Preston- V -Simmons

When Was Sin Defeated?  AD 70 or the Cross?

Preston's Second Negative

 

My friend’s desperation mounts. Notice his opening argument:

The church has taught  for 2000 years that salvation occurred at the cross.

Preston denies this.

Therefore, Preston must be wrong.

(Actually, the church has taught that the salvation of Hebrews 9:28 comes at the end of the Christian age, and has never taken Kurt’s view that the salvation was deliverance from persecution!)

Let’s turn Kurt’s logic (?) around:

The church has taught for 2000 years that Christ’s coming occurs at the end of the Christian age.

Kurt denies this.

Therefore, Kurt is wrong.

Do you see how inconsistent Kurt’s use of “logic” is?

 

Isaiah 27– AGAIN

After staking his claim that if I could not produce “even one commentator” in support of the truth that Isaiah 27 applied to AD 70, did you notice that Kurt ignored the fact that I produced such a commentator? Kurt’s logic (?) was: If Preston cannot produce one commentator to support his view, then he is wrong. Well, conversely, that means that since I did produce one (more), that I am right! Instead of conceding that I fulfilled his challenge, he ignored his defeat.

 

In spite of Kurt’s protestations, the facts are undeniable:

Isaiah explicitly says that Israel would be saved through judgment, when the altar would be destroyed.

Virtually all scholars– to use Kurt’s appeal to the scholars-- agree that Paul is citing Isaiah 27.

While Kurt denies the Messianic application of Isaiah 27, the context is united and predicted the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19-27:1).

Kurt turns Isaiah into a disjointed prophecy full of huge chronological gaps.

Israel’s salvation was under Messiah (Hosea 1:10– 1 Peter 2:9). The consummation was at the sounding of the Great Trumpet– in AD 70– just as Jesus –citing Isaiah 27:13-- said (Matthew 24:30-31, 34).

 

KURT ON ISAIAH 59

My friend’s desperation is lamentable. On the one hand he says that a proper exegesis of Isaiah 59 is “a distraction.” He then proceeds to try (vainly) to exegete Isaiah 59! Since when is proper exegesis ever a distraction?

 

Kurt’s “exegesis” of Isaiah 59 is some of the most confused (and false) bits of commentary you will read. Kurt argues: “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.” This is eisegesis. He says the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 59:16-19 is different from that in verse 20f. He offers no proof. He just imposes it on the text, although the context is judgment!

Here is what Kurt does:

 

He says v. 16-19 is judgment, but v. 20 is incarnation. But there is no 600 year gap between verses 16-19 and verses 20f. Kurt is guilty of doing what my dispensational friends do: inserting huge gaps of time into scripture when they cannot accept the proper exegesis of the text.

The context of Isaiah 59 is undeniably judgment, not the incarnation: “He put on the garments of vengeance...according to their deeds he will repay...the Redeemer shall come to Zion.” There is no huge chronological gap. And this means: The coming of Romans 11:26 is the coming of Isaiah 59. The coming of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. Therefore, the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. AD 70. Kurt cannot negate this.

 

DANIEL 9

Kurt distorts Daniel 9. He says v. 27 refers to the “legal termination” of the sacrifices, not the objective cessation. It says no such thing. Messiah would “cause the sacrifice to cease” (in the middle of the week). Kurt agrees that the 70th week ended in AD 70. But, if the seventieth week ended in AD 70, then three and one half years prior to that- the middle of the week demanded by Daniel 9:27, was AD 66. And, Josephus said this is when the daily sacrifice ended (Wars, 6:2:1– (Whiston, p. 731). See Whiston’s remarks in Josephus, in. loc. Daniel 9 says not one word about a “legal termination.” Further, it was Messiah, acting sovereignly, that caused the sacrifices to end, in AD 66! Neither the Jews nor Titus were acting independently of Messiah when the sacrifices ceased!!

This falsifies Kurt’s claim that Torah– and sacrifice-- ended at the cross. (In the P-S, Oct. 2009, Kurt said the prophecy of Daniel 12 and the taking away of the daily sacrifice occurred in 66 AD. Daniel 12 is the reiteration of Daniel 9. Thus, Kurt has falsified his own position, again! The daily sacrifice was not removed at the cross!

Further:

Daniel 9:24 foretold the coming of everlasting righteousness.

Paul and Peter were was still anticipating the arrival of the prophesied everlasting righteousness (Galatians 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13).

Therefore, unless Paul and Peter were anticipating a prophesied world of righteousness different from Daniel, then Daniel 9 was not fulfilled at the cross.

 

Also, Daniel 9 says Messiah would “confirm the covenant” (not make a new one!) for one week. That week is the final 70th week. The covenant being confirmed is Torah (Matthew 5:17 / Romans 15:8). That final week ended in AD 70. Thus, Torah ended in AD 70!

 

ISRAEL AND SALVATION– THE CRUX INTERPRETUM!

Let me reiterate a critical argument that Kurt has repeatedly ignored. This one argument falsifies Kurt’s paradigm.

Salvation was to the Jew first, then the Greek (the nations).

