Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

No more wonderful prayer was ever uttered than that of Christ just a little while before he was to purchase the church with his blood on the cross. As he gathered around him the chosen disciples, he prayed earnestly on their behalf for unity among them. That prayer does not go altogether unanswered, as some suppose, for there is unity among those who abide in the teaching of Christ. I do not mean that all those who call upon the name of the Lord are of one accord, nor do I mean that all in the church of the Lord are in perfect unity. The main difference is what Jesus prayed for and conditions today is in division over not abiding in his Word. Where any two men abide in the teaching of Christ it is impossible for them to be at variance with one another, because what his Word says to one it says to the other. When one obeys a given commandment of Christ, and another obeys that same command, there is no way for them to be at variance.

Here is a part of the prayer of Jesus. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20,21).

Several things are to be noticed in this petition. First, that not only the disciples present, but also all who believe on Christ through the word given to these disciples were to be one. The oneness grows out of the word of Christ. Unity can never be had on the speculations of men. What Christ has not taught cannot bring unity, neither can one follow his conception of a theory and be a unity with disciples of Christ. Christ did not pray that his disciples should be one while each believes what he wants to and lives according to his own theory.

Just because a man obeys the gospel of Christ and is added to his church, is no basis that all Christians should tolerate any notion he may invent regarding religion, or that all should be at unity with him in his innovations. Christ did not pray that “all Christians” should be at unity regardless of what each may believe and practice, but he qualified that unity by these words: “As thou Father, art in me, and I in thee. ” Now, unity among disciples must be the same kind of unity that exists between the Father and Christ. If not that kind of unity, Christ did not pray for them to be “unionized.” The Father and Christ exactly agreed in all things. Amos says: “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) The answer is evident. Unity, as Christ prayed for it, demands agreement and that upon his Word.

The common error of preachers pleading for unity is that they want unity on other grounds than the Word of God. And they say all are guilty of causing division contrary to the prayer of Christ who do not agree. Christ did not pray for unity among disciples on any basis except his Word.

Just two chapters back John records these words of Christ: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me” (John 15:1-4). Now, is not this the real basis of unity, rather than the union of all who call themselves “Christians”? Christ said: “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” That is what makes men clean. Then he continues: “Abide in me, and I in you.” Unity among disciples can only come by all abiding in Christ. That is what Christ prayed for.

1 Corinthians 1:10 makes clear this same principle of unity. Paul admonishes the Christians here to “speak the same thing. ” Certainly to speak the same thing they must be agreed; and to be agreed and speak the same thing they must speak the word of God, not their own ideas (1 Pet. 4:11). The division in Corinth was caused by men following other men rather than the word of Christ. Division does not come by following the Word of God, but by following men who oppose the teachings of Christ.

Now as to the plea to “fellowship” those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. The “isms,” “antis,” “aids,” etc., can not bring unity, nor did Christ pray that these be unified with disciples who follow his Word. The word of Christ does not produce such schisms of any sort and when two people “abide in the true vine, ” there can be no schisms. These divisions come by someone being untrue to the word of Christ, and remember, Christ prayed for unity upon his word, not various ideas.

Christ did not teach any such doctrine as “Premillennialism,” and when a child of God apostatizes into that “ism,” it is not possible for unity, even though the two shake hands and profess unity. Unity is the speaking the same thing, and that the word of God. Christ did not pray for unity among Premillennialists and faithful children of God. He did not pray for unity among children of God when some of them “go after other gods” such as mechanical instrumental music in the worship to God. He prayed for unity among disciples of Christ who believe on him through his word. They must abide in his word for unity to prevail. His word does not teach “missionary societies” and “instrumental aids” in worship, therefore, he did not pray for unity among people on these points.

Inspiration gave us the way to treat those who “walk not uprightly according to the truth.” Paul, an apostle of Christ, taught unity just as Christ did, yet he had this to say in the Roman letter: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). Does this sound like Paul was calling for unity at the expense of truth? Notice: “Mark them which cause divisions.” Division comes when people do not follow the word of Christ; the word is the basis of unity. Also he said: “and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. ” There is no fellowship for those who teach offensive doctrines which Christ did not teach. Let us not fool ourselves, unity cannot come when two are not agreed. The word of God is the basis of unity, not our opinions.

