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.
 

TLB Show Matthew 24:35-36ff. End of Planet Earth Change of Subject? "Heaven and earth will pass away…" "But of that day and hour…"

Most agree that Matthew 24:1-34 contain the fall of Jerusalem, but do verses 35-36ff. indicate a change of subject to another coming of Christ to end and renew planet earth?  We and other Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon and Keith Mathison argue “no.”  But then does it follow from these Partial Preterists that Jesus didn’t have much to say about His Second Coming in Matthew’s gospel?  Tune in and study with William Bell and myself as we tackle these issues with a grammatical historical hermeneutic.

The Living Body Show Matthew 24:30-34 The Second Coming and Resurrection/Gathering in Jesus' "This Generation"

Mike Sullivan and William Bell wrap up their series on what theologians have called, “The Big Three” (Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:34).  Did Jesus in fact predict that His Second Coming, end of the age, de-creation and resurrection would occur within some of the lifetimes of His contemporary audience or in their “this generation”?  Tune in and you be a Beren and be the judge.

Exposing and Refuting Sam’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 2: ​Cherry-Picking John Calvin ​& "Verily I Say Unto You"

Exposing and Refuting Sam’s Sloppy “Exegesis” of Matthew 16:27-28 Part 2:

Cherry-Picking John Calvin & “Verily I Say Unto You”

By Michael J. Sullivan

In part one of this refutation we examined Sam Frost’s inability to even cite or mention let alone  interact at all with passages that reformed theologians (along with Full Preterists) consider parallel passages or same time eschatological events to Matthew 16:27 such as Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31ff.  Then these teachings of Christ on His Second Coming and judgment are then the foundation upon which the Apostle Paul develops them in 1 Thess. 4:15—5:11/1 Cor. 15:23-24, 51-52.  Frost attempted to downplay these powerful parallel passages by not mentioning them and acting as if paralleling these as the same events were something unique to Full Preterism or Dispensational “Left Behind” hermeneutics.  I of course pointed out how absurd and inaccurate this was.  We also examined how Partial Preterists on a regular basis parallel their Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24-25 with other NT passages in order to refute Dispensationalism, but then fail to address the parallels between Matt. 24-25/1 Thess. 4:15—5:11 or say Matt. 25:31-46/Rev. 20:10-15.          
We shall now turn our attention to other aspects of Sam’s article. 
Sam writes,
Step One: Harmony
Luke 9.26-27 states, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my saying, of him likewise will the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come  in his own majesty, and in the majesty of his Father, and of the holy angels. 27. And I say to you, There truly are some standing here who will not taste death, till they see the kingdom of God.”
Instead of “the son of man coming in his kingdom” we find, “the kingdom of God”.  This may or may not have significance in terms of emphasis on the meaning of Matthew‘s “son of man coming in his kingdom”.  We will consider the Greek text in a moment.
Mark 8.38-9.1 reads, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him likewise will the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 1. And he said to them, Verily, I say to you, There are some among those who stand here that will not taste death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”
Here we have yet a third rendering, “kingdom of God come with power.”  Is seeing the kingdom of God, have seen the kingdom of God come in power, and the son of man coming in his kingdom all equatable terms?  If so, which one has the emphasis of meaning?  That is, is “seeing the kingdom of God” the same as “the son of man coming in his kingdom”, where the emphasis is on kingdom instead of the the coming of the son of man?  What is meant, then, by the coming of the son of man?  That I am be frivilous here over the details is countered by eminent scholar, Krister Stendahl (Harvard), who asks, “But coming in what sense”?, in noting the variations here.  We will note the Commentaries in a moment as well.
Well, yes there are parallel accounts to Matthew 16:27-28 in Mark and Luke with slight variations.  This of course proves nothing.  So let’s move on:
Step Two: The Greek Text
As with any thorough exegesis, we must consult the Greek text together with any differing manuscripts (copies) that have come down to us to the present time.  In Mat we have an issue with “works” over the other consideration, “deeds”.  Not really a gigantic problem.  Mark has “with” instead of Luke‘s “and” in the phrase, “with the holy angels”/”and of the holy angels”.  Again, not a large problem.  The sense of the text is not lost once we can recover the sense, and it is here that the real problem occurs: the variations of the phrases, “son of man coming in his kingdom”, “see the kingdom of God” and “have seen the kingdom of God come with power”.  I will consider other aspects of syntax in the Commentary section.
First Sam says there isn’t a problem then he claims there is.  As in “Step One” there is nothing here even worth responding to. Sam goes on:
Step Three: Asking the Right Possible Questions
As with any exegesis, asking the right questions is key.  With Stendahl has already asked one: “coming in what sense?”  Secondly, although it is obvious (and everyone agrees) that whatever Jesus is speaking of here was to “come” within the time span of those “standing” there at the time of Jesus’ utterance (roughly 31-33 AD), the nature of this “coming” and “seeing” is what is targeted.  Is this a single event?  Would it be a series of events?  Would it be an event with an inaugural consideration (that is, in Greek, ingressive).  For example, Calvin commented: “By the coming of the kingdom of God we are to understand the manifestation of heavenly glory, which Christ began to make at his resurrection, and which he afterwards made more fully by sending the Holy Spirit, and by the performance of miracles; for by those beginnings he gave his people a taste of the newness of the heavenly life, when they perceived, by certain and undoubted proofs, that he was sitting at the right hand of the Father.”  Taken all together, Calvin understood that these several events (resurrection, ascension, sending of the Spirit, miracles of the Apostles, et al) represents the ways in which the kingdom of God came with “power” – the coming of the son of man in his kingdom.  In other words, AD 70 is not even in consideration here.
We must ask, though, more questions.  What is meant by “rewarding each person according to his deeds”?  Surely, contests the Hyper Preterist, this is an end time event?  And, here, he would be able to appeal to a usual modern, Christian, cultural way of understanding this expression innundated with Left Behind popularizations.  This assumes, however, that the cultural understanding is the biblical understanding, and we must always be careful not to reread our culture back into the texts.  The Christian has normally heard (popularly) that the “rewards” of the saints that happens only once, only at one time: at the end of the world and the final judgment.  This is supposedly supported by appealing to Revelation 20:11-15 where we find, indeed, “they were judged, each man, according to his works” (not quite the same phrase as “rewarded”).  Then, on top of this, it is assumed that this event in Rev is the same event as spoken of here since, as I have already pointed out, the same language is used.  But, to jump from Mat to Rev based on a string of words, then to say, they must be talking about the same thing is a logical leap with several steps missing!  That’s what Hyper Pretersists do a lot: take huge hurdles.
However, it is a good question since it is raised within the popular understanding of “final judgement”.  The Hyper Preterist wants you to think, then, that Jesus is unequivocally saying here: “some of you standing here before me will not die until the Final Judgement has happened!”  But, is this the true (or only) sense of the passage?  The fact that the Hyper Preterist is confident that it is does not make it true.  The fact that he or she can even make some sort of exegetical case (based on popular understandings) that it is does not make it true.  I can make a case for baptismal regeneration.  It doesn’t make it true, says the Reformed, who can make a case for infant baptism.  And so on.
First, as I pointed out in part 1 and in the introduction to this article our culture or “Left Behindism” has nothing to do with how the reformed historic Christian Church has connected Matt. 16:27 with the Second Coming and final judgment at the end of the age in Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:1-3; Matt. 24:30-31—25:31-46; Rev. 20:10-15, 22:10-12.  Sam is just not being honest here and his desperation is more than glaring.  Even John Calvin whom Frost cherry-picks and appeals to in Matt. 16:28 (but not verse 27) makes these same kind of Full Preterist connections.  Was Calvin guilty of being influenced by “Left Behind” eschatology and hermeneutics as Frost charges the Full Preterist?  Per Frost he must have been influenced by a view that wasn’t even invented yet!
Secondly, Sam (nor Calvin whom he cherry picks on v. 28 and not on v. 27) deals with Jesus’ phrase, “Verily I say unto you” in the beginning of Matt. 16:28a. which He uses to connect and emphasize a subject already being discussed.  In other words Christ in verse 28 is bringing home the point and teaching of v. 27 with an additional important and startling point – some of you will be alive to witness this very coming (that He just discussed in v. 27)!  So exegetically, this statement connects the two comings as one, so whatever your understanding of Christ’s coming is in verse 27 is the proper understanding one should have in v. 28.  Since the phrase connects the two comings as the same event, it is interesting that Sam doesn’t want to deal with this issue in connection with quoting Calvin on the “coming” in Matt. 16:28 while neglecting to address what he says of Christ’s coming in v. 27:
“…he shall appear as the judge of the world.” 
For Calvin, this is the final Second Coming event.  Interestingly enough Calvin also interprets Matthew 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3 in the same way:
Then will the righteous shine. What a remarkable consolation! The sons of God, who now lie covered with dust, or are held in no estimation, or even are loaded with reproaches, will then shine in full brightness, as when the sky is serene, and every cloud has been dispelled. The adverb then (τοτε) is emphatic; for it contains an implied contrast between their present state and the ultimate restoration, by the expectation of which Christ animates those who believe in him. The meaning therefore is, Though many wicked men now hold a high rank in the Church, yet that blessed day is assuredly to be expected, when the Son of God shall raise his followers on high,…”
Calvin also takes the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31 as the same coming as Matt. 16:27:
“…therefore he declares that he will appear openly at his last coming and, surrounded by the heavenly power,”
Of the “redemption” associated to this coming and gathering of the angels in Luke 21:27-28 Calvin writes,
It is therefore called here (as in #Ro 8:23) redemption; because we shall then obtain truly and perfectly the consequences of the deliverance obtained through Christ. Let our ears therefore be awake to the sound of the angel’s trumpet, which will then sound, not only to strike the reprobate with the dread of death, but to arouse the elect to a second life; that is, to call to the enjoyment of life those whom the Lord now quickens by the voice of his Gospel; for it is a sign of infidelity, to be afraid when the Son of God comes in person for our salvation.
Again, Sam is “cherry picking” Calvin and according to Frost Calvin is guilty of our “modern” “cultural” “Left Behindism” before it ever came into being since like the Full Preterist he takes these comings of Christ as His Second Coming or the judgment/resurrection event to close the age.      
Perhaps Sam does not want to challenge that “Verily I say unto you” is linking the two comings in vss. 27-28 as the same event(s)?  It seems to me that he wants to consistently interpret the coming of Christ in vss. 27-28 as the same coming and yet different at the same time throwing everything at the passage hoping something will stick:  1) Jesus allegedly comes (?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with angels(?) in the resurrection event(?), 2)  Jesus allegedly comes/goes(?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with the angels(?) in the ascension(?), 3)  Jesus allegedly comes(?) in judgment(?) on the clouds(?) with angels(?) at Pentecost.  Where in the depictions of Jesus’ resurrection, ascension, or Pentecost do we see Jesus described as coming on the clouds with angels to judge and reward all men?  Desperate men make desperate “arguments.” 
Thirdly, Sam claims, Full Preterists “…jump from Mat to Rev based on a string of words, then to say, they must be talking about the same thing is a logical leap with several steps missing!”  Actually, I don’t do this in our book or my online article in covering Matt. 16:27-28.  I develop my exegesis within Matthew’s gospel and in Jesus’ teachings first before going to Revelation.  But as we will see , Sam no less “jumps from Matthew 16:27-28 to Revelation 5” hoping to develop Christ coming in his ascension theory, instead of where everyone else goes when they get to the book – Revelation 20:11-15 or 22:10-12.  But we will cover Sam’s desperation in Revelation 5 shortly.  
Conclusion:
As the reader can see in Frost’s article he cherry-picks John Calvin on the “coming” of Christ in Matt. 16:28 – leaving out his view of the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 16:27; Matt. 24:30-1/Luke 21:27-28.  Calvin nor Frost deals with the exegetical argument of the Full Preterist that Jesus’ phrase of “Verily I say unto you” links the same subject matter of v. 27 with v. 28.  In other words the “about to” coming of the Son of Man in v. 27 is the same coming of Christ in v. 28 which would take place within some of the disciples lifetimes. 
In part 3 we will examine Frost’s theory that the coming of the Son of Man in both Matt. 16:27-28 was fulfilled at the ascension “coming” in AD 30 – giving specific attention to Revelation 5 which is where Frost’s article leads his readers.  According to Sam’s theory, this is apparently when Christ took the scroll and began opening the seals judging and rewarding all men.  However, Christ taking the scroll and opening the seals is not AD 30, but rather a depiction of Christ coming in judgment  – pointing the reader to His imminent Second Coming when He begins opening the seals judging and rewarding from roughly AD 66 – 70 (cf. Rev. 22:6-7, 10-12).
 

The Living Body Show W/ William Bell – Matt. 5:17-18; 8:11-12; 10:17-23; 13:40-43

One of the best shows we have had so far – you don’t want to miss it!  We began to study the first of what theologians have called “The Big Three” (Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:34).  Listen and pass it along to your friends.

Seven Brief Points Which Prove The Full Preterist View of the Millennium of Revelation 20 is Exegetical and Orthodox

Seven Brief Points Which Prove The Full Preterist View of the Millennium of Revelation 20 is Exegetical and Orthodox

By:  Michael J. Sullivan

1)  Reformed Partial Preterist author Kenneth Gentry in his writings informs us that the book of Revelation is about things which were in the past, present, and things which were “about to be” fulfilled in John’s day (Rev. 1:19 YLT). Therefore, there is no exegetical evidence to support that Revelation 20 does not fall within these inspired time indicators.  In fact even Gentry’s reformed peers understand that if one interpret the imminent time texts at the beginning and end to be referring to AD 70, then everything is fulfilled by AD 70, “But 1:3 and 22:10 are like bookends enclosing the whole prophecy of Revelation. The fulfillment of everything, not just a part, is near.”  (Vern S. Poythress, THE RETURNING KING A GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Company, 2000) 34).

2)  As G.K. Beale has reminded us, it is reformed and orthodox to believe that the thousand years is not just a symbolic number, but is one that does not have to be taken to describe a long time (ie. thousands of years etc…):  “The primary point of the thousand years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time…” (Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (1018). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.)

3).  It has also been acknowledged by reformed theologians Such as Beale when approaching the millennium of Revelation 20, that many Rabbis believed that the period of Messiah was to be only 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 (Beale, ibid., 1018-1019; see also, A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, 356).  This type/anti-type understanding and same kind of “this generation” or “in a very little while” time frame of “another day” approaching in which the “better” heavenly land/city/resurrection would be inherited or take place is developed for us in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14YLT).  And as we have noted from reformed Partial Preterists such as Joel McDurmon or Gary DeMar, it is within the realm of reformed orthodoxy to believe that Jesus’ and Paul’s “this age/world” was the OC age and that the “age/world to come” refers to a transition period between the OC age and the NC age (ie. between AD 30 – AD 70).

4).  As the imminent time texts point to a fulfillment of Revelation 20, so does the recapitulation or parallel structure of Revelation point an AD 70 fulfillment for the millennium.  Reformed Partial Preterists such as Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan correctly teach us 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 yet Amillennialists such as G.K. Beale, Robert Strimple and Simon Kistemaker correctly teach that Revelation 20:5-15 simply recapitulates these verses and themes or are paralleled to the same events related to the same judgment and consummation scenes depicted in chapters 1-19 and 21-22. We hold to both of these reformed and common sense “orthodox” positions in interpreting the book of Revelation and this becomes relevant in our discussion of the millennium of Revelation 20.  Revelation 20 is not an isolated island standing away from the time texts or from the structure the book was written in.

5).  In criticizing the Premillennial view which often seeks to isolate Revelation 20 from the rest of the NT, the Amillennial and Postmillennial views hold that Revelation 20 falls within the “already and not yet” of the “last days” period in the NT.  Or this transition period can be found in the parable of the wheat and tares or the time frame leading up to the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25.  But as we have seen, it is “orthodox” to believe the “last days” ended with the OC age in AD 70, and that harvest gathering and coming of Christ in Matthew 13 and Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled by AD 70 (cf. the writings of and combinations found in Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Peter Leithart, Keith A. Mathison, etc…).

6).  Consider the following:

a. if it is true that Matthew 24 – 25 cannot be divided and the coming of Christ and judgment in these chapters refer to AD 70 (Gary DeMar/Joel McDurmon and Keith Mathison or it is “possible” that they do ie. Kenneth Gentry) and…
b.  if “John’s version of Matthew 24-25 is found in the book of Revelation” (Gary DeMar) and…
c.  if it is true that Matthew 24:27-31—25:31ff. is descriptive of the one and end of the age  Second Coming, judgment and resurrection event as is Rev. 20:5-15 (the classic Amillennial or creedal position) and…
d.  if it is hermeneutically valid to “parallel” Matthew 24-25 material with the book of Revelation, then Partial Preterism along with the classic Amillennial view have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years 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) 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).  Consider the following:

a.  if the judgment (opening of the book), resurrection, time of the end of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 was fulfilled by AD 70 (Partial Preterism Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan) and…
b.  if the judgment (opening of the book), resurrection, time of the end of Daniel 12:1-4, 13 is the same eschatological time of the end events as described for us in Revelation 20:5-15 (classic Amillennial view) and…
c.  if “John in the book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off” (Partial Preterism John Lightfoot, Gary DeMar, James Jordan) and “parallels” between Daniel 12 and Revelation 20 are hermeneutically valid to make (classic Amillennialism), then once again Partial Preterism along with classic Amillennialism have some explaining to do in that their views form the “this generation” forty years 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 AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” millennial view is:
1). consistent with the teaching of Revelation itself,
2)  falls within the “orthodox” views of the Reformed church,
3)  is in line with the analogy of Scripture and
4)  offers historical support from many Rabbis whom promoted a forty years transitional period between the two ages.
Our view on the millennium is both exegetically sound and orthodox. Finding support for the Full Preterist view of the millennium is not as difficult as many  portray it – selah.

Commentary on Revelation Chapters 8 – 12

THE UNVEILING OF JESUS
REVELATION 8-12 
 

 

 
A Layman and Scholar’s Guide to Interpreting
The Book of Revelation  
 
By: Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright 2008-04-08

 
 
 
 

Revelation 8 – 11 

 

We now embark upon the third vision. In chapter eight we are informed that the opening of the seventh seal involves the judgment described here as the blowing of seven trumpets. Among other Old Testament typological and prophetic passages, apostate Jerusalem’s fall is following the pattern of the seven trumpets blown by Israel in which Jericho fell at her feet Joshua 6.
Many commentators such as Kistemaker miss the significance of the “silence” for the length of a half an hour in Revelation 8:1. I would concur with others that this is corresponding to the work of the priest in the temple. G.K. Beale following Sweet, Chilton, and Edersheim writes,
Silence in relation to the temple liturgy. The Mishnah’s explanation of the background of the liturgy of the daily sacrifice in the temple makes even more cogent the association of prayer with the silence in Rev. 8:1 (cf. m. Tamid). The order of the service roughly resembled the order of some of the significant images in the Apocalypse: (1) trimming of the seven lamps (Revelation 1-3), (2) slaying of the sacrificial lamb (Rev. 5:6), (3) pouring of the sacrificial blood at the base of the altar (Rev. 6:9), (4) offering of incense, during a time of silence and prayer (so Luke 1:10; cf. Rev. 8:1, 4-5), (5) the burnt offering and drink offering (Rev. 16:1) together with the sounding of the trumpets (Rev. 8:6), and (6) singing of psalms (19:1-8).”[1] Chilton following Milton Terry, suggests it took the priest roughly a half an hour to perform these duties and then return to the praying congregation.[2] The final trumpet blast in chapter 11, marks the time of the judgment of “the dead” and the rewarding of the righteous. The righteous are no longer under the altar 6:10-11 but now enter and inherit the Most Holy Place. This is depicted through the imagery of the ark being revealed in verses 18-19. In Hebrews 9-11, when Jesus as the High Priest appeared out of the heavenly temple a “second time,” at the end of the old-covenant age in an “at hand” and in a “very little while,” time frame, is when all of the new covenant “better” and “true” promises were realized – including the “better resurrection.” Throughout Revelation, when old-covenant Jerusalem–the great harlot city falls, this marks the time for the judgment and resurrection of the dead to take place.

