It is truly difficult to know where to start in an expose of the A.D. 70 doctrine. Its errors are legion, though most of them are interrelated and these errors are not easily grasped because they are couched in language we are accustomed to using to mean other things. In this way the A.D. 70 doctrine resemble Neo-Orthodoxy and other brands of liberalism. It assigns strange meanings to familiar words and passages and thus requires a very tedious examination to even understand exactly what is being said in the first place. Some new terms are invented but mostly it is an arbitrary assignment of esoteric ideas to commonly used words and a consequent forced reinterpretation of many well-known passages, to yield totally unexpected meanings.
The Arrogance of Date-Setters
Sometime in the middle A.D. 60's, two fellows named Hymenaeus and Philetus set the date for Christ's second coming (i.e., of the resurrection) as past already, or as having been sometime before A.D. 67 or thereabouts. Some eighteen centuries later, William Miller set the date for Christ's second coming for 1843 and when it did not occur, Miller's associates set the date again for October 22, 1844. Nothing happened then either.
A half-century later, Charles T. Russell set the date for 1914 and when Christ did not appear that time, "Judge" Rutherford set the date for 1920. Later, the "Judge" rendered the "decision" that Jesus had appeared but it had occurred secretly and was not generally known, so the "Judge" and his followers were commissioned to announce it to the unsuspecting world.
Another half-century later, Max. R. King (The Spirit of Prophecy, 1971) declared that all the others were wrong and that Christ actually had come in A.D. 70 and unbeknown to anyone, had effected the end of the world, the judgment, the resurrection of the dead and the establishment of the eternal kingdom. King later affirmed this in debates (The Nichols-King Debate, 1973; The McGuggan-King Debate, 1975).
Each of the above date-setters was certain of his position, yet Jesus Christ, the divine King whose coming is the point of the issue, said that neither He nor the angels of heaven knew when the date of His second coming would be (Matthew 24:36). We therefore charge the A.D. 70 advocates with the error of colossal arrogance! If Jesus did not know when it would be, how can uninspired men know?
The A.D. 70 people will doubtless reply that Jesus was speaking of no one knowing the future but that they know the past and are merely stating what has already occurred; that their knowledge is not prophetic but historic. To this we respond that Hymenaes and Philetus were in the same position and were wrong and that if it is history, we should all have known it. Indeed, every eye would have already seen it and the mourning of all nations would have come to our ears (Revelation 1:7). But such is not the case. Instead, as with the Jehovah's Witnesses, they insist that they are the enlightened ones who have found the truth camouflaged in plain language which does not at all mean what it says.
The New A.D. 70
"Spiritualizing" Hermeneutic
The basic error of the A.D. 70 doctrine is its new hermeneutic that is described as "spiritual" and that "spiritualizes" the Bible in general and prophecy in particular. Each one who has set the date for Christ's second coming has erred similarly in thinking that he possessed some secret, heretofore unknown key to the interpretation of certain prophecies and/or to the Bible in general. One such date-setter, Herbert W. Armstrong, claimed that eighteen and half centuries after the key to Biblical interpretation was lost in the destruction of Jerusalem, it was revealed to him through his wife. With this magical key, Armstrong manipulated each passage of scripture to read into it what he wanted to find (i.e., that "Israel" means Anglo-Saxons) and then, to extract some amazing "truth" from it (e.g., that all Anglo-Saxons will be spared - Romans 11:26).
Starting with the assumption that A.D. 70 was the end of the world and the second coming of Christ, King employs a "new hermeneutic" key to "spritualize" eschatological and other passages in such a way so that they fit his theory. By this spiritualizing tactic he treats virtually all prophecy as figurative, never literal, in its meaning and fulfillment. The first and primary meaning he says, is figurative (he uses the term "spiritual" rather than "figurative," thus prejudicing his case), and any literal meaning or fulfillment is secondary if at all.
The result of the "spiritualizing" hermeneutic is to reverse the accepted use of language, which is to take words and sentences at face value (literally) unless there is good reason to understand them figuratively; i.e., unless a literal understanding does not make sense or else forces a contradiction with another passage or known truth.
Subjective Chaotic Exegesis
The spiritualizing hermeneutic makes for chaotic exegesis, since any "spiritual" or figurative meaning given as the first or primary interpretation would of necessity depend on the subjective prejudices of the interpreter. Thus we would have as much confusion in the exegesis of clear, plain passages of Scripture as now exists in the interpretation of the book of Revelation! Imagine the sea of doctrinal confusion in which we would be floundering if baptism were "spiritualized" to mean whatever the Pentecostal, Calvinist or Catholic wanted it to mean.
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
What if "water" in John 3:5 is to be understood "spiritually" and does not really mean water? If it is not water, then what is it? The answer is that it becomes whatever we want it to be - whatever we think it needs to be to make John 3:5 correspond to our preconceived notions. Is this far-fetched? Do no the Calvinists do just that with "water" in John 3:4; spiritualize it out of existence?
