Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic


End Times Chart

Introduction and Key


Church-State Relations and the Book of Revelation
An Introduction to The Parousia: A Careful Look at the New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Second Coming
by James Stuart Russell (1878) // Written by
Todd Dennis, Curator

Critical Article
Critical Articles Main
Study Archive

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

Why Preterism is Wrong

The Christian Debater
January 4, 1973

Beginning in this issue is a series of articles, which I have asked Bill Reeves to write; reviewing a new book by Brother Max King entitled The Spirit of Prophecy. Some of our readers will not see the need for such a series of articles. Others already have written me wanting to know why we have not already reviewed this false doctrine.

It is amazing how different our religious environments can be, even in this one country. In the South, one must be very familiar with Baptist doctrine, particularly of the Southern Convention variety. But in Wisconsin, one needs acquaintance with the errors of continental Lutheranism. Adjacent to where I live, there are about 20 congregations of people who not only do not believe that water baptism is essential to salvation, but who also do not practice it. To my knowledge, there are only three religious bodies in the United States who do not practice something, which they call water baptism.

In Texas and California, the institutional fight occurred and was all over at least a decade ago. Some write wondering why we continue beating a "dead horse" through the pages of Truth Magazine, as we continue to try to point out the truth on this issue. These brethren are just unaware of the fact that there are sizable elements of this nation where the institutional fight is just beginning to be made. There are hundreds of congregations in the North that I think could be salvaged for truth, with proper teaching. Furthermore, at all times approximately one-third of the people who receive Truth Magazine are people who do not pay for it themselves, which usually means that the paper is being sent to them by a friend to try to enlighten them on the institutional question. So we must continue to teach on it.

Brother Max R. King of Warren, Ohio published in 1971 a new book entitled The Spirit of Prophecy. Brother King’s book is one of the most tedious, boring, and redundant books that I ever read. It certainly was not one of those books that "I could hardly lay down... It contains as much error as any book of its size I have ever read. Like neo-orthodoxy, it uses many biblical terms, but nearly all of them are being used with changed definitions.

Max King is not very well known personally, but his father-in-law, C. D. Beagle, is well known throughout the Ohio Valley region. Brother Beagle wrote the introduction to Brother King’s book. In this "Introduction," Brother Beagle states that King’s is "the most enlightening book ever written about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment." He also states that as you read it, "a whole new view of the scriptures will open up before you."

The Beagles (father and two sons), along with Brother King, are avidly seeking to advance the errors taught in this book. I had a conversation a few months ago with Edgar Beagle, who preaches for the liberal church in Mansfield, Ohio. He indicated that they had gotten a very good reception to their new teaching at the Freed-Hardeman Lectures, held last spring.

It is going to be interesting to see how elastic a view of fellowship some of the Ohio Valley brethren and churches hold. They have withdrawn from those of us who oppose so strongly the church support of colleges, which they purport also to oppose, while they cannot heap enough praise upon Batsell Barrett Baxter, B. C. Goodpasture, Willard Collins, etc. who advocate the church support of colleges. They will not even let one of us lead a prayer during one of their services, but they use the above-mentioned liberal men for their gospel meetings and lecture programs. It will be very interesting to see what their disposition will be now toward the Beagles and Max King and the others who have accepted this fantastic view of prophecy, which Bill Reeves correctly labels as "Preterist" In substance, they take the position that all prophecy already has been fulfilled. Let me quote just enough from King’s book to verify this charge, and then let you read the carefully written series of articles by Bill Reeves. King takes the position that the heavens and earth that were to pass away were the Jewish system, and the new heavens and earth are the Christian system. "It is these two worlds which constitute a major portion of Bible teaching, and occupy a prominent place in prophecy. Failure to see these two worlds as they unfold in the scripture, and to make proper distinction of them, is a major source of error in the interpretation and application of scripture" (p. 33). He makes the second coming of Christ refer only to His coming to destroy the Jewish system and temple. "When the temple is destroyed, the world ends. The ending of the world is the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ is the fall of Jerusalem, or the destruction of the temple, etc.... All would come to pass before that generation passed into history, and that included the coming of Christ, as well as the passing of heaven and earth" (p. 39).

Furthermore, he makes all the spiritual blessings which we have in Christ refer to the setting up of a new order after the destruction of Jerusalem. "The adoption, the redemption of the body, the inheritance, resurrection to life, and manifestation as sons of God were all a part of the promise which was made sure unto all the seed through the faith of Christ, and was received when Ishmael was cast out. This time came at the fall of Jerusalem" (p. 60).

It gets worse the further you go into the book. But remember, Brother C. D. Beagle states that it is "the most enlightening book ever written about Bible prophecy and its fulfillment." My appraisal of the book varies from his somewhat. It is the worst jumbled up mess on Bible prophecy that I ever read, whether written by saint or sinner.

King says, "The New Testament saints from Pentecost to the fall of Judaism, lived in an incomplete and temporary world." (p. 65). "Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed and consummated" (p. 65). The apostle Paul spoke of some false teachers in his time who also said, "that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. 2:18).

King states, "The last days, therefore, never apply to the Christian age, but always to the closing period of the Jewish age, which ran from Pentecost to the fall of Jerusalem" (p. 79). After stating again that "the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ.. King then declares that "We are now in that world ‘which is to come.’ We are in the eternal kingdom of Christ, and instead of being in the last days we are in eternal days, world without end (Eph. 3: 21 J." (p. 81). He therefore declares that the resurrection and judgment are past already, and that we are living in heaven now.

You would think that such a false teacher would have a little difficulty making many converts, but apparently nearly the whole, large liberal church in Mansfield has "bought the package," for they tolerate a man who believes and teaches this. They have even had Max King down for a series to enlighten them upon this new doctrine. The church where Brother King preaches (Warren, Ohio) is purported to believe it, and I guess the one where C. D. Beagle preaches also believes it, for they permit him to preach there and they will not permit those of us who oppose the church support of colleges and other human institutions even to lead a prayer there.

One ill-prepared young liberal preacher is reported to have debated these subjects with Brother King at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, an Akron suburb. According to the eyewitness account, which I received, the young but unprepared liberal preacher got his pants tanned by King at Cuyahoga Falls.

If you are not bothered by any error comparable to that propagated by King in these parts, be thankful. Meanwhile, be patient while Brother Reeves exposes this false doctrine for the heresy that it is.


The Preterist View Heresy (I)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

About a year ago Brother Max King, of Warren, Ohio, came out with his new book, entitled The Spirit Of Prophecy, advocating a Preterist-View of prophecy. This teaching has caused a mild furor among the liberal brethren (as respects institutionalism and centralization) wherever it has had a hearing. The following series of articles will review this novel doctrine, as set forth in a series of lectures by King before the Brookwood Way church of Christ, Mansfield, Ohio, in the summer of ‘70 (a taped recording of which I have), in several presentations which he and C. D. Beagle made before groups of liberal preachers last year (‘71) (and also recorded), and in King’s book. In this series I will use footnote1 to refer to the recorded series in Mansfield, footnote2 to the tape-recording of the discussions before several "preachers’ meetings" last summer, and A- (plus a number) to refer to his book and page, number.

The word "preterit" means past. I am told that he used "preterit" or "preterist" in his series at Brookwood Way; perhaps he did. However, it aptly describes his doctrine: all prophecy is fulfilled and there is no event yet future from today referred to in the Scriptures. So, there will be no future, physical resurrection of bodies from the grave, no coming of Christ in judgment, no future place called "heaven" to enter. Everything is in the past, as of A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem!

King once preached as we still do whom he calls "A.D. 33 Advocates," A-208 with a "Pentecost view." A-207 He should not object, then, to our referring to his Preterist-View, kind to his being an A.D. 70 Advocate!

After setting forth King’s novel doctrine, by quoting from his speeches and writings, this series will discuss Paul’s allegory of Gal. 4 which allegory King perverts beyond what the apostle Paul would recognize! Doing some additional allegorizing of his own, King takes his perversion of Paul’s allegory and makes it the premise of his Preterist-View heresy. So much is his perversion of Paul’s allegory essential to his view of prophecy that he has said: "That allegory of Paul, Gal. 4, is rich in giving us the key of the Bible, changing from the fleshly to spiritual. It is the key passage because here we come from Ishmael to Isaac. And when are we going to come to Isaac? at the fall of this world (pointing to his chart and referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70-BHR) and bringing in the new." "This allegory of Paul, it’s living-it’s good!"

King affirms: "Throughout the brotherhood I have found a tremendous change to this view." Maybe his adjective is a little strong, but what false doctrine has ever wanted for adherents? It has already caused trouble near the area of my labors.

Following the treatment of the Gal. 4 allegory, I will take up some different aspects of King’s doctrine and examine them. We will notice how he plays on words throughout his presentations, making subtle shifts from one word to another, leaving the impression that such and such passages are talking about what he is! I will give some examples of his misrepresentations of our positions. I will discuss some of the passages which he considers his big guns, and they will be spiked! We will read sonic of his pitiful explanations of texts so obviously against his heresy. There is so much to expose! As a friend remarked to me: "It would take a whole year to answer all the error in that book!" I have no intention of burdening this publication with an endless review of the innumerable errors of King’s book, so, at the close of this series, if anyone would care to communicate with me on any given point in his teaching, I would be happy to offer any help that I can, from copious notes taken on more than 200 passages presented by him in his presentations.

