Travelers converged from Florida, Arkansas, Nashville and Memphis, TN, Columbia, South Carolina, surrounding towns of Huntsville, Decatur, and Leighton, Alabama, and others to the Athens Bible School Auditorium. Technology prevailed with laptops and colorful Power Point presentations by each speaker. Audio tapes can be ordered at www.eschatology.org.

The Propositions for the Debate

“Resolved: The Bible teaches that the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” Preston affirmed, Thrasher denied.

“Resolved: The Bible teaches that all the dead will be raised to life at the end of the current Christian age.” Thrasher affirmed, Preston denied.

The climate of the debate matched the beautiful sunny weather, excelling in many ways. The two disputants, Preston and Thrasher, conducted themselves with dignity, respect and decorum both towards one another and towards the audience. No insults, no put downs, no personal attacks. Each speaker courteously and humbly offered apologies for any misunderstandings or ascriptions of incorrect positions assigned to the other. The addressed each other by first name with no expletives. There was no attempt to mislead the audience by assigning false positions to either speaker.

The impact of their demeanor could not be better expressed than by Bobby Powell, of Sunshine Audio, (Athens, AL) the audio engineer who recorded the exchange. He commented that in over 30 years of recording and listening to debates, this was “the most cordial and civil that I’ve ever experienced.” What an honor to both men and a testimony to the influence of personal decorum in debates. Thrasher commented that he viewed debates as a form of Bible study. This one certainly met that objective, --an opportunity to hear both sides, without emotional-gymnastic tirades.

Casual polls from the audience between speeches unanimously agreed that Preston’s well prepared affirmative speeches and laser accurate logic, when in the negative, carried the day. Some felt that Thrasher either gave up and/or gave out, having used up all of his affirmative material by the end of his second negative speech. Thrasher acknowledged that he planned to introduce the material later, but was forced to engage it early due to Preston’s anticipation of his arguments.

Preston’s First Affirmative – Matthew 13

This debate, as noted in the propositions involved the time of the resurrection. True to his proposition Preston remained steadfast to that purpose. In his first affirmative, from Matthew 13, the parable of the tares, he coupled Daniel 12:1-7, Matthew 16:27, 28, Matthew 24 and Matthew 25 together behind a steam locomotive of logic. He argued that resurrection equaled the time of the harvest at the end of the Jewish age in A.D. 70.

Preston tied the phrase, “sun teleia ton aionion” to the age in which Jesus’ died, Matt. 13:39, 40, Hebrews 9:26 and that of the destruction of the temple, Matthew 24:3, to the harvest at the end of the Jewish age, Matthew 13:39, 40, 28:20, and Daniel 12:1-7. He pointed out that Christ did not appear to sacrifice Himself at the end of time, nor the end of the Christian age.

He offered proof that Daniel’s resurrection was at the end of the age, when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered. He then paralleled Matthew 13:39-46, with Acts 1:11; 1 Cor. 15, 1 Thess. 4; 2 Thess 1 to establish his proposition. (Thrasher was on record saying that Matthew 13:39-46 and 1 Cor. 15 was the time of the resurrection.

Preston offered that Isaiah 9:7; Dan. 2:44, 45, 7:13, 14 and Eph. 3:21 all taught that the kingdom/Christian age, has no end and would stand forever. He explained that the increase of His government was growth of the kingdom through evangelism. He asked how Jesus could be speaking of the end of the Christian age which has no end, Eph. 3:21, when He spoke of the end of the age in Matt. 13. He concluded Matthew 13:40f could not be speaking of the endless Christian age.

Preston offered that per Daniel 12, the end of the age would be when the power of the holy people would be destroyed. He affirmed that the resurrection of Dan 12 equaled that of Matt 13, thus the resurrection occurred at the shattering of Old Covenant Israel in A.D. 70.

He next offered Matthew 16:27, 28 as parallel to Mathew 13:43 which spoke of the coming of the Lord, the angels and the reward to every man as the time of the judgment/resurrection/coming of the Lord and end of the age which directly paralleled Daniel and Matthew 13, thus all were fulfilled in the event of Israel’s demise in A.D. 70.

He asked Thrasher to supply his hermeneutic to delineate between the two comings. Preston stated that Thrasher accepted Matthew 13 as a reference to the end of the Christian age, thus a resurrection passage. Preston closed by summarizing his arguments and by categorizing what Thrasher would need to prove in order to disprove his arguments.

