Examining Realized Eschatology (1)

Introduction

It is good to see everybody this morning. I am very happy to be with you today and to bring this series of lessons to you that we’re going to be examining realized eschatology, and I had wondered how much this had been actually introduced before I came. Uh seeing that there’s still a good number of people here, I was assuming that there wasn’t much of an explanation given. Uh it might cause the audience to drop off a little bit. Um but it really is an interesting topic that I hope is far more interesting than the name sounds. Uh it is a particular view of interpretation dealing with the second coming of Jesus Christ and the end of the world, ideas like the resurrection and the judgment that we’re going to be talking about.

And in our two sermons today, uh during our worship periods, we’re going to look at some of the specific areas of what the Bible teaches concerning those particular ideas or doctrines or concepts. But this morning in our class, we’re going to cover an awful lot of ground, just trying to lay some of the background of what realized eschatology is and how they approach the Bible and why it’s important for us to be examining this.

Any type of an approach, uh, a doctrine, uh, a way of interpreting the Bible requires far more time than what we have. Uh I had done a lecture on this back in February and had only one lecture to cover the topic. I I thought to myself, if only I had two or three more lectures, we could do so much better. Um today we’re going to talk about it in three lessons, and I was thinking to myself, if only I had two or three more lessons, we could do so much better at examining this. We’re not going to be able to cover everything concerning this idea or this concept. And we’re not going to refute everything about realized eschatology. I’m not trying to engage in a debate on these matters, especially not in this class and during this period.

1. What Eschatology Is: The Last Things

Instead, what I’m hoping that we can do is first to educate, to fairly present what this viewpoint is, and then to raise some questions concerning it that we will more directly address in this morning’s sermon and this evening’s sermon as well. I hope that it brings it more clearly into view and that we’ll all understand a little bit better not only what this particular view is, but what the Bible has to say on some of these matters. But when we try to define realized eschatology, we first have to understand what eschatology is. And it’s one of those big scholarly words that really is more easily defined. The definition is a little bit easier than the word itself is. Simply stated, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says it’s the doctrine of the last things.

Eschatology is really a study of the last things, a study of the end and any of those events associated with the end. And it’s further explained by the following statement. They say that included in eschatology are two distinct but inseparable questions. The destiny of the individual, dealing with matters like life, death, immortality, the intermediate state, the resurrection, and then also the destiny of history. The day of the Lord, the end of the world, judgment, and the kingdom of God in the new world. Traditionally, eschatology has been concerned primarily with the destiny of the individual. If you just talk about a study of that in world history and philosophies, but they point out that when it comes to biblical eschatology, individual destiny must be understood in connection with the destiny of history as a whole.

Again, that’s a little bit long and complicated. But we’re just looking at a study of the end of things. The end of our lives, the end of where we go after this life is over, and the end of the world. And in biblical eschatology, those two events are connected. There is a connection that’s revealed in Scripture between the end of history, the end of our planet, the end of all of these things, and the end of man’s existence here in this world, the new world, the new heavens, the new earth, the new life that we have. Those ideas are connected with one another. And yet, in reality, our discussions concerning eschatology usually focus on the day of the Lord, the end of the world, and those ideas.

If you’re doing a series of lessons on eschatology, we’re thinking about visions like what Peter described when he wrote that the heavens would pass away with a roar, the elements would melt with intense heat. The eschatological passages or end time passages are among some of the most exciting and exhilarating texts in the entire Bible. The 70 weeks of Daniel. The all of it discourse given by Jesus. The revelation delivered to John. Those descriptive narratives bring to our minds magnificent visions. What’s described in those texts, the apocalyptic language that’s so vivid as the stars fall from the sky and the moon turns to blood. The final battle between good and evil. The culmination of the struggle that has existed throughout the ages. The ushering in of a new era, a new heavens and a new earth wherein righteousness dwells.

2. Futurist, Preterist, and Combined Approaches

That’s what eschatology is all about. And there are multiple ways in which one can interpret the eschatological passages. When it comes to some of these particular verses or scriptures, what’s sometimes known as a futurist approach is one in which the text is seen to still have a future fulfillment. In other words, it hasn’t come to pass yet. Many of us in this room would take a passage like 2 Peter 3 or 1 Corinthians 15 in this light. They are yet to be fulfilled. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about the resurrection. It hasn’t happened yet. 2 Peter 3 talks about the world passing away, burning up. It hasn’t happened yet. That would be a futurist approach to at least those particular passages. A preterist approach is one in which the text is understood to have already been fulfilled.

