Mike Sullivan Rebuts Sam Frost's Theology "Beloved, do not be deceived, is not biblical “preterism” rightly being taught concerning the timing and nature of God’s completed redemptive plan for man that many of us have come to know and love. It is carnal futurism both in the timing and nature of fulfillment – plain and simple. " / Full Preterist Dave Green's Response: "900 year old naked men taming vegetarian lions while their kids play with cobras. lol Sounds like something the Beatles would have written while they were on LSD. :)"

This will be a simple article. I am reading a great deal on Isaiah 65:17-ff. As a Preterist, we affirm the fulfillment of the passage (and I stress the ongoing fulfillment of this passage in terms of its gradual effects upon the creation – with some, this puts me out of the Full Preterist camp – which I could really give two hoots about)

However, what does a Bible student do when he reads this comment on verse 20?:

“No more shall there be an infant or graybeard Who does not live out his days. He who dies at a hundred years Shall be reckoned a youth, And he who fails to reach a hundred Shall be reckoned accursed.”

This is what one respected commentary wrote, “This does not imply that death will still be present (contradicting 25:7-8)” (Motyer, J. Alec, The Prophecy of Isaiah, IVP, 1993, in loc.).

Yet, when the student reads another famous commentary, we find, “What is most remarkable in the description is that death and sin are represented as still continuing. Death was spoken of as swallowed up in victory in one of the earlier descriptions of Messiah’s kingdom (25:8)” (Rawlinson, George Isaiah: Volume II The Pupit Commentary, in loc.).

Now, the Pulpit Commentary was written a hundred years before Motyer, and both refer to the same verse in Isaiah 25:8. Motyer flat out says that a continuation of “death” is a contradiction of 25:8, and Rawlinson, a very esteemed exegete, simply points out the remarkability of the admission in 65:20.

What does the Bible student do? He has a choice. Appealing to the Hebrew may help a bit. It says that “death” is there, but it makes no case as to the logical “implication” Motyer denies. Logical implications are not always “necessary” implications. Inferences can be drawn a dime a dozen. Some may be true, some possible, some or all false.

If I said, “my house is green” – what implication could you make? Sam’s house is painted green. Maybe. Sam’s house is ecological friendly. Perhaps. Sam’s house is new. Could be. It may be all three. None of these inferences are necessary – unless I had more information.

Now, Motyer says that this continuation of death would contradict 25:8. True, if and only if (logically, iff), death is defined in such a way that creates the contradiction. See, “green” has to be defined.

If “death” is physical death in Isaiah 25:8, and the same in 65:20, then, clearly, we have a contradiction – hence, Motyer downplays the inference of the continuation of death – Isaiah means something else. It “affirms that over the whole of life, as we should now say, from infancy to old age, the power of death will be destroyed” (ibid.). Again, the mention of “sinners” is met with, “Of course, there will be no sinners in the New Jerusalem” (ibid.).

Maybe. Possible interpretation. Certainly not indubitable. What if “death” is defined as something else? What if there is no contradiction? What if “death” (ha muth – the death – in Hebrew) in 25:8 is not “death” in 65:17 at all? No contradiction. Might this be, also, a possible interpretation? Sure. It is good in that is seeks to avoid the contradiction, for God cannot contradict Himself.

In the Biblical Preterist scheme, such a possible interpretation cannot be dismissed so easily. We claim that we are in that “new heavens and new earth” (the Age to Come). Yet, we still see physical death. 25:8 says “the death” is swallowed up in victory at the inauguration of this Messianic kingdom – the swallowing up of “the death” is what brings about the new heavens and new earth, where physical death, sinners, curse, building, enemies, and animals still continue. Physical death, then, is not “the death” that is swallowed up. If it were, we have a contradiction. And, we can’t have that, can we?