by Shawn Chancellor
Synopsis: The AD 70 doctrine is a heretical approach toward Scripture. It imposes an artificial grid upon our understanding of the sacred text, with the result that nearly every page of the Bible is subjected to radical reinterpretation.
The Reeves-Neubauer debate on the AD 70 doctrine occurred July 20-24 at the Olsen Park church of Christ in Amarillo, TX. The Olsen Park congregation did an outstanding job hosting the debate, especially considering the challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Attendance was excellent every night, and many more watched via live stream. Both disputants demonstrated the ability to articulate their position in a passionate but gentlemanly manner and did so each night.
Bruce Reeves preaches for the Hwy. 65 church of Christ in Conway, AR. His moderator was Kyle Pope, the evangelist at Olsen Park. The proposition affirmed by brother Reeves read: “The Scriptures teach that Jesus of Nazareth will come again in the future to raise both the wicked and righteous for eternal judgment.”
Holger Neubauer preaches for Lake Shore Church of Christ in South Haven, MI. His moderator was Brent Bischel. The proposition affirmed by brother Neubauer read: “The Scriptures teach that Jesus of Nazareth returned for the second and final time in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.”
The AD 70 doctrine, also known as “Realized Eschatology,” teaches that all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem. According to this doctrinal system, we are not awaiting the return of Christ, the end of the world, nor the resurrection of the dead from the grave. Instead, the resurrection should be viewed as a corporate concept applied to (1) the Old Testament saints who were freed from hades in AD 70 and then to (2) New Testament saints in the resurrection of the church, which also took place in AD 70. Many who espouse the doctrine deny that conscious eternal punishment awaits the wicked. Some who hold this view question whether Genesis 1-6 is literal or figurative and whether there was a universal flood. Additionally, there are a host of other issues that we will not have the opportunity to mention in this review.
This was not a debate about the dating of biblical books or how to interpret biblical time markers (although these issues arose in the discussion). This doctrine has serious implications regarding the nature of our walk with God, the unity of the Godhead, and many other topics that are essential to our salvation. This debate did not center on the disputants’ understanding of the Olivet Discourse or the date of the book of Revelation. Significantly, the AD 70 doctrine requires a novel re-reading of the entire body of Sacred Scripture.
Anyone who reads or watches the debate will be struck by the contrasting approaches of the two participants. Brother Reeves began with a deliberate verse-by-verse exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 that took up both speeches Monday. Brother Neubauer preferred to cite portions of various passages, often merely mentioning the citation, stating a position on the passage, then quickly moving on with little to no effort to prove his position.
Brother Reeves began Monday night in 1 Corinthians 15, demonstrating that a proper understanding of the nature of Jesus’s resurrection is essential to understanding what the Bible teaches regarding the resurrection of the dead. The primary focus of his first speech was 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and the gospel that Paul taught. Brother Reeves pointed out that there was no contextual reason to understand the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in any way other than a literal physical manner. He noted in verses 16-17 that Paul said that if Christ was not so raised, our faith is worthless, and we are still in our sins. Verse 20, which states that “Christ has been raised from the dead, and was the first fruits of those who are asleep,” proved to be critical to brother Reeves’s affirmative. He explained that “first fruits” indicates something that is “like in kind” to that which follows. Thus, if Christ was physically brought forth from the grave, we should anticipate the same sort of resurrection. Brother Reeves went on to show that Paul’s concerns about baptism for the dead and his own physical suffering (vv. 29-32) make no sense if the death and resurrection under consideration were not physical.
Brother Reeves’s second major point came from 1 Corinthians 15:35-54. From the text, he showed that those who are raised will be changed in such a manner as to be suitable for life in the presence of the Father in the spiritual realm. In other words, it is not corruptible flesh that is susceptible to both disease and sin that will enter heaven; rather, those who are raised will experience a substantial change that will eliminate such concerns.
Brother Neubauer argued that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 refers to spiritual death, burial, and resurrection. He based his arguments on a series of Old Testament texts that figuratively use “body” to describe nations or groups of people. His primary passage was Hosea 6:1-2, which he stated was the only Old Testament passage that referred to a three-day resurrection. When brother Reeves pointed out Matthew 12:40 and Jesus’s reference to Jonah as a type of His resurrection, brother Neubauer rejected this passage stating it is an allusion, not a quotation. Interestingly, when asked later if 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was a quotation of Hosea 6, he stated that it was a “direct allusion.” Brother Reeves showed that even if Paul was quoting Hosea 6:1-2, the resurrection in Hosea 6 occurred on the third day, not forty years later. Thus, the passage contradicted brother Neubauer’s position. Brother Neubauer never answered this argument.
Brother Neubauer mocked the idea that “biology” was involved in the resurrection of the dead going so far as to ridicule the idea of a resurrected Christ with wounds in His hands and the idea that our corruptible flesh would live forever in heaven. He seemed to overlook brother Reeves’s argument on 1 Corinthians 15:35-54.
