Preston- V -Simmons

When Was Sin Defeated?  AD 70 or the Cross?

Preston’s Third  Affirmative

 

The discerning readers of this debate are aware of what Kurt is consistently doing. He virtually ignores every argument that I make (he did say a few words this time, and I will refute his arguments below) but then demands that I respond to him. He ignores my questions and yet, asks questions of me, asking that I respond. Then, my friend says he is under no obligation to respond to anything I say! Wow!

Kurt signed his name to rules of conduct that specifically said: "Each man agrees that no material or arguments shall be presented that is not directly relevant to the affirmation or negation of his or the other man's position.

Each man agrees to answer the other man's arguments directly, without obfuscation or evasion, to the full extent of their ability and knowledge."

Kurt, how can you claim that you have no obligation to respond to anything I say when you gave your word of honor to respond to my arguments and to answer my questions? Are you saying that you have no obligation to keep your word?

Kurt’s Disparagement of the Use of Logic

It was stunning to see my friend use almost a full page of text to denigrate the use of logic. He ridiculed my use of syllogisms, but of course, he later tried (again he failed) to offer a syllogism to present his case! He tells us we should beware of the "if- then" (modus tollens) form of argument. Hmm, Jesus and Paul seemed to like that form of logic and think it effective! Yet, Kurt tells us that we need to be wary of anyone having to appeal to this form of argumentation.

My supposed misrepresentations of Kurt’s positions

I made the statement that, "Kurt claims that Romans 11:26f predicts the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age."

Kurt responds: "I have never said any such thing! His claim is totally false."

Yet, Kurt proceeds to say: "Together, believing Jews and Gentiles constitute "true Israel."... "Are people still being grafted into the tree, saved and sanctified by the "Root of Jesse"? Of course they are! Will true Israel ever cease to exist? No, of course not. As long as time continues."

So, Kurt says that believing Jews and Gentiles constitute the salvation of all Israel– throughout the entirety of the Christian age.

Kurt, just how did you not say that the salvation of all Israel does not at least include the conversion of Jews throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age? While you did say, "all Israel" includes Gentiles, you most assuredly did include believing Jews, didn’t you! Thus, I did not misrepresent your position. You do believe that Romans 11 speaks of the conversion of individuals (both Jew and Gentile) throughout the Christian age.

Kurt’s position violates my argument on Romans 9, which Kurt dismissed, with no proof whatsoever. Paul, speaking of the salvation of the remnant, which is what he is discussing in Romans 11, says the Lord would make a short work of that salvific work. That means that the salvation of Romans 11:25f cannot speak of the salvation of individuals (Jews or Gentiles) throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age. What did Kurt say in response?

Kurt says: "I agree with Don that the "short work" in Rom. 9:27-29 refers to national Israel. God gave the nation a 40 year grace period in which to obey the gospel, and then destroyed the nation for rejecting the Messiah and clinging to the law. However, I deny that Israel in Rom. 11:26 ("so all Israel shall be saved") refers to national Israel."

What is Kurt’s evidence for changing the definition of Israel in 11:26 from the definition used consistently in Romans 9-11? He offers not a syllable of evidence. So, my argument stands.

The Second "Misrepresentation": Entrance Into the MHP

I inadvertently misrepresented Kurt by saying that he says man could enter the MHP before AD 70, so I apologize for this. I evidently misunderstood what my friend was saying. However, my friend’s position on this issue is still self contradictory.

He tells us that when the veil of the temple was rent while Jesus was on the cross, that this meant: "That the way was now open and the atonement COMPLETE (Matt. 27:51). (Matthew 27:51 says not a word about the atonement being complete, dkp). Kurt adds...

A.) "The Hebrew writer thus urges Christians to ENTER the presence of God within the Most Holy Place – before AD 70! (Heb. 10:19-22; cf. 6:19)."

B.) "The legal barrier separating men from God was totally removed in the cross."

C.) "I said the HEBREW WRITER URGES Christians to ENTER! "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19). BOLDNESS TO ENTER! It is not I, but the HEBREW WRITER who told the saints to enter in!."

Although Kurt is adamant that the saints did not in fact enter the MHP, I think the readers can see why I said what I did about Kurt believing that the saints could enter the MHP before AD 70.

Now, of course the Hebrews author urged the saints to enter! But when could they enter, my friend? If the Hebrews author urged them to enter, but they could not enter until AD 70 as you (and I!) affirm, this is prima facie proof that Torah remained valid, that the atonement was not perfected until AD 70. Christ had initiated the work of salvation, but would perfect it at his parousia. Kurt’s claim that I know (but just won’t admit) that the saints were objectively perfected before AD 70 is a mere debater’s tactic. Kurt’s own position that the saints could not actually enter the MHP until AD 70 is what proves that Christ had initiated the atonement, but did not perfect it at the cross.

