Preston- V -Simmons
When Was Sin Defeated? AD 70 or the Cross?
Preston's First Affirmative
(Note: Kurt and I originally agreed to 12
pages per presentation. We have now agreed to 14 pages per
presentation being permitted per man)
It is an honor to discuss this important topic with my good
friend Kurt Simmons. I know that this will be a friendly debate
that all readers may profit from. It is likewise an important
issue. Was the salvation process perfected and completed at the
Cross, as Kurt affirms, or, was the Cross the initiation of a
process that was not consummated until the AD 70 parousia? The
latter is, in my view, patently the correct Biblical view, and I
will seek to vindicate that claim.
Here is my proposition:
Resolved: The Bible teaches that the coming of Christ for
salvation in Romans 11:25-27 occurred in AD 70 at the climax and
termination of the Mosaic Covenant Age.
Affirm: Don K. Preston
Deny: Kurt Simmons
Let me state now what this debate is not about:
Kurt and I both agree that Christ’s second coming occurred in AD
70.
Kurt and I both agree that the resurrection occurred in AD 70.
We have differences in regard to the nature and framework of the
resurrection– differences that will be noted as we proceed, but,
we both affirm the reality of the resurrection in AD 70.
This debate is not in any way about whether the Cross of Christ
is the ground and source for the salvation of mankind.
This debate is whether the salvation that is dependent on the
Cross was finished at the Cross, or, whether the Cross was
part of a complex of events. The Cross initiated the
salvific process, the parousia (Christ’s second coming),
finalized that process.
The Prophetic Background of Romans 11
Proves That the Coming of the Lord Paul Anticipated Was the AD
70 Coming of Christ
When Paul spoke of the coming of the Lord for salvation to take
away Israel’s sin, he cites three OT prophecies: Isaiah 27:9f,
Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:29f. (Another text, Daniel 9:24f
clearly lies behind Romans 11 as well. I will try to get
to that in this debate). For the moment, we will focus on the
two prophecies from Isaiah.
In an article responding to Kurt’s assessment of Romans 11 I
noted that the time of Israel’s salvation according to Isaiah
27:9f would be when YHVH took away her sin, in the day that the
altar was turned to chalkstone, God would forget the people He
had created, and have no mercy on them. I further noted that
according to the antecedent references to “in that day” that
this would be when YHVH would come and avenge the blood of the
martyrs. (See my articles at:
www.eschatology.org.
Here is the argument I made:
The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin would be the
coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 27:9f.
The coming of the Lord in Isaiah 27:9f would be the coming of
the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood
(Isaiah 26:20f).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans 11:26 would be the
coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent
blood.
My friend responded that “there have been many days of the Lord,
and that to avenge innocent blood” (S-P, p. 2). He rightly notes
that the Babylonian invasion was to avenge the martyrs’ blood in
the sixth century (2 Kings 24:1-4; Jeremiah 2-4:13). Simmons is
correct in his basic thought. What he fails to honor is
that Jesus said that all of the blood of all the righteous,
all the way back to creation, would be avenged in his
generation (Matthew 23:29-37). Jesus’ statement includes the
comprehensive and consummative avenging of the blood of the
martyrs that were in measure “avenged” in the Assyrian and
Babylonian invasions! So, while those judgments came as a result
of Israel’s bloodguilt, there is no question that in the mind of
Jesus the bloodguilt of Jerusalem was not fully avenged
in those judgments.
Please catch this: my friend admits in a footnote (S-P, July
2009, p. 2), “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.” Well, if this is true, then Paul could, after
all, be citing Isaiah to speak of the AD 70 judgment, could
he not? If not, why not? So, Kurt, tell us
plainly: Does (can) Isaiah 27:9 have a plenior sensus
application to AD 70, or not? Yes or No?
When I took note of my friend’s admission that Isaiah 26-27
could refer to AD 70, in his second response (Sept., 2009,
S-P), Kurt then did a 180% reversal and denied that Isaiah 27
could refer to AD 70. Why? Because that admission is fatal to
his view of Romans 11. He said it referred to the
Assyrian invasion of the eighth century BC! But then, he
changed again and claimed that Isaiah 27 speaks of “the
basic promise to bring salvation, notwithstanding the
unfaithfulness of the people” that Paul had in mind when he
referenced Isaiah (S-P, Sept, 2009, 3). In other words, he says
Isaiah 27 foretold the Cross. I want the reader to catch the
full power of what Kurt has done.
The actual text of Isaiah 27:9 says: “By this then, will
Jacob’s guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage
of the removal of his sin, when He makes the altar stones to be
like chalk stones crushed to pieces.” (NASV) Words could hardly
be clearer.
But, here is what Kurt does:
He says Isaiah 27 cannot be AD 70 because Israel was not guilty
of literal idolatry at that time.
However, Kurt says that Isaiah 27 does predict the Cross of
Christ, although there was no literal idolatry at that time!
Patently, if Isaiah 27 cannot refer to AD 70 because Israel was
not guilty of literal idolatry at that time, then logically,
you cannot argue that Isaiah 27 foretold the Cross for the
identical reason! My friend’s logic is self contradictory to say
the very least.
On the one hand Kurt tells us that Isaiah 27 has nothing to do
with AD 70, but it is a prediction of salvation at the
Cross which Paul had in mind in Romans 11. But, this completely
denies the actual content and wording of the text! This claim
has no textual or contextual corroboration whatsoever. If
so, Kurt must produce it.
How can Paul have the Cross in mind in Romans 11 when appealing
to a text that is emphatically and specifically predictive of
salvation through judgment: “By this then, will
Jacob’s guilt be atoned for.... when He makes the altar
stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces”?
Kurt is asking us to ignore, no, to deny, the specific
words of Isaiah and read into the text a topic unrelated to the
prophetic words!
I am going to ask, no, I will insist, that my
friend answer this question without evasion or obfuscation. This
is a critical issue of hermeneutics. What is there in the
text of Isaiah 26-27 that even suggests the Cross, and
not judgment? What is your hermeneutic for ignoring the
emphatic words of the text, and then for insisting that we read
into the text something that is not there?
There is not one word in Isaiah 27 about the Cross.
Isaiah 27 is a judgment coming of the Lord to avenge innocent
blood. But, Jesus’ Cross was not a judgment coming to
avenge innocent blood.
A word here about type and anti-type. I have no problem
affirming that Isaiah 26-27 was a type of AD 70– as Kurt
initially suggested. However, to suggest that the judgment of
Isaiah was typological of a future event excludes the Cross!
Types were foreshadowings of things similar to themselves.
This is axiomatic. Thus, the invasion and judgment of Israel for
shedding innocent blood could well be typological of the last
days judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
However, to suggest that Assyria’s judgment of Israel for
shedding innocent blood was typological of the Cross–which was
in no way a judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood-- is
disjunctive and illogical. There is no similarity, of any kind.
There is no foreshadowing likeness. There is no type and
anti-type. Thus, if the Assyrian invasion and judgment of Israel
was typological, as Kurt initially admitted, then it was
typological of the AD 70 judgment of Israel for shedding
innocent blood, and not the Cross.
Note that this coming of the Lord in Isaiah 26:20f / 27:9f is
also the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19– Will
Kurt deny that Isaiah 26:19f is a resurrection text? It is the
same resurrection as in Isaiah 25:8 that is the source of
Paul’s resurrection hope! If he admits that it is, this
demands that the Day of the Lord of v. 20– and the salvation of
Israel in 27:9f are all synchronous). So, here is my argument:
The coming of the Lord of Romans 11:26 is the coming of the Lord
of Isaiah 26-27.
The coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27 is the coming of the Lord
at the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19-21).
The coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection was
in AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f was the AD 70
coming of the Lord.
It will not do for Kurt to ignore this. This is a question of
hermeneutics. How can Kurt insist that Isaiah 27 is the
Cross and that Paul had the Cross in mind when he cited Isaiah,
a text that does not mention the Cross? So, again, Kurt,
where in Isaiah 26-27 do you find the prediction of the Cross?
Kurt faces the same problem with Isaiah 59.
Isaiah 59
The prophecy of Isaiah 59 breaks itself down very naturally into
three headings:
Accusation – YHVH accused Israel of shedding innocent
blood, of violence and unrighteousness (v. 1-8).
Acknowledgment – Israel admitted her guilt, but, it is
clear that there is no true repentance in the text (v. 9-15).
Action – The Lord saw Israel in her sinful condition and,
“His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own
righteousness, it sustained Him for He put on righteousness as a
breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; He put on
the garments of vengeance for His clothing, and was clad with
zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly He will
repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies...”
