Its not a Christian Church forum, and so it gets Christians (and wierdos) from all walks, but still very interesting discussion. The Last Trumpet Forum (formerly called Jacob's Well, I think) is back up at http://pub14.ezboard.com/flasttrumpetfrm18. Their primary focus is end-times discussion, and largely denounce the pre-trib (Tim La Haye) view of it, but have lots of interesting threads on other subjects from time to time, if eschatology ain't your bag. Even if you don't agree with everything, you can always learn something. :)

(BTW they're also not very keen on OSAS either. A few sharp tacks in the box.)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2002

Answers

Dear brother Wilson,

I fully agree with your recommendation of The Last Trumpet. It is a great site chuck full of great material. I must warn all of you amillennialists out there though; Last Trumpet is a POST-tribulation premill site. If you are going to delve into their studies, be prepared to use your thinking cap and leave your traditions at home. He will make you re-think your amill eschatology.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2002

I think anyone who sees the rapture in the book of Revelation is the person who needs to put a thinking cap on....and get rid of their "rapturite glasses".....and traditions....before they read the book.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2002

Actually they have quite a few amillenialists posting there lately.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on last days stuff either way. I try to keep an open mind, but most of that stuff just goes right over my head. Besides, the Pharisees were dead sure they knew how the end of the age and the coming of the Messiah was to come about - and they were dead wrong. That should give us some pause.

Btw, I don't see the 'rapture' in Revelation, but I'm not going to be dogmatic and say there is no such thing as the 'rapture' period, for I think it is a Biblical concept, although perhaps an unfortunate choice of word and a concept that is highly distorted. Rapture, from raptus, the Latin translation of the Greek word harpazo, "to be caught up, to be snatched", found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up [harpazo/raptus: 'raptured'] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

I dare you John.....in fact.....I double dare you....find one single historical reference to the teaching of the rapure previous to the mid 1600's.

It was never taught till then.....and it traces it's beginning to a neo-Charismatic group of women....led by a Miss Margaret MacDonald who said the "Lord revealed it for the first time...i.e., the secret taking away of the Church." (I think you would agree this is a doctrine that came about with something a little short of sound, exegetical study??)

Over 1600 years after N.T. times....is just a tad too late for me to accept any doctrine.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Does it, or does it not, clearly say, "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds"?

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

John,

I agree there will be a rapture as described in 1 Thessalonians and it is entirely consistent with the Amillenial view (which I hold). I think the problem comes with all that is associated with the term rapture by the premillenialists. When this term is used, most immediately associate it with a literal seven year tribulation, literal 1,000 year millenium, etc... But the fact that Jesus will meet us in the air is without question.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2002

Exactly John....at His coming....when every eye shall see Him....as opposed to a "secret taking away of the church."

Again...I told you the origin of that false teaching.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2002

re: end times stuff. I know Danny hates to hear me say this (or he has in the past). Theologically, I hold to the a-millenial view. While there are some problems with this view, they are few and far between, especially when compared to the post- view, and the various (and there are many) pre- views.

But operationally, I hold to the "pan" view ... it's all gonna "pan out" the way the Lord wants it to, and when it does, I'm going to heaven!

Some people spend WAY too much time studying and discussing the end times ... and most of those who spend that much time hold to one of the pre- views. That view makes money (check out the books at your local Bible book store) ... makes "exciting" fiction books and movies ... and is so very popular, especially now with all the Tim LaHaye "hooey" that has been spread around. One family I know has made a complete theology out of the fiction books LaHaye has been cranking out ... and I know there are many more who have done the same thing. How sad.

When someone comes in to visit, and opens with "I'm a serious student of eschatology" I get the shakes, and I wonder if they spend anywhere near as much time witnessing and sharing Christ as they do "studying" Daniel, Revelation, et. al.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2002

You're right Darrell....I do dislike it....for the following reasons:

First, most "pre-mills" equate their beliefs with orthodoxy...i.e., "you can't be a Christian and not believe in the rapure." It really distresses a lot of our folks when they hear this and they depend on us, as preachers, as the local theologian and Bible scholar...(yes...I still believe that is the main function of preachers as opposed to today's CEO and cheerleader model)....to help them to understand what the Bible DOES say....as opposed to what the eschatology books say.

Second....much "pre-mill" thinking comes close to blasphemy...i.e., suggesting second chances for the Jews....reinstution of animal sacrifices in the millenium.....etc.

