Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston Debate Israel and Eschatology

INTRODUCTION

MODERATOR

Greetings and welcome to our debate today between Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston. The thesis for our debate is: Does Romans 11:25–27 state that there will be a national turning of the Jewish people to God? Are there any Old Testament or New Testament promises made to ethnic Israel that remain to be fulfilled? This is a debate on eschatology, and it has a very specific focus.

I would like to introduce our debaters and then outline the format before stepping aside to let them debate.

Dr. Michael Brown is the founder and president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, North Carolina; director of the Coalition of Conscience; and host of the daily, nationally syndicated talk show The Line of Fire. He holds a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University and has served as a visiting adjunct professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary at Charlotte, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King's Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity. He has contributed numerous articles to scholarly publications, including the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Dr. Brown is the author of 22 books.

Dr. Don K. Preston is the president of the Preterist Research Institute, a nonprofit institute dedicated to, in their own words, the "positive proclamation of the good news that we are not in the last days and the world is not just about to end." He has also written 22 books, all on the topic of Preterist eschatology, and has debated many leading evangelicals, including James Jordan, Joel McDurmon, C. Marvin Pate, David [name unclear in source], Randall Price, and Thomas Ice. He has served as Minister for the Ardmore Family of God, formerly the Ardmore Church of Christ, for 16 years.

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.

MODERATOR — Debate Format

The format is as follows. Dr. Brown will go first. Each gentleman will have 17 minutes to make his case. There will be a 12-minute rebuttal period from each, maintaining the same order throughout — Dr. Brown then Dr. Preston. There will be a cross-examination period of 15 minutes for each gentleman doing the questioning, for two 15-minute periods. Then each debater will have 5-minute closing statements.

Regarding the cross-examination: it must consist of the asking of questions — not the stating of positions or responding to the previous answer. It needs to be very much focused on questions. Any other commentary beyond briefly laying the groundwork of a question will be considered out of bounds.

Once more, the thesis statement is: Does Romans 11:25–26 state that there will be a national turning of the Jewish people to God? Are there any Old Testament or New Testament promises made to ethnic Israel that remain to be fulfilled? Please keep that in mind as you listen carefully to the presentations.

With that, I invite Dr. Michael Brown to begin his 17-minute opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENTS

DR. MICHAEL BROWN — Opening Statement (17 minutes)

Thank you so much for the opportunity to do this. Thank you, Don, for accepting the challenge — in fact, for coming to me and suggesting we debate these issues. And James, thanks for moderating.

What I want to do is scope out what Paul wrote in Romans 9 through 11 so we can get the larger context and see, without question whatsoever, that Paul was looking forward to the future national turning of the Jewish people to Jesus the Messiah.

The context of Romans 9 is that Paul had not yet been to Rome. He wanted to make sure the Romans understood the gospel message. As he closes Romans 8 — "no one can separate us from the love of Messiah" — the question could easily arise: what about Israel? What about the Jewish people? Paul's heart was heavy, burning over these issues, because his own people as a nation had rejected the Messiah. He was wishing he himself could be cut off from them. But he says this in Romans 9:3. Then he declares in 9:4: "to them belong — present tense — the adoption, the glory, the covenants," and at the end of the verse, "the promises." So the promises and the covenants still remain. There are many promises God gave to Israel that had not yet been realized, including a national turning of the people; including the earth being filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the seas; including the end of war and conflict on the earth; and including a national turning of many nations of the world to God. For me, the future is as bright as the promises of God. I hold to an eschatology of victory, not defeat. God's purpose is being accomplished in the midst of conflict and chaos here on the earth.

Now in Romans 9:6, Paul explains that not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel — in other words, there is a remnant of believers within the nation, an Israel within Israel. Paul never in his writings explicitly calls the church "Israel" or explicitly calls Gentiles "Israel." He may call them the circumcision in the spirit; he may say they are part of the Commonwealth of Israel. But here he is speaking of the believers within the nation, the Israel within Israel, in that sense. Notice, as he continues his argument, that he is distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles, between Israel and the Gentiles. Throughout his argument in Romans 9, 10, and 11, every time he speaks of Israel, he is speaking of ethnic Israel. He says in 9:24 that God's called people are "not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles," making that distinction between Jew and Gentile in the body. 9:27: "Isaiah cries out concerning Israel" — meaning whom? The ethnic people, the nation — "though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved." Then he speaks of the Gentiles in verse 30, that "the Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it," but "Israel" — 9:31 — "pursued a law that would lead to righteousness" but "did not succeed in attaining righteousness." Again, Israel here is ethnic, national Israel.

He says he has a burden for them, for their salvation, that they may be saved. They have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge — speaking again of ethnic Israelites. Then he says in 10:19, "Did Israel not understand?" — who is he speaking of? Ethnic, national Israel. And then he quotes passages to say they didn't get it, and closes the chapter: 10:21, "Of Israel the Lord says through Isaiah, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.'" So every time, consistently and clearly, after saying there is an Israel within Israel, when he speaks of "Israel" he is not speaking of Gentile believers — he is speaking of national, ethnic Israel. A simple exegesis of the text, not importing anything from outside, just reading these texts here.

That leads to the obvious question: Has God rejected His people? Is God finished with Israel? Paul says, by no means. First he explains that there is a remnant of believers like him in every generation — just as in Elijah's day 7,000 had not bowed the knee to Baal, so also there is a remnant of believers. He mentions Elijah making appeals to God against Israel in 11:2 — and who does he mean by Israel? National, ethnic Israel.

Now verse 7: "What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking." I am reading all these passages simply to say that Paul uses Israel to speak of ethnic, national Israel — after making reference to a believing remnant within the nation, he now uses Israel speaking exclusively about ethnic, national Israel.

Notice verse 12: "If their trespass means riches for the world, and their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean?" Have we seen Israel's full inclusion yet? No, of course not. And notice what Paul says in verse 11: "Did they stumble in order that they might fall beyond recovery? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." Paul had every opportunity here to refer to the Gentiles as Israel — he doesn't. He refers to them as Gentiles and says their role is to make Israel envious, enjoying the covenant blessings, the riches of the Messiah, the forgiveness of sins, thereby making Israel envious. Just as their turning away has opened the door, in God's sovereignty, for the Gentiles to be saved, so their turning back will bring something extraordinary on the earth that has not yet happened and to which we are still looking forward.

He says: "I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous and thus save some of them." So his immediate goal is the salvation of a remnant among the people — saving some of them. He is looking forward to their full inclusion. "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" "If the firstfruits offered are holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches."

He then gives a warning about Gentile arrogance — obviously about the idea that the Gentile church has replaced Israel or that God is finished with Israel. He gives a very strong word of warning. And of course, by not heeding that warning through the centuries, the church has become arrogant. Supersessionism has come in, and while there are Christians today who hold to replacement theology and who are absolutely not anti-Semites, through history, unfortunately, the idea that God was finished with Israel — that the Jewish people were cursed and scattered under judgment and that the church had replaced Israel — opened the door wide to a horrible history of anti-Semitism that we still have to undo in witnessing to Jewish people, who often associate Jesus with the horrors of much of church history.

Paul continues explaining how natural branches can be grafted back into their own tree. Then he says this in verse 25: "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery" — by which he means something in God's plan of salvation that had been previously hidden but is now being revealed. What is the mystery? "A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

Let us understand a couple of things. It is a partial hardening because it is not over all the people of Israel — there is a remnant like Paul who believes, or like me as a Jewish believer today. And it is partial in that it is not for all time; the veil will be lifted, and there will be a turning. How long will this hardening last? Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Is there still a hardening on Jewish hearts toward Jesus? Yes — this has not yet come to pass. Has the fullness of the Gentiles come in, in accordance with Revelation 7, where every tribe and tongue and kindred and nation is represented? There remain approximately two billion people in the world today who have never heard the name of Jesus. Unreached tribes and tongues remain. The fullness of the Gentiles has not come in. And if that fullness includes unity and coming to the fullness of the knowledge of God as Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4, and as Jesus prayed for in John 17, that clearly has not happened yet — or we would not be having a debate about these issues as brothers in the Lord, both earnestly seeking the truth.

So this has not yet happened. There remains this hardening over the hearts of Israel. The fullness of the Gentiles has not yet come in. And then Paul says this: "And in this way — or so — all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will banish ungodliness from Jacob.'"

Let us notice: he is not referring to the church here. The church is never referred to as Jacob in the New Testament. Also, when Paul says "all Israel," as many exegetes and commentators note, it is impossible that he has a different Israel in mind in verse 26 than he had in verse 25 or in the previous ten references — which is why I have been reading these texts. He is referring to national, ethnic Israel. And he says there will be a national turning. Has it happened yet? No. Has the national mourning that Zechariah speaks of in Zechariah 12:10 to 13:1, resulting in national cleansing, happened yet? Absolutely not. Notice also that it takes place at a future time when Israel is surrounded by the nations and armies of the world — that has not happened yet. It is looking forward to a future time when the Redeemer himself touches down in Jerusalem, returning as Acts 1 says, just the way he came, as laid out in Zechariah 14 — that has not yet happened.

