Don K. Preston . Com

When Did the Millennium Begin?| Preston’s Final Negative

Share

the millennium
When Did the Millennium Begin?

When Did the Millennium Begin? A Written Debate

Don K. Preston’s Final Negative
(ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS ONLY)

Once again, Jonathan claims I have ignored his arguments, when in fact, it is he that has totally ignored the foundational arguments I have offered. I mean no disrespect to Jonathan, but, he either does not understand proper logic, or, what is more likely true, realizing that my arguments are in fact valid, he seeks to obfuscate and simply throw up a cloud of smoke, claiming I have ignored his arguments. But, to anyone remotely familiar with logic and argumentation, they know that my “frame-work” arguments are valid, sound and irrefutable. If (since) my frame-work arguments are true, then it means– prima facie – that Jonathan’s contrived, procrustean arguments are wrong, because they violate the frame-work.

Consider again the jig saw puzzle illustration. I have established the frame for the eschatological puzzle. Consider the following:
1. All Biblical eschatology is the anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel.

2. Every jot and tittle of Torah had to be fulfilled before the Law could pass, thus, until the end of the Millennium resurrection is fulfilled, Torah, every jot and every tittle of it, inclusive of the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths, remains valid and binding. Jonathan has totally refused to address the issue of the Sabbath, yet, this is critically important since the PostMillennial new creation is the goal of the Sabbath. Thus, if the end of the Millennium has not come, Sabbath, and all attendant cultic praxis, remains as a binding type and shadow.

3. Jonathan says that God was through with Old Covenant Israel in AD 70. This is devastatingly important and destroys Jonathan’s eschatology.

4. Jonathan says that while God was through with Old Covenant Israel in AD 70, that the promises / prophecies that he has appealed (e.g. Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) to are not concerned with Old Covenant Israel, but, with national, fleshly Israel.

5. I appealed to Jonathan in five presentations, to produce the Biblical proof that God made promises to national Israel, divorced from His Covenant relationship with her. What did he offer us? NOT SO MUCH AS A SYLLABLE.

6. THERE IS NO BIBLICAL ISRAEL TODAY! PERIOD! I produced the testimony from the Encyclopedia Judaica (and other sources) that THERE IS NO RACE OF ISRAEL, NO “JEWISH NATION” TODAY. There are no Israelites descended from Abraham. Period. Such an idea has no historical, anthropological, or even Biblical basis. A “Jew” is anyone, from any ethnic group, that follows the Jewish religion! Furthermore, even the vast majority of those who call themselves “Jews” today, even if they are “religious” follow the Talmud, and NOT TORAH, thus disqualifying themselves from being actual “Jews” in any proper sense.

What was Jonathan’s response? Stunningly, he said: “The fact the Jews are not homogenous as to racial origins is beside the point. Most well informed people know the Hebrews were a mixed multitude from the time they journeyed out with Abraham. The main point is that Jews think of themselves as a united race, and their very national identity is often a target of hatred and prejudice.”

So, the fact that the “Jews” are not Biblical Jews is “beside the point,” per Jonathan! What actually matters is the “Jews think of themselves as a united race.” Now, I have read some desperate, illogical, irrational “arguments” before, but, this one just about takes the cake!

Let’s try that in the real world, shall we? I am not related, in any way, shape, form, or fashion, to Bill Gates! But, per Jonathan’s “logic” (which is not logical), the main point is that I THINK I am related to him, and thus, to his fortune! Per Jonathan’s “logic” even though I am not, in any way, related to Bill Gates, nonetheless, one of these days, I AM GOING TO INHERIT HIS FORTUNE! Why? Because I think I will! How can anyone take such an “argument” seriously?

Let’s apply the indisputable facts that I have presented to the arguments that Jonathan has made. Let me offer this as a “primer” for guidance:

All eschatological promises cited by Jonathan Campanik in this debate were promises / prophecies made to ISRAEL.

BUT, THERE IS NO BIBLICAL ISRAEL, AND THERE IS NO ABRAHAMIC, ISRAELITE NATION TODAY.

Therefore, none of the promises / prophecies cited by Jonathan Campanik in this debate are applicable today, or in the future.

This means that Jonathan’s appeals to Ezekiel 38-39 / Daniel / Romans 11:25-27 / Revelation 20, etc., etc. cannot be applicable to the present or to the future time! They could only be applicable when / while Old Covenant Israel still existed!

Jonathan falsely claimed that I ignored his argument on Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39). No, Jonathan, my “frame-work” argument totally falsified your desperate attempts to ignore not only what the text says, but, your attempts to impose onto the text what it does not say. Take note of my responses to Ezekiel:

1. Note again, EZEKIEL 38-39 IS ABOUT ISRAEL! Not a people that only THINK they are Israel in spite of the evidence– but ISRAEL. And by the way, Jonathan assures us in his last, that this cannot be the church, i.e. spiritual Israel.

So, Ezekiel 38-39 was a promise made to and about Israel.
BUT, ISRAEL DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
Therefore, Ezekiel 38-39 does not and cannot apply today! So, let me repeat an earlier argument.

For Jonathan to apply Ezekiel 38 to our future he must prove that those OT prophecies (E. G. Ezekiel 38!!) were not made to the Abrahamic blood line of Israel. But, Paul said the promise of the resurrection – and that would include Revelation 20:11f – belonged to Israel “according to the flesh” and Israel of the covenant (Romans 9:1-4). So, if Ezekiel 38f is not about Israel, as Israel, Jonathan is wrong. If Ezekiel 38 is about Old Covenant Israel– and it patently is– then since God’s dealings with Old Covenant Israel ended in AD 70, Jonathan is wrong.

