Steve Gregg Responds to Jack Hibbs

[robbyyoung]

Hi Steve,

I'll do my best to remain pithy and succint in my response.

Hi Robby,

Let me work through some of your statements in your last post:

The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Therefore, this is noteworthy and advantageous to truth, including "things" regarding the last days.

I have no reason to agree that the "things" mentioned here have to do with the end of the world. The Holy Spirit certainly did teach the disciples all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). It is hard to imagine how any information about the end times would fit into such a category. How is my life or godliness enhanced by any knowledge of the end times—whether by your system or any other? Since Jesus Himself told the same apostles that it was not for them to know the times that the Father put in His own authority, I think we can safely assume that such "times" were not among the "things" that the Holy Spirit would teach them about.

Steve, I have plenty of reason to surmise that The Holy Spirit's teaching wasn't limited or narrowly applicable to what you suggest, which is extremely odd. Especially when Peter's first sermon, after receiving The Holy Spirit, was partly focused on Joel's last days prophecy. Forgive me, but your bias is clearly evident in your perceived presuppositions regarding some aspect of a futuristic view. So please account for and explain how you've missed the connection between John 14:26 and Acts 2:14-21? The fact is, they were taught by The Holy Spirit concerning the last days. If you were living in the 1st century, you would be sensitive to the then narrative, because the last days were real, in effect, and relevant to their salvation. Those believers were told if they didn't stay the course or persevere, there would be no salvation granted! The reason you are so dismissive of the narrative, is because the last days are irrelvant to your life right now, as it should be, however, this was not the case for the 1st century believers. As a Preterist, I simply engage in getting the historicity and context correct concerning the matter. I'm not making this stuff up, reading the literature is quite convincing concerning what their 'correct' expectation was, as opposed to follow-on generations being eternally wrong. The common sense approach and leverage to the truth goes to the original authors and their immediate audience, not to those who scoff at their understanding of the time, whom they even corrected in their letters!

Additionally, you keep bringing up that Yeshua told the disciples they wouldn't know the times. True, but their would be a time when they did, but at that present time in the conversation this knowledge was withheld from them. However the text denotes a "BUT" in vs.8, indicating a change in their knowledge base. Which was clearly evident in Peter's first sermon and follow-on teachings in the church. It is absolute folly to surmise any attempt to claim they would NEVER know??? The context sure doesn't say that, however, The Discourse, Act 1:8 and Peter's first sermon all attest to their knowledge of getting the expectation of the last days correct. Respectfully, I am not persuaded by your argument concerning "The Things" mentioned in John 14:26 not including last days events.

However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.

This statement cannot be taken at face value without some demonstration that the nearness of the kingdom is synonymous with (or even related to) the second coming of Christ. This is your assumption, but not one that anyone else would be required to make.

Well, I disagree Steve. The Revelation makes it pretty clear concerning the nearness of Christ's return as well as, 1 Thess 2:19, 1 Thess 4:15, 1 Thess 5:23, 2 Thess 2:1, And let's not forget James 5:7-8 and 1 John 2:28!

So since The Apostles were promised that The Holy Spirit will guide, teach and bring all things back to their remembrance, Peter's claim, "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." Is he not declaring his authentic discernment based on what transpired in the Olivet Discourse? Did he not, in-fact, get it right?

Peter may well have been basing this prediction upon the statements of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse—though there would hardly need to be any special discernment for him to know this. If he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem here (as I believe he is), then he would know, as did all Christians, that Jesus foretold this to occur in their generation. Peter, writing over thirty years later, would know (as anyone familiar with the discourse would know) that the time must be very near. This would not require special revelation being given to Peter. Anyone familiar with Christ's discourse (most Christians probably were) would be able to deduce the same.

You've created a false dichotomy for yourself when their is no separation between the last days, last day, or Christ's return, etc... in the 1st century generation timeline. This is why your dismissive arguments make no sense to me. I've just shown you the consistent narrative concerning the expectation in the 1st century preaching and teaching. IMO, I see a convoluted mess out of what is basically simple to understand. This is what happens when attempting to change the original narrative. Modern day believers are forced to conclude The Writers were wrong, confused, or both. Next thing you know, words don't mean what they say, literal is taken for symbolic and vice versa, all due to not holding fast to the original narrative. Face value seems to be subjected to a new narrative to me!

