An Introduction to Realized Eschatology
There have been those who have held to the Realized Eschatology doctrine for many years. There is an internet site, Preterist Archive (1), that contends Preterist Eschatology can be found in the earliest writings of the church fathers. On their site they have a book titled A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon All the Books of the New Testament, written by H. Hammond, and published in 1653. The claim is that Hammond espoused this doctrine in that book.
It is generally accepted that the modern advocation of the doctrine has its origin with C.H. Dodd (1884-1973). Dodd was a Congregationalist minister for three years before becoming an academic. He eventually reached his professional pinnacle as a Professor Emeritus of Divinity at Cambridge University. In describing his views, Wikipedia states, “He is known for promoting ‘realized eschatology’, the belief that Jesus’ references to the Kingdom of God meant a present reality rather than a future apocalypse.” (2) Herein lies a problem when discussing this issue. The reader will note that the contributor to the Wikipedia article indicated that a belief that the Kingdom of God is presently established makes one an advocate of Dodd’s position. This, of course, is too broad a brush. Millennialists have a perception that colors references to Dodd and his ilk.
Dodd was an influential theologian, especially among theological liberals. As the same Wikipedia article notes: “This view is attractive to many people, especially liberal Christians, since it reverses the notion of Jesus’ coming as an apocalyptic event, something which they interpret as being hardly in keeping with the overall theme of Jesus’ teachings in the canonical gospels, and are troubled by its firm association with evangelicalism and conservative politics. Instead, eschatology should be about being engaged in the process of becoming, rather than waiting for external and unknown forces to bring about destruction.” (3) Theological liberals are more interested in social justice than final judgment, and Dodd’s teaching (as well as the doctrine of Max King, as we shall see), dovetails nicely with that world view.
One scholarly review of C.H. Dodd’s influence on modern eschatological thinking states:
“The discussion concerning eschatology, however, has to be seen in the larger context of the rise of neoorthodoxy which tended to limit the effect of Dodd’s influence on liberal theology as a whole. Suggs has summarized this as follows: “The fact that the church at large was not driven to Schweitzer’s position is traceable to a number of factors, only some of which are academic. First, there was the discovery of R. Otto and C. H. Dodd of the element in primitive Christian eschatology which is usually spoken of as ‘realized.’ Secondly, there was the appearance of a new historical skepticism in European scholarship which focused attention on the Christ of faith rather than upon the embarrassingly Jewish Jesus of history. Thirdly, there was the rise of a new theology which formed a more positive place for eschatology because of a negative anthropology which demanded a transcendent rather than an immanent hope.” (M. Jack Suggs, “Biblical Eschatology and the Message of the Church,” Encounter, XXIV (Winter, 1963) 4-5, cf. Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 5).
Dodd, however, has unquestionably influenced the attitude of liberal scholarship toward eschatology and an understanding of his position is essential in approaching liberal theological concepts of the twentieth century. (4)
Several things are important to note from these sources. First, though Dodd is a well respected theologian, especially among liberal scholars, his views of eschatology do not have a large following. Second, his views are decidedly modernist. He does not fully respect the sanctity of scripture, and is quite willing to deny or ignore passages which do damage to his assertions. Finally, we recognize that the information regarding the doctrine of Realized Eschatology from these denominational sources has little relevance to our study. Those in the Lord’s church who are being led astray by what we will from this point on consistently refer to as the A.D. 70 Doctrine, are by and large parroting the doctrine first espoused by Max King in his book, The Spirit of Prophecy, published in 1971.
Max King
Consider the following quote taken from the preface of King’s 2002 revision of that book:
“Fulfilled Bible prophecy is being taught all over the world. What a difference from the religious and social climate of the early 1970’s! This was long before it was acceptable to question traditional dogma, and the attitude was anything but open and embracing. At that time, I was not aware that others had written on this subject in earlier centuries, such as J.S. Russell (1816-1895). I stood, with my family, very much alone. Yet here we find ourselves some thirty years later seeing the world filled with a brighter – and better – understanding of the victory of God.
This work stood alone for nearly 15 years until many of the authors writing today on fulfilled prophecy came along and began to labor with us.” (5)
Other than the fact that both Max King and his son Tim have a tendency to promote themselves and their influence beyond what is credible, we accept that he is for the most part self-taught, and that his error has indeed led some astray.
