Four Flaws of the AD 70 Doctrine
A Response to Cougan Collins
This
is a response and review of an article by
Cougan Collins. The article was sent
to one of the members of our congregation here in
Since I studied with Mr. Collins on several occasions, I can only assume that he refers to me in the article. When I read his article I was somewhat taken back with his confidence that he had debunked Covenant Eschatology since, on several occasions he admitted that he could not refute what I was presenting. I must say however, that during our studies, I often commented to my wife afterwards that I was concerned that Mr. Collins was not studying to learn, but seemed to have a hidden agenda. When confronted with evidence for which he had no answers, Mr. Collins would simply admit that, and change the subject, or ignore what had been presented.
I will examine each of Mr. Collins' four points. In order to do any justice, I must go into a bit more detail than he has done in his presentation. The reader should notice, however, that Collins does not exegete passages. He makes assertions about what passages mean, but does not offer proof. This is a good debater's trick, but proves nothing.
Response #1: Introductory Thoughts
Collins
writes:
"Simply
stated, the 70 AD doctrine teaches that all prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD.
This means that the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection, and the Day of
Judgment happened at the destruction of
Collins says that he asked if a person will be lost if he does not believe in Covenant Eschatology, and that I told him to turn to 2 Peter 3:16. He infers that I said he would be lost if he did not agree with me. There are a couple of things that Collins conveniently omitted from our discussion.
First, I told him that I genuinely struggled with the question in light of Peter's statements in 2 Peter.
Second, I told him that I do believe that a person is not ultimately saved by what they know, but who they know. This does not negate the seriousness of 2 Peter 3, but does offer some degree of amelioration.
Third, and this is abundantly strange, Collins seems to infer that I would be wrong to believe that a person must believe in the truth of Covenant Eschatology. However, does Collins believe that a person must believe in his brand of eschatology (a modified Amillennialism), to be saved? His appeal to 2 Timothy 2 answers that question. Collins believes it is wrong for Preterist to believe that eschatology is a matter of faith. However, if you don't believe like Collins, you are a heretic and apostate!
Fourth, I asked Mr. Collins how, given his view of the resurrection that it would be possible for anyone to convince anyone that all the physically dead human beings who had ever lived had already been reconstituted, restored, revived and resurrected out of the earth? Mr. Collins had no answer to this question. He could not explain how, if Hymenaeus believed in the same kind of resurrection as he does, that Hymenaeus could have believed and taught that event — the end of time and destruction of earth — had already occurred.
"#1. The 70AD doctrine teaches that the resurrection happened
at the destruction of
Response: I could not believe what I was seeing when I read what Collins
says here. He claims that some at
Paul argues from what the Corinthians do believe, to refute what they do not believe. In other words, Paul says, "If you believe this, then you must also believe the following" Since they do believe certain things, then they must believe the other things, they things they are trying to deny. Further, Paul uses propositions that they would deny, in order to show them what they must believe. For instance, "If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised." Did the Corinthians believe Christ had not risen according to this argument? If they were denying Christ's resurrection, then Paul's argument was pointless. They would have responded: "Yes, Paul, that is precisely what we are saying! Thanks for making our point. We don't believe Jesus was raised."
Thus, the resurrection of Jesus as the first fruit of the "dead ones," not just the resurrection of Jesus per se, is affirmed. The Corinthians believed in the resurrection of Jesus. And Paul uses their belief in his resurrection to prove the resurrection of "the dead ones" of whom Christ was the first fruit. Thus, Collins begins his "refutation" of Covenant Eschatology by building on a rotten foundation. [1]
Collins continues:
"We learn from Paul that at the resurrection we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and we will have an incorruptible body (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). Paul also tells us that a Christian's citizenship is in heaven and how they were eagerly waiting for Jesus' return so that he would transform their lowly bodies and conform them to His glorious body (Phil. 3:20-21). John agrees with this when he says, "when Christ is revealed, we shall be like Him and see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2). Have these things already happened as the 70 A.D. doctrine teaches? If they have, I personally am not impressed with this new glorious body that is supposed to be immortal and incorruptible. Are you? Obviously, the resurrection has not happened yet."
Response:
Two terms kept coming to mind as I read these statements: petitio principii
and ad hominem. The first term is a term from the world of logic meaning
that a person is begging the question. They assume their position is true
without proving it to be. The second term means that a person is arguing based
on human terms, their experience, etc, and not from the scripture. In other
words, because Collins did not see what he thinks he had to see in regards to
the Parousia, then the Parousia could not have occurred. Collins sets himself
up as the determining authority of whether scripture is fulfilled.
Collins
conveniently omits what Paul had to say about when the corruptible would
put on incorruptibility. This is somewhat sad to me, because in our studies I
confronted Collins with the issues and he had no substantive response.
First, Paul says "we shall not all sleep" (1 Corinthians 15:50-51). The apostle was writing to living breathing human beings and told them that not all of them would die before the resurrection. Of course, Collins tried to say that this was just editorial language. However, I demonstrated that the idea of editorial language is a relatively modern concept and that when a person really examines Paul's use of personal pronouns, that he uses them in very personal ways. Paul does not use pronouns indiscriminately.
Second, and this is significant, I showed Collins that the resurrection
would be when the promises to Old Covenant Israel were fulfilled, because 1
Corinthians 15:54-56 quote Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 as the source for Paul's resurrection
doctrine. I asked Collins: Are your eschatological hopes based on the future
fulfillment of Old Covenant promises made to
I pointed out that in Corinthians, Paul said the resurrection would be when "the law" that was the strength of sin" was removed." I took note, and documented that in Paul, the term "the law" is used 117 times. When no modifier, such as "the law of life in Christ" is present, and that is 110 times, the term "the law" invariably refers to the Mosaic Law. This means of course, that the resurrection would occur when the Mosaic Law was brought to its end. Collins had no answer to this except to claim that the Old Law was nailed to the Cross, therefore, my argument was falsified. I then showed that he was miss using Colossians 2:16, because Paul does not say that the Law itself was nailed to the Cross, but the debt of the Law, the obligation to keep the Law, was nailed to the Cross. [2]
In our studies, I took note that the Bible invariably posits the resurrection at the end of the Old Covenant Age. I observed that the Christian Age has no end. I asked Collins repeatedly how he could affirm the end of the Christian Age when the Bible says it has no end. He could not explain that problem.
