The Passing of The Law of Moses – Response to Sam Frost – #5- A Look at Isaiah 65

the passing of the law of moses
The Passing of the Law of Moses – and the Passing of Heaven and Earth!

The Passing of the Law of Moses and Sam Frost’s Growing Desperation – #5
Does the Old Testament Predict the Destruction of Literal Heaven and Earth?
Isaiah 65

This is our fifth installment in response to Sam Frost who recently wrote an article on Matthew 5:17-18. In that article he claimed, with no attempt to prove his claim, that the Old Testament predicts the end of time and planet earth. Be sure to read the previous articles:  #1   #2   #3   #4

This raises an interesting question: Does Frost now believe in the literal passing of material “heaven and earth” i.e. their disappearance? In his Why I Left Full Preterism (p. 47) he speaks of a recreated, restored earth! So, does the heaven and earth literally “pass away” cease to exist, or is it restored? Frost once again contradicts himself.

Here is Frost’s conundrum. In his comments on Isaiah 65, he claims that it predicts “a new heavens and earth.” However, he appeals to Psalms 102 – and Matthew 5:17-18 – as proof that the heaven and earth will pass away. Keep in mind that Frost says of the law, in Matthew 5:17-18, that it will not pass away – cease to exist on paper- until it is all fulfilled. But, that same language is applied to heaven and earth: “heaven and earth shall not pass.” So, if the law will cease to exist -even in books, when it is finally fulfilled, then that same definition must apply to the heaven and earth. Yet, Frost affirms a new heavens and earth! Disappear does not mean new! It means, well, disappear! More could, and will, be said on this, but this is more than sufficient to show that Frost has not done a lot of critical thinking on his claims. But, now to Isaiah 65

Frost claims that Isaiah 65 predicts the end of time: “Isaiah 65 envisions a new heavens and earth, too. In it, fantastical, poetic hyperbole is used to denote that it is quite a different scene than what is “normally” seen and experienced.”

Notice once again Frost’s literalistic hermeneutic at work. But of course, he cannot in any sense be consistent in that hermeneutic, for it would then destroy his entire argument.

For brevity, I will offer bullet points from Isaiah 65, and keep my comments as succinct as possible.

1. Isaiah 65:1-3 – YHVH laments Israel’s recalcitrance and rebellion, and responds by saying that He would call another people to Him, a people that had not known Him
Application: In Romans 10:20 Paul cites directly from Isaiah 65:1-3, to speak of Israel’s rejection of the Gospel in his day, and to speak of his Gentile mission. Thus, no matter what else we might think, Paul, by inspiration, posits the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 in his generation!

So, unless Frost wants to adopt the Dispensational Gap Doctrine, and claim that Isaiah 65:1-3 was fulfilled in the first century, but that we are still waiting on the new creation– which has now been 2000 years from Paul’s application of Isaiah to his day, then this one point is fatal to Frost.

2. Verse 7 – Israel’s rebellion– again, remember that Paul applied this to his generation – God said that Israel would fill the measure of her sin, and He would respond to that sin: “Your sin and the sin of your fathers will I measure into your bosom.” As H. C. Leupold, notes, “This verse proves 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.”

Of course, the important thing to note, is that in Matthew 23:29ff, Jesus emphatically said that Judah of his day would fill up the measure of their father’s guilt and judgment would fall on them in that generation.

3. Verse 8 – YHVH promises that in spite of the coming holocaust, He will spare a remnant. Once again, the inspired apostle comments on this motif in Romans and other passages. The doctrine and theme of the salvation of the remnant is eschatological to the core.

In Romans 9 the apostle unequivocally says that the remnant was being saved in his day, and even in his ministry. Thus, just like Isaiah 65:1-3 and Paul’s application to his generation, he applies the doctrine of the salvation of the remnant to his day, to his ministry and to his generation.

Not only did Paul apply prophecies of the last days salvation of the remnant to his day, he also said that the consummation of that salvation would not be a long drawn out process. Look at a bit of Paul’s discussion of the salvation of the remnant:

“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” 27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.” And as Isaiah said before: Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We would have become like Sodom, And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

Paul here cites Hosea and Isaiah as predictive of the salvation of the remnant, and notice that in verse 28 he cites God’s promise that the work of bringing that salvation to its glorious climax would not be prolonged. It would be “short.”

Two words in the text indicate that the then ongoing work of saving the remnant was to be completely soon. Paul says “his work he is concluding” or “completing” from suntelon. Then, he says that the work would be “short” (suntemnon). Both of these words are in the present active participle, indicating that the Lord was already bringing that work to its consummation. Frost, of course, wants us to ignore that emphatic time statements. After all, he is on record as saying that he no longer cares about time statements. They mean nothing to him.

The point is that we have Paul repeatedly drawing from Isaiah and specifically applying it to his day. The question them becomes, what is Frost’s hermeneutic for divorcing the prophecy of the new creation from that time context? All he has offered us so far is his decree that Isaiah is predictive of the passing literal creation and the creation of a new heaven and earth. But, his claims are not supported by exegesis.

4. Verses -9-13 – In these verses the prophet set forth the depth of Israel’s rebellion, “you are those who forsake the Lord and forget this Holy Mountain.”

God’s response would be awful; it would be catastrophic (v. 13-15:

“Therefore I will number you for the sword, And you shall all bow down to the slaughter; Because, when I called, you did not answer; When I spoke, you did not hear, But did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight.” … But you shall cry for sorrow of heart, And wail for grief of spirit. You shall leave your name as a curse to My chosen; For the Lord God will slay you.”

We have here a critical issue. I have noted that the promise of the new creation, including that in Psalms 102, was an Old Covenant promise, made to Old Covenant Israel after the flesh. Frost denied this, claiming that the Psalm was based on Abrahamic and Davidic covenant promises, and not Mosaic promises. This is the same dichotomized argument that Joel McDurmon tried – and failed – to make in our formal debate. This horrid doctrine is a denial of Paul’s emphatic affirmation that there was but one hope (Ephesians 4:4f) and that one hope was found in Moses, the Law and the prophets. He preached NOTHING, but what Moses and the prophets of Israel said! Paul did not have, Peter did not have, John, James, or Luke– none of the Biblical writers – had an eschatological hope divorced from the hope of Israel found in Moses, the law and the prophets. Frost is rejecting the Biblical fact that the hope of Adam, became the hope of Abraham, which became the hope of David, which became “the hope of Israel.” It was ONE HOPE– not an Abrahamic Hope distinct from the Davidic Hope, different from the Hope of Israel. This is critical and undeniable, yet Frost is denying this irrefutable truth in his desperation to refute Covenant Eschatology.

