Was The Second Coming of Christ In AD 70? Response to Ben Vick Jr. By William Bell. Can Matthew 24 Be Divided?

Transcription

1 Was The Second Coming of Christ In AD 70? Response to Ben Vick Jr. By William Bell Can Matthew 24 Be Divided? Ben Vick, Jr., preacher for the Shelbyville Road Church of Christ in Indianapolis, Indiana has sought to answer an alleged objection to Christ s return in 70AD by use of the word but. In so doing, he has divided the discourse of Matthew 24 into two sections, one which he clearly agrees occurred in 70 AD, Matt. 24:1-34, and verse 36 which allegedly is yet future to that event. See article reference below. 1 Day and Hour of Jerusalem Not Known First, in order for Vicks argument to be true, Jesus would have to know of a certainty that an alleged future coming of Christ could not occur before the destruction of Jerusalem. If it did, it would negate his teaching that such event (the fall of Jerusalem) would occur before that generation passed. So, he would have known that the alleged future event would not have occurred within that single generation. It would have contradicted the certainty of his prediction of Jerusalem s fall in 70AD. Secondly, Jesus gives no clues concerning the precise day and hour of Jerusalem s fall. He only states that it would occur within that generation. Can Vick produce the text from Matthew 24 or its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke which emphatically state the day and hour of the destruction of Jerusalem was known? He cannot and will not. However, we can produce evidence that the precise day and hour for Jerusalem s destruction was not known. Jesus exhorted the saints to pray that their flight from the city would not be in the winter or on the Sabbath day. (Matt. 24:20). Now, why not simply tell the disciples what day the event would occur so they know when to leave? If he did not, how could he be the loving Savior and knowingly place his disciples at such risk of danger? Even in cases where the modern settlers of Israel (not to be confused with ancient Israel) bombs the Palestinians, they give a few days warning before the bombing starts, drop a dud to warn and then give those whom they attack time to flee. If Jesus knew the day and hour of Jerusalem s destruction wouldn t he know whether it would be in the winter or on the Sabbath? Could he not tell time? Did not Moses receive specific day and hour instructions on the plagues brought upon Pharaoh in the Exodus? Command to Flee Jerusalem 1 Ben Vick Jr.,

2 Thirdly, the division made between the first section of Matthew 24 and the last section is arbitrary. In the first section Jesus warns the disciple to flee when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place in fulfillment of Daniel s prophecy, (Dan. 9:27). Daniel stated in the same prophetic context that the seventy weeks were determined for the destruction of the holy city, (v. 24). However, Jesus also said the time of flight of the disciples from the city occurred in the day when the Son of Man would be revealed. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. (Luke 17:30-31). Noah and Lot One can clearly observe that Jesus is speaking of the judgments of Noah and Lot which he compares with the coming of the Son of Man. They belong to the second half of the alleged division of Matthew 24: (37-39). If there were no signs of warning, how could the saints flee from an alleged future coming in which it is claimed that the earth burns to a crisp? In the days of Noah, it was the wicked who knew not until the day the flood came and took them all away. In the days of Lot, it was the wicked who knew not until the day Lot went out of Sodom and it rained fire and brimstone. Now, it must be clear that both Noah and Lot knew precisely when those judgments would occur, i.e. within their own respective generations, whereas the wicked did not. The truth of the matter is, Noah did not know in the beginning when God promised destruction through the flood. He only knew a general time, i.e. that it would occur in his lifetime or generation. However, within a week before the event occurred, God spoke to Noah again and told him that after seven more days he would bring the flood, instructing him to gather his family and all the animals into the ark. After seven days passed, the flood came. Jesus said the coming of the Son of Man would be as it was in the days of Noah. Does that not show clearly that what Lord meant by saying he did not know the day and the hour refers to a particular time in his earthly ministry? However, such was not true after he ascended and the Father revealed the day and hour of his day of Revelation. See Revelation 1:1-3, where Jesus specifically states it was the Revelation or Unveiling of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass. Thus, what was not known at one point in history (Jesus ministry) could be known at a later point in history (after the ascension and before his return).

