Acts 1:3–11 and the AD 70 Parousia: Jesus’ 40 Days and the New Covenant Second Exodus 40 Years Generation

Introduction

As Full Preterists, we stand on the shoulders of exegetes like John Lightfoot, John Gill, Milton Terry, and Keith Mathison to explore Acts 1:3, 8–11. This article argues that Jesus’ 40-day post-resurrection ministry inaugurated a New Covenant second exodus (AD 30-70), fulfilled in AD 70, as anticipated by the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:5, 20). Peter applies this to his “perverse and crooked generation” (Acts 2:40), echoing Jesus and Paul, who frame their eschatology around Moses’ prophecy of judgment and a new covenant nation (Matt. 17:17; Phil. 2:15).  Lightfoot and Gill connect the “forty days” of Acts 1:3 to a 40-year Messianic transition (AD 30–70), rooted in the first exodus (Num. 13–14) and Jewish expectations of a second exodus, moving from the Old Covenant “this age” to the New Covenant “age to come” (cf. Dr. A. Cohen). This culminated in Christ’s cloud-coming via the Roman armies in AD 70 (Matt. 24:30).

Mathison applies all gospel references to the Son of Man’s coming (e.g., Matt. 10:22–23; 16:27–28; 24:27–30; 25:31; 26:64; Luke 17:20-37) to AD 70, and we concur that the cloud coming of Christ in Revelation 1:7 was also “shortly” fulfilled at this time (Rev. 1:1–22:7). We agree with Mathison that the Great Commission’s fulfillment in Acts 1:8 triggers Christ’s return in Acts 1:11, just as Matthew 24:14’s Great Commission fulfillment marked the cloud-coming in AD 70 (Matt. 24:30; Rom. 10:18).  But how does the Great Commission and AD 70 cloud of Christ in the gospels get changed to an end of world history Great Commission and physical coming of Jesus on clouds in Acts 1:8-11?

Unlike Mathison, Lightfoot, and Gill, Partial Preterist Milton Terry harmonized Matthew 24:30, Revelation 1:7, and Acts 1:11 to be one and the same AD 70 cloud coming of Christ event.

This article argues, based on theological sources, that Acts 1:3, 8–11 depicts a second exodus spanning 40 days, mirrored by a 40-year generation (AD 30–70), culminating in Christ’s AD 70 Parousia, marked by His cloud coming. Luke’s omission of the Great Commission “sign” in Luke 21 is addressed in Acts 1:8, fulfilling the “sign” of Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10 before AD 70, signaling the imminent consummation (Acts 1:11; 2:20–40; 17:31 YLT; 24:15 YLT). The Old Covenant promised land prefigured the “heavenly land” and “City” anticipated by Abraham and the prophets, which the Church inherited in AD 70, within an imminent timeframe (Heb. 10:1–13:14; Rev. 3:11–12; Gal. 4:26). At the Parousia, Christ enveloped His Church in His glory-cloud, fulfilling 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, John 14:2–3, 23, and Luke 17:20–37, enabling believers to dwell eternally in God’s presence (Rev. 21:3, 22).

Acts 1:3 the “Forty Days” and Second Exodus Generation (AD 30 – 70)

John Lightfoot wrote of these 40 days:

“Being seen of them forty days. It is a tradition. On the evening of the Passover they hanged Jesus.” “It is a tradition. R. Elizer saith, ‘The days of the Messiah are forty years,” according as it is said, ‘Forty years shall I be grieved with this generation.’ The Gloss is, “Because it is (in the future tense) it is a sign the prophecy is concerning the time to come.” It is ingenuously done, however, of these Jews, that they parallel that faithless generation that was in the days of the Messiah with that perverse and rebellious generation that had been in the wilderness: for they will, both of them, prove a loathing and offense to God for the space of forty years. And as those forty years in the wilderness were numbered according to the forty days in which the land had been searching; so also may those forty years of the Messiah be numbered according to the forty days wherein he was conversant amongst mankind after his resurrection from the dead.[1]

The Biblical Significance of the Forty Days 

John Gill, following John Lightfoot, emphasized the typological importance of the “forty days” in Acts 1:3:

“This number of ‘forty days’ is a remarkable one in Scripture. The flood was forty days upon the earth; and so long Moses was in the mount with God; such a number of days the spies were searching the land of Canaan; so many days Goliath presented himself to the armies of Israel; and so long a time Elijah went in the strength of the meat the angel provided for him; and for such a length of time the prophet Ezekiel was to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; and such a term of time was given out by Jonah for the destruction of Nineveh; and so many days Christ fasted, and was tempted in the wilderness.”[2] 

Gill’s enumeration of these Old Testament patterns underscores the forty days as a period of divine preparation, testing, or transition, setting the stage for Christ’s post-resurrection ministry as the inauguration of a new covenant exodus.

Jewish Traditions and the Messianic Expectation

Gill continues, addressing Jewish traditions about the Messiah:

“The Jews pretend, that forty days before Jesus was put to death he was led forth, and a crier went before him, declaring, that whoever would, had liberty to testify to his innocence if they could, but no man appeared for him: but this is false; the truth of the matter is, that for forty days after his resurrection he showed himself to his disciples, and by proving the truth of his resurrection, he proved his own innocence and uprightness. If the testimony of Rabbenu Hakadosh, as cited by Galatinus, could be depended on, the Jews had a notion of this forty days’ conversation of the Messiah with his disciples, after his resurrection; who say, ‘the Messiah, after his resurrection, shall converse with the righteous, and they shall hear his precepts “forty days”, answerable to those forty days in which he shall be in the wilderness to afflict his soul, before they shall kill him; and these being finished, he shall ascend to heaven, and sit at the right hand of God, as it is said, Psalm 110:1.’ But this seems rather to be the pious fraud of some Christian, than the words of a Jew.”[3]

Gill critiques these traditions, noting their unreliability while acknowledging their reflection of a Messianic expectation tied to a forty-day period, which aligns with the post-resurrection ministry in Acts 1:3.

The Typological Second Exodus (AD 30–70)

Gill concludes by connecting the forty days to a forty-year Messianic period:

“However, they do say, that ‘the days of the Messiah are “forty days”, as it is said, Psalm 95:10 “forty years long was I grieved”; or, as they interpret it, “shall I be grieved with this generation”: intimating, that the generation of the Messiah, and of the wilderness, would be much alike, and equally grieving to God, and reckoning a day for a year, as the Lord did with that generation, Numbers 14:33. These forty days Christ was with his disciples, may be an emblem of the forty years which were to run out from his death, to his coming again to take vengeance on the Jewish nation; for so long time was there from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem.”[4] 

These insights from Lightfoot and Gill establish the typological significance of the forty days in Acts 1:3, mirroring the forty-year second exodus generation (AD 30–70). Rooted in Old Testament patterns, this motif is further illuminated by Jesus’ role as the Passover Lamb and the fulfillment of the exodus narrative in Luke and John, culminating in the AD 70 Parousia.

The Inauguration of Christ’s “Exodus” and the Passover Lamb (Luke 9:30–31; John 6)

In Luke 9:26–27, Jesus declared that some disciples would witness His second coming in glory and judgment. Eight days later, the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28–36) revealed its nature, as Moses and Elijah, representing the Law and Prophets, appeared in glory and spoke of His “exodus”:

“[They] appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31 NAB). 

Scholars such as Tabb, Walton, Estelle, Watts, Fitzmyer, Talbert, Carson, and Moessner affirm that Luke’s “exodus” (9:31) signifies a second exodus motif, encompassing Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension as a new act of deliverance. This exodus achieved liberation from sin and spiritual death, fulfilling the anti-type redemptive pattern of the original exodus.

The Transfiguration prefigures Christ’s second coming in AD 70, when He fulfilled “all that was written” in the Law (Moses) and Prophets (Elijah) within His generation (Luke 21:22, 32). The fading glory of Moses and Elijah symbolized the temporary Old Covenant, while Christ’s increasing glory heralded the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:7–18). The Father’s rejection of Peter’s proposal to build three tents (Luke 9:33–35) underscored the Old Covenant’s transience, which vanished in AD 70, urging disciples to heed Christ’s enduring words of the New Covenant revelation (cf. Matt. 5:17–18; 24:35).

As the Passover Lamb, crucified on the day of preparation (John 19:14, 31), Jesus presented Himself in John 6 as the Bread from heaven, promising eternal life: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). He clarified that His words are “spirit and life” (John 6:63), emphasizing spiritual participation in the New Covenant through faith, not literal consumption or sacramentalism, refuting Roman Catholic and other interpretations.

The typology of the sacrificial lamb is simple to understand.  The sinner or High Priest would lay his hand on the lamb symbolically transferring the sins of the person or nation to the lamb.  The lamb would then be slain and put upon the alter and the cloud ascending to heaven was a sweet aroma to the Lord.  The lamb died taking the sin and spiritual separation of the sinner or nation upon it.  The hope was that when Messiah came, He would take away the sin and spiritual separation of the sinner so that they could be in God’s presence forever.  While the animal took on the sin and separation for the sinner, the concept of the cloud arising from the sacrifice to heaven was understood as the sinner’s soul now rising to be accepted to God.  So the smoke arising from the sacrifice not only represents the prayers from the souls/spirits of man (or corporate Israel or the corporate church), but the separation of the physical body and the soul/spirit at death.  Some have pointed out this process demonstrates Israel’s concept of the afterlife in the ancient world.[5]  I would tend to agree with that observation.  Robert Johnston observes that the smoke/cloud ascending to heaven not only represents the prayers to God but the soul’s ascent to heaven awaiting acceptance and access to God’s presence:

“When the blood of the animal is poured on the base of the altar of the earth, its soul is sanctified and is released to appear at the base of the altar of God in heaven. This depicts what happens to each individual soul who has committed his or her life to God when they die. The Apostle John saw this and testified, ‘And when he had opened the 5th seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held’” (Rev. 6:9).[6]

Likewise, Jesus, as the ultimate Passover Lamb, bore our sins (2 Cor. 5:21), enduring spiritual separation from the Father (Matt. 27:46) to secure eternal fellowship with God. His atonement addressed the spiritual death that came through Adam, not physical death. It deals with physical death in the sense that after men died in sin under the Old Covenant and prior to AD 70, their souls or spirits were held in Hades or Abraham’s bosom awaiting Christ’s redemptive work and deliverance. Christ did not physically die so we won’t physically die.  But Christ did die a certain kind of death (separated from the Father) so we won’t have to.  Defining His substitutionary work as preventing physical death leads to an untenable conclusion: if physical death were the “last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26), Christ’s redemption would appear ineffective, as believers continue to die physically. However, the Wuest New Testament accurately translates 1 Corinthians 15:26 as the “death” (spiritual death through Adam), which was “being destroyed” through Christ’s work and fully vanquished at His AD 70 Parousia positionally for those “in Christ.” Jesus’ promise that believers “will never die” (John 8:51; 11:26) refers to spiritual life and not a biological reality for us just as “never thirst” or “never hunger” are spiritual realities.   Consider the following texts:

1). Matthew 27:46: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”—reflecting Christ’s bearing of spiritual separation. 

2). Romans 5:12–21: Sin and spiritual death entered through Adam, but Christ’s righteous act brought justification and spiritual eternal life. 

3). 2 Corinthians 5:21: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 

4). John 8:51; 11:26: Believers who keep Christ’s word “will never see death,” referring to spiritual life in God’s presence.

The following chart clarifies this contrast:

Adam’s One Trespass

Christ’s One Righteous Act

Sin entered the world Righteousness entered the world
Spiritual death and separation reigned Eternal life and fellowship with God reign
Condemnation through Adam’s disobedience Justification through Christ’s obedience
Many made sinners in Adam Many made righteous in Christ

Through Adam, spiritual death and separation from God reigned; through Christ, believers receive grace, righteousness, and eternal life (Rom. 5:17–21). Christ became sin to satisfy God’s wrath, enabling believers to “become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). His redemptive work, completed at the AD 70 Parousia, ushered in the New Covenant creation, where believers are “born of God” and “cannot” commit the “sin leading to death” (1 John 3:9; 5:16–18). As John once again affirms in Revelation 3:12, those in the New Jerusalem remain in God’s presence, never returning to the spiritual death and darkness that is outside the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21-22).

In the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist view, Christ’s substitutionary atonement is fully accomplished and applied, achieving its complete purpose. Believers are “in Christ,” clothed in His righteousness, and will “never die” spiritually (John 11:26). Through His cross and “soon” second coming (1 Cor. 13:10–12; Rev. 22:4–7, 10, 20), we stand perfect before the Father, unashamed beholding His face in the New Covenant creation.

Physical Death and Resurrection of Christ also Served as a “Sign”

His physical resurrection fulfilled Old Testament prophecy that His flesh would not see corruption (Psa. 16:10; Acts 2:25-31), serving as a miraculous “sign” in first-century Jewish culture, where decay began after three days.  Since “signs” point to something, what was Jesus physical resurrection (and that of Lazarus) a sign of and what did it point to?  Per John 20:24-31it pointed to belief in Christ so that men could have eternal spiritual “life.”  Jesus’ miracles—making the lame walk (Matt. 9:1-8), giving sight to the blind (John 9), feeding thousands (John 6:1-15, 35), and raising Lazarus (John 11:1-44)—were “signs” that pointed to deeper spiritual realities: forgiveness, spiritual sight, eternal sustenance, and resurrection from spiritual death.

Critics who insist that human personhood requires a physical body and therefore the resurrection couldn’t have been fulfilled in AD 70, or that Jesus must retain one to serve as our “eternal high priest” (Heb. 7:24-25), are refuted by Scripture’s depiction of disembodied yet fully human identities. Samuel’s spirit, described as an “old man” (1 Sam. 28:14), retains his personhood without a physical body while retaining a spiritual recognizable body fit for the afterlife, and Jesus’ promise to the thief, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), affirms their personal identities in the spiritual realm. Similarly, the claim that Jesus’ priesthood depends on a physical body falter, as His three-day death would imply a lapse in His “eternal” priesthood (Heb. 7:16). The idea that Jesus was not the eternal God-man or High Priest for 3 days is rank heresy for sure.  Instead of embracing this heresy, it should be clear that His divine-human nature engulfed in the glory cloud and ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9) ensures unbroken eternal fellowship with the Father and intercession, fulfilling the spiritual second exodus.  Per Hebrews 9-10 Christ was the first trailblazer that would bring the rest of His Church into the New Covenant heavenly Most Holy Place at His “in a very, very little while” High Priestly second appearing to consummate the second exodus in AD 70.

The sacrificial cloud imagery illuminates Acts 1:9. After forty days, Jesus was the “first” to cross into the heavenly promised land, or heavenly Most Holy Place returning to the Father’s pre-incarnate glory (John 17:5). His physical form was temporary, as seen in Old Testament theophanies where God appeared in human form but returned to His spiritual state—in one case ascending in the fire and smoke/cloud of a sacrifice (Gen. 18; 32:24-30; Judg. 13:20). Jesus remains fully human in His soul and spirit, integrated into the Logos, interceding eternally (Heb. 7:25).

Post-resurrection, Jesus recapitulated exodus provisions: teaching the kingdom (Acts 1:3), providing miraculous sustenance (John 21:1–14), imparting enlightenment (Luke 24:27, 44–49), and 10 days later giving the Holy Spirit for guidance and protection (Acts 2; John 14; Exod. 16; 19-20; 13:21-22). This sets the stage for the Great Commission and His promised return as the High Priest would appear a “second time” from the Temple to the eagerly awaiting congregation.

Jesus’ forty days also mirrors the second exodus motif in that Moses functioned as Israel’s High Priest and fasted for forty days and ascended into God’s glory cloud.  Jesus is the New Covenant Moses that is an eternal High Priest that would bring all of His people into the glory cloud on top of the heavenly Mount Zion in AD 70.  Perhaps on this note we need to take a brief rabbit trail to 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 = Acts 1:11

Since I made the typological connection between Moses fasting for 40 days and ascending to the top of Mount Sinai, entering the glory cloud with God, and Christ ministering to His disciples for 40 days before ascending to heaven into the Most Holy Place, I should unpack that a bit. The brief take is that after 40 days Moses ascends to the Most Holy Place glory cloud presence of the Father to mediate the old covenant while after 40 days Jesus ascends in the glory cloud in the heavenly Most Holy Place to intercede and mediate the new covenant.  He returns in AD 70 in the glory cloud and establishes His kingdom and presence “within” His Church.  We should make these connections especially since many equate the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Let’s briefly unpack 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, focusing on the typology.

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 the trumpet gathering or chatting away 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.”  

Acts 1:8, 11 and The Great Commission and Cloud Coming of Christ

 Partial preterists like Keith Mathison admit that fulfilling the Great Commission of Acts 1:8 triggers Christ’s coming in Acts 1:11:

“The time frame [of Christ’s Second Coming] is hinted at in the preceding context. The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witnesses ‘in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.”[7]

I agree that Acts 1:8’s fulfillment precedes Acts 1:11’s cloud coming. Mathison uses Romans 10:18 to prove Matthew 24:14’s Great Commission was fulfilled pre-AD 70, thus Matthew 24:30’s cloud coming occurred then. Romans 10:18 employs both Greek terms for “world”—ge (land/earth) and oikumene (inhabited world)—confirming that both commissions (Matt. 24:14; Acts 1:8) were fulfilled by AD 70, so both cloud comings (Matt. 24:30; Acts 1:11) occurred then.  This should be especially apparent since in Luke 21 he omits the sign of the Great Commission because he will use it in Acts 1:8 as an outline for the rest of the book of Acts.

The gospel’s proclamation (Matt. 24:14; oikoumenē, Roman world) was fulfilled by AD 62, as Paul declared it “proclaimed in all creation” (Col. 1:23; ekērychthē, aorist) and “to all nations” (Rom. 16:26; ethnē). Acts 1:8 outlines Acts 2–28, tracing the gospel’s spread to the Roman Empire’s ends. The following charts align Matthew 24:14 with Acts 1:8.

Great Commission Fulfillment

Prophecy Fulfillment Context/Notes
“Gospel… preached in all the world [oikoumenē]… then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14) “…Their sound has gone out to all the earth… ends of the world [oikoumenē]” (Rom. 10:18) Oikoumenē: Roman Empire (Luke 2:1). Fulfilled by AD 57–58.
“Gospel must first be published among all nations [ethnos]” (Mark 13:10) “…My gospel… made known to all nations [ethnos]…” (Rom. 16:25–26) Ethnos: Gentile peoples (Acts 10:35). Fulfilled by AD 57–58.
“Go into all the world [kosmos]…” (Mark 16:15) “…Gospel… in all the world [kosmos]…” (Col. 1:5–6) Kosmos: Roman sphere. Fulfilled by AD 62.
“Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation [ktisis]” (Mark 16:15) “…Gospel… preached to every creature [ktisis]…” (Col. 1:23) Ktisis: Humanity. Fulfilled by AD 62.
“Witnesses… in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, end of the earth [gē]” (Acts 1:8) Jerusalem: Acts 2; Judea: Acts 8:1; Samaria: Acts 8:5; End: Acts 10–28; “…to all the earth [gē]” (Rom. 10:18) Gē: Roman Empire. Fulfilled by AD 62; Rev. 14:6 (AD 65–66) symbolizes completion.

 Acts 1:8 Commission Fulfillment and Outpouring of Holy Spirit on Each Group

Region / Acts 1:8

Scriptural Fulfillment People Groups Reached

Holy Spirit Outpouring

Jerusalem Acts 2:1–41: At Pentecost, 3,000 convert (2:41). Acts 3–5: Further growth (4:4). Jews/proselytes from various nations (Acts 2:5–11). Acts 2:1–4: Tongues; Acts 4:31: Boldness.
Judea Acts 8:1, 4: Preaching in Judea. Acts 8:26–39: Ethiopian eunuch. Jews, Gentile proselytes in Judea (Acts 8:1, 8:36–39). Acts 8:29: Spirit guides Philip.
Samaria Acts 8:5–25: Philip’s preaching, many believe (8:12). Samaritans (Acts 8:5). Acts 8:14–17: Spirit received.
End of the Earth Acts 10:1–48: Cornelius’ household. Acts 13–28: Paul’s missions to Rome; “…to all the earth [gē]” (Rom. 10:18). Gentiles, Jews in Roman Empire (Acts 10:35; 13:46–48). Acts 10:44–48; 19:6: Tongues, prophecy.

These charts confirm Jesus’ gospel mandate was fulfilled within the Roman oikoumenē by AD 62, as evidenced by the Spirit’s outpouring. The Greek terms—oikoumenē (Roman world, Luke 2:1), ethnē (people groups, Acts 10:35), and gē (land/region, Luke 21:23)—reflect a first-century scope, fulfilling the Great Commission before the “end of the [Old Covenant] age” (Matt. 24:14; 28:19–20; Acts 1:8) and thus within Jesus’ and Paul’s contemporary “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

Thus, Paul’s statement in Romans 10:18 demonstrates that both Matthew 24:14 and Acts 1:8 were fulfilled, triggering Christ’s AD 70 cloud coming (Matt. 24:30; Acts 1:11), as detailed below:

Element

Matt. 24:14, 30 Acts 1:8, 11

Fulfillment in Romans 10:18

Great Commission “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world [oikumene] as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth [ge].” (Acts 1:8) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth [ge], and their words to the ends of the world [oikumene].’” (Romans 10:18)
Cloud Coming “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11) Both commissions use ge and oikumene, showing pre-AD 70 fulfillment (e.g., Colossians 1:23 for oikumene; Acts’ progression: Jerusalem [Acts 2], Samaria [Acts 8], Judea/Gentiles [Acts 10–19]), thus both comings in AD 70.
Scope and Sign Preached to nations (ethne) before the end/tribulation; precedes cloud coming. Witnesses to ends of earth/land; precedes cloud coming. Paul confirms world-wide reach using both terms; Jews from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) and empowered at Pentecost to fulfill it.

Ge refers to “the then known lands, regions, territories, countries, etc.…”: 1) Jerusalem (Acts 2 – Jews); 2) Samaria (Acts 8 – Samaritans); 3) Judea (Acts 10 – God-fearers); 4) The earth/land (Acts 19 – Gentiles). Partial preterists like Mathison cite Romans 10:18 to confirm Matthew 24:14’s fulfillment by AD 70, using oikumene. Since Paul also uses ge in the same verse, Romans 10:18 equally proves Acts 1:8’s fulfillment by AD 70.

Having established that the Great Commission’s fulfillment by AD 62 triggered Christ’s cloud coming in AD 70, we now examine the nature of that return in Acts 1:9-11. The cloud imagery, central to both Jesus’ ascension and His promised return, ties directly to the second exodus motif, where God’s glory cloud guided and judged Israel, now fulfilled in Christ’s spiritual presence and power exhibited in AD 70.

Acts 1:9-11 Christ Would Come Back in a Similar Way He Left

Many Futurists insist that Jesus’ physical body was seen ascending into the sky. However, Acts 1:9 states, “He was lifted up, and a cloud received Him from their eyes.” Jesus was seen before being “lifted up,” but it is unclear if He was directly seen ascending.

In Acts 1:11, the disciples were told Jesus would return “in like manner” as they saw Him enter heaven. This similarity lies in His coming in the Father’s glory-cloud (Matt. 16:27), not a physical body. Jesus was hidden in the cloud, indirectly seen entering the sky, like a son seeing his father’s plane take off without seeing his father’s body. Thus, His return “in like manner” would not involve physical visibility but a spiritual presence in the cloud, indwelling His church at the old covenant’s end (Luke 17:20–37; John 14:2–3, 23).

The phrase “in like manner” (Greek: hon tropon, Acts 1:11) denotes “in a similar way,” not “exactly the same way.” As Milton Terry notes, hon tropon in other biblical contexts implies similarity rather than identical form, emphasizing glory and purpose—here, coming on the cloud(s) with the purpose of gathering or catching Christ’s people to Himself and the Father (Matt. 24:30-31 / Acts 1:11 / 1 Thess. 4:15-17)—rather than a precise replication of His ascension. Luke could have used akribōs (meaning “precisely,” Acts 18:25) to indicate exactness, but his choice of hon tropon supports a similarity and spiritual fulfillment. Jesus did not ascend on a horse with a sword from His mouth, nor did “every eye” of the Tribes of the Land of Israel see Him leave (Rev. 19:11–15; 1:7). The argument for an “exact same way” return falters when other Second Coming passages are applied literally to His ascension.

Futurists err in claiming Jesus would return in exactly the same way as He “departed.” Scripture teaches He would return as He entered the sky—hidden in God’s glory cloud. The order of events is:

1). He was taken up (Acts 1:9).

2). A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).

These may have occurred simultaneously, as Partial Preterist Keith Mathison notes, suggesting the verse could read, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”[8] Jesus may have been instantly hidden in the cloud.

3). The disciples saw Him going into the sky, gazing intently as He ascended in the cloud (Acts 1:10–11).

In the Old Testament, God’s glory was never literally seen during judgments or salvation (Exod. 13:21; Isa. 19:1). Jesus, hidden in the glory cloud, was “taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16) and would return as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13 OG LXX; Rev. 1:7-17).

God became flesh, seen and touched as Jesus (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1), but this was temporary (Heb. 5:7), tied to the old covenant’s types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5–8; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13). Though no longer in the flesh, Jesus retains His human nature, as do saints in heaven, who remain human without physical bodies. Neither Jesus nor believers are “nonhuman,” contrary to some Futurist claims.

The angels’ question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky?” (Acts 1:11), implies Jesus would not return in physical form. Longing for His earthly form was futile; He had returned to His pre-incarnate glory. His return would mirror His ascent—hidden in the Father’s glory cloud- that would also engulf His Church in a spiritual and permanent indwelling (John 14:23; Luke 17:20-37; Heb. 12:22–24).  Most commentators and cross-references align Acts 1:11’s “in like manner” coming with the cloud comings or coming of Christ in Matthew 16:27–28, 24:30–31, 26:64–68; Luke 21:27; and Revelation 1:7, which Partial Preterists see as all fulfilled by AD 70. While the Partial Preterist system agrees these passages were fulfilled in AD 70 most inconsistently exempt Acts 1:11 to support Futurist creeds, despite admitting Christ was figuratively “seen” coming on the clouds in AD 70. Partial Preterist Milton Terry, however, harmonized these texts:

“Whatever the real nature of the Parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets. 

Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, “in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where [“in like manner”] occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not some particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.”[9]

Terry’s hermeneutic is solid in that he shows where “in like manner” is used elsewhere (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:28; 2 Tim. 3:8) to not be referring to the exact same way but in a similar way.  It is also rooted in the analogy of faith (Scripture interprets Scripture), confirming that Matthew 24:30–31, Acts 1:11, and Revelation 1:7 describe the same AD 70 cloud coming event.

Even before Terry there was prominent English theologian and scholar Zachary Pearce who likewise interpreted Acts 1:11 as fulfilled in AD 70:

“i.e. with marks of divine power; though not the same marks, yet as strong ones. It is not said, that they should see him come, as they saw him go: we may therefore suppose, that only Jesus’s coming to visit the Jewish nation in their destruction is here meant by the angels.” (Gary DeMar in his article Still Looking for that Slam Dunk Verse referencing Zachary Pearce, A Commentary, with notes, on the Four Evangelists and the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. (London: 1777), 2:4: https://bit.ly/3NX1N6W).

Acts 1:9-11 and the Second Exodus Inheritance Generation 

Lightfoot and Gill noted that the forty days of Acts 1:3 and the forty years (AD 30–70) mirror the first exodus, where twelve spies scouted the land for forty days, leading to a forty-year wilderness period (Num. 13-14; 32:11-13). Most spies doubted God’s promise, so that generation perished, while a remnant (Joshua and Caleb) and a new generation entered the promised land. Similarly, in the second exodus, most of Israel rejected Jesus as the Bread of heaven (John 6:35-41), crucifying Him. A remnant believed, entering a forty-year period (AD 30–70) where unbelievers perished, culminating in AD 67–70, while the remnant entered the “heavenly land” and “city” Abraham sought (Heb. 11:10, 16; 13:14).

Hebrews 3–4 and 10 parallel Israel’s wilderness generation with the new covenant generation awaiting its “rest.” Hebrews 10:25–37, citing Deuteronomy 32, declares this “Sabbath rest” was “drawing near,” with Christ’s coming “in a very little while” (Heb. 10:37), ushering in the heavenly inheritance.

First Exodus / Second Exodus Parallels

First Exodus / Types & Prophecies

Second Exodus / Anti-type & Fulfillments

1) Moses sent after 400 years of Israel’s groaning in Egyptian slavery 1) Jesus sent after 400 years of prophetic silence and humanity’s slavery under sin
2) Threatened at birth, flees until wrath of king passes 2) Threatened at birth, flees until wrath of king passes
3) Moses fasted 40 days in wilderness; received Law on a mountain 3) Jesus fasted 40 days in wilderness; gave Sermon on the Mount
4) Moses appointed 70 elders over 12 tribes 4) Jesus called 12 and sent 70 with authority
5) 3,000 die at giving of Law 5) 3,000 saved at giving of Spirit
6) Fading Old Covenant glory on Moses’ face, gone by AD 70 6) Enduring New Covenant glory in Christ’s face
7) Delivered Israel from physical slavery in Egypt 7) Delivered from spiritual slavery—OC Jerusalem as “spiritual Egypt” seeking to use the “administration of death” as a means to enslave through works-based salvation instead of grace.
8) After 40 years, Moses disqualified from entering land 8) After 40 years, Jesus brought His people into heavenly hand and city inheritance
9) Miracles proved Moses was God’s prophet sent to deliver from physical slavery 9) Miracles proved Jesus could deliver from sin and death – “so that you might know the Son of Man has power to forgive sin, pick up your mat and walk”
10) Spirit empowered skilled workers for Tabernacle during 40 years 10) Spirit given for 40 years to build and mature NC Temple until OC’s “end”
11) Feasts as “types and shadows” of Messiah’s coming work 11) Messiah was “about to” fulfilled the Law and feasts, removing the old system
12) Moses foretold “last days” generation facing judgment and Messiah’s reign 12) Jesus foretold “this generation” would see Israel’s end and His kingdom
13) Trumpet at Sinai, God descended in cloud to marry Israel 13) Trumpet at Zion, Christ gathered Church in glory cloud to marry her
14) Exodus through Red Sea birthed Israel as heaven and earth 14) Deliverance from Law and tribulation birthed Church as new creation

The first exodus provided the pattern: deliverance after 400 years, 40 years of testing, covenant at a mountain, divine glory, miraculous provision, trumpet blasts, and a promised inheritance. Moses foretold a “perverse and crooked generation” facing judgment at an appointed time, when God would judge, avenge His servants, and raise His people (Deut. 32:5, 20, 35, 39).

Lightfoot and Gill, echoing rabbinic tradition, noted Jewish expectations of a 40-year Messianic transition, as Dr. Cohen explains and includes this to be a period between the two worlds or ages:

“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.”[10]

Jesus fulfilled this precisely:

  • AD 30–70 was the 40-year “this generation” of testing and covenant transition.
  • His 40-day fast paralleled Moses’ Sinai ascent; His 70 disciples pointed to the gospel reaching the 70 nations (Gen. 10–11; Rom. 10:18).
  • Pentecost reversed Sinai’s judgment, building the new covenant Temple.
  • The trumpet call of Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 gathered the elect into heavenly Zion (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 10-11, 14), consummating the marriage covenant in AD 70 (Rev. 21–22).

Deuteronomy 32:5, 20 and Israel’s Last Days Second Exodus

The second exodus motif, rooted in the Old Testament patterns of deliverance and judgment, finds further expression in the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:29–32:43). Peter, Jesus, and Paul draw on Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, identifying their first-century generation as the “perverse and crooked” one facing imminent judgment and the rise of a new covenant nation. This section explores how their eschatology fulfills Moses’ prophecy, culminating in the AD 70 Parousia.

Peter and the Song of Moses

Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 frames the Spirit’s outpouring as the “last days” inauguration, citing Deuteronomy 32:5, 20: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). He links this to Joel 2:28–3:14 (LXX) and Deuteronomy 31:29, portraying his generation as the terminal one facing the “day of the Lord” (Acts 2:14–21, 40). In 1 Peter 2:4–8, Christ is 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), facing imminent judgment in AD 70. Peter forms a new “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9–10; Deut. 32:21; Hos. 2:23), with salvation “ready to be revealed” at the “appointed time” (1 Pet. 1:4–5, 20; 4:5, 7, 17; Deut. 32:35 LXX). Scoffers deny the “end” (2 Pet. 3:3–4; Deut. 32:28–29), but the old covenant’s “heavens and earth” burn in de-creation judgment (2 Pet. 3:5–13; Deut. 32:22), fulfilled in AD 70. Vengeance comes as a “thief” (2 Pet. 3:10; Deut. 32:35, 43), vindicating believers and raising the new covenant body (Acts 2:20–21; 3:23).

Jesus and the Song of Moses

Jesus echoes Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, calling His contemporaries a “faithless and perverse generation” (Matt. 17:17; Deut. 31:29). In Matthew 21–25, He develops Moses’ themes: rejecting the “Rock” (Matt. 7:24–27; 21:42–45; Deut. 32:4–5), filling up blood guilt (Matt. 23:29–36; Deut. 32:23, 34), and failing to discern the “end” (John 12:37–40; Matt. 24:3, 13-14; Deut. 32:28–29). The kingdom transfers to a new “nation” (Matt. 21:43; Deut. 32:21), with de-creation judgment on the old covenant “heaven and earth” (Matt. 22:7; 24:29, 35; Deut. 32:22). Vengeance arrives at the “appointed time” (Luke 21:8, 20–32; Deut. 32:35 LXX), and the elect are gathered spiritually in AD 70 (Matt. 24:30–31; Deut. 32:39). Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) blends Moses’ warnings with Daniel’s visions, affirming AD 70 as the “end” (Dan. 9:26–27; 12:4 LXX), fulfilling the Law and Prophets in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:22–32).

Paul and the Song of Moses

Paul identifies his generation as the “crooked and twisted” one (Phil. 2:15; Deut. 32:5, 20), facing the “end of the ages” (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” or “Israel of God” (Rom. 10:19; Gal. 6:16; Deut. 32:21). Christ is the rejected “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:30–33; Deut. 32:4–5), with blood guilt filling up (1 Thess. 2:14–16; Deut. 32:23, 34). The old covenant world passes in de-creation (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Deut. 32:22), with vengeance on persecutors (2 Thess. 1:5–10; Deut. 32:35, 43) and corporate resurrection (1 Cor. 15; Rom. 8:18–23; Deut. 32:39) in AD 70. Paul’s “near” “appointed time” or kairos (Rom. 13:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:29–31) and “about to be” redemption (Rom. 8:18–23 YLT) echo Moses’ prophecy of a coming “appointed time” in which the fulfillment would be “near” (Deut. 32:35 LXX).

Summary of Deuteronomy 32’s Fulfillment

Peter, Jesus, and Paul unify Deuteronomy 32’s motifs—rejection of the Messiah, terminal generation, de-creation, vengeance, and resurrection—fulfilled in AD 70. The following chart summarizes their application:

Theme (Deut. 31–32) Jesus’ Development Peter’s Development

Paul’s Development

Rejection of the Messiah – the Rock (Deut. 32:4–5, 15, 18) Christ as rejected “Cornerstone” (Matt. 7:24–27; 21:42–45). Fulfilled: AD 70 kingdom transfer. Christ as rejected “Cornerstone” (1 Pet. 2:4–8). Judaizers as “blemishes” (2 Pet. 2:1–13). Fulfilled: AD 70 judgment. Christ as rejected “Rock” (1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:30–33). Fulfilled: AD 70 stumbling/judgment.
Terminal Generation (Deut. 32:5, 20) “Perverse generation” sees all fulfilled (Matt. 17:17; 24:34). Fulfilled: AD 70 end. “Crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). Fulfilled: AD 70 judgment. “Crooked generation” (Phil. 2:15). Fulfilled: AD 70 end.
Last Days and End (Deut. 31:29; 32:29) Judgment/end in “this generation” (Matt. 23–25). Fulfilled: AD 70. Salvation “ready” in “last time” (1 Pet. 1:4–5, 20). Fulfilled: AD 70. “End of ages” arrived (1 Cor. 10:11). Fulfilled: AD 70.
New Covenant Nation (Deut. 32:21) Kingdom to new people (Matt. 21:43). Fulfilled: AD 70 Church. Church as “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9–10). Fulfilled: AD 70. Gentiles provoke jealousy (Rom. 10:19). “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Fulfilled: AD 70.
De-creation Language (Deut. 32:22) Old covenant “heaven/earth” passes (Matt. 24:29, 35). Fulfilled: AD 70. Old “heavens/earth” burn (2 Pet. 3:5–13). Fulfilled: AD 70. World’s “form” passes (1 Cor. 7:29–31). Fulfilled: AD 70.
Covenantal Wrath (Deut. 32:23, 34) Blood guilt filled (Matt. 23:29–36). Fulfilled: AD 70. Judgment not delayed (2 Pet. 2:3). Fulfilled: AD 70. Sins “fill up”; wrath “to the end” (1 Thess. 2:14–16). Fulfilled: AD 67–70.
Lack of Discernment (Deut. 32:28–29) Blind to spiritual kingdom (John 12:37–40). Fulfilled: AD 70. Scoffers deny end (2 Pet. 3:3–4). Fulfilled: AD 70. Hardened, veiled (2 Cor. 3:13–16). Fulfilled: AD 70.
Vengeance and Repayment (Deut. 32:35, 43) Coming repays (Matt. 24:30). Fulfilled: AD 70. Coming as “thief” (2 Pet. 3:10). Fulfilled: AD 70. Repays persecutors (2 Thess. 1:5–10). Fulfilled: AD 70.
Resurrection and Gathering (Deut. 32:39) Elect gathered (Matt. 24:31). Fulfilled: AD 70. Salvation “near” (1 Pet. 1:4–5). Fulfilled: AD 70. Dead raised (1 Cor. 15). Fulfilled: AD 70.
Appointed Time (Kairos) (Deut. 32:35) Kairos “near” (Luke 21:8, 32). Fulfilled: AD 70. Kairos “near” (1 Pet. 4:7, 17). Fulfilled: AD 70. Kairos “near” (Rom. 13:11–12). Fulfilled: AD 70.

Peter, Jesus, and Paul collectively affirm that their generation fulfilled Moses’ Song, marking the old covenant’s end and the new covenant’s rise within a 40-year second exodus timeframe culminating in AD 70. Their inspired imminence—“near,” “at hand,” “about to”—points to this historical reality, which futurists often seek to twist and reinterpret to fall in line with unbiblical traditions.

Conclusion

Jesus’ 40-day post-resurrection ministry in Acts 1:3, 8–11 inaugurated the New Covenant second exodus, fulfilling Jewish Messianic expectations (Lightfoot, Gill, Dr. Cohen) and Moses’ prophecy of a “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20). Peter, Jesus, and Paul applied this to their first-century generation (Acts 2:40; Matt. 17:17; Phil. 2:15), marking AD 30–70 as the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, culminating in Christ’s AD 70 cloud-coming, as can be harmonized by Partial Preterists like Lightfoot, Gill, and Terry.

The glory-cloud that received Jesus at His ascension returned to envelop His Church, fulfilling John 14:2–3, 23: “I will come again and receive you to Myself… We will come to him and make Our home with him.” Hebrews 10–13:14 confirms believers are to dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem, and Revelation 21:3, 22 declares God’s tabernacle is with the Church at the “in a very little while” or “soon” second coming is AD 70. This Full Preterist perspective refutes futurist objections, affirming that human personhood and Christ’s eternal priesthood (Heb. 7:16, 24–25) require no physical bodies in the afterlife or resurrection, as seen in Samuel’s spiritual identity (1 Sam. 28:14) and Jesus’ promise to the thief (Luke 23:43).  The resurrection in Revelation 20 entails the emptying of Hades of souls or spirits to be raised into God’s presence and to inherit eternal life or eternal torment.  There is no mention of physical bodies or these souls being incomplete humans without such.

Christ’s spiritual return in AD 70 completed the second exodus, fulfilling Deuteronomy 32’s judgment, vengeance, and resurrection (Deut. 32:35, 39, 43). The Church, raised from Adamic death and Hades, inherited the “better” and “true” “heavenly land” and “city” longed for by Abraham and the prophets (Heb. 10:1–13:14; Rev. 21–22). The Parousia was the climactic establishment of God’s presence with His people, who now live forever in the glory-cloud or Most Holy Place / New Jerusalem (perfect square Rev. 21:16) inviting sinners to come through her open gates to be spiritually healed and receive eternal life (Rev. 22:2, 17).

[1] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 4 Matthew – 1 Corinthians(Oxford Press, 1859, Hendrickson Publishers, 2003)  p. 9

[2] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition on the Entire Bible, Biblehub.com

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Tony Badillo, The Portrayal and Ascension of the Immortal Soul or Spirit in the Levital Offerings, http://www.templesecrets.info/spsoul.html).

[6] Robert Johnston, Leviticus:  Visions Beyond the Wilderness, p. 129

[7] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ:  1999), p. 117

[8] Keith A. Mathison, FROM AGE TO AGE THE UNFOLDING OF BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009),  p. 459

[9] Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), pp. 246-247

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

Matthew 24-25 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 3: (Matthew 24:15-22/Luke 21:20-24) The Flight from Jerusalem, the Great Tribulation, All OT Fulfilled, and the Appointed Times of the Gentiles

Introduction

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, signaling the fulfillment of all Old Testament (OT) prophecies, including the Great Tribulation, resurrection, and Second Coming (Matt. 24; Luke 21). Here in part 3 of our series on the Olivet Discourse we explore Matthew 24:16–24 and Luke 21:20–24, focusing on the urgent call to flee Jerusalem, the Great Tribulation, the “times of the Gentiles,” and the fulfillment of “all that is written” within the “appointed times” (kairos/kairoi) foretold in Daniel 7:13-27, 9:24–27, and 12:4, 7 (LXX). By examining these passages alongside OT prophecies (e.g., Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel), historical accounts from Josephus and Eusebius, and NT affirmations by John, Paul, and Peter, who also use kairos to denote the imminent consummation (Rev. 1:3; 22:10; 1 Cor. 7:29–31; Rom. 13:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:5–7, 17), we argue that these events were fulfilled in AD 70 during the Roman siege of Jerusalem. This interpretation offers a unified understanding of the Olivet Discourse, challenging various Partial Preterist views that separate its verses into past and future fulfillments, and invites readers to recognize the precision of Jesus’ words in their first-century context, as the divinely appointed time of Israel’s covenantal end converged with the establishment of the Messianic kingdom.

The Urgency of Flight – “Conjunction Unction, What’s Your Function”?

“So, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (Matt. 24:15–22).

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:20–24).

The conjunctions “for,” “then,” and “and” in these passages connect ideas, establishing a sequence and cause-and-effect relationship that points to a first-century fulfillment. Some interpretations divide the Olivet Discourse, assigning certain verses to AD 70 and others to a future fulfillment, leading to varied and often contradictory conclusions. However, Jesus clearly identifies the “abomination of desolation” from Daniel 9 and 12 as the moment Roman armies surround Jerusalem, urging first-century Jewish Christians to flee immediately.

This command reflects a first-century Jewish setting: flat rooftops with external staircases allowed quick escapes, but Sabbath restrictions limited travel to a “Sabbath day’s journey” of three-quarters of a mile, far short of the distance to Pella. Jesus instructs them to pray their flight avoids winter’s harsh conditions or the Sabbath, when religious rulers enforced strict observance, potentially hindering escape.

The Great Tribulation and Distress

Matthew’s “great tribulation” (thlipsis, severe affliction) and Luke’s “great distress” (ananke, intense hardship) describe the same event, as confirmed by their synonymy in the Abbott-Smith Lexicon.[1] Both accounts begin with “For,” linking the tribulation/distress to Jerusalem’s desolation and the call to flee Judea for the mountains (Matt. 24:16–21; Luke 21:21–24).

Jesus emphasizes the severity of this period, stating, “And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (Matt. 24:22). Here, “no human being” is Hebraic hyperbole, exaggerating the near-total destruction of Jerusalem’s population to underscore the tribulation’s intensity, not a global extinction. The “elect” refers to Jewish Christians, God’s chosen remnant who believed in Christ.

“Cutting short” reflects divine mercy, some suggest thus was fulfilled through Cestius Gallus’ mysterious retreat in AD 66, which provided a window for Christians to flee to Pella, or more probable the Romans’ focus on Jerusalem, sparing those who escaped and not hunting down Christians who fled to Pella. Historical records confirm that Christians heeded Jesus’ warning, fleeing to Pella during Gallus’ retreat before the siege resumed under Vespasian and Titus in AD 70.

Josephus records that “many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city.”[2] Similarly, Eusebius writes, “The whole body, however, of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea; the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his Apostles finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evildoers form the earth.”[3]

Luke specifies this as God’s “wrath” against “this people” (the Jews) in their “land,” echoing John the Baptist’s warning of a “wrath about to come” upon them in their lifetimes (Matt. 3:7, 10–12 GNT, SLT).

The tribulation’s intensity and divine timing, as described by Jesus, are deeply rooted in the prophetic language of Daniel. The Greek term kairos, used in Luke 21:8 and 21:24, connects the false claims of the end with the true appointed time of Jerusalem’s desolation, fulfilling Daniel’s visions of judgment.

The Tribulation and Resurrection

Daniel explicitly connects the Tribulation to the resurrection, stating: “…there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:1–2). He further ties the “appointed times” (kairos/kairoi, LXX) of the three-and-a-half-year war, during which the “holy people” are shattered, to the fulfillment of “all these things,” encompassing the Tribulation, resurrection, and the “time of the end” (Dan. 12:1–7).

In alignment with Daniel, Jesus links the “appointed time” (kairos, Luke 21:8, 24) of the Tribulation, His Second Coming, and the end-of-the-age trumpet gathering/resurrection event to “all these things” fulfilled within His generation (Matt. 24:3–34; Luke 21:20–32). 

John, in Revelation, similarly situates the “appointed time” (kairos, Rev. 11:18) for the judgment of the dead during Jerusalem’s three-and-a-half-year trampling by the Gentiles, when the 144,000 firstfruits saints, having endured the Tribulation, inherit God’s presence on Mount Zion (Rev. 7:1–8; 11:1–18; 14:1–5).

Kairos in Luke 21:8 and Luke 21:24: Echoes of Daniel’s Appointed Time(s)

In Luke 21, Jesus employs the Greek term kairos (and its plural kairoi), drawing directly from the prophetic language of Daniel 9:26–27 and 12:4, 7 in the Septuagint (LXX), where kairos appears, and Daniel 7:25 in the Aramaic, where the equivalent term ʿiddān (עִדָּן) is used. In Luke 21:8, Jesus warns, “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time [kairos] has drawn near!’ Do not go after them.” Here, kairos refers to a falsely proclaimed “appointed time” of the end, which deceivers claim to herald. In contrast, Luke 21:24 states, “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times [kairoi] of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This plural kairoi denotes the divinely ordained period of Gentile dominion, culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Both uses of kairos find their roots in Daniel’s prophecies, where kairos/kairoi (LXX) and ʿiddān (Aramaic) signify critical junctures in God’s redemptive plan, particularly the “time of the end” (Dan. 12:4, 7 LXX), the desolation of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:26–27 LXX), and the Second Coming of the Messiah with the saints’ inheritance of the kingdom (Dan. 7:13–27).

The connection between Luke 21:8 and 21:24 lies in their shared reliance on Daniel’s framework, where kairos/ʿiddānmarks pivotal moments of judgment, persecution, and fulfillment. In Daniel 9:26–27 LXX, the prophecy describes a “prince” who will destroy the city and sanctuary, with desolations decreed until the “consummation” (sunteleia), a period marked by kairos in the broader context of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” (Dan. 9:24–27). Similarly, Daniel 12:4, 7 LXX uses kairos and its plural kairoi to describe the “time of the end” when the “shattering of the holy people” occurs after a period of “a time, times, and half a time” (three and a half years, kairos, kairoi, kai hēmisu kairou). In the Aramaic text of Daniel 7:25, the equivalent term ʿiddān (and its plural ʿiddānīn, עִדָּנִין) appears in the same phrase, “a time, times, and half a time” (ʿiddān, ʿiddānīn, ūpalḡaṯ ʿiddān), rendered in the LXX as kairos kai kairoi kai hēmisu kairou, describing the period of persecution by the “little horn” (Herods / Idomeans / Zealots / Jewish leadership) against the saints, fulfilled in the AD 67–70 Roman siege. This aligns directly with the kairoi of Luke 21:24, where the “times of the Gentiles” denotes the same three-and-a-half-year period of Gentile trampling. In Daniel 7:22, the phrase “the time came” (wəzimanāʾ māṯāʾ, from zəman, זְמַן) is translated in the LXX as ho chronos ephthasen (using chronos, not kairos), referring to the appointed moment when the saints inherit the kingdom. Despite the use of chronos, the eschatological context of divine judgment and kingdom transfer aligns conceptually with kairos, reinforcing the connection to Luke’s framework.

Daniel 7:15–25 provides an interpretive expansion of the earlier vision (7:1–14), clarifying that the “little horn” will persecute the saints for this appointed period (ʿiddānīn, 7:25; kairoi in LXX) before the Messiah, the Son of Man, comes on the clouds (7:13) to judge and deliver the kingdom to the saints (7:22). This Second Coming, depicted in Daniel 7:13, connects directly to Jesus’ self-description in Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27, fulfilled in AD 70 when God’s judgment through the Roman armies shattered Jerusalem and established the Messianic kingdom. The persecution period (ʿiddānīn/kairoi, 7:25) precedes this climactic event, marking the “times” of tribulation that culminate in the “time” (zimanāʾ/chronos, 7:22) of kingdom inheritance, tying the kairoi of Luke 21:24 to the eschatological fulfillment of Daniel’s vision.

Jesus, in Luke 21:20–24, identifies the specific sign of this kairos—the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem—as the true indicator that the “appointed time” of desolation, foretold in Daniel, is near. This contrasts with the false claims of kairosin Luke 21:8, where deceivers misrepresent the timing of the consummation. In Luke 21:8, Jesus cautions against premature declarations of the “time” (kairos), emphasizing that certain signs (e.g., false messiahs, wars, and commotions) do not signal the imminent end. This warning echoes Daniel 12:4 LXX, where the “time of the end” (kairos synteleias) is sealed until the appointed moment, urging discernment to avoid deception. By contrast, Luke 21:20–24 provides the definitive sign: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near” (v. 20). This desolation, linked to the “times of the Gentiles” (kairoi ethnōn, v. 24), fulfills Daniel’s prophecy of a three-and-a-half-year period of desolation (Dan. 9:27; 12:7; 7:25), historically corresponding to the Roman siege from AD 67–70. The kairoi of Luke 21:24 thus represents the authentic, divinely appointed period of judgment, contrasting with the deceptive kairos of Luke 21:8.

This interplay reflects a deliberate theological contrast: false prophets misuse kairos to mislead, while Jesus clarifies the true kairos through the visible sign of Roman armies, fulfilling Daniel’s timeline. The three-and-a-half-year “times of the Gentiles” aligns with Daniel 12:7 and 7:25’s “time, times, and half a time,” a period of intense tribulation and persecution culminating in the “shattering of the holy people” and the destruction of Jerusalem. Historical accounts, such as those from Josephus, confirm the Roman campaign’s duration (AD 67–70), during which Jerusalem was “trampled underfoot,” with massive loss of life and captivity (Luke 21:24; cf. Josephus, The Jewish War).  Christians outside of Israel were also persecuted during this time frame as well.  The kairos of Luke 21:8 and kairoi of Luke 21:24 thus serve as bookends: the former warns against false timing, while the latter confirms the true appointed time of Daniel’s prophecies, fulfilled in AD 70.

This connection underscores Jesus’ precision in the Olivet Discourse. By grounding both verses in Daniel’s kairos/ʿiddān, Jesus ties the false claims of the end to the authentic fulfillment of Jerusalem’s judgment, ensuring His disciples recognize the true sign (Roman armies) and act (flee to the mountains). The linkage to Daniel 7:13–25 further solidifies this, as the persecution of the saints (ʿiddānīn/kairoi, 7:25) precedes the Second Coming of the Son of Man (7:13), when the “time” (zimanāʾ/chronos, 7:22) arrives for the saints to inherit the kingdom. This Second Coming, fulfilled in AD 70, aligns with the kairoi of Luke 21:24, as the Roman desolation of Jerusalem marks the consummation of Daniel’s eschatological vision, encompassing not only the city’s fall but also the resurrection and kingdom inheritance (Dan. 12:2–3; 7:13–14, 22; Matt. 24:27–31; 25:31-46; Luke 21:27–32). Thus, the kairos/ʿiddān framework unifies Luke 21:8 and 21:24 with Daniel’s prophecies, revealing God’s sovereign timing in the events of AD 70.

Hebraic Hyperbole in Context

Matthew’s phrase, “such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Matt. 24:21), employs Hebraic hyperbole, a common literary device to emphasize an event’s severity within Israel’s history. For example, Ezekiel 5:9 describes the Babylonian judgment of Jerusalem in 586 BC: “And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again.”

Similarly, Solomon (1 Kings 3:12) and Josiah (2 Kings 23:25) are hailed as unparalleled great kings, without implying contradiction. This hyperbolic language in the Olivet Discourse underscores the unprecedented destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, paralleled by the Babylonian judgment.

This judgment included:

  • A “Day of the Lord” through a Gentile army (Babylonians/Romans).
  • God’s figurative coming on the clouds (Ezek. 30–32; Matt. 24:30).
  • De-creation imagery, such as darkening of the sun and moon (Ezek. 32:7–8; Matt. 24:29).
  • Imminent language like “near” or “this generation” (Ezek. 7:7; Matt. 24:34).
  • Hyperbole emphasizing the judgment’s severity (Ezek. 5:9; Matt. 24:21).

As shown in Chart 1, these parallels between the Babylonian and Roman desolations confirm the Olivet Discourse’s first-century fulfillment.

Chart 1: Parallel Comparison of Babylonian and Roman Desolations of Jerusalem

Aspect Babylonian Desolation (589–586 BC) Roman Desolation (AD 67–70)
Duration Approximately 2–3 years (from Nebuchadnezzar’s siege in 589 BC to Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BC). Approximately 3.5 years (from Roman military campaigns in AD 67 to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70).
Invading Gentile Army Babylonians, led by Nebuchadnezzar, besieged and destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:1–10). Romans, led by Vespasian and Titus, besieged and destroyed Jerusalem (Josephus, The Jewish War).
Divine Judgment Described as God’s “Day of the Lord” judgment for Judah’s sins (Ezek. 7:7–12; 33:21). Described as God’s “wrath” and “days of vengeance” against the Jews (Luke 21:22–23).
Imminent Language “Near” and “without delay” (Ezek. 7:7; 12:25; 30:3), fulfilled within the prophet’s generation. “Near” and “this generation” (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32), fulfilled within Jesus’ generation.
De-Creation Imagery Darkening of heavens, sun, moon, and stars (Ezek. 32:7–8). Sun and moon not giving light (Matt. 24:29).
Hebraic Hyperbole “What I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again” (Ezek. 5:9). “Such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now” (Matt. 24:21).
Outcome Jerusalem destroyed, temple burned, Jews exiled to Babylon (2 Kings 25:8–17). Jerusalem destroyed, temple burned, Jews killed or taken captive (Luke 21:24; Josephus).
Scriptural Reference Ezekiel 5:9; 7:7; 32:7–8; 2 Kings 25. Matthew 24:15–34; Luke 21:20–32; Revelation 11:2. 

Historical Fulfillment: Sword, Captivity, and Trampling

Luke describes the Jews “fall[ing] by the edge of the sword and [being] led captive among all nations” (Luke 21:24). Adam Clarke gives a good description of this fulfillment as documented by John Bray:

“The number of those who fell by the sword was very great. Eleven hundred thousand perished during the siege. Many were slain at other places, and other times… Besides those many of every age, sex, and condition were slain in the war, who are not reckoned, but, of those who are reckoned, the number would have appeared incredible, if their own historian had not so particularly enumerated them. See Josephus, WAR, book li. C. 18,20; book iii. c. 2,7,8,9; book iv. c. 1,2,7,8,9; book vii. c. 6,9,11; and Bp. Newton, Vol. li. P. 288-290.”[4]

“Many were also led away captives into all nations. There were taken at Jotapa, 1,200. At Tarichea, 6,000 chosen young men, who were sent to Nero; others sold to the number of 39,400, besides those who were given to Agrippa. Of the Gadarenes were taken 2,200. In Idumea above 1,000. Many besides these were taken in Jerusalem; so that, as Josephus says, the number of the captives taken in the whole war amounted to 97,000. Those above seventeen years of age were sent to the works in Egypt, but most were distributed through the Roman provinces, to be destroyed in their theatres by the sword, and by the wide beasts; and those under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves.”[5]

The “times of the Gentiles,” when Jerusalem is “trampled underfoot” (Luke 21:24), refers to the Roman siege from AD 67–70, lasting approximately 3.5 years, as paralleled in Revelation 11:2 and Daniel 12:7. Pat Robertson interprets the “times of the Gentiles” as something began in 586 BC and culminating in an alleged sign that took place in 1967, marking out 40 years until the rapture must take place, i.e. 2007:

“The year 586 B.C. was the time that Nebuchadnezzar took over Jerusalem, and that condition lasted…until the Six Day War that took place not too long ago. When did it happen? 1967. …The Jews took over Jerusalem for the first time since Nebuchadnezzar took it. What is the significance of all this? …At this point of time, a clock began to tick. A generation is 40 years, and a clock began to tick that said there’s 40 years from 1967.”[6]

Lamentations 1:15 [and the Targum referred to] is looking back at a past event [Babylon’s military desolation of Jerusalem in 586/587BC] as an “appointed time” when the Lord had “trodden” down Jerusalem like grapes crushed in a winepress in which her blood flowed and she was “shattered.” This is talking about a very specific and limited time of military treading down of the city, not a protracted period of hundreds or thousands of years.

Babylon surrounded Jerusalem and the military campaign of treading her down lasted roughly 2–3 years (from 589 BC to 586/587BC). Revelation 11 and Daniel 12 describe the trampling of Jerusalem by Rome (the 4th Gentile Empire in Dan. 2 and 7) as a period of 3 ½ years which would be a “complete shattering of the holy people.”

Therefore, when we compare Scripture with Scripture and honor this event to take place when Jerusalem would be “surrounded by armies” in Jesus’ contemporary generation, the 3 ½ year war (Dan. 9:26–27/12:7) between AD 67–AD 70 is what Jesus prophesied about—nothing else, not 1967 nor any other event! John Gill points out these would be the known dimensions of the land of Palestine:

“…the measure of the land of Israel, and the common notion of it among the Jews, who make it to be the square of four hundred parsoe: hence they often speak of the land of Israel shaking and moving four hundred ‘parsoe’, upon some extraordinary occasions; and a ‘parsa’ contained four miles, so that four hundred ‘parsoe’ made a thousand and six hundred miles; and if miles and furlongs are the same, in which sense only the land of Israel could be so large, here is the exact space; for Jerom, who was an inhabitant of it, says, it was scarce 160 miles in length, to which agrees R. Menachem; and it may be observed, that the Arabic version renders the words, ‘by the space of a thousand and six hundred miles.’”[7]

Chart 2 illustrates how Lamentations 1:15, its Targum, and Revelation 14:18–20 use vineyard imagery to depict Jerusalem’s trampling and shattering.

Chart 2: Targum, Lamentations, and Revelation: Trampling and Shattering Jerusalem as a Vineyard

Source Text / Description Trampling / Shattering Imagery Connection to Jerusalem’s Judgment
Lamentations 1:15 “The Lord has rejected all my strong men… He has trodden as in a winepress the virgin daughter of Judah.” God “treads” Jerusalem like grapes in a winepress, causing blood to flow. Refers to the Babylonian destruction (586 BC) as a divine judgment, with Jerusalem “trodden” and “shattered.”
Targum on Lamentations 1:15 Adds: “…established a time to shatter… defile the virgins of the House of Judah until their blood… was caused to flow like wine from a winepress when a man is treading grapes.” Emphasizes “shattering” and blood flowing like wine during treading. Enhances the imagery of Jerusalem’s destruction as a violent, bloody judgment, akin to crushing grapes.
Revelation 14:18–20 “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth… and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed… for 1,600 stadia.” Angel’s “tread” the winepress, producing blood flow across Palestine’s dimensions. Depicts AD 70 judgment, with Jerusalem’s “shattering” and trampling by Romans, blood flowing as in a winepress.
Shared Themes All describe Jerusalem’s judgment as a winepress treading, with blood flow symbolizing destruction. “Trampling” and “shattering” reflect military conquest and divine wrath. Both events (586 BC and AD 70) are localized to Jerusalem/Israel, fulfilling specific “appointed times” (Lam. 1:15; Rev. 11:2).

Fulfilling All OT Prophecy

Luke’s claim that these events fulfill “all that is written” (Luke 21:22) encompasses all OT prophecy, including the Second Coming, redemption, and resurrection. Some Partial Preterists, such as Keith A. Mathison and Kenneth Gentry, argue that Luke 21:22 refers only to Jerusalem’s destruction, citing Luke 18:31, where Jesus says, “all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.”[8] They point out that “all things” in this context does not include all eschatological promises, reasoning that “all that is written” in Luke 21:22 refers only to OT passages about Jerusalem’s fall. This argument assumes, without proof, that OT prophecies separate Jerusalem’s judgment from the Second Coming, resurrection, and judgment of the dead. However, OT texts like Isaiah and Daniel explicitly connect Jerusalem’s desolation to the “appointed time of the end,” resurrection, and the consummation of all prophecy.

Gentry argues that Luke 21:22 primarily refers to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, limiting the scope of “all that is written” to OT prophecies concerning Israel’s judgment, while relegating other eschatological events to a future fulfillment.[9]

In Isaiah 25:2–9, when Jerusalem is made a “heap of rubble,” the eschatological wedding and resurrection occur. Jesus cites the “trumpet,” “gathering,” and “harvest” of Isaiah 27 in Matthew 24:31, tied to Jerusalem’s judgment when altars become “chalkstone” (Isa. 27:9–13). Similarly, Daniel links the resurrection (Dan. 12:2–3) to the “tribulation” and “three-and-a-half-year” war (Dan. 12:1–7), culminating in the “shattering of the holy people” in AD 70, as foretold in Daniel 9:24–27 and 7:13–25. The NT reiterates these OT prophecies, not introducing new events, as Jesus came to fulfill “all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17–18) and Paul taught only what was found in the OT (Acts 26:22).

To illustrate the interconnectedness of these prophecies, Chart 3 below compares Daniel 7, Daniel 9, Daniel 12, and Matthew 24–25 (with parallels in Luke 21 and Mark 13). It demonstrates that the “appointed times” (kairos/kairoi in the LXX, ʿiddān in Aramaic for Dan. 7:25) of judgment, desolation, resurrection, and the Second Coming converge in the AD 67–70 Roman siege, fulfilling all OT prophecy within Jesus’ generation.