2. I argued repeatedly:
The battle of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38-39) belonged to ISRAEL’S LAST DAYS.
The battle of Gog and Magog of Revelation 20:8 is the same as in Ezekiel- Jonathan admitted this.
Israel’s last days ended in AD 70- Jonathan agrees.
Therefore, the end of the Millennium battle of Gog and Magog had to be in the first century!
You want to talk about ignoring arguments? Jonathan said not one word in response!

3. I pointed out that Ezekiel describes the weapons of the battle of Gog and Magog as ancient weapons, and thus, this demands a fulfillment of Ezekiel had to take place within an ancient setting. Jonathan’s response: “We are subjected to triviality when Don points out the weapons used in the battle in Ezekiel are primitive by modern standards. Of course Ezekiel draws on imagery of primitive weaponry–because it is the only language his readers could understand!”

So, Jonathan takes virtually everything in Ezekiel 38-39 as literal, but, when his literalism entraps him, he just waves his hand at it, and claims the problem is trivial. No, it is not minor. It is hugely problematic for Jonathan and he knows it. That is why he refused to deal with it substantively.

4. Jonathan made the incredibly bad- and false- claim that Babylon was strictly a single nation, city, kingdom, and therefore, could not be what Ezekiel meant when he spoke of Israel being scattered “among the nations.” This is critical to his narrative of Ezekiel. Yet, I produced, from Ezekiel- and historians- absolute proof that this claim is false. He could not answer it, (and did not try) thus, down goes Jonathan’s entire contrived paradigm.

Jonathan wants to rip Gog and Magog out of its covenantal framework, ignore the details about the weapons, and say that while God’s covenantal dealings with Israel were terminated in AD 70, that Ezekiel 38 is about the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel– an Israel that does not even exist today! To say that all of this is fatal to Jonathan’s entire paradigm is a huge understatement!

In spite of the fact that I addressed all of these points Jonathan claims that I ignored his arguments on Ezekiel 38-39. That is patently false.

Daniel 12 and the Death of Campanik’s Eschatology; The resurrection of the just and unjust
I said from the very beginning that Daniel 12 was the death knell to Jonathan’s view. All of his torturous claims about Daniel 7, or Ezekiel 38-39 or whatever, fall in light of what chapter 12 says. All of his claims about the Millennium are exposed. His desperation in “answering” what Daniel 12 says confirms my analysis. Let me go back over that ground to drive home how critical, how devastating Daniel 12 is to Jonathan.

1. DANIEL 12 IS ABOUT ISRAEL
Biblical Israel does not exist today, no matter what Jonathan says. Since Israel does not exist today, then none of the promises of Daniel 12 lie in our future.

2. The promise of the resurrection belonged to Israel- ISRAEL AFTER THE FLESH– Israel of the COVENANT (cf. Acts 26:6-7; Romans 9:1-4). This is a total refutation of Jonathan’s repeated claims that national Israel– not Old Covenant Israel– is the focus of the eschatological promises of Isaiah, Ezekiel , Daniel, etc..

I have shown from the emphatic, explicit and undeniable words of Isaiah 59 / Romans 11:25-27 that the salvation of “all Israel” – NO MATTER YOUR DEFINITION OF “ALL ISRAEL” – would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel: “This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sin.” Jonathan says that the Israel of Romans 11 is “national Israel” not Old Covenant Israel. But, Isaiah and Paul deny this claim as false. Thus, Jonathan’s claims are false.

The Israel that Paul discussed in Romans was Covenant Israel. But, Old Covenant Israel does not exist today. Therefore, Romans 11 was fulfilled by the time of, and no later than, the time when Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist– which was AD 70. You cannot have the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 at some point in the future without thereby affirming that Israel remains Old Covenant Israel. God did not know or recognize Israel outside of His covenant relationship with her! When He divorced the 10 northern tribes for instance, he said “You are not my people” because He no longer recognized them as His covenant people! NO COVENANT = NO ISRAEL! So, once again, the promises of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. were promises made to Israel– covenant Israel. But, Jonathan himself has admitted that God’s covenant dealings with Israel ended in AD 70. Thus, the EoM resurrection of Revelation 20:11f was fulfilled no later than AD 70.

Daniel 12 said the resurrection – of the just and the unjust– “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered, all of these things will be fulfilled.” Paul, in Acts 24:14f, said the resurrection of the just AND THE UNJUST was “about to be.” Jonathan has to deny that the resurrection of the unjust was about to be, thus denying Paul’s words.

Jonathan has to divide Daniel 12, inserting huge gaps where there is no indication whatsoever of any gap. Worse, the words of the text deny all such efforts. “Don seems to assume that since (on my view) there is a millennial time gap between the 70 AD release from Sheol/Hades and the full reception of biological immortality in the new heavens and new earth, I must be positing two different resurrections for the righteous. Don is mistaken. Biological immortality (per the tree of life) is inextricably linked to the 70 AD defeat of Sheol as seen by the saints’ entry to “the midst” of Paradise and restored access to the tree. The fact this is a process reaching full maturity with the restoration of the fallen material creation does not change that.”

