Month: June 2025

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 7: (Matthew 22:15-22) – The Image, the Coin, and the Coming Judgment

In Matthew 22:15–22, the Pharisees—partnering with the Herodians—attempt to trap Jesus with a politically explosive question: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” If He says “yes,” He risks alienating the Jews who viewed Rome’s poll tax as a symbol of pagan tyranny over God’s people. If He says “no,” He risks being charged with sedition and swiftly silenced by Rome.

Jesus responds with prophetic brilliance. He asks for a denarius, the coin used for the tax, and poses a simple but loaded question: “Whose image and inscription is this?” They answer, “Caesar’s.” He replies, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

On the surface, Jesus avoids their trap. But beneath the surface, He exposes their hypocrisy with piercing irony. The denarius bore Caesar’s image along with the inscription: “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus”—a direct claim to divinity. And yet they—Israel’s religious leaders—immediately produce that coin inside the temple precincts, where Jesus had been teaching (cf. Matt. 21:23). This is no small matter.

Though outwardly zealous for purity and Torah, they were carrying into sacred space a Roman coin bearing a graven image and a blasphemous claim. The temple had money changers specifically to avoid this. Yet here they are—using the coin as a trap, while already complicit in the imperial system they claim to oppose. In contrast, Jesus refuses to carry such a coin Himself. He makes them produce it—exposing their allegiance.

This raises an important question: Did Jesus ever personally pay Roman taxes? The Gospels never record Him paying the Roman poll tax (the κῆνσος), and His lack of a denarius in this passage may suggest He did not. As an itinerant rabbi with no property or income, He may not have been obligated to. Yet Jesus clearly affirms the principle of paying legitimate civic taxes when He says, “Render to Caesar…”

What we do see is that Jesus did pay the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27), but even then, He miraculously provided the coin from a fish’s mouth—and only paid it to avoid unnecessary offense. That coin (likely a Tyrian shekel) did not bear Caesar’s image. This preserved Jesus’ prophetic distance from Roman propaganda while still modeling humility and obedience. In short, Jesus submitted to rightful obligations without compromising His identity. He bore no imperial coin—because He bore the image of the living God. 

Israel’s Failure as Image-Bearer

Jesus’ reply delivers more than political cleverness—it delivers covenantal judgment rooted in the doctrine of image-bearing.

Israel was created to bear God’s image among the nations—not just biologically as descendants of Adam, but covenantally as a priestly nation (Gen. 1:26–28; Exod. 19:5–6; Isa. 43:7). Their calling was to represent God’s character, obey His law, and bring light and salvation to the Gentiles (Isa. 42:6; 49:6). To “render to God what is God’s” was to give Him their hearts, their worship, their obedience—indeed, their very lives as image-bearers and covenant partners.

But they failed in that vocation. Instead of being a light to the nations, they rebelled, and in place of worship they clung to power, pride, and violence. Instead of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, they would soon rise in rebellion against them, provoking Rome and incurring judgment.

Jesus’ statement is not just a theological mic drop—it’s a divine summons: You bear God’s image, yet you honor Caesar. You reject God’s Son but carry the coin of a man who claims to be divine.

This confrontation climaxes with the final irony in John 19:15:

“We have no king but Caesar.”

They accused Jesus of being a political threat to Caesar, but in the end they swore allegiance to Caesar to rid themselves of the true King. They rendered to Caesar both the coin and the Christ.

The Rebellion Foretold: 2 Thessalonians 2 and the Path Israel Chose

The tragic irony of Matthew 22 deepens when viewed in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, where Paul warns:

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion [apostasia] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed…”

While some interpret this “rebellion” as a future spiritual apostasy, its immediate context best fits the Jewish revolt against Rome (AD 66–70), which culminated in the desecration of the temple and the slaughter of Jerusalem.

The very leaders who tried to trap Jesus into rebellion later became rebels themselves. They enthroned a false high priest, Phannias ben Samuel, placed in office by the Zealots—a man of no priestly qualification. Josephus called this act “a mockery.” This “man of lawlessness” was enthroned in the temple, fulfilling Paul’s words.

Paul’s prophecy directly echoes Jesus’:

The rebellion (apostasia) was political and covenantal.

The man of lawlessness profaned the holy place.

The judgment came swiftly, just as Jesus had warned in Matthew 22-24.

Worshiping the Image: From Caesar’s Coin to Revelation’s Beast

The confrontation over the coin in Matthew 22 sets the stage for Revelation 13’s vision of the image of the beast. The denarius bore Caesar’s blasphemous image—“Son of the divine Augustus”—just as the beast in Revelation demands worship and allegiance.

Revelation 13 presents two beasts:

The sea beast (Rome), claiming divine status.

The land beast (apostate Israel), leading others to worship the first beast.

Apostate Israel becomes the religious enforcer of Roman idolatry. Just as the Jewish leaders cooperated with Caesar to crucify Jesus, they later cooperated with Rome to persecute the Church. Revelation 13:15 says the land beast causes all to worship the image of the beast, and those who refuse are killed.

Israel’s cooperation with Rome to kill the Son of God, and later His apostles and prophets, is what it meant to worship the image of the beast.

This image is not just a statue—it’s Caesar’s imperial authority, his divine claim, and the system of economic-religious control that demanded loyalty.

By contrast, Jesus is the true image of God (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). He bore the Father’s image in purity, humility, and truth. Those who follow Him bear His image and refuse the counterfeit. 

Chart: Caesar vs. Christ — The Two Images in Conflict

Theme Caesar (Beast) Christ (True Image)
Image Denarius coin; false “son of god” Jesus: image of the invisible God
Inscription “Son of the divine Augustus” “This is My beloved Son…” (Matt. 3:17)
Worshipers Apostate Israel, Rome Saints, martyrs, true Church
Temple Access Caesar’s image brought into courts Christ rejected and cast out
Power Coercion, politics, idolatry Love, resurrection, truth
Result Mark of the beast, destruction (AD 70) Seal of God, vindication in Christ

Final Reflection

Jesus’ question in Matthew 22 was no mere clever retort:

“Whose image is on it?”

The coin bore Caesar’s image—but man bears God’s image. Revelation pushes this question to its final judgment:

Will you bear the mark of Caesar or the seal of God?

Will you worship the image of the beast or be transformed into the image of Christ?

Jerusalem chose the beast—and was destroyed in AD 70.
The Church followed the Lamb—and was vindicated.

Render Caesar his coin if you must.
But render your life to God alone.

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 6: (Matthew 22:1-14) – The Parable of the Wedding Feast & The Resurrection of Isa. 25 & 1 Cor. 15

This parable aligns with the ministry of John the Baptist (the greatest and last of the OT prophets) and Jesus’ apostles, who called Israel to the kingdom during a pivotal period leading to AD 70. The kingdom of heaven is depicted as a wedding feast for the King’s Son, with two groups of servants issuing invitations. First, the King (God the Father) sends servants—John (the friend of the Groom) and the apostles—to invite Israel’s leaders, but “they would not come” (vv. 1–3). A second wave of servants is sent, yet Israel’s response is mixed: some ignore the call, while others seize, shame, and kill the messengers (vv. 4–6). Enraged, the King sends his armies—widely recognized as the Romans—to destroy the murderers and burn their city, a clear reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 (v. 7).

Verse 8’s “then” or “at that time” does not shift to a post-AD 70 era. Instead, it recapitulates the same pre-AD 70 period, focusing on a broader invitation. The servants, still the apostles, now call the—lowly Jews (sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes) and Gentiles—resulting in a filled wedding hall (vv. 8–10). This is not a new mission but an expansion of the gospel call before the feast’s consummation in AD 70. The man without a wedding garment, cast into “outer darkness” with “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 13), mirrors and parallels the judgment and timing of verse 7, reinforcing that this is the same AD 70 event described differently.

Matthew 8:10–12 – Gentiles at the Feast

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 8:10–12 clarifies the parable’s dynamics. After marveling at a Gentile centurion’s faith—greater than any in Israel—Jesus declares:

“Many will come from east and west [Gentiles] and recline at [the wedding feast] table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [fulfilled in AD 70], while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness [fulfilled in AD 70]. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (vv. 11–12).

Here, the wedding feast invitation meets resistance from faithless Jews, corresponding to the unresponsive leaders in Matthew 22:3–6. Meanwhile, believing Gentiles, like the centurion, and lowly and remnant Jews and Gentiles, as seen in Acts, embrace the gospel, filling the feast.

The parallel language of judgment in Matthew 8:12 and Matthew 22:13 underscores AD 70’s significance:

Matthew 8:12

Matthew 22:13
“The sons of the kingdom [old covenant Jews] will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” “…he saw there a man who had no wedding garment [a Jew trusting in his own works]. …Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

Partial Preterists, like Kenneth Gentry, acknowledge that this “casting out” into outer darkness refers to AD 70,[1] when the kingdom was stripped from Israel and given to the Gentile church. The burning of the city (Matt. 22:7) and the casting out of the unworthy (Matt. 22:13) both point to this judgment, proving that Matthew 22:1–14 does not contrast pre- and post-AD 70 evangelism but recapitulates the gospel’s reach to Gentiles in Acts.

Isaiah 25, the Wedding Feast, and the Defeat of “The Death” in AD 70

Framing the Discussion

Isaiah 25:2, 6–9 offers one of the most remarkable prophetic portraits in Scripture — a city reduced to rubble, a lavish banquet prepared for all peoples, “the death” swallowed up forever, and God’s people rejoicing in His salvation. Jesus drew directly on this imagery in His parables of the wedding feast (Matt. 8:10–12; 22:1–14) and in His Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), where He tied the destruction of Jerusalem, the wedding feast, the trumpet gathering of the elect, and His parousia all to fulfillment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

The apostle Paul, likewise, connects Isaiah’s prophecy to the resurrection victory of 1 Corinthians 15:54–56, identifying “the death” to be destroyed as the sin-death empowered by the Law — and placing that victory at Christ’s parousia in the lifetime of his contemporaries.

Major Premise:  If the “death” and “disgrace” of Isaiah 25:7–8 refer not to physical death but to spiritual sin-death and shame introduced in Adam (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–14) and perpetuated and magnified under the Mosaic Law (1 Cor. 15:56), then the resurrection Isaiah envisions occurs when that death is swallowed up through the fulfillment and then the passing away of that Law’s “heaven and earth” world (Matt. 5:17-18; 24:35; Heb. 8:13; 12:26-28).

Minor Premise:  Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, 26, 51, 55–56, teaches that the defeat of “the death” would take place at Christ’s parousia within the lifetime of some first-century believers, when “the law” would be overcome [and fulfilled Isa. 25 & Hos. 13]—an event coinciding with the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–34).

Conclusion:  Therefore, the “death” swallowed up in Isaiah 25:7–8 is covenantal/spiritual death that was magnified under the Law, and its defeat occurred at Christ’s parousia in AD 70, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy in conjunction with the wedding feast and judgment scenes of Matthew 8:10–12, 22:1–14, and 24–25.

Watt’s Identification of “The Death”

John Watt clarifies:

“The death is the most substantive of them all (the shroud, the shadow, the death and the disgrace – all have the definite article) while the disgrace of the people is the most relevant in the context. The thought is that this refers to ‘death’ per se ignores the definite article. A specific ‘death’ is to be swallowed up. A specific ‘disgrace’ is to be removed. This death and this disgrace comprise the shroud and the shadow over all the peoples, the very ones that had been invited to the feast. They are the peoples whose disgrace he will remove from the land.”[2]

Watt’s observation dismantles the assumption that Isaiah 25 refers to the end or defeat of physical death. Covenantally and spiritually dead people are invited to the wedding feast.  The definite article points to “the death” unique to Israel’s covenantal condition — a death that began in Adam the day he sinned (Gen. 2:17) and was magnified by the Mosaic Law’s condemnation (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:56).

The WuestNT on “The Death” Being Destroyed

Kenneth Wuest translates 1 Corinthians 15:26 as:

“As a last enemy, death is being reduced to inactivity.”[3]

This translation highlights an important point often overlooked: Paul uses the present tense — death is being reduced to inactivity — not “will someday be destroyed.” The verb here points to an ongoing process, not a single, far-off event.

If Paul were speaking of biological death, then Christ has been “failing” to abolish it for nearly two thousand years. Instead, the “death” in view is covenantal or sin-death — the very death Adam incurred “in the day” he sinned (Gen. 2:17) and which was magnified under “the administration of death” (2 Cor. 3:7) in the Mosaic Law. From the cross (AD 30) onward, this death was already in the process of being dismantled, and that process would culminate in the destruction of the old covenant order at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 — the very end of the “age” in Matthew 24:3, 13–14, 34; the “then comes the end” of 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, 51–56.

This covenantal death existed within the framework of the old covenant “heavens and earth” — the world order governed by Torah — which was itself “being dissolved” (2 Pet. 3:11 LEB) and “passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31; 1 John 2:17–18) during the transitional forty years between the cross and the parousia. As that old order was progressively dismantled, so too was the reign of sin-death.

At the same time, the new creation — the New Jerusalem — was “coming down” (Rev. 3:11–12 NIV), bringing the reality of Revelation 21:4, where “the death will be no more.” This descent of the New Jerusalem was not postponed to some distant millennium but was bound up with the “soon” (Rev. 22:6–7, 12) second coming of Christ in AD 70, when the curse of sin-death was fully removed and the new covenant kingdom stood unveiled in its fullness.

Parallel Processes Between AD 30–70

The Old Creation (OC) – Passing Away The New Creation (NC) – Arriving
“The death” (spiritual sin-death) reigns in Adam and under Moses (Gen. 2:17; 2 Cor. 3:7) The life of Christ revealed (John 11:25–26; 2 Tim. 1:10) — those believing would “never die” (John 11:26), referring not to biological death but deliverance from spiritual sin-death
“Heavens and earth” of the old covenant in process of “being dissolved” (2 Pet. 3:11) New Jerusalem “coming down” from heaven (Rev. 3:11–12 NIV)
OC world “passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31; 1 John 2:17–18) Kingdom being received (Heb. 12:28) and saints being transformed into Christ’s image and righteousness (2 Cor. 3:18)
The Law’s condemnation still active until its removal (Matt. 5:18; Heb. 8:13) Full forgiveness and eternal life manifest at parousia (Heb. 9:28; Rev. 21:4; Rom. 11:25-27)
Sin-death “being reduced to inactivity” (1 Cor. 15:26) “The death” is no more; curse removed (Rev. 21:4)
Ends at AD 70 with Temple destruction being the OC age “heaven and earth passing away”(Matt. 24:2-3, 35) Fully revealed at AD 70 in the NC order (Rev. 21:1–6)

Summary Points:

  1. The death in 1 Corinthians 15 is spiritual sin-death, not biological death.

  2. Its destruction was a process beginning at the cross and completed at the parousia in AD 70.

  3. The dissolution of the old covenant order and that was passing away and the arrival of the new creation that was increasing and being received happened concurrently over the AD 30–70 transition period.

  4. The “never die” promise of Christ refers to freedom from spiritual death, not the postponement of biological death.

  5. Revelation 21:4’s “no more death” was realized when the curse of Adam spiritual death was removed and the New Jerusalem was fully revealed.

A crucial thread running through each of these passages is the wedding motif — and more specifically, the ancient Jewish betrothal process. The “feast” of Isaiah 25 is developed by Jesus in Matthew 22 and 25 into parables about a wedding banquet and wise virgins. Paul’s description of the trumpet, the gathering, and meeting the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4 echoes the very stages of this betrothal period, from the Father’s timing to the trumpet announcement, the coming of the groom, and the consummation feast.

In the first-century Jewish context, betrothal was a binding covenant — the groom would go to prepare a place for his bride (John 14:2–3), while only his father could decide the exact day and hour of the wedding. At the appointed time, the father would send the groom’s procession to gather the bride with a trumpet blast, leading her to the prepared home for the feast. This covenantal sequence saturates the prophetic imagery of Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul.

The next chart shows how Isaiah 25, Matthew 8 & 22, Matthew 24–25, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 all converge to depict this covenant-closing wedding celebration in AD 70.

Master Chart: Isaiah 25, Matthew 8 & 22, Matthew 24–25, 1 Corinthians 15, and 1 Thessalonians 4–5

Isa. 25 Matt. 8 & 22 Matt. 24–25 1 Cor. 15

1 Thess. 4–5
25:2 – Jerusalem made a “heap” of rubble. 22:7 – City burned by the King’s armies. 24:2 – Temple destroyed; city left desolate. — —
25:6 – Wedding feast on God’s mountain. 8:11; 22:2–4 – Gentiles & lowly Jews recline at the table. 25:10 – Wise virgins enter the wedding feast. — —
25:7–8 – “The death” and “the disgrace” removed. 22:11–13 – Unworthy cast into outer darkness. 24:30–31 – Elect gathered at the trumpet. 15:26, 54–56 – Death destroyed; the Law overcome. 4:16 – Trumpet; dead in Christ rise; “meet” the Lord (wedding greeting).
— — 24:27 – Parousia like the light of day; 24:36 – Only the Father knows the “day and hour” (wedding motif). 15:23–24 – Parousia; at end of the old covenant age when victory over “the law” of Moses is given. 5:10 – Living & dead “dwell together” with the Lord (Rev. 21:3; “God all in all”).

 The master chart above shows how Isaiah 25, the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 8, 22, and 24–25, and Paul’s eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 all converge on a unified theme — the destruction of “the death,” the great gathering, and the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Yet to truly see the richness of this harmony, we must look more closely at the specific wedding customs that Jesus and Paul draw upon. Their audience would have instantly recognized these images as betrothal-to-wedding language. The following chart lists the key stages of a Jewish wedding and shows how each is directly paralleled in Matthew 24–25.

Jewish Wedding Customs and Matthew 24–25

Jewish Custom

Matthew 24–25 Fulfillment
Only the Father of the groom knew the day and hour of the wedding. Matt. 24:36 – “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels… but the Father only.”
When the Father decided, he would send the groom’s party with a trumpet to gather the bride. Matt. 24:31 – “He will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect.”
The groom would come like the morning light, often suddenly. Matt. 24:27 – “For as the light of day comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man.”
The bride had to remain ready with her lamp trimmed. Matt. 25:1–13 – Parable of the ten virgins.
The feast would follow immediately after the arrival. Matt. 25:10 – “…those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.”

By linking these wedding customs to the timing indicators in Matthew 24–25, the entire prophetic drama comes into focus. What Isaiah foretold, Jesus promised, and Paul proclaimed was not a scattered collection of unrelated events but a single, covenant-closing wedding celebration between Christ and His bride. This connection naturally leads into the broader theological synthesis that Full Preterism offers — bringing together Partial Preterist and Amillennial strengths into one coherent fulfillment framework.

Conclusion – Full Preterism’s Harmonization

Partial Preterists rightly recognize that the wedding feast and judgment of Matthew 8, Matthew 22, and Matthew 24-25 were fulfilled in AD 70. Classic Amillennialists rightly connect Isaiah 25’s banquet and resurrection victory with those passage along with 1 Corinthians 15. Yet both camps separate what Scripture unites: the resurrection with the wedding and feast take place together when Jerusalem was desolated and judged in AD 70.

Full Preterism alone preserves the integrity of the prophetic tapestry:

  • Isaiah 25 foretold Jerusalem’s destruction (v. 2), a lavish feast for all peoples (v. 6), and the removal of “the death” for those coming in Zion through faith (vv. 7–8).
  • Jesus wove this imagery into Matthew 8, 22, and 24–25, anchoring it in His generation (Matt. 24:34).
  • Paul applied it to the parousia and resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, fulfilled when the Law — “the sting of sin” “and the power of sin is The Law” — was overcome in AD 70 (vv. 54–56).
  • 1 Thessalonians 4–5 adds the relational goal: that the living and the dead “dwell together” with the Lord forever (5:10), a reality paralleled in 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“God all in all”) and consummated in the New Jerusalem where we dwell with God and the curse of Adamic “death is no more” (Rev. 21:3-4).

Christ’s parousia in AD 70 was not a failed or partial victory — it was the full removal of the Adamic sin-death, the end of the Mosaic covenant and her age, and the inauguration of our eternal dwelling with God. The home He prepared (John 14:2–3) is the matured new covenant New Jerusalem (or Paul’s “Jerusalem above” Gals. 4) we now inhabit with the Father, Son, and Spirit, and where “the curse” of “the death is no more” (Rev. 21:3-4).  The curse of spiritual death and shame per Isaiah 25 and Revelation 21-22 is removed only for those dwelling in the Kingdom pictured as being on Mount Zion or in the New Jerusalem.  We invite the nations out of their darkness and death to be healed and drink of the living waters of eternal life and partake in God’s perpetual glory, light and eternal day (Rev. 22:2, 17).

Study Questions

  1. How do Matthew 8:10–12 and Matthew 22:1–14 echo the imagery of Isaiah 25:6–9?
  2. In what way does John Watt’s observation about “the death” and “the disgrace” challenge a physical death interpretation of Isaiah 25 which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15?
  3. How does WuestNT’s translation of 1 Cor. 15:26 support a spiritual view of death?
  4. Explain the role of the Mosaic Law as being overcome in 1 Cor. 15:55-56 and does this fit a pre-AD 70 context or an alleged “end of world history” context?
  5. How do Matthew 24:27-31, 36, 25:1-13 reflect first-century Jewish wedding customs?
  6. Compare the eschatological “trumpet” in Matthew 24:31, 1 Cor. 15:52, and 1 Thess. 4:16.
  7. How does 1 Thess. 5:10’s “dwell together” parallel 1 Cor. 15:28’s “God all in all” and the eschatological gathering in Matt. 24:31?
  8. Why does Full Preterism claim to harmonize Partial Preterist and Amillennialist strengths when it comes to harmonizing the time of the wedding and feast as the time of the resurrection?
  9. What is the significance of tying the wedding feast and resurrection to AD 70 for a Christian realized hope (Prov. 13:12) today?
  10. How does Revelation 21–22 depict our present positional reality in Christ after AD 70?

[1] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 175, 342.

[2] John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, vol. 24, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1985), 331.  Special thanks to my good friend Don K. Preston for sharing this quote with me!

[3] Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 431.

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 5: (Matthew 21:33-45) – The Parable of the Tenants

The Parable of the Tenants: Jesus’ Indictment of Israel’s Leadership and the Coming Judgment Matthew 21:33–46 / Mark 12:1–12 / Luke 20:9–19

The Parable of the Tenants, recorded in Matthew 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, and Luke 20:9–19, stands as one of Jesus’ most pointed critiques of Israel’s religious leadership. Delivered during His final week in Jerusalem, this parable unveils God’s patience, Israel’s rebellion, and the inevitable judgment that would culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. As a parallel account across the Synoptic Gospels, the parable shares a consistent core: a landowner entrusts his vineyard to tenants, sends servants to collect the harvest, and faces violent rejection. When he sends his son, the tenants kill him, triggering divine judgment. Jesus concludes by quoting Psalm 118:22–23, identifying Himself as the “stone the builders rejected” and foreshadowing the transfer of the kingdom to a new covenant people. This article explores the parable’s meaning, its historical and theological context, and its fulfillment in the first century, drawing on Scripture and scholarly insights to illuminate its enduring significance.

Variations Across the Synoptic Gospels

Though the parable’s essence remains consistent, each Gospel writer tailors the account to their audience, emphasizing distinct details:

Matthew (21:33–46) underscores the Pharisees’ realization that the parable targets them (v. 45). It mentions multiple servants, symbolizing the prophets sent to Israel, and explicitly ties the judgment to the kingdom being given to others (v. 43).

Mark (12:1–12) offers the most concise version, vividly describing the vineyard’s features—a wall, tower, and winepress—evoking Isaiah 5:1–7, where Israel is God’s vineyard.

Luke (20:9–19) highlights the crowd’s horror at the judgment (“God forbid!” v. 16) and emphasizes the tenants’ rejection of the son. Luke uniquely notes the landowner’s absence for “a long time” (v. 9), a detail central to the parable’s timeline.

These variations reflect the authors’ theological priorities but do not alter the parable’s core message. Scholars argue that the accounts likely stem from a single teaching event, with differences arising from the evangelists’ editorial choices to address their communities. The parable’s context—Jesus’ confrontations with the religious leaders following John the Baptist’s ministry—frames it as a continuation of His indictment against their failure to bear fruit (Matt. 21:12–32; Luke 20:1–8).

The Parable’s Symbolism and Historical Context

The parable’s imagery is rich with Old Testament echoes, particularly Isaiah 5:1–7, where Israel is depicted as God’s vineyard, expected to yield righteousness but producing injustice. The landowner represents God, the tenants symbolize Israel’s leaders, and the vineyard is the covenant nation. The servants sent to collect the harvest signify the prophets, repeatedly mistreated or killed (cf. Matt. 23:34–37). The son, the landowner’s heir, is unmistakably Jesus, whose death outside Jerusalem’s gates fulfills the parable’s climax.

