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 book!
How anyone could have knowledge of the mission and work of the Messiah, Christ Jesus, and after reading Dan. 9:24, conclude that these six items were not fulfilled in His first coming and death on the cross, is beyond me. But, King has Christ coming at the end of the 69th week, and then by means of his “gap” theory jumps some 30 years distance, and gets these six items fulfilled between A.D. 63 and A.D. 70. The weakness of his interpretations shows most obviously in spots. For example, on p. 55 he is in trouble trying to fit in the cessation of the sacrifice and oblation. On p. 64 he has to get “righteousness” in too many years after Pentecost, so he invents some expressions and says, this “has reference to the time of Christ’s coming when things would be so changed that righteousness would be the eternal state of the new world.” What the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 had to do with working such drastic changes that righteousness would be no longer a non-eternal state, but rather an eternal state, he does not tell us. He cannot! It is just a convenient fabrication.
After leaning so heavily upon his “gap” theory, he has the audacity to refer to our “gap” between one’s death and his receiving the glorified or spiritual body in the resurrection day (A-211)!
In defense of the “gap” theory, King before the Preachers’ Meeting presented Job 3:6, “As for that night … let it not come into the number of the months.” “He has cut off (referring to Jesus — bhr) A.D. 32, and we have a gap between the 69th and the 70th week. One of the reasons for that gap is, Christ said, ‘But of the day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ (Matt. 24:36). Had there been no gap, even the disciples could have figured out from the basis of Daniel’s 70 weeks exactly when the Lord was going to return in the destruction of Israel.” After trying to make Job’s sufferings typical of the church’s persecution by the Jews before Jerusalem was destroyed, he admits, after citing Job 3:6, “this is the closest I can come in the Bible to show the gap.”
But in his book King refers, in defense of his “gap” theory, to (1) the division which Daniel’s prophecy makes between the first 69 and the 70th weeks. Yes, but it also makes a division between the first 7 and the next 62! King, where’s the gap there? (2) Acts 3:19-21 (Christ’s being in heaven after his ascension and until his return in A. D. 70 to restore all things! This is a “gap.”); 2 Pet. 3:9,15 (the period of the longsuffering of God; i.e., between A. D. 33 and A. D. 70 — the “gap”); Luke 19:41-44 (time elapsed between Christ’s being cut off and Jerusalem’s destruction); Matt. 24:36 and Acts 1:7 (the secrecy of the time would indicate that the 70th week would not follow immediately the other 69).
Well, these Scriptures mentioned just above by King have no bearing at all upon the issue of whether or not a 70-week unit should have a “gap” in it. King merely accommodates to his “gap” theory what these passages say, and actually perverts the meaning of Acts 3:19-21 and 2 Pet. 3:9, 15. We have already exposed him on 2 Pet. 3, and suffice it to say, with the apostle Peter, that the passage in Acts 3 had to do with those days (v.24)!
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 a gap of several more, plus the 70th, were decreed. As there was no gap in the 70 years of captivity in Babylonia, so none is to be expected in this 70, prophetical-year, unit.
Were not these 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 pervert as many Scriptures as King’s doctrine does, and yet he told the preachers: “I think the premillennial issues today are going to force us in this direction (to the Preterist-View — bhr) if we successfully meet them.”
Daniel’s prophecy tells us (v. 25) that the first seven prophetical years would see the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and that at the end of the next 62 would come the Messiah. Then, after the 62-week period, two things would happen (v. 26): the Messiah would be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. This verse does not tell us how long after the expiration of the 62-week period these two events would happen, but the next verse (27th) does tell us that in the 70th prophetical week (or seven-year period) the Messiah would make a firm covenant with many and in the midst of it (3 and one-half years) he would make the sacrifice and oblation to cease. This is when, evidently, he would be cut off, as referred to in the previous verse, because his death on the cross put an end to the Law and its priesthood (Heb. 7:12. Was not the veil of the temple rent on that occasion?) The additional information is given in v. 27 concerning the fact of Jerusalem’s destruction. It is mentioned as following (how long is not stated) the expiration of the 70th week. So, by Daniel’s prophecy the Jews could know that their capital city would be fully destroyed subsequent to the Messiah’s being cut off. Both events are mentioned in v. 26, but in v. 27 only the one is mentioned as occurring in the 70th week: the death of the Messiah, because he was to make the covenant then, and of course he would have to make it before he died, or in his death.
In conclusion, I direct my readers’ attention (King, note that “readers” is plural and “attention” is singular, and compare it to what you have done to Rom. 8:23 and Phil. 3:21, “our body”!) again to the fact that the whole basis of this Preterist-View heresy is a perversion of Paul’s allegory in Gal. 4. Paul, through the Holy Spirit, no more made allegorical the detail of Ishmael and Isaac living in Abraham’s household for a short time, than he did the detail of Isaac’s being weaned! King goes beyond what Paul makes allegorical and misuses the purpose of the allegory which he, Paul, 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!
Bill Reeves
Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8