On
several occasions, I took note of Daniel 12 that affirms the resurrection, and
that it would occur "when the power of the holy people is completely
shattered." Collins did not even attempt to respond. He ignored the
emphatic statements of the text.
Note that Collins makes no attempt whatsoever to deal with the many time statements about when the judgment, Parousia and resurrection would occur. If one were to read Collins, you would not even know the Bible says "In a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not tarry" (Hebrews 10:37). To read Collins, you would not know that Peter said Christ was, 2000 years ago, "ready to judge the living and the dead" (1 Peter 4:5), and that he continued by saying "The end of all things has drawn near" (v. 5). You would never realize, to read Collins, that Peter even went ahead to say, "The time has come (the appointed time, DKP) for the judgment (to krino, DKP) to begin at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17). Now in the Greek, the definite article is anaphoric. It refers to something well known or previously mentioned. In this case, Peter's reference to "the judgment" refers back to v. 5, and the judgment of the living and the dead, i.e. the resurrection. Peter says the time for the resurrection had arrived.
But does Collins even mention any of these, or any of the other time texts? Not so much as a hint that he acknowledges that they are there.
On one occasion, Mr. Collins came to my office, and as we discussed the issues I once again called attention to the many time statements that demand our attention. He responded that he had the answer to that problem, and that the time statements are really no problem at all. I asked what his solution was, and he said that when the Bible asserts that an event was "near" or "at hand" or "coming quickly" that this was not a temporal indication of imminence, but simply meant that the "at hand" event was "sure to happen." In other words, "Behold, I come quickly" and "The time is at hand," and, "The coming of the Lord has drawn near" simply mean that the Lord's coming was sure to happen. I gave two responses.
First, knowing that Mr. Collins was an Amillennialist, I asked him what Jesus and John the Baptizer meant when they affirmed "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (literally, has drawn near)? Mr. Collins insisted that those declarations meant that the kingdom was near; it was imminent; it was coming soon. The question was then posed why the statements in regard to the kingdom meant that it was coming soon, but that the identical statements, in the identical Greek words, in the identical Greek tenses, about the Parousia of Christ meant something totally different. No response. No answer.
Second, I asked Mr. Collins if he was indeed serious in his claim that "at hand" actually only meant "certain to occur". He insisted that this was the true meaning of the terms in scripture. I then asked him that, if that were true, what the term "not at hand" meant. He said he was not certain what I meant by the question. I told him that I felt he understood the question perfectly well, but that he just did not want to answer it.
I then called attention to Numbers 24:17f where Balaam spoke of the coming of the Messiah: "I see him, but not now. I behold him, but not near." It was something like 1500 years until the coming of Christ, and Balaam said it was "not near." I then observed to Mr. Collins that the logic of his argument meant this: If "at hand" means certain to occur, then most assuredly "not at hand" must, logically, mean "uncertain to occur." Mr. Collins, with obvious frustration, said, "You just have an answer for everything don't you?"
The
problem is that Mr. Collins, like so many others, simply refuses to submit to
the inspired time statements. They equivocate, mitigate, derogate, and
obfuscate the unequivocal temporal statements of scripture, all because they
insist "My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing!" Their own
preconceived ideas about the nature of the Parousia, just like the Jewish
preconceived ideas of the kingdom, cause them to reject God's inspired word.
Note Collin's form of argumentation. He says concerning whether the transformation of the "bodies of the dead" has occurred into immortality:
"If they have, I personally am not impressed with this new glorious body that is supposed to be immortal and incorruptible. Are you? Obviously, the resurrection has not happened yet."
Response:
The millennialists will be more than happy to now welcome Collins into their
camp. Our millennial friends appeal to the language of Isaiah 2 that describes
the kingdom, and say, "If the church is supposed to be the fulfillment of
that language, then I am not very impressed. I don't see the wolf lying down
with the lamb, do you? I am not impressed with this kingdom that you say has
been established." How would Collins respond to such a statement? He would
tell the millennialists that you cannot judge the fulfillment of prophecy based
on your personal subjective standards. You must allow scripture to interpret
scripture, and, of course, he would insist that even if the millennialist does
not fully understand the nature of the fulfillment of the language, he cannot
deny that the kingdom was to be fulfilled the first century, because, after
all, Jesus said "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." So, Collins would
insist that we honor the time statements about when the kingdom was to be
established to help us determine the nature of the kingdom. But, of course, he
denies that same hermeneutic to the Preterist.
Collins continues:
"During Jesus earthly ministry, the Sadducees were trying to trap Jesus in a question about the resurrection. Jesus responded to them by saying, "The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36). Jesus' words here are a big deathblow to the 70AD doctrine. Notice, at the resurrection we will not marry or be given in marriage. We cannot die anymore and we are equal with angels. First of all, it's obvious that we are still marrying, giving in marriage, and we are still dying. Now if the 70AD advocates try to make dying a spiritual concept, then this means we cannot sin, because sin is what causes spiritual death (Rom. 6:23). Are you ready to accept such a notion? Did the resurrection happen in 70AD? Absolutely not!"
Response:
Note some of the issues that Collins ignores:
-
Collins conveniently omits our
discussion of this passage. I asked, "In what age was Jesus living
when he made this promise?" Collins admitted, as he must, that Jesus
was living in the Mosaic Age. I then asked "What age followed the
Mosaic Age?" He acknowledged that it was the Christian Age.
-
As a direct corollary to #1, I
asked Collins "What age was characterized by Levirate Marriage?"
He responded that it was the Mosaic Age. This is critical because this
sets the context for the discussion of the nature of the kingdom and the
resurrection. The age in which the Levirate marriage was being practiced
was the age in which Jesus lived, and is his reference to "this
age." The
age to come would be the age that would
follow the age in which Levirate
marriage was practiced, and, of course, that is the current Christian Age.
Thus, the current Christian Age is the age in which there is "no
marrying and giving in marriage."
