Question: What is the "fullness" of the gentiles mentioned by Paul in Romans 11:25?

Answer: The "fullness" mentioned in Romans 11:25 is the same "fullness" as mentioned in Romans 11:12, John 1:16, Colossians 1:19, Romans 15:29, and Ephesians 1:22-23. It is the fullness of the covenantal inheritance in Christ which came to the gentiles when they were included as co-heirs in the blessing of Abraham and his seed, Jesus.

By comparing "fullness" (Greek: "pleroma" - Strong's #4138) in Romans 11:25 to its parallel usage in Romans 11:11-12, we see that the term speaks of the "riches" and "salvation" that came to the gentile world through Christ. These riches came to the gentiles via the "diminishing" of some Jews that were blinded during Christ's incarnational ministry but that would later convert in order to obtain "fullness" (Rom 11:11-12,14-23), the fullness of being in the blessing of Abraham and Christ (Gal 3:7-9,14-17,26-29). Paul was one of these such Jews whose initial blindness had been converted (Rom 11:1; 1 Tim 1:12-16), and there were many more at that then-present time which would be converted like him (Rom 11:5; 2 Cor 3:14-16). These first-century Jews were called a "remnant," and, according to Paul, were like the few that constituted the true Nation of Israel during the time of apostasy under Isaiah and also Elijah (Rom 11:5; cf. Rom 11:1-5; 9:27-29). So, the meaning of "fullness" in Romans 11:25 becomes plain from looking at Romans 11:11-12:

I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? (Rom 11:11-12)

We see from this passage that "fullness" is the opposite reality to the "fall" and "diminishing" of some Jews, where "fall" and "diminishing" clearly mean the falling away from God's covenant, and "fullness" means the riches and salvation which come from being in covenant with Christ (see also: Rom 11:14-23).

The gentiles obtained this "fullness" (covenantal inheritance, salvation, and blessing) during St. Paul's ministry. In fact, Paul's entire ministry goal was to deliver this inheritance to the gentile populations (Acts 26:16-23; 20:32; 13:47; Rom 15:16,29; Eph 3:1-10; Rom 11:13; 2 Tim 1:11). Paul accomplished this mystery of God for the gentiles to become co-heirs with the Jews in Christ's New Covenant riches by the end of his lifetime (compare Acts 13:47/26:16-23/Eph 3:1-10 to 2 Tim 4:7,17). The Church is not still waiting for the gentiles to be offered up and approved by God (Rom 15:16) that they might obtain the fullness of inheritance and riches in Christ. The fullness of the gentiles came in no later than the completion of Paul's ministry.

Question: What does 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 mean: "Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet"?

Answer: The "end" in 15:24 is the exact same "the end" as in 1 Cor 1:8, Matt 10:22; Mark 13:7,13; 2 Cor 1:13-14, Matt 24:3; Rev 2:26, Heb 3:6, and 1 Pet 4:7. In other words, 1 Corinthian 15:24's "the end" is the same "end of the age" that was imminent at the time Paul wrote--it is the same "end" Jesus said his twelve apostles could live unto (Matt 10:22-23; 24:6,13), the same "end" that St. Peter declared was at hand in the 60s AD (1 Pet 4:7), and the same "end" that the first-century Churches were expecting to come in their lifetimes (1 Cor 1:7-8; 2 Cor 1:13-14; Heb 3:6,14; Matt 28:20).

The "putting down of all rule, power, and authority" and "delivering up the Kingdom" in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the same putting down of the usurping rulers of Israel in Matthew 21:43-45--the same Kingdom of Matt 21:43 being ripped away from them to be delivered back under the rule of the Father and his Anointed. (Read all Matt 21:37-45 all to get the AD 70 context, and reading straight through to Matt 22:13 is advised.)

