Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom – #2

Spread the love

In #1” href=”http://donkpreston.com/flesh-and-blood-cannot-inherit-the-kingdom-of-heaven-1/” target=”_blank”>the first installment of this two part article, I noted that most commentators define “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15:50 as the human flesh. They take this to mean that Paul was saying that biological human bodies of flesh cannot enter heaven. Of course, that defines “kingdom” in a way that one has a right to re-examine, but that is another issue.

(As an important side bar: if one defines “flesh and blood” as the human fleshly body, then it means that no living human can be in the kingdom of God! To say this is troublesome is to understate the case dramatically!)

In that first article, we also called attention to how Joel McDurmon, in our July 2012 formal debate, defined “flesh and blood”, not in the normal way that commentators do, but, as life under Torah, the law of Moses. 15277381_640This was a stunning and fatal admission for McDurmon to make. And of course, it would be interesting to know of the “back room” response among other Dominionists to this dramatic definition!

The dilemma here is acute, of course. McDurmon tried to avoid the direct implications of his position that the Law of Moses will continue until the physical resurrection by affirming that the ceremonial praxis of Torah were removed by Christ, yet, the Law of Moses itself remains. (I must say that his desperation on this was amazing). I pressed him continually on this, and asked how he could change Jesus’: “not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled” into, “some of the law will pass even though what that part of the law foreshadowed has not been fulfilled.” Be sure to get a copy of the debate book or DVD to see for yourself McDurmon’s inconsistencies and self contradictions.


Note: I raised the issue of the Seventh Day Sabbath, and the indisputable fact that all of Israel’s feast days were Sabbaths. Further, those feast days, foreshadowed final salvation and the resurrection. Thus, until what the Seventh Day Sabbath and Israel’s feast day Sabbaths foreshadowed and typified became (or becomes) a reality, then those Sabbaths, all of them, along with the ceremonial sacrifices attendant with those Sabbaths, must remain valid.

McDurmon admitted to believing that the Seventh Day Sabbath, and Israel’s ceremonial Sabbaths have been abrogated, and yet, he says that what they foreshadowed has not been realized!

Interesting side note: in my September 2013 formal debate with Steve Gregg, (email me for how to order the DVDs or MP3s that are now available) he likewise affirmed that Israel’s festal Sabbaths have been annulled, but, like McDurmon, Gregg says that what those Sabbaths foreshadowed is not yet a reality. This a huge problem for the futurist camp. Once again, this position flies directly into the face of Jesus’ emphatic and undeniable words.

Jesus said #888888;”>none would pass until it was #888888;”>all fulfilled. But McDurmon (and virtually all futurists) says many of the “jots and tittles” of the Law passed, without being fulfilled! McDurmon’s  position is the direct opposite of what Jesus said. McDurmon never offered an iota of proof or justification for perverting Jesus’ words.

Let me reiterate this critical point: You cannot affirm, as McDurmon did, that Israel after the flesh and that God’s covenant with her (i.e. the Law of Moses) will remain valid until a physical resurrection, without thereby logically demanding that all of Torah, every jot and every tittle, remains valid on Israel after the flesh until that resurrection. Further, does the Law of Moses remain today “a shadow of good things about to come” as Paul described it in the first century (Colossians 2:14-16; Hebrews 10:21f)? This included the observation of the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths– along with the animal sacrifices.

If Torah, the Law of Moses, remains valid on Israel, then shouldn’t McDurmon and the Dominionists be highly supportive of modern efforts to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple? Should they not be supportive of Zionism and the Dispensational zeal to rebuild? After all, if you believe, as McDurmon claimed, that Israel after the flesh and her covenant with YHVH remains valid today, then should you not also be affirming her right to the Temple Mount, and the re-establishment of that Covenantal cultus?

Yet, McDurmon is on record as rejecting any need for, or Biblical support for, a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple:
(http://americanvision.org/7260/the-dome-of-the-rock-will-make-a-nice-church-some-day/#sthash.1dZeWqaM.dpbs)! He says the Old Covenant Temple’s centricity was surpassed and abrogated, and that all modern attempts to rebuild a Temple for the re-establishment of Mosaic sacrifices is misguided. He is very much opposed to the modern Zionist movement as a direct negative reflection on the work of Christ!

McDurmon claims that Christ’s New Covenant Temple has out-stripped and transcended any need for the literal, physical, Jerusalem Temple. But this is nothing but a self-contradictory smoke screen. If Israel and her covenant relationship with YHVH remains valid until the end of the current Christian age, it is undeniable that there is a Divine demand for the Temple and its cultus to be rebuilt. This brings us back to 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul was undeniably anticipating the fulfillment of God’s promises to Old Covenant Israel after the flesh (cf. V. 54-56).

You simply cannot, logically or contextually, admit that “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15 referred to “Israel after the flesh” and that “the law” that was the strength of sin was Torah, without positing one of a few absolute logical necessities, as just noted:

1.) If  “flesh and blood” was referent to “Israel after the flesh” and if Israel after the flesh remains God’s covenant people until the physical resurrection,  as affirmed by McDurmon, then as just noted, there is a divine necessity for the re-establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, priesthood, sacrificial cultus. You cannot divorce God’s covenant with Israel from the Temple and cultus. That temple and cultus, as expressed well by Kenneth Gentry:  “In essence the temple itself is a symbol: it symbolizes the covenantal relationship of God with His people. The heart of the covenant appears in the most important promise: ‘I will be your God, you will be my people.’ The temple is the special place where God dwells among His people.” (He Shall Have Dominion, 2009, 362, his emphasis).

