Revealing Eschatology.

Preterists argue that there is no "time gap" between the 69th and 70th seven of Daniel 9-26-27. They also argue that it is not supported anywhere in scripture. Are they correct? If so this would make those who believe and insist in a time gap (the futurists) to be in error in their teachings. But if it can be seen and "supported by scripture", then the preterists would be wrong in their teachings. So we can see how vital and important it is to find the true answer concerning this major issue called the "time gap" of Daniel's 70th seven. For the answer would have tremendous and dire consequences on the teachings and doctrines of either the preterist or futurists' camps. It will be noted here that I do not hold to the majority of the dispensationalists' doctrine of their end time teachings.

In beginning, Full Preterists believe that the text of the gospel prophecies, particularly those found in the Olivet Discourse, and all Old Testament prophecy were fulfilled by 70 A.D. That is all prophecy seen throughout the scriptures. Whereas partial preterists believe that all but Christ"s second coming, the resurrection of the dead, and the gathering of the elect which accompany it have not yet occurred in history. Unlike full preterists, partial preterists place these things in the future.

Preterists also hypothesize that all of the New Testament books were written prior to 70 A.D., including the book of Revelation. This is essential to their theory because if prophetic texts such as Revelation were written after 70 A.D. they could no longer assert that prophecies concerning such things seen there took place in 70 A.D.

Since Matthew 24 is so critical to the Full Preterist's argument and is the chief proof-text upon which its system rests, it becomes vital to determine if their interpretation of Matthew 24 is correct. If we can demonstrate that full preterism has done a poor job of interpreting this important passage, than full preterism as a system becomes suspect, because so much of what full preterism teaches elsewhere is dependent on its interpretation of Matthew 24. This is a very important principle because no matter how carefully we construct a building, if the foundation is shaky, we do not have a safe structure. And this certainly applies to the dispensationalists also.

Before we discuss Matthew 24 and related passages, we must talk about the eschatological anticipation of the Old Testament and the role it played with the Jews of Jesus' day concerning the coming of the Messiah. To do this we will ask two important questions: First, what kind of picture does the Old Testament, without the aid of the New Testament, paint for us concerning the coming of the Messiah? Second, what did the Jews of Jesus' day anticipate would occur when the Messiah came? The answers to these questions will accomplish two things: First, they will aid in our interpretation of passages like Matthew 24 because they will help us to understand how the disciples thought at that moment. This will help us understand what they meant when they asked, "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24-3). We must always seek to understand the context by asking some key questions: Who is speaking? To whom are they speaking? About what are they speaking? In what manner are they speaking? How would their original audience have understood them? This last question is vital to a correct understanding of the author's intent in this passage. We want to know what Jesus intended the disciples to learn from his words, and why Matthew included them in his gospel. What is Matthew's point? Matthew's theme in his gospel is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah that brings the kingdom of heaven to earth and his intended audience is Jewish. Matthew's readers did not need Jewish customs explained, they knew all about them. Matthew intended for his Jewish readers to understand that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised Son of David, who brings the promised kingdom, but it is a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. Second, the answers to these questions will help us to build the framework for addressing the more difficult issues posed by full preterism, because it is at this point that full preterism fails to sufficiently recognize the distinction between what the Old Testament promised concerning the coming of the Messiah and what the New Testament explains about its fulfillment.

The first question we will explore is the kind of picture the Old Testament, without the aid of the New Testament gives us concerning the coming of the Messiah. To answer this question, we must talk about the covenant God made with David. God promised David an everlasting kingdom and told him that one of his descendants would reign from David's throne in Jerusalem forever (2 Samuel 7-16; Psalm 89-3-4). This is important to understand because David prefigures Christ, but that is not clear from the Old Testament alone. In confirming the covenant he made with David, God tells the prophet Nathan: "And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from your enemies" (2 Samuel 7-10-11). Years later, the prophet Isaiah restated this promise of a ruler from David over Jerusalem.

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this" (Isa. 9-6-9).

Ezekiel speaks the same theme: "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. Then the nations will know that I the Lord make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever" (Ezek. 37-24-28).

The original audience to whom these passages were addressed would have understood them thusly: First, the promised Messiah would liberate Israel from her enemies and establish a literal physical kingdom centered in Jerusalem. He would remove the wicked nations from around Israel and give her complete rest from all who oppress her. Second, both Isaiah and Ezekiel picture the ruler who is to come as a political ruler who would establish David's kingdom in Jerusalem forever. He will govern Israel from David's throne in Jerusalem. This anticipated son of David would liberate Israel from her physical enemies and lead the Jews into peace and prosperity as he rules from David's throne in Jerusalem.

