Preston-Simmons Debate

 When was Sin Defeated? AD 70 or the Cross?

 Simmons’ Second Affirmative

In this debate we attempt to resolve when salvation from sin arrived.  For 2,000 years, the church has taught that salvation occurred at the cross.  This has never been questioned or doubted. It is an essential tenant of the faith.  Then Max King came along and taught that salvation was postponed until AD 70. King taught that the debt of sin survived the cross until the law was allegedly taken away in AD 70, and that it was only by removal of the law that man is finally saved.  (“The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law...death is abolished when the state of sin and the law are abolished.” [1]) Thus, all that Christianity has historically assigned to the cross, King and Don assign to removal of the law and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  This is what makes this debate important and why, although we are both Preterists, this issue must be resolved in a brotherly manner. 

Forgiveness: Addition of Grace, or Removal of Law?

The idea that the debt of sin survived the cross until the law was supposedly removed in AD 70 is the most important issue addressed in this debate.  It is our position that the debt of sin was canceled (“blotted out” Col. 2:14) at the cross; that man is saved by the addition of grace, and that grace triumphs over law.  We maintain that there was nothing in the Old Law that could forestall the grace given us at Jesus’ cross.  Indeed, while the Old Testament was done away, most of the law still exists and condemns men of sin just as much as it ever did.  If we will take the time to analyze it, we will find that the only law removed by the passing of the Old Testament was the ceremonial law and various incidental laws associated with Israel’s nationhood, and that these had nothing to do with either condemning or justifying man.  Because this is critical to the issues in this debate, let’s take a few moments to examine the law.

Moral Law & the Law of Sin and Death

Sin is the violation of moral imperatives arising in the positive commandments of God or man’s conscience. When we violate our conscience, we are not acting in obedience to faith, and that is sin (“whatsoever is not of faith is sin” – Rom. 14:23).  Every commandment of God carries with it the duty of obedience and its willful violation brings the sentence and penalty of death.  God told Adam, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17).  This commandment carried with it the sentence and penalty of eternal (not physical) death.  This is the law of “sin and death” (“the wages of sin is death,” Rom. 6:23).  Because man has a moral duty to obey God, all commandments of God in the final analysis are moral in nature.  Even ceremonial law has this moral element attached to it; no man can disregard God’s ceremonial law without violating his moral duty. 

The commandments given by Moses “thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc. did not create the moral sins of murder, theft, adultery, etc; it merely codified them.  These sins had always existed and still exist today.  Some will ask, If the law of sin and death existed before the law of Moses, why did Paul call the Old Testament a “ministration of death” (II Cor. 3:7); doesn’t this show that there was some especial power in the Mosaic law bringing condemnation and death that did not exist before?  The answer is, No, the Mosaic law contains no condemnation or power that did not already exist.  If the Mosaic law never existed, man would still be under bondage to sin absent the cross of Christ.  Paul called the Old Testament a “ministration of death” because it institutionalized sin and the law.  What existed before in unwritten precepts was codified and institutionalized by Moses, enshrined in the nation’s law and ritual.  Paul said “By the law is the knowledge of sin; I had not know sin but by the law” (Rom. 3:20; 7:7).  The moral precepts of the law made known to man his sinful condition; the ceremonial law stood as a grand object lesson of man’s condition and his need of redemption and atonement, pointing forward to Christ.  Thus enters the law of substitute and blood sacrifice.

The Law of Substitutes

The “law of substitutes” is the law God set in place that allowed the blood of another to make atonement for man’s sin.  This law was first set in place in the garden by the offering of a lamb, and was ever after kept in force as a prophetic type and foreshadow of the substitutionary death and atoning sacrifice of Christ.  In Exodus, it was formed into a national institution in the Levitical priesthood and temple service.  Paul said that the temple ritual and the ceremonial feasts and Sabbaths of the law stood as “a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Col. 2:16, 17).  A shadow has no substance of its own and stands as a mere silhouette of the body.  When Paul says “the body is of Christ,” he means that the tangible stuff and substance of our salvation is in Jesus.  Don argues that the law was not nailed to the cross and this proves the law did not end there.  Don is wrong.  A shadow ends where the body begins.  Thus, the writer of Hebrews states

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me…He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:5-9). 

Although the debt of our sins that was nailed to the cross and not the law itself, a shadow cannot reach beyond the thing that creates it.  Paul says in Romans “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4). In Ephesians, he says Chirst“abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law contained of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15).  This verse refers to the wall of separation in the temple, segregating Jew and Gentile, and shows that the temple ritual was done away in Jesus’ cross.