That coming of the Redeemer that Paul speaks of in 2 Thessalonians 1, where he says it will come in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, at which time we will receive relief from persecution — that has not yet happened. The event of Revelation 1:7, when every eye sees him and all the nations of the earth mourn because of him — that has not yet happened. The event that Paul looked forward to in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, where we will literally be physically resurrected and our bodies will put on immortality — that has not yet happened. If Jesus does not return to this earth in our lifetimes, we will all still physically die. This mortal has not yet put on immortality, which Paul spoke of as yet to come, and we become like Jesus in his risen, glorified form, as 1 John speaks of as well. These are things we are yet looking forward to.

"The last days" of which Isaiah spoke — we understand that phrase has different meanings in different contexts, but clearly it is not speaking only of the end of the Old Covenant period. Rather, it speaks of the day when there will be no more war on the earth, when all the nations will come and worship God in Jerusalem — that has not happened. If words have any meaning, those things have not yet happened.

When Paul says "in this way all Israel will be saved," he is either speaking temporally — after the turning of the Gentiles, after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in — or he is speaking consequentially: provoked by the fullness of the Gentiles, provoked to jealousy, all Israel will be saved. This is the hope of the prophets. You can read passages like Jeremiah 30–33. They begin with promises of the return from exile in Babylon, but many of the things prophesied still did not happen — where God says at that time he will be the God of all the families of Israel. That did not happen yet. When Israel's salvation will bring the fullness of the glory of God to the world, as Paul spoke of — even as we look at Isaiah 59, from which he quotes, leading into Isaiah 60 — these are things that have not yet happened. If words have any meaning, passages like Isaiah 11, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, where there is no more war, and there is universal knowledge of the glory of the Lord under Messiah's reign — these things have not yet happened in this fallen and broken world in which we live.

Even Isaiah 27, which Paul also quotes from, as part of the "Apocalypse of Isaiah" — Isaiah 24–27 — which speaks of the end of the age and the final triumph of God and the final destruction of Satan: we have not yet seen that take place on the earth.

"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The Deliverer will come from Zion'" — Paul apparently adding in a quotation from Psalm 14 to Isaiah 59 — speaking of deliverance coming from Zion to the people of Israel, to ethnic Israel, even in exile, even in the land. From Zion, from the Messianic Redeemer, "He will banish ungodliness from Jacob." That has not happened. Those who say that AD 70 is the second coming of Jesus — while I do not downplay the importance of that event, while I do not downplay the importance of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, while I do not downplay the idea that God came in judgment in a certain way there — that is a work of judgment, whereas Paul is speaking here of a work of salvation. What he looks for here has not yet happened.

"And this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins." The New Covenant was inaugurated with the remnant; it has not yet gone to the nation as a whole. And it is promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31. What is fascinating is that immediately after the New Covenant promises in Jeremiah 31:31–34, Jeremiah — speaking for the Lord — makes clear that God is not finished with Israel. He says no matter what they do, they will still be preserved as a people. And we see that: we have been scattered around the world under divine discipline and judgment, hated by the nations, and yet preserved. How did that happen? God keeps his promises. Just as when he brought Israel into the land, the historians and writers said there was not one promise he made that he did not keep — well, he did not just promise to bring them into the land, but to keep them there, and if they were scattered, to bring them back, even in disobedience and rebellion, for his name's sake, according to Ezekiel 36. What is prophesied there has not fully taken place as well.

We can see that the only one who could regather the Jewish people to the land is God. When he blesses, no one can curse; when he curses, no one can bless; when he opens the door, no one can shut it; when he shuts the door, no one can open it; when he scatters, no one can regather. And yet we see that the Jewish people — six million strong, the same number as were killed in the Holocaust — are living in Israel today, regathered. How did it happen? Was it just statehood, political craftsmanship, self-will? No. Because we were scattered under divine judgment, it is only God who can regather us. We are witnessing God at work in history today, before our very eyes. It is another reason I am so filled with optimism and hope and expectation and hold to an eschatology of great victory.

Now Paul continues and says this: "As regards the gospel, they" — Israel, all Israel, the nation, the one of whom he has been speaking — "are enemies for your sake, but as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of the forefathers." It has nothing to do with Israel's goodness; it has to do with God keeping his word. It has nothing to do with the ethnic superiority of a group; it has to do with the faithfulness of God. He who started the work will finish it.

There are many promises that remain for Israel. Read through the prophetic books — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel — there are so many passages that have not yet come to pass, but they will, because God keeps his word. We have not yet seen the renovation of the universe according to 2 Peter 3, and the burning up of the elements with fervent fire and a new heaven and a new earth where there is no more death or sorrow or pain, in which righteousness dwells. And Peter tells us in Acts 3 that God will keep all the promises he made through the prophets concerning the restoration of all things — that has not yet happened.

And so Paul closes with this: "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." As surely as God — the one who scattered the Jewish people around the world — has brought them back, he will continue to do so. He will turn our hearts, and there will ultimately be a national turning; not necessarily every single Jewish person, but as the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, there will be a national turning of the Jewish people back to God. So it is written.

MODERATOR

Dr. Brown finishes with approximately seven-tenths of a second to spare — I congratulate you, brother Brown, on that.

We have now had our 17-minute opening statement from Michael Brown. Once again, for those just now tuning in, the thesis statement is: Does Romans 11:25–26 state that there will be a national turning of the Jewish people to God? Are there any Old Testament or New Testament promises made to ethnic Israel that remain to be fulfilled? Michael Brown has made his case for his perspective, and now Don Preston has 17 minutes to make his case on the very same issue. Dr. Preston, the time is yours.

DR. DON K. PRESTON — Opening Statement (17 minutes)

Thank you so much, and thank you, Dr. Brown, for that very eloquent and passionate presentation. There is a great deal I actually agree with, although obviously not the essentials.

I want first to present my case by saying I agree with Dr. Brown that Romans 11:25–27 is dealing with ethnic Israel. I agree 100% that when he says in verses 28 and 29 that those who are unbelievers refer to ethnic Israel at that time. But I want to build my case upon an examination of the prophetic background and the prophetic sources that Paul appeals to in Romans chapter 11. I believe this is one of the most ignored aspects of our study of Romans 11:25–27. I will try to incorporate as much as I possibly can.

Let me state very briefly what virtually all scholars acknowledge — and brother Brown has already acknowledged part of it. Paul cites, in his prediction and anticipation of the salvation of Israel, Isaiah 27:10 and following, Isaiah 59, and Jeremiah 31. I would also add — though there is not a plethora of scholars who note this — that Paul is echoing Daniel 9:24–27 and the prediction that seventy weeks are determined to put away sin, in connection with Romans 11 and the taking away of Israel's sin. Let me develop that by introducing what I consider a hermeneutical schema that is critical to understand.

Point number one: Paul is emphatic — not only here but throughout the entirety of his writings — that his eschatological hope was nothing but the hope of Israel found in Torah, found in the Old Testament. Paul did not develop a New Testament eschatology divorced from Old Covenant Israel. I believe that is critical to understand.

Point number two: Paul says that through the Holy Spirit he was giving the divine interpretation of what had once been not understood — i.e., the mystery of God. Dr. Brown has acknowledged that the mystery is something formerly unknown but now revealed. One of Paul's key contrasts throughout his epistolary corpus is "then" versus "now." So Paul speaks of the mystery of God which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets. Paul, through the Holy Spirit, was giving the divine, inspired interpretation of the Old Testament prophets.

Point number three: Paul informs us throughout the entirety of his writings — and the rest of the New Testament writers as well — that the time foretold by the Old Testament prophets for the restoration of Israel had in fact arrived. I will try to develop that just a little more.

With those very brief hermeneutical principles in place, I want to show, at least briefly, how I understand the fulfillment of Isaiah 27, Isaiah 59, and Jeremiah 31, and if I have time, Daniel chapter 9.

First, let us look at Isaiah chapter 27. I was glad to hear Dr. Brown allude to Isaiah chapters 24–29 as the "little apocalypse" — scholars have recognized that for many years. Isaiah chapter 27, verse 7 and following: "Has He — that is, Yahweh — struck Israel as He has struck those who struck him? Or has he been slain according to the slaughter of those who were slain by him?" The response — Yahweh's response — is yes: in measure, by sending her away. "He removes it by His rough wind in the day of the east wind." Now watch carefully. "Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered, and this is all the fruit of the taking away of his sin: when He makes all the stones of the altar like chalk stones that are beaten to dust, wooden images and incense altars shall not stand. Yet the fortified city will be desolate, the habitation forsaken and left like a wilderness; there the calf will feed, there it will lie down and consume its branches." Now watch verse 11, part B: "This is a people of no understanding" — who is it referring to? Old Covenant Israel. He is echoing Deuteronomy 32:18, which speaks of and prophesies Israel's "last days" — not the last days of time, but Israel's last days — Deuteronomy 32:19 and following, Deuteronomy 32:30 and following. "The one who made them will have no mercy on them; He who formed them will show them no favor."