Get a copy of my debate with Joel McDurmon to see how the dichotomization of the eschatological narrative fails. That book is available from this website, Amazon and even Kindle.

Will Frost’s claim that the ultimate eschatological hope is Abrahamic and not tied to Israel after the flesh hold water in Isaiah 65? Not for a nano second! And I will demonstrate that beyond any doubt in our next installment. I will also show that Isaiah 65 is about the passing of the law of Moses. As I proceed to dismantle Frost’s literally unbelievable claims about the passing of heaven and earth. Make no mistake, Isaiah 65 is an utter, total refutation of Frost’s newly crafted theology. In the meantime, get a copy of my book, The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat” the first full preterist commentary on 2 Peter 3. It deals a devastating blow to the futurist application of 2 Peter 3– and Isaiah. Stay tuned!

The passing of "heaven and earth" was at the end of the Law of Moses!
This book proves that the Bible does not predict the passing of literal heaven and earth

The Passing of the Law of Moses and the Increasing Desperation of Sam Frost – #2

The Passing of The Law of Moses and Sam Frost’s Growing Desperation – #2
As noted in our first installment, Sam Frost, former preterist, has offered his latest attempt to justify his departure from the truth of Covenant Eschatology. He gives us a labored “explanation” of Matthew 5:17-18 attempting to show that Jesus’ words there do not necessitate the fulfillment of the law of Moses– every jot and every tittle of it– before it could vanish away. This in spite of the fact that Jesus’ words are very clear: Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law (which Frost agrees is a comprehensive term for the entirety of what we call the Old Testament) until it is all fulfilled.”

Among Frost’s many claims, he notes that the law cannot pass until it is all fulfilled, and among some of the jots and tittles of the law are predictions of the passing of “heaven and earth.” Thus, Frost concludes, until the material universe passes away, not one jot or one tittle of the Law will pass away.

Let’s be clear: Jesus did say “until heaven and earth passes, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law.” So that is beyond dispute. The question before us, however, is, did Jesus mean that the law of Moses (Torah) will not pass away until the physical heaven and earth are destroyed? Second, where in the Tanakh do we find a prediction, or predictions, of the passing of the physical heaven and earth, per Frost’s claim?

I should observe that while Frost assures us that the OT predicts the end of the material heaven and earth, he did not give us any documentation. He offered not a verse to support that claim. He simply claimed: “We can also infer that the disappearance of the heavens and the earth is included in what the strokes of the pen of the Law and the Prophets say. That is, the Law and the Prophets contain within them the fact that the heavens and earth will disappear.” (P. 3 of 13).

Don’t you think it would be somewhat important to prove this foundational part of his argument? It is insufficient to simply claim something to be true, especially something that is critical to your argument. I took note in the first installment that Frost made the claim that material heaven and earth is what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 5, yet, once again, he offered no proof for his claims. His presumptive approach is, to say the least, disturbing and revealing.

But, once again, the question is, Does the Tanakh, what we call the Old Testament contain prophecies of the passing of the material creation, as Frost claims. I deny that it does. Let’s approach this in two ways:

1. The Old Covenant affirms the eternality of the material creation, and,

2. The Old Covenant predictions of the passing of “heaven and earth” are in fact predictions of the passing of the Old Covenant world of Israel– not predictions of the dissolution of material creation. Let’s look at the first point.

When YHVH had brought the flood, afterward, He declared:

“And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then 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 thing as I have done. “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” (Genesis 8:21-22).

Assuming– as Frost certainly affirms– that the Flood was universal, what do we find here? We find the Lord promising that He would never again destroy every living creature as He had done.

Now the normal argument is that what He meant by, “As I have done” is that He would never again destroy the world by a flood, but, that He will destroy it by fire – as 2 Peter is taken to mean. Thus, God was not concerned with Mercy, or even Magnitude, but just with a different Method of destruction! (Evidently, in that way of thinking, a Flood is messier than Fire!). I will not take the time to discuss it here, but suffice it to say that God promised in Isaiah to destroy “heaven and earth” with a Flood! He even used the language of Genesis to describe it! Perhaps this will pique the reader’s curiosity. I discuss all of this in my book The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat.

S, if we consider that YHVH was making this promise based on Mercy, not Method or Magnitude, then we have here a promise that He would never again bring a world wide judgment on the earth.

By the way, as to the question of Magnitude. The traditional view of the passing of heaven and earth– the view now of Frost – the supposed end of time, catastrophic conflagration would be (will be) absolutely incredibly greater than the Flood! After all, the heavens– the planets, the sun, the moon and the stars- were not destroyed in the Flood. Thus, God could not be saying, “I will not bring another cataclysmic judgment as great, as “universal” as the Flood, because in the traditional paradigm, that is precisely what He promised to do! In that supposed future judgment, God will destroy every living creature– which He did not do in the Flood. He will destroy the entire cosmos– which He did not do in the Flood!

Thus, God’s promise: “I will never again destroy every living creature as I have done” cannot be a promise that He would never again bring a judgment of the same magnitude, because, to reiterate, in the tradition view of the coming Day of the Lord, YHVH will bring about a judgment that is exponentially greater than the Flood! But that would create a contradiction in the Lord’s promise!

Psalms 148:1-6 offers insight into the promise of Genesis 8:
“Praise the Lord from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the Lord, For He commanded and they were created. He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away.”

This great Psalm, which was the inspiration for one of the great church hymns, reflected on both the creation of the world, as well as the Flood. It speaks of How God established the “the heavens of the heavens and the waters above the heavens” and He “established them forever and ever.” This compounded declaration “forever and ever” often communicates the idea of eternality. It certainly speaks of the steadfastness, the abiding nature, of the creation in the Hebraic mind.