Israel’s salvation (resurrection) was perfected in AD 70 (KS, Isaiah 25:8-9).

Therefore, salvation for the Greek (the nations) was perfected in AD 70.

 

However, Kurt’s theology demands that Gentiles received full salvation before Israel’s salvation was perfected! Kurt, has created another salvation distinct from Israel. Kurt, how did the Gentiles receive salvation before Israel received her salvation? Please answer!!!!

 

If salvation was completed at the cross, then Israel’s salvation (Resurrection! Isaiah 25:8-9; Romans 9:28) was completed at the cross. Yet, Kurt admitted that Romans 9:28 referred to the salvation of “national Israel” in AD 70! [No, destruction!]

This is critical! How could salvation be completed at the cross if Israel’s salvation was in AD 70? How could Israel have been cut off at the cross, if Israel was not saved until AD 70? Or, how could “the saints” have fully received their salvation– as Kurt claims– before the resurrection, the time of Israel’s salvation?

You must not miss this: Every argument Kurt made about atonement, redemption, etc., appealing to the past tense verbs, claiming that those things were completed at the cross, ignores the indisputable fact that those things were promises made to Israel– not the church or individuals– separate from Israel! Kurt admits that Israel’s salvation came in AD 70! Thus, as I have argued repeatedly, we must honor the present and the future tenses of salvation!

 

Israel– and thus Torah-- was not cut off at the cross. Her salvation promises were not fulfilled until the resurrection in AD 70. If Israel did not enter her salvation until AD 70– which Kurt admits– then no one else fully entered into salvation, for salvation was “to the Jew first.”

What did Kurt say in response? Not one syllable!

 

KURT’S FALSE VIEW OF RESURRECTION

Kurt says that resurrection was exclusively the release of the dead from Hades.

This is false.  Look again at my argument on Hosea 13– which Kurt ignored, (Empty box here!):

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection predicted in Hosea 13:14.

The resurrection of Hosea 13:14 would be the resurrection, of Israel, from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2: “When Israel sinned, he died”). It would be resurrection through forgiveness.

Therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection, of Israel, from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2). It would be resurrection through forgiveness.

 

Likewise:

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection, of Israel, from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2) It would be resurrection through forgiveness.

But, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was still future when Paul wrote.

Therefore, the resurrection, of Israel, from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2- i.e. resurrection through forgiveness was still future when Paul wrote.

 

Clearly, while the resurrection of 1 Corinthians included resurrection from Hades, that is not all it included.

Kurt argued: “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.”

First, I am not a “follower of Max King,” although with exceptions, I have great respect for his work. I was 99% a preterist before I even heard of Max King!

Second, Paul is emphatic that it is at the resurrection that sin was finally dealt with: “When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Corinthians 15:54-56). Notice:

The resurrection is the victory over death.

Sin gave death its victory; that which gave sin its strength was “the law.” (Note: when Paul uses the term “the law” without a qualifier, as here, it is invariably Torah!)

Therefore, the resurrection-- AD 70– is when sin– which gave death its victory– was overcome. Thus, resurrection was not, as Kurt falsely claims, simply the overcoming of Hades. It was the overcoming of Hades through the application of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness, as Kurt himself says!

Third, Kurt denies a relationship between sin and death! What then is the “law of sin and death”? And why was physical death “the immediately doom” of sin, as Kurt claims? And note: Kurt even appeals to Colossians 2:12 to speak of resurrection, through forgiveness!

There is a direct relationship between sin-death-justification- resurrection! Kurt posits a direct relationship between sin and death, but no connection between forgiveness and life. This is false. If sin brings death, then forgiveness brings deliverance from death!

 

KURT ON SIN AND DEATH                                                         

Kurt has changed positions, again, on the issue of sin and death. This is critical!  He says physical death was the “immediate doom brought in by sin.” He says, “it is from physical death that the promise of resurrection was given.” Now he tells us, however, that when God threatened Adam with death, that it was not, after all, physical death! Kurt’s view of resurrection is convoluted. If physical death was not the threat for sin, then why was physical death the “immediate doom brought in by sin”?

He says Jesus died a substitutionary death. And, yet Jesus’ physical death on the cross has not kept one single person in history from dying physically! Kurt, why is this? If Jesus died (physically) in my place and your’s, why do believers die physically? Will you now renounce your oft stated position that Jesus died physically as a substitutionary death?

You say that physical death was “the immediate doom brought in by sin.” Why then is physical immortality (no physical death) not the “immediate result” of forgiveness?

 

Let me reiterate another argument – which Kurt ignored, because it falsifies his theology.

Kurt claims  “sin was defeated in Christ’s cross.” He said “the law of sin and death” was nailed to the cross. He says forgiveness of sin was objectively applied from then. Well, if sin brings physical death, then, if sin was defeated, if the law of sin and death was nailed to the cross, and those of faith were (or are) objectively forgiven of sin, then why do Christians have to die physically? Forgiveness is the removal of that which kills, is it not? So, if sin brings physical death, but, a person is forgiven, ostensibly freed from the law of sin and death, why are they still subject to the law of sin and death?

