Truth Magazine

By Joe Price

The doctrine which says the personal, second coming of Jesus Christ occurred in 70 A.D. is confusing some brethren, and destroying the faith of others. In our previous article, we saw how this doctrine claims that all the second coming prophecies happened in 70 A.D. While showing that Jesus did come in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 A.D., we also noticed three passages which teach us that the personal return of Christ is still future. These passages are Acts 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:4-11 and 1 Corinthians 15. He will come bringing rest to the righteous and punishment to the wicked (2 Thess. 1:7-10; Matt. 25:31-46). At his return, all mankind will be resurrected to stand before his judgment seat, and there receive a just sentence for the deeds done in this life (Jn. 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12-15). This world shall be dissolved in a fiery judgment, and a new order shall be established (2 Pet. 3:10-13). These events did not occur in 70 A.D. It is therefore right to hope for a future return of Jesus Christ. We were not begotten unto a dead hope, but a living one (1 Pet. 1:3-5; cf. 1 Cor. 15:19).

Why has 70 A.D. been made such a focal point in this false doctrine? While several answers could be offered which address this question, I submit that the underlying reason for this doctrinal error rests upon a perverted interpretation of the allegory found in Galatians 4:21-31. In this allegory, the A.D. 70 advocate believes that he finds comfort and support for this doctrine. Instead, he finds a refutation of it!

An Overlapping of the Covenants?

To understand how the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 fits into the system of Realized Eschatology, consider Max King’s following statement:

Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecies, types and shadows of the law and not merely a “fill-in” between Judaism and another age to come. Abraham had two sons, and there was no gap between them. They overlapped a little, but Isaac “came on” when Ishmael “went out.” The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh. Hence, this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) establishes the “Spirit of Prophecy,” confirming prophecy’s fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Gal. 3:16,26-29), and beyond the fall of Jerusalem these prophecies cannot be extended (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239. Emp. King’s).

According to King (and others), this allegory establishes his view of the end times. This doctrine teaches that “out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christianity” (Ibid., p. 200). We are told that this occurred during the forty year period of 30-70 A.D. Therefore, an overlapping of the old and new covenants is believed to have occurred, and becomes crucial to this doctrine’s defense. By having us believe that the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., this heresy would have us believe that Christians were “given the place and inheritance” of the Jews. These two allegations (an overlapping of the covenants, and Christians being given the inheritance of the Jews) constitute two fatal mistakes in this false doctrine. So then, let us first look at whether or not the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D. Then, we will consider the inheritance obtained by Christians.

God’s word clearly teaches us that the old covenant ceased prior to 70 A.D. To suggest that the covenant remained until 70 A.D. is to deny God’s revealed truth! Consider the following evidence:

(1) Romans 7.1-6. An overlapping of the covenants would amount to spiritual adultery. It is adultery to be married to another man while one’s husband lives (v. 3). With his death, the wife is “discharged from the law of the husband” (v. 2), and is free to marry another (v. 3). With these truths, Paul illustrates man’s current relationship to the law of Moses:

Ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined (“married” – KJV) to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, . . . . But now we have been discharged from the law (vv. 4,6).

If the old and new covenants overlapped from 30-70 A.D., Paul’s illustration would mean nothing! Furthermore, a Jewish Christian would be married to two husbands (covenants) simultaneously, hence, spiritual adultery! More than a decade before 70 A.D., the apostle said, “But now we have been discharged from the law!” There was no overlapping of the covenants!

(2) Colossians 2.13-15. The focal point in the removal of the old covenant is the cross, not 70 A.D. In this passage, Paul emphasizes the cross as the means whereby one was released from the “bond written in ordinances.” While the old covenant could not forgive (Heb. 10: 1-4), the cross triumphs over sin and its cohorts (v. 15). At the cross, three things regarding the old covenant occurred (v. 14): (a) It was blotted out. That is, it was removed, being against or contrary to man’s forgiveness. (b) It was taken out of the way. Again, its removal is stressed. (c) It was nailed to the cross. Triumph over sin occurred at the cross, not 70 A.D.!

(3) 2 Corinthians 3:14. The old covenant is done away in Christ, not in 70 A.D. Like the Hebrews of Paul’s day, the A.D. 70 advocate fails to perceive that the old covenant was done away in Christ. The old covenant was already done away when Paul wrote this passage! Only minds “hardened” to this truth could miss the apostle’s meaning.

