Month: August 2025

Introduction: Untangling Eschatological Confusion

The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25) is a battleground for eschatological interpretation, with Dispensationalists and Partial Preterists like Kenneth Gentry dividing it into two comings of Christ—one marked by signs, the other allegedly signless. Dispensationalists propose a secret rapture followed by a Second Coming seven years later, while Partial Preterists separate an AD 70 spiritual coming from a future physical return. These views, rooted in arbitrary textual divisions, create confusion and obscure Jesus’ unified message. This chapter argues that Matthew 24–25 describes a single Second Coming event, fulfilled within Jesus’ generation (AD 70), using Hebraic recapitulation language. By examining the text, its parallels in Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, 1 Corinthians 15, and other New Testament passages, and critiquing Dispensationalist and Partial Preterist claims, we demonstrate that there is no exegetical basis for two comings. I will provide charts and logical arguments clarify the unity of Christ’s return, with the parables of Matthew 25 and the judgment of the nations and the devil reinforcing a first-century fulfillment.

The Unified Message of Matthew 24–25

Jesus’ Olivet Discourse presents a cohesive prophecy of his Second Coming, fulfilled within his contemporaries’ lifetime and generation. The discourse employs Hebraic recapitulation, where a single event is described multiple times with different imagery to highlight its facets just as other Jewish and prophetic books were written in such as Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation. John Murray correctly observes,

“The [Olivet Discourse here in Mt. 24], as to structure, is recapitulatory… It is not, therefore, continuously progressive. We are repeatedly brought to the advent and informed of its various features, [i.e., contemporary, concurrent or interrelated events], and consequences (vss. 14, 29–31, 37–41; 25:31–46).”[1]

Matthew 24:3–31 outlines general to specific signs leading to Christ’s return (v. 30), while verses 36–44 revisit the same event with the Noah analogy and “one taken, one left” imagery. The parables in Matthew 25 (Ten Virgins, Talents, Sheep and Goats) further elaborate on this judgment, tailored to Matthew’s Jewish audience.

The parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21 reinforce this unity, describing only one Second Coming to be fulfilled in Jesus’ generation. Mark 13:1–37 and Luke 21:5–36 mirror Matthew 24’s sequence of temple destruction, tribulation, and Christ’s return, tied to the time statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). Luke 21:22 further emphasizes that “these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written,” indicating all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70.  Jesus’ earlier promise in Matthew 16:27–28, “Some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” confirms the first-century timeframe.  We even examined how the coming of Christ in Luke 17 was fulfilled in AD 70 per partial preterist Keith Mathison.  Let’s look at all of these beautiful parallels once again.

The Coming of Christ Prior to the Olivet Discourse was Fulfilled in AD 70 and Forms Jesus’ Teaching in the Olivet Discourse

If Jesus taught two comings—one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history—how could Mark and Luke neglect the end-of-history event and where was it ever taught in their gospels prior to Mark 13 and Luke 21? Their silence strongly suggests Jesus taught a single coming, fulfilled in AD 70, aligning with the full preterist view of the old covenant age’s consummation.

The Parables of Matthew 25: A First-Century Return

The parables in Matthew 25 build on Matthew 24’s recapitulation, describing the same Second Coming and judgment within “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), approximately 40 years from Jesus’ ministry to AD 70. Each parable emphasizes readiness for Christ’s return, with any “delay” or “long time” consistent with a lifetime duration, as seen in New Testament Greek usage. For example, in John 5:5–6, the invalid at Bethesda was ill “a long time” (Greek: polun chronon eichen), specified as 38 years, fitting “this generation.” In Luke 8:29, the demon-possessed man was tormented “for a long time” (pollois chronois), likely years within one lifetime. In Acts 28:6, “a long time” (epi poly) refers to a brief wait after Paul’s snakebite, showing flexibility in duration but often less than a lifetime. These examples confirm that “long time” denotes periods within a generation, not millennia, aligning with Christ returning to the same people addressed. The call to “watch” in Matthew 24:42 and Luke 12:35–40 (“be dressed ready for service… like servants waiting for their master… because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect”) reinforces this urgency within a short timeframe.

Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1–13): We have previously explored the eschatological wedding and feast motifs in Matthew 22:1–14 and Matthew 24:36, but a brief review highlights their significance here. The kingdom is likened to ten virgins awaiting a bridegroom who “was delayed” (Greek: chronizontos, from chronizō, meaning to linger). The wise virgins, prepared with oil, enter the wedding feast, while the foolish are excluded. The “delay” implies a period within the lifetime of the same virgins, as they are judged upon his return, aligning with “this generation” (Matthew 24:34). The exhortation, “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (v. 13), echoes the “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 and 24:42, linking the parable to the same first-century coming. A futuristic interpretation would require the virgins to span millennia, contradicting the urgency and the Greek chronizō’s use for short-term delays (cf. Luke 1:21, a brief temple delay).

Moreover, the parable’s depiction of meeting the bridegroom carries profound eschatological connections that reinforce its AD 70 fulfillment. The Greek word for “meet” (apantēsis), used when the virgins go out to encounter the groom (Matthew 25:1, 6 in key manuscripts), appears elsewhere in the New Testament primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, where believers are caught up “to meet the Lord in the air.” In both contexts, this rare term is tied to Christ’s parousia—His royal coming and presence, explicitly mentioned in Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39—and in Paul’s passage, it explicitly involves the resurrection of the dead and the covenantal transformation of the living. This deliberate linguistic parallel underscores that the parable describes the same first-century parousiaPaul anticipated for his contemporaries and generation, complete with resurrection implications.

Furthermore, some partial preterists acknowledge that AD 70 marked the definitive divorce from old covenant Israel—through the temple’s destruction and the end of the sacrificial system—and the consummation of Christ’s marriage to the Church, including the eschatological wedding feast (Matthew 8:10–12; Revelation 19–22). This fulfillment aligns with prophetic imagery of God rejecting unfaithful Israel (e.g., Hosea 2:19–20; Jeremiah 3:8) and betrothing the new covenant people. Given this admission, it necessitates that the resurrection foretold in Isaiah 25:6–9—depicting the Lord’s banquet on the mountain where He swallows up death forever, wipes away tears, and removes the veil over all nations—was likewise fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. The parable’s wedding feast directly echoes this Isaianic prophecy, implying a spiritual resurrection from the death of the old covenant into the eternal life of the new, harmonizing the marriage motif with the resurrection at Christ’s parousia.

The following chart illustrates the interconnectedness of these passages, highlighting the unified eschatological event fulfilled in AD 70:

This chart clarifies how the Parable of the Ten Virgins aligns with 1 Thessalonians 4 and Isaiah 25, reinforcing a first-century fulfillment of the resurrection and marriage feast. With this resurrection-marriage framework in mind, the subsequent parables continue to emphasize judgment and readiness within the same first-century horizon.

Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30): A master entrusts talents to servants before traveling. “After a long time” (meta polun chronon), he returns to settle accounts with the same servants. The faithful are rewarded, the unfaithful cast out. The Greek polun chronon parallels John 5:5–6’s 38-year illness, indicating a lifetime duration. The master’s return to the original servants aligns with “this generation” (Matthew 24:34). A millennia-spanning interpretation would require multiple generations, unsupported by the parable’s call for immediate stewardship, echoing the readiness of Luke 12:35–40.

Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31–46): The Son of Man comes in glory, separating nations as sheep from goats. No explicit “long time” is mentioned, but the judgment is immediate, evaluating deeds by the same people. This aligns with “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), as the actions are contemporary. The parable depicts final judgment at Christ’s AD 70 coming, not a distant event, reinforced by the urgency of Matthew 24:42 and Luke 12:35–40.

By way of review, we once again need to point out Matthew 25:31 is not a different coming and judgment of Christ than the AD 70 coming mentioned previously:

The Sheep and Goats: Judgment of the Nations and the Devil in AD 70

The Sheep and Goats judgment (Matthew 25:31–46) recaps the separation motif of “one taken, one left” (Matthew 24:40–41), depicting the Son of Man enthroned, gathering “all the nations” (panta ta ethnē) for judgment based on treatment of “the least of these” (v. 40)—likely persecuted believers leading up to AD 70.  J. Stuart Russell interprets “all the nations” as the tribes and cities of Israel, akin to “all the tribes of the land” (Matthew 24:30), such as Galileans and Idumeans with local rulers or “kings” (e.g., ethnarchs):

“In our Lord’s time it was usual to speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as consisting of several nations.  Josephus speaks of ‘the nation of the Samaritans,’ ‘the nation of the Batanaeans,’ ‘the nation of the Galileans,’—using the ver word which hwe find in the passage before us.  Judea was a distinct nation often with a king of its own; so also was Samaria; and so with idumea, Galilee, Perea, Batanea, Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene,–all of which had at different times princes with the title of Ethnarch, a name which signifies the ruler of a nation.”[2]

This local Jewish focus aligns with the discourse’s warnings to Judea (Matthew 24:15–22), fulfilled in AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem. Yet, this judgment extends universally, as Jesus linked his coming to the “day of judgment” for Gentile cities like Sodom and Gomorrah, worse than those rejecting the apostles (Matthew 10:15, 22–23). In Jewish thought, the Temple’s 70 bulls, offered during Sukkot for the 70 nations of Genesis 10 (Numbers 29:12–34), symbolized Jerusalem as the world’s spiritual center. Thus, its fall in AD 70 judged all nations microcosmically. From AD 30–70, Paul preached the gospel across the Roman world (Acts 13–28; Romans 10:18; 15:19–20; 16:25-26; Cols. 1:5-6, 23), warning that the old covenant was obsolete and would “soon vanish” (Hebrews 8:13) and establishing Christ as the new high priest and the church as the temple (Hebrews 9:15–28; Ephesians 2:19–22).  Jews and Gentiles rejecting this faced spiritual judgment in AD 70—no sacrificial system remained for salvation—compounded by historical “ripple effects”: the Year of the Four Emperors (AD 68–69) brought civil wars, assassinations, famines, and chaos across Rome as divine retribution for persecution (Matthew 24:6–8). Faithful Jewish and Gentiles (sheep) inherited the new covenant kingdom, while unfaithful (goats) were excluded.

Some preterists, view the “devil and his angels” (v. 41) as the high priest (diabolos, “slanderer,” e.g., Caiaphas) and Sanhedrin—human agents of evil who judged unjustly (John 8:44; Matthew 12:24–29). This fits the Sanhedrin’s 71 members (70 elders plus high priest), mirroring Jesus sending 70 disciples plus himself as high priest (Luke 10:1–24), symbolizing a new covenant council fulfilling Israel’s call to be a light to the 70 nations.  Matthew 23–25’s chiasm supports this: Matthew 23:1–3 (hypocrites on Moses’ seat) mirrors Matthew 25:31–46 (Jesus enthroned, judging them), with AD 70 reversing corrupt leadership.  Christ and His Church are now the Divine Council over the nations.

However, the majority view, including mine, favors a literal supernatural Satan and demons, judged in AD 70 as their deception of nations ended (Revelation 20:1–3, 10).  The Jewish divine council concept, as developed by Michael Heiser, holds that after the Tower of Babel, God assigned 70 angels or “sons of God” to the nations, while Yahweh took Israel as His inheritance (Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV).  In Genesis 6, the “watchers” intermingled, producing giants whose dead souls became New Testament demons, which Jesus cast out (e.g., Mark 5:1–20) and which awaited judgment.  Satan, controlling these nations, offered them to Christ (Matthew 4:8–11), but Christ and the Church reclaimed authority through His ascension and AD 70 parousia. Peter and Jude cite 1 Enoch to describe this judgment: 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 reference angels “bound in chains” awaiting judgment (1 Enoch 10:4–6, 12–13), while Jude 14–15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 on the Lord’s coming to judge the ungodly. 1 Enoch places this judgment within a generation tied to AD 70’s timeframe, and Peter connects it to false teachers, whose judgment was “not asleep” (2 Peter 2:3), imminent in AD 70, harmonizing with Matthew 25:31–46 and Revelation 20:10–15.  Paul referencing Genesis 3:15 understood that “Satan” was going to be “crushed shortly” in the coming events of AD 70.  Many preterists see Matthew 24:29’s “falling stars” as both human rulers (Israel’s leaders) and demonic powers behind them, judged in AD 70. Thus, the judgment may be a “both and” scenario—human (Sanhedrin) and supernatural (Satan/demons)—fulfilled in AD 70’s comprehensive consummation.

Matthew 25 Parables and the First-Century Coming

 Dispensational Misinterpretations of Matthew 24:40–41

Some Dispensationalists interpret Matthew 24:40–41 as a secret rapture. Clarence Larkin writes,

“In Matt. 24:40-41 we read—‘Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.’ This is a description of the ‘Rapture,’ when the Church shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.”[3]

Hal Lindsey asserts,

“The event described by Jesus in Matthew 24:40-41 will be sudden and unexpected: ‘Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.’ This is the Rapture, when believers are instantly removed to meet Christ in the air.”[4]

Tim LaHaye echoes,

“Jesus Himself described the Rapture in Matthew 24:40-41: ‘Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.’ This depicts the sudden catching away of believers to meet the Lord, leaving the unsaved to face the Tribulation.”[5]

This completely misreads the context. The Noah analogy (Matthew 24:37–39) compares Christ’s coming to the flood, where the “taken” were judged. Gary DeMar, citing Craig Keener, notes,

“In the context of 24:37–39, ‘taken’ presumably means ‘taken to judgment’ (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV).”[6]

John Gill confirms,

“the whole world of the ungodly, every man, woman, and child, except eight persons only; Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives… were taken away in judgment.”[7]

Luke 17:27, 29 equates “took them all away” with “destroyed them all,” indicating judgment.

Contextual Meaning of “Taken” in Matthew 24:40–41

 Dispensationalist Two-Coming Theory: Exegetical and Logical Flaws

Dispensationalists propose two comings: a secret rapture “for” the Church, followed seven years later by a Second Coming “with” the Church for Israel. Mark Hitchcock states,

“The rapture is an imminent, signless event, which, from the human perspective, could occur at any moment. But in contrast, the Second Coming will be preceded by many signs (see Matthew 24:1-29). The same event cannot logically be both signless and yet portended by numerous signs. This is flatly contradictory.”[8]

John MacArthur adds,

“Scripture suggests that the Second Coming occurs in two stages—first the Rapture, when He comes for His saints and they are caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17), and second, His return to earth, when He comes with His saints (Jude 14) to execute judgment on His enemies. Daniel’s seventieth week must fall between those two events.”[9]

This theory fails. No text mentions a seven-year gap. The Greek parousia is consistent in Matthew 24:27, 30 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15, indicating one event. Matthew 24:36–42 is not signless; the call to “watch” follows verses 3–31’s signs, and the fig tree parable (Matthew 24:32–33) shows the season is knowable, though the exact “day or hour” is not. Early Dispensationalists like Darby rejected the rapture view of Matthew 24:40–41, stating,

“The Lord speaks here of the effect of His coming in judgment… In the days of Noah, the flood took them all away; so here, one is taken and one left, but it is not the rapture of the church, which is an act of grace, but a taking away for judgment.”[10]

Logical Argument 1: Equivocation Fallacy in “Signs vs. No Signs”

Dispensationalists equivocate on “signless.” If the rapture is signless, it could occur anytime, yet they require unfulfilled conditions (e.g., global gospel preaching, Israel becoming a nation in 1948, etc.). This contradicts first-century imminency. Matthew 24:36–42 ties to verses 3–31’s signs, negating the distinction.

Partial Preterist Divisions: An Unsupported Split

Partial Preterists like Kenneth Gentry divide Matthew 24 into an AD 70 coming (verses 3–34) and a future coming (verses 36–25:46). Gary DeMar critiques,

“A number of commentators (e.g., J. Marcellus Kik and Kenneth Gentry) argue that Matthew 24:35 is a ‘transition text.’ It’s at this point, they argue, that Jesus is referring to a time period that is still in our future.”[11]

This lacks support. Luke 17:22–37 parallels Matthew 24, suggesting one coming.  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:

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.

Mark 13 and Luke 21 describe one coming in “this generation,” undermining the division. The Sheep and Goats judgment, with its chiasm linking back to Matthew 23’s condemnation of corrupt leaders, further ties the entire discourse to AD 70.

Logical Argument 2: False Dichotomy in Two-Coming Theories

Dispensationalists and Partial Preterists assume signs and an unknown hour require two comings, creating a false dichotomy. Matthew 24 integrates both, reflecting one event.

New Testament Parallels: Evidence for One Coming

The unity of Christ’s one Second Coming is evident in parallels across Matthew 24–25, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, and 1 Corinthians 15, with Jesus and Paul addressing contemporaries (“you” and “we”) as witnesses to the parousia in their generation. Other texts, like Revelation 1:7 (“every eye will see him”) describe a single coming, with no mention of a secret rapture or future event, supporting a first-century fulfillment.  The judgment of nations and the devil in Matthew 25:31–46 echoes Revelation 20:10–15, fulfilled spiritually and historically in AD 70’s events which was a sign to confirm what was taking place in the spiritual realm.

Parallels Across New Testament Passages

 The Imminency Problem in Dispensationalism

Dispensationalists like John MacArthur argue the rapture’s imminency requires a separate event. Yet MacArthur’s claim that Paul expected an imminent return, while allowing,

 “I suppose it is also possible that Christ could delay His coming another 2,000 years or longer,” contradicts the New Testament’s expectation (e.g., Matthew 10:22–23; Hebrews 10:37).[12] If Paul expected the return in the lifetime of his contemporaries, a 2,000-year delay implies error. Dispensationalist prerequisites were not fulfilled in the first century, undermining imminency.

Logical Argument 3: Contradiction in Imminency Claims

Dispensationalists claim the rapture was imminent for Paul while requiring unfulfilled conditions, negating Paul’s expectation (“we who are alive”). The consistent view is fulfillment pointing to AD 70.

Logical Argument 4: Omission of a Second Coming in Mark 13 and Luke 21

If Jesus taught two comings, Mark 13 and Luke 21’s failure to mention the latter is inexplicable. Both describe one coming in “this generation,” reinforcing a unified prophecy. 

Logical Argument 5: Silence of Other New Testament Texts

If a secret rapture or future coming were central, texts like Revelation 1:7 would mention them. Their focus on a single coming supports a first-century fulfillment, consistent with Matthew 24–25.

Harmonizing Conflicting Views: How Full Preterism Resolves the Confusion in Matthew 24–25

To further strengthen the case for a single Second Coming in Matthew 24–25 fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, we draw from the inconsistencies in other eschatological views. Full preterism synthesizes and resolves these tensions, providing a coherent interpretation that honors the text’s unity. Below, I present three logical arguments demonstrating how full preterism harmonizes classic amillennialism with partial preterism and resolves divisions within partial preterism itself, embracing the strengths of each without forcing a false dichotomy.

Argument 1: Harmonizing Classic Amillennialism and Partial Preterism

Major Premise: The classic amillennial view affirms that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27–30 is the one Second Coming event, occurring at the end of history with the final judgment and resurrection. 

Minor Premise: Partial preterism affirms that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27–30 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, during the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Conclusion: Full preterism harmonizes these by affirming that the one Second Coming event of Christ in Matthew 24:27–30 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, marking the consummation of the age without requiring a future physical return.

This synthesis resolves the amillennial insistence on a single coming while incorporating the partial preterist recognition of AD 70’s fulfillment, avoiding the need for multiple comings or an arbitrary delay.

Argument 2: Harmonizing Divisions Within Partial Preterism

Partial preterism is not monolithic; significant disagreements exist regarding the division of Matthew 24–25 and the nature of Christ’s coming. 

Major Premise: Partial Preterist #1 (e.g., Kenneth Gentry or J. Marcellus Kik) asserts that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27–30 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, but the coming in Matthew 25:31 is a future physical Second Coming at the end of history. 

Minor Premise: Partial Preterist #2 (e.g., Keith Mathison or Gary DeMar) asserts that the coming of Christ in both Matthew 24:27–30 and 25:31 is the same spiritual AD 70 coming, with no exegetical basis for a division. 

Conclusion: Full preterism harmonizes these contradictions within partial preterism by demonstrating that the oneSecond Coming event described in both Matthew 24:27–30 and 25:31 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, eliminating the need for arbitrary textual divisions or a future event.

Argument 3: Synthesizing Amillennial and Partial Preterist Strengths 

Major Premise: Classic amillennialism teaches that the one Second Coming of Christ in Matthew 24–25 is the same one Second Coming event described by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4–5 and 1 Corinthians 15, emphasizing the unity of these passages through the analogy of faith. 

Minor Premise: Partial preterism affirms that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24–25 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, following the apocalyptic language and imminent time indicators such as “immediately after” (Matthew 24:29) and “this generation” (Matthew 24:34). 

Conclusion: Full preterism harmonizes these by affirming that the one Second Coming event described in Matthew 24–25, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, and 1 Corinthians 15 was fulfilled spiritually within the generation and contemporary audiences of those first-century churches, embracing the amillennial strength of scriptural unity and the partial preterist strength of temporal imminence.

The amillennial view excels in recognizing the parallels across Matthew 24–25, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, and 1 Corinthians 15, where the parousia, trumpet sound, and gathering of believers describe a single event (see Chart 2). Partial preterism, meanwhile, rightly emphasizes the apocalyptic language and time texts (“immediately after,” “this generation”) that anchor Matthew 24–25 to AD 70. Full preterism embraces the orthodoxy of both, refusing the false choice between scriptural unity and historical imminent fulfillment. By synthesizing these strengths, full preterism provides a consistent, text-driven eschatology that affirms Jesus’ words were fulfilled within “this generation” (Matthew 24:34).

Conclusion: A Coherent Eschatology

Matthew 24–25, including its parables and judgment of nations/devil, describes a single Second Coming, fulfilled in AD 70, using Hebraic recapitulation. Dispensationalist claims of a secret rapture in Matthew 24:40–41 misread the judgment context. Partial Preterist divisions impose an arbitrary split, unsupported by parallels. The consistent parousia, contemporary expectation, and silence of other texts confirm one event. By resolving the contradictions of amillennialism and partial preterism, full preterism offers a unified realized hope grounded in the text, affirming Jesus’ prophecy to skeptics.

[1] Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. Edinburgh, UK: Banner of Truth, 1976, p. 389.

[2] Russell, J. Stuart. The Parousia: A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 105

[3] Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth, or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages. Philadelphia, PA: Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918, p. 92

[4] Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970, p. 135.

[5] LaHaye, Tim. Rapture Under Attack. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1998, p. 87.

[6] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, p. 115, cited in DeMar, Gary. Last Days Madness. Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999, p. 123.

[7] Gill, John. An Exposition of the New Testament. London, UK: William Hill Collingridge, 1851, p. 128.

[8] Hitchcock, Mark. The End. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2012, p. 203.

[9] MacArthur, John. The Second Coming. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999, p. 45.

[10] Darby, John Nelson. Collected Writings of J. N. Darby: Expository 3. London, UK: G. Morrish, n.d., p. 167.

[11] DeMar, Gary. Last Days Madness. Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999, p. 122.

[12] MacArthur, John. The Second Coming. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999, p. 47.

Matthew 24 stands as a monumental testament to Jesus’ prophetic precision, weaving together the Jewish betrothal wedding idiom, the Mosaic feasts, and the Old Testament’s resurrection promises to proclaim the imminent judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70. Central to this discourse is the “day and hour” imagery (Matt. 24:36), which echoes the unique characteristic of the Feast of Trumpets—known as Rosh Hashanah, the only Jewish feast whose precise start was uncertain due to its dependence on the sighting of the new moon, leaving the “day and hour” unknown until declared. This resonates with the betrothal custom, where only the father of the groom knew the exact time of the wedding, a motif Jesus employs to frame His coming. Far from signaling a distant future Second Coming, as some Partial Preterists like Kenneth Gentry propose by dividing the discourse into two sections at verse 36, Matthew 24:36 continues the discourse’s focus on the AD 70 destruction, as evidenced by its context, scholarly consensus, and connection to the Feast of Trumpets, the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), and Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy. The Mosaic feasts, as shadows of Christ’s redemptive work (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17), and the marriage and resurrection motifs of Isaiah 25:6–9 were fulfilled in Jesus’ generation, as He declared in Luke 21:22. This chapter demonstrates the unity of this fulfillment, refuting notions of multiple comings, weddings, or an artificial two-section division, and celebrates the establishment of Christ’s new covenant bride in AD 70. 

The Context and Unity of Matthew 24:36

Jesus states in Matthew 24:36, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” This follows His assertion that His coming, trumpet gathering, and the end of the age would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24:3, 30-34). Rather than introducing a new event, as some Partial Preterists argue, this verse qualifies and expounds upon the precise timing of the AD 70 judgment. The disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3) and the discourse’s consistent flow anchor verse 36 to this event, as affirmed by several commentators:

John Lightfoot writes:

“Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples’ question, and by the whole thread of Christ’s discourse, that it is wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour of the last judgment.”[1]

Adam Clarke notes: 

“Verse 36. But of that day and hour—…here, is translated season by many eminent critics, and is used in this sense by both sacred and profane authors. As the day was not known, in which Jerusalem should be invested by the Romans, therefore our Lord advised his disciples to pray that it might not be on a Sabbath; and as the season was not known, therefore they were to pray that it might not be in the winter; Matthew 24:20.”[2]

 Even Reformed Baptist Historic Premillennialist John Gill agrees:

 “Ver. 36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, &c.]… …the coming of the son of man, to take vengeance on the Jews, and of their destruction; for the words manifestly regard the date of the several things going before, which only can be applied to that catastrophe, and dreadful desolation…”[3]

R.C. Sproul reinforces this: 

“Jesus qualifies [Matt. 24:34] by saying, ‘I don’t know what day in this generation, I don’t know what hour it will be, but I do know this, it’s going to be within the time frame of this generation.’ This is a much more sober [interpretation].”[4]

Keith Mathison likewise observes: 

“This verse [24:36] does not contradict verse 34. As Davies and Allison explain, ‘Rather does the uncertainty of v. 36 interpret the certainty of the earlier verse: although the end will come upon “this generation,” its exact time cannot be fixed.’ in other words, from verse 15 to this point Jesus has been warning his disciples that they should be watching for certain events to occur within their lifetime, the events that will signal the impending destruction of Jerusalem. When they see these events, they are to take certain actions immediately. But here Jesus warns them that they do not know exactly when they will see these events. Because they do not know when these events will occur, there is the possibility that they could grow lax in their watchfulness if these events do not occur very soon. Much of the remainder of the Olivet Discourse is a warning to the disciples to remain watchful and vigilant.”[5]

These scholars confirm that Matthew 24:36 elaborates on the AD 70 judgment, not a future Second Coming, aligning with the discourse’s imminent timeframe.

The “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 also connects to the “last day” of John 6:39, 40, 44, and 54, where Jesus speaks of raising up believers. This “last day” aligns with Daniel 12:1–7, where the resurrection occurs at the end of a “time, times, and half a time” (3½ years), corresponding to the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70). Daniel 12:7 specifies that this resurrection and judgment would occur when “the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end,” marking the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Thus, the “last day” and “day and hour” do not refer to the end of world history but to the climactic end of the old covenant age in AD 70, when Daniel’s resurrection prophecy was fulfilled alongside the wedding feast and gathering of the elect in Matthew 24–25.

Major Premise: If the “last day” in John 6 (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54) and the “day and hour” in Matthew 24:36 align with Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy, which is tied to the 3½-year period of distress ending with the shattering of the holy people’s power (Dan. 12:1–7), then these events point to the end of the old covenant age.

Minor Premise: Daniel 12:7’s “time, times, and half a time” corresponds to the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70), and Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe (Matt. 24:34) situates the fulfillment of these prophecies, including the resurrection and wedding feast, in AD 70.

Conclusion: Therefore, the “last day” and “day and hour” refer to the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel 12’s resurrection prophecy alongside the wedding feast and judgment of Matthew 24–25.

Furthermore, Reformed theologians often hold contradictory propositions regarding the “last day” and “last days,” which only Full Preterism reconciles. Some, like certain Amillennialists, assert that the “day and hour” of Matthew 24:36 and the “last day” of John 6 connect to the eschatological “last days,” implying a future end of world history. However, many Partial Preterists, acknowledge that the “last days” in the New Testament or the “last hour” (e.g., Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18) describe Israel’s last days, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This creates a tension: if the “last days” ended in AD 70, as Partial Preterists affirm, then the “last day” of that period must also be AD 70, not a future event. Full Preterism resolves this by consistently placing the “last day,” resurrection, and wedding feast in AD 70, harmonizing the New Testament’s eschatological timeline with the end of the old covenant age.

Major Premise: If Reformed theologians affirm that the “last days” in the New Testament refer to Israel’s last days ending in AD 70, then the “last day” associated with the resurrection and judgment (John 6:39–54; Matt. 24:36) must also occur within that timeframe to avoid contradiction.

Minor Premise: Partial Preterists concede that the “last days” describe the period leading to AD 70, yet some Reformed theologians place the “last day” at the end of world history, creating an inconsistent eschatology.