My friend’s view logically demands that the physical death of even the most faithful Christian is a powerful testimony to the lack of forgiveness in their life. Kurt even says that if the Christian sins, “he comes again under the power of sin and death” (S-P, Sept. 09). Thus, physical death is the indisputable proof that the Christian is under the power of sin! And, since that physical death is the final testimony of the power of sin, this logically demands that that person is lost, for the final act in their life was not forgiveness, but the imposition of the law of sin and death: i.e. you sin, you die! The believer’s physical death proves, indisputably, that they were not objectively forgiven, for they died a sinner’s death! So, exactly how did Jesus nail the law of sin and death to the cross, Kurt?

 

So, Kurt tells us that physical death was the curse of the Garden, then he tells us it wasn’t. He tells us Christ destroyed the law of sin and death, but then he tells us that Christians are subject to the law of sin and death. He tells us forgiveness was objectively applied from the cross, but then he tells us that the dead saints could not enter the MHP, because they did not have the benefits (i.e. forgiveness!) of Christ’s atonement– until AD 70. His self contradictions are fatal.

 

And, don’t forget that Kurt’s problem is divorcing this entire discussion from the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel.

 

KURT’S INDIVIDUALIZATION OF ESCHATOLOGY

I hope the readers have caught what Kurt has done. He takes passages (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4, etc.) that speak of Christ’s coming at the end of the age, and the bestowal of eternal life at that time, and turns them into promises having nothing to do with Israel, but, the coming of Christ for individuals at the time of their death, throughout time!

While Kurt has challenged me to produce supportive commentators, which I have done, note that I challenged him to cite even one commentator that supports his idea that these resurrection texts do not speak of the second coming of Christ, but of Christ’s coming for the individual at the time of their death. He has ignored the challenge. This is an empty box!

 

KURT’S REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH HEBREWS 10:40

The reader must catch, once again, how Kurt has ignored Hebrews 11:40. Remember that Kurt adamantly claims that the living saints had fully received the atonement and forgiveness, etc. prior to AD 70. However, he says the souls in Hades could not enter heaven (The MHP– Revelation 15!) until they received the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood (S-P- October, 2009). (Do you catch that?)

 

So, Kurt has the living saints in full possession of redemption and atonement. After all, he has confidently pointed to all those past tense verbs, right? However, he has the dead saints sequestered in Hades because they had not received atonement, and they would not receive that until AD 70! But, as repeatedly noted– but ignored by Kurt -- there is a fatal flaw in Kurt’s position.

 

According to Paul, the OT saints could not enter the “better resurrection” (Hebrews 11:35-40) without the NT saints, and, the NT saints could not enter before the dead saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15f)! In other words, OT and NT saints would enter the MHP at the same time! So...

The dead saints and the living saints would receive their salvation at the same time (Hebrews 11:40).

But, the dead saints would not receive their salvation until AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).

Therefore, the living saints would not receive their salvation until AD 70.

 

So, the proposition that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate, that the dead saints would enter the MHP in AD 70, proves my proposition, and destroys Kurt’s! Of course, Kurt ignored this argument. Little wonder. And consider Kurt’s new definition of the MHP.

 

The MHP is the New Covenant-- not heaven-- per Kurt’s new definition.

Kurt says the living saints had the full benefit of the New Covenant from the cross onward..

According to Revelation 15, the dead saints (actually, no one!!) could not enter the MHP– the New Covenant, per Kurt– until AD 70.

However, if the MHP is not heaven that means that in AD 70, the dead saints entered the New Covenant, but they could not enter heaven because the MHP is not heaven, according to Kurt!

See where Kurt’s desperation has led him?

 

Note: If the MHP is the New Covenant (not the presence of God), then since the dead saints and the living saints would enter the MHP at the same time, and since the dead saints could not enter until AD 70, this means that the living saints did not fully enter the New Covenant until AD 70! Kurt has, once again, falsified his own theology.

 

Kurt says he has not changed his definition of the MHP– Yes, he has! In his second negative, Kurt positively identified the MHP as heaven. Yet, he now says it is the New Covenant. He has changed, but his change does not help! We call this “debate conversion,” when a person cannot sustain their normal position, they change their argument in mid-debate. Kurt has done this repeatedly in this exchange.

He now says, amazingly, that Revelation 15:8 only slightly “implies” that there was no entrance into the MHP until AD 70. No, there is no simple “implication.” There is explicit statement: “No one was able to enter until the wrath of God was fulfilled.” Kurt, how is that mere “implication?” Kurt is so desperate to escape the force of the text that he turns explicit statements into mere implications. (Note also, it says “no one” could enter. Kurt insists that the living saints could enter before the dead! Kurt is wrong).

 

Now, Hebrews 9 says there would be no entrance into the MHP while the Mosaic Law remained imposed. Revelation 15 says there would be no access to the MHP until Jerusalem was judged. Of logical necessity, the Mosaic Law remained imposed until the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70. Kurt has not touched this.

 

Kurt says AD 70 had no redemptive significance and the saints were forgiven from the cross onward. Yet, he says that the saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70.

