Print This Post Print This Post

Responding to the Critics: What About Matthew 10:22-23 – #4

Responding to the Critics: Did Matthew 10:23 Predict the Ascension?
Responding to the Critics: Did Matthew 10:23 predict Jesus’ ascension?

Responding to the Critics: What About Matthew 10:22-23 – #4

I am sharing with you an exchange between myself and Sam Frost, a former preterist, who now condemns as heretics, “goof balls” and ignorant, those who espouse what he once considered as God’s truth. It really is more than revealing to witness Frost’s arrogance and desperation as he all but invents (re-invents) theological arguments to support his futurism.

This is installment #4 in that exchange which took place on FaceBook, in 2019. You can read the previous three installments here:  #1   #2    #3.

Remember that while other people, such as Robert Statzer and Julienne Chambers, offered some very good comments, for brevity I am confining what I share here to Frost’s comments and mine.

Be sure to read the previous installment to get “up to speed” as I now share Frost’s continuing comments:

Frost— Don, amazingly, has simply repeated his same argument. In fact, in my book, I make VERY AWARE the fact of the SECOND LEG of their Mission involved persecution…AFTER the Ascension of Christ. AFTER the Spirit was poured out. Don has my book….he knows this.

Now, Don applies R.T. France (who I have read, own, and have). AND, typical of Don, cherry picks his quotes. BUT, notice that Don totally ignores the sentence “through the CITIES OF ISRAEL” not “cities of the Gentiles”.

1. They had started through the cities of Israel.
2. They would not finish going through the cities of Israel “UNITIL” the son of man comes.
3. Therefore, the son of man would come before they finished going through the cities of Israel.

Now, it is plain and obvious that Don and Robert (Robert Statzer- DKP) are wishing to ignore this point. Everyone knows that Matthew inserts material of the SECOND LEG of thier mission, which is Acts. However, as I have shown from that book, they went through Jerusalem, Judea and having that, began in Samaria to the nations. What Don is missing is that they had ALREADY STARTED going through the cities of Israel in Matthew 10. Jesus said that “you will not FINISH what you have started UNTIL the son of man comes.”

Now, interestingly enough, Don makes my point: “which happened after the outpouring of the Spirit, when the disciples were to take the Gospel to “Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth.” They were to go to the Gentiles.” Correct, Don….and who poured out this Spirit? Where did this JEsus go?

On 10-30-19 I responded:

Sam Frost keeps digging himself deeper and deeper, all the while claiming that it is Robert Statzer and myself that are in trouble. Well, let’s try that out, shall we?

Look at Frost’s attempt at an argument:
1. They had started through the cities of Israel.
2. They would not finish going through the cities of Israel “UNITIL” the son of man comes.
3. Therefore, the son of man would come before they finished going through the cities of Israel.

Look at premise #2– //They would not finish going through the cities of Israel “UNTIL” the son of man comes.//
Problem! They did finish going through the cities of Israel before Christ came!

Notice that in Luke 9– the parallel with Matthew 10, (Cf. Mark 6:7f–> v.30). Jesus sent them out. Now remember, per Frost, //They would not finish going through the cities of Israel “UNTIL” the son of man comes.// Yet, notice that in Luke 9:10 it says “WHEN THEY HAD RETURNED, told him all that they had done…”
Where did they return from, Mr. Frost? GOING ONLY TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, NOT TO SAMARIA, NOT TO THE GENTILES. That means that Matthew 10:23 cannot refer to the fulfillment of Matthew 10:1-16 unless you can prove that Jesus’ parousia happened way before his death, burial, resurrection and ascension!

After they returned from completing the Commission of 10:1-15, later, in Luke 10 we find Jesus sending them out, AGAIN. Only now, he expands the number to 70 disciples. But again, the point is that they completed the mission to only the cities of Israel. They did so without being persecuted. And Jesus did not come– he most assuredly did not coming in the glory of the Father– before they completed that mission.

But, the point stands as unassailable that Jesus sent his 12 to the house of Israel.
Frost says that before they completed their mission Christ would come.
But, according to the inspired text, THEY COMPLETED THAT TASK AND RETURNED!

That means that sometime before the completion of their task of Matthew 10:1-15 / Mark 6 / Luke 9– JESUS’ PAROUSIA HAD TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE! This is where Mr. Frost really runs into problems– as if this were not enough.

Let’s remember that for Mr. Frost, Jesus’ parousia in Matthew 10:23 is his ascension to the right hand of the Father in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14. So, let’s see if that works, shall we?

The parousia of the Son of Man in Matthew 10:23 is Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14– Frost.

Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father – his parousia of Matthew 10:23- would be before the disciples had finished going through the cities of Israel (Israel only) in Matthew 10:1-15.

BUT, CHRIST’S ASCENSION TO THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER OCCURRED AFTER JESUS’ DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION!

Therefore, Jesus’ DEATH, BURIAL, RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION had to have occurred BEFORE THE APOSTLES FINISHED GOING THROUGH ALL THE CITIES OF ISRAEL!

Frost has the coming of the Son of Man as his ascension to the Father (which is false).

The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 10 would be DURING – NOT BEFORE– the persecution of the apostles as they preached the Gospel.

But, the persecution of the apostles– for preaching the Gospel– did not take place UNTIL AFTER THE ASCENSION!!

Mr. Frost, the ascension was BEFORE THE PERSECUTION OF THE APOSTLES– NOT BEFORE! Your entire argument is anachronistic.

