical school often arrives at their conclusions. (In spite of his prejudicial presuppositions, Riecke's article has valuable historical information in it).

121. For more on the theme of imminent eschatological relief from affliction see Mat. 24:9-21; Ja. 5:1-10; 1 Pet. 1:4-7; 5:10; and of course Revelation

122. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1984) 274.

123. Jesus taught the “to the Jew first” paradigm, (Lk. 24:44f; Acts 1:8f); Peter likewise, Acts 3:26.

124. A. J. Mattill, Luke and the Last Things, (Dillsboro, NC, Western North Carolina Press, 1979) 153.

125. James Thompson, “The Gentile Mission as An Eschatological Necessity,” Restoration Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, (First Quarter, 1971) 18-27

193

126. Davies, Land, 204

127. James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of the Deuteronomic Tradition,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, No. 4, (1993) 645-665 What Scott leaves out is that if Israel did not repent, Jehovah would destroy her. This is what happened when Israel filled the measure of her sin, and the A.D. 70 catastrophe came on her.

128. As we have seen, Leupold says Isaiah 65:6-7 “indicates that there is such a thing as ‘mass guilt,’ where the sins of generation after generation are not completely broken with and the amount grows higher and higher. Ultimately, or time and again, it then happens that God visits the ‘sins of the fathers upon the children.’” H. C. Leupold, Expositions of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1971, Vol. II) 362. Isaiah’s prediction is clearly reflected in Jesus’ Temple speech in Matthew 23.

129. For a fuller discussion see David Moessner, “Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 34. (1988): 96-104.

130. Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter, (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1996) 271

131. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in Paul, (London, Yale University Press, 1989) 164.

132. The Song of Moses also plays a major part in the mentality of other NT writers (cf. Acts 2:40; Deut. 32:5; Luke 21:22; Deut. 32:35, etc).

133. George B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation, p. 20. I have been unable to find my personal copy of this work, and cite Caird from the preterist website <www.preteristarchive.com> run by Todd Dennis. This website has a massive amount of preterist, partial preterist and even anti-preterist materials on it. For resource materials on the preterist controversy, it is, to my knowledge, unmatched.

134. The truth, either unknown by most millennialists, or ignored, is that there is no such thing as a true nation of Israel today, in the ethnic sense. The physical lineage of the seed of Abraham simply cannot be genealogically confirmed. Even many Jewish authorities freely acknowledge that Old Covenant, nationalistic Israel ceased to exist with the A.D. 70 holocaust. Further, modern day “Israel” is comprised in majority of Ashkenaz Jews, who are, in fact, of Gentile origin. See John Bray’s Israel in Bible Prophecy, (Lakeland, Fl., John Bray Ministries), and Cecil Lowry’s, Whither Israel, (Birmingham, Al. Christians Awake Newsletter) for full documentation. All theological discussions and prognostications about the “restoration of Israel” are, therefore, fruitless, and based on a false assumption about the ethnicity of the current inhabitants of the land of Israel.

135. Fruchtenbaum’s paper is entitled, “How the New Testament Uses the Old Testament.”

136. We are currently working on a manuscript for a small booklet chronicling the lamentable willingness of the millennial school to openly deny the emphatic NT statements that OT prophecies of the kingdom and Israel were being fulfilled in Christ and the church. See our brief discussion of Joel 2/Acts 2 in this work. When any NT writer affirms that an OT prophecy was fulfilled, only the worst

194

sort of presuppositional theology refuses to bow to their authority. Yet, repeatedly, this is what the millennial writers do.

137. Paul affirms that it was God’s eternal purpose to unite heaven and earth, and Jew and Gentile, into one body, the body of Christ, the church (Ephesians 1:9-10). Yet, the millennialists insist that it was likewise God’s eternal purpose to then re-establish the national and ethnic barriers between Jews and Gentiles, by putting an end to the church age, and returning to His program for nationalistic, exclusivistic Israel!

138. There is of course, the perplexing problem of Acts 21, and the indisputable fact that Paul kept the Law. Yet, while the Jerusalem church, with Paul’s consent and agreement, taught that Jewish Christians should keep the Law, Gentile Christians had no such obligation (Acts 15, 21). This situation was only temporary however, for Christ removed even Jewish observance of the Law from the realm of possibility, not to mention obligation, when he destroyed Jerusalem. Further, it is clear from Matthew 5:19f, that there was a need for the continuing observance of the Law, (for those in the kingdom!), until it was all fulfilled. Luke 21:22 identifies that time as the fall of Jerusalem. Thus, the issue of the Law was an on-going issue until Jesus removed that Old World.

139. Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. 3, chapter 6, 4 (p. 123)

140. A little known, or advertised, fact is that some very prominent millennialists do not believe that the rebuilt Temple is actually to be rebuilt in Jerusalem at all! Unger holds that the restored Temple will be built “not in the city of Jerusalem,” but “upon a very high mountain which is to be miraculously made ready for that purpose when the temple is to be erected.” Merrill Unger, cited by Pentecost, (1980, 514).