3 As we have shown that the coming of the Son of Man texts are interwoven in both the alleged 1 st division of Matthew 24 (1-34) and the 2 nd section (36-51), we also demonstrate that the resurrection is found in both sections. Great Tribulation and Resurrection In Daniel 12:1-3, the great tribulation is directly connected to the subject of resurrection of the just and the unjust. Where does Vick place the great tribulation? In the 1 st section, which he emphatically states occurred in 70AD. See Matt. 24:21. Since Daniel connects the resurrection with the great tribulation, we have proof positive that the events are inseparable in time. Matt. 24:31 speaks of the gathering together of the elect from the four winds at the sound of the trumpet. This is resurrection language noted from (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16 and Rev. 11:15-18). Yet, it along with the great tribulation is both found in the first section of Matt. Vick has to argue for a trumpet sound in 70AD which no one literally audibly heard and tell us why and how (hermeneutically) it is different from his alleged future coming and trumpet. Jesus said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be gathered into the kingdom when the Jews were cast out, i.e. 70AD (Matt. 8:11-12, 21:33-43). As seen in the latter text, they were hoping to seize upon the kingdom i.e. the Son s inheritance. Thus it is a second coming text. Resurrection, parousia (coming), judgment and the coming of the kingdom are concurrent events, (2 Tim. 4:1). Dividing Matthew Based on the Word But Another challenge to Ben Vick s alleged division of Matthew 24 based upon the word but is that it leaves the passing of heaven and earth in limbo state. This is problematic in that a passing of heaven and earth, i.e. the darkening of the sun and moon and the stars falling from heaven occur immediately after the tribulation of those days related to 70AD, (v. 29). Thus, Vick has a second heaven and earth in verse 35 which must also pass away. If he places verse 35 in harmony with verse 34, then he must admit that verse 34 is not the end of the section which speaks of 70 AD. It would be verse 35. That destroys his argument on but for the demonstrative pronoun that day would refer back to verse 35 which would be 70 AD in that it connects verses 29 and 34 on the end of heaven and earth. On the other hand, if verse 35 belongs to the alleged second section, i.e. verse 36, then how can the word but in the context be the division? Verse 35 would be the beginning of the second division and that destroys Vick s argument on the use of but as a chapter divider. He would then be left with the dilemma of trying to explain how a verse which does not have the word but as its dividing factor is separate in context from the verse immediately preceding it.

4 Next, there are about 12 different occurrences of the word but in Matthew 24 after verse 36. Does this mean a new subject after each occurrence? If Vicks logic on but holds true, then he has arbitrarily divided the chapter in almost a dozen different comings and times. Anyone can check these references by using a Greek Interlinear. John MacArthur and Peri De While Vick does not use the argument, some claim peri de, the particular construction in Matthew 24:36 is more emphatic and specific than the other mild occurrence of but in the text. John MacArthur, popular radio evangelist used this argument attempting to respond to the AD 70 view. However, the logic back-fired on him because the same peri-de construction is used in 1 Thess. 5:1. But concerning the times and the seasons (i.e. the day and the hour) brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. If peri de means the division of subject, i.e. showing a contrast between the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and future alleged coming, then it means the resurrection in 1 Thess. 4:13-17, is divided contextually and temporally from the coming of the Lord as a thief in the night per chapter 5. Will Vick hold to his theory that peri de separates the context? Will he be consistent and follow it to its logical conclusion in 1 Thess. 4 and 5 splitting the resurrection from Jesus coming as a thief in the night? I think not. Matthew 24:36 and Zech. 14:6 Lastly, Matthew 24:36 is a quote from Zech. 14:6 which spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem as a day which was not known, i.e. neither day nor night. Foy Wallace Jr. wrote obviously, these verses are a metaphorical description of divine mercy with justice. After the visitation there would be light the diffusion of divine knowledge. This did follow the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish state. (God s Prophetic Word, p. 248) Since these texts are one and the same it demonstrates once again that eschatology in the New Testament is nothing more than a reiteration of the message of the law and the prophets. Jesus taught in direct relationship to the destruction of Jerusalem and the command of the disciples to flee that that was the time when all things written would be fulfilled, (Lk. 21:20-22). He then said, that generation would not pass till all those things happened. (Luke 21:32). If we do not believe they happened as and when Jesus said they would, then we do not believe the Lord but place our own traditions above the word of God. I choose not to carry such traditional baggage.