Here Yahweh is predicting two things: judgment and salvation. I believe it is wrong to set up a false dichotomy in Romans 11, to say that Paul is talking about salvation but not about judgment. In Isaiah chapter 27 we have both judgment and salvation. As N. T. Wright said in Jesus and the Victory of God, there is a doctrine well hammered out in many Old Testament passages which speaks of Israel's salvation coming through — not from, but through — judgment. That is precisely what we have in Isaiah chapter 27: "This is the fruit of the taking away of their sin when I turn the altar into chalkstone."

Also notice in the immediate context: Isaiah 26:21 — the Lord himself shall come out of heaven, shall tread on the tops of the mountains, and the earth shall disclose its blood. Here is the vindication of the blood of the martyrs. Hold on to that, because that is also Deuteronomy 32:43. So what do we find in Isaiah 27, one of Paul's pivotal passages for Romans 11? We have the prediction of the salvation of Israel at the time of the judgment of Israel, when the martyrs' blood would be vindicated at the coming of the Lord.

Passage number two: Isaiah 59. Isaiah 59 breaks itself down very beautifully into three headings: accusation, acknowledgment, and action. The accusation is found in verses 3 through 7, in which three times Yahweh accuses Israel of having their hands full of innocent blood. Remember: Isaiah 26:21 — at the salvation of Israel, the martyrs' blood would be vindicated. Point number two: acknowledgment — Israel even acknowledges her sin before Yahweh, though without true repentance. She says: "Our sin is ever before us, our sin mounts up to the heavens" — which contains the seed thought of the filling up of the measure of sin. What sin is chiefly under consideration? The shedding of the blood of the martyrs. Point number three: the Lord took action. "He saw that there was no man, He saw that there was no intercessor; therefore the Lord put on the breastplate of righteousness, He put on the garments of vengeance." Notice what he says in verse 16 and following: "According to their deeds, accordingly I will repay, vengeance to my adversaries, recompense to my enemies." Here Yahweh declares that this time of the vindication of the blood of the righteous would be when he came in judgment of the wicked. But notice: the very next verse sets this as the time of the salvation of Israel — "This is My covenant with them when I take away their sin." So once again we have the coupling of the salvation of Israel with the time of the judgment of Israel — specifically, the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Third text: Jeremiah chapter 31. I do not have time to develop this extensively, but let me simply say this: Dr. Brown and I agree 100% that this is the promise of the making of the New Covenant. I agree 100% with what the text says: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." What needs to be understood is that the Gentiles could be equal partakers in that covenant — just like the mixed multitude who came out of Egypt came before Sinai, and the covenant was made with Israel, yet those Gentiles entered into the benefits of that covenant. Just so today, Yahweh made the covenant with both houses of Israel. Those of us who are Gentiles are equal participants in that New Covenant.

But here is what I want to focus on: that New Covenant would be the remarriage — the remarriage — of Yahweh. I must develop this very quickly. Yahweh was married to Israel at Sinai. Jeremiah 31 establishes that all of the language of Exodus 19 and following is marital language. Now watch: Israel, the ten northern tribes, committed spiritual adultery. What did God do? He divorced them. Hosea chapter 2, verses 1–2: "Write a bill of divorcement — she is not my wife, I am not her husband." And yet Yahweh promised that the days were coming — the last days — in which "I will make a new covenant for them with the beast of the field, and I will betroth them to me again in righteousness; I will betroth them to me forever." But the covenant would be of a new and different kind.

Watch what Yahweh did when he divorced Israel: Hosea breaks itself down into divorce, departure, and death. When Yahweh divorced Israel, he departed from her — Hosea chapter 5. When he departed from her, he killed her — and we find that in Isaiah and Jeremiah in the texts we have already seen. But God promised that the time was coming in which he would betroth Israel to himself again, in which he would return to her. Hosea chapter 6: "He will return to us; He will come to us; He will raise us up; we will live in His presence" — there is a resurrection. But here is what I want us to see, and this is critical: although Yahweh divorced the ten northern tribes, he could not yet divorce Judah — why? Because Messiah had not yet come. But Yahweh did promise in Hosea chapters 6–7 and following that although Israel had sinned like Adam in transgressing the covenant, and even though Judah was worse — she had her own harvest coming — that harvest would be at the time of the salvation of the remnant.

Now, here is what I also want us to see: when Yahweh destroyed and killed Old Covenant Israel — the ten northern tribes — he said, "The virgin daughter of Israel is fallen and will never rise again." That is very emphatic language.

Notice in Amos 9:8: "The eyes of the Lord are on the wicked kingdom, for I will destroy it from the face of the earth; but I will not destroy the family" — notice the contrast. "I will destroy the kingdom of Israel, not the family." What God was going to do was, in the last days, when Messiah came, when the scepter departed from Judah (Genesis 49:10), divorce Judah in exactly the same way he divorced Israel. How did he divorce Israel? He destroyed the kingdom of Israel — Hosea 1:5. The New Testament is replete with the language of the impending divorce of Judah. What did Jesus say in Matthew 22? The invitation to the wedding was sent out: "All things are ready, come to the feast." Those who were invited rebuffed the servants and killed them. The master of the wedding sent out his armies, killed those wicked men, and burnt their city with fire. That is Jerusalem. That is the divorcement of Judah.

So God was going to destroy and slay the Old Covenant kingdom, the nationalistic kingdom of Israel, but he was going to remarry Israel. Old Covenant Israel was going to be reborn — as Isaiah 66:3 indicates and as John chapter 3, speaking in the second person plural ("You all must be born again"), suggests. Israel was to be born, remade, recreated from the mortal body of the covenant of death (2 Corinthians chapter 3), transformed into the New Covenant of life.

And so Revelation depicts for us the destruction of the city — "Babylon" — which is where the Lord was slain. And immediately the paean of victory is sung: "Let us rejoice, for the time of the wedding has come." Whose wedding is this? This is the wedding of all twelve tribes — Revelation chapter 7, Revelation chapter 14. This is the righteous remnant joining with the innumerable multitude of Gentiles who are now going to come into the blessings of Israel's New Covenant. Israel reborn into the New Covenant body of Jesus Christ.

So what does that mean for Romans chapter 11? I can fully concur that in Romans chapter 11, Paul is dealing with the climax of Israel's covenant history. That climax was to be when Israel would be judged for shedding innocent blood. What did Jesus say about when the innocent blood would be avenged? "All of the righteous blood, from Abel unto Zechariah son of Barachiah, would be avenged in his generation, in the judgment of Israel." Now, unless we can divorce the avenging of the blood of the martyrs from Isaiah 59, then Matthew 23 gives us the context for the fulfillment of Romans chapter 11.

When was the New Covenant going to be made? Yahweh's old covenant with Judah was nigh unto passing — Hebrews 8:13. But the New Covenant was almost complete. The bride, the New Jerusalem, was about to be revealed, come down from God out of heaven, and all nations — all nations — now invited into the new heaven and new earth, which is the body of Christ.

MODERATOR

You have a minute and twelve seconds remaining if you want it.

DR. DON K. PRESTON (continuing)

Thank you. Daniel chapter 9: "Seventy weeks are determined on your people and on your city to put away sin." I do not believe there is any way to place the consummation of the seventieth week beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Christ came to put away sin — Hebrews 9:26. The consummation of that process of putting away sin would be his appearing out of the most holy place to bring salvation, and the writer of Hebrews 10:37 says, "in a very, very little while" — the Greek is hoson hoson mikron — "the one who is coming will come." Who is coming? Hebrews 9:28: "He shall appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation." He would do that to fulfill the typological significance of the Day of Atonement. And the writer said it was very, very near — just as Paul said, "our salvation" — Israel's salvation — "has drawn near." I believe that is sufficient. Thank you.

MODERATOR

Thank you very much for your presentation, sir. To remind everyone: we are listening to a debate between Don Preston and Michael Brown. The thesis statement — Does Romans 11:25–27 state that there will be a national turning of the Jewish people to God? Are there any Old Testament or New Testament promises made to ethnic Israel that remain to be fulfilled? We have had both 17-minute opening statements. We now move to the 12-minute rebuttal sections, where each debater will respond to the specific claims and arguments made by the other. We begin with Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown, you have 12 minutes.