Throughout the book King broadcasts a host of scripture-references, which impresses the unwary. I have just taken a random sample of ten pages and find on each one an average of fourteen passages cited! Yet, he runs silent on references when occasionally the consequences of his doctrine are pressed. For example, "Where does man go today when he experiences physical death? A-179 On the next page he cites 1 Cor. 15:57, but he is committed to apply that text to the "victory" realized by A.D. 70! A-202 His impressive array of texts reminds us of the tactic of the Baptist debater in presenting a long list of texts on "faith", in support of his proposition of salvation by "faith only." It looks good, but what does it prove?

King is cautious as he addresses himself to the task of implanting his doctrine in the minds of his brethren. He is well aware of how foreign is his doctrine to the "traditional" view ("It may be a different concept than is traditional… A-204 Maybe, indeed!). Throughout the book such expressions as the following are employed: "there seems to be," "if this be the meaning" (referring to his own conclusion!), "it is only reasonable to assume," ..... this hardly seems reasonable" (Objecting to his opponent’s position), "seems fairly obvious", "if this view is correct," "the thought or idea seems to be", "the N.T. seems to deal with," "quite likely," "it appears," "as intimated," "it seems to be dealing," "seems more agreeable," "may be intended," etc. Would King use such terms in a debate with a Baptist teacher on the essentiality of baptism for the remission of sins? Now, can you imagine King’s referring to a position purportedly taken by us and then saying to us, "Proof, please"? A-85 But of his own positions it suffices to speak thusly, "The author believes so." A-94 He must have proof, but we should content ourselves with his "think-so’s."

King’s doctrine, like all false doctrines (e.g., the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, the "societies" of the denominations, the "sponsoring-church" of our erring brethren, etc.) must have a specially created vocabulary, or lingo. He invents phrases and employs them as if they were obvious in the references cited. He speaks of Christ’s "hidden divinity," A-108 "times of Christ," A-98 "raise up … to its rightful place" A-144 (in reference to "deliver up," 1 Cor. 15:24), "undelivered kingdom … eternal or delivered kingdom," A-202 "resurrection of the saints into their own land," A-173 "full heritage in their new heaven and earth," A-215 etc.

Take from him his "King-size" convenience of special vocabulary and lingo, and his case becomes hopeless. So important is this necessity that he begins his book, giving his reasons for the constant use throughout the book of the terms "spiritual" and "literal." Monotonously lie speaks of "spiritual" versus "literal, 11 although lie himself admits that these two terms are not true opposites! "The two methods of interpretation that will receive primary consideration are the ‘literal’ and the ‘spiritual.’ The ‘literalists’ object to making literal opposed to spiritual because in true definition (emphasis mine-BHR) literal does not necessarily imply material or non-material states. But the same problem exists with reference to the term ‘figurative,’ which is the true opposite of ‘literal’ . . . Thus, the advocates of ‘literalism" King does not say "the literal method"-BHR) do not want their material concepts represented by the term literal, and the advocates of the spiritual method’ (King does not say "spiritualism," and so throughout his book he subtly switches terms-BHR) do not want their non-material concepts represented by the term figurative." A- 1

The true opposite of "spiritual" is "material," and of "literal," "figurative." King admits it. Furthermore, he concedes: "It is not the writer’s purpose, however, to . . . imply that material things are by nature opposed to spiritual things." A-8 But King is going to push his doctrine by consistently throughout the book making literal mean material, and spiritual mean non-material; and that, regardless! If one does not accept his "spiritual" interpretation, then by implication he is dwelling in the flesh and is materialistically minded. King never finds "spiritual" opposite "literal" in the Scriptures, but after quoting texts that contrast "flesh," for example, he immediately reverts to "spiritual" versus ‘literal," and that for a purpose! This effort is designed to deny any literal resurrection, judgment day, and a place called heaven to be entered at a time future from today!

King attaches to his chosen terms his own peculiar meanings and then plies the minds of his hearers and readers with them hoping by this bit of psychology to lead their thinking to his conclusions. He plays with words constantly throughout his speeches and book. We will try to find space in these articles to cite a number of examples). He quotes texts using such terms as "world," "earth" "land," and "age," and runs them together to suit his purpose, ignoring the different Greek words from which they are taken. He likes the KJV of the Scriptures, when the English words lend themselves to his suggestions, but leaves it for Berry’s Interlinear Greek N. T (word-for-word translation) when that suits him. He indeed (and with admitted capability) has employed many devices of sophistication in the composition of his book.

In the next article we will quote him, to set forth a summary of what the Preterist-View of prophecy is all about, and then we will deal with his perversion of Paul’s allegory, Gal. 4, Rt. 3

January 4, 1973

The Preterist View Heresy (II)

Bill Reeves
Frederichtown, Ohio

We continue our review of Max King’s book. The Spirit of Prophecy. The title is taken from Rev. 19: 10, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. This is typical of King’s play-on-words. He needs some Scriptural approbation for his doctrine, and these words happen to come close to his "spiritual" interpretation of prophecy. He half-way admits ("While this may not be the purpose of this verse" A-2) that this verse is not touching on the nature of prophecy (i.e., whether prophecy is to be interpreted as "spiritual" or "literal," - King’s choice of words!), still within a few lines we filled him slipping his ideas in: "it is only reasonable to assume that the nature or the spirit of prophecy . . . " (emphasis mine-BHR). This is typical of the handling of the Scriptures that the wary reader observes as he wades through King’s book. He knows that the verse means that the testimony of Jesus is the life and soul of the prophecy (book of Revelation, for the Greek text says, "the prophecy"). But when his Preterist-View of prophecy, with a nature that is "spiritual" instead of "literal", needs a few Bible words to give respectability, he finds some convenient ones in Rev. 19:10. How subservient have the Scriptures been made to the inventions of men!

Here are some quotes to set forth his doctrine: "…that the Jewish: age came to a close on Pentecost day" is "another erroneous concept. This is assumed on the basis that Pentecost was the beginning of the Christian age. The error is in failing to see the overlapping period of these two ages or dispensations. Ishmael and Isaac co-existed in Abraham’s house for a time before Ishmael was cast out. The Jewish age did not end until their city, temple, and state fell under Roman invasion in A.D. 66-73." Another erroneous A-79 "Applying the last days to the Christian Age is a misapplication fostered by a misconception of such terms as ‘this world’ and the ‘world to come.’ While Pentecost, in a sense, was the beginning of the Christian dispensation, yet the New Testament writers often spoke of it as a world or age to come, because the Jewish age had not yet ended at the time of their writings. (The right of primogeniture belonged to Ishmael until he was cast out.) Therefore, statements such as ‘this world’ are interpreted as meaning this present material world rather than the Jewish age, and the ‘world to come’ is interpreted as meaning what follows the end of this present material world rather than the new heaven and earth, or Christian age that followed the end of the Jewish age." A-79 "Because scholars have separated in time the fall of Jerusalem and the second coming of Christ, exegetical confusion in various –passages of scripture is the inevitable result." A-81 "There is no time period between the fall of Judaism and the second coming of Christ." A-81

So, King affirms that the Jewish age did not end until A. D. 70, and that-the Christian age did not begin until then; it was still "coming" until that date. He half-heartedly concedes that Pentecost in a sense was the beginning of the Christian dispensation (King, just which Scripture teaches that?), but really it did not come until A. D. 70. Make up your mind, friend! Is A. D. 33 the beginning, or not? Your doctrine says "no," but "in a sense" it was. What confusion!

"When Paul wrote the allegory of Galatians 4, Ishmael had not yet been cast out. He was still in the household of Abraham, nudging Isaac, giving him a few short jabs now and then. Paul said to the Galatians, ‘You hold on because the time of your redemption draweth nigh.’ " 2 "Keep in mind the over-riding of Judaism. 2

King says that "Israel stuck right in that household until God threw him out! He had the inheritance, the first privileges, right up until the day that Jerusalem was destroyed." This is King’s allegory! Sarah brought Ishmael into the picture, not God, and she cast him out, not God. God approved of the casting out because Ishmael never had any inheritance at all in God’s promises to Abraham!

King builds heavily upon Rom. 4:13, making "world" there refer to some perfect, complete state of things, once national Israel is destroyed, A. D. 7 0. "Inheriting the earth," Matt. 5:5, must refer to this same "world." (King runs similar expressions or words together according to his fancy). Judaism (which word lie uses loosely, sometimes referring to the law, most of the time to national Israel) is referred to as the old heaven and earth, and the new heaven and earth is the supposed "perfect," "full inheritance," and "complete" something after A. D. 70! "The saints were waiting, not only for adulthood, but especially for their full manifestation as sons of God at the appearing of Christ in the fall of Judaism." A-234 "The fall of Judaism ...was the coming of Christ in glory that closely followed his coming in suffering (1 Pet.1: 11), when all things written by the prophets were fulfilled (Luke 21:22; Acts 3:21). It corresponded to the perfection of the saints (I Cor. 13: 10) when they reached adulthood in Christ, receiving their adoption, redemption, and inheritance. The eternal kingdom was possessed (Heb. 12:28) and the new heaven and earth inherited (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 21:1,7). Out of the natural body (which received its death blow, Heb. 8:13) arose the spiritual body, wherein the saints were manifested in glory, fully clothed with their house from heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-5). The earnest of the spirit (miraculous gifts) did not fail in power or purpose, bringing the gift of spiritual or heavenly inheritance to all the seed Of Abraham (Acts 2:38, 39; Gal. 3:28, 29; 1 Pet. 1:4)." A-239

That last quote is a typical jumbling of texts together, with complete disregard for contexts, and a play-on-words, which things characterize King’s fanciful doctrine.