Chart 3: Eschatological Fulfillment in Daniel and the Olivet Discourse

Theme Daniel 7 Daniel 9 Daniel 12 Matthew 24–25 & Parallels (Luke 21, Mark 13)
Timeframe “Time, times, and half a time” (3½ years, AD 67–70; Aramaic ʿiddān/ʿiddānīn, LXX kairos/kairoi, 7:25); judgment of the “little horn.” “Time” of kingdom inheritance (zimanāʾ, LXX chronos, 7:22). “Half a week” (3½ years, AD 67–70); “appointed time” (kairos, LXX) for judgment and end of 490 years (vss. 24–27). “Time, times, and half a time” (3½ years, AD 67–70); “appointed time of the end” (kairos/kairoi, LXX) for judgment (vss. 4, 7). “Times of the Gentiles” (3½ years, AD 67–70); Jerusalem trampled by Romans (kairoi, Luke 21:24; cf. Rev. 11:2). False claims of “time” (kairos, Luke 21:8; Mark 13:33).
Judgment of Israel “Little horn” (Herods / Idumeans / Zealots / Jews) judged for boasting against God and persecuting Messiah’s followers (vss. 21, 25–26). “Your people” (Jews) and “holy city” (Jerusalem) face “abomination” and “desolation” in “the war” (vss. 24–27). “Power of the holy people” (Jews) “completely shattered”; tied to “abomination” and “desolation” in tribulation (vss. 1, 7, 11). “Wrath” against “this people” (Jews) and “land” (Israel); “tribulation,” “abomination,” and “desolation” when Roman armies surround Jerusalem (Matt. 24:15–21; Luke 21:20–24).
Judgment and Resurrection Judgment with books opened and Ancient of Days on throne; eschatological “end” (vss. 9–10, 26). Judgment at the eschatological “end” of the 490 years (vss. 24–27). Judgment and resurrection of the dead at the “appointed time of the end” (vss. 1–4 LXX). Judgment and resurrection; Christ on throne at the eschatological “end” (Matt. 24:3, 14, 31; 25:31–46; Luke 21:27).
Messiah’s Coming and Kingdom Messiah (Son of Man) comes on clouds; kingdom inherited (vss. 13–14, 27). Messiah/Prince sends another “prince” (Titus) and armies to desolate Jerusalem (vss. 26–27 LXX). Implied: “appointed time of the end” and resurrection require Messiah’s coming and kingdom (vss. 1–7). Jesus (Messiah/Son of Man) comes on clouds; kingdom inherited (Matt. 24:27–31; Luke 21:27–32).
Historical Context Events during the fourth (Roman) empire (vss. 7–27). Events within 490 years, culminating in Roman period (vss. 24–27). Vision sealed as “far off” from Daniel’s time, fulfilled in Roman era (vss. 4, 9; cf. 8:26). All events fulfilled in Roman Empire within Jesus’ “generation” (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:22, 32).

This chart demonstrates that the Olivet Discourse fulfills Daniel’s prophecies within the Roman Empire’s timeframe (AD 67–70), aligning the “appointed times” (kairos/kairoi in the LXX, ʿiddān in Dan. 7:25) of judgment, desolation, resurrection, and the Second Coming with the destruction of Jerusalem. The use of kairoi in Daniel 7:25 (LXX) for the three-and-a-half-year persecution period parallels the kairoi of Luke 21:24, while the chronos of Daniel 7:22 (LXX) underscores the appointed moment of kingdom inheritance, both fulfilled in AD 70. This unified fulfillment counters Partial Preterist views by showing that OT prophecies, reiterated in the NT, encompass all eschatological events, not merely Jerusalem’s fall.

The old saying rings true, “OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed.” There are no major new NT prophetic events that cannot be found in the OT. Matthew 24:27–31, widely recognized as the Second Coming and trumpet resurrection event, is thus fulfilled in AD 70, aligning with Daniel 9:24–27, 12:1–7, and 7:13–27. Revelation, as John’s Olivet Discourse, confirms that “all things written” would be fulfilled “shortly” with the message of the prophets having “no more delay” (Rev. 1:1, 3, 19 YLT; 10:6–7; 22:6–10). John also uses kairos, stating that the “appointed time” of Christ’s coming in vengeance, prophesied by Moses and Daniel, was “near” (Deut. 32:35–43 LXX; Dan. 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:4 LXX; Rev. 1:3; 22:10).

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:11 is also in line with Jesus’ teaching. Here he tells his first-century audience, “Now all these things happened to them as examples [types], and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Paul employs kairos when teaching that the old covenant world was passing away and the “appointed time has grown very short” and the appointed time of the “Day” of salvation was “near” (1 Cor. 7:29–31; Rom. 13:11-12). Peter’s eschatology aligns with that of Jesus, John, and Paul. He declares that the OT prophets foretold events for his first-century audience to inherit (1 Pet. 1:4–12) and that they were living in Israel’s “last days,” a “crooked and perverse generation” that Moses said would witness the “near” “end” (Deut. 32:5, 20, 35-43; Acts 2:40; 1 Pet. 4:5–7; 2 Pet. 3). Peter likewise uses kairos in 1 Peter 4:5–7, 17, noting that “the appointed time for the judgment” (v. 17) of “the living and the dead” was “ready” (v. 5) and “near” (v. 7) to be fulfilled. This consistent NT use of kairos by Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter underscores the imminent fulfillment of all OT prophecy in their generation, culminating in AD 70.

Conclusion

The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:16–24 and Luke 21:20–24 vividly portrays the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of all OT prophecy, marked by the “appointed times” (kairos/kairoi) foretold in Daniel 7:13-27, 9:24–27, and 12:4, 7 (LXX). Clearly, the OT did not prophesy the end of world history or the planet’s destruction, as fleeing to the mountains would be futile in such a scenario. Jesus’ urgent call to flee, the Great Tribulation, and the “times of the Gentiles” (kairoi, Luke 21:24) converge in a first-century context, supported by historical accounts from Josephus and Eusebius and scriptural parallels in Daniel. Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter consistently used kairos to signal the “near” consummation of these events, including the Second Coming and resurrection, within their generation (Luke 21:8; Rev. 1:3; 22:10; 1 Cor. 7:29–31; Rom. 13:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:5–7, 17). By employing Hebraic hyperbole and imminent language, Jesus emphasizes the gravity and timing of the Roman siege, fulfilling Daniel’s prophecies. This interpretation challenges views that limit “all things written” to Jerusalem’s fall, affirming that OT prophecies, reiterated in the NT, encompass the resurrection and Second Coming, fulfilled in the AD 70 “this generation” (Luke 21:20-32). This invites readers to trust the coherence of God’s redemptive plan, as the “appointed time” (kairos) of Israel’s old covenant “end” and Christ’s Second Coming was truly “near” in the events of AD 70.  Promise made and promise kept!

[1] G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1937), 28, 208.  As cited by Gentry in THE GREAT TRIBULATION PAST OR FUTURE? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, MI:  Kregel Publications, 1999), p. 193.

[2] Josephus The Complete Works, Chapter 9:4, https://ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete/
complete.iii.vii.ix.html

[3] Eusebius, History of the Church 3, 5

[4] John L. Bray, MATTHEW 24 FULFILLED (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1996), pp. 91-92.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Don K. Preston, The Times of the Gentiles?  Past-Present-Or What? https://donkpreston.com/
the-times-of-the-gentiles-past-present-or-what/

[7] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible, Ibid., free online at biblehub.com

[8] Kenneth L. Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY THIRD EDITION (Draper, VA:  Apologetics Media, 2009), pp. 342-344

[9] Ibid., pp. 342-344

 

Matthew 24-25 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 2: (Matthew 24:4-15) Birth Pains and Signs of the Near End of the Age and Christ’s Coming

Introduction

In the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:4–15), Jesus provides a prophetic roadmap for the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the end of the Old Covenant age, and His coming in judgment, addressing His disciples directly (“you,” Greek hymeis, Matt. 24:4, 9) and promising fulfillment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34; genea, AD 30–70). He distinguishes preliminary “birth pains” (Matt. 24:4–8; ōdinōn, “pangs”)—false messiahs, wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes—from intensifying “near signs” (Matt. 24:9–15)—persecution, betrayal, false prophets, gospel proclamation, and the abomination of desolation—culminating in the “great tribulation” (thlipsis megalē, Matt. 24:21; Dan. 12:1, 7’s “three-and-a-half years,” AD 67–70) against apostate Israel, the de-creation of the Old Covenant system (Matt. 24:29), and Christ’s second coming with the resurrection of the elect (Matt. 24:30–31; Dan. 12:2–3). These signs, rooted in Daniel (2:44; 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7) and Deuteronomy 32:5, 20–43, refine Second Temple Jewish expectations of political upheaval, temple desolation, and a Messianic age, as seen in the Qumran community’s anticipation of a Gog and Magog war (Ezek. 38–39; 1QM 1:1–7) and covenant curses (Deut. 32:20–29; CD 3:7–8), aligning with Jesus’ prophecy (Matt. 24:7b, 15) and John’s “soon” coming war (Rev. 20:7–10).[1] Unlike Qumran’s broader crisis (1QM 2:6–14), Jesus pinpointed Daniel 12:1’s “time of trouble” as AD 67–70 (Matt. 24:21, 24).[2] Jesus, Peter, and Paul identified their generation as the “perverse” one of Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, expecting God’s “vengeance” as “near” (Matt. 17:17; Acts 2:40; 1 Pet. 4:5–7; Phil. 2:15, 4:5; Luke 21:8, 20–32), fulfilled in AD 70.[3] Deuteronomy 32, significant in Qumran texts (CD 3:7–8) and the NT, forecast this judgment.[4] Some Jewish traditions, as in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), anticipated a spiritual resurrection and a restored temple, fulfilled in the Church as the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:16).[5]

To establish the Full Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:4–15, we first analyze the scope and timing of “these things” and “all these things,” which Jesus ties to the resurrection and His second coming within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

The Scope and Fulfillment of “These Things” in Matthew 24

In Matthew 24:2, Jesus predicts, “Do you not see all these things [panta tauta]? Not one stone will be left upon another,” referring to the temple’s destruction, fulfilled in AD 70.. In verse 3, the disciples ask, “When will these things [tauta] be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” expanding “these things” to encompass the temple’s fall, signs, Christ’s parousia, and the end of the Old Covenant age (synteleia tou aiōnos, Dan. 9:26–27). The singular “sign” (sēmeion) unifies these events, aligning with Second Temple expectations of a messianic transition (Melchizedek Scroll, 11QMelch II, 2–15). In verse 8, “all these [panta tauta]” denotes the preliminary “birth pains” (vv. 4–8: false messiahs, wars, famines, earthquakes), which “are not yet the end” (v. 6), fulfilled in the AD 30–60s.

In verses 33–34, Jesus declares, “When you see all these things [panta tauta], you know that he is near,” and “this generation [hē genea hautē] will not pass away until all these things [panta tauta] have taken place.” Here, panta tauta includes all events from verses 2–31: temple destruction (v. 2), birth pains (vv. 4–8), near signs (vv. 9–15: persecution, betrayal, false prophets, gospel proclamation, abomination of desolation), great tribulation (v. 21), de-creation of the Old Covenant system (v. 29, Isa. 13:10), times of the Gentiles treading down Jerusalem (Luke 21:24), Christ’s coming (v. 30, Dan. 7:13–14), and the “gathering of the elect” (v. 31), at the end of the age which is the resurrection event (Dan. 12:2–3; Matt. 13:39–43; Matt. 24:3). Historical evidence confirms fulfillment by AD 70: temple destruction (Jewish War 6.5.2), signs (Acts 7:58; Col. 1:23), tribulation (Jewish War 6.9.3), and the Church’s preservation (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3).

The NT’s imminence language reinforces this AD 70 fulfillment, with the resurrection “about to be” (Acts 24:15 YLT), Christ’s coming, judgment of the living and dead, and kingdom establishment all “about to be” fulfilled (2 Tim. 4:1 YLT; cf. Phil. 4:5; Heb. 10:37; Rev. 22:12). Epistles link these events to Jesus’ generation: persecution (1 Thess. 2:14–16), gospel spread (Col. 1:23), and temple desolation (Rev. 11:1–2). Full Preterism affirms this unified fulfillment, refuting Higher Critical claims of prophetic failure, which misread the “end” as world history’s termination; Dispensationalist misapplications to modern events, ignoring “this generation”; Amillennialism’s indefinite timeline, diluting terms like ēngiken and tachu; and Partial Preterism’s fragmented eschatology, which posits a future coming despite the singular resurrection and coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13; 12:2–3; Matt. 24:3, 31). This establishes Christ’s spiritual kingdom (Luke 17:20–21; Dan. 2:44), empowering believers to confront ideological challenges confidently.

With the AD 70 fulfillment of “all these things” established, we now address how various eschatological systems misinterpret these events, leading to theological errors corrected by Full Preterism.

This chapter argues that NT writers (AD 50–66) accurately proclaimed the end’s proximity as Matthew 24:9–15’s signs unfolded, heeding Jesus’ warning against false prophets who prematurely announce the end (Matt. 24:4–6, 23–26). Historical records, scholarly exegesis, and logical arguments substantiate the Full Preterist interpretation, culminating in AD 70’s “gathering” event (Matt. 24:31). However, various eschatological systems misinterpret these signs and NT imminence, leading to significant theological errors:

Higher Critical/Liberal Scholars (e.g., Schweitzer, Bart Ehrman) correctly recognize NT imminence but erroneously claim Jesus and the NT writers were mistaken, misinterpreting the “end” as the termination of world history rather than the Old Covenant age. This undermines biblical context and inerrancy by assuming prophetic failure, ignoring the historical fulfillment of Jerusalem’s destruction (Josephus, Jewish War 6.2.1). Full Preterism corrects this by affirming that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, vindicating His context and accuracy with that of the NT writers’ authority.[6]

Dispensationalism, as promoted by figures like John MacArthur, Tim LaHaye (Left Behind series), John Hagee, David Jeremiah, Jack Hibbs, and Robert Jeffress, misapplies Matthew 24:4–15’s signs (e.g., wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes) and NT imminence to modern events such as COVID-19, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Middle Eastern conflicts, disregarding their first-century fulfillment within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). In works like MacArthur’s The Second Coming, LaHaye’s Left Behind series, Hagee’s Four Blood Moons, Jeremiah’s The Book of Signs, Hibbs’ sermons, and Jeffress’ Countdown to the Apocalypse, these teachers link contemporary crises to Jesus’ prophecies, suggesting an imminent rapture or apocalypse.[7] This fosters speculative fear and sensationalism, detaching the text from its historical context of the AD 30–70 period, including the Claudian famine (Acts 11:28), Jewish-Greek riots (Josephus, Jewish War 2.17.8), and the Roman siege (Luke 21:20–24).[8]

Full Preterism restores the signs’ fulfillment to the AD 30–70 timeframe, aligning with Jesus’ clear statement that “all these things” would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). Historical evidence, such as the temple’s destruction in AD 70 (Jewish War 6.5.2) and the gospel’s spread (Col. 1:23), alongside NT imminence language (e.g., Acts 24:15 YLT, “about to be”; 2 Tim. 4:1 YLT, “about to judge”), confirms that these events, including the resurrection (Matt. 24:31; Dan. 12:2–3), were fulfilled by AD 70.[9] By contrast, Dispensationalist interpretations project first-century prophecies onto modern events, ignoring the historical and biblical context and promoting fear-driven eschatology over the confidence of Christ’s established spiritual kingdom (Luke 17:20–21; Dan. 2:44).[10]

Amillennialism (e.g., Riddlebarger, Hoekema) acknowledges some AD 70 fulfillment but denies that all signs were completed by then, extending the eschatological timeline indefinitely, stating that Christ’s coming and the end is “always near.”[11] This dilutes the urgency of NT language (ēngiken, tachu), undermining the genuine imminence tied to the Old Covenant’s end. Full Preterism affirms that all signs—persecution, gospel proclamation, and the abomination of desolation—were fulfilled by AD 70, validating NT expectations.

Postmillennial Partial Preterism (e.g., Gentry, Joel McDurmon, James Jordan) rightly sees AD 70 as the Old Covenant’s end attended by a spiritual coming of Christ and resurrection event but posits a future Second Coming and resurrection, contradicting Scripture’s unified eschatology of one coming and resurrection event (Dan. 7:13–27; 12:2–4; Matt. 13:39–43; Matt. 24:3, 30–31). This fragments the prophetic narrative. Full Preterism maintains a singular AD 70 second coming of Christ, end of the Old Covenant age, and resurrection fulfillment, harmonizing OT and NT prophecies.[12]

Full Preterism resolves these errors by affirming the first-century fulfillment of Matthew 24:4–15’s signs and NT imminence, establishing Christ’s spiritual kingdom (Luke 17:20–21; Dan. 2:44) as fulfilled in AD 70, empowering believers to live confidently in the New Covenant age. The following logical arguments underscore this resolution:

NT Writers’ Prophetic Accuracy

Major Premise: Jesus warned that false prophets would prematurely declare the end before Matthew 24:9–15’s signs (persecution, rebellion, false prophets, gospel proclamation, abomination of desolation) were fulfilled (Matt. 24:4–6, 23–26).

Minor Premise: NT writers (e.g., Peter, Paul, John) proclaimed the end as “near” (1 Pet. 4:5–7; Phil. 4:5; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10) only as these signs were visibly unfolding (e.g., persecution, Jewish revolt, gospel to the oikoumenē), fulfilled in AD 70.

Conclusion: The NT writers were not false prophets, as their imminence claims were grounded in the signs’ fulfillment, refuting Higher Critical and futurist errors that misjudge or attack their accuracy.[13]

Genuine Imminence of AD 70

Major Premise: NT imminence language (ēngiken, mellō, tachu) reflects a genuine expectation of Christ’s second coming within “this generation” (Matt. 24:27–34), tied to Matthew 24:9–15’s signs.

Minor Premise: Historical evidence (Acts 2–28; Col. 1:5–6, 23; Rom. 10:18; 16:25–26; Luke 21:20–24) confirms these signs were fulfilled by AD 70, within the first-century generation.

Conclusion: The NT writers’ imminence claims of Christ’s second coming and the end of the age were genuine and fulfilled in AD 70, correcting Amillennialism’s carrot-and-stick “the end is always near” indefinite timeline and Partial Preterism’s fragmented eschatology.[14]

Second Temple Jewish Expectations of Messianic Signs and Their Old Testament Roots

Before Jesus’ ministry, Second Temple Judaism (ca. 515 BC–AD 70) developed a rich eschatological framework anticipating the Messiah’s coming, shaped by OT prophecies and amplified by intertestamental literature. These expectations, rooted in texts like Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and Micah, identified specific signs heralding the Messianic age, often tied to the end of Israel’s covenantal order and the establishment of God’s kingdom. Some traditions posited a 40-year Messianic reign between “this age” (their present Old Covenant order) and the “age to come” (the eternal kingdom or Messianic age), with the resurrection—sometimes understood as a spiritual raising of souls from the body at death or from Hades at “the end” rather than a physical bodily resurrection—occurring 40 years after the Messiah’s being “cut off” (Dan. 9:26).[15] While some Jewish texts distinguished preliminary turmoil (similar to Jesus’ “birth pains”) from decisive signs of the Messiah’s imminent arrival, their interpretations varied widely, lacking the precision Jesus provides in Matthew 24:4–15. This section examines these expectations, their OT foundations, and their alignment or divergence with Jesus’ prophetic roadmap, which culminates in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, fulfilling Daniel’s “end,” “appointed time of the end,” or “hour of the end” (Dan. 9:24-27; 12:4, LXX, OG LXX / Matt. 24:3, 13–14).

The Preliminary Birth Pains: The Appointed Time of the End is Not Yet 

“And he said, “See that you are not led astray.  For many will come in my name, saying, I am he!’ and, ‘The [appointed time – kairos] is at hand!’  Do not go after them…the end [telos] is not yet..” (Luke 21:8)

The concept of “kairos” (Greek for “appointed time” or “season”) plays a foundational role in understanding the timing and nature of the eschatological “end.” In the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Moses prophesied of a future generation that would provoke Yahweh to anger, resulting in covenantal judgment (Deut. 32:20, 29, 35). However, that judgment would not come immediately—it was reserved for the “kairos,” the divinely appointed time: 

  • Deuteronomy 32:35 LXX: “In the day of vengeance, in the time (kairos) when their foot shall slip.”
  • Deuteronomy 32:20 LXX: “I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faith.”
  • Deuteronomy 32:29: “If they were wise, they would understand this, they would discern their latter end.”

Daniel 9:26–27 builds on this, predicting the destruction of the city and sanctuary in the 70th week, tied to a decisive “end” at an appointed time:

  • Daniel 9:26 LXX: “The end of it shall be with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are determined.”
  • Daniel 9:27: “Until the consummation and that determined is poured upon the desolate.”

Daniel 12:4 instructs the prophet to “seal up the book until the time of the end (kairos),” showing again that a specific divinely ordained season was necessary before the resurrection and judgment could occur.

Jesus, speaking in Luke 21:8, warns His disciples not to be deceived by premature claims that the end (telos) is “near” (Greek: ēngiken), and that the appointed time (kairos) had not yet come, because not all signs were indicators of the true end. Yet by Luke 21:20–24, when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, that would mark the true kairos—the appointed time of vengeance and fulfillment of all things (cf. Luke 21:22).

Chart: Kairos and the Appointed End in Scripture

Passage Greek Term Meaning and Context
Deut. 32:35 (LXX) kairos Appointed time for vengeance on apostate Israel
Deut. 32:20 (LXX) eschatos The perverse generation and their final end examined
Deut. 32:29 (LXX) eschatos + kairos Latter end understood through wisdom
Dan. 9:26–27 (LXX) sunteleia/kairos End and desolation determined at an appointed time
Dan. 12:4 (LXX) kairos Seal prophecy until the appointed end
Luke 21:8 telos/ēngiken/kairos Not all signs mean the end is near; kairos not yet
Luke 21:20–24 kairos Appointed time of judgment on Jerusalem and fulfillment
Rev. 1:3; 22:10 kairos Do not seal the vision—appointed time is near; fulfills Daniel 12 

Timeline of Fulfillment (AD 30–70)

  • ~1400 BC: Deuteronomy 32 predicts judgment and atonement at a “near” kairos within a 40-year “perverse generation” (Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 35).[16]
  • ~530 BC: Daniel 7:13-27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7 (LXX) foresee Messiah’s coming in vengeance at “the appointed time of the end” during a “three-and-a-half years” war within the timeframe of the Roman Empire (Dan. 12:2–3, 7).[17]
  • ~200 BC–AD 68: DSS expect a 40-year messianic period (4Q558) and war against Rome/apostate Jews (1QM 1:3–6; 1QpHab 2:5–10).[18]
  • AD 30: Christ’s death (“cut off,” Dan. 9:26) begins the 40-year transition.
  • AD 67–70: Roman-Jewish War (three-and-a-half years) fulfills the appointed time–kairos (Dan. 12:7; Rev. 11:2–8, 18).[19]
  • AD 70: Christ comes, Temple destruction, Church’s vindication as New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2).[20] 

Where Daniel was told to seal his prophecy because the appointed time (kairos) was still far off (Dan. 12:4), John is told the exact opposite: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the kairos is near.” This reinforces that the prophecy of Revelation is not disconnected from Daniel’s vision but its fulfillment.

Everyone agrees Revelation is John’s version of the Olivet Discourse, therefore, framing the same kairos of judgment. The war, vengeance, resurrection, and wedding motifs are drawn from Deuteronomy 32 and Daniel, culminating in the judgment of Jerusalem and vindication of the saints in AD 70.

This pattern teaches that the “end” was not a vague or open-ended future event. Rather, it was tethered to a kairos—a specific, prophetic, and covenantal moment in history. Moses saw it from afar. Daniel sealed it up. Jesus declared that the kairos had arrived in His generation (cf. Matt. 24:34).

To rightly interpret the eschatological “end,” one must account for this kairos thread stretching from Deuteronomy 32, through Daniel 9 and 12, to Luke 21 and Revelation. The judgment, vengeance, resurrection, and kingdom transfer were not disjointed. They were unified within the appointed time that culminated in AD 70.

This also undermines futurist claims of an always-pending “end.” If we track the logic and wording of the prophetic texts, there is a consistent storyline: God revealed an appointed time of judgment that climaxed with the destruction of Jerusalem and vindication of His people—just as foretold in the Song of Moses. 

Second Temple Jewish texts sometimes distinguished between preliminary turmoil and decisive signs, though less explicitly than Jesus’ clear division in Matthew 24:4–15. The concept of “messianic woes” or “birth pangs of the Messiah” (ḥevel ha-mashiach), found in later rabbinic texts (e.g., b. Shabbat 118a; b. Sanhedrin 98b), likely reflects earlier traditions.[21] These “birth pangs” included wars, famines, and social upheaval, seen as general precursors to the Messianic age, akin to Jesus’ “birth pains” (Matt. 24:4–8; ōdinōn). Texts like 1 Enoch 99:4–5, Jubilees 23:13–21, and Deuteronomy 32:20–25 describe escalating chaos—wars, moral decay, and natural disasters—as setting the stage for divine intervention, but not necessarily signaling its immediacy.[22]

More definitive signs, such as intense persecution, temple desolation, the Messiah’s appearance, and the resurrection, were often tied to Daniel’s timeline (Dan. 12:1–7, 11–12). The Qumran community (e.g., 1QpHab 2:5–10) expected a final “time of distress” and a “teacher of righteousness” to usher in the end, resembling Jesus’ “near signs” (Matt. 24:9–15), culminating in the Gog and Magog war against Rome and apostate Jerusalem (1QM 1:1–7) and covenantal curses (CD 3:7–8; Deut. 32:5, 20–29).[23]

Jesus opens the Olivet Discourse by describing events He terms “the beginning of birth pains” (Matt. 24:8; Greek ōdinōn, “pains” or “pangs”), emphasizing: “See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet” (v. 6). These birth pains, spanning AD 30 through the 60s, were significant but insufficient to indicate the end’s immediate arrival, serving as early warnings for the decisive signs to follow.

1). False Messiahs (Matt. 24:4–5)

False messiahs, claiming divine authority, deceived many (Matt. 24:4–5), fulfilling Jesus’ warning of preliminary “birth pains” that precede the end (Matt. 24:6). This sign aligns with Second Temple Jewish expectations, rooted in OT texts like Deuteronomy 13:1–5, which warns against false prophets performing signs to lead Israel into idolatry. Such prophets must be rejected if they promote a false messiah or God contrary to the Torah. Jesus, as the greater prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18, performed greater miracles than Moses and fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy of the Messiah also being God and therefore “worshiped” by the nations (Dan. 7:14). This also aligning with Jewish views of the “Two Powers of Heaven.”  Unlike, false prophets, His doctrine was pure, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets by AD 70, as He correctly interpreted it (Luke 21:22, 32; Matt. 5:17–18; Matt. 5–7). The leadership and false messiahs leading up to the years of AD 70 twisted the law and prophets and made the temple and the cultus system an idol.

Second Temple literature, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 6:10–11) and 1 Enoch 99:4–5, interpreted these texts as foretelling deceivers exploiting eschatological hopes before the Messiah’s coming, aligning with Jesus’ prophecy.[24]Historical examples include Theudas (ca. AD 44–46), who promised miraculous deliverance but led followers to ruin (Acts 5:36); Judas of Galilee (AD 6), who incited rebellion against Roman taxation (Acts 5:37); and Simon Magus (ca. AD 30s), who captivated Samaritans with claims of divine power (Acts 8:9–11). Josephus records other “impostors” in the 60s, such as a false prophet luring crowds to the temple with promises of divine rescue.[25] These figures reflect the Jewish expectation of false prophets as a sign of the end, which Jesus situates within the “birth pains” leading to the decisive “near signs” fulfilled by AD 70.

2). Wars and Rumors of Wars (Matt. 24:6–7a)

Jesus’ prophecy of “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt. 24:6–7a) aligns with Second Temple Jewish expectations of escalating conflicts as precursors to the Messianic age. The War Scroll (1QM 1:1–7) from Qumran anticipates a climactic war against the “Kittim” (often identified with Rome), rooted in OT prophecies like Ezekiel 38–39 (Gog and Magog) and Daniel 2:31–44; 7:2–27 (successive empires culminating in God’s kingdom).[26] These texts foresaw minor wars and rumors of conflict as “birth pains” leading to the final eschatological battle.

The pre-AD 70 era was marked by widespread unrest, fulfilling Jesus’ warning. Notable examples include Jewish-Greek riots in Alexandria (AD 38–40), sparked by Caligula’s attempt to place his statue in the Jerusalem temple, leading to violent clashes.[27] In Judea, a Passover riot in Jerusalem (ca. AD 49) under procurator Cumanus resulted in thousands of deaths, escalating tensions.[28] The Zealot movement, gaining traction after Judas of Galilee’s revolt (AD 6, Acts 5:37), fueled rumors of rebellion against Roman rule, while reports of Roman military movements heightened fears of retaliation. Yet, Jesus urged calm: “See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet” (Matt. 24:6). These conflicts were preliminary signs, symptoms of a world under divine judgment, pointing to the Roman-Jewish War (AD 66–70). Jesus later describes this war as the moment when “armies surround Jerusalem” (Luke 21:20) and the “times of the Gentiles” when Rome would trample the city (Luke 21:24).

Second Temple literature, such as 4 Ezra 13:31–32 and 2 Baruch 27:1–15, reflects similar expectations of turmoil before the Messiah’s victory, reinforcing Jesus’ prophecy.[29] Historical figures like the Egyptian prophet (ca. AD 50s, Acts 21:38) and anonymous agitators promising divine deliverance exploited these hopes, inciting unrest.[30] These “wars and rumors of wars” were not the end but preparatory signs, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which Jesus frames as divine judgment and a precursor to His return (Matt. 24:30–31).

3). Famines and Pestilences (Matt. 24:7b)

Jesus’ prophecy of “famines and pestilences” (Matt. 24:7b; cf. Luke 21:11) reflects Second Temple Jewish expectations of divine judgments as covenant curses signaling the Messianic age. The Damascus Document (CD 1:14–17) and Pesher on Habakkuk (1QpHab 9:3–7) explicitly cite Deuteronomy 28:20–24, which details curses for covenant unfaithfulness, including famine, pestilence, and drought, as divine punishments preceding restoration.[31] Deuteronomy 32:23–25, the Song of Moses, further amplifies these curses, predicting “wasting famine,” “pestilence,” and “destruction” for Israel’s apostasy, which Second Temple texts interpreted as eschatological signs pointing to Messianic fulfillment. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls’ 4QTestimonia (4Q175) quotes Deuteronomy 18:18–19 alongside Deuteronomy 33:8–11, linking the covenant curses to the expectation of a prophet like Moses who would usher in God’s judgment and redemption.[32]Similarly, 4QDeuteronomy^j (4Q37) preserves Deuteronomy 32:23–25, emphasizing covenant curses as precursors to divine intervention, aligning with Qumran’s expectation of a Messianic figure to restore Israel after judgment.[33] Second Temple literature, such as 2 Baruch 62:4–6, connects famine and pestilence to God’s judgment on Israel, anticipating a Messianic renewal following these tribulations.[34]

Historical records confirm these prophetic signs in the pre-AD 70 era. Acts 11:28 documents a widespread famine under Claudius (ca. AD 46–47), prompting relief efforts by the early church, as noted in Romans 15:25–28 and 1 Corinthians 16:1–5. Josephus records severe famines in Judea, particularly during the Roman siege of Jerusalem (AD 67–70), where starvation led to horrific conditions, including cannibalism.[35]  Pestilences, often linked to malnutrition and overcrowding, accompanied these famines, fulfilling Deuteronomy’s curses and Jesus’ “birth pains” (Luke 21:11, 20–24). The Qumran community’s Pesher on Habakkuk interprets such calamities as divine judgment on the “wicked” of Israel, signaling the imminent arrival of the Messianic age (1QpHab 9:3–7).[36] These famines and pestilences were not the final “end” but preparatory signs, culminating in the “near signs” of Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70, which Jesus framed as divine judgment and a precursor to His return (Matt. 24:30–31; Luke 21:20–24).

4). Earthquakes (Matt. 24:7c)

Jesus’ prophecy of earthquakes as part of the “birth pains” (Matt. 24:7c; Luke 21:11) aligns with Second Temple Jewish expectations of cosmic upheavals signaling divine judgment and Messianic fulfillment. In the Old Testament, earthquakes often accompany God’s intervention or judgment, as seen in Isaiah 29:6 and Ezekiel 38:19–20, which describe seismic activity as part of eschatological turmoil. The Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Pesher on Nahum (4QpNah 3–4 i 5–6), interpret seismic imagery in Nahum 1:5–6 as divine judgment on the nations, anticipating the Messianic age.[37]Similarly, 1 Enoch 1:5–7 describes earthquakes and cosmic disturbances as signs of God’s wrath and the coming of the “Holy One,” reinforcing Jewish expectations of such events before the Messiah’s arrival.[38]

Historical records confirm seismic activity in the pre-AD 70 era, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy. An earthquake in Philippi (ca. AD 50s) freed Paul and Silas from prison, demonstrating divine intervention (Acts 16:26). Josephus records significant earthquakes in Judea during the 60s, including one in AD 68 that struck Jerusalem and its environs, intensifying fears of divine judgment amid the Roman-Jewish War.[39] Tacitus also notes seismic disturbances in the Mediterranean region during this period, such as in Crete and Asia Minor.[40]  These events, while not uncommon in the seismically active eastern Mediterranean, were interpreted by Jews and early Christians as signs of God’s impending judgment, as R.T. France notes, viewing them as “typical first-century phenomena” amplified by their eschatological significance in Jesus’ discourse.[41] Craig S. Keener further argues that earthquakes in the New Testament often symbolize divine presence or judgment, aligning with OT and Jewish apocalyptic traditions.[42]

These earthquakes, as part of the “birth pains,” were not the final “end” but preparatory signs pointing to the “near signs” of Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 (Luke 21:20–24). Jesus frames these events as covenant judgments, fulfilling Deuteronomy’s curses and culminating in His return (Matt. 24:30–31), a perspective echoed in the Qumran community’s expectation of cosmic upheaval ushering in the Messianic kingdom (War Scroll (1QM) 1:11–12).[43]

Contemporary Misuse of Birth Pain Signs

Contemporary Evangelicals and self-acclaimed “prophecy experts” often misapply Jesus’ “birth pains” signs—false messiahs, wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes (Matt. 24:4–7; Luke 21:11)—to modern events, claiming they signal an imminent rapture or the end of the age. Dispensationalist teachers like John MacArthur, David Jeremiah, and Jack Hibbs frequently cite global conflicts (e.g., the Russia-Ukraine war since 2022, Israel-Iran tensions, or Middle East conflicts), pandemics (e.g., COVID-19 in 2020–2022), natural disasters (e.g., the 2010 Haiti earthquake or 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquakes), and religious movements (e.g., New Age groups or cults like the Branch Davidians) as evidence of an approaching apocalypse. For example, MacArthur’s The Second Coming links modern wars and natural disasters to Matthew 24, suggesting they indicate the “last days,” while Jeremiah’s The Book of Signs frames global pandemics and geopolitical unrest as fulfillments of these prophecies.[44] Similarly, Hibbs has cited COVID-19 and recent Middle Eastern conflicts as signs of an imminent rapture, urging believers to prepare for the end.[45]

This approach disregards Jesus’ explicit warning that these “birth pains” are not signs of the end: “See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet” (Matt. 24:6). The Greek term genea in Matthew 24:34, meaning “generation,” underscores that Jesus expected these signs to be fulfilled within the lifetime of His hearers, pointing to the AD 30–70 period culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction. Second Temple Jewish expectations, as seen in texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls (War Scroll 1QM 1:1–7) and 1 Enoch 99:4–5, anticipated such signs (wars, famines, earthquakes) as precursors to Messianic judgment within a specific historical framework, not as open-ended prophecies for distant future generations.[46] The historical record confirms this: false messiahs like Theudas (Acts 5:36), wars like the Jewish-Greek riots in Alexandria (AD 38–40), famines under Claudius (Acts 11:28), and earthquakes in Judea all occurred before AD 70, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy within the first-century context.

The dispensationalist misapplication stems from a hermeneutical error: ignoring the historical and literary context of Matthew 24 in favor of a futurist eschatology that decouples these signs from their first-century fulfillment. Scholars like N.T. Wright and R.T. France argue that Jesus’ Olivet Discourse primarily addresses the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a divine judgment, not a distant end-time scenario.[47] By projecting these signs onto modern events, “prophecy experts” sensationalize global crises, fostering fear rather than the calm Jesus urged (Matt. 24:6). For instance, Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) and Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series popularized this approach, linking Cold War tensions and later global events to Matthew 24, despite the text’s focus on the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15; cf. Dan. 9:27) fulfilled in the Roman siege.[48]

This misreading also fails to account for Deuteronomy 32:20–25, which portrays wars, famines, and pestilences as covenant curses upon Israel for its unfaithfulness—judgments that Jesus said would befall that generation (Luke 21:20–24). It further overlooks that Jesus identified his own contemporaries as the “perverse generation” destined to witness his coming in judgment and vengeance (Deut. 32:5, 20, 35–43; cf. Matt. 17:17; Luke 21:27–32). Likewise, the Qumran community’s Pesher on Habakkuk (1QpHab 9:3–7) interpreted similar historical calamities as divine judgments within their own time, not as recurring signs meant to forecast distant end-times.[49]

Moreover, contemporary misuses often exploit the universal nature of these signs—wars, disasters, and false teachers are perennial—to create urgency and sell books or media, ignoring Jesus’ emphasis on their limited, pre-AD 70 scope. For example, claims that COVID-19 fulfilled Luke 21:11’s “pestilences” disregard the first-century context of diseases during Claudius’s reign and the Jerusalem siege. By contrast, a faithful reading of Matthew 24:4–7 recognizes these as preparatory signs leading to the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24), fulfilled between AD 67–70 and within Jesus’ predicted “this generation” (Luke 21:32). Rather than fueling speculative end-time predictions and expecting to fly off the earth at any moment, this understanding calls believers today to cultivate enduring faith, engage meaningfully in culture and politics, and develop long-term strategies to confront the ideological and spiritual enemies of Christianity—such as Islam, Talmudic Judaism/Zionism, Marxism, and Globalism.

Signs of the Near End: The Intensifying Crisis

Jesus transitions to signs that signal the end’s nearness (Matt. 24:9–15), intensifying from the mid-50s to early 60s and culminating in Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70, fulfilling Daniel’s “end,” “appointed time of the end,” or “hour of the end” Daniel 9:24-27; 12:4 (LXX, hōra tou telous). These signs—persecution, betrayal, false prophets, gospel proclamation, and the abomination of desolation—prompted NT writers to declare Christ’s coming and the end of the Old Covenant age as genuinely imminent (e.g., Heb. 10:37; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1, 3—22:6-7, 10, 20). Far from promoting a vague, perpetually “hope delayed” (Prov. 13:12) carrot and stick “always near” eschatology that futurism’s unfulfilled expectations have sustained for two millennia, the NT writers’ proclamations were grounded in the concrete fulfillment of Jesus’ signs, confirming Jesus’ coming in the AD 70 judgment as the true and final close of the Old Covenant age.

1). Persecution and Martyrdom (Matt. 24:9)

Persecution (Matt. 24:9; thlipsis, tribulation) escalated with Stephen’s martyrdom (AD 34–36; Acts 7–8), James’ execution (AD 44; Acts 12:1–2), Paul’s arrests (AD 50s–60s; Acts 16:22–24), and James the Just’s martyrdom (AD 62), who declared the Son of Man’s coming was “about to” take place.[50] The Neronian persecution (AD 64–66) fulfilled “hated by all nations.”[51]

Argument: Daniel, Matthew 10 and Matthew 24 Describe One End and AD 70 Coming

The unity of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24:4–15, rooted in Daniel’s prophecies, supports the AD 70 fulfillment. The following chart illustrates the parallels between these passages, showing how Daniel provides the Old Testament context for the signs and persecutions before Christ’s coming in AD 70.

Parallels Between Matthew 10:17–23, the Olivet Discourse, and Daniel

Matthew 10:17–23 Olivet Discourse Daniel Parallels Fulfillment (AD 30–70)
(1) Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mark 13:9) Dan. 7:25: Saints persecuted by the little horn during 4th kingdom (Rome/Israel) Persecutions of Stephen, James, and Paul (Acts 7:58–8:3; 12:1–2; 24–26; AD 34–62).
(2) Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Mark 13:9) Dan. 9:26: Messiah’s testimony. Paul’s trials before Felix, Festus, Nero (Acts 24:10–27; 25:6–12; 28:17–31; AD 58–62); Neronian persecution (AD 64–66).
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11) Dan. 12:3–4: Wise spread & increase in knowledge; Dan. 7:27: Kingdom given to saints. Spirit-empowered preaching (Acts 2:4; 10:44–48; 19:6; AD 30–62).
(4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures to “the end” will be “saved” (Matt. 10:22) (4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures to “the end” will be “saved” (Mark 13:12–13) Dan. 7:21–27: Persecution before the end. Jewish divisions, Christian ostracism (Josephus, Wars 4.3.8; AD 66–70).[52]
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge as they preached before the “end” and the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:22–23) (5) Preach gospel to the world before “the end” and the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10) Dan. 2:44: Kingdom established in Roman Empire. Dan. 7:13-27; 9:26–27; 12:2-4: During Roman Empire – knowledge of Messiah increases before His coming in judgment, to raise the dead, and Kingdom is inherited–at “the end.” Gospel spread (Acts 2–28; Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:23; AD 30–62); flight to Pella (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.3.5.3).[53] 

Major Premise: Daniel 2:44, 7:13–27, 9:24–27, and 12:1–7 prophesy a singular end and coming of Christ upon the clouds during the Roman Empire, preceded by persecution and the kingdom’s establishment, fulfilled by the time of the end.

Minor Premise: Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24:3–15 draw on Daniel, describing the same events to be fulfilled within the disciples’ lifetime and thus emphasizing Christ’s coming at the “end” of the Old Covenant age in AD 70 (Matt. 10:22–23; 24:3–34).

Conclusion: Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24:3–15 refer to the AD 70 second coming of Christ in judgment to bring an end to the Old Covenant age, not a future event, confirmed by NT imminence texts and historical fulfillment.

This chart and argument, synthesizing Jesus’ teachings with Daniel’s prophecies, underscore a unified eschatological framework: one coming, one judgment, one “end” fulfilled within the disciples’ lifetime. Jesus’ promise in Matthew 10:23—that the disciples would not exhaust Israel’s cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming—ties directly to the persecution and gospel proclamation detailed in both passages. As B.M. Metzger notes, the Greek of Matthew 10:23 suggests that Jesus assured His disciples that as they preached the gospel, He would provide ongoing refuge within Israel until the end of the Old Covenant age, a promise fulfilled as Christians finally fled to Pella during Jerusalem’s siege.[54]

2). Betrayal and National Rebellion (Matt. 24:10)

Betrayal and rebellion (Matt. 24:10) primarily refer to national divisions within Israel, anticipating the Jewish revolt coming over the horizon in the events of (AD 66–70), rather than widespread Christian apostasy, though Christians faced temptation to join emerging factions. The Greek skandalizō (“fall away”) and paradidōmi (“betray”) suggest societal breakdown, as Jews turned against each other and Christians were ostracized for refusing to join the revolt. Josephus documents factionalism between Zealots, Sicarii, and moderates in the 50s–60s, with the Sicarii assassinating leaders as early as AD 54.[55]  Tacitus notes “mutual hatreds” among Jewish groups.[56] Christians faced pressure to align with these factions, as seen in Hebrews 10:25–26’s warning against “forsaking the assembly” (ca. AD 60–65), possibly reflecting temptation to join Zealots. This parallels 2 Thessalonians 2:3’s apostasia (rebellion), which F.F. Bruce interprets as the Jewish revolt, with the “restrainer” removed in AD 66, fulfilling Daniel 9:27’s desolation. Bruce writes:

“The ‘rebellion’ (apostasia) here is not so much a defection from faith as a political revolt, the kind of uprising which was characteristic of Jewish resistance to Roman rule in the period leading up to A.D. 66–70. The term could well describe the Jewish War, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.”[57]

3). False Prophets (Matt. 24:11)

Jesus warned that “many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Matt. 24:11), a prediction fulfilled within the apostolic generation. Judaizers (Gal. 1:6–7; 2 Cor. 11:13) and antichrists (1 John 2:18) emerged promoting law-based salvation. Their deception prompted the NT writers to proclaim it was “the last hour” and that Christ’s coming in judgment was “about to” occur (1 John 2:17–18; 2 Tim. 4:1, YLT).

This warning aligns with expectations in Second Temple literature, which anticipated a rise in deceptive figures prior to divine intervention. The Damascus Document (CD 6:10–11) warns of leaders who misinterpret the law and lead others astray—a theme mirrored in Jesus’ rebuke of scribes and Pharisees who “shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” (Matt. 23:13).[58] The Dead Sea Scrolls’ 1QpHab 2:1–10 identifies false teachers within Israel who pervert the law for personal gain, paralleling Paul’s description of deceitful workers masquerading as apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:13–15).[59]

These texts reflect a broader Qumran worldview that understood false prophecy as a covenantal threat warranting divine judgment. The Community Rule (1QS 5:20–6:1) excluded those who “speak in rebellion against the commandments of God,” showing an early expectation that eschatological deception would arise from within Israel before the Day of the Lord.[60]

In the NT, such figures were not merely theological aberrants—they were eschatological signs. Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17–18) falsely claimed that the resurrection had already occurred, a distortion which Paul saw as dangerous because it undermined true eschatological hope coming in AD 70. Their error, far from being an isolated heresy, was a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy about those who would distort the timing of the end.

Thus, both Jesus and the apostles framed these false prophets as harbingers of covenantal judgment and as clear indicators that the end of the age was near (cf. 2 Tim. 4:1 YLT). Their emergence prior to AD 70 confirms the coherence between Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, Second Temple Jewish expectations, and apostolic eschatology.

4). Gospel Proclamation to All Nations (Matt. 24:14)

The gospel’s proclamation (Matt. 24:14; oikoumenē, Roman world) was fulfilled by AD 62, as Paul declared it “proclaimed in all creation” (Col. 1:23; ekērychthē, aorist) and “to all nations” (Rom. 16:26; ethnē). Acts 1:8 functions as an outline for Acts in which chapters 2–28 traces its spread to the ends of the Roman Empire. The following charts illustrate this, aligning Matthew 24:14 with Acts 1:8.

Great Commission Fulfillment

Prophecy Fulfillment Context/Notes
“Gospel… preached in all the world [oikoumenē]… then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14) “…Their sound has gone out to all the earth… ends of the world [oikoumenē]” (Rom. 10:18) Oikoumenē: Roman Empire (Luke 2:1). Fulfilled by AD 57–58.
“Gospel must first be published among all nations [ethnos]” (Mark 13:10) “…My gospel… made known to all nations [ethnos]…” (Rom. 16:25–26) Ethnos: Gentile peoples (Acts 10:35). Fulfilled by AD 57–58.
“Go into all the world [kosmos]…” (Mark 16:15) “…Gospel… in all the world [kosmos]…” (Col. 1:5–6) Kosmos: Roman sphere. Fulfilled by AD 62.
“Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation [ktisis]” (Mark 16:15) “…Gospel… preached to every creature [ktisis]…” (Col. 1:23) Ktisis: Humanity. Fulfilled by AD 62.
“Witnesses… in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, end of the earth []” (Acts 1:8) Jerusalem: Acts 2; Judea: Acts 8:1; Samaria: Acts 8:5; End: Acts 10–28; “…to all the earth []” (Rom. 10:18) : Roman Empire. Fulfilled by AD 62; Rev. 14:6 (AD 65–66) symbolizes completion.

 Acts 1:8 Commission Fulfillment and Outpouring of Holy Spirit on Each Group

Region (Acts 1:8) Scriptural Fulfillment People Groups Reached Holy Spirit Outpouring
Jerusalem Acts 2:1–41: At Pentecost, 3,000 convert (2:41). Acts 3–5: Further growth (4:4). Jews/proselytes from various nations (Acts 2:5–11). Acts 2:1–4: Tongues; Acts 4:31: Boldness.
Judea Acts 8:1, 4: Preaching in Judea. Acts 8:26–39: Ethiopian eunuch. Jews, Gentile proselytes in Judea (Acts 8:1, 8:36–39). Acts 8:29: Spirit guides Philip.
Samaria Acts 8:5–25: Philip’s preaching, many believe (8:12). Samaritans (Acts 8:5). Acts 8:14–17: Spirit received.
End of the Earth Acts 10:1–48: Cornelius’ household. Acts 13–28: Paul’s missions to Rome; “…to all the earth []” (Rom. 10:18). Gentiles, Jews in Roman Empire (Acts 10:35; 13:46–48). Acts 10:44–48; 19:6: Tongues, prophecy.

These charts demonstrate the fulfillment of Jesus’ gospel mandate within the Roman oikoumenē, confirmed by the Spirit’s outpouring. The Greek terms—oikoumenē (Roman world, Luke 2:1), ethnē (people groups, Acts 10:35), and (land/region, Luke 21:23)—reflect a first-century scope. By AD 62, the gospel had reached the “ends of the known world,” fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19–20; Acts 1:8) within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

Some early church leaders understood the commission of Matthew 24:14 being fulfilled by AD 70: 

Origen (c. 185–254 AD):  “And the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached in all the world, as a testimony to all the Gentiles, and this too has been fulfilled, as the apostles went forth into all the world.”[61]

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD):  “Thus, under a celestial commission, and through the divine favor, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly irradiated the whole world. And straightway, in accordance with the divine Scriptures, the voice of its inspired evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world [Psalm 19:4, cf. Romans 10:18].”[62]

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD):  “And what is more, the gospel was preached in all the world before the fall of Jerusalem, as the apostles went forth and proclaimed it to all nations, and this was fulfilled as Christ said, ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come’ [Matthew 24:14].”[63]

Argument: The Great Commission and Christ’s Coming in AD 70

Major Premise: If the Great Commission of Matthew 24:14 and Acts 1:8, and the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30 and Acts 1:11, are the same events (as most futurists correctly interpret using the analogy of faith), their fulfillment is unified.

Minor Premise: And if Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled by AD 62 (Rom. 10:18; Col. 1:23; Acts 28:14–31), and Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70, within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34) (as partial preterists correctly interpret seeking to honor the analogy of faith and “this generation”).

Conclusion: Then Acts 1:8 and Acts 1:11 (along with Matt. 24:14-30) were fulfilled in AD 70, with the gospel reaching the Roman world and Christ returning in judgment (as full preterists seek to completely honor the analogy of faith, and Jesus’ use of “this generation”).

Challenges: MacArthur calls Paul’s claims hyperbolic, labeling kēryssō (Col. 1:23) as “prophetic.”[64] Riddlebarger and Hoekema view it as partial, suggesting a future global mission must be fulfilled before Christ comes.[65]

Response: The aorist (ekērychthē, Col. 1:23; exēlthen, Rom. 10:18) denotes completed action, and oikoumenēand confirm a Roman scope, fulfilled by AD 62 (Acts 28:14–31).

5). Abomination of Desolation (Matt. 24:15)

The “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15; bdelygma tēs eremōseōs) was fulfilled when Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem, as described in Luke’s parallel account (AD 66–70; Luke 21:20, 24), prompting Christians to flee to Pella. Consequently, the “holy place” here most likely refers to the holy land (2 Macc. 1:7), as the Roman presence in the holy land was an “abomination” to the Jews, leading to Jerusalem’s “desolation” in AD 70.[66] The Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the War Scroll (1QM) and the Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch), provide crucial context for understanding this event as the culmination of the eschatological war anticipated in Second Temple Judaism, aligning with the New Testament’s depiction of the end of the Old Covenant age.[67]

The “End” of the Old Covenant Age War 

Jesus’ reference to the “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 connects directly to the eschatological war described in Daniel 9:24–27, Isaiah 2–3, and Ezekiel 38–39, which Second Temple Jewish texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, interpreted as a final conflict between God’s people (the children of light) and their enemies (Romans and apostate Jerusalem). This war, termed “Armageddon” or “Gog and Magog” in Revelation, was expected to occur “shortly” (Rev. 1:1, 3) in the events of AD 67–70. The Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the War Scroll (1QM), reflect a similar expectation of an imminent eschatological battle, often interpreted as a conflict involving Rome and apostate elements within Judaism, culminating within the first-century generation.[68]

The War Scroll (1QM) outlines a cosmic and eschatological conflict between the “Sons of Light” (the Qumran community) and the “Sons of Darkness,” identified as the “Kittim” (often understood as Romans) and apostate Jews who collaborated with foreign powers. This aligns with the New Testament’s portrayal of the Roman-Jewish War (AD 67–70) as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, where Rome destroys Jerusalem and the temple. Scholars such as John J. Collins note that the War Scroll’s depiction of the Kittim as a dominant Gentile power reflects Second Temple expectations of a climactic war involving Rome, paralleling the “armies” surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21:20.[69] Similarly, the Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch) anticipates the arrival of a messianic figure in the tenth jubilee to bring judgment and redemption, aligning with Jesus’ ministry and the subsequent judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70.[70]

In Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Jesus interprets Daniel’s prophecy as fulfilled in the Roman siege, while Revelation’s “the war” (Rev. 11:7; 16:14; 19:19; 20:8) echoes the War Scroll’s imagery of a final battle involving demonic forces and earthly powers. I agree with G.K. Beale arguing that Revelation’s war motif recapitulates Daniel’s prophecies, with the “three-and-a-half years” of tribulation (Rev. 11:2; Dan. 12:7).[71]  Except I do not spiritualize this period but see it fulfilled between AD 67-70. The Dead Sea Scrolls’ expectation of a priestly messiah and a final war against the Kittim (Rome) thus parallels the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ’s coming in judgment against apostate Jerusalem by means of the Romans.

a). Isaiah 2–3

Isaiah 2–4 predicts Jerusalem’s “last days” and “Day of the Lord,” where the “mighty” would “fall by the sword” in “the war” (Isa. 2:1–3:25). During this war, men flee to caves and holes in the ground, and God comes in “majesty,” shaking Jerusalem’s “earth/land” or kingdom (Isa. 2:10–19). The War Scroll (1QM) similarly describes a cosmic shaking and divine judgment, with the “Sons of Light” prevailing over their enemies in a battle that mirrors the “Day of the Lord” in Isaiah (1QM I, 10–11).[72] This imagery is echoed in Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 23:28–30, where he warns the “daughters of Jerusalem” of coming judgment, citing Isaiah 2:19: “Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’”

Scholars like Craig A. Evans highlight that Jesus’ use of Isaiah 2–3 in Luke 23 connects the Roman-Jewish War to the “last days” judgment, fulfilling the expectations of Second Temple texts like the War Scroll, which anticipated divine intervention against corrupt Jerusalem.[73] The Dead Sea Scrolls’ emphasis on a final war against apostate Israel and foreign oppressors thus provides a backdrop for Jesus’ prediction of Jerusalem’s desolation in AD 70.

Furthermore, Isaiah 4:4 states that through this “war” and “Day of the Lord,” God would purify the remnant in Jerusalem from the corporate guilt and defilement of her “bloodguilt” by a “spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning.” This bloodguilt refers to the sins of apostate Jerusalem, particularly the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., the prophets, Matt. 23:31–37). The remnant, identified in the New Testament as the faithful Christians who fled to Pella is preserved through this judgment.[74] This theme of bloodguilt is central to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:31–39, where he declares that Jerusalem’s judgment for shedding the blood of the prophets would occur in “this generation,” leaving their “house” (temple) desolate in AD 70. The War Scroll’s depiction of a purified remnant emerging from the eschatological war (1QM XIV, 7–8) parallels the New Testament’s portrayal of the Christian remnant spared from Jerusalem’s destruction.[75]

Dispensationalists like Thomas Ice concede that Luke 21:20–24, Luke 23:28–30, and Matthew 23:31–38 were fulfilled in AD 70, yet fail to connect these events to Isaiah’s “last days” war or to Daniel’s prophecies. This oversight undermines their futurist framework, as the Dead Sea Scrolls and New Testament consistently point to AD 70 as the fulfillment of the eschatological war.

Major Premise: The “last days” war and “Day of the Lord” in Isaiah 2–4, causing men to hide in caves from Christ’s majestic presence, is the war of Armageddon or Gog and Magog, linked to the Second Coming.

Minor Premise: Jesus and many commentators identify the hiding in caves as fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment.

Conclusion: The “war” and “Day of the Lord” causing men to flee to caves was Armageddon or Gog and Magog fulfilled in the events of AD 67–70, aligning with the expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple literature.

b). Daniel 9:24–27 – Jesus Interprets Daniel’s Three-and-a-Half-Years War

There is a conservative scholarly consensus that Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 employ recapitulation, describing the same eschatological events differently while adding additional information. The Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch) interprets Daniel’s seventy weeks as ten jubilee periods (490 years), culminating in the arrival of a messianic figure to bring judgment and redemption (11QMelch II, 2–15).[76] This aligns with Jesus’ announcement in Luke 4:18–21 that he fulfills the eschatological jubilee of Isaiah 61, initiating the final seven years of Daniel 9.

In Daniel 7:13–27, the Messiah, described as “one like the Son of Man,” comes during the fourth world power (Rome) to establish an eternal kingdom. The Old Greek Septuagint (OG LXX) portrays the Son of Man coming “as the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13–14), a motif John adopts in Revelation 1:7–17, depicting Christ’s coming in AD 70. Daniel 9:26–27 describes the Messiah’s cutting off, followed by the “people of the prince” (Romans) destroying Jerusalem and the sanctuary, fulfilling the “abomination of desolation.” The War Scroll (1QM) similarly anticipates a messianic victory over the Kittim, interpreted by scholars like Géza Vermes as a reference to Rome.[77]

Jesus’ ministry (ca. AD 27–30) fulfills the first half of Daniel’s final seven years, ending with his crucifixion (“cut off”). The subsequent “already and not yet” transition period (AD 30–70) climaxes in the last three-and-a-half years (AD 67–70), when Rome desolates Jerusalem. The War Scroll’s depiction of a forty-year war cycle (1QM I, 12) mirrors this timeline, with the final battle against the Kittim occurring in the eschatological “end of days.”[78] Jesus’ reference to the “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 directly ties Daniel’s prophecy to the Roman siege, supported by the War Scroll’s expectation of a climactic war against Rome and apostate Jews.

c). Daniel 12:1–7, 11 – The Three-and-a-Half-Years War & Complete Shattering

Daniel 12:7 describes a “time, times, and half a time” (3½ years) when the “power of the holy people” is shattered, corresponding to the war in Daniel 9:26. The War Scroll (1QM II, 6–9) similarly envisions a three-and-a-half-year period of tribulation, culminating in divine victory over the Kittim.[79] Jesus connects this period to the “times of the Gentiles” in Luke 21:24, fulfilled in the Roman trampling of Jerusalem (AD 67–70). The Melchizedek Scroll further ties Daniel’s timeline to the liberation of God’s people and judgment on their enemies, interpreted by scholars like Florentino García Martínez as a first-century expectation.[80]

The New Testament’s Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Luke 21) and Revelation 11:1–8 align with these expectations, depicting the Roman-Jewish War as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies. The “1,290 days” and “1,335 days” in Daniel 12:11–12 likely refer to the duration of the siege and its aftermath, paralleling the War Scroll’s detailed battle chronology (1QM XV–XIX).[81]

d). Revelation 11:1–8

Revelation 11:1–2 describes the temple’s Most Holy Place being measured (symbolizing the protection of new covenant Christian worshipers) while the outer court is trampled by Gentiles for “forty-two months” (3½ years), echoing Luke 21:24’s “times of the Gentiles.” G.K. Beale notes that this period recapitulates Daniel 9:27 and 12:7, identifying it as the same eschatological event, though he spiritualizes the timeframe to extend over thousands of years.[82] In contrast, Kenneth Gentry’s partial preterist view correctly identifies this period as AD 67–70, aligning with the War Scroll’s expectation of a final battle against the Kittim.[83] The author agrees with Beale that the “three-and-a-half years” in Daniel 9:24–27, Daniel 12:7, and Revelation 11:1–2 refer to the same eschatological war, but follows Gentry in placing its fulfillment in the historical events of AD 67–70, consistent with the Full Preterist synthesis. The War Scroll’s depiction of the temple’s sanctity amidst war (1QM VII, 4–6) parallels Revelation’s imagery, with the Qumran community expecting divine protection for the faithful remnant, akin to the Christians’ flight to Pella.[84]

Major Premise: The “three-and-a-half years” war of Daniel 9:24–27 is the eschatological war described in Daniel 12:4–7, Revelation 11:1–8, and other passages, culminating in Christ’s “soon” second coming event (Beale).[85]

Minor Premise: This war in Revelation 11:1–8 and Luke 21:24–32 was fulfilled in AD 67–70 at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70 (Gentry).[86]

Conclusion: The “three-and-a-half years” war of Daniel, Revelation, being the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) was fulfilled in AD 67–70, with Christ’s “soon” second coming occurring in AD 70 (Sullivan).

e). Revelation 16

Revelation 16:14–16 describes the gathering for “the war” at “Armageddon,” aimed at judging “Babylon” (Jerusalem, Rev. 11:8). The War Scroll’s cosmic battle imagery, involving angelic hosts and demonic forces (1QM XII, 8–9), parallels Revelation’s demonic spirits gathering kings for battle.[87] Scholars like Richard Bauckham argue that Revelation 16 draws on Ezekiel 38–39 and Second Temple expectations of a final war, with Jerusalem as the focal point.[88] The Dead Sea Scrolls’ emphasis on a divine judgment against apostate Israel aligns with Revelation’s portrayal of Jerusalem’s destruction for her bloodguilt (Rev. 16:19; 17:6).

The imagery of islands fleeing and mountains vanishing (Rev. 16:20) echoes Isaiah 2:10–19 and the War Scroll’s description of cosmic upheaval (1QM I, 11), reinforcing the AD 70 fulfillment.[89]  Jesus’ coming “like a thief” (Rev. 16:15) connects to Matthew 24:43, indicating an imminent judgment within “this generation.”

f). Revelation 19

Revelation 19:19 depicts “the war” against Christ and his army, targeting Jerusalem (Babylon). The War Scroll’s portrayal of a messianic leader defeating the Kittim (1QM XI, 8–12) parallels Christ’s victory in Revelation 19:11–21.[90] I should note that many liberals like Bart Ehrman and futurists misinterpret “Babylon” the “Great City” as Rome instead of Jerusalem where its designation first begins in Revelation 11:8 as the “Great City” “where the Lord was crucified.”  The Dead Sea Scrolls’ expectation of a priestly messiah aligns with Revelation’s depiction of Christ as the divine warrior, fulfilling Daniel 7:13–14. The imagery of birds feasting on the flesh of God’s enemies (Rev. 19:21) echoes Ezekiel 39:17–20 and Matthew 24:28, further tying Revelation to AD 70 and an imminent eschatology found Second Temple eschatology.

g). Revelation 20:8

The Gog and Magog battle in Revelation 20:8 recapitulates the war of Revelation 16–19, drawing on Ezekiel 38–39. The War Scroll’s depiction of a final battle against the “nations” (1QM I, 4–6) parallels Revelation’s gathering of nations against the “camp of the saints” (the Church).[91]  Scholars like James L. Kugel suggest that Second Temple texts used Gog and Magog as a symbol for eschatological enemies, often linked to Rome.[92] The “land” (ge) in Revelation 20:8 refers to Palestine, consistent with the War Scroll’s localized battle setting.