It was a predictive text when it was first given, but it’s already been fulfilled by now. And so those eschatological passages were about some other end time. They weren’t about the end time at the end of history. And most of the prophecies regarding the Messiah, we would say have already been fulfilled. We would view most regarding the kingdom as being fulfilled as well. That’s a preterist approach. There were predictions that the kingdom would come into existence, would come to pass. Jesus spoke about it in a future tense when he was on earth. And yet I would understand that to, for the most part, be fulfilled in Acts chapter 2. And so I’d have kind of a preterist approach to that. It already has been fulfilled, even though it was a future event when Jesus spoke of it.

And most of us do hold to some kind of a combined approach. Certain passages have already been fulfilled, and a few are yet to be fulfilled, especially those concerning the Lord’s return, the resurrection, and what we might term a final judgment. And what also complicates this issue is there’s all kinds of other ideas that are wrapped into this as well. We may view certain passages in a double fulfillment type of light. Sometimes what’s called a now but not yet understanding. In some sense, the kingdom exists now. There’s another sense in which it will be more fully revealed later. In some sense, we have eternal life now. There’s another sense in which it will be more fully revealed later. Inaugurated fulfillment.

3. Realized Eschatology: Already Come to Pass

We come at all these texts, and sometimes we say, well, that was a prediction that’s been fulfilled. That one hasn’t been fulfilled. That one maybe has been fulfilled a little bit, but will be fulfilled more later. You can see how that can get a little bit confusing to the hearer or to the reader. That’s part of the reason, I think, why realized eschatology has gained some popularity in recent years. From that standpoint, realized eschatology actually simplifies those positions as far as approach is concerned. And they do that by having a fully preterist view. Realized eschatology means eschatology has already been realized. It’s already come to pass. And in other words, no matter what passage of prophecy you’re examining, the advocate of realized eschatology believes that it has already been fulfilled, no matter which prophecy it was.

In fact, one debate proposition that was actually sent to me, someone who wanted to engage in a debate on that, they stated their position as follows. The Bible teaches that the second coming of Christ, the end of the age, and the resurrection occurred at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Well, that’s what realized eschatology is really all about. A belief that every future prophecy and prediction that was in the Bible has already come to pass. That it found its fulfillment, most of those in or around the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. An event that’s not recorded for us in the Bible, but is clearly prophesied and predicted in the Bible and is recorded for us in history. And because of that, this position has been identified by various names.

Other descriptions that are given to it, instead of just realized eschatology. I chose that because it seems to be one of the most commonly accepted terms among those who advocate it. I’m not trying to mislabel someone, use a negative label that sometimes happens when there’s different religious debates or discussions. Realized eschatology is a term that many of these people use themselves. Seems to be one of the more common ones. That’s how I usually refer to the position. But others simply refer to it as preterism. It’s just a preterist approach, and depending on whether a person uh is more in favor of this or against it. Um terms like full preterism, consistent preterism, hyper preterism are used, um, full preterism, I think any of them might use.

Consistent is obviously somebody who believes in this, and they’re kind of saying, I’m consistent in this. Hyper preterism, well, that’s a critic looking at them. You know, you’re overly preterist, but that’s another one of the terms that’s used. The AD 70 doctrine, or the Max King doctrine, associating it with an individual within the Lord’s church who advocated this at one point. Um we’re not really interested in a study of the history of this entire movement this morning. Again, we don’t have time concerning that. There’s some debate as to whether anyone really held to this position before the 19th century. Some claim, oh, yeah, they did all the way back to the beginning. Um there’s a little bit of a debate about that that’s difficult to prove, and then also sometimes called covenant eschatology.