The “long time” of the landowner’s absence (Luke 20:9) is pivotal. It reflects God’s longsuffering during the period from John the Baptist’s ministry (circa AD 27) to the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70). This roughly 40-year span, often termed “Israel’s last days,” aligns with Jesus’ warnings about that generation (Matt. 24:34). Gary DeMar, in his analysis of Matthew 24–25, provides clarity on this phrase:

“Notice that the evil slave says, ‘My master is not coming for a long time’ (Matt. 24:48). The evil slave then proceeds to ‘beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards’ (24:49). But to the surprise of the ‘evil slave,’ the master returned when he least expected him (24:50). The master did not return to cut the evil slave’s distant relatives in pieces (24:51); he cut him in pieces. The evil slave was alive when the master left, and he was alive when the master returned. In this context, a ‘long time’ must be measured against a person’s lifetime.”[1] 

DeMar’s insight underscores that the “long time” in the Parable of the Tenants, like in the Parables of the Talents (Matt. 25:19) and the Ten Virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), refers to a period within the lifetime of Jesus’ audience—approximately AD 27 to AD 70. This harmonizes with New Testament usage of “a long time” as an extended but not indefinite period (e.g., Luke 8:27; Acts 14:3). During this window, God sent John the Baptist and his disciples, followed by Jesus and His apostles, calling Israel to repentance. Yet, the leaders’ rejection of John (Matt. 21:25–32) and their role in Jesus’ crucifixion fulfilled the tenants’ rebellion.

Psalm 118: The Rejected Cornerstone and AD 70

The parable’s conclusion cites Psalm 118:22–23, where Jesus identifies Himself as the “stone the builders rejected” that becomes the cornerstone. This is the second reference to Psalm 118 in Matthew 21 (cf. v. 9, during the Triumphal Entry). Sung during Passover, Psalm 118 celebrated God’s deliverance, proclaiming that the rejected stone would triumph (Ps. 118:6–7, 22).

Ironically, as Josephus records, it was during Passover in AD 70, while Jerusalem’s inhabitants sang this psalm to welcome pilgrims, that Roman armies began encircling the city. The song of joy became an unwitting herald of judgment, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that they would “see” Him coming in judgment (Matt. 23:39; Ps. 118:26).

Paul and Peter further develop this imagery. In Ephesians 2:14–22, Paul cites Psalm 118:22 to depict the Church as a new temple, built on Christ the cornerstone, uniting Jews and Gentiles. Similarly, Peter in 1 Peter 2:4–8 describes believers as “living stones” forming a “spiritual house,” with Christ as the cornerstone, while those who reject Him are “destined” to stumble. These apostolic interpretations confirm that the parable’s judgment—the transfer of the kingdom to a new people—found fulfillment in the establishment of the Church as God’s covenant community post-AD 70.

Deuteronomy 32: God Rejected as Rock, Israel’s End, and the New Nation

Jesus also draws on Deuteronomy 32, the Song of Moses, to frame the parable’s judgment. In Matthew 21:41, the tenants’ fate is sealed: God will “put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” This echoes Jesus’ declaration in verse 43: “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” The Pharisees rightly discerned that the parable targeted them (v. 45).

Deuteronomy 32:20–43 prophesies a “perverse generation” that would reject God as their “Rock,” leading to their “end” through fire and the rise of “another Nation” (Deut. 32:4–5, 15–22, 29–43). Peter applied this to his generation, urging them to be saved from it (Acts 2:40; cf. Deut. 32:5) and identifying the Church as the new “nation” built on Christ (1 Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Deut. 32:20-22). The judgment of AD 70, when Roman armies burned Jerusalem (cf. Matt. 22:7), marked the culmination of this prophecy.

The parable not only indicts the religious leaders but also redefines the kingdom as open to all who bear fruit, regardless of ethnicity. Similarly, the parable’s subversive edge: by portraying the tenants’ audacity in killing the son, Jesus exposes the absurdity of rejecting God’s ultimate messenger. There is economic and power hungry imagery—tenants seizing the vineyard reflects the leaders’ desire to retain power over God’s covenant people, a theme already seen with Jesus’ temple cleansing (Matt. 21:12–17) and the leadership questioning Jesus’ authority due to the insecurity of theirs among the people (Matt. 21:23-27).

Implications for Today

The Parable of the Tenants transcends time; it challenges us to examine our response to the gospel. Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:18–19), symbolizing Israel’s fruitlessness, serves as a warning: God demands the fruit of faith when the gospel comes. If God would harden his covenant people and bring them to her final “end” like a corpse the vultures gorged upon for rejecting his Son, what will he do with those who reject the Spirit and the Bride who say “come” (Rev. 22:2, 17)?

The judgment of AD 70 decisively ended old covenant Israel’s role as the kingdom’s steward, a reality that undermines premillennialist claims, whether Historic Premillennialism or Dispensational Zionism. Assertions that modern Israel’s formation in 1948 fulfills prophecy distort Scripture’s clear teaching: post-AD 70, the kingdom belongs to the Church, the new covenant “nation” (Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9).

As I’ve argued, Jesus is unequivocal: old covenant Israel would “never” bear fruit in its former form (Matt. 21:19). The myriad Old and New Testament texts misused to prop up Zionist eschatology blatantly distort this reality. The Parable of the Tenants calls us to embrace our role as faithful tenants in God’s vineyard, bearing fruit for His glory as we abide in Christ-the True Vine / Israel of God. We rest in the unshakable truth that Jesus, the rejected cornerstone, reigns as the foundation of His eternal kingdom which we have graciously been called to partake in.

Below is a chart that illustrates the parallels between Jesus’ teaching on His rejection as the Cornerstone and the coming judgment in AD 70 (as presented in the Parable of the Tenants, Matthew 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, Luke 20:9–19), Peter’s teachings in Acts 2:40 and 1 Peter 2:4–10, and Moses’ prophecy in Deuteronomy 32. The chart organizes key themes—rejection of the Messiah (as Cornerstone/Rock), judgment on Israel, and the establishment of a new covenant nation.

Chart: Parallels in the Rejection of the Messiah, Judgment in AD 70, and the New Covenant Nation

Theme

 Jesus: Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, Luke 20:9–19) Peter: Acts 2:40, 1 Peter 2:4–10; 4:5-7, 17

Moses: Deuteronomy 32 (esp. vv. 4–5, 15–22, 20–43)
Rejection of the Messiah (Cornerstone/Rock) Jesus cites Psalm 118:22–23, identifying Himself as the “stone the builders rejected” (Matt. 21:42). The tenants (Israel’s leaders) kill the son (Jesus), symbolizing their rejection of Him as the Cornerstone (Matt. 21:39). Peter calls his generation “perverse” (Acts 2:40, echoing Deut. 32:5) for rejecting Christ. In 1 Pet. 2:4–8, he cites Psalm 118:22, portraying Christ as the “living stone” rejected by men but chosen by God, with unbelievers destined to stumble. Israel rejects God as their “Rock” (Deut. 32:4, 15–18), a title applied to the Messiah. This foreshadows the rejection of Christ by the “perverse generation” (v. 20), leading to their downfall.
Judgment on Israel (AD 70) The tenants face judgment: God will “put those wretches to a miserable death” (Matt. 21:41) and give the vineyard to others (v. 43). This points to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 by Roman armies (Matt. 22:7), fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy of seeing Him in judgment (Matt. 23:39; Ps. 118:26). Peter urges his audience to “be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40/Deut. 32:5), implying imminent judgment at Christ’s second coming in (Acts 2:20-21). In 1 Pet. 2:8, those who reject Christ are “destined” to stumble, aligning with the AD 70 judgment on Israel for rejecting the Cornerstone.  Peter follows this with God being “ready to judged” and the “end of all things” being “near” at the “appointed time”  (1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17). Deuteronomy 32:21–22, 29–43 predicts Israel’s “end” through fire and divine vengeance for rejecting the Rock. This is fulfilled in AD 70 when Jerusalem is burned, marking the culmination of the “perverse generation’s” judgment (v. 20).  Messiah / Jesus would come in “vengeance” and the “appointed time” would be “near” for God to “repay” and judge (Deut. 32:35-43 LXX).
New Covenant Nation Established The kingdom is taken from Israel’s leaders and given to a “people producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43), referring to the Church as the new covenant nation, fulfilling the transfer of stewardship post-AD 70. Peter identifies believers as a “holy nation” and “royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9), built on Christ the Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:4–6). This new nation replaces old covenant Israel, fulfilling the promise of a fruit-bearing people (cf. Matt. 21:43). Deuteronomy 32:21, 43 foresees “another Nation” rising as God’s people, provoked by Israel’s rebellion. This is fulfilled in the Church, which emerges as the new covenant nation post-AD 70, bearing fruit for God (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9).
Key Imagery Vineyard (Israel), tenants (leaders), son (Christ), cornerstone (Ps. 118:22). Judgment is tied to rejecting the son, leading to the kingdom’s transfer. Cornerstone (Christ), living stones (Church), perverse generation (Israel’s leaders). The Church is built as a spiritual house on Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Rock (God/Messiah), perverse generation, fire of judgment, new Nation. Israel’s rejection leads to a new people under God’s covenant.
Fulfillment Context AD 70: Jerusalem’s destruction ends old covenant Israel’s role. The Church becomes the new covenant people, bearing fruit (Matt. 21:19, 43). AD 70: Peter warns of Christ’s coming and judgment on his generation (Acts 2:20-40; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17) and establishes the Church as the new nation (1 Pet. 2:9), post-AD 70. AD 70: Deuteronomy 32’s prophecy of Israel’s “end” (v. 29) and the rise of a new Nation (v. 21) is fulfilled in Jerusalem’s fall and the Church’s establishment.

Study Questions for The Parable of the Tenants

  1. Understanding the Parable’s Core Message: What is the central message of the Parable of the Tenants as presented in Matthew 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, and Luke 20:9–19? How does Jesus use the parable to critique Israel’s religious leadership?
  2. Synoptic Variations: Compare the accounts of the parable in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. How do the unique details in each Gospel (e.g., Matthew’s focus on the Pharisees, Mark’s vineyard description, Luke’s “long time”) enhance our understanding of the parable’s purpose?
  3. Old Testament Echoes: The article highlights Isaiah 5:1–7 as a key background for the parable’s vineyard imagery. How does this Old Testament passage shape the parable’s portrayal of Israel as God’s vineyard, and what does it reveal about God’s expectations?
  4. Symbolism in the Parable: Identify the key symbols in the parable (e.g., landowner, tenants, servants, son, vineyard). How do these symbols reflect the relationship between God, Israel’s leaders, the prophets, and Jesus?
  5. The “Long Time” and Historical Context: The article interprets the “long time” (Luke 20:9) as the period from John the Baptist’s ministry (circa AD 27) to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. How does Gary DeMar’s analysis of Matthew 24–25 support this interpretation, and why is this timeline significant?
  6. Psalm 118 and the Cornerstone: Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22–23 to identify Himself as the “stone the builders rejected.” How does the article connect this to the events of AD 70, particularly the irony of Passover in Jerusalem as described by Josephus?
  7. Deuteronomy 32 and the Song of Moses: According to the article, how does Deuteronomy 32:20–43 parallel the parable’s themes of rejecting the Messiah as the “Rock” and the rise of a new covenant nation? How does Peter apply this prophecy in Acts 2:40 and 1 Peter 2:4–10?
  8. The New Covenant Nation: The parable concludes with the kingdom being given to a “people producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43). How do the article and the chart demonstrate that this refers to the Church, and what role do Paul (Ephesians 2:14–22) and Peter (1 Peter 2:4–9) play in confirming this?
  9. Judgment in AD 70: The article argues that the parable foreshadows Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Using the chart, explain how Jesus, Peter, and Moses (in Deuteronomy 32) all point to this judgment, and what does this reveal about God’s justice?
  10. Theological Implications: The article notes the parable’s “subversive edge” in exposing the absurdity of rejecting God’s Son. How does the imagery of the tenants’ power-hungry actions (e.g., seizing the vineyard) relate to the leaders’ behavior in Matthew 21:12–17 and 21:23–27?
  11. Contemporary Application: The article warns that the Parable of the Tenants challenges us to bear fruit through faith in response to the claims of Christ and the Gospel. How does Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:18–19) and the judgment in AD 70 impact the call to the nations today to believe and come through the gates of the city in Revelation 22:2, 17?
  12. Challenging Premillennialism: The article strongly critiques premillennialist views, particularly the claim that modern Israel’s formation in 1948 fulfills prophecy. Using the parable and the chart, explain why the author argues that old covenant Israel “never” bears fruit post-AD 70, and how does this impact eschatological debates?

[1] Gary DeMar, Is the Rapture Found in Matthew 24? https://christianfamilystudycentre.home.blog/ 2020/12/07/is-the-rapture-found-in-matthew-24/

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 4: (Matt. 21:23-27) – Comparing John and Jesus’ Doctrine & the Parable of the Two Sons

In Matthew 21:23-27, a tense confrontation unfolds in the temple courts of Jerusalem, where the chief priests and elders challenge Jesus’ authority to teach, perform miracles, and disrupt temple activities. This passage, set during Jesus’ final week before his crucifixion, follows his triumphal entry as the “Son of David” (Matt. 21:9) and his bold cleansing of the temple (21:12-17), actions that provoked the religious elite. By questioning, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (21:23, NIV), the leaders aim to undermine Jesus’ legitimacy, exposing their own hypocrisy and spiritual blindness. Jesus’ response—a counter-question about the origin of John the Baptist’s baptism—reveals the divine source of his authority and aligns his ministry with John’s prophetic mission. This article harmonizes the doctrinal continuity between John and Jesus, demonstrating how Jesus’ teachings fulfill and extend John’s message of repentance, judgment, and messianic hope.

Literarily, Matthew 21:23-27 is part of a series of conflict stories (Matt. 21–23) that contrast Jesus’ divine authority with the leaders’ human-derived power. Paralleled in Mark 11:27-33 and Luke 20:1-8, the passage employs a rabbinic debate style, with Jesus’ counter-question serving as both defense and indictment. R.T. France highlights Matthew’s emphasis on the Kingdom of God, noting that this confrontation sets the stage for Jesus’ parables (e.g., 21:28-46), which critique Israel’s unfaithfulness and anticipate the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s plan.

Exegesis and Doctrinal Continuity

The chief priests and elders’ question is not a genuine inquiry but an attempt to discredit Jesus, who lacked formal rabbinic credentials or Sanhedrin approval. Their hypocrisy is evident, as their own authority often stemmed from political alliances rather than divine appointment. Jesus responds strategically: “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?” (21:24-25). Far from evading the issue, Jesus’ question establishes his authority by linking his ministry to John the Baptist’s divinely ordained mission.

The doctrinal alignment between John and Jesus is central to understanding this passage. John’s ministry, as a forerunner to the Messiah, prepared the way through a message of repentance and eschatological urgency. Jesus’ teachings build upon and fulfill this foundation, as evidenced by the following parallels:

Repentance and the Kingdom: Both John and Jesus preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17), signaling the imminent arrival of God’s reign and calling for spiritual renewal.

Messianic Preparation and Fulfillment: John’s role as the voice “preparing the way” (Matt. 3:3; Isa. 40:3; Matt. 11:10; Mal. 3:1) pointed to Jesus as the Messiah who would bring salvation and judgment. Jesus fulfilled this by proclaiming himself as the one coming “on the clouds” to judge and redeem in the first-century generation (Matt. 16:27-28; 24:27-34; cf. Isa. 40:10; Mal. 4:1-2).

Imminent Judgment: John warned of a “wrath about to come” upon Israel’s leaders (Matt. 3:7, GNT), while Jesus prophesied a “wrath” against “this people” within his generation, culminating in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:23-32).

Eschatological Harvest: John depicted judgment as an imminent harvest (Matt. 3:12), a metaphor Jesus extended to describe the end of the old covenant age (Matt. 13:39-43), realized in AD 70 when the temple system collapsed and He separated the righteous from the wicked.

Baptism with Spirit and Fire: John testified that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus fulfilled this by sending the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:1-4) and, in judgment, allowing Jerusalem’s destruction by Roman forces, symbolized as fire (Matt. 22:7).

Atonement and Sacrifice: John declared Jesus the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus presented himself as the Passover Lamb, laying down his life for his sheep (Matt. 26:26-28; John 10:11).

Divine Testimony and Authority: At Jesus’ baptism, the Father’s voice proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17), affirming Jesus’ divine authority. Jesus later claimed unity with the Father (John 8:18ff.), grounding his exousia in divine endorsement, which John’s ministry authenticated.

By invoking John’s baptism, Jesus forces the leaders into a dilemma. Admitting John’s divine authority would validate Jesus’ ministry, as John testified to him as the Messiah. Denying it would alienate the crowd, who revered John as a prophet (21:26). Their response, “We don’t know” (21:27), reveals their cowardice and refusal to engage with truth, prompting Jesus to withhold a direct answer: “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” As John Calvin notes, Jesus’ appeal to John is sufficient proof of his divine commission, exposing the leaders’ hypocrisy and affirming his authority from the Father.

Theological Themes

Matthew 21:23-27 underscores several theological themes, harmonizing scholarly insights with the emphasis on John’s legacy:

Divine Authority: Jesus’ authority, rooted in the Father and affirmed by John, contrasts with the leaders’ human-derived power. Jesus’ question implies a shared divine source with John, challenging the leaders to acknowledge God’s work.

Hypocrisy and Rejection: The leaders’ refusal to answer reflects their spiritual blindness, a recurring motif in Matthew (e.g., 23:13-36). R.T. France sees this as part of Matthew’s critique of Israel’s leadership, preparing for the transfer of the Kingdom to a new people (21:43).

John’s Prophetic Role: John’s ministry bridges the Old Testament prophets and Jesus’ messianic mission. His baptism, a call to repentance, authenticates Jesus’ authority, as Heinrich Meyer observes.

Eschatological Fulfillment: The passage’s focus on judgment aligns with the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, fulfilling John’s and Jesus’ urgency and warnings. 

Matthew 21:23-27 is a pivotal moment in Jesus’ ministry, where his divine authority, rooted in the Father and affirmed by John the Baptist, confronts human hypocrisy. The doctrinal continuity between John and Jesus—centered on repentance, judgment, and messianic hope—underscores Jesus’ fulfillment of John’s prophetic mission, culminating in the AD 70 judgment. By harmonizing scholarly exegesis with a focused analysis of this continuity, this passage challenges readers to discern true authority and respond to God’s Kingdom call.

Jesus will now connect a parable of response of the leaders and their unbelief to John and Jesus’ ministry with those who were believing their message was from God or heaven.

The Parable of the Two Sons: A Continuation of Jesus’ Indictment (Matt. 21:28-32)

Immediately following the confrontation over his authority (Matt. 21:23-27), Jesus transitions to the Parable of the Two Sons (Matt. 21:28-32), a pointed illustration that builds on the leaders’ refusal to acknowledge John’s divine mission and, by extension, Jesus’ own authority. This parable flows seamlessly from the preceding dialogue, intensifying Jesus’ critique of the chief priests and elders while affirming the doctrinal unity between his ministry and John’s. By presenting a story of obedience and disobedience, Jesus exposes the leaders’ hypocrisy, underscores the necessity of repentance, and anticipates the inclusion of the marginalized in God’s Kingdom—a theme rooted in John’s call and fulfilled in Jesus’ mission.

Narrative and Thematic Continuity

The Parable of the Two Sons is the first of three parables (followed by the Parable of the Tenants, 21:33-46, and the Wedding Feast, 22:1-14) that Jesus delivers in response to the leaders’ challenge to his authority. Literarily, it serves as a direct application of the confrontation in 21:23-27, where the leaders’ refusal to answer Jesus’ question about John’s baptism reveals their spiritual cowardice and rejection of God’s messengers. The parable’s setting—a vineyard, a common biblical symbol for Israel (Isa. 5:1-7)—and its focus on obedience align with the eschatological and covenantal themes of Matthew 21, particularly the transfer of the Kingdom from unfaithful Israel to a new people (21:43).

In the parable, a father asks his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first son refuses but later repents and obeys, while the second son agrees but fails to act (21:28-30). Jesus poses the question, “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” (21:31), to which the leaders respond, “The first.” Jesus then delivers a stinging rebuke: “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him” (21:31-32, NIV).

Exegesis of the Parable

The parable’s meaning is clear in light of the preceding confrontation. The first son represents the tax collectors and sinners who initially rejected God’s call but repented in response to John’s preaching, embracing the “way of righteousness” (21:32). The second son symbolizes the religious leaders who outwardly professed allegiance to God but failed to act on John’s message or recognize Jesus as the Messiah. By invoking John’s ministry, Jesus reinforces the continuity between their messages: John’s call to repentance (Matt. 3:2) is fulfilled in Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom (Matt. 4:17), and both demand genuine obedience over empty promises.

The phrase “way of righteousness” (21:32) is significant, echoing John’s role as a prophet who prepared Israel for the Messiah through repentance and moral renewal (cf. Matt. 3:3; Isa. 40:3). The leaders’ failure to believe John mirrors their rejection of Jesus, as both ministries required a heart-level response to God’s authority. The parable underscores Matthew’s theme of “reversal,” where the outcasts—tax collectors and prostitutes—enter the Kingdom ahead of the self-righteous elite, fulfilling John’s and Jesus’ warnings of judgment on unrepentant Israel (Matt. 3:7-12; 23:13-36). 

Doctrinal and Eschatological Connections

The Parable of the Two Sons extends the doctrinal parallels outlined in Matthew 21:23-27, particularly the themes of repentance, judgment, and divine authority:

Repentance and Kingdom Access: Just as John and Jesus preached repentance as the prerequisite for entering the Kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 4:17), the parable contrasts genuine repentance (the first son) with hypocritical profession (the second son). The inclusion of sinners reflects John’s success in reaching the marginalized (Matt. 3:5-6) and Jesus’ mission to the lost (Matt. 9:12-13), culminating in the new covenant community post-AD 70.

Judgment on Unfaithful Israel: The parable’s indictment of the leaders aligns with John’s warning of imminent wrath (Matt. 3:7) and Jesus’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction (Matt. 24:1-34). The leaders’ failure to repent ensures their exclusion from the Kingdom, fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment when the old covenant system was dismantled.

Divine Authority Affirmed: By linking the parable to John’s ministry, Jesus reaffirms that his authority, like John’s, comes from God. The leaders’ rejection of both prophets underscores their rebellion against divine revelation, a theme that resonates with the eschatological harvest imagery of John (Matt. 3:12) and Jesus (Matt. 13:39-43).

Inclusion of the Marginalized: The parable’s elevation of tax collectors and prostitutes fulfills John’s preparatory role (Mal. 3:1) and Jesus’ messianic mission to redeem the outcasts (Isa. 61:1-2; Matt. 11:5). This anticipates the Gentile inclusion in the Kingdom (Matt. 21:43), realized after AD 70 as the gospel spread beyond Israel.

Theological and Eschatological Significance

The Parable of the Two Sons serves as a narrative bridge between the confrontation in 21:23-27 and the subsequent parables, which further develop the theme of Israel’s unfaithfulness and the Kingdom’s transfer. Theologically, it reinforces the necessity of repentance as the response to divine authority, a message central to both John and Jesus. Eschatologically, it points to the AD 70 judgment as the culmination of Israel’s rejection of God’s messengers, fulfilling the warnings of both prophets. The parable’s focus on John’s “way of righteousness” ties Jesus’ authority to the prophetic tradition, exposing the leaders’ hypocrisy and heralding the inclusion of the repentant in God’s redemptive plan.

Here is a chart demonstrating parallels between John’s authoritative teaching and Jesus’ and how the parable of the two sons is contextually connected:

Theme John the Baptist’s Teaching

Jesus’ Teaching and Fulfillment
Repentance and Kingdom Preached “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). Echoed John’s call: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17).
Messianic Preparation Came to “prepare the way” for the Messiah’s salvation and judgment (Isa. 40:3-10; Mal. 3:1—4:2; Matt. 3:3; 11:10). Fulfilled as the Messiah, coming to bring salvation and judgment (Isa. 40:10; Matt. 16:27-28; Mal. 3:1—4:2; Matt. 24:27-34).
Imminent Judgment Warned of a “wrath about to come” upon Israel’s leaders (Matt. 3:7, GNT). Prophesied “wrath” against “this people” in his generation, fulfilled in AD 70 (Luke 21:23-32).
Eschatological Harvest Depicted judgment as an imminent harvest (Matt. 3:12). Described judgment as a harvest at the end of the old covenant age, fulfilled in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43).
Baptism with Spirit and Fire Testified Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Fulfilled by sending the Spirit at Pentecost and sending Romans to burn Jerusalem (Acts 1:5; Matt. 22:7).
Atonement and Sacrifice Declared Jesus the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Presented himself as the Passover Lamb, laying down his life (Matt. 26:26-28; John 10:11).
Divine Testimony and Authority Witnessed the Father’s declaration from heaven at Jesus’ baptism: “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17). Claimed unity with the Father, grounding his authority in divine endorsement (John 8:18ff.).
Obedience and Repentance Called for repentance and righteousness, reaching sinners (Matt. 3:5-6; 21:32). Illustrated true obedience through repentance (Parable of the Two Sons, Matt. 21:28-32), rewarding sinners who repented while condemning hypocritical leaders.