Our second question addresses what the Jews of Jesus' day anticipated would occur when the Messiah came. This question is inseparable from the first one and is actually a by-product of it. To answer it, let's turn our attention to five New Testament examples of what the Jews of Jesus' day expected with the coming of the Messiah.

Simeon serves as our first example of what the Jews anticipated with the coming of the Messiah. This is found in Luke 2-25-38. In the context of the passage, Joseph and Mary appeared at the temple after the days of their purification were over to consecrate Jesus and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with the law of Moses (Lev. 12-1-8). The Holy Spirit had revealed to Simeon that he would see the Christ before his death (v.26) and when Simeon saw Jesus he recognized him as the anointed Messiah. The text tells us that he "was waiting for the consolation of Israel" (v.25). In other words, Simeon was anticipating a Messiah that would rescue and console Israel upon his arrival. His eschatology was Israel-centered and his expectation was for the liberation of Israel from her oppressors, as God had promised David.

John the Baptist serves as the next example of what the Jews of Jesus' time anticipated with the coming of the Messiah. Matthew writes in chapter 3 that John came as the forerunner to the Messiah and preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near" (v.2). Later in the same chapter, he tells us what he meant when he said, "the kingdom of heaven is near";  "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3-11-12). John is using Old Testament judgment language throughout this passage, from 7 to verse 12; it is all judgment. John contrasts his baptism with water for repentance with Messiah's baptism of fire for judgment. The one who brings the baptism of fire is Jesus, and the means he uses to accomplish it is the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have been familiar with the Old Testament language that John employed, and what that language signified. They would have understood everything in John's diatribe against them as threats of judgment. John is telling the Pharisees and Sadducees that the kingdom long promised is at hand, and its coming brings wrath and judgment.

Later when John having been imprisoned heard what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matt. 11-2-3). This tells us that John thought Jesus should be doing something other than what he was doing by the fact that he was not performing the way John thought he should. It seems that John also thought and anticipated the same thing that Simeon and Anna anticipated, namely the redemption of Jerusalem as promised to David centuries earlier. Jesus responds with the proof of who he is by pointing John's disciples to the evidences of his ministry (Matt. 11-4-5: Luke 4-22; Isa. 61-1-2).

This evidence however, is restricted to Christ's first coming and any kind of distinction between a first and second coming may have been foreign to John's thinking at that point in time. John was anticipating Messiah's work as judgment of Israel's enemies and the establishment of a physical literal kingdom. Jesus was not acting like Messiah, he was acting like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. John had probably not fused the two into one, and Jesus' actions confused him. Jesus' proof of his ministry may have puzzled John even more. It is as if Jesus is saying, "John this kingdom business is about both favor and judgment. You are witnessing only one aspect at the present. Do not give up hope that I will bring in the kingdom with judgment. You are seeing the Servant aspect of my ministry; I am also the king. The Servant and the King are one." Today "we" know that the Servant and Messiah are one; John did not have that perspective until Jesus showed him. It is not clear from this text that any concept of two comings of Messiah had entered John's thinking at all, nor does Jesus make that point. His point here is that Messiah and the Servant are one and the same person, and that his work is to fulfill both roles. I do not think we can read any reference to two comings of Messiah into this passage. This passage reinforces the idea that a two-part appearance of Messiah was foreign to the Jews of Jesus' day, but it does not introduce the concept into their thinking at this point.

For our fourth example of what the Jews expected with the coming of the Messiah, we will use the account of Cleopas and the unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus. This narrative is found in Luke 24-13-27. The resurrected Lord joins these two disciples as they walk along the road to Emmaus and he begins to discourse with them about his death on the Cross, days earlier (vv.13-18). We then get a glimpse into how they viewed the coming of Messiah and what they expected as a result. They said, "The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24-20-21). This is an amazing statement, even after spending time with Jesus during his ministry, these two disciples still did not understand what was going on, but were looking instead to a literal earthly kingdom. They failed to understand "all" that Old Testament prophets wrote concerning the Messiah. He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe "all"that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said "in "all" the scriptures "concerning himself." (Luke 24-25-27).