Thrasher attempted to respond to Eph. 3:21, by quoting Berry and Marshall’s Interlinears “to all the generations of the ages of the ages.” (1 neg) From this he argued for not one age (singular) but several ages (plural) to follow the Christian age! Preston citing F. F. Bruce, and Alford’s Greek New Testament among others, said that the Greek phrase used in Eph. 3:21, was “the strongest expression of endlessness known in the Greek vocabulary.”

Thrasher’s First Negative

Thrasher began his speech by commending Preston for his zeal but that he lacked proof to establish his proposition. He reasoned that few, maybe two verses cited by Preston even referred to the resurrection. He did not feel it was proper to discuss passages which spoke of the second coming in an affirmative on the resurrection. In clarifying the proposition he denied that the judgment, the second coming, the end of the world, or the end of the age were the subject of the debate, but rather the resurrection of the dead.

Thrasher then asked what Bible passage teaches that the resurrection of the dead occurred at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He argued that the issues of the debate involved whether the physically dead would be raised. He said when the audience and he thought of the resurrection they thought of physical resurrection. (Many in the audience did not!) He denied that Preston believed in physical resurrection from the dead.

Thrasher argued that use of the same Greek word did not necessarily mean that the same subject was being considered. He suggested baptism as an example, from Acts 19:3-5 which spoke of the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus Christ. He noted the same word “baptism” used but spoke of different things. Thus he claimed Preston’s argument on the end of the age proved nothing relative to his proposition.

He asked if Preston believed the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70, would anyone who died in the past 19 centuries be raised from the dead. He pointed out that Preston answered that all who came into Christ were and are raised by becoming a Christian. Thrasher said this was some sort of resurrection but denied that this was the resurrection spoken of in Scripture. He argued that this contradicted Preston’s affirmative that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70, since some are raised today.

Thrasher argued if those resurrections are continuing today then these are not the kind of resurrections which happened in A.D. 70. He concluded Preston’s proposition was false or that Preston cuts himself loose from texts such as Romans 6 and Col. 2, etc.

Thrasher argued that the rendering in Eph. 3:21, does not mean the Christian age would not end. He also asked what the nature of Jesus’ resurrection was saying it was physical and therefore it defined our resurrection. He argued that Preston’s position on the resurrection was the same as that of atheists. He also added that Daniel 12 was highly figurative and did not speak of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15.

Preston’s 2nd Affirmative, 1 Corinthians 15

Preston anticipating Thrasher, affirmed that Christ came to deliver man from the death introduced by Adam, per Gen. 2:16, 17 the very day he ate. Thrasher agreed this was spiritual death. Preston then argued that Christ was the firstfruits of the resurrection from the death of Adam, which was spiritual not physical. Therefore, Christ was the firstfruits from the spiritually dead; hence he affirmed a spiritual resurrection.

Next Preston pointed out that the end of 1 Cor. 1:7,8 was the time miracles would cease, and was the same end in 1 Cor. 15. It also paralleled the end of the age, 1 Cor. 10:11, and when that which was perfect would come (13:8-10)

Again, anticipating Thrasher, Preston pointed out that “give up” from “paradidoo” (Strong’s #3860) in 1 Cor. 15:24, does not mean to abdicate. Thus, there was no end of the kingdom or of Christ’s present reign. Thrasher offered more silence.

Preston then advanced 1 Thess. 4:15, 17 “in correlation with 1 Cor. 15:51, to show that some then living in Paul’s day would be alive when the resurrection occurred. He also pointed out that although Thrasher uses 1 Thess 4 to argue for the resurrection, that the word resurrection is not once mentioned in the text. Thrasher did not deny its validity as a resurrection text.

Preston also argued that Isaiah 25:8 and Hos. 13:14, quoted in 1 Cor. 15:54-55 proves that the resurrection from sin-death is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophets. Thrasher never addressed those texts.

Preston offered the following argument. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle would in no wise pass from the law till all was fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18; Acts 26:6-8) The law passed in A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed. Therefore the resurrection was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Resurrection would be when the law which was the strength of sin was removed. The law, the strength of sin was removed in A.D. 70. Therefore the resurrection would be when the Old Covenant law was removed in 70 A.D.