Conclusion

Matthew 21:23-27 and the Parable of the Two Sons (21:28-32) form a cohesive unit, where Jesus’ divine authority, rooted in the Father and affirmed by John, confronts human hypocrisy and calls for genuine repentance. The confrontation exposes the leaders’ refusal to acknowledge God’s messengers, while the parable illustrates the consequences of their disobedience, contrasting it with the repentance of sinners. Together, these passages underscore the doctrinal continuity between John and Jesus—centered on repentance, judgment, and messianic hope—culminating in the AD 70 judgment and the inclusion of the marginalized in God’s Kingdom.

Study Questions for Matthew 21:23-32: Jesus’ Authority, the Doctrine of John the Baptist, and the Parable of the Two Sons

  1. Contextual Understanding: How do the events preceding Matthew 21:23-27 (e.g., the triumphal entry and temple cleansing in Matt. 21:1-17) set the stage for the chief priests and elders’ challenge to Jesus’ authority? Why might these actions have threatened the religious leaders?
  2. Exegetical Analysis: Why do the chief priests and elders question Jesus’ authority (Matt. 21:23), and what does their question reveal about their motives and spiritual condition? How does their lack of divine appointment contrast with Jesus’ authority?
  3. Jesus’ Rhetorical Strategy: In Matt. 21:24-25, Jesus responds with a counter-question about John’s baptism. How does this approach demonstrate his wisdom, and why is it effective in exposing the leaders’ hypocrisy?
  4. Doctrinal Continuity: The article lists eight parallels between John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ teachings (e.g., repentance, imminent judgment, obedience). Choose one of these parallels and explain how Jesus fulfills John’s message, citing relevant scriptures from the chart.
  5. Eschatological Significance: How does the article connect John’s and Jesus’ warnings of judgment to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem? What does this fulfillment reveal about the urgency of their messages in the first-century context?
  6. Theological Theme of Authority: How does the article demonstrate that Jesus’ authority is divinely sourced, particularly through John’s testimony and the Father’s declaration (Matt. 3:17)? How does this contrast with the human-derived authority of the religious leaders?
  7. Hypocrisy and Spiritual Blindness: The religious leaders respond, “We don’t know” (Matt. 21:27), to Jesus’ question. What does this response indicate about their spiritual condition, and how does it relate to Matthew’s broader critique of Israel’s leadership (e.g., Matt. 23:13-36)?
  8. John’s Prophetic Role: According to the article, how does John the Baptist serve as a bridge between Old Testament prophets and Jesus’ messianic mission? Provide examples from the chart (e.g., messianic preparation, divine testimony) to support your answer.
  9. Contemporary Application: The article suggests that Matthew 21:23-27 challenges readers to discern true authority. How can modern believers apply this principle when evaluating spiritual or societal leaders? Jesus didn’t go through their schools, yet He won every debate. The disciples were also looked down upon as “un-educated,” yet they “were with Jesus,” taught by Him, and knew the Scriptures better than the established leaders. Most Preterists I know are more educated in the Scriptures than those who have degrees from religious Futurist institutions. Are there any lessons here? What lessons can be drawn from the leaders’ refusal to acknowledge truth and perhaps from Futurist gatekeepers trying to demean Preterists?
  10. Parable of the Two Sons – Narrative Connection: How does the Parable of the Two Sons (Matt. 21:28-32) directly flow from the confrontation in Matt. 21:23-27? In what ways does it build on the leaders’ refusal to acknowledge John’s divine authority, and how does it reinforce the article’s theme of doctrinal continuity between John and Jesus?
  11. Repentance and Obedience in the Parable: In the Parable of the Two Sons, Jesus contrasts the repentance of sinners (tax collectors and prostitutes) with the hypocrisy of the religious leaders (Matt. 21:31-32). How does this parable illustrate the necessity of genuine repentance as taught by both John (Matt. 3:2) and Jesus (Matt. 4:17)? What does it reveal about the “way of righteousness” (Matt. 21:32) and its role in accessing the Kingdom?
  12. Eschatological and Theological Implications of the Parable: The Parable of the Two Sons highlights the inclusion of the marginalized and the exclusion of unrepentant leaders, anticipating the AD 70 judgment and the transfer of the Kingdom (Matt. 21:43). How does this align with John’s and Jesus’ warnings of judgment (e.g., Matt. 3:7; 24:1-34), and what does it suggest about God’s redemptive plan for the repentant, including Gentiles, in the post-AD 70 era?

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70 Part 3: (Matthew 21:17-22) The Cursing of Israel as Fig Tree and Mountain

Introduction

The New Testament reveals a covenantal shift from Old Covenant Israel to the New Covenant people of God—those united in Christ, not ethnicity. This transition is prophetically framed in Jesus’ curse on the fig tree (Matt. 21:18–21) and John’s vision of a burning mountain thrown into the sea (Rev. 8:8). These passages together portray the covenantal termination of apostate Israel and the rise of the matured New Covenant kingdom / nation / people, fulfilled in the events of AD 70.

The Withered Fig Tree: Israel’s Fruitlessness and Judgment (Matthew 21:18–19)

Jesus’ symbolic act of cursing the fig tree for bearing no fruit is more than an object lesson in faith—it is a prophetic indictment against Old Covenant Israel. This tree, leafy but barren, mirrors Israel’s outward religiosity and inner corruption.

“May no fruit ever come from you again.” — Matt. 21:19

Old Testament passages like Jeremiah 8:13, Hosea 9:10–16, and Micah 7:1–6 consistently use the fig tree or vineyard as symbols for Israel’s covenant obligation to bear fruit. Their failure, especially in rejecting the Messiah, culminates in covenantal judgment.

This episode occurred during Passion Week, reinforcing its link with imminent judgment. As others have observed, the fig tree’s withering forecasts Jerusalem’s destruction and the definitive end of the Old Covenant order.

The Transfer of the Kingdom (Matthew 21:43–45)

“The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its  fruit.” — Matt. 21:43

Jesus speaks plainly here. The kingdom is taken from ethnic Israel and given to the New Covenant Church, described in 1 Peter 2:9–10 as a chosen nation and royal priesthood—fulfilling Israel’s intended identity (cf. Exod. 19:5–6). Paul calls this body “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), where Jew and Gentile are united by faith (Eph. 2:11–22).

Jesus’ curse is final—”no fruit ever again”—directly contradicting Dispensational Zionist expectations of a future national restoration and fruit-bearing. Instead, God’s promises pass to a spiritual body defined not by blood, but by belief.

The Mountain Cast into the Sea: Imprecatory Prayer and Covenant Collapse (Matthew 21:20–22)

Jesus follows the fig tree curse with a declaration about moving mountains:

“If you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen.” — Matt. 21:21

 “This mountain” likely refers to the Temple Mount—the symbolic and literal center of Israel’s religious system. As in Jeremiah 51:25 and Zechariah 4:7, mountains represent kingdoms or nations. Jesus authorizes His disciples to pray imprecatory prayers of covenantal judgment, just as the psalmists and prophets once did.

These prayers echo into Revelation:

“How long, O Lord… will You not judge and avenge our blood?” — Rev. 6:10

“The smoke of the incense… with the prayers of the saints, went up… and the angel took the censer… and threw it to the earth…” — Rev. 8:3–5

The prayers of the persecuted church—especially under Jewish persecution (cf. Acts 7:58–8:3; 1 Thess. 2:14–16)—become a catalyst for the trumpet judgments that follow. 

Revelation 8:8 – A Burning Mountain Cast into the Sea

“The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea…” — Rev. 8:8

This vivid image recalls Matthew 21:21, but also draws from Jeremiah 51:25 where Babylon, a “destroying mountain,” is cast down in fiery judgment. Jerusalem is the new Babylon (cf. Rev. 11:8; 17:5–6), guilty of persecuting the saints and rejecting the Lamb.

Deuteronomy 32:20–24, the “Song of Moses,” not only foretells a fiery judgment and scattering for Israel’s rebellion in her last days, but a new “nation” emerging from it. Revelation, by invoking this imagery, affirms the end of the Old Covenant order.

And he said, “I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be,
for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness. They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols.   So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth/land and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the         mountains. “‘And I will heap disasters upon them; I will spend my arrows on them; they shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured by plague and poisonous pestilence; I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with the venom of things that crawl in the dust.

Symbol Old Testament Reference New Testament Application Fulfillment in AD 70
Fig Tree with no fruit Jer. 8:13; Hos. 9:10; Mic. 7:1 Matt. 21:18–19 – Israel’s fruitlessness Withering = removal of covenant role
Mountain cast into sea Jer. 51:25; Zech. 4:7 Matt. 21:21 – Judgment on Jerusalem Temple destroyed, city cast into judgment
Burning mountain into sea Jer. 51:25; Deut. 32:22 Rev. 8:8 – Jerusalem as Babylon Roman siege, Temple and city burned
Kingdom taken and given Dan. 7:18, 22, 27 Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rms. 9:6—11:27 – Church inherits kingdom Church as spiritual Israel after AD 70
Imprecatory prayers for justice Ps. 79, 83; Deut. 32:43 Rev. 6:10 – prayer would be fulfilled in a “little while” and described Rev. 8:3–5,8 Judgment falls on persecuting Jerusalem leadership

Conclusion: The New Covenant Fruit-Bearing Nation

The judgment scenes of Matthew 21 and Revelation 8 dramatize the same covenantal reality: Israel, once chosen, has rejected the Messiah and is judged. Its leadership, Temple, and sacrificial system are swept away in AD 70, just as Jesus and the prophets warned. But out of that judgment arises a new people/nation—those in Christ, who bear fruit by faith, not lineage.

The old covenant national fig tree will not bear forth fruit “ever again.” The old covenant mountain has been thrown down. The fire has consumed the old order. And the New Jerusalem—the Church—Mount Zion has been established and the nations steam to her for eternal life.

Study Questions

  1. What does the fig tree symbolize in the context of Matthew 21:18–19, and how do Old Testament texts (Jer. 8:13, Hos. 9:10, Mic. 7:1–6) help interpret Jesus’ prophetic action?
  2. Why is Jesus’ declaration—“May no fruit ever come from you again”—so significant in the context of covenant theology and eschatology? What implications does it have for Dispensational expectations of a future restored national Israel?
  3. How does Matthew 21:43’s transfer of the kingdom relate to Daniel 7:18, 22, 27 and 1 Peter 2:9–10? Who are the “people” or “nation” to whom the kingdom is given?
  4. In Matthew 21:21, Jesus speaks of a mountain being cast into the sea. What does “this mountain” refer to, and how does this connect with the judgment imagery of the Temple and Jerusalem?
  5. What is the significance of imprecatory prayer in this context (cf. Matt. 21:22; Rev. 6:10; Rev. 8:3–5)? How does the New Testament depict the early church participating in God’s covenantal judgment through prayer?  How long until they would be answered per Revelation 6:10-11?
  6. Compare Jeremiah 51:25 (Babylon as a “destroying mountain”) with Revelation 8:8. How does the Preterist interpretation understand Jerusalem becoming the new “Babylon”?  What exegetical evidence can you gather from within Revelation itself and Matthew 23 that Babylon is old covenant Jerusalem?
  7. How does the imagery of the burning mountain in Revelation 8:8 parallel the prophecy of Deuteronomy 32:20–24? What does this tell us about the consistency of covenant judgment from Moses to Revelation?
  8. According to Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11–22; Romans 9-11 how is the definition of “Israel” redefined in the New Covenant? Why is this important in understanding God’s ongoing redemptive plan post-AD 70?
  9. In what way does the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 fulfill Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:34 and the time indicators in Revelation (1:1; 6:10-11; 22:6-10, 20)? Why is this timing central to understanding Matthew 21:18-22?
  10. How does the final image of a fruit-bearing New Covenant people challenge modern views of prophetic fulfillment? What practical and theological applications arise from understanding the Church as the New Jerusalem?

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 2: (Matthew 21:12-17) – The High Priest Inspects the Temple and Declares it Unclean Doomed for Destruction

In Matthew 21:12–17, Jesus enters the temple as the true High Priest, confronting its corruption and pronouncing its impending judgment. His actions echo the prophetic warnings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, fulfilling the priestly inspection ritual of Leviticus 14:33–53 and signaling the end of the old covenant temple system. By quoting Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, Jesus condemns the temple’s defilement while pointing to its intended purpose as a “house of prayer for all nations.” Through His healings and the children’s praise (vv. 14–17), He establishes true worship, fulfilling Isaiah 56:3–8’s vision of a Messianic Temple that includes Gentiles and outcasts. This passage marks a pivotal transition from the corrupt physical temple, destroyed in AD 70, to the new covenant “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:4–5), where God dwells among His people.

The Context of Corruption

Under Caiaphas, the High Priest, the temple’s Court of the Gentiles had been transformed into a marketplace for sacrificial animals, displacing its role as a space for Gentile prayer and worship. This commercialization, moved from the Kidron Valley to the temple courts, symbolized the leadership’s hypocrisy and exclusionary practices, prioritizing profit over God’s universal purpose. Jesus’ actions in Matthew 21:12–17 directly challenge this corruption, asserting His authority as the true High Priest who will judge the old system and gather a righteous remnant, including Gentiles, into the Messianic Temple.

The Debate Over Two Cleansings

Scholars have long debated whether Jesus cleansed the temple once or twice in the Gospels. Some argue that John’s account (John 2:13–17) is placed early in Jesus’ ministry for theological reasons, suggesting a single cleansing. Others, including James B. Jordan, contend that Jesus performed two cleansings: one at the beginning of His ministry (John 2:13–17, ca. AD 30) and another at its end (Matt. 21:12–17; Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45–48, ca. AD 33). Jordan’s insight, rooted in Leviticus 14:33–53, provides a compelling explanation: Jesus acts as the High Priest inspecting a house for “leprous disease” (corruption). The first cleansing (John 2) is the initial inspection, removing corrupt elements (money changers, merchants). The second cleansing (Matt. 21) is the follow-up, finding persistent corruption and declaring the temple unfit, fulfilled in its destruction in AD 70.[1]

Leviticus 14: The Priestly Inspection

Leviticus 14:33–53 outlines a priest’s procedure for inspecting a house suspected of leprosy (likely mold or corruption). The priest examines the house, removes affected materials, and returns after seven days. If the corruption persists, the house is declared unclean and torn down stone by stone. Jordan interprets the temple as the “house” and Jesus as the High Priest. In John 2:13–17, Jesus’ first cleansing removes the corrupt merchants, inspecting the temple’s spiritual state. In Matthew 21:12–17, His second cleansing confirms ongoing corruption, pronouncing judgment (Matt. 24:2: “not one stone will be left upon another”), fulfilled when the Romans leveled the temple in AD 70.

Matthew 21:12–13: Judgment on the Corrupt Temple

In Matthew 21:12–13, Jesus enters the temple, drives out the buyers and sellers, and overturns the tables of the money changers, disrupting the exploitative commerce that defiled the Gentile courts. He quotes Isaiah 56:7—“My house shall be called a house of prayer”—to recall the temple’s purpose as a place of universal worship, and Jeremiah 7:11—“but you have made it a den of robbers”—to condemn its corruption. These citations frame Jesus’ actions within a prophetic and eschatological context.

Isaiah 56 Context: Isaiah 56:3–8 envisions a new covenant era where Gentiles and outcasts, such as eunuchs and the disabled, are welcomed into the Messianic Temple, fulfilling its role as a “house of prayer for all nations.”  Eunuchs, previously excluded from temple worship (cf. Deut. 23:1), will not only gain access but receive a “lasting legacy” through spiritual children, produced by preaching the gospel and inviting others into the new covenant temple (Rev. 21:16; 22:2, 17). This vision may have informed the discussion between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–39, where Isaiah 53–56’s promises of inclusion are realized. However, this salvation follows God’s judgment on Jerusalem’s false shepherds (Isa. 56:9–12). Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7 in Matthew 21:13 signals His initiation of this eschatological inclusion while pronouncing judgment on the corrupt temple system, paving the way for the new covenant “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:4–5).

Jeremiah 7 Context: Jeremiah’s “Temple Sermon” (Jer. 7:1–15, ca. 609–605 BC) warned Judah of the temple’s destruction for idolatry, injustice, and hypocrisy, calling it a “den of robbers” (Jer. 7:11). Despite their false trust in the temple’s presence, God destroyed it through the Babylonians in 586 BC (2 Kings 25:8–17). Jesus’ use of Jeremiah 7:11 links the Second Temple’s corruption under Caiaphas to the First Temple’s, foreshadowing its destruction in AD 70 by the Romans under Titus.

Jesus’ actions in verses 12–13, as High Priest, fulfill the Leviticus 14 pattern: He inspects the temple, finds it unclean, and symbolically declares its doom, aligning with the typological judgment of 586 BC. 

Matthew 21:14–17: Restoration of True Worship

Following the cleansing (vv. 12–13), Jesus immediately enacts the temple’s true purpose in verses 14–17, shifting from judgment to restoration. These verses contrast the corrupt leadership’s exclusionary practices with Jesus’ inclusive ministry, fulfilling Isaiah 56:3–8 and establishing the new covenant kingdom/temple.

Healing the Blind and Lame (v. 14): Jesus heals the blind and lame in the temple courts, welcoming those often excluded from full temple access due to ritual purity laws (cf. Lev. 21:17–23). This act fulfills Isaiah 56:3–8, which promises that outcasts (e.g., eunuchs, foreigners) will be included in God’s house. By healing in the Gentile courts, Jesus restores the temple’s purpose as a “house of prayer for all nations,” directly countering Caiaphas’ commercialization that marginalized Gentiles. The healings signify Jesus’ messianic authority to create a space where all can encounter God, prefiguring the new covenant community where physical and social barriers are removed (Gal. 3:28).

Children’s Praise (vv. 15–16): The children’s cries of “Hosanna to the Son of David” recognize Jesus as the Messianic King, prompting indignation from the chief priests and scribes. Jesus defends their praise by quoting Psalm 8:2: “Out of the mouth of babes and infants, you have established strength.” This affirms the purity of worship offered by the lowly, contrasting the religious leaders’ rejection. The children’s praise fulfills Isaiah 56:3–8’s vision of a remnant worshiping in the Messianic Temple, pointing to the new covenant community where true worshippers honor God (John 4:23–24).

Contrast with Leadership: The chief priests’ objection (v. 15) mirrors the hypocrisy condemned in Jeremiah 7:11, as they reject Jesus’ authority just as Judah’s leaders ignored Jeremiah’s warnings. The inclusion of outcasts (blind, lame) and children contrasts sharply with the temple’s “den of robbers” state (v. 13), highlighting Jesus’ role as the true High Priest who purifies worship and gathers the righteous remnant and Gentiles.

Eschatological Fulfillment: Verses 14–17 enact Isaiah 56:3–8’s eschatology, where the Messianic Temple becomes a perfect cubed Most Holy Place (Rev. 21:16) through the gospel’s spread (Rev. 22:2, 17). The healings and praise prefigure the new covenant kingdom/temple, where God dwells in His people post-AD 70, replacing the unclean physical temple (Lev. 14:33–53). This shift fulfills the judgment of Jerusalem’s false shepherds (Isa. 56:9–12) and the gathering of all nations into God’s house.

The flow from verses 12–13 (judgment, cleansing) to verses 14–17 (restoration, inclusion) demonstrates Jesus’ dual role as High Priest: He condemns the old temple’s corruption and establishes true worship in the new covenant community. The Leviticus 14 framework underscores this transition: the temple, found persistently unclean, is marked for destruction (AD 70), while verses 14–17 point to the “spiritual house” where God’s presence dwells (1 Pet. 2:4–5).

Typological Parallels: 586 BC [Jewish Calendar 420 BC] and AD 70

Jesus’ actions in Matthew 21:12–17 parallel the prophetic warnings and judgments of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, linking the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple (586 BC) to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple (AD 70). The following chart summarizes these typological connections, highlighting the continuity of divine judgment and the establishment of true worship:

586 BC / 420 BC [Jewish Calendar] (Babylonian Judgment)

AD 70 (Roman Judgment)
(1) Jeremiah’s sermon warns of judgment for idolatry, injustice (Jer. 7:1–15; 609–605 BC). (1) Jesus’ cleansing, Jer. 7:11 quote warn of judgment for corruption (Matt. 21:12–17; AD 30–33).
(2) Idolatry, oppression, false trust defile temple (Jer. 7:4–11). (2) Exploitation, hypocrisy by leaders corrupt temple (Matt. 21:12–13).
(3) Temple named “den of robbers” for moral decay (Jer. 7:11). (3) Jesus calls temple “den of robbers” for abuse (Matt. 21:13).
(4) God uses Babylonians to destroy temple, fulfilling prophecy (Jer. 7:14–15; 2 Kings 25:8–17). (4) Jesus predicts Roman destruction by Titus, fulfilled (Matt. 24:1–2; Jewish War).
(5) Temple falls in 586 BC (~420 BC Jewish date), in Av; starts Daniel’s 490 years (Dan. 9:24–27). (5) Temple falls in AD 70, in Av; fulfills Daniel’s 490 years (Matt. 24:1-34; Jewish War 6.4.5).
(6) Exile to Babylon disciplines covenant people (Jer. 7:15). (6) Old covenant ends; Jews go into Roman slavery; spiritual new covenant house matures (1 Pet. 2:4–5; Rev. 21:16).
(7) Jeremiah inspects temple, finds it unclean; Babylonians raze it (Jer. 7:1–15; 2 Kings 25:9). (7) Jesus, High Priest, inspects, cleanses temple twice; Romans raze it (John 2:13–17; Matt. 21:12–17; 22:7; Lev. 14).
(8) Innocent blood shed, defiling temple, land (Jer. 7:6; 22:3). (8) Righteous blood shed, e.g., Zechariah; Zealots’ continue murdering (Matt. 23:35; Jewish War 4.297–314).
(9) God comes “soon” and “would not delay” upon the clouds to tread Judah for 3 years within ~19–23 years of contemporary audience (Jer. 4:13; Lam. 1:15; Ezek. 7:7–8; 12:22-23, 25; 30:3). (9) Christ comes “soon” and “would not delay” upon the clouds to tread Jerusalem for 3 ½ yeas within ~37–40 years of contemporary audience (Matt. 24:30-34; Lk. 21:27-24; Rev. 1:3, 7; 11:2-8; 14:17-20; 22:7, 10, 20).
(10) Stars fall, heavens darken = civil and religious rulers collapse (Ezek. 32:7–8; Isa. 34:4). (10) Stars fall, heavens shaken = civil and religious rulers fall and end (Matt. 24:29; Rev. 6:12–14).
(11) Temple’s fall mourned on Tisha B’Av for unfaithfulness (Mishnah Taanit 4:6). (11) Temple’s fall mourned on Tisha B’Av for judgment (Talmud Yoma 9b).
(12) Post-exile worship fails to include outcasts, Gentiles (Isa. 56:3–8; Ezra 9–10). (12) Jesus heals outcasts, children praise; true worship rises (Matt. 21:14–17; Ps. 8:2).

The Typological Flow

The chart illustrates the parallels between 586 BC and AD 70, showing Jesus’ actions as the culmination of Old Testament prophecies (cf. Luke 21:22). Rows (1–3) highlight the warnings and corruption leading to judgment, with Jesus’ quotation of Jeremiah 7:11 tying the “den of robbers” motif. Rows (4–5) and (9–10) detail the divine judgment through human agents (Babylonians / Romans – using imminence language literally and consistently “soon” “will not delay”) trampling, and de-creation imagery, fulfilled in the temple’s fall. Rows (6–7) and (12) emphasize the transition from exile/old temple to the new covenant “spiritual house,” with Jesus’ priestly actions (Lev. 14) and restoration of worship (Matt. 21:14–17) fulfilling Isaiah 56:3–8. The healings and children’s praise (row 12) contrast the post-exilic failure to include outcasts, showing Jesus’ establishment of the Messianic Temple where Gentiles, the marginalized and unclean can be made clean and worship freely.

Conclusion

Matthew 21:12–17 presents Jesus as the true High Priest, inspecting the temple per Leviticus 14, condemning its corruption (vv. 12–13), and restoring its purpose through healings and praise (vv. 14–17). By quoting Jeremiah 7:11 and Isaiah 56:7, Jesus links the Second Temple’s fate to the First Temple’s destruction in 586 BC, fulfilled in AD 70. The healings of the blind and lame and the children’s cries of “Hosanna” fulfill Isaiah 56:3–8, welcoming outcasts and Gentiles into the new covenant kingdom/temple, a perfect cubed Most Holy Place (Rev. 21:16). This passage underscores the end of the old covenant system and the rise of a new spiritual house, where God dwells in His people post-AD 70, fulfilling the eschatological hope of universal worship. 

