Responding to the Critics: What About Matthew 10:22-23- #5
This is the last installment of Responding to the Critics on Matthew 10:22-23. I am sharing a FaceBook exchange that I had with Sam Frost, former preterist. Be sure to read the previous four installments to understand what the focus of the controversy is all about. Remember that Matthew 10:23 has been the source of great consternation among Bible students, scholar and laymen alike, since Jesus was predicting that his parousia would be in the lifetime of his first century disciples. Frost is claiming that the “parousia” of Matthew 10:23 was Jesus’ ascension to the Father in Acts 1. This application simply will not work as I demonstrate in my responses to Frost.
In the last installment, I share some of the inescapable and insurmountable difficulties in Frost’s position. We begin here with his “response.”
Sam Frost– As usual, Don as proven nothing except hot air. The son of man would “come” before they finished going through the cities of Israel. Don K. Preston dodges and weaves here…..shame to see Robert Statzer follow it.
Sam Frost 10-30-19 – Don tries to make this about finishing while being persecuted….and that is correct, for the persecution would come….but what Don ENTIRELY IGNORES is that if they were to FINISH this, then they already STARTED it (as Mattew 10 tells us). Thus, “you will not FINISH what has been STARTED, until the son of man comes.”
Again, and for the last time because at this point the dense don’t get it: the action of the second clause MUST PRECEDE the action of the first clause in a conditional statement that we have here. I gave an example, “you may not get out of jail until you pay to the uttermost” (“Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing” – MAtthew5.26). This is the EXACT SAME CONSTRUCTION in 10.23. Not go out (A) will not happen before “repay” (B). B comes BEFORE A. When B happens, then A happens.
So, let us run this through: you may not finish going through the cities of Israel (A) until the son of man comes (B). B must come before A. A must come after B. Basic, simple, Greek grammar that annihilates the point of Don K. Preston ad Robert Statzer
On 10-31-19 I responded to Frost-–
And once again, you are abusing the text, even though you fatally admit that —
//Don tries to make this about finishing while being persecuted….and that is correct, for the persecution would come…// Well, Mr. Frost, it is not Don K. Preston that makes v. 22-23 about finishing while being persecuted! That is what the text says in spite of your argumentum ad desperatum. LOL!
Thank you for that fatal admission. Oh, and I am not dense, thanks very much for the insult.
Now, let’s go over this once again, very simply:
Frost admits that Matthew 10 is about two different “legs” of the mission. The first was to Israel only. The second was the world mission of 24:14.
Well, that second leg is found in 10:15f– which means that v. 22-23 belongs, not to the first mission to the cities of Israel only, but, to the world mission.
Now, catch this, folks, when Sam Frost admits that “finishing had to do with persecution,” he is thereby admitting that his claims about “all the cities of Israel” is specious in the extreme. Why?
Because THERE WAS NO PERSECUTION IN / DURING THE FIRST LEG OF MATTHEW 10 — the mission to Israel only!! Get that? No persecution in the first leg, which Mr. Frost is trying to impose on v. 22-23!! Yet, the promise of the coming of the Son of Man in v. 23 belongs to the time of persecution. Therefore, the reference to not finishing going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes belongs, not to the first leg of the mission to Israel only, but to the world mission.
If it is true that the parousia of Matthew 10:23 would occur at the time of persecution of the apostles as they preached the Gospel,
If it is true that there was no persecution of the apostles as they preached to the cities of Israel only (Matthew 10:1-14),
IT MUST BE TRUE that the parousia of 10:23 does not belong to the time of the apostles as they preached to the cities of Israel only (Matthew 10:1-14).
It IS true that the parousia of Matthew 10:23 would occur at the time of persecution of the apostles as they preached the Gospel, and,
It IS true that the disciples were NOT persecuted in their preaching to the cities of Israel only.
Therefore, IT IS TRUE that the parousia of 10:23 is not related to the time of the preaching to the cities of Israel only when there was no persecution.
So, Mr. Frost’s claim that I ignored his argument is specious. These facts prove his argument to be anachronistic and wrong.
I proved yesterday– totally ignored by Frost- that the disciples finished their mission to the cities of Israel only, without persecution– and they returned. Got that, Mr. Sam Frost?
The first leg of the mission was completed– without persecution-– meaning your application of v. 22-23 is false and anachronistic.
Now, let me repeat a few things from yesterday– Folks, if you want to talk about something being ignored, just go back and read my posts again and you will see how much Mr. Frost completely, 100% ignored.
Did you catch Mr. Frost’s citation of his own book that negates his claims here? Here it is again:
//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.//
So, on the one hand, Mr. Frost HAS PERSECUTION THEN THE PAROUSIA (It is, after all, what the text says) – supposedly, but wrongly, Christ’s ascension.
On the other hand, he admits that the persecution of 10:23 (the second leg of the mission) “involved persecution… AFTER the Ascension of Christ. AFTER the Spirit was poured out.”
The text has Mission–> Persecution–> Parousia. Sorry, but this is simply undeniable, no matter how desperately Mr. Frost might deny it, although, once again, please notice his admission: “the persecution of 10:23 (the second leg of the mission) “involved persecution… AFTER the Ascension of Christ. AFTER the Spirit was poured out.”
Do you catch the power of that admission?
In spite of that admission, Mr. Frost still claims that the narrative is Parousia (i.e. ascension, Acts 1)–> then Mission–> then Persecution.
This is Frost versus Frost and Frost versus Scripture. Frost turns the text on its head.
You just have to catch the power of how simple it is to refute Mr. Frost’s claims.
Remember, (at the risk of redundancy) Frost has Parousia (i.e. ascension, Acts 1)–> then Mission–> then Persecution.
But, the inspired text, including Matthew 10:22-23, has Mission–> Persecution–> then Parousia!
Once again, Mr. Frost inadvertently but fatally admits– the persecution of 10:23 (the second leg of the mission) “involved persecution… AFTER the Ascension of Christ. AFTER the Spirit was poured out.” In his original quote he emphasized in bold the world “AFTER.” I appreciate that, because it calls attention to how badly Mr. Frost is distorting the narrative. Do you see how Mr. Frost himself admits that PERSECUTION WAS AFTER THE ASCENSION?
Well, to reiterate, if the persecution was after the Ascension of Christ as Frost admits– and it patently and irrefutably was– then MR. FROST’S IDENTIFICATION OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION AS THE PAROUSIA IS AS FALSE AS FALSE CAN BE!
The undeniable Biblical narrative is: Mission–Persecution–Ascension.
Mr. Frost perverts the narrative by affirming Parousia (ascension)– Mission– Persecution!
Let me give my summary from yesterday again, and let me urge the readers to go back and to actually read the arguments that I offered– 95+ % of which Mr. Frost totally ignored. Not a keystroke. Not a syllable.
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. 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.
At the time of this posting, Mr Frost has not written another word in response to what I offered. He abandoned this discussion at this point.
Little wonder why.