Prophet or not, the ability to discern properly rested with The Apostles. So again, Peter said the time was near, because Yeshua said he would know the signs of the time, and you say... what exactly?

What I would exactly say is that the promise of divine instruction given to the apostles was no guarantee that they would be omniscient. As I have pointed out in previous threads, Paul admitted ignorance of certain things, and said he was stating his opinion or his judgment about other things, even in his written epistles. When a man tells you in writing that he does not remember certain things, or doesn't know certain things, it would seem presumptuous for us to deny his statements and to insist that he actually knew all things.

Steve, I'm not claiming The Apostles were infallible. However, based on the consistent narrative of all the writings we have, wouldn't it be foolish to believe that their teaching and expectation regarding the last days and Christ's return was not, in-fact, an inspired teaching? Especially when the only dissenters where unbelievers or scoffers! There isn't one N.T. Writer who gives a dissenting argument to the timing of Christ's return, not one! So where are you getting the idea that all of them got it wrong? How am I being unreasonable when you have no data to support your conclusion within the camp of The Authors?

Well Steve, I've gone on long enough and I tried to keep it short and worthy of a response. I do agree that time will tell regarding these things, however, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in my understanding reading the historicity of the narrative 'at face value'.

God Bless.

[steve]

Steve, I have plenty of reason to surmise that The Holy Spirit's teaching wasn't limited or narrowly applicable to what you suggest, which is extremely odd. Especially when Peter's first sermon, after receiving The Holy Spirit, was partly focused on Joel's last days prophecy. Forgive me, but your bias is clearly evident in your perceived presuppositions regarding some aspect of a futuristic view.

There is no need for you to apologize to me for my biases. I have not been offended by them. That Peter knew the correct interpretation of Joel 2 would be due to the fact that Jesus “opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the scriptures” (Luke 24:45). This occurred just prior to His telling them that there were times and seasons that were not “given” to them to know.

Now this is particularly interesting. Joel’s prophecy, coupled with Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit would be sufficient to inform the apostles that they were now living in the “last days”—the final generation—of the Jewish order. Nonetheless, it was after this enlightenment had occurred that Christ said it was not for them to know the times and the seasons!

What times and seasons? He clearly was not referring to the times and seasons of the end of Jerusalem, since those things would already be known to them from the Old Testament scriptures and from the Olivet Discourse. There must, therefore, have been other “times and seasons” further out, of which they were denied information. What times and seasons might those be?

I have never questioned whether the apostles knew of the nearness of the end of temple Judaism. Jesus clearly put that within a time frame, and that cannot be identified with the events concerning which the times and seasons remained hidden from them.

Your argument, above, presupposes that “the last days” of Judaism are the same as the time of the end of the world and the final coming of Christ. You are free to make this assumption, if you think the evidence compelling (I do not), but you should recognize that in assuming this, here, you are begging the question.

So please account for and explain how you've missed the connection between John 14:26 and Acts 2:14-21?

Can you show me when I missed that connection? I said that the “all things” (in John 14:26) do not include “the times and the seasons” which Jesus said were to be withheld from them. There is nothing in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 that reveals otherwise. Again, even before Pentecost, Peter had the ability to see in Joel (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) that “the last days” of Judaism had come.

The fact is, they were taught by The Holy Spirit concerning the last days.

Those familiar with my teaching know that I do not regard “the last days” to be related to the end of the world, but of the Jewish system. Thus, I have no argument with your observation that the apostles knew they were in the last days. My point is that there is an end-of-the-world event that they knew would come, but they had no idea (any more than we have) of the timing of that.

If you were living in the 1st century, you would be sensitive to the then narrative, because the last days were real, in effect, and relevant to their salvation. Those believers were told if they didn't stay the course or persevere, there would be no salvation granted!