Thrasher’s Second Negative

Thrasher’s Second Negative primarily focused on the concept of the firstfruits. His line of argumentation attempted to demonstrate the nature of the resurrection by appealing to the fact that Jesus was raised physically from the dead. Thrasher reasoned that this demanded a physical resurrection of the body.

Preston responded that Jesus’ resurrection was a sign (John 20:30, 31) and that a sign never pointed to itself. He alluded to the seven signs in the gospel of John all of which had a higher spiritual application. Thus, Preston pointed out that the same was true for the resurrection of Christ. Next he defined Christ’s death from Romans 6:10, 11, saying that the death which Christ died was a death to sin, and the life which he lives was life to God. He also argued that the resurrection in which we have the likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection was spiritual, not physical. Thrasher never touched Romans 6:10, 11.

Thrasher spent the remaining time of his negative speech in the affirmative arguing a physical view of the resurrection from 1 Corinthians 15, mostly by reading the text and asking, what is it and responding, that’s physical death/resurrection. His main line of argumentation was that Christ rose physically from the dead and affirmed that the resurrection must be that from physical death.

Preston’s Third Affirmative 2 Thess. 1

In his third affirmative, Preston’s presented 2 Thessalonians 1. He specifically argued that tribulation, (thlipsis, Strong’s #2347) in 2 Thess. 1:6-9 equaled the “thlipsis” as predicted in Mathew 24:9, in the context of the A.D. 70 coming of the Lord at the fall of Jerusalem He supported his argument by showing that this event would occur in their life time, per 1 Thess. 4:15 citing “those of us who are alive and remain” till the coming of the Lord, meant those in Paul’s generation.

Preston argued that the rest (anesin, Strong’s # 425) would come at the time when Jesus would come in flaming fire upon those who knew not God in the lifetime of the Thessalonians. He stated that “anesis” never referred to salvation, but always to relief from the particular tribulation or trouble present at that time. He offered Thrasher several choices. One, were any of the Thessalonians yet alive today? Two, did Paul lie? Thrasher’s futurism led him to accept both! Of course, Preston did not let it pass.

Next Preston offered the testimony against Israel in Matthew 23:34-36 for murdering and persecuting the prophets, Jesus and those whom he would send. He showed that 1 Thess 2:14-16 speaks of that very persecution for which they would be judged which Thrasher’s admitted was A.D. 70. Preston then argued that 2 Thess 1 was written to same church about the same problem, --persecution.

He then pointed out that Thrasher believed that 1 Thess 4 (the resurrection) equals 2 Thess chapter one (the second coming). Preston then affirmed that 2 Thess. chapter one equals the time of the judgment against the Jews in A.D. 70 and relief from the attendant persecution and therefore, 1 Thess 4 and 2 Thess. chapter one both spoke of the same time and event, which was A.D. 70.

Thrasher’s Third Negative

Thrasher attempted to refute Preston’s argument on the firstfruits by saying that Adam died two deaths, one spiritually the day he ate and one physically 930 years later, per Gen. 5:5. Thus, he reasoned that we have been raised spiritually and will be raised physically later. Preston responded by saying that Thrasher’s position made God a liar since God said Adam would die the very day he ate, per Gen. 2:17. Later, Preston replied that the Hebrew construction “dying thou shall die” was the same as that in Gen. 20:7, thus Thrasher would have Abimilech dying twice also for sleeping with Sarah. Thrasher tried to recover from this in a later speech saying that Adam died physically as a result of being separated from the tree of life which fulfilled the demands of Gen. 2:17.

Thrasher replied to Preston’s reasoning on the firstfruits saying that it meant that it would take 40 years to harvest the crop, i.e. from the cross till A.D. 70. Thrasher did not address the issue of the harvest being at the end of the same age in which the firstfruits began. Thrasher contended that the harvest was in a different age than that in which Jesus died and was raised (Heb. 9:26). Preston affirmed that he could not prove an end of the Christian age.

Thrasher went on to affirm his physical resurrection affirmative from 1 Thess. 4:13-17, even though he was yet in the negative. Thrasher denied that Paul was in the number of those who were alive in A.D. 70; therefore, the resurrection of the dead did not occur. Thrasher said the passage only meant that some Christians, would be alive, not necessarily first century Christians. Likewise he argued that “those who fell asleep” was generic and did not exclusively mean those who were already dead when Paul wrote. Thrasher stated that the “rest” of 2 Thessalonians would be given to those who had already died, along with the martyrs of Revelation 6.

