STEPHEN WHITSETT, M.Div. Th.M. Ph.D. (ABD)
Recently I was reminded that communication is as effective as the listeners ability to comprehend the message given. Having published several refutations of Preston’s books and paying close attention to the on-going written debate between Don Preston and Ed Stevens the later statement is quite apropos. Preston so far has refused to engage any proposition that I have put forth electing instead to engage “enemies” he believes he can win over.
Preston functions his arguments based on several presuppositions, baseless assertions, and highly speculative reasoning. Having never been able to prove his stated foundational principle of a “second appearing of Christ in AD 70” from a historical point of view, he claims fulfillment based on the predicate that Jesus never lied or could lie. Therefore, scriptures that do not support his views are reinterpreted yet any first-year bible student has the ability to shred his interpretive assertions into kindling where one can “roast” his whole position in a simple backyard barbecue.
In all of his work Preston never addresses the established works of recognized theologians from the Early Church Fathers starting with Didache. Meaning he never engages with the arguments presented and used from the beginning forming the foundations of the Historic Christian faith, namely, the visible, bodily return of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of the saints. Nor does he engage with historical testimonials of eyewitnesses to the events that took place in AD 70. These same witnesses place the Apostle John living in Asia long after AD 70 and into the time of Trajan which is a serious problem for the full preterist. He also refuses to engage classic scriptures used to prove their positions against the heretics of their day and of those he does he redefines the terms. In Phil 3:21 the lowly body of us is turned into the glorious body of Christ, and mello always mean “what is about to come”, Resurrection of the dead is turned into the transition of the Old Covenant body of Israel into the New Covenant body.
The following article is a refutation of his paper, Two Priesthoods, Israel’s Feast Days, and the Passing of the Law of Moses in which he argues that based on all prophesies needing to be fulfilled by AD 70, according to Luke 21:22. Preston develops his entire arguments based on this faulty interpretation that demands that all prophecy was fulfilled during the days of vengeance while every commentary known to man screams out that the “what is being fulfilled” is all prophecies concerning these days of vengeance. His secondary verse of Mathew 5:17-18 is used to prove that the law and the prophets’ “prophecies” all have to be fulfilled before the law of Moses can end. He also argues as to why two priesthoods and the law of Moses continued side by side for another forty years until its consummation in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem as the final fulfillment of all prophecy.
Preston’s first assertion stating from paragraph one makes the claim that the Christian age/New Covenant age never comes to an end. This view is created when a person accepts that all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. If all prophecy is fulfilled, then the church is living in the New Jerusalem/New Heaven and Earth from which there is no end. In an attempt to be brief, I will focus on the one most important aspect in which everything stands or falls. (If the book of Revelation was written after AD 70 the entire preterist paradigm falls and crumbles into tiny pieces.)
Christ declared in Rev 22:13 that he was in the beginning, and he is at the end, the alpha, and the Omega, the first and the last. The beginning as noted by John 1:1 (Col 1:16, Rev 4:11, Eph3:9, I Cor 8:6) was the work of creation. Christ was there in the beginning and all things were made by him and through him and he upholds the universe by the power of his hand. The Omega, then is not the end of creation but the end of the work in all of creations purpose, the completion of redemptive history in which all men, from first to last stand before him in judgment to receive reward or punishment.
The Full Preterist (FP) affirms that that there is no end to the birth/death life cycle and that man will continue on forever having children and the Bible never speaks of an end of time or when the earth ever comes to its end but continues forever so that men can continue to be born and die so that the kingdom of God will have “no end” (Isa 9:7; Eph 3:21). Revelation 20 speaks otherwise.
Before continuing let me make a brief note to explain the FP difficulty in their interpretations. It stems from their lack of knowledge of scriptures, and the inability to conduct proper exegesis. In Luke 1:33, it states, “and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Paul stated in I Cor 15 “Then comes the end,” for he must reign until he destroys ever rule, authority, and power that opposes him.” This clearly presents a contradiction in terms. How we reconcile the two concepts must flawlessly clarify the seemingly contradiction. The FP declares the literal heavens and earth will never pass away but continues on forever in order for the kingdom of God to continue to expand, (Isa 9:7) but since Math 24:35 demands the heaven and earth will pass away the only way to clear up this contradiction for the FP is to have “heaven and earth” a metaphor for the 2nd temple which will pass away, but not the literal heaven and earth. So, the literal temple has to pass away in order for the law of Moses to come to an end.
