Some in the Lord's church have moved away from simple teaching of the New Testament and are causing much confusion. Their teachings create doubt about the very resurrection of the dead and the final return of Jesus to judge all mankind. They teach that all the final prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled (figuratively) in 70AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. Does the Bible tell us there will be a yet future resurrection of all the dead and a final judgment day?? The answer is yes. But what about this other teaching often called "preterism." I have found an article written by Olan Hicks which does a great job addressing this subject. It is simple and cuts right to the heart of the matter. I believe it should be made available to any who might be struggling with this particular subject. Hope you enjoy it and it points you to the TRUTH of the scriptures. Robert
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE "AD 70 THEORY"OF LAST
THINGS By Olan Hicks (reformatted by
Robert Johnson)
The first time a
preacher friend said to me that the world had ended back in AD 70, I said,
"Wait a minute! I am looking out the window and it is still out there!
What do you mean, it ended? He then explained that he did not mean the literal
earth, the grass, trees, rocks, and dirt. He meant the Jewish age had ended, or
"world," as some translations have it in Mat. 24. To that I had no
objection. It was my understanding that we all believe that "the end"
referred to in Mat. 24:14 was the end of Judaism, destruction of Jerusalem,
especially the temple, in AD 70.
When the same brother
said to me that the second coming of Christ had occurred at the same time, I
asked, "Have you seen Him?" Again he said "No" and
explained that it was not the literal Jesus in the flesh who had returned, but
that He had come in a symbolic sense,
visiting Jerusalem with destruction. Again I said I did not disagree with
that. I wondered why this theory was
being set forth as a radical change, something very different to what we had
always believed. I wondered why it was being met with hostility by several
brethren. I soon found out.
I learned that not
only do they say this particular "end" came (of the Jewish age) and
that a symbolic"coming of Christ" occurred in that event, they also
say this was the final
"end," the last coming
of the Lord that is to be. Jesus is never to actually return
physically! That is the part that is a radical change, different to what has been a standard belief
among us. Some advocates of that theory charge that because it is different to
what we have always believed, we are "formatted" against it and
reject it for that reason, that we have been taught to apply the prophecies
differently. ("Freedom's Ring"July. 1998, Cecil Hook. Pg. 5).That
begs the question. I can tell you exactly why I reject it, because it
contradicts all of the explicit inspired statements to the contrary in the New
Testament. To me that seems like a pretty good reason. This part of it is
alarming because so many Bible passages graphically describe a day God has
appointed in which Jesus will descend with a shout, the heavens and earth will
pass away and be replaced with a new
heaven and earth, the dead will be raised, and all men will be judged,
not just the Jewish nation. This theory says that will not happen in actuality.
The reasons why they say that are interesting and we need to look at them.
In 1982 I
preached at Warren, Ohio in a weekend
meeting. Max King, the chief introducer of the AD 70 theory, was serving as an elder there. He and the
preacher, Terry Siverd, wanted me to consider their theory and they tried to
explain it to me as much as time permitted. But it was a busy schedule and we had but little time. So I grasped as much of it as I could and promised
to study it more later. They gave me a considerable amount of material, books,
etc. and I agreed to reserve any decision about it until I could be reasonably
sure that I was understanding what was being said. I wanted to do that
because I feel strongly that drawing
hasty conclusions about any brother is very wrong.
It took a long time,
actually several years, to get the studying done, as fully as I wanted to,
because I was very busy with things I felt were more demanding. But over a
period of several years I did spend a lot of time working through it. Later, on
a trip to Arkansas, Max graciously came by my home and gave me a copy of his
largest book, "The Cross and the Parousia of Christ." It is a book of
759 pages plus bibliography and index. He also continued to send me his monthly
publication, "The Living
Presence," and Ed Stevens, also of that group, has continued to send me
his publication, "Kingdom
Council." A couple of other friends who accepted that theory also sent me
materials they wrote. So, as you see, they supplied me with much resource
material on the subject. These are friends who have been courteous to me. This
composition is not intended to be an ugly expose against them nor anyone who holds that
theory. I believe they are sincere people. But I also believe they are mistaken
in some ways that can have serious consequences.
I tried to be as objective as I could and I studied
patiently. But the farther I went in study of it the more I became convinced
that serious mistakes lie at the base of it. Here are five
of them. 1. The hermeneutic they employ is not sound. 2.
There seems to be a strong pre-disposition toward the theory, a
lack of objectivity. They do a lot of what I call "reaching."
