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 [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 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 gē(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 gēconfirm 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 12:18–27; Luke 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:

Josephus, Antiquities 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. Sanders, JJS, 1999 – The Pharisees believed Torah law, including levirate marriage, would remain in force in the resurrection.
Levine & Brettler, Jewish 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. 5:17–18; 9:16–17; 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

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?
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?
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”?
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?
How does the Preterist interpretation of Matthew 22:23–33 differ from Futurist or Reformed Partial Preterist readings of this passage?
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?
In what way did the Sadducees incorrectly assume Jesus was either a Pharisee or shared their own view of Torah continuity?
Explain how the Sadducees’ argument may have originally been used against the Pharisees. What theological contradiction were they attempting to expose?
What historical and textual evidence suggests that some Jewish groups in the Second Temple period expected a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one?
How does the teaching of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, or the Wisdom of Solomon align with Jesus’ view of resurrection in Matthew 22? Give examples.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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:

The death in 1 Corinthians 15 is spiritual sin-death, not biological death.
Its destruction was a process beginning at the cross and completed at the parousia in AD 70.
The dissolution of the old covenant order and that was passing away and the arrival of the new creation that was increasing and being received happened concurrently over the AD 30–70 transition period.
The “never die” promise of Christ refers to freedom from spiritual death, not the postponement of biological death.
Revelation 21:4’s “no more death” was realized when the curse of Adam spiritual death was removed and the New Jerusalem was fully revealed.

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

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

How do Matthew 8:10–12 and Matthew 22:1–14 echo the imagery of Isaiah 25:6–9?
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?
How does WuestNT’s translation of 1 Cor. 15:26 support a spiritual view of death?
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?
How do Matthew 24:27-31, 36, 25:1-13 reflect first-century Jewish wedding customs?
Compare the eschatological “trumpet” in Matthew 24:31, 1 Cor. 15:52, and 1 Thess. 4:16.
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?
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?
What is the significance of tying the wedding feast and resurrection to AD 70 for a Christian realized hope (Prov. 13:12) today?
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

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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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

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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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)?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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

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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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

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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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:

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?
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?
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?
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”?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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)

(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)

(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:

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?
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?
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?
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)?
How does the parallel structure (chiasm) from Matthew 23 through 25 support the idea of a unified, first-century fulfillment of judgment and resurrection?
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?
How do the parallels between Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25 (e.g., judgment of Pharisees, martyr vindication, temple desolation) strengthen the preterist view?
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?
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?
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

(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)

(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.

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.
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:

John the Baptist—the eschatological Elijah who prepares the way, and
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:

A messianic prophecy referring to Christ;
A reference to His second coming, not His first.
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:

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”?
How does the chiastic structure of Luke 17:20–37 help clarify its meaning?
In what ways does Jesus contrast external, visible expectations of the kingdom with its true spiritual reality here in Luke 17 and Matthew 23?
How do the “days of Noah” and “days of Lot” illustrate the nature and timing of Christ’s coming?
What parallels can be drawn between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 that support a unified, single fulfillment in AD 70?
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?
What is the significance of the imagery of vultures gathering around the corpse in both Luke 17 and Matthew 24?
How does Jesus’ answer to “Where, Lord?” in Luke 17:37 point to the destruction of Jerusalem?
Why do some translators avoid rendering entos as “within you,” and what are the implications of this choice?
How does this passage challenge the common modern assumption that Jesus’ second coming is still in our future?
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?
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?
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?
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:

“The great and terrible day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:2–3)
“The end of the world” (Jer. 4:27; Matt. 24:29)
“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
The beginning of a “new world” (Isa. 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13)
His “coming in the clouds” (Rev. 1:7), “in glory with the angels” (Matt. 24:30)
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 4^th 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 glory, power, judgment, 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; 12:2–7, Revelation 22:10–12, Revelation 20:12–13, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, and Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 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:

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?
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?
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?
What exegetical evidence undermines the claim (by Thomas Ice and others) that Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 refer to two separate events?
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?
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?
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?
What is the covenantal significance of Jesus calling His generation “adulterous,” and how does this shape our understanding of His coming in judgment?
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?
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?
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:

Some would be scourged in synagogues.
Some would be brought before governors and kings.
The Holy Spirit would be given as a miraculous defense.
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 judgment” when 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:

What two major questions does this chapter seek to answer about Jesus’ coming?
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?
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?
How do the themes in Matthew 10:17–23 parallel the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
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?
Why is the phrase “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” significant to audience relevance?
What is the meaning of the Greek term Metzger interprets in reference to “cities of Israel”?
How does Paul’s declaration that the gospel had been preached to “all nations” by his time support an AD 70 fulfillment?
What errors do partial preterists and futurists make when interpreting Matthew 10:23, according to this chapter?
Why does the chapter argue there is only one coming of Christ described throughout the Gospels and Daniel—not two?
What evidence shows that Matthew 25:31 is a recapitulation of Matthew 24:30 and not a different event?
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:

The “Day of the Lord” came via an invading Gentile army (Babylon).
God was depicted figuratively coming “on the clouds” (cf. Ezek. 30–32).
De-creation language described darkened heavens, sun, moon, and stars (Ezek. 32:7–8).
Imminence terms like “near” and “without delay” were literal, tied to the prophet’s lifetime and audience (Ezek. 7:7ff.; 12:25; 30:3).
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):

The “Day of the Lord” judgment came through a Gentile army (Romans).
Christ came figuratively “on the clouds.”
Cosmic de-creation language was employed (sun, moon, stars darkened).
Imminence terms like “near” and “this generation” were literal, fulfilled within the lifetime of His audience.
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]

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:

It represents Israel’s final spiritual and corporate resurrection.
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.
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.
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?

What theological or prophetic developments does it introduce or clarify?
How did Jesus apply Daniel 12:1 to His generation in Matthew 24:21–34?
What evidence in the Gospels shows that Jesus placed the tribulation and “abomination” within the first century?
How do the historical accounts of Josephus and Eusebius corroborate Jesus’ prophecy and Daniel’s vision of Jerusalem’s tribulation and desolation?
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)?
Why is this important for interpreting prophetic language accurately?
What is the significance of the three-and-a-half-year period mentioned in Daniel 7, 9, and 12?
How is this timeframe fulfilled in the events of AD 67–70?
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?
How do Jordan and Gentry interpret this and are they consistent in Revelation 20:5-15?
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)?
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?
What does this suggest about the timing of fulfillment?
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?
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?
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/

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 69^th and 70^th 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)

How does Daniel 9:24–27 build upon and recapitulate the eschatological framework of Daniel chapters 2 and 7?
In what ways do all three visions point to a first-century fulfillment?
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?
Why is it significant that Daniel’s prophecy specifies the judgment of “the people” and “holy city” for cutting off the Messiah?
How does this language connect to Matthew 23–24?
What is the importance of the “three-and-a-half-year” time period in both Daniel 7 and 9?
How does this correspond with the events of AD 67–70?
How does Jesus apply the judgment and tribulation of Daniel 9:26–27 to His own generation in Matthew 24 and Luke 21?
In what way did the early church understand “finishing transgression” and “putting an end to sin” to be imminent realities tied to their generation?
How does this challenge futurist timelines?
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?
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?
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?
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/

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.

Book – A Full Preterist Response to Reformed and Dispensational Critics The Second Coming, Judgment, and Resurrection of the Dead “ALL THESE THINGS” (MATTHEW 24-25/DANIEL 12:1-7) FULFILLED BY AD 70

A Full Preterist Response to Reformed and Dispensational Critics

The Second Coming, Judgment, and Resurrection of the Dead

“ALL THESE THINGS” (Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-7)

FULFILLED BY AD 70

A DEFENSE OF GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY

Michael J. Sullivan

ONE
A FULL PRETERIST EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 24-25

Introduction and Approach / AD 70 Survey of Matthew’s Gospel Approaching the Olivet Discourse – Matthew 3:2-12- John the Baptist’s Eschatology, An Exegesis of Matthew 5:17-18; 10:22-23; 13:39-43 16:27-28; Matthew 21-23 / The Disciples Question – Who’s Really “Confused”? / The End of the Christian Age or Old Covenant Age? / Signs / Coming of the Son of Man and Gathering the Elect/Resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 Fulfilled / The Abomination That Causes Desolation / The Great Tribulation / In Fulfillment of all That Has Been Written – Can AD 70 Have a Double or Typological Fulfillment? / Times of the Gentiles / “This Generation” / One or Two Coming(s) of Christ? – Division Theories Refuted / Marriage and Resurrection Motif

TWO
NT IMMINENCE – THE STAKE IN THE HEART OF FUTURISM. EXPOSING FUTURIST SCHEMES ON IMMINENCE

When Jesus Decides to Come, THEN it Will Happen Very “Quickly” / Soon Just Means Certainty / The Beginning or Inauguration of Fulfillment was Imminent Not the Consummation / Jesus’ Second Coming Could Have Been Imminent But it Got “Postponed” Due to First Century Unbelief / Ezekiel 7 and 12 – God’s Condemnation of Man Making “Near” Predictions to Be “Far off” Ones / Violating Sound Hermeneutics – Funneling Over a Hundred Clear Time Texts Through ONE Verse 2 Peter 3:8

THREE
THE SEVENTY SEVENS OF DANIEL 9:24-27 FULFILLED BY AD 70

Daniel’s Seventy Sevens Prophecy – Symbolic Period of Time or a Literal 490 Chronology? / To Finish Transgression, To Put an End to Sin, To Atone for Wickedness, To Bring in Everlasting Righteousness, To Seal Up Vision and Prophecy, To Anoint the Most Holy Place / Dispensational Gap Theory Refuted

FOUR
WHAT ABOUT THE “RAPTURE”?

An Exposition of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 / John 14 / The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

FIVE
ISN’T FULL PRETERISM JUST THE HYMENAEAN HERESY REVISITED DESTROYING THE FAITH AND HOPE OF THE CHURCH?

An Exposition of 2 Timothy 2:17-18

SIX
WHAT ABOUT THE RESURRECTION?

An Exposition of John 5:28-29 / An “About to Be” Resurrection in Acts 24:15, An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15

SEVEN
WHAT ABOUT ACTS 1:9-11?

Are There Any Indications Within the Book of Acts as to When Acts 1:9-11 Would be Fulfilled? / “In Like Manner” – Was Jesus’ Physical Body Seen Ascending on the Cloud? / Is Jesus Still in His Physical Body?

EIGHT
ESCHATOLOGICAL ESSAYS IN ROMANS

The Eschatological “Not Yet” of Justification Romans 4:24 – Response to the N.T. Wright Controversy / Romans 5 – Being Saved from the Coming “Wrath” Through the One That was “About to Come” / Paul’s Corporate Body of Sin and Death / Romans 8:18-23 – God’s Glory “About to” Be Revealed IN the Church Through the Liberation of Creation, the Adoption of Sons, and Redemption of Our (Corporate) Body / Romans 11 – The Salvation and Resurrection of “All Israel” / Romans 13:11-12 – God’s Hour of Resurrection/Salvation/Day was “At Hand” / Romans 16:20 – Satan would be Crushed “Soon”

NINE
ESCHATOLOGICAL ESSAYS IN HEBREWS

Hebrews 3-4; 10:25-37 – The Churches Anti-type “Another Day”/Sabbath Rest was “Approaching” “In a Very Little While and Would Not Delay” / Hebrews 8:13 – The Old Covenant was “Ready to Vanish” / Hebrews 9:6-10, 26-28 – Old Covenant Still Had a Legal Standing Until Christ’s Second Appearing / Hebrews 1 – Christ Was “About to” Consume His “enemies” and Make Them His Footstool When He Came “in a Very Little While” / Hebrews 11 – The NC “Better Resurrection” / Hebrews 12 – Receiving the Kingdom / Hebrews 13 – Looking for the [Enduring] City That was “About to Come”

TEN
A PRE-AD 70 DAT FOR THE BOOK OF REVELATION

ELEVEN
REVELATION 20 – A “THIS GENERATION” MILLENNIUM

Seven Historical, Exegetical, and Orthodox Points Which Proves the Full Preterist 40 Years Millennial View to be the Biblical One / All the Elements to the Millennium and the Analogy of Scripture Support the Full Preterist View of the Millennium

TWELVE
LIFE IN THE NEW CREATION REVELATION 21-22 – NO MORE DEATH, TEARS, AND PAIN

How Could This be Fulfilled for Us Today – “Just Look Around”?!?
APPENDIX 1 DID TONGUES AND PROPHECY “CEASE” IN AD 70?
An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12
APPENDIX 2 SO WHAT NOW?
Ongoing Fulfillment/Application of Fulfillment / What Real “Hyper-Preterism is