-
I then asked if, in Christ, we
are we are "male or female," and he said that "is a
spiritual condition in Christ." I acknowledged and affirmed that
fact.
-
If asked Collins whether, in
Christ, we still die, or whether Jesus' promise in John 8:51 is
"good" or not. He did not want to answer that question because,
as a member of the churches of Christ, he dares not affirm the security of
the believer too firmly. After all, the belief goes, you don't really know
if you are saved or not. If you think you are saved, you may actually be
on the verge of falling.
- I asked if sons of God are, today, produced through resurrection, according to Paul in Romans 6; Colossians 2, 1 Peter 3, etc. He affirmed that this was true. I then asked him whether God has now, or if He will ever have two different plans for producing "sons of God"? He affirmed that there is only one way to become a child of God today, and of course, he does not believe that there will be sons of God produced after the "end of time resurrection." I noted that if this was true, then he of necessity had to believe that Matthew 22 was applicable to the Christian Age, since sons of God are now being produced through resurrection, and, per his own statements, there will never be another plan for producing children of God. So, according to his own answers, he precluded an application of Matthew 22 to a future eschaton.
I pointed out to Collins that every constituent element promised by Jesus in Matthew 22 was now, by his own admission, found in Christ, and that, again by his own admission, we are in the age that followed the age in which Jesus was living. Since Jesus said that the things he was promising were for "the age to come," and we are in the age that followed the age in which he lived, that logic demands that we now live in the age of resurrection life. He somewhat reluctantly admitted that this was true "in spiritual sense," but that this is not what Jesus was talking about. I asked for proof of that assertion, but got none.
Finally, an observation about Collins' claim that Preterists do not believe in the resurrection of the body. This is troubling to me since we discussed the issue. Since I explained my position to him, yet he still makes broad general claims that are misrepresentative of what we/I believe, I can only conclude that Collins seeks to prejudice rather than inform his readers. When Collins made that claim in our studies, I took him to Romans 8, and as we studied the text, I demonstrated that while Paul is definitely speaking of the same resurrection as in 1 Corinthians, as admitted by virtually everyone, that it is impossible to believe that Paul was discussing the raising of a biologically dead human corpse. [3] The body of Romans 8 was called the mortal body because "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of Christ." Does Collins, or anyone else, believe that our biological bodies are dead, or die, only if Christ is in us? What if Christ is not in us? Does that mean that those who do not have Christ in them do not have dead bodies?
Paul lamented "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24f), and that the body, the mortal body of death he was speaking of is also the "flesh." Yet, speaking of this body of "flesh" Paul says, "If you are in the flesh you cannot be pleasing to God" and, "You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." (Romans 8:7-11). If Paul was speaking of human bodies, he was clearly confused to say that they were not in the flesh. Did they not have their biological bodies anymore? Were they in the spirit, and not the flesh? Yes, but being in the flesh and being in the spirit are terms that do not relate to biological bodies versus disembodied spirits!
Finally, I noted that Paul's discussion of this resurrection in Romans 8 is, like 1 Corinthians 15, the hope of Israel, and that if, as virtually all Amillennialists do, he asserts that all of God's promises to Israel were fulfilled at the Cross, or even in A.D. 70, that he must admit that the resurrection of the body — whatever he conceives it to be — had to be fulfilled, or else Israel remains as God's Covenant people. Collins could not explain any of this. He never even tried. Obviously, Paul is not discussing the raising of human corpses from the ground.
This
concludes the examination of the first point of Collins' "refutation"
of Covenant Eschatology. Like most of the opponents of Covenant Eschatology,
Collins offers no real arguments. If the reader will take the time to carefully
examine his article, you will find that he does not do any exegetical work, at
all. He simply asserts that 1 Corinthians and the other passages he cites
prove his point. He totally ignores the time issues. This is not convincing!
Collins cites passages in the identical manner as the dispensational authors
who say, "The church will be Raptured out of the world at the beginning of
the Tribulation period (1 Thessalonians 4:13f). That clearly has not occurred
yet, therefore, the Preterists are wrong!"
Mr. Collins writes:
"The
70 AD doctrine teaches that Jesus second coming and judgment was at the
destruction of
Response:
First, just as in our private studies, Mr. Collins refuses to even address the
time issues at stake, and act as if they do not exist. This is simply
inexcusable for anyone attempting to deal candidly and forthrightly with the
scriptures.
Second,
Mr. Collins argues that because Hebrews 9:28 says Christ would
"appear" that this demands a visible, bodily return of Christ. This
raises and interesting situation. Matthew 24:30-31 says that they would
"see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." To what event
does Mr. Collins apply that prediction? To the A.D. 70 coming of Jesus Christ.
And why does he apply Matthew 24:29f to A.D. 70? Because of Matthew 24:34 that
says those events were to occur in Jesus' generation. Of course, Collins did
not inform the readers of his articles of his inconsistent hermeneutic, nor of
his insistence that we honor the time statement in Matthew, but not in Hebrews.
That would cause consternation to be sure.
Why
does Collins not take note that in Hebrews 9-10 the writer never changes
subjects, and in chapter 10:37, discussing the coming of Christ foretold in
chapter 9:28, he says, "In a very, very little while, the one who is
coming will come and will not tarry." So, in Matthew 24 we have a
prediction that they would "see" Jesus coming on the clouds, but that
occurred in A.D. 70 because of the time limiter of Matthew 24:34, that demands
that it occurred in that generation. However, in Hebrews 9-10 it says that
Jesus was to "appear" in a "very, very little while," but
that has to be a literal, visible coming of Christ at the end of history
because it says he would "appear."
Third,
Jesus said that his coming to judge all men — that is the coming of Acts 1 —
would be "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27). In my upcoming
book, Like Father, Like Son, Coming on
Clouds of Glory, I show that this promise meant that Jesus' was
coming in judgment in the same way the Father had come in the past. The Father
had committed all judgment to Christ and would not judge henceforth, but Christ
would judge as he had seen the Father judge (John 5:19f).
Since
it is obvious that the Father had never come visibly, bodily, literally, out of
heaven on literal cumulous clouds, and since Jesus was to come "in the
glory of the Father" this precludes any discussion of a literal, visible
coming of Christ out of heaven. In our private studies Collins had no response
whatsoever to this Biblical argument. He ignored it.