Revelation 8
 

In chapter eight we have the scene of the prayers of the saints for vindication upon their enemies earlier depicted in 6:10-11 beginning to be answered in the “in a little while” time frame. Their imprecatory prayers result in God sending an angel to take fire from the altar in which he hurls it from heaven to burn a third the land. Kistemaker connects this fiery judgment with Luke 12:49 and I would add to that the message of John’s baptism of fire and the burning of the elements to the mix of this fiery judgment Matthew 3:2-12; 2 Peter 3. But obviously this de-creation burning is not affecting the entire globe but only a “third” of the land. Gentry takes a literal interpretation quoting Josephus in reference to the storms, burning of the land, and the blood and dead bodies in the waters surrounding Palestine during the Jewish/Roman war.[3] Chilton also understood some of this language to be a literal description of war but also left open the possibility of the grass and trees representing some of God’s elect.[4] However one understands the tribulation and judgment of the third of the land of Israel here, this de-creation language is to be parallel with that of Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6 and is describing the falling of the religious and civil powers of Jerusalem by A.D. 70.
The mountain burning with fire of which is thrown into the sea in 8:8 was addressed by Jesus in His cursing apostate Israel in the form of the withering of the fig tree. Jesus then gets the disciples involved in teaching them how to pray in removing and cursing Israel using the figure of removing a mountain through the use of imprecatory prayers in Matthew 21:18-22. Through old-covenant Jerusalem’s apostasy, they had become a destroying mountain persecuting the elect among the new covenant Israel. Like Babylon and Egypt whom had persecuted old-covenant Israel in the Old Testament, their fall and punishments for persecuting the new Israel of God, would now be wielded out upon them as their enemies had been dealt with before (Ex. 7; Isa. 19; Jer. 51; Isa. 14:3-12). Again, the darkness of the sun, moon and stars is referring to the civil and religious rulers of old-covenant Jerusalem whom rejected their Messiah and the prophets He had sent to her and now their lights (authorities) are turned out and cast to the ground.
Many such as Kistemaker do not make these simple connections to these texts and although a third of the land is being destroyed, they continue to claim this chapter is describing “a coming cosmic catastrophe that will affect the whole surface of the earth.” All of Jesus’ parables surrounding this section (Matthew 21-25) have to do with the judgment and fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is at this time the kingdom was taken away from apostate Israel and completely given over and transferred to the Church in redemptive history (Mt. 21:33-45).

Revelation 9
 

Chapter nine continues the blowing of the fifth trumpet which describes the same judgment, but now introducing the Abyss motif. In Matthew 12 Jesus delivers a man from demon possession and is then accused by the religious rulers that He is done this through the power of Beelzebub. Jesus informs these children of the devil, that He in fact is plundering the strong man (and by extension their “fathers”) “house” (Mt. 12:22-30) through this process. In verse 43-45 Jesus uses this on an individual level with corporate overtones involving an exhortation of their “this generation” to repent or God will send seven more spirits to torment the man’s “house.” Gentry quoting F.F. Bruce notes that within 40 years of their generation, “Titus began the siege of Jerusalem in April, 70. The defenders held out desperately for five months, but by the end of August the temple area was occupied and the holy house burned down” (cf. Wars 5).”[5] However, commentators have pointed out that the common lifespan of the locust is five months–from May to September. Josephus in Wars 5 describes how the wicked Jews refused to repent during this time period and desired death in the midst of famine and starvation.
Gentry sees verse 14-16 describing the angels participating in the judgment who were seen in the sky riding upon chariots during the siege citing Josephus, a Jewish historian and Tacitus, a Roman historian. He also sees the description found in verse 17 as the four Roman legions of soldiers that had been sent to the west side of Jerusalem,
“Here we discover the implements of the fiery destruction that Jerusalem will undergo from the Roman’s armored horsemen, iron-plated towers, battering rams, and catapults, producing their fire and smoke (a description of the Roman armament appears in Wars 3.5.2, 5-6; 6.2).”[6] Despite John’s focus on the third of the land being the subject and Revelation following the tribulation and wrath that would come upon that generation through the Roman armies, sensationalist “prophecy experts” such as Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith claim Revelation 9:16-19 is describing a global catastrophe involving the alleged future invasion of China’s boasted 2 million strong military force. This section is also an alleged description of modern day warfare John is attempting to describe using first century language. John is alleged to be describing attack Cobra helicopters, missiles, and modern day warfare technology.[7] Then of course there is the “out of this world” “interpretation” of Charles Ryrie whom claimed John is trying to describe a U.F.O. war machine![8] Of the alleged reference here to China’s 2 million army invasion Chuck Smith sensationally knows this is the army in view and writes,
“We are speaking here of a huge army of two hundred million. Do you realize how impossible this was until recent times? How cold any nation or combination of nations in the world field an army of two hundred million people? It was only in 1860 that the earth reached a population of one billion Even if every available man alive at the time of John’s writing had been mustered, they couldn’t have fielded an army of two hundred million.

Today China boasts that she’s able to put an army of two hundred million on the field. Isn’t that an interesting figure? Why didn’t China say 150 million or 175 million or 201 million? Time magazine reported that China declares that she can now field an army of two hundred million. And John sees this great army.[9] As usual Smith looks to contemporary newspaper headlines and Time Magazine to interpret the Olivet discourse and the Book of Revelation for him instead of allowing the Bible to interpret itself! A more Biblical approach would be to understand the doubling of the myriads of myriads to be referring to an innumerable or “too many to count” reference as in 5:11 and 7:9. This is the majority opinion among the commentators from a wide rage of eschatological views, and one we would agree with,
The symbol is, no doubt, chosen to signify power, of which horsemen or cavalry are an emblem. Were two hundred thousand thousand; or, twice myriads of myriads (of. Jude 14–16, which is a quotation from Enoch; also Dan. 7:10). The number is, of course, not to be taken literally, but as signifying an exceeding great multitude. [10]
G.K. Beale notes that the number “twice ten thousand” does not occur in Biblical literature elsewhere but writes without exception,
“…(“ten thousand”) designates an incalculable immensity wherever it is used without any numerical adjective. In the LXX the plural also has a figurative connotation of an innumerable, indefinite host (Gen. 24:60; Lev. 26:8; Num. 10:35[36]; Deut. 23:30; 33:2, 17; 1 Kgs. 18:7-8; 21:12[11]; Ps. 3:7[6]; Cant. 5:10; Sir. 47:6; Mic. 6:7; Dan. 7:10; in Ps. 90[91]:7 the singular is used figuratively). Noteworthy is 1 En. 40:1, where a figurative meaning is explicitly stated as a development of Dan. 7:10 (“ten thousands of ten thousands,” to which Rev. 5:11 also alludes): “I saw thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand, I saw a multitude beyond number and reckoning” (cf. 1 En. 60:1;…” “…The same is true in other early Jewish and Christian writings (Philo, De Agricltura 35, 113; Josephus, Ant. 7.318; 1 En. 1:9; 14:22; Sib. Or.4.139; Luke 12:1; Acts 21:20; Heb. 12:22; Jude 14; 1 Clemet 34:6.” “…Therefore, a figurative meaning is demanded by a literal translation of the number, since its plural forms leave it too indefinitely stated to be calculated precisely…”[11] We prefer to stick to a grammatical historical hermeneutic that allows the Bible to interpret itself in these matters rather than Time Magazine! What we have here is a description of a multitude of demonic forces influencing the Roman armies to attack Jerusalem. Chilton gives a concise summary of this chapter,
“Thus, to sum up the idea: An innumerable army is advancing upon Jerusalem from the Euphrates, the origin of Israel’s traditional enemies; it is a fierce, hostile, demonic force sent by God in answer to His people’s prayers for vengeance. In short, this army is the fulfillment of all the warnings in the law and the prophets of an avenging horde sent to punish the Covenant-breakers. The horrors described in Deuteronomy 28 were to be visited upon this evil generation (see especially verses 49—68). Moses had declared: You shall be driven mad by the sight of what you see (Deut. 28:34).[12] Indeed the fulfillment of all that the Old Testament prophets had predicted as far as salvation for the elect and judgment upon Jerusalem would no longer be delayed as we learn in the following chapter.

Revelation 10

As there was a brief intermission or parenthesis between the opening of the sixth and seventh seals in describing the judgment scene upon old-covenant Jerusalem, so there is a parenthesis here between the sixth and seventh trumpets which involves the angel with the little scroll and the two witnesses which take up sections 10:1-11:13. In chapter ten we are introduced to an angel standing on the land and the sea preaching the gospel. We are told this involves the fulfillment or “accomplishment” of the “mystery of God” as revealed and predicted by the “prophets” in verses 1-7. The sounding the trumpet carries with it the concept of warning and the need to repent. In Biblical imagery, the land represents Israel and the sea the Gentiles. This corresponds to the “mystery” as far as the gospel is the union of both Jew and Gentile “in Christ” (Rms. 11:25; 16:25; 1Cor. 2:7; 15:51; Ephs. 1-3; 5-6; Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; 1Tim. 3:9, 16). Here we are having a flash back to the period of the great commissions fulfillment described for us in (Mt.24:14; 28:18-20/Mrk. 16:15-18; Acts 1:7-8; 2:5 à Cols. 1:5-6, 23-24; Rms. 10:18; 16:25-26). This is now taking place just before the end of the old-covenant age right before the judgment of Jerusalem in A.D. 66-70.
Gentry in his writings gives very little attention to Relation 10 but does write, “Revelation promises there will no longer be “delay” (10:6). The ad hoc nature of the book demands a preterist approach.”[13] Mathison states, “With the destruction of the temple, the mystery will be finished (Eph. 3:4-6).[14] What Gentry and Mathison do not want to address here is that Revelation 10:7 and Jesus in Luke 21:22, are clearly teaching that ALL prophecy (of the Old Testament prophets [which foretold the judgment & resurrection] and New Testament prophets) would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation” and would not be delayed! Mathison quotes (Eph. 3:4-6) in connection with the fulfillment of the “mystery” here in Revelation 10, but our text is concerned with the consummative and maturing fulfillment of this mystery. The point is that the “heirs” were about to receive the “glory” the prophets foretold and the reception of the resurrection and new creation (Rms. 8:17-23 YLT; Rev. 20-22) is the context here.
Chilton even before converting to the preterist view understood to some degree that this chapter introduces us to the first great “climax of the prophecy” as “…declared to be completed with the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet…” “…it is a day of creating heaven and earth and consummating a temple of God…” “The sounding of the seventh angel will be the irrefutable sign that the promised New Creation, the New Covenant, is an accomplished fact. The great mystery of God—the completion and filling of His new and final Temple – will have been revealed to the world (11:15-19).” And again connecting 10:6-7 with 11:15 Chilton writes, “in conformity with the Biblical pattern uniting the ideas of Sabbath and consummation, the Trumpet of the seventh angel announces that “the mystery of God has been fulfilled and accomplished (cf. 10:6-7).”[15] The consummation of prophecy through the prophets is what is in view here and partial preterists such as Mathison and Gentry need to stop “adding” to the prophecy of Revelation. There is no “inaugurating” another great commission, end of another age, which allegedly climaxes in the passing of another “first creation” at another second coming to end time per their views. Revelation knows of no such modern creedally imposed concepts.

Revelation 11
 

This chapter has been admitted by all eschatological views to be one of the more difficult chapters of Revelation to interpret. After becoming a Preterist, David Chilton admitted to me that while working on his commentary on Revelation it was a relatively easy project until he reached chapter 11. This is because we enter into the subject of the judgment of “the dead” and through symbolism and apocalyptic hyperbole and metaphor the corporate body is described by the two witnesses. The other difficulty for creedal and partial preterist view is that the resurrection is involved because it is the blowing of the seventh final trumpet in connection with the judgment of “the dead” which the majority of commentators are correct to parallel with the blowing the trumpet in Matthew 24, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. For the Reformed partial preterist, it becomes even more difficult when trying to reconcile an A.D. 70 fulfillment coming of the Lord with the recapitulation and parallel structure of the book as it clearly is only dealing with one judgment and resurrection of the dead being inseparably linked to Christ’s imminent coming to vindicate these first century martyrs.
a)      The measuring of the temple.  
For some dispenstational “prophecy experts,” such as my former Pastor Chuck Smith, the measuring of the temple is supposed to be proof of a supposed re-built temple coming in our generation that starts up Israel’s last days prophetic time clock again. This again is supposed to mark the nearness of the churches “rapture,”
“The Jews will rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. This could happen during the first half of the great Tribulation period. When the church is taken out and God again deals with Israel during this last seven-year period, the Antichrist will make a covenant with the nation of Israel, but in the midst of the seven year period he’ll break that covenant (Daniel 9:27). I believe that in this covenant the Antichrist will permit Israel to move ahead and rebuild their temple.
At the present time the Jews are making excavations under what is commonly called the Mosque of Omar.”[16] John MacArthur agrees that this is dealing with another rebuilt temple in our future, “A rebuilt temple will exist during the time of the Tribulation (Dan. 9:27; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4).[17]  

Kistemaker understands the measuring of the temple here to be referring spiritually to the church and not to the physical temple in Jerusalem that would be trampled in A.D. 70 by the Romans (WSTTB, 220-225). He does attempt to make the connection with what Jesus predicted in Luke 21:24 in that Jerusalem would be invaded by Gentile forces, and that they would trample the city until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. Yet he claims the 3 ½ years mentioned here cannot be the time between A.D. 66-70, because historically that is not accurate. But then he admits in a footnote that the beginning of the war “will always be a matter of opinion.” He also says the 3 ½ years is symbolic and not referring to a literal time frame. Well, if it is a “matter of opinion,” and the three and a half years is “symbolic,” then Kistemaker has not argued well that this period cannot be referring to the fall of Jerusalem by A.D. 70. I find this somewhat odd, since Kistemaker has made quite a few references to the Olivet discourse in his commentary on Revelation to help him interpret Revelation. In fact most commentaries and cross reference works will parallel the two prophecies together. Kistemaker and others are obviously afraid of making the parallels because that forces them to address the same time of fulfillment “this generation” and prophetic events that were “shortly” to be fulfilled:

1) The great commission needs to be fulfilled first before the judgment takes place (Mt. 24:14/Rev. 10:5-7/14:6-20/20:2-3).
2) The destruction of Jerusalem/Babylon are the focus of the judgment of which all the prophets predicted (Lk. 21:20-22/Rev. 10:7/11:8).
3) The judgment involves the Gentile nations treading down Jerusalem and the temple (Lk. 21:6-7; 20-24/Rev. 11:2).
4) Jerusalem/Babylon is responsible for persecuting the saints and will be judged for their blood guilt (Mt. 23-24/Rev.6; 11; 18).
5) Jesus identifies Daniel’s prophecy of the tribulation and abomination of desolation which bring an end to all the eschatological prophecies of Daniel. Therefore the time of the end which included the 3 ½ year period to be fulfilled will be fulfilled in His generation (Mt. 24:15/Lk. 21:20-22/Dan. 12:7/Rev. 11:2).
6) The time frame of fulfillment is the same “this generation” “shortly,” “soon,” “at hand,” and “near” (Mt. 23:30-36, 38; 24:34/Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6-7, 10-12, 20).

Kistemaker representing futurism, and David Chilton representing preterism, both understand that the temple in view here is symbolic of the heavenly Church on earth. Preterists such as Chilton don’t have a problem understanding the 3 ½ period symbolically and not necessarily referring to a literal time frame.[18] However, what Kistemaker is missing, is that Paul and the writer to the Hebrews use both a symbolic and literal application to both temples, cities, and covenants with the understanding that both are co-existing together (cf. Gals. 4; Heb. 8:13; 9:6-10). Biblical prophets often connect the two temples/cities together in the saving of the spiritual and faithful remnant and the destruction of the literal, apostate, and old (Dan. 9:24, 27; Zech. 9-14). Commentators connect this measuring of the temple with the Old Testament background of (Ezek. 40-43; Zech. 2:1-2). The measuring of the temple in Ezekiel has to do with separating the righteous remnant from the “common” or profane (Ezek. 42:20). During the time of the temples destruction till a rebuilt one could be made, God’s presence among the faithful remnant and exiles would serve as the temple (Ezek. 11). God destroyed and shook the “heavens and earth” of Babylon through the means of the Medes and Persians so that the faithful remnant could be raised from the dead and return to rebuild the walls and temple of Jerusalem (Jer. 51; Isa. 13; Ezek. 37; Ezra, Nehemiah). In the New Testament, and under the establishing and maturing of the new covenant temple, there would be another measuring and separating taking place through the preaching of the Gospel except Babylon is apostate old-covenant Jerusalem and the believing remnant is the church or the true temple and Israel of God (Ezek. 37:27/2Cor. 6;16). God was now going to “shake” Jerusalem/Babylon one last time in order for the completion of the new covenant temple/kingdom to stand complete (Hag. 2/Heb. 12). During the time of Hebrews, this new covenant “better resurrection,” city and temple was being received and “about to” be fully realized and consummated (Heb. 9-13:14YLT). So a spiritual hermeneutic for the Church as a heavenly city and temple along with a literal referent to Jerusalem from below (the once “holy city” but now apostate Babylon) and her temple, can co-exist and are not exclusive of each other. The destruction of the outer courtyard by the Gentiles represents the apostate and unclean nation and the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple in A.D. 70; while the inner sanctuary is set apart and represents God’s heavenly and spiritual temple – the Church on earth preserved and protected as discussed earlier (Rev. 7:2-3). The final separation of the coexisting old-covenant and new-covenant temple structures, would be fulfilled “shortly” when Christ returned in A.D.70 and the New Jerusalem functions as the Most Holy Place (a perfect cube) and everyone else is considered unclean and outside the Cities gates (Rev. 21-22).
As Matthew Henry points out, the outer court of the gentiles was never even something God had ordained to be apart of the temple and was instituted by Herod,
“Some say that Herod, in the additions made to the temple, built an outer court, and called it the court of the Gentiles. Some tell us that Adrian built the city and an outer court, and called it Aelia, and gave it to the Gentiles. 2. Why was not the outer court measured? This was no part of the temple, according to the model either of Solomon or Zerubbabel, and therefore God would have no regard to it. He would not mark it out for preservation; but as it was designed for the Gentiles, to bring pagan ceremonies and customs and to annex them to the gospel churches, so Christ abandoned it to them, to be used as they pleased; and both that and the city were trodden under foot for a certain time.”[19]
Since apostate Jerusalem is constantly described as idolatrous and God’s enemy in the form of Gentile powers such as Egypt, Sodom, Babylon, etc., this idolatrous outer court of the gentiles is a fitting place to describe the apostasy of old-covenant Jerusalem and their being trodden down by Rome for 3 ½ years.
I would agree with Jay Adams who while admitting there may be some difficulties in interpreting the passage, it has a clear link to the Olivet discourse and the time of fulfillment is “without reasonable doubt” to be applied to A.D. 70,
“The climax of the first prophecy is found in chapter 12, where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted in detail. The passage shows that the temple was still standing at the time of writing. This is unmistakable proof that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. It is measured. This symbol is used both of preservation (cf. Zech. 2:1) and destruction (cf. II Sam. 8:2, Amos 7:7, 8; Hab. 3:6). Since in the only other use of the symbol in Revelation (21:15) it is used in a preservative sense, it may be best to take it so here (n.21 – ‘This seems correct because that which is not measured is trodden under foot Rev. 11:2). It is possible that verses 1 and 2 may be correctly interpreted as predicting that everything pertaining to the physical temple is to be destroyed except the naos (the word used here for “temple”) which refers more exactly to the “holy of holies” where the Shekinah glory of God dwelt. This may signify (if correct) that there is no longer need for more than naos worship, where every believer may come boldly to the throne of grace, entering into the most holy place through the name of Christ. At any rate, on thing is definite, verse 2 strikes the same note as that found in Luke 21:24. The temple will be trodden down of the Gentiles. This speaks, without reasonable doubt, of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., though all aspects of the imagery may not be clear.”[20] This destruction of the temple as described by Jesus as the “times of the Gentiles,” is referring to the prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12. When Christ’s second coming occurred in A.D. 70, the kingdom got transformed and raised into an eternal and spiritual kingdom wherein it could not be “shaken” or “destroyed” as the old-covenant kingdom and temple had been throughout its history (Mt. 21:33-45; Jn. 4:21-24; Heb. 12). This is when the new Israel of God was completely transformed and raised to life, causing the Gentiles to bud forth and the nations to explode into full bloom (Rms. 11:15-27/Lk. 21:20-31, 32). As there is a physical and spiritual parallel taking place between the destruction of the literal old-covenant temple and city along with the preserving and glorifying of the spiritual new; there is also a parallel taking place concerning the times of the Gentiles. While God has sent the Gentiles to destroy the old-covenant kingdom, it is this very means by which the flood gates of Gentile salvation explodes within redemptive history in a way it never had before.
Both Mathison and Gentry agree with us that the measuring of the temple here and the treading down of the out court for 3 ½ years represents Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70. Gentry even agrees with us that there is a fulfillment and mixture of the physical and spiritual in regards to the two parts of the temple being measured here and cites most of the same text I have to support this (Heb. 8:5; 9:24; Gals. 4:22-26; & Heb. 12). “In Revelation 11 God removes the shadow or copy so that the essential remains, which John here portrays as the worshipers in the heart of the temple.” [21] b)      The two witnesses & the “great city” where the Lord was slain is judged. 