Introduction and approach
My approach will be very simple to follow for laymen and scholars alike. First, I will begin going through Matthew’s gospel addressing the key eschatological texts in the teachings of John the Baptist and our Lord which will lay a contextual setting for giving a detailed exegesis of Matthew 24 – 25. In doing so, I will give a brief explanation of the various views on key eschatological passages from four views and then defend my view (Full Preterism): Premillennial Dispensationalism, Amillennialism, Partial Preterism, Progressive Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Once we are finished with Matthew’s gospel and particularly Matthew 24 – 25, I will follow this same approach through the rest of the NT.
Matthew 3; 11; 17 – The Eschatology of John the Baptist
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Gk. egos)!” (Matt. 3:2):
“…You snakes—who told you that you could escape from the punishment God is about to (Gk. mello) send?” (Matt. 3:7 GNT)
“And even now (Gk. ede) the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.“ (Matt.3:10-12)
AN EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 3:2-12 AND RELATED TEXTS – JOHN THE BAPTIST’S ESCHATOLOGY: THE WAY OF THE KINGDOM (THROUGH THE SECOND COMING) WAS “AT HAND”
When it comes to the Kingdom of heaven or Kingdom of God the NT teaches three aspects of fulfillment – 1. the “already” 2. the “receiving” and 3. the imminent consummation or “not yet” to the Kingdom promises. The Kingdom’s “already” and “receiving” in the NT can be seen in Jews and Gentiles entering Christ’s spiritual Kingdom through repentance and faith and observing it workout in their midst powerfully through Jesus’ healing and the driving out demons (and that of the disciples and Apostles). The imminent “not yet” aspect to the Kingdom points to God saving a remnant (Jews and Gentiles) while at the same time judging the wicked among Israel and closing the Old Covenant (OC) age while at the same time establishing the New Covenant (NC) age through Christ’s Second Appearing in AD 70. Israel had been waiting roughly two thousand years for the Messiah and His Kingdom and now within a span of forty years, it was truly “at hand” and within their grasp.
Unfortunately when most futurist eschatologies have addressed the eschatology of John the Baptist they are willing to develop a truly imminent “already” and “receiving” of the Kingdom promises as being “at hand,” but they have not been willing to see John’s eschatology as having a truly imminent “at hand” consummation to the Kingdom as it pertains to him coming to prepare the way of the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” or Second Coming of Jesus. As we make our way through the eschatology of John the Baptist, we will readily see that this later “not yet” aspect to the NT’s Kingdom promises were no less “at hand” than the “already” and “receiving” aspects to the Kingdom.
Matthew 3:3 / Isaiah 40:6-7, 10 John prepares the way for Christ’s Second Coming
For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.’” (Matt. 3:3).
“The voice said, “Cry out!” And he said, “What shall I cry?” “All flesh is grass, And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the Lord blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.” O Zion, You who bring good tidings, Get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, You who bring good tidings, Lift up your voice with strength, Lift it up, be not afraid; Say to the cities of Judah, “Behold your God!” Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand, And His arm shall rule for Him; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.” (Isaiah 40:6-10).
What is “the way” in the desert that John is preparing as depicted elsewhere in Isaiah (to get a broader context)?
“He humbles those who dwell on high, he lays the lofty city low; he levels it to the ground and casts it down to the dust. Feet trample it down— the feet of the oppressed, the footsteps of the poor. The path of the righteous is level; you, the Upright One, make the way of the righteous smooth. Yes, Lord, walking in the way of your laws,” (Isa. 26:4-7).
“The desert and the parched land will be glad; the wilderness will rejoice and blossom. Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom; it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy. The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, the splendor of Carmel and Sharon; they will see the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our God. Strengthen the feeble hands, steady the knees that give way; say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.” Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Water will gush forth in the wilderness and streams in the desert. The burning sand will become a pool, the thirsty ground bubbling springs. In the haunts where jackals once lay, grass and reeds and papyrus will grow. And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness; it will be for those who walk on that Way. The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it. No lion will be there, nor any ravenous beast; they will not be found there. But only the redeemed will walk there, and those the Lord has rescued will return. They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away.” (Isa. 35)
Who is the way and how does the Gospel make it level and fruitful?
All of the promises of God are yes and amen – that is, fulfilled “in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). He is the embodiment of the Kingdom promises – the new Promised Land or the “Highway of Holiness” [“the way” (John 14:6)] in which all those who were to be saved (or ever will be in the eternal NC age) should enter and walk through faith and repentance.
The way of the Gospel would be level and smooth suggesting that the high mountains are the prideful among Israel that persecuted the poor and lowly and God would vindicate the poor and make low and level their prideful persecutors. The low valleys would be brought up to be level as well – perhaps suggesting that the Gospel for the poor would be manifested in such a way as to lift up the persecuted and heavy burdened from their religious suppressors. The rough and crooked in heart through the power of God through the Gospel would be made soft, smooth and straight. Through the gospel the level land would become fertile and blossom into God’s New Paradise/New Creation.
No one among Israel could boast that they had a right to enter this way of the Kingdom through being Abraham’s seed, because God was able, and in fact did turn stones (Gentiles) into the sons of God or living stones in which they (along with Jews) were built up a New Temple and New Man (Matt. 3:9/1 Pet. 2:1ff./Ephs. 2-3).
The message of John is to prepare the way for Christ’s “at hand” Second Coming!
Unfortunately, futurists have avoided doing a thorough exegesis of Isaiah 40 in order to understand that John was preparing the way of Christ’s imminent Second Coming (“great and dreadful day of the Lord”). This would be manifested in an imminent harvest judgment for the wicked and salvation for the righteous and repentant within the immediate context of Matthew 3:2-12.
In hermeneutics one is always called upon to go to the OT passage a NT author quotes, references, or “echoes” in order to find out how the NT author is using it, or see if there are other elements within that OT context that fits what the NT author is developing. This is also very important in that in Jewish hermeneutics often times even if a small portion of an OT passage is quoted, the reader or listener is expected to draw upon the entire chapter, section or theology of the quote. When we do this, we immediately find references of John preparing a way for judgment that harmonizes with John’s use of Malachi 3-4 in Matthew 11:10-14.
Here is Isaiah we quickly see that the way that is being prepared is not simply a way of an “at hand” “already” aspect to salvation, but includes Christ’s Second Coming in judgment as well. We immediately see what this voice is to cry out, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flower fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isa. 40:6-7) This is connected to the recompense judgment and giving of rewards, “See, the Sovereign Lord comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.” (Isa. 40:10).
Isaiah 40:6-7 / 1 Peter chapters 1 and 4 – John’s imminent eschatology is Peter’s!
Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-7 in 1 Peter 1:23-24. The immediate context tells us that Peter’s first century audience was “ready” to receive the salvation and inheritance the OT prophets predicted would come at the revealing of Christ at His Second Coming. Later we are told by Peter that this coming salvation and “THE judgment” of “the living and dead” was “ready” to take place and that “the end of all things is at hand.” (1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17). Therefore, the contextual flow of Isaiah 40 tells us that John came to prepare the way of an “at hand” judgment and salvation “ready” to be revealed at Christ’s Second Coming.
Isaiah 40:10 / Matthew 16:27-28 – John’s imminent eschatology is Jesus’!
Again the message of the one crying out is that of a coming judgment through the Second Coming of Christ in the giving of rewards (Isa. 40:10). This passage is directly applied to Christ’s Second Coming in Matthew 16:27-28 and Revelation 22:6-12. Jesus taught that He was “about to” come within the lifetimes of some of His first century audience to reward:
‘For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.’ (Matt. 16:27-28 YLT).
Isaiah 40:10 / Revelation 22:6-12 – John the Baptist’s imminent eschatology is John the Beloved’s in the book of Revelation
Jesus through John the beloved in the book of Revelation, confirms the imminent fulfillment of John the Baptist’s eschatology in drawing upon Isaiah 40:10:
“The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.” I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.” (Rev. 22:6-12)
The message John was to cry out (as we continue going down into Isaiah 40:10) was that of God (The Christ) coming in judgment/recompense/reward. The NT develops this as being fulfilled in an “at hand” AD 70 time frame.
John’s “preparing the way” of the Second Coming in Judgment of Isaiah 40 is John’s “preparing the way” of the Second Coming in Judgment of Malachi 3-4
Jesus clearly identifies John the Baptist as the Elijah that was about to come before the way of judgment (the great and dreadful day of the Lord) would take place in which He would suddenly coming to destroy His Temple in fulfillment of Malachi 3-4:
“As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “ ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. Whoever has ears, let them hear.” (Matt. 11:7-15).
“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me (John as Elijah): and the Lord (Jesus), whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple (AD 70 Matt. 23-24), even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.”
“For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness (Christ) arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah (John the Baptist per Jesus) the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Mal. 3:1-5; 4:1-6).
Here Jesus quotes and echo’s the way of Judgment and salvation through Malachi 3-4. John is the first messenger that prepares the way for God (Christ) who then comes suddenly to His Temple (in AD 70) purifying the priesthood and burns the wicked. Since AD 70 the Church is God’s purified and established kingdom of priests and kings. In AD 70 a clear “distinction” between the wicked OC kingdom and the NC righteous kingdom was revealed in power and great glory.
In Malachi 4:1-5 it is further elaborated that Elijah (whom Jesus says is John the Baptist) would come before this “way” of a fiery “great and dreadful day of the Lord” judgment would take place.
The book of James picks up various OT echo’s concerning the persecution of the rich over the poor (as does Malachi) and Christ coming as the Sun — in an “at hand” and “at the door” time frame to burn up the grass/wicked and bring salvation through the imagery of harvest rain to the righteous (James 1-5/Matt. 24:27-33, 34/Mal. 4:2).
The “at hand” “way” of the Second Coming – as Israel’s new deliverance from Babylon / New Exodus / Seeing God’s face – all on the way into the NC age or New Creation
Before leaving the theme of John/Elijah preparing the “at hand” “way” to the Second Coming of Christ to destroy His Temple in AD 70, it may also be helpful to see how this passage was understood among the Jews and then see how their interpretations could also fit an “at hand” AD 70 time frame. Beale and Carson’s work is helpful at this point:
“Nothing in the immediate context of Isa. 40 suggests that Isaiah is referring to anyone other than Yahweh himself returning to Israel as king (Goldingay 2005: 5–7), but the references to special sons in Isa. 7–9 and to the messianic branch in Isa. 11, along with the Servant Songs yet to come (beginning in Isa. 42), do indicate God revealing himself through a specially anointed agent. The “shepherding” imagery of a text as close to ours as 40:11 also dovetails with other prophecies in which a messianic figure is likened to a shepherd (esp. Ezek. 34).
C. Use in Jewish Sources. The most significant pre-Christian Jewish uses of Isa. 40:3 appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Rule of the Community declares,
And when these have become a community in Israel in compliance with these arrangements they are to be segregated from within the dwelling of the men of sin to walk to the desert in order to open there His path. As it is written: “In the desert, prepare the way of [YHWH], straighten in the steppe a roadway for our God.” This is the study of the law wh[i]ch he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit. (1QS VIII, 12–16) (All quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls are from García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997.)
In short, the Essenes at Qumran viewed their monastic community as the fulfillment of Isa. 40:3. This same interpretation is reflected in an allusion to this Scripture in 1QS IX, 19–20. An allusion in 1QS IV, 1–2 applies the metaphor of making straight paths to the establishment of justice, truth, and the respect for the precepts of God. An even longer explicit quotation of Isa. 40:1–5 appears in a fragment of another Qumran scroll (4Q176 1–2 I, 4–9), but not enough context has been preserved for us to know how it was used.
From a very different, Pharisaic branch of Judaism, Pss. Sol. 8:17 seems to allude to this text when it refers to the Jewish leaders’ (probably literal) grading of rough roads to Jerusalem to prepare the way for the conquering Roman general Pompey to enter the city. This part of the welcome was appropriate for a king, albeit ironic because the king was a foreign invader. Other texts, especially apocalyptic ones, allude to Isa. 40:4–5 with its topographical transformations and its expectations of seeing the Lord’s glory in the context of a coming new age (esp. 1 En. 1:6; Bar. 5:7; As. Mos. 10:4; see Brooke 1994: 130–31). Targum Isaiah at this point appears to change the focus from Yahweh’s coming to the people’s return (Snodgrass 1980: 27).
D. Textual Background. The MT begins, “A voice crying in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,” which the LXX essentially translates literally (changing only the participle to the genitive: “of one crying”). Matthew, like Mark, follows the LXX verbatim. But the parallelism within the OT verse would seem to require that “in the wilderness” modifies “prepare the way” (just as it does in the next line with “make smooth”) rather than “a voice crying,” as in the Gospels. The MT thus continues, “make smooth in the desert a highway for our God,” which the LXX renders as “make straight the paths of our God,” omitting the redundant “in the desert.” Matthew and Mark again follow the LXX verbatim, except that they change “of our God” to “his,” which scarcely alters the meaning.
E. Hermeneutic Employed. The difference between “a voice crying in the wilderness” and a call to “prepare a way in the wilderness” has often been exaggerated. Both in fact fit John the Baptist’s ministry; he (or the Synoptic writers) could easily have seen a double meaning in the position of the phrase in the Hebrew text, as rabbis often did in their exegeses. But the Hebrew also allows for such a double meaning to have been originally intended (Taylor 1997: 25–29).
Originally, Isaiah had in mind a preliminary fulfillment in the return of the Jewish exiles from distant lands to Israel. But his language already reuses “exodus” imagery, making it natural for the evangelists to reapply this imagery in the greater restoration from (spiritual) exile inaugurated by the ministry of Jesus to which John’s preaching pointed (see Childs 2001: 299). And given that no return from Babylon (or Persia or Greece or Rome) ever came anywhere close to fully ending Israel’s hard service, paying for its sins, or leveling (even metaphorically) all its rugged places, and certainly no event prior to Christ’s coming ever revealed the glory of the Lord to all humanity, it seems reasonable to suggest that Isaiah had a more distant, grander fulfillment in mind as well. Hagner (1993: 48) comments, “The words of Isaiah occur in a context of comfort and deliverance from the exile, but they also allude to Messianic fulfillment.” At the very least, that is how a group such as the one at Qumran would have taken it, so that they could apply it to themselves, demonstrating that the NT’s hermeneutic was not a novel appropriation of the text.[1] Jesus is the anti-type of the deliverance (through Cyrus, Ezra, and Nehemiah) and restoration of coming back into the land from bondage and slavery. He is the one that sets the captives free from the slavery of sin. He is the way of holiness found in the law by which a remnant of Jew and Gentile come into the Kingdom/Heavenly Land/New Creation. He is also the coming “Root of Jesse” that would stand as the “banner” along this “way” ushering in the “second exodus” (Isa. 11:10-12). This second exodus motif will be brought out further in our text where John is baptizing (in the Jordan) and later on in Matthew 4 (Jesus being tested in the wilderness as Israel was).
As far as understanding the building of a smooth road to be level for a conquering King – this too could be applied to AD 70. If un-repentant, a way was being prepared by another conquering King – and it was ironic that they shouted they wanted Caesar as their king at Christ’s trial and then Christ came in AD 70 as their King (in judgment through the army of the Roman Empire “Caesar”) to destroy their city and Temple.
Christ as “the way” did bring about the in-breaking of the Messianic or NC age from AD 30 – AD 70. In AD 70 Christ’s “at hand” Second Coming was fulfilled and the Church in the eternal NC age see Him “face to face” (Isa. 52:8/1 Cor. 13:12/Rev. 22:4-7). Amen! Selah.
Before leaving Matthew 3:2-3 I should point out that some Reformed theologians such as John Lightfoot have pointed out that one of the manifestations of the kingdom being “at hand” in 3:2 would be fulfilled in AD 70:
“1. The exhibition and manifestation of the Messias, Matt. 12:28; “But if I, by the finger of God, cast out devils, the kingdom of God is come upon you:” that is, ‘Hence is the manifestation of the Messias.’ See John 3:3, 12:13, &c. 2. The resurrection of Christ; death, hell, Satan, being conquered: whence is a most evident manifestation that he is that ‘eternal King,’ &c.: see Matt. 26:29, Rom. 1:4. 3. His vengeance upon the Jewish nation, his most implacable enemies: this is another, and most eminent manifestation of him: see Matt. 16:28, 19:28. 4. His dominion by the sceptre of the gospel among the Gentiles, Matt. 21:43. In this place which is before us it points out the exhibition and revelation of the Messias.[2] And if it seems a strange thing to understand the coming of the Lord in Malachi 3-4 to be fulfilled in AD 70 perhaps this additional quote for commentators such as Adam Clark will help assure the reader of this authors “orthodox” standing in these matters:
“Malachi 4:1: Behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven – The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
And all the proud – This is in reference to Mal 3:15 of the preceding chapter.
The day that cometh shall burn them up – Either by famine, by sword, or by captivity. All those rebels shall be destroyed.
It shall leave them neither root nor branch – A proverbial expression for total destruction. Neither man nor child shall escape.
Malachi 4:2: You that fear my name – The persons mentioned in the sixteenth verse of the preceding chapter, ye that look for redemption through the Messiah.
The Sun of righteousness – The Lord Jesus, the promised Messiah; the Hope of Israel.
With healing in his wings – As the sun, by the rays of light and heat, revives, cheers, and fructifies the whole creation, giving, through God, light and life everywhere; so Jesus Christ, by the influences of his grace and Spirit, shall quicken, awaken, enlighten, warm, invigorate heal, purify, and refine every soul that believes in him, and, by his wings or rays, diffuse these blessings from one end of heaven to another; everywhere invigorating the seeds of righteousness, and withering and drying up the seeds of sin. The rays of this Sun are the truths of his Gospel, and the influences of his Spirit. And at present these are universally diffused.
And ye shall go forth – Ye who believe on his name shall go forth out of Jerusalem when the Romans shall come up against it. After Cestius Gallus had blockaded the city for some days, he suddenly raised the siege. The Christians who were then in it, knowing, by seeing Jerusalem encompassed with armies, that the day of its destruction was come, when their Lord commanded them to flee into the mountains, took this opportunity to escape from Jerusalem, and go to Pella, in Coelesyria; so that no Christian life fell in the siege and destruction of this city.
But these words are of more general application and meaning; “ye shall go forth” in all the occupations of life, but particularly in the means of grace; and: –
Grow up as calves of the stall – Full of health, of life, and spirits; satisfied and happy.
Malachi 4:3: Ye shall tread down – This may be the commission given to the Romans: Tread down the wicked people, tread down the wicked place; set it on fire, and let the ashes be trodden down under your feet.
Malachi 4:4: Remember ye the law of Moses – Where all these things are predicted. The Septuagint, Arabic, and Coptic, place this verse the last.
Malachi 4:5: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet – This is meant alone of John the Baptist, as we learn from Luk 1:17 (note), in whose spirit and power he came.
Malachi 4:6: And he shall turn (convert) the heart of the fathers (על al, with) the children – Or, together with the children; both old and young. Lest I come, and, finding them unconverted, smote the land with a curse, חרם cherem, utter extinction. So we find that, had the Jews turned to God, and received the Messiah at the preaching of John the Baptist and that of Christ and his apostles, the awful חרם cherem of final excision and execration would not have been executed upon them. However, they filled up the cup of their iniquity, and were reprobated, and the Gentiles elected in their stead. Thus, the last was first, and the first was last. Glory to God for his unspeakable gift!
There are three remarkable predictions in this chapter: –
1. The advent of John Baptist, in the spirit and authority of Elijah.
2. The manifestation of Christ in the flesh, under the emblem of the Sun of righteousness.
3. The final destruction of Jerusalem, represented under the emblem of a burning oven, consuming everything cast into it.
These three prophecies, relating to the most important facts that have ever taken place in the history of the world, announced here nearly four hundred years before their occurrence, have been most circumstantially fulfilled.”[3] I will disagree with Clark on one point here – and that is, the coming of the Sun of Righteousness is referring to Christ’s Second Coming (the great and dreadful day of the Lord) as depicted elsewhere in Matthew 24:27. Once we get to this text I will argue that it is Christ coming and shinning from the east to the west as the Sun/Son that is in view and not “as lightening.”
“People came to him from Jerusalem, from the whole province of Judea, and from all the country near the River Jordan. They confessed their sins, and he baptized them in the Jordan. When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them, “You snakes—who told you that you could escape from the punishment (or “wrath”) God is about to send?” (Matt. 3:5-7 GNT, WUEST).

Many miss the theological and eschatological significance of John being in the wilderness baptizing Jesus and Israelites in the river Jordan. This marks the beginning of fulfillment for Israel’s new or second exodus and restoration promises. As G.K. Beale points out,

“Just as Israel was led by Moses and had to go through the sea at the exodus to enter the promised land, and just as the second generation had to do the same thing at the Jordan River under Josuah’s leadership, as a miniature second exodus, so again, now that Israel’s restoration is imminent through Jesus, true Israelites must again identify with the water and the Jordan and their prophetic leader in order to being to experience true restoration.

This is also in fulfillment of the prophecies of Israel’s restoration as a second exodus through water (Isa. 11:15; 43:2, 16-17; 44:27-28; 50:2; 51:9-11), especially through rivers (Isa. 11:15; 42:15; 43:2; 44:27; 50:2).”[4]