A very quick note: Jonathan has told us that the martyrs, taken out of Hades, now have access to partake of the Tree of Life. Yet, he here affirms that the Tree of Life is for “biological immortality.” So, the martyrs should now have biological immortality! They should have come out of the literal graves! You cannot affirm that the martyrs partake of the Tree of Life without affirming that they have received “biological immortality.” But, that demands that they have been literally, bodily raised – which is patently false. Even more, if the martyrs – which as we have argued earlier – now partake of the Tree of Life, receiving biological immortality, then they have received the “better resurrection” before everyone else! Yet Paul, speaking of the righteous martyrs of the past, said “they, without us, cannot be made perfect.” I.e. they could not receive their reward 2000 years before the last days, first fruit saints! Jonathan’s doctrine keeps exposing itself as contrary to scripture.

Jonathan admits that he inserts gaps into the texts. But, I want the reader to focus on the actual text of Daniel 12:6-7 that I give her, with emphasis added:

“And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?” Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.”

Now, notice the stark contrast between the inspired text, and Jonathan’s convoluted theology:

a. The resurrection would take place at the time of the end (v. 2-4). But, due to Jonathan’s presuppositional theology, he inserts TWO ENDS OF TWO AGES into the text. It is no longer “the end” but “the ends.”

b. The text says that at that time– which is the time of the Great Tribulation– the resurrection of the just and unjust would take place. But, Jonathan says, No, that is not right. The resurrection of the just took place at the climax of the Tribulation, but not the unjust, which has not occurred 2000 years later!

c. One angel asks another: “When shall these things be, and when shall ALL of these things be fulfilled?” The angel did not ask, “When shall some of these things be fulfilled?” He did not ask, “When shall these things begin to be fulfilled?” He did not ask, “When shall most of these things be fulfilled?” He asked: “When shall ALL of these things be fulfilled.”

d. Heaven’s response was “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” The God of heaven said “ALL OF THESE THINGS” not some, not most, but “ALL OF THESE THINGS” – which of course was inclusive of the resurrection of the unjust – would be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered.”

Jonathan Campanik says: “No, only some of those things were fulfilled “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” Jonathan rejects and perverts the words of heaven, all because his “traditional” and “orthodox” eschatology demands it.

The text says that all of those things would be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered,” which Jonathan admits was in AD 70. But, what does Jonathan do? He says Israel’s power – her covenant with YHVH – was shattered in AD 70, but, that is not when all of those things were fulfilled. Even though God no longer has a covenant with Israel that covenant promise, made to His covenant people remains unfulfilled, but will be fulfilled to a non-existing “Israel”!

Did you notice what Jonathan did, in “response” to what I said in regard to the resurrection “out of the dust” in Daniel? He altered the definition, but then applies it to the EoM resurrection literally out of the dust!
“While it is true the dead will receive an immortal body at the end of time that is compatible with the nature of the spiritual world and renewed creation, Don may in fact be correct in suggesting calling this a (second) “resurrection” (per the righteous) is inconsistent with my position. Don’s comments here have helped me to sharpen my thoughts on this. I think he is quite correct to point it out. Rather, the reception of the fullness of the immortal body (for the righteous) is simply the fulfillment of the first resurrection set in motion in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 14:13). So the second resurrection can only be properly called a resurrection if it is limited to the wicked coming out of Hades/Torments after the Millennium (Rev. 20:11-15). The living on earth would be, rather, changed, transfigured, and translated into the fullness of the new heavens and earth per the first resurrection.”

Folks, again, this is painfully convoluted, without exegetical support of any kind. And, Jonathan abandoned the ship, and totally abdicated his arguments with his admission, and YOU JUST HAVE TO CATCH THIS!

He said from the beginning that resurrection is the raising of decomposed bodies out of the dirt– the dust. He said that the righteous were resurrected in AD 70 and would not take part, in any way, in the end of the Millennium resurrection. I pointed out that this argument is self defeating and excludes the righteous from resurrection to eternal life! If the resurrection of the just in AD 70 was simply the raising out of Hades, and the righteous have no part in the EoM resurrection, THEN THEY NEVER PARTICIPATE IN THE RESURRECTION OUT OF THE LITERAL DUST. (Please take note that Jonathan desperately tried to escape the reference to “out of the dust” by claiming it refers to out of Hades for the righteous. However, he then insists that it refers to the raising of literal corpses out of the literal dust at the end of time! This is double talk.

Since he was entrapped by his own argument, Jonathan now amends it, mid-stream. He now claims: “The reception of the fullness of the immortal body (for the righteous) is simply the fulfillment of the first resurrection set in motion in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 14:13).” Since Jonathan introduced Revelation 14:13, let me make a very quick point here on Revelation 14.

Revelation 14:13 is the parousia of Christ, at the end of the age harvest, in fulfillment of Daniel 12:3-4 / Matthew 13:39-43. But, from the time of that parousia – AD 70 per Jonathan – the righteous would “rest from their labors.” The word “rest” is anapausis. In the LXX it is the word most commonly used for the Sabbath rest. Revelation 14:13 is the promise therefore, of the true Sabbath rest, FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD COVENANT TYPOLOGICAL SABBATH. It is entrance into the MHP – the end of the Millennium Sabbath rest – that arrived in AD 70. Once again, Jonathan has falsified his own claims.