One more passage. “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 10,11). Does this sound like unity in spite of truth? There can be no unity on conjecture and theory. One who does not teach the doctrine of Christ, minus the contaminating influence of human wisdom, cannot be fellowshipped according to the Scripture, neither can there be unity on this foundation. Christ’s prayer did not include unity by this standard, but only upon his word. Christ does not want unity among men at the expense of truth. The prayer of Christ is answered when men come to the unity he prayed for upon his word and his word alone. Even if one succeeded in bringing a few together, some believing premillennialism, some instrumental music in the worship, some societies and aids, some “anti,” and have them shake hands in fellowship, there is no unity. Unity demands the speaking the same thing, being agreed, upon the word of God. (Note: the term “anti” was generally applied in the 1940s to those who opposed the located preacher and Bible classes.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 643-644
November 2, 1989

By Mike Willis

When the Lord sent the prophet Jeremiah to the disobedient nation of Israel, he sent him on a mission of grace and mercy. He sent him to call his nation to repentance that the Babylonian captivity might ,be averted. His, mission was to save lost souls from damnation.

Times were bad. Sin was rampant and entrenched. Sin had its citadels and fortresses. For the nation to be saved, those citadels of sin had to be destroyed. Before building or planting could occur, these citadels of sin and obnoxious weeds had to be removed. Jeremiah’s mission was given to him by God.

And the Lord said unto me, Behold I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build and to plant (Jer. 1:9-10).

His instructions to destroy the citadels of sin were similar to those given Israel when she was instructed to destroy the Canaanites under the leadership of Joshua (cf. Exod. 34:12-17; Num. 33:51-56; Deut. 7:1-26). The wickedness of the Canaanites was so great that they had to be destroyed; compromise was explicitly forbidden.

There Are Still Citadels of Sin

Even as there were citadels of sin in Jeremiah’s day, there are citadels of sin in our own society. Here are some of them:

1. Immorality (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9-10,12-20). Our nation is wholly given to sensuality; sensuality is entrenched among the people. Fornication is commonplace, among all age groups. Adultery destroys many marriages. Homosexuals have come out of the closet and demand that the rest of the world accept them as they are. Pornography is a billion dollar a year business. Gambling has been legalized in most states. The illegal sale and use of drugs has permeated the whole nation.

2. Corruption in government. Our government is riddled with bribery, theft, embezzlement, and other forms of dishonesty. Our system thrives on “you back my project and I’ll back yours.”

3. False religion. False religion is entrenched. The so-called world religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) control the minds of millions of people. Modern denominationalism, with its hierarchies, continues to venture further from the truth. False religion is just as damnable as immorality (Matt. 15:14-15).

4. Apostasy within the church. The Devil has repeatedly assaulted the church, leading sizable groups of God’s people into apostasy. In the 19th century, the Devil took about 90 percent of God’s people into apostasy by the introduction of church supported missionary societies (and later, other societies of a benevolent nature) instrumental music in worship, loose preaching, fraternization with denominations, modernism, etc. Today that apostasy is entrenched in the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ denomination. In the 1940s, the Devil assaulted the body of Christ with premillennialism. The proponents of this doctrine not only introduced doctrines unrevealed in the Bible, but also moved toward unity with the denominations. Thanks to the work of men such as Foy E. Wallace, Jr., this movement had a lesser impact on God’s people.

In the late 1940s and 1950s, the Devil again assaulted the Lord’s body. Again he persuaded churches to support human institutions (colleges, orphan homes, unwed mothers homes, hospitals, etc.). He changed the organization of the church through the sponsoring church arrangement and involved the church in social work (recreation, orphan homes, hospitals, etc.). As the movement has grown, the preaching has become looser, fraternization with denominations has begun, and outright modernism has been taught in places. This movement took away about 85-90 percent of the Lord’s churches and is now entrenched as a citadel of sin.

The Citadels of Sin Must Be Destroyed

God’s people must realize the impact that sin has on the souls of men. Sensuality, false religion, and apostasy lead men into eternal damnation. Hence, the Christian stands opposed to sin. He recognizes that the citadels of sin must be destroyed. Before planting can occur or building begin, he must “root out, and pull down, and destroy, and throw down” the citadels of sin.

We make no apology for negative preaching. There are citadels of sin in our society and these fortresses of sin must be rooted out, pulled down, destroyed and thrown down. This is the charge given to a gospel preacher.- “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).