4. How They Interpret These Passages

We’ll talk about that more in a few minutes. But with that approach, um, what does that mean? How do they interpret these passages? And I do want to be fair this morning. Um I think any time we teach, we need to try to be as fair as we can. I’m trying to present this in a way that they would present it themselves if they were here, and then I am going to express some concerns about it. And I do want to point out what this does not mean. Because simply saying that these things are past or fulfilled doesn’t answer most of our questions. We would have obvious questions like, Jesus already came? And for a real eyes, I said, Well, yes, he did. Well, that’s ridiculous, and you just move on.

Well, you need to have an explanation of what that means. The resurrection’s already passed. Does that mean that there’s no hope, no future for us? It does not mean that there is no purpose in life or no afterlife. That’s not what they’re teaching. The advocates of this position still believe in a soul, and they still believe in an eternal reward in heaven with God, but they do not believe in a physical resurrection. They do not believe in a bodily resurrection, and they don’t believe in some future event when all the dead will come out of the grave and will respond to the call that Christ or God gives to them. It also does not mean that the world will go on forever. Now they will argue that these passages that seem to depict the destruction of the world, we’re really talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that the world’s never going to end. But what they would say to you is that we just don’t really have any revelation concerning this. Maybe it will go on forever. Maybe it will end. Maybe it’ll be burned up, but that’s not what 2 Peter 3 was all about. And so I do think we need to be careful that when they say these things have already happened, that we don’t make them say something that they’re not saying. We don’t try to convey, oh, so you just think when we die we’re dead all over and there’s nothing after that. No, they still think the soul goes on. But they don’t think the body will be resurrected. You think the world will just continue to exist into all eternity.

Well, no, not necessarily. They don’t know what’s going to happen to the world. They think it’s one of those things where the Bible has not spoken. And so I want to be fair with that. But at the same time, I also want us to understand how they deal with some of these various issues. How do they interpret these various passages? How do they explain some of these events? The second coming of Jesus. To a realized eschatologist, the return of Jesus Christ is seen in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. This was the coming of the Son of Man. It served both a physical purpose and a spiritual purpose. And every reference to the return or coming of Christ after his death, burial, and resurrection was fulfilled in this event.

And anything that Jesus was expected to do at his coming was fulfilled here as well. Now again, we’ll try to talk about that a little bit more. But anything that talked about the second coming of Jesus, anything that talked about the return, the coming of Jesus after his death, burial, resurrection, ascension to heaven, they say all of that was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. That physical event has symbolic meaning, and that was Christ returning. That was Christ bringing judgment on Jerusalem for the death of Christ, for the rejection of the Messiah, and that is the second coming of Jesus. When they talk about the resurrection, the same approach is made. The resurrection occurred when Jerusalem was destroyed. I’ve actually heard a couple of different ideas concerning this, and we’re going to look at it more closely in one of our sermons today.

But one interpretation is a spiritualized interpretation that has the church as the body of Christ. And the church was somehow resurrected from persecution when Jerusalem was destroyed. The Jews had been persecuting the body of Christ for some 40 years. When that judgment comes, then somehow the body is revived. And a glorified church comes back. And that’s what those resurrection passages were all about. Others will say, no, it’s still about the individual, but it was something spiritual that took place. A changing of the soul that somehow occurred simultaneously when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. At that moment, those who were dead in Christ perhaps left the Hadean realm and went to be with God. And those who were still alive had their soul revived and somehow received eternal life, so that they would just simply go straight to heaven when they died.

And that’s what the resurrection is. When they talk about the judgment, they also clearly see that one to have been fulfilled in what happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Some see that as a judgment against the Jews, a judgment against Israel, a judgment against the Jewish nation. Others will say, well, no, that’s when everybody was judged. But it just happened symbolically, spiritually at that moment. The end of the age. That’s not the end of the world, as you might think. That’s the end of the Jewish covenant and the end of that particular dispensation. We talk about various dispensations in the Bible, the patriarchal period, the Mosaic period, the Christian period. They really argue that when Jesus talked about the end of the age coming, that was the end of Judaism.

And they have that end coming in 70 A.D. Now they have Christianity coming in 30, 33, but they have the end of the Jewish age coming in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed, and that’s what these prophecies are all about. Again, the end. Any type of a mention of the destruction of the world and the end. Destruction of the world is the destruction of the Jewish system. The end is the end of this Jewish nation. At least one interpretation when Jesus will deliver the kingdom over to the Father at the end. Then comes the end, and Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father. I would typically interpret that to be the deliverance of the church into the hands of God. I’ve read some of these interpretations.