So, just like Isaiah 27, this chapter is concerned with the
coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for her guilt in
shedding innocent blood. Three times this sin is mentioned (v.
3, 6-7)! And yet, not a word about the Cross!
Notice that the Intercessor puts on the garments of a Warrior.
He would clothe himself with the garments of vengeance to
recompense his enemies. This is the coming of the Lord in verse
20: “The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from
transgression in Jacob” Verse 20 is not a different coming from
that in verses 16-19! It is one and the same coming, the coming
of Christ in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
So, here is the argument:
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.
But, the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59 is the coming
of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
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.
Isaiah 59 presents the identical hermeneutical challenge as
Isaiah 26-27.
If Kurt claims that Isaiah 59 was not Messianic, then it
assuredly does not predict the Cross.
If he admits that Isaiah 59 is Messianic, and predictive of the
Cross, he must produce the verse.
If he claims that in spite of the fact that the Cross is not
mentioned in Isaiah 59 that we must see it there, this is
eisegesis. That is imposing a theological presupposition
on a text. When we begin doing this, we can prove any
position that we want!
Kurt’s challenge is daunting: Explain why Paul cites two Old
Testament prophecies of the coming of Christ in judgment of
Israel for shedding innocent blood, when, according to Kurt,
Paul was not concerned in any way with the fulfillment of
prophecies of Christ’s judgment coming. Why would Paul cite two
prophecies that had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do
with his subject matter? Why didn’t Paul cite one of the many OT
prophecies of the Passion of Jesus available to him, if this was
his topic?
Instead, Paul cited two major OT prophecies that foretold the
coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent
blood. For my friend to find Christ’s Passion in Romans 11,
he must find it in Isaiah 26-27 or Isaiah 59. It is not there!
Kurt must therefore import it into prophecies that do not
mention it, and then assume that Paul likewise
imported it in Romans 11! What is the hermeneutical
justification for this? Is this not, prima facie,
eisegesis (reading into the text), and not
exegesis (drawing out of the text what is there)?
Our theology must flow from text, not presuppositions.
Remember one of the primary rules of hermeneutic: “A text cannot
mean what it never meant!” So, if Isaiah 26-27 and 59 did not
predict Christ’s Passion then my friend cannot apply Isaiah’s
prophecies of the judgment to Jesus’ Passion without
making those texts mean what they never meant!
Both Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 are Messianic and Paul’s citation
of them in Romans 11 means that Paul had the judgment coming of
Christ in mind in Romans 11. I will have more to say about the
prophetic source of Romans 11 in my next affirmative.
Now, should Kurt once again admit that: “We do not disallow the
possibility that there is a plenior sensus (fuller meaning,
DKP), to Isaiah 26:21 (or Isaiah 59, DKP) that may look
beyond its historical setting to Christ’s second coming” this
demands the AD 70 fulfillment.
When I presented these arguments in my initial article, Kurt
responded: “The solution is quite simple: When did God provide
the remedy for sin? At the fall of Jerusalem or at the Cross?
The Deliverer came to Zion and brought forgiveness of sin when
Jesus died on the Cross, not when Jerusalem was destroyed.” So,
Kurt completely ignored the context and emphatic words of of
Isaiah 27 and 59 and imposed his presuppositional theology
onto those prophecies!
My friend Kurt engaged in a diversionary tactic in his attempt
to negate my arguments on Isaiah’s prophecies. Kurt stated an
axiom denied by no one: i.e. The Cross is God’s provision for
sin. But, as I will prove, Kurt does not believe that the Cross,
as a stand alone event, brought salvation. The Cross must
be viewed as a complex of inseparably related events.
Further, I will show that the benefits of the Cross were not
applied until AD 70, and that Kurt Simmons is on record as
agreeing with this!
Let me move now to prove that salvation was not completed at
the Cross.
Let me say now that Kurt does not believe–cannot believe– what
he will affirm. He will affirm that the coming of Christ for
salvation occurred at the Cross, and that no other events were
necessary to perfect that salvation. That is patently false.
Here is why. Kurt believes, as I do, that Jesus had to ascend
to the Father and into the Most Holy Place, there to
“prepare a place for us” (Hebrews 9:24). But, that event was
forty days after the Cross! Thus, Kurt’s own position
affirms that salvation was not completed at the Cross. A
process was begun, but had to be finished, and it was
not finished at the Ascension!
Kurt may respond that the amount of time is insignificant. It
is not. Admitting that Christ had to enter the MHP–forty
days after the Cross– is to admit that the Cross– as a stand
alone event- did not complete salvation. It is to admit my
position, that the obtaining of salvation was a process begun
at the Cross, but perfected through a series of related
events– including the parousia.
The question is: “Why did Jesus have to ascend and enter the
MHP?” The significance of this cannot be overlooked, and Hebrews
9:6-10 holds the key.
Hebrews 9– Atonement and Entrance Into the
Most Holy Place:
“These preparations having thus been made, the priests go
continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties;
but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a
year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself
and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit
indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as
long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for
the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and
sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of
the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various
ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of
reformation.” (RSV. See also the NASV)
The RSV and NASV, in contrast to other translations, properly
render the present active indicatives of the text. Paul was
undeniably speaking of the contemporary cultic practice in the
temple. Note that Paul affirms that the entire cultic world “is
a figure for the time now present.” That was Paul’s present
time. He did not affirm that those typological practices and
sacrifices had been nullified! This is critical!
Note that the Old Law, including the washings and sacrifices
would stand imposed, “until the time of reformation.” Kurt says
the time of reformation arrived at the Cross. This is a
clear-cut violation of the present active indicatives of Hebrews
9, and Paul’s statement that those things were, when he wrote
“a figure for the present time.” Kurt even admits that the
good things to come symbolized by those sacrifices and practices
did not come at the Cross, but were about to come: “The Hebrews
writer calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come’
(Hebrews 9:11; cf. 2:5; 6:5; 10:1). At the time of his writing,
they were not yet come, but were very near” (Consummation of
the Ages, 2003, 231). This demands that the
typological Atonement praxis of the Torah, were about to be
fulfilled at Christ’s parousia. The Atonement was not yet
perfected.
Paul says that as long as the Old Law– with its sacrifices and
washings– stood imposed, there was no access to the Most Holy
Place.
Now, the reader must catch the power of this: My good
friend says the saints could not enter the MHP until the end
of the Mosaic age, in AD 70! Here is what he says in
Consummation of the Ages: “True to the ‘already-but-not-yet’
character of the transition period between the Cross and the
coming of Christ, the ‘way into the holiest of all was not yet
manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing’ (Hebrews
9:8). The Christian’s access to the presence of God was
forestalled pending passage of the Mosaic age” (p. 231, My
emphasis). This is precisely my position, but, destructive to
Kurt’s.
To make it unmistakably clear that it was the Mosaic Law
that had to pass in AD 70, (Not at the Cross), read my brother’s
comments on Hebrews 9: “The writer of Hebrews says that the two
compartments of the first tabernacle (temple) stood for two
covenants: the first compartment, the Holy Place, for the Old
Testament in which were offered gifts and sacrifices that could
not make the worshipper soteriologically perfect; the second
compartment, which he calls the Holiest of all, for the New
Testament” (Adumbrations, 2009, 220).
Here is my argument, based on the text of Hebrews 9 and Kurt’s
admissions:
The first compartment of the tabernacle (temple) represented the
Mosaic Covenant.
As long as the first compartment (the Mosaic Covenant) stood
imposed (binding) there was no access to the presence of God
(the MHP).
The saints had no access to the MHP until the destruction of
Jerusalem (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, the first compartment (The Mosaic Covenant) of the
tabernacle (temple) stood imposed until the destruction of
Jerusalem. This is logically (and textually) irrefutable.
Let me confirm this with the following from Kurt’s own keyboard,
as he comments on Revelation 15:8 and its relationship to
Hebrews 9: “The way into heaven was not opened until God’s
wrath upon Jerusalem is fulfilled. The way into the holiest was
not yet manifested while the first tabernacle was yet standing
(Hebrews 9:8)”(Consummation of the Ages, 2003, p. 292 (My
emphasis, DKP). So, Revelation 15 and Hebrews 9:6-10 both speak
of the same time, and the same event- entrance into the
presence of God. Kurt himself makes these events synchronous!
But, this demands that the Mosaic Law remained imposed
until AD 70. This is logically and textually inescapable.
On this argument alone, my affirmative proposition is
demonstrated as true. But there is more.
