The Second Coming: Why We
Should Still Be Waiting
A Response to Dr. Russ Jurek
(Part
1)
By Don
Preston
Dr. Russ Jurek is an elder and the minister of the
EdgeHill Church of Christ
iin
When I received a copy of Jurek’s work, I immediately sent word inviting him to
meet me in a two-hour debate on the worldwide radio program The Voice of
Reason, hosted by John Anderson of Lighthouse World Ministries. Dr. Jurek
emphatically rejected my offer insisting that the only value of debating was to
show who the better debater might be.
In my first
installment, I examined Jurek’s attempt to mitigate the imminence time
statements in the Bible. For those familiar with the
Furthermore,
for those not familiar with the church of Christ and amillennial perspective,
you need to know that historically, ministers in the churches of Christ never
preach: “The coming of the Lord has drawn near,” or, cite Jesus’ words,
“Behold, I come quickly,” without explaining that we do not know if the time is
near or not. They never affirm the imminence of the Parousia with the same
certainty and urgency found in the language of scripture. Jesus’ words in
Matthew 24:36 are a common mantra to “explain” how we do not know if his coming
is near or not. Most of the time, those who do dare to claim that the Lord’s
coming is near are looked at with disdain and disfavor. I feel safe in saying
that brother Jurek has never stood in the pulpit and affirmed that, “in a very,
very little while, the one who is coming will come, and will not tarry.” And as
we noted in the first installment, this fact reveals that he knows that the
time statements do not mean mere certainty of occurrence, but truly do convey
the nearness of the event. His failure to use the language of scripture is an
irrefutable refutation of his own argument! If he has so proclaimed the
imminence of the Parousia in those words and terms, he stands outside the
historical tradition of the churches of Christ.
Jurek has
not responded to my first installment, even though he, and many in his
congregation, have definitely read it. I am told that he is none too happy with
my response. While he has not responded to me personally, he did send an email
to Doug Radcliffe, tersely telling him that he (Radcliffe) is blind. That is,
of course, not exactly an exegetical demonstration of Radcliffe’s “error,” but
it is the best brother Jurek can do. I suspect, knowing my brethren as I do,
that brother Jurek may find the “courage” to blast my article (s) from his
local pulpit, where, naturally, his audience will have no opportunity to hear a
cross-examination and rebuttal. It is lamentable that some men find comfort in
a “bully pulpit” confident that they can hide behind it while condemning those
with whom they differ. Let me say that my offer of a radio debate still stands
good, by the way.
Our purpose
in these articles is not to “win an argument.” As we noted in our first
installment, it is the responsibility of the body of Christ to examine would be
spokesmen of God, i.e. to the test the prophets. Yet, Jurek’s position on the
time statements completely destroys any ability to test the prophets, for his
view of the time statements simply means that “at hand” means certain to occur.
Given Jurek’s view of the Parousia no man could therefore, be wrong to affirm:
“In a very, very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not
tarry!” As we noted, we are told that Jurek himself avoids making such
statements of imminence and disdains those who make them. Why?
Let me
reiterate that Jurek’s argument on time is not the traditional view in the churches
of Christ. This is a relatively new position invented by men confronted with
the power of the Preterist paradigm, but determined to hang onto long held
positions. My library contains many debate books wherein the amillennial
minister affirmed that the at hand statements concerning the kingdom demanded a
first century establishment of the kingdom And, I suspect that until he was
confronted with the Preterist arguments, that Jurek made those identical
arguments himself. Quite frankly, the dispensationalists will love what Jurek
and his brethren now say about the time statements! But to reiterate, our
purpose is not just to win an argument. Jesus himself challenged his audiences
to put him to the test (John 10:36f) and to not believe him if he did not perform
those things he predicted. Part and parcel of what Jesus said he was going to
do was the judgment and his Parousia, as well as the resurrection (John 5:19f).