We should expect that those associated with sin will not sit quietly while their fortresses are being thrown down. When Paul assaulted idolatry in Ephesus, those associated with idolatry rose up in protest against him. Demetrius led the charge (Acts 19:24-27). If idolatry was destroyed, his means of making a living through the sale of silver idols would perish. He had a vested interest in the worship of Diana and attacked Paul when he preached against idolatry.

The same thing happens today. They are misguided who think that they can attack the citadels of sin without offending those who practice those sins. Regardless of how kindly presented, the gospel which condemns sin will raise protest from those who have no intention of repenting of their sins.

When a person attacks the citadels of pornography, the men who make their living through the sale of pornography rise up in protest. The crusade led by Donald E. Wildmon, has stirred up Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. The American Civil Liberties Union has defended their first amendment “right” to publish and sell their filth. They attack Donald E. Wildmon for the same reason that Demetrius attacked Paul! Unfavorable TV coverage is given any attack against pornography, labeling it “censorship,” because the media sees nothing wrong with pornography.

When abortion is attacked, Planned Parenthood rises in protest. Their government funding and income generated through abortion – the murder of innocent unborn babies – is under attack. Organizations such as the National Organization of Women, the United Methodist Church, and Disciples of Christ join the protest. Why? Because they agree that abortion is right. Hence, they rally to stop the opposition to abortion.

Just as attacking pornography raises the ire of the pornographers and attacking abortion stirs up Planned Parenthood, preaching against false religion stirs up those associated with unrevealed religion. When you oppose the false doctrines of Islam, Muslims are upset; when you oppose Catholicism, Catholics protest. When you attract “faith only,” Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians cry. Why? They have a vested interested in seeing that these denominations not be destroyed.

Why Do Some Christians Try to Stop the Attack?

Why would Christians oppose the assault against the citadels of sin? I can understand why the publishers of pornography want preaching against pornography stopped. I can understand why the ACLU rises to the defense of the pornographers – because they see nothing wrong with pornography. But why would Christians oppose the preaching against citadels of sin such as denominationalism and apostasy within the church?

The fact of the matter is that some Christians do protest the assaults against these citadels of sin. When a good sermon is preached, kindly and gently exposing the false doctrines of some popular denomination, some members will complain, “Your preaching is too negative. You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Don’t mention denominations from the pulpit. Don’t condemn the denominations.” They don’t want their friends and neighbors to hear sermons of this sort. When weak brethren protest the attack against this citadel of sin, they expose their sympathy with denominationalism. Apparently they do not believe that those in denominations will be lost!

When a good sermon is preached, kindly and gently exposing apostasy within the church, some brethren will complain about the preaching. They do not want anyone to leave the impression that those in liberalism are part of the devil’s army, lost and doomed to hell. There is something wrong with the heart of those who are more disturbed by those who attack false doctrine than they are with those preaching the false doctrine! Why would men be upset when apostasies within the church are opposed? Apparently they do not believe that those involved in these apostasies are lost.

When a good sermon is preached, kindly and gently exposing the wickedness of lascivious conduct (such as mixed swimming, dancing, petting, immodest dress, etc.), smoking, or gambling, some brethren complain about the preaching. Generally, these are the brethren practicing these things. They do not want their own little citadel of sin destroyed, torn down, rooted out, etc. Hiding their sympathies under some guise (such as “we need more positive preaching”) does not change the fact that these brethren practice the sinful activity and want preaching against it stopped.

A Time to Build

Negative preaching can clear the ground for building to be done. But, we can never build the building of God simply by tearing down the citadels of Satan. There is a time to build. We must build an edifice which is according to God’s word. We cannot build the church of the Lord through gimmicks and carnal appeals. The solid preaching of the word of God is what builds faith (Rom. 10:17), enabling Christians to grow into maturity (Heb. 5:13-14). We should work with just as much zeal in building faith in the hearts of men as we work to destroy the citadels of sin.

We need gospel preaching which teaches how to be saved, stresses growth in the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, etc.), emphasizes the need for good family life, instructs us in how to live at peace with ourselves and with our brethren. Simply opposing denominationalism will not suffice to grow this character. Inasmuch as every man needs to hear sermons which tear down and root out and sermons which plant and build, there is no room for the kind of preaching which specializes in either tearing down or building, to the neglect of the other.