The view that Gog and Magog was initially or partially fulfilled in Esther’s time (Gary DeMar) or under Antiochus Epiphanes (William Hendriksen) supports a typological interpretation, with John applying this imagery to the Roman-Jewish War.[93] The War Scroll’s use of ancient weaponry (1QM VI, 1–3) aligns with Ezekiel 39:9 and Revelation’s symbolic language, fitting the AD 67–70 context better than modern warfare scenarios.[94]

The vindication of the martyrs in Revelation 20, occurring “shortly” or in a “little while” at Christ’s “soon” coming to avenge and repay (Rev. 1:1; 6;10-11; 22:7-12), aligns with the War Scroll’s expectation of divine judgment on behalf of the faithful (1QM XI, 13–15).[95] Jesus’ promise in Matthew 23:36 and Revelation 6:10–11 that the martyrs’ blood would be avenged within “this generation” or a “very little while” connects to the Dead Sea Scrolls’ hope for eschatological justice. The imprecatory prayers of the saints (Rev. 6:10-11; 8:1–8) mirror the War Scroll’s calls for divine vengeance (1QM XIII, 12), culminating in Jerusalem’s judgment in AD 70.[96]

Here is a list of early writers that understood the abomination of desolation and or “the end” of Daniel 9:24-27 was referring to AD 70:

Josephus (c. 37 BC-100 AD):  “And these misfortunes our nation did in fact come to, by the madness of some of every rank whatsoever, and by God’s just judgment upon them for their sins; for the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled, when he said, that upon the destruction of the city and sanctuary, the end should come with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined; for the Romans did desolate our country, and destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and the holy house therein, in the very same manner as Daniel had foretold.”[97] 

Epistle of Barnabas (c. 75–130 AD) Teaching: “Moreover, concerning the temple, I will tell you, how these wretched men, being led astray, set their hope on the building, and not on their God who made them, as being a house of God… For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is being fulfilled, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord.’ I find, then, that there is a temple. How, then, shall it be built in the name of the Lord? Learn ye. Before we believed on God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands… Behold, therefore, what is written: ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah’ [Jer. 31:31].”[98]

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD): “And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the timeshall the desolation be complete. Now what is the consummation of the time, but that which is at the end of the world? But we have already shown that these things have been fulfilled, for the temple is desolate, and the sacrifices have ceased, as you yourself know.”[99]

Justin Martyr, writing in Greek in Dialogue with Trypho, engages a Jewish opponent familiar with the Septuagint (LXX), including Daniel 9:27, which forms the backdrop for his discussion of the temple’s destruction in 70 AD. In Dialogue (Ch. 32), Justin uses the Greek term aiōn (αἰών, age) in the phrase ἡ συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (sunteleia tou aiōnos, end of the age) when stating, “Now what is the consummation of the time, but that which is at the end of the world? But we have already shown that these things have been fulfilled, for the temple is desolate, and the sacrifices have ceased.” This phrase mirrors Matthew 24:3, where the disciples ask about the sunteleia tou aiōnos (end of the age), and echoes the sunteleia (consummation) in Daniel 9:27 (LXX), which Justin ties to the “abomination of desolation” fulfilled in 70 AD.  His use of aiōn and telos (end) in Dialogue (Ch. 47), where he declares that Christ’s covenant “has put an end to the previous one,” further aligns with Matthew 24:14.  By emphasizing the historical fulfillment of the temple’s desolation and the new covenant’s establishment, Justin clearly identifies the “end of the age” as the termination of the Old Covenant age in 70 AD, not the end of world history.

Tertullian (c. 160–220 AD): “For Daniel says, ‘And one week will make a covenant with many, and in the midst of the week sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away;’ and that the ‘abomination of desolation shall be brought into the temple,’ and that ‘unto the end the desolation shall continue.’ These things, I say, have been fulfilled; for when the city was taken by the Romans, the temple was destroyed, and the sacrifices were taken away.”[100]

Origen (c. 185–254 AD): “And so when we see ‘the abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains… For these things came to pass when the Romans, having taken Jerusalem, set up their own standards in the temple, and the prophecy was fulfilled.”[101]

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD): “Thus were the things fulfilled which had been foretold by the prophets and by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself… when the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stood in the holy place, whoso readeth let him understand, and the city and the temple were overthrown together by the Romans.”[102]

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD): “For this it seems to me that the abomination of desolation means the army by which the holy city of Jerusalem was made desolate… For the war and the miseries of the Jews, which came to pass not long after, fulfilled these things.”[103]

Timeline of Signs (AD 30–70)

Sign (Matt. 24) Type Timeframe NT Evidence Historical Fulfillment
False Messiahs (24:4–5) General Birth Pain AD 30–60s Acts 5:36–37 Theudas, Simon Magus (Josephus, Ant. 20.5.1)
Wars (24:6–7a) General Birth Pain AD 38–66 Acts 5:37 Jewish-Greek riots, Zealot uprisings (Jewish War 2.17.8)
Famines (24:7b) General Birth Pain AD 46–70 Acts 11:28 Claudius famine, Jerusalem siege (Jewish War6.9.3)
Earthquakes (24:7c) General Birth Pain AD 50s–68 Acts 16:26 Judea earthquake ( Jewish War4.4.5)
Persecution (24:9)

 

Sign of the Near End & Coming of Christ AD 34–66 Acts 7:58; Heb. 10:32–34 Stephen, James, Peter, Paul, Nero’s persecution (Tacitus, Annals15.44)
False Prophets (24:11) Sign of the Near End & Coming of Christ AD 50s–66 Gal. 1:6–7; 2 Tim. 2:17–18; 1 John 2:18 Judaizers, Hymenaeus, antichrists (Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.2)
Gospel Proclamation (24:14) Sign of the Near End & Coming of Christ AD 30–62 Col. 1:23; Rom. 10:18; Acts 1:8–28 Gospel spread to Roman world (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.3.1; Col. 1:23)
Abomination (24:15) Sign of the Near End & Coming of Christ AD 66–70 Luke 21:20 Roman siege, flight to Pella (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.5.3)

The Abomination of Desolation and the Resurrection

In Daniel 12:11–13, Daniel is told he will be raised at the “end” of the “days,” referring to the three-and-a-half-year period of the abomination of desolation. This reinforces the connection between the resurrection and the war and tribulation from AD 67–70, as outlined in Daniel 12:1–7. The “appointed time of the end” or “end of the age,” which the disciples asked about and Jesus addressed (Matt. 24:3, 13–14; Luke 21:8, 20, 24), corresponds to the “end” or “appointed time of the end” in Daniel 9:26–27 (LXX) and Daniel 12:1–4 (LXX). The fulfillment of this “near” end, marked by the abomination of desolation, was the climactic event that ushered in Christ’s second coming and the resurrection at the close of the Old Covenant age in AD 70.

The Signs Created Real NT Imminence Pointing to AD 70

The New Testament epistles (AD 50–66) connect the signs of Matthew 24:9–15—persecution, rebellion, false prophets, gospel proclamation, and the abomination of desolation—to the imminent expectation of Christ’s coming, fulfilled in AD 70 with Jerusalem’s destruction, marking the end of the old covenant age. Below, key epistles are analyzed, including 1 and 2 Thessalonians, where implied nearness ties to these signs, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. 

1 Thessalonians (ca. AD 50–51): Paul notes persecution by Jews (1 Thess. 2:14–16), aligning with Matthew 24:9’s “hated by all nations” (ethnē), seen in Thessalonian riots (Acts 17:5–9). “We who are alive” (4:15–17) and “the day of the Lord” (5:2–4) imply imminent parousia, with persecution signaling the coming “wrath” and “end” (2:16) fulfilled in AD 70.[104] 

2 Thessalonians (ca. AD 51–52): The Thessalonians were already experiencing false prophets Jesus warned about who were teaching that Christ’s coming had “already” been fulfilled (2 Thess. 2:1-2).  The “rebellion” (apostasia, 2 Thess. 2:3–8) prefigures the Jewish revolt, with the “man of lawlessness” (possibly Phannias)[105] and “restrainer” (possibly Ananus)[106] as figures that were “now” alive when Paul’s wrote (2 Thess. 2:7). This with the coming “relief” (anapausis, 1:7) for the first century Thessalonians at Christ’s coming to bring trouble upon their Jewish persecutors and countrymen (1:5–10; Acts 17) all point to a first century fulfillment in AD 70.  

1 Corinthians (ca. AD 55–56): “Present distress” (thlipsis, 7:26; Acts 18:12–17) and gospel preaching (9:16–23; cf. Col. 1:23) fulfill Matthew 24:9, 14. Terms like “eagerly wait” (apekdechomai, 1:7), “the appointed time is short” (synestalmenos, 7:29), and “end of the ages” (telē, 10:11) signal AD 70’s imminence, per Gordon Fee and a host of other scholars.[107]  The Pulpit Commentary states the following on Paul’s imminence in 1 Corinthians as referring to Christ’s “second coming” being fulfilled in AD 70:

“St. Paul, however, only uses parousia six times in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and once in 1 Cor. 15:23. All Christians alike expected the return of Christ very soon, and possibly in their own lifetime (1 Thess. 1:9, 10, etc.; ch. 15:51; Jas. 5:8, 9; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 22:20, etc.). Their expectation was founded on the great eschatological discourse of our Lord (Matt. 24:29, 30, 34), and on his express promise that that generation should not pass away before his predictions were fulfilled. They were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and the close of the old dispensation,…”[108]

And,

“The old dispensation, then so rapidly waning to its close, was called “this age” (olam hazzeh); the next or Messianic age was called “the age to come” (olam habba). The Messianic age had dawned at the birth of Christ, but the old covenant was not finally annulled till his second coming at the fall of Jerusalem.”[109] 

James (ca. AD 55–62): Persecution (James 1:2–4; 5:1–6) reflects Jewish-Christian tensions. “The Lord is at hand” and “the Judge…at the door” (5:8–9, ēngiken) tie to Matthew 24:32–34, signaling Christ’s coming in AD 70, as John Gill notes.[110] 

2 Timothy (ca. AD 62–64): False teachers (2:17–18) and persecution (3:12) fulfill Matthew 24:9, 11. Christ “about to judge” (mellō krinein, 4:1, YLT) points to AD 70.

1 Peter (ca. AD 62–64): The “fiery trial” (4:12–17) and “end…at hand” (telos…ēngiken, 4:7) with “the appointed time for the judgment” (kairos, 4:17) signal the old covenant’s end and Christ’s coming in AD 70 as Kenneth Gentry notes:

“In 1 Peter 4:7, the phrase ‘the end of all things is at hand’ (telos…ēngiken) employs the same imminent language as Matthew 24:34, pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which marked the end of the old covenant order. The ‘fiery trial’ (4:12) and ‘appointed time for the judgment’ (4:17) describe the suffering of Christians and God’s judgment on apostate Israel, fulfilling Jesus’ Olivet Discourse.”[111]

Of course, Gentry offers no explanation as to how (4:5) was fulfilled in this AD 70 judgment when God was “…ready tojudge the living and the dead.” Perhaps because this is a creedal statement Gentry doesn’t want to touch it along with 2 Timothy 4:1 YLT where Paul is in lockstep with Peter when he writes that Christ was “about to judge the living and the dead at his appearing and kingdom.”

1 John (ca. AD 60–65): The appearances of “Antichrists” (2:18–22) proving it was the “last hour” (eschate hōra, 2:18) tie to Jesus’ “day and hour” (Matt. 24:36) and Daniel 12:4’s “hour of the end” (OG) LXX, pointing to AD 70 as John A.T. Robinson points out:

“The ‘last hour’ in 1 John 2:18 and the ‘day and hour’ in Matthew 24:36, alongside Daniel 12:4’s ‘time of the end,’ reflect the expectation of an imminent crisis, fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, which ended the old covenant order.”[112] 

Hebrews (ca. AD 60–65): Persecution (10:32–34) signals “the Day” (engizō, 10:25; mellō, 6:5), with Habakkuk 2:3–4 (“a little while,” 10:37) linked to Christ coming in vengeance in AD 70, per R.C. Sproul:

“The ‘Day’ in Hebrews 10:25, described as approaching, and the ‘little while’ in 10:37, quoting Habakkuk, refer to the judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which marked the end of the temple and the old covenant system.”[113]

Revelation (ca. AD 63–66): Persecution (2:10; 6:9–11), false prophets (13:11–18), gospel proclamation (14:6), and temple desolation (11:1–2) fulfill Matthew 24:9–15. The book of Revelation being fulfilled “shortly” with Christ’s second coming “soon” (en tachei, 1:1, 3; tachu, 22:12) confirms the AD 70 fulfillment.  Gentry correctly observes:

“Revelation’s imminent language, such as ‘shortly’ (en tachei, 1:1, 3) and ‘soon’ (tachu, 22:12), points to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The persecution in 2:10 and 6:9–11 reflects the suffering of Christians under Jewish and Roman hostility (Matthew 24:9). The false prophets in 13:11–18 parallel Matthew 24:11, the gospel proclamation in 14:6 fulfills Matthew 24:14, and the temple’s desolation in 11:1–2 corresponds to Matthew 24:15’s ‘abomination of desolation.’”[114]

Conclusion: The NT epistles link Matthew 24:9–15’s signs to the imminent expectation of Christ’s coming, fulfilled in AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem, ending the old covenant age.

Major Premise: The NT epistles (AD 50–66) explicitly connect the signs of Matthew 24:9–15 (persecution, rebellion, false prophets, gospel proclamation, abomination of desolation) to the imminent expectation of Christ’s coming, signaling the end of the old covenant age. 

Minor Premise: These signs were actively fulfilled in the first century, culminating in AD 70’s destruction of Jerusalem, as evidenced by historical events (e.g., Jewish revolt, temple desolation) and epistolary language of nearness (ēngiken, mellō, tachu), aligning with Jesus’ “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). 

Conclusion: Therefore, the signs’ fulfillment in AD 70 confirms Christ’s coming as the judgment marking the end of the old covenant age, consistent with the epistles’ imminent expectations.

Conclusion 

The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:4–15) provides Jesus’ prophetic framework for the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the Old Covenant age, and His second coming in judgment, all fulfilled within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34, AD 30–70). By delineating preliminary “birth pains” (Matt. 24:4–8) from intensifying “near signs” (Matt. 24:9–15), Jesus clarified Second Temple Jewish expectations, grounding them in Old Testament prophecies (Dan. 2:44; 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7; Isa. 2–4; Ezek. 38–39; Deut. 32:5, 20–43) and aligning with texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls’ War Scroll (1QM) and Melchizedek Scroll (11QMelch). Historical evidence—Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius—confirms the fulfillment of these signs, from false messiahs and famines to the gospel’s spread and the Roman siege, culminating in AD 70’s “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; Luke 21:20–24). NT writers, including Peter (1 Pet. 4:7), Paul (Phil. 4:5), and John (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10), rightly declared Christ’s coming “near” as these signs unfolded, avoiding the false prophetic errors Jesus warned against (Matt. 24:4–6).

Full Preterism uniquely harmonizes these prophecies, solving theological errors in other systems. Higher Critical scholars misinterpret the “end” as the world’s termination, wrongly claiming Jesus failed. Dispensationalists misapply first-century signs to modern events, fostering fear. Amillennialism dilutes NT imminence with an indefinite timeline, while Postmillennial Partial Preterism fragments Scripture’s unified eschatology by positing a future coming. Full Preterism affirms the singular AD 70 fulfillment of Christ’s coming, establishing His spiritual kingdom (Luke 17:20–21; Dan. 2:44). This empowers believers to reject speculative eschatology and engage confidently with contemporary challenges—such as Islam, Talmudic Judaism/Zionism, Marxism, and Globalism—through faithful, long-term strategies rooted in Christ’s AD 70 victory (Heb. 12:28; Dan. 7:27). 

NT Writers’ Prophetic Accuracy

Major Premise: Jesus warned against false prophets prematurely declaring the end before the signs of Matthew 24:9–15 were fulfilled (Matt. 24:4–6).

Minor Premise: NT writers declared the end “near” only as these signs were fulfilled by AD 70 (1 Pet. 4:7; Col. 1:23; Luke 21:20).

Conclusion: The NT writers were not false prophets, as their claims were validated, refuting Higher Critical and futurist errors.

Genuine Imminence of AD 70

Major Premise: NT imminence language (ēngiken, tachu) reflects a genuine expectation of Christ’s “near” coming within “this generation” (Matt. 24:32-34).

Minor Premise: Historical and NT evidence confirms these signs were fulfilled by AD 70 (Acts 2–28; Col. 1:23).

Conclusion: The NT’s imminence claims were fulfilled in AD 70, correcting Amillennialism’s vague timeline and Partial Preterism’s divided eschatology.

[1] For the Olivet Discourse’s connection to Dniel and Deuteronomy, see Daniel 2:44, 7:13–27, 9:24–27, 12:1–7; Deuteronomy 32:5, 20–43. On Second Temple Jewish expectations, see War Scroll (1QM 1:1–7), which anticipates a messianic war, and Damascus Document (CD 3:7–8), which interprets Deuteronomy’s covenant curses. Jesus’ prophecy aligns with these texts, specifying AD 67–70 as the fulfillment period; cf. Matthew 24:7b, 15; Revelation 20:7–10. For Qumran’s Gog and Magog expectations, see War Scroll (1QM 2:6–14).

[2] Daniel 12:1’s “time of trouble” is linked to the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21). For historical fulfillment in AD 67–70, see Josephus, Jewish War6.2.1 (on Jerusalem’s destruction) and Tacitus, Histories 5.13 (on Roman sieges). Jesus’ specificity contrasts with Qumran’s broader crisis; cf. War Scroll (1QM 2:6–14).

[3] On the “perverse generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20), see Matthew 17:17; Acts 2:40; Philippians 2:15, which prompted the appointed time of Christ’s coming and judgment to be near Luke 21:8, 20–32; 1 Peter 4:7; Phil. 4:5. Peter and Paul’s use of Deuteronomy reflects their expectation of imminent judgment, fulfilled in AD 70.

[4] Deuteronomy 32’s prominence in Qumran and NT texts is evident in Damascus Document (CD 3:7–8) and NT citations (e.g., Rom. 12:19-13:11-12; Heb. 10:30-37). It forecasts covenant judgment, fulfilled in AD 70.

[5] For Jewish expectations of spiritual resurrection and a restored temple, see 4QFlorilegium (4Q174), which interprets 2 Samuel 7:10–14 messianically. The NT fulfills this in the Church as the New Jerusalem; cf. Revelation 21:16; Hebrews 12:22–24.

[6] Higher Critical scholars like Albert Schweitzer (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1910, pp. 357–360) argue Jesus expected a cosmic end that failed to occur, undermining inerrancy. Full Preterism counters that the “end” was the Old Covenant age, fulfilled in AD 70; cf. Josephus, Jewish War6.2.1; Luke 21:20–24.  Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2004), 234-238, suggests that Jesus’ predictions of an imminent end reflect a misunderstanding of historical outcomes.

[7] Hummel, Daniel. “4 Snapshots of Dispensationalism Today.” The Gospel Coalition, February 28, 2024. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/4-snapshots-dispensationalism-today/.

[8] Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War. Translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin Classics, 1981.

[9] Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library, 1926.

[10] “Dispensationalism.” Wikipedia, February 22, 2003, last modified 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism.

[11] Anthony A. Hoekema, THE BIBLE AND THE FUTURE, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 126.

Amillennialists like Kim Riddlebarger (A Case for Amillennialism, 2003, pp. 142–145) see partial AD 70 fulfillment but extend eschatology indefinitely, diluting NT imminence (e.g., ēngiken, Matt. 24:34). Full Preterism affirms all signs fulfilled by AD 70 pointing to real imminent fulfillment.

[12] Postmillennial Partial Preterists like Kenneth L. Gentry (Before Jerusalem Fell, 1998, pp. 278–280; HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION, Third Edition, pp. 538-540; Joel McDurmon Jesus v. Jerusalem, pp. 41-49; James B. Jordan, HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A COMMENTARY ON DANIEL, pp. 618-628; MATTHEW 23-25, pp.180-181) affirm the “end” of the old covenant age and or resurrection was fulfilled in AD 70 but posit a future Second Coming and resurrection, fragmenting Daniel 12:2, Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24:30–31. Full Preterism sees a unified AD 70 fulfillment of those passages as the foundation to Paul’s eschatology in 1 Thess. 4-5; 1 Cor. 15; Rev. 11:18; 20:12-13.

[13] Jesus’ warning against false prophets (Matt. 24:4–6, 23–26) contrasts with NT writers’ validated imminence claims (1 Pet. 4:7; Phil. 4:5; 1 John 2:18), tied to fulfilled signs (Col. 1:23; Acts 2–28); cf. Josephus, Jewish War6.2.1.

[14] NT imminence (ēngiken, mellō, tachu) reflects a first-century expectation (Matt. 24:34), fulfilled by AD 70; cf. Acts 2–28; Colossians 1:23; Luke 21:20–24; Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.3.

[15] Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 102–104. Lester L. Grabbe: His works (An Introduction to First Century Judaism and A History of the Jews and Judaism) discuss diverse Jewish afterlife beliefs, including soul-based immortality in some texts, which could align with a spiritual resurrection concept. Check these texts for specific references, as the search results are not conclusive. Murray Harris: In Raised Immortal and From Grave to Glory, Harris describes Paul’s “spiritual body” concept and notes Jewish parallels in texts like Jubilees, which emphasize soul resurrection. These align with a spiritual resurrection idea but are framed in a Christian context. Dr. A. Cohen: Likely refers to Abraham Cohen’s Everyman’s Talmud, which summarizes Talmudic debates, including Sanhedrin 99a’s mention of a 40-year Messianic reign. This is the closest match, but Cohen may not explicitly endorse this view. Nickelsburg, Sysling, and Lapide provide evidence of spiritual resurrection concepts in Second Temple Judaism, while Talmudic and Kabbalistic texts (Sanhedrin 99a, Zohar) support a transitional Messianic reign, sometimes tied to 40 years.

[16] Deuteronomy 31:29; 32:5, 35

[17] Daniel 9:24–27; 12:2–3, 7

[18] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 500–01 (4Q558); 532–34 (1QM 1:3–6); 478–79 (1QpHab 2:5–10).

[19] Daniel 12:7; Revelation 11:2–8

[20] Revelation 21:2; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 3.5.3.

[21] Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 118a; Sanhedrin 98b, in The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, ed. Jacob Neusner (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011).

[22] R.H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 1 Enoch 99:4–5; Jubilees 23:13–21.

[23] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165; Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 100–101.

[24] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 156–157; Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch 99:4–5.

[25] Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G.A. Williamson, rev. E. Mary Smallwood (London: Penguin Books, 1981), 6.5.2.

[26] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165.

[27] Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, trans. F.H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 30–31.

[28] Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.12.1.

[29] G.K. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 4 Ezra 13:31–32; 2 Baruch 27:1–15.

[30] Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.13.4–5.

[31] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 128–129; Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 100–101.

[32] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 578–579.

[33] Ibid., 580–581.

[34] Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 Baruch 62:4–6.

[35] Josephus, The Jewish War, 6.3.3–4.

[36] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 510–511.

[37] Ibid., 496–497.

[38] Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch 1:5–7.

[39] Josephus, The Jewish War, 4.4.5.

[40] Tacitus, Histories, trans. Clifford H. Moore, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), 4.38.

[41] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 904–905.

[42] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 565–566.

[43] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165.

[44] John MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 45–47; David Jeremiah, The Book of Signs: 31 Undeniable Prophecies of the Apocalypse (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 123–125.

[45] Jack Hibbs, “Is This the End?,” sermon, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, March 15, 2020, accessed October 10, 2025, https://calvarycch.org/sermons/is-this-the-end/.

[46] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165; Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 1 Enoch 99:4–5.

[47] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 339–343; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 889–892.

[48] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970); Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1995).

[49] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 510–511.

[50] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 20.9.1.

[51] Tacitus, Annals, trans. John Jackson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937), 15.44.

[52] Josephus, The Jewish War, 4.3.8.

[53] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 3.5.3.

[54] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 28–29.

[55] Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.17.6–9.

[56] Tacitus, Histories, 5.12.

[57] F.F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 167–168.

[58] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 156–157.

[59] Ibid., 510–511.

[60] Ibid., 104–105.

[61] Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 16, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, edited by Allan Menzies (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1896), p. 422.

[62] Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 3, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, p. 108.

[63] Homilies on Matthew, Homily 75, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10, edited by Philip Schaff (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1888), p. 456.

[64] MacArthur, The Second Coming, 47–48.

[65] Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 135–137; Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 148–150.

[66] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3.

[67] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165; Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 139.

[68] Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 124–126.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 139.

[71] G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 558.

[72] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165.

[73] Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 316.

[74] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3.

[75] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 174–175.

[76] Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 139.

[77] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163.

[78] Ibid., 163–165.

[79] Ibid., 165–166.

[80] Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 139.

[81] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 176–178.

[82] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 558.

[83] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 243.

[84] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 170–171.

[85] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 558.

[86] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 243.

[87] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 172–173.

[88] Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 210.

[89] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 163–165.

[90] Ibid., 171–172.

[91] Ibid., 163–165.

[92] Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob, 182.

[93] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 315–320

[94] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3

[95] Josephus, Wars, 4.3.8.

[96] Josephus, Wars, 4.5.2.

[97] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Book X, Chapter 11, Section 7, in The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, translated by William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), p. 275.

[98] Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 16, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), p. 146.

[99] Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 32, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), p. 211.

[100] Against Marcion, Book III, Chapter 23, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885), p. 341.

[101] Commentary on Matthew, Book X, Chapter 14, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9, edited by Allan Menzies (Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1896), p. 421.

[102] Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 5, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890), p. 138.

[103] Homilies on Matthew, Homily 76, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10, edited by Philip Schaff (New York: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1888), p. 459.

[104] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3; Acts 17:5–9.

[105] Josephus, Wars, 4.3.8.

[106] Josephus, Wars, 4.5.2.

[107] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 38, 321, 413.  See also Peter J. Leithart, REVELATION 1-11 Vol., 1 (New York, Bloomsbury T&T Clark Publishing, 2018), pp. 25-26

[108] H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Corinthians, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), pp. 3-4.

[109] Ibid., p. 7.

[110] John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, James 5:8–9 (London: 1746–48).

[111] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Last Days Madness (American Vision Lecture Series, 2005), Lecture 4, accessed via AmericanVision.org.

[112] John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 240.

[113] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Ligonier Ministries Teaching Series, 1998), Lecture 3, accessed via Ligonier.org.

[114] The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation, Volume 1 (Fountain Inn, SC: Tolle Lege Press, 2023), page 89

 

 

Matthew 24-25 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 1: (Matthew 24:2-3) The Disciples’ Question Both Theologically Accurate and Pointing to the End of the Old Covenant Age

The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21) is the cornerstone of New Testament eschatology, often described as the “Rosetta Stone” of biblical prophecy. It shapes the eschatological framework of Paul (1–2 Thessalonians, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians), Peter, James, Hebrews, and Revelation, which many scholars view as an expanded Olivet Discourse. Jesus draws on Old Testament prophets like Daniel and Isaiah, making the Discourse a hub connecting Old and New Testament eschatology. As Thomas Ice notes, “A proper understanding of the Olivet Discourse is absolutely essential for anyone who wants to gain a clear picture of God’s plan for the ages. This discourse is so significant that the way a person interprets it will impact their understanding of the rest of the prophecy in the Bible.” A correct interpretation clarifies the timing and nature of Christ’s return and His kingdom, while a flawed one distorts the entire prophetic narrative.

Central to the Discourse is the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age (sunteleia tou aiōnos)?” Futurists claim the disciples were confused, mistakenly linking the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–2) with Christ’s coming (parousia) and the “end of the age,” which they assume refers to the end of world history or the Christian age. However, textual, historical, and theological evidence—rooted in Old Testament prophecy, Jesus’ teachings, and Second Temple Jewish eschatology—demonstrates that the disciples were theologically coherent. Their question accurately connected the temple’s fall in AD 70 with Christ’s coming and the end of the Old Covenant age, not a future global apocalypse. This chapter argues that the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 refers to the Old Covenant era, fulfilled in AD 70, and refutes claims of the disciples’ confusion.

The Disciples’ Question: Context and Meaning

The disciples’ question follows Jesus’ prediction that the Second Temple would be destroyed (Matt. 24:1–2; Mark 13:1–2; Luke 21:5–6). In Matthew 24:3, they ask about three elements: the timing of “these things” (the temple’s destruction), the sign of Christ’s coming, and the “end of the age.” Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 focus on the timing and signs of the temple’s fall, omitting “end of the age.” This variation reflects audience differences: Matthew, writing for Jews familiar with the Old Covenant’s “this age” (Matt. 13:39–43), includes the phrase, while Mark and Luke, addressing broader audiences, streamline the question to emphasize the temple’s destruction. The accounts are consistent, with Matthew’s “end of the age” aligning with the temple’s fall in AD 70, marking the Old Covenant’s end.

The phrase “end of the age” (sunteleia tou aiōnos) appears in Matthew 13:39–43, where Jesus describes a judgment and harvest at the “end of this age,” tied to the Old Covenant’s culmination. Partial preterist Joel McDurmon comments on this passage:

“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 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem.”[1]

He notes that the righteous are gathered into God’s “barn” (protected), while the wicked face judgment, fulfilled when Christians fled Jerusalem before its destruction in AD 70 (Matt. 24:16–22). McDurmon further connects Jesus’ “this age” (Old Covenant) and “age to come” (New Covenant) to Pauline eschatology (Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:26; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26), concluding:

“These two periods, being hinged upon the coming and work of Christ, pertain obviously to the Old and New Covenant administrations.”[2]

Gary DeMar reinforces this, stating:

“The disciples’ question involves three interrelated, contemporary events: (1) the time of the temple’s destruction; (2) the sign that will signal Jesus’ coming related to the destruction of the temple; and (3) the sign they should look for telling them that ‘the end of the age’ has come. These questions are related to the destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system and nothing else.” He clarifies: “Notice that the disciples did not ask about the end of the ‘world’ (kosmos), as some Bible versions translate the Greek word aiōn. In context, with the temple and city as their primary focus, they asked about the end of the ‘age.’” Citing George Hill, DeMar explains: “Time was divided by the Jews into two great periods, the age of the law and the age of the Messiah. … The ‘end of the age’ refers to the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system with its attendant sacrifices and rituals.”[3]

The Jewish and Old Testament Eschatological Context

First-century Jewish theology distinguished “this age” (olam hazeh), the Old Covenant era of Moses and the temple, from the “age to come” (olam ha-ba), the Messianic era of covenantal renewal. The Qumran community anticipated “this age” ending with the Messiah’s triumph (1QS 4:16–17; 4Q521 2 II 11–12).[4] The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) described olam ha-ba as eternal, for the righteous. Jubilees 23:26–31 and 1 Enoch 71:15–17 envisioned a spiritually renewed age, not cosmic destruction.[5] Alan F. Segal notes that Pharisees and Qumran sectarians saw olam ha-ba as a renewed covenantal order.[6] John J. Collins describes this as “restorationist eschatology,” where God’s kingdom transforms history without termination.[7] Jacob Neusner summarizes: “For most Jews of the late Second Temple period, eschatology meant not the end of the world, but the end of the age—the old order—and the beginning of the rule of God’s righteousness.”[8]

Old Testament prophets reinforced this framework. Moses prophesied Israel’s “end” in her “last days” during a “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 20, 29, 35–43), which Jesus and the apostles identified as their generation (Matt. 17:17; 24:34; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15). Daniel 9:24–27 ties Jerusalem’s desolation to the Messiah’s arrival and an everlasting covenant. Daniel 12:1–7 links resurrection and judgment to the temple and cities destruction, when “the power of the holy people” is “completely shattered” for “three-and-a-half years” (AD 67–70). Isaiah 25:2–9 and 27:9–13 connect judgment, atonement, and the gathering of the remnant to the Jerusalem’s fall. Malachi 3–4 foretells the Lord’s sudden coming to His temple (the second temple Jesus and the disciples are discussing) to judge and purify.

Jesus’ Teachings and the Disciples’ Understanding

Jesus’ prior teachings confirm the disciples’ question was coherent. In Matthew 13:39–43, He defines the “end of this age” as the Old Covenant’s judgment, with the righteous gathered and the wicked judged. The disciples affirmed their understanding, saying “Yes” (Matt. 13:51). Jesus also taught His coming and the eschatological “end” of Daniel 7, 9 and 12 would occur within their lifetimes: “You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” …But the one who endures to the end will be saved (Matt. 10:22–23); “Some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28); and in Luke 17:20–37, His coming is a spiritual kingdom “within” believers. In Matthew 26:63–65, Jesus tells Israel’s leaders they would see Him coming in judgment. These teachings frame His coming as a first-century event tied to Jerusalem’s fall.

Thematic Chart: Daniel 12, Matthew 13, and Matthew 24–25 Compared

Theme Daniel 12 Matthew 13

Matthew 24–25 & Parallels

Evangelism Before the End Knowledge and righteousness increase; prophecy sealed until the time of the end (12:3–4). Gospel spreads through the kingdom’s growth; harvest at the end of the age (13:24–30, 39–43). Gospel preached to all nations before the end of the age (24:3, 14).
Tribulation Time of distress unlike any before (12:1). (Not explicitly mentioned, but implied in judgment context.) Great tribulation, unequaled in history (24:21, 29).
Righteous Rise, Wicked Judged Righteous awake to eternal life, shine; wicked to shame and contempt (12:2–3). Righteous wheat gathered, shine like the sun; tares burned (13:30, 42–43). Righteous sheep gathered, inherit eternal life; goats to eternal punishment (24:30–31; 25:31–46).
Fulfillment at the End Fulfilled when the holy people’s power is shattered; Jerusalem and temple desolated for 3.5 years (12:4, 7; cf. 9:26–27). Fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age (13:39). Fulfilled at the end of the Old Covenant age in Jesus’ generation during the times of the Gentiles (24:3–34; Luke 21:20–24, 32).

The Gospels often correct the disciples’ confusion (e.g., Matt. 16:6–12; 20:20–25), but Matthew 24 contains no rebuke. Jesus affirms their question, stating “all these things” would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). Milton Terry discussing the end of the age in Hebrews 9:26-28 and Matthew 24:3 clarifies:

“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. … 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.”[9]

Terry is correct. Jesus did appear at the end of the Old Covenant age. From birth to parousia to conclude the Old Covenant age was roughly a seventy-year period. If futurism is correct, it makes the author of Hebrews mistaken, having Jesus come at the end of the New Covenant age, which has now lasted over two thousand years, spanning longer than the Old Covenant age ever did!

Logical Arguments Supporting the Disciples’ Coherence

Logical Argument #1: Old Covenant Context
Major Premise: The “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3, as used in Matthew 13:39–43, refers to the Old Covenant’s end, tied to the temple’s destruction and Messiah’s coming, per Daniel 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7.

Minor Premise: The disciples’ question responds to Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s fall (Matt. 24:2), a symbol of the Old Covenant, and builds on His teachings that His coming and the “end” would occur in their lifetimes (Matt. 10:22–23; 16:27–28).

Conclusion: The disciples were not confused, as their question aligns with Jesus’ teachings and Old Testament prophecy, fulfilled in AD 70.

Logical Argument #2: The Absence of Correction in Matthew 24 

Major Premise: The Gospels consistently correct the disciples’ misunderstandings with explicit rebukes orclarifications (e.g., Matt. 16:21–23; 17:4–5; 20:20–25).

Minor Premise: Jesus does not correct the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 linking the temple’s destruction,His coming, and the end of the age, but affirms that “all these things” will occur in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).Furthermore, the disciples explicitly stated, “Yes,” affirming their understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the “endof the age” in Matthew 13:39–43, 51, indicating they grasped its connection to the Old Covenant’s end prior totheir question in Matthew 24.

Conclusion: The disciples were not confused, as their affirmed understanding in Matthew 13:51 and Jesus’affirmation in Matthew 24:34 indicate their question accurately reflected His teachings and Old Testamentprophecy, fulfilled in AD 70.

Logical Argument #3: New Covenant Eternality
Major Premise: The New Covenant age, inaugurated by Jesus, is eternal, per Ephesians 3:20–21: “to Him be glory in the church … throughout all generations, forever and ever.”

Minor Premise: The disciples’ question associates the temple’s destruction (Old Covenant) with the “end of the age,” not the eternal New Covenant.

Conclusion: The disciples were not confused, as their question logically pertains to the Old Covenant’s end, fulfilled in AD 70.

Logical Argument #4: Synoptic Variations
Major Premise: If “end of the age” meant the end of world history, its omission in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 would be inexplicable.

Minor Premise: Mark and Luke focus on the temple’s destruction, omitting “end of the age,” as Matthew’s Jewish audience understood it as the Old Covenant’s end.

Conclusion: The disciples were not confused, as Matthew’s use of “end of the age” reflects the Old Covenant’s end, fulfilled in AD 70.

Additional Evidence: New Testament and Historical Fulfillment

The New Testament confirms the Old Covenant’s imminent end. Hebrews 8:13 states it was “obsolete” and “ready to vanish” in AD 70. Hebrews 10:37 declares Christ’s coming “in a very little while.” Paul describes the “ends of the ages” as having arrived (1 Cor. 10:11), with the “end of all things” near (1 Pet. 4:5, 7). The gospel’s spread to “all nations” before “the end” (Matt. 24:14) was fulfilled by AD 70 (Col. 1:5–6, 23; Rom. 10:18; 16:25–26).

Logical Argument #5: Fulfillment of the Great Commission Before the End of the Old Covenant Age

Prophecy

Fulfillment

(1) “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world [Greek oikumene] for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14) (1) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’” [Greek oikumene] (Rom. 10:18)
(2) “And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” [Greek ethnos] “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.’” [Greek ethnos] “‘. . . I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you [miracles] always, even to the end of the [old covenant] age.’” (Mark 13:10 / Matt. 28:19–20) (2) “…My gospel… has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations. . . .” [Greek ethnos] (Rom. 16:25–26).
(3a.) “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world [Greek kosmos]…” (Mark 16:15) The parable of the wheat and tares: gospel goes out to “The field” which “is the world [Greek kosmos]” before the “end” of the old covenant age (Matt. 13:38–43) (3a) “…of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world [Greek kosmos], as is bringing forth fruit. . . .” (Col. 1:5–6) *BDAG on kosmos – “the inhabited world as known to the Greco-Roman culture, i.e., the Roman Empire and its sphere of influence.”
(3b.) “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation [Greek ktisis]” (Mark 16:15) (3b.) “…from the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature [Greek ktisis] under heaven, of which I, Paul became a minister” (Col. 1:23)
(3c.) “…And these signs will follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues [Greek glossa]” (Mark 16:17) “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues [Greek glossa], as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation [Greek ethnos] under heaven.” (Acts 2:4–5) (3c.) “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth/land [Greek ge], and to every nation [Greek ethnos], and kindred and tongue [Greek glossa], and people” (Rev. 14:6).
(4) “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth/land [Greek ge]” (Acts 1:8)

*Keith Mathison says Christ’s coming upon the clouds from heaven in Acts 1:11 would be fulfilled after the gospel has been preached to “the end of the earth” of verse 8 (Mathison, Postmillennialism, p. 117)

(4) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth/land [Greek ge], and their words to the ends of the world’” (Rom. 10:18)

*Keith Mathison cites Romans 10:18 as evidence that the gospel had already been preached to “all the earth/land” thus anticipating the coming of Christ upon the clouds in AD 70 (Mathison, Postmillennialism, p. 113)!

Major Premise: Jesus declared in Matthew 24:14 that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached “throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come,” directly answering the disciples’ question about the “end of the age” (Matt. 24:3), which refers to the Old Covenant age culminating in the temple’s destruction in AD 70.

Minor Premise: The New Testament confirms that the gospel was preached to “all nations” and throughout the Roman world before AD 70, as evidenced by Paul’s statements in Colossians 1:5–6, 23 (“the gospel… has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven”), Romans 10:18 (“their voice has gone out to all the earth”), and Romans 16:25–26 (“made known to all nations”).

Conclusion: The Great Commission was fulfilled before the end of the Old Covenant age in AD 70, as the gospel’s global proclamation, a prerequisite for “the end” (Matt. 24:14), was accomplished within the first-century generation, aligning with Jesus’ prophecy and the temple’s destruction.

The cessation of revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, knowledge) in AD 70 further confirms the Old Covenant’s end. Jesus’ promise to be “with” the disciples through charismatic gifts “until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18–20; cf. Mark 16:15–17) and Paul’s teaching that these gifts would cease when the “perfect” comes (1 Cor. 13:8–12; cf. Rev. 22:4–7) tie their duration to the Old Covenant age. Daniel 9:24–27 states prophecy would cease with the temple’s destruction, and the New Testament canon [which reiterates the promise of the Old] was completed and fulfilled by AD 70 (Luke 21:22, 32). This refutes claims of ongoing revelation (e.g., Charismatic movements, Mormonism, etc…).

Logical Argument #6: Cessation of Revelatory Gifts at the End of the Old Covenant Age

Text Event Spiritual Gifts/Miracles Temporal Context

Fulfillment in AD 70

Matt. 24:3, 14, 30–31 End of the age; Christ’s second coming. Miracles confirming “kingdom being at hand” & mission unto “the end” (Matt. 10:1–23). “End of the age” after gospel preached (24:14); “this generation” (24:34). Gospel preached (Col. 1:5–6, 23); Christ’s coming ends Old Covenant (Heb. 8:13; 10:30-37).
1 Cor. 1:5–8 Revealing of Christ at the “end” Spiritual gifts (utterance, knowledge) confirming 1st. cent. church until Christ’s coming & end “eagerly awaiting” “to the end,” awaiting Christ’s revealing. Gifts confirming and sustaining until Christ’s coming in AD 70
1 Cor. 13:8–12 Coming of “the perfect” (Christ’s return). Revelatory Gifts (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) “cease” when “the perfect” comes. When “the perfect” [telos] arrives, partial gifts end. Gifts ceased at Christ’s coming, fulfilling Old Covenant’s end (AD 70; Dan. 9:24-27; Heb. 8:13).
Matt. 28:18–20 Great Commission to all nations. Christ’s presence: “I am with you [through Holy Spirit performing miracles] to the end of the [old covenant] age” “To the end of the [Old Covenant] age.” Great Commission and Miracles (Acts 1:8; 2:4–5ff.) ceased with mission fulfilled at Old Covenant’s end (Matt. 24:3, 14; Rms. 10:18).
Mark 16:15–17 Gospel to all creation. Signs: tongues, exorcisms, healing. Implied end with mission’s completion & gospel preached o all creation (cf. Matt. 28:20; Cols. 1:5-6, 23). Signs fulfilled (Acts 2:4–5ff.; 1 Cor. 12:7–11) until AD 70 when mission of Acts 1:8 fulfilled (Rms. 10:18; Cols. 1:5-6, 23)

Major Premise: The New Testament ties the duration of revelatory gifts (tongues, prophecy, knowledge) to the Old Covenantage, with Jesus promising to be “with” the disciples through charismatic gifts “until the end of the age” (Matt.28:18–20; cf. Mark 16:15–17), and Paul stating these gifts would “cease” when the “perfect” comes, which Johnassociates with Christ’s imminent coming and the vision of God’s face “soon” at the end of the Old Covenant age (1 Cor. 13:8–12; cf. Rev. 22:4–7, 10, 20).

Minor Premise: Daniel 9:24–27 prophesies that prophecy and visions [office of prophet] would cease with the temple’s destruction in AD 70, and the New Testament canon [“the OT revealed”] was completed and fulfilled by AD 70 (Luke 21:22, 32), coinciding with the end of the Old Covenant age and Christ’s coming in judgment (Matt. 24:3, 30–34).

Conclusion: The revelatory gifts ceased in AD 70 at the end of the Old Covenant age, as their purpose was fulfilled with the completion of New Testament revelation and the termination of the Old Covenant order, rendering ongoing claims of prophecy (e.g., Charismatic movements, Mormonism) invalid.

The Literary Unity of Matthew 23–25: A Cohesive Discourse

Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118:26 in Matthew 23:39, sung at Passover, became a divine snare during the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70), as recorded by Josephus (Jewish War 6.9.3). Christians’ flight to Pella (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History3.5.3) fulfilled Jesus’ warning (Matt. 24:15–21).

The literary structure of Matthew 23–25 forms a chiasm, unifying the temple’s destruction, Christ’s coming, and the end of the age within a first-century timeframe, as detailed in Logical Argument 7:

A. Seat of False Authority (Matt. 23:1–12): Pharisees’ hypocritical rule.

B. Woes of Divine Judgment (Matt. 23:13–32): Condemnation of blood guilt.

C. Climax of Judgment (Matt. 23:33–35): All righteous blood required of this generation.

D. Temporal Boundary (Matt. 23:36): “All these things” come upon “this generation.”

E. Christ’s Coming and Resurrection (Matt. 23:37–24:31): Judgment and gathering or resurrection at the trumpet.

D’. Temporal Fulfillment (Matt. 24:32–36): Events fulfilled in “this generation.”

C’. Final Judgment (Matt. 24:45–25:46): Judgment of living and dead.

B’. Parables of Accountability (Matt. 24:45–25:30): Readiness for judgment.

A’. Seat of True Authority (Matt. 25:31–45): Jesus’ throne of judgment.

This chiasm, centered on the temple’s desolation (Matt. 23:38), connects the disciples’ question to a singular eschatological event. The pivot at Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:30–31) aligns with the irony of Matthew 23:39, where the Jews’ would be singing of Psalm 118:26 during one of their feasts which ended up being the Passover during the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70) which signaled judgment (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1). Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118:26 in Matthew 23:39, sung at Passover (Mishnah, Pesahim 5:7), became a divine snare (Ps. 69:22–23), as the Jewish-Roman War began at Passover in AD 67 and culminated in AD 70 (Josephus, Jewish War 6.9.3). The disciples’ question about the “sign” reflects awareness of this irony (or that Jesus is promising to come during one of their three annual feasts), answered in Matthew 24:15–21, fulfilled when Roman armies encircled Jerusalem, prompting Christians’ flight to Pella (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3).

Logical Argument #7: Chiastic Unity of Matthew 23–25 and Historical Fulfillment

Major Premise: The literary structure of Matthew 23–25 forms a chiasm that unifies the temple’s destruction (Matt. 23:38), Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:30–31), and the end of the age (Matt. 24:3) within a first-century timeframe, centered on the judgment of “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34), with Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118:26 (Matt. 23:39) signaling a divine snare fulfilled during the Jewish-Roman War (AD 67–70; Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 6.9.3).

Minor Premise: The disciples’ question about and additional “sign” of Christ’s coming and the end of the age (Matt. 24:3) reflects awareness of the Passover irony in Matthew 23:39, where the Jews’ singing of Psalm 118:26 (Mishnah, Pesahim5:7) became a snare (Ps. 69:22–23), fulfilled when Roman armies encircled Jerusalem, prompting Christians’ flight to Pella (Matt. 24:15–21; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3), aligning with the chiastic structure’s focus on AD 70.

Conclusion: The disciples were not confused, as the chiastic unity of Matthew 23–25 and the historical fulfillment of the Passover irony in AD 67–70 confirm that their question accurately linked the temple’s destruction, Christ’s coming, and the end of the Old Covenant age, fulfilled within their generation.

Refuting Inconsistent Interpretations

Futurists misinterpret “end of the age” as the end of world history, imposing a global apocalypse alien to the text. Partial preterists like Doug Wilson, Joel McDurmon, and Jeff Durbin correctly identify the “end of the age” as the Old Covenant’s end in AD 70 but inconsistently separate the resurrection and gathering (Matt. 24:31; 25:31–46) to a future event. This contradicts the unity of Daniel 12:1–7, Matthew 13:39–43, and Matthew 24–25, which tie resurrection, judgment, and the “end” to AD 70. Wilson acknowledges that the “first heavens and earth” (Old Covenant) passed in AD 70, with the “new heavens and earth” (New Covenant) arriving (Isa. 65–66; 2 Pet. 3; Rev. 21–22):

“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, the former ending with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”[10]

This interpretation is consistent with Jewish expectations and New Testament teaching, which portray “the age to come” not as the end of world history, but as the arrival of a new covenant age—eternal, redemptive, and spiritually transformative. It is not a world/planet-ending cataclysm but an ongoing invitation to enter the New Jerusalem, receive resurrection life, and partake of the healing of the nations (cf. Rev. 22:2, 17).

Partial preterists who separate the resurrection from the end of the Old Covenant age and the arrival of the New Covenant and new creation introduce eisegesis, ignoring the inseparable connection between these events, the New Covenant’s eternality (Eph. 3:20–21), and their imminent fulfillment in the first-century context.

Event Chart: Prophecy and Fulfillment 

Event Old Testament Prophecy Jesus’ Teaching

Fulfillment in

AD 70

Temple and City Destruction Dan. 9:26–27; 12:7; Isa. 27:9 Matt. 23:38; 24:2; 24:2-34 Temple destroyed (Josephus, War 6.4–5)
Christ’s Coming Dan. 7:13; Mal. 3–4 Matt. 16:27–28; 23:39; 24:27–34 Judgment on Jerusalem (Josephus, War 6.9.3)
Appointed Time of the End or End of the Old Covenant Age Dan. 12:4–7; Isa. 25:2–9 Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3, 14 Old Covenant “soon to vanish” New Covenant Age “about to come” (Heb. 6:5 SLT; 8:13)
Judgment & Resurrection Dan. 12:1–2; Isa. 27:13 Matt. 24:31; 25:31–46 Vindication of martyrs, gathering of elect (Matt. 24:31ff.)
Gospel to All Nations Isa. 49:6 Matt. 24:14 / Mark 13:10 Gospel spread to all nations (Col. 1:5–6, 23; Rom. 10:18; 16:25-26)

Conclusion

The disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 was not confused but biblically grounded, rooted in Jesus’ teachings (Matt. 13:39–43; 16:27–28) and Old Testament prophecies (Dan. 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7; Isa. 25:2–9; 27:9–13). Prompted by Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction, they rightly linked it to His coming and the end of the Old Covenant age, fulfilled in AD 70. Logical arguments, synoptic variations, New Testament imminent expectations (Matt. 12:32 SLT; Ephs. 1:21 SLT; Heb. 6:5 SLT; Heb. 8:13; 10:37; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17; etc…), and historical evidence (Josephus, Eusebius) confirm their coherence. Futurist and partial preterist interpretations introduce confusion by imposing anachronistic or arbitrary divisions, ignoring the covenantal transition from the Old to the eternal New Covenant age (Eph. 3:20–21). The Olivet Discourse, as the Rosetta Stone of eschatology, reveals God’s faithfulness in fulfilling His promises within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34), inviting believers to live as stewards of the New Covenant kingdom, proclaiming the gospel in the age that came to maturity in AD 70 (Rev. 22:2, 17).

Study Questions: Chapter 9 – Matthew 24:3, the Disciples’ Question, and the End of What Age?

  • What is the significance of the Olivet Discourse being described as the “Rosetta Stone” of biblical prophecy, and how does it connect Old and New Testament eschatology?
  • How does the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 demonstrate their understanding of the relationship between the temple’s destruction, Christ’s coming, and the “end of the age”?
  • Explain the meaning of “end of the age” (sunteleia tou aiōnos) in Matthew 24:3, and why it refers to the Old Covenant age rather than the end of world history.
  • How do Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Daniel 9:24–27, 12:1–7; Isaiah 25:2–9) support the interpretation that the “end of the age” in Matthew 24:3 was fulfilled in AD 70?
  • Why do the variations in the disciples’ question across Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4, and Luke 21:7 (e.g., the omission of “end of the age” in Mark and Luke) not indicate confusion but rather audience-specific clarity?
  • How does Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 13:39–43 about the “end of this age” inform the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3, and what does their response in Matthew 13:51 (“Yes”) reveal about their understanding?
  • What role does first-century Jewish eschatology (e.g., “this age” vs. “age to come”) play in shaping the disciples’ question and Jesus’ response in the Olivet Discourse?
  • How does the absence of a rebuke from Jesus in Matthew 24, compared to other instances of correcting the disciples (e.g., Matt. 16:6–12), support the argument that their question was coherent?
  • Analyze the chiastic structure of Matthew 23–25 and explain how it unifies the temple’s destruction, Christ’s coming, and the end of the age within a first-century timeframe.
  • How do New Testament passages (e.g., Hebrews 8:13, 10:37; Colossians 1:5–6, 23) confirm that the events of Matthew 24, including the gospel’s spread and the Old Covenant’s end, were fulfilled by AD 70?
  • Why do futurist interpretations, which view the “end of the age” as a future global apocalypse, misalign with the textual and historical context of Matthew 24:3?
  • How does the cessation of revelatory gifts (e.g., tongues, prophecy) in AD 70, as tied to the end of the Old Covenant age, refute claims of ongoing revelation in modern movements?

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

[2] Ibid., 46-47

[3] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: Fourth revised edition, 1999), 68.

[4] Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 2011), 413. See also 4Q521 2 II, 11–12 and 1QS 4:16–17 for the Qumran expectation of Messianic healing and the triumph over “this age.”

[5] O.S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 100–103.

[6] Alan F. Segal, Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 321–322.

[7] John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 112–113.

[8] Jacob Neusner, Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture: Introduction to the Rabbinic Midrash (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 188.

[9] Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442

[10] Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Moscow, ID: Cannon Press, 2019), 246

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 10: (Matthew 23) – The Prophetic Condemnation of Jerusalem’s Fall and The Judgment of the Living and the Dead

Matthew 23: The Prophetic Condemnation of Jerusalem’s Fall

Matthew 23 is the hermeneutical cornerstone of Jesus’ eschatological teaching, pronouncing imminent judgment on Jerusalem’s religious leaders for rejecting the Messiah and persecuting His followers. The woes expose the Pharisees’ hypocrisy: they occupy Moses’ seat yet produce “sons of hell” (Matt. 23:15), value the temple’s gold above its sanctity (Matt. 23:16–22), and bear the cumulative guilt of slaying God’s prophets (Matt. 23:29–36). The phrase “this generation” (Matt. 23:36) ties the judgment to the first century, aligning with Jesus’ earlier statements (Matt. 11:16, 12:39, 16:4). The citation of Psalm 118:26 (Matt. 23:39), sung at feasts like Passover, suggests Christ’s coming will coincide with such an event, fulfilled historically at the onset of the Jewish-Roman War during Passover in AD 67 (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1). As James Jordan notes, Matthew 23–25 forms a chiasmic structure, centering on the judgment of the living and the vindication of the dead within the first-century generation. This is not speculation but the clear testimony of Scripture. Thus, Matthew 23 lays the theological foundation for the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), a unified teaching outlining the timing and nature of Jerusalem’s destruction and the judgment of the living and the dead, fulfilled in AD 70 with the temple’s fall.

The Chiasmic Structure of Matthew 23–25

Matthew 23–25 is a unified literary composition, as James Jordan’s chiasmic analysis demonstrates, integrating the woes against the Pharisees with Christ’s coming in judgment, all within “this generation” (Matt. 23:36, 24:34).[1] This structure emphasizes the judgment of the living (Pharisees) and the vindication of the dead (martyrs) at Christ’s AD 70 return, refuting interpretations that postpone fulfillment. The following chart outlines this framework:

Chart 1: Chiasmic Structure of Matthew 23–25

Section

Content

Reference

A. Seat of False Authority Pharisees exercise Moses’ seat, masking hypocrisy Matt. 23:1–12
B. Woes of Divine Judgment Eight woes denounce Pharisees’ hypocrisy, persecution, and blood guilt Matt. 23:13–32
C. Climax of Judgment All righteous blood, from Abel to Zechariah, required of this generation Matt. 23:33–35
D. Fulfilled in Jesus’ Contemporary generation All these things will come upon “this generation” Matt. 23:36
E. Christ’s Coming and Resurrection Christ comes to judge Jerusalem, gathering His elect at the trumpet Matt. 23:37–24:31
D’. Fulfilled in Jesus’ Contemporary generation Temple’s destruction and Christ’s coming fulfilled in “this generation” Matt. 24:32–36
C’. Final Judgment Judgment of the living and dead, separating sheep from goats Matt. 24:45–25:46
B’. Parables of Accountability Three parables underscore readiness for imminent judgment Matt. 24:45–25:30
A’. Seat of True Authority Jesus reigns on His throne, exercising divine judgment Matt. 25:31–45

This chiasm underscores the thematic and temporal coherence of Matthew 23–25, establishing that Jerusalem’s judgment and the martyrs’ vindication are a singular event fulfilled in AD 70.

The Irony of “Blessed is He Who Comes in the Name of the Lord”

Integral to Matthew 23’s judgment is the profound irony of verse 39: “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Drawn from Psalm 118:26, this phrase was a festive acclamation sung by Jews to welcome pilgrims to Jerusalem during the great feasts—Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Yet, Jesus transforms this cry of anticipated salvation into a divine snare, where the Jews’ song becomes the signal for their judgment. During the Passover of AD 67, when the Jewish-Roman War began, and culminating in the AD 70 siege, they sang these words expecting divine deliverance, only to face Roman legions encircling Jerusalem, the visible sign of Christ’s coming in judgment (Matt. 23:38–39, 24:30).[2]

At Passover, Jerusalem swelled with pilgrims commemorating Israel’s exodus, singing the Hallel (Ps. 113–118), including “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” as a messianic welcome (Mishnah, Pesahim 5:7). Jesus, however, redefines its import. Addressing Jerusalem’s leaders (Matt. 23:13–36), He declares that their singing will herald not salvation but divine wrath. Josephus confirms this historical alignment: the Jewish-Roman War commenced during Passover in AD 67, when Jewish rebels clashed with Roman forces under Cestius Gallus, initiating the conflict (Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1). By Passover AD 70, Titus’s legions besieged Jerusalem, trapping pilgrims within its walls (Josephus, Jewish War 6.9.3). The irony is stark: their song of redemption, expecting a messianic king, summoned Roman armies, fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that “this generation” would face His judgment (Matt. 23:36).

Passover’s significance amplifies this irony. Celebrating God’s judgment on Egypt and Israel’s redemption through the lamb’s blood (Exod. 12:12–13), Passover in AD 70 became a tragic inversion: rejecting the true Passover Lamb (John 1:29, 1 Cor. 5:7), Jerusalem faced divine retribution. False prophets stoked expectations of an earthly kingdom (Matt. 24:24–26; Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.2), but their song triggered the “days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22), as Roman forces starved and slaughtered thousands (Josephus, Jewish War 6.3.3–4).

This irony embodies a “trap,” as Psalm 69:22–23 prophesies: “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.” The Passover table, set with the lamb, became a snare when the Jews, rejecting Christ, sang “Blessed is He who comes” in AD 67-70. Their covenantal infidelity—clinging to the Old Covenant and rebelling against Rome—ensnared them in a besieged city, where Rome, God’s instrument (Rev. 17:16), executed judgment. Paul applies this imagery in Romans 11:9–10, citing Psalm 69 to depict Israel’s stumbling over Christ, the “stumbling stone” (Rom. 9:32–33). In 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, he warns that Jerusalem’s Jews, killing Jesus and prophets, filled their sins, incurring “wrath… to the uttermost” and to the “end” of the old covenant age—fulfilled in AD 70’s Passover trap.

This trap integrates with Matthew 23–25’s chiasm (Chart 1), where Christ’s coming (E) pivots on the Jews’ song, and with Revelation, where Jerusalem, Babylon, falls “in one hour” (Rev. 18:10) for her blood guilt (Rev. 18:24, cf. Matt. 23:31–36). The New Covenant’s marriage supper (Rev. 19:7–9) rises from this divorce and ruin, contrasting the Passover snare. The chart below maps this irony across Scripture.

Chart 2: The Irony of the Passover Song and the Trap

Theme

Matthew 23–25 Revelation

OT/NT Parallels

Song of Irony Jews sing “Blessed is He who comes” (23:39), expecting salvation, but summon judgment Babylon judged “in one hour” (18:10), tied to Jerusalem’s Passover song (11:8) Ps. 118:26: Messianic hope becomes judgment’s signal
Passover Context Judgment tied to feast when song is sung (23:39; 24:34) Jerusalem’s fall during “the war” (16:14), sparked at Passover (11:8) Exod. 12:12–13: Passover’s deliverance inverted
Trap Imagery Pharisees’ rejection traps them in judgment (23:33–39) Babylon’s defiance traps her in ruin (18:7–8) Ps. 69:22–23: Passover table a snare; Rom. 11:9–10: Israel stumbles
Blood Guilt Jerusalem guilty of prophets’ blood (23:31–36) Babylon holds blood of prophets, saints (17:6; 18:24) 1 Thess. 2:14–16: Jews’ sins bring wrath “to the uttermost”
Judgment’s Sign Roman armies encircle Jerusalem (24:15–21) Rome burns Babylon (17:16), God’s tool Isa. 10:5: Assyria as God’s rod, paralleled by Rome
Covenant Shift Old Covenant ends, kingdom comes (24:35; Luke 21:31–32) New Jerusalem rises (21:1–2) Jer. 3:8: Judah’s divorce fulfilled in AD 70

Matthew 23: Judgment of the Living and Dead in AD 70

The Passover irony of Matthew 23 transitions seamlessly into the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus delineates the scope of this judgment. He links His coming to the judgment of the living—Pharisees and leaders who reject Him—and the vindication of the dead, the martyrs whose blood demands justice (Matt. 23:35–36). This judgment will strike “this generation” with the temple’s desolation (Matt. 23:38–39), fulfilled in AD 70 when Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem. The “trumpet” of Matthew 24:31 evokes resurrection imagery (1 Cor. 15:52), connecting the martyrs’ vindication to this event, as the Son of Man gathers His elect and judges all (Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31–46).

This fulfills Daniel 12:1–7, where the righteous are delivered and the wicked judged when the Old Covenant’s “holy people” are shattered, realized in AD 70. Luke 21:20–24 describes this as the “days of vengeance” (Deut. 32:35), affecting the living (captives, slain) and avenging the dead (martyrs). Josephus documents the temple’s destruction and Jerusalem’s catastrophic loss of life, fulfilling the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; Jewish War6.5.3). The chart below illustrates the thematic unity between Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25, confirming a single judgment event.

Chart 3: Parallels Between Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25

Theme

Matthew 23

Matthew 24–25

Hypocritical Authority Pharisees wield Moses’ seat with hypocrisy (23:2ff) Jesus judges these hypocrites from His throne (25:31, 41–45)
Corrupt Fruit Pharisees produce “sons of hell” (23:15) Disciples’ gospel yields redemption (24:14; Luke 21:28–32)
Temple’s Destruction Pharisees value temple’s gold, facing ruin (23:16–36) Jesus predicts temple’s collapse (24:1–2; 25:41–46)
Blood Guilt Pharisees fill up their sin of blood guilt for killing Jesus’ messengers (23:31–36) Wrath falls for slaying Jesus’ sent ones (Mark 13:9–13; Matt. 10:17–23)
Judgment of Living and the Dead  Living (Pharisees) and dead (martyrs) judged (23:31–36) Living slain or (captives) and dead judged (Luke 21:20–24; Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31–46)
Christ’s Coming Woes herald Christ’s coming to desolate temple (23:13-39) Rulers fall as Jesus comes to destroy temple (24:29-34)
Persecution Jerusalem resists Jesus’ gathering, kills His prophets (23:37) Leaders resist gathering, persecute His people (24:9–31; Matt. 10:17–22)
Timing Judgment in “this generation” (23:37–39) Judgment in “this generation” (24:1–2, 34; 26:62–64)

Jerusalem: The “Great City” Babylon in Revelation

The Passover trap and Matthew 23’s judgment resonate in Revelation, where Jerusalem is unequivocally identified as the “Great City,” Babylon, the covenantally unfaithful city judged in AD 70. This identification is not speculative but grounded in explicit scriptural testimony and corroborated by OT and NT texts. Revelation’s portrayal of Babylon as the persecuting harlot aligns with Jesus’ condemnation of Jerusalem in Matthew 23, integrating the Passover irony into a broader covenantal narrative that underscores Jerusalem’s unique guilt and the triumph of the New Covenant kingdom.

Revelation 11:8 decisively identifies the “Great City” as the place “where our Lord was crucified”—Jerusalem, symbolically termed “Sodom” and “Egypt” to denote its spiritual apostasy (Isa. 1:10, Ezek. 16:46–49). This designation is reinforced in Revelation 16–18, where Babylon is charged with the blood of prophets, apostles, and saints (Rev. 17:6, 18:24), directly paralleling Jesus’ accusation against Jerusalem for slaying God’s messengers across history (Matt. 23:31–36). No other city—neither Rome, Mecca, nor any modern metropolis—bears this covenantal guilt, as only Jerusalem was bound to God as His covenant wife. The term “Babylon” encapsulates Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness, echoing OT prophets who likened Judah’s idolatry and alliances to harlotry (Jer. 3:1–8, Ezek. 16:15–43). In Revelation, Jerusalem’s final betrayal is manifest in her alliance with Rome (“we have no king but Caesar,” John 19:15) and her persecution of Christ’s followers (Acts 8:1), culminating in her AD 70 judgment. The Passover song, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” sung as the Jewish-Roman War began in AD 67 (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1), serves as the ironic trigger for this divine verdict, transforming a cry of hope into a summons of wrath.