All things were put under the feet of King Jesus by AD 70, except the Father, that God would be all in all (1 Cor 15:27-28; Eph 1:10,22-23; 4:8-10). The Lord Jesus, as the head of the Church and the high priest of all the Elect, is subject to the Father. This does not remove the Kingdom. It established it back unto God and his Chosen instead of continuing in the hands of the usurping, wicked rulers of Israel who were attempting to steal it from King Jesus by force (Matt 21:38-45; Matt 11:12; Luke 19:14). The Kingdom of God has no end, and is governed under the Messiah, the last Adam, forevermore (Isa 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; Dan 7:14,27; Rev 11:15, 5:10, 1:5-6).

Question: If Christ returned in the first century, why are people still getting married? Doesn't Luke 20:27-38 teach that marriage will cease at the Parousia?

Answer: The bible does not teach that the institution of marriage was to end at the Parousia (such is a common misunderstanding of Luke 20:27-38). When we closely examine this passage and its parallels in the gospels (Matt 22:23-33 and Mk 12:18-27), we find that Christ and the Sadducees were disputing over whether or not there is any resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees, an influential sect of first-century Judaism, did not believe in any afterlife/resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:8). They approached Jesus to propose a dilemma concerning marriage in the Law of Moses that they believed disproved the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (Lk 20:27; Matt 22:23; Mk 12:18).

Using Deuteronomy 25:5-10 as a background for their dispute, the Sadducees came to Jesus and argued a complex case of marriage that they believed disproved the doctrine of the resurrection. Specifically, the Sadducees showed that if a wife had married seven brothers in her lifetime (in keeping with the mandatory Levirate oath of Deuteronomy 25:5-10), then, when they had all died and were later raised from the dead, no one could know who was married to whom. ("Last of all the woman died. Therefore, in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? For seven had her as wife.") In proposing this slightly exaggerated--but otherwise possible--scenario of their day, the Sadducees demonstrated that there was no ruling legal authority to sort out the matter; that is, Moses did not make any legislation to sort out marriage for the saints when they should be resurrected from the dead. Based on the realization that Moses did not make provision for the marriages of them that should be raised from the dead (i.e, who should be married to whom), the Sadducees conclude that they have absolute proof that there is no resurrection of the dead. Their logic is simple and straightforward: if Moses did not provide any way to sort out marriage for these dead ones when they should be raised, then there must not be any resurrection of the dead at all.

Our Lord, knowing that Moses indeed did not legislate what happens to the marriages of these eight people when they should rise again, exposes the false conclusions reached by the Sadducees. Far from proving that there is no resurrection of the dead, Moses' failure to legislate concerning this scenario proved instead that there is no marriage whatsoever for the dead, even once they are raised. That is, the law of human marriage does not apply whatsoever beyond physical death (see Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:39 where Paul states the same). Therefore, the Sadducees' entire legal case against resurrection of the dead was an error based on faulty presuppositions.

To summarize: while the Sadducees taught that there is no resurrection, Jesus held the opposte view. In response to the legal dilemma posed by the Sadducees, Jesus demonstrated that the departed saints indeed live again, yet they are forever freed from the law of marriage. The law of human marriage is fully abrogated via physical death (cf. Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:39). The fact that Moses did not have a regulation concerning marriage for these eight people beyond their deaths proved that the law of marriage does not apply beyond life on earth (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:39), not that there is no resurrection of the dead. Jesus added that when those eight dead people would be raised, they would not be married and could not get married. When the dead are raised they are "like the angels in heaven" (Lk 20:35-36); neither can they die anymore, for they have died once and death has no more dominion over them (cf. Lk 20:36 to Rom 6:9).

How does the preterist view handle 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10? Paul is clearly speaking of Christ's coming, the very same coming he mentioned in the preceeding epistle, and also in the following chapter. Yet, Christ's coming to destroy the wicked is held up as the believers' hope for relief from persecution. In a preterist scenario, in what way does the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 provide relief from persecution for Gentile believers?