Thrasher argued from 1 Corinthians 15:25 that the last enemy to be destroyed was death. He reasoned that if this were physical death, there should be no more physical death and if spiritual, then no more spiritual death. He believed this was a damaging dilemma to Preston’s position. He argued that it could not be spiritual because spiritual resurrection began on Pentecost before A.D. 70, per Romans 6 and Col. 3.

Preston’s Fourth Affirmative

Preston led the fourth speech with Matthew 5:17, 18 which showed that the law could not pass till all things were fulfilled. He offered that the resurrection was a part of the law, per Daniel 12 and was the text from which Paul quoted in Acts 24:15. Therefore the resurrection is the fulfillment of the law which was accomplished in A.D. 70. Preston next affirmed that the immortality and incorruptibility of 1 Cor. 15 equated to “everlasting life of Daniel 12:3. He asked Thrasher what was the difference between the promise of immortality/incorruption and everlasting life? There was a loud silence! Again Preston pressed the time of Daniel’s resurrection in A.D. 70.

He reminded the audience that Thrasher said the resurrection of Daniel 12 was resurrection from spiritual death and therefore, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians was from spiritual death. He argued that the Christian was made free from the law of sin and death and if free, is not under the power of that death, (Rom. 8:3; John 8: 51). Thrasher did not seem to grasp the significance of this argumentation ascribing Preston’s position as universalism.

Preston offered an argument that 1 Cor 15 would be when sin, the sting of death would be finally put away correlating it with Daniel’s 70 weeks determined to put away sin (Dan. 9:24). He stated that the end of the 70 weeks were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and thus, sin/resurrection from sin, was put away in A.D. 70, fulfilling 1 Cor. 15:56.

His last argument was that resurrection would be accomplished when Satan was destroyed, Gen. 3:15; Rev. 20 to which Thrasher agreed. The crushing of Satan according to Romans 16:20 would be done shortly; therefore the resurrection was near in the first century.

Thrasher’s Fourth Negative

Thrasher argued Daniel 12 had its fulfillment in connection with the establishment of the new covenant and does not refer to a literal resurrection. Thrasher never attempted to establish the basis for his view on Daniel and ignored all the time references in the text. He agreed that Daniel 12 refers to a resurrection of the just and the unjust as correlated with Acts 24:15 and in one affirmative speech, added John 5:28, 29. He reasoned that if Preston was correct, i.e., that the just and unjust were raised, then the consequences of his position led to universal salvation in A.D. 70, saying that all would have been raised out of sin-death. Thus since A.D. 70 there should be no more sin-death.

Preston replied (5th affirmative) that Jesus would do to death what he had already done to all things, (put them under his feet), such as sin, lying, cheating, adultery, fornication, etc., per 1 Cor. 15:27. Thus, these were included in the all things already put under Christ. He then asked Thrasher if Jesus had obliterated these things, taking them out of existence or had he nullified their effect? Again Thrasher chose not to respond. Preston’s point was to show that Thrasher’s reasoning that to “put away sin” for those in Christ did not mean to annihilate or obliterate sin. Preston, thus emphatically denied that his position taught universalism. Thrasher made no effort to deny or explain how all other enemies had already been subjected to Christ per 1 Cor. 15:27.

In response to Preston’s argument that the passing of the Old Covenant meant that the resurrection occurred when the Old Covenant was taken away, Thrasher argued that everyone was not under the Old Covenant. He further reasoned that if no one was under that covenant after A.D. 70, then no one was under sin death, thus none are being raised today.

Thrasher denied that the individuals of 2 Thess 1:6-9 would receive the rest in their lifetime. He reasoned that if the martyrs of Rev 6 could receive rest after death, then why not also the Thessalonicans? In Preston’s fifth affirmative, he responded to Thrasher showing that he misapplied Rev. 6 saying that God told them to rest for a “little while”, therefore they were not under persecution in death. He asked Thrasher whether he believed the Thessalonicans or the martyrs of Revelation 6 were being persecuted in death. Thrasher did not respond.

Thrasher offered that the millennium extended at least 2000 years, and thus time was not a problem with God. Preston later stated that Thrasher agreed that Jesus’ judgment upon all men would occur at the end of the millennium, Revelation 22:12. Preston pointed out that after the millennium Jesus said he would come quickly to reward every man, and that God really does not have a problem with time. Ambiguity characterized Thrasher’s position on the 1000 years reign of Rev. 20. He said he believed it was figurative but argued against Preston as though it was literally a long versus a short time.