Yet in Luke 16:17 he states it is easier for the literal heaven and earth to pass away than for one small stroke of the pen in the Law to be abolished, nullified, or done away with. In the sister verse of Mathew 5:18 the FP forgets that Mathew’s book was written to a Jewish audience who would understand the Hebrew idiom being used. While Luke speaks more plainly to a Greek/gentile audience. The obvious point being made is that the OC is a contract made by God with Abraham and then to the people. The contract includes promises made from both sides in regard to the keeping of the contract. Man failed to keep his end of the bargain and according to the terms if they failed, they were to be punished with death. Just because man failed to keep his end of the bargain God cannot fail in keeping his part. It would be easier for the heaven and the earth to cease to exist than for God to not keep every promise he made. The first point of understanding is that the contract made with Abraham did not include the law (Gal 3:17) nor does the law do away with the promises made. Secondly as a principle, the prophets upheld the OC, but their prophecies were not a part of the covenant made with Abraham, yet they all spoke a message of confirmation to the covenant. The prophecies of Moses in Duet 28 are not terms and conditions of the OC but the consequences for failure to keep the covenant. The judgments to come were prophesied as warnings for Israel’s if they failed to keep the terms of the covenant.
The point being made here that when FP comes across a verse that literally contradicts their position the immediate reaction is to assign the verse a spiritual meaning and not a literal one. Without due diligence in exegesis to prove the word was meant to be taken allegorically they declare they are right over any comment ever made by any scholar in the past. While they give lip service to letting scriptures interpret scriptures, they fail to follow their own creed over these seemingly difficult passages.
Getting back to point, in Rev 20 it states that in the final Great White throne Judgment all men are judged according to their name being written in the lamb’s book of life or not. (Rev 19:12; Dan 7:9-11; Rev 3:5; ) This book was written before the foundation of the world, before its very creation, and contains the name of every elect person chosen in Him. (Rev 13:8, 17:8) This book has a last page, and on that last page is a last name. There can be no one who is born after that last name and be added to the list because that would imply God is limited in his foreknowledge. The list of names is finite. No man can enter heaven without his name being found in the book of life. Jesus is the Omega, the last, who is there at the end of all man’s suffering at the end of time.
In the new heavens and earth the world, the earth, is remade like new, it is when the curse of Gen 3 is reversed, and full restoration comes not only to mankind through the resurrection power, but full restoration comes to this world (Rom 8) as well. In the FP paradigm the curse is never literally lifted, sin-death continues forever, and man continues to be born and die under the curse of it. Man is just freed from it spiritually. Yet the problem exists in a physical world alone not in a spiritual realm. Sickness, pain, suffering is of this physical world and in Christ we are freed from the spiritual death and have been reconciled to him, but this body continues to suffer under its oppression from the curse. Having been set free from the spiritual aspects what remains is the physical aspects. The promise of Rev 21 is the freedom from the physical aspects of the curse or fallen nature that works in the unregenerated body of man where he experiences sickness, disease, suffering, and death. They can claim all day that they live in a spiritual new heaven and earth but fail to provide how things are different from what Peter said, “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. Their condition is no different from that of Paul and Peters’ Day, before the AD 70 destruction. John, living after AD 70 experienced no bodily (or spiritual) change and died according to the curse of Genesis 3.
Also, in this new heaven and earth John is specific to say in Rev 21:23, “And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, … and there will be no night there” (Rev 22:5). While no explanation is ever offered as to how these phrases are to be taken spiritually or allegorically, the literal inference is that in new heavens and earth, there is no more the passing of time. The sun and moon were created for signs and seasons (Gen 1:7) and if there is no moon or sun then the measuring of time comes to an end. In the new heaven and earth there is but one day that last forever and ever. We call this an implied understanding resulting from the logical conclusion of what would happen if God took away the moon and the keeping of time and seasons based on its rotation around a sun that no longer exists, comes to its end..