You are correct in your observation about "eschatology specialist." I'm always amazed at how such experts can't even figure out straight forward passages like....Acts 2:38.

-- Anonymous, March 05, 2002

Danny:

I would fall, I guess, into the Amil camp, in that I think we are living in the millenium right now, and that it is not a literal 1000- yr calendar period.

I would like some further exposition from you on this "blasphemy" thing. Maybe you've done it in another thread, long ago (I seem to remember something like it). In what ways do you see the typical pre- mil view as blasphemous. You mentioned a "second chance" for the Jews as one. I think it's incorrect, but I don't immediately see blasphemy in it. Perhaps I will, given the proper airing. The animal sacrifices I am aware of, although I wouldn't call it blasphemous, as I understand it. If I am a pre-mil teacher and I say, "The Jews will reinstitute animal sacrifices at the temple", I have not spoken blasphemy unless I add to it, "And God will accept it as atonement for sin." If rather I add to it, "It will be their futile attempt at reviving a saving relationship with God", then I have spoken truth, assuming they do actually reinstitute sacrifice.

Anyway, I look forward to a bit of exposition on your part, if you will, outlining what you see as blasphemous teachings on the pre- mils. Thanks in advance.

Sam

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2002

I had a convo with someone the other day on the subject of the Jews reinstituting the sacrifices in the temple after the 2nd coming (which I think comes from Zechariah 14). The consensus we came to was that IF such a thing were to occur, they would not be sacrifices to atone for sin (which would be ridiculous and nonsensical) but rather sacrifices of thanksgiving. There are more sacrifices mentioned in the OT than just slaughtering lambs and bulls. The passage in question mentions the Feast of Tabernacles and refers to cooking the sacrifices in pots which would be consistent with the "meal" sacrifice of that Feast.

Just "food" for thought. ;)

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2002

Sure Sam....no problem....an easy question really.

Hebrews 6:4-6

Before I quote the passage....allow me to BREIFLY underscore the purpose of the writer of Hebrews. (I don't accept the premise that Paul had to be the author of Hebrews. Origin stated it best when he said..."Only God knows who wrote the letter to the Hebrews"....to which I say..."Amen.") Anyway...the purpose was....to try and disuade Jews, who under the persecution of Nero....were considering leaving Christianity and going back to Judaism.

As one respected teacher states..."The purpose of Hebrews is....Better...Better....Better!!!"

This pretty muchs sums it up....for the writer shows that everything we have in Christ is BETTER than what Judaism has to offer...i.e., a better priest, a better covenant, a better sacrifice, a better Jerusalem, etc....etc.

He goes to great lengths to show that going back to the "types" of the O.T. is going back to, in his words, "the shadow...and not the substance" which is Christ. As I teach my students....it's the equivalent of paying the $10 to get into the movies to watch the previews....and then leaving before the main attraction starts. Dumb!!

Therefore...with that in mind....let's read the passage......(keep in mind...he's trying to disuade Jews from abandoning Christianity...to go back to Judaism)....

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."

You see Sam....those who were wanting to abandon Christianity for the things of Judaism.....were told that they basically nullified the cross of Christ. That is blasphemy.

Two books that absolutely destory the "Pre-mill" theory is Romans and Hebrews.....(which explains why most Pre-mills spend their time in the O.T.) They operate under the false hermeneutic that the N.T. answers to the O.T.

And John....it doesn't matter what offering it is....they were all a part of the Old Covenant....and nailed to the cross....i.e., they are null and void. Period!

Funny we are having this discussion.....I'm currently teaching Eschatology.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2002

Oh...by the way Sam....we bit the bullet and purchased the new 5.0 version of SongShow plus!!! (5.0 must stand for "5 Big Ones"...cause that's what it cost! Ouch!)

Anyway....system is purchased....new laptop is bought....software is bought....installation is scheduled for next week. Hope it goes well.

Thanks for your help!

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2002

You're preaching to the Choir, Danny. I'm leading a study in Galatians, and am saying all those same things.

I think you missed what my question was. Yes, the pre-mil view says that the Jews will renew animal sacrifice at the Temple, but the pre- mil view does NOT necessarily say that such action is desirable. Again, if I were a pre-mil teacher, I would say, "The Jews will re- establish animal sacrifice, which would in effect nullifying Christ's sacrifice for them, and move them out of the realm of grace and salvation."

