Revealing Eschatology.

       

An Apologetic on Preterism.

Some may ask, what is preterism? In short preterism is the theory that all (or most) of the events prophesied in the Old and New Testament (including those in Revelation) were fulfilled in the past, specifically in 70 A.D. The idea is that with the Roman siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, the New Testament prophecies were fulfilled. Additionally, because of their belief that New Testament prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, preterists typically reject any biblical basis for knowing when Jesus will come. So biblically speaking (no biblical signs given) we have no way to know. It could be this year or it could be in thousands of years.

The Futurist view: is that the events prophesied in the New Testament (among Old Testament prophecies given in certain books) are yet future, with the notable exception of the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple which clearly occurred in 70 A.D.

Partial or moderate preterists believe that Christ's second coming was not fulfilled in 70 A.D. but fulfilled spiritually, while full preterists do. Partial preterists, like full preterists reject a future fulfillment of most New Testament prophecy, and reject a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. Where full preterists believe that the text of the gospel prophecies, particularly those found in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled by 70 A.D. 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.

The problem with partial preterism is they deny the full preterist claim that the second coming also had to occur in that 1st generation. By placing the second coming in the future they accept that at least "one" of the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse did "not" occur by the time that the "first generation passed away." In so doing, they nullify that the time frame statements (such as the one in Matt. 24-34) "require" the preceding prophesied events to remain "unbound" by the 70 A.D. date. But by allowing even "one" of these prophesied events to remain unbound by the 70 A.D. date, partial preterists actually allow all the rest of the listed events to be unbound and delayed as well.

The fact is partial preterists deny the time frame requirements, thus negating their own proof texts. For this reason partial preterism is a self-contradicting theory. It looks at time frame references such as those found in the Olivet Discourse and says, these events must happen by 70 A.D. Then it turns around and negates that very time frame by placing one of these events (the 2nd coming) in the future, thousands of years after the very deadline set by "their very own proof texts." So the only alternative is for partial preterists to "hypothesize" that there are two second comings (a total of 3 comings). The 1st "2nd coming" they place in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple as a sign of Christ's judgment (a spiritual 2nd coming). And the second "2nd coming" they place in the future when Christ will again return and gather the elect and resurrect the dead.

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 or 2 Thess. chapter 2 were written after 70 A.D. they could no longer assert that prophecies concerning such things seen there took place in 70 A.D. But if the entire New Testament revelation was written prior to 70 A.D. one wonders why partial preterists think there will be another second coming. Given their premise that all scripture was written before 70 A.D., what would be the biblical basis for assuming there is a second "2nd coming?" None, the idea of 2 second comings is um biblical.

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.

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, rather it would be a different kingdom. 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 literally" was "in his Father's power only"; is 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 go to the teachings of preterism.

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16-28).

"And he said to them, verily I say unto you, there are some of those standing here that shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God come in power" (Mark 9-1).

"But I say unto you of a truth, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God" (Luke 9-27).

Here the Lord promised that some of his disciples standing there with him will not die till they had "seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom as recorded in Matthew, is equivalent to "seeing the kingdom of God come in power," as recorded in Mark. Or simply "seeing the kingdom of God" as recorded in Luke. This is true because the kingdom is bound up with the person/king, that is the King embodies the kingdom.

Now preterists hold that the Lord was here promising that some of his disciples would live to see him coming to "actually establish" his kingdom on earth; that they would not taste death until he did so. Therefore, they say, the coming of the Son of Man to actually establish his kingdom must have been fulfilled in their lifetime, specifically in, or immediately after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Cannot be the prophesied Lord's second coming, nor can it be the "result" of Jesus' second coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared in scripture to take place "immediately after." After "the tribulation of those days," which the doctrine of preterism states, "is the very destruction of Jerusalem (itself) in 70 A.D. Thus this doctrine is teaching that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place "after" the destruction of Jerusalem; and this is nonsense as one can see.

Preterists also see Daniel's 70th 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 70th 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" 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 70th 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 70th 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 70th 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 70th week. The 70th 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 69th week and beginning of the 70th 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 (the fall of Jerusalem and temple in 70A.D.) AND (also the) desolations (that) are determined." That time (time gap) being between 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 trampling down on Jerusalem by the Gentiles. This passage of Dan. 9-26, and Luke 21-20-22-24 involve two 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, the "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 the preterist teachings and doctrines.

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 70th 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 70th week. Thus the Lord Jesus provides the indisputable "timing" for the fulfillment of Matthew 24, in that it is fulfilled whenever the 70th week is fulfilled. So again, as Dan. 9-26 explains that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place "after" the end of the 69th week, after Messiah/Christ is cut off in death , and "before" the start of the 70th 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 70th 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 70th week requires a fulfillment sometime after the 70 A.D. Destruction of Jerusalem.

Preterists take Matt. 16-28, "seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" with the actual coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory seen in Matt. 24-29-31: "But immediately after the tribulation of those days (Daniel's 70th week), the sun shall be darkened, and the moon 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 on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

As noted, 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 70th 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.

This in turn is in agreement with the "transfiguration fulfillment" of Matt. 16-28. As noted, the Lord's promise refers to "literally seeing" as in a picture, or fore-view, the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, in power, and particularly as to the "nature" of the kingdom. The literal witnessing by three of his disciples, Peter, James and John of a fore-view of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom in glory, was literally fulfilled in his transfiguration about a week after our Lord made that promise. Peter speaks of this in 2 Peter 1-16-21.

The purpose of the transfiguration was primarily confirmation. It confirmed several important facts. One was the reality of a future kingdom. The presence of Old Testament saints on earth with Christ in the glorified state is the great verification of the kingdom promises in the Old Testament. The Son of Man was going to come one day to judge the world and establish his kingdom (Matt. 16-27). This is exactly in the manner in which Peter speaks of the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1-16-21.

Matt. 24-34, "Verily I say unto you, this generation will not have passed away until all these things shall have taken place" (see also Mark 13-30 and Luke 21-32). Preterists hold that "this generation" refers to the Lord's contemporaries, and that he was promising that "they" would not all pass away till all these things of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew, Mark and Luke) has been fulfilled. Therefore they hold and conclude that all these things in the Olivet Discourse, including the coming of the Son of Man to establish his kingdom was fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries specifically in or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Now preterists insist that "this generation" can have no literal meaning other than the restricted use as being those living at that time. Then they proceed with their methodology to conform to all prophetic truth to that one selective notion.

The word "generation" is used quite a number of times in scripture for "a class marked by a given moral character." And in Matthew 24-34 it literally refers to an on-going wicked class of persons in Israel which would continue on and not pass away till all is fulfilled in the future tribulation period seen also in 9-27, Daniel's 70th week. It is Matt. 24-15, with its reference to Dan. 9-27 which provides one of the keys in determining "the timing" of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, and not Matt. 24-34.

There is further confirmation found in Luke 21 of a post-70 A.D. fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70th week. Luke 21-12-24 provides another key in determining "the timing" of their fulfillment. In Luke 21-12-24 our Lord clearly speaks of the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Luke's gospel is the only gospel within the Olivet Discourse to speak of these events. However, it is clear that in addition Luke also encompasses events which find their fulfillment sometime after 70 A.D. This is so for the simple reason of the key words from Jesus at the beginning of Luke 21-12: "But before all these things---." That is before all these things given in Luke 21-8-11, the events of Luke 21-12-24 would transpire. The events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Luke 21-12-24, "But before all these things (of 21-8-11) they shall lay their hands upon you and persecute you, delivering you up to synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of my name; but it shall turn out to you for a testimony.----I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your opposer's shall not be able to reply to or resist.---and they shall put to death some from among you, and you will be hated of all for my name's sake.-----But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that its desolation draws nigh. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains---for those are the days of vengeance that all things that are written may be fulfilled.---for there shall be great distress upon the land and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Luke 21-25-28, "And there shall be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations-----for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws nigh." An important point to note here is that verse 24b of Luke runs on into its consummation within the 70th week of Daniel, the tribulation, where the "times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory, spoken of in verse 27.

A careful look at Jesus' words in Matt. 23-29-39 will show that "this generation" is an expression which refers to a kind of people Jesus encountered, and also the same kind of people who rebelled against God's leadership throughout the Old Testament. The meaning of "this generation" refers to the race of unbelieving Jews from Moses' day until the appearing of Christ in glory. Matt. 23-34-39 shows the character of "this generation"; and Deut. 32-5,20 describes them. It is not the persons of some "time-era" when the Lord spoke those words.

Matt. 23-34-39, "And ye, fill ye up the measure of your fathers. Serpents, offspring of vipers----so that all righteous blood shed upon the earth should come upon you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the alter. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.----. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate, for I say unto you, you shall in no wise see me henceforth until ye say, blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord." Note the pronouncement made by Jesus as to "this generation" in verse 35: "so that all righteous blood shed upon the earth should come upon you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zecharias son of Barachais, whom ye slew between the temple and the alter." Was it the Lord's contemporaries who slew Zacharias son of Barachias, over 400 years before they were born? Of course not. But they were of the same moral class of "this generation" Jesus was speaking to. Bearing the same fruits, filling up the measure of their fathers. "This generation is not to pass till all be fulfilled" (Luke 21-32). That is those living in that particular period of time are to be of such a character as to form part of, and be representative of "this generation." This is the meaning of "this generation" given us in Matt. 24-34 of the Olivet Discourse.

Preterists hold that the Lord's words in Matt. 10-23 was intended to be strictly for the 1st century disciples that they would not have completed going through the cities of Israel to fulfill their commission "until the Son of Man comes again." Therefore the coming of the Son of Man must have been fulfilled in their lifetime specifically in or immediately after Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D. In light of all that has been presented in the discussions of Matt. 24-34 and Matt. 16-28, the only thing that needs to be demonstrated here is a clear and definite time-link between Matt. 10-23 and Matthew 24 of the Olivet Discourse. That Matt. 10-23 is parallel and identical with the same period of time covered by Matthew 24 (Mark 13 and Luke 21-8-11,25-36) of the Olivet Discourse. Which we have shown to be post 70 A.D. Therefore the coming of the Son of Man in Matt. 10-23 and Matt. 24-29-31 must be fulfilled sometime after 70 A.D., and after the fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week.

In reality Matt.10-22 refers to the Jewish remnant as does Matt. 24-13. Whereas the preaching of Matt. 10-23 is bound up with the era of the coming of the Son of Man in glory, post 70 A.D., and completion of Daniel's 70th week. Meanwhile however, the mystery form of the kingdom is present now. Paul preached the kingdom. This is not the same thing as preaching the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom was that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, God was going to set up his kingdom in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, and this was to be preached to the Gentiles before he did it (Matt. 24-14). And the Lord would send the testimony before he accomplished the fact. It is this gospel of the kingdom that is to be preached before the end comes. When the gospel of the kingdom is preached "at the time of the end," the character of the preaching then in view, would be of the Lord's coming in glory to set up the kingdom prophesied by the prophets of Israel. That is the form of the preaching it will have.

