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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

John Lightfoot wrote of these 40 days:

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

The Biblical Significance of the Forty Days 

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

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

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

Jewish Traditions and the Messianic Expectation

Gill continues, addressing Jewish traditions about the Messiah:

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

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

The Typological Second Exodus (AD 30–70)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following chart clarifies this contrast:

Adam’s One Trespass

Christ’s One Righteous Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A day was approaching when Christ would deliver believers from their persecutions and pour out His wrath upon their persecutors (1 Thess. 1:10; cf. 2 Thess. 1:6–7). When that day came, the Lord descended from heaven with a word of command (or “a shout”), with an archangelic voice, and with a trumpet call of God; and the dead in Christ rose.  Then the living in Christ and the dead in Christ were simultaneously “caught up” in “clouds” to “a meeting of the Lord in the air.”

Since the cloud-covered mountain is not literal, but is heavenly, neither then was the meeting that took place in the heavenly mountain (i.e., in the clouds in the air) literal.  Therefore, the shout, voice, trumpet, mountain, cloud, and meeting of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 are all spiritual antitypes of the literal shout, voice, trumpet, mountain, cloud, and meeting of Exodus 19 and 20 (Heb. 12:18–22).

Since Exodus 19-24 serves as a type of the trumpet gathering or chatting away of Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, we notice a number of important points.  According to James Jordan in his book, Through New Eyes, Mount Sinai served as Israel’s tabernacle or temple and served as a model for the structure of the tabernacle and temple.

The Courtyard – In the tabernacle / temple area, the courtyard was where the average Jew could offer sacrifices at the bronze altar and worship.  It corresponds to the area where the Israelites gathered at Mount Sinai’s base.

The Holy Place – The average priest had access not only to the courtyard, but also to the Holy Place.  Despite being able to advance to this area, he was unable to enter the Most Holy Place.  We see the seventy elders of Israel eating and dining with God here, amid the mountain but not at the top. 

The Most Holy Place – The Most Holy Place was only accessible to the High Priest once a year.  The glory cloud presence of God rested above the ark of the covenant in this location. When Moses ascended to the top of the mountain to meet with God face to face and receive the revelation of the old covenant law, he was acting as Israel’s High Priest.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is communicating that this was a type.  At the top of the cloud-covered mountain, Moses was able to enter the Most Holy Place, where God was present.  The old covenant system, however, provided him and Israel with a temporary glory. Between AD 30 – 70 there was an “increasing” new covenant age of glory and the old covenant veil of the old covenant age was gradually being lifted away from God’s people.  As a corporate body of new covenant kings and priests, we have ascended into God’s presence and the Most Holy Place on Mount Zion. Christ and His kingdom have manifested themselves on our hearts through the revelation of the new covenant.  The Church has been raised and was feasting with God at His wedding feast at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.

What we have then in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 is the “rapturously” metaphorical language of a prophet who is speaking of antitypical, spiritual realities —the transcendent profundities of Christological glory in and among the saints in the consummation of the ages.  If this sounds like an over-spiritualization, it shouldn’t. The Lord Jesus Himself was opposed to a literal removal of the church out of the world:

“I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15).

The “rapture” passage is no more literal than the prophecy of Ezekiel 37:4–14.  In that passage, God caused a valley full of dry bones to come together.  He attached tendons to them and put skin on them. Then He caused the bodies to breathe and they stood on their feet as a vast army. The bones represented the house of Israel.  They were hopelessly cut off from the land, and were said to be in “graves.” As God had done for the dry bones, He was going to do for the house of Israel.

In the same way, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, God raised up His church —the first fruits of the resurrection harvest— which was anxiously longing for the consummation of redemption and atonement.  As a mighty warrior, the Lord issued forth his shout of command and sounded the trumpet of God. Then His spiritual army arose by His power.  They met Him on His way to His temple to judge the enemies in His kingdom (Mal. 3:1). That is when God afflicted the persecutors of His church, when He gave His people relief and glorified Himself in them (2 Thess. 1:8–10).

Being revealed with Christ in glory (Col. 3:4) and becoming like Him and seeing Him in His Parousia (1 Jn. 3:2) had nothing to do with escaping physical death or with being literally caught up into the literal sky or with being biologically changed.  It had to do with God’s people, living and dead, being “gathered together” to become His eternal tabernacle, His spiritual body, the new man, the heavenly Mount Zion, and the New Jerusalem in the Spirit. “This mystery is great” (Eph. 5:32), and is therefore communicated in the accommodative “sign language” of prophetic metaphor.

Since our Lord came “with His saints” and destroyed the earthly temple in AD 70 (Heb. 9:8), the church of all ages lives and reigns in glory with Him forever (Rom. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:4; 2 Tim. 2:11–12). Now whether we are alive or asleep, we “live together with Him” (1 Thess. 5:10).  This was not the case in the OT, when to die was to be cut off from the people of God.  As Paul says in Romans 14:8–9, “…whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”  

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

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

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

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

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

Great Commission Fulfillment

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

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

Region / Acts 1:8

Scriptural Fulfillment People Groups Reached

Holy Spirit Outpouring

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

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

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

Element

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

Fulfillment in Romans 10:18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Exodus / Second Exodus Parallels

First Exodus / Types & Prophecies

Second Exodus / Anti-type & Fulfillments

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

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

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

“Many Rabbis believed that the period of the Messiah was to be only a transitionary stage between this world [age] and the world [age] to come, and opinions differed on the time of its duration. How long will the days of the Messiah last? R. Akibs said, Forty years, as long as the Israelites were in the wilderness.”[10]

Jesus fulfilled this precisely:

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

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

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

Peter and the Song of Moses

Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2 frames the Spirit’s outpouring as the “last days” inauguration, citing Deuteronomy 32:5, 20: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). He links this to Joel 2:28–3:14 (LXX) and Deuteronomy 31:29, portraying his generation as the terminal one facing the “day of the Lord” (Acts 2:14–21, 40). In 1 Peter 2:4–8, Christ is the rejected “Rock” or “Cornerstone” (Deut. 32:4–5, 15, 18; Isa. 28:16; Ps. 118:22), with Judaizers as “blots and blemishes” (2 Pet. 2:1–13; Deut. 32:5), facing imminent judgment in AD 70. Peter forms a new “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9–10; Deut. 32:21; Hos. 2:23), with salvation “ready to be revealed” at the “appointed time” (1 Pet. 1:4–5, 20; 4:5, 7, 17; Deut. 32:35 LXX). Scoffers deny the “end” (2 Pet. 3:3–4; Deut. 32:28–29), but the old covenant’s “heavens and earth” burn in de-creation judgment (2 Pet. 3:5–13; Deut. 32:22), fulfilled in AD 70. Vengeance comes as a “thief” (2 Pet. 3:10; Deut. 32:35, 43), vindicating believers and raising the new covenant body (Acts 2:20–21; 3:23).

Jesus and the Song of Moses

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

Paul and the Song of Moses

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

Summary of Deuteronomy 32’s Fulfillment

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

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

Paul’s Development

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Tribulation and Distress

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribulation and Resurrection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebraic Hyperbole in Context

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

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

This judgment included:

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

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

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

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

Historical Fulfillment: Sword, Captivity, and Trampling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fulfilling All OT Prophecy

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

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

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

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

Chart 3: Eschatological Fulfillment in Daniel and the Olivet Discourse

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Ibid.

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

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

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

[9] Ibid., pp. 342-344

 

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NT Writers’ Prophetic Accuracy

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

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

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

Genuine Imminence of AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chart: Kairos and the Appointed End in Scripture

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

Timeline of Fulfillment (AD 30–70)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1). False Messiahs (Matt. 24:4–5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary Misuse of Birth Pain Signs

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of the Near End: The Intensifying Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Commission Fulfillment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “End” of the Old Covenant Age War 

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

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

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

a). Isaiah 2–3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d). Revelation 11:1–8

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

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

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

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

e). Revelation 16

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

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

f). Revelation 19

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

g). Revelation 20:8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Signs (AD 30–70)

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

 

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

The Abomination of Desolation and the Resurrection

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

The Signs Created Real NT Imminence Pointing to AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

And,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion 

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

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

NT Writers’ Prophetic Accuracy

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

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

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

Genuine Imminence of AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] Daniel 9:24–27; 12:2–3, 7

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

[19] Daniel 12:7; Revelation 11:2–8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[28] Josephus, The Jewish War, 2.12.1.

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

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

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

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

[33] Ibid., 580–581.

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

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

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

[37] Ibid., 496–497.

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

[39] Josephus, The Jewish War, 4.4.5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[52] Josephus, The Jewish War, 4.3.8.

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

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

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

[56] Tacitus, Histories, 5.12.

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

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

[59] Ibid., 510–511.

[60] Ibid., 104–105.

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

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

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

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

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

[66] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3.

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

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

[69] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

[74] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.5.3.

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

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

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

[78] Ibid., 163–165.

[79] Ibid., 165–166.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[86] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 243.

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

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

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

[90] Ibid., 171–172.

[91] Ibid., 163–165.

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

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

[94] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3

[95] Josephus, Wars, 4.3.8.

[96] Josephus, Wars, 4.5.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[105] Josephus, Wars, 4.3.8.

[106] Josephus, Wars, 4.5.2.

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

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

[109] Ibid., p. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

The Disciples’ Question: Context and Meaning

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

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

“It is clear that Jesus did not have in mind the end of the world, nor did He mean the final judgment. Rather, Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43 describe the judgment that would come upon unbelieving Jerusalem.”[1]

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

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

Gary DeMar reinforces this, stating:

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

The Jewish and Old Testament Eschatological Context

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

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

Jesus’ Teachings and the Disciples’ Understanding

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

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

Theme Daniel 12 Matthew 13

Matthew 24–25 & Parallels

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

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

“The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. … To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar.”[9]

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

Logical Arguments Supporting the Disciples’ Coherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Evidence: New Testament and Historical Fulfillment

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

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

Prophecy

Fulfillment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text Event Spiritual Gifts/Miracles Temporal Context

Fulfillment in AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting Inconsistent Interpretations

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

“So I take the first heavens and earth as the Judaic aeon and the new heavens and earth as the Christian aeon, and these two aeons overlapped–the latter beginning at Pentecost, the former ending with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”[10]

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

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

Event Chart: Prophecy and Fulfillment 

Event Old Testament Prophecy Jesus’ Teaching

Fulfillment in

AD 70

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

[2] Ibid., 46-47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 23: The Prophetic Condemnation of Jerusalem’s Fall

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

The Chiasmic Structure of Matthew 23–25

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

Chart 1: Chiasmic Structure of Matthew 23–25

Section

Content

Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theme

Matthew 23–25 Revelation

OT/NT Parallels

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

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

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

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

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

Theme

Matthew 23

Matthew 24–25

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

Jerusalem: The “Great City” Babylon in Revelation

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

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

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

Chart 4: Parallels Between Matthew 23–25 and Revelation

Theme

Matthew 23–25

Revelation

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

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

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

Chart 5: Old Testament Parallels with Revelation’s Babylon

Theme

Old Testament

Revelation

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

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

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

Chart 6: New Testament Parallels with Revelation’s Babylon

Theme

New Testament

Revelation

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

Jerusalem: The Persecuting Harlot Across Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting Erroneous Interpretations

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

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

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

Conclusion: The Passover Song as Judgment’s Herald

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

Study Questions for Matthew 23:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture Event/Teaching Pharisees’ Failure

New Covenant Outcome

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

 

 

 

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

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

In this article, we will:

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

1) Summary of Matthew 22:23–33

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

Jesus rebukes them:

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

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

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

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

2) The Beliefs of the Sadducees and Pharisees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistake #1: Assuming Torah Continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 13

Matthew 24

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

Mistake #2: Assuming a Physical Resurrection

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

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

a) The Resurrection is Spiritual, Not Physical 

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

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

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

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

It is sometimes asserted that the resurrection of the body was the characteristic Jewish belief. This is not borne out by the data. A variety of beliefs seem to be attested about the same time in Israelite history. One of these was the resurrection of the body, but there is little reason to think that it was earlier or more characteristic of Jewish thinking than the immortality of the soul or resurrection of the spirit. And it is clear that some Jews still maintained the older belief in no afterlife. The Sadducees (see section 2.7) are one group who thought so; so did Ben Sira. Writing about 190 bce Ben Sira does not seem to think of any life beyond death, as interpreted by the vast majority of scholars. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to refer to any of these beliefs as ‘characteristically’ Jewish or the Jewish belief on the subject.[1]

The exact form of the resurrection is not always specified, but we should not expect it always to entail resurrection of the body. Sometimes only the resurrection of the spirit is in mind, as in Jubilees 23:20–22:

And at that time the Lord will heal his servants, and they shall be exalted and prosper greatly; and they shall drive out their adversaries. And the righteous shall see it and be thankful, and rejoice with joy for ever and ever; and they shall see all the punishments and curses that had been their lot falling on their enemies. And their bones shall rest in the earth, and their spirits shall have much joy; and they shall know that the Lord is one who executes judgement, and shows mercy to hundreds, and to tens of thousands, and to all that love him.

Belief in the immortality of the soul is known at least as early as the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36). The souls of the various sorts of people are preserved in hollow places after death (1 Enoch 22):

And from there I went to another place, and he showed me in the west a large and high mountain, and a hard rock and four beautiful places, and inside it was deep and wide and very smooth . . . Then Raphael, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me and said to me, These beautiful places are intended for this, that the spirits, the souls of the dead, might be gathered into them; for them they were created, that here they might gather all the souls of the sons of men. And these places they made where they will keep them until the day of their judgement and until their appointed time – and that appointed time will be long – until the great judgement comes upon them.

As the rest of the passage indicates, the souls of the dead are already experiencing reward and punishment in their intermediate state. In this case, the existence of the soul after death seems to be combined with the idea of a final judgement. This may imply a general resurrection, though this is not stated explicitly. In other sections of 1 Enoch, a resurrection is mentioned (46:6; 51:1; 90:33; 91:10; 92:3–4).

Other sources give no indication of a resurrection at all, only the immortal soul. A good example is Wisdom of Solomon which discusses the soul (e.g., 3:1–9) without mentioning the resurrection. Scholars debate whether the text asserts that all souls are immortal or only those of the righteous. Many contend that immortality is not inherent in the soul itself but is a gift bestowed exclusively upon the righteous.

The Testament of Abraham one of the clearest descriptions of postmortem judgment (Version A 11–14; Version B 9–11). The souls are brought before a throne on which Abel sits as judge. In Version B, Enoch, the scribe of righteousness, presents the souls for judgement. Following this process, the judged souls go either through the strait gate which leads to life (for the righteous) or the broad gate to destruction (for the sinners). Although Version B (7:16) briefly hints at a general resurrection, the text primarily emphasizes that individual judgment occurs immediately after death, with the soul being judged while the body remains in the grave.

On the other hand, the immortal souls and the resurrection may be combined, as in 2 Baruch 29–30:

[30:2] And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they will come out, and the multitude of souls will appear together in one single assembly; and those who are first will rejoice, and those who are last will not be cast down. For each one of them will know that the predetermined end of the times has come. But the souls of the wicked, when they see all this, will be the more discomforted. For they will know that their torment is upon them and that their perdition has arrived.”[2]

Murray J. Harris, after examining the intertestamental period of Judaism, agrees:

“And there is the concept of the immortality of the soul or spirit that is gained at death or at the End [of the Mosaic age], with or without a resurrection of the [physical] body.”[3]

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

“Jewish writings stipulate that forty years after the coming of the Messiah there will be a resurrection of the dead, and all who are lying in dust will rise to new life.” (The 13 Principles and the Resurrection of the Dead).

The Rebbe often quotes the Zohar to the effect that the Resurrection will take place 40 years after the advent of Mashiach. (See Igros Kodesh, Vol. II, p. 75; Sefer HaSichos 5752, Vol. I, p. 274. However, there are also other references in the sichos (e.g., Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXVII, p. 206; Sefer HaSichos 5733, Shabbos Parshas Balak, footnote 3).[4]

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

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

“What Daniel is promised is that after his rest in Abraham’s bosom, he will stand up with all God’s saints and join Michael on a throne in heaven, as described in Revelation 20, an event that came after the Great Tribulation and in the year AD 70.”[5]

b) Levirate Marriage and Torah Laws Do Not Continue

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

c) The Patriarchs Are Already Alive with God 

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

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

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

6) Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Lester L. Grabbe, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel, and Jesus, (London: T&T Clark Publishing, 2010),  93–96. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament, Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 70.

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 8:10–12 – Gentiles at the Feast

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

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

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

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

Matthew 8:12

Matthew 22:13

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

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

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

Framing the Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Watt’s Identification of “The Death”

John Watt clarifies:

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

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

The WuestNT on “The Death” Being Destroyed

Kenneth Wuest translates 1 Corinthians 15:26 as:

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

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

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

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

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

Parallel Processes Between AD 30–70

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

Summary Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Thess. 4–5

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

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

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

Jewish Wedding Customs and Matthew 24–25

Jewish Custom

Matthew 24–25 Fulfillment

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

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

Conclusion – Full Preterism’s Harmonization

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

Full Preterism alone preserves the integrity of the prophetic tapestry:

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

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

Study Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Variations Across the Synoptic Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

The Parable’s Symbolism and Historical Context

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

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

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

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

Psalm 118: The Rejected Cornerstone and AD 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for Today

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

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

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

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

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

Theme

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

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

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

Study Questions for The Parable of the Tenants

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

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

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

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

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

Exegesis and Doctrinal Continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative and Thematic Continuity

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

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

Exegesis of the Parable

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

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

Doctrinal and Eschatological Connections

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

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

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

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

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

Theological and Eschatological Significance

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

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

Theme John the Baptist’s Teaching

Jesus’ Teaching and Fulfillment

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These prayers echo into Revelation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The New Covenant Fruit-Bearing Nation

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

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

Study Questions

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

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

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

The Context of Corruption

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

The Debate Over Two Cleansings

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

Leviticus 14: The Priestly Inspection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew 21:14–17: Restoration of True Worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AD 70 (Roman Judgment)

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

The Typological Flow

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

Conclusion

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

Study Questions for Matthew 21:12–17 

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

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

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

Introduction: A Messianic Spectacle

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

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

Isaiah 62:11

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

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

Eschatological judgment and salvation:

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

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

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

Zechariah 9: Historical and Prophetic Context

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

Jesus as the Greater Alexander 

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

Parallels Between Jesus and Alexander the Great

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

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

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

Jesus as the Greater Solomon

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

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Solomon

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

Jesus as the Greater Nehemiah

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

Parallels and Typology Between Jesus and Nehemiah   

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

The Royal Donkey: A Theological Symbol 

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

Psalm 118: Hosanna and the Cornerstone

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

Rabbinic Views: A Dual Messiah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: The King of Peace and Judgment

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

Study Questions:

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

[1] Josephus, Antiquities 11.8.5

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

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

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

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

[6] Ibid., Willem A. VanGemeren,

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

The Coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 Part 4: Matthew 23:39 “Blessed in He Who Comes in the Name of the Lord”

 

Many exegetes approach Matthew 24-25 without noticing the vital context that Matthew 23 plays in its development.  Gary DeMar writes,

“To understand Matthew 24, we must begin with a brief background study of Matthew 23. The disciples had just heard Jesus pronounce His “woes” on the Pharisees. Jesus ended His denunciation of Israel’s religious leaders with this bombshell: “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!” (23:38). What “house” did Jesus have in mind? Matthew 24 begins:  “And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him” (24:1).

So then, the “house” that is being left to them “desolate” in Matthew 23:38 is the “temple” that will soon be judged and torn down, stone by stone (24:1).

The disciples were obviously curious since the temple was the most holy site in all Israel. Earlier in His ministry, Jesus pronounced to the religious leaders that His own body was the true temple. The temple of stone was a temporary edifice that pointed to a greater, permanent temple (John 2:1922). Only after Jesus’ resurrection did the disciples begin to understand that the true and everlasting temple is “the temple of His body” (2:21). The physical temple was designed to be temporary. To make the temple of stone a permanent structure in the light of Jesus’ atoning work would be a denial of the Messiah and His redemptive mission.

The disciples were surprised when Jesus told them that the temple was going to be destroyed, with not one stone left on top of another (Matt. 24:2). In response, they asked this multifaceted question: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age” (24:3)? It is crucial that we pay close attention to when Jesus said these events would take place.

Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation,” that is, the destruction of their temple and city will be realized before the then-existing generation passes into history (23:36). It was the generation of those who rejected Jesus who would experience His wrath. The “this generation” of Matthew 23:36 is the generation upon whom Jesus pronounced judgment.”[1]

Let’s examine the parallel and contextual connections between the coming of Christ and judgment found in Matthew 23 with that of Matthew 24–25 and compare it with the flow we have seen between Matthew 10:17-23, Mattthew 16:27-28 and Luke 17:20-37 as forming and being inseparable from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25.  With that in mind we begin this chart picking up where we left off in comparing Luke 17:20-37 in “Part 3” of our series with Matthew 24-25 and begin the count with #18:

Matthew 23

Matthew 24–25

(18) The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat and hypocritically judge (Matt. 23:2ff.). (18) Jesus will sit on His glorious throne and judge these hypocrites, (Matt. 25:31, 41–45).
(19) The “blind” Pharisees & Scribes  produce “sons of hell” in evangelism (Matt. 23:15). (19) Jesus’ disciples will preach the gospel, producing “redemption” or inheritance of the Kingdom             (Matt. 24:14; Luke 21:28–32).
(20) They swear by the temple’s gold and beauty but destruction              (Matt. 23:16–36). (20) Jesus predicts destruction of their temple and condemns them              (Matt. 24:1–2; 25:41–46).
(21) The Pharisees will “fill up” Israel’s sin of blood guilt through persecuting and killing Jesus sends to them (Matt. 23:31–36). (21) The Pharisees will face “wrath” and “days of vengeance” for beating and killing those whom Jesus sent  (Mark 13:9–13; cf. Matt. 10:17–23).
(22) This will mark the judgment of the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs) (Matt. 23:31–36). (22) Time of judgment will affect the living (“wrath against this people,” “fall by the sword,” “be led captive”) and the dead                     (Luke 21:20–24; Matt. 25:31–46).
(23) The Pharisees, given seven woes, will face judgment when Christ “comes again” to desolate their temple (Matt. 23:13ff.) (23) Israel’s religious and civil rulers, symbolized as “stars,” will “fall from heaven” as Jesus comes in judgment to desolate their temple (Matt. 24:29ff.)
(24) Jerusalem [Pharisees and Sadducees] resist Jesus’ soteriological and eschatological “gathering” of His children and persecute those He sends to them (Matt. 23:37) (24) Leadership resists Jesus’ soteriological and eschatological “gathering” of His children and persecutes those He sends to them (Matt. 10:17-22; 24:9-31; Mark 13:9)
(25) In their contemporary “this generation,” they would see Him come “again” to judge them and “desolate” their temple              (Matt. 23:37-39). (25) Christ’s contemporary “generation” will see His coming in judgment and desolate their City and Temple (Matt. 24:1–2, 34, cf. Matt. 26:62–64).

Many partial preterists overlook that Jesus prophesies both the judgment and vindication of the living (e.g., the Pharisees) and the dead (e.g., the martyrs) when He connects the vindication of the martyrs—from Abel onward—to the destruction of the Temple and His coming within His generation (Matt. 23:29–39). This aligns with Jesus’ teaching that the eschatological gathering at the sound of the trumpet (resurrection) and the judgment of the dead would occur when the Temple and the Old Covenant age ended in His generation (Matt. 24:3, 27–34; 25:31–46).

As we will explore, Jesus’ reference to His coming when the Jews would be saying, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,” subtly indicates that His return would coincide with a Jewish feast day when this song was sung. This serves as a “sign” of His coming, prompting the disciples’ questions for further signs in Matthew 24:3.

I would agree with James Jordan who points out it is essential to recognize that Matthew 23–25 form a cohesive literary unit, bound by Jesus’ assertion that “this generation” would witness not just the desolation of their house (the temple) but also judgment and reward for both the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs). The structure forms a chiasm[2]centered on the resurrection and judgment of the living and dead being fulfilled in the first century generation:

(a) Seat of Moses (23:1–12)

  (b) Eight Woes (23:13–32)

(c) Full Judgment (23:33–35)

(d) All in This Generation (23:36)

        (e) Christ Comes to Gather/Raise the dead at sound of a Trumpet (23:37–     24:31)

(d) All in This Generation (24:32–36)

(c) Full Judgment (24:45–25:46)

(b) Three Parables (24:45–25:30)

(a) Seat / Throne of Jesus (25:31–45)

Matthew 23 and Luke 17 speak of the same second coming event. Christ’s return, shining like the sunshine from east to west, will judge the Pharisees for the unclean condition within their hearts, while His kingdom is realized within believers’ hearts upon His arrival in AD 70 (Matt. 23:27; Luke 17:20-37). Let’s now consider how the second coming of Christ is described in Matthew 23:

The Song That Sealed Their Fate

“For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matt. 23:39).

This phrase, once sung joyfully by Jews from the walls of Jerusalem to welcome pilgrims during the three annual feasts, takes on a sobering turn in Jesus’ mouth. In seed form, He foretells that His “coming” will not bring celebration but judgment. Instead of welcoming peace and salvation, they would—during one of their feasts—unwittingly welcome destruction upon themselves.[3]

From AD 67–70, Jews were bottled up in Jerusalem, expecting God to rescue them from Rome and establish an earthly kingdom. But Jesus had warned in Matthew 24 that such expectations were fueled by false prophets. Their own festive greeting—“Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”—became the very script for divine judgment, as God once again “came” through a Gentile army, just as He had done via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

As Paul understood (quoting Psalm 69:22 in Romans 11:9-10), even the Psalms speaks of a “trap” laid at their table, and Josephus confirms that the Jewish-Roman War began during Passover while they were singing this very song.

Jesus makes it unmistakably clear: the “you” who will say this is the same “you” (the Pharisees and leaders of Jerusalem) He has been addressing throughout Matthew 23. This verse concludes the chapter’s dire warning that they would see Him again not in peace, but in judgment.

Matthew 24 then continues seamlessly, elaborating on this judgment: the temple’s destruction, signs of Christ’s coming, and a reckoning—all to occur, as Jesus solemnly affirms once more, within “this generation.”

Despite the unity of content and time frame between Matthew 23-24 Dispensationalist writers like Thomas Ice argue for a distinction in Jesus’ use of “this generation” between Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 to support a futuristic interpretation of Matthew 24. Ice asserts,

“When one compares the use of ‘this generation’ in Matthew 23:36 (an undisputed  reference to AD 70) with its prophetic use in Matthew 24:34, a contrast becomes obvious.  Jesus contrasts the deliverance for Israel in Matthew 24:34 with the predicted judgment in Matthew 23:36.”[4]

However, this interpretation is inconsistent with the thematic and contextual unity of Matthew 23–24, where both chapters emphasize judgment and deliverance within the same contemporary timeframe—namely, the generation alive during Jesus’ ministry, culminating in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.

In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces woes on the religious leaders, condemning their persecution of prophets and righteous individuals. He declares, “All these things will come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36), predicting judgment on Jerusalem and the temple’s destruction as vindication for the martyrs. This judgment, as Ice acknowledges, is “an undisputed reference to AD 70.” Similarly, Matthew 24 continues this discourse, addressing the disciples’ questions about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–3). Jesus describes events leading to the city’s fall, including persecution, the flight of believers from Judea for deliverance, and judgment on the persecutors, culminating in the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:15–21, 34). He explicitly states, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34).

The thematic parallels are clear: both chapters address judgment on Jerusalem for rejecting God’s messengers and deliverance for the faithful, all within “this generation.” The Greek term genea (“generation”) consistently refers to the contemporary generation in Jesus’ usage (e.g., Matt. 11:16, 12:39, 16:4), and there is no textual basis to redefine it in Matthew 24:34 as a future or symbolic generation. Ice’s claim that “it is obvious that these things did not occur in AD 70”[5] ignores historical evidence. The Roman siege of Jerusalem (AD 66–70) fulfilled Jesus’ predictions: the temple was destroyed, believers fled to safety (e.g., to Pella, as early Christian traditions record), and the city faced catastrophic judgment, aligning with the “great tribulation” described (Matt. 24:21).

Dispensationalists like Ice redefine “this generation” in Matthew 24 to fit a futuristic, Zionist theology that expects a future tribulation and temple rebuilding. This interpretation imposes an artificial division between Matthew 23 and 24, disregarding their shared context as a single discourse (Matt. 23:1–24:51). By admitting that Matthew 23:36 refers to AD 70, Ice inadvertently undermines his own argument, as the linguistic and thematic continuity suggests Matthew 24:34 likewise refers to the same generation. The attempt to separate the two relies on theological presuppositions rather than exegesis, forcing a futuristic reading that contradicts the plain meaning of Jesus’ words.

In conclusion, the consistent use of “this generation” in Matthew 23–24, coupled with the parallel themes of judgment and deliverance, supports a preterist interpretation: Jesus predicted events fulfilled in AD 70, not a distant future. Dispensationalist reinterpretations, while motivated by theological commitments, fail to account for the historical and textual evidence, rendering their distinctions between Matthew 23 and 24 unconvincing.

Having looked at all of the “coming” of the Lord passages approaching Matthew 24-25 and noticing that they were fulfilled in AD 70, we now turn to give an exegesis of the Olivet Discourse to see if Jesus is consistent with Isaiah, Daniel and Himself in teaching just one imminent coming.

Conclusion 

Matthew 23 is the critical lens through which the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25) must be understood, establishing the imminent judgment of Jerusalem’s temple and its religious leaders within “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34). Jesus’ pronouncement of the temple’s desolation (Matt. 23:38) and His woes against the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and persecution set the stage for the disciples’ question about the timing and signs of His coming and the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:1–3). The thematic and literary unity of Matthew 23–25, structured as a chiasm centered on judgment and resurrection, underscores that Christ’s coming in AD 70 fulfilled both the judgment of the living (Pharisees) and the vindication of the dead (martyrs), as prophesied. The ironic twist of the festive cry, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39), sung during the Passover when the Jewish-Roman War began, signals not salvation but divine judgment through the Roman armies, echoing Old Testament patterns of God’s coming via foreign powers.

Dispensationalist attempts, such as those by Thomas Ice, to divorce Matthew 24:34 from the AD 70 fulfillment affirmed in Matthew 23:36 falter against the consistent use of “this generation” and the shared themes of judgment and deliverance. Historical evidence—Jerusalem’s fall, the temple’s destruction, and the flight of Christians to Pella—confirms Jesus’ predictions were fulfilled in AD 70, not a distant future. By rooting His teaching in Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Isaiah, Daniel), Jesus presents a unified eschatological vision of His imminent coming to end the Old Covenant age. This first-century fulfillment establishes the New Covenant kingdom, realized within believers’ hearts (Luke 17:20–37) and proclaimed today (Rev. 22:17). Understanding Matthew 23 as the foundation of the Olivet Discourse affirms the reliability of Jesus’ words and invites believers to live faithfully in the enduring reality of His kingdom, established in AD 70.

Major Premise:
Matthew 23 teaches that Christ would come in judgment upon Jerusalem during one of their feast days—when they would sing, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”—to vindicate the martyrs by judging both the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (the martyrs), and to desolate the temple—all within His first-century audience’s “this generation” (Matt. 23:29–39).

Minor Premise:
Matthew 24–25 continues this same discourse without interruption, describing the same coming of Christ, the same judgment of the temple, the same vindication of martyrs (the living and the dead), and situating it all within the same time frame—“this generation” (Matt. 24:3, 27–34; 25:31–46). 

Conclusion:
Therefore, the coming of Christ described in Matthew 24–25 is the same AD 70 judgment foretold in Matthew 23 and was fulfilled within that first-century generation. Any attempt to divide these comings introduces an artificial distinction that ignores the literary and theological unity of the text.

Study Questions: 

  1. How does Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23:36 that “all these things shall come upon this generation” provide the key to interpreting the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
  2. What is the significance of Jesus saying “your house is left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38) just before He predicts the temple’s destruction in Matthew 24:2?
  3. How does the repeated use of “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34 argue against a futurist or dispensationalist reading of the Olivet Discourse?
  4. What are the implications of Jesus tying the vindication of all the martyrs—from Abel to Zechariah—to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 23:35–36)?
  5. How does the parallel structure (chiasm) from Matthew 23 through 25 support the idea of a unified, first-century fulfillment of judgment and resurrection?
  6. In what way does the quote “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39) serve as both a liturgical cry and a sign of impending judgment?
  7. How do the parallels between Matthew 23 and Matthew 24–25 (e.g., judgment of Pharisees, martyr vindication, temple desolation) strengthen the preterist view?
  8. What does the consistency between Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 10, 16, 23, and 24 reveal about His understanding of the timing and nature of His coming?
  9. Why does Thomas Ice argue for a distinction between “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34, and what exegetical flaws undermine his claim?
  10. How does recognizing Matthew 23–25 as a single, cohesive eschatological discourse challenge the popular notion of a future, physical second coming still awaiting fulfillment?

[1] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness Obsession of the Modern Church, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1994), 37

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

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

[4] Ibid., 93

[5] Ibid.

 

The Coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 Part 3: Luke 17:20–37 – The Light of Day Dawns and the Kingdom Shines Within

What kind of kingdom was Jesus describing, and when would it arrive? As explored in our three-part Daniel series, both the spiritual kingdom and Christ’s coming “on the clouds” would be fulfilled during the Roman Empire, when He would destroy one temple and “anoint” or consecrate / fill another “Most Holy Place” (Dan. 2; 7:13-27; 9:24-27). Let’s allow Jesus to further interpret Daniel, clarifying the nature, timing, and manner of His coming and Kingdom’s arrival.

These were the burning questions posed by the Pharisees in Luke 17:20, and they remain central to any serious discussion of eschatology today. Even as we see modern day Khazarian “Jews” like Benjamin Netanyahu try and usher in the messiah through waging war with Iran which is in sharp contrast to what Daniel and Jesus describe as the Kingdom and how it comes.  In this often-overlooked passage, Jesus delivers a striking and subversive answer: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation… for behold, the kingdom of God is within you [or within a person].” With this statement, Jesus shattered the expectations of a visible, political, and territorial messianic kingdom. He redirected attention inward—to the heart, to the spirit, to the transformative presence of the King Himself.

This chapter explores Luke 17:20–37 not merely as a preview of judgment, but as a revelation of the nature and timing of Christ’s kingdom and Parousia. Far from being a vague, futuristic promise or an indefinite reign waiting for physical realization, Jesus teaches that His coming would be as clear and all-encompassing as the rising sun—from east to west—and yet, paradoxically, not externally observable. It would be a judgment that would fall on unbelieving Israel like the flood in Noah’s day or fire in Lot’s day—sudden, decisive, and covenantal—yet a deliverance that would dawn like the morning light in the heart for the faithful.

Through a chiastic literary structure, Jesus distinguishes between false, external hopes for the kingdom and its actual, spiritual unveiling within the hearts of His people when He would be revealed from heaven like the light of day. This chapter will demonstrate that Luke 17 is not describing some distant, physical return of Christ, but the imminent and climactic transition from the old covenant to the new—a coming that would bring judgment on apostate Israel and resurrection life to those who recognized the kingdom already in their midst.

Luke 17:20–37

Now when the Pharisees demanded of Him when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; Neither shall they say, ‘Behold, it is here!’ Or, ‘Behold, it is there!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is standing in the midst of you.” Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and shall not see it. And they shall say to you, ‘Look here,’ or, ‘Look there.’ Do not go, neither follow them. For as the light of day, whose light shines from one end under heaven to the other end under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day. But first it is necessary for Him to suffer many things and to be rejected by this generation. Now as it was in the days of Noah, so also shall it be in the days of the Son of man.They were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. And it was the same way in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; But on  the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. This is how it shall be in the day that the Son of man is revealed. In that day, let not the one who is on the housetop, and his goods in the house, come down to take them away; and likewise, let not the one who is in the field return to the things behind. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two in one bed; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two men shall be in the field; one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.” And they answered, saying to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together” (Luke 17:20-37 AFV).

Just as Matthew 23–25 is structured with a chiastic pattern, Luke 17:20–37 also follows a chiasm. Some may be asking, “What in the world is a chiasm?” Simply put, it’s a literary structure in which ideas are presented and then mirrored in reverse order, often highlighting a central point.  Here is a classic example.

(A)  No one can serve two masters,

     (B)  for either he will hate the one

          (C) and love the other,

          (C) or he will be devoted to the one

     (B) and despise the other.

(A) You cannot serve God and money.

In a chiasm, the beginning and end usually mirror each other, while the center often contains the main message—the “meat in the middle.” In ancient Hebrew and Biblical times, this form of teaching was popular because the parallel structure made it easy to memorize the teaching.

Now notice how Luke 17:20–37 forms its own chiasm, framed by two questions. The central issue is the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom, specifically at His second coming:

(A)  The question by the Pharisees – When will the kingdom come or be realized (17:20–21)?  It will come “within the heart of a person.”

     (B)  When the coming of the Son of Man is revealed as the sun (17:22–25)

          (C)  This will be like in the days of Noah (17:26–27)

          (C)  This will be like in the days of Lot (17:28–29)

     (B)  When the Son of Man is revealed (17:30)

(A) The question by the disciples – Where, Lord? “Where the dead body is.”

This chiasm, centered around two questions—one from the Pharisees and one from the disciples— reveals when, how and where the kingdom would come. Jesus tells the Pharisees it will be unseen—internally realized within the hearts of believers—at the time when the Son of Man is revealed, in a judgment like that of Noah’s or Lot’s day.

To the disciples, Jesus answers that the location of this coming kingdom would be marked by judgment: their enemies would be gathered like a corpse, devoured by vultures—an image of divine retribution. This too happens when the Son of Man is revealed.

Elsewhere, Jesus says the kingdom would be taken from the Pharisees and given to a new “nation” (the Church) producing its fruit (Matt. 21:43–45). Our text here in Luke 17 describes, how, when, and where that transfer would be accomplished in the events of AD 67 – AD 70.

“Within You”

Some modern translators translate the Greek word entos as “among you” or “in your midst” without sufficient linguistic justification. They appear to do this for two reasons. First, they want to avoid associating Jesus’ spiritual and internal kingdom with the future, eschatological “not yet” of Christ’s parousia, thus comfortably situating the kingdom in the here and now of the “already.”  And, secondly, they fear translating the passage as “within you” might imply that the unbelieving Pharisees had the kingdom within them.

However, linguistic evidence strongly supports the translation “within you” or, better yet, “within the heart of a person.” Strong’s Concordance clearly defines entos as “within you”: “1787. ἐντός entós; adv. from en (1722), in. Within. Used also as a prep. with the gen. (Luke 17:21, “the kingdom of God is within you,” meaning it is located in your heart and affections, not external). With the neut. def. art., tó entós, the inside (Matt. 23:26; Sept.: Ps. 39:4; 109:22). Zodhiates, S. (2000).”

Consider the following arguments which prove with 100% certainty that entos should be translated as “within you” or, even better, “within the heart of a person”:

Contextual contrast: Luke 17:21 contrasts external, visible signs (“look here or there”) with something internal, spiritual, and unseen (“within you”).

Consistent NT usage: The only other NT occurrence of entos is Matthew 23:26, where Jesus contrasts outward appearances with inner spiritual reality, again clearly meaning “inside.”

Septuagint usage: The Greek Old Testament (LXX) consistently uses entos to denote something internal—either within a building (like the temple) or within a person’s spiritual or inward being (cf. Ps. 103:1; 109:22; Isa. 16:11).

External Greek usage: Outside the NT, entos never means “among.”

Alternative Greek for “among”: Luke, who frequently uses the Greek mesos (“among,” “in the midst”), certainly would have chosen it if he intended “among you.”

Lexical authority: Liddell-Scott’s Greek lexicon translates entos in Luke 17:21 as “in your hearts.”[1]

Early Church Fathers: Those closer to Koine Greek consistently interpreted entos as “within you.”

Pronoun flexibility: Concerns that “within you” implies kingdom presence within unbelieving Pharisees ignore the flexible Greek pronoun usage. William Hendriksen clarifies that “you” can simply mean “a person” or “one,” not specifically Pharisees.[2] Thus, Jesus’ teaching is that when the kingdom fully arrives at His second coming, it would not be physically observable, but experienced spiritually within the hearts of people.

Luke often follows theological teaching with a parable: Luke often concludes Jesus’ teachings with a parable emphasizing His main point (e.g., 6:20–49; 10:1–37; 11:14–36; 17:20–18:8).[3]  Thus the “day(s) of the Son of Man” include the spiritual inheritance of the kingdom and Christ’s parousia, but also severe persecution requiring vindication.While the disciples may be tempted to want the same visible, political vindication desired by the Pharisees, Jesus assured them that vindication and deliverance from persecution would indeed come “quickly” (Luke 18:8) at His second coming, not thousands of years later.

Partial Preterist Admissions:  In discussing Luke 18:7-8 Keith Mathison gives exegetical reasons why he believes this “speedily” coming of Christ and judgment is his impending coming in AD 70 [the first being that Luke 17:20-37 is referring to AD 70]:

         “a.  In the preceding chapter (Luke 17:20-37), he speaks of the coming destruction of   Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

  1. In 18:7, Christ assures His listeners that God will not delay long in bringing about justice for his elect.  It could reasonably be argued that two thousand years is a long delay.
  2. In verse 8, Christ assures us that God will bring about justice speedily.  Again, this would seem to indicate a fulfillment within a short amount of time.”[4]

Once again it becomes obvious that Jesus has been teaching a first century second coming event in Matthew 10:17-23, 16:27-28, and now here in Luke 17-18 which will form his more detailed teaching on the subject in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28 /

Luke 17:20-37

Olivet Discourse

Matthew 24 / Luke 21 / Mark 13

(1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22) (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)
(6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) (6) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

(8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

(10) Some in the crowd would live towitness the second coming

(Luke 21:16–18)

(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Matt. 16:28) (11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Luke 21:16)
(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation

(Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38)

(12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

Luke 17:20–37 Matthew 24:1–41
(13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (17:31-33) (13) Fleeing from housetops & fields (24:17ff.)
(14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (17:24) (14) Son of Man comes as Light of Day shining from East to West (24:27)
(15) Vultures gathered at corpse (17:37) (15) Vultures gathered at corpse (24:28)
(16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (17:26-30) (16) Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah (24:37ff.)
(17) One taken / one left (17:34-36) (17) One taken / one left (24:41ff.)

Once we get into Matthew 24-25 it will become clear that there is no exegetical evidence to support the idea that Matthew 24–25 is addressing two comings of Christ, as some dispensational Zionists have taught (e.g. Darby) and as some partial preterists (e.g. Gentry) teach.

When we compare Jesus’ teaching of His coming in Matthew 24 and Luke 17, it becomes even more obvious that He was not addressing two different comings. Nor does Matthew present “two sections” referring to two comings. Both chapters speak of one eschatological event.

Partial preterist Gary DeMar (rightly) rejects the view held by dispensationalists and some partial preterists who split Matthew 24. We disagree with Kenneth Gentry, who argues that verses 27–30 refer to Christ’s coming in  AD 70, while verses 36–51 refer to a future second coming. Dispensationalists flip this; they see vv. 27–30 as a future second coming and vv. 36–42 as a pre-trib rapture.

Gary addresses this directly:

Many futurists claim that the phrase “took them all away” (Matt. 24:39) refers to a rapture that is still in our future. On the contrary. “In the context of 24:37–39, ‘taken’ presumably means ‘taken to judgment’ (cf. Jer. 6:11 NASB, NRSV)” (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 115.) The phrase ties the judgment of the world in Noah’s day with the judgment of the Jews’ world in Israel’s day that took place with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple.[5]

The comparison with Noah’s day is critical: those “taken” were not the righteous, but the wicked. As John Gill affirms, those left behind—like Noah and his family—were spared, while the others were taken in judgment. Gill connects this directly to Luke 17:27–29, where “taken” also implies destruction, not rapture.

Gary also addresses another major issue for futurists: the order of events in Luke 17 compared to Matthew 24. Some commentators (e.g., J Marcellus Kik, Kenneth Gentry) argue that Matthew 24:35 marks a transition to a future coming. But this fails to explain why Luke 17 rearranges five key Olivet Discourse elements found in Matthew 24—suggesting both accounts refer to the same AD 70 fulfillment. As Ray Summers notes: “This is a most difficult passage… Some small parts of it, however, are repeated in Luke 21 in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70)… The entire complex cautions one against dogmatism in interpreting.”[6]

DeMar concludes that the “two comings” theory collapses when Matthew 24 and Luke 17 are compared. Both accounts cover identical prophetic events, just in different orders. As he illustrates, if the five major events of Matthew 24 are numbered 1–2–3–4–5, Luke presents them as 2–4–1–5–3—a clear sign of recapitulation, not a separate timeline:

Matthew 24:1–41

Luke 17:20–37

#1  Fleeing from housetops & fields #2  Son of Man comes as sunshine
#2  Son of Man comes as sunshine #4  Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah
#3  Vultures gathered at corpse #1  Fleeing from housetops & fields
#4  Days of Son of Man as Days of Noah—Gentry claims different judgment in Future #5  One taken / one left
#5  One taken / one left—Gentryclaims different judgment in Future #3  Vultures gathered at corpse

Was Luke so confused and forgetful, that when Christ taught on His second coming in Luke 17 and Luke 21, Luke only addressed ONE coming while Matthew pointed out that there are really TWO comings?  If Luke understood Christ teaching two comings in the Olivet Discourse, then why does he mix up the order of those events in Luke 17 to be one and the same event?

When we compare Jesus’ teaching on His second coming and the arrival of His kingdom in Luke 17:20–37 with Luke 21:27–32, we realize that both His kingdom and second coming would be fulfilled within Jesus’ contemporary “this generation” and His kingdom and Parousia presence would not be physically seen, because it would be revealed “within the hearts” of His people.  He would come as “The Sun of Righteousness…shining from the east to the west,” “healing” and bringing resurrection life “within the hearts” of His people, while the old covenant kingdom would be desolated and never remembered.

Christ comes as the Light of Day not “Lightning”

Having dealt with the fact that at Christ’s coming He would establish His kingdom “within” the heart of His followers, we need to unpack the OT source of Jesus coming like the “light of day” in both Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24 and that being Malachi 3-4:2.

For as the light of day, whose light shines from one end under heaven to the other end under heaven, so also shall the Son of man be in His day (Luke 17:24 A Faithful Version).

“For as the sunshine comes out from the east and is seen even in the west, thus will be the coming of the Son of man” (Matt. 24:27, Aramaic English New Testament).

Many futurists, partial preterists, and even some full preterists interpret this verse as describing lightning—sudden, powerful, and destructive. Some connect this to Christ’s coming through the Roman armies in AD 70, which has merit.[7]However, others, including myself, believe Jesus is describing His second coming (Greek parousia) as the rising sun, whose light spreads from east to west.

For this reason, I prefer the Aramaic English New Testament rendering of astrape as “sunshine” rather than “lightning.” Partial preterist Steve Gregg raises the same concern:

The word “lightning” is the Greek astrape. This word is in fact, the correct term for lightning, but this is not always its meaning.  When defined in the lexicons, astrape is said to mean either “lightning” or, more generally, “bright shining.”  It is in this latter sense that the word is used in Luke 11:36… Interestingly, the same translators who rendered astrape as “lightning,” in Matthew 24:27, quite reasonably chose to translate the same word as “bright shining,” in Luke 11:36… Would it not present a very different image if Jesus were to have said, “For as the bright shining comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be”?  Instead of a lightning bolt, this would clearly be comparing His coming to a glorious sunrise!

Greg continues:

If one should arise before the dawn and watch the eastern horizon, the sky will be observed to change from nearly black to a lighter blue… a ribbon of red-orange will gradually appear, and the whole sky will become progressively lighter… Within seconds, the sun will fully present itself, and the dawning of the day is complete … the Kingdom’s glory will increase more and more until the moment Jesus appears.[8]

This sunrise imagery better matches the nature of the parousia as the progressive, internal unveiling of Christ’s kingdom “within” His people (cf. Luke 17:20–21; Col. 1:27).

It also contrasts sharply with the “secret inner rooms” in the previous verse (Matt. 24:26), where false prophets claim hidden revelation. Christ, by contrast, is revealed like the sun—openly, unmistakably, from east to west.

The events of AD 67–70 confirmed this: Christ judged the old covenant world and revealed Himself as the true Messiah—His presence shining forth like the dawning of a new day.

This interpretation also harmonizes with biblical themes that describe both Christ’s first and second coming as manifestations of light, sunrise, or daybreak:

  • Malachi 4:2 – “But for you who fear my name, the Sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings.”
  • Luke 1:78–79 – “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; or you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace”
  • Romans 13:11–12 – “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.”
  • 2 Peter 1:19 – “…as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”
  • Revelation 2:28 – “…I will give Him the morning star.”
  • Revelation 22:16 – “I am the bright and morning star.”

Taken together, these passages suggest Christ’s parousia was not merely an act of judgment but also a revelation of light—the dawn of a new covenant day and the end of the old covenant night.

“Behold, I send my messenger [John the Baptist as Elijah], and he will prepare the way before me [Christ]. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple [in judgment – at His second coming]; and the messenger of the [New] covenant [Christ] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire…” (Mal. 3:1–2).

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the SUN of Righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall … Behold, I will send you Elijah [John the Baptist] the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction” (Mal. 4:1–2, 5–6).

Malachi 3–4 predicts two messengers:

  1. John the Baptist—the eschatological Elijah who prepares the way, and
  2. Christ— who comes suddenly to His temple in judgment, fulfilling and bringing to maturity the new covenant promises.

“The day” that is “coming” is the second coming, portrayed as both a fiery judgment for the wicked and a sunrise of healing for the righteous. This dual imagery captures the essence of the Day of the Lord: retribution for the unrepentant, restoration for the faithful.

Ellicott’s Commentary offers this helpful insight:

“The fathers and early commentators have understood Christ by the Sun of Righteousness… As the rising sun diffuses light and heat… the advent of the reign of righteousness, which will reward the good and the wicked, each according to his deserts…”[9]

John Gill similarly affirms a messianic reading of Malachi 4:2, citing ancient Jewish sources:

“They say… until the Messiah comes, as it is said, ‘unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise.’” Philo also connects the “Sun” to the divine Logos, who brings “refuge and salvation.” Though some interpreted it literally—as the sun burning and the wicked healing the righteous—Gill notes this symbolic dual outcome at the end of the age.[10]

John Lightfoot connects John the Baptist’s ministry and the “wrath about to come” (Matt. 3:7) to Malachi 4’s prophecy, seeing it in the AD 70 judgment:

“These words respect the very last words of the Old Testament… and denote the most miserable destruction of the nation, and now almost ready to fall upon them.”[11]

Adam Clarke offers one of the clearest preterist interpretations of Malachi 4:1–2, seeing Christ’s coming as spiritual and fulfilled in AD 70:

Verse 1 – The burning day is the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, leaving “neither root nor branch,” a phrase denoting total judgment.

Verse 2 – The “Sun of Righteousness” is Christ, whose gospel and Spirit bring healing and life to all who believe. Clarke emphasizes that Jesus’ influence is “universally diffused” like the sun. “Ye shall go forth…” refers to Christians who, recognizing the sign of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, obeyed Christ’s command to flee and escaped to Pella—preserving every Christian life.[12]

Ancient Jewish and Christian commentators alike have seen Malachi 4:2 as:

  1. A messianic prophecy referring to Christ;
  2. A reference to His second coming, not His first.
  3. A spiritual and covenantal coming in AD 70—bringing salvation to believers (spiritually through imputed righteousness and physically through the flight to Pella) and judgment to the wicked.

These three themes align with the central thesis of this article. Likewise, New Testament references to Christ as the Morning Star (Rev. 2:28; 22:16) support a spiritual fulfillment at His second coming. While many debate whether these refer to AD 70 or the second coming, full preterism resolves the tension—not as either/or, but as a fulfilled already/not-yet paradigm.

In Malachi 4:2, the “Sun of Righteousness” arises to inaugurate the new covenant world of righteousness, bringing salvation to the soul (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4–12; 4:5–7; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3:13). Paul echoes this in Romans 13:11–12, the “day” is at hand, bringing salvation to believers and marking the end of the “night” of the old covenant age—not physical transformation at the end of world history, but spiritual renewal in AD 70 (cf. Rom. 11:26–27).

In Luke 17:24 and Matthew 24:27, Jesus’ coming is likened to light shining from east to west. The Greek word astrapē can mean “lightning” or also “bright shining.”[13] This suggests Christ’s parousia is not a brief event but a sustained and illuminating presence. The related verb phainō (used for “shine”) can even describe vegetation emerging, reinforcing the image of a sunrise—not a lightning strike—as the symbol of His coming. 

Jesus would not appear in some dark inner chamber, like the false Messiahs of His day. His presence would be as open and unmistakable as the dawn itself:

“…from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none beside me.  I am the LORD…” (Isa. 45:6; 19–25; cf. Mal.1:1, 4:1–2, 5–6).

Perhaps Joshua 10:12–14 foreshadows eternal life in the new covenant age, when God caused the sun to stand still as a sign that He was fighting for Israel. In the new creation, every day is likewise a day without darkness or reproach (Isa. 60:19–20; Rev. 21:23–26). Then, the sun stood still in the heavens; now, the “Sun of Righteousness” never sets.

Christ’s enduring presence—His eternal Day within the Church—is proof that nothing can prevail against her. Just as the miracle in Joshua’s day testified to divine victory, so too does the radiance of Christ’s light in the lives of His people testify to His reign. Those still outside, walking in darkness, are often stirred to longing when they witness the warmth and joy of God’s presence in His people. Yet this same light also hardens the reprobate—just as the sun melts wax but hardens clay.

As plants receive life from the sun through photosynthesis, the Church draws eternal life from Christ alone. In union with Him, the Church becomes the leaves on the Tree of Life, and the Light of the new Jerusalem brings healing to the nations (Rev. 22:2). The gospel—God’s living water and light—goes forth as special revelation to awaken the thirsty soul. No physical luminary can declare the righteousness of God! Only Christ and His Church, as the true heavenly kingdom, can bring the light that saves.

Without the “Sun of Righteousness,” without the glory of God’s imputed righteousness shining into the heart and mind of man, all is lost. The world truly does revolve around the “Sun [Son] of Righteousness.”

Conclusion

Luke 17:20–37 is not a riddle to be unpacked by modern prophecy speculation—it is a divine proclamation of how Christ’s kingdom would arrive and be revealed. Jesus’ coming was not to be observed in the skies like a comet or hidden in secret rooms like a conspiracy—it would be a dawning presence, shining from east to west, exposing and ending the darkness of the old covenant world while bringing healing, righteousness, and resurrection life and light to those who feared His name.

This crucial passage offers one of the clearest teachings on the nature and timing of Christ’s kingdom and Parousia. Contrary to both futurist speculation and overly materialistic expectations—even among some partial preterists—Jesus declares that His kingdom would not be externally visible or politically manifest, but rather internal, spiritual, and already present within His faithful ones.

In this passage, Jesus unites several key prophetic themes:

  • the spiritual nature of the kingdom (v. 21),
  • the imminent character of His coming (v. 24; 18:7-8),
  • the judgment upon unbelieving Israel like that in Noah and Lot’s day (vv. 26–30),
  • the urgent command to flee when the signs appear (v. 31–33), and
  • the decisive separation between the righteous and the wicked (vv. 34–37).

Moreover, the striking parallels between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 expose the untenable division many modern interpreters attempt to impose on the Olivet Discourse. The very same language—about the days of Noah, the lightning-like Parousia, the one taken and the one left, and the vultures over the corpse—is found in both accounts. To argue that Luke 17 refers to AD 70 while Matthew 24 refers to a future second coming ignores these textual and thematic overlaps. Luke 17 is not only contextually prior to Matthew 24, but also foundational to it—demonstrating that Jesus’ eschatology remained consistent throughout His ministry.

This demands a consistent interpretation: If Luke 17—where all of these apocalyptic elements are present—refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70, then Matthew 24–25, which uses the exact same language, refers to the same event. Jesus did not teach two different comings of the Son of Man separated by thousands of years coming as the light of day; He taught one Parousia, one judgment, one consummation, one kingdom transition—fulfilled in the lifetime of His hearers.

Major Premise: If the coming of Christ in Luke 17:20–37 refers to the same coming of the Son of Man described in Matthew 24–25 [as most futurists correctly see it]

Minor Premise: and yet the coming of Christ in Luke 17:20-37 was fulfilled in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 [as many partial preterists see it]

Conclusion: —then the coming in Matthew 24–25 must also have been fulfilled in AD 70.