So, the resurrection of the righteous began in AD 70, (which was supposed to be ‘out of the dust” per the actual text of Daniel- taken literally), but, it will not be consummated until the so-called end of time, when the decomposed corpses of the just are actually raised out of the dust. But, once again, this violates Daniel 12, that emphatically, unambiguously says that the resurrection of the just and unjust would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” All of those things – ALL OF THEM – WOULD BE FINISHED AT THE END OF ISRAEL’S COVENANT HISTORY. Not at the (non-existent) end of time. Not at the end of the ENDLESS Christian age.

Jonathan now argues that “out of the dust” in Daniel does not literally mean “out of the dust” even thought that is what it says. It means out of Hades in the spiritual realm. However, he argues that the EoM resurrection – which he now admits must include the just after all – must be literally “out of the dust.” Jonathan’s vacillation exposes his doctrine as false.

So, Daniel says ALL FULFILLED BY AD 70. Jonathan rejects that. Jonathan is wrong.
Daniel says all “finished / fulfilled” by AD 70. Jonathan rejects that and says SOME OF IT BEGAN to be fulfilled in AD 70. Jonathan rejects the text, thus, Jonathan is wrong.
Daniel’s promise was to Old Covenant Israel. Jonathan says Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70. There is no Old Covenant Israel today. Thus, Jonathan is wrong.

NO END OF TIME!
I noted that Jonathan’s eschatology demands the end of the Christian age, the end of time, which he affirms repeatedly. But, scripture shows the reign of Christ has no end! I presented the following irrefutable facts:
A. Isaiah 9:6f– Of the increase of his government and of peace, there shall be NO END!
B. Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14; 7:18-25– His kingdom, his rule has no end!
C. Matthew 24:35 – Jesus affirmed that his New Covenant world “will never pass away.”
D. Luke 1:32-33 – “Of his kingdom, there shall be no end.”
E. Ephesians 3:20-21 – “Unto him be glory in the church, by Jesus Christ, … age without end!”
F. Revelation 11:17f – “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and forever.”

Jonathan did not say one word in response, and the reason is simple. “No end” does not mean it would end in 1000 years– or even after a really long time! No end means, NO END! If the Christian age has “no end” Jonathan’s eschatology is false. The Bible is clear that Christ’s reign, his kingdom, his covenant– has no end. The only age that was to end was the Old Covenant age (Matthew 24:2-3). All of Jonathan’s claims about the throne of Christ not being established prior to AD 70 is simply false, as he has to ignore all of the texts that I have adduced that speak eloquently and irrefutably to the fact that Christ was on the throne, ruling, and reigning prior to AD 70.

Let me illustrate the problem for Jonathan, by taking note of what one of his so-called proof texts actually says, Revelation 2:27f: “But hold fast what you have till I come. And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations – ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’ – as I also have received from My Father”

I want you to take note that Jonathan conveniently omitted Jesus’ statement: “as I also have received (first person singular PERFECT INDICATIVE) from My Father.” Why would Jonathan leave out Jesus’ statement that HE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE ROD OF IRON FROM THE FATHER? Jonathan realized the danger to his view of Jesus had fulfilled Psalms 110 (the text being cited in Revelation 2:27).

I had argued that at his ascension Jesus: “Ascended to the right hand of the Father (Acts. 2:29f) “…in fulfillment of Ps. 110.” But, Jonathan said this was “Wrong. This is fulfilled in AD 70 according to Rev. 2:25-27: “But hold fast what you have till I come. And he who overcomes, and keeps my works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations–‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’ –“Rev. 2:27 quotes Ps. 110:2, and posits a future fulfillment. This was fulfilled in AD 70.”

No, Jesus did not posit his sitting at the right hand in fulfillment of Psalms 110:2 in the future! Significantly, Psalms 110:1-2 is cited over 30 times in the NT, and in every instance, it speaks of Christ being then, already, at the right hand of the Father! On the day of Pentecost, Peter affirmed that Christ had ascended and was seated at the right hand in fulfillment of Psalms 110:2: Read the inspired words: “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’

JESUS WAS NOT WAITING TO BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND. He had been seated. And, when seated, he had been given the rod of iron, and was waiting for the last enemy to be put under him as he ruled in the midst of his enemies. As we have noted repeatedly, all things had been put under him except death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:25f / Hebrews 10:12-13). As I noted early on, he triumphed over the principalities and powers through the cross (Colossians 2:14f).

Jonathan is simply wrong to say that Christ did not truly take his place at the right hand, to rule and reign over his enemies (110:2): “Rule thou, in the midst of thine enemies!” His rule – the Millennial reign – was the time of the “consolidation” of his reign, and the perfection of that reign at the end of the Millennium – the Day of His Wrath – was when the last enemy was put under him. I noted earlier the perfect correspondence between Psalms 110 / 1 Corinthians 15 / Revelation 20, but, Jonathan naturally ignored this connection because it definitively proves that the Millennium did not begin in AD 70, but terminated in the Great Day of His Wrath.

Let me make a point – again: The promise of Messiah being enthroned, ruling and reigning, awaiting the final putting down of his enemies in the Day of his wrath (cf. Psalms 110:5) was an Old Covenant promise made to Israel! Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70, therefore, the putting down of the last enemy, at the Day of Wrath, had to be fulfilled in AD 70. But, the putting down of the last enemy was to be at the end of the Millennium. Therefore, the putting down of the last enemy at the end of the Millennium was no later than AD 70.