3. Their argumentation is often inconsistent. 4. They draw
conclusions and hold them even though they contradict explicit Bible
statements. 5. Many of their basic premises are purely
theoretical, with absolutely no scripture statement to confirm them. I will
give specific examples of this shortly, but first let's be sure we understand a
couple of things.
Mark this down: They
do start with scripture statements. As we have already said, the first part of
what they say is correct. They read it in the text of Matthew 24. Jesus did say
a "coming" of some kind would occur within that generation of time.
But from there they quickly go astray and take a quantum leap into what Jesus
did not say, namely that this was the only "coming" there would be.
The speculation gets worse as they continue to theorize and branch out. By
placing arbitrary interpretations on certain prophecies in Daniel and
Revelation, they build a huge pyramid of error, starting with an untenable
misuse of Matthew 24.
Advocates of this
theory agree that the "coming" in AD 70 was "a symbolic coming
in judgment upon Israel," not a literal coming of the Lord in person. The
scripture supports that. But scripture also declares another fact, that
"The hour is coming in which all who are in their graves shall hear His
voice and come forth. . ." (John 5:28-29).
To say that this was fulfilled when a few people were raised at the time
of the crucifixion, or perhaps a few were raised later in connection with the
destruction of the temple, is to dispute
what the Lord said. It is an observable fact that "ALL"
the dead did not come forth at that time. All people of the world were not
judged at that time. To say there is no such "day" coming when all
the dead will come forth, no such day as God has appointed in which He will judge
the world in righteousness, is to advance a premise which challenges the
integrity of Jesus in John 5:28-29, of Paul in Acts 17:31, and many others such
as 1 Thess, 4:16-17 and Rev. 21:2-5.
The reader needs to
understand going in that this is the part of the theory that is disputed. That
an "end" occurred in AD 70 is not disputed and that a
"coming" of Christ occurred in a symbolic sense is not questioned.
But the idea that this was the "end" and the "coming" referred
to in all the promises about the Lord's second coming, that it was the only end
and second coming that will occur, flies in the face of a host of explicit
Bible statements to the contrary. Cecil Hook wrote that ". . .all the
prophecies concerning the coming of Christ have been fulfilled. . ."
(Ibid, pg. 5). Can this be justified in
the text?Advocates of this theory claim that it is the real teaching of the
Bible over all, that the scriptures I refer to as explicit statements to the contrary have been misunderstood. Is there any substance
to that?
One of the primary
reasons they think that seems to be what they call the "imminency
passages." Evidently they see these as absolute statements that the time
of the return of Christ and the end of the world was very close in terms of
years when they were spoken and could not have been 2,000 years or more in the
future. If the apostle Peter were here I think he would say to them, "But beloved,
do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Pet. 3:8).
Ironically, Peter, in that third chapter, was discussing this very
thing, the delay in the coming of the final day and the fact that some in later
times would not understand it. He explains in the next verse (9) that the
reason for the delay is not that God is slack concerning these promises, but
that He is "longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish
but that all should come to repentance." So He continues to wait. But they
deny that the delay exists.
This points to another
mistake in the AD 70 theory, the idea that the opportunity to get into the
kingdom extends beyond the final day of judgment. Jesus indicated that the
opportunity to repent is extended to mankind only until that day. When once He
has risen up and shut the door, those who stand without and knock and plead for
admission, will not get in. (Luke 13:25).
God knows that and so He continues to wait and keep the door open. But
these brethren insist that the judgment day has occurred, but the door remains
open and anyone can still come in. The truth is people who would respond to God
must do so "while it is today." There will not be people in God's
eternal city being baptized into Christ. That must be done before the city of
God descends from heaven.
In most of these
passages the translation is from the Greek word "mello." So called "preterists" make
three mistakes in usage of this word. First, they assume that all passages where such
words occur in reference to an
"end," refer to the same event. Second,
they make the mistake of thinking that God looks at time the same way we do, and third, they misdefine the word
"mello." In addition they also ignore all of the "delay" passages in the
scriptures, and there are several, and
consider only the "imminency" passages.
The word
"mello" is usually defined as "about to happen." But it is
a mistake to think that it cannot refer to something that is a long way into
the future. In fact, in Acts 22:16, this word is actually used to mean delay,
as Ananias asks Saul, "Why are you waiting? (from mello). Arise and be
baptized. . ." Here are some instances in the Bible in which it refers to
long periods of time:
Nearly 400 years: In Mat.11:14
this word is used to say of John the Baptist, "This is Elias which was for
to come." (about to come). Malachi said this nearly 400 years earlier.