If “A=B” and yet “A” was fulfilled in AD 70, then so was “B.” Pretty basic stuff – A = Luke 17 and B = Mathew 24-25

The coming of the Son of Man is not future to us but was imminent to His first-century audience. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, when the corrupt religious system was judged and the kingdom was revealed to be fully “within” those united to Christ. Just as in the days of Noah and Lot, the judgment was swift and unexpected—bringing deliverance to the righteous and wrath to the wicked. The vultures gathering over Jerusalem’s corpse signal not a future end of the world, but the end of a covenantal world—the world of Torah, temple, and tribal exclusivity.

The internal kingdom Jesus proclaimed has been inaugurated and established. His light continues to shine, not from a rebuilt temple or geopolitical Israel, but from the hearts of those who live in the power of the new covenant. The Church, indwelt by the King and empowered by His Spirit, is the true Israel of God—vindicated in history and called to walk in the light of His already-fulfilled Parousia. The kingdom is here. The King has come. The light of day is shining, and it will never go out.

Today’s Application: 

We have explored Malachi 3–4 in connection with Christ’s coming in judgment and salvation in Luke 17:20–37, depicted as the “Sun of Righteousness” or “Light of Day.” In AD 70, Christ fulfilled these prophecies, dismantling the Zealots’ vision of a militaristic Messianic kingdom and establishing the spiritual, eternal kingdom prophesied by Daniel and Jesus—a kingdom that exists “within” believers.

In contrast, modern Khazarian “Zionist zealots” hold misguided beliefs about Benjamin Netanyahu, viewing him as a potential forerunner to the Messiah, or even the Messiah himself.  Their vision of the kingdom is rooted in warfare and territorial conquest. According to certain Orthodox Jewish circles:

“It would seem that these proposals as well as other ‘signs’ have led some in the Orthodox community to believe that Bibi Netanyahu is Masiach ben Yosef (Messiah, son of Joseph) the military leader that will precede the coming of the Messiah. [He will die in battle, but will make the way for the Messiah to come.] They claim that Netanyahu will be the last leader of Israel until the Messiah comes. Because Netanyahu has a military background and the fact that [they believe] he has taken on the spiritual mantle of Mordechai as is demonstrated in his speech to the U.S. Congress noted above, they are calling him Mashiach ben Yosef.  Their website enumerates the many ways Bibi fulfills the requirements of this forerunner.”[14]

These modern zealots seek to establish a “Jewish” Messianic kingdom through war, with propaganda—funded by figures like the Rothschilds [who own MSM]—portraying Israel as merely “defending itself.” However, those familiar with the Talmud and the extreme political views of Benjamin Netanyahu recognize its violent undertones and flawed attempts to usher in a kingdom through war. Both Daniel and Jesus prophesied the definitive end of Old Covenant national Israel in AD 70 and the establishment of the true, spiritual, and eternal kingdom within those who follow the real Messiah in the New Covenant age.

Evangelical Zionists are not much better in that they support the violence of Talmudic Zionism even when stealing land from and killing Christians because they think they have a mandate to “support God’s people” and modern Israel is “fulfilling prophecy.”  But in essence Talmudic and Evangelical Zionism have rejected the OT and NT teaching concerning the timing of Messiah to come upon the clouds in judgment and establishing the spiritual Messianic Kingdom “within” the hearts of His people.  They have aligned their views of an earthly kingdom with that of unbelieving apostate Jews of the first century.  How long will they wait and want war in hopes of bring about the coming of Messiah (first or second) when these prophecies have already been fulfilled when and how Daniel and Jesus prophesied?

Study Questions:

  1. What does Jesus mean when He says the kingdom of God does not come with observation but is “within you” (Luke 17:21)? Is Jesus exegeting both the time and nature of fulfillment of Daniel’s kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7? What are the connections between Dan. 2; 7:13-27 and Luke 17:20-37?  Is it when Christ would be revealed as the light of day that the kingdom would be “within”?
  2. How does the chiastic structure of Luke 17:20–37 help clarify its meaning?
  3. In what ways does Jesus contrast external, visible expectations of the kingdom with its true spiritual reality here in Luke 17 and Matthew 23?
  4. How do the “days of Noah” and “days of Lot” illustrate the nature and timing of Christ’s coming?
  5. What parallels can be drawn between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 that support a unified, single fulfillment in AD 70?
  6. Why is it significant that Jesus said His coming would be “as the light of day shining from one part of the sky to the other”?What OT passage depicts Messiah as coming as the sun and within that context is the destruction of the Second Temple mentioned?
  7. What is the significance of the imagery of vultures gathering around the corpse in both Luke 17 and Matthew 24?
  8. How does Jesus’ answer to “Where, Lord?” in Luke 17:37 point to the destruction of Jerusalem?
  9. Why do some translators avoid rendering entos as “within you,” and what are the implications of this choice?
  10. How does this passage challenge the common modern assumption that Jesus’ second coming is still in our future?
  11. When read alongside Luke 21:27–32, and in light of the chiastic structure of Luke 17:20–37, is it clear to you that the promise of Christ establishing His kingdom “within” the hearts of His people was to be fulfilled at His coming in AD 70? While many argue that this inward and spiritual aspect of the kingdom was realized in his first coming, does the context of Luke 17 support that conclusion—or does it instead point to the judgment and kingdom consummation associated with his coming in AD 70?
  12. In Luke 17:34–36, Jesus speaks of one person being “taken” and another “left.” According to the article, who is taken and who is left, and how does this differ from popular rapture interpretations?
  13. How does the article’s interpretation of Luke 17:20–37 challenge futurist views that expect a physical, visible return of Christ in the future?
  14. How does the Talmud and many Kazarian “Jews” like Banjamin Netanyahu think the messianic kingdom is going to come and are they trying to accomplish that now?Is this Zealotism 2.0?  How is Christ’s kingdom different?

[1] Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 577. Liddell-Scott specifically translates entos in Luke 17:21 as “in your hearts.”

[2] William Hendriksen, Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids, MI: 1978), 805.

[3] A.J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought (Dillsboro, NC: Western North Carolina Press, 1979), 89.

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism Aan Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 1999), 213

[5] Gary DeMar, “Is the Rapture Found in Matthew 24?”, Christian Family Study Centre, December 7, 2020, accessed Mar 31, 2025, https://christianfamilystudycentre.home.blog/2020/12/07/is-the-rapture-found-in-matthew-24/.

[6] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke: Jesus, the Universal Savior (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972), 202.

[7] Bray, Matthew 24 Fulfilled, 120–128.

[8] Steve Gregg, Empire of the Risen Son: A Treatise on the Kingdom of God—What It Is and Why It Matters, Book One: There Is Another King (Maitland, FL: Steve Gregg, 2020), 388–389.

[9] Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Malachi 4, StudyLight.org, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/malachi-4.html

[10] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, Malachi 4, BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/malachi/4.htm.

[11] Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark(Vol. 2, p. 78). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[12] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton & Porter, 1831; repr., Bible Hub, accessed April 18, 2025),https://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/.

[13] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2001), s.v. “astrapē.”

[14] Victoria Radin, Who is Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu?

The Coming of The Son of Man in AD 70 Part 2: Matt. 16:27-28 – He is About to Come in Glory, Power, and in His Kingdom

Introduction

In Part 1 of this series, we examined Matthew 10:17–23 and identified several key points. First, Jesus draws on Daniel 7, describing a period of intense persecution preceding the Son of Man’s coming to deliver the Kingdom to the saints and bring the “end.” Second, the only “coming” of the Son of Man that aligns with the New Testament’s context and chronology in this passage is Jesus’ coming in judgment through the Roman armies in AD 70. Finally, the parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25, when viewed through the analogy of faith, confirm that the persecution, Kingdom, coming of the Son of Man, and “end” refer to the same event. This raises a critical exegetical question: How many comings of Christ and eschatological “ends” do Jesus and Daniel address in Matthew 10:17–23, Daniel 7, 9:24–27, and 12:4–7?

In Part 2, we will analyze Matthew 16:27–28, highlighting the same challenges for partial preterists and futurists. The consistent teaching of Jesus, reinforced by parallels between Matthew 10:17–23, 16:27–28, and 24–25, makes it clear that He describes a single coming fulfilled within the lifetime of His first-century audience. For partial preterists like Keith Mathison, who interpret the Son of Man’s coming in Matthew 10:22–23 and 16:27–28 as fulfilled in AD 70, Matthew 24–25 poses a problem: it becomes difficult to argue that Jesus envisions two separate comings—one in AD 70 and another at the supposed end of world history.  This is why Mathison has gone back and forth in how to exegete Matthew 24-25.  Then there are other partial preterits like Ken Gentry who try to create two comings of Jesus beginning here in Matthew 16:27-28 so he can try and slide that distinction in Matthew 24-25.  We will critique Gentry’s approach and others who divide these verses (vss. 27-28) to uphold creedal expectations of a future coming, revealing the eisegesis underlying their interpretations.

Matthew 16:27–28 / Mark 8:38–9:1

“For the Son of Man will [or is “about to…” YLT] come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28).

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has [‘already’ Rotherham    Translation] come with power” (Mark 8:38–9:1).

Before exegeting these key texts, it is important to note that many conservative interpreters rightly observe them as referring to Christ coming in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. These passages provide a framework for understanding Christ’s coming as apocalyptic and imminent, in keeping with the consistent New Testament emphasis on fulfillment within the first century.

Adam Clarke correctly connects the coming of Christ in glory of Matthew 16:27 with Daniel 7:13-14 to AD 70,

“This was the glorious Mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of his Gospel through the whole world.”[1]

He also identifies the coming in the next verse to be referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem,

 “This verse seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of pentecost, and its final triumph after the destruction of the Jewish polity; as if he had said, “Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.” The destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish          economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this: and some of the persons now with him doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the   extension of the Messiah’s kingdom; and our Lord told them these things before, that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the faith, and expect an exact fulfillment of all the other promises and prophecies which concerned the extension and support of the kingdom of Christ.

To his kingdom, or in his kingdom…This makes the passage a little more conformable to the passage already quoted from Daniel; and it must appear, very clearly…of the destruction of the Jewish polity…”[2]

Reformed theologian and John Lightfoot agrees:

“In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech.”

Lightfoot then outlines several descriptions tied to this coming:

  1. “The great and terrible day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:2–3)
  2. “The end of the world” (Jer. 4:27; Matt. 24:29)
  3. “The last times” (Isa. 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:3)—referring to the final days of that covenant age
  4. The beginning of a “new world” (Isa. 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13)
  5. His “coming in the clouds” (Rev. 1:7), “in glory with the angels” (Matt. 24:30)
  6. His enthronement and judgment with the apostles judging Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30)

Lightfoot concludes:

“Our Savior had said, ‘Whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation…’ to warn that His coming in glory would occur during the lifetimes of some standing there.”[3]

Keith Mathison interprets Christ coming in His glory of Matthew 16:27-28 to be a foundational text in understanding how the coming of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 was fulfilled in AD 70,

“There is a distinct parallel between the language of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 and Matthew 16:27-28, which describes a coming of the Son of Man for judgment within the lifetime of some of His disciples.”[4]

Although Matthew 16:27-28 is another instance where Jesus promises to come in judgment within the lifetimes of some in the crowd standing before Him, drawing once again on Daniel 7:13-14 as He did in Matthew 10, many seek to separate verse 27 from verse 28. Some readily acknowledge that verse 27 refers to the second coming of Christ, but because they believe it cannot have been fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, they interpret the coming of Christ in verse 28 as the ascension or transfiguration event. However, numerous exegetical arguments demonstrate a strong connection between these two verses.

(1) “For the Son of Man is about to come…” (Matt. 16:27, YLT)

The Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), along with Darby, Wuest, and Weymouth, correctly renders Jesus’ words as “about to come,” emphasizing the imminence conveyed by the Greek verb mellō. This translation aligns with mellō’s usage throughout Matthew and the New Testament, consistently indicating something imminent—not distant or indefinite.

Here are several examples of mellō in Matthew’s Gospel:

  • Matthew 2:13 (WEY): Herod is “about to” seek Jesus’ life, prompting Joseph and Mary to flee. Mellō expresses an imminent threat, not a vague or far-off danger.
  • Matthew 3:7 (GNT): John warns the Pharisees of the “wrath about to come.”  The urgency is supported by the context—John’s message of a kingdom “at hand” (v. 2), with judgment imagery: the ax already “at the root of the trees” (v. 10), and the winnowing fork “in His hand” (v. 12). This wrath and kingdom were not distant; they were looming over that generation. Jesus later ties this judgment and harvest to the end of the Old Covenant age (cf. Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3, 31–34).
  • Mathew 17:10–13: Mello appears twice. First, Elijah is “about to” come—a sign of immediate expectation. Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment, confirming Elijah had already come. Yet many premillennialists still expect a future Elijah, despite Jesus’ clear teaching. Second, mellō refers to Jesus’ own suffering, which was also imminent, not far off.
  • Matthew 24:6 (WEY): The disciples would “before long” begin hearing of wars and rumors of wars. While these were early signs, Jesus clarifies “the end” was not yet. The decisive signs of the end—worldwide gospel proclamation (Matt. 24:14) and armies surrounding Jerusalem (Luke 21:20)—would signal that His coming was truly near. that Christ’s second coming was indeed near.

In summary, the “about to” coming in Matthew 16:27 coheres with the promise in verse 28—that some standing there would live to see the kingdom come in power. After generations of longing for the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom was, at last, about to arrive.

(2) “Verily I say unto you…” (Matt. 16:28)

The phrase “Verily,” or “Truly I say to you,” appears nearly 100 times in the Gospels. It always functions to emphasize or affirm what was just stated—not to introduce a new, unrelated subject. The meaning is strong: “truly,” “indeed,” or “may it be fulfilled.”

Despite this, Thomas Ice, a dispensational premillennialist, claims:

“…verse twenty-seven looks at the establishment of the kingdom in the future, while a          promise of seeing the Messiah in His glory is the thought of verse twenty-eight. They are two     separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’”[5]

However, Ice does not provide a single instance where “Truly I say unto you” is used to introduce a new subject. Without any supporting evidence, his point is, at the very least, unscholarly and, at worst, irresponsible.

At an Evangelical Theological Society session, I once heard a premillennial speaker make the same claim. During the Q&A, I asked, “Can you provide just one example in Jesus’ teachings where the phrase ‘Truly I say to you’ begins a new subject?” After a long silence, he admitted, “No.” I replied, “Then it’s unwise to repeat arguments from other scholars who haven’t done their research. I’ve examined every use of the phrase, and in every case, it reinforces the previous point—which is exactly how it functions in Matthew 16:27–28.”

Christ had just declared He was “about to come” to reward each person (v. 27), and He doubled down on that point in v. 28: some of His listeners would live to see it. Far from shifting topics, His “truly” emphasizes the nearness and certainty of what He just said.

(3) “Some standing here shall not taste of death” and “the kingdom of God” (Matt. 16:28)

Jesus’ statement that “some standing here shall not taste of death” refers to a specific prophetic sequence: persecution in the apostolic generation followed by the arrival of the kingdom in judgment. This is not a vague prediction that a few disciples would live into old age; it is anchored in Jesus’ consistent teaching that links persecution with His return (cf. Matt. 10:16–23; Luke 21:16–32; Matt. 23:31–36; John 21:19–22; Rev. 6:10–11; 16:6, 15; 18:5, 20). The only unrelated death mentioned in the Gospels is that of Judas.

Jesus’ teaching echoes the book of Daniel:

  • The kingdom would be established during the Roman Empire (cf. Dan. 2 & 7).
  • Persecution of the saints would precede the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, followed by their receiving of the kingdom (Dan. 7:13–22).

Premillennialist Thomas Ice offers a weak rebuttal to the preterist interpretation. He writes:

 “A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said ‘some of those standing here…’ It is clear that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals… Peter notes that ‘John only survived among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem.’”[6]

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, it wrongly assumes Jesus was speaking only to the Twelve. However, Mark’s parallel makes it explicit: “Then He called the crowd to Him along with His disciples and said…” (Mark 8:34–9:1). Jesus was addressing a broader group, not just the apostles.

Second, Ice’s assumption that only John survived until AD 70 is speculative and irrelevant. “Some” could easily apply to members of the broader crowd Jesus addressed—even if only a few survived the predicted judgment.

Taken together with his earlier claim that “Verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic (which it never does), this reflects a pattern of misinterpretation. Such oversights are surprising from someone regarded as a prophecy expert and public debater.

(4) “…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…” (Mark 8:38).

Jesus is not accusing His audience of physical adultery, but of spiritual and covenantal unfaithfulness. By calling them an “adulterous generation,” He is identifying Israel as the unfaithful bride who rejected her Messiah—the Groom standing before them. Though Mark 8:38 doesn’t explicitly mention Jerusalem’s divorce and remarriage, it alludes to them through the language of shame and covenant judgment. The coming of the Son of Man “with His reward” evokes wedding imagery from Isaiah 62:4–5, 11, linking judgment with the eschatological marriage feast.

Under the old covenant, God was “married” to Israel (cf. Exod. 19–24). This relationship was depicted as monogamous, and later—after the kingdom split—as polygamous. In this analogy, God took two “sisters” as wives:

  • Israel (Aholah/Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom)
  • Judah (Aholibah/Jerusalem, capital of the southern kingdom) (cf. Jer. 31:31–32; Ezek. 1:1–4; 1 Kings 11:9–13).

Both “wives” committed spiritual adultery. Israel was divorced and judged through the Assyrian captivity. Judah, though judged by Babylon, remained under covenant—because from her line would come the Messiah.

The prophet Hosea dramatizes Israel’s divorce and burial among the Gentiles, while anticipating Judah’s future judgment and a restored marriage in the “wilderness” (Hos. 2). This renewed covenant, fulfilled in Christ, would be a remarriage—a new bride formed from both Jews and Gentiles.

Under old covenant law, an adulterous wife was to be stoned, and a priest’s wife burned. Revelation 19 portrays Jerusalem—the unfaithful harlot—as judged accordingly. She is stripped and left “ashamed” (cf. Rev. 17:16). In contrast, the church—Christ’s new bride—is clothed in righteousness, the “New Jerusalem” from above (cf. Matt. 22:1–14; Rev. 3:18; 19:8; 21:2; 2 Cor. 5:1–21).

Thus, when Jesus says He will be “ashamed” of that generation at His coming, He is invoking a prophetic tradition of marital judgment and covenant transition. The unfaithful wife would be exposed; the faithful bride would be glorified.

These marriage and judgment motifs will reappear later in this chapter—in Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–12) and in Revelation 17–21, where the full picture of Jerusalem’s divorce and the Church’s betrothal is fully revealed.

(5) “…There are certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power” (Mark 9:1, Rotherham Translation).

Mark’s version of this prophecy adds a key detail: some standing in the crowd would live to see Christ’s kingdom already come in power. Unlike Matthew, who uses the future tense (“will see”), Mark uses the perfect participle, indicating a completed action—they would witness that it had already arrived. Kenneth Gentry, citing J.A. Alexander, clarifies this point:

“Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here employed.”[12] Thus, His disciples were to expect its exhibition in power. It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power. Yet it was to be within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This seems clearly to refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and removal of the Old Testament means of worship (cf. Heb. 12:25–28; Rev.1:1, 3, 9). This occurred as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21–23; Mt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–34:34).[7]

In other words, Jesus wasn’t merely predicting a future event—He was assuring His disciples that some of them would look backand recognize that the kingdom had already arrived in power. This was fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant system—events Jesus had explicitly predicted (cf. John 4:21–23; Matt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–24:34).

Jesus also says they would “see” His coming. The Greek word eidō implies more than physical sight—it includes spiritual perception or understanding. Some in His audience would both witness the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and grasp that this was the fulfillment of His promise: the kingdom had come “with power” and was now present “within” (Luke 17:21).

This reading aligns Mark 8:38–9:1 with Luke 17:20–37 and affirms that Jesus’ coming was not a visible removal of believers from the earth, but a covenantal transition. It rebuts futurist “rapture” interpretations and supports the view that survivors remained to spread the good news in the renewed new covenant creation—just as Isaiah foresaw (cf. Isa. 65–66).

(6) Matthew 16:27–28 and the Olivet Discourse—The Analogy of Faith (Jesus Interprets Jesus)

Earlier we saw that Matthew 10:17–23 previews themes expanded in the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, Matthew 16:27–28 condenses Jesus’ teaching on His coming in glory, judgment, and power—later unpacked in greater detail in Matthew 24–25.

Matthew 16:27–28 & Parallels

Olivet Discourse

(1)  Christ comes in glory

(Luke 9:26)

(1)  Christ comes in glory

(Matt. 24:30)

(2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

(2)  Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 16:27)

(3)  Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(5)  Some disciples would live

(Matt. 16:28)

(5)  Some disciples would live

(Luke 21:16–18)

(6)  Some disciples would die

(Matt. 16:28)

(6)  Some disciples would die

(Luke 21:16)

(7)  Christ would be ashamed of some in His “this adulterous generation”(Mark 8:38) (7)  All would occur in His “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

Premillennial Zionists like Thomas Ice argue that verse 28 refers to the transfiguration, not the second coming. To support this, Ice claims that “verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic.[8] But this phrase never introduces new material—it always links and emphasizes what came before.

The Greek conjunction kai (“and”) does mark narrative progression: “And after six days Jesus…” (Matt. 17:1). Yet the transfiguration is not the fulfillment—it is a preview of Christ’s glory and His new covenant authority.

At the transfiguration, Peter wants to preserve the visible glory of Moses and Elijah. But God removes them, leaving only Christ’s glory and the command to “hear Him” (Matt. 17:5–8). This symbolizes the passing away of the old covenant and the supremacy of the new (cf. Matt. 24:35).

Peter later clarifies this in 2 Peter 1:16–19, where he defends the second coming against critics. He appeals not to speculation but to the vision on the mount as confirmation from God. Though Peter doesn’t use metamorphoō (“transfigured”), he invokes the same imagery: “until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts”—a reference to the “last day” of John’s Gospel and the “in that day” of Luke 17 and Matthew 24–25.

The verb metamorphoō appears only two other times: in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18. In both, it signifies a spiritual, covenantal transformation, not a biological one. In Romans, this transformation culminates in the fullness of Jew and Gentile salvation (Rom. 11:25–36), and is tied to the imminent arrival of final redemption (Rom. 13:11–12). In 2 Corinthians, believers are “being transformed” as the veil of the old covenant lifts, reflecting Christ’s glory with unveiled faces.

The fading glory of Moses—and of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration—illustrates the end of the old covenant. The new covenant brings unfading, eternal light, allowing the church to behold Christ’s glory forever (2 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:4).

The Transfiguration as a Preview of the Parousia  

Sam Waldron interprets Matthew 16:27 as the second coming event but Christ coming in His kingdom of verse 28 as having,

“…language of Christ coming in His kingdom would appear, then, to be a reference to his transfiguration on the mount which was a kind of precursor of His second coming in glory.”[9]

If the transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the Futurists concept of the second coming or parousia, we should ask: where in that vision do we see the planet earth burning, Christ descending on a literal cloud, or corpses flying out of tombs to reunite with their spirits?

None of these popular images appear. Instead, the transfiguration reveals the theological essence of the parousia: the passing glory of the old covenant, represented by Moses (law) and Elijah (prophets) giving way to the abiding glory of the new covenant, fully established by AD 70.

Waldron also tries to make a distinction or “contrast” between Christ “coming in glory” (v. 27) verses Him “coming in His kingdom” in (v. 28) as being two separate comings separated by thousands of years.  But once again Mr. Waldron does not go back to Jesus’ OT source of Daniel 7:13-14 which connects Him coming upon the clouds in glory with His kingdom.  Nor is there any discussion of how Christ both comes in His glory and the kingdom within His generation in the Olivet discourse (cf. Luke 21:27-32).  Therefore, Paul under inspiration connected Christ’s coming and His kingdom as “about to” arrive together anticipating the events of AD 70,

“I fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and dead at His appearing and His kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1 LSV/SLT/YLT/BLT).

The first two major teachings on the coming of the Son of Man—Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 16:27–28 (paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1)—serve as condensed previews of the fuller exposition Jesus gives in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28

& Parallels

Olivet Discourse

(1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22) (4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man(Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)
(6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26) (6) Christ comes in glory

(Matt. 24:30)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 16:27)

(7) Christ comes with angels

(Matt. 24:31)

(8) Christ comes in judgment 

(Matt. 16:27)

(8) Christ comes in judgment

(Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)

(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38) (9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming 

(Matt. 16:28)

(10) Some in the crowd would live towitness the second coming

(Luke 21:16–18)

(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming

(Matt. 16:28)

(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming

(Luke 21:16)

(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation

(Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38)

(12) All fulfilled in His “this generation”

(Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

Before closing, as we did in Matthew 10, I will demonstrate that Jesus once again has Daniel’s prophetic material at the forefront of his mind:

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels

1).  The Son of Man / Messiah comes during the time of the 4th or Roman Empire on the clouds “as” or “like” “the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX)

 

1).  Jesus was living in the time of the Roman Empire and was “about to come” “in his glory and the glory of His Father” within the lifetime of those standing in the crowd (Luke 9:26-27)
2).  This is when Christ rules in His kingdom & the saints inherit His kingdom            (Dan. 7:14, 27) 2).  Christ and His kingdom come in power and glory at this time (Matt. 16:27-28)
3).  This would be when the Ancient of Days would “open the books” in the Great White Throne judgment (Dan. 7:10)

*  This is not the ascension, but the Second Coming at the end of the millennium when the “book(s) are opened” and the dead are raised and judged – 7:10-13; 9:24-27; 12:1-2

3).  This would be when Jesus would judge or “repay each person according to what they had done” (Matt. 16:27)

*  Jesus is invoking the context and fulfillment of Dan. 7; 9; and 12 when Messiah was understood to come to judge and raise the dead – cf. 11QMelch.

Partial Preterism and Matthew 16:27-28

While many partial preterists agree with us that Matthew 16:27–28 form a unified declaration by Christ foretelling His AD 70 coming to judge, reward, and establish His kingdom, others—such as Kenneth Gentry—disagree. In an article on this passage, Gentry seeks to redefine what constitutes “orthodox preterism” on this critical text. He claims that anyone who sees verses 27 and 28 as referring to the same AD 70 event is veering into “liberalism” or advocating “hyper-preterism.”

Gentry’s position is that verse 27 refers to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of world history, when all men are rewarded, whereas verse 28 pertains to Christ’s coming to manifest His kingdom in the fall of Jerusalem.

However, this sharply contradicts the views of other prominent partial preterists such as Gary DeMar, who swiftly responded to Gentry, pointing out that many respected commentators throughout church history have interpreted Matthew 16:27 as a reference to Christ’s coming in judgment in AD 70. These include Adam Clarke, Henry Hammond, and—ironically—Gentry’s own favored “orthodox preterist,” John Lightfoot. Ouch.[10]

We must also mention Gentry’s contemporary, Keith Mathison, who likewise interprets both Matthew 16:27–28 as referring to Christ’s judgment upon Jerusalem. Mathison even uses this passage as a foundational support for his view that Christ came in flaming fire to bring relief to the persecuted Thessalonian Church and wrath upon their persecutors in AD 70 (2 Thess. 1:7–9). This is particularly noteworthy since many “orthodox preterists” consider that fiery coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 to be the Second Coming event that ends the millennium (cf. Rev. 20:5–15). Will Gentry now accuse Mathison—his own co-author and editor of When Shall These Things Be?—of advancing a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” interpretation of Matthew 16:27–28 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9? Gentry’s appeal to “orthodox preterism” quickly collapses under the weight of his own theological allies, including Lightfoot and Mathison.

Gentry offers two primary arguments for why Matthew 16:27–28 must refer to two entirely separate comings of Christ, separated by thousands of years.

First Argument: Alleged Universal End of Time Judgment in Matthew 16:27

Gentry argues that verse 27 refers to a final judgment of all mankind because Jesus says He will “repay every man”:

“In v. 27 we see the universal nature of His coming: He ‘will then repay every man.’ Thus, all men will be involved in His judgment.”

This is deeply ironic, considering Gentry admits elsewhere that Revelation 22:10–12—where Christ says He is coming soon to repay each person according to what he has done—was fulfilled in AD 70[11]:

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

Let us respond directly to Gentry’s first point:

  • Matthew 16:27 (YLT) clearly states that the Son of Man was “about to come” (Gr. mellō) to judge and reward all men. Revelation 22:12 uses nearly identical language, affirming Christ’s soon coming to bring recompense to each person. The time-frame and substance match perfectly.
  • Both passages draw directly from Daniel 7:10–13, where the Son of Man comes in judgment during the Roman Empire, the books are opened, and all are judged. This judgment scene not only matches Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:12 but also forms the same judgment after the millennium in Revelation 20:12–13.
  • Revelation 22:10 declares that the “appointed time” for the vision isnear and should not be sealed, in contrast to Daniel 12:4, 9, where the vision is not near and thus sealed. Daniel 12:2–7 describes “the appointed time” for the resurrection and judgment occurring at the time of the tribulation, during the final three-and-a-half years when Jerusalem would be “completely shattered” (Dan. 12:7)—i.e., AD 67–70. Thus, Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:10–12 are speaking of the same near and imminent judgment, rooted in Daniel’s vision of the coming of the Son of Man to open the books and judge all men (Dan. 7:10–13; Rev. 20:12–13 = Rev. 22:10–12).

Second Argument: Supposed Difference Between Christ’s “Coming in Glory” and “Coming in the Kingdom”

Gentry claims that the “coming in glory” in verse 27 is distinct from the “coming in His kingdom” in verse 28. But this argument collapses upon closer biblical inspection.

As demonstrated elsewhere, Jesus consistently links His coming in glorypowerjudgment, and the arrival of His kingdom in texts such as Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32. There is no disjunction between His “coming” and the arrival of the “kingdom”—they are concurrent events.

Paul also affirms this in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT), where Christ’s about to be (mellō) coming or appearance brings both the kingdom and the judgment of the living and the dead—a clear reference to the same AD 70 event.

In short, Gentry has no legitimate exegetical basis for separating Matthew 16:27–28. His own admission that Revelation 22:10-12 was fulfilled in AD 70 refutes his insistence that Matthew 16:27 must be a future, world-ending event. And his attempt to redefine “orthodox preterism” not only contradicts biblical context but alienates his theological heroes and peers.

Major Premise:

The coming of the Son of Man in judgment, glory, and power to recompense described in Matthew 16:27 / Mark 8:38-9:1 is the same event as the coming of the kingdom in power described in Matthew 16:28, and both are tied to the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem—as affirmed by intertextual parallels with Daniel 7:10–13; 12:2–7Revelation 22:10–12Revelation 20:12–132 Thessalonians 1:7–9, and Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 24:30–31Mark 13:26–30Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32.

Minor Premise:

All these texts (Matthew 16:27–28; Revelation 22:12; Daniel 7:10–13; Revelation 20:12–13; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; etc.) describe one unified judgment-coming of Christ:

  • That was“about to” (Gr. mellō) or “soon” (Rev. 22:10–12),
  • That brings judgment and reward,
  • That occurs within the lifetimes of Jesus’ first-century audience (Matt. 16:28),
  • And that is consistently connected to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age (Dan. 12:2-7; Luke 21:27–32; Matt. 24:3–34).

Conclusion:

Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 refers to the same first-century, AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment and kingdom / glory / power and cannot be divided into two separate comings thousands of years apart. Kenneth Gentry’s attempt to divide the verses is exegetically, contextually, and theologically untenable.

Conclusion

Matthew 16:27–28, paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1, stands as a pivotal teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man in His glory and kingdom, fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ declaration that “some standing here shall not taste death” until they see the kingdom come in power (Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1) underscores the first-century timeframe, reinforced by the Greek mellō (“about to”) and the consistent use of “this generation” across His teachings. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–14, Jesus connects His coming with judgment, reward, and the establishment of His mediatorial kingdom, themes echoed in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25). The transfiguration, often misread as the fulfillment, serves instead as a preview of this eschatological event, symbolizing the transition from the fading glory of the Old Covenant to the eternal light of the New Covenant.

Exegetical arguments—such as the continuity affirmed by “verily I say unto you,” the covenantal imagery of an “adulterous generation,” and the spiritual perception implied by “see”—refute futurist attempts to separate verses 27 and 28 or project the coming to a distant future. Dispensationalist claims, like those of Thomas Ice, lack textual support and misinterpret key phrases, while the preterist view aligns with historical evidence (Jerusalem’s fall) and New Testament imminence (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:1). By framing His coming as a covenantal judgment and marital transition, Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies (Isa. 62; Hos. 2) and establishes the Church as His new bride. Matthew 16:27–28 thus lays a foundation for the Olivet Discourse, affirming that Christ’s Parousia in AD 70 was a transformative event, bringing judgment on the unfaithful and glory to the faithful, with the kingdom now present in the hearts of believers (Luke 17:21) and proclaimed in the new covenant age.

Major Premise:
Daniel 7:13–14 foretells the Son of Man coming with the clouds during the Roman Empire to receive dominion, glory, and a kingdom, accompanied by judgment, the opening of the books, and the vindication of the saints—events tied to “the end” (Dan. 7:10–27; 12:1–2).

Minor Premise:
In Matthew 16:27–28, Jesus draws directly from Daniel’s prophecy, declaring He was about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels to reward each person. He also promises that some standing there would live to see His kingdom come with power—mirroring His earlier teaching in Matthew 10:23 and later exposition in Matthew 24:27–34, where the same coming, judgment, and kingdom arrival occur within “this generation.”

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 describes the same coming of the Son of Man as in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:27–34—a unified eschatological event fulfilled in AD 70, when Christ came in judgment upon apostate Israel, ended the Old Covenant age, and established His kingdom in power, all in perfect fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies.

Study Questions for Matthew 16:27-28:

  1. How does the phrase “about to come” (Greekmellō) in Matthew 16:27 influence your understanding of the timing of Christ’s return in this passage?
  2. Why is it significant that Jesus links the promise of His coming in glory (v. 27) directly with a promise that some of His audience would live to see it (v. 28)? How does this challenge futurist interpretations?
  3. What role does Daniel 7:9-13, 12:2-4 play in shaping Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:27–28, and how does this Old Testament background reinforce a preterist view?
  4. What exegetical evidence undermines the claim (by Thomas Ice and others) that Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 refer to two separate events?
  5. Why is the phrase “Truly I say unto you” (amēn legō humin) important in arguing for the unity of verses 27 and 28? How is it used elsewhere in the Gospels?
  6. In what ways does the transfiguration serve as a preview, rather than a fulfillment, of the Parousia? What theological themes are symbolized in the fading of Moses and Elijah and the sole exaltation of Christ?
  7. How does Mark 9:1’s use of the perfect participle (“already come with power”) contribute to the case for a first-century fulfillment of the kingdom’s arrival?
  8. What is the covenantal significance of Jesus calling His generation “adulterous,” and how does this shape our understanding of His coming in judgment?
  9. How do Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT) (about Christ being “about to judge” at His appearing and His kingdom) harmonize with Matthew 16:27–28 and support an AD 70 fulfillment?
  10. Why do some partial preterists (like Kenneth Gentry) divide these verses into two different comings, and how does that compare to the unified approach held by figures like Adam Clarke, John Lightfoot, and Keith Mathison? Whose reading do you find more compelling—and why?
  11. Does Gentry’s argument for dividing Matthew 16:27–28 hold up, given that he also takes Revelation 22:10–12 and Daniel 12:2 as fulfilled in AD 70? Is he not creating an artificial distinction between two comings of Jesus in order to later justify the same division in Matthew 24–25?Does Gentry desperately need a future to us coming of Jesus to remain creedal and do you think this is the main reason for his eisegesis of Matthew 16:27-28?

[1] Adam Clarke, StudyLight.org Matthew 16:27

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 422.

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 1999), 228

[5] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.

[6] Ibid., 88.

[7] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion, 219–220.

[8] Ice, End Times Controversy, 88.

[9] Waldron, Ibid. 382

[10] Gary DeMar, How Commentators Interpret Matthew16:27 https://americanvision.org/posts/how-commentators-interpret-matthew-16-27/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWUWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfy7eL-ioS_c-VtPJ-hBZEKCECb9t8OV_k4wVY2S-s3cbqKrbttycQM9kg_aem_D9hGO8_vbMh0Uv-mxr7JUw

[11] Kenneth Gentry and contributors, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 41

The Coming of The Son of Man in AD 70 Part 1: Matthew 10:17-23 – What “Coming” of the Son of Man & “End” Is This?

Introduction

After examining articles that show how God uses Isaiah and Daniel to build on Moses’ eschatology in Deuteronomy 32, we see their shared focus on a perverse and crooked generation during the Roman Empire, marking the “near” “appointed time of the end.” This generation would witness the Messiah’s coming on the clouds, bringing salvation to His people while executing imminent judgment to end old covenant Israel in AD 70. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus prophesies this return in judgment within the lifetime of His first-century audience, a teaching foundational to passages like Matthew 24–25. Yet, dispensationalists propose two future comings—a secret rapture followed by a visible return seven years later—while partial preterists affirm a spiritual coming in AD 70 but expect a final return to conclude history. Does Jesus’ teaching support two distinct eschatological comings, or one fulfilled in the first century? Furthermore, did He describe this coming as physical and visible or as spiritual and internal? To answer these questions, we will exegete key passages, including Matthew 10:17–23, 13:39–43, 16:27–28, 26:64–65, and Luke 17, before exploring Matthew 24–25, to clarify how Jesus points to AD 70 as the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy (Luke 21:22–32).

Matthew 10:17–23

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.  But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues.  You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.  But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.  “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.  And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:17–23, NKJV).

Jesus told His first-century disciples—not a future generation—that they would not run out of cities in Israel to flee to before He returned. These cities served as places of refuge during persecution, and the coming He refers to is His return in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70.

Premillennialist D.A. Carson explains and concedes,

“vv. 17–22, pictures the suffering witness of the church in the post-Pentecost period during a time when many of Jesus’ disciples are still bound up with the synagogue.  vv. 2 The “coming of the Son of Man” here refers to his coming in judgment against the Jews, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (so France, Jesus, p. 140; Feuillet, “Les origines,” pp. 182–98; Moule, Birth, p. 90; J.A.T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming [London: SCM, 1957], pp. 80, 91–92; and others).[1]

Amillennialist Sam Waldron also concedes,

“My conclusion is that the “coming” of Matthew 10:23 is a reference to His sending of judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 through the Roman armies.”[2]

Yet many interpreters avoid this conclusion, instead suggesting Jesus’ “coming” here was fulfilled at the cross, resurrection, or Pentecost. This view fails for two reasons:

First, Jesus listed specific events that would precede His coming:

  1. Some would be scourged in synagogues.
  2. Some would be brought before governors and kings.
  3. The Holy Spirit would be given as a miraculous defense.
  4. Some would be put to death during a period of severe persecution.

None of these events occurred before the crucifixion, the resurrection, or Pentecost; however, all are documented in the book of Acts and took place before Christ came in the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

Second, Matthew 10:17–23 previews what Jesus would expand upon in Matthew 24–25: persecution, divine aid, the gospel going to the nations, and the parousia or “coming”—all within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

The AD 70 Parallels and Domino Effect of Matthew 10:17-23

Jesus’ words in Matthew 10 foreshadow the broader pattern of events He later elaborates in the Olivet Discourse, forming a unified eschatological framework: one coming, one judgment, fulfilled within the lifetime of His disciples. The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and the Olivet Discourse are striking:

Matthew 10:17–23 Olivet Discourse
(1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Matt. 10:17) (1) Delivered up to local councilsand synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2)  Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Matt. 10:18) (2) Brought before governors and kings as witnesses to the Gentiles (Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20) (3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures to “the end” will be “saved” (Matt. 10:22) (4) Family betrayal and persecution; he who endures  to “the end” will be “saved” (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the “end” and the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23) (5) Disciples and Paul were to preach the gospel to the then-known world before “the end” (of the old covenant age) and the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)

Many commentators, noting the strong parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25, overlook the audience relevance and temporal context, teaching that Matthew 10:17-23 refers to a future to us second coming of Jesus. They assume both Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24-25 describe events still to come. However, we align with the commonsense position of Premillennial D.A. Carson, Amillennial Sam Waldron, and Postmillennial Partial Preterists whom interpret Matthew 10:23 as Christ’s judgment coming in AD 70. We also agree with certain futurists who point out the obvious in that the parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25 indicate they refer to the same coming of Christ.  These two orthodox views have formed Full Preterism.  This is not an “either or” but a “both and” solution.

The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25 create exegetical challenges for Premillennialists like D.A. Carson and Amillennialists like Sam Waldron, who argue that these passages do not refer to the same coming of the Son of Man. If Jesus promised to return to judge Jerusalem, as they both affirm Jesus teaches here in Matthew 10:23, would He not have referenced this “coming” elsewhere in His teachings such as Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24-25, and Matthew 26:64-65? Furthermore, if New Testament authors, under divine inspiration, describe Christ’s coming as “at hand,” “soon,” or “about to” occur, why would these references not also point to the AD 70 judgment, consistent with Matthew 10:23? Many partial preterists such as Gary DeMar recognize the implications of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 10:23, connecting it to Matthew 16:27–28 and other New Testament passages that emphasize a “soon” coming, all pointing to AD 70. In contrast, Carson and Waldron treat the “coming” of Christ in Matthew 10:23 as an isolated event, disconnected from Jesus’ other teachings on His imminent return in the Gospels and the broader New Testament.

In the immediate context of Matthew 10, Jesus proclaims, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7). As we will see, Christ connects His coming with the arrival of the kingdom in subsequent passages. Futurists err by limiting the “at hand” kingdom solely to Christ’s first coming, especially since Jesus draws from Daniel 7:13–27, which ties the coming of the Son of Man to receiving the kingdom. Daniel 2 further clarifies that this kingdom is spiritual, distinct from human kingdoms.

Let’s examine the parallels between Jesus’ teaching here in Matthew 10 with his OT source material in Daniel:

Daniel 7; 9; & 12

Matthew 10

1). There is severe persecution before the Son of Man comes on the clouds and the saints inherit His Kingdom (Dan. 7:13-27) 1). There is severe persecution before the Son of Man “comes” and the saints inherit His Kingdom (Matt. 10:17-23)

 

2). The Son of Man comes & the saints inherit the “kingdom” during the time of the Roman Empire (Dan. 7:1-27) 2). The Son of Man comes in the lifetime of the disciples & the “kingdom” was “at hand” during the Roman Empire (Matt. 10:7-23)
3). The coming of the Son of Man at “the appointed end” is when Messiah would judge Israel and the nations or when the “book(s) were opened” (Dan. 7:10-13; 12:1-4LXX) 3).  The disciples would live to witness the “end” and “coming” of the Son of Man at the “day of judgmentwhen He would judge Israel with the nations                (Matt. 10:15-23)

 

Scholars like Carson and Waldron often overlook that Jesus’ Old Testament source in Matthew 10:17–23 is Daniel 7:13–27, which develops the same eschatological themes:

  • The coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13 = Matt. 10:23).
  • Persecution precedes inheriting the kingdom, the time of the end and the coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13–27 = Matt. 10:7, 17–23).
  • Contextually, this is described as “the day of judgment,” even for the dead of Sodom and Gomorrah, when Christ would sit on His throne, judge the nations, and strip them of their dominion (Dan. 7:9–27 = Matt. 10:15).

While we commend D.A. Carson, Sam Waldron, and postmillennial partial preterists like Kenneth Gentry for interpreting Christ’s “coming” in Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70, they inconsistently apply this exegesis by failing to connect it to Daniel 7 and Matthew 24–25, where the same second coming event is described. Some partial preterists assert that the “coming” in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:30 refers to AD 70 but argue that Matthew 25:31 describes a future event. Yet, in Matthew 10:23, 24:30, and 25:31, Jesus fulfills the “coming” prophesied in Daniel 7:13. Where does Daniel 7:13 indicate two distinct comings of Jesus separated by thousands of years? Moreover, the “coming” in Matthew 25:31 recapitulates the same event discussed in Matthew 24:3, 27, and 30, all rooted in Daniel’s prophecy.

When the disciples inquire about His “coming” in Matthew 24:3, and Jesus responds in Matthew 24:30 and 25:31, why would they assume this refers to a different coming than the one He promised within their lifetimes in Matthew 10:23, also fulfilling Daniel 7:13? Why would Jesus or the disciples have the end of world history in mind when He taught that they would experience the “end” at His coming within their generation? Furthermore, isn’t the “end” and “three and a half years” tied to the Son of Man’s coming in Daniel 7:13, 25–26 the same “end” and “three and a half years” in Daniel 9:26–27 and 12:4, 7, linked to “the war” that results in Jerusalem’s “desolation” and “shattering” between AD 67 and AD 70? Carson and Waldron’s hermeneutics fall short, as they fail to harmonize their AD 70 interpretation of Matthew 10:17–23 with Matthew 24–25 and neglect to develop the Old Testament source texts in Daniel 7, 9:24–27, and 12:4–7, as required by the analogy of faith.

Before leaving our text, it is important to point out that Jesus is not saying that His disciples would fail to reach all towns in Israel before His return. Rather, while they carried out their mission from roughly AD 26–66, He assured them there would always be another city of refuge. Some scholars, like B.M. Metzger, interpret the Greek to mean just that:

“…the Committee preferred to regard the words as a natural continuation, inserted in order to explain the following statement, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἕως [ἂν] ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (which was taken to mean, “You will not exhaust the cities of Israel [as cities   of refuge], before the Son of Man comes”).”[3]

Up to the end (of the old covenant age), He would provide them with cities of refuge somewhere within Israel. Paul later confirms that all nations throughout the then-known Roman world had heard the gospel in his day just as the end of the old covenant age was approaching (cf. Rom. 10:18; 16:25–26; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

Conclusion

Matthew 10:17–23 presents a clear and unified teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man, fulfilled in AD 70 with the judgment on Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ promise that His disciples would not exhaust Israel’s cities of refuge before His return (Matt. 10:23) ties directly to the persecution, divine empowerment, and gospel proclamation detailed in the passage, all of which were realized in the apostolic era as documented in Acts. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–27, Jesus frames His coming as a singular eschatological event, bringing judgment, the kingdom’s arrival, and vindication for the persecuted, all within “this generation” (cf. Matt. 24:34). The striking parallels with the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) confirm this as one coming, not two, refuting dispensationalist and partial preterist attempts to posit multiple returns or a distant future fulfillment.

Scholars like D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron correctly identify Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70 but falter by isolating it from Jesus’ other teachings (e.g., Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25) and Daniel’s prophecies (Dan. 7:13; 9:26–27; 12:4–7), which consistently point to a first-century consummation. The preterist interpretation, harmonizing Matthew 10 with these texts and New Testament imminence (“soon,” “at hand”), affirms that Christ faithfully returned in AD 70, spiritually establishing His kingdom and bringing closure to the Old Covenant system.

Major Premise:
Daniel prophesied a singular coming of the Son of Man during the Roman Empire, involving persecution, judgment, and the inauguration of the Kingdom, to be fulfilled at the “appointed time of the end” (Dan. 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7).

Minor Premise:
Jesus taught in Matthew 10:17–23 that His disciples would face persecution, be empowered by the Holy Spirit, and not finish fleeing through Israel’s cities before the Son of Man came. He later repeated and expanded these same themes in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), placing them all within His generation.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 10 and the Olivet Discourse describe the same AD 70 fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy—the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon apostate Israel and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom within the first-century generation.

Study Questions for Matthew 10:17–23:

  1. What two major questions does this chapter seek to answer about Jesus’ coming?
  2. Why do many scholars such as D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron believe Matthew 10:23 refers to Jesus’ coming in AD 70? And if this coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70, then doesn’t it beg the question as to why the NT coming of the Lord that was “near” “soon” and would “not be delayed” is the same AD 70 coming Jesus prophesied here?
  3. List four events Jesus said would occur before His coming in Matthew 10. Did any of these occur before the transfiguration, crucifixion, ascension, or Pentecost?
  4. How do the themes in Matthew 10:17–23 parallel the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
  5. How does the language of “the end” and the coming of the Son of Man connect Matthew 10 to Daniel 7 and 12? Why don’t you think men like Carson and Waldron avoid that study?
  6. Why is the phrase “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” significant to audience relevance?
  7. What is the meaning of the Greek term Metzger interprets in reference to “cities of Israel”?
  8. How does Paul’s declaration that the gospel had been preached to “all nations” by his time support an AD 70 fulfillment?
  9. What errors do partial preterists and futurists make when interpreting Matthew 10:23, according to this chapter?
  10. Why does the chapter argue there is only one coming of Christ described throughout the Gospels and Daniel—not two?
  11. What evidence shows that Matthew 25:31 is a recapitulation of Matthew 24:30 and not a different event?
  12. How does the use of “soon,” “near,” and “in a very little while” in NT texts confirm the first-century timing of Christ’s coming?

[1] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 252.

[2] Sam Waldron, THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS AN OPTIMISTIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW, (Free Grace Press, 2025), 384

[3] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 25. Emphasis added.

An Open Letter to Phil Johnson and John MacArthur Regarding: Charismatics/Dr. Michael Brown, Inconsistencies, Lies, Liberals, R.C. Sproul, S.E.S. & Last Days Cults

An Open Letter to Phil Johnson (and by extension John MacArthur –10/19/2017),

maxresdefault

Dear Mr. Phil Johnson,

I appreciate you calling me back in regards to my debate with Charismatic Dr. Brown over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and possibly trying to get it at The Master’s Seminary or University along with our hopes of someone representing your views on the text and subject matter.  I have been calling and writing Grace Community and The Masters Seminary for several months now with no response until today.  I wanted to briefly address some of the things you mentioned to me on the phone that were more than inconsistent and in some cases just blatantly wrong and needing public correction and an apology.

Inconsistencies on What “heretic(s)” “Step(s) Foot” on The Master’s Campuses

18556061_10155363997605990_4266574590684128712_nYou mentioned you would never allow Dr. Michael Brown or myself “to step foot” on The Master’s Seminary, University or Grace Community because it is Pastor MacArthur’s position that “heretics” like us are not to be given a platform or given equal time in a debate or in any kind of public discussion with you.  Yet when I was a student at The Master’s College professor Brian Morley allowed a Mormon apologist come to our class and we engaged with him.  Sounds like you arbitrarily pick and choose what “heretics” you want to engage with.  I even invited Greg Bahnsen to speak at TMC and I’m guessing MacArthur considers his Theonomy to be “heretical” as well – right?  Yet he spoke in many of my classes being asked challenging questions and giving them to and from the students and faculty.

Of course the glaring problem here is that your Dispensational Premillennialism and Brown’s Historical Premillennialism has been condemned as “heretical” by the early creeds for it’s hyper-literal understanding of God’s kingdom on earth – being likened to “Jewish dreams.”  And Sproul and others consider your progressive dispensationalism no less “heretical” than pure dispensationalism.  And the drama on who is “heretical” continues  when these same early Amillennial creeds would consider Sproul’s hyper-literal kingdom manifestations/fulfillments of Postmillennialism to also be “heretical” and on par with “Jewish dreams” as well.  And yet I’m willing to engage with you, Brown and Sproul even though you constitute a “heretical” group.  Selah.  That’s what the field of apologetics is all about Phil.  Why even teach apologetics to your students if you are so afraid turn them loose to actually engage with them?!?

Since you can’t address the Charismatic exegetical arguments on 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 1 Cor. 13:8-12, Acts 2, Mark 16:15-20/Mt. 28:18-20; “the already and not yet of the kingdom,” etc., you just call them “heretics” and talk about their abuses and extremes (Word of Faith, how many times they sing choruses of worship songs, etc…).  This “apologetic” (which it really isn’t) has produced no fruit within the Charismatic movement.  All it has done is further proven to them that you don’t have the exegetical answers to their questions and challenges.

I shared with you how when I first attended The Master’s College that I had discussions with Pastor MacArthur on these passages and he never answered the arguments (as a Charismatic from Calvary Chapel I was VERY open to leaving that position but committed to a proper exegesis of these texts that were clearly eschatological).  I also shared with you that C.W. Smith (my theology major advisor and a professor at TMC whom taught Greek and through 1-2 Corinthians) told me that MacArthur’s Greek and contextual argument as to why tongues ceased in AD 70 but prophecy and knowledge pass away thousands of years later at the New Creation was inconsistent and weak and that he didn’t agree with it.  You actually scoffed at me for saying this and yet it is 100% true.  I remember it like it was yesterday.  Your attitude suggested that MacArthur couldn’t answer my challenges as a student or that he couldn’t possibly be wrong on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 — just doesn’t match the facts.  He has been wrong on very important issues and texts before…

After leaving my 4 point “Calvinist” position behind as a student and becoming a 5 point Calvinist I also had a discussion with MacArthur about his weak and inconsistent position on limited atonement and recommended him reading Gary Long’s book, Definite Atonement and his syllabuses on the sovereignty of God in salvation (which I printed out for him).  I’m glad John changed his view on that subject later but John r22491621_10155710466904192_5794897158961308659_nemains wrong in having no exegetical defense against Charismatic texts (listed above) and has no exegetical refutation of Preterism.  John now agrees with Sproul that when he hears someone say he is a 4 point Calvinist he is thinking to himself  “oh, you mean you are a confused Arminian.”  You and MacArthur would also agree with me that Partial Preterism when played out consistently leads to Full Preterism.

The only problem is that you and MacArthur are like the eschatological 5 point Arminian and your Premillennial “heresy” of hyper-literalism is an heir to the Pharisees doctrine of an earthly kingdom.  It doesn’t matter if you “postpone” it to a future coming of Jesus that you have imagined for yourself – error is error.  The problem with Sproul’s Partial Preterism (the 4 point “Calvinism” of eschatology so to speak) is that it too portrays Christ as a failure to redeem His Church how and when He said He would (Heb. 9–10:37).  Christ as our great High Priest came to not provide atonement for all humanity but to actually atone and propitiate the sins of the “many” — the Church.  But to not accept that Christ came out a “second time” from the heavenly temple to the eagerly waiting congregation at the end of the OC age “in a very little while” and would “not tarry” is also to portray Christ as a failed High Priest.  Sproul is very conflicted, uncommitted and creedally ambiguous in his book The Last Days According to Jesus on Hebrews 9-10.  Both 4 point “Calvinism” and “Partial Preterism” are inconsistent and portray a failed Christ in His offices of Prophet, Priest and King in these chapters.  Selah.

Lies and Scare Tactics – Who Are These Preterist’s That Deny the Physical Resurrection of Jesus?

You also shared with me how I’m a worse “heretic” than even Dr. Brown.  You claimed that “Full Preterism believes or leads to denying the physical resurrection of Jesus.”  When I challenged you on this — stating I’ve been a Full Preterist for 27 years and personally have never known or communicated with anyone that believes this, you assured me there were and that this was documented in one of MacArthur’s books.  As it turns out, you are referring to Ward Fenley whom I shared the view with many years ago and who has NEVER denied that Christ was raised physically.  I just spoke with him on the phone after our conversation and he says that’s a pure lie.  He provided me with this statement:

“I have never denied the physical resurrection of Christ. In fact, in my article, “Christ’s Post Resurrection Mode” I go out of my way to show He arose physically from the grave.”

After talking to Ward after our call and reading the first sentence of his article I asked him why he assumed there were some Preterists out there that denied the physical resurrection of Christ.  He mentioned that being new to Full Preterism (hardly the most “prolific writer” within the movement Phil – this too was false:  King, Preston, Bell, & sovereign grace FPists – David Green, Ken Davies, etc…) at the time simply assumed that there might be Preterists out there somewhere that denied the physical resurrection of Jesus because he was told by some futurists that to be a Full Preterist, you denied the physical resurrection of Christ and the physical bodily return of Christ in our future.

Let me help explain where I think the confusion is here.  It’s like someone being new to the doctrines of grace or Calvinism and being told that your position means you “have to deny prayer or evangelism” and therefore you are a “hyper-Calvinist” because you believe in the 5 points.  I have had many discussions like these with ignorant and illogical Arminians.  Even when I was a student at The Master’s College after I embraced limited atonement I was constantly told by students that I had “gone too far” and had become a “hyper-Calvinist.”  I hadn’t become such or believed what they told me I had to believe having adopted the 5 points of Calvinism — they just had no clue what they were talking about!  And like the ignorant Arminian who uses scare tactics, that’s your and MacArthur’s approach with Full Preterism.  Pathetic.  And although I personally do not know any real “hyper-Calvinists” that don’t evangelize, they are actually out there.  When it comes to these Full Preterist’s that allegedly don’t believe in a physical raised body of Jesus – I don’t know of ANY.  You simply try and build your case with scare tactics and trying to knock down extremes — if they are in the minority or DON’T EVEN EXIST!  You and MacArthur write,

1085717“…some hyper-preterists even deny Christ was raised bodily from the dead” (John MacArthur, THE SECOND COMING Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, 12).