If Jesus did not do what he said he was going to do, when he said he would do
it, then we cannot believe him, he said not to believe him! Thus, our
discussions involve the integrity of God, the inspiration of scriptures, and
the very Deity of Jesus himself! These are critical issues. Why is it that the
greater part of Christianity stands with the Moslems, the Jews and the
unbelieving world in affirming that Christ failed to keep his word? The
unbelievers point, with relish, to the many predictions of Jesus’ imminent
first century return, and say, “See, he did not come back! That means he is not
the Son of God!” The greater part of Christianity, including Jurek, reads those
same scriptures, and says, “Well, no, he didn’t return, but that does not mean
anything, because “at hand” does not mean soon, it means certain, or, God does
not tell time like man, or something like that!” And the skeptical world laughs
in disdain at such illogical arguments. The Preterist paradigm is the only view
of eschatology that affirms that Jesus kept his word on time. Every other
eschatology acknowledges that the language of scripture seems to affirm the
nearness of the Parousia in the first century, yet, also affirms that it did
not occur. Even Jurek affirms that God can tell time! Yet, he attempts to show
that God’s clock does not really tell time, it tells certainty.
The
futurists, while affirming that Jesus did not keep his word, then turn around
and label as heretics and false teachers the only group of believers who affirm
the complete faithfulness of God, the total reliability of scriptures and the
Deity of Jesus, based on the total fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic Word! Why is
it that the futurists who say Jesus did not keep his word, are the orthodox,
while the Preterists, who affirm that he kept his word, are the heretics? There
is something dramatically wrong here! This installment will refute Jurek’s
claims in regard to the kingdom.
THE KINGDOM
Jurek
continues his attempt to refute Covenant Eschatology in regard to the kingdom
issue in the following quote from Waiting:
Just before
Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection, his disciples asked him,
“Are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to
We could
take this one quote and demonstrate the fallacy of Jurek’s paradigm! Jurek
fails to see that these comments strip him of any possibility of a future,
visible Parousia of Christ! Frankly, I understand how he could fail to make the
association, for the presuppositional prejudice of the amillennial view, just
like presuppositional prejudice of any view, can and does blind good people to
the implications of what they believe. This is not dishonesty. It is a
characteristic of all of us as human beings! However, this is the purpose of
honorable Christian controversy. To examine our views in the light of
Scripture, to see where the flaws lie. After all: “The first one to plead his
cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17).
Unfortunately,
as we have already noted, Jurek has emphatically refused our invitation to put
his views and mine in the cross hairs of the public polemics.
The first
thing we want to note is Jurek’s claim, common for virtually all futurist
paradigms, that when the disciples asked: “Will you at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?” that: “The very question showed a lack of understanding
among the closest of his disciples concerning the nature of the kingdom.”
(Waiting, 8-9). I suggest that it was not the disciples who showed (show) a
lack of understanding in regard to Acts 1.
Just
exactly where, in the text, does Jesus chide his disciples for their supposed “misunderstanding?”
Where do we find anything like his words to them in John 14, demonstrating
disappointment that they did not yet understand his teaching? Where, in the
text, do we find a statement that the disciples did not understand what Jesus
was saying, like we find in Matthew 14:5f? It is not there. There is not one
single word in Acts 1 to indicate that Jesus was disappointed in the disciples’
understanding of the nature of the kingdom! There is not a single word that
indicates that they believed in a physical kingdom. There is not one word to
indicate that Jesus corrected their understanding. All they asked about was
when the kingdom was to be established! Consider the following.