Conclusion: Therefore, Full Preterism’s view that the “last day” was fulfilled in AD 70 reconciles these contradictory propositions, aligning the resurrection and wedding feast with the end of Israel’s old covenant age.

Major Premise: If the context and flow of the Olivet Discourse, including the disciples’ question about the temple’s destruction and Jesus’ emphasis on “this generation,” tie Matthew 24:36 to the events of AD 70, then verse 36 does not introduce a new, future Second Coming.

Minor Premise: The disciples’ question (Matt. 24:3) focuses on the temple’s end, and Jesus’ response consistently addresses that judgment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34), with verse 36 qualifying the timing rather than shifting topics.

 Conclusion: Therefore, Matthew 24:36 refers to the AD 70 judgment, maintaining the unity of the discourse without an artificial hyper-creedal division theory read into the context.

This v. That / Those Days v. That Day – a Change of Subject?

As stated previously, partial preterists like Kenneth Gentry attempt to divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings of Christ connected to two judgments – one in AD 70 and another at the end of world history. Gentry believes verse 36 is that transition verse that begins introducing a subject the disciples never asked about – a coming of Christ to end world history. Gary DeMar who has published some of Gentry’s works disagrees with him as we do:

“Commentators often argue that Matthew 24 contains both a discussion of the A.D. 70 destruction of religious, social, and political Judaism as well as a reference to a yet-future return of Christ. This supposed distinction is drawn by contrasting “this generation” and “that day and hour.” Gentry writes that “there seems to be an intended contrast between that which is near (in verse 34) and that which is far (in verse 36): this generation vs. that day. It would seem more appropriate for Christ to have spoken of ‘this day’ rather than ‘that day’ if He had meant to refer to the time of ‘this generation.’”¹¹ Not at all. We should expect to see “that” used for a time still in the speaker’s future, whether that event is forty years or four thousand years in the future. “This generation” refers to the present generation Jesus was addressing. “This” is therefore the appropriate word for something present while “that” is the most appropriate word for something future. Arndt and Gingrich agree: “[T]his, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away.”¹² “That day” would come in the final destruction of the Jews who rejected their Messiah, a time still in the future for Jesus’ audience.”[6]

Gentry also tries to justify v. 36 making a transition based upon “this generation” and “that day”:

“The remainder of the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:36-25:46) looks beyond the signs for “this generation” (haute, near demonstrative) to “that” (ekeines, far demonstrative) sign-less day and hour (Mt 24:34-36).  Thus, the Lord turns his attention from the imminent events of that generation to his second advent at the end of history.”[7]

Marcellus Kik hoped to prove a division over Jesus’ use of “days” v. “day”:

“The expression, “that day and hour,” gives immediate evidence of a change of subject matter.  In the First Section (24:4-35) the plural “days” is employed, in the Second Section (24:36-25:46) the singular “day” comes to the fore.  In verses 19, 22 and 29 of the Frist Section the plural “these days” describes the period under consideration and the singular “that day and hour” is not employed.  But in the Second Section the period under discussion is described by the singular (24:36, 42, 44, 50 and 25:13).  It is true that in verses 37 and 38 the plural “days” is found but that is in reference to the days of Noah previous to the “the day” when Noah entered into the ark.  The distinctive use of the plural in the First Section and the singular in the Second Section points rather conclusively that the periods under consideration are different.”[8]

Since Kik is running low on exegetical evidence for his artificial “First” and “Second” “Sections” division theory, he uses the word “conclusively” in hopes to persuade the reader. As I have listed above, there are several well-known partial preterists that have not found this argument “conclusive” at all (Lightfoot, Gill, Clarke, Wilson, Mathison, Sproul, DeMar, etc…). The plural “days” is used to describe the signs and tribulation period leading up to the climatic or consummative day or coming of the Son of Man in 24:30. It is “immediately after” “those days” (the signs and tribulation period 24:4-29) that the day of the Lord or the coming of the Son of Man takes place (24:30). The concerning “that day” statement of (24:36) is a reference back to the coming of the Son of Man (24:30) that Kik and Gentry believe was fulfilled in AD 70 when the Temple fell.  Of that day and hour no one knew except the Father. Daniel connects the “HOUR of the END” of the old covenant age and resurrection taking places after the “tribulation” or “three-and-a-half-years” [AD 67-70] of those days as well (Dan. 12:1-2, 4 LXX, 7). As Gill points out, “…yet the exact and precise time was not known: it might have been: calculated to a year by Daniel’s weeks, but not to the day and hour; and therefore, our Lord does not say of the year, but of the day and hour no man knows…”[9]

Further refuting this artificial division, the linguistic and thematic continuity of the Olivet Discourse demonstrates no such break at verse 36. The “day and hour” of 24:36 directly echoes the unknown timing motif rooted in the Feast of Trumpets and Jewish betrothal customs, which permeates the entire discourse, including the parables that follow. For instance, the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13 explicitly concludes with the same exhortation: “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13), linking it inseparably to 24:36 and the preceding signs climaxing in the day of the Lord or coming of the Son of Man in AD 70. This is not a shift to a distant future but a reinforcement of vigilance for the imminent judgment within “this generation” (24:34), as the bridegroom’s sudden arrival (24:27, 30; 25:31) mirrors the unexpected fall of Jerusalem.

Moreover, the supposed contrast between “this” (near demonstrative) and “that” (far demonstrative) is overstated and unconvincing. Greek demonstratives like “this” (houtos) and “that” (ekeinos) often function based on contextual proximity rather than chronological distance. In Matthew 24:34–36, “this generation” refers to the audience’s present era, while “that day” simply points forward to the climactic event still future to Jesus’ speaking—yet firmly within the same generation’s timeframe. As DeMar notes, “that” is appropriate for any future event, near or far, and does not demand a millennia-spanning leap. To impose a division here ignores the discourse’s unified structure, where verses 4–35 describe observable signs leading to the parousia, and 36ff. qualifies its unknowable timing, urging constant readiness without introducing a new subject.

Even within Partial Preterism, this division lacks consensus and reveals internal inconsistencies. In the book When Shall These Things Be?, co-authored by Gentry with Keith Mathison and Doug Wilson to refute Full Preterism, Mathison and Wilson reject a break at verse 36, viewing the entire discourse—including the parable of the ten virgins—as fulfilled in AD 70. This undermines Gentry’s position, as his own collaborators see no exegetical warrant for splitting the text. If prominent Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson affirm unity beyond verse 36, it exposes the arbitrary nature of the “two-section” theory, which fractures the discourse to preserve futurist assumptions rather than following the text’s natural flow.

The “days” versus “day” argument from Kik fares no better under scrutiny. The plural “days” in 24:19, 22, 29 refers to the extended period of tribulation and signs (echoing Daniel’s “time, times, and half a time” in Dan. 12:7), while the singular “day” in 24:36, 42, 44, 50, and 25:13 focuses on the culminating parousia event “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (24:29–30). This is a logical progression, not a topical shift: the preparatory “days” build to the decisive “day,” much like the “days of Noah” (plural, 24:37–38) lead to the singular “day” Noah entered the ark and judgment fell (24:39). Daniel 12 similarly ties the resurrection and “hour of the end” to the end of a 3½-year tribulation period, aligning perfectly with the AD 67–70 Jewish-Roman War and Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe. Imposing a division here creates an artificial dichotomy that the text does not support, as the singular “day” simply zooms in on the climax already described in 24:30.

Ultimately, this “two-section” theory introduces an eisegetical hyper-creedal division unsupported by the disciples’ question (24:3, focused solely on the temple’s destruction which they correctly connected with Christ’s coming), the consistent imminent language, or the interconnected motifs of judgment, gathering, and wedding. It results in contradictory eschatology, positing multiple comings and weddings where Scripture teaches one unified fulfillment in AD 70, harmonizing the end of the old covenant age with Daniel’s prophecies and the Olivet Discourse’s flow. 

The Jewish Betrothal Idiom and the Feast of Trumpets

Jesus employs the Jewish betrothal idiom, where the bridegroom’s unexpected return signals the wedding feast, to frame His coming in Matthew 24–25. This imagery is vivid in the trumpet call of Matthew 24:31, where angels gather the elect with a “loud trumpet call,” and the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1–13:

“As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:5–12).

The “day and hour” in Matthew 25:13 echoes Matthew 24:36, linking both passages to the AD 70 judgment. The midnight cry and bridegroom’s arrival reflect the suddenness of this event, urging readiness, as in Jewish betrothal customs.

This betrothal imagery is deeply intertwined with the Feast of Trumpets, which carries unique significance in Jewish tradition for its connection to the unknown timing of divine events.

The Feast of Trumpets, known as Rosh Hashanah in Jewish tradition, was uniquely referred to as the feast of which the “day and hour” was unknown due to its dependence on the sighting of the new moon to determine its start, typically on the first day of the seventh month, Tishri (Lev. 23:23–25). Unlike other Jewish feasts with fixed calendar dates, the precise moment of the new moon’s appearance could vary, requiring the Sanhedrin to confirm the sighting, thus making the exact “day and hour” uncertain until officially declared. This characteristic resonates with the Jewish betrothal idiom, where only the father of the groom knew the precise time of the wedding, as he determined when the preparations were complete (cf. John 14:2–3). In Matthew 24:36, Jesus’ reference to the “day and hour” that “no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” directly echoes this cultural and festal imagery, tying the eschatological coming of the Son of Man to the Feast of Trumpets’ typological significance, fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment when Christ, the bridegroom, returned to gather His elect (Matt. 24:31) and consummate the marriage feast with His new covenant bride.

This connection between the Feast of Trumpets and the betrothal idiom underscores the precise cultural context Jesus’ audience would have recognized, as illustrated in the following table of Jewish wedding customs and their fulfillment in Matthew 24–25.

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 following table illustrates how these customs align with Matthew 24–25:

The trumpet call in Matthew 24:31 ties directly to the Feast of Trumpets, a Mosaic feast signaling judgment, ingathering, and covenant renewal through the shofar’s blast. This feast, part of the Law of Moses, was a shadow pointing to Christ’s work (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17). The trumpet imagery aligns with Isaiah 27:12–13, where a “great trumpet” gathers Israel amid Jerusalem’s judgment (Isa. 27:9–11), fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ returned to judge old covenant Israel and establish His new covenant bride.

The Mosaic Feasts as Shadows Fulfilled in AD 70

The Mosaic feasts, including the Feast of Trumpets, were typological shadows of Christ’s redemptive work. Hebrews 10:1 SLT states, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things about to come instead of the true form of these realities…” Colossians 2:16–17 SLT adds that the feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths were “a shadow of the things about to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” The old covenant was “obsolete and growing old, ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13), and the judgment on Israel was “about to come” (mellousēs kriseōs, Heb. 10:27). Paul’s reference to a resurrection connected to Israel’s hope “about to be” (mellousēs esesthai, Acts 24:15 YLT) further situates these shadows’ and resurrection of Daniel 12’s fulfillment in AD 70.

Jesus’ declaration in Luke 21:22, “For these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written,” confirms that the Old Testament’s prophecies—including the marriage and resurrection motifs (Isa. 25:6–9; 27:12–13) and the feasts prefiguring the resurrection—were fulfilled in His generation. The Feast of Trumpets, with its trumpet blast, found its substance in Christ’s AD 70 coming, as depicted in Matthew 24:31 and 25:1–13. Extending these feasts’ fulfillment beyond AD 70 contradicts Jesus’ timeframe and the New Testament’s teaching on the old covenant’s obsolescence.

Major Premise: If the Mosaic feasts were shadows of Christ’s redemptive work “about to be” fulfilled (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17) and the old covenant was “ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13) with judgment “about to come” (Heb. 10:27 SLT), then their fulfillment must occur at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.

Minor Premise: Jesus promised that “all that is written” in the Old Testament, including the feasts and marriage/resurrection motifs, would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:22), coinciding with Jerusalem’s destruction.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Feast of Trumpets and related motifs in Matthew 24–25 were fulfilled in AD 70, marking the consummation of the wedding and resurrection.

The Eschatological Marriage in Matthew 8, 22, and 25

The wedding feast imagery recurs throughout Matthew, consistently pointing to AD 70. In Matthew 8:10–12, Jesus describes Gentiles reclining at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while unbelieving Jews are cast out:

“When Jesus heard this [expression of the Gentile’s faith], he marveled and said to those who followed him, ‘Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west [Gentiles] and recline at the table [wedding feast of Isa. 25:6–9] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [in the resurrection], while the sons of the kingdom [Pharisees and unbelieving Jews] will be cast out into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matt. 8:10–12). 

Kenneth Gentry affirms this AD 70 fulfillment:

“In Matthew 8:11–12 we read of the faithful gentile who exercises more faith than anyone in Israel. We hear once again of the people from the east. This time they sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the rightful place of the Jews). While the Jews themselves are ‘cast out’ into ‘outer darkness’ (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 175). And, ‘God is preparing to punish his people Israel, remove the temple system, and re-orient redemptive history from one people and land to all peoples throughout the earth… This dramatic redemptive-historical event…ends the old covenant era…’”[10] 

Strengths:

• The “casting out” of the “subjects of the kingdom” refers to old covenant Israel’s judgment in AD 70, with the believing Jewish/Gentile Church taking her place.
• The “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” describe the AD 70 judgment.

Weaknesses:

• There is no mention of Isaiah 25:6–9 as Jesus’ source, which is odd because Jesus says He came to fulfill all the Law and Prophets (cf. Matt. 5:17–18) and because He said this would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:20–32).
• There is no inconsistency in Jesus’ use of the phrases “cast out into darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in Matthew 24:51 and 25:30. There is simply nothing throughout Matthew’s gospel which indicates there are two (casting out into outer darkness / weeping and gnashing of teeth) judgments in Jesus’ teaching.
• Unanswered questions – Since, according to Gentry and James Jordan, Daniel 12:2–3 teaches that there was a spiritual resurrection which was fulfilled in AD 70, why isn’t this the fulfillment of that resurrection?
• While Gentry agrees that the eschatological divorce of Old Covenant Israel and the marriage to the Church was fulfilled in AD 70 in Matthew 8:10–12 and Revelation 17–22, he does not sufficiently explain how the marriage imagery of Matthew 24:36 and 25:1–13 should not also refer to AD 70. If it doesn’t, how many eschatological marriages are there? And isn’t he just as guilty of teaching two eschatological marriages as the Dispensationalists are? If not, why not?

In Matthew 22:1–14, the wedding feast parable depicts a king whose invitation is rejected, leading to the city’s destruction:

“And again, Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, “Tell those who are invited, ‘See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.’” But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, “The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.” And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So, the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” And he was speechless. 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.” For many are called, but few are chosen’” (Matt. 22:1–14).

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.

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

Partial Preterists, like Kenneth Gentry, acknowledge that this “casting out” into outer darkness refers to AD 70, 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.

Joel McDurmon comments:

“Here the first servant-messengers (another reference to the prophets, no doubt) were simply ignored. Another wave of servant-messengers (more prophets) are treated as such a nuisance that while some still ignored them, ‘the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them’ (v. 6). Jesus is certainly adding [the murdering of the servants or prophets] here as part of the same indictment of Jerusalem He would give again in (Matt. 23:34–36).” “The murderers were the entire generation of Israelites… the armies would set the murderers’ city on fire (again exactly what happened in AD 70).” And of verses 8–14, “…yet, after this destruction… during this post-destruction wedding feast, some would sneak in who did not belong… Whether [the man w/out the wedding garment] should be interpreted as the Judaizers who would cause so much dissention in the NT Church, or whether these should just be understood as general heretics in the Church, is not clear.”[11] 

Strengths:

• The Great Commission invitation (vv. 1–7) occurs between AD 30–70.
• The rejection and killing of the servants align with Matthew 23 and the AD 70 judgment.
• The city’s burning closes the old covenant era in AD 70.
• The “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth” characterize this judgment. 

Weaknesses:

• Again, there is no mention that Jesus came to fulfill Isaiah 25:6–9 or 65:12–14 because they would have to address the timing and nature of the resurrection.
• Postmillennialists miss that Matthew 22:1–14 is structured with recapitulation: a). (vss. 1–7): 1. There is an invitation to the wedding feast. 2. It is rejected, and 3. this rejection leads to the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 – burning their city. b). (vss. 8–13): 1. There is an invitation, 2. BUT there is NEW information given to us about the same time period that vss. 1–7 didn’t tell us about. This rejection results in the invitation to the undesirables – the 10 northern tribes/Samaritans and Gentiles (as laid out in Acts 1:8) and describes the success of the Great Commission between AD 30–AD 70. And then finally 3. there is a judgment for their rejection (except this time it’s described differently – with a Jew or Judaizer trying to achieve salvation by works of the law and not through belief in the Son and His grace – who is then “CAST” out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth). This is the same language used for the AD 70 judgment Postmillennialists assign to Matthew 8:11–12. So, there is no exegetical evidence that vss. 8–13 are a post-AD 70 Great Commission resulting in a different judgment at the end of time.

Refuting the Two-Coming and Two-Wedding Theories

Dispensational Premillennialism posits two peoples, two gospels, and two eschatological comings of Christ for two weddings, but Scripture presents one covenant people and one eschatological Second Coming and wedding. Partial Preterists like Gentry, who see Matthew 24:36–25:46 as a future Second Coming, introduce a second wedding and resurrection, fracturing the discourse’s unity. The consistent “this generation” timeframe (Matt. 24:34) and the feasts’ fulfillment in AD 70 refute this. The wedding imagery in Matthew 8:11–12, 22:1–14, and 25:1–13, tied to the Feast of Trumpets, points to one event: Christ’s marriage to His new covenant people in AD 70.

Notably, in the book When Shall These Things Be? co-authored by Gentry with fellow Partial Preterists Keith A. Mathison and Doug Wilson attempting to refute Full Preterism, Mathison and Wilson do not divide the Olivet Discourse at verse 36. Instead, they view the entire discourse, including the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), as fulfilled in AD 70. This internal inconsistency among Partial Preterists undermines Gentry’s artificial division at verse 36, as his own co-authors reject it in favor of a unified AD 70 fulfillment beyond verse 36. If even prominent Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson see no break at verse 36 and affirm the parable’s AD 70 fulfillment, it highlights the arbitrary nature of Gentry’s position and strengthens the case for Full Preterism’s coherent, unified interpretation.

Moreover, this raises a critical question for Partial Preterism: How many eschatological weddings and feasts does it teach? If the wedding in Matthew 8:11–12 and Revelation 19–21 is fulfilled in AD 70 (as Gentry concedes), but Matthew 24:36–25:13 describes a future event, does this not imply two separate weddings—one in AD 70 and another at the end of history? Such a duplication mirrors the Dispensationalist error of multiple weddings and lacks biblical warrant, further discrediting Partial Preterism’s divided approach.

Major Premise: If Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson, co-authors with Gentry, reject a division at Matthew 24:36 and see the parable of the ten virgins as fulfilled in AD 70, then Gentry’s division is inconsistent even within Partial Preterism and lacks consensus support.

Minor Premise: The unified context of the discourse, with its “this generation” timeframe and consistent wedding imagery, demands a single AD 70 fulfillment without division.

Conclusion: Therefore, Gentry’s artificial division at verse 36 is discredited, affirming Full Preterism’s view of one eschatological wedding and feast in AD 70.

The Messianic Banquet and Resurrection in Isaiah 25:6–9

Jesus’ teaching fulfills Isaiah 25:6–9:

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. In that day they will say, ‘Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation’” (Isa. 25:6–9). 

This banquet occurs amid judgment on old covenant Israel (Isa. 24:5), with Jerusalem reduced to a “heap of rubble” (Isa. 25:2). Commentators affirm the time of the wedding and feast is the time of the resurrection:

“The picture is that of the ‘messianic banquet,’ derived from such OT passages as Isaiah 25:6–9 (cf. 65:13–14)…” (D.A. Carson).[12] “Jesus characterizes that bliss as taking ‘their places at the feast,’ the messianic banquet image depicting the intimate fellowship among God’s people in the age to come (cf. Isa 25:6–9; 65:13–14)” (Craig Blomberg).[13] “A reference to the messianic banquet theme of Is. 25:6–9. Gentiles now appear in place of the natural sons” (Reformation Study Bible, p. 1684).[14] 

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 old covenant Mosaic “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 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.”[15]

Watt’s observation dismantles the assumption that Isaiah 25 refers to the end or defeat of physical death. 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).  If people under this death and disgrace are invited to the wedding feast, then clearly this is spiritual death and disgrace that only Christ and the gospel can overcome.

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.” 

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 over God’s people. At the same time, the new creation—the New Jerusalem—was “comingdown” (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.

Summary Points:

• The death in 1 Corinthians 15 is spiritual sin-death, not biological death. This death held the dead in Hades and the living in its grip until the parousia.
• Its destruction was a process beginning at the cross and completed at the parousia in AD 70.
• 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.
• The “never die” promise of Christ refers to freedom from spiritual death, not the postponement or nullification of biological death.
• 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.

The following 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:

Isaiah 65:12–14 and the Judgment of Old Covenant Israel

Isaiah 65:12–14 depicts Israel’s judgment and the salvation of a remnant with Gentiles:

“I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “My servants will eat, but you will go hungry; my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame. My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts, but you will cry out from anguish of heart and wail in brokenness of spirit” (Isa. 65:12–14). 

This is fulfilled in AD 70, when the Church, as the New Jerusalem, feasts (Rev. 19–21), while old covenant Israel faces famine and destruction.

Major Premise: If Isaiah 65:12–14 describes the judgment of old covenant Israel by the sword and the feasting of God’s servants (remnant and Gentiles), then this motif must be fulfilled when old covenant Israel is judged and the new covenant Church is established.

Minor Premise: The New Testament places this judgment and feasting in AD 70, with the Church as the New Jerusalem feasting while old covenant Israel is judged (Rev. 19–21; Matt. 8:11–12).

Conclusion: Therefore, Isaiah 65:12–14’s judgment and feast were fulfilled in AD 70, aligning with the unified eschatological wedding and resurrection.

Bridging the Gap: The Analogy of Faith

The Analogy of Faith teaches that Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. Logically, if A = B and B = C, then A = C:

• A (Matt. 8; 22; 24-25) = The wedding feast, end of the age, and Parousia fulfilled by AD 70.
• B (Isa. 25:6–9) = The wedding feast and resurrection fulfilled “in that day.”
• C (1 Cor. 15) = The resurrection and end of the age fulfilled at the Parousia fulfills Isa. 25.

Jesus in A uses B (Isa. 25:6–9) to teach the wedding feast’s fulfillment in AD 70, and Paul in C uses B to teach the resurrection at the Parousia. Thus, A and C describe the same AD 70 event, including the fulfillment of the Mosaic feasts as shadows of Christ’s redemptive work.

Major Premise: If the Analogy of Faith requires consistent interpretation across Scripture, and Jesus and Paul’s teaching fulfill Isaiah 25:6–9 for the wedding feast and resurrection, then these events must coincide at the same Parousia.

Minor Premise: Jesus places the Parousia and feast in AD 70 (Matt. 24:34), and Paul ties the resurrection to the Parousia at the end of the old covenant age in the lifetime of his contemporaries.

Conclusion: Therefore, the wedding feast, resurrection, and Parousia form a unified fulfillment in AD 70.

Conclusion

Matthew 24:36, with its “day and hour” language echoing the Feast of Trumpets’ uncertain timing and the betrothal idiom’s father-determined wedding day, elaborates on the AD 70 judgment, as confirmed by Lightfoot, Clarke, Gill, Sproul, Mathison, and DeMar. The betrothal motif, depicted in the trumpet call (Matt. 24:31) and the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13), ties to the Feast of Trumpets, a shadow fulfilled in Christ’s coming (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:16–17). Jesus’ claim that “all that is written” would be fulfilled in His generation (Luke 21:22) encompasses the marriage, resurrection, and feasts, consummated in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel 12’s prophecy at the end of the Tribulation or 3½-year war (AD 67–70).

Multiple comings, weddings, or divisions of the discourse at verse 36 lack exegetical support, as even Partial Preterists like Mathison and Wilson affirm the parable of the ten virgins’ AD 70 fulfillment, undermining artificial two-section theories. The Olivet Discourse proclaims one Parousia, one wedding and feast, and one resurrection, fulfilled when Christ returned to judge Jerusalem and establish His new covenant bride at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70. Partial Preterists rightly recognize that the wedding feast and judgment of Matthew 8, Matthew 22, and Matthew 24–25 were fulfilled in AD 70, while Classic Amillennialists connect Isaiah 25’s banquet and resurrection victory with those passages and 1 Corinthians 15.

Yet both camps separate what Scripture unites: the resurrection, wedding, and feast occur when Jerusalem was judged in AD 70. Only Full Preterism resolves the contradictory propositions in Reformed theology, which inconsistently place the “last day” at the end of world history while affirming the “last days” ended in AD 70. Full Preterism preserves 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 in Zion (vv. 7–8). Jesus wove the imagery and fulfillment of Isaiah 25:6–9 into Matthew 8, 22, and 24–25, grounding the eschatological wedding and judgment in His generation (Matt. 24:34). Similarly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54–56 ties the resurrection victory to the parousia, when “the sting of death” (sin) and “the power of sin” (the Mosaic Law) were overcome through Christ. This victory, fulfilled in AD 70 when the old covenant Law was “ready to vanish” (Heb. 8:13), aligns with the New Testament’s imminent timeframe, not a futurist end of world history, as the Law’s fulfillment and then obsolescence marked the defeat of sin and death for God’s people.

This unified fulfillment culminates in the relational goal of 1 Thessalonians 4–5, where the living and the dead “dwell together” “with the Lord forever” (5:10), paralleled in 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“God all in all”) and consummated in the New Jerusalem where God dwells with His people and “the death is no more” (Rev. 21:3–4). Christ’s parousia in AD 70 was the full removal of Adamic sin-death, the end of the Mosaic covenant 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,” Gal. 4), where the curse of spiritual death and shame per Isaiah 25 and Revelation 21–22 is removed for those dwelling in the Kingdom, pictured as being in Mount Zion / New Jerusalem. We invite the nations out of their darkness and death to be healed and drink of the living waters of eternal life in God’s perpetual glory, light, and eternal day (Rev. 22:2, 17).

[1] John Lightfoot, COMMENTRY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, (Oxford Press, 1859, Hendrickson Publishers   442

[2] See Clarke’s comments on Mark 13:32, Adam Clarke’s Commentary – available online https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/24-36.html

[3] See John Gill’s Commentary on Matthew 24:36 – free online https://www.studylight.org/
commentary/matthew/24-36.html

[4] R.C. Sproul, Lecture on “This Generation” of Matthew 24:34 which includes a discussion of v. 36.

[5] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 379.

[6] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, Tenth Printing, 2024), 192

[7] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 355

[8] J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of VICTORY (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1971), 159

[9] Gill, Ibid.

[10] Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, p. 342.

[11] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26 (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 2011), pp. 157-158.

[12] Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Ibid., 202–203

[13] Craig Blomberg, Matthew: The New American Commentary Vol. 22, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers)

[14] R.C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible, p. 1684

[15] John D. W. Watt, Isaiah 1–33, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 24 (Dallas: Word Books, 1985), 331

Introduction

Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:35—“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”—seem to predict a cosmic end. Yet, a contextual, historical hermeneutic reveals they signify the old covenant’s dissolution in AD 70, not the planet’s destruction. Reformed and Evangelical scholars largely agree, yet “orthodox” Futurists cling to Revelation 20:11 as their sole text for a physical end of world history—a hermeneutical red flag exposing a hyper-creedal bias over the analogy of faith (the principle of interpreting scripture with scripture). This chapter explores Matthew, Hebrews, Revelation, and related texts to show that Jesus’ enduring words establish the new covenant age in AD 70, harmonizing with Peter’s eschatology in a unified first-century fulfillment.

“Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away” (Mt. 24:35)

So far, we have established contextual and grammatical reasons to interpret the “end of the age” as the old covenant age (v. 3) and the “stars falling from the heavens” in verse 29 as the religious and civil rulers falling from their positions of power within that age when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in AD 70. But what of verse 35, addressing the “heaven and earth” passing away? Does this not refer to the physical planet’s end? Some Partial Preterists, who see the “end of the age” (v. 3) and the coming of the Son of Man (vv. 3, 27, 30) as fulfilled in AD 70, feel compelled to divide the Olivet Discourse to justify another coming of Christ and an “end of world history.” Why? Not because the context demands it, but because their creedal “ministry” careers often require it.

Having explored the Old and New Testaments’ use of apocalyptic language (a prophetic style using dramatic imagery for historical events) for verse 29, this chapter develops that theme for “heaven(s) and earth” imagery, starting with Matthew’s Gospel and extending outward.

