Last modified:
Part 12 of this series
Having looked at the redefinitions and loaded concepts Pulliam brings to discussions of Christ’s Kingdom in Part 1, and his actual discussions of it in Part 2, it’s now time to fact-check Lesson 14 of Pulliam’s book: “What Does the Future Really Hold?”
I should lead into this by pointing out that Pulliam’s discussion in this Lesson relies exclusively on NT passages, not letting the OT passages they hark back to inform his understanding like the original NT audiences would have. His excuse for doing this is hinted at several times in his book, but is stated most explicitly in Lesson 16:
Inspired apostles and prophets in the New Testament never spoke of prophecy being “partially” fulfilled. Prophecy coming to its accomplishment is a powerful evidence of God’s work in the affairs of men. For this reason, they spoke of Scripture being “made full” (pleroo), or “filled to their fulness” (ekpleroo). Never does the New Testament leave Old Testament prophecy only partially fulfilled. Old Testament prophecies found the fulness [sic] of their conclusion in the first century. Therefore, there is nothing left of Old Testament prophecy for modern fulfillment. Now, the future belongs to prophecies made in the New Testament (studied in lesson 14).
{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 174. Italics in original. Boldface mine.}
I’ve already addressed this argument elsewhere; it’s simply a non-sequitur: just because some OT prophecies were indeed completely fulfilled in the first century (e.g., the ones about Jesus’ crucifixion and the second destruction of Jerusalem), doesn’t mean all of them were. And this conclusion about all OT prophecies being fulfilled by the end of the first century is indeed proven false by the simple historical fact that Ezekiel 26:14 wasn’t fulfilled until A.D. 1291!
Botching Eternity and Life After Death
Pulliam opens this Lesson with a discussion on what the Bible supposedly is about (the “theme” he insists that all interpretations of it must be force-fit to1), botching two important concepts that, to be fair, most professing Christians botch:
Jesus promised to come again. [John 14:1-3.] The apostles said Jesus would come again. The first century disciples were waiting for Jesus to come again. [Philippians 3:20; I Thessalonians 1:10.] There is no doubt in the Bible believer’s mind, Jesus is coming again. But what will happen when He does come? This becomes the center of Dispensationalism as it pushes a great deal of unrelated Scripture together into a fantastic tale of the future. We have seen what Dispensational doctrine says about the future. Now it is time to see what the future really does hold for us.
If the events of Genesis 3 had never occurred, the Bible as we have it would be unnecessary, because the Bible is about God’s remedy for sin that entered the world. It’s not about how God will fix creation so you won’t have weeds in your garden, or so wolves won’t eat up the innocent little ewe lambs. This is about the only spiritual beings God placed upon this planet. [Genesis 1:26f; Ecclesiastes 3:11; 12:7.] The physical will not endure. [II Corinthians 4:16-18; II Peter 3:10-12.] Nothing in Scripture indicates that God ever intended for it to endure without end. But our spiritual part, that God-part of us, will exist eternally.
Since we will exist eternally, what would become of us if we entered eternity separated from God? Jesus offered a glimpse of life after death when He spoke of the rich man and Lazarus. There we discover a man in torment. [Luke 16:23-28.] Associate this with the warning of Jesus not to fear men, but to fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. [Matthew 10:28.] Here is the true tragedy of which Scripture warns, not a seven year tribulation with a charismatic persecutor called the Antichrist.
Avoiding that final fate of eternal separation from God was outside of human capability. Only God could remedy the situation, and this remedy is the story in your Bible. Through Abraham, God would bring a Savior into the world. He would be God’s means of blessing all families of the earth. [Galatians 3:8.] This was accomplished in Jesus, who died for our sins. [Acts 3:24-26.]
What are believers to expect in their future? We are waiting for Jesus, but what can we expect to happen?
{Ibid. 145-146. Italics and boldface in original. Scripture citations in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text.}
I’m sure glad Pulliam is using the linear language of English, rather than the circular language of the aliens in “Arrival”; otherwise, I wouldn’t know where to begin addressing all the errors he makes here!
Regarding the first paragraph, anyone who’s read all the earlier entries in this critique series would know that, despite all the things dispensationalists get wrong, quite a few of the passages they link together were indeed linked together in the Apostles’ eyes! I’ve demonstrated this with the author of Hebrews’ uses of Ezekiel 37:1-14, Haggai 2:6-9,20-23 LXX, Isaiah 26 LXX (and its inherent linkage with Isaiah 25:8, which Paul linked with the resurrection of the righteous), Habakkuk 2:2-4 LXX {scroll to the last 3 paragraphs before “Conclusion”}, and Isaiah 66:10 LXX {scroll down to the third indented quotation} with reference to future events, the similar use of Isaiah 35:3 by the author of Hebrews and by Jesus in conjunction with a quotation of Isaiah 61 {scroll down just past the second indented quotation}, Paul’s linkage of Isaiah 29:1-12, Deuteronomy 29:4, & Psalm 95:7-11 LXX with the end of Israel’s national-level hardheartedness, Paul’s linkage of Isaiah 59 & 27 LXX with a future restoration of Israel, Jesus’ reassurance to his disciples that Elijah’s ministry mentioned in Malachi 4 was still in the future–and there might be others that I can’t remember off the top of my head!
The second paragraph gives us A LOT more to cover: if the Bible’s really “not about how God will fix creation so you won’t have weeds in your garden, or so wolves won’t eat up the innocent little ewe lambs”, then why (a) include a description of the original creation at all; (b) make it obvious that land animals like wolves and lambs weren’t engaging in carnivory (Genesis 1:30); (c) make it obvious that “hard work” wasn’t a thing before the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19); and (d) have the closing chapters of Revelation dovetail all of this so perfectly?
Next, Pulliam is once again incorrectly using “spiritual” as a synonym for “non-physical”. After all, Genesis 1:26 doesn’t refer to humans as the only creatures with a “spirit” (never mind the only “spiritual” creatures), but the only creatures that bear God’s image. In fact, while Ecclesiastes 12:7 mentions that our spirit/breath (the life force that animates us and enables us to do things–don’t worry, I’ll justify this definition below!) returns to God when we die (and 9:10 tells us it remains unconscious as long as we stay in the grave; compare Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:16-18 that without a resurrection, “those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished”–NKJV), and Ecclesiastes 3:11 does show that God has placed considerations about eternity in human hearts (because we’re made in the image of an eternal God), Pulliam conveniently overlooked verse 21 of Ecclesiastes 3: “Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?” (NKJV, boldface added) To be fair, I suspect Pulliam missed this statement because the 1995 NASB (the version he personally told me he prefers and that most of the Bible quotes in his book are taken from) renders the Hebrew word רוּחַ (ruach) by its literal meaning (“breath”) in this verse instead of its figurative meaning (“spirit”); and as much as I’ve ragged on English translations in general for rendering this word and its Greek counterpart with their figurative meanings in contexts where their literal meanings would make perfect sense, this is one of those contexts where the word was clearly meant with the connotations of a “spirit”, rather than a mere “breath”.
Next up, we get to one of the meatiest misconceptions Pulliam perpetuates in his book, stated so very concisely: “The physical will not endure.” His proof-texts are 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 & 2 Peter 3:10-12. Let’s take them in order:
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:16-18 1995 NASB, boldface added)
Pulliam is (I suspect unintentionally) engaging in eisegesis here, reading more into the text than is warranted: he’s assuming that “the things which are not seen” refers to a present and future immaterial realm, when this text is equally compatible with “the things which are not seen” being a material realm that isn’t here at present, but will be here and visible in the future. Therefore, this text can’t be used to argue for either of these views in favor of the other. However, Paul had already written something else to the believers in Corinth that clarifies what Jesus meant when he mentioned “heaven and earth” “pass[ing] away” (Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17, 21:33):
But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)
This lines up perfectly with both the ushering in of a new world order (the Greek word for “world” in 1 Corinthians 7:31 has connotations of “order” or a “system”, and often refers to the concept we’d colloquially call “the system”, or “the way the world works”) when the dominions of all nations on Earth are given to Christ and what I already explained in my previous post:
Peter compared the transition between the current universe and the new heavens and new earth (“heaven and earth” was an ancient Hebrew phrase used to denote the totality of all creation, since ancient Hebrew didn’t have a word for “universe”) to the transition between the pre-Flood world and the post-Flood world in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:3-7). It wasn’t the substance of the world that “perished” (verse 6c KJV) in Noah’s Flood, but the form that substance took; the judgment by water didn’t annihilate the earth’s material, but rearranged it. {Italics in original}
Speaking of which, the main problem with Pulliam’s use of 2 Peter 3:10-12 is as follows: the word for “elements” in verses 10 & 12 (στοιχεῖον, stoicheion; G4747) is used with reference to the foundational components of human civilizations in Galatians 4:3,9 & Colossians 2:8,20. Amillennialists (such as Pulliam) hyperfixate on definition 2 in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon: “the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe”; their imposition of this definition on the instances in 2 Peter 3 to teach annihilation of the physical universe has unfortunately been reinforced by modern chemists, who refer to “the study of the relationship between the quantity of reactants and products in a chemical reaction” as “stoichiometry”, derived from a compound of stoicheion (in the presumed sense of chemical “elements”) and μέτρον (metron, G3358, meaning “measure”). However, stoicheion’s use throughout the NT (it’s never used in the LXX) is more consistent with definition 4 being meant in all cases: “the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our ‘alphabet’ or ‘a b c’) of any art, science, or discipline; e. g. of mathematics, as in the title of Euclid’s well-known work [Στοιχεῖα, Stoicheia “Elements”, widely recognized as “the most successful textbook ever written”; my brother-in-law, who is literally a rocket scientist, has a copy of one of its 1000+ editions on his office bookshelf!]” {scroll to “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”. Boldface in original.}. This even works in the one Biblical instance of the word that I haven’t mentioned already: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” (Hebrews 5:12 KJV, boldface and underlining added) So when Peter wrote that “the elements shall melt with fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:10,12 KJV), he meant that human civilization will be radically restructured and renovated at the time of the judgment by fire; he was not teaching that the physical universe will be annihilated. Moreover, look at how Peter immediately followed Pulliam’s proof-text: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:13 1995 NASB, underlining and boldface added) “His promise” that what “we are looking for” is “according to” is blatantly Isaiah 65-66 (where the new heavens and new earth are explicitly mentioned in 65:17 & 66:22)–after all, Revelation hadn’t been written yet! This reinforces my point that Pulliam (like amillennialists in general) is trying to interpret NT quotations of OT passages in isolation from their OT contexts–rather than according to them, as Peter and his original readers clearly did. In fact, Peter himself had made this point just a few verses before Pulliam’s proof-text: “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.” (2 Peter 3:1-2 1995 NASB, boldface added)
“Nothing in Scripture indicates that God ever intended for it to endure without end.” The only way Pulliam can say this is by ignoring all the OT passages that I just established Peter (and have elsewhere established the Apostles in general) took at face value! In fact, a pretty clear counterexample shows up in the closing verses of Isaiah 66, which we just saw Peter was harking back to:
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the LORD, “So your offspring and your name will endure. And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me,’ says the LORD.” (Isaiah 66:22-23 1995 NASB, boldface added)
This is a clear statement that the moon will still be used to mark off months in the new heavens and new earth, despite it being unnecessary for light in the New Jerusalem (e.g., Revelation 21:23). Similarly, Revelation 7:16, a quotation of Isaiah 49:10 and allusion to Psalm 121:6 (“A Song of Ascents”–verse 1 ASV–speaking of going to worship at Jerusalem), speaks of the sun as no longer giving people heatstroke, without implying that the sun will no longer be there {scroll to “Providential Protection or Poetic Imagery or Both?”}. Perhaps most significantly, Psalm 89 likens the permanence of the Davidic Covenant with that of the sun and moon:
My covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.