Preterists hold that the Lord's statement in Matt. 26-64 was intended to be strictly "personal" to Caiaphas the high priest and those present at the trial. That he (and they) would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven in power and great glory to establish his kingdom. They maintain that this was fulfilled in the lifetime of Caiaphas, specifically in or immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But is this what the text says that preterists hold the meaning to be? Or is this the true reading of the text: "Jesus says to him (Caiaphas), thou (singular, to Caiaphas) hast said. Moreover, I say to you (plural, Jews as a whole), from henceforth ye ( plural, Jews as a whole) shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" ( Matt. 26-64).

Jesus' declaration was addressed not to Caiaphas and those at the trial, but to the Jews as a whole. The "you" is plural, and is representative of those Jews living during and to the end of Daniel's 70th week, called the tribulation in scripture. Those who will be alive to see the Son of Man literally coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24-30 and Rev. 1-7). This is in agreement with all other scripture on the subject, including the nature of the kingdom.

In turning to what is known as the Olivet Discourse, 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 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 has 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 in front of the crowds concerning the destruction of the temple. They understood vaguely about this Coming and the End of the Age, but how does it all fit together? 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." As noted, in Luke 21 there is a break in the text between verses 24 and 25 which is precisely the point at which Jesus has answered the question concerning the sign of the destruction of the temple. It was noted that it was possible that the temple discourse ended there, while the comments which followed could have been spoken at a later point in time. While that is possible, it is not probable. 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 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.

Now in continuing, do the preterist time frame proofs really require the Olivet prophecies (along with the other end time gospel prophecies) to occur within the lifetime of that first century? These time frame proofs preterists use are found in Matthew chapter 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Having completed the course of events that must come before his return, Jesus makes the following statement recorded in each of the first three gospels. Matt. 24-34,"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mark 13-30,"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Luke 21-32, "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." The Greek word for "generation" used in these passages is "genea." It conveys the idea of "lineage," or a duration of "time" defined by the "human lifespan" from birth to death.

Now preterists want us to believe that the proof in such passages as these is the phrase "this generation." But this is clearly not so, for we might ask by the meaning of the word, this generation, "which generation?" The key to identifying which generation Jesus is speaking of is his use of the pronoun "you." Let's view the previous verse. Matt. 24-33,"So likewise ye, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.(v.34) Verily I say unto you, this generation will not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Mark 13-29, "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.(v.30) Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Luke 21-31,"So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. (v.32) Verily I say unto you, this generation will not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

From these passages we see that the phrase "this generation" hangs on the implications of the "ye"(you) in the preceding verses. The preterists assume that "ye" can and does only refer to Jesus' immediate physical audience, specifically the apostles. So preterists assume the generation that "shall not pass" is the generation of the apostles. The problem is that preterists completely fail to understand a simple principle in scripture with regard to prophetic passages. This biblical principle occurs in prophetic passages by which God speaks to an immediate physical audience, such as the apostles or the Israelites of Moses' day for example, but is actually addressing "future unborn generations" yet to come.

This principle is inherent in scripture writing from the very onset when Moses received the word of God and proclaimed it to the Israelites. The Israelites understood that the words proclaimed to them "also applied" to their children in every age, and not just "their generation." Lets take a look at a parallel prophecy given by Moses that proves the principle was a hallmark of scripture writing from the very start. Deut. 18-14, "For these nations, which thou shalt possess---.(v.15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren---.(v.18) I will raise them up a prophet from among thy brethren,---and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (v.19) And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require of him."

Like the Olivet Discourse, there's no indication from the context or grammar that Moses is switching who his statement applies to in this passage. The "you" is applied uniformly and is clear that this generation Moses is speaking to is the generation to whom Moses said "God will raise up unto you a prophet." Unto who? Unto the Israelites he is speaking to, those who are about to enter the Promised Land. Passages like John 1-21-25 illustrate for us that by the time of John the Baptist the Jews well understood this prophecy to refer to the Messiah. This is seen in Acts 3-19-26 and Acts 7-37. It's clear from Acts that Moses prophecy of "the prophet like himself" did not come to pass for well over 1400 years when Jesus was born and came ministering to the people of Israel. Was Moses a false prophet? Certainly not. Acts records that his prophecies were fulfilled, but in a time frame that only made sense if the "you" in the prophecy of Moses is interpreted with the prophetic principle. And it is this very same principle that Jesus employed in his instructions and prophecies that the preterists ignore to deduce in their conclusions. Therefore their conclusions become flawed. So when we reread such passages as Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 we clearly see that the "you" Jesus is speaking to is defined by whichever generation would be around "when these things come to pass." It is not confined to the apostles and disciples of that day anymore than Moses prophecy was confined to the generation of Israelites who were his initial audience to whom his proclamation was given. The Jews of Jesus' day including his apostles were well aware of this biblical principle of the "you" in prophetic passages.

As foretold in Daniel, the 69 sevens were fulfilled by Christ. Thereafter Jerusalem and the temple were to be destroyed once again, this time by the "people " of the prince that shall come. That prophecy also was fulfilled exactly as Daniel declared it. The text shows that this fulfilled the 69 sevens. But what of the other prophecies and of the last seven? We must remember that the end of these 70 sevens described by Daniel is "to make an end of sins--to seal up the vision and prophecy (all prophecy) and to anoint the most holy" (Dan. 9-24). This then would include and bring in Jesus' second coming as King of Kings over ALL earthly kingdoms. So it is certain that the 70 sevens could not have expired without the promises and coming prophecies ALL being fulfilled. The final seven immediately following Christ's death "did not" see the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy as the preterists claim. Even so, those who claim all was fulfilled in 70 A.D. must admit a gap of at least (after Christ's death) 32 years between the end of the 69th seven and the beginning of the 70th seven, and with no reason given by them for this gap. Furthermore the events Christ foretold in the Olivet Discourse, those not associated with the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem given us in Luke; being the 2nd coming, the gathering by angels of the elect from every corner of earth, etc., have certainly not happened as yet.

The preterists believe that all of the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation (for partial preterists, up to chap. 20) have been fulfilled (among many other prophetic scriptures in the O. and N.T.). Most if not all of them around the time of 70 A.D. They consider "this generation", as has been noted, to refer to the generation of those who were alive at the time that Christ spoke these words. The futurists believe that by "this generation" Christ referred to a future generation yet to live on earth. In Matt. 24-21 Christ declared that a "great tribulation" was coming, "such as was not since the beginning of this world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The last phrase "nor ever shall be" should give serious thought to the preterist view. The destruction of Jerusalem and slaughter of Jews in 70 A.D. may indeed have been the greatest tribulation until that time, but there have been some since that have been far worse. One needs only mention the Nazi Holocaust to prove the point.

In verses 29-31 of Matt. 24, we are told that "immediately after the tribulation of those days" there will be "signs in the sun and moon, and the stars shall fall from heaven. The sign of the Son of man shall appear in heaven--and all the earth---shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." His angels "shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." These events would certainly be observed by the whole world as the context clearly reads, yet they are all conspicuous by their absence from recorded history. Especially when we are told that these things were to occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days," as Jesus declared. Obviously none of them had happened by 70 A.D., nor have they occurred to this day. One hardly needs to mention the events and judgments foretold in Revelation that would come to affect "the entire earth," none of which had occurred by 70 A.D. Yet preterists hold that much of the book of Revelation (if not all) was fulfilled in 70 A.D. And that being 25 years "prior" to when the book of Revelation was revealed and written about 90-96 A.D. (More on this discussion later).

There are other problems with their view they hold concerning the book of Revelation as being past fulfillment, for the most part in 70 A.D. (To be further discussed in chapter 4 in depth). There is conclusive evidence that the book of Revelation was written near the end of the reign of the Emperor Domitian. Most scholars give the date of the book to be no earlier than 90 A.D. and no later than 95-96 A.D. Revelation 1-1 opens with John telling us that this revelation he was given by God to Jesus Christ and to the angel that gave it to John. Given "to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," and not "had" come to pass in 70 A.D., 25 years "prior" to this time he received the "Revelation." If so, how then could John call it a "Revelation?" A "revelation" in biblical terms is an unknown thing revealed by God and "not known to men."

The Greek word "revelation" is "apokalypsis" which means an unveiling or "revealing" of "coming events" which "must shortly come to pass," as the text clearly states. Not "prior events" already revealed and known to much of the world of that time. That being the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. known to John and the many living in that part of the world. No, it is a prophecy of things to come that was given to John in 90-96 A.D. This is seen in Rev. 1-3 of "all things ( the entire book) that he saw." And he states in verse 2, "Blessed (is) he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this PROPHECY,----." It is prophecy that we have here in the book of Revelation. That which must shortly (speedily) come to pass when the "prophecy" would come to pass.

We go to Matt. 24-14 where we read; "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." We see here, like in other verses, this breaks down the preterist view that the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, Daniel and much of Revelation, among other scriptures, was fulfilled in 70 A.D. First, "the gospel of the kingdom", the bible in its entirety was not completed as yet. For Revelation was not written until the 90's A.D. Secondly the gospel of the kingdom certainly did not reach "in all the world."( A further discussion on this later). Thirdly, as Jesus stated then, "the end shall come." And it is obvious the end did not come in 70 A.D., nor did it at any later time. This verse speaks of "the end" which is said cannot come until the gospel of the kingdom has been declared to all nations in all the world. What is meant by "witness unto all nations?" Since some preliminary end is not specified, Christ must mean that "the end" coincides with the final establishment of the Kingdom of God in its eternal fullness as is confirmed by Paul. "Then cometh the end, when he (Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom of God (at the end of the church age, not in 70 A.D., the end of the Old Covenant age as the preterists see it), even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor. 15-24; Not all authority and power throughout Rome but throughout the "world"). Christ is certainly not saying that this gospel must be preached to "every person." Millions have died in the past without hearing it. Rather it must be proclaimed in "all the world" for a witness to all nations. That being to peoples, tongues, nations of various ethnic societies throughout the world, but not to "every individual." The gospel of the kingdom is called in Rev. 14-6-7 "the everlasting gospel," for there it is seen that it is being proclaimed to the "world" for the last time, or fulfillment time before the end that shortly is about to come. Thus the strong warning is given.

Another position the preterists hold, is that Jesus had to return before the apostles/disciples had gone to all the cities in Israel. (see Matt. 10-22-23). Sometimes preterists will couple this notion with the idea that the apostles were told to go and preach the gospel in Israel proper, seen in verses 5-6. Because both verses 5-6 and verses 22-23 refer to Jesus' disciples going out to the cities of Israel, preterists assume Jesus would return before the gospel is preached to all the cities in Israel. But this is incorrect because of the parallel accounts of this story in Mark and Luke ( Matt. 10-1-15; Mark 6-7-13,30; Luke 9-1-6,10). Of these parallel accounts, Mark and Luke are more detailed than Matthew 10. And the details of Mark and Luke corroborate each other.

