A.D. 70 Replaces the Cross As the Central Point in History
Hebrews 9:15 and a host of other passages place the cross at the very center of all history and prophecy. The gospel centers on the cross (I Corinthians 15:1-4) and the cross is the turning point in the conversion process (Romans 6:6; Colossians 3:3). The cross was implicit in the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), as that promise is interpreted by Peter (Acts 3:25-26). The New Testament is replete with references back to the cross of Christ as to the beginning of a new era. The Old Testament looked to the cross of Christ as the event of the future and, though not always clearly understood, at some times very specifically envisioned (Isaiah 53).
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
E.R. Harper in Living Issues, published several sermons to show how the premillennial theory eliminated the cross and made it a failure. If Christ came to establish a kingdom but failed to do so because of the cross, and the kingdom thus had to be postponed until the second coming, the cross must be understood as a failure. Is the A.D. 70 idea any different? It is contended that the kingdom was not fully established at the cross but that a weak, impotent, inglorious, incomplete embryo of a kingdom limped along under the persecution of the Jews until A.D. 70, when it was raised in glory, power and immortality so that Christ could truly reign. The A.D. 70 doctrine places triumph at A.D. 70 but failure at the cross and failure at Pentecost! The doctrine replaces the cross with A.D. 70 as the very center of all history and prophecy.
This doctrine is one grand adjustment process. A.D. 70 is set as the date around which all else pivots and everything else is readjusted to fit. All New Testament books are required to have been written before that date. The effective date of the gospel, or the New Testament, is adjusted to A.D. 70 in order to make the law of Moses effective until that time. The cross of Christ can hardly be moved to A.D. 70 but what happened at the cross is transferred to that date. The real significance of Pentecost, which is so clearly connected with the cross in point of time, is removed 40 years. The gospel of the cross becomes the gospel of A.D. 70! Instead of the few prophetic references which refer to the fall of Jerusalem, the entire New Testament is adjusted to be full of references to that date. If that requires manipulation, arbitrary definition, "spiritualizing," or other juggling, no matter!
Overthrowing The Faith of Some
When I first heard the A.D. 70 doctrine, I charged that it would overthrow the faith of some today as a similar doctrine did in A.D. 67 or earlier (cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18). King objected strongly to that comparison and said that his doctrine does not affect the Christian's hope today because, "the believer in death may now enter immediately into his eternal reward" (Spirit of Prophecy, p. 224).
Note however, that King says all prophecy has been fulfilled. He stated publicly in my hearing that there is no New Testament eschatology remaining for us; nothing left unfulfilled. Then when asked upon what he bases his hope of eternal reward, he spent 30 minutes trying to show how the promise to Abraham assures him of a reward hereafter.
I charge that this shows that King has a doctrinal hangover; he previously believed in heaven when he understood the many New Testament promises of the resurrection and eternal life hereafter and now that he has changed his mind about the resurrection and eternal life, he still has his anachronistic belief troubling him. He has rejected all New Testament promises as already fulfilled and in desperation he goes back to an Old Testament promise, a part of which he seemingly believes to be yet unfulfilled and in which he can look for personal blessing when he dies.
How that weakens the Christian hope which we have in such glorious promises as 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4:2; 2 Corinthians 4-5; Philippians 3:11, 20-21; Colossians 3:4. King says, "The hope, and the redemption of New Testament saints was deliverance from (out of) the Jewish age" (p. 80). That is not what the above and many other like passages affirm. They promise immortality and glory when Christ returns and they say nothing of A.D. 70 or of the Jewish age. It was Paul's understanding that the Jewish law was already dead and the Jewish age already past. Christians today have the same needs, the same Christ, the same gospel, the same forgiveness and the same hope as did the saints of the early New Testament church. We have neither more nor less than they, except that their gospel was often oral and ours is written. We still have to fight Judaizers and Jews today persecute Christians whenever they have opportunity and power to do so; only some (not all) of their power was eliminated in A. D. 70.
Removes Motivation For Good
The A.D. 70 doctrine removes the motivation for good when it wipes out the promises of Christ's second coming, the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and hell. Any faith that the A.D. 70 advocates may have in accountability is as anachronistic as their hope of eternal reward, for they have nullified the passages which promise (prophecy) both.
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Note that the great promises of 1 Corinthians 15 are concluded with the admonition of verse 58. Because we have the promise of the resurrection, we should be steadfast. Not that the promises of 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:8 are capped with the accountability principle of verses 9-10 (we aim to please God because we are all to be judges according to our earthly deeds, whether good or evil). Note that the destruction of the universe at Christ's second coming (2 Peter 3) is accompanied by the exhortation of verses 11-14 to the effect that since destruction is coming upon the physical order of things, we ought to live godly lives. Note the same motivation for good attached to the promise of glorification in 1 John 3:1-3. If the promises are all fulfilled, where is the motivation these promises once offered when they were yet to be fulfilled? And if they do not offer motivation any longer, what passage does? must we go to the promise of Abraham for this too? How ridiculous!
Destroys Fellowship in Work and Worship
Not only is motivation to work destroyed but also fellowship in that work is destroyed. How can we work with those whose gross distortions make the Scriptures meaningless? How can we trust the exegesis of one who is afflicted with a "spiritulaizing" craze? When a teacher says that Matthew 22:30 and Galatians 3:28 mean the same thing, we have to question his honesty.
But this is a two-sided street. We have no alternative but to refuse to bid Godspeed to one who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ. But how do the A.D. 70 people feel about us? I have observed their leaders refuse to sing a large number of songs in worship, and indeed they must if they do not believe in the promises of the gospel. "When Jesus Comes to Reward His Servants," "When the Trumpet of the Lord Shall Sound" and many other songs must not be sung, hence, fellowship in worship is destroyed.
Not only singing, but the motivation to partake of the Lord's supper is also affected. We partake of the Lord's supper to, "proclaim the Lord's death till He come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Why should we still do it if we believe he has already come?
Fellowship is also destroyed because we have learned by experience that the spiritualizing away of any plain passage that is found to set forth a disagreeable statement (such as hell, judgment, etc.) is a characteristic common to liberals. Is not the logical conclusion of the A.D. 70 doctrine liberalism? If Jesus' second coming was "spiritual" (i.e., figurative, not literal), then His going into heaven also must have been figurative, since Acts 1:11 says that they will both be the same. If the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15:35-57 is figurative and bodily, then the resurrection of Christ was not either, since 1 Corinthians 15:16, 20-23 says they are the same type of resurrection (the first fruits are the same kind as the later fruits!). Thus the A.D. 70 doctrine's logical conclusion would whisk away the resurrection and ascension of Christ into a spiritulized nothingness; just as the liberals have done.
For these and other reasons, we must reject the A.D. 70 doctrine as heresy. Its dangers are only gradually being realized but they are as great or greater than the threat posed by premillennialsim.
No comments:
Post a Comment