 
There of course has been many different views as to who these two witnesses are: 1) Enoch and Elijah, 2) Moses and Elijah, 3) Jeremiah and Elijah, 4) Joshua and Caleb, 5) Peter and Paul, 6) John the Baptist and Jesus, 7) John and his brother James, 8) Stephen and James of Zebedee and 9) Peter and James and 10) representative of the Jewish and Gentile church. Commentators are divided on if this is referring to two individuals or the two witnesses are symbolic of the churches testimony. For example Kistemaker offers the following symbolic interpretation.
“However, I suggest a symbolic interpretation, namely, that the two witnesses represent the church of Christ that by proclaiming the gospel calls the world to repentance. First, the witnesses must address all the inhabitants of the world: peoples, tribes, languages, and nations (v. 9), which can hardly be done by only two witnesses. Second, the pairing of the witnesses is reminiscent of Jesus’ sending out his disciples two by two (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1). The apostles also go out two by two (Acts 3:1; 8:14). Third, in Israel a verdict was confirmed on the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), and the church exerts discipline on that same basis (Matt. 18:16). Indeed, the witness of one man can be disregarded, but on the testimony of two men truth is validated (John 8:17).
Last, John relies on an Old Testament prophecy, for he describes the two witnesses as two olive trees and two lampstands (v. 4). The prophet Zechariah mentions two olive trees and a solid gold lampstand (Zech. 4:2–3); olive oil placed in the lampstand functions to spread the light and dispel the darkness. And symbolically, a lampstand is the church (1:20) made up of believers who live by the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Thus, Zechariah identifies the two olive trees as anointed servants who serve the Lord of all the earth (Zech. 4:3, 11, 14). They seem to be Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor (Zech. 4:14), who represented the Jewish community of returnees. Similarly, I interpret the two witnesses in the Apocalypse to be representative of the entire church.”[22]  
Mathison, following Milton S. Terry’s lead, thinks these are two men but does not offer any specific names of these individuals.[23] David Chilton I believe came pretty close,
“A preliminary conclusion about the two witnesses, therefore, is that they represent the line of the prophets, culminating in John the Baptizer, who bore witness against Jerusalem during the history of Israel.”[24] Kistemaker claims two literal individuals cannot be the fulfillment here because two men such as Peter and Paul could not have accomplished a global great commission. He of course assumes what he needs to prove in that the New Testament and Revelation is predicting a global great commission instead of performing a “short work” in evangelizing the land of Israel (Mt. 10:22-23; Rom. 9:28) and Roman world as they knew it (Rms.10:18; 16:25-26; Cols. 1:5-6, 23-24). Of course Peter who headed up the gospel mission to the Jews within Jerusalem and thus the tribes of Israel, and Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles concerning the “mystery,” were two individuals that could definitely symbolically represent the great commission being fulfilled before “the end” came. I think Chilton’s view that the witnesses represent the Old Testament prophets and the judgment and curses of the old-covenant being declared upon Jerusalem also has merit.
However, my position is a mixture between Kistemaker’s and Chilton’s. I agree with Kistemaker that the witnesses symbolically represent the fulfillment of the great commission by the church before the end comes. Chapter 10 just finished discussing this and said there would be no more “delay” and thus its fulfillment was “near” during the time John was writing. I also don’t think there are two specific individuals that are meant here because there are too many old-covenant characters being described – 1) Moses & Elijah = the testimony and fulfillment of the law and the prophets and 2) Joshuah & Zerubbabel = Christ and the church coming together as the new priesthood and king/kingdom. The correct view here is that both the old-covenant prophets and the message of the new-covenant believers through the gospel come together as a testimony against the old-covenant apostate City for rejecting her message. Just as the twenty-four elders previously represent the old-covenant 12 tribes and the new-covenant 12 apostles upon which the church is built represents the fulfillment of the message of the mystery; so we have here in the form of the two witnesses the coming together bearing testimony of these two covenants against Jerusalem. Jesus said that the Old Testament Scriptures and Moses himself, were sufficient to condemn them in John. 5:45. However, there need not be such a large gap or dichotomy between the Old Testament prophets and the new which is what I believe Chilton was doing. Remember, Jesus and Paul taught no other things except that which were written in the law and the prophets. So it is the Church as the new-covenant Israel of God of which the old-covenant bore testimony of condemning the old-covenant Jerusalem through the message of the gospel.
In spite of this common sense approach to these two witnesses the “prophecy experts” claim these men are definitely literally Elijah and the other witness is probably Moses, Enoch or Zerubbabel who will allegedly come in our future to bear witness against Israel in the great tribulation period. Chuck Smith for example decides he wants to ignore the fact that Jesus said John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the coming of Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord and says,
“Although John the Baptist was a type of Elijah, he was not the complete fulfillment of this prophecy.”[25] But where does Jesus ever say John was only a “type” of the coming of Elijah? If anything Elijah’s ministry in the Old Testament was the “type” and John the Baptist the antitype of his ministry!
In verses 7-8, we are introduced to the beast and this beast kills the two witnesses in the “great city” being described here “figuratively” as “Sodom” and “Egypt” where also the Lord had been crucified. “Beasts” in the Old and New testaments represent Satan and Gentile nations outside of the covenant seeking to deceive and kill those within the covenant community of God. Jerusalem having rejected the testimony of Christ and the church has now become apostate and thus identified with the unclean beastly creatures she abhorred throughout her redemptive history. Obviously, Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem so there is no big secret here as to the identity of this “great city” throughout the Book of Revelation. Even G.K. Beale admits the “great city” was descriptive of Jerusalem but fails to listen to even his own research,
“The title “the great city”… is used elsewhere of literal Jerusalem (Jer. 22:8; Sib. Or. 5.154, 226, 413; cf. Josephus, Ap. 1.197, 209.”[26] Most Reformed futurists want to flee this obvious connection making the “great city” and “Babylon” to be spiritually the “ungodly world” and not old-covenant apostate Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified. The “great city” is Babylon. Modern day sensationalistic prophecy gurus would have us believe that the great city of Babylon throughout the Book of Revelation is referring to such places and identities as: Iraq, Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, Russia, Korea, or wherever the newspapers and prophetic pundits are arbitrarily placing this city or the location of the antichrist these days. But Christ was not crucified in Iraq, Rome, or within the Roman Catholic Church system or the “ungodly world” system, but rather in a real historic city – Jerusalem! The blood guilt of all the prophets and martyrs of which these two witnesses represent would be required upon the “this generation” of Jesus and first century old-covenant Jerusalem (Mt. 23:30-36)!
These two witnesses are being described with hyperbole to represent the church in the first century as the martyrs of God and they were first described for us in chapter 6. This same group will be consistently depicted throughout the book – even into chapter 20. Probably the best commentary on this section especially in light of the immediate context of chapter 10’s themes of the great commission, the mystery, and the message of the prophets, can be found in Colossians 1:23-29. The Apostle Paul was filling up in his flesh what was still lacking in regards to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of the Church. And Paul and the Church were dieing daily to the old-covenant age/law in hopes of further attaining the resurrection (Rms. 5-8; Phil. 3). G.K. Beale notes that the use of “body” and “bodies” still represent the church as a corporate body,
“…(the body)” could be a collective singular.” “…But we must ask why singular forms of (“the body”) in vv 8a and 9a are followed by the plural (“the bodies”) in v 9b.” “…The likely reason for the change in number is to connote the corporate nature of the witnesses.”[27] The time frame of 3 ½ days in which they laid in the streets of the city dead in shame and without burial, tells us this is a recapitulation of the death and resurrection of Christ and has some connection with symbolic 3 ½ year period. Commentators agree,
“The three-and-half-day period during which the bodies are observed evokes the period Christ was in the tomb (though that was only three days). The further figuratively identifies the witnesses with Christ, “the fateful witness (1:5). Therefore, just as the three and a half year duration of Jesus’ ministry is identified with the course of the witnesses’ ministry (11:2-3), so also the time of his apparent defeat at the end of his ministry is associated with the conclusion of their period of testimony.[28] Of course men like Chuck Smith would once again have us believe that only in our modern day generation where the invention of television is a reality could this prophecy be fulfilled,
“At the time John wrote, it was impossible for all the world to see the bodies,…”
“…But within our generation this has become a very practical reality. Through television, people sitting in their homes will see the bodies of these two witnesses lying in he steet and the people in Jerusalem spitting on them and seeking to mutilate them. It will be televised throughout the world. This prophecy could not have been fulfilled until recent times.”[29] Because Smith and others like him presuppose that the Book of Revelation is to be literally fulfilled (at least the sections he arbitrarily says is!) and is referring to global events and not prophetic events depicting the devastation of a third of the “land” of Palestine, it must be fulfilled in “our generation.” Why? According to Smith and Lindsey and their alleged Holy Spirit led interpretations, one is to believe the Book of Revelation could not be fulfilled until our generation awaiting the inventions of the T.V. and attack Cobra helicopters! The phrase, “every people, tribe, language and nation” who were gazing upon the bodies is referring to Jews who had been gathered for the Jewish ceremonies as well as Gentile proselytes making a journey to the city just prior to them being trapped within the City and deceived by the false prophets to stay. Similarly in Acts we are told, “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” (Acts 2:5).
Of course it is true that apostate Jews and even the Roman Empire physically witnessed the Christians being martyred. And indeed the Jews and false prophets and teachers witnessed the Christians fleeing the City as warned by Jesus in Matthew 24. But the “seeing” of the two witnesses here being raised and ascending has more to do with a perceiving and understanding that Christ had vindicated His church and now the judgment of those whom had crucified Christ and rejected the message of the church depicted by the two witnesses is now just and fitting retribution.
And what of the loud voice calling the two witnesses to “come up here” and their ascent into heaven in verse 12? Is this a proof text for the literal rapture or a defense for a literal biological resurrection of corpses at the end of history when Christ allegedly comes again? David Chilton connected this passage to the Church’s witness being given authority when it began the process of being raised from the dead and seated with Christ in the heavenly realm citing (Eph. 1-2; Heb. 12:22-24).[30] A flash back is one possibility since the success of the great commission is a theme of the book and the immediate context of the end of chapter 10. However, this a description of the vindication and resurrection of the church at the end of the Churches witness just prior to the coming of Christ to destroy Jerusalem that is in view here. Jesus taught that the church would be “gathered” and Paul, “changed” and “caught up” in the clouds of God’s presence (Mt. 24:30-31; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 1Cor. 15). Kistemaker makes the connection that this passage is referring to the second coming and the literal resurrection of the church at the end of time citing (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7). Partial preterists such as Gentry, Mathison, and Sproul ignore any connection to these other parallel New Testament texts and claim the judgment of “the dead” in 11:18 is not referring to the general resurrection.[31] As usual it takes the preterist view to bridge the gap and make sense of the futurist dilemma. I would agree with making these New Testament parallels because it is the time of the seventh and final trumpet 11:15 which are also parallel themes of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 that portray the end and consummation. The blowing of the trumpet had a lot of salvific and covenantal imagery connected with it. It was the blowing of the trumpet at which God gathered Israel at Mount Sinai. The anti-type being God now consummately gathering the new covenant Israel up to Mount Zion. The trumpet sounded at the Harvest time. The anti-type being this was the time of the consummative harvest and resurrection of Israel to take place at the end of the old covenant age. The trumpet would sound when the groom came for the bride. The anti-type being this was the consummation in which Christ was coming to gather His Bride the New Jerusalem. The trumpet would sound as a battle cry to bring down God’s enemies as the last and seventh trumpet brought down the walls of Jericho. The anti-type here being old covenant Jerusalem is now the enemy God being destroyed for not heeding the churches message.

The appearance of Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration  

Before leaving the subject of the two witnesses described as Moses and Elijah (with their O.T. ministries being somewhat recapitulated here), it may be a good idea to briefly cover the appearance of Moses and Elijah in another vision and see if this will help reinforce what I have said of them here.
In Luke’s account of the transfiguration the initial theological connection is made clearer. There it says Moses and Elijah came to talk with Jesus about His “exodus” (Luke 9:31NLT & WUESTNT). This is a better translation than Jesus’ “departure” because it is communicating that Jesus is the one the law and the prophets foretold would bring about Israel’s new covenant “new exodus” redemption and salvation.[32] This will be stressed later in the gospels when Jesus takes His disciples to the upper room on the Passover, clearly teaching them that in Him is the new exodus is realized because He is the Passover Lamb of God. When Peter wants Moses and Elijah to remain and abide with the other disciples and Jesus, God causes the glory of Moses and Elijah to disappear and a rebuke from the Father ensues. The theology and point of the vision was the disappearing and fulfillment of the old covenant promises pictured in the glory of Moses and Elijah (the law and the prophets), with the emphasis now being upon the eternal abiding glory of the new covenant words of Christ – “here Him” (Mt. 17:5-8; Mt. 24:35). To seek the abiding nature of the old covenant (Moses and Elijah) along with the new covenant (Christ) was the error of the Judiazers and thus the disciples are rebuked by the Father.
Outside of the gospels, there are only two other places in the New Testament where the Greek word metamorphoo “transfigured” or “transformed” is used and the one I would like to bring your attention to is found in 2 Corinthians 3:18. Like the vision of the transfiguration, this passage is a clear covenantal contrast section within Paul’s writings. The Church was in the process of “being transformed” into the likeness of Christ which was connected with the old-covenant veil being lifted from the eyes of their minds or hearts. This was not a biological transformation process but a covenantal one! The old-covenant glory was in the process of “passing away” (2 Cor. 3:7-11, cf. Heb. 8:13) just as the glory of Moses and Elijah had disappeared in the vision.
Now the 1 Peter 1:16-19 text in connection with the transfiguration event becomes easy to understand. Years later, Peter is now under attack by the Judaizers whom are claiming that he and the other disciples have been teaching Christians “cleverly devised stories” about the Second Coming (2 Peter 1:16a). Peter’s apologetic against this charge is that he has two other Apostolic witnesses that will bear witness that they got their teaching about Jesus’ return through the process of direct revelation from the Father and the Son on the Mount of Transfiguration (vss.16b-18). Peter now goes on to discuss that they also have the teachings of the Prophets concerning these matters “made more certain” than what their Judaizer opponents were teaching because of the testimony of the vision, the testimony of the Prophets in the Scriptures themselves, and no doubt the testimony and teachings of Jesus—verse 19a. Although Peter does not use the Greek word metamorphoo, he describes the Church going through a similar process if they pay attention to what he, Jesus, and the Prophets are teaching. In paying heed to this instruction, it is “…a light shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts.” (vs.19b). The “day” singular is none other than the “in that day” or the “last day” of John’s gospel (John 4-6). Since Peter is saying that he is bring to “remembrance” the things he had written to them in his previous letter concerning their coming salvation and entrance (inheritance) into the eternal kingdom at Christ’s return foretold by all the prophets (vss.3-12/1Pet.1:4-12), we know without a shadow of doubt that this “day” when Christ would rise in their hearts was “at hand” and concerned the judgment and resurrection of the “living and the dead” (1Peter 4:5, 7).
Many commentators understand the transfiguration event to be a foreshadowing or prefiguring of the parousia. In other words the transfiguration is descriptive of the parousia in some way. I agree! But notice how the transfiguration doesn’t have anything to do with: 1) The passing and burning of the planet earth, 2) Christ floating down on a literal cloud someday and 3) Corpses flying out of their caskets at the end of time to be united with their spirits. The essence of the transfiguration is the passing and thus the fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets and the abiding everlasting words of the new covenant found in Jesus – “here Him.” The vision of the parousia in the transfiguration event gives us a theological picture/description of what the parousia was going to be all about – the passing and fulfilling of the old covenant glory and the brining in of the new by A.D. 70. When Reformed theologians pay closer attention to some of their best theologians such as John Owen and John Lightfoot in their teaching that it was the “elements” of the old-covenant law that was dissolved at the coming of the Lord in A.D. 70 that is the topic in 2 Peter 3 and not the planet earth, this further harmonizes the time frame and function of what the Second Coming would be all about as taught in (Mt.16:27-17:10).
The corporate testimony and resurrection of the two witnesses symbolically represent the resurrection and transformation of the new Israel of God – the church from the glory of the old-covenant economy to the new. This was brought about with Christ’s imminent return by A.D. 70.
c). The Kingdom’s arrival and the judgment of “the dead.” 
Partial preterists such as Gentry and Mathison understand Revelation 11 being fulfilled by A.D. 70 as an inauguration of the kingdom and not the consummation of fulfillment. Their partial preterist hermeneutic does well in identifying Jerusalem as the city where the Lord was crucified and the measuring of the temple as pointing to a pre-A.D. 70 date for Revelation and time frame of fulfillment. However, as we previously noted, their view falls apart in not identifying the last trumpet with the trumpet call and consummation of fulfillment described in Matthew 24:30-31, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. Likewise, there are numerous indicators in this chapter alone that point to a consummative fulfillment reached at the Second and final coming of the Lord not just some minor coming of the Lord. Beale correctly parallels the judgment of “the dead” with that of the judgment of the dead at the end of the millennium in 20:12-13 and the kingdom’s arrival with that of 1 Corinthians 15,
“Our overall analysis of 11:15-19 argues that the hymn speaks of the consummated form of the kingdom. The striking parallel noted below between 11:18a and 20:12-13 suggests strongly that this is the case. The consummate nature of the kingdom is also indicated by the greater emphasis on God’s reign rather than Christ’s. This suggests a parallel with 1 Cor. 15:25-28, where God’s rule is emphasized over Christ’s because the consummation of Christ’s…”[33] 
Beale is critical of Chilton’s partial preterism where Chilton identifies the judgment of the dead here as a vindication of the righteous dead martyrs and not an inclusion of the judgment of the wicked dead which would clearly identify this passage as the consummative judgment and resurrection event. Beale correctly points out that the word for “judge” here (Gk. krino) as used elsewhere in Revelation, refers to the consummate judgment of the wicked (6:10; 16:5; 18:8, 20; 19:2, 11; 20:12-13).  In Revelation 20:12-13 where again the judgment of the dead is the topic, the phrase to describe those partaking is the “small and great” which is used here in 11:19. These are death blows to the partial preterist view. But that this chapter is identifying the judgment of Babylon or the “Great City” as old-covenant Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as the time of the kingdom’s arrival and the judgment of “the dead” is a death blow to the futurist paradigm of Beale and others. Our position consistently maintains the clear and common sense and exegetical approaches of each view.
d). God’s temple in heaven was opened and the ark seen. 
 