The only thing, that prevented man from entering the MHP was sin, and by extension, Torah because of its inability to forgive sin (Hebrews 9:6-10). Kurt cannot deny this. So, Kurt, if the separating barrier– sin and Torah-- was "completely removed" what prevented them from entering until AD 70? I have repeatedly challenged my friend to answer this question, but he has adamantly refused. Why? Because the correct answer destroys his rejection of Covenant Eschatology. His words about Christ "leading captivity captive" are moot in light of this!

Now, consider again Revelation 15:8– There could be no entrance into the MHP until God’s wrath was completed on Jerusalem. So, please watch.

Kurt tells us that the destruction of Jerusalem had nothing, whatsoever, to do with man’s spiritual justification. He says AD 70 had nothing to do with the passing of Torah and that Torah– which prevented man from entering the MHP due to its inability to forgiven– was removed at the cross.

But consider Luke 16, a text Kurt appeals to for his Hadean doctrine. There was a great gulf between Abraham and the lost. There was also, undeniably, a separation between Abraham and the MHP. Abraham and the righteous were not in heaven! My friend agrees with this.

But, according to Kurt, at the cross, the atonement was perfected, the separating barrier was "completely removed." Abraham and the righteous must have entered heaven, right?

No. They still don’t get to enter the MHP. "Why?," they ask. They are told that God must first destroy Jerusalem. They ask: "What does that have to do with us entering heaven?" "Nothing! The fall of Jerusalem is totally irrelevant to your entrance into heaven" they are told. "Then why can’t we enter? Why do we have to wait for God to judge Jerusalem if that has nothing to do with our entrance into heaven?" they ask.

This is clearly an imaginary situation, but, it is based on my friend’s current theological claims. So, Kurt, we would truly and sincerely appreciate it if you would answer that question. I think you owe it to the readers of this debate to candidly answer, without evasion, as you promised to do.

What was the relationship between the judgment of Jerusalem and entrance into the MHP, given the indisputable fact that the only thing that prevented man from entering the MHP was sin and Torah?

 

The combination of Hebrews 9 and Revelation 15 stands as an impenetrable wall against Kurt’s rejection of Covenant Eschatology. He cannot explain why the saints could not enter the MHP until the supposedly irrelevant judgment of Jerusalem, although Hebrews 9 unequivocally posits entrance into the MHP at the end of that Old Covenant system. These are synchronous events, and Kurt’s objections cannot overthrow these truths. Daniel 12 proves this beyond dispute and we will examine that just below. But first...

I must insert this significant thought: Kurt says the removal of Torah had nothing to do with man’s justification, that salvation is simply the application of grace: "Grace overcomes law! Paul places grace at the cross; the idea that the law had to be removed is totally foreign to Paul’s soteriology (theology of salvation). The grace inherent in Christ’s cross triumphs over sin and the law."

You simply must catch the power of what I am about to ask Kurt. You will want to eagerly anticipate his response.

Kurt winds up arguing that removal of Torah was essential for man’s justification after all! He says, "Grace triumphs over Law." The Law was removed at the cross (KS). "The grace inherent in Christ’s cross triumphs over sin and the law." Do you see what he has done? He has affirmed that removal of Torah was essential for the entrance of Grace!

Here is the key question: If the removal of Torah was irrelevant for the entrance of grace then why did Christ die to remove Torah and apply grace? My friend, you say that removal of Torah was irrelevant to salvation, so, why did Christ have to die on the cross and take away Torah, for grace to triumph over Torah? Furthermore...

Kurt incredibly says: "the idea that the law had to be removed is totally foreign to Paul’s soteriology (theology of salvation)." This is patently false.

Torah was the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:6f). Did the deliverance from the ministration of death, to the ministration of life have nothing to do with Paul’s soteriology?

Paul said Torah could not deliver from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-3). He said Christ does deliver from that law! Did the deliverance from the law of sin and death have nothing to with forgiveness?

Torah could not give life or righteousness (Galatians 3:20-21). Did deliverance from that law, to the covenant that gives life and righteousness have nothing to do with salvation?

Paul said those under Torah were under "the curse" (Galatians 2-3). Did deliverance from that curse had nothing to do with redemption?

There was no forgiveness under Torah. There would be forgiveness when Torah ended at the time of reformation. Is forgiveness related to soteriology?

There was no entrance into the MHP under Torah; there would be entrance into the MHP at the end of Torah, the time of reformation. Is entrance into the MHP related to salvation?