Preston’s Fifth Affirmative – Luke 20

Concerning Luke 20, Preston argued that the age in which Jesus lived and referred to was the Mosaic age. He alluded to the Levirate law of marriage as cited by the Sadducees as proof that this was a distinctive law concerning certain Jewish marriages versus marriage in general. Preston affirmed that in Christ there is neither male nor female, thus, we do not marry to become sons in the Christian age compared to that of the law.

Preston affirmed that John 3:16; 5:24, 8:51, all taught that those who keep the sayings of Christ pass from death to life (receive resurrection) and would never die spiritually. Preston concluded, that those in Christ can never die therefore those in the Christian age are those who cannot die anymore being sons of the resurrection. He added that if Jesus spoke of physical death, then none since that time have obeyed Christ.

Thrasher’s Fifth Negative

Thrasher began by admitting that Preston had anticipated his arguments. He argued that the Sadducees denied bodily resurrection, from Matthew 22:23-33. Thrasher contended that marriage was still in this age, leaving the impression that there was no distinction in the age in which Jesus lived. Thrasher did not acknowledge the levirate marriage law of Deuteronomy 25:8. With these admissions and omissions, he attempted to make his case. He argued for a time when marriage (in general) not levirate marriage would not be in force. This again implied that there would be an end of the Christian age.

Thrasher denied John 8:51, by saying that there would be no more spiritual death now if we are living in the resurrection age. Thrasher responded that no male and female in Gal. 3:28 means that no class distinctions are left out of salvation, and that it had no application to Luke 20:35.

Thrasher attempted to refute Preston’s argument on Isaiah 9:7 by citing Exodus 21:6 to say that a servant with pierced ears would then serve his master forever, i.e. for all eternity, which was false. He claimed Don was making a Sabbatarian argument on the word forever. Thrasher also cited Numbers 18:8 in reference to the heave offering to make the identical point on “forever.” Thrasher based his argument on the word forever (owlaam, Strong’s 5769) whereas Preston’s argument was on the words “no end” (Strong’s number 7093 and 369). Here Thrasher created a straw man and thrashed it. When his error was pointed out, he retracted the argument.

Preston’s Sixth Affirmative – 2 Peter 3

Preston moved to his affirmative on 2 Peter 3, stating that Peter reminded his readers that 2 Peter was a reiteration of 1 Peter. The salvation was ready to be revealed in the last time (1:5), to hope for the end, (1:13) that Jesus was ready to judge the living and the dead (4:5) and that the end of all things had drawn near (4:7). The scoffers were saying that all things continue. Peter said the end of all things was at hand. Preston asked who was right, the scoffers or Peter.

He argued that the time, (chairos, Strong’s #2540), the appointed time for “the” judgment had come. Preston demanded consistency of Thrasher to apply the imminent judgment of 1 Peter 4:17 in the same manner as he applied the imminent coming of the kingdom in passages such as Matthew 3:2, 4:17. Thrasher never addressed the issue.

In addition, Preston affirmed 2 Peter 3 was the reiteration of the O.T. prophecies made to Israel. However, the resurrection, i.e. the adoption/redemption of the body was an Old Testament prophecy made to Israel according to the flesh, (Rom. 8:23; 9:4) a fact admitted by Thrasher. Therefore Preston informed the audience that by Thrasher’s own admission, the resurrection was accomplished in the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by A.D. 70.

Next Preston said that the scoffers foretold by the apostles of Christ were already present in his day according to Jude 18, 19, the very time which Peter calls the last days, therefore the last days of Israel were present when Peter wrote. Thrasher never addressed the argument from Jude.

Preston added that Peter’s description of the new heavens and earth is a quotation from Isaiah 65. Israel would fill up the measure of her sins and God would destroy her which he correlated with Matthew 23:34-36 as the judgment upon the living (Israel) and the dead (Abel to Zechariah). Preston argued that Babylon of Revelation 18 fulfilled the wrath of God upon Israel in A.D. 70.

Finally he argued that at the end of Daniel’s 70 weeks, would bring in everlasting righteousness. Daniel was fulfilled in A.D. 70, thus the righteousness Peter saw in the New Creation was the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70 weeks in A.D. 70.