On heaven King says: a growing, developing, relationship with God is the best definition of heaven I can think of at this time … Heaven is just joy and peace and right-living, right-thinking, right conduct … Heaven is part of your life now, and when you die you live on and on and on … You’ll never get any closer to heaven than that which you make in your on life." King, will a sinner get any closer to hell than that?

What about all those references in the Scriptures to a future end of all things, and of "comings?" They must be "allegorized" and "spiritualized" (God forbid that anything should be taken literally!) so as to be seen as Preterit, past, as of A.D. 70! King says, "I don’t know what the destiny of this physical; world is that we’re living in.

Now to his "key" passage, Gal. 4:21-31. The purpose of Paul’s allegory of Sarah and Hagar is presented in v. 21. This is Paul’s purpose; King has a different one in mind! This allegory serves its inspired purpose when it is applied to the invalidness of the Law of Moses, now that the New Testament of Christ has been established. Any other use of this allegory is a perversion! Re-read, please, V. 21.

Abraham had two sons (v. 22). In the sense that Paul speaks of, of course this is true. In another sense it can be said that he had more than two (Gen. 25:1-6). Furthermore, in a very special sense it must be said that he had only one (22:2). But, respecting the circumstances of this allegory, he had two: Ishmael and Isaac.

In the allegory Hagar (the servant) represents the Law of Moses given on Mt. Sinai, and so the Old Testament, and Ishmael (born according to natural law) represents the Jews under the Law. On the other hand, Sarah (the freewoman) represents the Law of Christ, and so the New Covenant, and Isaac (born miraculously and according to promise) represent Christians of all races. As Hagar and Ishmael were cast out, so was fleshly descendancy from Abraham of no merit in determining heirship. The "blessing of Abraham" and "promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3: 14) was justification from our sins (v. 8). The Judaizers sought this justification by the law (5:4), and so, Paul by means of this allegory showed the Galatian brethren the consequences of desiring to be under the law: it was to be like Ishmael and Hagar; i.e., to be cast out! They were no part of God’s promise to bless the seed of Abraham!

This allegory condemns premillennialism that bolds out a hope for national Israel, the Sabbatarians, the denominational practices that are based on the Old Testament (such as instrumental music in worship), and King’s Preterist-View of prophecy. I call the readers’ attention to the following list of facts recorded in Genesis:

(1)The call of Abraham and the triple promise that God made to him (great nation land, in him bless all nations of earth) - 12: 1-7.

(2) Who would be Abraham’s heir? Eliezer? No, says Jehovah, "but be that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."15:1-6. God’s promises (12:1-7) did not depend upon human plans and arrangements.

(3) The birth of Ishmael, as a result of human plans and according to natural law.16: 1-16. Abraham was then 86 yrs. old. It was not the work of God! God’s promises no more depended on Ishmael than upon Eliezer.

(4) God renewed his pact with Abraham. Abraham proposed that Ishmael might be the one by whom God’s promises could be realized. Again God rejected human plans. God promised Abraham and Sarah a son, in spite of human impossibility due to the advanced age of the two. "I will establish my covenant with (Isaac)," the son of promise and according to divine plan- 17: 15,16,19-21.

(5) The birth of Isaac when Abraham was 100 years old; his weaning at the age of one to three years old (according to Jewish tradition) the mocking of Ishmael, and the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael from Abraham’s house - 21:1-12. The casting out was fully approved by God because the promised seed of Abraham would be called through the only heir, Isaac (v. 12). The Divine Plan from the beginning (chap. 12) depended solely upon God. Isaac was the only one ever in the plan of God to make Abraham a father of many nations (Gen. 22:2, 12; Rom. 4:11-18; Heb. 11: 17-19).

(6) The grand promise to Abraham, fulfilled in Christ Jesus 22:18. Read Gal. 3:14-18. Christ is the seed of Abraham by which all the world (Jew and Gentile) can be blessed with the salvation of their souls.

(7) From the beginning of the promises (chap. 12) Isaac was the heir in the purposes of God, and no other was (such as Eliezer and Ishmael). Even as respects the inheritance of material goods, Abraham’s sole heir was Isaac (25: 5,6). Even if Ishmael had not been cast out Of the household, he still would not have inherited, even as Abraham’s other sons (by concubines) did not inherit anything. From beginning to end, Isaac was the only heir!

King is dead wrong in his claim that Ishmael had a primogeniture until such time as he was cast out. He never had such a thing! He came on the scene by human wisdom (Sarah’s), and left it the same way! He never was any part of God’s purposes to bless mankind. Hagar and Ishmael typified the Law of Moses given at Sinai inasmuch as the Law was added 430 years after the promise of God was made to Abraham, and was taken away when the seed (Christ) came. See Gal. 3:17-19, 24, 25; 4:30. Sarah knew that Ishmael was not the heir in God’s sight and plans, and cast him out that he might not so appear to others.

Paul did not tell the Galatians to "hang on" till A.D. 70, when they would really inherit something, and be completely manifested as the sons of God, etc (per King’s imaginations), but that to desire to be justified by the Law of Moses (as the Judaizers did) was to desire to be under that which was cast out. They were already sons of the freewoman (and therefore justified in Christ 4: 31; 5:1,13; 2:4; Rom. 8:15; 2 Cor. 3:17). Their adoption as sons was not something to wait for as yet future (Gal. 4:17)!

They had already passed from bondage to the adoption of sons. They were already complete in Christ (Col. 2: 10).

King says: " Isaac was a grown man before he inherited ... He did not receive the inheritance the day he was born ... neither did the church receive its inheritance the day it had its beginning ... One world ended (destruction of Jer., A.D. 70-BHR) and another one began. . . I stand there tonight because that’s the meaning of the allegory." That’s King’s allegory; it is not found in Galatians 4! -Rt. 3

January 11, 1973

The Preterist View Heresy (III)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

One of Max King’s "big guns" is Rom. 4:13. "According to Paul, a promise was given to Abraham that he and his seed would inherit a world." A-33 . . . he did not look for inheritance in the Jewish world, but rather the Christian world . . . This truth is manifest in Heb. 11:8-16." A-34 "This city he looked for, which hath foundations was the - heavenly Jerusalem - Heb. 12:22. or the Jerusalem which is above (Gal. 4:26). This is the new heaven and earth promised to Abraham and his seed, of which the Jewish world (old heaven and earth) was a forerunner. The New Testament saints, born of Abraham’s spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3:13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. ‘Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.’ (Heb. 8:13)." A35

To this King adds Matt. 5:17,18, making Jesus say that the "heaven and earth" of that passage refers to the passing away of Judaism in A. D. 70, at which time "all things would be accomplished." Also, the "heaven and earth" of Matt. 24:35 apply to the "Jewish world" (as he calls it for convenience sake – oh, how he plays with words!) to pass away in A. D. 70. He sees the word "world" in Rom. 4:13, and so he gets "earth" out of Matt. Ch. 5 and Ch. 24, "land," "country," and "city" out of Heb. 11 and 12, and "world" out of Eph. 3:21 (KJV!), and runs them all together into his fanciful theory. Let’s analyze these texts.

(1) Rom. 4:13. The Greek word here for "world" is kosmos. We do not read in Genesis of a promise stated in this style, but the context of Rom. 4 makes it clear that the reference is to his becoming the father of many nations in a spiritual sense. See especially vv. 16-18. See Gal. 3:29. The faith of the gospel is for all the world (Phil. 1:27; Mk. 16:15). Abraham, then, inherited the world as his spiritual children, for in his seed (Christ) all the world can be blessed, and the church is made up of all nations. Paul did not say that Abraham would inherit "a world." That’s King’s lingo. Abraham inherited the world as Jesus inherited the nations (Ps. 2: 8; Heb. 1: 2). Abraham was made a father of many nations in that he was the father of the faithful, of those with faith in Christ. They were spiritual progenitors. That’s why Gal. 3:29 is so!

(2) Matt. 5:17,18. There is no "world" (kosmos) in this text. Jesus did not say that heaven and earth (Greek, GE) would pass away when all things were accomplished. King sees the word "earth," which is somewhat suggestive of "world," and away he runs with it! What does a context matter to him? Jesus is saying that his purpose in coming to the earth was not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. Furthermore, he says, until that is accomplished it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one jot or one title of the law or prophets to fall. See Lk. 16: 17. Or, to put it another way, as long as heaven and earth stood, that law would be fulfilled without the least particle of it going unfulfilled. He came to fulfill it, and fulfill it he would, and heaven and earth would not pass away first! If the law was not fulfilled till A.D. 70, Christians were under it until then, and Paul says, "no" (Rom. 6:14).

(3) Matt. 24:35, Here Jesus speaks, not, as King does, of a "world" (kosmos), but of the same earth (GE) as in 5:18. The physical heaven and earth are temporary; they shall pass away (King’s spiritualizing to the contrary. He says that he does not know "what the destiny of this physical world is that we’re living in"), but Christ’s declarations are not temporary, but are absolute of fulfillment, irrespective of time and temporal things. That is Christ’s point, but King plays with the word "earth," and equates it with his "world" of Rom. 4:13.

(4) Matt. 5:5 is also cited by King and referred to his "Christian world" of A. D. 70. He says, "The residence of God’s people today is in the new earth promised, which is just as spiritual as everything that belongs in it. Of this earth and this inheritance, Jesus spake in Matt. 5:5..." A-26 Jesus is speaking of no such invention! The 37th Psalm (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) shows that the expression "inherit the earth" means to benefit from its physical blessings. The beatitudes refer to a specific class of people and to what benefits they have because they are that class of people.