Once I have sworn by My holiness;
I will not lie to David:
His seed shall endure forever,
And his throne as the sun before Me;
It shall be established forever like the moon,
Even like the faithful witness in the sky.” Selah [a pause for emphasis and/or introspection]
(Psalm 89:34-37 NKJV, boldface and underlining added)
Once the Davidic Covenant is fulfilled, Christ will be ruling as eternally as the sun and moon are around “for signs and seasons” (Genesis 1:14 NKJV)–the idea most likely intended by the phrase “the faithful witness in the sky”. Taken together with Gabriel’s clear statement to Mary that Jesus “shall reign over the house of Jacob to the ages; and of his reign there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33c YLT, boldface added), we may even be able to pin down the timing of the events mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Up till this point in typing this series, I’ve assumed that Jesus turns over the kingdom to the Father at the end of the Millennium (which initially seems to imply that Jesus stops reigning after the 1,000 years), but I mentioned earlier in this series {scroll to the last paragraph before “Conclusion”} that verse 25 can also be interpreted as saying the Father (rather than the Son) would reign until everything is placed under the Son’s feet–which would be consistent with verses 25-28 being fulfilled at the start of the Millennium and Christ’s reign (and, by implication, the sun and moon) lasting into eternity future, but could place the fulfillment of verse 24 at the beginning or the end of the Millennium. Compare the phrasing in a translation where the translators’ theological biases seem to have compelled them to force-fit the passage to the idea that verses 25-28 are fulfilled at the end of the “Millennium” (placed in quotation marks here because amillennialists claim it isn’t really a 1,000-year period), with a translation that lets the nuances of the Greek text guide the interpretation.
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 NKJV, italics in original, boldface added)
Afterward [comes] the completion, whenever He may turn over the Kingdom to God the Father, when He shall have overthrown all sovereignty and all authority and power. (For it is necessary for [God] to reign until He should place all enemies under His feet). The final enemy being overthrown is death, for He placed everything under His feet. But when He should say that everything has been placed underfoot, obviously that excludes the one having placed everything underfoot for Him. But whenever everything has been subjected to Him, then also the same Son will be subjected to the one having subjected everything to Him, so that God may be the all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 LGV, content in brackets in original, boldface added. Scroll to p. 30 in the PDF.)
Warner even has a note after the phrase “has been placed underfoot” that reads: “This is when the Ancient of Days hands the Kingdom to the Son to reign.” While the note doesn’t explicitly say so, this is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14. Also, the mention of death being “overthrown” rather than “destroyed” would imply that death doesn’t cease to happen at the start of the Millennium (assuming, of course, that this verse is fulfilled at the start of it; I’ll argue below that this verse’s fulfillment is more likely at the end of the Millennium), but will thenceforth occur only at the will of Christ, rather than people’s mortality being subject to the whims of a sin-cursed world–consistent with both the Curse being removed (Romans 8:18-23) and verses implying that it will still be possible for people to die in the new heavens and new earth (e.g., Isaiah 65:20, or the Greek phrasing of Luke 20:36 {scroll to p. 8-9 in the PDF}).
But what about the apparent implication of verse 24 that Jesus will eventually relinquish his kingship back to the Father? Wouldn’t this contradict Gabriel’s statement to Mary? Well, as it turns out, the Greek word for “He may turn over” (G3860) primarily means: “1. properly, to give into the hands (of another). 2. to give over into (one’s) power or use… to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage” {scroll to “Thayer’s Greek Lexicon”; boldface in original.}. It doesn’t necessarily involve relinquishing authority, as demonstrated by its usage in the Sermon on the Mount: “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” (Matthew 5:25 NIV, underlining and boldface added) Once a judge sentences someone to prison, they still retain their authority as a judge afterward (barring, of course, some sensational “courtroom drama”-style incident where the judge is arrested for some other crime just after pronouncing the sentence)! So, if Jesus will never relinquish his authority over the Kingdom (as clearly taught in passages like Luke 1:33, Daniel 7:14, etc.), then what is the first half of 1 Corinthians 15:24 saying?
Well, John’s remark that “death and Hades [the grave of humanity] were cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:14 ASV) tells us that no more humans will die once the Great White Throne Judgment (the judgment of the wicked and the ignorant) has ended (in which case this is another–and arguably the best–possibility for when 1 Corinthians 15:26 will be fulfilled; after all, what about the implication of Revelation 20:7-9–see also Ezekiel 38:1-39:24 for even more details on this event–that there will be more enemies to overthrow at the end of the Millennium?). This implies that those mortal humans still remaining once this judgment completes (i.e., those whose names were in the Book of Life, per Revelation 20:15) will be perfected and given glorified bodies. At that point, sin will completely cease to exist in the universe, so the Creation will truly be back to the sinless, perfect state that the Father intended for it from the beginning, at which point the Father can proceed to use it for His own purposes (as connoted by G3860) without having to account for sin as part of the equation (and thus, with even more benevolence and freedom than He already could with sin in the equation!). Once Jesus presents the Kingdom (which, by then, will include the entire universe) to the Father in this state, 1 Corinthians 15:24 will officially be fulfilled.
I could probably find more counterexamples to Pulliam’s claim outside of major Kingdom prophecies with even more research, but I think you get the point.
“But our spiritual part, that God-part of us, will exist eternally.” This claim hinges on a misunderstanding of the nature of man that assumes the Platonic idea of “immortality of the soul”. The assumption, as I recall being taught it at the Brookfield Church of Christ, is that humans have a soul that can either side with the body or the spirit upon death. However, the Bible itself teaches a very different relationship between the body, spirit, and soul: a body with a spirit is a soul, but a body without a spirit is a corpse. This is established in the opening chapters of Genesis: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life (spirit); and man became a living soul (nephesh chayyah).” (Genesis 2:7 ASV, boldface and content in parentheses added) I said earlier that our spirit is the life-force that animates us and enables us to do things. That definition also comes from Genesis, where the Hebrew words for “living” (chayyah) and “soul” (nephesh) are used for the first time in all of Scripture:
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living [chayyah] creatures [literally, “souls”; nephesh], and let birds fly above the earth in the open [literally, “earth on the face of the”] expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living [chayyah] creature [literally, “soul”; nephesh] that moves [active participle; i.e., of its own volition], with which the waters swarmed [same verb for “teem”] after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:20-21 1995 NASB, boldface added)
All the Hebrew verbs I boldfaced here have connotations of movement. The active participle for “moves” is especially important: it tells us that the Bible only considers kinds of creatures that can move of their own volition to be living. This is consistent with the fact that plants are never said to be nephesh or chayyah. And as it just so happens, every creature that can move of its own volition also has blood, consistent with Leviticus 17:14a–“For the life [literally, “soul”; nephesh] of every creature [literally, “of all flesh”] is its blood” (ESV). It’s noteworthy in this regard that the air we breathe in is then absorbed into our bloodstream, which then spreads oxygen (among other things) to the rest of our bodies; the connection between breath, blood, and life is just as tight as the Bible would have us believe.
The truth is, death is consistently described as “sleep” throughout the Bible, a state where one can’t reason, worship, have knowledge, have wisdom, have emotions, perceive time passing, or even be conscious. The dead won’t be conscious again until they’re resurrected, consistent with 1 Corinthians 15:16-18, as cited above. This view has the additional benefit of the “second death” (Revelation 20:6,14) referring to something (torment followed by annihilation of the soul) similar to the “first death” (the soul losing consciousness and everything that comes with it), rather than something radically different from it (eternal torment of the soul).
