Hicks Versus Preston Written Debate– Preston’s Second Negative

Spread the love

I did not think Olan could give a presentation worse than his earlier one. I was wrong! Olan’s desperation is palpable. The difference between Olan and me is glaring. He talks ABOUT scripture–with no actual exegesis. I provide actual exegesis.

Did Olan answer my questions?
Again, Olan claims he has answered my questions. Patently false, and he knows it.
Here are some of my questions, and Olan’s answers– or not.

How many comings of the Lord, at the end of the millennium resurrection and destruction of Satan, when the martyrs would be avenged, are there in scripture? Olan’s answer? Not a key stroke.

What coming of the Lord, for the salvation of Israel, was Paul anticipating in Romans 11:25-27– in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59? Olan’s response? Silence.

I have proven beyond any doubt that Isaiah 27 / 59 predicted the salvation of Israel (the remnant) at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. I likewise proved– irrefutably– that Israel’s salvation is tied inextricably to the end of the millennium resurrection of Isaiah 25:8 / 26:19. Olan ignored these facts.

“Tell us what other people had, or will, dwell in the presence of God, but, will be cast out of His presence for persecuting the True Seed– and specifically the Thessalonians?
Once again, Olan claimed that he had said that the Jews were one of several groups to be cast out of the presence of the Lord.

Olan said no such thing initially. ONLY AFTER HE WAS ENTRAPPED BY HIS FIRST ANSWER did he claim that this is what he said– but he didn’t! I challenged him to show where he had even intimated such a thing. Olan’s response? Abject silence.

Olan shamelessly manipulates the issue: “He asks what other people dwelt in the presence of God but would be cast out for persecuting the true seed, specifically the Thessalonians? I replied that the Jews were only one of several categories of people who persecuted the “true seed.” The Romans, for example, did that.”

This is embarrassing, but, reveals Olan’s desperation. Olan did not answer my question. Instead, like a manipulative politician, he changed the question! Olan, I asked: “What people dwelt in the presence of God, but, who would be cast out of the presence of God, for persecuting the True Seed?” You initially said that was the Jews, but then, entrapped, you give an answer to a question I never asked!

OLAN, DID THE ROMANS DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD? We are not talking generically, we are talking COVENANTALLY, as, you know, the Jews! Scripture never posits the pagan nations as dwelling in the presence of God. AND YOU KNOW IT.

Furthermore, the Romans were not “those who are troubling you” in Thessalonica! But it was “those who are troubling you” who would be cast out of the presence of the Lord for persecuting the Thessalonians. That was no other entity than the Jews! They, and they alone were: “those who are troubling you” when Paul wrote.
Therefore, it was the Jews that were to be cast out of the presence of the Lord at his coming.

Olan knows that if answers the questions candidly that his entire theological house of cards comes tumbling down, so, he refuses to answer my actual questions directly. Instead, he answers a question I did not ask, and declares that he answered my questions! Disingenuous to say the least.

Remember, 2 Thessalonians predicted the fulfillment of the last days Day of the Lord, in judgment of Israel- not Rome– for her blood guilt (Isaiah 2-4). Olan has not touched this!


Specifically identify the city “where the Lord was slain” in Revelation 11:8. Well, Olan claims- with no proof- that “the city where the Lord was slain” is a symbolic statement.

(Did he “SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY” the city? NO! Come on, Olan, tell us, SPECIFICALLY, what city was that? Do not fail to answer!)

The text says the great city was “spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.” It then interprets that spiritual language as, “it is also where the Lord was slain.” Olan takes the INTERPRETATION of the spiritual language, and turns it upside down.

I had noted that Revelation is about the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32:32 that said in Israel’s last days, she would become like Sodom, when the martyrs would be vindicated (32:43– Revelation 19:1-2). Isaiah likewise said that in Israel’s last days, she would be like Sodom, but would be judged for her blood guilt (Isaiah 3:9-4:4). Olan completely ignores the inspired application of Deuteronomy and Isaiah, and applies it to a pagan city!

“How could anyone, convince anyone, that the parousia and the resurrection, as you define them, was already past?” Olan’s response? He claims they did that by changing the nature of the Day. Olan, why didn’t Paul use your argument against them: “Just look around!” Olan can’t prove his claim, and did not try. He just pontificated.

