06 1st QandA affirmative side Bell and Preston

At this point of the discussion, we will get into our, uh, this where it's going to get real good and fun. So, so you guys that are looking on buckle up because we will have now in exchange questions and answers, uh, to, uh, uh, be challenged to support some of the things that we are saying. So from the Preterist view, uh, you all will go first. We'll kind of go to 15 minute rounds and then we'll play it by ear. We may go, uh, another one because again, this is where we want to spend the bulk of our time. I think both sides have laid out their positions. And so at this point, now we challenge one another on those positions that have been spoken. So the Preterist side is your opportunity now to ask the non Preterist side questions. Okay. Um, first question I have is to brother Jomo Thomas. All right. You just stated, uh, and please correct me if I have misunderstood you, that everything that God said must apply to all. In other words, when you were describing the nature of language that sometimes he wrote these things in the present tense or wrote them, uh, as if they had already come, uh, he's saying that they're in the present tense, but that, and your argument, if I understood it was that because those things that Don was speaking of were stated in the present tense, it does not mean that they were fulfilled at that time, but they would be filling. Would you clarify that for me? So I, because I wanted to ask you a question. So what I'm saying is this in the context of scripture, we have statements in scripture that are being communicated by the authors at a present tense to a group of listeners, but the implications of that statement go past the listeners in that moment. And to only limit what the person is saying in the moment, just to those listeners is I like to call it. We're socializing the tech. So, so I want to go back to second Peter, just so we can kind of get that. I think you understand what I'm saying here. Let me, let me Am I answering your question? Let's start there. Okay. So you said in the moment, now I'm not speaking of something that happens in the moment. What we affirmed was that the fulfillment of those events would take place within that generation. So what we would like to ask you to do number one is to define the generation of which Jesus spoke at that time. In addition to that, please comment on the imminent statements, which are found in these coming passages that say he was, his coming was at hand or near imminent that it was soon to take place that he was coming in a very, very little while, and that there could be no delay. So would you comment on those in view of the statement in this generation? And let me also add one other thing. Brother Mike Holloway pointed out that the people of Nineveh would rise in the judgment with this generation. I would like for him to go to the text and identify the generation of which Jesus is speaking. And then tell us what generation that was in which Nineveh would rise. Yeah. So let me address the word generations where in the context of the new passages are. Right. The context of generations means times of people groups. The time of the people group is not always identified in the text the way we're restricting it. So we would already disagree that genius or people group is always speaking to, and let me work backwards because we're in the Greek text, but let me work back to Abraham. When God speaks to Abraham about bringing Abraham into the land of Canaan, and I know you went to seminary, brother Bill, so you remember this. When he speaks to Abraham obtaining Canaan, does he speak in the present tense? Okay. Now are you asking me questions? Yeah. Yeah. I'm asking you, does he speak in the present tense? In other words, I'm trying to get the format of what we're doing. No, no, we'll, we'll, we'll save our questions, Jomo. Let's, let's go ahead and respond to him. So, so, so the question that you're asking me is in all the eminent statements that Jesus makes, how do I answer all of them? Okay. Let me give you a few. Give me a, give me a text that you want me to go to so I can look at 13, 11 and 12. All right. So let me go there. Let's look at that. That makes it a little easier for me. Okay. I appreciate that. So it says, besides this, you know, that the time that the hour has come for you to wait from your sleep for salvation is near to us now than when we first believe you said already 13, 13, 11 and 12. Okay. The night is far gone. The day is at hand. So let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly in the daytime. Not as not in orgies and drunkenness in sexual immorality, sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. Am I in the right passage? All right. And so what you want to know is how do I deal with the immanency of that text? So what that text is about and then tell us what the immanency is. Okay. So when we get to the second half of Romans, he's talking about how you live out your faith in it. The, the, my brain, my lips are tied up. The immanency of the text is speaking to those believers living out their faith in conjunction with Romans 12 and one where he says, now, after all these things that we've talked about about salvation, I therefore beseech you by the mercies of God that you present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, which is your reasonable worship. Meaning this is just how you should live. And then he makes this statement, be not conformed to the world. Right now, the question is that word world is the same word that you translated earlier as age. So now the question is, is it an age? Because it's the same Greek word, or is it a world? Is this how it's translated? So are we not conformed to the age or we're not conformed to the world or we're not conformed to the ages that transpired in the world. Then he talks about how to live out your faith. He