Conclusion

May God give us the wisdom and courage to teach all of his word in a spirit of love and meekness. Let us be busy in the Lord’s work: “to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 642, 661-662
November 2, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

The article below is by Bill Jackson. It is entitled, “Some Say A Get-Together For Food Is Not Fellowship.”

Those brethren who call themselves “noninstitutional” are quite steadfast in the position that we, the rest of their brethren, are liberals of the rankest sort in calling our meals together “fellowship.” In fact, they’d have a collapse of much of their system if they admitted the meal/fellowship connection. Here is one instance of creating a doctrine, promoting a doctrine, fostering division by a doctrine, and then refusing to notice some of God’s Word for fear that the doctrine would be disturbed. Here is an item or two:

(1) Clearly, the early church had such meals, called in Jude 12 “love feasts.” All material we can find on this indicates it was a fellowship meal for the saints, with the poor among the saints included, though they could not provide any of the food items.

(2) Most significant is the fact that when Paul was instructing on dealing with the fornicator in 1 Corinthians 5, in the commands that all recognize meant a withdrawal of fellowship, he said “with such a one, no, not to eat” (v. 11). If participating in a meal together is not fellowship, then why, in teaching to withhold fellowship, did Paul forbid eating with the offender? The point should be clear.

“Fellowship” is joint-participation, communion, sharing, etc., and has dozens of applications. Having a meal together is one form of fellowship!

Brother Jackson constructs his straw man and attacks it. Hitting a “blocking dummy” on the practice field is one thing, but blocking a genuine opponent is quite another. Bill sets up his dummy and knocks it over. As we shall see, his dummy will turn on him.

Bill Jackson opposes the building of gymnasiums and Family Life Centers by a local church. He has referred to such actions as a “craze.” However, Bill believes it is scriptural for the church to build, stock and maintain a “fellowship hall” for “A Get-Together,” bridal showers, wedding receptions, etc.

Suppose an advocate for gyms, such as Furman Kearley, editor of the Go$pel Advocate, were to write an article entitled, “Some Say A Get-Together For A Ball Game Is Not Fellowship.” Suppose he said, “Those who call themselves ‘non-recreational’ are quite steadfast in the position that we, the rest of their brethren, are liberals of the rankest sort in calling our ball games together ‘fellowship.’ In fact, they’d have a collapse of much of their system if they admitted the ball game/fellowship connection. Here is one instance of creating a doctrine, promoting a doctrine, and then refusing to notice some of God’s word for fear that the doctrine would be disturbed. Here is an item or two:

“(1) Clearly, the early church had such ball games, called in 1 Corinthians 10:7, ‘play.’ All the material we can find on this indicates that after brethren have a fellowship meal, they rise ‘up to play,’ with the poor among the saints included, though they could not provide any of the game items.

“(2) Most significant is the fact that when Paul was instructing on dealing with the fornicator in 1 Corinthians 5, in the commands that all recognize meant a withdrawal of fellowship, he said ‘not to keep company . . . with such an one.’ If participating in a ball game together is not fellowship, then why could we not continue to ‘keep company’ with the offender? The point should be clear.

“‘Fellowship’ is joint-participation, communion, sharing, etc., and has dozens of applications. Having a ball game together is one form of fellowship!”

Bill needs to hit his dummy again, for it is blocking him. Bill, how would you answer the article above if it were used to authorize the church to build gymnasiums? The ball is in your court, Bill. Your serve.

Social meals do meet the general, dictionary definition of “fellowship.” So do ball games. When a Baptist Church baptizes someone, it is a “baptism,” but it is not scriptural, New Testament baptism. When Christians gather at a park for a picnic, there is “fellowship,” but it is not the fellowship of the New Testament, for “truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3; cf. 1 Cor. 1:9). Bill is correct, though. “‘Fellowship’ . . . has dozens of applications. Having a ball game together is one form of fellowship! ” Therefore, gymnasiums built by the church are scriptural, right brother Bill?

Brother Jackson’s View Of Gymnasiums

No, Bill does not think gyms are scriptural. He has written, “But where, oh where, would one go to in God’s Word and find justification for building a gym, and with the necessary special flooring and all the required equipment for games, etc.?