(5) Heb. 11:8-16. The Hebrew writer was no "A.D. 70 Advocate." He tells us to follow Abraham in seeking for a "city" (residence) which is heavenly. (King wishes it said: "spiritual!"). Here (on this earth and in this life) we do not have an "abiding city," or

permanent residence. We seek after the one that is to come. (Heb. 13:14). It is in the "Father’s house," in. 14: 2. King equates the word "city" (of Heb. 11:10, 16) with "heavenly Jerusalem," which is his perfect state of things as of A. D. 70. King is the only authority for that! The Hebrew writer is contrasting a heavenly country with the earthly one in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived as strangers and sojourners. One was on earth; the other in heaven. That’s where Peter says that the eternal inheritance is reserved "in heaven" (I Pet. 1:4).

(6) Heb. 12:22. "The tense of the verb ‘are come’ shows that he was speaking of things that were transpiring at the time he wrote the Hebrew letter." "But ye are come ... present tense! And we have the new world today." Brother King needs to check the Greek text; it is not present tense, but what is even worse for him the perfect tense! They had already arrived at that "city" (the heavenly Jerusalem) at the time the Hebrew writer wrote! "Are come" is not present tense; if present tense, it would read "are coming," and that is precisely what King advocates: that something was presently coming and would arrive in A. D. 70! The Hebrew writer used the perfect tense, as he did in v. 18, and tells the Hebrews that they had already arrived and were there. The perfect tense in the Greek emphasizes action in the past with present consequences. The Hebrew Christians did not pertain to the Old Covenant, but they did (already) to the New! That’s the point of the inspired writer. King plays with words and makes "are come" are coming, and hopes we will not see the difference. Paul made the brethren come to the "city," and King makes the "city" come (just a little later on) to the Hebrew brethren. Berry’s Interlinear, as does the NASV, reads: "you have come," which is the clearest way to express the perfect tense in English.

Heb. 12:22 is present perfect tense, and, by contrast, in. 14:3; 2 Tim. 4:18; and 2 Pet. 1: 11 are future. How King would like for the four texts to all be in the same tense!

(7) Gal. 4:26. The Jerusalem of this passage, as that of Heb. 12:22, are the same and refer to the New Covenant. Of course Christians had arrived, having arrived at the New Covenant of Christ. Of course perfection was there found (Heb. 10: 13). That’s where they pertained. To go back to the Old Covenant would have been apostasy and perdition. That’s the inspired writer’s point. But King would like for Gal. 4:26 and Heb. 12:22 to say "new heavens and new earth," which phrase applies to the redeemed as viewed in heaven and in eternity, but not upon this earth. The New Testament views the saved as the kingdom of heaven now, on earth, and pertaining to the heavenly Jerusalem, and it also views the saved throughout eternity as the heavenly or eternal kingdom. King rejects this N.T. concept completely!

(8) 2 Pet. 3:13. Future tense, Brother King! The Hebrew Christians were already arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem City, but were looking forward to "new heavens and a new earth."

(9) Heb. 8:13. King says: "He nailed it to the cross to this extent: that he came to fulfill it and when he died upon the cross he did that and then Heb. 8:13; it took some forty years before the whole thing was completed." "The New Testament saints, born of Abraham’s spiritual seed, looked for this new world (2 Pet. 3: 13), in anticipation of the time Ishmael would be cast out, or the old heaven and earth would pass away. The time was drawing near when the Hebrew letter was written. (Heb. 8:13)." A-35 King cites Ps. 102:25-28, and says, " ‘Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment:’ does not this figure of speech sound familiar? See again Heb. 8:13; ‘Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.’ Could Paul and David be talking about the same event? The author believes so." A-41 (Heb. 8:13). The words ‘ready to vanish away’ are very significant in this passage, showing that the old dispensation continued several years after the cross. Its final end came with the fall of Jerusalem ... and this event marked the passing of heaven and earth." A-184, 185 "This natural body, 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, that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Paul’s statement, ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.’ " A-200

The word "decayeth" (KJV of Heb. 8:13) is imperative to King’s argument. He cannot use Berry here, or the ASV or NASV. They do not say "decay," and his fanciful theory needs a putrifying body for a period of time. But there is no decaying process of a dead body anywhere in the Greek word of this text, or in the context. Notice the Greek text here: to de palaioumenon kai geraskon. Berry gives this literal word-for-word translation: "But that which grows old and aged." The ASV says: "But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged." The NASV reads: "But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old." Palaioumenon, according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, means, "to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated," and the second Greek word under consideration, geraskon, means, "to fail from age, be obsolescent." The Hebrew writer does not say that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete and growing old, but that whatever (neuter) is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear! That’s his point; such is true of anything like that. It is a statement of general application. That’s why the neuter is used: "that which," or "whatever." And, there’s no decaying in the word!

Now, notice Ps. 102:25-27. There is no direct reference at all in Heb. 8: 13 to this passage. There is a similar phrase there, and King jumps on it to make a play on words! The phrase "wax old" in Ps. 102:26, in the Septuagint (Greek version of the O.T.), is from the first of the two words noted above, meaning become old, or grow old. No "decaying" in Psa. 102 nor in Heb. 8! Even the KJV, in Psa. 102, does not say "decay" for the same word which appears in Heb. 8:13.

The Hebrew writer indicates that God considered the Old Covenant as obsolete in Jeremiah’s time! When did God say that He would make a new covenant? Back in Jeremiah’s time! What did God do to the first covenant when He said that? He made it old. What about anything old and obsolete? It is near to disappearing. This is what Heb. 8:13 is talking about! "When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of the abrogation of the old." (Vincent Is Word Studies in the N. T., p. 1135).

The Hebrew brethren would be foolish to abandon the New Covenant for one done away! The Jews for six centuries knew, from Jer. 31: 3 ff, that the Old Covenant was in the aging process, and therefore would be abrogated in time. King gives the Law a "decaying" process six centuries too late! -Rt. 3

January 18, 1973


The Preterist View Heresy (IV)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

This is article four of several reviewing Max King’s Spirit Of Prophecy. He perverts the allegory of Paul, Gal. 4, doing some "allegorizing" of his own about "two sons in Abraham’s household at the same time," and comes up with an "overlapping" of the "Jewish world" and the "Christian world." His constant play on words is imperative if he is to establish his Preterist-View doctrine. We now notice his "big gun," mello.

He cites Matt. 16:27; Acts 17:31; 2 Tim. 4: 1; Heb. 10: 27; and Rom. 8:18, and tells us that these texts in the Greek employ the word "mello" which means "about." For example, concerning Acts 17:31 be says: "Paul told the Athenians to repent and turn to Christ because he was going to judge the world. But when? How soon would that judgment day come? Many feel that there is nothing in the text itself to indicate time, whether near or afar, but to this we can hardly agree. Most Greek interlinear will furnish this reading: ‘because he set a day in which he is about to judge the habitable world in righteousness, by a man whom be appointed." "Paul said God was about (mello) to judge the world. This word ‘mello,’ where found in the resent, active, indicative tense signifies, nothinly intention of purpose but also nearness of action, meaning at the point of, or ready to do what has been stated. Had Paul meant to teach judgment of 2000 or more years’ future, he certainly would not have used mello in any tense, especially in the present tense. Therefore the judgement of the habitable world (oikoumene) was about to take place in Paul’s day, and in view of other related scriptures we have every reason to believe Paul’s choice of words conveyed the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit." A-157.

True to King’s style, he stays with the KJV when it suits him, and runs to the Greek text when convenient. Berry uses the word "about" in the texts cited by King (about to come, about to judge, etc.). Now, King, cite Berry on 1 Cor. 15:24! We will cite it for you: "when he shall have given up the kingdom . . ." Yet King confidently says: "I challenge anyone to show that Christ is going to give up the kingdom."

He knows that no well-known English version employs that precise phrase, "give up," in 1 Cor. 15:24, but he forgot about Berry, whom he cites when convenient!

Let’s now quote Berry, in his dictionary, on mello: "To be about to do, to be on the point of doing . . . the verb may often be adequately rendered by our auxiliaries, will, shall, must; to delay, only Ac. xxii. 16. The participle is used absolutely: to mellon, the future, Lu. xiii. 9; ta mellonta, things to come, Ro. viii. 38." So, the KJV, the ASV, and the NASV simply say "shall," or "will" instead of "about to," in the texts cited by King.

Berry translates phrases built on mello in this fashion, at times: Luke 13:9, "hereafter;" 1 Cor. 3:22, "coming things;" and 1 Tim. 6:19, "for the future." How near is mello, King, in these passages?

Thayer defines the word thus, "… to be on the point of doing, or suffering something ... to intend, have in mind, think to ... of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment ... in general, of what is sure to happen."

King quotes authorities like all false teachers: just that part that suites him! We shall have occasion to notice more of such in later articles.

The word mello appears in the Greek text in Matt. 11: 14, "And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come." (ASV). The Greek phrase says, literally, "this is Elijah, the about to come one." For four hundred years (Mal. 4:5) there was a coming one. Jesus said that John the Baptist was that one. As Thayer says of mello, "of those things which will come to pass by fixed necessity or divine appointment," so John the Baptist was destined to come. That’s what mello means here! At the time of Jesus’ speaking, John had already come (v. 18)! That "about to come" lasted four centuries!

Rom. 5:14 employs the word mello and Berry’s Interlinear reads: "who is a figure of the coming one." The KJV reads: "him that was to come." The ASV and the NASV read the same. Actually, "was" is not in the Greek phrase per se, but is properly supplied by the context (see especially the next verse), because the point is that Adam was a type of Christ in his first coming to die for man! Christ was "about" to come for millenniums-ever since the time of Adam! King would love for every mello passage to indicate something "about" to be in the near future! But when Paul wrote Rom. 5:14, the "about to come one" already had come! So, King’s play-on-words fails again!

