THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST:
DID IT ALREADY OCCUR?
(By Joe Price)
In November, 1987, I participated in a lectureship with brethren Robert W.LaCoste and Harry Osborne at the Sierra Vista church in Enumclaw, Washington.
We were asked by that church to present a
series of lessons on the second coming of Christ, because of a
doctrine which was affecting brethren in that church and that
region. The doctrine which was and is having a destructive effect
is formally referred to as "Realized Eschatology," or informally
as the "A.D. 70" doctrine. Several brethren were confused over
the Bible's presentation of the Lord's promised return as a
result of this doctrine's influence. Since this lectureship, I
have continued to hear of the attempted spread of this doctrine.
Because of the serious effect this heresy has had upon
individuals and entire churches it is necessary that it be
exposed for what it is - a perversion of the gospel of Christ
(Gal. 1:6-9). To engage in such an endeavor is mandated in
Scripture (Jude 3-4). It is always right to expose error, protect
the innocent, and turn away from divisive doctrines (Rom.
16:17-18). Our motive must be love for truth and for the souls of
men. Our objective must be to warn and correct, using God's word
as our standard (2 Tim. 2:24-26; 4:1-5).
During the Enumclaw lectureship mentioned above, Harry
Osborne and I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with two
men who defended the A.D. 70 doctrine. On that occasion, these
men set forth the basic position of the doctrine, namely, that
the final coming of Christ and the promised resurrection (1
Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15) occurred in 70 A.D. Such a doctrine has
far-reaching consequences upon the faith of Christians! If it is
true, then all who hope in the actual, bodily, personal return of
Jesus are deceived (1 Thess. 4:16). If it is true, then we cannot
expect our bodies to be raised to immortality when Jesus comes (1
Cor. 15:22-23, 51-54). If this doctrine is false, then those
holding it have erred, and are guilty of overthrowing the faith
of others, as were Hymenaeus and Philetus, who also said "the
resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:16-18). There is no
middle ground
What Is Realized
Eschatology?
As James Orr says, "By ‘eschatology,’ or doctrine
of last things, is meant the ideas entertained at any period on
the future life, the end of the world (resurrection,
judgment;...) and the eternal destinies of mankind"
(International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, II:972).
"Realized" signifies accomplishment, hence, Realized Eschatology
is a doctrine of completed last things. According to its
interpretation of the Bible, the end times were realized and
accomplished in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact,
we are told by a major proponent of this doctrine that "the fall
of Judaism (and its far reaching consequences) is, therefore, a
major subject of the Bible" (The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King,
p. 239). [For an excellent review and rebuttal of this book, see
"The Preterist View Heresy (1-VIII)," Bill Reeves, Truth
Magazine, Vol. XVII, No. 9-16 (4 Jan. - 22 Feb., 1973).] We are
told that the second coming of Christ occurred at 70 A.D., at
which time every spiritual blessing was perfected and made
available to the world. Due to fundamental failures in sound,
Biblical interpretation, Christians are being taught that all
prophecy of end-time events was fulfilled in 70 A.D., and to look
beyond that date for the personal coming of Christ and the bodily
resurrection of mankind followed by a judgment, is without
Biblical authority. Here is a sampling of this basic viewpoint of
the doctrine from King's The Spirit of Prophecy:
"There is no scriptural basis for extending the second coming of Christ beyond the fall of Judaism." - p. 105
"...the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ." - p. 81 (emp., King's)
"Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in
the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed
and consummated." - p. 65
Thus, the second coming of Christ is made equal with the
"fall of Judaism" (the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.). To
King, and some misguided brethren today, we dare not look to our
future in anticipation of the coming of the Lord! All prophecies
relating to it were fulfilled in 70 A.D.! Now, when it is shown
that the personal, bodily return of our Lord is described in
terms which cannot apply to the events of 70 A.D., the error of
this doctrine will be fully exposed.
Did Jesus Come In The First Century
Following His Ascension?
There is ample evidence in the word of God that Jesus did indeed
come in some sense (or senses) in the first century. For example,
He came in His kingdom (Matt. 16:28) with power (Mk. 9:1) on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5, 8; 2:1-4, 33). Now, look how Jesus
described the sending of the promised Comforter (the Holy Spirit)
in John 14:18: "I come unto you." Surely no one will conclude
that this must mean a bodily coming of Jesus! How would He come?