Fourth,
Collins cites Revelation 1:7 as proof of a yet future Parousia. The trouble is
that Revelation 1:7 is a direct quote of Zechariah 12:10, and its prediction of
the judgment of
So,
here is what we have. Zechariah 12 foretold the A.D. 70 coming of the Lord, and
Jesus quoted Zechariah in his prediction of the A.D. 70 Parousia. In Revelation
1:7, John quotes Zechariah 12:10 to predict the judgment on those "who
pierced him," yet, Collins claims that Revelation 1:7 predicts a yet
future coming of the Lord. What is Collins authority for applying Zechariah
12:10 to a yet future, end of time coming of the Lord? Well, he did not see
Jesus coming, therefore, Jesus did not come! Collins offers no exegetical
evidence, no textual support, nothing. He just claims that it did not happen,
therefore, it did not happen.
The
total inconsistency of Collins is painfully obvious, and should be rejected by
right thinking students.
Collins continues:
"At
the second coming all will be resurrected (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15, 1Cor.
15:50-54), all will be judged (Mat. 25: 31-46; 2 Tim. 4:1; Jude 15; John
12:48), and all the righteous will be caught up in the air with Jesus and be
with him forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17; John 14:2-3; Phil. 3:20-21). When we
all stand at the judgment seat of Christ, we will all bow to him and confess to
God that Jesus is His Son (Rom. 14:10-11). There will be no more death, tears,
sorrows, or pains (Rev. 21:4; 1 Corinthians 15:26). When Jesus comes, He will
come like a thief in the night and there will be no escape (1Thes. 5:1-3). The
earth will be burned up with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10-13). Did any of these
things happen in 70AD? Of course not. If the final judgment has already
occurred, as the 70AD doctrine teaches, then there is nothing we can do for the
saved or the lost because everyone has already been separated to eternal life
or eternal punishment (Mat. 25:46)."
Response:
There is so much error here that space simply will not allow me to respond to
every point. So, let's just make a few simple observations that Collins ignored
not only in his article, but in our private studies as well. Collins had a
rather troubling tendency to totally ignore the fundamental issues of
eschatology, and continue to make arguments that ignore context, violate logic,
and ignore time statements.
Take
note that in speaking of the resurrection, Collins appeals to John 5:28-29,
Acts 24:14; 1 Corinthians 15. There are a couple of factors to note.
First,
in our private studies, Collins appealed to John 5:28-29. I took note that this
text is based squarely on Daniel 12:2, as virtually all commentators, with very
few exceptions, agree. The problem for Collins is that while Jesus' prediction
of the resurrection is based on Daniel 12:2, in that very chapter, Daniel was
told that everything being foretold in that chapter was to be fulfilled
"when the power of the holy people is completely shattered." (Daniel
12:7). This was, and is, devastating to Collins and all futurists, and yet, he
refused to deal with it in our private studies and conveniently ignores it when
he seeks to refute Covenant Eschatology.
Second,
I asked Mr. Collins if his hope of the resurrection was based on the Old
Testament promises made to
What
is the reason for that silence? It is the foundational doctrine of much of Amillennialism,
the idea that God was through with
Collins does not believe that the Old Law remains valid today. He insists that
it passed at the Cross. If the Law passed at the Cross, then Paul did not know
it, for, writing years after the Cross, Paul asked if God had cast off
Collins
has a tendency, as many who seek to refute Covenant Eschatology do, to simply
point to a number of scriptures and say "See, those prove the A.D. 70
doctrine is wrong!" However, anyone who reads Collins's article with an
observant eye will notice that he did not bother to exegete a single passage.
He simply points and says his case is proven. Well, I have studied with lots
and lots of Jehovah's Witnesses who have done the identical thing. But simply
referring to scriptures and saying that they prove your case, does not prove
your case. Collins is guilty in the worst way of petitio principii, begging the question. He assumes his
position is right; he says it is right; therefore, it is right.
Collins
makes a very common, but fallacious argument: "If the final judgment has
already occurred, as the 70AD doctrine teaches, then there is nothing we can do
for the saved or the lost because everyone has already been separated to
eternal life or eternal punishment (Mat. 25:46)." It saddens me that
Collins brings this up, since we dealt with it in our private discussions, and
he admitted that he had no answer for what the Bible says.
Note
that in Revelation 14:13, we have a depiction of life after the Parousia. We
have the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, and then the result,
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth, for Yea, says
the Spirit, they shall rest from their labors." Now, if the time of the
coming of the Lord is an earth burning, time ending event, how could there be
anymore dying? Furthermore, in Revelation 21-22, after the "end" of
Revelation 20, we have nations of the earth coming into the city — whose gates
are always open — and they come for healing. See Revelation 21-22:3. Now, if
that is not evangelism, continuing life on earth, after the end, what is it? I
don't know, and Mr. Collins did not know either. He could not explain how his
view of eschatology, of no more healing of the nations after the end, conforms
to that picture.
The
fact is that Mr. Collins has written an article that essentially ignores
everything that he and I studied and discussed together, and claims to be a
definitive response to Covenant Eschatology. It leaves the impression that Mr.
Collins has studied the issue thoroughly when, in fact, he is not well informed
at all.
Finally, Mr. Collins offers the following:
"Another
big problem for the 70AD doctrine is that it does not have any early historical
evidence. There is not one shred of early Christian writing to prove that
Christians believed that Jesus' second coming happened at 70AD. Instead, the
following writers from about 75 AD to 150 AD all spoke of Jesus' second coming
as a future event: Justin Martyer, (sic) Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp (a
student and friend of the apostle John), Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. One would
think he would find at least one early church writer that expressed the 70AD
view if it were true. However, one cannot be produced. Was Jesus' second coming
in 70AD? Absolutely not!"