1500 years: In Acts 26:22-23 this word occurs twice in reference to things
then happening "which Moses and the prophets did say should come."
(were about to come - mello). And again that Christ "should show light
unto the people." (was about to show light unto the people - mello). This
prediction took 1500 years to fulfill.
4,000 years: In Romans 5:4 this word is used to say that Adam was"the
figure of him that was to come." (was about to come - mello). From Adam to
Christ was at least 4,000 years.
Looking at these
scriptural facts, how can one say that "about to come" cannot refer
to something 2,000 years in the future? Obviously it is a mistake to think that
every passage in which "mello" occurs necessarily refers to something
immediately imminent in terms of earthly time.
Many scholars
recognize that this word is not just a designation of something imminent, but
is a designation of something that is certain. Thayer, for example, sees it as
denoting "those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or
divine appointment." (Lexicon, page 397).
Mat. 24 itself has
statements indicating delay in reference to the event referred to after verse
34, which is not the same event as is discussed in the verses prior to 34. The
first event was not delayed and had signs by which its approach could be
recognized. The second event will come "in a time when you think
not." (Verses 44 & 50). No signs signalling its approach. But
concerning the second event, when "heaven and earth shall pass away,"
an example of a delay passage occurs at verse 48 where Jesus said that if a
servant says, "My Lord delays his coming," and begins to mistreat
his fellow servants, he will be punished for it. How could he be convinced that
a delay was occurring or convince anyone else of it unless there was some sort
of delay in that coming?
Paul also speaks of
this delay in reference to the "day of Christ," in 2 Thess. 2:2-3,
and told them not to be deceived into thinking that it was just at hand. He
said "that day will not come except there come a falling away first."
(Verse 3).
Peter, as we have
already mentioned, states that this delay exists and predicts that people will begin to scoff because of it.
(2 Pet. 3:3-4). He even explains why the delay is
necessary. Ironically, he applies it to the very event we are discussing here and on
which we differ, the passing away of
the heavens and the earth. The destruction of Jerusalem was not delayed. Clearly the other event referred to in Mat. 24, the passing of the heavens
and the earth, was delayed and still is being
delayed.
At verse 7 Peter says
that the present heavens and earth are "kept in store" by the same
word that created them in the first place, "reserved unto fire against the
day of judgment and perdition of unGodly men." In these verses he uses the
same words as did Jesus in Mat. 24:35, "euranos," and "ge."
These are not words meaning an "age," as in verse 3 and verse 14 of
Mat. 24. These words mean the physical heavens and the physical earth, the
grass, the rocks, the trees, the atmosphere, and even the sun, moon, and stars.
In that third chapter Peter describes in graphic terms the destruction that is
waiting for this world. Again here Preterists have to reject these explicit
statements in favor of their theory.
At first exposure I
did not see the AD 70 theory as anything having to do with fellowship or
salvation. To me it seemed to be pretty much a harmless exercise in speculation
about prophecies that men have speculated upon for centuries. But two factors are making it into much more
than that. First, it ends up in a type of scripture denial that the Bible
speaks of as spiritually fatal, denial of a coming resurrection. Second, it has
in recent years developed an aggressiveness that was not there originally and
this has made it a troublesome "issue," capable of dividing churches.
Paul wrote that to deny a coming resurrection is to reduce faith to vanity and leave
people yet in their sins. (1 Cor. 15:12-17). He also said that when Hymenaeus
and Phyletus taught that the resurrection was past already, they overthrew the
faith of some. (2 Tim. 2:17-18). These brethren are saying these two things,
that no general resurrection is yet to come and that the resurrection has past
already. So it is (1) destructive of vital elements of the faith and (2) in recent years has come to be divisive. So it is a consequential mistake.
This is not intended
to be an exhaustive treatment of all the arguments offered on behalf of that
theory. It would take a large book to analyze in detail each of the many
avenues of thought which grow out of that basic concept, and it isn't needed.
Getting tangled up in a lot of irrelevant argumentation about possible
interpretations of certain prophecies would not clarify the
central questions involved. Anyone can guess about fulfillments of any prophecy
and likely there will be many varying opinions. But the issues at stake here
are basic, relatively simple questions, on which we have explicit Bible
statements with which to make comparisons.