continues that in the chapter 13, where all he's doing is speaking to, and this is where I talked about when he's speaking imminently, it does not preclude all other Christians and all of the Christian groups imminently in the moment. If I'm speaking to you and you're speaking to your congregation and you say to them, listen, we are to live holy. We are to live safe. We are not to have sexual orgy. You're speaking in present tense to them. Does that preclude any other Christian group that comes after, whether it's the 8 a.m. service, the 11 a.m. service, or 16 years down the road? That truth is relevant to all Christians, regardless of when it's spoke. It has an eternal truth. So that's what that text is talking about. Okay. I appreciate you saying that the text is relevant, which is something that we believe in terms of the moral aspects of the text. But let's go back to something that you agreed upon that I'd like to point out. When you went back to Romans chapter 12, where the text says, I beseech you, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable God, which is the reason of service, there is the word age. Do not be conformed to this age. And the reason they were not to be conformed to that age is because it was the age of Moses in which was the law that put people to death. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. So what he's talking about is, do not be conformed to that age, but be transformed. In other words, they were to be transformed out of that age into the age of the gospel. And this is what was going on. That's the already, but not yet what you guys have already acknowledged. Now in connection with that, in terms of the time statement that's mentioned in Romans 13, 11, and 12, he says, and do this knowing the time. And the word time there is the appointed time. He's quoting from Daniel chapter 12. And he says that it is the hour, the word hora in the Greek. It is the hour to awake out of sleep. That's direct language from Daniel chapter 12. Why? Because he says for now, that is another temporal word that says now that harmonizes with everything Preston said earlier, when he was arguing for the present persecution of those in Thessalonica, and that God was going to bring tribulation upon those who were persecuting them. So it harmonized with that resurrection and with that context. And so now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent. The day has grown near. Now, this is your opportunity to ask questions. I understand. If this is going to be relevant to those, how do you skip over the first century generation and make a day that is near and at hand and the night far spent to a 21st century generation and not make it relevant to the first century generation? Yeah. I think what we're talking about is whether the statement is an absolute time statement, like now is the hour that you need to go to the store versus now is the hour that you need to live in the immediacy of your faith. Those are two different contexts of the terms you're using. I could say you, hey, let me give you an example of language. We talked about this. Brother Bell, I need you to go to the store now. That's relevant right now to you. Or I could say now is the hour that we need to take care of things. If I'm speaking to a group of people and I use that same term, which is what's happening here, that term relevance of hour in the moment, just like Martin Luther King. Let me address it because Martin Luther King and other people have done this. They speak to the relevancy of time in the moment as of what we need to do in a continual living of life. What you're doing is you're extrapolating this and making it just to the moment of the person and the individual. And the question is, and this is why actually we talk about language, are they speaking to how people should live as a continual life of believers, but speaking to a group or are they speaking to this group individually without any reference to any other believers? And what is the history of scripture taught us about how God communicates to his people? Is it just to that individual in group or is it to the whole context of everyone else that follows? Okay. You can ask me that later. The point is, is the day of the Lord at hand to us today or was it at hand to them? So that's the question. Did you see the day of the Lord at hand to us today? Was the resurrection of that text, is it at hand to us today? That's all I'm asking. Okay. Let me, let me, um, let me respond. Can you just say a simple yes or no? Uh, if I could, uh, certainly it was relevant to that day. Absolutely. And if I could just respond to your Matthew, you want me to hit that real quick? Are you saying that yes, this day of the Lord that he speaks of in Romans 13 is at hand to us today so that the resurrection is, we're in the last hour of the resurrection. That's what I'm understanding you to say. Is that correct? Right. And the last hour just means, is this a, is this another word for time? Absolutely. That's all it means. We use multiple words in English, Greek, and Hebrew to all mean the same thing. We call it morphology and synonyms. And a synonym is a synonym. All you're doing. Yeah. If I can just add real quick, and there wasn't immediacy to what he was speaking of for their current day, for they were going through current situations and circumstances and current tribulations, again, not understanding the already and not yet principle will confuse us. Right. And so yes, there was with brother Mike, would this be a deception to them? If he told them that the day was at hand, wherein they were going to receive relief, but they never got it. Well, you got to show me the verse that particular verse, right? Because remember that biblical texts are universally to all believers. So these texts are not only localized. Of course, they're localized. When Paul was writing to the Romans, he was writing to