In Luke 24
we are told, twice (v. 24f; 45f), that Jesus opened the eyes of his disciples
to understand the scriptures concerning his suffering and entrance into kingdom
glory. Did that inspired opening of the eyes not take? Furthermore, in Acts 1,
after opening their eyes to understand the scriptures, he instructed them for
forty days concerning the kingdom (Acts 1:4). Are we supposed to believe, per
Jurek’s view that after having their eyes opened directly by the Lord himself,
to understand the scriptures concerning the kingdom, that they still did not
understand the nature of the kingdom?? If so, perhaps Jesus should have gotten
rid of that bunch and gotten some other guys who were not quite so thick! The
bottom line is that Jurek has to claim, without any evidence whatsoever, and
contrary to the emphatic evidence of the text, that the disciples, in spite of
Jesus personally and miraculously opening their eyes, still did not get it in
Acts 1, and still believed in a physical kingdom! This is stretching credulity
to the limits, and I personally prefer to stay with the text. The disciples
were not confused. It is Jurek that is confused.
Jurek
claims that the disciples misunderstood the nature of the kingdom. They thought
physical and visible, but Jesus’ kingdom is “not of this world,” it is the
kingdom within: “His kingdom is a spiritual kingdom.” (Waiting, 9). We could
not agree more!
However,
just how different is Jurek’s expectations from the Jews. The Jews wanted to
see a visible, literal kingdom established. Jurek wants to see a visible,
literal coming of Christ! And make no mistake, in scripture, the coming of
Christ is the coming of the kingdom! Please catch the power of this statement.
Let me make it again: the coming of Christ is the coming of the kingdom!
So, if the
kingdom is a spiritual, unseen reality, then why is the coming of Christ, to
fully establish that kingdom, literal and visible? Is the Parousia to fully
establish the kingdom of a totally different nature than the kingdom he was
coming to establish? Jurek does not think so, because he believes that Christ
came spiritually, non-literally, on the day of Pentecost. So, Jurek believes
that the coming of the Lord in the kingdom comports with the nature of the
kingdom, unseen, non-literal. If the initiation of the kingdom was via an
unseen, non-literal coming of Christ, why is not the perfection and full
establishment of the kingdom not of the same nature? If the nature of Christ’s
coming changes from a non-literal coming to a literal, visible coming, does the
nature of the kingdom change as well?
The very passage
that Jurek utilizes to attempt to refute Preterism affirms what Jurek ignored:
the coming of Christ is the coming of the kingdom. Notice in Mark 9:1: “There
are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom with power and glory.” (My emphasis). Do you see it?
(Slight pun intended). The coming of the kingdom is the coming of Christ! If
therefore, the coming of the kingdom is not the coming of a visible, literal
kingdom, why is the coming of the Lord, to establish that kingdom, a literal
visible coming? Jurek has to change hermeneutical horses in mid-stream in order
to maintain a future, visible coming of Christ. As we are about to see, Mark
9:1 has nothing to do with Pentecost, where Jurek posits it. Mark 9:1 is a
prediction of Christ’s judgment coming in A.D. 70. But, since Jurek correctly
sees that Mark 9:1 is not a visible, literal coming of Christ, then, by his own
logic, Christ’s judgment coming, to fully establish the kingdom, would not be a
literal, visible coming!
Note that
in Matthew 25:31 it speaks of Christ’s coming in glory to sit on his throne!
Now, at this juncture, you have to understand that the traditional view of the
amillennial
Now, Jesus
said “the kingdom does not come with observation” (Luke 17:20f). But, the
kingdom would come at the Parousia of Christ (Matthew 25:31; Luke 21:28f;
Revelation 11:15f). Therefore, the coming of Christ, in the kingdom, would not
be with observation!
Make no
mistake, Jurek believes that at the “end of time” the kingdom comes with
observation! It comes with Jesus on the literal cumulus clouds, a literal blast
of the trumpet, the literal shout of an archangel, the literal burning of the
earth! Everything about Jurek’s view of the kingdom at the “end of time” is
visible and palpable! Jurek seems to argue that the kingdom was fully established
on the day of Pentecost with the sending of the Spirit, and Pentecost was
pivotal for sure, as we affirm. However, the church was not fully grown, not
fully matured, not fully manifested, and not yet vindicated! If not attempting
to refute Preterism, Jurek would probably agree with this, noting that the New
Covenant revelation was not completed on Pentecost. The church was not fully
organized on Pentecost. The church was not inclusive of Gentiles on Pentecost.