To say that it will happen is not blasphemy. To say that it will happen and God will accept it as atoning IS blaphemy. But to simply refer to someone doing -- the reference itself is not blasphemy, it's just reporting. In this case, the pre-mil view is only blasphemous IF it supports the animal sacrifice as a good thing, but NOT if it is simply reporting that it will happen. You see what I'm getting at?

And, once again, I think you're just a little off on your reply to John. To offer an offering or sacrifice of thanks simply for the sake of giving thanks is different than giving the sacrifice in order to fulfill righteousness. The second is clearly against NT teaching; the first is what you and I do every time we drop our tithe or offering check in the plate. Or do you think I assume too much good in their motives?

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2002

Hang-ups, hang-ups, hang-ups!

Like most amills I know of, Danny has a panic attack every anyone even dares to question the amill interpretation of end time prophecy :) Let's get a few things straight before we begin.

The pre-mill camp is divided basically into two camps:

Dispensationalists: Danny is correct in citing his facts concerning the questionable pedigree of this view. These folk are almost always pre-trib rapturists. Classic or Historic Premillennialists: This view has the best documented pedigree in Church history in that it goes all the way back to the early church. They are usually post-trib rapturists.

Now, the problem we have with amill eschatology is that it denies any prophetic role for the nation of Israel beyond AD 70. This is simply not in harmony with Romans 15 and Paul's overall vision of Israel in that monumental letter to the believers in Rome. Since the amills know that they cannot interpret this passage literally, they have to either spiritualize it to death or interpret it entirely metaphorically as they do with Matthew 24 and other uncomfortable passages.

The second problem we have with amill eschatology is its replacement theology. Not unlike their cousins the postmills, they see the fulfillment of all old covenant promises transferred over to the Church. This causes all kinds of problems, not the least of which is their often poorly veiled disdain for modern day Jews.

The third problem with amill eschatology is that it denies a future personal literal anti-Christ or "man of sin" as Paul calls him in his letter the Thessalonians. They also deny a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (which will inevitably occur with or without the permission of the amill camp), and a future tribulation yet to come.

Having said all that, I truly and firmly believe that many who think they are amills are not amills out of profound conviction. Like myself, they are amills out of reaction to the dispensationalist pre- trib rapture crowd. This is highly unfortunate because they have denied themselves the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful insights of God's Word and continue interpreting the Bible via the historical literal method.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2002

Sam....

(You wrote...To say that it will happen is not blasphemy. In this case, the pre-mil view is only blasphemous IF it supports the animal sacrifice as a good thing, but NOT if it is simply reporting that it will happen.)

Which THEY DO see.....as a good thing. In fact...there are American denominational groups who give money to Israel for the rebuilding of the temple. I hold to my contention in light of Galatians 1:8.

(Or do you think I assume too much good in their motives?)

ABSOLUTELY!!

BTW....great book that book of Galatians....another book the destroys the Pre-mill concept....(just not as good as Hebrews and Romans).

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2002

Philip......you post has more targets than Tora Bora!!! Let's begin.....your comments in parenthesis....

(The pre-mill camp is divided basically into two camps:)

Actually....it's divided into AT LEAST 4......Historic Premills, and then....Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, and Post-Trib Dispensationalists.

(Classic or Historic Premillennialists: This view has the best documented pedigree in Church history in that it goes all the way back to the early church. They are usually post-trib rapturists.)

There is no such thing historically as a "rapturists" previous to Margaret MacDonald and the mid 1600's. While SOME of the early church fathers did hold to a pre-mill view....it was a view that knew nothing of a rapture, a second chance for the Jews, and much of the other "pre-mill fantasy" that came along in the mid-16th century as a result of the Counter Reformation. By the way...I wonder how many here knew that much dispensational theology developed in the Catholic church at the hands of Jesuit scholars?? Hmmmmm.

(Since the amills know that they cannot interpret this passage literally, they have to either spiritualize it to death or interpret it entirely metaphorically as they do with Matthew 24 and other uncomfortable passages.)

Ahhhhhhh.......here it is. The tired and lazy false dichotomy of the "pre-mill" fantasy...i.e., "We premills take the Bible literally while you amills spiritualize it aways."

The standard approach of pre-mill eschatology is to throw sound hermeneutics out of the window. This is one way in which they do it. They fail to understand that sometimes....manytimes....the symbolic meaning IS THE LITERAL MEANING.