To elucidate the continuity between Matthew 23–25 and Revelation, the following chart delineates their thematic and textual parallels, integrating the Passover irony with Babylon’s judgment. It demonstrates that Jerusalem’s role as the persecuting city, her blood guilt, and her imminent judgment in “this generation” are mirrored in Revelation’s depiction of Babylon’s fall, confirming a singular AD 70 fulfillment.

Chart 4: Parallels Between Matthew 23–25 and Revelation

Theme

Matthew 23–25

Revelation

Persecuting City Jerusalem’s leaders resist Jesus’ gathering (23:37) Babylon enslaves, opposes Christ’s call to freedom (16–18)
Deception Pharisees produce “sons of hell” (23:15) Babylon deceives nations with her fornication (14:8; 18:3, 23)
Blood Guilt Jerusalem slays OT/NT prophets (23:31–34) Babylon spills blood of prophets, saints, apostles (17:6; 18:24)
Sin’s Culmination Jerusalem fills the measure of sin (23:30–36) Babylon’s guilt reaches heaven (16:6–18:24)
Christ’s Coming Christ comes as a thief in “this generation” (23:36–38; 24:3–44) Christ comes as a thief “soon,” Babylon falls in an hour (16:15–19; 18:10)
Gospel’s Reach Gospel preached to Roman world before judgment (24:14; Rom. 10:18) Gospel reaches all nations before Babylon’s fall (14:6–8; Acts 2:5)
Martyrs’ Vindication Martyrs vindicated, dead judged at Christ’s return (23:30–38; 25:31–46) Martyrs avenged, dead judged at Babylon’s fall (18:20; 19:1–21)
Covenant Transition Old Covenant “heaven and earth” passes (24:35) Old Covenant “islands flee,” new creation dawns (16:20; 21:1)
Eschatological Wedding Wedding follows Jerusalem’s fall (22:7; 25:1–13) Marriage supper follows Babylon’s ruin (19:7–9)
Kingdom Established Kingdom arrives at Jerusalem’s end (Luke 21:20–32) God reigns as Babylon falls (11:15–17; 19:6)

This chart establishes that Revelation’s portrayal of Babylon’s judgment mirrors Matthew 23–25’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s fall, with the Passover trap serving as a pivotal link. The thematic parallels—persecution, blood guilt, and imminent judgment—demonstrate that both texts describe the same AD 70 event, where Jerusalem’s rejection of Christ and His messengers, epitomized by her ironic song, incurs divine wrath. To further ground this identification, we turn to the Old Testament, where Jerusalem’s covenantal unfaithfulness is consistently depicted as harlotry, providing the theological foundation for Revelation’s imagery.

The following chart connects Revelation’s portrayal of Babylon to OT depictions of Jerusalem as the unfaithful covenant wife, illustrating how Scripture consistently frames Jerusalem’s apostasy and judgment, from her prophetic indictments to her AD 70 destruction.

Chart 5: Old Testament Parallels with Revelation’s Babylon

Theme

Old Testament

Revelation

Harlotry Judah’s harlotry incurs judgment (Jer. 3:1–8) Babylon’s harlotry incurs judgment (17:1–5; 18:7)
Blood Guilt Jerusalem kills God’s prophets (Jer. 2:30, 26:20–23) Babylon slays prophets, saints (17:6; 18:24)
Betrayal by Allies Jerusalem’s lovers destroy her (Ezek. 16:35–43) Rome burns Babylon (17:16)
Widowhood Judah becomes a widow post-judgment (Lam. 1:1–2) Babylon denies widowhood, yet is judged (18:7–8)
Apostasy Jerusalem, a harlot filled with bloodshed (Isa. 1:21; 5:7; 59:7) Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, blood-guilty (11:8; 18:24)

The OT parallels underscore that Jerusalem’s identity as Babylon is not an innovation but a continuation of prophetic tradition, where Judah’s covenant infidelity—culminating in her AD 70 judgment via Rome—mirrors her historical judgments by Assyria and Babylon. This continuity is further affirmed in the New Testament, where Jerusalem’s role as the persecuting city is reiterated, aligning with Revelation’s depiction of Babylon and reinforcing the AD 70 fulfillment.

The final chart aligns Revelation’s portrayal of Babylon with NT texts that identify Jerusalem as the city opposing God’s people, demonstrating the scriptural consensus on her guilt and judgment, particularly in light of the Passover trap that sealed her fate.

Chart 6: New Testament Parallels with Revelation’s Babylon

Theme

New Testament

Revelation

Two Covenants Earthly Jerusalem vs. heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:24–30) Babylon vs. New Jerusalem (3:12; 21–22)
Persecution Jerusalem’s Jews persecute the church (1 Thess. 2:14–16; Acts 17) Babylon persecutes via synagogue of Satan (2:9–10; 11:8)
Covenant Dissolution Old Covenant heavens & earth grow old and vanish (Heb. 1:10-12; 8:13; 12:26–28) Old Covenant Israel’s heavens and earth flee (6:12-17; 16:20; 20:11; 21:1)
Imminent Judgment The “appointed time” of the “end” and “Judgment of living and dead” was “near” (1 Pet. 4:5–7, 17) The “appointed time” for “the Judgment of the Dead” was “near” when Babylon / Jerusalem was judged (11:1–18; 19:1–2)

Jerusalem: The Persecuting Harlot Across Scripture

These charts collectively affirm that Jerusalem, as Revelation’s Babylon, is the sole city bearing the covenantal guilt of slaying God’s prophets and saints, from Abel to the apostles (Matt. 23:31–34; Rev. 17:6, 18:24). No other city—Rome, Mecca, or any modern contender—fits this scriptural profile, as only Jerusalem was God’s covenant wife, accountable for such bloodshed (Jer. 3:8). The Passover song, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” sung as the Jewish-Roman War began in AD 67 (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1), epitomizes her defiance, transforming a cry of hope into a summons of divine judgment via Rome (Rev. 17:16). Her AD 70 fate—stoned and burned (Rev. 16:21, 18:8)—fulfills the penalty for an adulterous priest’s daughter (Lev. 21:9), enacting God’s divorce of His unfaithful bride. The persecution motif, consistent across Scripture, further cements this identification:

Matthew 10:17–23: Jesus predicts synagogue persecution, fulfilled by Jerusalem’s Jews (Acts 8:1).

Revelation 2:9–10: Apostate Jews, the “synagogue of Satan,” torment the church, echoing Galatians 4:29.

Acts 7:51–52: Stephen accuses Jerusalem of killing the righteous, paralleling Matthew 23:31.

1 Thessalonians 2:14–16: Judean Jews slay Jesus, prophets, and believers, incurring imminent wrath.

Refuting Erroneous Interpretations

To safeguard the truth, we must address competing views. Dispensationalists, such as Thomas Ice, artificially separate Matthew 23:36 (AD 70) from Matthew 24:34 (future), disregarding the consistent first-century referent of “this generation” and the historical fulfillment of the Passover trap in AD 67–70 (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1, 6.9.3). The historical record—Jerusalem’s fall, Christian flight to Pella (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History3.5.3), and the gospel’s dissemination (Rom. 10:18)—refutes their futurism.

Amillennialists and Partial Preterist Postmillennialists overlook the connection between the judgment or vindication of the living (Pharisees) and the the dead (martyrs) in Matthew 23, which also unfolds in Matthew 24–25. Paul and Peter confirm that this judgment of the living and the dead was imminent at Christ’s appearing, described as “about to” occur (2 Tim. 4:1–2, YLT) or was “near” (1 Pet. 4:5–7, 17) in AD 70.

Similarly, skeptics like Bart Ehrman, identifying Babylon as Rome and claiming Jesus failed to return “soon,” misread Revelation’s covenantal context and apocalyptic language. Rome was neither God’s covenant wife nor guilty of OT prophets’ blood (Rev. 18:24). The Passover snare, grounded in Psalm 69 and Paul, confirms Jerusalem’s AD 70 judgment, undermining skeptical objections.

Conclusion: The Passover Song as Judgment’s Herald

Matthew 23 serves as the interpretive foundation for the Olivet Discourse, proclaiming Christ’s AD 70 coming to judge Jerusalem’s temple and leaders within “this generation.” The chiasmic structure of Matthew 23–25 (Chart 1) unifies the judgment of the living (Pharisees) and the dead (martyrs), fulfilled in the resurrection and judgment of Matthew 24–25. The profound irony of “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39) seals this verdict: sung at Passover to welcome pilgrims, it became a divine trap (Ps. 69:22–23, Rom. 11:9–10) in AD 67–70, as Roman legions, sparked by the war’s onset at Passover (Josephus, Jewish War 2.19.1, 5.3.1), answered the Jews’ cry with judgment. Jerusalem, Revelation’s “Great City” Babylon (Rev. 11:8), is the covenant harlot, judged for her blood guilt (Rev. 18:24, Matt. 23:31–36), as confirmed by OT (Jer. 3, Ezek. 16) and NT (Gal. 4, Heb. 12) texts. The charts demonstrate this textual harmony, corroborated by historical evidence—Jerusalem’s destruction, the gospel’s spread, and the martyrs’ vindication. This was Christ’s covenantal triumph, establishing the New Covenant kingdom. Believers today stand in the New Jerusalem’s light, called to live faithfully (Rev. 22:17). Neither dispensationalist nor skeptic can obscure this truth—Christ’s word was fulfilled, and His kingdom endures.

Study Questions for Matthew 23:

  • What is the significance of the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 23:36, and how does it establish the timing of the judgment described in the chapter?
  • How does the chiasmic structure of Matthew 23–25 (Chart 1) demonstrate the thematic and temporal unity of Jesus’ teaching on Jerusalem’s judgment?
  • In what ways do the “woes” against the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13–32 reveal their hypocrisy and contribute to the theme of divine judgment?
  • Explain the irony of the Passover song, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39), and how it functions as a “divine trap” in the context of AD 67–70.
  • How does the historical context of the Jewish-Roman War, particularly the events of Passover in AD 67 and AD 70, support the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 23?
  • What parallels can be drawn between the blood guilt of Jerusalem in Matthew 23:31–36 and the charges against Babylon in Revelation 17:6 and 18:24 (Chart 4)?
  • How does the article use Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16) to identify Jerusalem as the “Great City” Babylon in Revelation?
  • According to the article, how does the judgment of the living (Pharisees) and the vindication of the dead (martyrs) in Matthew 23 connect to the events described in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25)?
  • What role does the Passover festival play in amplifying the irony of Jerusalem’s judgment, particularly in relation to the rejection of Jesus as the true Passover Lamb?
  • How does the article refute dispensationalist interpretations that separate Matthew 23:36 (AD 70) from Matthew 24:34 (future), and what evidence does it provide to support a first-century fulfillment?
  • Why does the article argue that Jerusalem, and not Rome or another city, is Revelation’s Babylon, and how do New Testament texts like Galatians 4 and 1 Thessalonians 2 support this view?
  • How does the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, as described in the article, relate to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21–22?

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

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

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 9: (Matthew 22:34-46) – The Enduring Love of the New Covenant In the Shadow of the Lord of Psalm 110 Coming in the Judgment of AD 70

In the charged atmosphere of Jerusalem during Holy Week, Jesus faced relentless challenges from religious leaders desperate to discredit him. Within these confrontations, recorded in Matthew 22, lies a transformative teaching that silenced his opponents, established the ethic of the new covenant, and asserted his divine authority as the Messiah and God, who would judge those breaking God’s commandments. The Greatest Commandment (Matt. 22:34-40), where Jesus declares that love for God and neighbor fulfills “all the Law and the Prophets,” contrasts sharply with the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ legalistic debates, particularly their fixation on earthly laws like levirate marriage persisting in the resurrection. Amplified by Jesus’ divine self-identification as the judge of Psalm 110 in Matthew 22:41-46 and 26:63-65, the Pharisees’ lovelessness exposed in Matthew 23, and Paul’s emphasis on love, this teaching reveals love as the eternal foundation of God’s kingdom, enduring beyond the temple’s destruction in AD 70.

Matthew 22 unfolds as a series of intellectual duels. The Sadducees, denying the resurrection, pose a hypothetical about levirate marriage (Matt. 22:23-33), asking whose wife a woman married to seven brothers would be in the afterlife. Their question assumes that the law requiring a man to marry his brother’s childless widow would persist—a view some Pharisees, who affirmed the resurrection, shared. Jesus dismantles this, stating that in the resurrection, people “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matt. 22:30, ESV), pointing to a transformed existence beyond old covenant laws. Observing Jesus’ triumph, the Pharisees test him with a question about the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:34-36). Jesus’ response—love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself—reorients the Law around a universal principle, eclipsing legalistic debates and heralding the new covenant’s spiritual reality.

This teaching sets the stage for Jesus’ bold assertion of divine authority in Matthew 22:41-46. Turning the tables, Jesus asks the Pharisees, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” When they reply, “The son of David,” he cites Psalm 110:1:

“The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’” He challenges them: if David calls the Messiah “Lord,” how is he merely his son?

The Pharisees, stumped, fail to grasp that Jesus, the Messiah, is God. This divine identity is powerfully reaffirmed in Matthew 26:63-65, where Jesus, before the high priest and the same first-century religious leaders, conflates Psalm 110:1 with Daniel 7:13, declaring,

You will see the Son of Man [Dan. 7:13] seated at the right hand of Power [Ps. 110 – ascension in AD 30] and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7:13 second coming in AD 70].”

Their charge of blasphemy confirms their rejection of his divinity, sealing their fate. As the Lord of Psalm 110, Jesus, the divine judge, will in AD 70 “put his enemies under his feet,” destroying Jerusalem for their failure to love God—embodied in him—and their neighbors, as commanded in Matthew 22:34-40, a judgment these leaders would witness in their generation.

The Pharisees’ lovelessness is exposed in Matthew 23, where Jesus denounces their harsh legalism. He accuses them of burdening people with heavy rules while neglecting “the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matt. 23:23), a direct contrast to the love he commands. Their hypocrisy and cruelty, rejecting Jesus as God and Messiah, lead to judgment, as he declares Jerusalem’s desolation (Matt. 23:38), fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans razed the temple, ending the old covenant’s sacrificial system.

This destruction is central. In Matthew 24:35, Jesus declares, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” Many scholars see “heaven and earth” as symbolizing the temple, which fell within a generation (Matt. 24:34). The Greatest Commandment, part of Jesus’ enduring words, provided a timeless ethic for a post-temple world. Unlike levirate marriage or temple rituals, love required no physical structure, aligning with the new covenant’s spiritual focus. Matthew’s Gospel, written for Jewish Christians, contrasts the Pharisees’ legalism—evident in their debates about laws persisting in the new age, their harshness, and their rejection of Jesus’ divinity—with the love Jesus commands as God and Messiah.

Paul’s teachings reinforce this shift. In 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, he writes that love never ends, unlike temporary gifts like prophecy and tongues, which cease when “the perfect comes.” This “perfect” is Christ’s coming, the new creation, and the new covenant’s maturity, fulfilled in AD 70. Paul concludes, “Faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). This echoes Jesus’ prioritization of love, suggesting that love, not earthly laws or signs, defines the new covenant age. The Pharisees’ fixation on legal specifics, like levirate marriage, mirrors the Corinthians’ obsession with gifts that “puffed up,” both corrected by love’s primacy, which the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus as God betrays.

Matthew 22’s narrative weaves these themes. Jesus outwits traps about taxes and resurrection (Matt. 22:15-33), teaches love (Matt. 22:34-40), and asserts his divine authority (Matt. 22:41-46). In Matthew 23, he condemns the Pharisees’ loveless legalism, predicting Jerusalem’s fall (Matt. 23:38), fulfilled in AD 70, as foretold in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24). Amid these warnings, the Greatest Commandment shines, offering a way of life that endures when the old order collapses.

Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 22:34-40, contrasted with the Pharisees’ legalism and rejection of him as God and Messiah, prepared believers for the new covenant. As the temple’s “heaven and earth” passed away in AD 70, a judgment the religious leaders witnessed, love remained, fulfilling the Law and guiding the church. Paul’s affirmation of love’s permanence reinforced this, equipping Christians to embody God’s kingdom. Today, the Greatest Commandment calls us to love, a timeless legacy of Jesus’ words, upheld by the Lord of Psalm 110 who also judges in perfect righteousness.

Scripture Event/Teaching Pharisees’ Failure

New Covenant Outcome

Matt. 22:23-33 Sadducees’ levirate marriage question; Jesus teaches resurrection transcends earthly laws. Assume old covenant laws (e.g., marriage) persist in new age; misunderstand resurrection. Resurrection life is spiritual, not legalistic, preparing for temple’s end in AD 70.
Matt. 22:34-40 Greatest Commandment: Love God and neighbor fulfills the Law. Focus on ranking laws; fail to prioritize love, clinging to legalism. Love as the eternal ethic, enduring beyond temple rituals, guides post-AD 70 faith.
Matt. 22:41-46 Jesus cites Psalm 110:1, revealing he is Messiah and God, judge of his enemies. Reject Jesus’ divinity; cannot grasp Messiah as God, leading to AD 70 judgment. Jesus, the Lord of Psalm 110, judges Jerusalem in AD 70 for rejecting love for God/him.
Matt. 23 Jesus denounces Pharisees’ harsh legalism, predicts Jerusalem’s desolation. Burden people, neglect justice/mercy; lovelessness rejects Jesus as God. Judgment in AD 70 ends old covenant; love remains as new covenant’s foundation.
Matt. 24:35 “Heaven and earth” (temple) will pass, but Jesus’ words endure. Cling to temple system, ignoring Jesus’ warnings and love command. Temple falls in AD 70; Jesus’ words, including love, sustain new covenant community.
1 Cor. 13:8-13 Love endures when “the perfect” (Christ’s coming, new creation) arrives in AD 70. Mirror Corinthians’ focus on temporary gifts; Pharisees prioritize laws over love. Faith, hope, love abide post-AD 70, with love supreme, fulfilling Jesus’ teaching.

 

 

 

Matthew 21-23 Fulfilled in AD 70, Part 8: (Matthew 22:23–33) – The Resurrection Challenge: Jesus vs. the Sadducees

The confrontation between Jesus and the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23–33 is more than a clever exchange over marriage and resurrection—it reveals deep fault lines in Second Temple Jewish theology. Beneath the surface of their question lies a long-standing debate between rival Jewish sects: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Each held sharply opposing views about the resurrection, the afterlife, and the ongoing role of the Torah in the age to come.

In this article, we will:

  • Summarize the passage and the Sadducees’ challenge.
  • Present historical and exegetical evidence about the Sadducees’ denial of resurrection and the Pharisees’ belief in its physical nature and the Torah’s permanence.
  • Develop a Preterist interpretation showing that the Sadducees misapplied an argument originally designed to trap the Pharisees, wrongly assuming Jesus held to the same views.
  • Demonstrate how Jesus properly defined the resurrection and pointed to the coming new covenant age—fulfilled in AD 70—as a spiritual reality beyond Torah and physicality.

1) Summary of Matthew 22:23–33

In Matthew 22:23–33 (cf. Mark 12:18–27Luke 20:27–40), the Sadducees—who deny the resurrection—pose a theological dilemma to Jesus. They appeal to the Torah’s levirate marriage law (Deut. 25:5–10), proposing a hypothetical scenario in which a woman is married successively to seven brothers, each dying without leaving an heir. They ask, “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?” (Matt. 22:28). Their goal is to mock the idea of a future resurrection, assuming it entails bodily continuity and the ongoing authority of Mosaic law.

Jesus rebukes them:

“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” (Matt. 22:29–30)

He then affirms the afterlife by citing Exodus 3:6—a text the Sadducees accepted as authoritative:

“I am the God of Abraham… Isaac… Jacob… He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” (Matt. 22:32)

Importantly, neither here nor in Luke’s account does Jesus describe a physical or biological resurrection. Instead, he points to a conscious afterlife and a spiritual transition—culminating at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, when Hades would be emptied and the righteous brought into God’s presence at His “soon” second coming (Rev. 20:13–14; 21-22:6-12, 20).

2) The Beliefs of the Sadducees and Pharisees

The Sadducees, a priestly aristocratic sect, accepted only the Torah (Pentateuch) and denied the resurrection, the afterlife, and the existence of angels or spirits:

  • Matthew 22:23– “The Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection…”
  • Acts 23:8– “The Sadducees say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit…”
  • Josephus,War 8.14 – “They take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul…”
  • Josephus,Antiquities 1.4 – “They suppose that souls perish with their bodies.”

In contrast, the Pharisees affirmed bodily resurrection and believed the Torah would continue into the Messianic age:

  • JosephusAntiquities 1.3 – “The souls of good men are removed into other bodies and they will revive and live again.”
  • Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1– “All Israel has a share in the world to come…”
  • Pirkei Avot 4:16– Encourages Torah study as preparation for the age to come.
  • P. SandersJJS, 1999 – The Pharisees believed Torah law, including levirate marriage, would remain in force in the resurrection.
  • Levine & BrettlerJewish Annotated NT – Pharisees believed the Torah was eternal and operative in the resurrection era.

3) The Sadducees’ Argument: A Trap Once Used Against the Pharisees

The Sadducees likely repurposed this question from prior debates with the Pharisees, exposing a contradiction in their belief system:

  • Levirate Law Continues– If Torah is still binding in the resurrection, then levirate marriage applies.
  • Polyandry Dilemma– If the woman is resurrected alongside seven husbands, she would be married to all—implying polyandry, which the Pharisees rejected ( Mishnah Yevamot 4:13).
  • Reductio ad Absurdum– The scenario is designed to ridicule the Pharisees’ doctrine by revealing ethical incoherence.

4) The Sadducees’ Miscalculation: Jesus Was Neither Pharisee Nor Sadducee

In presenting this dilemma to Jesus, the Sadducees made two major errors:

Mistake #1: Assuming Torah Continuity

They assumed Jesus believed the Torah would govern the age to come. But Jesus had already been teaching that the old covenant would be fulfilled and pass away at the arrival of the new covenant age which He said was “about to come” in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 5:17–189:16–17; 12:32 SLT; cf. Heb. 8:13).

In Luke 20:34, Jesus makes this even clearer:

“The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage…”

Here, “this age” refers to the old covenant age—marked by earthly institutions such as levirate marriage, temple law, and land-based inheritance. In Jewish eschatology, history was divided into only two ages: “this age” (the Mosaic or old covenant age) and “the age to come” (the Messianic or new covenant age). Jesus places the resurrection at the end of the old covenant age, not at some distant end of world history. Moreover, both Jesus and the New Testament authors affirmed that their old covenant age was “about to” pass away, while the new covenant age was “about to” come to full maturity in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 12:32 SLT; Eph. 1:21 SLT; Heb. 6:5 SLT; 8:13).

This poses a problem for the Reformed Partial Preterist system which is increasingly admitting there was a spiritual resurrection of the dead that took place in AD 70 to close out the end of the old covenant age.  The problem is simple; Daniel places this resurrection at the “appointed time of the end” [singular] (Dan. 12:1-4) and Jesus defines this as the end of his old covenant age coming in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43; 24:3, 31-34; Luke 20:34).  Jesus nor any OT or NT author places the resurrection at the end of TWO ages or TWO “appointed time(s).”

Some Partial Preterists, such as Joel McDurmon, rightly concede that the “end of the age” in both Matthew 13:39–43 and Matthew 24:3 refers to the end of the old covenant age, fulfilled in AD 70. Others, however, restrict this interpretation only to Matthew 24:3, creating inconsistency. Yet the analogy of faith and the unified eschatological framework of the New Testament demonstrate that both passages speak of the same end of the old covenant age, when the eschatological gathering—that is, the resurrection and judgment—would take place:

Matthew 13

Matthew 24

end of the age, [suntelias ton aionion] (v. 39) end of the age, [suntelias ton aionion] (v. 3)
Preaching of the gospel into all the world before the end (v. 38ff.) Preaching of the gospel into all the world before the end (v. 14)
The coming of the Son of Man (vv. 39–41) The coming of the Son of Man (vv. 30–31)
The sending of the angels to gather (v. 41) The sending of the angels to gather (v. 31)
The time for separation (vv. 30, 40) The time for separation

Mistake #2: Assuming a Physical Resurrection

The Sadducees also assumed that Jesus was teaching a resurrection that involved a return to physical life. But Jesus taught a spiritual resurrection—a transition from death to life in God’s presence. This resurrection from Hades occurred when Christ returned in judgment in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39–43; 16:27–28; 24:3, 30–34).

5) Jesus’ Refutation: Defining Resurrection and the Age to Come

a) The Resurrection is Spiritual, Not Physical 

“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels…” (Matt. 22:30)

Marriage in “this age” of the old covenant world involved physical reproduction connected to tribal affiliations connected to the land of Israel. But for the dead ones, the resurrection involved being raised from Hades and having spiritual bodies fit for inheriting eternal life and God’s presence on par with an angelic state—non-physical and spiritual.

Some scholars, such as N.T. Wright, John J. Collins, and Gabriele Boccaccini, have noted that not all Jewish groups in the Second Temple period expected a physical resurrection. Some sects (possibly including those behind Enochic texts and certain Essenes) anticipated a non-physical, spiritual resurrection of the soul into God’s presence.

Old Testament scholar Lester L. Grabbe highlights that, during the Second Temple period, interpretations of resurrection in the OT were not uniformly tied to the physical body. Some understood it as involving only the souls or spirits of individuals, either ascending to God’s presence at death or being raised at a general judgment of the dead. Grabbe notes that no evidence suggests the physical resurrection view dominated over the spiritual one. His historical insights, though detailed, provide a valuable foundation in examining our text and when we approach Matthew 24:31:

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.[1]

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 discusses the soul (e.g., 3:1–9) without mentioning the resurrection. Scholars debate whether the text asserts that all souls are immortal or only those of the righteous. Many contend that immortality is not inherent in the soul itself but is a gift bestowed exclusively upon the righteous.

The Testament of Abraham one of the clearest descriptions of postmortem judgment (Version A 11–14; Version B 9–11). The souls are brought before a throne on which Abel sits as judge. In Version B, Enoch, the scribe of righteousness, presents the souls for judgement. Following this process, 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 Version B (7:16) briefly hints at a general resurrection, the text primarily emphasizes that individual judgment occurs immediately after death, with the soul being judged while the body remains 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.”[2]

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.”[3]

In Jewish tradition and exegesis there is also the view that the resurrection takes place forty years after Messiah is revealed to Israel and then would be cut off,

“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).[4]

These Jewish interpretations and traditions that the resurrection could involve spirits rising from Hades at a coming judgment—fulfilled forty years after the Messiah’s death or during His transitional reign between the old covenant “this age” and the new covenant “age about to come”—aligns seamlessly with the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament authors.

This is also backed by Reformed Partial Preterist scholarship coming from men like James B. Jordan which sees souls being raised out of Hades into God’s presence in AD 70 according to Daniel 12:2, 13; Matthew 24:31; and Revelation 20:

“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.”[5]

b) Levirate Marriage and Torah Laws Do Not Continue

Jesus makes it clear that Torah-based marriage laws do not apply in the resurrection. Once Jesus fulfilled all that was written in the Law and the Prophets concerning Israel—within His generation (Luke 21:22–32)—the old covenant “heaven and earth” passed away (Matt. 5:18), and temple-centered law, including levirate marriage, became obsolete (John 4:21–24; Heb. 8:13).

c) The Patriarchs Are Already Alive with God 

By citing Exodus 3:6, Jesus affirms that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are already alive. This proves the existence of a conscious afterlife before any physical resurrection. The patriarchs are living souls—awaiting spiritual resurrection at the end of the old covenant age, not physical reanimation.

This harmonizes with Luke 16:19–31, where Jesus presents Lazarus and the rich man as conscious in Hades. This teaching closely parallels 1 Enoch, which also depicts conscious souls awaiting resurrection and judgment—not physical resurrection:

Theme / Concept Jesus – Luke 16:19–31 1 Enoch (esp. chs. 22, 51, 103) Preterist Fulfillment
Location of the Dead Hades (ᾅδης): compartmentalized realm of the dead Sheol: divided into regions for the righteous and wicked Hades/Sheol = intermediate realm prior to resurrection in AD 70
Consciousness After Death Rich man and Lazarus are both conscious and responsive Souls can speak, rejoice, or lament while awaiting judgment (22:5–7; 103:3–4) Refutes soul-sleep and annihilationism; affirms intermediate consciousness
Division Within Hades “Great chasm” separates righteous and wicked (v. 26) Distinct holding places for righteous vs. wicked souls (22:9–13) Moral separation maintained in the afterlife
Awaiting Future Resurrection The rich man knows judgment is coming (vv. 27–31) Resurrection occurs at an appointed time (22:4; 51:1–2) Fulfilled at end of the old covenant age (Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3, 30–34)
No Physical Resurrection Described Resurrection assumed spiritual—no reference to bodily return Souls are raised or reassigned without biological imagery (51:1–3) Transition from Hades to God’s presence, not to fleshly existence (cf. Rev. 20:12-13)
Abraham’s Role Abraham comforts Lazarus, intercedes for the rich man Patriarchs honored and active in the intermediate state (90:33–38) Confirms “God of the living” (Matt. 22:32)
Message to the Living “They have Moses and the prophets…”—heed the warnings (v. 29) Wicked warned by righteous in Sheol (103:7–8) Message of repentance urgent before AD 70 judgment
Timing of Fulfillment Anticipated judgment within that generation Day of judgment expected soon (91:10) Fulfilled in AD 70; Hades emptied (Rev. 20:13–14), kingdom consummated

6) Conclusion

The Sadducees’ challenge in Matthew 22:23–33 was a calculated trap—previously effective against the Pharisees—but it failed against Jesus. Their assumptions collapsed: Jesus did not affirm the continued jurisdiction of Torah in the age to come, nor did he teach a physical resurrection.

Instead, he taught a spiritual resurrection—a rising out of Hades into God’s eternal presence, free from Mosaic institutions like levirate marriage laws. This resurrection event was fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, when the kingdom was fully established and Hades was emptied at the “soon” second coming of Christ (Rev. 20:13–14; 21—22:6-12, 20; Matt. 13:39-43; 24:3, 30-34).

In that moment, both the living and the dead entered a new age of eternal life—not through a transformation of the physical body or a return to it, but by entering into the fullness of resurrected life in God’s presence. Jesus silenced both Pharisaic literalism and Sadducean skepticism, unveiling a kingdom that is “not of this world,” but already “within” those who believe, who would inherit “eternal life” and thus “never die” spiritually (Luke 17:20–21; John 11:25–27). Jesus taught that at His coming—within the first-century generation—He would be revealed from heaven “as the light of day shining from east to west” (Matt. 24:27 Aramaic English New Testament), yet the kingdom would not be something that could be observed with physical eyes. This rules out a global, physical resurrection from the graveyards (Luke 17:20–37 A Faithful Version; Matt. 24:27–34 Aramaic English New Testament).

As we have been developing the eschatology of Matthew 21–22 leading into Matthew 24–25, it is clear that AD 70 remains the consistent focus. However, Partial Preterists such as Ken Gentry disrupt this contextual flow by removing Matthew 22:23–33 from its narrative trajectory, inserting a future, end-of-world event that is foreign to the surrounding context. In contrast, I have offered an exegesis of Jesus’ teaching that presents a spiritual resurrection occurring at the end of the old covenant age—one that aligns with the immediate literary context, with certain strands of Jewish resurrection belief, and even with the teachings of Reformed Partial Preterist scholarship that locates a resurrection of souls out of Hades into God’s presence in AD 70.

Study Questions: Matthew 22:23–33 – Resurrection, Torah, and the End of the Age

  1. What was the purpose of the Sadducees’ hypothetical scenario about levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23–28, and how does it function as a theological trap?

  2. How does Jesus’ response in Matthew 22:29–30 correct both the Sadducees’ and Pharisees’ assumptions about the resurrection and the Torah’s role in the age to come?

  3. According to Jesus in Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:34–36, what are the defining characteristics of the resurrection life compared to “this age”?

  4. What does Jesus mean by saying, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” and how does this affirm a conscious afterlife before AD 70?

  5. How does the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 22:23–33 differ from Futurist or Reformed Partial Preterist readings of this passage?

  6. What is the significance of Jesus placing the resurrection at the end of “this age” (the old covenant age) rather than at the end of world history?

  7. In what way did the Sadducees incorrectly assume Jesus was either a Pharisee or shared their own view of Torah continuity?

  8. Explain how the Sadducees’ argument may have originally been used against the Pharisees. What theological contradiction were they attempting to expose?

  9. What historical and textual evidence suggests that some Jewish groups in the Second Temple period expected a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one?

  10. How does the teaching of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, or the Wisdom of Solomon align with Jesus’ view of resurrection in Matthew 22? Give examples.

  11. According to even a Partial Preterist interpretation, what happened to Hades at the second coming of Christ in AD 70, and how is this supported by Revelation 20:13–14?

  12. Compare and contrast Jesus’ parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16) with 1 Enoch’s vision of the afterlife. How do both support a conscious intermediate state?

  13. Why is the doctrine of Torah continuity into the resurrection age (as held by the Pharisees) incompatible with Jesus’ teaching on the new covenant and levirate marriage?

  14. How do Partial Preterists like Joel McDurmon and James B. Jordan agree with elements of this article, and where do they stop short? What inconsistency does this reveal?

  15. Reflecting on this passage, how does Jesus’ teaching reshape our understanding of the resurrection—not as a future physical event, but as a spiritual transformation realized in the AD 70 judgment and new covenant kingdom?

[1] 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, (London: T&T Clark Publishing, 2010),  93–96. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid.

[3] 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.

[4] Historical Jewish Sources, Preterist Archives, accessed March 23, 2025. https://preteristarchives.org/historical-jewish-sources/.

[5]  James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF DANIEL, (Powder Springs, GA: 2007), 628

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

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

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

Matthew 8:10–12 – Gentiles at the Feast

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

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

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

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

Matthew 8:12

Matthew 22:13

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

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

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

Framing the Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Watt’s Identification of “The Death”

John Watt clarifies:

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

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

The WuestNT on “The Death” Being Destroyed

Kenneth Wuest translates 1 Corinthians 15:26 as:

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

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

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

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

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

Parallel Processes Between AD 30–70

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

Summary Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Thess. 4–5

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

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

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

Jewish Wedding Customs and Matthew 24–25

Jewish Custom

Matthew 24–25 Fulfillment

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

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

Conclusion – Full Preterism’s Harmonization

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

Full Preterism alone preserves the integrity of the prophetic tapestry:

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

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

Study Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Variations Across the Synoptic Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

The Parable’s Symbolism and Historical Context

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

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

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

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

Psalm 118: The Rejected Cornerstone and AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for Today

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

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

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

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

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

Theme

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

Moses: Deuteronomy 32 (esp. vv. 4–5, 15–22, 20–43)

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

Study Questions for The Parable of the Tenants

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

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

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

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

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

Exegesis and Doctrinal Continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative and Thematic Continuity

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

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

Exegesis of the Parable

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

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

Doctrinal and Eschatological Connections

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

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

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

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

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

Theological and Eschatological Significance

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

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

Theme John the Baptist’s Teaching

Jesus’ Teaching and Fulfillment

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These prayers echo into Revelation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The New Covenant Fruit-Bearing Nation

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

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

Study Questions

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

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

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

The Context of Corruption

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

The Debate Over Two Cleansings

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

Leviticus 14: The Priestly Inspection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 21:14–17: Restoration of True Worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AD 70 (Roman Judgment)

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

The Typological Flow

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

Conclusion

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

Study Questions for Matthew 21:12–17 

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

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

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

Introduction: A Messianic Spectacle

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

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

Isaiah 62:11

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

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

Eschatological judgment and salvation:

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

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

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

Zechariah 9: Historical and Prophetic Context

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

Jesus as the Greater Alexander 

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

Parallels Between Jesus and Alexander the Great

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

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

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

Jesus as the Greater Solomon

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

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Solomon

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

Jesus as the Greater Nehemiah

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

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Nehemiah   

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

The Royal Donkey: A Theological Symbol 

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

Psalm 118: Hosanna and the Cornerstone

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

Rabbinic Views: A Dual Messiah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The King of Peace and Judgment

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

Study Questions:

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

[1] Josephus, Antiquities 11.8.5

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

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

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

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

[6] Ibid., Willem A. VanGemeren,

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 23

Matthew 24–25

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

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

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

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

(a) Seat of Moses (23:1–12)

  (b) Eight Woes (23:13–32)

(c) Full Judgment (23:33–35)

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

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

(d) All in This Generation (24:32–36)

(c) Full Judgment (24:45–25:46)

(b) Three Parables (24:45–25:30)

(a) Seat / Throne of Jesus (25:31–45)

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

The Song That Sealed Their Fate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

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

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

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

Study Questions: 

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

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

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

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

[4] Ibid., 93

[5] Ibid.

 

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

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

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

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

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

Luke 17:20–37

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

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

(A)  No one can serve two masters,

     (B)  for either he will hate the one

          (C) and love the other,

          (C) or he will be devoted to the one

     (B) and despise the other.

(A) You cannot serve God and money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Within You”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28 /

Luke 17:20-37

Olivet Discourse

Matthew 24 / Luke 21 / Mark 13

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

(Matt. 16:27)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

(8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

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

(Luke 21:16–18)

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

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

(12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

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

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

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

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

Gary addresses this directly:

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

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

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

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

Matthew 24:1–41

Luke 17:20–37

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

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

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

Christ comes as the Light of Day not “Lightning”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malachi 3–4 predicts two messengers:

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

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

Ellicott’s Commentary offers this helpful insight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

In this passage, Jesus unites several key prophetic themes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s Application: 

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

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

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

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

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

Study Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Matthew 16:27–28 / Mark 8:38–9:1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reformed theologian and John Lightfoot agrees:

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

Lightfoot then outlines several descriptions tied to this coming:

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

Lightfoot concludes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus’ teaching echoes the book of Daniel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 16:27–28 & Parallels

Olivet Discourse

(1)  Christ comes in glory

(Luke 9:26)

(1)  Christ comes in glory

(Matt. 24:30)

(2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

(2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 16:27)

(3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(5)  Some disciples would live

(Matt. 16:28)

(5)  Some disciples would live

(Luke 21:16–18)

(6)  Some disciples would die

(Matt. 16:28)

(6)  Some disciples would die

(Luke 21:16)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Transfiguration as a Preview of the Parousia  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28

& Parallels

Olivet Discourse

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

(Matt. 24:30)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

(8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

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

(Luke 21:16–18)

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

(Matt. 16:28)

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

(Luke 21:16)

(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation

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

(12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

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

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels

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

 

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

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

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

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

Partial Preterism and Matthew 16:27-28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us respond directly to Gentry’s first point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Premise:

The coming of the Son of Man in judgment, glory, and power to recompense described in Matthew 16:27 / Mark 8:38-9:1 is the same event as the coming of the kingdom in power described in Matthew 16:28, and both are tied to the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem—as affirmed by intertextual parallels with Daniel 7:10–13; 12:2–7Revelation 22:10–12Revelation 20:12–132 Thessalonians 1:7–9, and Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 24:30–31Mark 13:26–30Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32.

Minor Premise:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Study Questions for Matthew 16:27-28:

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

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

[2] Ibid.

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

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

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

[6] Ibid., 88.

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

[8] Ice, End Times Controversy, 88.

[9] Waldron, Ibid. 382

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Matthew 10:17–23

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

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

Premillennialist D.A. Carson explains and concedes,

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

Amillennialist Sam Waldron also concedes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 10

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Study Questions for Matthew 10:17–23:

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

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

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

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

Daniel Part 3 – Daniel 12: The Tribulation, Appointed Time of the End and the Resurrection Fulfilled in AD 70

Introduction 

As we have seen, Daniel 7 builds upon Daniel 2, and then Daniel 9 absorbs both Daniel 2 and 7. Therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that Daniel 12 further consolidates these earlier prophecies. Each chapter progressively clarifies the timing and spiritual nature of these events, situating their fulfillment within the Roman Empire era, during the “appointed time of the end” of the old covenant age in AD 70.

(1)  The Tribulation (Daniel 12:1)

We are constantly bombarded by self-appointed “prophecy experts” who portray the tribulation as an event to be experienced for our generation. For the pre-tribulationist folks, it’s all good to some extent because we are supposed to experience a secret “rapture” right before it all heats up and unfolds. But if you are a post-tribulationist we are exhorted to store canned goods, buy survival equipment, etc…, because what the “anti-Christ” is going to unleash upon the Church during this period is going to be severe. But as we will see, since there is recapitulation between Daniel 2, 7, 9 and now 12, this too would be fulfilled during the “appointed time” of the “end” of the old covenant age and during a “three-and-a-half years” time frame that fits within the time of the Roman Empire.

Jesus explicitly references Daniel 12:1 in Matthew 24:21, clearly placing the tribulation among “all these things” to be fulfilled within His and the Apostles’ contemporary “this generation” (Matt. 24:21–34).

Luke’s parallel account slightly differs from Matthew’s, using different language for the tribulation[1] and the “abomination that causes desolation”:

“For then there will be great tribulation [Greek thlipsis], such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Matt. 24:21).

“For there will be great distress [Greek ananke] upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:23–24).

And it shall be a time of distress…their afflictions there will have been nothing to equal it from its beginning until its end…”[2]

Both Matthew and Luke begin their statements with “For,” clearly connecting the tribulation/distress with their versions of the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple, along with the same exhortation to flee from Judea to the mountains (Matt. 24:16–21; Luke 21:21–24). This is the same historical flight the Christians obeyed when they saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem and fled to Pella to escape God’s covenantal wrath upon Jerusalem. History records the Romans under Cestius Gallus initially surrounding Jerusalem and then mysteriously retreating only to come back later under Vespasian and Titus.  In between these two periods the Christians escaped Jerusalem to Pella.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, vividly describes this period:

“Now this vast multitude is indeed collected out of remote places, but the entire nation was now shut up by fate as in prison, and the Roman army encompassed the city when it was crowded with inhabitants. Accordingly, the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world; for, to speak only of what was publicly known, the Romans slew some of them, some they carried captives,…[3]

Josephus also records that “many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city.”[4] Similarly, the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius writes:

“The whole body, however, of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea; the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his Apostles finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evildoers from the earth.”[5]

Luke emphasizes the localized nature of the tribulation, specifying it as God’s “wrath” upon “this people” (first-century Jews) in their local land—not the entire globe! This “wrath” is echoed in John the Baptist’s warning to the Pharisees: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? … Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees … His winnowing fork is in his hand” (Matt. 3:7, 10–12, GNT). The imminent wrath for John’s contemporaries is undeniable.

Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, employs familiar Hebraic hyperbole: “…such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” (Matt. 24:21). Compare this to:

  • “Behold, I give you [Solomon] a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you” (1 Kings 3:12).
  • “He [Hezekiah] trusted in the Lord… so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him” (2 Kings 18:5).
  • “Before him [Josiah] there was no king like him… nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kings 23:25).[6]

Does this create a contradiction about which king—Solomon, Hezekiah, or Josiah—was Israel’s greatest or most loyal to God? No, it’s common Hebraic hyperbole, emphasizing their greatness and devotion within Israel’s history. More relevant is hyperbole tied to Jerusalem’s historical judgments:

“And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again” (Ezek. 5:9).

This refers to a “Day of the Lord” that was “near” in Ezekiel’s time, when God judged Jerusalem through Nebuchadnezzar’s armies around 586 BC (cf. 2 Kings 25; Ezek. 7:7; 33:21). Commentators like Matthew Poole estimate this “near” event spanned 3–5 years, or at most 16–18 years. This Babylonian judgment illuminates the “near” coming in the Olivet Discourse:

  1. The “Day of the Lord” came via an invading Gentile army (Babylon).
  2. God was depicted figuratively coming “on the clouds” (cf. Ezek. 30–32).
  3. De-creation language described darkened heavens, sun, moon, and stars (Ezek. 32:7–8).
  4. Imminence terms like “near” and “without delay” were literal, tied to the prophet’s lifetime and audience (Ezek. 7:7ff.; 12:25; 30:3).
  5. Hyperbole framed it as Israel’s worst judgment of the past or future (Ezek. 5:9).

This matches precisely with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24):

  1. The “Day of the Lord” judgment came through a Gentile army (Romans).
  2. Christ came figuratively “on the clouds.”
  3. Cosmic de-creation language was employed (sun, moon, stars darkened).
  4. Imminence terms like “near” and “this generation” were literal, fulfilled within the lifetime of His audience.
  5. Hebraic hyperbole marked it as Israel’s greatest judgment—past or future.

This careful analysis clearly demonstrates the contextual, historical, and linguistic consistency of Daniel 12’s “great tribulation” as fully realized in the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction between AD 67–70, precisely as Daniel and Jesus prophesied.

(2) The Timing of the Resurrection (12:1–7)

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase… [The angel answers Daniel in v. 7] that it would be for a time, times, and half a time [3½ years], and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished/fulfilled (Dan. 12:1–4, 7).

Daniel 12:2–3 is the Old Testament’s clearest resurrection text, cited by Jesus and New Testament writers in Matthew 13:39–43, John 5:24-29, Acts 24:15 (YLT), Revelation 20:5–15, and 1 Corinthians 15. Yet it’s inseparably tied to the AD 67–70 tribulation, a reality partial preterists can no longer deny in print. Partial preterist James Jordan now sees Daniel 12:2–3 (and Daniel’s personal resurrection in v. 13) as a spiritual, corporate resurrection spanning Jesus’ ministry to AD 70. He even posits Daniel’s soul was raised from Abraham’s Bosom in AD 70, per Daniel 12:2-13, Matthew 24:31, and Revelation 20. Here are selected quotes from his Daniel Commentary:

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.”[7]

“…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.”[8]

“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.”[9]

“Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[10]

“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.”[11]

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.”[12]

“…But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time…”[13]

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).[14]

“…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.”[15]

“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.”[16]

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

  1. It represents 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.

Some confusion arises from Daniel’s phrase “sleep in the dust.” This is merely a figure of speech, as David Green clarifies:

“The dead were not literally sleeping, nor were they literally in the dust.  They were “in dust” only insofar as, in their death, they had not ascended into God’s presence in Christ.  In terms of the righteousness and life of God, they were earth-bound.  From a literal standpoint, they were in Sheol/Hades (the abode of the Adamic dead), and it was from out of Sheol that they were raised to stand before the heavenly throne of God (Dan. 12:1–2).”[17]

This imagery draws on the Garden narrative, where Adam, upon sinning, spiritually died and was exiled from God’s presence into the cursed “dust” outside Eden (Gen. 3:19). Similarly, when Israel broke covenant, she faced corporate spiritual death, exiled from the Promised Land into Gentile slavery, cast into the symbolic “dust” of captivity (Isa. 29:4; Isa. 47:1). Returning to or rising from the dust often symbolizes exile, slavery, or spiritual/corporate death, while rising from it can depict Israel’s return to the land and restoration to covenant life. Before Christ’s parousia, even righteous Old Testament dead remained in spiritual death—exiled in the “dust” of Hades—awaiting Christ’s AD 70 coming to fully bring them into God’s presence.

(3) The Righteous Will Shine Like the Stars (Daniel 12:3)

After the resurrection of Daniel 12:2, the living evangelists and their converts will “shine like the brightness of the sky above” or “like the stars forever and ever” (Dan. 12:3). Jesus quotes this prophecy in Matthew 13:39–43, placing the resurrection at the end of the old covenant age—“this age.” The living believers are “gathered” into the kingdom’s barn, shining “like the sun in the kingdom with their Father” (Matt. 13:43). As in Isaiah 65–66 and Revelation 21–22:2, 17, post-resurrection, the living remain in the new covenant age, shining with Christ in the new Jerusalem, continuously proclaiming the gospel and inviting sinners to enter, be healed, and receive eternal life. Clearly, Daniel’s “appointed time of the end” (Dan. 7:22; 9:26–27 LXX; 12:2–4 LXX), involving judgment and resurrection, marks the end of the old covenant age—not world history itself—while the gospel of light and life continues.

(4) Shut Up the Words and Seal the Book (12:4)

Daniel is told to “seal up” the prophecy of Daniel 2, 7, and 9:24–27, recapitulated in Daniel 12, because its fulfillment lay 490 years ahead, during the Roman Empire. John’s vision, extending Daniel’s, was “near” and thus left unsealed (Rev. 1:3; 11:18; 22:10). Revelation clearly encompasses Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12, affirming that their fulfillment—including the resurrection described in Daniel 12:2—was “about to be” accomplished “shortly” in AD 70 (Rev. 1:1, 19 YLT; 22:7–10, 20).

(5) Until the Appointed Time of the End (12:4, 9)

The Septuagint’s “appointed time [Grk. kairos] of the end” (Dan. 12:4, 9) plainly recapitulates Daniel 7:22–26 (v. 22 uses an Aramaic kairos cognate) and 9:26–27 LXX. Obviously, Daniel 7, 9, and 12 describe one consummative “appointed time” and “end,” fulfilled during the Roman Empire, signaling the old covenant’s close in AD 70. Partial preterists wish for two “ends”—one in AD 70, another at history’s close—but Daniel offers no such duality, undermining their “nuanced” and hyper-creedal philosophy / eschatology.

(6) Knowledge Will Increase (12:4)

Unlike evangelical claims tying this to modern technology (computers, jets, AI), the context of Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 shows it as the increasing knowledge of Messiah’s coming and kingdom in the “last days.” From John the Baptist onward, Jesus’ ministry amplified this understanding, clarifying the nature and timing of the kingdom’s establishment in AD 70. His miracles—signs of the last days of old covenant Israel—validated His teachings on the spiritual kingdom prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7, and His imminent cloud-coming judgment upon Israel. (e.g., healing a paralytic to prove He forgives sin, a Messianic prerogative; Mark 2:1–12; cf. Dan. 7:13; 9:24). Rejecting the Pharisees’ expectation of a physical kingdom, Jesus consistently taught a spiritual kingdom “within” believers (John 6; Luke 17:20–37), a kingdom “not of this world” (John 18:36), distinct from earthly kingdoms described in Daniel 2 and 7. His gospel firmly established an AD 70 fulfillment (Matt. 24:3–34; Luke 21:27–32). Likewise, the apostles, guided by the Spirit, confirmed this spiritual kingdom and its “soon” AD 70 maturity (John 16:13–15), aided by revelatory gifts like prophetic knowledge (e.g., Acts 15:12–17; Amos 9:11–12; cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). These gifts ceased after their purpose was completed in AD 70.

(7) [Daniel asks]: “How Long…?” [Angel answers]: “A Time, Times, and Half a Time” (Dan. 12:5–7)

Daniel asks how long until “the end of these wonders” described in verses 1–4. The angel replies, “for a time, times, and half a time [three-and-one-half years], and that when the shattering of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished” (Dan. 12:7). Thus, Daniel’s tribulation, judgment, resurrection, and knowledge increase—all core to Daniel’s vision—were to be fulfilled within this period (AD 67–70). These elements were first noted in Daniel 7:25, recapitulated in Daniel 9:24–27’s final half-seven., and again here in Daniel 12 as “the war” shattering Israel in AD 67–70. Jesus confirmed this explicitly, stating “all these things” (including His cloud-coming and the resurrection or eschatological “gathering”) would occur within His “generation” (Matt. 24:31-34), perfectly aligning with Daniel 12:7’s “all these things.” This synchrony undermines futurist eschatologies and strongly supports full preterism through clear Old and New Testament evidence. John, too, connects this three-and-one-half-year trampling of Jerusalem to “the appointed time for judging the dead” (Dan. 12:2–7; Rev. 11:1–18), decisively settling the debate between partial and full preterism through Christ’s (Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3–34) and John’s testimony (Revelation) regarding the timing of the resurrection and judgment of the living and the dead.

(8) The Purification of the Righteous and the Wicked’s Blindness (Dan. 12:10)

In Revelation, John shows Asian churches enduring spillover persecution from Jerusalem before Christ’s “soon” return in AD 70 (Rev. 1:9). John identifies himself as their “partner in the tribulation and kingdom,” closely connecting their persecution with the inheritance of the kingdom. This connection is rooted in Daniel 7 and 12, which specifically require a three-and-one-half-year period of persecution before the Son of Man’s coming on the clouds and the saints’ inheritance of the kingdom. First-fruits Jewish Christians emerge from the Great Tribulation in white, inheriting eternal life and God’s presence on Mount Zion (Rev. 7; 14; Dan. 12:1, 10). Likewise, the Asian churches who faithfully endure inherit “gold refined by fire,” “white garments,” and the promise of reigning with Christ in the new creation (Rev. 2:9–11, 22–28; 3:3–5, 10–12, 18–21).

Daniel emphasizes that while the wicked would remain blinded to prophetic truths, the wise would understand. Jesus’ parables intentionally veiled kingdom truths from hard-hearted listeners but revealed them clearly to His elect, whom the Father drew (cf. John 6). Meanwhile, unbelievers clung to their carnal kingdom expectations, easily deceived by false prophets and the Man of Lawlessness during Israel’s final days.

(9) The “Abomination,” “1,290 Days,” “the End,” and Daniel’s Standing (Dan. 12:11–13)

The “abomination[s]” of Daniel 12:11 plainly recapitulates Daniel 9:27, firmly placed in AD 67–70. The prophetic timeframe of “1,290 days” restates the “3½ years” of Daniel 7:25, 9:26–27 (LXX), and 12:7. At the culmination of this period—the definitive “end” of the old covenant age in AD 70—Daniel would “stand” (rise spiritually) from Hades into God’s presence, inheriting eternal life forever. Since Daniel 12 fully integrates Daniel 2, 7, and 9:24–27, let us summarize clearly how these chapters interconnect:

Daniel 2 Daniel 12
(1)  The consummative judgment (2:34–35, 44–45) (1)  The consummative judgment (12:2)
Daniel 7 Daniel 12
(2)  Warfare, persecution and deathfor the saints before the end (7:21–26) (2)  Time of tribulation in which saints will be “refined” before the end (12:1, 4, 10).
(3)  After a period of “three-and-a-half years” at “the end” of the “appointed time” the saints inherit the kingdom [Aramaic cognate of kairos] (7:22–26) (3)  After the “shattering of the holy people” for “three-and-a-half years” the resurrection of the just takes place at the “appointed time of the end” (12:2–4 LXX/kairos, 7)
(4)  The consummative judgment –when the books are opened (7:10) (4)  The consummative judgment –when the book is opened (12:1)
Daniel 9:24–27 Daniel 12
(5)  “Abominations” would lead to Jerusalem and the second temple being “desolated” (9:24–27) (5)  “Abominations” would lead up to the power of the holy people being completely shattered (12:7, 11)
(6)  Messiah would bring judgment and salvation at the “appointed time” or at “the end” (9:24–27LXX/kairos) (6)  The judgment and salvation [resurrection] of the just and unjust would come at the “appointed time of the end” or “the end” (12:2–4LXX/kairos, 13)
(7)  The consummation to take place at the end of the last broken 7 or the “three-and-a-half years” [AD 67 – AD 70] of the “the war” (9:26–27) (7)  The consummation would take place at the end of the “three-and-a-half years” or a period of “1,290 days” [AD 67 – AD 70] “when the power of the holy people wascompletely shattered” (12:7, 11)
(8)  When old covenant Jerusalem is judged in AD 70, the spiritual new covenant kingdom = the Church as God’s new Most Holy Place dwelling is anointed / inherited (9:24) (8)  When Jerusalem is shattered and judged is when the righteous are raised and shine – inheriting the kingdom at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 (12:2–3/Matt. 13:43)
(9)  All of this was far off for Daniel and fulfilled after 490 years during the Roman Empire when Jerusalem and the second temple would be desolated (9:24–27) (9)  Because the time of fulfillment for Daniel & his people was far off, the vision was to be “sealed up” but left open & fulfilled “near” during the Roman Empire (12:4, 9 / Rev. 22:10)

Major Premise:
Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 all build upon each other depicting a unified eschatological sequence in which tribulation, judgment, resurrection, and the arrival of the eternal kingdom occur during the time of the fourth empire (Rome) and culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem at the “appointed time of the end,” following a three-and-a-half-year tribulation period.

Minor Premise:
Jesus explicitly cites and alludes to these same prophecies in His Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Luke 21) and parables (Matt. 13), applying their “appointed time” of fulfillment to His first-century generation, predicting the tribulation, abomination, desolation of the temple, resurrection/gathering of the elect, and kingdom inheritance—all within the Roman Empire and before “this generation” passed away.

Conclusion:
Therefore, the tribulation, resurrection, judgment, and kingdom described in Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 were fulfilled in AD 70 during the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, marking the end of the old covenant age and the full establishment of the new covenant kingdom, just as Jesus taught.

Conclusion 

Daniel 12, as a culmination of the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, and 9:24–27, decisively anchors the tribulation, resurrection, and “appointed time of the end” to the first-century destruction or “shattering” of Jerusalem in AD 67–70, fulfilling the “three-and-a-half years” of covenantal judgment (Dan. 12:7). Jesus explicitly applies Daniel 12:1–13 to His generation in Matthew 24:21–34, linking the great tribulation, the “abomination(s)” committed by Jewish and Roman armies, and the eschatological gathering (resurrection) to the fall of the temple, as confirmed by historical accounts from Josephus and Eusebius. The resurrection of Daniel 12:2–3, understood as a spiritual and corporate awakening, saw the righteous “shine like the stars” (Matt. 13:43) as the new covenant Church emerged from the “dust” of old covenant Israel’s demise, while the wicked faced judgment. This fulfillment, marked by the “shattering of the holy people” (Dan. 12:7), aligns with Revelation’s “soon” judgment and resurrection (Rev. 11:18; 20:5–15), left unsealed for its imminent realization (Rev. 22:10).

The consistent recapitulation across Daniel’s visions—tribulation, abominations, judgment, and resurrection within the Roman Empire—refutes futurist and partial preterist attempts to posit a distant “end” or multiple comings. Instead, Daniel and Jesus present a unified eschatological vision: the spiritual Messianic kingdom, established through gospel proclamation and consummated in AD 70, replaced the old covenant order and kingdom (Matt. 21:43-45; Luke 17:20-37; Luke 21:20-32).

Study Questions – Daniel 12: The Tribulation, Resurrection, and the Appointed Time of the End

1. How does Daniel 12 recapitulate and build upon the earlier visions in Daniel 2, 7, and 9?

  1. What theological or prophetic developments does it introduce or clarify?
  2. How did Jesus apply Daniel 12:1 to His generation in Matthew 24:21–34?
  3. What evidence in the Gospels shows that Jesus placed the tribulation and “abomination” within the first century?
  4. How do the historical accounts of Josephus and Eusebius corroborate Jesus’ prophecy and Daniel’s vision of Jerusalem’s tribulation and desolation?
  5. How does Hebraic hyperbole help us understand expressions like “such as has not been from the beginning of the world…” (Matt. 24:21; Dan. 12:1)?
  6. Why is this important for interpreting prophetic language accurately?
  7. What is the significance of the three-and-a-half-year period mentioned in Daniel 7, 9, and 12?
  8. How is this timeframe fulfilled in the events of AD 67–70?
  9. In what way does Daniel 12:2–3, 13 describe a spiritual or corporate resurrection, and how is this echoed in Matthew 13:39–43, Matthew 24:30-31 and Revelation 11:1-18; 20:5-15?
  10. How do Jordan and Gentry interpret this and are they consistent in Revelation 20:5-15?
  11. What role does the “shattering of the holy people” for “three-and-a-half years” (Dan. 12:7) play in Daniel’s timeline (Dan. 9:26-27), and how does Jesus allude to this in His teaching (Luke 21:24) and John in his (Rev. 11:1-18)?
  12. Why is Daniel told to “seal up the book” and how does this contrast with John’s command to leave his vision “unsealed” in Revelation?
  13. What does this suggest about the timing of fulfillment?
  14. How does the phrase “knowledge shall increase” (Dan. 12:4) relate to the gospel and kingdom message of Jesus and the apostles, rather than to modern technological advances?
  15. What is the meaning of the righteous “shining like the stars” in Daniel 12:3, and how does this relate to post-resurrection life in the new covenant age?
  16. Summarize how Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 form a unified prophecy fulfilled in AD 70.

Books by Michael Sullivan available on his website store: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Screenshot

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

[1] The Greek words thlipsis (tribulation) and ananke (distress) are listed as synonyms in the Abbott-Smith Lexicon, harmonizing the two accounts effortlessly.

[2] 1QM 1:11–12

[3] Josephus The Complete Works, Chapter 9:4, https://ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete/
complete.iii.vii.ix.html

[4] Jewish War 2, 20, 1

[5] Eusebius, History of the Church 3, 5

[6] See the use of prophetic hyperbole in Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta, GA:  American Vision, Inc., 1994), 105

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

[8]  Ibid., 618–619.

[9]  Ibid., 620

[10]  Ibid., 621

[11]  Ibid., 628

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

[13] Ibid., 538. Emphasis added.

[14] Ibid., 538–539. Emphasis added.

[15] Ibid., 539. Emphasis added.

[16] Ibid., 540. Emphasis added.

[17] Green, Hassertt, and Sullivan, House Divided, 2nd ed. (Publisher Location: Publisher, 2009), 178.

Daniel Part 2 – Daniel 9:24-27: Six Crucial Prophetic Events Fulfilled in AD 70

Daniel 9:24-27: Daniel’s Seventy-Sevens Fulfilled

Daniel 9:24-27 recapitulates and expands the eschatological themes already introduced in Daniel chapters 2 and 7. In Daniel 2 and 7, the Messianic kingdom emerges spiritually from heaven—depicted metaphorically as a stone cut without hands or as the Son of Man descending with the clouds—to judge God’s enemies (stripping dominion from earthly powers) and to grant salvation, authority, and the eternal kingdom to His saints.

But what else occurs at the kingdom’s arrival? Daniel 9:24 reveals more: with the kingdom’s arrival comes forgiveness of sin and the establishment of everlasting righteousness. Just as Daniel 2 and 7 depict salvation for God’s faithful alongside judgment on the hostile nations and apostate Israel (symbolized by the clay in Daniel 2), Daniel 9 elaborates on this judgment. After a prophetic period of 490 years, during the Roman Empire, Daniel predicts that “his people” and “holy city” would face judgment for “cutting off” the Messiah—the same Son of Man introduced in Daniel 7:13 (Dan. 9:26). Consequently, a great war (“the war”) would ensue, and Messiah would send another “prince” at the “appointed time” of the “end” (of Daniel’s 70 weeks) to bring desolation upon Jerusalem and its temple (Dan. 9:26–27, LXX).[1]

Daniel’s final “week” (the last seven-year period) would thus encompass a second-exodus interval of approximately forty years, divided into two critical three-and-a-half-year periods:

  • From AD 30–33, culminating with Messiah being “cut off” (crucified).
  • From AD 67–70, culminating with Messiah’s judgment through the Romans to desolate the temple and city.

During this terminal generation (cf. Deut. 32:5, 20) Israel would be “filling up” the measure of her sins (Dan. 9:24) while giving time for the gospel to be preached throughout the Roman Empire, saving the remnant and engrafting believing Gentiles into one unified body of Christ—just before the final judgment fell upon the old covenant community.

