Written Debate| When Did the Millennium Begin? Don K. Preston’s Second Negative
With all due respect to Jonathan– and meaning no offense at all– you will seldom find a more self contradictory– and un-Biblical – discourse than Jonathan’s second affirmative.
I want the reader to first of all take note that I offered several logical syllogisms in my first negative. Jonathan did not address even one of them; not so much as a syllable. Each of the arguments is based on the emphatic statements of scripture and Jonathan’s own admissions.
I want the reader to catch the full power of Jonathan’s comment:
“Mr. Preston ends up arguing against a premise and position I would not recognize as my own. All of the passages Mr. Preston cites from the Old Testament certainly regard the prophetic fulfillment of the promises in 70 to Israel, but this does not logically preclude Paul arguing for a future conversion and regrafting of the Jewish people. The Old Covenant was destroyed, it is gone forever. That the Jews’ future conversion somehow negates the fact the Old Covenant was permanently removed is simply sloppy thinking and exegesis.” (EoQ)
Folks, Jonathan is positing two eschatological hopes of Israel. Paul said he had “one hope” which was NOTHING but the hope of Israel found in Torah, but, Jonathan says Paul also had another one involving Israel! So, Israel had two hopes, one fulfilled in AD 70, another to be fulfilled at the end of time.
Remember that I noted that all I have to do is to prove that the end of the Millennium events were near in the first century, in order to fully negate Jonathan’s affirmation. I do not have to go into detail of every argument he might make. With this in mind, I want to focus on two inter-related issues, both of which negate Jonathan’s eschatology.
Torah– The Heart of the Matter
Jonathan tells us: “The Old Covenant was destroyed, it is gone forever.” And yet, what does Jonathan do? He bases his hope of a yet future end of the Millennium conversion of Israel and the New Creation directly on the Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel!
Jonathan built the majority of his affirmative on Deuteronomy 30.
Did you notice how extensively he argued from Ezekiel– which is part of that dead Torah?
Did you notice that he admitted that Revelation 21f is based on Isaiah 65?
Do you catch the power of that fatal contradiction? He bases his entire eschatology on the yet future fulfillment of a dead Torah! But if the Old Law is dead, then, well, it is DEAD! Its promises fulfilled, not delayed, not protracted, not “re-applied,” but fulfilled.
Here is what you need to see:
Jonathan says Israel will not be restored to Old Covenant status. However, Israel will be restored in fulfillment of the Old Covenant – Deuteronomy 30 / Ezekiel 38 / Isaiah 65.
So, he has the OT predicting the restoration of Israel “relative to their status under the Old Covenant” (totally fulfilled by AD 70), and he has the OT predicting the salvation of Israel through their grafting into the body of Christ, at the so-called end of time. Jonathan has created insurmountable problems for himself.
Jonathan told us the Old Covenant is dead, gone forever, Yet, he constantly appeals to that dead Covenant for his eschatology. But notice the words of Jesus:
Matthew 5:17-18: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Jesus said not one iota of the Old Law would or could pass until it was All fulfilled. Jonathan has part of that Covenant passing in AD 70, but, lots and lots of “jots and tittles” of the Old Covenant still unfulfilled, and not to be fulfilled until the end of time. That is a direct violation of Jesus’ words.
Jesus said NONE would pass until it was ALL fulfilled. Jonathan has SOME of it passing, while SOME of it remains! Jonathan is patently wrong.
Let me illustrate Jonathan’s problem by examining one of the key texts that he appeals to for a future restoration of Israel, in fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Let’s take a look at Deuteronomy 30.
Jonathan connects Deuteronomy 30 with Romans 11: “Israel will return to the Holy Land after they have repented (the condition for being regathered, cf. Deut. 30:1-5) and will be hallowed among the nations as members of the New Covenant people of God, the true Israel/Olive Tree.”
Jonathan said I falsely charged him with believing in the restoration of the Law. Well, let it be clearly understood that Jonathan’s own application of Deuteronomy 30 / Romans 11 DEMANDS THE RESTORATION OF TORAH. (Caps for emphasis only).
I urge the reader to read Deuteronomy 30:1-10. What is so critical– but overlooked by Jonathan– is that three times (a three-fold witness!) the Lord promised to restore Israel but, and this is critical– He would only do so when Israel obeyed the Law of Moses!