The Binding of Satan
Jonathan just can’t keep from contradicting himself. I examined Jesus’ words in Matthew 12 where he was casting out demons. The Jews accused him of working by the power of Satan. Jesus refuted that, of course, and stated that the casting out of the demons proved that he had / was binding Satan himself, because you don’t spoil the strong man’s house (i.e. the demons) unless you FIRST BIND THE STRONG MAN. Thus, the casting out of the demons was proof that Satan was being bound! Jonathan responded by claiming: “When Jesus said you don’t despoil a strong man’s house unless you first bind the strong man, He was not saying he had already bound the strong man. He was indicating He was in the process of binding the strong man so that he could despoil his house!”

Well, thank you, Jonathan! You just admitted that Jesus was– well prior to AD 70– in the process of binding Satan, thus falsifying everything you have said about this.

And by the way, the EoM destruction was an Old Covenant promise, made to Old Covenant Israel -Isaiah 27, remember – but, Old Covenant, Abrahamic Israel does not exist today, thus, all of your verbiage about the binding and destruction of Satan – perverting the definition of words, inserting unwarranted gaps into the texts, etc. etc. are all for naught, unless you can prove that Old Covenant Israel exists today, and is still the covenant people of YHVH.

Double Fulfillment
Absolutely critical to Jonathan’s narrative is the concept of double fulfillment. He has relied on this, stated it, etc. repeatedly. However, when I have asked for exegetical proof, the only thing we have received is his presuppositional claims, that it is required. But, without proof he has nothing, and his eschatology is false. Jonathan should have offered us something substantive, some exegesis, that would support his claims. His failure is fatal.

TIME OF REFORMATION
I have proven the following beyond any doubt:

1. John the Baptizer initiated the restoration of all things, the restoration promised in the Old Covenant promises to Israel. Jonathan realizes that if this is true, his paradigm is wrong, because he has told us that the restoration of all things did not begin until AD 70. So, he claims that John’s restoration was not part of the “real” restoration of all things, but, was preparatory for the restoration of all things. Then he claimed that I inappropriately conflated John’s work and that of Jesus based on simple similarity of verbal usage. I challenged him to prove his case, but of course, he did not try because he could not do so.

All Jonathan has done is to reiterate his claim that the restoration did not begin until AD 70. But, you cannot divorce the restoration work of John / Elijah and that of Jesus. This definitively proves that the restoration of all things did begin before AD 70, and thus, the Millennium began before AD 70.

2. I proved that Jesus’ Passion was an integral, foundational element of the restoration of all things. Jonathan has waved his hand at this– again with no exegesis– and said he does not deny that Christ’s passion is foundational, but, he nonetheless divorces it from the actual process of the restoration. This is totally untenable, as we have proven.

3. I proved that the work of the Spirit was part of the restoration of all things. This is fatal to Jonathan’s view. So, he sent up a cloud of smoke, claiming: “Nor do I divorce the times of restoration from the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as Preston contends).” I responded: “But of course, this is false. The Spirit’s work involved the “restoration of the kingdom” AND THAT BEGAN BEFORE AD 70. Scripture no where says the Spirit was to prepare for the parousia when the restoration would begin.”

Now, catch this. The work of the restoration of all things would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel. As Peter expressed it:
“That he may send Jesus, 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.” Acts 3:21-24).

So, the work of restoration would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel, Moses, Samuel, and “as many as have spoken.”
But, Old Covenant Israel – the Israel to whom those promises were given – DOES NOT EXIST TODAY. There is no Old Covenant Israel, nation today.
Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70 – says Jonathan.
Therefore, the restoration of all things was fulfilled no later than AD 70 – meaning that Revelation 21-22 the result of the restoration of all things was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Jonathan cannot apply Acts 3 to a future time without contradicting himself, without contradicting scripture. There is no Old Covenant Israel – to whom those promises were made – today.
REVELATION
Jonathan claims that since Revelation 2:27 was in the future tense, that is negates my argument. False. Notice what it says, and significantly, take note of what Jonathan conveniently omitted when he cited the text:
“But hold fast what you have till I come. And he who overcomes, and keeps my works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations–‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’”
Jonathan then claims that “Rev. 2:27 quotes Ps. 110:2, and posits a future fulfillment. This was fulfilled in AD 70.” Sorry, but this is, as usual, simply false. Take note of this: Jonathan left out the following – “As I have received of the Father.” In other words, Jesus had already received the rod of iron over the nations! Just as he had ascended, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, with all enemies – except death – put under him and as he ruled “in the midst of his enemies.” That was in fulfillment of Psalms 110:2! And take note that Paul also cites Psalms 110 as being fulfilled in Christ’s pre-AD 70 reign.

Incredibly, Jonathan denies the emphatic words of Paul: “Don says: “He had put all enemies–except the last one–under his feet (I Cor. 15:24f.).” Wrong again! Don words this deceptively, giving the impression Paul has said Christ’s transition reign occurs during the time all His enemies (except death) have been put under Him. Rather, Paul says, “For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet” (vs.25). His enemies are not put under Him until 70 AD, just as Matt. 19:28, Rev.2:25-27, and Rev. 11:15 show.”

Let’s see if I deceptively cited 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, shall we? Read what Paul actually said: “Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”

Notice what Paul says:
“He must reign” – As I have noted repeatedly, and Jonathan has ignored, the Greek is in the present infinitive, which means that Christ was reigning AT THE TIME PAUL WROTE, and would continue to reign until the last enemy was put under his feet. That time of Jesus’ reign was the time when “He has put all things under his feet” with the exception of the “last enemy” which would be put down at the parousia- the end. The time when Paul wrote was when Christ was “ruling” in the midst of his enemies, in fulfillment of Psalms 110:2.

