Roy Runyon has affirmed:

" The scriptures teach that the Second Coming of the Lord was to occur during the first century AD ."

Terry Benton denies.

In Roy's introductory matters he claimed that serious Bible students need to realize "that the NT is the Holy Spirit's exegetical clarification of the OT" and that "the true meaning of the Hebrew scriptures will NEVER be properly understood" and will "always be misconstrued" unless one begins with that premise that the New Testament is always explaining and clarifying the OT. While I agree to an extent that the New Testament agrees with the Old Testament, it is not entirely true the New Testament only clarifies the old, as if it does not also expand knowledge beyond what the OT reveals. For instance, can one say that Matt.2:15 actually "clarifies" Hosea 11:1? Looking at Hosea 11:1, one would think that Matthew did not "clarify" that passage, but instead seemingly took it out of context and applied it to Jesus. In context, it does not directly apply to Jesus. Yet, the Holy Spirit directed Matthew to go ahead and apply it to Jesus anyway. What this means is that sometimes the Holy Spirit demonstrates that there are TWO WAYS to use an OT scripture. One thing can be SIMILAR to another and "fulfill" the scripture in a secondary way. The secondary application is not the direct meaning of the passage. Yet it indirectly "fulfills" those particular words. I submit that if Roy fails to recognize that scriptures may be "fulfilled" in more than one way, then it will be he who misunderstands and misconstrues many different scriptures.

Roy says that "Paul clearly states that his eschatology is based solely upon the words of Moses and the prophets, (Acts 26:22-23)." Well he is stretching Paul's words a bit! Paul is certainly claiming to be in agreement with the Law and the prophets that did indeed tell of Jesus' resurrection, and by implication that Jesus' would be the firstfruits of rising from the dead, but there was more light made available through the Spirit in Paul than was available in the OT and the light expounds on things kept in the dark by the old. There were things the Spirit revealed to Paul that "in other ages was not made known to the sons of men" (Eph.3:2-5). There is knowledge available in Paul that was not available by the OT alone. This is the correct "hermeneutic." More is given in the New than was given in the Old. So, there is more knowledge about "last things" (eschatology) revealed in the NT than was available in the OT. The NT does not contradict the OT, agreeing with it, but gives deeper insight and greater light, sometimes giving light where the old gave no knowledge.

Roy proceeds to lay claim that those who have a future hope (he calls "Futurist's Eschatology") are poor Bible students who ignore such things in a text as "audience relevance", but his measure is flawed. We should seek audience relevance in a text, but keep in mind that there may be more than one way a text may be relevant to the first readers. It can be relevant in giving hope to the hopeless. I find passages of the hope of heaven and immortality to always be relevant when I'm dealing with painful things. Roy does not get to say something is relevant to the audience only if it ends the persecution from Jews in AD 70. What about the worse things that were happening after AD 70, such as Roman persecutions? How relevant to their peace is it to be promised a glorious rest when the Jews are put down in AD 70, only to find that the beast that put down the harlot, who was the Christian persecutor, is going to turn their rage toward Christians? So, hope beyond this life is very relevant.

Prolepsis

Roy claims that Futurists disregard common Hebrew literary devices such as "inclusio, ellipsis, and prolepsis". This is where Realized Eschatologists like him are quick to want to see things where they don't exist. When the Bible says Jesus IS High Priest, Roy will say that such present tense statements are what he calls a "prolepsis," calling things that be not as though they were. Jesus could not actually be High Priest until AD 70, and Jesus could not actually give remission of sins until AD 70, according to His AD 70 perspective. All verses that speak of having remission of sins and a great High Priest in Jesus were what Roy conveniently calls "prolepsis." Jesus had to come in AD 70 to validate His High Priesthood, new covenant, remission of sins, redemption through His blood, etc. Thus, Roy will read "prolepsis" practically everywhere he can make something conform his AD 70 doctrine. Additionally, he will accuse us of "disregarding common Hebrew literary devices" like "prolepsis." It sounds a bit "scholarly", but it is often used to bend texts to make it fit the human doctrine in which they are invested. We recognize real "prolepsis," but we don't allow folk like Roy to imagine it everywhere that suites him and his doctrinal agenda. He said we "restructure the text(s) to accommodate presuppositional bias," but in the words of Nathan the prophet, "Thou art the man!"