To grasp this language, we must adopt a contextual, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic, affirmed within Reformed and Evangelical traditions, recognizing that “heaven and earth” can refer to the old covenant system and its temple. Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis offers insight into Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:

“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” “. . . [T]he principal reference of ‘heaven and earth’ is the temple-centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] [Matthew 24:35] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology.”[1] 

Amillennialists like Sam Storms find this argument “compelling,” though less so when Full Preterists make it, despite our prior advocacy.  Fletcher-Louis notes the temple’s design reflects the seven-day creation narrative, something other theologians have noticed as well: 

Fletcher-Louis aligns with our contextual approach, noting that verse 35 is situated between the apocalyptic de-creation of Israel’s rulers in verse 29 (which N.T. Wright sees as fulfilled in AD 70) and the “day and hour” of verse 36 (which John Lightfoot ties to AD 70). Curiously, Fletcher-Louis presents his view as novel, though I have taught this for over 35 years, and Full Preterism has long advocated that the “heaven and earth” in verse 35 is the old covenant temple system.

G.K. Beale’s research, lays the groundwork for our exposition of this key text:

“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy (a figure of speech where one term substitutes for another).”[2] 

Beale is following the scholarship of J.D. Levenson showing the synonymously parallel relationship between the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 65:17-18.  Clearly, if the restoration of Jerusalem results in a New Heavens and New Earth, then the desolation or judgment upon Jerusalem causes a passing away of Israel’s Heaven and Earth.

Jesus teaches that while the old covenant system and era will end within his generation through his judgment “coming on the clouds,” his words establishing the new covenant kingdom will “never pass away” (Matthew 24:35). This verse is not a transition statement signaling the end of world history or the dissolution of the physical universe. Rather, in the context of the preceding verses (Matthew 24:1–34), which describe the impending judgment on Jerusalem and the old covenant system, it offers assurance that Christ’s teachings of the new covenant kingdom will remain unshaken and endure forever, unlike the temporary old covenant order. This echoes Daniel 7:13–14, which depicts Christ coming on the clouds in AD 70, establishing “an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away.” Amid the judgment on the old covenant kingdom, believers can rejoice in the certainty of a superior, enduring kingdom founded on the Messiah’s teachings. This concept is reinforced in Daniel 9:24–27, where the destruction of the old covenant temple and city coincides with God’s anointing of a new “Most Holy Place”—the dwelling of His new covenant people, where “everlasting righteousness” is found. Similarly, the transfiguration foreshadows Christ’s second coming in AD 70. Some might be tempted to cling to the old covenant’s glory alongside Christ’s eternal new covenant glory, but the old was destined to fade (as Moses and Elijah vanish), and the disciples were called by the Father to heed Christ’s words alone.

Within Matthew’s Gospel, John Brown identifies the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 as the old covenant system:

“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.”[3] 

Scholars like Fletcher-Louis correctly equate the “heaven and earth” of Matthew 5:18 with that of Matthew 24:35, both pointing to the old covenant’s passing, not the planet’s end. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus teaches that if the “heaven and earth” (the Law and Prophets) have not been fulfilled, we remain under all the “jots and tittles” of the Mosaic Law. Since Jesus placed the fulfillment of “all that is written” within His generation (Lk. 21:22-32), AD 70 marks the point when the old covenant “heaven and earth” passed away.

Brown’s reference to Old Testament phraseology likely draws from Isaiah 51:15-16 and Isaiah 65-66. The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge explains Isaiah 51:15-16:

“The heavens. ‘Heaven’ and ‘earth’ are here put by symbolic language for a political universe. That is, that I might make those who were but scattered persons and slaves in Egypt before, a kingdom and polity, to be governed by their own laws and magistrates.”[4]

The Covenantal Cosmos: Owen and Lightfoot on the “Heavens and Earth” in Biblical Prophecy

Reformed theologians John Owen and John Lightfoot interpret “heavens and earth” in 2 Peter 3, Isaiah 51:15-16, Isaiah 65-66, and Matthew 24 as the Jewish covenantal system’s dissolution in AD 70, not a physical cosmic collapse.[5] Owen sees the flood and fiery judgment as targeting socio-religious systems, not the planet, while Lightfoot views Jerusalem’s fall as the “destruction of the whole world,” using prophetic idioms (e.g., Deut. 32:22, Jer. 4:23).[6] Their exegesis ties these events to AD 70, aligning with Matthew 24’s context (see above).

The historical context is AD 70, when Jerusalem fell to Roman armies. Owen ties the “coming of the Lord,” day of judgment, and destruction of the “heavens and earth” in 2 Peter 3 to that generation, aligning with Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 24.[7] This was a divine judgment on the Jewish nation, relieving believers and terrifying scoffers. Lightfoot agrees, asserting that Matthew 24:29-30’s cosmic disturbances—darkened sun, falling stars, and the “sign of the Son of Man”—point to Jerusalem’s fall in “that generation” (Matt. 24:34).[8] AD 70 marked the old covenant’s end.

The “new heavens and new earth” in 2 Peter 3:13 and Isaiah 65:17 represent the gospel era, where the new covenant replaces the old, enduring forever (Heb. 12:26-28).[9] Lightfoot sees this “new creation” as the evangelical state post-AD 70, marked by Gentile inclusion and Jewish rejection (Isa. 65:17, 2 Cor. 5:17, Rev. 21:1-2).[10] This signifies the gospel’s triumph over the Mosaic framework.

Owen and Lightfoot stress that cosmic imagery describes the rise and fall of nations or systems, not literal cosmic events. Owen cites Isaiah 34:4 (Edom’s fall) and Revelation 6:14 (Roman Empire) as examples.[11] He interprets Isaiah 51:15-16—where God “plants the heavens” and “lays the foundation of the earth”—as Israel’s formation during the Exodus, later destroyed as a “world.”[12] Lightfoot notes that “elements” in 2 Peter 3:10, Galatians 4:9, and Colossians 2:20 refer to Mosaic ordinances, not physical components, indicating the “conflagration” is the Jewish system’s abolition.[13]

Both use “only” to emphasize that these passages refer solely to Jerusalem’s AD 70 destruction, not the final judgment or physical universe’s end.[14] Owen insists that 2 Peter 3’s fiery judgment and Christ’s coming are historical, tied to the Jewish nation’s fate.[15] Lightfoot asserts that Peter, Paul, and John, in 2 Peter 3, 2 Corinthians 5:17, and Revelation 6, speak “only” of Jerusalem’s fall and the new covenant’s establishment.[16]

The “coming of the Lord” is a providential judgment, Owen explains, citing Matthew 24:30, Luke 21:27, and James 5:7-9, where Christ’s coming is imminent—“at hand” or “standing before the door”—fulfilled in AD 70.[17] Lightfoot concurs, noting that Matthew 24:29-30’s cosmic signs describe the AD 70 judgment, confined to “that generation” (Matt. 24:34).[18] This underscores Christ’s historical authority, not a future cosmic finale.

Key Points on Owen and Lightfoot’s Views:

• “Heavens and earth” symbolize the Jewish covenantal order, not the cosmos.
• AD 70 fulfills these prophecies as historical judgment.
• New creation represents the gospel era’s triumph.

Peter’s eschatology mirrors Jesus’ eschatology: 

Comparison of Eschatological Themes in Matthew 24 and 1-2 Peter

• Imminent Eschatology:
  • Matthew 24: Predicts temple’s destruction and Christ’s coming “within this generation” (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34), referring to the old covenant age’s end in AD 70.
  • 1-2 Peter: Urges sobriety as “the end of all things is near” (1 Pet. 4:7), warning of scoffers doubting Christ’s coming (2 Pet. 3:3-4), tied to AD 70.

• Christ’s Coming as a Thief:
  • Matthew 24: Son of Man’s coming is unexpected, “like a thief” (Matt. 24:42-44).
  • 1-2 Peter: “Day of the Lord will come like a thief” (2 Pet. 3:10).

• Use of Kairos:
  • Matthew 24: In Luke’s parallel, kairos warns of false messiahs (“the time has drawn near,” Luke 21:8) and Gentiles’ times fulfilled (Luke 21:24), referring to AD 67-70.
  • 1-2 Peter: Uses kairos for imminent judgment (1 Pet. 4:17), tied to AD 70.

• Passing of Heavens and Earth:
  • Matthew 24: Cosmic imagery (sun darkened, stars fall, v. 29) and “heaven and earth will pass away” depict covenantal collapse in AD 70.
  • 1-2 Peter: Heavens pass with roar, elements melt (2 Pet. 3:10-12), already “being dissolved” (v. 11 LEB).

• New Heavens and New Earth:
  • Matthew 24: Implied by one heaven and earth passing (v. 35), a new one endures; connected to Isaiah 65.
  • 1-2 Peter: Promises “new heavens and a new earth” where righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13), citing Isa. 65:17 as the gospel era.

• Judgment Context:
  • Matthew 24: Judgment on Jerusalem for rejecting Christ (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34).
  • 1-2 Peter: Judgment on scoffers and false teachers as Jerusalem’s fall (1 Pet. 4:5, 17-18; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10).

• Judgment Not Delayed:
  • Matthew 24: False prophets’ judgment imminent in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).
  • 1-2 Peter: False teachers’ destruction “not asleep” (2 Pet. 2:3), no delay in AD 70.

Scholars and commentators connect Matthew 24:35’s passing of “heaven and earth” with 2 Peter 3, and many Partial Preterists concede that 2 Peter 3 describes the old covenant’s passing.[19] This should extend to the Olivet Discourse, which centers on the old covenant age’s end with de-creation language. Curiously, more Partial Preterists accept 2 Peter 3 as fulfilled in AD 70 than Matthew 24:35. Lightfoot avoids the verse, and R.C. Sproul, while affirming that the “end of the age” (24:3) and “day and hour” (24:36) refer to AD 70, does not harmonize this with his preterist exegesis of 2 Peter 3.[20]

I propose that Partial Preterism’s reluctance stems from its dwindling “end of world history” texts. Previously, they relied on Hebrews 1:10-12 and Revelation 20:11, but recent shifts leave only Revelation 20:11, a single text clung to for creedal reasons despite its inconsistency with the analogy of faith. Let us examine these de-creation texts to determine if they are exceptions or point to AD 70.

Hebrews and the “Heaven(s) and Earth”

The author of Hebrews writes:

“In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make [Greek poieo] the ages [Greek aeon]” (Heb. 1:1–2, YLT).

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish but You remain; they will all wear out [Greek palaiothesontai] like a garment, like a robe You will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end” (Heb. 1:10–12). 

“whose voice the earth shook then, and now hath he promised, saying, ‘Yet once – I shake not only the earth, but also the heaven;’ and this – ‘Yet once’ – doth make evident the removal of the things shaken, as of things having been made [Greek poieo], that the things not shaken may remain; wherefore, a kingdom that cannot be shaken receiving, may we have grace, through which we may serve God well-pleasingly, with reverence and religious fear;” (Heb. 12:26–28, YLT). 

Some may question how the plural “ages” (Greek aeon) in Hebrews 1:2, 9:26, and 1 Corinthians 10:11 harmonizes with Jesus’ singular “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3. This is explained by the literary device of heterosis (where singular and plural forms are used interchangeably to emphasize a unified concept), where the “ages” refer to the various epochs of the old covenant system (e.g., patriarchal, Mosaic), culminating in a singular “end” in AD 70, aligning with Jesus’ prophecy of the old covenant age’s conclusion.

Reformed Partial Preterist pastors Andrew Isker and Joel Webbon concur that Hebrews 1:10-12’s “heaven” and “earth” refer to the old covenant system, “rolled up” and “growing old” from Christ’s ascension, “ready to vanish” by His AD 70 coming.  Yet they neglect to show where in Hebrews this AD 70 coming of Christ is that brings that covenantal creation to her end!  Isker comments, with Webbon agreeing:

“…but in these last days, not to the end of the world [planet] but the end of that world, the old covenant.” …So, what is happening to the old creation, the old covenant? That right there [Heb. 1:10-12], it is being rolled up like a garment and Jesus is the one doing it and it is happening in the ascension—right? Joel Webbon responds, “right.” Isker continues “…this is a contrast between the old and new covenant.” “So, what happens, Jesus comes into the old covenant creation world, into the elementary principles of [that] world and he’s now lower than the angels in that world, man is made lower than the angels in that old covenant world…that is what is happening [in] the transition between the old creation and new creation.”[21]

Hebrews 1 clarifies that Christ upholds the old covenant “age(s)” (aeon), set to end at His imminent second appearing in AD 70 (Heb. 1:2–3, 6; 9:26–28—10:37; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). Since the author quotes Psalm 102, let us examine its context to determine if world history’s end is in view.

The Eschatology of Psalm 102

The Psalmist anticipates an “appointed time” for God to save Zion:

You will arise and have pity on Zion; it is the time to favor her; the appointed time has come. …For the Lord builds up Zion; he appears in his glory;…” (Psalm 102:13–16)

Psalm 102:13 highlights an “appointed time” (Hebrew mowed, equivalent to Greek kairos, a fixed time for completion) when God will save Zion—the new covenant Heavenly Jerusalem or Church (Heb. 12:22-23). Hebrews 13:14 uses melloto indicate this “City” was “about to come,” tying Christ’s second appearance to Zion’s salvation. This divine appearance “in his glory” (Ps. 102:16) aligns with Jesus’ coming in glory in Matthew 16:27-28, where He comes “in the glory of His Father” within some disciples’ lifetimes, and Matthew 24:30, where the Son of Man comes “on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” both of which Partial Preterists connect to AD 70. These texts reinforce that Psalm 102:16’s glorious appearance points to Christ’s AD 70 coming to save His people and judge Jerusalem.

John Gill connects this “appointed time” to Daniel 9:24–27 and Revelation 11:1–2, 18:

For the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come; not the seventy years of the captivity made known to the prophet Jeremiah; rather the seventy weeks of Daniel fixed for the Messiah’s coming; or the fullness of time agreed upon, between Christ and his Father, for him to come and redeem his people; but it may best of all design the end of the forty two months, or the 1260 days, or years, fixed for the treading under foot the holy city, for the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, and for the reign of antichrist; which when come will usher in glorious times in favour of Zion, the church of God, Revelation 11:2.[22]

Having shown that the “appointed time” in Daniel 9:26-27 LXX and Revelation 11:1-18 aligns with the kairos of Luke 21:8, 24, fulfilled in AD 67-70, I concur at least with Gill connecting the appointed time of Psalm 102 to Daniel 9 and Revelation 11. The Psalmist likely drew from Deuteronomy 32:35–43, prophesying an “appointed time” for God’s vindication of His people.

A Generation Recorded for the Future (v. 18)

Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people/nation yet to be created may praise the Lord (Ps. 102:18, YLT). 

Deuteronomy 32:20–22 links a last-days “generation” with the “people” and “nation” created when old covenant Israel undergoes de-creation. Psalm 102 and Hebrews converge on this theme, with the Psalmist, familiar with the Song of Moses, composing with eschatological intent.

Adam Clarke connects this to Isaiah 65:17–18’s New Heaven and New Earth:

“The people which shall be created — ‘The Gentiles, who shall be brought to the knowledge of salvation by Christ,’ as the Syriac states in its inscription to this Psalm: how often the conversion of the soul to God is represented as a new creation, no reader of the New Testament need be told. See Ephesians 2:10; 4:24; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15. Even the publication of the Gospel, and its influence among men, is represented under the notion of ‘creating a new heaven and a new earth,’ Isaiah 65:17–18.”[23] 

The Gathering in Zion

The Psalm continues:

“That they may declare in Zion the name of the Lord, and in Jerusalem his praise, when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the Lord (Ps. 102:21–22).

This recapitulates the “people/nation” of verse 18. I align with commentators connecting this to the New Jerusalem or new heavens and earth of Isaiah 60:3 and 65–66.  If Isaiah 60:3 fulfills Psalm 102:18–28, its fulfillment occurs at the “appointed time” in AD 70 (Isa. 60:22LXX). Psalm 102:13’s “appointed time” echoes Deuteronomy 32:35LXX, where Israel’s de-creation and burning of her land and mountains coincides with the new covenant “nation” (Deut. 32:20-22; cf. Matt. 21:43-45).

This “gathering” ties to the resurrection at Christ’s AD 70 coming, when Gentiles were gathered to dine with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the matured new covenant kingdom (Matt. 8:10–12; 24:30–31)—a passage partial preterists such as Gentry affirms was fulfilled in AD 70. Hebrews notes the recipients had come to Zion, were “receiving the kingdom,” and that this Zion/Jerusalem or “City” was “about to come” (Heb. 13:14, Weymouth/Worrell), the eschatological “already” and “not yet” fulfilled in AD 70.  This “gathering” to “worship” (Ps. 102:22) aligns with Isaiah 27:12-13, fulfilled in Jesus’ eschatological gathering at his coming in his generation (Matt. 24:30-31, 34). 

The Perishability of the Old Creation (vv. 25–26)

The Psalmist states: 

“In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away (Ps. 102:25–26). 

Commentators note parallels between Psalm 102:25–26, Isaiah 65–66, and 2 Peter 3, suggesting the same de-creation event. Partial Preterists (Owen, Lightfoot, Sproul, Leithart, Wilson) maintain that Isaiah 65–66 and 2 Peter 3 refer solely to the old covenant’s passing in AD 70. Full Preterism resolves the contradiction:

Major Premise: Psalm 102:25–26 draws on Isaiah 65–66’s de-creation event (Classic Amillennialists/Premillennialists). A (Isa. 65–66) = B (Ps. 102:25–26).

Minor Premise: Isaiah 65–66’s de-creation refers to the old covenant’s passing in AD 70 “only” (Partial Preterists).

Conclusion: Psalm 102:25–26 was fulfilled in AD 70 (Full Preterism).

The Author’s Self-Interpretation in Hebrews

Sound hermeneutics lets the author define his terms. Consider Hebrews 12:

“At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ This phrase, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe” (Heb. 12:26–28).

I agree with my friend Don Preston who has suggested the author uses an inclusio (a literary structure where themes are repeated at the beginning and end to frame the argument) linking Hebrews 1 and 12. Jesus “made” (poieo) the old covenant ages and “earth” and “heavens” (Heb. 1:1–2, 10–12), which were “growing old” (palaiothesontai) and set to end at His AD 70 second appearing (Heb. 9:26–28—10:37). Hebrews 8 clarifies that the “growing old” was the old covenant system, not the planet.

Hebrews 12 alludes to Exodus 19 and Haggai 2. In House Divided, we noted Haggai 2:6–9, 21–23’s fulfillment within four years (“in a little while”) when God overthrew nations and filled the temple with glory (Hag. 1:15; 2:10; Ezra 6:15). Darius subdued Israel’s enemies, funding the temple’s rebuilding (Ezra 6:8–12).[24] This prefigured Christ’s generation, when God overthrew enemies persecuting the Church, establishing the new covenant temple (Eph. 2:21–22; 1 Pet. 2:5).[25]

Unlike the old covenant’s shakable “heavens and earth,” Hebrews teaches an unshakable kingdom within the Church (Dan. 2:34; Luke 17:20–37; 21:27–32). This aligns with reformed commentators viewing Hebrews 1:10–12, 12:26–27, Psalm 102, and Isaiah 65–66 as a single AD 70 event, contrasting the new covenant’s enduring superiority with the old order’s imminent demise (Heb. 6:5 SLT; 8:13).

The de-creation of the old covenant heavens and earth is linked to a new People/Zion/Nation in Hebrews, Psalm 102, Deuteronomy 32:20-22, and Isaiah 65-66. Placing this new nation’s creation at world history’s end is illogical; it is God’s new covenant people emerging after the old covenant’s cessation in AD 70, as prophesied.

Key Points on Hebrews’ De-creation:

• Christ’s second coming ends the old covenant “ages,” symbolized as “heavens and earth.”
• The “shaking” in Hebrews 12 fulfills Haggai 2 in AD 70.
• The unshakable kingdom is the new covenant Church, established within believers. 

Comparison of Eschatological Themes in Matthew 24 and Hebrews

Imminent Eschatology:

• Matthew 24: Predicts temple destruction and Christ’s coming “within this generation” (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34), ending the old covenant age in AD 70.
• Hebrews: Speaks in “these last days” (Heb. 1:2), with Christ’s second appearing “at the end of the ages” (Heb. 9:26), “in a very, very little while” (Heb. 10:37), tied to AD 70.

Passing of Heavens and Earth:

• Matthew 24: Cosmic imagery (sun darkened, stars fall, v. 29) and “heaven and earth will pass away” depict covenantal collapse in AD 70.
• Hebrews: “Heavens and earth” made by Christ (Heb. 1:10-12), shaken and removed (Heb. 12:26-28), growing old and ready to vanish (Heb. 8:13), fulfilled in AD 70.

New Creation/Kingdom:

• Matthew 24: Implied by one heaven and earth passing (v. 35), a new one endures.
• Hebrews: Unshakable kingdom received (Heb. 12:28), new age “about to come” (Heb. 6:5 SLT), established in AD 70.

Judgment Context:

• Matthew 24: Judgment on Jerusalem for rejecting Christ (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34).
• Hebrews: Judgment at Christ’s second appearance (Heb. 9:27-28; 10:27, 30-37), burning enemies in AD 70.

Salvation at Christ’s Coming:

• Matthew 24: Son of Man’s coming gathers elect (v. 31), brings redemption “near” (Luke 21:28).
• Hebrews: Christ appears a second time for salvation to those awaiting Him (Heb. 9:28). 

The Imminent Second Coming Brings an End to the Old Covenant Age or Heavens and Earth

“He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Heb. 9:26–28).

Since most scholars’ tie Christ’s Second Coming in Matthew 24:27, 30 and Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:37 to the passing of Matthew 24:35 and Hebrews 1:10-12; 12:26-28’s “heavens and earth,” let us examine Hebrews 9:26-28.

Christ, the new covenant High Priest, offered Himself once for all, set to appear a second time to save His awaiting congregation. R.C. Sproul suggests this encompasses Christ’s first and second appearances at the old covenant age’s end:

This passage refers to both the first and second appearances of Christ. The context for his first appearance is “the end of the ages.” Yet his followers are still waiting for him to appear a second time.” “…If Christ’s first coming at “the end of the ages” has already occurred and if considerable time has elapsed since that coming, then it is impossible to identify “the end of the ages” with the end of time. If the second appearing of Christ here refers to his judgment on Jerusalem, it would still fit in the framework of “the end of the ages” that is not the end of all time.[26] 

Milton Terry aligns Hebrews 9:26–28 with Matthew 24:3, 27–34, where “the end of the age” is the Jewish dispensation’s close:

The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.[27] 

Exegetical arguments support Christ’s AD 70 second coming to save the Church:

1. Eager Expectation: Apekdechomai (“eagerly awaiting”) indicates an imminent expectation fulfilled in AD 70 (1 Cor. 1:7–8; Rom. 8:18–23 YLT). Partial Preterists like Leithart and DeMar affirm this points to AD 70.[28]
2. Spiritual Perception: Hora (“to appear”) implies spiritual perception, as when Jesus said the priesthood would “see” Him coming in AD 70 (Matt. 26:64).
3. End of the Age: Partial Preterists agree that “the end of the age” (Heb. 9:26) is the old covenant’s end in AD 70, consistent with Matthew 24:3, 27, 30.
4. No Third Appearance: If 98% of New Testament “coming” references were fulfilled in AD 70, a future Hebrews 9:28 implies a third appearance, unsupported by the text.
5. Salvation and Redemption: Christ’s AD 70 appearance brought salvation. A future Hebrews 9:28 suggests a different salvation than Matthew 24’s, post-AD 67-70 tribulation.
6. Removal of the Old Covenant: Full entry into the Most Holy Place (new covenant economy) required the old covenant’s removal. Hebrews 6:5 (WUESTNT) foretells an imminent matured new age, beginning in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8, 10).
7. Imminent Fulfillment: Hebrews 10:25, 27, 30-37 describes the second coming as imminent—“in a very, very little while”—tied to “a day approaching” manifested vengeance in AD 70.

Key Points on Hebrews’ Second Coming:

• The “end of the ages” is the old covenant’s close in AD 70.
• Christ’s second appearance brings salvation to the awaiting Church.
• Hebrews 9:26-28 aligns with Matthew 24’s imminent fulfillment. 

Concluding Hebrews and “Heaven(s) and Earth”

Hebrews emphasizes the new covenant’s superiority, describing the old covenant as an “age(s)” or “heavens and earth” nearing its end at Christ’s AD 70 second coming. This aligns with Matthew 24, where Christ’s coming ends the old covenant age, causing its “heaven and earth” to pass away, while His new covenant words endure. 

Comparison of Eschatological Themes in Matthew 24 and Hebrews

Imminent Eschatology:

• Matthew 24: Predicts temple destruction and Christ’s coming “within this generation” (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34), ending the old covenant age in AD 70.
• Hebrews: Speaks in “these last days” (Heb. 1:2), with Christ’s second appearing “at the end of the ages” (Heb. 9:26), “in a very, very little while” (Heb. 10:37), tied to AD 70.

Passing of Heavens and Earth:

• Matthew 24: Cosmic imagery (sun darkened, stars fall, v. 29) and “heaven and earth will pass away” depict covenantal collapse in AD 70.
• Hebrews: “Heavens and earth” made by Christ (Heb. 1:10-12), shaken and removed (Heb. 12:26-28), growing old and ready to vanish (Heb. 8:13), fulfilled in AD 70.

New Creation/Kingdom:

• Matthew 24: Implied by one heaven and earth passing (v. 35), a new one endures.
• Hebrews: Unshakable kingdom received (Heb. 12:28), new age “about to come” (Heb. 6:5 SLT), established in AD 70.

Judgment Context:

• Matthew 24: Judgment on Jerusalem for rejecting Christ (Matt. 24:2, 15-21, 34).
• Hebrews: Judgment at Christ’s second appearance (Heb. 9:27-28; 10:27, 30-37), burning enemies in AD 70.

Salvation at Christ’s Coming:

• Matthew 24: Son of Man’s coming gathers elect (v. 31), brings redemption “near” (Luke 21:28).
• Hebrews: Christ appears a second time for salvation to those awaiting Him (Heb. 9:28).

Revelation and the Passing Away of the “Heaven(s) and Earth” 

Linguistic Parallels Across Revelation

John’s linguistic connections show thematic continuity:

• Mountains and Islands: Revelation 6:14 and 16:20 reference “every mountain and island” being displaced or fleeing.
• Pheugo (“flee”) and “Not Found”: Revelation 16:20 and 20:11 share pheugo and “was not found.”
• Earth and Heaven: Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 depict the passing of “earth” and “heaven.”

The de-creation sequence:

• 6:14 — “every mountain and island were moved from their places.”
• 16:20 — “every island fled [pheugo], and the mountains were not found.”
• 20:11 — “the earth and the heaven fled [pheugo], and a place was not found for them.
• 21:1 — “…for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.”

1. De-creation in Revelation 6:13–17

Revelation 6 depicts old covenant Israel’s de-creation:

And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand? (Rev. 6:13–17) 

John draws from Isaiah 2:19, 21, tied to AD 70 by Jesus (Luke 23:28–31) and Paul (2 Thess. 1:5–9). Kenneth Gentry notes:

“In 6:15–16 many ‘hid in caves’ and ‘called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us.”’ Josephus frequently mentions that the Jews actually sought refuge underground during the AD 67–70 war: ‘And on this day the Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding places, and fell upon those that were underneath the ground, and in the caverns’ (Wars 3.7.36; see also 3.2.3; 3.7.35; 5.3.1; 6,7.3; 6.9.4; 7.2.1).”[29] 

Keith Mathison connects this to prophetic judgments:

“As the sixth seal is broken (6:12–17), a vision of judgment upon the nation of Israel is given in the familiar prophetic language of cosmic upheaval (cf. Isa. 13:10–14; 34:4–5; Ezek. 32:7; Amos 8:9).”[30] 

Gentry emphasizes the collapse of Israel’s old covenant order:

“The de-creation language in the sixth seal (Rev. 6:12–17) portrays Israel’s world coming apart under the ‘wrath of the Lamb’ on the ‘great day of wrath’ (vv. 16–17). Such language is common prophetic parlance regarding the collapse of God-cursed governments, such as Babylon (Ezek. 32:2, 7–8, 16, 18), Idumea (Isa. 34:3–5), and Judah (Jer. 4:14, 23–24).”[31] 

2. De-creation in Revelation 16:20

Revelation 16:20 states:

“And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found” (Rev. 16:20). 

Preterists view this as a recapitulation of Revelation 6:12–17, reflecting the book’s cyclical structure.[^65] Gentry interprets this as the destruction of Israel’s cities:

“Since the priestly angels (15:6) pour the libation judgment on ‘the Land’ (16:1, 2; cf. 16:12, 16) the removal of islands and mountains indicates the overthrow, abandonment or surrender of all of Israel’s cities, small and large, near and far (J.W. 3:7:1 134; 4:9:9 545–555).”[32]

Gentry overlooks pheugo (“flee”), used here and in Revelation 20:11, where earth and sky “flee” from God’s presence, suggesting thematic unity. Partial preterists recognize the recapitulation between Revelation 6 and 16 but inconsistently treat Revelation 20:11 as world history’s end.