” . . . By the ‘reasoning’ of some in ‘justifying’ the gym, what is next – a swimming pool? Swimming is one of the best of exercises! How about a golf course? A bowling alley? Why not own a stable of horses, and, thus the members could exercise both themselves and the congregation’s mascots? And, too the riding trails could be planned to circle the golf course, go around the gym, circle the swimming pool and polo field, etc.” (Bill Jackson, “After The Gymnasium, What Then?”).

But if Bill can authorize the church’s building dining rooms and cafeterias because they qualify as “fellowship,” why cannot gymnasiums and Family Life Centers be authorized, since they, too, comprise “one form of fellowship”?

Furthermore, Christians may not only go to the park for a picnic and a soft ball game, they may band together to own a gas station. Since fellowship “is joint-participation . . . and has dozens of applications,” could we say that “having a meal, playing a softball game and operating as gas station are forms of fellowship”: therefore, the local church may build fellowship halls, gymnasiums, Family Life Centers and gas stations? Could we, brother Jackson? If not, why not?

Bill is not opposed to brethren who want to jointly participate and share in the “fellowship” of a gas station. He is not anti-gas station. He just does not believe the church is authorized to own and operate one. Bill is not opposed to brethren who want to jointly participate in ball games and have fellowship while they play. He is not anti-fun and games. He just does not believe the church is authorized to own and operate a park or a gym. So, we are not opposed to brethren who want to share a common meal. We just do not believe the Lord has authorized the church to provide facilities for social meals, picnics, banquets, wedding showers, receptions, etc.

Jude 12 is not the authority for a fellowship hall. It does not mention a church, nor a work of the church, let alone a banquet room or feast provided out of the treasury of the church. But if “fellowship” at a “love feast” justifies a “fellowship hall,” then “fellowship” in a ball game justifies a gym. Brother Bill’s straw man has turned on him again.

Further, 1 Corinthians 5 does say “not to eat” with “such an one.” A meal would cause one “to keep company” with the fornicator. Playing ball with this brother would cause one to “keep company with” him, too. So, ball playing constitutes one form of “fellowship.” Thus, “The point should be clear.” Churches may build gymnasiums? The eating would include regular meals and “love feats” in a “fellowship hall,” but brother Jackson assumes what he must prove, i.e., that the Corinthian church had a “fellowship hall” and that it was authorized. (When the disciples did eat their food “with gladness and singleness of heart,” Luke says they ate it “at home” – Acts 2:46.) Later, to the Corinthians, Paul penned, “What? Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not . . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:22, 34).

The verses above do not support Bill’s banquet and feat rooms, but if they did, remember that a basketball game is “one form of fellowship”; hence, the church may build gyms; softball is “one form of fellowship”; thus, the church may have its own park. Bill Jackson opposes a gym built by the church. In fact, he has said that those who argue for the right of a church to have gym have “taken leave of their senses!” However, his argument for a fellowship hall on the basis that it is “one form of fellowship” will authorize a gym on the very same foundation. Bill, I told you that your blocking dummy would hit back!

If I were one of the liberal athletic supporters contending for a gym, I would feed brother Jackson out of his own spoon. (You can probably find such a spoon in his fellowship hall.) When Bill answers their argument, he will answer himself. That is food for thought. Perhaps Bill will swallow it after he chews on it awhile. Hopefully, he will see the truth and spue the whole thing out of his mouth. Bon Appetite!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 648-649
November 2, 1989

By Joe Price

The proponents of Realized Eschatology, or the “A.D. 70” doctrine, have deceived and are deceiving some brethren into believing that all the end time events have already been accomplished. Its advocates have caused unsuspecting Christians to accept the belief that the events of 70 A.D. in the destruction of Jerusalem satisfy all the prophecies of a future return of Christ, resurrection of the dead, judgment and reception of the eternal inheritance. It would have us believe that the “last days” existed from 30-70 A.D., and that the “eternal days” began at 70 A.D. We are supposedly living in the “eternal days”! The “Bible” of this doctrine, Max King’s The Spirit of Prophecy, has this to say on page 81: “. . whenever faulty interpretation creates a time period that doesn’t exist in the Bible, more error will follow by attributing to that period something that cannot belong to it.” I say “amen” to that! This 40-year “gap” where the old and new covenants supposedly “overlapped” is the result of faulty interpretation, and it has borne its evil fruit! (See Part II of this series for more information on the overlapping of the covenants.)