FINALLY moving on to the third paragraph: “Jesus offered a glimpse of life after death when He spoke of the rich man and Lazarus. There we discover a man in torment. [Luke 16:23-28.]” The Brookfield Church of Christ also tried to use this parable as an account of heaven and hell, which is a super-common mistake. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is an allegory for Jesus and the apostate Levitical Priesthood. The rich man being “in torment” refers to God’s wrath on the Levites who refuse to accept Jesus as their Messiah, as prophesied in Deuteronomy 32:19-22, Isaiah 50:11, & Malachi 3:2-3. And on either side of this detail in the allegory: “Hades” represents the Diaspora, during which the Levitical Priesthood is expelled from the Land & Temple; and the “great gulf” preventing Lazarus from bringing relief (Jesus from restoring Israel) is the blindness imposed on Israel (Romans 11:7-10)–which I’ve already shown to be a temporary thing, not an eternal one.
“Associate this with the warning of Jesus not to fear men, but to fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. [Matthew 10:28.] Here is the true tragedy of which Scripture warns, not a seven year tribulation with a charismatic persecutor called the Antichrist.” How ironic that Pulliam cites Matthew 10:28, which singlehandedly refutes the immortality of the soul by teaching that souls can be destroyed (the Greek word rendered “destroy” there actually does mean “destroy” or “perish”)! Did he even think before deciding what sentences to retain in the final publication?! Also notice the false dichotomy the latter sentence creates between the Tribulation and Gehenna. I’m not denying that Gehenna will be worse than the Tribulation–after all, some people will manage to survive the Tribulation (contrary to the picture some pre-Tribulationists try to paint), but who’s going to survive Gehenna?! But how does that disprove a 7-year apocalypse with the Tribulation starting halfway through, as described in Revelation? That’s like saying that if you got into a car accident where you got a cut on your forehead, and then your leg gets broken as you’re saved from the wreckage, then the cut didn’t happen at all. It did happen, it’s just not as big of a priority! The same goes for a healthy perspective on the Tribulation and Gehenna: it won’t do you any good to survive the Tribulation if Jesus kills you upon his return and your body is thrown into Gehenna anyway!
“Through Abraham, God would bring a Savior into the world. He would be God’s means of blessing all families of the earth. [Galatians 3:8.] This was accomplished in Jesus, who died for our sins. [Acts 3:24-26.]” I’ve already explained where he’s going wrong with his interpretation of Acts 3:24. As for Galatians 3:8, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify [literally, “justifies”; present active indicative] the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU” (1995 NASB, all-caps in original), Pulliam is ignoring the fact that the context goes on to tell us how “all the nations will be blessed in” Abraham:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”—in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:13-14 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added)
That little phrase “the blessing of Abraham” is explicitly defined in the one other place it occurs in the entire Bible:
And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a company of peoples; and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed [singular] with thee; that thou mayest inherit [literally, “with thee, to inherit thee” — the Hebrew verb and its Greek counterpart in the LXX are in their infinitive forms; i.e., “to inherit”] the land of thy sojournings, which God gave [or “has given” — the Hebrew verb is perfect tense & the Greek verb is aorist tense] unto Abraham. (Genesis 28:3-4 ASV, boldface and underlining added)
Furthermore, every single time the Septuagint version of Genesis uses the Greek phrase for “And to thy seed” (καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου) (13:15, 17:8, 24:7, 26:3, 28:4,13, 35:12, 48:4), the land God promised to Abraham is connected to it! This makes it crystal-clear that “the blessing of Abraham… com[ing] to the Gentiles” is the land promised to Abraham becoming freely accessible to all the nations (remember, “Gentiles” and “nations” are the same word in Greek)!
“What are believers to expect in their future? We are waiting for Jesus, but what can we expect to happen?” It’s finally time to move on to what Pulliam thinks is the answer to these questions.
“What Paul Said About the End”?
He starts with the main passage that pre-Tribulationists selectively quote to argue for a pre-Tribulation rapture (precisely because it’s the only Biblical passage that’s explicitly talking about the rapture):
Paul explained the second coming to the Thessalonians, giving them comfort. [I Thessalonians 4:18.] They were afraid that saints who had already died would miss it. [I Thessalonians 4:13-15.] Paul told them that the dead would rise first, [I Thessalonians 4:15-16.] then living saints and the dead saints who were raised would participate in that great journey to “always be with the Lord.” [I Thessalonians 4:17.] The picture is one of resurrection and departure, where all of the saved (past and present) participate.
{Ibid. 146. Scripture citations in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text.}
Pulliam is entirely correct here except on two points. First, notice that Pulliam tried to force-fit this passage to his assumption of only one mass resurrection by saying “Paul told them that the dead would rise first”. If you actually read the verses he cites there, you’ll see that what Paul actually wrote in verse 16c was: “the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1995 NASB, boldface added) This statement limits the scope of this resurrection to the righteous dead. Second, notice that with his statement that “The picture is one of resurrection and departure,” {boldface added} Pulliam has assumed that this verse is talking about taking the faithful out of the universe and to Heaven. But what does the text actually say? “Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.” (verses 17-18 1995 NASB, boldface added) The text doesn’t actually say where we will go to “always be with the Lord.” Pulliam is imposing the idea that this refers to a “great journey” to Heaven onto the text–eisegesis. But “the clouds” and “the air” are a far cry from Heaven!
The latter point also goes for pre-Tribulationists who assume that the rapture is meant to take Christians to Heaven during the apocalypse; they, too, are imposing that idea on the passage. In reality, the rapture is merely for the purpose of gathering all the faithful from throughout history into a common location in the sky, to keep them out of harm’s way during the judgment by fire; once the judgment is over, they’ll return to the ground. After all, Revelation 5:10 says the redeemed “will reign upon the earth” (1995 NASB, boldface added), a notion reiterated in Revelation 20:4-6, verse 5 of which mentions “the first resurrection”. That’s undoubtedly the same resurrection that 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 places at “the coming [parousia] of the Lord”, since he’s the one they’ll be reigning with, and Revelation 20:5 places the resurrection of “The rest of the dead” at the completion of “the thousand years” (1995 NASB) during which the redeemed “will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him” (verse 6 1995 NASB).
That day will not be so wonderful for everyone, however. Remembering that chapter and verse numbers were added long after Paul wrote this epistle, we must not allow a chapter division to separate a context. In the next chapter (but the same context), [I Thessalonians 5:1-7. Are chapters four and five addressing the same event? This “day of the Lord” (vv 2-3) is attached by continuity of thought (there is not a hidden break), and must involve the same resurrection day, according to Jesus (Jn 5:28-29). In addition, the correlation of II Thessalonians 1:7-10 puts the Lord’s retribution together with His coming to be glorified in His saints (see my answer to Hitchcock’s argument on p217).] Paul focuses upon the fate awaiting the wicked. This is described elsewhere as a retribution in “flaming fire,” and eternal destruction for those who have not accepted the gospel. [II Thessalonians 1:6-10. Verses six and seven seem to make this positive and negative judgment concurrent, not 1,000 years apart in time. With the help of additional passages, we will confirm this to be true.] With this additional detail, we have the punishment and reward (with all resurrected) presented as taking place at the same coming of Jesus.
{Ibid. 146-147. Italics and boldface in original. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text.}
Well, Pulliam’s logic would be legit here, if his interpretation didn’t rely on two false premises. First, he’s assuming that the wicked being judged here are the wicked from throughout history. But while 1 Thessalonians 4:16 mentions “the dead in Christ” rising (as we saw above), where does this passage mention the wicked being raised from the dead to participate in this judgment? Nowhere! Hence, this would be a judgment of the wicked who live until Jesus’ return.
Second, he’s using John 5:28-29 as a proof-text for the idea that “a resurrection of life” and “a resurrection of judgment” occur at the same time (despite the word “resurrection” being used before both, implying Jesus was distinguishing them). However, that interpretation of John 5:28-29 is ruled out by Paul’s remark in Philippians 3:11 about his hope “that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.” (1995 NASB, boldface added) If Pulliam’s understanding is right (that all the dead from throughout history will be resurrected at the same time), then how could it have been possible for Paul not to be?! This conundrum can easily be resolved by taking a closer look at the Greek phrasing. The word for “resurrection” in this instance is actually the compound word ἐξανάστασις (G1815), meaning “out-from-among-resurrection”. Moreover, while the Greek phrase following this word in the majority of manuscripts means “of the dead ones”, the oldest manuscripts end the sentence with a phrase meaning “the one out from among dead ones”; or, to be more thought-for-thought, “the one separating its participants from dead ones”. This would imply that Paul was hoping to partake in a resurrection of some people from the dead, that leaves the rest of the dead behind! Of course, this lines up perfectly with Revelation 20:6 referring to the resurrection of the righteous as “the first resurrection”. Also, the fact that “out-from-among-resurrection” is singular and has a definite article in Philippians 3:11 tells us this is the only resurrection that will leave some people among the dead; hence, the next (i.e., “second”) resurrection will be of all people remaining among the dead–this is the “resurrection of judgment” Jesus referred to in John 5:29.