The Six Events of Daniel 9:24 Fulfilled by AD 70

(1) To Finish Transgression

Daniel 9:24 foretold a time when Jerusalem would “finish” or “fill up” its transgressions against God and His Messiah. Jesus explicitly linked this completion of sin to His contemporary generation, declaring to Israel’s leaders: “Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!” (Matt. 23:32). As Premillennial Zionist Dr. Michael Brown acknowledges (citing James E. Smith):

 “To fill up [or restrain] the transgression.  Within the 490 years period the people of Israel would commit their final transgression against God.  Jesus indicated that the leaders of his generation were about to fill up the measure of the sin of their forefathers (Matt. 23:32)…”[2]

And Dr. Brown himself reinforces this interpretation when he writes:

“…take seriously Yeshua’s words spoken in Matthew 23:32, when he sarcastically exhorted the hostile Jewish leaders of his day, “Fill up the measure of the sin of your  forefathers!”  Thus, the generation that rejected the Messiah would suffer the  culmination of the sins of all the previous generations: “Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…I tell the truth, all this will come upon this             generation” (Matt. 23:35a, 37).”[3]

Unfortunately, Brown’s adherence to premillennial Zionism prevents him from taking seriously Yeshua’s words in Matthew 23, which describe the consummative judgment of the living (e.g., the Pharisees) and the dead (e.g., the martyrs), reaching back to Genesis. As that contemporary generation drew to a close, Revelation confirms this first-century fulfillment: the vindication of the martyrs’ blood at the hands of the great harlot city, Babylon (old covenant Jerusalem, where the Lord was crucified—Rev. 11:8), would occur in a “very little while” at Christ’s “soon” second coming (Rev. 6:10–11; 17–22:6–7, 10–12, 20). This judgment (vindication) and resurrection of the dead align with Jerusalem’s fall in Daniel 12:1–7, during a “three-and-a-half-year” period (AD 67–70) “when the power of the holy people would be shattered” (Dan. 12:7). Peter likewise affirms that this “appointed time for the judgment” of the “living (e.g., Pharisees) and the dead” (e.g., martyrs) was “at hand” (1 Pet. 4:5–7, 17).

(2)  Put an End to Sin

In Hebrews, the Saints enter into the Sabbath rest when Christ “put an end to sin” at His imminent, “in a very little while,” Second Appearing as the Great Anointed High Priest. This fulfilled new covenant promises to Israel and closed the “last days” of the old covenant age in AD 70 (Heb. 3-4; 9:26–28; 10:25, 37; Rom. 11:26–27; 13:11–12; Dan. 9:24b).

(3)  To Atone for Wickedness or Cover Over Iniquity

This third objective is closely related to the previous point. At Christ’s second appearing, the sins of His people were fully atoned, covered over, and remembered no more in the new covenant creation. Scripture portrays this as God burying their iniquities in the depths of the sea (Isa. 65–66; Mic. 7:19).

(4)  To Bring in Everlasting Righteousness


Peter declares that at the AD 70 Day of the Lord, Christ ushered in “everlasting righteousness” or a “world of righteousness,” arriving in an imminent timeframe: “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:5–7; 2 Pet. 3). This was the “inheritance” and “salvation of the soul” ready to be revealed to Peter’s contemporaries (1 Pet. 1:4–12; Acts 2:20–40). Paul similarly taught that this righteousness was “about to be reckoned” for the early Church:

“But also, on ours, to whom it [righteousness] is about to be reckoned—to us believing on     Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead” (Rom. 4:24 SLT, LSV, YLT, BLT).

“For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope” (Gal. 5:5).

(5)  To Seal Up Vision and Prophet

Many commentators view Daniel 9:24–27 as a concise summary of Jesus’ first and second redemptive comings. Yet they struggle with its conclusion: the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, clearly prophesied by Jesus (Luke 21:20–22ff). Jesus is explicit that all Israel’s Old Testament promises and prophetic material regarding His redemptive work—including His second coming—would be fulfilled within the generation of AD 30–70 (Luke 21:22–32).

Old Testament scholars Keil and Delitzsch define the phrase “seal up vision and prophet” aptly:

“Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy   ceases, no more prophets any more appear.”[4]

This definition is helpful because it explicitly addresses the cessation of the prophetic office at the completion of Daniel’s seventy weeks.  The Hebrew nabiy is used 316 times in the OT, translated as “prophet” 312 times, and only once, in Daniel 9:24, as “prophecy.” This linguistic detail proved pivotal in my public debate with Charismatic Zionist Dr. Michael Brown concerning the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge by AD 70 (1 Cor. 13:8–12)—a point for which he offered no rebuttal.

Charles John Ellicott echoes this interpretation, connecting the cessation of miraculous signs and revelatory gifts described in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 with the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24–27:

“The impression of translators being that all visions and prophecies were to receive  completed fulfillment in the course of these seventy weeks.  It appears…, to be more  agreeable to the context to suppose that the prophet is speaking of the absolute cessation of all prophecy” (I Cor. 13:8).[5]

Premillennial Zionist James Leon Wood agrees:

 “The words taken together refer to the final fulfillment of revelation and prophecy, i.e., when  their functions are shown to be finished.”[6]

(6) To Anoint the Most Holy Place

Christ anointed and consummated the new covenant Church as His Most Holy Place and Bride in AD 70 (cf. Ex. 20, 29–31, 40; Hebrews 9:6–10; Revelation 11:18–19, 19–21:16). David Green insightfully elaborates:

“Finally, it was through the anointing of the Holy Spirit that the whole city of Jerusalem was made new and became “the Tabernacle of God,” when the worldly Holy Place fell in 70 (Heb. 9:1, 8). Under the old covenant, every article of God’s tabernacle was consecrated by  the anointing of oil (Ex. 30:25–30; 40:9; Lev. 8:10, 12).  In the same way, in the Last Days, God taught His elect ones the truth of His gospel through the anointing of the Holy Spirit (2  Cor. 1:21,22; I Jn. 2:20,27), until all of them had come to know Him (Jn. 6:39).  Then came  “the end” (Dan. 9:26), when the Body of Christ, all His holy ones, the living and the dead, were raised up to become His anointed (God-taught) “Most Holy Place” in the new covenant  world (Jn. 6:44–45; Eph. 2:21–22; Heb. 8:11–13; Rev. 21:3).”[7]

As demonstrated, there is no scriptural justification for inserting a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th seven (week) of Daniel’s prophecy—nor does the prophecy’s fulfillment restart with modern events such as those of 1948. The prophecy, and how the NT develops it, clearly places all the soteriological and eschatological events to be fulfilled when the temple is destroyed in AD 70 and the people judged or rewarded. Since Daniel 2, 7 and 9 all would be fulfilled during the time of the Roman Empire, it becomes clear why Jesus and all of the NT authors emphatically taught that these prophetic events would occur “soon” in their own generation.

The following points summarize key connections between Daniel 7:13–27 and Daniel 9:24–27, highlighting their shared recapitulation:

  • The coming of the Son of Man on the clouds (or through another “prince” and his army during the war).
  • The appointed time when the saints inherit the kingdom.
  • The period of three-and-a-half years of tribulation and desolation.
  • The appointed time of judgment, marking the end of the age.
Daniel 7 – Fulfilled during

Roman Empire

Daniel 9 – Fulfilled during

Roman Empire

(1)  “3 ½ years” [AD 67 – AD 70] is the appointed time of consummation (7:25–26) (1)  “3 ½ years” [AD 67 – AD 70] “the war” is the appointed time of consummation (9:26–27)
(2)  This would be the “appointed time” [the Aramaic cognate to kairos] to the “end” (7:9–10, 22–26) (2)  This would be the “appointed time[Greek LXX kairos] of the end” (9:26–27LXX)
(3)  Appointed time for the judgment and resurrection of the dead at Christ’s coming upon the clouds when the books are opened (7:9–10) (3)  Implied – consummation of all 6 soteriological / eschatological events at the “appointed time of the end” (9:24–27)
(4)  The spiritual and eternal kingdom of God in Dan. 2 and 7 comes from heaven to earth and is inherited by the saints (2:34; 7:22, 27) (4)  When the old covenant second temple is destroyed God will build and anoint a spiritual Most Holy Place which came from heaven to earth “soon” in AD 70                     (Dan. 9:24; Rev. 21:16—22:7–10, 20)
(5)  All to be fulfilled during the Roman Empire (7:1–27) (5)  All fulfilled at the end of the 490 years during the Roman Empire  (9:24–27)

Jesus and Daniel 7 = Daniel 9

In Matthew 23–26, Jesus merges Daniel 7 and 9, predicting His cloud-coming within “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34) to judge and “desolate” Jerusalem and the temple (Matt. 24:2–3ff.; Luke 21:20–32), an event the priesthood would witness (Matt. 26:62–65). Before this judgment, Christians would face intense persecution (Matt. 24:9–10; Dan. 7:21–22). Jews and Romans would commit “abominations” in both the land and temple (Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20–32), thus “filling up the measure” of Israel’s sins (Matt. 23:29–36), as foretold in Daniel 9:24–27.

The believing remnant and Gentile faithful eagerly awaited Christ’s revelation from heaven, an event that would bring both “kingdom” and “redemption” (Luke 21:27–32; Matt. 24:27–34), as prophesied in Daniel 7:18–27 and 9:24. By blending Daniel 7:13 with Malachi 4:2, Jesus portrays Himself as the “light of day,” shining like the rays of the sun from east to west, or as the “Sun of Righteousness,” healing His people in AD 70 (Matt: 24:27–30, AFV/ANT; Mal: 4:2). This event simultaneously “brought in everlasting righteousness” for believers and consummated judgment on the Second Temple (Dan. 9:24–27; Mal. 3–4; cf. Rom. 4:24, SLT).

Jesus identifies this as the divinely “appointed time” (Greek kairos) and “end” of the old covenant age (Matt. 24:3, 14; Mark 13:32–37; Luke 21:22–24), echoing Daniel 7:22–27 (Aramaic cognate of kairos) and Daniel 9:26–27 (LXX). This period of judgment, coinciding with Jerusalem’s trampling by Gentile forces (“times of the Gentiles”), lasted three and a half years (AD 67–70), exactly matching Daniel’s prophecies (Luke 21:24; Rev. 11:1–8, 18; Dan. 7:22–26; 9:26–27, LXX). Jesus warned the Pharisees and priesthood explicitly that they would personally witness this judgment, including the emergence and subsequent destruction of the arrogant “little horn,” who would speak blasphemies and cause abominations (Dan. 7:8–26; 9:26–27).

Major Premise:
Daniel 7 and 9 both predict that during the time of the fourth kingdom (Rome), a judgment would fall upon Jerusalem, and the saints would inherit the kingdom after a three-and-a-half-year tribulation—at the appointed time of the end.

Minor Premise:
Jesus explicitly applies these time markers and prophetic “appointed time” of events to His own generation, identifying the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the “abomination of desolation,” the inheritance of the kingdom by the faithful, and His coming on the clouds as fulfilling Daniel 7 and 9 within the first century (Matt. 23:36–39; 24:15–34; Luke 21:8, 20–32; Matt. 26:64-65).

Conclusion:
Therefore, the prophecy of Daniel 7 and 9—concerning the cutting off of Messiah, the judgment of Jerusalem, and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom—was fulfilled in AD 70, just as Jesus declared. 

Conclusion 

Daniel 9:24–27 consolidates and expands the eschatological vision of Daniel 2 and 7, outlining six soteriological and eschatological events—finishing transgression, ending sin, atoning for iniquity, bringing everlasting righteousness, sealing up vision and prophet, and anointing the Most Holy Place—all fulfilled by AD 70 within the Roman Empire. Jesus merges these prophecies with Daniel 7 in Matthew 23–26, explicitly placing their consummation within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34), marked by the judgment of Jerusalem and the temple’s desolation during the “three-and-a-half years” of “the war” (AD 67–70; Dan. 9:26–27). This period saw Israel “fill up” its transgressions (Matt. 23:32), culminating in divine retribution through Roman armies, while the gospel spread, saving the remnant and Gentiles into Christ’s new covenant body (Matt. 24:14). The spiritual Messianic kingdom, depicted as a stone and the Son of Man’s cloud-coming, was fully established, anointing the Church as the Most Holy Place and ushering in everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24; Heb. 9:6–10).

By AD 70, the prophetic office ceased, and all Old Testament promises tied to Christ’s redemptive work were fulfilled, as confirmed by New Testament imminence (Rev. 22:10; 1 Pet. 4:5–7). The “appointed time” (kairos) of Daniel 7:22 and 9:26–27 (LXX) synchronized with Jesus’ teachings, rejecting any 2,000-year gap or futurist reinterpretation. This first-century fulfillment, blending judgment and salvation, reflects God’s covenantal fidelity, transitioning from the old covenant’s end to the new covenant’s maturity. Daniel 9 thus stands as a cornerstone for understanding Christ’s Parousia as the “Sun of Righteousness,” bringing redemption and kingdom inheritance to His people while desolating the unfaithful, establishing the Church as the eternal new covenant community in AD 70.

Study Questions –Daniel’s Seventy-Sevens Fulfilled (Daniel 9:24–27)

  1. How does Daniel 9:24–27 build upon and recapitulate the eschatological framework of Daniel chapters 2 and 7?
  2. In what ways do all three visions point to a first-century fulfillment?
  3. What six eschatological or redemptive events are listed in Daniel 9:24, and how does the chapter argue that each was fulfilled by AD 70?
  4. Why is it significant that Daniel’s prophecy specifies the judgment of “the people” and “holy city” for cutting off the Messiah?
  5. How does this language connect to Matthew 23–24?
  6. What is the importance of the “three-and-a-half-year” time period in both Daniel 7 and 9?
  7. How does this correspond with the events of AD 67–70?
  8. How does Jesus apply the judgment and tribulation of Daniel 9:26–27 to His own generation in Matthew 24 and Luke 21?
  9. In what way did the early church understand “finishing transgression” and “putting an end to sin” to be imminent realities tied to their generation?
  10. How does this challenge futurist timelines?
  11. What does “sealing up vision and prophet” mean in the context of Daniel 9:24, and how does this relate to the cessation of prophecy by AD 70?
  12. Why is there no textual or theological justification for inserting a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel’s prophecy?
  13. According to the chapter, how does Jesus’ use of Daniel 7 and 9 in Matthew 23–26 confirm a covenantal and imminent fulfillment rather than a distant or geopolitical one?
  14. How does this chapter affirm the full preterist view that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 marked the fulfillment of Daniel’s seventy-sevens and the transition to the new covenant kingdom?

Books by Michael Sullivan: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Screenshot

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

[1] Don K. Preston, “Daniel 9, The Seventy Weeks and the LXX,” Full Preterism, February 15, 2016,https://fullpreterism.com/daniel-9-the-seventy-weeks-and-the-lxx-guest-article-by-don-k-preston/.

[2] Michael Brown, AJOJ, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003), 93.

[3] Ibid., 96. Emphasis added.

[4] Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9, 344.

[5] Charles John Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 8 (London: Cassell and Company, 1884), 387.

[6] James Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), 250.

[7] David A. Green, “From Babylon to Babylon: An Exposition of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” Preterist Cosmos, 2003,https://www.preteristcosmos.com/daniel.html.

A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles: DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION

A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles:  DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION 
By:  Michael J. Sullivan
“At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time.  And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.  2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt (cf. John 5:28-29; Matthew 13:39-43/24:3, 30-31; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:5-15).  3Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end (Matthew 13:39-43/24-25); many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase (of Messiah and new covenant salvation).”  Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be (vss. 1-4)?”  Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things (including the resurrection and glorification of vss. 2-3) shall be finishedAlthough I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, “My lord, what shall be the end of these things (again they are all fulfilled together)?”  And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand. 11 “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.  13 But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.
Introduction
There are several things that are missing from Mr. Gentry’s new view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled corporately in AD 70 in his book,[1] article on his site,[2] or in the various lectures he has given where this passage comes up.
First, there is no humble acknowledgment that his new position on this text is the result of Full Preterist arguments pressing him to it over several years.  Nor is there any humble apology or acknowledgment to the Full Preterist community (or even to his futurist readers for that matter) for his past faulty eisegesis oF cherry-picking the time and fulfillment of the resurrection from the other eschatological events he took as fulfilled in AD 70 (the shattering of Jerusalem in judgment, the tribulation, and the three and a half years’ time frame).  Contextually the passage tells us that “all these things” not “some of these things” would be fulfilled together during the same “time of the end” period (Dan. 12:7).
Secondly, not only does Gentry neglect to tell his readers that his change on Daniel 12:2 is a result of full preterism pushing him in that direction, he doesn’t think twice about accepting the fact that men like him and James Jordan have actually stolen and are teaching the full preterist view on the resurrection and judgment of the dead.  Here is what they are proposing happened which is the full preterist view:

  • There was an “already/becoming/not yet” or progressive resurrection taking place for Israel roughly between AD 30 – AD 70.  In AD 70 the Church (God’s new covenant corporate Israel) was raised from the carcass of old covenant corporate Israel.
  • The souls of OT saints such as Daniel and Christians whom died prior to AD 70 were raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom and inherited God’s kingdom/presence/eternal life at that time.

In a nut shell, that is the full preterist view on the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead between AD 30 – AD 70.  The only difference between progressive partial preterists and full preterists at this point is that full preterists do not go beyond what is written and make up an additional “already/becoming/not yet” eschaton beyond AD 70 which allegedly involves a casket resurrection at the end of history – to appease the creeds and or creedal supporters and publishers.
Thirdly, perhaps Gentry is not remorseful for his eisegesis and cherry-picking Daniel 12:2 from the rest of the AD 70 fulfillments he has given in this chapter, because he knows his new interpretation continues with this deplorable approach.  Let me explain.  There is no exegetical defense of Gentry’s novel view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 can have two or multiple fulfillments (one in AD 70 and a “consummate” physical one at the end of time).  Therefore, Gentry has come full circle on performing eisegesis (reading things into the text that are not there) or cherry-picking the eschatological events in Daniel chapter 12 from verse 2.  If Gentry can give Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments (one in AD 70 and one in our future), then what is to stop the dispensationalist from saying something like this:  “There may have been some kind of fulfillment of the Great Tribulation in an AD 66–70 (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) and in the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15), but those events were only typological or preview fulfillments for Israel today after Israel rebuilds her temple in the near future.”  Or why should Gentry oppose the amillennialist teaching that, while the Great Tribulation may have had some aspect of fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, we should not consider it as one historic event but an “already but not yet” process the church goes through until the end of history?  Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalism or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:39-43 did not say that all Old Testament prophecy or the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2–3 would be fulfilled in two totally different ways spanning thousands or millions of years from AD 70 to the end of world history. He said that these things would all be fulfilled in His generation (“this generation”) at the end of the old covenant age.
It is more than inconsistent for Gentry and other partial preterists when debating premillennialists, dispensationalists, and amillennialists to argue that their preterist fulfillments in Matthew 24 and 95% of the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70 and cannot have double, multiple, or be placed in a 2000+ “already-not yet” fulfillment reaching beyond AD 70; and then turn around and use this very argument on the resurrection when debating and trying to dismiss Full Preterist exegesis!  Selah.  For example Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment, mixed fulfillments, or future fulfillment theories in the Olivet Discourse:
“Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”[3]
And Gentry teaches that a theory of “double fulfilling” AD 70 fulfillments in the book of Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion” that has “no exegetical warrant.”[4]  We couldn’t agree more!  So if it is true that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is found in the Matthew 24 and in the book of Revelation, then it would be “pure theological assertion” to claim another fulfillment of that resurrection is yet future to us.  Per Gentry, his approach has “no exegetical warrant” to it.
Similarly, Gentry and other partial preterists have attempted to blur and muddy their NT two comings of Christ (the parousia), two great commissions, two end of the ages, two fulfillments of the passing of the first creation and arrival of the new, and now two judgments and resurrections of the dead under the guise of two “already and not yet” eschatons.  If you have seen the plethora of exegetical problems with the dispensational double vision eschaton of a “the parousia” consummation/coming of Christ for Israel before the millennium and then another “the parousia” (“secret rapture”) consummation/coming of Christ for the Church, then one can easily see how partial preterism suffers from the same kind of eisegetical double vision hermeneutic which rips apart the harmony and analogy of the NT Scriptures!  Partial preterism teaches that there was one “already and not yet” 1)  roughly between AD 30 – AD 70 for Israel, and then what appears to be the first “not yet” in AD 70 becomes the “already” of the second “already and not yet” 2)  AD 70 – end of time for the Church.  They have learned from their futurist opponents that when an AD 70 fulfillment is exegetically developed their opponents “out” seems to be to throw it into a scholarly “already and not yet” scene.  This is Gentry’s approach now in debating Full Preterists which according to him is “pure theological assertion” with “no exegetical warrant.”  Even partial preterist Joel McDurmon tried this in his debate with Don Preston.  When pressed into a corner on such passages as Daniel 12:2/1 Corinthians 15/Revelation 20 – McDurmon admitted that these passages “could” have had “a” fulfillment in AD 70, but await another fulfillment/manifestation.  To claim that the resurrection and or judgment of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20 “could have a fulfillment in AD 70” is a huge admission which “gives the farm away.”
Fourthly, when one considers Gentry’s older writings and new writings on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 they definitely do lead us to Full Preterism.  In the past Gentry has argued that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is the same “one” resurrection as what we see in these texts (Matt. 13:39-43; John 5:28-29—6:40; Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 20).  This is a Full Preterist view.  In his new writings he is arguing that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled spiritually and corporately in AD 70.  This too is a Full Preterist position.
Fifthly, Gentry never explains how Daniel (the person ie. his soul) was raised and received everlasting life in AD 70 (cf. Dan. 12:2, 13).  How and how many times must Daniel be raised from the dead to inherit eternal life and the kingdom?!?  Does Gentry believe that Daniel was raised out of Abraham’s Bosom (as James Jordan believes according to Revelation 20) in AD 70 and inheriting everlasting life was being raised into God’s presence?  Who knows because Gentry cannot articulate his position or attempt to answer the tough questions.
Lastly and most importantly, there is no exegetical work done by Gentry on where the judgment, resurrection, and “end” of Daniel 12:1-4 is referenced and alluded to in the NT (ex. Matt. 13:39-43/Matt. 24:3, 31; John 5:28-29; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20) in order to prove that the Full Preterist view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was consummately fulfilled in AD 70 is the wrong view.  As I will demonstrate in the bulk of this article, Ken doesn’t want to even acknowledge the collecting of these dots because he knows how reformed creedal eschatology and how full preterism has “connected these dots!” Gentry simply asserts that his new view that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 does not lead to Full Preterism.   He  references only a few passages in the gospels and in the book of Revelation which he feels is an AD 70 fulfillment of Daniel 12:2 (where most commentators and orthodoxy has not made the connections) while ignoring the main passages such as Matthew 13:39-43; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15 and Revelation 20 (where commentators and orthodoxy has made the connections)!   Here are the passages which Gentry applies to Daniel 12:2 and note how the relevant passages I listed are ignored:
“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).
Second, elsewhere he employs the imagery of “regeneration” to the arising of the new Israel from out of 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).
This paralleling of divine blessing and divine curse, of life and death (cf. Ro 11:15) for those in Israel is a frequent theme (under varied images) in the Book of Revelation
Third, God’s angels protect some Jews from the winds of judgment, while not protecting others (Rev 7:1–9). John measures some Jews for safe-keeping in the temple, while not measuring others (11:1–2). Some stand high upon Mt. Zion in safety (Rev 14:1–5), while others do not (Rev 14:17–20).
Returning now to Daniel, it appears that Daniel is drawing from the hope of the future, literal resurrection and applying it symbolically to the first century leading up to 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. Again, this is much like Ezekiel’s practice in his vision of the valley of dry bones.
Fourth, though Ezekiel’s prophecy is concerned with Israel as a whole, whereas Daniel shows that Israel’s hope is the believing remnant.
In Daniel 12:4 the prophet hears a command to seal up his message until Israel’s end, thus delaying its prophesied actions. In Revelation 22:10 John receives a command precisely the opposite of Daniel’s, resulting in Revelation as a whole being opened and thereby fulfilled shortly: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Rev 22:10; cp. 1:1, 3; 22:6).”[5]
I feel this is by far the most glaring weakness of Gentry’s new view on Daniel 12:2, and therefore I will go ahead and do the exegetical work he can’t do and won’t do while quoting and referencing other reformed theologians to make the full preterist case.

Jesus’ Teaching on the Resurrection and Judgment of Daniel 12:1-4

Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3
Historical Argument:
The Jews during the times of Jesus and the NT era believed in two ages.  The first “this age” was that of the Mosaic old covenant law and prophets and the “age to come” or “age about to come” was that ushered in by Messiah and answered to the new covenant age.
“The end of this age” Exegetical Argument#1:
The new covenant age had not yet begun when Christ was teaching his audience about the judgment and resurrection which would take place at the end of their “this age” (Christ had not shed His blood yet).  Clearly the “this age” he is discussing is the old covenant age and the harvest/judgment/gathering/resurrection which would take place at that time.
Partial Preterist (Orthodox) Admission to Full Preterism confirms this interpretation:
Some of Gentry’s partial preterist colleagues have come to the conclusion that the parable of the wheat and tares was also fulfilled in AD 70.  For example, Joel McDurmon (Gary North’s son-in-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision):[6]
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 describe 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.
This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalem before the Roman siege.  This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the signs arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).[7]
“The end” or “This age” Exegetical Argument #2:
“The end” of “this age” is equivalent to Daniel’s “time of the end” in (Daniel 12:4) and thus answers to the same time period.  That this is the same “time of the end” resurrection is clarified even stronger in our next argument.
“Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” Exegetical Argument #3:
Virtually every commentator understands that Jesus is referencing the resurrection and glorification of (Daniel 12:2-3) in which the wise and righteous rise and “shine like the firmament” and “like the stars forever and ever.”
Gentry simply avoids the exegetical facts that Jesus is teaching the harvest/judgment/resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 would be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  Here merely assumes that the parable of the wheat and tares will be fulfilled at the end of the Christian age or “end of history.”  Following James Jordan, the closest Gentry wants to come to applying the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 to Matthew 13:39-43 (the parable of the wheat and tares) is oddly in the parable right before it in Matthew 13:11-15 (the parable of the soils):
“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).”[8]
The harvest is the end of the age” Exegetical Argument #3
Gentry writes of Daniel’s resurrection,
“That is, he (Daniel) is portraying God’s separating believing Jews out of Israel through the winnowing of Israel in AD 70.”[9]
Uh, but isn’t it Jesus here in Matthew 13:39-43 that is connecting the resurrection/glorification of Daniel 12:2-3 with a “harvest” and thus a “winnowing of Israel in AD 70”?!?  Don’t be afraid of the text Ken.  At least another partial preterist Peter Leithart, who understands that the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled in AD 70 correctly writes, “Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork, and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated.  The end of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”[10]  Gentry takes the eschatological harvest/judgment/gathering of John the Baptist’s teaching in Matthew 3:7-12 as fulfilled in AD 70, so why is Ken so afraid of Jesus’ harvest/judgment/gathering in Matthew 13:39-43 as being the same harvest fulfilled in AD 70?  The answers I believe are as follows:
First, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection took place at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70, then this is but one more passage he has surrendered to full preterism – thus once again demonstrating that his writings and that of partial preterism in general “leads to full preterism” (something Gentry try’s to deny but everyone from any other eschatological school of thought knows to be true).
Secondly, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43 took place in AD 70, then the harmony of Jesus’ teaching in the gospel of Matthew and exegetical evidence would demonstrate that the eschatological gathering at the “end of the age” in (Matthew 24:3, 30-31—chapter 25) was also fulfilled in AD 70 along with  the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 at “the end [of the old covenant] age.”
Thirdly, if Gentry concedes that the harvest/gathering/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43 took place in AD 70, then a “double,” “multiple,” “type / anti-type,” “already not yet” sell on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 becomes virtually impossible to make to reformed/creedal orthodox folks who finance his ministry or creedal publishers who publish his materials.  This is also why American Vision and Gary DeMar have avoided this issue as well in my opinion.  If Jesus is directly teaching that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 would take place at the end of the old covenant “this age,” it would be pure and direct eisegesis (reading into the text something that is not there) to claim that somehow He meant that TWO different kinds of resurrections would take place in two different “this age” time frames spanning thousands or millions of years.  Early creedal statements and that of the Church fathers believed the “age to come” or “age about to come” was still future and when it came the Second Coming and judgment and resurrection of the living and dead would occur.  They did not teach that the NT’s use of the “age to come” or “age about to come” was fulfilled in AD 70 as partial preterists are now admitting and conceding to full preterism.
Concluding Daniel 12:1-4/Matthew 13:39-43 and the teachings of progressive partial preterism.  Directly or indirectly, progressive partial preterism has conceded to full preterism that Jesus taught the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled between AD 30 – AD 70 at the end of the old covenant age in fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and tares.  This begs the question as to if Jesus elsewhere in the gospels taught this AD 70 doctrine of the judgment and resurrection of the dead and if the rest of the NT applies the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4 to AD 70 or the end of time.  To this issue we continue.
Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-4

   Daniel 12:1-12

Olivet Discourse
1.  Tribulation and Abomination that causes   Desolation  (Dan. 12:1, 12) 1.  Tribulation and Abomination that causes   desolation

(Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)

2.  Judgment and Deliverance  (Dan. 12:1) 2.  Judgment and Deliverance

(Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)

3.  Resurrection  (Dan. 12:2-3) 3.  Resurrection (Matt. 13:40-43; 24:30-31; Lk.   21:27-28)
4.  The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) 4.  The End (Matt. 24:13-14)
5.  When would all this take place?  “. . .when the power [The Law] of the holy people [Israel] has been completely shattered [the destruction   of the city and the sanctuary in AD 70], all these things [including the judgment   and resurrection] shall be finished.”  “But you, go your way till the end; for you   shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”   (Dan. 12:7, 13) 5.  When would all this take place?  “There shall not be left here one stone upon   another, that shall not be thrown down” [the destruction of the city and the   sanctuary in AD 70].”  “Verily I say   unto you, This generation shall   not pass, till all these things [judgment & resurrection] be   fulfilled.”(Matt. 24:1, 34)

 
Argument #1 The Analogy of Scripture “Parallels”
Of course progressive partial preterists such as Gary DeMar and Keith Mathison have surrendered to full preterism the belief that Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided into two comings of Christ (one in AD 70 and another at the end of time), but rather one in AD 70.  Gentry has nowhere to go at this point except to concede that this is now a legitimate and orthodox position to take although Luther, Calvin and the WCF all have taught that the coming of Christ in the OD is indeed the Second Coming.  For example the Reformation Study Bible, is in perfect harmony with full preterism in interpreting the parallel’s in Matthew 24:30-31 as being the same eschatological event with the following passages:
“But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14–17.  The passage most naturally refers to the Second Coming.”
It is important to note that full preterist hermeneutical “parallels” are reformed “parallels.”  Let’s briefly enjoy the analogy of Scripture which partial preterism arbitrarily rips asunder in hopes of trying to deal with NT imminence and stay creedal at the same time.
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & Matthew 13 Parallels
Evangelism in the world takes place (Mt. 24:14/Mt. 13:38).
There is persecution, tribulation, apostasy, & faithfulness (Mt. 24:9-13/Mt. 13:19-30).
The subject is the growth and reception of the kingdom at which time the judgment at the “end of the age” takes place (Lk. 21:31-32/Mt. 13:43; Mt. 24:3/Mt. 13:40).
The Son of Man comes with His angels to gather the sheep/wheat into His barn/kingdom and the wicked goats/tares are gathered and thrown into the fire and burned (Mt. 24:30-31, 25:31-41/Mt. 13:39-42).
Matthew 24-25/Luke 21 & 1 Corinthians 15 Parallels
Christ’s coming/parousia and trumpet call (Mt. 24:27, 31/1 Cor. 15:23, 52).
This is the time of “the end” (Mt. 24:3, 14/1 Cor. 15:24).
At this time God judges His enemies (Mt. 21:43à22:41-44à24-25/1 Cor. 15:24-28).
This is the time for inheriting the kingdom (Lk. 21:31-32/1 Cor. 15:24).
This is the time for God’s final redemption when the sin, the death, and the Law are destroyed for God’s people (Lk. 21:27-28/1 Cor. 15:23, . The temple’s destruction =’s the death being swallowed up in victory over “the [Mosaic Torah] Law” (1 Cor. 15:55-56/Dan. 12:7).
Matthew 24 & 1 Thessalonians 4-5 Parallels
Reformed and Evangelical commentators such as G.K. Beale see that in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24.
“That both [1 Thessalonians] 4:15–18 and 5:1–11 explain the same events is discernible from observing that both passages actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative in Matthew 24. . . .”[11]
Christ returns 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
From heaven 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:30
Accompanied by angels 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
With a trumpet of God 1 Thess. 4:16=Matt. 24:31
Believers gathered to Christ 1 Thess. 4:17=2 Matt. 4:31, 40-41
In clouds 1 Thess. 4:17=Matt. 24:30
Time unknown 1 Thess. 5:1-2=Matt. 24:36
Coming like a thief 1 Thess. 5:2=Matt. 24:43
Unbelievers unaware of impending judgment 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Judgment comes as pain upon an expectant mother 1 Thess. 5:3=Matt. 24:8
Believers not deceived 1 Thess. 5:4-5=Matt. 24:43
Believers to be watchful 1 Thess. 5:6=Matt. 24:37-39
Warning against drunkenness 1 Thess. 5:7=Matt. 24:49
Beale goes on to write:
“Other significant parallels include:  the use of the word parousia for Christ’s coming; reference to Christ’s advent as “that day” (Mt. 24:36) or “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:2); and a description of someone coming to “meet” another (eis apantesin autou, virgins coming out to “meet” the bridegroom in Mt. 25:6; eis apantesin tou kyriou, believers “meeting” the Lord in 1 Thess. 4:17; see further Waterman 1975).”[12]
Gentry, to support his argument that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled in AD 70, says that “Most commentators agree that the Olivet Discourse is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.[13]  Unfortunately Gentry’s sources of authority end up proving too much.  For example, both D.A. Carson and G. Henry Waterman (the same source Beale uses) make virtually the same parallels between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that we do.
Another partial preterist and outspoken critic of full preterism Keith Mathison attempts to avoid the unified parallels between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 by claiming that his Reformed brothers and “hyper-preterists” merely assume that “Jesus is speaking of his second advent when he speaks of ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24 and that Paul is speaking of the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 4.”[14]  The notion that Mathison is trying to pawn off here in his new book From Age to Age, is that Jesus in Matthew 24-25 was not teaching on his Second Coming (thus Mathison contradicts Luther, Calvin, and the WCF) and had very little to say about it at all in the gospels, and that it was the Holy Spirit who allegedly leads Paul to develop the doctrine of the Second Coming more in-depth in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.  Seriously, I can’t make this stuff up folks!  Where is this taught in the reformed creeds and what early church fathers were teaching this?  The self-evident fact of the matter however is that Mathison turns a blind eye to overwhelming evidence because Mathison assumes that partial preterism is right.  It is more than inconsistent and arbitrary to claim preterist parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2[15] and between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5 to support AD 70 fulfillments of Pauline eschatology,[16] and then deny the obvious parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4.  But this is what partial preterists such as Mathison do to remain creedal and support doctrines the Scripture does not teach.  This is why partial preterism is a nothing more than a stepping stone to full preterism.
Argument #2 – Christ came to fulfill “all” of the “jots and tittles” of the OT law and prophets in AD 70 (Matthew 5:17-18=Matthew 24:35).  This would have to include the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4
Gentry says that when Christ referred to the fulfillment of “all things written” in (Luke 21:22), He was referring to Old Testament prophecies only, and that Christ therefore did not include the resurrection of all men and the Second Coming in the term “all things written.”[17]  But if Jesus came to fulfill “all” of the “jots and tittles” of the OT law and prophets when “heaven and earth” pass and if Reformed, Evangelical and partial preterist theologians are admitting that “heaven and earth” in (Matthew 5:17-18) refers to the Temple and or old covenant world of Israel which perished in AD 70, then “Houston we have a problem” for Gentry and partial preterism!  Some of the best Reformed theologians have taught that “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 refers to the old covenant system which passed away in AD 70.  Reformed theologian John Brown:
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.[18]
Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [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] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .[19]
One of Gentry’s co-author and partial preterist colleague’s Gary DeMar agrees and goes further building upon John Brown’s observations:
“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth will pass away” (24:35).  In other contexts, when stars fall, they fall to the earth, a sure sign of temporal judgment (Isa. 14:12; Dan. 8:10; Rev. 6:13; 9:1; 12:4).  So then, the “passing away of heaven and earth” is the passing away of the old covenant world of Judaism…[20]
Exegetically, Jesus says nothing about two passing’s of “heaven and earth.”  And another interpretive problem for progressive partial preterists such as Gary DeMar would be that they take both “heaven and earth” passages passing in (Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35) as the old covenant temple or world perishing in AD 70.  Follow me with these exegetical/logical points along with the teachings of reformed eschatology and see where we end up.
If the analogy of Scripture teaches us that these passages are “parallel” and thus are the same eschatological time of the end judgment and resurrection events (ie. Matthew 13:39-43=Matthew 24:31ff.=Daniel 12:1-4) and…
If Jesus’ statement of coming to fulfill “all” the OT “jots and tittles” of the law and prophets (Matthew 5:17-18) includes the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 (no one I know denies this).  And…
If all of the OT “law and prophets” were fulfilled when Israel’s “heaven and earth” passed in AD 70 (the necessary implication of partial preterism).  And…
If the passing of “heaven and earth” in both of these passages took place in AD 70 (ie. Matthew 5:17-18=Matthew 24:35), and…
If it is true per partial preterism (DeMar and others) that Matthew 24 cannot have double, multiple or have mixed fulfillments beyond AD 70,…
Then… the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 (necessarily implied in Matthew 5:17-18 and found in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24) took place at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 and therefore, cannot have a double, mixed or fulfillment beyond AD 70.  Remember partial preterist teaching on the fulfillment of Matthew 24:  “Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”[21]
Gentry’s assertion that Matthew 24:30-31 is not dealing with the Second Coming or resurrection event (and it’s possible that neither is Matthew 24:36ff.) is simply not valid.  It is not valid because 1)  Jesus is simply discussing the same end of the age gathering He addressed in Matthew 13:39-43 (which is Daniel 12:2-3), 2)  Pauline parallels between Matthew 24-25 / 1 Thessalonians 4-5 prove Jesus was addressing the gathering of the elect as the resurrection, 3)  When Jesus says He came to fulfill the OT law and prophets when Israel’s old covenant “heaven and earth” would pass away in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18/Luke 21:22/Matthew 24:35, He not only has the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 in view in Matthew 24-25 but also of what commentators and theologians have called “Isaiah’s little apocalypse” (Isa. 24—28):
“IN THAT DAY (the last day of the old covenant age) the Lord will thresh from the flowing Euphrates to the Wadi of Egypt, and you, O Israelites, WILL BE GATHERED (cf. Matt. 13:39-43, 49/Matt. 24:30-31/2 Thess. 2:1) up one by one. And in THAT DAY A GREAT TRUMPET WILL SOUND (Matt. 24:30-31/1 Thess. 4:15-17/1 Cor. 15:52) those who were perishing in Assyria and those who WORSHIP THE LORD ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN IN JERUSALEM.” (Isa. 27:13).
Of Isaiah 27:13‘s connection with the NT texts I inserted above, let’s turn to G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson for support:
“The trumpet as a sign of the day of the Lord in 1 Cor. 15:52 recalls Isa. 27:13…” Of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, “The content of Paul’s appeal in this section concerns not only “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” but also “our gathering to him.” The immediate reference to this latter subject is the comforting picture given in the previous letter of how all believers, both those who have died and those who are still alive, will be gathered together to Jesus at his return (1 Thess. 4:16–17). The motif, however, goes back to the widespread OT hope in the gathering together of the scattered exiles to their own land on the day of the Lord (Ps. 106:47 [105:47 LXX]; Isa. 27:13; 43:4–7; 49:12; 56:8; Jer. 29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:8, 23; 33:7; Joel 3:1–2; Zech 2:6; Tob. 14:5; 2 Macc. 1:27; 2:7, 18; Pss. Sol. 17:50; T. Ash. 7:6–7; T. Naph. 8:3). This hope was taken over by Jesus and his scattered followers to refer to the final gathering of God’s people with the Messiah (Matt. 24:31 par.; cf. 23:37 par.).[22]
Within “Isaiah’s little apocalypse” the resurrection is to take place at the time of this trumpet gathering in Isaiah 27:13 and on a mountain where the wedding feast takes place Isaiah 25:6-8.  In Jewish weddings the feast always follows the wedding which leads us to our next argument.
Argument # 3 Wedding=Resurrection
If the parousia of Christ in both Matthew 24-25 is pointing to Christ coming to close the old covenant age in AD 70 (DeMar and Mathison’s view with Gentry seeing no problem with it), and if the wedding takes place at this time (cf. Matthew 25:1-13), then it necessarily follows that the resurrection of Isaiah 25:6-8 was also fulfilled in AD 70.
Daniel’s time of the end judgment and resurrection had to either be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 or at the end of the Christian age – it can’t be both!  Either the passing of “heaven and earth” and the fulfilling of all the OT law and prophets were fulfilled when Israel’s old covenant world “heaven and earth” passed away with the destruction of the temple in AD 70, or it refers to the literal planet at the end of time – it can’t be both!  Either Christ came in His parousia and the wedding/resurrection took place in AD 70 or it takes place at the end of time – it can’t be both!  Whey?  Because in the words of DeMar,  “…Matthew 24:34 won’t allow for it.”
Concluding the teachings of progressive partial preterism on Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-4.  Through 1)  the analogy of Scripture and 2) seeing that Jesus came to fulfill all the OT law and prophets by AD 70 in such passages as Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35/Luke 21:22 full preterism is justified in taking a consistently reformed position that the judgment and resurrection of the dead described by Jesus and Daniel in Matthew 13:39-43=Daniel 12:1-4=Matthew 24-25 were events fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  This is when all OT prophecy was fulfilled (cf. Luke 21:20-22/Matthew 5:17-18/Matthew 24:35) and there can be no double, multiple, or mixed fulfillments of this prophetic material beyond AD 70.  This is consistent reformed eschatology pure and simple.  Selah.
John 5:28-29/Daniel 12:1-2
Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers:[23]
The “already” or imminent “already”

Daniel 12:1:    “And at that hour…” John 5:25:    “…an hour is coming and now is…”
Daniel 12:2:    “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to   eternal shame.” John 5:24:    “…he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,   and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into   life.”

 The “not yet”

Daniel 12:1:    “And at that hour…” John 5:28:    “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear   His voice,
Daniel 12:2:    “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and   to eternal shame.” John 5:29:    “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection   [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection   [anatasin] of judgment.”MJS – also related:1 John 2:18:    “Dear children it is the last hour…”Revelation   14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”

From the very start Gentry is at odds with reformed theologians such as G.K. Beale.  Both believe that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the “not yet” of a physical resurrection at the end of history, but consider the problem in that Beale believes the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2—John 5:28-29—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 are all the same event to be fulfilled at the end of history, while Gentry on the other hand believes the judgment and resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2—1 John 2:17—Revelation 14:7 were fulfilled in AD 70!  However, both reformed views form full preterism when it comes to John’s judgment and resurrection “hour.”  Beale (nor the classical Reformed amillennial position) does not give the “not yet” judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 TWO end of the age (“not yet”) fulfillments as the progressive partial preterists are now forced to do — in order to try and be consistent with NT imminence while trying to please creedal supporters at the same time.
In commenting on the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 Gentry mentions the spiritual and corporate nature of the resurrection for Israel in Ezekiel 37 a lot to support his corporate view of Israel being raised into the new covenant Israel by AD 70.  Well, since there was a spiritual and corporate resurrection of the dead coming out of their graves in Ezekiel 37 and there is a spiritual fulfillment for the dead rising within the immediate context of John 5:24-26, there is no exegetical reason why the new covenant anti-type coming resurrection hour out of graves in John 5:28-29 is not also a corporate and spiritual resurrection.
Since partial preterism is now teaching that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and are fulfilled together, and that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 happened in AD 70, it necessarily follows that they need to prove without a shadow of doubt that the resurrection of John 5:28-29 is a physical/biological resurrection which takes place at the end of history and not the AD 70 one.  And if I’m not mistaken Joel McDurmon has also said that this passage could have had a fulfillment in AD 70 just like there “could” have been one in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 20.  Gentry and partial preterism in general have not brought forth any compelling exegetical evidence that John 5:28-29 refers to a biological resurrection at the end of history.
David Green in response to Strimple in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, has updated his response a bit on this passage (see pages 178-180):
Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (297).
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”  As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection.  The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost.  “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel.  Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected.  They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead.  He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.”  They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.”  As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel.  The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades).  This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead.  And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God.  One resurrection in two main stages:  First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:

  1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
  2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)

1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)
These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

  1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.

Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)

  1. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.

2. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.
After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic graves (Hades) in the end of the age.  And those among them who believed the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God.  But those who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” / “the second death” (Matt. 25:46; Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).”
Gentry agrees with full preterism that Jesus’ “already and not yet” eschatological “hour” in John 4 is between AD 30 – AD 70 when the old covenant mountain and temple worship is removed and the new established,[24] but then Gentry would claim Jesus’ same phrases on the coming eschatological “hour” in John 5 allegedly deal with the end of time.  We again find this arbitrary and exegetically unconvincing.

The Apostle Paul’s teaching on the Resurrection and Judgment of Daniel 12:1-4

We now turn our attention to Pauline eschatology and how Paul develops the resurrection of  Daniel 12:2, 13 in the NT.  Does Paul follow the same teaching that Jesus does in the gospels concerning an imminent AD 70 “hour” and judgment/resurrection of the living and dead?
Acts 24:15/Daniel 12:2
Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was imminent in the first century:  “having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY)
Argument #1 – Paul taught the OT resurrection:
The Apostle Paul taught, “…nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place” (Acts 26:21-23).  This would obviously include Daniel 12:2
Argument #2 – Only one place in Prophets that predicted a resurrection for both groups:
There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” (Acts 24:14-15) that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2.  This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees.
Argument #3 – Paul’s resurrection was “about to” take place:
Paul says that Daniel’s resurrection was “about to” take place.  Although Gentry has completely ignored arguments 2-3 above, he has tried to appeal to lexical and language works such as BDAG to get rid of the imminence in this passage.[25]  He and other partial preterists appeal to YLT and WEY translations in supporting passages they want to be fulfilled in AD 70 when debating futurists, but somehow everyone is supposed to think that these translations must be in error if they posit the resurrection as being imminent in the first century when debating full preterist’s.  Unbelievable. 
Argument #4 – The burden of proof is now upon Gentry:
Gentry’s new progressive partial preterist interpretation that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 begs the question – if Jesus in the gospels and John in the book of Revelation apply the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 to AD 70, then why is it a stretch to believe that the Apostle Paul isn’t developing the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Acts 24:15 to AD 70 as well?
In Gentry’s article Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION,[26] he claims this passage does not support a full preterist interpretation concerning the judgment and resurrection of the dead.  Since Gentry and his partial preterist partners in crime have stolen a full preterist view of an AD 30 – AD 70 “already and not yet” resurrection (one that was progressive, spiritual, and corporate for Israel resulting in the souls of saints being raised out Hades or Abraham’s Bosom) the burden of proof is now upon Gentry to prove that Acts 24:15 isn’t the AD 70 judgment and resurrection he claims did take place in AD 70 (no matter if mello here should be translated as “about to” or not)!
Argument #5 – Cowards are usually found hiding and unable to respond:
Gentry will not allow myself, Don Preston or William Bell to add comments under his articles on his site, because he doesn’t want to look bad and have us demonstrate to his readers how indeed his teachings are in fact leading people to full preterism.  Nor does he want it publicly pointed out how he is avoiding 3 out of the 4 arguments that we have given on this passage (see above).  I continue to find Gentry arrogant, deceptive, ignorant and unscholarly when he behaves in such a manner.
Romans 13:11-12/Romans 8:18-23 YLT/Romans 11:11-27 & Daniel 12
Again since Paul taught no other things on the resurrection except that which could be found in the law and the prophets, it is no stretch to see that Daniel’s “hour” (cf. OG LXX) in Daniel 12:1-2 of resurrection is not only Jesus’ or John’s in (John 5:28-29) but also in Paul’s (Romans 13:11-12).  If Beale is correct in that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 has an “already and not yet” aspect to it, and he makes parallel’s to the (OG) LXX with that of the “already and not yet” “hour” of John 5:24-29, then I see no reason why Paul is not drawing from that same “hour” and waking out of “sleep” here:  “Besides this you know what hour it is (cf. 1 John 2:17-18), how it is full time (the end time or time of the end of Daniel 12:4) now for you to wake from sleep (Dan. 12:2). For salvation (cf. Dan. 9:24 – finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness) is nearer to us now than when we first believed (the NT’s “already”); the night is far gone, the day is at hand (the NT’s AD 70 “not yet”). Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on (the transformation resurrection process) the armor of light; (Romans 13:11-12).

Daniel 12:1:    “And at that hour…” Romans 13:11:    “…you know what hour it is…”
Daniel 12:4:    “the end time” or “time of the end” Romans 13:11:    “…how it is full time…”
Daniel 12:2:    “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise Romans 13:11:    “The hour has come for you to wake up from your sleep…”

Partial preterists such as Jordan and Gentry believe that Jesus and the Apostle John taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 had a spiritual and corporate body resurrection process taking place between AD 30 – AD 70.  We have this already and imminent not yet process in Paul’s theology on the resurrection in this passage as well pointing to AD 70.
Argument #1 – Imminence:
The resurrection of Romans 13:11-12 was the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 and it was “at hand.”
Argument #2 – The analogy of Scripture:
Partial preterists have acknowledged that Romans 13:11-12 was fulfilled in AD 70 and yet the Reformed Study Bible and classic amillennialists believe that the restoration of creation and the resurrection or redemption of the body in Romans 8:18-23 are the same events.  We couldn’t agree more and accept both of these reformed conclusions!
Argument #3 – Imminence in Romans 8:18-23 YLT and analogy of Scripture:
In our second edition of House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology (pages 116-120) I pointed out how Gary DeMar (Mathison and Gentry’s partner in crime when it comes to trying to overthrow full preterism) agrees with us and the YLT and WEY translations that the glorification of the Church or the “glory” that was “about to be revealed” points to an AD 70 fulfillment of (Romans 8:18).  At least this is more progressive and honest than Gentry’s more than inconsistent “scholarship” on mello here.  I wrote the following and would like a response from Mr. Gentry:
“It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of mello in Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists.  Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses.  Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:
…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[27]    …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is: “be on the point of, be about to.  The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.[28]  Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[29]
Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard?  It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai —  “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.
At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[30]
We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).”
To further complicate matters for progressive partial preterists such as Gentry, Mathison and DeMar on Paul’s imminent expectation of the glorification of the Church, liberation of creation, full adoption of the sons of God and the resurrection or redemption of the body in Romans 8:18-23 is my reference to John Lightfoot (one their favorite partial preterists to quote) who in no uncertain terms held to a full preterist view of the “creation” groaning – being men and not the planet earth (not even poetically).
And of course one final response to Gentry here on the use of mello in Romans 8:18 – Ken used BDAG as virtually his end all argument in his attempt to translate mello in (Acts 24:15) as “shall” or “will” instead of “about to be,” and yet BDAG references (Romans 8:18) as “about to be revealed.”  Once again we find partial preterist’s such as Gentry being unable to deal with what other partial preterists teach on important texts and or are using grammatical arguments and linguistic works arbitrarily.
Argument #4 – Romans 11:11-27:
Gentry, and his anti-full preterist co-authors in WSTTB? and other partial preterist associates form full preterism – the imminent glorification, restoration of creation, and resurrection in (Romans 8:18-23) and (Romans 13:11-12) were “about to be” fulfilled in an AD 70 “at hand” time frame along with a third resurrection text partial preterists take as fulfilled in AD 70 (“all Israel shall be saved” being “life from the dead”) which to my knowledge Gentry has not acknowledged along with Mathison (Romans 11:11-27) (see pages 126-128):
“Mathison neglects to interact with other partial preterists such as DeMar and Jordan who teach that “all Israel” was saved by AD 70 and that covenantally, there no longer remain “ethnic” Jews after AD 70.[31] Why was not the view of DeMar and Jordan one of the many “possible interpretations” within Mathison’s eschatology of uncertainty?”
To drive the point home again – if it is true that there was a spiritual corporate (process and covenantal) resurrection which was fulfilled to close the old covenant age in AD 70 (climaxing with dead saints such as Daniel himself being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom) per orthodox partial preterism, then why wouldn’t the Apostle Paul be teaching this kind of resurrection in Acts 24:15 YLT; Romans 8:18-23 YLT; Romans 13:11-12; and Romans 11:11-27?  If not why not Mr. Gentry?  And if so partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon need to prove from these passages that both an AD 70 resurrection is in view but an ultimate physical one is found in the text as well.
1 Corinthians 15/Daniel 12:1-4
Again, we would concur with Reformed Study Bibles, commentators and theologians whom state that Paul is following Christ’s eschatology and thus the two are “parallel” in such passages as Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24-25; 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.  Or that Daniel’s resurrection is Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 15.  But can Gentry and Jordan’s progressive AD 30 – AD 70 resurrection for Israel resulting in the dead being raised out of Hades be seen in 1 Corinthians 15?  As Joel McDurmon has admitted there could have been an AD 70 fulfillment of the passage.

Daniel 12

1 Corinthians 15

1.  Resurrection unto “eternal life” (v. 2) 1.  Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality (vss. 52–53)
2.  Time of the end (v. 4) 2.  Then cometh the end (v. 24)
3.  When the power of the holy people [the Mosaic OC law] is completely shattered (v.   7) 3.  When victory over “the [Mosaic OC] law” comes (v. 56)

Argument #1 The rising of the dead:
There definitely seems to be good reason to plug Gentry’s progressive and corporate view of the resurrection of Israel into 1 Corinthians 15.
Wuest’s translation of the present tense of (1 Cor. 15:25) correctly renders the last enemy of death as in the process of “being” destroyed.  Obviously this is not a fleshly corpse resurrection taking place over the last two thousand years.  Are corpses coming out of the ground?  Are men living to be 500-900 years old?  No.  But between AD 30 – AD 70 the administration of the old covenant condemning power of “the law” was present and its promises contained in the Law and Prophets had not been completely fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-19/1 Cor. 15:54-56).
In Hosea, Israel had been sown in death and captivity but she was in the process of being raised from something greater than a Gentile power (ie. “the death” that came through Adam), united together, and transformed through the good news of the new covenant.  Israel’s process of being transformed and being sown and rising from old covenant glory into new covenant glory in (1Cor. 15 & 2 Cor. 3) should be viewed together.  The Greek and grammar of these passages being in the present passive indicatives renders a more probable translation of “if the dead are not rising,”(vss. 16, 29, 32), “the death being destroyed” (vs.26), “But God is giving it a body,” (vs.38) and,  “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is being sown in corruption; it is being raised in incorruption:  It is being sown in dishonour; it is being raised in glory: it is being sown in weakness; it is being raised in power:  It is being sown a natural body; it is being raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (vss.42-44).  Gordon Fee in his work on (1Cor.15) puzzles over this,
“The grammar of this sentence is somewhat puzzling…” “The sentence literally reads, “The last enemy is being destroyed.”[32]
Perhaps something else that might be “puzzling” in 1 Corinthians 15 that my friend Don K. Preston pointed out to me at the Criswell Conference concerning (1 Corinthians 15:49) is that  the text does not say “we shall bear the image” it is literally “let us bear the image.”  It is in the subjunctive, (phoresomen) not simple future!  That first century Christians were playing an active role in their resurrection (through the sovereign power and free grace of God) is something that we have already seen in the “already and not yet” resurrection of Romans 13:11-12/Daniel 12:1-2.
Most if not all of Gentry’s amillennial co-authors in WSTTB? would agree with the Reformed Study Bible for example which equates the parousia and or resurrection of Matthew 13:39-43; Matthew 24:27-31 with 1 Corinthians 15:
But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14–17.  The passage most naturally refers to the Second Coming.”
The classic amillennial position is that the one end time resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 is the resurrection and judgment Paul is developing in 1 Corinthians 15.  So…
Argument #2 – Analogy of Scripture:
If it is true that the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 was fulfilled in AD 70 (per Gentry) and if it is also true that the resurrection and judgment of Daniel 12:1-4 is the same time of the end resurrection described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (which cannot be double fulfilled – per classic amillennial view), then the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 was fulfilled in AD 70.  This is a perfectly logical and reformed conclusion to make regarding the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15.
There are many more full preterist arguments that Gentry needs to respond to when it comes to 1 Corinthians 15 which are addressed in chapter seven of our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology.

The book of Revelation and Daniel 12:1-4

Revelation 20/Daniel 12
Gentry has been very outspoken that the millennium of Revelation 20 was not fulfilled by AD 70 and yet at the same time holds that there was a progressive judgment and resurrection for Israel between AD 30 – AD 70.  In our second edition of HD, I added seven closing arguments or points on the millennium of Revelation 20 which would also refute Gentry’s futuristic position (pages 131-133):
“In scriptural usage, a symbolic “thousand” can be likened to “one” (day / yesterday / a watch in the night), or used in reference to millions of hills, or to eternity (“forever”). A “thousand” can be likened unto or used to represent a number lesser or greater than a literal thousand. Only its context can determine its literal numerical meaning, but the basic idea that is communicated by the number is “fullness.” As G. K. Beale wrote, “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time . . .”[33]
To conclude my section on the millennium of Revelation 20, please consider the following exegetical, orthodox, and historical points:
Kenneth Gentry informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were past, present, and “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19, YLT). There is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters.
As G.K. Beale has said, the symbol of the thousand years does not have to be taken as describing a long period of time (i.e., thousands of years).
It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/ world to come.”  These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land. This type/anti-type understanding is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14, YLT).  And as we have noted from Reformed partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the old covenant age, and that “the last days” were the days of transition between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – 70).
Reformed partial preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation.  And amillennialists such as Simon Kistemaker teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22.  Full preterists hold to both of these Reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation.
In criticizing the premillennial view, which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the New Testament, amillennialists and many postmillennialists hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the New Testament, and that this transition period is depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares, or in Matthew 24–25.  But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the old covenant age in AD 70, and that the harvest/gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and 24–25 was fulfilled by AD 70.
If it is true that a) the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment, as Mathison and other partial preterists are now proposing, and if it is true that b) John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation, and if it is true that c) Matthew 24:27-31 — 25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end-of-the-age Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection event (the creedal position), then d) the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, because these orthodox doctrines form the “this-generation” forty year millennial view of full preterism.

MATTHEW 24-25

REVELATION 20:5-15

Resurrection and   judgment Matt. 24:30-31 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) Matt. 25:31-46 (cf.   Matt. 16:27-28) Resurrection   and judgment Rev. 20:5-15
De-creation   heaven and earth pass/flee matt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Matt. 5:17-18) De-creation   heaven and earth pass/flee Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
Christ   on throne to judge Matt. 25:31 God   on throne to judge Rev. 20:11
Wicked   along with Devil eternally punished Matt. 25:41-46 Wicked   along with Devil eternally punished Rev. 20:10, 14-15

If it is true that a) the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 were fulfilled by AD 70 (per Gentry), and if it is true that b) Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is parallel to Revelation 20:5-15 (classic amillennial view), then c) once again the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, in that these orthodox views form the “this-generation” forty-year millennial view of full preterism.

DANIEL   12:1-2

REVELATION   20:5-15

Only   those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from   eternal condemnation Dan. 12:1-2 Only   those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the   lake of fire Rev. 20:12-15
This is the time for the resurrection and judgment   of the dead Dan. 12:1-2 This is the time for the resurrection and judgment   of the dead Rev. 20:5-15

Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the full preterist view of the millennium is: 1) consistent with the teaching of Revelation, 2) falls within the “orthodox” views the Reformed church, 3) is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture, and 4) has historical support from Rabbis who saw a forty-year transition period between the two ages. Our view on the millennium is exegetically sound and orthodox. It is not as “difficult” as Mathison attempts to portray it.”
Mr. Gentry wants to apply his AD 30 – AD 70 judgment and resurrection view of Daniel 12:1-4 in Revelation 7 and 14 but doesn’t want to touch upon where everyone clearly sees Daniel 12:1-4 being fulfilled in the book of Revelation – ie. Revelation 20!  This appears to be once again an arbitrary creedal philosophy guiding him and not a commitment to “sola scriptura” or sound exegesis.  Again, Ken has already informed his readers that anyone wanting to give multiple or double fulfillments to his AD 70 fulfillments in the book of Revelation, would be guilty of “pure theological assertion” which  has “no exegetical warrant.”[34]  So he can’t then turn around and claim that John in Revelation 7 and 14 is giving the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-2 two fulfillments.  He sure would have to disagree with partial preterist Joel McDurmon who claimed there could have been an AD 70 fulfillment of the resurrection in Revelation 20 but it would also have to have another “final” fulfillment at the end of time.  McDurmon’s comments are indeed “pure theological assertion” without “exegetical warrant.”
I’m sure Ken would say that John in Revelation 7 and 14 is using the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 typologically to point to AD 70 whereas in Revelation 20 he is using Daniel 12:1-4 to refer to the “final” resurrection.  But once again reformed theology sees an “already” resurrection process for the living taking place in Revelation 20 culminating in what partial preterist James Jordan sees as a resurrection for Daniel’s soul being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom (per Daniel 12:2, 13/Revelation 20).  After all, where in Revelation 20 is there any mention of a physical or biological resurrection per Gentry?  Only “souls” are mentioned.  And your typical amillennialist is going to tell us that the same end time resurrection and judgment of the dead in Revelation 7, 11 and 14 is then recapitulated in Revelation 20.  These are orthodox views that full preterists have taken on the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Revelation 11, 7, 14 and 20.  We have no desire to “go beyond what is written” or “add” to the prophetic material in Revelation so that we can be creedal.  When creedal tradition seeks to trump sound exegesis, it’s time for the true reformed Christians to make a stand on sound exegesis and what the historical church (combined amillennial and partial preterists) have written on the millennium of Revelation 20.

Conclusion

If no written or printed response is forthcoming from Mr. Gentry and his co-authors of WSTTB? to our second edition of HD, then I will conclude with Gary North’s kind of logic in these matters and that this debate is over because no consistent exegetical one can be given.  I wanted to express my sincere appreciation to the work that Mr. Gentry and his co-authors and anti-full preterist associates have done thus far in demonstrating what full preterists have been saying all along:  the “one” Second Coming or “THE parousia” of Christ attended with the one judgment and resurrection of the living and dead was a process from AD 30 to AD 70 for Israel coming out of her old covenant world/body and into the her new covenant world/body, was spiritual, corporate, resulting in the souls of men such as Daniel (Daniel 12:13) being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom to close the old covenant age in AD 70.
This article has proven that progressive partial preterists have indeed “given the farm away” to full preterism when it comes to the judgment and resurrection of the dead.  This used to be the defining difference between the two views, but as we have seen Gentry and his progressive partial preterist associates have only stolen our AD 70 judgment and resurrection view of the living and dead (w/out giving us credit) and simply asserted with no exegetical evidence that such passages as John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15YLT; 1 Corinthians 15; and Revelation 20 teach two fulfillments or that a biological resurrection at the end of time is present in any of these passages.
Gentry co-authored a book entitled, HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UP OF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY in which he and others demonstrated that progressive dispensationalists have given the farm away to covenant theology/eschatology and thus there remains nothing left to dispensationalism.  They must accept that their house is falling apart and cannot stand or accept covenant theology/eschatology.  Gentry is now on the receiving end of this kind of logic.  Our “House Divided” book has demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that progressive partial preterists such as Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon and Mathison combined with the classical amillennial and creedal views form full preterism and they can either accept this or watch their house continue to fall at the feet of full preterism.



