Tag: Matthew 10:23

Introduction

Usually historic premillennialists such as D.A. Carson and amillennialists like Sam Waldron would join forces with full preterism in refuting the two-eschatological-comings theory of dispensationalists and partial preterists. Dispensationalism posits two future comings of Christ: a secret rapture followed by a visible return seven years later. Partial preterists, conversely, affirm a spiritual coming in AD 70—linked to the destruction of Jerusalem, based on texts like “some standing here,” “this generation,” and “soon”—while anticipating a final, visible return to conclude history.  Typically, amillennialists like Kim Riddlebarger and Sam Waldron would reject partial preterist interpretations positing two comings of Christ or two eschatological “ends.” However, Waldron, now aligned with Carson, has adopted a novel two-comings theory in their exegesis of Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25, diverging from traditional amillennial or historic premillennial consistency.

D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron argue that the “coming” in Matthew 10:23 refers to Christ’s spiritual coming in AD 70 with the Roman armies, distinct from an alleged future physical coming of Christ to end world history. Unlike partial preterists such as Kenneth Gentry, Keith Mathison, Doug Wilson, or Peter Leithart, neither Carson nor Waldron would identify with that brand of partial preterism which goes one step further and identifies NT imminence as also referring to Christ coming in AD 70. Yet, they face a similar challenge: justifying two distinct comings of Christ in the New Testament. Do the Gospels and NT teach two separate eschatological comings of Jesus, or a single coming fulfilled within the first-century generation?

This article critiques the inconsistent partial preterist lite exegesis of Matthew 10:17–23 by Carson and Waldron, focusing on their failure to adhere to fundamental hermeneutical principles, such as the analogy of faith (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) and recognizing the Old Testament context, particularly Jesus’ use of Daniel 7. Whether it is Carson and Waldron’s “partial preterism lite” or other forms of partial preterism that acknowledge the New Testament’s imminent time texts, both approaches erroneously posit two distinct New Testament comings of Christ and two eschatological “ends.” In contrast, the New Testament consistently describes a single second coming and a single “end” or “end of the age,” tied to Christ’s return in judgment to conclude the old covenant age in AD 70.

We agree with Futurist scholars that can see Matthew 10:17–23 encapsulates New Testament eschatology, serving as a concise parallel to Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 24–25. Scholars have identified a consistent pattern in this passage: (1) gospel preaching (v. 16ff.), (2) persecution (v. 17ff.), (3) the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit (vv. 19–20), and (4) the parousia, or second coming of Christ, ushering in the eschatological “end” (vv. 22–23). Carson and Waldron’s partial preterist acknowledgment of an AD 70 fulfillment in this text logically aligns with the New Testament’s imminent time texts pointing to AD 70. This, in turn, supports the coherence of full preterism as the consistent and Biblical eschatological framework.

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 and the end came. 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, ascension, 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:

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 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.

Daniel 7 and Matthew 10

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).

Since Jesus is drawing on Daniel 7:13-27 here in Matthew 10 and since many misinterpret Daniel 7:13 as the ascension, let me give you 5 reasons why Daniel 7 is referring to AD 70 and not the ascension event.

(1)  The Ancient of Days Brings Judgment with Fire and Myriads (7:9–10)

The judgment scene involving the Ancient of Days, who opens “the books,” is accompanied by  “stream of fire” and is attended by “ten thousand times ten thousand.” This vivid imagery aligns not with Christ’s ascension but rather with His imminent second coming. The New Testament directly links this fiery judgment scene to Christ’s coming in AD 70—after the millennium (Rev. 20:8–12; 22:7–10, 20)—rather than to events around AD 30.  The “fire” imagery fits the AD 70 context of judgment, as seen when the seventh trumpet signals fiery judgment upon the land, and old covenant Israel’s “mountain” is burned and “cast into the sea” (Rev. 8:7–8; cf. Matt. 21:18–22). Jude 14 echoes Daniel 7:10 (via 1 Enoch 1:9 and Deuteronomy 33:2), portraying Christ’s coming in judgment and salvation as a kind of second exodus.

(2)  The Beast Is Killed and Burned (7:11–12)

The destruction of the beast by fire in Daniel 7:11–12 parallels the judgment scene described in Revelation 19–20, which similarly occurs at Christ’s coming in AD 70. This event is unrelated to Christ’s ascension and instead points to judgment against the “little horn,” symbolizing apostate Israel—particularly the Zealots and the illegitimate high priest who promoted the rebellion (the “Man of Lawlessness”). Their destruction by “flaming fire” clearly aligns with Paul’s descriptions of Christ’s judgment in 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9 and 2:1–8 (cf. Dan. 7:9–13, 25–27).

(3)  The Son of Man Comes as the Ancient of Days, Worshiped by the Nations (7:13–14)

In this key passage, Daniel further develops the preceding judgment scene, depicting the Messiah—the Son of Man—coming “as the Ancient of Days” [cf. the OG LXX] on the clouds in AD 70. There is no contextual break from separating this event from the judgment described in verses 9–12. Rather, Christ comes via the Roman armies within His own generation, accompanied by the trumpet’s sound, to raise the dead and consummate the kingdom (Matt. 24:30–34; 25:31–46; Dan. 7:14–27). Revelation 10-11 confirms the imminence (“no more delay”) of this trumpet blast, when the dead are judged, the kingdom arrives, and the nations worship Christ as King (Rev. 11:15–18; Dan. 7:14–27). This seventh trumpet, acknowledged by partial preterists as sounding in AD 70, corresponds precisely to the “last trumpet” of 1 Corinthians 15 and the resurrection trumpet in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.