(4) Hebrews 7.11-14. An overlapping of the covenants would mean two priesthoods were in force at the same time. Under the old covenant, the Levitical priesthood was in force (v. 11). However, Christ is not a priest like Aaron (v. 11), but one who is “after the likeness of Melchizedek” (vv. 15,3). Because Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and not Levi, he could not serve as a priest while the old law was in force (vv. 13-14; Heb. 8:4). The law had to change to enable,Jesus Christ to serve as priest over the house of God (Heb. 7:12,15-17; 10:21; 3:1; 5:5-6; 6:20). Jesus did not wait until 70 A.D. to become a priest. Neither did he gradually become one. He began serving as High Priest when he sat down at God’s right hand (Heb. 8:1-2). Therefore, since Jesus served as High Priest before 70 A.D., the law was changed before 70 A.D. (Heb. 7:12).

(5) Ephesians 2.13-18. Christ made peace between Jews and Gentiles in his death, not in 70 A.D. Again, wefind the Bible teaching us that the cross is thefocal point of God’s plan for peace and human redemption, not 70A.D. “He is our peace” (v. 13), thus identifying Christ as the one who accomplished peace between Jews and Gentiles. When and how did he do this? He produced peace between Jews and Gentiles by removing that which stood as a barrier between them, namely, the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” (vv. 14-15). This abolition of the “middle wall of partition,” with its enmity, occurred “in his flesh” (v. 15). Verse 16 confirms this as Christ’s death, by teaching us that reconciliation with God was accomplished “through the cross, having slain the erunity thereby.” Peace between the Jews and Gentiles, and reconciliation with God, were not achieved only after a 40-year struggle of the two covenants (with the new one finally overcoming the old one!). Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) was available for all flesh, and preached without distinction to all flesh, long before 70 A.D. (Acts 2:17,21,39; 11:12-18; 10:34-35; 15:7-11). Access to God for both Jews and Gentiles is through Christ’s death (v. 18).

Were Christians Given the Place and Inheritance of the Jews?

Realized Eschatology would have you believe that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews. Recall Max King’s quote, given earlier, where he said, “They overlapped a little, but Isaac ‘came on’ when Ishmael ‘went out.’ The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh” (The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239). By redefining the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31, the A.D. 70 doctrine has occasioned its own downfall.

An assumed purpose of Paul’s allegory is used as the basis for contending that Christians were given the Place and inheritance of the Jews:

The purpose of Paul in this allegory was threefold: First, to show that Abraham had two sons which existed side by side for a time (emp., mine, jp) in the same household. This is a truth that is vital to the teachings of the New Testament, and will be a key factor in the study and application of prophecy. Much misapplication of Scripture can be attributed to a failure to recognize this simple but vital truth. These two sons are typical of the two Israels of God, one born after the flesh (old covenant) and the other born after the Spirit (new covenant) . . . . Ishmael was thefirst born and, as such, had the right ofprimogeniture, a right he maintained at the birth of Isaac, and even thereq/ter until he was cast out or disinherited (Ibid., pp. 29-30, emp., mine, ip).

Realized Eschatology’s redefinition of the allegory concludes that Ishmael was the rightful heir of Abraham “until” he was “cast out.” Thus, we should believe that the Jews under the old covenant were the rightful heirs of the inheritance, but were “cast out” at 70 A.D. (at which time Christians took their place and received the Jews’ inheritance). However, the Bible declares that Ishmael was never heir of the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:1-3)! Remember, Ishmael was Sarah’s remedy for Abraham’s lack of an heir (inasmuch as he gave her handmaid Hagar to Abraham, Gen. 16:1-3), not God’s. Even before Isaac was born, God made it clear that Ishmael was not heir of the promises he had made, when he declared that his covenant would be established with Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17:15-21). Since Ishmael never was heir to these blessings, he could not be “disinherited” of them! Isaac did not take Ishmael’s place as heir! Neither did Christians take the Jews’ place as heirs of God’s inheritance!

The old covenant did not contain the inheritance of God’s Abrahamic promises. Righteousness and justification are not through the law, but through faith in Christ (Gal. 2:16,21; 3:7-14,21-23; Rom. 3:20-22). The law gave a knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), but no release from it (Gal. 3:10,12,22-23). It produced “children of bondage” (Gal. 4:24). It contained no inheritance (Gal. 3:18-19), only a curse (Gal. 3:10-14). The “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22) is “apart from the law” (Rom. 3:21). Therefore, the “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28 Christians) did not receive their inheritance from the Jews of the old covenant. If they did, the inheritance would be “no more of promise” (Gal. 3:18). To suggest that Christians were given the place and inheritance of the Jews is to demonstrate a woeful misunderstanding of God’s promise to Abraham and how it is received. Its blessing are received through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16-19,23-29), not through the law. Our inheritance is “according to promise,” not according to the law!

The Allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 Denies the A.D. 70 Doctrine

Max King’s quote from page 239 of his book says “this simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-3 1) establishes the ‘Spirit of Prophecy. “‘ Instead, the truth of this allegory destroys the A.D. 70 doctrine. Why was this allegory used by the apostle Paul? What does the allegory teach?

The background of the allegory is found in Galatians 3:23-29, where the inspired teacher makes four needed observations:

(1) V. 23 – The law of Moses was in force, and men were under it, before faith came.

(2) Vv. 24-25 – The law was a tutor to bring men to Christ, and now that tutor was no longer needed.

(3) Vv. 26-29 – We are children of God and heirs according to promise through faith in Christ, not through the law of Moses.

Having used Galatians 3 to teach that Christians are not justified by the law of Moses, but through faith in Christ, Paul now addresses those Christians who “desire to be under the law” (Gal. 4:21), and shows them that the law itself contains an illustration of how their desire was out of place.

The allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) uses Sarah and Hagar as the two covenants (v. 24), and their sons as the product of those covenants. Hagar signifies the Mosaic law, which produced “children of bondage” (v. 24). Verse 25 emphasizes this point of bondage (cf. Gal. 3:10,22; Rom. 3:20). Sarah corresponds to the new covenant. Isaac corresponds to Christians, who are the children of promise (vv. 26-28). In verse 29, the children of bondage (Jews) are presented as persecutors of the children of promise (Christians), just as Ishmael was the persecutor of Isaac (not “the first born” of Abraham). What should Christians do? Should they desire to be under the law? Should they turn back to bondage by joining their persecutors? No! The allegory teaches them (and us) not to go back to the law and live under it, for that would place them (and us) in the bondage of sin. Instead, “Cast out the handmaid (old covenant) and her son (Jews with their persecutions),” and live in the freedom of the new covenant (Gal. 4:30-5:4). God says to purge yourself from turning back to the Mosaic law, and to live as the children of promise that you are! Do not live in bondage to the law and its curse, but in freedom from sin and death through faith in Christ!

The allegory does not carry within it the arbitrary definitions and subjective applications which the A.D. 70 doctrine places upon it. We cannot apply the allegory beyond where and how the inspired apostle of Christ applied it. To make of it an “embryonic statement” of the Realized Eschatology theory is a wresting of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16) by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 3:18-20; Rom. 1:22). Such mishandling of the word of truth must be avoided (2 Tim. 2:15) and contended against (Jude 3-4). In our final installment on the A.D. 70 doctrine, we will look at some of the grave consequences of its principle tenets.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, pp. 618-620
October 19, 1989

By Greg Gwin

The famous denominational preacher Charles Spurgeon complained about a fellow preacher whose sermons he said were “little better than sacred miniature painting” and amounted to “holy trifling.” Spurgeon went on to explain that: “he is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers’ skins, . . . and the windows of Solomon’s temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon. Such preaching reminds me of a lion engaged in mouse hunting” (Spurgeon’s Lectures to His Students).

Spurgeon has been dead for nearly 100 years, but the situation has not improved. There’s precious little preaching that addresses the real problem of sin in men’s lives. Most preachers (like Spurgeon himself) teach a perverted doctrine that could not save a man even if he was convicted of his sin. Paul says that they are “accursed” (Gal. 1:9).

Churches of Christ are not immune from this problem. We see more and more of this “pointless preaching.” The test of a preacher’s worth has come to be his ability to entertain and make folks feel good, rather than his ability to proclaim God’s truth in a way that provokes men to obedience. Too many sermons that are preached do not include any information about what one must do to be saved. Such efforts clearly miss the mark. There’s a proper place for words of comfort such as Paul preached (1 Thess. 1:11). But these positive words of peace need to be based on the foundation of true obedience, or else they are meaningless.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 623
October 19, 1989

By Lewis Willis

Several years ago, some of our brethren decided they wanted to have fellowship with other religious organizations, like the Christian Church, the Baptists, etc. Naturally, they needed to establish some basis for this desire, and out of their effort grew the “Grace-Fellowship Movement.” Basically they argued that man was saved by grace – not by doing the things set forth in the Scripture. Their position is something like that of the premillennialists – each one believes something a little different than the others, so it is hard to pinpoint a particular position held in common among them. Anyway, if grace saves, regardless of whether we have done what the Scripture says, they concluded we should have fellowship with those kind of folks. But, there was a problem. If this premise applied to the Christian Church, which was not following the authority of the Scriptures, why would it not apply to others as well? So, over a number of years, they finally concluded we should have a fellowship with those kind of folks. But, there was a problem. If this premise applied to the Christian Church, which was not following the authority of the Scriptures, why would it not apply to others as well?