REBUTTALS

DR. MICHAEL BROWN — Rebuttal (12 minutes)

Dr. Preston, thank you — that was terrific, lucid, and eloquent, clearly thought out. I am thrilled that you went back to the Old Testament text for Paul's background, because those texts actually completely undermine your position when we look at them more broadly. Moreover, not a syllable you said undermined my exegesis of Romans 9 through 11. The fact that you agree that the verses refer to ethnic Israel is wonderful — slam dunk. So let us break things down.

First, to reiterate: we have not yet seen what Paul spoke of in Romans 11. There is still hardening on Jewish people toward the gospel — that has not changed. The fullness of the Gentiles has still not come in; we are still reaching out and bringing the gospel to the ends of the earth. The "life from the dead" that Paul spoke of in Romans 11 has still not taken place. Yes, judgment came in a severe way in AD 70, and Jesus wept over it in Luke 19 and prophesied it in Matthew 23 and elsewhere. It was devastating, and the consequences remain — the temple has still not been rebuilt all these millennia later. Terrible judgment came. But let us remember that was not the end of the story. Jesus says in Matthew 23:39 to the Jewish leadership: "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" In other words, you will not see me again until you welcome me back. There is that welcoming back. Luke 21: Jerusalem trodden underfoot by the Gentiles, the Jewish people scattered, until the time of the fullness of the Gentiles. So again, what Paul lays out in Romans 11 has not yet happened.

Regarding the divorce issue: let us remember that the same prophets — like Hosea and Jeremiah — who spoke of Israel's divorce also spoke of a remarriage. The very prophet Hosea, who spoke all those destructive and terrible words about northern Israel, also spoke of the restoration of the northern tribes at the end of his book. Just read Hosea 14 and the promises to Israel — meaning national Israel, meaning even specifically the northern tribes — that are there even after the divorce. In Jeremiah, chapters 3 and 4, God continues to call the northern tribes back because he said, "I will espouse you yet again."

When we look at the context of passages like Isaiah 24–27 — the little apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Isaiah — of course what is prophesied there has not yet happened in full. Atonement has been made but has not yet been received. And I am fine with the seventy weeks ending right there with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, because that has to do with atonement being made. It has been made; it has not yet been received. Which is what Paul agonized over — and which is why he was so emphatic that the promises yet remain. "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." He knew nothing about a permanent and forever divorce. He knew about the irrevocable promises of God. He knew, going back to Abraham in Genesis 15, that God made a one-way covenant — only God passed between the covenantal pieces. And as Paul reminds us in Galatians 3, the law which came 430 years after cannot annul the promise that God gave. We are talking about God's sovereignty and God keeping his word.

So as we look at Isaiah 24: the twenty-fourth chapter speaks of the shaking of the whole world beyond anything we have seen thus far. If words have any meaning, we have not yet seen what Isaiah 24 speaks of. When we get to the twenty-fifth chapter, it speaks of the absolute and final abolition of death. The fact that millions of people will die around the world this week means we have not yet seen the final abolition of death — the thing that Paul was looking forward to, this mortal body putting on immortality. If words have any meaning, we have to admit these things have not yet happened. Even Isaiah 27, which speaks of the final and ultimate destruction of the evil one — 1 Peter 5 tells us he is still going about as a roaring lion seeking to devour. His power has been broken, but his final ultimate defeat, where he can do no damage anymore on the earth, has not yet happened.

And let us remember: Peter in Acts 3 says that Jesus will remain in heaven until the time for the restoration of all things spoken by the prophets. That is Isaiah 2 — "In the last days," which has to do with the vantage point of the author and what he is looking forward to on his horizon. What does Isaiah speak of? He speaks of the mountain of the Lord's house in Jerusalem being exalted and all nations streaming into it, and people beating their swords into plowshares, and nations no longer making war with one another — just as Isaiah 11 speaks of. This simply has not happened, no matter what construction you put on it.

And since I am thrilled that Dr. Preston emphasized that Paul's eschatological hope is related to Israel's eschatological hope — we know what Israel was looking forward to, based on the Hebrew scriptures and on Jewish literature as well. The idea that "the last days" simply meant the last days of Israel's old covenant is really something very foreign to the biblical text and foreign even to Jewish eschatological thought.

When we go to Isaiah 59, we see that what is spoken of has not yet been realized. It continues into the sixtieth chapter where Israel rises and shines, and into the sixty-second chapter where Jerusalem becomes the praise of all the earth. Just read those chapters and ask very simply: have Isaiah 2:1–4, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 25, Isaiah 59 and the sixtieth chapter and beyond fully come to pass? The answer is certainly no, if words have any meaning.

Also on this idea of judgment being tied in with salvation: yes, many times those things go hand in hand. God says, for example, in Isaiah 19, that there would be smiting and then healing. We know that is the case. But we also know that Paul is grieving over Israel's broken state, separated from God as a nation in Romans 9, 10, and 11, and he is longing for the day when Israel will turn and be saved. He is not longing for the day of the destruction of Jerusalem. He is not longing for the day of God judging Israel for the blood of the martyrs and even the blood of the Messiah. He is looking forward to the day when there will be national repentance and turning. Has it happened yet? Obviously not. The fact that we as Jewish believers make up 1 or 2% of our people across the world means that the partial hardening has remained.

I have still not heard a syllable that addresses what Paul writes of in Romans 11 — how it has actually come to pass and why he reminds us that those who are enemies will no longer be enemies. The religious Jews still remain enemies of the gospel, feeling they are doing God's will. That remains the same. Again, we are still evangelizing around the world; the fullness of the Gentiles has not yet come in; we are still in the midst of doctrinal disputes and division — obviously fullness has not come in. The image of the full knowledge of the Son of God in Ephesians 4 — we are still working and laboring toward these things.

Not only so, but when we look at Jeremiah 31 — let me step back and give a principle that I had to work through when working on my Jeremiah commentary. I saw that there were many promises that Jeremiah spoke of that happened with immediacy: yes, there was judgment, the temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was burned, the Jewish people were scattered into exile in Babylon. And then he said there would be a return after seventy years, and there was one — seventy years after the earliest captives, including Daniel, there was a return of the exiles and the captives. But not at the level he spoke of. Not at the level Isaiah prophesied. Not at the level Ezekiel prophesied. It was what you would call "already and not yet" — a partial fulfillment, realized eschatology. There was a return, but not with the expected glory. The temple was rebuilt, but not with the expected glory. And in fact Israel was supposed to turn back to God with one heart and one soul — both Judah and Israel united, as Ezekiel also prophesied — to the point that the nations would see the glory of God and be drawn in. That has not happened as fully as was expected.

So what do we understand? There was an application in the sixth century BC, there was a further partial application in the first century with the coming of the Messiah and the establishing of the New Covenant, but when you read the rest of these prophecies, we see that there is a point where Jerusalem will never be destroyed again — at the end of Jeremiah 31. Has that happened yet? Absolutely not. Have all the glorious healings, deliverances, and redemptions on a national level prophesied in chapter 33 happened? Only in part. That is exactly where we are today.

And I want to draw everyone back to the plain, simple, and clear exegesis of Romans 9, 10, and 11. Much respect to Dr. Preston for thinking these issues through and going back to the Old Testament text — but having looked at those texts and seeing that in no way do they undermine my position, rather they support it — I look forward to the fulfillment of all the words of the prophets and of the New Testament that have not yet happened. That is all part of Israel's eschatological hope. To call the church the new heavens and new earth, to say there is no more war and we have already put on immortality and the Lord has returned in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and that persecution has therefore ceased — we might as well not speak the English language, or use Hebrew and Greek, because words would no longer have meaning.

If we will simply and carefully exegete Romans 9, 10, and 11, and continue on with the greater hope that Paul is looking forward to — expressed in Romans 15 and 16, and the hope of the Lord's appearing, his visible appearing that he was looking forward to — at which point we will receive our reward, at which point we will be resurrected and become like him (what we will be like, 1 John 3 says we do not yet know, but when he appears we will be like him) — all that Paul is longing for is the expression of the prophets, the expression of that day when all Israel will be saved. And my hope is that those listening to this debate will recognize that it remains imperative that we get Paul's heart for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that we carry his burden as well, that we carry a burden to bring the gospel to the ends of the earth — first, out of love for God; second, out of love for the people of the nations; and third, to hasten the redemption of Israel. That is what Peter writes in 2 Peter 3: with the hope that we have, we live with a certain urgency to hasten that day of the coming of God, in which the elements will burn up with fervent heat, in which the Lord will establish a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, and where the wolf lies down with the lamb, where the lion eats straw like the ox, where there is no more war, and there is universal knowledge of God. That is the hope of the prophets; that is the hope of Paul. That will happen when the Messiah returns, which is why I long for it and wait with such expectation.