Also, on a more minor note, Pulliam’s claim that the judgment is “for those who have not accepted the gospel” leaves out an important bit of soteriological nuance. Consider how 2 Thessalonians 1:8 reads: “dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” (1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added) The boldfaced words follow the structure for Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule (also called a “TSKTS” construction, where the articles and substantives are all in the same case–in this instance, dative), so “those who do not know God” and “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” are being portrayed as two distinct groups here, not the one group of people who satisfy both at once. And if you have some familiarity with how Venn Diagrams work, you can use one to determine that people who know God, but have never heard the gospel (and thus, can’t willfully disobey it) would be in neither of these categories; hence, such people can be spared from this judgment, consistent with passages implying that not everyone who gets to enter the Kingdom will be righteous (e.g., the Parable of the Great Banquet in Matthew 22:1-14 & Luke 14:15-24 mentioning that some of the eventual attendees weren’t wearing wedding garments; or the implication of Psalm 2:9 LXX, quoted in Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15, that Jesus will have to use some degree of force to keep people in line).
As for all the other points he raised–the opening of 1 Thessalonians 5 continuing the context at the end of chapter 4; the resurrection, rewards, and judgment referred to in this passage all occurring on the Day of the Lord; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 referring to that same day as “a retribution in ‘flaming fire’” involving “eternal destruction” for the wicked (better, “permanent destruction”; the Greek word, G166, is often used to convey the idea of something having permanent results, rather than going on forever–e.g., Jude 7 uses it with reference to the fire that destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah; that fire didn’t burn forever, but it did permanently obliterate the cities); and all of these things occurring on the same day, rather than 1,000 years apart–I completely agree, and they pose no challenge to my position whatsoever.
Paul dealt with a different problem among the Corinthians. Some were saying that there is no resurrection.[I Corinthians 15:12.] Paul quickly gets to the point, showing the inconsistencies of false teachers, and providing a picture of hope in the resurrection of Jesus. He points out that they cannot deny a general resurrection and uphold Jesus’ resurrection at the same time. Jesus is actually described as the “firstfruits,” which necessarily implies more to come.[I Corinthians 15:23.] So, when Jesus comes again, the Corinthians could be sure that a resurrection will take place. When Jesus does come, Paul says, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father.”[I Corinthians 15:24.] Rather than the beginning of a Millennial reign, the coming of Jesus will be the end of His reign, because He will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father.[The kingdom (throne of David) was thoroughly discussed in lessons 8 and 9.] Jesus is presently reigning until He has put all of His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be death.[I Corinthians 15:26.] He will have conquered that enemy in this final and glorious resurrection about which Paul is writing.[As we shall see in this chapter, there is only one resurrection for mankind. The resurrection of Jesus was the first fruits, and the resurrection of all mankind is the “final” (cf. John 5:28f).]
{Ibid. 147-148. Italics and boldface in original. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text.}
In addition to my remarks in this post {scroll to “1 Corinthians 15:20-26”; yes, I just copied-and-pasted this quotation from there to save myself the hassle of typing and formatting it all over again}, we pinned down the timing of this passage’s fulfillment earlier. Notice that Pulliam also read the idea of “relinquishing” into the word “deliver”, just as I did until the proper meaning of the Greek word came to my attention–this reinforces my suspicion that Pulliam isn’t bothering to double-check what the text says in the original languages in most cases, instead of just taking the Lockman Foundation’s (the organization responsible for translating the NASB) word for it.
Of course, this leaves his arguments as susceptible prey to translational inertia, where “official” translations fail to meaningfully correct crucial mistranslations that have persisted for centuries because they know a substantial correction to a passage so well-known by Christendom and much-used by Biblical scholars and theologians will be controversial enough to hurt their sales figures. As Warner once explained it when discussing why translators keep rendering Matthew 24:36 with the present-tense phrase “no one knows” instead of the perfect-tense “no one has perceived”:
So the question is this, Why do the translation committees lag so far behind current scholarship? The answer is that the translation committees are well aware of the implications of such radical changes regarding theology that already have a long history based on earlier translations. Changes of this magnitude must be introduced slowly for their purposes. They are sensitive to the difficulties that such radical changes in their translations will have on those who have used the earlier (incorrect or incomplete) readings to prove their own theological positions. They are also aware that any radical changes will bring a lot of controversy and criticism of their translation and that can seriously affect sales which depend on the endorsements of the Christian leaders who use the translations in their public speaking. Consequently, any needed changes will first appear in the latest Greek editions and in the latest revised lexicons. They will very gradually filter down into the translations over time as the Christian community at large is able to digest the changes without too much upheaval. As you are no doubt aware, change to long held theological positions do not come easily and without a fight. This is why the latest edition of the NASB has not yet adopted this change regarding the implications of the perfect tense verb οἶδεν into their translations. Given enough time, they will do so. This is why it is really important for those dealing with the nuts and bolts of theology to stay current with the latest scholarly revisions to the Greek text and the lexicons. One can easily make a strong case for a point from the translations and older lexicons which turns out to be completely wrong.
But as I said back in the Introduction to this series: “of course, I don’t care how controversial my corrections might be; all I care about is the truth!” {Italics in original}
Assuming that Paul is the author of Hebrews, we find him telling his readers that Jesus sat down at God’s right hand after making His sacrifice, waiting until His enemies would be vanquished.[Hebrews 10:12-13; cf. Acts 2:34-36; Ephesians 1:22; Hebrews 1:13; 2:8.] This leaves us with a picture of Jesus’ present position at God’s right hand, with a next step of turning the kingdom over to the Father (when the last enemy is vanquished). Add this reference to his statement about judgment after death, and we come to understand that God’s order of events is death, judgment, eternity.[Hebrews 9:27-28.] He tells his readers that we “eagerly await” Him in that second coming.[Hebrews 9:28.]
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 148. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Italics in original.}
I’d personally peg Paul as dictating the ideas in Hebrews to Luke, who then wrote them down in his own words (explaining why the theology is that of Paul, but the vocabulary is as sophisticated as Luke’s); but that’s just nitpicking. I already explained here that Hebrews 10:12-13 speaks of Jesus’ kingship as future, not present (as do Hebrews 1:13 & 2:8; remember: as I demonstrated in the previous post, “every time you see this phrase from Psalm 110:1 quoted in the NT (and by the way, this OT verse is quoted in the NT more times than any other!), that’s an affirmation that Jesus isn’t the King of Kings yet!” {Italics in original.}), and states that there’s still more for Jesus to receive. Hebrews 1:13 & Acts 2:34-35 also quote Psalm 110:1, so they’re also placing Jesus’ rule as King of Kings in the future from when he’s at the Father’s right side! And I’ve already explained here {scroll to “Ephesians 1:20-23”} that in Ephesians 1:22, the scope of “all things” is restricted by the qualifier “in the church” (rendered “to the church” in most English translations). Again, I’ve already explained in another post {scroll to “1 Corinthians 15:20-26”} that the Greek terminology used in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24 doesn’t require Jesus presenting (a more thought-for-thought rendering of what was meant by “turn over” or “deliver up”, as discussed earlier) the Kingdom to the Father to come immediately after the resurrection of the righteous, only sequentially after it; the time between the events isn’t specified in 1 Corinthians, and the actual Greek word for “at that time” does appear in verse 28, implying Paul meant “then” with a connotation of immediacy in verse 28, but not in verse 24.
In fact, I’m starting to get curious about how Pulliam would reconcile his claim that Jesus “will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father” (remember, he used those exact words on p. 147-8, although I suspect the gravity of the claim gets lost on many of his readers due to having to turn the page halfway through the sentence!) with Gabriel’s claim that “of [Jesus’] reign there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33c YLT, boldface added), or Daniel’s dream that “And to him [the Son of Man] was forcibly given dominion and honor and a kingdom. And all the peoples, the nations, and the tongues: to him they will pay reverence. His dominion is a dominion age-enduring, that which never will pass away, and his kingdom that which never will be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:14, my right-to-left translation, boldface added) After all, Pulliam agrees {Ibid. 181.} that the “him” at the start of Daniel 7:14 is the Son of Man, rather than the Ancient of Days (verse 13)!
As for Hebrews 9:27-28, Pulliam’s claim that “God’s order of events is death, judgment, eternity” is technically correct, but his use of it is misleading. This is equally compatible with the order of events being as follows: death for righteous, wicked, and ignorant; resurrection and judgment for the righteous; 1,000 years for the righteous; resurrection and judgment for the wicked and the ignorant; annihilation for the wicked and the ignorant not written in the Book of Life; eternity for the righteous and the ignorant who were written in the Book of Life. “Death, judgment, eternity” is indeed the order; but that doesn’t mean all people throughout history will be judged at the same time, any more than it means all people throughout history die at the same time! (And for that matter, what about the righteous who live to see Christ’s return? Those people won’t die ever, will they? These people would be exceptions to Hebrews 9:27–and not the only exceptions, since the wicked who live to see Christ’s return will be judged before dying, and like the wicked in general, will never get to experience eternity.)
I’d also like to add an important bit of nuance regarding Pulliam’s remark about “judgment after death”. While one could read his statement as saying (although I’m not sure if he was trying to teach this, to be fair) that one is judged just after one dies (consistent with the misinterpretation of the Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus that “Abraham’s bosom” and “Hades”/“Torment” respectively refer to the realm of the dead for the righteous and the wicked–click here to see what they really represent), the Biblical position is that eternal life is granted (and by implication, the Judgment one must pass to receive it occurs) in the future, at the resurrection, once the Kingdom arrives in its fullness (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 19:27-30, Mark 10:30, Romans 2:5-10, Romans 6:22, 1 Timothy 6:12,19, Titus 1:2, 3:7, James 1:12, 1 John 2:24-25).