Hebrews 9 is Covenant Eschatology, anyway you want to look at it! Torah had to end in order for forgiveness, entrance into the MHP and life to become realities! End of Torah = Covenant Eschatology; End of Torah = Salvation! My affirmative is fully established. Undeniably, deliverance from Torah had everything to do with salvation. Now to Daniel 12.

At the close of my last, I posed the following: "What was "the power of the holy people" mentioned in Daniel 12:7? Please, do not ignore this. Clearly define Israel’s power." In spite of my appeal, Kurt refused to answer. Why? It is because this single argument establishes Covenant Eschatology. So...

What was the power of the holy people? Answer: It was their covenant with God. There is no other answer! Israel’s power was not their military, their temple, priesthood or sacrifices. All of those were symbols of their "power." So, follow my argument:

The power of the holy people (i.e. Old Covenant Israel), was her covenant with God, i.e. Torah. This is indisputable.

The power of the holy people (Israel’s covenant with God) would be shattered at the time of the resurrection (Daniel 12:7). This is irrefutable.

The resurrection occurred in AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).

Therefore, Israel’s covenant with God, i.e. Torah remained until the resurrection in AD 70.

Israel’s only power was her covenant with God. That power of the holy people would endure until it was shattered. The power of the holy people was shattered in AD 70, (not the cross) when, as Kurt affirms, the resurrection occurred.

This argument proves irrefutably that Torah remained valid until AD 70. This is why Kurt refused to address it.

Kurt cites Delitzsch: "The temple service, though to continue it may be a few years longer in outward splendour, is only a bed of state, on which a lifeless corpse is lying."

So, Kurt says from the Cross until AD 70, the Torah was a "lifeless corpse." But, how could a lifeless corpse have any "power" to prevent entrance into the MHP? Paul said in Hebrews 9 that the negative power of Torah was such (in its failure to provide forgiveness) that as long as it stood, no one could enter the MHP! Kurt agrees that the saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70.

By the way, Hebrews 8:13 does not say, or imply that it was the outward form of the covenant that was ready to pass. Rather it says, "In that he says ‘a new covenant,’ He has made the first (the first covenant, DKP) obsolete. Now what is growing old (the first covenant, DKP) is ready to pass away." Hasn’t a dead corpse already "passed away?" The contrast is not between external forms of the covenant versus the covenant. It was the Old Covenant that was growing old, it was the Old Covenant that was nigh unto passing. (Note that Kurt ignored my argument on Galatians 4). And remember that this has been, until very recently at least, Kurt’s position. Commenting on Revelation 18:4 and the impending judgment of Jerusalem, he says– "The old and tattered mantel of Moses could not be patched with material from the garment of Christ; the Mosaic law was grown old; God would fold it up and it would be changed (future tense, dkp) (Hebrews 1:10-12; 8:13; 12:26-28)" (Consummation, p. 344).

Okay, so, if Torah no longer had any negative power to prevent entrance into the MHP, since it was a dead corpse, Kurt, but if, as you say, the saints could not actually enter the MHP until AD 70, why could the saints not enter the MHP? Paul said it was Torah that prevented entrance. You say Torah was now powerless to prevent entrance. Yet, you say that the saints could still not enter the MHP! We need to know why! What "negative power" still prevented the saints from entering the MHP until AD 70? Will you answer?

Here is my argument, again, that Kurt has– and undoubtedly will again– ignored.

As long as Torah–the power of the holy people-- stood binding, there could be no access to the MHP (Hebrews 9:6f).

There was no access to the MHP until AD 70– Kurt Simmons.

Therefore, Torah–the power of the holy people-- stood binding until AD 70.

So, Daniel 12 is definitive proof that Torah remained valid until AD 70, the time of the resurrection. The time of the resurrection is when the saints could enter the MHP.

HEBREWS 9, TORAH, REMISSION OF SIN, HADES AND THE MOST HOLY PLACE

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Hebrews 9:15).

I offered the following based on Hebrews 9– but of course, Kurt ignored it:

Christ died for the remission (redemption) of sins committed under Torah. I affirm this! The Cross was for redemption! It does not, however, say that redemption occurred at the Cross. Follow closely:

Those under the first covenant were dead Old Covenant saints that Jesus died to give forgiveness.

But, remember that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate that the resurrection was exclusively the entrance of the souls in Hades into the MHP, i.e. the dead Old Covenant saints!

But, if the dead OT saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70, then it is undeniably true that they did not yet have the benefits of Christ’s atonement applied to them. And Kurt himself has told us that this is the reason they could not enter the MHP. Is this true or false, Kurt? You have refused to answer this, but, you really, really need to answer it.