MODERATOR

Thank you very much, Dr. Brown. That was Dr. Michael Brown's 12-minute rebuttal. We now move to Dr. Preston. You have 12 minutes for your rebuttal, sir. You may begin.

DR. DON K. PRESTON — Rebuttal (12 minutes)

Thank you so much, and thank you again, Dr. Brown. I appreciate your fervor very much. You said that virtually nothing I said rebutted your position — well, obviously I believe everything I said rebuts everything you say, so we are engaged in a wonderful conversation here, and I appreciate your gracious attitude.

Let me address something you have said several times. You have said, "If words have any meaning whatsoever, then the language of Isaiah chapter 24 and the shaking of heaven and earth has not happened." If words have any meaning whatsoever, then Isaiah's prediction that "they shall beat their swords into plowshares" has not happened. At the very beginning of my first presentation, I introduced a hermeneutical principle that I believe is absolutely critical.

Peter said, in 1 Peter chapter 1, as he anticipated the parousia of Christ to bring salvation of the soul: "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently concerning the time and the manner of the things of which they spoke, to whom it was revealed that not to themselves but unto us did they minister the things of which they spoke." I also made it abundantly clear, citing several passages, that Paul says over and over that he was revealing the true meaning of the Old Testament prophecies.

Now, if we take the position "well, if words have any meaning, surely the Old Testament prophets understood what a temple was, what a land was, what an altar and a sacrifice were, when they predicted the coming of a Messianic temple" — but Peter is very emphatic: they did not understand either the time or the manner. Let me illustrate. Peter, whose eschatology was nothing but the hope of Israel found in the Old Testament — he addresses the diaspora. Who are the diaspora? I do not need to tell Dr. Brown or anyone else: "diaspora" is the technical first-century word for the tribes of Israel scattered abroad. Peter is addressing them, but they are not simply the diaspora — they are believers in Jesus Christ who have now been redeemed, not by corruptible things such as gold and silver from their vain conversation received by tradition from the fathers, but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Here he is bringing about the second Exodus motif: Israel was redeemed by the blood of the Passover Lamb; now this new Israel, if you please, is being redeemed by the precious blood of Christ as the true Passover, which is replacing the old Passover.

I want you to notice in 1 Peter 2:4 and following: "You therefore, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God." Now I want to go back very quickly to Hosea chapter 3, verses 4 and following. Yahweh said — just as Hosea had to put away his wife and be without her for many days — Israel shall be without temple, altar, priesthood, sacrifices, or ephod until the last days, when David their king comes and rules over them. That is obviously a paraphrase. So here is Yahweh, having divorced the ten northern tribes, saying they would be without temple, altar, priesthood, sacrifice, or ephod. But here is Peter writing to the diaspora — the ten northern tribes — and saying they had become a spiritual priesthood in a spiritual temple made of living stones, built upon the spiritual, living foundation of Jesus Christ. He quotes Psalm 118, Isaiah 28, and Isaiah 8:11 — the predictions of the building of the Messianic temple and the chief cornerstone. He interprets those Old Testament prophecies of the Messianic temple: Christ is the living stone; those first-century saints were the living stones; they were now a spiritual priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices.

And notice what is really powerful to me about this: Hosea said that Israel would be without the ephod — that ephod was the means by which God communicated to them, the means of divine revelation to Israel. Israel would be devoid of the Spirit. I am sure Dr. Brown is aware of how the Jews believed — and it can be verified from a great number of sources — that Israel believed she had been without the Spirit from Malachi onward. Some in the sectarian community may have claimed a prophetic spirit in some form, but the point is that they believed the prophetic Spirit as poured out on the Old Testament prophets had abandoned Israel and would not return until the last days, as foretold by Joel 2:28 and following.

Now look at what Peter is doing. Peter says those Old Testament prophets foretold the last days. When was Peter living? In what he called "these last days." In the last days, David the king would come. Had Jesus come? Had he been exalted to the right hand in fulfillment of Psalm 110 — "Set at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"? Yes — thirty-two times in the New Testament the writers quote that verse as fulfilled in Jesus Christ's ascension and enthronement at the right hand. And what does Peter go on to say? Those Old Testament prophets knew that what they were predicting was not for themselves, but "for us, to whom the Holy Spirit was revealing the time and the manner of the fulfillment of those Old Testament prophets."

Now if Peter says the Old Testament prophets did not understand either the time or the manner of the fulfillment of their prophecies, and if Peter says those Old Testament prophets foretold "these days" (Acts 3:23) — the days in which he was living — and if Peter says he and the other apostles had received the Holy Spirit as promised in the old covenant in Joel, and if Peter was revealing the true meaning of Hosea and gives us every constituent element of Hosea chapters 3–4 and following, and if he is giving us the divine, infallible, Spirit-filled interpretation of those things in a spiritual application — then I suggest it is rather disingenuous — this is no slam whatsoever, but I say it in kindness — to say, "Well, Peter is just using accommodative language, sort of kind of applying it." No. He is giving us, through the Holy Spirit, the divine interpretation of what Hosea said.

Now let me go to Acts chapter 1. The disciples asked: "Will you at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?" Jesus said, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, but go into the city and there you will be endued with power from on high." He is talking about the promise of the Holy Spirit being poured out — the promise of Joel 2:28 and following. Why would the Holy Spirit be poured out as Joel predicted? For the salvation of the remnant, to establish the kingdom and open the doors of salvation for all men. On the day of Pentecost, suddenly there came a sound from heaven as a rushing mighty wind. It filled all the house where they were sitting, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. They were accused of being drunk. Peter responded: "Men and brethren, these are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is about the third hour of the day — but this is that." He did not say, "This is sort of kind of like what will one day be." He did not say, "This is a foreshadowing of what one day will be." He said, "This is that."

Now, the disciples had asked about the time for the establishment of the kingdom. Jesus said, "Go into the city and wait until you receive the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit was to be poured out to establish the kingdom, to raise Israel from the dead — Ezekiel 37:2 and following, Ezekiel 36:25 and following. Here is Peter saying the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Joel, is being poured out. And he urged them, "Save yourselves from this perverse generation."

So we have Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, giving the true application of Joel, the true application of Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 36 — applying those prophecies to his day. And then, very quickly, Acts chapter 3: Peter anticipated the restoration of all things foretold by all the prophets, yea, Moses and all the prophets. Notice what he said: "foretold these days" — he did not say "days far off." He said "these days."

They anticipated the arrival of the restoration of all things — the Greek word is apocatastasis. The apocatastasis, the restoration of all things, would be when Christ returned. Notice Hebrews chapter 9: it says the old covenant cultus — its festivals, feast days, Sabbaths, and so forth — was imposed "until the time of reformation." The Greek word is diorthōsis. In all of the lexicons that define it at all, diorthōsis and apocatastasis are synonyms. Watch: the old covenant Torah would be imposed until the time of reformation. The time of reformation is when men could enter into the most holy place at the parousia of Christ, the time of salvation — Hebrews 9:28. But the time of the apocatastasis of Acts chapter 3 is the time of the diorthōsis — the end of Torah, the law of Moses. Now unless we are willing to say that the law of Moses remains valid today — inclusive of circumcision, animal sacrifices, the entire cultus of Old Covenant Israel — then we have to say that the old covenant passed away. But the time of the passing of the Old Covenant cultus was the time of the reformation; the time of the reformation was the time of the apocatastasis. This places and confirms that Peter's statement — that all of those prophets spoke of "these days" — referred to the first-century generation.

I would also call attention to the fact that Paul said, speaking of the salvation of Israel in Romans chapter 13: "It is high time to awake out of sleep, knowing the hour. The night is far spent, the day is at hand" — literally, has drawn near. What day? The day of salvation of Israel in Romans chapter 11. Paul was not anticipating a far-distant salvation of Israel. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR

Both gentlemen are doing excellent jobs with their time. We now enter the cross-examination period. In the first 15 minutes, Michael Brown will be asking questions of Don Preston. Cross-examination means questions only — not arguments, not rebuttals, not new positions. Michael will ask questions for the first 15 minutes; then we will switch, and Don Preston will ask questions of Michael Brown for 15 minutes. Then we have 5-minute closing statements. I invite Michael to begin.

CROSS-EXAMINATION — DR. BROWN QUESTIONS DR. PRESTON

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Just to be clear on the larger point you are making: please explain how all Israel was saved in AD 70, and how there is no longer a hardening on Israel today.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Great question. I appreciate it very much. I believe we have to take the entirety of Paul's discussion in Romans chapter 9, as you suggested, into full consideration, and we need to understand one fundamental fact: God never promised to save the entirety of Israel. From the beginning of God's dealings with mankind, God had always and ever only saved a remnant. In Romans chapter 9, Paul gives a couple of citations — he quotes Hosea, he quotes Isaiah chapter 10: "Even though the Israel should be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant shall be saved." Amos chapter 5: "The virgin daughter of Israel is fallen and will never rise again — but the city that went out a thousand shall return a hundred; the city that went out a hundred shall return a ten." Throughout the entirety of the Old Testament, it does not matter what book — Jeremiah 31:5–7: it shall be the salvation of a remnant, of a remnant, when in the days of the making of the New Covenant, of the marriage.