When did the Lord come in judgment of Israel– punishing them with the edge of the sword–for violation of Exodus 22:21-23, Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19– as foretold in Malachi 3:1-5, 16f; 4:5-6– after John’s ministry, but before the cross?

Catch the power of Olan’s answer– that he finally gave us. He has abandoned his view of Torah! He admits: “We have no disagreement about the symbolic “coming in judgment on Israel. Many times in the OT God punished His people with their enemies, the captivities for instance, and it happened at Jerusalem in AD70.”

So, Olan fatally admits:
The coming of the Lord (foretold by Malachi) punishing Israel with national judgment, for violation of Torah– in fulfillment of Exodus 22:21-23, Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19–was in AD 70.
But, this DEMANDS that the Law of Moses was in effect in AD 70! If the Law was annulled at the cross, as Hicks claims, then all provisions in the Law for punishment of Israel for violating Torah were annulled at the cross. Yet, Olan now admits that AD 70 was the fulfillment of Malachi, Exodus 22:21-23, Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19!

Olan has abdicated!

Please identify the Day of the Lord foretold in Zechariah 14:1-8. Olan twice refused to answer but now says, “How many times do I have to answer this?” Olan, YOU KNOW YOU NEVER ANSWERED!

I challenge you to show us where you had even mentioned Zechariah 14 prior to your second “affirmative.” You can’t, AND YOU KNOW IT! More on Zechariah 14 below.

Olan’s Premillenialism
Olan accuses me of misrepresenting him on the millennium and Christ’s coming. No, I did not, and he knows it. He claimed: “He accuses me of embracing premillenialism because I said that in the Revelation 20 account Jesus was there before the thousand years began.”

Here are Olan’s words: “In Revelation 20 Jesus does not come at the end of the thousand years. He is there when it begins.”

His words are emphatic.

Look at Olan’s dilemma (Ignored).

The Christian age is the millennium – Hicks.

“Christ does not come at the end of the thousand years” – Hicks.

But, the judgment / resurrection occur at the end of the thousand years– Revelation 20.

Therefore, Christ does not come at the time of the judgment and the resurrection!

What does Olan say in his first affirmative? Here it is: “The resurrection and judgment will occur at the time of His second coming.”

This means that Revelation 20 cannot be the Second Coming! He is inescapably trapped. And he knows it.

Note how he twists the issue. He says: “I did not even say He was on earth.” Olan, who said you did? I didn’t! You are simply trying to divert attention away from your INESCAPABLE PROBLEM of saying, “Jesus does not come at the end of the thousand years.”

Olan says I have not answered his questions. I have answered the majority of them, either privately, or in my presentations. But he asks if Satan was destroyed in AD 70. The answer is, Yes.
Olan will continue, as the millennialists do, to say, “Just look around! We are not in the New Heaven and Earth! Evil still exists!”

Question: Olan says Revelation 21-22 refers to a literal, new heaven and earth, (what about heaven, Olan?)– after the destruction of Satan. But, Revelation 21 depicts evil still existing outside the city, the nations coming into the city for healing (22:1-4)!
Olan, how could evil still exist, and men enter the city– after the destruction of Satan as you perceive it– for healing? This is the depiction of sin, salvation and evangelism– after the destruction of Satan!

Speaking of “heaven and earth”– 2 Peter 3
The New Creation of 2 Peter 3 is fulfillment of the OT prophecies of the Day of the Lord and the New Creation (2 Peter 3:1-2; 13).
Isaiah 64-66 foretold the Day of the Lord and the New Creation.
The New Creation predicted in Isaiah would come when, “the Lord God shall slay you, and call His people by a new name” (Isaiah 65:13f). So, just like Isaiah 24-27 predicted the resurrection when Jerusalem, the Temple and Israel would be destroyed, Isaiah 65– and thus, 2 Peter 3- foretold the New Creation when Old Covenant Israel would be destroyed.
Olan’s did not even mention this argument!

I gave the following argument– ignored by Olan.
The coming of the Lord of Acts 1:9f is the parousia / resurrection when Satan would be destroyed (Revelation 20)- at the end of the millennium.
The time of the resurrection when Satan would be destroyed is the resurrection of Isaiah 25:8 / 26:19-27:1f.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Acts 1:9f, the parousia / resurrection, when Satan would be destroyed, would be when the Lord came in vindication of the martyrs, when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed, and YHVH would no longer have mercy on the people He had created.