141. Louis Berkhoff, The Kingdom of God,170+ cited by Cecil Lowry, Whither Israel, (Birmingham, Ala., “Christians Awake Newsletter”)11

142. Ice says that during the three and ½ years period of peace, before the Tribulation, “Judaism is revived, and traditional sacrifices and ceremonies are re-instituted in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.” (Prophecy, 60). He then says that in the millennium, it is not the Old Testament sacrifices, i.e. not the Mosaic institutes that are restored, because the Old Law has been forever fulfilled and discontinued. Now, if Judaism is restored, what was Judaism based upon except the Mosaic institutes? Would Ice affirm that the Mosiac Law is restored during the 3 ½ year time of peace before the millennium, but not in the millennium, (to take this position contradicts his posit that the Old Law has been forever removed), thus, suggesting two different forms of “restoration?” Of course, Pentecost insists that the millennial temple will not be the restoration of Judaism (Things to Come, 522).

143. The millennialists seek to justify a restoration that is not a restoration, by stating that it is not the Mosaic Law itself that will be restored: “The sacrificial system is not a re-instituted Judaism, but the establishment of a new order” (Pentecost, 531); “There are many basic differences between the Aaronic and millennial systems” (Pentecost, 520); “ It is to be noted that the priests who serve (in the millennium, DKP) are not taken from the whole Levitical line, for the line as a whole was set aside because of their apostasy, but are taken from the sons of Zadok” (Pentecost, 521) We would ask, why, if the millennialist can see that the Old Covenant predicted a “new order” with a different priesthood, and a different sacrifice, why the sacrifice and service of Jesus is not sufficient to fulfill those promises? If they can see that Israel and her cultus was, at least in some way, to be radically transformed, then why cannot the

195

transformation performed by Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah, be the predicted transformation? The problem is a refusal to look beyond the shadows to the spiritual reality.

144. Space will not permit a discussion of the millennial doctrine of the promised New Covenant. It is sufficient to point out that the millennialists affirm that Christ did not establish the New Covenant as promised by Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37. In spite of the fact that Jesus shed his blood to establish that promised new covenant (Matthew 26:26-28), in spite of the fact that NT writers affirm that the Old was passing away (Hebrews 8:13), and that the New was being delivered (2 Corinthians 3), and that the first century saints were being transformed from glory to glory--i.e. from the Old Covenant glory to the New Covenant Glory--the millennialists simply deny or discount these passages, and say that the writers were speaking of a yet future covenant, or were using the terminology of the promised New Covenant to speak of the gospel which has been given only until the “real” New Covenant can be made! The millennial willingness to ignore emphatic Biblical statements, in order to support a preconceived doctrine, is one of the most regrettable of all theological praxis.

145. See my Who Is this Babylon? for a full discussion of Philippians and Paul’s contrast of cities. It is often assumed that he contrasts the heavenly Jerusalem with Philippi, the proud Roman free colony. This is not his thought however. He is contrasting Old Covenant Jerusalem, the source of persecution, with the New Jerusalem, the fulfillment of all of his hopes as the proclaimer of the hope of Israel.

146. In Colossians 2:11, the words “the sins of” that appear before “of the flesh” are omitted in Nestle’s Greek Text. Thus, the text literally reads, “by putting off the body of the flesh.” See the discussion by James D. G. Dunn, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1996)157+

147. In reality, although Paul certainly recognized that circumcision predated the Mosaic Law (Romans 4), he also taught that observance of circumcision necessitated observance of the entire Mosaic Law (Galatians 5:2-3). There are probably many reasons for this, but whatever else might be said, unless one can annul Paul’s statements, then re-institution of circumcision, whether now, or in any proposed millennium, necessitates the observance of the Mosaic Law. Thus, the millennial view that circumcision will be practiced, but that the Mosaic Law has been forever removed, is falsified by Paul.

148. Jerome, cited by David Brown in, Christ’s Second Coming, Will It Be Premillennial? (London, T and T Clark, 1953)352

149. It is assumed that the reader is aware that Paul was condemning circumcision for religious purposes. He was not condemning circumcision for medical and hygienic reasons. Virtually every man today is circumcised, but it is for medical reasons, and not as an observance of the Mosaic mandate.

150. It will not do for the millennialist to insist that the Mosaic Law itself has been abrogated never to be restored, but that a new system of sacrifice and Feast Day will be instituted. The millennial paradigm undeniably teaches the restoration of every major tenet of Judaism,( the very things that Paul insisted were the “weak and beggarly elements,” Galatians 4:9), will be restored. Thus, it matters not whether one says that the Mosaic Law is gone, it is the tenets and praxis of that Law, being earthly, and made by hands, that Paul was opposed to. It was not the Law of Moses per se--although that was certainly included--in one respect, that Paul was opposed to. It was everything that the Law stood for! Animal sacrifices, by their very nature, whether under Abel, Abraham, or Moses, were ineffective!

