The following is a partial response to select items from Marc W. Gibson's "The 70 A.D. Doctrine Examined". Particularly in relation to Part, 6: Major Tenets Of The A.D. 70 Doctrine, Sub Division (A) The Eschaton Period & (B) The Covenants.

Note: I do not profess to adhere to any such doctrine which Gibson refers to as "The Max King Doctrine". Max King's work which is primarily under examination by Mr. Gibson does not necessarily, on all points, reflect my particular views nor my understanding on the above subjects. Although I do support Max King's work. As a result of this, my response to Mr. Gibson's analysis of the subjects under discussion may vary in nature based on my own understanding of the issues under discussion.

The primary area I wish to address is the "eschaton period" and the biblical framework of the "ages" and "covenants". The point in question is whether or not the "Mosaic age" ended at the cross or in A.D. 70. And also whether or not that which characterized the "Mosaic age" (the old covenant) existed "concurrently" with that which characterized the "Christian age" (new covenant) throughout the "eschaton period" (the cross to A.D. 70). However what is not in question, and is agreed upon (to the best of my knowledge) is that what charcterized the "Christian age" (the new covenant) began at the cross.

The argument presented by Mr. Gibson against the "concurrent" existance of the "Mosaic age" and the "Christian age" through the cross event into post-cross time is based upon "chronology" (See Gibson's part: 7. D), 5-6). This argument asserts that when Jesus became the mediator of the new covenant at the cross the "Mosaic age" ended and at that time the "Church age" began "chronologically" (Heb. 9:16-17; Heb. 13:20). As already mentioned, we do not disagree that the "new covenant" began at the cross. However I believe that there is biblical evidence which demonstrates clearly that the "Mosaic age" and "old covenant" continued through the cross event into post-cross time and existed "concurrently" in post-cross time with the "new covenant" until A.D. 70 (the end of the age, Matt. 24:2-3). And during this period of time, Old Testament Judaism was still a veritable "religion" and "the Jews" were still "under the Law" because the "old covenant" was still in effect. However Jewish and Gentile "Christians" were no longer "under the Law" (old covenant) but under the "new covenant" made in Christ's blood on the cross (Heb. 9:16-17) the "blood of the eternal covenant" which Christ was "raised up from the dead through" (Heb. 13:20).

Note: The biblical terms "covenant" and "age" are not equivalent terms. The term "covenant" is most often used in scripture to denote God's relationship with "Israel", and in the new testament with the "church". The term "age" is most often used to denote a period of time, such as the modern term "dispensation". Hence what we are calling the "Mosaic age" is the period of time in which the "old covenant" would endured throughout. The "Church age" being the period of time in which the "new covenant" would endure throughout.



The Nature And Importance Of The Argument

The importance in determining which view is correct, whether the "Mosaic age" ended at the cross or in A.D. 70, is one that can be seen in the following question:

Q--What "age" is under discussion in the olivette discourse and in view of "ending"?

Answer #1. If it is the "Christian age" which began at the cross that is under discussion and in view of "ending" in the olivette discourse, then the "end" of the "Christian age" is unavoidably accompanied with the "coming of the Son of Man" (Second Coming, Matt. 24:3). This event, Gibson holds is still "future".

Answer #2. However, if it is NOT the "Christian age" but rather the "Mosaic age" which began in the Exodus/Sinai events under discussion and in view of ending in the olivette discourse, then the "end" of the "Mosaic age" is unavoidable accompanied with the "coming of the Son of Man" (Second Coming, Matt. 24:3). This event, I hold occurred in A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:2,3,34).



Whether or not answer #1 is correct or answer #2 is the correct one, you must decide. The following is a brief scriptural response and explanation of which I believe supports answer # 2.

"Peter began to say to Him, 'Behold we have left everything and followed you' Jesus said, 'Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake or for the gospel's sake, but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persections; and in the age to come, eternal life" (Mark 28:30; see also Luke 28-30).

In the above passage of scripture, there are "two ages" in view; "this present age" and "the age to come". However what we wish to point out is (1) that the disciples and all who "left behind" the items which Jesus mentioned (house, brothers, sistrs etc.) "For My sake and the gospel's sake" would "receive back" those same items "a hundred times". (2) But notice what "age" the disciples would "receive back" those items mentioned. Jesus said that they would be received back "now in the present age". The "age" which Jesus said was "now present" in pre-cross time is the "age" which the disciples would receive back those items mentioned. Manifestly, when Jesus was refering to "the age" which was "now present" in pre-cross time, this is an overwhelming indication that Jesus was referring to the "Mosaic age" which characterized pre-cross time. For by any standard, the "age" which characterized pre-cross time is NOT THE CHRISTIAN AGE. It has already been detemined that what characterized the "Christian age" (new covenant) did not begin until the cross. Therefore the "age" which Jesus said was "now present" in pre-cross time corresponds with the "Mosaic age" which by any standard did not "end" until the cross or some time after (respectively). What "age" did Peter and the disciples "leave everything behind" to follow Christ? Peter did so in pre-cross time. He did so on the "Mosaic age". Hence the "age" which Jesus said was "now present" in pre-cross time is both the "age" which Peter and the rest of the disciples "left everything" behind to follow Christ as well as the "age" in which they would receive those items back which had been left behind. (3). Amoung those things which Jesus said would be received back "a hundred times. . . now in the present age" which characterized pre-cross time (the Mosaic age) is included "persecutions". When did Peter, the disciples, and the rest of the church receive back "persecutions"? The persecutions of the disciples and the church are recorded in the book of Acts as beginning when Steven was stoned to death (Acts 7:58), "And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria" (Acts 8:1). Prior to this "persecution" of the church, only Peter and John had "hands laid on them" (Acts 4:3; 5-18). However, these "persecutions" all occurred in post-cross time after the day of pentecost, after the cross and even the "persecutions" suffered in these events do not answer to the measure of persecutions which Jesus said would be "received a hundred times. . . now in this present age". (4). Therefore since Jesus said that the disciples would receive back persecutions in the "age" which he said was "now present" in pre-cross time, and all of such persecutions are received in post-cross time, then the persecutions received in post-cross time occurred in the "Mosaic age", the SAME AGE that Jesus said was "now present" in pre-cross time, not the christian age. Again, by any standard, what characterized the "Mosaic age" (old covenant) in pre-cross time did not "end" until the cross or some time after (respectively) and what characterized the "Christian age" (new covenant) did not begin until the cross (devinively). Therefore, the "Mosaic age" continued through the cross event into post-cross time, and during that time the church received persecution.