Unfortunately scholars such as Beale further miss (or I should say are reluctant to acknowledge at this point having been confronted with Full Preterism), is that this second or new exodus was going to take place within another forty year (roughly) generation time period (AD 30 – AD 70). Toward the end of this generation the unrepentant would experience a “wrath” that was “about to come,” not entering into God’s rest while the righteous followers of Christ would enter into God’s heavenly land – His “another day” “day approaching” “in a very little while” of which the old exodus generation was a mere type (Heb. 3-4, 8:13—10:37; 1 Cor. 10:11). Moses in Deuteronomy 31-32 predicted a coming “perverse and crooked generation” in Israel’s “later days” which would bring an “end” to OC Israel. This is the AD 30 – AD 70 new exodus generation predicted by the prophets.
I have referenced translations that render the Greek word mello in (v. 7) as the wrath that was “about to” take place as being more accurate than other translations and thus fits the immediate context of imminence that we have seen in (v. 2) and being consistent with the same imminence that will be developed in (vss. 10-12). These are the verses that Partial Preterists begin seeing fulfilled in AD 70. For example, John
Lightfoot is on target in identifying the wrath of 3:7 and the baptism John is performing as pointing to the AD 70 judgment,
“…To fly from the wrath to come.] These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament, “lest I smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. 4:[6]; and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.
The receiving of John’s baptism signed and fenced those that received it from the ruin that was just coming.” “…Think here, if those that came to baptism brought not their little ones with them to baptism: when, by the plain words of the Baptist, those that are baptized are said to “fly from the wrath to come?” that is, ‘the wrath of God,’ that was not long hence to destroy the nation by a most sad overthrow.”[5] So in combining what we’ve learned so far from Beale, Lightfoot, and what the NT is teaching of John’s baptism ushering in a new exodus for Israel — we can glean that the unrepentant within this particular AD 30 – AD 70 generation was going to experience the unquenchable wrath of God while the repentant and followers of Christ would enter into the restoration and new exodus/Sabbath rest promises predicted by the OT prophets at Christ’s Second Coming or “great and dreadful day of the Lord.”
“And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matt. 3:10-12).
It is at this point that Partial Preterist theologians begin seeing and developing the imminence of John’s eschatology to AD 70. John Lightfoot is on target in identifying the wrath of 3:7 and the baptism pointing to the AD 70 judgment,
“…To fly from the wrath to come.] These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament, “lest I smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. 4:[6]; and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.
The receiving of John’s baptism signed and fenced those that received it from the ruin that was just coming. To this belongs that of St. Peter, Epist. 1. ch. 3:20, 21: in that manner as Noah and his sons were by water delivered from the flood, “so also baptism now, the antitype of that type, saveth us” from the deluge of divine indignation, which in a short time is to overflow the Jewish nation. Think here, if those that came to baptism brought not their little ones with them to baptism: when, by the plain words of the Baptist, those that are baptized are said to “fly from the wrath to come?” that is, ‘the wrath of God,’ that was not long hence to destroy the nation by a most sad overthrow.”[6] R.C. Sproul understands the imminence communicated in the metaphor of God having his ax at the root of Israel’s trees,
“The image of the axe does not indicate that the woodsman is merely thinking about cutting down a tree or that he has merely begun the task by striking at the outer bark. The image is that the task is nearly complete. The axe has already penetrated to the core of the tree, hinting that one more decisive stroke will make it fall.”[7] Kenneth Gentry also sees this as referring to an imminent judgment and wrath being poured out upon Israel in AD 70,
“The wrath about which John speaks “came down upon Jews of Palestine in an unparalleled manner in A.D. 70,” when the Romans furiously destroyed Jerusalem, the temple, and untold thousands of Jews. (Mt.3:10) – “Here John draws his imagery from God’s judgment against Assyria (Isa. 10:33-34): that sort of judgment soon will break out upon Israel.”[8] And of the winnowing fork metaphor Gentry also applies this to AD 70:
“…He who is coming” has a “winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (3:12). This anticipates AD 70.”[9] In further proving that the harvest gathering here was fulfilled in AD 70 Historic Premillennialist’s such as John Gill correctly point out that the threshing floor of this harvest judgment is local and addressing Israel in AD 70 (not an end of history or global event):
“Christ was just ready to publish; by which he would effectually call his chosen people among the Jews, and so distinguish and separate them from others, as well as purify and cleanse them, or rather the awful judgment of God, which Christ was ready to execute, and in a short time would execute on the unbelieving and impenitent Jews: hence it is said to be “in his hand”; being put there by his Father, who “hath committed all judgment to the Son”. That this is the meaning of the “Baptist,” seems evident, since “fanning” is always, when figuratively taken, used for judgments, #Isa 41:16 Jer 15:7 51:2. By “his floor,” is meant the land of Israel, where he was born, brought up, and lived; of which the Lord says, “O my threshing, and the corn of my floor!” #Isa 21:10.”[10] To this the book of Revelation agrees in that the coming “Day of God’s wrath” was imminently approaching its first century audience along with the harvest judgment scene in Revelation 6, 7 and 14. In 14:20 the bloody harvest scene covers “…the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs” which commentators have long noted covers the distance of Israel. Israel is the local scene in which John and Revelation’s harvest judgment takes place.
The problem for Partial Preterist’s such as Gentry, is that this time of the end consummation of the harvest depicted here will be further developed by Jesus in Matthew 13 and 24-25. For a good explanation of the separation of the wheat from the chaff in our text as it relates to the final process of the harvest Morris writes,
“The thought of judgment is pursued and enlarged. John pictures the Messiah as having a winnowing fork in his hand. At harvest time the grain was threshed, for example, by having oxen tread it out, a process that shook the grain free from the husks but left them in the same heap. It was then winnowed: the threshed grain was separated from the husks by throwing it into the air, at first with a fork and later with a shovel (cf. Isa. 30:24). The heavier grain would fall straight down, but the lighter husks would be blown further away. If the winnowing fork is already in hand, the process of separation is about to begin (REB has “his winnowing shovel,” which would indicate that the last stage in winnowing is about to begin). The picture is one of imminent activity; judgment will not be delayed. And it will be wholehearted, for he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. The verb is unusual, but it clearly points to a complete cleaning out of the threshing floor. It is possible to understand this as meaning that the threshing floor will be cleaned by the removal of all the husks so that only the grain is left. But the further imagery of fire suggests that the cleansing will be by burning up the chaff. And he will gather his wheat signifies the preservation of those who are right with God, just as burn up the chaff the severe judgment of those who are in the wrong. Fire is often used in connection with the last judgment. That cannot be put out points to the impossibility of averting the punishment of evil. The putting of the wheat into the barn (Matthew has “his wheat” and Luke “his barn”) and the burning up of the chaff picture the satisfactory completion of the harvest.”[11] This is important to establish at this point since I will be arguing that Matthew’s/Jesus’ end of “this [OC] age” harvest gathering in Matthew 13:39-43 is the same AD 70 eschatological harvest gathering of Matthew’s/John the Baptist’s here in Matthew 3:12. And then once we reach Matthew 24:30-31 and 25:31-33ff. I will again argue that this is the same end of the OC age AD 70 separation/judgment that is taking place. Simply put – John’s eschatology is Jesus’ eschatology.
What of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and of fire?