Here again is another clear indicator of the consummation being reached at Christ’s Second Coming not just “a” coming of Jesus in A.D. 70. Beale correctly makes the typological connections between the first exodus and the second with the sounding of the trumpet brining God’s people into the rest of the new creation,
“The seventh trumpet may be built around a segment from the Son of Moses in Exod. 15:13-18. There God is praised for redeeming his people by “calling them into your holy resting place” (v 13); when “the nations heard” about this deliverance “they became enraged” (…in Exod. 15:14 LXX, as in Rev. 11:18); in spite of the nations’ rage, God brought his people into his “habitation” and “sanctuary (Exod. 15:17). So then, it is declared, “the Lord reigns forever and ever” (v 18, see the verbatim parallel in Rev. 11:15). These allusions are an appropriate way to conclude the series of trumpets, since the first six have been modeled on the exodus plagues, which have led up to Exodus 15. Furthermore, the appearance of the ark in Rev. 11:19…” “…calls to mind the fall of Jericho, which marked the successful conclusion of Israel’s entry into the Promised Land after the exodus and wilderness wanderings.”
“…In that episode the ark followed the trumpet blowers. This suggests further that 11:15-19 forms the content of the seventh trumpet. There are no more half-weeks (cf. 11:2-3, 10-11); the full week of consummation has been reached.”[34] Beale also cites many Jewish writings in which they understood that when the ark would be revealed to Israel–again that this would be the time of judgment and the resurrection of the dead. The appearance of the ark is symbolic of God’s presence and the time of inheriting the new creation,
“This presence of God without a literal reappearance of the ark is the idea of Rev. 11:19, which is expanded in 21:3, 22, where the establishment of the end-time temple is interpreted as God’s presence in the midst of his people.” “Therefore, the ark in 11:19 is a suitable symbol for both the judgment and the reward of the last dayTherefore, the full answer to the saints’ petition for vindication in 6:9-11 is revealed in 11:15-19.”[35]  
Obviously we have a major contradiction taking place within Reformed eschatology! Partial preterists such as Gentry, Mathison and Sproul would tell us that the vindication of the martyrs in 6:9-11 literally took place in a “little while” referring to Christ returning in A.D. 70, which is accurate. But Beale and others being faithful to the recapitulation structure of Revelation sees these texts identified with the consummation judgment and rewarding of the saints at the final return of Christ and the inheritance of the new creation. Both are right and both are wrong. It is only the preterist that can truly come and solve this dilemma by building a paradigm using the correct propositions of each side.

 
Revelation 12
 

The woman clothed with the sun and crowned with 12 stars having the moon underneath her feet is the church described as the faithful or New Israel. She is giving birth to a “male child” who is not Christ, but rather other members of the collective body of the church. In the Old Testament unbelieving Israel would be in labor groaning but could only give birth to “wind” and could not bear forth a child – or give birth and bring salvation to the peoples of the earth (Isa. 26:17-18). However, faithful Israel is able to bring forth the male child and salvation for the world in one day:
“The sound of noise from the city! A voice from the temple! The voice of the LORD, Who fully repays His enemies! “Before she was in labor, she gave birth; Before her pain came, She delivered a male child. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, She gave birth to her children. Shall I bring to the time of birth, and not cause delivery?” says the LORD. “Shall I who cause delivery shut up the womb?” says your God. “Rejoice with Jerusalem, And be glad with her, all you who love her; Rejoice for joy with her, all you who mourn for her; That you may feed and be satisfied With the consolation of her bosom, That you may drink deeply and be delighted With the abundance of her glory.” For thus says the LORD: “Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, And the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream. Then you shall feed; On her sides shall you be carried, And be dandled on her knees. As one whom his mother comforts, So I will comfort you; And you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” When you see this, your heart shall rejoice, And your bones shall flourish like grass; The hand of the LORD shall be known to His servants, And His indignation to His enemies” (Isa. 66:6-14).
This is a reference to the time of the birth pains Jesus discussed in Matthew 24:8 and the groanings of child birth in Romans 8:18-23 which also depicted the resurrection. Israel after the flesh would groan in pain wanting what the church had and was about to give birth to, but because of their rejection of Christ, their womb was cursed only to give birth to wind. The sufferings and groanings of the Church were momentary and would bring forth salvation to the world. Here in Isaiah “a male child” also represents “her children” plural. So we have Israel becoming born again and transformed through the metaphor of child birth. This is not referring to Mary giving birth to Jesus. That this male child is given a rod to rule the nations is the fulfillment of the promise given to the church in Revelation 2:27.
The child being snatched up to heaven in verse 5 is but yet another description of what we saw of the two witnesses being raised up and called up to heaven in chapter 11. Resurrection and new birth are parallel concepts describing the transformation of church as God’s new Israel and kingdom.
The mother fleeing and being given wings to flee to the desert for 1,260 days or 3 ½ years represents the church fleeing for safety to Pella as Christ exhorted her to do once she saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21:20-23. The dragon represents Satan moving within his servants of the synagogue of Satan who persecuted the Christians and then sought to deceive them into staying within Jerusalem to fight the Romans.
In verse 10ff. we reach the consummation once again. Satan and the apostate heavenly civil and religious rulers of Israel are cast to the earth (cf. Mt. 24:29). These were the accusers of the brethren – a scene played out for us in the book of Acts of which the church finally receives “relief” from at Christ’s parousia (2 Thess. 2:14-16). This is also the time of vindication in which they will rule over their enemies through the means of Christ coming to render upon their enemies “tribulation” and “wrath” (1 Thess. 2:14-16; 2 Thess. 1:5-10).



[1] Beale, Ibid., 452.
[2] Chilton, Ibid., 229-230.
[3] Gentry, Four Views, Ibid., 58-60.
[4] Chilton, Ibid., 236-237.
[5] Gentry, Four Views of Revelation, Ibid., 61, (emphasis added).
[6] Gentry, Ibid., 63-64
[7] Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1973), 124, 140. Hal Lindsey, Apocalypse Code, (Palos Verde, CA: Western Front Ltd., 1997), 42.
[8] DeMar, Ibid., 134-135. Lindsey also follows this U.F.O. view appealing to Luke 21:11 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 for his “support.”
[9] Smith, Ibid., 100, (bold emphasis added).
[10] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: Revelation. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004, S. 266
[11] Beale, Ibid., 509, (bold emphasis added).
[12] Chilton, Ibid., 251-252.
[13] Gentry, Four Views, Ibid., 43.
[14] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 151.
[15] Chilton, Ibid., 267-268, 286.
[16] Chuck Smith WHAT THE WORLD IS COMING TO A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, pp. 107-108, The Word For Today Pub., 2001.
[17] John MacArthur, MACARTHUR STUDY BIBLE, ibid., p.2005.
[18] Chilton, Ibid., 272-273, 274-275.
[19]Henry, Matthew: Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1991, S. Re 11:1
[20] Jay Adams, THE TIME IS AT HAND, pp.68-69, published by JAY E. ADAMS, Philadelphia, 1969.
[21] Gentry, ibid., pp.65-66. See also, Mathison, ibid., pp. 145, 151
[22] Kistemaker, Ibid., 329.
[23] Mathison, Postmillennialism, Ibid., 151-152.
[24] Chilton, Ibid., 276.
[25] Smith, Ibid., 112.
[26] Beale, Ibid., 591.
[27] Beale, Ibid., 594, (emphasis added).
[28] Beale, Ibid., 594-595.
[29] Smith, Ibid., 114.
[30] Chilton, Ibid., 284.
[31] Of what I have read of Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison, they simply ignore any discussion of the judgment of the living and the dead in Revelation 11:18 or say 1 Peter 4:5, 7.
[32] Tom Holland, CONTOURS OF PAULINE THEOLOGY A RADICAL NEW SURVEY OF THE INFLUENCES ON PAUL’S BIBLICAL WRITINGS, (IV20 1TW, Scotland, UK: Mentor Imprint by Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 28, 151, 225.
[33] Beale, Ibid., 614.
[34] Beale, Ibid., p. 618-619.
[35] Ibid., p. 619, bold emphasis added.

Commentary on Revelation Chapters 1 – 7

A Layman and Scholar’s Guide To Interpreting

The Book of Revelation  
 
By: Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright 2008-04-08

 

The purpose of this commentary

 

My purpose writing this article/commentary is to glorify Christ in demonstrating what the story of redemption is all about from Genesis 1-3 to Revelation 20-22. In Adam and the story of Israel’s covenantal history, man realizes he is spiritually dead and separated from God and in need of Him to save and clothe him with His righteousness. Adam never partook of the Tree of Life but rather died spiritually the very day he sinned against God. Man’s hopeless condition under spiritual death with its awareness of guilt and shame, was painfully realized and magnified through the giving of the Mosaic old-covenant law which could only condemn man and point typologically to the redemptive work of God’s Son.
The truly good news is that our Lord as the Last Adam has overcome “the [spiritual] death” which came through Adam and was magnified through the old-covenant Torah given through Israel. Christ has removed the curse of spiritual death, guilt and shame for those who through faith, enter the Gates of the City of the Living God and partake of the Tree of Life and its living waters Revelation 22:17. The Book of Revelation is not about the end of time but rather “the time of the end” – that is, the end of the old-covenant temple and system which Christ promised to destroy within His contemporary generation at His return in A.D. 70 (cf. Mt. 23:36-24:34). The Book of Revelation is not about the end of the new-covenant age (which the Bible says has no end Eph. 3:20-21), but rather is about the end of the old-covenant age and the brining in, maturing, glorification and consummation of the new-covenant age.  The Church being God’s new creation. The goal of all of the promises of God and Bible prophecy has always been about showing how all the promises of God are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and then lived out through the church 2 Corinthians 1:20. Those who are more interested in following wars in the Middle East, or trying to figure out who the new candidate of the Anti-Christ is, have missed completely the message of the Book of Revelation for day and time.

My purpose is to produce a chapter by chapter concise commentary or study guide to the Book of Revelation which is faithful to the message of Revelation while at the same time demonstrates the “House Divided” approach that exists between the Reformed and Evangelical world in the area of producing a consistent view of eschatology for the Church.  A good commentary on the the Book of Revelation need not be so difficult and scholarly as to take 1,245 pages to explain and wade through such as what G.K. Beale has produced. Neither should it be so one sided (non-scholarly) and turned into a sensationalistic science fiction novel for our generation which have been the approaches of men like Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and Chuck Smith of the Calvary Chapel movement. My goal and prayer is to produce something that interacts with a wide range of views while at the same time can be comfortably read. My goal is to produce something that can be read by the average layman and scholar alike.

 

Authorship of Revelation

 

Some liberal scholars have suggested that because the grammar and the Greek between the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation are so different, that this suggests two different authors wrote these New Testament documents. The solution to these textual differences, is that John spoke and wrote in Aramaic and not Greek. Therefore, John had two different translators helping him – one translating the Gospel of John and the other helping him with the Book of Revelation. Church history and the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church records that John’s translator and scribe for the Book of Revelation was a man named Prochorus.  Church tradition believes he’s the same Prochorus in Acts 6:5.

 

Revelation and the Olivet Discourse

Although the gospel of John contains some eschatology, it has been understood by the majority of commentators that the Book of Revelation is John’s version of the Olivet discourse as recorded by Matthew in chapter 24, Mark in chapter 13 and Luke in chapter  21. The Book of Revelation is also a covenantal curse upon old-covenant Jerusalem following the pattern of Deuteronomy 28-32. Therefore, the following parallels should be noted:

1)     The time of wars and rumors of wars had arrived (Mt. 24:6, 7; Rev. 6).
2)     The time of famine had come (Deut. 28; Mt. 24:7; Rev. 6).
3)     The time of earthquakes had come (Deut. 28; Mt.24:7; Rev. 6).
4)     The time for the passing of heaven and earth or the metaphorical de-creation of Israel’s old-covenant world had come (Deut. 32:22; Mt. 24:29-31; Rev. 6 & Rev. 21).
5)     The time of persecution, blood guilt, false Prophets, and deceptions had arrived (Deut. 32:43; Mt. 24:9-11; Rev.16 – 18).
6)     Apostasy was taking place (Deut. 32:5, 20; Mt. 24:11-12; Rev. 16).
7)     The time for the Great Tribulation was present and about to increase (Deut. 28; Mt. 24:21; Rev. 14)
8)     The Great Commission had come to an end and therefore there would be no more delay to the fulfillment of the prophecy (Deut. 32:21; Mt. 24:14; Rev. 10:6-7, 14:6-7; cf. Cols. 1:5-6, 23; Rom. 10:18, 16:25-26).
9)     The time for the abomination of desolation had arrived (Mt. 24:15; Rev. 13).
10) The Judgment of the “Great City” or old-covenant apostate Jerusalem – “where the Lord was slain” (described as Babylon Sodom and Egypt) marked the time of the judgment and resurrection of “the dead” to take place (Dan. 9:24 & 12:7à, Mt. 24, Deut. 32:32; Rev. 11:8-18-19; Rev. 14).
11) The flight and salvation of the faithful remnant from the land of Judah for the “elect” was about to take place (Deut. 32:21, 43; Mt. 24:15-22; Rev. 18:4).
12) The coming of Jesus on the clouds to save, redeem, gather, and harvest the dead among Israel and Hades had arrived (Deut. 32:21, 43; Mt. 24:30-31; Rev. 6, 11, 14, 20).
13) The judgment for breaking the old-covenant law in committing the sin of blood guilt of Israel as she persecuted and killed her Messiah and all the martyrs had arrived (Deut. 32:43; Mt. 23:31-36-Mt. 24:9; Rev. 6; Rev. 6:10-11, 17-18; 20).
14) The time of the “Great Supper” & “Wedding Supper” which consisted of feasting upon Christ and the carcass of their enemies had come (Deut. 28/Jer. 34; Mt. 24:28 – Mt. 25/Mt. 22:7/Rev. 19).
15) And of course the same time frame of fulfillment are depicted in both prophesies!  The old-covenant law had not all been fulfilled at the cross but was rather still in the process of passing away and would “soon” disappear (2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13). All the covenantal signs and wrath against Israel are still in effect after the cross and during this time period all of God’s promises to Israel are still in the process of being  fulfilled (Mt. 5:17-19). These promises contained in the law and the prophets included the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection, which Jesus predicted would take place within His contemporary generation and of which John, who was writing toward the end of that generation, wrote the time of fulfillment was therefore genuinely “soon,” “shortly,” “quickly,” and “at hand” to take place (Deut. 32:20; Mt. 24:34/Lk. 21:22; Rev. 1:1; 3:2-3, 11; 22:6-7, 10-12, 20).

The Book of Revelation isn’t really that difficult to understand

Many have despaired in interpreting the book of Revelation especially within Reformed and Evangelical circles. However, I would agree with most of what Warfield has said,

John’s Apocalypse need not be other than easyall its symbols are either obvious natural ones, or else have their roots planted in the Old Testament poets and prophets and the figurative language of Jesus and his apostles. No one who knows his Bible need despair of reading this book with profit. Above all, he who can understand our Lord’s great discourse concerning the last things (Matt. 24), cannot fail to understand the Apocalypse, which is founded on that discourse and scarcely advances beyond it.
[1]

Since it is admitted that Revelation concerns the same eschatological events as that of the Olivet discourse, then it should also be admitted that the Second Coming, de-creation, the great commission, tribulation, and judgment, are the “all these things” that were to be fulfilled within Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:34). Jesus was not coming up with an entirely different set of eschatological promises separated from the predictions of the Old Testament prophets (Lk. 21: 20-22; cf. 1 Pet. 1:4-12 & 1 Cor. 10:11). Therefore, the Book of Revelation is the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy and unless its “heaven and earth” have passed away the Church today remains under every jot and tittle of “the law” or old-covenant Mosaic Torah (Rev. 10:7; 22:6-7; 21:1/Mt. 5:17-19).  These are serious implications for all futurist paradigms even the “orthodox” “partial preterist” view.

Revelation’s recapitulation and parallel structure

Simon Kistemaker understands that Revelation is not written in a purely chronological order but rather is structured in the Hebraic and prophetic style of recapitulation and parallelism. In other words the book of Revelation is concerned with only one Second Coming in judgment and yet this same event is described in various ways throughout.

“I have chosen the cyclical method, which evinces progressive parallelism in each successive cycle and reveals new perspectives on God’s unfolding message to the church.” “…parallel sections do not necessarily follow one another sequentially; instead they give the reader different perspectives of the same teaching that finally results in a definitive climax. In other words, progress in successive parallels relates not to temporal sequence but to intensity and emphasis.[2]  “The parallelism depicted in the three sets (seals, trumpets, and bowls) suggests that the writer is not presenting a chronological sequence but rather different aspects of the same events. This is even more pronounced when we notice the frequent indirect and direct references to the final judgment.

•     Christ is coming with the clouds (1:7).
•     Judgment for sinners is imminent, while the saints surround the throne (6:16; 7:17).
•     The time for judging the dead has come (11:18).
•     The coming judgment is symbolized as the Judge harvesting the earth (14:15–16).
•     God’s wrath is poured out as a description of the final judgment (16:17–21).
•     This description is even more vivid with respect to the rider on the white horse coming to judge with justice and to make war on his enemies (19:11–21).
•     The judgment comes to its climax when the books are opened and each person is judged (20:11–15).”[3]

Kistemaker quotes G.B. Caird’s eloquent comments on the issue,

“The unity of John’s book, then, is neither choronological nor arithmetical, but artistic, like that of a musical theme with variations, each variation adding something new to the significance of the whole composition. This is the only view which does adequate justice to the double fact that each new series of visions both recapitulates and develops the themes already stated in what has gone before.”
[4]

We agree with Kistemaker that Revelation is concerned with only one coming of Christ in judgment and that it is laid out in the familiar Hebraic and prophetic style of parallelism and recapitulation from beginning to end.

Matthew 24’s recapitulation and parallel structure
 

As noted earlier, the Book of Revelation is simply the same prophetic prediction as made by our Lord in the Olivet discourse. Popular Reformed and Evangelical authors such as J. Marcellus Kik, Greg Bahnsen, Keith Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff have suggested that Jesus was teaching not one but two different comings within Matthew 24-25. One is alleged to have ocurred in A.D. 70 (Mt. 24:27-34), while it is alleged that the discourse also addresses another return of Jesus at the end of time (Mt. 24:36ff). Mathison has attempted to argue that one the reasons for these alleged two sections or two comings of Christ, is that if Jesus wanted to say all of the discourse would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation,” it would have made more sense for Him to say this at the end of Matthew 25 and not in the midst of Matthew 24 at verse 34.[5] But when we honor the recapitulation structure of the prophecy itself, it makes more than enough sense to have “this generation” as being the time frame for both Matthew 24 and 25 to be fulfilled in.

Reformed theologian John Murray pointed out that the structure of Matthew 24-25 involves “to some extent recapitulation” similar to how the Book of Revelation is laid out. He writes,

“1. The discourse, as to structure, is recapitulatory to a considerable extent. It is not, therefore, continuously progressive. We are repeatedly brought to the advent and informed of its various features, concomitants, and consequences (vss. 14, 29-31, 37-41, 25:31-46). We should expect, for this reason, that revelation respecting the future would in other cases follow this pattern.”[6]

Murray identified 4 consumations or conclusions within the discourse while at the same time maintaining that the discourse is addressing one Second Coming and judgment throughout. Murray for example was more correct than patial preterists, in understanding verses 4-14 as describing the “interadventual history” in which the great commission of verse 14 would bring about the “consumation” to the “end of the age” the disciples asked about in verse 3.  This section forms its own “conclusion” in that one of the main signs which will function as an imminent precursor to His return is the fulfillment of the great commission. Now in verses 15-34, more recapitulation is involved in that the sign of the abomination of desolation will mark an imminent end or consumation to Christ’s return in “this generation.” Mathison’s outline of the discourse and theory of Jesus teaching only two “conclusions” or sections with two totally different comings of Christ and judgments is erroneous. It is his view that “doesn’t make sense.” Jesus’ statements and His recapitulation in the Olivet discourse and in the Book of Revelation “make sense” as they are. Jesus placing “this generation” at verse 34 instead of at the end of Matthew 25 “doesn’t make sense” to Mathison because of his biased partial preterist presupositions he reads into the discourse and his failure to see recapitulation being used.  Mathison and these other Reformed and Evangelical partial preterists maintain that Christ’s return in Jesus’ “this generation” and His imminent return throughout Revelation occurred in A.D. 70. But because they refuse to see what other futurists and preterists have noted as far as a consistent recapitulation structure being used, they are forced to promote a two Second Coming theory of which the New Testament knows nothing of. My position is a combination of the two orthodox positions covered thus far:

1) Mattew 24-25, the Book of Revelation and the New Testament only teaches one Second Coming and
2) The imminent time texts of “this generation” and terms such as “near,” “at hand,” “soon,” “quickly,” and “shortly” all point to Christ’s Second Coming happening during the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Revelation 1 – 3  
 

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants––things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near(Rev. 1:1-3)

Everything we need to know in order to understand the Book of Revelation is contained within the first three verses and first three chapters of the Book itself.