Their approach is...."All Scriptures concerning Jesus were fulfilled literally....therefore all the prophecies about His Second coming will be fulfilled literally."

Let's see how this works out.....

Luke 3:4-5..."As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: 'A voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for Him. EVERY VALLEY SHALL BE FILLED IN, EVERY MOUNTAIN AND HILL MADE LOW, THE CROOKED PATHS SHALL BECOME STRAIGHT, THE ROUGH WAYS SMOOTH."

Now according to the pre-mill fantasy....we must interpret this passage of Isaiah LITERALLY.

Really?? You mean......no more valleys? No more mountains? No crooked paths? No rough ways?

Now...things may have changed since my wife and I were there in 1984.....but there were still plenty of mountains....lots of hills...and some awfully rough roads (even in a tour bus).

How silly!!! One understands....that the very nature of prophecy is symbolic....and proper, accepted norms of hermeneutics dictate that you interpret it as such.

Jesus also said that He "was the door to heaven." In light of the premill fantasy hermeneutic...should we then assume that Jesus has a door knob for a belly button??

(The second problem we have with amill eschatology is its replacement theology. Not unlike their cousins the postmills, they see the fulfillment of all old covenant promises transferred over to the Church. This causes all kinds of problems, not the least of which is their often poorly veiled disdain for modern day Jews.)

That is a staw man if I ever have seen one!!!! I don't believe Jesus is going to set up a physical kingdom in France either. But does that make me anti-Gaulic?? I preach the same hope of the Jews that Paul stated he preached to the Jews...and the hope that caused him to be enchained....namely....the hope of the resurrection in Jesus Christ. (Acts 26)

(The third problem with amill eschatology is that it denies a future personal literal anti-Christ or "man of sin" as Paul calls him in his letter the Thessalonians.)

Why should I accept what the Bible clearly does not teach?? First...let's establish that the word "anti-christ" (actually in the Greek it's "ante-Christ"...i.e., substitute Christ)....is found only in 1 & 2 John. Why is it that premills can find the anti-Christ in Revelation and Daniel...but they can't find it in the only books that speak of it....1 & 2 John?? It also becomes quite clear as one compares the passages of 1 & 2 John....and 2 Thess.....these writers are talking about entirely two different things.

This is the old false hermeneutic of 16th century Dispensational eschatology that lumps the two together. No one ever did this previous to the 16th century....and modern protestant hermeneutics has never been able to get over it.

(They also deny a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (which will inevitably occur with or without the permission of the amill camp), and a future tribulation yet to come. )

I agree with my tour guide in Israel when I was near him and someone asked what he thought about rebuilding the temple?? His reply was..."Who needs it!" Good answer from a Zionist which the vast majority of Jews are.

Good question to ask the premills..."Which Jews are still God's chosen people?? The Zionist, athiestic state of Israel?? Or the Orthodox Jews that pray daily at the wailing wall for the fall of the modern state of Israel??

Read Romans 2:28-29....and it becomes clear.....neither. No one is saved because they are culturally a Jew.

(Having said all that, I truly and firmly believe that many who think they are amills are not amills out of profound conviction.)

A pure assumption of which you have nada proof.

On the other hand.....I can fully demonstrate that many are pre-mills because instead of reading the Bible they have been reading "The Left Behind" series....which they should have....Left Behind!! The Pre- mill fantasy is the easy way out.

(Like myself, they are amills out of reaction to the dispensationalist pre- trib rapture crowd.)

Another ridiculous assumption. I never knew what pre-mill was until I studied what the Scripture acutually says and compared it to the fantasies that were being taught.

(This is highly unfortunate because they have denied themselves the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful insights of God's Word and continue interpreting the Bible via the historical literal method.)

Another glaring example of the false-dichotomy. We premills do it literally....and you amills spiritualize it away. I've already addressed this quite well...but it does again illustrate the trite responses that come from that camp.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2002

Interesting reading!

A.D. 70 Theory

The above false doctrine is known by several designations: The A.D. 70 Doctrine, Realized Eschatology, and the Max King Theory, so named for the man who popularized it. The general thrust of the teaching is stated by Max King when he said, “The Holy Scriptures teach the second coming of Christ, including the establishment of the eternal kingdom, the day of judgment, the end of the world, and the resurrection of the dead, occurred with the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D.” (The Nichols-King Debate, p. 1). The contention of this theory is that all of the following happened in A.D. 70: 1. All Bible prophecy was fulfilled completely. 2. The kingdom came with power. 3. The second coming of Christ occurred. 4. The Judgment Day took place. 5. The dead were raised and death was conquered. 6. The Law of Moses ended. 7. Satan’s rule ceased. 8. The world ended. 9. Heaven and Hell began.