the Romans, but guess what? Paul also understood. And we, as the new Testament believers understand that those texts are not merely applicable to the current day, but they are also applicable. Just like, for example, Paul says concerning the old Testament texts, he says, these things were written for what our learning and admonition did it apply to the people in the old Testament? Absolutely. But those texts were also in the principles thereof applicable to the current day saints. And so it's the same principle. We see that the things that he wrote to them were certainly applicable to them in their day. And they are also applicable in our current day. These are universal principles that Paul is preaching and teaching. Okay. Very quickly, very quickly. So when Peter said in first Peter one, that those things that were prophesied were not to the prophets, but were for us, did he mean that they were for the prophets time? No, no, here, here's what he said. All right. I mean, we can go to the text and that way we can get further clarity. Do you want me to hit the Matthew 12 real quick? Go ahead. Okay. Cause I know you asked about it. I didn't want to forget it. So, so to Matthew 12 41 says the men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. Now I want you to understand the text. This text is actually, and many scholars would agree speaking of the end of time when in John chapter number six, Jesus makes, could you read the text for us? Sure. All right. I'll read it one more time generation so that we can see which one he's talking about. It's going to, it's going to say it right in this verse. Um, the men of Nineveh will stand up. You're reading in the middle of the context. Go back to the beginning of the use of the term. Okay. Which verse do you want me to go back to? Cause I'm reading verse 41 and it has generation in it. So I don't know what verse you want me to go to. Uh, start at around verse 30. Okay. Hold on one second. Matthew 12 38 and I'll read right into it. All right. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, teacher, we want to see a sign from you. But he answered and said to them in evil and adulterous generation craze for a sign. And yet no sign will be given it, but the sign of Jonah, the prophet, the generation to whom Jesus gave the sign of Jonah, the prophet, he gave it to that generation. Okay. So then tell us how he switches from that generation to a future generation in the context. All right. Now I'm going to, uh, I'm going to read that. Let me finish reading it because I don't think he does that at all. Okay. Great. So, so let me read it and we'll see what it says here. So, uh, verse 40, just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster. So will the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. One thing I want to point out here is notice he's taking a text that was applicable to Jonah and making it applicable to that current day. Just thought I'd throw that in. That was a free, but verse 41 says this, the men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. I am not doubting that he's talking about the man of that generation, but when is the question at the day of judgment, the men of Nineveh will stand up and will be witnessed against the men of that current generation. But that's not saying that it's all ending in that generation is simply at the judgment read on through verse 45, queen of the South will rise up with this generation, same principle at the judgment and will condemn it because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Now, when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it comes, it finds it unoccupied swept and put in order. Then it goes and takes along with his seven other spirits, more wicked than itself. And they go in and live there in the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation. I know I'm no qualms about it. That's, that's not saying it's ending in this because see that word generation that Jenny else is also speaking to the people of that day. So he's telling them the people of this generation are going to be judged and guess who's going to stand and witness, right? Uh, the queen of the Nineveh and they'll stand in judgment against the people of that generation. So I'm not changing the context. I'm just reading what it says. And it doesn't say that this all will take place in that generation. All right, Don, you want to ask the question too? I don't want to ask all of this. Yes. Uh, in Matthew chapter 23, Jesus speaking, standing in the temple said, you bear witness against yourself that you are the sons of those who, who killed the prophets for you say, if we had been alive in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't, would not have slain the prophets, but you bear witness that you are their sons. Fill up then the measure of your father's guilt. Therefore, indeed, I, I send you prophets, wise men and scribes. Some of them, you will kill and crucify. Some of them, you were scourged in your synagogues and persecuted from city to city that on you may come all of the righteous blood shed on the earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, son of Barakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say unto you, all these things will come upon this generation. Now, Jesus said all of the blood of all of the righteous, all the way back to creation would be judged and avenged in that generation. So that generation of Israel was to be the generation of Israel that was to be judged. Now, since that generation of Israel was the generation of Israel to be judged. And since the men of Nineveh, the queen of the south and Chorazin and Bethsaida as well, by the way, Matthew chapter 11 would stand up with Israel in the judgment. Then since Israel was to be judged in that generation, it means that Chorazin, Bethsaida, Nineveh, the queen of the south stood up in the judgment with Israel