Titles by Samuel M. Frost

The Parousia of the Son of Man

Frost takes the reader through a visual tour of the Scriptures concerning the passages of the "presence" of the Lord at the right hand of God in heaven and what it meant then, and what it means now for the believer.


God, As Bill Wilson Understood Him

A theological look at the book, Alcoholics Anonymous, edited by its co-founder, Bill Wilson, which launched the largest recovery movement in America and worldwide. This is not an attack piece, but a sympathetic understanding of where Wilson and early A.A. pioneers got many of their ideas.


The book of Daniel has a reputation of being difficult and sometimes inscrutable. Sam Frost writes a concise, easily-read meditation on the text that incorporates scholarship without being complex, and brings a contagious passion for the spiritual lessons beyond the prophecies. He will challenge your assumptions to see the unity of Daniel’s message in a way you may not have considered before. This book is solidly written, informed and scholarly, yet not too academic. It’s very readable for any serious Bible student” – Brian Godawa,  award-winning Hollywood screenwriter (To End All Wars), and best selling author.

Frost offers a new, fresh translation from the Hebrew/Aramaic texts of Daniel as well as challenging Evangelical interpretations by utilizing creative reconstructions drawn from historical and present scholars. This book is on Kindle and can be purchased here.

“For several years, Sam Frost was the academic voice of so-called full preterism. He wrote numerous books, articles, and blog posts in support of it, gave lectures defending it, and responded in print to those who were critical of it. By God’s grace, his eyes have been opened to the truly unbiblical nature of this novel doctrine, and he has rightly renounced it. In this work, Frost provides a point-by-point account of his theological journey. In the last several years, we have witnessed several prominent full preterists renounce this heresy and embrace Christianity. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ use Frost’s work to open the eyes of many, many more.”
Keith L. Mathison, Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fl.

“I’m glad there’s a debate taking place over the subject of Bible prophecy. It’s been needed for a long time. There is a tendency, however, among some people who change prophetic views to swing the pendulum too far. They are so disenchanted with what they once believed that they believe it’s necessary to reject everything that system taught. Preterism is gaining a foothold among scholars and laypeople, but some are getting worried that some adherents are taking it to unbiblical extremes. Sam Frost went there and back. His book, Why I Left Full Preterism, is a great starting point in understanding the inherent dangers of a Full Preterist position.”
Gary DeMar, President of American Vision

This work is the bane of Full Preterists everywhere. As a former teacher, leader, and nationwide conference speaker in that persuasion, those still entrenched in it know who Samuel M. Frost is, and they know the damage this book has done. Acclaimed researcher and scholar Kenneth L. Gentry, Th.D., writes the Foreword. This can be purchased here. The American Vision Kindle publication can be found here.

Samuel M. Frost wrote two books well received within the Full (“Hyper”) Preterist community. Misplaced Hope (Bi-Millennial Publications, 2002, 2nd Ed., 2004) was hailed by Max King (and published by his son, Tim King), whose work, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ (1987, Warren, Ohio), was highlighted by R.C. Sproul’s book, The Last Days According to Jesus (Baker Books, 1998). King’s book is regarded as the foundation of Full Preterism today. Frost also wrote, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection (2007 TruthVoice, 2nd Ed., 2010, JaDon Publications), which is still popular among Full Preterists and endorsed by one of the main teachers of Full Preterism, Don K. Preston, as a “must read” (see here. Frost is frequently cited in many of Preston’s books as well); Frost also co-authored, House Divided: A Reformed Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Vision, 2009).

Frost has also been cited in these books where his work was noticed among those who opposed Full Preterism while he operated as one the main teachers with Ed Stevens, Jr., Don K. Preston, John Noe, Michael Miano, Alan Bondar, Tim King, Max King and Dave Curtis.

Lance Conley has also put out a massive work dealing with the Hyper Preterist movement, of which he also is a former adherent. I was asked to write the Foreword. This can be purchased online here

There are two other books written by Ex Full Preterists, Roderick Edwards and Brock Hollett:

About Preterism: The End is Past by [Roderick Edwards]

Studies in Biblical Anthropology: Human beings as flesh, body and spirit (Part 1: Genesis).

By Samuel M. Frost, Th.M.

Adam. Interesting word in Hebrew, Dam is “blood”. Adam means “human being” or “man” (the male version of adam). The word may have a derivative meaning of “red” or “red clay”, such as the word adamah. Blood is, of course, red. God made Adam on the sixth day according to our text. But, we are going to focus in on the word, ruach, or “spirit”. In Genesis, ruach (pronounced, ruh- ock) occurs 11 times. It’s an important word, and one that we find right in the beginning: “And the wind of God hovered over the water’s surface” (Gn 1.2, all translations are mine). Here, “wind” is the word ruach, which many translations have, “Spirit”. It’s a long debate.

The next occurrence we would expect to find when God made the male and female pair. But, we don’t. It is again associated with Yehovah Elohim, the LORD God (he’s not just a god, but he also wields authority as Lord over his creation that he made – it’s his, and everything in it belongs to him). “And they heard the voice of Yehovah Elohim rustling to and fro in Paradise at the wind (ruach) of the day” (Gn 3.8). Again, one may infer “Spirit” here, as in 1.2 above. I have no issues, either way.

In Genesis 6.3 we have no doubts as to the translation: ‘And Yehovah said, “My Spirit, he will not contend in adam for indefinite time, for he is but flesh” (Gn 6.3). This is not the first time we encounter the term “flesh” (basar – Hebrew). Male and Female become one basar through intimacy (Gn 2.24); and Adam calls his counterpart, “flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2.23). God made man, flesh. Eve is flesh, and Adam is flesh. These two can produce other flesh-beings, too. But, here, in Genesis 6.3, man is flesh. It’s what defines him – well, at least one of the characteristics that defines him. We should note that “flesh” is not a bad term, for it used to describe the human beings before their disobedience. God made man, flesh.