Nothing New

The above theory is not a new or fresh approach to Scripture, but is actually a retelling of an old error. In 1883, Dr. A. Wilford Hall wrote a book entitled, Universalism Against Itself. The author noted, “Universalism teaches that this important event (the coming of Christ) took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, nearly 1800 years ago. This position is taken in order to avoid, if possible the admission of a future general judgment, which every where stands closely connected with the second coming of Christ” (p. 91). In fact, in the 1930’s, C.H. Dodd taught a similar error (the final events were all fulfilled in the personal ministry of Jesus) and gave it the name, “Realized Eschatology”.

Why Some Fall For This Error

Because there are some passages in which Jesus is described as “coming” in a local or physical judgment upon Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-34), some erroneously contend that all New Testament references to the “coming” of Christ in judgment must allude to the destruction of Jerusalem. This contention ignores the fact that the Scriptures portray Jesus as “coming” in a number of different senses. 1. Jesus “came” to earth as a human being (Luke 19:10). 2. He “came” when the church was established on Pentecost (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1). 3. He “comes” to discipline congregations that are no longer faithful (Revelation 2:5). 4. In addition, He has promised to “come” in a universal judgment (Matthew 25:31-32).

Some who hold to this theory have been puzzled by certain passages, such as James 5:7-8 “for the coming of the Lord is at hand”. They argue that this passage predicts an imminent coming of Christ within the lifetime of the first century Christians. They feel that if Jesus did not return within that ancient timeframe, then Bible prophecy has failed. First, some have contended that the apostles believed that Jesus was going to come within their lifetime, yet this error is clearly corrected by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff. We should note that Paul faced an error similar to the A.D. 70 Theory, for some were arguing that “the day of the Lord has come” (2:2). Secondly, the second coming is always “at hand” because of its secretive nature (1 Thess. 5:1-3), yet the reference in James may be to a physical judgment that God would bring upon their rich oppressors.

The Kingdom of God

This theory argues that the kingdom of God did not come until A.D. 70 (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1), for this coming kingdom is connected with a “coming” of Christ, yet the kingdom of God is the same relationship as the church (Matthew 16:18-19; Acts 20:28; Revelation 1:5-6). The church was clearly in existence on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 (2:47). In addition, the kingdom of God is the expression of the reign of Christ. There cannot be a kingdom without a king, yet Jesus is reigning prior to A.D. 70 (Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:29-31; Ephesians 1:19-23). In Mark 9:1, Jesus predicts that the kingdom will come with power. In Luke 24:49 He told them to stay in Jerusalem, for they would be clothed with power from on high. This promise is repeated in Acts 1:4, and then Jesus connects with power with the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (1:8). The Holy Spirit did not come upon the apostles in A.D. 70, but rather in the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Then there is the issue of baptism. According to John 3:3-5, one cannot see the kingdom of God unless they are baptized; yet if the kingdom of God did not come until A.D. 70, then why did the apostles preach and practice baptism long before this? (Acts 2:38; 8:12). In the Colossian letter (written prior to A.D. 70), Paul told these Christians that they were in the kingdom of God (Colossians 1:13 “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son”). Sadly, the A.D. 70 advocates argue that this kingdom was a powerless and incomplete kingdom, yet Paul told the Colossians who were in this kingdom, “in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority” (Colossians 2:10).

The Second Coming

Unlike the destruction of Jerusalem, which is predicted in Matthew 24:1-34, the second coming of Christ is different in a number of respects: 1. The second coming will be sudden, and unexpected, as a thief comes in the night, and without any warning signs for believers or unbelievers (Compare Luke 21:20 with 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). 2. Life on earth for Christians followed the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:21-24), yet life on earth will not follow for Christians at the second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18). 3. At the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of Jesus was invisible, something that only believers would perceive (Matthew 24:33), yet at the second coming, He would come in exactly the manner as He left, that is visible (Acts 1:11 “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven”). 4. The destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment upon a particular city, but the second coming involves all nations (Matthew 25:31-32; Revelation 1:7 ”Behold, He cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they that pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him”. When Jerusalem was destroyed, did the people in Africa or South America “mourn over Him”?

