Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

There is a relatively new doctrine making the rounds among our brethren. Its advocates call it “realized eschatology;” others have dubbed it “the A.D. 70 Doctrine.” The paper which promotes this doctrine is Studies in Bible Prophecy, put out by Charles Geiser in Ashtabula, Ohio. It is my understanding that the doctrine was first taught by Max King of Warren, Ohio. If I were to summarize the doctrine in my own words, someone would be sure to accuse me of exaggerating. So I quote from Geiser: “The holy 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 Judaism in 70 A.D.”

That sounds so ridiculous to most of us that it might be thought foolish to even take notice of it. But that was Alexander Campbell’s reaction to Mormonism, and we see today how many people have been deceived by it. There is another reason why this doctrine ought to be dealt with carefully-that is because of the grain of truth it contains. In reacting to extreme doctrines we may dismiss some truth just because it is included in the false doctrine.

Almost every false doctrine is based on some truth which is then carried to an extreme. That is why one who is well grounded in the faith can often profit by reading the works of those who, considered on the whole, are false teachers. The truth that is found at the kernel of the extreme position is no less true because it has been enlarged with disregard of other truths and because many Scriptures have been perverted in order to accommodate the false theory.

The truth at the heart of “realized eschatology” is that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is a very significant event in New Testament teaching, and that many Scriptures which are commonly believed to refer to future events actually apply to that destruction. For instance, the 24th chapter of Matthew is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, though advocates of the 1000 year reign want to apply it to a future period. The “day approaching” in Hebrews 10:25 is most likely the destruction of Jerusalem. The miseries of the rich men in James 5 are probably connected with that great event. The “coming” of Christ in Revelation 1:7 and 22:7 is mostly likely spiritual and in reference to Christ’s coming in vengeance upon the Jewish state and later upon the Roman Empire. It is my opinion that the punishments of Revelation 6,8, and 9 were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the “mystery of God” that was “finished” (Rev. 10:7) was the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the end of the Jewish nation. There are other Scriptures which clearly apply to this event, and there are still others which may or may not apply.

The term “realized eschatology” simply means that the prophecies concerning the last things (the resurrection, the judgment, etc.) have already been realized, or fulfilled. And according to this doctrine they were all fulfilled in A.D. 70. Now it is one thing to say that a prophecy in a book of symbols such as Revelation is not to be taken literally. The context justifies this conclusion. It is another thing to say that the plain teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 concerning the resurrection is figurative, or symbolic. The context makes it clear that the resurrection of our bodies will be just as literal as the resurrection of Christ’s body. In 2 Timothy 2:17,18 we read of Hymenaeus and Philetus who were teaching “that the resurrection is past already” and had overthrown “the faith of some.” I have often wondered what sort of a complex theory they had cooked up to justify such a conclusion. Remember that they were making their claim before the destruction of Jerusalem. But it is no wonder that when some Christians believed their teaching it led to the overthrow of their faith. It will do the same today. Paul taught that if there is no resurrection, our “faith is vain” (1 Cor. 15:14).

If the end of the world has already come to pass in the destruction of Judaism, then there will be no end to this physical world, and the church will exist for all eternity on this earth. If there is to be no end to this present order, such news will no doubt bring rejoicing among Satan and his angels. They may continue to remain free and to tempt man for all eternity, thus cheating the sentence of consignment to the lake of fire. If this doctrine be true, the last enemy (death) will never be destroyed and Christ will never “put down all rule and all authority and power.” “All things” will never be “put under his feet,” or “subdued unto him” (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Christ will never win the final victory.

If the Lord has already come, and will never come again, then why do we still take the Lord’s Supper? “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). According to the doctrine under consideration, the Lord’s Supper should have ceased in A.D. 70. Yet those who believe this doctrine, for some reason, continue to take the supper. If the Lord has already come for the last time, then we have no hope of going to live with Him in His Father’s house. John 14:3 says, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” If Christ received some unto Himself in A.D. 70, then these are the only ones promised such a home with God.

Notice that this false system of doctrine ignores the fact that certain words can be literal in one passage and spiritual, or figurative, in another. The coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 is literal; that in Matthew 24:30 is figurative. The context is the determining factor in both cases. The resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 is literal; that in Revelation 20:5 is figurative. Again, the context provides the answer. Just because the “end of all things” in 1 Peter 4:7 applies to A.D. 70 (see verse 12), does not mean that “the end” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and other Scriptures does not literally apply to the end of time and of this earth. Never ignore the context.

Although the evil of false teaching is not mitigated thereby, there is a blessing that comes to faithful Bible students in the study and refutation of such doctrine. We never fail to learn more truth and to have a deeper understanding of God’s Word than when we search the Scriptures to see whether a certain teaching is so. See Acts 17:11.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 659, 664
November 7, 1985

By Jon Quinn

Jesus urged to “Remember Lot’s Wife ” (Lk. 17:32). The lessons associated with her are many, but I’d like to approach the account from what may be rather unusual. Though Lot’s family lived some nineteen centuries before Christ, those who desired to have godly families then faced trials and problems similar to those which we face today.