Psalms 89:34-37 likewise expresses the Hebraic view of the material creation, of the cosmos, and compares the throne of Messiah with the endurance of the cosmos:

“My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed shall endure forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, Even like the faithful witness in the sky.”

So, reign of Messiah on the throne of David and the sun, the moon and the stars are equal in their endurance! When we realize that Messiah’s rule and reign on that throne is “without end” (Isaiah 9:6-9; Luke 1:32-33) this is powerful refutation of the idea that the sun, the moon and the stars of heaven will one day be burned up, at the so-called end of time.

There are other Old Testament discussions of the enduring nature of the material creation. See the first installment where we cite Ecclesiastes 1:4 for instance. But, this is sufficient and powerful refutation of Frost’s claim that the Old Testament predicted the passing of material creation.

It will naturally be rejoined that there are OT prophecies of the passing of “heaven and earth.” And of course, that is true. However, are those prophecies contradictions of the passages we have cited, or, is there something else about those predictions that must be examined? Is it possible that, in spite of Frost’s claim that it is “pernicious” to think so, those predictions of the passing of heaven and earth do in fact speak of the passing of Israel’s covenantal world? Do they perhaps speak of the passing of the Law of Moses, Israel’s covenantal heaven and earth? We will examine some of the OT prophecies of the passing of heaven and earth in our next installment, so stay tuned. In the meantime, get a copy of my book, The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat. You will be amazed at the wealth of evidence that I adduce to prove that the Bible did not predict the passing of the physical heaven and earth.

The Passing of the Law of Moses Was the Passing of Heaven and Earth
This book proves that Peter did not predict the “end of time!”

The Calling of the Gentiles- God’s Eternal Plan! Guest Article by Terry Cropper- Installment #1

The Calling of the Gentiles

Terry Cropper is an excellent Bible students and I have shared some of his articles here before. Just recently, he wrote an article that relates to the calling of the Gentiles. I felt that it was important to share that with my visitors. This is the first in a two part series. Enjoy!

An interesting fact that many Christians are not aware of is Gentile were always welcome and assimilated by faith into the Israel of God during the Old Covenant. The calling of the Gentiles was always God’s plan!

Jesus is the “true Israel” of God. (Matthew 2:13-15)

Throughout the Bible shows that God’s sovereign grace has always been extended to Gentiles from the very beginning to also be a part of His Israel. This means that people from all ethnic nationalities were always welcome to be a part of God’s spiritual Israel. Our objective in this article is to show God always had a remnant of believers who wanted to fellowship with Him and be a part of His Israel.

Not every person who left Egypt was an Israelite. Among the foreigners living in Israel were those who had accompanied them on their flight from Egypt. Exodus 12:38 A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds—a great deal of livestock. Exodus tells us a “mixed multitude of people went up with” the children of Israel.

These people had a desire to worship God and marched out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. For how long? Their presence during the quail incident, indicates that these people were still with the Israelites at least one year after the first Passover. That means that the mixed multitude was present at Mount Sinai, some fifty days after the Red Sea crossing. This means they were present at the giving of the Law!

People from other nationalities who had a sincere desire to become a part of God’s covenant people God’s Israel were welcome and assimilated (absorbed equals) into “Israel,” through faith and obedience to the conditions of the covenant. In other words through God grace the back door was always open. Those who hold the literal approach to scripture and believe the promises of God only apply to the biological fleshly seed of Abraham will never tell you foreigners were welcome and assimilated (absorbed equals) into “Israel,” through faith,

An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the mails in his household circumcised; them he may take part, like one born in the land… The SAME law applies to the native-born. And to the alien living among you” (Exodus 12:48-49) Other verses are (Numbers 9:14; Isaiah 56:4a, 6-7) Israel as a people were neither better nor worse than other people. This is why the Mosaic law contains detailed teaching concerning aliens and strangers. This teaching continually remind the Israelites of how they should behave towards aliens living among them. The prophets also speak of the time as coming when the strangers shall share in all the privileges of Israel (Ezekiel 47:22 ; Isaiah 2:2 ; 11:10 ; 56:3-6 ; Micah 4:1).

The law of Moses made specific regulations regarding the admission into the Jewish church of such as were not born Israelites ( Exodus 20:10 ; 23:12 ; Exodus 12:19 Exodus 12:48 ; Deuteronomy 5:14 ; Deuteronomy 16:11 Deuteronomy 16:14 , etc.). The Kenites, the Gibeonites, the Cherethites, and the Pelethites were thus admitted to the privileges of Israelites.

So under the Old Covenant system there were people from other nationalities who had a desire to serve God by faith. They were assimilated and absorbed as equals into Israel as long as they had faith and were obedient to the covenant. These aliens were called proselytes. The Greek term προσήλυτος (proselytos), as used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) for “stranger”, i.e. a “newcomer to Israel”; a “sojourner in the land”, and in the Greek New Testament for a first century convert to Judaism, generally from Ancient Greek.

The book of Joshua introduces us to one of the most amazing and thought provoking women of the Old Testament. Rahab, the prostitute earned unique praise for her faith, and a place in the lineage of Christ. God blessed this women by putting her in the lineage of Christ.

Certainly this one women demonstrates faith in God as a gentiles during the Old Covenant. Matthew’s Gospel included 4 such women. He lists Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba. Of these four, only Bathsheba was Jewish. Neither of the other three women was a biological descendant of Abraham, but the three were allowed to become biological ancestors of the Lord Jesus.

God’s true “Israel” has (always) been a spiritual entity, comprised of His covenant people, regardless of nationality or time in history. Foreigners were well integrated into the religious life of Israel, able to participate in all the major festivals. Even at the consecration of the great temple in Jerusalem, the foreigner was not forgotten. Solomon prayed that the temple would serve to make God known well outside national boundaries (2 Chronicles 6:23-33). Faithful to this global vision, all the great prophets of Israel speak of the day when people will come from the ends of the earth to worship the God of the universe (Isaiah 56:6-7).

We will continue with Terry’s excellent article on the calling of the Gentiles in the next installment. Stay tuned!