By the way, I want to make another point right here, citing Isaiah 10:20 and following. Paul, as he discusses the fact that the remnant was at the very time he wrote being brought into the body of Christ — being transformed from the old covenant body to the New Covenant — and Paul, in posing the question "Has God cast off His people Israel?" — God forbid! — I am a Benjamite. Paul is asserting that he was of the physical lineage, but he was no longer putting his emphasis on the physical lineage. He was putting his emphasis on the fact that he, as part of yes, that physical lineage, had accepted Messiah through faith, and thus he could say the remnant was being saved.

And by the way, he went ahead to say in Romans 9:28 — and I believe the "all Israel" is in fact the consummation of the process of bringing the full number of the remnant of old covenant Israel into the consummated body of old covenant Israel's covenant history. I believe that is what Isaiah 24, 26, 27, and 29 are discussing — that old Israel's old covenant history was supposed to pass away, transformed into the body of Christ. What did Paul say...

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

If the format allows for a short question and then a two-to-five-minute answer, that is fine. I am happy to do the same. Dr. White, please feel free to break in if things are running long. But that was a big question, so I understand the length. May I follow up?

MODERATOR

Please do.

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Explain then what I am missing: Paul makes clear that Israel — the Israel that is under hardening — will no longer be hardened. Are you saying that the nation of Israel is no longer under divine hardening?

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Let me answer that question specifically and directly, and then get back to the broader point. Obviously the bulk of Israel today is hardened. I do not believe that is an ongoing prophetic reality, however. I believe that Paul is dealing with, number one, Israel's last days — as he tells us, "the consummation has come upon us." He was living in the last days, living in the days foretold by Deuteronomy chapter 32. Remember Deuteronomy 32:19 and following — the Lord says, "Oh, that they would consider their latter end! Oh, that they would understand what their last end shall be!" Well, what would happen in Israel's last days? And I think this will answer something said earlier: in Israel's last days, Yahweh said, "I will provoke them to jealousy with a people that is not a people." What is Paul saying? He was doing in his personal ministry — Romans 10:19 — provoking Israel to jealousy by the calling of the Gentiles, by calling them. As brother Brown expressed it, the Gentiles were participating in the covenantal blessings of Israel. I agree 100%. So Paul, in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 32, was making Israel in her last days jealous.

I would also point out: has the church made Israel jealous in your understanding? I believe that in Israel's last days in the first century there was — and we may not even have the full chronicling of it, since Josephus was not concerned with the church — but I believe Paul believed, and I believe it took place, that there was a conversion of the rest of the remnant. The firstfruit was in the process of being gathered — James 1:18, as he speaks of the twelve tribes of Israel: "He has begotten us to be a kind of firstfruits" — firstfruits of what? The end gathering of the remnant, which was for the last days.

Now let me go back to Romans 9:28. In speaking of the salvation of the remnant, Paul quotes Isaiah and applies it to his own days, saying, "A short work will He make on the earth." He will not make a lengthy work. However we might frame or define "all Israel," Paul's concept of the salvation of Israel has to be confined to a short framework. He uses the Greek word [συντέμνων — syntemnōn, meaning to cut short], and it does not mean protracted — it means a shortened period of time. I would refer to 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul likewise says "the time has been shortened." So Paul believed that the salvation of the remnant, which was ongoing in his day and even aided by his ministry to the Gentiles, was going to be consummated in a very short period of time.

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Just to be clear: you are saying that we have already physically put on immortality according to 1 Corinthians 15, that according to 2 Thessalonians 1 Jesus has already come in flaming fire, and that the end of persecution and relief for us has already happened as well?

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Let me address, point number one, the putting on of immortality. I believe we could have another entire debate on this if you wish. I believe that Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with Gentiles who were denying Israel's role in their own salvation. The "dead ones" being denied resurrection life were not Christian dead being denied resurrection life — Paul is not dealing with biologically dead corpses coming out of graves. He is dealing with the fulfillment of Hosea and Isaiah. I will simply say that Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel — not merely as a promise, but as a reality brought to light, which means he had brought it to us.

On 2 Thessalonians chapter 1: I have written a book entitled In Flaming Fire — I would be glad to send you a copy, Dr. Brown. Paul is writing to the first-century church. He says to those who are being troubled — he uses the present participial form of thlibō — and most assuredly he uses the present active indicative of thlibō when he says "to you who are being troubled, anesis" — rest, the Greek word. He uses thlipsis and anesis together. Anytime in both non-biblical literature and biblical literature anytime anesis and thlipsis are used as companion words, anesis is relief from whatever pressure is under consideration. I am not aware of an exception to that rule, though an exception would not destroy the rule. So thlipsis was persecution for the cause of Christ. The Thessalonians — notice what Paul is saying. He writes to the church at Thessalonica and says: "You are being troubled, and it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who are troubling you." The question therefore would be: at the time Paul wrote, who was persecuting the church at Thessalonica? Who would be given tribulation at the revealing of the Lord Jesus Christ in flaming fire? Paul is very emphatic: "To you who are being troubled, rest — anesis — when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven." Paul did not say the Thessalonians would die, go to Abraham's bosom, and receive relief there. He said relief for the Thessalonians, and tribulation for those who are troubling you. We know it was not the Romans...

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Fascinating answers, obviously — though I differ on all of them. Please send me the book. Now: Isaiah 2, the last-days passage, verse 4: "He will judge between the nations and shall decide disputes for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." So the last question: these pictures here of no war on the earth, and of the Jewish people scattered no more and never again scattered from their land — how do you say that these things have already taken place, with war everywhere and the Jewish people still scattered?

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Great question. I believe the reference to "they shall beat their swords into plowshares" is a direct covenantal contrast. The nature of Old Covenant Israel's kingdom was one of warfare — it was expanded and defended by the sword. The nation had to beat their plowshares into swords from time to time to defend the kingdom, as we find throughout Judges and Kings. The very nature of Israel's old covenant kingdom was one of warfare and the sword. But Jesus was predicting a New Covenant Kingdom that would not be defended, would not be spread, by warfare. Thus they shall not make war anymore.

Now let me make a further observation about Isaiah chapter 2, extending into Isaiah 11, which you alluded to — the lamb lying down with the wolf and so forth. It says in that context "In that day an ensign shall be raised, and to it shall the Gentiles call." Paul quotes that verse in Romans 15:10 and following and applies it to his time, his generation, and the calling of the Gentiles to Jesus, who had obviously been raised up. So Paul applies these very verses.

One more point on Isaiah: chapters 2–4 form one harmonious prophecy. Notice that Isaiah chapter 4 concludes with the time in which Yahweh would cleanse the blood guilt of the daughters of Zion through the spirit of judgment and fire — and he says, "I will spread a canopy over them." That is marital language — here is the remarriage of Israel that I alluded to earlier. He says this would be the time in which he purged Israel's blood guilt by the spirit of fire and judgment. Now, fascinatingly, Jesus applied Isaiah 2:9–21 to his coming in judgment of Israel in AD 70, in Luke 23:28–31, when he said, as he was led out to his death, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children, for the time is coming in which they will run to the hills and say to the rocks, 'Fall on us.'" He is citing Isaiah 2:19 and following, and the parallel in Hosea 10:10 and following.

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Since we would both agree on prophetic scripture, I believe, and since we would agree that the Jewish people were scattered in divine judgment — based on my principle that if God scatters, no one can regather — how have we been regathered back to the land, six million strong, with many other prophetic passages seemingly being fulfilled along with those?

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Can I have three days to answer that?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

No — but as succinctly as possible, please.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Let me do this as succinctly as possible. Jesus, on the night in which he partook of the Passover, established himself as the Passover. He had, in other passages, defined himself as the new Moses. Jesus established himself as leading the second Exodus, which Isaiah 11 foretold: "I will set my hand again a second time to gather them out of Egypt, Cush," etc. How did Jesus accomplish this? This gets back to my hermeneutical principle — how the New Testament writers, and Jesus himself, interpreted those Old Testament prophecies. If Jesus established himself as the new Passover, the new Moses, was he not therefore saying, "I am bringing about the second Exodus"? In Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I would have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not." What kind of gathering was Jesus concerned with? It was not a socioeconomic, geopolitical type of gathering. He wanted a covenantal gathering. And on that very note, Matthew 23:39 — but unfortunately we are out of time.