[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA:  Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third Edition), 538.
[2] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[3] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www. americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[4] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
[5] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[6]   Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.” http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html
[7] . Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 – 20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was fulfilled in the first century, Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing:  An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID:  Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[8] Kenneth Gentry, DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION AND RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/03/daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection/
[9] Ibid.
[10] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing:  An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID:  Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[11] G.K. Beale, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series 1–2 Thessalo-nians (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 136.  Copyright 2003 by G.K. Beale.  Some Progressive Partial Preterists are now agreeing that 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 took place in AD 70.  Mike Bull is admitting that Gentry and Mathison are forced to “dodge and weave to put this passage [1 Thess. 4:15-17] into our future.” Mike Bull, The Last Trumpet, http://www.bullartistry.com.au/ wp/2011/06/05/the-last-trumpet/

[12] . Ibid, 136–137.

[13] .  Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (Texarkana, AR:  Covenant Media Press, 1999), 100, n. 19.  Here Gentry cites D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1984), 8:489; and G. Henry Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (June 1975); 105–113.

[14] . Mathison, From Age to Age, 515.

[15] . Mathison, Postmillenialism, 230.

[16] . Ibid, 226.

[17]Dominion, 542.

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

[19] .    Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Edited by Kent E. Brower & Mark W. Elliot, Eschatology in Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium (Downers Grove, IL:  Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145.

[20] DeMar, Last Days Madness, Ibid. Fourth revised edition, 192.
[21] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www. americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[22] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (747, 886–887). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos..

[23] 0. G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of The

Old Testament In The New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 131132.

[24] Gentry, ibid. FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, 43.
[25] Kenneth L. Gentry, Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION http://postmillennialism.com/2012/02/acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/
[26] Kenneth Gentry, Acts 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION, http://postmillennialism.com/2012/02/acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/
[27] . Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 23–24.
[28] . Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 141–142.

[29] . Ibid., 141.

[30] . Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 1999), 225.

[31] Gary DeMar, All Israel will be saved:  Notes on Romans 11:26, American Vision http://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-onromans/#.UG3auVGJr3A.  James B. Jordan, The Future of Israel Re-examined, July 1991. Biblical Horizons, No. 27 July, 1991

[32] Gordon D. Fee, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 756.
[33] . G. K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 1018.
[34] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
 

House Divided – Excerpts From Chapter 6 (Expositions of Daniel 12:2 and John 5) and Chapter Seven – The Resurrection of the Dead An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Excerpts From Chapter 6 (Response to Robert Strimple) &  Chapter Seven (Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15)
Including an Exegesis of:  Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29, and 1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of the Dead Fulfilled by AD 70
David A. Green

Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

1).  Exegesis of Daniel 12:2

Strimple Argument #5: Daniel 12:1-3 says that “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This is obviously referring to a physical resurrection of the dead. Additionally, God tells us that this prophecy is to be fulfilled in “the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), which is the end of human history (295).
Answer: Daniel’s prediction of the resurrection of the dead begins with these words: “And at that time . . . ” “That time” refers back to the end of chapter 11. Philip Mauro in his book, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, argues convincingly that Daniel 11 ends with a prophecy of Herod the Great.[1]
Herod, the first enemy of the incarnate Christ, died very shortly after Christ was born. It was “at that time” that Christ (“Michael,” “the Chief Messenger”) stood up for the saints. It was at that time that Christ came into the world for His people and took on the body of sacrifice that the Father had prepared for Him (Dan. 12:1; Heb. 10:5-7; Ps. 40:6; cf. Rev. 12:7).
It was the “stand” for the elect that Christ made in His Incarnation that led to the “war in heaven” (Matt. 11:12; Rev. 12:7), which in turn led to fleshly Israel being overtaken in the death-throes of the Great Tribulation (Dan. 12:1). Jesus promised that that time of distress was going to take place within His own generation, and that it would be consummated in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Dan. 9:26; 12:1; Matt. 24:1-2, 21, 34). That event took place in August-September of AD 70.
According to the angel who spoke to Daniel, it was at that time that the power of the holy people would be shattered (Dan. 12:7), that the church would be delivered (Dan. 12:1), that the resurrection of the dead would take place, and that the righteous would inherit the kingdom (Dan. 12:2). Jesus, in harmony with Daniel, promised that the kingdom would be taken from the wicked and given to the righteous in the lifetime of the chief priests and Pharisees (Mat. 21:43-45). Therefore, “the time of the end” (not “the end of time,” as it is sometimes mistranslated) in Daniel 12:4, 9 was not the end of human history; it was the end of redemptive history in Christ’s generation.
It was in AD 70, therefore, that many who slept in “the earth’s dust” awoke. To “sleep in dust” is a figure of speech. The dead were not literally sleeping, nor were they literally in the dust. They were “in dust” only insofar as, in their death, they had not ascended into God’s presence in Christ. In terms of the righteousness and life of God, they were earth-bound. From a literal standpoint, they were in Sheol/Hades (the abode of the Adamic dead), and it was from out of Sheol that they were raised to stand before the heavenly throne of God (Dan. 12:1-2). Futurist James Jordan writes regarding Daniel 12:13:
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.[2]
Regarding the word “many” in Daniel 12:2: The word is not used in contrast to “all” (as “the many” is used to limit the term “all men” in Rom. 5:12, 15, 18-19) or in contrast to “a few.” The angel simply referred to a large number of people; to multitudes (NIV). No inference can be made from the context as to whether “many” referred to all or to only a portion of the dead. Only subsequent scriptures revealed that the “many” in Daniel 12:2 referred to the whole company of all the dead from Adam to the Last Day.

2).  Exegesis of John 5:28-29

Strimple Argument #6: John 5:28-29 obviously teaches a physical resurrection of the dead in that it speaks of a time in which “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (297).
Answer: In order to understand John 5:28 and 29, we must first look three verses above it, in John 5:25, where Jesus said that the hour “now is” when “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” As most Reformed interpreters agree, Jesus in that verse was referring to the preaching of His death and resurrection. The preaching of that message commenced at Pentecost. “The dead” were physically living people who were spiritually dead in sin, and “the voice of the Son of God” was the gospel. Having heard the gospel, those who were spiritually “dead” were spiritually resurrected. They lived in that they received eternal life through faith in the gospel (“the voice of the Son of God”).
Then, in verses 28 and 29, Jesus expanded His teaching on the resurrection to include those who were not only spiritually dead, but who were also physically dead. He did not call them “dead” (as He had already called the living who were spiritually dead), but He referred to them through another figure of speech as “all who are in the graves.” They were not literally in their graves or tombs, of course, but were in Hades/Sheol.
What is often missed in this passage is that, like the physically living in verse 25, the physically dead in verse 28 were also going to live by means of hearing Christ’s “voice.” As we know from verse 25, that “voice” is the gospel. The physically dead therefore were going to hear the gospel (cf. 1 Pet. 4:6.) and were, as a result of hearing the gospel, going to be resurrected (regenerated, born from out of death and Hades). This means that the physically dead were, like the physically living, spiritually dead. And this inescapably means that both the physically living and the physically dead were going to be spiritually resurrected by means of the gospel-voice of the Son of God. One resurrection in two main stages: First, the last days saints; then, the Old Testament dead (“the rest of the dead” in Revelation 20:5). Note the parallels between John 4:21, 23 and John 5:25, 28:
1. . . . [T]he hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . (Jn. 4:23)
2. . . . [T]he hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. (Jn. 4:21)
1. . . . [T]he hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Jn. 5:25)
2. . . . [T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice. . . . (Jn. 5:28)
These two sets of prophecies are parallel.  They speak of the same timeframes, which were these:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1. The true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
1. The dead would hear the voice of the Son of God, and live.
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2. God’s worshipers would no longer worship Him in Jerusalem.
2. All who were in the graves would hear His voice.

Interjection by Michael Sullivan – “Commentators have long understood that Daniel 12:2 is the source for Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection in John 5:28-29 because the only OT passage which mentions a resurrection for both the righteous and the wicked is Daniel 12:2 and the only OT passage addressing “eternal life” is Daniel 12:2.  G.K. Beale points out an additional connection – in that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 when it comes to this coming resurrection “hour” of both believers and unbelievers (cf. G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of The Old Testament In The New (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 131132).
That being the case, note these parallels:
Pentecost (AD 30)
1.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
1.  John 5:25:  “…an hour is coming and now is…”
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2.  Daniel 12:1:  “And at that hour…”
2.  John 5:28:  “…for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,”
Pentecost (AD 30)
1.   Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
1.  John 5:24:  “…he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life,   and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into   life.”
Fall of Jerusalem (AD 70)
2.  Daniel 12:2:  “Many of those who sleep in the width of the earth will arise   [anatesontai]…some unto eternal life and others to reproach…and to eternal shame.”
2.  John 5:29:  “and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection [anatasin] of judgment.” (also related:  1 John 2:18: “Dear children it is the last hour…” and Revelation 14:7:  “…the hour of His judgment has come.”).
Partial Preterists such as Kenneth Gentry have finally conceded to Full Preterism that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually – “when the power of the holy people is/was completely shattered” (v. 7).  They also affirm that the last hour of John’s eschatology in John 4, 1 John 2:17-18, and Revelation 14:7 was fulfilled in AD 70.  There is obviously some arbitrary and inconsistent exegesis taking place from Mr. Gentry on the coming “hour” of judgment and resurrection in John’s writings.
Here are the exegetical challenges for Kenneth Gentry on the resurrection of John 5:28-29 at this point:
1.  If the judgment and resurrection “hour” of Daniel 12:1-2 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, and…
2.  If Jesus’ source for His teaching on the coming judgment and resurrection “hour” in John 5:28-29 was Daniel 12:1-2,
3.  Then the judgment and resurrection “hour” of John 5:28-29 was also fulfilled spiritually in AD 70.” (end note by Michael Sullivan)
David A. Green continued – After hearing the gospel, the dead were raised out of their Adamic graves (Hades) in the end of the age. And those among them who believed the gospel received eternal life in the kingdom of God. But those who hated the gospel (those who had done evil) were raised out of Hades only to stand before God and to enter into “eternal punishment” / “the second death” (Matt. 25:46; Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:14).

[1] . Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications [now Grace Abounding Ministries]), 135-162.
[2] . James B. Jordan, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Inc., 2007), 628. (Emphases added)

3).  An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

The position I take in this exposition is often called “the collective body view” or “the corporate body view.” It is as follows:
Some at Corinth were denying that the pre-Christian saints[1] would rise to inherit the kingdom at the Parousia. Those who were in error at Corinth were not arguing with Paul about the reality of the resurrection. They were arguing with Paul in regard to who would participate in the resurrection. They believed that believers in Christ would be resurrected but that “the dead” would not. Paul’s answer to their error was that “all”—not merely some of God’s people—would be raised. Through the Spirit-empowered dying (to Sin and to the Law) of the eschatological church on behalf of the dead (the Old Testament saints), the mortal “body” of Sin and Death (the Adamic/Mosaic saints and the eschatological church; the entire “world” of God’s people) would rise and be “changed”/“transformed” into the spiritual body of Christ in the kingdom of God.
Though this interpretation is commonly called “collective” or “corporate,” these terms are inadequate. Paul does not speak only or merely in collective terms of the resurrection body. Not even in 1 Corinthians 12 is “body” simply a reference to a collective or communal “body of believers.”
The terms “body of Christ” and “body of believers” are not synonymous. The church is not a “body” because it is a group of people who have organized and united around Christ. Nor is it a body because it is a kind of “corporation.” The church is the body of Christ because it is literally the dwelling and fullness of the individual Man, the Person, Christ Jesus (Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:23; 4:13). “This mystery is great. . . ” (Eph. 5:32).
As we shall soon see, Paul used the word “body,” in the relevant passages, not as a term of either physicality or collectivity, or even as a term of mere anthropological wholeness. Paul used the word “body” as a term of theology, much as he used the terms “spirit,” “new man,” “the world about to come,” the “new creation,” the “kingdom of God,” and the heavenly “house/home.” All of these eschatological terms (and their opposites, “mortal body,” “flesh,” “old man,” etc.) are intimately related in their meanings, and are not easily defined with exactness.
As I will explain in more detail below, “body” describes God’s people, whether individually or as a whole, whether living or dead, in terms of their cosmic-covenantal self or identity, as they are constituted either in Sin and Death or in Christ. Thus the view I am presenting in this
self in this chapter to defining their error more generally as a denial that the dead from Adam until Christ would be raised.
chapter may more accurately be called “the cosmic-covenantal body view.”
Necessary Inferences
In beginning this exposition, we must understand that reading 1 Corinthians 15 is comparable to listening to one side of one phone conversation out of a series of phone conversations. Paul and the resurrection-of-thedead deniers have a long established context with long established word usages. We on the other hand, as a third party, may have our own context and our own usages that we unwittingly apply to the conversation.
This is the problem we face in 1 Corinthians 15. We hear Paul’s refutation of the resurrection error but we do not hear many details about what he is refuting. All we know from explicit statements in the chapter is that some at Corinth denied “the resurrection of the dead” because they believed “the dead” had no “body” with which they could be rising (1 Cor. 15:35). But what does this mean? What did Paul and those who were in error at Corinth mean when they used those terms?
If we do not make correct inferences from Paul’s side of the “conversation,” we not only misunderstand the error he was refuting, we misunderstand the truth he was defending. This has been the historic failure of the futurist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. Futurists have resisted making necessary inferences in Paul’s arguments because those inferences do not fit the futurist paradigm.
It is widely believed that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers denied the very concept of the resurrection of dead people universally, and that they therefore denied the resurrection of Christ and of Christians. The implications of Paul’s words, however, do not support this view. As Paul argued, if the dead are not being raised, then:

  1. not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor. 15:13-17)
  2. the apostles are liars (1 Cor. 15:14-15)
  3. those also who have fallen asleep in Christ perished” (1 Cor. 15:18)
  4. we are hoping in Christ “in this life only” (1 Cor. 15:19)

These four logical outcomes of the resurrection error were not doctrines that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were teaching. These conclusions were not designed to describe the error. They were designed to overthrow it, through reductio ad absurdum. Paul was bringing the resurrection error to absurd conclusions that were antithetical to the beliefs of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers. Paul was essentially saying:
“We all believe in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-17) and in the eschatological hope in Christ that all believers share (1 Cor. 15:19), both living and asleep (1 Cor. 15:18); but you do not realize that if there is no resurrection of the dead, as some of you are saying, then these gospel truths that we all hold so dear are nothing but falsehoods and delusions.”
We can infer from Paul’s “if . . . then” arguments that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not espouse those inevitable results of their teaching. Instead, they agreed with Paul that:

  1. Christ had been raised from the dead.
  2. The apostles were faithful and true witnesses of God.
  3. Christians who had “fallen asleep” had not “perished” (i.e., had not died in their sins).
  4. All Christians, both living and “asleep,” had a sure “hope” in Christ. Their hope in Him was not a pitiable delusion.

Because the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed in the resurrection of Christ, and because they believed that sleeping Christians had therefore not died in their sins (“perished”) but were, along with the living, looking forward to the fulfillment of the Christological “hope,” we must infer that the “hope” to which the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers looked was that of the Christological resurrection of Christians, both living and “asleep” (Acts 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-7; 28:20; Eph. 4:4). They did not believe merely in the continuation of existence after death; they looked forward to the fulfillment of the eschatological “hope” in Christ.
We can also reasonably surmise that since the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers believed that the apostles were faithful witnesses and since they believed in the apostolic gospel of the historic resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-17) and in the Christian resurrection-“hope,” it is not unlikely that they also believed the apostolic testimony that Christ Himself had raised multiple people from the dead and that the apostles themselves had raised multiple people from the dead.
(We can add to this that since the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were members of the church at Corinth, which was filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including miracles, it is not far from the realm of possibility that resurrection-miracles were performed at the Corinthian church before the very eyes of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers.)
So from verses 13-19, we must infer that even though those who were in error at Corinth denied the resurrection of “the dead,” they nevertheless believed in the resurrected and resurrecting Christ, and in the resurrecting apostles, and in the miracle-working church at Corinth, and in the resurrection-“hope” of all Christians, living and asleep.
These inferences have been overlooked because under the assumption of futurism, they make no sense. How could someone deny the very concept and possibility of the resurrection of dead people and at the same time believe in the resurrected and resurrecting Christ, and in the resurrecting apostles, and in the Christological resurrection-“hope” of all Christians, living and asleep? With futurism as our starting point, there is no answer to this question. There are only strained theories.
The problem for futurism thickens when we see other implications of Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 15. In verses 35-37 we read:
But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what body do they come?” You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
We know that Paul’s argument here was aimed at those who already believed in the eschatological resurrection of Christians. We can infer then that he was not trying to convince them of the concept of resurrection. We can also infer that body-sowing and body-rising (bodyresurrection) were “givens” in the seed analogy. The only doctrines that Paul was defending and seeking to prove in his analogy were body-death (“You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies”) and body-change (“and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be”). Sowing and coming to life (resurrection) were givens. Putting the body to death and changing the body were not givens.
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed in the sowing of the body and in the resurrection of the body but they denied that the body had to die and be changed. They erroneously espoused the burial and resurrection of the same, unchanged, living body. This makes no sense in the futurist framework, but we shall see below that it makes perfect sense in Paul’s preterist framework.
We see again that the resurrection body was a given, in verse 46: But the spiritual [body] was not first, but the natural [body], then the spiritual [body].
No one at Corinth needed to be convinced of the coming “spiritual body . . . that shall be” (1 Cor. 15:37), or of the “hope” of the raising up of Christians, whether dead (“asleep”) or living (1 Cor. 15:19), or of the coming kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). They needed only to be convinced that there was a “natural body” that came first, and that it had to be put to death and “changed” into the differentspiritual body.”
The Dead
Let us now look at one more inference we must make from Paul’s arguments—an inference that will begin to allow us to undo the confusion of the futurist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. Verse 35:
How are the dead raised? And with what body do they come?
As this verse implies, the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers could not fathom the possibility of the resurrection of the dead. They could not so much as conceive of “how”the dead” could have a “body” with which they could be raised. The very idea was beyond their capability to believe.[2]
As we have seen, those who were in error at Corinth believed in the historic resurrection of Christ and in the “sowing” of the “spiritual body” and the resurrection of the same “spiritual body.” They looked forward to the fulfillment of the “hope” that all Christians, living and asleep, would be raised with the spiritual body in the kingdom of God. Yet at the same time, according to verse 35, we see that those who were in error at Corinth were unable to conceive of the feasibility of the bodily resurrection of the dead.
How can this be? In the futurist paradigm, this simply “does not compute,” and the exegetical dilemma is mind-bogglingly insoluble. The blinders of futurism have thus made it impossible for interpreters to make sense of all of 1 Corinthians 15. The result has been that, through a time-honored exegetical haze, futurism has unwittingly transformed the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers into veritable madmen.
There is no doubt that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were ignorant and foolish regarding the resurrection of the dead, but it is not reasonable to portray them as thinking in insanely contradictory propositions, i.e., believing in the reality of resurrection and at the same time being unable to conceive of the very possibility of resurrection. The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers had no rational reason to reject the believability, imaginability, thinkability, or feasibility of a biological resurrection of the flesh. Therefore, what they denied—and what Paul was defending—was something else.
Those who were in error at Corinth were denying neither the existence of, nor the futurity of, nor the somatic (bodily) character of the resurrection. They believed in the future body-resurrection of Christians. Yet at the same time, they denied the resurrection of “the dead” because they could not conceive of the possibility of the dead having a body with which they could rise. This means that the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers were not denying the bodily resurrection of everyone, but were denying only the possibility that certain people other than Christians—“the dead”—were participating in the resurrection of the body.
“The dead” in 1 Corinthians 15 were, in contrast to dead Christians, Hadean saints (1 Cor. 15:55). They were, as Paul says, those “out from among” whom Christ had been raised (1 Cor. 15:12, 20). Christ did not rise “out from among” dead, Spirit-indwelt Christians. “The dead” were the saints who had lived and died, not in Christ, but “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:22), before Christ. They were those who were “asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20), in contrast to those who had “fallen asleep in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:18).
They were none other than the pre-Christian saints;[3] which inescapably means they were primarily and for the most part those who lived within the Abrahamic community of historic covenant Israel.[4]
Buried Alive
Let us look again at 1 Corinthians 15:36:
. . . That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.
As I mentioned above, Paul teaches in this verse that the body is first sown (planted, buried, or entombed), and then it dies in order that it can be raised a changed body. If Paul was teaching a biological resurrection of the dead, then we must admit that he was saying that only physical bodies that have first been buried alive and have then been put to death underground can be raised to eternal physical life on Resurrection Day.
Futurism has thus created an absurdity and a contradiction in verse 36. The absurdity is the teaching that only physical bodies that have been buried alive can be resurrected. The contradiction is the idea that physical death is a prerequisite to being resurrected. This contradicts verse 51, where Paul said that the physically living would be “made alive” (resurrected) and changed along with the physically dead (cf. verse 22).
No one believes that Paul was teaching that living physical bodies must be physically buried, and that the physically buried bodies must then physically die underground in order that the physically buried-and-dead bodies can then be physically resurrected and changed. Although that is definitely what Paul’s words say in the futurist framework, no futurist accepts this meaning. Instead, most interpreters apply themselves to Herculean efforts to making the verse make sense in the futurist framework.
Their time, however, would be better spent finding Paul’s meaning, letting him say what he says, rather than making his words conform to the futurist paradigm. To find Paul’s meaning, we need only find where in Scripture Paul elaborated on the doctrine of a human “body” that had to be sown/planted/entombed and concurrently put to death, in order that it could be made alive and changed in the resurrection of the dead. This takes us to Romans 6-8, Colossians 2, and Philippians 3.
In these Scriptures, especially in Romans 6, Paul teaches that believers had been bodilyplanted,” through Spirit-baptism, into death / into the death of Christ, in order that the body that had been planted/buried (the “body of Sin,” the “mortal body,” the “body of Death,” the “body of the sins of the flesh,” the “vile body”) would be abolished / put to death, and then be made alive and changed/conformed to the image of the Son of God in the kingdom of heaven. Note the order: Burial then death.
This sequence in Romans 6 is exactly, step by step, what Paul teaches concerning the resurrection of the body in 1 Cor. 15:36-37 and its context. Romans 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 both speak of concurrent bodyburial and body-death, followed by consummated body-death, bodyresurrection, and body-change. Futurist assumptions notwithstanding, there is no doubt that 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 6-8 are speaking of the same burial, death, resurrection, and change—and therefore of the same body.
The Body
What then is “the body” that was being put to death in Romans 6-8 and 1 Corinthians 15? What is the meaning of the word “body” in these contexts? Essentially, or basically, the “body” is the “self” or “person/personality” or “individual,” whether that of a singular saint or of the singular church universal (the body of Christ). According to definition 1b of the word σωμα (body) in Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the word “body” in Paul’s writings is sometimes “almost synonymous with the whole personality . . . σώματα [bodies] = themselves.”[5]
Note how that “body” and “yourselves” are used interchangeably in Romans 6:12-13:
Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting your members [of your mortal body] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [of your mortal body] as instruments of righteousness to God.
Compare also 1 Corinthians 6:15 and 12:27, where “you” and “your bodies” are synonymous:
. . . your bodies are members of Christ . . . . (1 Cor. 6:15)
. . . you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. (1 Cor. 12:27)
See also Ephesians 5:28, where a man’s body-union with his wife is equated with “himself”:
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.
However, the word “body,” when it is used in reference to the eschatological resurrection, means more than merely the “self.” Paul is not using the word as a common reference to “the whole person.” It does not refer to man’s anthropological wholeness (i.e., Material body+soul+spirit=the body). Paul is using the word in a theologicaleschatological sense to describe God’s people as they are defined either by the wholeness/fullness (body) of Adamic Sin and Death or the wholeness/fullness (body) of Christ. The body is either the “person” united with Sin and Death, or the “person” united with Christ, whether individually or corporately.
We can begin to see this in Colossians 3:5 (KJV), where the body parts (members) of the Sin-body are not arms and legs or other physical limbs. The members of the “earthly body” were death-producing “deeds,” such as “fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness . . . ” (cf. Rom. 8:13). Thus John Calvin wrote in his commentary on Romans 6:6: “The body of sin . . . does not mean flesh and bones, but the corrupted mass . . . of sin.” Since a body is the sum of its parts, and since the parts of the Sin-body are sins/sinful deeds, it follows that “the body of Sin” is not the physical aspect of man. Instead, the whole of the sins/deeds of the body equals the body of Sin. Or more accurately, the body of Sin was God’s people as they were identified with and defined by the Sin-reviving, Sin-increasing, Death-producing world of the Law.
When Paul said that believers were no longer walking according to “the flesh” (Rom. 8:1, 4, 9), he was saying that believers were putting to death the deeds of the “body” (Rom. 8:10-11, 13). The parts/members of the body equaled the deeds of “the body,” which equaled the walk of “the flesh.”   “Flesh” and “body” in this context, therefore, describe man as he was defined by Sin, not man as he was defined by material body parts.
In Colossians 2:11, Paul said that God had buried believers with Christ, raised them up with Him, and had removed “the body of the flesh.” “The body of the flesh” was not the physical body. It was the Adamic man/self/person that had been dead in transgressions and in the spiritual uncircumcision of his “flesh” (Col. 2:13). That “body” (or as Ridderbos puts it, that “sinful mode of existence”)[6] had been “removed” in Christ and was soon to be changed into the glorious, resurrected “body” of Christ.
As a comparison of Colossians 2:11 and Colossians 3:9 reveals, “the body” of Sin is virtually synonymous with “the old man”:
. . . the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh . . . . (Col. 2:11)
. . . having put off the old man with his practices (Col. 3:9; cf. Eph. 4:22)
Compare also 1 Corinthians 15:42 with Ephesians 4:22:
[The body] is sown in corruption . . . . (1 Cor. 15:42)
. . . the old man being corrupted . . . . (Eph. 4:22)
Compare also the references to “man” and “body” in Romans 7:24:
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from this body of Death?
And in Romans 6:6:
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom. 6:6)
And in 1 Corinthians 15:44, 45:
. . . There is a natural body [the old man], and there is a spiritual body [the new Man]. And so it is written, the first [old] man [the natural body] Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [the last Man, the spiritual body] a quickening spirit.
Since the natural body is nearly synonymous with the old man, we should expect that the spiritual body is nearly synonymous with “the new man,” the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare 1 Corinthians 15:53-54 with Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10 and Romans 13:14:
For this perishable [body] must put on the imperishable [body] . . . . (1 Cor. 15:53-54)
and put on the new man [the spiritual body], which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. (Eph. 4:24) and have put on the new man [the spiritual body] who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him. (Col. 3:10)
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ [the new man, the spiritual body], and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts. (Rom. 13:14)
As most futurists agree, “the old man” and “the new man” are not expressions that describe man in terms of physicality. “The old man” was man as he was in Adam, alienated from God and dead in Sin. He was “the body of Sin.” The new Man is man as he is reconciled to God in Christ, the lifegiving Spiritual Body.
The World-Body
Note that in Colossians 2:11-14, believers had been bodily buried and bodily raised with Christ, but it was the “handwriting in ordinances” that God had crucified. In Romans 6:6, it was “the old man” that had been crucified. In Galatians 5:24, it was “the flesh” that had been crucified.
And in Galatians 6:14, it was “the world” that had been crucified. These verses together demonstrate the “cosmic” dimension of the Pauline, eschatological “body.” The Spirit was not merely changing hearts and lives of individuals; He was changing the “world-body” of Adam/Moses (Israel as it was defined by the earthly temple-system of Law-Sin-Death) into the world-body of Christ.
Thus it is in 2 Corinthians 5 that the soon-to-be-destroyed “mortal . . . body” is equal to the “earthly [made-with-hands] house of the tabernacle” (2 Cor. 5:1, 4, 6, 10), i.e., the old covenant world. The “house,” or world, of the man-made temple of God was “the mortal . . . body” that had been buried with Christ, and that was being put to death, and that was soon to be clothed with the heavenly/spiritual body of Christ.
Though all believers were individually “putting on Christ” in anticipation of the Last Day (Rom. 13:11-14), believers were not doing this merely as a collective of individuals. They were together, through the power of God, putting on (becoming clothed with) the Lord Jesus Christ who is Himself the Tabernacle/House/Body of God from out of heaven. They were being changed into the cosmic New Man—the “body” of God Himself.
Through the indwelling Holy Spirit,

  • the mortal body of Sin and Death (The Adamic-Mosaic world),
  • the old man/humanity and,
  • the flesh had been sown/planted/buried and were being put to death through

the eschatological work of the Holy Spirit, and were being raised

  • the body of the triune God (“that God may be All in all”),
  • the new Man and
  • spirit (that which is spiritual; that which is of the Spirit),

i.e., the habitation of

  • the Father,
  • the Son and
  • the Holy Spirit

The consummated change took place when the world of the handmade city and sanctuary (the body of Sin and Death) was thrown down, and the heavenly/spiritual city and sanctuary (the body of Christ) were established “among men” in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8).
Through the indwelling of the Spirit, the church’s body of Sin and Death (its old, pre-Christ world-identity; the fleshly, Adamic “man” or self) was buried into the death of Christ. It was put to death, having been buried with Him through the without-hands baptism of the Holy Spirit into the dead-to-sin body of Christ. Believers had thus been “bodily” buried together into body-death, and their body-life was hid with the soon-to-be-revealed Savior of the Adamic world (Rom. 6:11, 13; Phil. 3:10; Col. 3:3).
The two contrasting and co-existing eschatological bodystates in Paul’s epistles (the concurrent dying and rising and changing of “the body” that had been buried) depended on neither physicality nor nonphysicality.[7] They depended on the saints’ relationship to Sin or to Christ. They depended on whether one was in Adam (under the dominion of Sin and Death) or in Christ (under grace and indwelt by the life-giving Spirit).
The elect before Christ were the body of Sin and Death in that they had been incorporated into Sin and Death in Adam. They were wholly defined, constituted, organized, systematized, and comprehended in (i.e., indwelled by and “clothed with”) Adamic Sin and Death through the curse of the commandment of God. They were both individually and collectively the embodiment (the body) of Sin and Death.
But in the new world in Christ, through faith in His shed blood, all of His saints in heaven (non-physical) and on earth (physical) are the cosmic embodiment, “fullness,” and habitation of the triune God. The fulfillment of the resurrection of “the body” in AD 70 brought into being the universal communion of all the saints (old covenant and new covenant) in the one, spiritual body (Christ Himself). This is what the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers denied would take place. They denied the death and resurrection with Christ of the natural body (the preChristian world of God’s people) and its change/transformation into the universal (Christian and pre-Christian), spiritual body of Christ.
The Universality19 of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-28)
In denying the resurrection of the pre-Christian saints, or of old covenant Israel, the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers were denying not the fact of the resurrection, but the “all-ness” of the resurrection and the “all-ness” of Christ’s atoning work. They denied that Christ had died for “all,” and therefore they denied that “all” would be raised. Though they agreed with Paul that Christ had died for “our” (the eschatological church’s) sins
(1 Cor. 15:3, 11), they denied that Christ had died for the sins of “the dead.”
Contrary to their doctrine, the resurrection of Christ was not the begin-
ing either material or immaterial.” The Body, John A. T. Robinson (SCM Press Ltd., Bloomsbury Street London, 1966), 32. Reformed theologians Ridderbos and Holland acknowledge that some of Robinson’s exegeses are flawed, but they endorse the substance of his insights on “the body.” I cite Robinson here in the same spirit.

  1. When I use the terms “universal” and “universality,” I am not referring to any form of “Universalism.” I am referring to the trans-historical assembly of the saints of all generations, from Adam to AD 70, or from Adam to the present day.

ning of the resurrection of the last days church only. It was also the beginning of the resurrection of the great cloud of saints (“the dead”/“them that slept”) who had come and gone before the advent of the last days church. Christ became the “First Fruits” of the eschatological church and of the Hadean saints “out from among” whom He had been raised (1 Cor. 15:55; Rev. 1:5). His resurrection was the beginning of the resurrection of “all” the saints who were “in Adam” (1 Cor. 15:20), not merely of the eschatological church. As all the saints, Christian and pre-Christian, had been condemned and alienated from God (i.e., had died) in Adam through Sin (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 7:9), so “all[8] were going to be raised up in “the Christ,” the second “Man” (or the second Humanity), the Savior of “the world” (1 Cor. 15:21-22). Because Christians were “of Christ,” and because Christ was the First Fruit of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23), Christians were, in Him, “first fruits” of the resurrection (James 1:18; Rev. 14:4), so that Christ was “the First Fruits” of “the first fruits.”[9] The resurrection of Christians “in His Parousia,” therefore, was not to be the consummation of the life-giving reign of Christ (1 Cor. 15:22-24), as the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers supposed. The eschatological church’s resurrection in “Christ the First Fruits” was instead the beginning of the end of the resurrection-harvest, and was to be followed by “the end,”[10] or “consummation,” which was the resurrection of the dead, i.e., the death of Death (the abolition of the alienation of God’s people from Him)—when “all” the elect became the habitation of the lifegiving Spirit through the gospel (Jn. 5:25; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rev. 20:5-6).
Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was not reigning in the Spirit-indwelt, eschatological church merely so that the church by itself would attain unto the resurrection and inherit the kingdom. He was reigning in the church so that the historic kingdom would, in Him, be universalized” in and brought under the rule of “the God and Father” of “all” the saints (1 Cor. 15:24). The Adamic saints were not going to be left unredeemed from the “rule,” “authority,” and “power” of Satan, Sin, Death, and Condemnation. Rather, the Father was going to place all those kingdom-enemies under the feet of Christ, and Christ was going to “abolish,” or “annul,” them all.
He was already in process of abolishing the last and greatest kingdom-enemy, Death itself, through the kingdom-transforming, kingdom-universalizing work of the Cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 15:26). “All things” (or literally, “the All Things,” the cosmic body of Sin and Death) were going to be subjected to Christ, and changed (Phil. 3:21) in the Father, by the power of the Father, and under the authority of the Father, so that all of the enemies would be done away; so that all of the Father’s elect (from Adam to AD 70) would be made alive in Christ; so that the universal church would become the habitation of the triune God, so that He would become “All Things in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).
If the Resurrection is not Universal (1 Cor. 15:12-19; 29-34)
The Son did not come to set up His own new religion that excluded the historic saints who had worshiped the Father in the Adamic ages. To the contrary, the Son was sent by the Father and under the authority of the Father for the purpose of restoring “all” the elect to the Father, to “universalize” the Father’s dominion. Unbeknownst to the resurrectionof-the-dead deniers, if Christ had come to save only the eschatological church and to exclude the pre-Christian world, this would have left only two possibilities. Either:

  1. Christ would be the conqueror of the God of the pre-Christian world, and the Father would be put in subjection under the feet of the Son (1 Cor. 15:27).[11]

Or

  1. Christ was not sent to accomplish the Father’s cosmos-saving work; therefore the Father had never raised Him from the dead, and the gospel was a lie, and Christianity was merely a man-made religion.

Of these two possibilities, Paul countered the first in passing (1 Cor. 15:27), but rigorously pursued the implications of the second. As we know, many at Corinth were living as though the second possibility was the truth.
As Paul reasoned: If Christ did not come to accomplish the Father’s work of restoration (Isa. 55:11), to gather and unite “all” (Christian and pre-Christian) who were chosen in the Father from before the world began, then Christ was not of the Father. Then neither the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ nor the resurrection-hope of the eschatological church was true or valid. Then Paul and the other apostolic preachers were liars, and Christ did not die for the sins of the eschatological church, and the Father never raised Him from the dead (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 11, 13-16).
Consequently, Christ was not reigning. Therefore no one had been born of the Spirit that proceeded from the Father. Then the gospel was vain, and the faith of believers was vain (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Then no one had been saved and empowered by the grace of God either to preach the gospel or to believe it (1 Cor. 15:1-2, 5-8, 10-11).
Christians were, then, still in their sins, and those who had fallen asleep in Christ had died in their sins (1 Cor. 15:17-18). Then the resurrection-hope that believers had in Christ was false (1 Cor. 15:19). Then those Christians who were undergoing baptism (Spirit-led suffering and death) on behalf of the dead (1 Cor. 15:29; Matt. 20:23; 23:34-35; Luke 12:50; Heb. 11:40; Rev. 6:9-11) were in reality suffering for nothing more than a man-invented delusion. They were not being led by the Spirit but were instead going to a hopeless, meaningless death.
Moreover then, the apostles were fighting with “beasts” (enemies of the gospel) and were standing in jeopardy every hour, dying daily, not to change the world of God’s people, but for absolutely nothing, because
of Israel and His law) was the root error of the doctrine that would later be known as Gnosticism.
their gospel sufferings were not being wrought through the cosmosresurrecting, cosmos-changing power of the indwelling eschatological Spirit, but through the power of mere man (1 Cor. 15:30-32).
If the gospel was a lie and there was no God-ordained, worldchanging need of dying daily through the Spirit, of suffering hardships, humiliations and dangers, then the apostles should logically have lived as the arrogant, carnal Corinthians themselves were living (I Cor. 4:8). They should have rejected their humiliating sufferings for the gospel and put off dying for some other day (“tomorrow”) (1 Cor. 15:32-34).
In the end, the whole church, following the apostles and the Corinthians, would have forsaken the shame of the Cross of Christ and escaped the eschatological sufferings to which it had been called. All believers would have lived in the status quo of the old world. Though the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not know it, this was the practical, church-corrupting result of their dead-excluding error. This is why it was urgent for them to “awake righteously” from out of their shameful and sinful ignorance of God.
Contrary to the resurrection error, believers were being called to “die” for (on behalf of) “all” (the whole “creation”/“body” of God’s people). The church’s eschatological death and resurrection with Christ was for the purpose of bringing about the transformation of the preChrist world of the saints (“all Israel”). Though the resurrection-of-thedead deniers were unaware of it, their doctrine was implicitly opposed to the cosmic gospel-purpose of the Father.
The first-fruits church, through the indwelling Spirit of the reigning Christ, was putting to death the Adamic world-body of Death itself (alienation from the Father) through the newly-revealed gospel of God. Through the Death-destroying, Life-giving, “man”-changing power of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ, the fleshly, Adamic “man” or “body” or “creation”—the whole world-system of the dominion of Sin and Death—was being put to death and “abolished.” It was that body which would soon be raised up and “changed” (in AD 70) into the new, Christological, spiritual “body” in the kingdom of God (the new covenant world).
The Seed Analogy (1 Cor. 15:35-50)
Paul’s illustrations from nature in verses 36-41 are problematic if they are interpreted as arguments that are aimed at someone who denies the very possibility of resurrection. How does the fact that sheep differ from sparrows serve in any way to validate the doctrine of resurrection for someone who does not believe in the very concept of resurrection? How does it serve to make the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead imaginable or feasible (345)? It doesn’t.[12][13]
The difficulty with Paul’s words concerning the bodies/fleshes/glories of creation vanishes only when we let it sink into our minds that Paul was reasoning with people who already believed in the eschatological, body-resurrection of Christians. The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers would have already agreed that a seed rising up to become a plant illustrates the truth of resurrection. And that is why Paul used the analogy. The fact of resurrection was common ground between Paul and the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers.
Paul therefore made reference to the universal death and change of seeds,[14] not to demonstrate the already-agreed-upon fact of resurrection, but to demonstrate the following four things that those who were in error at Corinth were denying:

  1. The necessity of the death of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:36)
  2. The differentness of the pre- and post-resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15:37)
  3. The necessity of the change of the pre-resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:38a)
  4. The universality of the pre-resurrection body and the postresurrection body (1 Cor. 15:38b)

After establishing these premises through the common-ground analogy of the “resurrection” of seeds, Paul went on to reference the whole of the material universe, because insofar as it is filled with innumerable, different bodies—just like the multitudes of different kinds of seeds and plants in verse 38b—it confirms the universality of the two different bodies (the existence of which Paul established in the seed analogy itself).
The universal diversity of the Genesis creation served as an analogy of the cosmos-changing work of the gospel. As the whole Genesis creation is filled with differing bodies (fleshes, glories), so the whole “creation” (the body) of God’s chosen ones in Adam, living and dead, “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” was going to put off the old “body” of Sin and Death (the Adamic, mortal, corruptible, dishonorable, weak, and natural “old man”), and was going to be “clothed” with the wholly otherbody of Christ” (the immortal, incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and spiritual new Man; the Christological “new creation”) (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:42-44).
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers thought that the eschatological church was an altogether separate entity from the Adamic, old covenant world. They thought that the body of Christ essentially appeared out of nowhere, as it were, absolutely disconnected from the world that preceded it. They thought the eschatological church was buried the spiritual body and that it was going to be raised the same spiritual body on the Last Day.
The reality though was that the eschatological church was itself in the mortal, corruptible, dishonorable, weak, and natural “body” of the pre-Christ saints. It was still bearing “the image of the earthy” (1 Cor. 15:49), not in a biological sense, but in a cosmic-covenantal sense. God’s old covenant ministration of Death and Condemnation still stood, and God’s church was still an organic part of that world-order. It was therefore still in the body of Sin and Death, and was putting that body to death through the Spirit.
The pre-Christian, Adamic saints existed in a state of “mortality” in that they did not yet have consummated eternal life, redemption, and face-to-face union with God (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 13:12; 1 Jn. 2:25; Rev. 22:4). They were in a state of “corruptibility[15] in that they did not yet have the incorruptible, “eternal righteousness” of Christ (Dan. 9:24). They were in a state of “dishonor” in that they were not yet clothed with the glory of the new covenant in Christ’s justifying blood (Rom. 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:7-18). They were in a state of “weakness” in that, as long as the condemning old covenant world remained standing, they had not yet inherited eternal life (cf. 1 Cor. 6:14; Heb. 7:6; 1 Jn. 2:25). They were “natural” in that they had not yet been made the spiritual dwelling of the triune God (Jn. 14:23).
Before Christ, the saints bore the image of Adam, the disobedient one. They were unable to attain to heavenly life (1 Cor. 15:45, 48-49). Their sins had grounded them in the mundane, the worldly, the carnal, the “corruptible.” Their worship of God consisted in earthly types, shadows, and copies of the heavenly. Their fellowship with God was not face to face, but was through the agency of sinful, earthly mediators. Their sacrifices were reminders of sin. They were separated from the Father.
They were under the reign of Sin and Death.
Through its body-burial and body-death with Christ, the church was putting to death that old, corruptible “world” or “body” or “creation” or “man” through the sin-killing Spirit on behalf of the dead. In the consummation of the Spirit’s work in the church, the body of God’s people, living and dead (“all Israel”), was going to be redeemed, changed, and gathered together into the eternal, spiritual kingdom of Christ.
This is the “knowledge of God” of which the resurrection-of-thedead deniers were woefully ignorant. Because they thought that the eschatological church, to the exclusion of “the dead,” was “the body [of Christ] that shall be,” they could not grasp “how” the saints of old could be resurrected with the church. Here is an expanded paraphrase of their objection in verse 35:
“We, the eschatological church, are the blood-bought body that has been sown (planted, buried) with Christ through the Holy Spirit in order that we might be raised with Him to inherit the kingdom of God. The saints of old lived and died before Christ arrived. They have not been sown (planted/buried) with Him, as we have. There is no resurrection outside of Christ’s body, and we are His body. Therefore, the dead have no part in the resurrection body. How then are the dead being raised with us? If your doctrine is true Paul, then answer this question: With what body are the dead being raised?”[16]Paul’s answer (verses 36-37):
“The dead are being raised through the burial and death of the body of Sin, of which we are still a part (since the old covenant world has not yet vanished). The dead, therefore, are being raised through our (the last-days, first-fruit church’s) dying to Sin (the burial and death of the Adamic ‘body’ with Christ) on their behalf, and they will therefore be ‘changed’ with us into the resurrected, spiritual body of Christ in the new covenant world.
“Look at your own experience for confirmation of this truth. When you yourselves are planting a seed (as God has planted us with Christ) you are not planting the tree that will be. Likewise, God did not plant the ‘spiritual body’ of the age to come in order that the same ‘spiritual body’ will emerge. That is not God’s purpose. The Christological resurrection-body is not what has been sown/buried. It is not we alone who shall be raised. Rather, it is the Adamic ‘natural body’ that has been ‘sown’ with Christ, through the Spirit in us, so that the ‘natural body’ (the dead together with the last-days-of-the-Adamic-ages church—the whole Adamic ‘man’) is now being raised up and
changed’/‘transformed’ into the spiritual body of Christ.”
The objection of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers was not biological; it was theological. Though they understood that the eschatological church had been “buried” with Christ through the Sin-killing work of the Holy Spirit in order that the church would be raised up on the Last Day, they erroneously thought that the church had been buried so that the church alone would be raised up on the Last Day. Thus Paul’s corrections in verse 44 (KJV):
. . . [T]here is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
That is, there was not a spiritual body only, as the resurrection-ofthe-dead deniers supposed.
And in verse 46:
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
The spiritual body did not appear out of nowhere, as the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers imagined. Rather, the pre-existing “natural body” was being raised up and transformed into the “spiritual body.”
The reality that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers did not apprehend was that the eschatological church was in a state of Adamic bodyunion (solidarity, interdependence) with “the dead,” and it therefore stood in need of a universal body-change. The church was not merely the new man and the spiritual body. It was the dying old man; the dying body of Sin and Death.
It was not the case that the Old Testament saints would be replaced by the body of Christ. Instead, the body of Sin had to die through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and be raised, and be changed by the same Spirit (Heb. 11:40). The church could not be saved by itself. The church was bearing the image of “the first man” and was in process of being transformed, on behalf of the dead and with the dead, into the image of “the Christ” (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 3:18).
Without the death and universal change of “the body” through the power of the eschatological Spirit, not so much as one Christian could be made alive in the Father. The resurrection in Christ was to be cosmos-wide, or not at all. The whole world of God’s people had to be transformed.
The eschatological church thus stood in need of the consummated world-change from the “flesh-and-blood” world-body of “corruption” (sub-divine righteousness) to the “spiritual,” Christological body of incorruptible and eternal righteousness in the new covenant world (1 Cor. 15:50). If that change did not take place when the temple fell in AD 70, then Christ was never raised from the dead, the gospel was a lie, and all Christians were and are without hope. Either the eschatological church and “the dead” were changed and God became All Things in “all,” or Christ was never raised, and the church remains in her sins, and the world-body of the hand-made temple of God maintains its standing before God today.
The Universal Change (1 Cor. 15:51-58)
The coming transformation of God’s covenant-universe (dead and living, Jew and Gentile) through the gospel of the death and resurrection of the body of Christ was the “mystery” that had been kept secret since the world began. It was the mystery that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers failed to grasp. “The dead” and the eschatological church were going to be made alive together in Christ and were going to be united in the Father. “All things . . . in the heavens and things upon the earth” were going to be summed up in Christ (Rom. 11:15, 25-26; 16:15; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:9-10; 3:6-10; Col. 1:26-27).
The world-change, or body-change, took place and the “mystery” was fulfilled before Paul’s generation passed away (1 Cor 15:51). The sounding of the symbolic “last trumpet[17] took place when the worldly city and sanctuary fell in AD 70 (Rev. 10:7; 11:2, 8; cf. Heb. 9:8). When that old “house” fell and the old Adamic “garment” was folded up and “changed,” the dead were raised and all the elect were “clothed” with the body of Christ in the new covenant world (Heb. 1:10–12). “All” put off the old man (Adamic Sin) and “put on” the new Man (the righteousness of Christ). “All” God’s people were “clothed with” the tabernacle/body of the triune God.
When the old garment was removed and the house of the old covenant was thrown down, believers were not found “naked,” nor left “unclothed” or homeless for even the indiscernible “moment” of “the twinkling of an eye,” as would have been the case if there was no resurrection of the dead and consequently no world-change (Rev. 3:17-18; 16:15; 17:16). If there was no resurrection, then the fall of the city and the sanctuary would have been the death knell for Christians just as much as it was for unbelieving Jews. Indeed, it would have been the death knell for humanity. But because the dead were raised and the cosmos of God’s people was transformed in Christ, believers were clothed in AD 70 with the Christological, new covenant house from out of heaven (Col. 2:2; Heb. 1:12; 8:13; Rev. 16:15).
Death (condemnation and alienation from God) was deprived of its sting, which was Sin, when Sin was finally sealed up, covered over, and done away in the consummation of the Adamic/Mosaic ages through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection. This happened when Christ appeared the second time in AD 70, having consummated His high-priestly work of atonement (Lev. 16). This is when He swept away the old covenant world of Sin, Death, condemnation, and alienation and changed the universal church into the completed, anointed, Most Holy Place of God Himself (Rev. 21:2, 16; Heb. 3:6, 9:6-8).
Sin was deprived of its power, which was the Law of Moses, when through the power of the Cross, the Law came to its end in AD 70. That is when the Law-covenant (the ministration of Death and Condemnation) vanished[18] (Heb. 8:13) and “all things” in earth and in heaven (“all” the saints, living and dead) were reconciled to God (Col. 1:20).
When all these things were consummated, the corruptible and mortal Adamic body “put on” the incorruptible and immortal body of Christ (1 Cor. 15:53). The old, corruptible house (the old covenant world) fell.
The new, eternal house (the New Jerusalem) came down from out of heaven. The church and the Hadean saints were raised up and united in the one body of Christ, and were irrevocably and gloriously “changed” into the “perfect” tabernacle of God.
Thus, through the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, God gave His church the eschatological, cosmos-transforming victory of faith over Sin, Death, and the Law. Her gospel labors in Him bore world-transforming fruit. Reigning with the risen “Christ of God,” her worldburying, world-destroying, world-resurrecting, and world-changing labors were consummated in the AD-70 realization of the hope of Israel —in the universal gathering of “all” the saints, living and dead, in “the God and Father of all” (1 Cor. 15:57-58). Thus was the beginning of the Christian age, “a dispensation more divine than many are disposed to think.”[19]
Summary and Conclusion
The resurrection-of-the-dead deniers believed the following: The eschatological church was the “spiritual body” of Christ that had been buried with Christ and which was being raised up the same spiritual body of Christ. There was no “natural body” involved in the church’s resurrection with Christ. There was no body-union between the church and the pre-Christian saints (“the dead”). The dead were not going to be included in the resurrection and the kingdom. God, through the indwelling Spirit, had “sown,” or “buried,” the spiritual body of Christ (the church) so that the church by itself (to the exclusion of the dead) would be resurrected unchanged (still the same spiritual body of Christ that it was when it was buried with Christ) in the consummation.
If there was no resurrection of the Old Testament dead, these were the undesired results:

  1. God did not raise Christ from the dead.
  2. The eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ were liars.
  3. The preaching of the apostles was vain.
  4. The faith of Christians was vain.
  5. Christians were still in their sins.
  6. Christians who had fallen asleep had died in their sins (perished).
  7. The persecuted apostles were to be pitied more than all men.
  8. Christians who were being martyred for the dead were doing so for nothing.
  9. Christians were battling the enemies of the gospel by merely human power.
  10. Christians should have forsaken their sufferings and lived mundane lives.
  11. Christians would not be able to inherit the kingdom of God.
  12. Christians would remain under the curse of Sin, Death, and the Law.
  13. Christians would remain clothed with corruption, mortality, dishonor, and weakness, and would remain natural.

Here is why those results necessarily followed from the denial of the resurrection of the Old Testament dead:
God raised Christ from the dead not so that the natural Adamic body (the people of God in their Adamic state of Sin and Death) would be replaced by the spiritual body of Christ (the church). The Father raised the Son from the dead so that the Adamic body would be buried, put to death, resurrected, and transformed into the universal body of Christ. The eschatological church was not in a separate body from the Adamic dead. It was part of the natural, corruptible, dishonorable, and weak Adamic body, and was putting that body to death through the Spirit on behalf of the dead.
Apart from the creation-wide “body-change” of “all” the elect from Adam to the Last Day in AD 70, there could be no resurrection-life for any Christian. The church could not inherit the kingdom of God unless the whole universe of God’s people was resurrected and changed together. This was the cosmic scope and purpose of the Cross of Christ. This is what those who were in error at Corinth did not understand.
Though futurists today do not realize it, they are, in principle, unknowing followers of the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers at Corinth. Futurists believe that the church (the body of Christ) has been spiritually resurrected and seated with Christ in the spiritual kingdom for 2,000 years now, but that the pre-Christian (Old Testament) dead have not yet been resurrected into that kingdom. Though many futurists inconsistently believe that the Old Testament saints were released from Hades between Jesus’ death and resurrection (contradicting the timeframe of Rev. 20:14), they do not hold that those saints have been “resurrected” into the kingdom. As anti-preterist Strimple teaches (in contrast to anti-premillennial Strimple), physically dead people cannot experience a resurrection and remain physically dead.
Though futurists certainly do not deny the resurrection of the dead, they unwittingly teach a “short circuit” in the cosmic gospel-purpose of the Father when they teach that God gave the spiritual kingdom to the church on Earth, but has put off “resurrecting” the Old Testament dead into the kingdom until 2,000+ years later.
This “gap” between Christians and “the [Old Testament] dead” is not a biblical option. As Paul argued, either the dead and the church would inherit the kingdom together, or no one could inherit the kingdom at all. Either all the elect, the church and the dead, were made alive (resurrected) together in Christ in the end of the old covenant age, or all the elect remained dead in Adam (cf. 1 Thess. 5:10). In other words, either all the saints were resurrected in AD 70, or none were resurrected, not even Christ. There is no other possibility.
Therefore, as with the error at Corinth, the undesired implication of the doctrine of a yet-future resurrection of the dead is that Christ has not been raised and that our faith is vain and that we are still in our sins. Futurism is not a damnable doctrine, just as the error at Corinth was not a damnable doctrine. Nevertheless, futurism, with its parousiadelay and resurrection-delay, shares implications with the Corinthian error which, if followed through logically, ultimately serve to destroy the Faith. If Paul were alive today, it is possible that he would say to futurists what he said to his Corinthian brethren, and for essentially the same reason:
. . . [S]ome have ignorance of God. I speak this to your shame.
(1 Cor. 15:34)

[1] . Those who hold to “the collective body view” of 1 Corinthians 15 believe that the root error at Corinth was a radical kind of “replacement theology,” i.e., a disdain for Israel and a denial that historical Israel would take part with the church in the resurrection and in the kingdom of God. While that interpretation of the error at Corinth may be entirely correct, I am not convinced that it is provable that the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers had antiIsrael or anti-Semitic sentiments (though their error was certainly implicitly antagonistic to God’s historic covenant nation). For this reason, I confine my-
[2] . Charles Hill is therefore incorrect when he says: “It is not that the Corinthians could not comprehend what Paul was talking about; rather, one party in Corinth, comprehending all too well what Paul had in mind, did not find it to their liking and were opposing it.” (104)
[3] . When we consider that 1 Corinthians was written a mere twenty-five years after the beginning of Christianity, and when we consider that the eschatological, first-fruits church was already partaking of the coming resurrection, and when we consider the eager expectation in that era of the imminent fulfillment of the end of the Adamic ages and of the resurrection the dead, we should expect that believers in that historical moment would refer to the vast multitudes that had lived and died before the advent of Christ as the “dead [ones].” This is not to say that the term “the dead” in the New Testament was code for “the dead of the Old Testament in contrast to dead Christians.” It is to say only that in that eschatological generation, if reference were made to the pre-Christian dead in contrast to the relatively few dead Christians (in about AD 55), the designation “the dead” or “dead ones” sufficed.
[4] . There was therefore no need for Paul to say explicitly that the dead were primarily “historical Israel,” as Hill insists in his chapter (115). If “the dead” were the righteous, pre-Christian dead, then they were (with relatively few exceptions) none other than the saints of the historic, Abrahamic covenant community (i.e., Israel) along with the saints who lived before the promises given to Abraham.
[5] . Similarly in American law today the basic meaning of the word “body” is “a person.” “A corporalis [bodily] injuria” is “a personal injury.” We use the word “body” this way when we speak of “somebody,” “anybody,” “nobody,” or “everybody.” This usage of the word used to be more common than it is today: “The foolish bodies say in their hearts: Tush, there is no God.” (Ps. 14:1, Coverdale translation, 1535)
[6] . Although Reformed theologian Herman Ridderbos was a futurist and expected a literal transformation of the physical bodies of believers, he nevertheless understood that such Pauline terms as “the body of sin,” “the body of the flesh,” “the earthly members,” and “the body of this death” “are obviously not intended of the [material] body itself, but of the sinful mode of existence of man.” Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 229; Cf., Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings, Mentor, 2004.
[7] . “[The spiritual body] is not in the least constituted what it is by its being physical. It fulfills its essence by being utterly subject to Spirit, not by be-
[8] . “All” in 1 Cor. 15:22 corresponds to “the many” in Rom. 5:15-16 and 19. When Paul says that “all” died in Adam and that “all” would be made alive in Christ, he means that all of God’s people (the whole cosmos of Gods’ elect) died in Adam and would be made alive in Christ.
[9] . Strimple inexplicably denies this doctrine on pages 309 and 342 of
WSTTB.
[10] . In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, on page 62, Strimple teaches that “the end” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is the same “end” that Jesus said would come after the gospel was “preached in the whole world” in Matthew 24:14. Thus Strimple holds that the resurrection of the dead takes place upon the completion of the preaching of the gospel “in the whole world.”   But this presents a problem for Strimple, because the gospel was “preached in the whole world” almost 2,000 years ago, in Christ’s generation, shortly before the fall of the earthly house (the old covenant world) in AD 70 (Rom. 16:25-26; Col. 1:23; 2 Tim. 4:17). If we are to accept Strimple’s sequence of events, we must conclude that the resurrection of the dead happened at the fall of the temple in AD 70, as Jesus and the apostles said it would.
[11] . This hyper-dispensational implication of the Corinthian resurrection-error (i.e., that Christ came to wage war against and to conquer the God
[12] . If the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers already believed in the historic, physical resurrection of Christ, as Strimple admits (309, 333), why would Paul have needed to convince them of the “feasibility,” “imaginability,” and “thinkability” of the very concept of physical resurrection, as Strimple says elsewhere quoting Berkouwer) (341)? How could it be that the resurrectionof-the-dead deniers were unable to accept the feasibility of a concept (1 Cor.
[13] :35) to which they already held as the gospel truth (1 Cor. 15:11)?
[14] . The necessary “death” of seeds, by the way, demonstrates that physical corruption and physical death existed before Adam sinned. The earth, by God’s decree, brought forth seed-yielding plants on the third day of creation (Gen. 1:11-13), and Adam was placed in the Garden to dress and keep the plants (Gen. 2:15). Therefore the cycle of literal seed-death and seed-resurrection/ change was already in process before Sin entered the world through the disobedience of Adam. In the same way, God’s decree to the animals and to man that both “be fruitful and multiply” implied the cycle of biological birth, biological reproduction, and biological death; and that cycle was instituted before Adam sinned (Gen. 1:22, 28). Biological death did not enter the world through Sin. It was already in the world. It was alienation from God and slavery to Sin (Sin-consciousness, spiritual Death) that entered the world through Sin.
[15] . The terms “mortal” and “corruptible” do not describe the quality or duration of Adam’s physicality or the quality or duration of his soul. They describe the quality and duration of his sub-divine righteousness and works.
[16] . Strimple favorably quotes Robert Gundry as saying, “Paul uses soma precisely because the physicality of the resurrection is central to his soteriology.” In reality, Paul used soma precisely because the resurrection-of-the-dead deniers used the word soma in their objection (1 Cor. 15:35). The meaning of the word cannot be deduced from the fact that Paul repeated it.
[17] . In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (112), Strimple says that since the Greek word “eskatos” (“last”) is used in the term “last trumpet,” it would “seem strange” if the “last” trumpet did not signal the end of Christ’s mediatorial reign and of the resurrection of the dead. Yet in the same book, Strimple does not think it “strange” when he says that the “last” (“eskatos”) days have thus far lasted almost 2,000 years (TVMB, 64).
[18] . Pratt (the author of chapter three of WSTTB) speaks for perhaps most futurists when he puzzles over the mention of “the law” in First Corinthians 15:56: “The emergence of the second theme regarding the law, however, seems to have no real antecedent in this letter.” (Holman New Testament Commentary: I&II Corinthians, 272) In the futurist paradigm, there is no real connection between the condemning power of the Law of Moses and the resurrection of Christians in the end of world history. Paul though makes the connection because the resurrection of the dead was going to happen when the old covenant (the Law) vanished in his generation. The two events were simultaneous (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29, 31; 10:11; 15:51-52). Cf., Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to I Corinthians 15:56, by Chris Alex Vlachos (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, volume 47; June, 2004).
[19] 0. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book I, chapter II.

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 13 Romans 8:11

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
 
Part 13 Romans 8:11
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #13: Christ’s redeeming experience is the
model and pattern of what lies ahead for us. Romans 8:11 says that
God “will also” (i.e., just as He did for Christ) “give life to your mortal
bodies” (288, 294, 297, 326-330, 333-337). Therefore, the word “soma
(body), when used in reference to the resurrection of the dead, means
“the physical, material aspect of our person.”
 
Answer: Strimple is correct that the physical death, physical burial,
and physical resurrection of Christ was the “pattern,” “parallel” and
“model” of the church’s body-burial, body-death, and body-resurrection
with Him. And Strimple is correct that Paul said in Romans 8:11
that the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead “will also” give life
to the “mortal bodies” of believers.
 
Nevertheless, the eschatological church’s Spirit-empowered bodyburial,
body-death, and body-resurrection with Christ were not physical/
biological events. The “redemptive experience” of the eschatological
church was not a literal replay-in-process of what Christ experienced.
What Christ experienced physically (literal death, literal burial, and literal
resurrection), the eschatological church was experiencing spiritually
throughout the eschaton: Burial with Christ, death with Christ,
and resurrection with Christ through the age-changing power of the indwelling
Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:4-6,8; 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 3:27; Eph.
2:5,16; Col. 2:12-13,20; 3:1,3; 2 Tim. 2:11).
 
Most futurists accept the doctrine of a non-physical body-burial
with Christ and a non-physical body-death with Christ through the
Spirit. And they should. For as Paul said, “If Christ is in you, the body
is dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10). The indwelling, Sin-killing Spirit
of Christ brought about the death of the mortal body of Sin and Death
while believers were still physically alive.
 
Preterists and futurists agree that Paul speaks of non-physical
body-death in Rom. 8:10. Yet when the doctrine of non-physical bodyresurrection
is offered, Strimple claims that such a non-physical usage
of the word “body” is “semantic sleight of hand” and a “contradiction in
terms.” He compares those who employ such a non-physical usage of
the word “body” to Humpty Dumpty arbitrarily changing the definition
of words (335-336).
 
Despite Strimple’s irrational ridicule, the Scriptures teach us that as
Christ was crucified physically, put to death physically, buried physically,
and resurrected from the dead physically, so were His people, through
His indwelling Spirit, buried bodily (yet non-physically) with Him into
His death; and while thus dying bodily (yet non-physically) with Him (to
Sin), His people were concurrently being resurrected bodily (yet nonphysically)
with Him through the same indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:11) in
anticipation of the end of the old covenant age.
 
We know that the “body” was raised non-physically, because the
body” that was non-physically buried with Christ and non-physically
put to death with Him was, as Paul’s logic demands, to be resurrected
with Christ out of its non-physical burial and non-physical death (which
was death to the Adamic world of Sin, Death, and the Law). Therefore,
the eschatological resurrection of “the body” was necessarily non-physical
(not a biological resurrection).
 
In the second half of this chapter I will discuss the meaning of the
word “body” in eschatological, resurrection-of-the-dead contexts. For
now though, I will close this section with a preliminary argument that
bears directly on the historical basis for a resurrection unto biological
incorruptibility.
 
On page 332 of WSTTB Strimple says that Christ’s individual, postresurrection
body was physically “endowed with new qualities” so that it was physically
imperishable, physically glorious, physically powerful, and physically heavenly.
How does Strimple know this?
 