King’s fourth son, Tim, has written several biographical pieces regarding his father. Among them, consider the following quote:
The view (advocated by King, SC) first spread among the Churches of Christ in the ’70s and ’80s, and then throughout Reformed Presbyterians. Today Transmillennialism is an active network across various cultures and countries and seeks to offer an authentic and fresh approach to taking faith beyond the exhausted field of Christian millennialism. (6)
The Kings’ website (7) was created in 1999 as a message board, and a cursory examination of the site indicates that it was actively maintained until 2005. Since that time, it seems that little new information has been added.
In looking at the web site, several things become obvious. First, the doctrinal basis for the A.D. 70 Doctrine is the bailiwick of the father, Max King. Tim King (his son), and fellow contributor Kevin Beck are more concerned with where the doctrine will take those who accept it. This is an important consideration, as it shows where 30 or 40 years of this doctrine will lead any group of people.
They advocate what they refer to as The Four Paths of Transformation (8):
- Covenantal Transformation. This is referred to as “the source of all transformation”, and is a reference to the doctrine developed by Max King.
- Personal Transformation. Consider the following, rather “new age” quote: “By learning who we are, what we are, and what capabilities we have, we change from passive spectators to active creators of our lives and the world around us. Life doesn’t happen to us; it happens from us.”
- Organizational Transformation. This point refers to the agenda of the group. By transforming yourself, you can combine with others, and transform a congregation! Many have asked why advocates of the doctrine are so militant in spreading their view? Note the following quote: “Because we live in an interconnected web of relationships, transformed people come together to create transformed organizations, whether that is at home, in the workplace or as part of a spiritual community. Transformed organizations move from being run-of-the-mill institutions filled with dreary routine to being vibrant communities of animated individuals pulsating with spontaneity. Communities filled with ‘presence’ provide people with the opportunity to shine. Transformed organizations are filled with talented and transforming people who continually enhance the life experience of every member.” (emphasis mine, SC)
- Societal Transformation. This is the ultimate goal of this doctrine. In other words, the A.D. 70 Doctrine does not point the hearts of men to heaven, but utopia. The doctrine leads its adherents to a desire to transform a man to make him a positive force in his community, rather than to convert a man to the salvation of his soul. Again, a quote from their material: “Societal transformation on a grand scale yields both a transformed humanity and a transformed universe.” Ultimately, the end is simply an implementation of the social gospel.
This is a significant revelation. Dodd’s purpose, as indicated earlier in this chapter, was to engage us in “the process of becoming.” In the end, the same is true with King.
This revelation also explains the methodology often used in introducing the A.D. 70 Doctrine into a local congregation. While references to such efforts are by nature anecdotal, on many occasions this error has led to division.
Advocates call for tolerance as they initially introduce their view. Groundwork has already been laid, and there are several who hold the position. They maintain that such matters should have no bearing on fellowship, as they have nothing to do with “…your salvation, your worship of God, or the work of the church. Therefore in the spirit of Romans 14 we can agree to disagree.” (9) (Note: At the end of our study we will consider the question of fellowship. Here we simply note that such an appeal to Romans 14 is without merit).
The next step is to object to songs sung and sermons preached that deal with the second coming and the resurrection. After all, they are not going to be contentious toward your beliefs, so it is inappropriate for you to be contentious toward them. If you persist in defending the truth, you are then guilty of being divisive, not them.
Meanwhile they continue to work behind the scenes to convert others to their way of thinking. This is the most important doctrine to them, (remember that this doctrine is “the source of all transformation”). They persist in sharing it with anyone who will give them a hearing. Peter warned about this type, “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed” (2 Peter 2:1-2).
When sufficient influence has been gained, they press their advantage. After all, the traditionalists have for years stifled the spiritual growth of the church, and it is their responsibility to effect, in the words of the Kings, “organizational transformation” through “covenantal transformation.” In their minds they are doing great good. If their influence has been sufficiently destructive, all that is left for the defender of truth is to leave and find another group that has been untouched by the error. Hundreds of good brethren have been dispossessed through this process, and can attest to the truthfulness of this assessment.
That doesn’t mean all who are seduced by this doctrine succumb because of the appeal of “social transformation” championed by the Kings. We are sure that many who hold to this doctrine have never read Max King’s books, and may have no knowledge of The Four Paths of Transformation.