If, as my friend affirms, the atonement was perfected at the cross, then those dead OT saints should have entered the MHP at the moment of the Cross, or perhaps Christ’s ascension when he "led captivity captive." But remember that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate –that the dead saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70, and this because the saints did not have the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood until the resurrection– in AD 70. And, he says this is still his view.

But, if the saints were objectively forgiven prior to AD 70, then the benefits of Christ’s atonement were applied, and there was no reason to wait for the destruction of Jerusalem– an event totally unrelated to their forgiveness or the atonement in order to enter the MHP! Kurt has not breathed on this issue! Furthermore, I predict that he won’t.

Kurt, do you now affirm that the dead saints received the full benefits of the atonement prior to the resurrection? Yes or No? Please, I ask that you honor the rules that you signed, to answer my questions directly, without evasion or obfuscation.

By still affirming that the saints could not enter the MHP prior to AD 70, Kurt is reaffirming that the saints did not have the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood until the resurrection– in AD 70! Thus, per Kurt’s own admission, the "perfection" of the dead saints and by logical extension the living saints, as expressed in Hebrews 12, was proleptic (stated as a past fact, although still future).

Hebrews 11:40 relates to this issue. According to Paul, the OT saints could not enter into the "better resurrection" (Hebrews 11:35f) without the NT saints, and, the NT saints could not enter before the dead saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15f)! In other words, OT and NT saints would enter into the MHP at the same time! So, the proposition that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate, that the dead saints would enter the MHP in AD 70, proves my proposition, and destroys Kurt’s! Of course, Kurt ignored this argument.

Kurt says that AD 70 had no redemptive significance and the saints were forgiven from the cross onward. Yet, he says that the saints could enter the MHP until AD 70. But he refuses to tell us why those "perfected" saints could not enter until the totally irrelevant AD 70 event. Of course, Hebrews 9 answers the question-- Jesus was coming (in AD 70) to bring salvation. He was coming to bring man into the MHP! He was coming- Kurt now agreeing– to perfect the time of reformation.

THE TIME OF REFORMATION

My friend ignored the fact that he was in violation of the "Law of the Excluded Middle" in his flawed syllogism on the passing of Torah and the time of reformation. He amended that syllogism, but it still contained the same anachronistic fallacy. Let me restate the case.

As long as Torah remained valid, there could be no entrance into the MHP.

There was no entrance into the MHP until AD 70. Kurt agrees.

Therefore, Torah remained valid until AD 70.

Stated another way, if there was no access to the MHP, then Torah was still binding. Kurt agrees that there was no access to the MHP until AD 70. Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70.

Torah would remain valid until "the time of reformation" when man could enter the MHP.

Kurt argues– and I agree– that the time of reformation was initiated at the cross, but perfected at the parousia. He says: "When the gifts of the Spirit ceased, the time of reformation was complete and not before." (My emp, dkp) Thank you, my friend, that is precisely my point! But this admission nullifies Kurt’s claim that I "gave away the debate" when I said that in and through the cross, "grace triumphed over law." My argument was, and is, that Christ initiated the work of grace at the cross, and consummated it at the parousia. This is precisely what Kurt’s argument demands!

If the time of reformation fully arrived at the cross then man should have been able to enter the MHP from the cross onward. Kurt argues that Torah was removed and grace fully applied there. Yet, Kurt admits that no one could enter the MHP until AD 70. And now he admits that the time of reformation was not completed until the charismata ended– in AD 70! This means that Christ had initiated the work of reformation, (grace!) the Spirit continued that work, and Christ perfected it at the parousia (Acts 3:23f- "The restoration of all things")! Just as I have taught consistently, entrance into the MHP– at the end of Torah– was at the time of reformation: "When the gifts of the Spirit ceased, the time of reformation was complete and not before."

Please, Catch the power of this: Kurt admits that there was no entrance into the MHP at the initiation of the reformation, i.e. at the cross. Entrance came only when the time of reformation– the work of grace– was complete, at the parousia. This is my view. This is Covenant Eschatology. And folks, this is not just "good argumentation," although it is that! This is logically inescapable, irrefutable fact.

So, man could only enter the MHP in AD 70 (KS), But, man could not enter the MHP while Torah remained valid. Torah would remain valid until man could enter the MHP at the time of reformation. Thus, Torah ended when the time of reformation was completed, and man could enter the MHP, in AD 70.

Kurt has surrendered his objection to the initiation of grace, salvation and covenant transition. He has unwittingly affirmed Covenant Eschatology. So, once again:

There could be no access to the MHP as long as Torah remained binding (Hebrews 9).

But, man could not enter the MHP until AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).

Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70.

I ask that the readers of this debate focus on this singular argument. Kurt cannot ignore it. Nor can he effectively negate it. My affirmative is established on this one argument, especially in conjunction with the argument above on Daniel 9 and the power of the holy people. This is Covenant Eschatology confirmed.

MY TRANSFIGURATION ARGUMENT

Kurt says my argument on the Transfiguration is my weakest argument. But, he denies the inspired text.

Kurt denies that the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming. What was his evidence? He did not give us a word of exegesis of 2 Peter 1, to justify his rejection of the Transfiguration as a vision of the parousia! Not one word. Perhaps its because he feels that proper exegesis of 2 Peter 1 is "a distraction at best"?

I must take note of this: In his vain attempt to negate my arguments on Isaiah 27 Kurt said repeatedly (even presenting me with another box!), that not one commentator applied Isaiah 27 to AD 70. Kurt should re-think this!

From the very beginning of Christian commentary, the Transfiguration has been viewed as a vision of the parousia, based on 2 Peter 1! It is all but impossible to find an exception!

I have been researching the Transfiguration for years now, and I can say with total confidence that this is unequivocally true. So, my friend, "all the commentators" refute your claim that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the second coming. The fact that Jesus, Moses and Elijah discussed Jesus’ death does not negate this. You cannot use their discussion to deny Peter’s words. My argument stands:

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming of Christ (2 Peter 1:16f).

But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Mosaic Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant of Christ.

Therefore, the end of the Mosaic Covenant was at the Second Coming of Christ.

This argument alone is a total refutation of Kurt’s position, for it posits the passing of Torah, not at the Cross, but at the parousia. He cannot dismiss it by refusing to properly exegete 2 Peter 1, or by simply calling it a weak argument.

ISAIAH 27

Some of my friend’s statements are simply staggering. He says that this debate is "not about the proper exegesis of Isaiah 25-27. Issues of Isaiah 27:7-11 are a distraction at best."

So... In Romans 11 Paul discusses the taking away of Israel’ sin at the coming of the Lord. In justification for his doctrine, he cites Isaiah 27:9f and Isaiah 59 as the source of his expectation. Yet, my friend says that "proper exegesis of Isaiah 27 (and Isaiah 59), "are a distraction at best."

So, according to Kurt, we need not be concerned with the proper exegesis of the verses that gave rise to Paul’s doctrine of the salvation of Israel! If we do not need to be concerned with the proper exegesis of Isaiah 27 / 59, then we most assuredly don’t need to be concerned with the proper exegesis of Romans 11:25-27. Kurt, it is your responsibility to prove that a proper exegesis of Isaiah is irrelevant and a distraction. Your claim is null and void without some proof, which you have utterly failed to produce.

Kurt’s Objections to Isaiah 27

Kurt is probably hoping the reader will have forgotten what I had written about Isaiah 27 and 59 in my first affirmative, but, I have not forgotten. Kurt’s objection to Isaiah 27 takes three forms:

1.) Just because he says so, Isaiah 27 is irrelevant to any discussion of Romans 11.This is specious.

2.) Isaiah 27 has no Messianic application, whatsoever! He says it refers exclusively to the Assyrian invasion of the 8th Century BC.

3.) Isaiah 27 cannot even be typological in meaning: Kurt asked: "What about typological significance? Could there be a double meaning so that the "purging of Jacob’s iniquity" looks ahead typologically to AD 70 and redemptive salvation from sin? NOT A CHANCE!" (His emp.)

Of course, just last year, in his Sword and Plow, when objecting to my position on Romans 11 / Isaiah 27, Kurt said: "We do not disallow the possibility that there is a plenior sensus (fuller meaning, DKP), to Isaiah 26:21 that may look beyond its historical setting to Christ’s second coming." Realizing the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt has now completely reversed himself.

So, just last year Kurt said that Isaiah 27 could apply to both the Cross and AD 70. But now, he denies that it speaks of either one! It is exclusively the Assyrian invasion! That is three, radically different positions on the same text, within a matter of months! No wonder my friend speaks disparagingly of logic and proper exegesis!

And now, Kurt desperately claims that I have not: "established ANY CONNECTION between Rom. 11:25-27 and Isa. 26. NONE! The same is true of Isaiah 59." This is astounding. Just last September, (2009) in the Sword and Plow, Kurt wrote: "In Romans 11:26, 27, Paul blends two passages from Isaiah together into one. He quotes Isa. 59: 20, 21, then follows up with Isa. 27:9."

Kurt, do you remember that? Of course, that admission is fatal to your new theology so you now claim there is no connection between Romans 11 and Isaiah 27 / 59. But, what is your proof, my friend? You have given none, because you can give none.