(4)  Further Clarification on Verses 1–14 (7:15–27)

Daniel seeks clarity (vv. 15–17) regarding the vision he had just seen (vv. 1–14), receiving recapitulation of the same judgment. A new detail emerges severe persecution of the saints—beginning after AD 30 and intensifying around AD 62–63— which precedes the “appointed time” of their inheritance of the kingdom at the Messiah’s cloud-coming (Dan. 7:21–27; cf. Matt. 10:17–23; Mark 13:11–13; Luke 21:27–32). The “little horn’s” judgment (vv. 9–11) is restated in verses 21–26, linking the “appointed time” and the “three-and-a-half years” to the eschatological “end” detailed in Daniel 9:26–27 (LXX) and Daniel 12:4–7 (LXX).

Here is a chart demonstrating the recapitulation of Daniel 2, 7, 9:24-27 and 12 as referring to Christ’s second coming and resurrection and judgment of the dead taking place at the same “appointed time of the end” of the old covenant age in AD 70:

(5)  Daniel 7 and the Analogy of Faith

Both Jesus (Matthew 10:17-23; Matthew 16:27-28; Matthew 24–26) and John (Revelation 1:1, 3, 7), when referencing Daniel 7:13, clearly depict an imminent judgment occurring within their contemporary generation, marking the close of the old covenant age in AD 70. These NT references cannot refer to Christ’s ascension around AD 30, since Christ does not ascend to the Father on a cloud; rather, He descends in the lifetime of the first century church “soon” to judge Jerusalem making the “tribes of the land” of Israel who “crucified” Him “mourn” in the events of AD 67 – 70!

While we commend D.A. Carson, Sam Waldron, and many postmillennial partial preterists such as Kenneth Gentry for interpreting the “coming” of Christ in Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70, they fail to consistently apply this exegesis by connecting it to Daniel 7 and Matthew 24–25, where the same second coming event is described. Some partial preterists affirm that the “coming” in both Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:30 refers to AD 70 but claim the “coming” in Matthew 25:31 is a future event. However, in Matthew 10:23, Matthew 24:30, and Matthew 25:31, Jesus fulfills the “coming” prophesied in Daniel 7:13. Where in Daniel 7:13 is there evidence of two distinct comings of Jesus separated by thousands of years? Moreover, the “coming” in Matthew 25:31 recapitulates the coming discussed in Matthew 24:3, 27, and 30. When the disciples ask 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, which also fulfills Daniel 7:13? Why would the disciples or Jesus have the end of world history in mind when Jesus teaches that the disciples would experience the “end” at His coming within their lifetimes? Furthermore, isn’t the “end” and “three and a half years” connected to the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13, 25–26 the same “end” and “three and a half years” mentioned in Daniel 9:26–27 and Daniel 12:4, 7, tied to “the war” that results in Jerusalem’s “desolation” and “shattering” between AD 67 and AD 70? Carson and Waldron fall short in their hermeneutics and exegesis, failing to harmonize their AD 70 interpretation of Matthew 10:17–23 with Matthew 24–25 and for obvious reasons do not develop the Old Testament source texts for Christ’s “coming” and the “end” 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

Neither premillennialist D.A. Carson nor amillennialist Sam Waldron adequately applies the analogy of faith in their preterist interpretation of Jesus’ “coming” in Matthew 10:23, which they tie to AD 70. They do not sufficiently connect this passage to the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13–27 or harmonize it with Jesus’ teachings on His “coming” in Matthew 16:27–28, or His “coming” and “end” of Matthew 24–25, where He predicts His return within the lifetime of His first-century disciples to close out the “end” of their old covenant age in AD 70.  The reason they can’t harmonize Christ’s “coming” and “end” with Daniel 7, 9:26-27, 12:4, is because both Daniel and Jesus only prophesy ONE second coming and ONE “appointed time of the end” and that would be fulfilled in AD 70.

Furthermore, they offer no coherent explanation linking their preterist reading of Matthew 10:17–23 to the imminent second coming of Christ as described by NT authors with terms like “soon,” “near,” and “in a very, very little while and will not delay.”  Partial preterism lite of Carson and Waldron effectively goes nowhere just like its inconsistent partial preterist bigger brother promoted through R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Doug Wilson, Keith Mathison, Peter Leithart, etc…  Full preterism uniquely harmonizes Matthew 10:17–23 with its Old Testament foundations (Dan. 7; 9:24–27; 12:1–13) and the New Testament’s consistent teaching of Christ’s first-century return in AD 70 (Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25; 26:64–65; Phil. 4:5; Jas. 5:7–8; Heb. 9:26–28; 10:37; Rev. 1:1, 3, 7; 22:6–7, 10, 20). By employing the analogy of faith, it integrates these texts into a cohesive eschatological framework centered on the truly imminent fulfillment found in the events of AD 70.

Debate Challenge to Sam Waldron

^[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.