But he refuses  to tell us why those “perfected” saints could not enter until the  “irrelevant” AD 70 event. Of course, Hebrews 9 answers the question-- Jesus was coming (in AD 70) to bring salvation. He was coming to bring man into the MHP!

 

Kurt continues to ignore the transfiguration as a vision of the passing of Torah and Christ’s parousia. Kurt gave us no proof for rejecting this. Yet, this one argument falsifies his proposition. As one scholar noted: “It is perverse to apply the transfiguration to Jesus’ incarnation”– as Kurt does.

 

THE EARNEST OF THE SPIRIT

Amazingly, my friend has now abandoned the truth that the earnest of the Spirit– the guarantee of the resurrection and salvation, was the charismata. He now says that the earnest is some gentle voice inside us. This is patently false– but it is necessary for Kurt to maintain any support for his newly created doctrine.

 

When Paul wrote to the Ephesians he said that when they first believed, they received the earnest of the Spirit. In Acts 19, the account of their conversion, what does the record say they received? They spoke in tongues and prophesied! Not one word about some “inward yearning of the heart.” That is reading something into the text that is not there.

 

Kurt cannot explain how some “inward yearning of the heart” objectively guaranteed (s) salvation. That is pure subjectivity! God gave the charismata to objectively guarantee– openly confirm His work. The earnest of the Spirit was the confirmatory work of the Spirit– and Kurt believes that the work of confirmation was the charismata. Well, in 1 Corinthians 1:4-8, Paul said the charismata had confirmed the Corinthian church, (not just the Word, but the church!) and would continue to confirm them– until the Day of the Lord. And, Kurt has, in this debate, affirmed that the charismata continued until AD 70. Thus, the charismata was indeed the guarantee (confirmation) of the coming salvation. Kurt is wrong, again. Notice...

 

The charismata served to confirm both the church and the word until AD 70 (1 Corinthians 1:4-8).

The charismata was the guarantee (the confirmation) of the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:7; 4:30).

Therefore, unless there is no relationship between the confirmatory work of the Spirit and the earnest work of the Spirit, then the charismata was the guarantee of the resurrection until AD 70.

 

Kurt takes the promise of the Spirit as the earnest of the resurrection, and divorces it from its OT roots. Kurt says the resurrection in 2 Corinthians 5 is the resurrection of individuals at physical death throughout time. No, it is the resurrection promised to Israel in Ezekiel 37 / Joel 2, of which the Holy Spirit was the guarantee (Ezekiel 37:10f; 2 Corinthians 5:5). Kurt has, with no proof whatsoever, created a doctrine of the Spirit distinct from God’s promises to Israel.

 

REDEMPTION AND EPHESIANS 1:7

Kurt argues that the redemption of Ephesians 1:7; 4:30, has nothing to do with justification from sin. He appeals to Jeremiah’s day and the redemption of land, claiming that Jeremiah fully owned the land, but he had to wait for the end of the captivity to take possession. The trouble is that this is not the thematic context of Ephesians 1. It is the Exodus / Passover / Redemption that lies in the background, as virtually all scholars agree. Kurt, will you reject this virtually unanimous scholarly view? Note the redemptive work of that event.

The Passover lamb was slain. But, Israel was still in Egypt! Did the lamb “deliver” them? It was certainly the ground of their deliverance. But, they were not yet free, and not yet in the promised land.

For the Israelites to be “redeemed” the enslaving power was then destroyed!

From the perspective of the OT, Israel was not completely redeemed even then! It was not until she entered the promised land that “the reproach of Egypt” was rolled off of them (Joshua 5:2f).

So, Israel’s redemption was a process that was initiated when the Passover was slain. It progressed as the Egyptians were destroyed. As the Israelites wandered toward the promised land, their salvation was nearer than when they left captivity. But, their redemption was completed when they entered the promised land, and the reproach of Egypt was removed. This is redemption as a process, exactly as Ephesians 1-4 presents it. This falsifies Kurt’s argument.

 

KURT AND THE GREEK TENSES

Kurt listed– with not a word of exegesis– (of course, he says solid exegesis is irrelevant)– 88 verses that use the past tense for salvation, justification, atonement, etc.. Kurt falsely states: “Out of 88 verses we produced in our first affirmative, Don graced us with his response to only one, Rom. 7:1-4.” It is amazing what a person will say when they are desperate.

Fact: I summarized those 88 verses under broad classifications for brevity sake,  and provided verses that posit those tenets in the future tense.

If I commented only on Romans 7, how is it that Kurt (vainly) attempts to respond to my comments on those other verses? Here is an example: The issue of adoption. I offered Romans 8:14-23 as an illustration of the already but not yet of adoption. Kurt says, “these are the verses offered by Don.” Okay, so he claims I only commented on Romans 7, but then admits that I commented on Romans 8! He likewise responded to my arguments about the inheritance and redemption. So, how is it that I did not say a word about those other verses, if Kurt responded to what I said?

 

Let me say a further word about adoption.