There is NO citation or quote from these “some” you mention!  So Ward does not deny the physical resurrection of Jesus and you haven’t given me any documentation of any that do.  Nor have you demonstrated that this is somehow a prevalent belief within Full Preterism.  Nor have you demonstrated that to not believe Jesus still has a physical body and is returning someday in a physical body “necessitates that one logically work backwards to believe Jesus didn’t rise physically.”

Are We Like the Resurrection of the Dead Deniers or ARE YOU and MACARTHUR?

After falsely claiming that Full Preterism denies the physical resurrection of Jesus, you and MacArthur sign off on this bogus statement,

“The apostle Paul seemed to have a theology very much like modern hyper-preterism in mind when he penned [1 Cor. 16-17].” (Ibid., 12).

Here is a section taken from my article on 1 Corinthians 15 which demonstrates how it is YOU being an “heir to  Dispensational theology” that has more in common with the resurrection of the dead deniers in Paul’s day who had a difficult time reconciling how the OT dead would be raised with those who had died “in Christ.”

The Error Identified

Since the Corinthians believed in Christ’s resurrection and a resurrection for those whom had died “in Christ,” then to whom is left to deny a resurrection for?  In short, the error at Corinth was an extreme view (or a hyper-dispensational or replacement theology of sorts) that divided up the people of God in extreme ways.  They could not reconcile how the dead prior to Christ’s arrival could be raised into or with the Body of Christ.  In short, they were denying a key ingredient to “the better resurrection” that the writer to the Hebrews outlines:

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they [the OT or Old Covenant dead] might obtain a better resurrection:   And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:  They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;  (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they (“the [OT/OC] dead”) without us (the NT/NC saints “in Christ”) should not be made perfect (Heb. 11:35-40).

The resurrection of the dead deniers at Corinth saw the “better things” for those who were “in Christ” (dead or alive – their side of the cross), but could not reconcile how the OT or Old Covenant dead (on the other side of the cross) could participate in order for both groups to be “made perfect” together in the Body of Christ.  They had the NC “better things,” and thus the OT or OC dead were left without participation in the better resurrection to come – was their reasoning and error.  They did not deny the doctrine of the resurrection in general, just the all-ness or oneness (with all of God’s of people) to the resurrection event to close the OC age.

Extreme views and excluding the righteous dead was not uncommon – even among the Jews.  Some Jews believed that anyone who died outside of the Promised Land would not participate in the resurrection:

“The Talmud records speculations on the various matters connected with the process of Resurrection.  There was a firm belief that the momentous event would take place in the Holy Land.  Some Rabbi took the extreme view that only they who were interred there would share in the future life.  ‘Those who die outside the land of Israel will not live again; as it is said, “I will set delight in the land of the living.”  (Ezek. 26:20)—those who die in the land of My delight will live again, but they who do not die there will not’…” “Even a Cananite maidservant in the land of Israel is assured of inheriting the World to Come’…” (Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, (New York:  E.P. DUTTON & CO., INC., 1949), 361-362).

So in this extreme view those righteous dead who died outside of being “in the land” would not participate in Israel’s corporate resurrection.  Similarly, some at Corinth took Paul’s teaching that all prophecy or all the promises of God were fulfilled spiritually “in Christ,” to far in that they concluded the resurrection could only take place for those who believed “in Christ” (their side of the cross) – and all others perished outside of being in Him.  Therefore, since the OC dead were not present to place their faith in Christ, then they couldn’t be apart of the spiritual body that was in the process of being raised in their day.  They lost sight of the great cloud of witnesses whom saw Christ’s day and were glad and would thus share in the “better resurrection” with them.  According to both of these extreme views, men such as Moses had no resurrection hope but perished outside of being “in the land” or perished outside of being “in Christ.”

We see a similar inability to reconcile the OT promises made to Israel and how they would be fulfilled in the NT Body of Christ coming from modern day Dispensationalists whom think there are opposing theologies between the OT and NT.  There are two complete separate bodies of believers or peoples of God needing two separate comings of Christ or programs of salvation etc…  Of particular interest to our discussion here is in the comparison of dividing the OT dead from those that died “in Christ.”  Dispensationalists such as Charles Ryrie and Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer argue,

“those who died before Christ’s first advent” are not among “the dead in Christ” (Charles Ryrie).  “The Old Testament saints were not part of the New Creation in Christ,” and “the nation of Israel sustains no relation to the resurrection of Christ” (Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer).  And again per Chafer, the dead OT saints were not “in the new federal headship of the resurrected Christ…” (taken from:  Curtis Crenshaw and Grove Gunn, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, p. 204).

In 1937 William Everett Bell argued against Pretribulationalism providing evidence that at Christ’s Second Coming (after the Tribulation period), all the righteous dead were to be raised.  The ever evolving pertrib rapture theory countered with a two resurrection view – one for those that died “in Christ” at the “rapture” “coming,” and then one for those that died outside of being “in Christ” (OT dead not “in Christ”) seven years later (after the Tribulation) at the Second Coming.  The resurrection of the dead deniers also divided God’s people up in a way that was contrary to the teachings of Paul, except for them, the best way to avoid the problem (they created for themselves) was to deny resurrection for the dead – period and only accept a resurrection for those “in Christ.”

These examples (one within the Talmud and modern ones) should be sufficient to demonstrate how it could be possible for some to miss how the OT dead could or even would participate in the salvation of the ONE NC Body of Christ.”

Phil, you are also failing to follow Paul’s modus tollens logical argumentation that proves the resurrection of the dead deniers at Corinth weren’t denying Jesus’ physical resurrection.  Again, another excerpt from my article:

“Paul’s Modus Tollens form of Argumentation

To further prove that the resurrection of the dead deniers were not denying Christ’s resurrection or the resurrection for all in general, we need to take a look at Paul’s form of argumentation.  The futurist view makes no contextual sense if you follow Paul’s argumentation and the logic he uses.  Paul uses a familiar modus tollens or if then logical argument.  That is, “If P, then Q.  Therefore, not P.”

1).       “If P”

“If there is no resurrection of the dead ones…”

2).       “Then Q”

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then not even Christ has been raised.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then our preaching is useless…

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then and so is your faith [useless].

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then we are found to be false witnesses about God.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then your and my baptism (of suffering & martyrdom) on the part of the dead is meaningless.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then the Father is subject to Christ.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then some of you are ignorant of God.

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then why are some undergoing a baptism (of suffering & persecution) on behalf of the dead?

If the dead are not rising (and will rise)…then there will be no resurrection for anyone and we all might as well eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

3).      “Therefore, not P”

Therefore, your (resurrection of the dead deniers) premise that the resurrection of the (OC) dead will not take place with those that had died in Christ and us —  is false (or “therefore, not P”).

Paul’s argument is also known as reduction ad absurdum.  This form of argument demonstrates that a statement is false (the dead will not rise) by showing that a false, untenable, undesirable or absurd result follows from its acceptance.  Again, Paul is using things he has in common with them and that they would affirm in order to overthrow and show how absurd their false premise that the dead ones would not rise actually was.”

As far as Full Preterism believing that Christ took upon Himself the curse of Adam’s “the death” (of which Adam died the “very day” he sinned — which was SPIRITUAL death/separation) for the Church so that they may become the righteousness of Christ –  that is true.  And since Christ was not the “first” to be raised from physical death, Him being the “firstborn” and “firstfruit” implies that He was the first to conquer “THE death” (separation) that came from Adam for His prosterity – the Church.  Christ’s physical resurrection was a sign that He had conquered and been raised from the curse and death that came from Adam.  Charismatics fail to recognize that Christ’s miracles of “SIGNS and wonders” pointed to the deeper spiritual truths of Himself and His Kingdom.  And YOU and MacArthur have failed to understand the “sign” of Jesus being raised physically and what deeper spiritual truth lies behind it when it comes to inheriting resurrection and eternal life and “dying no more.”  Pure and simple.

So let’s summarize your approach with “heretics.”  You and Pastor MacArthur’s “apologetic” method in dealing with “heretics” is to arbitrarily engage and let some “step foot” on the campuses when you feel comfortable that you can refute them (ex. Mormon apologists), but those you can’t address on an exegetical level, you simply laugh at their extremes (Charismatics), don’t engage in debate with them on an exegetical level and when completely desperate just blatantly lie about what they believe or what you think they have to believe?!?  This is neither a moral, logical or having a Christian and biblical apologetic method.  And nor can it even be pawned off as “scholarship.”  I see no citations of Preterists that deny the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus.  Preterits have been told this lie so many times that we have simply assumed that somewhere out there, there might be these “Preterists” that believe such, and yet no documentation ever surfaces – at least that I know of.  Again, I have been in this movement 27 years (longer than Ward) and have NEVER heard of such or known of any Full Preterist book promoting such heresy.  Yet reading you and MacArthur, one is to believe from your so-called “scholarship” (of NO citations) that this is somehow a prevalent belief.  At best shallow scholarship and at worse – immoral.

Who’s Really “Taking a Page From the Liberal’s Handbook” – an Imminence That’s Not Really Imminent & Did the NT Authors Really Teach the End of World History?!?

On top of claiming we deny the physical miraculous resurrection of Jesus, on page 11 you claim we are “taking a page from the liberal’s handbook.”  In my article on the imminent redemption in Romans 8 and Luke 21 I write,

“Reformed eschatology has a strong Preterist tradition, which argues that the New Testament’s eschatological statements of imminence must be taken literally because there are no contextual indicators leading us to interpret them in any other way. As Gary DeMar states, “any student of the Bible who does not interpret these time texts to mean anything other than close at hand is in jeopardy of denying the integrity of the Bible.”[3] To put a finer point on it,  R. C. Sproul suggests that any eschatology which denies a literal interpretation of the New Testament’s time texts has adopted a liberal or neo-orthodox view of God and time:  “When F. F. Bruce speaks of faith making the time be ‘at hand,’ this sounds all too much like Rudolf Bultmann’s famous theology of timelessness, which removes the object of faith from the realm of real history and consigns it to a super temporal realm of the always present hic et nunc [here and now].”[4] Sadly, this same view is so commonly articulated among Reformed and Evangelical believers[5] that few seem to recognize its liberal and mystical implications or its exegetical lack of support. In the interest of preserving eschatological futurism, many have compromised the principle of scriptural analogy by sweeping away the plain and obvious meaning of the imminence texts. In so doing, conservatives are unwittingly handling the Scriptures like Bultmann.”

So Phil, according to the Reformed early creeds not only is your Premillennialism “heretical” and on par with hyper-literal “Jewish myths,” but to compound the problem is to not take the time texts as pointing to AD 70.  For Reformed writers such as Sproul and DeMar, this is to treat the Scriptures like liberals and come dangerously close to denying the inspiration of the Scriptures.  There is this and the fact that it is the FALSE prophets that turned God’s “at hand” judgments into “far off” ones (cf. Ezek. 7 and 12).  To create an imminent hope into a “hope deferred” — according to the Scriptures themselves is a “sick” theology (Prov. 13:12).

And Phil, most “liberals” I know — like Dale Allison Jr. claim that since Jesus predicted His Second Coming and end of world history would take place in His generation, and “obviously” this didn’t happen, then Jesus was not an inspired prophet or God like he claimed.  Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote on this subject:

“Rudolf Bultmann, a liberal, wrote,

“Of course, Jesus was mistaken in thinking that the world was destined to come to an end.”[5] And again, “Jesus expectation of the near end of the world turned out to be an illusion.”[6]

A modern day liberal whom I have challenged to a debate and who declined my invitation – Dale C. Allison Jr., states that “conservative critics’ need to “acknowledge the humiliating discovery that Jesus proclaimed the divinely wrought near end of the world.”[7]

The Lord has given these men over to their confusion. Some of these modern liberals still try to hang on to some kind or form of Christianity while others are simply but “scholarly” confused and have grown cynical. For example, Clayton Sullivan and Allison write,

“…Jesus, mistaken proclaimer of the Kingdom of God, carries a comforting implication: belief accuracy or doctrinal rectitude is not a prerequisite for divine approval”[8]

“The truth, however, is like God: we can run from it, but it is always there. I, myself do not know what to make of the eschatological Jesus. I am, for theological reasons, unedified by the thought that, in a matter so seemingly crucial, a lie [Futurism – Jesus’ coming is still “near”] has been walking around for two thousand years while the truth [Jesus failed] has only recently put on its shoes. But there it is.“[9]

The “truth” being the alleged discovery that this mistaken and purely…

“…human Jesus, is just like one of us, one who holds values that are very close to our ideological commitments, a Jesus who is a social reformer and who attacks patriarchal orders, a Jesus who, as a real human person, can stand as an example and inspiration for worthy causes.”[10]

We can sum all of these liberal quotes up with the understanding that Jesus was just a good moral teacher and “inspiration” to us all, but he wasn’t God like he claimed to be because He was “mistaken” and failed to usher in the kingdom and the end of the world when he promised. However, this purely “human Jesus” these men claim to trust in and have fashioned in their own minds to be a god of sorts, can’t save them from their sins and they won’t find any “comforting implications” in him in this life or in the next!

The error in view here is the conclusion that: 1) Christ did not come within the time frame He promised – the first century Apostolic generation and 2) therefore, Jesus was just a good moral teacher and not God like He claimed to be and is. In the articles I have written on my site I have refuted these blasphemous statements and vain imaginations of Christ being a “failure” and “mistaken” in His promises to return in the lifetime and generation of the apostles.”

***I have challenged Mr. Allison to a debate on if Jesus or the NT authors ever predicted the end of world history — and he has declined.

The common error that you and Allison and other liberals share, is that you both mistakenly think Jesus and the NT authors predicted the end and or the transformation of the physical universe as the focal point of eschatology — instead of the transformation of the OC age/world to the NC age/world taking place in the first century generation (later in this letter I will demonstrate using Reformed sources [sources you and MacArthur value] that Jesus nor the NT authors taught an end to world history or the burning and renewal of planet earth).

And to accept apocalyptic language in Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 is NOT “taking a page from liberals”!  It’s called harmonizing (the analogy of faith) them properly through exegesis – you should try it sometime Phil!

MacArthur on Apostolic NT Time Texts & Mormons Apologetics Concerning Theirs  

As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter we didn’t have a problem letting a Mormon apologist (Ara I believe his name was) “step foot” on the campus of TMC.  One of the first and most confident “arguments” the class wanted to bring up against Mormonism and to our guest, was to confront all of the failed prophecies that Joseph Smith had made about an imminent Second Coming of Jesus to be fulfilled soon in his generation.  How could Smith and the LDS claim they had true prophets and apostles if they predicted the Second Coming would take place “soon” within their lifetimes and generation?  Apparently the class was not prepared for his response.  Let me summarize what he said and the theological point he was conveying:

“Why is this a big deal for you?  According to you, Jesus is the greatest Prophet of all and didn’t He predict that He would return in the lifetime and generation He was speaking to?  And doesn’t the NT prophets follow that pattern teaching a “soon” Second Coming?  If you and your college president (John MacArthur) believe Jesus wasn’t using “this generation” with such a “wooden literalness” and “soon,” “at hand,” “quickly,” “in a little while and will not delay” can be stretched out for thousands of years per Jesus and the NT prophets, then as Mormon’s we can approach what our prophets have said on imminence the same way.”

You could have heard a pin drop!  No one wanted to touch that so they moved on to other topics – archeology and the Book of Mormon etc…  Later that evening I had dinner with him and his wife and gave a much more Biblical apologetic to the response he gave to my class.  He was shocked to hear someone actually admit that Jesus did in fact promise to return in the lifetime of those He was speaking to and in their generation.  Nor was he prepared for my second affirmative – “and He was faithful to that promising coming to close the old covenant age in AD 70.”  He admitted to me that he had never been given this response and had no rebuttal.  I also assured him that sticking his head in the sand concerning what Joseph Smith and his early “Prophets” of the LDS taught about a failed Second Coming was just as bad as what my Christian brothers and sisters had done in the class earlier that day.  His “argument” only proved that their view and the Mormon view of prophetic imminence can’t be trusted — nothing more.  While mine exonerated Jesus’ and the NT prophet’s teaching and refuted his.

But MacArthur falls right into the hands of the Mormon “argument” because in his book seeking to refute Partial Preterism and Full Preterism on imminence, he admits the inspired NT authors, Apostles and Prophets taught an imminent Second Coming for their generation (Ibid., pp. 51ff.).  John is clueless and contradictory.  He wants an imminence that is imminent but then ends up having to embrace a “carrot and stick” eschatology that has to re-define real imminence.  Go figure!

The Sovereign Grace Full Preterist knows how to deal with the last days cults when in comes to alleged ongoing “prophetic” “revelations” – because since Christ has come, that office has “ceased” (cf. Dan. 9:24/1 Cor. 13:8-12).  MacArthur had no problem with letting a Mormon “heretic” “step foot” on TMC campus and engage and give “equal time” to him because he and the staff thought it would be an easy refutation.  Yet the truth of the matter is, MacAruthur’s views on imminence plays right into their hands, and if the Second Coming wasn’t fulfilled in the first century, then prophetic revelations continue.  Selah.

The Parallels Between You and the Resurrection of the Dead Deniers, Liberals & False Prophets

  1.  The resurrection of the dead deniers had a hard time reconciling how the OC dead would or could be raised with the NC dead (“in Christ”) — just like Dispensationalism has had a hard time reconciling the two.
  2. Liberals believe Jesus and the NT authors taught an end to world history and the passing and re-cretion of planet earth at Christ’s Second Coming — just like Futurists.
  3. It was the false prophets during Ezekiel’s day that angered God by trying to turn His “at hand” coming and judgments into “far off” ones.  And to promote a “hope deferred” judgment for the unrighteous and a salvation for the remnant believers is a “sick” doctrine indeed.  Your and Simon Kistemaker’s “carrot and stick” eschatology is nothing but a “sick” doctrine that portrays Christ as a failure and is close the failure of the Arminian Christ.
  4. Your spiritualizing away the imminent time texts of the NT is on par with Neo-orthodoxy and comes close to denying the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures (per some Reformed scholars such as Sproul and DeMar).
  5. If MacArthur doesn’t have to interpret “this generation,” “soon,” “quickly,” “at hand,” “in a very little while and will not delay,” etc… with a “wooden literalness,” then we have to let the last days cults such as the Mormons off the hook when they appeal to the same heretical justifications and reasoning!

Your Appeal to Acts 1:11

Context and analogy of faith – Acts 1:8-11 and Matthew 24:14-34 on the Second Coming and the Great Commission (GC).

Since you and MacArthur would see the GC of Matthew 24:14 and Acts 1:8 as the same GC needing to be fulfilled before Christ’s return in Matthew 24:27-30 and Acts 1″11 — and you run The Spurgeon Center website, let’s see what Spurgeon said of Matthew 24:14:

“Before Jerusalem was destroyed, “this gospel of the kingdom” was probably “preached in all the world” so far as it was then known…”

Of course the inspired Apostle Paul makes it clear that there was no “probably” about it — Cols. 1:5-6, 23; Rms. 10:18; 1625-26 (click on chart).

22279910_10155695283354192_171291320155640363_n

Contextually “the end” that comes when the GC of Matthew 24:14 is fulfilled, is “the end” of “the [OC] age” of which the Temple they were looking at represented, and not the end of world history or the end of the NC age which the Bible teaches “has no end” (Ephs. 3:20-21).

Let me address your appeal and assumptions regarding Acts 1:11 by starting with the GC of verse 8.  Your friend at Ligonier Ministries Keith Mathison believes that when the GC of Acts 1:8 is fulfilled is when the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 is fulfilled.  I take no issue with that.  But of course the problem is that you and MacArthur would see the GC of Matthew 24:14 as being the same GC of Acts 1:8 and Sproul and Mathison would appeal to the Greek of Romans 10:18 to support Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled prior to AD 70.  But the fact of the matter is, that Romans 10:18 also proves Acts 1:8 was fulfilled prior to AD 70 as well:

Prophecy – Greek Ge Fulfillment – Greek Ge
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth/land.” [Gk. ge] (Acts 1:8) “But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: ‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth/land [Gk. ge], and their words to the ends of the world.’” (Rom. 10:18)
One def. of ge – “The then known lands, regions, territories, countries etc…”
1.  In Jerusalem 1.  Acts 2 – Jews
2.  And Samaria 2.  Acts 8 – Samaritans
3.  In all Judea 3.  Acts 10 – God-fearers
4.  To the earth/land 4.  Acts 19 – the Gentiles

Your Postmillennialist friends have no problem quoting Romans 10:18 to demonstrate how the GC of Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled by AD 70 because Paul uses the same Greek word oikumene (“has gone out to the ends of the world”). Yet, Paul in Romans 10:18 also uses the Greek word ge (“has gone out into all the earth”).  Therefore, if the Greek of Romans 10:18 can be applied to the GC of Matthew 24:14 — being fulfilled in AD 70, then the Greek of Romans 10:18 can also be applied to the GC of Acts 1:8 as being fulfilled by AD 70.

Jews from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:4-5) were saved and empowered by the Holy Spirit to go fulfill the GC of Acts 1:8 to “the end of the earth/land” of the Roman Empire.  As R.C. Sproul pointed out in his lecture at the Strange Fire Conference — the book of Acts describes four Pentecost events based upon Acts 1:8.  Since that is the case, the book of Acts maps out the success of the GC of Acts 1:8  — thus showing how the sign of the GC was being fulfilled and giving Paul his imminent expectation of the resurrection (Acts 24:15YLT).  Just a side note — If Sproul would be consistent and courageous on the “last days” of Acts 2 and the GC and coming of Christ in Acts 1 being fulfilled in AD 70, he would have a more exegetical refutation of the Charismatic Chaos infecting the Church today.

Keith Mathison connecting the GC with the the timing of the coming of Christ in Acts 1:8, 11 writes:

“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.” (Postmillennialism, 117).

According to Mathison in the above quote, when the Great Commission in verse 8 is fulfilled, then the Second Coming of verse 11 will occur.  Is this not what we see in the Olivet Discourse – the gospel must first be preached to all the nations and throughout the world before the Coming of Christ can be fulfilled?  There is NO exegetical evidence that the GC and coming of Christ in Acts 1-2 is any different from that of Jesus’ teaching in the OD.   Postmillennialism’s contention that there are two Great Commissions given in the New Testament—one fulfilled before AD 70 and another that will be fulfilled before the allegedly yet-future Second (Third) Coming—is altogether arbitrary.

The analogy of faith – Acts 1-2 and the Olivet Discourse

The Olivet Discourse Acts 1-2
1. Only the Father has authority and knows the day and hour of the Kingdom’s arrival (Lk. 17:20-37; Lk. 21:27-32; Mt. 24:36). 1. Only the Father has authority and knows the time and dates of the kingdom’s arrival (Acts 1:3-7).
2.  The Holy Spirit (& charismata) would be given to boldly fulfill the G.C. (cf. Mt. 10:17-23; Mrk. 13:10-13) 2. The Holy Spirit (charismata) would be given to boldly fulfill the G.C. (Acts 1:4-8).
3. Jesus would come from heaven upon His glory cloud in their generation (cf. Mt. 24:14-34). 3. Jesus would come from heaven upon His glory cloud in their generation (cf. Acts 1:11; 2:20-21–40).

NOW Let’s Look at Acts 1:9-11 

Phil you and Postmillennialists such as Keith Mathison insist that Jesus’ physical body was seen for some period of time as He ascended into the sky. However, verse nine simply says, “He was lifted up, and a cloud received Him from their eyes.” Jesus was certainly seen just before He was “lifted up” (Acts 1:9).  But it is not at all certain that He was directly seen as He ascended into the sky.

In verse 11, the disciples were told that Jesus would come in the manner that they had seen Him enter heaven (the sky). The continuity (or similarity) of Him coming as He had entered heaven is found in the fact that He would come in the heavenly glory-cloud of His Father (Matt. 16:27). Jesus was not physically seen after He was received into the glory-cloud. It was while He was hidden from sight in that cloud that He was indirectly seen entering the sky.  A son can “see his father” as his fathers plane is taking off the runway and off into the sky, without directly physically seeing his father’s body.  In seeing the plane (which contains his father and the other passengers), he can still correctly say, “There’s dad, and there he goes.”  And He was to come in like manner.  Therefore, He would not be physically or directly seen when He came “in like manner,” in the cloud, to indwell His church in the end of the old covenant age (Luke 17:20–37; John 14:2–3, 23).

The phrase “in like manner” simply means “in a similar way” – not exactly the same way (which seem to be how most falsely interpret the passage).  Jesus didn’t ascend riding on a horse with a sword proceeding from His mouth did He?  Did “every eye” on the planet earth see Him leave?  “The exact same way” argument offered by hyper-literalists self-emplodes upon itself.

Postmillennialists such as Mathison are not correct when they say that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.

Here is the order of events:

1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).

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

These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously. As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.” (From Age to Age, 459).  It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.

3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10–11).

In the Old Testament, God was never literally or directly seen coming in His glory when He judged or saved Israel and other nations. Jesus was not literally seen again after He entered the cloud of God’s glory. He was “taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16) and He would come in glory as the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14 OG LXX).

The Lord God had become flesh. John bore testimony to the fact that looking at and touching Jesus was to look at and touch God Himself (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1). God was physically seen in the flesh, but this was temporary for the second person of the Godhead (Heb. 5:7), even as He had been born into and under the old covenant system with its temporal types and shadows (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 5–8; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8:13).  Though Jesus is no longer in the flesh, He forever retains His human nature. He is forever Man, even as the saints in heaven today, who are no longer in their physical bodies, are still human/man by nature. Neither the Son of Man nor those who are in Him, whether in heaven or on earth, are “nonhuman” as some futurists theorize.

Ironically, the point of the question, “Why do you stand here looking into the sky,” was that Jesus was not going to return to His physical form. It was futile for the disciples to long for Jesus to return to the earthly form He had taken when He was born of Mary. In His ascension, Jesus had returned to His pre-incarnate glory. The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh. He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven—hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”

We agree with the majority of commentators and cross reference systems which see the in-like-manner coming of Jesus in Acts 1:11 as being parallel with the coming of Jesus on or in the cloud(s) in Matthew 16:27–28, 24:30–31, 26:64–68; Luke 21:27, and Revelation 1:7. Mathison and Gentry, however, wrench Acts 1:11 from those Scriptures. They admit that Christ was figuratively “seen” (perceived, understood) at a figurative “coming” in/on the clouds in AD 70, but they deny that this was the fulfillment of Acts 1:11.

This brings us to another problem. Mathison writes of Matthew 24:30 in his book Postmillennialism:

. . . [T]he “coming” of the Son of Man is His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem (see vv. 23–28), which is intimately connected with His ascension to the right hand of God (cf. Dan. 7:13–14). (Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1999), 114).

Later, in WSTTB, Mathison goes further and identifies the Ascension with the coming of Christ in AD 70:

. . . [W]hen [Jesus] makes reference to “the coming of the Son of Man,” . . . He may have been referring . . . to his ascension . . . and the judgment on Jerusalem. . . . ” (182, emphasis added)

For Mathison, Christ’s “coming” in Daniel 7:13–14 is somehow both a literal, visible “going up” in a literal cloud in about AD 30 and a figurative “coming” to Jerusalem from heaven in figurative clouds in AD 70. The confusion inherent in this position is plain enough. Mathison says that “the coming of the Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13– 14 is a reference to the Ascension. But then Mathison says that when Jesus used the term, He was referring to the Ascension and to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet there is not one instance where Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of Man where it can be taken to be a reference to His Ascension. In every case, it is His coming to earth in judgment and salvation. But this is only the tip of the Iceberg of Confusion.

Even though Mathison says that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was “intimately connected with His ascension,” and even though Mathison says that both the Ascension and His coming in judgment in AD 70 are equally “the coming of the Son of Man,” and even though Mathison admits that both events were with a cloud/clouds and in the glory of the Father, and that both events were seen (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), Mathison nevertheless maintains that Jesus’ “coming” in AD 70 was not the “in-like-manner” coming promised in Acts 1:11. Mathison’s position is an ineffable tangle of exegetical double vision, contradiction, and consummate confusion.
Phil, do your professors who teach hermeneutics ever tell their students to read Milton Terry’s classic and orthodox book on the subject?  Would you not allow Milton Terry to “step foot” on your campuses to lecture and answer questions to your students in a class on hermeneutics?  Are the publishers that have published his understanding that Acts 1:11 was fulfilled in AD 70 all “heretical” and equally guilty for publishing him?  Partial Preterist Milton Terry, took a more lucid, biblical approach than you, MacArthur, Sproul and Mathison seeing Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7 as all being ONE Second Coming event (like you and MacArthur) but fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem (like Sproul nd Mathison – who at least see Rev. 1:7 and Mt. 24:30–25:31 as fulfilled AD 70) in the end of the OC age:

“Wha51JXUjtn4ML._AC_US436_QL65_tever 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 samesubject 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.” (Milton S. Terry, A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 246-247).

I would also add that there are some Postmillennial Partial Preterists such as author Mike Bull whom also “accept the testimony of the Scriptures” and follow Terry’s view and believe the coming of the Christ in Acts 1:11; Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 1:7 are various descriptions of His ONE Coming and was fulfilled in AD 70.

Premise #1:  The “in like manner” coming of Christ and His kingdom in Acts 1:6, 11 is fulfilled when the G.C. of verse 8 is fulfilled (Mathison agrees with Full Preterism)

Premise #2:  The gospel was preached and “went out to all the earth” in Paul’s day (Rms. 10:18) and the spiritual NC kingdom arrived at Christ’s coming in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Lk. 21:27-32; Lk. 17:20-37; Mt. 24:27-30; 25:31) (Mathison agrees with Full Preterism).

Premise #3:  But the coming of Christ and arrival of the kingdom in Acts 1:6-11 is the same event as described by Christ in Luke 21:27-31 and Matthew 24:30, 25:31 (you and MacArthur agree with Full Preterism)

Conclusion/Full Preterist Synthesis “Reformed and always reforming”:  The “in like manner” coming of Christ and His kingdom in Acts 1:6, 11 was fulfilled in AD 70 when the gospel was preached and “went out to all the earth” (Gk. ge – Acts 1:8/Rms. 10:18) as a sign just prior to AD 70.

Jesus was “lifted up” and hidden from sight in the cloud of glory. He ascended into the sky hidden in the cloud, as His disciples watched. He was to come in the same manner in which the disciples saw Him enter into the sky: hidden in the cloud of the glory of His Father. He was “seen” in that Day in the same way that Yahweh was “seen” whenever He came on a cloud to judge nations in the Old Testament.

This was the one and only future coming of Christ that was promised in the New Testament. Therefore, Christ returned in AD 70. The analogy of Scripture confirms this interpretation. It does not confirm Mathison’s, which rips Acts 1:9–11 from its immediate and broader New Testament contexts. We agree with Terry’s comments on Matthew 24:30–31, 34; Acts 1:11; and Revelation 1:7. “We accept upon the testimony of the Scriptures” that Christ returned on/in a cloud/clouds in that generation. (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutic (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 1990), 468, n.1 (emphases added).

Since MacArthur likes Simon Kistemaker so much, let me refer you to my response to him on Jesus’ description in Revelation 1 as allegedly proving Jesus is still in His physical body.

Honey, I Shrunk the Angels – Jesus Depicted in Revelation & Simon Kistemaker

Although an Amillennialist, Simon Kistemaker argues that Jesus’ physical resurrection body is eternal and that it now literally “sits on God’s throne” (WSTTB?, 240). Kistemaker attempts to prove this claim by using Revelation 1:13–16. He points out that in this passage Jesus is described as wearing a robe that reaches down to his feet, and as having a golden sash around his chest, and a head with white hair, and blazing eyes, and feet as bronze, and a mouth, and a human voice, and a right hand, and a face as radiant as the sun (240, 252).

Kistemaker interprets the book of Revelation in a highly symbolic manner, even more symbolically than “hyper-preterists” interpret it at times. Yet he is woodenly literal in the above passage. But more to the point, he neglects to mention that the above passage also says that Jesus was holding “the angels of the seven churches” (the “seven stars”) in his (supposedly literal) hand (Rev. 1:16, 20). Kistemaker does not explain why those seven angels were reduced in size so that they could fit in Jesus’ physical hand. (Nor does Kistemaker tell us how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.)

Kistemaker also does not mention that Jesus is depicted here as having a sharp two-edged sword coming out of His supposedly literal mouth (Rev. 2:16), and that in Revelation 19:11, He is depicted as riding on a horse in the sky, and that in Revelation 19:12 He has “many crowns” on His head, and that in Revelation 19:13 He is wearing a bloody robe.

To make matters worse, note the contradiction between Kistemaker in WSTTB, and Kistemaker in his New Testament Commentary on Revelation:

Kistemaker, WSTTB: “Jesus’ appearance to John at Patmos was not spiritual, but physical, for John saw his head, face, mouth, eyes, hair, chest, right hand, and feet ([Rev.] 1:13–16) (252)

Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: “[Rev. 1:16] lists three physical features [of Jesus]: his right hand, his mouth, and his face. These features ought to be understood not literally but symbolically. . . ” (Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001; fourth printing 2007), 97).

Kistemaker’s commentary was first printed in 2001, and was most recently reprinted in 2007. So we have Kistemaker saying that the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:16 was symbolic/spiritual in 2001, then saying it was physical/literal in 2004 (WSTTB), then back to saying it was symbolic/spiritual in 2007. As with Mathison, Kistemaker must temporarily change his preterist exegeses when he is attempting, in vain, to refute full preterism.

Addressing Your Appeal to Hymenaeus and Philetus 2 Timothy 2:17-18

Apparently you are at odds with your buddy Keith Mathison who concedes that 2 Timothy 2:18 “cannot” be used even to “criticize” preterists, much less anathematize them, because according to Mathison, it may very well be that “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 truly did take place in AD 70:

. . . [2 Timothy 2:1–18] cannot be used to criticize hyper-preterism until . . . [it can be] demonstrated from other texts that nothing of the sort occurred in A.D. 70. (194)

This is quite an admission from a man who says that hyper-preterism is “a much different religion” than Christianity (213). What Bible verses can Mathison use, other than 2 Timothy 2:17–18, to brand preterism as a different religion? Answer: There are no other verses. Without 2 Timothy 2:17–18, Mathison doesn’t have a biblical leg to stand on in his condemnation of preterists. All he has are the baseless words of those, like himself, who have set themselves up to condemn us based solely on the assumption that our rejection of futurism is a damnable error.

We agree with Mathison that 2 Timothy 2:17–18 cannot be used to criticize us. But we must go further than this. Far from being an anti-preterist passage, 2 Timothy 2:17–18 is actually a condemnation of the implications of futurism. Allow me to explain. First of all, Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers. They were of a class of deceivers who taught Jewish “myths” and “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:4), and were self-appointed “teachers of the Law” (1 Tim. 1:7). They taught believers to abstain from foods (1 Tim. 4:3), no doubt using the Levitical dietary laws as a basis of their teaching.

It is because Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers that Paul compared them to “Jannes and Jambres” (2 Tim. 3:8). According to ancient historians, Jannes and Jambres were Egyptian magicians who challenged Moses’ authority in Egypt. Like Jannes and Jambres, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the strange doctrines of “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8), and were challenging Paul’s gospel-authority, attempting to deceive Christians into believing that God’s new wine (the new covenant land of promise) could be contained within the old, “Egyptian” wineskins of the old covenant world.

Likewise in 2 Timothy 2:19, Paul connects Hymenaeus and Philetus to the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:5, 26. (William Hendriksen; Simon J. Kistemaker: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 268).  Korah had led hundreds of the sons of Israel to challenge Moses’ authority. As God had destroyed Korah and his followers in the wilderness, so God was “about to judge” (2 Timothy 4:1) and destroy the Judaizers Hymenaeus and Philetus and others like them (cf. Heb. 3:16–19).

According to the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus, because Jerusalem and the temple still stood (in about AD 67) after the resurrection had allegedly already taken place, it irresistibly followed that “the sons according to the flesh” were now the heirs of the eternal kingdom and that Paul’s Jew-Gentile gospel of grace was a lie. The blasphemous error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was that the world of the Mosaic covenant would remain forever established after the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets had taken place and the new heavens and new earth (“the resurrection”) had arrived.

This “Hymenaean” heresy is the diametric opposite of preterism. According to preterism, the old covenant came to an eternal and irrevocable termination in “the resurrection,” when all things were fulfilled in AD 70. There is absolutely no theological connection between preterism and Hymenaeus’ blasphemous lie of an everlasting “ministration of death.”

However, there is a clear connection between the heresy of Hymenaeus and the implications of futurism: If “the Law and the Prophets” are not fulfilled today, and “heaven and earth” have not passed away, and the jots and tittles of the Law have not passed away, and all things are not yet fulfilled, as futurism says, then logically and scripturally, the Law of Moses remains unfulfilled and “imposed” to this day (Matt. 5:17–19; Heb. 8:13; 9:10). This implication of futurism is exactly what the Judaizers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, taught when they said the resurrection was already past in AD 67.

Mathison and Ligonier cannot use this passage to condemn Full Preterists because they acknowledge that there was a SPIRITUAL coming OR PAROUSIA of Christ and other Reformed Partial Preterists are admitting there was a SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION of the dead that occurred in AD 70 per Daniel 12:2 and Revelation 20 (Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan).  We don’t see Paul’s apologetics against those that believed the Day of the Lord and resurrection had “already” taken place (prior to AD 70) as “How can anyone believe this, OBVIOUSLY we are all still here, the graveyards are still full and the planet earth hasn’t been burned up.”  If Paul was the Futurist that you are Phil, we would expect Paul to use this kind of reasoning and apologetic.  But because he was a Full Preterist whom recognized there was a spiritual coming of Christ and an “about to be” resurrection of the dead at the end of the OC age coming, his apologetic is different than yours.  Selah.

C.H. Spurgeon v. Phil Johnson/MacArthur on Preterist Scholarship

images

I see you run or are affiliated with The Spurgeon Archive or The Spurgeon Center websites.  While not a Full Preterist, this was Spurgeon’s view of Christians engaging with Preterists that believe Christ’s one and “soon” Second Coming was fulfilled in AD 70 and what he thought of their arguments, exegesis and research:

“[Russell’s exegesis and book]…has so much truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research, and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all.”  (Spurgeon’s comments of James Stuart Russell’s book, “The Parousia,” back cover, Baker Book House, third printing, 1990 edition).

Obviously someone you and MacArthur esteem didn’t take the cowardly bubble approach you have taken.  But you have gone even further to misrepresent us.  Sad indeed.  Sounds like Spurgeon would have said the same of my/our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology… which is in your libraries.  I suggest you get someone from your seminary to actually attempt a refutation since the Reformed authors of WSTTB? are not able to respond because their views actually formed Full Preterism!  The book is said by John L. Bray to be the best defense of Preterism to date.  You might try engaging with a book like ours instead of cherry-picking Internet articles from a new Preterist in the 90’s.  Just a thought Phil.

C.H. Spurgeon’s Confusion Over the Passing of the Old Covenant Heavens and Earth and the arrival of the New Covenant Heavens and Earth

C.H. Spurgeon also had some interesting things to say about the Old Covenant being described in terms of being a “heavens and earth” that passed away and the gospel dispensation today being a New Heavens and Earth.  Spurgeon was a Premillennialist (hyper-literal “heretic” per the early Reformed creeds), yet was drawn to a Preterist hermeneutic on some very key texts and concepts.  He was very inconsistent in his use of these terms and didn’t reconcile them very well.  I’ll try and reconcile this confusion and that of R.C. Spoul’s over this in a bit.

In a sermon on Isaiah 65:17-19 Spurgeon wrote the following,

“Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the Old Heavens and Earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under a New Heavens and a New Earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it.” (C.H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

We know that Spurgeon read his contemporary James Stuart Russell’s book who did take the OC system as the Old Heavens and Earth and the NC to be the New Heavens and Earth.  We also know that Russell quoted Reformed theologians that Spurgeon read that had the same concepts.  Therefore, I think it should be clear that Spurgeon was confused and giving passages double or multiple senses where there was no exegetical warrant to do so.

But first let’s go to a source John MacArthur values in order to identify that the OC system was described as a creation of the heavens and earth.  MacArthur says the following of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge:

“The one book, apart from the Bible itself, that I value most in my studies.”

And yet the book agrees with Full Preterists such as myself and men such as John Owen on the particular issues that the Old Covenant system was a “heavens and earth” created at the first exodus.  Of Isaiah 51:15-16 it informs us:

“The heavens. ‘Heaven’ and ‘earth’ are here put by symbolic language for a political universe. That is, that I might make those who were but scattered persons and slaves in Egypt before, a kingdom and polity, to be governed by their own laws and magistrates.” (Jerome Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Revised and Expanded, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 802).

Unknown-2Reformed theologians such as John Owen and John Lightfoot along with many others, correctly understood the “elements” here not as the rocks and tress of the planet earth, but of the old-covenant law and the “Day of the Lord” occurring in AD 70.  John Owen in his sermon on 2 Peter 3 also describes Isaiah 51:15-16 as the Old Covenant system except unlike Spurgeon he correctly and clearly states it passed away and her “elements” burned up in AD 70.  Since the foundation to the promise of 2 Peter 3 is Isaiah 65, it is relevant to what Spurgeon would have been reading on the subject.  Please note that he says the passing and burning of the first heavens and earth is “ONLY” referring to the OC system and the New is only the gospel of the NC dispensation:

“I shall only observe, by the way, not to look into the difficulties of these verses, that I not be too long detained from my principal intendment, – that the apostle makes a distribution of the word into heaven and earth, and saith, they ‘were destroyed with water, and perished: We know that neither the fabric or substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that lived on the earth; and the apostle tells us, verse 5, of the heavens and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet, as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth, they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle’s time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth whereof he speaks were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing our foundation, a little consider what the apostle intends by `the heavens and the earth’ in these two places:

“1. It is certain, that what the apostle intends by the ‘world,’ with its heavens and earth, verses 5, 6, which was destroyed by water; the same or somewhat of that kind, he intends by ‘the heavens and the earth’ that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire, verse 7. Otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle’s discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

“2. It is certain, that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire, is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of persons or men living in the world.

“3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the ‘world,’ and the ‘heavens and earth’ of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose, among the many that may be produced, Isa. 51. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God, was when he ‘divided the sea,’ verse 15, and gave the law, verse 16, and said to Zion, ‘Thou art my people,” – that is, when he took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state. Then he planted the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth, – made the new world; that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty, from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language that seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4; which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman empire, Rev. vi. 14; which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv., he sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by ‘heavens’ and ‘earth,’ the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which was then destroyed by the flood.

“4. On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text: –

“(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffer and the those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews; – some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ – which was the thing in question between them.

“(2.) Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, ‘We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Ixv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God will create these ‘new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?’ Saith Peter, ‘It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.’ But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi., 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times ONLY; and that the planting of these new heavens is NOTHING BUT the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure forever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. xii. 26-28.

“First, There is the foundation of the apostle’s inference and exhortation… ‘Seeing that I have evinced that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, – that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, – in a way of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; – let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming. – he will come, he will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God himself planted, – the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, – the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ, – shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed. This, we know, shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.’ ”

And more from Owen:

“1. Because in every such providential alteration or dissolution of things on the account of Christ and his church, there is a peculiar coming of Christ himself. He cometh into the world for the work he hath to do; he cometh among his own to fulfil his pleasure among them. Hence such works are called ‘his coming;’ and ‘the coming of his day.’ Thus James exhorts these very Jews to whom Peter here writes, with reference to the same things, James v. 7-9, ‘Be patient unto the coming of the Lord.’ But how could that generation extend their patience to the day of judgment? ‘Nay,’ saith he, ‘that is not the work I design, but his coming to take vengeance on his stubborn adversaries;’ which he saith, verse 8, ‘draweth nigh,’ is even at hand; yea., Christ, ‘the judge, standeth before the door,’ verse 9, ‘ready to enter;’ – which also he did within a few years. So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem (the same work), Luke xxi. 27, the Son of man is said to ‘come in a cloud, with power and great glory;’ – and they that escape in that desolation are said to ‘stand before the Son of man,’ verse 36. So, in the ruin and destruction of the Roman empire, on the account of their persecution, it is said that ‘the day of the wrath of the Lamb was come; Rev. vi. 16, 17.” (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth pub., Vol. 9 see pp. 132-135, 138-139, MJS emphasis added).

And John Lightfoot agrees.  Notice what he says of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 and the de-creation and new creation language:

Unknown-3

“That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deut. xxxii. 22; ‘A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell’ (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see ver. 20, 21), ‘and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains’ Jer. iv. 23; ‘I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light; The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isa. lxv. 17; ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,’ And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Cor. v. 17.”

More of Lightfoot on this subject:

“With the same reference it is, that the times and state of things immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem are called ‘a new creation,’ ‘new heavens,’ and ‘a new earth,’ Isa. lxv. 17; `Behold, I create a new heaven and a new earth’ When should that be? Read the whole chapter; and you will find the Jews rejected and cut off; and from that time is that new creation of the evangelical world among the Gentiles.

“Compare 2 Cor. v. 17 and Rev. xxi. 1, 2; where, the old Jerusalem being cut off and destroyed, a new one succeeds; and new heavens and a new earth are created.

“2 Pet. iii. 13: `We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth’ The heavens and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state.”

“That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, `The sun shall be darkened,’ Then shall appear the `sign of the Son of man,’; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. iii. 10, `The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’. Compare with this Deut. xxxii. 22, Heb. xii. 26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal. iv. 9, Coloss. ii. 20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks ONLY of the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses.” (John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, pp. 318-319; Vol. 3, p. 452-453, Hendrickson pub, 2003, MJS emphasis added).

22552677_10155717653354192_2300651074024968822_n-1

As I document in our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…pp. 116-123 Lightfoot didn’t see the physical planet as being in a process of “decay” or poetically “groaning” to be the subject matter in Romans 8 either!  He correctly understood the passage to be the “creation of men” groaning under sin.  Postmillennial Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar concedes mello in Romans 8:18 YLT should be translated as “the glory ABOUT TO BE revealed in you…” and is referring to AD 70.  Therefore, contextually this allegedly “end of the planet” or physical “renewal of the planet” passage and “redemption of the body” was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 – at the “near” coming of the Lord when Satan was to be “crushed shortly” (cf. Rms. 13:11-12; 16:20) and has NOTHING to do with the Futurist or creedal concept.  Here is that material (HD, 116-123):

John Lightfoot associated the “earnest expectation of the creature”

and the “whole creation groaning” with the mind and heart of man, and interpreted this passage as having nothing to do with the planet Earth— not even poetically.

. . . [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: themanifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched neck.[1]

And again,

The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time,) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase…”.[2]

Lightfoot is on solid ground here citing 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Corinthians 15:33. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” as ethical and moral putrefaction in the heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t get hit by cars.

“The sufferings of this present time.” As much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr. losing his hair and gaining some weight around his midsection (WSTTB, ix), Paul’s mention of the “sufferings” and “the redemption of the body” have nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the “groaning” of the first-century Christians can be found in the previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were eschatological —the birth pains that were to precede Christ’s return in AD 70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with the last days persecutions and with the saints of the universal church groaning under the tyranny of Sin and Condemnation under the Law.

For Paul, Sin had produced “death,” but not physical death. Contrary to Mathison’s assertions, “the body,” “death,” and “the flesh” in Romans 5–8 have nothing to do with the idea of men biologically dying as a result of Adam’s sin. Paul’s concern is with corporate-covenantal Death, as even some Reformed theologians teach.[3]   “Bondage,” according to the immediate context, had to do with groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf. Rom. 7:2, 7, 15).

The “redemption” associated with the coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture, John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans 8 to be speaking of the same “redemption” that Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse:

Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.[4]

The following chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” in Romans 8:18–23:

Romans 8

Olivet Discourse & Luke 17

 

Present sufferings (Rom. 8:17–18) Suffering to come (Matt. 24:9)
Receive and share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
Glory will be “in” them (Rom. 8:18) Kingdom will be realized “within”at Christ’s return (Lk.17:21–37; 21:27–32)
Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Rom. 8:23–24; cf. 11:15–27; 13:11–12) Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Lk. 21:27–28; Matt. 24:13, 30–31/Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)
Birth pains together (Rom. 8:22) Birth pains of the tribulation (Matt. 24:8)
This was “about to” take place (Rom. 8:18) This would all happen in their “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

On page 200 of WSTTB, Mathison expresses willingness to concede that the imminence in Romans 13:11–12 was fulfilled in AD 70. The passage reads:

. . . it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. . . .

But The Reformation Study Bible, of which Mathison is an editor, harmonizes Romans 13:11 with Romans 8:23, correctly teaching that “salvation” in that verse is not merely deliverance from persecution (as Mathison theorizes in WSTTB): “salvation. Here in the sense of future, final redemption (8:23).”[1] The connection between these two passages is made even stronger when we allow the Greek word mello in Romans 8 to be translated the way it is predominately used in the New Testament:

For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us. (Rom. 8:18, YLT)

It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of melloin Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists. Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses. Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:

…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[2]   …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is:

“be on the point of, be about to. The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.[3] Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[4]

Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard? It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai — “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.

At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:

“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[5]

We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).

Interestingly enough though, according to Gentry and Mathison one of the things that was “about to come after” John wrote Revelation 1:19 was the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New  Creation of Revelation 21:1ff. Mathison and Gentry tell us in their other works that the time texts in Revelation point to a near fulfillment of the passing of “the first heaven and earth.” They point out that Revelation 21:1 is referring to the passing of the old covenant “creation” in AD 70 and is a fulfillment of Isaiah 65–66. Gentry even says:

The absence of the sea (Rev. 21:1) speaks of harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin (13:1–2; cf. Isa. 8:7–8; 23:10; 57:20; Jer. 6:23; 46:7; Ezek. 9:10).  Christianity offers the opposite: peace with God and among humankind (Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:12–18; Phil. 4:7, 9).

But then Mathison and Gentry assign an “expanded” meaning to 2 Peter 3, which discusses the same promises in Isaiah 65–66. They suggest that Peter is addressing the geological “elements” of the planet while the Apostle John, referencing the same Old Testament passage, is not.

This is not only arbitrary, it is amazing. If Gentry and Mathison can give prophetic New Testament passages “expanded” meanings to fit their eschatology, then they have surrendered their debate with Dispensationalists, who constantly employ this strategy to force their eschatology upon New Testament passages.

In Mathison’s section on the “Restoration of Creation” (195–197), he appeals to the literal and global beginnings of Genesis 1–3 to point out that preterists have interpreted “the end” in Romans 8 and in the rest of the New Testament in an inaccurate way. But Mathison should be open to considering the interpretations of Genesis 1–3 that are presented by some within the Reformed tradition and by other futurists.

Combined, authors such as Augustine, Milton Terry, David Snoke, Meredith Kline, and dispensationalist John Sailhamer teach the following:

  • Man was created a physical dying creature like all the plant and animal life around him.
  • The physics of the creation did not change after Adam.
  • Genesis 1–2 uses the Hebrew word eretz, which should be translated as “land” or “ground” and not [planet] “earth.”
  • God’s emphases in the early chapters of Genesis are not scientific but theological, emphasizing the origins of sin in the heart and man’s need for the Seed of the woman to redeem him from Sin.

As the theological emphasis in Genesis 1–2 is on the local land of Eden, which is both theologically and geographically tied to Israel’s Promised Land, so too is the emphasis of the New Testament on a Great Commission preached to the nations of Israel and to the Roman Empire with a judgment that would affect the nations of that world.

Both the localized and covenantal judgment in Eden and the one in AD 70 affected and continue to affect all humankind. The introduction of spiritual death (condemnation and alienation from God within the heart and conscience of man through Adam) was overcome by Christ’s death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in AD 70. All men and nations of the world are either inside the new Israel and New Jerusalem or outside her gates — as the gospel continues to bring healing and judgment to the nations today and forever (cf. Rev. 21–22:17).

When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.”63 

DiscoursesAndSayings_SET

Reformed theologian John Brown not only stresses that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 is the OC system, but that those familiar with the OT should understand the phrase as such:

“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.” (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord (Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170, MJS – emphasis added).

Like we saw with The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Owen and Lightfoot — those that are familiar with the OT Scriptures have and continue to see this while you and liberals don’t.

Scholars that aren’t even Preterists (but often times give the impression that they are leaning in such a direction), such as G.K. Beale are admitting that the Jew understood his land or Temple to be a “heaven and earth,”

“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a Unknown-4way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.” (G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A
biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). See also J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70.

I called in a radio show where Beale was being interviewed concerning this quote in his book and asked him why he didn’t apply his statements here with Jesus’ and the disciples discussion of the Temple in Matthew 23-24.  He avoided the subject and merely began name-calling.  Sad indeed.

But Evangelicals are making the Full Preterist connections with NT texts where Beale is afraid to.  Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on the heaven and earth in Matthew 5:18 and Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:

519MJRVKT5L._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he principle reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] [or Matthew 24:35] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. (Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157).

51vnAiyJTxL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_Gary DeMar is exegetical and contextually consistent when he admits that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 24:35 is the same subject (the fall of OC Jerusalem and her OC world/age) and de-creation event as 24:29,

“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth” will pass away” (24:35).” (Last Days Madness, 192).

Why am I going over this?  Well, MacArthur sees “that which is perfect” and the seeing of God’s face in 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 as the arrival of the New Creation in Revelation 22:4-12.  And you allowed R.C. Sproul to speak at the Strange Fire Conference who takes the arrival of the new creation of Revelation 22:4-12 as being fulfilled and coming in spiritually at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70.  Now we can begin to solve some of the inconsistencies and problems I experienced at The Master’s College and from reading Reformed authors and now Sproul’s conflicted Reformation Study Bible.

Harmonizing MacArthur and Sproul’s Conflicting Views on When the Gifts of Tongues, Prophecy and Knowledge Are to Cease

Let’s first look at the conflicted message MacArthur and The Master’s College were teaching me on this passage and then we will move on to what Reformed theologians such as Sproul are now saying.  Let’s be real clear and honest here Phil – the real reason you won’t engage in a debate or dialog with Dr. Brown and myself over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 is because you have no sound consistent exegetical answer — period!  The Strange Fire book and Tom Pennington’s lecture demonstrated this by giving a very fast fly-by — “there’s so many different views…” to this crucial text.  That and even instructors in John’s own college don’t find the context or the Greek to support his view.

  • Premise #1 (MacArthur):  Tongues ceased in AD 70 but prophecy and knowledge will pass away when the ONE arrival of the New Creation is fulfilled.  “That which is perfect” being the Cannon of Scripture is not correct.
  • Premise #2 (TMC – C.W. Smith):  There is no exegetical or strong Greek case for MacArthur’s view.  Tongues, Prophecy and knowledge all cease and pass away when “that which is perfect comes.”
  •  In my estimation the above two views form Charismatic doctrine (tongues, prophecy and knowledge cease at a future time — the New Creation), or they form Full Preterism — since tongues ceased in AD 70, then the others did too when the New Covenant New Creation arrived at the “soon” coming of the Lord in AD 70.
  • Conclusion/Synthesis:   If tongues ceased in AD 70 and the other gifts are to cease when tongues did, then the spiritual New Creation arrived at the “soon” AD 70 coming of Christ — like R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison teach in Revelation 22:4-7.  Phil why is it such a stretch to get yourself or MacArthur and R.C. Sproul to discuss these passages with us?  Why so much fear Phil?  The righteous are “as bold as a lion” and yet you, MacArthur and your professors are acting like scared kitty cats.

Unknown

But in all honesty Phil you aren’t the only fearful ones.  R.C. Sproul and Mathison still have not responded to our book and won’t interact with us on these issue either.  And here’s why:

  • Premise #1 (R.C. Sproul): The “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation 22:6-7, 20 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70. This historical event caused the passing of the Old Covenant Creation while bringing about the arrival of the spiritual New Covenant Creation.  As a result, we see God’s face today spiritually in the New Covenant Heavens and Earth.
  • Premise #2 (Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible): But the “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation 22:6-7, 20 is the Second Coming event and so is “that which is perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10-12.  We will only see God’s face clearly when these passages are fulfilled at the Second Coming.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, if both propositions are true (and we believe they are “Reformed and always reforming”) then the “soon” Second Coming of Christ and seeing of God’s face as described for us in Revelation 22:6-7, 20 and 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 were fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 when the Old Covenant creation passed away and the glory of the spiritual New Covenant creation took it’s place.   Therefore, the miraculous sign and revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge ceased in AD 70.