Mosaic Law & Economy

Except for certain laws incidental to nationhood (i.e., territorial boundaries) and the ordering of society and commerce, most law is an expression of moral duty.  Since there will always be moral duty, there will always be moral law.  The laws given by Moses may be categorized roughly as 1) national/civil, 2) social/moral, and 3) religious/ceremonial.  Underlying them all was the moral law and the law of sin and death, which attach to violations of man’s moral, social, and religious duties. The merest reflection will show that most of the laws embodied in the Old Testament exist in some form or other today, and where they don’t find expression in human laws, they still exist as the unwritten judgment of God to which every man is accountable.  Health and Safety laws may take different forms, but the same basic duty of reasonable care for our fellow man (a duty enjoined by no less authority than heaven itself) underlies them all.  Likewise crimes and punishments may change in form, but the basic moral judgment underlying them has not changed.  Only the religious and ceremonial law was totally abrogated.  

Old Testament & National Israel 

National/Civil

 

Social/Moral

 

Religious/Ceremonial

 

National Boundaries

Land & Succession

Immigration/Naturalization

Health & Safety

Crimes & Punishments

Torts & Contracts

Marriage & Children

 

Impurity

Deceit

Violence

Oppression

Lust

Priesthood/Temple

Sacrifices

Feasts/Fasts

Circumcision/Diet

Ceremony/Ritual

The Old Testament did not have a mechanism to provide forgiveness of sin (the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins – Heb. 10:4).  But the lack of a mechanism to forgive does not equate with a negative power to forestall the grace of Christ’s cross!  That is Don’s big mistake. He thinks the law was valid until AD 70, and that it trumped the grace that otherwise should have come at Jesus’ death.  What saves us is not the removal of the law, but the addition of grace by Jesus’ death. Judge for yourself: What is there in the Old Testament that does not exist today, save and except the ritual law? Did the temple ritual have power to prevent or forestall the grace of Christ’s cross?  Of course it couldn’t.  It is true that the temple ritual was taken away at the cross, but that is not because it prevented grace, but because it was a shadow pointing to Christ.  Once Christ was come, the purpose and utility of the ritual was spent.  “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second” (Heb. 10:9).  The moral law still exists today, condemning men of sin, but today men can find salvation because God has added grace in Jesus Christ.  Grace triumphs over law.   

Christ’s Substitutionary Death Fulfilled

the Law of Sin & Death 

As the chart below shows, the moral law gives rise to man’s duty and accountability to God. This law has always existed and always will.  Violation of this law brings man under the law of sin and death, the source of man’s liability and bondage.  It is this debt Christ died to satisfy.  Moses codified the moral law, adding the ceremonial law as an object lesson and prophetic type pointing to Christ.  The prophets expounded upon the law, but did not themselves add anything substantive to it.  Then came the day when Christ arrived, bringing salvation.  He nailed the debt of sin to his cross, triumphing over the law of sin and death.  All who come to Christ in faith share in that triumph and obtain acquittal from the debt of sin. 

Moral Law/

Commandments of God

(source of man’s duty & accountability)

 

→

Law of Sin & Death

(source of man’s liability & bondage)

 

→

 

Codified by Moses

 

 

→

 

Expounded upon by Prophets

 

→

Satisfied by Cross of Christ (source of man’s salvation)

 

Don Admits Saints in a State of Grace and Justification Prior to AD 70

Out of 88 verses we produced in our first affirmative, Don graced us with his response to only one, Rom. 7:1-4.  He says he did not have space for more, but this is not true. We have given Don 8,000 extra words and additionally offered him a full fourth affirmative in which he could have handled this if he were so inclined.  The truth is Don cannot answer the verses, so he pleads lack of space.  Sorry, Don, we’re not buying!

Don’s one response to our 88 verses amounts to a false charge that we say the institution of marriage ceased when the first husband died.  Ridiculous! The covenant (not institution) of marriage ended with the deceased spouse, leaving the surviving spouse free to enter a new marriage covenant.  The Old Covenant thus died with Christ, so that we could enter the New Covenant as his bride, washed and cleansed by his redeeming blood (Eph. 5:25-27).  Although Don’s argument comes to nothing, he does say something useful.  Don says:

“When a person, through faith, entered into the power of the cross, they died to the law.”