Study Questions for Matthew 21:12–17 

  1. What does Jesus’ cleansing of the temple in Matthew 21:12–13 reveal about His authority as the true High Priest compared to Caiaphas, and how does this align with the priestly role in Leviticus 14:33–53?
  2. How does Jesus’ quotation of Jeremiah 7:11 (“den of robbers”) in Matthew 21:13 connect the corruption of the Second Temple to the First Temple’s state before its destruction in 586 BC?
  3. In what ways does Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 56:7 (“house of prayer”) in Matthew 21:13 reflect the temple’s intended purpose, and how does this contrast with Caiaphas’ commercialization of the Gentile courts?
  4. Why is it significant that Jesus heals the blind and lame in the temple courts (Matt. 21:14), and how does this fulfill the eschatological vision of Isaiah 56:3–8 for including outcasts and Gentiles?
  5. What does the children’s praise of “Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matt. 21:15–16) reveal about Jesus’ messianic identity, and how does His quotation of Psalm 8:2 affirm the purity of their worship?
  6. How do the chief priests’ and scribes’ indignation in Matthew 21:15 contrast with the actions of the blind, lame, and children, and what does this suggest about the state of temple leadership?
  7. How does the flow from judgment (Matt. 21:12–13) to restoration (Matt. 21:14–17) in this passage reflect the transition from the old covenant temple to the new covenant “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:4–5)?
  8. According to James B. Jordan’s interpretation, why is it significant that Jesus cleansed the temple twice (John 2:13–17; Matt. 21:12–17), and how does this mirror the two inspections in Leviticus 14?
  9. How do the typological parallels in the chart (e.g., rows 7, 9, 12) between the 586 BC and AD 70 temple destructions enhance our understanding of Jesus’ actions as High Priest in Matthew 21:12–17?
  10. What does the trampling imagery (row 9: Jer. 4:13; Lam. 1:15; Luke 21:24) signify about God’s judgment in both 586 BC and AD 70, and how does it relate to Jesus’ pronouncement in Matthew 21:12–13?
  11. How does the de-creation imagery of “stars falling” (row 10: Ezek. 32:7–8; Isa. 34:4; Matt. 24:29) symbolize the collapse of rulers in both 586 BC and AD 70, and how does this connect to the temple’s fate?
  12. Why did the post-exilic community fail to fully include outcasts and Gentiles in worship (row 12: Isa. 56:3–8; Ezra 9–10), and how does Jesus’ ministry in Matthew 21:14–17 correct this failure?
  13. How does the mourning on Tisha B’Av (row 11: Mishnah Taanit 4:6; Talmud Yoma 9b) reflect the shared significance of the temple destructions in 586 BC and AD 70, and what does this suggest about covenant unfaithfulness?
  14. What role does the 490-year prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27 (row 5) play in linking the 586 BC (~420 BC Jewish date) and AD 70 temple destructions, and how does Jesus’ prophecy (Matt. 24) fulfill this?
  15. How does Matthew 21:12–17, as a whole, illustrate the shift from the physical temple to the new covenant kingdom/temple (Rev. 21:16), and what implications does this have for worship today?

[1] James B. Jordan, a 2004 article, “Jesus and the Holy House: A Study in Temple Cleansing,” published through Biblical Horizons.  This is difficult to find online after Jordan’s stroke.

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 1:  The Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:1–11) – Jesus as the Greater Alexander, Solomon, and Nehemiah

Introduction: A Messianic Spectacle

Having completed a five-part series demonstrating that, prior to Matthew 24-25, Jesus taught His second coming would occur within the lifetime and generation of the first-century church (cf. Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 23:39; 26:63-65; Luke 17:20-37), I believe it would be beneficial to undertake a series on Matthew 21-22. This series will show that the eschatology in these chapters also points to an AD 70 fulfillment. This approach will provide a comprehensive context before exegeting Matthew 24-25.

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–11), He is bringing in the minds of His audience the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, Isaiah 62:11, and Psalm 118, enacting a prophetic drama that fulfilled Jewish Messianic hopes for a believing righteous remnant according to the Scriptures. Far from a military conqueror like Alexander the Great, a temporal king like Solomon, or a civic restorer like Nehemiah, Jesus entered as the humble King of Peace, inaugurating a spiritual New Covenant Kingdom. Matthew portrays Him as surpassing these Old Testament types, establishing an eternal Temple and peace through His suffering and judgment in AD 70. This entry marks the climax of Old Covenant history, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the rise of Christ’s everlasting kingdom.

Isaiah 62:11

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus’ triumphal entry fulfills a conflation of Zechariah 9:9 (“Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey”) and Isaiah 62:11 (“Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your salvation comes’”).  Isaiah 62 is rich with eschatological imagery:

  • Wedding motifs (vv. 4–5): God’s covenant love restores Israel, likened to a bride.
  • New Jerusalem (v. 7): A restored city with open gates (v. 10) and a highway for the redeemed.
  • Second exodus typology: Some interpret Isaiah 62 as foreshadowing the return from exile back into the land under Ezra and Nehemiah, which typifies the ultimate redemption and or “gathering” “in Christ,” the Messiah [not “in the land”].  “In the land” vs. “in Christ” is the covenantal shift between the old and new covenants.  Here Jesus is a greater Cyrus, Ezra, and Nehemiah that produces the true and everlasting restoration between man and God.  In Zechariah 9 Jesus is the greater Alexander.

Eschatological judgment and salvation:

Isaiah 62:11’s “reward” and “recompense” suggest Christ’s coming to save the remnant and judge the wicked, which you connect to both His first coming and the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem as a second coming in judgment (cf. Matt. 16:27-28):

  • “Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him” (Isa. 62:11)
  • “For the Son of Man is about to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.  Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:27-28)

This context frames the triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1–11) and the temple cleansing (Matthew 21:12–17) as eschatologically charged events. Jesus’ actions signal not only His humble first coming but also the impending judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, aligning with the Messiah coming to grant “salvation” and “recompense” of Isaiah 62:11. The next event of Jesus cleansing the temple, as a priestly act, could thus be seen as part of this judgment, inspecting and condemning the corrupt “house” (temple) in which if unclean, not one stone would be left upon another per Leviticus 14:33–53.

Zechariah 9: Historical and Prophetic Context

Zechariah 9:1–8 traces a military campaign from Damascus to Philistia, mirroring Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Levant (333–332 BC). Jerusalem is spared: “I will encamp at my house as a guard, so that none shall march to and fro” (Zech. 9:8). Josephus recounts Alexander’s peaceful entry into Jerusalem, guided by a dream and the High Priest’s presentation of Daniel’s prophecy, where he offered sacrifices in the Temple.[1] This historical type prefigures Jesus, the true King, who enters humbly to fulfill Zechariah 9:9: “Your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey.”

Jesus as the Greater Alexander 

Alexander’s entry into Jerusalem, marked by military might yet divine restraint, foreshadows Jesus’ Triumphal Entry. Both are linked to Daniel’s prophecies: Alexander as the Greek king (Dan. 8, 11) and Jesus as the Son of Man (Dan. 7, 9). However, their aims differ. Alexander honored the Temple physically; Jesus cleansed it spiritually, declaring Himself the true Temple (John 2:19–21). Alexander’s empire crumbled; Jesus’ kingdom endures (Isa. 9:7). Some see the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11–27) as reinforcing this typology: like Alexander, Jesus departs to receive a kingdom, entrusts stewards, and returns to judge opponents, fulfilling the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matt. 24:30–34).

Parallels Between Jesus and Alexander the Great

Category Alexander the Great (Type) Jesus Christ (Antitype)
Prophetic Background Zechariah 9:1–8 describes his military conquest and sparing of Jerusalem. Zechariah 9:9 describes Him entering Jerusalem on a donkey as the true Messianic King.
Entrance into Jerusalem Approached with armies but pacified by the High Priest in colorful garments due to a dream. Approached with 12 disciples, rode a pure donkey, cleansed the Temple, and pronounced judgment (Matt. 21:1–13).
Reception in Jerusalem Honored the high priest, entered the Temple, offered sacrifice, shown Daniel’s prophecy. Greeted with “Hosanna” (Ps. 118), cleansed the Temple, declared judgment (Matt. 21:9–13).
Claim to Divinity Called “Son of Zeus,” depicted as a sun god, falsely claimed divine status. Truly the Son of God, Sun of Righteousness, humbled Himself, exalted by the Father (Mal. 4:2; Matt. 24:27 AENT; Luke 17:24 AFV; Phil. 2:5–11;).
Age at Death Died at 32–33 after rapid conquest of the known world. Crucified at 33, rose and came in AD 70 to conquer sin, death, and the Law, establishing an eternal kingdom (Isa. 9:7; 1 Cor. 15:54–57; Ephs. 3:20-21).
Role in Daniel’s Prophecy Daniel 8, 11: King of Greece who defeats Persia, a temporal ruler. Daniel 7:13-27, 9:24-27; 12:7: Son of Man is worshiped by nations, bestows kingdom to saints, and judges apostate Jerusalem through Romans (AD 67-70).
Legacy Empire fractured after death, a temporal legacy. Eternal spiritual kingdom grows through the Church (Isa. 9:7; Dan. 2:44; Rev. 22:2, 17).
Temple Interaction Offered sacrifices in the Temple, honoring its sanctity (Josephus, Antiquities11.8.5). Cleansed the Temple, establishing Himself as the true Temple (John 2:19–21; Matt. 21:12–13).

Parallels Between Jesus, Alexander, and the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11–27)

Theme Alexander the Great (Type) Parable of the Minas (Luke 19) Jesus Christ (Antitype)
Prophetic Background Zechariah 9:1–8: Conquest; Jerusalem spared. Implied Danielic judgment and kingdom themes. Zechariah 9:9; Daniel 7, 9, 12: King on a donkey, Son of Man judging Jerusalem (AD 70).
Departure to Receive Kingdom Left Macedonia to conquer Persia, claiming dominion. Nobleman goes to a far country to receive a kingdom (v.12). Ascended to the Father, received eternal kingdom as eternal Priest/King, returned in judgment in AD 70 (Ps. 110 / Dan. 7:13 = Matt. 26:63-65).
Entrance into Jerusalem Approached with armies, pacified by High Priest in bright robes. Not specified; metaphorical royal return. Rode a pure donkey, cleansed Temple, pronounced judgment (Matt. 21:1–13).
Reception in Jerusalem Honored priesthood, shown Daniel’s prophecy. Citizens reject the nobleman (v.14). Greeted with “Hosanna,” later rejected by leaders (Matt. 21:9; John 19:15).
Rejection by Some Tyre, Gaza resisted; faced destruction. Citizens say, “We do not want this man to reign” (v.14). Jewish leaders: “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).
Judgment upon Return Destroyed resistant cities (Tyre, Gaza). Enemies slaughtered (v.27). Judged Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matt. 23:36–39; 24-25; 26:63-65; Luke 21:20–24).
Stewardship During Absence Installed satraps to maintain order. Servants entrusted with minas (v.13). Entrusted disciples with the Gospel (Matt. 28:18–20).
Reward for Faithfulness Gave lands to loyal generals (Ptolemy, Seleucus). Faithful servants rule cities (v.17). Rewards disciples with kingdom roles (Matt. 25:21; Rev. 2:26).
Type of Kingdom Temporal, divided after death. Earthly metaphor for heavenly reign. Everlasting spiritual kingdom “within” hearts of His people (Luke 17:20ff.; John 18:36; Heb. 12:28).
Legacy Empire dissolved; historical fame. Warns of reward or judgment based on stewardship. Kingdom expands & is without end (Isa. 9:7; Matt. 28:18–20; Rev. 22:2, 17).

Jesus as the Greater Solomon

Solomon, the son of David, rode a mule at his coronation (1 Kings 1:33–38), symbolizing covenantal succession. Jesus, riding a pure donkey (Zech. 9:9), fulfills Genesis 49:10–11 and surpasses Solomon’s reign. Solomon’s 40-year rule brought political peace and a physical Temple (1 Kings 4:24–25; 6). Jesus, “greater than Solomon” (Matt. 12:42), offers spiritual peace, freeing souls from sin (Rom. 5:1), and builds a living Temple with Himself as the Cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:4–5). Like Solomon, Jesus reigned over Old Covenant Israel for approximately 40 years (AD 30–70, from His death and resurrection to the fall of Jerusalem), but His everlasting rule continues (Dan. 2:44; Heb. 1:8). While Solomon’s wisdom and wealth drew the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10:1–10), Jesus’ divine wisdom and universal kingship attract all nations (Matt. 2:1–12; 28:19).

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Solomon

Category Solomon (Type) Jesus Christ (Antitype)
Kingship Anointed as David’s heir, rode a mule to assert succession (1 Kings 1:33–38). Rode a pure donkey, fulfilling Davidic prophecy as the eternal King (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:5).
Peace Reigned in political peace for 40 years, no major wars (1 Kings 4:24–25). Brings spiritual peace to remnant from AD 30-70 in reconciling man to God, surpassing Solomon’s peace (John 14:27; 16:33; Rom. 5:1).
Temple Role Built the physical Temple, a house for God’s presence (1 Kings 6). Establishes the spiritual Temple as the Cornerstone, with believers as living stones (Matt. 21:42-45; John 2:19; 1 Pet. 2:4–5).
Wisdom and Global Recognition Renowned for wisdom, attracting foreign rulers like the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 4:29–34; 10:1–10). Greater than Solomon, embodying divine wisdom, acknowledged by Gentiles (Magi, centurion) (Matt. 12:42; 2:1–12; 8:5–13; Col. 2:3).
Reign Duration Ruled Israel for 40 years (1 Kings 11:42). Reigned over Old Covenant Israel for 40 years (AD 30–70) through His death, resurrection, and judgment; His everlasting rule continues (Heb. 1:8; Dan. 2:44).
Prophetic Connection Foreshadowed as a son of David building God’s house (2 Sam. 7:12–13). Fulfills the Davidic covenant as the eternal Son, building the true Temple (Acts 2:29–36).
Wealth and Glory Known for wealth, gold, and splendor (1 Kings 10:14–21). His blood more valuable than gold and silver, gives faith which is also more valuable than gold and silver, brings spiritual riches, offering eternal inheritance (1 Pet. 1:7, 18-18; Eph. 1:18; 2:8-10; Rev. 3:18).
Judgment Judged idolatry in Israel, leading to division (1 Kings 11:9–13). Judges apostate Israel or Jerusalem in AD 70, establishing the New Covenant Jerusalem or Nation (Matt. 21:43-45; 23:36–24:34; Rev. 19-22).
Royal Entry Rode a mule in a public coronation (1 Kings 1:38–40). Rode a pure donkey in a humble, prophetic entry (Zech. 9:9/Matt. 21:1–11).
Sacrifice and Worship Dedicated the Temple with massive sacrifices (1 Kings 8:62–63). He is the true Temple and offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, inaugurating the New Covenant (John 1:29; Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:11–14).

Jesus as the Greater Nehemiah

My good friend Robert Cruickshank believes Zechariah 9:11-12 is referring to Israel coming back into the land under the restoration leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah.[2]  Per Robert’s view, I’m not sure how Zechariah 9 moves from the historical context of Alexander the Great’s conquests and his interaction with Jerusalem around 333–332 BC in verses 1–8 to the restoration themes tied to Ezra and Nehemiah’s time, roughly 458–424 BC, in verses 11–12.  But I’d love for you to check out my friend’s article for his perspective on Zechariah 9:11-12.  On the chance there is a connection here, we should note, theologians and commentators have long seen Nehemiah, the covenantal leader who rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls and restored its worship (Neh. 1–6, 13), as a type of Christ. James Hamilton nails this in his book Exalting Jesus in Ezra and Nehemiah (2014), showing how Nehemiah’s work points to Jesus’ Triumphal Entry (Matt. 21:1–11), where He rides in on a donkey to establish His New Covenant Kingdom.[3] Nehemiah’s humble service, despite opposition from Sanballat and Tobiah (Neh. 4:1–3), parallels Jesus’ entry on a donkey, symbolizing peaceful covenant restoration (Zech. 9:9). Nehemiah cleansed the Temple (Neh. 13:4–9); Jesus did so spiritually, declaring Himself the true Temple (Matt. 21:12–13). While Nehemiah rebuilt physical walls, Jesus builds the spiritual Jerusalem—the Church—as “living stones” (1 Pet. 2:4–5). The donkey, a “covenant donkey” tied to ratification ceremonies,[4] underscores Jesus’ role in ratifying the New Covenant through His blood (Matt. 26:28), surpassing Nehemiah’s temporal renewal.

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Nehemiah   

Category Nehemiah (Type) Jesus Christ (Antitype)
Leadership Humbly served as governor to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls and restore covenant worship (Neh. 2:17–18; 10). Enters on a donkey as humble King, establishing the New Covenant through His death (Zech. 9:9; Heb. 9:15).
Temple Cleansing Cleansed the Temple of abuses, restoring its sanctity (Neh. 13:4–9). Cleansed the Temple, declaring Himself the true Temple (Matt. 21:12–13; John 2:19–21).
Opposition and Mockery Faced ridicule from Sanballat and Tobiah (Neh. 4:1–3) and plots against his life (Neh. 6:2–7). Faced mockery during entry and crucifixion (Matt. 21:15; 27:42), yet completed His work (John 19:30).
Restoration of Jerusalem Rebuilt physical walls, securing the city for God’s people (Neh. 6:15–16). Builds spiritual Jerusalem (the Church) as “living stones” (1 Pet. 2:4–5; Heb. 12:22–24).
Covenant Symbolism Leadership reflects covenant renewal, aligned with the “covenant donkey” tradition (Neh. 10; Gen. 49:11). Rides a pure donkey, ratifying the New Covenant through His blood (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 26:28).
Weeping Over Jerusalem Wept over Jerusalem’s ruin, seeking its restoration (Neh. 1:4). Wept over Jerusalem, foreseeing its judgment (Luke 19:41–44; Matt. 23:37–39).
Completion of Work Completed the wall despite opposition, renewing the covenant (Neh. 6:15; 10:28–29). Declared “It is finished,” establishing the New Covenant despite opposition (John 19:30; Heb. 9:15).

The Royal Donkey: A Theological Symbol 

Ken Way argues that Zechariah 9:9’s donkey is a “purebred son of a jenny,” not a youthful colt, emphasizing royal purity over Solomon’s mule, a hybrid symbolizing temporal rule.[5] Jesus’ donkey ride signals a humble, spiritual kingship, fulfilling the Davidic promise of an eternal kingdom (2 Sam. 7:12–13) and the “covenant donkey” tradition tied to covenant ratification (Gen. 49:11).[6] Unlike Solomon’s affluent coronation or Nehemiah’s civic restoration, Jesus’ entry prioritizes prophetic fulfillment, aligning with His mission to suffer and redeem (Isa. 53).

Psalm 118: Hosanna and the Cornerstone

The crowd’s cry of “Hosanna” (Matt. 21:9) echoes Psalm 118:25–26, a post-exilic hymn of covenant faithfulness. They hoped for a Temple-restoring Messiah to defeat Rome [possibly using the Temple as fortress as we see in the events of AD 67-70], but Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22–23: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” (Matt. 21:42). He is the true Temple, rejected by Israel’s leaders but chosen by God. Those who stumble in unbelief face judgment, fulfilled in Jerusalem’s fall in AD 70 (Matt. 23:36–39).

Rabbinic Views: A Dual Messiah?

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) wrestles with how to reconcile two well-known Messianic texts and pictures:

Daniel 7:13: One like a Son of Man comes on clouds

Zechariah 9:9: The King comes humbly on a donkey

Some thought these texts could be reconciled as two different Messiah’s coming (Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David) while others theorized:

“If Israel is worthy, He will come on the clouds; if not, humbly on a donkey.”

One Rabbi correctly understood this not describing two different Messiah’s or what kind of Messiahic arrival would take place in Israel if they were faithful or not, but rather:

“Messiah will be both powerfully exalted (‘clouds’) and humbly self-effacing (‘a  donkey’).”[7]

Jesus embodies this duality—entering humbly to suffer (Matt. 21:1–11) and returning in judgment (AD 70, Matt. 16:27-28; Matt. 24:27-30; 25:31). Unlike Alexander’s false divinity, Solomon’s flawed rule, or Nehemiah’s temporal reforms, Jesus is the true Son of God, fulfilling all roles perfectly (2 Cor. 1:20; Phil. 2:5–11).

Conclusion: The King of Peace and Judgment

Jesus’ Triumphal Entry was a prophetic act, surpassing the typologies of Alexander, Solomon, and Nehemiah. As a greater Alexander, He spared Jerusalem temporarily but judged it in AD 70, establishing a spiritual kingdom. As a greater Solomon, He brought eternal peace and built a living Temple. As a greater Nehemiah, He restored the true Jerusalem through His redemptive work. The generation that shouted “Hosanna” witnessed His return in salvation and judgment (Matt. 24:27-34; Luke 21:20-32), proving His kingship is not of this world (John 18:36) but reigns forever (Dan. 2:44) “within” the hearts of His people (Luke 17:20-37).

Study Questions:

  1. Contextual Understanding: What is the main purpose of the article’s series on Matthew 21–22, and how does it relate to the author’s prior work or five part series on Matthew 10:17-23, 16:27-28; 23:39; 26:63-65; and Luke 17:20-37 as paving the contextual setting to understand Matthew 24–25?
  2. Prophetic Fulfillment: How does Jesus’ triumphal entry in Matthew 21:1–11 fulfill the prophecies of Zechariah 9:9, Isaiah 62:11, and Psalm 118, according to the article?
  3. Eschatological Significance: The article connects Jesus’ actions in Matthew 21 (triumphal entry and temple cleansing) to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. How does it argue this connection reflects both salvation and judgment?
  4. Typology of Alexander the Great: In what ways does the article compare and contrast Alexander the Great’s entry into Jerusalem (Zech. 9:1-8) with Jesus’ triumphal entry, and how does Jesus surpass Alexander as the “antitype”?
  5. Parable of the Minas: How does the article use the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11–27) to reinforce the typology between Alexander the Great and Jesus, particularly in terms of judgment and kingdom establishment?
  6. Typology of Solomon: The article describes Jesus as a “greater Solomon.”  In the Jewish mind would there be a connection between Solomon riding on a donkey and Jesus riding on a donkey?  What other specific parallels does it draw between Solomon’s reign and Jesus’ ministry, especially regarding peace, temple, and wisdom?
  7. Typology of Nehemiah: How does the article, referencing Robert Cruickshank and James Hamilton, present Nehemiah as a type of Christ, and what are the key parallels between Nehemiah’s work and Jesus’ triumphal entry?
  8. Theological Symbolism: According to the article, what is the significance of the “royal donkey” in Zechariah 9:9, and how does it reflect Jesus’ kingship compared to Solomon’s mule?  What kind of donkey did Jesus ride? 
  9. Psalm 118 and Hosanna: How does the crowd’s cry of “Hosanna” in Matthew 21:9, linked to Psalm 118, reflect their expectations of the Messiah, and how does Jesus properly define these expectations?
  10. Rabbinic Interpretations: The article mentions the Babylonian Talmud’s discussion of a dual Messiah or dual responses to Messiah (Daniel 7:13 vs. Zechariah 9:9). How does it explain Jesus fulfilling both the “clouds” and “donkey” prophecies?
  11. New Covenant Kingdom: How does the article contrast the temporal achievements of Alexander, Solomon, and Nehemiah with Jesus’ establishment of an eternal, spiritual New Covenant Kingdom?
  12. Critical Reflection: The article claims Jesus’ second coming occurred in AD 70. What evidence does it provide to support this view, and how might this interpretation challenge or align with traditional eschatological perspectives?

[1] Josephus, Antiquities 11.8.5

[2] Robert E. Cruickshank, Jr., Double Restoration and Trouble with Equations:  Pop-Prophecy and Zechariah 9:11-12, 03/01/2025, https://burrosofberea.com/double-restoration-and-trouble-with-equations-pop-prophecy-and-zechariah-911-12/

[3] James M. Hamilton Jr., Exalting Jesus in Ezra and Nehemiah, Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2014), cited in Nick Batzig, “Nehemiah as a Type of Christ,” Feeding on Christ, September 8, 2014, https://feedingonchrist.org/nehemiah-type-christ/.

[4] Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 575–577.

[5] Way, Kenneth C. “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 105–114. Way examines four Biblical terms, three found in Zechariah 9:9—ḥamor, ’ayir, ’aton—and a fourth pērēd in Zechariah 14:15. […] Way believes ben ’atonot is not meant to describe a foal, but rather indicates the animal is a purebred jenny. Then Zechariah 9:9 would describe a single donkey (ḥamor), not any donkey, specifically a jackass (’ayir), and not any jackass, specifically a ben ’atonot, that is, a purebred jackass.

[6] Ibid., Willem A. VanGemeren,

[7] Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 73. Brown cites Jewish traditions that acknowledge both Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13 refer to the same Messiah, depending on Israel’s worthiness—yet some rabbis proposed that both modes would be fulfilled in a single person.

The Coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 Part 5: Matthew 26:63-65 The Messiah Returns – Psalm 110, Daniel 7, and Matthew’s Unified Vision of AD 70

 

After examining Matthew 23 in its immediate context alongside chapters 24–25, it might seem natural to transition directly into the Olivet Discourse. However, given Jesus’ declaration to the religious leaders in Matthew 23:39—that “you will not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’” at one of their feasts—it is worthwhile to pause and consider another critical passage. In this text, Jesus not only reiterates His promise to return within the first century but also emphasizes His judgment upon Israel’s contemporary corrupt leadership once again.

Matthew 26:63-65:

But Jesus remained silent.  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living  God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man [Dan. 7:13] sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One [Ps. 110] and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7;13].” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus consistently applies Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 to Himself. He presents Himself as the divine “Son of Man” riding on the clouds (Dan. 7:13) and as the exalted “Lord” of Psalm 110, seated at the right hand of God and destined to subdue His enemies. He also promises that some among His first-century listeners would live to witness His coming in judgment and glory (cf. Matt. 10:22–23; 16:27–28; 24:30; 25:31–46).