The Roman practice that lies behind Romans 8:14f, was a two-step practice. There was an initial declaration of adoption, and then a period of waiting to allow for objections. After a period of waiting, there was the official declaration of adoption. I can personally relate to this, since my wife and I adopted our son. We had a judge’s order, and we took the boy home with us. Yet, there was a waiting period– a time of some concern, I can tell you– until the day of what the judge actually called “the final judgment.” It was on that day that the boy became officially our son! This was an already not yet process, an initiation and a consummation.

Paul said that the declaration of adoption had been made. They had been given the Spirit– the charismata, not some inner soft voice-- as the objective guarantee of that adoption. They were awaiting the finalization of the adoption, at the resurrection!

 

Don’t forget, this would be at the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel! Paul said the redemption of the body was the hope of Israel, to be fulfilled at the resurrection (Romans 8:23–9:4). Kurt turns that into the individual’s resurrection when they die. Kurt is wrong.

 

A CLOSER LOOK AT ROMANS 7

Kurt says: “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.”

No, I did not misrepresent my friend. Here is what he said of Romans 7:1-4: “They teach that the law of the first husband (Old Testament) terminated with the death of Christ.” You see, Kurt did argue that the Old Law itself died– not just the relationship between two parties. However, the text clearly says: “you died to the law, through the body of Christ.” The law remained binding, but, by entering the death of Christ, they had died to the law! And, the Jews did not believe that Torah itself died when a person died!

 

TWO SYSTEMS AT ONE TIME

Kurt can only ridicule; he cannot refute the fact that God had two systems in place at the same time. He says: “Don argues that paganism is equally valid with the Old Covenant!” This is grandstanding. It does not answer the argument.

 

Kurt, were pagans under Torah, yes or no?

 

I stand with Paul that the Gentiles who did not have Torah were, “without God, having no hope in this world” (Ephesians 2:12f), but that they could, through conscientious living, be justified (Romans 2:14f). That means, prima facie, that there were two systems in place at the same time.

And did you notice (Here is an empty box!)– that Kurt has totally ignored my repeated argument on Galatians 4? Ishmael and Isaac dwelt together in the same house? Hagar and Ishmael represented the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant people who persecuted Isaac (the spiritual seed). As a result, Paul said, “cast out the bondwoman and her son.” This proves, irrefutably, that the two laws existed side by side until the casting out of Israel for persecuting the church! Kurt has not breathed on this and he dare not, for it falsifies his new theology. His emotional appeal to “paganism” does not falsify the argument. His claim that I have surrendered my argument via Romans 7 is a smoke screen. Romans 7 proves my point! I have consistently argued that those coming into Christ died to the Law, while the Law remained valid until AD 70. Remember my illustration of the Berlin Wall- that Kurt ignored? Romans 7 thus proves my point on the Greek tenses.

                                                                       

In his books, Kurt correctly takes note of the present and future tenses in Hebrews 9-10. I have called on him to give us lexical, grammatical justification  for now ignoring those present and future tenses. He has ignored this challenge.

 

Kurt is correct that there are several nuances to the Greek present tenses. However, his appeal to what is known as the “historical present” is misguided.

 

He claims that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul refers to the already abolished Torah. (Although remember that Kurt says it was not actually Torah that was nailed to the Cross!)

Read my comments on 2 Corinthians 3 again. Kurt has ignored several points I made.

Paul, speaking of the passing of Torah says: “Seeing then that we have– present tense– such hope. Paul does not say, “seeing then that we had hope of the passing of Torah that has now been fulfilled.” He says it was their hope, when he wrote. Kurt is wrong.

Paul says: “To this day, in the reading of the Moses, the veil is still present, but when one turns to the Lord the veil is taken away.” As I noted– and Kurt ignored– Paul speaks here of a person dying to Torah, (as in Romans 7) not Torah being already dead! Kurt turns the text on its head. And note Paul’s emphatic “to this day.” You cannot turn that into a past tense verb without doing violence to the text. Kurt is wrong. Now watch:

 

The Spirit was the earnest and agent of the transformation from the glory of Moses to the glory of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18): “We are being transformed, from glory to glory, through the Spirit.”

The transformation was from the ministration of death, to the ministration of life. Thus, the transition from covenantal death to covenantal life! According to Kurt, that transformation was completed at the cross. He is wrong. The Spirit, through Paul’s personal ministry (2 Corinthians 4:1f) was the then present earnest and agent of that transformation. That transfiguration (metamorphosis as used at the transfiguration in Matthew 17 to speak of the change from Moses to Christ!) was being accomplished through the Spirit in Paul’s ministry.

If that work of the Spirit was not the miraculous, but the earnest of the Spirit as an  inner voice that is still with us, per Kurt, then covenantal transformation is not completed; the ministration of death– Torah– remains valid.

If that work of the Spirit was the miraculous– as it clearly was– then the work of covenant transformation was not perfected at the cross, and would not be perfected until the parousia, in AD 70.

 

Note also that the transformation was from the glory of the ministration of death written on the tablets of stone. That was not the “ceremonial law” distinct from the “moral law”! The transformation was from the entire old world– not just some parts of it-- represented by the Law written on the Tablets, to the greater glory of Christ. Kurt has the ministration of death, the Law on the tablets, remaining– but without the Sabbath!; Paul said that glory was being done away. Kurt is wrong.