196

151. There is an “already-but-not-yet” reality of the New Covenant in the epistles. They sometimes speak of the present reality of the New Covenant, the present passing of the Old Covenant, and the futuristic aspect of the New Covenant. This is not a contradiction, nor does it speak of two New Covenants. It speaks of the then in process transitional period between the Old and the New. It was a time of the revelation of the New Covenant. The New was not revealed and confirmed all at once. Thus, they could speak of it as already, and then speak of Christ as the surety of a New Covenant (Hebrews 7:22).

152. See Emile Schurer’s, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Revised, vol II, (London, T and T Clark, 1991)514f.

153. Paul’s statement in Acts 14:23 demonstrates what many scholars have noted, and that is that Jesus, Paul, and the early church, applied the Old Covenant promises to the church, as the recipient of God’s promises to Israel. This was not “displacement theology!” Jesus and Paul taught that Israel was actually receiving the fulfillment of those ancient prophecies (Acts 7, 13, etc). However, the promises were being revealed as spiritual, fulfilled in Christ (Galatians 4:22f), and that the Jews after the flesh could not, or would not, abide.

154. Charles Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, quoted by John Bray, The New Heaven and the New Earth, (Lakeland, Fl. John Bray Ministry)26 I am thankful to John Anderson of LightHouse Productions for pointing me to the quotation.

155. See my Who Is this Babylon? for an in-depth discussion of the significance of John 4, as a prediction of the passing of the Old Temple and its world.

156. Paul Ellingworth, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993)408

157. Simon Kistemaker, Hebrews, New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1984)244

158. H. C. Leupold, Expositions of Isaiah, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1971, Vol. II) 362.

159. Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance, (Stockton, Ca., Courier Publications, 1991)130

160. See my Who Is This Babylon? (61+, 71+) for a demonstration of the unity between Isaiah 2, 65, Matthew 23, 1 Thessalonians, and Revelation. Scripture is clear that Israel would fill up the measure of her sin in Jesus’ generation, and be destroyed. However, as we have seen, this destruction was the means of removing the outer shadow to reveal the inner body.

161. Edward Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 2, chapts. 19-39 (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1969)321

162. It is worth noting that Isaiah 59 conjoins salvation and vengeance; salvation would come in the Day of Vengeance. This is important, because millennialists try to divorce these issues. MacArthur (1999, 31) refers to Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 61, and says, “Christ deliberately stopped reading mid-sentence because ‘the day of vengeance of our God’ pertains to His second advent, not His

197

first.” Thus, the attempt is made to delineate between the Day of Salvation and the Day of Vengeance. In reality, these are but two sides of a single coin.

163. Ice / Demy, Fast Facts, 112

164. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1982)107

165. Of course, this argument would not work on Zechariah 12-14 anyway, since Zechariah was written after the B. C. 721 and the B. C. 586 judgments. Thus, in Zechariah, we have another Day of the Lord foretold, against Israel, for shedding innocent blood.

166. Wayne Jackson, The A.D. 70 Theory: A Review of the Max King Doctrine, (Stockton, Calif., Courier Publications, 1990)67

167. Franklin Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, (Birmingham, Al., Roberts and Sons, 1974)54 Camp lists several implications of the fall of Israel’s capital.

168. Adolph Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, (Harper and Brothers, 1961)63

169. Gregory Stevenson, Power and Place. Temple and Identity in the Book of Revelation, (Berlin, New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2001)168

170. Lorraine Boettner, The Millennium, (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957)203

171. Burton Coffman, Commentary on James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, John and Jude, (Austin, Firm Foundation, 1979)246

172. See for instance Jim McGuiggan, Commentary on the book of Revelation, (Lubbock, Montex Publishing, 1978) 239.

173. John T. Hinds, A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Nashville, Gospel Advocate, 1973)242. Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Purcell affirmed that the Roman Catholic church, "is Babylon of John, the Man of Sin of Paul, and the Empire of the Youngest Horn of Daniel."

174. (Ice, 1998, 188+)

175. Donald Hagner, Matthew 14-28, (Waco, Word Publishers, 1995)672

176. Keil and Delitszch, Commentary On the Old Testament, vol 9, Ezekiel and Daniel, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1975)496

177. The language of 1 Peter 1:5f, is unmistakably an echo of Daniel 12, with the reference to suffering, refinement, and the time of the end. What Daniel foretold, and what was not for his day, was now about to be revealed in the last times, the days in which Peter and

198

his contemporaries were living (1 Peter 1:5-12, 19-20).

178. John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Ezekiel-Daniel, edited by Philipp Schaff, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1876)194

179. Jim McGuiggan, Commentary on Daniel, (Lubbock, Montex)195

180. Norval Guldenhuys, Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988)343

181. As we have noted elsewhere, the historical truth is that there is no such thing as a true ethnic Israel today. We use the term Jew and Israel in an accommodative sense.