3. De-creation in Revelation 20:11

“From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them” (Rev. 20:11).

G.K. Beale highlights the parallelism across Revelation 6:14, 16:20, and 20:11:

“Note the striking parallel language in 6:14; 20:11; and 16:20:

• 6:14 ‘every mountain and island were moved from their places’
• 16:20 – ‘every island fled, and the mountains were not found’
• 20:11 – ‘the earth and the heaven fled, and a place was not found for them’

‘Destruction of mountains was a sign of the end of the cosmos in Jewish apocalyptic’ And ‘a place was not found for them’ is from Dan. 2:35 Theod., where it is used of the destruction of the wicked kingdoms at the end time”[33]

These three texts depict the same AD 70 de-creation event.  Some Futurists object that Revelation 20:11’s language is too cosmic to be covenantal, yet Jewish apocalyptic texts like Isaiah 13:10 use similar imagery for Babylon’s fall, not a physical end. Others argue it refers to a final universal judgment, but the imminent time texts for the prophecy of this book (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10) and recapitulation with Revelation 6:14 and 16:20 tie it to AD 70’s judgment on Israel, consistent with Matthew 24:34’s “this generation.”

Full Preterism harmonizes Beale and Gentry:

Major Premise: All three de-creation texts describe the same event, as the analogy of faith and recapitulation structure show (Beale).

Minor Premise: Amillennialists (Beale) affirm all three texts describe one event, and Partial Preterists (Gentry) affirm Revelation 6 and 16 were fulfilled in AD 70.

Conclusion: Revelation 20:11 was fulfilled in AD 70, as all three texts describe the same event (Full Preterism).

4. De-creation in Revelation 21:1

“…for the first heaven and the first earth had passed [and] the sea was no more” (Rev. 21:1).

Doug Wilson connects this to Isaiah 65–66, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 21–22:

“We are seeing here the transition between the first heaven (the Judaic aeon) and new earth (the Christian aeon). … I do not take the new heaven and new earth as referring to the post-Second Coming eternal state.” … “So, I take the first heavens and earth as the Judaic aeon and the new heavens and earth as the Christian aeon, and these two aeons overlapped—the latter beginning at Pentecost, and the former ending with the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.”[^75] 

Kenneth Gentry adds:

“The absence of the sea (21:1) speaks of the harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin…”[34]

For Gentry, “no more sea” signifies Christ’s “soon” AD 70 coming establishing the new creation, positionally removing sin, aligning with Full Preterism.

The Futurist Inconsistency

Some argue Revelation 20:11 uniquely refers to world history’s end, ignoring recapitulation and imminent time texts (Rev. 1:1, 3; 1:19 YLT). Partial Preterists affirm John was in the millennium, so Revelation 20:11’s “things” were “about to take place” (Rev. 1:19 YLT). Amillennialists and Partial Preterists agree Christ’s second coming ends the millennium and causes Revelation 20:11’s de-creation. Full Preterism resolves this internal contradiction within the book of Revelation:

Major Premise: The one “soon” second coming in Revelation causes the de-creation in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 (Amillennialism).

Minor Premise: The “soon” coming was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, resulting in the old covenant’s heaven and earth passing in Revelation 21:1 (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion: The one “soon” second coming was fulfilled in AD 70, ending the millennium and causing the old covenant “heaven(s) and earth” to “flee” or “pass away” in Revelation 20:11 and 21:1 (Full Preterism).

Key Points on Revelation’s De-creation:

• All texts (Rev. 6:14, 16:20, 20:11, 21:1) use parallel language, pointing to the old covenant’s fleeing or passing away in AD 70, not the physical universe.
• Futurist isolation of Revelation 20:11 ignores recapitulation and imminent time texts.
• The new creation is the mature new covenant gospel era post-AD 70.

Comparison of Eschatological Themes in Matthew 24 and Revelation 

Imminent Eschatology:

• Matthew 24: Events fulfilled in “this generation” (v. 34).
• Revelation: “Things which must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1), “appointed time” is “near” (Rev. 1:3; 22:6, 10), “about to take place” (Rev. 1:19 YLT), fulfilled in AD 70.

Coming of Christ:

• Matthew 24: Son of Man comes on clouds (v. 30), like a thief (v. 43).
• Revelation: Christ comes quickly (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20), day of the Lord like a thief (Rev. 16:15; cf. 3:3).

Passing of Heavens and Earth:

• Matthew 24: Stars fall (v. 29), heaven and earth pass away (v. 35).
• Revelation: Stars fall (Rev. 6:13), heaven departs like a scroll (Rev. 6:14), earth and heaven flee (Rev. 20:11), first heaven and earth pass (Rev. 21:1), fulfilled in AD 70.

New Heavens and New Earth:

• Matthew 24: Implied by one heaven and earth passing (v. 35).
• Revelation: New heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1), no more sea (sin/discord) (Rev. 21:1), post-AD 70 gospel era.

Judgment Context:

• Matthew 24: Tribulation and judgment on Jerusalem (vv. 15-21).
• Revelation: John was in the Tribulation, Seals, Trumpets, Bowls judge “the Land” (Greek ge of Israel’s land) (Rev. 1:9; 6:12-17; 16:1-20), tied to AD 70.

Gathering/Salvation:

• Matthew 24: Trumpet blown and angels gather elect in Jesus generation (v. 31, 34).
• Revelation: Last and seventh trumpet blown gathering of saints into Most Holy Place and new Jerusalem (Rev. 10-11; 21:2-3), sealed and protected from judgment (Rev. 7:9-17), fulfilled in AD 70.

Conclusion to Matthew 24:35

No New Testament writer, including Jesus in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35, predicted a physical end of the world. Scholars like Owen, Lightfoot, Sproul, and others interpret “heaven and earth” as the old covenant’s fall in AD 70, yet Futurists isolate Revelation 20:11 to uphold creedal assumptions, ignoring the analogy of faith—a clear hermeneutical red flag. Full Preterism synthesizes these views: the Son of Man’s spiritual coming in AD 70 ended the old covenant age, fulfilling Matthew 24’s de-creation language and establishing the enduring new covenant. Let scripture, not uninspired creeds, guide our eschatology (“the Scripture alone” and “Reformed and always reforming”).  How likely is it that there is only ONE physical de-creation text of the universe while all the others refer to the world or heavens and earth of the old covenant?

Key Eschatological Texts and Partial Preterist Interpretations

These interpretations, while individually considered “orthodox,” demonstrate how Full Preterists synthesize Reformed and Evangelical views into a cohesive reading of eschatological de-creation passages.

The Full Preterist view combines competing “orthodox” perspectives on Matthew 24-25’s coming of the Lord and de-creation:

Major Premise – Classic Amillennial: The coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24-25 is the ONE second coming event, and the de-creation in verses 29 and 35 is the consummative end of the age (v. 3) event.

Minor Premise – Partial Preterist View: The coming of the Son of Man happened spiritually, and the end of age, de-creation of verses 3, 29, and 35 describe the old covenant creation/age’s passing and the new covenant age’s establishment by AD 70.

Conclusion – Full Preterist View: The coming of the Son of Man is the ONE Second Coming event fulfilled spiritually, with the end of the age and de-creation in verses 3, 29, 35 referring to the old covenant creation/age passing away in AD 67–70, establishing and maturing the new (“Scripture alone” and “Reformed and always reforming”).

[1] Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157

[2] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25

[3] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170

[4] Jerome Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Revised and Expanded, Thomas Nelson Publishers), p. 802

[5] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454.

[6] Ibid., John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[7] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135.

[8] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[9] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135.

[10] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[11] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135.

[12] Ibid.

[13] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[14] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135; John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[15] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135.

[16] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[17] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 9:134–135.

[18] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 3:452, 454.

[19] Ibid.

[20] See Sproul’s lecture on Matthew 24:34 online.

[21] Joel Webbon and Andrew Isker, “How God Destroyed Judaism In AD 70” March 7, 2025, https://rightresponseministries.com, see from 15:47 to 19:50.  See also Joel Webbon’s comments on the podcast entitled, “Red Heifers & The End Times with Dr. Taylor Marshall” where he quickly notes that Hebrews teaches the heavens and earth or world of the old covenant system was “rolled up” and done away in AD 70.

[22] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, BibleHub, accessed Feb 16, 2025, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/psalms/102.htm

[23] Adam Clark, “Commentary on Psalms 102:18”, “The Adam Clarke Commentary”, accessed Feb 12, 2025, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/acc/psalms-102.html#verse-18. Emphasis added.  Clarke understood the creating of a new heaven and a new earth to be the Jews first coming back into the land under Ezra and Nehemiah and then ultimately in the conversion of the Jews – see his notes on Isa. 65:17.

[24] David Green, Ed Hassertt, and Michael Sullivan, House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology: A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing, second edition, 2013), 63–65.

[25] Ibid.

[26] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Really Say He Would Return? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 106

[27] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441–42.

[28] Peter Leithart, International Theological Commentary: Revelation 1–11 (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 25–26.  Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 2023), pp. 215-220

[29] Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 55.

[30] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 149.

[31] Ibid. p. 54

[32] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation, vol. II: Revelation 10:1–22:21 (Acworth, GA: Tolle Lege Press, 2024), 1250.

[33] Beale, The New International Greek New Testament Commentary, 844, 1032. Emphasis added.

[34] Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2019), 245–246.

Introduction: The Fig Tree, the Appointed Time, and the Terminal Generation

The parable of the fig tree in Matthew 24:32–34 and Luke 21:29–32 is not a vague cipher for modern geopolitics, but a precise covenantal sign rooted in the Song of Moses. Just as the budding branches and new leaves signal summer’s nearness, so the specific first-century signs Jesus listed signaled that the appointed time—the kairos—foretold in Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX was “near” and “at the door” (Matt. 24:33; Luke 21:31). Moses had prophesied of a “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20) whose rebellion would heap up covenantal guilt and bring about God’s vengeance at the appointed time, when that time was “near” (32:35), resulting in judgment, vindication, and the raising up of a new covenant people (32:36–43).

Jesus explicitly identified His contemporaries as that terminal generation, declaring, “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matt. 24:34). In the rabbinic world of Jesus’ day, the anticipated Second Exodus—the transition from the old covenant “this age” to the new covenant Messianic “age to come”—was sometimes framed as a 40-year generational period. Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection, and parousia were the fulfillment of that expectation. His “this generation” was not an elastic phrase, nor a reference to a race or abstract class, but—grammatically and historically—a literal 30–40 year span encompassing His audience.

False Views Addressed in This Chapter

1. “Jewish Race” View– Popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible and maintained by some Zionists before 1948, this interpretation treats “generation” (genea) as “race” (genos), ignoring the lexical distinction in the LXX and NT.
2. Moral Class View– Held by some Amillennialists and Dispensationalists, this sees “generation” as a timeless group of either wicked or righteous people.
3. Future ‘Super Sign’ Generation View– A modern Zionist twist linking “this generation” to those alive after Israel’s 1948 founding, often stretching a “generation” to 70–100 years to postpone failed predictions.
4. Distant Future Generation View– The idea that Jesus was referring to some far-off group who would live when the signs begin, ignoring the force of the demonstrative “this” and the fact that the AD 30–70 generation witnessed all the signs fulfilled.

Premillennial Zionist prophecy teachers frequently interpret the fig tree as the modern State of Israel, claiming its sprouting in 1948 fulfills this parable and starts the countdown to Christ’s return and thus the 1948-1988 was allegedly the “terminal generation.”  When the predicted rapture failed to occur in the 1980s, the definition of a generation was repeatedly expanded. Yet in context, the budding fig tree—and “all the trees” (Luke 21:29)—signifies the observable fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse signs in the first century: the gospel’s proclamation throughout the Roman world (Matt. 24:14), Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies (Luke 21:20), and the “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22) that matched Moses’ prophecy (Deut. 32:35-43).

Luke’s “all the trees” broadens the imagery beyond Israel, emphasizing a covenantal transition rather than a modern geopolitical event. If the fig tree is Israel, “all the trees” logically represents the surrounding nations. But Jesus’ earlier cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:18–19) underscores Israel-after-the-flesh’s fruitlessness and the kingdom’s transfer to a new covenant nation bearing fruit (Matt. 21:43–45; 1 Pet. 2:9).

This understanding forms the foundation of inspired New Testament imminence. The “appointed time” of Deuteronomy 32 became the “near” kairos of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:32–43; Luke 21:8, 20–32), echoed in apostolic language—“at hand,” “about to,” “shortly,” “soon,” “quickly,” “at the door,” “in a very, very little while and will not delay,” etc.  The nearness of the appointed time in both Moses’ Song and Jesus’ prophecy anchors the inspired New Testament’s imminence and affirms the faithfulness of God’s word.

Contextual Signs and the Fulfillment of “All These Things”

The disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3—“when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”—is answered across three key texts, each reinforcing the imminence within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32). First, Matthew 24:14 declares, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come,” indicating the Great Commission’s completion within the Roman Empire as a sign (cf. Rom. 10:18, 16:25-26; Cols. 1:5-6, 23). Second, Luke 21:20 specifies, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near,” pinpointing the Roman siege (AD 67-70) as the decisive marker. Third, Matthew 24:34 culminates, “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened,” encapsulating the full scope of the discourse.

The immediate context of Matthew 24:1-34 and Luke 21:5-32 leaves no ambiguity about “all these things.” These include: (1) general signs not marking the end (Matt. 24:6-8); (2) specific signs of the gospel’s global reach and Jerusalem’s siege (Matt. 24:14; Luke 21:20); (3) the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21); (4) fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy (Luke 21:22); (5) the fall of Israel’s religious rulers, its “stars” (Matt. 24:29); (6) the flight of Christians from Judea to escape wrath, fulfilled in the “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:20-24; AD 67-70); and (7) the gathering of the elect or redemption (resurrection) at the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 24:30-31; Luke 21:27-28). The use of recapitulation in Matthew 24-25—repeating themes of the day and hour, passing heaven and earth, and judgment parables (e.g., Matt. 25:31-46)—confirms that all these events, including the eschatological wedding and judgment of nations, fall within this generation.

Scholarly support strengthens this exegesis. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines “generation” (genea) as “the whole multitude of men living at the same time”,[1] citing Matthew 24:34 among examples. Vine’s Expository Dictionary concurs, noting it as “a period ordinarily occupied by each successive generation, say, of thirty or forty years”,[2] Colin Brown offers a common sense perspective: “In Matthew it has the sense of this generation, and according to the first evangelist, Jesus expected the end of this age… to occur in connection with the judgment on Jerusalem at the end of that first generation.”[3]  He further elaborates, “Such prophecy of judgment on Israel… took place with the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration of the Temple and the scattering of Israel—all of which happened within the lifetime of ‘this generation,’” citing parallels with “Isaiah 13:10 and Joel 2:28-32 applied to historical in time events such as Acts 2:15-21.”[4]  Interestingly enough, Brown also sees the possibility that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and 2 Peter 3 could be using symbolic and apocalyptic language as Jesus does in Matthew 24:29-31—an argument and exegesis I gave in the previous chapter / article.

Misinterpretations of “This Generation”

(1). The Jewish Race or (2). Moral or Immoral Human Race View

Dispensational Zionists and other futurist systems have proposed several misinterpretations of “this generation,” often diverging from its contextual meaning. The Scofield Study Bible, influenced by Khazarian Rothschild Zionist funding at Oxford, suggests Jesus meant the entire Jewish race would persist until all prophecies are fulfilled:

“The word ‘generation’ (Gr. genea) is used in Scripture in the sense of race, kind, family, stock, or breed. So our Lord uses the word here, not of the men then living, but of the Jewish race—the chosen people… They shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.”[5]

Unfortunately, this embarrassing interpretation of genea is not just limited to Premillennial Zionists.  Even desperate Amillennialists such as Anthony A. Hoekema interpret “this generation” as:

“By ‘this generation,’ then, Jesus means the rebellious, apostate, unbelieving Jewish people, as they have revealed themselves in the past, are revealing themselves in the present, and will continue to reveal themselves in the future.  This unbelieving and evil generation, though they reject Christ now, will continue to exist until the day of his return, and will then receive the judgment which his their due.”[6]

Hoekema therefore must interpret Christ’s second coming in Matthew 24:32-33 and in the rest of the NT being “near” as “always near.”[7]  I mean if you are going to butcher the Greek meaning of “generation” you might as well be consistent and butcher the meaning of “near” as well.

Some drop the endless “Jewish race” view and insert a class of people representing either good or bad (they can’t make up their mind) of people in chronological order that are allegedly to last before these events are to be fulfilled. They argue “this generation” describes an evil last-days people across centuries, but adjectives like “evil” or “adulterous” (Matt. 12:39) describe Jesus’ contemporaries, not a timeless trait. The context of their rejection and crucifixion (Luke 17:25) and AD 70 judgment (Matt. 23:36) refutes this.

John Nelson Darby at least correctly tried to connect the “perverse and crooked generation” of Deuteronomy 32:5, 20 with Matthew 24:34, but neglected to tell you what the LXX (Greek version / translation of the Hebrew in Deut. 32:5, 20) was which is genea and not genos.  NT writers and the LXX maintain a lexical distinction—when the sense is ethnic or genealogical, genos is used; when the sense is temporal generation, genea is used, even when moral labels are applied.

Major Premise:  In Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, the Hebrew dor (דּוֹר) refers to a time-bound generation—the contemporaneous covenant community—while the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as genea (γενεά), which likewise denotes a contemporaneous generation that can be morally qualified. When the LXX and New Testament writers intend to convey “race” or “ethnic stock,” they consistently use genos (γένος) instead of genea.

Minor Premise:  Jesus (Matthew 17:17; 24:34), Peter (Acts 2:40), and Paul (Philippians 2:15) directly draw from the LXX rendering of genea in Deuteronomy 32:5, 20 to describe their contemporaries as a “crooked and perverse generation.” The Aramaic Peshitta of Matthew 24:34 employs ܫܪܒܬܐ ܗܕܐ (sharbtā hādā), literally “this generation,” with the demonstrative adjective this limiting the referent to those then living. This identical Aramaic construction is used in Matthew 17:17, showing an unbroken semantic link from Deuteronomy 32 to Jesus’ prophecy.

Conclusion:  Because the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic forms of “generation” in these passages are consistently used for a time-bound group of contemporaries, and because Jesus, Peter, and Paul explicitly apply the Deuteronomy 32 language to their own audiences, “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 must mean the contemporaries alive during Jesus’ earthly ministry—not an abstract class of people or the Jewish race.

This interpretation hinges on the assumption of a continuous “Jewish race” with a divine right to the land, a notion that crumbles under a historical and a grammatical hermeneutic as well as a genetic scrutiny. Furthermore, the destruction of genealogical records in AD 70, when the Jerusalem temple was razed, eliminated any provable lineage to the ancient tribes, rendering claims of a racial Jewish identity untenable. Genetic studies and historical evidence further undermine this view, revealing that modern “Jews” are largely descended from the Khazarian Empire, not the Semitic Israelites of the Old Testament.

The American Peoples Encyclopedia (1954) notes, “In the year 740 A.D. the Khazars were officially converted to Judaism. A century later they were crushed by the incoming Slavic-speaking people and were scattered over central Europe where they were known as Jews” (at 15-292).[14] The Encyclopedia Britannica (1973) concurs: “The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race… The only race to which the Jews have not achieved assimilation is the Nordic.”[15] Even “Jewish” sources prove this such as The Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971), “It is a common assumption… that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable… [but] the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms.”[16] Similarly, the Encyclopedia Americana (1986) states, “Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis… [they] belong to several distinct racial types… due to voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism” (vol. 16, p. 71).[17] Collier’s Encyclopedia (1977) adds, “A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a race! This is scientifically fallacious… Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and… reflect the characteristics of the people among whom they live.”[18]

Dr. Benjamin H. Freedman, in a 1947 letter to the National Economic Council’s Newsletter, exposes the Khazarian origin: “Political Zionism is almost exclusively a movement by the Jews of Europe. But these Eastern European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their ancestors were not inhabitants of the ‘Promised Land.’ They are the direct descendants of the people of the Khazar Kingdom… About the 7th century A.D., the King of the Khazars adopted Judaism as the state religion… Neither then nor since was there such a thing as a Khazar whose ancestors had come from the Holy Land.”[19]

DNA studies corroborate this, indicating that 80-90% of Zionist “Jews” in modern Israel, and 97% of the global Jewish population, trace their lineage to the Khazarian Empire, not Abraham, while many Palestinians exhibit closer genetic ties to ancient Hebrews.[20] In 2001 Dr. Arilla Oppenheim who is a biologist at Hebrew University was the first to publish an exhaustive DNA study of the origins of the Jews.  She concluded that just about all Jews came from the Khazar bloodline:  see her article in American Journal of Human Genetics entitled, The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East.  Also see Dr. Eran Elhaik article, The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry:  Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses, published in Oxford Journal on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.  Also see: Ranajit Das, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia and Eran Elhaik, The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ahkenazic Jews, and Yiddish, 2017.

The burning of genealogical records in AD 70 further severs any claim to a racial priesthood or tribal identity, as the covenant underpinning “Judaism” ended with the “scepter departing from Judah” (Gen. 49:10) in AD 70. Since no provable “racial Jews” or “Levites” remain, the foundation for a racial claim to Palestine collapses, even if a temple were rebuilt.

This racial myth fuels support for the modern Khazarian Rothschild State of Israel, which has driven endless Middle East wars, yet promises no blessing to the Church or the United States. The Rothschild dynasty, originating with Mayer Amschel Bauer (later Rothschild), leveraged Talmudic principles and stolen wealth—gained by betraying William IX and financing both sides of conflicts—to orchestrate the 1917 Balfour Declaration, securing British support for a Jewish homeland in exchange for U.S. entry into World War I.[21] The 1948 establishment of Israel involved funding terrorist groups to displace 800,000 Palestinians, with the Israeli flag’s six-pointed star (a Rothschild symbol) and blue lines reflecting The Greater Israel Project and territorial ambitions, including allied nations like Egypt and Jordan. Frederic Morton writes, “On Saturday evenings… Mayer would invite the rabbi into his house… [and] recite from [the Talmud]… while the entire family must sit stock still and listen,” highlighting its influence on their “demonic drive” for power (Morton, The Rothschilds, 1962, p. 39).[22] President Andrew Jackson condemned such bankers as a “den of vipers,” warning of revolution if their operations were understood (Jackson, Public Papers, 1832).[23] John F. Hylan, New York Mayor, called them an “invisible government… a small group of banking houses” (Hylan, Speech, 1911).[24] Friedrich Edlen von Scherb noted, “The house of Rothschild has arisen from the quarrels between states… The misfortune of states and peoples has been its fortune” (von Scherb, Historical Reflections, 1840).[25] Supporting this Rothschild state posing as the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, rooted in a fabricated racial claim and economic manipulation, contradicts biblical blessing (Gen. 12:3) and entangles nations in conflict, not peace. Clearly, aligning with this entity does not fulfill the promise to “bless those who bless you” (Gen. 12:3), but rather invites geopolitical strife.  Per Paul in Galatians 3 Christ is the “seed” and those united to Him in faith form the true new covenant “Israel of God” that the nations need to listen to in order to be blessed – not the Globalists / Rothschild / “Israel.”

(3). The 1948 Generation View

A third view, popularized by Hal Lindsey, claims the generation witnessing Israel’s 1948 rebirth and the 1967 Jerusalem recapture is the end-time cohort: “We are the generation that will see the end times… and return of Christ.”[26]  Chuck Smith reinforced this, asserting, “I believe the Lord could come back for His Church any time before 1981 (1948 + 40 – 7 = 1981).”[27] Yet, the absence of a rapture in the 1980’s undermines this, and the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) aligns with AD 67-70’s 3½-year treading, not 1967.

(4). A Distant Future Generation View

A fourth interpretation posits a future generation witnessing these signs whenever they begin. However, Jesus’ use of “this” (houtos), not “that” (ekeinos), ties it to His contemporaries (Matt. 24:34; Heb. 3:10 uses “ekeinos” for a past generation). Not only this, but as I demonstrated earlier all the signs were fulfilled during the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation.”

Biblical Usage of “Generation” or “This Generation”

Within Matthew, “generation” (genea) consistently denotes a contemporary cohort. Matthew 1:17 traces 42 generations from Abraham to Christ, each a 35-40-year span (Eccl. 1:4). Matthew 11:16 critiques “this generation” for misjudging John and Jesus, linking it to imminent expectations (Matt. 11:14). Matthew 12:39-45 calls it “evil and adulterous,” tying Jonah’s sign to their judgment, worsened by rejecting Christ (Matt. 23:32-36). Matthew 23:36 confirms “all these things” on the Pharisees’ generation, fulfilled in AD 70. Luke 1:50 speaks of mercy across “generation to generation,” and Luke 17:25-30 connects Christ’s suffering and AD 70 judgment to “this generation.” These uses reinforce a 30-40-year timeframe, not a racial or future span.

Thomas Ice, a Dispensationalist, concedes, “In Matthew 23:36, ‘this generation’ refers to Jesus’ contemporaries,”[28] yet struggles to extend this to Matthew 24:34, proving too much for his system.

The Terminal Generation and Inspired Imminence in New Testament Eschatology

In interpreting “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, it is crucial to recognize that Jesus, Peter, and Paul consistently identify their first-century audience as the prophesied terminal generation of Moses’ Song (Deut. 31:29–32:43). This deliberate identification underscores a foundational truth: their generation was the fulfillment of Moses’ warnings about a “perverse and crooked generation” within Israel’s covenant history that would face their final eschatological “end” (Deut. 32:5, 20, 29). By grounding their teachings in this Mosaic prophecy, Jesus, Peter, and Paul generated inspired imminence—the divinely revealed expectation that the “appointed time” (kairos) for Christ’s second coming, judgment, and the old covenant’s dissolution was truly “near,” “at hand,” and “about to” unfold. Drawing from Deuteronomy 32’s themes—perversity, filling up sin, judgment, vengeance, de-creation, and resurrection—they affirm Moses’ eschatology as fulfilled imminently in AD 70. Jesus sets the foundation, Peter applies it amid Pentecost’s outpouring and apostolic trials, and Paul integrates it into Gentile inclusion and resurrection hope. This unified witness challenges futurist theology, which often neglects or reinterprets these time texts to project fulfillment into a distant future generation, overlooking the inspired urgency that points to AD 70’s covenantal shift as the prophesied climax.

Jesus and the Song of Moses

“And Jesus answered, ‘O faithless/perverse and crooked generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me’” (Matt. 17:17).

Jesus’ eschatology is deeply intertwined with the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:29–32:43), where He identifies His first-century generation as the prophesied terminal generation facing judgment and the birth of a new covenant nation. In Matthew 17:17–20, Jesus echoes Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, labeling His contemporaries a “faithless and perverse generation,” fulfilling Moses’ warning of Israel’s “last days” (Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 20). This generation would reject the Messiah (Deut. 32:15, 18), fill up its sins (Deut. 32:23, 34), fail to discern its end (Deut. 32:28–29), and provoke God to raise a new nation (Deut. 32:21), all culminating in de-creation judgment (Deut. 32:22) and “vengeance” (Deut. 32:35–43) that would be “near” when the “appointed time” (kairos, LXX) would come.

Jesus develops these themes in Matthew 21–25, where His rejection as the “Rock” or “Cornerstone” (Matt. 7:24–27; 21:42–45; Deut. 32:4–5) leads to the kingdom’s transfer to a new people or “nation” (Matt. 21:43-45; Deut. 32:21). He declares “this generation” will witness the temple’s destruction, Great Tribulation, and His coming in judgment and vengeance (Luke 21:20-32; Deut. 32:5, 20), using de-creation or wrath and fire coming upon the land language (Matt. 22:7; 24:29, 35; Deut. 32:22) to describe the old covenant’s end. Blood guilt fills up (Matt. 23:29–36; Deut. 32:23, 34), blindness persists (John 12:37–40; Deut. 32:28–29), and vengeance arrives at the “appointed time” (Luke 21:8, 20–32; Deut. 32:35 LXX). Resurrection and gathering occur at His coming (Matt. 24:30-31; Deut. 32:39), fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 as the new covenant spiritual body was raised out of the physical corpse of the old’s.

This identification of the terminal generation aligns with Jesus’ broader mission to fulfill the Law and Prophets in His generation (Luke 21:22-32; Matt. 5:17-18). By invoking Moses’ prophecy, Jesus underscores that His ministry marks the climax of Israel’s redemptive history, where apostasy leads to judgment but opens the door for Gentile inclusion. The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) serves as the capstone, blending Moses’ warnings with Daniel’s visions to affirm AD 70 as the “appointed time of the end” (Dan. 9:26-27 LXX; 12:4 LXX).