Response:
I find it amusing that Collins would attempt to use the argument from history
against Covenant Eschatology. Several years ago, in a public debate with
another member of the churches of Christ, my opponent made the same argument about
the silence of history. I responded then, as I did with Mr. Collins that I
would like for him to produce, from the early church writings support for some
of his distinctive
Using
the early church writers for proof or disproof of modern beliefs and doctrines
is at best tenuous. To say the very least, the patristic writers were often
eccentric, sometimes downright non-Biblical, and often simply aberrant. Yet,
desperate men, like Collins (and we might add Kenneth Gentry and others), place
an inordinate emphasis on these early church writers. What ever happened to Sola Scriptura?
We
have now examined two of Collins' four points. We have shown that he lamentably
ignores the clear cut Biblical testimony about when the eschatological events
were to occur. He ignores the framework, i.e. the last days of
In
the next installment, we will examine Collins' claim that the Old Law passed
away at the Cross.
This
is part three of my review and response to an article by Cougan Collins. The
article was sent to one of the members of our congregation here in
Since
Collins wrote his article, he has assumed the pulpit duties of the Lone Grove
I
studied with Mr. Collins on several occasions, and I can only assume that he
refers to me in the article. Frankly, when I read his article I was somewhat
taken back with his confidence that he had debunked Covenant Eschatology since,
on several occasions he admitted that he could not refute what I was
presenting. I must say however, that during our studies, I often commented to
my wife afterwards that I was concerned that Mr. Collins was not studying to
learn, but seemed to have a hidden agenda. When confronted with evidence for
which he had no answers, Mr. Collins would simply admit that, and change the
subject, or ignore what had been presented.
So far, we have addressed two of Collins' points. In order to do any justice, I must go into a bit more detail than he has done in his presentation. The reader should notice however, that Collins does not actually exegete passages. He makes assertions about what passages mean, but does not offer proof. Thus, for instance, he argues that 1 Corinthians 15 speaks of the resurrection. The resurrection has not occurred. Therefore, Preterism is false. This is essentially the depth of his argumentation. This is a good debater's trick, but proves nothing.
The Fulfillment of All Prophecy
Collins:
Point #3: The 70AD doctrine teaches that all prophecy was
fulfilled by 70AD and that the law was still in effect for the Jews until that
time. To make this whole argument crumble all one needs to do is produce one
prophecy that was fulfilled after 70AD. Before I do that, I want to show that
the verse they take out of context to support their view does not teach what
they say it does. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth
pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). Those who hold the AD 70 view will say,
"see the law cannot pass away until all is fulfilled." In order to
understand what is being said here lets examine the context. In Matthew 5: 17
Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." In this passage, Jesus
tells us that He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. With this
in mind, we can understand that in verse 18 the law will not pass away until
Jesus fulfills it.
Response:
Please note that Collins first of all tries to differ with advocates of
Covenant Eschatology, and then agrees! He says that the advocates of Realized
Eschatology argue based on Matthew 5:17-18, that the entirety of the Old Law
had to be fulfilled before any of it could pass. This is of course true!
That is precisely what we teach, because that is exactly what Jesus taught, by
Collin's own admission! The rest of Collins' article seeks then to mitigate the
very words that he as quoted from the mouth of Jesus.
Collins:
Jesus wanted to make sure his disciples understood this, so
after he was raised from dead, he said the following. "These are the
words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms
concerning Me" (Luke 24:44). Jesus' point that He is trying to get
across to His disciples is this. Remember when I said the law would not pass
away till all was fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18)? That has now happened! This
same thought is also found in Acts 13:27-29.
Response:
Was Jesus saying that the entirety of the Old Law was fulfilled by his passion?
This is absolutely essential for Collins' paradigm. He believes the Old Law passed
at the Cross. Of course, Collins does not tell us how all of the Law was
fulfilled on the Cross, yet Jesus was not raised until three days later!
If the Law was fulfilled, and nailed to the Cross, then even the resurrection,
being after the Cross, was not necessary for the passing of the Law!
Collins
makes the typical
Please
take careful note of what Jesus actually said, he said not one jot, not one
tittle of the Law could pass until it was all fulfilled. This is indisputable.
He did not say that the entire Old Law would pass when part of what if
foretold was fulfilled. Yet, this is exactly what Collins believes. Collins has
Jesus saying that all would pass when some was fulfilled, when
Jesus actually said none would pass until it was all fulfilled!
Collins turns Jesus' words upside down.
The
question is, was every single thing foretold in the Old Testament fulfilled at
the Cross? This is the fundamental, crucial issue that Collins must answer, and
that he conveniently ignores. He hopes his readers will not notice this huge
issue.
Here
are a few thoughts to ponder that Collins, in my private studies with him, was
never able to answer:
-
Was the establishment of the
church / kingdom foretold in the Old Law? If it was, and Collins
believes it was, then since Jesus said not one single iota of the Old
Law could pass until it was all fulfilled, then until the church / kingdom
was established, the Law could not pass. Now, some
|
Major Premise: |
None of the Old Law could pass until it was
all fulfilled (Jesus). |
|
Minor Premise: |
But, the establishment of the church was
foretold by the Old Law (Collins agrees). |
|
Conclusion: |
Therefore, none of the Old Law could pass
until the establishment of the church. |
-
Was the fall of
Collins admits that Daniel 9:24f (at least), foretold the A.D. 70 catastrophe. Since Jesus said that none of the Old Testament could pass until all of it, not some, not even most, but until all of it was fulfilled, then this means that until the fall of
|
Major Premise: |
None of the Old Law could pass until it was
all fulfilled (Jesus). |
|
Minor Premise: |
But, the destruction of |
|
Conclusion: |
Therefore, none of the Old Testament could pass
until the destruction of |
-
Was the fall of
According to Collins (see below), Daniel 2 foretold the destruction of
Remember that Collins cites Jesus' words in Matthew 5, that not one iota of the Old Law would pass until it was all fulfilled. Collins admits that the Old Law could not pass until it was all, not some, but all fulfilled. His problem is that he places the fulfillment at the Cross, where, patently, not all of the Old Law was fulfilled. You cannot argue on the one hand that all of the Old Testament was fulfilled at the Cross, and then turn around and argue that Daniel was not fulfilled at the Cross. This is a huge problem for Collins. And yet, he seems unwilling, or unable to see the problem.
By arguing that Jesus was saying the Law was fulfilled at the Cross, Collins has Jesus saying this in Matthew 5: "Verily I say unto you, that all of the Law will pass when some of the Law, that is, my passion foretold in the Law, is fulfilled."
