We are examining the doctrine of “the end” as it relates to the resurrection. Paul said the resurrection would be at the end, and most Christians assume that this must refer to a time in our future, i.e. the end of time or the end of human history. But, this is patently wrong. We have examined several bits of evidence to show that this assumption is in fact false, and that “the end” was a referent to the end of the Old Covenant Age that came in AD 70. In this, our final installment in this series, we take a look at the idea and claim that Paul’s statement about the end, as the time when Christ would give the kingdom over to the Father, must refer to the time when Christ surrenders / abdicates his rule over the kingdom. But, this claim has no support in scripture, so let’s examine that claim.
Paul said “the end” would be when Christ would “deliver the kingdom to the Father.” We are told that this is “the end” is the end of Christ’s rule on his throne, when he supposedly “surrenders” the throne, handing it over to the Father and thus, terminating his royal regency. This is based on the word paradidomi in v. 24 rendered “delivers.” Wayne Jackson argues: “Now, remember that according to verse 24, when He comes again, He will no longer be reigning, because He will have delivered the kingdom back to the Father.” (Wayne Jackson, The AD 70 Theory, (Stockton, CA. Courier Publications, 1990)37– A note here: Jackson’s book is one of the worst attempts to refute Covenant Eschatology one will find. It is full of logical fallacies and self contradictions. It is, in a word, amazingly bad).
This is unwarranted linguistically, and contextually. For a more indepth analysis of this word, see my AD 70, A Shadow of the “Real” End?. This book is a devastating critique of the claims AD 70 was a typological fulfillment of a yet future eschaton.
First point – If there was a typological fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15 in AD 70– and if deliver means surrender or abdicate– just exactly how did Jesus in any way abdicate the kingdom in AD 70? It is surely wrong to posit a typological fulfillment in AD 70 and yet, then claim that after all, there was no fulfillment of what was being foreshadowed! Thus, the argument that AD 70 was typological of the “real end” demands that in some way, in some manner, some how, Christ abdicated his rule, his throne, and, divorced his wife! Just how do we see that depicted, in any manner whatsoever, in AD 70?
You will not find a Dominionist who describes AD 70 as in any way at all a typological abdication of the kingdom by Jesus. Just the opposite. Virtually all postmillennialists I have read speak of Jesus’ coming in power and great glory. They speak of Christ exercising his Sovereignty. They speak of him being revealed as Messiah, sitting at the right hand of the Majesty (Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon, etc.).
I have not read even one postmillennialists who suggested that we see any kind of abdication by Jesus in AD 70. So, how can the postmillennialists strongly affirm that AD 70 was a sign of the full establishment of Jesus’ throne, and yet claim that somehow, someway, it foreshadows the abdication of that throne? This is just not sound logic, or theology. How exactly does enthronement typify abdication?
Point #2 – You cannot interpret paradidoi in such a way as to contradict the Wedding motif. See my #4” href=”http://donkpreston.com/then-comes-the-end-but-what-end-4/” target=”_blank”>earlier article on this motif. If, as we have seen, AD 70 is posited as the time of Jesus’ wedding– and virtually all Dominionists do– then to say 1 Corinthians 15 demands abdication, thereby demands that Christ divorces his wife at the “real end.” This is clearly a terrible suggestion.
Point #3 – You cannot interpret the end in 1 Corinthians 15 in such a way as to contradict #5” href=”http://donkpreston.com/then-comes-the-end-but-what-end-5/” target=”_blank”>the harvest motif which linguistically and contextually demands that the “full end” of the harvest was near.
John taught the imminence of the harvest (Matthew 3). Jesus taught the nearness of the harvest (John 4:35). Jesus himself was the first fruit of the harvest, demanding the initiation of the harvest. Revelation says the harvest was near in the judgment of Babylon, which, incidentally, virtually all Dominionists identify as Old Covenant Jerusalem.
So, here is what we have discovered about “the end” in 1 Corinthians 15:
✔It would be the time of the fulfillment of Israel’s Old Covenant promises.
✔It would occur at the end of Torah, the law that was the strength of sin. (This logically, and prophetically demands the establishment of the New Covenant).
✔It would be the time of Christ’s wedding when, as almost many Dominionists agree, would likewise be when Christ divorced the Old Covenant unfaithful, harlot bride.
✔It would be at the consummation of the harvest, of which Christ was the first fruit.
Not one of these tenets allows us to see AD 70 as typological of the “real” end. There is no Biblical basis for that doctrine. It is a theological invention without merit.
2 Replies to “Then Comes The End- But What End – #7- When He Delivers Up The Kingdom”
Thanks for the post.
I’m still unclear on what Paul meant about Jesus handing the Kingdom to the Father. You’ve explained what he didn’t mean by that, but what did he mean?
Stephen, thanks for visiting! I understand the “delivering” as a symbolic issue, in the following manner: The Father had given the Son the task of putting all things under him, to bring final victory to the kingdom, so that, as Zechariah 14 says for instance, YHVH would once again be “one Lord.” Thus, in Revelation 22, after “the end” and the final victory, we see the Father and the Son sitting on one throne! So, the handing over was not an abdication as most commentators see it, but a consummation.
Comments are closed.