In order to exegetically solve the Charismatic problem and harmonize their contradictions, they would have to become Full Preterists – and they don’t want anyone pointing that out.  In other words, if “A” (Rev. 22:4-7) was fulfilled “soon” and spiritually in AD 70, but “A” (Rev. 22:4-7) is also equal to “B” (1 Cor. 13:8-12), then “B” (1 Cor. 13:8-12) was also fulfilled “soon” and spiritually in AD 70.  Therefore, these three gifts ceased together in AD 70 and we see God’s face today clearly in the New Covenant Heavens and Earth.  See there Phil, we just fixed Spurgeon’s and Sproul’s confusion over this issue of the OC and NC heavens and earth passing and arriving — while at the same time giving the Charismatic an exegetical reason why these gifts really did “cease” at the “soon” Second Coming event!  And it wasn’t difficult at all.

Sproul final
Like yourself and MacArthur, Sproul and Mathison have a lot of explaining to do concerning their “heretical”  Postmillennial Partial Preterism (per the early Amillennial creeds) since it along with their Reformation Study Bible leads us to Full Preterism:

Premise #1:  Editors of this Reformed Study Bible (R.C. Sproul & Keith Mathison) teach that the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24:27-30; 25:31 was fulfilled spiritually in AD 70 before some of those standing next to Jesus died and in their generation (Full Preterists agree).

Premise #2:  But the The Reformation Study Bible itself teaches that the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in judgment to gather the elect in Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:27-31; 25:31ff. is addressing Christ’s ONE eschatological hope or ONE Second Coming and resurrection event and forms the foundation to Paul’s eschatology and are thus “parallel” (using the analogy of faith principle of interpretation) to Christ’s trumpet parousia/catching away or parousia/change in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17–chpt. 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (Full Preterists agree).

Conclusion/Sythesis/Full Preterism:  The principle of “Reformed and always reforming” (and that the creeds may be in error) should be honored in order to harmonize these conflicting views.  The clear time texts of Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 24:27-34 are to be honored just as the analogy of faith (“parallels”) between Jesus’ eschatology and Paul’s eschatology in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.  Both instruct us that Jesus and Paul were teaching the Second Coming and resurrection event would be fulfilled at “the end” of the OC age in AD 70 and an event to be expected in some of their lifetimes.

Click on this chart and enlarge if you need to (very important):

22449867_10155710467539192_9014182051600458209_n

By the way this chart destroys MacArthur’s two comings of Jesus separated by seven years (rapture “coming” then second coming 7 years later) and Sproul’s two coming theory separated by thousands or millions of years (coming in AD 70 then another at the end of world history)!  Phil, let’s get real here, isn’t the truth that men like you, MacArthur, Sproul and Mathison just don’t want the public and your students to see your current embarrassment and conflicting views over eschatology and 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and other revenant passages?  I get it.  Sproul and RTS are right there with you.

Phil you and MacArthur are sticking your heads in the sand on the NT imminent time texts re-defining them into meaninglessness, while Sproul and Mathison are imploring a more than inconsistent hermeneutic on the time texts (ex. Acts 24:15 YLT/Dan. 12:2; Rms. 16:20/Gen. 3:15) and unable to allow Scripture to interpret itself, because to do so they would have to agree to revise the creeds in the area of eschatology.  And no one wants to do that after being so INVESTED in them at this point.

I’ll deal with Brown’s Premillennial “heresy” he shares with you and his Charismatic “heresy” on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12. And you, MacArthur and Sproul can crawl back into your very well funded shell and bubble pretending you guys are doing apologetic work against Charismatics and Preterists.  Wow.

What Kind of Apologetics Does The Master’s Seminary Teach —

Bubble Apologetics?

I remember after my 4 point Calvinist instructor and director of Calvary Chapel Bible College (Richard Goswiller) got fired for being Calvinistic t– the next director began purging the library of Calvinist works.  Calvary Chapel was a “bubble” – scared to be popped by any other views.  That reminds me now of what The Master’s University and Seminary has become when it comes to trying to exegetically deal with Charimsatics or Preterists.   They regularly mock Charismatics and Preterists and yet will not defend their Futurism in honest debate or scholarship.  It’s a pure mystery to me as to why you would even have classes on apologetics at your University or Seminary if MacArthur, yourself and your staff can’t live out an honest Christian apologetic in your lives and ministry.  Selah.

I have been in conUnknown-1tact with Southern Evangelical Seminary and they are going to see if they can find a professor that will have a public “discussion” with Dr. Brown and myself over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and the cessation question.

Oddly, right after holding a conference on apologetics, they are telling me that they don’t really have anyone “qualified” to discuss this passage and issue with us.  They are currently asking Dr. Richard Howe if he would be willing to step up to the plate.  I think it’s not charitable for them to say Brown’s Charismatic views are a “black stain” upon his ministry (which I agree with), but then not be willing to engage with him and myself (along with the students and faculty members) on this matter in a public setting.  If we are both wrong to have an eschatological view of this passage — then someone at SES should prove it.  The Seminary and Norman Geisler have been critical both of Brown’s Charismatic views and Preterism in general. Therefore, I welcome a debate/”discussion” with Mr. Geisler to prove (among many things) that his Premillennial interpretation and translation of “this generation…” (Mt. 24:34) as, “this Jewish race will not pass away until all theses be fulfilled” has not exegetical merit whatsoever!

imagesI continue to pray for a Bible College or Seminary setting for this discussion/debate.   I thought Reformed Theological Seminary of Charlotte would be a great place to have this debate or discussion with the students and faculty as well.  But they won’t let me past a secretary.   Even though I have co-authored a book responding to Keith Mathison, they pretend I haven’t had any “direct engagement” with them and pretend we don’t exist.  My/our book remains in their seminary library unanswered and their instructors refuse to dialog or debate me.

Latest update on the Sullivan v. Brown debate — If S.E.S. can’t find anyone “qualified” for actually performing apologetics (after having a conference on the subject), then we will have the debate at Dr. Brown’s church sometime in January or February.  I will post updates on the date and time.

My Previous Letter Sent June 14th, 2016

Dear Pastor John MacArthur and faculty at The Master’s University / Seminary,

My purpose in this letter is to request a forum to debate Charismatic Apologist Dr. Michael L. Brown (author of Authentic Fire A Response to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire), and if possible to have Pastor MacArthur or one of the professors at The Master’s College or Seminary participate and present their position (a symposium of sorts).  I also believe it would be productive to bring in some Reformed Theologians on the topic (see below).

Pastor MacArthur you may remember me as a student at The Master’s College in the early 90’s –  I also attended Grace Community and worked at the churches bookstore?  As a student I had just left 4 point Calvinism behind and embraced limited atonement.  I was giving you a lot of material on that subject including Gary Long’s book and syllabus – on Definite Atonement.  I also was trying to get you and the faculty to hire my former Director and Bible College professor from Calvary Chapel Bible College – Dr. Richard Goswiller.  You may also remember me as one asking many questions in that early class where you made yourself available for questions?  I talked to you and asked questions regarding your inconsistent 4 point “Calvinist” position (that I just left for the 5 point view) and Partial Preterism (which I had just begun to study).  I also gave you arguments as to why I felt the miraculous sign gifts were still for today which included:

  1. If “that which is perfect” and the “face to face” sight (the Second Coming and New Creation) has not come (1 Cor. 13:8-12/Rev. 22:4-7), then the miraculous sign gifts are still for the church today.  My exegesis of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 here.
  2. If we are still in the “last days” (cf. Acts 2), then the miraculous sign gifts are still for the church today.  My exegesis of Acts 2 and the last days here.
  3. If the Great Commission and end of the age of Matt. 24:14/Mark 16/Matt. 28/Acts 1:8 had not been fulfilled, then the miraculous sign gifts are still for the church today.  My exegesis of the Great Commission texts here.
  4. If we are still in the “already and not yet” phase of the kingdom, then the miraculous sign gifts are still for the church today.  My response – The “not yet” Kingdom and Second Coming arrived in an “at hand” and AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time frame (Lk. 21:27-32).

During that year of College not only would I go on to become a 5 point Calvinist, but I also studied and left behind Dispensationalism, Amillennialism and Partial Preterism for Full Preterism (as I combined what the Classic Amillennialist and Partial Preterist were saying of Matthew 24/1 Thess. 4-5 and many other crucial eschatological texts).  I initially came to Full Preterism not even knowing it was a view – just through my personal studies (my testimony here).  Full Preterism not only was an answer to my prayers regarding eschatology, but it also was the antidote to the Charismatic arguments I didn’t see you addressing with me in person or in reading your books or listening to sermons.  I recently read your book(Strange Fire) and Dr. Brown’s response (Authentic Fire) and gave a two-part lecture response to them at The Berean Bible Conference  (those DVD’s are still being edited).  Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to address all of the 4 points listed above in those lectures – which was a response to Dr. Brown and how you and the conference speakers did not deal with these arguments.  However, I have been responding to these 4 points in a series of articles on my web site:  fullpreterism.com.

As a student at The Master’s College I do remember us inviting a Mormon Apologist to one of our classes.  We were challenged to research Mormonism and be prepared to ask him challenging questions.  It was a very healthy learning / back and forth experience for all involved.  Textbooks can only equip a Christian so much and at some point we need to debate and personally engage the culture and various positions face to face.  I appreciate my professor for doing this.  I also invited Dr. Greg Bahnsen to our college and he lectured in various classes and answered challenging questions from students and staff.  Again, this was healthy for the students and faculty.  If The Master’s College can engage with Mormon and Reconstructionist Apologists, surely she can engage Charismatic and Full Preterist Apologists over the subject of Strange Fire and when the Bible teaches the sign and revelatory gifts are to cease?

Currently my debate with Dr. Brown is centered on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.  The position I will be defending is a combination of the corporate maturity view and the eschatology view – when Christ and the New Creation came spiritually and “soon” (cf. Rev. 22:4-7) in AD 70, the Church stood mature and complete from the Old Covenant system.  In Dr. Brown’s debate with Reformed Apologist James White over the gift of healing, White completely ignored Brown’s argument on 1 Cor. 1:5-8/13:8-12.  In his debate with another Reformed author – Sam Waldron, Sam had a very difficult time explaining his or Richard Gaffin’s view of the passage.  Obviously your own right-hand man Phil Johnson didn’t do so well in his discussions with Dr. Brown over the Strange Fire conference.  Which I found odd in that there was no discussion over Scripture (which was probably something Phil didn’t want to discuss since Brown has been asking for a debate and discussion over Scripture on this subject for a long time now).

Please host and or participate in this debate.  Or better yet here is my suggestion that I believe will bring the most healing to the body:

A symposium on the subject of when the sign and revelatory gifts are to cease according to Scripture – addressing those 4 points/passage listed above.  Here are the participants I am requesting to participate:

  • Reformed Partial Preterist Cessationist – R.C. Sproul / Keith Mathison / Gary DeMar.
  • Historic Premillennial Charismatic – Michael Brown.
  • Reformed Charismatic – John Piper.
  • Dispensational Cessationist – John MacArthur (or co-Pastor or Professor).
  • Reformed Amillennial Cessationist – Sam Waldron or James White.
  • Sovereign Grace Full Preterist Cessationist – Michael Sullivan.

Each view must cover those 4 points and respond to the others exegesis and treatment of them.  So there is no confusion let me briefly outline my view:

  1. “That which is perfect” and the “face to face” sight (1 Cor. 13:8-12) is the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation which arrived at the end of the OC age/heaven and earth “soon” in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 21-22:4-7). Thus the sign and revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge “ceased” in AD 70.
  2. The “last days” (of Acts 2 and elsewhere in the NT ) is descriptive of the last days of the OC age which ended in AD 70. Thus the sign and revelatory gifts ceased at the end of the last days of the OC age in AD 70.
  3. The Great Commission of Matt. 24:14, 34/Matt. 28:18-20/Mrk. 16:15-20/Acts 1:8 was a sign that preceded Christ’s coming at the end of the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” and was fulfilled prior to “the end” or “end of the [OC] age” (cf. Rms. 10:18, 16:25-26; Cols. 1:5-6, 23). Thus the sign and revelatory gifts ceased in AD 70.
  4. The “already and not yet” of the kingdom was roughly between AD 30 – AD 70 when the OC and NC overlapped – with the old passing away and “ready to vanish” while the new was “about to be” fully revealed.   The “not yet” aspect of the “kingdom” was to be fulfilled at Christ’s imminent and first century “this generation” Second Coming (Lk. 21:27-32).  Thus the sign and revelatory gifts ceased in AD 70.

As I argued in my/our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? the truth in the eschatology debate (and in the miraculous signs and revelatory gifts debate) is to be found in combining the Reformed Classical Amillennial view with the Reformed Partial Preterist views – “Reformed and always reforming.”  These views not only form Full Preterism, they effectively refute the “Charismatic Chaos” and confusion that have plagued the church.  In your Strange Fire book and conference, you appealed to Reformed and Puritan theology.  Obviously I do not believe you have followed your own advise in the area of Reformed Theology as it applies to eschatology let alone in how it applies to this area of when the Bible teaches the sign and revelatory gifts are to cease (My response to you on how these two Reformed views form Full Preterism and solve the Charismatic debate).  As a former student of yours, I have and am willing to debate and interact with these other views on these passages and subjects – are you?

Please show Dr. Brown and myself that Grace Community and The Master’s College and Seminary is not a bubble that just talks about Theology and Apologetics – but in reality is unwilling to actually do the work of an Apologist.  This is what I have found to be the case with my other former church and Bible College – Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, and Calvary Chapel Bible College.  They now even have an “Apologetics” school that is unwilling to debate me.  Amazing that they are incapable of debating one of their own graduates.

I am thankful to Dr. Brown who has debated Don Preston (over Romans 11) and is now willing to debate me over (1 Cor. 13:8-12).  Pastor MacArthur, will you please engage us on these exegetical issues as to when the Bible teaches the sign and revelatory gifts are to cease?  I must confess my agreement with Dr. Brown and the Charismatic community that your Strange Fire Conference spent so much time on the subject of extremes within the Charismatic movement and very little time and lectures dedicated to an exegetical treatment of the cessation issue (which is the heart of the matter).  I am hoping what I am suggesting here will help deal with these valid criticisms of your conference.

As I have been writing this letter I have left messages and am in the process of being in contact with The Master’s College and Seminary.  Per the request of the receptionist at Grace Community, I will send this via email so that it will be passed along to you.  I will also post this on my web site as a public and open letter and send you a snail mail version along with a copy of my/our book.  At the very least please read my responses to Keith Mathison on the NT time texts (chapter 4) and Simon Kistemaker on the date of Revelation (chapter 5) and then David Green’s response to Mr. Strimple on the resurrection (chapter 7).

In Christ,

Michael Sullivan

To read this series of articles that are a Full Preterist response to Charismatic Michael Brown (Author of Authentic Fire)  and Cessationist John MacArthur (Author of Strange Fire) go to:  

Part 1 – My Full Preterist Response to John MacArthur’s Appeals to Church History and Reformed Theology to Solve the Charismatic Dilemma http://fullpreterism.com/1-corinthians-138-12-a-full-preterist-response-to-the-strange-fire-conference-macarthursproulpennington-cessationists-v-authentic-fire-brownwilsonpiper-cha/

Part 2 – An Overview of the Various Views of “That Which is Perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) http://fullpreterism.com/1-corinthians-138-12-a-full-preterist-response-to-the-strange-fire-conference-macarthursproulpennington-cessationists-v-authentic-fire-brownwilsonpiper-cha/

Part 3 – My Full Preterist Response to Charismatic Michael Brown’s Argument on 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 Demonstrating That the Miraculous Sign and Revelatory Gifts of Tongues, Prophecy and Knowledge Ceased and Passed Away with the OC Age in AD 70 and John MacArthur’s Inability to Deal with the Passage  http://fullpreterism.com/my-full-preterist-response-to-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-cessationist-v-michael-brown-authentic-fire-charismatic-part-3-argument-1-an-exegesis-of/

Part 4 – My Full Preterist Response to Charismatic Michael Brown’s Argument on the “Last Days” of Acts 2 and John MacArthur’s Inability to Deal with the Passage http://fullpreterism.com/my-full-preterist-response-to-michael-brown-charismatic-authentic-fire-vs-john-macarthur-cessationist-strange-fire-the-last-days-acts-2/

Part 5 – My Full Preterist Response to Charismatic Michael Brown’s Argument on the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-20 and John MacArthur’s Inability to Deal with the Passage http://fullpreterism.com/my-full-preterist-response-to-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-cessationist-v-michael-browns-authentic-fire-charismatic-part-5-argument-3-the-great-commission/

Part 6 – My Full Preterist Response to Charismatic Michael Brown’s Argument on the “Already and Not Yet” of the Kingdom and John MacArthur’s Inability to Respond Biblically http://fullpreterism.com/my-full-preterist-response-to-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-cessationist-v-michael-browns-authentic-fire-charismatic-part/

Part 7 – My Full Preterist Response to Charismatic Michael Brown’s Argument on John 14:12 and John MacArthur’s (The Master’s Seminary) Inability to Deal With the Passage and the Infallibility of the Scriptures going on into John 16 http://fullpreterism.com/my-full-preterist-response-to-john-macarthurs-strange-fire-cessationist-v-michael-browns-authentic-fire-charismatic-part-2/

Part 8 – My Open Letter to my Former Pastor John MacArthur and The Master’s Seminary to Interact with Myself and Dr. Michael Brown on These Passages and When the Bible Teaches Tongues, Prophecy and Knowledge Are to Cease That Has NEVER Been Responded to http://fullpreterism.com/open-letter-to-pastor-john-macarthur-and-faculty-at-the-masters-college-seminary-sullivan-v-brown-debate-symposium-challenge/

In Christ,

Mike Sullivan

www.fullpreterism.com

PS – I may be adding some more documentation and facts to this letter to Phil over the coming weeks.

Daniel 9:24-27 From Babylonian Bondage to Messianic Jubilee Sabbath Rest and Inheritance "in Christ" By AD 70 (Introducing Full Preterist Chronomessianism)

By: Michael J. Sullivan – Copyright 2018 – all rights reserved. Thank you for your Christian charity and honesty in advance.

Introduction:

The first thing any Futurist Pastor, commentary, Bible College or Seminary professor and or scholar is going to tell you is just how “very difficult” (allegedly) and that there are just so many “various views” of Daniel 9:24-27 to navigate through. And of course, this is true for the Futurist, and they readily admit this confusion on our Lord’s teaching in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation as well. This is probably due to the fact that Daniel 9:24-27 is a microcosm and recapitulation of Daniel chapters 2; 7 and 12 and these three verses in essence function as a fulfillment of all OT prophecy and thus is the corner stone to understanding the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation (that is understand all prophecy). But for the Sovereign Grace Full Preterist, confusion on Daniel 9:24-27 (as well as the OD and book of Revelation) is removed and a very simple, exegetical and common-sense interpretation emerges from all the confusion Futurism has given us.

Solutions Summarized “Reformed and Always Reforming”

My approach will be to describe various views of Daniel’s seventy seven’s prophecy and seek to harmonize them with Jesus’ teaching that this prophecy and the entire OT would be fulfilled in His contemporary generation (Lk. 21:20-32).

1). The Historical and or Christotelic Messianic View: While there may be some differences between Calvin, Luther, and modern Calvinists such as Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Kenneth Gentry, R.C. Sproul, and E. J. Young, these men old and modern, may be said to represent this position. This view sees Daniel 9:24-27 as Jesus (not some “antichrist”) coming to usher in or inaugurate the New Covenant or Kingdom of God. This view emphasizes the time period covered by the prophecy to be fulfilled around AD 30-35 or so, but also gives lip service that it concludes with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

It is important to point out that within Partial Preterism, it is taught that Daniel’s “the end” “time of the end” or Jesus’ “end of the age” in Matthew 13:39-43 and 24:3, 14 refers to Christ coming to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70 and that there was a spiritual, corporate and covenantal resurrection that was fulfilled during this time.  Basically, they have stolen the Full Preterist view of the resurrection but that’s another issue.

There is also some confusion as to when the decree begins some starting it with Cyrus in his command to rebuild the temple/city in 538 BC and yet others with the various kings (Ezra 6:14) and thus place it more around in 457 BC.  Those that start the count with Cyrus end up 50 years before Christ’s birth and over a 100 years short of AD 70.  These folks either end up adopting a spiritual view (ex. see Kline and Storms below) or reworking the numbers to arrive at Christ’s birth to AD 65 (see Lurie below).

2). The Symbolic and Sabbatical Messianic View:  Is held by men such as Meredith Kline, Keil,C. F. & Delitzsch, F., Ian Duguid, Sam Storms and Andrew Steinman (all sharing different denominational backgrounds). While this view focuses on the redemptive work of Christ as the fulfillment of the seventy sevens prophecy, it does not try and force what is really a roughly 600 years period into a literal 490. This view sees the number 490 being symbolic of various periods of time in redemptive history. Therefore, unlike the Futurist historical messianic view, this view sees the fulfillment extending until the Second Coming – to close the “last days” or bring about “the end” or end of the age.

3).  Ten 49 Cycles of the Sabbath Jubilee (490 yrs.) or From 424/422 BC to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70: This view is held by Margaret Barker and was held during first century Judaism and during the development of the NT.  The 70 7’s of Daniel 9:24-27 refer to the first century Jewish expectation that Messiah would accomplish redemption for Israel roughly between AD 17/26 to AD 66/70.  Jewish tradition goes on to see the 490 years period extending from the first Temple’s destruction in 424/422 BC (Jewish calendar) to AD 70.  I will argue that Jesus in fact did fulfill this 10 th. Jubilee cycle between AD 26 – AD 66-70.

The second view is accurate to point out the 490 years are connected to the Jubilee and dealing with a theological point concerning sabbath rest extending to the Second Coming of Christ to close the age.  However, it errs in that it fails to acknowledge that Christ posits its redemptive end and unfolding of the kingdom to be fulfilled:

  1. at the destruction of the first century temple and city (Dan. 9:24, 26-27/Matt. 24:15/Luke 21:20-22),
  1. the “end of the age” or “the end” in (Matt. 24:3, 14) is referring to the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 and not the end of world history or the end to the new covenant or Christian age, and…
  1. Jesus posits the fulfillment of redemption and the arrival of his kingdom and second coming to take place within the same AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” time period (Luke 21:27-32).

The view I will be arguing for is #3 which acknowledges all of these key elements to Daniel’s prophetic material while embracing a first century chronological setting for the prophecy.

Perhaps we have missed something in Daniel 9:25. The Hebrew very well can support “From the the issuing of the WORD [prophetic word of Jeremiah] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…there will be [490 yrs.]…” That is, the 490 years prophecy includes the 70 years of Babylonian captivity and therefore does not begin the countdown when it ends. Jeremiah not only prophesied of the beginning of the 70 years, but the restoration of the Jews to come back in the land and the New Covenant the Messiah would usher in.
 
“Jews for Judaism” mock Christians for not understanding the countdown begins with the prophetic “WORD” of Jeremiah and not a secular king. But this is the MISSING piece I needed and FURTHER supports that Yeshua is the Messiah! First let’s look at what Jews for Judaism writes,
 
“The angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel this additional understanding of the 70 years extending them from 70 years to 70 weeks of years stretching the time span to 490 years that span from the destruction of the first Temple to the Destruction of the second Temple. This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.
 
Although there appears to be a discrepancy in chronology between the Jewish and secular Gregorian calendars of 166 years (with the secular dates earlier) it is clear that Jewish record keeping is more reliable and consistent concerning these events. Babylonian calendars changed arbitrarily with every new Babylonian king and limited archeological discoveries often reflect their arbitrary chronology. (According to secular chronology 586 BCE is the year incorrectly associated with the destruction of the first Temple the Jewish).” (Jews for Judaism).
 
Yeshua would have used the Jewish calendar. As I demonstrated in one sermon and two of my articles thus far, if you start the countdown from the destruction of the first temple using the Jewish calendar (424/422BC) and begin the 10 jubilee’s (490 yrs.) count from there, you end up at AD 26/28 to BEGIN that 10th Jubilee cycle. This is when Yeshua opens the scroll of Isaiah 61/Luke 4. Yeshua/Messiah MUST accomplish ALL of the redemptive events in Dan. 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61 BEFORE the second temple is destroyed in AD 70. Yeshua – from AD 26/28 to AD 66-70 accomplished redemption from the cross to parousia or “day(s) of vengeance” (Isa. 61/Lk. 21:20-22) within that last Jubilee cycle perfectly!
45878532_10156697132264192_8128908576199540736_n
Visio-Eschatology-chronomessianism-7 
This is probably the coolest thing I have seen since learning the doctrines of grace and then Full Preterism. I’ll have to try and set up a debate with “Jews for Judaism” and defend this position. As far as I know, I’m the only Full Preterist out there that has seen this and is defending it.
 
Of all people, I appreciate Sam Frost, for pointing out the 70 years are included in the 490 years and the Hebrew supports the “word” going back to Jeremiah. 70 years of captivity times 7 for breaking the sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26 gives you 490 years. Unfortunately all Sam can see is a non-Messianic prophecy, whereas all I can see is a PERFECT Messianic prophecy fulfilled by AD 70. Selah.

Premise #1If it is true that Daniel 9:24-27 is about Christ establishing His New Covenant Kingdom age with the prophecy ending with the destruction of Jerusalem to close the Old Covenant age in AD 70,…

Premise #2…and if it is also true that Daniel 9:24-27 is connected to Daniel 2; 7; and 12 and covers the “last days” extending to the Second Coming of Jesus to bring an “end” to the age and thus usher in the New Creation or world of righteousness,…

Premise #3 – and if it is also true that the Jew during the first century expected Messiah to come soon to fulfill the 10th. cycle of the Jubilee (490 yrs. – with no 2,000 plus years and counting gaps) and Yeshua showed up during this “set time” to fulfill the soteriological and eschatological expectations of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isiah 61:1-11…

Conclusion/Synthesis (Sovereign Grace Full Preterism)– …Then in honoring NT imminence, the above historic views of the church, and the historical expectation and setting of the 10th. Jubilee cycle among the Jews of Yeshua’s day—we conclude it must be true and orthodox to believe that Daniel 9:24-27 was fulfilled when Christ (in Israel’s last days) appeared (in His first and second appearings as High Priest Heb. 9-10:37) to close the Old Covenant age and establish and mature the New Covenant age by AD 70. This is the time when all OT prophecy was fulfilled (Lk. 21:20-22), and the sign and revelatory gifts ceased along with the office of Prophet from the Church.  Selah.
The rest of this article will further prove the conclusion reached above.

Jewish Traditions of Daniel 9:24-27 and 7:13-14

And by way of introduction, we should also note that this passage was known to be messianic among some Jews.  Dr. Michael Brown points out a well known Rabbinic commentator took the prophecy as both fulfilled by AD 70 and yet at the same time as fulfilled in the times of Messiah,

“…Rashi taught that the prophecy pinpointed the death of Agrippa and the destruction of the Temple–major events in the last generation of the Second Temple era–but then simply drifted off to the distant future in terms of the final fulfillment of the prophecy.”  (Dr. Michael Brown, ANSWERING JEWISH OBJECTIONS to JESUS, Volume Three, Baker Books, 2003, p. 90).

“…He [Rashi] interprets the destruction of the city and the sanctuary as pointing to that same event under Titus the Roman general.  As translated by Jewish historian Heinrich W. Guggenheimer, “the power of his reign [Titus] will be blown away by the Messiah.”  Third, he makes reference again to God’s kingdom coming in power through the Messiah, but once more, it is merely appended without explanation.” (Ibid. 89).

“…He [Rashi] explains how all the prophesied events culminate and unfold in a time period on generation after Jesus and then says, “And the real end of the story will take place in the days of the Messiah” — which, according to traditional Judaism, still have not arrived, now two thousand years later.”  (Ibid. 90).
Ironically, Dr. Brown is guilty of the very thing he accuses Rashi of – saying out of one side of his mouth that the prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70, but then out of the other side of his mouth saying it will be fulfilled in the far distant future.  However, Brown out of one side of his mouth claims “…everything Daniel 9:24-27 reached its fulfillment by 70 C.E.” Yet [out of the other side of his mouth] “It is also possible that on the basis of our Messiah’s atoning work, the ultimate fulfillment will take place at the end of this age, when Jesus returns.” (Ibid., p. 98).

Brown misses the NT’s teaching that AD 70 was the event that proved Christ would come “in a very little while and would NOT delay (Heb. 10:37) and was the event the Church could look back upon and know that Christ and His Kingdom “had already come” in “power” (Mt. 16:27-28/Mrk. 8:38–9:1).  The fulfillment of “all” the events in Daniel 9:24-27 by AD 70 caused the miraculous revelatory “visions” and thus the office of “prophet” to “end” “stop” or “cease” confirming the claims of Christ to be God and come “As the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX; 9:24; Mt. 26:62-64/Rev. 1:1, 7-18; 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 13:8-12).  This is especially troubling since Brown claims to be a Charismatic (many touting him as a “prophet”) yet admits he has “prophesied” falsely (ironically of modern Israel) in the past.

Here are some more statements that underscore the passage was seen to be Messianic:

San 97a:  “Our masters taught as follows of the particular seven-year period at whose end [Messiah] son of David will appear” (This seems to refer directly to the Danielic final week!)

San 97b:  “Rav said: All times set for redemption have passed, and the matter now depends only on repentance and good deeds” (All time calculations had been fulfilled).

San 97b:  “R. Samuel bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blaste be the bones of those who presume to calculate the time of redemption. For they are apt to say, ‘Since redemption has not come at the time expected, it will never come.’ Rather, one must wait for it…what then delays its coming? The measure of justice delays it…”

I couldn’t agree more that these Jews did in fact miss and reject the redemptive work of their Messiah (Jesus the Christ) in Daniel’s last seven and “Judaism” hasn’t been the same since AD 70 – having reached her “end” during that terminal “crooked and perverse generation” (Deut. 32:5, 20/Acts 2:20-40/Luke 17:20-21, 25; 21:32). Moses predicted that many of them would not be able to “discern” their “end” (Deut. 32:29).

As so-called Christian “Zionists” like Dr. Michael Brown like to point out — the fact remains, if Messiah didn’t come before the destruction of the second temple and in AD 70, then Messiah didn’t come at the appointed time to the Jewish people and their future Messianic expectations are false. But I would add, just as the modern Zionist is in trouble if Messiah didn’t come before the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, it is equally true for the Christian so-called “Zionist” such as Brown, if Messiah’s Second Coming didn’t occur when the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, the Christian view of OT and NT prophecy comes tumbling down as well and is no less credible than modern Zionists twisting of Daniel 9:24-27. Both modern “Jewish” “Zionist” views seek a physical fulfillment/ manifestation of the Kingdom which is rejected by Christ and the NT authors. Fortunately, a sound Christian Sovereign Grace Full Preterist solution and sound exegesis is here. Selah.

It is also important to point out in connection with Daniel 7 and 9 that the Jews prior to the arrival of Jesus, also had a Messianic view of Daniel 7:13-14 and a concept of the “two powers in heaven.” That is a belief that God is both a Spirit being in heaven and there is a second person of the Godhead that is His Son that is equally eternal and the “Word” and can manifest Himself as an angel or man on earth. In about AD 100, this view was condemned as “heresy” because Jesus and the Christians were affirming that Christ was the fulfillment of this divine Messiah.

The Overall Structure, Historical Context and Theme

When Israel disobeyed the covenant it is said, “The land will be abandoned by them, and will make up for its Sabbaths while it is made desolate without them.” (Lev. 26:43). In Second Chronicles we read, “All the days of its desolation, it kept Sabbath to fulfill Sabbath to fulfill seventy years” (2 Chron. 36:21 NSAB). As those 70 years of captivity were ending and the land had received its Sabbath rest, Daniel prays for his people and is given a prophetic time explaining Israel’s imminent deliverance from the Babylonian captivity and yet at the same time, encompassing her coming Messiah within a period of 70 sevens in which there would be a greater rest and restoration for Israel.

The Anointed/Prince/Ruler/Messiah Jesus is the anti-type of (or the new) Cyrus delivering Israel from her bondage of sin and raising her from the graves of sin-death. And this partial restoration back into the land typified through Nehemiah and Ezra pointed to an anti-typical eschatological gathering “in Christ” at the end of the OC age in AD 70 (Matt. 13:39-43, 49; 24:30-31—25:31-46).

Various Chiastic Structures Considered

 Of the book of Daniel in general:

A – Daniel 1–Daniel Exiled into Babylon – land of death.
B – Daniel 2–Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision (Statue representing four kingdoms)
C– Daniel 3–Deliverance from the Fiery Furnace
D– Daniel 4–Nebuchadnezzar Humbled (seven years of insanity)
D– Daniel 5–Belshazzar Humbled (handwriting on the wall)
C– Daniel 6–Deliverance from the Lion’s Den
B– Daniel 7-9–Daniel’s Visions (Four kingdoms represented in various ways)
A– Daniel 10-12–Daniel’s Vision – end of the Exile and Promise to Be Raised in Another Restoration under Messiah

In this chiasm we can see how “B” chapters 7 and 9 elaborate on when the spiritual kingdom of Daniel 2 arrives. The Second Coming and arrival of the kingdom take place during the time of the Roman Empire in chapter 7. In chapter 9:24-27 we have a further development in that it will involve the Messiah suffering and His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that will establish the spiritual New Covenant Kingdom.

Here is one that connects Daniel 7 with 12 (cf. A1-2) and sees 9:24-27 (C1) as the central part:

A1 (2:4b-49) – A dream of four kingdoms replaced by a fifth.
B1 (3:1–30) – Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace.
C1 (4:1–37) – Daniel interprets a dream for Nebuchadnezzar.
C2 (5:1–31) – Daniel interprets the handwriting on the wall for Belshazzar.
B2 (6:1–28) – Daniel in the lions’ den.
A2 (7:1–28)– A vision explained of four world kingdoms replaced by a fifth.
A1 (7)– Judgment of the dead & kingdom’s arrival.
B1 (8) – A vision of third kingdom & “time of the end.”
C1 (9)– 70 7’s “abomination of desolation” “the end” and Atonement/Consummation
C2 (10–11) – “abomination of desolation” “the end.”
B2 (11) – A vision of second & third kingdom & “time of the end.”
A1-2 (12)– Vision explained: Consummation of Kingdom – Judgment / Resurrection & “time of the end.”
I prefer the above chiasm since it correctly connects Daniel 2, 7, 9 and 12.
Of Daniel 9:24-27 as the central theme and summary from chapter 8-12:
A. Vision of Future Gentile Kings and Kingdoms (8:1-27)
B. Darius the Mede (9:1-2)
C. Daniel’s Distressed Prayer (9:3-19)
D. Angelic Messenger – Daniel Commended (9:20-23)
E. The Seventy ‘Sevens’ and the Messiah (9:24-27)
D. Angelic Messenger – Daniel Commended (10:1-11)
C. Daniel’s Terror Comforted (10:12-21)
B. Darius the Mede (11:1)
A. Vision of Future Gentile Kings and Kingdoms (11:2- 12:4)
While this chiasm seeks to emphasize Daniel 9:24-27, I think it is important to note that while Daniel 9:24-27 is central, Daniel 12:1-7 is in essence a recapitulation of the same prophetic time period and promise – just described differently.
A further breakdown of Daniel 9:25-27:
chiasm-of-daniel-925-27
In this chiasm, (and in the study or story of Israel’s covenant and redemptive history) we should take notice that what is physically re-built and restored under the Old Covenant and being “in the land” will eventually be destroyed and shaken one last time in order to make way for spiritually re-building and establishing Christ’s New Covenant Kingdom or New Jerusalem / Temple “in Christ.” This is what many scholars have referred to as the “two Jerusalem’s.”  When the physical city is being destroyed, God is saving His remnant and the New Jerusalem. The NT makes this connection in Galatians 4 and the tale of the two cities/wives in Revelation – one physical (OC Jerusalem) and subject to being imminently destroyed in AD 70, and the other spiritual (NC Jerusalem) to imminently descend from heaven and be a sanctuary for sinners to flee to post AD 70 (Rev. 17–22:17).  In Daniel 9:24-27 there is a destruction of one Jerusalem and Most Holy Place, and an yet an anointing of another.

As David Green writes (see article after this one), this is “The Preterist Paradox”:

“To the prophet Daniel, the prophecy of the “seventy weeks” might have sounded contradictory. Gabriel first told him (in verse 24) that at the end of “seventy weeks,” the transgression would be finished, an end would be made of sins, atonement would be made for iniquity, everlasting righteousness would be brought in, and the Most Holy Place would be anointed. But then when Gabriel came to the end of the prophecy, he said that the Messiah would be killed and that the city and the sanctuary would be defiled, desolated, and destroyed in the flood of war. Gabriel offered no further explanation.

How could the devastating ending of the “weeks” in verses 26 and 27 be compatible with the joyful ending of the “weeks” in verse 24? How could the “seventy weeks” be consummated in both the destruction of the temple (Dan. 9:26) and in the anointing of the temple? (Dan. 9:24). Or how could the resurrection of the dead and glorification of the saints be fulfilled when the power of the holy people is shattered? (Dan. 12:1-3,7)

This paradox is the heart of the preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. It is what the futurists and the Jews have missed for centuries upon centuries: The destruction of (earthly) Jerusalem signified the advent of (heavenly) Jerusalem. The destruction of the (earthly) Most Holy Place meant the consummated anointing of the (heavenly) Most Holy Place. The (spiritual) sons of the kingdom inherited the kingdom when the (fleshly, unbelieving) sons of the kingdom were cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 8:12; 13:38, 43). This is the preterist key that unlocks the meaning of the “seventy weeks,” and of Zechariah 14, and a host of other prophecies of the Last Days.” (David Green, From Babylon to Babylon: An Exposition of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks).

Seventy Sevens Literal or Symbolic? 

Symbolic or Theological View

Lee Irons and Meredith Kline are at least correct in pointing out that Daniel’s seventy sevens prophecy is not a literal 490 years chronology:

“The seventy “weeks” (literally “sevens”) comprise a definite period of time until the coming of the Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem…a period that is actually longer than a literal 490 years.”

“…the point of the seventy weeks is not to provide a precise chronological prediction but to make the profound theological point that the coming of Christ and the abrogation of the Old Covenant order will usher in the eschatological Sabbath rest for the people of God.”[1]

Sam Storms following Kline writes,

“Let us remember that not only were the Israelites themselves to rest on the 7th day, the land also was to rest in the 7th year. When Gabriel spoke of the “sevens,” 70 of which were decreed for Israel, he had in mind the 7 year period, the 7th year of which was a sabbatical year of rest for the land (Lev. 25:2-7). Kline proceeds to make the point that the sabbath itself, whether for the people or the land, functioned “as a prophetic symbol of the consummation of the covenant order. As elaborated in the Mosaic covenant . . . the sabbath served as a sign of the messianic age of redemptive liberation, restitution, and rest [see esp. Heb. 4:1-11]”.

It would appear, then, that this precise chronological or numerical framework was chosen not because Gabriel desired to set calendrical boundaries of a beginning and end in which the six-fold goal of 9:24 would be accomplished. Rather, he chose this framework, first, because it is sabbatical, and second, because the sabbath (and the number 7) bore special symbolic import for the nation Israel.
This point is confirmed when we observe that Gabriel spoke of “70” of these units of 7, hence 490 years. Why did he not choose 30 or 50 or 80 “sevens” instead of “70 sevens”? The reason is found in Lev. 25:8-55 and the observance of the year of JUBILEE. Let us note particularly vv. 8-12.

When we examine the year of jubilee in detail we discover that its provisions were as follows: (1) the return of all property, according to the original Mosaic distribution, to the original owner or to his family; (2) the release of all Jewish slaves; (3) the cancellation of debts; and (4) the land is to lie fallow, i.e., it is neither to be sown, pruned, reaped, nor gathered for an entire year.

The Jubilee, therefore, was a year in which social justice and equity, freedom, pardon, release, and restoration were emphasized and experienced. The jubilee signalled a new beginning, the inauguration of moral, spiritual, and national renewal. Hence it is no surprise that the jubilee became a symbol and prefigurement of the ultimate redemption, release, and restoration that God would accomplish spiritually on behalf of his people. Indeed, the eschaton, the final day of salvation to be inaugurated by Messiah, was conceived and described in terms of the release ordinance of the Mosaic year of jubilee.
This all takes on special significance when we realize that there is decreed for Israel a total period of seventy sevens of years or 490 years, which is to say 10 JUBILEE ERAS, “an intensification of the jubilee concept pointing to the ultimate, antitypical jubilee”.

The purpose of the 70 weeks prophecy, outlined in Dan. 9:24, was to secure that ultimate salvation, that release, redemption, and restoration of which the Jubilee year was a type or symbolic prefigurement. When Jesus declares that in himself the jubilee of God [Lk. 4:16-21/Isa. 61:1-2] has come he is saying, in effect, that the 70 weeks of Daniel have reached their climax. The new age of jubilee, of which all previous jubilees were prefigurements, has now dawned in the person and ministry of Jesus. THE GOAL OF THE 70 WEEKS PROPHECY IS THE CONSUMMATE JUBILARY SALVATION OF GOD! That is why the chronological frame of reference in which it is said to transpire is jubilary in nature: 10 jubilees = 490 years! The meaning of the period, therefore, is THEOLOGICAL, not calendrical. The 70 weeks are not designed to establish precise chronological parameters for redemptive history. Rather, they serve to evoke a theological image, namely, that in “Messiah Jesus” God will work to effect the final jubilee of redemptive history. The 10 jubilee framework (i.e., the 490 years or 70 weeks) is thus symbolic of the divine work of redemption, at the conclusion of which the eternal and perfected jubilee will appear: THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH (Rev. 21-22).

According to the conclusions reached above, the first half of Daniel’s 70th week runs from the baptism of Jesus to 70 a.d. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 a.d. is the middle of the week, and the present church age is its latter half. Kline concurs and summarizes as follows:
“When we survey the fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophecy from our vantage point, it appears that the last half of the 70th week is the age of the community of the new covenant, disengaged from the old covenant order with whose closing days its own beginnings overlapped for a generation. In the imagery of the NT Apocalypse, the last half week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, and times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the 70 weeks are 10 jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the 70th week closes with the angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come.” (Sam Storms, Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/daniels-70-weeks)

My brief response to Sam Storms and Meredith Kline here:

Ironically, in Sam Storm’s three part series on Matthew 24 he admits that the coming of Christ and the blowing of the trumpet of Matthew 24:30-31 very well could refer to AD 70.  He also defends the position that the “heaven and earth” of (Mt. 24:35 and Mt. 5:17-18) is referring to the Temple and Old Covenant heaven and earth that “passed away” in AD 70.  And since virtually all scholars agree that John’s version of the Olivet Discourse is the book of Revelation, it is more than ironic that Storms won’t make the AD 70 fulfillments he holds to or favors in interpreting Matthew 24 to be present here in the book of Revelation.  The “this generation” coming of Christ in AD 70 found in Matthew 24 which causes “heaven and earth” to “pass away” (Mt. 24:30-35 and Mt. 5:17-18) is the same same “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation which causes the “heavens and earth” to “pass away” (Rev. 21–22:7).

Yeshua came to fulfill both halves of the last seven between AD 30 – AD 70.  Since the NT places the “soon” Second Coming event in Revelation to be in AD 70 (to judge Babylon the Great Harlot City or Old Covenant Jerusalem – Rev. 11:8), this is when the New Creation or New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 reaches her mature state, and thus we see His face and therefore, vision and prophecy are sealed up or have come to reach there desired goal (Rev. 22:4-7/1 Cor. 13:8-12/Dan. 9:24).  This destroys Sam Storms heretical Charismatic theology.

The jubilee is ushered in at the seventh or last trumpet of which in John’s day there would be “no more delay” and corresponds to Yeshua’s saying it would be blown at His Second Coming — within His “this generation” (Rev. 10-11/Mt. 24:30-34).

Therefore, moving from the seventh and last trumpet of Revelation 10-11 we move into Kline’s appeal to the 3.5 years of Revelation 12.  It is interesting that Storms in his article takes the flight of Luke 21:20ff. and Matthew 24:15ff. to be fulfilled just prior to the Roman’s treading down Jerusalem from AD 66 – AD 70, but when the same flight and protection event is described with symbolic language in Revelation 12, this is somehow symbolic of the Church age instead of the AD 66 – AD 70 period?!?

Kline agrees that the Old Covenant overlapped the New Covenant for the “generation” between AD 30 – AD 70.  Therefore, if the OC age was “soon to vanish” (Heb. 8:13) then there is no reason not to accept this was due to the fact that Jesus was coming to come in the same time period “in a very little while and would not delay” to bring an end to that last days age (Heb. 9:26-28–10:37).  That “generation” was the overlapping of the two ages and the “already and not yet” period.  Post AD 70 (after the trumpet has blown) we don’t live or “wander” in the “wilderness” according to the book of Hebrews, because the “heavenly land” and “city” Abraham and the OT saints longed for was “about to come” and did in AD 70 (Heb. 11:14ff.; 13:14YLT)! 

Thus, I would disagree with Kline and Storms that the first half of the seven is from the baptism of Jesus to AD 70 and yet somehow we are in the last half (3.5) awaiting its completion.  No, both halves of the last seven were fulfilled from Christ’s first coming to His Second Appearing “in a very little while” (i.e. in AD 70).  The Church is not waiting within the last half of the seven for it’s completion, it has been fulfilled at His parousia in AD 70 and that is why we are in the 50th / jubilee rest and liberation of the New Covenant age which has no end (Ephs. 3:20-21).   Due to Sam’s commitment to Futurism and Charismatic false teaching, he misses the accurate unfolding or sequence of the theology contained within Daniel 9:24-27 and how it is developed in the rest of the NT.  To miss when the that seventh trumpet is blown, is to blow the theological accuracy and point of Jesus’ development of the prophecy.

No matter how we understand the seventy sevens, they are patterned after the number seven and point to Messiah bringing us into His heavenly land – rest in Him.

INTRODUCING FULL PRETERISM CHRONOMESSIANISM THE CALENDAR OF SABBATICAL CYCLES — THE PROPER AD 26–AD 66-70 CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO DANIEL 9:24-27 AND ISAIAH 61–63:1-6

What modern Christian commentators have missed in Daniel 9:24-27 is the context is addressing Daniel being concerned with the prophetic “word” of Jeremiah (Jer. 25 and 29) and the angel is not discussing beginning the 490 years count down beginning with a “decree” of a Gentile king, but rather explaining the “word” of Jeremiah connected with what God had revealed to Daniel in the vision of Daniel 7.  The 70 years of Babylonian captivity is included within the 490 years prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.  The 70 years of captivity are connected to the Babylonian dominance over Israel but there were three more Gentile kingdoms to go before true and New Covenant restoration under Messiah would be achieved.  The 70 years x  7 (based on breaking the sabbath laws of Lev. 25-26) = 490 years.

The next major error, is that Yeshua was a Jew and He along with the Jews of the first century would have used the Jewish calendar which dated the destruction of the first temple around 420 BC and not the Gentile calendar of 586 BC.  Therefore, first century “Chronomessianism” began the 490 years countdown from the destruction of the first temple to an anticipated arrival of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple.  Messiah had to arrive at the end of the last and 10th jubilee to accomplish all the soteriological and eschatological events listed in Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61:1-11.  They expected Messiah to arrive right around AD 26 – AND HE DID!  But because they missed the spiritual nature of His Kingdom (Lk. 17:20-37), they missed the fulfillment of this powerful prophecy unfold before their very eyes from AD 26 — AD 66-70. Even though Daniel prophesied of a spiritual kingdom (Dan. 2 and 7) and it was clear from their own prophets that they would not be able to “discern” their own “end” when it drew “near” in that particular “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32/Acts 2:40/1 Pet. 4:5-7). The fact that God would be coming to judge their unbelief and not the Romans was prophesied to be a “strange work” (Isa. 28). Their carnal expectations caused them to miss Isaiah’s “new work” of the spiritual New Covenant.

This is the “year of the Lord’s favor” or the eschatological time frame that Eden was GIVEN BACK to man and his SLAVERY from “the death” that came through Adam and Satan was completely removed. The trumpets have been blown, and Post AD 70 we are in the eternal NC age of Jubilee – come enter the gates of the New Jerusalem and celebrate with us (Isa. 65-66/Rev. 21-22:17). Experience the redemption, rest and inheritance that is yours and that can ONLY be found “in Christ” where all the promises of God have been fulfilled (2 Cor. 1:20/Lk. 21:20-22). Selah!

In the Jewish mind,

“422 BC is associated with when the first temple burned 70 Sabbaticals (490 years) before the second temple burned in 70 AD.” (A Treatise on the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, 1866, by Dr. B. Zuchermann, Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary).

And,

“The 2nd century CE rabbinic work Seder Olam Rabbah, which formed the basis of the era counting of the Hebrew calendar, interpreted the prophecy of seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 as referring to a period of 490 years, with a “week” being interpreted as a period of seven years, which would pass between the destruction of the First and Second Temple. This is used to date the destruction of the First Temple to 423 BCE (3338 AM) – about 165 years after the current scholarly dating of the event. The discrepancy between these two dates is referred to as “missing years”.” (Missing Years, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_years_%28Jewish_calendar%29).

The Jews connected the destruction of the first temple (424/422BC), the seventy years of Babylon captivity, the restoration and rebuilding of the Temple (under Ezra and Nehemiah 515BC – 70 yrs. from the first Temple’s destruction), to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 —- as the 10th. Jubilee cycle or 490 years! They expected Messiah to arrive right around AD 26 (AND HE DID!) to fulfill all of His redemptive promises given to them through the prophets, but because they missed the spiritual nature of His Kingdom (Lk. 17:20-37), they missed the fulfillment of this powerful prophecy unfold before their eyes in the redemptive events from AD 26 — AD 66-70. Even though Daniel prophesied of a spiritual kingdom (Dan. 2 and 7) and it was clear from their own prophets that they would not be able to “discern” their own “end” when it drew “near” in that particular “perverse and crooked generation” (Deut. 32/Acts 2:40/1 Pet. 4:5-7). The fact that God would be coming to judge their unbelief and not the Romans was prophesied to be a “strange work” (Isa. 28). Their carnal expectations caused them to miss Isaiah’s “new work” of the New Covenant.

We must enter into the Jewish and historical context when approaching Daniel 9:24-27 as relating to the Sabbatical calendar and the redemption of Israel.

While I would differ on some points with Ben Zion Wacholder, I would agree with the majority of these quotes and that there is sufficient,
*** “…evidence in the biblical, Qumran׳ New Testament, and rabbinic literature for a hitherto unnoticed but apparently at one time widespread belief, that the inevitable coming of the messiah would take place during the season when Israel celebrated the sabbatical year. Sabbatical messianism, or chronomessianism, are appropriate terms for a phenomenon that inspired a search in the scriptural prophecies for the exact date of the redeemer’s coming. Although most powerful in the apocalyptic tradition, chronomessianism appears as well in the mainstream of Judaism. The locus classicus of chronomessianic doctrine is found in Daniel 9, particularly in the mysterious verses 24-27.” (Ben Zion Wacholder, CHRONOMESSIANISM THE TIMING OF MESSIANIC MOVEMENTS AND THE CALENDAR OF SABBATICAL CYCLES, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, p.1, bold emphasis MJS).
More quotes from his article that I found useful include the following:
*** “The pre-history of chronomessianism may be traced in several biblical pasages. Isa. 23:15-18 predicts that Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, at the end of which time the Lord will again remember the famous city.Jeremiah employs the 70-year period for the length of Judah’s coming exile in Babylonia (Jer. 25: 11-12; 29: 10).  The use of the number 70 might reflect the Jewish affinity for the numeral seven and its multiples, evidenced in weekly and yearly sabbaths (shemittah) and the jubilee; alternately, it might have been a common Near Eastern convention for the maximum life expectancy or the normal span of two or three generations. Whatever that number’s function in Jeremiah, Zech. 1:12 regards the number 70 as the precise length of Judah’s exile. By fusing Jeremiah’s “70-year prophecy” with the assertion in Lev. 26:34-35, 43, that during the exile the land would atone for the sabbaths that Israel had violated, 2 Chron. 36:21-23 suggests not only that Jeremiah’s words came true, but explicitly interprets Cyrus’ edict as having reference to them.
Whatever the precise meaning of these passages, the credit for inventing sabbatical messianism belongs to the author of Daniel 9.” (Ibid., pp. 1-2).  
*** “The ancient Jewish exegesis of Dan. 9:24-27 differs from modern scholarship in two significant ways. With a few exceptions, all medieval and recent commentators translate the key-word shavu’a (supposedly following the LXX) as heptomad or a “week,י’ seven years.  The ancient exegetes, it will be shown, understood shavu’a to refer to the seven- year cycle, the last year of which was “the year of the Lord” (Lev. 25:2), the equivalent of the year of shemittah or release (Deut. 15:1-2), when debts were canceled and land lay fallow. The difference between the two interpretations is that, according to the former, any septennial number will do; according to the latter, however, each seven-year period had its fixed place in a series, precise in beginning and end. A second difference stems from the first. Modern exegetes interpret the passage without reference to Jewish chronology current at that time.  The ancients, however, took it for granted that the numbers in 9:24-27 had to harmonize with their calendar of sabbatical cycles.  No student would undertake to determine the day of the week without reference to the Jewish or Christian calendar; yet none of the nineteenth or twentieth century commentators, I have concluded, tries to harmonize Daniel with the sabbatical cycles as they were uninterruptedly observed during intertestamental and early rabbinic times.” (Ibid., pp. 2-3).

*** “The recently published fragments from a partially preserved pesher offer a fascinating presentation of sabbatical chronomessianism.  Although written in the familiar Qumran style, the pesher applied Daniel’s insight into what evidently was an anthology of biblical passages related to the sabbatical and jubilee themes, but which also included allusions to the reigns of the Righteous (Melchizedek) and Wicked (Melchiresha). After commenting on Lev. 25:13 in regard to the Israelites’ return to their patrimony in the year of דרור (jubilee), the remission of debts in Deut. 15:2, and freedom (דרור) to the captives, proclaimed in Isa. 61:1, llQMelch 3 II continues: “Its interpretation is: that He will proclaim them to be among the children of Heaven and of the inheritance of Melchizedek… For He will restore (their patrimonies?) to them and proclaim freedom to them and make them abandon all of their sins. This shall take place during the sabbatical cycle (shabu’a) of the first jubilee following the nitne] jubilees, and on the Day of Atonement falling at the en[d of the jujbilee, the tenth; To forgive on it (the day of atonement) for all of (the sins) of all the children of [God and] the men of the lot of Melchizedek.”  Although its main thought is quite clear, the precise chronology of the pesher remains obscure. There is no doubt, however, that the tenth jubilee alludes to the chronology of Dan. 9:24’s 70 sabbatical cycles, which equals 10 jubilees, when Melchizedek will overcome Me(a)lchiresha°. Any lingering doubt that this is so disappears when one reads in line 18 of our fragment: “And the herald of good tidings (Isa. 52:7a) refers to the messiah, the Spirit concerning whom it was said by Dan[iel (9:25): ‘Until the coming of the messiah, the prince, 7 sabbatical cycles…'”  Despite the fact that the pesher utilizes a long list of biblical passages, Dan. 9:24-27 remained the key to the author’s chronology of sabbatical messianism.” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

*** “Chapters 29-30 of Seder Olam, which may be regarded as a kind of midrash on Dan. 9:24-27, tailor the chronology of the burnings of the First and the Second Temples to make them conform to the author’s view of Daniel’s sabbatical numbers: 10 Jubilees = 70 Sabbatical cycles = 490 years elapsed from Nebuchadnezzar’s to Titus’ conquests of Jerusalem.” (Ibid., p. 11).
*** “It is evident that the observance of the sabbatical years and jubilees during the intertestamental times played a far larger role in the consciousness of Israel than has been hitherto recognized. Immense as were the effects of the calendar of sabbatical cycles on the agricultural and social life of the people, its influence was no less on the formulation of Jewish religious beliefs. Concepts such as creation, history, apocalypse, and eschatology all became enmeshed with the calendar of sabbatical cycles. In the 7th year debts were cancelled, hard labor in the fields stopped; the voice of freedom was heard throughout the land as the steps of the messiah were believed to have become more and more audible.” (Ibid. p. 18).

James M. Hamilton Jr. also comments on this relevant Qumran material in relation to Daniel 9:24-27 and the eschatological jubilee of 490 years:
“This seems to indicate that the reference to ‘Melchizedek’ in this passage should be understood along the lines of the David Psalm 110.  In that case, 11Q Rule of Melchizedek bears witness to a hope for a David and Melchizedekian figure who will be anointed by the Spirit, make atonement for his people (the sons of light, i.e. the seed of the woman), thereby freeing them from their sins, proclaiming liberty to the captives, enabling the return from exile, and all these magnificent things take place at the tenth jubilee.” (James M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven The book of Daniel in biblical theology, IVP, p. 162, bold emphasis MJS).