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ…”
 

I should point out once again that this is not a book about nuclear war, computer chips being implanted on our foreheads and hands, decomposed bodies coming out of the ground at the end of time, people giving flight into the air and clouds, or the world catching on fire someday while a new one takes its place! This is a book about how all of Scripture finds its fulfillment in or “reveals” God – in the person of Jesus Christ and that this revelation is then manifested through the Church. Or as Paul so clearly states, “For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us.” (2 Cor. 1:20). This is a Revelation of how Jesus Christ “through us” (the Church as God’s new creation], is to function as light and life to the nations of the world post A.D. 70 in the new-covenant age.  Unfortunately the true meaning of Revelation is not exciting enough for those who have placed their hopes on things which must be seen. Thus the plethora of futuristic commentaries on the Book of Revelation and there attended sensationalistic prophetic novels of our day, are in essence a sad commentary on the state of the church.

“…things which must shortly take place…”

The first verse of Revelation is probably the most ignored today because we all tend to think the world revolves around us and our generation when it comes to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. The concept that the book of Revelation is a prophecy about “…things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1) during the time of John and these seven historical churches he is writing to, doesn’t at first compute with us because of what we have been taught by popular T.V. preachers and best selling contemporary newspaper “prophecy expert” authors. These books must be the truth (we reason), because after all they are on the shelves of the big contemporary Christian book stores right? And yet there it is as clear as a bell for anyone willing to accept it with humility and study honestly and diligently allowing the Bible to interpret itself. Let’s briefly analyze the various approaches in trying to deal with the Book of Revelation’s imminent time texts and that of the entire New Testament for that matter.

1)      The “Symbolic” and “Eschatological Time” – view.

Kistemaker unfortunately, is among those who do not approach the Book of Revelation with humility and diligent study, but would rather simply regurgitate the views of his particular eschatological party line. He decides the time texts in Revelation should be understood as an “ideal” and “symbolically” interpreted as,

“…the meaning of eschatological time, expressed not in chronological periods, but in terms of principle”[7]

Kistemaker is clearly trying his best to hide behind a very vague and pathetic “scholarly” vocabulary because he knows he has no lexical support for these kinds of comments! John uses a very strong word here to indicate the prophecy most assuredly will be fulfilled “shortly” when he says it “must” (Greek dei) shortly take place. This word means, “necessity established by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies.” There is no “maybe” or He “might” come “shortly” to the message of Revelation!

2)      The “When Jesus decides to come He will come really fast then” – view.
 

Others have sought to interpret the time texts as meaning, “When Jesus decides to come then He will come quickly.”  This is like me calling the police or fire department in an emergency and they tell me, “Don’t worry, we will be there “shortly” “quickly” and are already very “near;” and when they pull up a week later after my house has burnt down I say, “I thought you were coming “quickly” and they reply, “Well, what we meant was when we decided to come, our mode of transportation would begin to come quickly at that point.” This is how Dispensationalist Thomas Ice has sought to interpret the tachos word family.[8] None of the translations I have consulted give this meaning let alone comparing the other Greek words used throughout Revelation and the rest of the New Testament to communicate imminence. The Book of Revelation is filled with a contemporary first century group of Christians experiencing persecution and martyrdom in which Jesus comforts them by explaining He will return “soon” and in a “little while” to vindicate them from their first century persecutors and give them “relief” at His appearing from these Jewish persecutors – their “countrymen” the Pharisees, or the “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 6:10-11; Mt. 23:30-36, Mt. 24; 1Thess. 2:14-16/2Thess. 1:6-7). Jesus was either faithful to return and gave them relief from these first century persecutors or He didn’t. It’s really that simple.

 
3)      “Jesus was just saying His coming was a certain event to occur” – view.

Another cleverly imposed meaning of the imminent time texts claims Jesus was only communicating that He would “certainly” come someday without having any temporal time frame in mind. This is a spin off of the “eschatological time” kind of thinking Kistemaker is following.

If this is what Jesus was trying to communicate, there were Greek words He could have used instead of the taxos, engus, and mello word groups! Not only this, but it makes Jesus’ words nonsensical and redundant, “He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly” (Rev. 22:20) to allegedly mean, Jesus was trying to communicate, something like, “Surely I am coming surely (in ‘symbolic’ or ‘eschatological time’).” If this is what Jesus was trying to communicate all He would have had to say is, “Surely I am coming someday.” But no, He assures His first century persecuted audience that “Surely” He was coming “quickly” to vindicate, give relief, and reward them with the new creation. We have already addressed the surety of Christ coming “shortly” in discussing the Greek word for “must.” This effective refutes Reformed writer Richard Pratt’s theory as well, which postulates that the Second Coming was genuinely near in the first century but God decided to postpone it.[9]

 
4)      “Revelation is teaching that the beginning of fulfillment was near not the consummation of fulfillment” – view

 

Perhaps the latest trend and inventive “scholarly” approach from some futurists to avoid the obvious, is to claim the “inauguration” of fulfilled prophecy was geneuinely “at hand” but not the consumation of the prophecy. G.K. Beale states,

“The focus of “quickness” and “nearness” in vv 1-3 is primarily on inauguration of prophetic fulfillment and its ongoing aspect, not on nearness of consummated fulfillment…” “…Indeed, what follows shows that the beginning of fulfillment and not final fulfillment is the focus.”[10]

This is so blantanly wrong, its disturbing that a publisher even paid for these kind of comments to go into print for the Christian public to read! Practically everyone agrees that Jesus’ Second Coming is described as being “at hand” and will “shortly” come to pass from the beginning of Revelation to the end and no one should doubt that His return is the “consummated fulfillment” of prophecy not the “inauguration” of prophecy (Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20)!

5)      “Our generation will be the generation that sees the Lord’s return” – view.

Hal Lindsey popularized the idea that Christ had promised to return in our generation in His book The Late Great Planet Earth,

“The most important sign in Matthew has to be the restoration of the Jews to the land in the rebirth of Israel. Even the figure of speech ‘fig tree’ has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people, after nearly 2,000 years of exile, under relentless persecution, became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the ‘fig tree’ put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was ‘at the door,’ ready to return. Then He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matthew 24:34, NASB). What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so.”

One of my former Pastors as a new believer (Chuck Smith of the Calvary Chapel movement), followed Lindsey’s sensationalistic prophetic calculations and thus gained a large following for himself preaching and writing,

“If I understand Scripture correctly, Jesus taught us that the generation which sees the ‘budding of the fig tree,’ the birth of the nation of Israel, will be the generation that sees the Lord’s return. I believe that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Since a generation of judgment is forty years and the Tribulation period lasts seven years, I believe the Lord could come back for His Church any time before the Tribulation starts, which would mean any time before 1981. (1948 + 40 – 7 = 1981).”[11]

Smith has joined Hal Lindsey in making a career and gaining a large following from this kind of sensationalistic manipulation. Gary DeMar would agree with me in addressing Smith’s fundamental flaw,
“In Chuck Smith’s Revelation commentary Dateline Earth he informed his readers in 1989 that “the rapture is at hand.” Earlier he wrote, “Very soon there are going to be some strange and terrible things happening on this planet of ours.” These “very soon” happenings are based on his reading of Revelation. He reinforces this claim when he argues emphatically, “Jesus is coming back, and He’s coming back soon.” In his book The Final Curtain, he writes, “It is later than you think. It is time to wake up from your lethargy and realize that the coming of the Lord is at hand!” Notice the use of “soon” and “at hand,” a phrase that is most often translated as “near” (Matt. 24:32–33; 26:18; James 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rev. 1:3; 22:10)
As a reader, what do you think Smith wants to convey when he uses “soon” and “at hand”? He sees them as time indicators. By his use of them, Smith is conveying his belief that the prophetic events he has been describing in all his prophecy books since 1976 is that the “rapture” is on the horizon not thousands of years in the future. So why is it when the Bible uses “at hand” (lit., “near”) that it does not mean soon to take place? Skirting the implications of the time references in the Bible is a major problem with dispensationalism.”[12] For “prophecy experts” or “teachers” like Chuck Smith and Hal Lindsey, the rapture or Second Coming is only really imminent for our generation whom allegedly witnessed the “super sign” of the Jews returning to their land in 1948 as allegedly being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.  When Smith says Jesus is coming “soon” he means it literally, but somehow when the New Testament authors claim this, we apparently shouldn’t interpret their inspired comments so literally!  In 1997, Lindsey wanted to keep a good thing going for his book sales so once again he started claiming that through his prayers, the Holy Spirit was giving him special insights into the Book of Revelation in order “to crack the Apocalypse Code.”  Apparently, these were insights only recently given to the Church through him of course.  Lindsey claims God had not given previous generations the insights he had been given that related to the issue of imminence because the time of fulfillment was only now drawing near for us.[13]

Jon Courson is another very influential Pastor within the Calvary Chapel movement who instead of exposing Lindsey’s and Smith’s false predictions, decided he wanted to get into the prophetic game too and see if he could salvage the system.  He admits,

“1981 came. So did 1982, ’83, ’84, ’85, and ’86. And then something began to happen. A whole bunch of radical Christians began to cool off, saying, “Maybe we’re here for a while after all. Maybe we shouldn’t be so committed to this kingdom thing.” Oh, they didn’t say it in those exact words, but that’s what they were thinking. And a dulling of expectancy swept over our generation.”[14]

Courson decided Jesus’ “this generation” prediction was actually a period of 51 years and not 40, so 1999 became the new target date, “…Thus, scripturally, there is validity for a Biblical generation to be 51.4 years.”[15]

 
6)      “God’s week of human history is rapidly coming to completion” – view.
Grant Jeffrey, another self acclaimed “prophecy expert” writes,
“We could look for the beginning of the seventh day (the Millennium—a thousand years of peace, Revelation 20:2-6) to commence in the fall of the year 2000 on the fifteenth of Tishri, the first day of the Geast of Tabernacles—exactly two thousand years from Christ’s birth.”
[16]   
Chuck Smith jumped on this prophetic band wagon as well in the pulpit and indirectly in his commentary on Revelation where he completely avoids the time texts in the beginning of Revelation and finally at Revelation 22:6-7, gives a one sentence comment,
“…the Bible says, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).  So, it’s been a couple of days—almost![17] This view teaches that a day is equal to a literal 1,000 years and thus the following prophetic equation emerges:  4,000 years (the earths alleged age) + 2,000 years (since the time of Christ) = the earths age nearing 6,000.  Therefore, many prophecy pundints speculated and continue to speculate that sometime around A.D. 2000 Christ would or still will return and propel the earth into a literal sabbath rest.  This rest is allegedly accomplished with Christ’s return and He establishes his reign in literal Jerusalem for another literal 1,000 years (Rev. 20).  One would think Chuck had learned his lesson, but he even went on to write a forward to Jon Courson’s Application Commentary where Courson continues the tradition of Lindsey and Smith and not only predicts the year 1999 as Christ’s return, but also adds the day=1,000 years calculation as well.  Here are some selective quotes,
“When is the seven thousandth year? When will Christ return?  Thus, the calculation is complete:

Day 1
Adam is created
4000 B.C.
Day 4
The coming of Jesus Christ
A.D. 1
Days 5–6
Israel goes through hard times
A.D. 1–2000
Day 7
Israel revived during millennium
A.D. 2000

I am not alone in this interpretation.”  “God’s week of human history is rapidly coming to completion. The return of Christ is nighI believe you who are in your teens and early twenties are very possibly the last generation. Set your heart on things above. Live for heaven. Seek first the kingdom, and you will be happy presently, rewarded eternally, and grateful constantly.  You who are older, continue setting an example for us who are younger. Continue to make the Lord top priority in your life. We’re looking to you in a very real sense. Please keep the fire hot.  Fellow baby boomers, we need to realize that Jesus Christ is coming soon. We don’t have time to play around. We don’t have time to chase worldly pursuits any longer. We need to return to ministry and service, worship and prayer, Bible study and street witnessing. Whatever it was you used to do when you were fired up about Jesus in the ’70s, do it again.  Maranatha!”[18] In Smith’s foreward to Courson’s work, he likens these kind of statements to being “Holy Spirit led” teachings.  He actually parallels Jon Courson’s teaching methods with the sound teaching methods of Nehemiah who’s instruction,
“brought great conviction upon the people and a genuine turning to God. The ultimate result was that the people went their way rejoicing because they understood the words that were declared unto them.”  “…I am convinced that you also will go your way rejoicing after reading the insights that the Holy Spirit has given to Jon on the scriptures.”[19] But Christians don’t go away “rejoicing” after listening to these false and proven to be failed “Holy Spirit led” prophets, but rather go away in total disillusionment and their faith “dulled” and on ice—as admitted by Courson himself!  Instead of repenting, these “prophecy experts” just reformulate their prophetic calculations and continue to stretch out the meaning of “this generation” just like the last days cults of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  This is the main “distinctive” of the “growth” and “success” of these cults, and is the same and main “distinctive” to the “growth” of the Calvary Chapel movement – selah.
 
7)      “We are living in the last days of the age of church history – view.     

Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith continue their quest of trying to predict that Christ is coming sometime “soon” in our lifetime and generation by speculating on the seven churches in Revelation,

“The “seven churches” symbolically speak of completeness.  I believe that in these messages we have a picture of the complete church history.”[20]

It is interesting that Smith insists on a “literal” dispensational hermeneutic and normally rejects a “spiritual interpretation,” stating,

“When you spiritualize the scriptures you remove any authority or teaching from them, because every man is free to interpret the spiritual allegory as he desires.”[21]

I guess its okay to spiritualize these seven literal first century churches to mean they represent church history – when you want to continue selling the “scheme” (Smith’s term)  that we are living in the final generation and thus living in the final age of church history.  Let’s briefly examine Smith’s “scheme” which is Hal Lindsey’s as well.  What follows is a combination of Smith and Lindsey’s position taken from Smith’s commentary on Revelation and Lindsey’s book There’s a New World Coming: An In-Depth Analysis of the Book of Revelation, p. 38:

1)      Ephesus – Is “symbolic” of “…the early church, the apostolic church that existed up until the time of the death of John (c.99 A.D.).” (ibid., p.32, emphasis added).  Lindsey sees this as the apostolic church.
2)      Smyrna – Is “symbolic” of the church in the “second to fourth centuries” and allegedly follows the church of Ephesus historically (ibid., p.32).  Lindsey sees this as the church persecuted by the Roman emperors.
3)      Pergamos – Is “symbolic” of the church “the development of the church-state system under Constantine in 316 A.D.  It was the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.” (ibid., p.38).  Lindsey sees this as the church during 312-590 A.D.
4)      Thyatira – Is “symbolic” apparently of “part of the church” that “will be going through the Great Tribulation.” (ibid., p.39).  Lindsey sees this the church during 590-1517 A.D.
 
5)      Sardis – Is “symbolic” of the Protestant church which didn’t reform enough (ibid. p. 41). Lindsey sees this as the church during 1517-1750 A.D.
6)      Philadelphia– Is “symbolic” of “…God’s faithful church in the last days.  God help us that we would be the church of Philadelphia.”  (ibid., p.42).  Apparently this church escapes the coming tribulation.  Lindsey sees this as the church during 1750-1925 A.D.   .
7)      Laodicia – Is “symbolic” of “…the apostate church of the last days.” (ibid., p.44).  Lindsey sees this as the church of 1900 A.D. until the tribulation.

Pastor Chuck Smith is convinced that his futuristic interpretation of the Book of Revelation is superior to others because,

“You don’t have to start twisting things to make them fit here and there, and changing them to fit some scheme.”[22]

Sounds to us that Smith’s interpretation of Revelation isn’t so “literal” and in fact he has no problem spiritualizing texts when it fits his “twisted scheme” to convince our generation that it will see the rapture of the church.  Of course, the adherents of this view do not always agree. Since time and history moves on, it becomes necessary for the proponents of this view to make up new divisions of the seven ages, thus the disagreements will continue. Isn’t it amazing how these people are all too often unable to think of themselves as living at any other time than during the climax of history?

It’s not Smith noticing that there were other churches to whom John could have written to or that 7 represents the number for completion that I object to.  Indeed others such as Ammillennialists and Postmillennialists have claimed these seven churches spiritually represent the entire church age, or even the Old Testament history of Israel leading up to A.D. 70. It’s Smith’s and Lindsey’s charismatic and dispensational arrogance which postulates their Spirit filled ability to interpret the Book of Revelation literally and applying its time of fulfillment has come upon our generation which is exegetically troubling.  For example Lindsey writes,

The Spirit of God gave me a special insight, not only into how John described what he actually experienced, but also into how this whole phenomenon encoded the prophecies so that they could be fully understood only when their fulfillment drew near.”[23]

However, the icing on the cake is when their predictions don’t come true and there is no genuine humility and repentance but simply a heading back to the drawing board in hopes of generating another prophetic scenario that applies to Christ’s imminent coming in our generation.  And when one seeks to confront Smith and others within Calvary Chapel in love on the doctrines of grace or eschatology, they cannot be challenged because their movement is “spirit led” while other churches emphasize “dry doctrine” and “theology” and thus allegedly “quench the Holy Spirit.”  Yet we need to persist in holding these men accountable for their “Spirit filled” Bible teachings.  The “Spirits movement” and sensationalistic and prophetic speculations of fulfillment for our contemporary generation are again, key elements of the growth of the Last Days cults!  Having grown up in this church for years and studied to be a Pastor within this system, I can honestly say this is the main distinctive of the growth of Calvary Chapel’s across the United States.  This is not to say there aren’t some good elements of the movement, but they are few and far in-between.

We have looked at how futurists twist 1 Peter 3:8 to allegedly teaching a prophetic scenario in which, “God’s week of human history is rapidly coming to completion. The return of Christ is nigh.”  But now we will take a look at how some twist this text to the opposite extreme–“Christ could delay His return another 2,000 years.”  We go from this text teaching imminence in our generation, to it allegedly teaching the imminent time texts in the New Testament simply mean nothing at all.
 
8)      “One day with the Lord is as a thousand years…” “Jesus could delay His return another 2,000 years” – view  

Peter begins 2 Peter 3 by stating that what follows is a “reminder” to what he had written in 1 Peter! Therefore, the Second Coming, reception and inheritance of the kingdom and glory, the judgment of the living and the dead, and the “end of all things” being “at hand” (1 Peter 1:4-12, 4:5, 7, 17) are now subjects Peter is going to continue to discuss in this chapter in the form of inheriting the new creation at His return.

 

It is alleged that this is the only text in the New Testament that turns the plethora of clear time texts to total and compete irrelevance,

“There is no doubt that in the New Testament the nearness of the end is limited to one generation. But this error of perspective (“Perspektivenirrtum”), which is corrected in only one place of the New Testament (2Pet. 3:8)…”[24]

Any student of hermeneutics knows one is never to build a doctrine off of one verse of the Bible especially when it contradicts an overwhelming amount of very clear passages! And if Peter is here trying to change the meaning of “at hand” (1Peter 4:7) to possibly mean thousands of years, then why don’t we find Paul or any of the other New Testament writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit giving such contradictory qualifiers as Ridderbos falsely accused Peter of doing? Since Richard Pratt wants to do some parallels with 2Pet.3:8-9 to that of some Old Testament texts (WSTTB, 151-154) I welcome the challenge.

In the Old Testament, God was very angry when mockers would come denying and twisting His imminent time texts and change “near” predictions to become “far off” ones! Any good cross reference or commentary will reference Ezekiel 7:5-10; 12:22-28 to ironically interpret 2 Peter 3:8. I say “ironically,” because this Old Testament passage ends up refuting and condemning their futuristic interpretation of the 2 Peter 3:8 text! Even futurist commentaries acknowledge that one of the sins of the false prophets and apostates of Eziekel’s day was not that they denied a coming judgment, but that they sought to change the meaning of “at hand” to “far off.”

“…here formalists do not go so far as to deny that a day of evil is coming, but assert it is still far off (Am 6:3).”[25]

The application of God’s Word here is firm and clear to the futurist who seeks to twist His imminent time texts into fitting their futurist interpretations and agendas. Even Reformed futurist Gary DeMar comments on the parallels of Ezekiel’s prophecy with that of Jesus,’

“Ezekiel’s description of the imminent destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem parallels what happened to Israel after the ascension and enthronement of Jesus. A warning of impending doom had been given to the nation. Many ignored the warning and died in the conflagration that came upon the city in A.D.70, on generation after Jesus pronounced His judgment (Matthew 24:14, 34; 1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:1, 3).” And , “Based on the way “quickly,” “near,” and “shortly” are used in Genesis through Revelation, any student of the Bible who does not interpret these time texts to mean anything other than close at hand is in jeopardy of denying the integrity of the Bible.”[26]

Isaiah prophesied that Babylon’s judgment was “at hand” and would not be delayed (Isa.13:6, 9, 22). Indeed God’s judgment of Babylon occurred through the means of the Medes and Persians and was not “prolonged” let alone delayed thousands of years because God is said to be “out side of time” and man is bound by time. The de-creation language of verses 9-10 refer to the civil and religious powers of Babylon falling in this in time historical judgment. However one wants to understand the army of the locusts in Joel’s prophecy, it was described as the “Day of the Lord” and was “at hand,” and therefore the people were facing an imminent judgment in which they needed to repent (Joel 1:2-3, 11, 13, 15, 2:15). Zephaniah prophesied that the “Day of the Lord” was “at hand” against Judah by means of the Babylonian armies and it also was not delayed thousands of years. Nor was “at hand,” here understood to mean thousands of years because God was “out side of time.”