Simply stated, the A.D. 70 doctrine has the following things being accomplished on that date:

(1) Second coming of Christ (as per 1 Cor. 15:23).

(2) Resurrection of the dead (as per 1 Cor. 15).

(3) Judgment Day of the Lord (as per 2 Pet. 3: 10; et. al.).

(4) Establishment of the new covenant.

(5) Completeness in Christ (adulthood, adoption, redemption).

(6) Kingdom full established.

(7) Reception of the eternal inheritance.

To document these positions as central to this doctrine, consider this assessment from the pen of Max King:

The fall of Judaism (and its far reaching consequences) is, therefore, a major (emp,, King’s) subject of the Bible. The greater portion of prophecy found its fulfillment in that event, including also the types and shadows of the law. It was the coming of Christ in glory that closely followed his coming in suffering (1 Pet. 1:11), when all things written by the prophets were fulfilled (Luke 21:22; Acts 3:21). It corresponded to the perfection of the saints (1 Cor. 13:10) when they reached adulthood in Christ, receiving their adoption, redemption, and inheritance. The eternal kingdom was possessed (Heb. 12:28) and the new heaven and earth inherited (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 21:1, 7) (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239; emp. Mine, jp).

In Part I of this series, we addressed the major problems of this doctrine by looking at what the New Testament has to say about the second coming of Christ (including the judgment and the resurrection of the dead). In Part II, we discussed why 70 A.D. is made such a focal point in this system of error, which emphasis upon the old and new covenants and the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31. In this final article, we must consider some of the consequences of this doctrine, and see that it is not a harmless, private conviction which can be held without hurting oneself and others, but a pernicious theory of error which engulfs the souls of men in destructive heresy! Given this doctrine’s premise that God’s scheme of redemption was not complete until 70 A.D., there are some very grave consequences which necessarily follow.

Problems Regarding Resurrection

(1) Luke 20:34-36. NO marriage and no death after 70 A.D.! This consequence centers upon the view that the “last days” are to be defined as the closing period of the Jewish age, 30-70 A.D., with the “Eternal days” continuing from that point. “We are now (emp. King’s) in that world ‘which is to come’ . . .instead of being in the last days (emp. King’s) we are in eternal days (emp., King’s), world without end (Eph. 3:21)” (Ibid., p. 81). So, in the New Testament, those who lived between 30-70 A.D. were in the “last days,” while we now live in the “eternal days.” However, in Luke 20:34-36, Jesus contrasts “this world” and “that world” following the resurrection of the dead, and concludes that while marriage occurs in “this world,” it will not be so in “that world.” Plus, those who “are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection of the dead, . . . die no more” (vv. 35-36). Are people still marrying after 70 A.D.? Of course they are! Are they still dying? Most certainly! Is the period of Christianity in which we now live termed the “eternal days” in the New Testament? No! Otherwise, following 70 A.D., Christians would be prohibited from marrying, and neither could they die anymore! The A.D. 70 doctrine is false!

(2) Acts 24:15. The Pharisees and Paul looked for the same kind of resurrection. Here, it must be remembered that the A.D. 70 doctrine holds that the resurrection of the dead discussed in such places as 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Christianity out of Judaism (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 200). But, if this is the truth of the matter, then the Pharisees held a very strange hope concerning the resurrection! Paul states that his accusers before Felix were looking for “a resurrection both of the just and unjust, ” the same as- Paul. Must we conclude these Jewish accusers were looking forward to the day when Christianity would arise to dominance, while Judaism would be destroyed under God’s wrath! Surely this is not what they were “looking for” (v. 15; Jn. 11:48-50), but we are told they were looking for the same resurrection Paul hoped for. Maybe the apostle Paul was wrong in his assessment of the Jews’ hope, or, maybe the A.D. 70 doctrine is wrong in its assessment of the resurrection of the dead! What do you think!

(3) 1 Corinthians 15.20-23. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is called into doubt by this doctrine. Christ is presented as the “first fruits” (v. 20) of the dead, which identifies him as the beginning and the guarantor of a future, bodily resurrection (vv. 21-22,35-49). The resurrection of the dead endorsed by 1 Corinthians 15 is a future, bodily resurrection of mankind, based upon the fact of Christ’s bodily resurrection. If, however, the body to be raised in 1 Corinthians 15 is “Christianity out of Judaism,” why must we believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? If the later fruit (resurrection of the dead – v. 21) is not the bodily resurrection of mankind, there is no real reason to believe the “first fruits” (vv. 20,23) was the bodily resurrection of Christ! (The first fruits and the later fruits must be the same type of fruit!) The whole issue of Jesus’ bodily resurrection is called into doubt, and is a logical consequence of this doctrine. Are the proponents of the A.D. 70 doctrine ready to accept this consequence of their doctrine? If one will not accept the consequences of his position, he should renounce his position as the error that it is!