I believe Hamilton is correct to see this material including the Messianic second exodus and Messianic gathering motif as well.  He includes the blowing of the trumpet and eschatological gathering of Isaiah 27:13 with Daniel 9:24-27 (Ibid.).  This is significant in that both Yeshua and Paul connect the trumpet gathering of Isaiah 27:13 with the Second Coming of Christ and resurrection to take place in their generation and in the lifetime of their contemporaries (Mt. 24:30-34; 1 Thess. 4:15-17).  This trumpet eschatological gathering at Christ’s Second Coming in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 is described by Luke as the “days of vengeance” which correlate to Isaiah’s “day of vengeance” during this last eschatological cycle of the Jubilee (Lk. 21:20-32/Isa. 61–63).

Margaret Barker comes the closest to my position because she at least connects this last 10th cycle to the “soon” AD 66 – AD 70 fulfillments to the prophecy of Revelation.

“The seventy weeks of years, 490 years, were ten Jubilees, and the alternative way of reckoning this period was as ten Jubilees. Jewish tradition remembered that the 490 years ended in 68CE; calculation from the second temple Jubilee sequence beginning in 424BCE gives 66CE. A two years discrepancy is hardly significant in the light of what this implies, namely that the tenth Jubilee began in 17/19 CE. In other words, tenth Jubilee fervour and expectations were the context for the ministry of Jesus.” (Margaret Barker, THE TIME IS FULFILLED JESUS AND THE JUBILEE, 1999, http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/JesusAndTheJubilee.pdf).

She points out in the article that there seems to be some confusion or discrepancy on the years 422 BC or 424 BC from the second Temple Jubilee and then the next issue to work through would be if one should be calculating based on 50 or 49 for a Jubilee cycle. But if I’m reading her correctly, then 422 BC or 424 BC is where the 10 Jubilee’s countdown from Daniel 9:24-27 begins in Jewish tradition and the first century context in which Jesus and the NT authors ministered.

When I calculate Jubilees (based on 50 and not 49) from the “sign” in (Isaiah 37:30ff.) for Hezekiah in 722 BC, and work backwards until I get to a jubilee in 422 BC and the second Temple, and then calculate the 10 jubilee’s from 422 BC, this brings us to AD 27 as the 10th. Jubilee cycle.

But to be thorough, here are the various ways to calculate where the 10.th Jubilee cycle began in the lifetime of Yeshua based upon two dates for the second Temple 424 BC/422 BC and or using and counting from a 49 or 50 Jubilee year approach:

45878532_10156697132264192_8128908576199540736_n

Based upon Josephus, one can calculate a seventh year sabbath in AD 27. So based upon this information and my math, the 10th Jubilee cycle is in around AD 26/28 and this is when Jesus makes the declaration in the synagogue that He is the fulfillment of the Jubilee of Isaiah 61:1-11 in Luke 4:16-21. This would give a Jubilee Sabbatical or seventh year sabbatical in the following years (all falling within the last 10th Jubilee cycle 490 years):

1). AD 26/28 — Yeshua begins fulfilling the soteriological and eschatological 10th. cycle of the Jubilee — ministry — “cut off” — inaugurates NC age — First half of Daniel’s last “7.”

2). AD 33/35 – Seventh year sabbath

3). AD 40/42 – Seventh year sabbath

4). AD 47/49 – Seventh year sabbath

5). AD 54/56 – Seventh year sabbath

6). AD 61/63 – Seventh year sabbath

7). AD 67/69 — Yeshua fulfilling “Days of vengeance” — end of OC age — maturity of NC age — last half of Daniel’s last “7” AD 67 falls within the parousia or Second Coming of Christ event — that is the “day of vengeance” of (Isa. 61:2) which was fulfilled within Yeshua’s contemporary “this generation” and described by Him as “…the days of vengeance in fulfillment of all that has been written” and Israel’s “redemption” (Lk. 21:20-22; 27-32=Dan. 9:24-27/Isa. 61:1-11).

Josephus also records that the temple was destroyed on the 10th of Ab, the same date on which the first temple was destroyed (Josephus, Wars, 6:4:5).

*** All of Israel’s feast days (Spring and Fall) were fulfilled during this last “7” of Daniel’s 70 7’s prophecy – which was the anticipated Messianic “last days” 10th. cycle of the Jubilee in Yeshua’s day. This understanding of the OT prophets and tradition of the day along with the view that when Messiah came He would usher in a transitionary reign of the second exodus generation between their Old Covenant “this age” and the Messianic New Covenant “age about to come” are the views of Jesus and the inspired NT authors. Selah. For a review of our study on Israel’s feast days go here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/berean-bible-church/part-2-25-1018-mon-sat-exodus-23-and-israels-feasts/10155296783138616/

It has become very clear to me that Leviticus 23-26 is the key to understanding how Yeshua fulfilled all the feasts of Israel within that last 10th cycle of Jubilee (of which Israel’s calendar and redemptive history was based off) and the second exodus generation!  Click on chart to enlarge:

Visio-Eschatology-chronomessianism-7

There are a couple of different ways in calculating the 10 Jubilee or 490 years cycle. Some begin with 424 BC others 422 BC. Some calculate based on the 49 years others include the 50thyear. So I ran the numbers on all the possible scenarios. Barker used the calculation seen in #3. But I also find #’s 2 and 4 interesting because AD 26 or AD 28 would be during Jesus’ earthly ministry and His announcing that He is the fulfillment of the Jubilee prophecy in Isaiah 61 and Daniel 9. He would then shortly be ”cut off” (crucified) and His Second Coming as High Priest in AD 66 – AD 70 would still fall within that 10 th.Jubilee cycle of 490 years. This transition period also fulfilled the 40 years second exodus generation motif from their OC “this age” to the NC “age about to come” that they calculated based upon Isa. 10-11, Ps. 90 and other passages.

I did find someone (and I do not share her eschatology obviously) who calculated the jubilee cycle as I had (see #2 in the chart). Marie Casale writes,

“According to Luke 3:21-23, Jesus began to be about 30 years of age when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Having been born in the fall of 5 BC, he was baptized in the fall of 26 AD at the time of his birthday. Then, according to the scriptures, after his fall baptism, he went immediately into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan for forty days. (Mat 4:1-2) He returned to Jerusalem for the first Passover of his ministry, April 9, 27 AD. (Jhn2:13-25) Some time later Jesus began preaching in Galilee after John the Baptist was put in prison. (Mar 1:14-15, Mat 4:12, Luk4:14-15)

The next event after this was that Jesus preaches in Nazareth on the Sabbath day – Luk4:16-30 * Luk4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Luk4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Luk4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to SET AT LIBERTY them that are bruised, Luk4:19 To preach THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.

Luk4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. Luk4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

The message in Luk4:19 has to do with the announcement of ‘the acceptable year of the Lord’. This must be the Sabbath year of 26 AD.

Jesus would have probably announced these words on the Feast of Pentecost in 27 AD. The next holy day, the Day of Trumpets in 27 AD, would begin the second year of his ministry.

The message in Luk4:18 also has to do with a ‘proclamation of liberty’. Liberty was to be proclaimed as we see here in the commandments of the Sabbath year and of the Jubilee year. (cf. Deut. 15:12-18). (Marie Casale, THE SABBATH JUBILEE YEARS POINT TO THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST).

The “Already and Not Yet” of the Jubilee Cycle of Isiah 61/Luke 4

I should briefly address those such as Dr. Michael Heiser whom point out that Yeshua did not quote the “day of vengeance” when he quoted Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:18 because of an alleged 2,000 plus “already and not yet” period.

  1.  In Jewish hermeneutics often times a Rabbi would quote just one section of a prophecy and the audience knew the theological context of the entire passage was referenced as well.
  2. Even for those that discuss Yeshua was only addressing the “already” aspect of fulfilling the Jubilee of Isaiah 61 through His earthly ministry and passion — this does not address the NT places the “not yet” being fulfilled in the first century “this generation,” “soon,” “quickly,” “at hand,” “about to,” “would not be delayed,” etc…  This and the 10th Jubilee cycle had to be fulfilled within 49-50 years from AD 26.  In Luke 4:18 Jesus may be focusing on the first half of the last 7 if Daniel 9:24-27; but this does not prove the “not yet” of the last half of the 7 is 2,000 plus years and counting.

From what I understand, some commentators do claim Jesus’ declaration of the Jubilee of Luke 4:18-21/Isaiah 61 was made in an actual Jubilee year sabbath period, but it is not developed much by them or proven the way I have (and confirmed to me by Marie Casale). If this is accurate and we have a Jubilee sabbath rest year in AD 26/AD 28, then Jesus is in essence saying: “You know the 10th Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 that you are expecting as the time of Messiah coming to visit you with salvation and judgment, well, I am Him and the time of this prophetic period being fulfilled is taking place in your hearing and before your very eyes.” The Lord would confirm in (Luke 21:20-22, 27-32; Mt. 24:15-34) that all of the seventy sevens (and thus their “redemption”) would be fulfilled when the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” took place within their contemporary “this generation.” When the Roman armies stepped foot on Israel’s land (known to them to be “a holy place” Mt. 24:15/Lk. 21:20-22) this event (the judgment of Jerusalem) brought the 70 7’s prophecy of Daniel to a perfect fulfillment and fulfilled all OT prophecy (as in Daniel 12:1-7).

Here are some more helpful insights from Barker’s article in not just developing the first part of the 10th. cycle to the earthly ministry of Christ, but the last part of the cycle to the “soon” AD 70 judgment,

*** “The Qumran Melchizedek text (11QMelch), written in the middle of the first century BCE but not necessarily composed at that time, describes the events of the tenth Jubilee14. Only fragments have survived so it is possible that the complete text described the other nine Jubilees also. The text begins by quoting the Jubilee laws in Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15, interpreting them ‘for the last days’. The captives who are to return are people whose teachers have been ‘hidden and kept secret’ and these ‘people of the inheritance of Melchizedek’ will return. There is insufficient text for certainty, but this looks like a group who have been secretly preserving the teachings of the first temple, when there was a Melchizedek priesthood. In the tenth Jubilee they would ‘return’, perhaps to the temple as priests? The liberty of the Jubilee is interpreted as release from iniquities, the beginning of the atonement which will occur on the Day of Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee. The return and the release from iniquity were to happen in the first week, the first seven years, of the tenth Jubilee i.e. approximately 19-26 CE. If Jesus was born in 7/6 BCE15 and was baptised when he was about thirty years old (Luke 3.23), he began his ministry during the crucial first ‘week’ of the tenth Jubilee.

11 QMelch alludes many times to the Jubilee oracle in Isaiah 61: ‘… the LORD God has anointed me… to proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa.61.1, ‘proclaim liberty’, deror. being a quotation from Lev.25.10). The coming Melchizedek is to rescue his own people (? the sons of light, but the text is damaged here) from the power of Belial. There was to be a messenger of peace announcing to Zion ‘Your God reigns’, thus fulfilling Isaiah 52.7. The messenger was probably Melchizedek, but again the text is too damaged for certainty. He would be the anointed one prophesied in Daniel 9.25, but described in 11 QMelch as ‘anointed of the Spirit’, a conflation with Isaiah 61.1. The anointed one would instruct in the end times of the world16 and some people (the text is broken here) would establish the covenant, another Day of Atonement theme.

This gives the context for the opening scenes of the gospels. In the first week of the tenth Jubilee Jesus was baptised with the Spirit, which was interpreted as his anointing (Acts 10.38). After his time in the desert he returned to Galilee announcing ‘the time is fulfilled’ i.e. the tenth Jubilee is inaugurated and ‘Melchizedek’ is here, ‘the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent’, because the final Day of Atonement was also at hand at hand, ‘and believe the good news’ of the Jubilee release. Luke’s account of Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth shows that he claimed to have inaugurated the final Jubilee; no other interpretation can be put on the claim to have fulfilled that day (Luke 4.21) the Jubilee prophecy in Isaiah 61 which was central to the Melchizedek expectations of the time. 17

The first miracle was an exorcism (Mark 1.21-26), setting one of his own people free from the power of Belial. He spoke of a woman bound by Satan and released her (Luke 13.16), of slaves to sin whom the Son could release (John 9.31-38). He forgave sins and illustrated his teaching with a parable of two debtors whose debts were cancelled (Luke 7. 41-48). The healing miracles restored to the community people who would have been excluded as ritually unfit: the disabled, the lepers, a woman who was bleeding. This was the great ingathering of the Jubilee. Jesus spoke of those who would inherit the earth (Mat.5.5) and at the Last Supper, he spoke of the New Covenant and of his blood poured out for the remission of sins (aphesis, the Jubilee word, Mat.26.28).

The Jubilee also brought the Day of Judgement, vividly described in 11QMelch. Melchizedek would take his place in the heavenly assembly and, as described in Psalm 82.1, begin to judge the `elohim, the heavenly beings. This was to be the year of Melchizedek’s favour, a very significant alteration to Isaiah 61.2, which proclaims the Jubilee as the year of the LORD’s favour. Similarly with Psalm 82.1; it is Melchizedek who takes his place in the heavenly assembly, whereas in the original Psalm it is God. The only possible conclusion is that Melchizedek, the heavenly high priest, was the LORD, the God of Israel. In 11 QMelch he has armies and brings the vengeance of divine judgement, and these were expected to appear in the tenth Jubilee. 11 QMelch explains why Jesus is depicted as judge and warrior in the Book of Revelation and why the Book of Revelation is described as ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place’ (Rev.1.1). These were the teachings of Melchizedek, revealing in the tenth Jubilee the ends times of the world. When the Lamb takes his place in the heavenly assembly (Rev.5.6-14 fulfilling Ps.82.1) the judgement begins. The Word of God rides out from heaven, wearing a white robe sprinkled with blood; he is the high priest who has taken the atonement blood into the holy of holies. He rides out with his with his army (Rev.19.11-16) and the judgement follows.

The letter to the Hebrews explained the role of Jesus as the new Melchizedek (Heb.7.11), the one who had attained the priesthood by ascent, being raised up, not by descent from Aaron18. The crucifixion and ascension had been recognised as the enthronement of the Lamb, exactly as described in Hebrews 10.12: ‘When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, there to wait until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet’. The remainder of the tenth Jubilee was the time of waiting until the final battle and victory when the Great High Priest would emerge to complete the Atonement and conclude the Jubilee.” (Ibid.).

*** “The seventh seal [of Revelation] would bring the return of the heavenly high priest to complete the great atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee which was, by that time, imminent. In August 66CE, the nationalists gained entrance to the temple area and burned all records of debt20, the start of the Jubilee.” (Ibid.).

***” There is insufficient evidence to say with confidence how closely the Parousia expectations of the early church were bound up with the Jewish nationalism of the first century CE. They had Jubilee expectations in common, but the present form of the gospels invites us to believe that Jesus spiritualised the Jubilee, interpreting release from debt and slavery as forgiveness of sins and release from the power of Satan. This, however, is exactly the interpretation in 11QMelch, which was quite clear about the events of the tenth Jubilee. A spiritual interpretation of Jubilee does not necessarily indicate a separate agenda from the nationalists. Jesus did warn that the blood of the prophets would be required of his generation (Luke 11.50), in other words, that the Day of Judgement would occur within the lifetime of his hearers. This explains the urgency of his words: ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the good news’.” (Ibid.).

*** “The Jubilee was used to measure time in the second temple period even when a literal application of the land laws was no longer possible10. Later tradition divided the history of Israel into Jubilees, but the remarkable coincidence of important events and Jubilee years does suggest that the Jubilee system was a significant factor in Israel’s actual history and not just in the memory of its historians.” (Ibid.).

That the Jubilee of Isaiah 61 was considered an imminent eschatological expectation in Jesus’ days is supported by other scholars:

“In 11Q13 phrases from Isa. 61:1–2 are linked with Lev. 25:13; Deut. 15:2; Ps. 7:8–9; 82:1–2; Isa. 52:7 to portray the expectation of the eschatological Jubilee (M. P. Miller 1969; J. A. Sanders 1975: 85). (Pao, D. W., & Schnabel, E. J. (2007). Luke. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p. 288). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

My Response to Margaret Barker’s Article

Jubilee Used to Measure Time and the History of Israel

As to Barker’s insight into the Jews dividing up their history in jubilee years and expectations of Messiah coming to fulfill Daniel’s 10th cycle of Jubilee during the times of Jesus — see my comments on the eschatological genealogies of Matthew and Luke’s gospels and George F. Moore’s article, Fourteen Generations: 490 Years: An Explanation of the Genealogy of Jesus, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan., 1921), pp. 97-103 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School.

The “Days of Vengeance” – Luke 21:20-32 and the 10th. Jubilee Cycle

Yeshua predicted that His coming soteriological and eschatological “redemption” “kingdom” “days of vengeance” of the Jubilee of Isaiah 61–66 would arrive at the sound of a trumpet and would be accomplished within His first century “this generation” audience (Lk. 21:20-32/Mt. 24:30-34). This was the fulfillment of “all that had been written” in the OT (Lk. 21:20-22ff.), which would obviously include Isaiah 61–66 and Daniel 2; 7; 9 and 12.

The Book of Hebrews and the 10th Jubilee Cycle

In chapters 3-4 the author demonstrates that the OT predicted “another sabbath rest” for Israel to enter into of which the land promise was only a type. In chapters 9-10 this “approaching day” of sabbath rest is connected to His Second Appearing as the Great High Priest to finish His atonement work. The first century Church was “eagerly” awaiting this return that is described as taking place in the last days of the Old Covenant age and “in a very little while” and would “not delay.” He was “about to” (Greek mello) burn up His Old Covenant apostate Jewish enemies and place them under His feet at this AD 66 – AD 70 Second Appearing.

In chapter 7 Melchizedek only functioned as a type of Christ, therefore the fist century imminent expectations of the eschatological “last days” Melchizedek is rightfully applied to Christ as Messiah and God to accomplish what they thought this figure would.

The Book of Revelation and the 10th Jubilee Cycle

The book of Revelation picks up where Daniel leaves off. Daniel had to “seal up the vision” because the time of fulfillment was “far off” (Dan. 12), whereas John is told the opposite concerning the SAME prophecy. He is told to “NOT seal up the vision” because the time of fulfillment is “at hand” (Rev. 22). Most of the book of Revelation deals with Daniel’s final “7” and places it being fulfilled in a fist century AD 66 – AD 77 period (i.e. “shortly” “soon” “at hand” “about to” “quick”).

Revelation also addresses issues of atonement, forgiveness of sin, sabbath rest and restoring man’s original Edenic inheritance in Christ at His “soon” Second Coming event during AD 66 – AD 70.

Yeshua – the Only Messianic Candidate

No matter how you look at it, the Jews were expecting Messiah to arrive during the Roman Empire and during the 10th Jubilee cycle/period and thus be made manifest to them between AD 17/19 or AD 26/28 Jesus was the ONLY one claiming to be Messiah and fulfilling this prophecy in His day, that I know of. Jesus arriving during this 10th. Jubilee cycle and proclaiming “liberty” along with His physical miracles, demonstrated that He indeed was who He claimed to be. Who else during this period was making this specific claim and having the miracles to back it up?!? And who else was prophesying that He would come on the clouds as the Ancient of Days and destroy the Temple within that same generation (Mt. 24:15-34/Lk. 21:20-32)?!?

Daniel 9:24-27 and the 10th. Jubilee Cycle Fulfilled Between AD 26–AD 66-70

When you read the commentators concerning these six promises Messiah will accomplish in the last 7 — which is divided into 2 3.5 periods, many recognize there is an “already and not yet” of Messiah’s redemptive work (cf. Heb. 9-10) that must be fulfilled between Him being “cut off” (the cross – or “already”) and His Second Appearing as High Priest out from the Temple–to finish the atoning process.  Others have seen that the seventy sevens prophecy simply ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  And yet others will readily admit that the coming of the Son of Man upon the clouds in Daniel 7:13 is developed by Jesus in Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:1-34 as Him coming in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70 through the Romans.  Connecting these observations together, we see that Jesus gives a “this generation” period to be the “already and not yet” period for these events to take place and NOT a 2,000 plus years and counting period.  This becomes clear in the first of these six events of which we not turn.

Other Historical Works Confirm the Same Contemporary Time Frame of Inspired NT Imminence

This Age and the Age About to Come
N.T. Wright correctly points out Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on the “end of the age,” is in harmony with “…the ‘two-age’ structure…of Pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism.”  The “end of the age” in Mt. 13:39, 43; Mt. 24:3; Heb. 9:26 Wright correctly identifies as “…the fall of Jerusalem and the Parousia of Jesus.” (The RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD, p. 645).  Wright is correct here on the ages and the parousia of Christ occurring in AD 70, except by “parousia” we see a reference to the Second Coming of Christ (not the ascension) consummating the OC age in judgment and ushering in and brining to maturity the New Covenant age in which we live today.
The 40 Years Generation “Transition” Between the Old Covenant and New Covenant Ages
“Many Rabbis believed the period of Messiah was to be a transitionary stage between “this age [OC age] and the “age to come” [NC age] (Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s TALMUD, p. 356).  “‘How long will the days of the Messiah last?  R. Akiba said, ‘forty years, based upon how long the Israelites were in the wilderness before inheriting the land” (Ibid.).
This “transition stage” or second exodus of a 40 years generation type/anti-type understanding is developed for us by Yeshua in the Gospels, John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the author of Hebrews and forms the infallible and prophetic NT’s view of inspired imminence (cf. Mt. 3-4; 24:34; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 3-4; 10:25, 37; 11—13:14YLT).
The Essenes & Inspired NT Imminence
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes interpreted Habakkuk 2, the book of Daniel and Ezekiel 38-39 regarding the coming of Messiah in judgment, the “last days” and end time battle to be referring to the same time of fulfillment that Yeshuah and the NT authors did:

  • Essenes believed they were the “final generation” that would experience “the end of the [OC] age.” (1QpHab 7:1-2)
  • Yeshua and Peteraffirmed “the end” or “end of the age” was “near” in their contemporary generation (Mt. 24:3-34; Acts 2:20-40/Deut. 32:5, 20; 1 Pet. 4:5-7).  Hebrews affirms the appointed time of Habakkuk’s prophecy had arrived and thus Yeshua’s Second Appearing to finish the atonement process would come “in a very little while” and would “not delay” at the approaching last days of the OC age (Heb. 9:28–10:37-38/Hab. 2:3-4).
  • The Essenes believed based upon Daniel 9:24-27, Habakkuk 2, Ezekiel 38-39 and other OT passages that their “last days” “generation,” would experience the end time war of Gog and Magog — when Rome came against apostate Jerusalem and their priesthood (1QpHab 9:5-11; 12:5-13).  They also believed Messiah would come and join them to defeat both the Romans and the apostate priesthood of Jerusalem.  After the community was almost wiped out by the Romans, they joined their apostate Jerusalem enemies in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 to fight Rome.  But event then they remained hopeful that Messiah would come and deliver them and destroy both of the Romans and apostate Jerusalem in this end time battle.
  • Yeshua and Johnaffirm “the last days” end time battle would be “near” in their generation when God would judge OC Jerusalem (or Babylon) for slaying Yeshua and His Apostles and Prophets (Lk. 21:20-24, 32/Dan. 9:26-27; Lk. 23:28-31/Isa. 2-4; Rev. 6:10-11; 11:8; 16; 19; 20).

We can imagine that while the Essenes were seeking to self-fulfill their carnal earthly views of the Messianic kingdom by going to Jerusalem and joining the war of AD 66 – AD 70, the Christians would be leaving the city being delivered by Messiah and knowing the kingdom “within” them was arriving RIGHT ON TIME (Lk. 17:20-37; 21:20-32).
Alright, back to Daniel…

1).  Finish transgression

Jerusalem “filled up” or “finished transgressions” against God and His Messiah within Jesus’ “this generation” (Mt. 23:31-38; Dan. 9:24a).  Dr. Michael Brown cites James E. Smith as understanding this verse likewise to be, “To fill up [or restrain] the transgression.  Within the 490 year 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)…” (Michael Brown, AJOJ, Vol. 3, 93).

And Brown himself takes 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).” (Ibid., p. 96, bold emphasis MJS).

Unfortunately, Brown’s commitment to Futurist Zionism causes him to not “take seriously Yeshua’s words spoken in Matthew 23…,” because this is the consummative judgment of the living (the Pharisees) and the dead (martyrs) going all the way back to Genesis.  As that contemporary generation was ending, the book of Revelation confirms the same first century time frame of fulfillment in that the vindication of he martyrs blood at the hands of the great harlot city Babylon (which is OC Jerusalem where the Lord was crucified – Rev. 11:8) would be fulfilled in a “very little while” at the “soon” Second Coming of Christ (Rev. 6:10-11; 17–22:6-7, 10-12, 20).  The judgment and resurrection of the dead is once again connected with the fall of Jerusalem in Daniel 12:1-7.

Arminianism and Brown portrays and interprets Matthew 23:37 as it being Jesus’ will to save the vast majority within Jerusalem, but because of their free will and rejection, He simply could not pull it off.  Some within Dispensationalism also claim that Jesus wanted to save the majority in Israel and establish His kingdom on earth at His first coming, but again due to unbelief, He couldn’t and had to resort to “plan b” (the cross).  But somehow, we are to be assured that man’s “free will” and rejection of Christ will not be a problem for God’s will when He comes a second time, when the vast majority within Jerusalem allegedly will cry out with their free will at that time in repentance, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
The Context of Matthew 23
Matthew 23:37-39 is a part of the entire teaching and context beginning in v. 1.  Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (vss. 1-12).  Then Jesus begins pronouncing 7 judgmental “woes” upon them in vss. 13-39.  It is important to note Jesus’ emotional disposition is that of righteous anger at the Pharisees, and not Him weeping over the fact that He simply cannot accomplish His will to save the majority among Jerusalem.
Israel’s sin of blood guilt (whereby she killed the righteous among them throughout her history) was “filling up” from the time of Cain’s killing of righteous Abel, to those NT prophets and teachers Jesus would send to them – of which they too would persecute and kill (from AD 30 – AD 66 – vss. 32-34, cf. Matt. 10:17-23).  In vss. 35-36, 38 Jesus makes it abundantly clear that the time of judgment for all their bloodshed would fall upon them/their “this generation” – when their “house”/temple would be left desolate in AD 70.  This particular “this generation” was prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy to experience her “end” (Deut. 32:5, 20/Acts 2:20-40).  At this time the righteous remnant among Israel (the “Israel within Israel” trusting in Messiah) along with the believing Gentiles would “rejoice” for God judging OC Israel’s sin of blood guilt and bringing her to this end (Deut. 32:43).
Matthew 23:37 
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
First, this verse leading into vss. 38-39 is apart of Jesus’ 7th and last judgment “woe” began in v. 29.  Again, Jesus’ disposition is that of righteous anger not Him weeping because His will is being thwarted because the majority within Jerusalem would not believe in Him.
Secondly, in the context of this chapter, “Jerusalem” should be identified as the “Pharisees” who sought not to let others enter the kingdom v. 14.  And the “children” would include some of those that they sought to lay heavy burdens upon v. 4.
Thirdly, “gathering” here is the Messianic new exodus gathering predicted by the prophets (ex. Isa. 11:10-12).  Some Jews during Jesus’ day saw this new exodus being another 40 years generation or transitionary period between the OC “this age” of the law and prophets, and the NC or Messianic “age to come” based upon Psalm 90:15 and other texts.  This is the inspired time frame of Jesus and the rest of the NT writers.  There is an “already and not yet” aspect to this gathering which falls within Jesus’ “this generation” prophecy.
The “already” aspect of it can be said to have begun with the preaching of the gospel by Jesus in the gospels (and Pentecost and beyond) by which He was gathering the first fruits into His kingdom.  According to Paul and Peter, this is God gathering Jew and Gentile into one spiritual New Man or Temple.
The “not yet” aspect of this Messianic gathering and the blowing of the trumpet at His Second Coming to close the end of the OC age in AD 70 would be the full harvest when He gathered all of His elect within that generation and caused them to inherit the kingdom.  Both the “already” and “not yet” aspects to this Messianic judgment and gathering are said to take place within Jesus’ AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” or at the end of His Old Covenant “this age” (Matt. 13:29-43; 23:36; 24:30-34).
In respect to the “already” – this gathering involved Jesus gathering “the children” to hear His preaching.  The leadership or Pharisees / “Jerusalem” sought to hinder this process or “would not” allow it (that is to the best of their abilities).  John 9-10 is probably a good commentary here on this concept.  The blind man is healed but his family is scared because the Pharisees had begun persecuting anyone who believed in Jesus – by kicking them out of the synagoue 9:22. Jesus goes on to depict the Pharisees here as the truly “blind” ones and then in chapter 10 as “thieves” “robbers” and “hired hands” while He is the faithful Shepherd gathering His sheep (such a the blind man healed in chapter 9) into safety and green pastures.  He also goes on to affirm that none of His sheep the Father gives Him (by name in election) would fail to come to Him in faith and would not perish (cf. chapter 10).  This refutes the Arminian and Brown’s twisting of Matthew 23:37.
God sovereignly foreordained and used the persecutions of the Pharisees to kill His Son and persecute the early church.  Why?  Because this was His prophetic and ordained will and method of establishing His kingdom – not a means by which it got postponed or God’s will get’s frustrated in saving all He ordains to come to Him.
Before leaving this subject of Jewish persecution and a coming judgment, Paul addresses this problem as well in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 where the Jews were persecuting Christians and seeking to hinder the preaching of the gospel.  He also expected the eschatological “not yet” first century “wrath” and “trouble” to come upon those first century Jews (in their lifetimes) – this being consistent with the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus elsewhere (cf. Matt. 3:7-12GNT; Lk. 21:20-32; 2 Thess. 1:5-7).
Matthew 23:38-39
“Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
First, Jesus’ phrase “For I tell you” or “verily, verily I say unto you,” is always a linking phrase of emphasis to drive home the point of His teaching that has just gone before.  So the “coming” of v. 39 begins with connecting what follows with the judgment in AD 70 – ie. when “your house/temple is left to you desolate” v. 38.  Therefore, this is not some 2,000 and counting years “coming” of Christ that is designed to save the vast majority of Israel in our future.
Secondly, the exegete needs to examine the context of that OT text Jesus is quoting from and see what event He has identified with it elsewhere in His teachings.  Jesus is quoting and applying Psalm 118:26 here in Matthew 23:39 to Him coming in judgment upon Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70.  This is consistent with how Jesus has used Psalm 118 elsewhere.  In Matthew 21:42-45 Jesus references Psalm 118:22 to prove He is the Cornerstone by which the Pharisees would stumble over – and thus be judged.  This was the time when the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation bearing its fruits.  Consistent with Jesus, Peter uses Psalm 118 to refer to a coming salvation and judgment that was “ready” and “at hand” in his day (1 Peter 1:5-12—2:4-10–4:5-7).
Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the Futurist such as Brown to demonstrate that Jesus is using Psalm 118 in a completely different way – ie. referring to a 2,000+ years distant future context – ie. for Jerusalem’s mass salvation, and not her imminent judgment in AD 70.  Brown despises what he calls “replacement theology,” and yet when all the law and prophets were fulfilled by AD 70 (Lk. 21:20-22), the OC kingdom was “taken” and “given” to the Jew/Gentile Church in its spiritual/transformed/matured form.  When the OC kingdom is “taken” from Israel after the flesh is when the OC “vanished” and the Jew/Gentile Church inherited the spiritual and heavenly New Jersalem/City (Heb. 8:13; 13:14YLT).
Thirdly, Psalm 118:26 was commonly known as “The Song of Ascent.” The Song of Ascent was supposed to be a song of joy and salvation that the Jews would sing on the walls of Jerusalem welcoming the pilgrims for her feast days.  But God made Christ a Cornerstone or Rock by which Israel “stumbled” producing a “strange work” (Isa. 28:21 – ie. God would come to judge them – and not their enemies).  Instead of being met and welcoming pilgrims for the feasts, they were met with and forced to welcome – God coming in judgment through the Roman armies (as God had “come” in the OT – through the Assyrians, Babylonians, etc…).That the Jews would not “discern what their end would be” was predicted in yet another song – the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:29).
Again, Jesus’ disposition is that of righteous anger and thus He is using irony in appealing to a song that was typically used of salvation and peace, to be a song sung welcoming her enemies for her judgment!  The Jews were bottled up in Jerusalem in AD 66 – AD 70 deceiving themselves into thinking that God was going to save them from the Romans and usher in the kingdom in fulfillment of OT prophecies (the very mentality that Jesus warned about concerning the coming false prophets in Matt. 24).
Matthew 23-25
The climatic question that was begging in the minds of the disciples is that they wanted to know more specifically when and what signs Jesus might give concerning his coming to vindicate the persecutions coming and the blood of the martyrs, destroy the city and temple within their generation. Jesus had already given a subtle sign of Him coming during one of the feasts when they would be singing the Son of Ascent on the walls (Mt. 23:38-39/Ps. 118). And they already understood He would come in judgment to close their OC age (cf. Mt. 13:39-51). They were not “confused” to associate His coming with the destruction of the temple and the end of their OC age. They knew it would take place in their lifetimes (cf. Mt. 10:17-23; Mt. 16:27-28) and generation (Mt. 23:36-39), they just wanted more clarity when Jesus brings up the Temple and it’s destruction again in Matthew 24 and Jesus gave it to them. The climatic and concluding answer given by Jesus to the disciples as to when all of these things would take place was “this generation” (Mt. 24:34). This closes the inclusio of His “this generation” which was begun in Matthew 23.
Matthew 23-25 involves ONE Second Coming event to close the OC age in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation.” The discourse has NOTHING to do with a literal bodily coming of Jesus to close world history. The recapitulation structure of the OD dismantles the division theories of futurists and even that of Postmillennial Partial Preterists. Selah. The coming of Christ in Matthew 23:38-39–24:27-31 is the Second Coming. The “gathering” (Mt. 24:30-31) is the rising of the dead (of all the dead) that takes place at the end of the age already discussed in Matthew 13:36-43/Daniel 12:1-4.   
“This Age” & “Age to Come” / The Second Exodus 40 Years Generation & Days of Messiah 
The Jew during Jesus’ day understood “this age” to be the OC age of the law and prophets and the “age to come” to be the NC age of Messiah which would follow.  As I point out in my/our book, it is Reformed and orthodox Christian interpretation to identify Jesus and Paul’s “this age” to be the OC age (not the Christian age) and the “age to come,” to be the NC age of Messiah arriving when the OC age passed away in AD 70. (Michael Sullivan, David Green, Ed Hassertt, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?, (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing, Second Edition, 2013), 91). Jesus and Paul do not depart from this traditional Jewish two age structure as they look to an imminent fulfillment coming in the lifetimes of their first century audiences – in which the old would pass and the new arrives in a mature state (ie. AD 70).
Isaiah 11 predicted a second exodus coming for Israel.  The Jews prior to Christ and during his day based upon Psalm 90:15 and other OT passages, also believed “the days of Messiah” would be a transition period between the OC “this age” and the Messianic NC “age to come” and that this would be another Forty Year exodus period:
“How long will the days of Messiah last?  R. Akiba said, Forty years, as long as the Iraelites were in the wilderness.” (Dr. BOAZ COHEN, NEW AMERICAN EDITION Everyman’s TALMUD, (New York:  E.P. Dutton & CO., 1949), 356).
Amazing how Dr. Michael Brown does not address these Jewish traditions of interpretation and or Christian exegesis and then seek to harmonize them with Messiah’s own teaching and that of the infallible NT Apostles and Prophets.  The NT likewise teaches a 40 years second exodus generation of a pre-parousia “transitional” reign of Messiah Yeshua from their OC “this age” (which was passing away and ready to vanish) to the NC “age about to” arrive in it’s mature state–roughly from AD 30 – AD 70.  

2).  Put an end to sin

As we have seen in our brief discussion of entering into the sabbath rest in the book of Hebrews, Christ put an “end to sin” at His imminent “in a very little while” Second Appearing as the Great Anointed High Priest fulfilling the NC promises made to Israel and to close the “last days” of the OC age in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28/10:37; Rom. 11:26-27/13:11-12; Dan. 9:24b.).

3).  To atone for wickednessor the covering over of iniquity

See references in #2. In the New Creation our sins are remembered no more and covered in the depths of the sea (Isa. 65-66; Micah 7:19).

4).  To bring in everlasting righteousness

At the Day of the Lord in AD 70, He brought in “everlasting righteousness” or a “world of righteousness” per 2 Peter 3 – the “end of all things” being “at hand” in Peter’s day (1 Peter 4:5-7). “but also on ours, to whom it [righteousness] is about to bereckoned — to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead,” (Romans 4:24). “For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.” (Galatians 5:5).  See “Appendix A” at the end of this article which discusses the fulfillment of Isaiah 61-66 in relation to entering into the New Creation within the 10th cycle of the Jubilee rest and inheritance – i.e. between AD 26/27–AD 66-70.

Please see my exegesis of the Day of the Lord ushering in the New Creation of Isaiah 61-66 later in this article.

5).  To seal up vision and prophet

Many commentators agree that Daniel 9:24-27 is a tiny snapshot of the fulfilling of the first and second redemptive comings of Yeshua.  Yet at the same time, commentators struggle with the fact that the prophecy ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 per Yeshua (Lk. 21:20-22ff).  Yeshua’s teaching is clear, all of Israel’s OT promises and prophetic material concerning His redemptive work would be accomplished within the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Luke 21:22-32).

Don Preston offers a concise major consensus upon scholars concerning the meaning of “seal up vision and prophet”:

1.) “Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no more prophets any more appear.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 9, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1975), 344).
2.) “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.” (Charles John Ellicott, Commentary on the Whole Bible, (Cassell and Co; London, 1884), 387).
3.) “The vision and prophet will be sealed, that is accredited, because their final accomplishment has been reached in those events of blessing for God’s earthly people.” (A. C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Kregel, 1968), 133).
4.) “The reference is not to the accrediting of the prophecy, but to sealing it up so that it will no longer appear. Its functions are finished and it is not henceforth needed.” (Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1953), 200).
5.) “The words taken together refer to the final fulfillment of revelation and prophecy, i.e., when their functions are shown to be finished.” (James Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel,(Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1973), 250).
6.) “To set seal to them, to ratify and confirm the prophet’s prediction.” “The close of the seventy weeks will bring with it the confirmation of the prophetic utterances.” “A.V. and R.V. ‘seal up,’ means to close up, preclude from activity, the sense of the expression upon this view, being supposed to be that, prophecies being fulfilled, prophet and vision will be needed no more.” ( S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, (Cambridge University Press Warehouse, 1905), 136).
7.) “The idea is, that everything in the form of prophetic visions and predictions that had been produced in the course of theocratic development from the time of Moses should receive ‘sealing’ i.e. Divine confirmation and recognition, in the form of actual fulfillment (I Kings 21:8).” (John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Ezekiel-Daniel, edited by Phillip Schaff, (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1876), 195).
8.) “To fulfill the anticipations of all prophetic books.” ( J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, (New York, McMillan Co., 1923), 540).
9.) “The idea seems to be that they would at that time be all sealed, in the sense that they would be closed or shut up–no longer open matters–but that the fulfillment would, as it were, close them up forever.” Barnes also cites Hengstenberg, Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, and Langerke as concurring with the idea that vision and prophecy are sealed by fulfillment.” (Albert Barnes, Daniel Vol. II, (Grand Rapids; Baker, 1978), 145).
10.) “The sealing up of vision and prophet implies the confirming and fulfilling of all the sacred oracles that had spoken of the great day of the Lord and the glorious age to follow, in which the earth would be full of the knowledge of the Jehovah.” ( Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1988 reprint), 201).  For more on this see Don’s book, Seal up Vision and Prophecy.

The basic meaning of these words:
Seal  – chathamto make an end, seal (up), stop.
Vision – chazowna dream, revelation, or oracle: -vision.
Prophecy or Prophet – nabiy’ Is used 316 times in the OT and is translated prophet 312 times and only once is it translated prophecy here in Dan. 9:24.

Our passage is teaching us that when Daniel 9:24-27 (which is a concise prophecy of all OT prophecy) is fulfilled, then the office of “prophet” will “cease.”
I was meditating on Jeremiah 23 the other day and the false prophets and priests claiming to speak for God in God’s name — and how outraged God was at this! Yet Charismatics simply continue to claim to be prophets and prophesy in His name falsely on a REGULAR basis. Some Charismatics admit an 80% failure rate of “prophecies” being the result of them talking to themselves, thinking dreams are from God when they aren’t or making predictions that don’t come true. Does not Jeremiah say that false prophets are guilty of claiming to have visions and dreams that come from “delusions in their own minds” (Jer. 23:16, 25-26)? Is God not “against” those that speak in His name giving false prophecy saying, ‘The LORD declares.’ Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams.” And these false prophets “lead my people away with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them.” And “But you must not mention ‘the oracle of the LORD’ again, because every man’s own word becomes his oracle and so you DISTORT THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD, THE LORD ALMIGHTY, OUR GOD.” (Jer. 23:16, 25-36).
The other thing we need to point out is that it was the false prophets in Ezekiel’s day that turned the “at hand” coming of the Lord in judgment upon Jeremiah’s contemporaries to be twisted into something that would be far off for others to experience and not them (cf. Ezek. 7 and 12).  The false prophets of the Charismatic Movement claim that the NT inspired Apostles and Prophets declaring an “at hand” and “soon” first century Second Coming event, wasn’t really “at hand” for them, but their so-called “prophets” and “prophecies” make these promises allegedly truly “at hand” or “near” in our day!  Amazing how that works.
I was also reminded of some statements I have read by my Charismatic opponent next month in his book, Playing With Holy Fire.  Let me address the serious error’s of Dr. Brown and the Charismatic view of modern “prophets” and failed “prophecies” uttered in God’s name.
False and Failed “Prophets” and “Prophecy”
In Brown’s book Authentic Fire in one of the appendix sections he has another author (Sam Storms) peddle the Charismatic view that NT prophets could make false predictions or their “prophecies” may not be 100 % accurate. After all Brown uttered a false prophecy about Israel (see below) – right? Might as well admit NT prophecy fails, if yours do and you want to be portraying yourself as being “biblical” and others actually consider you a “prophet” – right?!?
I tried getting the audio or transcript of Brown’s “prophecy” but couldn’t. So here is an article addressing Brown’s false and failed “prophecy” I found online:
“Michael Brown’s False Prophecy
By now we are all familiar with the prophecy – first denied to be a prophecy, then admitted to be a prophecy, then denied to be a prophecy – issued by John Kilpatrick on April 6, 1997 against CRI and its president, Hank Hanegraaff.
However, it has been discovered that John Kilpatrick is not the first Brownsville Assembly of God staff member to have prophecied falsely. As far back as 1987, Dr. Michael Brown, Brownsville’s chief apologist, issued one of his own.
“…While speaking at that Jerusalem gathering, Michael Brown proceeded to tell the attendees that “tonight,” that night, would be a “history making” night insomuch as the Holy Spirit would descend in power and fire as earth-shaking and monumental as the literal day of Pentecost detailed in Acts, chapter 2. On a video of this speech in the presence of Israeli Messianic leaders including such leading scholars as Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum who all witnessed the false prophetic predictions, Michael Brown went so far as to interpret the national disaster of forest fires destroying 20% of Israel’s reforested land as emblematic of the outpouring. [Reported in the Moriel Newsletter Number 9; Jacob Prasch Ministry] Somewhere around 2am, when it became apparent nothing “earth shaking” was going to occur that evening, Brown’s “prophecy” fizzled and he subsequently issued a letter of apology, attempting to claim that the reason nothing came of it was because several people in attendance were allegedly praying “against” his “prophesy”. He would ultimately go on to admit that, in fact, he must not have been “in the Spirit” when he made the aforementioned proclamation.
A transcript of this infamous meeting will be made available once we have the tape.
Article by Bob Hunter and Debra Bouey.” http://op.50megs.com/ditc/brownprophecy.htm
Brown tries to address this issue in his book, Playing With Holy Fire (pp. 89-92). Just when you think you are getting a sincerely humble confession from Brown, it is un-done with Brown boasting about how much he fasted before giving this false prophecy and that in the end, it was allegedly “the greatest outpouring in the history of modern Israel” and “technically speaking what I spoke came to pass” (Ibid. pp. 90-91). And of course the false or failed aspect he uttered apparently didn’t come true because it was “conditional” (Ibid. p. 91)?!?
MacArthur in his book Strange Fire documents Charismatics admitting that 80% of their “prophecies” never come true. They don’t see any problem with this. Wow. They should be glad they are not living in the OT.
Brown tries to distance his failed prophecies and countless others in the movement by exhorting his fellow-charismatics to instead of using OT and NT language of “thus says the LORD…” use, “I sense the Lord could be showing me this…” (Ibid., p. 82 bold MJS). Brown claims NT prophecy and that of Charismatics can be in error (unlike what the Bible teaches Deut. 18:15-22) because unlike the OT period, so many have the gift (Ibid., p. 83). Really? So the Holy Spirit in the OT had NO PROBLEM communicating to the prophets and them having a 100% accuracy rating, but because the Holy Spirit has more on His plate when He came upon all kinds of Jews, Samaritans, God-fearers, and Gentiles in the NT (from Pentecost to AD 70) and allegedly today (per Charismatic false doctrine), a 80% error rate is now allowed and we can just re-define the nature of prophecy and the office of prophet to fit their failed “experiences”?!? Wow! Let that sink in folks!
While at was at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa under Pastor Chuck Smith I personally heard many so-called “prophecies” that centered around the “soon” coming rapture and or Second Coming of Jesus in the after glow services. They were uttered by “prophets” or those alleged gifted with the gift of prophecy. Some were given through someone speaking gibberish (not a known foreign language) and then “interpreted” as something like, “I am coming for you soon my beloved. Maranatha, come Lord Jesus!” They of course felt comfortable with this because after all Hal Lindsey and Pastor Smith were teaching that the generation from 1948 to 1988 would experience the “soon” coming rapture.
From what I understand the Brownsville “revival” also uttered similar “soon” Second Coming prophesies. This is not uncommon. All of your major cults started in the early eighteenth century were giving “prophecies” or dogmatic teachings about the “soon” Second Coming to take place in their generation. These same cults argued that the main church had been in apostasy until God began restoring the church through their teachings. While the Pentecostal and Charismatic moment or the Brownsville “revival” may not go that far, they definitely teach that if you didn’t make the “pilgrimage” to their church, where the Holy Spirit was allegedly really moving, you were missing out. And within the Charismatic Movement, if you are not experiencing what they are, you are “quenching the spirit” in your life etc. If you rebuke them in love with the Word some would go as far as saying you are “touching God’s anointed” or “blaspheming the Spirit.”
1 Corinthians 13:8-12
I would agree with Charles John Ellicott connecting the “sealing up of vision and prophet” to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, “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.”
1 Corinthians 13:8-12 describes the “this generation” eschatological “already and not yet” transition period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70.  There was a PROCESS taking place.  Something “partial” that need to be “complete” or a child growing into the “maturity” of manhood.  When this process was finished the “in part” “childish” miraculous “things” of prophecy, tongues and knowledge would no longer be needed and “pass away” or “cease.”  In AD 70 they did just that!
The miraculous sign and revelatory gifts were given to the early church to confirm HOW (spiritually) and WHEN (their “generation” and “soon”) the OT prophecies concerning Israel would be fulfilled.  They were looking at God’s glory in the face of Christ through the mirror or revelation of the OT Scriptures — seeing how they were being fulfilled in Christ and through His New Covenant Body – the Church/Israel of God/Zion/New Jerusalem/Temple etc…  They were in the process of being transformed (obviously spiritually) from Old Covenant glory to New Covenant glory.  They did not fully know what they (the New Covenant Body) would look like apart from the Old Covenant Body when it would “soon vanish” in AD 70.  They did full understand what the New Covenant body would look like and how it would function without the earthly system they had know for thousands of years.  But they would “be like Him when He appeared” in that they would have His righteousness accredited to them apart from the works performed under the Old Covenant system and abide in the New Covenant “world of righteousness” He ushered in in AD 70.
The process of a child becoming a man was the process by which Christ was fulfilling the OT Scriptures and maturing the Church from the Old Covenant system within that transitionary period of the two covenants.  The OC age with it’s types and shadows was “passing away” and “ready to vanish” while the NC age was “about to” come at the “soon” Second Coming of Christ.
The office of “prophet” would  “cease” when “that which is perfect” (the Second Coming and arrival of the New Creation) arrived in AD 70 (1 Cor. 1:7-8/13:8-12/Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20). The NT bears witness that “all” would be fulfilled imminently in AD 70 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 1:4-12; 4:5-7).  This effective destroys all of the “last days” cults, Islam and all forms of Charismatic and Pentecostal theology whom claim that they were/are given divine revelation and or that there are modern day “prophets” today (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower, the New Apostolic Reformation, Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc…).
Other Charismatic arguments are easily refuted:

  1.  The sign and revelatory gifts last throughout the “last days” until the Second Coming (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 1:5-8; 13:8-12).  Yet the Bible teaches the “last days” were the last days of the Old Covenant age that would end at the “soon” Second Coming event whereby we see God’s face today in the New Covenant New Creation (Rev. 21-22:4-7, 20).
  2. The sign and revelatory gifts last and are “with” the Church until she has finished the Great Commission — which is the main “sign” before Jesus returns (Mt. 24:14; Mrk. 13:10; Acts 1:8; Mrk. 16:15-18/Mt. 28:18-20).  Yet the INSPIRED Apostle used the very same Greek words Jesus used and said it had already been fulfilled in his ministry (Cols. 1:5-6, 23; Rms. 10:18; 16:25-26).

The miraculous sign and revelatory gifts primary function then was to confirm that the OT promises of the New Covenant would transform Israel into a spiritual body and Temple.  To PROVE Yeshua’s spiritual fulfillments of the OT promises of the kingdom to be “in Him” and through and “in” His followers–was a message that went directly against their hyper-literal traditions of reading the Law and the Prophets and needed miraculous confirmation.  This is what Charismatic Zionists such as Dr. Michael Brown miss completely which force them into having to re-define the gifts of tongues from known human languages into gibberish and infallible prophecy into their admitted 80% fallible “prophetic” version!  Brown thinks he and other men like Benny Hinn are in the business of “revival” and transforming the Church and culture.  But they aren’t!  Brown and many like him have  missed the PURPOSE of the sign and revelatory gifts completely.  And his appearance in modern Israel (which is not the Biblical Israel of the OT and NT) giving false prophecies while at the same time promoting his false teaching of Zionism concerning the physical land, temple, Levites and animal sacrifices is further evidence he just doesn’t understand the purpose of the gifts and thus provides us with a perfect transition into our next redemptive event Messiah would accomplish by AD 70.

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 (Ex. 20, 29-31, 40; cf. Hebrews 9:6-10; Revelation 11:18-19, 19–21:16).

David Green writes,

“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).” (David Green, From Babylon to Babylon).

The OT promises of the New Covenant described in terms of a perpetual Temple, Levitical Priesthood, Sacrifices, Land, Jerusalem, etc…

The other day I was reading some comments made by Charismatic Zionist Dr. Michael Brown out on the “anointing of the Most Holy Place” (Dan. 9:24) and that of Jeremiah 23 and particularly in Jeremiah 33:15-22.  Here New Covenant land promises are connected to perpetual Temple sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood.

As usual Dr. Brown talks out of both sides of his mouth when he interprets the “anointing of the Most Holy Place” to the Church but at the same time a physical future temple:

“…it could refer to the spiritual temple–i.e., the redeemed people of God, who, according to the New Testament authors, have become a holy dwelling place for the Spirit.  This Temple was, in fact, inaugurated by Jesus the Messiah, and the community of believers who make up this Temple are, in fact, anointed by the Spirit of God.  On the other hand, the reference could be to a still-future Temple, the Messiah’s millennial Temple in Jerusalem.” (AJOJ, Vol. 3, p. 98).

Let’s look at another New Covenant promise made to Old Covenant Israel:

“…nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.” (Jer. 33:17-18).

Amazingly, Brown who many in the Charismatic Movement consider a “prophet” has to likewise interpret this passage “literally” and thus embarrassingly writes of this passage in his commentary on Jeremiah,

“How exactly these Levitical priests will fulfill their mission remains to be determined, but God’s promise to them is certain.” (THE EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY REVISED EDITION #7 Jeremiah – Ezekiel, Zondervan, 2010, p. 425).

There’s no mystery here folks. The Church is the New Covenant New Heavens and and New Earth of Isaiah 65-66 (Isa. 65:17/2 Cor. 5:17). She is the New Covenant Temple of Ezekiel 37-48 (Ezek. 37:27/2 Cor. 6:16). She is the New Jerusalem/Zion/Heavenly City or “Nation” born and “given” the kingdom that Abraham and the OT saints looked to and was in the process of “coming down” and “about to” arrive at Christ’s “soon” coming in AD 70 (cf. Isa. 65-66/Mt. 21:43-45/1 Pet. 2:9/Heb. 10–13:14YLT/Gals. 3-4/Rev. 3:11-12NIV–21-22). Isaiah 66:19-22 makes it clear that those who survived the Day of the Lord in AD 70 (the Second Coming is an in time event not an end of time event) would preach the gospel and stream into the New Covenant “Holy Mountain” or “New Jerusalem” with others and function AS the sacrifices and Levites,

“19 and I will set a sign (Mt. 24:30-31) among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. 22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain.”

There are “sinners” and evangelism taking place in the spiritual New Covenant New Heavens and New Earth of Isaiah 65-66/Revelation 22:17 post AD 70 by which the nations are being healed. The Church and Christians are the “Levites” offering up our lives as a living sacrifice of praise to God! If not, Brown’s eschatology is no less deplorable than the hyper-literal Dispensationalism of MacArthur, Ice, and the rest of those “delusional” (God’s word) “prophets” or so-called “prophecy experts” which would have the consummation of redemption brought in through the Second Coming being — a PHYSICAL temple being re-built and some being consistent having Christ smelling the stench of PHYSICAL animal sacrifices being offered up at the hands of the PHYSICAL “Levitical Priesthood.” Good brief! All the genealogies of the Jews were burned up in AD 70. When Brown was asked by Gary DeMar what tribe he was from, Brown said, “We THINK the tribe of Judah.” Brown has no clue what tribe he is from let alone how to literal “Levites” are coming back.

Jeremiah 3:16

Brown finds this passage that refutes his Zionism “intriguing” (Ibid., 112).  In the New Covenant age the Old Covenant “ark” “will NEVER enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one BE MADE.”  (Jer. 3:16).  And yet Zionist’s like Dr. Michael Brown and John Hagee believe they have an entire “ministry” based upon getting the Church excited concerning what is taking place in modern Israel and so-called “prophecies” of a future physical Temple, Ark and Levitical Sacrifices being “made” again and re-instituted as the climax of redemptive history.  Wow.  In my estimation Brown’s Historic Premillennial Zionism is no less extreme and unbiblical than John Hagee’s Dispensational Zionism.  Selah.

Brown’s Contradictions

On the one hand when Brown is debating Reformed Covenant Theology or Preterism he likes to ridicule these systems as “replacement theology,” and that we are guilty of not interpreting the restoration of Israel’s promises in the OT “literally.” Yet, when debating unbelieving Jews, Brown argues for a spiritual fulfillment of these OT prophecies. Here is an example of Brown now claiming the temple, priesthood and sacrifices of the temple mentioned in Ezekiel is spiritual, because for a Jew — it would be natural to describe spiritual blessings in the Old Covenant land and sacrificial system in which he lived,

“Perhaps the Scripture passage [Ezekiel] was never meant to be literally fulfilled.” (AJOJ Vol. 2, 177).

The prophetic events [by Ezekiel, Haggai and Zechariah] were describing,

“…events so glorious that they could only be described as a new creation and a second exodus.” (Ibid.)

“Ezekiel the priest was shown a vision of future glory, and for him, nothing could be more glorious than a restored Temple. And for a priest like Ezekiel, nothing could more certainly speak of purification and atonement than blood sacrifices. Nothing could convey a greater sense of promise that God would again favor his people than a vision such as this.” (Ibid.)

“This brings us back to the theme of the prophesied return from exile and rebuilding of the Second Temple. Either the words of the prophets were not fulfilled because the Bible is not true…” “…or God fulfilled his promises [spiritually] through the coming of the Messiah into the world (which makes sense in light of dozens of other Scripture passages – quoting Ephs. 2:21-22; 2 Cor. 6:16–7:1; Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:4-5; Heb. 13:15-16; ).” (Ibid.)

The OT prophets,

“…spoke in language that they [historically & culturally] had…” (Ibid., 180).

“How then would the Spirit, communicate through Ezekiel, speak of God providing atonement for his people, of him dwelling in our midst, of the provision of forgiveness and reconciliation, of freedom from slavery and oppression? Could it be that he would do so through a glorious Temple vision, complete with sacrifices, offerings, and priests? I think this is a possibility worthy of consideration.” (Ibid., 180).