This is remarkable!  The scripture knows only two states for man: He is either under the law and condemnation, or in a state of grace and justification.  There is no middle ground between these two. There is no “limbo infantum” between the condemnation of law for sinners and God’s justification by grace.  Yet, Don now says that the saints could enter the power of the cross prior to AD 70, having died to the law!  But if they died to the law, then they were under grace and justification. And if they were under grace and justification, the saints were not under the power of the law or condemnation of sin, and there was no spiritualized resurrection in AD 70! Moreover, if they were “dead to the law” as Don states, then the law most certainly was not imposed upon them. Thus, Don is in hopeless contradiction with himself…again!  On the one hand, he says the law was imposed until AD 70 and all were under its debt and obligation (he says this, but could not produce a single verse to substantiate it!).  Now he says Christians were “dead to the law.”  Which is it, Don?  It cannot be both.  Please tell us how Christians were dead to the law, but still under its debt! Reader, look for Don’s response.

Do not miss this! Don has overthrown his whole system. He has set the saints in a condition of grace and justification beginning with the cross.  If men could enter the power of the cross before AD 70 as Don affirms, then salvation arrived with Christ’s first coming. And if salvation from sin arrived at the first coming, then my proposition has been sustained.  “The coming of Christ for salvation from sin occurred at the cross, at the climax and termination of the Mosaic covenant age.”

Internally Inconsistent 

Throughout this discussion, it has been Don’s position that it was essential for the law to be removed before man could be justified.   According to Don, “Hebrews says as long as Torah remained, there was no forgiveness. Therefore, Torah remained binding and there was no objective forgiveness until AD 70!”  But wait!  At the same time Don claims it was essential that the law be taken away before grace could enter, he also claims that the atonement was postponed until AD 70 so that justification could occur at that time!  (He also claims Christians were “dead to the law” and could enter the power of Christ’s cross prior to AD 70, a curious confluence of contradictions if ever there was one!)  King and Don postpone the atonement in order to delay grace.  But what is this if not an admission that it is the addition of grace that saves?  Why postpone the atonement if grace does not triumph over the law?  And if grace triumphs over law, then, removal of the law and AD 70 are irrelevant for justification. And if AD 70 is irrelevant to justification, then the coming of Christ for salvation from sin occurred at the cross, and my proposition is established.   

The Frivolous Results of King’s Spiritualizing Method 

This debate is about when justification came to the saints, not the resurrection.  It is only because Max King spiritualized the resurrection, equating resurrection with justification that the topic comes up at all.  Because Don is a follower of King, he defines resurrection as the time when sin was defeated.  Naturally, this is glaringly wrong.  Resurrection is the time when death is defeated; justification is the time when sin is defeated. The one was defeated at the cross, the other when Hades was destroyed and the saints entered into their heavenly reward.  The fact that these events are separate in time and event is clear from Corinthians where Paul states that the Corinthians were “washed, sanctified, and justified” (I Cor. 6:11) but were still waiting the resurrection! However, if you accept Don’s definition of the resurrection, then you, dear Christian, are already resurrected!   Moreover, if you accept Don’s definition, you have already received your immortal body, and you are already in heaven (surprise!).  These are the logical implications of Don’s position.  If there is only one resurrection as Don claims, and that resurrection has happened, then all the things associated with that resurrection are come, and you are now in heaven and possess your immortal body!  And if you think I am making this up or exaggerating, then be assured that many prominent Preterists who are followers of King affirm that we are in “heaven now.”   

“Again, you wrote, ‘The Christian is not ACTUALLY in heaven until he puts off the physical body.’ This DESTROYS Preterism…In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem COMES DOWN to earth. The Glory of the Lord RESIDES in his heavenly temple, which is NOW the Church. Welcome to heaven.” 

There you have it! A very prominent, visible Preterist and follower of King’s theology claiming that Preterism is destroyed unless we are willing to delude ourselves with the belief that we are in heaven now!  This same group of Preterists also affirm that we have our “immortal body now,” while still others deny that there is “marriage now” (because there is no marriage in the resurrection  – Matt. 22: 30).  All these ridiculous, tragic absurdities that discredit Preterism flow from the poison spring of Max King’s spiritualizing method and failure to “rightly divide the word of truth.”  Dear reader, resurrection is not justification and reconciliation.  These are different concepts, separate in time and function.  Sin is defeated by the grace of Christ’s cross. Justification and reconciliation happen when we enter the power of Christ’s cross by faith, repentance, and baptism.  Death is defeated by receipt of eternal life in heaven above. 

