Don,

I know you're busy and I appreciate any help you can give me.

I live in ..., CA. I've recently purchased your latest book, "We Shall Meet Him In The Air" (Thanks, DKP!!), and I am half way through it. It is taking me some time to read because I continually go back to the Scripture to learn the many things that I've previously overlooked, especially in the Old Testament. So, I want to thank you for that.

The reason I am writing is that I need a little help. I have been a member of an online group on yahoo.com called, "Theology List," for many years. One of the moderators of the list has been the one who mostly responds to my posts. I know from reading your books and listening to your debates that you can relate to the attitude that I'm currently being confronted with. I have been told that preterism is; abhorrent, abominable, heretical, horrible etc. This has not bothered me and I continue to respond in the most humble way possible.

However, I have included below a question raised by this moderator that I can't answer. How do you answer when one says that Jesus declared some of the Law had passed away as in Mark 7:19?

The Objector says-- Would this mean that heaven and earth must have passed away at the moment Jesus made that statement?

Here is the post beginning with my question:

You ask the Objector: Did Jesus fulfill all or only part of the Law?

The Objector answers: Jesus satisfied the demands of the law by perfectly obeying all the stipulations of the law and by enduring the full penalty for violation of the law.

The Objector says-- "However, all is not accomplished. There is still a judgment yet to come."

Where is his proof that the judgment has not taken place?

Here is what is happening:

Objector: I know what the judgment is / will be like. It will be the end of the world.

My concept of the nature of the judgment has clearly not happened, since the world and time continue to exist.

Therefore, the judgment has not occurred.

DKP– Sorry, what has to be proven-- not simply asserted-- is the nature of the judgment.

The Objector says-- "And the law is instrumental in that judgment. "

Biblically, in the OT as well as New, the judgment and parousia is posited at the end of the Old Covenant age. For instance, the New Creation would occur when Old Covenant Israel would be destroyed (Isaiah 65:13-19). Likewise, the resurrection would occur when the power of the holy people is completely shattered" (Daniel 12:7).

According to the Bible, the kingdom of Christ has no end! His gospel age, will never pass away (Matthew 24:35; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 11:15f).

Now, since it is Jesus' gospel-- not the Torah-- that will never pass away, and since the scriptures affirm the judgment at the end of the Old Covenant age, the objector has surrendered his objection and futurism. That is, unless he wants to argue that we today must still be offering animal sacrifices, practicing physical circumcision, travelling to Jerusalem to worship-- all of which is contrary to the unending Gospel of Jesus Christ!

So, which position does your objector want to take? Are we under the Gospel of Christ, or under Torah?

Paul said those entering Christ through baptism (Romans 6:3f), died to Torah, to serve Christ in the New Covenant. And, he and Jesus said that those who belonged to Jesus do not come into judgment. Why? Because they were no longer under Torah.

Torah was getting ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13)-- and was in the process (present active indicatives) of passing away when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 3. That does not mean that any of it had passed, but that, as Hebrews indicates, it was growing old and was ready to vanish.

The Objector says-- "Where there is no law, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no guilt. So, if you say that the law has been abolished, then there is no more sin. But 1 John 1:8 says that we do still sin. Therefore, there is still law. And therefore this is not the new heavens and the new earth."

Who ever breaks--and refuses to teach one of the least commandments of "the law" is least in the kingdom. Those who teach the commandments of "the law" are greatest in the kingdom.

But, physical circumcision was one of the commandments of "the law."

Therefore, those who teach the necessity of physical circumcision are greatest in the kingdom.

Note where this puts the objector:

Who ever breaks--and refuses to teach one of the least commandments of "the law" is least in the kingdom. Those who teach the commandments of "the law" are greatest in the kingdom.

Paul, the apostle of Jesus did not teach and refuse to teach the necessity for Christians to be physically circumcised.

Therefore, Paul was considered least in the kingdom!

The objector is seeking to define "the law" in an unscriptural, very limited manner. He wants to make "the law" be an exclusive referent to the Decalogue, i.e. the ten commandments. This is simply false.

Paul called the Psalms and Isaiah "The law" (Romans 10:9-19; 1 Corinthians 14:20-21). Jesus said "the law" prophesied (Luke 16:16).

The objector is seeking to say that only what Jesus said after Matthew 5:17-18 serves as "the law" and defines that as the moral law, i.e. the ten commandments. But, where in the Decalogue do we find "you have heard it said 'An eye for an eye...?" What about Matthew 5:31 about divorce? What about the law of false vows of v. 33? These things are not in the Ten commandments!

For anyone to seek to limit the definition of "the law" to just the Ten Commandments is false.

<<Objector: Matthew presents Christ as King, the law-giver. It was His voice which thundered the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai and His finger which inscribed them onto tablets of stone. He is the one who said that He would write "my law" on the heart. And it is His Spirit which writes His law on the heart at regeneration.

But notice, the objector says it is Christ that was the Voice at Sinai, giving Torah. Well, that means that Christ gave circumcision, the animal sacrifices, the Temple cultus, etc.!

To say that Christ would then write that Sinaitic law onto the heart assumes that it is just the Ten Commandments, but, again, that is an assumption.

The Adventist followers seek (desperately) to delineate between "the law" as the moral code of the Ten Commandments, and the Ceremonial Law of the animal sacrifices, etc.. This is a false distinction as noted above.

Furthermore, the objector is saying that Christ would simply move the Torah from tablets of stone, onto the heart, i.e the same identical law. But again, he is creating a false distinction, and, this is a tacit admission that the Torah was to pass after all!