Strimple acknowledges that although Jesus, after His resurrection,
passed through locked doors, and though God “caused Him to be
seen,” and though Jesus suddenly “disappeared from their sight,” these
occurrences do not prove that Jesus’ post-resurrection body had been
changed. As Strimple agrees, even before Jesus was raised from the
dead, He walked on water, was transfigured, and “walked right through
a mob. Even the apostles themselves had passed through locked doors
and had vanished and reappeared (329).
 
Since none of those events indicate that either Jesus or the apostles
had physically imperishable bodies,[1] how does Strimple know that Jesus
had a physically imperishable body after His resurrection? Strimple
offers one piece of evidence, which is this:
 
Christ’s body would never die again. Therefore it was a physically
“imperishable, glorious, powerful, heavenly” body.
 
But this is hardly biblical proof. Enoch and Elijah were physically
taken up without seeing death. According to Strimple’s evidence,
Enoch and Elijah must have had biologically incorruptible bodies. But
if the hope of the promise is to receive a biologically incorruptible body,
then Enoch and Elijah could not have received such a body, because
Heb. 11:39 tells us that they “received not the promise.” If then, in the
futurist framework, Enoch and Elijah could not have put on physically
incorruptible bodies when they were taken up without seeing physical
death, why assume that Jesus became physically incorruptible when He
was assumed into the divine glory-cloud?
 
The fact is there is no scriptural proof that Christ’s body became biologically
incorruptible. That means that the four gospel narratives offer
no historical foundation and no Scripture-proof for the doctrine of a resurrection
of the dead unto biologically incorruptible bodies. The concept
has to be introduced into the gospel so that the gospel will better fit the
futurist supposition of an eschatological “resurrection of the flesh.”
 
Nevertheless, Strimple is so bold as to state, “ . . . [B]ut of course
the New Testament . . . lays great stress on the wonderful discontinuity
between Christ’s body before his resurrection and his body after it”
(332). Strimple offers no hint as to where in the New Testament this
“great stress” is found. That is because the “great stress” is found only
in the assumption of the futurist framework which has been imposed
upon the gospel narratives.
 



[1] Mathison in his chapter did not see what Strimple sees here. As
Mathison said: “Jesus’ resurrection body was changed enough that he was not
always recognized immediately. . . . He was also able to travel unhindered by
normal impediments. . . . ” Mathison did not realize that he was “proving” that
before Jesus’ resurrection, both He and the apostles had physically imperishable
bodies (193).
 

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 12 Job 19:25-27

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 12 Job 19:25-27
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #12: Job 19:25-27 says that Job himself, with
his own “eyes” and in his own “skin,” would “see God.” This is an allusion
to a physical resurrection of the dead. Job 14:13-17 confirms this
interpretation. In that passage it says that if Job’s vindication were to
come after his death, God would hide him in the grave until the time set
for Job’s “renewal,” and that God would then “long for the creature [His] hands have made” (294-295).
 
Answer:
For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He shall stand at
the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. Whom I shall
see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;
though my reins be consumed within me. (Job 19:25-27)
 
As Strimple admits, the phrase “from my flesh,” or “in my flesh,” in
Job 19:26 can be translated “without my flesh” (i.e., outside of my flesh).
Job could have been saying that he expected to be vindicated at a nonfleshly
resurrection (“without my flesh”) on the Last Day. Some preterists
take this interpretation.
 
But even if we translate the phrase to read, “from my flesh” (i.e.,
from the vantage point of my flesh), this could be taken to mean that Job
expected to see God within his own lifetime, while still in his flesh. And,
as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened.
 
After Job’s time of tribulation and anguish, his Redeemer at last
arose on the dust and answered Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38:1).
After God’s “archers”/“troops” (i.e., Job’s accusers) surrounded and “devoured”
Job, and after Job was filled up with the afflictions of his flesh,
he was redeemed from his sufferings. He was vindicated as “a perfect
and upright man” and his enemies were judged (cf. Job 19:29 and 42:7-
9). Thus Job, with his own eyes, and from his flesh, saw God:
 
I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye
has seen You. (Job 42:5)
 
Regarding Job 14:13-17:
 
O that You would hide me in Sheol, that You would keep me secret,
until Your wrath be past, that You would appoint me a set
time, and remember me! If a man dies, shall he live again? All
the days of my appointed time [literally, “warfare”] will I wait,
till my change come [or, “until my exchanging or replacement
come”]. You shall call, and I will answer You. You will have a
desire to the work of Your hands. (Job 14:13-15)
 
If Job was prophesying concerning the resurrection of the dead in
this passage, then we must say that Job was triumphing in the idea that
his wretched and miserable condition (his “warfare”) would continue
for hundreds or even thousands of additional years while in Sheol (Job
14:14), and that only at the end of human history would God’s “wrath
(Job 14:13) against him pass, and that, only then, would Job be relieved
from his warfare as a battle-wearied soldier is replaced by another
(“changed”) (cf. Job 10:17; 14:14-15).
 
According to the logical implications of Strimple’s interpretation of
the above scripture, Job remains hidden in Sheol to this very day and
God remains angry with him to this very day. At the same time, according
to the anti-premillennial Strimple, New Testament saints who have
died are in the face-to-face presence of Christ Himself and are reigning
with Him today. Yet Strimple tells us that we cannot establish a contrast
between the afterlife of Old Testament saints, such as Job, and that of
New Testament saints (293).
 
Either God remained/remains angry with Job for hundreds or thousands
of years after Job’s death, or Job was not speaking of a vindication
at the resurrection of the dead. As the context leads us to believe, what
Job desired was vindication instead of death. Instead of resigning himself
to dying, stricken of God, Job yearned by faith for vindication and
redemption in his own lifetime. He hoped that God would not crush
him as an enemy, but would instead relent and restore him to Himself
(Job 14:14b, 15). As we know, Job’s hope was not deferred, as per futurism
(Prov. 13:12). Instead, it was fulfilled and Job was delivered and
vindicated in his own lifetime. “So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job
more than his beginning” (Job 42:12).

House Divided Chapter Seven The Resurrection of the Dead Amillennialist Robert B. Strimple Vs. Full Preterist David A. Green Part 11 Can Souls Be Raised?

House Divided

Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Seven
The Resurrection of the Dead
Part 11 Can Souls Be Raised?   
 
David A. Green
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or David A. Green), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
Strimple Argument #11: We know that the resurrection of the
dead will be physical because there is no such thing as a non-physical
resurrection of a physically dead person (296-297, 299-300, 326).
 
Answer: The short answer to this argument is that the Bible does
not teach that there is no such thing as a non-physical resurrection of
a physically dead person. Regeneration is a non-physical resurrection,
and nowhere does the Bible exclude the old covenant dead from that
resurrection. Jesus in fact referred to the resurrection of the dead as
the regeneration” or rebirth (Matt. 19:28), and the Scriptures elsewhere
imply that the physically dead saints were “born” out of Death and Hades.
(Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; see answer to Strimple Argument
#6 above.)
 
Now the long answer: This answer is lengthy because Strimple’s argument
above opens up a futurist “can of worms.” I ask the reader to bear
with me as I navigate through a tangled web of futurist reasoning.
 
Strimple agrees with preterists that “resurrection” (the word and
the concept) can be used as imagery and metaphor, such as when Israel
was promised a “resurrection” to its land in Ezekiel 37:1-4. But, says
Strimple on page 326 (quoting Raymond E. Brown), when it comes to
physically dead people, there is “no other kind of resurrection” than a
physical resurrection. On page 296, Strimple quotes Murray Harris as
saying, “No one could be said to be resurrected while his corpse lay
in a tomb.” And on page 297, Strimple says that the use of the modifier
“bodily” in the term “bodily resurrection” is redundant, because a
physically dead person can only be raised physically/bodily.
 
Additionally, on pages 299 and 300, Strimple argues that the Greek
word for “resurrection” (“anastasis,” literally, “standing up” or “standing
again”), when used in reference to physically dead people, always
meant to first-century Jews and Greeks alike, the resurrection of the
physical aspect of man in contrast to the soul. Strimple supports this
claim by quoting Tertullian, who said that anastasis cannot refer to
the soul because only the physical part of man can fall down, lie down,
sleep, and “stand up.”
 
Now that we have established Strimple’s teaching on the anastasis/
resurrection of physically dead people in WSTTB let us confer with
Strimple’s refutation of premillennialism in the book, Three Views on
the Millennium and Beyond (TVMB). In that book, Strimple actually
teaches that anastasis (“standing up,” resurrection) in Revelation 20:4
refers to a non-physical soul-resurrection of physically dead people.
He defines the “resurrection” in that Scripture as the ushering in of the
disembodied (non-physical) “soul” of a believer upon biological death
into the presence of Christ to reign with Him. Strimple even goes so
far in that book as to say that physical death for the believer today is “in
truth a [non-bodily] resurrection into the very presence of the Savior
in heaven” (Emphasis added) (TVMB, 125-127, 261-262, 276).
 
If this were not confusing enough, on pages 319–320 and 337
of WSTTB Strimple says (quoting John Murray and Murdoch Dahl)
that dead believers today—even though they have been resurrected
“into the very presence of the Savior in heaven”—are actually experiencing
punishment and “condemnation” under the curse of “sin,”
“death,” and “corruption.” He says that our departed loved ones are
actually in a state of soul-and-body death (“psycho-physical death,”
as Strimple calls it). He says they are actually in a “dreadful” state
(319). Quoting Rudolf Bultmann, he teaches that they are even in
a state of “horror,” and that Jesus Himself was in the same horrific
state before He was raised from the dead (320).[1]
 
Finally, Strimple adds that our departed brothers and sisters who
are with Christ today are non-human, i.e., non-man. They are no longer
of the same human nature as Christ, and will remain sub-humans until
they are resurrected at the end of human history. (More on this below)
So we see that when Strimple is refuting premillennialists, he portrays
the Bible as teaching a present-day, non-physical resurrection of
physically dead believers into the very presence of the Savior in heaven
where they are reigning with Him. But when Strimple is refuting preterists,
he portrays the Bible as teaching strictly and only a physical resurrection
of physically dead saints, and he says that disembodied saints
today are in a state of punishment where they are longing for the day
when they will no longer be sin-cursed, condemned, sub-human, and in
a dreadful state of horror.[2]
 
In 1993, in a paper he presented in Mt. Dora, Florida, Strimple suggested
that physically dead persons cannot experience a non-physical
resurrection. Then in 1999, in TVMB, Strimple taught that physically
dead persons do experience a non-physical resurrection. Then in 2004,
in WSTTB, Strimple reverted to teaching that physically dead persons
cannot experience a non-physical resurrection. It seems that some of
Strimple’s central theological convictions come and go roughly every
six years, depending on who he is refuting.
 
The incredible tension between Strimple’s positions here is not “paradox.”
It is not an expression of “already but not yet.” Strimple’s views
are none other than the consummate example of radical contradiction.
Throughout his chapter Strimple makes much of the fact that preterists
disagree with other preterists. Yet as we have seen in this book, futurists
such as Keith Mathison and Robert Strimple not only disagree with
other futurists, they disagree with their own faith-convictions.
In view of the fact that some of the authors of WSTTB have made
their own interpretations of Scripture a proverbial “nose of wax” that
can be reshaped for the sake of expedience (304), we can begin to see
why it is appropriate that their book was called a “reformed” response.
Nevertheless, Strimple deems himself a worthy judge to call into question
the doctrinal “credibility” of preterists (300, 335-336).
 
To be fair, Strimple and Mathison are not the only ones guilty of wild
self-contradiction. The guilt belongs to the futurist camp as a whole. At
funeral services, departed believers are said to be in the highest Heaven
beholding the face of the Lord. But in seminary classrooms, departed
believers are said to be in Hades waiting for the Last Day at the end of
human history, when Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire and believers
will finally be able to behold the face of the Lord (Rev. 22:4).
 
As far as we know, a human soul cannot be in two different places,
or in two contradictory states of being, at the same time. So where do
the dead in Christ today reside? Is it in Hades or in the highest Heaven?
 
Strimple is an amillennialist. Although the anti-premillennial
Strimple (who says that Revelation 20 teaches a spiritual resurrection
of physically dead people) roundly contradicts the anti-preterist
Strimple (who says that physically dead people cannot be spiritually
resurrected), most of Strimple’s amillennialist brethren disagree with
both Strimples. They define “anastasis” in Revelation 20:4 as regeneration;
that is, not a soul-resurrection at physical death, but a here-and now
spiritual birth through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
 
Paul agrees with amillennialists that Holy Spirit rebirth, received at
the moment of faith in Christ’s sin-atoning blood, was “the first resurrection
with Christ:
 
. . . hath quickened us [made us alive] together with Christ.
(Eph. 2:5)
 
. . . you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of
God. . . . (Col. 2:12)
 
And you . . . hath he quickened [made alive] together with him,
having forgiven you all trespasses. (Col. 2:13)
 
If ye then be risen with Christ . . . . (Col. 3:1)
 
But ye are come unto . . . the . . . church of the firstborn. . . .
(Heb. 12:22-23)
 
And because Holy Spirit regeneration was the first resurrection
with Christ” (Eph. 2:5; Rev. 20:4-6), it irresistibly follows that Christ
was the beginning and “First Fruit” of that spiritual resurrection (334).
 
Strimple rightly concedes on page 334 of WSTTB that the resurrection
of Christ was “the beginning” of the resurrection of the dead.
Apparently though, according to Strimple, Christ’s resurrection was
“the beginning” of a harvest that was interrupted as soon as it began
and which will not be restarted until thousands of years after its beginning,
even though the “first fruits” (beginning) invariably signals
not merely the nearness but the commencement of the harvest.
 
Though Christ our Forerunner was eternally begotten of God and
eternally God’s Son, He was the first to be “born” or “begotten” of God
when He was raised from the dead and given all authority to reign as
High Priest unto God (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). He was, for our sakes,
born” out of Adamic Death (the condemnation and alienation from
God He endured on the Cross) and Hades into the Presence of the Father.
For this reason, the Son is called:
 
The “firstborn” among many brethren (Rom. 8:29)
 
The “firstborn” of every creature (Col. 1:15)
 
The “firstborn” from the dead (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5)
 
Thus, the rebirth of the Hadean (Old Testament) saints in Christ
with the body-of-Christ church in AD 70 was the regeneration of “all
things,” i.e., of the universal body of the saints:
 
Your dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they
arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust: for your dew is as
the dew of herbs, and the earth shall give birth to the dead. (Isa.
26:19)
 
. . . in the Regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the
throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28)
 
Before we move on to Strimple’s next argument, let us briefly
examine Strimple’s teaching that a man without his physical body is no
longer a man:
 
Strimple teaches the non-humanity of the dead on page 337
(through a reference to Rudolf Bultmann and through a correction of
Robert Gundry). According to Strimple, one of the reasons that Paul
defended the resurrection of the body is because a departed believer is
actually a non-human until he or she is physically resurrected.
 
R. C. Sproul Jr. makes the same mistake in his Foreword to
WSTTB where he implies that his daughter will be an incomplete
“ethereal creature” between the time of her death and the time of
Christ’s Second Coming —a span of time that according to Sproul
Jr.’s view could theoretically last a million years or more. It should go
without saying that it is an unbiblical thing to believe that our loved
ones in Christ will suffer “the ravages of . . . sin” (as R. C. Sproul Jr.
puts it) potentially for aeons after the time of their death (ix). But this
is the sad, logical necessity of futurism. If our departed loved ones already
have perfect and complete sinless blessedness today before the
face of God, then there is no scriptural justification for a yet-future
resurrection of the dead.
 
In contrast to Rudolf Bultmann and Strimple, the Bible nowhere
suggests, implies, or otherwise hints that those who die become nonhumans
until they are resurrected. The resurrection of the dead is never
characterized in Scripture as the restoration of former humans back to
their lost humanity. Jesus made reference to a man in Hades (Lk. 16:22-
23), and Paul spoke of the possibility that a “man” was caught up “out
of the body” (2 Cor. 12:2). (He would not cease to be a man outside of
his body.) In both of these instances, the “man” was the non-physical
spirit/soul of the man. Additionally, if we are to say that a departed saint
is a sub-human because he is without his physical body, then we must
also say that Jesus Himself was a sub-human for the three days and three
nights that elapsed between His death and resurrection, because He did
not have his physical body at that time. We could also say, by the same
line of reasoning, that unborn babies and people with missing limbs are
not 100% humans because they also are not “complete.”
 
Contrary to the ghastly horrors of logically consistent futurism, the
departed spirit of the believer is fully human. Whether living in the
flesh or living in the heavens after physical death, the believer today is
complete in Christ. The departed believer in the new covenant world
today is not a homeless, wraithlike phantom, like an exorcized demon.
He is not a “shade” (295). He is not a quivering, shapeless “mist” like
some kind of escaped gas.
 
In stark contrast to such wildly extra-scriptural, futurist notions,
the Bible teaches us that the saints in heaven today are “like the angels
(Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; Heb. 1:7; 12:22-23). And they are not “naked,”
but they are “clothed” with the everlasting righteousness of Christ, the
new Man (Rev. 6:9-11; 14:13; 15:6; 19:8, 14).



[1] Yet, oddly enough, Strimple dismisses “tales of the shadowy world of
Hades and of Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell’ after his death” (293).
[2] It is noteworthy that Jesus did not say to the thief on the cross, “Today
you will be with me in a paradise of condemnation, sin, death, corruption,
punishment, curse, dread, and sub-human horror” as the anti-preterist
Strimple would have it.
 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Conclusion

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Conclusion
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.  

Conclusion 
Mathison says that interpreting New Testament eschatological timetexts is a “difficult problem” that has “perplexed commentators forcenturies,” and that it is therefore a subject upon which he and his coauthors do not agree (155, 178, 204). Consequently, Mathison’s treatment of the time texts is ambiguous and he casts a fog over the whole matter. Here are some examples of Mathison’s pervasive uncertainty as he wrestles against God’s eschatological time-statements.
“You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.”
 Commentators have interpreted [Matthew 10:23] in a number of different ways. (175–176) Mathison presents five competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations.
He eventually lands on an interpretation but he does not express unequivocal confidence in it.
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standinghere who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” 
. . . [W]hat does it mean for Jesus [in Matthew 16:27–28] to suggest that [the coming of the Son of Man] will happen within the lifetime of his hearers? (176)
But of course, Jesus did more than merely “suggest” that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers, as Mathison weakens the words of the Lord.
• The Coming of the Son of Man
 Each of the texts we have looked at (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25) seems to portray the coming of the Son of Man as something that would occur soon after the words were spoken.
This has perplexed commentators for centuries. (178)
Mathison then makes reference to “all of the difficulties surrounding these [time] texts” and adds that “several” interpretations have been “suggested” (178–179).
But as preterists know, these texts are unequivocal and non perplexing. Note that Mathison admits that all of the biblical texts he cited in Matthew (including the prophecy of the sheep and goats) “seem” to say what preterists say they say. When Mathison says that the texts are surrounded by “difficulties” and that they have “perplexed commentators,” the reason is—obviously—because the texts, if left to interpret themselves, teach “hyper-preterism.” Yet five pages later Mathison says, “There is nothing in any of these texts that demands or even strongly suggests a hyper-preterist interpretation” (183).
“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” 
. . . [S]everal possible interpretations [of Matthew 24:34] have been offered.
Mathison presents nine competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations (179–181). All of the “possible interpretations” of the word “generation” proposed by Mathison are puzzling though, since he tells readers in his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, while refuting Dispensationalism, that they can “know” the preterist interpretation of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is the true interpretation:
We know that the phrase “this generation” refers to the generation of Jews to whom Jesus was speaking for these reasons. . . .[1]
Treading water in a great sea of uncertainty and contradiction, Mathison flounders among the “many possible interpretations” of these and other passages, and then miraculously arrives at the shore and concludes with curious confidence: “Just as there is nothing in the Gospels that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism, so there is also nothing in the book of Acts or in the New Testament epistles that suggests hyper-preterism” (205, emphases added). “The New Testament . . . does not even suggest hyper-preterism” (213, emphases added).
Let’s see now. Mathison admits that Jesus said (or suggested or seemed to teach) many times and in many places that His coming would happen within the lifetime of His hearers. Mathison admits that this fact has perplexed futurist commentators for centuries (176–179). Mathison admits that Paul and other New Testament writers seemed to teach that Christ was coming soon and that the end of the age was near (201–202). Then Mathison says that there is nothing in the New Testament “that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism” (205, 213). Our question to Mathison is not when, but how can these things be?
Mathison undertakes to evaluate and dismiss the preterist position while he himself is uncertain as to how to interpret the verses that “seem” to support preterism (but at the same time do not even “remotely suggest” preterism). Mathison’s particular beliefs are a matter of opinion and debate, because according to Mathison, who can know with any certainty what such terms as “near” and “soon” and “this generation” and “some of you standing here” really mean? There are many possible interpretations.
Mathison should consider that his eschatological particulars (the time texts) are vague and uncertain because his eschatological universals (the physical and yet-future second coming, resurrection, and judgment) are askew. If we all were to agree and stand “shoulder to shoulder” (155) on the universal that eschatology is all about the fall of the Soviet Union, the result would be that our interpretation of a myriad of verses would become a “difficult problem” (Mathison’s term).  Mathison’s quandary vividly illustrates the centuries-old problem with futurism. Two or three flawed universals have made a vast multitude of particulars unfathomable.
. . . [O]rthodox Christianity was characterized by two eschatological doctrines: the future return of Christ to judge mankind and the future bodily resurrection of all men for judgment. . . . [A]part from these two doctrines, there was nothing approaching consensus for the first four centuries [of church history].[2]
This problem is alive and well today, as Mathison’s multi-authored book demonstrates. Mathison uses wild understatement when he says of the authors of WSTTB: “ . . . [T]he contributors to this volume do not completely agree in their interpretation of every eschatological text” (155).  The fact is that all seven of the contributors to Mathison’s volume do not agree at all on any (or at least virtually any) eschatological doctrine except the doctrine “that the second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment are yet to come” (155). Mathison can call that “shoulder-to-shoulder” agreement, but it is not impressive. Agreement on only a few points out of a myriad merely indicates that those few points are wrong.
It is more than difficult to understand how these authors can portray their historical positions as unified on these points when between their two systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory propositions emerge when you examine the particulars – that is the  passages that are used to arrive at a futurist position for these three events:
1)      Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment is accepted, Christ appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age, there was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 in such passages as these: Daniel 12:1-4; Matthew 5:17-18, 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Romans 8:18, 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1-22; Hebrews 8:13, 9:26-28,[3] 10:37.
And yet we are also told that this proposition is true –
2)       Classic Amillennialism – The NT only teaches one coming of Christ, general judgment and resurrection of the living and dead attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.
How can these things be indeed?  Obviously both of these propositions cannot be true at the same time unless full preterism is true and accepted. Allow me to use two particular passages in connection with my testimony on how I became a full preterist which illustrates the problem the authors of WSTTB have with their so called “shoulder to shoulder” unity.  One day I was reading Reformed amillennial and partial preterist books while also studying Matthew 24-25 and comparing it with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in my dorm room at the Master’s College.  I concluded that the partial preterist was accurate in teaching that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually using apocalyptic language and that the amillennialist was also accurate in that Paul was drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse and that there is only one “the parousia” of Christ in the NT.  Therefore “orthodoxy” was teaching me that 1  Thessalonians 4-5 was the same coming of Christ described by Jesus in Matthew 24-25.  But since the futurist errs on the nature of the resurrection assuming it is biological and at the end of time, the readers of WSTTB are forced into a contradictory “either or” situation on passages such as these when the truth is a “both and.”  I think one can see the problem the authors of WSTTB are trying to sweep under the rug when it comes to how they can “unify” in teaching that the Second Coming is still future when the particulars of what they are each saying on the given texts and how they relate to each other teach otherwise.
The choice is simple.  Either one continues propagating the myth that these two propositions within the futurist paradigm do not lead to a contradiction, or accept the organic development of full preterism which unites them in seeing that these events were fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ came (once a “second time”) invisibly to close the old covenant age dissolving the elements of that world while establishing the new.
It is ironic that the title of Mathison’s book is When Shall These Things Be?  Not only is there no consensus among the authors as to the answer to that very question, but Mathison himself (the only author who attempts to answer the question) fails to arrive at an unequivocal and decisive answer. Within a span of six pages (177–182), Mathison tacitly admits that the question is a problem for futurism, and offers seven or eight possible “solutions.”[4]
If we were to apply Mathison’s method in eschatological matters to all other areas of life, we would be certain of nothing; we would all be postmodernists. The truth would become unknowable. Mathison himself, in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, teaches that “clear” and “firm scriptural proof for every article of faith” is a “necessity.”[5]
Yet in WSTTB, Mathison demonstrates with his plethora of “possible interpretations” that he lacks “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof either for futurism or against preterism. Nevertheless, he feels at liberty to anathematize us for our preterist challenge to futurism (213).
Mathison claims that Christ died to leave the church, for 2,000 years and counting, in an “evil age.” As my editor has said, “Joy to the world!” Postmillennialists such as Marcellus Kik and Keith Mathison have produced not so much an Eschatology of Victory or An Eschatology of Hope, as a “sick” eschatology, because, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12). Preterism will stand the test of time; and as godly men embrace it and teach it, it will bring healing to the “eschatological schizophrenia” of Mathison et al, and to the eschatological division within the church as a whole.
Interestingly, Gentry and Mathison in their books pit old school dispensationalism against modern day progressives as a “House Divided” that “cannot stand” unless they move more toward covenant theology.  And yet we have documented their “House Divided” approach which equally “cannot stand” unless full Preterism is embraced to “bridge the gap.”  And since they also exhort progressives such as Pastor John MacArthur in his/their changes which are moving closer and closer to covenant theology, we too applaud Gentry and Mathison for coming closer and closer to full Preterism in what they have written since WSTTB.  If a five point Calvinist and progressive dispensationalist such as MacArthur can be seen as “inconsistent,” holding to a “compromised” position, or being content in being a stepping stone for others to come into covenant theology, then full preterists can view Gentry and Mathison’s writings as such in their moves towards full preterism.
If not why not? As a Reformed believer, dear reader, you know that there is no middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. You may have tried at one time to say that you were neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Or you may have acknowledged that the Bible teaches Calvinism, but you rejected the teaching because you were troubled by its implications. Or you may have even been a closet Calvinist for years. Though the road was perhaps difficult, you eventually embraced the doctrines of grace, and now you know there is no compromise position between the two doctrines.
Many Reformed believers today are having the same experience
with the doctrine of preterism. They are learning that it is also a hard
pill to swallow and that it is nevertheless the doctrine of Scripture. They
are learning that it represents “the whole counsel of God” in the area of
eschatology. After we are confronted with biblical preterism, we may
try to straddle the fence, but there is truly no middle ground. Just as
R.C. Sproul (Sr.) would consider a four-point Calvinist to be in reality a
“confused Arminian,” more and more futurists, on their way to biblical
preterism, are beginning to see that partial preterism is just “confused
futurism.” There is no biblical basis for “partial preterism” even as there
is no biblical basis for “partial Calvinism.” This is why partial preterism
invariably leads to full preterism. This is why Keith Mathison and Ken
Gentry have both come closer to “hyper-preterism” since they wrote
WSTTB. Mathison now believes that the prophecy of the sheep and
the goats in Matthew 25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Gentry now believes
that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70.
 
 


[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 111 (emphasis added)
[2] Postmillennialism, 33
[3] Milton Terry wrote of Hebrews 9:26-28, “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 [to the Hebrews] 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.” Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 441-442.
[4] Ken Gentry, in another book, gave a decisive interpretation of Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question: “Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the age (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence, His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple (vv. 6 and 15 anticipate this) and pick apart Jerusalem (v. 28).” Thomans Ice, Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999), 58.
[5] Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 32
 
 
 

 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 13 What About Hymenaeus and Philetus 2 Timothy 2:17-18?

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 13 – What About Hymenaeus and Philetus 2 Timothy 2:17-18?

Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this  book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission  in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing  or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical  articles or reviews.  

2 Timothy 2:17–18

I recently received an email and phone call from an elder in a church who was secretly placed under church discipline and then excommunicated for studying the preterist view of Bible prophecy. He and his family were told that their salvation was in question unless they repented of studying (let alone holding to) this position. The source material that was used against them was When Shall These Things Be?, and the Bible text that was used to anathematize them was 2 Timothy 2:17–18. Apparently the eldership of the church did not see the irony. The editor of When Shall These Things Be? concedes that 2 Timothy 2:18 “cannot” be used even to “criticize” preterists, much less anathematize them, because according to Mathison, it may very well be that “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 truly did take place in AD 70:

. . . [2 Timothy 2:1–18] cannot be used to criticize hyper-preterism until . . . [it can be] demonstrated from other texts that nothing of the sort occurred in A.D. 70. (194)

This is quite an admission from a man who says that hyper-preterism is “a much different religion” than Christianity (213). What Bible verses can Mathison use, other than 2 Timothy 2:17–18, to brand preterism as a different religion? Answer: There are no other verses. Without 2 Timothy 2:17–18, Mathison doesn’t have a biblical leg to stand on in his condemnation of preterists. All he has are the baseless words of those, like himself, who have set themselves up to condemn us based solely on the assumption that our rejection of futurism is a damnable error.

We agree with Mathison that 2 Timothy 2:17–18 cannot be used to criticize us. But we must go further than this. Far from being an anti-preterist passage, 2 Timothy 2:17–18 is actually a condemnation of the implications of futurism. Allow me to explain. First of all, Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers. They were of a class of deceivers who taught Jewish “myths” and “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:4), and were self-appointed “teachers of the Law” (1 Tim. 1:7). They taught believers to abstain from foods (1 Tim. 4:3), no doubt using the Levitical dietary laws as a basis of their teaching.

It is because Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers that Paul compared them to “Jannes and Jambres” (2 Tim. 3:8). According to ancient historians, Jannes and Jambres were Egyptian magicians who challenged Moses’ authority in Egypt. Like Jannes and Jambres, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the strange doctrines of “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8), and were challenging Paul’s gospel-authority, attempting to deceive Christians into believing that God’s new wine (the new covenant land of promise) could be contained within the old, “Egyptian” wineskins of the old covenant world.

Likewise in 2 Timothy 2:19, Paul connects Hymenaeus and Philetus to the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:5, 26.[1] Korah had led hundreds of the sons of Israel to challenge Moses’ authority. As God had destroyed Korah and his followers in the wilderness, so God was “about to judge” (2 Timothy 4:1) and destroy the Judaizers Hymenaeus and Philetus and others like them (cf. Heb. 3:16–19).

According to the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus, because Jerusalem and the temple still stood (in about AD 67) after the resurrection had allegedly already taken place, it irresistibly followed that “the sons according to the flesh” were now the heirs of the eternal kingdom and that Paul’s Jew-Gentile gospel of grace was a lie. The blasphemous error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was that the world of the Mosaic covenant would remain forever established after the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets had taken place and the new heavens and new earth (“the resurrection”) had arrived.

This “Hymenaean” heresy is the diametric opposite of preterism.  According to preterism, the old covenant came to an eternal and irrevocable termination in “the resurrection,” when all things were fulfilled in AD 70. There is absolutely no theological connection between preterism and Hymenaeus’ blasphemous lie of an everlasting “ministration of death.”

However, there is a clear connection between the heresy of Hymenaeus and the implications of futurism: If “the Law and the Prophets” are not fulfilled today, and “heaven and earth” have not passed away, and the jots and tittles of the Law have not passed away, and all things are not yet fulfilled, as futurism says, then logically and scripturally, the Law of Moses remains unfulfilled and “imposed” to this day (Matt. 5:17–19; Heb. 8:13; 9:10). This implication of futurism is exactly what the Judaizers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, taught when they said the resurrection was already past in AD 67.

As we have seen on virtually every page of WSTTB, Mathison and his co-authors are in conflict over a multitude of eschatological passages.  It comes as no surprise that they are in conflict even in regard to how or even if the Bible anathematizes preterists. And it is more than ironic that the one passage in all of Scripture that can conceivably be perceived as decisively anathematizing preterists is in reality applicable to the implications of futurism.[2] Selah.

Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase).   He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears.  Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX:  Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.).  In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350).  Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him?  And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.

Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response.  If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.

 


[1] William Hendriksen; Simon J. Kistemaker: New Testament Commentary:  Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 268.
[2] For more on 2 Timothy 2:17–18, see David Green’s response to “Strimple Argument #1” in chapter seven of this book.

House Divided Chapter Four NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – The Millennium Revelation 20

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?

The Millennium Revelation 20
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. 
Millennium
Mathison writes: “ . . . [T]he hyper-preterist interpretations of the millennium fail to take seriously the long-term time text involved. . . . When the word thousand is used in Scripture, it refers either to a literal thousand or to an indefinite, but very large, number” (209).
Response:  
Psalm 50:10 is often cited, usually by postmillennialists, to teach that “a thousand” symbolizes literally “many thousands or millions.” For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. (Ps. 50:10)
Postmillennialists reason that God owns the cattle on every hill; therefore “a thousand hills” symbolizes or represents “many thousands or millions of hills.” Thus, they reason, we are led by Scripture to interpret the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 to mean “many thousands or millions of years.”
That reasoning sounds solid at first glance. However, the context of Psalm 50:10 does not lead us to a principle that a symbolic “thousand” always signifies “many thousands.” It leads us to the principle that a symbolic “thousand” signifies “fullness.” The “thousand” of Psalm 50:10 is interpreted for us two verses later:
The world is Mine, and the fullness thereof. (Ps. 50:12b)
In Psalm 90:4, a “thousand years” is as “yesterday” and as “a watch in the night.” In 2 Peter 3:8, a “thousand years” is as one “day.” In those verses, a “thousand” (and “yesterday” and “a watch” and a “day”) is used to teach us that to God, a small piece of time is no different than a fullness of time. (Compare Job 7:7; Ps. 39:5; 90:2; 144:4; Heb. 13:8; Jms. 4:14.) Thus in Psalm 105:8, a “thousand” corresponds with “forever”: He has remembered His covenant forever, the word that he commanded to a thousand generations. (Ps. 105:8)
In scriptural usage, a symbolic “thousand” can be likened to “one” (day / yesterday / a watch in the night), or used in reference to millions of hills, or to eternity (“forever”). A “thousand” can be likened unto or used to represent a number lesser or greater than a literal thousand. Only its context can determine its literal numerical meaning, but the basic idea that is communicated by the number is “fullness.” As G. K. Beale wrote, “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time . . .”[1]
How one interprets the thousand years in Revelation 20 depends on one’s eschatological framework. The passage does not interpret itself, but must be interpreted by the overall eschatology of Scripture. Within the preterist interpretive framework, the biblical-eschatological context of Revelation 20 should lead us to interpret the “thousand years” to signify the time of the Christological filling up of all things (Eph. 1:10; 4:10). That time was from the Cross of Christ to the Parousia of Christ in AD 70. That was the time during which “the [spiritual] death” which came through Adam and was magnified through “the law” was in process of being destroyed. The literal timeframe of the “thousand years” was roughly forty years.
Mathison admits that he does not know if there were any rabbis who used the number 1,000 to symbolize forty years (210). Reformed theologian G. K. Beale tells us that some Jews considered the length of the intermediate messianic reign to be forty years. He also states that one Jewish tradition made an anti-type connection between Adam’s lifespan (almost 1,000 years) and a reign of Messiah for a (possibly symbolic) thousand years.[2] Many Christians have attempted to make this connection and have also paralleled the thousand years of 2 Peter 3:8 with John’s thousand years in Revelation 20:2–6.
Adam falling short of the 1,000-year lifespan by 70 years (Gen. 5:5) may represent his being created a mortal being and perishing in sin outside of God’s presence. If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable that the number 1,000 took on the symbolism and representation of Christ’s and the church’s victory over Death in contrast to Adamic man’s vain existence apart from God’s salvation (Eccl. 6:6).
Some Evangelicals and Reformed theologians along with some preterists such as Milton Terry do not understand the long lifespans in the early chapters of Genesis to be literal.[3] They believe that the lifespans were symbolic and contained numerological elements. But even if Adam’s lifespan was a literal 930 years, this does not exclude an anti-typical, symbolic 1,000 years in Revelation 20.
When Messiah came as “the last Adam,” His reign in and through the church for a symbolic thousand years brought the church not to the dust of the earth separated from God’s presence, but to the Tree of Life and into the very presence of God (Rev. 20–22:12). Through faith in and union with Christ as the Last Adam (the Tree of Life and New Creation), Christians have achieved what Adam could not. The church was clothed with “immortality”; it attained unto the “fullness” of life in AD 70; and it will never die for the aeons of the aeons (2 Cor. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:45–53; Rev. 21–22; Jn. 11:26–27).
All of the authors of WSTTB understand that the Second Coming is the event that brings the millennium to its consummation. However, the only future coming of Jesus discussed in the book of Revelation is the one that would take place shortly (Rev. 3:11; 22:6–7, 10–12, 20). Both Mathison and Gentry concede that this imminent coming of Christ took place in AD 70. But then they err in assuming that the imminent coming of Jesus in Revelation was not His “actual second coming” (182).
To conclude my section on the millennium of Revelation 20, please consider the following exegetical, orthodox, and historical points:

  1. Kenneth Gentry informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were past, present, and “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19, YLT). There is no exegetical evidence that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired parameters.
  2. As G.K. Beale has said, the symbol of the thousand years does not have to be taken as describing a long period of time (i.e., thousands of years).
  3. It has also been acknowledged by Reformed theologians that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age/world and the age/ world to come.” These Rabbis (such as R. Adiba), understood this transition period to be forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land. This type/anti-type understanding is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14, YLT). And as we have noted from Reformed partial preterists such as Joel McDurmon and Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the old covenant age, and that “the last days” were the days of transition between the old covenant age and the new covenant age (AD 30 – 70).
  4. Reformed partial preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan teach that the content of Revelation 1-19 and 21-22 was fulfilled by AD 70, at which time there was a judgment and resurrection of the dead and arrival of the new creation. And amillennialists such as Simon Kistemaker teach that Revelation 20:5–15 recapitulates the same judgment and consummation scenes that are depicted in chapters 1–19 and 21–22. Full preterists hold to both of these Reformed and “orthodox” positions in interpreting the bookof Revelation.
  5. In criticizing the premillennial view, which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the New Testament, amillennialists and many postmillennialists hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the New Testament, and that this transition period is depicted in the parable of the wheat and tares, or in Matthew 24–25. But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the old covenant age in AD 70, and that the harvest/gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and 24–25 was fulfilled by AD 70.
  6. If it is true that a) the coming of Christ in Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the AD 70 judgment, as Mathison and other partial preterists are now proposing, and if it is true that b) John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation, and if it is true that c) Matthew 24:27-31 — 25:31ff. is descriptive of the one end-of-the-age Second Coming, judgment, and resurrection event (the creedal position), then d) the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, because these orthodox doctrines form the “this-generation” fortyyear millennial view of full preterism.
MATTHEW 24-25 REVELATION 20:5-15
Resurrection and judgment Matt. 24:30-31 (cf. Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3) Matt. 25:31-46 (cf.   Matt. 16:27-28) Resurrection and judgment Rev. 20:5-15
De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Matt. 24:29, 35 (cf. Matt. 5:17-18) De-creation heaven and earth pass/flee Rev. 20:11 (cf. Rev. 6:14; 16:20; 21:1)
Christ on throne to judge Matt. 25:31 God on throne to judge Rev. 20:11
Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Matt. 25:41-46 Wicked along with Devil eternally punished Rev. 20:10, 14-15

7. If it is true that a) the judgment and resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:1-4, 13 were fulfilled by AD 70 (per Gentry), and if it is true that b) Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is parallel to Revelation 20:5-15 (classic amillennial view), then c) once again the authors of WSTTB have some explaining to do, in that these orthodox views form the “this-generation” forty-year millennial view of full preterism.

DANIEL   12:1-2 REVELATION   20:5-15
Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from eternal condemnation Dan. 12:1-2 Only those whose names are written in the book would be delivered/saved from the   lake of fire Rev. 20:12-15
This is the time for the resurrection and judgment   of the dead Dan. 12:1-2 This is the time for the resurrection and judgment   of the dead Rev. 20:5-15

Conclusion:

Therefore, the reader should be able to discern that the full preterist view of the millennium is: 1) consistent with the teaching of Revelation, 2) falls within the “orthodox” views the Reformed church, 3) is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture, and 4) has historical support from Rabbis who saw a forty-year transition period between the two ages. Our view on the millennium is exegetically sound and orthodox. It is not as “difficult” as Mathison attempts to portray it.
[1] . G. K. Beale, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 1018.
[2] . Ibid., 1018–1019.
[3] . Carol A. Hill, Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis (http://www. asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12–03Hill pdf); Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 62.
 
 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – All Israel Will Be Saved Romans 11:26

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four:  The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
All Israel Will be Saved Romans 11:26
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. 

All Israel will be Saved
Mathison argues: In Romans 11:25–26, Paul seems to be saying that ethnic Israel as a people will be saved. This has not happened yet (199–200).
Response:
There is a great debate between Amillennialists and Postmillennialists on the salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11:25–26, as can be seen in the opposing views of Gentry and Strimple.[1] Postmillennialists such as Gentry and Mathison argue that “all Israel” being saved refers to a mass conversion of ethnic Jews before Christ comes in our future. Amillennialists understand “all Israel” being saved to refer to the salvation of the church as the new Israel of God.
As for the view that “all Israel” refers to ethnic Jews in our future, we can immediately know that this view is incorrect. With the passing of the old covenant in AD 70, there is no covenantal Israel other than the united Jew-Gentile church. The things of the old order passed away. So the covenant promises in Romans 11 cannot refer to the modern nation of Israel or to the modern Jewish race or community. The only “Israel” in the New Testament that was to be cleansed from sin is the Jew-Gentile church, the body of Israel’s Messiah. This is the “Israel” (“all” of it) that entered into the Holiest of Holies in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8). Let us briefly summarize Paul’s argument in Romans 11.
Even though God’s old covenant people in their last generation were being hardened and excluded from the coming inheritance, that did not mean that God had rejected old covenant Israel (Rom. 11:1– 2). Although it may have looked like Israel was being utterly cut off in her last generation, the truth was that old covenant Israel was being saved in her last days. God was actually saving “all Israel”—fulfilling His promises to “the fathers”—partly by means of the hardening of its last generation. Here’s how:

  1. By means of old covenant Israel’s transgression/failure and rejection in her last days, riches and reconciliation (through the gospel) were coming to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:18). As Paul said, “They are enemies for your sakes.” (Rom. 11:28)
  2. The salvation of the Gentiles was making last days Israel “jealous,” so that a remnant was becoming zealous for righteousness and being saved. (Rom. 11:2–10,11,13,14)
  3. The hardening, or reprobation, of old covenant Israel in her last generation was to continue until the fullness of the Gentiles came in, i.e., came into Israel. (Rom. 11:25)
  4. In this manner, or by this process, all of the saints of historic, old covenant Israel were going to be saved (resurrected) along with the last days remnant, and with the believing Gentiles who had been grafted into historic Israel. The consummation of this process took place in the Parousia of Christ in AD 70, according to the promises made to the fathers. (Rom. 11:26) That is when Israel died, and was raised up a new, transformed Israel. That is when all of the elect (the Old Testament saints, the last days Jewish remnant, and the believing Gentiles) were consummately united in Christ and became the fulfilled “Israel of God.” It was thus that all Israel was saved.

Mathison neglects to interact with other partial preterists such as DeMar and Jordan who teach that “all Israel” was saved by AD 70 and that covenantally, there no longer remain “ethnic” Jews after AD 70.[2] Why was not the view of DeMar and Jordan one of the many “possible interpretations” within Mathison’s eschatology of uncertainty?
It has now been 4 years since I have responded to Keith A. Mathison’s chapter The Eschatological Time Texts in the NT” in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?  For me Mathison’s excuse for not responding (“I have been too busy”) has expired.
Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase).   He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears.  Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX:  Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.).  In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350).  Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him?  And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.
Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response.  If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.
[1] . Kenneth Gentry, Robert Strimple, Ed. Craig Blaising, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 112–118, 133–142.
[2] . Gary DeMar, All Israel will be saved: Notes on Romans 11:26, American Vision http://americanvision.org/1234/all-israel-will-be-saved-notes-onromans/#.UG3auVGJr3A. James B. Jordan, The Future of Israel Re-examined, July 1991. Biblical Horizons, No. 27 July, 1991
 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan The Imminent Liberation of Creation Romans 8:18-23

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
The Imminent Liberation of Creation Romans 8:18-23

Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. 


The Creation Groaning

On pages 196–197, Mathison makes the following argument: The epistles of the New Testament speak of the restoration of creation both as something that has already begun and as something that will be completed only in the future. Paul, for example, explains that “the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Jn. 2:17). Yet, according to Paul, the creation awaits its full deliverance from the effects of sin. . . (Rom. 8:19–25). The full restoration of creation is still future (see Heb. 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:7–13). . . . [R]edemption has to do with more than the spiritual side of creation. God will fully redeem the physical creation as well. Response:  

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. (Rom. 8:19–22)

John Lightfoot associated the “earnest expectation of the creature”and the “whole creation groaning” with the mind and heart of man, and interpreted this passage as having nothing to do with the planet Earth— not even poetically.

. . . [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.[1]

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. But in the sense which we have pitched upon, the very literal construction may be admitted.[2]

Lightfoot is on solid ground here citing 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Corinthians 15:33. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” as ethical and moral putrefaction in the heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t get hit by cars.

John Lightfoot not only interpreted the “creation” of Romans 8 to be the creation of men and NOT the physical planet, but he understood the “redemption of the body” to not be a resurrection of physical bodies, but rather, the “mystical body” of the Church.  In his sermon on “Many Mansions” Lightfoot states,

“And of the same body, is his meaning in that obscure and much-mistaken place (Rom. viii.23; “And not only they,” i.e. ‘the whole creation,’ or πασα κτισις, ‘every creature,’ which means no other thing, thatn ‘the Gentile or heathen world;’ “not only they groan to come into the evangelical liberty of the children of God,–but we, also, of the Jewish nation, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the redemption,–to wit, the adoption of our body:” we wait for the redeeming and adopting of the Gentiles, to make up our mystical body.” (cf. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/lightfoot/vol06.pdf… pp. 322-323).

Clearly Lightfoot understood the “creation” to mean the creation of men and not the planet earth and “redemption of the body” to be the mystical body of the Jew/Gentile Church and not an individual physical body.

“The sufferings of this present time.” As much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr. losing his hair and gaining some weight around his midsection (WSTTB, ix), Paul’s mention of the “sufferings” and “the redemption of the body” have nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the “groaning” of the first-century Christians can be found in the previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were eschatological —the birth pains that were to precede Christ’s return in AD 70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with the last days persecutions and with the saints of the universal church groaning under the tyranny of Sin and Condemnation under the Law.

For Paul, Sin had produced “death,” but not physical death. Contrary to Mathison’s assertions, “the body,” “death,” and “the flesh” in Romans 5–8 have nothing to do with the idea of men biologically dying as a result of Adam’s sin. Paul’s concern is with corporate-covenantal Death, as even some Reformed theologians teach.[3]   “Bondage,” according to the immediate context, had to do with groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf. Rom. 7:2, 7, 15).

The “redemption” associated with the coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture, John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans 8 to be speaking of the same “redemption” that Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse:
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; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.[4]

The following chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” in Romans 8:18–23:

Romans 8 Olivet Discourse & Luke 17
Present sufferings (Rom. 8:17–18) Suffering to come (Matt. 24:9)
Receive and share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
Glory will be “in” them (Rom. 8:18) Kingdom will be realized “within”at Christ’s return (Lk.17:21–37; 21:27–32)
Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Rom. 8:23–24; cf. 11:15–27; 13:11–12) Redemption and salvation – resurrection(Lk. 21:27–28; Matt. 24:13, 30–31/Matt. 13:39-43)
Birth pains together (Rom. 8:22) Birth pains of the tribulation (Matt. 24:8)
This was “about to” take place (Rom. 8:18) This would all happen in “this generation”(Matt. 24:34)

On page 200 of WSTTB, Mathison expresses willingness to concede that the imminence in Romans 13:11–12 was fulfilled in AD 70. The passage reads:

. . . it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. . . .

But The Reformation Study Bible, of which Mathison is an editor, harmonizes Romans 13:11 with Romans 8:23, correctly teaching that “salvation” in that verse is not merely deliverance from persecution (as Mathison theorizes in WSTTB): “salvation. Here in the sense of future, final redemption (8:23).”[1] The connection between these two passages is made even stronger when we allow the Greek word mello in

Romans 8 to be translated the way it is predominately used in the New Testament: For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us. (Rom. 8:18, YLT)

It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of mello in Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists. Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses. Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:

…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[2]   …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is:
“be on the point of, be about to. The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.[3] Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[4]

Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard? It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai — “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.

At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:
“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[5]

We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).

Interestingly enough though, according to Gentry and Mathison one of the things that was “about to come after” John wrote Revelation 1:19 was the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New Creation of Revelation 21:1ff. Mathison and Gentry tell us in their other works that the time texts in Revelation point to a near fulfillment of the passing of “the first heaven and earth.” They point out that Revelation 21:1 is referring to the passing of the old covenant “creation” in AD 70 and is a fulfillment of Isaiah 65–66. Gentry even says:

The absence of the sea (Rev. 21:1) speaks of harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin (13:1–2; cf. Isa. 8:7–8; 23:10; 57:20; Jer. 6:23; 46:7; Ezek. 9:10). Christianity offers the opposite: peace with God and among humankind (Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:12–18; Phil. 4:7, 9).

But then Mathison and Gentry assign an “expanded” meaning to 2 Peter 3, which discusses the same promises in Isaiah 65–66. They suggest that Peter is addressing the geological “elements” of the planet while the Apostle John, referencing the same Old Testament passage, is not.

This is not only arbitrary, it is amazing. If Gentry and Mathison can give prophetic New Testament passages “expanded” meanings to fit their eschatology, then they have surrendered their debate with Dispensationalists, who constantly employ this strategy to force their eschatology upon New Testament passages.

In Mathison’s section on the “Restoration of Creation” (195–197), he appeals to the literal and global beginnings of Genesis 1–3 to point out that preterists have interpreted “the end” in Romans 8 and in the rest of the New Testament in an inaccurate way. But Mathison should be open to considering the interpretations of Genesis 1–3 that are presented by some within the Reformed tradition and by other futurists.

Combined, authors such as Augustine, Milton Terry, David Snoke, Meredith Kline, and dispensationalist John Sailhamer teach the following:

  • Man was created a physical dying creature like all the plant and animal life around him.
  • The physics of the creation did not change after Adam.
  • Genesis 1–2 uses the Hebrew word eretz, which should be translated as “land” or “ground” and not [planet] “earth.”
  • God’s emphases in the early chapters of Genesis are not scientific but theological, emphasizing the origins of sin in the heart and man’s need for the Seed of the woman to redeem him from Sin.

As the theological emphasis in Genesis 1–2 is on the local land of Eden, which is both theologically and geographically tied to Israel’s Promised Land, so too is the emphasis of the New Testament on a Great Commission preached to the nations of Israel and to the Roman Empire with a judgment that would affect the nations of that world.

Both the localized and covenantal judgment in Eden and the one in AD 70 affected and continue to affect all humankind. The introduction of spiritual death (condemnation and alienation from God within the heart and conscience of man through Adam) was overcome by Christ’s death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in AD 70. All men and nations of the world are either inside the new Israel and New Jerusalem or outside her gates — as the gospel continues to bring healing and judgment to the nations today and forever (cf. Rev. 21–22:17).

When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.63

These interpretations are, individually considered, “orthodox.” Yet when preterists consolidate the most defensible elements of Reformed eschatology, anti-preterists such as the authors of WSTTB unite in opposition to even some of their own stated views.

*** It has now been 4 years since I have responded to Keith A. Mathison’s chapter The Eschatological Time Texts in the NT” in our book House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?  For me Mathison’s excuse for not responding (“I have been too busy”) has expired.

Partial Preterist Mr. Gary North, has said that if one side of the debate ceases to respond to the others arguments then the one who has responded last (thus silencing the other) in essence has won the debate (my paraphrase).   He has also written of dispensational scholars and their inability to keep up with postmillennial works and critiques, “Like a former athlete who dies of a heart attack at age 52 from obesity and lack of exercise, so did dispensational theology depart from this earthly veil of tears.  Dispensational theologians got out of shape, and were totally unprepared for the killer marathon of 1988.” (Greg L. Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., HOUSE DIVIDED THE BREAK-UPOF DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY (Tyler, TX:  Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), Publishers Foreword, xx.).  In the same book DeMar claims that “Any theological position divided against itself is laid waste” and “shall not stand” and is guilty of “Theological Schizophrenia” (Ibid. 349-350).  Apparently Mr. Mathison was not prepared for the killer marathon of 2009 and since that time has been too busy engorging himself from the profits P&R provided him and is simply too scared and out of shape to open our book let alone read and respond to my critique and response to him?  And we document the “House Divided” “Theological Schizophrenia” and contradictory approach Reformed eschatology has sought to use against us let alone the contradictions (and yet at the same time progressive views moving towards Full Preterism) that are within Mathison’s writings alone.

Therefore, I have decided to post my chapter response to his online (in small parts) in hopes that both the Futurist and the Full Preterist communities will contact him for an official response.  If no response continues to come, then I will allow him to be judged by the same standard that his own postmillennial partial preterist colleagues have set up, and accept that he is unable to respond and has lost our debate.

 


[1] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 4 (Hendrickson publications), 157. Lightfoot, Hammond, and Gill understand the “creation” to be 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.” John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul, Volume 2 (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1987), 789.
[2] Ibid., 158–159 (emphases added).
[3] Tom Holland, Contours In Pauline Theology (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 85–110. Holland is a Reformed theologian who sees Paul’s “body” of flesh, sin, and death not referring to our physical flesh but to the corporate body of Sin in contrast to the corporate Body of Christ—the church. He counters Gundry’s individualistic views of soma in Paul’s writings.  He also argues for “consistency” in Paul’s use of corporate terms. I recommendthis book to any serious student of Reformed theology.
[4] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray 2: Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Publications, 1977), 389
[5] The Reformation Study Bible, R.C. Sproul General Editor, Keith Mathison Associate Editor (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2005), 1, 636.
[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Beast of Revelation, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 23–24.
[7] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 141–142.
[8] Ibid., 141.
[9] Gary DeMar, LastDays MADNESS OBSESSION OF THE MODERN CHURCH, (Powder Springs, GA:  American Vision, 1999), 225.
[10] 61. John Owen, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: The Bannerof Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134–135. John Lightfoot, Commentary on the NewTestament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Matthew – 1 Corinthians, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1859], 1989), 3:452, 454. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:170. John Locke, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul Volume 2, (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 617–618. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998). Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 363–365. Kenneth Gentry (contributing author), Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 89. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs: GA, 1999), 68–74, 141–154, 191–192. James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1998), 269–279. Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis (contributing author) Eschatology in Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 145–169. Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism:  An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 114, 157–158. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345–346. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645, n.42. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2007), 84–86. C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 8 The Rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 8 – The Rapture 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.
 
 
The Rapture
 
Mathison argues: Some have said that since Paul used the word “we” in
1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 17, Paul expected the events of 1 Thessalonians
4 to occur within his own lifetime. “The problem with this interpretation
is that in several other epistles Paul talks as though he could die soon.”
Therefore “Paul [was] simply using the pronoun ‘we’ in a general way to
mean ‘we Christians.’ As far as Paul knew, Christ could have returned in
his lifetime, but there was nothing that demanded He do so” (194).
 
Response:
 
To my knowledge, no preterist thinks that Paul assumed that he himself
would be included in the group of believers who would remain
alive to the coming of the Lord. If I were to say, “We who live long
enough to see the year 2030,” there is no reason to think that I would
be assuming that I myself would be among the living in 2030. My only
assumption would be that some of us today would be alive in 2030.
In the same way, Paul’s words imply only that he knew that some of
his contemporaries would still be alive when Christ returned, as Christ
Himself promised would be the case in Matthew 16:27–28; 24:34.
According to Mathison, all of Paul’s “we,” “you,” and “our” statements
in 1 and 2 Thessalonians refer to Paul’s own first-century audience and
address Christ’s coming in AD 70—except for the statements in 1 Thessalonians
4 (“the rapture”).[1] Mathison decides that “we” in 1 Thessalonians
4 means something other than what it means everywhere else in
1 and 2 Thessalonians. Suddenly in chapter 4, “we” includes Christians
who potentially will not be alive for a million years from today. Now let
us move on from arbitrary Mathisonian constructs to a biblical look at
“the rapture” passage, 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17.
 
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 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.”
 
We can know that Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17 are not
to be interpreted literally (a literal trumpet, etc.) because the Scriptures
tell us elsewhere not to interpret them literally. In Exodus 19 and 20,
the Lord came down in a cloud over Mount Sinai. He spoke with a loud
voice. There was the sound of a loud trumpet. And Moses met the Lord
on Mount Sinai. Then God established His covenant with His people.
The writer of Hebrews tells us that though the trumpet and the voice
of the old covenant were literal, the “trumpet” and the “voice” of the
new covenant are not literal (Heb. 12:18–19). Neither is the mountain
(Mount Zion) literal in the new covenant (Heb. 12:18, 22). Therefore,
neither is the cloud (which descended to cover the mountain) literal in
the new covenant.
Since the cloud-covered mountain is not literal, but is heavenly,
neither then is the meeting that takes 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).
 
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, 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 Old Testament, 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.”
 
1 Thessalonians 4–5 & Matthew 24
 
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord . . . .
(1 Thess. 4:15)
 
Virtually every commentator and cross reference system parallels 1
Thessalonians 4:15–16 with Matthew 24:30–31 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–
52, and agrees that Paul is using Christ’s Olivet Discourse as the foundation
for his teaching concerning Christ’s Parousia throughout the Thessalonian
epistles. For example the Reformation Study Bible, of which
Mathison is Associate Editor, states of Matthew 24:31:
 
But the language of [Matthew 24:31] is parallel to passages like
13:41; 16:27; 25:31, as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and
1 Thess. 4:14–17. The passage most naturally refers to the Second
Coming.
 
Ironically, the parallels between Paul and the Olivet Discourse become
the clearest in the one chapter in 1 Thessalonians that Mathison
severs from the Olivet Discourse. Mathison admits the parallels between
1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 (193), but he avoids the obvious
parallels between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24.
 
Reformed and Evangelical commentators such as G.K. Beale see
that in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in
Matthew 24.
 
That both [1 Thessalonians] 4:15–18 and 5:1–11 explain the
same events is discernible from observing that both passages
actually form one continuous depiction of the same narrative
in Matthew 24. . . . [2]
 
Here are some of the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians
4–5:
 
• Christ returns from heaven 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:30
• with archangelic voice 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:31
• with God’s trumpet 1 Thess. 4:16 = Matt. 24:31
• Believers caught up to be with Christ 1 Thess. 4:17 = Matt. 24:31
• Believers meet Christ in “clouds” 1 Thess. 4:17 = Matt. 24:30
• Exact time unknown 1 Thess. 5:1–2 = Matt. 24:36
• Christ comes like a thief 1 Thess. 5:2 = Matt. 24:43
• Unbelievers caught unaware 1 Thess. 5:3 = Matt. 24:37–39
• Birth pains 1 Thess. 5:3 = Matt. 24:8
• Believers are not deceived 1 Thess. 5:4–5 = Matt. 24:43
• Believers told to be watchful 1 Thess. 5:6 = Matt. 24:42
• Exhortation against drunkenness 1 Thess. 5:7 = Matt. 24:49
• Τhe Day, sons of light, sons of the day[3] 1 Thess. 5:4–8 = Matt. 24:27,
36–38
 
Beale goes on to write:
 
Other significant parallels include: the use of the word parousia
for Christ’s coming; reference to Christ’s advent as “that day”
(Mt. 24:36) or “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess. 5:2); and a description
of someone coming to “meet” another (eis apantesin autou,
virgins coming out to “meet” the bridegroom in Mt. 25:6; eis
apantesin tou kyriou, believers “meeting” the Lord in 1 Thess.
4:17; see further Waterman 1975).[4]
 
In a more recent work Beale now seems to lean in the direction that
the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in AD 70
and not at the end of history:
 
“The clearest reference to Jesus as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13 come
in the third category (which he identifies as “those that refer to Jesus’ future
coming in glory”), where there are quotations of Dan. 7:13 (Matt. 24:30,
Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27).  However, it is likely better to see most of these
third-category references fulfilled not at the very end of history but
rather in AD 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the Son of
Man’s coming would be understood as an invisible coming in judgment,
using the Roman armies as his agent.  The reference in Matt. 25:31 to
“the Son of Man” who will “come in His glory” and “sit on His glorious
throne” is not a quotation of but rather an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14, which
clearly is applied to the very end of the age at Christ’s final coming
If this view is correct, it may be that the AD 70 coming of Christ in
judgment as portrayed by the Synoptics is a typological foreshadowing of
his final coming in judgment.  However, the traditional view that the coming
of the Son of Man in the Synoptic eschatological discourse refers to Christ’s
final coming certainly is plausible.  This issue is a thorny one that still
deserves much more study.”[5]
 
This indeed is a “thorny” problem for Mr. Beale to affirm in one work that the
coming and implied resurrection gathering at the end of the age in Matthew 24:30-31
is the same Second Coming of Christ and resurrection event as described
by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and now try and affirm that the coming
and resurrection gathering of Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in AD  70.  Why?
Because both of these are full preterist or “hyper-preterist” interpretations to
take on these texts.  Beale due to creedal commitments will not accept that full
preterism has done the “more study” necessary in order to reconcile
the exegetical problems he and his “orthodox” colleagues have created.
 
But is Beale then saving himself from this “thorny” problem by citing
Matthew 25:31 as “clearly” the end of time or end of the age coming of
Christ?  Not when you consider that partial preterists combined such as Mathison,
DeMar and McDurmon have deemed it orthodox to believe that the coming
of the Son of Man in Matthew 25:31 was not Christ’s “actual” Second Coming,
but was Christ’s going/coming in AD 30–70 and that the “end of the age” here is the
old covenant age ending in AD 70. But this then creates more thorny problems
for these men such as the marriage that follows Matthew 25:10.  How many times
does Christ in His Parousia consummate His marriage with the church in
Mathison’s view?
 
Mathison attempts to avoid the unified parallels between Matthew 24–25 and
1 Thessalonians 4–5 by claiming that his Reformed brothers and “hyper-preterists”
merely assume that “Jesus is speaking of his second advent when he speaks of
‘the coming of the Son of Man’ in Matthew 24 and that Paul is speaking of the
same thing in 1 Thessalonians 4.”[6]  The self-evident fact of the matter however
is that Mathison turns a blind eye to overwhelming evidence because
Mathison assumes that partial Preterism is right. It is more than inconsistent to
claim preterist parallels between Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2[7] and
between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5,[8] and then deny the obvious parallels
between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. But this is what partial preterists
such as Mathison do.
 
Gentry, to support his argument that 2 Thessalonians 2 was fulfilled
in AD 70, says that “Most commentators agree that the Olivet Discourse
is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.[9] Unfortunately
Gentry’s sources of authority end up proving too much. For example,
both D.A. Carson and G. Henry Waterman make virtually the same parallels
between Matthew 24–25 and 1 Thessalonians 4–5 that we do.
 
To make matters worse, Gentry also now concedes that Matthew
24–25 does not necessarily need to be divided and that all of Matthew 24
could be addressing one coming of Christ in AD 70:
 
“Orthodox preterists see no doctrinal problems arising if we apply all of
Matthew 24 to A.D. 70. We generally do not do so because of certain
exegetical markers in the text. But if these are not sufficient to distinguish
the latter part of Matthew 24 from the earlier part, it would not matter.”[10]
 
But virtually all scholars and commentators tell us that Matthew
24–25 forms the foundation to and contains parallel prophetic material to
Matthew 13; 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4–5; 2 Peter 3 and Revelation
20–21. Yet Mathison claims Matthew 24–25 was fulfilled in AD 70
and Gentry doesn’t see a problem with it? How can these things be, indeed?
This is why partial preterism gains a following for a short period, and
then its students end up coming to “hyper-preterism” for a more consistent
and exegetical approach that is in harmony with the analogy of Scripture.
 
