Responding to the Critics on Luke 21.22 – #5

Spread the love
The Wedding of the King of Kings
Responding to the Critics on the Wedding of Christ and AD 70


Responding to the Critics: A Response to Jason Bradfield on Luke 21:22 – #5
More Desperation from the Partial Preterist Camp

As I reported in the previous articles, After I posted an article on the authority of the creeds, responding to Bradfield’s claim that the Westminster Confession of Faith is authoritative, Mr. Bradfield told me on Facebook to cease and desist from tagging him. Then, he completely blocked me on Facebook! When you are totally unable to answer solid Biblical arguments and can only engage in slander and un-Christian name calling that reveals your inability to engage in serious discussion, it is probably best to withdraw.

Keep in mind that this series is in response to an article that Bradfield posted just recently claiming to be the answer to Luke 21:22. He admitted in that article that a “simple reading” of that passage would indicate that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. Let me give again what he said:

“It is no secret that this is standard, hyperpreterist fare. So, the question posed to us “partial preterists” is a simple one: if Jerusalem was destroyed in ad70 and by that event, Jesus said that “all things that are written must be fulfilled”; how can we argue that there is prophecy left to be fulfilled post ad70?

Seems fairly plain, right? Well, not so fast.”

So, as we have noted, Bradfield admits that a simple reading of the text sounds simple and “fairly plain.” But, of course, he knows that to accept that meaning is to falsify the entirety of futurism, so, he casts around to find a way to deny that “fairly plain” reading. He then assures us that the “all things fulfilled” of Luke 21:22 refers only to the prophecies of the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem and “all” of the particulars surrounding and tied to that event. And that is fine with me!

I have shared with the readers here that the OT prophesied the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, and attendant with that awful judgment, there are numerous eschatological ‘particulars” such as the resurrection, the Messianic Banquet, the establishment of the kingdom, the end of the age, the salvation of Israel, etc., etc.. When I have challenged Mr. Bradfield and others on that forum to answer these arguments, the response has been more name calling, more ungodly verbiage, and a total refusal to engage the issues. (And as noted, I have been blocked). Let’s face it: if one admits, as proper hermeneutic and exegesis demands, that the OT prophecies cited did predict that AD 70 judgment, then Mr. Bradfield’s eschatology is false. It cannot be salvaged. Thus, when he admits that “all”- and he did mean “all” prophecies of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled then, he has surrendered his futurist eschatology. That is unavoidable and irrefutable.

In our last installment we examined Jesus’ parable of the Wicked Vineyard workers, showing that the parable contains numerous eschatological “particulars” directly and inseparably tied to the coming judgment on those wicked workers. Thus, when one admits, as virtually all commentators do, that the parable was prophetic of AD 70, this demands that the coming of the Lord, the Messianic Kingdom, the vindication of the martyrs, the Messianic Temple– which are the particulars of the text– were fulfilled in AD 70.

We turn now to another NT prophecy of AD 70 to examine some of the key particulars linked to that event.

Matthew 22:1-10:

And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.

Notice the constituent, particulars of the text:

We have the kingdom of heaven. And note that objective imminence of the declaration: All things are ready!” Was the message. But, hey, maybe those invited guests claimed that “all things are ready” just meant that one of these days, maybe thousands of years off in the distant future, the Wedding will take place! That is, after all, the claim of the futurists who want to negate the language of imminence in the NT. Such is the desperation and utter illogic of their efforts.

We have the Messianic Wedding Banquet. As we have seen, the motif of the Banquet, the Kingdom Banquet, is inextricably, inseparably, tied to the resurrection in Isaiah 25.6-8. That resurrection promise of Isaiah 25 is nothing other than the resurrection promise of 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 where Paul said that the resurrection would be when Isaiah 25.8 was fulfilled. Thus, in reality, the invitation to the Wedding Banquet is the invitation to the resurrection!

That is precisely what we find in Matthew 8:11 (par. Luke 13.28ff) where Abraham, Isaac and the OT worthies would sit down at that Banquet in the kingdom, and that would be when, “the sons of the kingdom are cast out.” Thus, once again, we have the linkage between the Kingdom, the Banquet and the resurrection.

Now, it is worth noting that on FaceBook, Sam Frost has claimed that Abraham and all the Worthies went directly to heaven when they died– before Jesus ever came and offered himself as a sacrifice. In response, I have shared the the fact that if Matthew 8.11 is fulfilled as Frost claims, that this demands that the resurrection has occurred! After all:

The Banquet of Matthew 8 is the Banquet of Isaiah 65.

The Banquet of Isaiah 65. 6 is at the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 65.8).