But right when you think Brown is understanding Jesus’ and the inspired NT’s Apostolic hermeneutic of interpreting all of Israel’s New Covenant restoration promises spiritually by being “in Christ” and not “in the land,” Brown has to please his Charismatic Premillennial [mostly Dispensational] base and begins postulating that after the Second Coming there may be a third literal re-built temple with sacrifices (per Dispensational “Evangelicals,” Ibid., 180ff.). But there is an interesting point that Brown makes in defense for this view,

“Just as sacrifices were offered for forty years after Yeshua’s death and resurrection–and Messianic Jews apparently participated in some of those sacrificial rites (see Acts 21:17-26)–it could be that sacrifices will be offered in a future Temple, without being in conflict with the atonement provided for us in Jesus.” (Ibid., 181)

The theological 500 pound gorilla in the room that Brown is missing here, is that the Messianic 40 years “second exodus” “already and not yet” NT transition period–roughly between AD 30 – AD 70, included a time when the Old Covenant was still “imposed” and thus all of the “jots and tittles” of the law were binding upon Jewish Christians “until” it would “all” be fulfilled — that is, when the Old Covenant “heavens and earth” would “pass away” or “soon vanish” at the “in a very little while” Second Appearing of Christ in AD 70 (Heb. 8:13–10:37; Mt. 5:17-18).

Because Brown misses the inspired NT’s 40 years transitional “already and not yet” period, this causes Brown out of one side of his mouth when debating Covenant Theology and Preterism to argue for New Covenant OT promises being fulfilled PHYSICALLY (just look what they say!), but when debating unbelieving Jews, to argue for these same OT promises being fulfilled SPIRITUALLY (because for a Jew this is how he would communicate blessings in terms of Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifices, etc…). It is interesting that Brown is willing to give the OT Temple, Priesthood and Sacrifice promises a spiritual fulfillment in the New Covenant, but NEVER the Land (at least that I’ve seen). You can’t have a spiritual temple and sacrifices without some spiritual land – period. This is why “ALL [not some] of the promises [in the OT] and yes and amen in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20).

Daniel 9:25 – Beginning the countdown with the “Decree” or the Prophetic “Word” of Jeremiah?

Some take the “decree (of Cyrus) to restore and re-build Jerusalem” found in (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Isa. 44:24, 26, 28; 45:13; cf. Josephus, Antiquities, xi, 6, 12) as the fulfillment of this verse.  However, a literal chronology from Cyrus does not reach the times of Christ.  Ezra 6:14 seems to connect the decree as an unfolding event through the king(s) of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes–of which some see the decree beginning in 457 BC in order to arrive at Christ’s ministry in AD 26/27.  But those who usually take this position end the 490 years in around AD 32-35.  But clearly the prophecy extends to AD 70.  This is where the concept of a “gap” is not necessary.  It’s more of Yeshua fulfilling the 10th. Jubilee “cycle.”  Between AD 26–AD 66-70 not only fulfills the second exodus generation motif of Isaiah 11 and first century Jewish expectations that Messiah would have a transition reign between the OC “this age” and the NC “age about to come,” but Yeshua has 49-50 years to fulfill the Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61 which are grounded in the feast day sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26.

Perhaps we have missed something in Daniel 9:25. The Hebrew very well can support “From the the issuing of the WORD [prophetic word of Jeremiah] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…there will be [490 yrs.]…” That is, the 490 years prophecy includes the 70 years of Babylonian captivity.  The context of what Daniel is reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy coupled with the Hebrew supporting the prophetic “word” going back to Jeremiah develops the idea that 70 years of captivity times 7 for breaking the sabbaths of Leviticus 23, 25-26 gives you 490 years.  Odd, how I learned that the countdown includes the 70 years of captivity from someone who hates Full Preterism  (Sam Frost) and an anti-Christian anti-Yeshua site (Jews for Judaism).  While all they can see is a non-Messianic prophecy, all I can see is a PERFECT Messianic prophecy fulfilled by AD 70. Selah.

The rebuilding in the “difficult times” can be read in Ezra and Nehemiah. The first 62 sevens represents a period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah and Ezra to the first coming of Jesus – the “Anointed One.” Jesus was anointed by the Father to preach the good news of the Gospel to Israel and gather a believing remnant and the Gentiles/Greeks to Himself.

The Parallel Connections Between Verses 26-27 and the Last 7 Establishing the Everlasting New Covenant Between AD 30 – AD 70

There is a parallel structure here that should not be missed as it pertains to Messiah fulfilling the last 7 of this prophecy which involves His redemptive work from cross to parousia in AD 70 in order to establish the New Covenant. There is a parallel structure here with verse 27 expounding more upon verse 26 and then climaxing with verse 27 putting an end to sacrifices in AD 70.

  • A– verse 26: “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah [māšîaḥ] will be cut off and have nothing,”
  • B– verse 27: “And the people of the prince [nāgîd] who is to come will destroy [or spoil] the city and the sanctuary. And its end will comewith a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.”
  • A– verse 27: “And he will make a firm/strongcovenant with the many during(or in the midst of, not “for”) one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering”
  • B– verse 27: “And on the wing of abominations will comeone who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

The parallels suggest that not only is Daniel being comforted by the angel in that although Messiah will be “cut off” this will in fact result in the strengtheningof a new covenant made with the many; but that this covenantal process will end when Jerusalem is judged.

Isaiah 9-10 and Daniel 9:24-27

I agree with Meredith Kline who sees the connection between

Isaiah 9-10 and Daniel 9:26-27:

“Particularly significant for the meaning of higbir in Daniel 9:27 is the use of gibbor in Isaiah 9 and 10. Isaiah identified the Messiah, the Son of David, as “the mighty God” of the covenant formula by declaring His name to be ‘el gibbor (Isa. 9:5, [6]). Then in Isaiah 10 this messianic ’el gibbor is mentioned again in the very passage from which Daniel 9:27 derives its thought and wording alike (see verses 21-23). Isaiah spoke there of God’s mighty messianic fulfillment of covenant blessing and curse: a remnant of Jacob would return unto ’el gibbor, but in overflooding (sotep) judicial righteousness the annihilation (kalah) that was determined (neherasah) would befall the land. Daniel 9:26b, 27 echoes Isaiah’s prophecy: the covenant would be made to prevail (higbir), as a blessing for the many who were the faithful remnant, but as a curse in the form of the determined annihilation (kalah weneherasah) which would be poured out on the abominations of apostate Israel like a flood (setep). The unmistakable dependence of Daniel 9:27 on Isaiah 10:21 ff. points directly to the ’el gibbor of Isaiah 10:21 as the inspiration for the higbir of Daniel 9:27.This confirms the conclusions that the subject of higbir is not antichrist or any other than the anointed one whose name is ‘el gibbor and that the object of higbir, the covenant made to prevail, is the redemptive covenant sealed by the reconciling blood of Christ [i.e. the New Covenant].” (Meredith G Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” in The Law and the Prophets: OldTestament Studies in Honor of Oswald T. Allis (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 8-9).

As I have addressed in previous articles, I think the entire Messianic block of Isaiah 7-11 is prophesying the first and second comings of Messiah to occur within the second exodus generation (AD 30 – AD 70) and during this specific generation, establish and bring to maturity the New Covenant age that we live in today post AD 70.

Limited and Definite Atonement for “the Many” in the New Covenant

It is more than troubling that Dispensationalism turns a wonderful promise of Christ making the New Covenant with the believing Church (remnant Jews and Gentiles) into a covenant between the “antichrist” and “apostate Jews.” This is none other than the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-33; as is so clearly laid out for us in Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:7-12–10:15-37 and truly embraces the eschatological fulfillment of the OT Law and the Prophets – in Christ’s first and second appearings in Israel’s last days.

Again the parallels between Isaiah and Daniel are striking. In Isaiah 53 Christ is likewise prophesied to be “cut off out of the land of the living” and yet “by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many(Isa 53:8, 11). Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 26:28 that His shed blood is for the disciples and those whom He prays for that will come to Him through their message (cf. John 17:9-26). Jesus as the High Priest of the New Covenant does not offer His blood for the “world,” nor does He pray for the world! John 17 harmonizes well with John 3:16 when we understand that Jesus is telling a Jew who thought salvation was only for the Jews, that His salvation was for the “world” (that is believing Jews and Gentiles). The literal Greek reading of John 3:16 is, “in order that every one believing in him may not perish.” As R.K. McGregor Wright observes, “There is no word for “whosoever” in the original…” “…John 3:16 states explicitly that the purpose of God in sending his Son to die was limited to atoning for believers only, that they ‘should not perish, but have everlasting life.’” (R.K. McGregor Wright, NO PLACE for SOVEREIGNTY What’s Wrong with Freewill Theism, p. 159). Jesus only lays down His life for those sheep the Father has given Him and they alone come to Him (John 6 and 10).

Daniel 9:26

The Anointed One/Prince/Ruler/Leader/Messiah (Jesus the Christ), would be “cut off” after the 62 sevens. Again, Isaiah 53 teaches us the same about a coming Messiah who would be cut off and have nothing (with some Jews conceded Isa. 53 is Messianic). “The people (the Jews or Roman soldiers) of the Ruler (Jesus), will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end (of the seventy sevens) will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.” Between AD 66 – AD 70 not only did the Romans surround the city, but the Idumeans (Jewish Zealots) did as well and entered Jerusalem resulting in the city being divided into three warring sects – all shedding blood over the Temple area and for control of Jerusalem. War and blood shed took place within the Temple and thus it was subject to abominations. The Romans (who were also under the control of Christ) did very little except wait it out and let “the people” that rejected their Messiah to devour (sometimes literally) each other. Also, through the imprecatory prayers of the Christians (people of the Prince), Jerusalem was destroyed with its apostate mountain removed and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Matthew 21:18-22; Revelation 8:8).

Daniel 9:27

The “He” here is still the Messiah (not an alleged “Anti-Christ”) and through His sacrifice He established the New Covenant for the “many” (ie. the Church the new Israel of God). This last seven was from the anointing of Jesus in His first coming to His anointing the Church (His Most Holy Place New Jerusalem) in His Second in AD 70. His Wife and or New Jerusalem is described as a perfect cube as the MHP place was (cf. Rev. 21:16 & “the first” [Holy Place] representing the OC community being removed in AD 70 and “the second” [the Most Holy Place] representing the NC community and its establishment during the time of the “new order” fully arriving at the end of the OC age in AD 70 in a “very little while” cf. Heb. 9:6-10, 26-28; 10:37). Christ came and overshadowed Jerusalem with desolation and determined wrath upon the desolate in AD 70 (cf. Matthew 24:15ff/Luke 21:20-24).

Typological Considerations – Cyrus a Type of Christ:

  • Both of their births and future rules were threatened at birth. Astyages, King of Media, the grandfather of Cyrus saw in a dream that Cyrus would threaten his kingdom and thus sought to have him killed at birth. Herod was threatened by Jesus and sought to kill Him at birth.
  • Both anointed to set captives free.
  • Both called Shepherds.
  • Both their rules involved a deliverance of Israel and the Gentiles from the captivity of Babylon.
  • Both were born Kings to deliver Israel from 70 years of Babylonian bondage. From birth to parousia, Christ reigned over Israel (roughly for 70 years) calling the believing remnant to “come out” from among “Babylon” which in Revelation is OC Jerusalem where the Lord was slain.
  • Both were involved in gathering the Jews and Gentiles from the four corners of the earth and making the kingdoms of the world theirs. Post AD 70 Christ”s reign is an everlasting reign and He continues to bring healing to the nations through the everlasting gospel.
  • Cyrus’ predicted coming ended the 70 years of Babylonian captivity; while JESUS’ predicted Second Coming brought an end to the seventy sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.
  • Both were involved in gathering the Jews into the promised land to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple — with Jesus gathering God’s Church into the NC spiritual land, city and temple.
  • The Hebrew OT Tora (not the Christian OT) ends with Chronicles – giving a chronology and ending with the praises and accomplishments of Cyrus’ rule, authority and accomplishments. Matthew’s gospel begins (The Christian NT) with a chronology tracing JESUS back to Abraham – through whom the curse of Babel would be eventually reversed (through the seed of Messiah) and was by AD 70. Matthew ends his gospel declaring JESUS as having all rule and authority over the nations.

Our Life Cycle and Israel’s Redemptive Life Cycle Move Within the Cycles of Sevens

1). Seven of Days (7 days) — Work six days rest on the seventh (Gen. 1:31-2:3; Ex. 31:12-17).

2). Seven of Weeks (49 days) — Time between the feast of First Fruits and the feast of Pentecost (Deut. 16:9-12; Lev. 23:15-16).

3). Seven of Months (7 months) — The seven months of the Jewish religious calendar which contain all seven of the Jewish feasts (Deut. 16; Lev. 23).

*** The three months gap between the 4 Spring Feasts and the 3 Fall Feasts represent the overlapping of the Old Covenant “this age” (that was passing away and would “soon vanish”) and the New Covenant “age about to come” (and did in AD 70)! This prophetic gap of four months was called by the Rabbi’s, “The time for waiting the judgment” and was the period or season by which the 10th eschatological Jubilee cycle Messiah  Yeshua was fulfilling all OT prophecy (Lk. 21:20-22/Dan. 9:24-27).

4). Seven Years (7 years) — Israel was to work the land for six years and then let it rest for the seventh year (Lev. 25:1-7).

5). Seven of Sevens of Years (49 years) — The period of time between each celebration of the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8-17).

6). Seven of Decades (70 years) — Man’s average life span (Ps. 90:10). After 70 years man’s physical body returns to the dust and he remains in a spiritual body fit for the after life and the spiritual realm. During the 70 years between Christ’s birth to parousia, and the “last days” of Israel, Israel transitioned from a physical Old Covenant body to a New Covenant spiritual body.

7). Seven of Sevens of Decades (490 years) — In Jewish tradition, “422 BC is associated with when the first temple burned 70 Sabbaticals (490 yrs.) before the second temple burned in 70 AD.” (Dr. B. Zuchermann, Professor at Jewish Theological Seminary).  The Jews believed Messiah would come to establish the Kingdom during the 10th Jubilee cycle (490 yrs. from first temples destruction). Jesus’ first coming in AD 26 was a jubilee yr. and ushered in the 10th. cycle (Lk. 4/Isa. 61). Christ as High Priest accomplished His atonement process between AD 30 – AD 70 fulfilling Israel’s Second Exodus. (Dan. 9:24-27; Isa. 10-11).

The Sovereign Grace Full Preterist view harmonizes the various Christian views on this crucial passage while at the same time honors the first century historical context of Messiah arriving during the 10th cycle of the Jubilee and during the Roman Empire to establish His kingdom and usher in the eschatological rest and inheritance.
As Margaret Barker demonstrated in developing the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, just prior to Yeshua’s birth and during His earthly ministry — right up to AD 66, there was a 10th. eschatological Jubilee cycle and Messianic frenzy expectation.
The symbolic view which understands Daniel 9:24-27 as addressing not only the first coming of Yeshua, but also His second is correct.  They simply will not submit to the exegetical facts that the prophecy and Jesus Himself connects His Second Coming with the fall of Jerusalem in the AD 30 – AD 70 “this generation” (Lk. 21:20-32).
The soteriological and eschatological sabbath connected to the 490 years does not have to be “symbolic” of “10 Jubilee eras (490)” of which the last 3.5 of the last 7 — is STILL waiting to be fulfilled for the last 2,000 and plus years.  If one uses the Jewish calendar and thinks the way the first century Jew did, then the last Messianic and eschatological 10th. cycle of the Jubilee was from 424/422 BC to AD 26/27–AD 66-AD 70.
The Seventy Sevens prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 predicted both redemptive comings of Messiah which would reach there fulfillment when OC Jerusalem and her Tempe would be judged and desolated. The desolation of Jerusalem coinciding with the fulfillment of all the main eschatological events are once again recapitulated in Daniel 12:1-7 and thus fulfilled “when the power of the holy people would be completely shattered” in AD 70.
From the birth of Israel’s Messianic King (Jesus the Christ) to His Second Appearing at the end of her OC age in AD 70, is roughly another more significant 70 years for her coming out of bondage and slavery from “Babylon” into the freedom/rest and salvation found not “in the land” but “in Christ.” And thus typologically, just as Cyrus was predicted and anointed to fulfill prophecy by setting the captives free from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity — within 70 years of Christ’s predicted First and Second Comings, He fulfilled Daniel’s 70 7’s prophecy. Selah.
Christ’s Second Coming in AD 70 was also the reversal of God’s disinheritance of the 70 nations and creating one new Israel of God whereby the nations are blessed in the New Covenant age today (Gen. 10-15; Mt. 21:43-45; Gals. 3-6; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 22:17).
If Christ didn’t fulfill BOTH of His redemptive comings as the Churches Great High Priest between AD 30 – AD 70 during that last and 10th. Jubilee cycle (during the time of the 4th. Gentile power / Roman Empire and when both the OC and NC age overlapped) – then not only did the Jews miss their Messiah, but many Christians have missed the climax of their professed Christian faith and are thinking just as carnally as they first century Jews were when it comes to the Kingdom of Christ.
Christ through His work on the cross and parousia – is our Jubilee Sabbath rest and the anchor of our soul in full assurance of salvation.  The events of AD 66 – AD 70 will always be a reminder of what God thinks of man centered religion grounded in “free will” and a salvation of works.  He despises it and will destroy those that approach Him in this way.  But for those of us who trust in the finished work of Christ, He has become for us our “inheritance,” “salvation of the soul” and thus established His kingdom and presence “within” us.  If this isn’t exciting enough for you, then go buy a failed Hal Lindsey book at a garage sale for twenty-five cents.  As for me and my house, we will serve and worship the Lord in spirit and in truth.  Selah.

A Deeper Exegesis of the Jubilee Rest and Inheritance of Isaiah 61-66 and Relevant NT Texts 

Since there are sound exegetical and Qumran 10th. cycle (490 yrs.) Jubilee connections between Daniel 9:24-27 and Isaiah 61–66, I will develop more aspects of fulfillment within Isaiah 61–66.  The “day of vengeance” of Isaiah 61:2 is the coming of God to reward and judge in Isaiah 62.  Then the “day of vengeance” is picked back up in Isiah 63:1-6.  This Second Coming event is what ushers in the eschatological jubilee sabbath/inheritance of the New Jerusalem and the New Creation of Isaiah 65-66.

And since the imminent “coming of the Son of Man” passages of Matthew 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:30-34 have there OT reference in Daniel 7:13 (which is inseparably connected to Dan. 9:24-27) we will examine Matthew 16:27-28 in detail as well.

Isiah 62/Matthew 16:27-28

“Behold your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense is with him.” (Isa. 62:11).

Isaiah 62 addresses the eschatological wedding and Second Coming of Christ motifs. Yeshua refers to Isaiah 62:11 in His promise to return in judgment during the lifetimes of His first century audience in Matthew 16:27-28 and Mark 8:38—9:1.

“For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his words. “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. (Mt.16:27-28)

I will lay forth several exegetical arguments proving that Mt. 16:27-28 cannot be divided into speaking of two different events which is the typical futurist approach. Most commentators teach verse 27 is speaking of the second coming and that in verse 28 Jesus decides to no longer address the second coming but that some of the disciples would live to witness one of three events: 1) The transfiguration, 2) The ascension of Christ, or 3) Pentecost. Before digging into a vigorous exegesis of the passage, I shall quote Westminster “divine” John Lightfoot on our text and then build upon some of his foundational comments,

“[The kingdom of God coming in power.] 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. Hence the day of judgment and vengeance: I. It is called “the great and terrible day of the Lord,” Acts 2:20; 2 Thess 2:2,3. II. It is described as “the end of the world,” Jeremiah 4:27; Matthew 24:29, &c. III. In that phrase, “in the last times,” Isaiah 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3; that is, in the last times of that city and dispensation. IV. Thence, the beginning of the “new world,” Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13. V. The vengeance of Christ upon that nation is described as his “coming,” John 21:22; Hebrews 10:37: his “coming in the clouds,” Revelation 1:7: “in glory with the angels,” Matthew 24:30, &c. VI. It is described as the ‘enthroning of Christ, and his twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel,’ Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30. Hence this is the sense of the present place: Our Saviour had said in the last verse of the former chapter, “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” to take punishment of that adulterous and sinful generation. And he suggests, with good reason, that that his coming in glory should be in the lifetime of some that stood there.”[1]

a). “For The Son of Man Is About To Come…”

The YLT, DARBY, WUESTNT, and WEY translations correctly translate Jesus’ return here as “about to come” or “soon to come.” These translations are accurate since this is the consistent usage of the Greek word mello in Matthew’s gospel let alone it’s predominate usage in the rest of the New Testament. Let’s briefly see how mello is used in Mathew’s gospel:

1) In (Mt. 2:13 WEY) Herod is “about to” seek to kill Jesus, and therefore Joseph and Mary need to “escape”. Mello here is communicating a near imminent danger not just a general danger to be aware of.

2) In (Mt. 17:12b WEY) Jesus’ point is not that He is going to suffer, but that His suffering is rapidly approaching or is “about to” take place.

3) In (In Mt.17:10-13) mello is used twice. The first occurrence refers to Elijah’s “about to” appearing in the future fulfilled sense. In other words, Elijah was the one the entire nation understood to be “about to come” and the text tells us that he had come in the person of John the Baptist. John is the fulfillment of the nation’s expectancy of Elijah’s “about to” or “soon to come” presence — preparing the way for His “about to come” “great and dreadful day” of Mal.4:5-6 as previously discussed. Therefore, this is but one more piece of exegetical evidence that is in harmony with what Jesus and John the Baptist had been teaching previously Mt. 3:2-12; 4:17; 10:7, 15-23, 16:27-28. His return would be in some of their lifetimes or “The Son of Man is about to come…” Why? Well, since Elijah who was expected to come “soon,” had come in the person of John, Jesus’ second coming could be expected soon, for Elijah must first come, “before the great and dreadful day of the Lord” comes Mal. 4:5-6. The second occurrence of mello in this passage is not referring to the general fact that Jesus is going to suffer, but that He was “about to” suffer and be mistreated as John the Baptist was.

4) Here in (Mt. 17:22; 20:22 WEY) as in point #2 above, Jesus’ emphasis is not the mere fact that he is going to suffer, but that His suffering is rapidly approaching.

5) In (Mt. 24:6 WEY) “Before long” is consistent with Jesus promising that “all these things” (including the signs) would occur in the twelve’s contemporary “this generation” (Mt. 24:34). To conclude this point, Christ’s “about to” coming in verse 27 is consistent with Christ’s coming in the lifetime of “some” of the crowd listening to him in verse 28. After thousands of years of the nations and Israel awaiting the Seed of the woman or the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom, the span of some of the crowd’s lifetime was a short time for them to wait and was thus “about to” happen.

b). “Verily I say unto you…”

Jesus’ phrase “verily,” “truly,” or “most assuredly I say unto you,” is used 99 times[2] in the gospels and gives the meaning of “Absolutely,” “really,” “may it be fulfilled,” and is used as a phrase of emphasis to drive home a point that has gone before it. It is never used to introduce a new subject.[3] Another Editor of a multi-authored book seeking to refute our position states of our text, “…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’”[4] But Mr. Ice does not produce one passage where Jesus’ phrase “Truly I say unto you” is ever used to separate the subject matter previously discussed! Since he cannot produce any evidence for his statement, his point at the very least is unscholarly and at worst, irresponsible and deceptive.

c). “Some standing here shall not taste of death” and “the kingdom of God.”

As we study Christ’s teachings elsewhere in the Gospels and other related passages in the Old and New Testaments concerning: 1) The physical death of some of the 12 and their first century contemporaries along with 2) The Son of Man coming and the arrival of the kingdom of God in power, we discover Christ is addressing a very specific and prophetic persecution coming in the Apostolic generation than just alluding to some of them dying off of because of mere old age. The only event in the teachings of Jesus that associates the death of some of the Apostles with the Kingdom of God is the persecution preceding his second coming Mt.10:16-23; Lk.21:16-32; Mt.23:31-36; Jn.21:19-22; Rev.6:10-11, 17; 16:6, 15; 18:5, 20. The only exception to this is the death of Judas. Daniel’s prophecy confirms Jesus’ teaching. Daniel in (Dan. 2, 7, 9, 12) taught: 1) the kingdom would come and be established during the time of the Roman Empire. 2) There would be a time of persecution and death for believers during this period. The “little” horn would wage “war with the saints” and “prevail against them (thus some of them would be martyred) “Until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and (at this time) the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” The prevailing in war with the saints from the little horn answers to the persecution and “death” of some of the Apostles and their contemporaries. Jesus made it clear that Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled in His generation (Mt.24:15, 34; Lk.21:20-22).

Some of our opponents have made some real crucial mistakes in trying to refute us on this text. Thomas Ice makes another blunder, “A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here…” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals…” “…Peter notes that “John only survived among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem” (Ice, Controversy, p.88). In other word’s Ice is claiming that the twelve were the only audience Jesus was addressing in this text and therefore if only John was alive till the destruction of Jerusalem, then that does not meet the definition of “some” because “some” necessitates more than one. However, Mark’s account clearly states, “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said:…” (Mk. 8:34 – 9:1).

When we study Christ’s teaching on the “death” of some of His first century disciples in the Gospels it is always in the context of some of them living (while others would not) to witness His Second Coming and inheriting the Kingdom. Jesus’ teaching on the death of some of His disciples and some of them living to witness a specific event is never addressing the transfiguration event, the ascension of Christ, or Pentecost. It is always referring to His Second Coming and to that the Old and New Testaments bear unanimous witness.

d). “…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…”(Mk. 8:38).

Those, whom Christ would be ashamed of at His coming, would be “this adulterous and sinful generation” of A.D. 30 – A.D. 70. Under the old covenant God was married to Israel Ex. 19. This marriage was both pictured as a monogamous marriage (God married to a Mother/Israel) and then after the splitting of the northern kingdom and the southern kingdoms, a polygamous marriage. The picture then becomes God taking two daughters (sisters) as His wives: 1) Israel (Aholah / Samaria capital of Israel) and 2) Judah (Aholibah / Jerusalem capital of Judah) Jer.31:31-32; Ezk. 1:1-4; 1Kings 11:9-13. These two sisters were notorious for their adultery and playing the prostitute (cf. Ezk. 23:3; Jer. 3).

Although God divorced Israel through the Assyrian captivity, He remained married to His other harlot wife Judah, from which line Jesus would come. Judah/Jerusalem was judged by the Babylonian captivity but never divorced Ezk. 23:22-45. Under the old covenant a wife caught in adultery would be stoned and the wife of a priest would be burned. In Revelation the harlot wife of old-covenant Jerusalem was both stoned and burned! Mathison admits that Jerusalem is Babylon in Revelation. Therefore, Mt.16:27/Mrk.8:38 is describing the judgment of the “adulterous generation/wife” in an “about to be” A.D. 70 time frame. Concerning the phrase “be ashamed of” – The old covenant wife would be left without a wedding garment naked and ashamed while the His new covenant wife would be clothed in Christ’s righteousness as His new creation “house from above” thus unashamed and “further clothed” Mt.22:1-14; Rev.3:18; 19:8/2Cor.5:1-21.

Isaiah 62 and the Eschatological Marriage Theme Continued…

Matthew 8:10-12:

10 When Jesus heard this [expression of the Gentile’s faith], he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west [Gentiles] and recline at the table [wedding feast of Isa. 25:6-9] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven [in the resurrection], 12 while the sons of the kingdom [Pharisees and unbelieving Jews] will be cast out into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Gentry writes,

“In Matthew 8:11-12 we read of the faithful gentile who exercises more faith than anyone in Israel. We hear once again of the people from the east. This time they sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the rightful place of the Jews). While the Jews themselves are “cast out” into “outer darkness.” (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 175). And, “God is preparing to punish his people Israel, remove the temple system, and re-orient redemptive history from one people and land to all peoples throughout the earth.” “This dramatic redemptive-historical event…ends the old covenant era…” (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 342).

Strengths:

The “casting out” of the “subjects of the kingdom” is a reference to OC Israel being judged in AD 70, at which time the believing Jewish/Gentile Church takes her place at the end of the OC era (but notice he is afraid of using the term “age”).

The “casting out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” he says refers to AD 70.

Weaknesses:

There is no mention of Isaiah 25:6-9 as Jesus’ source (cf. Mt. 5:17-18). They do the same thing in the OD when it comes to the resurrection gathering of Isa. 25-27/Mt. 24:30-31!

There is no consistency on Jesus’ phrases of being “cast out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” to Matthew 24:51 and 25:30. There is nothing throughout Matthew’s gospel that indicates there are TWO (casting out into outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth) judgments in Jesus’ teaching throughout the gospels.

Unanswered questions – Why isn’t this the fulfillment of the resurrection of Daniel 12:2-3, 13 and Revelation 20 in AD 70 when Daniel’s soul was raised out of the realm of the dead to inherit eternal life and God’s presence – since some Postmillennialists are teaching this now?

Commentators who are not Postmillennial Partial Preterists have no problem pointing out the OT passages Jesus is referring to when He addresses the eschatological wedding feast.

D.A. Carson writes,

“The picture is that of the “messianic banquet,” derived from such OT passages as Isaiah 25:6–9 (cf. 65:13–14)…” and “…the presence of Gentiles at the banquet, symbolized the consummation of the messianic kingdom (cf. Mt 22:1–14; 25:10; 26:29). “Son of” or “sons of” can mean “sons of the bridal chamber” [9:15; NIV, “guests of the bridegroom.” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, pp. 202–203).

Bloomberg writes, “Jesus characterizes that bliss as taking “their places at the feast,” the messianic banquet image depicting the intimate fellowship among God’s people in the age to come (cf. Isa 25:6–9; 65:13–14).” (Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, p. 142). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers).

Leon Morris connects this “feast” with “the coming bliss of the messianic banquet,” to be fulfilled “in the world (or age) to come.” (Morris, L. (1992). The Gospel according to Matthew (p. 195). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press).

R.C. Sproul’s Reformation Study Bible admits that the table and feast of Matthew 8:11 is,

“A reference to the messianic banquet theme of Is. 25:6-9. Gentiles now appear in place of the natural sons.” (p. 1684).

Strengths:

Jesus is teaching on the fulfillment of the messianic wedding banquet and resurrection of Isa. 25:6-9 and inheriting the new creation of 65:12-14 at the end of the then current age, and in the age to come.

They connect the judgment of being “cast out into darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth” with Matthew 24:51 and 25:30 as ONE separating judgment throughout Matthew’s gospel.

Weaknesses:

They ignore the time texts and clear references to the ONE AD 70 judgment throughout Matthew’s gospel and the time texts of the wedding and resurrection in Mt. 24-25 and Revelation – “this generation,” “soon,” etc…

The hermeneutical steps are incomplete in that no work is done on the context of Isaiah 24-25 or Isaiah 65 which demonstrate an “in time” and local judgment and not an end of time and global transformation event.

Matthew 22:1-14:

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ 10 And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. 12 And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 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.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Joel McDurmon writes of verses 2-7,

“Here the first servant-messengers (another reference to the prophets, no doubt) were simply ignored. Another wave of servant-messengers (more prophets) are treated as such a nuisance that while some still ignored them, “the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them” (v. 6). Jesus is certainly adding [the murdering of the servants or prophets] here as part of the same indictment of Jerusalem He would give again in (Matt. 23:34-36).” “The murderers were the entire generation of Israelites….” “…the armies would set the murderers’ city on fire (again exactly what happened in AD 70).”

And of verses 8-14, “…yet, after this destruction…” “…during this post-destruction wedding feast, some would sneak in who did not belong.” “…Whether [the man w/out the wedding garment] should be interpreted as the Judaizers who would cause so much dissention in the NT Church, or whenter these should just be understood as general heretics in the Church, is not clear.” (Jesus v. Jerusalem, 157-158, bold emphasis MJS).

Strengths:

The Great Commission invitation to the feast is between AD 30 – AD 70 in verses 1-7.

The sending out, rejection and killing of the servants is equated to Mt. 23 and the AD 70 judgment.

The judgment and burning of the city closes the OC era/age in AD 70.

The AD 70 judgment is once again characterized as being “cast out into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Weaknesses:

Again, there is no mention that Jesus came to fulfill Isaiah 25:6-9 or 65:12-14 because they would have to address the timing and nature of the resurrection.

Postmillennialists miss that Mt. 22:1-14 is structured with recapitulation:

a). vss. 1-7: 1. There is an invitation to the wedding feast, 2. It is rejected, and 3. this rejection leads to the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 – burning their city.

b). vss. 8-13: 1. There is an invitation, 2. BUT there is NEW information given to us about the same time period that vss. 1-7 didn’t tell us about. This rejection results in the invitation to the undesirables – the 10 northern tribes/Samaritans and Gentiles (as laid out in Acts 1:8) and describes the success of the GC between AD 30 – AD 70. And then finally 3. There is a judgment for their rejection (except this time it’s described differently – with a Jew or Judaizer trying to achieve salvation by works of the law and not through belief in the Son and His grace – who is then “CAST” out in outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (which is the same language used for the AD 70 judgment Postmillennialists give Mt. 8:11-12). So there is no exegetical evidence that vss. 8-13 is a post AD 70 GC resulting in a different judgment at the end of time.

As far as commentators that are not Postmillennial or Partial Preterist, they again have no problem connecting our Lord’s teaching here with the eschatological wedding feast consummation and resurrection of Isaiah 25:6-9. And most give lip service to God sending His armies to burn the city to be the AD 70 judgment (some such as Kistemaker try and downplay it). But these men refuse to interpret the rest of the parable as referring to AD 70 let alone connect Isaiah 25:6-9 with that judgment since it would destroy their Futurism.

Matthew 25:1-13

1″At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6″At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7″Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9″‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10″But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11″Later the others also came. ‘LORD, LORD,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’ 12″But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13″Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

Postmillennialists such as Keith Mathison, Gary DeMar, Joel McDurmon, Mike Bull, etc… no longer divide Matthew 24-25 into two comings of the Lord. They correctly see every reference to the coming of Christ in the OD to be His spiritual coming in AD 70.

As I pointed out earlier, the reference to “day and hour” not being know by the Son but only the Father (24:36) is echoing the OT betrothal/marriage/resurrection motifs coming in Israel’s last days terminal generation (AD 30 – AD 70) — of which Jesus came to fulfill (Lk. 21:22; Mt. 5:17-18).

Others such as Kenneth Gentry see the coming of the Lord and “day and hour” in 24:36—25:31-46 as THE Second Coming consummative event with apparently another eschatological wedding and wedding feast to follow!

So again Postmillennialists are face with TWO eschatological marriages, feasts and resurrections when the NT only knows of ONE.

So let’s do what the Postmillennialists won’t do (they won’t even MENTION Jesus fulfilling Isa. 25:6-9) and what the other Futurists won’t (they mention Jesus is fulfilling Isa. 25:6-9 or Isa. 65:12-14 but then won’t develop those OT contexts).

Context of Isaiah 25:6-9

“On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine- the best of meats and the finest of wines. 7On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; 8he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. The LORD has spoken. 9In that day they will say, “Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”

In context, the Messianic wedding banquet comes as a result of judgment upon OC Israel for her breaking the old covenant Torah (cf. Isa. 24:5). This makes no sense in the Amillennial paradigm because all the Mosaic Law was supposed to have been fulfilled and passed away at the cross.

The Messianic wedding banquet comes when OC Jerusalem is judged with her city becoming a “heap of rubble” (cf. Isa. 25:2). Again this points to an “in time” and local event and not an end of time or global destruction and renewal.

Therefore, Jesus is using Isaiah 24-25 consistently and accurately to demonstrate that the Messianic wedding banquet and resurrection would be fulfilled in AD 70 when OC Israel would break Torah, was judged, and her city and Temple were left in a heap of rubble.

Context of Isaiah 65:12-14

12I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will fall in the slaughter; for I called but you did not answer, I spoke but you did not listen. You did evil in my sight and chose what displeases me.” 13Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “My servants will eat, but you will go hungry; my servants will drink, but you will go thirsty; my servants will rejoice, but you will be put to shame. 14My servants will sing out of the joy of their hearts, but you will cry out from anguish of heart and wail in brokenness of spirit.

Here we are told that God was going to judge OC Israel “by the sword” and their fathers “in full” measure. But at the same time would save a remnant along with the Gentiles (cf. Roms. 10:20—chapter 11).

In that day of judgment, the remnant of believing Jews and Gentiles would feast at the wedding supper and be called by a new name (an everlasting NC name – the New Jerusalem) while OC Israel would not feast, starve and would be remembered no more. This is in line with the “soon” AD 70 coming of the Lord throughout the book of Revelation. In Revelation 19-21, while the Church (the transformed Israel of God) feasts at the wedding feast, OC Israel not only starves, but is actually feasted upon by the birds of the air.

Putting it Altogether “Bridging the Gap” 

The Analogy of Faith or Analogy of Scripture Hermeneutic: Teaches Scripture interprets Scripture, and Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

In mathematics and logic: If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) = Wedding or wedding feast, end of the age, and parousia fulfilled by AD 70.

B (Isa. 25:6-9) = The wedding feast & resurrection are fulfilled together “in that day.”

C (1 Cor. 15) = The resurrection and end of the age are fulfilled at the parousia.

If A bears some relation to B…

Jesus in A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) uses B (Isa. 25:6-9) to teach that His eschatological wedding feast would be fulfilled at His parousia to close the end of the OC age in AD 70.

…and B bears the same relation to C,…

Paul uses B (Isa. 25:6-9) in C (1 Cor. 15) to teach that the resurrection would take place at Christ’s parousia and at “the end [of the age].”

…then A bears it to C.

Both Jesus in A (Mt. 8; 22; 25) and Paul in C (1 Cor. 15) use a common source B (Isa. 25:6-9) to teach the resurrection will be fulfilled “at the end [of the OC age]” parousia event.

Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.

The ONE Parousia/Second Coming, Eschatological Wedding, End of the Age and Resurrection event of A (Mt. 8; 22; 25), B (Isa. 25:6-9) and C (1 Cor. 15) was fulfilled in AD 70.

Premise #1: Since it is true that Jesus taught the wedding feast of (Mt. 8; 22; 25) would be fulfilled at His parousia to close the OC age in AD 70 (Postmillennialists now agree with Full Preterists).

Premise #2: And since it is also true that Jesus in (Mt. 8; 22; 25) came to fulfill (Isa. 25:6-9) (Amillennialists and Full Preterists agree).

Premise #3: And since it is also true that Paul teaches Jesus’ parousia would fulfill the resurrection of (1 Cor. 15) (all agree).

Premise #4: And since it is also true that the end of the age, the end, parousia and resurrection of (Mt. 8; 22; 25) and (1 Cor. 15) are the same event (Amillennialists and Full Preterists agree).

Conclusion: Then it is also true that the wedding feast, parousia, the end of the OC age and resurrection of (Mt. 8; 22; 25), (Isa. 25:6-9) and (1 Cor. 15) were fulfilled in AD 70. (Full Preterism Synthesis)

When we harmonize what Postmillennialists are teaching when it comes to the eschatological wedding feast and a spiritual resurrection taking place in AD 70 at Christ’s parousia, with what other Futurists are teaching on this being THE ONE consummative event for the Second Coming, resurrection and wedding to occur at the end of the age —- we get Full Preterism. This will become apparent as well when studying the parable of the wheat and tares along side of Daniel 12 which will be next and Part 5 of this series.

e). “…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.” (Mrk.9:1 Rotherham Translation).

In Mark’s parallel account, some of the disciples live to see Christ’s return and kingdom coming when he uses the perfect participle while Matthew uses the future tense. In other words Mark is saying that some of the disciples would live to be able to look back on this event knowing that the coming of the Lord and His kingdom had already come in power. Kenneth Gentry concedes this point citing J.A Alexander: “Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect 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; Matt.21:33ff.; 23:31-34:34).”[5]

I experientially know and can see from reading my Lord’s words and the testimony of the Scriptures themselves that the historical destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 proves without a shadow of doubt He has established His Kingdom “within” me and the rest of His Body. Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would live to “see” His coming and that the Kingdom would have already come in power to bear witness to His return. The Greek word here for “see” is eido. Strong’s Concordance defines eido as to “know how” and “perceive” as well as physical sight. Through observing with the physical senses the destruction of the outer shell of the old-covenant kingdom’s temple and City in A.D.70, “some” of Jesus’ contemporary audience would be able to “perceive” and “know how” Christ’s spiritual Kingdom had come “within” them Lk.17:20-37; Cols.1:27; Jn.14:2-3, 23. This text is one of many that refutes a literal so called “rapture” or literal resurrection off the earth for the living and remaining at Christ’s return! The fact that they would remain on the earth and “know” He had come coincides with what we saw the prophet Isiah teach of the “survivors” of the “Day of the Lord” to culminate the “last days.” Keeping Isaiah’s prophecy in mind once again, let’s turn our attention to the next exegetical point on the timing of “rewards” mentioned in our text.

f). The “reward” of Isa.40 & 62, Mt.16:27-28, & the Rev. 1-3; 20-22:12 Connection.

The “about to” coming of the Son of Man to reward the righteous and the wicked mentioned in Mt.16:27-28 is taken from the “last days” prophecy of the coming “Day of the Lord” in (Isa.2-3:10-11; Isa.40:10; Isa.62:11). Since everyone agrees that Jesus quoting Isa. 2:19 in Lk.23:30 refer to the A.D. 70 judgment, and Mathison understands Christ coming to vindicate the martyrs in Rev.6:15 and give rewards in Rev. 22:12 as the A.D. 70 coming of Christ and judgment; therefore is there any reason he should not apply Mt. 16:27-28 to the same event?

Parallels (analogy of faith) Between Mt.16:27 Rev.22:12:

· “The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,

· “Behold I am coming soon

· “then He shall reward every man according to his works

· “and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his workshall be”

When Mt.16:27-28 is taken together with the book of Revelation from beginning to end, both form an inescapable A.D.70 time of fulfillment harmony. Mathison and Gentry agree with us that the audience and subject matter of the book of Revelation was written to seven historical churches in Asia Rev.1:4 who were told that they would experience the coming of the Lord, judgment, and receive rewards in an “at hand,” “about to be,” “shortly,” time frame Rev.1:1, 3, 7, 19-mello;” Rev.2:5, 7, 10-11, 16, 17, 25-29; Rev.3:4-5, 10-12, 18, 21; 22:6-7, 10-12, 20. But once we get into the book of Revelation, is the “coming” of Christ associated with His judging the City and rewarding “every man” including “the dead,” (Rev. 11:13, 18) the ascension event or His second coming and imminent return in A.D. 70?

The (OG) LXX of Daniel 7:13 reads, “Upon the clouds of heaven came one like a Son of Man, and he came as the Ancient of Days” (whereas the the Aramaic and the Tehodotionic LXX have “he came up to the Ancient of Days”). It would appear that Jesus and John follow the (OG) LXX rendering as it fits better with Revelation 1:7, 13-17 where Jesus is described coming on the clouds as the Ancient of Days. The context here and elsewhere in the NT where a reference to Daniel 7:13 is referred to is that Christ is coming down from heaven upon the clouds in judgment upon Jerusalem – this is not a coming “up to” the Father in AD 30. Besides this, the context of Daniel 7 has to do with the general judgment when the books are opened etc…, not the ascesion event.

Any unbiased reader of both sides of the reformed house divided can see: 1) the time statements point to an A.D. 70 time of fulfillment (per Mathison & Gentry), and 2) the coming of Christ in the book of Revelation refers to the second coming to render judgment and reward every man–the living and the dead (per most Reformed and Evangelical) commentators. When we combine these two observations from the Reformed community we arrive at our position. Jesus’ teaching here in Mt.16:27-28 and elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew lays the foundation of what we see with the A.D. 70 imminence throughout Revelation.

g). Mt. 16:27-28 and the Olivet Discourse connection.

Jesus in the Olivet discourse ties the same subject matter in with both Mt. 16:27 & 28. Not only is the same subject matter taken as one unit in the Olivet Discourse, but the same time frame for the second coming is reiterated by Christ, “This generation”:

1) Christ comes in glory Luke 9:26

1) Christ comes in glory Matthew 24:30

2) Christ comes with angels Matthew 16:27

2) Christ comes with angels Matthew 24:31

3) Christ comes in judgment Matthew 16:27

3) Christ comes in judgment Matthew 24:28-31; 25:31-34

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power Mark 8:38

4) Christ and the kingdom come in power Luke 21:27-32

5) Some of the disciples would live Matthew 16:28

5) Some of the disciples would live Luke 21:16-18

6) Some of the disciples would die Matthew 16:28

6) Some of the disciples would die Luke 21:16

7) Christ would be ashamed of the disciples generation Mark 8:38

7) All of this would occur in the disciples generation Matthew 24:34

This is a very specific historical event and is not addressing several comings of Christ at: 1) the ascension, 2) Pentecost, 3) A.D. 70, and 4) a future coming to end history.

Partial Preterist Gary DeMar of American Vision is on record as teaching:

· John’s version of Matthew 24-25 can be found in the book of Revelation.

· Matthew 16:27=24:30=25:31-46 and is descriptive of Christ coming in the judgment of AD 70.

· That Matthew 24-25 can be paralleled to the vast majority of eschatological passages in the NT to prove AD 70 fulfillments and thus disprove Dispensationalism.

Therefore, it is pure eisegesis and a creedal bias which causes Partial Preterism to avoid making these parallels here:

1) Matthew 25:31=Revelation 20:11 — Christ/God on the Throne to Judge. 2) Matthew 24:29, 35=Revelation 20:11 — Heaven and Earth pass/flee. 3) Matthew 25:31/Matthew 16:27=Revelation 20:12 — “all men” “each person”“all Nations” “the rest of the dead” “small and great “according to what they have done.” 4) Matthew 25:41-46=Revelation 20:10, 14-15— Wicked along with the Devil thrown into Lake of Fire for eternal punishment.

Since Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar tell us that the imminent time indicators within the book of Revelation point us to an AD 70 fulfillment of its content, there is no exegetical evidence which would indicate that Revelation 20:5-15 does not fall within the “shortly,” “about to be,” “at hand,” “quickly” time frame. And since Partial Preterists such as James Jordan or Joel McDurmon tell us that the judgment and resurrection of Daniel 12:1-3 was fulfilled in AD 70 and that “John picks up where Daniel leaves off,” then once again we see evidence for the judgment and rewarding of Revelation 20:5-15 being fulfilled in AD 70.

h). Matthew 16:27-28 and the Transfiguration event.

Mathison states, “It has also been suggested that the “coming” of the Son of Man in 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration (cf. Matt. 17:1-8). (p.176). It is also suggested by many of the same commentators that the transfiguration event is a prelude or foretaste of the Second Coming described in verse 27. So what is the relationship? In the vision, when Peter wants Moses and Elijah to remain and abide with the other disciples and Jesus, God causes the glory of Moses and Elijah to disappear. The theology of the vision is directed at the appearing and disappearing of the old-covenant order pictured in the glory of Moses and Elijah (the law and the prophets), with the emphasis on the eternal abiding glory of the new-covenant words of Christ – “here Him” (Mt. 17:5-8; cf. Mt.24:35). To seek the abiding glory and nature of the old covenant (Moses and Elijah) along with the new (the glory of Christ) was the theological error of the Judaizers and mockers of Peter’s day were making! With this in mind we can now understand Peter’s appeal to the vision as an apologetic against the mockers and false teachers of his day.

The 1Pet. 1:16-19 text is now very easy to understand. Peter is under attack by the Judaizers whom are claiming that he and the other disciples have been teaching Christians “cleverly devised stories” about the second coming (2Pet.1:16a). Peter’s apologetic against this charge is that he has two other Apostolic witnesses that will bear witness that they got their teaching of the second coming from direct revelation from the Father and the Son on the Mount of Transfiguration–verses 16b-18. Although Peter does not use the Greek word metamorphoo, he describes the Church going through a similar process–in verse 19a he says it is “…a light shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts.” The “day” singular is none other than the “last day” of John’s gospel and the “in that day” or last day (singular) of (Lk.17/Mt.24-25).

There are only two other places in the New Testament where this Greek word transfigured or transformed metamorphoo is used (Rms.12:2 & 2Cor. 3:18). Paul’s “therefore” of Rms.12:1 is linking it with his teaching on the unsearchable riches of the new-covenant “mystery” (Jew/Gentile) or salvation that he has been developing throughout and reaches its peak here in (11:15, 25-36; cf. 1Cor.2). In chapters 7-8 the issue with the old-covenant law of sin and death and the new-covenant law of the spirit, is realized within the “mind” and fleshing that out (so to speak), through a spiritual walking in the newness of this new-covenant life. In chapters 12 and on, are the practical applications of living out this new-covenant salvation and life which was imminently coming at Christ’s return 13:11-12. They were not to be conformed to the old-covenant world, but be “transformed” through the new – “by the renewing of” their minds”! This was and continues to be a “spiritual act of worship” in the new-covenant age (cf. verse 1; Jn.4:24). Paul shows how this new-covenant life is to be worked out individually within the corporate Body of Christ in verses 3-16. He then closes with words connected with Christ’s new-covenant law (the true riches and meaning that were always there within the old) given on the Mount in verses 17-21/cf. Matthew 5.

The only other New Testament passage in which metamorphoo is used is in 2Cor. 3:18. This is likewise a very clear covenantal contrasting section within Paul’s writings. The Church was in the process of “being transformed” into the likeness of Christ which was connected with the old-covenant veil being lifted from the eyes of their minds and hearts. This was obviously not a literal or biological transformation process but a spiritual and covenantal one! The old-covenant glory was “passing away” (2Cor. 3:7-11) just as the glory of Moses and Elijah had disappeared in the vision given on the mount!

Since we agree with most who understand the transfiguration event to be a foreshadowing or prefiguring of the parousia we need to ask where in the vision are the following: 1) the passing and burning of the planet earth, 2) Christ floating down on a literal cloud someday and 3) corpses flying out of their caskets at the end of time to be united with their spirits? The vision of the parousia in the transfiguration event gives us a theological picture/description of what the parousia was going to be all about – the passing and fulfilling of the old-covenant promises and the bringing in and establishing of the new by A.D. 70.

The Orthodox and Organic Development of Full Preterism on Matthew 16:27-28

The “orthodox” (or straight) truth on Matthew 16:27-28 is found in the middle of the classic Amillennial view and the Partial Preterist view: 1) (Matthew 16:27) is the actual Second Coming event (as is Matt. 24:30–25:31) and 2) (Matthew 16:28) teaches us that it was to take place within the lifetime of “some” of those standing and listening to Jesus and thus in their first century “this generation.”

The Jubilee “Day of Vengeance” of Isaiah 63:1-6 and Revelation 14:17-20; 17:5-6; 19:15
Isaiah 63:1-6:
Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? “It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save.” 2 Why is your apparel red, and your garments like his who treads in the winepress? “I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel. 4For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and my year of redemption had come. 5I looked, but there was no one to help; I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold; so my own arm brought me salvation, and my wrath upheld me. 6I trampled down the peoples in my anger; I made them drunk in my wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”
We are continuing our glorious study of the Jubilee begun in Isaiah 61:1-11. While there is the promise of the glorious rest and re-taking the inheritance of the New Creation and Tree of Life in Christ that will be coming in chapters 65-66, the “day of vengeance” is the other side of the coin described for us in Isaiah 61:2 and Isaiah 63:1-6.  We have briefly alluded to Yeshua developing both the Jubilee theme of “redemption” and the “days of vengeance” in Luke 21:20-32 as pertaining to Christ’s Second Coming being fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the events of AD 66 – AD 70. So we now need to turn to John’s version of the Olivet Discourse in the book of Revelation to develop Isaiah 63:1-6.
Revelation 14:17-20  
17 Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” 19 So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia.
As David Chilton noticed (Days of Vengeance, 374) in Revelation 6:9-11 the martyrs are pleading under the golden altar of incense for vengeance upon their enemies.  God’s answer is that vengeance will be “in a very little while.”  Then at the beginning of the trumpets vision, the angel combines the prayers of the saints in the censer with fire and casts it upon the land in judgment (cf. Rev. 8:3-5).  Now the same angel over “the fire” appears from God’s altar of fire to once again depict the vengeance of God’s wrath upon “Babylon” (OC Jerusalem 11:8) in chapter 14 being described as a harvest of grapes being crushed in God’s winepress of wrath.  This is a harvest and “wrath” that was “about to come” upon the threshing floor of the land of Israel as was depicted by John the Baptist in (Mt. 3:2-12).  Another key to seeing this prophecy being applied to the AD 66 – AD 70 judgment is the distance of bloodshed of “sixteen hundred stadia.”  This was the distance of the land of Israel.  This is NOT a global day of vengeance and wrath, but rather, a covenantal and local one upon OC Jerusalem.
We should note that sabbath rest is a theme here in this chapter as well. The righteous dead who die in the Lord post AD 70 “…rest from their labors” while the wicked are tormented with fire in presence of the Lamb “day and night” and they “have no rest” (Rev. 14:11).
Revelation 17:5-6; 18:6: 
“And on her forehead was written a name of mystery:  Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of the earth’s abominations.  And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs.”  
Here in chapters 17-18 the Great Harlot Wife / Babylon (OC Jerusalem) is guilty of drinking and getting “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Rev. 17:5).  Therefore, she will be paid back “double” for her deeds with the angels and Romans and “mixing a double portion” for her to drink from the cup of God’s wrath (Rev. 18:6).
Revelation 19:15-18
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. 17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.”
Again, this is another reference to Isiah 63:1-6 and the day of vengeance.  In Isiah His robe has the blood of his enemies and here His name “King of kings and Lord of lords” is written upon it.  There is a contrast between being invited to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb (19:1-9) and being devoured by the Romans and the animals at the Great Supper of God (19:17-19) from which the blood comes on His robe.
Isaiah 66:15-16:
“For behold, the LORD will come with fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.  For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.”
2 Thessalonians 1:5-9
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Was the Apostle Paul a true prophet when he wrote under inspiration that Christ would be revealed from heaven and give those first century Christians “relief” from their Jewish persecutors and render judgment and “trouble” upon their enemies in the events of AD 66-AD 70 or not (2 Thess. 1:5-8)?!? If not, then the NT prophets are no less reliable than the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day and modern Charismatics!

OT Echo to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson point out the OT reference for Paul here in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 is Isaiah 66:15

“The claim that it is just for God “to repay [antapodounai] those who afflict you with affliction, and you who are being afflicted with rest” involves the OT principle of retribution—the lex talionis, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Although Scripture frequently affirms the theme of divine recompense, at times also using the identical verb “to repay” (Deut. 32:35; Ps. 138:8 [137:8 LXX]; Obad. 15; cf. Isa. 63:4), the allusions to Isa. 66 in the subsequent verses strengthen the possibility that Paul has that same passage in view here. In fact, there are two verses from Isa. 66 that are relevant: “The voice of the Lord repaying [antapodidontos] retribution to his enemies” (66:6); “For the Lord will come like a fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to repay [apodounai] his punishment with anger, and his rebuke with a flame of fire” (66:15).”

“…1:8a – It appears likely, therefore, that the alternate reading “in a flame of fire” is in fact original and that this phrase involves an allusion to Isa. 66:15. Paul uses the imagery of a flaming fire to portray in a powerful manner the frightening judgment that awaits those who have been oppressing the Thessalonian believers.

1:8b – Paul continues to comfort his persecuted readers by picking up again the OT idea of divine retribution that he introduced in 1:6. Whereas that earlier verse balances the punishment of Thessalonians’ persecutors with the reward that believers will receive, this verse stresses only the negative half of judgment: “giving vengeance [didontos ekdikēsin] to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” The phrase “give vengeance” (didōmi ekdikēsin), with slight variations, occurs several times in the LXX (Num. 31:3; Deut. 32:35; 2 Kgdms. 4:8; 22:48 [2 Sam. 4:8; 22:48]; Ps. 17:48 [18:47 ET]; Ezek. 25:14, 17). It is striking, however, that this phrase occurs also in Isa. 66:15 (apodounai … ekdikēsin)—the same text alluded to in the immediately preceding phrase, “a flame of fire.” The action of “giving vengeance” in Isa. 66:15, as in the other OT texts containing this phrase, is ascribed to God. In Paul’s use of this phrase, however, the divine work of meting out judgment is transferred to the returning Christ (the participle didontos modifies tou kyriou Iēsou).