Also, Kurt just appealed to "all the commentators." But, Kurt, "all the commentators" agree that Paul cites Isaiah 27/59–just as you admitted! You have no support for rejecting the connection. The only "evidence" you have is your preconceived, new theology that violates the text.

Isaiah 59

Kurt says Isaiah 59 is not relevant to our study. What is his proof? He offered none!

I offered the following argument on Isaiah 59:

The coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26-27 is the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59. Remember, last September, Kurt agreed that Paul quoted Isaiah 59.

But, the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. This is irrefutable.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26-27 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. This is inescapable.

Isaiah 59 presents the identical hermeneutical challenge as Isaiah 26-27. Kurt must explain why Paul cites– as Kurt admitted-- two OT prophecies of the coming of Christ in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, when in fact, according to Kurt, those prophecies had no Messianic application whatsoever, and, Paul was not discussing in any way Christ’s judgment coming. Kurt has not touched this problem, top, side or bottom. And, I predict he won’t. Kurt’s theological position has no explanation for Paul’s use of Isaiah 27 and 59. And his denial of a connection is completely untenable.

THE POWER OF AN ABROGATED COVENANT

I feel confident that the readers of this exchange were stunned to discover from Kurt that provisions of a covenant are still binding after a covenant has been abrogated! Kurt’s answer was nothing but smoke and obfuscation. Furthermore, Kurt knows full well that his claims would not stand up in a true court of law for even one moment!

Kurt, here is a challenge for you: Find some law on the books of American jurisprudence from, let’s say, the early 60s, that provided prison time or severe financial penalties for violation.

Make sure, for the experiment sake, that the courts have struck down and abrogated that law.

Now, my friend, what we want you to do is find some one in violation of that nullified law, and have them arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned for violation of that abrogated law! Then show us where that imprisonment stood up in appeals court.

My friend, you are a lawyer. Tell us what would happen if you or anyone else, did this? We will very eagerly await your answer, but, of course, you will not answer this candidly. You can’t, for to answer this forthrightly, without obfuscation, is to surrender your new theology.

Kurt claimed: "Don, provisions of wrath recited in Leviticus are not proof the covenant is still valid when wrath is poured out." I had noted the following: "In his comments on Revelation 15:8, Kurt says: "The angels emerge from the tabernacle of the testimony with the covenantal curses and plagues" (Consummation, 292, my emphasis). As he comments on the judgment of Babylon he says: "The threefold judgments of death (pestilence) mourning, and famine were foretold by Moses: And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you...(Leviticus 26:25, 26, 29-32)."

Now watch. Leviticus says that the punishments– the punishments described in Revelation that were about to come on Jerusalem in AD 70– would be God’s "covenant quarrel" with Israel. The judgment actions would be "covenantal curses" (KS). Yet, according to Kurt, none of this means Torah was still binding! In other words, God was going to dredge up dead curses from the dead covenant (forty years dead!), and apply those dead covenant curses on Jerusalem!

Incredibly, Kurt argues: "If the latter (a king under covenant with another king, dkp) breaks the terms of the covenant, the former is certainly entitled to come and lay siege to the other kingdom. His making war in no way depends upon the continuing validity of the covenant. Just the opposite, it is because it is broken that the latter is entitled to make war!"

This is obfuscation and Kurt well knows it. The trouble is, he claims that I agree with his argument. He quotes me, but, he has badly misused my statements. Here is what he quoted: "Here is the principle that that any destruction of Israel was proof that she was out of covenant relationship with Jehovah" (Like Father, Like Son, p. 175).

Kurt wants to make me out to say that any violation of the covenant meant that the covenant was abrogated. I have never taught this. To the contrary, it meant that Israel, being judged, was being brought "under the bond of the covenant" (Ezekiel 20:37). The application of the covenant curses meant that Israel had broken the covenant, (thus, she lost the covenant blessings). But, she was still under the covenant and subject to its curses! My friend’s attempt to manipulate my words demonstrates his desperation to find some semblance of support for his failed argument.

JESUS’ TWO-FOLD ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP

Kurt made a historically unprecedented argument about Christ entering the MHP twice. You must catch that! Kurt, where are the commentators that agree with you assessment of Christ entering the MHP twice, legally piercing the veil, and then at the ascension? Where are they my friend?

Kurt claims that I misrepresented him by saying that this means Jesus must have entered at his death. So, Kurt says: "We believe that the typology of sprinkling the blood before the Mercy Seat was fulfilled when Jesus died." And he says Jesus "legally pierced the veil." He wound up saying what I said he did! You can’t say he pierced the veil and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat without saying he entered the MHP! This is semantic sophistry.