Luke 9 records in verse 6 and 10 that after the apostles received their instructions from Jesus, they departed to the towns of Israel and then returned to tell Jesus what they had done. In fact Luke 9-6 says the apostles went "everywhere." And the Mark account is identical. Mark 6-12, "And they went out, and preached that men should repent. (v.30) And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught." So according to both the Luke and Mark accounts, the apostles had already completed their mission of preaching the gospel to the people of Israel before the close of the chapter, long before Jesus went to the cross, let alone before 70 A.D. (When the preterists claim Jesus returned). On the other hand, the events described in Matt. 10-16-23 were not accomplished until "after" the resurrection. Notice in verses 16-23 that Jesus speaks of the apostles being delivered up to the councils and "scourged in the synagogues" as well as being "brought before governors and kings." In these verses Jesus is predicting that his disciples would be persecuted. And it is a well known fact that the persecution of the Christians did not begin until "after" the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. In Acts 4-1-21 we find the apostles brought before the Jerusalem Council and threatened because of their preaching the gospel. In Acts 21-27 and 25-27 Paul is brought before King Agrippa and Governor Felix, Herod Antipatris and the Jewish Council to stand trial and he even appeals to appear before Caesar Augustus.

The events described by Jesus in verses 1-15 were completed before the crucifixion, and the events described by Jesus in verses 16-23 did not come to pass until after the resurrection. So it is inaccurate for preterists to link the apostles "fleeing from city to city" in verse 22, with their commission to "preach the gospel" to the Israelites in verse 6. The apostles had already completed their mission before the crucifixion let alone 70 A.D. So there's no way verse 22 can be used by preterists to assert that Jesus had to return "before" the apostles had preached the gospel to every city in Israel. So the preterists' use of this passage as a proof text falls apart.

We read in Matt. 10-22-23, "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another, for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." Instead of going from city to city to "preach" the gospel here we find them going from city to city to "flee persecution." Jesus' words here do not point to "preaching", though they did, they point to "fleeing". Jesus' words here clearly state he would return before the disciples run out of places to "flee" to, and not before they run out of places to "preach" to. Preaching had nothing to do with the time frame reference in Matt. 10-22-23. In addition, it is clear that Matt. 10-1-15 Jesus is addressing the 12 apostles. But Acts 8-1 tells us that when the Jerusalem Church was persecuted, everyone fled except for the apostles who stayed behind. "---and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." Since in Matt. 10-22-23 Jesus was speaking to his 12 apostles when he gave the instructions to flee from city to city when persecuted, and Acts 8-1 tells us the apostles remained in Jerusalem, we know the apostles understood Jesus' words in Matt. 10-22-23. That when Jesus said to them "flee ye," they understood he wasn't referring to them only but also to those coming representatives in Christ. The "future converts" who would come to Christ and join the Jerusalem Church by the thousands seen in the book of Acts.

Jesus clearly states that his disciple should flee from their persecutors from one city to the next. He also says they will not run out of places to flee to before he returns. And Jesus says those who endure to the end will be saved. Endure what to the end? Endure the persecutions they have been fleeing from city to city. The concept provided in this passage is that the persecution will stop at the end when Jesus returns. In 2 Thess. 1-4-9, in verse 7, Paul specifically states that Christian persecution and trouble will end when Christ returns (see also 1 Peter 1-6-7;4-12-13). Did the persecution of Christians cease in 70 A.D.? If Christ returned in 70 A.D.(spiritual return in judgment) then we should expect, based upon Matt. 10-22-23 and other New Testament teachings that persecution would have ceased; but it did not. History records that the persecution of Christians continued onward right through 70 A.D. up until the conversion of Constantine. And we cannot ignore the fact that the persecution of Christians continues to this day in places around the world. So we have seen through scripture that Matt. 10-22-23 does not demand a soon coming of Christ.

Looking to Matt. 16-28; Mark 8-28,9-1; Luke 9-26-27, in these passages we see Jesus clearly states that some in his audience at the time would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom. But does this verse lead to the conclusion of a 1st century coming of Christ? First we note that Jesus does not say exactly how many persons would not taste death until they see him coming in his kingdom. The Greek word used for "some" is "tis," it is to mean-certain-a certain one, some, any, one-man. The 1st meaning used most in scripture (104 times) is a certain or "certain one." This means its not unlikely that Jesus had in mind as few as only "one person." In fact this word "tis" is seen in John 6-24. "But there are some (tis) of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." Jesus uses this same Greek word "tis" in part to refer to Judas, the single individual who would betray him. Note that Jesus says that some standing there would not die before they "saw" Jesus coming in his kingdom. The word "see" in Greek is "eido", and it is used many times in the book of Revelation. In Revelation John prophesied Jesus' coming in his kingdom. The event as well as the other events he saw was still in the future at the time John saw all that he recorded in the book. What John saw was not actually occurring at the time John saw it, yet he did see (eido) it before he died. Even though the actual event of Jesus coming in his kingdom was still in the future. John was present when Jesus spoke those words in Matt. 16-28, Mark 8-38 and Luke 9-6, and he did see Jesus coming in his kingdom before he died. As did some see Jesus glorified in his kingdom at the transfiguration. Not to mention "coming in his kingdom by his resurrection" to the 11 apostles, and others. Where for 40 days he taught them "the Kingdom of God." So John's experience, and the other apostles adequately fulfills this prophecy seen in those passages.

If preterists truly uphold that the Kingdom of God (Christ's second coming) came but was unobservable (spiritual), then they cannot point to historical accounts of events in 70 A.D. to support their theory. For they cannot (and yet they do) simultaneously assert these events would come without "observable signs" AND at the same time turn around and point to similarities between historical events and Bible prophecy. They must choose one and abandon the other. Either it is valid to compare historic events with the Bible's prophesied signs or there would be no observable signs and any historic similarities to Bible prophecies, thus are irrelevant. The preterist approach is inconsistent and self-contradicting. Jesus clearly proclaims in the Olivet Discourse that there are many observable signs that will precede and accompany the end of the world and his return.

To help bolster their theory that New Testament prophecy was fulfilled by 70 A.D., preterists at some point usually turn to the historical record for support like Josephus. Yet it should be noted that preterists are quite fond of appealing to the historical record when it suits them and then using appeals to Luke 17 to "deny its relevance" whenever it "contradicts them." Josephus recorded the besieging of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. In this account, he spoke of some marvelous phenomenon including signs in the skies. From these strange phenomenon, preterists like to refer the fulfillment of the Olivet and other gospel prophecies as well as the prophecies found in Revelation and the epistles. But is Josephus really a valid source of proof for preterists? First, Josephus was not a Christian,, second, Josephus does not mention the return of Christ, third, inferring the second coming from Josephus' conflicts with Orthodox Christian writing from the first few centuries following 70 A.D. Even Josephus, a secular source, records Jesus' first coming, but not a second coming as the preterists claim using Josephus' writings. So it may be asked, where is the testimony of the believing community of that day??What did they say? Or is this secular historian all that the preterists have? Imagine an event so significant as the return of Jesus Christ "without a single Christian writing as a witness to it from that 1st century on" (from 70 A.D. on). And this it seems is what we are asked to believe. Preterists want us to assume that Jesus returned a second time in 70 A.D. without "any Christian witness" revealing that fact. But in reality, preterists want us to accept this premise in direct contradiction to the Christian writings that we do have.

All of the writings we have from the gospels to the epistles, to the non-canonical works of first, second and third century orthodox Christians perpetuate a futurist perspective that the second coming of Christ and the coming of (beast) anti-Christ, along with the resurrection of the dead and the gathering together of the elect "had not yet happened in their day." The fact that these writings all attest to a "future" coming of not only Christ but (beast) anti-Christ, etc., demonstrates clearly that unlike preterists, they understood the principle of the "you" generation that would see the fulfillment of those things to come.

Looking to their writings we see they are consistent with each other. There is nothing in their writings on this subject that would point to contradictions or differing points of view between them. All their words on this topic are uniform, and all of them placing these events in the future, from the first of them (the early church fathers) to the last. Polycarp (69-155 A.D.) and Ignatius (30-107 A.D.) were both pupils under the apostle John. Polycarp's short epistle only makes one short reference to the judgment of Christ in which he hints at a future coming. Ignatius makes four references to "the end", each time placing it still in the future. And he makes other references that are equally clear that he understood the return of Christ and the end to be in the future. And such prophecies of the end are found in Matt. 10-22-23;24-13-14,23,31;28-18-20. Then we have Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.), like Irenaeous, Justin discusses "both" advents of Christ, using past tense verbs to describe the 1st coming and future tense verbs to describe the 2nd coming.

From these early Christian writers, from Polycarp to Ignatius who wrote just after 70 A.D. all the way to Irenaeous who lived into the early 3rd century A.D. In all their teachings concerning the coming of (beast) anti-Christ and the 2nd coming of Christ, not once do they even mention that these things had already happened. But always, they place these events in the "future" and they maintain the detailed New Testament relationship between these two events given here. Yet despite all this evidence, for some reason preterists prefer to make inferences from the secular record of Josephus, a man who wrote nothing to indicate that "Christ had returned." Rather they ignore the testimony of Christians in favor of a secular historian.

When we take a comparative look at the history surrounding the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the biblical details of (beast) anti-Christ and the return of Christ, there is a great discrepancy between the historical events of those days and the biblical prophecies. This clearly should prevent one from accepting the preterist theory that these biblical prophecies came to pass in 70 A.D. So in order to say that Jesus returned in 70 A.D. preterists must identify an anti-Christ figure (an individual). And the preterists who hold this view identify anti-Christ as Nero. By quoting Revelation 13 in order to identify Nero as anti-Christ, preterists also uphold that the beast of Revelation is another term for the anti-Christ (being Rome). So therefore preterists cannot ignore (or hypothesize) any of the details found in Revelation describing this beast. So in order for the preterists to be correct, Nero would have to fit all of these details as well.

When looking to 2 Thess. 2-2-9, from these verses we learn that the day of Christ cannot come unless (beast) anti-Christ, here "the man of sin" comes first "after" the falling away. Verse 4 states that he will sit in the temple (naos) of God. And verse 8 tells us that he will be destroyed by Jesus Christ at his return (2nd coming). When looking to Rev. 16-13 we see it is speaking about the beast, preterists say is another term for anti-Christ. In verse 14 anti-Christ is responsible for gathering kings of many nations. Yet this departs from the preterist theory, because by 70 A.D. only Rome gathered against Israel. This is one nation with one king, not many kings from nations around the world. In Revelation 19 we find the returning of Christ. Verse 20 tells us that the anti-Christ (here being Nero) will be alive when he is thrown into the lake of fire. And the kings gathered with him are also defeated at Christ's second coming.

Going to 2 Thess. 2-4, does history record that Nero sat in the temple of God? No. Did Nero even ever visit Jerusalem? No. Was Nero defeated by the returning Christ? No. History clearly shows us that Nero committed suicide in June of 68 A.D. And this being 2 years before 70 A.D. Nero's death came 2 years before the fall of Jerusalem, and 2 years before preterists claim Jesus returned. Now since Nero died in 68 A.D., he could not have been thrown alive into the lake of fire. Did Nero gather armies and kings (nations) against Jerusalem or Jesus? No. There is no record of any such events in history. Yes, the Roman army did besiege Jerusalem, but that is just one army from one nation with one king. Nor was this destruction carried out under Nero's reign. It was under Vespasian that Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed. Furthermore, Vespasian did not die until 79 A.D., and Titus who succeeded him as Emperor lived until 81 A.D. Since both of them survived, neither of them could be the anti-Christ (as an individual) either, as the preterists claim of these events being fulfilled in 70 A.D.