This vengeance will be given not only to the persecutors of the Thessalonians, but also to a much larger group: “to those who do not know God, and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Several commentators have concluded from this double clause that Paul has two distinct groups in mind, most likely Gentiles and Jews (so, e.g., Dobschütz 1909: 248; Frame 1912: 233; Marshall 1983: 177–78). This “two group” interpretation appeals not only to the repetition of the definite article tois, but also to the description of the people in each clause. The first clause refers to “those who do not know God” (tois mē eidosin theon), an OT expression that typically refers to Gentiles (Job 18:21; Ps 79:6 [78:6 LXX]; Jer. 10:25) and that has this meaning elsewhere in Paul’s letters (Gal. 4:8–9; 1 Thess. 4:5; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21). The second clause refers to “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (tois mē hypakouousin tō euangeliō tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou), an expression that may well allude to Isa. 66:4, where “they did not obey [God]” (ouch hypēkousan mou) refers to the Jewish people. (Weima, J. A. D. (2007). 1-2 Thessalonians. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 884–885). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

Beale and Carson have no problem connecting the coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 with the Day of the Lord judgment of Isiah 2-4. Other than the trumpet gathering and resurrection of Isaiah 27:12-13, G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson connect this coming of the Lord “from heaven” of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 with Isaiah 2:10-12’s “in that day” “Day of the Lord” judgment,

“The main clause of 1 Thess. 4:16, “because the Lord himself will come down from heaven,” recalls…the prophetic literature of the OT that envisions “the day of the Lord,” when God will come to judge the wicked and save the righteous (Isa. 2:10–12;…) (Weima, J. A. D. (2007). 1-2 Thessalonians. In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p. 880). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos).

But Beale and Carson also connect 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 with Isaiah 2,

“This (in context – giving the Thessalonians relief from their Jewish persecutors) will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out (excommunicated [from the heavenly Temple] as they had done to the Christians) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”

But let’s quote the passage in context,

“This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.”

Here we clearly see that when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven, it is for the purpose of giving “relief” to first century Christians who were being persecuted by Jews who were filling up the measure of their sins (1 Thess. 2:14-16). At the same time He was going to give relief to these first century Christians, by judging or “repaying” their Jewish persecutors with the same kind of affliction and pressure they were giving them. He did this when by laying a trap for them when they made their journey to Jerusalem and were convinced by the false prophets to stay within the city and were judged with His “wrath” between AD 66 – AD 70. Jesus taught the time of vindication and the judgment for the living and the dead in Matthew 23 would be in His “this generation.” And the time of vindicating the first century Church pictured as a persistent widow in Luke 18:1-8 would be “quickly” and not 2,000 plus years and counting.

Of this passage Beale and Carson write,

“eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” This description clearly echoes the triple refrain of Isa. 2:10, 19, 21, where on the day of the Lord the wicked are commanded to hide themselves behind rocks and in caves “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might whenever he will rise to terrify the earth.” (Ibid. 885).

So since both 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 fulfill the coming of the Lord “from heaven” in the judgment found in Isaiah 2, let’s examine when Jesus and John see Isaiah 2 being fulfilled.

Jesus – Luke 23:27-30:

27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. 28 But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us (from Isa. 2:19 and Hos. 10:8).

There’s a consensus among the commentators that this passage was fulfilled in God’s judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

John – Revelation 6:15-17:

15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[a] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Postmillennialists correctly tell us that every reference to the coming of the Lord in Revelation was said to be fulfilled “soon,” “at hand,” “quickly” or “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70.  This is when the martyrs blood would be vindicated in just – “a little while longer” (vss. 10-11).

Concerning Isaiah 2; Revelation 6; and 2 Thessalonians 1, Gentry argues that Christ had to come in judgment in AD 70 to vindicate those being persecuted in Revelation 1-3 & Revelation 6 because if He hadn’t (per futurism), God would be “mocking their [first century] circumstances.” Gentry also appeals to Matt. 23-24 in developing the AD 70 time-frame for the fulfillment of the Thessalonians to be relieved and vindicated from their Jewish persecutors in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-20. But this begs the obvious heremeneutical question – as to why doesn’t 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 also form the foundation for Christ’s coming to relieve the Thessalonians from their first century Jewish persecutors?!?

If futurism’s 2,000+ year delay of Christ’s coming creates a “cruel mockery” for the persecuted in the book of Revelation, then why doesn’t Gentry’s futuristic 2000+ years delay of Christ’s coming to relieve the Thessalonians and judge their persecutors in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 create a “cruel mockery” for their first century “circumstances?” Again, this is why Gentry’s critics charge him with inconsistent hermeneutics and holding to a view that only serves as a stepping stone to Full Preterism.

Premise #1 If it is true and orthodox to believe that Luke 23:27-30; Revelation 6:10-17; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7 all fulfill the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2.

Premise #2 And if it is true and orthodox to believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7 are the same and ONE Second Coming coming event and that both passages fulfill the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2 (Full Preterists agree with Amillennialists and Premillennialists),…

Premeise #3And if it is also true and orthodox to believe that 2 Thessalonians 1:7 fulfills Isaiah 2’s “last days” “in that day” judgment in AD 70 (Full Preterists agree with Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar on this point),…

ConclusionThen it necessarily follows and is also true and orthodox to believe that the ONE Second Coming event of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 fulfilled the “last days” “in that day” judgment of Isaiah 2 in AD 70 just as 2 Thessalonians 1:7 was fulfilled at this time.

1 Thessalonians 1:10

“for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.” (1:9-10).

The Thessalonians were to eagerly wait for Christ. The definition of anaménō

“…(from 303 /aná, “up, completing a process,” which intensifies 3306 /ménō, “wait, remain”) – properly, earnestly wait (linger, abide); actively wait with rising intensity and clarity about what is hoped for (note the prefix, ana).  Thayers – “to wait for one (with the added notion of patience and trust).”

Even Dispensationalists such as Pastor John MacArthur writes of this passage,

“…the immanency of the deliverance was something Paul felt could happen in their lifetimes.”

Did Paul just “feel” it could happen or did he write it as an inspired and authoritative Apostle being led into all truth “trusting” in the very words of Jesus Himself that He would return at the end of the OC age, in their generation, and in some of their lifetimes (Matt. 10:22-23; 16:27-28; 24:27-34)?!?

Make no mistake about it, MacArthur’s Futurism effectively portrays Christ and the Apostle Paul as false prophets – out of ignorance or not, this is the undeniable conclusion. MacArthur needs to worry less about the serious implications of Charismatic false prophecy and teaching and take the forest out of his own eye in this area! Why would I conclude MacArthur’s failed Futurism has any less bad implications for the church than false Charismatic doctrine? They ALL ignore the message of Christ and the Apostolic Prophetic message and have invented their own “delusional” (God’s term) understandings of them. Selah.

Christ comes “from heaven.” The definition of “heaven” here can mean the literal sky and clouds where the birds fly, but in Pauline eschatology the term “from heaven” is primarily dealing with God’s heavenly dwelling where His presence is along with the angelic hosts.

Christ comes to “rescue” the Thessalonians to Himself.

The definition of rescue here is rhýomai (from eryō, “draw to oneself“) – properly, draw or (pull) to oneself; to rescue (“snatch up”); to draw or rescue a person to and for the deliverer. To draw or snatch from danger, rescue, deliver. This is more with the meaning of drawing to oneself than merely rescuing from someone or something (Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers).

Christ comes to rescue the Thessalonians from the “coming wrath.”

God laid a trap for the persecuting Jews whom went to Jerusalem for the feast days in AD 66 and they experienced God’s wrath. Christians that did go to Jerusalem to fellowship with the Jerusalem Church in AD 66 ALL fled together from the city and were rescued from this wrath.

Jews who especially sympathized with the Jewish revolt were persecuted throughout Rome during this period – 50,000 died in Egypt alone. Christians were known for being peaceful law abiding citizens for the most part. They fled to Pella and were safe. This was a known anti-Jewish town filled with a lot of Greek veterans. They did not support the Jewish rebellion against Rome and so had no problems accepting the peaceful Christians who likewise did not support the rebellion against Rome or the false prophets proclaiming an earthly messianic kingdom.

Just a brief point – the flight of the Christians in fulfillment Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks was the point in time that God “sealed up” that is, brought to an end the office of prophet and the gift of prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27/Lk. 21:20-32).

Paul’s doctrine on an imminent coming of Christ and wrath is in line with Jesus’ teaching:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:20-23).

And Postmillennialists admit the coming of Christ in Matthew 25:31 was fulfilled in AD 70 and there was a judgment of the dead that took place as well according to 1 Peter 4:5-7, 17 and Revelation 11. Therefore, Jesus responds to the dead as well about this being a time of wrath,

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Harmonizing the coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 with 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

1. First century audience – “you” “us.”

1. First century audience – “we.”

2. Eager expectation – imminence

2. “We who are still alive…” – imminent expectation.

3. Christ comes “from heaven.”

3. Christ comes “from heaven.”

4. Jesus’ resurrection is mentioned as a sign or event guaranteeing that the living would be rescued.

4. Jesus’ resurrection is mentioned as a sign or event guaranteeing the dead in Christ would be raised and the living would be brought into God’s presence.

5. “Snatches” from wrath but to Christ.

5. “Catches/snatches away” to Christ.

The Partial Preterism of Kenneth Gentry & Keith Mathison

Mathison and Gentry don’t deal with the imminence here in connection with Jesus’ teaching in the OD. This is odd since they claim to want to address imminence and they both admit Paul is drawing from Jesus’ teaching in the OD! They also fail to demonstrate how the deliverance from this wrath here in chapter 1 is an allegedly future event for us, while Paul’s treatment of Christ coming attended with “wrath” in the very next chapter (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16) is fulfilled by AD 70. Again, no consistent hermeneutic and no agreement among them.

The Partial Preterism of Gary DeMar

Unlike Gentry and Mathison, Gary DeMar concedes that the coming of Christ here in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 was fulfilled in AD 70. But Gary fails to do any exegetical work to harmonize his Preterist interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 1:10 with his futurist creedal view of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. In both passages Christ comes “from heaven” to “snatch” or “catch” away His people to Himself. On what exegetical grounds is the first apocalyptic language fulfilled in AD 70 while the later is physical and 2,000 plus years removed?!? Again, no consistent hermeneutic or flow of Paul in his writings per the man pleasing and man fearing tradition laid out within Postmillennial Partial Preterism. Why would the Thessalonians think these are two different comings of Christ “from heaven” to “snatch” or “catch” His people to Himself?!? DeMar is no less guilty of perverting God’s prophetic Word through Paul than the Charismatics and MacArthur. Lord willing this isn’t the legacy he wants to leave. While he needs to count the cost for embracing the truth (ex. knowing what Gary North put David Chilton through), he needs to embrace it and “shout it from the rooftops.” Selah. 3). 

I’ll stick with the reliability of SGFPism’s understanding of Apostolic NT imminence verses the false prophets and false prophecies of Futurism and Charismatic Futurist false prophets ANY DAY! God’s Word is STILL “a hammer that breaks” apart the false doctrines and false prophecies of those that are uttered in His name and He still vindicates the prophecies of the Lord and His faithful New Covenant shepherds that were “led into all truth concerning things to come.” We rest in THEIR prophetic Word and that our Lord is truly the “Faithful and True Witness.”

THE NEW CREATION PROMISES OF ISAIAH 65-66; REVELATION 21-22; 2 PETER 3 AND ROMANS 8:18-23YLT
Unknown-2Reformed theologians such as John Owen and John Lightfoot along with many others, correctly understood the “elements” here not as the rocks and tress of the planet earth, but of the old-covenant law and the “Day of the Lord” occurring in AD 70.  John Owen in his sermon on 2 Peter 3 also describes Isaiah 51:15-16 as the Old Covenant system except unlike Spurgeon he correctly and clearly states it passed away and her “elements” burned up in AD 70.  Since the foundation to the promise of 2 Peter 3 is Isaiah 65, it is relevant to what Spurgeon would have been reading on the subject.  Please note that he says the passing and burning of the first heavens and earth is “ONLY” referring to the OC system and the New is only the gospel of the NC dispensation:
“I shall only observe, by the way, not to look into the difficulties of these verses, that I not be too long detained from my principal intendment, – that the apostle makes a distribution of the word into heaven and earth, and saith, they ‘were destroyed with water, and perished: We know that neither the fabric or substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that lived on the earth; and the apostle tells us, verse 5, of the heavens and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet, as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth, they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle’s time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth whereof he speaks were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing our foundation, a little consider what the apostle intends by `the heavens and the earth’ in these two places:
“1. It is certain, that what the apostle intends by the ‘world,’ with its heavens and earth, verses 5, 6, which was destroyed by water; the same or somewhat of that kind, he intends by ‘the heavens and the earth’ that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire, verse 7. Otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle’s discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.
“2. It is certain, that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire, is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of persons or men living in the world.
“3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the ‘world,’ and the ‘heavens and earth’ of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose, among the many that may be produced, Isa. 51. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God, was when he ‘divided the sea,’ verse 15, and gave the law, verse 16, and said to Zion, ‘Thou art my people,” – that is, when he took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state. Then he planted the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth, – made the new world; that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty, from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language that seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4; which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman empire, Rev. vi. 14; which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. xxiv., he sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by ‘heavens’ and ‘earth,’ the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which was then destroyed by the flood.
“4. On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text: –
“(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffer and the those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews; – some of them believing, others opposing the faith. Now, there was no particular concernment of that generation in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation; and besides, an ample testimony, both to the one and the other, of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ – which was the thing in question between them.
“(2.) Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, ‘We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. Ixv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God will create these ‘new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?’ Saith Peter, ‘It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.’ But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi., 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times ONLY; and that the planting of these new heavens is NOTHING BUT the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure forever. The same thing is so expressed, Heb. xii. 26-28.
“First, There is the foundation of the apostle’s inference and exhortation… ‘Seeing that I have evinced that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, – that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, – in a way of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; – let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming. – he will come, he will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God himself planted, – the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, – the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ, – shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed. This, we know, shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.’ “
And more from Owen:
“1. Because in every such providential alteration or dissolution of things on the account of Christ and his church, there is a peculiar coming of Christ himself. He cometh into the world for the work he hath to do; he cometh among his own to fulfil his pleasure among them. Hence such works are called ‘his coming;’ and ‘the coming of his day.’ Thus James exhorts these very Jews to whom Peter here writes, with reference to the same things, James v. 7-9, ‘Be patient unto the coming of the Lord.’ But how could that generation extend their patience to the day of judgment? ‘Nay,’ saith he, ‘that is not the work I design, but his coming to take vengeance on his stubborn adversaries;’ which he saith, verse 8, ‘draweth nigh,’ is even at hand; yea., Christ, ‘the judge, standeth before the door,’ verse 9, ‘ready to enter;’ – which also he did within a few years. So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem (the same work), Luke xxi. 27, the Son of man is said to ‘come in a cloud, with power and great glory;’ – and they that escape in that desolation are said to ‘stand before the Son of man,’ verse 36. So, in the ruin and destruction of the Roman empire, on the account of their persecution, it is said that ‘the day of the wrath of the Lamb was come; Rev. vi. 16, 17.” (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth pub., Vol. 9 see pp. 132-135, 138-139, MJS emphasis added).
And John Lightfoot agrees.  Notice what he says of Christ’s coming in Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 and the de-creation and new creation language:
Unknown-3
“That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deut. xxxii. 22; ‘A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell’ (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see ver. 20, 21), ‘and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains’ Jer. iv. 23; ‘I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light; The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isa. lxv. 17; ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered,’ And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Cor. v. 17.”
More of Lightfoot on this subject:
“With the same reference it is, that the times and state of things immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem are called ‘a new creation,’ ‘new heavens,’ and ‘a new earth,’ Isa. lxv. 17; `Behold, I create a new heaven and a new earth’ When should that be? Read the whole chapter; and you will find the Jews rejected and cut off; and from that time is that new creation of the evangelical world among the Gentiles.
“Compare 2 Cor. v. 17 and Rev. xxi. 1, 2; where, the old Jerusalem being cut off and destroyed, a new one succeeds; and new heavens and a new earth are created.
“2 Pet. iii. 13: `We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth’ The heavens and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state.”
“That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of this world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, `The sun shall be darkened,’ Then shall appear the `sign of the Son of man,’; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. iii. 10, `The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’. Compare with this Deut. xxxii. 22, Heb. xii. 26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal. iv. 9, Coloss. ii. 20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks ONLYof the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses.” (John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, pp. 318-319; Vol. 3, p. 452-453, Hendrickson pub, 2003, MJS emphasis added).
22552677_10155717653354192_2300651074024968822_n-1
As I document in our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology…pp. 116-123 Lightfoot didn’t see the physical planet as being in a process of “decay” or poetically “groaning” to be the subject matter in Romans 8 either!  He correctly understood the passage to be the “creation of men” groaning under sin.  Postmillennial Partial Preterists such as Gary DeMar concedes mello in Romans 8:18 YLT should be translated as “the glory ABOUT TO BE revealed in you…” and is referring to AD 70.  Therefore, contextually this allegedly “end of the planet” or physical “renewal of the planet” passage and “redemption of the body” was “about to be” fulfilled in AD 70 – at the “near” coming of the Lord when Satan was to be “crushed shortly” (cf. Rms. 13:11-12; 16:20) and has NOTHING to do with the Futurist or creedal concept.  Here is that material (HD, 116-123):
John Lightfoot associated the “earnest expectation of the creature”
and the “whole creation groaning” with the mind and heart of man, and interpreted this passage as having nothing to do with the planet Earth— not even poetically.
. . . [T]his vanity [or futility] is improperly applied to this vanishing, changeable, dying state of the [physical] creation. For vanity, doth not so much denote the vanishing condition of the outward state, as it doth the inward vanity and emptiness of the mind. The Romans to whom this apostle writes, knew well enough how many and how great predictions and promises it had pleased God to publish by his prophets, concerning gathering together and adopting sons to himself among the Gentiles: themanifestation and production of which sons, the whole Gentile world doth now wait for, as it were, with an out stretched neck.” (John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, p.422, Hendrickson pub. 1979, emphasis added.) 
And again,
The Gentile world shall in time be delivered from the bondage of their sinful corruption, that is, the bondage of their lusts and vile affections, (under which it hath lain for so long a time,) into a noble liberty, such as the sons of God enjoy. If it be inquired how the Gentile world groaned and travailed in pain, let them who expound this of the fabric of the material world tell us how that groaneth and travaileth. They must needs own it to be a borrowed and allusive phrase…” (Ibid., p. 227).
Lightfoot is on solid ground here citing 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; and 1 Corinthians 15:33. Not only is there lexical evidence to interpret “vanity,” “corruption,” and “decay” as ethical and moral putrefaction in the heart and mind of man, but contextually the passage has nothing to do with hydrogen or oxygen or squirrels longing for a better day when they won’t get hit by cars.
“The sufferings of this present time.” As much as I can relate to R.C. Sproul Jr. losing his hair and gaining some weight around his midsection (WSTTB, ix), Paul’s mention of the “sufferings” and “the redemption of the body” have nothing to do with those kinds of issues. The context of the “groaning” of the first-century Christians can be found in the previous chapter. The sufferings Paul has in mind here were eschatological —the birth pains that were to precede Christ’s return in AD 70 (Matt. 24:8; Rom. 8:22). They had to do with the last days persecutions and with the saints of the universal church groaning under the tyranny of Sin and Condemnation under the Law.
For Paul, Sin had produced “death,” but not physical death. Contrary to Mathison’s assertions, “the body,” “death,” and “the flesh” in Romans 5–8 have nothing to do with the idea of men biologically dying as a result of Adam’s sin. Paul’s concern is with corporate-covenantal Death, as even some Reformed theologians teach.[3]   “Bondage,” according to the immediate context, had to do with groaning under the condemnation of the Law (cf. Rom. 7:2, 7, 15).
The “redemption” associated with the coming of the Son of Man in AD 70 entailed much more than a physical flight to the wilderness of Pella, as some commentators have proposed. Appealing to the principle of the analogy of Scripture, John Murray and other Reformed theologians understand Paul in Romans 8 to be speaking of the same “redemption” that Jesus discussed in the Olivet Discourse:
Now in Luke 21:28 . . . [t]his word ‘redemption’ (apolutrosin), when used with reference to the future, has a distinctly eschatological connotation, the final redemption, the consummation of the redemptive process (cf. Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Hence analogy would again point to the eschatological complex of events.[4]
The following chart confirms that the “redemption” of Christ’s disciples in the first century in Luke 21:28 was the redemption of “the body” in Romans 8:18–23:

Romans 8 Olivet Discourse & Luke 17
Present sufferings (Rom. 8:17–18) Suffering to come (Matt. 24:9)
Receive and share in Christ’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
Glory will be “in” them (Rom. 8:18) Kingdom will be realized “within”at Christ’s return (Lk.17:21–37; 21:27–32)
Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Rom. 8:23–24; cf. 11:15–27; 13:11–12) Redemption and salvation – resurrection (Lk. 21:27–28; Matt. 24:13, 30–31/Matt. 13:39-43/Dan. 12:2-3)
Birth pains together (Rom. 8:22) Birth pains of the tribulation (Matt. 24:8)
This was “about to” take place (Rom. 8:18) This would all happen in their “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

On page 200 of WSTTB, Mathison expresses willingness to concede that the imminence in Romans 13:11–12 was fulfilled in AD 70. The passage reads:
. . . it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. . . .
But The Reformation Study Bible, of which Mathison is an editor, harmonizes Romans 13:11 with Romans 8:23, correctly teaching that “salvation” in that verse is not merely deliverance from persecution (as Mathison theorizes in WSTTB): “salvation. Here in the sense of future, final redemption (8:23).”[1] The connection between these two passages is made even stronger when we allow the Greek word mello in Romans 8 to be translated the way it is predominately used in the New Testament:
For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us. (Rom. 8:18, YLT)
It is more than arbitrary for partial preterists such as Gentry to honor Young’s literal translation of melloin Revelation 1:19 when debating Dispensationalists and Amimmennialists, but then not honor it in Romans 8:18 when debating full preterists. Mello is used in the aorist infinitive in both verses. Gentry writes of mello in Revelation 1:19:
…this term means “be on the point of, be about to.” …According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: “Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come[mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.[2]   …when used with the aorist infinitive — as in Revelation 1:19 — the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is:
“be on the point of, be about to. The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in the Rev. 3:10.[3] Unfortunately, none of the major translators cited above translates Revelation 1:19 in a literal fashion.[4]
Where is Gentry’s disappointment when it comes to translators not translating Romans 8:18 by the same grammatical standard? It is nowhere to be found, even though there are two other Greek words of imminence (apokaradokia and apekdekomai — “eagerly waiting”) within the immediate context.
At least partial preterist Gary DeMar has tried to be more consistent with a proper translation of mello in Romans 8:18. Citing Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible he writes:
“Whatever the glory is it was ‘about to be revealed’…”[5]
We appreciate the honesty on properly translating mello here as “about to be revealed,” but contextually there is no ambiguity as to what the imminent manifestation of this “glory” was — the liberation of creation from its groaning and bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the “redemption of the body” (vss. 18-23).
Interestingly enough though, according to Gentry and Mathison one of the things that was “about to come after” John wrote Revelation 1:19 was the arrival of the New Jerusalem and New  Creation of Revelation 21:1ff. Mathison and Gentry tell us in their other works that the time texts in Revelation point to a near fulfillment of the passing of “the first heaven and earth.” They point out that Revelation 21:1 is referring to the passing of the old covenant “creation” in AD 70 and is a fulfillment of Isaiah 65–66. Gentry even says:
The absence of the sea (Rev. 21:1) speaks of harmony and peace within. In Scripture the sea often symbolizes discord and sin (13:1–2; cf. Isa. 8:7–8; 23:10; 57:20; Jer. 6:23; 46:7; Ezek. 9:10).  Christianity offers the opposite: peace with God and among humankind (Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:12–18; Phil. 4:7, 9).
But then Mathison and Gentry assign an “expanded” meaning to 2 Peter 3, which discusses the same promises in Isaiah 65–66. They suggest that Peter is addressing the geological “elements” of the planet while the Apostle John, referencing the same Old Testament passage, is not.
This is not only arbitrary, it is amazing. If Gentry and Mathison can give prophetic New Testament passages “expanded” meanings to fit their eschatology, then they have surrendered their debate with Dispensationalists, who constantly employ this strategy to force their eschatology upon New Testament passages.
In Mathison’s section on the “Restoration of Creation” (195–197), he appeals to the literal and global beginnings of Genesis 1–3 to point out that preterists have interpreted “the end” in Romans 8 and in the rest of the New Testament in an inaccurate way. But Mathison should be open to considering the interpretations of Genesis 1–3 that are presented by some within the Reformed tradition and by other futurists.
Combined, authors such as Augustine, Milton Terry, David Snoke, Meredith Kline, and dispensationalist John Sailhamer teach the following:

  • Man was created a physical dying creature like all the plant and animal life around him.
  • The physics of the creation did not change after Adam.
  • Genesis 1–2 uses the Hebrew word eretz, which should be translated as “land” or “ground” and not [planet] “earth.”
  • God’s emphases in the early chapters of Genesis are not scientific but theological, emphasizing the origins of sin in the heart and man’s need for the Seed of the woman to redeem him from Sin.

As the theological emphasis in Genesis 1–2 is on the local land of Eden, which is both theologically and geographically tied to Israel’s Promised Land, so too is the emphasis of the New Testament on a Great Commission preached to the nations of Israel and to the Roman Empire with a judgment that would affect the nations of that world.
Both the localized and covenantal judgment in Eden and the one in AD 70 affected and continue to affect all humankind. The introduction of spiritual death (condemnation and alienation from God within the heart and conscience of man through Adam) was overcome by Christ’s death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in AD 70. All men and nations of the world are either inside the new Israel and New Jerusalem or outside her gates — as the gospel continues to bring healing and judgment to the nations today and forever (cf. Rev. 21–22:17).
When we take a combined look at some of the best theologians within the Reformed and Evangelical communities, we find a preterist interpretation of every eschatological de-creation prophecy in the Bible. Combined, John Owen, John Locke, John Lightfoot, John Brown, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Keith Mathison, Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, Hank Hanegraaff, and N.T. Wright teach that the passing away of heaven and earth (Matt. 5:17–18; 24:3, 29, 35; 1 Cor. 7:31; II Peter 3; I Jn. 2:17–18; Rev. 21:1) refers to the destruction of the temple or to the civil and religious worlds of men—either Jews or Gentiles; and that the rulers of the old covenant system or world, along with the temple, were the “sun, moon, and stars,” which made up the “heaven and earth” of the world that perished in AD 70.”63 
DiscoursesAndSayings_SET
Reformed theologian John Brown not only stresses that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 5:18 is the OC system, but that those familiar with the OT should understand the phrase as such:
“But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens.” (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord(Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990 [1852]), 1:170, MJS – emphasis added).
Like we saw with The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Owen and Lightfoot — those that are familiar with the OT Scriptures have and continue to see this while you and liberals don’t.
Scholars that aren’t even Preterists (but often times give the impression that they are leaning in such a direction), such as G.K. Beale are admitting that the Jew understood his land or Temple to be a “heaven and earth,”
“…that ‘heaven and earth’ in the Old Testament may sometimes be a Unknown-4way of referring to Jerusalem or its temple, for which ‘Jerusalem’ is a metonymy.” (G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission A
biblical theology of the dwelling place of God, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 25). See also J.V. Fesko, Last things first Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology, (Scottland, UK, 2007), 70.
I called in a radio show where Beale was being interviewed concerning this quote in his book and asked him why he didn’t apply his statements here with Jesus’ and the disciples discussion of the Temple in Matthew 23-24.  He avoided the subject and merely began name-calling.  Sad indeed.
But Evangelicals are making the Full Preterist connections with NT texts where Beale is afraid to.  Evangelical Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis makes the following comments on the heaven and earth in Matthew 5:18 and Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35:
519MJRVKT5L._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_“The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or, in some sense, to be ‘heaven and earth’ in its totality.” And “. . . [T]he principle reference of “heaven and earth” is the temple centered cosmology of second-temple Judaism which included the belief that the temple is heaven and earth in microcosm. Mark 13[:31] [or Matthew 24:35] and Matthew 5:18 refer then to the destruction of the temple as a passing away of an old cosmology. (Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis a contributing author in, ESCHATOLOGY in Bible & Theology Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 157).

51vnAiyJTxL._SX319_BO1,204,203,200_Gary DeMar is exegetical and contextually consistent when he admits that the passing of “heaven and earth” in Matthew 24:35 is the same subject (the fall of OC Jerusalem and her OC world/age) and de-creation event as 24:29,
“The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that “heaven and earth” will pass away” (24:35).” (Last Days Madness, 192).
DeMar and the Present Tense of 2 Peter 3:11
I agree with Gary DeMar that Futurists are biased to not see the present tense in 2 Peter 3:11,
“In fact, St. Peter was quite specific about the fact that he was not referring to an event thousands of years in their future, but to something that was already taking place:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements (stoicheia) will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things are being dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements (stoicheia) are being melted with fervent heat? (2 Pet. 3:10–12)
Contrary to the misleading renderings of translators blinded by their presuppositions, St. Peter insists that the dissolution of “the present heaven and earth”—the Old Covenant system with its obligatory rituals and bloody sacrifices—was already beginning to occur: the “universe” of the Old Covenant was coming apart, never to be revived.”
https://americanvision.org/…/what-does-peter-mean-by-the-p…/
But could DeMar, other Futurists and translator’s be “blinded by their presuppositions” when the NT is quite specific about the fact that the resurrection was not referring to an event thousands of years off in their future, but to something that was already taking place and would “soon” be fulfilled.
Was physical death to be overcome at the imminent parousia in Paul’s contemporary “we” audience OR the spiritual death and separation brought through Adam the very day he sinned?
“…death is being destroyed” (1 Cor. 15:26 WUESTNT).
“But God is giving it a body” (1 Cor. 15:32).
“…it is being sown…” (1 Cor. 15:38).
“…it is being raised in glory…” (1 Cor. 15:43).
“…it is being raised in power…” (1 Cor. 15:43)
“…It is being sown a natural body, it is being raised a spiritual body…” (1 Cor. 15:43).

Was a physical lowly body in the process of being conformed to a physical/spiritual glorious body at Christ’s “at hand” Second Coming in Paul’s day, OR was the OC body being transformed and conformed to the NC glorious body of Christ?
“…becoming conformed…” (Phil. 3:21YLT).
Would this understanding not be consistent with Paul elsewhere,
“And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory [Old Covenant glory] to another [New Covenant glory]. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:18)
Was the physical heavens and earth in the process of being destroyed/dissolved or was it the OC heavens and earth or world?
“…are being destroyed/dissolved.” (2 Pet. 3:11).
Peter is consistent with Paul,
“those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.” (1 Cor. 7:31).
“The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God remains forever.” (1 Jn. 2:17)

Isaiah 66:15-16:
“For behold, the LORD will come with fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.  For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.”
2 Thessalonians 1:5-9
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. 11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
The Jubilee “day of vengeance” is carried from Isiah 61 all the way to Isiah 66 which ushers in the sabbath rest of the New Creation.  Paul draws upon Isaiah 66 in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 and informs us that it is in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 that Christ would be revealed from heaven in vengeance giving relief to the first century Thessalonians while at the same time “repaying” with wrath and vengeance a “trouble” of fire and judgment.  These wicked Jews that were persecuting these Christians in the Thessalonians epistles, would go to the annual feasts and be ensnared by the false prophets prophecies of a coming deliverance from the Roman armies.  Therefore, they were consumed in the fire of God’s judgment in the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ as revealed from heaven.
Old Covenant Salvation “in the Land” vs. New Covenant Salvation “in Christ” 

In typological form Israel’s promises were fulfilled during the reign of Solomon.  God’s promise to make Abraham a great nation and make his descendants as numerous as “the dust of the earth” and as the stars of the heavens was fulfilled in the OT (Gen. 12:2; 13:16 = 2 Chron. 1:9; 1 Chron. 27:23; 1 Kings 4:11).  Even Israel’s land promises “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates” were fulfilled (Gen. 12:7; 22:17 = 1 Kings 4:20; Josh. 11:23; 21:41-45; Neh. 9:21-25).

Once we reach the NT we learn that Israel’s promises have their ultimate fulfillment not in the literal land or literal real-estate, but rather in the New Covenant or being “in Christ.”  Christ Himself and those united to Him through faith are blessed with Abraham and fulfill the seed promise (Gal. 3:9, 16, 18, 28-29).  We also learn that Abraham’s faith in the promise was rooted in a spiritual fulfillment of a heavenly land and city that were “about to” be received at Christ’s “in a very little while” Second Coming to close the OC age (cf. Heb. 9:26-28—10:37—11:10-16—13:14YLT).  Even Paul’s statement that believers would inherit “the world” (Rms. 4:13) is understood in context to mean believers (Jew and Gentile) in all nations (Rms. 4:11-12, 16-17).

The heavenly land and city (New Jerusalem) that Abraham looked to for the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise (along with the prophets promise of a New Creation – Isaiah 65-66) was in the process of coming down in John’s day and “shortly” did at Christ’s “soon” Second Coming in AD 70 (cf. Rev. 1:1, 3:12NIV—chapters 21:1–22:20).  This is not a literal cubed city/tabernacle/MHP that will someday float down to earth, but rather the perfecting of the New Covenant people of God or New Covenant believers (the “Jerusalem from above” – Gals. 4).  The coming Tabernacle/Temple of Ezekiel 37, 40-48 is referring to the Body – the Church (Ezek. 37:27=2 Cor. 6:16).  Again, the New Creation is not physical real-estate, but rather New Covenant believers (Isa. 65:17 = 2 Cor. 5:17).

Literal land or global real-estate inheritance concepts coming from say Premillennialism and Postmillennialism are “heretical” and on par with unbelieving “Jewish dreams and myths” originating in a hyper-literal non-apostolic hermeneutic and we reject them as such.

The Jew understood his Temple and Land to be a “heaven and earth” with the light of Torah radiating from it, while the Gentiles were in utter darkness outside.  Once a Gentile converted to the teaching of Torah and believed in Jehovah he entered the land and was declared a “new creation.”  This gives the historical context on how Revelation ends the way it does.  The Church is the spiritual New Jerusalem / Most Holy Place dwelling of God and a New Heaven and Earth with the light of the Gospel radiating from her bidding the nations to enter her with open gates.

Post AD 70 Salvation is Complete – No More Death, Tears or Pain (Rev. 21-22)
Because “the death” that came through Adam is spiritual death (alienation from God) realized through the commandment-breaker Adam and amplified or increased under the Law of Moses (the old covenant), we can see how God gave His elect the victory over “the death” in the end of the old covenant age of condemnation. The fact that men die physically is in no way evidence that the “spiritual conflict” of “the death” continues for the church throughout the new covenant age.
God’s people under the old covenant, unlike God’s people today, experienced covenantal and spiritual death (cf. Hosea 13:1–14; Isa. 25–27; Eze. 37). What made physical death dreaded for the saints under the old covenant was that they died with the awareness that their sins had not yet been taken away. In the new covenant creation, Jesus promises that whether we biologically die in Him or biologically live in Him, we “never die” (John 11:25–26). This was not the case before Christ.
Thus under the old covenant, the residents of Jerusalem wept because they did not have a lasting atonement or eternal redemption. They longed and groaned for the day of Messiah’s salvation. Until that day would come, they knew their sins were not put away (Heb. 9:26–28; 10:4, 11). The promise that there would be no more mourning or crying or pain does not refer to any and every kind of mourning, crying, and pain. It refers to mourning, crying, and pain concerning God’s people being dead in sin under the condemnation, curse, and slavery of God’s law. That sad Adamic state is no more. In the Son, God’s people are “free indeed” (Jn. 8:36).
As Athanasius wrote in his Festal Letters, iv. 3, “For when death reigned, ‘sitting down by the rivers of Babylon, we wept,’ and mourned, because we felt the bitterness of captivity; but now that death and the kingdom of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness.”
Under the old covenant, when David or the nation was exiled from Zion and God’s city and temple, there was much inner pain, weeping, and bondage that followed (2 Sam. 15:30; Ps. 137; Isa. 14:3; Isa. 22:4–5; Jer. 9:1; 13:17; Jer. 22:9–10; Lam. 1:16; Joel 2:17). Under the new covenant, the heavenly country and Jerusalem are not subject to being made desolate or shaken by invading armies as was the old (Isa. 62:4; Heb. 12:27–28). The concept of the gates of the New Jerusalem always being open, even at night (Isa. 60:11; Rev. 21:25), is not merely a picture of evangelism; it is also a picture of security for the residents of God’s City. The believer, through faith in Christ, is the new covenant creation and it is impossible for him to be exiled from the City (2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 3:12; 22:12). The new covenant believer is characterized as one whose weeping has ended, because God has forever taken away his sin and united Himself with him (Isa. 60:20; 65:14, 18–19; Jn. 17:21–23).
Christians in the new covenant world do not shed tears in agony and cry out to God to save them from the Adamic Death of Sin, as Jesus Himself did on our behalf (Heb. 5:7). “The sting [pain] of the Death” cannot harm us anymore (1 Cor. 15:56) because the power of Sin has been removed through Jesus, the Law-Fulfiller who clothes us and indwells us. Now we live and reign with Christ in the new covenant world, wherein dwells the Righteousness of God.
It is noteworthy that Partial Preterists usually avoid any mention of Paul’s declaration that Satan would be “crushed” “shortly” (Rom. 16:20). The reason for this is that the majority consensus among all brands of commentators is that the “crushing” of Satan in Romans 16:20 is a direct reference to the final “crushing” of Satan as predicted in Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 20. Manifestly, the judgment and wrath that came in AD 70 was not merely “a” “minor” judgment. It was “the” judgment. It was the crushing of Satan.
Future eschatologies would challenge us with the empirical reality that Death and Satan could not have met their ultimate demise in AD 70 because, after all, just look around and you will clearly see that people still physically die and that there are wars and murders taking place all over the world today. Are these clear evidence that Satan and his demonic hordes are active in our world?
There were certainly times that Satan moved men, such as Judas, to commit sins. But the Bible does not teach us that this was ever the norm. James tells us that wars and fights come from within men (Jms. 4:1) instead of from Satan and demons. Satan’s primary purpose has come to an end: He can no longer function as the accuser of the brethren (Rev. 12:10), because Christ came out of Zion a second time at the end of the old covenant age to put away Sin once and for all for His church (Acts 20:28; Rom. 11:26–27; 13:11–12; Heb. 9:26–28).
Our salvation and Christ’s Second Appearing/Coming as the Churches great High Priest are not events that take place at the end of time, but rather within time – namely at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  The seed of the woman has overcome the Sin, the Death, the Law and crushed Satan for His heavenly people – the Church/New Creation.  You may not feel perfect or like a city of jewels and gold, but that is how God views you through His Son’s finished redemption –  accomplished and applied for you through His work on the cross and Second Appearing.  Go now and preach this message (Rev. 22:17)!  

Concluding the Messianic Soteriological and Eschatological Promises of Isaiah 61-66

There can be little doubt that Yeshua was the ONLY Messianic candidate that came saying He was the fulfillment of the 10th cycle of the Jubilee of Daniel 9:24-27 and Isiah 61 (Lk. 4:18) in His earthly ministry and redemptive work on the cross and “day of vengeance” or Second Coming between AD 26 – AD 66-70.

Jesus not only appealed to the soteriological and eschatological promises of Isiah 61:1-11 to be fulfilled within His contemporary generation but Isaiah 62:11 as well (Mt. 16:27-28/Mrk. 8:38–9:1).

When we examine the same “day of vengeance” of Isiah 61:2 in Isaiah 63:1-6 — comparing it to John’s version of the Olivet Discourse (the book of Revelation), we again see this is a judgment upon OC Jerusalem — the harlot wife or “Babylon” and thus covenant wrath being poured out upon her land.

In Isiah 66 Messiah is once again described as coming to judge the wicked from heaven by fire and Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-9 describes this as Christ being revealed from heaven to give relief to the first century church and render divine retribution of fire to their Jewish persecutors.  Did Christ come and give the first century Thessalonians “relief” from their Jewish persecutors, or do we have very old first century Christians still living and roaming the earth today among us still waiting for the Lord to come and give them relief?

It is this “soon” Second Coming of Christ that ushers in the New Creation or Jubilee Sabbath rest and restores the Church to Her inheritance in Christ as the Tree of Life (Rev. 21-22:6-7, 10-12, 20).

Jesus is the “Faithful and True Witness” having fulfilled His Messianic promises as Prophet, Priest and King in the time and manner He claimed to. He is the greatest expositor of the Law and the Prophets and we need to align our theology with His. Do not go “beyond what is written” and confess that “If God be true” makes “everyman a liar” in your particular theological circle you are currently swimming in, then so be it.  Selah.

Don’t forget to order our book:

You can pay me 18.00 through Pay Pal.  My account and or email is:  healinglvs@aol.com

[1]Lee Irons, Meredith Kline, J. Ligon Duncan, David W. Hall, Hugh Ross, Gleason L. Archer, THE GENESIS DEBATE Three Views on the Days of Creation,(Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), 227. I would also agree with Keil and Delitzsch onthe point that this is not a reference to a literal 490 years ofchronology: “That by this word common years are to be understood, is indeed taken for granted by many interpreters, but a satisfactory proof of such a meaning has not been adduced. Moreover, in favour of year-weeks (periods of seven years) it has been argued that such an interpretation was very natural, since they hold so prominent a place in the law of Moses; and the Exile had brought them anew very distinctly into remembrance, in asmuch as the seventy years’ desolation of the land was viewed as a punishment for the interrupted festival of the sabbatical years: 2 Chron. 36:21 (Hgstb., Kran., and others). But since these periods of seven years, as Hengstenberg himself confesses, are not called in the law שָׁבֻעִיםor שָׁבֻעֹות, therefore, from the repeated designation of the seventh year as that of the great Sabbath merely (Lev. 25:2, 4, 5;26:34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. 36:21), the idea of year-weeks in no way follows. The law makes mention not only of the Sabbath-year, but also of periods of seven times seven years, after the expiry of which a year of jubilee was always to be celebrated (Lev. 25:8ff.). These, as well as the Sabbath-years, might be calledשָׁבֻעִים. Thus the idea of year-weeks has no exegetical foundation. Hofmann and Kliefoth are in the right when they remark thatשָׁבֻעִיםdoes not necessarily mean year-weeks, but an intentionally indefinite designation of a period of time measured by the number seven, whose chronological duration must be determined on other grounds.”(Keil,C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentaryon the Old Testament(Vol. 9, pp. 717–718). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). See also David Green’s comments as to why Daniel 9:24-27 can’t be a literal 490 years – see his Q & A #’s 96-97 http://www.preteristcosmos.com/question5.html#note97
[2]Ibid. 227.

[1] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, Vol. 2, p.422, Hendrickson pub. 1979, emphasis added.

[2] ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament.

[3] Don Preston states in his tract, Can You Believe Jesus Said This?!?, p. 11-12, “Unless “verily” is being used as an introduction and not for emphasis in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 there is only one place in all the New Testament where the word is used to introduce a new subject [John 10:1]. In all other occurrences,…THE WORD IS ALWAYS USED TO EMPHASIZE A STATEMENT ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION! Don was mistaken on (Jn.10:1). See my comments on (Jn.10:1) and how it applies to the previous context. Pink says, “The Pharisees’ ‘casting out’ of the poor beggar was, in reality, the Shepherd leading him out from the barren wilderness of Judaism to the green pastures of Christianity.” Christ in this text is contrasting the false shepherds of the Pharisees just mentioned to Himself. “Verily” is expanding the teaching of the miracle and bringing forth a deeper meaning to what had just happened. Arthur W. Pink, EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL of JOHN, 1Vol. unabridged version, p. 511, Zondervan pub., 1975, emphasis added. James Boice concurs, “What is the context? Well, obviously, the context is to be found in the preceding chapter in the story of the man born blind and in his mistreatment by those who were the leaders of the people. I say this is obvious because of the absence of any transitional words at the beginning of chapter 10. When John indicates a transition either geographically or in time he usually says something like ‘after these things,’ ‘after this,’ “on the next day,’ or ‘as Jesus passed by.’ Here the words of Jesus flow on immediately after his comments about the Pharisees at the end of chapter 9 and therefore are related to them.” As soon as we recognize this, we recognize that the thieves and robbers must refer to the false shepherds of Israel (the Pharisees) and that the sheepfold represents Judaism. The ones who hear Christ’s voice and respond to His call are those of His own who are within Israel, of whom the man born blind is an example.” James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John An Expositional Commentary Five Volumes In one, Zondervan pub.[emphasis MJS], 629-630, emphasis added.

[4]Tim LaHaye, Thomas Ice, END TIMES CONTROVERSY THE SECOND COMING UNDER ATTACK, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87, emphasis added.

[5] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, Third edition 2009), 219-220, emphasis added

 

An Open and Public Letter to Keith A. Mathison Editor of "When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism"

Dear Mr. Mathison,
 
I did want to formally respond to you concerning who actually “bears the burden” in this debate to respond and your communication with me as to why you have not responded let alone acknowledged that a full preterist response has been given to your book, When Shall These Things Be?  A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism vs. our Second Edition of House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?  I would also like to extend to you the opportunity for us to discuss our respected chapters/responses and these issues at Ligonier Academy and have the faculty and student body ask questions.
Who “bears the burden”? 
Curiously, your mentor R.C. Sproul wrote,
“Obviously the full preterists have no desire to deviate from Scripture.  They bear the burden in this controversy of showing that creedal orthodoxy has been wrong at crucial points of eschatological understanding.”[1]  (p. 157).
He likewise produced this insufficient (and now outdated) chart seeking to make a definite distinction between partial and full preterism:

Full Preterists

Partial Preterists

A.D. 70

At the end of history

A.D. 70

At the end of history

Coming   (parousia) of Christ

yes

no

yes

yes

Resurrection   and rapture

yes

no

no

yes

Day   of the Lord

yes

no

yes

yes

Judgment

yes

no

yes

yes

My Response: 
The problem with Sproul’s chart is that it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on what some partial preterists have taught (past and present).  As I document in chapter four of HD, The Eschatolocial Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?, is that there are many more doctrinal agreements between progressive partial preterists and full preterists than you men apparently want to share with the public in this debate.

Full Preterists

Partial Preterists

A.D. 70

At the end of history

A.D.   70

At the end of history

NT use of “Last days” from old   covenant to new AD 30 – AD 70 only – not end of Christian age

yes

No

yes[2]

yes & no

This age = old covenant age “age to   come” = new covenant age transformed in AD 70

yes

No

yes[3]

yes & no

United Matt. 24-25 one parousia in AD   70

yes

No

yes[4]

yes & no

Resurrection and judgment of living   and dead between AD 30 – AD 70

yes

No

yes[5]

yes

Glorification in Rom. 8:18-23 YLT   “about to be revealed”

yes

No

yes[6]

yes & no

2 Peter 3 fulfilled

yes

No

yes[7]

yes & no

“All Israel” in Rom. 11:26 saved

yes

No

yes[8]

yes & no

Acts 1:11

yes

No

yes[9]

yes & no

Hebrews 9:26-28 Second appearing of   Christ at end of the age

yes

no

yes[10]

yes & no

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 “rapture”

yes

No

yes[11]

yes & no

Perhaps the most significant change is that your progressive partial preterist colleagues (in their attempts to overthrow full preterism) such as Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan have oddly enough stolen the full preterist view of the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead and now accept that this was a progressive, corporate, covenantal, process between AD 30 – AD 70 resulting in the souls of the righteous being raised out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at Christ’s parousia in AD 70.[12]  So your demonstration of continued and heightened confusion at this point only warrants more of a formal response to HD.
As I document in our book and as the chart above demonstrates – perhaps throughout church history (past and present) the “burden of proof” is no less upon the progressive partial preterists to demonstrate historically and exegetically that the judgment and resurrection of the dead took place in AD 70 than it is for the full preterist?  I think for you personally Keith, you might want to begin by demonstrating that the coming of the Son of Man with angles in Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24-25 is not descriptive of Jesus’ Second Coming (contrary to Luther, Calvin, the WCF, and full preterists).  And that these eschatological events are not the same “paralleled” events and thus form Paul’s eschatology on the Second Coming as is in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians (per the Reformation Study Bible of which you helped edit).  For men like Gentry, DeMar (AV publications), and Jordan, these men need to prove exegetically and historically, that there are two fulfillments of the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead (contrary to the creeds and confessions).
And perhaps the larger “burden of proof” which rests upon Sproul and reformed eschatology in general is my/our premise in HD that full preterism is actually the organic development (“reformed and always reforming”) of partial preterism and the classic amillennial views:
“It is more than difficult to understand how the authors of WSTTB can portray their historical positions as unified when between their two systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory propositions emerge:
1)  Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment are accepted.  Christ appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age.  There was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 (Dan. 12:1-4; Matt. 5:17-18; 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11; Rom. 8:18; 13:11-12; Heb. 8:13; 9:26-28; 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Rev. 1-22).
2)  Classic Amillennialism – The New Testament teaches only one future coming of Christ, general judgment, and resurrection of the living and dead attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.
How can these things be indeed? The only way both of these propositions can be true at the same time is if full preterism is true.
Amillennialism is correct that there is only one future coming of Christ in the New Testament.  And partial preterism is correct that the future coming of Christ in the New Testament was fulfilled in AD 70. Thus “orthodoxy” teaches us that the one Second Coming of 1 Thessalonians 4-5 is the same coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25, and that it was fulfilled in AD 70. But since futurism errs on the nature of the resurrection, assuming it is biological and at the end of time, futurists are forced into an either/or dillema, when the truth is both/and.
I think one can see the problem that the authors of WSTTB are sweeping under the rug when they speak of their “shoulder-to-shoulder” unity.  The choice is simple. Either one continues propagating the myth that these two propositions within the futurist paradigm do not lead to a contradiction, or one accepts the organic development of full preterism which unites them.”[13]
This being the case, the reformed creeds need to be revised to fit a full preterist consistent, accurate, and exegetical approach to the Second Coming, judgment and resurrection of the living and dead, and arrival of the new creation.
Addressing your excuses
When I first sent out a copy of HD to you, you mentioned that it would take a while for you to read and then respond to my chapter/response.  This of course was five years ago sir and throughout that time I have sent you emails requesting when a response might be forthcoming.  Your reply has always been something like – “I don’t have time” or “it’s on the backburner” etc…  These excuses seem reasonable for maybe the first six months to a year.  Maybe two to three years might be stretching it a bit – but five years?  I would agree with one of your fellow partial preterists Gary North who has mentioned (in their debate with dispensationalists) that the side in the debate which stops responding to the other in print, has in essence lost the debate.  Are we at that point?  It sure seems like it to me.  And Mr. North where are you in this debate?  Very silent indeed.
There are of course other issues as well that are very telling.  As already mentioned, it is a stretch at this point for me or anyone else to take your five year delay seriously, but when we compound it by six other authors (Gentry Jr., Hill, Pratt Jr., Kistemaker, Wilson and Strimple) it becomes almost impossible to believe.  All seven authors of WSTTB? over the last five years are too busy to respond to our public response to them?  This reminds me of the many Arminian or dispensationalist Pastor’s, Bible College or seminary instructors that I ( and no doubt you) have encountered over the years that are always just “too busy” to respond to Calvinist or covenantal theology arguments/challenges to their views.  We both know why in most of these cases they are “too busy” to respond and I’m wondering at this point why that same conclusion shouldn’t be reached of you and your six co-authors?  Gentry has gone into print as teaching that when one examines old school dispensationalism in light of what progressive dispensationalists are teaching – there is nothing left of the dispensational system and to be more consistent progressives need to move into covenant theology.  You have stated similar things.  Perhaps these men don’t address your arguments because they can’t or are unwilling to accept what you are saying about their system is true and that at that point they would “have to count the cost” so to speak?  Perhaps this is what is taking place with you and your co-authors taking your time or simply your inability to respond to our formal response to your book?  Our book on virtually every page demonstrates how you and your co-authors actually form full preterism – not refutes it.  And it demonstrates that unless reformed eschatology embraces full preterism, its divided house is left to fall apart in the coming years at the feet of full preterism.
Your alliance with American Vision
Now granted you and Gentry have endorsed Sam Frost’s little pamphlet on why he left “full preterism” (which is a contradiction – see later below), but this is not in any way a response from you and Gentry or any of your co-authors in WSTTB.  Furthermore, unlike your five years and counting delay and denial, we began immediately refuting Frost’s many exegetical and logical blunders on public lists, articles, and now in the appendix section of this second edition of House Divided.  I heard that you told someone that you really didn’t even read much of his pamphlet.  Is this true and yet you endorsed it?
I will not produce the entire appendix here, but I will address Frost’s #1 reason/”argument” (if one can call it that) he gave as to why he allegedly thinks full preterism is false.  Since you have attached you name to this “argument” I will have some follow up questions for you.  But first our response on pages 239-242:

“Infinity

The first argument that came from the internet critics was, interestingly enough, an argument about infinity.  According to the argument, the kingdom of God’s elect cannot numerically increase forever in time and space, because that would mean there would be an infinitely increasing number of events and of saints, which God could never fully know, because God cannot possibly fully know a series that numerically increases into infinity.  Therefore, since God is unable to create a kingdom that lasts forever in time, it follows that the time-space continuum must come to an end, that the elect must one day stop being born, and that the kingdom must eventually end up existing in a state of “timelessness” wherein there are no series or sequences.  Full preterism must therefore be wrong.
Our response: 
The idea that God cannot “fully know” something if it lasts forever in time, because that would be too much for God to grasp, reduces Yahweh to the level of Zeus and Superman.  Whereas Zeus and Superman could not create or fully know a series that increases into an unending future, there is no biblical reason to think that Yahweh is limited in that way.
The internet critics who said that Yahweh can neither create nor grasp a series that infinitely increases in time and space, also said that Yahweh transcends time and space and is not bound by time and space. For some reason though, it did not occur to the internet critics that if Yahweh “transcends time and space” and is not bound by time and space (i.e., if He is above and beyond time and space), then He can certainly create and fully know a never-ending time-space universe and an ever-increasing kingdom.  As Augustine put it:
. . . The infinity of number . . . is . . . not incomprehensible [to God]. . . All infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God. . . .  All infinity . . . is comprehensible by His knowledge. . . .  God . . . comprehends all incomprehensibles with so incomprehensible a comprehension, that though He willed always to make His later works novel and unlike what went before them, He [would ] produce them [with] foresight, [and] conceive them . . . by His eternal foreknowledge. (Augustine, The City of God, Book XII, Chapter 18, “Against Those Who Assert that Things that are Infinite Cannot Be Comprehended by the Knowledge of God”)
And as R.C. Sproul (Sr.) put it:
God can understand infinity, not because he operates on the basis of some kind of heavenly logic system, but because he himself is infinite.  He has an infinite perspective. (R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, page 47) And as Isaiah (God) put it:
And He doth call His name . . . Father of Eternity. . . .  (Isa. 9:6,
YLT)
“Eternity” was defined by the internet critics as the “timeless state” into which the Earth will enter after the end of world history.  If “I AM” is the “Father” of the eternal/timeless state, and can therefore “fully know” it, then it is certainly not difficult or impossible for Him to create and fully know a state that is “below” the “eternal state,” i.e., a neverending time-space continuum.
One of the early attempts of the internet critics to explain how everlasting life can happen if God can’t grasp an ever-increasing series of events was the “continuous loop” argument:  We will not have an endless series of thoughts or actions in eternity, but will instead repeat the same finite number of actions and thoughts.   So infinity will not happen in eternity.
This cyclical view of eternity is more akin to Hinduism than Reformed Christianity.  But that was their argument.  The problem with it, of course, is that the 67th time you repeat an action would still be categorically different from the 1,067th time you repeat it.  The count of repetitions themselves would be an infinite series.  Or in argument form:
1)  If we continue to repeat the same event over and over in eternity there will be a 67th time we repeat it, a 1,067th time we repeat it, and a n+1 time we repeat it.
2)  n+1 represents an infinitely increasing series.
3)  Therefore even if the same events are repeated in eternity, there is still an infinite series of repetitions.
The final attempt to rescue their infinity argument was to claim that we become part of the “One” and do not have experiences or thoughts in eternity that can be counted.  The weakness of this response should be apparent.  It reduces the Christian promise of eternal life to a Buddhist promise of being “one with the universe.”
It may seem shocking that the primary attempt to refute preterism was to reduce God’s abilities and change eternity into an eventless, thoughtless state of existence.  The fact that the anti-preterists reduced God to a Zeus-like deity shows the desperation of their attempts to refute what they know in their hearts to be the teaching of Scripture. But what may be even more shocking is that Ken Gentry has actually expressed his agreement with the “infinity” argument proposed by the internet critics.  In fact, Ken Gentry, Keith Mathison, and Gary DeMar have all generally endorsed the, at times transparently wrong and dangerously erroneous, arguments of the internet critics.”
Mr. Mathison, do you concur with the quote we have used of your mentor Mr. Sproul Sr. or do you support and endorse such an anti-biblical and illogical “argument” as the one you have attached your name to?  Also I have another clarifying question for you (and I may be mistaken so this is why I ask), but I have heard that this Gordon Clark type “argument” or view Frost is using here was rejected by Van Till and others as not being Scriptural nor should it be considered as reformed.  Is this true?  If so, why would you and Gentry endorse it?
But I was also curious in why American Vision’s or Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon would publish this little pamphlet.  First, DeMar takes the NT’s use of the “last/later days” to be from roughly AD 30 – AD 70 as we do.  Yet Frost in the pamphlet would refer to this as a full preterist “scheme.”  If the pamphlet can’t even persuade its publishers that they have fallen prey to “full preterist schemes” on something so simple as the NT’s teaching on the “last days,” how is it supposed to persuade us or anyone else?
And a curious note – American Vision publishes and promotes John L. Bray’s preterist book on Matthew 24 Fulfilled, and yet John L. Bray has written of our book, “I’ve not seen another book as strong as this defending the preterist position.”  Since DeMar promotes Bray and Bray promotes us, maybe DeMar needs to answer some of the challenges I and my co-authors have directed towards him in HD?
Although Frost backed out of a debate with Don Preston, in McDurmon’s debate with Preston, it turned out to be a total disaster for partial preterism and American Vision in general.  It’s been a while since I listened to it, but if I’m not mistaken he conceded that there “could” be an AD 70 fulfillment of such resurrection and judgment passages as John 5:28-28; 1 Cor. 15; and Rev. 20, but allegedly these passages also can teach there awaits a final and literal fulfillment.   That is an exegetical and hermeneutical nightmare to prove (two fulfillments that is – as I have addressed in HD and in articles from my www.fullpreterism.com).  This is truly an admission that “gave the farm away” to full preterism.  And yet you men are still in denial that your writings don’t lead people to full preterism – amazing!
After admitting in his writings that he believes that Jesus’ and Paul’s use of “this age” is the old covenant age and the “age to come” is the new covenant age arriving in AD 70, McDurmon oddly then wanted to argue that the resurrection of Luke 20:27-40 was a literal resurrection to take place at the end of time.  No, exegetically the resurrection takes place after the old covenant age “this age” gives way to those who “attain that [coming new covenant] age” (Luke 20:34-35).  After all American Vision authors have stated that there was a spiritual resurrection for the dead out from Hades or Abraham’s Bosom at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70.  So this begs the question as to why Jesus does not have that AD 70 (American Vision) resurrection in view here and in any NT resurrection passage.
Getting back to Frost.  There are many exegetical and logical problems with Frost’s little pamphlet that you and Gentry signed off on which are addressed in our book and therefore I refer you to them.  There are other issues that I have documented on my site where Sam told me that he wanted to teach in a reformed seminary but knew the only way he could do that would be to “compromise” what he knew the bible to be teaching on fulfillment.  In our first edition Frost wrote, “Gentry…fails to logically connect the dots,” because the creeds do not allow him to do so.  (One could also lose one’s job for connecting the dots.)” (HD, 228).  Then according to Frost’s statement and what has transpired shortly thereafter (ordination within Talbot’s made up reformed denomination, further employment with his seminary, etc…), perhaps he left what he knew the Bible was teaching on fulfillment in order to now find a creedal job?  If not why not?  When Frost approached us (after we were 98% done with HD) wanting to get into our book, David Green and myself drilled Sam for his flip flopping and desire to compromise in order to not “bite the hand that feeds” (his words) which were problems we and others had seen in him in the past.  He assured us that things had changed and that we could trust that he was stable.
It is difficult to even get past the title of Frost’s pamphlet.  It suggests that he left “Full Preterism.”  But after the first edition of HD was printed, we found out that Frost was trying to marry traditional postmillennial literal and futuristic “Paradise Restored” type fulfillments with full preterism.  We confronted Frost on this and that his views on Isiah 65 for example were not only unbiblical, but they did not fall under full preterism but were more akin to postmillennial partial preterisms teachings.  He was trying to say that as the gospel advances people and the creation will undergo radical changes such as men beginning to live to 900 years old again as they did in the early chapters of Genesis etc…  Apparently Frost was thinking (and as far as I know continues to think) that lions will one day in our future actually change biologically and eat straw and not meat.  The only difference now is that Sam believes this will take place before Christ’s (third) coming to consummate and glorify the planet earth, whereas before he was a confused partial preterist and had no NT coming to bring about “an end” or consummation to this literal and progressive fulfillment that was lacking beyond AD 70.  I challenged Frost that according to his postmillennial “Paradise Restored” type hermeneutic, if we too should be expecting 900 year old men to be walking around naked and unashamed before Christ’s (third) coming in the distant future – but Sam was apparently unavailable and too mad to answer the question.  Thus according to how Sam himself defines full preterism in his pamphlet  — proves he was never a “full preterist” to begin with!
However, even after leaving what he confusingly says was “full preterism” (for in reality again it was just another confusing version of partial preterism) he demonstrated that he was utterly lost and unstable.  At first Acts 24:15 YLT was referring to AD 70 then it wasn’t.  If I recall he said Romans 8:18 YLT could have a double type of fulfillment but couldn’t exegetically prove it.  Then he didn’t know for sure if there was one parousia in the NT (example even in 1 Cor. 15) that began in AD 70 and would culminate/manifest at the end of history or if there were two parousias – one in AD 70 and one at the end of time.  He still embraced and may continue to do so – that the millennium of Revelation 20 was fulfilled between AD 30 – AD 70.  Of course I would have loved to have added that admission to the chart above addressing partial preterist admissions to full preterism, but he continues to changes his views on key texts faster than we can read his previous ones, so I thought it may be wise to wait!  He is a good librarian and is capable of telling everyone what “some scholars believe about this and others that,” but that’s about it.  In fact that’s about all your approach was in WSTTB? Keith – pure and utter confusion.  His approach reflects your confusion and problems and therefore he is your problem now.  Were you and Gentry so desperate that you had to sign off on someone so new and unstable (out of a heretical cult per you) to do work you are too lazy to do?  Is that even scriptural to do?   And on that note of your confusion and that of reformed eschatology in general let me move on to my request to solve the problem not just document it.
Request for an open dialogue with you at Ligonier Academy to discuss our chapters or an opportunity to present full preterism as a theological movement
I want to review first your utter confusion in WSTTB? and then ask you if this is something your conscience feels good with and do you think students want to know about the plethora of confusing futurist views, or if their hearts are craving for what Jesus and the NT really teaches about “the time of the end” (not the end of time)?
“It is ironic that the title of Mathison’s book is When Shall These Things Be?  Not only is there no consensus among the authors as to the answer to that very question, but Mathison himself (the only author who attempts to answer the question) fails to arrive at an unequivocal and decisive answer.  Within a span of six pages (177–182), Mathison tacitly admits that the question is a problem for futurism, and offers seven or eight possible “solutions.”
If we were to apply Mathison’s method in eschatological matters to all other areas of life, we would be certain of nothing; we would all be postmodernists.  The truth would become unknowable.  Mathison himself, in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, teaches that “clear” and “firm scriptural proof for every article of faith” is a “necessity.” Yet in WSTTB, Mathison demonstrates with his plethora of “possible interpretations” that he lacks “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof either for futurism or against preterism.  Nevertheless, he feels at liberty to anathematize us for our preterist challenge to futurism (213).
Mathison claims that Christ died to leave the church, for 2,000 years and counting, in an “evil age.”  As my editor has said, “Joy to the world!”  Postmillennialists such as Marcellus Kik and Keith Mathison have produced not so much an Eschatology of Victory or An Eschatology of Hope, as a “sick” eschatology, because, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12).  Preterism will stand the test of time; and as godly men embrace it and teach it, it will bring healing to the “eschatological schizophrenia” of Mathison et al, and to the eschatological division within the church as a whole.”[14]
It is my sincere prayer and desire that after presenting such a confusing chapter and book for the reformed community to swallow and after five years of avoidance and apparent denial of our book’s existence, that at the very least we can sit down in front of faculty and students to discuss these issues.  Hopefully you and Ligonier Ministries are truly interested in “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof for every article of faith and not just interested in turning future Pastor’s into mini seminary instructors only capable of giving multitudes of futuristic interpretations of eschatological texts as they pass along your confusion to the layman?  Please allow me to speak to the faculty and students about full preterism as perhaps not just a theological movement (“heretical” or not), but what it truly is – the organic development of reformed eschatology.