So desperate is King for something "about to be" that he takes up the notion of "two comings of Elias" A-162 According to this fancy, John the Baptist was the first one, and the "first born ones or remnant of Israel were the messengers that prepared the way for Christ’s second coming" A-162 in the destruction of Jerusalem, and were the second of the two Eliases. King bases this on Matt. 17:10-13, affirming that since "come" is present tense, and "shall restore" is future, that there was another Elias to come, future from then, and that the word of Preparation for Christ’s coming in the destruction of Jerusalem, on the part of the saints, was the fulfillment of the second Elias to come!

Verse 11 is an abstract statement on the part of Christ showing that Elijah’s coming precedes in time the coming of the Messiah. As for actual fact, Christ makes it crystal-clear in v. 12 that Elijah had already come in the person of John the Baptist! John’s work of "restoring all things" is set forth in Mal. 4:6 and Luke 1: 17, and that is, in a word, his preaching of repentance (Matt. 3:1-12). So, the "two Elijahs" is another invention of false teachers desperate for a proof.

King has a section on the two Adams. A-212ff Here he confuses or runs together (in his constant play-on-words) Rom. 5:14 and I Cor. 15:22. They are not of the same context, but what matters that to King who is most interested in words? Rom. 5:14 speaks of spiritual death and life, while 1 Cor. 15 of physical. King says, after quoting 1 Cor. 15:22, " But the question is; when did the second Adam make all in him alive? According to Paul, it was at the resurrection or the coming of Christ, when the natural body was raised a spiritual body. But is this still future? The writer thinks not, for Paul said in his Roman letter (60 A.D.) it was ‘at the point’ of happening then. Concerning Adam, Paul said, ‘who is a figure of him that was to come,’ (Rom. 5:14). The literal translation here is, ‘who is a figure of the coming (one).’ " A-213

Now let’s answer King’s question: If your question is based on 1 Cor. 15:22, the answer is that He has not done it yet! Paul did not say in 1 Cor. 15:22 that Christ was "at the point" of doing something. King ran back to Rom. 5:14 for his mello, and hoped that his readers would not catch him at it! But, if his question is based on Rom. 5:14, the answer is that He did it when he died on the cross, thus making justification possible. Friends, read the verses which follow Rom. 5:14, noting especially v. 18, and in chap. 6, vv. 11, 13, 18, 22. That all happened well before A. D. 70. It had already happened in A.D. 60, if that is when Paul wrote Romans. King presses his limited application of the word mello and tries to get Christ coming in A.D. 70 to do what Paul said He was the coming one to do-justify us sinners! If Paul meant that Christ had not come quite yet, then sinners were not quite yet justified until A. D. 70! What a doctrine!

On page 213 in his book, King refers to a good article in Bible Herald, Vol. 18, No. 3 (commenting on Rom. 5:14-BHR). He says that the writer of that article "completely misses the point." The writer does not; but King is the one who not only completely misses the point, but also misrepresents the writer at the same time! King very subtly slips in his "about phrase" and says, "Paul did not say Christ was about to come in Adam’s day . . ." Of course Paid did not, and no one said that lie did say it! King is misrepresenting, as so often lie does when he refers to his opponents’ positions. The writer in Bible Herald was saying what Paid did say, and that is that Adam was a type of one who was coming from the time of Adam until He finally did come, to die on the cross and make justification possible. That was well before A.D. 60! The "nearness" of fulfillment is no point of Paul’s. Paul’s point was that Christ was the anti-type of Adam, and as such was the coming one, or about to be one, in order to give life for death. When he came is determined by when he gave that life! V. 18, that "one act of righteousness" refers to the cross of A.D. 33! King ignores the context of Rom. 5 and 6, and jumbles it with that of 1 Cor. 15, to make out a case for his fanciful invention of one "world" rising up out of another one at A.D. -Rt. 3

January 25, 1973


The Preterist View Heresy (V)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

In this article we take up 2 Pet. 3:1-13, and elements. So obviously is this passage against King’s Preterist View that he labors hard to "explain it away," as he utilizes his favorite devices: ignoring of contexts, and running different ones together as if they applied to the same thing, play-on-words, and misuse of authoritative works.

When asked at Mansfield what he did with his Preterits View in the light of 2 Pet. 3: 10, he replied: "I apply it to this passage all the way, word for word, absolutely! ... Everything to be on fire, yes! When he came in his personal ministry he lit the fire." (referring to Lk. 12:49-BHR). Lk. 12:49 represents an entirely different context. But, on 2 Pet. 3 he surrenders his "spiritualized" and "allegorized" exegesis by saying, "Yes, it has a secondary application. I have every reason to believe that some day this physical heaven and earth will melt away ... because it is a type of the heaven and earth (the kingdom as of A.D. 70-BHR) that he said he would create." King has "every reason" but he does not name any and he gives no Scripture reference, because he has none. His so-called "secondary application" is an assertion without proof. In my second article I quoted him as saying, "I don’t know what the destiny of this physical world is that we’re living in." Some quotes from him now will show that he "spiritualizes" 2 Peter 3: 1-13, but leaves the door open for escape by means of an invented "secondary application."

He makes the "world" of 2 Pet. 3:6 mean "people or age," and the "heavens ... and the earth" of v. 7 mean the "Jewish world." He says. "How did the Jewish world burn with fire? Don’t get back in the flesh; stay in the spirit! Let’s see the spiritual significance of these fleshly symbols. King "spiritualizes" a literal passage and calls you fleshly if you do not accept his "allegorizing." This he does throughout his book. That is why he insists on his opposites: spiritual versus literal. It is for effect. See my first article.

"Thus, the world reserved unto fire against the Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men (1 Pet. 3: 7) was the Jewish world . . . Fiery’ judgment was going to fall on Judaism. Jesus said. "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled’ (Luke 12:49). The fire of 2 Pet. 3:10 is no more literal than the fire of Luke 12:49. (Why, the fire of Lk. 12:49 is not literal at all! There’s no comparison! -BHR) Other passages involving symbolic fire in the destruction of Judaism are: Matt. 3:12; 13:40, 42; and 2 Thess. 1:8." A-131

In the previous quote we see King at his old trick of running distinct contexts together. He wants "fire" symbolic in 2 Pet. 3, as it is in an entirely different context, Lk. 12:49. But the fire of 2 Pet. 3 is just as literal as the water of vv. 5, 6! We see King playing with words, as he slips in his "Jewish world," which is nowhere to be found in 2 Pet. 3:1-13. Peter is speaking of the literal, physical heavens and earth in vv. 7, 10, just as he is back in v. 5. King sees the word "world" (kosmos) in v. 6, and then tries to make the heavens and the earth (ge) a "world, and finally the "new heavens and a new earth" (ge), v. 13, another "world," too. On page 130 he affirms: ". . . we find three worlds in 2 Pet. 3," and goes on to identify them as the world that perished in the days of the flood, the "Jewish world," and the third one which was that perfect, complete something that followed "after Judaism fell." But King can find "world" (kosmos) only once in 2 Pet. 3!

Let us see what Peter actually did say: (1) Ungodly men, who walked in their lusts (identified by this passage, by 2 Pet. 2: Iff; Jude, and 1 John, in particular, as the Gnostics), mocked the fact of Christ’s coming in a "day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men," v. 1-7. (2) Their claim of uniformitarianism (v. 4) was given the lie by the fact of the Noachian flood. God’s word brought a literal, physical heaven and earth into existence. Out of chaos He brought an ordered arrangement. That ordered world (kosmos), v. 6, perished in the flood. A cataclysm destroyed that existing order of life on the earth, including the death of living creatures and the change of the earth’s topography, leaving a new surface and a remnant of righteous people. It was a worldwide judgment! (3) The heavens that now are and the earth represent the order of things since the flood, and are just as real and literal as the antediluvian order. These are reserved by the same Word of God for a cataclysm of fire, and this fire is just as literal as that water! (4) Three things are mentioned in connection with the "day of the Lord," v. 10: (a) the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, (b) the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and (c) the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Now, look at King’s "thought for the literalists elements ascribed to the ‘heavens’ rather than the ‘earth?’ Peter said, ‘. . . wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.’ (2 Peter 3: 12). It would seem more natural to speak of the ‘elements’ of the earth rather than of the heavens, if the material world were the subject." A-186, 187 Again King engages in word-trickery! Peter did not ascribe the elements to the heavens, as distinct from the earth. Peter said nothing about the "elements of heaven." That’s King’s insinuation. See again, v. 10, the three things mentioned there. The expressions "dissolved with fervent heat," "burned up," "being on fire," and "melt with fervent heat," are used interchangeably in reference to the heavens, elements and earth.