A few specific examples of A.D. 70 exegesis should suffice to show the confusion that results from their forced manipulations. King, in The Spirit of Prophecy (pp. 199-204), argues that the natural, weak, corruptible body that Paul refers to as dying and being buried in I Corinthians 15:35-49 is, "the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism" and that, "the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity." He says that the resurrection of I Corinthians 15, like the cross, is "a past reality...and because it is past, Christians now have a greater hope...Truly death has been destroyed 'in Christ' (I Corinthians 15:22)." I suggest that a very careful reading of I Corinthians 15 from beginning to end will not give even the slightest hint of such a meaning; to get that meaning out of it, one must first put into the passage a set of arbitrary definitions which the context will not support in any way.
All resurrection passages receive a similar treatment. In 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10, the "inward man" and the "house from heaven" are (according to King) Christianity. The "earthly house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 is said to be the "ministration of death" of 2 Corinthians 3:7, and the "house from heaven" of 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 is supposed to be the "ministration of righteousness" of 2 Corinthians 3:9. Never mind that Paul, in the intervening chapter, turned to the topic of the many persecutions of himself and other faithful preachers because they taught the truth and opposed the Judaizers and that Paul concludes that this persecution is easier to bear because of the hope that he and all Christians have of a resurrection to immortality after this life of affliction is over! What is one intervening chapter when you have an axe to grind by slipping two dissimilar passages together? Again I ask, can you find anything inherent in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10 that even remotely suggests the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christianity from its ruins?
A Reinterpretation of the New Testament
One might expect the A.D. 70 advocates to apply their chaotic exegesis to prophetic passages referring to the resurrection, the second coming, the judgment and the end of the world but what is not suspected is that they demand a reinterpretation of much, if not all of the New Testament because of the arbitrary definitions they have assigned to words which are used in contexts other than the prophetic ones.
For example, it came out in a certain lectureship that they believe Ephesians 6:10-20 is not really referring to our Christian warfare against the world in which we live but to the battle the pre-A.D. 70 Christians had to fight against the Jewish leaders ("rulers of the darkness of this world") up until and during "the evil day" (vv. 12-13). How this conflict can be made to refer to the fall of Jerusalem or Judaism is a sleight-of-tongue operation which leaves the common Christian aghast and wondering fearfully where they will strike next, and whether any Scripture will remain understandable to any bu the "spiritualizing" elite, if the A.D. 70 doctrine be accepted.
Why is this the case? Simply because the A.D. 70 doctrine is so opposed to the plain statements of Scripture everywhere that a reinterpretation must be done to create the impression of harmony between it and many opposing passages. This is done by building a new vocabulary or, what is worse, using the common vocabulary but giving the words new and arbitrary meanings without regard to context.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Thus "world" (kosmos) is redefined to mean "Jewish age" in spite of textual and lexicographical evidence against it. "Body" is redefined to mean "Judaism" - if it is physical, or before death; it supposed to mean "Christianity" - if it is spiritual or after the resurrection. Both are arbitrary definitions applied to contexts which no reader would ever guess that such could possibly be the meaning. "This world" becomes the old covenant, Judaism, or the Jewish system, but "the world to come" is the Christian system or the eternal covenant. The "new covenant" is said to be the promise to Abraham. The "day of the Lord," "that day," "the day of Christ" and similar expressions are all interpreted to mean A.D. 70, the fall of Jerusalem.
Coexistence of Judaism and Christianity
Some passages are pressed for esoteric meanings reminiscent of the allegorical school of Alexandria and similar allegorical interpretations, such as that of the Jewish view which held that because god created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, the earth would stand for six thousand years in turmoil, and the seven thousand would be the millennium of the Messiah. Such an allegorical interpretation is applied to Paul's own allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 with amazing results.
In a chapter entitled, "Abraham Had Two Sons," King (The Spirit of Prophecy, pp. 27-44) says that because Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael lived together in Abraham's house for a time, Christianity and Judaism were both in effect from about A.D. 30 to 70. This means that both Jews and Christians were God's people during a 40 year transition period.
We have all understood, on the basis of Colossians 2:14-18, Hebrews 9:15-17, Acts 2 and many other passages, that there was a short period of some 50 days (between the cross and Pentecost) when the new law had been legislated and thus was "on the books" but during which the old law was still valid unto the effective date of the new law, which was on Pentecost. But we have never understood and we do not now understand that the transitional period was 40 years. If the New Testament as a will was to be valid after its testator (Christ) died, as Hebrews 9:15-17 affirms, it was as wills are, put in force when it was probated and read on Pentecost when the gospel of the risen Savior was first preached. Who ever heard of a will not becoming valid until 40 years after its testator died, unless such a clause was plainly contained in the will itself? Where is there such a limiting clause in the New Testament?
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
The plain fact is if the New Testament did not replace the Old until A.D. 70, then Paul must have been a madman to have fought against Judaizing teachers all that time! Paul had no such understanding, for he plainly said that the cross eliminated the law of Moses (Colossians 2:14) and that anyone who justified his practice by the law of Moses had fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4).
King's contradictory statements on this allegory have Christianity beginning in A.D. 70 but being, "born on Pentecost"' (Ibid., p. 37); have, "the offspring of the free woman" (p. 30) being addressed by Paul in A.D. 58 when the apostle wrote Galatians but the, "manifestation of the sons of God" occurring along with redemption, the adoption, the marriage, the inheritance and the second coming in A.D. 70 (p. 195). How could Christianity begin 40 years before it was born? How can you have offspring 12 years before marriage, except by illegitimacy? This is what happens when you press analogy too far.
No comments:
Post a Comment