But clearly, Jesus did not say all of it would pass when some of it was fulfilled. He said none of it would pass until it was all fulfilled. It is lamentable that Collins refuses to accept the Lord's unmistakable words. Take a look at Collins' position stated logically in light of what Jesus taught:
|
Major Premise: |
None of the Old Law could pass until it was
all fulfilled. (Jesus) |
|
Minor Premise: |
But, the Old Law foretold the destruction of |
|
Conclusion: |
Therefore, none of the Old Law could pass
until it was all fulfilled at the destruction of |
-
Since Collins does not believe
that the Old Law continued valid until A.D. 476, his argument that the Old
Testament foretold the fall of
Does the Old Testament predict the final resurrection,
Christ's Parousia and the judgment? Yes it does!
In my studies with Collins, I noted that Peter's eschatology was from the Old
Testament (2 Peter 3.1-3, 13). Paul in his doctrine of the resurrection (1
Corinthians 15:54f), said that his gospel was nothing but the hope of
Virtually all the New Testament writers tell us that their eschatological hopes
were based squarely on, and were nothing but, that which was promised in the
Old Testament prophets! It is interesting, and significant that in public
debates with Amillennialists, and even postmillennialists, I have asked the
following question: "Are your eschatological hopes based on the Old
Testament promises that God made to Old Covenant
To have eschatology different than the eschatology promised to
However, needless to say, this is totally destructive to the amillennial
doctrine. Stated simply — if your eschatological hope is not based on the Old
Testament promises that God made to Israel, then you have a different
eschatology than did Peter, John, Paul and the rest of the New Testament
writers. They tell us repeatedly that their eschatology, their hope, was
"the hope of
|
Major Premise: |
None of the Old Law could pass until it was
all fulfilled (Jesus) |
|
Minor Premise: |
But, the Old Testament foretold the resurrection, Parousia of
Christ, and the final judgment (1 Corinthians 54f; 2 Peter 3; Revelation,
etc). |
|
Conclusion: |
Therefore, the Old Law could not, (cannot),
pass until the resurrection, Parousia of Christ, and the final judgment are
fulfilled. |
-
Collins ignores the Biblical
testimony as to when all things were to be fulfilled. Daniel 9.24f said
that vision and prophecy would be sealed by the end of the 70 Weeks.
Collins even admitted in our discussions that the 70 Weeks ended no later
than A.D. 70. Well, the sealing of vision and prophecy, by consensus
opinion, means the fulfillment of all prophecy.1 Thus, all prophecy would be
fulfilled by the end of the 70 Weeks.
This agrees perfectly with Jesus' words, as he described the fall of
Collins:
This harmonizes perfectly with the numerous
Scriptures that state that the Old Covenant was replaced with the New Covenant
at the death of Jesus (Heb. 9:15; Heb. 8:6-7; Gal. 3:23-25). The handwriting of
requirements of the law were nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and put to death
in his flesh (Eph. 2:14-16). Paul tells us that the Christians before 70AD were
no longer under the law (Rom. 6:15; Rom. 7:1-6; 8:1-4). Those Christians who
believed in Jesus and were led by the spirit were no longer under the law (Rom.
10:4; Gal. 5:18).
Response:
It is sad that Collins completely ignores the issues that were raised in our
studies together. For him to claim that the cited passages say that the Law
itself passed away is to ignore the wording of the texts. I understand how this
is done, however, since I once did this myself. When I finally got serious
about reading the text of the Bible — not injecting my presuppositions,
prejudices and traditions into the text — I finally realized what the texts
were saying.
First, not one of these passages tells us that the Law itself was done away. As I pointed out in our studies, these passages cited show that those coming into Christ died to the Law (cf. especially Romans 7.4: "you have become dead to the Law by the body of Christ.") There is a huge difference between saying that they had died to the Law, and saying that the Law had died!
Also,
as I point out elsewhere, even Colossians 2:14f does not say that the Law was
nailed to the Cross. It teaches that the
obligation to keep the Law was
nailed to the Cross. (See Dunn's comments in the New International Greek Text
Commentary).
What
Collins does is typical. He ignores the wording of the text because of his
presuppositional views, and then calls those who differ with him false
teachers.
Collins:
Finally, Paul proclaimed that if Christians tried to go back
to the law for justification they would fall from grace (Gal. 5:4). Although
the law was still being practiced by some of the Jews, its authority ended at
the cross and the New Covenant took its place. Contrary to the 70AD doctrine,
we have clearly seen that the law was fulfilled at the point of Christ's death
and not at the fulfillment of all prophecy.
Response:
This is a straw man point. Of course, Paul argued that those who abandoned
Christ to return to the Law were fallen from grace! That is not the issue.
The issue is whether the Law had passed. No one is disputing whether it was
wrong for Christians to abandon Christ and the gospel of grace to return to
salvation by the Torah. Collins would be better served by actually addressing
the true issue, not by raising "red herring" issues.
Did you notice what Collins said at the end of the statement above? He said that "the law was fulfilled at the point of Christ's death, and not at the fulfillment of all prophecy." Well, was Christ's death the fulfillment of prophecy, or Law (or perhaps both)? This is important.
Collins
seems to be delineating between the Law and prophecy. Thus, Christ fulfilled
the Law, but not all prophecy. However, this is specious. According to the
Bible, the prophets were "the law" (Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:20f), and
the Law prophesied (Luke 16:16). According to Paul, the Psalms, Jeremiah, and
other prophets were called "the law" (Romans 3.19). Finally, Paul
said that "the Law" foretold the resurrection (Acts 24.13-15).
It
is simply false to say that Christ fulfilled "the Law" but not the
prophets. Jesus did not say that none of the Law could pass until only the Law
was fulfilled. He was using the term "the law" in its normal,
scripturally attested, comprehensive manner to refer to the entirety of the Old
Covenant Corpus. Since this is true, when Jesus said that not one jot or one
tittle would pass from the Law until it was all fulfilled, Collins is misguided
to try to delineate between the Law and the Prophets. That is an unscriptural,
unjustified distinction.