There are other details that preterist theory cannot account for such as they have "no false prophet," a figure that is side by side with one another, among other things that could be given here. And this does not even mention the absence of anything in the historical record that would indicate a resurrection of the dead at that time or a gathering together of the elect spoken of by Jesus in Matt. 24-30-31. Here are some passages in which concerns signs of Jesus' second coming. Matt. 24-42-44,50; Matt. 25-13; Mark 13-32-37; Luke 12-38,40,46; 1 Thess. 5-1-4; Rev. 3-3 and Rev. 16-15. From these passages along with the Olivet Discourse we see several things regarding Jesus' second coming. First, from the Olivet Discourse we know that Jesus gave signs by which we might know when his return was near. At the conclusion of the Discourse Jesus instructs his followers to watch for these signs. This message to "watch" is often stated throughout the New Testament when Jesus' return is being discussed. Jesus states that if we do not understand these signs and do not watch for his return it will catch us off guard. Here we give some passages showing Jesus' return would be delayed. Matt. 24-48; Luke 12-45; Matt. 25-14; Mark 13-34; Luke 20-9; Matt. 25-5,19; "After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them." The passages given above state no less than 4 times that Jesus' coming would be delayed, a long time in coming (in man's view of time). So here, this is at least as many verses contradicting the preterist view of a "soon" coming of Christ as there are of those that would support the preterist view. These verses constitute direct evidence in contradiction of the preterist assertion that Jesus expected his return to be soon. From these passages we know that Jesus understood that his return would come after a long time had past. This is also seen in 2 Thess. 2-1-6 and 2 Peter 3-1-18.

Scholars tell us that Peter's letter was likely written around 64-65 A.D. But even if this year is off a little, we note that its odd that Peter would have been in the beginning of the "end" even by preterist standards. Yet as we read through this 2nd chapter we notice that Peter does not seem startled that Jesus has not come back yet. Nor does he present the notion that Jesus is about to return, or that the return is at hand. Instead we find Peter assuring his readers that though Jesus' return is apparently not within view that it will surely someday come. We find him discussing God's patience, God's timing, and long periods of time. 2 Peter 3-8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Again, although Peter and the other hearers of Jesus' Olivet Discourse had grown old and death approached he does not expect a "soon" second coming of Jesus even at 65 A.D. (the time of writing). Neither does Peter reassure his audience that a second coming of Christ was about to occur. This is unbelievable given that preterists insist at the time this epistle was written, the second coming was only a few years away. How could Peter not have known this?? We can only conclude that as far as Peter knew Jesus' return was not imminent in 65 A.D. But he is not alone in this understanding. The writings of several centuries of early Christians presents an unbroken chain of futurist Christian leaders from 65 A.D. (Peter's epistle) through 200 A.D. These writings taken together with 2 Peter 3 constitute compelling evidence that Jesus did not return in 70 A.D. as the preterists contend. In fact, they also provide compelling evidence that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century church did not believe Jesus' words indicated that he would return within the lifespan of that first generation. Based on Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 we can see why they did not believe Jesus had to return within the lifespan of that first generation.

In Rev. 2-5,16 and 3-11, Jesus himself says he will return "quickly." Preterists have suggested this as proof that Jesus had to return by 70 A.D. But are they correct? In Rev. 2-5,16, "I come quickly" could theoretically mean "soon" or "suddenly." However since it is stated as a "dependent clause," we know that it must mean "suddenly." In other words, Jesus gives this to them as a warning, saying, "or else I will come quickly." To suggest that "quickly" here means "soon" is to suggest that Jesus' coming depended on their noncompliance to his instructions. So if they did not obey, Jesus would come soon, but if they obeyed then he would not. So these two verses do not necessitate his soon coming. This is one sense in which these passages do not necessitate a 1st century coming of Christ. The Greek word "quickly" used in Rev. 2-5,16 and 3-11 is "tachu," to mean quickly, speedily. This word is related to "en tachos" found in Rev. 1-1;22-6, and occurs elsewhere in Revelation.

Jesus' words to the churches in Ephesus, Pergamos and Philadelphia do not necessitate the preterist interpretations. The words in such passages as Rev. 2-5,16;3-11;22-7,12 and 20 can be equally and easily accommodated by futurist doctrine. Preterists often find proof of their theory in Revelation. Rev. 1-1 and Rev. 22-6 are these they focus on, "things which must shortly come to pass." There are two equally valid ways to interpret the Greek word in this phrase. First, it can refer to something happening "soon," or in other words, "in the very near future." Second, it can refer to the rate of speed at which an activity or series of events will be accomplished. The preterists hold to the first option, that according to John, Jesus' return would be soon after he wrote the Revelation. The preterists believe the Revelation was written prior to 70 A.D. But a simple question could be asked by the futurist, "these things must shortly come to pass." From whose perspective? God's or man's? Peter has already told us in 2 Peter 3 that God does not count time as we do. And Peter makes this statement concerning the supposed "slackness" of the Lord's coming. So it is particularly with the Lord's return in view that Peter comments on the difference between God's perception of "soon" and our perception of "soon" which appears to be causing the confusion. In addition, this would also explain why the writers of the New Testament often refer to being in the last days. Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 are proof that the apostolic church leadership understood Psalm 90 that Peter used in his epistle concerning the time frame of the second coming. So Rev. 1-1 and 22-6 do not pose a problem for futurists even when we interpret the Greek word to refer to the "nearness" of certain events. The 2nd definition for the Greek word is not problematic for the futurist either. For it refers to the "rate" at which these events would unfold and occur. So the preterist proof text they use here is very weak and problematic for them. But for the futurist it fits perfectly with descriptions of the end time events found in both Daniel and Revelation.

The book of Revelation has been traditionally dated by scholars to have been written in or about 96 A.D. Preterist scholars quickly recognize that dating the book in 96 A.D. utterly destroys their theory, therefore, they must challenge this dating, and so they have. We get this date from Irenaeous' work "Against Heresies," written in the mid to late 100's A.D. Irenaeous states clearly, "For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." Domitian reigned from 81-96 A.D., so if John wrote near the end of his reign, that would place the writing of Revelation somewhere in the 90's A.D. Preterists attempt to get around this interpretation "for that was seen" by asserting that it was "John" that was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign, and not John's "vision." If so, why would Irenaeous use the word "that" rather than "John?" Would not Irenaeous write "for John was seen" to indicate a "person" rather than a "thing" or "object?" Of course he would, it was the "vision" that John saw that Irenaeous speaks of in his writing. And seen by John toward the end of Domitians reign in the 90's A.D.

With this in mind, there is little doubt that what preterists find so compelling to cause them to disagree with the traditional date is the fact that their theory cannot survive so long as the traditional date stands. What the preterists have done is to go into this text to find a loophole, a loophole without which their entire theory could not survive. So if we interpret Irenaeous as the preterists want, we are left without any certain date for the writing of Revelation. That means it could have been written at any point prior to John's death. Thus, if it was not written in the 90's, it could have been written in the 70's or 80's. But even yet, the preterists argue that it was written in the 60's with absolutely no evidence given by them. Apart from Iranaeous there is no direct source for dating Revelation, so the only evidence preterists have for an early dating of this book is their own theory that it was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Any date after 70 A.D. would negate their entire theory. The preterist early dating of Revelation is driven entirely by the assumption that preterism is true (their teachings on prophecy).

But for the sake of argument, lets assume for a moment that the preterist dating of Revelation was true, written in the 60's. Lets take a look at the logical outcome of their interpretation. They unequivocally uphold the following; John was a witness and a disciple of Jesus. John understood that Jesus would return in his lifetime from what Jesus taught him regarding his return. God used John to record and instruct the church through the writings of one gospel and three epistles. God revealed to John a vision of Christ's return in the 60's A.D. John lived through the fulfillment of Jesus' revelation, prophecy and teaching regarding his return when these events occurred in 70 A.D. Now lets go to the plausibility of this preterist outcome of their interpretation. John lived for another 25 years or so after his apocalyptic vision was fulfilled and Jesus' return in 70 A.D. During these 25 years after Jesus' return, John, the writer who wrote 1 gospel, 3 epistles and the recorder of Revelation describing Jesus' return, "did not communicate the fact that his apocalyptic vision had been fulfilled 25 years earlier in 70 A.D."

So based upon "this preterist scenario," one of 4 highly unreasonable conclusions must be reached regarding John, the church and Jesus' return in 70 A.D. They are; 1. John "did not understand" that his apocalyptic vision had been fulfilled in 70 A.D. and so did not teach this to the church. 2. John "did understand" that his vision had been fulfilled in 70 A.D., yet "chose not to teach this to the church." 3. Or John "did understand" that his vision had been fulfilled in 70 A. D. and attempted to teach this to the church, but was "completely ineffective and wholly failed in this task." 4. Or John "did understand" that his vision had been fulfilled in 70 A.D. and effectively taught this to the church "only to have his teaching on the matter universally rejected by the church." Additionally, we also have no record of either John or any other member of the early church writing to instruct the church that the events prophesied in the New Testament surrounding the return of Christ ever came to pass in 70 A.D.

One final note; that John lived until after the reign of Domitian is shown by Irenaeous' repeated references to his own mentor Polycarp, who was John's disciple. Polycarp was born in 65 A.D. and died in 155 A.D. He was 5 years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was 2 years old when Nero died. Therefore, his being tutored by John must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward, yet in any event, during this time; Polycarp does not record that he was told by John that the prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Nor did Polycarp who was Irenaeous' mentor speak or teach him of any such fulfillment in 70 A.D., that the vision of Revelation and Jesus' second coming was fulfilled. Their writing show no such fulfillment occurred, rather they teach "of a future coming of the Lord."

All orthodox Christians acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That Jesus was raised from the dead in the same body that was crucified is quite plain from scripture. Yet this simple truth creates serious problems for preterists. Here's why. If Jesus came in 70 A.D. as preterists claim, no one saw him. There is no record in church history of such a coming. The "dead in Christ" were not resurrected bodily in 70 A.D. In fact, the whole early church lived through 70 A.D. without ever suspecting that Jesus' second coming had occurred. They remained in a state of expectation of Christ's future coming both before and after 70 A.D. Preterists avoid this problem of no historical evidence by claiming that Jesus' coming was "spiritual" and "invisible". Therefore, he did not come "in the flesh" as he did at his first advent. The question is, what kind of "coming" do the scriptures predict? We could list many passages of scripture that announce the details of the 2nd coming, for example Matt. 24-29-31, but preterists simply interpret such passages allegorically. The "details" of the 2nd coming are not to be taken "literally" according to preterists. However, Luke recorded something that is not so easily dismissed by those who allegorize prophecy. This is seen in Acts 1-1-12.

According to the 2 angels in verse 11, Jesus' second coming will be "in like manner" as his ascension into heaven. In what manner did Jesus ascend into heaven? The answer is in our text. Jesus was with the apostles in person, in his resurrected state. Verse 3 says they saw him for 40 days prior to his ascension. Verse 4 says Jesus was "assembled together with them." Verse 9 indicates that the apostles observed Jesus' ascension into the sky until a cloud obscured him from their view. From this historical narrative we know without question that Jesus ascended in full view of his apostles in person, visibly. The angels told them that "this same Jesus" would be coming back "in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven. Now this is clear that this is prophecy. But it is not so easily allegorized as preterists are fond of doing. The reason is the words "this same Jesus" and the words "in like manner", connect the prophesied events with a historical event they all witnessed, being the "literal" ascension. Thus, leaving us with no alternative than to accept that Jesus' second coming will be bodily, in person, and in full view of believers. This agrees with other statements of scripture, such as Matt. 24-30 and Rev. 1-7, which indicates Jesus' coming will be visible to both believers and unbelievers alike. Preterists truly need to come to terms with the fact that its views and beliefs call into question the gospel itself. An invisible mystical second coming simply cannot satisfy the Biblical promises.