When we are raised, we will not be subject to death again. Paul says that we will not only be raised from the dead, but we shall also be changed in an instant.[I Corinthians 15:51-52.] We will not be physical, or mortal. We will be immortal. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,[I Corinthians 15:50.] so we will obviously be spiritual beings. This agrees with John’s description of that great day when “we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.”[I John 3:2] Although Jesus was raised in the flesh, He was glorified before ascending to the Father.[John 7:39; logically, if we are to be changed in seeing Him (I John 3:2), then He must no longer be flesh and blood. Otherwise, no change would be necessary. In reverse, if we are to become imperishable in our change (I Corinthians 15:51-53), then Jesus must have already undergone this change for us to become “like Him” (I John 3:2).] That state to which we shall be transported is far beyond anything that our mortal minds can imagine. Paul also described it as a transformation that will bring our humble state into conformity “with the body of His glory.”[Philippians 3:20-21.] On that day, all that once held substance will be gone and the unseen realities of the spiritual realm will endure.[II Corinthians 4:16-18.] Judgment will commence for both righteous and wicked.[II Corinthians 5:10.]
{Ibid. p. 148-149. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Boldface mine.}
I entirely agree with the boldfaced sentences, presuming that “we” and “our” refers to the righteous. But as I explained in the Introduction to this series, the rest of this paragraph (and its fourth footnote) amounts to an outright promotion of Gnostic heresy! First off, notice that Pulliam is betraying the Gnostic dualism that contributed to the view he’s espousing by constantly assuming that an immortal, imperishable, and/or glorified body can’t be physical, have flesh or blood, etc., and that “spiritual” implies “non-physical”. But Paul himself disproved the latter in the first divinely-inspired epistle he wrote: “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.” (Galatians 6:1 1995 NASB, boldface added) Does Pulliam think Paul directed these commands to Christians who believed they were disembodied ghosts?! In reality, Biblical uses of the word “spiritual” refer to being driven by the Holy Spirit, in contrast to being driven by one’s mere human desires. This is borne out by the fact that the Greek word for “spiritual”, πνευματικός (pneumatikos, G4152) gave rise to the English word “pneumatic” (meaning “moved or operated by air”), and was first used {scroll to “Origin:”} in the 3rd century B.C. by the anatomist and physician Erasistratus, when talking about the respiratory system (remember, pneuma primarily means “breath” or “wind”, with “spirit” as the figurative meaning). Hence, whether something is spiritual and whether it’s physical are two totally independent questions: the correct answer to one question tells us absolutely nothing about the correct answer to the other.
I already explained the problem with Pulliam’s use of 1 Corinthians 15:50 here (thereby disproving the idea that being immortal requires one not to be made of flesh and blood), and did the same with 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 early on in the present post. So now it’s time to address the rest of the proof-texts Pulliam offers in support of this heresy.
1 John 3:2 is just as compatible with the redeemed inheriting physical glorified bodies as it is with them inheriting non-physical ones. However, Paul clearly taught the former over and against the latter, in the context leading up to the final proof-text Pulliam cites in the above quote:
For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle [i.e., mortal body] be dissolved, we have a building [i.e., resurrection body] from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens. 2 For verily in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon [literally, “over-clothed”; i.e., putting on clothes over the clothes we’re already wearing; this portrays the immortality of the redeemed as an “accessory” worn over their bodies, rather than something intrinsic to their bodies–consistent with our immortality being maintained through eternal, unfettered access to the Tree of Life] with our habitation which is from heaven: 3 if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked [i.e., an immaterial being without a physical body]. 4 For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would [literally, “burdened; since now we are not willing to”] be unclothed, but that we would be clothed upon [literally, “over-clothed”], that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that wrought us for this very thing is God, who gave unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at home [properly, “are among our own people”; the LGV renders this rare Greek word as “within-communing” and notes that it more specifically means “to be communing among one’s own people or kindred, for which there is no adequate English equivalent.” {scroll to p. 7 in the PDF}] in the body, we are absent [properly, “we are going abroad”; the LGV renders this rare Greek word as “without-communing”, and notes that it more specifically “means to be away from the public of one’s own people or kindred, for which there is no adequate English equivalent.”] from the Lord 7 (for we walk by faith, not by sight); 8 we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent [LGV “to without-commune”] from the body, and to be at home [LGV “to within-commune”] with the Lord. 9 Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether at home or absent [LGV “whether within-communing or whether without-communing”], to be well-pleasing unto him. 10 For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:1-10 ASV, boldface added)
Verses 2-3 introduce a metaphor where being “over-clothed” represents the immortality of the resurrection bodies for the redeemed, and being “naked” or “unclothed” represents being an immaterial being (as had been held by some of the Corinthians Paul was addressing, went on to be taught by Gnostic teachers after Paul’s death, and is being taught by Pulliam in his book). Verse 4 drives home the point that the Christian’s hope doesn’t include the latter, but the former. Verse 5 tells us that Paul’s words here are directed to those who have received “the earnest [i.e., down payment] of the Spirit”–Christians. Verse 6 says that while Christians presently within-commune among the rest of the Body of Christ, they are without-communing from their Head, Jesus. Verse 8 describes the redeemed as desiring to without-commune from the Body (without its Head being present in person) and instead directly within-commune with the Head in person; i.e., we desire “to no longer be merely a part of ‘the Body’ without our ‘Head’ literally being among us, but rather to ‘socialize’ and fellowship together with our Head Himself, the Anointed one present in our midst (Psalm 22:22; Heb. 2:12).” {Scroll to the last note on 2 Corinthians 5:8, on p. 7 in this PDF.} It is therefore abundantly clear that the word “we” in verse 10 refers to the redeemed from throughout history exclusively—not everyone throughout history. After all, the claim that “each one [of the people included here] may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (verse 10c ASV) lines up with the Judgment of the Righteous in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 yielding rewards and losses for the faithful: “If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.” (verses 14-15 ASV)
As for John 7:39, it’d be remiss of me not to include the immediate context that this verse is John’s commentary on:
On the last day, that great day of the feast [of Tabernacles], Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37-39 NKJV, boldface added)
First, notice the implication that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost of A.D. 30 was a result of Jesus being glorified; this timing coheres with what we see when Paul met some disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus who evidently weren’t familiar with Jesus’ subsequent ministry:
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: 2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given. 3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism. (Acts 19:1-3 ASV, boldface added)
The ASV’s addition of the word “given” at the end of verse 2 is justified, since these disciples of John the Baptist would’ve undoubtedly been familiar with his explicit mention of the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16); hence, the usual rendering “…whether/that/if there is a Holy Spirit” can’t be what these people meant by their Greek statement.
But more important to Pulliam’s claim that “Although Jesus was raised in the flesh, He was glorified before ascending to the Father”, and his implication that Jesus no longer being in the flesh isn’t a heretical idea (contrary to 1 John 4:1-3) what does the word “glorified” actually mean? Well, the Greek word’s entries in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon reveal a strong trend in how it’s used throughout Scripture:
to think, suppose, be of opinion… nowhere in this sense in the sacred writings… to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate… to honor, do honor to, hold in honor… to worship, Romans 1:21 [where the rendering “honored” makes sense in the context]… By a use not found in secular writings to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendor… to impart glory to something, render it excellent… to make renowned, render illustrious, i. e. to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged… to exalt to a glorious rank or condition {Boldface in original. Content in brackets mine.}
In sum, all uses of the word for “glorify” (δοξάζω, doxazō, G1392) in Scripture convey the essential meaning of “bestow honor upon”. Now, aside from Gnostic dualism, what basis is there for thinking that bestowing honor upon someone or something involves them or it being transformed from physical to non-physical? None! Pulliam is simply begging the question here by assuming an incorrect definition for the verb “glorify”. The same goes for Philippians 3:21’s mention of “the body of his glory” (YLT): once we are resurrected, our bodies are to receive the same honor that was bestowed on Jesus’ body when he was resurrected.
Pulliam closes out this section of the Lesson (which is thankfully the bulk of it!) as follows:
Let us combine these great passages to summarize Paul’s presentation. At an undisclosed moment in time, Jesus will return. The righteous dead will be raised, and the righteous living will be changed. Together, with glorified bodies, these will join Jesus for eternity.[Is this the “rapture”? It is similar in some respects, but there are aspects of the Dispensational Rapture that are not scriptural. This will be discussed in lesson 20.] At the same time, the wicked dead will be raised, and along with the living who have not obeyed the gospel, will be sentenced to eternal punishment. The truth about what comes after death on God’s schedule is: judgment is next.[II Thessalonians 1:7-10; Hebrews 9:27.]
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 149. Italics in original. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Boldface mine.}
Again, I completely agree with everything I boldfaced here. And while I’ve already called out the mistakes he’s making to reach most of the other conclusions, there are three other points I should bring out regarding this paragraph.
First, I agree that when Jesus will return is undisclosed for most people throughout history; but Paul made it clear in 1 Timothy 6:14-15 that God would disclose (whether directly in a vision or dream, or indirectly through the Holy Spirit’s guidance when studying Scripture, the text doesn’t say–meaning it could be a combination of both) “the Advent of our Master Jesus Anointed… in His own appointed times” (LGV {scroll to p. 10 in the PDF}) to wise elders and ministers living shortly before the apocalypse starts, so they can spiritually-prepare their flocks to endure it.
Second, the gathering he’s alluding to leading up to his footnote regarding the rapture is indeed referring to the rapture. This is true whether Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27, 1 Thessalonians 4:17, or 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is the particular passage he has in mind. He’s right to be concerned about the way that dispensationalists have hijacked the word “rapture” (which itself is debatably a Biblical term, being derived from the Latin verb rapiō, meaning “snatch”, “seize”, or “abduct” (as you might imagine, the English word “rape” was derived from the present infinitive form, rapere)– the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 rendered the Greek word ἁρπαγησόμεθα — the future passive indicative 1st-person plural form of harpazō, meaning “seize”; rendered “shall/will be caught up” in most English translations — with rapiemur, the future passive indicative 1st-person plural form — go figure! — of rapiō) to impose ideas on it that the Bible doesn’t teach, but I fail to see why I can’t just use the term while clarifying what I mean by it–as I did when discussing it above.