Entrance into the MHP was dependent on two things: the
removal of Torah and the completion of the Wrath of God. This is
not an either / or situation, it is both! The NT writers
never suggest that it was first the removal of Torah at the
Cross, and then, 40 years later the fulfillment of God’s
wrath–after all, fulfillment of God’s wrath was fulfillment
of Torah! The truth is that AD 70 was the judgment of that
ineffective Mosaic Law, that could never take away sin!
It was the judgment of the ministration of death. It was the
judgment of the law that was the strength of sin. As Kurt
himself has well said: “Continuation of the Mosaic Law and
temple ritual stood in very denial of Christ’s sacrifice,
priesthood, and Sonship; it is fitting that they were deemed the
most glorious spoils of the war” (Consummation, 349). God
judged that “first tabernacle” (the Mosaic Covenant per
Kurt) that prevented man from entering His presence, and then
and only then could man enter the presence of God.
We must ask Kurt to answer some very important questions.
1.) Since you will affirm that salvation was completed at the
Cross, and since salvation is directly related to entrance into
the MHP, why is it that man could not enter the MHP at the
moment of the Cross? Please tell us specifically.
2.) If Torah– which prevented access to the MHP-- was
removed at the Cross as you affirm, then why could not man enter
the MHP from the time of the Cross? Paul is emphatic that it was
the abiding imposition of Torah that prevented access to the
MHP! Imposition of Torah– no access to the MHP. No Torah–
Access to the MHP at the time of the reformation.
So, if Torah, which prevented access to the MHP, was abrogated
at the Cross, (and if this is the coming of the Lord for
salvation in Romans 11:25f), then man could enter the MHP from
the time of the Cross. But remember that Kurt himself denies
that man could enter the MHP until AD 70, due to the abiding
standing of the “first tabernacle” i.e. the Mosaic Covenant!.
This is a fatal, logical self contradiction.
You cannot on the one hand affirm that that which kept man from
the MHP was removed at the Cross, and then claim that man still
could not enter the MHP until AD 70! Do not forget that removal
of Torah and completion of vengeance were
equal, synchronous conditions for entrance into the MHP.
Kurt cannot focus on the vengeance aspect and deny what Paul has
to say about the continuing imposition of Torah until man
could enter the MHP at the parousia.
Here is a related affirmative argument:
Kurt admits that entrance into the MHP was at the second coming
in AD 70.
But the time of reformation is when man could enter the MHP.
Thus, the time of reformation did not arrive until the second
coming AD 70.
This means that Torah remained imposed until AD 70, because
Torah would stand “until the time of reformation” (Hebrews
9:10).
Remember that I noted that Kurt will agree that Christ had to
enter into the MHP in order to fulfill the typological actions
of the High Priest under Torah. He does not believe that
salvation was perfected while Jesus was on the Cross, before he
entered the MHP! Kurt’s position on this demands that the
“ceremonial commandments” of Torah were not completed at the
Cross. Christ’s entrance into the MHP fulfilled “ceremonial
commandments” (typological actions) of Torah, thus, Torah
remained as a type and shadow at least until Christ entered
into the MHP.
This means that Kurt cannot argue that salvation was completed
at the moment of the Cross.
The question is, how can Kurt deny the absolute necessity of
Christ’s second coming to fulfill those same typological
actions of the High Priest?
Kurt wants to short circuit the Atonement process and have it
completed while Jesus was on the Cross. But wait, no, he will
insist that Jesus had to enter the MHP forty days after the
Cross! But then he will deny that Christ had to “come again
the second time, apart from sin, for salvation”to complete that
atonement process! But wait, no, that is not correct, for
Kurt says Christ had to come again (AD 70) for man to
enter the MHP, i.e. to bring salvation!
In Hebrews 9 it is the “ceremonial commandments,” the sacrifices
and cultic actions that Paul affirmed were types and shadows
imposed until the time of reformation when man could enter
the MHP. Paul said those things were, when he wrote,
typological of the coming better things, the time of
reformation. And remember that Kurt agrees that those “good
things to come” symbolized by those sacrifices and cultic
actions had not yet come: “The Hebrews writer calls Christ a
High Priest of ‘good things to come’ (Hebrews 9:11; cf. 2:5;
6:5; 10:1). At the time of his writing, they were not yet come,
but were very near” (Consummation of the Ages, 2003,
231). Thus, the ceremonial commandments had not been annulled at
the Cross, and were still imposed when Paul wrote. Torah had not
passed!
So on the one hand Kurt affirms that those ceremonial
commandments- in fact the Torah itself!-- were fulfilled and
abrogated at the Cross, but on the other hand, he affirms that
the typological, ceremonial commandments had not been fulfilled,
and were still unfulfilled and imposed!
But, note again, that the Hebrews author cites the typological
actions of the High Priest and Jesus’ fulfillment of those
actions. The HP would slay the sacrifice, and Christ had
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The High
Priest entered the MHP, and Christ had entered the MHP (Hebrews
9:24). And while the author does not specifically say the HP
came out, Hebrews 9:28 says, “And to those who eagerly look for
him he shall appear a second time, apart from sin, for
salvation. Now, take note of Hebrews 10:1: “For,
the Law having a shadow of good things about to come...” Note
the connective particle “gar” translated as “for” in 10:1.
This word ties 9:28 to 10:1, and explains why Christ had
to appear the second time. He had to appear the second time “for
the law, having a shadow of good things (about) to come.”
Christ’s second coming was to fulfill the typological,
ceremonial commandments and practices of the law! That “for”
cannot be ignored, and proves that Christ’s second coming was
the fulfillment of the typological commandments of Torah. The
Day of Atonement is clearly the context. The “for”
demands that Christ’s second appearing is the fulfillment of the
Atonement typology. This cannot be ignored, and it means that
the end of the Mosaic Covenant– and salvation and the
Atonement-- did not come until Christ’s parousia in AD 70!
Note also that 10:1 says that the good things typified by “the
law” (note again the present indicatives in 10:1, and
note that Kurt acknowledges that Hebrews 10:1 spoke of the yet
unfulfilled aspect of Torah), were “about to come.” For the
Hebrews writer, the better things typified by the Atonement
cultus– entrance into the MHP-- were “about to come (from
mello).” (Note that Kurt agrees that mello means
“about to be, about to come” (Consummation, p. 1). This
is the salvation of 9:28. It is the time of reformation
anticipated by the typological, ceremonial commandments. It had
not yet arrived, but was “about to.”
So, Christ’s second appearing was to finalize the Atonement
process. Kurt even agrees that the temple sacrifices were “a
shadow of the substitutionary death and atoning blood of Christ”
(Hebrews 9:12; 10:1-4) (Consummation, 231).This logically
demands that the Atonement and thus salvation was not
completed at the Cross. If it were, man could enter the MHP
at the moment of the Cross!
To negate this argument Kurt must prove that while the death
of Jesus was the fulfillment of the Atonement typology, and
while his entrance into the MHP was the fulfillment of
the Atonement typology, his reappearing was unrelated to
the Atonement practices of the High Priest. Kurt cannot do this.
I have proven that entrance into the MHP– which could only come
at the completion of the Atonement-- is inseparably related to
the end of the Torah. This is what Hebrews 9 unequivocally
affirms!
Stated simply, Hebrews 9 proves this:
Torah standing valid– no access to the MHP. This is irrefutable.
Torah removed– access to the MHP (the Atonement perfected). This
is undeniable.
I have proven– and Kurt agrees– that entrance into the MHP did
not take place until AD 70. This is prima facie
validation of my proposition that the full end of the Mosaic
Covenant age was at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.
In two articles challenging my position on Romans 11 Kurt
essentially surrendered his position. He said of Christ’s
betrothal / marriage, “We agree that the full benefit of
Christ’s atonement was held in partial abeyance until the
consummation of the Lamb’s marriage with the bride. The church
was betrothed to Christ beginning at Pentecost, but did
not enjoy the fullness of the New Testament intimacy until the
consummation in AD 70” (Sword and Plow, Sept., 2009– hereafter
S-P. His emphasis).
Now, clearly, a person betrothed is not “fully married”
and simply awaiting the manifestation of that marriage. What is
being held in “abeyance” is the finalization of the marriage.
The betrothal is the initiation of a process, the
marriage is the consummation of the process, just like
the Cross and parousia.
If the body of Christ was waiting for salvation and “the
fullness of New Testament intimacy” then those things were not
yet completed. Paul himself said, “”He who has begun a good work
in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ”
(Philippians 1:6). Had the work of salvation begun?
Unequivocally! Was it perfected and finished? Clearly not. It
was an on-going process when Paul wrote.