Audience Relevance

While we must consider the immediate audience to whom a letter is first targeted, the truth is that the faith is "once FOR ALL delivered to the saints." (Jude 3-4). It is always audience relevant to speak to an audience about things that may be way into the future or as near in time as death might put us. Given the position that a text must only be relevant to the audience first written or spoke to, then the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 should have only been fulfilled in Isaiah's day. [SM]

Contextual Time Statements

One interesting thing Roy's fellowship of RE people like to do is to appear scholarly in their appeal to Greek words like "mello," which they claim is a "contextual time statement," indicating something is "about to" happen, but the term is not always a timing statement. The same term can mean " certainly" to happen regardless of when. RE people claim it is a timing statement many times when it is not. Romans 5:14 uses "mello" with reference to the time frame between Adam and Jesus - a period of several thousand years. Jesus was "about to" come for thousands of years. So, let this alert the reader that a mere claim that "about to" (mello) demands a very short time is not a sound argument in every text. RE people are not able to maintain consistency with this argument.

Rescuing Steve's Argument

Apparently, Roy was not satisfied with the Baisden-Benton Debate, and seeks to rescue it a little by claiming that I made a "Straw Man" argument and misrepresented Steve's argument about "the faithful never die." The argument is that spiritual death was destroyed, and immortality given in AD 70, and if so, then spiritual death is not happening anymore (Universalism is now in place), or once-saved-always-saved is now in place. Either people are immortal and can't die since AD 70, or immortality was not a change that took place in AD 70 and we are still waiting for it. Roy thought it would rescue Steve's argument by saying the "never die" passages were speaking of those who "remain faithful." That may sound like a legitimate rescue, but it denies that death was destroyed in AD 70 and people then became immortal. If one can stop being faithful, then death comes back into play. Death has always been in play and out of play with individuals based on "faithfulness." If "remain faithful" destroys death only so long as you remain faithful, then death has not really been destroyed. It is always lurking around and each of us can succumb to it. If one did not really become "immortal" (incapable of dying) in AD 70, then what is different about AD 62 versus AD 70ff? Nothing! No! Roy tried but failed to rescue Steve. Either spiritual death was destroyed in AD 70 or it wasn't. Either we are immortal, incapable of dying, or we are not, and if immortality means incapable of dying, then one would be incapable of becoming unfaithful. Thus, Roy and Steve must accept the logical consequences of their doctrine. If we became immortal in AD 70, then nobody dies spiritually (universalism) since then, or no saved person could ever depart the faith and die spiritually. Roy will not be able to wiggle out of this dilemma.

If the faithful can't die spiritually, then they can't become unfaithful so as to die spiritually. That is just the doctrine of "once-saved-always-saved."

If men can die spiritually, by becoming unfaithful, then one CAN die, and Roy is setting up a "straw man" argument to rescue Steve's straw man argument, and spinning it to have you think that only "futurists" make straw man arguments.

Defining Roy's Proposition

Among Roy's definitions of his proposition he said:

By "Second Coming" I mean after His Ascension, Christ's only promised coming-appearance (Heb 9:28)

at the resurrection of the just and unjust, and the judgment of the good and bad; -Unquote!

By "second" coming, there must be some comparison to the " first" so that first and second are in some way different from dozens of other comings. We can see dozens of ways the Lord has come or visited His people or visited wrath upon cities and nations. So, Jesus' "first" coming was in a way different from the way He came upon Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc., earlier. How could it be called the "first" when He had come in numerous other ways before? It was first of it's KIND. What kind? A personal and visible kind! When He came in the flesh, it was a personal dwelling with us. When He comes again, it will be personal. "We shall see Him AS HE IS!" (1 John 3:1-2). The angels said it would be a coming "as you saw Him ascend" (Acts 1:9-11). He will come visibly as you saw Him leave. Visible and personal. That is the SECOND of that kind, and that did not happen in AD 70. The coming in AD 70 was like the coming during the Babylonian captivity and like the coming on Egypt and Babylon (Isa.13). Those KIND of comings don't figure into the "first" and "second," no matter how much Roy wants to tie them together. The various visitations of wrath on cities and nations through history do not figure into first and second.

- the resurrection of the just and unjust -

Roy must figure that before AD 70 the just and unjust were BOTH spiritually dead. In order to be raised, and he believes in NO BODILY RESURRECTION, only spiritual resurrection, then both the just and unjust came to spiritual life in AD 70. Now, Roy says the resurrection of both takes place at the SECOND coming of the Lord, which he avows could only take place in AD 70, then the church was spiritually dead until AD 70, and the unjust were spiritually dead until AD 70. The truth is that the resurrection of the just and unjust happens at the real second coming of the Lord, and that is a resurrection from mortal bodies (Rom.8:11,23), and the just go to heaven and the unjust go to hell. That did not occur in AD 70. We still die, and we are still mortal. When Jesus comes the second time we will be raised and changed (1 Cor.15:23ff).

Roy's 4 Questions

1. Christian age viewed in its' relation to heaven and eternity.

2. Yes.

3. The "end" in 1 Cor.15 is regarding the end of mortality, while Matt.24:1-33 speak to the end of Jerusalem and temple system. 1 Thess.4:14ff and 2 Thess.1:7-9 parallel the end of mortality.