Collins:
Now let us look at one fulfilled prophecy that happened
almost 400 years after 70AD. As we look at this, please remember that if I can
show one prophecy that was fulfilled after AD 70, then the whole belief system
crumbles. In Daniel 2, we four different kingdoms are presented. The fourth
kingdom is described as having legs of iron and its feet being partly iron and
clay (vs. 33). We learn that this fourth kingdom would be in power at the time
the church/kingdom would be setup (vs. 44). Without a doubt, this fourth
kingdom is the
Response:
First of all, remember the point we made above about the passing of the Law.
Collins has created a genuine dilemma for himself and his traditional
Second,
one must not forget that in the fall of
We
have seen that one of the foundation of Collins' objections to Covenant
Eschatology is rotten, and based on specious, and perverted use of the
scriptures. Collins, like most who attempt to refute Preterism, is guilty of
bad logic, a failure to properly exegete, and bad application of the scriptures.
In
the previous three articles we have examined point by point an article written
by Cougan Collins, minister of the Lone Grove, Ok.
We
will not go back over the previous material, but refer the reader to those
articles on this site. We continue now with Mr. Collins’ "arguments"
and our response.
Mr.
Collins says: "The 70AD doctrine teaches that the kingdom started at
Pentecost but did not come with power or was not established until 70AD.
Mark tells us that some of those standing in the presence of Christ would not
die before the kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1). Luke tells us that the
power and the spirit would come together (Luke 24:29; Acts 1:8). We learn that
the power and spirit came at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and that was
when the kingdom/church was established with power. The kingdom did not have to
wait until 70AD to have power or to be established. The Bible does not speak of
the kingdom starting without power."
Response:
Quite frankly, as is usual with the enemies of Covenant Eschatology, there is a
tendency to misrepresent what is actually taught. Mr. Collins never heard me
say, nor I do I teach, that the church was not established on the day of
Pentecost! What I do affirm is that the church was established in infancy on
the day of Pentecost, and that it came in full power, glory and maturity in A.D.
70! Furthermore, I should note that in my tradition of the churches of Christ,
without any consideration of Covenant Eschatology, I have heard something
similar to this all of my life! That is, it is widely admitted, generally
conceded that the church was not fully mature on Pentecost. So, Collins is
tilting at windmills, and in doing so, is actually arguing against a widely
held view in his traditional fellowship!
You
see, in the churches of Christ, it is argued that the charismata were given in
the church "to equip the church for the work of the ministry," and
that these gifts were to bring the church to its maturity. When that point of
maturity arrived, when the church was "full grown" the charismata
would cease. 1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 are used to support and teach
this truth.
So,
perhaps we have the right to ask Mr. Collins, do you no longer believe that the
church was born in infancy on the day of Pentecost? Do you believe that the
church arrived as "the perfect man" and the measure of the stature of
the fullness of Christ" on Pentecost? If not, then, to borrow and adapt an
adage from the famous commercials: "Where’s the beef?" You see, Mr.
Collins does not believe the church arrived "full grown" on
Pentecost. He can write all he wants about the church coming in power and
glory–more on that just below–but the fact is that he does not believe that the
church was full grown and mature, it was not completed, on Pentecost. His
argument here is specious and self-contradictory at the very best.
Mr.
Collins continues: "The Hebrew writer tells us that Jesus’ New Covenant
was established on better promises (Heb. 8:6). Notice, it did not say that it
was to be established, but that it was established."
Response:
This is almost embarrassing. Read again my comments just above. You see, this
is a critical point. In the churches of Christ, "that which is
perfect" of 1 Corinthians 13, and "the perfect man, the measure of
the stature of the fullness of Christ" in Ephesians 4, refers to the
completed revelation of the New Covenant. Do you catch that? To the completed
New Covenant of Jesus Christ!
So,
Mr. Collins believes that when Paul wrote Corinthians and Ephesians , indeed
all of his epistles, the revelation of the New Covenant was not yet completed,
for if it was, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of
inspiration whereby Paul wrote, would have ceased! If the gift of inspiration
had ceased, in other words, if the New Covenant was already completely
established, then not one of Paul’s epistles would be inspired! My, what a dilemma!
So,
Mr. Collins appeals to Hebrews to prove that the New Covenant "was
established" not "will be established" to prove that Covenant
Eschatology is wrong to assert that Christ’s New Covenant World had not yet
fully arrived. Yet, Mr. Collins himself affirms that the New Covenant was not
completed at the time Hebrews was written! This is a huge self contradiction!
I
am not aware of any Preterist that denies that Christ shed his blood to
establish the New Covenant. I do not know of anyone that denies that on
Pentecost, the provisions of that New Covenant began to be
"probated." Nor am I aware of any advocate of Covenant Eschatology
that denies that the New Covenant was being revealed and confirmed during the first
century, through the ministry of the apostles and prophets. All of those in my
personal acquaintance who espouse Realized Eschatology believe that it was at
the Parousia, in the first century, that the New Covenant was fully confirmed,
and that Christ’s New Covenant World, came fully into existence. This last
statement is where Mr. Collins, in his misguided zeal, is so self
contradictory.
You
see, as we have just noted, Mr. Collins in fact agrees with the first three
points just above, and he even agrees in principle, with the vital
fourth point, with a caveat. Yet, he seems not to realize that his
agreement in principle demands agreement in fact and detail! Here is what we
mean.
Again,
Mr. Collins agrees that Christ died to establish the New Covenant, that the New
Covenant began to be revealed on Pentecost (but was not fully revealed then),
and that the New Covenant was being revealed and confirmed in the first century
through the apostles and prophets. Well, guess what? Mr. Collins also believes
that the New Covenant was finally and fully revealed sometime in the first
century. Now, frankly, I do not remember if Mr. Collins agreed that all of the
NT books were written before A.D. 70 or not. I cannot affirm one way or the
other on that, and do not wish to misrepresent him in any way. However, in the
churches of Christ, it is not uncommon at all for it to be taught that all
inspiration was revealed, confirmed and ceased by the time of the fall of
What
is almost universally agreed to in the churches of Christ is that the gifts of
the Spirit ceased, including the gift of inspiration, "sometime in the
first century" and certainly no later than 100 A.D. following the
(supposed) writing of Revelation in 95-98 A.D. Do you see the problem?