Hebrews 9 and the Two Covenants 

Don argues that, if the atonement was complete at the cross, the souls of the saints in Hades should have entered heaven then and there.  Don bases this on Heb. 9:8 where the writers says the “way into the Holiest was not manifest while the first tabernacle still had legal standing.”  However, Heb. 9 does NOT address the resurrection and the soul’s entrance into heaven.  Don keeps arguing this point, but it is not in this chapter.  It does seem to be implied in Rev. 15:8 where it says no man could enter the temple until the wrath of God was complete, but this is because Hadean death was the LAST ENEMY.  Not until the Jews and Romans were put beneath Christ’s feet was Hades destroyed. This is why the resurrection from Hades occurs at the end of Revelation, after defeat of the dragon, beast, and harlot (Rev. 20:11-15).  Entrance into heaven is NOT the point of Heb. 9.  The dichotomy in this chapter is between the Old and New Testaments and man’s reconciliation to God, not the Old Testament and the soul’s entrance into heaven.   Don chides us with changing our position on this, but that is not true.  The “time of reformation” has been discussed many times throughout this debate and both Don and I agree this refers to the New Testament.  The “time of reformation” is set over against the “time then present” in which were offered gifts and sacrifices that could not provide atonement. Thus, the two covenants are at bottom here, not entrance into heaven as Don suggests. 

The Tabernacle and the Two Covenants

“We have now received the atonement” - Rom. 5:11 

Holy Place – Old Testament

 

Most Holy Place – New Testament

“Time Then Present”

 

“Time of Reformation”

Worldly Sanctuary

 

Heavenly Sanctuary / Spiritual Temple

Way to Holiest Closed

 

Holiest Opened by Jesus’ Death

Could Not Perfect (save)

 

Hath Perfected Forever (Heb. 10:14)

During the Old Testament period, the worshipper remained in a condition of legal estrangement, banishment, and exile from God, unable to enter his presence because of sin.  The New Testament marked the time when reconciliation was made, the veil of separation was “rent in twain,” and man could come into God’s presence free from the taint of sin. Thus, the “Holy place” and “Most Holy Place” answer to the two covenants: Jameson, Brown, and Faucett agree: 

“The Old Testament economy is represented by the holy place, the New Testament economy by the Holy of Holies. Redemption, by Christ, has opened the Holy of Holies (access to heaven by faith now, Hbr 4:16 7:19, 25 10:19, 22; by sight hereafter).” 

And that the temple service ended at the cross, no less authority than Calvin agrees:  

“Nor is it any objection that he uses the present tense in saying, gifts are offered; for as he had to do with the Jews, he speaks by way of concession, as though he were one of those who sacrificed… As soon then as Christ came forth with the efficacious influence of his death, all the typical observances must necessarily have ceased.”  

Daniel’s 490 Prophetic Weeks and Legal Termination of the Old Testament

The legal termination of the Old Testament at the Cross is corroborated by Daniel’s 490 prophetic weeks.  Dan. 9:27 states that Messiah would cause the “sacrifice and oblation to cease” in the midst of the final prophetic week.  Don agrees that the final prophetic week ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. (See Don’s booklet,“Seal Up Vision and Prophecy”)  Therefore, Messiah’s causing the “sacrifice and oblation to cease” in the midst of the final week MUST refer to a point earlier in time than AD 70.  Thus, by Don’s own admission, Heb. 9 cannot be made to reach unto AD 70, but MUST fall short.  Don again is in contradiction with himself.  The traditional interpretation of when Messiah caused the “sacrifice and oblation to cease” is the cross. Matthew Henry states concerning Dan. 9:27:

“He must cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices, shall supersede them and set them aside; when the substance comes the shadows shall be done away. He causes all the peace-offerings to cease when he has made peace by the blood of his cross, and by it confirmed the covenant of peace and reconciliation.” 

The very notion that the sacrifices were valid and binding until AD 70 is idle nonsense.  The whole book of Galatians stands in complete contradiction of the law’s validity. To keep the law was an implicit denial of the sacrifice of Christ and was to fall from grace!  “Ye observe days, and months, and time, and years” (Gal. 4:10).  Don’s teaching is identical with the Judaizers who tried to say the ritual law was still binding.  Paul denounced that teaching with a curse!  (Gal. 1:8, 9). Clearly, the validity of the temple ritual ended at the cross, and men could enter legally and covenantally into a “face to face” relationship with the Father, reconciled by the blood of Christ. 

God the Author of Paganism? 