Not bodily, but representatively, through the Holy Spirit whom He
would send (Jno. 15:26). Again, in Matthew 24:29-30, Jesus taught
that during that generation (24:34) "they shall see the Son of
man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
The context of Matthew 24 tells us how they would see Him. The
context of the chapter is the destruction of Jerusalem.
Unquestionably, Jesus did not appear bodily in 70 A.D. when
Jerusalem fell. Instead, Matthew 24:30 speaks of His presence in
Jerusalem's judgment. He authorized it, and brought it to pass
(cf. Isa. 19:1). They would see or discern His presence when this
destructive judgment occurred. Yes, Jesus Christ came in judgment
in 70 A.D., but it was not His bodily return! Similar language is
used to describe His coming in judgment against the powers
persecuting the saints in Revelation 1:7 (cf. Rev. 19:11-21).
None of these "comings" of the Lord prevent a future coming of
Christ in bodily form at the end of time!
The A.D. 70 doctrine would make every mention of the "coming
of the Lord" or "day of the Lord" mean the same event, regardless
of its usage in context. It is a fact of Biblical interpretation
that the same phrase can have different meanings. For example,
take the expression "laid hands upon." In Acts 4:3, it means to
arrest. In Acts 13:3, it means to commend. In Luke 13:13, it
means to heal. In Acts 8:17 and 19:6, it means to impart
spiritual gifts. To arbitrarily assign one meaning to this phrase
every time it is used would result in absurdity! Yet, this is
exactly what the A.D. 70 doctrine does with "coming of the Lord"
and "day of the Lord."
The problem with limiting the coming of the Lord to 70 A.D.
is demonstrated by at least three passages in the New
Testament:
1) Consider Acts 1:9-11, where angels tell the apostles that
Jesus "shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into
heaven" (v. 11, ASV). In what manner did Jesus go into heaven?
Jesus ascended into heaven actually and personally, in His
resurrected body (Lk. 24:39). In Acts 1:9-11, five words are used
which emphasize that actual sight was involved on this occasion.
His apostles "were looking" as Jesus was taken up (v. 9). A cloud
received Jesus "out of their sight" (v. 9). The apostles were
"looking stedfastly into heaven" when two men in white apparel
appeared to them (v. 10). These messengers asked the apostles,
"Why stand ye looking into heaven?" (v. 11). And finally, the
apostles were assured that Jesus would return in like manner as
they had "beheld him" going into heaven (v. 11). The apostles
actually saw Jesus' bodily ascension. This is the manner in which
He will return (1 Thess. 4:16-17). Jesus did not come in bodily
form, nor was He personally seen in the events of the coming of
the kingdom (Matt. 16:28; Jno. 14:18), the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (Matt. 24:30), or in the defeat of the
persecuting powers of Revelation 1:7. Christ's personal, bodily
return is yet future!
2) Next, consider 2 Peter 3:5-7, 10-11,
where the A.D. 70 advocate "spiritualizes" away the meaning of
the word of God. By His word, God created and then destroyed the
world with water. By that same word of God, the heavens and earth
which now exist are stored up for fire, awaiting a day of
judgment against ungodliness:
"For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of
old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the
word of God; by which means the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are,
and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire,
being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of
ungodly men But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the
elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and
the works that are therein shall be burned up. "(2 Pet. 3:5-7,
11)
The A.D. 70 advocates try to make the heavens and earth (v.
7, 10), which shall meet a fiery end, the Jewish economy (as do
the Jehovah's Witnesses). But, this is to no avail. The world
which was overflowed with water is now stored up for fire. This
fiery judgment shall occur on "the day of the Lord" (v. 10), at
His "coming" (v. 4). Was the world of Noah's time actually
flooded? Then the world which now exists shall actually be
destroyed with fire! If this verse had been fulfilled in 70 A.D.,
none of us would be here!
The abuse of this passage illustrates the error in Biblical
interpretation which is present in this system of error. As D. R.