182. John Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, ((Downer’s Grove, Ill., Inter-Varsity, 1991)147

183. William Barclay, Letters to the Seven Churches (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1958) 31.

184. Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians, (Minneapolis, Fortress, 199)114

185. Wright, Victory, 374

186. N. Nisbett, The Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, (1787), reprinted by John Bray Ministry, (Lakeland, Fl. 1992)24

187. For vindication of the early date of Revelation and application to Jerusalem, see Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation, (Tyler, Texas, Institute for Christian Economics, 1989); or my, Who Is This Babylon?

188. So noted by Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1947)126

189. Arthur Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets, (Somerset, Ky. Ogden Publications, 1985). Ogden’s book is full of helpful insights into the message of Revelation, although, in our view, he stops short of what the evidence justifies.

190. Wayne Jackson, Select Studies from the Book of Revelation, (Stockton, Ca. Courier Publications, 1995)43. See our tract Can God Tell Time? for a complete refutation of the idea that God did not communicate properly in regard to time statements in scripture. Simply stated, to suggest that God did not mean near when He said near, is wrong.

181. John D. W. Watts, Word Biblical Commentary, Isaiah 34-66, (Waco, Word, 1987)332

182. Making an atonement for the people and the land, as promised here, entailed the Law of Blood atonement, as we have seen, in Numbers 35. This meant that the murderers had to die! Thus, what may strike us, on the surface, as a wonderful promise, was in fact, a

199

threat of destruction! This does not negate the expression of mercy found in Deuteronomy 32:36b, but nonetheless honors the principle of Blood Atonement.

183. Let it not be forgotten that Paul twice quotes from Deuteronomy 32 to justify his mission to the Gentiles. This ties in beautifully with Paul’s doctrine that Jew and Gentile were combining to create the True “Israel of God.”

184. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 2 Paragraph 1

186. The role of Deuteronomy 32, known as the Song of Moses, in the life and ministry of Jesus cannot be overstated. The Song is a prediction of the last days of Israel, when Jehovah would bring their salvation. Jesus came in the last days foretold by Moses, and said that Israel’s salvation was his mission. However, just as Moses said that God would “avenge the blood of his servants” (32:43), Jesus said that all of the blood of all the righteous would be avenged in his generation. Thus, the ultimate climax of Israel’s history is to be found in God’s vindication of his martyrs, and, as we have seen, Jesus emphatically posited that eschatological judgment for his generation. Interestingly, Bock, (1993, 214) cites Deuteronomy 32:43, but only to say that God promised “revenge against the adversaries of God’s people.” The problem is that he ignores the fact the problem is the shedding of the blood of God’s elect, and that Jesus applied the promise to Israel as the persecutor, and his generation as the target of Jehovah’s wrath! Matthew 23 is the crux interpretum for the eschatological theme of the vindication of the martyrs!

187. The relationship of Galatians 4 with Isaiah 59 should not be missed. Isaiah foretold the time of Israel’s salvation when she was judged for shedding innocent blood (59:3, 7, 12). In Galatians 4, Paul speaks of the casting out of Israel for shedding the blood of the seed of promise. There is no dichotomy here! Paul understood, as seemingly few today do, that Israel’s salvation could only come through judgment, and the putting off of the Old Covenant form.

188. F. F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982)273

189. To be sure, Paul did not believe that God had as yet cast off Israel. This is evident from Galatians 4, and Romans 9-11. However, a transition was taking place between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, i.e. the church. God’s promises to Israel were irrevocable (Romans 11:29-30), and He was going to be faithful to those promises. What is commonly overlooked is that the consummation of His promises to them was the removal of their national typological existence.

190. Alfords’ Greek New Testament, Vol. III, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1980)66

191. Gerald Hawthorne, Word Biblical Commentary, Philippians, (Waco, Tx., Word Books, Vol. 43, 1983)171

192. We believe that Paul probably wrote the Hebrew letter. However, even if he didn’t, it does not materially affect our argument. The New Testament writers never looked forward to the restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem. They always anticipated the full arrival of the “heavenly Jerusalem” that would only come with the passing of the “Jerusalem that now is.” If therefore, Paul did not write Hebrews, then this letter becomes another independent witness to the spiritual nature of the New Jerusalem.

200

193. See my two part article on Zion in prophecy, in the “Living Presence,” (Warren, Ohio) Vol. 7, No. 3 and 4, (October and November), 1996

194. William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, 47b, (Dallas, Tx, Word, 1991)480, astutely notes that in Hebrews 12, the writer uses the terms “heaven and earth” to speak of the opposing covenant worlds. The subject is not the passing of material creation, but the passing of the Old Covenant World so that the unshakable kingdom of Jesus Christ would stand triumphant.