They say, no, that was actually the Jewish nation. And according to that interpretation, interestingly enough, Jesus Christ was the last king to sit on the throne of the Jewish nation. He reigned over that nation for that 40 year period of time, and then delivered them over to God for judgment. It’s a very different interpretation of these things. He ended his reign at that point. He gave the Jews into the hands of an angry God who then punished them because of their unfaithfulness. And that’s what this end is all about. And the age to come is simply the Christian age. All of those references to the age to come. That would be the Christian age when we are like Christ, and when we neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Interesting interpretation to that. That’s what Jesus talked about. The age to come would be like that. In the age to come in the resurrection, we’ll be like the angels. We’ll neither marry nor are we given in marriage. They say that’s already been fulfilled. In the age to come, that’s the Christian age. What’s that mean? Well, I mean, I’ve married. I’ve been giving in marriage. They say it just means that the covenant is no longer propagated through the production of children. The Jewish covenant was prolonged by having children. The Christian covenant is not prolonged that way. We convert people. You’re not born into it. You get some of those explanations, and they’re obviously what might be called unorthodox or non-traditional. They come back at all of these various topics, and there are things that those who believe and realize eschatology would try to present, and almost always they have to begin with, well, it’s not what you’ve always thought it was.

It’s something else. There’s a different interpretation and understanding of all of these passages, and they do a pretty good job of trying to present their case. But the question that we sometimes ask is, why do you jump through all those hoops to go to a non-traditional or an unorthodox interpretation? You know, why can’t the age to come be the age when we’re like the angels in heaven and we don’t marry or given in marriage? You consider the Sadducees’ question that was being asked of Jesus there, the woman that had the seven husbands. It doesn’t seem to be a reference to a church age. That’s a reference after they died and in the resurrection. What’s going to happen when they’re brought back to life? You know, to do that type of a strange interpretation of it, what makes people want to interpret these passages in this way?

5. Why: The Time Statements of the New Testament

With that unorthodox, non-traditional view. And yet the proponents of realized eschatology claim that their position is growing. They claim to have more people coming over to that interpretation all the time. And we are seeing it some, even among the Lord’s people, among the Lord’s church. It’s a far greater movement in the denominational world. It’s not a large movement by any means, but it’s had more influence among them. And yet we’re seeing people being persuaded. What persuades someone to take this position? I think it’s important that we try to understand that. And to the best of my ability to understand it, the main reason that I have seen, even among those who hold this position, is because they believe it does a better job of explaining the temporal, the time statements of the New Testament.

The big hang-up with the traditional, what might be considered orthodox interpretation of the eschatological passages is the fact that Jesus has not come back yet. And yet they argue that when you look at the New Testament, there are references in the New Testament that indicate the return of Christ was imminent. Jesus was coming back very, very, very, very soon. That’s what those Christians were told. And the proponents of realized eschatology, they kind of struggle with that a little bit. Why did all of these Christians believe that Jesus was coming back immediately if he’s not coming back for a couple thousand years? If we’d be sitting here in 2010 and we’re still awaiting the second coming of the Lord. They say realized eschatology explains that a little bit better.

And there are so many publications out there dealing with this. I don’t think I need to go through every passage with you, but there are some passages that talk about the return of the Lord being imminent, being something that would happen very, very soon. There are some of them that give a pretty strong time reference. Now, I would argue that some of those passages would be recognized by almost all of us as references to the destruction of Jerusalem. That there are references to the destruction of Jerusalem that are connected in some way with the day of the Lord, with the judgment that was coming. And those passages spoke about this happening very, very soon. Matthew chapter 24, verse 34. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Well, that’s a short period of time. Forty years, approximately, a generation. And this is going to be fulfilled during that time period. Luke chapter 21, 20 through 22. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must enter the city, because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which were written will be fulfilled. This armies are going to surround Jerusalem. Be aware of it. Be ready to take action. The fulfillment of the things that have been predicted. Other prophecies or passages are a little less specific. They just talk about the nearness of the Lord.