The Objector says-- Paul wrote, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)"

Paul said that the Old Covenant-- made at Sinai-- was in the process of passing away. And, he specifically says it was the Covenant written and engraven in stone (2 Corinthians 3).

Paul said that Covenant was nigh unto passing.

Paul said that the Covenant given at Sinai was being removed (Hebrews 12:25f).

When Paul said "We establish the law" we must honor the fact that in that very chapter of Romans, he calls the Psalms and Isaiah and other prophets, "the law." So, once again, this is a self defeating argument.

Furthermore, Paul was simply saying that by preaching salvation by faith, he was doing what the Law itself foretold, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested, witnessed by the law and the prophets." So, the OT, "the law" anticipated the time of justication by faith-- not by "the law!

In what way was the Law "established"? Not by being "reimposed" under Christ! Paul was saying that the Law had a purpose (cf Romans 5:21; Galatians 3:23, etc.), and that was to lead to Christ, when the Law would give way to the Gospel of grace-- not Torah! Paul was saying that the Law was good, but, it only demonstrated man's inability to keep the Law, and his need for grace. Thus, to preach salvation by grace through faith established that the Law had served its purpose to condemn man and point out his condemnation-- all the while point to something greater and better!! Paul was not saying "We re-establish the Torah as God's law by preaching the Gospel!"

Objector: The law is not abrogated and all has not yet been fulfilled.

Again, in Mark, Jesus was giving the true meaning of the Law. And, was Jesus making all meats clean right then and there? It is not until we find Peter in Acts 10 that we find any application of Jesus' dictates in Mark. And remember, it was those who were entering Christ who were dying to the law. The Torah itself had not yet passed, but was to do so shortly, at Christ's coming (Hebrews 8:13; 10:37).

We cannot blithely ignore the time lines, the audience relevance, and create new, unscriptural definitions of "the law" to support our preconceived ideas.

By the way, by calling attention to "the law" in regard to the food regulations your friend is allowing the term "the law" to be more inclusive than the Ten Commandments, even though he seeks to deny this! He has defeated his own definition of "the law!" To suggest that "the law" of Mark 7 is a different "the law" from Matthew is an argument from desperation, not exegesis.

The objector's position demands that there were at least "two the laws" under the OT, and there simply is no scriptural justification for this. The Jews, Jesus and his disciples, knew of only one "The law," and that was the inclusive and comprehensive term for the entirety of the Old Testament, including the prophets!

>

> You say to the Objector-- I see this as the answer to all the various, inconsistent, futurist views. I'm sure you know more about all the variations within the futurist world view than most just from this list alone.

The Objector-- I see full preterism as unequivocally heretical. In denying the bodily resurrection of the dead, you are saying that Christ was not bodily resurrected. And, if Christ was not bodily resurrected, then we are all still in our sins -- [[He was raised bodily for our _justification_ (Rom 4:25). No bodily resurrection of Christ, no justification! !]] -- and we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:19).

Let me state just a single issue / problem with your objector's argument:

Christ's physical resurrection is the first fruit of the harvest / physical resurrection of believers.

But, Christ's physical resurrection was in an untransformed, purely human physical body. ( I full prove this in my Like Father Like Son, On Clouds of Glory book. The belied that Jesus was raised in an incorruptible, immortal body is false, and easily proven so).

Therefore, the resurrection of believers, being the harvest in the same manner of Jesus' physical resurrection, will be in untransformed, purely human, physical bodies!

Now, clearly, your objector does not believe this, but, that simply means that he has a severe theological problem in regard to the resurrection of Christ and the believers.

There is much, much more I could say, but, let me simply state this: Paul affirmed that his generation would not die until they experienced the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51), and, he affirmed that the resurrection would be in fulfillment of Isaiah 25 and Hosea (with Daniel 12 clearly in the background as well). Finally, Paul said that the resurrection would be when "the law" that was the strength of sin, was overcome and removed. So, the removal of "the law" and the fulfillment of prophecy go hand in hand temporally, demonstrating their unity.

So, if prophecy (i.e the resurrection) stands unfulfilled, then "the law" remains valid, and vice versa. This means that "not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until it is all (this includes the prophetic element. This demonstrates that "the law" really did include the prophets, as demonstrated above!)

Now notice and, this is critical, the sacrificial system, i.e. the law, was prophetic (Colossians 2:14f; Hebrews 9:6f). Now, since Paul posits the fulfillment of prophecy (thus inclusive of the sacrificial system), and the passing of "the law" at the time of the resurrection, then to affirm that "the law" has not passed is to affirm the continuing validity of the sacrificial system!

You cannot divorce the prophetic element from the sacrificial system, and, the prophetic element would pass at the resurrection, thus "The law" ALL OF IT, including the sacrifices would remain valid and binding until the resurrection.

Your objector has a fatal problem here.

<<Objector: I think it is pathetic that you continue to advocate full preterism in the light of this clear demonstration of the heresy it entails.

Full preterism contradicts the gospel! Please, I earnestly beg you to abandon it! It's okay to make a mistake or not to see some implications at first but it's not okay to continue in a mistake when someone shows you the heretical implications.

Is it not pure arrogance to reject what the Bible says about when the resurrection would occur? Perhaps the good gentleman can explain how and why he can deny the words of Daniel 12:2-7 that unambiguously, emphatically and specifically posits the resurrection at the time of Israel's destruction?

In Christ,
.......

Thanks Don,

....