Where was the mercy seat, Kurt? If Jesus offered his blood on (or before) the mercy seat, where did he have to be? Not outside the MHP! And your claim about piercing the legal veil falls in light of Hebrews 6:20– Christ actually, not just in some vague legal sense, Christ actually entered.

Kurt has Jesus somehow offering his blood before the mercy-seat, while he was on the cross, but then, he has Jesus actually entering the MHP (where the mercy seat was!) at his ascension.

Kurt’s attempt to deflect my argument by saying that Jesus died "a sinner’s death," and thus had to enter the MHP twice (but of course the first time he did not actually enter!) is specious. As I noted, the only reason the High Priest had to enter the MHP twice was because he had to offer two sacrifices, one for his own sins, the other for the sins of the people. Thus, if Jesus entered the MHP twice– either legally or actually– he had to offer two sacrifices, and he had to offer a sacrifice for his own sin! However, Hebrews 9:12 proves that Christ entered the MHP once. Kurt says twice. Jesus made one sacrifice, not two, and his entrance into the MHP – and his return– was essential for the fulfilling of the typological actions of the atonement. Kurt’s unprecedented argument is simply wrong.

THE SPIRIT AS THE GUARANTEE OF REDEMPTION

I want to repeat an argument from my last. Kurt completely ignored it. This issue is critical and destructive to Kurt’s position.

The promise of the Spirit was made to Israel to raise her from the dead (Ezekiel 37:10-14).

This "death" from which Israel was to be raised was not physical death, but covenantal death (Isaiah 24:4f; Hosea 5-6; 13:1-2). Living people were called dead, but they continued to"sin more and more" (Hosea 13:1-2). Biologically dead people cannot do this!

This is spiritual death- alienation from God as a result of sin (Isaiah 59:1-2--The sin that needed to be removed at the coming of the Lord, Isaiah 59:20f--Romans 11!). Sin brought death. Thus, forgiveness would bring resurrection (cf. Acts 26:17-18)!

This resurrection, guaranteed by the Spirit, would be Israel’s salvation (Isaiah 25:8-9). This is the resurrection promise of 1 Corinthians 15 when sin, the sting of death, would be overcome (1 Corinthians 15:54-56– Romans 11:26-27). In other words:

1 Corinthians 15 foretold the resurrection (when sin would be put away, v. 55-56), predicted by Isaiah 25.

The resurrection of Isaiah 25 is the resurrection of Isaiah 26-27 (and thus, Romans 11:26-27), which would occur at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. (Kurt, should we be concerned with the proper exegesis of Isaiah 25, since it is the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine)?

But, the coming of the Lord -- at the resurrection to put away sin-- of Isaiah 25-27 / 1 Corinthians 15-- would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans 11 to take away Israel's sin-- to bring her salvation-- is the coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection, in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. AD 70.

I want to ask the reader to focus on this argument, and ask yourself why Kurt would ignore it. He ignored it because he cannot answer it, and because it completely nullifies his entire (new) theology.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection foretold in Isaiah 25-27.

The resurrection of Isaiah 25-27 is the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in Romans 11.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 is the time of the coming of the Lord for the resurrection (the salvation of Israel), in 1 Corinthians 15–which Kurt posits in AD 70!.

Let me offer more:

The resurrection is when sin, the sting of death was to be overcome, (1 Corinthians 15:54-56).

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the guarantee of that resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13).

Therefore, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the guarantee of the final victory over sin!

Let me offer another related affirmative as follow up:

The last enemy to be destroyed was death (Kurt agrees).

But, sin produced death (Romans 6:23; "the Law of sin and death).

The last enemy would be destroyed at the resurrection in AD 70 (Kurt agrees).

Thus, sin, which produced death, would be destroyed (for those "in Christ," and the power of his resurrection) at the resurrection in AD 70.

So, again, since the charismata was the guarantee of the resurrection, and since the resurrection is when sin, the sting of death would, of necessity, be overcome, it therefore follows that the charismata were the guarantee of the final victory over sin!

Kurt ignored all of this, but it proves, prima facie that while the cross was the power for the putting away of sin, that the work of the cross was not completed until the resurrection in AD 70. It proves that AD 70 was redemptively critical.

Since the Spirit was the guarantee of the resurrection, (in AD 70 per KS!), the time when sin, the sting of death would be overcome, it therefore follows that the coming of the Lord to put away sin in Romans 11:26f was the time of the resurrection in AD 70.

Kurt appeals to the fact that Christ would appear the second time "apart from sin" for salvation, and claims that this proves that the atonement was already completed before the parousia. It proves no such thing.