195. The writer says that he and his contemporaries were receiving, a present participial verb, the unshakable kingdom. This is a very clear allusion and echo to the prediction of Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14, and is of course, related to the Davidic Covenant. The millennialists is adamant that the Davidic Kingdom promises remain unfulfilled and will remain so until the millennium (However, Progressive Millennialists, e.g. Bock, admits that Jesus sits on the Davidic throne now, but will do so on earth later, in a glorified manner). The assertion of the Hebrew writer that the promised unshakable kingdom was currently being delivered, and would soon stand triumphant when the Old World of Israel was removed, is a devastating blow to the millennial view. The kingdom promise was not postponed, and it was not a nationalistic restoration. It was the establishment of the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, the church.

196. F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1964)403

197. Phillip Carrington, The Meaning of Revelation,, (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, (SPCK), 1931) 271

198. Bauer’s Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1979, second edition)92

199. Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1973)63

200. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, The Gospel and Acts, (Chicago, Inter-Varsity Press, 1965) 318

201. The word restore (Acts 1:6) is apokathistemi. The word in Acts 3:21 is apokatastasis. The words are virtually identical and found together in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary.

202. It is commonly asserted that the disciples’ question revealed a mistaken concept of the kingdom. However, if so, it means that Jesus opening the eyes of his disciples to understand the scriptures (Luke 24) did not “take” and that the forty days of instruction concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) were misunderstood. Whereas scripture unequivocally declares that the disciples did not understand Jesus’ teaching about his resurrection there is no textual indication whatsoever in Acts 1 that the disciples were in error in regard to their questions about the kingdom.

203. Mark Nanos, (The Mystery of Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1996)268. The fact that Luke records the proclamation of the

201

fulfillment of God’s promises to restore Israel does not mean that the message was gladly accepted by all of the Jewish audiences (e.g. Acts 13, 17, 18). It does show that God had faithfully performed His act of restoration and that Israel was being told of that and invited into it.

204. The roman numerals LXX (70) stands for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew O.T. The number 70 traditionally represents the number of Jewish scholars that did the translation work.

205. See our 11 tape audio series on John the Immerser as Elijah and last days prophet. John is one of the most significant eschatological figures in scripture yet is commonly ignored as such. Tape set, in album, is available from the Ardmore church of Christ, 615 3rd N. W. Ardmore, Ok. 73401. Price is $39.95 post paid.

206. John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan)200

207. Max R. King, “The Promise: O.T. Shadow versus NT Body, In the Land versus In Christ” Living Presence Journal, Warren, Ohio, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September, 1992) King wrote an entire series on the shadow versus reality between Old Covenant Israel and fulfillment in Christ. The reader would do well to obtain the series and give long and serious study to it. Powerful and persuasive reading.

208. J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts, (Nashville, Gospel Advocate, seventh edition) 59

209. Eusebius, (Proof of the Gospel, Bk. I, Ch. 6, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981)34-35.

210. We are not suggesting that Eusebius fully understood the implications of what he said or that he was an advocate of Covenant Eschatology. Contrariwise, Eusebius held to a futurist eschatology. Yet his statement is undeniably “realized eschatology.”

211. Peter is not alone in declaring that his eschatological hope was what Moses and all the prophets predicted. Paul affirmed the identical truth (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f).

212. Balz and Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990, Vol. 1) 129

213.Thayer’s, p. 152; see also See Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of NT, (Vol. V. ) 449 under “orthos, diorthos”

214. Paul Ellingworth, New International Greek Testament Commentary on Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, Paternoster, 1993) 444

215. Once again we must honor his chronological perspective. The verbs in the text are in the present tense. See the American Standard, New American Standard, Revised and New Revised Standard, New English Version, etc. .

202

216. The writer’s point is not so much the continuance of the Temple edifice as it is the continuing validity of the Old Covenant World. See William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews 9-13, (Waco, Word Publishing, Vol. 47b, 1991) 223

217. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, (Eerdman-Paternoster Press, 1986)189. The question is, what end is in view in the Transfiguration? The traditional assumption is that it must be an "end of time." This is incorrect. 218. Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, (Longmans, Green and Co. 1949)114. 219. G. H. Boobyer, St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story, (Edinburgh, 1942)29. 220 Burton Coffman, Commentary on Jude, 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John (Austin, Firm Foundation, 1979)305 221 Burton Coffman, Commentary on Matthew, (Austin, Firm Foundation, 1977) 262 222. See for instance Burton Coffman, Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, (Abilene Christian University, 1977)382f for a good example of the view that the Law was removed at the Cross. 223. William Bell, “When Was the Law of Moses Fulfilled?,” Living Presence article, Warren, Ohio, (March, 1995) 224. Boobyer, Transfiguration, p. 46. 225. Max King, The Cross and the Parousia, (Warren, Ohio, Writing and Research Ministry, Parkman Road church of Christ, 1987)671. 226. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, Ga., American Vision Inc., 1994)158f 227. Josephus, Antiquities, Bk. 3, chapter 6:4. Translated by William Whiston (Peabody, Mass, Hendrickson, 1987)87 228. David Chilton, Paradise Restored, Dominion Press, 1987, p. 100.