Sam Frost and the Death of the Garden

Sam Frost and the Death of the Garden
A Look At Some Self-Defeating, Self Contradictory Arguments

Sam Frost once believed and taught the truth of Covenant Eschatology. Lamentably, he has now abandoned the truth and become an outspoken critic of this truth, claiming that he now knows the secret to refuting the idea that Christ’s end of the age parousia was in AD 70. Supposedly, no one is better equipped to refute the full preterist view than he is. He has recently begun filming a series of YouTube videos as a response to my YouTube videos in which I am presenting a thematic exposition of 1 Corinthians 15. As of this writing, Frost has produced four videos. I recently watched #3 and it is that video that I want to address.

Frost knows that if- as I affirm- God never threatened Adam and Eve with physical death if they are the forbidden fruit, that his new found futurist eschatology, and his attempt to refute Covenant Eschatology, is totally falsified. His position is doomed. So, in his video, Frost offers what he patently considers to be some devastating arguments to ostensibly prove that physical death was in fact, at least part of the death that God threatened man with, when He said that if they ate the forbidden fruit, “in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

It should be noted that Frost is guilty of double speak. On the one hand, he says that Adam and Eve did die spiritually the very day they sinned. Thus, God kept His word / threat that death would ensue the very day they ate. Word kept.

But, speaking of double speak. Frost claims that I speak “out of both sides of my mouth.” He stated that I actually say that God did threaten Adam and Eave with physical death, therefore, when they did not die physically that day, this means that God lied. This is a blatantly false misrepresentation of what I have consistently said! I have never said – as Frost falsely claims – that God did threaten Adam and Eve with physical death. Never! I have consistently said that “If” – “If” God threatened them with physical death if they sinned, then if they did not die that day, He had lied. It is sad that Frost has to stoop to misrepresentation to make his position look better, but, it is simply wrong.

Frost acknowledges what is undeniably true: Adam and Eve did not die physically that very day. The lived 900 years later! So, why is it that Adam and Eve died spiritually the very day they sinned, in fulfillment of the threat, but, they did not die physically that very day, even though physical death was supposedly part of the “in the day you eat you will surely die” threat. How does Frost answer this conundrum, this patently self contradictory claim?

Frost tells us, in video #2, that Adam and Eve, did in fact die spiritually the very day they sinned, but, because YHVH killed some animals and clothed Adam and Eve, that substitutionary sacrifice forestalled their physical death for 900 years! To say that this is a thorny, troublesome claim is a huge understatement! For a study of the implications of Christ’s substitutionary death, see my book, We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding of the King of kings. This book destroys the idea that physical death was the focus of the Curse in Genesis.

The Wedding of the King of Kings
This book has an in-depth discussion of the “Death of Adam” proving that the Curse was not physical death!

If the substitutionary animal sacrifice was sufficient to forestall / delay the physical death of Adam and Eve for 900 years, why in the name of reason did it not delay their spiritual death – their alienation from God- for at least a few years? Why not at least for a few days, months, or at least a year? In Frost’s imagined narrative, the animal sacrifice was half way effective but, he has not offered a syllable to show why it was only half way effective. But we move now to his “arguments” if such they can be called, in his video #3

I will only briefly mention Frost’s argument based on the Hebrew term, that is translated as “you shall surely die.” The term is, spelled phoneticaly, “Moot Tah Moot” Frost claims that in virtually all other texts, the terms refers to physical death, therefore, that is what it must mean in Genesis. It seems Frost has forgotten one of the logical fallacies. In the world of logic, there is what is known as “illegitimate totality transfer”

Frost and Illegitimate Totality Transfer

Simply stated, this means that a person, in this case Sam Frost, runs to other texts and finds definitions of words, terms or phrases, and says that this definition must be the definition in other texts. Thus, the immediate context of any given text means nothing. What matters is what words mean in other texts and contexts. This is patently a misguided hermeneutic, yet, it is precisely what Frost is advocating.

In anticipation of someone saying, “Preston, are you denying analogia scriptura, i.e. the use of one text to interpret another?” The answer is, “Absolutely not.” The issue here is that for us to properly utilize other texts we must realize and keep in mind that those other texts must be speaking of the same situation, they must contain the same essential context. It should be undeniably clear that in Frost’s appeal to other passages that speak of dying, that not one of them is a similar context.

1. In many of the other OT contexts in which death was threatened, and where the terminology of Genesis is used, it was often man threatening man with death. Not always, but in some instances. The point being that unlike in Genesis, man has no power to condemn other men with spiritual death.

2. The situation in Genesis is totally, absolutely unique. Man was in an unbroken fellowship with YHVH. In all subsequent texts, man was already in a state of alienation from God! Thus, there could not be a situation totally analogous to Genesis in the other texts. Frost’s application of these other texts is specious and illegitimate. It is an abuse of analogia scriptura.

But, I do not want to dwell long here. I want to focus on Frost’s other arguments that he emphasized as seemingly devastating against the true preterist view.

Frost seemed to think he had a major point when he claimed that when God threatened Adam and Eve with death, that in order for them to understand, appreciate and fear the threat of death, they had to have already seen death occurring! Without having seen death at work, Adam and Eve would not even understand what God meant when He threatened them with death.

I must confess that as I watched and listened to Frost make this argument, I was stunned at the lack of critical thinking, the lack of logic, and in fact, the utter desperation that it must have taken to actually make this argument. I literally could not believe what I was hearing.

Consider this:
According to Frost, Adam and Eve must have already witnessed death. But that means they had witnessed death while they were in the Garden, and before they sinned! Does Frost not know what he has said? Is he unaware of what his claim demands? This is stunning and self-defeating!

Now, if Adam and Eve had already witnessed death, i.e. the physical death of animals, plants, etc., this means that the physical creation was experiencing death- in the Garden — prior to the Curse!

To say this is troublesome for Frost is a huge understatement.

Remember that prior to the Curse of Adam, God looked at what He had created– which, per Frost’s current claim, would have to include physical death– and He pronounced it “Good.” So, Frost’s position demands that death was present and visible to Adam and Eve prior to their sin, prior to the Curse entering. And, since it existed before their Sin and entrance of “the Curse” then physical death had been declared to be “Good” by YHVH Himself! How then, and why, would Adam and Eve think that death was bad, if it had been declared to be “Good” and they had witnessed it as a part of God’s “good creation”? So, why would they fear it?? There is something else here.