To uphold King’s Covenant Eschatology, the Old Testament must be kept legally valid until AD 70 when the saints were allegedly “resurrected” from the grave of Judaism (justified by purported removal of the law).  But, as the New Testament became of force at Jesus’ death, this would require that there be two conflicting systems in place at the same time, one offering grace, the other not.  This, of course, is impossible, but that doesn’t stop Don.  Don argues that there were two equally valid systems in place when God gave the law to Israel, but left the Gentiles in paganism!   

“In Kurt’s first affirmative he desperately argues, falsely, that God could not have two systems in force at the same time.  Kurt, did God have two systems in place when He gave Torah to Israel, but not to the pagans?” 

Can you believe it? Don argues that paganism is equally valid with the Old Covenant!  Good grief!  According to Don, God is the author of pagan idolatry!  But God also left the pagan system in place when he instituted the New Testament, so according to Don paganism continues to be an equally valid system of practice and belief.  What are we to conclude from this?  Is Don now a Universalist?  All systems are equally valid?  Don’s willingness to argue that paganism was ordained by God evidences the desperation he is in to save Max King’s hopelessly bankrupt and self-contradictory system. Preterists who love the truth will swim away from that sinking ship fast! 

Greek Verb Tenses 

I am glad Don finally got around to the subject of Greek verb tenses, for this has been a longstanding source of error among Preterists.  As we have seen, the overwhelming majority of verses all show the Old Testament was abolished in Christ and the saints were in a present state of justification beginning with the cross.  A tiny handful of verses, however, seem to couch these things in future tense setting up a contradiction.  Can they be reconciled?  Let us survey the verses given by Don: 

Redemption (present): “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7). 

Redemption (future): “Ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession” (Eph. 1:12, 1 3). 

It was only a short while ago that I mistook these verses (vv. 12, 13) as teaching that redemption from sin was prospective.  My reasoning was like Don’s: redemption speaks to legal acquittal and justification. If the saints were still waiting for redemption, they were not yet in a condition of justification. But I have since learned better.   

During the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, Jeremiah was in prison.  God instructed him to purchase (redeem) his uncle’s land in token of the fact that God would bring the captivity back again to their land after 70 years.  The evidence of the purchase was sealed before witnesses (Jer. 32:1-11).  Thus, the legal purchase was made and sealed, just as Paul suggests in Ephesians (“sealed until redemption of the purchased possession”).  But while the price was paid and ownership complete, Jeremiah’s ability to take actual possession of the land was future. So, with the saints: We were redeemed by Christ, who nailed the debt of sin to his cross (Col. 2:14), but our actual possession of the inheritance (heaven) must wait until we put off the physical body in death.  Meanwhile, God has placed the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts in evidence that we belong to him.  The earnest is not the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost (a view I formerly embraced). Rather, it is the inward yearning of the heart by which we cry “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; cf. Gal. 4:6).  That this is the proper explanation for Paul’s otherwise contradictory language is seen in II Cor. 5:4-8 where the earnest of the Spirit, which in Eph. 1:14 is connected with “inheritance” and “redemption,” is there connected with receipt of our immortal bodies at death and resurrection.   

“For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.  Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord. (For we walk by faith, not by sight). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” 

This is also the meaning of Rom. 8:19-23, where “redemption of our body” points to receipt of our immortal body in heaven.  Christ purchased the inheritance for us, but we must wait until heaven to receive it.  Thus, Eph. 1:12, 13 in no way indicates that the saints were waiting for redemption from sin, which Paul clearly says dozens of times was already a present possession.   

Adoption (present): “We have received the Spirit of adoption” (Rom. 8:15).

Adoption (future): “We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23) 

These are the verses provided by Don.  However, Gal. 4:5-7 would have been more suitable to show the present condition of adoption and sonship.   

“To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. Wherefore, thou are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” 

Adoption is essentially a legal act or decree by which one who is not our natural child is deemed a child in contemplation of law and made our legal heir.  The legal aspect of our adoption occurred when we obeyed the gospel and were baptized.  However, the ultimate object of our adoption is the inheritance of eternal life.  Our inheritance must wait until we receive our immortal bodies at death. Thus “adoption” = “redemption of our body” = “receipt of our immortal body” (see Rom. 8:23, above). Thus, when Paul speaks of adoption in this passage, he has in view its ultimate object, the receipt of immortality at our individual resurrection, not the legal act of entering a covenant relationship under the gospel, which was already an accomplished fact.   

Inheritance (present):  “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph. 1:11).