A further note concerning the preterists claim of a pre-date writing of Revelation; Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna recorded that no church in Smyrna existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around 66-67 A.D. So to the preterists who hold to a predate 70 A.D. writing, the question then is "how or why" is it that John would have written to the church of Smyrna "when they didn't even exist as a church yet?" So again, we see this strongly favors the late date of Revelation as being written in the 90's A.D. Another weakness in the preterist position is that they selectively interpret the Greek word "aion" to mean age/world, and then make the supposition that there was an end of the "age" (aion) in 70 A.D. But this does not agree with nor explain verses such as Luke 18-30, where the exact same word "aion"-age/world is used. "Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world (aion-age) to come life everlasting." If that present time or age was before 70 A.D. and the age to come was "eternal life," as the verse declares, then 70 A.D. being the "coming age" according to the preterist hypothesis, was the start of this "eternal life". And we certainly know that this has not occurred since then to this very time.

In continuing, Jesus declared that society would be in a state of normalcy when he returned. That is there would be no sense of imminent danger or catastrophe (read Matt. 24-38-39; Luke 17-28-29). However, as the days of the destruction of Jerusalem approached, things were anything but in a state of normalcy. Jesus prophesied about this in Luke 19-43 where he speaks of Jerusalem's siege and fall.

Speaking of the events preceding the time when Christ's second coming would draw near, Jesus said; "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). What is there about the word "redemption" that could possibly be associated with the destruction of Jerusalem? Every place this word is used, it is associated with "salvation", not cursing, with "deliverance" not judgment. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. had nothing to do with what we read in Luke 21-28. Christ's second coming would be for the "redemption of his saints" which certainly did not occur in 70 A.D. That coming still awaits fulfillment.

There is a saying that hindsight is 100%. If this be so then the preterists who hold to "past fulfillment" should be able to answer most, if not all of the book of Revelation "chapter by chapter." Given in some detail at least without "repeatedly" turning to the use of "spiritualizing, allegorizing and hypothesizing" the many chapters in the book. As the church did in its earliest days, with careful study and hindsight of history. Should not the preterists do the same today to prove and defend their teachings that most, if not all prophecy has past and been fulfilled in history? Yet when they are asked to do so, it has been seen through the years that they cannot give a fairly detailed verse by verse, or chapter by chapter commentary on Revelation and other scriptures that relate to the book "without allegorizing the vast majority of the scriptures they would use in their defense."

To give a few examples, without allegorizing, how do they answer; 1. If Jerusalem, the temple and the Jews "as a nation" was "forever removed" because of Christ's "spiritual coming in judgment" on her in 70 A.D., why has she remained to continue her identity as a Jewish people, and returned "to become a nation again" from the ashes of 70 A.D., just as the Lord prophesied in scripture would occur? 2. When did the battle of Gog and Magog and the many nations allied with Gog occur that we read in Ezekiel chapters 38-39? History records no such fulfillment of this in 70 A.D. or any other time in history. 3.After Pentecost, the churches' beginnings, when did the "apostasy" within the professing church occur, prophesied to come in Paul's epistle in 2 Thess. chapter 2, written about 51-52 A.D. Then mentioned again in the epistle to 1 Tim. 4-1-2, written about 62-63 A.D. And again in 2 Tim. 4-3-4 written in the fall or winter of 67 A.D. shortly before Paul's death in the spring of 68 A.D.? Also keeping in mind this "apostasy in the church" was prophesied to occur "before" the "man of sin" would be "revealed" and would then come on the scene. So as to exalt himself and sit in the temple (naos) of God. When did this occur? From the time of Paul's second epistle to Timothy in the fall of 67 A.D., we read it was still a prophecy "to come." And there is no mention in any of the New Testament epistles stating that the apostasy was all but completed. The very time the preterists claim that these fulfillments began to happen (67-73 A.D.), beginning with Nero in Rome. There was "persecution" indeed, but where is seen the fulfillment of the "apostasy in the church" and the other events prophesied by Paul? History shows no such fulfillment of these events in that time span.

Number 4. When did the events of the sixth seal (Rev. 6-15-17) occur, which speaks of kings and peoples great and small throughout "the earth" hide themselves from the wrath of God which had come? "For the great day of his wrath "is come;" and who shall be able to stand?" As the text states, once these things are fulfilled "throughout the earth", then they should be seen in history as having been fulfilled. Yet we have no such recordings found anywhere in the world that these events occurred. 5.When did the events of the 7 trumpets and vials occur? Which like the seals all speak of events that cover and concern "all the earth." Its land, its streams, rivers, waters and oceans? The texts make clear these judgments are not contained in a small land area of Jerusalem and that part of the Middle East. We see in history no such recordings of these events said by preterists to have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., or "somewhere and time" in history as others claim.

Jesus, speaking of this tribulation in Matt. 24-22 says; "And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short." What is meant by "life" in the clause "no life would have been saved?" This word translated "life" is the Greek "sarx". The construction is Greek "pasa sarx" to mean "all flesh," a term that refers to all humanity. The words "all flesh" are used in Matt. 24-22; Mark 13-20; Luke 3-6; John 17-2; Acts 2-17; Romans 3-20; 1 Cor. 1-29;15-39; Gal. 2-16; 1 Peter 1-24. In every case except 1 Cor. 15-39 where Paul uses the term to include animal life, the expression describes "all humans." So we see that "pasa sarx" is to mean every person, everyone with no exceptions. This expression comes from the Septuagint, the Hebrew "kol basar," to mean "all flesh." All living creatures, all men, the whole human race. So to interpret "all flesh" in Matt. 24-22 and Mark 13-20 as referring to just the Jews living in Judea in 70 A.D. as the preterists do, is to limit and misuse the term's proper meaning. "All flesh" clearly describes all humanity. The tribulation described in Matt. 24-21 is of such huge proportions that it includes all human life on planet earth. This could not be said of 70 A.D. as horrible as the loss of life was in Judea at that time. Much of the Olivet Discourse, Revelation and other scriptures relating to the prophecy goes beyond the past destruction of Jerusalem. It reaches to the end time prophesied for the world. If these events did come to pass as the preterists claim and is taught to many, then by their doctrine, the church was left abandoned by God. Abandoned and given no further instructions regarding the Lord's prophetic word and promises to his saints, to become completely dependent on man and their teachings. And that there is to be no future reliance on their Lord concerning his second coming after 70 A.D.

It has been noted that full and partial preterists reject the literal and normal interpretation of the prophecies. They insist that almost all of the Biblical prophecies should be interpreted allegorically, metaphorically, or symbolically. This allegorical method of interpretation rejects the clear literal meaning of the prophecies that point to the return of Christ in the last days. Preterists interpret the prophetic message recorded in Daniel, Revelation, and Christ's Olivet Discourse, among others, in an allegorical manner. And hold to their claim that all these prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. However, by this allegorical method, it rejects the teaching of a literal return of Jesus Christ. While the Bible often uses symbolic language and figures, the scriptures also contain interpretations of these prophetic symbols so we are not left in darkness to guess as to their correct meaning. Yet curiously, the preterists interpret the language of the scriptures, about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ in a totally literal and natural manner, but they abandon this fundamental principle of biblical interpretation when they interpret the prophecies about the Lord's second coming in the last days. In making their argument preterists turn to the Olivet Discourse to prove their claims, to which we shall turn to now in rebuttal. We begin first in Mark where he records at the end of the Discourse that Jesus said his words were given for "all" and not just the disciples. "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." (Mark 13-37).

The Olivet Discourse is written in the same manner as the epistles. Its instruction (wording) assumes that the original audience would live to see the second coming of Christ. This makes the Bible applicable to every generation, regardless of how long Jesus takes to return. It is quite clear that Jesus intended his instructions about watching for the signs of his coming to be observed by Christians of this age. This is seen in Matt. 28-18-20, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (age) Amen." (Greek; "tes sunteleias tou aionos"). The Greek word "end" here in this passage is "sunteleias", which signifies to bring "completely to an end"--to finish completely all prophecy and events. When the word "telos" (end) is given, it signifies the "limit" of which a person, thing or event ceases to be "up to that point in time." As for example Matt. 24-13.

In Matt. 24-1-3, what occurred between verses 2 and 3 is not recorded here in Matthew, but is included in Luke chapter 21. In Luke 21, while still within the temple grounds, Jesus gave a lengthy discourse about the coming destruction of the temple which was later fulfilled in 70 A.D. This discourse focuses mostly on the destruction of Jerusalem (verses 12-24), it also briefly mentions the second coming of Christ. After Jesus gave this discourse, Jesus and the disciples made their way out of Jerusalem to the Mt. of Olives. No doubt thinking about the events of that day and Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple and his second coming. This is seen "in the question" they posed to Jesus given here in Matthew, later while on the Mt. Of Olives, but given differently in Mark and Luke; while in the temple grounds. In Mark 13-4 and Luke 21-7, the question is asked in this way; "---When shall these things be? And what (shall be) the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?"(Mark 13-4). Luke 21-7, "---when shall these things be? And what sign (will there be) when these things shall come to pass?"

Returning to 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." Who are the "elect" that Jesus refers to? The New Testament uses this term more frequently than in the Old Testament, and in virtually every case it refers to Christians ( Jew and Gentile). In this context it is clear that it refers to disciples of Christ. It was the original disciples who assumed the role of Elders of the Church. They are the ones who Jesus commanded to take the message to the Gentiles and make disciples of them. (Matt. 28-19-20).

In Matt. 24-14, the word "world" is "oikoumene," and the word "earth" is "ge" in Matt. 24-30. Concerning the word "age"-"aion", it is used as a reference to "world" in certain contexts. For example, Mark 10-28-30, "Persevere for my sake and the gospels will receive a reward---in the age (to aioni) to come, eternal life." Luke 18-30 uses the same Greek expression. This shows that "aion" (age) was being used in reference to a "world" to come, or new world age to come. That being the eternal age ( world) bringing in eternal life. And eternal life could not and was not given in an "age" that transpired in this world (age). That being as the preterists claim, the end of the age (the Old Covenant age/world) in 70 A.D. It would be given in the age/world to come in the "sunteleia." That being the consummation of the Christian age/world, that the Olivet Discourse speaks of. The "sunteliea" of the age then brings in the eternal age, bringing in eternal life. There is clear evidence in the New Testament that "aion" was often used to convey the sense of "world", the world as we know it. This again is seen in Luke 20-34-36, "Jesus answered and said to them,"the sons of this age (tou aionos) marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain "that age" (tou aionos ekeinou), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Here's another case of "aion" being used to denote "world." Here it means the world/age that will follow this one, when the righteous will be resurrected to eternal life.