2.) There is a Two Covenant reality: Israel has her covenant, the church has her covenant. This is the absolute logical necessity of McDurmon’s claims. He is undeniably on record as believing that Israel and her covenant will remain valid until a yet future physical resurrection. Thus, if he believes that the New Covenant has been established, and that Israel’s covenant is still valid, then of necessity, McDurmon ascribes to the Two Covenant Theology.

3.) If Israel and her covenant remains valid, then physical circumcision remains a divine mandate, and still serves as the covenantal sign between YHVH and Israel. A great deal could be said about this, but I will withhold those comments for now. Once again, it will not do for McDurmon, the Dominionists and the futurists to say circumcision is abrogated, but the covenant remains valid. This simply specious and false. There is not one word of Biblical support for the Dominionist dichotomy of the Law of Moses, with some passing and some remaining.

Much more could be said on these things but this will suffice.

The bottom line is that McDurmon’s admissions in the debate are fatal to his paradigm.
He defined “flesh and blood” in 1 Corinthians 15 as “Israel after the flesh.”
He defined the flesh and blood discussion as a contrast between the Old Covenant and the New.
He defined “the law” that was “the strength of sin” as the Law of Moses.
He admitted that there was “a fulfillment” of 1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70.

These admissions leave him and his Dominionist brethren no ground on which to stand. He surrendered his futurism, and made arguments in full support of the (true) full preterist paradigm. Further, he has taken a position that would logically demand support of modern Israel and her covenant relationship, thus raising the issue of why McDurmon and American Vision are so adamantly anti-Zionist.

In the debate, I pressed McDurmon to provide the contextual, exegetical evidence and proof of anything beyond that admitted AD 70 fulfillment. We received nothing. You will have to read the book for yourself to grasp how feeble McDurmon’s arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 really were, and how fatal his admissions about that text are.

Be sure to get your own copy of the McDurmon -V- Preston debate.

Ed Times Dilemma Fulfilled or Future
McDurmon Preston Debate


You might not want to trouble yourself trying to find the book on the American Vision website. Just this morning (10-24-13) I tried to find it, with no success. I did a search under “McDurmon” and in 18 pages of links, I did not find one link to the book. I likewise did a search for “End Times Dilemma” the name of the debate book. I received the message that nothing was found. I did a search without the quotes, and in three pages of links, the book was not listed. I finally found one article referencing the debate, an article by McDurmon essentially suggesting that my willingness to debate him and other non-preterists had backfired in the proverbial mode of the briar patch and the tar baby. It was mostly ridicule of me and preterists, and promotion of McDurmon’s new book, with very little reference to the availability of the actual debate. (I will, in fairness, take note that this one article was written prior to the publication of the book, and that they offered the electronic version of the debate. It does not alter the fact that the debate book is hardly to be found.

Now, it is certainly possible that American Vision is in fact offering the book, somewhere on their site, but, my searches came up almost empty. (Literally, I did not find one distinctive, stand alone offering or promotion of the book. If they are offering it, the offer is buried somewhere. Maybe I am just not an efficient “searcher” but every mention of the debate was coupled with their offering of McDurmon’s book on the resurrection.

To demonstrate that they are not aggressively marketing and promoting sales of the book, they ordered a grand total of five (yes, five) copies of the book from me for resale, well over two months ago, and have not re-ordered additional copies to this day. They very clearly are not actively promoting sales of the book. I think this speaks eloquently and powerfully to how “successful” American Vision thinks McDurmon was in our debate. They are not promoting sales of the book, and when they even mention it, it is to promote McDurmon’s book as a companion to the debate book. In other words, they don’t want you to read just the debate book, they want you to read McDurmon’s post debate book, Very revealing indeed!

One Reply to “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom – #2”

  1. Your “sidebar” is inaccurate. Defining “flesh and blood” as physical doesn’t mean that anybody with “flesh and blood” could not be a part of the Kingdom of God, it only means that the Kingdom of God cannot be INHERITED or obtained through normal physical means. Isn’t that exactly what Christ told Nicodemus? Furthermore, defining “flesh and blood” as “Israel after the flesh” – something foreign to Scripture as Israel is never referred to as simply “flesh and blood”, but the phrase is used to refer to physicality – leaves the same problem — that is, nobody who is or was part of Old Covenant Israel could be part of the Kingdom of God either, and yet we know the Jerusalem saints were still very much under the Old Covenant Law. “Israel after the flesh” is, in fact, a reference to physicality as well. 1 Cor. 10:18-28 is pretty clear – they are “after the flesh” in that they rely on physical means for atonement – which is the same thing we find in Heb. 9. And the Jewish Christians were still very much bound by those Laws. “Israel after the flesh” does not exclude Jewish saints. The reference to “flesh and blood” in 1 Cor. 15:50 is a reference to physicality, nothing more. It was a common phrase then, and it is a common phrase now. The Old Covenant was passed down through physical means. The Kingdom of God is not.

Comments are closed.