Inheritance (future): “Who is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession” (Eph. 1:14). 

If a man makes a will and bequeaths certain gifts to his children, they have obtained an inheritance.  However, possession of the inheritance must wait until distribution of the decedent’s estate.  Thus, one can have an inheritance but also be required to wait for its reception.  In the present case, the New Testament became of force at Christ’s death (Heb. 9:17), and we obtain an inheritance as adopted children of God when we obey the gospel.  However, possession of our inheritance (eternal life in heaven) must wait until death of the physical body.  Don’s argument that the souls in Hades should have entered heaven immediately at the cross is without merit. Paul is clear that the last enemy was death, not sin. Sin was defeated at the cross. The resurrection waited until the Jews and Romans were put beneath Christ’s feet.  (See Rev. 20:11-15 where the resurrection follows the defeat of the harlot, dragon, and beast, even though the saints were already justified and clothed in white.) 

Passing of the law (future): Don provides several verses under this head. Let’s list them and then discuss what they really say: 

II Cor. 3:18 - “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord.” 

This verse says does not say our being “changed” equates with the abolition of the law.  Don simply reads that into the passage and imposes it upon the text. The better view is that our change looks to the receipt of eternal life in heaven. The same word occurs in I Cor. 15:52 (“we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”).  Paul said the same thing in Rom. 8:29: “Whom he did foreknow, them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.”  Being “changed” and “conformed” to Christ’s image looks to our receipt of eternal life above, not annulment of the Old Testament. 

II Cor. 3:11 – “For if that which is being annulled was through glory, much rather that which remains is in glory” 

This is a chief Preterist proof text that the law was still valid.  The present participle in vv. 11, 13, 14 are offered as proof the Old Testament was still valid.  But this only betrays a lack of Greek scholarship.  The present tense has many uses, and often signifies past events. We do this all the time in every day speech.  One law supplants another, negating its force, and we say “the policy and effect of the old law is being annulled by the new.”  Yet, clearly, the old law was annulled the instant the new replaced it. The present participle does not show the old law is still valid, but that the new presently renders it null.  Even today in 2010, the condemnation associated with the law is being annulled by the New Testament of Christ.  PLEASE NOTE: Every major version (KJV, ASV, RSV, NAS, NEB) renders these verbs in the past tense.  Can so many Greek scholars be wrong?  But if the present participle shows an on-going process as Don alleges, then the glory on Moses face had not yet vanished!  The same participle occurs in reference to the shining on Moses’ skin: “The children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory is being done away” (II Cor. 3:7).  When Moses entered God’s presence, his face shone, so he put a veil on his face when he spoke with the Jews.  Moses had been dead for 1500 years, yet Paul here uses the present participle to describe what had ceased millennia before!  This destroys Don’s theory.  But there is another point here we should note.  Moses entered the Holiest and there beheld the face of God, causing his face to shine. He covered his face with a veil when he spoke to the Jews, but removed it when he entered the Holiest.  Paul says we behold “with open face” the glory of the Lord (II Cor. 3:18).  Where do we with unveiled face behold God’s face?  Within the Holy of Holies!  In the New Testament, we enter the Holiest and there behold the face of God in Christ, just as the writer of Hebrews states (II Cor. 4:6; Heb. 10:19, 22). 

Heb. 8:13 – “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayed and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” 

This verse does not say that the old was still valid or binding.  To the contrary, the writer states that the “first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary” (Heb. 9;1). Notice the past tense “had also ordinances” showing that these were now replaced by the New Testament. Heb. 7:12 is the same: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also the law.”  Did Christ have a priesthood when this was written?  Of course he did. Therefore the law was changed.  The Jews kept up the ritual of the Old, but this was in rebellion and denial of Christ. The tree remained even though the root was cut.  The truck of the tree was withered and dead, and about to be taken away, but its legal validity ended long before.   

Heb. 7:12 – “The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” 

Don says the present tense is used here.  But the same verb form is used in Heb. 11:4 of Abel, “he being dead yet speaketh.”  Was Abel already dead? Of course he was.  Was the priesthood already changed? Of course it was!  “But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come” (Heb. 9:11).  Berry’s Interlinear Greek renders the passage “For being changed the priesthood, from necessity also of law a change takes place.” Don’s objection is baseless. 