In a final note on the subject all men must stand before the Judgment seat, and this happens after the last name of the last person has died, then the end comes. It is impossible for the GWT judgment to have happen in AD 70 as this violates Paul words and the very nature of God’s character. Heb 9 states, “ just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,” (Rom 14:12; Math 12:36; I Peter 4:5) In Rev 20, “I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne.” Which is inclusive of all men who have ever lived since they are judged according to what they did while in the body. This is supported by the emptying of Hades and its destruction. Hades comes to its end as there is no more need for sinners to be cast into it because there are no more sinners, not because a judgment has taken place of all men assigning them to either a part in the Lake of Fire or to eternal life.
NOT one person can be judged who has not lived out their lives, nor can any person be judged in “absentia.” This violates the justice of God. This becomes another sticking point where the FP fails to comprehend that God cannot judge people lives and how they lived before they have lived. They demand God does and by doing so fail to see how they attack and deconstruct God’s perfect divine attribute of justice in holding to such a position. Judgment always comes after, never before. Every person must give an account, or the bible lied on this point.
In his third paragraph Preston states, “the Levitical priesthood of the Law of Moses, and the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ were both clearly functioning at the same time, as proven by Hebrews 7-8. The only question therefore was whether both priesthoods were acceptable, at least on some level, at the same time.”
In Hebrew 7, the writer introduces Christ as he replacement for the Levitical priesthood and shows that where there is a changed in the priesthood, that there then is also a change in the law. Heb 7:18 specifically states, “a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness.” The whole sacrificial system was carried on the backs of the Levitical priesthood, if the law that requires priests to come from the Levites comes to an end, then the whole system of laws requiring sacrifices and the priesthood itself comes to an end. It does not continue, because the Levitical priesthood required daily and yearly sacrifices. Heb 10 tells us that the need for animal sacrifices came to and end as Christ became the final and last sacrifice and no other sacrifices are needed.
He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. Heb 7:27-28
In Hebrews ten the writer solidifies Christ supremacy by stating in direct terms the need for the sacrificial system came to its end by the single sacrifice of Christ himself.
9then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Logic demands that if there is a change in the priesthood and then there is an abolishment of animal sacrifices then the laws concerning the heart of the sacrificial system, was ripped out and done away with. Preston stated, “The only question therefore was whether both priesthoods were acceptable, at least on some level, at the same time.”
Preston not being trained theological fails to grasp the import of a truth that has catastrophic consequences when abrogated. God initiated the first covenant with Abraham. God initiated the new covenant with the house of Judah and Israel. (Heb 8) God provided the means by which the sacrificial system comes to end and that’s by the one-time sacrifice of his son. If sacrifices are no longer required by God, then the Levitical priesthood and its daily administration have no meaning. If the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system have been declared obsolete, worthless, and in effective a change in the law has taken place requiring the old law to come to an end. If a better means has been obtained for mans justification, something the old system could never do, then the new system replaces the old. Why would God find a sacrificial system acceptable of animals when he declared the sacrifices could never “take away sins.” (Heb 10:4) Only Christ death and sacrifice can remove sins and provides for the forgiveness of sins. In what way could God ever find the old system acceptable when the new one with better terms replaces the old. When the 1932 Model B came out it made the Model T obsolete. While people still tried to use it, it never got them to their destination. Only the blood of Christ was sufficient to remove sin.
In a simple answer if the priesthood was succeeded by a more perfect priesthood why should the old remain in effect when a new has been introduced with better promises? For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. By the blood of Christ all sins have been removed and forgiveness has been provided there is no more need to any sacrificial system to remain in place. If Christ has been given up as the ransom goat what other sacrifice is needed to atone for man’s sins? IF there is by no other means atonement can be made, and the final sacrifice ends the need for animal sacrifices, then the ongoing work of the temple and the Levitical priesthood is no longer required or effective. How can the blood of goats and bulls atone for sin when that sin has already been paid for and removed by the blood of Christ? If a priest continues to offer sacrifices that are no longer required, it essentially becomes ineffective. From God’s perspective there is no need for another priesthood outside of Christ and it is completely unacceptable. For God to accept the administration of the continued Levitical priesthood in Temple worship after AD 33 would be to nullify and abrogate his owns Son’s death on the cross. Preston fails to grasp the theological power of this argument made in Hebrews.
In the outline provided after paragraph five Preston gives what he believes is a sound argument as to why the law of Moses continued on after AD 33.