Frost claims that one of these days, at the so-called “end of time” earth will be released from “The Curse that came from Adam and Eve’s sin. The curse that came through Adam was supposedly the curse of animals, bugs, slugs and mosquitoes! Frost’s eschatology suggests that earth will be restored to a pristine state where there is no death, no curse.

However, do not forget that per Frost’s video claim, death had to have existed prior to Adam and Eve sinning. Thus, Creation was not placed under the Curse of Death as a result of Adam’s sin- death existed before the Curse– and it was part of the “Good” creation. But wait, yes, there is more!

Let me re-iterate: Death was already part of the Creation that- per Frost’s new paradigm – existed (had to have existed) before sin entered, and, it was declared as “good.” So, in Frost’s futurist view, God will restore earth to its pre-sin condition, to its condition before the Curse entered, and yet, Frost’s position demands – logically- that death will exist in that restored Creation.

But this will not work for Frost, because he believes that at the end of time, physical death is destroyed, because it is the Curse of Adam. This is stunningly self contradictory. You cannot affirm that death existed, had to have existed in the pre-sin, pre-curse world, in the “good” creation, and then turn around and say that God will one day restore earth to a state of “no death” where there is no curse of physical death. Per Frost’s own words, physical death had to have been a part of the good creation, before sin, before the curse world.

It is patently obvious, just on these few points, that if one follows the logic in Frost’s video, physical death cannot be the last enemy, since death existed as part of the “Good” creation prior to Adam’s sin, and prior to the entrance of the Curse of Adam! Thus, Frost, based on his own claims, must now reject the idea that physical death is the last enemy. But wait, yes, there is even more.

If Adam and Eve had to have witnessed death to understand what it was they were being threatened with, then they must have witnessed spiritual death beforehand, or else, per Frost, they could not know what God was threatening them with. And make no mistake, Frost does admit that Adam and Eve were being threatened with spiritual death. Do you see a train coming? If not, you are not paying attention! Let me express this in a hypothetical syllogism.

If it is the case that Adam and Eve had to have witnessed death for them to understand, appreciate and fear the threat of death that God made,


If it is the case that (at least part of) the death that God threatened Adam and Eve with that day was spiritual death,


It must be true that Adam and Eve had witnessed spiritual death before God threatened them with death for eating the forbidden fruit.

See the problem?

If, as Frost claims, Adam and Eve had to have witnessed death prior to God’s threat, and if, as Frost admits, spiritual death was half of the threat that God made, then, undeniably, Adam and Eve had to have witnessed spiritual death prior to God’s threat! (BTW, how do you witness spiritual death? Don’t you have to witness a physical sign of the spiritual reality?) Exactly when and how did Adam and Eve witness spiritual death prior to their own sin and spiritual death?

Frost clearly did not think his argument through very well. If Adam and Eve had to have witnessed death prior to God’s threat, and if God’s threat included spiritual death (as Frost admits) then that means that Adam and Eve had witnessed spiritual death – someone had sinned and lost fellowship with God prior them being threatened with spiritual death! Sin and spiritual alienation therefore, could not have entered with Adam and Eve!! It already existed! It had to have existed prior to Adam and Eve’s sin and they had witnessed it, or else, per Frost, they could not even understand what God was threatening them with!

But wait, if spiritual death already existed before Adam’s sin, not only did sin and death exist before Adam, but, it means that spiritual death, existing before sin entered through Adam (Romans 5:12) had to have been part of the creation that God declared as “good!” After all, everything was “good” until the entrance of the Curse, right??

So, to summarize where Frost’s “argument” leads us logically:
Death had to have existed prior to Adam’s sin. After all, Frost argued that Adam and Eve had to have already witnessed death prior to being threatened with death.

So, if Adam had to have witnessed death to know what it was, then he had to have witnessed a Curse, before he sinned and received the Curse.

But, if death existed prior to Adam’s sin, then sin existed prior to Adam’s sin, because, death brings sin, right?
If Death is the Curse put on Creation and from which Creation needs to be delivered- like man- then
Creation was cursed before Adam sinned. To put it another way, if sin-death-curse go together as siamese sisters, then to say that Adam and Eve had witnessed death prior to being threatened with death, was to say that sin-death-curse existed prior to their sin, death, curse. This is inescapable.

Finally, if Frost is correct to say that Adam and Eve had to have seen spiritual death before their sin in order to understand and fear what God was threatening them with, then without any doubt, Frost’s position demands that spiritual death existed prior to Adam and Eve’s sin, death, curse. Frost has thus created a brand new narrative in his desperate attempt to avoid the truth of Covenant Eschatology. He has created a doctrine unknown in the annals of church history.

It is amazing and sad to witness what happens when men reject the truth and strive to sustain false doctrine. Frost has abandoned logic. He has abused hermeneutic, he has ignored proper exegesis. One can only hope that one day, he will stop kicking against the goads and come to his senses.

The End of the Age or The End of Time? A Look at Matthew 24:3

the end of the age
Did Jesus predict the end of the age – or the end of time? Were his disciples confused about this?

The End of the Age or The End of Time? A Look At Matthew 24:3

Which Disciples Were (Or Are!) Confused?
It is undeniable that the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25) is the key to understanding Jesus’ eschatology. It is certainly his longest discussion of the end of the age and his coming. To say the least, the Discourse is the source of a great deal of perplexity expositors. For the dispensationalist, Jesus’ discussion continues to provide fodder for their repeatedly failed prognostications that we are in the terminal generation.

This discussion of the Olivet Discourse will not deal with the verses 4f. We are concerned here about Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple and the questions that Jesus’ prediction elicited from the disciples. It is not too much to say that if one has a mistaken understanding of verses 2-3 that their entire perspective of the Discourse is thereby skewed. The proper understanding of the disciples’ questions is critical to understanding Jesus’ response. Here is why.

One of the most fundamental beliefs concerning the Discourse is that, yes, Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple. This of course is undeniable. The disciples however, upon hearing of that awful prediction, mistakenly associated that coming event with the end of the age and Christ’s coming. It is not too much to say that the idea that the disciples were confused, or simply mistaken, is one of the most fundamental beliefs about the Discourse. Calvin stated that the disciples: “did not suppose that while the building of this world stood, the temple could fall to ruins.” (John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, (Grand Rapids; AP and A, vol. 7), 462).

