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
| Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28 /
Luke 17:20-37 |
Olivet Discourse Matthew 24 / Luke 21 / Mark 13 |
| (1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) | (1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Mark 13:9) |
| (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18) | (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9) |
| (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) | (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11) |
| (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22) | (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13) |
| (5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) | (5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10) |
| (6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) | (6) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30) |
| (7) Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27) | (7) Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31) |
| (8) Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 16:27) | (8) Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34) |
| (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) | (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32) |
| (10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming (Matt. 16:28) | (10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming (Luke 21:16–18) |
| (11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Matt. 16:28) | (11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Luke 21:16) |
| (12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation (Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38) | (12) All fulfilled in His “this generation” (Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32) |
| Luke 17:20–37 | Matthew 24:1–41 |
| (13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (17:31-33) | (13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (24:17ff.) |
| (14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (17:24) | (14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (24:27) |
| (15) Vultures gathered at corpse (17:37) | (15) Vultures gathered at corpse (24:28) |
| (16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (17:26-30) | (16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (24:37ff.) |
| (17) One taken / one left (17:34-36) | (17) One taken / one left (24:41ff.) |
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:
| Feature | Matthew 24–25:1–13 (Parable of the Ten Virgins) | 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 |
Isaiah 25:6–9 |
| Event | Bridegroom’s arrival (parousia – Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39) for the wedding feast | Lord’s descent (parousia) with trumpet and gathering | Lord’s banquet on the mountain, swallowing up death |
| Key Term: “Meet” | Apantēsis (go out to meet the bridegroom, v. 1, 6) | Apantēsis (caught up to meet the Lord in the air, v. 17) | N/A (implied gathering for the feast) |
| Resurrection Connection | Implied spiritual resurrection via marriage feast (new covenant life) | Explicit resurrection of the dead and transformation of the living | Death swallowed up forever, veil removed from nations |
| Marriage Feast Imagery | Wedding feast with bridegroom, wise virgins enter | Implied union with Christ in the air | Eschatological banquet for all peoples |
| Timeframe | Within “this generation” (Matthew 24:34), AD 70 | “We who are alive and remain,” first-century expectation | Fulfilled in AD 70 with old covenant’s end, per full preterism |
| Theological Significance | Divorce from old covenant Israel, marriage to the Church | Believers’ eternal union with Christ | God’s victory over death, new covenant established |
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:
| Matthew 16:27-28 | Matthew 24:30-31 |
Matthew 25:31 |
| 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “For the Son of Man is going to come” (16:27) | 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (24:30) | 1) Christ comes (Grk. erchomai): “When the Son of Man comes” (25:31) |
| 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (16:27) | 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With His angels” (24:31) | 2) Christ comes with His angels: “With all His holy angels” (25:31) |
| 3) Christ comes in glory: “In the glory of His Father” (16:27) | 3) Christ comes in glory: “With power and great glory” (24:30) | 3) Christ comes in glory: “In His glory” (25:31) |
| 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in lifetime of some: “He will repay each person according to what they have done… some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming” (16:27-28) | 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will send His angels to gather His elect… this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (24:30-34) | 4) Christ comes in judgment to reward/repay in their “generation”: “The Son of Man… will separate the sheep from the goats,” rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked (25:31-46; cf. 24:34 for generational timing) |
| 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (16:28) | 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “Coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30). Saints inherit “redemption” and kingdom (Lk. 21:27-32). | 5) Christ and His Kingdom come together in power and great glory: “The Son of Man… sits on His glorious throne” (25:31). Saints inherit “eternal life” and the kingdom (24:30-32; 25:31-46). |
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
| Parable | Key Figure | Time Reference | Audience Judged | Link to Matthew 24:34 |
OT/NT Parallel |
| Ten Virgins (25:1–13) | Bridegroom | “Delayed” (chronizontos) | Same virgins | “Watch” (v. 13) echoes 24:42, tied to “this generation” | Isaiah 25:6–9 (eschatological banquet) |
| Talents (25:14–30) | Master | “After a long time” (meta polun chronon) | Same servants | Readiness aligns with 24:34’s timeframe | Isaiah 40:10; 62:11; (comes to reward) |
| Sheep and Goats (25:31–46) | Son of Man | Immediate judgment | Jewish tribes / Gentile nations (70 nations via Temple), devil/angels (Sanhedrin or demons) | Judgment aligns with 24:34; spiritual / ripple effects in AD 70 | Joel 3:1–2 (nations); Matthew 10:15 (Sodom); Revelation 20:10 (devil); Numbers 29:12–34 (70 bulls) |
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
|
Text |
Event Described | “Taken” Means |
“Left” Means |
| Matt. 24:37–39 (Noah analogy) | Flood judgment | Swept away to destruction (judgment) | Spared (like Noah’s family) |
| Matt. 24:40–41 | One taken, one left | Taken to judgment | Left to inherit the kingdom |
| Luke 17:27, 29 | Flood and Sodom judgments | “Destroyed them all” | Spared (e.g., Noah, Lot) |
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:
| Matthew 24:1–41 |
Luke 17:20–37 |
| #1 Fleeing from housetops & fields | #2 Son of Man comes as sunshine |
| #2 Son of Man comes as sunshine | #4 Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah |
| #3 Vultures gathered at corpse | #1 Fleeing from housetops & fields |
| #4 Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah—Gentry claims different judgment in Future | #5 One taken / one left |
| #5 One taken / one left—Gentryclaims different judgment in Future | #3 Vultures gathered at corpse |
Was Luke so confused and forgetful, that when Christ taught on His second coming in Luke 17 and Luke 21, Luke only addressed ONE coming while Matthew pointed out that there are really TWO comings? If Luke understood Christ teaching two comings in the Olivet Discourse, then why does he mix up the order of those events in Luke 17 to be one and the same event?
When we compare Jesus’ teaching on His second coming and the arrival of His kingdom in Luke 17:20–37 with Luke 21:27–32, we realize that both His kingdom and second coming would be fulfilled within Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” and His kingdom and Parousia presence would not be physically seen, because it would be revealed “within the hearts” of His people. He would come as “The Sun of Righteousness…shining from the east to the west,” “healing” and bringing resurrection life “within the hearts” of His people, while the old covenant kingdom would be desolated and never remembered.
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
| Feature | Matt. 24–25 | 1 Thess. 4–5 |
1 Cor. 15 |
| Christ’s Return (Parousia) | 24:27, 30 (“Son of Man coming on the clouds”) | 4:15–16 (“Lord Himself will descend”) | 15:23 (“at His coming”) |
| Trumpet Sound | 24:31 (“great sound of a trumpet”) | 4:16 (“with the trumpet of God”) | 15:52 (“at the last trumpet”) |
| Gathering of Believers | 24:31 (“angels will gather His elect”) | 4:17 (“caught up together… to meet the Lord”) | 15:52 (“we shall be changed”) |
| Unknown Timing | 24:36 (“day and hour no one knows”) | 5:1–2 (“like a thief in the night”) | 15:51–52 (“in a moment”) |
| Judgment/Consummation | 24:37–39 (Noah analogy, unbelievers judged); 25:31–46 (nations/devil) | 5:3 (“sudden destruction”) | 15:24 (“then comes the end”) |
| Contemporary Expectation | 24:34 (“this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”) | 4:15–17 (“we who are alive and remain”) | 15:51–52 (“we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”) |
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.