Answer: As promised in the passage, the AD 70 Parousia ended that persecution of the Thessalonian congregation. Are the Thessalonians still suffering their first-century persecution? Does the Thessalonian church even still exist? Of course not. Paul made very clear that their persecution was to end by way of Christ's coming, and Christ did not fail to fulfill this promise to them:

For, after all, it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you...when the Lord Jesus will be revealed (2 Thessalonians 1:6-7)

Are the Thessalonians still suffering their crisis as the passage states would continue until the second coming? No. The Parousia took care of that, as promised in the passage. The Parousia was the precise event that would provide them relief from their persecutors. We must note that any "persecution relief" thousands of years removed from those to whom the promise of relief is given is no relief at all. If I am presently suffering from cancer and you tell me that I will receive relief from my cancer thousands of years from now in the far distant future, you haven't helped me at all. I must suffer for thousands of years. Such is exactly what futurists have Paul stating concerning the sufferings/persecution of the 1st century Church at Thessalonica. For certain, the Day of the Lord as a thief in the night overtook the contemporary enemies of the Thessalonican congregation historically identified at Acts 17:1-8. The Parousia overtook them, as promised:

destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief. (1 Thess 5:3-4)

The obvious first-century expectation cannot be overlooked. The Day of the Lord as a thief in the night (1 Thess 5:2/Matt 24:43/Rev 3:1-3) was promised to bring relief to the Thessalonians by overcoming their contemporary enemies. We cannot emphasize enough that Jesus also applies His "thief-in-the-night" coming to the first-century Church of Sardis (Rev 3:1-3). This locks in a first century fulfillment, according to Jesus. This exact pattern of relief was promised to many of the first-century Christian churches, for their last-days sufferings were going on worldwide (1 Pet 4:7,12-13; 5:9), and they would get relief via the Parousia. Compare the relief promised to the Church at Thessalonica with the relief provided by Christ's Parousia to the other First-Century churches:

Christ's Coming to First-Century Thyatira
promise: Rev 2:18-25
result: the false prophetess and all her followers at the Thyatira church were killed off via Christ's coming. The Church was granted Christ's authority.

Christ's Coming to First-Century Pergamum
promise: Rev 2:12-16
result: the heretical first-century Nicolaitan sect was put down at Christ's coming to Pergamum. They that were causing them to break the decree of the Council of Jerusalem were put down (cf Rev 2:14; Acts 15:28-29).

Christ's Coming to First-Century Sardis
promise: Rev 3:1-5
result: Christ's "thief-in-the-night" coming came upon the Sardis church. They had not been faithfully expecting as per Matt 24:43/1 Thess 5:2-5. However, a few in Sardis were found worthy and had not soiled their garments. At His coming to them they walked in white, for they were worthy (Rev 3:4-5).

Christ's Coming to First-Century Philadelphia
promise: Rev 3:7-13
result: Christ put down the then-contemporary Jewish persecution against Philadelphia (Rev 3:9). He preserved the Church at Philadelphia through that testing which at that time came upon the whole empire (Rev 3:10). God made his faithful ones "pillars" in the Temple of God.

Christ's Coming to First-Century Laodicea
promise: Rev 3:14-21
result: Christ knocked "at the door" as promised in Matt 24:33 (cf also James 5:9). If the Laodiceans didn't repent, it appears they were annihilated, while repentent and obedient followers became partakers of Christ's heavenly authority.

Those churches all received their promised relief. So, the answer to the question is found in scripture itself.

Question: Will the cosmos exist forever?

Answer: It is likely that the cosmos, in some form or another, will exist forever and ever, world without end. Scripture states that the world will exist forever (Ecc 1:4; Ps 78:69; 89:36-37; 104:5; 148:4-6; Eph 3:21) and that human generations are perpetual (Ps 145:13; Dan 4:3,34; Dan 7:14,18,27; Lk 1:33). The Old Testament Temple--which was itself designed to be a microcosm of the created universe--may demonstrate, by its destruction, that the created cosmos will be brought to a new consummation. Yet even that would not be an end of God's creation, but, rather, a new outworking of it. Whatever changes God may have in store for the cosmos, the time and details have not been disclosed to men (Deut 29:29).