in that generation. If not, why not? Well, I think one of the things that I think we have to be careful of is trying to make what Luke is talking about, apples to apples of the exact point that Matthew was addressing. So let me address the immediacy of the text. And I would agree with you that Jesus was foretelling of a immediate judgment, not final judgment, immediate judgment that was going to happen with those people in that day. And surely as Jomo and I already alluded to earlier that God sending judgment upon Jerusalem and destroying the temple in AD 70, surely fulfill what many of the words Christ will say as the verses that you read have no issue with that. They died in that day. Now, there's a difference though, in someone being judged for their sins and then the final judgment of their sins, right? There's a final judgment that Jesus was speaking clearly of in Matthew chapter number 24. Notice in Luke, Luke didn't mention Nineveh rising up during that judgment. He didn't mention Bethsaida or the queen of the south rising up in that judgment. The people in that day were judged for their sins and their rejecters of Christ ultimately with the destruction of Jerusalem. But that does not, that does not make it plain that there will be not a future judgment where God will judge the entire world, which will include the men of that generation and the rest of us. I would like to go back to the point that I made. What I heard you saying and agreeing with was that Israel was judged in that generation and it was not a localized judgment. It was not a limited judgment. It was a judgment of Israel for all of the blood of all of the righteous spanning all the way back to creation. Now that would include, by the way, Chorazin, Bethsaida. It would include everyone listed here in Matthew 11 and Matthew chapter 12. Now since Jesus said all of that blood all the way back to creation, which comprehensively absolutely includes those of, again, Matthew chapter 12, and those cities and those people would rise up with Israel in the judgment. And since Israel's judgment was in that generation and it was a comprehensive judgment, unless you're willing to say, I really don't know your position on this, you can certainly share it with us. But I'll ask the question, therefore, and frame it like this. Is there a future time in which Israel, because Matthew chapter 11 and Matthew chapter 12 are talking about a judgment of corporate Israel, not strictly individuals, corporate Israel. So are we still waiting for corporate Israel to be judged, number one, for shedding all of the blood of all of the righteous all the way back to creation, since Jesus emphatically placed it in that generation? Are we waiting for another corporate judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood? And if so, why? A follow-up question on that. Does old covenant Israel, Israel after the flesh, the Israel that Jesus is addressing in Matthew 11 and 12 and Matthew 13, does that Israel even exist today? And if so, what's the proof of it? Jelmo, you want to hit on it? Yeah, it's two different questions. So the first question, again, is how I'm going to, how I would place that is the way I understand Scripture, and we'll kind of get to this in Revelation, is there's an end-time judgment in which all humanity will be judged. And the culmination of all things, when God opens the books for all people from the beginning of time to the end, that's when all the final, final judgments will take place. We see in Scripture temporal judgments of Israel. We see it with Nebuchadnezzar. We see it with northern Israel, with the southern and northern kingdom. You see progressive judgment throughout all of the Old Testament to what you would call the final judgment in AD 70. And what you would have to say is that every Jew or every ethnic Jew after AD 70 was killed away, and there's therefore no ethnic Jews. Now, the question that you're asking is ethnic Israel, meaning genetic Israel versus religious Israel, if you can even separate the two. Because in the Old Testament, ethnic Israel and religious Israel were the same thing. Now, of course, somebody could become a Jew through other methodologies. So now, so we switch from that to does Old Testament Israel exist in its current state, which really is a different argument of eschatology, but I'll answer it. So if you're asking my opinion, and I think Michael and I agree with this, we would say that there are probably still today people that are legitimately ethnically, from a genetic standpoint, Israel. But Israel as the separate Old Testament people of God doesn't exist because all the people of God who trust in Christ are one people group. And therefore, we would say that when the Bible uses that language, it plays on the term Israel to mean those that strive and prevail with God, or those who are God's people, which includes anyone, regardless of Jew or Gentile, because in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is just one. So the word again is a play on the word because God uses the term Israel in multiple different facets. He uses the term Israel in terms of the person, he uses the term Israel in terms of the nation, he uses the term Jew or Israel in terms of ethnicity. So which part of Israel are you talking about? Because clearly, there is ethnic people that are still Jewish and how we know, because in the book of Revelations, he says, I saw in heaven, one group of people from every tongue in every tribe from every nation. And then we get to the 12 tribes that are mentioned right after that, which I don't believe is ethnic Israel, I do believe is all the people that he talked about that are one nation and one God. But if you make it ethnic Israel, you still got a problem because the text is there. So I'm going to answer that question this way. One, the issue of the text of judgment is that the judgment was progressive