Why
Partial Preterism is Wrong
The
Christian Debater
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
In
Brother Max R. King of
Max King is not very well
known personally, but his father-in-law, C. D. Beagle, is well known throughout
the
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
It is going to be
interesting to see how elastic a view of fellowship some of the
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
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
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
One ill-prepared young
liberal preacher is reported to have debated these subjects with Brother King
at
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.
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 9, pp. 3-5
January 4, 1973
The
Preterist View Heresy (I)
Bill Reeves
About a year ago Brother
Max King, of
The word
"preterit" means past. I am told that he used "preterit" or
"preterist" in his series at
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
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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 9, pp. 5-7
January 4, 1973
The
Preterist View Heresy (II)
Bill Reeves
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
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 "
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
This allegory condemns premillennialism that bolds out a hope for national
(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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 10, pp.11-13
January 11, 1973
The Preterist View Heresy (III)
Bill Reeves
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
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
(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
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
(8) 2 Pet. 3:13.
Future tense, Brother King! The Hebrew Christians were already arrived at the
heavenly
(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
The word "decayeth" (KJV of Heb. 8:13) is imperative to King’s
argument. He cannot use
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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 11, pp. 9-11
January 18, 1973
The
Preterist View Heresy (IV)
Bill Reeves
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.
He knows that no well-known
English version employs that precise phrase, "give up," in 1 Cor. 15:24, but he forgot about
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.
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
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
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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 12, pp. 9-11
January 25, 1973
The
Preterist View Heresy (V)
Bill Reeves
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
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
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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 13, pp. 7-9
February 1, 1973
The
Preterist View Heresy (VI)
Bill Reeves
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
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
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
(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
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
Our last article will be on
Daniel’s 70 Weeks.King leans heavily upon it. -Route
3
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, pp. 9-11
February 15, 1973
The Preterist View Heresy (VIII)
Bill Reeves
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
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
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
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
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
TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 16, pp. 8-9
February 22, 1973
as of 12-2006