Philippians chapter 4, verse 5. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. The Lord is near. Is that his coming? Is that just his presence? It’s a little bit harder to understand. James 5, verse 7 and 8. Therefore, be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. The coming of the Lord is near. That’s what James said in James chapter 5 and in verse 8. And some that talk about the end being near. Some of those that I would understand to be the end of time.

Romans the 13th chapter and verse 11, do this, knowing the time that it is already the hour for you to awaken from the sleep. For now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. Salvation is nearer to us. At least the way I would understand that is maybe talking about the end. When I get to actually be in with God and be in heaven, and it’s nearer now than it was before. Romans 16 and verse 20 the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. Hebrews 10 25, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

What that day is has sometimes been debated, but something coming soon. First Peter 4 and verse 7 the end of all things is near. Therefore be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. And first Peter 4 and verse 17, for it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God, and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? The end being near. That’s what realized eschatology struggles with. The revelation of John, revelation of Jesus to John. It talks about those things that will soon take place. Most of us have studied that to some extent. You’re familiar with that at the beginning of the book, these things that are going to happen soon.

And based on some of those things, they’ve come to that understanding. Even the inclusion of the apostles, some of the context, the we statements. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 15, 51 and 52. Paul writes, Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in the moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. Well, at least some proponents of realized eschatology point out that Paul said, They’re we. We will be changed when that happens. We will not all sleep. We will be here when Jesus comes back, when that trumpet sounds and the Lord appears.

He goes on to conclude, we which are alive and remain into the coming of the Lord, in which number the apostle firmly believed that he himself should be.

Paul includes himself as a we. That’s the primary reason they come to their conclusions. Statements like all of the New Testament passages predicted an imminent return of the Lord. Those are the statements that they’ll make. That Jesus conveyed this, that the apostles believed it. They thought it would be in their lifetime. The early Christians expected it at any moment, are followed by statements like if the Lord did not return in the first century, then the early Christians must have been mistaken or deceived. Or the apostles were mistaken or deceived. Or Jesus was mistaken or deceived. Or God can’t tell time. That’s what they’ll come back saying. The New Testament conveyed the idea that Jesus was coming back. Very, very soon. Was God telling the truth or was he lying?

They’ll say, to be fair with these passages, the only natural way to understand them is that Jesus did return. That’s why they make a position that they make. And yet, how? In what way can we interpret the resurrection, the end of the age, the judgment, the return of the Lord, the passing away of the earth and its elements, and all of the events we associate with the parocia, the second coming of Jesus Christ being fulfilled in the first century. Russell, again, one of the major proponents of this position, stated that we have to understand the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Say, our biggest problem is that we have ignored that. We haven’t studied that enough. And that not only it was something that was prophesied and predicted, but it is the paramount event of history.

It’s the biggest event that ever occurred. It was the most important moment in human history. It was at this time that God ended his covenant relationship with his people, Israel. It was at this time that God finally brought that to an end, what he had initiated with these people, and that’s a huge change in human history. That’s part of why this is sometimes called covenant eschatology. All of the eschatological passages were about the ending of that covenant. The end. The end of what? The end of the covenant. The Mosaic covenant. The ending of that relationship with Israel. The rejection of them as the people of God. That’s how they understand that. And while I typically don’t like reading long excerpts from a man’s work in a lecture or a sermon or a lesson that I’m presenting, I want to share some of Russell’s thoughts from the Parisia.

Page 546. He says here that what has happened is we have a fundamentally erroneous conception of the real significance and grandeur of that great crisis in the divine government of the world, which is marked by the parocia. You have a fundamentally erroneous view of this. You don’t understand how great of a crisis this was. The grandeur that’s involved there. And he goes on to say the destruction of Jerusalem was not a mere thrilling incident in the drama of history, like the siege of Troy or the downfall of Carthage, closing a chapter in the annals of a state or a people. It was an event which has no parallel in history. It was the outward and visible sign of great epoch in the divine government of the world.