These two disciples failed to understand all that the Old Testament prophets wrote about Messiah because they failed to see that all the figures of future visitations from God were tied up in one person. The prophet like Moses, the Son of Man, the Suffering Servant, and the son of David. Messiah encompasses all of them, but that would not have been clear without the explanation provided by Jesus.

For our fifth example, we will look at the eleven apostles and the text will be Acts 1-6. There we read, "So when they met together, they asked him, Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" An Israel-centered eschatology is a common thread that binds the disciples prior to Pentecost. The unnamed disciple on the road to Emmaus not one of these eleven, but both he and Cleopas reported to the eleven what the Lord had said to them (Luke 24-33). Evidently the eleven still did not grasp it. Why? The promise to David played a major role and the disciples continued to expect a literal restoration of Israel "with Jesus as king on David's throne in Jerusalem." (As dispensationalists do today). What makes this more intriguing is that the events recorded in Acts chapter 1 occur more than thirty days after the event on the road to Emmaus, and the Lord had appeared numerous times to all the disciples since then. Now he is about to ascend into heaven; the opening of the New Covenant era is ten days away, and yet the burning question on the disciples' minds is "WHEN are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" It was not until after Pentecost that the apostles were able to accurately interpret scripture and put the Davidic covenant in its proper hermeneutical context, they explained it to the crowd gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. The people who heard the explanation were "cut to the heart" (Acts 2-37). Not only had they rejected God's Messiah when he came, but they realized from the Old Testament scriptures that the coming of Messiah meant judgment. Thus the urgency of their question, "What must we do to be saved?" This is not so much a soteriological question as an eschatological one. "How may we escape the sure judgment that comes with the Messiah and the Holy Spirit?" Peter's answer addresses their fears of judgment, "Repent and be baptized, and the Holy Spirit will come to you" not in the fire of judgment but as the gift that was promised to Abraham.

For the Jews of Jesus' day, the coming of the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God meant "to the Jews" that the Messiah would rule from David's throne in Jerusalem bringing with it restoration, comfort and peace to the nation of Israel, and judgment to her enemies. Jesus' definition of the kingdom of God caught the Jews off guard. Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, Here it is, or There it is, because the kingdom of God is within (among) you" (Luke 17-20). They expected a literal fulfillment to the covenant promise God made with David and missed the point that what God had promised to David would find its complete fulfillment beginning in a "spiritual nation" under the New Covenant, the church (1 Peter 2-9-10). Ending in its complete fulfillment with the New Heavens and New Earth when God's judgment over all enemies is complete. (Revelation chapters 21-22).

The Davidic Covenant can also be seen in Jeremiah 31-31-40. We read in verse 31, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;---." In verse 35 he promises that if the sun, moon, and stars cease to shine, only then will "the seed of Israel also cease from being A NATION before me forever." This is clearly to mean a "literal earthly nation of Israel." we read the fulfillment of this promise in verses 38-40: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord---." Like we read in Jeremiah, the Davidic covenant has these same promises in this New Covenant. The promise that Israel would never cease to be a nation while the earth continues, is indicated by the disciple's question, which they scripturally understood, that we read in Acts 1-6; "---Lord are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" Which is also the reason why Jesus answered their question in the way he did: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons (literal earthly times and seasons), which the Father hath put in his own power. But (meantime) ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you (then you shall understand); and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Note here, that Jesus did not give the disciples a direct answer to their question concerning the kingdom being restored to Israel. That the literal kingdom of Israel would not, nor would ever be restored to Israel. If that were to be he would have told them that then and there, but since they would "in time" become a literal nation again is why Jesus responded in the way he did. That "the time" of "when it was to be restored" was "in his Father's power only"; was the answer he gave the disciples. But meantime they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit to spread the gospel throughout the world, in what we call the church age. God in his time would keep his promise of restoring them as a literal nation again, and we have seen that fulfillment in our time. As history shows, they became a nation again in 1948. The time of this restoration would be fulfilled during the course of the church age and after the events of Luke 21-20-24 are fulfilled. "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh" (v.20). We then read in verse 24, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL THE TIME OF THE GENTILES BE FULFILLED."