Men such as Richard Pratt and John MacArthur[27] have attempted to refute us by arguing from verse 9 that God has postponed or delayed His Second Coming because of His attribute of being “longsuffering” towards sinners. It is also argued by these men that the Great Commission hasn’t been fulfilled and is thus another reason God has “delayed” some 2,000+ years and counting. God indeed was longsuffering and merciful towards the last days “this generation” of (A.D. 30-70) and the commandment of the Great Commission had already been fulfilled before A.D.70:

  PROPHECY            FULFILLMENT

“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” (Matthew 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)” (Romans 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; Mt.28:19-20)“…My gospel… has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations (Greek ethnos)…” (Romans 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 it has also in all the world(Greek kosmos), as is bringing forth fruit…,” (Colossians 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” (Colossians 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).

Prophecy had begun to be fulfilled:  “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. “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” (Romans 10:18)  

 
 

Prophecy would be fulfilled “shortly” :  “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 (Geek ethnos), and kindred (Greek phule) and tongue (Greek glossa), and people, (Greek laos)” (Rev.1:1; Rev.14:6).  See also Revelation 10:6-7; 20:3; 22:10-11 in regards to the Great Commission success to the “nations” and imminent fulfillment of the Great Commission motif.

The concept of God’s “longsuffering” does not necessitate a 2,000+ year “delay” of Christ’s return!  The text clearly says God would not be slow or delay as stated in Hebrews 10:37!  Allowing Scripture to interpret itself, His “longsuffering” was directed towards sinners living in and coming to repentance within a very specific time frame—their–“this generation” and no other!
Our text is very clear that God was not willing (Greek Boulomai) that His elect “any and “all” of His “beloved” Jewish and Gentile sheep should perish.  This is the strongest word in the Greek language to communicate the determinative will of God.  Peter’s theology is consistent–God would not delay or be slow and His decretive will to save and judge sinners in an “at hand” “ready” “be saved from this crooked and perverse generation” time frame–occured as planned (1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5, 7, 17; Acts 2:40)!  To argue any other way is to align oneself with the mockers of Peter’s day, deny inspiration, adopt a liberal view of interpreting Scripture, and deny ones own Calvinism—of which Pratt and MacArthur claim to teach–selah.  Peter goes on to say that God’s longsuffering was “salvation.”  None of God’s elect that He had sovereignly foreordained unto eternal life “perished” or were “appointed to wrath” in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 66-70.
Although one of our opponents Keith Mathison seeks to portray Daniel’s prophecy as shrouded in mystery and very difficult to understand, it is admitted by virtually everyone that Daniel 2, 7, 9, and 12 are chapters addressing Israel’s last days and refer to the reception of the Messianic Kingdom inseparably connected with the general resurrection and judgment at Christ’s Second Coming.  Therefore, we need to ask the straightforward question of, “Why was Daniel given a literal time frame of fulfillment while it is alleged that John is given the same prophecy with a non-literal time frame”?

Did God change His method of telling time

Between Daniel & John concerning the same subject matter?

DANIEL WAS TOLD: 1·   “Seal up the vision”
JOHN WAS TOLD: 1·   “Don’t seal up…”
2·   Why?  “the appointed time was long…” and  3·   “…the vision refers to many days yet to come.”      (Dan. 10:1;14)
2·   Why?  “…for the time is at hand.” 3·   “…for the time is near      (Rev. 22:10 & 1:3)
4·   Daniel was told that he would not live to see this prophecy fulfilled.      (Dan. 12:13)
4·   John was told that he could live to see the prophecy fulfilled.       (Mat. 16:27-28, Mat. 10:22-23; Mat. 24:34; Jn. 21:18-22)
God who rules over time apparently had no problem communicating to Daniel who was bound by time that this prophecy wouldn’t be fulfilled until a “long time” either in referring to a typological fulfillment prior to A.D. 70, or referring to A.D. 70 specifically.  Indeed the time of the fulfillment didn’t come until some hundreds of years from the time Daniel received the visions.  God’s time phrase of a “long time” was related to Daniel in the terms of his physical life span. Since some 300+ years was well beyond his life span, it was a “long time” away.
In Revelation, John is told the opposite of Daniel, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Rev. 22:10). God’s time phrases of “near,” “shortly,” “quickly,” and “at hand,” to John and the seven churches which were in Asia were promises also related to their life spans. John and the other disciples were promised that some of them would live to see these things come to pass in their generation (Mt. 16:28; 24:34, Jn. 21:18-22).  Both visions of Daniel and John (and the prophecies in Peter’s epistles) deal with the kingdom, the Second Coming of Christ in judgment, the tribulation, and the resurrection of the dead. According to the futurist, the time is still “near” for John’s vision to take place even though it has been some 2000+ years since John had his vision. Why would God now change His way of communicating the time of the fulfillment of Daniel’s and John’s visions concerning the same subject matter? The answer is that He didn’t.  At the time when Daniel had his visions which included the Second Coming of Christ and His kingdom, the time of its designated fulfillment—A.D. 70, really referred to a “far off” and “many days yet to come” time frame. When John had His vision concerning the Second Coming of Christ and His kingdom, it was only seven or fewer years away.  Therefore, “a long time” meant a long time and “near” really did mean NEAR!  Although Reformed theologians such as John Lightfoot and Gary DeMar are very inconsistent in trying to harmonize their preterism, with their creedal confessions, I would agree with such statements as this,
“John Lightfoot, in a sermon on Revelation 20:1-2, concludes that ‘where Daniel ends John begins, and goes no farther back, and where John begins Daniel ends, and goes no farther forward.  For Daniel sheweth the state and persecutors of the Church of the Jews, from the building of Jerusalem by Cyrus, to the destruction of it by Titus, and he goes no farther.’”
[28] 
9) The imminent time texts in the New Testament “demand” a Preterist interpretation except when the general judgment and resurrection are the topics – view. 
In Kenneth Gentry’s debate with other futurists on the Book of Revelation he accurately states that
“Revelation promises there will no longer be “delay” (10:6).  The ad hoc nature of the book demands a preterist approach.”  And “Similar notes of the temporal proximity of divinely governed cries abound in the New Testament (see Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:16-20; Rom. 13:11-12; 16:20; 1Cor.7:26, 29-31; Col. 3:6; 1Thess.2:16; Heb. 10:25, 37; James 5:8-9; 1Pet.4:5, 7; 1John 2:17-18).  How else could the New Testament express nearness more clearly?
[29]   
And another Reformed Mathison also concedes to our position on the imminence within the Book of Revelation pointing to an A.D. 70 fulfillment,
“John writes a number times in Revelation that his prophecy will be fulfilled very soon: see 1:1, 3, 19; 2:16; 3:10-11; 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20. Nothing in these verse indicates that the coming of Christ referred to in 1:7 is to occur thousands of years later. Everything in them points to an impending “coming.” There was only one event that occurred within a generation of the ascension of Christ that carried so much redemptive and covenantal significance that it could be called a “coming of Christ,” and that was the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 by the armies of Rome.”[30] Please note the surety in this work cited above in defending Postmillennialism against other futurist views, but there is an overwhelming “constant state of flux” and un-certainty when it comes to developing the imminent time texts in Revelation and the rest of the New Testament when Mathison debates us in his book WSTTB!

The problem for Sproul, Gentry and Mathison in conceding the time texts in Revelation points to an A.D. 70 fulfillment, has been pointed out by Vern Poythress who although not a preterist, correctly understands the struggle that all (not some) of Revelation is to be fulfilled imminently,

“But 1:3 and 22:10 are like bookends enclosing the whole prophecy of Revelation. The fulfillment of everything, not just a part, is near.”
[31]  
Apparently Gentry’s co-authors in When Shall These Things Be do not know how to answer his question here and all of them together can’t answer it when the resurrection and judgment of “the dead” is said to be something that is “at hand” or “about to” take place in the New Testament. Hank Hanegraaff has the same problem and yet claims that we need to interpret the Bible using “synergy” or simply put “let the Bible interpret itself” through using the analogy of Scripture. He writes,
“Scriptural synergy demands that individual Bible passages may never be interpreted in such a way as to conflict with the whole of Scripture.  Nor may we assign arbitrary meanings to words or phrases that have their referent in bible history.”
[32]  
It almost sounds as if Hanegraaff wants to follow the rules of hermeneutics and the analogy of Scripture principal of interpretation, but when the imminent time texts are connected to resurrection texts or they are inseparably connected thematically with resurrection texts using “synergy,” these men do not “demand” a preterist interpretation, they demand a creedal interpretation and become exegetical cowards seeking to hang on to their financial contributors and career positions within their ministries! 
In Romans 8:18 Paul says, “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” (Rms.8:18YLT; cf. NSRV, AV, & WEY: “soon to be manifested”).  The Greek word corresponding to “about to be” in Rom.8:18 is mello.  Reformed partial preterists such as R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry understand the word mello in the book of Revelation to refer to Christ’s return in A.D.70.  Sproul also says that it is not unreasonable to apply the imminence indicators in Roms.13:11-12 (“…for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.  The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness…”) to earlier chapters in Romans that do not explicitly have time texts. (Sproul, Last Days, pp. 99, 138-140).   If mello is a time-indicator that needs to be honored, and we can apply the time texts in Rom. 13:11-12 to earlier chapters, then why ignore this approach in Romans eight?  The claim that the teaching of “the” judgment and resurrection of the living and the dead was not given with imminence indicators directly tied to them is simply not true: “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” and “But when he dealt with the subjects of justice, self-control, and the judgment which was soon to come, Felix became alarmed…” (Acts 24:15, YLT/WEY; 24:25, WEY/YLT, cf. Acts 17:31, YLT/WEY; WUESTNT).
[21]   
Gary DeMar correctly points out that anyone denying the time texts is in jeopardy of denying the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture itself,
“…any student of the Bible who does not interpret these time texts to mean anything other than close at hand is in jeopardy of denying the integrity of the Bible.[33]

And as R. C. Sproul has suggested, any eschatology that denies the New Testament time texts has adopted a liberal or neo-orthodox view of God and time,

“When F.F. Bruce speaks of faith making the time be ‘at hand,’ this sounds all too much like Rudolf Bultmann’s famous theology of timelessness, which removes the object of faith from the realm of real history and consigns it to a supertemporal realm of the always present hic et nunc.”[34]

The first verse of Revelation does not say that some or most of the “things” of the prophecy will be fulfilled “shortly” it is just referring to the “things” contained in the prophecy itself of which John is about to unfold. There has been a valiant attempt to honor the time texts of Revelation from the Reformed and Evangelical partial preterist community, but this system as well does not honor the fact that all of the “things” in the prophecy would “shortly” be fulfilled from beginning to end.

Concluding our study of the imminent time texts
In the Book of Revelation and the New Testament

We believe that any eschatological system that denies the imminent time texts of the Book of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament concerning the Second Coming, the judgment, and the resurrection of the dead, have adopted a liberal view of God and time which does in fact end up denying (out of ignorance or not) the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures.  These views portray Christ not as the “Faithful and True Witness,” but as one who failed to keep His promise.  I pray for my former Pastor’s Chuck Smith and John MacArthur that they will abandon their prophetic “schemes” and bow before the teaching of Scripture.  The Reformed community also needs to stop talking about the abuses from these dispensationalists and admit they have invented “scholarly” “schemes” that have been weighed in the balances of Scripture and have been found to be wanting.  The futurist approach to the imminent time texts of the New Testament is a “House Divided” which cannot, nor will continue to stand against our view in public debate.
This study was imperitive in order to establish a genuine grammatical and historical hermeneutic as we venture to interpret the Book of Revelation. Having established the literal time frame of fulfillment, we can now take a look at some of the more spiritual interpretations of the prophecy concerning the kingdom of God of which Jesus taught was not of this world and would not be seen with the literal eyes when it came because it would be realized “within” the person (Luke 17:20-21-37).  We are now prepared to examine the spiritual nature of fulfillment.             

 

“He sent and signified it…” –  Spiritual and Figurative fulfillment

 

Kistemaker in his commentary admits Revelation should be viewed through a symbolic and figurative lens,

“The conclusion we must draw is that the numbers, images, and expressions of greatness must be interpreted as symbols that present the idea of totality, fullness, and perfection. Much of John’s symbolism derives from the Old Testament Scriptures and from the ecclesiastical context in which he spent his time. Let us note that the Jewish mind of the first century received and presented information by means of pictures, illustrations, and symbols.”
[35]

After quoting Herman Bavinck, David Chilton in his section on The Primacy of Symbolism in his commentary on Revelation correctly concludes,

“all creation is primarily symbolic” and “All creatures reflect the glory of God, and are images of some aspect or other of His nature. God’s personality is imprinted on everything He has made. The central value of anything is that it is a symbol of God. All other values and relationships are secondary.”
[36]

And again,

“Now St. John says that these things regarding the future were signified, or “sign-ified,” to him by the angel. The use of this word tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as “history written in advance.” It is a book of signs, symbolic representations of the approaching events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by St. John’s use of the same term in his Gospel (12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ “signifying” a future event by a more or less symbolic indication, rather than by a prosaic, literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. It is a book of symbols from beginning to end.”[37]

 

“Behold, he comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they which have pierced him, and all the tribes of the land shall wail because of him. Yea. Amen.” (Rev. 1:7 DARBY, cf. YLT)

This contemporary audience who would “see” and “mourn” at Christ’s imminent return is even further identified in verse 7 as “those who pierced him.” Reformed futurists such as Marcellous Kik, Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Kenneth Gentry, Keith Mathison, and Gary DeMar, all interpret verse 7 as Christ coming in judgment within the contemporary generation of “the tribes of the land” of Israel whom crucified Christ, and not the whole planet “earth.” “Every eye” is qualified by those who pierced Christ and were therefore the “tribes of the land” of Israel.

The Greek word in our text for “see” is horao and has the meaning, “of mental and spiritual perception perceive, take note, recognize, find out (AC 8.23);[38] to see with the mind, to perceive, know. 3 to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience. [39] Chilton correctly saw this passage accurately when he wrote,

“The crucifiers would see Him coming in judgment—that is, they would experience and understand that His Coming would mean wrath on the Land (cf. the use of the world see in Mark 1:44; Luke 17:22; John 3:36; Rom. 15:21).”[40]

And perhaps another example from Kenneth Gentry,

“In various places in Revelation “seeing” does not demand a physical beholding, but sensing or realizing, just as we say, “I see,” when a teacher shows us a math solution.” “…Yet this is a type of “seeing.”[41]

We agree with the majority of commentators and cross reference systems which parallel this passage with Jesus being seen coming on or in the clouds at His return in (Mt.16:27-28, 24:30-31, 26:64-68; & Acts 1:11). Milton Terry actually sought to be more consistent than most partial preterists and applied Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7; and Mt. 24:30-31, 34 together being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem,

“To press the literal import of the words “every eye shall see him,” and insist that at the parousia Christ must literally appear on a cloud, and be visible to every person on the habitable globe, involves manifest absurdities. The statement of the angels in Acts 1:11, is that the Lord would come again in like manner as the disciples beheld him going into heaven; but that ascension, like the appearance of the angels, was visible to only a chosen few. That he personally came again in that generation, and was seen by multitudes, and by those who were guilty of his blood, we accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures. But no person or phenomenon in the clouds of heaven could be visible, at one and the same time, to all the inhabitants of the earth; and no one pretends that the Son of man is to pass through the clouds and make the circuit of the globe so as to appear literally to every eye. The words of Rev. 1:7, are, therefore, to be understood in general harmony with both the temporal and geographical limitations of the prophecy.”[42]

Acts 1:9-11

Since most Evangelicals and Reformed theologians correctly parallel Revelation 1:7 with Acts 1:11, I will briefly turn my attention to this passage. After the command to take possession of the kingdom through the Great Commission (Acts 1:8/Cols. 1:5-6, 23; Rom. 10:18), Jesus in verse 9 ascends in a cloud out of the disciple’s sight. Mathison concedes, “According to BDAG lexicon, the verb is used in Acts 1:9 in the sense of “to cause to ascend, take up.”[43] The passage could very easily be translated, “And saying these things, as they looked, He was taken up; (even-indeed-namely), a cloud took Him up from their eyes.”[44] In other words the second half of the verse is describing how Jesus was taken up and that it was the cloud itself which was the vehicle that caused Jesus to ascend. Futurists note that from the Greek text itself it is a valid interpretation that Jesus’ literal body was not seen once the cloud came and hid Him,

“…one may prefer to employ “he was hidden by a cloud” or “he was no longer visible because of a cloud.” If the verb hid suggests some intentionality on the part of the cloud, one may employ “because of the cloud he could not be seen” or “…they could not see him.”[45]

Jason Brandfield gives a helpful illustration at this point,

“I remember one time at the airport a little girl with her dad was looking out the window, watching her mom board the plane, and then as it took off, she pointed at it and said, “Look, there goes the airplane that contains the body of my mom!” – is that what she said? No! Pointing to the plane, she said, “Look, there goes mom!””[46]

It is exegetically sound to understand from this text that Christ came into the glory cloud or began receiving or received the glory He had with His Father before the incarnation (cf. John 17:5) at this point as the glory cloud engulfed Him before the disciples and hid Him from their sight. Upon this happening, His physical body was not seen as the cloud caused Him to ascend up and out of their sight. What was physically seen that ascended was the glory cloud as it was visible on certain occasions in the Old Testament and not Jesus’ physical body.

In verse 11, the disciples are told Jesus will come “in like manner.” The continuity of Him coming back as He had gone, is that He would appear in the glory of His Father (Mt.16:27) on the clouds of heaven to judge as the Father had in the Old Testament. He was not physically seen after going into the glory cloud and He would not be seen coming into or “dwelling” “within” the Church at His revealing (Lk.17:20-37; Jn.14:2-3, 23). God in the Old Testament was never bodily or literally seen coming in or on the clouds when He judged Israel and the nations and that is why Jesus is “hid” and not seen once He enters the glory cloud. They saw with their literal eyes and understood in their minds that Christ was God and the angels declared to them that He will come back in a similar way – that is, He will come back in glory as God.

Through the incarnation, God became “flesh.” Therefore, John bore testimony that looking and touching Jesus was to look and touch God Himself (Jn.1:14; 1Jn.1:1). God was now physically seen in the “flesh” but this was only a transitionary period for the second person of the Godhead. Christ was also born into and under the old-covenant “fleshly” system with its physical transitionary types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5-8; 2Cor.3; Heb.8:13)This fleshly system would give way to the spiritual and eternal new-covenant creation by A.D.70. Therefore, after Jesus’ ascension we are told, “…though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2Cor.5:16). This was the point of the angel’s question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky?” Because Jesus was no longer in His physical fleshly body but had returned to His glory, the disciples should not be expecting Him to return to them in this form.

The immediate context linking this return to: 1) the teachings of John the Baptist (verse 5/Mt.3:2-12), 2) the kingdom’s arrival in their generation with no one knowing the exact time (verse 7/Mt. 24:30-36; Lk. 21:27, 31-32), along with 3) the necessity of the Great Commission being fulfilled first (verse 8/Mt.24:14, 27, 30/Rms.10:18), all point to Christ’s return in A.D.70. The analogy of Scripture confirms our interpretation and not the futurist view which rips the passage from its immediate context and the broader New Testament context.  