The thing wrong with
their arguments based on prophecies is not that the words in a given prophecy could not mean what they say they mean. Usually the application they make is
one possible meaning, as far as the words
in the text are concerned. But the fact that a certain meaning is one of several possible
meanings does not prove that it is the right
one. The answer to each of their arguments on prophecy is that their interpretation is in conflict with
specific Bible statements to the contrary. No human theory about prophetic interpretation can be as reliable as the inspired
statements of the Bible on the matter in question. What we need
to do is go to the core of that
teaching, look at its foundation stones, and see the picture it sets forth of "last things," and then compare these
with Biblical facts. You could strive about words to no profit
for an awful long time if you tried to dissect every prophecy they
cite and argue the limits of its possibilities. To cut to the chase, so to speak, it
is simply that any interpretation which directly contradicts express Bible statements is not within the realm of possibility. It fails the first test of any interpretation, the matter of over all Bible harmony.
A paper that used to
be published among them carried this caption: "Resolved: The scriptures
teach that the second coming of Christ, including the establishment of the
eternal kingdom, the day of judgment, the end of the world, and the
resurrection of the dead, occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70."
Now, if by "the
end of the world," they mean the end of the Jewish age, they are right. If
by "the return of Christ," they mean the symbolic return in judgment
upon Israel, they are right. If by "the resurrection" they mean that
some individuals were resurrected, again they are right. But if they mean the
end of the physical cosmos, the resurrection of all the dead, and the final
judgment, they are wrong. If by "the return of Jesus" they mean His
triumphant return in glory to raise all the dead, judge the world, and reward His
servants, they are guilty of an error that all eyes can observe for themselves.
They are simply arguing with facts.
God made a covenant with
Noah, the sign of which is the rainbow, that "While the earth remains,
seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night
shall not cease." (Gen. 8:22). We can all see that the rainbow has not
ceased to appear in the sky. Therefore the earth still remains. When the time comes that God sees fit to discontinue it, He will stop
hanging out the sign that says it is still here and intact. How can a Bible believer
observe the rainbow in the sky and still say, "The world ended 1900 years
ago."
The symbolic
"coming in judgment upon Jerusalem" is a long way from being the
final and ultimate redemption God has in mind for His people. In that day He
will "make all things new." According to the AD 70 theory that
day has already occurred, the Holy city
has come down, but things are still precisely as they were. Instead of there
being "no more death nor sorrow nor crying and no more pain, for the
former things are passed away," (Rev.21:4), we still have cancer, an AIDS
epidemic, death for every one eventually, and crying, and none of these have
passed away.
But they argue that
these are destined to be only in a spiritual sense. But these are not spiritual
ailments. No one ever got cancer of the spirit. No one gets AIDS in his spirit.
If it is only the spirit that is exempt from these things then nothing has
changed. It has always been that way on earth. But God said, "Behold I
make all things new." The truth is, as Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:50,
"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit
incorruption." This mortal must put on immortality and this corruptible
must put on incorruption. (Vs. 52-53). In Max King's largest book he spends
over 250 pages trying to explain away this entire chapter. When it takes that
much "explaining" to support a theory, you know that theory has
serious problems.
But their problem is
not just with 1 Cor. 15. It is with the whole bible. When you conclude that
there is no general resurrection day to come, no such scene as that in which
all the dead are raised to stand before the throne of God for judgment, no time
to come when people will exist in spiritual form apart from all of the sorrows
that plague earthly life, you have gotten completely out of touch with the
whole Bible perspective. You can scarcely find a page anywhere in the Bible
that does not disagree with you. You have a totally different concept than what is pictured there. If the
apostle Paul were here I suspect he would say, "If in this life only we
have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor. 15:19).
In fairness it should
be said that they do believe that people are being taken to heaven in spiritual
form as each one dies. I asked one of
them about that one time and that is what he said. It is a little hard to see
then, why they would deny the features John saw in Rev. 21. They say to me,
"Don't you believe in figurative language in the Bible?" Sure I do. But when the word
"figurative" is used to deny the teaching of an entire chapter, such
as Rev. 21, or 1 Cor. 15, that is too much "figurativism."
A few of the apostles
yet lived at this time, as did many folks whom they had personally taught.
Inspiration of the Holy Spirit was still there. So they knew what was going on.
Thus the matter of how believers living at the time saw these events is
important. What was their understanding of the matter?