He would probably, since this is the historical view of the churches of Christ,
affirm that the church was in an infancy state on Pentecost, provided with the
charismata to equip it for the ministry, until it arrived at perfection when
the revelatory process was completed (1 Corinthians 13; Ephesians 4:8f). He
would not see the church on Pentecost as a different manifestation of the
kingdom than that at the completion of the revelatory process. It is the same
kingdom, immature versus mature. In principle, this is what Preterists are
saying, yet Jurek says we are false teachers guilty of egregious error!
Jurek wants
to speak of different manifestations of the kingdom, while the N. T. speaks of
the kingdom as being initiated, but awaiting consummation and perfection at the
Parousia. It is not two different manifestations of the kingdom, one on earth,
but not of the earth, (i.e. the church), versus what Jurek and my
Jurek’s
main argument to prove that the kingdom was established on Pentecost, and thus
not A.D. 70 is this:
Major
Premise: In Mark 9:1 Jesus said that some standing there would not die until
they saw the kingdom come with power.
Minor
Premise: The Spirit came with power on Pentecost.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the kingdom was established on Pentecost.
I once
believed that this was a valid, powerful argument, and have made it many times.
However, I discovered that it is invalid and inappropriate. Here is why.
First, it
ignores the fact that Mark 9:1 cannot be separated from Mark 8:38 and Jesus’
promise to come in judgment! It is revealing that Jurek uses Mark 9:1 and not
Matthew 16:27-28 or Luke 9:26-27. In neither one of those passages do we find a
chapter division, and it is assumed here that the readers will know that the
Greek text contains no verse dividers or chapter divisions. So, it is
interesting that Jurek guides his readers to a text that in the English
indicates a chapter break, when in fact there is no division of the text.
However, by appealing to a text that can be read in isolation from the
foregoing verse, the contextual unity is ignored–even implicitly denied--
without the casual reader being aware of the problem. And, if Jurek can ignore
the link between Mark 8:38 and Mark 9:1 then he feels, like his
In my book
Can You Believe Jesus Said This? , I show conclusively that these verses (and
the parallels) cannot be divided. Jesus’ use of the term “Verily I say to you”
(Greek, amen lego humin), is determinative and definitive on this. This term is
used 95 times in scripture, and never, I repeat, never, serves to begin a new
discussion, or break a subject. It invariably is used to emphasize something
that has just been said! This means, without doubt, that Mark 9:1 is
emphasizing what was said in Mark 8:38. And that was: “For whoever is ashamed
of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the
Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of His Father, with the holy
angels.” So, Mark 8:38 tells us what Jesus was going to do: come in judgment of
those who rejected him in that generation. And, 9:1 emphasizes that by saying
when he was coming in that judgment!
In other
words, the coming of Christ in Mark 9:1 is the coming of Christ in judgment of
8:38! There is no way around this. There is no chapter division. There is no
contextual break. Mark 9:1 predicted the when of Mark 8:38, and since Mark 8:38
is the judgment of the Jews who rejected Jesus, then unless Jurek wants to
affirm the judgment of
By the way,
what has happened to Jurek’s insistence that we take the Bible’s language at
face value? Does not the Bible say what it means, and mean what it says? Jurek
chides me for insisting that time statements are literal while saying that the
language of Christ’s coming on the clouds, with a shout, the sounding of the
trumpet etc. is to be taken metaphorically. Here is what he says: “Bro. Preston
claims the return of Christ was a spiritual, not a physical event. (#7 above).
Others holding to the A.D. 70 theory claim the clouds rolling back are not
physical clouds but symbolical clouds and the elements don’t really mean
physical elements but rather the old law. Is God not capable of clearly
communicating to his people when he tells us what will happen when Christ
returns? Is he deceiving us when he makes these statements concerning the
destruction of the world when he really doesn’t mean the world will be
destroyed? What is the difference between these clear statements and those
concerning ‘time?’” (Waiting, 10) His last question is a fair and important
one, and we will answer it in a later installment.