For these, the appeal lies elsewhere. In Acts 17, the historian Luke referred to the Athenians as being individuals who “spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (vs. 21). This may be lauded by some as being open-minded, but to be enamored with new things precisely because they are new is dangerous and indicative of a serious character flaw. Truth is not new. The apostle Paul admonished Christians 2000 years ago, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
In his early thirties Max King locked himself in his office, and developed a radical new theory about the end times. He admitted that, in effect, he alone believed it. In his view, Christians of earlier generations had missed this most important doctrine entirely. The traditionalists of his day were close minded. As he put it when he published his book, “This was long before it was acceptable to question traditional dogma, and the attitude was anything but open and embracing.” (10) He was the author of a new paradigm that would yield both a “transformed humanity and a transformed universe.” Lofty claims indeed, and claims that could unfortunately appeal to those who may be “…tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting” (Ephesians 4:14).
To be an advocate of that which is new is a heady thing, and appeals to the pride of man. We are reminded of a discussion we once had with an older gentleman who had embraced the peculiar doctrines championed by Charles Holt via his magazine, The Examiner. This discussion happened when we were about 30 years of age. He was very dismissive of our objections to his arguments, and assured us that when we grew older and studied more, we would come to see things as he did. Well, 18 years have passed between that event and this writing, and he most certainly was wrong in his assessment. But, most objectionable was his arrogance. He and a few others knew something that the rest of us poor souls did not. He was an initiate, and because we were bound by tradition, we were blind to his superior discernment.
This arrogance was a characteristic of the incipient gnostic heresy both Peter and Jude dealt with in their epistles. In dealing with these ungodly false teachers, Peter described both their character and their end, “They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord. But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Peter 2:10-12). Those who teach the A.D. 70 Doctrine often show the same type of arrogance, as they refer dismissively to the “the sectarian obsession with institutional self-preservation that stifles the search for truth.” (11)
Unfortunately, there is never a dearth of audience for the false teacher. This may be because of worldliness or simple ignorance, but there are always folks who “because they have itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and will be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Whatever the reason, the A.D. 70 Doctrine persists, and the faith of some continue to be overthrown.
Introducing the Doctrine
Consider the following quotes from the pen of Max King that clearly represent his doctrine.
“Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed and consummated.” (12)
There is no time period between the fall of Judaism and the second coming of Christ. They are essentially the same event – at any rate they are inexorably linked. (13)
“Some want to have the Old Covenant age end properly at the fall of Jerusalem, but they are hesitant to assign the expected coming of Christ to that time. This effectively creates a third age that extends from the fall of Jerusalem to a future return of Christ. There is no such age or period of time, because the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ. That was the time of restitution of all things spoken by the prophets. That was the bringing in of the new heaven and earth, where righteousness dwells.” (14)
King and his followers argue that Christ came in judgment upon Jerusalem, and that coming is properly understood as His second and final advent. They contend that the language portending that event indicate it was to take place within that generation and that to claim He has not yet come again is to do violence to such phrases as “at hand”, “last days” and “quickly.” As the world remains, and no bodily resurrection has taken place, they are forced to contend that all references to the dissolution of the heavens and earth, and a bodily resurrection are figurative. In fact, King believes such passages to be veiled references to the destruction of the Jewish world, and the ascension of the Kingdom of Christ.
Significant Differences
No one denies that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem to take place within the lifetime of those who heard his words. As he answered his disciples’ questions in Matthew 24, he clearly establishes that destruction would happen in that generation. “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (vs. 34).
Likewise, all Christians recognize that Jesus prophesied the establishment of the Kingdom in that generation as well. As He said in Mark 9:1, “Assuredly I say unto you, that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom present with power.”
Differences begin with the unprovable assertion that the two passages refer to the same event, and that this event is also the second coming promised by our Lord in John 14:2-3, “In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.”