I am going to ask Kurt to very specifically define the
fuller blessings, the “more intimate relationship,” etc.. What
is“the full benefit of Christ’s atonement” that was being
held in abeyance until AD 70? According to Hebrews 9:28 it
was salvation itself! It was the very thing that Christ
would come to bring as foretold in Romans 11! It was in fact,
the completion of the Atonement process, begun at the Cross. It
was access to the presence of God!
Note these excellent quotes from Consummation of the Ages,
(p. 1): “It is a well established point of scripture that the
redemptive work of Christ was held in abeyance until the
consummation at Christ’s return when faith would be made
sight...the connection between God’s redemptive and
eschatological purpose is essential to a proper understanding of
Revelation.” (My emphasis, DKP). Commenting on Romans 8:15f and
the redemption of creation, Kurt then says: “Paul is here
talking about the coming spiritual justification and
regeneration in Christ that Jew and Gentile would receive at the
time of the consummation in AD 70" (Consummation, 2). So,
salvation, redemption, justification and regeneration were all
future and occurred in AD 70! But wait!
In his announcement of this debate in his March issue of the
S-P, my friend says: “The real issue is where does the Bible
place redemption, atonement, and justification? At the cross or
at the second coming? I affirm the former, Don the latter.”
So, on the one hand, Kurt says justification and redemption and
atonement (thus salvation) occurred at Christ’s AD 70
parousia. On the other hand, he says those things occurred at
the Cross.
Let me frame an argument focusing on “justification.”
Justification comes through being made right with God, i.e.
through forgiveness of sin.
But, “spiritual justification” (not mere deliverance from
physical persecution, DKP) did not come until AD 70 “at the time
of the consummation” (KS).
Therefore, forgiveness of sin did not arrive until AD 70 “at the
time of the consummation.” And let me build on that with a few
more comments about entrance into the MHP.
Why could there be no access to the presence of God (the MHP)
under Torah? The answer is simple: “the blood of bulls and goats
can never take away sin” (Hebrews 10:3-4). Sin was the one thing
separating man from God (see Isaiah 59:1-2). No forgiveness, no
entrance into the MHP! This is an undeniable fact.
Paul said that the Mosaic Law could never offer forgiveness of
sin (Acts 13:38f). It could not give life or righteousness
(Galatians 3:20-21). Torah could not make the worshipper perfect
in regard to the conscience (Hebrews 9:8-9; 10:1-4).
Now, Kurt says that forgiveness, justification and salvation
were completed and fully available to the believer before AD 70.
He claims that the fall of Jerusalem was “irrelevant in regard
to salvation.” Yet, he claims that man could not enter the MHP
as long as the first tabernacle (the Mosaic Covenant!) stood,
and, he says that man could not enter the MHP until AD 70!
Do you see the problem here? It is severe, and inescapable
for my friend.
Here is my argument:
There could be no access to the presence of God while the first
tabernacle (the Mosaic Covenant, KS) stood because that Mosaic
Covenant could not provide forgiveness of sin.
The believers could not enter the MHP (the presence of God)
until AD 70 (KS).
Therefore, there was no full bestowal of true forgiveness of sin
until AD 70.
Now, note that the promise of forgiveness, justification
and salvation was in fact given from Pentecost onward: “Repent
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the forgiveness of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit...” But, as my friend aptly states: “The
Christian’s access to the presence of God was forestalled
pending passage of the Mosaic age. Thus, the Hebrew (sic) writer
calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come.’ At
the time of his writing, they were not yet come; but they were
very near....During the interim, in token of God’s promise, the
church was given miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost in earnest
of the inheritance until the redemption of the purchased
possession (Ephesians 1:13-14). The church was the purchase of
God; its redemption was tied to the fall of Jerusalem (Luke
21:28), not in terms of the expiation of sin, but from the
persecution attending those days, and the consummation of the
ages and culmination of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ” (Consummation,
231).
Very often, the NT writers spoke of forgiveness, salvation,
redemption, etc. as present realities when in fact they were
speaking proleptically. They had the guarantee of the
imminent fulfillment of those things, the coming objective
reality, so that they spoke of them as present realities, when
in fact they were promises, guaranteed by the Spirit.
Lamentably, my friend tries to both affirm the truth and deny it
at the same time! He says correctly that the good things to come
typified by the Mosaic Law had not arrived when Hebrews was
written, and as a result, they could not enter the MHP. Well,
wasn’t entrance into the MHP one of those “good things to come,”
and wasn’t that entrance inextricably tied to expiation for sin,
to spiritual salvation?
Then, Kurt claims that the redemption purchased by Christ which
they were awaiting had nothing to do with expiation of sin
and salvation, but was deliverance from persecution! So,
although they could still not enter the MHP– which was due to no
bestowal of forgiveness– the redemption that Christ had
purchased and was deliverance from physical persecution! We
are to believe that Jesus died to deliver them from physical
persecution? We are to believe that the Spirit was the
guarantee of physical deliverance from persecution? This is
patently false.
Furthermore, did the animal sacrifices and priestly functions
typify physical deliverance from persecution? If so, we will
demand proof of such a claim. My friend admits that the animal
sacrifices and High Priestly actions were typical of coming
“better things” that had not arrived before AD 70. Unless my
friend can definitively prove that the animal sacrifices and
that the High Priestly actions did not, in any way, typify
spiritual atonement, spiritual salvation, spiritual realities,
then he cannot affirm the completed reality of the spiritual
blessings prior to the fulfillment of those typological
sacrifices and practices.
In 2 Corinthians 3-6 Paul discourses on the then present
fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 and the prophecy of the restoration of
Israel under Messiah. He speaks of the transition from the Old
Covenant glory to the New– which was the work of the Spirit in
and through his ministry (2 Corinthians 3:16-4:1-2). That
was the miraculous ministry of the Spirit. But watch
this.
Not only was the Spirit the medium and power of Paul’s ministry
of covenant transformation, Paul also said the Spirit was
the guarantee (arrabon, the same word as in Ephesians
1:13f) of the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:4-7): “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...!”
Now, I want the reader to contemplate this. The Spirit was the
earnest (guarantee) of the coming, soon coming from Paul’s
perspective, resurrection and being clothed with the “heavenly
dwelling,” the New Covenant Tabernacle foretold by Ezekiel 37.
Will my friend say that this resurrection life was merely
physical? It is what they were very eagerly waiting for, and it
is what the miraculous gifts of the Spirit guaranteed. This is
the redemption of the purchased possession in Ephesians 1:13f ,
and has nothing to do with deliverance from physical
tribulation. This is spiritual salvation that had not yet been
delivered, not yet perfected, not yet realized.
Notice that the same Spirit that was miraculously empowering
(and thus guaranteeing) Paul’s ministry of covenant
transformation from the ministration of death, to the
ministration of life (2 Corinthians 3:6f), was likewise
empowering and guaranteeing the imminent realization of the
resurrection. These were synchronous and related events. The
process was not yet completed.
Notice also:
The resurrection was to be the salvation of Israel (Isaiah
25:6-9).
The salvation of Isaiah 25:6-9 is the salvation promised in
Isaiah 27 / Romans 11:26f, the salvation to come at the Day of
the Lord.
In Paul’s day, the Holy Spirit was the guarantee of that coming
resurrection / salvation.
That resurrection, thus, Israel’s salvation, had not yet
come when Paul wrote Romans 11.
Thus, the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f was yet future
when Paul wrote. It did not come at the Cross.
I cannot fail to note an extreme irony here. Kurt is denying
that the end of the Mosaic Covenant age arrived in AD 70. Yet,
his book, Consummation of the Ages, is dedicated to
proving that the end of the age arrived in AD 70! Here is
one quote of several that could be given: “Christ tied the
judgment to the end of the Mosaic age and the destruction of
Jerusalem” (Consummation, 2003, p. 229). But, Kurt has
signed a proposition to deny that the end of the Mosaic
age occurred in AD 70!
To say the least, this is a fatal self contradiction. You
cannot affirm on the one hand that the Mosaic Covenant age ended
at the Cross, and then affirm that the end of that age did not
arrive until AD 70!
Thus, Kurt cannot argue that Romans 11 posits salvation as
completed at the Cross and that man fully possessed that
salvation, for that would demand that man could enter the MHP
from the Cross onward. Kurt himself denies this. Kurt
Simmons has established my affirmative proposition for me!
When Was Sin Defeated? AD 70 or the Cross?