We must also consider another family that was contemporary with Lot’s family. Abraham and Sarah’s faith was seen in every aspect of their lives, including their home. Like Lot, Abraham was not perfect as husband or father, but unlike Lot, he was successful as head of his household. Furthermore, at least for a time, Lot and his wife were a part of Abraham’s household.

Abraham’s Character and Family

Both Abraham and Sarah were faithful people of God. Their lives centered around the Lord’s will. They would no doubt have been extremely puzzled by the modern day doctrine of justification by faith alone, not to mention shocked that people would use them as examples of this false doctrine! Not by faith alone, but “by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance” (Heb. 11:8, 9). By faith Abraham and Sarah relied on God’s promise that they would have a child even at a very late time in their lives (Heb. 11:11,12; Rom. 4:19,20). By faith Abraham was later willing to offer up his son that God had given in fulfillment of His promise thinking that God would raise him back up from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). The Bible sums up Abraham’s life by affirming that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). What does all this mean as far as Abraham’s family is concerned? God said, “For I have chosen Abraham), in order that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice. . . ” (Gen. 18:19).

Shortly before leaving his home, Abraham’s brother Haran had died. Lot, Haran’s son and Abraham’s nephew, joined Abraham as he left Ur for Caanan (Gen. 11:27-12:5). Both Abraham and Lot enjoyed much wealth and prosperity. The inability of the land to support the herds and flocks of both Abraham and Lot led to friction between their respective herdsmen. Abraham did not want anything to come between his nephew and him so he offered Lot the choice: if you go “left, then I will go to the right, or if to the right, then I will go left” (Gen. 13:1-9). Lot chose the valley of the Jordan because he felt his flocks would be better off there. At least at this point it appears that he gave little thought to the extreme wickedness of the cities located in the area so he “moved his tents as far as Sodom. Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord” (Gen. 13:10-13).

Decision and Consequence

Sometimes we do not see all the results of decisions we make, good or bad, until years later. Some years pass until finally the Lord’s patience with Sodom runs out. The account of the Lord’s judgment against Sodom is related in the nineteenth chapter of Genesis. Lot is warned to get his people out of the city (v. 12). When he tries to warn his sons-in-law, they react by taking the whole idea of God’s judgment as a very funny joke (v. 14). Only Lot, his wife and two daughters leave the doomed city with the instruction not to look back (vv. 15-17). Lot’s wife succumbs to the temptation to look back at the ongoing destruction taking place and perishes (vv. 23-26). Later, Lot’s two daughters prove themselves, by their immoral behavior, to have been horribly and adversely affected by their years in Sodom (vv. 31-38).

Applications for 20th Century Families

The mocking of Lot’s sons-in-law is little different from the attitudes expressed by many today. If you want to give somebody a good laugh, go talk to porno shop patrons about God’s judgment. But as with Sodom, the mocking will one day be silenced forevermore.

Lot’s choice on where to live was motivated more by what was physically best for his animals than what was spiritually best for his family. Again, people today are making the same kind of unwise trade off and the tragic thing is that many will not see the bitter end results until years later when family members fall away or never come to the Lord to begin with.

Simply refraining from wickedness ourselves as parents is not enough! We must equip our children to live godly lives regardless of the environment they find themselves in. Lot never partook in the unrighteousness of his neighbors; in fact it sickened him to see the way they acted (2 Pet. 2:6-9). But this was not enough for his family.

We live in an environment that seems to be becoming increasingly like that of Sodom. We cannot avoid it completely. We must work in it, go to school in it and live in it. Does it not make sense to insure that our homes remain an oasis of relief from the world to which we can go and relax? How foolish to destroy this oasis by inviting the world to “come on in” through television programs, music, literature or our own worldly ways!

Finally, we learn about unselfishness. Abraham certainly showed his selfless attitude toward Lot by offering him first choice of where to live. Sometimes, it is easier to show consideration toward those with whom we work than it is toward members of our own families. I suppose it is easy to take husband or wife or parents or children for granted because of the closeness of the relationships. Certainly, we ought to treat our family members with respect, dignity and consideration.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, pp. 673, 695
November 21, 1985

By Keith Pruitt

Recently there has been a recurrence of the arguments pro and con as they relate to pornography. While some contend that pornography is undefinable, one who is capable of moral judgments can easily distinguish those magazines given to pornography from an art journal or Newsweek.

A connection between secular humanism and pornography may have gone without much comment by most had it not been for an article published recently in The Humanist, an official publication of the American Humanist Association. The July/August 1985 issue entitled “Pornography, a humanist issue,” attempted to shift the scene of attack from Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, et al to the Bible itself. The attempt was nauseating! A quote or two follows from Sol Gordon.