1. V. 2– God would restore Israel when “you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul,
2. V. 8– “And you will again obey the voice of the Lord and do all His commandments which I command you today.”
3. V. 9f– For the Lord will again rejoice over you for good as He rejoiced over your fathers, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, and if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Take note of this:
The restoration of Israel foretold in Deuteronomy 30 is the end of the Millennium restoration / salvation of Israel– Jonathan.
But, the restoration of Israel foretold in Deuteronomy 30 would only take place when Israel returned to obedience of the Law of Moses– the words that Moses commanded them that day (stated three times in the text!)
Therefore, either the Law of Moses is not dead (as claimed by Jonathan), or, the Law of Moses will be restored in the future.
Which is it, Jonathan?
Jonathan, please, do not ignore this argument. Address it specifically. You cannot apply Deuteronomy 30 to the end of the Millennium without thereby affirming the validity of the Law of Moses to that time. You said that my connection between Torah and Israel, demanding the continuing validity of Torah if Israel is yet to be restored in fulfillment of those OT prophecies, “is simply sloppy thinking and exegesis.” Okay, then, prove how Deuteronomy 30 could still be valid while the Law of Moses has been annulled. We will eagerly await your response, so, please, do not ignore it.
This argument alone falsifies Jonathan’s entire eschatology. But there is more.
I took note of Jonathan’s false contrast between Gog and Magog in Ezekiel and Revelation, arguing that they are the same. Jonathan now admits I was right:
“First let me say that my first statement regarding the “contrast” between Ezekiel and Revelation 20 re: Gog and Magog was an unintentional error. In fact, I saw it afterwards and corrected my post the day it was posted to the facebook group…. Mr. Preston most certainly is correct that there is nothing different between these two passages, and they are referencing the same end-of-Millennium occurrence.”
I truly appreciate the fact that Jonathan admits his error. But, his admission that the battle of Gog in Ezekiel and that in Revelation 20 are the same falsifies his claim that “the war” of Revelation 20:8 and that in Revelation 16:14; 19:19 are different– and this demands a first century end of the Millennium. Furthermore, this admission raises the same specter of the abiding validity of Torah.
Torah, Gog and Magog
The battle of Gog in Ezekiel is the same battle of Gog in Revelation 29– Jonathan.
The battle of Gog in Ezekiel 38 (and thus, Revelation 20) would occur in Israel’s last days (38:16f).
Israel’s last days terminated in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem– Jonathan admits this.
Therefore, the battle of Gog of Ezekiel (and thus, of Revelation 20) was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Correlative to that, consider this:
The battle of Gog in Ezekiel 38 (and thus, in Revelation 20) would result in the salvation of Israel.
The salvation of Israel of Ezekiel 38f (and thus, Revelation 20) is the same salvation of Israel in Deuteronomy 30- Jonathan.
But, the salvation of Israel in Deuteronomy 30 would only come when Israel repented and obeyed the Law of Moses.
But, the law of Moses is now dead and gone forever– Jonathan.
Therefore, the salvation of Israel in Ezekiel 38f (and thus, Revelation 20) was fulfilled prior to the time of the passing of the Law of Moses– i.e. in the first century.
Jonathan cannot divorce eschatology from the fulfillment of Torah– which he says is now dead. And he cannot dichotomize Torah into two eschatological hopes of Israel without violating Jesus and Paul.
Jonathan has emphatically affirmed that Torah has passed. But, none of Torah could pass until it was all fulfilled– whether the physical promises relative to Torah, or, the spiritual promises relative to the coming of Messiah.
All eschatological promises of the salvation of Israel are promises grounded in Torah, the Law and the Prophets.
Therefore, Jonathan must either affirm the abiding validity of Torah– every jot and tittle of it– or, agree that the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel has been fulfilled. He has no other choices. That is how critical it is to see the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel.
You cannot affirm that all of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Israel were fulfilled and that the Old Law has been removed without thereby affirming the complete fulfillment of the eschatological narrative.
