A Response to "The 70 A.D. Doctrine"

By Ed Stevens

Ed Stevens Page | Silence Demands a Rapture | Regarding "Annihilationism" | A Servant's View | Hampden-Cook Preterist Rapture | JS Russell Preterist Rapture

Note: This is a response to "The A.D. 70 Doctrine" by Buff Scott.

The basic objections to the preterist view expressed by brother Buff Scott in the article below are:

1. That Pentecost was the fulfillment of Mt. 16.27ff and its parallels (Mark 9:1; Lk. 9.26ff). And, that there are multiple comings 'in-between' Christ's first advent and His second appearing.

2. At 70 A-D. 'every eye'did not see Him (Rev. 1:7), and there was no general resurrection and laying bare of the earth (2 Pet. 3).

3. The book ofrevelation was written about A.D. 96, not before 70.

1. Pentecost Fulfillment of Mt. 16:27,28? All three accounts state that 'some' of them listening would still be alive when these things happened. Very awkward way to speak of an event that was less than two years away, especially when ALL of those listening would still be alive. Jesus here refers to His return in association with these events (that "some" would live to see) by using the phrase 'the Son of Man coming.

     There is NO other term in the synoptic gospels which Jesus uses to refer to His return other than this. The burden of proof rests on those who contend that this phrase in Mt. 16:27f means something different than it does in other passages such as Mt. 10:23; 24:30; 25:31. Did Christ speak of multiple 'in-between comings' using exactly the same phrase without distinguishing between them?

     Where is the evidence that Christ knew of different comings separated by thousands of years???

2. 'Every Eye", Resurrection, and the End of the Earth: Many assume there is only one way to interpret the NATURE of the endtime events (the physical/literal method). So, when they run into problems with the TIME statements, they adjust their timing to resolve it, instead of looking to see if they might have misunderstood the NATURE of those events. The Jews made the same mistake. They still look for the Messiah to come, since Jesus didn't fulfill their physicalaiteral expectations. That is the problem here. We just need to leave the TIME statements alone and re-examine our understanding of the NATURE of those prophesied events.

3. Date of Revelation: I have heard many people assert that there is an "abundance' of evidence to support the 96 AD date of Revelation. All of it I have seen is based on a poorly-translated statement by Irenaeus. This is the guy who said Christ lived until the age of fifty. We should never place final authority on EXTERNAL evidence. Only INTERNAL evidence deserves that position. The temple was still standing when the book was written, and Rev. 11:8 and 18:24 clearly point to Jerusalem as the "Great City". Rome will not fit.

     Foy Wallace and Kenneth Gentry's commentaries build an 'un-getoverable" case for the pre-70 date of Revelation, using almost nothing but internal evidences.