It seems not to have dawned on Calvin and those like him that the disciples were acutely aware that the temple had been razed in BC 586, and yet time marched on, the space time continuum did not come to an end! Being well aware of that destruction, why then would the disciples have been compelled to think of the end of time in response to Jesus’ prediction?

Just a few citations from modern representatives of the various futurist eschatologies will suffice to demonstrate how ingrained the idea is that the disciples were confused about the end of the age.

1.) Dispensationalist Thomas Ice says: “The disciples apparently thought that all three items, destruction of the Temple, the sign of Christ’ s coming, and the end of the age would occur at the same time. Yet this is not the cas.”( Ice cites other Dispensationalists that likewise affirm that the disciples were mistaken or confused.

2.) Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger, says, “It would be quite natural for the disciples to wrongly assume that the end of the age and the destruction of Jerusalem would be the same event. But this assumption may not be correct, for the destruction of temple, cataclysmic as it would be, was not the end of the age, nor did the Lord return in AD 70.” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, (Grand Rapids; Baker, 2003), 161).

3.) Postmillennialist Keith Mathison says:“The disciples’ question indicates that in their mind the destruction of temple and the close of the redemptive history are closely related in time. They do not conceive of any significant temporal delay between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of redemptive history. Jesus’ response to their question, however, indicates that their understanding is in need of some correction.” (Keith Mathison, From Age To Age, The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology, (Philippsburg, NJ; P and R Publishing, 2009), 372).

All futurist eschatologies are to a great degree reliant on the concept that the disciples were mistaken. Both the Amillennial and Postmillennial paradigms believe that the Discourse is divided into two topics. It is held that in Matthew 24:4-35 Jesus discussed the destruction of the temple. However, we are told that in v. 36 he switched topics and began to discuss his coming at the end of the current Christian age. The dispensationalists on the other hand, claim that the only verses in the entirety of the Discourse that discuss the destruction of Jerusalem are found in Luke 21:20-24.

But, what if the disciples were not wrong to link the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age and Christ’s coming? What if they were not as eschatologically challenged as modern commentators claim? If the disciples were right to link the fall of Jerusalem to the end of the age, then patently Israel stands at ground zero in God’s eschatological schema. And not only is Israel established as the key to end times understanding, but, eschatological fulfillment is positively confined to the first century. The implications for all of the futurist eschatologies, if the disciples were not as confused as is commonly assumed, are astounding.

The pressing question therefore is, were the disciples wrong to connect the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age and the Day of the Lord? The unequivocal answer is that they were not mistaken. They knew what “the end of the age” meant.

Be sure to get a copy of my book, The Last Days Identified, for a demonstration that “the end of the age” is referent, not to the end of the Christian age, or time, but, to the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel.

The Last Days Identified And Explained
This book proves beyond any doubt that the end of the age – at the end of the last days – occurred in AD 70.

The Great Apostasy – #7 – Final Considerations

the great apostasy
Our study has proven beyond doubt that the Great Apostasy occurred in the first century!

The Great Apostasy: Final Considerations

As we bring our study of the Great Apostasy to a close, I want to present two final thoughts somewhat unrelated to each other.

The Great Apostasy and the Dating of Revelation

Proper understanding of the time-frame for the fulfillment of the Great Apostasy provides a strong answer to an objection against the early date of Revelation. It is argued that the church at Ephesus “left her first love,” but this could not have been the case so soon after the complimentary epistle of Paul. Therefore, it is argued, more time was required from 62-64 AD, the proposed time for the Ephesian epistle, to 68 AD, the proposed time of Revelation.

Since Jesus said the Great Apostasy would certainly occur in his generation before Jerusalem’s fall we must either accept that as fact or fiction. Coupled with how quickly the Galatians, Galatians 1:6ff, departed from the faith, and Paul’s warnings to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29f) the objection to the early date is untenable.

For more on the Great Apostasy and the Dating of Revelation see my Who Is This Babylon? There is a wealth of information in this book.

Who is This Babylon

The Great Apostasy and the “Great Silence” of the Early Writings

The second point to consider is how the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of the Great Apostasy accounts for the “silence” in church writings from about 70 AD to the second century. If, as we contend, Jesus’ words of an apostasy so widespread that “most people’s love will grow cold” were fulfilled before Jerusalem’s fall, then who was left with the courage or inclination to record those events? Their lack of courage caused them to forsake Christ when persecuted; why would they suddenly take heart after the event? In addition, the cessation of the miraculous in 70 would of preclude the writing of any inspired records after the event. We believe the Great Apostasy is to large extent responsible for the period of silence.

Summary and Conclusion
I have sought to demonstrate the fulfillment of Jesus’ words predicting the Great Apostasy. I have shown that Jesus did indeed predict one great apostasy — not two. I have examined the language and seen that he predicted the falling away for his generation. We have seen the magnitude of the event was predicted to be almost universal and seen the confirmation of that in the epistles.

The ramifications of accepting the postulate of this article are tremendous for both amillennial and premillennial schools. The amillennialist contention of two apostasies is false and therefore applications of the Pauline predictions to the future are not proper. The premillennial posit that Matthew 24 was not applicable to the first century is untenable on linguistic and contextual grounds. The millennial structure therefore falls as well — there is no predicted future Great Apostasy.

When it is acknowledged that Jesus predicted the Great Apostasy to occur in his generation, prior to his return, and when it is realized that apostasy did occur in the first century, one must also conclude that Christ came at the height of that apostasy just as predicted. The fulfillment of the prediction of the Great Apostasy demands fulfillment of the prediction of Christ’s parousia. The apostasy came — Christ also came.

The Judgment of the Living and the Dead

the judgment of the living and the dead
Jesus was emphatic in positing the judgment of the living and the dead in his generation, as this book shows!

The Judgment of the Living and the Dead

Opponents of Covenant Eschatology commonly claim that the AD 70 judgment was simply the destruction of a troublesome outpost of a city in the Roman Empire. They claim that it most assuredly had no “spiritual significance.” They claim, as Dr. David Hester did in our formal public debate, July 14-15, 2016, that the judgment of Jerusalem did not involve the judgment of former generations of people. It did not involve the judgment of the living and the dead. Evidently, Dr. Hester has never read or carefully examined Matthew 23:29-37:

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

How extensive was the judgment of Jerusalem? It was a judgment of the living, i.e. “this generation”, and it was the judgment of former generations, i.e. “all the blood, of all the righteous, from righteous Abel” onward! Does that sound like a “minor,” “insignificant”, or strictly “local judgment”? This is clearly the judgment of the living and the dead – in AD 70, at the end of the Old Covenant age!