Third, as I mentioned earlier, the word for “eternal”, αἰώνιος (aiōnios, G166) most often means “age-enduring”, but sometimes is meant as “permanent” instead. Earlier, I gave Jude 7 as an example where “permanent” was the intended sense, and Matthew 25:46 is another one: “And these shall go away into eternal [permanent] punishment: but the righteous into eternal [permanent] life.” (ASV) This rendering is more consistent with the wicked being annihilated after being tortured in Gehenna for a finite amount of time, since the punishment has permanent results, rather than going on forever. And obviously, “permanent” or “age-enduring” would both suffice as qualifiers for “life” here.
“What Jesus Said About the End”?
Now before I even quote anything Pulliam says in this section, I’d like to point out a glaring problem with Pulliam placing Jesus’ statements after Paul’s. While Paul may be recorded as speaking about “the end” in more places than Jesus, Jesus’ words were spoken first. They therefore build up a basis for understanding the Apostles’ teachings, just as the book of Genesis built up a basis for understanding subsequent OT books, and the OT as a whole (aside from the portions that weren’t meant to be understood until later revelation was given) building up the basis for understanding Jesus’ teachings. This is part of the concept known as progressive revelation: newer divine revelation supplements and clarifies previous divine revelation, while never contradicting it. Hence, it’s most reasonable to start with earlier sections of the Bible, and work your way toward more recent sections; if something is unclear along the way, you can table it until you come across a newer statement that clarifies it.
Indeed, this is exactly how Paul operated with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse: Jesus went into a fair amount of detail in the Olivet Discourse, but some details still had to be clarified through subsequent revelation to the Apostles. For example, Jesus mentioned the living saints being gathered together at his return (Matthew 24:30-31, Mark 13:26-27), but he didn’t mention where the already-deceased saints fit into the sequence of events. Yet, by the time the Thessalonian Christians raised concerns about it, the Apostles had received the divine revelation necessary to answer that question, and Paul passed on that information in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.
In fact, I’m seeing a parallel between how Pulliam is handling Paul’s and Jesus’ words, and how skeptical scholars handle them. Consider how Gary Habermas responded to the late Michael Martin’s claim that “One must conclude that it is extremely unlikely that this incident [Jesus appearing to over 500 people at once, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:6] really occurred” and that it “indirectly casts doubt on Paul as a reliable source.” {Quoted in “The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus”. Strobel, Lee. 1998. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 312. See also source cited therein.}:
Well, it’s just plain silliness to say this casts doubt on Paul.
I mean, give me a break! First, even though it’s only reported in one source, it just so happens to be the earliest and best-authenticated passage of all! That counts for something.
Second, Paul apparently had some proximity to these people. He says, “most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” Paul either knew some of these people or was told by someone who knew them that they were still walking around and willing to be interviewed.
Now, stop and think about it: you would never include this phrase unless you were absolutely confident that these folks would confirm that they really did see Jesus alive. I mean, Paul was virtually inviting people to check it out for themselves! He wouldn’t have said this if he didn’t know they’d back him up.
Third, when you have only one source, you can ask, “Why aren’t there more?” But you can’t say, “This one source is crummy on the grounds that someone else didn’t pick up on it.” You can’t downgrade this one source that way. So this doesn’t cast any doubt on Paul at all—believe me, Martin would love to be able to do that, but he can’t do it legitimately.
This is an example of how some critics want it both ways. Generally, they denigrate the gospel Resurrection accounts in favor of Paul, since he is taken to be the chief authority. But on this issue, they’re questioning Paul for the sake of texts that they don’t trust as much in the first place! What does this say about their methodology?”
{Ibid. 312-313. Italics by Strobel. Boldface mine.}
To be clear, I’m not saying Pulliam would’ve agreed with an atheist philosopher like Michael Martin on much of anything. I’m just saying the skeptical scholarly insistence on giving Paul priority over the Gospels is an interesting parallel that I happened to notice. I don’t feel like speculating about what connection might be here, so make of it what you will–even if you make nothing of it.
Jesus spoke of a moment in time when all of earth’s history will come to an end.[Matthew 24:35-39. The universal flood of Noah’s day was most fitting for Jesus’ description of the earth’s final moments.] His coming will be sudden, and unexpected.[Sudden (Matthew 24:40-41) and unexpected (Mt 24:42; I Thessalonians 5:2f; II Peter 3:10).] It will involve the righteous and the wicked,[John 5:28-29.] and will involve His judging all mankind.[Matthew 24:37-25:46; cf. Mt 13:36-50.] On this last point, we could easily add Paul’s admonition to Timothy due to the fact that Jesus would judge the living and dead at His coming.[II Timothy 4:1.]
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 149. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Italics in original.}
I’ve already addressed most of Pulliam’s claims in this paragraph elsewhere, so here’s a quick rundown:
The NT comparison of the worldwide judgment by fire at Christ’s return with the worldwide judgment by water in Noah’s day backfires on Pulliam once again. The Antediluvian world order perished in the Flood, giving way to the post-Flood world order that began when God instituted civil governments (Genesis 9:1-6); therefore, we can expect the current world order (endeavors to morph it in our day notwithstanding) to be done away with during the judgment by fire, giving way to a world order where Jesus says “Jump.” and all national leaders around the globe say “How high?” (Daniel 7:14,26; Revelation 16:19a, 19:16; etc.). The earth’s crust was rearranged during the Flood, not annihilated; therefore, we can expect the same to go for the judgment by fire at Jesus’ return. Likewise, time didn’t end when the Flood came, so we can expect it not to end at the judgment by fire, either.
Jesus’ parousia will be sudden for everyone, but it will only be unexpected for those who are ignorant of the warnings. I’ve already amply demonstrated that the Bible teaches some people will see it coming (notice that Matthew 24:42 & 1 Thessalonians 5:2 are explicitly dealt with there, and that in the same discussion I address the phrase “like a thief”, which is the phrase Pulliam is relying on when citing 2 Peter 3:10).
I’ve explained in the present post how John 5:28-29 can be interpreted (without clashing with its context) as being consistent with two mass resurrections, and that Philippians 3:11 only makes sense if there will be exactly two mass resurrections. The onus is therefore on Pulliam to show how Philippians 3:11 can be interpreted (without clashing with its context) as being consistent with only one mass resurrection, which he seems to think is clearly taught by John 5:28-29. Until he can demonstrate why it makes just as much sense (let alone more sense) to interpret Philippians 3:11 in light of John 5:28-29 instead of vice versa, he has no case.
Pulliam is merely assuming that Matthew 24:37-25:46 covers the righteous and the wicked from throughout history. But in reality, Matthew 24:37-41 refers to those still alive when Jesus returns; verses 42-51 refer to Christians who are alive going into it; 25:1-13 refers to Christians living through the apocalypse; verses 14-30 refer to the judgment of believers (already-living and freshly-resurrected); and verses 31-46 refer to the judgment of the ignorant (the sheep) and the wicked (the goats), based on whether or not they showed compassion to Christians (“these my brethren”–Matthew 25:40 KJV) who refused to take the Mark of the Beast–something they only could’ve done if they were alive during the Tribulation. Notice who’s conspicuously absent from any of these passages: the wicked and ignorant who’d already died before Jesus returned! Once again, this is perfectly consistent with such people being included in the General (second) resurrection, not the first.
The same goes for the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43), which only mentions “the sons of the kingdom” and “the sons of the evil one” (verse 38 1995 NASB)–the ignorant who are alive when Jesus returns would be included under “sons of the kingdom”, since they’ll be permitted to enter the Kingdom (also notice they are called “the sons of the kingdom”, rather than “of God”, “of the righteous”, or something else along those lines). But there’s one more point I’d like to address regarding something Pulliam says in Lesson 20, when trying to support his contention that in Matthew 24:40-41, the wicked are taken and the righteous are left {Ibid. 214-215.}:
The Parable of the Tares (Mt 13:24-30) is a very good passage to compare in this study. Read it carefully, and then read the explanation of the parable given by Jesus (Mt 13:36-43). This parable is a harvest setting. The farmer will not leave the wheat lying out in the field after the weeds have been pulled. The picture becomes one of the weeds pulled first and the wheat gathered quickly after the weeds. The weeds are the wicked, and are pulled first. The wheat is the righteous, and they are quickly gathered afterward.
{Ibid. 215.}
In the context, Pulliam is debunking the way dispensationalists try to apply Matthew 24:40-41 to the rapture that will supposedly take Christians out of the world for 7 years by pointing to Matthew 13:30, where the tares are said to be gathered before the wheat. This may come as a surprise to you, but I have to give Pulliam props for bringing this to my attention: it’s a pretty good argument against the idea that the rapture happens at a distinct time from Jesus’ return, rather than at the same time he returns to judge the wicked! However, pay careful attention to the phrasing of verse 30: “Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.” (1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added) The underlined verb “burn up” is aorist active infinitive, indicating that the tares are being bound for the purpose of burning them up; the phrasing implies that the burning is to happen after the tares are gathered and bound up in bundles, but not necessarily before the wheat is gathered! This is consistent with my view that the rapture is intended to gather the faithful out of harm’s way while the judgment by fire is going on, as well as passages implying that the wicked will be gathered together in compact groups or locations so Jesus can kill them more efficiently at his return. Such passages include Revelation 16:12-16 & 19:19 YLT (note the perfect-tense participle Young rendered “having been gathered together” in the latter), and Isaiah 13:3-5, which those two Revelation passages are harking back to:
3 I have given My command to consecrated ones of Mine,
Yea, I have called My warriors
At My anger, the jubilant ones of My pride.