Heb. 8:4 – “For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” 

This verse does not say that the offerings were valid. How could they be?  The law was a shadow pointing to Christ, whose sacrifice annulled them!  Isaiah expressly states that the Jews’ continued observance of the temple ritual marked them out as enemies of God!  “He that sacrificeth a lamb as if he cut off a dog’s neck…they have chosen their abominations…a voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the Lord that rendereth recompense to his enemies” (Isa. 66:3, 6).  Don’s attempt to keep the law valid is hopelessly fraught with contradiction and stands in denial of Christ’s cross. 

Heb. 10:9 – “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” 

Don says this should read “he is taking away the first” etc.  Berry’s Interlinear reads “He takes away the first.”  Green’s Interlinear reads “He takes away the first,” etc.  In fact, every major version, and all the minors for all I know, read “he takes away the first.”  Don is quite alone in his rendering! Don, why don’t you test your theory and make out two contradictory wills leaving everything to your wife and family in the first, and everything to charity in the second and see which one the court upholds?  Everyone knows the second annuls the first.  Quit playing these silly games! 

Grace (present): “By grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8)

Grace (future): “Hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (I Pet. 1:13). 

Don, is there only one “grace” man receives from God? There are many graces, of course.  There is grace in redemption from sin, there is grace in the gifts of the Holy Ghost, there is grace which sustains us day by day, and there is grace that delivered the saints out of the persecution of Nero and the Jews.  It is this last that Peter refers to, not salvation from sin.  This also applies to I Pet. 1:5 and the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”  God would reveal his salvation to the world by redeeming the church out of her persecutions and the overthrow of her enemies (cf. Lk. 21:28).  Peter is not talking about salvation from sin.

Perfect (present): “And ye are complete in him” (Col. 2:10).

Perfect (future): “That we might present every man perfect in Christ” (Col. 1:28).  Don also notes that the church was given the charismata (miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit) to bring the church to a “perfect man” (Eph. 4:13-16), and asks why, if they were already perfect did they need the gifts to bring them to perfection?  May I say without offense, this is very shallow thinking?  Children are in a perfect state of grace, innocent and acceptable to God, but they still need instruction to bring them to maturity. In the same way, the church and individual members may be “complete” in Christ in terms of their sins being washed away, but still in need of growing up from babes to mature believers.

Dear reader, we have now surveyed all of Don’s proof texts offered to show the law was still “valid, obligatory, and binding.”  We have addressed each verse he used (too bad Don did not so the same for us!), and there is nothing in them.  They do not prove the law was “valid.”   

Isaiah 59 

Since we are on the topic of the New Testament bringing remission of sins at the cross, this is as good a time as any to deal with Isa. 59:20-21. Let me say that the proper exegesis of these verses is really a distraction when one considers that Don cannot produce even a single verse to sustain the most basic elements of his position.  If he could produce a few New Testament verses that uphold his case he would not need to rely upon arguments wrested from Old Testament prophets.   

Diagram of Isaiah 59 

Isa. 59:1-15 – Recital of Israel’s sin.

 

Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.  

Isa. 59:16-18 – The Lord’s response: punishment of Israel and the nations (Assyrian/Babylonia invasions).

 

And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.   Isa (v. 17)   For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.   (v. 18)   According to the deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.  

Isa. 59:19 – The nations will see and fear; the Lord’s favor will return to Israel (return of the captivity).

 

So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. 

Isa. 59:20-21 – The Redeemer will come; God’s covenant to preserve a remnant.

 

And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.  (v. 21)   As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

 

As the chart above shows, Isa. 59 treats of God’s judgment upon Israel and the nations for their sins.  The instrument of his wrath, when he put on a breastplate of righteousness, etc., was almost certainly the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions.  That is the historical context Isaiah spoke to and we may anticipate it throughout his writings.  The return of God’s favor to Israel by defending it (v. 19) points to the return of the captivity. The Redeemer will come to Zion, clearly contemplates the birth of the Messiah, not his second coming, for it was at the cross that Christ’s work of redemption was done (“in whom we have redemption through his blood” – Eph. 1:7).  The word in the mouth of the Redeemer’s seed points to the gospel and the teaching church.  Note that the Lord’s coming and his covenant to preserve a remnant follows his wrath upon Israel and the nations.  This pattern is repeated many times in the prophets. The three great themes of the prophets were the 1) coming captivity, 2) the return of the captivity, and 3) the coming of the Messiah.  That pattern is clearly seen here.  However, by Don’s interpretation, the wrath in vv. 16-19 is the destruction of Jerusalem.  Thus, he has AD 70 precede the coming of the Messiah in vv. 20-21!  Don completely reverses the order of the whole chapter, placing the destruction of Jerusalem before the Messiah ever arrives on the scene! This will not do. Paul shows what the context of the chapter is by what he substitutes.  Where Isaiah says  

“This is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” 

Paul substitutes  

“This is my covenant, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom. 11:27).   