4. False! The offering for the previous year was complete when he went in and presented the offering. Coming out was necessary for the process to begin again.

Runyon's No "EOT" (END OF TIME) Verses

One of Roy's serious flaws in argument is his claim that there are no verses that talk about the "end of time", just some that talk about "the time of the end". By "time of the end" you can find verses on the time of the end of Babylon, or the time of the end of earthly Israel ruled from Jerusalem, and other such times of the end of other cities or nations, but no verses about time itself coming to an end. But if there is a moment when He comes and we become "immortal and incorruptible" then we are not then subject to time. Time as we know it ends. We won't measure how much time before we need to rest or eat. We won't measure ourselves by this present sense of time. Further, when earth and the elements of the universe melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:7-13), we will not be on this time centered earth. So, the end of time is clearly IMPLIED in "immortality" and the "passing" away of the world (1 John 2:17).

Therefore, all of Roy's arguments are built on faulty logic and misuse of verses. His proof texts include:

Jer.31:35f , but this text does not deny that a spiritual nation can be tied to mortal time and continue on into immortality (timelessness). Further, the text is not saying God can't end the covenant promise of day and night, but that MAN could not end it.

Psalm 82 points to Jesus being forever established to "all generations," but that could mean all the generations that God allows. It doesn't argue for an endless supply of generations. There is a "last day" and there is a day where we are changed from mortal to immortal. All generations will still transfer into the immortal phase under Jesus forever. Again, this verse does nothing to prove there is no end of earth time.

Isaiah 9:6f does not help Roy. The "increase" is the bounty and supply that will have no end. That bounty is under Jesus' government and peace. This verse has nothing to do with whether mortal "time" will end.

Psalm 102:15-18 does not help Roy. The Lord appeared in His glory in His first coming, demonstrating it in various ways, in His transfiguration and in His resurrection and ascension. Matt.17:2f. His face shone like the sun. "We were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). "We beheld His GLORY" (John 1:14). All this was before AD 70. No doubt His glory would also be seen in His judgment on Jerusalem, but it would also be seen in how He brought down the persecuting power of the Roman beast. So, this verse does not mean the glory of the Lord was only seen in AD 70, never before then and never after then. He says futurists use " inconsistent reasoning from one passage to another ," while wanting people to think that only RE people like himself know how to consistently use and harmonize the scriptures. Why is he not demonstrating that?

Isaiah 61:1-3 does not help Roy. It speaks of the "acceptable year of the Lord." Paul said "the acceptable time" had come before AD 70 (2 Cor.6:1-2). It began with Jesus' public ministry and the day of vengeance had begun as well. Liberty to captives of sin by means of the vengeance blow to Satan's head had begun in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Vengeance on sin was accomplished on the cross. Isaiah 53:10 connects the thought by pointing to the work of Jesus on the cross as the Lord "bruising" and "putting to grief," and seeing the "travail of His soul" as the means of "satisfaction" toward justifying many. Isa.61:2-3 say that the day of the Lord liberated the captives and brought comfort to those who mourn. If this liberation and comfort happened in the vengeance on sin through the cross, and if liberation and comfort came forth from the cross and resurrection, then it did not wait for AD 70, another day of vengeance, to come in the future. When did the liberation begin? In Acts 2, not 40 years later. Seeing the Lord appear in His glory was 40 years BEFORE AD 70 (John 1:14). The "planting of the Lord" took place long before AD 70 (1 Cor.3:9; Gal.5:22-25). Christians were "trees of righteousness" (Rom.6:4-7; Matt.7:18-19) long before AD 70. Christians could "stand fast in the liberty" (Gal.5:1) because the liberation was already happening long before AD 70. "Christ HAS set us free!" Not waiting forty more years for another judgment on Jerusalem, but already liberated! Every time the word "vengeance" appears is not necessarily a reference to the vengeance of AD 70.

Isaiah 40:1-10 speaks toward the coming of John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord (1-8). The Lord coming with a strong hand and rewarding is what was accomplished by His death and resurrection, the reward being reconciliation and redemption through His blood. His "rule" began to spread through the gospel from Jerusalem.

Dan.7:13ff is not about the coming to earth in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Instead, it is about Jesus coming TO GOD (the Ancient of Days) in Jesus' ascension in AD 30. Again, Roy is the one guilty of all the hermeneutical misfires that he lists in his opening comments.

Roy concludes by saying "unless Terry can demonstrate another building-up of Zion yet in our future…" Is Roy affirming that the building-up ceased in AD 70? Are we not part of the building up? Are we not being "added to the church?" Let Roy plainly tell us! If the SECOND coming of the Lord has to happen when Zion (God's house) is being built up and the building up is still going on, then AD 70 is not necessarily the SECOND coming of Jesus, just another local judgment as many before, and therefore Roy failed to prove his proposition.