In Matthew 22:41–46, Jesus identifies Himself as both the Messiah and the pre-existent “Lord” of Psalm 110. The Jews acknowledged the Messianic nature of these texts but struggled with their implications—particularly the divine status of the “Son of Man” and the exalted “Lord” seated with God. Some interpreted these texts through the lens of the “Two Powers in Heaven” doctrine, affirming that the Messiah was an eternal being distinct from, yet equal to, the Father. Others rejected this notion. Jesus clearly affirms the former view.

Combining these Messianic texts is theologically rich. Psalm 110 emphasizes Christ’s ascension and reign from heaven, putting His enemies under His feet. Daniel 7 adds the temporal dimension—He would return on the clouds through the instrumentality of the Roman armies to judge Jerusalem in AD 70. Psalm 110 thus portrays His exaltation in AD 30, while Daniel 7 points to His coming in judgment in AD 70.

The Parable of the Ten Minas – Luke 19:11–27 

To correct the mistaken expectation that the kingdom would appear immediately during His earthly ministry, Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman (Himself) who goes to a “far country” (heaven) to receive a kingdom and later returns. He entrusts ten servants with resources to steward in His absence. Upon returning, the nobleman evaluates their faithfulness—rewarding the faithful and condemning the unfaithful. One servant, representing unbelieving Israel, slanders the Master and fails to produce fruit, symbolizing Israel’s rejection of both the Old Testament and the Gospel. Consequently, the rebellious are judged.

This parable mirrors both Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. Christ’s reign from heaven is demonstrated through His Church and the outpouring of the Spirit. He gave Jerusalem a generation to repent. When they refused, He returned in AD 70 to judge those “enemies” who did not want Him to reign over them.

Of this parable in Luke 19:11-17 John Gill concedes this is Christ describing His “ascension” and His reference to His “return” very well could be referring to his return or coming in AD 70:

“…went into a far country…hither Christ went at his ascension;…

“…and return;…to destroy the Jews; the doing of which fully proved he had      received his kingdom, was vested with power and authority,…”[1]

John Lightfoot seems even more convinced that the time frame of this parable is between Christ’s ascension to His coming to judge Jerusalem in AD 70 which were the “last days” of old covenant Israel:

“That nobleman or king that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom is Christ in his gospel, going forth to call in the Gentiles to his obedience:  returning, he cuts off the nation of the Jews that would not have to reign over them….”

“Jerusalem was destroyed, because she knew not the time of her visitation.”

He describes these events as what took place:

“…in the last days, i.e. in the last days of Jerusalem.”

Israel’s last days being connected to:

“the worst generation” that “lived in them [the last days].”[2]

Therefore, for Christ to go “into a far country” is Christ “going to the Father’s right hand.” Christ making His “enemies his footstool” answers to when He “returned” in AD 70 and brought “these enemies of mine” before Him and slew them by means of the Roman armies (Lk. 17:11-27 = Ps. 110:1).  The time frame between His ascension and His “return” to judge the “enemies” of Psalm 110 was in Israel’s “last days” or in their “worst generation” [AD 30 – AD 70 – cf. Deut. 32:5, 20ff.].

Matthew 25:14-31ff.: The Parable of the Talents

Matthew’s version, found in the Olivet Discourse, parallels the parable in Luke. The man going on a long journey represents Christ ascending to the Father (Ps. 110), and the “long time” between His departure and return refers to the period from AD 30 to AD 70. When He returns, He judges the unfaithful and casts them into outer darkness.

Gary DeMar correctly observes that the “long time” in both the parables of the ten virgins and tenants is referring to the period of AD 30 – AD 70:

“Notice that the evil slave says, “My master is not coming for a long time” (Matt. 24:48).   The evil slave then proceeds to “beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards” (24:49). But to the surprise of the “evil slave,” the master returned when he least  expected him (24:50). The master did not return to cut the evil slave’s distant  relatives in pieces (24:51); he cut him in pieces. The evil slave was alive when the master left, and he was alive when the master returned. In this context, a “long time” must be measured against a person’s lifetime.  In context, two years could be a long time if the master usually returned within six months.

The same idea is expressed in the Parable of the Talents. A man entrusts his slaves with  his possessions (25:14). The master then goes on a journey (25:15). While the master is gone, the slaves make investment decisions (25:16–18). We are then told that “after a long  time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them” (25:19). In this context “a long time” is no longer than an average lifetime. The settlement is made with the      same slaves who received the talents. In every other New Testament context, “a long time” means nothing more than an extended period of time (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5, 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or multiple generations.  The delay of the bridegroom is no different from the “long time” of the two previous parables. The bridegroom returns to the same two groups of virgins (25:1–13). The duration of the delay must be measured by the audience.”[3]

So again, we have a reference describing Christ’s ascension in AD 30 to the time He returned in AD 70 to put His enemies under His feet and slew or cut them in pieces (Psalm 110:1 = Matt. 25:14-31ff.).

Matthew 21:33-45 / Mark 12:1-12 / Luke 20:18:  The Parable of the Wicked Tenants and Kenneth Gentry’s or the Partial Preterist Dilemma

Although the Parable of the Tenants does not directly address Christ’s ascension, it focuses on the judgment of AD 70 and the defeat of God’s enemies. To align the “long time” in Luke 20:9 with other parables and ensure consistency, we should explore this further.

The Parable of the Tenants, found in Matthew 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, and Luke 20:9–19, is a parallel account across the Synoptic Gospels. These passages describe the same parable taught by Jesus, sharing core elements: a landowner rents his vineyard to tenants, sends servants to collect the harvest, and the tenants mistreat or kill the servants. Ultimately, the landowner sends his son, whom the tenants also kill. The parable concludes with the landowner’s judgment on the tenants, often referencing the “stone the builders rejected” (Psalm 118:22–23).

While the accounts are parallel, they vary slightly in details, wording, and emphasis:

Matthew (21:33–46) mentions more servants and highlights the Pharisees’ realization that the parable was about them.

Mark (12:1–12) is the most concise, explicitly describing the vineyard’s features (e.g., a wall, tower, and winepress).

Luke (20:9–19) emphasizes the crowd’s reaction (“God forbid!”) and the tenants’ rejection of the son. Luke also includes the phrase “a long time” before God’s judgment (v. 9).

These differences reflect the authors’ theological perspectives and audiences but do not alter the parable’s core message. Scholars generally agree that the accounts stem from a common tradition, likely a single teaching event, making them parallel.

In all three accounts, the context centers on God sending John the Baptist with the necessity of the leadership to listen and obey his testimony. With this in mind, let’s examine the “long time” and identify the servants sent by the Father before Jesus, who were similarly mistreated:

1). The Father went into another country for a “long time”: This represents God’s longsuffering and patience during the “last days” “generation” of Jesus (AD 27–67), which some mocked as a period of “slowness” or “delay” (2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 24:48).

2). The “appointed time” to “send the servants” seeking “fruit”: This refers to the last days ministry beginning with John the Baptist and his disciples, marked by his baptism and call for repentance (Matt. 3:8) in Israel’s last days. Israel and its leaders were expected to bear fruit for God’s vineyard but failed to do so (see Luke 20:1–8; Matt. 3:8).

3). Last of all, He sent His Son, the heir, whom they killed outside the vineyard: This clearly points to the killing of Jesus outside Jerusalem’s gates.

4). When the owner comes, what will He do to these tenants?: During the “long time” from AD 27–67, God showed patience with that generation, even extending the call to the Gentiles, or “giving the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:15; Matt. 21:43). Then God came, sending Roman armies to burn the city (Matt. 22:7), with Christ coming in the “glory of His Father” (Mark 8:38-9:1).

This interpretation aligns with the immediate context of John the Baptist’s ministry and the leaders’ failure to bear fruit, despite God sending him and his disciples to call for repentance. The “long time” corresponds to Jesus’ use of the term in the parables of Matthew 24–25, referring to that generation.

All Partial Preterists view the judgment in the Parable of the Tenants as fulfilled in AD 70. Since the “long time” in Luke 20:9 contextually spans roughly AD 27–67, consistent with the parables in Matthew 24–25 (as even some Partial Preterists understand them), and scholars like Gentry see the Parable of the Tenants as fulfilled in AD 70, we should expect consistency in interpreting the “long time” as I have demonstrated.

Hebrews 10:12-37 and Psalm 110

The author of Hebrews places the judgment of the enemies of Psalm 110 to be imminently in AD 70 just as Jesus.

He quotes Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 10:12 – “Christ having ascended at the right hand of the Father waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.”  Then we are told in the same chapter that the “Day” was “drawing near” for sabbath rest and for judgment (Heb. 10:25).  Then we are told that a “fury of fire is about to consume the enemies” (Heb. 10:27 BLT / YLT / SLT / LSV).  Contextually the “enemies” “about to be” judged and burned are the ones mentioned in verse 12 referring to Psalm 110.  When would this judgment of fire take place?  It was when Christ would come in “vengeance” to “repay” “in a very, very, little while and would not delay” “appearing a second time” in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28; 10:30-37).

1 Corinthians 15 and Psalm 110

Per Paul, the “last enemy” was the spiritual death that came through Adam that was already in the process of “being destroyed” (1 Cor. 15:25-27 WUESTNT).  According to Paul this would take place at Christ’s parousia at the last trump during the lifetime of some of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:23, 51-53 – “we shall not all die…”).

Back to Matthew 26:63-65

John Gill favors the interpretation that this is referring to Christ coming in:

“…the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more  especially designed in the next clause, and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ’s coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son  of man, is described in this manner, Matthew 24:27.”[4]

Kenneth Gentry admits the obvious as well,

“The New Testament picks up this apocalyptic judgment imagery, when it speaks of Christ’s coming in judgment clouds during history.  Mathew 26:64, for instance, must  speak of a first century “coming to judge.”  Christ says that his accusers in the Sanhedrin   will witness it:  “Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 26:64).”[5]

Yet Gentry does not connect this with the fulfillment of Psalm 110 in AD 70 as clearly as he should—for obvious reasons.

The Greek word for “you” is plural, indicating Jesus is addressing the Sanhedrin collectively. The word for “see” (horaō) means to perceive or understand—just as Israel “saw” or “understood” God coming upon the clouds in judgment in the Old Testament through Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. Likewise, the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the visible sign in which they could perceive or understand Christ had “come on the clouds.”

James, the brother of Jesus, connects Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 explicitly:

“Why do you ask me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power [Ps. 110] and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7:13].”
—Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Ch. 23 (AD 62)

This complements James’ epistle: “The coming of the Lord is near… the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:7–9).

Conclusion

Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 23:36–39—that the leaders of Israel would “see” Him come—matches His promise in Matthew 26:63–65. Both passages frame Matthew 24–25 with the same expectation: Christ’s coming in judgment within that generation.

We have now examined every “coming of the Son of Man” text in the Gospels and found that respected commentators—orthodox and preterist alike—recognize these as fulfilled in AD 70. This raises the question: Would the disciples have asked about any other “coming” in Matthew 24–25 except the one Jesus had just told them would happen in their generation?

Would Matthew 24–25 be the only place Jesus suddenly introduced a second, distant coming? Common sense—and the context—says no.

Now that we’ve established the framework for interpreting Christ’s “coming” in Matthew 24–25, I will proceed to demonstrate its fulfillment in the Olivet Discourse and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21.

Study Questions:

  • How does Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 23:39—that Israel’s leaders will not see Him again until they say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”—set the stage for the events described in Matthew 26:63–65?
  • In Matthew 26:63–65, how does Jesus’ use of Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1 to reinforce His identity as the divine “Son of Man” and “Lord”? What was the significance of these Old Testament references for His audience?
  • Why did the high priest accuse Jesus of blasphemy in Matthew 26:65? How does this reaction reflect the Jewish leadership’s struggle with the “Two Powers in Heaven” doctrine mentioned in the article?  Extra credit – when was the interpretation or doctrine of the “two powers of heaven” outlawed in Judaism and why do you think that was? 
  • How does the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11–27) illustrate the relationship between Christ’s ascension, His reign from heaven, and His return in judgment in AD 70?
  • According to the article, how do Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 complement each other in describing Christ’s exaltation (AD 30) and His coming in judgment (AD 70)?
  • In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–31), what does the “long time” between the master’s departure and return represent? How does Gary DeMar’s interpretation support the article’s timeline of AD 30 to AD 70?  How does the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matthew 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19) align with the article’s argument that the “long time” refers to the period from AD 27 to AD 67?
  • What role does John the Baptist play in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and how does his ministry connect to the article’s interpretation of the “servants” sent by the landowner?
  • How does Hebrews 10:12–37 support the article’s claim that the judgment of Christ’s enemies, as described in Psalm 110, was imminent in AD 70?
  • In 1 Corinthians 15, how does Paul’s reference to the “last enemy” being destroyed and Paul’s statement that “we shall not all die…” relate to the article’s interpretation of Psalm 110 and Christ’s coming in AD 70?
  • Why does the article argue that the Greek word for “see” (horaō) in Matthew 26:64 implies perceiving or understanding, and how does this connect to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a visible sign of Christ’s spiritual presence and kingdom coming?
  • The article concludes by questioning whether Matthew 24–25 could refer to a distant future coming rather than the AD 70 judgment. Based on the evidence presented, why might the disciples have understood Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse as referring to their generation?

[1] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Biblehub.com

[2] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, (Hendrickson Publishers, Fourth Printing, 2003), Vol. 3, 195-196

[3] Gary DeMar, Is the Rapture Found in Matthew 24? https://christianfamilystudycentre.home.blog/ 2020/12/07/is-the-rapture-found-in-matthew-24/

[4] Gill, Ibid.

[5] Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper: VA., 2009), 280

The Coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 Part 4: Matthew 23:39 “Blessed in He Who Comes in the Name of the Lord”

 

Many exegetes approach Matthew 24-25 without noticing the vital context that Matthew 23 plays in its development.  Gary DeMar writes,

“To understand Matthew 24, we must begin with a brief background study of Matthew 23. The disciples had just heard Jesus pronounce His “woes” on the Pharisees. Jesus ended His denunciation of Israel’s religious leaders with this bombshell: “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!” (23:38). What “house” did Jesus have in mind? Matthew 24 begins:  “And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him” (24:1).

So then, the “house” that is being left to them “desolate” in Matthew 23:38 is the “temple” that will soon be judged and torn down, stone by stone (24:1).

The disciples were obviously curious since the temple was the most holy site in all Israel. Earlier in His ministry, Jesus pronounced to the religious leaders that His own body was the true temple. The temple of stone was a temporary edifice that pointed to a greater, permanent temple (John 2:1922). Only after Jesus’ resurrection did the disciples begin to understand that the true and everlasting temple is “the temple of His body” (2:21). The physical temple was designed to be temporary. To make the temple of stone a permanent structure in the light of Jesus’ atoning work would be a denial of the Messiah and His redemptive mission.

The disciples were surprised when Jesus told them that the temple was going to be destroyed, with not one stone left on top of another (Matt. 24:2). In response, they asked this multifaceted question: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age” (24:3)? It is crucial that we pay close attention to when Jesus said these events would take place.

Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation,” that is, the destruction of their temple and city will be realized before the then-existing generation passes into history (23:36). It was the generation of those who rejected Jesus who would experience His wrath. The “this generation” of Matthew 23:36 is the generation upon whom Jesus pronounced judgment.”[1]

Let’s examine the parallel and contextual connections between the coming of Christ and judgment found in Matthew 23 with that of Matthew 24–25 and compare it with the flow we have seen between Matthew 10:17-23, Mattthew 16:27-28 and Luke 17:20-37 as forming and being inseparable from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25.  With that in mind we begin this chart picking up where we left off in comparing Luke 17:20-37 in “Part 3” of our series with Matthew 24-25 and begin the count with #18:

Matthew 23

Matthew 24–25
(18) The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat and hypocritically judge (Matt. 23:2ff.). (18) Jesus will sit on His glorious throne and judge these hypocrites, (Matt. 25:31, 41–45).
(19) The “blind” Pharisees & Scribes  produce “sons of hell” in evangelism (Matt. 23:15). (19) Jesus’ disciples will preach the gospel, producing “redemption” or inheritance of the Kingdom             (Matt. 24:14; Luke 21:28–32).
(20) They swear by the temple’s gold and beauty but destruction              (Matt. 23:16–36). (20) Jesus predicts destruction of their temple and condemns them              (Matt. 24:1–2; 25:41–46).
(21) The Pharisees will “fill up” Israel’s sin of blood guilt through persecuting and killing Jesus sends to them (Matt. 23:31–36). (21) The Pharisees will face “wrath” and “days of vengeance” for beating and killing those whom Jesus sent  (Mark 13:9–13; cf. Matt. 10:17–23).
(22) This will mark the judgment of the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs) (Matt. 23:31–36). (22) Time of judgment will affect the living (“wrath against this people,” “fall by the sword,” “be led captive”) and the dead                     (Luke 21:20–24; Matt. 25:31–46).
(23) The Pharisees, given seven woes, will face judgment when Christ “comes again” to desolate their temple (Matt. 23:13ff.) (23) Israel’s religious and civil rulers, symbolized as “stars,” will “fall from heaven” as Jesus comes in judgment to desolate their temple (Matt. 24:29ff.)
(24) Jerusalem [Pharisees and Sadducees] resist Jesus’ soteriological and eschatological “gathering” of His children and persecute those He sends to them (Matt. 23:37) (24) Leadership resists Jesus’ soteriological and eschatological “gathering” of His children and persecutes those He sends to them (Matt. 10:17-22; 24:9-31; Mark 13:9)
(25) In their contemporary “this generation,” they would see Him come “again” to judge them and “desolate” their temple              (Matt. 23:37-39). (25) Christ’s contemporary “generation” will see His coming in judgment and desolate their City and Temple (Matt. 24:1–2, 34, cf. Matt. 26:62–64).

Many partial preterists overlook that Jesus prophesies both the judgment and vindication of the living (e.g., the Pharisees) and the dead (e.g., the martyrs) when He connects the vindication of the martyrs—from Abel onward—to the destruction of the Temple and His coming within His generation (Matt. 23:29–39). This aligns with Jesus’ teaching that the eschatological gathering at the sound of the trumpet (resurrection) and the judgment of the dead would occur when the Temple and the Old Covenant age ended in His generation (Matt. 24:3, 27–34; 25:31–46).

As we will explore, Jesus’ reference to His coming when the Jews would be saying, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” subtly indicates that His return would coincide with a Jewish feast day when this song was sung. This serves as a “sign” of His coming, prompting the disciples’ questions for further signs in Matthew 24:3.

I would agree with James Jordan who points out it is essential to recognize that Matthew 23–25 form a cohesive literary unit, bound by Jesus’ assertion that “this generation” would witness not just the desolation of their house (the temple) but also judgment and reward for both the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs). The structure forms a chiasm[2]centered on the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead being fulfilled in the first century generation:

(a) Seat of Moses (23:1–12)

  (b) Eight Woes (23:13–32)

(c) Full Judgment (23:33–35)

(d) All in This Generation (23:36)

        (e) Christ Comes to Gather/Raise the dead at sound of a Trumpet (23:37–     24:31)

(d) All in This Generation (24:32–36)

(c) Full Judgment (24:45–25:46)

(b) Three Parables (24:45–25:30)

(a) Seat / Throne of Jesus (25:31–45)

Matthew 23 and Luke 17 speak of the same second coming event. Christ’s return, shining like the sunshine from east to west, will judge the Pharisees for the unclean condition within their hearts, while His kingdom is realized within believers’ hearts upon His arrival in AD 70 (Matt. 23:27; Luke 17:20-37). Let’s now consider how the second coming of Christ is described in Matthew 23:

The Song That Sealed Their Fate

“For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23:39).

This phrase, once sung joyfully by Jews from the walls of Jerusalem to welcome pilgrims during the three annual feasts, takes on a sobering turn in Jesus’ mouth. In seed form, He foretells that His “coming” will not bring celebration but judgment. Instead of welcoming peace and salvation, they would—during one of their feasts—unwittingly welcome destruction upon themselves.[3]

From AD 67–70, Jews were bottled up in Jerusalem, expecting God to rescue them from Rome and establish an earthly kingdom. But Jesus had warned in Matthew 24 that such expectations were fueled by false prophets. Their own festive greeting—“Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”—became the very script for divine judgment, as God once again “came” through a Gentile army, just as He had done via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

As Paul understood (quoting Psalm 69:22 in Romans 11:9-10), even the Psalms speaks of a “trap” laid at their table, and Josephus confirms that the Jewish-Roman War began during Passover while they were singing this very song.

Jesus makes it unmistakably clear: the “you” who will say this is the same “you” (the Pharisees and leaders of Jerusalem) He has been addressing throughout Matthew 23. This verse concludes the chapter’s dire warning that they would see Him again not in peace, but in judgment.

Matthew 24 then continues seamlessly, elaborating on this judgment: the temple’s destruction, signs of Christ’s coming, and a reckoning—all to occur, as Jesus solemnly affirms once more, within “this generation.”

Despite the unity of content and time frame between Matthew 23-24 Dispensationalist writers like Thomas Ice argue for a distinction in Jesus’ use of “this generation” between Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 to support a futuristic interpretation of Matthew 24. Ice asserts,

“When one compares the use of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 23:36 (an undisputed  reference to AD 70) with its prophetic use in Matthew 24:34, a contrast becomes obvious.  Jesus contrasts the deliverance for Israel in Matthew 24:34 with the predicted judgment in Matthew 23:36.”[4]

However, this interpretation is inconsistent with the thematic and contextual unity of Matthew 23–24, where both chapters emphasize judgment and deliverance within the same contemporary timeframe—namely, the generation alive during Jesus’ ministry, culminating in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.

In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces woes on the religious leaders, condemning their persecution of prophets and righteous individuals. He declares, “All these things will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36), predicting judgment on Jerusalem and the temple’s destruction as vindication for the martyrs. This judgment, as Ice acknowledges, is “an undisputed reference to AD 70.” Similarly, Matthew 24 continues this discourse, addressing the disciples’ questions about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–3). Jesus describes events leading to the city’s fall, including persecution, the flight of believers from Judea for deliverance, and judgment on the persecutors, culminating in the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:15–21, 34). He explicitly states, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34).

The thematic parallels are clear: both chapters address judgment on Jerusalem for rejecting God’s messengers and deliverance for the faithful, all within “this generation.” The Greek term genea (“generation”) consistently refers to the contemporary generation in Jesus’ usage (e.g., Matt. 11:16, 12:39, 16:4), and there is no textual basis to redefine it in Matthew 24:34 as a future or symbolic generation. Ice’s claim that “it is obvious that these things did not occur in AD 70”[5] ignores historical evidence. The Roman siege of Jerusalem (AD 66–70) fulfilled Jesus’ predictions: the temple was destroyed, believers fled to safety (e.g., to Pella, as early Christian traditions record), and the city faced catastrophic judgment, aligning with the “great tribulation” described (Matt. 24:21).

Dispensationalists like Ice redefine “this generation” in Matthew 24 to fit a futuristic, Zionist theology that expects a future tribulation and temple rebuilding. This interpretation imposes an artificial division between Matthew 23 and 24, disregarding their shared context as a single discourse (Matt. 23:1–24:51). By admitting that Matthew 23:36 refers to AD 70, Ice inadvertently undermines his own argument, as the linguistic and thematic continuity suggests Matthew 24:34 likewise refers to the same generation. The attempt to separate the two relies on theological presuppositions rather than exegesis, forcing a futuristic reading that contradicts the plain meaning of Jesus’ words.

In conclusion, the consistent use of “this generation” in Matthew 23–24, coupled with the parallel themes of judgment and deliverance, supports a preterist interpretation: Jesus predicted events fulfilled in AD 70, not a distant future. Dispensationalist reinterpretations, while motivated by theological commitments, fail to account for the historical and textual evidence, rendering their distinctions between Matthew 23 and 24 unconvincing.

Having looked at all of the “coming” of the Lord passages approaching Matthew 24-25 and noticing that they were fulfilled in AD 70, we now turn to give an exegesis of the Olivet Discourse to see if Jesus is consistent with Isaiah, Daniel and Himself in teaching just one imminent coming.

Conclusion 

Matthew 23 is the critical lens through which the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25) must be understood, establishing the imminent judgment of Jerusalem’s temple and its religious leaders within “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34). Jesus’ pronouncement of the temple’s desolation (Matt. 23:38) and His woes against the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and persecution set the stage for the disciples’ question about the timing and signs of His coming and the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–3). The thematic and literary unity of Matthew 23–25, structured as a chiasm centered on judgment and resurrection, underscores that Christ’s coming in AD 70 fulfilled both the judgment of the living (Pharisees) and the vindication of the dead (martyrs), as prophesied. The ironic twist of the festive cry, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39), sung during the Passover when the Jewish-Roman War began, signals not salvation but divine judgment through the Roman armies, echoing Old Testament patterns of God’s coming via foreign powers.