☛ Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle of the law could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
As we noted above the “law” is referred to as the Covenant God made with Abraham that did not include the laws of Moses. It referred to the covenant terms and conditions. “Jots and Tittles” are what we would call today is the fine print of the contract God made with Abraham. A “iota” was the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the “tittle’ are breathing marks place on Hebrews written words were for pronunciation.
The goal was to keep the law perfectly for the reward to be given. By keeping the laws perfectly, one would fulfill the obligations of the original contract. Christ alone kept the law perfectly; this means that he alone fulfilled the terms and obligation of the contract. When the terms of a contract have been fulfilled the contract comes to an end.
Christ alone fulfilled the terms and conditions of the contract on two levels, the first he was without sin thus he fulfilled the law, the second he becomes the sacrifice, the representative of all the people who were die for their failure, he died in their place. Thus, the punishment of death was meted out on all mankind for their violation of the law through Christ who died for all men. The terms stated that failure to keep the law was punishable by death. If all men were punished for their crimes and killed, then all men were justified by Christ who died for them. Thus, fulfilling all of the terms, both reward and punishment.
In the next five bullet points Preston presses the idea of the “Sabbath” day rest needing to be fulfilled in Christ at the consummation of the ages, with the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. Until then the “Sabbath” typology can not be fulfilled.
Preston states emphatically,
Since those Feast Days and Sabbaths were overseen and administered by the priests, this means that as long as the Feast Days were unfulfilled, as long as they were still shadows of the coming realities, as long as they were valid, this means, prima facie, that the priesthood would remain in force, valid, until the complete fulfillment of the typological Feast Days, including the Seventh Day Sabbath. Priesthood and cultus are inseparable. If the Law is valid, the priesthood is valid. It is that simple. It is that undeniable.
Preston fails to theologically recognize that “Being in Christ” is the fulfillment of the Sabbath day of rest. He fails to acceptthat the law was changed and abrogated concerning the priesthood and the laws requiring sacrifices through Christ single offering on the cross.
In Paragraph thirteen Preston states, “to the Jewish mind, all of what we commonly call the Old Testament, was called the Law.” As we stated above Paul used “the law” to refer to the entire Old Testament cannon as well as specifically to the first five books or the Torah.
In Thayer’s Greek Lexicon the entry is made for the Greek word nomos (law) and then 4 usages are described as to how that word is being used in scriptures based on the context.1. Of any law whatsoever, (Rom 3:27) 2. The most common is the law of Moses, sometimes referring to the ethical laws and not ceremonial laws hence Paul separates the two usages himself based on context. Gal 5:14 for example of the moral law, “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 3. Of the Christian faith, Rom 3:27 and the moral instruction given by Christ.
The 4th – the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT.
So, the term nomos can refer to just the first five book or the entire OT cannon. In Math 5:17-18 Preston presses for the entire cannon, according to Thayer’s it refers to the Mosaic law alone. Then the keeping of the law refers to its moral precepts and not ceremonial and civil aspects. This excludes the need for the fulfilling of all prophecy as a requirement for the law to pass away.
Preston formulates his argument this way,
Not one jot or one tittle of “the Law” would pass until it was all fulfilled.
But “the Law” included the seventh day Sabbath (Exodus 20:4).
Therefore, until the seventh day Sabbath was fulfilled, not one jot or one tittle of “the Law” would pass away.
Preston argues against the futurist who claims the day of rest is still future. Many less educated equate the “sabbath day rest” as the time at the end, after man has entered into the new heaven earth as the fulfillment of the true sabbath day of rest. Preston claims that the Sabbath day of rest was fulfilled in AD 70.
This becomes a glaring instance where proper theology as held up by theologians and scholars differ from the common pastor in the church. The correct theological position is that any man who is “in Christ” has found his “sabbath day of rest.” In Hebrew 4:10 it states, “for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.” We no longer strive to be Righteous we are given Christ’s Righteousness. We no longer do good work to be righteous and we have cease our striving to be good to earn righteousness.
In turning to Part two Preston introduces all of the feast as needing to be fulfilled since it is part of the “law”. The feast days then could not have been fulfilled when Christ declared it “was finished’ on the cross since the feast days had not yet been fulfilled and could not be fulfilled until the appointed time which was at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The feasts are listed in Leviticus 23.