Incredibly, Jonathan has 1 Corinthians 15:26f fulfilled in AD 70 – “The “last enemy” of the Church (“death”) was destroyed in 70 AD (I Cor. 15:26; Rev. 20:4-6).” (Notice again that I have challenged Jonathan to document from his cherished “historical orthodoxy” where the church has ever taught this, and yet, he has not typed one word of documentation for us! So, once again, so much for his “orthodoxy!”

Not only that, but notice that he says death was “destroyed in AD 70.” Once again, however, he plays word games. He believes death is not destroyed until the end of the Millennium! Remember how he has denied that “slay” means slay, and “crush” does not mean crush, but now, destroyed does not really mean destroyed because he cannot have death actually destroyed in AD 70 without destroying (pun intended!) his doctrine! Jonathan plays fast and loose with words and expects us to not notice.

Paul said: “He has – not “will” put all things (Except the Father) under his feet.” This declaration definitively refutes Jonathan. “All things have been put under him” cannot be construed to mean, “he has not put all things under him” without doing grave violence to the text, but that is precisely what Jonathan has done. This is the death knell to Jonathan’s contrived theology.

Jonathan can claim that 1 Corinthians 15 is not the end of the Millennium resurrection all he wants, but, he has not given a shred of evidence in support of this. Notice that 1 Corinthians 15 is Revelation 20:11f. Corinthians is the destruction of the last enemy, which is Revelation 20:11f. But, Revelation 20:11f is at the end of the Millennium. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 15 is the end of the Millennium, and Jonathan says 1 Corinthians 15 was fulfilled in AD 70! Jonathan has, once again, impaled himself on his own argument.

But that is not all. 1 Corinthians 15 is Revelation 20:11f. But, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 – the end of the Millennium resurrection – WAS THE HOPE AND THE PROMISE GIVEN TO OLD COVENANT ISRAEL. That resurrection would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 25f / Hosea 13 / Daniel 12. Therefore, once again, since Jonathan admits that Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70, this demands that the end of the millennium resurrection occurred no later than AD 70.

THERE IS NO BIBLICAL, OLD COVENANT ISRAEL – THE ISRAEL TO WHOM EVERY PROMISE THAT JONATHAN CITED FOR HIS ESCHATOLOGY -TODAY! Jonathan admitted that Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70. Thus, all of the promises to which he appealed were fulfilled no later than AD 70. This is logically necessary.

If you did not grasp the incredibly desperate, stunning claim by Jonathan, here it is again: “The fact the Jews are not homogenous as to racial origins is beside the point. Most well informed people know the Hebrews were a mixed multitude from the time they journeyed out with Abraham. The main point is that Jews think of themselves as a united race, and their very national identity is often a target of hatred and prejudice.” To say this is illogical, and un-Biblical is to understate the case by a humongous proportion!

There is no homogenous Jewish race today, but, that is beside the point, says Jonathan. No, Jonathan THAT IS THE POINT, because Paul’s doctrine of the salvation of the remnant, and his expectation of the salvation of “all Israel” WAS BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF OLD COVENANT ISRAEL! He was part of the “tribe of Benjamin” not some vague, nebulous, non-racial “tribe.” It was the covenant history of that historical people that came to its climax in AD 70.

And, to drive the point home further, Israel was never “Israel” outside of “covenant” consideration! It was God’s covenant with Abraham that gave rise to “Israel,” and it was Torah that identified Israel as God’s people. When YHVH gave Torah to Israel, He said, “This day have you become the people of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:9). Thus, for Jonathan to make the astoundingly bad argument that God has promises to “national” Israel, that are not intrinsically covenant promises is ludicrous. It is un-historical. It is un-Biblical. It is patently false.

Let me remind the reader – again – that I have challenged Jonathan in virtually every one of my presentations to give us a hint, of a clue, of a syllable, of a shred of proof for his claims, but he has not even attempted to do so. And make no mistake, if Jonathan cannot – and he cannot – prove that the promises of Ezekiel 38-39, Daniel 7, 12, Romans 11, Revelation were promises given to “non-covenant, national Israel” then his entire theology is false! Nothing is more fundamentally, foundationally critical to Jonathan’s eschatology. And yet, he has failed, in six presentations, to offer a key stroke of proof to establish this foundational element of his doctrine.

Speaking of Romans 11 – again. Jonathan says I have ignored his arguments on the Olive branch / root. No, Jonathan, I have not. My framework arguments totally nullify your presuppositional claims. Let me go back over the arguments, again.

1. The salvation of “all Israel” no matter how you define “all Israel” in Romans 11:25-27 would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel: “This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sin.” I have pointed this out in every one of my presentations, and Jonathan has not given us a key stroke in response. He knows this is fatal to his view, so he did the “passover” on it.

2. Here is the argument:
The EoM salvation of “all Israel” of Romans 11:25-27 would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel.
But, Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70 – so says Jonathan!
Therefore, the EoM salvation of “all Israel” (no matter how you define “all Israel) was fulfilled no later than AD 70.

3. The salvation of all Israel would be when God took away their sin, in fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27.
The taking away of Israel’s sin was confined to the seventy weeks.
The seventy weeks terminated no later than AD 70 – so says Jonathan.
Therefore, the taking away of Israel’s sin – of Romans 11:25f – occurred no later than AD 70.
Jonathan’s desperate – and futile – attempt to delineate between the so-called objective and the subjective taking away of Israel’s sin is not to be found in the text of Daniel or Romans.