229 Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. I, Bk. I, ch. 6, Edited and Translated by W. J. Ferrar (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981)35 230. The date of 2 Peter is firmly established by admitting to the apostolic authorship of this book. Liberal skeptics like to deny that Peter wrote this epistle claiming that it is a very late first century or early second century work. The reason for such an assignment is an a priori belief that accepts non-Biblical history, or what is perceived as history, over Biblical testimony, and therefore absolutely demands a total rejection of the words of 2 Peter 1:16-21.

203

231. Another indication that 2 Peter 3 is not discussing the end of the literal creation is that he says he is only reiterating Old Testament predictions of the Day of the Lord. Second, he uses the typical term, Day of the Lord, as used by the Old Testament prophets to speak of historical judgments by Jehovah. Peter even calls it the “parousia of God” (v. 12). As Minear has noted, no NT writer ever seeks to explain the usage of such terms. This means that the NT writers were using them as they had always been used, and this can only mean that Peter had a historical judgment in mind. He was not predicting the end of time and the material universe. 232.. See my Who Is This Babylon? for a full discussion of this subject. 233. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1950)86 234. William Bell, Eschatology in the Book of Galatians. William Bell, (4386 Bunker Hill Dr. Memphis, Tenn. 38125)9. $3.00 plus shipping. 235. J. Ramsey Michaels, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49, 1 Peter, (Waco, Texas, Word Publishers, 1988)205. 236. Paul Ellingworth, Commentary on Hebrews, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1993)452 237. While hon tropon can sometimes mean identicalness, it more often means general likeness, without specificity. For instance, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus said he had desired to gather Jerusalem “as (hon tropon) a mother hen gathers her chicks. Surely no one would argue that Jesus wanted to gather Jerusalem under his literal arm! 238. Chilton adopted the full preterist view some time before his death, but well after he wrote these words. In private conversation with this writer, Chilton often stated that he wished he could take back the futurist views stated in Days of Vengeance and Paradise Restored, and that in retrospect, he marveled that he did not see the full preterist implications when he wrote those books. This was especially true of his condemnation of the full preterist view (Vengeance, 264, n. 9). Chilton presented a lesson at a prophecy conference in Oklahoma City, in 1997, in which he gave some of the reasons for his “conversion” to the full preterist paradigm. That tape is available from me. Cost is $5.00 post paid. Don K. Preston, 2712 Mt. Washington Rd., Ardmore, Ok. 73401 239. David Chilton, Days of Vengeance, (Ft. Worth, Dominion Press, 1987)64 240. Murray Harris, From Grave to Glory, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, Academie Books, 1990)182, 388f. Harris’ book contains a wealth of material in defense of the transformed body posit. 241. I. H. Marshall, New International Greek Testament Commentary, Luke (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978) 190 242. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyers, Commentary on Luke, (Funk and Wagnalls, 1886)313

204

243. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1980)481 244. Harris poses this question, “If Jesus had a fleshly body continuously throughout the forty days: (I) where was he when he not appearing? (ii) Why did his disciples show no concern for his physical needs?” (386) Perhaps it is just us, but we do not consider these to be substantive questions that pose any major problem. Is it not entirely possible that Jesus was somewhere in Galilee or Judea, and not in heaven? It seems clear that Jesus’ references to his return to the Father apply, not to the forty day period, but to the ascension. Second, it can be safely said that the disciples seldom demonstrated an overt concern for Jesus’ physical needs. However, he did eat with them on occasions, satisfying what appears to be a normal human physical need. 245. This fact clearly has tremendous implications for the traditional views of the resurrection. It is maintained that Jesus came out of the grave with his glorified physical body, and that Christians must be raised with a similar body. However, if our contention that Jesus’ resurrected body was the same flesh and bone body of his Incarnation is true, then any discussion of a physical resurrection is mitigated, because Jesus’ glorification did not occur until he put off that body of flesh and bone!! We cannot develop this significant issue here, but hope to present further thoughts on it in another work. 246. Athanasius, (296-372 A.D.) The Incarnation of the Word, Section 16. Quoted by Kenneth Gentry and Greg Bahnsen, House Divided, (Tyler, Tx, Institute for Christian Economics, 1989)181, 247. James’s exhortation and statement should be seen in light of Matthew 24:32-33. Jesus said that when the disciples saw the signs of his coming, they could know “it (or he, Jesus) is nigh, even at the door.” Writing later in that generation, and living amidst the predicted signs, James wrote, “The Judge is standing right at the door.” Clearly, James was saying that the time foretold by Jesus had arrived, and without question, “The parousia of the Lord has drawn near.” 248. The millennialists believe in what is known as imminent but not near. See my extended discussion and refutation in Who Is This Babylon? The idea of something being imminent but not near is surely one of the most disingenuous theological inventions of all time. 249. It is important to note that MacArthur, like most commentators, rely on Jesus’ incarnate “ignorance” to mitigate or avoid the objective imminence of the statements in the epistles that the end was near. The argument is that since Jesus did not know “the Day or the Hour” that the writers could not have been revealing the actual nearness of the end, but only their hope and expectation. However, such an argument overlooks the fact that Jesus made his statement while on earth, before the Spirit, who was to reveal things to come (John 16:13) was given. In other words, the argument denies that the Spirit could have revealed the time of the parousia because Jesus did not know the time while on earth! Such is the faulty logic of those who seek to deny the objective nearness of the Lord’s coming in the first century. 250. We recommend John Noe’s, Dead In Their Tracks, (Bradford, Pa. International Preterist Association, 2001) for a fuller discussion of how the futurist paradigm gives credence to the skeptics, and that the only solution to their attacks on Biblical inspiration is the preterist view of prophecy.