Here is what I wrote (that Jonathan ignored):
“According to Paul, there was but “One Hope” (Ephesians 4:5) and that one hope was the resurrection hope of Israel found in Torah. There was not, and is not, in Paul or John or any NT writer– the idea of two eschatons, one (AD 70) for Israel and another one for Israel and the church at the end of time.
Jonathan wants to escape the power of this argument by simply affirming– without a syllable of proof– “All of the passages Mr. Preston cites from the Old Testament certainly regard the prophetic fulfillment of the promises in 70 to Israel, but this does not logically preclude Paul arguing for a future conversion and regrafting of the Jewish people.”
Jonathan, I am challenging you directly to prove– with exegesis, not mere affirmation– that any of the NT writers had an eschatology different from the “hope of Israel” found in, “Moses, the Law and the prophets.”
Paul said he preached nothing– NOT ONE THING (caps for emphasis only)– that was not found in Moses, the Law and the prophets– and that was “the hope of Israel.” Paul’s focus was on the consummation of Israel’s eschatological hope; you make it the end of the Christian age.
Jonathan says I have a naive and false view of Romans 11. Naturally, I deny that. Since we both posit the fulfillment of Romans 11 at the end of the Millennium, it is critically important that we look closer at this crux interpretum.
Romans 11– The Heart of the Matter
If Romans 11:25f has been fulfilled then Jonathan’s claims about the Millennium are false. I made the following argument based on Jonathan’s own statements:
All Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel were fulfilled no later than AD 70– Jonathan.
But, Romans 11:25-27 is the expectation of the fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises, made to Old Covenant Israel. i.e. Isaiah 27:9f; 59:17f; Jeremiah 31:29f; Daniel 9.
Therefore, Romans 11:25-27 was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Paul’s doctrine of the conversion and regrafting of the Jewish people was based on and taken from the Old Testament promises made to Old Covenant Israel– The covenant that Jonathan says is dead.
Jonathan’s attempt to delineate between the Old Covenant promises to Israel relative to Torah, and the Old Covenant promises to Israel relative to Messiah is untenable– per Jesus in Matthew 5:17f. While there certainly was (naturally) a difference between the physical promises and the spiritual, both promises were inherent in Torah. And not one jot or one tittle of Torah could pass until it was ALL fulfilled.
It is also critical to see that Israel’s physical things foreshadowed the spiritual things; they were “shadows of good things to come” (Colossians 2:14-16). Not until those typological physical praxis of Israel’s “New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths” came to full reality– in the end of the Millennium resurrection– could Torah pass! On this note, let me ask Jonathan this question: Jonathan, is the seventh day Sabbath, as prescribed in Torah, valid and binding today? Yes or No? If your answer is No, please tell us why?
I will have more to say on this later, but, for now, you must realize that Jonathan has Israel’s cultic praxis passing away in AD 70, without being fulfilled! And that is simply false.
Let’s look closer at Romans 11:25f.
All OT promises, made to Old Covenant Israel were fulfilled no later than AD 70– Jonathan.
Romans 11:25 is the anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s OT promises made to Israel.
Therefore, the salvation of Israel anticipated by Paul in Romans 11 was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Remember, you cannot dichotomize Torah into physical promises fulfilled in AD 70 and OT promises to be fulfilled later, without violating Jesus’ words in Matthew 5! The entirety of Torah– every jot and every tittle– stood together, inviolate, until total fulfillment.
Jonathan said concerning my argument on Romans 11: “So when Don says “…Romans 11 is prima facie proof that the Millennium did not begin in AD 70…” he (to be blunt) does not have the slightest notion of what he is saying.”
Let’s see if that is true. Paul said the “end of the Millennium” salvation of Israel he was anticipating would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31. Romans 11 also echoes Daniel 9:24 and the prophecy of the seventy weeks being determined for the taking away of Israel’s sin.
For brevity, I will simply outline the respective texts in Isaiah and Daniel and draw some conclusions.
Romans 11 and Isaiah 27
Paul cites Isaiah 27:10 in Romans 11:25f. Let’s look at that context. It is critical to note that each of the elements below are joined by the term “in that day” in the text of the Little Apocalypse (Isaiah 24-29). There is no justification for a temporal gap between the events.
Isaiah 27:10f foretold the salvation of Israel within the following framework:
Isaiah 26:19f– The resurrection “out of the dust.”