5 For those who argue that the Old Covenant fully passed at the cross, the dilemma is how do you get these second coming texts to align with 30AD? They don t and most know it but usually won t admit it for various reasons. Neither will they admit that Jesus said AD70 and Jerusalem s destruction is the time when all things written would be fulfilled, and that all within the first century generation, Lk. 21:20-22, 32. They make up their own doctrine, set it forth in their own futuristic time and seek to condemn others who disagree with their arbitrary conclusions. Vick s Summarization When he comes all men will be raised from the dead (John 5:28-29), the judgment will take place (Acts 17:30-31), the earth and heaven will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10-12), many will be cast into the torments of hell and a few will enter into the glories of heaven. However, if all prophecies have been fulfilled, then there will be no hell nor heaven for all of those after A.D. 70. I suppose, we shall simply be annihilated as the Jehovah s Witnesses teach. What a horrible, hopeless, hapless doctrine perpetuated by a few misguided souls. Thus, the answer to the question in the title is, NO, NO, NO, and a thousand times, No! 2 Response: We have addressed the resurrection in a brief manner above. More could be said, but we will save it for a later time. In repeating the reference to the great tribulation and resurrection context of Dan. 12:1-3, suffice it to say that John 5:28-29 is a direct quote from Daniel 12. Thus, the arguments above apply equally to it. Further, Paul also quoting Daniel 12, used the word mello saying there was about to be (in his own generation) a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, (Acts 24:14-15). For those who clamor over the word mello, Paul quotes Daniel 12 again in Romans 13:11-12 saying that it was high time (the hour) to awake out of sleep for now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent; the day is at hand. Let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Paul quoted Daniel and by associated reference John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:14-15, says the word mello in the context means at hand near or imminent. That is the same word (engus) we insist to the premillennialists that there was neither delay nor nonestablishment of the kingdom. Yet, brethren ignore the simple use of the word in the resurrection and coming again passages claiming it does not mean at hand, imminent or having drawn near. 2 Ibid

6 Don K. Preston asks, in his book, Can God Tell Time?, If at hand means not at hand then what does not at hand mean? These arguments would never be made in a debate with a Premillennial Dispensationalist unless one wanted his lunch eaten on a silver platter. The judgment text of Acts 17:30-31, also uses the word mello and at hand, and all the arguments presented above relate to it as well. The same is true for 2 Pet. 3: What is significant is how easily brethren read over Peter s introduction to 2 Peter 3. Stephen Wiggins attempted this in our debate in Memphis, TN, in Peter says his second epistle is a reminder, i.e. a repeat of the information he shared on the subject in his first epistle. What did he teach in the first epistle? He taught the saints would suffer for a little while and then receive praise and honor at the coming glory of Christ. 1:6-13. Then he taught that God was ready to judge the living and the dead, 1 Pet. 4:5. He then says the end of all things had drawn near, i.e. was at hand or imminent, 1 Pet. 4:7. Next he said the time of the judgment had come! 1 Pet. 4:17. Therefore, to remind the readers in the second epistle of what he stated in the first means the judgment was ready, imminent, and its time had come to begin in the first century. Peter knew nothing of a judgment that was a long time off from his time. That is what the false teachers were arguing in chapter 2:1-3 as were the scoffers in chapter 3:3. Therefore, to claim the judgment was delayed and afar off is to scoff at the Lord s coming and join the false teachers whom Peter was countering in his message of imminence. Concerning Jehovah s Witnesses Vick seeks to poison the well by offering a mad dog debate tactic. He cites the Jehovah s Witnesses in order to prejudice the minds of the readers using guilt by association. The mad dog tactic is one where one neighbor filled another s dog s mouth with soap and suds, then went around shouting mad dog. Thus everyone would be afraid to go near the dog for fear of disease. In Vicks response above, the Jehovah s Witnesses are the mad dog. By associating the AD 70 view with theirs, he is seeking to prevent others from even investigating it by prejudicing their minds so they won t consider it. He is crying mad dog! His reasoning and logic is, Jehovah s Witnesses are bad and their doctrine is false. Therefore, anything which sounds like it or appears to agree with any part of it is false. I recently had a two hour discussion with the Jehovah s Witnesses about 2 weeks prior to writing this article, where I met with two of their ministers at their Witness Hall to discuss eschatology. They believe in love, evangelizing, and helping their neighbors