- The Sabbath day of rest, seventh day of every week. 2. Passover 3. Firstfruits 4. Feast of weeks, 5. Feast of Trumpets. 6. Day of Atonement, 7. Feast of booths.
The first point made in opposition is the feast days are not part of the covenant made with Abraham. The laws of Moses and the feast days were about “how” to live under the covenant. They are never the terms of the covenant themselves.
The initial covenant made with Abram was “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
“To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojourning’s, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
It was a promise to be their God, they would be his people and that God would bless them and through them the nations of the world would be blessed. That the land would be theirs forever as long as they did not forsake the covenant. They were required to live in obedience to the laws while under the covenant. Observing the feasts were not about “keeping the covenant terms” but were conditions for living under the covenant. Preston fails to comprehend this main point of perspective or to acknowledge it. Most FP outright reject such principles based in ignorance and a lack of educational background but instead have gravitated to “partial” teaching presented by FP teachers that do not grasp of comprehend the over all message and themes as revealed in all of the OT scriptures. They simply lack the comprehensive background that provides the correct perspective. Partial understanding gives only a partial view.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Christ is our Passover through his death his blood is applied, and we are passed over. Christ is the fulfillment of the firstfruits, the first to rise from the dead in hope and promise of our own. The feasts of weeks are fulfilled in the harvest, as Christ gathered his own in him. The feast of Trumpets is a day of rest, those that have been gathered find their rest in him. The day of atonement was the day Christ died, he atoned for our sins. The feast of booths is the fellowship of the saints in Christ. All of these feast find their types and shadows fulfilled in Christ including every Sabbath day. Again, these were not terms of conditions according to the covenant but how they were to live under the covenant. He is the substance of the real purpose of the feasts. They were all designed to point to Christ.
Paul stated clearly in Col 2:16-19 “let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The substance and reality of these feasts are found in Christ. In the way Israel observed these feasts were foreshadowing of what was to come and what was to come was Christ who fulfilled all things in himself.
Preston demands that based on the “present active indicatives in the text “estin” when he says that those Sabbatical feast days “are” (his present tense situation) a shadow of the good things “about to come.” Means that the shadows and type have not been fulfilled. He also demands that mellonton is to be translated as “about to come” which implies it has not come. The real intent is that as a present participle active mellonton is pointing to that what has been coming since the creation of the feasts, which is the fulfilment of the shadows and types, the true substance, Christ. The substance of the true purpose is to be found in Christ.
Now in his third paper he addresses the points made above concerning the changing of the priesthood.
Hebrews 7:10-12 is cited as proof of this: “The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law.” (Those who appeal to this text normally ignore the present active indicatives in the text). So, it is observed that Jesus had become the Great High Priest, and since Hebrews 8:5f says he could not be priest on earth, that must mean that the Levitical priesthood had been annulled. This argument fails on several points.
To begin with the Preston fails to understand how the present active indicatives work in Greek language. The implication is that something has happened in the past and the continued ramifications have a present ongoing reality. If someone died in the past then we can still say, “he’s dead” That does not mean he recently died, it means he is dead, and will remain dead. Preston is notorious for making subtle changes to what the text actually states then combined with his lack of knowledge of how Greek grammar works he reaches a conclusion design to support his view. Concerning this verse though he makes a major mistake.
metatithemenēs is the first verb found in verse 12. It is a Present participle Middle or passive not a present active indicative. A participle is a word formed from a verb (e.g., coming ) and used as an adjective. Adjective are used to describe nouns. The priesthood is a “changed priesthood,” the adjective metatithemenēs modifies the noun, subject, priesthood. not one that is being changed. This means that it has been changed, hence Heb 9:15 Christ is the mediator of a new covenant. The second verb ginetai translated “takes place” (present indicative middle or passive NOT active as he claims.) concerns the law that was changed as a result in the change of the priesthood. Because the priesthood was changed therefore a change take place in the law concerning priesthood as well.
Preston then makes the charge, “It ignores the fact that the Hebrews writer clearly affirms that the Levitical priesthood was still very much functioning (Hebrews 8:5). So, at the time of Hebrews, Christ was high priest, and the Levitical priests were likewise functioning, continuing to function.” No one argues that the Levitical priesthood continued to exist until AD 70, but was it sanctioned by the Lord. The answer as we stated above is “NO”. That ends the discussion.