It was the close of one dispensation and the commencement of another. It marked the inauguration of a new order of things. The Mosaic economy, which had been ushered in by the miracles of Egypt, the lightnings and thunderings of Sinai and the glories for more than 15 centuries was now abolished. The peculiar relation between the Most High and the covenant nation was dissolved. The Messianic kingdom, that is the administration of the divine government by the mediator, so far at least as Israel was concerned, reached its culminating point. The kingdom so long predicted, hoped for, prayed for, was now fully come. The final act of the king was to sit upon the throne of his glory and to judge his people. He could then deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.

This is the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem. That’s a lot of meaning that he’s associating with that historical event. And you catch in there even the reference, maybe you catch it, maybe you don’t, if you’re understanding how they’re thinking, that the Messiah was sitting on that throne of Israel. He was ruling over that kingdom. And his final act was to hand it over to God. And that was his final act. AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem, that was the final act of Jesus Christ. That was Jesus sitting on his throne and pronouncing judgment against God’s people, Israel, not God’s people, the Christians, not the spiritual Israel, Israel, physical Jews, and then delivering that kingdom over to the Father. That’s why that event was so important.

And partly because of this, the proponents of realized eschatology, they claim that the traditional methods that others use to interpret the text fall short. If you just understood how important that just Jerusalem destruction was, then you get it. But you don’t. You’re looking for other interpretations and this traditional view. It doesn’t adequately deal with the time references of the New Testament. That’s what they’ll fall back on again. The early Christians thought the Lord was coming back immediately. If he didn’t, they were deceived. How do you deal with that? That’s a question they would ask me. We’ll talk about that a little bit, Lord willing, in our lessons today, in our two sermons. How do you deal with that time reference? Why did God present the idea, if he did present the idea that Jesus was coming back very soon?

And then let it go on for the number of centuries that it has gone on. Allowed this to continue on with this idea that Jesus is coming back very, very soon. They say you can’t interpret it that way. The idea of a partial fulfillment in the first century, and then maybe a more complete one later. That’s what some commentators and scholars do with certain passages, and I do that with certain passages. They say you can’t really do that either. You can’t say in some way that the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of the Lord, but there’s a greater coming of the Lord that’s yet to come in the future. It has to be one event. Russell takes issue with the idea that a coming of a Lord or judgment day came to pass in the destruction of Jerusalem, but that it was only a type of a future greater catastrophe, in which the whole human race will be brought before the judgment seat of Christ and the earth will be consumed.

I would take part of that interpretation. And yet he says you can’t really do that. And what I can say is only extremely exaggerated language. He asserts in his book, again on page 545, that such a hypothesis has, quote, no foundation in the teaching of the Scriptures. There is not a scintilla of evidence, no suspicion, and no hint of such. I think we’re going to see some hints of such. More than a scintilla of evidence and a foundation in Scripture to have some partial fulfillments at one point in history and fuller fulfillments later. The same thing is true of double fulfillments, where perhaps a prophecy has more than one meaning. I think that happens in Scripture quite a bit. I think we have fulfillments of that when David’s son would build a house for God and God would build a house for him.

6. Greatest Issues or Problems With This View

On one level, that was Solomon. On another level, that was Christ. When God predicted that he would call his children out of Egypt. It was fulfilled in the Exodus, and then in Matthew’s gospel, we’re told it was fulfilled again when Jesus went and lived in Egypt for a while, and then was called out again. Double fulfillments. They say that’s just not in the Bible. And they claim that their way is the only natural way to interpret the text. How do we do that? How do we deal with that? And in the few minutes that we have remaining in today’s class, I want to consider some of what I believe to be the greatest issues or problems with this view. I do want to address some of these in a brief manner this morning, and then we are going to look in our lessons about the return of Jesus Christ, about the judgment and the end of the world, the resurrection, those things that will come to pass.

But when they talk about these temporal references, this is what they believe to be the strongest part of their stay answer their position. There is no doubt that Jesus did predict the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. It was prophesied. It was a day of the Lord. It came to pass before that generation passed away. And it’s also true that the coming of the kingdom was also prophesied in the first century. The apostles opened the door to that kingdom. The Christians were transferred into it. But connecting all of this to the idea that Jesus would return immediately. I don’t know how you can do that. They try to claim that every reference in the New Testament talks about the coming of the Lord as being something that’s imminent.