Dispensationalist attempts, such as those by Thomas Ice, to divorce Matthew 24:34 from the AD 70 fulfillment affirmed in Matthew 23:36 falter against the consistent use of “this generation” and the shared themes of judgment and deliverance. Historical evidence—Jerusalem’s fall, the temple’s destruction, and the flight of Christians to Pella—confirms Jesus’ predictions were fulfilled in AD 70, not a distant future. By rooting His teaching in Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Isaiah, Daniel), Jesus presents a unified eschatological vision of His imminent coming to end the Old Covenant age. This first-century fulfillment establishes the New Covenant kingdom, realized within believers’ hearts (Luke 17:20–37) and proclaimed today (Rev. 22:17). Understanding Matthew 23 as the foundation of the Olivet Discourse affirms the reliability of Jesus’ words and invites believers to live faithfully in the enduring reality of His kingdom, established in AD 70.

Major Premise:
Matthew 23 teaches that Christ would come in judgment upon Jerusalem during one of their feast days—when they would sing, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”—to vindicate the martyrs by judging both the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs), and to desolate the temple—all within His first-century audience’s “this generation” (Matt. 23:29–39).

Minor Premise:
Matthew 24–25 continues this same discourse without interruption, describing the same coming of Christ, the same judgment of the temple, the same vindication of martyrs (the living and the dead), and situating it all within the same time frame—“this generation” (Matt. 24:3, 27–34; 25:31–46). 

Conclusion:
Therefore, the coming of Christ described in Matthew 24–25 is the same AD 70 judgment foretold in Matthew 23 and was fulfilled within that first-century generation. Any attempt to divide these comings introduces an artificial distinction that ignores the literary and theological unity of the text.

Study Questions: 

  1. How does Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:36 that “all these things shall come upon this generation” provide the key to interpreting the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
  2. What is the significance of Jesus saying “your house is left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38) just before He predicts the temple’s destruction in Matthew 24:2?
  3. How does the repeated use of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 argue against a futurist or dispensationalist reading of the Olivet Discourse?
  4. What are the implications of Jesus tying the vindication of all the martyrs—from Abel to Zechariah—to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:35–36)?
  5. How does the parallel structure (chiasm) from Matthew 23 through 25 support the idea of a unified, first-century fulfillment of judgment and resurrection?
  6. In what way does the quote “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39) serve as both a liturgical cry and a sign of impending judgment?
  7. How do the parallels between Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25 (e.g., judgment of Pharisees, martyr vindication, temple desolation) strengthen the preterist view?
  8. What does the consistency between Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 10, 16, 23, and 24 reveal about His understanding of the timing and nature of His coming?
  9. Why does Thomas Ice argue for a distinction between “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34, and what exegetical flaws undermine his claim?
  10. How does recognizing Matthew 23–25 as a single, cohesive eschatological discourse challenge the popular notion of a future, physical second coming still awaiting fulfillment?

[1] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1994), 37

[2] James B. Jordan, MATTHEW 23-25 A LITERARY, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 2022), 21

[3] My friend Don Preston shared this view with me and how he came across it: “I was in a bookstore owned by a friend. I was just browsing and came across the book: Elizabeth Lattimer Judea from Cyrus to Titus, (Chicago; A. C. McClurg and Co., 1899), 123+). Here is more of her quote: 345–describing the final coming of pilgrims to Jerusalem before the siege, she says, “From the far east, from Antioch and Egypt, Asia Minor and Cyprus, thousands of Jews, confiding in the inaction of Vespasian, had flocked to Jerusalem to celebrate this last Passover. For the last time worshipers approached the temple gates singing the usual songs of Degrees; for the last time they were welcomed by the greeting ‘blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ and answered the priest’s welcome with the words, ‘We have wished you good luck– ye who are of the house of the Lord.’” Page 345.

[4] Ibid., 93

[5] Ibid.

 

The Coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 Part 3: Luke 17:20–37 – The Light of Day Dawns and the Kingdom Shines Within

What kind of kingdom was Jesus describing, and when would it arrive? As explored in our three-part Daniel series, both the spiritual kingdom and Christ’s coming “on the clouds” would be fulfilled during the Roman Empire, when He would destroy one temple and “anoint” or consecrate / fill another “Most Holy Place” (Dan. 2; 7:13-27; 9:24-27). Let’s allow Jesus to further interpret Daniel, clarifying the nature, timing, and manner of His coming and Kingdom’s arrival.

These were the burning questions posed by the Pharisees in Luke 17:20, and they remain central to any serious discussion of eschatology today. Even as we see modern day Khazarian “Jews” like Benjamin Netanyahu try and usher in the messiah through waging war with Iran which is in sharp contrast to what Daniel and Jesus describe as the Kingdom and how it comes.  In this often-overlooked passage, Jesus delivers a striking and subversive answer: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation… for behold, the kingdom of God is within you [or within a person].” With this statement, Jesus shattered the expectations of a visible, political, and territorial messianic kingdom. He redirected attention inward—to the heart, to the spirit, to the transformative presence of the King Himself.

This chapter explores Luke 17:20–37 not merely as a preview of judgment, but as a revelation of the nature and timing of Christ’s kingdom and Parousia. Far from being a vague, futuristic promise or an indefinite reign waiting for physical realization, Jesus teaches that His coming would be as clear and all-encompassing as the rising sun—from east to west—and yet, paradoxically, not externally observable. It would be a judgment that would fall on unbelieving Israel like the flood in Noah’s day or fire in Lot’s day—sudden, decisive, and covenantal—yet a deliverance that would dawn like the morning light in the heart for the faithful.

Through a chiastic literary structure, Jesus distinguishes between false, external hopes for the kingdom and its actual, spiritual unveiling within the hearts of His people when He would be revealed from heaven like the light of day. This chapter will demonstrate that Luke 17 is not describing some distant, physical return of Christ, but the imminent and climactic transition from the old covenant to the new—a coming that would bring judgment on apostate Israel and resurrection life to those who recognized the kingdom already in their midst.

Luke 17:20–37

Now when the Pharisees demanded of Him when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; Neither shall they say, ‘Behold, it is here!’ Or, ‘Behold, it is there!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is standing in the midst of you.” Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and shall not see it. And they shall say to you, ‘Look here,’ or, ‘Look there.’ Do not go, neither follow them. For as the light of day, whose light shines from one end under heaven to the other end under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first it is necessary for Him to suffer many things and to be rejected by this generation. Now as it was in the days of Noah, so also shall it be in the days of the Son of man.They were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. And it was the same way in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; But on  the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. This is how it shall be in the day that the Son of man is revealed. In that day, let not the one who is on the housetop, and his goods in the house, come down to take them away; and likewise, let not the one who is in the field return to the things behind. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two men shall be in the field; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.” And they answered, saying to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together” (Luke 17:20-37 AFV).

Just as Matthew 23–25 is structured with a chiastic pattern, Luke 17:20–37 also follows a chiasm. Some may be asking, “What in the world is a chiasm?” Simply put, it’s a literary structure in which ideas are presented and then mirrored in reverse order, often highlighting a central point.  Here is a classic example.

(A)  No one can serve two masters,

     (B)  for either he will hate the one

          (C) and love the other,

          (C) or he will be devoted to the one

     (B) and despise the other.

(A) You cannot serve God and money.

In a chiasm, the beginning and end usually mirror each other, while the center often contains the main message—the “meat in the middle.” In ancient Hebrew and Biblical times, this form of teaching was popular because the parallel structure made it easy to memorize the teaching.

Now notice how Luke 17:20–37 forms its own chiasm, framed by two questions. The central issue is the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom, specifically at His second coming:

(A)  The question by the Pharisees – When will the kingdom come or be realized (17:20–21)?  It will come “within the heart of a person.”

     (B)  When the coming of the Son of Man is revealed as the sun (17:22–25)

          (C)  This will be like in the days of Noah (17:26–27)

          (C)  This will be like in the days of Lot (17:28–29)

     (B)  When the Son of Man is revealed (17:30)

(A) The question by the disciples – Where, Lord? “Where the dead body is.”

This chiasm, centered around two questions—one from the Pharisees and one from the disciples— reveals when, how and where the kingdom would come. Jesus tells the Pharisees it will be unseen—internally realized within the hearts of believers—at the time when the Son of Man is revealed, in a judgment like that of Noah’s or Lot’s day.

To the disciples, Jesus answers that the location of this coming kingdom would be marked by judgment: their enemies would be gathered like a corpse, devoured by vultures—an image of divine retribution. This too happens when the Son of Man is revealed.

Elsewhere, Jesus says the kingdom would be taken from the Pharisees and given to a new “nation” (the Church) producing its fruit (Matt. 21:43–45). Our text here in Luke 17 describes, how, when, and where that transfer would be accomplished in the events of AD 67 – AD 70.

“Within You”

Some modern translators translate the Greek word entos as “among you” or “in your midst” without sufficient linguistic justification. They appear to do this for two reasons. First, they want to avoid associating Jesus’ spiritual and internal kingdom with the future, eschatological “not yet” of Christ’s parousia, thus comfortably situating the kingdom in the here and now of the “already.”  And, secondly, they fear translating the passage as “within you” might imply that the unbelieving Pharisees had the kingdom within them.

However, linguistic evidence strongly supports the translation “within you” or, better yet, “within the heart of a person.” Strong’s Concordance clearly defines entos as “within you”: “1787. ἐντός entós; adv. from en (1722), in. Within. Used also as a prep. with the gen. (Luke 17:21, “the kingdom of God is within you,” meaning it is located in your heart and affections, not external). With the neut. def. art., tó entós, the inside (Matt. 23:26; Sept.: Ps. 39:4; 109:22). Zodhiates, S. (2000).”

Consider the following arguments which prove with 100% certainty that entos should be translated as “within you” or, even better, “within the heart of a person”:

Contextual contrast: Luke 17:21 contrasts external, visible signs (“look here or there”) with something internal, spiritual, and unseen (“within you”).

Consistent NT usage: The only other NT occurrence of entos is Matthew 23:26, where Jesus contrasts outward appearances with inner spiritual reality, again clearly meaning “inside.”

Septuagint usage: The Greek Old Testament (LXX) consistently uses entos to denote something internal—either within a building (like the temple) or within a person’s spiritual or inward being (cf. Ps. 103:1; 109:22; Isa. 16:11).

External Greek usage: Outside the NT, entos never means “among.”

Alternative Greek for “among”: Luke, who frequently uses the Greek mesos (“among,” “in the midst”), certainly would have chosen it if he intended “among you.”

Lexical authority: Liddell-Scott’s Greek lexicon translates entos in Luke 17:21 as “in your hearts.”[1]

Early Church Fathers: Those closer to Koine Greek consistently interpreted entos as “within you.”

Pronoun flexibility: Concerns that “within you” implies kingdom presence within unbelieving Pharisees ignore the flexible Greek pronoun usage. William Hendriksen clarifies that “you” can simply mean “a person” or “one,” not specifically Pharisees.[2] Thus, Jesus’ teaching is that when the kingdom fully arrives at His second coming, it would not be physically observable, but experienced spiritually within the hearts of people.

Luke often follows theological teaching with a parable: Luke often concludes Jesus’ teachings with a parable emphasizing His main point (e.g., 6:20–49; 10:1–37; 11:14–36; 17:20–18:8).[3]  Thus the “day(s) of the Son of Man” include the spiritual inheritance of the kingdom and Christ’s parousia, but also severe persecution requiring vindication.While the disciples may be tempted to want the same visible, political vindication desired by the Pharisees, Jesus assured them that vindication and deliverance from persecution would indeed come “quickly” (Luke 18:8) at His second coming, not thousands of years later.

Partial Preterist Admissions:  In discussing Luke 18:7-8 Keith Mathison gives exegetical reasons why he believes this “speedily” coming of Christ and judgment is his impending coming in AD 70 [the first being that Luke 17:20-37 is referring to AD 70]:

         “a.  In the preceding chapter (Luke 17:20-37), he speaks of the coming destruction of   Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

  1. In 18:7, Christ assures His listeners that God will not delay long in bringing about justice for his elect.  It could reasonably be argued that two thousand years is a long delay.
  2. In verse 8, Christ assures us that God will bring about justice speedily.  Again, this would seem to indicate a fulfillment within a short amount of time.”[4]

Once again it becomes obvious that Jesus has been teaching a first century second coming event in Matthew 10:17-23, 16:27-28, and now here in Luke 17-18 which will form his more detailed teaching on the subject in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28 /

Luke 17:20-37

Olivet Discourse

Matthew 24 / Luke 21 / Mark 13
(1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22) (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)
(6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) (6) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

 (7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)
(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

 (8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)
(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

 (10) Some in the crowd would live towitness the second coming

(Luke 21:16–18)
(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Matt. 16:28) (11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Luke 21:16)
(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation

(Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38)

 (12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)
Luke 17:20–37 Matthew 24:1–41
(13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (17:31-33) (13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (24:17ff.)
(14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (17:24) (14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (24:27)
(15) Vultures gathered at corpse (17:37) (15) Vultures gathered at corpse (24:28)
(16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (17:26-30) (16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (24:37ff.)
(17) One taken / one left (17:34-36) (17) One taken / one left (24:41ff.)

Once we get into Matthew 24-25 it will become clear that there is no exegetical evidence to support the idea that Matthew 24–25 is addressing two comings of Christ, as some dispensational Zionists have taught (e.g. Darby) and as some partial preterists (e.g. Gentry) teach.

When we compare Jesus’ teaching of His coming in Matthew 24 and Luke 17, it becomes even more obvious that He was not addressing two different comings. Nor does Matthew present “two sections” referring to two comings. Both chapters speak of one eschatological event.

Partial preterist Gary DeMar (rightly) rejects the view held by dispensationalists and some partial preterists who split Matthew 24. We disagree with Kenneth Gentry, who argues that verses 27–30 refer to Christ’s coming in  AD 70, while verses 36–51 refer to a future second coming. Dispensationalists flip this; they see vv. 27–30 as a future second coming and vv. 36–42 as a pre-trib rapture.

Gary addresses this directly:

Many futurists claim that the phrase “took them all away” (Matt. 24:39) refers to a rapture that is still in our future. On the contrary. “In the context of 24:37–39, ‘taken’ presumably means ‘taken to judgment’ (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV)” (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 115.) The phrase ties the judgment of the world in Noah’s day with the judgment of the Jews’ world in Israel’s day that took place with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple.[5]

The comparison with Noah’s day is critical: those “taken” were not the righteous, but the wicked. As John Gill affirms, those left behind—like Noah and his family—were spared, while the others were taken in judgment. Gill connects this directly to Luke 17:27–29, where “taken” also implies destruction, not rapture.

Gary also addresses another major issue for futurists: the order of events in Luke 17 compared to Matthew 24. Some commentators (e.g., J Marcellus Kik, Kenneth Gentry) argue that Matthew 24:35 marks a transition to a future coming. But this fails to explain why Luke 17 rearranges five key Olivet Discourse elements found in Matthew 24—suggesting both accounts refer to the same AD 70 fulfillment. As Ray Summers notes: “This is a most difficult passage… Some small parts of it, however, are repeated in Luke 21 in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)… The entire complex cautions one against dogmatism in interpreting.”[6]

DeMar concludes that the “two comings” theory collapses when Matthew 24 and Luke 17 are compared. Both accounts cover identical prophetic events, just in different orders. As he illustrates, if the five major events of Matthew 24 are numbered 1–2–3–4–5, Luke presents them as 2–4–1–5–3—a clear sign of recapitulation, not a separate timeline:

Matthew 24:1–41

Luke 17:20–37
#1  Fleeing from housetops & fields #2  Son of Man comes as sunshine
#2  Son of Man comes as sunshine #4  Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah
#3  Vultures gathered at corpse #1  Fleeing from housetops & fields
#4  Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah—Gentry claims different judgment in Future #5  One taken / one left
#5  One taken / one left—Gentryclaims different judgment in Future #3  Vultures gathered at corpse

Was Luke so confused and forgetful, that when Christ taught on His second coming in Luke 17 and Luke 21, Luke only addressed ONE coming while Matthew pointed out that there are really TWO comings?  If Luke understood Christ teaching two comings in the Olivet Discourse, then why does he mix up the order of those events in Luke 17 to be one and the same event?

When we compare Jesus’ teaching on His second coming and the arrival of His kingdom in Luke 17:20–37 with Luke 21:27–32, we realize that both His kingdom and second coming would be fulfilled within Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” and His kingdom and Parousia presence would not be physically seen, because it would be revealed “within the hearts” of His people.  He would come as “The Sun of Righteousness…shining from the east to the west,” “healing” and bringing resurrection life “within the hearts” of His people, while the old covenant kingdom would be desolated and never remembered.

Christ comes as the Light of Day not “Lightning”

Having dealt with the fact that at Christ’s coming He would establish His kingdom “within” the heart of His followers, we need to unpack the OT source of Jesus coming like the “light of day” in both Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24 and that being Malachi 3-4:2.

For as the light of day, whose light shines from one end under heaven to the other end under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day (Luke 17:24 A Faithful Version).

“For as the sunshine comes out from the east and is seen even in the west, thus will be the coming of the Son of man” (Matt. 24:27, Aramaic English New Testament).

Many futurists, partial preterists, and even some full preterists interpret this verse as describing lightning—sudden, powerful, and destructive. Some connect this to Christ’s coming through the Roman armies in AD 70, which has merit.[7]However, others, including myself, believe Jesus is describing His second coming (Greek parousia) as the rising sun, whose light spreads from east to west.

For this reason, I prefer the Aramaic English New Testament rendering of astrape as “sunshine” rather than “lightning.” Partial preterist Steve Gregg raises the same concern:

The word “lightning” is the Greek astrape. This word is in fact, the correct term for lightning, but this is not always its meaning.  When defined in the lexicons, astrape is said to mean either “lightning” or, more generally, “bright shining.”  It is in this latter sense that the word is used in Luke 11:36… Interestingly, the same translators who rendered astrape as “lightning,” in Matthew 24:27, quite reasonably chose to translate the same word as “bright shining,” in Luke 11:36… Would it not present a very different image if Jesus were to have said, “For as the bright shining comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be”?  Instead of a lightning bolt, this would clearly be comparing His coming to a glorious sunrise!

Greg continues:

If one should arise before the dawn and watch the eastern horizon, the sky will be observed to change from nearly black to a lighter blue… a ribbon of red-orange will gradually appear, and the whole sky will become progressively lighter… Within seconds, the sun will fully present itself, and the dawning of the day is complete … the Kingdom’s glory will increase more and more until the moment Jesus appears.[8]

This sunrise imagery better matches the nature of the parousia as the progressive, internal unveiling of Christ’s kingdom “within” His people (cf. Luke 17:20–21; Col. 1:27).

It also contrasts sharply with the “secret inner rooms” in the previous verse (Matt. 24:26), where false prophets claim hidden revelation. Christ, by contrast, is revealed like the sun—openly, unmistakably, from east to west.

The events of AD 67–70 confirmed this: Christ judged the old covenant world and revealed Himself as the true Messiah—His presence shining forth like the dawning of a new day.

This interpretation also harmonizes with biblical themes that describe both Christ’s first and second coming as manifestations of light, sunrise, or daybreak:

  • Malachi 4:2 – “But for you who fear my name, the Sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings.”
  • Luke 1:78–79 – “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; or you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace”
  • Romans 13:11–12 – “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.”
  • 2 Peter 1:19 – “…as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”
  • Revelation 2:28 – “…I will give Him the morning star.”
  • Revelation 22:16 – “I am the bright and morning star.”

Taken together, these passages suggest Christ’s parousia was not merely an act of judgment but also a revelation of light—the dawn of a new covenant day and the end of the old covenant night.

“Behold, I send my messenger [John the Baptist as Elijah], and he will prepare the way before me [Christ]. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple [in judgment – at His second coming]; and the messenger of the [New] covenant [Christ] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire…” (Mal. 3:1–2).

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the SUN of Righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall … Behold, I will send you Elijah [John the Baptist] the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction” (Mal. 4:1–2, 5–6).

Malachi 3–4 predicts two messengers:

  1. John the Baptist—the eschatological Elijah who prepares the way, and
  2. Christ— who comes suddenly to His temple in judgment, fulfilling and bringing to maturity the new covenant promises.

“The day” that is “coming” is the second coming, portrayed as both a fiery judgment for the wicked and a sunrise of healing for the righteous. This dual imagery captures the essence of the Day of the Lord: retribution for the unrepentant, restoration for the faithful.

Ellicott’s Commentary offers this helpful insight:

“The fathers and early commentators have understood Christ by the Sun of Righteousness… As the rising sun diffuses light and heat… the advent of the reign of righteousness, which will reward the good and the wicked, each according to his deserts…”[9]

John Gill similarly affirms a messianic reading of Malachi 4:2, citing ancient Jewish sources:

“They say… until the Messiah comes, as it is said, ‘unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise.’” Philo also connects the “Sun” to the divine Logos, who brings “refuge and salvation.” Though some interpreted it literally—as the sun burning and the wicked healing the righteous—Gill notes this symbolic dual outcome at the end of the age.[10]

John Lightfoot connects John the Baptist’s ministry and the “wrath about to come” (Matt. 3:7) to Malachi 4’s prophecy, seeing it in the AD 70 judgment:

“These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament… and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.”[11]

Adam Clarke offers one of the clearest preterist interpretations of Malachi 4:1–2, seeing Christ’s coming as spiritual and fulfilled in AD 70:

Verse 1 – The burning day is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, leaving “neither root nor branch,” a phrase denoting total judgment.

Verse 2 – The “Sun of Righteousness” is Christ, whose gospel and Spirit bring healing and life to all who believe. Clarke emphasizes that Jesus’ influence is “universally diffused” like the sun. “Ye shall go forth…” refers to Christians who, recognizing the sign of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, obeyed Christ’s command to flee and escaped to Pella—preserving every Christian life.[12]

Ancient Jewish and Christian commentators alike have seen Malachi 4:2 as:

  1. A messianic prophecy referring to Christ;
  2. A reference to His second coming, not His first.
  3. A spiritual and covenantal coming in AD 70—bringing salvation to believers (spiritually through imputed righteousness and physically through the flight to Pella) and judgment to the wicked.

These three themes align with the central thesis of this article. Likewise, New Testament references to Christ as the Morning Star (Rev. 2:28; 22:16) support a spiritual fulfillment at His second coming. While many debate whether these refer to AD 70 or the second coming, full preterism resolves the tension—not as either/or, but as a fulfilled already/not-yet paradigm.

In Malachi 4:2, the “Sun of Righteousness” arises to inaugurate the new covenant world of righteousness, bringing salvation to the soul (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4–12; 4:5–7; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3:13). Paul echoes this in Romans 13:11–12, the “day” is at hand, bringing salvation to believers and marking the end of the “night” of the old covenant age—not physical transformation at the end of world history, but spiritual renewal in AD 70 (cf. Rom. 11:26–27).

In Luke 17:24 and Matthew 24:27, Jesus’ coming is likened to light shining from east to west. The Greek word astrapē can mean “lightning” or also “bright shining.”[13] This suggests Christ’s parousia is not a brief event but a sustained and illuminating presence. The related verb phainō (used for “shine”) can even describe vegetation emerging, reinforcing the image of a sunrise—not a lightning strike—as the symbol of His coming. 

Jesus would not appear in some dark inner chamber, like the false Messiahs of His day. His presence would be as open and unmistakable as the dawn itself:

“…from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me.  I am the LORD…” (Isa. 45:6; 19–25; cf. Mal.1:1, 4:1–2, 5–6).

Perhaps Joshua 10:12–14 foreshadows eternal life in the new covenant age, when God caused the sun to stand still as a sign that He was fighting for Israel. In the new creation, every day is likewise a day without darkness or reproach (Isa. 60:19–20; Rev. 21:23–26). Then, the sun stood still in the heavens; now, the “Sun of Righteousness” never sets.

Christ’s enduring presence—His eternal Day within the Church—is proof that nothing can prevail against her. Just as the miracle in Joshua’s day testified to divine victory, so too does the radiance of Christ’s light in the lives of His people testify to His reign. Those still outside, walking in darkness, are often stirred to longing when they witness the warmth and joy of God’s presence in His people. Yet this same light also hardens the reprobate—just as the sun melts wax but hardens clay.

As plants receive life from the sun through photosynthesis, the Church draws eternal life from Christ alone. In union with Him, the Church becomes the leaves on the Tree of Life, and the Light of the new Jerusalem brings healing to the nations (Rev. 22:2). The gospel—God’s living water and light—goes forth as special revelation to awaken the thirsty soul. No physical luminary can declare the righteousness of God! Only Christ and His Church, as the true heavenly kingdom, can bring the light that saves.

Without the “Sun of Righteousness,” without the glory of God’s imputed righteousness shining into the heart and mind of man, all is lost. The world truly does revolve around the “Sun [Son] of Righteousness.”

Conclusion

Luke 17:20–37 is not a riddle to be unpacked by modern prophecy speculation—it is a divine proclamation of how Christ’s kingdom would arrive and be revealed. Jesus’ coming was not to be observed in the skies like a comet or hidden in secret rooms like a conspiracy—it would be a dawning presence, shining from east to west, exposing and ending the darkness of the old covenant world while bringing healing, righteousness, and resurrection life and light to those who feared His name.

This crucial passage offers one of the clearest teachings on the nature and timing of Christ’s kingdom and Parousia. Contrary to both futurist speculation and overly materialistic expectations—even among some partial preterists—Jesus declares that His kingdom would not be externally visible or politically manifest, but rather internal, spiritual, and already present within His faithful ones.