Transitioning to the apostolic witness, Jesus’ teaching sets a precedent of inspired imminence that His followers would amplify. His declaration that “the kingdom of God is near” (Luke 21:31) and “all these things” would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34) establishes a temporal framework that futurists often reinterpret, yet it aligns with the Mosaic expectation of an imminent “end” (Deut. 32:29). R.T. France supports this, noting, “The ‘nearness’ in Matt. 24:33 reflects an eschatological urgency fulfilled within the generation Jesus addressed.”[29]

Jesus’ use of “perverse generation” is not mere rhetoric but a direct fulfillment signal, urging repentance amid signs of judgment. This urgency reflects Moses’ plea for discernment (Deut. 32:29), which Israel lacked, mistaking a carnal kingdom for the spiritual one Jesus proclaimed (John 6:63) which was merely an exegesis of the spiritual and Messianic kingdom prophesied by Daniel (cf. Dan. 2 and 7). By framing His return as “near” (Matt. 24:33), Jesus creates inspired imminence, reality futurists often dismiss by redefining time texts to fit distant expectations to a different generation. Thus, Jesus bridges Moses’ eschatology to His parousia or coming in vengeance, framing AD 70 as divine vindication and the covenantal turning point.

Peter and the Song of Moses

“And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation’” (Acts 2:40).

Peter’s eschatology draws from the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:29–32:43), portraying his generation as the terminal one facing judgment and the rise of a new covenant nation. In Acts 2:40, Peter cites Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, urging escape from “this crooked generation,” fulfilling Moses’ and Joel’s “last days” warning (Deut. 31:29). He links the “last days” “appointed time” “day of the Lord” being “near” of Joel 2:28–3:14 (LXX) with Deuteronomy 32 in Acts 2:14–21, 40 tying it to Christ’s coming in the judgment of AD 70.

In 1 Peter 2:4–8, Peter identifies Christ as the rejected “Rock” or “Cornerstone” (Deut. 32:4–5, 15, 18; Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22), with Judaizers as “blots and blemishes” (2 Pet. 2:1–13; Deut. 32:5), leading to an imminent judgment in AD 70. He forms a new “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9–10; Deut. 32:21), fulfilling Moses’ prophecy of Gentile inclusion (Hos. 2:23; Isa. 43:20–21).

Peter’s letters affirm the “last days” imminence (1 Pet. 1:4–5, 20), with “salvation of the soul” “ready to be revealed” at the “appointed time” (kairos; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5, 7, 17; Deut. 32:35 LXX). Scoffers deny the end (2 Pet. 3:3–4; Deut. 32:28–29), but de-creation judgment burns the old covenant land / mountains / “heavens and earth” (2 Pet. 3:5–13; Deut. 32:22; Isa. 65–66), fulfilled in AD 70’s covenantal collapse. Vengeance comes as a “thief” (2 Pet. 3:10; Deut. 32:35, 43), judging persecutors and vindicating believers. Resurrection and vindication occur at Christ’s coming in AD 70 when old covenant Israel is “cut off” from the real new covenant “people” (Acts 2:20-21, 40; 3:23; Deut. 32:35-43).

Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) frames the Spirit’s outpouring as the “last days” inauguration, blending Moses’ warnings with Joel’s signs to signal impending judgment. This aligns with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, where cosmic upheaval precedes the new covenant’s full arrival.

Peter’s warnings against scoffers (2 Pet. 3) highlight Israel’s failure to discern Moses’ “latter end,” a blindness fulfilled in AD 70’s rejection of the spiritual kingdom. His de-creation imagery underscores the old order’s fiery end, birthing the new creation where righteousness dwells. By declaring the “end of all things is near” (1 Pet. 4:7), Peter creates inspired imminence, urging holiness amid tribulation.

Building on Jesus’ foundation, Peter extends the theme of inspired imminence to his audience, reinforcing that the “appointed time” (1 Pet. 4:7, 17) was not a distant hope but a “near” reality. His use of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:17-21) to interpret Pentecost as old covenant Israel’s “last days” initiation underscores the urgency, a point futurists tend to relegate to a future era, missing the historical fulfillment.

 Paul and the Song of Moses

“…that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world…” (Phil. 2:15).

Paul’s eschatology echoes the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:29–32:43), viewing his generation as the terminal “perverse and crooked” one (Phil. 2:15; Deut. 32:5, 20) facing the “end” (1 Cor. 10:11; Deut. 32:29). In Romans 9–11, he cites Deuteronomy 32:21 (Rom. 10:19), showing Gentiles provoke Israel to jealousy, forming a new covenant nation (Gal. 6:16; Deut. 32:21) that is also identified as “all Israel” that would be imminently “saved” at Christ’s coming (Rom. 11:25-27; 13:11-12).

Paul identifies Christ as the rejected “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:30–33; Deut. 32:4–5, 15, 18), stumbling Israel and fulfilling prophecy. De-creation language describes the “appointed time” of the old covenant world’s passing (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Deut. 32:22), fulfilled in AD 70.

Blood guilt “fills up” (1 Thess. 2:14–16; Deut. 32:23, 34), with wrath at “the end” (telos; Deut. 32:20). Blindness persists (2 Cor. 3:13–16; Rom. 11:7–10; Deut. 32:28–29), but the “appointed time” (kairos) is “near” or “soon” for judgment and resurrection (1 Cor. 7:29-31; Rom. 8:18–23 YLT; 13:11–12; Acts 24:15 YLT; Deut. 32:35 LXX).

Vengeance repays persecutors (2 Thess. 1:5–10; Rom. 12:19; Deut. 32:35, 43), fulfilled in AD 70 on the “man of lawlessness” (likely a Zealot or high priest figure who was “now” alive when Paul wrote; 2 Thess. 2:3–12). Resurrection is corporate and spiritual (Deut. 32:39; 1 Thess. 4:15–17; 1 Cor. 15; Rom. 8:18–23), raising the Church from Adamic death at Christ’s parousia in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel 12 and Isaiah 25–27. This would result in the dead ones inheriting eternal life with the living being joined together in one new covenant body.

Paul’s warnings in 2 Timothy 3:1–9 describe “last days” difficulties, already manifesting through false teachers opposing truth like Pharaoh’s magicians resisted Moses (Ex. 7–8). This echoes Deuteronomy 32’s rebellious generation, fulfilled in first-century apostasy.

In Romans 9–11, Paul’s remnant theology draws from Deuteronomy 32, emphasizing God’s faithfulness despite Israel’s hardening. Gentiles’ inclusion as a “foolish nation” fulfills Moses’ prophecy, provoking jealousy and leading to “all Israel’s” salvation (consisting of the believing remnant Jews of the first century and Gentiles)—resurrection life from the dead (Rom. 11:15, 25-27; Deut. 32:39).

Paul’s resurrection doctrine, rooted in Deuteronomy 32:39, is progressive: an “already” inner transformation (Rom. 6:4–11) consummated at Christ’s “about to be” or “near” glory, redemption, and coming (Rom. 8:18-23 YLT; 13:11–12). This corporate raising from Adamic and old covenant death aligns with Moses’ vision of life after judgment. By declaring the “end of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11), and Christ’s second coming was “near” (Phil. 4:5), Paul creates inspired imminence, a reality futurists neglect by delaying fulfillment.

Transitioning from Peter to Paul, the apostolic continuity of inspired imminence is evident. Paul’s emphasis on the “end of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11) and the “near” second coming of Christ (Phil. 4:5) builds on Peter’s urgency, reinforcing that the “appointed time” was a first-century reality, not a future projection. N.T. Wright supports this, stating, “Paul’s language in Romans 13:11-12 suggests an imminent eschatological horizon within the first century.”[30]

Before leaving Philippians 2:15, it is worth underscoring that this is the only New Testament text Thayer (following Strong’s) cites in an attempt to justify translating genea as “race.” Yet their citation provides no exegetical or contextual defense for such a rendering. In context, Paul is not making an abstract statement about ethnic lineage, but is directly echoing the LXX of Deuteronomy 32:5, 20—precisely as Jesus does in Matthew 17:17 and Peter does in Acts 2:40—where genea refers to a living, contemporaneous, “crooked and perverse generation” under covenantal judgment.

To read Paul differently here would require severing his words from the explicit Mosaic context that both Jesus and Peter maintain, without any linguistic or historical warrant. On the contrary, Paul’s deliberate use of this Deuteronomic framing shows that he too understood himself to be living in the terminal generation prophesied by Moses. This explains why, within the same letter, Paul’s inspired eschatology pulses with imminence—anticipating the resurrection, the transformation of the body, and the Parousia of Christ as events “eagerly awaited” (Phil. 3:20–21) and “near” (Phil. 4:5).

It is telling that BDAG—the leading critical lexicon of New Testament Greek—never lists “race” as a legitimate meaning of genea. BDAG consistently defines it in temporal and contemporaneous terms, in full harmony with the way Jesus, Peter, and Paul use the word. Strong’s and Thayer’s departure from this standard, on the basis of a single verse (Phil.2:15) and without exegetical defense, is not only linguistically weak but also hermeneutically inconsistent. If they had followed BDAG’s evidence-based approach, the race theory would have been dismissed outright.

When read through this covenantal lens, Philippians 2:15 becomes yet another confirmation that New Testament imminence is inseparable from Jesus’ own declaration: “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). Paul was not pointing to a distant, undefined era, but to the same forty-year, first-century countdown that Jesus and Peter proclaimed—a prophetic clock already ticking toward its appointed AD 70 climax.

Condensed Overview: Jesus, Peter, and Paul’s Eschatological Harmony

Jesus, Peter, and Paul collectively affirm that their first-century generation fulfilled Moses’ Song, marking the old covenant’s end and the new covenant’s rise in AD 70. Jesus initiated this by identifying His contemporaries as the “perverse generation,” Peter applied it amid Pentecost’s outpouring and apostolic trials, and Paul extended it to Gentile inclusion and a imminent resurrection hope. Together, they draw from Deuteronomy 32’s motifs to declare the “appointed time” (kairos) as “near,” culminating in judgment, de-creation, and a new creation nation. This unified testimony resolves Matthew 24:34’s “this generation,” proving it was not future but the literal timeframe for eschatological fulfillment.

By framing their teachings in Moses’ prophecy, they created inspired imminence—the NT’s time texts like “near,” “at hand,” and “about to” are divinely revealed, pointing to AD 70. Futurist theology often neglects this by reinterpreting imminence to fit distant expectations, missing the urgent call to endure amid AD 70’s judgment. Critics who dismiss this as unfulfilled undermine Scripture’s inspiration and reliability, but AD 70’s historical reality confirms Moses’ prophecy and the apostles’ inspired interpretation, urging us to embrace this fulfilled and realized hope and not a “sick” “hope delayed” futurism (Prov. 13:12).

The Second Exodus Inheritance Generation of Hebrews

“Therefore, I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways’” (Heb. 3:10).

 The writer to the Hebrews uses ekeinos (“that generation”) when referring to a past group distinct from his audience—contrasting with Jesus’ use of houtos (“this generation”) in Matthew 24:34, which denotes contemporaries. Strong’s Concordance confirms this: ekeinos (1565) is rendered “that” (99x), “those” (40x), or “the same” (20x), whereas houtos(3778) appears as “this” (157x), “these” (59x), or “he” (31x), pointing to present immediacy. Had Jesus intended a future generation, ekeinos would have been the natural choice, as in Hebrews 3:10.

Note: Strong’s should have followed BDAG’s lead—BDAG never assigns genea any meaning other than “contemporaries.”

Hebrews 3–4 and 10 draw a typological parallel between Israel’s 40-year wilderness generation and the New Covenant “generation” awaiting its promised rest. Hebrews 10:25–37 cites multiple OT passages (including Deut. 32) to declare that this “another day” of Sabbath rest was “drawing near,” with Christ’s coming in judgment, vindication, and salvation to occur “in a very little while, and will not delay.” This return would usher in the Second Exodus inheritance—the “heavenly country” and “city” longed for by Abraham (Heb. 11:10, 16; 13:14 SLT).

First Exodus / Second Exodus Parallels

The First Exodus provided the prophetic pattern: deliverance after 400 years of bondage, 40 years of testing, covenant at a mountain, divine glory, miraculous provision, trumpet blasts, and a promised inheritance. Moses himself foretold in Deuteronomy 31–32 a future “perverse and crooked generation” whose “end” would be “near” at an appointed kairos, when God would judge, avenge His servants’ blood, and raise His people to life (Deut. 32:5, 20, 35, 39).

Jewish expectation—seen in rabbinic tradition—anticipated a similar 40-year Messianic generation bridging the Old Covenant age and the New as Dr. Cohen explains,

“Many Rabbis believed that the period of the Messiah was to be only a transitionary stage between this world [age] and the world [age] to come, and opinions differed on the time of its duration.  How long will the days of the Messiah last?  R. Akibs said, Forty years, as long as the Israelites were in the wilderness.”[31]

Jesus fulfilled this precisely:

1. AD 30–70 became the 40-year “this generation” of testing and covenant transition.
2. His 40-day fast paralleled Moses’ Sinai ascent; His appointment of 70 disciples pointed to the nations (Gen. 10–11) or the nations of the Roman world hearing the gospel before AD 70.
3. Pentecost reversed Sinai’s judgment, inaugurating the Spirit’s building of the New Covenant Temple.
4. The second exodus and marriage motif of the trumpet call of Matthew 24:31 gathered the elect into the heavenly Zion (Heb. 12:22; cf. Rev. 10-11 and 14), consummating the marriage covenant in AD 70 (Rev. 21–22).

This was not a drawn-out interim but the prophesied terminus—the Second Exodus’ completion. The old heaven and earth (OC temple system) passed away, and the Church emerged as the New Creation, inviting all nations to enter the heavenly land through the gates (Rev. 22:17).

Conclusion: The Near Appointed Time and the Fulfilled Generation

The fig tree parable is not an open-ended puzzle for speculative date-setters, but a covenantal countdown that Jesus tied directly to specific signs to be fulfilled in His own generation. Read in the light of the Song of Moses, it marks the culmination of the Second Exodus—a 40-year wilderness generation between the old covenant “this age” and the new covenant “age to come,” a framework known to some rabbis before Christ and alive in His day. Moses foresaw a “perverse and crooked generation” whose rebellion would fill up covenantal guilt, bringing judgment, vindication, and a new covenant people at the kairos—the appointed time—when it was “near” (Deut. 32:5, 20, 35–43 LXX).

Jesus declared that His contemporaries were that terminal generation. The demonstrative “this” leaves no grammatical room for distant future groups, no racial abstraction, and no moral-class generalities. It meant the living audience before Him—a 30–40 year span that began in AD 30 and ended with Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Every sign He listed—the worldwide gospel proclamation, the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies, the great tribulation, the cosmic sign language of judgment—was fulfilled before that generation passed.

The four false interpretations—the “Jewish race” theory, the moral class idea, the 1948 ‘super sign’ generation extension, and the distant future generation view—fail because they either ignore the demonstrative force of “this,” violate the lexical distinction between genea and genos, or stretch the prophecy to accommodate failed expectations.

Instead, the grammatical-historical reading, anchored in the Deuteronomy 32 prophecy and confirmed by the rabbinic 40-year model, harmonizes perfectly with inspired New Testament imminence. The “near” kairos of Moses became the “at the door” “near” “appointed time” coming of Christ in the Olivet Discourse, echoed in apostolic urgency: “in a very, very, little while and will not delay” (Heb. 10:37), “the end of all things is near” (1 Pet. 4:7), “the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9), “the appointed time is near” (Rev. 1:3; 22:10). These were not rhetorical flourishes—they were Spirit-inspired confirmations that the covenantal transformation was imminent in the first century.

The parable of the fig tree, therefore, is not a quaint horticultural illustration—it is the covenantal timepiece of redemptive history. Every leaf that unfurled in Jesus’ prophecy testified to God’s flawless fidelity: promises kept, judgments executed, salvation accomplished, all exactly when He said they would be. The kairos was upon them; the generation was marked; the kingdom had come in unshakable power, enthroned in the midst of His Church. The second coming of Christ in the fiery collapse of Jerusalem stands as the most staggering, irrefutable apologetic for the Christian faith—a public, historical vindication of the Messiah’s word and reign. And yet, multitudes overlook it, their eyes fixed on the horizon for a kingdom of carnal grandeur, while the true King reigns in glory, gathering His people from every nation into the eternal city whose light will never fade.

Study Questions

1. What is the significance of the Greek term kairos in Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX, and how does Jesus use it in the Olivet Discourse?  How does Peter and Paul use kairos in connection with inspired NT immense as well?

2. In what ways does Jesus’ phrase “this generation” grammatically and historically refer to His contemporaries rather than to a future group or race?

3. How did some rabbis in the first century understand the “days of the Messiah” as a 40-year Second Exodus period, and how does this expectation align with Jesus’ ministry and prophecy?

4. What is the difference between genea (“generation”) and genos (“race”) in the LXX and NT, and why is this distinction important for interpreting Matthew 24:34?

5. How do Jesus, Peter, and Paul each draw from Deuteronomy 32 to identify their own generation as the “perverse and crooked generation”?

6. What major first-century signs, according to the Olivet Discourse, indicated the nearness of the appointed time?

7. How does Luke’s addition of “all the trees” in Luke 21:29–31 broaden the meaning of the parable beyond modern political Israel?

8. What theological and prophetic implications arise from Jesus cursing the fig tree in Matthew 21:18–19 in light of His fig tree parable in Matthew 24?

9. How do the three specific signs—gospel proclamation throughout the Roman world, Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and the Great Tribulation—reinforce a first-century fulfillment?

10. What are the four false interpretations of “this generation” discussed in the article, and how does each fail when tested against Scripture and historical context?

11. How do the parallels between the First Exodus and the Second Exodus strengthen the argument for a covenantal 40-year transition between AD 30 and AD 70?

12. What role does “inspired imminence” play in NT eschatology, and how does it challenge futurist re-interpretations of time texts?

13. How does the destruction of genealogical records in AD 70 undermine modern claims to a divinely mandated racial or ethnic Jewish identity?

14. In what ways does the AD 70 fulfillment of the fig tree parable affirm the reliability of God’s promises and the prophetic timetable given by Jesus?

[1] Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 112

[2] W.E. Vine (edited by F.F. Bruce), VINE’S Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 1981), 42

[3] Colin Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 37-38.

[4] Ibid., 38-39.

[5] Ibid. C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1917, p. 1035.

[6] Anthony A. Hoekema, THE BIBLE AND THE FUTURE, (Gand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), p. 117

[7] Ibid., p. 126.

[8] John Chrysostom, Homily 77 on Matthew 24:34, in Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, trans. George Prevost, rev. M.B. Riddle, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 10, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888), 464. Available at New Advent.

[9] John Nelson Darby, The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Prophetic No. 2, vol. 9 (London: G. Morrish, n.d.), 277.

[10] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 613; cited in Neil D. Nelson Jr., “‘This Generation’ in Matt 24:34: A Literary-Critical Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society38, no. 3 (1995): 383.

[11] Neil D. Nelson Jr., “‘This Generation’ in Matt 24:34: A Literary-Critical Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38, no. 3 (September 1995): 386. Available at ETS.

[12] Herman N. Ridderbos, Matthew, in The Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 502; cited in du Toit, “‘This Generation’ in Matthew 24:34,” 3.

[13]  Herman Ridderbos, THE COMING of the KINGDOM, (Philadelphia, PA: P&R Publishing, 1962),  p. 499.

[14] The American Peoples Encyclopedia (Chicago: Spencer Press, 1954), vol. 15, p. 292.

[15] Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1973), vol. 12, p. 1054.

[16] Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971), vol. 3, p. 50.  See also The New Jewish Encylopedia (1962), pp. 190, 251, 265-266, 381, 411

[17] Encyclopedia Americana (Danbury: Grolier, 1986), vol. 16, p. 71.

[18] Collier’s Encyclopedia(New York: Crowell-Collier Publishing, 1977), vol. 13, p. 573.

[19] Benjamin H. Freedman, Letter to the National Economic Council’s Newsletter (New York, 1947), unpublished manuscript.

[20] E. Elhaik, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and Khazarian Hypotheses,” Genome Biology and Evolution 5, no. 1 (2013): 61-74, supports the Khazarian hypothesis with genetic data.

[21] Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: Schocken Books, 2003), p. 188, details the Balfour Declaration’s political context.

[22] Frederic Morton, The Rothschilds (New York: Fawcett Publications, 1962), p. 33.

[23] Andrew Jackson, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1832), vol. 2, p. 590.

[24]

[25] Friedrich Edlen von Scherb, Historical Reflections on European Finance (Vienna: Imperial Press, 1840), p. 127.

[26] Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon, (New York: Bantam, 1980), see back-cover, and p.144

[27] Chuck Smith, End Times, (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today, 1978), 35.

[28] Tim LaHay and Thomas Ice, THE END TIMES CONTROVERSY THE SECOND COMING UNDER ATTACK, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 94.

[29] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 920.

[30] Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 2005, p. 85.

[31] Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1949), p. 356.  Emphasis MJS.

Introduction
The “gathering” of the elect in Matthew 24:30–31 or the harpazō (“catching away”) of 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 are often misread as a literal, physical rapture into the sky or physical resurrection event to take place at the end of world history. In reality, these texts are steeped in second-exodus imagery drawn from Isaiah 27:12–13 and the typology of Exodus 19–24, depicting God’s people being spiritually gathered to the summit of heavenly Mount Zion, entering the glory cloud of His presence and kingdom. Just as Moses ascended Sinai’s cloud to meet God face-to-face—experiencing a partial and fading glory under the old covenant (Ex. 34:29–35; 2 Cor. 3:7–13)—so believers in Christ were drawn into an eternal, unfading glory at His Parousia in AD 70, when the old covenant system collapsed with Jerusalem’s destruction.

Matthew 24:30–31—the Son of Man’s cloud-coming with a trumpet-blast gathering—stands where Israel’s prophetic streams converge. Read alongside Daniel 7:13–14; 12:1–7; Isaiah 27:9–13; and Jesus’ own parallels in Matthew 13:39–43; 16:27–28; 25:31, the passage presents not a distant, fragmented eschatology, but a unified covenantal consummation within the first-century horizon. This study contends that the “gathering” and the “catching away” are one event: a spiritual ascent into the new covenant kingdom, where the Church—God’s eternal tabernacle—feasts in Christ’s presence, fulfilling the second exodus with a glory far surpassing Moses’ temporary radiance.

Three pillars carry the argument. First, the “sign of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:30) is best read not as a sky-apparition, but as the destruction of Jerusalem itself—a visible sign on earth that the Son of Man had received dominion and was now judging from heaven (cf. Ps. 110; Matt. 26:64), in harmony with the “this generation” horizon and the localized mourning of the “tribes of the land” (Zech. 12).

Second, Daniel 7—in its literary flow, OG/LXX nuance (“coming as the Ancient of Days”), and New Testament usage—depicts not the AD 30 ascension but a judicial cloud-coming that consummates the kingdom in the Roman-era crisis; its fiery judgment, beast-destruction, and saints’ inheritance align with Matthew 24–25 and the seventh trumpet of Revelation 10–11 (“no more delay”), all keyed to Daniel’s appointed kairos and the 3½-year trampling of the holy city.

Third, following the analogy of faith, the identical motifs—clouds, trumpet, angels, gathering/resurrection, thief-like arrival, unknown day, birth pangs, and explicit imminence—recur across Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8–13, Luke 17/21, and Revelation 10–11. Their interlocking vocabulary and timing markers argue for one consummative event rather than multiple, staggered fulfillments.

Along the way, this study engages key Reformed voices—correcting John Murray’s severing of Luke 21’s imminence from Paul’s redemption hope in Romans, extending N. T. Wright’s second-exodus reading by reuniting it with first-century time-markers (mellō, engus, kairos), and recovering John Lightfoot’s view that “creation” in Romans 8 refers to humanity in bondage, not the planet. It also notes Second Temple expectations of a non-corpse, spiritual resurrection (including the “forty years after Messiah” motif) and the Partial Preterist concessions (Jordan, Gentry, McDurmon) that Daniel 12’s resurrection was corporately and spiritually realized in AD 70—concessions that, when combined with classic Amillennial “one climactic event” logic, resolve in Full Preterism.

In short, the trumpet, the clouds, and the gathering are one: covenantal, climactic, and complete.

The Sign of the Son of Man (Matthew 24:30)

The context of Matthew 24:30 follows the “distress/tribulation” and old covenant Israel’s cosmic de-creation imagery of verse 29, which begins with “immediately after those days.” Verse 30 then states, “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” The temporal marker “then” indicates a direct sequence from the tribulation and fleeing of the events of the previous verses (AD 67–70), ruling out a thousands-of-years gap.[1]

Some commentators, such as Hofman and Meyer, suggest the “sign” refers to an apparition witnessed during the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus and Sepher Yosippon record extraordinary phenomena, such as an apparition of a glorious man above the temple and chariots of fire in the sky, seen during the AD 67–70 period.[2] Sepher Yosippon describes,

“…there was seen from above over the Holy of Holies for the whole night the outline of a man’s face, the like of whose beauty had never been seen in all the land, and his appearance was quite awesome. Moreover, in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire.”[3]

Another account notes,

“Also, after many days a certain figure appeared of tremendous size, which many saw… and before the setting of the sun there were suddenly seen in the clouds chariots and armed battle arrays, by which the cities of all Judaea and its territories were invaded.”[4]

These events, coupled with priests hearing a voice declaring, “Let’s go and leave this House,”[5] suggest a supernatural sign accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction.

While the above interpretation is interesting a more natural interpretation in my opinion is expressed by the following authors.

Marcellus Kik observes:

“The verse speaks of a ‘sign’ and not the personal appearance of Christ Himself… The sign of the passing of the pre-Messianic age and the beginning of the Messianic reign was the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple.”

Reformed Baptist exegete John Gill concurs:

“The other evangelists mention only the Son of Man (Mark 13:26), not a visible sign. He shall appear, not in person, but in the power of His wrath and vengeance on the Jewish nation—a full sign of His coming. When these calamities strike their civil and ecclesiastical state, it will be clear that Christ has come in the flesh and in vengeance for their rejection and crucifixion of Him, as if they had seen Him in the heavens. They sought a sign; now they have one with a witness. The tribes of the land (Judea) shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 26:64). This refers to the Jews witnessing His judgment, a dark and cloudy dispensation, proving He is more than a mere man—the Son of God, whose kingdom is now established among the Gentiles.”

This reading—that Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70, with Jerusalem’s fall as the sign of Christ’s heavenly reign and judgment (Ps. 110)—is supported by commentators such as R.T. France, David Chilton, R.C. Sproul, N.T. Wright, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, Jeff Durbin, and others. It aligns with Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, directly linking it to Jerusalem’s destruction within their generation (Matt. 24:3–34). Some of these scholars further conclude that the Second Coming and resurrection of Matthew 24:31 were likewise fulfilled in AD 70—a conclusion that both the immediate context and the analogy of faith substantiate.

John Lightfoot further explains:

“then shall the Son of man give a proof of himself, whom they would not before acknowledge:  a proof, indeed, not in any visible figure, but in vengeance and judgment so visible, that all the tribes of the earth shall be forced to acknowledge him as avenger.  The Jews would not know him:  now they shall know him, whether they will or no, Isa. 26:11.  Many times they asked of him a sign: now a sign shall appear, that he is the true Messiah, whom they despised, derided, and crucified, namely, his signal vengeance and fury, such as never any nation felt from the first foundations of the world.”[6]

Keith Mathison explains,

“The Greek text of this verse does not state that the Son of the Man will appear in the heavens. Rather, what appears is the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. In other words, the destruction of the Jerusalem will be the sign that the Son of Man, who prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, is in heaven.”[7]

Unfortunately, some of these men like Mathison believe the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Matthew 24:30 is somehow both his ascension going on a cloud and then him coming on clouds in AD 70 in fulfillment of Daniel 7:13.  I will refute the idea that Daniel 7:13 is the ascension shortly, but all to say Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 are both referring to one event–Him coming upon the clouds to judge Jerusalem in AD 70.  I would agree however that the sign is the fall of Jerusalem proving that Christ had ascended and was now proving his claims of Messiahship and being God having ascended (Ps. 110 / Acts 2) and now proving that by him coming upon the clouds and judging those enemies and placing them under his feet in AD 70.

Marcellus Kik similarly notes,

“One must note that the verse speaks of a ‘sign’ and not of the personal appearance of Christ Himself… The sign of the passing away of the pre-Messianic age and the beginning of the Messianic reign was the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple.”[8]

Mathison and others interpret the “coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds” in Matthew 24:30 as encompassing both Christ’s ascension and His judgment in AD 70, appealing to Daniel 7:13. I contend, however, that Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 refer exclusively to Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70—not His ascension. The fall of the city served as the definitive sign that Christ, having ascended (Ps. 110; Acts 2), now reigned as Messiah and God, putting His enemies under His feet in covenantal vengeance.