It can be seen that at the time of the ascension of Christ, the disciples were not clear "how this promise of Christ's kingdom would be fulfilled." Thus their question was not whether Christ would bring in or restore the kingdom, but rather "when" he would "restore" the kingdom (a nation kingdom) to Israel. He told them that it was not for them to know the times (of this prophecy) set by the Father. In effect, Christ confirmed that the prophesied restoration of the kingdom of Israel would in time occur. The question asked Christ here is important to understand concerning "what" was to be "restored?" They were not asking for a "spiritual restoration," but rather the prophesied restoration of "Israel's return to their land as a kingdom again, predicted in the Old Testament." The disciples obviously had difficulty in understanding that prior to the restoration of Israel, the present age would need to be fulfilled to a point, in which Gentiles would be brought in; this being the church age. This question came up in the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. In solving the problem, James quoted the prophecy of Amos 9-11-12. James concluded that scriptural prophecy indicated that there would be a time of Gentile blessing before the restoration of Israel as a kingdom could be brought in. This of course, is exactly what has occurred to this present age.

History shows us the truth of this prophecy. Since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews were persecuted and scattered worldwide until they became a nation again in 1948, thus fulfilling that part of the prophecy. And Jerusalem was trodden down by the Gentiles until 1967, where then Israel recaptured the city in the 1967 Eight Day War; ending the time of the trampling down on Jerusalem by the Gentiles. Thus fulfilled the prophecy of "Until the time of the Gentiles (trampling of Jerusalem) be fulfilled." Now that we have some insight into how the disciples viewed the end of the age, the coming of the Messiah, and the restoration of Israel as a nation; we need to go to some of the teachings of preterism. 

Preterists also see Daniel's 70^th week,and Matthew 24 of the Olivet Discourse (the tribulation period) as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., based on their exegesis of Matt. 16-28(and 24-34;10-23;26-64), which they imagine requires the Lord to have returned "specifically" in 70 A.D.

"Seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom---seeing the kingdom of God coming in power---seeing the kingdom of God" are but only two options in understanding this text; a false one, which could be many, and the true one. The Lord's promise refers to "literally seeing", as in a picture, or a fore-view, the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, which is in perfect accord with all other scripture revelation on the subject, particularly as to the "nature" of the kingdom. Before discussing the true interpretation of Matt. 16-28, we will give further scriptural proof of the weakness and error of the preterist theory here below.

"Seventy weeks ("seventy sevens" of years) are determined upon thy people (Daniel's people, Israel) and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem), to close the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make expiation for iniquity, and to bring in the righteousness of the ages, and to seal vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies. Know therefore and understand: From the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah, the Prince, are seven weeks, and sixty two weeks (69 weeks of years). The street and the moat shall be built again, even in troubling times. And after the sixty two weeks (the 7 weeks and 62 weeks of years, and not after 69 and a half weeks, during and into the 70^th week; but after "69 weeks") shall Messiah be cut off (Jesus' death at the cross), and shall have nothing (his earthly kingdom glory, Rev. 21-22); and (sometime "after" the 69 weeks of years) the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Not the coming prince himself, but the "people" of this prince that shall come; and not the people of the Messiah/Prince who was cut off, but the people of "this prince" that is yet to come here. The prophetic figure spoken of earlier in Dan. 7-7-8,20-21,24-26, who is seen in verse 27, the next verse.

It is this "people" that shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, which was fulfilled in the 70 A.D. Destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Roman "people," the Roman Empire. This after an almost 40 year gap from the expiration of the 69 weeks of years and the "cutting off" of the Messiah. Then we read,"And the end thereof shall be with an overflow, and unto the end, war and the desolations determined. And he (the prince that shall come spoken of in the preceding verse) shall confirm a covenant with many for one week (for the final seven of the 70^th week of years, at an unrevealed time in history "after" the 70 A.D. Destruction of the city and sanctuary. And certainly Christ, the Messiah/Prince never confirmed any covenant with anyone for a "specific seven year period" after 70 A.D., or at any other time; nor did Titus Vespasian); and in the midst of the week (the midpoint of the 70^th week) he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease and because of the overspreading of abominations he shall make desolate even until the consummation and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate" (Dan. 9-24-27).