I confess that I cannot see how their knowledge of the times they were living in (that is, “the last days”) would be any more relevant to their salvation than would our knowledge today of whether or not these are the last days. As far as I know, people were saved before AD70 in the same manner that they were saved after that date. Becoming a follower of Christ is what saves a person, regardless what other events may be immanent in their generation. If you believe that salvation was a different thing prior to AD70 from what it was after that date, the burden of proof would seem to be upon you to show this. If correct, then that would mean that none of the biblical writers are saved in the same we we are saved, and nothing they wrote can tell us anything about salvation in our day.

I'm not making this stuff up, reading the literature is quite convincing concerning what their 'correct' expectation was, as opposed to follow-on generations being eternally wrong.

I suppose this is where I have been defective in my studies. I have not immersed myself in the literature of a single theological camp. My source is the Bible, just as yours is. You simply have the advantage (or disadvantage) of letting the literature of a certain camp place limits upon your ability to read the scriptures with an open mind.

The common sense approach and leverage to the truth goes to the original authors and their immediate audience, not to those who scoff at their understanding of the time, whom they even corrected in their letters!

I do not believe you will find any scoffing in my interaction with your view. Even in my debates with Don Preston, there was no scoffing. I believe, as you do, that a common sense approach must take into consideration the Sitz im Leben of the original readers. However, once this is taken into consideration, the application of common sense is not the same for different analysts. One man’s “common sense” is another’s “nonsense.”

Additionally, you keep bringing up that Yeshua told the disciples they wouldn't know the times. True, but their would be a time when they did, but at that present time in the conversation this knowledge was withheld from them. However the text denotes a "BUT" in vs.8, indicating a change in their knowledge base.

There is no suggestion, in Acts 1:7-8, that their ignorance of the times and seasons was a temporary impediment. The “but” (v.8) does not speak of any such change. If Jesus intended to make such a point, He would have said so. We would then read: “It is not for you to know [that is, for the next ten days]…but [ten days from now] you shall receive such knowledge after the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” Instead, He said, “It is not for you to know…but [it is for you to do, for] you will receive power…”

If this very knowledge was to be given to them a week and a half later, what possible harm could it have done them to be given an answer on this earlier occasion?

Well, I disagree Steve. The Revelation makes it pretty clear concerning the nearness of Christ's return as well as, 1 Thess 2:19, 1 Thess 4:15, 1 Thess 5:23, 2 Thess 2:1, And let's not forget James 5:7-8 and 1 John 2:28!

The only thing absent from these verses is anything that makes the point that you are affirming and I am resisting.

You've created a false dichotomy for yourself when their is no separation between the last days, last day, or Christ's return, etc...

That I do acknowledge a dichotomy between the end of the Jewish order and the end of the world, I freely admit. That it is a “false” dichotomy I will not acknowledge, until sufficient biblical evidence is forthcoming.

There isn't one N.T. Writer who gives a dissenting argument to the timing of Christ's return, not one! So where are you getting the idea that all of them got it wrong? How am I being unreasonable when you have no data to support your conclusion within the camp of The Authors?

The absence of evidence is not evidence. If no biblical writer told us when the resurrection of the dead and the rapture will take place, this is not the same thing as them telling us that it would take place at the time when you think it happened. The authors avoided speculation about that matter. So do I.

[paulespino]

Hi Steve,

Did someone contact you from the group of Jack Hibbs regarding the video comment you made?

[steve]

Not yet.

[Jess]

Shame. Video is no longer available (at least through the link). "Copyright claim by Real Life with Jack Hibbs" would have enjoyed seeing it.

[backwoodsman]

Shame. Video is no longer available (at least through the link). "Copyright claim by Real Life with Jack Hibbs" would have enjoyed seeing it.

Wow -- that's, at best, very disappointing. Why engage on issues, or pay any attention when someone points out you don't know as much about the idea you're trashing as you want people to believe, if you can just shut them down with a false copyright claim? I say 'false' because Steve's use of clips from the Hibbs, Hitchcock, & Wilkinson video is surely covered by fair use doctrine.

Fortunately, the audio is still available here: http://theos.org/media/category/176/

If it disappears from there, I have a copy in case anyone needs it.

[thrombomodulin]

I was also disappointed to see that a copyright claim was issued by real life ministries against this video, but am glad the mp3 copy still remains. I think real life ministries would not prevail in any copyright infringement lawsuit on the grounds of "fair use", but it would be hard to justify undertaking legal effort and expense to accomplish this.