Thrasher’s Sixth Negative

Thrasher, offered that when prophecies were speaking exclusively of Israel, they were fulfilled in A.D. 70. However, he said, Matthew 5:17 & 18, was fulfilled at the cross. In other speeches, Thrasher argued that passages which applied to the Gentiles coming in were not fulfilled in A.D. 70, or the cross, thus are being fulfilled in the present and future. Almost in one breath, he argued for three separate times of fulfillment for the law and Israel’s prophecies. This brought flashbacks of the debates Jack Scott, Preston and this writer held with Steve Wiggins and Bill Lockwood.

Thrasher again offered his affirmative material on 1 Corinthians 15. He affirmed that to deny a future physical resurrection denied the resurrection of Jesus. He then charged Preston with all the consequences of Chapter 15:12-19. Once again he argued that Adam’s death was physical, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, defining Adam’s death as expulsion from the garden with death 930 years later, thus not in the day that Adam ate.

Thrasher offered that if Acts 24:14,15 was a resurrection out of sin death, the unjust also were raised out of sin death. Again, he argued that Preston’s position led to universalism. After this speech, we all were ready for a lunch break. Upon our return, we would hear Thrasher’s affirmatives on 1 Cor. 15, again and again and again.

Session Two: Thrasher’s First Affirmative

Thrasher affirmed that the Bible spoke of many physical resurrections from the dead per (Heb. 11:17-19; 35, Matt. 27, John 11, and Acts 9:40,41). He also stated that Preston believed that Jesus rose from physical death, thus he believed in a physical resurrection. Thrasher argued that Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection from physical death, thus the general resurrection must be a bodily (physical) resurrection.

Thrasher then corrected his misuse of “forever” (see above) in Isaiah 9:7, Eccl. 4:8, 16 to say that there was no end to a man’s labor under the sun or the subjects of a king. He then said the word means a limited number. After citing the passages to affirm the word was limited, he then said that the word meant no end of the kingdom boundaries, but emphatically denied that it referred to duration of time! He supported his statement by saying that Brown-Driver & Briggs Lexicon shows that it could refer to space and not time.

Preston’s First Negative

Preston noted that Thrasher offered no new material in his affirmative which had not already been responded to in all the previous speeches. He then pointed out that Thrasher’s proposition taught universalism in that he affirmed the resurrection of all the dead in Christ at the end of the Christian age.

Preston argued from 2 Timothy 2:12, saying that whatever kind of death they died with Jesus, there was a future resurrection which would bring them out of that death. He then alluded to Col. 2:12 to speak of the death they died with Jesus from which they anticipated resurrection per Col. 3:3, 4. He cited Romans 6:3-5, speaking of a past death with Christ and a future life with Jesus. He said if the death was not physical, how were they contemplating a physical resurrection?

Preston affirmed that John 5:28, 29 was the same as the resurrection of Dan. 12. He stated that there was no difference in the everlasting life of John 5 and that of Daniel 12. He asked Thrasher to explain why he understood Daniel to be spiritual. Then he affirmed that Dan. 12 was when the power of the holy people was completely shattered, (Dan. 12:7)

Preston asked if Paul preached the same resurrection that the Pharisees preached and believed in, why they wanted to kill Paul. He also asked if Jesus taught the kind of kingdom that the Jews wanted, then why they also killed Christ.

Preston argued that the word “until” as found in 1 Cor. 15:25 does not always mean up to the point of. He cited, Romans 5:14, that “until” the law sin was in the world. He asked if sin ceased when the law entered, observing that sin actually abounded, Rom. 5:20. He also cited Matt. 11:13, the law and the prophets were until John, but they did not cease with John. Then he cited 1 Tim. 4:13 saying that Paul told Timothy to give attendance to reading, exhortation and doctrine in the public assembly till he came” did not mean that Timothy should cease to do public preaching in the assembly when Paul came.

Next Preston pointed out that the second coming was the time of the wedding when Christ would take his bride, i.e. receive the church. He pointed out that Thrasher believed that at the second coming, Jesus divorces his bride, i.e. gives up his reign. He quoted Eph 5:27 to say that Jesus presents the church to himself.

Preston then argued that the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 would occur when Satan was destroyed at the end of the millennium and pointed out that Satan’s demise was “at hand” per Romans 16:20. He concluded that 1 Cor. 15 was therefore at hand.