(5). The "persecutions" which Jesus said would be received "a hundred times" by the disciples in "the present age" which characterzed pre-cross time, can also be identified in the olivette discourse, as persecutions which the DISCIPLES would "endure till the end", the "end of the age" that is under discussion and in view of ending to be accompanied with the coming of Christ .

"Then they will will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name. And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many. And because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved" (Matt 24:9-13, see also Luke 21:12,19).

As noted in the scripture above, the disciples (the "you" whom Christ was speaking) would be "delivered to tribulation", "killed", and "hated by all nations" during their post-cross missions. The above mentioned "persecutions" are the same "persecutions" which Jesus said they would received "a hundred times" in the "age" that was "now present" in pre-cross time (the Mosaic age). However, all of such persecution occurs in post-cross time. Therefore their "persecutions" received in post-cross time occur in the same age that was "now present" in pre-cross time, the "Mosaic age". Their persecutions must be received in the "present age" (which characterized pre-cross time) and "endured to the end" of the age in which they were to be received. Therefore the "age" under discussion and in view of "ending" in the olivette discourse is the MOSAIC AGE, the same "age" which was "now present" in pre-cross and post-cross time, the "age" that they edured persecutions in "to the end". Therefore, the "end of the age" under discussion and in view of "ending" in the olivette discourse and that is accompanied by the Second Coming of Jesus is none other than the "Mosaic age".

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



In addition to the above, Gibson's thesis that "the old covenant ended at the cross" (part 6. C), 2) does not harmonize very well with Jesus' statements in Matt. 5:17-18. Jesus said, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or least stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished". Unless Gibson can demonstrate FROM THE SCRIPTURES that (1) heaven and earth passed away at the cross and (2) that each and every "smallest letter or stroke" of "the Law" was accomplished (fulfilled) at the cross, then I don't see how he can verify that ANY OF THE LAW had passed away at the cross. Jesus said that NONE OF THE LAW would "pass from the Law" until each and every minute portion was accomplished. Doesn't Gibson's thesis that "the old covenant ended at the cross" sound alot UNLIKE what Jesus said about the "passing of the Law"? For there are numerous portions of "the Law" which were not fulfilled at the cross (Deut. 32: 20-43 just to name a few.) However ALL OF THE LAW would be fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22). And if ALL OF THE LAW was fulfilled in A.D. 70 (according to the Saviour) then it must have "passed away" at that time. And if it did, then "heaven and earth" must have passed away too. RIGHT?

If not why not? If "all the Law" (all things written) were fulfilled in A.D. 70, then Deut. 22 was "fulfilled" in A.D. 70.

"A fire is kindled in my anger, and burns to the lowest part orf Sheol, and consumes the earth with its yeild, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains" (Deut. 32:22).

Notice two particular points:

--"Fire...consumes the earth"

--"Fire...burns to the lowest parts of Sheol".



If Jesus said that "ALL things written" were to be fulfilled in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22) then the above scriptures must be fulfilled.

What is so inherently different about 2Peter 3 (the earth and its works burnt up) and Deut 32:22 (fire consumes the earth and its yeild"?. Second, when was the "lowest parts of Sheol" burned with fire? According to Christ it must have been prior to or in A.D. 70. Scholars are aggreed that the new testament term "Hades" is the new testament equivalent of the old testament term "Sheol". So when was "Sheol" (Hades) burned completely to its lowest parts? In the book of Revelation, "death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of fire" when "heaven and earth fled away" (Rev. 20:11,14). When "Hades" was "thrown into the lake of fire" it could then honestly be said that the "fire kindled in My anger" "burned to the lower parts of Sheol" as indicated in Deuteronomy. But wait, you say, Rev. 20:11,14 happens after the Millennium of Rev. 20. Right you are. However Jesus said that "all things written" would be fulfilled in A.D. 70. And this clearly includes the "fire...that burns to the lowest parts of Sheol". As well as the consuming of the earth by fire (which Peter also speaks of in 2Pet 3:2). Therefore, if all of such scriptures must be fulfilled prior to or in A.D. 70, and they include events written in the Law which find their fulfillment AFTER THE MILLENNIUM OF REVELATION 20, then the events which occurr after the Millennium of Revelation 20 written in the Law must have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 when Jesus said that "all things written would be fulfilld. Hence, the "millennium" which preceeds "hades thrown into the lake of fire" and the "passing of heaven and earth" must preceed A.D. 70 and have been "completed" prior to A.D. 70 (Rev 20:7). For Jesus said that "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law..." Therefore if "heaven and earth" did not pass away at the cross, then not "the smallest stroke" had "passed away from the Law" at that time.

Planetpreterist.com

Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (443 Reads)