 

No matter how you identify the work of the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3, covenantal transformation was the work of the Spirit, and that work was not completed when Paul wrote. This proves that the cross initiated covenant transformation. The Spirit empowered it. The parousia consummated it! This is Covenant Eschatology.

 

Finally, 2 Corinthians 3-6 is Paul’s commentary on Ezekiel 37. YHVH promised the Spirit to raise Israel from the dead (vs. 10-14), give the New Covenant and the Messianic Temple (vs. 25-27). Kurt’s application of the work of the Spirit divorces it from Israel, and says the New Covenant was completed before the Spirit was even given! Paul said, however, that the promised covenantal transformation was taking place through his Spirit empowered ministry. Undeniably, the Old had not yet passed. The transformation from “glory to glory” was not yet completed.

 

Now, notice more on Kurt’s abuse of the Greek. He says all the typological, ceremonial laws were fulfilled at the cross, and Torah was removed at the cross. (Yet-- remember!--he says Torah was not actually nailed to the cross!) However, notice:

In Colossians 2:14f, Paul says the New Moons, Feast Days and Sabbaths, “are shadows of good things about to come.” Notice that Paul uses the present tense “are a shadow.” Then he uses “mello” which Kurt admits means “to be on the point of.” So, we have a present tense and a future tense. Yet, Kurt claims that we must deny the present and the future tenses and impose a past tense on the text! His authority? He gave none.

 

Likewise, in Hebrews 9:6-10:1, the apostle said the high priests stand daily (present tense) offering (present tense) sacrifices that can never make the worshipper perfect. He said those sacrifices “are symbolic for the present time” (not the past). He then predicted Christ’s coming for salvation– the salvation tied to the atonement process (not deliverance from physical persecution), and says Christ must come “for, the law having (present tense, not past) a shadow of good things about to come” (again, from mello, which Kurt says means “about to be”).

 

Kurt: Do you now reject the truth that mello means “about to be, to be on the point of”?

 

You have taught for years that it means this. Do you now renounce this truth? To continue to admit this definition means that Colossians 2 and Hebrews 10:1 proves that the Law had not passed.

 

So, again, we have a present tense coupled with a future tense. Yet, Kurt casts this evidence aside as insignificant. I have challenged him to give us the lexical, grammatical, contextual proof that justifies such bold rejection of the Greek, but he has adamantly refused. This is not solid theology.

 

I must note again that Hebrews 10:1 gives the reason why Christ had to come again, for salvation. It was, “for the law, being a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). That word “for” gives the divinely mandated reason why Christ had to return. It was to fulfill the typological meaning of the atonement! Kurt ignored this, because to admit this point is to abdicate his entire proposition. The point stands, and Kurt is wrong.

 

TORAH’S NEGATIVE POWER

Kurt continues to claim: “The lack of a mechanism to forgive does not equate with a negative power to forestall the grace of Christ’s cross!”  This stands in stark contrast to Hebrews 9. Torah could not forgive nor give life. And, as long as Torah stood valid, there was no entrance into the MHP! If Torah had no negative power, why couldn’t man enter the MHP while Torah stood? Why would entrance into the MHP only come when Torah was removed? Torah did prevent entrance into the MHP, and that is a negative power, Kurt’s obfuscatory denials notwithstanding.

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

If removal of Torah was soteriologically irrelevant, then what was the“curse” from which Christ delivered those under Torah? Remember that I gave a list of passages, with exegesis,  that described the negative power of Torah. I challenged Kurt to address those passages. He ignored them.

 

KURT’S DICHOTOMIZATION OF TORAH– MATTHEW 5:17-18

ISRAEL’S CEREMONIAL LAW OF THE FEAST DAYS NOT FULFILLED UNTIL AD 70!

In regard to Torah, Kurt claims, “Only the religious and ceremonial law was totally abrogated” at the cross. This is patently false.

Kurt divides Torah in a manner unknown to the Jews. He says: “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.” Is that what Jesus said in Matthew 5? Clearly not. Where did Jesus even hint at such an idea in Matthew 5? Jesus said, “Not one jot or tittle shall pass until it is all fulfilled.” Kurt says, no, that is wrong! Kurt says: “A few jots and some tittles will pass, but most of the jots and tittles will remain!” Kurt denies  the words of Jesus.

 

Kurt has adopted the Sabbatarian view that the ceremonial law passed, but most of the law remains valid. Let’s see if “the law” can be dichotomized as Kurt suggests.

 

TORAH’S OWN DEFINITION OF “THE LAW”

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30, 31) calls itself “the law,” no less than ten times (cf. 28:61; 29:21; 30:10, etc.). And that “the law” contains provisions of wrath against Israel that were not fulfilled until AD 70, when Israel ate the flesh of her own children ((Deuteronomy 28:54-57). And get this, it would be in that day when God would abandon His covenant with both houses of Israel (Zechariah 11:6-10)! This irrefutably confirms my proposition.

This proves that the Mosaic Law did not pass until AD 70. The time when Israel ate the flesh of her own children is when “all things that are written must be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).