Conclusion

Per your request I sent you an electronic version of the second edition of HD for you and your co-authors to read.  Please take the time to respond and encourage your co-authors to attempt some kind of response as well – if not in book form at least in a critical article posted in a theological journal or reputable web site. Again, if no written or printed response is forthcoming I will conclude with the kind of thinking that Gary North has provided for your movement in that the side which stops responding in print in the debate has then in reality lost the debate.  There is no response because a consistent and exegetical one cannot be given.  However, I appreciate the work that you, your co-authors and anti-full preterist associates have done thus far in demonstrating that the “one” Second Coming “THE [one] parousia” of Christ attended with the one judgment and resurrection of the dead took place spiritually and corporately from AD 30 – AD 70 at the end of the old covenant age resulting in the souls of saints being emptied out of Hades or Abraham’s Bosom to inherit the kingdom and eternal life.  Keep up the good work.
In Christ,
Michael J. Sullivan

Keith Mathison’s (2-11-14) response to my letter (2-10-14):

The context of Mathison’s reply was to my public letter directed towards him individually and also questions I had for him regarding my recent response to an article Gary DeMar has written entitled, Anti-Postmillennialist Makes Weak Case.  I was seeking an explanation of how partial preterists over the last 7 years or so can steal the full preterist view of the judgment and resurrection of the living and dead (between AD 30 – AD 70) and yet at the same time claim we are heretics or that somehow they allegedly are still winning the debate on eschatology with their views not leading to full preterism?

Mathison’s response:

“I haven’t read DeMar (or anybody else) on the subject of preterism in years, so I’m not up to speed on what he has said or is saying. I know I can’t explain it to you in a way that you’ll understand, but from my perspective, all the years I spent reading and writing and talking and emailing about preterism were completely wasted time, and I just don’t feel like spending any more time on it.”

My response:

Although his response is disappointing on many levels, at least after five years of emailing him for a response to my chapter – it appears I finally got it.  Let me now respond:

First, it is difficult to understand how studying the climax of redemptive history as contained in the pages of Scripture can be considered “wasted time.”  Mathison wrote a book entitled, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope.  Now the study of the Christian’s “hope” today — be it future or realized today in the Christian new covenant age (cf. Proverbs 13:12), is most assuredly not “wasted time” spent!

Secondly, there seems to be a hint here of what I have called in the past “false piety”/”hyper-spiritual”/”I’m more spiritual than you” type of trying to quietly slip out the back door so speak going on here.  Let me explain.  Over the years at Calvary Chapel (and Calvary Chapel Bible College) and Grace Community (and The Master’s College) in my discussions and fellowship with believers and in my interactions with fellow students and professors regarding either the doctrines of grace vs. Arminianism or discussing the errors of dispensationalism, when someone couldn’t answer a passage or argument I was presenting I got this kind of response:  “Brother you need to stop studying theology and doctrine so much and just love Jesus.”  As if to say somehow that they are loving Jesus more than I am because I am studying Scripture and doctrine and having an answer for what I believe verses them loving Jesus by not having an answer for what they say they believe or have been taught is “loving Jesus” or is being in tune with the Holy Spirit more?!?  Confusing indeed.  Granted, Mathison’s response is not exactly that, but it does have some hints to it.  I may be mistaken, but that is how I interpreted the tone.

Perhaps further evidence to this tone may be gleaned from the context of his response to me.  He mentioned that he knows I don’t deny the Trinity but that he was reading a good book on that subject and made a recommendation for me to read it as well.  I responded by saying I think the Church has sufficiently worked through that doctrine, but obviously his book WSTTB? demonstrated that the Church has not sufficiently worked through her eschatology.  So the undertone here seems to be that he is studying more spiritual things now than eschatology.  I personally enjoy studying how the Triune God came to make His home/dwelling within the believer/His Church and is now “all” (the Trinity) “in all” (Jew and Gentile) and has overcome the curse of “the death” for his blood bought Church.  Which brings me to my next point I gave him…

Thirdly, Mathison’s response resembles the common notion and thinking within academic circles and even church circles — that somehow soteriology (and to some extent the study of God – His attributes etc…) can be separated or systematized away from eschatology.  Systematic theology has its place, but unfortunately it often times creates this kind of harmful and unbiblical kind of thinking.

Fourthly, and related to the above points, is this notion that the study of eschatology isn’t as important as other doctrines and thus can be put “on the backburner” (Mathison’s exact words).  But the truth of the matter is this – Mathison and the church as a whole are so confused and frustrated on the subject, that this is the reason Mathison and others put it on the “back burner” for study/responses and turn their attention to other subjects and projects.  Like I’ve said many times if Sproul is correct that a 4 point Calvinist is in reality a “confused Arminian,” then the reality here is that Sproul and Mathison’s partial preterism is really “confused futurism.”  It’s their confusion and inability to present a consistent exegetical refutation of full preterism that is the issue here.

Fifthly, as I stated in the letter and elsewhere — it is the postmillennial partial preterist kind of thinking “dominion” and rhetoric of which Mathison swims (ex. Gary North) that has communicated the side in the debate which stops responding in print in essence has lost the debate.  I will now accept Mathison’s response as just that.  Do his co-authors of WSTTB? also want to accept defeat in this debate?  Hopefully they can be reached for comment.  In my recent response to Gary DeMar’s article in which he says he just got back from speaking on a seminar dedicated to the imagination that “Postmillennialists are winning the debate on eschatology” — I must respond by clearly stating that this is not reality at all.  Good marketing rhetoric like Gary North provides for the movement, but simply not reality.

Here are some comments made by my friends and co-authors of HD:
David Green:
“Mathison is the quintessential futurist. He can’t reconcile futurism with the Bible, so he dismisses it and brushes it aside as just “eschatology”: “It’ll pan out in the end.” “We have more spiritual things to concern ourselves with.” “Let’s not obsess over eschatology.” 🙂 Sadly for Mathison, that “excuse” doesn’t work when it comes to full preterism, because full preterism isn’t about Cobra helicopters or people disappearing in the Rupture. Full preterism is all about the New Testament, and the Gospel, and the Christian/Messianic age. Definitely, NOT a “waste of time” for any believer.
Those are words that will live in infamy. I can hardly believe he said it! Like Mike said to Mathison, it’s all about soteriology! So according to Mathison, understanding the meaning of “the tabernacle of God among men” –i.e., the establishment, nature, and meaning of the Gospel and of Christianity itself– is “a waste of time.”
Mike, this reminds me of when the “Talbots” scattered into the shadows. It’s the same level of victory. To say you won this debate with Mathison is an understatement! Your Mathison chapter in HD was the steamroller to Mathison’s blade of withered, dead grass.”
Ed Hassertt:
“I cannot believe the response he sent you, talk about a cop out!  That seems like a dig against those of us still writing about it, more than anything.  And since eschatology is found throughout scripture it almost makes studying scripture a waste of time, doesn’t it?  Mathison has sure lost this debate!  The critics of preterism are dropping like flies.   ;-)”
I have encouraged my co-authors to also write open and public letters to their respected opponents/chapters in HD/WSTTB? in this debate in order to see if they agree with Mathison’s defeated comments and or ask for an explanation of their 5+ years delayed response.  I will then post them on this site for public record.
“Is there no one else?!?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFnbkEwqjI
 



[1] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1998), 157.
[2] David Green, Edward Hassertt, Michael Sullivan, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Ramona, CA:  Vision Publishing 2014, Second Edition), 80-84.
[3] Ibid., 91.
[4] Ibid., 97
[5] Ibid., 87-95.  See also Michael Sullivan, A Full Preterist Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Articles:  DANIEL 12, TRIBULATION, AND RESURRECTION and ACTS 24:15 AND THE ALLEGED NEARNESS OF THE RESURRECTION https://fullpreterism.com/a-full-preterist-response-to-kenneth-gentrys-articles-daniel-12-tribulation-and-resurrection-and-acts-2415-and-the-alleged-nearness-of-the-resurrection/  And Keith as I mentioned in an email I didn’t have a lot of space in my chapter to address Gentry and Jordan’s progressive partial preterist view on the judgment and resurrection of the dead, but would refer you to this article.
[6] Michael Sullivan, House Divided, The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be?, 116-123.  This begs the question that DeMar has not answered in that if the “glory” was “about to be revealed” in Romans 8:18 YLT, then contextually so was the liberation of creation from its bondage, the full adoption of the sons of God, and the redemption of the body.  I also quote one of DeMar and Gentry’s favorite partial preterists (John Lightfoot) where he admits that the “creation” groaning in this passage has nothing to do with the planet earth (not even poetically) but rather men under sin (which is the full preterist view of the creation here).  I have been asking Gary to comment on this for many years now, but like you and your co-authors — you all seem “too busy” to comment.
[7] Ibid., 122-123.
[8] Ibid., 126-128.
[9] Ibid., 102-109.
[10] This should have been footnoted on page 139 of my chapter in reference to Hebrews 9:26-28 but it got deleted for some reason in the editing process.  The admission here is from Milton Terry, “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.” Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.
[11] Michael Sullivan, House Divided, Ibid., 112, footnote 45.
[12] Ibid., 89-95, 178.  In first edition, 89.
[13] Ibid., 139-140.
[14] Ibid., 140.

In What Sense Did Jesus Leave, Stay and Then Return In AD 70 – Brief Study of Acts 1:6-11–3:17-23 and The Anaology of Scripture

By David Green / Michael Bennett / Michael Sullivan
Talbotism or Partial Preterism would ask:
. . . Jesus left. And unless you ignore his promise to be with them until the end of the age, you would have to agree that there is a sense in which he didn’t leave. Well, it seems awfully obvious to me now that the sense in which he left was in regards to his human nature; which includes a body. He physically left them. Acts 1 clearly demonstrates that.  And there is nothing illogical about that answer.  If that isn’t the sense, then what is? . . . In what sense did he leave and in what sense did he stay. . . ?
David Green’s Comments:

My response:
The answer to Talbotism’s question is found in the answer to these seven questions:
1. “…until Christ is formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19)
The church was looking forward to when Christ would be formed in it.  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then was He later “formed” in the church?
2. “in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:21,22).

The church was looking forward to when it would become God’s “holy temple” / dwelling.”  But the church was already God’s temple/dwelling.  “In what sense” then did the church later become God’s temple/dwelling.
3. “So that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith….”
(Eph. 3:17)

Paul’s desire was that God would strengthen believers with might by Christ’s Spirit in the inner man “so that Christ would dwell in [their] hearts through faith.”  But Christ was already dwelling in believers’ hearts through faith.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in believers’ hearts through faith?
4. “to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

The church’s glorious hope (her expectation) was “Christ in you.”  But Christ was already in the church.  “In what sense” then did Christ later dwell in the church?
5. “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star arises
in your hearts
.” (II Peter 1:19)

Believers were looking forward to “the day” when “the Morning Star” would arise in their hearts.  But the Morning Star (Jesus) was already dwelling in their hearts.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later arise in believers’ hearts?
6. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20;  This promise was written to believers.).

Jesus told believers that if any one of them opened the door, He would “come in to him, and will dine with him.”  But Jesus was already dwelling in believers and dining with them.  “In what sense” then did Jesus later dwell in believers and dine with them?
7. “…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him.” (Jn. 14:23)

Only spirit-indwelt believers love Jesus.  Yet Jesus said that a time would come when the Father and the Son would make their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers.  Yet the Son was already dwelling in Spirit-indwelt believers.  “In what sense” then did Jesus and the Father later make Their abode in Spirit-indwelt believers?
The rhetorical question of the two men in white apparel: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
Their question implied that it was pointless for the disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as Jesus went up.
But, why/how was it pointless for Jesus’ disciples to stand there gazing up into the sky as He went up?

Was it because Jesus wasn’t going to come back for many years?  Was it because the disciples had a lot of work to do and didn’t have time to stand around?
Neither of these reasons were the explanation the two men gave for their rhetorical question.  They did not say, “Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  Jesus isn’t going to come back for a long, long time.”  Nor did they say, Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?  You have a lot of work to do and limited time in which to do it.”
No, according to the two men, it was pointless to stand there gazing into the sky as Jesus went up, because Jesus was going to “come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
In the futurist framework, that argument, of course, makes no sense.  There was no point in looking into the sky as Jesus went up because He was going to come back physically?  That’s a non sequitur.
In the preterist framework though, the words of the two men do make sense.
There was no point in looking for Jesus to come back down out of the sky, because He was to come in the manner in which they had “seen” him going into the sky:
Hidden from ordinary sight, in divine glory (Acts. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:16).
Michael Bennett comments:
Milton Terry (1898)
“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, what manner, occurs, it points to a general concept rather than the particular form of its actuality. Thus, in Acts vii, 28, it is not sonic 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.”
“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.
“To make the one statement of the angel in Acts 1:11, 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.”[1]
If “in like manner” means “in exactly the same way” then:
• How does Jesus come from heaven riding on a white horse (Rev. 19:11)?
• How does He come “with ten thousand of His saints” (Jude 14)?
• How does He come “as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west” (Matt. 24:27)?
• How does He come “with a loud command [shout] . . . and with the trumpet call of God” (1 Thess. 4:16)?
• How does He come “in blazing fire with his powerful angels” (2 Thess. 1:7)?
We have seen various legitimate reasons / arguments and statements why Acts 1 is not about a future coming it is in regards to the AD70 coming of Christ a “2nd” time (Heb. 9:26-28).  Here is another more point – consider the CONTEXT regarding the kingdom. and the dates that the Father sets that no one knows. Where have we seen that and are there time texts etc. attached to those. After all that is the context of Acts 1. That is the question that is being answered by the “two men dressed in white.”
Immediate Context of Acts 1:9-11
“3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 6So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11″Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
The context of Acts 1 is:

  • The coming of the kingdom.
  • You (disciple’s – contemporary audience) do not know the time or dates.
  • The disciple’s preaching the gospel to all the world.

Needless to say – the kingdom was “near” and that is a time text and Matthew 24 cannot be divided into 2 comings because Luke 17 mixes the event so not knowing the day / hour (Matt. 24:36) or times / dates (Acts 1:6ff.; 1 Thess. 5:1ff.) etc. was a reference to AD 70.   Also note that both are about the gospel reaching the world etc.
(Matthew 10:7) “As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.
(Matthew 24:14, 34, 36)  “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 36″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Michael Sullivan’s Comments:
1)  How Christ went and would return
In our book House Divided, pages 101-102 I wrote:
“Mathison errs when he says that Jesus was going to come back in the same way that He “departed.” The Scriptures say that Jesus would come in the same way He had entered the sky. He entered the sky hidden from literal eye sight in the cloud of God’s glory.
Here is the order of events:
1. As they looked, He was taken up (Acts 1:9).
2. A cloud received Him from their eyes (Acts 1:9).
These first two events could very well have happened simultaneously.  As Mathison himself admits, the verse could be translated, “He was lifted up; that is, a cloud received Him out of their sight.”
It is a very real possibility that Jesus was instantly hidden in the cloud at the moment His feet left the earth.
3. Then the disciples saw Him going into the sky. That is, they looked intently into the sky as He was ascending in the cloud (Acts 1:10-11).
. . . The question of the two men was rhetorical, and it meant, “There is no use in standing here longing for Jesus to return to you and to be as He was in the days of His flesh (Heb. 5:7). He will come, but He will come in the manner you saw Him enter heaven —hidden from physical eyes in the cloud of the Father’s glory.”
2)  Christ’s return will follow the completion of the Great Commission
On pages 98-104 I noted how Keith Mathison in one of his books claims:
Acts 1:9-11 has – “…no reference to time connected with the prediction of the return of Christ.” (WSTTB?, 185, emphasis mine)
But in another book he writes,
The time frame is hinted at in the preceding context.  The disciples are given a commission to be Christ’s witneses “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.” (Postmillennialism, 117, bold emphasis mine).
God saved 3,000 believers (new exodus motif. 3,000 died at giving of law 3,000 live from NC life in the Spirit – the law produces death the Spirit life etc…) from “every nation under heaven” in (Acts 2:5, 41) and sent them back out into their “every nation under heaven” and or “world” (Greek ge) to proclaim the gospel.  By AD 70 “every nation under heaven” and this “world” (Greek ge) Jesus is referring to had been preached to (Rom. 1:18, Cols. 5-6, 23).  Therefore, the “implication” of Partial Preterism and that of Mathison, is that Christ returned in AD 70 when the “time frame” of “the disciples commission” was fulfilled.  Selah.
3)  The “restoration of the kingdom” (Acts 1:6) .
is also inseparably connected to the coming of the Lord in (v. 11).  And yet, the “restoration” of the kingdom Jesus identified with John the Baptist/Elijah — preaching repentance because of an imminent wrath and judgment associated with the  the great and dreadful day of the Lord (Matt. 3:7-12; Matt. 11:10-14; Matt. 17:10-13; Isaiah 11; Mal. 3-4).  Oddly another coming of the Lord Partial Preterism claims took place in AD 70.  ecause Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act (per Gentry)!
4)  The “Great and dreadful day of the Lord” in (Acts 2:20ff.)
Partial Preterism also teaches that the contemporary repentance preached to Peter’s generation in Acts 2 along with the “great and dreadful day of the Lord” was fulfilled by AD 70 (Acts 2:20–40).   One of Gentry’s reasons being that Peter was preaching to his contemporary audience telling them to act! Let’s now pick back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or the “restoration of all things” — contemporary exhortation to act in repentance in connection with the Lord’s return in Acts 3 and Hebrews 9:24–10:37.
5)  Picking back up the “restoration of the kingdom” or “until the time comes for God to restore everything” “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:17-23) etc…
These NT terms reached there fullness and mature state when the Second Coming of Lord took place in AD 70 (Luke 21:27-32/Acts 3:17-23/Heb. 9:24–26-28–10:1YLT, 25, 37).  So far according Partial Preterism the coming of the Lord in Acts 1:11 and Acts 2:20-21 took place in AD 70.
But what about in chapter 3 — is there anything in this chapter that would indicate a different coming of the Lord spread out over thousands or millions of years?  Per the logic and reasoning of Gentry in Acts 2, the same Jewish contemporary audience is being exhorted to repent  and if they didn’t  this coming of the Lord would result either in their sins being forgiven (those that would repent), and for  those who refused to repent – they would be “completely cut off from among his people” (Acts 3:17-23). These are those who would not listen to the greater prophet than Moses (Christ) predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-19.  And what was the message of “this prophet” (Jesus)?  Was it not that His return in their generation would mark the fulfillment of all that has been written in the OT – time of redemption for those that trusted and repented and the time of punishment for those who would not (Luke 21:22-32)?!? 
Luke 21:20-32 & Acts 3:17-23

  • Same coming of the Lord.
  • Same salvation/redemption for believers and punishment for unbelievers – Jews “his people.”
  • Same fulfillment of all the OT prophets and scriptures.

Since the OT prophets predicted the “restoration of the kingdom” or “the restoration of all things,” when Christ would come from heaven (Acts 1:6-11/3:17-23) and Partial Preterist’s admit that the OC “heaven and earth” of (Matt. 5:17-18) passed away in AD 70 — therefore, the coming of Christ and the restoration of all things pertaining to God’s kingdom found in the law and prophets were fulfilled and reached there mature state by D 70.
And verse 24 wraps up the sermon informing us that all which has gone before (all the OT’s Prophets testimony) “foretold these days” – that is the “last days” and coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that was preached in the previous chapter in ( Acts 2:17-21, 38-40; see also 1 Peter 1:4-12).  Many Partial Preterists believe the “last days” were from AD 30 – AD 70.  This being the case, the Lord comes from heaven at the end of “the last days” of the OC age at which time He came from heaven to save the remnant and “judge His people (Israel).”  And these same Partial Preterists we are addressing in this article would affirm that the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 was also fulfilled by AD 70.  Since it is grammatically impossible to separate the time given for Christ to come from heaven to reward with forgiveness of sins and or judge these first century Jews “his people” in (Acts 3:19-23) in their “last days” or “these days,” we must ask these Partial Preterists if there is going to be another Old Covenant “Israel” “his people” in the future when Christ returns but yet again?
The bottom line exegetical facts are from Acts 1:6–3:23 we have the:

  • Same contemporary exhortation/audience directed at the Jews to repent for killing their Messiah.
  • Same coming of the Lord in salvation or judgment that we saw in chapter 2.
  • Same “restoration” motif and coming of the Lord we saw in Acts 1:6-11!
  • Same “last days” or “these days” time period (AD 30 – AD 70) for these OT predictions to take place.

Hebrews 9:24-28–10:37 “Time of reformation” “Appear a second time apart from sin.”
Partial Preterist Mathison cites (Heb. 9:28) as an “indefinite reference” of the second coming since the verse allegedly does not contain a time text (WSTTB?, p. 202). But R.C. Sproul in refuting Kistemaker says that this passage includes both His first and second coming occurring by AD. 70 and that a “considerable time” is very much an issue with this text,
This passage refers to both the first and second appearances of Christ. The context for his first appearance is “the end of the ages.” Yet his followers are still waiting for him to appear a second time.” “…If Christ’s first coming at “the end of the ages” has already occurred and if considerable time has elapsed since that coming, then it is impossible to identify “the end of the ages” with the end of time. If the second appearing of Christ here refers to his judgment on Jerusalem, it would still fit in the framework of “the end of the ages” that is not the end of all time.[2]
But probably the best and most straightforward statement comes once again from Partial Preterist Milton S. Terry,
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.[3]
This text is where we get the term “the Second coming” of Jesus , and we have partial preterists such as Sproul and Terry conceding to a common sense Full Preterist interpretation of the passage as possibly or being fulfilled at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Mathison just avoids the issues but in another work does say of Hebrews 9:1-28,
“In 9:1-10, the author continues his argument by explaining the temporary nature of the Old Testament tabernacle and its ceremonies. The tabernacle and its sacrifices were never intended by God to be permanent. They were to continue until the “time of reformation” (v.10).12 Hebrews 9:11-28 describes what happened when this time of reformation arrived.” (Postmillennialism, ibid., p.132).
He then goes on to quote Philip E. Hughes whom agrees with us that the imagery here is that of the High Priest going into the Most Holy Place tabernacle/temple on the Day of Atonement to make sacrifice and intercede for the covenant people before coming back out “a second time” in declaring that the sacrifice had been accepted and applying or sprinkling the blood etc… The problem for Mathison, is that the time texts within the broader and immediate context of this chapter demand “the time of reformation” process or the eschatological “not yet,” to arrive in its fullness within an imminent AD 70 time frame and not millennia. In his debate with Full Preterism, he does not want to draw attention to this fact let alone allow the imminent contextual flow surrounding the passage to be an exegetical factor (8:13, 9:6-10, 10:1, 13/17, 25, 37) which Sproul says is an exegetical issue that needs addressing. We couldn’t agree more! Once again we find Mathison’s response more than “shallow,” it is nonexistent!
Just in passing, on Hebrews 9:8, — I would agree with commentators who would identify the “first” compartment being the Holy Place (not the entire tabernacle) – symbolizing the Old Covenant age still having a “legal standing,” “have status” or “functioning” and the Most Holy Place being representative of the New Covenant age in-breaking upon the old.  Full and complete face to face access (of the age changing process between AD 30 -AD 70) is given behind the veil within the Most Holy Place at the blowing of the last trumpet when the Second Coming of Christ takes place in AD 70 (Rev. 11:15-19; 21:16–22:3-4, 6-7, 10-12, 20; 1 Cor. 13:12/2 Cor. 3:7–5:10/6:16).
The context of Hebrews 9-10 is the same in which we see developed in Acts 1:6–2:20ff.–3:17-23:

  • A exhortation given to a contemporary audience regarding an imminent judgment/salvation (forgiveness of sin).
  • Concerning the “time of reformation” connected to…
  • The coming of the Lord – a second time.

Partial Preterism (in this case as seen in the hateful Talbot cult obsessed with bearing false witness against Full Preterism – almost on a daily basis as documented on David Greens pretcosmos yahoo list) continues in its hardness in fighting against the analogy of Scripture when trying to reconciling all of the component parts of Acts 1-3 with passages they say were fulfilled by AD 70.  The vast majority of Christianity and creedal statements understands the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 as the same event as depicted in Matthew 24-25/1 Thess. 4-5/Rev. 1:7 etc… They also correctly identify the Great Commission in Acts 1:8 with that of Matthew 24:14; Mark 16:15-18/Matthew 28:18-20.  If the church is still in the “last days” (depending on which Mathison or Partial Preterist book you read now days) and the commission of the disciples has not been reached throughout the “world” / “every nation under heaven” or to “all nations,” then Mathison and reformed Partial Preterists should be open to speaking in tongues and reworking their theology on the charismata (Acts 1-2; Mark 13:10; 16:15-18).  Selah.
Conclusion:
When we compare Acts 1:6-11 with the rest of the NT addressing its various motifs —

  • How Christ went (hidden in the glory cloud) was being formed in the Church and returned “in like manner” (hidden in glory and “in” or “within” the Church).
  • When the “restoration of the kingdom” would come connected to its day/hour and times and seasons…
  • The Great Commission being preached throughout the “world” (Greek ge) being when…
  • Christ would appear a “second time” at the end of the Old Covenant age (even quoting Partial Preterist theologians themselves on Acts 1:9-11/Heb. 9:26-28/Matt. 24-25/Rev. 1:7) we can readily see…
  • That the Second Coming of Christ was fulfilled by AD 70.

Partial Preterists have to continue to kick against the goads seeking the “validation of men” in order to please their creedal supporters and hide from these “simple” truths of Scripture.  We affirm that the creeds are correct in that Acts 1:6-11/Acts 3:20-21/Matt. 24:30-31; 25:31ff. are one event and describe the judgment and resurrection of the “quick and the dead.”  But according to Luke in the book of Acts and Jesus, these were event’s that were “about to” take place in Jesus’ and Luke’s first century “this generation” (Acts 17:31YLT/WEY; Acts 24:15YLT/WEY; Matt. 24:30-34).  And yet this article/response is to Talbot-Jason and Talbot-Frost whom are now quoting reformed creeds and confessions which actually connects Acts 1:11 with Matthew 24:30; 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 22:20 (which they claim happened in AD 70) as the SAME EVENT!  Partial Preterism continues to lead their readers into Full Preterism no matter what they do – selah.  [facebook][tweet][stumble][pinterest][follow id=”Username” ]


[1] Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ; Baker Book House; pp. 246-247 see note #34 too)
[2] R.C. Sproul, THE LAST DAYS ACCORDING TO JESUS, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 106.
[3] Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 441-442.

 

The ABC’s of Matthew 24-25=1 Thessalonians 4-5=1 Corinthians 15 Embracing the Organic Development of Full Preterist Synthesis Or the Myth of Orthodox “Unity” on the “Essentials” – You Decide

The ABC’s of Matthew 24-25=1 Thessalonians 4-5=1 Corinthians 15

 Embracing the Organic Development of Full Preterist Synthesis

Or the Myth of Orthodox “Unity” on the “Essentials” You Decide

By Michael J. Sullivan
Copyright 2009 – revised and expanded 2013

Since this article is by far one of my most popular ones and has helped so many people come out of their journey from reformed Amillennialism and Partial Preterism into Full Preterism, I decided to add a section at the end which further demonstrates how Full Preterism synthesizes and is the organic development of the two reformed competing views on many eschatological subjects and key texts — all the while exposing the myth that these two views can somehow be “united” in the alleged future “essentials” of eschatology.  For footnotes of what I say about each view – one should get a copy of our book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?.
Hermeneutics is defined as “the study or science of interpreting the Scriptures.” The Westminster Confession of Faith correctly states that, “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”[1] J.I. Packer understands this to mean “that we must give ourselves in Bible study to following out the unities, cross-references and topical links which Scripture provides.”[2]
In mathematics and logic: If A bears some relation to B and B bears the same relation to C, then A bears it to C. Or the property of equality is transitive – for if A = B and B = C, then A = C.  Therefore, things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.
A = (Matt. 24:27-31, 34)
B = (1 Thess. 4:15-17)
C = (1 Cor. 15)

THE CURRENT CONTRADICTION & DIVIDED HOUSE OF FUTURISM WITHOUT FULL PRETERISM:

Orthodox Reformed Partial Preterism (ex. R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, etc…) Teaches the Church That:
A (Matt. 24:27-31) was fulfilled when Christ returned in AD 70 in Jesus’ “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). For the Partial Preterist Jesus’ statement of “this generation” (AD 30-70) connected with the NT’s imminent time texts “at hand,” “shortly,” “soon,” “quickly,” “in a very little while,” “about to,” also refer to an AD 70 fulfillment (cf. Romans 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; James 5:7-9; Hebrews 8:13–10:37; Revelation 1:1, 3:11, 10:6-7, 22:6-7, 10-12, 20) and are the “speak more clearly” texts.  We agree with them on this point.  While ignoring the “clear” proposition of Biblical Preterism and traditional Amillennialism that A (Matt. 24:27-31) is equal to B (1 Thess. 4:15-17), they do affirm that both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15) are equal to each other and are the Second Coming and resurrection events.
Orthodox Reformed Classic & Creedal Amillennialism Teaches the Church That:
A (Matt. 24:27-31) = B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and that both A (Matt. 24:27-31) and B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) = C (1 Cor. 15).  For example the very Reformed Study Bible in which Partial Preterists R.C. Sproul and Keith Mathison are editors we learn this from an Amillennialist contributor concerning Matt. 24:29-31:
“But the language of Matt. 24:31 is parallel to passages like 13:41; 16:27; and 25:31 [passages Partial Preterists say were fulfilled in AD 70], as well as to passages such as 1 Cor. 15:52 and 1 Thess. 4:14-17.  The passage most naturally refers to the Second Coming.”[3]
Luther, Calvin and even the WCF itself affirms that Matt. 24:30-31/Luke 21:27-28 is the Second Coming event.  While ignoring the “clear” proposition of Biblical and Partial Preterism on Jesus’ use of “this generation” and the imminent time texts, the traditional Amilennialist sees that the analogy of Scripture and the fact that the NT only teaches ONE second coming (not a third) is the hermeneutical “speak more clearly” teaching of Scripture.  We agree with them on this proposition as well.

THE BETTER HERMENEUITCS, LOGIC & SYNTHESIS OF BIBLICAL OR FULL PRETERISM 

Orthodox (“straight”) Biblical Preterism Objects To The Combined Contradictory Statements In That If…
A (Matt. 24:27-31) was fulfilled in AD 70, and if A (Matt. 24:27-31) is equal to both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15), then both B (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and C (1 Cor. 15) were fulfilled at Christ’s parousia in AD 70. In other words, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. If equals be added to equals, the wholes are equal.”   
“If A (Matt. 24:27-43) bears some relation to B (1 Thess. 4:15 – 1 Thess. 5)” or “A=B”:
If A (Matt. 24) is = to B (1 Thess. 4-5) and B (1 Thess. 4) is = to C (1 Cor. 15) Then A (Matt. 24) is = to C (1 Cor. 15)

Since A (Mat. 24) = B (1 Thess. 4)
Christ Returns from Heaven 24:30 4:16
With Voice of Arch Angel 24:31 4:16
With Trumpet of God 24:31 4:16
Caught/Gathered Together with/to Christ 24:31 4:17
“Meet” the Lord in the Clouds 24:30 & 25:6 4:17
Exact Time Unknown 24:36 5:1-2
Christ Comes as a Thief 24:43 5:2
Unbelievers Caught Off Guard 24:37-39 5:3
Time of Birth Pangs 24:8 5:3
Believers Not Deceived 24:43 5:4-5
Believers to Be Watchful 24:42 5:6
Exhorted to Sobriety 24:49 5:7
Son/Sunlight Shinning From E. to W. / Sons of the Day 24:27, 36, & 38 5:4-8
And B (1 Thess. 4) =  C (1 Cor. 15)
The Sleeping to Be Raised 4:13-14 15:12-18
The Living to Be aught/Changed 4:15-17 15:51-52
Christ’s Coming (Greek: Parousia) 4:15 15:23
At the Sound of the Trumpet 4:16 15:52
Encouraged to Stand Firm 4:18 15:58
Same Contemporary “We” 4:15-17 15:51-52
Then A (Matt. 24)  =  C (1 Cor. 15)
Christ to Come (Greek: Parousia) 24:27 15:23
His People to Be Gathered/Changed 24:31 15:52
To Come with the Sound of a Trumpet 24:31 15:52
To Be “The End” (Greek telos, the goal) 24:3, 14 15:24
Kingdom Consummation (goal reached) Luke 21:30-32 15:24
All Prophecy Fulfilled at This Point Luke 21:22 15:54-55
Victory over the Law/Temple Mat. 24:1 15:55-56
Same Contemporary “We” Mat. 24:2ff 15:51-52

Two or More Things that Are Equal to Another Thing Are Also Equal to Each Other.

Matthew 24                     1 Thessalonians 4          1 Corinthians 15 

At His Coming (24:27-31) = At His Coming (4:16) = At His Coming (15:23)
At the Trumpet (24:31) = At the Trumpet (4:16) = At the Trumpet (15:52)
Dead Raised, All Gathered (24:31) = Dead Raised (4:16) = Dead Raised (15:35-44)
All Living Gathered
(24:31)
= Living Caught Together to Him (4:17) = Status of Living Changed (15:51)

PREMISE #1:  The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 took place in AD 70 (according to partial preterists and Biblical preterists)
PREMISE #2:  The parousia/coming of Christ in Matthew 24 is the same coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 (according to traditional amillennialists and Biblical preterists)
CONCLUSION:  The parousia/coming of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15 took place in AD 70.
Preterists unite these two clear premises from both groups:
1. Partial Preterism – The imminent time texts concerning the parousia of Christ, judgment/resurrection of the dead = AD 70 and…
2. Classical Amillennialism – The analogy of Scripture supports only one NT “hope” of a Second Coming/judgment/resurrection of the living and dead.
Therefore, we “…speak more clearly” and consistently in our debate with futurists.  The divided corporate Reformed “House” contains the two premises (which we assume are true) and we are simply uniting the two valid premises into one new House.  We’re validating the Reformed and Sovereign Grace House by accepting both of it’s competing premises, and then uniting them, further honoring the Reformed and Sovereign Grace House.  This has and will continue to appeal to Reformed and Sovereign Grace believers as Biblical preterism spreads throughout their churches.   We are making a motion to revise the creeds to make them more “orthodox” (straight) with the “more clear” teaching of Scripture–“Sola Scriptura” and “Semper Reformanda”–selah.
If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
A (Matt. 24:27-31, 34 fulfilled in AD 70) = B (1 Thess. 4:15-17 fulfilled in AD 70)  = C (1 Cor. 15 fulfilled in AD 70).
Again, I couldn’t agree more with the editors and authors of THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE:
1)  (Matthew 24:27-31, 34) is descriptive of Christ’s invisible parousia taking place in Jesus’ “this [AD 30 – AD 70] generation” and…
2) Matthew 24:27-31 “Most naturally refers to the Second Coming” and is “parallel” to or the same event as developed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:52.
Synthesis or “Reformed and always reforming”:  Thus the inevitable conclusion is that the Full Preterist view is both “Orthodox” and “Reformed” – Selah.  It is exciting to see (through emails and phone calls) that students of Reformed eschatology are properly learning their ABC’s of Biblical prophecy through Full Preterism and how our view is “Bridging the Gap” between the two futurist contradictory and competing views of Partial Preterism and classic Amillennialism.
Article Expansion
Although originally this article focused on how only the Full Preterism can harmonize what reformed eschatology has taught and is teaching on Matthew 24/1 Thessalonians 4-5/1 Corinthians 15, I would like to expand this now to other eschatological subjects and key texts.  I also want to turn my attention on exposing the “reformed” myth that reformed eschatology can be united on the future (to us) “essentials of eschatology.”
The Last Days

1)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” refers to the time of Christ’s first coming and extends to His one eschatological end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming.
2)      Partial Preterism – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” was a period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70 which closed the Old Covenant age (Gary DeMar & Joel McDurmon).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The NT’s use of the “latter or last days” refers to the time of Christ’s first coming and extends to His one eschatological end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming which was a period roughly from AD 30 – AD 70 which closed the Old Covenant age.
 “This age” and “the age to come”
 1)      Classic Amillennialism – The NT’s use of “this age” is the New Covenant Christian age and the “age to come” is when the one consummative end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming, resurrection and judgment of the living and dead and arrival of the new creation takes place.
2)      Partial Preterism – The NT’s use of “this age” was the then current Old Covenant age and the use of “the age to come” was the imminent arrival of the New Covenant or Christian age in AD 70 (Gary DeMar & Joel McDurmon).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The NT’s use of “this age” is the Old Covenant age and the “age to come” is the New Covenant age at which time the one imminent consummative end time event of “the parousia” / Second Coming, resurrection and judgment of the living and dead and arrival of the new creation took place in AD 70.
 The Resurrection and Judgment of the living and dead
1)      Classic Amillennialism – There is only one end time consummative eschatological resurrection and judgment of the living dead event which takes place at the one “the parousia” at the “end of the age.”
2)      Partial Preterism – There was a judgment and resurrection of the living and dead at “the parousia” in AD 70 at “the end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70.  This resurrection of the dead was:

  1. Spiritual and unseen.
  2. Corporate and covenantal.
  3. Of souls taken out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades to receive eternal life in God’s presence (James Jordan).

3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – There is only one end time consummative eschatological resurrection and judgment of the living dead event which takes place at the one “the parousia” at the “end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70.  This resurrection of the dead was:

  1. Spiritual and unseen.
  2. Corporate and covenantal.
  3. Of souls taken out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades to receive eternal life in God’s presence.

Seeing Christ coming on the clouds at His Second Appearing (Acts 1:9-11; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7 and Hebrews 9:26-28)
1)      Classic Amillennialism – The one and final visible bodily Second Appearing/Coming of Christ is described for us again in (Acts 1:11; Matthew 24:30;Revelation 1:7 and Hebrews 9:26-28).  He returns literally on the clouds at the end of the age(s) and we will see Him with our literal eyes.  Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
2)      Partial Preterism – The “seeing” of Christ in the Greek of (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7) means to “understand” or “perceive.”  Through the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ came in power through the Zealot and Roman armies they “saw” “perceived” or “understood” that He had “already” come (Mark 8:38-9:1).  It is not hermeneutically valid to separate the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 from His coming in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7.  They are the same coming and took place in AD 70.  It is also true that hermeneutically / exegetically / logically that Christ’s appearing / coming a “second time” in Hebrews 9:26-28 is Him appearing at the end of the Old Covenant age(s) in AD 70 (Milton Terry).  Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The “seeing” of Christ in the Greek of (Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7) means to “understand” or “perceive.”  Through the events of AD 66 – AD 70 when Christ came in power through the Zealot and Roman armies they “saw” “perceived” or “understood” that He had “already” come (Mark 8:38-9:1).  It is not hermeneutically valid to separate the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11 from His coming in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7.  They are one and the same coming of Christ and took place in AD 70.  It is also true that hermeneutically / exegetically / logically that Christ’s appearing / coming a “second time” in Hebrews 9:26-28 is describing Him appearing at the end of the Old Covenant age(s) in AD 70 and corresponds to the same coming described in the next chapter that would be “in a very little while” and would “not be delayed” (Heb. 10:37).  Hebrews 9:26-28 is also describing Christ’s appearing as our High Priest to finish and complete salvation for the Church.
The Millennium
1)      Classic Amillennialism – The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time which does not have to be a very long time.  It is a period extending from Christ’s first coming to His one eschatological end time “the parousia” / Second Coming to close “this age” and judge and raise the rest of the dead.  The WCF confirms that the coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation is indeed His Second Coming.  Revelation 20 recapitulates or is parallel to the same judgment scene depicted in Revelation 1-19 and 21-22.
2)      Partial Preterism –  The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time ending with the Second Coming of Christ and was or very possibly was from AD 30 – AD 70 (Sam Frost).  Revelation 20 does in fact “pick up where Daniel leaves off” in Daniel 12:1-7, 13 with Daniel himself being raised out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades inheriting eternal life and enjoying God’s presence (James Jordan).  The book of Revelation is John’s version of the Matthew 24-25 which cannot be divided and refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70 (Gary DeMar).  The only coming of Christ mentioned in the book of Revelation is imminent and therefore refers to His coming invisibly in AD 70 to judge Old Covenant Jerusalem/Babylon/The Great City.  Revelation is written in a recapitulation or parallel structure, with chapters 1-19 (and some of 20) and 21-22 being fulfilled in AD 70.
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) – The thousand years of Revelation 20 is a symbolic period of time which does not have to be a very long time and is therefore from AD 30 – AD 70 extending from Christ’s first coming to His one eschatological end time “the parousia” / Second Coming to close “this age” and judge  of   one eschatological end time Second Coming to close “this age” and judge and raise the rest of the dead.  The coming of Christ throughout the book of Revelation is imminent and is His actual Second Coming.  Revelation 20 does in fact “pick up where Daniel leaves off” in Daniel 12:1-7, 13 with Daniel himself being raised out of Abraham’s Bosom/Hades inheriting eternal life and enjoying God’s presence.  The book of Revelation is John’s version of the Matthew 24-25 which cannot be divided and refers to Christ’s coming in AD 70.  Revelation 20 recapitulates or is parallel to the same judgment scene depicted in Revelation 1-19 and 21-22.
The “groaning of creation” and the passing/fleeing of the old heavens and earth and the arrival of the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65-66; 2 Peter 3 & Revelation 21-22)
1)      Classic Amillennialism – There is one consummative eschatological end time passing and fleeing of the “elements” of the first heavens and earth and arrival of the new heavens and new earth and it arrives at the one “Day of the Lord” “the parousia” or Second Coming of Christ in the NT to close the end of the age.  There is no exegetical evidence to support two passings of the heavens and earth and arrival of a new heavens and a new earth in 2 Peter 3 or in Revelation 21-22.  These passages are clearly describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3.  Romans 8:18-23 is one unit and is also describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and the resurrection of the dead.  And “salvation” in (Romans 13:11-12) is the “redemption” of (Romans 8:23) and the same final “redemption” described by Jesus in (Luke 21:27-28).
2)      Partial Preterism – There was a covenantal passing of the “elements” of the “first” heavens and earth and a spiritual and unseen arrival of the new heavens and new earth at Christ’s “the parousia” to close “the end of the [Old Covenant] age” in AD 70.  The Day of Lord or “the parousia” caused the passing of the Old Covenant “elements” in (2 Peter 3) and this coming and de-creation “only” refers to AD 70.  Romans 8:18 is describing the glory that was “about to be” (cf. Young’s Literal Translation) revealed “in” the first century believers in AD 70 (Gary DeMar).  The “creation” (Gk. kitisis) here is not referring to planet earth but to the creation of people as in (Mark 16:15/Colossians 1:23) (John Lightfoot).  The “bondage,” “futility” and “decay” here is not discussing the second law of thermodynamics of the planet, but rather man groaning under sin in the heart and mind (John Lightfoot).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) –  There is one consummative eschatological end time passing and fleeing of the “elements” of the “first” heavens and earth and arrival of the new heavens and a new earth and it arrives at the one “Day of the Lord” “the parousia” or Second Coming of Christ in the NT to close the end of the [Old Covenant] age in AD 70.  There is no exegetical evidence to support two passing(s) or two fleeing(s) of the heavens and earth and arrival of a new heavens and a new earth in 2 Peter 3 or in Revelation 21-22.  These passages are clearly describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and were fulfilled by AD 70.  Romans 8:18-23 is one unit and is also describing the fulfillment and restoration of Genesis 1-3 and the resurrection of the dead.  Romans 8:18-23 is describing the glory that was “about to be” (cf. Young’s Literal Translation) revealed “in” the first century believers and the Church by AD 70.  The “creation” (Gk. kitisis) here is not referring to planet earth but the creation of people as in (Mark 16:15/Colossians 1:23).  The “bondage,” “futility” and “decay” here is not discussing the second law of thermodynamics, but rather man groaning under sin in the heart and mind. The “salvation” in (Romans 13:11-12) is the “redemption of the body”(Romans 8:23) and the same final “redemption” described by Jesus at His Second Coming in (Luke 21:27-28) and were all eschatological events that were “near,” “at hand” and “about to be” fulfilled in Jesus’ contemporary “this generation.”
The Olivet discourse Matthew 24-25; Luke 21 Mark 13 
1)      Classic Amillennialism – Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 helps us understand all of the key eschatological themes (Second Coming/judgment and resurrection/passing of creation) developed in the rest of the NT (ex. 1-2 Thessalonians; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; Romans 8:18-23, 13:11-12, 16:20 and the Book of Revelation).
2)      Partial Preterism – Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided and the disciples question regarding the Temple’s destruction, His coming and the end of the age is referring to Christ’s invisible coming to close the Old Covenant age and “nothing else.”  One cannot “double fulfill” it’s content (Gary DeMar).
3)      Full Preterism (Synthesis / “Reformed and always reforming”) –  Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 helps us understand all of the key eschatological events (Second Coming/judgment and resurrection/de-creation and passing of creation) developed in the rest of the NT (ex. 1-2 Thessalonians; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3 and the Book of Revelation).  Matthew 24-25 cannot be divided and is referring to Christ’s invisible coming to close the Old Covenant age and “nothing else.”  One cannot “double fulfill” it’s content.
Indeed I could produce ABC charts here (as I have elsewhere on my sites) of the Olivet discourse with all of the main eschatological texts in the NT – 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20, etc…, just as I have with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

Conclusion

As one can plainly see the assertion that reformed orthodox eschatology is and can be united concerning the following:

  • The seeing of Christ on the clouds (the Second Coming) at the end of the last days or end of the age(s)…
  •  The judgment and resurrection of the dead at the end of the last days and end of the age(s)…
  • The liberation of creation and arrival of the New at the end of the last days or end of the age(s)…

…is nothing but a pure myth as long as the classic Amillennial position holds to the NT’s “one hope” “the [one] parousia” of Christ is future and the Partial Preterist view says it happened in AD 70.  As long as AD 70 is the “X factor” in all of these crucial eschatolocial passages and and it continues to be “orthodox” and the creedal Amillennial view affirms they are one and the same “end of the age” event, the ONLY way to harmonize the two is with the Full Preterist view.  This is how I came to the Full Preterist view – by comparing Scripture with Scripture (Matt. 24-25=1Thess. 4-5) and realizing the classic Amillennial view and Partial Preterist views were teaching (no matter if they realized it or not) that Christ’s ONE Second Coming happened in the First Century ie. AD 70.
Both the Amillennialist and the Postmillennial Partial Preterist claim that if Full Preterism is true then the Holy Spirit failed in guiding the Church in truth.  And yet if this is the case, this begs the question as to which “truth” did the Holy Spirit guide the Church in Amillennialism or Partial Preterism?  Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?  The truth of course is that this is not an either or choice between the two competing views since as I have demonstrated they are both right and yet at the same time both wrong.  The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church through Full Preterism as it unites the two views.  The truth has always been with us, it just hasn’t been put together correctly because of all of the in-fighting between the two and their upholding the reformed creeds as if they have the same authority as the Bible (tradition over Scripture).  And answering a foolish argument according to its folly – are they willing to say that the Holy Spirit failed to lead the Church on the issue of forensic justification for 1500 years prior to Luther?  Do they forget that the Roman Catholic Church and John Eck pointed out that Luther had to be wrong because he was teaching something totally new that had not been taught by the Church Fathers prior to him?!?
When will the Partial Preterist and the classic Amillennialist stop shooting at each other and writing the IVP 3-4 view type books (without Full Preterism being allowed to present the truth)?  The Partial Preterist view fires away at the Amillennial and Premillennial Dispensational views by arguing that they come dangerously close to denying the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible in their handling of the imminent time texts or their approaches to them are more akin to liberal treatments (DeMar & Sproul).  The Amillennialist fires back that the Partial Preterist is denying the reformed creeds (and shouldn’t be considered “reformed”) ripping asunder texts which are united through the analogy of Scripture principle of interpretation.  Wouldn’t it be more constructive for these two groups to humbly sit down at the table with Full Preterists to discuss the creedal position that the creeds are not infallible (as were the previous creeds they radically reformed) and thus really are subject to Scripture and change on eschatology — and that if both the classical Amillennialial and Partial Preterist views are true, then Full Preterism is true!  The day will come and it is inevitable – it is just a matter of when.

 


[1] Westminster Confession of Faith, I. ix.
[2] J.I. Packer, The Interpretation of Scripture, from ‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God (Inter-Varsity Press, 1958), pp. 101-114. http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html
[3]   THE REFORMATION STUDY BIBLE, R.C. Sproul General Editor, (Orlando: FL, Ligonier Ministries) 1401.
[4] If we translate astrape in Matthew 24:27 as a “bright light” from the sun (instead of lightning) coming from the east and shining to the west, then this parallel that I have seen is also possible.