Thrasher’s Second Affirmative

Thrasher began his second affirmative with an argument from the Lexicon on Isaiah 9:7. This no doubt evidenced how badly this argument on the endless Christian age damaged his proposition and affirmative. He affirmed that “no end” was not a reference to time, and cited, Zech 9:10, saying that Christ’s dominion would be from sea to sea and from the river even to the ends of the earth, not in time, but in space or extent. He argued that the word increase in Isaiah 9:7 could be rendered “multitude” (Strong’s 4768) as in 2 Chron. 30:18.

Thrasher then dismissed Preston’s entire rebuttal saying that it did not overthrow his physical resurrection affirmative. He sought to deny Preston’s affirmative argument from Dan. 12 based on the fact that the unjust were included in the resurrection out of sin-death. He concluded that the unjust are saved people according to Preston. He said that Rom 6 and Col 2 involved resurrection of saved people and did not include the unjust and demanded of Preston an explanation.

Thrasher’s reply to Jesus not being the first person to rise from physical death, was that the term firstfruits was applied to Him versus to none of the others. He said it was a particular devotion of things to God, in His purpose as the Son of God and that Jesus was the earnest of a coming harvest.

Thrasher says he did not understand what Preston meant about Jesus’ resurrection (John 20:30,31) being a sign of a greater spiritual reality. He then offered a rebuttal by citing Jonah’s whale experience versus Jesus’ own resurrection as the sign given to the Pharisees. (This one went past both of us!)

He says that Preston’s argument on “till” and “until” does not nullify the argument on “reign till” in 1 Cor. 15. He affirmed that if Christ reigned till A.D. 70, then people ought not to be dying physically or spiritually.

He agreed that Rom. 6 was not speaking of a physically resurrection but pointed out that he has cited other passages which did. He pointed out that people who come into Christ were and are raised, and therefore Preston has cut himself loose from Col 2, since he affirmed a resurrection which occurred in A.D. 70.

Thrasher says that a parallel existed between what Jesus taught and what the Sadducees taught, though in opposite directions, meaning that Jesus taught a physical resurrection which they denied. He says they specifically denied physical death and resurrection. He says in the time people are physically raised, that there won’t be the married state any longer.

He wanted to know which relates to faithful children of God today, “water baptism, marriage, and the Lord’s Supper. He wanted to know why water baptism is practiced today if the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70. He argued that a resurrection in A.D. 70 cut Preston off from baptism. He then offered 1 Cor. 11:26, against the continuance of the practice of the Lord’s Supper if Christ has come.

Preston’s Second Negative

Preston points out the contradictions of Thrasher on Isaiah 9:7 advising the audience that Thrasher had abandoned his argument that no end means end. He said if it meant no boundaries, then it means no end to the boundaries. Preston advised Luke 1:32, 33, says “no end” to Christ’s throne.

Preston then affirmed the resurrection body of Romans 8:10-23, showing that the terms “flesh,” “body”, “mortal” could not refer to biological death. The body was dead if Christ was “in you” and would be raised through the Spirit at the time of the glory about to be revealed. Preston demanded that Paul did not change his motif of bodily resurrection in the text from spiritual to physical. He also noted that the adoption/redemption/resurrection of the body fulfilled the promise of adoption made to Israel according to the flesh (Rom 8:23, 9:4) thus confirming that resurrection was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Thrasher had affirmed that the prophecies related to Israel were fulfilled in A.D. 70.

Preston then pointed out that Thrasher accepted the correlation of the body of Romans 8:23 with that of 1 Cor. 15, and thus surrendered his entire attempt of affirming a physical resurrection. It was very difficult to find power and logic lacking in any of Preston’s speeches, but this one certainly reverberated like thunder a few decibels above the rest. All eyes were glued to their Bibles and the faces of some revealed the shock of seeing for the first time the eschatological resurrection of a non-biological body from Romans chapter 8.

Preston challenged Thrasher on his argument that Jesus was the firstfruits of physical resurrection. Thrasher said Jesus was not the first to be raised from physical death, but he was the firstfruit of physical resurrection! Thrasher saw a difference because some who were raised physically were not devoted to God. Preston added that Hebrews 11says the faithful were saints and devoted to God.

Preston presented Revelation chapter 21 as the time of the end, and the resurrection from the dead. Rev. 22:3 says there was no more curse and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it. He then showed that Jesus was on the throne after the end, saying that destroyed Thrasher’s concept of Jesus’ giving up his reign.