The renown Reformed Baptist exegete John Gill agrees,

“…and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, Mark 13:26 and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly, And then shall the tribes of the earth, or land, mourn; that is, the land of Judea…and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, “ye shall see”, as is expressed by Christ, in Matthew 26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here…his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles.”[9]

Again, this reading—that Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70, with Jerusalem’s fall as the sign of Christ’s heavenly reign and judgment (Ps. 110)—is supported by a host of commentators.   While most of these men stop short of saying the Second Coming and resurrection were fulfilled in AD 70, their interpretation of Matthew 24:30 by implication demands it, since the analogy of faith shows that Matthew 24:30–31 is the same complex of events elsewhere described as the Second Coming and resurrection.

This aligns with Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question about the sign of His coming and the end of the age and he is clearly connecting it to the fall of Jerusalem and something that will be fulfilled in their generation (Matt. 24:3-34). 

The Mourning of “All the Tribes of the Land”

When Jesus says “all the tribes of the land will mourn” (hai phylai tēs gēs), most modern readers assume this describes a global lament at the end of history. But the Greek expression points to a much narrower, covenant-specific meaning. Phylai (“tribes”) in the New Testament and Septuagint almost always refers to the tribes of Israel unless a broader scope is explicitly stated. Likewise, gē (“land”) frequently denotes the land of Israel in covenant contexts.

This covenantal reading is confirmed by the Old Testament background in Zechariah 12:10–14. There Yahweh promises to “pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication,” so that “they will look on Me whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son.” The mourning is then described in explicitly tribal terms:

“The land shall mourn, each family by itself: the family of the house of David… the family of the house of Nathan… the family of the house of Levi… the family of the Shimeites… all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves” (Zech. 12:12–14).

The specific naming of Israelite tribes and clans shows beyond doubt that the “tribes of the land” in this prophetic imagery are the tribes of Israel within their own land, not all ethnic groups across the globe.

But what kind of mourning is in view? Zechariah 12 blends two aspects:

1. Redemptive Mourning – The “spirit of grace and supplication” points to a work of God’s Spirit that leads to repentance for some. This was fulfilled in part at Pentecost, when thousands of Jews were “cut to the heart” and turned to Christ (Acts 2:37–41), thus escaping the coming judgment by heeding His call to flee (Luke 21:20–22).
2. Judgment Mourning – For those who rejected the Messiah, the same prophetic imagery applies to the lament of defeat, disaster, and covenant curse. The prophets often use “mourning as for an only son” to describe not only heartfelt repentance but also the bitter grief of national catastrophe (Isa. 3:26; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10).

Jesus and the apostles draw on the judgment side of Zechariah’s imagery in their first-century application. In Matthew 24:30, Jesus places this tribal mourning in the context of Jerusalem’s destruction, when the sign of the Son of Man’s heavenly reign would be displayed through His judgment on the city (cf. Matt. 26:64). Likewise, Revelation 1:7 combines Zechariah 12:10 with Daniel 7:13: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the land will wail because of Him.” John thus applies Zechariah’s tribal mourning to the visible judgment of those responsible for crucifying Christ—first-century Israel.

The historical record in Josephus confirms that the tribes of the land did indeed “mourn” in this judgment sense. During the siege of AD 70, he describes Jerusalem’s inhabitants in a state of unspeakable grief, famine, and terror (Wars 6.5.1–3). This was not the repentance of Zechariah’s Spirit-anointed remnant, but the wailing of covenant-breakers overtaken by the curses of Deuteronomy 28 and the vengeance foretold in Deuteronomy 32.

Daniel 7 and the Son of Man’s Coming in AD 70

The imagery of the Son of Man coming with the clouds in Matthew 24:30 comes directly from Daniel 7:13–14. Many commentators have assumed this refers to Christ’s ascension. But when the full context of Daniel 7 is considered, the timing, sequence, and imagery point not to the ascension, but to Christ’s public vindication and judgment in AD 70.

Daniel’s vision unfolds in a clear sequence: four beasts (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome) arise from the sea; the fourth beast is more terrifying than the rest; from it comes a “little horn” who speaks boastful words and persecutes the saints; the heavenly court sits in judgment; the beast is slain; the little horn’s dominion is removed; then “one like a son of man” comes with the clouds to the Ancient of Days and receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom which is then given to the saints.

This order is crucial. The Son of Man’s coming with the clouds occurs after the horn’s persecution and after the court’s verdict, not before. That means this “coming” cannot be the ascension, which occurred before the persecution of the saints by the horn. Instead, it depicts the heavenly scene in which Christ, already enthroned (Acts 2:33–36), receives the public, covenantal vindication of His authority by executing judgment on the persecutor — fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

If one wishes to discuss the ascension, the proper prophetic text is Psalm 110, not Daniel 7:13. In Psalm 110:1, the Messiah ascends to the right hand of Yahweh:

“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Here, the ascension and enthronement are followed by a period of reigning in the midst of His enemies, after which the enemies are subdued and judgment is rendered. Daniel 7:13, by contrast, is not about receiving the throne in the first place, but about coming in judgment after enthronement.

Jesus makes this distinction in Matthew 26:64–65, when He tells the high priest:

“From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power [Ps. 110:1] and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7:13].”

In other words, He conflates two distinct events:

1. His ascension and enthronement (Psalm 110) — to take place soon after His resurrection.
2. His imminent second coming in judgment (Daniel 7:13) — to take place within their generation (Matt. 24:34).

The same pattern appears in Hebrews 10:12–37. There, Christ’s ascension is described in Psalm 110 terms:

“But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God [Ps. 110:1], waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet” (Heb. 10:12–13).

The writer then warns his audience of an imminent, fiery judgment against God’s adversaries (vv. 26–31) and explicitly ties it to the Second Coming of the Lord in “a very little while” (vv. 36–37):

“For yet a very little while, and the Coming One will come and will not delay.”

This is the same “Second Coming” mentioned in the previous chapter (9:26-28).

This mirrors the sequence of Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:

• Ascension and enthronement at the right hand (Ps. 110)
• Period of reigning until enemies are subdued
• Imminent judgment coming upon those enemies in the lifetime of the first-century audience (Dan. 7; Matt. 24–26:64-65)

The OG LXX Reading and Revelation 1
This interpretation is further strengthened by the OG LXX (Old Greek) translation of Daniel 7:13, which renders the phrase not as “coming to the Ancient of Days” but as “coming as the Ancient of Days.” In this reading, the Son of Man comes in the same judicial capacity as the Ancient of Days, executing the verdict just pronounced.

John appears to follow this OG LXX nuance in Revelation 1. In verse 7, he cites Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10 together:

“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the land will wail on account of Him.”

The Greek verb for “see” here (horaō) does not always denote mere physical sight; it can also mean to perceive, discern, or understand (cf. John 3:36; Acts 8:23; Heb. 11:27). Thus, those who “pierced Him” — the first-century Jewish leadership and their generation — could “see” the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sense of recognizing and perceiving that the catastrophic destruction by Rome was the very covenantal judgment He had foretold, even if they did not behold a literal form in the sky. The unmistakable connection between His prophecies and the city’s ruin would force their acknowledgment that this was indeed His coming in glory and vengeance.

Then, only a few verses later (vv. 12–17), John describes this same Son of Man using imagery Daniel applies to the Ancient of Days — clothed in a long robe, hair white like wool, eyes like blazing fire. John’s literary sequence matches the OG LXX understanding: the Son of Man is not merely coming to the Ancient of Days, but coming as the Ancient of Days, wielding divine judgment and authority.

By reading Daniel 7 in its narrative sequence, distinguishing it from Psalm 110, considering the OG LXX rendering, observing John’s adoption of that rendering in Revelation 1, and recognizing Hebrews 10’s application of the same enthronement → imminent judgment pattern, we see a consistent biblical witness: the “coming with the clouds” in Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 is the AD 70 judgment, when Christ acted in the very role of the Ancient of Days to vindicate His people and bring the old covenant order to its close.

Isaiah 27, Daniel 12, and Matthew 24: A Threefold Witness for the AD 70 Resurrection and Judgment

The intertextual relationship between Isaiah 27, Daniel 12, and Matthew 24 offers a unified prophetic framework for the resurrection, the ingathering of God’s people, and the judgment of Jerusalem. In Matthew 24:30–31, Jesus depicts the coming of the Son of Man with angels and a trumpet to “gather the elect.” This imagery is drawn directly from Isaiah 27:12–13, where the Lord sounds a “great trumpet” to gather His dispersed people, and from Daniel 12:1–2, where a resurrection follows an unparalleled time of tribulation.

Paul likewise employs these same motifs in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52, underscoring that the New Testament writers saw the resurrection, trumpet gathering, and eschatological judgment as intimately connected. Even many Partial Preterist commentators are beginning to concede that Daniel 12 situates the resurrection at the time of the “shattering of the holy people” (Dan. 12:7)—fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. When these texts are read together, they testify to a single redemptive climax at “the time of the end” of the Old Covenant age, not the end of the physical cosmos.

Isaiah 27: Judgment, Trumpet, and Second Exodus Gathering

Isaiah’s oracle describes a climactic “day” when the Lord would crush Leviathan, judge “the fortified city,” and pulverize its idolatrous altars “like chalkstone” (Isa. 27:1, 9). The result would be the removal of Jacob’s guilt and the restoration of the covenant community. Historically, this judgment began with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, which initiated the exile and effectively ended widespread idolatry in Israel.

Yet verses 12–13 expand the vision beyond the Babylonian crisis. They depict the Lord “threshing” His people—a harvest metaphor—at the sound of a “great trumpet,” gathering them from Assyria and Egypt. The language evokes a “second exodus” patterned after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. This ingathering found a partial fulfillment in the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah (538–445 BC), when Jerusalem’s walls and Temple were rebuilt and worship restored. However, the restoration was incomplete: the tribes were not fully regathered, and Israel remained under foreign rule.

This earlier judgment and partial restoration thus served typologically. The Babylonian destruction foreshadowed a fuller covenantal judgment and gathering, which reached its consummation in AD 70. Then, as in 586 BC, Jerusalem fell—this time to Rome—and the Temple was destroyed. But unlike the return from Babylon, the final trumpet gathering was not a return to the land; it was the uniting of Jew and Gentile in Christ, who is Himself the true Temple and land inheritance of God’s people (2 Cor. 1:20).

Daniel 12: Resurrection at the Time of Tribulation

Daniel’s prophecy parallels Isaiah’s in its eschatological contours. He foresees “a time of distress such as never occurred” (Dan. 12:1)—the same “great tribulation” Jesus describes in Matthew 24:21. Immediately afterward, “many… will awake, some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2).

The timing is precise: these events transpire within “a time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 12:7)—three and a half years—when the “power of the holy people” is shattered. Daniel is told to seal the vision until the “time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), which is not the end of world history but the end of the Old Covenant order. In the first century, the Roman siege of Jerusalem lasted approximately three and a half years (AD 67–70), culminating in the destruction of the Temple. The resurrection here, consistent with Isaiah’s harvest and trumpet imagery, belongs to the same covenantal transition.

Matthew 24: The Convergence of Isaiah and Daniel

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus consciously merges Isaiah’s and Daniel’s visions. He speaks of the coming of the Son of Man “on the clouds of heaven” with power and glory (Matt. 24:30), sending His angels with a “loud trumpet” to gather His elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31). This is Isaiah’s great trumpet gathering, now framed in the context of Daniel’s time of distress and resurrection.

The destruction of the Temple, announced in Matthew 24:2, serves as the visible sign that the Son of Man has taken His throne (Ps. 110 / Acts 2:29-36) and is executing His covenantal judgment. Jesus locates all of these events firmly within the horizon of “this generation” (Matt. 24:34), the generation of His own disciples. Thus, Isaiah’s harvest, Daniel’s resurrection, and Jesus’ trumpet gathering converge in a single eschatological moment: the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.

The Second Exodus Motif

Matthew’s Gospel develops this further through sustained Mosaic typology:

*In Matthew 2:13–15, Jesus’ flight to Egypt and return recalls Moses’ deliverance from Pharaoh.

*In Matthew 3–4, His baptism and wilderness testing parallel Israel’s Red Sea crossing and desert trials, yet where Israel failed, Jesus prevailed.

*In Matthew 5–7, the Sermon on the Mount functions as a new Torah delivered from a mountain.

*His feeding of multitudes (Matt. 14:13–21; 15:32–39) echoes the manna in the wilderness.

*At the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–8; Luke 9:31), Moses and Elijah speak with Jesus about His coming “exodus” (exodos), the redemptive departure He would accomplish in Jerusalem. Here, Jesus’ glory eclipses theirs, signaling the superiority and permanence of the New Covenant over the fading glory of the Old (2 Cor. 3:7–11).

*In Matthew 24:31, the Olivet trumpet gathering portrays the spiritual regathering of God’s people at the end of the Old Covenant age.

Second Temple Anticipations of Spiritual Restoration

Jesus’ application of Isaiah’s gathering motif to a spiritual, Christ-centered restoration was not without precedent in Second Temple Judaism. Philo of Alexandria allegorized exile as moral alienation from God and restoration as the soul’s return to divine wisdom (On Rewards and Punishments 164–172; On the Migration of Abraham).

The Qumran sect likewise saw restoration in spiritual terms. The Community Rule (1QS 1:1–3; 8:12–16) portrayed the community as a spiritually gathered remnant; the Damascus Document (CD 1:1–11; 3:20–21) depicted ingathering as covenant renewal; and the Pesharim on Isaiah (4Q161; 4Q163) blended literal hopes with eschatological purification under the “Teacher of Righteousness.” Such currents made Jesus’ claim—that the true gathering was into Himself, not back to a geographical land—intelligible to some of His contemporaries, especially in light of ongoing Roman domination.

Major Premise: If the resurrection, gathering, and judgment are inseparably linked in Daniel 12, Isaiah 27, and Matthew 24, and all are tied to the “time of the end” of the Old Covenant age within Jesus’ generation, then these events were fulfilled in AD 70.

Minor Premise: Daniel connects the resurrection to the Great Tribulation and the shattering of Old Covenant Israel; Isaiah links the trumpet gathering and removal of sin to Jerusalem’s judgment (prefigured by Babylon, fulfilled in AD 70); Matthew applies both to the “immediately after the tribulation” gathering within “this generation,” identifying AD 70 as the sign of fulfillment.

Conclusion: Therefore, the resurrection, gathering, and judgment were fulfilled in AD 70, completing the second exodus and the promised “day of redemption” (Lk. 21:27-28) for the first-century Church. 

The Gathering of the Elect and the Analogy of Faith (Matthew 24:31)

Verse 31 states, “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Within Futurist eschatology this “gathering” has been interpreted as evangelism and regeneration, a physical rapture or resurrection, and or a spiritual resurrection event taking place in AD 70. To resolve this, we must consider the “end of the age” context (Matt. 24:3) and its parallels with other New Testament texts.

John Murray correctly identified this eschatological gathering to be the resurrection event,

“There is ample allusion to the sound of the trumpet and to the ministry of angels elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with Christ’s advent (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16). Hence verse 31 can most readily be taken to refer to the gathering of the elect at the resurrection.”^[10]

The Reformed Study Bible, edited by R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison, likewise notes that Matthew 24:31 parallels Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 25:31; 1 Corinthians 15:52; and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, suggesting it “most naturally refers to the Second Coming.”[11] Let’s use The Reformed Study Bible as an outline to unpack each of these texts that “parallel” Matthew 24:30-31 beginning with Matthew 13.

a) Matthew 24:30-31, Matthew 13:39-43, and Daniel 12:2-4: A Unified Eschatological Event

The “end of the age” gathering in Matthew 24:3, 30-31 is explicitly described in Matthew 13:39-43 as the resurrection event foretold in Daniel 12:2-4. The parallels between these passages demonstrate that Jesus draws from Daniel 12 to describe a single eschatological event fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70. The following table outlines the textual connections:

These parallels confirm that Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:30-31 both describe the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:2-4, tied to the end of the Old Covenant age. 

Theological Implications and the Formation of Full Preterism

Futurism, including Partial Preterism, acknowledges that the “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:3, 30-31 refers to the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and includes a spiritual resurrection of the dead from Hades into God’s presence, as per Daniel 12:2-4 (Partial Preterism).  Let’s review what Partial Preterism teaches about the resurrection of Daniel 12.  James Jordan in his commentary on Daniel affirms:

“The resurrection of [Dan. 12:2] seems to connect to the evangelistic and teaching ministry spoken of in verse 3; thus, it is some kind of historical resurrection that is spoke of, a resurrectional event in this world, in our history.”^[12]

“…Daniel 12:2 tells us that in the days of Jesus the nation will undergo a last spiritual resurrection, but some will not persevere and their resurrection will only be unto destruction.  The Parable of the soils fits here (Matt.13:3–23):  three different kinds of people come to life, but only one of the three different kinds of people come to like, but only one of the three kinds is awakened to persevering, everlasting life.

During His ministry, Jesus raised the nation back to life.  He healed the sick, cleansed the unclean, brought dead people back to life, restored the Law, entered the Temple as King, etc.  Then, as always, the restored people fell into sin and crucified Him.

Thus, a resurrection of Israel is in view.  The wicked are raised, but do not profit from it, and are destroyed.  The saints experience a great distress, and live with God forever and ever.”^[13]

“The death of the Church in the Great Tribulation, and her resurrection after that event, were the great proof that Jesus had accomplished the work He came to do.  The fact that the Church exists today, nearly 2000 years after her death in the Great Tribulation, is the ongoing vindication of Jesus work.”^[14]

“Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”^[15]

“What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.”^[16]

Similarly, after long debate, even Kenneth Gentry recently conceded the necessity of understanding Daniel 12 as a spiritual resurrection fulfilled in AD 70:

“In Daniel 12:1–2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”^[17]

“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”^[18]

Daniel appears to be presenting Israel as a grave site under God’s curse: Israel as a corporate body is in the “dust” (Da 12:2; cp. Ge 3:14, 19).  In this he follows Ezekiel’s pattern in his vision of the dry bones, which represent Israel’s “death” in the Babylonian dispersion (Eze 37). In Daniel’s prophecy many will awaken, as it were, during the great tribulation to suffer the full fury of the divine wrath, while others will enjoy God’s grace in receiving everlasting life. Luke presents similar imagery in Luke 2:34 in a prophecy about the results of Jesus’s birth for Israel: “And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, ‘Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed.

Christ Himself points out that some from Israel will believe and be saved, while others will not (e.g., Mt. 10:34–36; 13:11–15), that in the removing of the kingdom from Israel many will be crushed and scattered like dust (Mt. 21:43–45).  He even speaks of the saved Jews as arising from the “shadow of death” (Mt. 4:16).  Though in AD 70 elect Jews will flee Israel and will live (Mt. 24:22), the rest of the nation will be a corpse:  “wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Mt. 24:28).  Indeed, in AD 70 we see in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem (Mt. 22:7) that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22:14).  Elsewhere he employs the imagery of “regeneration” to the arising of the new Israel from out of the dead, old covenant Israel in AD 70:  “You who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt. 19:28).^[19]

“…it appears that Daniel is drawing from the hope of a future, literal resurrection and applying it symbolically to the first century leading up the tribulation in AD 70.  That is, he is portraying God’s separating believing Jews out of Israel through the winnowing of Israel in AD 70.”^[20]

“Daniel only picks up on resurrection imagery and, like Ezekiel, applies that to corporate Israel.  He is teaching that in the events of AD 70, the true Israel will arise from old Israel’s carcass, as in a resurrection.”^[21]

Here’s a summary of James Jordan and Kenneth Gentry’s view on the resurrection in Daniel 12:

1. It represents old covenant Israel’s final spiritual and corporate resurrection.
2. Both Israel and the Church participate in this spiritual, covenantal, and corporate resurrection, with the new covenant Church—or new Israel of God—emerging from the corpse of old covenant Israel in AD 70.
3. An “already and not yet” evangelistic process unfolded between Christ’s earthly ministry and His AD 70 coming, culminating in this resurrection or “end” of Israel during the events of AD 67–70.
4. This resurrection included Daniel’s soul being raised from Abraham’s Bosom to sit on a throne, reigning with Christ and inheriting eternal life.

Partial preterist Joel McDurmon, commenting on the parable of the wheat and the tares, concedes that it signifies the end of the old covenant age and not the end of world history:

It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43 describes the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem. During this time, the angels would “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity” (13:41) and these would be judged with fire. Many of them literally were burned in fire during the destruction of Jerusalem. During this same time, however, the elect of Christ— “the children of the kingdom” (v. 38)—will be harvested. While the explanation of the parable does not tell us their final end, the parable itself has the householder instructing the harvesters to “gather the wheat into my barn.” In other words, they are protected and saved by God.^[22]

McDurmon notes that this is precisely what happened to the early Christians, who were not only saved spiritually but also largely escaped the Roman siege by fleeing Jerusalem, heeding Jesus’ advice to “flee and not look back” when the signs appeared (Matt. 24:16–22). McDurmon connects this event with the angels’ work of gathering the elect (24:31).

McDurmon further develops Jesus’ two age model: “this age, representing the old covenant age, and the “age to come” or “age about to come,” which refers to the new covenant age. In his analysis of Pauline eschatology, he interprets passages such as Ephesians 1:21; 2:1–7; 3:8–11; Colossians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 10:11; and Hebrews 9:26 as support for his model, concluding:

“So, from the teaching of Jesus, Paul and the author of Hebrews, we get a very clear picture of the two primary ages: one that endured up until the time of Christ, and another that began around that same period. I believe these two periods, being hinged upon the coming and work of Christ, pertain obviously to the Old and New Covenant administrations.”^[23]

Classic Amillennialism holds that passages such as Matthew 13:39–43, Matthew 24:30–31, and Daniel 12:2–4 describe the singular, consummative resurrection and Second Coming event, not a preliminary or minor occurrence. A comparison of Jesus’ teaching on the eschatological “gathering” at the “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39–43 and 24:3, 30–31 with Daniel 12:1–4 reveals that this “end” is the “appointed time” for the resurrection (Dan. 12:2). G.K. Beale affirms this connection, noting that the “gathering of the elect” in Matthew 24:31 “…implies the [resurrection] of all believers, both living and dead…”

Faced with these textual parallels, reinforced by both Full Preterist and Amillennial interpretations, Partial Preterists like James Jordan concede that the resurrection of Daniel 12:1–2 and Matthew 24:30–31 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, with souls raised from Hades into God’s presence. Jordan explains:

“There we see messengers gathering the elect… from all over the heavens… They are gathered from the four winds, not from the four corners of the earth… This fits so very well with what we find in Revelation. The dead saints ‘under the altar’ are in ‘paradise’ or ‘Abraham’s bosom’… It is these elect… who are gathered before the Throne in Revelation 15.”[24]

This creates a “thorny problem” indeed that is resolved by Full Preterism, as follows:

Major Premise: The resurrection and Second Coming event in Daniel 12:1-4, Matthew 13:39-43, and Matthew 24:3, 30-31 is the singular, consummative eschatological event (Classic Amillennialism). 

Minor Premise: Daniel 12:1-4, Matthew 13:39-43, and Matthew 24:3, 30-31 describe a spiritual resurrection and coming of Christ fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion: The singular, consummative resurrection and Second Coming event of Daniel 12:1-4, Matthew 13:39-43, and Matthew 24:3, 30-31 was spiritually fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 (Full Preterism).

Let’s now move on to two other texts The Reformation Study Bible tells us is the same event as Matthew 24:30-31, namely Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 25:31.

b).  Matthew 24:30-31, Matthew 16:27, and Matthew 25:31: A Unified Eschatological Event

Classic Amillennialism, as reflected in contributions to The Reformation Study Bible, equates Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24:30-31, and Matthew 25:31 as describing the singular, consummative Second Coming and judgment or resurrection event. However, Keith Mathison, the editor of The Reformation Study Bible, argues that these passages—Matthew 16:27-28, 24:30-31, and 25:31—refer to a spiritual coming of Christ fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment. Mathison, following Gary DeMar, has acknowledged that positing two distinct comings of Christ in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31 is untenable, concluding that both describe the same AD 70 event. This aligns with Partial Preterism, which sees these texts as fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, yet creates a tension with the Amillennial view of a singular, future Second Coming.

The following chart illustrates the textual harmony among these passages, supporting the Partial and Full Preterist view of an AD 70 fulfillment:

Matthew employs Hebraic recapitulation in the Olivet Discourse, describing the same AD 70 coming of Christ in both Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31. This explains why Partial Preterists like Mathison and DeMar conclude that these passages refer to a singular event fulfilled in the ascension and Christ’s coming to judge in AD 70.  This also accounts for the reason Mark and Luke find no need to mention two comings of Christ separated by thousands of years.  Here is a chart comparing Matthew 16:27-28 with all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse:

Once again Full Preterism solves the “thorny problem” in the writings of men such as Beale and Partial Preterists on these key texts.

Major Premise:  The coming of Christ and judgment or resurrection described in Matthew 16:27; 24:30-31; 25:31-46 is the ONE end of the age Second Coming event (Classic Amillennialism)

Minor Premise: The coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27-28; 24:30-31; 25:31 was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 (Partial Preterism).

Conclusion:  The coming of Christ and judgment or resurrection described in Matthew 16:27-28; 24:30-31; 25:31-46 is the ONE Second Coming, judgment and resurrection event that was fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 (Full Preterism).

Keith Mathison, by conceding that all “coming of the Son of Man” passages in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28, 24:30-31, 25:31; Luke 17:20-37) refer to a spiritual fulfillment in AD 70, arrives at an unprecedented position within reformed theology: that Jesus Himself never taught about a future Second Coming. To address this challenge to orthodoxy, Mathison proposes that the concept of a future Second Coming was developed later by the apostles, particularly Paul, in passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.[25] This view is untenable for two reasons:

First, Jesus came to fulfill “all” the Law and the Prophets within His generation (Luke 21:22-32), which included prophecies of His Second Coming on the clouds, the New Creation, and the judgment and resurrection of the dead—clarified by Jesus and the New Testament regarding their timing and spiritual nature.  The old saying is true—“The OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed.”  Both Jesus and Paul are unpacking the OT’s teaching on the doctrines of the Second Coming and Resurrection of the dead.

Second, it suggests Jesus’ teachings omit any direct reference to the Second Coming, undermining the traditional Reformed view that the Gospels form the bedrock of eschatological doctrine of which the rest of the NT builds.

Third, it weakens the analogy of faith (Scripture interpreting Scripture), as a comparison of Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15 reveals that Paul’s teachings align with and expand upon Jesus’ eschatological framework, rather than introducing an independent doctrine.

To explore this continuity, we now examine the parallels between Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15.

c).  Matthew 24:30-31, 1 Thessalonians 4-5, and 1 Corinthians 15: A Unified Eschatological Event

So far in this series showing how Matthew 21-25 was fulfilled in AD 70, I have developed the analogy of faith and harmonized through charts and exegesis how the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 10:17-23; 16:27-28; 26:64-65 and Luke 17:20-37 were mere snap-shots of what Christ was going to fully develop in Matthew 24-25 concerning his imminent Second Coming in AD 70.  I demonstrated that Futurists (through Partial Preterism) have conceded all of those texts were fulfilled in AD 70 of which Matthew 24-25 only builds upon.  Now we will see how Matthew 24-25 is the cornerstone upon which Paul builds his eschatology in 1-2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans.  Let’s quickly dismiss of the hyper-creedal man pleasing hermeneutic of Keith Mathison and Partial Preterism.  Mathison makes parallels in Matthew 24 to prove that the coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 5 was fulfilled in AD 70 while completely ignoring the key ones in 1 Thessalonians 4 or between Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians 15:

If A (Matthew 24) = B (1 Thessalonians 4-5)

 B (1 Thessalonians 4) = C (1 Corinthians 15)

A (Matthew 24 & Parallels) = C (1 Corinthians 15)

Two or More Things that are Equal to Another Thing are Also Equal to Each Other 

Unlike Keith Mathison, his Reformed Study Bible and G.K. Beale has acknowledged the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4, stating:

“That both [1 Thessalonians] 4:15–18 and 5:1–11 explain the same events [in Matthew 24] is discernible from observing that both passages actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative in Matthew 24…”[26]

If the trumpet coming of Christ and resurrection in Matthew 24:30–31 is the same event as the trumpet coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:23, 51–52, and if Matthew 24:30–31 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, the following argument emerges:

Major Premise: The trumpet coming of Christ and eschatological “gathering” in Matthew 24:30–31 is the singular Second Coming and resurrection event also described in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 (Classic Amillennialism). 

Minor Premise: The trumpet coming of Christ and gathering [resurrection] in Matthew 24:30–31 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, closing the Old Covenant age (Partial Preterism, e.g., James Jordan).

Conclusion: Therefore, the singular trumpet Second Coming and resurrection event of Matthew 24:30–31, 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, closing the Old Covenant age (Full Preterism).

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus, we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

The Second Exodus

Commentators agree that both Jesus and Paul are drawing from the second exodus and resurrection motif found in Isaiah 27 that we briefly addressed previously.