4. The salvation of “all Israel,” inclusive of Paul’s discussion of the “Olive Tree,” would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59. Both of those prophecies specifically, unambiguously and undeniably posit the salvation at the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood – not 2000 years and counting after that judgment / salvation. Jonathan has ignored, denied and distorted the clear words of those prophecies, saying that the salvation would NOT be at the time of Israel’s judgment. He is therefore, wrong.

5. The salvation of “all Israel,” inclusive of Paul’s discussion of the “Olive Tree,” would be when the “fulness of the Gentiles” arrived. I noted that “pleroma” does not mean numerical fulness. Numbers are not inherent in the word. Jonathan initially admitted this (fatally) but then, he comes back and says that it must mean numerical fulness after all, citing Romans 11:12. But, Romans 11:12 does not speak of a numeric “diminishing” but a covenant standing! Thus, my point is established – again.

6. I noted that the bringing in of the fulness of the Gentiles was the special, distinctive and personal ministry of Paul. Thus, when Paul’s personal ministry was completed, the parousia and the salvation of Israel would occur. All Jonathan did was scoff, but, he did not rebut.

7.) The EoM salvation of “all Israel,” inclusive of Paul’s discussion of the “Olive Tree,” would occur at the coming of the Lord: “The Redeemer shall come out of Zion.” But, the parousia of Christ was in AD 70 – even Jonathan agrees! Therefore, the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel was in AD 70.

In spite of the fact that I presented all of this information – and more – Jonathan says I ignored his arguments on Romans 11! That is clearly false, and, let me drive home again, one of the key points.

I have proven that THERE IS NO RACIAL ISRAEL TODAY. There is no “Abrahamic, Old Covenant Israel” today. This indisputable fact is the death knell to Jonathan’s claims, and those of ANYONE that posits the beginning of the Millennium in AD 70 and a future fulfillment of Revelation 20:11f (or Romans 11). In spite of the anthropological, historical and Biblical facts that prove that Biblical Israel does not exist today, Jonathan brazenly claims that all that really matters is: “That Jews think of themselves as a united race, and their very national identity is often a target of hatred and prejudice.” This is specious and false in the extreme.

No, Jonathan, that is NOT what really matters. What the Jews think of themselves is not “the main point.” Anthropology is what matters. The Bible is what matters. Thinking you are something, even claiming you are something does not make it true!

The Jews in the first century said “We have Abraham as our father,” but John said that did not assure them of receiving the promises of Abraham (Matthew 3)! Just because they “claimed it” did not mean they owned it.

Paul rejected the physical distinctives of Old Covenant Judaism as ensuring the reception of the Abrahamic promises, based on race / ethnicity (Romans 2:28f / 9:4f).

Peter said that those who did not accept Jesus as Messiah, in spite of their ethnicity and history, they would be cut off out from among “the people” (Acts 3:23ff). Old Covenant Israel would no longer be “the people” and thus, no longer heirs of the Abrahamic promises. And it was that Old Covenant Israel that was rejecting the Gospel message (Romans 10) – just as Isaiah 65 foretold. It was as a result of the rejection of that gospel that God – as foreknown and predicted – would turn to the Gentiles. The remnant would be saved – Isaiah 65:8, a text Jonathan totally ignored -in the New PostMillennial Creation!

Revelation speaks of those who claimed that they were Jews, but, they weren’t, because they rejected Messiah. Now, according to Jonathan, because they claimed to be Jews that made them Jews, recipients of the promises! But, Jesus himself rejected that. While they were (probably) of the ethnic race of Abraham their lack of faith disqualified them from receiving the Old Covenant promises. It certainly proved that they were not of the righteous remnant of Old Covenant Israel, like Paul was!

“I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9).

To the church at Philadelphia, Jesus said: “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9f). There is something critical about this text.

1. The “ethnic” Jews thought they remained “Jews” because of race. Due to their lack of faith in Messiah, Jesus himself rejected that, and said THEY WERE NOT JEWS! So, thinking they were Jews based on race meant nothing – in spite of Jonathan’s current (illogical) claim that thinking they are Jews is what makes them Jews.

2. Jesus quotes directly from the Old Covenant promise of Isaiah 60:14, in which YHVH promised to vindicate His suffering saints (“Israel”). Remarkably, Jesus now applied it directly to the church – not Old Covenant Israel! The true “Israel” is thus revealed to be – interpreted by Jesus himself – as those of faith in him! This means that all of Jonathan’s claims that what really matters is that modern,“Israel” believes that they are Israel, believes that they are Jews!

Modern Jews, like those in Revelation 2 and 3, are not “Jews” no matter how much they may think (or claim) it to be so, because they are not of faith. They admit there is no ethnic connection. They acknowledge there is no Abrahamic nation. Their admissions totally falsify Jonathan’s eschatology. These facts negate all of his cherished “tradition.” These facts demonstrate how false Jonathan’s so-called historical “orthodoxy” is, because they show how out of touch with Biblical truth and anthropological reality, the “orthodox church” has actually been through the centuries.