Isaiah 26:21– The Coming of the Lord for the vindication of the blood of the martyrs.
Isaiah 27:1-2– The destruction of Leviathan, the Great Serpent. Note that this is the “final” end of the Serpent: “he will slay the dragon that is in the sea.” This is not a “binding” or a partial judgment. The Serpent is killed. This is the end of the Millennium.
Isaiah 27:10– The taking away of Israel’s sin.
Isaiah 27:10– That removal of sin would be by the means of judgment!
Isaiah 27:11f– That salvation would be when YHVH would forget the people He had created, destroy the altar and the fortified city.
Isaiah 27:13– The remnant would be gathered at the sounding of the Great Trumpet.
So, we have the resurrection, the coming of the Lord, the destruction of Satan, the salvation of Israel all tied together by “in that day” with no “gaps.” But wait!
That salvation would be when “the earth will no longer conceal her blood” i.e. the martyrs would be vindicated. When did Jesus say that all of the blood, of all the martyrs, all the way back to creation would be vindicated? In AD 70. But, that vindication is posited at the time of the slaying– not the binding– of the Devil. The slaying of the Serpent is at the end of the Millennium.
Note also that the salvation of Israel is emphatically posited at the time when YHVH would forget the people He had created: “Therefore He who made them will not have mercy on them, And He who formed them will show them no favor.” (This is taken directly from Deuteronomy 32, which foretold Israel’s last days, that terminated in AD 70). Yet, at the same time, He would save “those who are perishing (v. 13).
Here is what we have:
The end of the Millennium salvation of Israel in Romans 11 would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 26-27.
The end of the Millennium salvation of Israel in Isaiah 26-27 would occur at the time of the vindication of the martyrs– when YHVH destroyed the altar of the temple and destroyed the City– having no mercy on the people He had created (Isaiah 27:11f).
Jesus said that all of the blood, of all the martyrs, all the way back to creation was to be vindicated in the AD 70 destruction of the City and Temple.
Therefore, the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel in Isaiah 26-27 occurred at the time of the vindication of the martyrs– when YHVH destroyed the altar of the temple and destroyed the City– having no mercy on the people He had created– in AD 70.
It is critical to remember that all of this is tied temporally to “in that day,” the day of the slaying– not the binding– of the Great Serpent– thus, the end of the Millennium judgment. A couple of points here:
1. No matter Jonathan’s concept of the nature of the promises to Israel in Isaiah 27, it was the source of Paul’s prophecy of Israel’s salvation. Since what Isaiah foretold would patently be fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment of Israel, this shows that Romans 11 was fulfilled in AD 70.
2. This argument nullifies Jonathan’s claimed three stage demise of Satan. No matter what your concept of that might be, the destruction– not the binding, but the end of the Millennium destruction of Satan– is undeniably posited by Isaiah at the coming of the Lord in vindication of the martyrs at the destruction of the City and Temple, when YHVH would have no mercy on Israel! This agrees perfectly with Paul’s affirmation that the promised salvation was near, and that the crushing, not the binding, of Satan was near (Romans 13:11f; 16:20).
Isaiah 59 and Romans 11
Isaiah 59 breaks itself down conveniently for us:
Accusation (v. 3-8) – The Lord accused Israel– three times– of being guilty of shedding innocent blood.
Acknowledgment – (v. 11f) – Israel admitted her guilt and her futility.
Action– v. 16f– Adonai puts on the garments of vengeance and judgment : “According to their deeds I will repay.”
We thus have, just like in Isaiah 27, the accusation of Israel’s blood guilt and the promise of the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding that innocent blood.
That judgment would likewise bring salvation for those who would know the Lord (v. 19) – i.e. the remnant.
Note: This salvation would be in fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel: “this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sin.” This demands that God’s covenant with Israel would remain valid until the coming of the Lord for their salvation– i.e. at the end of the Millennium! And yet, Jonathan tells us God’s covenant with Israel is dead! Total self contradiction.
So, here is what we have:
The end of the Millennium salvation of Israel in Isaiah 59 (and Romans 11) would occur at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
Jesus said that all of the blood, of all the martyrs, all the way back to creation was to be vindicated in AD 70.