[3Resurrections]

This audio (which I listened to in its entirety) is a stellar treatment opposing the issues presented by the panel of speakers. The vast majority of Steve's comments I can agree with. There's just one item I would like to highlight, and that is the debate above about the "times and seasons" mentioned in Acts 1:7, about which I'd like to add the following comments. Apologies for the length of this in advance.

When the phrase "times and seasons" crops up, there is more than just the one interpretation - the idea that this is referring to the time of the Lord's return. Context informs us of which particular meaning of the "times and seasons" is under discussion. In the case of Acts 1:7's context, those particular "times and seasons" did NOT have the disciples wondering about the timing of Christ's coming return. They had only one subject in mind when they questioned Christ on that occasion: the timing for a RESTORATION of an EARTHLY kingdom back into the hands of Israel's people. In other words, getting rid of Roman oversight, so that they could be an independent kingdom of Israel again, as in the days of Solomon or the Maccabees (which independent kingdom of Israel was the Judean "Scarlet Beast" of Rev. 17:8, that once "WAS" in existence, then "IS NOT" in existence - as the disciples admitted to Christ in Acts 1:6, then "IS" in existence again, once the Zealot uprising threw off Roman governance in AD 66).

Theirs was a natural blunder. After all, had not Christ promised the disciples that in His regeneration (resurrection) when He sat on the throne of His glory, that the 12 would sit on 12 THRONES judging the 12 tribes of Israel under Christ's KINGDOM? He promised them that they would then be eating and drinking at His table in His kingdom at that time (Luke 22:30). They had already been literally eating and drinking with Him during those 40 days (Acts 1:4 - "And eating together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father...") Naturally, the disciples mistakenly assumed that an EARTHLY kingdom for Israel would then be restored to existence at that same time.

Daniel's language backs up this option of interpreting "times and seasons" as referring to EARTHLY empires and kingdoms in the Acts 1:7 text. In Daniel 2:20-21, when Daniel was standing before Nebuchadnezzar, "Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the TIMES AND SEASONS: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings..." Here in this context, just as in Acts 1:7, Daniel also equates the change of "times and seasons" with the removal and setting up of EARTHLY kings over nations.

This is a power that God retains for Himself. Christ didn't want the disciples to be concentrating on the time or seasons that God would allot to the Roman empire for maintaining control over Israel as a subjugated nation. The disciples would soon have more exalted tasks to perform after Pentecost in building up the SPIRITUAL kingdom at that time (the "Israel of God") than to worry about the ebb and flow of the political situation of their day. Their job of sitting on 12 thrones (those same thrones in Rev. 20:4 set up after the "First Resurrection" of Christ) overseeing the affairs in the infant church in Jerusalem at that time was going to be a much more important issue.

Paul's speech on Mars' hill also addressed the subject of "times" in the same earthly terms in Acts 17:26. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the TIMES BEFORE APPOINTED, and the bounds of their habitation." Here, earthly kingdoms and the literal boundaries limiting those nations' perimeters is under discussion. God controls the APPOINTED TIME that these nations hold control over the men that they rule, and the physical limits to which that control extends.

As for the disciples being ignorant of the time and season for the "day of the Lord", I Thess. 5:4 has Paul affirming that the brethren were "not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief". They knew the timing by then. At the Last Supper, Christ knew that there were certain things that the disciples could not yet bear to hear, because they would not have understood them. But the time was soon coming after the Holy Spirit would empower them at Pentecost, and THEN they could gradually be led by the Holy Spirit, who would tell them of "things to come". John 16:13-15 tells us the order in which that information about future things would be revealed to them. The Father would tell the Son of those "things to come" (who before then, as the Son during His earthly ministry, did not know the "day nor the hour" of His own return - Matt. 24:36). The Son would then give that information to the Holy Spirit, who would then take that information and show it to the disciples. We see this identical order of revelation being passed down in Revelation 1:1. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which GOD GAVE UNTO HIM, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John." By then, God the Father had passed revelation to His Son, who passed it via His angel to His servants so that they could know what was then about to happen.