God put his Spirit upon the Redeemer, and the Spirit gave him the word of the gospel, the New Covenant. This covenant brings remission of sins for all that believe and obey.  Thus, the “word” (gospel) in the mouth of the Redeemer and his seed in Isaiah becomes the vehicle for remission of sins in Rom. 11:27.  It is the New Testament that brings remission of sins, ot the destruction of Jerusalem!  Romans 11 is about God’s election of a remnant by obedience to the gospel, the breaking off of unbelieving Jews, and grafting in their place believing Gentiles, so it makes perfect sense that the “covenant” and “word” have reference to the New Testament and gospel.  By Don’s approach, however, the “covenant” and “word” in the mouth of the Redeemer are substituted with the destruction of Jerusalem!  Obviously, this makes no sense at all.  Here is Homer Hailey’s explanation of the passage, which is typical of the vast majority of commentators: 

“The Servant-Messiah came unto Zion as King and Savior (Zech. 9:9-10).  Jehovah set Him up as King on the Holy hill of Zion (Ps. 2:6). From there Jehovah sent forth the rod of His strength (Ps. 110:2); from there went forth the law and word of Jehovah (Isa. 2:3).  This explains the Redeemer’s coming ‘to Zion.’  From Zion He also went forth in the gospel, conquering and to conquer.  As Paul said, Christ ‘came and preached peace to you that were afar off [Gentiles], and peace to them that were nigh’ [Jews] (Eph. 2:17). In this sense, the Redeemer came forth ‘out of Zion.’”   

Isaiah 27 

The pattern in Isaiah 27 is 1) sin, 2) wrath (Assyrian invasion), 3) return of the captivity.  The fundamental error of Don’s approach is that he makes the wrath portion of the text the point where salvation occurs!  He equates the wrath of the Assyrian invasion with the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome and says that is the point where salvation from sin occurred. But salvation in Isa. 27:1,2, 13 comes with the return of the captivity 100 years later, not at the time of the invasion itself.  Israel was carried into captivity because of its sins and idolatry. The invasion and captivity would bring the nation to repentance; then God would return a remnant to the land, saving them.  Don makes the salvation occur by and through the invasion/destruction!  Moreover, where Isaiah has Israel repent and so come to salvation, in AD 70 Israel was forever destroyed.  The analogy between these historical events therefore breaks down and Don’s theory comes to nothing.  Here is Matthew Henry’s treatment of the passage which we think settles that it is the Assyrio-Babylonian invasions that are in view, not AD 70: 

“Though Jerusalem shall be desolate and forsaken for a time, yet there will come a day when its scattered friends shall resort to it again out of all the countries whither they were dispersed (v. 12, 13)… By what means they shall be gathered together: The great trumpet shall be blown, and then they shall come. Cyrus's proclamation of liberty to the captives is this great trumpet, which awakened the Jews that were asleep in their thraldom to bestir themselves; it was like the sounding of the jubilee-trumpet, which published the year of release.” Matthew Henry, Isa. 27:12, 13 

Summary & Conclusion 

We have reviewed the Mosaic law.  We have seen that if it never existed, man would still be under the debt and bondage to sin absent Christ’s cross.  We have seen that King and Don attempt to postpone the atonement until AD 70, and that this is a tacit admission that it is the addition of grace that saves, not the removal of law.  There is nothing in the law that can forestall grace; the inability to forgive does translate into a positive power to prevent grace.  King’s whole system is therefore internally inconsistent and contradictory. We have surveyed all the verses Don produced to show the law was valid and that grace was postponed, and we have seen there is nothing to them.  Nine pages of verses showing the saints were in a present state of justification and grace cannot be undone by the obscurities of a few present participles, which all translations render in the past and perfect tense.  Paul is emphatic that we “have now received the atonement” (Rom. 5:11), and that the law was “abolished in Christ’s flesh” (Eph. 2:15).  Even Don admits that the saints were “dead to the law” and could “enter the power of the cross” prior to AD 70.  In light of all this, can there be any doubt that Covenant Eschatology is a serious system of error? We urge all Preterists to get away as fast as possible from this dangerous teaching.


[1] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644 (emphasis added).

 

____________________


The Consummation
of the Ages

 

▲ Top of page

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

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.