 

Remember:

Not one jot or one tittle of “the law” could pass until it was ALL (not some) fulfilled.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings- with provisions of covenantal wrath for violation of Torah– including cannibalism-- is called “the law.”

The Law of Blessings and Cursings-- including cannibalism-- was fulfilled in AD 70 in the fall of Jerusalem.

Therefore, not one jot or one tittle of the Law- including the Law of Blessings and Cursings-- passed until AD 70.

 

Here is a corollary:

The Law of Blessings and Cursings- with provisions of covenantal wrath for violation of Torah– including  cannibalism-- is called “the law.”

The Law of Blessings and Cursings- with provisions of covenantal wrath for violation of Torah– including cannibalism-- was fulfilled in AD 70.

But, the time when Israel would engage in cannibalism in fulfillment of the Law of Blessings and Cursings– would be the time when God would abandon His Covenant with both houses of Israel (Zechariah 11:6-10).

 

Do you catch this? God said the time when Israel would eat the flesh of her own children, in fulfillment of “the law” (when all things written would be fulfilled” Luke 21:22) would be when God’s covenant with both houses of Israel would be broken! Not the Cross! It would be when they ate the flesh of their own children– in AD 70. This is prima facie proof that “the law” remained binding until AD 70.

Consider again my question that Kurt so desperately tried to avoid: “If a law has been abrogated, are any of its penalties or promises still binding?” Zechariah clearly affirms that the penalties of Torah would remain binding until the time when Israel would eat the flesh of her children– AD 70.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings– The Law– was irrefutably still binding in AD 70.  Kurt’s proposition is falsified.

 

Jesus’ and the Gospel’s Definition of “The Law”

Matthew 11:13- “ For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Jesus said the law prophesied. It did not simply command, it prophesied! This is verified in Hebrews 9:6f where the sacrificial system was typological (prophetic). Thus, when Jesus said not one jot or tittle of “the law” could pass, he was saying that not one jot or tittle of the entire OT corpus could pass until it was all fulfilled!

John 12:34- “The people answered Him, "We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever?” Now, no where in “the law” as defined by Kurt, does it say Messiah would endure forever! This is found in the Psalms and the other prophetic books. Thus, the Psalms and prophetic books were “the law”– and not one iota of it could pass until it was all fulfilled.

 

Paul’s Definition of “The Law”

In Romans 3:10-23 Paul quotes from Psalms and calls it “the law.”

In 1 Corinthians 14:20-21, Paul quotes from Isaiah 28, and calls it “the law.”

Thus, the Isaiah and the prophets were “the law”

 

HEBREWS 9:6F, AGAIN

Kurt agrees that the ceremonial aspects of Torah would remain binding until all that they foreshadowed (predicted) was fulfilled. He falsely claims that all of those types were fulfilled at the cross.

 

Consider:

Not one jot or tittle of “the Law” could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18; Including all typological aspects of the “ceremonial law,” KS).

But, all typological aspects of the “ceremonial law” i.e. the feast days of Israel, were not fulfilled until AD 70.

Therefore, not one jot or tittle of “The Law” including the “ceremonial aspects” passed until AD 70.

 

Let me establish the minor premise. There were seven feast days in Israel’s world. These occurred in chronological order. Those feast days were (Leviticus 23):

1.) Passover

2.) Unleavened Bread

3.) First Fruits

4.) Pentecost

5.) Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah)

6.) Atonement

7.) Tabernacles (Sukkot)

 

The first four feasts occur at the beginning of the (civil) calendar, in the spring. Furthermore, those first four feasts were fulfilled in sequence, in Jesus’ Passion-Pentecost. (So, part of “the ceremonial law” but only part, was fulfilled from Jesus’ Passion to Pentecost). 

The last three feasts occurred in the seventh month. But what does Kurt do? He anachronistically has the atonement finished at the time of Passover, the first feast day! He has the atonement finished before the Unleavened Bread, the First Fruits, and Pentecost! Do you catch that?

The first four feasts take place before the atonement! Note that Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles all occurred in the seventh month, i.e. at the “same time.”

The Feast of Trumpets foreshadowed the Day of Judgment; Tabernacles is the Feast of Harvest, i.e. resurrection. The atonement came between these two feasts, and Tabernacles celebrated the consummation! Kurt, however, rips atonement out of its chronological, eschatological and soteriological sequence, and makes it the very first thing fulfilled! There is no justification for this. This is a theological invention.

 

Jesus said none would pass until all was fulfilled. Paul said the prophetic aspects of “the ceremonial law” would stand until they were all fulfilled at the full arrival of the reformation– which Kurt admitted was in AD 70! So, the typological aspects of the ceremonial law would stand binding until AD 70, Kurt himself agreeing!

 

Watch carefully:                                                                       

The (Ceremonial) Feast of Trumpets foreshadowed the Judgment Coming of the Lord. (i.e. Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30!)

The Lord had not come in judgment when Paul wrote Hebrews 9:6f.

Torah would remain binding until all of the types of Torah were fulfilled (KS; Matthew 5; Hebrews 9).