Matthew 24:30

Another passage futurists accurately parallel Revelation 1:7 with is Matthew 24:30 where Christ is said to be seen coming on the clouds within the contemporary generation that would see Christ come and destroy the temple and judge apostate Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Futurist concede that this is not a physical seeing of Jesus in this passage,

“…the Bible, especially the Old Testament, will be our guide. What is the association of clouds and God? First, God showed Himself by the physical presence of clouds although no one ever saw Him (eg., Exodus 13:21; 14:24; 19:9; 20:21; 24:15; 33:9; 34:5; 1 Kings 8:12). Second, God’s abode is described as a canopy of clouds (Psalm 97:2). Third, God’s mode of transportation is figuratively described as a cloud chariot (Psalm 104:3). Fourth, when God speaks “He causes the clouds to ascend from the ead of the earth” (Jeremiah 10:13; 51:16). Fifth, the “day of the LORD… will be a day of clouds” (Ezekiel 30:3; Joel 2:2). Sixth, God’s judgment of the wicked is described as the upheaval of the created order: “In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet” (Nahum 1:3). In each of the above examples, clouds are symbols of God’s presence, judgment, and salvation. In not one instance is God ever seen. Only the effects of His works are seen.
In addition, there are verses which describe God “coming on the clouds”: “Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt” (Isaiah 19:1; cf. Psalm 104:3). This is no more “literal” than God riding a cloud chariot, abiding in a cloud canopy, or clouds moving when God speaks. The image of God riding on a swift cloud depicts His sovereignty over the nations as their judge.”
“…God does not physically appear on clouds, using them as “chariots.” Neither does He literally walk upon “wings of the wind” or make “the winds His messengers.” The language describes judgment and retribution. Why should anyone think it unusual to find similar language in the New Testament being interpreted in the same way?”[47]

The other connection that is made between Revelation 1:7 with that of Matthew 24:30 is the phrase “…all the tribes of the land will mourn.” Again futurists concede that this is not a global event but a local one affecting the local land of Israel,

“The “tribes of the earth” who mourn are either the Jewish tribes in the “land” (ge in Greek) or the Jewish tribes scattered throughout the Empire. The “coming of the Son of Man is His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem (see vv. 23-28)…”
[48]

Gary DeMar agrees,

“…most translations do not capture the true meaning of the Greek. A better translation is “tribes of the land,” indicating that the event is restricted to Israel since Israel is the topic of discussion.” “Since “tribes” is used in conjunction with land in Matthew 24:30, “land [of Judea]” is the best translation.”
“The warning to all the tribes of the land that their city and sanctuary were about to be reduced to rubble caused great mourning because they understood that judgment was near. They must either repent and embrace the Messiah or perish in the conflagration. The Jewish Christians left when they saw “Jerusalem surrounded by armies.”[49]

Again, coming back to Milton Terry’s comments of the three passages taken together (Rev.1:7; Acts 1:11; Mt. 24:30-31, 34), “we accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures” that Christ returned on/in the clouds in that generation. Our futurist opponents have admitted that the “seeing” of Revelation 1:7 is not a physical seeing of Jesus, but a spiritual sight of “understanding” and “perceiving” that Christ had come through the Roman armies in judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They have admitted that seeing Him come on the clouds is apocalyptic language and that He was not literally seen coming on literal clouds in A.D. 70. We concur with the observations of futurists that Revelation involves a local judgment upon the local land of Palestine (the tribes of the land) and the Coming of Jesus in Revelation was not a literal coming on literal clouds. It is very true that the judgment and great tribulation associated with the Greek word ge “earth” or “land” throughout the Olivet discourse and the Book of Revelation is involving the local “land” of Palestine and is not describing a literal global catastrophe!

Revelation 2-3

As I quoted Poythress previously noting that the time texts form two book ends encapsulating the fulfillment of the entire prophecy as something to take place imminently, the same “book ends” concept is communicated in the receiving of the rewards at this near coming of Christ at the beginning and end (Rev. 1-3—Rev. 22:6-7, 10-12, 20). Because futurist eschatological systems understand the inheriting of these rewards are to take place at the end of time, they understand the nature of these realities to be literal and not spiritual or symbolic of the churches union with Christ at His return. So they end up spiritualize the literal time texts away instead of analyzing how these rewards are spiritually fulfilled and applied in the New Testament. Here is a list of the rewards promised to be received in an “at hand” time frame at the beginning of Revelation and then at the end – again inseparably tied to the imminent return of Christ forming the two book ends:

1) Ephesus: Eat from the Tree of Life 2:5.
2) Smyrna:
a). Receive a Crown of Life 2:10,

b). Will not be hurt by the Second Death 2:11.

3) Pergamum:
a). Receive Secret Manna 2:17,
b). Receive a White Stone 2:17,

c). Receive a New Name 2:17.

4) Thyatira:
a). Receive Authority Over the Nations 2:26,
b). Rule the Nations with a scepter 2:27.
5) Sardis:
a). Walk with Christ Dressed in White 3:4,

b).   Not be Blotted Out of the Book of Life 3:5.

6) Philadelphia:
a). Christ would keep them from the Hour of Trial 3:10,

b). Receive a Crown 3:11,
c). Christ would Make them a Pillar In His Temple 3:12,
d). Christ would cause them To Never Leave 3:12

e). Receive a New Name / New Jerusalem 3:12.
7) Laodicea:
a). Receive True Riches “Gold” 3:18,

b). Not be ashamed and unclothed but Clothed in White 3:18),

c). Receive Salve to put on their eyes 3:18,

d). Receive the Right to Sit on His Throne 3:18,
e). Receive the Right to Eat With Christ 3:20
f). Receive the Right to Sit Down on Christ’s Throne 3:21.

All of these “rewards” speak of Christ “in” and working “through” His Church (2 Cor.1:20) restoring God’s fellowship and presence to His people when He would come “in a very little while” and a “second time” to take away their sin and the curse of spiritual death identified in Adam (cf. Heb. 9:26-28; Rom. 8:18YLT; 11:26-27; 13:11-12; 1 Cor. 15:22, 26-28, 51-57).   Let’s take a look at the spiritual nature of these rewards and the time frame of them being received at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20-22:12.

1)      Tree of Life Revelation 2:7 / 22:2-4.

 

Most commentators agree that this is describing Christ Himself restoring what was lost or better yet, never achieved or accessed by Adam in the Garden. Adam died spiritually the very “day” he ate and was thus cast out of God’s presence and not allowed back in. Through Christ’s first and Second Appearing at the end of the old-covenant age (Heb. 9:26-27) “sin” has been dealt with and now God’s people can enter into God’s Most Holy Place “Tree of Life” presence. This description of the Tree of Life, Living Waters, seeing God’s Face, the healing of the Nations, and the like, are describing Christ’s union with His glorified Body – the Church, preaching the Gospel and sinners coming through faith into the City or presence of God. The Tree and the living waters of eternal life that bring healing to the Nations can be further seen in Ezekiel’s end time prophecy of the New Temple and the healing waters that would flow from it (Ezk. 40 – 48 – especially 47; cf. Isa.35:6-9 – “highway” “I am the Way…”). Paul clearly understands the millennium temple to not be a literal rebuilt physical temple during a literal thousand years, but the church itself since he quotes Ezekiel 37:27 when he says, “…we are the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16).

None of the constituent elements of Revelation 22:1-4 surrounding the Tree of Life can be seen to be taken literally in the New Testament, but rather spiritual and eternal:
a). Water of Life John.4:13-24; 7:37-38.
b). The City Hebrews 12-13:14; Galatians 4.
c). Beholding God’s light, life, glory, and face John.1, 3, 8; Jn.14:6; 1 John 1-2; 2 Cor.3-4; 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
d). No more “curse” Galatians 3.

e). Fruit Matthew 22:43/1 Peter 2:9; John 15; Romans 6:22 – 7; Galatians 5: 22-26; Ephesians 5:9; Colossians 1:6; James 1:18; 3-5.

These rewards were already in the process of being realized spiritually through faith in Christ and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For example Jesus tells His disciples that “as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within” the believer beginning at Pentecost (John 7:37-38). What “Scripture” is Jesus referring to if not Ezekiel 47? The spiritual experience of these new creation rewards of God’s presence would be further realized at His return when He established His Kingdom in the hearts of men and women within that generation (cf. Luke 17:20-21-37/Luke 21:30-32). For those who twist the EXEGETICAL FACT that Christ promised to return “shortly” and reward the Church at Ephesus (and His Body throughout the ages) of partaking of the Tree of Life we shall only rebuke their “sick” doctrine with the words of the Proverb: “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov.13:12).

2)      Crown of Life True Riches “Gold” Revelation 2:10, 3:11; cf. 1Peter 5:4.

 

The “crown of life” is synonymous with “eternal life” in which the early church was in the process of possessing through faith in the work of Christ upon the cross and the outpouring and sealing of the Holy Spirit. But they would soon “lay hold of” of “eternal life” at His return (Romans 2:7; 1Timothy 6:19; Titus 3:7; Jude 1:21). In the James the crown of life would be received no doubt at Christ’s “at hand” coming (James 1:12, 5:7-9).

Eden was filled with gold and precious stones Genesis 2:11-12. In the Old Testament the tabernacle and temple were glorified with the wealth of the various nations she would conquer such as taking gold from the Egyptians. God says in Haggai 2:9, that the silver and gold belongs to Him and that the glory of the Messianic Temple will exceed anything that has gone before it. Solomon’s wealth in decorating the temple with gold to the extreme, were types of Christ and the Church. But how? Jesus taught that He was greater than the temple and Solomon Matthew 12 and yet He had no place to lay His head. Jesus was deliberately poor monetarily to communicate that the true kingdom riches resided in the spiritual realm of the heart where neither rust, moths, nor thieves could get to Isaiah 51:3-8/Matthew 6. There are some redemptive elements in Scripture that are more precious than gold and silver:

1) Christ’s blood, righteousness, and wisdom is the only means by which a man can be redeemed and his soul saved from death Psalm 49; 1 Peter 1:9, 18-19; Proverbs/1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 and
2) The riches of our faith in the sight of God procures this 1 Peter 1:7-12.

The gold and precious stones (Christ being the corner Daniel 2; Isaiah 28), in describing the Most Holy Place City (Revelation 21:16- chapter 22) and refers to Christ’s righteousness and Him clothing it upon His Bride as it descends from heaven to earth. At times our feelings may communicate to us that we are no more than a dirty old rock but, but the reality is, that we are a glorious precious gem and treasure in the sight of God because He has placed Christ’s fire/glory/light/and righteousness within us.

I believe the exchange between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is a type of the exchange taking place with the believers exercising faith in Christ and Christ bestowing His righteousness and wisdom to the believer (1Kings 10:1-10). This is how the Gentile nations of the world were building up the Messianic Temple with their riches and glory in Isaiah 60. The expression of these spiritual riches can be seen in the giving of material wealth from the Gentile church to the Jewish brethren struck by a famine in the book of Acts. This was demonstrating what the building, glorifying, and raising of the new-covenant Temple was all about – faith in action through love in the building of ONE Body/Temple Jew and Gentile (cf. Psalm 112:3-10; Ephesians 2, 5:14/Isaiah 60; Acts 11:28/Acts 15/1Corinthians 16:1-4/Romans 15).

3) Will not be hurt at all by the Second Death and will cause them to never leave the gates of the city (Revelation 2:11, 3:12, 20:6, 21:8, 22:6, 14).

The first death came through Adam and it was a spiritual death that resulted in separation. Adam rejected the Tree of Life and partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The “Second Death” and “sin unto death” 1John 5:16-17 would be the result of rejecting God’s Son – THE TREE OF LIFE within the transitionary stage and within the new-covenant age about to come. Rejecting Christ’s completed salvation through His redemptive work on the cross and parousia, and seeking to be justified or accepted by God due to ones own performance or “righteousness,” is the sin of final apostasy. Jesus said this would occur in the old-covenant age in which He was ministering and in the new-covenant age or the “age about to come” (Mt. 12:32) in which we are currently living. Unbelievers do commit this sin but believers “cannot” “nor will they” because of the new birth 1 John 3:9/1 John 5:16-17. Experiencing the “second death” is a reality for those who reject Christ in this life and throughout all eternity. Christians have been preserved, protected, and thus persevere from going to or crossing over to such a place. It is impossible for a Christian to leave the Cities gates (Rev.3:12) for Christ alone has the words of eternal life (John 6:60-69).

4)       I will give some of the Hidden Manna, “I will eat with him,” give a “new Name” (Revelation 2:17, 3:20, 19, 22:1-14; Isaiah 25:6-9; Isaiah 55:1-2; Isaiah 62; Matthew 22:1-14, 25:1-13; cf. John 6:27f.).

 

The “Hidden Manna” is Christ Himself, the “bread from heaven” (John 6:33) in which the early church began feasting upon through faith in His words. However, this intimacy would be more realized in the Kingdom when Christ would come to dwell within His people and dine with them at the wedding supper – both Jew and Gentile Matthew 8:11-12, 26:29; Luke 17:20-21; cf. also John 14:2-3, 23. Those Christian’s whom overcame in the first century did experience this reward of intimacy of feasting upon the faithfulness of their Lord and we do today as well! To confirm the “at hand” time frame of this reward of partaking of Christ at the wedding feast in Revelation 19-22, we should note that it is predicted to occur when the old-covenant city was destroyed as taught by or our Lord in Matthew 22:7 and since Matthew 25 is a continuation and recapitulation of Matthew 24 as we noted earlier, the wedding feast would occur at Christ’s return in “this generation.” Jesus coming to reward “some standing here who shall not taste of death,” “this generation,” and “Behold I am coming soon with My reward…” all answer to the same time frame Matthew 16:27-28, 24:34; Revelation 22:12! There’s only one new-covenant wedding and feast folks and Mt.22-25 and Revelation posits it within the imminent time frame of Israel’s old-covenant “the last days” period ending in A.D. 70.
The old-covenant people who once bore the name “the holy people” would be rejected for they had rejected their Messiah. A new name was now given to those who followed Jesus as their Messiah, for they were now of “the way” and the true members of the New Jerusalem and Mount Zion. In A.D. 70 the old-covenant kingdom and the names associated with that people, would be taken from them and be given in their restored form to the followers of Christ.

5)      Reigning With Christ and Ruling over the Nations Revelation 2:26-27, 3:21, 20:4.
Jesus posits the millennial period with the symbolic number of a 1000 as the period of His pre-parousia in Revelation 20 indicating the period of time until He returns. In Matthew 24:34 He identifies this time period literally as a “this generation” time period. During that time frame, the first century Christians were “made alive” as “firstfruits” and “seated in heavenly places” (Ephsians 2:4-6; James.1:18; 1 Corinthians 15-16; Revelation 14). The 12 were promised that in the regeneration or resurrection they would sit on 12 thrones ruling over the tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). At this point we need to address what the “nations” are and how exactly the Christians were ruling over them with that rule being established at the Lord’s return in A.D. 70. Since most agree that Revelation is John’s version of the Olivet discourse, perhaps J. Stuart Russell’s comments on the “nations” in (Mt. 25:31-33) being equivalent to the tribes of the land of Israel in (Mt. 24:30) have some validity.[50]

However, at the same time we cannot miss that the Church was ruling over the Gentiles and their inclusion in the Kingdom as the gospel was being extended throughout the Roman world Matthew 24:14/Colossians 1:23). They carried and wielded the “sword of the Spirit” (Ephs. 6:17) which was the gospel slaying the unbelievers (brining an “aroma of death”). This same gospel was being used to bring to life those who were ordained unto eternal life as a sweet smelling aroma of life (cf. Matthew 10:34-42; Acts 2:52040 “all nations” “this generation;” 13:48; 2 Corinthians 2:14-17; Hebrews 4:12; Colossians 1:5-27; Revelation 2:12, 16). The Church functioned as God’s Priests and Kings. Under the old covenant the Levitical Priests were in charge of “guarding” the Temple making sure no unclean thing or person entered in a similar way the flaming cherubim guarded the Garden in Genesis. The gospel and the Church served and continues to serve as God’s sword making sure no unclean thing enters the City (Revelation 21-22). God alone knows those that are His within or without the City, but it is our job to preach the word allowing it to have its aroma of life and death, and to “continue in doctrine.” Through the imprecatory prayers of the persecuted Christians in A.D. 70 the debate over who were the true children of God was once and for all decided and their persecutors/enemies were forced to bow the knee before Christ as the Son of God and before His beloved (cf. Rev. 6:10-11/Mt. 23:32-39; Phil. 2:10; Rev.3:9) whom now alone bore and bear the True name as the New Jerusalem and God’s Holy People.

Concluding thoughts on the timing of inheriting the rewards of the new creation:
The fact that all the new creation promises given at the beginning of the book will be imminently given and then received at the end of the prophecy in a “symbolic” fulfillment associated with a “soon” and “at hand” coming of Christ in A.D.70, refutes both Kistemaker’s position that Revelation was written after A.D.70 and Mathison and Gentry’s claims that we are still in the millennial period awaiting the final literal stage of fulfillment. Revelation definitely teaches a postmillennial coming of Christ in which she inherits the new creation, but it climaxes and ends “shortly” at Christ’s imminent return and no other return is mentioned!

Revelation 4
 

In verse 1 John is given his second vision of which he sees God on His throne and twenty four Elders on their thrones surrounding Him. These twenty four elders are dressed in white and possess crowns. The number twenty-four signifies the union and relationship between the redeemed from the old covenant ruling twelve tribes of Israel, and the ruling of God’s new covenant Israel depicted by the appointing of the twelve disciples. The new-covenant Israel being built upon their authority and revelation given through them. To this Kistemaker agrees,

“The traditional interpretation of the twenty-four elders is that this number is the total of twelve times two, namely, twelve Old Testament patriarchs and twelve New Testament apostles, the representatives of those redeemed by Christ.”
[51]

All of these elders need not completely be a depiction of disembodied spirits in the afterlife, but representative of the Church on earth seated in the heavenly places before God pours out His wrath upon old-covenant Jerusalem. The Church during A.D. 30 – 70 were being raised form the dead. They were seated in the heavenly places. They had come to the Old Testament spirits of just men made perfect. And in the arrival of the new covenant age, were promised to commune with Christ and rule over Israel (Ephs. 1:20, 2:6; Heb. 11:39-40/12:22-24; Lk. 22:16, 29-30). This is what we are seeing here in our text with the anticipation of Christ about to pour out His wrath upon old-covenant Jerusalem and the Christians through praise and prayer playing a role in this “soon” to come drama.

Revelation 5
 

In this chapter we see Christ alone being worthy to open the scroll and He alone having the authority and divine right to judge because of His perfection, righteousness, and His sacrifice which procured a blood bought people and Kingdom. We are told here that Jesus is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah in verse 5. Jesus is the Lion and the Messiah of whom in A.D. 70 would cause the covenantal authority and scepter to depart from Judah and the Church would be gathered, raised, and glorified to behold His very face (Gen. 49:9-12; Mt. 24:30-31, 34; 1Cor. 13:12; Rev. 22:4, 12). Of these new-covenant priests and kings making up this kingdom of whom Christ has redeemed, it is said that “…they will reign on the earth” in verse 10. This is another indicator that Revelation is not completely concerned with disembodied spirits, as much as it is God’s reign on earth through His people whom are “on the earth.” This reigning on the earth continues into the new-covenant age which was “about to come” during the transition period. Post A.D.70 the Church continues Her mission as priests and kings in bringing healing to the nations as we preach the everlasting gospel.

Christ didn’t come to potential save the human race, but to actually redeem and establish a kingdom of priests and kings 5:9-10. Arminians such as Chuck Smith believe Christ died for the entire race of all mankind. Yet phrases in the new testament such as the “world” or the “whole world” need to be understood as teaching God’s elect redeemed being gathered out from among the nations – Jew and Gentile. Smith and others teaching that God intending to save all of mankind but continues to get frustrated because of man’s “free will” is no where taught in Scripture. Even Arminian preterists such as Don Preston need to submit to the teaching of God’s Word here on the intent of Christ’s redemptive purposes.