We have seen how the water baptism of John in the Jordan marked the prophetic second exodus that would be ushered in by Jesus and how the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” was Israel’s last days terminal generation. But what of the baptism Jesus would bring for Israel – through the Holy Spirit and fire? How could these be fulfilled by AD 70?
If you were a good Jew listening to John’s message of a coming Messiah who was going to baptize or pour out the Holy Spirit upon Israel within the context of a coming judgment, you no doubt would be thinking of Joel 2:28-32. On the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 Peter delivers a sermon in which he identifies his contemporary “this corrupt (or crooked) generation” as the “last days” generation predicted by Moses (Deut. 31—32:5, 20/Acts 2:40) and that this generation (in context) was to call out to the Lord and ask for forgiveness for crucifying their Messiah and be saved from “the coming great and dreadful day of the Lord” predicted by Joel 2 (cf. Acts 2:16-40). So the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (manifesting in the miraculous speaking of known foreign languages) was a sign of an imminent coming salvation and judgment. Paul underscores this same imminence and purpose of tongues in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:6-8; 7:29, 31; 10:11; 14:21-25). It should not surprise us that since John came to prepare the way of an imminent “great and dreadful day of the Lord” judgment found in Malachi 3-4, that Jesus also would baptize Israel and pour out His Holy Spirit marking the same imminent “great and dreadful day of the Lord,” except through another prophet (Joel).
Let’s once again turn to the commentators for further support.
John Lightfoot writes,
“…it shall come to pass “in the last days.” We have elsewhere observed that by the last days is to be understood the last days of Jerusalem and the Jewish economy, viz. when the τέλος τοῦ αἰῶνος Ἰουδαϊκοῦ, the end of the Jewish world drew near. And there would be the less doubt as to this matter if we would frame a right notion of “that great and terrible day of the Lord;” that is, the day of his vengeance upon that place and nation. Which terror the Jews, according to their custom and fashion, put far off from themselves,…”[12] Adam Clark writes,
“Acts 2:20: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood – These are figurative representations of eclipses, intended most probably to point out the fall of the civil and ecclesiastical state in Judea: see the notes on Mat 24:29. That the Sun is darkened when a total eclipse takes place, and that the Moon appears of a bloody hue in such circumstances, every person knows.
Acts 2:21: Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved – The predicted ruin is now impending; and only such as receive the Gospel of the Son of God shall be saved. And that none but the Christians did escape, when God poured out these judgments, is well known; and that All the Christians did escape, not one of them perishing in these devastations, stands attested by the most respectable authority. See the note on Mat 24:13.”[13] “Acts 2:40: Save yourselves from this untoward generation – Separate yourselves from them: be ye saved, σωθητε: the power is present with you; make a proper use of it, and ye shall be delivered from their obstinate unbelief, and the punishment that awaits it in the destruction of them and their city by the Romans.”[14] Matthew Henry writes as a possible meaning of the “last days” here,
“…Or, in the days immediately preceding the destruction of the Jewish nation, in the last days of that people, just before that great and notable day of the Lord spoken of, v. 20.[15] “That one great thing which they should prophesy of should be the judgment that was coming upon the Jewish nation, for this was the chief thing that Christ himself had foretold (Mt. 24) at his entrance into Jerusalem (Lu. 19:41); and when he was going to die (Lu. 23:29); and these judgments were to be brought upon them to punish for their contempt of the gospel, and their opposition to it, though it came to them thus proved. Those that would not submit to the power of God’s grace, in this wonderful effusion of his Spirit, should fall and lie under the pourings out of the vials of his wrath. Those shall break that will not bend. First, The destruction of Jerusalem, which was about forty years after Christ’s death, is here called that great and notable day of the Lord, because it put a final period to the Mosaic economy; the Levitical priesthood and the ceremonial law were thereby for ever abolished and done away. The desolation itself was such as was never brought upon any place or nation, either before or since. It was the day of the Lord, for it was the day of his vengeance upon that people for crucifying Christ, and persecuting his ministers; it was the year of recompences for that controversy; yea, and for all the blood of the saints and martyrs, from the blood of righteous Abel, Mt. 23:35. It was a little day of judgment; it was a notable day: in Joel it is called a terrible day, for so it was to men on earth; but here epiphanē (after the Septuagint), a glorious, illustrious day, for so it was to Christ in heaven; it was the epiphany, his appearing, so he himself spoke of it, Mt. 24:30. The destruction of the Jews was the deliverance of the Christians, who were hated and persecuted by them; and therefore that day was often spoken of by the prophets of that time, for the encouragement of suffering Christians, that the Lord was at hand, the coming of the Lord drew nigh, the Judge stood before the door, James 5:8, 9. Secondly, The terrible presages of that destruction are here foretold: There shall be wonders in heaven above, the sun turned into darkness and the moon into blood; and signs too in the earth beneath, blood and fire. Josephus, in his preface to his history of the wars of the Jews, speaks of the signs and prodigies that preceded them, terrible thunders, lightnings, and earthquakes; there was a fiery comet that hung over the city for a year, and a flaming sword was seen pointing down upon it; a light shone upon the temple and the altar at midnight, as if it had been noon-day. Dr. Lightfoot gives another sense of these presages: The blood of the Son of God, the fire of the Holy Ghost now appearing, the vapour of the smoke in which Christ ascended, the sun darkened, and the moon made blood, at the time of Christ’s passion, were all loud warnings given to that unbelieving people to prepare for the judgments coming upon them. Or, it may be applied, and very fitly, to the previous judgments themselves by which that desolation was brought on. The blood points at the wars of the Jews with the neighbouring nations, with the Samaritans, Syrians, and Greeks, in which abundance of blood was shed, as there was also in their civil wars, and the struggles of the seditious (as they called them), which were very bloody; there was no peace to him that went out nor to him that came in. The fire and vapour of smoke, here foretold, literally came to pass in the burning of their cities, and towns, and synagogues, and temple at last. And this turning of the sun into darkness, and the moon into blood, bespeaks the dissolution of their government, civil and sacred, and the extinguishing of all their lights. Thirdly, The signal preservation of the Lord’s people is here promised (v. 21): Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus (which is the description of a true Christian, 1 Co. 1:2) shall be saved, shall escape that judgment which shall be a type and earnest of everlasting salvation. In the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, there was a remnant sealed to be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger; and in the destruction by the Romans not one Christian perished. Those that distinguish themselves by singular piety shall be distinguished by special preservation.”[16] And lastly a Partial Preterist author Kenneth Gentry writes,
“Acts 2:20 must highlight AD 70, for it appears in the very context of Jerusalem and incudes tongues-speaking which is a sign of coming judgment upon Israel (cf. Dt 28:49; Isa 28:11; 33:19; Jer 5:15; 1 Cor 14:21-22). Peter’s sermon not only blames the Jews for Christ’s recent death (Acts 2:22-23, 36), but urges the Jerusalemites to “be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:40).”[17] The purpose of the baptism or outpouring of the Holy Spirit within Israel’s “last days” (not the last days of the Church age or that of world history) between AD 30 – AD 70 was to warn of an imminent judgment coming and to confirm that God was in fact including Gentiles to be built up as God’s new Tabernacle (Acts 10-11; Acts 15/Amos 9).
Baptism of fire – if you were a good Jew Malachi 3-4 would come to mind. Since we have covered Malachi 3-4 already and since the immediate context describes an imminent judgment of fire approaching, it is safe to say that this baptism of fire is also referring to the wrath that would be poured out upon the wicked in AD 70.
Before leaving this theme of baptism, perhaps the anti-type of a baptism that was in the process of “saving” the first century Christians in 1 Peter 3:20 is worthy of some comment at this point. Of this spiritual baptism of fire and persecution that would test the faith of Christians and eventually burn the wicked in AD 70 David Green writes,
“Union / identity with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection is the essence of spiritual baptism. In I Peter, it is the “suffering” or “fiery” aspect of spiritual baptism for Christians that is the running theme. Peter wrote his epistle to the persecuted, scattered Jewish believers who were living as aliens and strangers (1:1; 2:11). Many of them were being distressed by various trials (1:6), being slandered, reviled and maligned (2:12; 3:16; 4:4,14); their faith was being tested by fire (1:7).
This same baptism was predicted by Jesus in Matt. 20:22,23 (AV); Mk. 10:38,39 (cf. Lk. 12:50), where Jesus asked James and John, “Are you able to . . . be baptized with the baptism which I am baptized?” And they answered, “We are able.” And Jesus said, “. . . You shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.”
Christ was prophesying to His disciples that they were going to become sharers of His sufferings, i.e., they were going to be experientially / spiritually unified and identified with Him in His sufferings, death and burial. They were going to be “crucified with Him” (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20; 5:24) through persecution, but were also going to endure unto victory through the power of Christ’s resurrection.
Union with Christ in His sufferings was further borne out in I Peter when Peter told his readers that it was their calling to patiently endure their persecutions, just as Christ when He suffered, kept entrusting Himself to God. (2:23) “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose” (4:1), and, “you share the sufferings of Christ” (4:12,13).
It was this spiritual baptism that was saving the first-century Christians. Just as a small remnant, eight souls (I Peter 3:20), had been brought safely through the flood waters in Noah’s day (I Peter 3:20), so was a small remnant (Rom. 9:27,29) being brought safely through the fire of God’s Last-Days wrath. (Matt. 24:38,39; Lk. 17:26,27; II Peter 2:5-9)
Their saving baptism was a refining, purifying baptism, as they were being sovereignly preserved by God through their persecutions until the end of the age. As Paul said in II Cor. 4:17, “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” (Cf. Acts 14:22).”
Green may be on to something here. The rain and wrath that God poured down upon the wicked of the land was for 40 days and nights in Genesis 7. As God had preserved Noah and his family through these 40 days, God was preserving and saving His Church during this 40 year transition period. This is similar to what we had seen in the development of the type and anti-type in the wilderness exodus motif 1 Cor. 10:11; Hebs. 3-4/Ps. 95. Just as God had preserved the faith of Joshua and Caleb during the 40 days of spying out the land and then another 40 years before entering it, God was preserving the faith of these Christians through the persecutions and fiery trials they were undergoing. As the gospel was going throughout the land, it was a living river that by AD 70 would have reached to the heads of the Christians producing salvation Ezek. 47. But for the wicked and unbelieving, the wrath of God remained upon them and thus they were in the process of perishing and would be finally swept away in the fiery flood that consumed and baptized Jerusalem in AD 70.
Let’s now turn our attention to how the various futurist systems have inadequately dealt with the eschatology of John the Baptist.
Premillennial Dispensationalism and John the Baptist’s eschatology
Matthew 3:2: The Dispensational position on our text is that the ‘kingdom” was a literal earthly kingdom to be established on earth through Messiah’s reign similar to that of David and Solomon’s reigns. It is pointed out that since this is what the Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting, it must be accurate. They believe that the kingdom was literally “at hand” BUT it got “delayed” or “postponed”:
“The rejection of Christ by the people delayed [or postponed] its [the kingdom’s] establishment until the Second Coming of Christ (25:31). The “character” of the kingdom today is described in the parables of Matt. 13.”[18] Therefore, Dispensationalism teaches “three phases” of the kingdom: First, a literal kingdom that was literally “at hand” but got postponed due to the Jewish rejection of Christ. Second, a spiritual aspect of the kingdom is introduced in the “seven mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” to be fulfilled during the present Church age found in the seven parables of Jesus in (Matt. 13:1-52). The third phase is the arrival of the literal kingdom (that got postponed the first time around) established on the earth at the Second Coming of Jesus (Matt. 24:29—chapter 25).
Matthew 3:3 & Isaiah 40: I find it interesting that one Dispensational author admits that John came to prepare a way for the remnant of Israel to be saved,
“John was thus a voice of one calling in the desert to prepare a remnant to receive the Messiah.”[19] If the mission was to prepare a way of salvation for the “remnant” of Jews (and thus not every Jew or a majority of Jews had to accept Christ), with the kingdom being “at hand,” then there was no need to have the kingdom postponed or delayed since the NT develops that a remnant of Jews (along with the Gentile inclusion) was indeed saved.
There is really no exegetical work done by Dispensationalists trying to examine the context of the passage John references in Isaiah 40 as being salvation 40:2 and judgment 40:6-7, 10 and how that relates to the imminent judgment scene John is developing within the immediate context.
Matthew 3:7: Some Progressive Dispensationalists such as John MacArthur, have given lip service to the “wrath [about to] come” in 3:7 as “possibly” being fulfilled in AD 70, but if so, only in a partial or typological way allegedly awaiting the ultimate fulfillment of God pouring out His wrath at Christ’s future (to us) Second Coming.[20] Matthew 3:10: In regards to God having already laid His ax at Israel’s tree some see it as a judgment upon Jerusalem, but don’t want to really reference it to AD 70 and the imminence that saturates the rest of Matthew 3:
“Judaism was in danger of being removed. Unless there was productive fruit in keeping with repentance (v. 8), God would remove the tree [tree=Judaism=Israel].”[21] Why are these Dispensational commentators afraid to point out that in AD 70 the kingdom would in fact be “taken” from Israel and “given” to the “nation” of the Church (Matt. 21:43-45)? Therefore, when the “at hand kingdom” would come in AD 70, the OC kingdom would be judged (with the kingdom being taken from her – the removing of her tree – ie. gather and burn up the chaff) and the remnant would experience salvation through their repentance and be “given” the kingdom (ie. gather His wheat into the barn).
However, MacArthur of 3:10 refreshingly and boldly writes,
“Irreversible judgment was imminent”[22] But he fails miserably to exegetically connect this “irreversible imminence” of (v. 10) with the immediate contexts of (verses 2, 7), and gives vague and shallow connections of v. 10) to that of (vss. 11-12).
Matthew 3:11-12: MacArthur does write concerning the baptism of fire,
“Because fire is used throughout this context as a means of judgment (vv. 10, 12), this must speak of a baptism of judgment upon the unrepentant.”[23] Here he connects the baptism of fire in (v. 11) with the “irreversible judgment [that] was imminent” of (v. 10), and with being burned up with unquenchable fire” in (12). But because being burned up with unquenchable fire for his theology means something that is connected with a far distant judgment at the end of world history — at best he can only make a thematic connection with the fiery judgments and not an actual and exegetical one connecting them as the same “imminent” judgment.
Louis Barbieri however does connect this baptism of fire with the Second Coming of Jesus in Malachi 3:
“Those who reject Him (chaff) would be judged and cast into eternal unquenchable fire (cf. Mal. 4:1).”[24] Matthew 11:10-15; 17:11-13: There seems to be a denial among Dispensationalists when it comes to Jesus’ teaching that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah’s coming before the great and dreadful day of the Lord could occur (cf. Mal. 4:1-5). Most seem to think that this is fulfilled when allegedly Elijah will come in our future in fulfillment of Revelation 11. But John (as Elijah) came to prepare the way for Christ’s Second Coming and judgment (Mal. 3:1-2; Mal. 4:1-5; Isa. 40:3-7, 10). Dispensationalists are also exegetically impotent to connect the imminence throughout Matthew 3 with the imminence in the NT concerning the Second Coming of Jesus that John came to prepare the way for.
Weakness of this view
First, there is NO exegetical evidence whatsoever that John the Baptist nor Jesus, was ever offering a literal earthly kingdom that was “at hand.” A literal earthly kingdom was offered to Jesus and He clearly rejected it and went on further to develop that His kingdom was spiritual (cf. John 6). Everywhere Jesus describes His kingdom throughout the gospels, it is always described as a spiritual (spiritual water, bread, life, etc…) kingdom that is “not of this world” and when it would come it would not be visible, but would be realized “within.” The rest of the NT develops a spiritual kingdom never a literal or earthly one.
Secondly, there is NO exegetical evidence anywhere in the teachings of Jesus in the gospels or in the NT authors, that the kingdom John the Baptist and Jesus said was “at hand” got “delayed” or “postponed” thousands of years. Not a single verse!
Thirdly, it is the NT’s teaching that Christ’s “rejection” (ie. His death and resurrection) actually established the “already” aspect to Israel’s OT promises concerning the Davidic kingdom – hardly “postponing” them.
Fourthly, exegetically speaking the imminent “at hand” aspect of the Kingdom is connected to an “about to” come “wrath” or “irreversible imminent” eschatological harvest judgment that would result in removing Israel (the trees) (vss. 10, 12). There is really no exegetical work at all being done to harmonize all four of these imminent time statements to the harvest judgment and salvation imminently coming in AD 70.
Fifthly, Dispensationalism admits that John was coming to prepare the way for Christ’s Second Coming (“the day of His coming” / “the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”) in a fiery judgment as predicted by Malachi 3:2-5/4:1-5/Isa. 40:3-4, 10/=Matthew 3:3, 10-12. However, men like MacArthur will not connect the exegetical dots in our passage let alone in the rest of the NT which teaches that the “Irreversible judgment [that] was imminent” in John’s day to his first century audience is the Second Coming event of which John came to prepare the way of – for that same first century audience!
Sixthly, Dispensationalism constantly ridicules Covenant Theology and Preterism for pointing out that the OT and NT uses highly apocalyptic/symbolic/metaphoric language in prophetic literature (not literal), and clearly John did not come to prepare a literal highway for Jesus to enter this literal kingdom on earth that they have imagined He was teaching in the book of Dispensationalism 7:7-77 apparently.
Seventh, If John came to prepare a way for the “remnant” of Israel to be saved in order for the kingdom and Christ’s Second Coming could be realized, then there was no reason to have the kingdom “postponed” because a “remnant” was saved prior to Christ coming in the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.
Eighth, There is nothing but pure eisegesis and Dispensational dogma that separates John’s coming harvest judgment and salvation in Matthew 3 related to the kingdom’s arrival and what Jesus will teach on the same subject matter in Matthew 13.
This view has to read into the text (eisegesis) an offer of an alleged earthly/literal kingdom that is nowhere found here or anywhere else in the NT, a “delay” or “postponement” theory that is nowhere found here or anywhere else in the NT, and is confused and impotent on how all four imminent AD 70 references or images (vss. 2, 7, 10-12) harmonize within Matthew 3 let alone how the rest of the NT harmonizes them!
Strengths of this view
Dispensationalism is forced to at least accept that “at hand” is a genuinely imminent time statement for the first century audience John is addressing. But unfortunately as we will see later, when it comes to the kingdom being “at hand” associated with Christ’s Second Coming, “at hand” takes on a totally different meaning for the same first century audience.
Dispensationalism does accept that the coming of Christ in judgment found in Malachi 3-4 is the Second Coming event and not just “a” minor AD 70 coming (per Partial Preterism).
We can find points of agreement that the kingdom was genuinely “at hand” (but not “postponed”) and that Matthew 3:10-12 refers to the Second Coming of Christ to bring about an “Irreversible judgment [that] was imminent.” No debate on those points.
Amillennialism
Matthew 3:2: Concerning the kingdom being “at hand,” Amillennialism emphasizes the spiritual nature of the kingdom (over against the Premillennial Dispensational view) and that the kingdom’s “already” aspect was present or would imminently be present – realized in the heart, “bearing forth fruit” with their “repentance.” For example William Hendricksen writes,
“…heaven’s (ie. God’s) reign in the hearts and lives of men would begin to assert itself far more powerfully than ever before, was about to begin; in a sense, had even now arrived. Great blessings were in store for all those who, by sovereign grace, would confess and forsake their sins and would begin to live to God’s glory.”[25] Matthew 3:3 & Isaiah 40: Hendriksen sees Isaiah 40:3-5 as typologically being fulfilled when the remnant of Israel came out of the wilderness captivity of Babylon and back into the Promised Land through the restoration and preparing the way of God through Ezra and Nehemiah’s ministries. As far as how John prepares the way, he writes,
“…to prepare the way of the Lord, that is, by God’s grace and power to effect a complete change of mind and heart (see verse 2). This implies that they must make straight his paths, meaning that they must provide the Lord with a ready access into their hearts and lives. They must make straight whatever was crooked, not in line with God’s holy will. They must clear away all the obstacles which they had thrown into his path; such obstructions as self-righteousness and smug complacency (“We have Abraham as our father,” verse 9), greed, cruelty, slander, etc. (Luke 3:13, 14).
It is evident that, both in Isaiah and in John’s preaching as recorded by Matthew, “the wilderness” through which a path must be made ready for the Lord is in the final analysis the people’s heart, inclined to all evil. Though the literal meaning is not absent, it is subsumed into the figurative. The root idea is indeed the actual desert. “But the very sight of the [literal] wilderness must have had a powerful effect on stupid and hardened men, leading them to perceive that they were in a state of death, and to accept the promise of salvation that had been held out to them” (John Calvin on Matt. 3:3).”[26] So as one can see the Amillennialist is limited in his exegesis of an “at hand” kingdom only addressing its internal affects within the heart and not really dealing with imminent aspects of the kingdom’s arrival in the eschatological areas that are developed throughout the immediate context. Nor is there any discussion that within the context of Isaiah 40:3-5 the Second Coming is mentioned as a part of the way that is being prepared.
Matthew 3:7: In trying to address the “approaching wrath,” Hendriksen does not deal with the Greek word mello here and how it is used throughout Matthew’s gospel. If he were, he would translate it as the wrath that was “about to be” poured out upon the hypocrites and “Brood of vipers” to whom John is addressing. He does however connect this “wrath” with the Second Coming of Christ:
“…the final outpouring of this wrath is reserved for the future (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9; Rev. 14:10).
“…this final manifestation of wrath (Zeph. 1:15; 2:2) is connected with the (second) coming of the Messiah (Mal. 3:2, 3; 4:1, 5).[27] Matthew 3:10: As usual futurists such as Hendriksen do not know how to deal with NT imminence and throw everything they can at it. Everything from the old viewing things from the two mountain tops and “prophetic foreshortening” to pointing out that AD 70 could be in view in that it was a near event. Note the Amillennialist’s struggle with John’s imminent eschatology and that of the NT’s in general:
“Judgment is at hand. The axe lies right in front of (πρός) or, as we would say, “at” the root, with sinister intent, ready to hew down one tree after another. Right now, therefore, is the proper moment to repent and to believe. In this connection see also Ps. 95:7, 8; Isa. 55:6; Luke 13:7, 9; 17:32; John 15:6; Rom. 13:11; 2 Cor. 6:2; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:3. Continued: … every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. The question might be asked, “But was the day of the final manifestation of God’s wrath upon the wicked actually that close? Is it not true that many centuries have passed by since the Baptist spoke these words, and still the Lord has not returned for judgment?” The following facts should be borne in mind:
First, John reminds one of the Old Testament prophet who, in speaking about the last days or the Messianic age would at times look upon the future as a traveler does on a distant mountain range. He fancies that one mountain top rises up right behind the other, when in reality the two are miles apart. The two comings of Christ are viewed as if they were one. Thus we read “A shoot shall come forth out of the stock of Jesse … and he shall smite the earth” (Isa. 11:1–4). “Jehovah has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and … the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:1, 2). “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.… The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah arrives” (Joel 2:28–31). Cf. Mal. 3:1, 2. This has been called “prophetic foreshortening.”
Secondly, Jerusalem’s fall (a.d. 70) was drawing perilously near, and foreshadowed the final judgment.
Thirdly, impenitence has a tendency of hardening a person, so that often he is left in his present lost condition. Without genuine repentance death and the judgment are for him irrevocable and “at the door.”
Fourthly, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8).
Fifthly, as the references given above (p. 205, beginning with Ps. 95:7, 8) indicate, John was by no means the only one who emphasized the imminence of the judgment and/or the need of becoming converted right now. Therefore, if on this score we find fault with the Baptist we would also have to blame the psalmists, the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself! Surely, no true believer is ready to do this.
Sixthly, all this does not necessarily mean that the Baptist himself always saw the present and the future in true perspective. See on 11:1–3. It only means that the Holy Spirit guided him so that in his actual preaching as here recorded he had a perfect right to say what he said.
The “fire” into which the unfruitful trees are cast is evidently a symbol of the final outpouring of God’s wrath upon the wicked. See also Mal. 4:1; Matt. 13:40; John 15:6. Jesus spoke about “the Gehenna of fire” (Matt. 5:22, 29; 18:9; Mark 9:47). This fire is unquenchable (Matt. 3:12; 18:8; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17). The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that God burns the wicked with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 3:12; 25:41).[28] Hendriksen is throwing everything he can at John the Baptist’s teaching and how the NT develops imminence hoping that something will stick! If imminence is to be taken literally here, then AD 70 would fulfill this, but only in “foreshadowing” way. Why? Because Hendriksen assumes that this wrath associated with the Second Coming must be future and an world of history kind of event. Then on the other extreme he appeals to 2 Peter 3:8 and interprets it in such a way that imminence doesn’t have to be interpreted literally at all. So in this approach when Peter says “the end of all things is at hand” – it really didn’t communicate imminence to Peter’s first century audience because “at hand” could really mean thousands and thousands of years. Concerning his two mountain peaks illustration – the two were viewed to take place imminently together, because Jesus places his rejection in His first coming and His Second Coming to take place within the same AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Luke 17:25/Luke 21:27-32). Since they both take place within the same “this generation” time frame, NT imminence can be interpreted literally and refer to Christ coming in the judgment upon Jerusalem and thus God pouring out His wrath upon those that had rejected His Son.
What is helpful from Amillennialists such as William Hendriksen is that they seem to recognize that John’s eschatology here is a microcosm of the rest of the NT’s eschatology. Therefore, how you interpret one is how you must interpret the other. Of course I have no disagreement on this point.
Matthew 3:11: In regards to what the baptism of fire is, Amillennialists tend to agree with the Full Preterist that this is indeed referring to the Second Coming:
“Nevertheless, it would appear from the context (both before and after; see verses 10 and 12) and from Joel’s Pentecost prophecy (Joel 2:30; cf. Acts 2:19), considered in its context (see Joel 2:31), that the ultimate fulfilment of the Baptist’s words awaits Christ’s glorious return to cleanse the earth with fire (2 Peter 3:7, 12; cf. Mal. 3:2; 2 Thess. 1:8).[29] Matthew 3:12: Simon Kistemaker seems to understand that John’s end time harvest metaphors here in 3:12 answer to the same end time harvest scene elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel in the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 13:
“Throughout the Gospel of Matthew the theme of separation and judgment unfolds. The wheat is gathered into the barn, but the chaff is burned up with unquenchable fire (Matt. 3:12); the weeds are separated from the wheat, and tied into bundles and burned, while the wheat is gathered into the barn (Matt. 13:30).”[30] As far as the threshing floor judgment, Hendriksen correctly connects it with the Second Coming,
Thus also Christ at his return will thoroughly clear the area where the judgment will take place. No one will escape detection.[31] Of the Christians or “grain” being gathered into the barn or kingdom, Hendriksen connects that with Christians inheriting the New Heaven and Earth in 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21-22 at Christ’s Second Coming. And the same time frame is given for the unbelievers or “chaff” – they are thrown into the Lake of Fire for eternal punishment at Christ’s Second Coming (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10).[32] After all this is the eschatological “not yet” to the kingdom promises.
Weaknesses of this view
It fails to honor the context in that the “at hand” of the kingdom is not just a spiritual “in the heart” “already” aspect to the kingdom, but includes the kingdom’s imminent “not yet” salvation and judgment motif throughout the passage. This is further evidenced in that it is the Second Coming that John was to prepare the way for in Isaiah 40:3-5, 10 and Malachi 3 and 4.
There is no study on mello in 3:7 which should be translated as a wrath that was “about to” be poured out upon those that would not repent.
It fails to understand or develop NT imminence in any kind of Biblical or consistent way.
Strengths of this view
There is some attempt to find the eschatological imminence or kingdom “not yet” promises being fulfilled in the AD 70 judgment – but not consistently.
The ax laid at the tree and the coming baptism of fire are correctly identified with the Second Coming event as predicted in Malachi 3 and 4.
Unlike Dispensationalism, there are not two different kingdoms or phases of the kingdom – one for Israel and another for the Church in which they separate the salvation and judgment harvest motifs here in Matthew 3 from Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13. Amillennialism seems to equate the two as the same end time harvest event.
This position correctly sees the eschatology of John the Baptist here to be a microcosm of the NT’s eschatology as a whole. Therefore, its struggle with John’s imminence here is its struggle with NT imminence.
Partial Preterism
Matthew 3:2-3: In regards to the manifestation of the kingdom being at hand John Lightfoot writes,
“1. The exhibition and manifestation of the Messias, Matt. 12:28; “But if I, by the finger of God, cast out devils, the kingdom of God is come upon you:” that is, ‘Hence is the manifestation of the Messias.’ See John 3:3, 12:13, &c. 2. The resurrection of Christ; death, hell, Satan, being conquered: whence is a most evident manifestation that he is that ‘eternal King,’ &c.: see Matt. 26:29, Rom. 1:4. 3. His vengeance upon the Jewish nation, his most implacable enemies: this is another, and most eminent manifestation of him: see Matt. 16:28, 19:28. 4. His dominion by the sceptre of the gospel among the Gentiles, Matt. 21:43. In this place which is before us it points out the exhibition and revelation of the Messias.[33] Matthew 3:7: John Lightfoot is on target in identifying this coming wrath to AD 70,
“…To fly from the wrath to come.] These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament, “lest I smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. 4:[6]; and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.
The receiving of John’s baptism signed and fenced those that received it from the ruin that was just coming. To this belongs that of St. Peter, Epist. 1. ch. 3:20, 21: in that manner as Noah and his sons were by water delivered from the flood, “so also baptism now, the antitype of that type, saveth us” from the deluge of divine indignation, which in a short time is to overflow the Jewish nation. Think here, if those that came to baptism brought not their little ones with them to baptism: when, by the plain words of the Baptist, those that are baptized are said to “fly from the wrath to come?” that is, ‘the wrath of God,’ that was not long hence to destroy the nation by a most sad overthrow.”[34] Matthew 3:10-12: Gentry concedes a Preterist interpretation of 3:10-12,
“He [John] then warns just before Christ’s ministry begins that “the axe is already laid at the root of the trees. (3:10) and that “He who is coming” has a “winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (3:12). This anticipates AD 70.”[35] R.C. Sproul,
“The image of the axe does not indicate that the woodsman is merely thinking about cutting down a tree or that he has merely begun the task by striking at the outer bark. The image is that the task is nearly complete. The axe has already penetrated to the core of the tree, hinting that one more decisive stroke will make it fall.
The fan refers to the winnowing fork used by a farmer to separate the wheat from the chaff. The farmer is not heading to his barn to get the fan. It is already in his hand and he is about to begin the winnowing.”[36] Matthew 11:10-14: Gentry writes of Matthew 11:14/Malachi 3-4,
“In Matthew 11:14 Christ declares John the Baptist the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah’s return. When we read of this in Mal 3-4 we discover Christ will come to judge Israel.”[37] Weaknesses of this view
Unlike the Amillennial view, the weaknesses of this view is in its failure to harmonize and use the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation concerning the “great and dreadful day of the Lord,” the imminent coming judgment and wrath whereby the wicked are thrown into “unquenchable fire” (all being fulfilled in AD 70) with the rest of the NT’s teaching on these eschatological topics. There isn’t even any attempt to harmonize the coming harvest separation and judgment of Matthew 3 with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 13.
Strengths of this view
Unlike the Amillennial view, the strength of this view is that it seeks to take the imminence throughout Matthew 3:2-12 seriously and finds its fulfillment in the fall of Jerusalem.
Progressive Partial Preterism
Matthew 3:2-12: In response to the kind of vague comments Amillennialists give about a pure inward aspect of the kingdoms arrival and a call for repentance throughout all ages, Russell makes the point that the repentance in our passage is urgent for a specific immediate audience (the Jews) concerning a specific coming national judgment,
“These warnings of John the Baptist are not the vague and indefinite exhortations to repentance, addressed to men in all ages, which they are sometimes assumed to be; they are urgent, burning words, having a specific and present bearing upon the then existing generation, the living men to whom he brought the message of God. The Jewish nation was now upon its last trial; the second Elijah had come as the precursor of ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord:’ if they rejected his warnings, the doom predicted by Malachi world surely and speedily follow; “I will come and smite the land with a curse.’ Nothing can be more obvious than that the catastrophe to which John alludes is particular, national, local, and imminent, and history tells us that within the period of the generation that listened to his warning cry, ‘the wrath came upon them to the uttermost.’”[38] Russell is also helpful in demonstrating that although the “way” John is called upon to “prepare” here in Matthew 3:3 is found in Isaiah 40, we still see the “way” of judgment found in Malachi 3-4 (as is quoted in Matt. 11:10) within our passage,
“It is impossible not to be struck with the correspondence between the language of the Baptist and that of Malachi. As Hengstenberg observes: ‘The prophecy of Malacki is throughout the text upon which John comments.’ In both, the coming of the Lord is described as a day of wrath; both speak of His coming with fire to purify and try, with fire to burn and consume. Both speak of a time of discrimination and separation between the righteous and the wicked, the gold and dross, the wheat and chaff; and both speak of the utter destruction of the chaff, or stubble, with unquenchable fire. These are not fortuitous resemblances: the two predictions are the counterpart one of the other, and can only refer to the self-same event, the same ‘day of the lord,’ the same coming judgment.”[39] Russell also does a great job of using the analogy of Scripture principle of interpreting scripture when he connects the Matthew 3:2-12 with that of the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:
“It is indeed surprising that expositors should failed to recognize in these solemn predictions the reproduction and reiteration of the words of Malachi and of John the Baptist. Here we find the same final separation between the righteous and the wicked; the same purging of the floor; the same gathering of the wheat into the garner; the same burning of the chaff [tares, stubble] in the fire. Can there be no doubt that it is to the same act of judgment, the same period of time, the same historical event, that Malachi, John, and our Lord refer?”[40] Weaknesses of this view
Russell should have spent some time on the use of mello in Matthew 3:7 to add strength to his case on imminence throughout Matthew 3.
Although doing a good job on showing how the context of Malachi 3-4 can be seen ever here in Matthew 3, he could have spent some time developing the context of Isaiah 40 of which John specifically references to make a case for an AD 70 judgment scene.
Russell’s view of a partial and literal “rapture” of Christians during the events of AD 67-70 at Christ’s parousia I believe is gravely mistaken and has some problems even here at the outset. Since he equates the gathering of Matthew 3 with Matthew 13, we should not that the tares are “gathered” at the same time as the wheat (actually they are gathered first). So if the eschatological “gathering” within John and Jesus’ teaching throughout Matthew’s gospel refers to the same event, then this would require that the wicked tares were gathered/raptured in the same way the righteous wheat were gathered/raptured. There is no discussion of this serious problem for Russell’s view and even modern day Progressive Partial Preterists that hold to his literal rapture theory taking place in AD 70.
Strengths of this view
As previously noted, Russell is strong in pointing out John’s references to Malachi here in Matthew 3 – and not just in Matthew 11.
His refutation of an Amillennial type general repentance spanning thousands of years in the kingdom being “at hand” is excellent when he points the reader to stay within the text itself arguing for a local, national, and imminence throughout Matthew 3 which exegetically points us to a first century audience being called to repentance for a particular national judgment coming in AD 70.
His appeals that Jesus is simply “reiterating” and “reproducing” the same separating harvest and fiery salvation and judgment scene as that of Malachi and John are excellent (Matt. 3=Matt. 13). We saw this point made by Kistemaker, but here we have more exegetical evidence demonstrating that both were fulfilled to close the OC age in AD 70 and are not referring to an end of the planet earth or history events.