Preston's First Affirmative
(Note: Kurt and I originally agreed to 12 pages per presentation. We have now agreed to 14 pages per presentation being permitted per man)
It is an honor to discuss this important topic with my good friend Kurt Simmons. I know that this will be a friendly debate that all readers may profit from. It is likewise an important issue. Was the salvation process perfected and completed at the Cross, as Kurt affirms, or, was the Cross the initiation of a process that was not consummated until the AD 70 parousia? The latter is, in my view, patently the correct Biblical view, and I will seek to vindicate that claim.
Here is my proposition:
Resolved: The Bible teaches that the coming of Christ for salvation in Romans 11:25-27 occurred in AD 70 at the climax and termination of the Mosaic Covenant Age.
Affirm: Don K. Preston
Deny: Kurt Simmons
Let me state now what this debate is not about:
Kurt and I both agree that Christ’s second coming occurred in AD 70.
Kurt and I both agree that the resurrection occurred in AD 70. We have differences in regard to the nature and framework of the resurrection– differences that will be noted as we proceed, but, we both affirm the reality of the resurrection in AD 70.
This debate is not in any way about whether the Cross of Christ is the ground and source for the salvation of mankind.
This debate is whether the salvation that is dependent on the Cross was finished at the Cross, or, whether the Cross was part of a complex of events. The Cross initiated the salvific process, the parousia (Christ’s second coming), finalized that process.
The Prophetic Background of Romans 11 Proves That the Coming of the Lord Paul Anticipated Was the AD 70 Coming of Christ
When Paul spoke of the coming of the Lord for salvation to take away Israel’s sin, he cites three OT prophecies: Isaiah 27:9f, Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:29f. (Another text, Daniel 9:24f clearly lies behind Romans 11 as well. I will try to get to that in this debate). For the moment, we will focus on the two prophecies from Isaiah.
In an article responding to Kurt’s assessment of Romans 11 I noted that the time of Israel’s salvation according to Isaiah 27:9f would be when YHVH took away her sin, in the day that the altar was turned to chalkstone, God would forget the people He had created, and have no mercy on them. I further noted that according to the antecedent references to “in that day” that this would be when YHVH would come and avenge the blood of the martyrs. (See my articles at: www.eschatology.org.
Here is the argument I made:
The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin would be the coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 27:9f.
The coming of the Lord in Isaiah 27:9f would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood (Isaiah 26:20f).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans 11:26 would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
My friend responded that “there have been many days of the Lord, and that to avenge innocent blood” (S-P, p. 2). He rightly notes that the Babylonian invasion was to avenge the martyrs’ blood in the sixth century (2 Kings 24:1-4; Jeremiah 2-4:13). Simmons is correct in his basic thought. What he fails to honor is that Jesus said that all of the blood of all the righteous, all the way back to creation, would be avenged in his generation (Matthew 23:29-37). Jesus’ statement includes the comprehensive and consummative avenging of the blood of the martyrs that were in measure “avenged” in the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions! So, while those judgments came as a result of Israel’s bloodguilt, there is no question that in the mind of Jesus the bloodguilt of Jerusalem was not fully avenged in those judgments.
Please catch this: my friend admits in a footnote (S-P, July 2009, p. 2), “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.” Well, if this is true, then Paul could, after all, be citing Isaiah to speak of the AD 70 judgment, could he not? If not, why not? So, Kurt, tell us plainly: Does (can) Isaiah 27:9 have a plenior sensus application to AD 70, or not? Yes or No?
When I took note of my friend’s admission that Isaiah 26-27 could refer to AD 70, in his second response (Sept., 2009, S-P), Kurt then did a 180% reversal and denied that Isaiah 27 could refer to AD 70. Why? Because that admission is fatal to his view of Romans 11. He said it referred to the Assyrian invasion of the eighth century BC! But then, he changed again and claimed that Isaiah 27 speaks of “the basic promise to bring salvation, notwithstanding the unfaithfulness of the people” that Paul had in mind when he referenced Isaiah (S-P, Sept, 2009, 3). In other words, he says Isaiah 27 foretold the Cross. I want the reader to catch the full power of what Kurt has done.
The actual text of Isaiah 27:9 says: “By this then, will Jacob’s guilt be atoned for, and this will be the full fruitage of the removal of his sin, when He makes the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces.” (NASV) Words could hardly be clearer.
But, here is what Kurt does:
He says Isaiah 27 cannot be AD 70 because Israel was not guilty of literal idolatry at that time.
However, Kurt says that Isaiah 27 does predict the Cross of Christ, although there was no literal idolatry at that time!
Patently, if Isaiah 27 cannot refer to AD 70 because Israel was not guilty of literal idolatry at that time, then logically, you cannot argue that Isaiah 27 foretold the Cross for the identical reason! My friend’s logic is self contradictory to say the very least.
On the one hand Kurt tells us that Isaiah 27 has nothing to do with AD 70, but it is a prediction of salvation at the Cross which Paul had in mind in Romans 11. But, this completely denies the actual content and wording of the text! This claim has no textual or contextual corroboration whatsoever. If so, Kurt must produce it.
How can Paul have the Cross in mind in Romans 11 when appealing to a text that is emphatically and specifically predictive of salvation through judgment: “By this then, will Jacob’s guilt be atoned for.... when He makes the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces”? Kurt is asking us to ignore, no, to deny, the specific words of Isaiah and read into the text a topic unrelated to the prophetic words!
I am going to ask, no, I will insist, that my friend answer this question without evasion or obfuscation. This is a critical issue of hermeneutics. What is there in the text of Isaiah 26-27 that even suggests the Cross, and not judgment? What is your hermeneutic for ignoring the emphatic words of the text, and then for insisting that we read into the text something that is not there?
There is not one word in Isaiah 27 about the Cross. Isaiah 27 is a judgment coming of the Lord to avenge innocent blood. But, Jesus’ Cross was not a judgment coming to avenge innocent blood.
A word here about type and anti-type. I have no problem affirming that Isaiah 26-27 was a type of AD 70– as Kurt initially suggested. However, to suggest that the judgment of Isaiah was typological of a future event excludes the Cross! Types were foreshadowings of things similar to themselves. This is axiomatic. Thus, the invasion and judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood could well be typological of the last days judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
However, to suggest that Assyria’s judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood was typological of the Cross–which was in no way a judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood-- is disjunctive and illogical. There is no similarity, of any kind. There is no foreshadowing likeness. There is no type and anti-type. Thus, if the Assyrian invasion and judgment of Israel was typological, as Kurt initially admitted, then it was typological of the AD 70 judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, and not the Cross.
Note that this coming of the Lord in Isaiah 26:20f / 27:9f is also the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19– Will Kurt deny that Isaiah 26:19f is a resurrection text? It is the same resurrection as in Isaiah 25:8 that is the source of Paul’s resurrection hope! If he admits that it is, this demands that the Day of the Lord of v. 20– and the salvation of Israel in 27:9f are all synchronous). So, here is my argument:
The coming of the Lord of Romans 11:26 is the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27.
The coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27 is the coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19-21).
The coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection was in AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f was the AD 70 coming of the Lord.
It will not do for Kurt to ignore this. This is a question of hermeneutics. How can Kurt insist that Isaiah 27 is the Cross and that Paul had the Cross in mind when he cited Isaiah, a text that does not mention the Cross? So, again, Kurt, where in Isaiah 26-27 do you find the prediction of the Cross? Kurt faces the same problem with Isaiah 59.
Isaiah 59
The prophecy of Isaiah 59 breaks itself down very naturally into three headings:
Accusation – YHVH accused Israel of shedding innocent blood, of violence and unrighteousness (v. 1-8).
Acknowledgment – Israel admitted her guilt, but, it is clear that there is no true repentance in the text (v. 9-15).
Action – The Lord saw Israel in her sinful condition and, “His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him for He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for His clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies...”
So, just like Isaiah 27, this chapter is concerned with the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for her guilt in shedding innocent blood. Three times this sin is mentioned (v. 3, 6-7)! And yet, not a word about the Cross!
Notice that the Intercessor puts on the garments of a Warrior. He would clothe himself with the garments of vengeance to recompense his enemies. This is the coming of the Lord in verse 20: “The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob” Verse 20 is not a different coming from that in verses 16-19! It is one and the same coming, the coming of Christ in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
So, here is the argument:
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.
But, the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
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.
Isaiah 59 presents the identical hermeneutical challenge as Isaiah 26-27.
If Kurt claims that Isaiah 59 was not Messianic, then it assuredly does not predict the Cross.
If he admits that Isaiah 59 is Messianic, and predictive of the Cross, he must produce the verse.