We see, according to Daniel, the destruction of Jerusalem takes place "after" the end of the 69 weeks, and after the Messiah/Christ is cut off by death on the cross, and that "before" the start of the 70^th week, not "during" the 70^th week. Therefore the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Could not have been the fulfillment of Daniel's 70^th week. The 70^th week would have to be fulfilled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

The preterists and others who reject a "time gap" between the end of the 69^th week and beginning of the 70^th week when it would come to fulfillment can be seen when we apply this passage of Daniel with Luke 21-20,22 and 24. We read in Dan. 9-26, "And the people (Rome and its armies) of the prince* that shall come* shall destroy the city and the sanctuary (the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) and the end thereof (of the temple and Jerusalem shall be) with a flood, and unto the END OF THE WAR (the) desolations (that) are determined." Now what is meant, AFTER JERUSALEM'S FALL of "until the end of the war and desolations that are determined to occur AFTER that period and length of that time?" Our answers to that are seen in the passages of Luke chapter 21. There we read:

(V.20), "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies (by Rome in 67A.D.), then know that the desolation thereof (the trampling of Jerusalem) is nigh."

(V.22), "For these be the days(times) of vengeance, that all things which are written (all prophetic scripture to be written) may be fulfilled."* Now its very important to note here that at the time Jesus prophesied this (in 30A.D.), "all prophetic scripture" (the New Testament), had not as yet been written.*

(V.24), "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." This passage in Luke 21-24 answers the prophetic passage given us in Dan. 9-26. "--unto the end of the war (beginning from the fall of Jerusalem and temple in 70A.D.) AND ( the) desolations (during that time that) are determined." That time (time gap*) being from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and fulfillment of the end of the desolations or trodding down of Jerusalem." Where as noted, history shows us the truth of this prophecy's fulfillment. Since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews were persecuted and scattered worldwide until they became a nation again in 1948, thus fulfilling that part of the prophecy. And Jerusalem was trodden down by the Gentiles until 1967, where then Israel recaptured the city in the 1967 Eight Day War; ending the time of the desolations and trampling down on Jerusalem by the Gentiles. This passage of Dan. 9-26, and Luke 21-20-22-24 involve these two major events, the world wide persecution of the Jews and the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles until its fulfillment, and separated by a span of time. That span of time, or  "time gap," being fulfilled when "the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

This is why the disciples expanded their question to Jesus while on the Mt. Of Olives later in the evening after he had given the discourse given to his public earlier in the temple grounds given us in Luke chapter 21. Of the Jews persecution, the fall of Jerusalem, and trampling of Jerusalem "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," (Luke 21-20-24); and time of his coming. ( Luke 21-27-28). The first part of the question "When shall these things be?" relates to what was asked earlier in the temple grounds by the disciples as is seen in Luke 21. But here in Matthew on the Mount, they ask, "When shall these things be? AND what shall be the sign of thy coming, AND of the end of the age?" Then Jesus goes on and gives his discourse of all the events that would need to occur to their fulfillment, prior to his second coming. "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21-28).

Matthew 24-29-31 speaks of the fulfillment of those times spoken of in Luke chapter 21: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

"Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION (living then) SHALL NOT PASS, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth SHALL pass away (Rev. 21-1), but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24-34-35). Now that we have given scriptural evidence concerning the prophecy of Dan. 9-27 and the much debated "time gap", we continue on with a few more of the preterist teachings and doctrines that concern this issue.

Also true is that Matthew 24 of the Olivet Discourse could not have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For our Lord in Matt. 24-15 refers to the 70^th week of Dan. 9-27 saying, "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place---." This tells us that Matthew 24 "coincide with" the fulfillment of Daniel's 70^th week. Thus the Lord Jesus provides the indisputable "timing" for the fulfillment of Matthew 24, in that it is fulfilled whenever the 70^th week is fulfilled. So again, as Dan. 9-26 explains that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place "after" the end of the 69^th week, after Messiah/Christ is cut off in death , and "before" the start of the 70^th week. Therefore Matthew 24 could not have been fulfilled in the 70 A.D. Destruction of Jerusalem, but must be fulfilled sometime future to Jerusalem's fall in 70 A.D.

The king Jesus becomes very specific concerning the end time by referring to the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. The Greek word translated "therefore" (Matt. 24-15) links this section very closely to the preceding. Both passages speak of the end of the age, but Matt. 24-15-22 gives specifically one great event in that time. That event is the prophesied abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. Our Lord makes clear that Matthew 24 of the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70^th week are indissolubly linked, and thus to be fulfilled sometime future to 70 A.D. So here, we see based on Dan. 9-26-27, Matt. 24-15, and other passages relating, that Daniel's 70^th week requires a fulfillment sometime after the 70 A.D. Destruction of Jerusalem.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the preterist view of Matt. 16-28 is correct, that some of the disciples standing there would not die till they see him coming to  "actually establish" his kingdom, it still in no way entails the preterist doctrine that the coming of the Son of Man and establishment of the kingdom in 70 A.D. was that fulfillment. For Matt. 16-28 says "not one word" as to "when" he would actually do so. Though we have shown that it would have to be sometime "after" 70 A.D., and after the fulfillment of Daniel's 70^th week. All such preterist notions have been "assumed" and read into the text without any scriptural basis whatsoever.

"Seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom---seeing the kingdom of God come in power---seeing the kingdom of God," in Matt. 16-28, Mark 9-1, and Luke 9-27, no more signifies the "actual establishment" of the kingdom than the "coming" of the kingdom of God in Matt. 12-28 entailed its "actual establishment" during his ministry. "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you" ( Matt. 12-28). This passage simply means not that the kingdom was established at that time, but that it was "come upon them," in the sense that the King has come, and could offer the kingdom. The kingdom of God was come upon them in the person and power of the King, Jesus Christ. And now that he has gone into the heavens, seated at the right hand of God, the "literal promised kingdom" is likewise gone and awaiting his return for its actual establishment after the fulfillment of all prophecy. That fulfillment which brings in Christ's Kingdom and the eternal state, in the New heaven and earth.

We first need to note that Jesus prophesied that the temple would be destroyed in Luke chapter 21. Whereas Matthew chapters 24-25 and Mark 13 both contain a discourse which occurs later in the evening on the Mount of Olives, hence the name, the Olivet Discourse. Luke 21, while containing some of the same aspects, is significantly different from Matthew and Mark. The first difference is that the basic framework of Matthew and Mark is missing from Luke. Matthew and Mark both possess sections which mention the beginning of birth pains, Matthew 24:4-8, Mark 13:5-8, the preaching of the gospel in the midst of persecution unto the end of the age, Matthew 24:9-14, Mark 13:9-13, and the section in Matthew 24:15-31, Mark 13:14-27, containing the clear sequence of ; 1. The Abomination of desolation, 2. The great tribulation, 3. the cosmic signs, 4. The coming of Christ, 5. The gathering of the elect. But Jesus' immediate response to the crowd recorded in Luke 21, occurred earlier in the day and not on the Mount of Olives.

In Luke, we have some description of those things which are described as birth pains in Matthew and Mark, but they are not designated as such. In Luke, we have persecution, but there is no mention that the gospel will be preached during this time of persecution for a witness " in all nations and then the end [of the age] will come. "The Abomination of Desolation, Daniel the prophet, the Great Tribulation, and the Gathering of the Elect are nowhere to be found in Luke 21. We do have mention of signs in the sun, moon, and stars, but not specifically what those signs will be. We also have mention of the Coming of the Son of Man. Also, there is no mention of the Discourse beginning on the Mt. of Olives in Luke. Jesus responds directly to the crowd speaking of a number of things including false Christs, wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and even great signs from heaven. He then talks about persecution for those who believe in Him. Then Jesus answers the question posed to Him concerning the destruction of the temple to the general public. He tells all who are standing in the temple court that when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies that the destruction (of which He had just spoken) is near. Every person clearly understood what Jesus the Prophet from Nazareth was saying. In the not too distant future, armies will surround Jerusalem and the temple will be desolated. Jesus goes on to say that this will begin a dispersion for Israelites during a time period which Jesus terms "the times of the Gentiles". Note that these comments are unique to Luke.

We see in Luke that the sign they asked for concerning the destruction of the Temple was given. The sign being that Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies. But then Jesus goes on to describe other events. After verse 24, the narrative continues. But there is a break in the text at that very point. The narration from verse 25 through 36 may very well be from a later point in time as Jesus is speaking only with His disciples. It is also possible that Jesus spoke these words in the hearing of the crowds as well. Either way, the main topic of this discourse was the destruction of the temple. The culmination is clearly seen  in verse 24. The main point still stands that Luke lays out Jesus' initial response as "occurring at the temple." Then "later on in the evening" when four of Jesus' disciples come to Him privately, the subject is slightly different. While we do not have the words in Mark, Matthew points out that the disciples are inquiring concerning "two things" which He had also spoken of throughout His ministry on different occasions. Those two things are His Coming and the End of the Age. The disciples' curiosity is peaked, for earlier they had heard Jesus speaking of those things in front of the crowds concerning the destruction of the temple. After this inquiry of his coming and the end of the age by the disciples, the response is what we know as the Olivet Discourse whose main subject is the coming of Christ not the destruction of the Temple since Jesus had already given those details in front of the crowds earlier.
Luke alone includes Mary and Joseph presenting Jesus as an infant at the temple in Jerusalem. Luke alone records the discussion during the transfiguration concerning the death of Christ which must happen at Jerusalem. Luke alone records the time when Jesus "set His face toward Jerusalem". Luke records the phrase, "it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." In Luke, Jesus anticipates those who believe that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear simply because He was going to Jerusalem. Luke alone records the address to the daughters of Jerusalem. Luke alone records the instructions to wait in Jerusalem until they received power from on high. Most notably, Luke is the only one who records Jesus weeping over Jerusalem. This event is just after the triumphal entry, which began at the Mount of Olives, and just before the cleansing of the temple. Luke 19-41-44," And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee: And they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