King desperately needs some word to play on in order to get people’s minds off of a literal, fiery destruction of the material universe, and onto the destruction of Jerusalem, and for this he uses "elements." Listen to him: "The word element in the scriptures means ‘the rudimentary principles of religion . . . the elementary principles of the O.T., as a revelation from God, Heb. 5:12, R.V.’ This same word is found in Gal. 4:3,9 where it is used in reference to the rudimentary principles of the Jewish system. Since law or government is involved in the meaning of heaven, it follows that the rudiments or elements of Judaism properly belong to the region of heaven. These were the elements that would melt with fervent heat, fire being a symbol of destruction." A- 187 "Does ‘elements of the world’ in Gal. 4:3 refer to the literal heavens and earth? None would dare so affirm. Could it not have the same application in 2 Pet. 3:10? It is also found in Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:8, 10. Yes, this was the world Christ was coming to destroy." A-42

King says that the "the word element in the scriptures means. . . " King, does it mean that in every Scripture? Is that the only meaning of the word? You know better! Because you quote part of what Vine says and purposely omit the part against you. I shall quote all of what Vine says on the meaning of the word in the N. T.: "In the N.T. it is used. of (a) the substance of the material world, 2 Pet. 3:10,12 (King conveniently omitted this! -BHR); (b) the delusive speculations of Gentile cults (King mentions only Judaism!-BHR) and of Jewish theories, treated as elementary principles, ‘the rudiments of the world,’ Col. 2:8, spoken of as, philosophy and vain deceit;’ these were presented as superior to faith in Christ; at Colossae the worship of angels, mentioned in ver. 18, is explicable by the supposition, held by both Jews and Gentiles (emphasis mine-BHR) in that district, that the constellations were either themselves animated heavenly beings, or were governed by them; (c) the rudimentary principles of religion, Jewish or Gentiles (King mentions nothing about Gentiles in defining "elements,"-BHR), also described as the ,rudiments of the world,’ Col. 2:20, and as ‘weak and beggarly rudiments,’ Gal. 4:3, 9, R.V., constituting a yoke of bondage; (d) the elementary principles (the A.B.C.) of the O.T., as a revelation from God, Heb. 5:12, R.V., ‘rudiment,’ lit., ‘the rudiments of the beginning of the oracles of God,’ such as are taught to spiritual babes." So, the reader can see how King deceitfully uses authoritative works on Greek words! The words which suit his theory he employs and conveniently leaves out all others!

Vincent, in his Word Studies in the N.T., p. 336, 337, tells us that the Greek word for "elements" is applied "to the four elements fire, air, earth, water; and in later times to the planets and signs of the zodiac. It is used in an ethical sense in other passages; as in Gal. 4:3, elements or rudiments of the world.’ Also of elementary teaching, such as the law, which was fitted for an earlier stage in the world’s history; and of the first principles of religious knowledge among men. In Col. 2:8, of formal ordinances. Compare Heb. 5:12. Also, commenting on 2 Pet. 3:11, he says, "The world and all herein is essentially transitory." Commenting on v. 12, "melt," he says, "Literal. Stronger than the word in vv. 10, 11. Not only the resolving, but the wasting away of nature."

Thayer, in his lexicon, P. 589, says on this Greek word, as used in 2 Pet. 3: 10, "the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe." He includes Heb. 5:12; Gal. 4:3,9, and Col. 2:8, 20 under his fourth definition: "the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our ‘alphabet’ or ‘abc’) of any art, science, or discipline." On Gal. 4:3,9 he adds that these "elements" refer to "ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles (emphasis mine-BHR). So, Vine, Vincent, and Thayer all say the same thing about "elements," as used in 2 Pet. 3, and not a one agrees with King. King takes one specific definition and applies it at will. This is his "long suit," throughout the book. Truth is not served by such tactics!

Lastly we notice one more play-on-words as respects King’s teaching on 2 Pet. 3. Commenting on v. 10, "the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up," he says, "The works that were to perish or be destroyed in the fiery judgment of that world were the works of the law. " A- 187 He had just quoted Gal. 2: 16, because there Paul refers to the "works of the law." Of course there is no contextual connection, but so what? (to King, that is!) Peter said nothing about works of the law of Moses; he said the earth and the works in it!

There’s the Preterist-View for you: when the Romans burned Jerusalem, 2 Pet. 3 was fulfilled! If you think that is bad, wait until you see his treatment of 1 Cor. 15, which we take up in the next article. -Rt. 3

February 1, 1973

The Preterist View Heresy (VI)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

The Preterist-View of prophecy denies that there will be a future, bodily resurrection of the dead from the graves! King, therefore, runs right into the face of such passages as Jn. 5:28, 29 and 1 Cor. 15, but he has the special "tools" of an A. D. 70 Advocate to "explain away" the obvious import of these and other related passages.

The context of 1 Cor. 15:12-58 has to do with the literal dead being raised, if Christ was literally raised from the literal dead (and even King admits that Christ was!) But the Preterist-View doctrine makes the discussion of our resurrection one from a figurative death (the dead and decayed "body" of Judaism). But, on the other hand, King (wanting to have his cake and eat it, too) invents his "secondary application" when he is in a tight and needs some Scripture to refer to what happens to us when we die. He then uses some verses from 1 Cor. 15 in his "secondary application." If we could convince ourselves that God has favored King with such liberty with the Scriptures, we could more easily be taken in by his fanciful doctrine!

To Christ, as Savior and Mediator, all authority in heaven and on earth was given (Matt. 28:18). As such Christ is now reigning and will, Paul says, "till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death." This "death" is just as literal as "dead" in v. 20. At such time, Paul says, Christ "will deliver up the kingdom to God." His mediatorial reign shall have ended. Of course, the reign of Christ and God in our hearts will never end, if we are faithful unto death, and are saved unto that heavenly kingdom, and have entrance into that eternal kingdom (1 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet. 1: 11). That will be when He comes the "second time," not as Mediator and Savior, but as Judge (Heb. 9: 28; Acts 17:31).

But King must deny that at some date future from now Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God. He had to "deliver it up" back in A. D. 70! So, he must deny the obvious meaning of "deliver up," and give it a forced interpretation. Listen to him: On the word "till" he says: it means "when he really begins to reign in power; not a cessation of activity but a gathering up to a state of absolute power and perfection." "The word ‘till’ does not denote cessation of reign, but rather points to a time and an event that will be the zenith of his reign." A-144 He does not tell us where he gets this "zenith" business! He issues the following challenge: "I challenge anyone to show that Christ is going to give up (his chosen phrase BHR) the kingdom! He’ll have it for ever and for ever and for ever!" Well, Brother King, we will be glad to accommodate you, by using a version you yourself turn to when the wording in the KJV does not suit your play-on-words: Berry’s Interlinear. It reads, "When he shall have given up the kingdom." (P. 465). Of course Christ shall reign forever, and has an everlasting kingdom, but He will not reign forever as Mediator, with all authority given to Him. King, do you believe that time will continue forever -time as we know it? All authority was given to Christ for His mediatorial reign, and when that phase of His reigning is terminated, that authority shall be returned, and that is what the apostle Paul is saying in I Cor. 15. That people, saved and mediated by Christ, will be saved forever, and in that sense the kingdom is spoken of as eternal. That phase of the kingdom is yet ahead.

Let us look at Thayer’s definition of the Greek word translated "deliver up: " "to give over into (one’s) power, or use" (P. 481). The same Greek word (paradidomi) is found in John 19:30. and is translated in the KJV (of all places! ), "give up." So, to "deliver up" is the very same idea as "give up," and King is challenging for anyone to show the very thing that the apostle Paul declares! We simply turn over to Paul this play-on-word-artist.

Now, since he likes challenges so well, we issue him one: Show us a version or Greek authority that translates paradidomi (deliver up) as "raise up or restore to rightful place." A-144 What a definition! And King has the audacity to issue challenges on definitions after such a wild one as that! He must think mighty highly of himself to expect people to accept his verbal inventions on no higher authority than his "ipse dixit."

King conveniently divides 1 Cor. 15 into sections. See pages 199-201. He says that vv. 1-20 is "given to the bodily resurrection of Christ himself." Note the phrase, "bodily resurrection." He uses this in reference to Christ’s resurrection, but will not use it in reference to anyone eise’s. Elsewhere he refers to the "traditional resurrection doctrine" A-211 as advocating a fleshly resurrection A-217 in distinction to his "spiritual resurrection." "The resurrection is spiritual and not fleshly." A-222 Repeatedly he contrasts "the fleshly view" A-225 with the "spiritual view." A-197 He speaks of the "literal body view" A-192 as opposed to the "spiritual body view." A-195 This special phraseology is used for effect! If one takes anything literal, he is fleshly, according to King! We believe in a bodily resurrection, but King insists on representing us as believing in a fleshly one. He believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but will not represent us as believing in a bodily resurrection of the dead, sometime future from now. According to King, ours is a fleshly view, a literal view, the traditional view!

Then, doing a switch on us, he gets off of the bodily resurrection and from v. 21 to v. 58 he gets on his so-called "spiritual resurrection," while the apostle Paul stays on the same subject, vv. 12-58, and that is, the physical, bodily resurrection of the dead! On King’s sections from v. 2 1 to v. 58, he uses his own invention of "Primary resurrection" and "secondary resurrection." applying these sections primarily to "the rise of the Christian system itself" out of Judaism, once Jerusalem was destroyed, and secondarily to what happens to a man at death. ... His natural body that was sown (verse 44) answers to the fleshly or carnal system of Judaism ... from which came the spiritual body ... Judaism answers to the field or the world in which the good seed was sown (Matt. 13:37, 38). This natural body, 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 that became fully developed or resurrected by the end-time. Hence, this is the primary meaning of Paul’s statement, ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.’ - A-200 so, that’s how King manhandles 1 Cor. 15:21-58, while Paul sticks with his subject of a bodily resurrection, just like Christ’s!

King denies that the "graves" of Jn. 5:28,29 are literal. A-219 He makes this passage deal "with spiritual, no physical death." A-219 ". . .the end of Judaism . . . is the resurrection of John 5:28,29." A-220 Before the Preachers’ Meeting he said, "Yes, I believe Jesus arose physically from the dead," but of us he says, "personally, I don’t hold to the view that there is a physical resurrection." "A physical resurrection, however, is denied." A-204.