In Luke 21-35, when speaking concerning "that day" given in verse 34, "that day---will come on all those who dwell on the face of the "whole earth" (tes ges). Here the meaning is quite clear, it is the "entire earth," and not just a specific land area in the world. Two things to note here, it would come as a snare or trap on all the world, and it would come "unexpectedly." This was not so in the destruction of Jerusalem. The Roman armies did not come "unexpectedly" to the Jews. Nor was this a snare or trap on the whole world, but only for the Jews caught in that destruction in that part of the world. Looking to the parable in Matthew 13, we see here the "field" is the "world" (kosmos), the entire world. Matt. 4-8 and Luke 4-5 speak of Jesus' temptation by the devil when he showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world." The word "world" used here in Matt. 4-8 is "kosmos." But Luke 4-5 uses the word "oikoumene" to mean "the whole world." In Luke 21-25, the word "earth" is "ges," and Matt. 5-18 the word "earth" is "ge." In each case to mean the whole earth. So it is in Matt. 24-30, the word "earth" is "ge". In Matt. 24-26, there he uses the Greek word "earth"-"oikoumene." The context indicates that "ge" and "oikoumene" was intended to convey in the strictest sense "the entire earth." It speaks of a "distress of nations that would be on the earth, and not only in "a part" of the earth. Luke uses "ges" (earth) in Luke 21-25 to speak of the distress of the nations of the earth, and in the next verse used "oikoumene" (earth) to speak of "the expectation of those things which are "coming on the earth." So we see the words were being used interchangeably in the same context. The context also speaks of "the sea and the waves roaring" in reference to "the distress of the nations on the earth." Chaos in the seas is a statement that depicts a worldwide upheaval and chaos that would accompany the return of Jesus.

Rev.3-10 is another passage among others in the New Testament that used both "earth" (ges) and world (oikoumene). Here Jesus states that an "hour of temptation" was coming upon the world (oikoumene) to try those who "dwell on the earth (ges)." Using earth interchangeably with world indicate that both words were to be understood in that sense. We read in Rev. 12-9, "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the "whole world," he was cast out into the earth (gen) and his angels were cast out with him." In verse 12, a woe "for the earth (gen) and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you." Here again, the word for earth is "gen", the entire earth. Using "earth" and "sea" together indicates that this speaks of the entire world which consists of the land and the sea. This is not speaking of a restricted area of earth/land, neither in Jerusalem or the Roman Empire as the preterist doctrines hold to. The context shows to any reasonable person that "oikoumene" in Luke 4-5; Acts 17-31; Hebrews 1-6; 2-5; Rev. 3-10; 12-9 and 16-14 signifies "the whole world." In Matt. 24-30 we read; "---all the tribes of the earth" (Ge). The Greek word "ge" is to mean the entire world. When "ge" is used in the limited sense, it is used in a limited sense of land within a specified region given in the text. A few examples are; Matt. 11-24, "Land (ge) of Sodom"; John 3-22, "land (gen) of Judea." Hebrews 8-8-9, "land (ges) of Egypt"; Matt. 14-34, "land (gen) of Gennesaret"; Acts 13-17-19, "in the land (ge) of Egypt---in the land (ge) of Canaan."

The contexts throughout the New Testament determined when "ge" was being used in the sense of the entire earth or a specific land area. Rev. 1-7 reads, "all the tribes of the earth "(ai phulai tes ges) will mourn because of him." Here the word "phulai" means "tribes" and "ges" means "earth," the entire world/earth.

Paul in Romans 16-26 said that the gospel had been made known "to all nations." But the word for"nations" used was neither "oikoumene" nor "kosmos." It was "ethne," which is the plural of "ethnos" (nation). Paul then was saying that the gospel had been preached (made known) to all "nationalities" that came from different nation groups and tongues in that area of the world. That began at Pentecost when the apostles spoke to the people in tongues (languages) to the various nation groups gathered there from different areas of the regions. Not that it had been preached "in all the world." He also gives this meaning in Col. 1-23 when he said that the gospel had been preached to "every creature under heaven," a figure of speech here used by Paul. No reasonable person would claim that the gospel had literally been preached in North and South America at that time, nor in other parts of the globe. This was a figure of speech used here by Paul to indicate that the gospel, at that time, had been made known "to all nations" (ethnic groups), and not the globe.

The preterist view is that "the end" prophesied in the Olivet Discourse was in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In their view this was "the end of the age" spoken about in the Discourse and the book of Revelation. But in Luke's reference to armies surrounding Jerusalem (Luke 21-20), Luke goes on to indicate that the destruction of the city was just "one" event in a "series" of others that would "precede" the final end (the sunteleia). "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are "the days of vengeance" (not the sunteleia), that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Jerusalem's fall, THEN all else that is prophesied and written may be fulfilled. "But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled" ( Luke 21-20-24).

We see here that after the fall of Jerusalem, a time event called "the time of the Gentiles" would need to be fulfilled. This is clearly seen as an event that would continue after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews being led away captives into all nations. So the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. could not be the end of the age (the sunteleia), and the fulfillment of prophecy as the preterists claim. Also, Luke goes on to say that "after" the events described above occurs, then "the times of the Gentiles" would need to be fulfilled; "there shall be signs in the sun, moon, and stars, and upon the earth ( the inhabited earth) distress of nations, etc, etc." Luke 21-25-28 is not a description of an "abrupt end" that would come with the fall of the city, but of events that would go on long after Jerusalem's fall. 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.

As we know, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but in the first half of the 3rd century B.C., work was begun on a Greek version that's called the Septuagint. This version can shed considerable light on what the translators of that time understood the Greek word "oikoumene" to mean. And the Holy Spirit must have considered it a reliable translation because he often "inspired" New Testament writers to quote it. Lets look at some Septuagint versions of Old Testament statements that referred to "the world." Keeping in mind at the time the work of the Septuagint began, Rome had---conquered all of the Italian peninsula, but no "Roman Empire" existed at that time. 2 Sam. 22-16,"---and the foundations of the world (oikoumenes) were discovered---." Did "oikoumenes" here refer to "a part" of the world or "Roman Empire" that didn't exist at that time? Psalm 9-8, "And he ( God) will judge the world (oikoumenon) in righteousness---." Does this mean that God would judge "only a part of the world or Roman Empire?" Psalm 18-15, "And the springs of water appeared, and the foundations of the world (oikoumenes) were exposed,---." Did the Septuagint translators think that the Lord had laid only the foundations of the Roman Empire? Psalm 24-1, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world (oikoumene) and all that dwell in it." Did the Septuagint translators think that only those who dwelt in the "yet to be Roman Empire" were the Lord's? These are just a few, others, when the word "world" is translated to Greek by the Septuagint translators to be "oikoumene" are seen here. Psalm 33-8;77-18;89-11;90-2;93-1;96-10;96-13;97-4;98-7,9; Proverbs 8-26; Isa. 13-11;23-17; Jer. 10-12; 51-15.

There are others given in the Old Testament to show that "oikoumene" was "frequently used" to convey the sense of the "entire world." As well as other passages quoted where "earth" and "world" are interchangeably used. Here apparently the preterists ( full or partial) reject all these many verses in the Old and New Testament and apply its meaning of "oikoumene" as being to only that "part of the world called the Roman Empire." One can only conclude that it is in order to hold to their doctrine of the prophecies being fulfilled, all or most in 70 A.D. Any doctrine that is "not of the word of the Lord" is a man-made doctrine, and not the gospel of the Lord. And Paul warned that it is to be rejected for it is cursed, as well as those who follow it knowingly.

The word "oikoumene" was used 15 times in the New Testament. The word sometimes means, in reading the context, the Roman Empire, but its also used to indicate the whole world or the "inhabited world." In Luke 2-1, the word "world" (oikoumene) is used, and it is, by context obvious that the "world" of the Roman Empire was meant, and not the entire world. In Luke 4-5, the context and word "world" is "oikoumene", whereas in Matt. 4-8 the word "kosmos" is used. Now if "kosmos" is to mean the entire world, then the context of "oikoumene" that Luke used was to indicate the same meaning, the entire world. Luke again uses the word "oikoumene" ( world) in Luke 21-25-26, but when looking to the context of verses 25-28, we see it to have a broader meaning; the entire world. The broader context is seen when Luke used "earth" (ges) in verse 25 to express "the distress of nations" on the "earth." (the entire earth). In verse 26, the next verse, he uses the word for"earth" (oikoumene) speaking of the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, words here used interchangeably that it speaks of the entire world, and not a part of a world land area dominated by the Roman Empire at that time. Going to Rev. 16-14 we read; "For they are spirits of the devil, working miracles which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to battle of that great day of God Almighty." Here we have "the kings of the "earth" and of the whole "world", now how could "oikoumene" here mean just "the Roman Empire?" How could "earth" be just a limited land area? The "whole world" however would have "many kings" in it rather than just a few. So which is the likely common sense meaning here, that kings within a limited area of land would go forth in that final apocalyptic battle, or that the kings of the whole world would come together for this battle?

Preterists maintain that the word "tribes" seen in Matt. 24-30 and Rev. 1-7 refer only to Israel-the tribes of Israel-, and not the tribes of the world. They see the word "tribes" as being a reference to "Israel's 12 tribes" and not the tribes of the world. The word "tribes" is seen in Matt. 19-28, where Jesus tells the disciples they would judge "the twelve tribes of Israel." The Greek word for "tribes" is "phule", the Septuagint also used "phule", but also in reference to "non-Hebriac tribes and nations." To give here a few examples; Gen. 12-3, "---and in thee shall all the tribes of the earth (phulai tes ges) be blessed." This is also seen in Gen. 28-14 when the promise was given to Jacob. "---in thee and thy seed shall all the tribes of the earth (phulai tes ges) be blessed." These tribes of the earth are seen in Ezek. 20-32, "--we will be as the nations, and "as the tribes of the earth" (phulai tes ges) to worship stocks and stones."

Going to Amos 3-2 we read, "You (house of Israel) especially have I known out of all the "families of the earth" (phulon tes ges)---." If God had "especially" known the house of Israel out of all the families (phulon) of the earth, then these (phulon) tribes of the earth would have included all non-Hebraic tribes wouldn't they? If not, why not? We see these families of the earth again in Zech. 14-16-17. "And it shall come to pass that whosoever of all the families of the earth (tou phulon tes ges) shall not go to Jerusalem to worship the king, the Lord Almighty---." In verse 18 we read, "And if the family of Egypt (de phule Aiquptou) shall not go up,---." We see here when the biblical text restricts "phule" with a "qualifier" like "of Egypt," this means that only this "one tribe" is meant. But when texts refer to "all the tribes of the earth," it means all the tribes of the earth, the "grafted in" as well, and not just the 12 Jewish tribes of Israel. It speaks of "all Israel," the Israel of God, "the house of Israel", which is the body of Christ. So we can know that the tribes in Matt. 19-18 referred only to the 12 tribes of Israel, because the text says so, but there is no such "qualifier" in Matt. 24-30 and Rev. 1-7. Just as there is no qualifier of the word "ges" (earth) with "of Judea" or "of Jerusalem" to show that Jesus meant for "ges" (earth) to refer only to the region around Jerusalem. If "ai phulai tes ges" (all the tribes of the earth) mean "all the tribes of the land of Judea" as preterists claim, then they must point us to "linguistic reasons" in the context of the statement to support their claims. The truth is they have no contextual reasons to support their claims, or they would have given them by now. They take that position only because of their long-held traditional belief.