A day was approaching when Christ would deliver believers from their persecutions and pour out His wrath upon their persecutors (1 Thess. 1:10; cf. 2 Thess. 1:6–7). When that day came, the Lord descended from heaven with a word of command (or “a shout”), with an archangelic voice, and with a trumpet call of God; and the dead in Christ rose.  Then the living in Christ and the dead in Christ were simultaneously “caught up” in “clouds” to “a meeting of the Lord in the air.”

Since the cloud-covered mountain is not literal, but is heavenly, neither then was the meeting that took place in the heavenly mountain (i.e., in the clouds in the air) literal.  Therefore, the shout, voice, trumpet, mountain, cloud, and meeting of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 are all spiritual antitypes of the literal shout, voice, trumpet, mountain, cloud, and meeting of Exodus 19 and 20 (Heb. 12:18–22).

Since Exodus 19-24 serves as a type of Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, we notice a number of important points.  According to James Jordan in his book, Through New Eyes, Mount Sinai served as Israel’s tabernacle or temple and served as a model for the structure of the tabernacle and temple.

The Courtyard – In the tabernacle / temple area, the courtyard was where the average Jew could offer sacrifices at the bronze altar and worship.  It corresponds to the area where the Israelites gathered at Mount Sinai’s base.

The Holy Place – The average priest had access not only to the courtyard, but also to the Holy Place.  Despite being able to advance to this area, he was unable to enter the Most Holy Place.  We see the seventy elders of Israel eating and dining with God here, amid the mountain but not at the top. 

The Most Holy Place – The Most Holy Place was only accessible to the High Priest once a year.  The glory cloud presence of God rested above the ark of the covenant in this location. When Moses ascended to the top of the mountain to meet with God face to face and receive the revelation of the old covenant law, he was acting as Israel’s High Priest.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is communicating that this was a type.  At the top of the cloud-covered mountain, Moses was able to enter the Most Holy Place, where God was present.  The old covenant system, however, provided him and Israel with a temporary glory. Between AD 30 – 70 there was an “increasing” new covenant age of glory and the old covenant veil of the old covenant age was gradually being lifted away from God’s people.  As a corporate body of new covenant kings and priests, we have ascended into God’s presence and the Most Holy Place on Mount Zion. Christ and His kingdom have manifested themselves on our hearts through the revelation of the new covenant.  The Church has been raised and was feasting with God at His wedding feast at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.

What we have then in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 is the “rapturously” metaphorical language of a prophet who is speaking of antitypical, spiritual realities —the transcendent profundities of Christological glory in and among the saints in the consummation of the ages.  If this sounds like an over-spiritualization, it shouldn’t. The Lord Jesus Himself was opposed to a literal removal of the church out of the world:

“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15).

The “rapture” passage is no more literal than the prophecy of Ezekiel 37:4–14.  In that passage, God caused a valley full of dry bones to come together.  He attached tendons to them and put skin on them. Then He caused the bodies to breathe and they stood on their feet as a vast army. The bones represented the house of Israel.  They were hopelessly cut off from the land, and were said to be in “graves.” As God had done for the dry bones, He was going to do for the house of Israel.

In the same way, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, God raised up His church —the first fruits of the resurrection harvest— which was anxiously longing for the consummation of redemption and atonement.  As a mighty warrior, the Lord issued forth his shout of command and sounded the trumpet of God. Then His spiritual army arose by His power.  They met Him on His way to His temple to judge the enemies in His kingdom (Mal. 3:1). That is when God afflicted the persecutors of His church, when He gave His people relief and glorified Himself in them (2 Thess. 1:8–10).

Being revealed with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4) and becoming like Him and seeing Him in His Parousia (1 Jn. 3:2) had nothing to do with escaping physical death or with being literally caught up into the literal sky or with being biologically changed.  It had to do with God’s people, living and dead, being “gathered together” to become His eternal tabernacle, His spiritual body, the new man, the heavenly Mount Zion, and the New Jerusalem in the Spirit. “This mystery is great” (Eph. 5:32), and is therefore communicated in the accommodative “sign language” of prophetic metaphor.

Since our Lord came “with His saints” and destroyed the earthly temple in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8), the church of all ages lives and reigns in glory with Him forever (Rom. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:4; 2 Tim. 2:11–12). Now whether we are alive or asleep, we “live together with Him” (1 Thess. 5:10).  This was not the case in the OT, when to die was to be cut off from the people of God.  As Paul says in Romans 14:8–9, “…whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”  

“…with the trumpet call of God and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (4:16)

There is definitely a chronological order, with the dead rising first and then the gathering, catching away or change for the living taking place second.  Even Jesus addresses the dead first in John 11:

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die [OT worthies like Abraham or Daniel, along with those who recently died prior to AD 70], yet shall he live [be raised out of Abraham’s bosom or Hades to inherit God’s presence and eternal life], and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die [that is not that they would never see biological death, but rather inherit God’s “within” kingdom and presence of eternal life]. Do you believe this (John 11:25-26)?”

At Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70 the living would “never die” in the same way that those who put their faith in him would “never hunger” or “never thirst” (Jn. 6:35).  To “never die” just means to inherit eternal life and the believer would never be separated from God in this life or when their physical body expires.

“Gathered up” (Greek Harpazo) (4:17)

The NCV translates harpazo as “gathered up,” thus giving it a theological and parallel connection to the eschatological gathering of Matthew 13:39-43, Matthew 24:30-31 & 2 Thessalonians 2:1.  Other translations render it “snatched away” or “will be seized.”

Harpazo means to “take one’s plunder openly and violently, catch or snatch away.” Sometimes it is addressing someone being pulled, snatched away or rescued by someone from an enemy.  But is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 discussing an inward spiritual rescuing into Christ’s glory cloud presence, or an outward and upward catching away into physical clouds in the sky and a biological change?

Here are some very clear uses of harpazo being an inward spiritual event:

(1) Matthew 12:29 – Satan was “bound” and Christ was “carrying away” (harpazo) his plunder, which were people that were rightfully His who were held captive by Satan and demons.  But how was He doing this?  It was by casting out demons (an inward spiritual reality), and in some cases actually giving faith to these individuals to follow him (again an inward spiritual reality).

(2) Matthew 11:12 – “the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing (Christ casting out demons openly and publicly taking Satan’s plunder), and (in return) the forceful men (believers) lay hold of it” (harpazo – through faith, vigor, power, and determination in light of present persecution – such as in the case of John).  People were violently laying hold of the kingdom through having faith (a spiritual and inward reality).

(3) Matthew 13:19 – In the parable of the sower, the wicked one comes and snatches away (harpazo) what was sown in his heart (again, an inner spiritual reality).

(4) John 10:12 – The wolf (Pharisees, sons of Satan) sought to snatch (harpazo) and scatter the sheep/ people of Israel.  How did the Pharisees seek to “snatch” and “scatter” the Jews from following Jesus?  The first phase involved seeking to deceive them in their hearts and minds (an inward snatching) by convincing them that He was not the Christ by perverting the Scriptures and accusing Him of having a demon, etc.  The second phase was a physical excommunication or scattering of Christians from their synagogues.

(5) John 10:28-29 – Anyone who has faith in Jesus cannot be “snatched” (harpazo) out of the Father’s hand.  That is, he cannot be influenced (snatched inwardly) in his or her mind and heart to leave God.  Like Peter, “Where else can we go, Lord? You alone have the words to eternal life.”  The gift of faith is spiritually preserved in the heart and soul of the believer.  He cannot be deceived to the point of committing the sin unto death (1 Jn. 3:9). Again, this is an inner spiritual reality of the heart/mind/soul of man.

(6) Acts 8:39 – This simply means that the Holy Spirit directed Philip in His heart and mind (inwardly) to go elsewhere and the Eunuch did not see him again.  There’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Philip was “raptured” into the atmosphere and was then instantly dropped off miles and miles away from where he was.

The eschatological “already” of the inward kingdom gathering and catching away was spiritual, and the eschatological “gathering” and “catching away” in the kingdom at Christ’s return would also be a spiritual event in AD 70.  As we noted in our exegesis of Luke 17:20-37/Lk. 21:27-32, Jesus said when that the kingdom would come at His return (to gather all His elect Mt. 24:31), it would be an experience to occur “within” an individual and not something that could be seen with the physical eyes.

The inward realm of redemption or catching away is further evident from a study of the next two words, “clouds” and “air.”

“…in the clouds…” (4:17)

Many partial preterists are correct to see Christ coming on the clouds in Matthew 24:30-31 or Revelation 1:7 as God coming on the clouds in the Old Testament, being common apocalyptic language and not referring to physical clouds we see in the sky.  And again, this being the anti-type to the physical cloud covering type of Exodus 19-24, we can see how this is readily a spiritual fulfillment using apocalyptic language.  The Church is collectively (dead and living) “gathered” or “caught away” to be on top of Zion in His glory cloud communing with Him enjoying eternal life.

To “meet” the Lord… (4:17)

This Greek word, to “meet,” is wedding language and is only used twice in the NT in an eschatological context – here and also in the wedding motif that Jesus develops in Matthew 25:1-13 (which many Partial Preterists correctly teach was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70).

At Jewish betrothals and weddings, only the father knew the exact time and date of the wedding.  When the virgin and her bridesmaids were not expecting it, he would have the groomsmen blow a trumpet ahead of the groom.  It was customary for the groom to consummate his marriage sexually at the virgin’s father’s house before taking her to his father’s house, where they would continue consummating the union for seven days and have the wedding feast.  The following are parallels with the Messianic wedding motif:  

We cannot stress enough how exegetically untenable it is to claim the eschatological wedding or feast of Matthew 8:10-12; Matthew 25:1-13 and Revelation 19-21 was fulfilled at the coming of Christ in AD 70, but the wedding trumpet and coming of Christ here in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is a different event.  This and both Jesus and Paul are drawing upon the wedding of Isaiah 25:

This Greek word for “meet” was also often used of a king or dignitary coming to make his home in a city which his empire or kingdom had conquered or was about to conquer.  On the news of the imminent coming of the king or dignitary, at the sound of a trumpet the members of the city would go out of the city and “meet” him and escort him back to their home/town.  The king’s presence was established WHERE the people already lived. Again, the imagery does not support a literal “rapture” of people off of planet earth, but rather of God coming to rule and reign in the hearts of His people where they are – living on planet earth.

“…in the air” (4:17)

But what of this meeting the Lord in the “air” (Greek eros)?  The Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines it as: “From ‘aemi,” to breath unconsciously, to respire.  By analogy, to blow.  The air, particularly the lower and denser air as distinguished from the higher and rarer air.”  So, the point is that this is the air “in” or “within” us.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains lists Eph 2:2, 1 Thess. 4:17, and Rev 16:17 in its definition of eros as meaning “the space inhabited and controlled by [spiritual] powers.”

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament says of the “air” in Ephesians 2:2 – “…Jewish conceptions, according to which, among other things, the air is the abode of demons.”

Ephesians 2 refers to Satan as the “prince and power of the AER.”  He dwelt in the spiritual realm which extended to the souls of men.  The war we see Christ and Satan fighting in the NT is for the spiritual condition of men – within their hearts and minds.  Paul goes on to say that Satan “now works in the children of disobedience.”  And consistently Jesus defines His kingdom as something that He is setting up “in” and “within” men, and transforming them into His image spiritually.

Prior to AD 70, Satan used his demonic legions to “possess” individuals within the realm of their minds and the spiritual realm of their being.  Satan used the old covenant Mosaic law to blind their spiritual eyes, hearts and minds in the realm of the “air” – within their souls, hearts, and minds to produce an arrogant and zealous self-righteousness which apart from Christ could only lead to utter despair (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 4:17-18; Rom. 7).  Christ “bound the strong man” and was raising and delivering Christians from the darkness and death of this spiritual kingdom realm into His own realm (cf. Eph. 2:1-10).  Christ snatched away His beloved and spoke peace and joy into the “air” of her heart, soul, and mind when He said, “It is finished” (Rev. 16:17/Heb. 9-10/1 Cor. 15)!

The powers of Satan, demons, the condemnation of the law, and the spiritual death Adam brought upon men were all conquered by Christ at His Parousia in AD 70 for those who put their faith in Him.

Had Paul meant to clearly communicate that believers would physically fly off the planet into the sky and atmosphere above, he would have used the Greek word “ouranos,” which clearly states this as its meaning.

In the “rapture,” Christ descends from heaven on a cloud to earth where He gathers the living into His presence, “within” us where we serve as His most holy dwelling and throne.  We also see this in Revelation where the New Jerusalem descends from heaven to earth as God’s glorious bride and establishes His presence within His Church.  This can also be seen in John 14 and 2 Corinthians 3 and 5.  In John 14, Christ prepares dwelling places (side rooms) in the Father’s “house/temple” for believers to dwell in. During the period of AD 30 – 70, the Church was being “transformed” into Christ’s “image” and needed to be clothed from Her new covenant “house / temple” from heaven (2 Cor. 3; 5).  During the Church’s time on earth, the new covenant Most Holy Place of Revelation 21:16 was “coming down” (Rev. 3:11-12NIV) and thus preparing to further clothe for the Church.  As God destroyed the old covenant “house/temple” or Jerusalem, followers of Messiah would not be left homeless or naked.  The kingdom of Christ has been gathered within us and He and His kingdom are within us (Lk. 17:20-37; Jn. 14:2-3, 23, 29). We are in Him and He is in us.

The parallels between Matthew 23–26, Luke 21, Luke 17, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians demonstrate that Paul’s eschatology in 1–2 Thessalonians is rooted in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels. These connections, particularly the shared language and themes of Christ’s parousia, judgment, and gathering, suggest a unified eschatological event tied to the first-century context.

The following chart illustrates these parallels, highlighting the continuity of Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings and their fulfillment in AD 70:

The parallels between Matthew 23–26 / Luke 21 / Luke 17, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians demonstrate that Paul’s eschatology is rooted in Jesus’ teachings, pointing to a unified eschatological event in the first century. These connections include shared language and themes such as Christ’s parousia (Mt. 24:27; 1 Thess. 2:19, 4:15–17), coming on clouds/from heaven (Mt. 24:30; 1 Thess. 4:16), gathering/snatching believers (Mt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 1:10, 4:17), a trumpet sound (Mt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 4:16), judgment and wrath (Mt. 24:3–30; Lk. 21:20–23; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 2 Thess. 1:9, 2:8), and imminence within “this generation” and the lifetime of the Thessalonians (Lk. 21:27–32; 1 Thess. 1:9–10).

Major Premise: The coming of Christ, gathering of believers, and judgment described in Matthew 23:39–26:64, Luke 21:12–32, Luke 17:20–37, 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10, 2:14–16, 4:15–17, 5:1–11, and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 2:2–8 constitute the singular Second Coming and eschatological event (Classic Amillennialism). 

Minor Premise: The coming of Christ, gathering of believers, and judgment in Matthew 23:39–26:64, Luke 21:12–32, Luke 17:20–37, and 2 Thessalonians 2:2–8 were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, coinciding with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, marking the end of the Old Covenant age (Partial Preterism). 

Conclusion: Therefore, the singular Second Coming, gathering of believers, and judgment event described in Matthew 23:39–26:64, Luke 21:12–32, Luke 17:20–37, 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10, 2:14–16, 4:15–17, 5:1–11, and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 2:2–8 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, closing the Old Covenant age (Full Preterism).

Lastly, let’s see how the Olivet Discourse forms Paul’s imminent hope of the resurrection in Romans.

d).  Luke 21:27-28 and Romans 8–13:11-12: A Unified Eschatological Event

I would agree with reformed theologians like John Murray who understood the “redemption” of Luke 21 to be Paul’s redemption hope here in Romans:

“Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom 8:23…). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.”[27]

I also find merit in certain aspects of N.T. Wright’s perspective, as outlined in “Redemption from the New Perspective? Towards a Multi-Layered Pauline Theology of the Cross,” where he identifies the second exodus motif in Romans. Wright argues that Paul reinterprets the Old Testament second exodus narrative—originally Israel’s liberation from Egypt—as a key framework for redemption, using exodus imagery (e.g., deliverance from bondage, a new creation, and God’s leading) to depict the Church’s liberation from sin and death through Christ’s work. This second exodus represents a spiritual and cosmic renewal, constituting believers—both Jew and Gentile—as God’s renewed people, with the cross and resurrection fulfilling God’s covenant promises and liberating humanity from the “exile” of sin.

Wright notes that in Romans 8, Paul employs language of groaning creation and the Spirit’s leading to echo Israel’s exodus, signifying a new divine deliverance. However, he does not connect this redemption to an imminent first-century fulfillment, such as AD 70, instead presenting it as an ongoing narrative of God’s kingdom, with the cross as the central event. This contrasts with the imminent AD 70 consummation suggested by Paul’s time indicators.

Both Murray and Wright, however, miss critical elements by not developing the imminent time texts in the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21) and Romans, which point to the “appointed time” (kairos) for this redemption. This oversight distorts their understanding of its nature and timing. Additionally, their failure to engage John Lightfoot’s insight that the “creation” in Romans 8 refers to humanity rather than the planet further misguides their interpretation of the time and essence of God’s redemptive plan in Christ.

Here in Romans 8:18-23 YLT, Paul’s redemptive “appointed time” is intimately connected to three imminent key Greek expressions:

1. Mello—signifying that something is “about to be” or “soon to be” fulfilled.
2. Apokaradokia—connoting the act of having one’s head or neck extended in eager anticipation for an event to be fulfilled.
3. Apekdechomai—implying to be on one’s toes in expectant readiness for an event to be fulfilled.^[28]

Reformed theologian John Lightfoot provides a crucial insight. According to Lightfoot, the “earnest expectation of the creature” and the “groaning of the whole creation” are not literal descriptions of planetary decay but rather metaphors for the inner spiritual decay and emptiness of the human mind. He explains:

… [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: the manifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out-stretched neck.^[29]

And again,

The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase.^[30]

In this case, Lightfoot is on solid ground, citing 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Corinthians 15:33 to support this view. Not only do the terms “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” hint at ethical and moral putrefaction in man’s heart and mind, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen, oxygen, or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t be hit by cars.

Major Premise:

If Scripture presents eschatological themes—such as the second exodus, redemption from bondage, and the consummation at Christ’s Second Coming—as being thematically fulfilled through the union of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament teaching (e.g., Romans 8–13; Luke 21; Luke 17), and explicitly places their consummation within the first-century “this generation” via time indicators like “near” (engus), “about to be” (mellō), and “kairos” (eschatological appointed time), then these promises must have been accomplished and applied in that historical framework, marking AD 70 as the point of fulfillment. This insight, missed by Murray due to his neglect of the imminent time texts in Luke 21 and Romans, and by N.T. Wright despite his recognition of the second exodus theme, underscores the necessity of integrating these temporal markers.

Minor Premise:

Jesus in Luke 21 links Israel’s imminent redemption to His coming within “this generation” (vv. 27–28, 32), while Paul in Romans 8–13 develops this same Olivet Discourse framework—connecting Israel’s exodus groaning and redemption to the Church’s liberation from Adamic bondage—using identical “near” (engus) and “about to be” (mellō) time markers. N.T. Wright correctly identifies Paul’s development of the second exodus theme in Romans but misses its imminent fulfillment by overlooking these time indicators. These parallels, drawing directly from Old Testament second exodus themes and Jesus’ teachings, include:

 Conclusion:

Therefore, the redemption promised by Jesus and expounded by Paul was not a distant hope but an imminent reality, accomplished and applied at Christ’s coming in AD 70. By overlooking the explicit time indicators in Luke 21 and their apostolic development in Romans—along with the integrated second exodus and Olivet parallels—Murray fails to recognize the unified, first-century fulfillment, missing the AD 70 timing entirely, while N.T. Wright, despite noting the second exodus theme, also misses this imminent fulfillment, thus both scholars fall short of the complete eschatological redemptive picture.

 e) Matthew 24:30–31 and Revelation 10–11: A Unified Eschatological Event

Many commentators—both historic and modern—have recognized that John’s Apocalypse functions as the prophetic counterpart to the Olivet Discourse. While Revelation contains multiple visionary cycles, the parallels between Matthew 24:30–31 and the sounding of the seventh trumpet in Revelation 10–11 stand out as particularly decisive for identifying the timing and nature of the event in view.

Reformed Amillennial pastor and scholar, Kim Riddlebarger wrote:

“The trumpet call in Matthew 24:31, where the Son of Man sends His angels to gather His elect, is the same trumpet sounded in Revelation 11:15, marking the seventh trumpet and the establishment of God’s kingdom.”[31]

In both texts, the trumpet blast signals the same climactic reality:

• The judgment of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant order
• The resurrection/judgment of the dead
• The consummation of all prophecy foretold by Daniel and the other prophets
• The inheritance of the kingdom by the saints
• And the consummation of the Jew–Gentile mystery

Both root these events in the same prophetic timeframe—Daniel’s “appointed time of the end” (kairos, Dan. 12:4, 9)—and both identify the period as a three-and-a-half-year trampling of the holy city. Significantly, Luke 21:8, 24 adds that the fall of Jerusalem would take place during the kairos (“appointed time”) of the Gentiles, reinforcing the Danielic time indicator. Each passage speaks with the same note of imminence: Jesus promises fulfillment “in this generation” (Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32), while John hears that there will be “no more delay” (Rev. 10:6–7).

Because these passages are conceptually and linguistically intertwined, the connections become even clearer when their key elements are set side-by-side. The following chart traces the direct correspondences between the trumpet gathering in Matthew 24–25 and the seventh trumpet in Revelation 10–11:

These Matthew–Revelation connections are not accidental. Both writers are deliberately drawing from the same prophetic source material—especially Daniel 12. Daniel’s prophecy provides the time markers, covenantal context, and redemptive scope that shape both Jesus’ teaching and John’s vision. When Matthew 24:30–31 and Revelation 10–11 are read against Daniel 12, the full prophetic alignment comes into view:

Major Premise: The trumpet coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30–31 and the sounding of the seventh trumpet in Revelation 10–11 describe the same consummative eschatological event—the “appointed time of the end” (kairos) of Daniel 12, echoed in Luke 21:8, 24—when Jerusalem is judged, the dead are raised, the kingdom is inherited, the Jew–Gentile mystery is consummated, and all Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled.

Minor Premise: Both Matthew 24:30–31 and Revelation 10–11 place this trumpet event in the first century, declaring it would occur “immediately after” the tribulation (Matt. 24:29–34) and with “no more delay” (Rev. 10:6–7), during the AD 67–70 siege and destruction of Jerusalem, thus spiritually fulfilling the resurrection/judgment, kingdom-inheritance, and prophetic consummation.

Conclusion: Therefore, the consummative resurrection, judgment, kingdom inheritance, and prophetic fulfillment described in Matthew 24:30–31, Luke 21, and Revelation 10–11 were spiritually realized in AD 70 at the end of the Old Covenant age. 

Jewish Views of the Resurrection 

Many Futurists simply assume that the only concept of the resurrection of the dead in the OT and during Jesus’ day was a biological fleshly one in which an alleged individual’s physical/ spiritual body would emerge from the literal grave at the end of time and thus be fitted for the afterlife in the new creation or some paradise on earth.  But this is simply not the case.

I like how Lester L. Grabbe points out that, during the Second Temple period, the interpretations of the resurrection in the OT were not all necessarily understood to refer to the physical body. They included the view that the resurrection involved only the souls/spirits of individuals being fit for God’s presence either at death, or only their souls were raised at a general judgment of the dead event.  He points out that there is no evidence that the physical view was any more dominant than the spiritual view.  While lengthy, I think his historical comments will be helpful before we begin an exegesis of the OT and NT resurrection texts and simply assume they are addressing a biological resurrection at the end of time when Jesus or Messiah comes:

“It is sometimes asserted that the resurrection of the body was the characteristic Jewish belief. This is not borne out by the data. A variety of beliefs seem to be attested about the same time in Israelite history. One of these was the resurrection of the body, but there is little reason to think that it was earlier or more characteristic of Jewish thinking than the immortality of the soul or resurrection of the spirit. And it is clear that some Jews still maintained the older belief in no afterlife. The Sadducees (see section 2.7) are one group who thought so; so did Ben Sira. Writing about 190 bce Ben Sira does not seem to think of any life beyond death, as interpreted by the vast majority of scholars. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to refer to any of these beliefs as ‘characteristically’ Jewish or the Jewish belief on the subject.”[32]

“The exact form of the resurrection is not always specified, but we should not expect it always to entail resurrection of the body. Sometimes only the resurrection of the spirit is in mind, as in Jubilees 23:20–22:

And at that time the Lord will heal his servants, and they shall be exalted and prosper greatly; and they shall drive out their adversaries. And the righteous shall see it and be thankful, and rejoice with joy for ever and ever; and they shall see all the punishments and curses that had been their lot falling on their enemies. And their bones shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have much joy; and they shall know that the Lord is one who executes judgement, and shows mercy to hundreds, and to tens of thousands, and to all that love him.

Belief in the immortality of the soul is known at least as early as the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36). The souls of the various sorts of people are preserved in hollow places after death (1 Enoch 22):

And from there I went to another place, and he showed me in the west a large and high mountain, and a hard rock and four beautiful places, and inside it was deep and wide and very smooth . . . Then Raphael, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me and said to me, These beautiful places are intended for this, that the spirits, the souls of the dead, might be gathered into them; for them they were created, that here they might gather all the souls of the sons of men. And these places they made where they will keep them until the day of their judgement and until their appointed time – and that appointed time will be long – until the great judgement comes upon them.

As the rest of the passage indicates, the souls of the dead are already experiencing reward and punishment in their intermediate state. In this case, the existence of the soul after death seems to be combined with the idea of a final judgement. This may imply a general resurrection, though this is not stated explicitly. In other sections of 1 Enoch, a resurrection is mentioned (46:6; 51:1; 90:33; 91:10; 92:3–4).

Other sources give no indication of a resurrection at all, only the immortal soul. A good example is Wisdom of Solomon which speaks of the soul (e.g., 3:1–9) but does not mention the resurrection. Whether Wisdom thinks the souls of all are immortal, or only those of the righteous, is debated. Many feel that immortality is not inherent in the soul itself but is a gift given only to the righteous.

The Testament of Abraham gives the clearest picture of how the souls are judged after death (Version A 11–14; Version B 9–11). The souls are brought before a throne on which Abel sits as judge. The one who presents the souls for judgement is Enoch, the scribe of righteousness (Version B only). The judged souls go either through the strait gate which leads to life (for the righteous) or the broad gate to destruction (for the sinners). Although there is a brief indication of belief in a general resurrection in the Testament of Abraham (Version B 7:16), judgement of each individual seems to take place immediately after death, and the emphasis is on this immediate judgement of the soul while the body rests in the grave.

On the other hand, the immortal souls and the resurrection may be combined, as in 2 Baruch 29–30:

[30:2] And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they will come out, and the multitude of souls will appear together in one single assembly; and those who are first will rejoice, and those who are last will not be cast down. For each one of them will know that the predetermined end of the times has come. But the souls of the wicked, when they see all this, will be the more discomforted. For they will know that their torment is upon them and that their perdition has arrived.”[33]

Murray J. Harris after examining the intertestamental period of Judaism agrees:

“And there is the concept of the immortality of the soul or spirit that is gained at death or at the End [of the Mosaic age], with or without a resurrection of the [physical] body.”[34]

In Jewish tradition and exegesis there is also the view that the resurrection takes place 40 years after Messiah,

“Jewish writings stipulate that forty years after the coming of the Messiah there will be a resurrection of the dead, and all who are lying in dust will rise to new life.” (The 13 Principles and the Resurrection of the Dead)

The Rebbe often quotes the Zohar to the effect that the Resurrection will take place 40 years after the advent of Mashiach. (See Igros Kodesh, Vol. II, p. 75; Sefer HaSichos 5752, Vol. I, p. 274. However, there are also other references in the sichos (e.g., Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXVII, p. 206; Sefer HaSichos 5733, Shabbos Parshas Balak, footnote 3).”[35]

The fact that the resurrection could be a resurrection of spirits out of Hades in the coming judgment and that it would be fulfilled 40 years after Messiah was cut-off or during His transitionary reign between their old covenant “this age” and the new covenant “age about to come” fits perfectly with the teachings of Jesus and the NT authors.

Reformed Views of a Spiritual Resurrection in AD 70

Many Christians are also unaware that Reformed Partial Preterism teaches that there was a spiritual resurrection of the dead at the coming or parousia of Christ in AD 70.  This position teaches the exact same concepts that Full Preterism teaches, in that the OT and NT supports that:

1).  There was a spiritual, progressive, corporate and covenantal resurrection from the condemnation and death of the old covenant body of Israel being transformed and rising into the imputed righteousness and resurrection life of the new covenant body of Israel between AD 30 – AD 70.

2). This spiritual, progressive, corporate and covenantal resurrection is consummated “immediately after” the Tribulation of AD 67 – AD 70 when God emptied the souls from Abraham’s Bosom, or Hades, and caused His righteous to inherit God’s presence and eternal life.