Well, after all of King’s misrepresentation of our position, and all of his play-on-words, Jesus still is on record as saying, ". . . all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth," and Paul, also, saying, "It is sown ... it is raised." That which will be raised a spiritual body is the same as that which was sown. Of course we do not believe that a fleshly body will come from the grave, but that a spiritual body will, and will be the resurrection of that very body which was buried. 1 Cor. 15 describes the body in the grave as that which was "first," natural... terrestrial, corruptible, "weak," "earthly," "flesh and blood," and mortal," and declares that it will be resurrected a spiritual body. This is what King denies that the passage teaches. No wonder King does not believe in a bodily resurrection and will not properly represent us as so believing. He hopes by tying "fleshly" onto us we will be "scared" into his Preterist-View heresy!

He denies that Phil. 3: 21 is yet to be fulfilled. According to him it does not refer to the physical body at all! "Why did he use the plural,’our’ and the singular ‘body,’ if he were talking about a general resurrection of individual dead bodies?" A-194 "The redemption of our body (not bodies) in Rom. 8:23 is equated with our vile body (not bodies) in Phil. 3:21, and corresponds to the redemption of the purchased possession or church in Eph. 1: 14." A- 194

King, by his forced interpretation of Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, gets himself into many difficulties. If the singular word "body" refers to the church, as a spiritual body, then he has the church "vile," and has’ Paul referring to "our" church! But Paul in Rom. 8:18-25 contrasts the sufferings in the physical body with the glory of the physical body once it is redeemed. In saying "our body," he uses the part of speech which we call a "synecdoche," wherein the part is put for the whole (as fifty sails, for fifty ships). King wants to play on the fact that the word "body" is singular. Let him try his little play on 4:23, "your spirit" (did all the Philippians have but one spirit?); on 1 Thess. 5:23, "your spirit and soul and body" (did they have but one of each? or, if the "body" is the church, what is the "spirit" and the "soul?"); on Heb. 10:22, "our hearts" (plural), but "our body washed with pure water" (is the church baptized, King, or are individual bodies baptized? The Greek text says "body," not "bodies;" therefore, "body" as in the ASV and NASV).

In Phil. 3:21 the Greek text says, as the ASV renders it, "the body of our humiliation," or as the NASV, "the body of our humble state," and not "our vile body." Paul is contrasting v. 20 with v. 21. Whereas the enemies of the cross had only earthly citizenship, a glory pertaining to appetites of the belly, and an end characterized by perdition, Christians have a heavenly citizenship, a promise some day of the glorified body like Christ’s for the physical body which in this life is subjected to humiliation, and an end characterized by salvation. Paul uses the singular, "body," just as he uses the singular, "spirit," in 4:23, etc. The one body is characteristic of each, individual one, and therefore the one is put for the many. This is common in the Scriptures. Note I Jn. 3:19-21, "our heart." But King knew this when he perverted Rom. 8: 23 and Phil. 3: 2 1. He has a theory to defend! – Route 3


The Preterist View Heresy (VII)

Bill Reeves
Fredericktown, Ohio

King versus Jesus, on Matt. 22:23-33. King, like the Sadducees of old, denies a general resurrection of individual dead bodies." A-194 No wonder, then, that this passage gives him trouble. But, give King credit: he does meet it head on in his book, although he employs his customary sophistry to set aside its obvious import.

He blames the Pharisees’ "fleshly concepts" for the Sadducees’ unbelief. The Sadducees "rejection of the resurrection was due largely to the fleshly concepts taught and believed in that day." A-217 Where did you learn that, King? Made it up, didn’t you? Paul was a Pharisee! (Acts 23:7,8, "1 am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question ... For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit.")

"They reasoned that if the fleshly body were going to be resurrected in the last day . . ." A 217 Yes, the fleshly body will be resurrected in the last day, but it will not be raised a fleshly body (I Cor. 15:44). King very astutely misrepresents us repeatedly by referring to a "fleshly resurrection," rather than to a bodily resurrection. He knows there is a difference.

"But Jesus informed them that their problem existed in their ignorance of the nature of the resurrection." A-217 Note how subtly King inserts the word "nature" into the discussion. Ah, but he is subtle! No, King, the Sadducees did not deny the nature of the resurrection; they denied the fact of it! Read v. 23 and Acts 23:8, again, and notice also 26:8, 23. Those Sadducees affirmed: "there is no resurrection," just exactly like King affirms: there is no "general resurrection of individual dead bodies." King tries to slip the word "nature" into the discussion and pin Sadduceeism on us!

King speaks of the Sadducees’ first error being that of not knowing the Scriptures, and their second one, that of not knowing the power of God. He is wrong again; they had but one error in this context: they denied the fact of the resurrection! Jesus says that in so denying it they showed both their ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God. I emphasize "power" to alert the readers of King’s book to the smoothness and subtlety of deceit he employs throughout it, for concluding matters, he says, "Thus, the failure of the Sadducees to know their scriptures and the promise (emphasis mine-BHR) of God . . . " A-218 See how he switches terms in order to condition his readers’ minds to his position? (He had just above written about the resurrection being for fulfilling to Abraham and to his seed the promise of a new heaven and earth, meaning his A.D. 70 doctrine).

It would take a book to expose the twisting and perverting of all the Scriptures, which King has set forth in The Spirit Of Prophecy. These few articles can take up only some samples of this play-on-words artist!

How King is hurting on Luke 20:27-40! Let us look at his pitiful attempt to explain it away." Jesus in this passage talks about "this world" (aion, age) and "that world," and King’s Preterist-View doctrine has to give such expressions a constant application: namely, the "Jewish world" and the "Christian world" (as of A.D. 70!). But Jesus is talking about life now on earth, and the life in heaven after this life is no more, because he talked about a time when they when people marry, and a time when they will no more be doing so. If Jesus is talking about what King is, then ‘since A. D. 70 there is to be no more marriage (and how could we possibly have gotten from A. D. 70 until now without marriage!). King knows this and we now look at his perversion of Rom. 14:17, designed to help him out of his predicament.

He writes: "The statement that those in the world to come would neither marry nor be given in marriage is not, as it would appear on the surface, a denial of marriage or physical life in the Christian age. Rather, it has the meaning of Paul’s statement that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17). Jesus was not teaching that the citizens of the world to come ‘do not marry" anymore than Paul taught that citizens of the kingdom do not eat or drink. The point being debated is the nature of the world that was to come. The ‘children of this world’ (Jewish) were constituted as such by physical birth, being the fleshly seed of Abraham. Thus, the citizens of ‘this world’ were propagated by marriage or fleshly procreation. But such would not be true in the world to come (the Christian age). Jesus said those who would be worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, would not do so by physical means or methods. It was not the kind of world that could be entered by flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:50) . . . ‘Neither can they die any more’ because they are ‘the children of the resurrection,’ refers to the spiritual state of redeemed man, and not his physical state." A237,238

King can crowd more error, sophistry and perversion into one paragraph than anyone I have ever known! Let us note some of these:

(1) (Denying marriage or physical life in the Christian age. Of course what Jesus said is no such denial, for the simple reason that Jesus was not talking about the "Christian age." Jesus does deny that there will be marrying in the world to come. Since marriage is not denied us now, "that world" is not now! How King is hedging, here!

(2) (Citizens of the kingdom do not eat or drink). Rom. 14:17 has nothing in the world to do with the subject of Lk. 20:27-40. Jesus is talking about the world to follow the one we are living in now, and Paul is talking about our conduct as citizens of the kingdom now. What we eat and drink, or do not eat and drink, is not the basis of our conduct in the church, Paul says, in a context dealing with matters of indifference. But, incidentally, look what King has done: cited a text concerning conduct in the kingdom before A. D. 70! King, if he has a parallel at all, will have to affirm that Paul says, "for the kingdom of God will not be (after A. D. 4 0) eating and drinking, but righteousness . . ."

(3) (The point being debated is the nature of the world to come). This is King’s desperate invention. As he did in handling Matt. 22, here he slips in the idea of "nature." This is not Christ’s point! Christ is not talking about how to get into the world to come: whether by literal marriage or not! That’s ridiculous, and King knows that he is perverting this context. Just which words of Jesus, King, do you cite to show that Jesus was talking about proper means or methods of attaining to that world? Jesus spoke of what people would not be doing once they did attain to it: they would not be marrying, giving in marriage, nor dying (present tense in the Greek text, which indicates continual, habitual action). King makes Jesus say that N. T. saints, of before A. D. 70, would not be able to get into King’s complete and perfect something, coming when Jerusalem would be destroyed, by means of the marriage act!

(4) ("Neither can they die any more" does not refer to physical death). King expects us to accept this forced conclusion, in spite of the context of Luke 20:27-40. He slips in some texts dealing with spiritual death, and hopes we will not detect his tactics, his switching of terms! Well, the simple truth of the matter is that (a) the Sadducees, "they that say there is no resurrection," period! came to Jesus and propounded a case in which seven men died physically. Do you see that, King? Of course you do. (b) Then the woman died, also and that physically! (c) Jesus claimed that in the resurrection they do not do that anymore, King. They do not die! physically! Jesus said, they cannot. Why? Because they are like the angels, who do not die.

King represents us as "waiting for some miracle of spiritual renewal or transformation to take place in physical death," A-238 and in doing so, misrepresents us! Let us ask: King is that the way you used to express it when for years you taught on the resurrection what we teach now? Before you left the truth, did you preach it like that? In those terms? For your benefit, I will tell you what we are waiting for: we are waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, who shall fashion anew (Greek, changing what is outward and shiftingVincent, p. 889; change the figure of-Thayer, p. 406) the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory (Phil. 3: 20,2 1). We do not expect this at the moment of each one’s death, for at death we sleep in Jesus and rest, but when He comes from heaven. Thess. 1:10; 4:16, 17; Heb. 9:28; 1 Cor. 15:20-23). The next time you write a book, brother, at least represent us correctly, regardless of what you teach!