The End of the World

King argues that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, but note the context of this chapter. 1. The judgment mentioned in 3:9-10 is paralleled with the judgment that came upon the world in the days of Noah (3:3-7). The judgment during the days of Noah was a universal judgment, and not a local judgment like the destruction of Jerusalem. 2. King argues that the “world” under consideration in these passages is not the material world, but rather the “Jewish world”, that is, the passing of the Jewish economy. Yet, the “world” destroyed by the flood, was the physical planet (3:6). The “present heavens and earth” (3:7), in the context must refer to the same creation that was impacted by the flood, that is, the planet. 3. In verse 10, it is clear that the physical creation is being destroyed. First, the heavens pass away with a roar, the elements, that is the basic elements that compose the material universe, are destroyed with intense heat. Not only are the works on the planet burned up, but also the earth itself is burned up. The “burning” and “destruction” in this verse cannot be figurative, because the judgment that parallels this judgment was not figurative (3:3-7), and because this planet is not merely cleansed of evil, but rather, the planet itself is destroyed. Finally, the new heavens and new earth is not life on this planet for believers after the destruction of Jerusalem, for after that event, Christians still found themselves persecuted and this world was still filled with evil (2 Peter 3:13).

On a side note, these advocates argue that Matthew 5:18 “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished”, is teaching that the Law of Moses was removed in A.D. 70 (when heaven and earth passed away according to their theory). In contrast, the apostles clearly taught that the Law ended at the cross (Colossians 2:14-16; Ephesians 2:15; Hebrews 9:15-17; 10:9-10). Secondly, if the expression “heaven and earth pass away” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, then did Jesus’ words pass away when Jerusalem was destroyed? (Matthew 24:35)

The Resurrection

King argues that the resurrection under consideration in such chapters as 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of those from the grave of Judaism. “Judaism was the metaphorical grave of the spiritual dead out of which this resurrection took place. The fall of Judaism was the defeat of the ‘ministration of death’ and the opening of the graves. Those who had previously heard and obeyed Christ were found worthy of eternal life in the new heaven and earth. The disobedient were raised to eternal hell or separation from God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)” (The Spirit of Prophecy, King, p. 220). They further describe this “resurrection” as being the time when the church would be delivered from the Jewish world. Again, those who adhere to this theory seem bent on ignoring the context of the passages they are studying. 1. The resurrection under consideration in 1 Corinthians 15 is a bodily resurrection, for our resurrection is paralleled to Jesus’ resurrection (15:12-18). 2. The resurrection in this chapter happens when (a) the kingdom is delivered up (not set up) (15:24). (b) At the “end” (15:24). (c) When Jesus stops ruling, not when He begins ruling (15:25). (d) When all of God’s enemies have been defeated, not just some (15:25). (e) When death has been completely defeated (15:26,55). During the destruction of Jerusalem, death was not defeated, for people continued to die physically and spiritually after that judgment. In addition, Christians continued to be “mortal” after that judgment (15:54). 3. The resurrection in this chapter is the resurrection of “bodies” (15:35), bodies composed of “flesh” (15:39). 4. Another major problem with interpreting this chapter as being the resurrection of the church is: (a) when did the church die? (b) The “body” raised in this chapter was initially planted as an “perishable”, “dishonorable”, “weak” and “natural” body (15:42- 44). Please note that the body raised is exactly the same body that was sown. The church established on the day of Pentecost, was not a perishable, dishonorable, weak, and natural body!

Various Problems

1. Baptism is paralleled to the resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-5), but seeing that the resurrection is supposedly past, does baptism have any validity?

2. The Lord’s Supper was to be observed until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26), but if He has come, then where is the authority to continue to partake?

3. Jesus said concerning the resurrection of the dead that they, “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Luke 20:35). If the resurrection has already happened, then Christians do not have the right to marry.

4. Jesus also noted that after the resurrection, “neither can they die anymore” (Luke 20:35). If this is not literal, then it is spiritual, and if that is the case then the A.D. 70 advocates have Jesus teaching that no Christian can fall away after the destruction of Jerusalem. In closing, these people have joined Hymenaeus and Philetus in affirming that the resurrection is past already (2 Timothy 2:16-19).

Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017 www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/mdunagan@easystreet.com

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2002

Interesting discussion going on over there right now ... a pentecostal came in defending babbling in tongues and is getting blown out of the water in half a dozen threads.

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2002