MATTHEW 24-25

Virtually every eschatological system, scholar or commentary will tell you that whatever one’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (OD) is, it will dictate your eschatological views throughout the rest of the NT. Nowhere else in the gospels is Jesus’ teaching so clearly laid out concerning all of the main eschatological events: His coming/parousia, the end of the age, the passing of heaven and earth, the end of the age gathering (ie. the resurrection and judgment of the dead), and the end time signs marking the genuine nearness of these events. The rest of the NT is simply a reiteration on the time frame and nature of these eschatological events. D.A Carson has correctly pointed out that whatever your eschatological views are in interpreting Matthew 24-25, will be your views of 1 & 2 Thessalonians, the book of Revelation, and indeed will set the pattern for the church’s understanding of eschatology throughout the rest of the NT:
“…the discourse itself is undoubtedly a source for the Thessalonian Epistles (cf. G. Henry Waterman, “The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” JETS 18 [1975]: 105–13; David Wenham, “Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse,” France and Wenham, 2:345–75) and Revelation (cf. Gregory Kimball Beale, “The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John” [Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1980], pp. 260–64, and the literature cited there). If so, then we may say that Jesus himself sets the pattern for the church’s eschatology.”[41] And yet because various futurist systems have been imposed upon the OD, it has perplexed many throughout Church history as Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger admits while quoting Carson,
“For a number of reasons, the Olivet Discourse is one of the most difficult and disputed passages in the whole New Testament. As D.A. Carson notes, “Few chapters of the Bible have called forth more disagreement among interpreters than Matthew 24 and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21. The history of the interpretation of this passage is immensely complex.” How one interprets this important text will go a long way in determining one’s view of the millennial age pre, a, or post.”[42] I could multiply quotes like these from virtually every eschatological system and view being taught today. Other than the agreement on the importance of giving an accurate exegesis of the OD because it will affect ones eschatology throughout the rest of the NT on the time and nature of fulfillment, there isn’t much agreement after that. And I will argue it is because futurists have been building upon a false and faulty foundation when approaching it.
By way of exegesis, I will be following Matthew 24-25 as a guide, but at points will be addressing the synoptic parallels found in Mark 13 and Luke 21 when relevant.
Four Main Views
As I give an in-depth exegesis of the OD, I will be interacting with four main eschatological views or groups. There may be some slight differences within each of these groups, but for the most part my descriptions are accurate. Therefore, before beginning our exegesis it will help the reader to get a bird’s eye view of them and their approaches to or Lord’s discourse on the last things. I will also give the strengths and weakness of each view.
Premillennial Dispensationalism
While Premillennialism has been around throughout Church history for a long time, Premillennial Dispensationalism has not – being around roughly for only about 150 years. Although this eschatological system has only been around for such a brief period, it still dominates the radio and television airwaves and has a large following. Because of this, I will be dealing mostly with the Dispensational aspect within Premillennialism in this work.
Weaknesses
As we will see later, this view (along with the majority of futurist views) is doomed to failure from the very beginning because it assumes that the disciples were “confused” in associating the destruction of the Temple, end of the age, and coming of the Son of Man to take place within the same time frame.
Another error this view teaches is that the “end of the age” or “the end” in the discourse is referring to the end of the planet or the end of the New Covenant Christian age.
It tends to teach that the signs in the discourse are being fulfilled right before our very eyes in the news and thus Jesus’ “rapture” for the Church could be an anytime event for us.
Since there is a radical distinction between the Church and Israel in this system with our current age being the Church age with Israel’s kingdom promises following it, the surrounding of Jerusalem or the desolation of the Temple in this system is not the Temple that Jesus and the disciples are actually looking at and discussing, but rather a future one yet to be rebuilt. Therefore, there is always excitement within this group and a twisting of OT and NT passages to fit an alleged “fulfillment” of Israel becoming a nation in 1948 and the talk of them re-building the Temple.
The Great Tribulation is seen as a future global event – not within Jesus’ contemporary generation or a local event.
Since the “end of the age” is understood within this view to be an end of world history event, the de-creation in verses 29, 35 likewise tend to be understood as referring to a literal de-creation or re-creation of planet earth events.
Although it is admitted by some of their leading theologians that “this generation” is referring to the AD 30 – AD 70 generation everywhere else by Jesus, it believes Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24:34 is the exception. This automatically raises a red flag to any student of hermeneutics.
Jesus’ teaching that all these things would be fulfilled in a “this generation” time period, is interpreted as “the Jewish race will not pass away until all these things will be fulfilled.” Or another view is that the generation that is alive to see these end time signs be fulfilled is the generation that will witness the rapture and or then his return. Since the alleged TV “prophecy experts” of this view believe we have witnessed most if not all of these signs, many have taught that it is our generation that Jesus is addressing in the OD, or the generation that witnessed the “super-sign” of Israel becoming a nation in 1948.
It is also relevant to point out that this view believes in two comings of Christ. First, there is the “secret rapture” coming of Jesus “for” the Church, then there is the actual Second Coming of Jesus “with the Church” some seven years later to establish the kingdom by means of ruling on earth during a literal thousand year millennial period.
And while this view would agree that whatever your view of the OD is, it will dictate your views of these events throughout the rest of the NT – we can’t find a secret rapture coming then a Second Coming in the OD. Nor can we find any teaching on a literal earthly kingdom whereby Jesus rules on the earth for a thousand years etc…. Nor do we find any teaching on a judgment and resurrection of the dead prior to the thousand years and then one following the thousand years mentioned by Jesus in the OD or anywhere in the teachings of Jesus.
Strengths
The only strength that I can see with this interpretation of the OD is that it does interpret the coming of the Son of Man consistently through Matthew 24-25 as the actual Second Coming event. I will not take issue with that.
Classic Amillennialism
The classic Amillennial view is probably the most popular view throughout Church history. It has been held by the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformed Church. Although some Amillialists have held to a Partial Preterist interpretation of some of these eschatological events in the OD, the vast majority have not – especially when it comes to the coming of the Son of Man as being one future event. Therefore, it is this later version that I will address in this book.
Weaknesses
Like the previous view, it assumes that the disciples were “confused” in associating the destruction of the Temple, end of the age, and coming of the Son of Man to take place within the same time frame.
Like the Premillennial Dispensational view, its proponents believe the “end of the age” or “the end” in the discourse is referring to the end of the planet or the end of the New Covenant Christian age.
It tends to erratically chop up the Discourse believing some events refer to AD 70 while others are future. It separates the surrounding of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 from the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds – which is the Second Coming to take place at the end of the New Covenant Christian age to close world history. I say this view “erratically chops up” the discourse because the disciples connect all the events to be fulfilled together and Jesus in answering their question(s) does as well (after discussing all these events) when He says, “Most assuredly, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things are fulfilled.” Notice he does not say “some of these things” would be fulfilled in AD 70 while others would not – but “all these things.”
Therefore, it will become very apparent as we make our way through the OD that this view cannot deal with Jesus’ teaching that His coming would take place within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” and thus its attempts to deal with NT imminence will also fall short of honoring God’s Word.
Strengths
Similar to the Premillennial Dispensational view, the classic Amillennial position consistently sees the coming of the Son of Man throughout the discourse as Jesus’ actual Second Coming. Unlike Premillennial Dispensationalism, it is a very simple view in that when the ONE Second Coming of Jesus takes place at the end of the age, the de-creation (and by implication the new arrives), and the judgment and resurrection of the dead occurs. And of course the rest of the NT follows this pattern.
Partial Preterism & Progressive Partial Preterism
Most Partial Preterists and Progressive Partial Preterists today and throughout Church history have been Postmillennialists. Why? Well, in order for their “optimistic” “eschatology of victory” to take place (that is the Christianization of every nation on planet earth before the Second Coming takes place), it needs to get some of the negative things for the Church to be fulfilled in the past (preterism). Therefore, this view arbitrarily uses the preterist hermeneutic to get the Great Tribulation, severe persecutions from the beast, Man of Sin, apostasy, etc…, in the past so that it can promote Postmillennialism.
Partial Preterism
Weaknesses
As the previous two views have errored, so too does this one when it assumes from the very beginning that the disciples were “confused” in associating the destruction of the Temple, end of the age, and coming of the Son of Man to take place together or within Jesus’ AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time frame.
Like the first two views outlined above, many Partial Preterist believe that the “end of the age” in the OD is referring to the end of world history or the end of the Christian age. This too is a major exegetical weakness of this position.
Strengths
Some of the things this view has going for it on an exegetical level is that it views all of the signs elaborated by Jesus to be fulfilled within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” inspired time period. Therefore, the Great Tribulation and the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies and the desolation of the Temple are also events fulfilled by AD 70.
The de-creation in Matthew 24:29 is not literal but rather prophetic, apocalyptic, and symbolic language referring to the end of Israel’s Old Covenant age or world in AD 70.
The coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Matthew 24:27, 30 is also prophetic, apocalyptic, and symbolic language referring to Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem through the Roman armies in AD 70 – one of its main strengths.
“This generation” is interpreted as it is everywhere else in the gospels and that is Jesus’ contemporary AD 30 – AD 70 generation – thus “a” coming of Jesus, the signs, and the stars falling from the heavens etc…, were fulfilled within this inspired time frame. Unfortunately for this view, they do not include “the end of the age” as apart of “all these things” are fulfilled within that contemporary generation and so they need to insert that subject in Matthew 24:
Matthew 24:35-36 allegedly marks a division in the OD. At this point Jesus begins addressing His actual Second Coming and “end of the age” — attended by the literal de-creation of “heaven and earth” (and by implication the new arrives). In this section the judgment and resurrection of the dead follow as well.
Some of the positives of this view is that it tries to honor Jesus’ time frame claiming that most of verses 3-34 were fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation.” In doing so, it also honors the use of OT prophetic, apocalyptic, and symbolic language. Since Christ’s parousia and de-creation (and implied new creation) took place in AD 70, it also tries to honor most of the NT’s imminence passages.
The negatives to this view is that nowhere previous to Matthew 24-25 or after, do we find Jesus teaching on TWO comings to end TWO end of the age(s). There is only one, and it is said to take place within the lifetime of His first century audience (cf. Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 26:64) – ie. by AD 70. Therefore, the disciples in the OD do not ask about TWO comings of Christ. As I will develop later, their arguments to support TWO comings and two sections of the OD will not hold water. Their arguments that the OD teaches two comings is simply read into the text as is their theory that the rest of the NT teaches this two comings idea.
Progressive Partial Preterism
This view still falls within the realm of “Partial Preterism,” but since it seeks to try and solve some of the exegetical problems I have briefly addressed above within Partial Preterism, and at the same time has moved closer and closer to Full Preterism over the years, I have termed it “Progressive” Partial Preterism. Progressive Partial Preterists are fond of pointing out how Progressive Dispensationalism has “crossed certain lines” in their interpretations of key passages which undermine the Dispensational system. And if consistently played out (they argue) Progressive Dispensationalism should lead their theologians and students to Covenant Theology and or Reformed Eschatology. I find this ironic since Progressive Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar are no longer holding to a two parousia(s)/coming(s) theory of Jesus in Matthew 24-25 – this has undermined his Partial Preterism and if consistently played out should lead him and his readers into Full Preterism. In fact this has been the case for me and many other students that have read his materials.
I will be classifying J. Stuart Russell’s position as Progressive Partial Preterism because although he takes the Second Coming taking place in AD 70, he argued that we are still in the millennium and therefore the millennium of Revelation 20 has not been fulfilled. This is neither exegetical nor can it be considered Full Preterism. His view of a partial literal rapture is neither exegetical nor consistent with Full Preterisms understanding of a spiritual fulfillment of the Kingdom promises being realized “within” in AD 70.
Strengths
Unlike the previous three views, Progressive Partial Preterism does not assume that the disciples were confused in associating the coming of Christ in the OD with the destruction of the Temple and end of the age. This is an exegetical strength and refreshing to hear coming from this view.
This leads to another exegetical strength that cannot be found within the previous three as well, “the end of the age” or “the end” in the OD both are addressing the end of the Old Covenant age and not the end of the planet earth or the end of the New Covenant Christian age.
Like the traditional Partial Preterist view, all of the signs, the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies and the desolation of the Temple, the Great Tribulation and wrath, the de-creation in Matthew 24:29 and coming of Christ in verses 27, 30 are discussing prophetic, apocalyptic, and symbolic language addressing the end of Israel’s Old Covenant age in AD 70. But unlike other Partial Preterists, there are no TWO parousia(s)/coming(s) of Christ or two sections in the OD for this group. The coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 is Christ coming in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70. These are definitely strengths of this view and hopefully other Partial Preterists will follow.
Weaknesses
However, the exegetical weaknesses of this view should be clear enough in that it is now forced to teach that Jesus never discussed His actual Second Coming in Matthew, Mark and Luke and that the teaching on the Second Coming is really more of a doctrine that the Apostle Paul was given to develop (thus separating Jesus’ eschatology from Paul’s). This is a bizarre position to take to say the least. Because of this, some within this group don’t know if the NT teaches two comings of Christ or one with different manifestations/fulfillments (Some trying to call this “Realized Preterism”). Apparently it is so secret and confusing, that it has yet to be fully developed or “realized” in print or in any systematic way. It is attempting to fix on the one hand some of the exegetical problems within traditional Partial Preterism, while on the other, remain creedal so as to not lose their ministries, orthodox publishing contracts, or get excommunicated from their creedal churches (which is also the tightrope that traditional Partial Preterism has sought to walk).
Full Preterism
I will be arguing for the Full Preterist view of the OD which is none other than the organic development (or “Reformed and always reforming”) of the Classic Amillennial view and that of the Partial Preterist views.
A Synthesis of the Classic Amillennial & Progressive Partial Preterist Views
The disciples were not wrong in associating the destruction of the Temple with Christ’s coming and the end of the age (Progressive Partial Preterism).
The “end of the “age” or “the end” is referring to the end of the OC age in AD 70 (Progressive Partial Preterism).
All of the signs, the Great Tribulation, desolation of Jerusalem and Temple (wrath poured out upon the land) were local (not global events) fulfilled by AD 70 (Progressive Partial Preterism).
The “end of the age” and de-creation (and by implication the arriving of the new) are exegetically connect in Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and are referring to the passing of Israel’s OC world or age and the arrival of the NC Israel’s world or age in AD 70 (Progressive Partial Preterism).
The coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 is not a literal or bodily return of Jesus on literal clouds, but rather the language of the OT prophets, apocalyptic, symbolic language of Christ coming through the Idumean and Roman armies in judgment upon Jerusalem in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Progressive Partial Preterism).
The coming of the Son of Man throughout Matthew 24-25 is the ONE and actual Second Coming event which takes place at the end of the age and brings about the ONE arrival of the New Creation, judgment and resurrection of the dead (Classic Amillennialism).
The ONE “the parousia/coming” of Christ, de-creation (implied new), and eschatological harvest “gathering” at the end of the age – judgment and resurrection of the dead taught by Jesus in Matthew 24:30-31—chapter 25 (cf. Matthew 13:39-43/Daniel 12:2-3, 7, 13) sets the stage for the timing and nature of fulfillment for the rest of the NT (Classic Amillennialism).

CHAPTER 1

The End of the age

Were the disciples “confused?” Did they ask about the end of planet earth?

“Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:1-3).
Virtually all futurist eschatologies begin their exegesis of the OD with a false assumption related to the disciples question in Matthew 24:3. That is they simply assume what they need to prove when they assume that the disciples were “confused” in associating Jesus’ coming and end of the age with the destruction of the temple. Since futurist systems separate these events by thousands of years, and the disciples linked them to be fulfilled altogether, they merely assume the disciples were mistaken and will not concede that it is their systems that are being imposed upon the OD that has created the confusion of this important passage throughout Church history.
Let’s first address each of the four views we will be interacting with and get their own words and views concerning the disciples questions.
Premillennial Dispensationalism
My former Pastor and College President John MacArthur has sought to refute Partial and Full Preterism and writes of the disciples question,
“Whether they fully realized it or not, the disciples were actually raising multiple questions in Matthew 24:3. “When will these things be?” refers to the destruction of the temple and the events surrounding that catastrophe. “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” deals with a larger eschatological subject – the question of how Christ’s victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah fits into the whole prophetic timetable.
As we shall see in chapters to come, Jesus’ answers by no means erased all the mystery from those questions. The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is no easy undertaking.” [43] Hence according to MacArthur,
“…Christ’s only explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2, as Jesus and the disciples were departing from the temple (v.1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately.”[44] Please observe that MacArthur is reading into the text statements like Jesus “ignores” their question and does not tell the disciples when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur because it wasn’t really that important!?! The only “mystery” here is how MacArthur can’t see that the OT prophets taught that when the Temple was destroyed and judgment rendered upon Jerusalem was the event that would mark and bear witness of “Christ’s victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah!” The “end” that the disciples are asking about in regards to the destruction of the Temple and the “end” that Jesus discusses throughout the discourse (hardly “ignoring” it!), is found in (Dan. 9:24-27; Dan. 12).
And per MacArthur, allegedly Jesus doesn’t answer their question as to when the destruction of the Temple and judgment upon Jerusalem would take place in the discourse, but wherever it is, it is only a “foretaste” and “previews” what is ultimately to come? It is this kind of eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there) that has caused the OD to be so confusing for so many. We will explore MacArthur’s double type fulfillment theory more when we get to Luke 21:20-22.
In a multi-authored book designed to refute both Partial and Full Preterism produced by Dispensationalists Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice we read:
“The disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 is divided into two parts. The first question relates to the destruction of the Temple, which took place in A.D. 70. The second question, composed of two parts but related to one another, refers to events that are still yet to come. The disciples apparently thought that all three elements – the destruction of the Temple, the sign of Christ’s coming, and the end of the age – would occur at the same time. Yet this is not what Jesus was saying.”[45] And referring to Pentecost and Stanley Toussaint as authorities they quote:
“J. Dwight Pentecost tells us: ‘The questions showed that they had arrived at certain conclusions… To these men Christ’s words concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem was the destruction predicted by Zechariah that would precede the advent of the Messiah. In Jewish eschatology two ages were recognized: the first was this present age, the age in which Israel was waiting for the coming of the Messiah; the second was the age to come, the age in which all of Israel’s covenants would be fulfilled and Israel would enter into her promised blessing as a result of Messiah’s coming.’[46] “Stanley Toussaint echoes this notion: ‘This sequence is so clearly in view that Luke records the question concerning the destruction of Jerusalem only (Luke 21:7). That is, the disciples took the destruction of Jerusalem to be completely eschatological. Therefore, Luke records this question only, as though Jerusalem’s destruction would mark the coming of the King to reign. Bruce is correct when he asserts, ‘The questioners took for granted that all three things went together: destruction of temple, advent of Son of Man, end of the current age“[47] Let’s stop here just for a minute to observe that Dispensationalism is admitting that within Jewish eschatology the first “this age” for them was that of the law and the prophets and the “age to come” was that ushered in by Messiah – the NC age promised to Israel in her Scriptures. This will be important in the next phase of our exegesis when we identify what exactly the “age” is the disciples are asking about! But at this point all that is needed to observe is that like MacArthur, no exegetical evidence is given for this naked assertion that the disciples were confused in linking all three of these events together.
Amillennialism
Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger writes on the importance of understanding the disciples question as it pertains to a correct understanding of what follows,
“The questions put to Jesus by the disciples are the key to interpreting the passage correctly. For the disciples, the destruction of the temple would be such a momentous event that it must mean the end of the age was at hand.
This assumption is clear from the three questions they asked: When will this happen? What will be the sign of your coming? What will be the sign of the end of the age? The way the questions were phrased, the last two questions are clearly linked, the assumption being that the Parousia or the coming of the Lord and the end of the age occur at the same time. Jesus answered their questions but in doing so made plain that the coming destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem, while connected to God’s judgment on Israel, was not the Parousia nor the end of the age. National Israel would be cut off and her people dispersed to the ends of the earth. But another judgment will occur at the second coming of Jesus Christ, signaling the end of the age. Therefore, Jesus spoke of two judgments: a judgment to come on Israel within a single generation (the events of A.D. 70) and a final judgment at the end of the age (after an indeterminate period of time). What makes the prophecy difficult to interpret is the determination of which events belong to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and which belong to the future.”[48] Riddlebarger is correct in that the key to understanding the OD is to understand the disciples question(s) and how Jesus answers it/them. But again because Kim assumes that the disciples were wrong in connecting the destruction of the Temple to Christ’s coming and the end of the age, this leads to the second error of inserting TWO judgments within the OD that are simply not there – thus making the “prophecy difficult” to interpret.
Partial Preterism
In Kenneth Gentry’s (Partial Preterist) debate with Dispensationalist Thomas Ice, he unfortunately makes the same mistake Ice does regarding the question of the disciples and there alleged confusion or “bewilderment” when he writes,
“In these questions we sense once again the bewilderment among the disciples at Jesus’ teaching—a bewilderment such as is seen elsewhere in Matthew, as in their confusion about the “leaven of the Pharisees” (16:6-12), Christ’s death (vv. 21-23), the purpose of the Transfiguration (17:4-5), Christ’s interest in children (19:13-15), and the nature of kingdom service (20:20-25). Quite clearly Christ divides their question into two episodes in His answer: (1) He speaks about the coming Great Tribulation resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 (24:4-34, which is in “this generation,” v. 34); and (2) His distant future second coming at the end of history (24:36-25:46, which is after a “long time,” 25:19).”[49] And joining hands in the fundamental error of Dispensationalist Thomas Ice Gentry writes that the disciples “were wrong” that he can then insert his two sections/two comings of Jesus theory into the discourse hoping no one will notice,
“As House and Ice admit: “It is probably true that the disciples thought of the three events (the destruction of the temple, the second coming, and the end of the age) as one event. But as was almost always the case, they were wrong.” Thus, Christ divided up the events for them. The coming “tribulation” (24:36; 24:34; cp. 1Thess. 2:16) and was to be foreshadowed by certain signs (Matt. 24:4-8). But the Second Advent was to be at “that” far day and hour, and was not to be preceded by particular signs of its nearness, for no man can know it (24:36).”[50] I will address Gentry’s division theory of the discourse at Matthew 24:35-36ff. when we get to those verses, but for now I only want to document his eisegesis of claiming the disciples “were wrong” or “bewildered” in connecting the Temple’s destruction with Christ’s Parousia and the end of the age. Before leaving Gentry’s interpretation here I want to address the examples he gives in Matthew’s gospel of the disciples being confused – which is at least an attempt at some kind of exegesis to support an alleged confusion here in the OD. But as we will see Gentry ends up “proving too much.”
The first text Gentry cites is where the disciples were confused over the “leaven of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:6-12). Unfortunately for Gentry, the text clearly states that they didn’t understand and thought Jesus was talking about literal bread (v.7) and then Jesus rebukes and corrects them (vss. 8-11). From there Matthew tells us that they then understood (v.12) “then they understood.” So on the first “proof text,” it only proves the Full Preterist case in that when the disciples are confused about something Matthew or Jesus explicitly states it!
The second text Gentry cites is where the disciples are confused over Jesus’ teaching of His impending crucifixion (cf. Matt. 16:21-23). Again, the text clearly explains this confusion in the words of Peter trying to correct Jesus and then the following rebuke of Jesus to Peter in (vss. 22-23). Again, where there is confusion or error Matthew or Jesus clearly points it out.
The third text Gentry cites is concerning the disciples’ confusion over the transfiguration (cf. Matt.17:4-5). Again, the text states their error of seeking to pitch tents for Moses and Elijah in that the Father rebukes them (v. 5). The first part of the disciples confusion was in their seeking the abiding “let’s make tents” of the glory of the OC (symbolized through Moses = law & Elijah = the prophets) along with the everlasting NC (Jesus = NC) (cf. 2 Cor. 3 & 4; we will address Matt. 24:35 being the passing of the OC heaven and earth later). The second thing they were confused on was why Jesus didn’t want them to speak of the vision (vss. 9-10). After all wasn’t Elijah coming in the vision a fulfillment of prophecy they asked (v. 10)? Jesus corrects their understanding of this by pointing out that Elijah’s prophecy had already been fulfilled in John the Baptist (vss. 11-12). Then Matthew as a responsible narrator clearly tells his readers that then they “understood” (v.13). None of this explicit confusion and correction is taking place within Matthew 24:1-3ff.
The fourth text that Gentry gives to buttress his case that the disciples were “bewildered” is in the case of the disciples being rebuked by Jesus when they were seeking to correct those who were brining children to Him (cf. Matt. 19:13-15). Jesus rebuking them makes it clear in the text that the disciples were in error and then He instructs them on the kingdom using the children as an example. Again, the text is clear that an error in understanding is present in the passage.
The fifth example Gentry gives is that of the disciples’ understanding of being great in the kingdom (cf. Matt. 20:20-25). Once again Jesus clearly states, “You do not know what you are asking,” (v. 22). Then He proceeds to instruct them that there can be no crown in the kingdom without suffering first (vss. 22-23). Then He follows this with instruction on humility (vss. 24-27). Where is Jesus’ statement that the disciples “…do not know what they are asking about” in Matthew 24:1-3ff. if this is the norm that we should expect in the OD?
When we carefully examine the “proof texts” or examples Gentry gives us in Matthew’s gospel we are forced to a different conclusion than Gentry offers us for interpreting Matthew 24:1-3ff. Again, in each of these cases Matthew is a very responsible narrator or Jesus as the great teacher, explains when there is confusion on the part of the disciples and when there isn’t. When we come to the one question broken down in three parts of Matthew 24:3 there is no hint at all from Matthew or Jesus that the disciples were confused let alone Jesus “correcting them” or “ignoring” (per MacArthur). At this point Gentry is just as much of an irresponsible “exegete” as MacArthur and Ice are – having read into the text the disciples’ alleged confusion into the Olivet Discourse.
But on the topic of “bewilderment,” we need to press Gentry on these comments regarding the disciples question and Jesus’ answer on the end of the age in the OD,
“Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the “age” (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence, His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple…”[51] And that,
“The change of the age is finalized and sealed at the destruction of Jerusalem; allusions to the A.D. 70 transition abound: “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1)”[52].
And therefore this “change of the age” judgment in the context of the gospels is to be found even earlier on in John the Baptist’s teaching,
“Matthew records John’s warning that “the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:10). Here John draws his imagery from God’s judgment against Assyria (Isa. 10:33-34): that sort of judgment soon will break upon Israel. Indeed, “his winnowing fork is in his hand” already (Matt. 3:12).”[53] Of course I will not dispute that “the full answer to the disciples question” concerning “the end of the age” in Matthew 24:3ff. is “when the Romans laid waste Jerusalem in AD 70” – this being contextually tied to the end of the OC age and destruction of the Temple in AD 70, not the NC age or end of world history. And I have no problem appealing to Christ’s coming in the judgments of Matthew 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1; Matthew 3:7-12; to support my interpretation that the “full answer to the disciples question on the end of the age” refers to “when the Romans laying waste Jerusalem in AD 70.”
Obviously, Gentry is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to what the “end of the age” is here in Matthew 24:3ff. What is even further confusing in reading Gentry, is that he identifies “the end” connected to the Great Commission in (Matt. 24:14) with AD 70! Well, the only “the end” being discussed in the OD is the “end of the age” the disciples asked about in (Matt. 24:3)!
Another problem for Gentry that we will discuss more in-depth later on in Matthew 24:30-31 is that he now takes “the end” and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 as referring to AD 70.[54] Well, if “the end” and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-4 was fulfilled in AD 70, and Jesus explicitly refers to Daniel 12:2-3, concerning the end of his “this age” in Matthew 13:39-43, then the end of the age gathering/resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3/Matthew 13:39-43 was fulfilled in AD 70. If not why not Mr. Gentry? Yet Gentry’s problems and that of Partial Preterism won’t stop here. Partial Preterism is now conceding that the “end of the age” or “this age” gathering and resurrection in the parable of the wheat and tares in (Matthew 13:39-43) is the end of the OC age in AD 70 and not the end of world history. We will take a look at this shortly. But since this is the case, we need to take God’s Word for what it actually teaches when the disciples were asked directed if they understood Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” here in Matthew 13:39-51:
“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked. “Yes,” they replied.” (Matt. 13:51).
But to make matters worse, Gentry also now concedes that Matthew 24–25 does not necessarily need to be divided and that all of Matthew 24 could be addressing one coming of Christ in AD 70:
“Orthodox preterists see no doctrinal problems arising if we apply all of Matthew 24 to A.D. 70. We generally do not do so because of certain exegetical markers in the text. But if these are not sufficient to distinguish the latter part of Matthew 24 from the earlier part, it would not matter.”[55] Really? I think I will call Gentry’s bluff here. If a Partial Preterist doesn’t divide the OD as Gentry arbitrarily does, then Progressive Partial Preterists such as one of Gentry’s co-authors Gary DeMar, have no problem teaching that the disciples were not confused and that the “end of the age” is the OC age. Here we begin to see Partial Preterism giving the farm away to Full Preterism. To this view we now turn our attention.
Progressive Partial Preterism
We now turn our attention to a much clearer and exegetically accurate teaching from Partial Preterist or Progressive Partial Preterists on the “end of the age” in the OD.
Progressive Partial Preterist Gary DeMar
On the disciples question in Matthew 24:3 DeMar correctly writes,
“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.”[56] There is no reading into the text that the disciples are “confused” in order fix a problem that isn’t in the text by slipping in a “futurist solution” or agenda in the OD – that we have seen the previous views do. This is refreshing exegesis to say the least. And now notice that DeMar does something that Dwight Pentecost could not do in affirming that the Jews of Jesus’ day understood the end of the age to be the OC age of the law and prophets and thus that is the “end of the age” the disciples and Jesus are discussing throughout the OD. DeMar explains his position on the “end of the age” and then uses a quote from George Hill, to support its historical relevance,
“Notice that the disciples did not ask about the end of the “world” (kosmos), as some Bible versions translate the Greek word aion. In context, with the temple and city as their primary focus, they asked about the end of the “age.” They were asking when time would run out for the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the covenant promises that were related to the Mosaic system of animal sacrifices, ceremonial washings, and the priesthood.
Time was divided by the Jews into two great periods, the age of the law and the age of the Messiah. The conclusion of the one was the beginning of the other, the opening of that kingdom which the Jews believed the Messiah was to establish, which was to put an end to their sufferings, and to render them the greatest people upon the earth. The apostles full of this hope, said to our Lord, immediately before his ascension, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? [Acts 1:6]. Our Lord uses the phrase of his coming to denote his taking vengeance upon the Jews by destroying their city and sanctuary.17
The “end of the age” refers to the end of the Old Covenant redemptive system with its attendant sacrifices and rituals.”[57] Connecting this with the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds throughout Matthew 24-25 he writes,
“Jesus never indicates that He has a distant coming in mind. There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse that would give the reader the impression that a distant event [such as the end the planet earth or NC Christian age] is in view.”[58] In the 1994 version of DeMar’s Last Days Madness he wrote the following concerning the “end of the age” in the OD,
“The “woes” of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus cautioned, “shall come upon this generation” (23:36). It is after hearing about the desolation of their “house” – the temple – that the disciples ask about the “temple buildings” (24:1). Jesus answered the disciples’ questions relating to the time and signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background of Matthew 23 in view, since His comments in that chapter had precipitated the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order would end with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be the “sign” of the “end of the age,” the end of the Old Covenant, and the consummation of the New Covenant.”[59] Although these statements from Progressive Partial Preterist Gary DeMar are more accurate and exegetical in communicating that there was no confusion on the disciples’ part in connecting the end of the OC age with the destruction of Jerusalem and Christ’s coming to bring judgment upon the age in which the Temple they were looking at existed, DeMar has some problems he needs to address from me and Full Preterism:
Since he has taken the position that the “end of the age” in the OD is the OC age, will he now admit that the “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-43 is also the end of the OC age? As we will see shortly, Gary has published his ministry partner’s (Joel McDurmon’s) book on Luke whereby he develops that the end of the age in Matthew 13:39-43 is referring to the end of the OC age. Does Gary agree with this? And one of Gary’s co-authors Peter Leithart places the fulfillment of the parable of the wheat and tares at the end of the OC age in Jesus’ AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” as well. Does Gary agree with him?
Since Gary and American Vision published James Jordan’s commentary on Daniel, and Jordan concedes that the resurrection of Daniel 12:2/Revelation 20 was fulfilled in AD 70 at which time Daniel’s soul was raised out of Abrahm’s Bosom or Hades at Christ’s parousia in AD 70 – does DeMar also agree with this position that he has published? If he agrees with his Partial Progressive Partial Preterists that he co-authors books with and publishes, then the questions we have asked of Gentry apply to him as well – since Jesus identifies the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 to take place at the end of the OC “this age” in Matthew 13:39-43, did the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 take place in AD 70? If yes, then the “end of the age” “gathering” of Matthew 24:30-31 is also the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 being fulfilled in AD 70. If not, exegetically why not – is the challenge that DeMar and some of his other Progressive Partial Preterists have not answered let alone articulated in any way up to this point.
And if the “end of the OC age” gathering/resurrection depicted in Matthew 13:39-43/Matthew 24:30-31/Daniel 12:1-4, 7, 13 were fulfilled in AD 70 according to Jesus’ teaching, then why wouldn’t Jesus’ teaching on John 5:28-29 be fulfilled spiritually as well in AD 70 since Jesus is once again appealing to Daniel 12:2? Or…
Since DeMar takes the Greek word mello as “about to be” virtually everywhere in NT eschatological contexts as referring to AD 70, then why wouldn’t Paul’s eschatology be consistent with Jesus’ when he appeals to Daniel 12:2 concerning an “about to be” resurrection of the just and unjust in (Acts 24:15 YLT)?
And since DeMar believes John’s version of the OD is found in the book of Revelation and virtually every commentator and scholar agree that the resurrection and judgment of the dead at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20 is the resurrection of Daniel 12, and Gary agrees that the content of the book of Revelation would come to pass in an AD 70 “shortly” time period, will he now conceded that the end of the millennium resurrection of Revelation 20 was also fulfilled in AD 70? If not, hermeneutically and logically why not?
These are just a few challenges I have given to DeMar and other Partial Preterists over the years and I haven’t heard much from them. Why? Because they don’t have consistent exegetical answers and they would have to admit that they are getting closer and closer to Full Preterism – that’s why.
There are other modern Progressive Partial Preterists that are worthy to quote and address in identifying the “end of the age” in Jesus’ teaching as the OC age in AD 70, and not the end of the NC Christian age or world history.
Progressive Partial Preterist Joel McDurmon
Joel McDurmon (Partial Preterist Gary North’s son-in-law, and Director of Research for Gary DeMar’s American Vision) writes:
It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:2430, 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).[60] I should also note that McDurmon goes a bit further than his mentor DeMar, in that he develops Jesus’ teaching on “this age” as the OC age, and the “age to come” in Pauline eschatology to be one and the same as Jesus’.[61] We agree with this but let’s examine the quote above and address the issues related to Paul’s “end of the age” teachings as being the same as Jesus’.
Once again McDurmon (like the other Partial Preterists addressed thus far) fail to address with any consistency (in what they are writing and what the analogy of Scripture teaches us), that the “end of the age” “harvest” “gathering” in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:30-31 is THE resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3 that they are saying was fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70!
Further, Jesus and the rest of the NT does not develop the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 to be fulfilled at two different time periods – 1. At the end of the OC age in AD 70 and 2. At the end of the NC or Christian age to end world history. In McDurmon’s oral debate with Don Preston McDurmon was forced to acknowledge that it is possible that there was an AD 70 resurrection depicted in 1 Corinthians 15 and at the end of the millennium in Revelation 20, and yet he still argued that there would be a further literal fulfillment of these texts as well. Amazing indeed! These statements are not only not exegetically accurate, but they are not creedal as well. The Reformed creeds only know of one “end of the age” judgment and resurrection of the dead not TWO. Not only are Partial Preterists very arbitrary in their exegesis, they are arbitrary in calling Full Preterists “heretics” per the Reformed creeds. Selah.
Progressive Partial Preterist N.T. Wright
Another popular Partial Preterist worth noting would be N.T. Wright. Wright commenting on the Jewish concept of Christ returning bodily on a literal cloud at the end of time to end world history as a foreign concept to the Jewish mind is profound – even challenging for Wright’s own futurism. His identifying the “end of the age” as the Jewish age is also relevant to our debate and discussion.
“…there was no reason, either in their own background or in a single thing that Jesus had said to them up to that point, for it even to occur to them that the true story of the world, or of Israel, or of Jesus himself, might include either the end of the space-time universe, or Jesus or anyone else floating down to earth on a cloud. They hand not yet even thought of his being taken from them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in between, who would one day come on a literal cloud. Had Jesus wished to introduce so strange and unJewish an idea to them he would have had a very difficult task; as often find in the gospels, their minds were not exactly at their sharpest in picking up redefinitions even of ideas with which they were already somewhat familiar.
The disciples were, however, very interested in a story which ended with Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem to reign as king. They were looking for the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes, for the story told so often in Israel’s scriptures to reach its appointed climax. And the ‘close of the age’ for which they longed was not the end of the space-time order, but the end of the present evil age (ha’olam hazeh), and the introduction of the (still very much this-worldly) age to come (ha ‘olam haba’) – in other words, the end of Israel’s period of mourning and exile and the beginning of her freedom and vindication.” [62] “Matthew is not, in other words, out on a limb from Mark and Luke at this point. The question at the start of all three versions, seen from within the story the disciples have in their minds, must be read to mean: When will you come in your kingdom? When will the evil age, symbolized by the present Jerusalem regime, be over?”[63] And Wright does not agree with the traditional Partial Preterist division theory of two comings of Jesus throughout Matthew 24-25 either. In footnote 104 in this section of the disciples question(s) he writes,
“Nor does he divide his chapter into two halves (vv. 4-35, 36-51) on the basis of this double question, the dealing with Jerusalem and the second with the ‘second coming’ (against France 1985, 335).”
And again on the Jewish two age structure and the end of the age in Matthew 13:39; 24:3; Hebrews 9:26-28 being the end of the OC or Jewish age Wright comments,
“The final promise, that Jesus will be with his people ‘until the close of the age’ (hoes tes synteleias tou aionos), belongs closely within the ‘two-age’ structure of chronology which we have seen to be characteristic of mainstream Pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism, and also of early Christianity, particularly Paul. The point here is that the ‘age to come’ has now been launched with Jesus’ resurrection, and that the risen Jesus represents and embodies this new age, and hence becomes the human bride between it and the present one. His promise to be ‘with you always’ is thus at the same time the fulfillment of the Emmanuel promise, and with it of YHWH’s promise to be with even a small group of worshippers as though they were actually in the Temple itself. It is also the sign that in him the eschaton has come to birth, so that his people are guaranteed safe passage through the present age and into the long-awaited age to come.” (Footnote 42 reads, “On ‘the close of the age’ in Mt., cf. 13:39f., 49; 24:3 (where it is linked with the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia of Jesus). See too Heb. 9:26; 1 En. 16.1; 4 Ezra 7.113.”[64] For the exegetical problems and implications for not seeing Matthew 24-25 as the Second Coming event and avoiding how Jesus and the rest of the NT develops the resurrection of Daniel 12 as taking place imminently or at the end of the OC Jewish age, see my challenges to DeMar and the other Progressive Partial Preterists.
Let’s now move from more modern day Progressive Partial Preterists to some older ones such as Milton Terry and J. Stuart Russell.
Progressive Partial Preterist Milton Terry
Terry was spot on when he wrote of Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age” in the OD and elsewhere in the NT,
“The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.”[65] Interestingly enough, Hebrews 9:26-28 is where we get the term “Second Coming” from and if the end of the age here is the OC age, then Terry’s logic and the analogy of Scripture would place the coming of Christ both in the OD and Hebrews 9:26-28 to be in AD 70. And to this the book of Hebrews confirms to us in the next chapter when His coming would take place “…in a very little while” and “would not tarry” (Hebrews 10:37).
While Terry has some insightful comments here in identifying the “end of the age” to be the OC age in AD 70 (following most of J. Stuart Russell’s exegesis), his exegesis of the OD is faulty at times. For example he seems to argue and prefer the interpretation that the eschatological “gathering” in Matthew 24:30-31 is some kind of limited literal rapture connecting it to the “one being taken” in Matthew 24:40-41,
“The sending forth of the angels, and the gathering of the elect, described in Matt. 24:31, whatever its exact meaning, does not necessarily depict a scenic procedure visible to the human eyes. If understood literally, it may, nevertheless, be only verbal revelation of what took place in such a supernatural manner as that no man might behold it and remain alive. It is said in verses 40-41 that at the parousia “two men shall be in the field; one is taken and the one is left…” “In such a miraculous rapture of living saints (comp. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; 1 Cor. 15:51, 52) the person left may not have been permitted to see the one taken.”[66] The strength of his position here is that he at least uses the analogy of Scripture hermeneutic and equates the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30-31 with that of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15 as the same event taking place in AD 70. Men like Gentry, DeMar, McDurmon, Mathison, etc… simply won’t make these parallels as Terry has done and Reformed theology traditionally has.
I will give a rigorous exegesis of Matthew 24:30-31 later on in our study, but for now let me point out a few exegetical weaknesses or problems that Terry was not able to address or overcome here – at least in my estimation:
As with the previous Partial Preterists, the resurrection of the dead of Daniel 12:2-3 takes place at the end of the OC age per Matthew 13:39-43. Therefore, if Terry is going to hermenutically argue for a “literal” “rapture” of all the living Christians at that time, then he must also argue consistently that a literal resurrection from the literal “dust” took place in AD 70 as well (cf. Dan. 12:2). Some Partial Preterists have actually tried to take this position! This to me makes no exegetical sense let alone is simply not historically accurate. We know that the Apostle John lived well beyond AD 70 into the time of Domitian’s reign in the AD 90’s. We also know historically that the living Christians fled Jerusalem to Pella (not literally “raptured”). And are we really to believe that history would not see physically the literal rapture of thousands of Christians let alone the empty tombs of the righteous and wicked per Daniel 12:2?!?
Not to mention if Paul had been teaching a literal “gathering” or “catching away” in the Thessalonian Epistles, he surely would have argued differently to refute those that were teaching that Christ had “already come” prior to end the OC age in AD 70. Surely Paul would have said something like, “Uh, hey guys remember Jesus and I taught you that this was going to be literal taking of you off of planet earth in a secret “rapture” and since you are all still here…., well, hello?!?” Or in refuting those that had believed the resurrection had “already” taken place in 2 Timothy 2:17-18 before the close of the OC age in AD 70. Again, if Paul had been teaching this literal rapture or literal resurrection of rotting corpses from the graveyards, we would expect to hear something along the lines of, “Uh, remember that Jesus and I have been teaching you that the resurrection is a literal biological event and so have you seen any evidence of this, hello?!?” So the implication is that Paul was developing a spiritual rapture or using apocalyptic language. Had Terry been consistent in his use of symbolic apocalyptic langue that he used up to this point in interpreting the OD, and had he been consistent with noting this would be the time of fulfilling the kingdom promise of it not being a literally seen or experience (ie. Luke 17:20-21) (447), he would have come to the conclusion that this was a “gathering” in the kingdom that was a “within” the person event and not a literal secret “rapture” one. I will be arguing for this position later on.
Progressive Partial Preterist J. Stuart Russell
I consider Russell a “Progressive Partial Preterist” for two reasons: 1. Like Russell, he erred on the spiritual nature of fulfillment when it came to Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on being “gathered” or “caught up” in the clouds of God’s Kingdom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70. And 2. He erred on the millennium believing it has yet to be fulfilled which is not Full Preterism and has a lot of exegetical errors of its own. But for the sake of our purposes at this point in examining the disciples’ question(s) and Jesus’ answer, Russell’s response is one of the boldest and clearest I can think of when he writes,
“It is not easy for the ordinary reader to follow the ingenious critic through his convoluted scheme; but it is plain that the disciples must have been hopelessly bewildered amidst a rush of crises and catastrophes from the fall of Jerusalem to the end of the world. Perhaps we shall be told, however, that it does not signify whether the disciples understood our Lord’s answer or not: it was not to them that He was speaking; it was to future ages, to generations yet unborn, who were destined, however, to find the interpretation of the prophecy as embarrassing to them as it was to the original bearers. There are no words too strong to repudiate such a suggestion. The disciples came to their Master with a plain, straightforward inquiry, and it is incredible that He would mock them with an unintelligible riddle for a reply. It is to be presumed that the Saviour meant His disciples to understand His words, and it is to be presumed that they did understand them.
3. The interpretation which we are considering appears to be founded upon a misapprehension of the question put to our Lord by the disciples, as well as of His answer to their question.
It is generally assumed that the disciples came to our Lord with three different questions, relating to different events separated from each other by a long interval of time; that the first inquiry, ‘When shall these things be?’—had reference to the approaching destruction of the temple; that the second and third question—, ‘ What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?’—referred to events long posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and, in fact, not yet accomplished. It is supposed that our Lord’s reply conforms itself to this threefold inquiry, and that this gives the shape to His whole discourse. Now, let it be considered how utterly improbable it is that the disciples should have had any such scheme of the future mapped out in their minds. We know that they had just been shocked and stunned by their Master’s prediction of the total destruction of the glorious house of God on which they had so recently been gazing with admiration. They had not yet had time to recover from their surprise, when they came to Jesus with the inquiry, ‘When shall these things be?’ etc. Is it not reasonable to suppose that one thought possessed them at that moment—the portentous calamity awaiting the magnificent structure, the glory and beauty of Israel? Was that a time when their minds would be occupied with a distant future? Must not their whole soul have been concentrated on the fate of the temple? And must they not have been eager to know what tokens would be given of the approach of the catastrophe? Whether they connected in their imagination the destruction of the temple with the dissolution of the creation, and the close of human history, it is impossible to say; but we may safely conclude, that the uppermost thought in their mind was the announcement which the Lord had just made, ‘Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down.’ They must have gathered from the Saviour’s language that this catastrophe was imminent; and their anxiety was to know the time and the tokens of its arrival. St. Mark and St. Luke make the question of the disciples refer to one event and one time—‘When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?’ It is not only presumable, therefore, but indubitable, that the questions of the disciples only refer to different aspects of the same great event. This harmonizes the statements of St. Matthew with those of the other Evangelists, and is plainly required by the circumstances of the case.”[67] And I particularly like Russell’s comments above that this interpretation of the disciples’ question “harmonizes” and or is “contemporaneous” with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. He elaborates further on this,
“The only point that requires elucidation here refers to the extent of their interrogatory. St. Mark and St. Luke represent it as having reference to the time of the predicted catastrophe and the sign of its fulfillment coming to pass. St. Matthew varies the form of the question, but evidently gives the same sense, — ‘Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?’ Here again it is the time and the sign which form the subject of the inquiry. There is no reason whatever to suppose that they regarded in their own minds the destruction of the of the temple, the coming of the Lord, and the end of the age, as three distinct or widely separated events; but, on the contrary, it is most natural to suppose that they regarded them as coincident and contemporaneous.”[68] “…we do know that they had been accustomed to hear their Master speak of His coming again in His kingdom, coming in His glory, and that within the lifetime of some among themselves. They had also heard Him speak of the ‘end of the age;’ and they evidently connected His ‘coming’ with the end of the age. The three points embraced in the form of their question, as given by St. Matthew, were therefore in their view contemporaneous; and thus we find no practical difference in the terms of the question of the disciples as recorded by the three Synoptics.”[69] That is about as well put as it gets!
Full Preterism
Harmonizing Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s versions on the disciples’ question
On the issue as to why Matthew adds the question related to “the end of the age” and Mark and Luke do not – it may be interesting to note that “end of the age” in the Greek, (syntéleia toú aiṓnos) is an expression found only in the gospel of Matthew. I remember asking a Partial Preterist (Greg Bahnsen), many years ago, “Where do you see any justification in Matthew 24 for the teaching that when the Son of Man will come upon the clouds of heaven is is for the purpose of ending world history – when you teach that His coming in Matt. 24:27, 30 was to end the Jewish age in AD 70?” His answer was, “The disciple’s question in Matthew 24:3 on the end of the age – this referring to the end of world history.” My reply was, “If this is the case, then why would Mark and Luke not address such an important topic at the very outset of the OD?” Bahnsen brought up that within Matthew, Mark and Luke differences are seen in various aspects to Jesus’ such as Jesus adding the phrase “except for sexual immorality” in Matthew while Mark and Luke do not.” But this only begged the same question on a different topic, “Okay, then if there are grounds for divorce (and obviously that’s an important aspect to answering the disciples questions and or the Pharisees challenge on this topic), then why would Mark and Luke neglect to point this out to their audiences — who didn’t have the advantage that we do in reading Matthew along with Mark and Luke?” I thought it was providential that Bahnsen would bring this up an example, because I had just finished reading James Montgomery Boice on on this subject and others taking the “betrothal view” of the exceptive clause in Matthew 5 and 19 – thus harmonizing the synoptics gospel’s teaching on Jesus’ teaching here very well.
To be brief and to summarize this view – in Jewish law the first part of the marriage contract was conducted through betrothal. The two were considered “husband and wife” during this period even before their sexual consummation. A betrothed husband could write his “wife” a certificate of “divorce” if she committed “fornication”/pornia (not “adultery”) during this time period. This is why Matthew mentions this in the case of Joseph and Marry and Mark and Luke do not (cf. Matthew 1:19). Since this aspect of “divorce” within the betrothal period (first part of the marriage contract) within Jewish law was only applicable for Matthew’s Jewish audience, Matthew records the exceptive clause, while Mark and Luke do not (containing a Gentile audience or directed mostly to them). Also, in Jewish law a woman could not divorce her husband and this is why Matthew does not mention this while Mark does in their parallel accounts of the Pharisees challenge (Mark 10:12 / Matthew 19:9). Again – since the exceptive clause is brought up to a Jewish audience regarding the first aspect of a Jewish marriage (betrothal) Matthew addresses it, and since Jesus’ teaching here is not applicable to Mark and Luke’s Gentile readers it is omitted by them. Therefore, in essence the three harmonize well in that Jesus’ teaching on divorce agree – “what God has joined together let no man separate.”
So it is often times the different audiences being addressed in the synoptic gospels that dictate why something is left out or added that needs to be considered. Since the “end of the age” was a more familiar concept within Jewish eschatology, Matthew places it within his account while Mark and Luke do not. Since the “end of the age” is the OC Jewish age attended with Christ’s coming, we don’t lose any pertinent information in Mark and Luke’s accounts – AD 70 is still the subject in all three. Also worthy of note, is that within Matthew’s gospel there are more parables given, since the main purpose of the parables was probably to demonstrate that Israel was still in an exile condition (Matt. 13:10-17/Isa. 6:9-10). Therefore, this explains why Matthew’s version of the OD includes additional parables and OT eschatological echos that are not found in Mark and Luke’s versions (cf. Matt. 25).
Also an interesting point is that syntéleia toú aiṓnos and tṓn aiṓnōn, are only used six times in the NT – five in Matthew’s gospel and once in the book of Hebrews (cf. Heb. 9:26) which again, is written to a highly Jewish audience (and the LXX of Dan. 12:4 being undoubtedly the source for both).
Here are some key hermeneutical steps the futurist willfully skips over from the very outset in interpreting the OD:
The Jews of Jesus’ day understood the phrase “end of the age” or end of “this age” to be the Old Covenant (OC) age of Moses and the prophets and the “age to come” to be the New Covenant (NC) or Messianic age. Therefore, applying a “historic hermeneutic” here, the “end of the age” or of “this age” (Matthew 13:39-43) in which they were currently living is referring to the end of the OC age at which time the NC or Messianic age of the Church would follow and reach maturity. As we have seen even Dispensationalists like Dwight Pentecost see this and yet dismiss it as nothing. Apparently they want Full Preterists and Reformed Covenant Theology/Eschatology to embrace their literal and unbelieving expectations the first century Jews had of a literal kingdom on earth, and yet they don’t want to embrace Jewish teachings of the same time period that identified “this age” as the OC law and the “age to come,” to be the NC or Messianic age. Nor would they want to accept the Jewish beliefs that would give credence to a 40 years transitional millennial reign of Christ between the OC age and the NC age – which fit perfectly within the imminent time constraints of the book of Revelation and is the Full Preterist view.
The hermeneutical immediate contextual argument fits the Full Preterist view as well – since the topic is the destruction of the Temple in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” of Matthew 23:36-38 and Matthew 24:1-2, the destruction of the Temple is the epitome to the end of the OC age, and not the end of world history.
When it comes to the disciples understanding on the time frame of these three events, they in fact did have the OT prophets as a guide as well. In the book of Daniel the consummation of the major eschatological events can be found in chapters 7, 9 and 12. Since many scholars correctly connect Daniel’s eschatological “time of the end” (not “end of time” – a futurist assumption) to Jesus’ teaching on the end of the age in Matthew 13, 24 and 28, the end of world history is not the subject. Another problem for futurist eschatologies is that Daniel’s “time of the end” eschatological events such as the desolation of the temple, the resurrection, the tribulation, the coming of the Son of man and the arrival of the kingdom, all take place when the city and temple would be destroyed – stating clearly that “all these things” (not some of them) would be fulfilled together (see the consummation scenes in Dan. 12:1-7; Dan. 7:13-14, 18, 27; Dan. 9:24-27).
Another “immediate context” and “OT echo context” argument can be seen in Jesus’ previously teaching the disciples that all the blood from righteous Abel (from Genesis up to those He would send to them) would be avenged when the temple was destroyed in their “this generation” (Matthew 23:30-36, 38). Isaiah in his “little apocalypse” (Isiah 24-28) posits all of the eschatological events (judgment, de-creation, avenging the sin of blood guilt, the blowing of the trumpet, the resurrection, etc…) to take place together when the temple would be destroyed or “when he makes all the altar stones to be like chalk stones crushed to pieces” (Isaiah 27:9).
In Matthew 13:39-43, 51 Jesus taught that the judgment and resurrection (“the time of the end” eschatological events) would take place at the end of their OC “this age.” Jesus specifically asks them if they understood His teaching on the time of this harvest at the end of their “this age” and they emphatically responded “Yes” (vs. 51). It doesn’t get any clearer than this! Why go beyond what is written when it comes to the disciples understanding of Jesus’ teaching on the “end of the age”?!? If they said they understood they understood, and surely Jesus doesn’t say anything to the affect, “Oh, but I know you don’t etc…”
Jesus had previously taught that He would return in some of their lifetimes (Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28/Mark 8:38-9:1). So it would only be natural for them to equate His coming, with the destruction of the Temple, as being the end of their OC “this age.” No mysteries or “difficulties” here folks – only for the futurist.
Some such as Kenneth Gentry have pointed out that the disciples were confused on other issues in the gospel of Matthew and then use this to assert that this justifies importing their alleged confusion here in the OD. But again, this is a classic case of “proving too much.” Why? Because when the disciples are confused or wrong about something Matthew’s gospel clearly teaches us that this indeed is the case (ex. Matt. 16:6-12, 21-23; 17:4-5; 19:13-15; 20:20-25). As in these other cases where it is clearly pointed out by Matthew (as a responsible narrator) or Jesus as the great teacher – that there is any inclination that the disciples are confused and a correction ensues. We just don’t have Matthew or Jesus giving such a scenario here in the OD. Therefore, there is no need to perform eisegesis – and read something into the text that isn’t there in order for futurist biases to be imported throughout the OD. Selah.
A Progressive Partial Preterist and Full Preterist understanding of the “end of the age” or “the end” being the OC age throughout the OD, harmonizes with the disciples question in the parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21.
The Partial Preterist and Progressive Partial Preterist cannot articulate the exegetical fact that Jesus’ teaching on “the end of the [OC] age” harvest “gathering” in Matthew 13:39-43 and Matthew 24:30-31 is Christ coming on the clouds ushering in the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 7, 13 – which some of them oddly see as being fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 (Gentry and Jordan). This is why Partial Preterists are afraid of dealing with the resurrection of the dead when it comes to NT imminence. It eventually leads to problems in their adherence to the Reformed creeds and confessions. Amillennialists see that these passages are in fact dealing with the resurrection of the dead, but will not bow before the exegetical evidence of God’s Word that this takes place at the end of the OC age and not the end of world history. And they too cannot deal with the NT imminence when it comes to Christ’s ONE parousia, the end of the age, and the judgment and resurrection of the dead. NT imminence concerning these eschatological events follow’s Jesus’ teaching in the OD that “all these things” (not “some of these things”) would be fulfilled in His contemporary “this generation.”
Part 2 – The end of the age signs – general and specific all fulfilled by AD 70
General signs
Before giving a brief exegesis of the general signs Jesus gives in Matthew 24:4-13, we should address what the various futurist views are teaching concerning them.
Premillennial Dispensationalism
Before there was Tim LaHaye and the Left Behind series (and now movie) making millions, there was Hal Lindsey and The Late Great Planet Earth making millions. Lindsey was the first Dispensationalist who really popularized sensationalistic date setting using the “signs” (Israel becoming a nation in 1948 being the main one) and Jesus’ teaching on “this generation” in Matthew 24 as a guide to catapult an imminent rapture and or return of Christ in our generation. In his famous book, The Late Great Planet Earth Lindsey wrote,
“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). 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.”[70] “WE are the generation that will see the end times… and return of Christ.” And “unmistakably… this generation is the one that will see the end of the present world and the return of Christ”[71] This view was then fueled from the pulpits of such mega church Pastors as Chuck Smith of the Calvary Chapel (this was my home church and I am a graduate of Calvary Chapel Bible College 1989):
“…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).”[72] In his book Future Survival (1978) Smith wrote,
“From my understanding of biblical prophecies, I’m convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981.”[73] Calvary Chapel proudly painted on the back of its bookstore (of which I would work) for all traffic to see, “Jesus is coming soon. God keeps His promises.” For Smith and Lindsey, Christ’s announcement that He is coming “soon” only “truly” meant Jesus was literally coming “soon” for our generation. Apparently when the inspired NT authors wrote within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time period, “soon” can’t be interpreted literally – only when the Dispensational “Holy Spirit” led “prophecy experts” use the term it means what it says!
Lindsey began by admitting that a generation “was something like forty years.” Since 40 years have long passed, instead of throwing in the towel on his theory and repenting, Lindsey now claims a generation could be 40 – 100 years and therefore we should still be waiting for his interpretation to pan out.[74] If this doesn’t sound new, it’s because it isn’t. The “expanding” of “this generation’ is exactly what the last day’s cults of Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses have done when their false predictions concerning “this generation” don’t come true![75] Sign #1 – False Christ’s & deception
“And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” (Matt. 24:4-5)
“At that time many will turn away from the faith…” (Matt. 24:10)
“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matt. 24:11)
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matt. 24:24)
Dave Hunt has been another popular Dispensationalist teacher over the years who has followed Lindsey’s prophetic scheme. Hunt after appealing to the passages above and then stringing together some further NT passages concludes this “Major Sign is Here Today.”[76] This involves the teachings and influence of the Roman Catholic Church, with any ministry expressing unity or ecumencalism with the RCC such Billy Graham etc…, emphasis in the “signs and wonders” movement from John Wimber and Peter Wagner, the “name it and claim it” Faith movement, Robert Schuller and his Self-Love doctrine/movement, and on and on he goes.
Sign #2 – Wars and Rumors of Wars
“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.” (Matt. 24:6)