In regard to the destruction of Satan, at the end of the millennium, Paul said, “The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20). Ignored!

Olan insists that John 14 predicted the removal of the church. I noted, from John 14:19f, that Jesus was to go away, prepare the place, and come again, so that the saints would dwell with him and the Father. Verses 19f clearly refute Olan’s claims, so, he totally ignored them.
If Jesus went away, to prepare the place, and then came– bringing the prepared place with him, as v. 19f clearly teaches– then Olan is patently wrong to twist v. 1-6 into a discussion of a removal from the earth.

I noted Revelation 21: the New Jerusalem “comes down from God.” It is not the church leaving earth! Olan’s respond? He asked how far down would the New Jerusalem come! Well, it would COME DOWN TO WHERE MAN IS, so that “the tabernacle of God is with man.”

This is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:26f and the promise of the Messianic Temple, established among men, on earth, SO THAT THE NATIONS WOULD COME TO KNOW GOD– just as Revelation depicts it.

This is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel. But, Olan says God was through with Israel at the cross! No, Revelation posits the consummation of His dealings with Israel at the end of the millennium. So, by positing the fulfillment of Revelation 21f in our future, Olan demands that Israel and her covenant promises remain valid.

Olan tries to make 1 Thessalonians into a removal of the church from the earth.

1.) Olan totally ignored the perfect correspondence between Matthew 24:29-34– which he applies to AD 70– and Thessalonians! Total silence, yet, he claims he has answered my arguments.

2.) Olan ignored the fact that he appealed to opthantai (to see) as a proof for a visible coming of Christ. Yet that same word is used in Matthew 24:30– which he applies to AD 70.

3.) Olan appeals to Paul’s statement: “so shall we ever be with the Lord.” The problem is that this demands that the believers would be suspended in the air forever! The word “aer,” is never used of heaven, Olan!

4.) Linguistically, Olan totally misses the point of “we shall meet him.” The word translated as “meet” is apantesis. In my book We Shall Meet Him In The Air, I show from Scripture, history, Josephus, and the Lexicons that when used with parousia, as in 1 Thessalonians 4, it is a technical term. It refers to a dignitary traveling to a city. The citizens go out to meet him, AND ESCORT HIM BACK TO THEIR CITY– HIS DESTINATION!
The visitor does not take the citizens away with him! He goes with them to their city. This agrees perfectly with John 14 / Revelation 21, of the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, FOR GOD TO DWELL WITH MAN. It is not a removal of man from the earth.

5.) Olan ignores the fact that Paul was writing to living Christians, and says, “we who are alive (not those who will one day be alive) and remain until the coming of the Lord” (v. 15, 17).

Olan rips Paul’s promises away from the Thessalonians, and applies them to unknown people and a time far removed from them.


I made several points:
Olan, does Jesus still have the same physical, mortal body that came out of the grave and ascended? Ignored.

The purpose of Jesus’ parousia was not to reveal Jesus as a Jewish man, but, as the King of kings and Lord of lords, the One True God (1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 2:14f). Ignored.

The Greek term “in like manner” (hon tropon) is used of a metaphorical likeness, not a precise likeness, in virtually all of its occurrences (cf, Matthew 23:37– “as a mother hen gathers her chicks). Ignored.

I have written extensively on the Transfiguration, especially as it relates to Acts 1.

To refute the scoffers who were denying the parousia, Peter appealed to the Transfiguration as a vison of Christ’s Second Coming (2 Peter 1:16f). So follow me:

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming– 2 Peter 1:16f.

As a vision of the parousia, what was seen at the Transfiguration? Not the “end of time.” Not the destruction of literal creation.

What was seen WAS THE END OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. Peter wanted to erect three tabernacles, positing Jesus as equal to Moses and Elijah. The Voice, said “This is my beloved Son… hear ye him!” The Greek is in the emphatic mode, meaning “Him hear!” Moses and Elijah fade, leaving Jesus in his Transfigured glory.

So, the Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming. But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Law and the Prophets! Peter– in 2 Peter 3– was still looking for the parousia which was envisioned on the Mount. Therefore, clearly, the Law and the Prophets had not yet passed when Peter wrote!