MODERATOR

That is our 15 minutes with Michael Brown asking questions. We will now have Don Preston asking questions of Michael Brown. 15 minutes. Your time begins, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION — DR. PRESTON QUESTIONS DR. BROWN

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Brother Brown: Peter said that the Old Testament prophets did not know either the time or the manner of the things which they foretold. Therefore, when Peter, Paul, James, and John quote, cite, and allude to — to use Richard Hays's language, when they "echo" the scriptures — the old covenant scriptures, which on a cursory reading sound literalistic (talking about the land, the temple, the sacrifice), but when the New Testament writers quote those verses and apply them spiritually: upon what basis do we reject, discount, set aside, or in some way mitigate that spiritual application and look instead for another physical interpretation?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

I love the question and the thinking behind it. Absolutely: there is a very simple principle. If a later interpretation makes void the plain sense of the earlier words, that must disqualify it. Otherwise someone could come along now and say, "I have a new interpretation," and make void the New Testament — we would say that is impossible. I recognize that the timing and exactly how things would unfold was not clear to the prophets. But you cannot therefore take their words and completely twist their meaning. For example, Deuteronomy 13: God laid out a principle for Israel that if anyone comes and claims to be a prophet or miracle-worker, and works miracles, or their words come to pass, and they say, "Now deviate from the word of the Lord — worship other gods" — that person is to be stoned. They are a false prophet. If the prophets' words could not be literally tested — if God could literally say that no matter what Israel did he would still preserve Israel as a nation, if he literally said he had promised the land to them for all generations, that he would bring them back to the land in disobedience and there restore them spiritually — if those words can be entirely spiritualized, then we have to question those who came afterward. Otherwise, as I say, someone could come after the New Testament and say, "Here is the new revelation," or Muhammad could say the New Testament and Old Testament have things wrong.

The other principle: we have to see exactly how things are being cited. For example, Matthew in the second chapter quotes Hosea 11:1 — "Out of Egypt I called my son." But Hosea was not prophesying; he was talking about history: "When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." And then they rebelled. And Matthew is giving a typological principle: as it happened with Israel, so also it happened with the Messiah. It happened with Israel, God's son — so also it happened with Messiah, God's greater son. So we have to understand how the citations are being used. But if the New Testament writers had made void the words of the Old Testament prophets, then it is the New Testament writers themselves that we have to rightly question. I would say a consistent interpretation sees them making nothing void whatsoever — they just gave further insight into the fulfillment of the prophets.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

Thank you for that answer. Jesus came saying, "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven has drawn near." The kingdom of heaven is obviously associated with temple, with priesthood, with the restoration of Israel. Was Jesus, in predicting the imminent establishment of the kingdom, correct to say that the kingdom — and all the ancillary things that belong to it — was truly at hand when he said that?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Oh absolutely. And again, this is a key that I believe is being missed: the kingdom broke in. We have been in the transition age for these last 2,000 years. We have been in the last days. We have been living in the prophesied period, and we have not yet seen everything come to pass — hence the "untils" of the New Testament. Matthew 5:17–20, with the "untils" that are there, tells us we have not yet seen everything spoken of by Moses and the prophets come to pass. The "until" of Luke 21: we have not yet seen the end of the times of the Gentiles, hence the full restoration of Israel has not yet happened. The "until" of Matthew 23: "You will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" — the nation has not yet welcomed him back as Messiah.

So we are in the transition age. What does Paul say in Ephesians 1? We have the Spirit as the deposit of things to come. Very plainly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 was literally looking forward to the putting on of immortality — these physical bodies being resurrected. He was looking forward to that in 1 Thessalonians 4, and wrote about it with the expectation that it could happen in his lifetime. But what do we find in 2 Timothy 4? He is no longer looking forward to that for himself personally — he knows he is going to die. It seems he is now looking forward to it in expectation, just like every generation does, because we are in that transition age. So we see some of the promises fulfilled but clearly not all. On any interpretation of the prophets, letting them interpret themselves, we have not yet seen nations learning war no more. So we are in the transition age — already and not yet. That explains how the prophecies are coming to pass but not yet fully realized.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

In light of the statement that we are looking for the consummation: Peter said in 1 Peter 4:7, "The end of all things has drawn near." We can use the word telos either as "goal" or "termination" — whichever we wish to use in that particular text. But he nonetheless says this. If we render telos as "goal," what is the significance of Peter saying "the goal of all things has drawn near"? And if we take telos as "termination," what is the significance of that? Let me also add a corollary from 1 Corinthians 10:1, where Paul gives examples from the Old Testament and says — the King James translation is unfortunately not the best here — they were "types of us, upon whom the ends [telē] of the ages have come." I take that as "goal" here. Is Paul not seemingly saying that the goal of all previous ages had arrived in the first century — not awaiting a consummation, but that the goal of all the previous ages had arrived? This seems to agree perfectly with 1 Peter 4:7. What is your understanding of Paul saying that the goal of all previous ages was upon them, and of Peter saying that the telos had drawn near?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Certainly, and I think this will really help us work out where the fundamental differences are. I absolutely affirm what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10, what 1 Peter says in 1 Peter 1, in terms of the end of the ages, what James says in the fifth chapter about the last days, and what 1 John 2 says about the last hour. So I affirm all these things. And reading telos as "end" in 1 Peter 4, I take those words seriously. I also take seriously the other words in terms of what is yet to come: the burning up of all the elements in the universe, a new heaven and a new earth where there is no more sickness, no more pain, no more death — pictured in Revelation 21 — where there is universal knowledge of the glory of the Lord as in Isaiah 11 and many of the passages I have alluded to, and the culmination of the salvation of Israel in the sense of a national turning where those who are hardened are no longer hardened, and there is a national salvation of Israel, as Jeremiah 31:1 speaks of: "At that time I will be the God of all the families of Israel." I take all those seriously.

Which puts me in a certain holy tension — and I believe it is the tension that Paul and Peter lived in: that the Messiah has come, he has risen from the dead, the eternal age has broken in and is spreading through the earth, but it is not yet fully realized. Isaiah 49 lays that out, where the Messiah appears to have failed in his mission to Israel and the Lord says to him, "Not only will you regather the lost tribes of Israel" — again speaking of a national restoration — "but you will also be a light to the nations." Hence Isaiah 42 speaks of a persevering "until." So here is where I would differ: you would say that I do not literally take 1 Peter 4, 1 Corinthians 10, 1 John 2, and these other passages — since it has been this long a period, Jesus can hardly be said to be coming quickly or soon. I would say that you are not taking literally and clearly all the passages about everything that is yet to happen, having to say we are already in the new heavens and new earth, and that Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4 was not speaking of our physical resurrection, and so on.

I believe I put the two together rightly: something of extraordinary importance did happen, there was a great cataclysmic event in the year 70 — but that is part of the story. There has still been a scattering of the Jewish people, whereas God said the day would come when they would be scattered no more. There is still a time when all the nations of the earth will come against Jerusalem — that has not yet happened (Zechariah 12). There will be a national repentance — Zechariah 12:10 to 13:1. The Messiah will come and put his feet on the earth — that has not yet come. We are waiting for his coming. So we are in that transition age: on the one hand, momentous things did happen in AD 70 that fulfill some of the expectation of shaking. But not all — because the whole world was not shaken, the universe has not been renovated by fire, we do not have a new heavens and new earth. So I take them all seriously. We are living in the last days; we are living in the last hour — and if you look at it not so much in terms of chronological time but as a change of season, where the end of the age has broken in and Messiah can come at any point to establish his kingdom on the earth, that is the tension in which we live. I try to take all of the words seriously. My contention to you would be that in your careful exegesis, you are taking some of them literally and others you are having to spiritualize.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

A passage you brought up a few moments ago was "all things have not been fulfilled." I would like to allude to Matthew 5:17–18, but I first want to ask a preliminary question: do you, Dr. Brown, observe the seventh-day Sabbath? Do you make the pilgrimages to Jerusalem three times a year? Do you offer animal sacrifices? Do you participate in those cultic practices of Old Covenant Israel and Torah?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

I was just in Jerusalem and we were sacrificing animals — no, I am kidding. No. I do not observe all the commandments of the law given by Moses, nor do I believe there is an obligation to do so. You are correct in your assumption.

DR. DON K. PRESTON

That shook me for a moment! Thank you. Following on that: Jesus said not one jot, not one tittle shall pass from Torah until it is all fulfilled — he uses the Greek word genētai, "brought to pass." Now Paul wrote that the new moon's feast days and Sabbaths were shadows of good things "that are about to come" — he uses mellō with the infinitive. Blass-Debrunner's Greek grammar says that mellō with the infinitive indicates imminence. So here is Paul in Colossians 2, saying that those new moons, feast days, and Sabbaths were — when he wrote — still shadows of the good things that were about to come. The shadows had to be brought to their reality. So if the Sabbath foreshadowed ultimate rest, if the new moons, feast days, and Sabbaths foretold final salvation, and if the sacrifices have been done away with — then do we not have the resurrection? Do we not have the final salvation? How could any part of Torah, including the cultus, pass away and no longer be obligatory without the typological reality it foreshadowed coming into full realization?