Thrasher’s Third Affirmative

Thrasher led off with Acts 24:15. He says that the Pharisees agreed that there would be a resurrection of the dead. He said that Paul preached the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and that was the grounds of their opposition. They allowed the resurrection, but not the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He offered Acts 17:3.

Thrasher argued from John 5:28,29 that it “sounded” like physical resurrection from the grave. Preston asked Thrasher to differentiate between the “graves” and the “dust of the earth” of John 5 and Daniel 12. Thrasher offered no reasons for why he saw them as different.

Thrasher responded to Romans 8 saying if Christ is in you the body should be alive, but Paul said it was dead. He wanted to know how they could be raised out of sin-death and yet have a “dead” body. He responded that he could not see how Romans 8 helped Preston’s position at all. He reaffirmed the end from 1 Cor .15:24 and stated that an essential point of this discussion was the nature of the resurrection.

Preston's Third Negative

Preston began his last speech jokingly stating that the end of the debate was “at hand, and that the time of the end had come. He reiterated that the debate was about time. He pointed out the premillennial hermeneutic and Thrasher’s inconsistency in applying it to the end time.

Preston finished the debate by reiterating his unanswered arguments. He addressed Luke 20, Romans 8, and then challenged Thrasher to note the “present tense” verbs used in 1 Corinthians 15, i.e. the dead are “being” raised, to illustrate the “already but not yet” principle.

Preston again mentioned his arguments on the wedding of Matt. 22, in 70 A.D., which followed upon the destruction of mystery Babylon, Rev. 18, the city where Jesus was crucified, (Rev. 11:8) which corresponded to the wedding of Matthew 25.

He demonstrated that Matthew 23 spoke of the resurrection of the living and the dead all the way back to creation, which was the judged in Jesus’ generation. Matthew 13 was the resurrection harvest which was Daniel 12, a text which Thrasher says was spiritually fulfilled.

Preston reiterated Matthew 5:17, 18 saying that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law till all would be fulfilled. Resurrection was mentioned in the law, thus fulfilled. He stated that Jesus was the firstfruits, of the firstfruits which were being ingathered according to James 1:18, speaking of the N.T. firstfruits, another text Thrasher avoided.

2 Peter 3 predicted the arrival of the New Heavens and new earth. Isaiah 65 predicted the new heavens and new earth. Isaiah 65 said the new heavens and new earth would come when Israel would be destroyed when they filled up the measure of their sins. Jesus said they filled up the measure of their sins in his generation, therefore 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled during the first century generation.

Peter was anticipating the arrival of the world of righteousness. Daniel 9 said everlasting righteousness would come by the 70th week of Daniel which came in A.D. 70. Therefore Peter writing on the verge of the destruction of the O.T. theocracy was anticipating the arrival of the world of righteousness. Thrasher believed that Dan 9 was A.D. 70.

Summary

This debate proved to be excellent in many ways. It provides superb study material for those interested in a better understanding of fulfilled prophecy and for those interested in meeting both simple and complex arguments. Preston’s presentation was clear, well-reasoned and well executed. From this debate it should be obvious that one cannot easily affirm that a text “clearly” teaches what has been assumed for years without investigation. Repeated, serious, reasoned defenses of fulfilled prophecy continually expose the weaknesses of the futurist position. Thrasher assured us that he would come well prepared for the second debate to be held in Indianapolis in March 13th, 2004 and Lord willing, we are confident that Preston will not disappoint.

The debate platform was The Time of the Resurrection of the Dead. Don Preston in both affirmative and negative positions, clearly and frequently, used time words and phrases (with scripture) to reason the time and nature of the resurrection. Thrasher on the other hand, was weak in mastering scriptural support for an endless Christian age, His focus honed in on the nature of the resurrection, but without substantive and logical support.

Last but not least, we wish to express our many thanks to brother Larry Rhodes for his efforts to sponsor the debate and to his entire family for the wonderful accommodations and hospitality extended us during our stay. May such good works be remembered before God.

To order audio tapes sets of the debate, you may contact Don Preston at www.eschatology.org. The price is $29.95 plus shipping. These are a must for your library and for small and large study groups. If you missed the this discussion, you will want to make plans to attend the second meeting in Indianapolis next year. Hope to see you then!