I have produced a YouTube video explaining– briefly– even more of why Dr. Hester is so egregiously wrong to deny that the judgment of the living and the dead occurred in AD 70. Be sure to check it out!


The Resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 – #11- Holger Neubaur

the resurrectionThe Resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 – Installment #11 by Holger Neubaur

We continue sharing with you the excellent thoughts from Holger Neubaur, on the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15. Needless to say, most of Christianity claims that in this great chapter Paul was predicting an “end of time” resurrection of decomposed human corpses. But, Neubauer is showing with powerful exegetical proof, this is not what Paul is discussing in his teaching on the resurrection. Be sure to read the previous installments of this series, beginning here, and including the last installment.

We pick up Neubaur’s thoughts with verse 53f.

Paul again states, “for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (15:53).” Jesus promised, “he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11:26). Again he said, “If a man keep my saying he shall never see death” (John 8:51). These were spiritual realities that Jesus was speaking about and Paul cannot be speaking of a different physical reality that some how trumps the importance of true spiritual life. Paul ties his entire discussion to the fact the death was being destroyed. He goes on to say, “so when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” (15:54).

Paul now quotes from Isaiah 25:8, “He will swallow up death in victory; and wipe all tears from off all their faces.” This Old Testament prophecy must not be applied to a yet future generation for Jesus said, “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). The word “fulfilled” includes all prophecy because the word “fulfilled” inheres in prophecy. Jesus said, “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”(Matthew 24:34). The same word “genetai” appears in both texts of scripture.

The death that is addressed is spiritual in nature and signifies the removal of fellowship with God. The Hadean world is the result of sin and resided outside the presence of God. Hosea 13:14 says, “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: Oh death, I will be the plagues; Oh grave, I will be thy destruction; repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.” The corruptible body is the entire body that succumbed to death and decay. The body of Adam is the one where all die (1 Corinthian 15:22). Adam sinned and he died, just as is the case with all of mankind. Only in Christ is there true spiritual life, for Jesus said, “I am the life” (John 14:6). The mortality of Adam is overcome through the immortality of Christ, for He “only hath immortality” ( 1 Timothy 6:15). The death that is swallowed up in victory was the death lost in Adam; i.e, spiritual death, and was the consummation of the death that was being destroyed even as Paul penned these words, “who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality through the gospel” ( 2 Timothy 1:10). Jesus’ promise that “he that liveth and beleiveth in me shall never die” (John 11:26) would now come to pass.

(It is this that then led to Paul’s exultant declaration of the victory of death to be found in 1 Corinthians 15.- DKP)

Be sure to order a copy of Don K. Preston’s book, We Shall Meet Him In The Air, the Wedding of the King of kings, for an in-depth study of the resurrection.

The Wedding of the King of Kings

The Great Apostasy: Future or Fulfilled? #3

the great apostasy
Was the great apostasy truly in the first century? The testimony is quite clear that it was!

The Great Apostasy: Future or Fulfilled? #3

Be sure to read the previous two installments in this series on the great apostasy  #1 and #2

The Great Apostasy and “This Generation”
Without question the entire premillennial construction of the Olivet Discourse stands or falls on the definition of “this generation”! If by “this generation” Jesus meant his contemporary generation then the posit of a future Abomination of Desolation, Great Tribulation, Great Apostasy, Rapture, etc. falls to the ground! A study of the word is therefore proper.

A. J. Mattill lists several definitions by commentators in an effort to escape the dilemma posed by Jesus’ seemingly clear-cut time statement. Some define it as “Jewish race”; “human race”; “this type of faithless generation”; “the generation that sees these things whenever that might be”.

While the Greek word translated as generation (genea) does have “race” as root meaning, Mattill notes that Bauer’s Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon gives not a single instance where genea actually means “race.” Balz-Schneider hold that genea referred to the “Jewish people in the time of Jesus” in a special eschatological context. In other words, “this generation” in Mark 13:30 “affirms, along with Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32, that this generation (Jesus’ generation, DKP) must experience the horrors of the end time.” Kittel’s says genea, “mostly denotes ‘generation’ in the sense of contemporaries.” They give no Biblical examples of genea meaning race, people, mankind, etc.

Many commentators have chosen to change the normal “temporal” significance of “this generation” because of theological bias. The problem as some see it may be summarized in the words of Mounce,

“The problem is obvious, the generation alive at that time has long since passed away, but the eschatological events described in the passage have not taken place”. This “a priori” mindset of how things must be fulfilled is at the very least suspect. We agree with Demars “If Jesus said that all the events prior to Matthew 24:34 would occur before the contemporary generation (within forty years) passed away, then we must take him at his word.”

The word generation is used 38 times outside of Matthew 24:34 (and parallels). Jesus personally used the term “this generation”, apart from parallels, 10 times. An examination of these passages should convince any objective student of the meaning of the term. Now, if it can be established that “this generation” was referent to Jesus’ contemporary time, the, without doubt, the great apostasy was in the first century. Let us examine the usage of “this generation” in the Synoptics.

The Great Apostasy and a Look at “This Generation”

1. Matthew 11:16 — “to what shall I like this generation?” Jesus was clearly speaking of his contemporaries who would not accept him. (parallel Lk. 7:31)

2. Matthew 12:41 — “The men of Nineveh will rise up in judgment with this generation.” Jesus is contrasting an earlier generation with his own. (Lk. 11:32)

3. Matthew 12:42 — “the queen of the south will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it”. Same as verse 41. (Lk. 11:31)

4. Matthew 12:45 — “So shall it also be with this wicked generation”. Jesus was predicting the exceeding wickedness of his contemporaries. This corresponds exactly with his warning that his generation would “fill up the measure of your fathers” Matthew 23:32, by persecuting the saints.