DR. MICHAEL BROWN

Simple answer, because time is short: Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. He was speaking not only of law but of Law and Prophets. And again we look at the larger promises that have not yet come to pass — the things the prophets spoke of. If Israel was physically scattered and God said "you will be scattered no more," has that happened yet? No. If Israel will be physically scattered and then regathered, then who does it, if words mean anything? You cannot simply say the first part is literal and the second part is spiritual. That division does not work. And that is why Peter says in Acts 3 that he will remain in heaven — has the Messiah physically come and put his feet back on the earth on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14, Acts 1)? No. He will remain in heaven until all these things are fulfilled. So that is why I have a great eschatology of victory. I believe there will be chaos, calamity, trouble, and difficulty on earth. I believe in many cases there will be apostasy and darkness. But I believe the light will shine as we get closer and closer to the end when King Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom here. The law and the prophets must all be fulfilled. The Sinai covenant is over and God is dealing with us based on the New Covenant, calling Israel to enter into that New Covenant — and Israel has still not done that. But it will happen, as surely as God has spoken.

MODERATOR

Gentlemen, I congratulate you both on the way the debate has been handled to this point. We have five-minute closing statements. The hermeneutical issue has clearly been the central issue here, and I imagine it will be at the forefront in the closing statements. Dr. Brown, you have five minutes.

CLOSING STATEMENTS

DR. MICHAEL BROWN — Closing Statement (5 minutes)

First, Dr. White, thank you for taking time to moderate; I know you are busy. And thanks to Rich for your help on the technical end.

Dr. Preston, when you reached out and said you had put out a friendly challenge on the radio, and you wanted to take me up on it, my office wrote back saying "glad to do it" — not quite knowing who you were at first. But to me, it is about being fair. I wanted to make sure that anyone representing a position would do so seriously. Thank you for not only living up to but exceeding my expectations in terms of the seriousness and holistic approach you have taken, and for drawing from Old Testament text, which is where my main scholarship lies. Thank you very much.

In closing, let me reiterate that my exegesis went through Romans 9 through 11, verse by verse on the key verses, in which we saw that Paul says the Israel that is hardened — the Israel that has rejected the Messiah — will at the end be the Israel that turns back. Not the culmination of a remnant of Jews, but a final turning on the heels of the fullness of the Gentiles. I want to reiterate that what I laid out exegetically has still not been challenged, with all respect to my esteemed opponent. Hardness is still on Israel; we have still not seen the fullness of the Gentiles — therefore Romans 11:26–27 remains future. Jewish people still remain opposed to the gospel; therefore those promises still remain something to be looked toward in the future.

I also want to reiterate that the passages about no more war on the earth: Jesus knew what that was speaking of. Matthew 10 — he says, "Do not think I came to bring peace, but a sword." This was the time for division; the time of peace was still to come. We have not come to a situation where there is no war on the earth. We have not come to a situation where there is universal knowledge of God. We have not yet been physically resurrected. The dead in Messiah have not been physically resurrected. We have not been physically transformed. We have not put on immortality. The Messiah has not come in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God. What we need to see, though, is the consistent language of the New Testament writers writing in expectation of something in their lifetimes. Paul clearly includes himself in the "we who are alive and remaining" when Jesus returns. But when we get to 2 Timothy 4, we see that he knows he will be gone. 1 Peter 4 — you could certainly make the case that Peter expected the culmination of everything in his lifetime. And yet in 2 Peter we see him talking about patient waiting and about putting off this tent. That is why Jesus gives parables about waiting and longing — and about it looking like he is not going to come back. If everything happened in the year 70, all of these words become null and void.

I want to go back to the principle I laid out: the God who scattered is the God who regathers. Was there a literal scattering? Yes. Was there a literal judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70? Yes. Was there a literal taking of Jewish people into captivity around the world, especially with the Second Jewish Revolt of 132 to 135? Yes. Has God said it will end there? No. Have we been scattered throughout the world? Yes. Are we in the process of being regathered? Yes. Who is doing it? The same God who said he will be the God of all the families of Israel.

We need to understand the principle of already and not yet. The kingdom of God has broken in; the world to come has broken in. We have one foot in that world and one foot in this world. Jesus comes to deliver us from the present evil age, to destroy the works of Satan (Galatians 1; 1 John 3). And yet we must still consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God. We are seated in heavenly places in Messiah, yet we must put to death the deeds of the body. Redemption has come, but it has not yet been fully realized by Israel. I encourage you to read through Romans 9 through 11 carefully, prayerfully; to ask whether the fullness of the Gentiles has come in yet; to ask whether there is still hardness on Israel; to ask whether all Israel has been saved; to ask whether we have come to the universal knowledge of God and no more war on the earth; to ask whether we have put on immortality and physically become like Jesus in his resurrected form. The answer to those questions is categorically no. In which case I am excited, because I get to look forward to all these things yet to come. As surely as judgment came in AD 70, final redemption will yet come to Israel.

MODERATOR

Thank you very much, Dr. Michael Brown. We now turn to Dr. Preston for his five-minute closing statement.

DR. DON K. PRESTON — Closing Statement (5 minutes)

Thank you so much, Dr. Brown. I appreciate what you said — and when I contacted you, you did not quite know who I was. That is to be expected. But I do appreciate so much the more-than-magnanimous and gracious reception here, the wonderful discussion. I try to be a very serious student of God's word and to take a holistic approach. Dr. White, thank you again for moderating — we appreciate your time and everyone who has been involved.

Let me see if I can close. I have pointed out that Paul's prophetic background and prophetic sources in Romans 11:25 and following are in fact Isaiah 27, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 31, and Daniel 9:24 and following. I demonstrated that Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 foretold the salvation of Israel at the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. I pointed out that Jesus's emphatic words were that the avenging of the blood of all the righteous — all the way back to creation — was going to occur in the judgment of Israel in the first century.

Now, since Paul is appealing to Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 for his prediction of the salvation of Israel, and since Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 59 coupled their prophecy of the salvation of Israel to the judgment of Israel — to the time of the judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood — and since Jesus unequivocally places that time of the vindication of all of the blood of all the righteous in AD 70: I believe that we are forced exegetically, linguistically, and textually to see the salvation of Israel — however we might perceive it — as occurring in that time of judgment, which was of course also a time of salvation. Jesus himself said in Luke 21, as he described the fall of Jerusalem, to his disciples: "When you see these things take place, rejoice, lift up your heads, for your redemption is near." Redemption, by the way, is a second Exodus motif — I would love to have developed that much further than I was able to.

We talked about Daniel chapter 9: seventy weeks were determined to put away sin. Kenneth Gentry has pointed out that the infinitival form of the Hebrew in that text indicates the process of making the atonement — not necessarily its application. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have read several other Hebrew scholars who concur in that assessment. So Daniel 9 is concerned with the process of making the atonement — the cultic actions, if you please — and confines that to the seventy weeks. My good friend Dr. Brown has agreed that those weeks were consummated in AD 70. Therefore we have this reality: the time of the putting away of the sin of Israel is confined to the seventy weeks; the seventy weeks ended no later than AD 70; therefore the putting away of Israel's sin in Romans 11 occurred no later than AD 70 — because, again, the language of Daniel 9 concerns the cultic practice of making atonement, not the application of that atonement.

And the New Covenant: I pointed out how the New Covenant is the promise of the remarriage, and how Yahweh had divorced the ten northern tribes and promised to remarry her in the last days. Jesus appeared in the last days — Hebrews chapter 1. Judah had to be divorced in the same way the ten northern tribes were. We see the divorcement of Judah throughout the entirety of Jesus's parabolic ministry and we see it in Revelation, as I pointed out. But what do we find? We find the time of the wedding — when those servants who rejected the invitation to the wedding, who killed the servants and themselves were slain and their city destroyed by fire. Donald Hagner expressed it very well in the Word Biblical Commentary when he says any reader of this passage could not imagine that it did not apply to AD 70. If that is correct — and I think it obviously is — then you have the wedding at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, which comports and agrees perfectly with Revelation 18 and 19: at the destruction of Babylon — the city where the Lord was slain, the city guilty of killing the prophets, the city guilty of killing the apostles and prophets of Jesus, filling up the measure of sin — she is destroyed, and the victory song is sung: "Let us rejoice, for the time of the wedding has come." This is the fulfillment, in fact, of Romans 11:25–27. I wish we had more time, but my time is up. Thank you so much for allowing me to be here.

MODERATOR

Thank you very much to both Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston for a stimulating conversation. Everyone has seen that the hermeneutical issues are central to this particular discussion, and you have been given two very excellent presentations from those perspectives. Thank you for joining us today. God bless.