Olan emphasizes “in like manner.” Well, what was there about Jesus’ appearance in Acts 1– in his mortal body– that even closely resembled his Transfiguration glory? There is no “in like manner” comparison!

I once accepted Olan’s so-called contrasts between the “comings” in Matthew 24. That is, until I accepted what the Discourse actually says.

This is totally superficial.
Olan ASSUMES-offering no proof– just this pontifications– that the disciples asked about the end of the literal world. Mark and Luke make it clear the disciples were not asking about the “end of time.”
In direct response to Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple, they asked about THE END OF THE AGE. Olan, WHAT AGE DID THAT TEMPLE REPRESENT, that caused them to link that destruction with the end of the age? Did the temple represent the Christian age? Don’t fail to answer!!

The disciples asked about ONE COMING– not two. Olan assumes- with no proof– that Jesus spoke of two.

The disciples asked about signs of the end of the age. Jesus gave those signs (v. 14f). If Jesus gave all the signs that he intended to give, he did not have to repeat those signs, or give more signs, in vss. 36f!
Note that after giving the signs, in v. 43f, Jesus said, “Watch!” Well, what were they to watch for, IF THERE WAS NOTHING TO WATCH FOR– i.e. the signs he had given?

4.) Olan’s argument entraps him. He says there are no signs of the end. However, he appealed to 2 Thessalonians 2 for a future coming. But, 2 Thessalonians 2 gives TWO MAJOR SIGNS– the apostasy and the Man of Sin! THOSE AREN’T SIGNS, OLAN?
In Matthew 24:9f Jesus foretold the apostasy– as a sign- to occur before AD 70. Paul is simply reiterating Jesus’ prediction.

Read Revelation 3:1-3: “And to the angel of the church in Sardis, “Be watchful, …If you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”

Here is the mini-Olivet Discourse! Jesus was speaking to the Sardisian church. He told them to watch. If they did not watch, he would come on them as a thief, and they would not know the hour of that coming!

Jesus was speaking of a first century coming. Historically, in the churches of Christ, this is admitted. That first century coming would be as a thief. They could undeniably know the generation– but not the hour. If the Sardisians could know Christ was coming as a thief on those who refused to watch, in their generation-but not know the hour– then why could that not be true of Matthew 24?

Note 1 Thessalonians 5: “Concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.”

Note Paul’s contrast between “them” or “they” and his “you.” The Lord’s coming as a thief would be on the unbelievers– not on the believers! Paul says “you know the times and the seasons!” Olan completely ignores what the text clearly says.

Note also– that Day would be as a woman in travail! Olan, does a pregnant woman know the generation of delivery– but not the day or hour?

Note Romans 13: “And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand.“

Paul said “knowing the time!” They knew what time it was in regard to the Day! Paul said “the Day is at hand”– literally “has drawn near.” Of course, Olan denies that they knew anything.

Clearly, the parousia would not be as a thief on believers, but unbelievers who – just as in 2 Peter 3– rejected the nearness and reality of the parousia! They refused to see the signs – just as in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37f). (There were clearly signs of the end in Noah’s day!) IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SIGNS, BUT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THE SIGNS!

Olan’s ignorance of first century Jewish cultural terminology leads him into error.

I showed that the Feast of Trumpets– typifying the Judgment– was referred to as the feast concerning which, “No man knows the day or the hour.” They positively knew the general time, but not the day or the hour.

Jesus was speaking of the coming judgment, and utilized the vernacular of the Feast of Trumpets. Just as they knew the general time, but not the day or the hour of the Feast, they could know the generation, but not the day or hour of the Judgment. This is the cultural language Jesus used.

Olan’s response? Not one word!. He just repeated his mantra: “Don puts forth the old argument typical of date setters, that we can know the time in the sense of the generation, without knowing the day or the hour. That is a pitiful attempt to skirt the truth.”
Note again that Olan does not know the difference between predicting a future event, and recognizing past fulfillment. THIS is what is pitiful!

Remember, Olan admits that Zechariah 14 applied to Jesus’ AD 70 parousia. Now watch.

Zechariah said that Day, the Lord’s coming against Jerusalem (v. 1-5) was to be a Day “known to the Lord” (v. 7)! In other words, IT WAS THE DAY KNOWN ONLY TO THE LORD!