“I can tell you that the real issue is reproductive freedom, social justice, and sex education. Pornography is not a cause of anything. . . . The Bible is one of the most. . . pornographic things we have. . .”

In the symposium discussed in the aforementioned article, speaker after speaker warned against joining forces with right wing religionists in opposing pornography. But I can see why they would wish to avoid a discussion of pornography. The whole system of humanism is built around personal morality. Their beliefs would seem to dictate the response, “Man should be free to do as he pleases as long as no one else is hurt.”

But the attack upon the Bible is merely an attempt by ignorant men and women to focus contempt for the Bible. They know that good moral people are tired of having the filth sold in every gas station, convenient store and book dealership in the nation. Many have taken pornography off the shelves because of the pressure brought to bear by concerned citizens. Universities and even countries (see National Federation For Decency Journal, September, 1985 for further details) have banned the distribution of the smut.

But the battle rages. Seven-Eleven stores in many parts of the country as well as numerous bookstores continue to gross millions of dollars in profit every year from the sale of pornography. “Kiddy porn,” as it is called, is growing beyond imagination. The lucrative video market is now involved as one can go into many video stores and rent or buy x-rated movies.

One might well wonder how Gordon connects the Bible with rape and other sexual perversions. His reasoning runs like this. The Bible says sex is confined to marriage. But men get lonely so they rape, etc., to fulfill their physical needs. Thus it is the restraint that is the cause. They so wickedly err. It is the inability to control passions that is the problem. The law of the country also opposes rape. Should the criminal code be found at fault because of its violation? Surely not!

Mr. Gordon, who is one of the chief humanists in the country, should show where the Bible is in any way similar to the pornography of Playgirl, et al.

The allegation falls without proof. In what way is the Bible, or any one of its sixty-six books, similar to the vulgar pictures of Playboy? They have raised the issue; they must prove it.

Pornography is a result of humanistic philosophy just as righteousness comes from following the Scriptures. The humanist system of situation ethics promotes every sexual perversion imaginable. It must by definition. And equally so the Bible must oppose every false and ungodly way (Psa. 119:104). Humanism’s tenet of situation ethics is wrong. God’s word is truth (John 17:17). The morality, or immorality, humanism advocates is a denunciation of God’s true way. Paul plainly points out the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. Those who practice these stand condemned before the great King. We appeal for all to leave service to Satan and return unto God.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 22, p. 680
November 21, 1985

By Bill Hall

Hezekiah, king of Judah, had just received a letter from the king of Assyria, saying, “Give up; don’t rely upon your God; look at the other nations that have relied upon their gods; surrender.” No nation was ever more hopeless than was Judah in the face of the on-marching Assyrians. Weak and demoralized, Judah could not hope to muster even the least resistance to an Assyrian army that had devastated every nation lying in its path.

Hezekiah, having received the letter, went into the house of the Lord, spread the letter before the Lord, and prayed: “Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib. . . . Now therefore, O Lord our God . . . . save thou us out of his hand, that all the kings of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only” (2 Kgs. 19:14-19).

We admire Hezekiah’s faith. (1) He believed in God. Hezekiah was no atheist, for atheists do not pray. (2) He believed in a (the) living God, One who could see and hear and know. (3). He believed in a concerned God, One who, seeing the hopeless plight of Judah, would care. (4) He believed in a listening God, not one who might be asleep, or talking, or on a journey, or pursuing, but One whose “eyes are over the righteous and ears are open to their prayers.” (5) He believed in a responsive God, One who, having heard, would act in response to his request. (6) He believed in an almighty God, One who was able to do what needed to be done to save the nation from the Assyrians and to know that He alone is the true and living God.

But faith without works is dead. Suppose for a moment that Hezekiah had believed in that kind of God, but had failed to pray. What a tragedy! But Hezekiah did pray, and in response to his prayer God struck 185,000 of the Assyrian army with death, and the armies of Assyria never again came against the nation of Judah.

We believe in the same God that Hezekiah believed in, but we need to put that faith to work, learning to overcome our anxieties through prayer. “In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6,7). Peace through prayer, and freedom from anxieties! Freedom from anxieties because through prayer we cast our burdens upon the One who knows what is best and is infinitely able and willing to do what is best! And this is available to every Christian who prays in faith.

There is an attitude of heart, however, that must accompany our prayers if we are to find peace through prayer. It is that attitude expressed by Eli in 1 Samuel 3:18: “It is the Lord: let him do what seemeth him good.” We can never find peace through prayer as long as we are determined to have our own way. But when we finally reach the point when we are willing to lay aside our own wills and can genuinely say, “Have thine own way, Lord, have thine own way,” our anxieties can vanish. The path to peace, then, is this: a problem arises, bringing with it anxiety; we pray, turning that problem over to the Lord; we trust Him, believing that He will indeed answer our prayer in keeping with what He knows is the very best; we surrender our wills to His will; and we find peace. This is what Hezekiah did. This is what we must do.

But where is such faith to be found? “Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, p. 651
November 7, 1985