If he claims that in spite of the fact that the Cross is not mentioned in Isaiah 59 that we must see it there, this is eisegesis. That is imposing a theological presupposition on a text. When we begin doing this, we can prove any position that we want!
Kurt’s challenge is daunting: Explain why Paul cites two Old Testament prophecies of the coming of Christ in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, when, according to Kurt, Paul was not concerned in any way with the fulfillment of prophecies of Christ’s judgment coming. Why would Paul cite two prophecies that had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with his subject matter? Why didn’t Paul cite one of the many OT prophecies of the Passion of Jesus available to him, if this was his topic?
Instead, Paul cited two major OT prophecies that foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. For my friend to find Christ’s Passion in Romans 11, he must find it in Isaiah 26-27 or Isaiah 59. It is not there! Kurt must therefore import it into prophecies that do not mention it, and then assume that Paul likewise imported it in Romans 11! What is the hermeneutical justification for this? Is this not, prima facie, eisegesis (reading into the text), and not exegesis (drawing out of the text what is there)? Our theology must flow from text, not presuppositions.
Remember one of the primary rules of hermeneutic: “A text cannot mean what it never meant!” So, if Isaiah 26-27 and 59 did not predict Christ’s Passion then my friend cannot apply Isaiah’s prophecies of the judgment to Jesus’ Passion without making those texts mean what they never meant!
Both Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 are Messianic and Paul’s citation of them in Romans 11 means that Paul had the judgment coming of Christ in mind in Romans 11. I will have more to say about the prophetic source of Romans 11 in my next affirmative.
Now, should Kurt once again admit that: “We do not disallow the possibility that there is a plenior sensus (fuller meaning, DKP), to Isaiah 26:21 (or Isaiah 59, DKP) that may look beyond its historical setting to Christ’s second coming” this demands the AD 70 fulfillment.
When I presented these arguments in my initial article, Kurt responded: “The solution is quite simple: When did God provide the remedy for sin? At the fall of Jerusalem or at the Cross? The Deliverer came to Zion and brought forgiveness of sin when Jesus died on the Cross, not when Jerusalem was destroyed.” So, Kurt completely ignored the context and emphatic words of of Isaiah 27 and 59 and imposed his presuppositional theology onto those prophecies!
My friend Kurt engaged in a diversionary tactic in his attempt to negate my arguments on Isaiah’s prophecies. Kurt stated an axiom denied by no one: i.e. The Cross is God’s provision for sin. But, as I will prove, Kurt does not believe that the Cross, as a stand alone event, brought salvation. The Cross must be viewed as a complex of inseparably related events. Further, I will show that the benefits of the Cross were not applied until AD 70, and that Kurt Simmons is on record as agreeing with this!
Let me move now to prove that salvation was not completed at the Cross.
Let me say now that Kurt does not believe–cannot believe– what he will affirm. He will affirm that the coming of Christ for salvation occurred at the Cross, and that no other events were necessary to perfect that salvation. That is patently false. Here is why. Kurt believes, as I do, that Jesus had to ascend to the Father and into the Most Holy Place, there to “prepare a place for us” (Hebrews 9:24). But, that event was forty days after the Cross! Thus, Kurt’s own position affirms that salvation was not completed at the Cross. A process was begun, but had to be finished, and it was not finished at the Ascension!
Kurt may respond that the amount of time is insignificant. It is not. Admitting that Christ had to enter the MHP–forty days after the Cross– is to admit that the Cross– as a stand alone event- did not complete salvation. It is to admit my position, that the obtaining of salvation was a process begun at the Cross, but perfected through a series of related events– including the parousia.
The question is: “Why did Jesus have to ascend and enter the MHP?” The significance of this cannot be overlooked, and Hebrews 9:6-10 holds the key.
Hebrews 9– Atonement and Entrance Into the Most Holy Place:
“These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.” (RSV. See also the NASV)
The RSV and NASV, in contrast to other translations, properly render the present active indicatives of the text. Paul was undeniably speaking of the contemporary cultic practice in the temple. Note that Paul affirms that the entire cultic world “is a figure for the time now present.” That was Paul’s present time. He did not affirm that those typological practices and sacrifices had been nullified! This is critical!
Note that the Old Law, including the washings and sacrifices would stand imposed, “until the time of reformation.” Kurt says the time of reformation arrived at the Cross. This is a clear-cut violation of the present active indicatives of Hebrews 9, and Paul’s statement that those things were, when he wrote “a figure for the present time.” Kurt even admits that the good things to come symbolized by those sacrifices and practices did not come at the Cross, but were about to come: “The Hebrews writer calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come’ (Hebrews 9:11; cf. 2:5; 6:5; 10:1). At the time of his writing, they were not yet come, but were very near” (Consummation of the Ages, 2003, 231). This demands that the typological Atonement praxis of the Torah, were about to be fulfilled at Christ’s parousia. The Atonement was not yet perfected.
Paul says that as long as the Old Law– with its sacrifices and washings– stood imposed, there was no access to the Most Holy Place.
Now, the reader must catch the power of this: My good friend says the saints could not enter the MHP until the end of the Mosaic age, in AD 70! Here is what he says in Consummation of the Ages: “True to the ‘already-but-not-yet’ character of the transition period between the Cross and the coming of Christ, the ‘way into the holiest of all was not yet manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing’ (Hebrews 9:8). The Christian’s access to the presence of God was forestalled pending passage of the Mosaic age” (p. 231, My emphasis). This is precisely my position, but, destructive to Kurt’s.
To make it unmistakably clear that it was the Mosaic Law that had to pass in AD 70, (Not at the Cross), read my brother’s comments on Hebrews 9: “The writer of Hebrews says that the two compartments of the first tabernacle (temple) stood for two covenants: the first compartment, the Holy Place, for the Old Testament in which were offered gifts and sacrifices that could not make the worshipper soteriologically perfect; the second compartment, which he calls the Holiest of all, for the New Testament” (Adumbrations, 2009, 220).
Here is my argument, based on the text of Hebrews 9 and Kurt’s admissions:
The first compartment of the tabernacle (temple) represented the Mosaic Covenant.
As long as the first compartment (the Mosaic Covenant) stood imposed (binding) there was no access to the presence of God (the MHP).
The saints had no access to the MHP until the destruction of Jerusalem (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, the first compartment (The Mosaic Covenant) of the tabernacle (temple) stood imposed until the destruction of Jerusalem. This is logically (and textually) irrefutable.
Let me confirm this with the following from Kurt’s own keyboard, as he comments on Revelation 15:8 and its relationship to Hebrews 9: “The way into heaven was not opened until God’s wrath upon Jerusalem is fulfilled. The way into the holiest was not yet manifested while the first tabernacle was yet standing (Hebrews 9:8)”(Consummation of the Ages, 2003, p. 292 (My emphasis, DKP). So, Revelation 15 and Hebrews 9:6-10 both speak of the same time, and the same event- entrance into the presence of God. Kurt himself makes these events synchronous! But, this demands that the Mosaic Law remained imposed until AD 70. This is logically and textually inescapable.
On this argument alone, my affirmative proposition is demonstrated as true. But there is more.
Entrance into the MHP was dependent on two things: the removal of Torah and the completion of the Wrath of God. This is not an either / or situation, it is both! The NT writers never suggest that it was first the removal of Torah at the Cross, and then, 40 years later the fulfillment of God’s wrath–after all, fulfillment of God’s wrath was fulfillment of Torah! The truth is that AD 70 was the judgment of that ineffective Mosaic Law, that could never take away sin! It was the judgment of the ministration of death. It was the judgment of the law that was the strength of sin. As Kurt himself has well said: “Continuation of the Mosaic Law and temple ritual stood in very denial of Christ’s sacrifice, priesthood, and Sonship; it is fitting that they were deemed the most glorious spoils of the war” (Consummation, 349). God judged that “first tabernacle” (the Mosaic Covenant per Kurt) that prevented man from entering His presence, and then and only then could man enter the presence of God.
We must ask Kurt to answer some very important questions.
1.) Since you will affirm that salvation was completed at the Cross, and since salvation is directly related to entrance into the MHP, why is it that man could not enter the MHP at the moment of the Cross? Please tell us specifically.
2.) If Torah– which prevented access to the MHP-- was removed at the Cross as you affirm, then why could not man enter the MHP from the time of the Cross? Paul is emphatic that it was the abiding imposition of Torah that prevented access to the MHP! Imposition of Torah– no access to the MHP. No Torah– Access to the MHP at the time of the reformation.