Jonathan himself says Old Covenant Israel ceased to exist in AD 70. So, Jonathan, no matter how much or how strongly the modern “Jews” claim that they are the recipients of the Biblical promises, they are not Old Covenant Israel. THEY ARE NOT ISRAELITES BY RACE OR COVENANT. THIS MEANS THAT EVERY PROMISE CITED BY JONATHAN FOR HIS END OF THE MILLENNIUM ESCHATOLOGY CANNOT APPLY TO THE MODERN, NATIONAL PEOPLE THAT CLAIMS TO BE ISRAEL!

Every end of the Millennium prophecy cited by Jonathan was a promise made to Old Covenant Israel. Jonathan says that all of God’s OT covenant promises to Israel were fulfilled no later than AD 70. This means that every EoM prophecy cited by Jonathan – Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel – all of them – were fulfilled no later than AD 70.

The Millennium ended no later than AD 70. Period. End of story. End of the debate.

Campanik continued to debate after the debate was over. He offered this, and I responded:

Jonathan Companik Don K. Preston, FB comments are not considered part of formal debate. Why not take advantage? The question you pose above is one I answered repeatedly throughout the debate:

The Old Covenant does not exist anymore. The Old Covenant nation does not exist anymore. The Jewish people do.

You engaged in evasion on Romans 11 from the start. What is the Olive Tree? It is obviously not synonymous with the Old Covenant. Yet it is Jewish, because the Gentiles (not the Jews) were grafted into it in vv. 16-24. So the olive tree spans the eras inclusive of the Old and New covenants. This is why Paul says, “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the Fathers” (11:28).

I am afraid your silence on Daniel 7:9 vis-a-vis Rev. 20:4 is the undoing of full preterism. No full preterist has addressed this issue in print that I am aware of. The answer is obvious. Because it can’t be used to defend a forty-year, first century Millennium.

If you can show me where the saints are ruling on “thrones” with Christ before the Parousia, then I will give up my eschatology. But you can’t, and you won’t. Because the Holy Scriptures explicitly state thrones were “put in place” at the Parousia–which you admitted when you affirmed Daniel 7 was fulfilled in AD 70.>
Don K. Preston
<Jonathan Companik, I am calling you out, here and now. You claim that you “answered repeatedly” my arguments about Israel. Jonathan, that is a blatant falsehood, and you know it. Here is the total extent of what you offered:
“The Old Covenant nation does not exist anymore. The Jewish people do.”
But, Jonathan, that is not exegetical proof. That is not anthropological proof. That is not evidentiary proof. All it is is your words! And that is not good enough for people interested in evidence and proof.
You repeatedly cited Ezekiel 38-39 for your futurist eschatology. Yet, Ezekiel is an Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel.
Ezekiel 38-39 deals with Israel in the land. Israel’s possession of the land was based strictly and exclusively on her covenant with YHVH! (Genesis 15; Deuteronomy 28-30). No covenant = no land. Thus, your admisson that Old Covenant Israel does not exist, falsifies all of your appeals to Ezekiel. End of story.
I produced proof from the “Jewish” sources and anthropologists that there is no Abrahamic lineage nation of Israel today. There is no “Jewish nation” today. There is no Biblical Israel today. What was your rebuttal?
I produced the emphatic words of Paul that the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel would be in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises to Israel: “This is my covenant with them.”. I produced the explicit words over and over again, but you completely, totally ignored these emphatic words. So, based on your own words, since Covenant Israel does not exist today- ceasing to exist in AD 70– then of logical necessity, the end of the millennium salvation of Israel was in AD 70.
You claimed that anthropology, covenant, lineage does not matter! The only thing that matters is that the believe that they are Israel! That is patently false – and ludicrous. And of course, you gave us not proof. No evidence. No texts — NOTHING. Without proof that God made non-covenant promises to national Israel, your eschatology is false. Your utter failure – the total inability to produce even a key stroke of proof for your claims is powerful proof that no such evidence exists- and thus – your eschatology is false.
Your claim that I did not address Daniel 7 is equally false, because I did demonstrate the following – repeatedly. Just because you do not like it, does not mean I did not prove my case.
Christ was given all authority – prior to AD 70.
He ascended to the right hand of Father to receive the kingdom.
The saints were seated with him in the heavenlies – prior to AD 70.
Christ was seated on the throne (Acts 2:29f ; Eph. 1-2)).
The saints were seated “with” him– the Greek prefix demanding that they were in the same place he was – thus, on thrones.
He was reigning on that throne when Paul wrote Corinthians
He was ruling in the midst of his enemies. He had already been given the rod of Iron – in fulfillment of Psalms 110.
He had put all things under his feet except death.
He would rule – with the saints – until he completed the putting down of his enemies, the last enemy being death.
All of this was prior to AD 70. The setting of the thrones in AD 70 involved the kingdom, the saints, and the persecution of the kingdom- that already existed prior to AD 70.
It was the previously existing kingdom, throne, rule and reign that was being totally vindicated in AD 70– at the end of the Millennium, when the last enemy – the great persecutor – was destroyed. That kingdom, rule and reign was not being set up for the first time. The great judgment of the persecutor – his destruction of Daniel 7 – is an end of the millennium judgment of Revelation 20:11f.
By your own admission, the little horn is destroyed “consumed and destroyed” Daniel 7:26) — this is not the preliminary “binding”; this is the final, end of the Millennium destruction of the great persecutor – Satan – when the last enemy was destroyed. Your chronology, your narrative is specious and false.
So, I most assuredly did answer your claims about Daniel 7. All you did was deny these Biblical facts. You did not rebut them. You did not falsify them, because you can’t. The Millennium did not begin in AD 70.

Menu