"Apart from sin" means that he would not make any further sacrifice for sin. That part of the atonement process was finished. He had already offered himself as sacrifice, now, he would return to consummate the atonement process. This is what Hebrews 9:28-10:1f affirms (which, again, Kurt ignored). The author said Christ had to appear the second time "for the Law, having a shadow of good things to come." I have repeatedly asked Kurt to honor the present tenses, and the fact that Christ’s second coming would be the fulfillment of the High Priestly actions of offering the sacrifice, entering the MHP, and then coming out, to bring salvation. Kurt has totally ignored. Instead, he has the atonement completed while Christ was on the cross– in clear violation of the typological atonement praxis.

And speaking of the resurrection, let me repeat my argument on Isaiah 27:

The coming of the Lord in Romans is the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27, which is the coming of the Lord at the resurrection (Isaiah 25-27).

Kurt says the resurrection was in AD 70.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11 was in AD 70. (Kurt ignored this).

I made other arguments on Isaiah 27, but Kurt ignored them also.

My friend tries desperately to tell us that Isaiah 25-27– in spite of the fact that Paul appeals to these chapters– had nothing whatsoever to do with Biblical eschatology! So, again, why would Paul in his eschatological predictions, use these prophecies when per Kurt, they had nothing to do with what Paul was predicting!

BTW, Kurt claims that the sounding of the Trump in Matthew 24:31 had nothing to do with Isaiah 27. Well, Kurt, virtually all commentators who take note of the OT background of NT prophecies, tell us that Isaiah is the source of Matthew 24:31! Greg Beale, in his heralded, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2007)87, says Matthew 24:31 "echoes Isaiah 27:13 with its trumpet sounding on the day of deliverance, an allusion to the ingathering of Israel." I could list volumes of scholars in support. And, did you notice that Kurt did not challenge me to put "even one commentary" in a box in support of this? He knows full well that the scholarly consensus is that the sounding of the Trumpet in Matthew 24:31 is taken directly from Isaiah 27:13. So, my argument stands.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Kurt lays out four points that he claims I must prove to carry my proposition on Romans 11:

The coming referred to is the second, not first, advent of Christ. Proven!

The judgment and sentence associated with sin hung over the saints until AD 70; viz., the cross did not cancel sin’s debt. Proven! I have consistently proven that the cross is the power of forgiveness, and gladly accept Kurt’s argument that the benefits of Christ’s atonement were not applied until the resurrection in AD 70.

AD 70 represented the legal climax and termination of the Mosaic Covenant age; viz., the law, including circumcision, animal sacrifices, the priesthood, dietary restrictions, etc, was valid and binding until AD 70. Proven! Hebrews 9– for those outside of Christ, (All blessings are "in Christ") these stood valid until the time of reformation in AD 70. With Kurt now agreeing that the time of reformation did not fully arrive until AD 70, which is Covenant Eschatology!

The judgment and sentence associated with sin were set aside in AD 70 by annulment of the law. Proven! I gladly accept Kurt’s statement: "Christ tied the judgment to the end of the Mosaic age and the destruction of Jerusalem." (Consummation, 229).

I have fully proven each point.

In closing, let me urge the readers to go back and list all of my questions, and logical arguments that Kurt refused to even mention. This is revealing! If he could answer my questions and refute the arguments, he would do so with gusto! I assure you that when I am in the negative, I will not avoid Kurt’s questions and arguments as he has done mine.

As I close, let me re-ask just a fraction of the questions I have asked Kurt, and all but begged him to answer. He has ignored every one of them. Unfortunately, I predict he will continue to do so. But of course, you the reader will be fully aware that he has done so.

If the removal of Torah was unnecessary for salvation, then why did Christ die to remove Torah and apply grace?

Is the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the MHP, which would only come at the end of Torah, necessary to salvation?

What was "the power of the holy people" mentioned in Daniel 12:7, that would not be broken until the resurrection in AD 70?

If Torah died at the cross, and no longer had any negative power to prevent entrance into the MHP, yet the saints did not actually enter the MHP until AD 70, why could the saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70?

My friend calls on me to recant Covenant Eschatology. Yet, he rejects proper exegesis, disparages logic, refuses to answer my arguments, ignores my questions. Furthermore, his own arguments and admissions affirm Covenant Eschatology! He has not given me one good reason to reject the truth of Covenant Eschatology.

I have, in every way, with explicit statements of scripture, with proper exegesis and hermeneutic, with valid logic, demonstrated, confirmed and proven my proposition. I now stand ready to negate Kurt’s affirmative proposition.

 

 

 

▲ Top of page

To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.