So, if Torah, which prevented access to the MHP, was abrogated at the Cross, (and if this is the coming of the Lord for salvation in Romans 11:25f), then man could enter the MHP from the time of the Cross. But remember that Kurt himself denies that man could enter the MHP until AD 70, due to the abiding standing of the “first tabernacle” i.e. the Mosaic Covenant!. This is a fatal, logical self contradiction.
You cannot on the one hand affirm that that which kept man from the MHP was removed at the Cross, and then claim that man still could not enter the MHP until AD 70! Do not forget that removal of Torah and completion of vengeance were equal, synchronous conditions for entrance into the MHP. Kurt cannot focus on the vengeance aspect and deny what Paul has to say about the continuing imposition of Torah until man could enter the MHP at the parousia.
Here is a related affirmative argument:
Kurt admits that entrance into the MHP was at the second coming in AD 70.
But the time of reformation is when man could enter the MHP.
Thus, the time of reformation did not arrive until the second coming AD 70.
This means that Torah remained imposed until AD 70, because Torah would stand “until the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10).
Remember that I noted that Kurt will agree that Christ had to enter into the MHP in order to fulfill the typological actions of the High Priest under Torah. He does not believe that salvation was perfected while Jesus was on the Cross, before he entered the MHP! Kurt’s position on this demands that the “ceremonial commandments” of Torah were not completed at the Cross. Christ’s entrance into the MHP fulfilled “ceremonial commandments” (typological actions) of Torah, thus, Torah remained as a type and shadow at least until Christ entered into the MHP.
This means that Kurt cannot argue that salvation was completed at the moment of the Cross.
The question is, how can Kurt deny the absolute necessity of Christ’s second coming to fulfill those same typological actions of the High Priest?
Kurt wants to short circuit the Atonement process and have it completed while Jesus was on the Cross. But wait, no, he will insist that Jesus had to enter the MHP forty days after the Cross! But then he will deny that Christ had to “come again the second time, apart from sin, for salvation”to complete that atonement process! But wait, no, that is not correct, for Kurt says Christ had to come again (AD 70) for man to enter the MHP, i.e. to bring salvation!
In Hebrews 9 it is the “ceremonial commandments,” the sacrifices and cultic actions that Paul affirmed were types and shadows imposed until the time of reformation when man could enter the MHP. Paul said those things were, when he wrote, typological of the coming better things, the time of reformation. And remember that Kurt agrees that those “good things to come” symbolized by those sacrifices and cultic actions had not yet come: “The Hebrews writer calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come’ (Hebrews 9:11; cf. 2:5; 6:5; 10:1). At the time of his writing, they were not yet come, but were very near” (Consummation of the Ages, 2003, 231). Thus, the ceremonial commandments had not been annulled at the Cross, and were still imposed when Paul wrote. Torah had not passed!
So on the one hand Kurt affirms that those ceremonial commandments- in fact the Torah itself!-- were fulfilled and abrogated at the Cross, but on the other hand, he affirms that the typological, ceremonial commandments had not been fulfilled, and were still unfulfilled and imposed!
But, note again, that the Hebrews author cites the typological actions of the High Priest and Jesus’ fulfillment of those actions. The HP would slay the sacrifice, and Christ had appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The High Priest entered the MHP, and Christ had entered the MHP (Hebrews 9:24). And while the author does not specifically say the HP came out, Hebrews 9:28 says, “And to those who eagerly look for him he shall appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Now, take note of Hebrews 10:1: “For, the Law having a shadow of good things about to come...” Note the connective particle “gar” translated as “for” in 10:1.
This word ties 9:28 to 10:1, and explains why Christ had to appear the second time. He had to appear the second time “for the law, having a shadow of good things (about) to come.” Christ’s second coming was to fulfill the typological, ceremonial commandments and practices of the law! That “for” cannot be ignored, and proves that Christ’s second coming was the fulfillment of the typological commandments of Torah. The Day of Atonement is clearly the context. The “for” demands that Christ’s second appearing is the fulfillment of the Atonement typology. This cannot be ignored, and it means that the end of the Mosaic Covenant– and salvation and the Atonement-- did not come until Christ’s parousia in AD 70!
Note also that 10:1 says that the good things typified by “the law” (note again the present indicatives in 10:1, and note that Kurt acknowledges that Hebrews 10:1 spoke of the yet unfulfilled aspect of Torah), were “about to come.” For the Hebrews writer, the better things typified by the Atonement cultus– entrance into the MHP-- were “about to come (from mello).” (Note that Kurt agrees that mello means “about to be, about to come” (Consummation, p. 1). This is the salvation of 9:28. It is the time of reformation anticipated by the typological, ceremonial commandments. It had not yet arrived, but was “about to.”
So, Christ’s second appearing was to finalize the Atonement process. Kurt even agrees that the temple sacrifices were “a shadow of the substitutionary death and atoning blood of Christ” (Hebrews 9:12; 10:1-4) (Consummation, 231).This logically demands that the Atonement and thus salvation was not completed at the Cross. If it were, man could enter the MHP at the moment of the Cross!
To negate this argument Kurt must prove that while the death of Jesus was the fulfillment of the Atonement typology, and while his entrance into the MHP was the fulfillment of the Atonement typology, his reappearing was unrelated to the Atonement practices of the High Priest. Kurt cannot do this.
I have proven that entrance into the MHP– which could only come at the completion of the Atonement-- is inseparably related to the end of the Torah. This is what Hebrews 9 unequivocally affirms!
Stated simply, Hebrews 9 proves this:
Torah standing valid– no access to the MHP. This is irrefutable.
Torah removed– access to the MHP (the Atonement perfected). This is undeniable.
I have proven– and Kurt agrees– that entrance into the MHP did not take place until AD 70. This is prima facie validation of my proposition that the full end of the Mosaic Covenant age was at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.
In two articles challenging my position on Romans 11 Kurt essentially surrendered his position. He said of Christ’s betrothal / marriage, “We agree that the full benefit of Christ’s atonement was held in partial abeyance until the consummation of the Lamb’s marriage with the bride. The church was betrothed to Christ beginning at Pentecost, but did not enjoy the fullness of the New Testament intimacy until the consummation in AD 70” (Sword and Plow, Sept., 2009– hereafter S-P. His emphasis).
Now, clearly, a person betrothed is not “fully married” and simply awaiting the manifestation of that marriage. What is being held in “abeyance” is the finalization of the marriage. The betrothal is the initiation of a process, the marriage is the consummation of the process, just like the Cross and parousia.
If the body of Christ was waiting for salvation and “the fullness of New Testament intimacy” then those things were not yet completed. Paul himself said, “”He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). Had the work of salvation begun? Unequivocally! Was it perfected and finished? Clearly not. It was an on-going process when Paul wrote.
I am going to ask Kurt to very specifically define the fuller blessings, the “more intimate relationship,” etc.. What is“the full benefit of Christ’s atonement” that was being held in abeyance until AD 70? According to Hebrews 9:28 it was salvation itself! It was the very thing that Christ would come to bring as foretold in Romans 11! It was in fact, the completion of the Atonement process, begun at the Cross. It was access to the presence of God!
Note these excellent quotes from Consummation of the Ages, (p. 1): “It is a well established point of scripture that the redemptive work of Christ was held in abeyance until the consummation at Christ’s return when faith would be made sight...the connection between God’s redemptive and eschatological purpose is essential to a proper understanding of Revelation.” (My emphasis, DKP). Commenting on Romans 8:15f and the redemption of creation, Kurt then says: “Paul is here talking about the coming spiritual justification and regeneration in Christ that Jew and Gentile would receive at the time of the consummation in AD 70" (Consummation, 2). So, salvation, redemption, justification and regeneration were all future and occurred in AD 70! But wait!
In his announcement of this debate in his March issue of the S-P, my friend says: “The real issue is where does the Bible place redemption, atonement, and justification? At the cross or at the second coming? I affirm the former, Don the latter.”
So, on the one hand, Kurt says justification and redemption and atonement (thus salvation) occurred at Christ’s AD 70 parousia. On the other hand, he says those things occurred at the Cross.
Let me frame an argument focusing on “justification.”
Justification comes through being made right with God, i.e. through forgiveness of sin.
But, “spiritual justification” (not mere deliverance from physical persecution, DKP) did not come until AD 70 “at the time of the consummation” (KS).
Therefore, forgiveness of sin did not arrive until AD 70 “at the time of the consummation.” And let me build on that with a few more comments about entrance into the MHP.
Why could there be no access to the presence of God (the MHP) under Torah? The answer is simple: “the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin” (Hebrews 10:3-4). Sin was the one thing separating man from God (see Isaiah 59:1-2). No forgiveness, no entrance into the MHP! This is an undeniable fact.