In this passage, Jesus unites several key prophetic themes:

  • the spiritual nature of the kingdom (v. 21),
  • the imminent character of His coming (v. 24; 18:7-8),
  • the judgment upon unbelieving Israel like that in Noah and Lot’s day (vv. 26–30),
  • the urgent command to flee when the signs appear (v. 31–33), and
  • the decisive separation between the righteous and the wicked (vv. 34–37).

Moreover, the striking parallels between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 expose the untenable division many modern interpreters attempt to impose on the Olivet Discourse. The very same language—about the days of Noah, the lightning-like Parousia, the one taken and the one left, and the vultures over the corpse—is found in both accounts. To argue that Luke 17 refers to AD 70 while Matthew 24 refers to a future second coming ignores these textual and thematic overlaps. Luke 17 is not only contextually prior to Matthew 24, but also foundational to it—demonstrating that Jesus’ eschatology remained consistent throughout His ministry.

This demands a consistent interpretation: If Luke 17—where all of these apocalyptic elements are present—refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70, then Matthew 24–25, which uses the exact same language, refers to the same event. Jesus did not teach two different comings of the Son of Man separated by thousands of years coming as the light of day; He taught one Parousia, one judgment, one consummation, one kingdom transition—fulfilled in the lifetime of His hearers.

Major Premise: If the coming of Christ in Luke 17:20–37 refers to the same coming of the Son of Man described in Matthew 24–25 [as most futurists correctly see it]

Minor Premise: and yet the coming of Christ in Luke 17:20-37 was fulfilled in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 [as many partial preterists see it]

Conclusion: —then the coming in Matthew 24–25 must also have been fulfilled in AD 70.

If “A=B” and yet “A” was fulfilled in AD 70, then so was “B.” Pretty basic stuff – A = Luke 17 and B = Mathew 24-25

The coming of the Son of Man is not future to us but was imminent to His first-century audience. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, when the corrupt religious system was judged and the kingdom was revealed to be fully “within” those united to Christ. Just as in the days of Noah and Lot, the judgment was swift and unexpected—bringing deliverance to the righteous and wrath to the wicked. The vultures gathering over Jerusalem’s corpse signal not a future end of the world, but the end of a covenantal world—the world of Torah, temple, and tribal exclusivity.

The internal kingdom Jesus proclaimed has been inaugurated and established. His light continues to shine, not from a rebuilt temple or geopolitical Israel, but from the hearts of those who live in the power of the new covenant. The Church, indwelt by the King and empowered by His Spirit, is the true Israel of God—vindicated in history and called to walk in the light of His already-fulfilled Parousia. The kingdom is here. The King has come. The light of day is shining, and it will never go out.

Today’s Application: 

We have explored Malachi 3–4 in connection with Christ’s coming in judgment and salvation in Luke 17:20–37, depicted as the “Sun of Righteousness” or “Light of Day.” In AD 70, Christ fulfilled these prophecies, dismantling the Zealots’ vision of a militaristic Messianic kingdom and establishing the spiritual, eternal kingdom prophesied by Daniel and Jesus—a kingdom that exists “within” believers.

In contrast, modern Khazarian “Zionist zealots” hold misguided beliefs about Benjamin Netanyahu, viewing him as a potential forerunner to the Messiah, or even the Messiah himself.  Their vision of the kingdom is rooted in warfare and territorial conquest. According to certain Orthodox Jewish circles:

“It would seem that these proposals as well as other ‘signs’ have led some in the Orthodox community to believe that Bibi Netanyahu is Masiach ben Yosef (Messiah, son of Joseph) the military leader that will precede the coming of the Messiah. [He will die in battle, but will make the way for the Messiah to come.] They claim that Netanyahu will be the last leader of Israel until the Messiah comes. Because Netanyahu has a military background and the fact that [they believe] he has taken on the spiritual mantle of Mordechai as is demonstrated in his speech to the U.S. Congress noted above, they are calling him Mashiach ben Yosef.  Their website enumerates the many ways Bibi fulfills the requirements of this forerunner.”[14]

These modern zealots seek to establish a “Jewish” Messianic kingdom through war, with propaganda—funded by figures like the Rothschilds [who own MSM]—portraying Israel as merely “defending itself.” However, those familiar with the Talmud and the extreme political views of Benjamin Netanyahu recognize its violent undertones and flawed attempts to usher in a kingdom through war. Both Daniel and Jesus prophesied the definitive end of Old Covenant national Israel in AD 70 and the establishment of the true, spiritual, and eternal kingdom within those who follow the real Messiah in the New Covenant age.

Evangelical Zionists are not much better in that they support the violence of Talmudic Zionism even when stealing land from and killing Christians because they think they have a mandate to “support God’s people” and modern Israel is “fulfilling prophecy.”  But in essence Talmudic and Evangelical Zionism have rejected the OT and NT teaching concerning the timing of Messiah to come upon the clouds in judgment and establishing the spiritual Messianic Kingdom “within” the hearts of His people.  They have aligned their views of an earthly kingdom with that of unbelieving apostate Jews of the first century.  How long will they wait and want war in hopes of bring about the coming of Messiah (first or second) when these prophecies have already been fulfilled when and how Daniel and Jesus prophesied?

Study Questions:

  1. What does Jesus mean when He says the kingdom of God does not come with observation but is “within you” (Luke 17:21)? Is Jesus exegeting both the time and nature of fulfillment of Daniel’s kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7? What are the connections between Dan. 2; 7:13-27 and Luke 17:20-37?  Is it when Christ would be revealed as the light of day that the kingdom would be “within”?
  2. How does the chiastic structure of Luke 17:20–37 help clarify its meaning?
  3. In what ways does Jesus contrast external, visible expectations of the kingdom with its true spiritual reality here in Luke 17 and Matthew 23?
  4. How do the “days of Noah” and “days of Lot” illustrate the nature and timing of Christ’s coming?
  5. What parallels can be drawn between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 that support a unified, single fulfillment in AD 70?
  6. Why is it significant that Jesus said His coming would be “as the light of day shining from one part of the sky to the other”?What OT passage depicts Messiah as coming as the sun and within that context is the destruction of the Second Temple mentioned?
  7. What is the significance of the imagery of vultures gathering around the corpse in both Luke 17 and Matthew 24?
  8. How does Jesus’ answer to “Where, Lord?” in Luke 17:37 point to the destruction of Jerusalem?
  9. Why do some translators avoid rendering entos as “within you,” and what are the implications of this choice?
  10. How does this passage challenge the common modern assumption that Jesus’ second coming is still in our future?
  11. When read alongside Luke 21:27–32, and in light of the chiastic structure of Luke 17:20–37, is it clear to you that the promise of Christ establishing His kingdom “within” the hearts of His people was to be fulfilled at His coming in AD 70? While many argue that this inward and spiritual aspect of the kingdom was realized in his first coming, does the context of Luke 17 support that conclusion—or does it instead point to the judgment and kingdom consummation associated with his coming in AD 70?
  12. In Luke 17:34–36, Jesus speaks of one person being “taken” and another “left.” According to the article, who is taken and who is left, and how does this differ from popular rapture interpretations?
  13. How does the article’s interpretation of Luke 17:20–37 challenge futurist views that expect a physical, visible return of Christ in the future?
  14. How does the Talmud and many Kazarian “Jews” like Banjamin Netanyahu think the messianic kingdom is going to come and are they trying to accomplish that now?Is this Zealotism 2.0?  How is Christ’s kingdom different?

[1] Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 577. Liddell-Scott specifically translates entos in Luke 17:21 as “in your hearts.”

[2] William Hendriksen, Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids, MI: 1978), 805.

[3] A.J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1979), 89.

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism Aan Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 1999), 213

[5] Gary DeMar, “Is the Rapture Found in Matthew 24?”, Christian Family Study Centre, December 7, 2020, accessed Mar 31, 2025, https://christianfamilystudycentre.home.blog/2020/12/07/is-the-rapture-found-in-matthew-24/.

[6] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke: Jesus, the Universal Savior (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972), 202.

[7] Bray, Matthew 24 Fulfilled, 120–128.

[8] Steve Gregg, Empire of the Risen Son: A Treatise on the Kingdom of God—What It Is and Why It Matters, Book One: There Is Another King (Maitland, FL: Steve Gregg, 2020), 388–389.

[9] Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Malachi 4, StudyLight.org, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/malachi-4.html

[10] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, Malachi 4, BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/malachi/4.htm.

[11] Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark(Vol. 2, p. 78). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[12] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1831; repr., Bible Hub, accessed April 18, 2025),https://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/.

[13] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2001), s.v. “astrapē.”

[14] Victoria Radin, Who is Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu?

The Coming of The Son of Man in AD 70 Part 2: Matt. 16:27-28 – He is About to Come in Glory, Power, and in His Kingdom

Introduction

In Part 1 of this series, we examined Matthew 10:17–23 and identified several key points. First, Jesus draws on Daniel 7, describing a period of intense persecution preceding the Son of Man’s coming to deliver the Kingdom to the saints and bring the “end.” Second, the only “coming” of the Son of Man that aligns with the New Testament’s context and chronology in this passage is Jesus’ coming in judgment through the Roman armies in AD 70. Finally, the parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25, when viewed through the analogy of faith, confirm that the persecution, Kingdom, coming of the Son of Man, and “end” refer to the same event. This raises a critical exegetical question: How many comings of Christ and eschatological “ends” do Jesus and Daniel address in Matthew 10:17–23, Daniel 7, 9:24–27, and 12:4–7?

In Part 2, we will analyze Matthew 16:27–28, highlighting the same challenges for partial preterists and futurists. The consistent teaching of Jesus, reinforced by parallels between Matthew 10:17–23, 16:27–28, and 24–25, makes it clear that He describes a single coming fulfilled within the lifetime of His first-century audience. For partial preterists like Keith Mathison, who interpret the Son of Man’s coming in Matthew 10:22–23 and 16:27–28 as fulfilled in AD 70, Matthew 24–25 poses a problem: it becomes difficult to argue that Jesus envisions two separate comings—one in AD 70 and another at the supposed end of world history.  This is why Mathison has gone back and forth in how to exegete Matthew 24-25.  Then there are other partial preterits like Ken Gentry who try to create two comings of Jesus beginning here in Matthew 16:27-28 so he can try and slide that distinction in Matthew 24-25.  We will critique Gentry’s approach and others who divide these verses (vss. 27-28) to uphold creedal expectations of a future coming, revealing the eisegesis underlying their interpretations.

Matthew 16:27–28 / Mark 8:38–9:1

“For the Son of Man will [or is “about to…” YLT] come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28).

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has [‘already’ Rotherham    Translation] come with power” (Mark 8:38–9:1).

Before exegeting these key texts, it is important to note that many conservative interpreters rightly observe them as referring to Christ coming in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. These passages provide a framework for understanding Christ’s coming as apocalyptic and imminent, in keeping with the consistent New Testament emphasis on fulfillment within the first century.

Adam Clarke correctly connects the coming of Christ in glory of Matthew 16:27 with Daniel 7:13-14 to AD 70,

“This was the glorious Mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of his Gospel through the whole world.”[1]

He also identifies the coming in the next verse to be referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem,

 “This verse seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of pentecost, and its final triumph after the destruction of the Jewish polity; as if he had said, “Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.” The destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish          economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this: and some of the persons now with him doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the   extension of the Messiah’s kingdom; and our Lord told them these things before, that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the faith, and expect an exact fulfillment of all the other promises and prophecies which concerned the extension and support of the kingdom of Christ.

To his kingdom, or in his kingdom…This makes the passage a little more conformable to the passage already quoted from Daniel; and it must appear, very clearly…of the destruction of the Jewish polity…”[2]

Reformed theologian and John Lightfoot agrees:

“In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech.”

Lightfoot then outlines several descriptions tied to this coming:

  1. “The great and terrible day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:2–3)
  2. “The end of the world” (Jer. 4:27; Matt. 24:29)
  3. “The last times” (Isa. 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:3)—referring to the final days of that covenant age
  4. The beginning of a “new world” (Isa. 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13)
  5. His “coming in the clouds” (Rev. 1:7), “in glory with the angels” (Matt. 24:30)
  6. His enthronement and judgment with the apostles judging Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30)

Lightfoot concludes:

“Our Savior had said, ‘Whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation…’ to warn that His coming in glory would occur during the lifetimes of some standing there.”[3]

Keith Mathison interprets Christ coming in His glory of Matthew 16:27-28 to be a foundational text in understanding how the coming of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 was fulfilled in AD 70,

“There is a distinct parallel between the language of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 and Matthew 16:27-28, which describes a coming of the Son of Man for judgment within the lifetime of some of His disciples.”[4]

Although Matthew 16:27-28 is another instance where Jesus promises to come in judgment within the lifetimes of some in the crowd standing before Him, drawing once again on Daniel 7:13-14 as He did in Matthew 10, many seek to separate verse 27 from verse 28. Some readily acknowledge that verse 27 refers to the second coming of Christ, but because they believe it cannot have been fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, they interpret the coming of Christ in verse 28 as the ascension or transfiguration event. However, numerous exegetical arguments demonstrate a strong connection between these two verses.

(1) “For the Son of Man is about to come…” (Matt. 16:27, YLT)

The Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), along with Darby, Wuest, and Weymouth, correctly renders Jesus’ words as “about to come,” emphasizing the imminence conveyed by the Greek verb mellō. This translation aligns with mellō’s usage throughout Matthew and the New Testament, consistently indicating something imminent—not distant or indefinite.

Here are several examples of mellō in Matthew’s Gospel:

  • Matthew 2:13 (WEY): Herod is “about to” seek Jesus’ life, prompting Joseph and Mary to flee. Mellō expresses an imminent threat, not a vague or far-off danger.
  • Matthew 3:7 (GNT): John warns the Pharisees of the “wrath about to come.”  The urgency is supported by the context—John’s message of a kingdom “at hand” (v. 2), with judgment imagery: the ax already “at the root of the trees” (v. 10), and the winnowing fork “in His hand” (v. 12). This wrath and kingdom were not distant; they were looming over that generation. Jesus later ties this judgment and harvest to the end of the Old Covenant age (cf. Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3, 31–34).
  • Mathew 17:10–13: Mello appears twice. First, Elijah is “about to” come—a sign of immediate expectation. Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment, confirming Elijah had already come. Yet many premillennialists still expect a future Elijah, despite Jesus’ clear teaching. Second, mellō refers to Jesus’ own suffering, which was also imminent, not far off.
  • Matthew 24:6 (WEY): The disciples would “before long” begin hearing of wars and rumors of wars. While these were early signs, Jesus clarifies “the end” was not yet. The decisive signs of the end—worldwide gospel proclamation (Matt. 24:14) and armies surrounding Jerusalem (Luke 21:20)—would signal that His coming was truly near. that Christ’s second coming was indeed near.

In summary, the “about to” coming in Matthew 16:27 coheres with the promise in verse 28—that some standing there would live to see the kingdom come in power. After generations of longing for the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom was, at last, about to arrive.

(2) “Verily I say unto you…” (Matt. 16:28)

The phrase “Verily,” or “Truly I say to you,” appears nearly 100 times in the Gospels. It always functions to emphasize or affirm what was just stated—not to introduce a new, unrelated subject. The meaning is strong: “truly,” “indeed,” or “may it be fulfilled.”

Despite this, Thomas Ice, a dispensational premillennialist, claims:

“…verse twenty-seven looks at the establishment of the kingdom in the future, while a          promise of seeing the Messiah in His glory is the thought of verse twenty-eight. They are two     separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’”[5]

However, Ice does not provide a single instance where “Truly I say unto you” is used to introduce a new subject. Without any supporting evidence, his point is, at the very least, unscholarly and, at worst, irresponsible.

At an Evangelical Theological Society session, I once heard a premillennial speaker make the same claim. During the Q&A, I asked, “Can you provide just one example in Jesus’ teachings where the phrase ‘Truly I say to you’ begins a new subject?” After a long silence, he admitted, “No.” I replied, “Then it’s unwise to repeat arguments from other scholars who haven’t done their research. I’ve examined every use of the phrase, and in every case, it reinforces the previous point—which is exactly how it functions in Matthew 16:27–28.”

Christ had just declared He was “about to come” to reward each person (v. 27), and He doubled down on that point in v. 28: some of His listeners would live to see it. Far from shifting topics, His “truly” emphasizes the nearness and certainty of what He just said.

(3) “Some standing here shall not taste of death” and “the kingdom of God” (Matt. 16:28)

Jesus’ statement that “some standing here shall not taste of death” refers to a specific prophetic sequence: persecution in the apostolic generation followed by the arrival of the kingdom in judgment. This is not a vague prediction that a few disciples would live into old age; it is anchored in Jesus’ consistent teaching that links persecution with His return (cf. Matt. 10:16–23; Luke 21:16–32; Matt. 23:31–36; John 21:19–22; Rev. 6:10–11; 16:6, 15; 18:5, 20). The only unrelated death mentioned in the Gospels is that of Judas.

Jesus’ teaching echoes the book of Daniel:

  • The kingdom would be established during the Roman Empire (cf. Dan. 2 & 7).
  • Persecution of the saints would precede the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, followed by their receiving of the kingdom (Dan. 7:13–22).

Premillennialist Thomas Ice offers a weak rebuttal to the preterist interpretation. He writes:

 “A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said ‘some of those standing here…’ It is clear that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals… Peter notes that ‘John only survived among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem.’”[6]

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, it wrongly assumes Jesus was speaking only to the Twelve. However, Mark’s parallel makes it explicit: “Then He called the crowd to Him along with His disciples and said…” (Mark 8:34–9:1). Jesus was addressing a broader group, not just the apostles.

Second, Ice’s assumption that only John survived until AD 70 is speculative and irrelevant. “Some” could easily apply to members of the broader crowd Jesus addressed—even if only a few survived the predicted judgment.

Taken together with his earlier claim that “Verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic (which it never does), this reflects a pattern of misinterpretation. Such oversights are surprising from someone regarded as a prophecy expert and public debater.

(4) “…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…” (Mark 8:38).

Jesus is not accusing His audience of physical adultery, but of spiritual and covenantal unfaithfulness. By calling them an “adulterous generation,” He is identifying Israel as the unfaithful bride who rejected her Messiah—the Groom standing before them. Though Mark 8:38 doesn’t explicitly mention Jerusalem’s divorce and remarriage, it alludes to them through the language of shame and covenant judgment. The coming of the Son of Man “with His reward” evokes wedding imagery from Isaiah 62:4–5, 11, linking judgment with the eschatological marriage feast.

Under the old covenant, God was “married” to Israel (cf. Exod. 19–24). This relationship was depicted as monogamous, and later—after the kingdom split—as polygamous. In this analogy, God took two “sisters” as wives:

  • Israel (Aholah/Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom)
  • Judah (Aholibah/Jerusalem, capital of the southern kingdom) (cf. Jer. 31:31–32; Ezek. 1:1–4; 1 Kings 11:9–13).

Both “wives” committed spiritual adultery. Israel was divorced and judged through the Assyrian captivity. Judah, though judged by Babylon, remained under covenant—because from her line would come the Messiah.

The prophet Hosea dramatizes Israel’s divorce and burial among the Gentiles, while anticipating Judah’s future judgment and a restored marriage in the “wilderness” (Hos. 2). This renewed covenant, fulfilled in Christ, would be a remarriage—a new bride formed from both Jews and Gentiles.

Under old covenant law, an adulterous wife was to be stoned, and a priest’s wife burned. Revelation 19 portrays Jerusalem—the unfaithful harlot—as judged accordingly. She is stripped and left “ashamed” (cf. Rev. 17:16). In contrast, the church—Christ’s new bride—is clothed in righteousness, the “New Jerusalem” from above (cf. Matt. 22:1–14; Rev. 3:18; 19:8; 21:2; 2 Cor. 5:1–21).

Thus, when Jesus says He will be “ashamed” of that generation at His coming, He is invoking a prophetic tradition of marital judgment and covenant transition. The unfaithful wife would be exposed; the faithful bride would be glorified.

These marriage and judgment motifs will reappear later in this chapter—in Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–12) and in Revelation 17–21, where the full picture of Jerusalem’s divorce and the Church’s betrothal is fully revealed.

(5) “…There are certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power” (Mark 9:1, Rotherham Translation).

Mark’s version of this prophecy adds a key detail: some standing in the crowd would live to see Christ’s kingdom already come in power. Unlike Matthew, who uses the future tense (“will see”), Mark uses the perfect participle, indicating a completed action—they would witness that it had already arrived. Kenneth Gentry, citing J.A. Alexander, clarifies this point:

“Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here employed.”[12] Thus, His disciples were to expect its exhibition in power. It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power. Yet it was to be within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This seems clearly to refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and removal of the Old Testament means of worship (cf. Heb. 12:25–28; Rev.1:1, 3, 9). This occurred as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21–23; Mt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–34:34).[7]

In other words, Jesus wasn’t merely predicting a future event—He was assuring His disciples that some of them would look backand recognize that the kingdom had already arrived in power. This was fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant system—events Jesus had explicitly predicted (cf. John 4:21–23; Matt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–24:34).

Jesus also says they would “see” His coming. The Greek word eidō implies more than physical sight—it includes spiritual perception or understanding. Some in His audience would both witness the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and grasp that this was the fulfillment of His promise: the kingdom had come “with power” and was now present “within” (Luke 17:21).

This reading aligns Mark 8:38–9:1 with Luke 17:20–37 and affirms that Jesus’ coming was not a visible removal of believers from the earth, but a covenantal transition. It rebuts futurist “rapture” interpretations and supports the view that survivors remained to spread the good news in the renewed new covenant creation—just as Isaiah foresaw (cf. Isa. 65–66).

(6) Matthew 16:27–28 and the Olivet Discourse—The Analogy of Faith (Jesus Interprets Jesus)

Earlier we saw that Matthew 10:17–23 previews themes expanded in the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, Matthew 16:27–28 condenses Jesus’ teaching on His coming in glory, judgment, and power—later unpacked in greater detail in Matthew 24–25.

Matthew 16:27–28 & Parallels

Olivet Discourse
(1)  Christ comes in glory

(Luke 9:26)

 (1)  Christ comes in glory

(Matt. 24:30)
(2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

 (2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)
(3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 16:27)

 (3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)
(4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(5)  Some disciples would live

(Matt. 16:28)

 (5)  Some disciples would live

(Luke 21:16–18)
(6)  Some disciples would die

(Matt. 16:28)

 (6)  Some disciples would die

(Luke 21:16)
(7)  Christ would be ashamed of some in His “this adulterous generation”(Mark 8:38) (7)  All would occur in His “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

Premillennial Zionists like Thomas Ice argue that verse 28 refers to the transfiguration, not the second coming. To support this, Ice claims that “verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic.[8] But this phrase never introduces new material—it always links and emphasizes what came before.

The Greek conjunction kai (“and”) does mark narrative progression: “And after six days Jesus…” (Matt. 17:1). Yet the transfiguration is not the fulfillment—it is a preview of Christ’s glory and His new covenant authority.

At the transfiguration, Peter wants to preserve the visible glory of Moses and Elijah. But God removes them, leaving only Christ’s glory and the command to “hear Him” (Matt. 17:5–8). This symbolizes the passing away of the old covenant and the supremacy of the new (cf. Matt. 24:35).

Peter later clarifies this in 2 Peter 1:16–19, where he defends the second coming against critics. He appeals not to speculation but to the vision on the mount as confirmation from God. Though Peter doesn’t use metamorphoō (“transfigured”), he invokes the same imagery: “until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts”—a reference to the “last day” of John’s Gospel and the “in that day” of Luke 17 and Matthew 24–25.

The verb metamorphoō appears only two other times: in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18. In both, it signifies a spiritual, covenantal transformation, not a biological one. In Romans, this transformation culminates in the fullness of Jew and Gentile salvation (Rom. 11:25–36), and is tied to the imminent arrival of final redemption (Rom. 13:11–12). In 2 Corinthians, believers are “being transformed” as the veil of the old covenant lifts, reflecting Christ’s glory with unveiled faces.

The fading glory of Moses—and of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration—illustrates the end of the old covenant. The new covenant brings unfading, eternal light, allowing the church to behold Christ’s glory forever (2 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:4).

The Transfiguration as a Preview of the Parousia  

Sam Waldron interprets Matthew 16:27 as the second coming event but Christ coming in His kingdom of verse 28 as having,

“…language of Christ coming in His kingdom would appear, then, to be a reference to his transfiguration on the mount which was a kind of precursor of His second coming in glory.”[9]

If the transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the Futurists concept of the second coming or parousia, we should ask: where in that vision do we see the planet earth burning, Christ descending on a literal cloud, or corpses flying out of tombs to reunite with their spirits?

None of these popular images appear. Instead, the transfiguration reveals the theological essence of the parousia: the passing glory of the old covenant, represented by Moses (law) and Elijah (prophets) giving way to the abiding glory of the new covenant, fully established by AD 70.