Brother
Jurek would do well to ask himself, and explain to his readers, why it is that
he does not apply his own hermeneutic to Mark 9:1. Does the passage not speak
of the coming of Christ? Surely. Does it not speak of Christ’s coming with
power and glory? Undoubtedly? Does it not say that those people would “see” the
coming of Christ? Undeniably.
So, the
question is pertinent and important, and we ask brother Jurek again: Since you
insist that the language of the coming of the Lord is to be taken literally,
why is the language of Mark 9:1 not to be understood literally? Did those
people see the Lord coming? Jesus said they would! You place so much emphasis
on the literal application of language, please explain why the disciples did
not see a literal coming of Jesus as predicted in Mark 9:1. And, explain how it
is that the coming of Mark 8:38 is a totally different coming, of a totally
different nature, than the coming of Mark 9:1. Is it not a bit disconcerting,
to say the least, that Jurek can find two totally different comings, disparate
in time and nature, in verses that are joined together grammatically? What kind
of a hermeneutic is that? I challenge brother Jurek to be consistent with his
hermeneutic of “the Bible says what it means and means what it says” in regard
to Mark 9:1! After all, it says Christ was going to come, and it says that his
contemporary audience was going to see him coming. Not only that, they would
see him coming in power and great glory! Now, brother Jurek, did some in that
audience literally see Jesus coming or not? Remember that you must take the
language literally, because after all, “Is God not capable of clearly
communicating to his people when he tells us what will happen when Christ
returns?” The language is clear, is it not? They were to see him coming, right?
What does
Jurek do with the language of Mark 9? Even though it says that some standing
there would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in the kingdom
with power and great glory, Jurek says this is not truly the coming of Christ,
it is the coming of the Spirit representing Christ! It is a spiritual coming of
Christ! This is a contradiction of his hermeneutic that says we must take the
Biblical language in its normal, everyday sense. Jurek denies that Christ came
literally visibly on the day of Pentecost. But Mark 9:1 says Christ was coming
in power and great glory! So, Jurek has now adopted the Preterist understanding
of the language of Christ’s coming, that it can indeed be used metaphorically.
We will show that Jurek does not take the Biblical language literally as he
claims when we examine his section on the Second Coming.
Please read
what I am about to say carefully: The only reason that Jurek and his brethren
divide Mark 8:38 and 9:1 is because of their preconceived ideas about the
nature of the Parousia. There is no exegetical, no contextual, no grammatical
support for dividing Mark 8:38 from Mark 9:1. I once took brother Jurek’s
position. However, as I began to look for actual textual support for that view,
I could not find it. I heard and read commentators say, “Well, the judgment of
8:38 has not happened so it must be future, but the kingdom came on Pentecost,
therefore that was fulfilled then.” This is not exegesis! It is
presuppositional petitio principii, eisegesis (reading into the text), and it
is wrong. Jurek, like many of my
But, do Preterists
teach what Jurek claims? Do Preterists deny that Jesus was at the right hand of
the Father? No! Do advocates of Covenant Eschatology deny that the kingdom was
“born” on Pentecost? Not that I am aware of. What I affirm, and naturally I
cannot speak for all Preterists, but since Jurek was critiquing my book that is
really what is at stake, is that Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father,
as co-regent, to rule in the midst of his enemies, and to put down the rest of
his enemies. Then, when all enemies were put under him, he entered fully into
his everlasting, unending reign!