Preston goes on to argue that Paul showed signs of still being under the law or at times following the law. Paul stated clearly, that, “we are not under the law, but under grace.” (Rom 6:14,15; Gal 3:25, 5:18, ) so Paul only observed the law in Acts 21 under one pretense,
To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
If Paul declared he was no longer under the law of Moses, that does not prove the law ended, but provides for the Jew and Gentile in Christ the realization they were no longer obligated to keep any part of the law. No Christian was ever obligated to keep the law of Moses in a NT context. The tension existed that Jewish believers insisted upon the keeping of the law and fought against Paul on these matters. In Acts 15 they sought to invoke the law on Gentiles who were saved, and the council decision was not to put a yoke on them that they themselves could not bear.
From man’s perspective he sees the temple and the Levitical priesthood still at work. From God’s perspective he sees men still stumbling around in ignorance after providing for them a final sacrifice to end the need for any other sacrifice. There was no more need for animals sacrifices which could not remove sin especially when a sacrifice has been made that removes sin from their account.
The base of Preston continued argument through a total of seven papers is the idea that all of the law was not fulfilled because all prophecy was part of the law, as defined by the whole OT cannon, therefore all prophecy of the OT has to be fulfilled in order for the law to pass away. All prophecy had its completion in AD 70 since these days of vengeance are the days in which all prophecy will be fulfilled. Preston entire argument is based on the faulty interpretation that all prophecy must be fulfilled in and by the appointed time of AD 70 using Luke 21:22 as the biblical bases.
for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
The FP interpretates that the days of vengeance are the days in which all prophesy is to be fulfilled. The theologian understands the days of vengeance prophesied in the OT are what is being fulfilled, not every prophecy in the OT. Luke 24:44 (Luke 18:31, 22:37, Acts 13:29) gives us insight into this perspective.
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
No doctrine is built on one verse alone. The FP uses Luke 21:22 as a stand-alone verse while Luke 24:44 and the other verses presented create a more complimentary understanding. Along with the repeated phrase, “this was done in order to fulfill the words of the prophet”. The day of vengeance is the time when al prophecy written concerning those days of vengeance are fulfilled. The days in which Christ came was to fulfill all things written of himself, thus he declared, “it is finished.” All things written about those days, are fulfilled.
Just as “Jesus Only” doctrine was created by a misreading of Acts 2:38 the FP relies on a misreading of a text to prop up their paradigm. If everything that follows in Preston’s argument are based on the misreading of these two scriptures (Math 5:17-18, Luke 21:22) then everything that follows is again “shredded to pieces” and burnt on the backyard BBQ.
There is no other way to scramble an egg but to use a tool and beat the egg senseless. We have demonstrated that the key verses used by Preston to support his views is an interpretation that contradicts other scriptures and the intent of the message being put forth in these verses is reversed or sidestepped in favor of an interpretation that support their views. Luke 21:24, the days of vengeance prophesied in the Old Testament is what to be fulfilled, not all prophecy just prophecy concerning these days. Math 5:17-18, it is the OC that has to be fulfilled with its terms and conditions as it was demonstrated by Christ that he kept the law perfectly and completed the terms and so the OC contract was fulfilled and completed by his death on the cross. There for the OC came to its end and the new one was inaugurated in his blood and is the contract that he mediates between God and men. It is established that the laws concerning the priesthood were changed, bringing an end to the law’s requirements of a Levitical priesthood. Then lastly the sacrificial system came to its end when a sacrifice was made that abolished the need for any other sacrifice.
The best analogy presented to demonstrate the crux of the issue is a simple one.
I go to the bank and make a car loan. I pay on the contract and fulfill the terms of the contract. When the car is paid in full the contract comes to an end because the terms and conditions have been met. I now own the car. Just because the car is paid in full, and I still have it does not mean I have to pay for it again. I no longer have to make payments. In AD 33 and after until AD 70 when the bank was finally torn down did, they come to realize they no longer owed anything to the bank. The Jews continued to make payments on a car they already owned, and God said was paid in full, therefore the car payments were “return to sender”. The FP believes just because the car was paid in full it was still acceptable to God to continue making payments because man said so. It was God who said no.
Preston continues to argue from mans perspective and not as how God would see it. How God sees is it is from the “theological” perspective. It’s the study of God and not a study of man.