But this is not the full extent of Mr. Frost’s problems. He equates the parousia of the Son of Man in Matthew 10 to Christ’s coming “in the glory of the Father” (Parousia of the Son of Man, p. 20). Just like the above, this is fatal to his entire argument.

Look closely:

The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 10:23 is the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of the Father- Frost.

But, the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of the Father is his coming in judgment of all men– Matthew 16:27-28 / Mark 8:38-9:1 / Luke 9:27-28– this is also Daniel 7:13f which is patently a judgment scene.

It is worth noting that many scholars (e.g. N. T. Wright among many that could be cited) see Matthew 16:27f and parallels as Jesus’ prediction of his judgment coming in vindication of his death (Matthew 16:21f) and the suffering of his disciples 24f). That is what he was promising in Matthew 10:22-23– his coming in vindication of his disciples who would be persecuted for preaching the Gospel– which Frost admits did not happen on the Limited Commission.

So, here is where Mr. Frost’s argument leads:

The disciples would not finish fleeing (from persecution) through the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of the Father.

But, the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of the Father was Jesus’ coming in the judgment of all men– Matthew 16:27-28 and parallels.

Therefore, the disciples would not finish fleeing (from persecution) through the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man in the glory of the Father– in the judgment of all men.

Does Frost believe that Jesus came in the judgment of all men, before the disciples finished the Limited Commission? No. And in reality, he does not believe that Jesus came in the glory of the Father in the judgment of all men when the Great Commission – the second leg of the Mission – was completed as Paul affirmed repeatedly that it had been.

Now, if Frost tries to deflect attention away from this problem and say, “Preston just does not understand. I know that v. 22-23 applies to the second leg of the commission” – this remains problematic, fatally so:

1. It admits that there are two commissions in Matthew 10– one limited and the other to all the nations. In his posts above he did not indicate this, although it is in his book. But, he strives hard to ignore what that means. He certainly does NOT want the reader to see the problems he has created for himself.

2. And since Mr. Frost is now applying 10:23 to the “all the nations” mission, this refutes his attempts to limit the “cities of Israel” in v. 23, to the Limited Commission – which is precisely what he is arguing above- and as he tried to construe France. If “all the cities of Israel” belongs to the “second leg” and not the first, as Mr. Frost is now admitting, then his application of “the cities of Israel” in 10:23 to the first limited leg of the commission is false.

3. Frost’s admission that the parousia of 10:23 is Christ’s coming in the glory of the Father refutes his application to the ascension. Christ’s coming in the glory of the Father is his judgment coming– not his ascension. I proved this in my debate with William Vincent, which, everyone will remember, Mr. Vincent abandoned.  (Note to the reader: You can find my debate with William Vincent on YouTube by going to my channel and searching for the Preston – Vincent Debate on Daniel 7:13-14. Here is a link to my first negative.

It is somewhat humorous– but misleading by Frost– when he tries to deflect attention away from these facts by saying: // In my book, I make VERY AWARE the fact of the SECOND LEG of their Mission involved persecution…AFTER the Ascension of Christ. AFTER the Spirit was poured out. Don has my book….he knows this.//

Yes, Mr. Frost, I do know it (I have the book right in front of me) and that is why it is so important to point out that you say that!

Matthew 10:23 is the second leg of the commission of Matthew 10- Frost.

The second leg of the commission of Matthew 10 involved persecution– Frost.

BUT THERE WAS NO PERSECUTION IN THE FIRST LEG OF THE COMMISSION OF MATTHEW 10:23.

Therefore, the flight from persecution of the apostles in 10:23 was not their flight strictly and exclusively to /through the cities of Israel– but it was their flight from persecution during the second leg of the commission- the commission to all the nations.

If (since you admit) there is a “second leg” of their mission, and if (since you admit) that second leg (not the first) involved persecution, then that second leg is not the Limited Commission which was strictly to the house of Israel! Thank you for that admission! This means that they did complete the “first leg” to strictly the house of Israel completely falsifying your application of Matthew 10:22-23, where you claim that they WOULD NOT FINISH GOING (ONLY) THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL IN THEIR FLIGHT FROM PERSECUTION! And your attempt to turn France to your side fails.

So, here is what we have:

1. Mr. Frost cannot apply Matthew 10:23 to verses 1-14 without demanding that he prove that the apostles were persecuted on the Limited Commission. He can’t prove this.

2. The fact is indisputable that the apostles did complete the mission to only the cities of Israel. And the fact stands as irrefutable that Jesus did not come in the glory of the Father before they finished that Mission.

3. If / since, Mr. Frost now admits that there were two legs of the Mission, that means that v. 22-23 belongs to the Second Leg, thus falsifying Mr. Frost’s attempts to apply those verses to v. 1-14.

3. By positing Matthew 10:23 as Christ’s coming “in the glory of the Father”– which is correct– this textually demands that Matthew 10:23 was to be Christ’s coming in vindication of his persecuted saints. (And let us not forget that Jesus promised that vindication would come in the judgment of Jerusalem– Matthew 23– not at Jesus’ ascension).

4. By positing Matthew 10:23 as Christ’s coming “in the glory of the Father”– which is correct– this textually demands that Matthew 10:23 was to be Christ’s coming in the judgment of all men– Matthew 16:27. That did not happen at the Ascension.

5. By positing the parousia of the Son of Man as Christ’s ascension, this demands that the martyrdom of the church occurred before Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and Ascension! Even Mr. Frost knows that did not happen.

Mr. Frost’s entire argument is anachronistic and a very clear violation of the text.

Stay tuned as we continue Responding to the Critics on Matthew 10:22-23.

Hits: 74

Menu
Don K Preston

FREE
VIEW