[1] Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 12–13). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos.
[2] Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, pp. 49–50). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[3] Adam Clark, Commentary on the Bible [1831] [4] G.K. Beale, A NEW TESTAMENT BIBLICAL THEOLOGY THE UNFOLDING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Acaddemic, 2011), 412
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 23.
[8] Kenneth Genry, Thomas Ice, The Great Tribulation Past or Future?, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 18, bold emphasis MJS.
[9] Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND EXPANDED, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 175. Bold emphasis MJS
[10] John Gill, John Gill’s Espositor, Online Bible Software, Version 2.10.06, 2007 Bible Foundation. www.onlinebible.us, emphasis added
[11] Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (pp. 62–63). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.
[12] Lightfoot, J. (2010). A commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Acts-1 Corinthians (Vol. 4, p. 30). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[13] Clark, Ibid.
[14] Clark, Ibid.
[15] Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 2068). Peabody: Hendrickson.
[16] Henry, Ibid., 2068
[17] Kenneth L. Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND EXPANDED, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 342-343
[18] Charles Ryre, RYRE Study Bible, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986, 1994,), 1420.
[19] The Bible Knowledge Commentary, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty NEW TESTAMENT edition, (Colorado Springs, CO, 1983, 2004), 24, emphasis mine
[20] John McArthur, The MACARTHUR Study Bible, (Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1997), 1396, 1518
[21] The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Ibid., 25, bold emphasis mine.
[22] MacArthur, Ibid., 1397
[23] Ibid.
[24] The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Ibid., 25
[25] William Hendriksen, & S.J. Kistemaker, NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY The Gospel of Matthew, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House, 1953 – 2001), 197
[26] Ibid., 198-199.
[27] Ibid., 204.
[28] Ibid., 205-206.
[29] Ibid., 208-209.
[30] Simon Kistemaker, The Parables of Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), 148.
[31] Ibid., 210.
[32] Ibid., 210-211.
[33] Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, pp. 49–50). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[34] 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.
[35] Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND EXPANDED, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009), 175.
[36] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 23.
[37] Gentry, Ibid., 175.
[38] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1887 – 1909), 15-16
[39] Ibid., 14-15.
[40] Ibid., 23-24.
[41] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (489). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
[42] Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for AMILLENNIALISM UNDERSTANDING THE END TIMES, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 2003; and Leicester LE1 7GP: England, Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), 157.
[43] MacArthur, John, The Second Coming Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books A Division of Good News Publishers, 1999), 77.
[44] Ibid., 80.
[45] Tim LaHaye & Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 155, emphasis MJS.
[46] Ibid., 155-156
[47] Ibid., 156
[48] Riddlebarger, Ibid., 163.
[49] Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation Past or Future? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 26, emphasis MJS.
[50] Greg Bahnsen, and Kenneth Gentry Jr., House Divided The Break-up of Dispensational Theology, (Tyler: TX: ICE Publishers 1989), 267, emphasis MJS
[51] Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry, ibid., 58, emphasis MJS
[52] Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry, ibid., 63 emphasis MJS
[53] Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry, ibid., 18
[54] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009, Third Edition), 538-540.
[55] Ibid., 540.
[56] Gary DeMar, Last Days MADNESS Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: Fourth revised edition, 1999), 68.
[57] Ibid., 68
[58] Ibid., 68
[59] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1994), 41, (bold and underline emphasis MJS).
[60] 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.
[61] Ibid., 46-47.
[62] N.T. Wright, JESUS AND THE VICTORY OF GOD, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996), 345-346
[63] Ibid., 346.
[64] N.T. Wright, N.T. THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 645
[65] Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.
[66] Ibid., 447-448.
[67] James Stuart Russel, The Parousia The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1887 and reprinted again in 1990), 57 – 59. Also being used is the Online Bible’s software where Russell’s book is available electronically.
[68] Ibid., 67
[69] Ibid., 67
[70] Lindsey, Late., p. 54.
[71] Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon, (New York: Bantam, 1980), 144 and back-cover.
[72] Chuck Smith, End Times, The Word for Today, 1978, 35.
[73] Francis X. Gumerlock, the Day and the Hour Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 2000), 290.
[74] Hal Lindsey, Planet Earth – 2000 A.D., (Palos Verdes, CA: Western Front, Ltd. 1994), 3.
[75] Michael J. Sullivan, THE FAILED ESCHATLOGICAL JESUS OF THE LIBERALS, MORMONS,
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE DATE-SETTING “HOLY SPIRIT LED” EVANGELICALS, http://www.treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Apreterist-eschatology-all-prophecy-fulfilled-by-ad-70&id=118%3Amike-sullivan-&option=com_content&Itemid=75
[76] J. Dave Hunt, Flashes of Falling Away, https://www.raptureready.com/terry/james17.html