Question: What is the "Lake of Fire"?

Answer: First, it is crucial to note that the entire vision of the New Jerusalem and its Lake of Fire (as found in Revelation 20-22) is derived from the historic earthly Jerusalem and its Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna), the refuse heap just south of the city. Jerusalem's infamous rubbish heap was aflame day and night with the city's waste. It was also the historic site where children were sacrificed to the god Molech (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 23:10), and where masses of the dead were dumped after battles with the Assyrians under King Hezekiah (Is 30:31-33; 37:36) and with the Romans at AD 70 (Josephus; War of the Jews 6, 8, 5; 5, 12, 7). Contrary to what many have supposed, the "lake of fire" (Valley of Hinnom) as used in Revelation is not a place of the annihilation of created beings. Rather, in St. John's usage, it is the state of covenantal death, separation and condemnation before God. That is, to be "in Christ" and "in the New Covenant" is to be "in the New Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18,22-24; Gal 4:24-26); to be "outside of Christ" and "outside of the covenant" is to be "judged" and under condemnation (John 3:18-21)--even under the same condemnation of satan and his angels. The following passages are strikingly parallel and speak of the same spiritual reality:

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:18-21)

--COMPARE TO--

"if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire...the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars have their part in the lake which burns with fire... the [New Jerusalem] has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and the Lamb is the light of it. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it...and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life...Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." (Rev 20:15; 21:8; 21:23-24,27; 22:14-15)

The comparison of these passages shows that John 3:18-21 is the same reality depicted in the final passages of the Book of Revelation concerning New Jerusalem and the lake-of-fire judgment. Just as the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was the burning refuse heap outside the earthly city of Jerusalem, so here the "lake of fire" is the refuse heap of those outside of the Heavenly City. To "come to the light,"as St. John writes, is to come to Christ, to come into New Jerusalem. In contrast, to love darkness, to do evil and hate the light, is to remain outside of Christ and the covenant and be under a state of judgment/condemnation. While on earth, men may come out of darkness and into the Light via translation into the Kingdom (Col 1:12-14/Acts 26:17-18)--but there is no middle ground before God (see: John 3:18-20, 12:46; Lk 1:78-79; John 1:5; Acts 26:18; Col 1:13; Eph 5:8; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 Jn 2:9-11). The blessedness of those who come out of judgment and darkness and into the light of Christ and New Jerusalem, of course, is accomplished via a conversion to the covenant with God, and pertains only to those who are being sanctified by faith in Christ (Acts 26:18) by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:9-11).

Question: What about the existence of satan and evil in general?

Answer: Demons, angels, the Elect and the non-Elect are all beings created by God to exist perpetually. Revelation 22:14-15 and Revelation 21:24-27 plainly show that evil does exist in the New Heaven and Earth age (although diminished and restricted), and that this is God's own choice. We also see that sin is eradicated for those inside the New Covenant, the New Jerusalem. This blessed state is experienced covenantally, via conversion, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and by the spiritual powers of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. In addition, preterists assert that the spread of the Kingdom, the covenant, and the Law of Christ eradicates evil everywhere the gospel is taught and followed, for all dominion belongs to Christ and the Church, now and forever (Matt 28:18; 1 Pet 3:22; Matt 16:18-19; Eph 1:22-23; Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:14,27; Rev 1:5-6; 2:26-27; 5:10; 11:15). The Church's job is related to dominion and rule over all things, which includes converting people out of wickedness and darkenss into the Kingdom light (Col 1:12-14; Acts 26:18; Rev 21:24-27; 22:14-15). Individuals that are in darkness without the knowledge of the covenant (Eph 2:12) become transformed by the Spirit of God and leave behind darkness as they are translated into the light that is of Christ (Luke 2:32 Cor 4:6; 2 Tim 1:10).