As I have
noted above, Jurek appeals to 1 Corinthians15:24 to try to prove that Jesus
would abdicate his rule and reign at his Parousia. This is wrong. Every single
passage that speaks of what Christ would do at his coming indicates that he
would enter fully into that reign, not abdicate! At his coming he would sit,
not quit, his throne (Matthew 25:31f). At his coming he would present the
church to himself (Ephesians 5:23f). Jurek’s view demands that at his coming
Christ divorces the church! At his coming Christ would come to rule in the
kingdom he had received “in the far country” (Luke 19:11f). At his coming, in
judgment of “the city where the Lord was slain,” Christ would enter into the
everlasting kingdom and rule the nations (Revelation 11:15f). And, at his
coming, Christ would sit on the throne with the Father (Revelation 22:3).
So, what I
believe is that when Christ ascended, he sat down at the right hand of the
Father, “henceforth waiting until his enemies are made his footstool” (Hebrews
10:13). The period between his ascension and A.D. 70 was the time of the
consolidation of his rule and authority, so that when his enemies were put
under him he would fully reign! What I believe is that during that period of
time they were “receiving (a present tense participle in the Greek), a kingdom
that cannot be shaken” (Hebrews 12:28). Now, brother Jurek needs to answer:
What unshakable kingdom were they in the process of receiving at the time of
Hebrews, long after Pentecost? Was it not the perfected New Covenant Kingdom of
Christ that would fully arrive when the
Jurek is
wrong to say that Preterists do not believe the kingdom existed prior to A.D.
70. This is a misrepresentation! The Preterists with whom I am familiar believe
that the foundation of the kingdom/temple was laid in Christ, with the apostles
and prophets being the foundation (Ephesians 2:19f). It is held that the early
Christians were the “living stones” being used to construct the new
Jurek
closes his section on the kingdom by saying: “So concerning the establishment
of the kingdom in A.D. 70, this part of the theory is false. If anything at all
occurred concerning a kingdom in A.D. 70, it was not the beginning of a kingdom
but the final nail in the coffin of any remnant of the
Now, first
of all, it is amazing and sad that brother Jurek would question or deny that
“anything at all occurred concerning a kingdom in A.D. 70.” Has my brother
never read Luke 21:31? Jesus said that in the events leading up to the fall of
Jerusalem, and Jurek would affirm that statement I believe, “when you see these
things come to pass, know that the kingdom is near” There was undeniably
something that happened in regard to the kingdom in A.D. 70, and it was something
to do with the fulfillment of “all things that are written” (Luke 21:22), and
the coming of redemption (Luke 21:28). It also had something to do with the
coming of the Lord on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Luke
21:25f– By the way, does Jurek believe that Jesus came literally, visibly,
bodily in that event? No! He does believe Christ came in A.D. 70, but it was
not literal, or visible. But wait! “Is God not capable of clearly communicating
to his people when he tells us what will happen when Christ returns? Is he
deceiving us when he makes these statements concerning the destruction of the
world when he really doesn’t mean the world will be destroyed?” [Waiting, 11],
If Jurek does not believe that Jesus literally, visibly came in A.D. 70, did
God not communicate properly? Did Jesus deceive his audience when he told them
he was coming, and the heavenly bodies would be destroyed? Was he not
communicating candidly when he said they would see him coming on the clouds?
Where is Jurek’s literalizing hermeneutic in Luke 21:25f?? So, once again, we
have the right to challenge his hermeneutic). To depreciate the significance of
that event is unscholarly, misguided and violates scripture.
Jurek does
touch the hem of the garment of truth in his statement, however. He says, “it
was not the beginning of a kingdom but the final nail in the coffin of any
remnant of the
But here is
where Jurek hints at a bit of the truth. He says that A.D. 70 was the “final
nail in the coffin of any remnant of the
1.) Jurek
(probably), believes that the church was born in infancy on Pentecost, but grew
to maturity in the first century. Preterists agree in principle.
2.) Jurek
believes that A.D. 70 was the final nail in the coffin of the Old Covenant
Kingdom of Israel. Preterists agree wholeheartedly! Of course, this means that
the
Summary
We have
focused on the single issue of the kingdom in this installment for brevity and
in order to demonstrate clearly the error of brother Jurek. He says that the
kingdom came, on Pentecost, and cites Mark 9:1. Yet Mark 9 was the coming of
the Spirit, which was emphatically stated to be the absence of Christ.