Luke's presentation of the answer to the question of the destruction of the temple clarifies what Jesus was weeping about as He beheld Jerusalem. Luke's gospel was published before Acts, which was published before the death of Paul, which occurred before the destruction of the temple. So as Luke included those words, their fulfillment was yet future. It is not difficult to see the similarity between these words and the words which Jesus uttered which prompted the questions from the crowd. Luke 21:6, " As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Jesus prophesied events that were fulfilled in 70 A.D., but the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in 70 A.D. It validated Jesus' ministry as a prophet to His generation. Luke 21 contains a discourse by Jesus at the Temple, and not on the Mt. of Olives.

The premise is that in Luke 21, the question is concerning the destruction of the temple and a sign to look for shortly before that destruction would happen. Jesus answers the question by describing the sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Later, in a private setting, four disciples come to Jesus and ask about when would these things happen, and more specifically, what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the age. Jesus then delivers the Olivet Discourse "which focuses exclusively on his coming since he has already answered questions regarding the destruction of the temple to the public earlier that day." All of Luke 21:8-36 was most likely spoken in public at the temple at the same time. In verse 24, Jesus has mentioned the dispersion of Israel amongst the Gentiles nations and Jerusalem being trodden down by Gentile nations, both continuing until the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled. Why would Jesus leave this issue open ended? Although His Coming was not inquired of, the description of this period in time should be followed by the conclusion of this period in time. As Jesus describes the sign of  His coming, He is giving "the conclusion for the times of the Gentiles." As Jesus inserts comments concerning his coming, he is not off-topic at all. The subject is still the destruction of the temple "which would lead into a period of time characterized by Israel being dispersed and Jerusalem trodden down." What brings "this time to a conclusion?" The Son of Man will come with power and great glory. Luke records the kingdom of God as being close at hand when these things come to pass. The kingdom of God's coming will obviously bring to a close the times of the Gentiles. So the comments that Jesus makes concerning his coming are appropriate even though he has not been asked concerning his coming in this setting. He is bringing the original question to a complete conclusion. No other gospel writer includes the words of Christ as Luke records them here. There are a few parallels, but they are not identical and contain significant differences. Consider the following:

Vs. 25--Has a vague parallel in the description of the cosmic signs in Matthew and Mark. However, Luke does not describe exactly what the sun, moon, and stars will do; just simply that there will be signs. Luke includes that there will be roaring of the waves of the sea as well.
Vs 26-- "Men's hearts failing them for fear." No other gospel writer records this.
Vs. 27--Christ coming with great power and glory. Parallels in other gospels, but not just in the Olivet Discourse. This is how Christ spoke on a number of occasions concerning His coming.
Vs. 28--"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." No other gospel writer records these words.
Vs. 29-33-- These words have parallels in the Olivet Discourse. The wording has a few key differences that leads us to believe that Christ spoke them during the " temple discourse, "then further clarified and spoke them again during the Olivet Discourse. In Luke, Jesus is speaking about the kingdom of God (His coming) as being after the conclusion for the times of the Gentiles. In Matthew and Mark, He has given the sign of the abomination of desolation to occur just before His coming. So the words apply slightly different to both circumstances.
Vs. 34-36-- "But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you unexpectedly. For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man." No other gospel writer records these words. They are unique to Luke. There is simply too much original material to believe that Luke copied from Mark or Matthew. Luke received his material from those who heard Jesus speak at the temple. Matthew and Mark received their material from those who heard Jesus speak on the Mount of Olives. We believe that Luke's entire discourse as recorded here in Luke 21 was spoken at the temple. There are parallels, but the first discourse led into the second discourse on the Mt. of Olives which prompted Jesus to review some of the things He had already said and to further clarify them to his disciples.