205

251. See my Can God Tell Time? For a full discussion of the time statements of Scripture. The Biblical statements that the Lord’s coming was near, must be taken at face value. 252. Cf. Kummel, cited by George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1974)313. 253. See my tract How Is This Possible? For a full discussion of this important text. 254. For a full demonstration that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century as Jesus promised, and the meaning of that fulfillment, see my book Into All the World, Then Comes the End. See the back cover for more details. 255. It is more than evident that, despite Jeffrey’s contention to the contrary, Ephraem did not hold the millennial view of “imminent but not near.” He believed that the end was truly near, and was to occur with the destruction of Rome, (not a Revived Roman empire). It is impossible to read his words and believe that he believed the end was going to be delayed for 16 centuries. 256. Grant Jeffrey, The Triumphant Return, (Toronto, Frontier Research Publications, 2001)193 257. In fairness we must note that throughout church history, many believers, who were not dispensationalists, have foretold the end of the world for their generation. This sad history of failure haunts, or should haunt, the conscience of the church. For a historical review of failed doomsday movements, see Richard Abanes, End Time Visions: The Doomsday Obsession, (Nashville, Broadman and Holman, 1998) 258. See my Who Is This Babylon? (p. 72-80) for a discussion of the Wedding as the hope of Israel. (2712 Mt. Washington Rd. Ardmore, Ok. 73401) Cost is $12.95 postpaid. 259. See my book, Who Is This Babylon? for a full discussion of the identity of the Harlot City. Also, see Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, Tx., 1989), David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance, (Ft. Worth, Dominion Press, 1987), for excellent studies on the identity of Babylon and defense of the early dating of the Apocalypse. 260. See my Can You Believe Jesus Said This? for a full discussion of the unity of Matthew 16:27-28, and a refutation of the attempts to divide the text or apply it to the future. 261. Even in this epithet, dogs, the writer of Revelation tells us that Revelation deals with the judgment of Israel. In the NT, the only people--clearly John is not speaking of literal dogs being the object of God’s wrath!--were the Jews. See Philippians 3:1-3. 262. See my article, “The Binding of Satan,” Living Presence, Vol 2, #3, (October, 1991) Warren, Ohio, Parkman Rd. Church of Christ for a fuller discussion of the binding of Satan. This is an area that cannot be explored in depth in this work.

206

263. The debate was between myself, along with Ed Stevens, president of the International Preterist Association, representing the preterist view, and Kevin Hartley and Gary George, amillennialists. Tapes of that debate are available from the International Preterist Association, 122 Seaward Ave., Bradford, Pa. 16701. 264. Jesus said the practice of casting out demons proved that the kingdom was near. This means that if this practice continued after the so-called withdrawal of the kingdom offer in Matthew 12, then the idea of a withdrawn kingdom is false. Clearly, Paul and the other apostles did continue to cast out demons (Acts 16, Acts 19, etc.). Thus, the kingdom was present. Further, since the charismata was only to continue until the Day of the Lord (Acts 2:15-20), the discontinuance of the charismata proves that the kingdom has been consummated! 265. James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary, Romans, vol. 38b, (Dallas, Tx, 1988)905 266. See our extended discussion of the Greek term εv τ_χει in our Who Is This Babylon?. This term is only used a few times in scripture, and carries an definite sense of nearness. 267. John A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures on the New Testament, Vol. IV, (Nashville, Broadman, 1931)356 268. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970)18 269. F. F. Bruce, The Time is Fulfilled, (Exeter, UK, Paternoster, 1978)15 270. For an extended study of the word mello, see Mattill, Luke and the Last Things, referenced elsewhere in this work. Mattill shows that mello, in the vast majority of occurrences, definitely indicates imminence. Blass-DeBrunner, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961)181, says “Mellein with the infinitive expresses imminence.” 271. I have in my files an outline of a sermon delivered by John Hagee, in which he gave “Ten Reasons Why Jesus Will Return in This Generation!” delivered on Television. He has given the lesson a number of times. 272. See my How Is This Possible? booklet for an in-depth analysis of this question based on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2. 273. F. F. Bruce, Word Biblical Commentary, Thessalonians, Vol. 45, (Waco, Word Publishers, 1982)165 274. George W. Knight, New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Paternoster, 1992)414. Knight believes that Paul taught a future physical bodily resurrection. He fails to see that Paul did not present that concept in refutation of Hymenaeus.