Lets turn now to Rev. 1-7, "Behold, he is coming with clouds, and every eye will see him, even they who pierced him. And "all the tribes of the earth" (ai phulai tes ges) will mourn because of him." Now here, does this mean "all the tribes of the earth?" Why? Because it says so. If not, why not? How about Rev. 5-9, "---redeemed us to God by your blood out of "every tribe" (phules) and tongue and people and nation---." How about Rev. 13-7, "---and authority was given him (the beast kingdom) over "every tribe" (phulen), tongue and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him---." How about Rev. 14-6, the flying angel "having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth---to every nation, "tribe" (phulen), tongue and people---." Now do these texts given here speak of "all the tribes of the earth?" Yes? Why? Because it says so. How about Rev. 7-4-8 where we see the sealing taking place "of all the tribes of the children of Israel." Are these "the tribes of the earth?" No. Why? Because it says so.

We read in Matt. 24-6, "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars,---but the end is not yet." In Mark 13-8 and Luke 21-11, Jesus said when these things would happen the end was "not yet." Rather, all these things are "the beginning of sorrows." So the signs of wars and rumors of wars, nations rising against nations, kingdoms against kingdoms, famines, pestilences, earthquakes etc. that preterists say was fulfilled by 70 A.D. with the fall of Jerusalem being that end or "end of the age" spoken of in the Discourse cannot possibly be. For according to Jesus, the end (the sunteleia) that Jesus is speaking of here, at this point in time of the prophecy, it marks "the beginning of sorrows" and not "the end" (sunteleia) as the preterists claim occurred by 70 A.D.

If as preterists claim, the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse, the book of Revelation, and other scriptures was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with Jesus' return even spiritually as they claim, then the prophecies concerning the resurrection and the new age of eternal life, the complete "sunteleia" would also have to be fulfilled at that time. Because 1 Thess. 4-13-18 clearly teaches that the resurrection would accompany the return of Jesus, and also fulfill the promise (the rapture) to the living saints. It is certainly clear that these things did not happen in 70 A.D. as preterists claim. The inspired word of God speaks "contrary" to the preterist claim. Luke 21-22 states that these "are the days of vengeance (not salvation and fulfillment of prophecy), "in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled." We can see this verse "all things--may be fulfilled" in light of the verse which speaks of Jerusalem being trodden down by the Gentiles "until the fullness of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Which history shows would be long after 70 A.D. to our very time. To the time where "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Luke 21-32). This can be seen in Romans 11-25, "---blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." In order to receive a better understanding of what has been discussed thus far, we'll continue with a review of the Olivet Discourse we've been following. We begin in Matt. 24-3 where the disciples asked Jesus; "Tell us, when shall these things be? And what (shall be) the sign of thy coming, and of the end (sunteleia) of the age (aionos)?" As noted, the word "end" here is "sunteleia" which signifies to finish or end "completely" that prophetic text given.

In Mark 13-5-7, Luke 21-8-9 and here in Matt. 24-4-6, these events are given us. "Take heed that no man deceives you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled; for all (prophecy in scripture) must come to pass, but the end (the sunteleia) is not yet." In Luke 21-9 it is stated; "---for these things (given to this point in the Discourse) must first come to pass---." These prophetic words Jesus speaks of, at this point in the Discourse, "the end is not yet," was given in answer to their question in Matt. 24-3 concerning the "end" (the sunteleia of the age/world). As is seen in Mark 13-8, Luke 21-10-11 and here in Matt. 24-7-8, Jesus goes on to say; "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers (various) places. All these (things to take place are) the beginning of sorrows." After giving these general signs to the disciples concerning these coming things, he begins to tell his disciples the things that would soon happen to them in their lifetime. This is made clear in Luke 21-12, "But before all these (things)---." These events are given in Mark 13-9-13, Luke 21-12-19 and here in Matt. 24-9-13. Since Mark 13-9-11 give us more details, we go to that text. "But take heed to yourselves; for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten; and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published (proclaimed) among all nations." We know from scripture that this began at Pentecost. "---men out of "every nation" under heaven (v. 5-Acts 2-1-13). This "proclamation" is seen in Mark 13-11, the following verse; "But when they shall lead (arrest) you, and deliver you up, take no thought before hand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but "the Holy Ghost." We read in verse 13, "And ye shall be hated of all (men) for my name's sake; but he that shall endure (persevere to the end) the same shall be saved."

Here its necessary to go to Luke 21-20-24 in order to get a clearer understanding of the context seen in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. For Luke 21-20-24 give us the prophetic/historical fulfillment concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and its aftermath by the Roman Empire. "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." We see here, this refers not to the final end, the "sunteleia" time, but to Jerusalem's fall, its desolation. Here in Luke he does not state that it is "the abomination that causes desolation" for "Jerusalem", but rather it is the Roman armies that shall cause the desolation of Jerusalem. The abomination that causes desolation spoken of and seen in Mark and Matthew are not speaking of the Roman armies that Luke records, but rather the abomination seen in Daniel that we are told to refer to by Jesus in those verses of Mark and Matthew. And it is this abomination we are warned about that would come in the end time, and cause the desolation of the "world."

Continuing with the prophecy given here in Luke of Jerusalem's fall; "Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into. For these be the days of "vengeance" (judgment-not fulfillment of all prophecy), that all things which are written may (in coming times) be fulfilled." This verse is clear, these are the days of "vengeance", not fulfillment, in order that all things written may be fulfilled. "All things," all prophecy given and written in the Old and New Testament by the prophets and the apostles AFTER Jesus prophesied these things in 30A.D. "But woe unto them (in those days of vengeance) that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days. For there shall be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 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."

Luke 21-24 tells us that the Jews would be led away into all nations from the time of Jerusalem's fall, and Jerusalem would be trampled down "until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And we know that time came about since 70 A.D. until at least when Israel was made a nation again in 1948 and Jerusalem again fell into Israel's hand in 1967's Eight Day War. Luke 21-25-28 goes on to say that until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled; "There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things (global and heavenly) begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption (not judgment) draweth nigh" (near).

Continuing in Luke 21-31-36, "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God (the literal heavenly kingdom of God) is nigh (near) at hand." When these things come to pass, how near at hand shall the kingdom of God be? "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Not the generation of the 1st century, but the generation that shall exist when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and as the general signs given occur in greater frequency. And note, it is at this time in the prophecy text that Jesus says "Heaven and earth "shall" pass away ( at the sunteleia of the age); but my words shall not pass away." Yet the preterists proclaim otherwise. They say that "heaven and earth" spiritually passed away in 70 A.D.; that being the Old Covenant age/world. But be it spiritual as they claim, Jesus states otherwise as does Revelation chapter 22. That heaven and earth shall pass away, not in 70 A.D. but when the general signs occur and after "the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," bringing in the "sunteleia" of the age, and not before. It is in those times of "that generation" that see these things being fulfilled that Luke 21-34-36 speaks to. "And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged (weighed down) with surfeiting ( carousing), and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and (so) that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare (trap) shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" (tes ges). This verse is clear, it speaks of these things coming on the entire earth, and not just a specific land area of the Roman Empire. "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man."

Now that we have gone through Luke 21-20-36, we turn to Mark 13-14-37 and Matt. 24-14-35, from where we had left off, and now continue from there. Since the wording in Matthew and Mark are much the same, we'll follow the text of Matthew. We ended in Mark 13-13 and Matt. 24-13, where it stated, "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." This is a parallel to Luke 21-17-19 and verse 24, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." This time can be seen in Matt. 24-14; "and this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene-the inhabited world) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Note the difference in wording here when compared to Mark 13-10, where there it indicated the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. There the "gospel" is mentioned, but the words "of the kingdom" are omitted. For the "gospel" must first be proclaimed among (not "into" but among) all nations. Acts chapter 2 tells us that this "gospel to be (first) published among the nations was fulfilled at Pentecost." Mark and Matthew continue the prophetic context of that which would concern the going out of the gospel of the kingdom to the world before the end. What we have come to call the church age, and then after that shall the end come. When that "end" (telos) comes Mark and Matthew begin the prophetic texts from that point in time. (Mark 13-14-23; Matt. 24-14-28).

Matt. 24-15-16 (Mark 13-14), "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand); Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." This "abomination of desolation" seen in Dan. 11-36 to 12-13 that is being spoken of here cannot refer to Rome or its Roman armies that came against Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when reading the context in Daniel. Neither can it be Antiochus Epiphanes, for this prophecy was given nearly 200 years later, and was given as "a coming prophecy." The wording is clear, "When ye therefore shall (future tense) see---."These text verses of Mark and Matthew speak of a coming abomination of desolation at the end of the church age. This is seen in 2 Thess. 2-1-4, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by (concerning) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by (concerning) our gathering together unto him. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for (that day shall not come), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." This refers to "the abomination of desolation" that shall "stand in the holy place" seen here in Mark 13-14 and Matt. 24-15-16. This tribulation spoken of in these verses occur not only in Israel, but also in the world at large, as is seen in Mark 13-19-20 and Matt. 24-21-22. "Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains" (Matt. 24-16). "For then shall be great tribulation (global tribulation), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there shall no flesh be saved; but for the elects sake ( Christ's saints) those days shall be shortened" (Matt. 24-21-22).

In Mark 13-21-22 and here 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).

(Mark 13-24-31) Matt. 24-29-35, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days (In Mark-"In those days after that tribulation"), 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 (ge-the whole earth of tribes) 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 the trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect (saints) from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (see 1 Thess. 4-15-17). Matt. 24-33-35 (Mark 13-29-31), "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it (or he) is near at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation (living when they shall see all these things) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Matt. 24-36-40, "But of that day and hour knoweth no (man), no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah (were), so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." "Watch ye therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even (evening), or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning; Lest coming suddenly he finds you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch!" ( Mark 13-35-37).

Lets turn now to discuss the time references or "time texts" the preterists point to in helping to support their 70 A.D. doctrine. They point to references such as "at hand, near, quickly, shortly and soon." In using these references, they point to Rev. 1-1, "---things which must shortly come to pass---." Rev. 1-3,"---for the time is at hand." Rev. 3-11,"---I am coming quickly;---." Rev. 22-6-7,"---things which must come to pass shortly.---behold, I am coming quickly;---." Rev. 22-10, "---for the time is at hand." Rev. 22-12, "Behold, I am coming quickly;---." Rev. 22-20, "---Yea, I am coming quickly." Preterists hold these time 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 "partial" preterists do not believe that "all" of the words of the prophecy of Revelation have been fulfilled in 70 A.D. Rather they believe that there is yet a future second coming of Christ (actually a 3rd coming according to their doctrine), based on a few New Testament passages "including Rev. 20-7-9." But the "time text references" they use to defend their doctrine; Rev. 1-1;1-3;22-6 and 22-10 "do not exclude" such passages as Rev. 20-7-9; but rather "encompass" all prophetic truth of the book of Revelation. Rev. 1-1, "---things which must shortly come to pass." Rev. 1-3, "---the words of the prophecy (in the book) and keep the things written in it ( in the whole book) for the time is at hand." Rev. 22-6, "---to show his servants the things (all things in this book) which must come to pass shortly." Rev. 22-10, "---seal not the words of the "prophecy of this book;" for the time is at hand."