Another problem for Mathison and Gentry is that in their other writings
they admit that the last trumpet of Revelation 11 was fulfilled in AD
70, but they do not discuss the fact that the time of the last trumpet was
the time for “the dead” to be judged (Rev. 11:18). This is the same problem
they face in the immediate context of 1 Peter 4:7. How were the dead
judged in AD 70 without the resurrection of the dead taking place? And
how is this time for the dead being judged different from the time in which
the dead are judged in Revelation 20? And how is this trumpet judgment
in Revelation 11 different from the one in Matthew 24:30–31, 1 Thessalonians
4, and 1 Corinthians 15? The analogy of Scripture nullifies with
finality the arbitrary Scripture-dichotomizations of partial preterism.
 



[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 224–225.
[2] 45. G.K. Beale, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series 1–2 Thessalonians
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2003), 136. Copyright 2003 by
G.K. Beale. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. PO Box 1400, Downers
Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com. Some Partial Preterists are now agreeing
that 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 took place in AD 70. One is admitting that
Gentry and Mathison are forced to “dodge and weave to put this passage into
our future.” Mike Bull, The Last Trumpet, http://www.bullartistry.com.au/
wp/2011/06/05/the-last-trumpet/
[3] If we translate astrape in Matthew 24:27 as the sun (instead of lightning)
coming from the east and shining to the west, then these parallels are
possible.
[4]  Beale, Ibid, 136–137.
[5] G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Academic, 2011), 396 n. 27—397.  (emphases added).
[6] Mathison, From Age to Age, 515.
[7] Mathison, Postmillenialism, 230.
[8] Ibid, 226.
[9] Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (Texarkana,
AR: Covenant Media Press, 1999), 100, n. 19. Here Gentry cites D.A.
Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 8:489; and G. Henry
Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1
and 2 Thessalonians,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18:2 (June
1975); 105–113.
[10] 52. Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics
Group Media, 2009), 540
 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 7 In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

  Chapter Four The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?  Part 7 – In Like Manner Acts 1:9-11
Michael J. Sullivan Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. 
Like Manner  
Mathison argues: Jesus ascended visibly and bodily. Then He vanished from sight in a cloud (Acts 1:9). Acts 1:11 says that He will return in the same manner that He departed. This has not happened yet (184–188, 204). Therefore, Acts 1:11 is not yet fulfilled.
Response:   After speaking to His apostles about the kingdom over a period of forty days, Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem and to wait for the fulfillment of the Father’s promise of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus said would take place “not many days from now.” This prompted the disciples to ask Him in verse six about the timing of the kingdom’s arrival. “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus did not give them a day or hour, but He reminded them in verse eight of the sign of the Great Commission which had to be accomplished before He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:8; Matt. 24:3, 14). Mathison, ignoring the immediate context, states:
The first thing that must be observed when we examine this account is that no reference to time is connected with the prediction of the return of Christ. (185)
However, in another book Mathison #2 admits:
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context. The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The implication is that Christ’s visible return will follow the completion of the mission to the remotest part of the earth.”[1]
According to Mathison in the above quote, when the Great Commission in verse 8 is fulfilled, then the Second Coming of verse 11 will occur. Mathison’s contention that there are two Great Commissions given in the New Testament—one fulfilled before AD 70 and another that will be fulfilled before the allegedly yet-future Second (Third) Coming—is altogether arbitrary. It is a position he is forced to take because of his flawed, partial preterist framework—like his doctrines of two “last days” in the New Testament, and of two future “comings” of Christ in the New Testament, and of his divided sections separated by 2000+ years in Matthew 24 and in Matthew 16:27–28 and in other Scriptures.
Mathison breaks again from the majority of Reformed, Evangelical, and preterist theologians, who see one Great Commission in the Gospels and in the book of Acts, instead of two. Mathison’s dichotomizing approach to the Great Commission does not merit a serious rebuttal and can be rejected out of hand.
Since the Second Coming is fulfilled after the Great Commission, and since there is only one Great Commission, and since the Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation, it follows that the Second Coming was fulfilled in those days as well. The gospel was preached to the world; “then” the end came (Matt. 24:14). The following chart proves that the Great Commission was fulfilled in the first century.

Prophecy

Fulfillment

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall bepreached in all the world [Greek ikumene] for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Matt. 24:14) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.’” [Greek oikumene] (Rom. 10:18)
“And the gospel must first be published among all nations.” [Greek ethnos] “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.’” [Greek ethnos] “‘. . . I have commanded you;and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.” (Mark 13:10; Matt. 28:19-20) “…My gospel… has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations. . . .” [Greek ethnos] (Rom.16:25-26)
“And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world  [Greek kosmos] and preach the gospel to every creature” “. . . And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils;they shall speak with new tongues.” [Greek glossa] (Mark 16:15, 17) “…of the gospel, which has come to you, as ithas also in all the world [Greek kosmos], as is bringing forth fruit. . . .” (Col. 1:5-6)
“And he said unto them ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.’” [Greek kitisis] (Mark 16:15) “ . . . from the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature [Greek kitisis] under heaven, of which I, Paul became a minister.”(Col. 1:23)
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,and to the end of the earth/land.” [Greek ge] (Acts 1:8) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth/land [Greek ge], and their words to the ends of the world.’” (Rom. 10:18)
Prophecy had begun to be fulfilled: “Andthey were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues [Greek glossa], as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation [Greek ethnos] under heaven. (Acts 2:4-5) Prophecy would be fulfilled “shortly”: “AndI saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth/land [Greek ge], and to every nation [Greek ethnos], and kindred [Greek phile] and tongue [Greek glossa], and people.” [Greek laos] (Rev. 1:1; 14:6; cf. 10:6-7)  Satan was bound so that the Great Commission to the nations would be accomplished during the millennium (Rev. 20:3).

Therefore, I have proven that the in-like-manner Second Coming of Christ was also fulfilled in the first century.   After commanding His disciples to take possession of the kingdom through the Great Commission, Jesus ascended in a cloud, hidden from the disciples’ sight (Acts 1:9).
Mathison insists that Jesus’ physical body was seen for some period of time as He ascended into the sky. However, verse nine simply says, “He was lifted up, and a cloud received Him from their eyes.” Jesus was certainly seen just before He was “lifted up” (Acts 1:9). But it is not at all certain that He was directly seen as He ascended into the sky.
In verse 11, the disciples were told that Jesus would come in the manner that they had seen Him enter heaven (the sky). The continuity of Him coming as He had entered heaven is found in the fact that He would come in the heavenly glory-cloud of His Father (Matt. 16:27). Jesus was not physically seen after He was received into the glory-cloud. It was while He was hidden from sight in that cloud that He was indirectly seen entering the sky. And He was to come in like manner. Therefore, He would not be physically or directly seen when He came “in like manner,” in the cloud, to indwell His church in the end of the old covenant age (Luke 17:20–37; John 14:2–3, 23).
Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously. As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”[2] It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10–11).
In the Old Testament, God was never literally or directly seen coming in His glory when He judged or saved Israel and other nations. Jesus was not literally seen again after He entered the cloud of God’s glory. He was “taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16) and He would come in glory as the Ancient of Days.
The Lord God had become flesh. John bore testimony to the fact that looking at and touching Jesus was to look at and touch God Himself (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1). God was physically seen in the flesh, but this was temporary for the second person of the Godhead (Heb. 5:7), even as He had been born into and under the old covenant system with its temporal types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5–8; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13).[3]  
Ironically, the point of the question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky,” was that Jesus was not going to return to His physical form. It was futile for the disciples to long for Jesus to return to the earthly form He had taken when He was born of Mary. In His ascension, Jesus had returned to His pre-incarnate glory. The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh. He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven—hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
We agree with the majority of commentators and cross reference systems which see the in-like-manner coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 as being parallel with the coming of Jesus on or in the cloud(s) in Matthew 16:27–28, 24:30–31, 26:64–68; Luke 21:27, and Revelation 1:7. Mathison and Gentry, however, wrench Acts 1:11 from those Scriptures. They admit that Christ was figuratively “seen” (perceived, understood) at a figurative “coming” in/on the clouds in AD 70, but they deny that this was the fulfillment of Acts 1:11.
This brings us to another problem. Mathison writes of Matthew 24:30 in his book Postmillennialism:
. . . [T]he “coming” of the Son of Man is His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem (see vv. 23–28), which is intimately connected with His ascension to the right hand of God (cf. Dan. 7:13–14).[4]
Later, in WSTTB, Mathison goes further and identifies the Ascension with the coming of Christ in AD 70:
. . . [W]hen [Jesus] makes reference to “the coming of the Son of Man,” . . . He may have been referring . . . to his ascension . . . and the judgment on Jerusalem. . . . ” (182, emphasis added)
For Mathison, Christ’s “coming” in Daniel 7:13–14 is somehow both a literal, visible “going up” in a literal cloud in about AD 30 and a figurative “coming” to Jerusalem from heaven in figurative clouds in AD 70. The confusion inherent in this position is plain enough. Mathison says that “the coming of the Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13– 14 is a reference to the Ascension. But then Mathison says that when Jesus used the term, He was referring to the Ascension and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet there is not one instance where Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man where it can be taken to be a reference to His Ascension. In every case, it is His coming to earth in judgment and salvation. But this is only the tip of the Iceberg of Confusion.
Even though Mathison says that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was “intimately connected with His ascension,” and even though Mathison says that both the Ascension and His coming in judgment in AD 70 are equally “the coming of the Son of Man,” and even though Mathison admits that both events were with a cloud/clouds and in the glory of the Father, and that both events were seen (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), Mathison nevertheless maintains that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was not the “in-like-manner” coming promised in Acts 1:11. Mathison’s position is an ineffable tangle of exegetical double vision, contradiction, and consummate confusion.
Partial Preterist Milton Terry, in contrast, took a lucid, biblical approach, seeing Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7 as all being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the end of the age:
Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.
Acts i, 11, is often cited to show that Christ’s coming must needs be spectacular, “in like manner as ye beheld him going into the heaven.” But (1) in the only other three places where [“in like manner”] occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not some particular manner in which Moses killed the Egyptian that is notable, but rather the certain fact of it. In 2 Tim. iii, 8, it is likewise the fact of strenuous opposition rather than the special manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses. And in Matt. xxiii, 37, and Luke xiii, 34, it is the general thought of protection rather than the visible manner of a mother bird that is intended. Again (2), if Jesus did not come in that generation, and immediately after the great tribulation that attended the fall of Jerusalem, his words in Matt. xvi, 27, 28, xxiv, 29, and parallel passages are in the highest degree misleading. (3) To make the one statement of the angel in Acts i, 11, override all the sayings of Jesus on the same subject and control their meaning is a very one-sided method of biblical interpretation. But all the angel’s words necessarily mean is that as Jesus has ascended into heaven so he will come from heaven. And this main thought agrees with the language of Jesus and the prophets.[5]
As Mathison admits in one book but denies in another, the immediate context links Christ’s in-like-manner return to the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v. 8; Matt. 24:14, 27, 30; Rom. 10:18). The Great Commission was fulfilled in Christ’s generation. Jesus was “lifted up” and hidden from sight in the cloud of glory. He ascended into the sky hidden in the cloud, as His disciples watched. He was to come in the same manner in which the disciples saw Him enter into the sky: hidden in the cloud of the glory of His Father. He was “seen” in that Day in the same way that Yahweh was “seen” whenever He came on a cloud to judge nations in the Old Testament.
This was the one and only future coming of Christ that was promised in the New Testament. Therefore, Christ returned in AD 70. The analogy of Scripture confirms this interpretation. It does not confirm Mathison’s, which rips Acts 1:9–11 from its immediate and broader New Testament contexts. We agree with Terry’s comments on Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7. “We accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures”[6] that Christ returned on/in a cloud/clouds in that generation.



[1] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added).
[2] From Age to Age, 459
[3] Though Jesus is no longer in the flesh, He forever retains His human nature. He is forever Man, even as the saints in heaven today, who are no longer in their physical bodies, are still human/man by nature. Neither the Son of Man nor those who are in Him, whether in heaven or on earth, are “nonhuman.” (See David Green’s response to Strimple Argument #11 in chapter seven of this book.)
[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), 114
[5] Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 246-247.
[6] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1990), 468, n.1 (emphases added).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 6 The Coming of the Son of Man

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 6 – The Coming of the Son of Man  
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.
 
 
The Coming of the Son of Man
 
On pages 181–182, Mathison offers this argument: Whenever Jesus referred
to “the coming of the Son of Man,” He “seems to have been alluding to
Daniel 7:13–14,” which refers not to the Second Coming but to His ascension
to the heavenly throne of God to receive His kingdom. “ . . . [T]he possibility
must be kept open that Jesus wasn’t referring to his Second Advent
at all when he used this language. He may have been referring instead to
his ascension to the throne of God, his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be. . . . ” It may be that “Jesus had very little to
say about his actual second coming.”
 
Response:
 
Let us assume for the moment that the premises of Mathison’s argument
above are true. Let us grant for the sake of argument that Daniel 7:13–14
refers to the Ascension of Christ, and that Christ was somehow alluding
to Daniel’s reference to His Ascension whenever He spoke of His future
coming in AD 70. Even if these premises are true, they in no way prove
that the coming of Christ in AD 70 was not “His actual second coming.”
Whenever Jesus spoke of the future coming of “the Son of Man,”
He could have been referring, as Mathison said, “to his ascension to the
throne of God [in Daniel 7:13–14], his receiving of his kingdom, and the
judgment on Jerusalem that would prove he had received the kingdom
and was who he claimed to be”; and at the same time, it could be that
His coming in AD 70 was also “His actual second coming.”
 
Mathison’s interpretation does not create an either/or choice. It
does not conflict with the “hyper-preterist” framework. “Hyper-preterists”
can embrace Mathison’s interpretation, wrong though it is, and
remain “hyper-preterists.” Mathison’s argument therefore is moot.
Though there is no need to refute Mathison’s explanation of Daniel 7:13,
I will briefly offer three other possibilities:
 
The presentation of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in Daniel
7:13 is perhaps a reference to Christ in His Parousia delivering up the
kingdom (“the saints”) to the Father (“the Ancient of Days”) in AD 70.
 
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom
to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all
rule and all authority and power. (1 Cor. 15:24)
 
Or, as David Green has suggested, perhaps “the Son of Man” in Daniel
7:13 signifies the Body of Christ (the saints, “the fullness of Christ”)
in His Parousia (Eph. 4:13). In this view, the universal church (“the New
Man,” “the Son of Man”) was presented to Christ (“the Ancient of Days”)
and united with Him in the end of the age, in His Parousia in AD 70 (2
Cor. 4:14; 11:2; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22, 28; Jude 1:24).
 
My preferred interpretation is similar to that of F.F. Bruce. According
to the Old Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:13, the Son of
Man came “as the Ancient of Days” on the clouds of heaven, not “to the
Ancient of Days.” This translation is in harmony with verse 22, which
says that it was the Ancient of Days Himself who came in judgment and
gave the saints the kingdom.
 
Also, the New Testament does not give the slightest hint that “the coming
of the Son of Man” on the clouds of heaven would be fulfilled in the
Ascension. And as Keil and Delitzch commented regarding Daniel 7:13-14,
 
…it is manifest that he could only come from heaven to earth.
If the reverse is to be understood, then it ought to have been
so expressed, since the coming with the clouds of heaven in
opposition to the rising up of the beasts out of the sea very distinctly
indicates a coming down from heaven. The clouds are
the veil or the “chariot” on which God comes from heaven to
execute judgment against His enemies; cf. Ps. 18:10f., 97:2–4;
104:3, Isa. 19:1, Nah. 1:3. This passage forms the foundation
for the declaration of Christ regarding His future coming,
which is described after Dan. 7:13 as a coming of the Son of
man with, in, on the clouds of heaven; Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark
18:26; Rev. 1:7; 14:14.[1]
 
I would agree with Keil and Delitzch that the context of Dan. 7:13 and
how the NT develops it, forms the foundation for the Second Coming
event with Him coming down from heaven in judgment upon His enemies
(who are upon the earth rising in opposition to Him) and not Him
going “up” at the ascension event.
 
It is also important to point out that John in the book of Revelation
alludes to Dan. 7:9, 13 in his description of Christ as being both the Son
of Man who comes on the clouds to judge those whom had pierced Him
(first century Jews) and as the eternal Ancient of Days in Rev. 1:7, 13-17.
Again the context is developing Christ’s future “soon” (Rev. 1:1) Second
Coming not His ascension.
 
Matthew 16:27–28
 
For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with
His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to you there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
 
Not surprisingly, Mathison is the only author in WSTTB who
touched upon this key prophecy, and he offered no exegesis of it. Instead,
he threw it to the wind of the various speculative, futuristic in-
terpretations. Let us now demonstrate that Matthew 16:27–28 (and its
parallels, Mark 8:38–9:1; Luke 9:26–27) cannot be divided into two different
events, according to the typical futurist approach. As we can see
from the chart below, Matthew 16:27 is united to Matthew 16:28. Both
verses speak of the same timeframe and event that Jesus spoke of in His
undivided Olivet Discourse.
 

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels

The Olivet Discourse

1. Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) 1. Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27) 2. Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31)
3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 16:27) 3. Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28-31;25:31-34) 
4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) 4. Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27-32)
5. Some of the disciples would live (Matt. 16:28) 5. Some of the disciples would live (Luke 21:16-18)
6. Some of the disciples would die (Matt. 16:28) 6. Some of the disciples would die  (Luke 21:16)
7. Christ would be ashamed of some in His generation (Mark 8:38) 7. All of this would occur in His generation(Matt. 24:34) 

 
For the Son of Man is about to Come
 
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), the Darby Bible, Wuest’s Expanded
Translation of the New Testament, and Weymouth’s New Testament in
Modern Speech all translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to
come.” These translations reflect the consistent usage of the Greek word mello
in Matthew’s gospel, and its predominant usage in the New Testament.
Christ’s imminent coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in
the lifetime of “some” in the crowd who were listening to him in verse 28.
After having waited thousands of years for the coming of the Messiah and
His kingdom, the span of forty years (AD 30–70) was a relatively short time.
 
Verily I say unto you
 
Jesus uses the term “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly” 99 times
in the gospels. The Greek word is “amen,” and it means “absolutely,”

really,” “may it be fulfilled.” It is never used to introduce a new subject.
Dispensational author and editor of another multi-authored book
seeking to refute preterism, Thomas Ice, says of Matthew 16:27 and 28
that these “are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly
I say to you.’”[2] But Mr. Ice fails to produce a single passage in which
Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you,” separates one subject from another.
To the contrary, the phrase always signals an amplification of the
previous thought.
 
Some standing here shall not taste of death until
 
Thomas Ice says of this verse: “A further problem with the preterist
view is that our Lord said, ‘some of those standing here . . . .’ It is clear
that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals.
. . . Peter notes that John only survived among the 12 disciples
till the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ice, Controversy, 88).
 
In other words, according to Ice, Jesus said that “some” would survive,
but the reality is that among His twelve disciples only John survived.
Ice’s argument would possibly have some validity if Jesus had
been speaking only to His twelve apostles; but He was not. According
to Mark’s account, “ . . . He called the crowd to him along with his disciples
and said . . . ” (Mk. 8:34–9:1). So much for Ice’s arguments.
 
Until they see the kingdom of God already come in power
 
According to Mark’s account, some of the disciples would not die until
they looked back on this event, knowing that the Lord and His kingdom
had come in power. (Literally, “until they see the kingdom of God having
come in power.”) According to Jesus, some of those who were listening to
Him that day would see His Parousia, look back on the event, and afterwards
die. Gentry concedes this point citing J.A. Alexander:
 
Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in
the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already
come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect parti-ciple here
employed.”[3]
 
The Greek word here for “see” is eido. As with the English word,
eido not only refers to physical sight, it can also mean “perceive.”
Through observing with the physical senses, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary
audience would be able to look back on the destruction of the old covenant
kingdom’s temple and city in AD 70 and “perceive” that Christ’s kingdom
had arrived among and within them (Lk. 17:20–37; Col. 1:27; Jn. 14:2–3, 23, 29).



[1] Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F., Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), (Daniel 7:13-14), bold emphasis MJS.
[2] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy: The Second
Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.
[3] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics, 1992), 215–216 (emphasis added).

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 5 Prophetic Telescoping Two Different Comings in Matthew 24-25?

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 5 – Prophetic Telescoping Two Comings in Matthew 24-25?
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

 
Prophetic Telescoping
 
On pages 167 and 180, Mathison presents the following argument:
Daniel 11:21–12:1 is one continuous prophecy. Verses 21–35 describe
the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. The next verses, 11:36–12:1, describe
events that are unrelated to Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet there is no indication
of a subject change in the prophecy. Daniel thus prophesied events
that would be separated in time but he did not give any indication that
the two groups of events were to be so separated. It is possible that we
see similar “telescoping” in the Olivet Discourse. It could be that “Jesus
utilized the prophetic technique of telescoping two distant events into
one prophecy without much contextual indication of a change in subject.”
Matthew 24:34 could be a transitional verse. It could be that everything
before verse 35 occurred in Jesus’ generation (the great tribulation
and the destruction of Jerusalem) and that everything after verse 34
is yet to be fulfilled (the Second Coming and Last Judgment).


Response:
 
According to the two-section theory of interpreting the Olivet Discourse,
the coming of false christs and the revealing of the Son of Man as “in the
days of Noah” are two events that will take place at the end of world history
(in section two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:37–39). But this
causes a problem. Luke relates the events of the Olivet Discourse in a
slightly different order than Matthew, and he puts those two supposedly
end-of-world-history events in between the coming of the Son of Man “as
the lightning” (Lk. 17:24) and the fleeing of people from their housetops
and fields (Lk. 17:31). But those events are in the alleged “first section”
of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–19, 24). Luke thus has two “second section”
events (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
Luke was not aware of the theory of a “telescoped” Olivet Discourse.
We see this problem present itself again when Jesus prophesies that
one would be taken and one would be left. According to the two-section
theory, that event will take place at the end of world history (in section
two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:40–41). But Luke puts that event in
between the fleeing of people from their housetops and fields (Lk. 17:31)
and the vultures gathering at the corpse (Lk. 17:37). But those events are
in the alleged “first section” of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–18, 28)
and were fulfilled in the first century. Thus Luke again has a “second section”
event (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
 
According to the two-section theory, Luke 17:23–37 reads like this:
 
Lk. 17:23–24 (false christs; Son of Man as lightning in His day) AD 70
Lk. 17:26–30 (the days of Son of Man as the days of Noah) End of world history
Lk. 17:31–33 (people fleeing from housetops and fields) AD 70
Lk. 17:34–36 (one taken, one left) End of world history
Lk. 17:37 (vultures gathered at the corpse) AD 70
 
The absurdity that results in exegetically “ping-ponging” through
this text is most pronounced in the last four verses. In verses 34–36, Jesus
supposedly tells His disciples that at the end of world history, some
people will be “taken,” i.e., literally raptured into the clouds (Lk. 17:34–
36).[1] Then in verse 37, the disciples ask Him, “Where, Lord?” That
is, “Where will those people be taken?” According to the two-section
theory, Jesus answered His disciples’ question about the Rapture at the
end of world history by telling them about the corpses of Jews becoming
the food of vultures in AD 70.[2]
 
But, if it can be believed, the confusion deepens further still. In
his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison actually
implies that Luke 17:20–37 was all fulfilled in AD 70. His argument in
that book is that we can know that Jesus was probably speaking of the
destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 18:7–8 partly because “in the preceding
chapter (Luke 17:20–37), he speaks of the coming destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[3]
 
Based on his argument in Postmillennialism, Mathison has it that
when Jesus prophesied that the judgment in the days of the Son of Man
would be as the judgment in the days of Noah, and when He prophesied
that some would be taken and others left, Jesus meant those prophecies
to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 17 and simultaneously
meant them to refer to the end of world history in Matthew 24. Yet
Mathison says he believes that Matthew 24 and Luke 17 contain the
same subject matter (WSTTB, 176). How can these things be?
 
Mathison’s many contradictory exegeses result in mind-boggling
conundrums. But the word of God on this matter is clear enough.
Luke, in Luke 17:22–37, mixes the events of Matthew 24:17–28 (first
section) with the events of Matthew 24:37–41 (second section). In so
doing, Luke unifies Matthew 24:17–41, confirming it to be one prophecy
that would be fulfilled in one set of events in one generation. In
contrast, “two-section” theorists violently break the prophecy in pieces
to conform it to the futurist paradigm. There is no question that this
theory is unworkable and that Luke saw no “telescoping” in the Olivet
Discourse. Selah.
 
As a matter of fact, in Mathison’s latest book, From Age to Age, he
abandons his two-section view of the Olivet Discourse, finally conceding
that the prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. He is also more
consistent in that book in his preterist interpretation of “the coming
of the Son of Man.” He now sees every reference to the coming of the
Son of Man as referring to Christ’s Ascension/Coming in AD 70. This
includes Matthew 25:31—the prophecy of the sheep and goats. Not one
church father interpreted Matthew 25:31 as having been fulfilled in the
first century. But Mathison does.
 
Mathison disagrees with the unified testimony of the universal
church. How then can he continue to anathematize us for disagreeing
with the unified testimony of the universal church?[4] Furthermore,
Mathison is out of step with the church fathers, and with the Reformed
community, and with “hyper preterists,” all of whom “stand shoulder
to shoulder” in opposition to him on this point. We all agree with the
church fathers that the promises of the coming of the Son of Man refer
to Christ’s Second Coming, and that we cannot separate the coming of
the Son of Man from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.



[1] Though Mathison implies that this prophecy will be fulfilled at the
end of world history, he is silent in all of his books as to its meaning. We can
only surmise that he believes it refers to the futurist “Rapture.”
[2] “Jesus’ reference to the vultures in [Matt. 24:28] refers to Jeremiah
7:33. Again He is using Old Testament judgment imagery.” Keith A. Mathison,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1995), 142
[3] Postmillennialism (213)
[4] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added)

 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan – "All Things" Fulfilled Luke 21:20-22

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 4 – All Things Fulfilled Luke 21:20-22

Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this  book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission  in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing  or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.  

All Things Written 

In Luke 18:31, Jesus says that when He and His disciples go up to Jerusalem (in about AD 30), “all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.” Mathison argues that since the Second Coming did not occur at that time, it follows that when Jesus says in Luke 21:22 that “all things written” will be fulfilled when Jerusalem is destroyed in AD 70, He is referring only to prophetic predictions that concerned the destruction of Jerusalem and not to all eschatological prophecy in general (172).

Response: 

Of course no one disagrees with Mathison’s observation that the context of Luke 18:31 limits Jesus’ phrase of “all things” to prophetic material pertaining to His passion.  But Mathison assumes what he needs to prove when he assumes that the context of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 is only dealing with the fall of Jerusalem, and not His actual Second Coming connected to all eschatological prophecy in general.  Later we will see that Mathison is not in line with the creeds or the historic church when it comes to what the Olivet Discourse actually covers.

Gentry says that when Christ referred to the fulfillment of “all things written” in Luke 21:22, He was referring to Old Testament prophecies only, and that Christ therefore did not include the resurrection of all men and the Second Coming in the term “all things written.”[1]  But Gentry fails to understand that the resurrection of the dead was predicted in the Old Testament. The Apostle Paul, who taught the resurrection of the dead, taught “nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place” (Acts 26:21–23). Paul stated specifically that the Old Testament predicted the resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:14–15; cf. Dan. 12:2-3; Isa. 25:8; Hosea 13:14). Therefore even if “all things written” in Luke 21:22 refers only to Old Testament prophecies, as Gentry says, it still includes the resurrection of the dead, and therefore literally “all things written.”

In the book of Revelation, it is said from beginning to the end (Rev. 1:1; 22:6–7, 10–12, 20) that the prophecies of the book would be fulfilled “shortly.” Those soon-to-be-fulfilled prophecies included the Second Coming, the resurrection of the living and the dead, the last judgment, and the new heavens and the new earth—in other words, literally “all things written.”

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:11, tells his first-century audience, “Now all these things happened to them as examples [types], and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Jesus’ and Paul’s audience understood the phrase “this age” to be a reference to the old covenant age, and the “age to come” as a reference to the Messianic or new covenant age. They also understood that under the umbrella of the old covenant “age” (singular) there were various “ages” (plural), or covenants. The covenant that God made with David is an example of this. Thus when the old covenant agewas consummated, it was then that all of Israel’s “ages,” as contained in “the Law and the Prophets” (“all things written”), were consummated.

The fulfillment that has been wrought in Christ is no piecemeal fulfillment that has remained a “yes and no” fulfillment/non-fulfillment for 2,000 years, as futurists such as Mathison imagine. The Law of Moses does not remain “imposed” as it did between the Cross and the Parousia (Heb. 9:10, NASB). Rather, Christ returned and the old covenant vanished in His Presence forty years after His Cross (Heb. 8:13). If He did not return, and if the dead were not raised in Him, then the old covenant never vanished, and we are still in our sins. This is the inevitable implication of denying that literally “all things written” are fulfilled in Christ today.

A comparison of Daniel 12:1–2 with the Olivet Discourse proves that literally every eschatological prophecy in the Scriptures would be fulfilled in AD 70:
Daniel 12:1-12 Olivet Discourse

Daniel 12:1-2

Olivet Discourse

1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes Desolation (Dan. 12:1, 12) 1. Tribulation and Abomination that causes desolation (Matt. 24:15, 21; Lk. 21:20-23)
2. Judgment and Deliverance (Dan. 12:1) 2. Judgment and Deliverance (Lk. 21:18-22, 28; Matt. 24:13)
3. Resurrection (Dan. 12:2-3) 3. Resurrection (Matt. 13:40-43;24:30-31; Lk. 21:27-28)
4. The End (Dan. 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13) 4. The End (Matt. 24:13-14)
5. When would all this take place?“. . .when the power [The Law] ofthe holy people [Israel] has beencompletely shattered [the destructionof the city and the sanctuaryin AD 70], all these things[including the judgment andresurrection] shall be finished.”“But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.” (Dan. 12:7, 13)
 
5. When would all this take place?“There shall not be left here onestone upon another, that shall notbe thrown down” [the destructionof the city and the sanctuary in AD70].” “Verily I say unto you, Thisgeneration shall not pass, till allthese things [judgment & resurrection]be fulfilled.”  (Matt. 24:1, 34)

Mathison believes that the majority of scholars “rightly understand” the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being a future biological resurrection of all believers.[2] But he has not explained how that resurrection can be separated from the first-century great tribulation, abomination of desolation, and destruction of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1, 7, 11. Daniel 12:7 says that when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered (in AD 70), then “all these things would be finished” –not “some” of them.

Partial Preterist James Jordan now understands the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 (and Daniel’s personal resurrection in verse 13) as be-ing a spiritual and corporate resurrection that took place from Jesus’ earthly ministry to AD 70. Jordan actually sees this past resurrection as being the resurrection of Revelation 20:

“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.”[3]

“Revelation takes up where Daniel leaves off, and deals mostly with the Apostolic Age and the death and resurrection of the Church.”[4]

“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.[5]

Mathison’s co-author Gentry has also finally come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70:

“In Daniel 12:1-2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70.”

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

“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.”[6]

We commend Gentry for his recently developed full preterist exegesis of Daniel 12:1-3. However, it presents a problem for him. Gentry stated, in the same book, that the resurrection in the parable of the wheat and tares is not yet fulfilled.[7] Yet Jesus taught that Daniel 12:2-3 would be fulfilled at the same time as that parable.

Nevertheless, some of Gentry’s partial preterist colleagues have come to the conclusion that the parable of the wheat and tares was also fulfilled in AD 70. For example, Joel McDurmon (Gary North’s sonin-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision)[8]:

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 describe 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.

This, of course, is exactly what happened to the Christians. Not only were they saved in soul, but they mostly fled Jerusalembefore the Roman siege. This was consequent to Jesus’ advice to flee and not look back once the signs arose (Matt. 24:16-22); indeed this would correspond with the angels’ work of harvesting the elect (24:30).[9]

Curiously, McDurmon does not mention that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 13:39-43. Partial preterists such as McDurmon also ignore the fact that Paul, in agreement with Daniel and Jesus, also taught that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 was imminent in the first century:
having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both ofrighteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15, YLT & WEY; cf. Matt. 13:39-43).

There is only one passage found in “the law and prophets” that explicitly speaks of a resurrection of believers and unbelievers, and that is Daniel 12:2-3. This is Paul’s source in Acts 24:15, as virtually any commentary or scholarly work agrees. As G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson wrote on Acts 24:15:

The resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous is based on the prophecy of the end in Dan. 12:2-3, which indicates twogroups of people, some being raised to eternal life and others to eternal reproach and shame, and then refers to the “righteous” (Θ) or to “righteousness” (MT). Clearly this passage lies behind Paul’s statement, although the wording is different.[10]

Partial Preterists such as Gentry who admit the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70 need to not only address the issue of this being Paul’s source for his resurrection doctrine in Acts 24:15, but other places in the NT. Again Beale points out in one of his most recent works, that Jesus is following the (OG) LXX of Daniel 12:1-2, 4 as His source for His teaching on “eternal life” and the coming resurrection “hour” (or “the hour of the end”) of both believers and unbelievers in (John 5:28-29).[11]

And clearly the books being opened in judgment and the resurrection of all in Daniel 12:1-2 is the judgment and resurrection of Revelation 20:5-15. Gentry at one point seeking to refute the Premillennial Dispensational theory of two resurrections cited Daniel 12:2/John 5:28-29/John 6:39-40/Acts 24:15 as evidence of “one resurrection and one judgment, which occur simultaneously at the end…”[12] We couldn’t agree more with Gentry #1 – that these texts are descriptive of “one” and the same resurrection and judgment which take place at the same time in history. And yet we also agree with Gentry #2 – Daniel 12:2 was fulfilled in AD 70.  Another question or challenge for partial preterists who see the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 as being fulfilled in AD 70 is this:

How many times must Daniel be raised unto, and receive, “eternal life?”

Daniel 12

1 Corinthians 15

1. Resurrection unto “eternal life”(v. 2) 1. Resurrection unto incorruptibility or immortality (vss. 52–53)
2. Time of the end (v. 4) 2. Then cometh the end (v. 24)
3. When the power of the holy people [Mosaic OC law] is completely shattered (v. 7) 3. When victory over “the [Mosaic OC] law” comes (v. 56)

 

To be fair and thorough I should point out a recent development in Gentry’s understanding of how the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 is fulfilled.  As we saw above, Gentry, in order to refute the two-resurrection theory of premillennial dispensationalism, claimed that the resurrection of this text is the one and same, yet-future resurrection as described by Jesus and Paul in John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40; and Acts 24:15 (and no doubt Revelation 20).Then later, Gentry changed his interpretation when responding to a full preterist (apparently realizing that he could no longer arbitrarily sever the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 from the firstcentury Great Tribulation in verse 1, and the first-century “time, times and half a time” and “shattering of the holy people” in verse 7). On Gentry’s Facebook wall, he wrote regarding Daniel 12:2 that it has nothing to do with a biological resurrection:

“Daniel 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the ‘resurrection’ of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”

But later, following his lecture on the millennium at Criswell Bible College, Gentry gave a slightly different response.  After being challenged on how the New Testament develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 in Matthew 13:39–43; John 5:28-28; Acts 24:15 and specifically in Revelation 20:5–15, he responded by saying that Daniel 12:2 was typologically and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 and that it will be anti-typically and ultimately fulfilled in a literal “bodily resurrection” at the end of world history.

Besides this not being taught by Daniel or any New Testament author, my question and challenge to Gentry’s new explanation of this passage is this:  If Gentry can give Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments (one in AD 70 and one in our future), then what is to stop the dispensationalist from saying something like this:
There may have been some kind of fulfillment of the Great Tribulation in an AD 66–70 (Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21) and in the “desolation” of Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70 (Dan. 9:27; Matt. 24:15), but those events were only typological fulfillments.  The ultimate fulfillments will be in our future when Israel rebuilds her temple.

Or why should Gentry oppose the amillennialist teaching that, while the Great Tribulation may have had some aspect of fulfillment in the events leading up to AD 70, we should not consider it as one historic event but an “already but not yet” process the church goes through until the end of history?

Gentry gives Daniel 12:2 two fulfillments but won’t allow dispensationalism or any other futurist system to do the same thing with the Great Tribulation, the three and a half years, or the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 12 and Daniel 9:27. Jesus in Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 13:3943 did not say that all Old Testament prophecy or the resurrection and glorification of Daniel 12:2–3 would be fulfilled in two totally different ways spanning thousands or millions of years from AD 70 to the end of world history.  He said that these things would all be fulfilled in His generation (“this generation”) at the end of the old covenant age.
The Transitive Property of Equality Principle (Since A=B & B=C, then A=C) As It Relates to Dan. 12:1-13 (A), Mat. 13:38-43 (B), and Mat. 24:3-36 & 25:31-41 (C)

                                                   Since A (Daniel 12)  = B (Matthew 13)
Tribulation on National Israel as Never Before Verse 1b Verses 40-42
Time-of-the-End / End-of-‘this’-Age Separation Verses 1c, 4a, 9b, 13b Verses 39b-41
Saints Rise and Shine in the Eternal Kingdom Verses 2a, 2b, 3 Verse 43
Wicked Rise to Shame in Eternal Condemnation Verses 2a, 2c Verses 39-42
Kingdom-Age Evangelism via God’s Shining Ones Verse 3 Verse 43

 

                                                          And B (Matthew 13) = C (Matthew 24-25)
Pre-Kingdom Evangelism by Jesus’ Disciples Verses 37-38 24:14
Tribulation on National Israel as Never Before Verses 40-42 24:21-22
End-of-‘this’-Age / End-of-the-Age Separation Verses 39b-43 24:3, 30-31; 25:31-41
The Sons of the Day / Hour Shine with the Son Verse 43a 24:27, 30-31, 36
Inheritance of and Entrance into the Kingdom Verse 43a 25:34

 

                                                      Then     A (Daniel 12)  =   C (Matthew 24-25)
Tribulation and Sanctification / Great Tribulation Verses 1b, 10 24:21-22
Time / Day / Hour of the Judgment (aka Separation) Verses 1-2, 4 (OG/LXX) 24:36; 25:31-33
Fulfilled at the Time-of-the-End / the End-of-the-Age / the End à viz. The Shattering of National Israel’s World—Her Heaven and Earth (i.e. the Temple, etc.) Verses 4a, 9b, 13b
Verse 7
24:3b, 13-14
24:1-8, 14, 28-29, 34-35
Inheritance of and Entrance into Eternal Kingdom-Life Verses 2b, 3a, 13b 25:34, 46
The Sons of the Day / Hour Shine with the Son Verse 3a 24:27, 36; 25:34
Kingdom-Age Evangelism via God’s Shining Ones Verse 3 25:29a

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

Daniel 12 (A)          = Matthew 13 (B)   =     Matthew 24-25 (C)
Kingdom-Age Evangelism = Kingdom-Age Evangelism = Kingdom-Age Evangelism
Tribulation Like Never Before = Tribulation Meted Out = Great Tribulation Unlike Before
Time of the End of Daniel’s People; End of the Age of National Israel = Time of the End of that Age To Befall Jesus’ Generation = Age of National Israel to End in the Fall of Its Temple & City
The Chosen Ones to Rise & Shine; The Wicked to Rise to Shame = The Righteous Ones to Rise & Shine; Tares Reaped to Burn = Sheep to Inherit Kingdom; Goats to Inherit Punishment

 


[1] Dominion, 542.
[2] Keith A. Mathison, WSTTB 160–161; From Age to Age: The Unfolding of
Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 281.
[3] James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 620.
[4] Ibid., 621
[5] Ibid., 628
[6] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 Third Edition), 538.  On Gentry’s Facebook page he answered my question on this text by writing, “Dan 12 is not dealing with bodily resurrection but national resurrection (as does Eze 37). Dan 12 sees the “resurrection” of Israel in the birth of the Christian Church, which is the New Israel.”  But when I challenged Gentry on how the NT develops the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3/Matt. 13:43/John 5:28-29/Acts 24:15/Rev. 20:5-15 at his Criswell lecture on the millennium, he changed his tune and is now claiming that the resurrection text of Dan. 12:2 has an AD 70 “type” fulfillment and an end of the history “bodily resurrection” fulfillment as well.  I told him that if he can do this with the resurrection of Dan. 12:2, then dispensationalists can double fulfill or have multiple types and anti-types fulfillments of prophetic material that Gentry says was only fulfilled in AD 70 – tribulation, abomination of desolation of a temple in Jerusalem, apostasy, etc…  Again partial preterists like Gentry and Mathison are arbitrary and inconsistent when they want something only fulfilled in AD 70 when debating futurists, but then want something fulfilled in the future when debating full preterists.
[7] Ibid., 235 n. 70, 243.
[8] Gary North, perhaps not knowing his own son-in-law’s position at the time, wrote in 2001: “Anyone who equates the fulfillment of [the parable of the wheat and tares] with A.D. 70 has broken with the historic faith of the church.”
http://www.preteristcosmos.com/garynorth-dualism.html
[9] Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51 –
20:26, Jesus’ Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision,
Inc., 2011), 48-49; see entire section 43-51. One of DeMar’s co-authors
Peter Leithart, has also conceded that the parable of the wheat and tares was
fulfilled in the first century: “Jesus has now come with His winnowing fork,
and before the end of the age, the wheat and tares will be separated. The end
of the age thus refers not to the final judgment but to the close of “this generation.”
Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 95.
[10] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A., Commentary on the New Testament use
of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;
Apollos, 2007), 598.
[11] 30 G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2011), 131-132. This creates a huge problem for Partial Preterists
such as Gentry who not only take the resurrection of Dan. 12:2 as fulfilled
in AD 70, but also takes the eschatological “not yet” “hour” of (John 4:21-
24) as fulfilled in AD 70 (as Full Preterists do). Why? Because according to
Mathison (WSTTB, 172-174) Jesus is using the same eschatological “already”
and “not yet” pattern of this coming “hour” in both John 4:21-24 – 5:25-29 and
thus are referring to the same period of time. Once again when we combine
what Beale, Gentry, and Mathison are saying here on these texts, they form
the Full Preterist view in that the “not yet” resurrection “hour” of Dan. 12:1-2/
John 5:28-29 was fulfilled in AD 70. For more on why John 5:28-29 is not a
description of a fleshly end of time resurrection see David Green’s response to
Dr. Strimple.
[12] Kenneth L. Gentry, THE GREATNESS OF THE GREAT COMMISSION
(Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 142.

 

 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 3 Double Fulfillments

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 3 – Double Fulfillments
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

 
In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised
against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was
entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His
objections included:
 
• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament
• The futurity of the last days
Prophetic double fulfillment (Part 3)
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20
 
Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed
elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will
offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the
eschatological time texts of the New Testament.

 
Double Fulfillments
 
On page 168, Mathison observes that Daniel’s prophecy of “the abomination
of desolation” was double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in the desecration
of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC. Then Jesus
spoke of its future fulfillment two hundred years later. The prophecy of
the birth of Immanuel was also double-fulfilled. It was first fulfilled in
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in Isaiah’s day. Then it was “ultimately fulfilled”
in the birth of Jesus many centuries later. Mathison’s conclusion: “New
Testament prophecies may also have multiple fulfillments,” first in AD 70
and then in the end of world history.
 
Response:
 
I think everyone agrees that many prophecies in the Old Testament
were typologically fulfilled and awaited full realization in the New Testament.
This phenomenon reflected the contrast between Old Testament
types and shadows, and the New Testament Anti-Type or Body,
i.e., Christ (Col. 2:17).
 
But this principle in no way implies or leads to the notion that New
Testament prophecies, which are fulfilled in Christ, will be fulfilled multiple
times over potentially millions of years of time. The fact that the
Old Testament was “typical” and “shadowy” in no way suggests that the
New Testament is of the same pre-Messianic character. The Cross of
Christ will not be fulfilled multiple times until the end of human history,
and neither will Christ’s Second Coming (Heb. 9:26–28).
 
Mathison’s co-author Ken Gentry teaches that the time texts of the
New Testament “demand” a fulfillment in AD 70, and that the theory
of “double fulfilling” Revelation, for example, is “pure theological assertion”
that has “no exegetical warrant.”[1] Another partial preterist colleague
of Mathison, Gary DeMar, rejects openness to the double fulfillment
theory in the Olivet Discourse:
 
Either the Olivet Discourse applies to a generation located
in the distant future from the time the gospel writers composed
the Olivet Discourse or to the generation to whom
Jesus was speaking; it can’t be a little bit of both. As we will
see, the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in any of the
synoptic gospels does not allow for a mixed approach, a double
fulfillment, or even a future completion. Matthew 24:34
won’t allow for it.[2]
 
The New Testament is the revealing of the salvation promises contained
in the Old Testament, and those promises were to be realized and
found “in Christ” and in His Body the church (2 Cor. 1:20). Mathison
would have us believe that the New Testament is a further obscuring of
the meaning of kingdom prophecies (with more shadowy and typical fulfillments),
which will only become clear at the alleged end of the very age
that Christ died to establish, the age that Mathison—incredibly— calls
“evil” (188).
 
Mathison, while refuting Dispensationalism, writes, “We are no
longer under the old covenant.”[3] DeMar likewise teaches that the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem was “the end of the Old Covenant” and
“the consummation of the New Covenant.”[4]   But Mathison and DeMar
do not seem to realize what their teaching implies. If the old covenant
(“the Law”) is no more and the new covenant reached its consummation,
then according to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17–19, “the Law and
the Prophets” are fulfilled and “heaven and earth” passed away and we
now live in the new heavens and the new earth.
 
It irresistibly follows that if we are no longer under the old covenant,
it is because Christ’s Second Coming took place at the end of the
old covenant age and brought to consummation every “jot” and “tittle
of its promises (cf. Matt 5:18; Heb. 8:13, 9:26–28, 10:25–37). There is
no possibility of double-fulfilling or partial-fulfilling every jot and tittle
of the Law and the prophets.
 
Some of the best Reformed theologians have taught that “heaven
and earth” in Matthew 5:18 refers to the old covenant age which passed
away in AD 70. Reformed theologian John Brown:
 
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.[5]
 
Evangelical theologian Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis agrees:
. . . [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] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of
the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. . . .22
 
Mathison’s double-fulfillment-in-the-New-Testament theory opens
Pandora’s Box to double-fulfilling everything: The earthly ministry of
Christ, His sufferings, His death, His resurrection, His Ascension, His
pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and His Second Coming; even the allegedly
future millennium could be double-fulfilled. Even the casting of
Satan into the Lake of Fire could be double-fulfilled.
 
Every New Testament promise in the Bible becomes ultimately
uncertain in Mathison’s theory. The “Christ” of Christianity could
potentially be a type of a future, “actual” Christ (cf. WSTTB, 182,
n39). Therefore, unless we want to end up adopting a liberal, postmodern
approach to God’s word and turn all of His promises into
“yes and no,” Mathison’s double-fulfillment theory must be firmly and
finally rejected.
 



[1] Kenneth Gentry, Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin
Pate (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 43–44.
[2] Gary DeMar, The Olivet Discourse: The Test of Truth, http://www.
americanvision.org/blog/?p=190
[3] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of
God? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995), 31.
[4] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church
(Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55.
[5] John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170.
 

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 2 The Latter/Last Days

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 2 – The Latter/Last Days
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this  book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission  in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical  articles or reviews.
In this chapter, I will answer objections that Dr. Keith Mathison raised against preterism in his chapter in WSTTB. Mathison’s chapter was entitled, “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament.” His objections included:
• Prophetic imminence in the Old Testament (see part 1)
The futurity of the last days (part 2)
• Prophetic double fulfillment
• Prophetic “telescoping”
• Jesus’ “in-like-manner” return
• “The Rapture”
• The creation groaning
• The abolition of death, pain, mourning, and Satan
• The salvation of “all Israel” in Romans 11
• The “thousand years” of Revelation 20
Mathison raised other objections in his chapter but they are addressed elsewhere in this book. At the conclusion of this chapter, I will offer a critique of Mathison’s tenuous and fragmented approach to the eschatological time texts of the New Testament. 
The Latter/Last Days 
Isaiah 2:2–4 speaks of “the latter days.” Mathison says that this passage “seems to point to something that even now has not been completely fulfilled.  There are still wars, for example, and all nations have not yet bowed the knee to the Lord” (167). Mathison adds that although it is true that “in some sense” the last days “were already present immediately after the first coming of Christ,” some New Testament texts such as 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days “are still future [to us]” (189–190).
Response: 
In Isaiah 2:2–4 the prophet spoke of the time when Messiah would come and establish His mountain (Mount Zion), house, and city among Jews and Gentiles. As the New Testament reveals, this prophecy speaks of the spiritual peace that comes through the gospel, wherein Jew and Gentile are united in Christ into one spiritual nation and kingdom. Jesus said that His kingdom was “not of this world,” and the New Testament writers confirmed His teaching, telling believers that the kingdom they were receiving was not physical-literal, but spiritual (2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 4; Heb. 9:24–27; 12:18ff.; 1 Peter 1:4–13).
In Luke 23:30, Jesus quoted Isaiah 2:10, 19 as prophesying the judgment that was to befall Jerusalem in AD 70. Virtually every futurist commentator agrees with this interpretation. The Apostle John referred to the same prophecy in reference to the same event (Rev. 6:15–17). Isaiah chapter 2 is intimately connected to the last days of old covenant Israel, not to the end of the planet or an alleged “end of time.”
Many within the Reformed community understand “the last days” in the New Testament to be referring to the end of the old covenant economy in AD 70. For instance, Gary DeMar:
The last days are not way off in the distant future. The end came to an obsolete covenant in the first century. In A.D. 70 the “last days” ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system.[1]
David Chilton, before he converted to (full) preterism:
The Biblical expression Last Days properly refers to the period from the Advent of Christ until the destruction of Jerusalem inA.D. 70, the “last days” of Israel during the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (Heb. 1:1–2; 8:13; James 5:1–9; 1 Pet. 2:20; 1 John 2:18).[2]
And John Owen in his exposition of Hebrews 1:2:
It is the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period and abolition, that are here and elsewhere called “The last days,” or “The latter days,” or “The last hour,” 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. . . . This phrase of speech is signally used in the Old Testament to denote the last days of the Judaical church.[3]
Mathison says that 2 Timothy 3:1 and 2 Peter 3:3 imply that the last days are still future. Let us see if that interpretation holds water.
But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come (2 Tim. 3:1).
In his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison writes to futurists concerning this verse and its context:
The . . . “last days” . . . and similar phrases are often used to refer to the last days of the Jewish age (e.g., Heb. 1:2; 1Pet.1:20; 1John 2:18). . . . [This passage] speaks to a pastoral situation that Timothy was dealing with in his own day. It is not a prophecyof conditions at the end of the world.[4]
But five years later, in WSTTB, when debating “hyper preterists,” Mathison says that the very same last days prophecy (2 Tim. 3:1) will be fulfilled in our future:
. . . [Some] New Testament texts . . . seem to refer to “the last days” as something yet to come. Paul, for example, warns Timothy that “In the last days perilous times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Peter warns his readers “that scoffers will come in the last days” (2 Peter 3:3). [Paul and Peter] say . . . that “the last days” will be the time in which something that is future will happen. The coming of “perilous times” and of “scoffers” is explicitly said to be future. The future times during which these things will come is called “the last days.” The implication is that “the last days” referred to in these texts are still future.
So while we are already in the last days, there is still some sense in which the last days can be considered future.[5]
But then yet another five years later, in his new book, From Age to Age, Mathison reverts to the biblical-preterist view that the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 refer to the first century.
According to some, these verses refer to an apostasy to occur in the time immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus. There are at least three reasons, however, to doubt this conclusion.[6]
Who do we believe? The 1999 preterist Mathison (Postmillennialism) or the 2004 futurist Mathison (WSTTB) or the 2009 preterist Mathison (From Age to Age)? Are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of the “Jewish age,” as Mathison implies while defending partial preterist postmillennialism against other futurists? Or are the last days in 2 Timothy 3:1 the last days of a future end of world history, as Mathison implies while attempting to refute biblical preterism?
Mathison says “the last days” are past when he is refuting other futurists because he knows that if “the last days” are still future, then the growing and increasing apostasy which characterizes those “perilous times” are still present and future for us as well; and if this is the case, then there is nothing left to his “optimistic” and “successful” postmillennial “golden age” that will gradually blossom before Jesus allegedly comes back peacefully for His Second (Third) Coming in our future.
But Mathison does not concern himself with this implication of making “the last days” future when he refutes “hyper-preterists.” His only concern when dealing with us is to counter “hyper-preterism” at any cost, even, apparently, at the cost of his own doctrinal integrity.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts. (2 Peter 3:3)
The majority of futurist commentators, men such as Mathison’s coauthor Simon Kistemaker, are certain (as are we) that Peter’s “last days” involves at least one or two signs that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, namely, false prophets and the apostasy (2 Peter 1:16; 2:1ff; cf. Matt. 24:3–5, 11, 23–26; 27–34). This fact leads us to an AD 70 fulfillment, not a future-to-us fulfillment.
The “mockers” and “ungodly men” of 2 Peter 3:3–7 are the “false teachers” of 2 Peter 2:1–3, whose destruction was imminent in Peter’s day. Partial preterist Peter Leithart writes of these false teachers and mockers:
Peter says explicitly that the destruction of false teachers is coming “soon.” Their destruction is the same event as the destruction of the present heavens and earth, the “day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). If the destruction of false teachers was near when Peter wrote, so also was the destruction of the heavens and earth and the coming of a new heavens and earth.[7]
Peter responds to mockers who doubt the promise of Jesus’ coming because time has passed without any sign of the Parousia.
If there were no time limit on the original prophecy, then the mockers would have no grounds for their mockery and no way to attract converts to their skeptical views. Therefore, the original prophecy must have included a time limit, a terminus ad quem, and that time limit must have been the lifetime of the apostles.16
Since these mockers were already present, it is illogical for Mathison to say that the perilous times of the last days will take place in our future (190). There is not one scintilla of evidence, whether explicit or implicit, for Mathison’s contention that “the future” for Peter and his audience is still “the future” for us.
According to Isaiah, the coming of the Lord and His righteous judgment of these scoffers would be likened to the Lord’s return in judgment upon the Philistines and the Amorites at Mount Perazim and the Valley of Gibeon (Isa. 28:21). These were not global judgments that burned the face of the planet or that disintegrated the elements of the periodic table.
Isaiah repeatedly tells us that there were to be “survivors” of this “Day of the Lord” even after the “earth”/“land” is burned with fire and the new creation takes its place (Isa. 1–5; 24–25; 65–66). This precludes the notion that Isaiah was speaking of a fiery destruction of the face of planet Earth and of the stars and planets.
The Law and the Prophets never predicted a literal torching of the planet. “The last days” were the last days before the judgment of apostate, old covenant Judah/Jerusalem and the “elements” (rudiments) of her world, and cannot be applied to an alleged ending of the eternal, new covenant age/world. There can be no “last days” of an age that has “no end” (Isa. 9:7; Eph. 3:21). There is therefore no 2000+ year extension or expansion of the “last days” into our future, as Mathison and other futurists theorize.



[1] DeMar, ibid., 38 (emphasis added). See also Joel McDurmon of American
Vision on 2 Timothy 2–3; Hebrews 9:6; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:16–17 and Jude
17–18, (Joel McDurmon, Jesus v. Jerusalem A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26,
JESUS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST ISRAEL, (Powder Springs, GA: The American
Vision, Inc., 2011), 198–200.
[2] David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of
Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), 16, n35; 51.
[3] Owen, John, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 19, 12–13, Books For The
Ages, AGES Software Albany, OR, USA Version 1.0 © 2000.
[4] Postmillennialism, 215 (emphasis added)
[5] WSTTB, 189–190 (emphases added)
[6] Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
(Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 609
[7] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second
Peter, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004), 67–68.
 
 

House Divided Chapter Four NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan in HD Part 1 O.T. Imminence

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 
Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 
Part 1 – Prophetic Imminence in the Old Testament
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

 
Old Testament Imminence
 
On page 165 of WSTTB, Mathison makes the following observations:
Isaiah said that the fall of Babylon was “near” about 170 years
before it fell (Isa. 13:22). Habakkuk spoke of the fall of Babylon
in terms of imminence (“it will not tarry”) about 70 years before
it fell (Hab. 2:3). And Haggai said that the coming of Christ
would happen in “a little while,” more than 520 years before it
happened. (Hag. 2:6–7; cf. Heb. 12:26–28)
 
Mathison infers from these observations that “the Old Testament
prophets regularly used terms implying ‘nearness’ to describe events
that did not occur for centuries”[1] (202) and that it is therefore possible
that the New Testament prophets used terms of imminence to predict
events (such as “the coming of the Lord”) that will be fulfilled potentially
millions of years from now (201–202).
 
Response:
 
Let us look at the first verse that Mathison cited:
 
Her fateful time also will soon come and her days will not be
prolonged. (Isa. 13:22b; cf. 13:6)
 
As we noted above, Mathison implied that the fulfillment of this
prophecy against Babylon was not literally “near”; that it would not
literally come “soon” after Isaiah wrote. However, three pages earlier,
Mathison had this to say about verse 10 of the same prophecy of Isaiah
against Babylon:
 
Isaiah . . . describes the judgment that will soon come upon
Babylon in very dramatic language: For the stars of heaven
and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will
be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its
 
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison 77
 
light to shine. (Isa. 13:10) (162, emphasis added)
When partial preterist Mathison is teaching other futurists that the
prophets used non-literal, de-creation language to describe nations being
judged, he says that the judgment of Babylon in Isaiah 13 was literally
near when Isaiah wrote. But when Mathison is arguing against
“hyper-preterists,” the literalness of the imminence in Isaiah 13 curiously
vanishes—and this in the space of three pages.
 
Mathison’s postmillennial partial preterist colleagues such as Gary
DeMar unequivocally teach that the imminence in Isaiah 13 was literal
imminence.
 
Isaiah 13:6 states that ‘the day of the Lord is near!,’ near for
those who first read the prophecy more than twenty-five hundred
years ago! Isaiah predicted that Babylon would be overthrown
by the Medes (13:17). Since the Medes did overthrow
Babylon, the use of “near” makes perfect literal sense.[2]
The commentators elaborate:
 
. . . her time . . . near—though one hundred seventy-four years
distant, yet Isaiah, who is supposed to be speaking to the Jews
as if now captives in Babylon. (Is. 14:1, 2)[3]
 
This was spoken about 174 years before the destruction of
Babylon. But we are to bear in mind that the prophet is to be
supposed to be speaking to the captive Jews “in” Babylon, and
speaking to them respecting their release (see Isaiah 14:1–2;
compare remarks on the Analysis of this chapter). Thus considered,
supposing the prophet to be addressing the Jews in captivity,
or ministering consolation to them, the time was near. Or
if we suppose him speaking as in his own time, the period when
 
78 House Divided
 
Babylon was to be destroyed was at no great distance.[4]
 
Whether we consider about 174 years (from Isaiah to the fall of
Babylon) to be a short period in the lifetime of a nation or we regard
the imminence to be projected into the timeframe of those who would
be taken captive into Babylon, the time texts in Isaiah 13 give a literal,
imminent meaning. Now let us look at the second verse Mathison
referenced.
 
For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall
speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will
surely come, it will not tarry. (Hab. 2:3)
 
The imminence in this verse is qualified imminence at best. The
portion that Mathison quoted, “it will not tarry,” simply means that
the event would come at the “appointed time.” Nevertheless, the fall of
Babylon came 70 years later. Again, in the lifetime of a nation 70 years
is a relatively short time.
 
Regarding Mathison’s reference to Haggai 2:6–7, I refer the reader
to Edward Hassertt’s response in this book to Richard Pratt’s chapter in
WSTTB. Edward demonstrates that Haggai’s prophecy was fulfilled, at
least typically, within Haggai’s own generation.
 
Mathison himself seems to have some sense of the weakness of his argument.
As we saw above, he has no use for his soon-could-mean-2000-
years argument when he is interacting with futurists. Here is another example
of this. When Mathison defends his preterist interpretation of Luke
18:8 against futurists, he uses the biblical, “hyper-preterist” argument:
 
In [Luke] 18:7, Christ assures His listeners that God will not delay
long in bringing about justice for His elect. It could reasonably
be argued that two thousand years is a long delay. In verse
8, Christ assures us that God will bring about justice speedily.
Again, this would seem to indicate a fulfillment within a short
amount of time.[5]
 
Interestingly, the Greek word that Jesus used for “speedily” in Luke
 
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison 79
 
18:8 is the same word that Paul used for “soon” in Romans 16:20: “And
the God of peace will soon [shortly, speedily] crush Satan under your
feet.” To use Mathison’s argument, “This would seem to indicate a fulfillment
within a short amount of time.”
 
It comes as no surprise that Mathison, in his first three eschatological
books (including WSTTB), avoided dealing with the crushing
(breaking in pieces) of Satan in Romans 16:20—even in his “impressively
thorough”[6] book on the millennium. It was not until Mathison
wrote his fourth book on eschatology (another supposedly “meticulously
comprehensive”[7] work), that he finally broke his silence on the verse.
But even there he only brushed past the verse ambiguously. In that
812-page book, Mathison has these words on Romans 16:20:
 
He tells those whom he is greeting that God “will soon crush Satan
under your feet” (v. 20). The destruction of Satan has begun,
but it will not be completed until the final judgment.[8]
 
As we know, Paul did not say that the process of crushing Satan
would soon begin. He said that Satan would soon be crushed. Mathison’s
error here is like that of Strimple’s, who says that Adam and Eve
did not actually die in the day that they ate of the fruit, but that they only
began to die in that day (WSTTB, 317). Such doctrines bear little resemblance
to Scripture, but are merely mechanisms employed to prop
up and maintain the erroneous tradition of futurism. But I digress.
As we are beginning to see and shall see even more clearly below,
it is not altogether rare for Mathison to offer two contradictory interpretations
of one Scripture, depending on who he is refuting. He is a
preterist (near means near) when interpreting a Scripture passage with
futurists, and a futurist (near means far) when interpreting the very
same Scripture passage with preterists. To our chagrin, we often find
ourselves confronted with two Keith Mathisons.
 
As for Mathison’s anti-preterist argument that near “regularly” or
 
80 House Divided
 
“sometimes” means far in the Bible, and that the Second Coming could
therefore be a million years away—it is a non sequitur. The fact that
the Old Testament prophets used language of imminence in reference
to timeframes that were short in comparison to the lifetime of a nation
in no way implies or suggests that the prophets used language of
imminence to predict events that will take place potentially a million
years from now. There is no reasonable connection between Mathison’s
premise and his extra-biblical conclusion.



[1] Mathison moderated this extravagant claim two pages later, changing
the word “regularly” to “sometimes”: “ . . . [T]he Old Testament prophets do
sometimes speak of an event as ‘near’ that we now know to have been fulfilled
many centuries later. . . ” (204). But even in this claim Mathison exaggerates.
According to the examples he gave, when he says “many centuries,” he means,
at most, two centuries.
[2] 2. Gary DeMar, Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction (Powder Springs,
GA: American Vision, 2009), 118–120.
[3] Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R.; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; Brown,
David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments
(Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), S. Is 13:22
[4] Barnes Commentary on the Old and New Testament: http://www.onlinebible.
net/notes.html.
 
[5] Postmillennialism, 213
[6] Kenneth Gentry, from the back cover of Keith Mathison’s book Postmillennialism:
An Eschatology of Hope
[7] Derek W. H. Thomas, from the back cover of Keith Mathison’s book
From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
[8] Keith Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 585