We read in Matt. 24-3, "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Greek; tes sunteleias tou aionos). Note here, the word "end" is "sunteleias," not "telos." These same words are used in Jesus' Great commission in Matt. 28-19-20, "---the end of the age." (tes sunteleias tou anoinos). We read in Matt. 24-22, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened." What does Jesus mean by "those days" that will be shortened, lest no flesh be saved? This indicates that certain events of "those days" of the "telos" (end) shall be shortened to bring in the "sunteleia" of the age, Jesus' second coming; lest no flesh be saved (would survive). And "no flesh" does not mean just Jewish humanity, but rather it means "all humankind." The destruction of Jerusalem would be just one event in a chain of events that would continue until finally "the Son of man" would be seen coming in a cloud with power and great glory. The "sunteleia" or end of the age spoken of by Jesus in Matt. 24-3 and Matt. 28-20.

In Mark 13-21-22 and  in Matt. 24-23-26, it indicates that at that time there shall be a great falling away due to the deceit of many false Christ's and false prophets. So deceitful and cunning, that if it were possible, Jesus warns, "they shall deceive the very elect." Jesus also warns us that at that time his coming is near and will come quickly. "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth (flashes) even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt. 24-27).

Preterists hold the time-text  references, particularly in the book of Revelation as teaching it requires, necessitates and demands a 1st century fulfillment seen here and in the Olivet Discourse, among others. That being within the 1st century generation specifically in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 A. D.

The Greek word "tachu" is to mean "swiftly" or "quickly" In Rev. 1-1 and 22-7, the Greek "en tachei" given there, literally reads (en) "in" (tachei) "speed." In swiftness, in speed,, or with swiftness with speed. "Tachos" (speed) is translated "quickly" in 22-7, and "tachos" (speed) is translated "shortly" in Rev. 1-1. In reading Rev. 1-1 literally, it is "---things (the prophetic events in the book) which must "in speed" (en tachei) come to pass;---." In Rev. 22-7 it literally reads, "Behold I come "in speed" ( or speedily); blessed (is) he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book" ( the entire book). So we see by the wording used here in Rev. 1-1 and 22-7, it is not referring to something happening "soon" as in the very near future as preterists take these words to mean. Rather the wording refers to "the rate of speed" in which these series of events given in Revelation will occur "when they come to pass." We read in Romans 16-20, "But the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet "shortly"---." This Greek phrase "shortly" is "tachos" or "speed" that is used here and is also found in Rev. 1-1 and 22-6, "---the things that must "shortly" (in speed) come to pass---." Here Romans 16-20 serves as a further argument against preterist time text references, for Satan has yet to receive his final crushing blow. Even though it has been nearly 2000 years since Paul wrote that this would "shortly" take place. But from the perspective of the believers both then and now, these events may be anticipated as to take place "shortly." So we have seen by the proper use of the wording and its context, the book of Revelation is NOT referring to something happening "soon" as preterists take these words to mean. Rather the wording refers to "the rate of speed" in which these series of events would occur when they came to pass. "Surely I come quickly (with speed). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22-20).

In closing note; It is a fact that without exception, every time Jesus is said to "come" with "clouds" in glory and power in the gospels and people "see" him (literally),  the Greek word "parousia" (to mean presence) is "not" used. The Greek word used to mean literally see is "erchomenon"--to literally see--, and is used in Matt. 24-30; Mark 13-26 and Luke 21-27. And this Greek word cannot be interpreted to mean some kind of invisible "presence" as preterists make that "coming" (parousia) out to be. For again, the word used is "erchomenon," and is to mean a "literal presence," or coming that can be viewed or literally seen with the physical eye.

The Greek word "coming" (parousia-presence) is given in Matt. 24-3,27,37,39. Where the Greek word "coming" (erchomai-literal presence) is given in Matt. 24-30,42,43,44. Both words given in these verses are seen as being interchangeable. That is they speak of not only his "coming presence", but at its fulfillment, his "literal presence." This certainly did not happen in 70 A.D. as the preterists, and partial preterists claim. So we see that these verses speak of not a 70 A.D. fulfillment, but a future fulfillment concerning those events that lead to the second coming of Christ.