Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 1)
Posted by Brian Simmons on January 25, 2009
The forty years of probation allotted to national Israel after Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, were patterned after Israel’s wandering in the wilderness. The Old Testament type had two outcomes. On the one hand, “that generation” died in the wilderness (Psalm 95: 10-11). On the other, Caleb and Joshua entered the land after the forty years were finished. But Caleb and Joshua represented the tribes of Judah and Ephraim, respectively (Numbers 13: 6, 8). These tribes were later revealed to be representative of “all Israel” (Ezekiel 37: 16-23). So, when we come to the antitype of the forty years of wandering, we have to ask: how could all Israel enter the promised blessings in A.D. 70? Indeed, it may be said that “that generation” died in the wilderness, because they chose to follow Moses instead of Christ. But then it is impossible that the same nation can have attained “their rest” in A.D. 70.
What students do not understand, is that both facets of the Old Testament type were to have an antitypical fulfillment at the end of the 40 year period; however, NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Because Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom at the close of the Acts dispensation (in A.D. 63), the age was cut short, and the final seven years of Israel’s history held in reserve, that both parts of the type might have their fulfillment. That generation’s dying in the wilderness happened at the destruction of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But “all Israel’s” entrance into the land remains to be fulfilled at Christ’s return, at the end of the seven years which would have ensued in A.D. 63, had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. This final seven years is what the book of Revelation is all about.
Although there is a great deal of controversy concerning when Revelation was written, I believe the internal evidence declares for an early date. The book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward. It was probably written around A.D. 62-63, immediately before the Acts 28 crisis in which Israel rejected the King, and as a consequence, the King’s glorious return, and those Millennial riches that lay beyond.
It is a bold statement, but true, that the main “timing texts” used by Preterists to support the doctrine of an A.D. 70 parousia were all written during the Acts dispensation, prior to A.D. 63. This may be seen in the canonical arrangement of the so-called “General epistles,” which in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts are placed after the book of Acts. Their doctrinal connection with the Acts period needs no comment.
The Pauline epistles, however, which canonically follow the General epistles, contain doctrines relevant to both the Acts period and the present church Dispensation which began with the close of Acts. Therefore, statements respecting Christ’s return must be “rightly divided” according to “pre-Acts 28” and “post-Acts 28,” if we would know the truth. Interestingly, the canonical order of Paul’s church epistles never varies in the hundreds of manuscripts that have come down to us. It is the canonical order which concerns us today, just as the historical and chronological would have concerned first century believers.
The doctrines of grace revealed in the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians) could not be revealed until Israel had formally rejected the kingdom (see Acts 28: 25-28). During the whole Acts period, the kingdom was offered to the “Jew first,” and Paul could declare that “for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28: 20). Upon Israel’s rejection of their hope, however, the offer of an “imminent” parousia was necessarily withdrawn, and Paul amended his statement (in accordance with Acts 28: 28), saying that he was the prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles (Eph. 3: 1; cf. 1 Tim. 2: 7). From this point onward, the offer of salvation was never given to the “Jew first.” The charismata ceased in A.D. 63 (Phil. 2: 26; 1 Tim. 5: 23; 2 Tim. 4: 20), not to be renewed until the last seven years of the age, when God’s purposes concerning the church shall have been concluded.
What a difference there is between the earlier Pauline epistles and those written after Israel’s formal rejection of Peter’s call to “repent” (Acts 3: 19-26). While in the earlier epistles, Paul lays great stress on an imminent parousia, this doctrine is de-emphasized in his later writings. The word “parousia” is never even used after A.D. 63 in connection with Christ’s return. The last epistles written by Paul were to Titus [A.D. 67] and Timothy [A.D. 67-68] in which he places emphasis on orderly church government, the establishment of a long-term Gospel ministry, and domestic relations. Studying these last epistles closely, it is impossible for us to conclude that he any longer considered the Day of the Lord as “near.”
Instead of giving advice not to marry, with remarks like “the time is short” and “such shall have trouble in the flesh” (1 Cor. 7: 28-29), he writes, “I will therefore that the younger women marry and bear children” (2 Tim. 5: 14). Instead of expressing a belief that he might remain unto the coming of the Lord, Paul indicates that he expects to die before the Lord will come (2 Tim. 4: 8). Had he thought that the church was then passing through the telos (last 3 1/2 years of the age, known as the Great Tribulation) he would not have hesitated to indicate such in these later epistles. But the Day of the Lord, which was so near during the Acts period, is spoken of as more remote in his later writings (2 Tim. 1: 12, 18).
True, the church had already begun to see signs whereby they knew it was the “last hour;” for “many antichrists” had arisen (1 John 2: 18) in fulfillment of Christ’s own warning in the Olivet and Temple Discourses (see Matt. 24: 5; Luke 21: 8). The fulfillment of these earlier signs took place around A.D. 58-60. But the signs mentioned as following (the wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes) are never recorded as historical facts in the New Testament, because they belong to the sunteleia. Therefore, they are only found in the Apocalypse! (See Revelation 6). The preliminary signs would have merged into the sunteleia beginning in A.D. 63 had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. But because they didn’t, the age was cut short and further development relegated to the future. The Apocalypse contains the last seven years of Israel’s history which must be re-taken up when this present valley of the “mystery” has been crossed.
These simple principles given above will help us to understand how the term “end of the age” is used by Christ, and show why, in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Herod’s temple is placed alongside Christ’s coming at the end of the forty year period. It was entirely contingent on Israel’s national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15; Lev. 26: 3-12; Jer. 17: 24-27; 22: 3-5; ). Hence, when enough time had elapsed for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40 year period and bring about a glorious finale, the crisis of Acts 28 took place, and Israel chose to die in the wilderness, thus forfeiting the promise of Christ’s first-century return.
From that time forward, the kingdom has been in abeyance. Had Israel repented any time later than A.D. 63, the Old Testament type would have been spoiled, placing fulfillment beyond the 40 year limit. But we see the perfection and symmetry preserved in the events of A.D. 70, when Israel fell in the wilderness. Nevertheless, the story doesn’t end there! In like manner, we will see Israel’s entrance into national blessings when the present dispensation is finished, and the last seven years of the age take up their course again. And Christ will return exactly as promised, and “on time” as well. Maranatha!