4 A sound of tumult in the mountains,
In the likeness of a large congregated unit!
A sound of uproar of dominions of nations gathering,
YHWH of hosts mustering an army for battle.
5 They are coming from a land far off,
From an extremity of the skies,
YHWH and vessels of His indignation,
To destroy all the land.
(My right-to-left translation, boldface and underlining added)
The use of first-person statements in verse 3, but third-person statements in verse 5 demonstrates that “they” refers to the “dominions of nations gathering” in verse 4, rather than the angelic army of verse 3. Also notice that these people are said to be there due to “YHWH of hosts mustering an army for battle” and that they are called “vessels of His indignation” (i.e., concentrated packages of evil to be stricken).
I might come across even more illustrative examples as I continue working my way through the “Day of the Lord” passages (and you’ll unfortunately have to wait until I finish my work on that before you can see my explanation for why these verses are talking about the day Jesus returns), but these should suffice to prove my point for now.
Pulliam’s use of 2 Timothy 4:1 amounts to selective quotation: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom” (1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added) Why is the phrase “and His kingdom” included here? Because this “judgment” of “the living and the dead” is to happen “by” not just “His appearing”, but also “His kingdom”! Warner explains the sense conveyed by this awkward phrasing, with cross-references to reinforce it with Biblical precedent:
This is not a reference to a judgement where one’s eternal destiny is determined by God (Heb. 9:27), nor to rewards being bestowed upon the faithful at the “judgement seat of the Anointed” (2 Cor. 5:10). Rather it refers to the fact that the Messiah, as God’s agent, will “judge the world in righteousness,” meaning to rule (Psalm 9:8; Psalm 96:13; Psalm 98:9; Isa. 9:7; Isa. 11:1-5), which is why it extends from His “coming” throughout His “Kingdom” in this text. {Scroll to p. 5 in the PDF.}
Hence, this verse isn’t referring to a single point or even day in time (as Pulliam’s interpretation would require), but to an entire era of time!
Jesus’ presentation of a singular point in time where all of the dead shall rise helps us understand that we are not looking for an installment plan of fulfillment. Jesus is coming again, and will raise all of the dead. The righteous will be transformed to be glorified like Jesus, the sentencing of judgment will take place, and our existence in eternity will begin. The righteous will be blessed,[Matthew 25:34.] but the wicked will be cast into the eternal fire “prepared for the devil and his angels.”[Matthew 25:41.] {“In the Days of Those Kings”. 149-150. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Italics and boldface in original.}
Again, I’ve already established that there will be two mass resurrections, since Philippians 3:11 is incompatible with any more or any less than two. And I’ve already pointed out that the Sheep & Goats Judgment of Matthew 25:31-46 applies only to the wicked and ignorant who are alive just before Jesus returns and the righteous are resurrected.
Now, recall that Peter referred his readers back to the promise of New Heavens and a New Earth in Isaiah 65-66. The final verse of that passage mentions that those participating in the Kingdom “shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (Isaiah 66:24c ESV). This implies that the Lake of Fire will be burning in Gehenna throughout the Millennium (but will stop burning once the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:10-15 is finished, per Jeremiah 31:38-40–remember, the word for “eternal” in Matthew 25:41 is aiōnios (G166), which should be understood as “permanent” in that context.) I discuss this in much more detail in my upcoming analysis of the Bible’s “Day of the Lord” passages, but suffice it for now to say that the “goats” of the Sheep & Goats Judgment wind up in Gehenna at the start of the Millennium.
Jesus also spoke of this day when “there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left.”[Matthew 24:40f.] For some, this is a clear description of a separate rapture, but a close examination of the context proves that it is not (studied on pages 214 & 215). Jesus is telling us that the wicked will be taken out first, leaving the righteous. Nothing in the text indicates that they will be left for long. The description given by Jesus shows how sudden and unexpected the event will be.[Matthew 24:42.] Elsewhere, Jesus likened the event to a harvest where the weeds are pulled first for burning, and then the grain is harvested into the barn.[Matthew 13:24-30, with its attending interpretation in verses 36-43.] There will be one event for gathering the wicked and harvesting the righteous.
{Ibid. 150. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Italics in original.}
As long as Pulliam insists on alluding to this discussion in Lesson 20 more than once, I’ll just deal with it right here; besides, I’d rather not dedicate an entire separate post to that discussion.
One very famous passage for teaching a Rapture is from Matthew 24. It is used very frequently in conversations by, seemingly, everyone who believes there will be a Rapture. Well known prophecy scholars like Walvoord, Pentecost, and LaHaye believe this is a misuse of the text (although Lindsey bucks that trend). The text in question says:
“40 Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. 42 Therefore be on alert, for you do not know [literally, “you have not perceived”; perfect-tense, not present-tense] which day your Lord is coming.”
(Matthew 24:40-42)
Here is a very important question: Who is taken and who is “left behind”? Everyone says the righteous are taken and the wicked are left, but how do you know that? Our understanding of the two men and women should come from a study that begins three verses earlier. The subject is introduced by Jesus saying, “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.” (Mt 24:37) How will His coming will [sic] be “just like the days of Noah”? To begin with, it will be “as in those days which were before the flood.” How?… Everything will be continuing as if all is well. The wicked will be eating and drinking. They will be marrying and giving in marriage. They “did not understand until the flood came, and took them all away” (v39). Determine who the flood “took… away,” and you will know who is taken away in the cases of the two men and women (see analysis on the next page). Jesus said, “so shall the coming of the Son of Man be” (v39). Jesus said the wicked were going about their lives as if all was well, until the flood came and took them all away. Jesus said the wicked were taken away, so He was saying that, of the two men and women, the wicked will be taken away. The righteous will be “left behind.” The point is that it will be so sudden that no one will have a chance to prepare. Therefore, everyone will have to be on the alert, because the wicked will be taken away suddenly. That is exactly the opposite of Dispensationalism, which teaches that the wicked will be left behind.
What about the righteous? This passage says they are left, but for how long? Everyone assumes that if anyone is “left behind,” they will be left behind for a long period of time. That is an assumption, however.
{Ibid. 214. Italics and boldface in original. Content in brackets mine.}
Obviously, I already quoted the body text from p. 215 above. And I think it’s fair to point out that Pulliam’s view that the righteous aren’t left behind for a significant period of time before the universe is supposedly annihilated is just as much “an assumption” as the alternative (after all, I demonstrated earlier that his proof-texts for that idea don’t actually teach it), so the point he makes in those last two sentences works against him just as much as it does for him. But more importantly, this attempt to connect the “taking away” of the Flood with the “taking away” described in the Olivet Discourse never would’ve flown with the early Christians reading the Greek text. These verses are using two different words for “take away” that have very different connotations. The word in verse 39 is αἴρω (G142), meaning “to lift up” (i.e., people were lifted off the ground by the force of buoyancy as the Floodwaters surged across pre-Flood lands, similar to what you can see in wave pools today, but on a much larger scale and much more violent). But the word in verses 40-41 is παραλαμβάνω (G3880), meaning “to receive near”; the first use of this word in the NT (note that the angel’s conversation with Joseph pre-dates all other occasions in the NT that use it) is in Matthew’s account of the months leading up to Jesus’ birth: “But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20 1995 NASB, boldface and underlining added). It should go without saying that the 1st-century Christians would’ve scoffed at the notion of God “receiving the wicked near” to Himself! Instead, it makes far more sense to conclude that the “receiving near” is indeed the “gather[ing] together” of “his chosen” (i.e., the rapture), which had been mentioned by Jesus just a few verses earlier still:
And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory; and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof. (Matthew 24:29-31 YLT, boldface and underlining added)
Once again, this is consistent with my view of the rapture being intended to bring the righteous (already-living and resurrected) into the air to keep them out of harm’s way while the judgment by fire is occurring on the ground. The rapture and the worldwide judgment by fire occurring on the same day is certainly a problem for pre-Tribulationists (which most if not all dispensationalists are) and mid-Tribulationists, but it’s not a problem for post-Tribulationists (like myself or the Church Fathers).
“What Peter Said About the End”?
Pulliam leaves Jesus’ words on the matter at that, since he wrongly interprets the Olivet Discourse as prophesying events occurring over the century or so after Jesus gave this speech, just as Luke 21:12-24 actually did. So then he moves on to 2 Peter 3, a passage I said much about near the start of this post. Here’s the entirety of that discussion:
The “day of the Lord” will be one of destruction, where this physical world is concerned.[II Peter 3:10.] Peter linked his description of that last great day together with the previous judgment of God upon the world in the days of Noah.[II Peter 3:5-7.] In this way, we come to understand that this event not only destroys the entire earth, but is tied together with judgment. Rather than a worldwide destruction with water, the coming destruction will be with fire.[II Peter 3:7-11.] It will be an unexpected day, just like the day spoken of by Jesus.[Sudden (Matthew 24:40-41) and unexpected (Mt 24:42; I Thessalonians 5:2f; II Peter 3:10).] That day will not leave the earth in place for future generations. The elements will be dissolved, making way for “new heavens and a new earth.”[II Peter 3:11.] This is a time of retribution in Peter’s writings.[II Peter 2:4-9.]
Peter presents nothing different than what we have already found in the teachings of Jesus and Paul.