Far from desiring that generation to remain in ignorance on the subject of His soon-coming physical return, in Luke 12:56 Christ SCOLDED those people of His generation for NOT discerning the time they were then occupying in relation to the time of Christ's return. They could well discern the signs of inclement weather approaching, but, being hypocrites, they could not discern the time for Christ's physical coming, when their own "house" (the temple) would be broken up (Luke 12:39). As a result of the people not discerning that time by watching for their Lord's return, He hinted to the people that they would be cast into prison (the siege of Jerusalem when they were imprisoned within its walls), until they had paid their debt in full measure, down to the last mite (which Israel did with the days of vengeance that came upon then).

Also contrary to the proposal that Christ wanted the disciples to be ignorant of the timing of His return and the accompanying resurrection, it was a sign of being WISE to understand the signs preceding Christ's AD 70 2nd coming, according to Daniel 12:10. "None of the wicked shall understand, but the WISE SHALL understand."

Daniel 12:11-13 gave very, very specific information to the "WISE" about what day that resurrection and Christ's physical coming were to occur. The 1,335th day was the resurrection day, in which Daniel would participate. If one follows Daniel's guidelines given for determining when that date would fall on the calendar, and compares them to Josephus' accounts of the war's events from AD 66-70, then the blessing of the resurrection on that 1,335th day fell exactly on Pentecost day in AD 70. The uncertainty of "the day and the hour" not being known in advance of that whole 1,335-day period is because no one back then knew when the armies would first encircle Jerusalem (as Christ warned in Luke 21:20 cp. Matt. 24:15). That "abomination" of armies surrounding Jerusalem would take place during the same "SEASON" when the daily sacrifice (the one for the Roman empire) had just been taken away (by Eleazar in the fall of AD 66). The saints were to look for a season and a day in history when both those things had happened CONCURRENTLY. Exactly 1,335 days after that, Christ's 2nd coming and the resurrection arrived, right on schedule, on Pentecost day of AD 70. Other scripture indications testify that this is the correct day, which can be given if requested.

Since we know that the "First Resurrection" of Christ and the 144,000 First-fruits (the Matt. 27:52-53 saints) happened at Passover week, and since Daniel 12:11-13 lets us know that the second coming and a second resurrection happened on a Pentecost day, that leaves a third resurrection for us in our future, timed to happen in the 7th month of the year when the Feast of Tabernacles would ordinarily have been celebrated under the Old Covenant (as predicted by Zechariah 14:16-19). This completes the reason for the pattern type portrayed by those 3 required OT harvest feast celebrations: 3 required harvest feast celebrations = 3 separate resurrection events, staged to occur during those 3 specified times of the year over the course of history.

I think it's a mistake to cast too much blame on the "date setters", even though they have been embarrassingly mistaken many, many times over the centuries. We wouldn't even think of blaming a young couple for wanting to set a date for their own wedding. Why should I fault anyone for an earnest desire of trying to figure out the time when those of us from this New Covenant Age will finally see the dearly-beloved face of the glorified Christ, our bridegroom? It's a fervent wish that even Moses could have identified with under the Old Covenant days, when he was on the mountain speaking with God, and He showed him the back parts of His glory, but not His face in the full intensity of revelation.

There are plenty of clues in the scripture providing a solid foundation for the time concluding the New Covenant Age and the final resurrection, if one knows where to look. Knowing this information need not distract us from our current duties as Christians in building Christ's kingdom on earth. We should be able to multi-task. This knowledge can even give us patience in our walk with Christ, since there is a long way to go yet before reaching that glorious conclusion. It will NOT be soon. Yep, I said that.

[thrombomodulin]

Does anyone know who posted this video on youtube?

[Si]

I was also disappointed to see that a copyright claim was issued by real life ministries against this video, but am glad the mp3 copy still remains. I think real life ministries would not prevail in any copyright infringement lawsuit on the grounds of "fair use", but it would be hard to justify undertaking legal effort and expense to accomplish this.

I don't have a youtube channel, so this is all secondhand, but I thought I have heard that there is an appeals process to youtube itself if a video is taken down on false copyright claims. It is quite obviously fair use.