Waldron also tries to make a distinction or “contrast” between Christ “coming in glory” (v. 27) verses Him “coming in His kingdom” in (v. 28) as being two separate comings separated by thousands of years.  But once again Mr. Waldron does not go back to Jesus’ OT source of Daniel 7:13-14 which connects Him coming upon the clouds in glory with His kingdom.  Nor is there any discussion of how Christ both comes in His glory and the kingdom within His generation in the Olivet discourse (cf. Luke 21:27-32).  Therefore, Paul under inspiration connected Christ’s coming and His kingdom as “about to” arrive together anticipating the events of AD 70,

“I fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and dead at His appearing and His kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1 LSV/SLT/YLT/BLT).

The first two major teachings on the coming of the Son of Man—Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 16:27–28 (paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1)—serve as condensed previews of the fuller exposition Jesus gives in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28

& Parallels

Olivet Discourse
(1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22) (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man(Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)
(6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) (6) Christ comes in glory

(Matt. 24:30)
(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

 (7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)
(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

 (8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)
(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

 (10) Some in the crowd would live towitness the second coming

(Luke 21:16–18)
(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming

(Matt. 16:28)

 (11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming

(Luke 21:16)
(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation

(Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38)

 (12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

Before closing, as we did in Matthew 10, I will demonstrate that Jesus once again has Daniel’s prophetic material at the forefront of his mind:

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels
1).  The Son of Man / Messiah comes during the time of the 4th or Roman Empire on the clouds “as” or “like” “the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX)

 

 1).  Jesus was living in the time of the Roman Empire and was “about to come” “in his glory and the glory of His Father” within the lifetime of those standing in the crowd (Luke 9:26-27)
2).  This is when Christ rules in His kingdom & the saints inherit His kingdom            (Dan. 7:14, 27) 2).  Christ and His kingdom come in power and glory at this time (Matt. 16:27-28)
3).  This would be when the Ancient of Days would “open the books” in the Great White Throne judgment (Dan. 7:10)

*  This is not the ascension, but the Second Coming at the end of the millennium when the “book(s) are opened” and the dead are raised and judged – 7:10-13; 9:24-27; 12:1-2

 3).  This would be when Jesus would judge or “repay each person according to what they had done” (Matt. 16:27)

*  Jesus is invoking the context and fulfillment of Dan. 7; 9; and 12 when Messiah was understood to come to judge and raise the dead – cf. 11QMelch.

Partial Preterism and Matthew 16:27-28

While many partial preterists agree with us that Matthew 16:27–28 form a unified declaration by Christ foretelling His AD 70 coming to judge, reward, and establish His kingdom, others—such as Kenneth Gentry—disagree. In an article on this passage, Gentry seeks to redefine what constitutes “orthodox preterism” on this critical text. He claims that anyone who sees verses 27 and 28 as referring to the same AD 70 event is veering into “liberalism” or advocating “hyper-preterism.”

Gentry’s position is that verse 27 refers to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of world history, when all men are rewarded, whereas verse 28 pertains to Christ’s coming to manifest His kingdom in the fall of Jerusalem.

However, this sharply contradicts the views of other prominent partial preterists such as Gary DeMar, who swiftly responded to Gentry, pointing out that many respected commentators throughout church history have interpreted Matthew 16:27 as a reference to Christ’s coming in judgment in AD 70. These include Adam Clarke, Henry Hammond, and—ironically—Gentry’s own favored “orthodox preterist,” John Lightfoot. Ouch.[10]

We must also mention Gentry’s contemporary, Keith Mathison, who likewise interprets both Matthew 16:27–28 as referring to Christ’s judgment upon Jerusalem. Mathison even uses this passage as a foundational support for his view that Christ came in flaming fire to bring relief to the persecuted Thessalonian Church and wrath upon their persecutors in AD 70 (2 Thess. 1:7–9). This is particularly noteworthy since many “orthodox preterists” consider that fiery coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 to be the Second Coming event that ends the millennium (cf. Rev. 20:5–15). Will Gentry now accuse Mathison—his own co-author and editor of When Shall These Things Be?—of advancing a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” interpretation of Matthew 16:27–28 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9? Gentry’s appeal to “orthodox preterism” quickly collapses under the weight of his own theological allies, including Lightfoot and Mathison.

Gentry offers two primary arguments for why Matthew 16:27–28 must refer to two entirely separate comings of Christ, separated by thousands of years.

First Argument: Alleged Universal End of Time Judgment in Matthew 16:27

Gentry argues that verse 27 refers to a final judgment of all mankind because Jesus says He will “repay every man”:

“In v. 27 we see the universal nature of His coming: He ‘will then repay every man.’ Thus, all men will be involved in His judgment.”

This is deeply ironic, considering Gentry admits elsewhere that Revelation 22:10–12—where Christ says He is coming soon to repay each person according to what he has done—was fulfilled in AD 70[11]:

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

Let us respond directly to Gentry’s first point:

  • Matthew 16:27 (YLT) clearly states that the Son of Man was “about to come” (Gr. mellō) to judge and reward all men. Revelation 22:12 uses nearly identical language, affirming Christ’s soon coming to bring recompense to each person. The time-frame and substance match perfectly.
  • Both passages draw directly from Daniel 7:10–13, where the Son of Man comes in judgment during the Roman Empire, the books are opened, and all are judged. This judgment scene not only matches Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:12 but also forms the same judgment after the millennium in Revelation 20:12–13.
  • Revelation 22:10 declares that the “appointed time” for the vision isnear and should not be sealed, in contrast to Daniel 12:4, 9, where the vision is not near and thus sealed. Daniel 12:2–7 describes “the appointed time” for the resurrection and judgment occurring at the time of the tribulation, during the final three-and-a-half years when Jerusalem would be “completely shattered” (Dan. 12:7)—i.e., AD 67–70. Thus, Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:10–12 are speaking of the same near and imminent judgment, rooted in Daniel’s vision of the coming of the Son of Man to open the books and judge all men (Dan. 7:10–13; Rev. 20:12–13 = Rev. 22:10–12).

Second Argument: Supposed Difference Between Christ’s “Coming in Glory” and “Coming in the Kingdom”

Gentry claims that the “coming in glory” in verse 27 is distinct from the “coming in His kingdom” in verse 28. But this argument collapses upon closer biblical inspection.

As demonstrated elsewhere, Jesus consistently links His coming in glory, power, judgment, and the arrival of His kingdom in texts such as Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32. There is no disjunction between His “coming” and the arrival of the “kingdom”—they are concurrent events.

Paul also affirms this in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT), where Christ’s about to be (mellō) coming or appearance brings both the kingdom and the judgment of the living and the dead—a clear reference to the same AD 70 event.

In short, Gentry has no legitimate exegetical basis for separating Matthew 16:27–28. His own admission that Revelation 22:10-12 was fulfilled in AD 70 refutes his insistence that Matthew 16:27 must be a future, world-ending event. And his attempt to redefine “orthodox preterism” not only contradicts biblical context but alienates his theological heroes and peers.

Major Premise:

The coming of the Son of Man in judgment, glory, and power to recompense described in Matthew 16:27 / Mark 8:38-9:1 is the same event as the coming of the kingdom in power described in Matthew 16:28, and both are tied to the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem—as affirmed by intertextual parallels with Daniel 7:10–13; 12:2–7, Revelation 22:10–12, Revelation 20:12–13, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, and Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32.

Minor Premise:

All these texts (Matthew 16:27–28; Revelation 22:12; Daniel 7:10–13; Revelation 20:12–13; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; etc.) describe one unified judgment-coming of Christ:

  • That was“about to” (Gr. mellō) or “soon” (Rev. 22:10–12),
  • That brings judgment and reward,
  • That occurs within the lifetimes of Jesus’ first-century audience (Matt. 16:28),
  • And that is consistently connected to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age (Dan. 12:2-7; Luke 21:27–32; Matt. 24:3–34).

Conclusion:

Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 refers to the same first-century, AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment and kingdom / glory / power and cannot be divided into two separate comings thousands of years apart. Kenneth Gentry’s attempt to divide the verses is exegetically, contextually, and theologically untenable.

Conclusion

Matthew 16:27–28, paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1, stands as a pivotal teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man in His glory and kingdom, fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ declaration that “some standing here shall not taste death” until they see the kingdom come in power (Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1) underscores the first-century timeframe, reinforced by the Greek mellō (“about to”) and the consistent use of “this generation” across His teachings. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–14, Jesus connects His coming with judgment, reward, and the establishment of His mediatorial kingdom, themes echoed in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25). The transfiguration, often misread as the fulfillment, serves instead as a preview of this eschatological event, symbolizing the transition from the fading glory of the Old Covenant to the eternal light of the New Covenant.

Exegetical arguments—such as the continuity affirmed by “verily I say unto you,” the covenantal imagery of an “adulterous generation,” and the spiritual perception implied by “see”—refute futurist attempts to separate verses 27 and 28 or project the coming to a distant future. Dispensationalist claims, like those of Thomas Ice, lack textual support and misinterpret key phrases, while the preterist view aligns with historical evidence (Jerusalem’s fall) and New Testament imminence (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:1). By framing His coming as a covenantal judgment and marital transition, Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies (Isa. 62; Hos. 2) and establishes the Church as His new bride. Matthew 16:27–28 thus lays a foundation for the Olivet Discourse, affirming that Christ’s Parousia in AD 70 was a transformative event, bringing judgment on the unfaithful and glory to the faithful, with the kingdom now present in the hearts of believers (Luke 17:21) and proclaimed in the new covenant age.

Major Premise:
Daniel 7:13–14 foretells the Son of Man coming with the clouds during the Roman Empire to receive dominion, glory, and a kingdom, accompanied by judgment, the opening of the books, and the vindication of the saints—events tied to “the end” (Dan. 7:10–27; 12:1–2).

Minor Premise:
In Matthew 16:27–28, Jesus draws directly from Daniel’s prophecy, declaring He was about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels to reward each person. He also promises that some standing there would live to see His kingdom come with power—mirroring His earlier teaching in Matthew 10:23 and later exposition in Matthew 24:27–34, where the same coming, judgment, and kingdom arrival occur within “this generation.”

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 describes the same coming of the Son of Man as in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:27–34—a unified eschatological event fulfilled in AD 70, when Christ came in judgment upon apostate Israel, ended the Old Covenant age, and established His kingdom in power, all in perfect fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies.

Study Questions for Matthew 16:27-28:

  1. How does the phrase “about to come” (Greekmellō) in Matthew 16:27 influence your understanding of the timing of Christ’s return in this passage?
  2. Why is it significant that Jesus links the promise of His coming in glory (v. 27) directly with a promise that some of His audience would live to see it (v. 28)? How does this challenge futurist interpretations?
  3. What role does Daniel 7:9-13, 12:2-4 play in shaping Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:27–28, and how does this Old Testament background reinforce a preterist view?
  4. What exegetical evidence undermines the claim (by Thomas Ice and others) that Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 refer to two separate events?
  5. Why is the phrase “Truly I say unto you” (amēn legō humin) important in arguing for the unity of verses 27 and 28? How is it used elsewhere in the Gospels?
  6. In what ways does the transfiguration serve as a preview, rather than a fulfillment, of the Parousia? What theological themes are symbolized in the fading of Moses and Elijah and the sole exaltation of Christ?
  7. How does Mark 9:1’s use of the perfect participle (“already come with power”) contribute to the case for a first-century fulfillment of the kingdom’s arrival?
  8. What is the covenantal significance of Jesus calling His generation “adulterous,” and how does this shape our understanding of His coming in judgment?
  9. How do Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT) (about Christ being “about to judge” at His appearing and His kingdom) harmonize with Matthew 16:27–28 and support an AD 70 fulfillment?
  10. Why do some partial preterists (like Kenneth Gentry) divide these verses into two different comings, and how does that compare to the unified approach held by figures like Adam Clarke, John Lightfoot, and Keith Mathison? Whose reading do you find more compelling—and why?
  11. Does Gentry’s argument for dividing Matthew 16:27–28 hold up, given that he also takes Revelation 22:10–12 and Daniel 12:2 as fulfilled in AD 70? Is he not creating an artificial distinction between two comings of Jesus in order to later justify the same division in Matthew 24–25?Does Gentry desperately need a future to us coming of Jesus to remain creedal and do you think this is the main reason for his eisegesis of Matthew 16:27-28?

[1] Adam Clarke, StudyLight.org Matthew 16:27

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 422.

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 1999), 228

[5] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.

[6] Ibid., 88.

[7] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion, 219–220.

[8] Ice, End Times Controversy, 88.

[9] Waldron, Ibid. 382

[10] Gary DeMar, How Commentators Interpret Matthew16:27 https://americanvision.org/posts/how-commentators-interpret-matthew-16-27/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWUWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfy7eL-ioS_c-VtPJ-hBZEKCECb9t8OV_k4wVY2S-s3cbqKrbttycQM9kg_aem_D9hGO8_vbMh0Uv-mxr7JUw

[11] Kenneth Gentry and contributors, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 41

The Coming of The Son of Man in AD 70 Part 1: Matthew 10:17-23 – What “Coming” of the Son of Man & “End” Is This?

Introduction

After examining articles that show how God uses Isaiah and Daniel to build on Moses’ eschatology in Deuteronomy 32, we see their shared focus on a perverse and crooked generation during the Roman Empire, marking the “near” “appointed time of the end.” This generation would witness the Messiah’s coming on the clouds, bringing salvation to His people while executing imminent judgment to end old covenant Israel in AD 70. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus prophesies this return in judgment within the lifetime of His first-century audience, a teaching foundational to passages like Matthew 24–25. Yet, dispensationalists propose two future comings—a secret rapture followed by a visible return seven years later—while partial preterists affirm a spiritual coming in AD 70 but expect a final return to conclude history. Does Jesus’ teaching support two distinct eschatological comings, or one fulfilled in the first century? Furthermore, did He describe this coming as physical and visible or as spiritual and internal? To answer these questions, we will exegete key passages, including Matthew 10:17–23, 13:39–43, 16:27–28, 26:64–65, and Luke 17, before exploring Matthew 24–25, to clarify how Jesus points to AD 70 as the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy (Luke 21:22–32).

Matthew 10:17–23

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.  But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues.  You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.  But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.  “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.  And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:17–23, NKJV).

Jesus told His first-century disciples—not a future generation—that they would not run out of cities in Israel to flee to before He returned. These cities served as places of refuge during persecution, and the coming He refers to is His return in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70.

Premillennialist D.A. Carson explains and concedes,

“vv. 17–22, pictures the suffering witness of the church in the post-Pentecost period during a time when many of Jesus’ disciples are still bound up with the synagogue.  vv. 2 The “coming of the Son of Man” here refers to his coming in judgment against the Jews, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (so France, Jesus, p. 140; Feuillet, “Les origines,” pp. 182–98; Moule, Birth, p. 90; J.A.T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming [London: SCM, 1957], pp. 80, 91–92; and others).[1]”

Amillennialist Sam Waldron also concedes,

“My conclusion is that the “coming” of Matthew 10:23 is a reference to His sending of judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 through the Roman armies.”[2]

Yet many interpreters avoid this conclusion, instead suggesting Jesus’ “coming” here was fulfilled at the cross, resurrection, or Pentecost. This view fails for two reasons:

First, Jesus listed specific events that would precede His coming:

  1. Some would be scourged in synagogues.
  2. Some would be brought before governors and kings.
  3. The Holy Spirit would be given as a miraculous defense.
  4. Some would be put to death during a period of severe persecution.

None of these events occurred before the crucifixion, the resurrection, or Pentecost; however, all are documented in the book of Acts and took place before Christ came in the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

Second, Matthew 10:17–23 previews what Jesus would expand upon in Matthew 24–25: persecution, divine aid, the gospel going to the nations, and the parousia or “coming”—all within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

The AD 70 Parallels and Domino Effect of Matthew 10:17-23

Jesus’ words in Matthew 10 foreshadow the broader pattern of events He later elaborates in the Olivet Discourse, forming a unified eschatological framework: one coming, one judgment, fulfilled within the lifetime of His disciples. The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and the Olivet Discourse are striking:

Matthew 10:17–23 Olivet Discourse
(1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2)  Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures to “the end” will be “saved” (Matt. 10:22) (4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures  to “the end” will be “saved” (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the “end” and the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples and Paul were to preach the gospel to the then-known world before “the end” (of the old covenant age) and the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)

Many commentators, noting the strong parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25, overlook the audience relevance and temporal context, teaching that Matthew 10:17-23 refers to a future to us second coming of Jesus. They assume both Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24-25 describe events still to come. However, we align with the commonsense position of Premillennial D.A. Carson, Amillennial Sam Waldron, and Postmillennial Partial Preterists whom interpret Matthew 10:23 as Christ’s judgment coming in AD 70. We also agree with certain futurists who point out the obvious in that the parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25 indicate they refer to the same coming of Christ.  These two orthodox views have formed Full Preterism.  This is not an “either or” but a “both and” solution.

The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25 create exegetical challenges for Premillennialists like D.A. Carson and Amillennialists like Sam Waldron, who argue that these passages do not refer to the same coming of the Son of Man. If Jesus promised to return to judge Jerusalem, as they both affirm Jesus teaches here in Matthew 10:23, would He not have referenced this “coming” elsewhere in His teachings such as Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24-25, and Matthew 26:64-65? Furthermore, if New Testament authors, under divine inspiration, describe Christ’s coming as “at hand,” “soon,” or “about to” occur, why would these references not also point to the AD 70 judgment, consistent with Matthew 10:23? Many partial preterists such as Gary DeMar recognize the implications of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 10:23, connecting it to Matthew 16:27–28 and other New Testament passages that emphasize a “soon” coming, all pointing to AD 70. In contrast, Carson and Waldron treat the “coming” of Christ in Matthew 10:23 as an isolated event, disconnected from Jesus’ other teachings on His imminent return in the Gospels and the broader New Testament.

In the immediate context of Matthew 10, Jesus proclaims, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7). As we will see, Christ connects His coming with the arrival of the kingdom in subsequent passages. Futurists err by limiting the “at hand” kingdom solely to Christ’s first coming, especially since Jesus draws from Daniel 7:13–27, which ties the coming of the Son of Man to receiving the kingdom. Daniel 2 further clarifies that this kingdom is spiritual, distinct from human kingdoms.

Let’s examine the parallels between Jesus’ teaching here in Matthew 10 with his OT source material in Daniel:

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 10
1). There is severe persecution before the Son of Man comes on the clouds and the saints inherit His Kingdom (Dan. 7:13-27) 1). There is severe persecution before the Son of Man “comes” and the saints inherit His Kingdom (Matt. 10:17-23)

 
2). The Son of Man comes & the saints inherit the “kingdom” during the time of the Roman Empire (Dan. 7:1-27) 2). The Son of Man comes in the lifetime of the disciples & the “kingdom” was “at hand” during the Roman Empire (Matt. 10:7-23)
3). The coming of the Son of Man at “the appointed end” is when Messiah would judge Israel and the nations or when the “book(s) were opened” (Dan. 7:10-13; 12:1-4LXX) 3).  The disciples would live to witness the “end” and “coming” of the Son of Man at the “day of judgment” when He would judge Israel with the nations                (Matt. 10:15-23)

 

Scholars like Carson and Waldron often overlook that Jesus’ Old Testament source in Matthew 10:17–23 is Daniel 7:13–27, which develops the same eschatological themes:

  • The coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13 = Matt. 10:23).
  • Persecution precedes inheriting the kingdom, the time of the end and the coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13–27 = Matt. 10:7, 17–23).
  • Contextually, this is described as “the day of judgment,” even for the dead of Sodom and Gomorrah, when Christ would sit on His throne, judge the nations, and strip them of their dominion (Dan. 7:9–27 = Matt. 10:15).

While we commend D.A. Carson, Sam Waldron, and postmillennial partial preterists like Kenneth Gentry for interpreting Christ’s “coming” in Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70, they inconsistently apply this exegesis by failing to connect it to Daniel 7 and Matthew 24–25, where the same second coming event is described. Some partial preterists assert that the “coming” in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:30 refers to AD 70 but argue that Matthew 25:31 describes a future event. Yet, in Matthew 10:23, 24:30, and 25:31, Jesus fulfills the “coming” prophesied in Daniel 7:13. Where does Daniel 7:13 indicate two distinct comings of Jesus separated by thousands of years? Moreover, the “coming” in Matthew 25:31 recapitulates the same event discussed in Matthew 24:3, 27, and 30, all rooted in Daniel’s prophecy.

When the disciples inquire about His “coming” in Matthew 24:3, and Jesus responds in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31, why would they assume this refers to a different coming than the one He promised within their lifetimes in Matthew 10:23, also fulfilling Daniel 7:13? Why would Jesus or the disciples have the end of world history in mind when He taught that they would experience the “end” at His coming within their generation? Furthermore, isn’t the “end” and “three and a half years” tied to the Son of Man’s coming in Daniel 7:13, 25–26 the same “end” and “three and a half years” in Daniel 9:26–27 and 12:4, 7, linked to “the war” that results in Jerusalem’s “desolation” and “shattering” between AD 67 and AD 70? Carson and Waldron’s hermeneutics fall short, as they fail to harmonize their AD 70 interpretation of Matthew 10:17–23 with Matthew 24–25 and neglect to develop the Old Testament source texts in Daniel 7, 9:24–27, and 12:4–7, as required by the analogy of faith.

Before leaving our text, it is important to point out that Jesus is not saying that His disciples would fail to reach all towns in Israel before His return. Rather, while they carried out their mission from roughly AD 26–66, He assured them there would always be another city of refuge. Some scholars, like B.M. Metzger, interpret the Greek to mean just that:

“…the Committee preferred to regard the words as a natural continuation, inserted in order to explain the following statement, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἕως [ἂν] ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (which was taken to mean, “You will not exhaust the cities of Israel [as cities   of refuge], before the Son of Man comes”).”[3]

Up to the end (of the old covenant age), He would provide them with cities of refuge somewhere within Israel. Paul later confirms that all nations throughout the then-known Roman world had heard the gospel in his day just as the end of the old covenant age was approaching (cf. Rom. 10:18; 16:25–26; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

Conclusion

Matthew 10:17–23 presents a clear and unified teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man, fulfilled in AD 70 with the judgment on Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ promise that His disciples would not exhaust Israel’s cities of refuge before His return (Matt. 10:23) ties directly to the persecution, divine empowerment, and gospel proclamation detailed in the passage, all of which were realized in the apostolic era as documented in Acts. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–27, Jesus frames His coming as a singular eschatological event, bringing judgment, the kingdom’s arrival, and vindication for the persecuted, all within “this generation” (cf. Matt. 24:34). The striking parallels with the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) confirm this as one coming, not two, refuting dispensationalist and partial preterist attempts to posit multiple returns or a distant future fulfillment.

Scholars like D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron correctly identify Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70 but falter by isolating it from Jesus’ other teachings (e.g., Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25) and Daniel’s prophecies (Dan. 7:13; 9:26–27; 12:4–7), which consistently point to a first-century consummation. The preterist interpretation, harmonizing Matthew 10 with these texts and New Testament imminence (“soon,” “at hand”), affirms that Christ faithfully returned in AD 70, spiritually establishing His kingdom and bringing closure to the Old Covenant system.

Major Premise:
Daniel prophesied a singular coming of the Son of Man during the Roman Empire, involving persecution, judgment, and the inauguration of the Kingdom, to be fulfilled at the “appointed time of the end” (Dan. 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7).

Minor Premise:
Jesus taught in Matthew 10:17–23 that His disciples would face persecution, be empowered by the Holy Spirit, and not finish fleeing through Israel’s cities before the Son of Man came. He later repeated and expanded these same themes in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), placing them all within His generation.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 10 and the Olivet Discourse describe the same AD 70 fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy—the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon apostate Israel and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom within the first-century generation.

Study Questions for Matthew 10:17–23:

  1. What two major questions does this chapter seek to answer about Jesus’ coming?
  2. Why do many scholars such as D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron believe Matthew 10:23 refers to Jesus’ coming in AD 70? And if this coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70, then doesn’t it beg the question as to why the NT coming of the Lord that was “near” “soon” and would “not be delayed” is the same AD 70 coming Jesus prophesied here?
  3. List four events Jesus said would occur before His coming in Matthew 10. Did any of these occur before the transfiguration, crucifixion, ascension, or Pentecost?
  4. How do the themes in Matthew 10:17–23 parallel the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
  5. How does the language of “the end” and the coming of the Son of Man connect Matthew 10 to Daniel 7 and 12? Why don’t you think men like Carson and Waldron avoid that study?
  6. Why is the phrase “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” significant to audience relevance?
  7. What is the meaning of the Greek term Metzger interprets in reference to “cities of Israel”?
  8. How does Paul’s declaration that the gospel had been preached to “all nations” by his time support an AD 70 fulfillment?
  9. What errors do partial preterists and futurists make when interpreting Matthew 10:23, according to this chapter?
  10. Why does the chapter argue there is only one coming of Christ described throughout the Gospels and Daniel—not two?
  11. What evidence shows that Matthew 25:31 is a recapitulation of Matthew 24:30 and not a different event?
  12. How does the use of “soon,” “near,” and “in a very little while” in NT texts confirm the first-century timing of Christ’s coming?

[1] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 252.

[2] Sam Waldron, THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS AN OPTIMISTIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW, (Free Grace Press, 2025), 384

[3] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 25. Emphasis added.