These are but three consequences regarding resurrection from the dead which logically result from the A.D. 70 doctrine. Like the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus (who said the resurrection is past already, 2 Tim. 2:16-18), the A.D. 70 doctrine “proceed(s) further in ungodliness,” as it eats like a cankerous sore upon the souls of men, spreading its decay and overthrowing the faith of saints. The plea of this writer is that those who currently hold to this doctrine will see its destructive effects upon “the faith of some” (v. 18), and renounce their acceptance of it.

Problems Regarding Human Redemption

(1) Forgiveness of sins was not fully accomplished until 70 A.D. This doctrine. does not regard forgiveness of sins as an accomplished fact until 70 A.D. “When (emp., King’s) would ungodliness be turned away from Jacob, or their sins be taken away? When Christ, the deliverer, came out of Zion. When (emp., King’s) did Christ come out of Zion? Not at his first coming, but his second coming” (The Spirit of Prophecy p. 63; emp., King’s). The cross of Christ is thus removed as the focal point and means of accomplishing forgiveness, and replaced by 70 A.D.! Such a consequence reduces the Scriptures to shambles, and makes deceptive the many appeals to people before 70 A.D. to receive the forgiveness of their sins through the death of Christ. In Acts 2:38, the apostle said, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This Jewish audience did not have to wait until 70 A.D. to have their sins remitted! Acts 22:16 gives instruction to Saul to “wash away thy sins, ” by being baptized. Baptism puts one into the death of Christ (Rom. 6:3), to enable justification by his blood (Rom. 5:8-9). Forgiveness of sins was accomplished by the cross of Christ! In Romans 6:17-18, when the Romans “became obedient from the heart” to the gospel, they were “made free from sin, ” and “became servants of righteousness.” This happened long before 70 A.D.!

Referring back to the quote at the start of this article from page 239 of The Spirit of Prophecy, notice that Realized Eschatology says that our adoption, redemption and inheritance were accomplished at the fall of Judaism (70 A.D.). Yet Galatians 4:3-7 places the means of bur adoption at the first coming of Christ (vv. 4-5), and its reality prior to 70 A.D., when Paul says “ye are sons” (v. 6). Our redemption was accomplished at the cross (Gal. 3:13-14; Heb. 9:1112). Our inheritance as sons of God is thereby assured (Rom. 8:16-17; Gal. 3:18). Forgiveness and its blessings are ours today because of the cross of Christ, not because of the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D.

(2) Maturity or completeness in Christ was not possible before 70 A.D. So implies King’s quote from page 239 of his book. However, Colossians 2:10 says “in him ye are made full.” In chapter 1:27-28, Christ was being proclaimed “that we may present every man perfect in Christ. ” They were not proclaiming the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D. as the means of perfection (completeness, full growth, maturity)! This doctrine concludes that no Christian could be mature in Christ before 70 A.D. – not apostles, not elders, not any child of God! The ramifications of that consequence are mind boggling.

Problems Regarding the Establishment of the Kingdom

By misapplying Hebrews 12:28, this doctrine concludes that the kingdom was not fully established until 70 A.D. However, we again find this doctrine at odds with revealed truth. In Isaiah 2:2, it was prophesied, “And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” Realized Eschatology would have God’s house or kingdom only partially established in the “latter days,” and only fully established at 70 A.D., their “eternal days.” Isaiah implies full and complete establishment in verse 2, and reveals this would occur when the law and the word of Jehovah would go forth from Jerusalem (v. 3). The gospel of the kingdom was preached from Jerusalem unto all the nations following Jesus’ ascension (Lk. 24:45-49; Acts 1:5; 2:14-26). Therefore, the kingdom predicted by Isaiah was established as he said it would be, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