So, Zechariah, predicting the AD 70 parousia– Hicks agreeing– said that Day was known only to the Lord! Now, if Zechariah could say the Lord’s coming in AD 70 was a time known only to the Lord, then surely, Jesus, who clearly draws from Zechariah in Matthew 24, could likewise refer to his coming in AD 70 as the day and hour known only to the Lord! If not, why not, Olan?

Olan sets up a false contrast. He says there was no rewarding in AD 70. Wrong. the “gathering of the elect” of v. 31, is patently the rewarding.

I proved that v. 31 is a citation of Isaiah 27:13- the “in that day” sounding of the Great Trumpet at the resurrection– when the Lord would destroy Satan and avenge the blood of the saints. Olan’s response? Silence.

Matthew 16:27-28 – The Son of Man will come in the glory of the father and reward every man, verily I say unto you, there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28).

Jesus emphatically and undeniably posited the time of his coming in reward and judgment for his generation.

Matthew 16:27 is a citation of Isaiah 62:10-12, the prediction of the coming of the Lord with his reward. That Coming was to be the time of the Wedding (Isaiah 62:3f), fulfilling God’s Old Covenant promise to Israel.

But, the Wedding was to be at the destruction of Jerusalem– Matthew 22:1-10.

Therefore, the time of the rewarding, at the parousia and Wedding– was in AD 70. (This definitively proves the unity of the Olivet Discourse, since the Wedding is in chapter 25)!

Olan, DON’T FORGET TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE CITY “WHERE THE LORD WAS SLAIN” because when you do– IF YOU DO– I have something for you.

1 Peter 4:5-17 – The time had come for the judging (rewarding) of the living and the dead. Olan still has not touched my argument on the anaphoric article.

Revelation 11:15 – At the destruction of the city “where the Lord was slain” it is, ‘the time of the dead that they should be judged” and that the prophets would be rewarded. Daniel’s rewarding– at the resurrection– was to be “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Olan has not touched this.

Revelation 22:12 – “Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me.” Olan rejects Jesus’ emphatic statement that his coming was at hand– so near, in fact, that he said, “let the wicked remain wicked!” Of course, Olan ignored this. He likewise ignored the temporal contrast between Daniel’s time and John’s.

Look again at my argument on Revelation 20 and Malachi 3:16f.

Revelation 20 speaks of the judgment and the salvation of those written in the Book of Life– at the end of the millennium.
Revelation 20 is clearly the Day of the Lord foretold by Malachi 3:15f the Day when the Lord would judge and reward those in the Book of Remembrance.

But wait, that Day foretold by Malachi was to be in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath in fulfillment of Exodus and Deuteronomy as we proven beyond disputation– AND OLAN NOW ADMITS THIS WAS IN AD 70!

John- as the Voice- foretold the coming of the Lord foretold by Isaiah 40:1-10. That coming of the Lord was the time of his rewarding of the righteous (v. 10). But, John said the time of rewarding was near- “the kingdom has drawn near”; “the axe is already at the root…” etc.. Therefore, the time of the rewarding was near.

Olan is indisputably wrong to draw a contrast between a time of “no rewarding” and the time of rewarding.

I have thus examined each of Olan’s “arguments” to support his two parousia theory, and totally refuted them.

Olan just scoffs at my logical syllogisms, conveniently forgetting that Jesus and Paul incorporated that very style of argumentation. It is sad when a man must resort to a rejection of logical argumentation. For Olan to falsify my arguments, he has to actually show where my premises are invalid. He has not tried!

In stark contrast to Olan, I have answered every none of Olan’s “arguments except 1 Corinthians 15. However, what I have offered falsifies Olan’s arguments. Let me say this, in preparation for my comments on 1 Corinthians 15 in my next negative:
1 Corinthians 15 is about the fulfillment of God’s OT promises to Israel after the flesh.
Until those promises were fulfilled, all of the Law of Moses will remain valid (Matthew 5:17-18).
Paul emphatically posits the resurrection at the end of Torah.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 25-27.
But, the resurrection of Isaiah 25-27 would be “in that day” when the Lord avenged the blood of the martyrs, when He destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, and would no longer have mercy on the people He had created (Isaiah 27:10f).
Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, in fulfillment of Isaiah 25-27, was when He destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, and no longer had mercy on the people He had created– AD 70.

Olan has not breathed on any of this, and he knows it!

His affirmative is definitively, irrefutably falsified.