The next verse follows closely, “…to destroy all flesh which in it there is a spirit (ruach) of life” (Gn 6.17). This deepens the understanding concerning the creation of adam, for in Genesis 2.7 we are told, “Yehovah Elohim formed the human being (adam) – he used dust from the ground. Then he blew into the formed nose breath of life. By this man was now a living, human being.” Well, here we have our vocabulary cut out for us. The term, “breath”, is neshamah. We also have another word, nephesh, which is commonly translated in many places as “soul.” What I wish to point out is in comparing Gn 2.7 with 6.17, “breath” and “spirit” are interchangeable terms. Thus, it is not until 6.17 that we come to see human beings as having a spirit, and in 2.7 we know when that took place. Human beings are flesh, made of dust from the ground, animated by God’s breath, and by this is given spirit, or, “became a living nephesh.” All of these terms are intertwined with each other, woven together as a single fabric (adam) with various threads (nephesh, basar, ruach, neshemah). If one thread is removed, man ceases to be man in terms of his perfection as man “in the begining.”

We may, at this point, add one more very important detail about adam and eva that does not involve any other creature: God made them, male and female, “in his image” (Gn 1.27). The word there is tselem. Man is an icon that God made; a visible image – a material image – that is reflective of God Himself. Man is a visible image of the invisible God. What God is as Spirit, Man is as flesh. There is a great profundity here. However, what cannot be missed is that man, created as flesh, spirit, breath, and soul-life – all of those aspects in one being – is the image that God made. Man does not have the image of God; he is the image of God. The image of God is not “in” man; it is man as one being with nephesh, basar, ruach, neshemah.

Now, 6.17 may infer that the “spirit of life” is also in the creatures God made, but a careful reading of the text does not bear this out. The term, spirit of life, applies only to the human beings. The creatures, on the other hand, are also described as nephesh beings (soulish beings), or “living beings”. Only Adam and Eve, and in 6.17, Noah, his wife, and their sons and their wives (male and female) that have “the spirit of life” in them, together with “every living creature”, two by two, that Noah brought upon the boat, lived. We may note, too, that the living creatures are referred to as “flesh” (Gn 6.19). Animals, then, are made “of the earth” (Gn 1.25) and are “living beings”. However, “spirit” is never applied to them, and neither is “image of God.” It is not ever said that God “breathed into” the living creatures of the earth. Such intimacy is left for the human beings. This would mean that creatures, as wonderful as they are, lack aspects that human beings have.

7.15, 22 contain the elements we have covered. 8.1 states, “And God caused a wind (ruach) over the earth and the waters subsided.” Here again we find “wind over the waters” (1.2), and one may infer the activity of the Spirit of God “hovering over the waters.” God is personally involved over his creation. Even the wind obeys him.

We have some other terms to add, found in 8.21 and earlier in 6.5. There, man uses “imagination” (yetser) and “thought” (machashavah). Also, “heart” (lev) – the imagination of the thought of the heart (man’s images in his inner thinking, man making his own images). This would, so it would seem, suggest that the spirit “in” man, or man as a living being (nephesh) thinks “inner” thoughts (heart). These thoughts would certainly involve the flesh as well (brain, or “head” as later called). Yet, “in his heart” together with “spirit” connects them together.

Moses, the author of Genesis, takes a long break from the word, ‘spirit.’ Not until 26.35 do we find it again, and there, Isaac and Rebekah are “bitter in spirit”. Likewise, in 41.8 Pharaoh’s “spirit was troubled”. 41.38 is a real gem: “Can we find anyone like this, a man the Spirit of God dwells in?” This is a remarkable passage because we cannot infer that Joseph’s spirit is meant. No translation does. God’s Spirit is “in” Joseph, together with Joseph’s spirit! Finally, in 45.27 Jacob’s “spirit revives” when he hears about his son, Joseph. The Hebrew simply has, “his spirit lived”, whereas the Septuagint, the Greek version (3rd Century BCE) has anazopureo – rekindling a fire: Jacob’s spirit (pneuma) was rekindled, aflame again.

This concludes the use of the term “spirit” in Genesis. Spirit is the active source of what we may call “affections” or “thought”. It works in harmony with the flesh (if the spirit is happy, the flesh leaps, if it is sad, the flesh will express a downcast, or bitter expression in the face, or what have you). Flesh and spirit; “living being” (nephesh), breath of God (same as spirit), heart, thoughts, bitterness, renewed vigor, evil imaginations – are all products of man as basar, nephesh, ruach, lev, macahshavah, yester, neshemah. Together, man is tselem; image. God thinks, reacts, has thoughts, is troubled in heart (Gn 6.6), has a Spirit (Who is God). God “moves” and “hovers”, he “rustles about”, “walks” and “speaks” with a “voice” and a “mouth.” He “sees”, “acts”, uses his “hands” and “breathes.” The invisible God has made a creature that materially reflects the immateriality of God. Thus God created man to “relate” to the actions of the invisible God by analogy of arms, a tongue, voice, mouth, feet, legs and grief, anger, knowledge, right, wrong, good, evil. God can relate to man because God created man to relate to him. More importantly, however, is that man cannot be reduced to any one material description as being; that is, man cannot be reduced to “spirit”, or “flesh”, or “heart”, or “breath”, or “soul.” Man is all of these together, at once, at one time. Man is one person with several, necessary attributes. Remove one, and man ceases being man.

Next week we will delve into Exodus. Please feel free to ask any questions or make any observations, or criticisms. All are welcome.