{Ibid. 150. Contents in brackets are from the footnotes indicated at those points in the text. Italics in original.}
And aside from the boldfaced sentence, Pulliam presents nothing different than what I’ve already debunked elsewhere in this post! As for the boldfaced sentence, there are several finer points I could bring out about the examples Peter gives in those 6 verses Pulliam cited, but it’s unnecessary to do so here {but if you’re interested, see this blog post, p. 4 of this PDF, and the Footnote at the end of this citation}2, since the point Pulliam uses them to bring out is correct regardless. The real issue is that, as I’ve noted a couple times already, this retribution doesn’t involve the annihilation of the universe, but the renovation of it.
Oh, and in a chart on the top half of p. 151, Pulliam mentions the “2nd Coming” {superscript and capitalization in original} and cites Acts 1:10-11 in the footnote for support. However, this very passage actually works against a couple of his views, especially in light of the context:
And these things having said — they beholding — he was taken up, and a cloud did receive him up from their sight; and as they were looking stedfastly to the heaven in his going on, then, lo, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, ‘Men, Galileans, why do ye stand gazing into the heaven? this Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven.‘
Then did they return to Jerusalem from the mount that is called of Olives, that is near Jerusalem, a sabbath’s journey; (Acts 1:9-12 YLT, boldface added)
The phrase “in what manner” is of utmost importance. Jesus would return to Earth in exactly the same manner that the disciples saw him ascend to Heaven: on a cloud, in a physical body (contrary to Pulliam’s heretical claim that Jesus cast away his flesh and blood when ascending to the Father; does he suspect Jesus will put his flesh-and-blood suit back on as he returns?), with the Mount of Olives as the place where Jesus’ feet last touched (and will next touch; see Zechariah 14:3-4) the Earth. Hence, Acts 1:11-12 implies that, contrary to what Pulliam said on p. 119, Zechariah 14:4 was meant literally. But I’ll say more about that in the next Part.
Implications for Christian Living
Finally, we get to Pulliam’s conclusion to this Lesson:
There may be many questions unanswered about Jesus’ second coming, but enough is answered to know what we should be looking for. Nothing in the divine scenario should be compelling us to look for clues in our newspapers. The second coming will be sudden and unexpected. We do not prepare by watching the skies. We prepare with our lives placed in order, and a prayerful effort toward helping others prepare.
When Jesus comes, all of the dead will be raised. The righteous will be changed so their humble state may come into conformity with the glory of Jesus. These, along with the righteous living who will be changed, will ascend to meet the Lord in the air that they may always be with the Lord. The physical world will have given way to complete dissolution. Separated from God with none of His creative force to support them, the wicked will suffer the wrath of God in eternal torment.
Instead of two comings with an intricate plot between, we have one future moment when the Lord will come. Rather than a kingdom that is “already – but not yet,” we have a King on David’s throne who will rule until that second coming when He turns the kingdom back over to the Father. The expectation of first century saints was simple. Ours should be too.
{Ibid. 151. Italics and boldface in original.}
We’ve already seen that most of these statements are simply false (or key words in them have been laced with redefinitions to make true statements give false impressions; e.g., “the glory of Jesus” in the second sentence of Pulliam’s second paragraph here being redefined to exclude a material body), but there’s some merit to considering some of them before closing out the present post. His remark about “look[ing] for clues in our newspapers” seems to reflect his primary concern that prompted him to write the book in the first place. He doesn’t want people wasting their time obsessing over current events and jumping to conclusions about how the future will play out that will almost certainly turn out to be wrong. As I’ve said in an earlier post:
There are quite a few different ways… the 10-king confederacy could come into being as the new domineering world superpower; but the only details we know for sure are the ones the Bible actually gives us, which don’t pick up until a time when the 10-king confederacy is already underway, per the Aramaic text of Daniel 2:42 specifying that it’s describing “part of the kingdom’s end” (מִן־קְצָת מַלְכוּתָא) as being “strong”, and part as being “broken”… hence, the 10-king confederation could even exist for a little while before the apocalypse starts. What chain of events will get the world to that point, the Bible simply doesn’t say.
As such, I won’t pretend to predict (much less know) all the details behind which public figures have to make which (geo)political maneuvers, in what order, at what times, to bring about the situation the Bible describes at the onset of the apocalypse. But God knew all those details from the beginning of the universe’s existence (Isaiah 46:9-10), so I’ll just let Him surprise me. As long as I can (with God’s grace and providence, of course) withstand any and all devastation that happens to come my way, just knowing when it will unfold is enough to keep my sanity grounded. My priority is to spiritually-prepare myself to depend on God and follow His instructions through it all, and to help others to do the same.
{Scroll to “Those Who Don’t Know Their History…”.}
Hence, I completely agree with his remark that “We do not prepare by watching the skies. We prepare with our lives placed in order, and a prayerful effort toward helping others prepare.” (That said, it’s feasible that some signs will appear in the sky at certain points during the apocalypse, especially at the end of it; recall Jesus’ statement that just before he returns, “then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven [or “sky”; e.g., among the stars, especially if the sun and moon are darkened (as indicated in the previous verse), enabling the stars to be visible during what would otherwise be daylight hours]”–Matthew 24:30 YLT)
Likewise, the claim that “Instead of two comings with an intricate plot between, we have one future moment when the Lord will come” is technically correct, but misleading. The truth is that there will be “one future moment when the Lord will come”, “with an intricate plot” (not necessarily with the details promoted by dispensationalists) leading up to it.
As for his finishing remark that “The expectation of first century saints was simple”, that depends on what you consider “simple”. On the one hand, the first few generations of Christians held to a well-developed eschatology, in addition to their ultimate hope of what lay on the other side of it. But despite Pulliam’s apparent attempt to use a variation of Occam’s Razor here (i.e., the simplest explanation tends to be the best one), he instead falls into the trap of oversimplification. Several of my above responses to Pulliam’s proof-texts (e.g., 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 2 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 3:13) show that his conclusions appear reasonable if certain phrases in the immediate context are overlooked. Those phrases give us additional details, but a Biblical interpretation that takes them into account as well as the details Pulliam already acknowledges amounts to a harmonization of what Scripture says on the subject. And that would necessarily be closer to the truth, despite being “more complicated” than Pulliam’s alternative.
Speaking of harmonizing Scripture, that’s essentially what I’m going to do for most of Part 4, since Pulliam barely even tried to do so in the Lesson we’ll cover there. That post is gonna be REALLY long (it’s over twice as long as the current post, and I’m still not done typing it!), so make sure to brace yourself to read it!
- “I cannot overemphasize the necessity of remembering the theme of a book while studying its contents. If you do not keep the theme in view, you will lose sight of the significance of a book’s individual parts. The theme of the Bible is established in Genesis 3. Sin entered the world and God foretold the remedy. That serpent-heel imagery may be cryptic at its introduction, but is agreed by nearly every Bible student to be a critical prophecy-promise. When we get to Genesis 12, we come to the way God will work out that great promise of a savior. The way a book resolves its theme is called the plot. But the plot must keep the theme in view. The promises of Genesis 12 is the way (plot) God accomplishes the goal (theme).” {“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 67. Italics and boldface in original.} Of course, Pulliam overlooks the fact that Genesis 13 & 17 give additional details about the promises in Genesis 12–such as the fact that Abraham himself would receive the land, as well as his “seed” (Genesis 13:15,17; 17:8). Quite simply, the theme of the book is not an excuse to disregard details that clarify the plot! ↩︎
- There’s one point I would like to explain here because it isn’t explicitly brought out in either of the articles I cite here. When 2 Peter 2:5 refers to when God “spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (KJV), notice that not only was “person” added by the translators (as was the definite article before “eighth”), but the Greek word, ὄγδοος (G3590), is indeed the ordinal “eighth”, rather than the cardinal “eight”. Hence, the term “eighth” doesn’t refer to the number of people God spared from the Flood (as the cardinal “eight” does in 1 Peter 3:20), but to the fact that Noah was part of the eighth generation descended from Seth (Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah; Genesis 5), whose branch of Adam’s family became the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6:2,4. Peter’s basis for counting Enosh as the “first” (rather than Seth or Adam) was Genesis 4:26 LXX: “And to Seth was generated a son; he named him also the name of his, Enos. This one hoped, calling to himself [present middle infinitive] the name of the Lord God.” (my word-for-word translation, boldface added) Notice that the 70 Israelite elders at Alexandria who translated the Pentateuch into Greek understood the last sentence of this verse as referring to actions of Enosh, not men in general; this is consistent with both the Hebrew verb usually rendered “began” being singular rather than plural, and the absence of “men” in the Hebrew text (which most English translations add)–the sentence in the MT literally reads “At that time, it was begun by him to call by the name of YHWH”. This practice of “calling to oneself (or “calling oneself by”) the name of the Lord God” was the nominal identifier of a “Son of God” in the Antediluvian world; you could even render it thought-for-thought as “surnaming himself with the name of the Lord God”, like a woman taking her husband’s surname in marriage (which also reinforces the fact that the Sons of God were in a covenant relationship with God). Together with the fact that the ancients didn’t consider 0 to be a number, it’s understandable that early Christians relying on the Septuagint (especially the Gentile Christians that 2 Peter was written to) would’ve reckoned Enosh as the “first” (instead of reckoning Seth as the “zeroth”) generation of the Sons of God and Noah as part of the “eighth” generation (the one that, apart from Noah, took wives from among the “daughters of the human (i.e., Adam)”–the literal phrasing in Genesis 6:2,4, whether Hebrew or Greek). ↩︎