Therefore, the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel in Isaiah 59 (and Romans 11) occurred at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood– in AD 70.
Both of these arguments falsify Jonathan’s claim that the vindicated martyrs in Revelation 20 belonged solely to the time of Titus. You cannot logically say that Revelation 20:1-4 is the (AD 70) vindication only of those slain by Titus (for which we have no substantive proof of Christian persecution anyway). If you posit AD 70 as the vindication of those martyrs, then of necessity, it includes all the martyrs, all the way back to creation, not just those slain by a proposed individual beast, i.e. Titus!
This falsifies Jonathan’s argument: “Given Mr. Preston’s commitment to a Millennium existing between the Cross and Parousia, he cannot admit that the martyrs who came through the great tribulation reigned during the whole length of the Millennium.”
This is a “superficial” problem only, but not substantive, when one realizes that you cannot confine the identity of those martyrs to those slain by Nero or Titus. There is an organic unity between those martyrs and the martyrs of all ages– see Hebrews 11! Thus, when Jesus ascended triumphant, and sat on the throne, the Millennial reign with those earlier martyrs was clearly in process. Jonathan has contrived a “difficulty” where there is none. See my article in the upcoming Fulfilled Magazine, published by Brian Martin, for a fuller discussion of this question.
These arguments on Isaiah 27 / 59 likewise falsify Jonathan’s claim that Romans 11:25f is not about the finalization of the salvation of the remnant. Both Isaiah 27 and 59 are undeniably about the salvation of the remnant. YHVH would destroy the nation, but save the remnant. YHVH never- ever- promised to save the entire nation. That is a theological fabrication.
Paul was anticipating the “taking away” of the sin of Israel. This is the promise also of Daniel 9:24:
“Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.”
Romans 11:25-27 foretold the end of the Millennium taking away of Israel’s sin in fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel.
Daniel 9:24 foretold the taking away of Israel’s sin no later than the termination of the seventy weeks.
Daniel 9 was fulfilled no later than AD 70– Jonathan.
Therefore, Romans 11:25-27–the end of the Millennium taking away of Israel’s sin– was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Now, Jonathan, if you posit a taking away of Israel’s sin (Romans 11) that is different from Daniel 9, you must prove that beyond any doubt. So, produce your proof! If you say the taking away of Israel’s sin promised in Isaiah 27 / 59 is different from Daniel 9, then you must prove it. I challenge you to address this argument candidly and directly, without evasion.
Jonathan has impaled himself on his own arguments. He has rejected the emphatic statements of the prophetic source of Romans 11:25f.
We have examined three of the key OT texts that Paul cited in his expectation of the salvation of Israel in Romans 11. In each of those texts, the promised salvation would come at the time of the destruction of the nation, while the remnant would be saved. That destruction would be as a direct result of God’s judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
My question to Jonathan is this: Does your end of the millennium eschatology, based on Romans 11:25f– posit the yet future destruction of the nation of Israel– for shedding innocent blood– when the remnant would be saved? Yes or No? Please answer this candidly, without evasion.
What About An Earthly Versus Heavenly Fulfillment– At Different Times?
Jonathan posits a grossly bifurcated fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological promises. He says there is an “earthly” aspect to the fulfillment– completed in AD 70– and the “heavenly aspect,” which occurs at the end of the Millennium. Thus, he claims: “The “restoration of all things” does not come in one moment. It is worked out over time, being inaugurated in AD 70.”
(Note: since Jonathan says he holds to the orthodox view of eschatology, I would like for him to document this view from the historical church sources, the creeds, and “orthodoxy!”)
Our first response to this is “Where is the proof? Where is the exegetical demonstration of this? Notice that Jonathan divides Daniel 12 into those two aspects, the earthly and the heavenly, separated by so far 2000 years. Here is what he claims: “Daniel is compressing the first and second resurrections (divided by the Millennium) into a single (heavenly) reality. Again, this is because there is only one (heavenly) Parousia, not multiple ones.”
Again, where is the proof for this? And if this is true, Jonathan needs to show us the physical resurrection that took place in AD 70!
What does Daniel actually say? Well, he envisioned the resurrection that Jonathan claims spans the Millennium of so far 2000 years. Daniel overhead one angel ask the other, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?” The other angel gave heaven’s answer: “…when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.”