Brother Reeves also made affirmative arguments from Philippians 3 regarding the nature of the resurrection body and 1 Thessalonians 4 regarding the final judgment. As with 1 Corinthians 15, brother Reeves took the time to speak on the full context of the verses cited and demonstrate how they spoke of the resurrection and judgment to come.
On Thursday night, brother Neubauer began his affirmative by citing several Old Testament passages such as Daniel 12:13 that he felt defined “the end” as AD 70. Rather than spending time in each passage demonstrating why the context supported his position, brother Neubauer cited several “rules” (my word not his) that he had already appealed to on Monday and Tuesday and would continue to cite throughout the debate. For instance, he stated that no New Testament author had the right to quote an Old Testament prophet out of context, to which we can all agree. However, he went on to explain that this indicated that New Testament authors could not expand on a prophecy, show it in a new light, or make a secondary application. He applied this rule specifically to the definition of terms such as “the end,” “that day,” and “body.” Having found a passage that he asserted defined these terms in a manner suitable to his doctrine, he then forced that definition into any New Testament passage that used the same term.
Using this premise, brother Neubauer repeatedly stated that the Bible taught about “the time of the end but not the end of time.” He went to Zechariah 12-14, noting the phrase “the end” and his definition of it in an attempt to prove that the only end referenced in Scripture was the end of the Jewish economy in AD 70. He focused on Zechariah 14:1-2, noting that this could not refer to Pentecost but must to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem
Brother Reeves followed in Zechariah, spending considerable time both Thursday and Friday going through the text, demonstrating that these passages did not refer to AD 70. Instead, he stated that they referenced the rise of the Messianic kingdom, the judgment on those who rejected that kingdom, and the blessings on those that entered therein. One moment that was particularly devastating to brother Neubauer’s position occurred when brother Reeves pointed out that brother Neubauer had not read all of Zechariah 14:2, which speaks of the people safely remaining in the city. How, he asked, could this be AD 70 when Jesus told the disciples to leave the city when they saw the Roman army? Brother Neubauer never answered this question. We should note that brother Reeves never argued that Zechariah 14 spoke of the day of Pentecost. Instead, brother Reeves pointed out that the prophetic day Zechariah mentions included but was not fulfilled by Pentecost. However, brother Neubauer continued to charge brother Reeves with this rejected position.
Brother Neubauer affirmed that the Bible did not teach the fiery end of a planet, but the fiery end of a covenant that could not redeem sinners. Brother Reeves answered this with a complete exposition of 2 Peter 3, showing that the passing away of the heavens and the earth had to be the same “in kind” as the creation and flood that Peter used to illustrate the coming judgment, i.e., it had to be literal and universal.
In brother Neubauer’s view, redemption occurred in stages over forty years. According to brother Neubauer Jesus died and went to hades, a place of torment and spiritual separation from the Father. On the third day, Jesus was raised spiritually, i.e., He left hades to “open the gates of heaven.” In AD 70, when the temple was destroyed, the spirits of the Old Testament faithful were released from their torment and entered into heaven. Brother Reeves noted that this position left Christians before AD 70 in their sins and that it effectively created a situation where there were two Gods for three days. Brother Neubauer argued that the early Christians were forgiven proleptically, i.e., already but not yet. Such a concept completely eludes this writer, and so we will say nothing more about it.
Brother Reeves quoted Brother Neubauer, who had previously affirmed in the Neubauer-Denham debate that the Divine attributes of Jesus were “absorbed” into the other two persons of the Godhead during the incarnation. Bruce defended the clear biblical truth regarding the Godhead and the eternal deity of Christ, while Holger defended his past statement (see note below).
When asked what hope the AD 70 doctrine provided for Christians today, brother Neubauer became very impassioned. It became clear to this writer that brother Neubauer’s misunderstanding of hades created an emotional basis for his acceptance of this doctrine. While historically the doctrine has roots in the universalist movements of the late 1800s, the modern-day appeal to Realized Eschatology seems to be an overreaction to several simplistic or wrongheaded ideas about a variety of topics often presented in churches of Christ which brother Neubauer mentioned throughout the debate. We should certainly be willing to reexamine traditional positions; however, this writer is at a loss to see why we should rewrite the Scriptures rather than merely noting what is false and turning from it.
Brother Reeves spent considerable time noting the dangerous consequences of this doctrine. He noted time and again that it removes all hope for the future, denies the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Jesus, denies the deity of Christ and the unity of the Godhead, removes the Bible doctrine of hell, and leaves humanity in a continual state of suffering.
Unless one is willing to accept some peculiar rules of hermeneutics, it is difficult to see how a faithful Bible student could come to hold the AD 70 doctrine. Undoubtedly, studies into the nature of hades and the resurrection are essential and would prevent much of the confusion that brother Neubauer manifested on these issues. We will end by noting that this debate touched on several topics that need to be considered and studied. Anyone who reads or listens to this debate would do well to make a note of these topics and engage in serious personal study so that they may be reassured by the amazing hope presented to us in the gospel.
See Neubauer’s sixth negative in his debate with Howard Denham in FL @ 3:52-7:34 available on YouTube.com.