Jesus said the kingdom would “come with power,” and that some of his disciples would not taste of death until they saw it come (Mk. 9:1). The “power” referred to must be the heavenly power of Holy Spirit baptism, received by the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:1-4,33). There is no hint in the Scriptures that this was only partial power, or that the kingdom and its blessings were only partially present! Full power and full blessings amounted to a fully established kingdom on the day of Pentecost! What parts are missing? Its king (Lk. 1:32-33; 1 Tim. 1: 17; 6:15)? Its territory (Mk. 16:15)? Its subjects (Acts 10:34-35)? Its law (Mk. 16:15; Jas. 1:25)? People did not have to wait until 70 A.D. to fully possess the kingdom! They were being translated into the kingdom (Col. 1: 13) from Pentecost onward. To deny the full establishment of the kingdom before 70 A.D., is to deny the fulness of its king (Jesus), its gospel (power to save, Rom. 1:16), and its blessings (Eph. 1:34) before 70 A.D.! This is untenable and blasphemous!

Problems Regarding Worship

(1) Should the Lord’s Supper be observed after 70 A.D. ? According to 1 Corinthians 11:26, in partaking of the Lord’s Supper we “proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. ” Since the A.D. 70 doctrine makes every coming of the Lord in the New Testament mean 70 A.D., we wonder, what are its advocates going to do about the Lord’s Supper? There are two options open to them, and both are equally unacceptable. First, they could conclude that after 70 A.D., the Lord’s Supper no longer proclaims Christ’s death. But, this destroys the central meaning and effect of the Supper! Secondly, they could conclude that the Lord’s Supper is no longer applicable to Christians, and cease partaking of it. Some Christians are currently wrestling with this consequence of their doctrine. Either horn of this dilemma is sharp, and will cause pain and great damage to the one who attempts to sit upon it. Which shall it be? Instead, why not renounce this system of error which places such devastating consequences upon the Christian’s observance of the Lord’s Supper?!

(2) One must eliminate from his worship every hymn and spiritual song referring to the return of Jesus Christ and its events. I have witnessed Christians not singing with their brethren (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) because of this consequence! Why sing about something you believe has already occurred? Are you willing to renounce your brethren as guilty of false Worship whenever they sing about the future return of Christ and its events? And, to be consistent in your worship, you will have to make that choice about the Lord’s Supper. Will you eliminate it, or destroy its meaning?!

These consequences should be weighed in the light of God’s revelation of truth. Realized Eschatology opens a can of worms that some brethren have not realized. Some may try to ignore its consequences, but this will only lead to hardened hearts. To accept these consequences will steep a person deeper in error and apostasy. God’s remedy is still available – repentance of this sinful doctrine (Acts 8:22), confession of the sin (1 Jn. 1:9), and doing works worthy of repentance (Acts 26:20; Lk. 3:8) by renouncing this doctrine of man.

Comforting Christians Concerning Christ’s Coming

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 provides us a fitting conclusion to this series of articles. In this passage, the apostle comforts the saints with assurance that Christians who die before Jesus returns will not miss out on any of the events and blessings of that grand day. He contrasts living and dead Christians throughout this passage – alien sinners are not in view here. Jesus “himself” will descend from heaven (this did not happen in 70 A.D.). Audible and visible events will occur. A “shout” commanding death to give up its prisoners will go forth (Jn. 5:28-29). The “voice of the archangel” will herald the power and victory of Christ’s return (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7). The “trump of God” shall sound, signaling deliverance and liberty from death (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; Ley. 25:9-10). These things did not happen in 70 A.D. The dead in Christ shall rise first, with the living Christians being “caught up in the clouds,” and all the saints shall “meet the Lord in the air” (this did not happen in 70 A.D.). Then, “so shall we ever be with the Lord.” We will ever be with the Lord in this resurrected, changed, caught-up state (this did not happen in 70 A.D.)! We can comfort one another with these words (1:8), but there is surely no comfort in the words and doctrines of Realized Eschatology. It provides no final and decisive solution to the sin problem humanity faces. It presents a world in sin which will forever continue. The Bible reveals that with the Lord’s personal return (Acts 1:9-11), this sin-cursed world will be destroyed (2 Pet. 3:5-12), with a new order taking its place (2 Pet. 3:13). In view of these realities, Christians should be comforted in their hope of the future return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:18; 2 Thess. 1:10; Col. 3:4). But, sinners and perverters of God’s word should be converted, for it will certainly be “a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, pp. 650-652
November 2, 1989