The
problem is simple, yet, sometimes the simple things elude us, do they not? Here
it is. Let us say that Mr. Collins accepts the majority view in the churches of
Christ, that inspiration was fully revealed, confirmed, and ceased with the
writing of Revelation. What does that mean? It means that the New Covenant,
Christ’s New Covenant World, fully arrived when Revelation was written!
You
see, the New Covenant World was created by the New Covenant! That is so
self-evident, so axiomatic, as to be beyond dispute. Well, if Christ’s New
Covenant was not fully revealed, was not fully "established" until
the writing of Revelation, then prima facia, Christ’s New Covenant World
did not fully come, was not fully established, until Revelation was written.
Interestingly, in this scenario, Collins would have the
"establishment" of the kingdom arriving at a later time than the Preterists!
At whatever point Mr. Collins or anyone else places the completion of the
revelatory process, it is there that they posit the full arrival of the
kingdom. Mr. Collins’ argument is self destructive.
Mr.
Collins continues: "You cannot find a biblical example where someone
thought that the kingdom/church was lacking power or was not yet established.
The church was established on the bedrock of Jesus Christ (Mat. 16:18). Jesus
is the head of the kingdom/church (Col. 1:18) and he has all authority over
heaven and earth (Mat. 28:18). I do not see how anyone could say that Christ’
kingdom was lacking power until 70AD. Paul informs us that Jesus already had
power and glory before 70AD (1Cor. 5:4; Eph. 1:19-23; 1 Pet.1:20-21). Paul
didn’t view the church as lacking power or anticipating a future power.
Instead, he said that they had the power now (Eph. 3:20). Paul told the
Colossians that God had delivered them out of darkness and had translated them
into the kingdom of the son of his love (Col. 1:13). Now the 70 AD advocates
will say that the kingdom was incomplete at this time, but notice what Paul
says about these Christians who had been translated into the kingdom. Paul
said, "you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and
power" (Col. 2:10). How could Paul say that these Christians were
complete in the kingdom if the kingdom was not to be completed until 70AD? The
reason Paul could say this is because the Bible does not teach what the 70AD
advocates want it to teach."
Response:
Mr. Collins says "you cannot find a biblical example where someone thought
that the church was lacking in power or was not established."
First, Mr.
Collins seems oblivious to the "already but not yet" reality of the
New Testament.
Second, see
above. I do not know of any Preterist that denies that the foundation of the
kingdom was laid at Pentecost. However, Mr. Collins is conveniently overlooking
or ignoring the Biblical testimony that the
Third, has
Mr. Collins never read Luke 21.28f? Jesus said that in the events leading up to
the fall of
Fourth, Mr.
Collins emphasizes that Paul said "you are complete in him" and
argues that since that was before A.D. 70 then the completion of the kingdom in
power and glory, could not be in A.D. 70. Well, go back and consider our
thoughts in regard to the revelation and confirmation of the New Covenant.
Remember that Mr. Collins does not believe that the New Covenant had all been
revealed when Paul wrote Ephesians or Colossians! If the New Covenant was not
completed and perfected, how could the Ephesians and Colossians be
"complete in him"? This is a huge dilemma for Mr. Collins, and
he clearly has not considered it, or if he has, he has hoped that no one would
catch him in this conundrum.
Our
friend continues: "Paul tells us that Jesus must reign until He comes
again (1Cor. 15:23-25). At that time He will hand the kingdom over to the
Father and He will cease to be a mediator (1 Corinthians 15:28). If this
occurred at 70AD, then we should not be praying in the name of Jesus but
directly to God. Please notice that Paul tells us when this happens there will
be no more death (1Cor. 15:26). I have pointed this out already, but it is
worth saying again. If this refers to physical death then we should not be
dying. If it refers to spiritual death then we cannot sin."
Response:
Here is another example of something that bothers me about Mr. Collins’
article. We discussed in some detail about whether the Christian Age, and
Christ’s reign, will end. The reader will not the careful wording of Mr.
Collins article "He will hand the kingdom over to the Father and He will
cease to be a mediator."
First, I
pointed out to Mr. Collins, from many scriptures, that Paul was not saying that
Christ’s rule and reign would end at the Parousia. Christ’s kingdom–his throne-
is without end (Luke 1.32-35). Now, if Paul was affirming the end of Christ’s
rule, then the angel lied to Mary when he said that Christ’s rule, reign and
throne would never end! See Isaiah 9.6f where it is affirmed that "of the
increase of his government there shall be no end." Jesus himself said that
his word, i.e. the gospel, "will never pass away" (Matthew 24.35).
The church, the rule of Christ is an age "without end" (Ephesians
3.20-21). John saw Jesus on the throne after the Parousia (Revelation 22.3).
Mr. Collins interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 is in fatal conflict with all of
these inspired statements.
Second, Mr.
Collins says that Christ "will cease to be a mediator," and appeals
to 1 Corinthians 15.26f). Just exactly where does it say that in the text? Can
Collins please produce the words that prove his assertion?
Third,
scripture is emphatic that Christ serves as priest "after the order of an
endless life" and "he ever lives" to serve in that capacity. So,
Christ’s throne, his rule, his kingdom, and his priesthood are never ending.
They will never pass away! The same cannot be said of Mr. Collins arguments.
Fourth, appealing
to Paul’s promise that "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is
death" Mr. Collins says "if this is physical death there should be no
physical death today." Well, this does not follow, necessarily! Mr.
Collins has failed to follow Paul’s use of language.
Christ was to do to "death," what he had already done to "all things." Notice "he has put all things under his feet" in verse 27. Then, the apostle says that what had been done to the "all things" would then, at the Parousia, be done to death. Ask yourself this question: Had Christ taken "all things" all evil, out of existence, or had Christ nullified the power of all things? Since it is irrefutably true that Christ had not taken "all things" i.e. all evil, out of existence, yet had put "all things" under him, i.e. subjected them to him by nullifying their power, then does it not follow that he was not to take "death” out of existence, but rather nullify its power?
as of 7-2005