So, over a number of years, they finally concluded that not only were people in the Christian Church justified while doing things not authorized in the Scripture, they are now saying that the same is true of Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, Buddhists and even those who seek salvation like the pagans who have never even heard of Jesus Christ. I have before me a copy of The Reformer (Vol. 4, No. 6), edited by Buff Scott, Jr. On page 11 he said, “Anyone — now hear me correctly — anyone who seeks glory, honor, and immortality and who sincerely responds to any divine truth to which he may be exposed, will be given eternal life – yea, even those pagans in the most remote sections of the earth who seek God and find him only through the revelation of creation. . . . Those persons in the most remote corners of the earth although not exposed to scripture and have never heard the name Jesus Christ (my emp., LW) will be given eternal life provided they seek glory, honor, and immortality through the revelation of creation. ” He affirms the same thing in Vol. 5, Nos. I and 2. He bases his argument on Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen.” Also, eternal life is imparted to those who seek for glory, honor, and immortality (Rom. 2:7).

As far as I can tell, he concludes from these two passages that a pagan who looks at God’s creation – the moon or stars or rivers – and longs to be like them – must be seeking glory, honor, and immortality. Therefore, he has eternal life, even though he has no knowledge of the “written revelation” – the New Testament – and, even if he does not know the name of Jesus. Scott wrote, “If Paul is not teaching this principle in Romans, Chapter I in referring to the pagans, I am at a total loss as to what he is teaching” (my emp., LW). I have been reading the writings of Buff Scott for several years and this is one of the few things he has said with which I am in total argument – he is at a total loss in knowing what the Scriptures teach!

Now keep in mind, he believes a pagan is saved, even though he is ignorant about Jesus and the New Testament. But Jesus said – and there is a monumental difference between what Jesus says and what Buff Scott says – that “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). He further said that people could not come to him except the Father draws them and except they have heard and learned of the Father (Jn. 6:44-45). 1 believe God ordained that the Gospel be preached, heard and learned so that we might come to Christ for eternal life. Scott says you can get that eternal life without going to this much trouble. Jesus said, “Without me ye can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). Scott says without Jesus you can have eternal life – just want to be like a star and you’ve got it! There are many other passages that could be introduced here. If we do not believe in Jesus, we will die in our sins (Jn. 8:24). If we do not repent of our sins, we are going to perish (Lk. 13:3). Those who do not confess Jew will not be confessed before God (Matt. 10:32-33). Only those who believe and are baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16). If we do not obey the gospel, God will meet out his vengeance to us (2 Thess. 1:8). Buff Scott, and others like him, have simply rejected these passages of Scripture.

Folks, it is a shame how some brethren will accept any absurd position in order to embrace something they like or want to believe. No idea is too far-fetched for them. Jesus and the New Testament will be trodden under foot without any apparent sense of shame or regret if they get in the way. Ali we can do is remind them of what God’s Word says. If it does not save them, then, possibly it will keep us from falling with them. Study this issue well. We are far from hearing and seeing the end of it. Scott’s paper, The Reformer, should be more accurately name The Deformer. What he is doing to Christ and the Church is an abomination.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 617
October 19, 1989

By Keith Sharp

In early December, 1988, Thomas L. West, institutional preacher whom I had debated in 1987, contacted me by telephone about a meeting between institutional and non-institutional brethren similar to the one held in Nashville in 1988.

I was skeptical all along of brother West’s ability to put together a slate of speakers of enough influence to make the meeting worthwhile. My skepticism has been justified.

Thus, the proposed meeting in Florence, Alabama between non-institutional brethren and those of the more conservative persuasion among institutional brethren is now dead.

Earlier this year, claiming he had just about completed a slate of speakers and that he could gain the use of the Florence Boulevard Church of Christ building in Florence, Alabama for the meeting, brother West indicated he had decided to become a “missionary” to Grenada (the island, not Mississippi) and was turning over preparations for the meeting to brother Johnny Polk.

Although I repeatedly contacted brother Polk, he never responded to my contacts. I set a deadline of August I for him to respond in some positive way. Of course, that date has long passed, and I have heard nothing.

A number of good men who oppose the human innovations into the work and organization of the church advocated by institutional brethren had agreed to give of their valuable time and work at their own expense. To you I apologize for the inconvenience you have encountered and thank you for your generous willingness to help.

Since brethren Steve Wolfgang and Roy H. Lanier, Jr. are working on a similar meeting for Dallas in the summer of 1990, there will yet be some promising opportunities to discuss our scriptural differences with brethren who are closer to us in attitudes toward the Scriptures than were the majority of institutional brethren in Nashville in 1988. 1 hope and pray that good comes of the efforts in Dallas.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 20, p. 614
October 19, 1989