Consider the following quote from King, “Although the kingdom had its inception on Pentecost, it did not have its victory until the fall of Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem was the time of Christ’s coming in his kingdom with power and victory (Matt. 16:27-28; Luke 21:31).” (15) Consider that King’s doctrine has God’s covenant with the Jews coexisting with the Kingdom of Christ for a period of 40 years. He allows the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost in A.D. 30. He contends that the allegory of Galatians 4:21-31 affirms a period where Ishmael and Isaac (and what they represent) “overlapped for a season.” This allegory is extremely important to King, as he states, “This simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) establishes the ‘spirit of prophecy,’ confirming prophecy’s fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Gal. 3:16, 26-29), and these prophecies cannot be extended beyond the fall of Jerusalem.” (16)
To answer theses assertions, we need to deal with two separate issues. First is the question of time. Second is the peculiar interpretation of Galatians 4:21-31. You will note his association of his book’s title, The Spirit of Prophecy, with this passage.
The Question of Time
One of the arguments King uses to contend for the past fulfillment of prophecy concerning the second coming centers on the Greek term mello which appears in passages like Matthew 16:27, Acts 17:31 and 2 Timothy 4:1. Answering that argument has the felicitous benefit of answering all such quibbles about the concept of time. In each of the cited passages the word mello is translated will, as in “will come” and “will judge.” King contends:
“Paul said God ‘was about’ (Greek mellei) to judge the world. This word mello, used in this tense, conveys not only 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 a judgment 2,000 or more years in the future, he certainly would not have used mello in any tense, especially the present tense.” (17)
While the word certainly can indicate nearness in the sense of a short duration of time, it is as certain that the word does not necessarily indicate such. This is clear from Thayer’s definition of the term:
“… 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.” (18)
Looking at that definition, those of us who contend that the second coming of Jesus is yet future can say that He is “on the point of” coming; “intend [-s]” to come; is “divinely” appointed to come; and is “sure” to come. And all of this can be stated without reference to a determined date or interval of time. In fact, that is the argument made by Peter in 2 Peter 3.
In the text, Peter referenced “scoffers” who in the passing of a few years had begun to ridicule the idea of Jesus’ second coming. Peter’s answer had three parts: First, that Jesus promised He would come, and that He keeps His promises. He used the first destruction of the world, with water (in the days of Noah) to establish that fact (vss. 5-7). Second, that while they may think the passage of time made null His promise, it was not so. He stated, “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (vs. 8). Third, the circumstance that had delayed His coming to that point had nothing to do with time at all, it had to do with the longsuffering of the Lord. “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9).
Some are dismissive of this passage. But, it is extremely significant, as the context directly impacts the question of time regarding our Lord’s second coming. In effect, this passage precludes anyone legitimately arguing that the coming must have already happened because of any time interval. Time is not a consideration regarding Christ’s second coming. Even if it were, it still would not be possible for us to determine how long that interval would be. God reckons time differently than we do. No, the only thing that will determine when Christ comes again, regardless of how many years, decades, centuries or millenia that may be, is the longsuffering of Christ.
A.D. 70 Doctrine advocates are almost identical to the scoffers of Peter’s day. The scoffers claimed the time interval proved He wouldn’t come. King and the like claim the time interval proves He already came. Peter’s argument defeats them both.
Paul’s Allegory in Galatians 4
We have previously noted the significance King places upon Paul’s allegory of Hagar and Sarah, written to the churches of Galatia. We have given a partial quote previously, and reproduce it in its entirety here:
Abraham had two sons, and there was no gap between them. They overlapped for a season, but Isaac “came on” when Ishmael “went out.” The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh. This simple allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) establishes the “spirit of prophecy,” confirming prophecy’s fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Gal. 3:16, 26-29), and these prophecies cannot be extended beyond the fall of Jerusalem. (19)
The first obvious objection to his interpretation of the passage is that it is a clear departure from the context. The text contains an allegory that is intended to relate a spiritual truth to Paul’s readers. The question is, what is that truth? The answer is contained in the context. In fact, it is explicitly stated in verse 21 of the text. “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” We supply here two very good quotes from Bill Reeves, who in 1973 wrote a series of articles reviewing King’s teaching:
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.