and only dealt with a certain portion of history, and that there is a final judgment where all people groups, including whoever's left, will have to deal with. And when I ask my questions, I'll get to that. Second, regardless of whether ethnic Israel still exists or not, it does not eliminate a final judgment. And I want to go back to the text. Where were we at? Because I lost my place. What text was that you were just reading? Matthew 23. Was that where we left off? Is that where we left off? 23 in verse 34 to 36. I think that was it. I just wanted to make sure because I lost my place marker. So let me just say this real quick. Go ahead. I'll let you finish. And then we'll, we actually are over the time, but I don't want to, I know we're kind of given some lengthy responses. So moving forward, we'll try to limit our responses. And then we'll, we'll, if you have a follow-up question, we'll let you ask it. And then we'll, then it'll be our turn, but then you'll, you guys will have another opportunity, but we'll, we'll start limiting our responses so we can keep the time. So verse 36, it says, truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation, right? All this judgment. What we're saying is if God judges a generation, if God judges this generation, that that judgment, that, that, that moment eliminates all future judgments. Is that, that's what we're, is that what we're communicating? And is that the principle we see in the text when God continuously judges through the Old Testament? And I would disagree with that. I would say that God judging a generation, just like he judged the Northern kingdom in Israel, just like he judged the Southern kingdom of Judah. And then just like, I mean, we got the inter-Testamunial period with the Maccabees, and then you have a judgment here. You consistently see through the progressiveness of history, God continually to judge different generations for their sin, but in no way that one generation getting judged, stop another generation from getting judged. So to take a text and to just eliminate it and make it just about one generation, and that's the final generation, I think is a misrepresentation of what the Bible has already communicated. So if you guys have a follow-up question, we'll go ahead and give you, because we know we were given some lengthy responses, so. Okay. What text would you use to separate what you are calling the final judgment from the judgment upon Jerusalem? Give us the text that you feel is the text that separates the two. There are a couple. So here's one. Let me make sure I don't want to misquote it. Let me get here. Hold on. I believe it is, let me go to it first, 2 Corinthians 5, verse number 10, and some would argue about this judgment, but here's one. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Another text would be Revelation, of course, I believe chapter number 20, where, let's see, number 20, verse number 11, where it says, then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it from whose presence earth and heaven fled away and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small standing before the throne and books were opened and another book was opened, which is the book of life. And then finally, John chapter number six says that, uh, on that day, uh, both there's going to be a resurrection. I'm paraphrasing as I'm going here. And he says, those that have done good will be resurrected to eternal life. And those that have done evil, evil to eternal damnation. So those are all pictures of a final in judgment, right? But Hebrew chapter nine, verse 27, I believe it is says that. It is appointed unto man wants to die. And after that, the judgment, there's an immediate judgment, but then there's also a future final judgment. Uh, there's also judgment for sin. For example, the flood was a type of judgment, right? But those men who died in the flood will still have to stand at the judgment seat of Christ or at the white throne judgment for final judgment. So I think the text is absolutely clear and explicit on that. Okay. So just to make sure I understood second Corinthians five, 10 revelation 20 and 11, John six, nine, 27, and 28 are all the same judgment referring to the final judgment, correct? No, no, no, no. I I've made a distinction and scholars may disagree with this, but I made a distinction on the Hebrews nine. Uh, but the other three certainly are referring to in time judgment, a final judgment, you know, depending on your, uh, eschatology, some would say the believers are one and the nonbelievers are the other. But the point of it is that's a separate judgment. God could strike a man down today for his sin. That's a type of judgment. But then the, then that person has to stand in judgment to be judged for the things done in his body. That's a final judgment. That's what John six, uh, revelation 20 and first Corinthians, uh, second Corinthians 10 points out five and 10. Okay. So in other words, the second appearing of Christ in Hebrews nine 28 is not what you're calling the final judgment. Well, scholars disagree and I'm not dogmatic on that. I personally believe that there's an immediate judgment upon death. Right. Uh, and so that's what I personally believe Hebrews nine is talking about. I'm not dogmatic. Some scholars would say, no, that's still the final judgment. I won't lose sleep over it, but it still proves my point that there's a final judgment. And then there's an immediate judgment. The immediate judgment that we just read in Matthew chapter 23 was Jesus telling them that there's going to be an immediate judgment. The destruction of the temple was an immediate judgment in a temporal world, right? But then there's an eternal judgment. That'll be fine. Okay. Um, are we out of time? Well, uh, I tell you, you'll have another opportunity. Okay. We'll go ahead and allow Jomo and I at this time to, to, to ask you guys questions.