Unfortunately, the weakness of this position is that both the OT and NT teach that this is the ONE “appointed time of the end” or “end of the (old covenant) age” consummative resurrection event and not just “a” resurrection.  But through harmonizing the analogy of faith of the Classic Amillennial view and the imminent and spiritual concepts coming from Partial Preterism, we inevitably have been drawn by the work of the Spirit to Full Preterism.

Conclusion
Read canonically and by the analogy of faith, the trumpet-gathering of Matthew 24:30–31 is the same consummative event signaled by Daniel 7; 12, echoed by Jesus in Matthew 13; 16; 25 and by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4–5; 1 Corinthians 15; Romans 8–13, and sealed in Revelation 10–11 at the seventh trumpet. The timeline is coherent and constrained: the tribulation culminates in the appointed kairos, the holy city is trampled for 3½ years, and immediately after that tribulation there is no more delay—Jerusalem falls as the sign of the Son of Man’s enthronement; the old aeon is judged; and the resurrectional ingathering (Hades-to-presence) of the elect is accomplished. From that consummation the gathering continues—not as a second, different eschaton—but as the ongoing influx of the nations into the New Jerusalem’s life (Rev. 21:2, 17).

This synthesis resolves the timing-and-nature impasse between classic Amillennialism and Partial Preterism: if there is one climactic resurrection/Parousia, and if the key texts (Dan. 12; Matt. 13; 24–25; 1 Thess. 4; 1 Cor. 15; Rom. 8–13; Rev.10–11) are admitted—often by Partial-Preterists themselves—to have been spiritually fulfilled in AD 70, the conclusion follows: the singular, promised event occurred covenantally and completely within Jesus’ generation. It also explains Second Temple expectations (including a spiritual resurrection “forty years” after Messiah) and vindicates Lightfoot’s reading of Romans 8 as imminent, anthropological renewal rather than planetary renovation.

Murray’s reluctance to integrate Luke 21’s imminence with Romans, and Wright’s tendency to detach the second-exodus motif from AD 70, both dissolve when Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture. In AD 70 the Old Covenant closed, the Son of Man’s rule was publicly vindicated, the dead were gathered into His presence, and the kingdom passed into its unveiled administration. From that consummation flows the present invitation of Revelation 22:17—the Spirit and the Bride still say, “Come”—as the healing of the nations advances in history, the abiding fruit of a Parousia accomplished and a people gathered to be His dwelling forever.

[1] John L. Bray, MATTHEW 24 FULFILLED, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1996),  pp. 160-161

[2] R. Hofman, cited in Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, 423.

[3] Sepher Yosippon, trans. Steven B. Bowman.

[4] Pseudo-Hegesippus, trans. Wade Blocker, ed. Roger Pearse, 2005.

[5] Sepher Yosippon, Ibid.

[6] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, (Baker Book House, Vol. 2, 1979),   320

[7] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114.

[8] J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1971), 137-138.

[9] See John Gill’s Commentary on the Bible free online at Biblehub.com or elsewhere.

[10] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 391.

[11] Reformed Study Bible, ed. R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison.

[12] James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 618. Emphasis added.

[13]  Ibid., 618–619.

[14]  Ibid., 620

[15]  Ibid., 621

[16]  Ibid., 628

[17] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 3rd ed. (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 538.

[18] Ibid., 538. Emphasis added.

[19] Ibid., 538–539. Emphasis added.

[20] Ibid., 539. Emphasis added.

[21] Ibid., 540. Emphasis added.

[22] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, 2011), 48–49; see entire section, 43–51.

[23] 68 Ibid., 46–47.

[24] James B. Jordan, Matthew 23-25: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, forthcoming), 180-181.

[25] Mathison, FROM AGE TO AGE, pp. 365-366 fn. 92

[26] G.K. Beale, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1–2 Thessalonians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 136.

[27] John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2 Systematic Theology (Pennsylvania, PA: THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1977), 390-391

[28] See also Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2023), 215–220.

[29] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.), 157. Lightfoot, Hammond, and Gill understand the “creation” as referring to Gentiles: “. . . Crellius (Comm., Para.) explains it as a reference to regenerate Christians, and Le Clerc

(Supp., NT) refers it particularly to Gentile Christians.” See also John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke. I tend to see it as referring primarily to believers within Old Covenant Israel groaning under the Law (Rom. 7) as they awaited Messianic deliverance, though there is no reason to exclude righteous Gentiles who also longed for the seed of the woman to deliver them from Adamic death and sin, which the Mosaic Law only magnified. Kim Burgess interprets the “creation” in verses 19–21 as referring to the Jews, verse 22 to the Gentiles, and verse 23 to Christians. See Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2023), 222. Emphasis added.

[30] Ibid., 158–159. Emphasis added.

[31] Kim Riddlebarger, “The Eschatological Framework of Amillennialism” published on The Riddleblog (riddleblog.blogspot.com), dated March 15, 2010.

[32] Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel, and Jesus, (T&T Clark Publishing, 2010), see pages 93-96

[33] Ibid.

[34] Murray J. Harris, FROM GRAVE to GLORY RESURRECTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 70

[35] (Historical Jewish Sources, https://preteristarchives.org/historical-jewish-sources/?fbclid=IwAR2Osz
DkXKqp8Z-qv0RFId1hjS6_tDT7hoysllAAjdGQpUOTi03OmHx67Nc

Matthew 24:29-30: Setting the Stage

The New Testament’s language of imminence and apocalyptic imagery, particularly in Matthew 24:29-30, draws deeply from the Old Testament’s vivid depictions of divine judgment. Jesus’ prophecy of cosmic upheaval—darkened sun, falling stars, and His coming on the clouds—echoes OT patterns of “near,” “soon,” and “without delay” judgments, fulfilled within the lifetimes of the prophets’ audiences. From Isaiah’s oracles against Northern Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and Edom to Malachi 3-4 and Isaiah 40’s prophecies of John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ’s AD 70 judgment—including the curse upon the land of Israel—these texts employ symbolic de-creation and reverse exodus imagery to portray covenantal unmaking. This article explores twelve OT passages, including Malachi 3-4 and Isaiah 40, to illuminate how their imminent fulfillments—spanning 3.5 to 65 years—shape our understanding of Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse, revealing a consistent divine pattern of swift judgment and covenantal transition culminating in AD 70.

1. Isaiah 10: The Imminent Judgment of Northern Israel in 722 BC

In the shadow of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis around 730 BC, Isaiah delivered a piercing prophecy to Northern Israel, foretelling a swift judgment through Assyria, realized in Samaria’s fall by 722 BC. The Hebrew meherah—“soon, swiftly, without slack”—cuts through the text, sharpened by the Septuagint’s suntetmēmenon, meaning “a sentence cut short,” underscoring divine urgency.[1] Isaiah 10:22-23 warns, “Though your people, O Israel, be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant will return,” and “destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness,” employing symbolic language of de-creation—overflowing judgment undoing Genesis abundance—and a reverse exodus as the nation scatters under Assyria’s conquest (10:14). Tiglath-pileser III’s strike in 730 BC set the stage, and within eight years, Sargon’s forces breached Israel’s walls, exiling the people.[2] This rapid fulfillment reflects God’s “without delay” action, preserving a remnant (10:20-21) who clung to the Lord. Judah would later face this pattern, a foreshadowing extended by Paul.

In Romans 9:27-28 (ESV), Paul echoes this type: “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.’” Quoting the LXX, Paul applies suntemnō to Christ’s judgment on apostate Israel in AD 70, mirroring the Assyrian swiftness with a twelve-year span from his letter (c. AD 57) to Jerusalem’s fall. The NIV renders Isaiah 10:23, “The Lord … will carry out the destruction … quickly and finally,” and the ESV reinforces Romans 9:28, “fully and without delay,” bridging the type to the antitype. Rome, as Christ’s instrument, scattered the unfaithful and preserved a remnant—Jewish Christians fleeing to Pella—fulfilling the covenant’s transition to the new covenant (Romans 11:25-27, 13:11-12).

2. Isaiah 13: The Day of the Lord “Near” to Judge Babylon in 689 BC

Isaiah 13 opens with an oracle against Babylon (13:1), foretelling a “near” judgment called the “day of the Lord” (13:6, 22). The text summons a coalition army from “a far country, from the end of the heavens” (13:5) to execute God’s anger, with the Medes stirred against “them” (13:17). The “day of the Lord” brings cruelty, wrath, and desolation (13:9), accompanied by cosmic imagery: “the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light” (13:10). The Hebrew qarob (near, soon) indicates an event within Isaiah’s audience’s lifetime, pointing to Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon in 689 BC, following Mede-stirred rebellions against Assyrian rule, rather than the 539 BC Medo-Persian conquest. The “whole land” (13:5) reflects Assyrian-controlled territory, with Babylon as the target, its desolation confirmed by Sennacherib’s account: “The city and (its) houses… I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire.”[3] The claim that “it will never be inhabited” (13:20) uses hyperbolic language to emphasize severity, allowing for rebuilding after 689 BC. Seth Erlandsson notes, “The histories of the Medes, Elamites, and Babylonians converge around the year 700 in the struggle against the Assyrian world power… Babylon’s fall in 689 is ‘die einzige wirkliche Zerstorung von Babylon’ [the only real destruction].”[4] The Bible Knowledge Commentary acknowledges, “It seems better… to understand this section as dealing with events pertaining to the Assyrians’ sack of Babylon in December 689 B.C.”[5] This de-creation language—darkened heavens reversing Genesis 1’s light—and the reverse exodus of Babylon’s people into desolation reflect covenantal unmaking, fulfilled within 15–25 years (c. 735–710 BC).

The judgment is described with cosmic imagery: “For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light… I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place” (13:10, 13). The hyper-literal Dispensational Bible Knowledge Commentary even has to admit,

“The statements in 13:10 about the heavenly bodies (stars.… sun … moon) no longer functioning may figurativelydescribe the total turnaround of the political structure of the Near East. The same would be true of the heavens trembling and the earth shaking (v. 13), figures of speech suggesting all-encompassing destruction.”[6]

The “heavens” and “earth” represent Babylon’s political and religious structures under Assyrian control, with the Assyrians as the implicit power facing upheaval for Babylon.

3. Isaiah 19: God Comes on a Cloud to Judge Egypt through the Assyrians in 711 BC and 671 BC

Isaiah 19: God Comes on a Cloud to Judge Egypt through the Assyrians in 711 BC and 701 BC Isaiah 19 presents a miniature apocalypse, with God “rid[ing] upon a swift cloud” (19:1) to judge Egypt, symbolizing swift divine intervention via Assyria. The vision depicts idol-toppling (19:1, 3), civil strife with “Egyptian against Egyptian” (19:2), and the Nile drying up (19:5-6), portraying ecological and economic ruin. The “hard master” and “fierce king” (19:4), paired with “behold” (19:1) and “swift cloud” (ʿab qal), suggest imminent action. The three-year sign in Isaiah 20 (713–711 BC) ties the prophecy to a near-term horizon, fulfilled as Sargon II ravaged the Delta in 711/710 BC and Sennacherib made Egypt a satellite in 701 BC—a span of 24–34 years within Isaiah’s later audience’s lifetime. This de-creation language, with the Nile’s drying reversing Genesis 2’s life-giving waters, and the reverse exodus of Egypt’s people under foreign domination, symbolize covenantal judgment for opposing God’s plan. Scholars favoring this earlier fulfillment include John N. Oswalt, Gary V. Smith, J. Alec Motyer, Brevard S. Childs, and Shawn Z. Aster. Sam Storms observes,

“Isaiah 19 portrays a divinely orchestrated historical judgment on Egypt, using cosmic language (sun, moon, sea) that anticipates Jesus’s description of the ‘signs in heaven’ and ‘powers shaken’ in Matthew 24. Just as Egypt’s collapse in Isaiah 19 foreshadows geopolitical upheaval under divine judgment, these prophetic images find their ultimate fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70—an event that, for Jesus, marked the vindication of His claims and the final verdict on Old Covenant Israel.”[7]

4. Isaiah 34: God’s Near De-creation of Edom

Isaiah 34 targets Edom with symbolic apocalyptic language, fulfilled imminently within the prophet’s audience’s lifetime. Verse 4-5 states, “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down… For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea.” This cosmic imagery, as Keith A. Mathison notes,

“…the prophets frequently employ such metaphorical language to depict historical judgments, which have already taken place without signaling the literal end of the world (e.g., Isa. 13:10; 34:4-5; Ezek. 32:7; Amos 8:9).”[8]

This symbolizes Edom’s political collapse, beginning with Assyrian pressure in 711 BCE and culminating under Babylon in 587/586 BC. Verses 6-17 depict an Edenic reversal with “brimstone, salt, and burning pitch” (34:9), unmaking the land into a Genesis 3 wasteland due to Edom’s aggression against Judah, with a reverse exodus as its people are scattered. This judgment, spanning 20–40 years, aligns with the audience’s lifetime.

5. Obadiah: God’s Near Judgment on Edom and Surrounding Nations

Obadiah echoes Isaiah 34, focusing on Edom’s sins—violence, gloating, and looting during Jerusalem’s fall (1:10-14)—with the declaration, “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen… as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee” (1:15). This apocalyptic language includes the dismay of Edom’s leaders (1:8-9) and fire consuming the land (1:18), with its inheritance restored to Jacob (1:17-21). Matthew Poole affirms the imminence:

“For the day of the Lord, of just revenge from the Lord upon this cruelty of Edom, the time which the Lord hath appointed for the punishing of this and other nations, is near upon all the heathen… and that day may justly be accounted near, which shall come within the compass of one man’s life… and this came to pass on Edom within five years after Jerusalem was ruined, within which Obadiah prophesied.”[9]

Gary DeMar agrees,

“The Bible gives us a number of occasions when the “day of the Lord” was “near” (Obadiah 15; Isaiah 34:4, 8; Ezekiel 30:2-11; Zephaniah 1:4, 7, 14).  There is no reason to assume that these Bible references indicate a distant time and a people unfamiliar to the audience of the prophets.”[10]

If Obadiah prophesied around 585 BC, the judgment, including surrounding nations complicit in Judah’s fall, was fulfilled within 20–40 years (587–553 BC) by Babylonian and Nabataean actions, within the audience’s lifetime.

6. Ezekiel 30 and 32: Imminent Judgment on Egypt through Babylon

Ezekiel 30 and 32, dated to 587 BC (30:20) and 585 BC (32:1, 17), proclaim a “day of the Lord” that is “near” (qarob, 30:3). Ezekiel 30:3-5 foretells a day of clouds, sword, and famine, with Nebuchadnezzar breaking Egypt’s power (30:10-12) within a few years. Ezekiel 32:7-8 intensifies this with de-creation language: “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light… and put darkness on your land.” Matthew Poole also sees the passage being fulfilled within 3-5 years and explains the decreation language thus,

“Put thee out; as a torch is extinguished, Isa. 43:17, so I will put out thy light, and turn thee into darkness. Cover the heaven; either by dark vapours that arise from blood and putrefying carcasses, which darken the heavens; or it is a description of…the total ruin of the whole kingdom, in which the best, greatest, and noblest parts are; as heaven suppose the government, the sun the king, the moon the queen, the stars the princes and nobles, bright lights the most eminent of the subjects for wisdom and understanding, and then the land the common people: all shall be covered with clouds, and darkness of misery first, and sorrow next.”[11]

This judgment began within 3–5 years (587–582 BCE) and extended to 16–18 years (587–570 BC) as Babylon subdued Egypt and its allies, a definite imminent fulfillment within Ezekiel’s audience’s lifetime.

7. The Imminent Judgment of Judah in 586 BC: Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk

Ezekiel, from 592 BC, announces “the end is come” (7:2-3), with sword, famine, and pestilence (7:15-19) fulfilled in 3.5 years. Ezekiel 12’s reverse exodus (12:3-7) mirrors Zedekiah’s escape, fulfilled in 3.5 years, countering delays (12:27). Ezekiel 5-6 (593-592 BC) and 8-11 (592 BC) use hair-cutting and glory’s departure, fulfilled in 3-4 and 3.5 years, while Ezekiel 24 (588 BC) depicts a bloody city, fulfilled in 1-2 years.  Futurists should take note of the interaction between God and the false prophets in Ezekiel 7 and 12 in that the false prophets tried to change the meaning of God’s judgment being “near” to it being “far off” and would not take place in their lifetimes.  This angered God and made sure to reinforce that it would indeed be “near” and would “not be delayed” beyond their lifetimes as they had hoped.

The de-creation—darkened glory reversing Genesis 1—and reverse exodus into exile reflect covenantal failure. Jeremiah, from 627 BC, sees “formless and void” chaos (4:23-26, 605-597 BC), fulfilled in 10-20 years.  David Chilton correctly connects this passage to Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 when he writes,

“Another text among many that could be mentioned, is Jeremiah 4:23-31, which speaks of the imminent fall of Jerusalem (587 BC) in similar language of decreation:  ‘I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light…For thus says the LORD, the whole land shall be a desolation [cf. Matt. 24:15], yet I will not execute a complete destruction.  For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark…’  God’s Covenant will Israel had been expressed from the very beginning in terms of a new creation; thus the Old Covenant order, in which the entire world was organized around the central sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple, could quite appropriately be described, before its final dissolution, as “the present heavens and earth.”[12]

Zephaniah (630-620 BC) warns of a “near” day (1:7, 14), fulfilled in 33-43 years. Habakkuk, from 605 BC, predicts swift judgment (1:8), fulfilled in 10-19 years, and in Habakkuk 3:6-11, “He stood and measured the earth… the sun and moon stood still in their place,” employs de-creation (shaking earth, halted celestial bodies reversing Genesis 1’s order) and reverse exodus (fleeing tents, 3:7) through Babylon, fulfilled by 586 BC in 19 years, reinforcing the “it will not delay” urgency (2:3).  These OT prophets fulfillments (3.5-43 years) within their audiences’ lifetimes used symbolic decreation language just as Jesus and the NT authors did.

8. Haggai 2: The Imminent Judgment and Restoration in 516 BC and AD 70

Haggai 2:6-9, 21-23, delivered around 520 BC, promises a “little while” judgment and restoration, fulfilled typically in Zerubbabel’s day. Verse 6-7 states, “For thus says the Lord of hosts: Yet once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations,” using symbolic language of de-creation—shaking creation’s foundations, reversing Genesis 1’s stability—and a reverse exodus as enemies are subdued. Within four years (520–516 BC), Darius I overthrew Israel’s enemies, decreeing their wealth fund the temple’s rebuilding (Ezra 6:8-12), fulfilling the “desire of all nations” and filling the temple with glory. This imminent fulfillment, aligning with the audience’s lifetime, reflects covenantal restoration.

Haggai 2 also foreshadows an antitype in AD 70. Hebrews 12:26, written c. AD 66, echoes, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens,” fulfilled within four years as Rome, God’s instrument, overthrew kingdom-enemies resisting the new covenant temple (Ephesians 2:21-22, 1 Peter 2:5). The de-creation—shaking heavens and earth—and reverse exodus of the unfaithful, crushed in AD 70 (Matthew 8:12, Revelation 3:9), transitioned to a heavenly House (Hebrews 9:11, Revelation 21:2-3), with the remnant and Gentiles forming “all Israel” (Romans 11:25-27). This dual fulfillment, spanning 4 years each, prefigures Matthew 24’s symbolic upheaval.

9. Joel 1-2: The Day of the Lord “Near” with Locusts in 584 BC

Joel 1-3 addresses two “days of the Lord.” Joel 1:15 cries, “Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is near,” and Joel 2:1 repeats, “the day of the Lord is coming; it is near,” depicting a locust plague darkening skies (2:10). This symbolizes de-creation, reversing Genesis 1’s fruitfulness, and a reverse exodus as the land empties. This was fulfilled in 584 BC by the Chaldean armies, as Foy Wallace states,

“The locust visions of Joel and John are parallel—the former describing the Old Testament war of Nebuchadnezzar on the Jews, the latter the Neroan war of AD 70 on Judea and Jerusalem. Joel referred to the locusts as ‘people set in battle array,’ for battle formation. John referred to the locusts as ‘chariots running to battle.’ The parallels are unmistakable.”[13]

If prophesied around 594 BC, this 10–20-year fulfillment aligns with the audience’s lifetime. So the day of the Lord being “near” in chapters 1-2 (1:15; 2:1, 10) was fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophet’s audience but the “last days” coming of Christ or “day of the Lord is near” in chapter 3 (3:14) would only be “near” when the “last days” and “appointed time” would come in the first century (2:28; 3:1 LXX).  The same thing is taught in Deuteronomy 31-32.  When Israel entered into her “last days” (31:29), “perverse generation” (32:5, 20), is when her final “end” (32:20, 29) would come.  At that “appointed time” her judgment would be “near” when Christ would come in vengeance (32:35-43 LXX).

10. Amos 5: The Day of the Lord to Judge Israel in 722 BCE

Amos 5 warns of the “day of the Lord” with, “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord!” (5:18) and “Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light?” (5:20). The symbolic language, “as if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him” (5:19), depicts de-creation—darkness reversing Genesis 1’s light—and a reverse exodus as the people flee under Assyria’s judgment (5:27). Prophesied around 760 BC, fulfilled in 722 BCE, this 38-year span aligns with the audience’s lifetime, reflecting covenantal unmaking. Commentators concur,

“The final theme in these chapters is that because Israel and its king have rejected Amos and other prophets, God will send the Day of the Lord, a great and terrible act of justice, on Israel. More specifically, he predicts that a powerful nation will come to conquer and destroy their cities and take them away into exile. We know that his prediction came true some 40 years later. The Assyrian empire swooped in and did exactly as Amos said they would (2 Kgs. 17).”[14] 

11. Micah 1: The Judgment on Samaria and Jerusalem in 722–701 BC

Micah 1 prophesies judgment on Samaria and Jerusalem, with, “For behold, the Lord is coming out of his place… the mountains will melt under him, and the valleys will split” (1:3-4). This symbolic language of de-creation—melting mountains reversing Genesis 1’s stability—and reverse exodus—fleeing (1:13)—marks God’s judgment through Assyria (1:6, 1:9). Prophesied around 735 BCE, fulfilled with Samaria’s fall (722 BCE) and Jerusalem’s siege (701 BCE) within 34–35 years, this aligns with the audience’s lifetime.

12. Malachi 3-4 and Isaiah 40: The Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord in AD 70

Malachi 3:1-5 and 4:1-6, with Isaiah 40:3-10, prophesy the “great and dreadful day of the Lord,” fulfilled in Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70, heralded by John the Baptist. Malachi 3 and 4 form a seamless prophecy, depicting one fiery judgment where Christ, the “sun of righteousness” (4:2), comes as the Lord of the “great and dreadful day” (4:5). Malachi 3:1 states, “Behold, I send my messenger [John], and he will prepare the way before me [Jesus]. And the Lord… will suddenly come to his temple,” with a “refiner’s fire” (3:2-3) purifying the faithful and a “burning oven” (4:1) consuming the wicked, leaving “neither root nor branch.” Isaiah 40:3-10 complements this, with John as the “voice crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’” (Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3), heralding a coming where “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed” (40:5) in judgment: “All flesh is grass… the grass withers” (40:6-7) under God’s judgment, with “His reward… with Him” (40:10; cf. Matt. 16:27-28).

John, as Elijah (Luke 1:17), preached the kingdom “at hand” (Matt. 3:2), warning of “wrath about to come” (Matt. 3:7, Greek mello), with the “ax at the root” and “unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:10-12). The “winnowing fork” already “in His hand” (Matt. 3:12) also underscores the imminent AD 70 judgment, fulfilled within 40 years as Rome destroyed Jerusalem. John Lightfoot links Malachi 4:6’s curse to this event:

“These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament, ‘lest I smite the earth with a curse,’ Mal. 4:6; and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.”[15]

He ties Malachi 3:1-2 to Christ’s AD 70 “day of the Lord”:

“That Christ’s taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ’s ‘coming in glory,’ and his ‘coming in the clouds,’ Dan. 7:13; and ‘the day of the Lord,’ see Mal. 3:1, 2.”[16]

Adam Clarke sees Malachi 4:1 as “the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans,” with the curse of 4:6 smiting the land due to impenitence, and on 4:2:

“As the sun, by the rays of light and heat, revives, cheers, and fructifies the whole creation… so Jesus Christ, by the influences of his grace and Spirit, shall quicken, awaken, enlighten, warm, invigorate, heal, purify, and refine every soul that believes in him.”[17]

The De-creation of Matthew 24:29

Many Evangelical Zionists are unaware that for centuries, both historical and modern biblical commentaries have interpreted the de-creation language and the “coming of Christ” in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 as symbolic apocalyptic language fulfilled in the events of AD 67–70. John L. Bray’s Matthew 24 Fulfilled provides extensive documentation of Christian commentators, past and present, supporting this view. Below are key examples illustrating this interpretive tradition.

“[T]his language was borrowed from the ancient hieroglyphics:  for as in hieroglyphic writing, the sun, moon, and stars were used to represent states and empires, kings, queens, and nobility; their eclipse and extinction, temporary disasters or overthrow, & so in like manner, the holy prophets call kings and empires by names of the heavenly luminaries; their misfortunes and overthrow are represented by eclipses and extinction; stars falling from the firmament are employed to denote the destruction of the nobility, & (Warburton’s Divine Legation, vol. 2, book 4, section 4, quoted by N. Nisbett, Our Lord’s Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem, 22-23).”[18]

Adam Clarke, after addressing the historical judgments and apocalyptic language of Isaiah 13:9-10; Ezek. 32:7-8, goes on to address:

“The destruction of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes is represented by casting down some of the host of heaven, and the stars to the ground.  See Dan. Viii. 10. And this very destruction of Jerusalem is represented by the Prophet Joel, chap ii. 30, 31 by showing wonders in heaven and in earth—darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood.  This general mode of describing these judgments leaves no room to doubt the propriety of its application in the present case (Adam Clarke, commentary on Matthew 24:29).”[19]

The context of Matthew 23–24 centers on the impending fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. The sun, moon, and stars symbolize Israel’s covenantal order and its rulers, whose authority was stripped away by AD 70 due to their rejection of Christ and His apostles and prophets (cf. Matt. 23:31–36).

Reformed and Puritan theologian John Owen had this to say of the de-creation language in Matthew 24:29:

“And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language that seems to set forth the end of the world.  So, Isa. 34:4; which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom.  And our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew 24, he sets it out by expressions of the same importance.  It is evident then, that, in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by ‘heavens’ and ‘earth’, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood.”[20]

John L. Bray correctly writes of the stars falling from the heavens in Matthew 24:29:

“Jewish writers understood the light to mean the law; the moon, the Sanhedrin; and the stars, the Rabbis.”[21]

This interpretation aligns with the narrative flow of Matthew 23–24, where Jesus condemns the religious leaders, signaling the end of their covenantal authority in AD 70. Following this judgment, God established His Church as the new covenant people, reigning with Him in a heavenly kingdom (cf. Heb. 12:22–28).

Conclusion

The Old Testament’s prophetic tapestry—woven through Isaiah 10, 13, 19, 34, 40, Obadiah, Ezekiel 7, 12, 30, 32, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Haggai 2, Joel 1-2, Amos 5, Micah 1, and Malachi 3-4—reveals imminent judgments, fulfilled within 3.5 to 40/65 years. These texts use symbolic apocalyptic language—God on clouds, darkened skies, and de-creation—with reverse exodus motifs to depict covenantal unmaking, from Northern Israel’s fall (722 BC) to Judah’s exile (586 BC). Malachi 3-4 and Isaiah 40’s prophecy of the “great and dreadful day,” fulfilled through John the Baptist’s imminent warnings, with the “winnowing fork” in Christ’s hand, and Christ’s AD 70 coming as the “sun of righteousness,” culminated in the curse on Israel’s land. Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:29-34) draws from these OT precedents, using “immediately,” “near,” and “this generation” to signal the temple’s destruction and the old covenant’s end within 40 years. This framework reveals Matthew 24 as a symbolic portrayal of covenantal judgment, where Christ’s cloud-coming and de-creation imagery herald the swift transition to the new covenant age, preserving and saving the faithful remnant in His eternal kingdom.

[1] Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), 137.

[2] Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1970), 91.

[3] Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), 137.

[4] Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2–14:23 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1970), 91.

[5] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1059.

[6] Walvoord and Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 1059.

[7] Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor, 2013), p. 417

[8] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 376.

[9] Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 2 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1985), 850. Free access online as well.

[10] Gary DeMar, LAST DAYS MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1994), 262.

[11] Ibid.

[12] David Chilton, DAYS OF VENGEANCE AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Tyler, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 541.

[13] Foy Wallace, The Book of Revelation (Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1966), 183. See also Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 598.  Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), 226.

[14] Enduring Word Bible Commentary https://bibleproject.com/guides/book-of-amos/

[15] 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.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible.

[18] John L. Bray, MATTHEW 24 FULFILLED, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 1996) 36.

[19] Ibid. 137

[20] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth pub., Vol. 9, p. 134. See also pp. 132-139.

[21] Bray, Ibid., 125