Paul said that the Mosaic Law could never offer forgiveness of sin (Acts 13:38f). It could not give life or righteousness (Galatians 3:20-21). Torah could not make the worshipper perfect in regard to the conscience (Hebrews 9:8-9; 10:1-4).
Now, Kurt says that forgiveness, justification and salvation were completed and fully available to the believer before AD 70. He claims that the fall of Jerusalem was “irrelevant in regard to salvation.” Yet, he claims that man could not enter the MHP as long as the first tabernacle (the Mosaic Covenant!) stood, and, he says that man could not enter the MHP until AD 70! Do you see the problem here? It is severe, and inescapable for my friend.
Here is my argument:
There could be no access to the presence of God while the first tabernacle (the Mosaic Covenant, KS) stood because that Mosaic Covenant could not provide forgiveness of sin.
The believers could not enter the MHP (the presence of God) until AD 70 (KS).
Therefore, there was no full bestowal of true forgiveness of sin until AD 70.
Now, note that the promise of forgiveness, justification and salvation was in fact given from Pentecost onward: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...” But, as my friend aptly states: “The Christian’s access to the presence of God was forestalled pending passage of the Mosaic age. Thus, the Hebrew (sic) writer calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come.’ At the time of his writing, they were not yet come; but they were very near....During the interim, in token of God’s promise, the church was given miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost in earnest of the inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:13-14). The church was the purchase of God; its redemption was tied to the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:28), not in terms of the expiation of sin, but from the persecution attending those days, and the consummation of the ages and culmination of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ” (Consummation, 231).
Very often, the NT writers spoke of forgiveness, salvation, redemption, etc. as present realities when in fact they were speaking proleptically. They had the guarantee of the imminent fulfillment of those things, the coming objective reality, so that they spoke of them as present realities, when in fact they were promises, guaranteed by the Spirit.
Lamentably, my friend tries to both affirm the truth and deny it at the same time! He says correctly that the good things to come typified by the Mosaic Law had not arrived when Hebrews was written, and as a result, they could not enter the MHP. Well, wasn’t entrance into the MHP one of those “good things to come,” and wasn’t that entrance inextricably tied to expiation for sin, to spiritual salvation?
Then, Kurt claims that the redemption purchased by Christ which they were awaiting had nothing to do with expiation of sin and salvation, but was deliverance from persecution! So, although they could still not enter the MHP– which was due to no bestowal of forgiveness– the redemption that Christ had purchased and was deliverance from physical persecution! We are to believe that Jesus died to deliver them from physical persecution? We are to believe that the Spirit was the guarantee of physical deliverance from persecution? This is patently false.
Furthermore, did the animal sacrifices and priestly functions typify physical deliverance from persecution? If so, we will demand proof of such a claim. My friend admits that the animal sacrifices and High Priestly actions were typical of coming “better things” that had not arrived before AD 70. Unless my friend can definitively prove that the animal sacrifices and that the High Priestly actions did not, in any way, typify spiritual atonement, spiritual salvation, spiritual realities, then he cannot affirm the completed reality of the spiritual blessings prior to the fulfillment of those typological sacrifices and practices.
In 2 Corinthians 3-6 Paul discourses on the then present fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 and the prophecy of the restoration of Israel under Messiah. He speaks of the transition from the Old Covenant glory to the New– which was the work of the Spirit in and through his ministry (2 Corinthians 3:16-4:1-2). That was the miraculous ministry of the Spirit. But watch this.
Not only was the Spirit the medium and power of Paul’s ministry of covenant transformation, Paul also said the Spirit was the guarantee (arrabon, the same word as in Ephesians 1:13f) of the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:4-7): “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...!”
Now, I want the reader to contemplate this. The Spirit was the earnest (guarantee) of the coming, soon coming from Paul’s perspective, resurrection and being clothed with the “heavenly dwelling,” the New Covenant Tabernacle foretold by Ezekiel 37. Will my friend say that this resurrection life was merely physical? It is what they were very eagerly waiting for, and it is what the miraculous gifts of the Spirit guaranteed. This is the redemption of the purchased possession in Ephesians 1:13f , and has nothing to do with deliverance from physical tribulation. This is spiritual salvation that had not yet been delivered, not yet perfected, not yet realized.
Notice that the same Spirit that was miraculously empowering (and thus guaranteeing) Paul’s ministry of covenant transformation from the ministration of death, to the ministration of life (2 Corinthians 3:6f), was likewise empowering and guaranteeing the imminent realization of the resurrection. These were synchronous and related events. The process was not yet completed.
Notice also:
The resurrection was to be the salvation of Israel (Isaiah 25:6-9).
The salvation of Isaiah 25:6-9 is the salvation promised in Isaiah 27 / Romans 11:26f, the salvation to come at the Day of the Lord.
In Paul’s day, the Holy Spirit was the guarantee of that coming resurrection / salvation.
That resurrection, thus, Israel’s salvation, had not yet come when Paul wrote Romans 11.
Thus, the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f was yet future when Paul wrote. It did not come at the Cross.
I cannot fail to note an extreme irony here. Kurt is denying that the end of the Mosaic Covenant age arrived in AD 70. Yet, his book, Consummation of the Ages, is dedicated to proving that the end of the age arrived in AD 70! Here is one quote of several that could be given: “Christ tied the judgment to the end of the Mosaic age and the destruction of Jerusalem” (Consummation, 2003, p. 229). But, Kurt has signed a proposition to deny that the end of the Mosaic age occurred in AD 70!
To say the least, this is a fatal self contradiction. You cannot affirm on the one hand that the Mosaic Covenant age ended at the Cross, and then affirm that the end of that age did not arrive until AD 70!
Thus, Kurt cannot argue that Romans 11 posits salvation as completed at the Cross and that man fully possessed that salvation, for that would demand that man could enter the MHP from the Cross onward. Kurt himself denies this. Kurt Simmons has established my affirmative proposition for me!
Remember what Kurt says: “The way into heaven was not opened until God’s wrath upon Jerusalem is fulfilled. The way into the holiest was not yet manifested while the first tabernacle (the Mosaic Covenant per Kurt, DKP) was yet standing (Hebrews 9:8).” Given these statements, it makes one wonder how Kurt could then argue: “the destruction of Jerusalem was irrelevant in terms of man’s redemption and atonement” (From his announcement of our debate). Are we to believe that entrance into the MHP is unrelated to redemption and Atonement? Let me turn Kurt’s statement around in light of Hebrews 9:28:
The coming of Christ at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was “for salvation” (Hebrews 9:28- KS). He also says it would be when spiritual justification and redemption came.
But, “the destruction of Jerusalem was irrelevant in terms of man’s redemption and atonement” (KS).
Therefore, the coming of Christ at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 “for salvation,” (as well as spiritual justification and redemption) “was irrelevant in terms of man’s redemption and atonement.”
How one can argue that Christ’s coming in AD 70 was for salvation, spiritual justification and redemption, and yet was “irrelevant for redemption” is, I must confess, a mystery to me, and many others, and I hope Kurt will clarify his beliefs on this.
Summary and Conclusion
I have proven from the prophetic context of Romans 11 that the coming of the Lord of Romans 11 was to be– and was– the AD 70 judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.
I have demonstrated, prima facie, that the end of the Mosaic Covenant age did not occur until Christ’s AD 70 coming. Hebrews 9 confirms this beyond dispute.
Kurt Simmons specifically states the truth of my affirmative in both of his books.
Will Kurt renounce what he has so eloquently written concerning the end of the Mosaic Covenant age: “Christ tied the judgment to the end of the Mosaic age and the destruction of Jerusalem” (Consummation, 2003, p. 229)? We shall see!
A final question for Kurt. I hope and ask that he answer in his first negative: If a law or covenant has been abrogated, are any of the provisions of that covenant, i.e. its mandates, its promises or penalties (positive or negative) still binding and valid (imposed)? Please answer specifically, clearly, without evasion.
We close with this. Kurt says: “The validity of the “corporate body view” is therefore fully at issue ....It is at issue, because if salvation (justification/atonement) happened at the cross, then the “corporate body view” is erroneous...and must be rejected.” Antithetically of course, for me to prove that the Mosaic Covenant did not pass at the Cross and that the salvation purchased through the Cross was not perfected at the moment of the Cross, validates and proves the corporate body resurrection paradigm.
Scripture, logic and Kurt’s own words have fully established my proposition.
We very much look forward to our friend’s response.
For His Truth, and In His Grace,
Don K. Preston
To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:
All rights reserved.