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) represents 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! (20)
It in interesting that King’s interpretation of the allegory stands in direct opposition to Paul’s expressed intent. Paul desired to establish the folly of seeking justification from an abrogated law, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son” (vs. 30), and King maintains Paul’s epistle to the Galatians was written at a time when that law remained. In fact, he claims that to be the significant point of the allegory. Just as the time of Ishmael and Isaac overlapped, so did the Jewish world (with its law) overlap with the Kingdom of Christ. Another quote from his book makes this clear:
Why have men concluded that the last days refer to the gospel dispensation? One reason is that many assume – erroneously – that the Jewish age came to a close on Pentecost day. This is assumed on the basis that Pentecost was the beginning of the Christian age. The problem here lies in a failure 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. (21)
This is folly. It is a textbook case of putting “darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). The Bible clearly teaches that the bondwoman was cast out (the law abrogated) at the cross, not at the fall of Jerusalem. For example, Paul wrote to the Colossians, “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (2:13-14).
Paul wrote the Romans, “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (7:6). In that context he noted that a woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives (vs. 2). Therefore, she can not marry another man until her husband dies, lest she be called an adulteress (vs. 3). In the same way, a Jew could not be under the covenant of Christ until the former covenant was abolished. This happened at the cross, and that fact is one of the most prevalent themes of Paul’s writings. The Judaizing teachers of Paul’s day were unwilling to grasp that truth, and it seems the advocates of the A.D. 70 Doctrine suffer from the same malady.
A final short note concerning King’s view of Galatians 4. He states that Ishmael was for a time the rightful heir to Abraham. Notice his description of Isaac as a child:
Likewise, during his minority, he was overshadowed and threatened by Ishmael, the firstborn who had the right of primogeniture. The meaningful moment in Isaac’s sonship was the casting away of Ishmael, which in a sense was Isaac’s adoption into a position of full inheritance. (22)
In fact, Isaac was always the heir! Ishmael never had the right of primogeniture because it was God’s purpose before the birth of either child that in Isaac the promises would continue.
In Genesis 15, God renewed his promise to Abram, initially given in chapter 12. When Abram raised up his servant Eliezer as a potential heir, the word of the Lord came to him and said, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir” (15:4). When Sarai gave Hagar to Abram, with Ishmael being the fruit of that union, God again made it clear that Ishmael would not be heir. As he did before with Eliezer, Abram raised up Ishmael saying, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” (17:18). But, the Lord replied, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year” (17:19-21).
The idea that Ishmael ever had the right of primogeniture as the firstborn of Abraham is another figment of King’s rather fertile imagination.
Conclusion
Having dealt with the issue of time, and Max King’s most precious allegory, we have produced sufficient evidence to discredit the A.D. 70 Doctrine. We have shown that doctrine to be insidious, and the agenda of its leaders to be the destruction of local congregations. While its advocates present themselves as harmless, examples can be supplied of numerous congregations over the past four decades that have been badly harmed or destroyed by their heresy. It is the division of a church not 30 miles west of this author’s home, as well as news of other Texas congregations that have split over this issue that is the occasion of this refutation of the doctrine. The doctrine continues to trouble brethren, and so there is the need for such a introduction to and refutation of the error.
In the final section of this work, we will make further arguments refuting the A.D. 70 Doctrine. It is not our intent to review Max King’s book, or examine in detail every prophecy and verse that he has wrested in his teaching. To kill the beast it is only necessary to cut off the head. This we have already done. However, permit us a bit of “overkill” as we further expose the absurdities of the A.D. 70 Doctrine.
Chapter Endnotes
- Preterist Archive
http://preteristarchive.com - Wikipedia: C. H. Dodd
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/C.H._Dodd - Ibidem
- Realized Eschatology
John F. Walvoord (President, Dallas Theological Seminary)
http://bible.org/article/realized-eschatology - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Preface - Frequently Asked Questions, (5. Who Is Max King)
Tim King
http://www.presence.tv/cms/faqview.php#q5 - Presence.tv
http://presence.tv - The Four Paths of Transformation (presence.tv)
Attributed Author: Staff
http://www.presence.tv/cms/whatisdoc.php - Sing to Me of Heaven (A Study of Fulfilled Prophecy)
Keith Roland, page 3 - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Preface - Ibidem
- The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Page 137 - Ibidem, pages 137-138
- Ibidem, page 137
- Ibidem, page 152
- Ibidem, page 370
- Ibidem, pages 254-255
- Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament
Joseph Henry Thayer, pages 396-397 - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Page 370 - The Preterist View Heresy (II), Bill Reeves
Truth Magazine January 11, 1973
http://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume17/TM017155.html - The Spirit of Prophecy, Max R. King
Page 134 - Ibidem, page 362