He attempts
to divide Mark 9:1 from Mark 8:38. Yet, this is unjustified. There are no
chapter divisions in the Greek text, and brother Jurek, we can only assume,
knows this. Furthermore, the grammar of the text, in the use of the term “amen
lego humin” (“Verily I say to you”), that begins Mark 9:1 never, ever begins a
new topic, and never breaks a discussion. It invariably is used to emphasize
something that has just been said. And this means in Mark 9:1 that Jesus was
saying that some standing there would not die until they saw the Son of Man
coming in the kingdom in judgment! Pentecost was not the coming of Christ in
judgment. But Mark 8:38-9:1 is the coming of Christ in judgment. Therefore,
Jurek is wrong to apply Mark 9:1 to Pentecost.
Jurek
falsely claims that the disciples maintained a false view of the kingdom when
they asked Jesus about the establishment of the kingdom in Acts 1. This false
assumption underlies much of Jurek’s other positions. We have shown that the
disciples did not misunderstand. Jesus did not correct them, nor chide them. He
had opened their eyes, miraculously, to understand the scriptures, and had then
instructed them for forty days concerning the kingdom. To claim that they did
not understand after all that is simply wrong.
Jurek
misrepresents advocates of Covenant Eschatology by claiming that we do not
believe the kingdom existed, in any form, prior to A.D. 70. This is a serious
misrepresentation of the Preterist view, and brother Jurek needs to publicly
correct this false claim. Preterists and Jurek are quite similar, in the final
analysis, in believing that the kingdom was initiated at Pentecost, but not
perfected and not mature. Jurek needs to candidly admit that this is his
position! The difference between Jurek and the Preterists is the point at which
the kingdom was mature, and perfected. In this area, if Jurek holds to the
traditional
Jurek disturbingly
questions whether anything at all in regard to the kingdom occurred at the fall
of
Finally,
Jurek slips by admitting, perhaps grudgingly, that A.D. 70 was the full end of
the Old Covenant Kingdom of Israel. With this, Preterist are in full agreement!
We suggest that brother Jurek take a closer look at the significance of this
admission, for according to scripture, the end of the Old Covenant Age was to
be the time of the Parousia, the resurrection and the judgment! We will fully
prove this as we proceed. For now, let us simply say that all Biblical
eschatology is about the end of the Old Covenant World of Israel. It is not
about the end of time. It is not about the end of the Christian Age (which has
no end). The Bible emphatically and undeniably posits eschatology at the end of
In our next
installment, we will examine Jurek’s claims in regard to Christ’s Second
Coming. You will be amazed at his inconsistencies.
Footnotes:
i.
Doug
Radcliffe, a Preterist, is a member of Jurek’s congregation, and is currently
being threatened with dis-fellowshipment (i.e. excommunication), if he does not
cease and desist teaching Covenant Eschatology. Radcliffe informs me that his
repeated attempts to get the elders, including Jurek, to sit down with him and
reason together, have resulted in refusal and stonewalling. Instead, Jurek
condemns Preterism from the pulpit and now in the publication of his book. This
is an all too familiar story, and one being repeated all across the world.
ii.
Every
year, I am privileged to participate in a display booth at a major Christian
university of the churches of Christ. As the visitors come by, we interact with
them. One of the things we often do is to ask them what, “The kingdom of heaven
has drawn near” in Matthew 3:2 means. Without fail, the response is, “It means
that it was near, it had to be established soon.” We concur and then ask, “What
does ‘The coming of the Lord has drawn near’ mean then?” It is sometimes
amusing, but most of all revealing, to see the stunned looks on their faces,
and hear their frantic and panicked responses. They simply have never been
confronted with the issue, for in the churches of Christ, there is no positive
systematic eschatology. Historically, the
iii.