Dungan notes:
"Many seem disposed to regard
themselves as at liberty to make anything out of the Bible which
their theology may demand or their whims require. And if, at any
time, they find a passage that will not harmonize with that view,
then the next thing is to find one or more words in the text used
elsewhere in a figurative sense, and then demand that such be the
Biblical dictionary on the meaning of that word, and hence that
it must be the meaning in that place." (Hermeneutics, Dungan, p.
217)
The A.D. 70 doctrine attempts this with "the day of the
Lord" and His "coming" in 2 Peter 3:4-11, but it finds no support
here!
3) 1 Corinthians 15 teaches a future, bodily resurrection
from the dead. While the A.D. 70 doctrine says the resurrection
is past already (having occurred in 70 A.D.), this passage
decisively refutes that claim. To the Realized Eschatologist, the
primary meaning of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of
Christianity out of Judaism, not the resurrection of mankind at
the personal return of Jesus Christ. To briefly set forth their
case, hear Max King on what is resurrected in 1 Corinthians
15:
Next (1 Cor. 15:35-44 - jrp), Paul answers questions
concerning how the dead are raised and with what body they come
forth. The primary application (emp., jrp) deals with the
development and rise of the Christian system itself, with a
secondary application belonging to believers and their state
within the system. The natural body that was sown (verse 44)
answers to the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism in which
existed prophecies, types, and patterns from which came the
spiritual body designed of God....The natural body (emp.,
King's), receiving its death blow at the cross and beginning then
to wax old and decay (Heb. 8:13), became a nursery or seed-body
for the germination, growth, and development of the spiritual
body by means of the gospel.
Thus, out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of
Christianity (emp., jrp) that became fully developed or
resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning
of Paul's statement (emp., jrp), ‘It is sown a natural
body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and
there is a spiritual body’" (The Spirit of Prophecy, King,
pp. 199-200).
The assumed definitions and applications in that quotation
alone show the subjective nature of this doctrine! The Scriptures
are twisted to say what has already been decided, namely, that
Christianity arose out of Judaism, an event which we are told was
completed in 70 A.D.! I cannot think of a better illustration of
2 Peter 3:15-17! Can you?
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul answers the teaching by some "that
there is no resurrection of the dead" (v. 12). He does this by
first establishing the validity of the bodily resurrection of
Jesus Christ (vs. 1-11). Then, he presents the consequences of
denying the resurrection of the dead (vs. 12-34). Next, he
anticipates objections to bodily resurrection (vs. 35-50).
Finally, he praises the victory over death God gives us in Christ
through the resurrection (vs. 51-58). The very thing defined in
this chapter is denied by the A.D. 70 doctrine, namely, a future,
bodily resurrection! To demonstrate this as the central theme of
the chapter, consider vs. 20-23. Here, the bodily resurrection of
all mankind is said to be based upon the bodily resurrection of
Christ! The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of the dead
(vs. 20, 23). The offering of firstfruits under the law of Moses
was the choicest and earliest ripe crop (Num. 18:12; Exo. 23:16,
19), indicating that all the crop which followed belonged to God
(cf. Deut. 26:2-11). Also, we should note that the crop which
followed was of the same kind or type as its firstfruits. In like
manner, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is an assurance
and guarantee that all who die shall be raised. And, we are
assured that our resurrection will be the same kind as His. As
surely as bodily death comes to all because of Adam's sin (Gen.
3:19), bodily resurrection will come to all because of Christ's
bodily resurrection (vs. 21-22). This reveals His power and
preeminence over death (cf. Jno. 5:28-29; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:18).
Thus, Paul defends the doctrine of bodily resurrection from the
dead upon the basis of Christ's bodily resurrection. The later
fruit (resurrection of all the dead at Christ's coming) must be
the same kind of fruit as the firstfruits, namely, bodily
resurrection! Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, and our
bodies shall be raised, too. Nowhere do we discover a
Judaism-
Christianity contrast in 1 Corinthians 15. That can only be found
in the imagination of the A.D. 70 advocates!
The attempt to assign to 70 A.D. every end-time event
(including the final coming of Christ, bodily resurrection and
the judgment) cannot be supported by Scripture. It is completely
refuted by Acts 1:9-11, 2 Peter 3:1-11, and 1 Corinthians 15.
This article comes from the BIBLE TRUTHS website to whom we
are grateful.
UK APOLOGETICS