The angel said: “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” He did not say that when the power of the holy people is shattered that these things will begin to take place– which is demanded by Jonathan’s view.
The angel did not say “when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered” SOME of these things will be fulfilled” which is demanded by Jonathan’s view.
Heaven’s answer in Daniel 12:7 is a total refutation of Jonathan’s view. Where, in the text of Daniel, would one ever get the idea of a so far 2000 year gap in the fulfillment? There is not a syllable of contextual justification for that claim. It is pure eisegesis to insert it, eisegesis based on presuppositional theology.
Now, look at Ephesians 1:9-10:
“…having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.”
1. It was God’s eternal purpose to reunite heaven and earth– this is the “final solution” to the Adamic Curse. This is the end of the Millennium reconciliation; “the restoration of all things.”
2. It was God’s eternal purpose to accomplish this reconciliation “in the dispensation of the fullness of the times.” What was the fullness of time?
Galatians 4:4 answers that definitively: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.”
The fulness of time was the first century, and more definitively, it was the last days of Old Covenant Israel! So, Paul ties up the “earthly” and the “heavenly” work in one– (the One Hope) to be accomplished in the fulness of time. And the fulness of time was in the first century. There is no temporal gap between the earthly and the heavenly. That is pure fabrication.
Undeniably, this reconciliation– “the restoration of all things” — would be fully accomplished at the end of the Millennium – as Revelation 21-22 shows– heaven and earth re-united! But, that work of reconciliation, the earthly and the heavenly– was confined to the fulness of time, the last days of Israel that terminated in AD 70.
What About Double Fulfillment
Jonathan’s eschatology demands a double fulfillment of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.. But, what proof did he give us for that proposed “double fulfillment?” Nothing. He claimed it, but he never proved it. Affirmation is not demonstration! See my book: AD 70: A Shadow of the “Real” End? for an in-depth response to the claim that the events of AD 70 foreshadowed the “real end.” There is no Biblical evidence to support this view. If so, I call on Jonathan to produce it. Scripture emphatically refutes the idea.
We have demonstrated that the prophetic source of Romans 11– Isaiah 27 / 59 & Daniel 9 – emphatically posits the following:
1. The salvation of the remnant– not the entire nation.
2. That salvation would be at the time of the judgment of Israel, the destruction of the Temple and City. Salvation and judgment are Siamese twins that cannot be separated.
3. That salvation would be at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. Jesus unequivocally said that would be in AD 70.
4. We have shown that Isaiah 27 clearly foretold the end of the Millennium slaying of the Serpent, and undeniably posited that at the resurrection, the coming of the Lord and the vindication of the martyrs.
5. We have shown that the end of the Millennium salvation is confined to the seventy weeks of Daniel 9– which Jonathan admits was no later than AD 70.
6. We have shown that Daniel 12 says that “all of these things” which included the end of the Millennium resurrection, would be completely (not partially, not some of it, not even most of it) fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” Jonathan denies this. He is therefore, wrong, and the Millennium ended with that shattering.
7. Keep in mind that Jonathan has already told us that all OT prophecy stands fulfilled. Well, if all OT prophecy stands fulfilled, then Isaiah 27 / 59/ Daniel 9 stands fulfilled– and the end of the Millennium salvation of Israel is fulfilled.
8. In spite of telling us that the Old Covenant is dead, Jonathan built almost his entire second affirmative arguing for the future fulfillment of God’s Old Covenant promises made to Old Covenant Israel!
9. We have shown that a key passage that Jonathan appeals to for a future end of the Millennium salvation of Israel, Deuteronomy 30, unambiguously said the condition for that salvation would be obedience to the Law of Moses– which Jonathan says is dead!
10. We have shown that the bifurcation of the eschatological narrative into an earthly and the heavenly work, separated by millennia is untenable. The restoration of all things was confined to the “fullness of time” which is Biblically defined as the last days of Old Covenant Israel, ending in AD 70.
As noted, all that we have to prove is that the events Jonathan admits are end of the Millennium events were fulfilled in the first century. We have done that, and have answered Jonathan’s major arguments. Each point and every point that we have established falsifies Jonathan’s eschatology.
The Millennium did not begin in AD 70.