Another
example of this kind of “make it up as you go along” kind of argument is Wayne
Jackson, editor of the “Christian Courier,”
iv.
It
is important to know that obviously, most evangelical conservative Christians do
affirm the integrity of God, the inspiration of scripture and the Deity of
Jesus. What we are saying is that these claims, honorable as they are, cannot
be defended by denying that Jesus did not keep his word on time! To affirm
these things, while denying the fulfillment of Christ’s predictions is a
logical fallacy and contradiction that Christianity needs to confront in the
face of the rising tide of Islamism and militant Judaism
v.
Acts
1 is actually a powerful “time text” in regard to the establishment of the
kingdom. The disciples ask about the timing for the establishment of the
kingdom. They are told they do not know “the times and seasons” for that, but,
they are to go into
vi.
One
reason Pentecost cannot be the fulfillment of Mark 9:1 is the proximity to
Jesus’ statement. He said that only some of that multitude would live to see
his coming in the kingdom glory. It was only a matter of months, however, 18 at
the very most, perhaps as few as 6 months, until Pentecost. Are we to believe
that the majority of that audience died in that period? Did only a few survive
that 18 months? The coming in view had to be sufficiently removed in time to
allow for the natural attrition of most of that crowd. The A.D. 70 Parousia
fits that perfectly.
vii.
I
would challenge brother Jurek to find the term “end of time” in scripture. It
is not there. Furthermore, while Jurek believes in the end of the current
Christian Age, the Bible affirms that the Christian Age has no end (Ephesians
3:20-21; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 11:15f). Jurek affirms the end of the
endless!
viii. I do not believe that “that which is perfect” is the completed New Covenant revelation. That falls far short of what Paul had in mind, although it is foundational to the larger New Creation, and completion of the mystery of Christ, that Paul had in mind.
ix. Don K. Preston, Can you Believe Jesus Said This?, (
x. Petitio principii is a term from the world of logic that means begging the question. It means a person assumes their position to be true without actually proving it. This is precisely what Jurek does when he divides Mark 8:38 from 9:1. He allows, as I once did, his presuppositional assumptions about the nature of judgment, the Parousia and the kingdom to drive his understanding, not the text itself.
xi. For those who doubt that this is the view of the churches of Christ, I can produce quote after quote from prominent amillennial authors attesting their conviction that Christ no longer rules after his Parousia. Now, if Jurek does not believe this, I will happily take note of it in future installments of my response and review.
xii. It would be interesting to know Jurek’s position on the espousal and wedding of Christ. In the churches of Christ, and even in the wider Christian world, there is widespread confusion on this issue. In my files, I have articles written by prominent members of the churches of Christ on this issue. One takes the position that Christ espoused the church on Pentecost and that the wedding will not occur until the Parousia. (The correct view, Revelation 19). The other affirms that the church was fully married to Christ, not just engaged, on Pentecost, and that it is heretical to say that the wedding is not until the Parousia! If, and we do not know if he does, but if Jurek takes the view that the church was espoused to Christ on Pentecost, but that the wedding is not until the Parousia at the so-called end of time, then this presents major problems for his objections to the Preterist view! This definitely means that the church has not yet been perfected, not yet matured, not yet glorified, not yet presented! So, if this is Jurek’s view, he condemns Preterists for saying that Christ married his bride at his Parousia and is now bearing children. But, again if, he takes the view that the wedding has not yet taken place, then the unmarried, engaged only, church is producing children! Does Jurek prefer and proclaim an unmarried church or the married church?
xii.
One wonders how Jurek applies Matthew 24:21. If he takes it to apply
simply to the physical magnitude of the events and trauma of the suffering of
A.D. 70, then the dispensationalists are right to say that WWI and WWII were
far more devastating . But in the mind of the Son of God, that event was far
more than the destruction of a city. It was indeed, as Jurek indicates, the end
of the