Revelation 6
 

In this chapter Jesus begins pouring out His wrath upon old-covenant Jerusalem by opening the first six seals. Judgment here is depicted by various riders and horses representing the covenantal curses upon old-covenant Israel (Deut. 28) being blood shed through war, famine, and death. Jesus described all of these events and judgments in Matthew 24 when Jerusalem would be surrounded by the Romans during A.D. 66-70 in His “this generation.” There is overwhelming evidence in this chapter alone which points to a pre A.D. 70 date and fulfillment of Revelation.  Of course Kistemaker does not want to go into any depth on the parallels of this chapter with that of the Olivet discourse so let’s allow another futurist to establish the parallels and a first century fulfillment of them. Mathison writes,

1. War (6:1-2; cf. Matt. 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9)

2. International strife (6:5-6; cf. Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8;            Luke 21:10

3. Famine (6:5-6; cf. Matt. 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11)

            4. Pestilence (6:7-8; cf. Luke 21:11)
5. Persecution (6:9-11; cf. Matt. 24:9-11; Mark 13:9-13; Luke 21:12-19)

6. Earthquakes, cosmic upheaval (6:12-17; cf. Matt.24:15-31; Mark 13:14-27; Luke 21:20-27)
John is clearly speaking of the very events prophesied by Christ in the Olivet discourse, events which were to fall upon the generation of Jews who rejected and crucified their Messiah.[52]

The parallels and themes of Revelation 6 run throughout the Book of Revelation from beginning to end. The reason why Kistemaker does not want to acknowledge the parallels of Revelation 6 with that of the Olivet discourse, is because it is very easy to demonstrate how all of these covenant curses and signs were fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation.” Mathison and Gentry on the other hand correctly make the “clear” A.D. 70 fulfillment parallels but then fail to see the same events being carried throughout Revelation. Particularly, when these same themes and events are carried through Revelation 11-20 where the judgment and resurrection of “the dead” are in view.  Futurists such as Kistemaker, Mathison, and Gentry have inconsistent and incoherent interpretive problems which we consistently and exegetically solve using the very hermeneutics that they themselves use to interpret the Book of Revelation. I am simply stepping into their futurist paradigm and using their own hermeneutics to build my case.

 

1) Vindication of martyrs in “a little while” and time for the Resurrection 

When the fifth seal is opened in verses 9-11 we get a prophetic picture of the first century persecuted church, through the eyes of the martyrs crying out under the altar wanting to know from the Lord “how long” until their prayers of vengeance upon their enemies will be answered. They are told in “a little while.” Kistemaker asks the question of this verse,

“How long is “a little while”? Jesus referred to his imminent departure when he said, “Yet a little while am I with you” (John 7:33 KJV) and “Yet a little while is the light with you” (John 12:35 KJV). By contrast, the souls under the altar must wait as they call for judgment to take place at the consummation. No one, not even the Son of Man, knows when the culmination comes, for it is God the Father who sets the times and the seasons (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7).
[53]

Since allowing Scripture to interpret itself here on the meaning of “a little while” would destroy Kistemaker’s futurism, he claims the “a little while” of 6:11 is different or a 2,000 + years and counting “contrast” to how Jesus has used it elsewhere. Thus he feels he can arbitrarily give it the meaning of “eschatological time” or “symbolic time”! There is no contradiction between Jesus knowing that He would return within his own imminent generation and yet declare it was given to the Father to know the exact day and hour (within His generation) it would occur!

According to Jesus, the vindication of the martyrs would take place at His return, when the temple would become desolate, and specifically within His “this generation” (Mt. 23:30-36, 38; 24:1-34). So when we examine the teachings of Jesus, a “little while” means what it says and there is no reason to make up ones own definition of “eschatological time” to force it into the futurist paradigm! It is more than consistent to have one writing towards the end of Jesus’ “this generation” to address the time of His return and vindication to arrive in “a little while.” The “Synagouge of Satan” and the Jewish “countrymen” were the ones responsible for killing these first century Christians. Although Kistemaker does parallel this martyr scene with Matthew 23, he fails to exegetically parallel Jesus’ phrase of “this generation” (Mt. 23:26) with His “in a little while” period as being the divine time frame for the cup of God’s wrath to be full. He states,
“But when God’s endurance has come to an end and the cup of his wrath is full, the time for judgment is near (Matt. 23:32; 1 Thess. 2:16).[54]

But notice how he selectively referenced (Mt. 23:32) without mentioning the “this generation” of verse 36 and references (1Thess. 2:16) without pointing out that this persecution and martyrdom is coming from their contemporary Jewish “countrymen” in verses 14-15 and that Christ would come and give them “relief” from while at the same time giving these first century persecutors “tribulation” at His return (2Thess. 1:5-7)! This is very poor exegesis coming from Kistemaker in comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Keith Mathison does connect some of these exegetical dots between the Thessalonian epistles with that of Revelation and Mathews gospel. He correctly applies their coming “relief” from the “hour of trial” and the fiery vindication upon their first century Jewish enemies as Christ coming from heaven in the judgment of A.D. 70.[55] Likewise Kenneth Gentry states,

“He would be taunting them mercilessly if he were discussing events two thousand years distant. God answers the anxious cry “How long?” by urging their patience only a “little while longer” (6:10-11).
[56]

Unfortunately for Mr. Gentry, he does not use this same logic and hermeneutic when it comes to Christ returning from heaven to give his first century Christians relief and burn up their enemies in 1 & 2 Thessalonians! Gentry is not as preteristly progressive as Mathison is in the Thessalonian epistles. But neither Mathison nor Gentry can exegetically address:

1) How Abel was vindicated without the consummative judgment and resurrection having taken place in Jesus’ “this generation,” and
2) Deal with the parallel and recapitulation structure of the same group of martyrs throughout Revelation as receiving vindication and relief at the time of the judgment and resurrection of the living and the dead (Rev. 2:10-13; 6:9; 11:7; 13:15; 17:6; 18:24; 20:4).

It is at this point the partial preterits views of Mathison and Gentry fall apart when the issues involving the judgment and resurrection of “the dead” are brought up, they avoid the parallel and recapitulation structure of Revelation and start quoting creeds, run to “Mother church” and completely abandon the internal message of Revelation let alone the rest of Scripture! Scripture affirms Israel’s sin of violating her old covenant law in shedding the blood of the righteous would be judged in a very specific generation within  Israel’s “last days.” The prophets also affirmed this would be the time of receiving the kingdom and attaining the resurrection (Deut. 31:29; 32:5, 20, 43; Isa. 1-5; Isa. 24-27; Dan. 7, 9, 12). Jesus said all this would be fulfilled in His generation, which included the resurrection (Mt. 23-24:30-31, 34; Luke 21:22-32). Jesus and John in Revelation are consistent with Jesus’ teaching in the gospels as to the time frame of the vindication of the martyrs on this matter.

2) Apocalyptic language of judgment and the de-creation of Revelation 6:12-14

 

The Bible is its own best interpreter. In (Isaiah 13:9-10), the contextual setting is God about to judge Babylon through the Medes and Persians. Babylon’s fall is described as, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” In Scripture the sun, moon, and stars represented men holding civil and religious authorities and who governed and ruled a particular nation. When God would judge a particular nation, He would describe it as Him turning out their lights or casting their stars to the ground. Later in (Isaiah 34:4-5) the fall of Edom is described, “All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree. “For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, And on the people of My curse, for judgment.” Obviously, the literal heavens did not roll back like a scroll and literal stars (which are much bigger than the earth) did not fall to the earth when God judged Edom. This is figurative language describing–in time–historical judgments of nations (see also  Amos 5:18; 8:9 describing the judgments upon Israel and Judah through the Assyrians and Babylonians).

Kistemaker in his commentary on Revelation while acknowledging some figurative language is being used, without examining the contexts of Isaiah 13 and 34, believes these passages are dealing with the destruction of the planet at the end of time as he assumes Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:12-14 are. However, Reformed theologians and even dispensational one have acknowledged these passages in Isaiah to be using figurative language describing historical judgments of nations and not the destruction of the planet earth. The context to the de-creation language in Matthew 24:29 as Gentry and Mathison agree, is addressing the casting down of the civil and religious rulers of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and has nothing to do with the destruction of the planet earth. Kistemaker even believes Joel 2:10, 31 is describing the end of the planet. Because Kistemaker believes the coming of the Lord in Acts 2:19-20 is still future and refers to the de-creation of the planet earth, this logically forces him into embracing charismatic theology. He claims Luke is allegedly not really interested in developing any kind of imminent time frame for the Second Coming in Acts and Luke is,

“…equally noncommittal in respect to the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy on signs and wonders. Joel predicts that all these things will take place “before the great and glorious day of the Lord will come.”
[57]

Most Reformed theologians such as Gentry disagree, and believe “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” and de-creation language in Acts 2 is referring to Christ coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

 
3) “Hid in the caves” and “They called to the mountains and rocks, ‘fall on us…’”

 

Verses 15-16 completely destroys Kistemaker’s case! John is quoting from the “last days” “Day of the Lord” judgment of (Isa. 2:10, 19, 21).  Jesus in Luke 23:30 applies this passage and judgment in Isaiah 2 to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as virtually every commentator agrees! The burden of proof rests upon Kistemaker to prove John and Jesus are using the Isaiah 2 passage to refer to a different judgment than Jesus referenced it in Luke 23:30! Obviously if the coming of Christ in judgment in Revelation 6 is referring to the destruction of the planet, men would not be able to go and hide in caves! Gentry, citing Josephus, points out that the Roman armies went throughout the land and slew the Jews who sought to hide and seek shelter in the caves.[58] Not only that but Isaiah tells us that there is a righteous remnant or “survivors” of this “Day of the Lord” and they continue well on into the new creation (new covenant age) preaching the gospel to sinful nations as does Revelation depict (Isaiah 1-5, 24-28, 65-66; Revelation 21-22:17). Indeed the Christians fled to Pella and were safe and continued to preach the gospel as the Church does today in the new creation or age which was “about to come” in John’s day. Kistemaker does not exegetically deal with the time texts, conveniently does not address the survivors of Day of the Lord in Isaiah or Revelation, nor addresses the historical fulfillment of the Romans slaying those that sought refuge in the caves within the local land of Palestine at this time.

Revelation 7

In verses 1-17 of Chapter 7 we have a parenthesis separating the seventh seal from the preceding six. The Church is described as those on the “land,” “sea,” and “trees” in verses 1-3. Chilton citing Jordan, correctly identifies the “trees” in our text as referring to people and specifically to the people of God citing (Jud. 9:8-15; Ex. 15:17; Ps. 1:3; 92:12-14; Isa. 61:3; Jer. 17:5-8). I would add Ezekiel 31 to these passages as trees representing people and nations which is referring back to the trees in the Garden of Genesis 1-3. Kistemaker understands trees (plural) here to be literal trees in order to be consistent in his understanding that Revelation is dealing with a literal and global judgment and transformation of the planet,

“When the angel uses the word trees in the plural, he indicates that God’s eye is on everything in his creation.”
[59]

A fifth angel comes “from the east” as the sun and Christ’s parousia would come from the east and shine its light to the west (cf. Mt. 24:27) burning up the wicked tares and giving life to the new covenant Garden of God. No harm was to come upon those the angels were to put a seal of ownership and protection on their foreheads. Jesus had promised prior to Him coming in wrath upon Jerusalem that some Christians would experience persecution and death, but not a hair of their head would be lost when it came time for Him to pour out His wrath upon the City—Luke 21:18-20. Paul says the same thing in that Christians were not destined to partake in this “wrath” (1 Thess. 5:9). We know from history the Christians fled the city when they saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem and fled to Pella and were safe from experiencing this covenantal wrath. It of course does not surprise me that Kistemaker in his commentary does not want to address the parallel of Luke 21:18-20 here with the sealing and safety for the saints of Revelation 7!  To do so would be to admit that the wrath and protection here of the church is not involving the destruction of the planet earth, but is referring to the local land of Palestine.

The number 144,000 thousand is symbolic of the new and perfected Israel of God (12 tribes of Israel times the 12 Apostles, times a thousand = 144, 000) and is describing the first century “first fruits” Christians who came out of the tribulation period in verse 14. These will be further described and associated with the harvest/resurrection in chapter 14. From Pentecost and on, there were a great many Jews who became Christians and John is using Old Testament symbolic language and numerology to describe them being preserved from the wrath about to be poured out upon Jerusalem in the opening of the seventh seal. Some believe the 144,000 is the same group as the “great multitude” described as being redeemed “from every nation, tribe, people and language,” standing before the throne in verses 9-13 and others perhaps the addition of the Gentiles being saved during this period.

Kistemaker correctly identifies the 144,000 and the great multitude with those having heard the message of the great commission before Christ’s return and the “end” comes in (Mt. 24:14),

“Here is a picture of the universal church in its fullest sense fulfilling Jesus’ word: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:14).
[60]

This of course is contradictory to Gentry, Mathison and Sproul who correctly understand this great commission having been fulfilled by A.D. 70 as we do. Kistemaker also errors on the great tribulation claiming,

“The expression the great tribulation includes all Christians who have experienced oppression and persecution everywhere throughout history.”
[61] This also contradicts John Lightfoot, Gentry, Mathison, Sproul, and the Reformed partial preterist community, who correctly identify this period as Christians being persecuted just prior to God’s wrath and tribulation being rendered upon Jerusalem in the years A.D. 62-70. The great commission and great tribulation were specific eschatological events to occur in Jesus’ “this generation” and the text mentions nothing of the great tribulation or any of the signs being extended “throughout history.”

However, we give Kistemaker credit for correctly identifying that the promises of verses 15-17 associated with the saints coming out of this great tribulation to be the time of the glorification (resurrection) of these saints and reception of the new creation,

“The last line in this verse is a picture of joy and happiness, of deliverance from sin and guilt, of salvation full and free. It is a scene of life in the fullest sense of the word—to be forever in the presence of our covenant God, who dwells in the midst of the glorified saints. It is Paradise restored.”
[62]

This is where Gentry and Mathison drop the ball with their partial preterism. One cannot separate the time of the judgment and the great tribulation, from the resurrection, as occurring when the power of the Holy People (of Jerusalem and her temples law) would be completely shattered in A.D. 70—Daniel 12:1-7. I have consistently built my case and paradigm from the admissions of futurists and the hermeneutics they have used in interpreting the Book of Revelation. I will continue to prove that Revelation teaches that the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of “the dead” took place by A.D. 70.


[1] David Chilton, THE DAYS OF VEGEANCE AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press , 1987), 31 (emphasis added).
[2]Kistemaker, Simon J. ; Hendriksen, William: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 20), S. 65
[3] Kistemaker, Ibid., 10.
[4] Kistemaker, Ibid., 266
[5] Keith A. Mathison, DISPENSATIONALISM Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R publications, 1995), 143.
[6] John Murray, COLLECTED WRITINGS OF JOHN MURRAY 2: Systematic Theology, (Carlisle, PA: THE BANNER OF TRUTH TRUST, 1977), 398-399, (emphasis added).
[7] Simon Kistemaker, ed. Keith A. Mathison, WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004), 238.
[8] Thomas Ice, Tim LaHaye, THE END TIMES CONTROVERSY THE SECOND COMING UNDER ATTACK, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2003) 103.
[9] Richard Pratt, Ibid.
[10] G.K. Beale, THE NEW INTERNATIONAL GREEK TESTAMENT COMMENTARY, The Book of Revelation, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 182.
[11] Chuck Smith, End Times, (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today, 1978) 35.
[12] Gary DeMar, Chuck Smith’s Prophetic Confusion http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/11-20-07.asp www.americanvision.org/
[13] Hal Lindsey, Apocalypse Code, back cover, p. 38, 1997, quoted by Hank Hanegraaff, THE APOCALYPSE CODE, p. xvi, Ibid.
[14] Courson, Jon: Jon Courson’s Application Commentary. Nashville, TN : Thomas Nelson, 2003, S. 179, (emphasis added).
[15] Ibid., 179.
[16] Francis X. Gumerlock, the Day and the Hour Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Pub., 2000), 319-322.
[17] Chuck Smith, WHAT THE WORLD IS COMING TO A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word For Today Pub., 2001), 213 (emphasis added).
[18] Courson, Jon: Jon Courson’s Application Commentary. Nashville, TN : Thomas Nelson, 2003, S. 179
[19]
[20] Smith, Revelation, Ibid., 24-25, (emphasis added).
[21] Ibid., 10-11.
[22] Smith, Ibid., 11, (emphasis added).  Others who have popularized this sensationalistic and arbitrary approach to the Book of Revelation would be Scofield in his “Scofield Study Bible” claiming the 7 churches are “prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, 96 to the end.” The Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford University Press, 1909, note on Rev. 1:20.
[23] Hank Hanegraaff, THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Ibid., xvi, (emphasis added).
[24] Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, p. 453, P&R pub. 1962, emphasis MJS
[25] JFB, Online Bible, emphasis added.
[26] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, Obsession of the ModernChurch, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), 392-393.
[27] John MacArthur, The Second Coming Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, pp.58, 213-215, ibid.
[28] Gary DeMar, BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW MAGAZINE, The Prophecies of Daniel:  Why They Don’t Point to Us, p.16, Vol. .23, #10 & 11, Oct / Nov. 2007, emphasis added.  Unfortunately once again DeMar fails to discuss Dan.12:1-7/Mt.13:39-43/Mt.24:15/Lk.21:22 in relationship to the fact that when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred, is when the resurrection would occur. Gary, do the prophecies of Daniel (including the resurrection event at the end of the old-covenant age) point to our future or don’t they?
[29] Kenneth Gentry, ed. Stanely N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 42-43 (emphasis added).
[30] Mathison, Postmillennialism, ibid., 144 (emphasis added).
[31] Vern S. Poythress, THE RETURNING KING A GUIDE TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Company, 2000) 34.
[32] Hanegraaff, Ibid., 9.

[33] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, Ibid., 393.
[34] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books 1998 (108-109) (emphasis added).
[35] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 16.
[36] Chilton, Ibid., 32.
[37] Ibid., 53
[38]Friberg, Timothy ; Friberg, Barbara ; Miller, Neva F.: Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 2000 (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library 4), S. 284
[39]Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. G3708
[40] Chilton, Ibid., 66.
[41] Gentry, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, Ibid., 47 n.28.
[42] Milton S. Terry, BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS A Treaties on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 468.

[43] Keith A. Mathison, Acts 1:9-11 and the Hyper-Preterism Debate, p. 28, Ligonier Ministries, 2004 http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/KnoxPulpit/rreymond_trinitarianism.html
[44] Balz, Horst Robert ; Schneider, Gerhard: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Eerdmans, 1990-c1993, S. 2: “Καί not for linking something new, but for deepening, explaining, or completing what has been said already, in the sense of indeed / namely” Others give the meaning to kai as “even” and “and so.”  Special thanks to David A. Green who suggested this as a possible translation.  When looking into, I saw that indeed it was!

[45]Newman, Barclay Moon ; Nida, Eugene Albert: A Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles. New York : United Bible Societies, 993], c1972 (UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators), S. 19
[46] Jason Bradfield, Acts 1. 11 and Hyper-Creedalism http://treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=36%3Anontlm-articles&id=53%3Aacts-111-and-hyper-creedalism&option=com_content&Itemid=75
[47] DeMar, Ibid., 160-161.
[48] Mathison, Postmillennialism, Ibid., 114.
[49] DeMar, Ibid., 166-167.
[50] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, pp.104-105, Baker Book House Pub., 1990. “There is great probability in the opinion that the phrase ‘all the nations’ is equivalent to ‘all the tribes of the land’. {Mt 24:30} There is no impropriety in designating the tribes as nations. The promise of God to Abraham was that he should be the father of many nations. {Ge 17:5 Ro 4:17,18} In our Lord’s time it was usual to speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as consisting of several nations. Josephus speaks of ‘the nation of the Samaritans,’ ‘the nation of the Batanaeans,’ ‘the nation of the Galileans,’—using the very word (eynov) which we find in the passage before us. Judea was a distinct nation, often with a king of its own; so also was Samaria; and so with Idumea, Galilee, Paraea, Batanea, Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene, —all of which had at different times princes with the title of Ethnarch, a name which signifies the ruler of a nation. It is doing no violence, then, to the language to understand (panta ta eynh) as referring, to ‘all the nations’ of Palestine, or ‘all the tribes of the land.’

[51] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 187.
[52] Mathison, Postmillennialism, Ibid., 148, (emphasis added).
[53] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 234.
[54] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 234.
[55] Mathison, Postmillennialism, Ibid., 144, 149, 223-233.
[56] Gentry, Four Views, Ibid., 42-43.
[57] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 90.
[58] Gentry, Four Views, Ibid., 55.
[59] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 247.
[60] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 253.
[61] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 257.
[62] Kistemaker, Revelation, Ibid., 262 (emphasis added).