But what about passages that seem to imply some will think that it’s not going to happen? You know, enough time will go by that some will begin to doubt the coming of the Lord. There’s passages that speak in that way. The love of many growing cold. The question as to whether the Son of Man would find faith when he returns. You know, the long journey, the master’s going around a long journey, and the servants start doing. These are long time periods that are predicted. Even Paul writing to the Thessalonians and correcting some of this.

And again, we’ll talk about this more. Russell makes a great deal out of the apostles, expected to be alive. He goes to 1 Corinthians 15. You know, Paul said, we, we’re going to be here. He should have studied his history a little bit more. Jerusalem’s destroyed in 70 A.D. According to history, Paul’s dead. James is dead. Peter is dead. Vast majority of the apostles died before you even reached the Jerusalem destruction. So that doesn’t help their case. Then Paul was deceived or misled, if that was the point he’s making. He’s using we there just in a term like any of us would. We who are alive. You know, that might be us, it may not be. If Jesus come back in our lifetime, I might talk about we.

He may not come back during our lifetime. But he spoke that way. And it creates some very unusual interpretations. Well, they talk about it being the natural way. Think about some of these statements that are made in the New Testament. There’s a discussion at the end of the Gospel of John where Jesus predicts the death of Peter. And Peter asks about John. What if he remains? You know, how’s he going to die? And Jesus says, even if he remains until I come, what’s that to you? You guys remember that discussion at the end of the Gospel of John? Because of that, we’re told in the inspired text, there went out a rumor that John would never die. But that’s not what the Lord said. The Lord said, even if he does remain until I come.

He didn’t say he was going to remain. But even if he did, what would that be to you? Even if he did live until 70 A.D. Some thought he’d never die. That’s the natural interpretation, they say. Only until 70. Well, we talk about Jesus promising to be with them always, even until the end of the age. I’m with you always until 70. And I’m not with you anymore. The Christians at Corinth would come together and they’d partake of the Lord’s Supper, and they proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes in 70 A.D. Won’t be partaking of the Lord’s Supper to proclaim his death anymore after that. Encouraging one another as you see the day drawing near. Encourage each other until 70 A.D. You don’t have to encourage each other anymore after that.

That’s the natural interpretation. When we talk about the types and the partial fulfillments, we don’t have much time to really discuss that this morning. That is prevalent, I believe, throughout the scriptures. You can do another study of the prophets. You can study those on other occasions, the blending of prophecies, prophetic telescoping, the kingdom existing in two different levels. We’re in it now. There’s a more full revelation that comes later. I think all of those things need to be understood. And when you talk about this destruction of Jerusalem, it was a significant event. But was it everything they say it was? Everyone was changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed. Did it remove the persecution from the church? Death was defeated in that moment.

They see that as the church getting its new life. They see it. Even at the end of the Jewish system, you know what? Judaism went on after Jerusalem was destroyed. And persecution of the church went on after Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, it got more intense in some areas following that. Would people be quitting their jobs at Thessalonica because Jerusalem was going to be destroyed? The suffering of this present age not worthy to be compared to the glory that is to come. And so many warnings to watch and to be ready. And not be able to repent after the Lord comes. Once he comes, it’s too late. How do we interpret those things? I think they have a great impact on our understanding of other things.

I know we’re out of time. I want to put up a few other matters so that it’s just really there for you. This was the last slide. But I think it changes the very nature and work of the Messiah and his kingdom. It puts more emphasis on AD 70 than it does the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ. And even more than Pentecost. It’s the paramount event in history. More than what happened at the crucifixion. The purpose of the Messiah seems to be to punish Israel, not save mankind. The Messiah came to sit on Israel and to end that covenant. And that was his purpose. I don’t know where some of this originates. Still wonder if there isn’t a little bit of anti-Semitism behind some of the original proponents of it.

Conclusion

Not people who believe it today. I’m not going to read into their motives. But that’s what it seems to be. And Israel being rejected. I don’t read that in Scripture. God did not reject Israel. And all of Israel was not lost. The judgment, this continuing theme, I think it does matter. And when we look at some of our lessons this morning and this evening, I hope that that comes a little bit more into light. Apologize for flying through that. Maybe you could go back and listen to it again. You can get the slides and think about some of these things. And I hope that our time that we spend together is worthwhile. No, no.