207

275. LXX stands for the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. 276. Adam Clark, A Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. VI, (New York, Abingdon)630 277. R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon, (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Augsburg,

1937)801 278. This idea is developed even more in my book Who Is This Babylon?. The fall of Babylon would make manifest the children of

God. Only the fall of Jerusalem would settle the on-going and severe conflict over this question. The fall of Rome, Roman Catholicism, America, the Common Market, etc. is totally unrelated to controversy over Son ship.

279. Franklin Camp, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, (Birmingham, Ala., Roberts and Sons Publications, 1974)55 280. It is worthy of note that Paul had delivered Hymenaeus to Satan (1 Timothy 1:20). McClintock and Strong, Encyclopedia of

Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IV, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1969)431f, effectively show that this means more than excommunication, it involved punishment. (Compare Acts 5, 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 11:29f)

281. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. V., (Grand Rapids, Eerdman’s, 1970)71, says of hetoimos, “The Greek

readers would understand the imminent judge.” 282. Josephus, Wars, Bk. II: chap. 12:1 283. Josephus, Antiquities, Bk 19; Wars Bk. II, chapt. 10. 284. In my Who Is This Babylon? I show that the judgment at the opening of the books could not extend beyond the days of the Roman empire. The traditional amillenial posit is that Daniel 7:13-14 was fulfilled in Christ’s ascension (Acts 1) and coronation on Pentecost. If this is true, then the opening of the books in judgment of the persecuting “little horn” (Daniel 7:8f) occurred at Pentecost! The amillennial view is fatally flawed. 285. See my article Paul on Trial in the Living Presence, Vol. 5, no. 7, February, 1995, for a fuller discussion of the eschatological significance of Paul’s trial. See also Jack Scott’s article in the Living Presence, Vol. 10., no. 2, (March-April, 1999) 286. Resurrection is a multi-faceted reality in scripture. There is a corporate concept, (i.e. the resurrection of Israel, Ezekiel 37), the individualistic perspective, (Romans 6, Ephesians 2: Colossians 2, etc. ), and the Hadean realm (Revelation 20), involved as well. Thus, to speak of resurrection in a monolithic way, limited to a single idea, is, we believe, misguided. 287. King’s works are scholarly, and challenging. Furthermore, he has been writing since 1971, and his works (e.g. Spirit of Prophecy;

208

The Cross and the Parousia, Old Testament Israel: New Testament Salvation), have influenced the preterist movement far more than any other modern author. To ignore the writings of King, in an attack on Covenant Eschatology, is inexcusable, for it reveals a woeful ignorance of the very movement under consideration. 288. Noe’s trade published books are well written, and popular, not to mention critically acclaimed. James Massey, former Sr. editor of Christianity Today, said of Noe’s book, Beyond the End Times, “Noe’s book just could be the spark that ignites the next reformation of Christianity.” Cover quote (Bradford, Pa, Preterist Resources, 1999) 289. Steven’s little book, What Happened in A.D. 70, has had a profound influence on many readers, and has been around since at least 1988. (Bradford, Pa, Preterist Resources, 1988). 290. Fadeley’s books include: Hebrews, Covenants in Contrast; Revelation: Kingdom’s In Conflict; Bible Prophecy: The Year 2000 and Beyond. And, see his website <bibleprophecy.com> 291. My writings have been around since 1990, beginning with 2 Peter 3: The Late Great Kingdom (sold out). Other titles include: Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, 1991); Can God Tell Time? (1991, 1994, now due for third reprint in 2001); How Is This Possible? A Study of 2 Thessalonians 2, (1991); Can You Believe Jesus Said This? A Study of Matthew 16:27-28 (1992, 1995); Have Heaven and Earth Passed Away? A Study of Matthew 5:17-18 (1993); Into All the World, Then Comes the End, (1996); Who Is This Babylon? (1999). The last book has received favorable reviews. 292. The early church used the fall of Jerusalem as both a polemic and evangelistic tool to demonstrate the Deity of Jesus. So effective were they, that Emperor Julian the Apostate determined to remove this argument by rebuilding Jerusalem. He was “providentially hindered” from doing so. See Robert Wilken, Christians as Romans Saw Them (Yale University Press, 1984)189+. Lamentably, it is not uncommon to read modern commentators denigrate the fall of Jerusalem as just the fall of another ancient city at the hands of the Romans! Such statements demonstrate how far the modern church has digressed from the early message. See Franklin Camp’s, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Redemption, (Birmingham, Al., Roberts and Sons Publications, 1974) for an excellent study of the significance of the fall of Jerusalem.