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Part 5 Prophetic Telescoping Two Different Comings in Matthew 24-25?

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

Chapter Four
The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?
Part 5 – Prophetic Telescoping Two Comings in Matthew 24-25?
Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved. No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.

Prophetic Telescoping

On pages 167 and 180, Mathison presents the following argument:
Daniel 11:21–12:1 is one continuous prophecy. Verses 21–35 describe
the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes. The next verses, 11:36–12:1, describe
events that are unrelated to Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet there is no indication
of a subject change in the prophecy. Daniel thus prophesied events
that would be separated in time but he did not give any indication that
the two groups of events were to be so separated. It is possible that we
see similar “telescoping” in the Olivet Discourse. It could be that “Jesus
utilized the prophetic technique of telescoping two distant events into
one prophecy without much contextual indication of a change in subject.”
Matthew 24:34 could be a transitional verse. It could be that everything
before verse 35 occurred in Jesus’ generation (the great tribulation
and the destruction of Jerusalem) and that everything after verse 34
is yet to be fulfilled (the Second Coming and Last Judgment).

Response:

According to the two-section theory of interpreting the Olivet Discourse,
the coming of false christs and the revealing of the Son of Man as “in the
days of Noah” are two events that will take place at the end of world history
(in section two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:37–39). But this
causes a problem. Luke relates the events of the Olivet Discourse in a
slightly different order than Matthew, and he puts those two supposedly
end-of-world-history events in between the coming of the Son of Man “as
the lightning” (Lk. 17:24) and the fleeing of people from their housetops
and fields (Lk. 17:31). But those events are in the alleged “first section”
of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–19, 24). Luke thus has two “second section”
events (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.
Luke was not aware of the theory of a “telescoped” Olivet Discourse.
We see this problem present itself again when Jesus prophesies that
one would be taken and one would be left. According to the two-section
theory, that event will take place at the end of world history (in section
two of the Olivet Discourse: Matt. 24:40–41). But Luke puts that event in
between the fleeing of people from their housetops and fields (Lk. 17:31)
and the vultures gathering at the corpse (Lk. 17:37). But those events are
in the alleged “first section” of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:17–18, 28)
and were fulfilled in the first century. Thus Luke again has a “second section”
event (allegedly in the end of world history) sandwiched between
two “first-section” events that were fulfilled in the first century.

According to the two-section theory, Luke 17:23–37 reads like this:

Lk. 17:23–24 (false christs; Son of Man as lightning in His day) AD 70
Lk. 17:26–30 (the days of Son of Man as the days of Noah) End of world history
Lk. 17:31–33 (people fleeing from housetops and fields) AD 70
Lk. 17:34–36 (one taken, one left) End of world history
Lk. 17:37 (vultures gathered at the corpse) AD 70

The absurdity that results in exegetically “ping-ponging” through
this text is most pronounced in the last four verses. In verses 34–36, Jesus
supposedly tells His disciples that at the end of world history, some
people will be “taken,” i.e., literally raptured into the clouds (Lk. 17:34–
36).[1] Then in verse 37, the disciples ask Him, “Where, Lord?” That
is, “Where will those people be taken?” According to the two-section
theory, Jesus answered His disciples’ question about the Rapture at the
end of world history by telling them about the corpses of Jews becoming
the food of vultures in AD 70.[2]

But, if it can be believed, the confusion deepens further still. In
his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Mathison actually
implies that Luke 17:20–37 was all fulfilled in AD 70. His argument in
that book is that we can know that Jesus was probably speaking of the
destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 18:7–8 partly because “in the preceding
chapter (Luke 17:20–37), he speaks of the coming destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[3]

Based on his argument in Postmillennialism, Mathison has it that
when Jesus prophesied that the judgment in the days of the Son of Man
would be as the judgment in the days of Noah, and when He prophesied
that some would be taken and others left, Jesus meant those prophecies
to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 17 and simultaneously
meant them to refer to the end of world history in Matthew 24. Yet
Mathison says he believes that Matthew 24 and Luke 17 contain the
same subject matter (WSTTB, 176). How can these things be?

Mathison’s many contradictory exegeses result in mind-boggling
conundrums. But the word of God on this matter is clear enough.
Luke, in Luke 17:22–37, mixes the events of Matthew 24:17–28 (first
section) with the events of Matthew 24:37–41 (second section). In so
doing, Luke unifies Matthew 24:17–41, confirming it to be one prophecy
that would be fulfilled in one set of events in one generation. In
contrast, “two-section” theorists violently break the prophecy in pieces
to conform it to the futurist paradigm. There is no question that this
theory is unworkable and that Luke saw no “telescoping” in the Olivet
Discourse. Selah.

As a matter of fact, in Mathison’s latest book, From Age to Age, he
abandons his two-section view of the Olivet Discourse, finally conceding
that the prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. He is also more
consistent in that book in his preterist interpretation of “the coming
of the Son of Man.” He now sees every reference to the coming of the
Son of Man as referring to Christ’s Ascension/Coming in AD 70. This
includes Matthew 25:31—the prophecy of the sheep and goats. Not one
church father interpreted Matthew 25:31 as having been fulfilled in the
first century. But Mathison does.

Mathison disagrees with the unified testimony of the universal
church. How then can he continue to anathematize us for disagreeing
with the unified testimony of the universal church?[4] Furthermore,
Mathison is out of step with the church fathers, and with the Reformed
community, and with “hyper preterists,” all of whom “stand shoulder
to shoulder” in opposition to him on this point. We all agree with the
church fathers that the promises of the coming of the Son of Man refer
to Christ’s Second Coming, and that we cannot separate the coming of
the Son of Man from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.

[1] Though Mathison implies that this prophecy will be fulfilled at the
end of world history, he is silent in all of his books as to its meaning. We can
only surmise that he believes it refers to the futurist “Rapture.”

[2] “Jesus’ reference to the vultures in [Matt. 24:28] refers to Jeremiah
7:33. Again He is using Old Testament judgment imagery.” Keith A. Mathison,
Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1995), 142

[3] Postmillennialism (213)

[4] Postmillennialism, 117 (emphasis added)

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: Matt. 24:14-15; Luke 21:20-22/Dan. 9:24-27/12:1-7, 13

Mike Sullivan and William Bell continue their study of Matthew 24 – 25 discussing how the Great Commission of Matt. 24:14 was fulfilled by the end of the OC age in AD 70. Emphasis is also placed on how Jesus in Matt. 24:15 posits the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 [“abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed…”] to take place during the same time frame. Would the fulfillment of Daniel 9 and 12 (the judgment, resurrection, tribulation, abomination of desolation — ie. “the end”] be the fulfillment of all OT prophecy Luke 21:20-22? And if so does the rest of the NT support this? Tune in and see! Know anyone studying Bible prophecy or even Matt. 24 – 25? If so pass this on to them.

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

The Transfiguration as a Preview of the Parousia

Matthew 10:17–23

Study Questions for Matthew 10:17–23:

Introduction

Study Questions – Daniel 12: The Tribulation, Resurrection, and the Appointed Time of the End

Books by Michael Sullivan available on his website store: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

Daniel 9:24-27: Daniel’s Seventy-Sevens Fulfilled

Books by Michael Sullivan: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

A Full Preterist Response to Reformed and Dispensational Critics

The Second Coming, Judgment, and Resurrection of the Dead

“ALL THESE THINGS” (Matthew 24-25/Daniel 12:1-7)

FULFILLED BY AD 70

A DEFENSE OF GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY

Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright © 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this book (still in progress) may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from Michel Sullivan. Thank you for your consideration.