Question: Does Matthew 23:34-36 disprove the preterist claim that "this generation" is limited to Christ's own generation of contemporaries?

Answer: According to some futurists, Matthew 23:34-36 disproves the preterist claim that the NT phrase "this generation" is limited to Christ's own generation of contemporaries. In the passage, Jesus blames his generation for slaying a certain Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was murdered between the Temple and altar:

"...upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation." (Matthew 23:35-36).

Futurists assert that the Zechariah specified in this passage refers to the one of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, whose murder took place hundreds of years before Christ. Futurists conclude, therefore, that Matthew's use of the term "this generation" in Matthew 23:34-36 must mean something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time, for Christ's contemporaries did not slay the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. In their claim, however, futurists have erred. Jesus was not referring to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, but instead to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, who was murdered by Christ's contemporaries. That the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is not the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is evident by examining the fathers of the two men; the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is "son of Berechiah," while the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is "son of Jehoiada"--thus the two men are not the same. Furthermore, the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 was murdered in the courtyard--not between the Temple and altar as Jesus describes in Matthew 23:34-36. So then, who is the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36? Early statements by the first Christians taught that the Zechariah slain at the altar of the Temple was, in fact, the father of John the Baptist who was murdered by Christ's contemporaries. The 2nd century work the "Protoevangelium of James" records his death:

"Now Herod sought for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where hast thou hidden thy son? And he answered and said unto them: I am a minister of God and attend continually upon the temple of the Lord: I know not where my son is. 2 And the officers departed and told Herod all these things. And Herod was wroth and said: His son is to be king over Israel. And he sent unto him again, saying: Say the truth: where is thy son ? for thou knowest that thy blood is under my hand. And the officers departed and told him all these things. 3 And Zacharias said: I am a martyr of God if thou sheddest my blood: for my spirit the Lord shah receive, because thou sheddest innocent blood in the fore-court of the temple of the Lord. And about the dawning of the day Zacharias was slain. And the children of Israel knew not that he was slain. XXIV. 1 But the priests entered in at the hour of the salutation, and the blessing of Zacharias met them not according to the manner. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias, to salute him with the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. 2 But as he delayed to come, they were all afraid: and one of them took courage and entered in: and he saw beside the altar congealed blood: and a voice saying: Zacharias hath been slain, and his blood shall not be wiped out until his avenger come. And when he heard that word he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests. 3 And they took courage and went in and saw that which was done: and the panels of the temple did wail: and they rent their clothes from the top to the bottom. And his body they found not, but his blood they found turned into stone. And they feared, and went forth and told all the people that Zacharias was slain. And all tile tribes of the people heard it, and they mourned for him and lamented him three days and three nights. And after the three days the priests took counsel whom they should set in his stead: and the lot came up upon Symeon. Now he it was which was warned by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh." --Protoevangelium of James (2nd Century)

So we see, the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 slain at the altar was most likely referring to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. Jesus was indicting his own generation of men for that murder, and such would have been naturally understood by Christ's original hearers who were participants of--and eyewitnesses to--that unrighteous act. That the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is the father of John the Baptist is the most sensible fit for the following reasons: (1) He, Jesus, is clearly rebuking Israel for murdering all her prophets down through the ages, from the very first murder of Abel up until the present day, his present day. The very latest murder, before the beheading of John, was that of Zachariah described in The Protoevangelium of James. (2) Why would Jesus frame his rebuke form the first murder to some murder at least 500 years, possibly 800 years old by his time. That's like saying "from A to M" or "A to P" instead of the all encompassing "A to Z." Christ surely meant all of history up until his present time. (3) It was Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. As the document says he was in the vestibule, between the sanctuary and the altar, and his clotted blood was observed beside the altar.