5. Matthew 23:36 — “All these things will come upon this generation.” Interestingly, few millennialists deny that this occurrence of “this generation” is a specific referent to Jesus’ contemporaries and the awful events of 70 AD.

6. Matthew 24:34 — We agree with Bahnsen and Gentry “Contextually the ‘this generation’ of Matthew 24:34 MUST speak of the same idea as that of Matthew 23:36.”

1. Mark 8:12 — “Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say unto you, no sign shall be given to this generation.” Is there any dispute as to whether it was Jesus’ contemporaries seeking a sign?

2. Mark 8:38 — “whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulteress and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes”. It was Jesus’ contemporaries who were ashamed of him and knew him not, John 1:11; Luke 13:25-30.

1. Luke 11:30-“As Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation”. Jesus was raised, as a sign, in that generation was he not?

2. Luke 17:25 — “But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation”. Jesus said he must suffer at the hands of “this generation” — indisputably his contemporaries.

While we have not examined each occurrence of the word “generation”, confining ourselves to those instances where Jesus personally used the term “this generation”, a wider study would confirm the words of Gould: “The word is always used by Jesus to denote the men living at that time”. Our examination of the term “this generation” as used by Jesus has found that “In every case it does not seem doubtful that the meaning is the CONTEMPORARIES OF JESUS”. (emphasis his) He continues “If dogmatic considerations were not at stake, that conclusion would not be questioned, but Biblical exegesis must control Biblical theology and not vice versa”. We agree and must reject the millennial redefinition of “this generation” and agree with Terry that to change the meaning of the term to “Jewish Nation”; “race of Christian Believers”, etc, or any other unattested definition is to do so as “a reading whatever suits our purpose into the words of Scripture”. Strangely, the premillennialists is the student that is always insisting on the literal interpretation of scripture. But when confronted with the consistent, textual, and literal definition of generation in Matthew 24:34 that insistence becomes somewhat less than rigid.

Consider for a moment what it would mean to define “generation” as “Jewish race”. This would have Jesus saying the Jewish nation would not perish until his return. Conversely, this would indicate the Jewish nation would perish at Christ’s return. But the millennial posit is that at the parousia the Jews are converted and reign for a thousand years with Christ.

The problem is compounded when one considers the “fig tree” illustration, Matt. 24:32f. Millennialists contend the fig tree represents Israel; the budding represents Israel’s re-establishment in May of 1948. The application is then made that the generation seeing this would not pass until the coming occurred. But Luke says consider the fig tree “and all the trees” (21:29). Jesus said when the fig tree, and all the trees, bring forth leaves this indicates summer is nigh; meaning when they saw the signs they could know his coming was at hand. He then stated “this generation will not pass”.

Now what does “all the trees” mean? If the fig tree is Israel, then all the trees must represent all nations. Did Jesus say there would be a restoration of “all the nations” just before the parousia? The millennial definition of the “fig tree” demands this but it is not valid. Jesus was simply giving an illustration. Some millennialists now reject the fig tree application to Israel because of these difficulties.

The point is, the fig tree illustration and Jesus’ use of “this generation” constitutes strong proof indeed that Jesus was speaking to and about contemporaries. And this would mean that the great apostasy did indeed take place in  the first century.

If it is ever granted that “this generation” actually refers to Jesus’ generation then the Great Apostasy, an apostasy so vast that “most people’s love will grow cold” did indeed happen in the first century. At this one admission the entire millennial view of Matthew 24 would tumble.

Many amillennialist would agree with this view; all the while having what might be called a “blind spot” in his own theology about the Apostasy. For you see, while many amillennialists believe an apostasy did occur prior to Jerusalem’s demise, at least they would argue this to combat millennialism, they then turn around and argue that in II Thessalonians and other epistles predict another Great Apostasy that has not yet come to full fruition.

The primary passage offered as proof for a second apostasy is 2 Thessalonians 2. However, a comparison with the Olivet Discourse will prove beyond doubt that these are parallel passages and that the great apostasy occurred in the first century.

The Resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 – Article #8- Holger Neubauer

the resurrectionThe Resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 –

Be sure to read the previous installment in this series on the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:39-41 points out the difference between fleshly bodies and heavenly bodies. There is a “flesh of men” and of “beasts.” These earthly animals have earthly bodies. There are bodies that are “celestial” (heavenly) and bodies “terrestrial”(earthly). The resurrection is more like the (heavenly) celestial than the (earthly) terrestrial. Paul points to heavenly bodies of the sun, moon and stars. Daniel 12, which speaks of resurrection contains parallel thoughts. Daniel 12:3 says, “And they that shall be wise shall shine as the firmament.” Jesus quoted from this passage when speaking about the “end of the age” (Matthew 13:39), when He said, “then the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:43).” Both the dead in Christ that were transported out of Hades and presented before God, and the living that would experience the resurrection would shine to varying degrees are the subject. Jesus said, “So let your light so shine before men” (Matthew 5:16), as Paul affirmed, “among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life” (Philippians 2:15). To varying degrees, subjects of the eternal life are the ones that allow the gospel to shine forth in the darkness of the unsaved. This fits 1 Corinthians 15:42, “So also is the resurrection of the dead.”

1 Corinthians 15:42 b finishes the thought, “It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.” The Old Covenant body, which was transitioning, was sown in weakness. It was weak because it could not save. The false teachers of Peter’s day who denied the coming of Christ and argued, “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Peter 3:3) promised “liberty but were servants of corruption” (2 Peter 2:19). The natural body was corruptible because when it sinned it died. Paul affirmed, “when the commandment came, sin revived and I died” (Romans 7:9).

In 1 Corinthians 15:43, Paul does not change subject, “It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power:” The body was raised in power because sin was destroyed in the new body. Paul affirms the blessing for those exclusively in Christ, “For in Adam, all men die, so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). The transitional body of suffering and humiliation was constantly being transformed so that it might be “fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself” (Philippians 3:16). This is a picture of the church, not a picture of flesh and blood as the futurist avers. Paul said, “hath put all thing under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:23). The spiritual domain in which Christ was to rule, was already in progress. This again, is the “already, but not yet” of scripture. The verb “raised” (egeiretai) is a present tense and indicative mood verb which tells us the action of the verb was taking place at the time Paul wrote. Literally, they were being raised in power.