"To put the new heaven and earth in contrast with this material world, making it essential for all material elements of creation to be destroyed before the new world can be created, misses the whole scheme of redemption, as well as the very nature of it. The world that failed to accomplish redemption, becoming a ‘ministration of death’ was the one the new heaven and earth followed, bringing a ‘ministration of life and righteousness.’ Any careful student of the Bible should be able to readily identify these two worlds and pinpoint the ending of the one and the beginning of the other." A-239

The new heavens and new earth will follow the dissolution of the elements of the material creation; Peter says so in the third chapter of the second book. Such does not miss the "whole scheme of redemption." King’s Preterist-View is the culprit, because it makes a "ministration of death" (Judaism, as he calls it) continue some 37 years after Christ nailed the Law to across, and postpones the "ministration of life and righteousness" 37 years too long! People dead in sin had been made alive in Christ; the unrighteous had been made righteous, for 37 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Among a host of Scriptures on the subject, consider Gal. 3:8, 21, 22, 24.

The two covenants did not overlap for some 37 years. A change was made (Heb. 7:12). He took away the first in order to establish the second (10:9). By means of that second one, which replaced the first one, the Hebrew brethren had already been sanctified (9:10), years before A. D. 70. Even a careless student of the Bible can see that the cross of Christ, and not A. D. 70, is the turning point in God’s scheme of redemption. That is why Paul told the Corinthians that they were in Christ Jesus, who had been made unto them wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption fl Cor. 1:30). Paul had gone to Corinth to preach Christ and Him crucified, and not the Preterist-View of Prophecy, and so, when he wrote them later he could say what he did in that above-mentioned text!

Our last article will be on Daniel’s 70 Weeks.King leans heavily upon it. -Route 3

February 15, 1973

The Preterist View Heresy (VIII)

Bill Reeves
Fredricktown, Ohio

In this eighth and final article in a series on Max King’s The Spirit Of Prophecy, we notice briefly his case for Daniel’s prophecy on the 70 weeks (9:24-27). King has much to say about this prophecy throughout his book and lectures. The interpretations of this prophecy are legion, and it is not within the province of this short article to go into detail on it. Whether one interprets it in the usual manner, considering it as Messianic (that is, that the 70 weeks, and the six items of v. 24, are fulfilled in Christ’s first coming and death on the cross-with the additional fact added by Daniel that Jerusalem would be destroyed), or whether one follows King’s "gap" theory (whereby a 30 year gap is put between the 69th and the 70th prophetical week, and the six items are fulfilled within the 7 year period between A. D. 63 and A. D. 70), still King’s Preterist-View doctrine is as foreign to the teachings of the Scriptures as any other man-made doctrine. This has been amply shown in the previous seven articles. It would take seven times seventy to expose every perversion of Scripture to be found in his look!

How anyone could have a knowledge of the mission and work of the Messiah, Christ Jesus, and after reading Dan. 9:24, conclude that these six items were not fulfilled in His first coming and death on the cross, is beyond me. But, King has Christ coming at the end of the 69th week, and then by means of his "gap" theory jumps some 30 years distance, and gets these six items fulfilled between A. D. 63 and A. D. 70. The weakness of his interpretations shows most obviously in spots. For example, on p. 55 he is in trouble trying to fit in the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation. On p. 64 he has to get "righteousness" in too many years after Pentecost, so he invents some expressions and says, this "has reference to the time of Christ’s coming when things would be so changed that righteousness would be the eternal state of the new world." What the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 had to do with working such drastic changes that righteousness would be no longer a non-eternal state, but rather an eternal state, he does not tell us. He cannot! It is just a convenient fabrication.

After leaning so heavily upon his "gap" theory, he has the audacity to refer to our "gap" between one’s death and his receiving the glorified or spiritual body in the resurrection day! A-211

In defense of the "gap" theory, King before the Preachers’ Meeting presented Job 3:6, "As for that night ... let it not come into the number of the months." "He was cut off (referring to Jesus-BHR) A.D. 32, and we have a gap between the 69th and the 70th week. One of the reasons for that gap is, Christ said, "But of the day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ (Matt. 24:36). Had there been no gap, even the disciples could have figured out from the basis of Daniel’s 70 weeks exactly when the Lord was going to return in the destruction of Israel." After trying to make Job’s sufferings typical of the church’s persecution by the Jews before Jerusalem was destroyed, he admits, after citing Job 3: 6, "this is the closest I can come in the Bible to show the gap.

But in his book King refers, in defense of his "gap" theory, to (1) the division which Daniel’s prophecy makes between the first 69 and the 70th weeks. Yes, but it also makes a division between the first 7 and the next 62! King, where’s the gap there? (2) Acts 3:19-21 (Christ’s being in heaven after his ascension and until his return in A. D. 70 to restore all things! This is a "gap."); 2 Pet. 3:9,15 (the period of the longsuffering of God; i.e., between A. D. 33 and A. D. 70-the "gap"); Luke 19:41-44 (time elapsed between Christ’s being cut off and Jerusalem’s destruction); Matt. 24:36 and Acts 1: 7 (the secrecy of the time would indicate that the 70th week would not follow immediately the other 69).

Well, these Scriptures mentioned just above by King have no bearing at all upon the issue of whether or not a 70-week unit should have a "gap" in it. King merely accommodates to his "gap" theory what these passages say, and actually perverts the meaning of Acts 3:19-21 and 2 Pet. 3:9, 15. We have already exposed him on 2 Pet. 3, and suffice it to say, with the apostle Peter, that the passage in Acts 3 had to do with those days (v. 240)!

So, there is no more a "gap" between the 69th and 70th weeks, than between the first 7 and the next 62! Daniel said that 70 weeks were decreed (v. 24), but King says 69, plus gaps of several more, plus the 70th, were decreed. As there was no gap in the 70 years of captivity in Babylonia, so none is to be expected in this 70, prophetical-year, unit.

Were not those six items of Dan. 9:24 so messianic in nature, through and through, we might look to other interpretations which would harmonize with the Scriptures. But the Preterist-View of prophecy tears the entire Divine Library of 66 books to shreds!

Premillennialism does not begin to prevert as many Scriptures as King’s doctrine does, and yet he told the preachers: "I think the premillennial issues today are going to force us in this direction (to the Preterist-View-BHR) if we successfully meet them."

Daniel’s prophecy tells us (v. 25) that the first seven prophetical years would see the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and that at the end of the next 62 would come the Messiah. Then, after the 62week period, two things would happen (v. 26): the Messiah would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. This verse does not tell us how long after the expiration of the 62-week period these two events would happen, but the next verse (27th) does tell us that in the 70th prophetical week (or seven-year period) the Messiah would make a firm covenant with many and in the midst of it (3 and one-half years) he would make the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This is when, evidently, he would be cut off, as referred to in the previous verse, because his death on the cross put an end to the Law and its priesthood (Heb. 4: 12). Was not the veil of the temple rent on that occasion?). The additional information is given in v. 27 concerning the fact of Jerusalem’s destruction. It is mentioned as following (how long is not stated) the expiration of the 70th week. So, by Daniel’s prophecy the Jews could know that their capital city would be fully destroyed subsequent to the Messiah’s being cut off. Both events are mentioned in v. 26, but in v. 27 only the one is mentioned as occurring in the 70th week: the death of the Messiah, because he was to make the covenant then, and of course he would have to make it before he died, or in his death.

In conclusion, I direct my readers’ attention (King, note that "readers" is plural and "attention" is singular, and compare it to what you have done to Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, "our body"!) again to the fact that the whole basis of this Preterist-View heresy is a perversion of Paul’s allegory in Gal. 4. Paul, through the Holy Spirit, no more made allegorical the detail of Ishmael and Isaac living in Abraham’s household for a short time, than he did the detail of Isaac’s being weaned! King goes beyond what Paul makes allegorical and misuses the purpose of the allegory, which he did present.

He then sets out to boldly force literal passages into his own mold of spiritualizing, and dares call one "fleshly" if he does not agree with him. He switches terms and plays with English words, and employs his sophistry in the most subtle of ways. He adds a word or phrase, or otherwise makes some small change, to misrepresent his opponent. He quotes only part of an authority which would appear to agree with his position, and thus leaves wrong impressions. He has built up his own peculiar lingo to support his doctrine. He ignores contexts wholesale, and presses them into his service. His book is difficult to read and monotonously repetitious. Paragraph after paragraph is but a conglomeration of jumbled and unrelated references, which he has arbitrarily applied to fit his doctrine. No one, without King’s help, would ever have guessed that inspired writers were trying to get such a message across!

It is not at all likely that one so committed to a false doctrine, as Brother Max King is, can be salvaged from it, but if anything can be done to rescue him, I pledge all the help I can give to that end. Nothing would make me happier! -Route 3


February 22, 1973


What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security

Date: 02 Feb 2007
Time: 12:46:52


god is spirit. it only makes sense that gods words would be is human. it only makes sense that his words would be carnal. there is a difference.i will take the spiritual words of christ. rather then the carnal words of man.

Date: 02 Feb 2007
Time: 12:46:52


god is spirit. it only makes sense that gods words would be is human. it only makes sense that his words would be carnal. there is a difference.i will take the spiritual words of christ. rather then the carnal words of man.

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ Opened in 1996