Yet, the partial preterists acknowledge that Rev. 20-7-9 to chapter 22 have yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, whether they realize it or not, these "time text references" they use to defend their doctrine, "contradicts" their 70 A.D. doctrine they hold tightly too. For we can see here, this clearly creates a contradiction with the teachings of partial preterism. Since Rev. 22-6 refers to "the whole book" of Revelation, it would be impossible to take the Greek "tachos" (soon or shortly) as a reference to 70 A.D. and at the same time hold that Rev. 20-7-9 teaches a future coming of Christ. Also since Rev. 22-10 is at the end of the book and refers to the total prophetic message of Revelation, it is inconsistent to interpret "part" of the prophetic message as having already been fulfilled and the other part as still future.

There are other New Testament epistles that utilize the very same kind of "time text references" that speak like the verses seen in Revelation of an "imminent, soon or quick coming." Heb. 10-37, "For yet a "very little while" he that comes will come, and will "not delay." Peter 4-7, "But the end of all things is "drawn nigh (near);"---." Phil. 4-5, "---The Lord is near." Rom. 13-11-12, "---and "the day is near;"---." Rom. 16-20, "But the Lord of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet "shortly." James 5-8-9, "--for the coming of our Lord "is at hand."---behold the judge "standeth before the door." These are just some of others that could be given seen in the New Testament that speak of imminence of a soon, short or quick coming. The bottom line is that the "kind of imminence" which preterists assign to these time text references is self-defeating to their own doctrine, as can be seen in these texts given here. Revelation is not the only book to speak about future events as being "imminent" and "at hand". Paul admonishes godly living in light of the fact that the "night is almost gone, and "the day is near" (Rom. 13-12). Peter says, "The end of all things "is near," therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer" (1 Peter 4-7). James also speaks in this way, "--you to be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord "is near" ( James 5-8).

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 continuing, one time text they use is seen in Luke 21-22. "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." From this text they conclude that absolutely all prophecy, rather than just the prophecy about the vengeance on Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D. When doing a word study on "all things written", they would see they overlooked these verses. "---Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets "concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished" (Luke 18-31). "--that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, "concerning me" (Luke 24-44). In these two passages "all things written" refer to the things in the context, concerning Jesus, rather than to "all things absolutely prophesied� that are not in the context or written as yet. Therefore, as in Luke chapter 18 and 24, so it is in Luke chapter 21. Lets note a time text here that preterists usually overlook. "For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt. 23-39). In the preceding verse (v.38), Jesus says, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." As we know, as a nation, they did not repent, and as a nation they ( their house) were left desolate in 70 A.D. But Jesus also said, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." This thus implies that Jerusalem and the Jews, even though destroyed and dispersed in 70 A.D. would yet become a Jewish nation and city in the future. And Jerusalem as we know belongs to the Jews once again since becoming a nation in 1948.

Concerning time texts the preterists continually use to defend their doctrine, let's start here in Matt. 24-15. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)." Here Jesus points us to Daniel, so we go to that text that speaks of this abomination. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (Dan. 9-27). Most agree, as the preterists do, that "week" means a week of years, that being seven years. Note the two events that happen in the middle of that time. No. `1, "He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." No. 2, "--for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate."

Futurists see both events happening in the middle of the week as seen here in the text. And to be fulfilled by the same personage ( whom they call anti-Christ). Preterists however, "split" these events in time, saying that Christ is the one who caused the sacrifice to cease by his sacrifice on the Cross in the middle of the week. Then later in time ( this brings in a time gap), came the abomination of desolation, fulfilled by Nero ( representing Rome) or somebody like that in 70 A.D. In either case they see and acknowledge "a gap" between the two events. So according to some preterists, the 2nd event falls "outside" the week ( the 7 years), instead of in the "middle" of the week, as the text reads. Other preterists keep the 2nd event in the middle of the week by "moving" the week to around 70 A.D. But acknowledging still "a gap" between the 69th and 70th week as futurists proclaim. But for preterists to do this, that would leave the 1st event fulfillment "outside" the week. That being Christ's crucifixion causing the sacrifice to cease. In each case, one event or the other falls "outside" the week the preterist doctrine holds too, and with "a gap" between the two events. A gap they use to defend their doctrine, but a gap "they deny" the futurist to defend their doctrine with. Still other preterists stretch the 70th week (the 7 years) to nearly "40 years" in order to include both events "within" the week, even though separated in time by nearly 40 years.

There are four places that mention the taking away of the daily. I say "daily" because the word "sacrifice" is not given in the original texts of Daniel, except in Dan. 9-27. It was the translators who added the word "sacrifice" in those verses other than in Dan. 9-27. "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily (added-sacrifice), and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?" (Dan. 8-13). "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" ( Dan. 9-27). "And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily (added-sacrifice), and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan 11-31). "And from the time that the daily (added-sacrifice) shall be taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days" (Dan. 12-11). From these passages we see that the taking away of the daily (--) is done by the "bad guy", not by Christ. Also the two events, the taking away of the daily and the abomination of desolation happen "together" at the same time, with "no gap" in between the two. Note particularly Dan. 12-11; the two events happen together at the same time, and by the same "person." (beast). And it is the "bad guy" not Christ who takes away the daily and sets up the abomination with no gap between the two events. We see the passages do not allow a gap between the two events of the 70th week. The week is a solid unit. Therefore, if there's a gap, the gap more naturally falls "before" the 70th week begins, that being after the 69th week.

We see that Jesus in his Discourse put the events of the 70th week future to his time. So why do preterists hang on to the interpretation that it was not the "bad guy" who takes away the daily and sets up an abomination, but rather it was Christ? Where their interpretation would then require a gap of nearly 40 years "between" the two events? Where the passages make clear the two events occur at the same time, and allow for no gaps? The text in Daniel says, "And after threescore and two weeks ( after the 69th week) shall Messiah be cut off." It doesn't say "in the middle of the 70th week" as the preterist time texts give us. The text tells of the destruction of the "city and sanctuary before" it mentions the events of the 70th week. Yet the time line of preterists "reverses" this order given us in Daniel. In the case of the desolation in Matthew and Luke, we'll notice one big difference. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, ( whoso readeth, let him understand), Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains;---." (Matt. 24-15-16). "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains---." ( Luke 21-20-21).

What is the signal to flee seen in these verses? We see they provide two answers, but two different answers. The different answers give evidence of different events. Matthew says to flee when you see something "inside" or "standing in the holy place." Luke says when you see something "outside" the city of Jerusalem. So which is it? They're opposite. In Matthew's context, the "holy place" refers to Daniel, and is temple related rather than city related. The Daniel passages about the abomination of desolation mention "sanctuary," the "daily" and "oblation." Although Dan. 9-26 mentions the "desolation" of the city and the sanctuary, the "abomination" passages are "temple related" ( Dan. 8-13;9-27;11-31;12-11). So in context, "holy place" means the holy place in the temple where God resides. In the New Covenant context, we are the temple, the "holy place" where God resides by His Holy Spirit he indwells us with. We are the temple of God--the house of Israel--the Israel of God.

Besides Daniel to which Matthew refers us, see also Acts 6-13, Hebrews chapter 9, and 2 Thess. 2-4. Mark 13-14 says the abomination of desolation will stand where it "ought not." Now the contrast is not just outside the city versus inside the city. But now, more than just inside the city, its also inside a temple. Inside the temple where the holy place resides. So if outside the city and inside the city are opposite, then outside the city and inside the holy place are "totally" opposite. On this basis, it can be concluded that Matthew and Luke record different events, because the signal to flee is opposite. From this follows other observations consistent with that conclusion. First, the "timing" of fleeing is different. In Matthew the time to flee comes "after" the abomination of desolation is set up. In Luke the time to flee comes "before" the desolation. Second, the description of the desolation is different. Matthew calls it the "abomination" of desolation spoken of by Daniel. In Luke its just "desolation" of what is to come upon the Jewish nation and Jerusalem. And Luke gives no reference to Daniel concerning this "desolation." Third, the description of the distress is different. Luke calls it "great distress." Matthew calls it "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Fourth, the scope of people in distress is different. Luke says there shall be "wrath upon this people" and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down." But Matthew says, "And except those days shall be shortened, there shall no flesh be saved." Preterists take "no flesh" as not literally being global, but limited in scope to Jerusalem or Israel.

After Luke finishes talking about the distress, and starts talking about the Lord's 2nd coming, we see his language, like Matthew's, become worldwide in scope, saying "it shall come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." Number 5, the "days" receive a different emphasis of meaning. Matthew says, "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved." But instead of shortening and saving, Luke says, "For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Sixth, the chronology of the desolation is different. Matthew has the abomination "before" the great tribulation. Although Luke warns to flee before the "distress" (as he records it), the actual "desolation" occurs at the "end" of the distress of that time. Seven, the description of the false Christs is different. Luke mentions false Christs once "before" the coming distress. Matthew mentions false Christs twice, the second time "after the tribulation begins." That's consistent with the futurist view of what will happen in the tribulation. And if Luke is not talking about the future tribulation, but a past distress, then its consistent that he omits these events.

Number 8, the people go in opposite directions. Luke says they "shall be led away captives into all nations." Matthew says, "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." One event is the scattering, the other event is the gathering. This pattern is consistent with the view that Luke and Matthew speak of different times. Luke speaks of the time of distress leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Matthew speaks of the great tribulation leading up to the return of Christ. Number 9, in Matthew he writes, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days---." The words "immediately after" are missing from Luke. And Luke does not even use the words as Mark does, "after that tribulation." Luke simply says, "And there shall be signs in the sun---." without specifying when, as Matthew and Mark do. If Luke does not explicitly place the time of distress adjacent to the time of the end, then where does he place it? He places it at the beginning of the time of the Gentiles. "And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled." When is the time of the Gentiles fulfilled? Some preterists say it was fulfilled at the fall of the city in 70 A.D., and they say it started at the surrounding of the city. But in Luke the surrounding of the city means its desolation is "near" not here. The trod ding of the city happens last in Luke's texts, not first. The year 70 A.D. only "started" the trod ding down, not ended it. Therefore Luke leaves us with an extended time of Gentile domination over Jerusalem, which through hindsight has lasted at least until 1967 when Israel regained Jerusalem. "This then puts the end of the time of the Gentiles at the end of the age (the sunteleia) and the return of Christ."

Luke 21-28 says, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." In Biblical context redemption is near when the Kingdom of God is nigh (Luke 21-31). Other passages reveal two aspects of redemption, one at the first coming of Christ, and the other at the second coming of Christ. But how does the destruction of Jerusalem relate to "redemption" as preterists try to claim? It doesn't, but Jesus' words and promises do; "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the Kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away" (Luke 21-31-33; see also Matt. 24-33-35 and Mark 13-29-31).

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21-36).

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, the Greek word "parousia" (to mean presence) is "not" used. The Greek word used is "erchomenon" 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 the word used is "erchomenon," and is to mean a "literal presence," or coming.

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.

Comments? > http://www.twospiritshendora.com/apps/blog/