The Banquet of Isaiah 65 is at the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.

Therefore, if the Banquet of Matthew 8 is fulfilled, and Abraham and the Worthies are currently sitting at that Banquet, then the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 has been fulfilled!

Of course, what that means is that if Abraham and the Worthies are sitting at the Resurrection Banquet, then they are resurrected. But, if they are resurrected, it is patently undeniable that they were not raised out of the dirt!  I discuss this at length in my book: The Resurrection of Daniel 12.2: Fulfilled or Future?

Frost’s response to this? Not a keystroke. Now, he has gone on record as saying that he does not value anything that I say and that he feels no obligation to respond to what I have to say. Little wonder. He has impaled himself on his own keyboard and he knows it. Thus, silence is the best tactic.

We have the persecution of the servants of the king sent out to invite the guests. This is a direct connection with the parable in chapter 21 which we have already discussed, and demonstrated how the particulars of that parable pointed directly to AD 70.

We have the judgment and destruction of the persecutors and their city– “But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” There can be no doubt about what the parable foretold. The judgment and destruction of Jerusalem, the epicenter of the persecution of God’s servants.

Take particular note of the motif of the Wedding of the Son. This motif is, without any doubt, one of the key eschatological tenets of scripture.

First of all, it is to be noted that the promise of the Wedding is a key OT prophecy of the time of the “restoration of Israel” at the “return” of YHVH (Hosea 5.14-6.1-5). The Lord had divorced Israel due to her sin, but in the days of the resurrection, the last days, He would remarry her:

In that day I will make a covenant for them With the beasts of the field, With the birds of the air, And with the creeping things of the ground. Bow and sword of battle I will shatter from the earth, To make them lie down safely. “I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me In righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, And you shall know the Lord.

Since every jot and every tittle of God’s covenant with Israel had to be fulfilled before the Law of Moses could pass (Matthew 5.17-18) then for anyone, whether Bradfield, Frost, or Gentry, or whoever, to posit the Wedding of Christ– at the second coming and the resurrection– into the future, means that Old Covenant Israel – and Torah- remains God’s covenant and His covenant people. It is imperative to realize that all NT references to the Wedding at the coming of the Lord spring from and are based on those OT promises made to Israel.

This includes Matthew 25, where we have the coming of the Son, the Bridegroom. This is the parousia of Christ, what is known as the second coming; it is the time of the resurrection. Virtually all commentators agree. Note that just like in Matthew 22, Jesus said “the kingdom is like…” So, the Wedding is at the “second coming” just like in Matthew 22, the Wedding is at the time of the judgment. Take a look then at the following:

The Coming Of Christ For The Wedding In Matthew 25 Is The Coming Of Christ At The Resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15- Virtually all commentators agree.

But, The Wedding Of Christ Occurred At The Destruction Of Jerusalem In AD 70 (Matthew 22.1-7!)

Therefore, The Resurrection Of 1 Corinthians 15 Occurred At The Coming Of Christ For The Wedding In AD 70!

Now, while there is a wealth of corroborative material to be shared here– See my book, We Shall Meet Him In The Air, the Wedding of the King of kings for that– I will limit this article to just a couple more observations.

In Revelation 19.6-8 we find this paeon of victory declared at the destruction of “Babylon”:

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

What do we find here?

We have the city Babylon, which is where the Lord was crucified (11.8).

Like Matthew 21 and Matthew 22, She is the city guilty of killing the servants of the Lord sent to her.

Just like Matthew 22 (and 25), the Marriage of the Son takes place at the parousia and, at the judgment of that persecuting city.

That means that just like Matthew 21 and 22, we have the vindication of the martyrs at the time of the Wedding. And as we have seen, it is simply indisputably true that the vindication of the martyrs was in AD 70  (Matthew 23.29f)..

Since the resurrection and the second coming of Christ are inseparably tied to the Wedding and since the Wedding is tied to the judgment of the city guilty of killing the Lord’s servants, then this means that when Bradfield admits, as he did, that all of the prophetic particulars surrounding the AD 70 judgment of Jerusalem were fulfilled at that time, then this demands (it does not intimate, it does not hint, it does not simply imply)– it DEMANDS that the kingdom, the vindication of the martyrs, the second coming, the resurrection, the Wedding of Christ, all occurred in AD 70. Thus, as we continue Responding to the Critics, it is manifestly obvious that the critics are guilty of ignoring – and denying – an entire body of Biblical evidence.

We have more. Be sure to get a copy of my book, We Shall Meet Him In The Air, the Wedding of the King of kings, for an in-depth discussion of the eschatological significance of the Wedding of Christ.