7 around the world who are in need. Vick also believes in love, evangelizing and helping one s neighbors at home and abroad. In fact, Vicks eschatological paradigm is even more closely aligned to Jehovah s Witnesses doctrine than the one text he cites for us. In other words, they believe the exact same doctrine on eschatology that Vick is arguing for in his article. The Jehovah s Witnesses teach that Jesus returned in 70C.E. to destroy Jerusalem. So does Vick. They believe that it was not his final coming, but that Jesus will come again at some time in the future. So does Vick! That means Vick s doctrine of eschatology agrees with the same doctrines Jehovah s Witnesses teach! If he denies the points raised here, then he denies that he teaches the truth. If he does not deny it, then he must agree that his mad dog tactic is only meant to prejudice honest minds who are seeking the truth, and is worthless in the discussion. Concerning Those Who Have No Hope Vick argues that a fulfilled coming of Christ in AD 70 robs men of hope. His statements could not be more wrong from a biblical point of view. First, the Bible does teach that those who do not believe have no hope. But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. (1 Thes. 4:13). Since the believers hope is salvation (1 Thess. 5:8, resurrection, Acts 26:6-8, eternal life, Tit. 1:2 and immortality), how can those who have no hope receive it? If one dies without immortality which is only found in God and Christ, 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Tim. 6:16, how can one who does not believe receive what is only found in God and Christ and is only for believers? Secondly, the Bible teaches that hope deferred makes the heart sick (Prov. 13:12). In other words, an unfulfilled or delayed hope destroys hope. In addition, a desire accomplished is sweet to the soul. Thus, it is Vick s alleged delay and non-fulfillment of the Parousia, i.e. the non-accomplishment of the promises of God that creates destruction of hope. You cannot lie to a person about a promise and then expect your integrity to remain intact. You cannot renege on prophecy and be a true prophet (Deut. 18:19-22). Therefore, Vick s arguments turn God and Christ into liars, deny the inspiration of the Bible and rob man of the very hope which he claims to hold so dear. No Heaven Vick made this argument but offered no proof. He merely sought to use prejudice in citing the Witnesses. We do not agree with the Witnesses as they believe the earth will become a Utopia and heaven for them will one day (at the same alleged future coming

8 Vick hopes for) be our permanent dwelling place where the wolf and lamb, the lion and the ox eats straw, the bear and the cow grazes and the child plays at the cobras hole. In other words, it s an inverted Premillennial doctrine. We denounce it as false. That should be more than obvious since we do not believe in a dual fulfillment doctrine as do the Witnesses. Our position is that the earth will continue from one generation to the next as it exists today and has since its creation, (Eccl. 1:4). God promised the earth, sun and moon will continue as long as the throne (kingdom) of Christ continues. The Bible says the kingdom of Christ has no end, (Isa. 9:6-7; Lk. 1:32-33, Heb. 12:28). Thus, the earth, sun and moon have no end. God said he would not break his covenant nor alter his word of promise made to David that His seed shall endure forever, and is throne as the sun before Me; It shall be established forever like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky. (Psa. 89:34-36). Thus to bring the earth, sun and moon to an end is to break God s covenant and alter the word of the kingdom to David. It would be the destruction of the kingdom of God and the throne of Christ. That should tell us that anytime the Bible speaks of the end of heaven and earth it is speaking figuratively or with metaphors. Anyone who carefully studies the language of the prophets should be well aware of this. On the other hand, the literal sun and moon, earth, seasons of summer, winter, day and night, planting and harvest time shall not cease in spite of the fact that man is evil from his youth, (Gen. 8:21-22). We reject a Utopian earth per the Jehovah s Witnesses doctrine. The only similarity in what we believe about the earth is that it will not burn to a crisp but remains. We believe it is perfect as a dwelling place for humans as it is and needs no renovation. Only the Covenants were changed to make it possible for man to live with God. Thus, Jesus said, if a man keeps his word, he shall never see death, (Jn. 8:51). The reference is obviously to spiritual death though we are keenly aware some misunderstand him as the Jews did who cited Abraham s physical death and claimed Jesus had a demon for lying. In like manner, the Lord said, He is the resurrection and the life and that he who believes though he were dead, yet shall he live and he who lives and believes in Christ shall never die. (Jn. 11:25-26) What more proof do we need for an afterlife? We do not deny heaven. Whether we live or die, we are with Christ. Who could want anything more than that? Vick has accused us falsely, misconstrued our teaching, misaligned our position with Jehovah s Witness and failed to offer a logical reasoned defense of his own.

9 This does not mean Ben Vick Jr is not a good man. It means that he is mistaken and in error on every point he has raised in objection to Christ s return in connection with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The danger for him is the ungodly, unkind, uncharitable behavior he exhibits toward those who teach the truth on this matter.