Therefore, Torah was still binding when Paul wrote Hebrews, and would remain binding until the fulfillment of the Feast of Trumpets (i.e. the judgment coming of the Lord in AD 70).

 

Also:

The (Ceremonial) Feast of Tabernacles, (Harvest) foreshadowed the resurrection (Matthew 13).

The Harvest (i.e. the resurrection) occurred in AD 70 (Matthew 13:39-43; KS agreeing).

Therefore, the typological meaning of the Feast of Harvest was not fulfilled until AD 70.

 

Now watch – and I challenge Kurt as kindly as possible to deal with this:

Not one jot or tittle of “The Law” could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18; including all typological aspects of the “ceremonial law,” KS).

The ceremonial Feasts of Trumpets and Harvest were not fulfilled until AD 70 at the time of the judgment/resurrection.

Therefore, not one jot or tittle passed from “the ceremonial law” until AD 70.

 

To negate these arguments, Kurt must prove that the judgment and the resurrection, occurred at the Cross– when he says the ceremonial law was removed and Atonement consummated! He clearly cannot do that. Thus, his proposition is falsified.  But we are not done.

 

All of the feast days were Sabbaths (And both the civil and religious years began with the New Moon, Leviticus 23)!

Not all of the (typological) feast days (New Moons, Feast Days, Sabbaths) were fulfilled when Paul wrote Colossians 2:14f.

Thus, when Paul said that the New Moons, Feast days and Sabbaths “are a shadow of good things about to come” this means that the present and future tenses (Colossians 2 / Hebrews 9-10), must be taken as objective present and future tenses. They cannot be distorted into past tenses!

So...

Not one iota of Torah could pass until the Sabbath aspect of the feasts was fulfilled.

The “Sabbath” aspect of all of the ceremonial feasts was not fulfilled when Paul wrote Colossians and Hebrews–judgment and harvest- the ultimate Sabbath-- had not yet been fulfilled.

Thus, none of Torah had passed when Paul wrote Colossians and Hebrews.

 

Consider this in light of Hebrews 8:13. Kurt claims– “This verse does not say that the old was still valid or binding.”

 

Well, if the ceremonial Feast of Trumpets and Tabernacles had not yet been fulfilled– and Kurt admits they weren’t– then the ceremonial law was not abrogated! Further, if the Feast of Trumpets and Tabernacles had not yet been fulfilled, then the Atonement was not perfected either! This is why the saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70 (as explicitly, not implicitly, stated in Revelation 15). Trumpets and Tabernacles had not yet been fulfilled– Atonement was not yet consummated!

If all of those ceremonial types were not fulfilled, then not one jot and not one tittle of the law had passed. Since the judgment / resurrection– fulfilling Trumpets and Tabernacles– was at hand when Hebrews 8 was written, then Torah was indeed “nigh unto passing.”  My friend cannot escape the force of this argument.

 

Notice the perfect correlation with Luke 21:22:

Jesus: Not one iota of Torah would pass until it was all fulfilled.

Torah– The Feast of Trumpets and Tabernacles typified the soteriological / eschatological consummation– inclusive of Atonement!

Trumpets / Tabernacles (and thus Atonement) were fulfilled in AD 70.

Thus, all things written were fulfilled in AD 70– Torah passed in AD 70.

Kurt’s proposition is falsified. This is Covenant Eschatology in its purest form.

THE NOT YET OF SALVATION– 1 PETER 1– KURT’S FALSE DEFINITION OF SALVATION

It is almost unbelievable to read my friend’s comments on 1 Peter. He says that the grace and salvation the saints in Asia were anticipating was deliverance from persecution. Let’s see.

Those saints had been begotten unto an incorruptible inheritance. That inheritance was reserved in heaven, and they were being kept through faith for that salvation, “ready to be revealed in the last times.” The salvation is the reception of the inheritance to be received at the parousia– not death!

Furthermore, they would not be delivered from persecution, as Kurt falsely claims. Peter emphatically says they did have to suffer more! No deliverance from persecution, Kurt!

They were then, although under persecution, “receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (v. 9). Notice again, under persecution, but receiving (present tense, not past), the salvation of their souls! Then, Peter says that the salvation they were anticipating had been predicted by the OT prophets (v. 10).

Kurt, tell us plainly, where in the OT did the prophets predict that the Asian Christians would have their physical lives spared from the Neronian persecution? Give us the verses! The fact is that the text says the exact opposite of what Kurt claims. They were not about to be being saved from persecution! They had to endure more persecution!

 

Note again: The salvation Peter discusses is the salvation promised in the OT, God’s promises to Israel! Peter is concerned with Israel, and her soteriological promises (see 1 Peter 2:9f– the fulfillment of Hosea 1:10), at the coming of the Lord! He is not discussing the death of individuals, nor deliverance from persecution!

1 Peter 1 is an irrefutable falsification of Kurt’s “salvation completed at the cross” paradigm.

 

I have responded to every salient point raised by Kurt, and falsified his claims.

 

I have, in every way possible, negated and falsified Kurt’s affirmative.

 

I have further demonstrated the truthfulness of Covenant Eschatology.

 

 

▲ Top of page

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

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.