When the smoke cleared
and all the dust settled, did they believe that the second coming of Christ had
occurred, as well as the judgment and the final resurrection? Did they believe
the holy city John described in Revelation 21 had come down and they were now
in it? Did they believe the eternal
kingdom of God had come to complete fruition and all of God's promises about
things to occur in the last days had been fulfilled? Did AD 70 change anything
at all as concerns what they were looking forward to?
In all the information
available from that time period there is not to be found a single shred of
evidence that anyone living at the time saw it the way the AD 70 brethren do
today. There are writings extant which were written by believers at that time
and soon there after, but all of them say the same things precisely about their
faith that were written prior to that time. They were, without exception, still
looking forward to the second advent of Jesus yet to come, admonishing one
another to be prepared at all times as Jesus had instructed, and holding the hope of a better world to come in a spiritual
realm when this world would eventually perish.
A very large book
would be filled if all such writings were quoted. Of course we will not try to do that here but we will
give a
10 couple of "samples"
which are typical of what was said in them all.
These are not inspired writings, of course, and are offered here simply to indicate what was the viewpoint of eye
witnesses, believers who lived at the
time and had been taught personally by the apostles.
Ignatius was born in
AD 50 and so was 20 years old in AD 70. He was martyred in the year 107. He was
said to have been a personal disciple of the apostle John. Early in the second
century he wrote, exhorting brethren in various places to continue holding to
the hope they had always had. To the Ephesians, for example, he wrote,
"Have a firm belief in the incarnation, the passion, the resurrection of
Christ. These things are no delusive phantoms, but real facts. Let no one
divert you from your hope."
Polycarp lived a few
years later but was also said to have been a disciple of John personally. His
writings likewise speak of all these things as yet to come in the future. In
his epistle to the Phillipians he exhorted them to do faithful service to him
"who cometh as judge of quick and dead; whose blood God will require of
them that are disobedient to him. Now he that raised Him from the dead will
raise us also; if we do his will and walk in his commandments and love the
things which he loved..." In the same epistle he said, "For if we be
well pleasing unto him in this present world, we shall receive the future world
also, according as He has promised us,
to raise us from the dead." Polycarp said very pointedly, "Whosoever shall
pervert the words of the Lord to his own lust and say there is neither
resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first born of Satan."
AD 70 advocates claim
John's writings, especially the book of Revelation, as much of their evidence. But these
disciples of John, along with Barnabas, Clement, and all others who lived in
the writings that they continued to look forward to all that the Christian hoped
for as something yet to come and that it was to occur in another world,
spiritual in nature. If it happened in
AD 70, all the personal pupils of John who ever wrote, misunderstood it.
A piece of historic information that may have been providentially preserved
to shed light on this question is the testimony of the next generation of
Jesus' own fleshly family. Historian Eusebius records that a few years after AD
70 emperor Domitian decreed that all descendents of David were to be executed.
Jesus and his brothers and sisters were descendents of David. The grandchildren
of Jesus' brother Judas were taken before the emperor for questioning. Eusebius says that during this
questioning, "When asked also respecting Christ and his kingdom, what was
its nature and when and where it was to appear, they replied that it was not a
temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would
appear at the end of the world, when in glory He would judge the quick and dead
and give to everyone according to his works..." Upon which Domitian
despising them, made no reply, but treating them with contempt, as simpletons, commanded
them to be dismissed, and by decree, ordered the persecution to cease.
(Eusebius Eccl.Hist.- pg 103).
Regardless of how
appealing this theory may seem to be, it is groundless. There are too many
parts of it that directly contradict explicit scriptures. We do not deny that
the Bible sometimes uses figurative language. But that does not justify this
kind of abuse. The bottom line is the AD 70 theory is incompatible with the Bible.
We have only touched the hem of the garment here. Paul said, "The last enemy
that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor. 15:26). Since death is as
common to the race of man now as it ever was, one cannot rationally believe the
AD 70 theory that "all the prophecies concerning the second coming of
Christ have been fulfilled."
It is not our purpose
to judge, convict, or defeat anyone. This is simply an appeal to God fearing
people to hold fast to the word of God and be not led away by human theories
that contradict it. There is nothing to be gained in the AD 70 theory, no land
of promise in the direction in which it points. It would take away the beautiful
hope described in the Bible and put nothing in its place. The Bible warns that
there is a definite spiritual danger in denying the coming of the day of God,
for in that day things will occur exactly as He has decreed. We must plan on
that. Think about it!
