Does it make any difference whether I am a dispensational premillennialist or an amillennialists or a postmillennialist or a full preterist? What difference does it make when Jesus comes, as long as he comes? When I was a premillennialist, I didn’t think it mattered at all. I knew what I believed, and, if you believed differently, that was okay with me—you were wrong, but I didn’t mind, because I didn’t think eschatology was that important. I don’t mean to imply it wasn’t a lot of fun to study about the end times. It was great fun, but I figured, if God didn’t think it was important enough to reveal the day and the hour, well, how important could it be what I believed, just as long as Jesus did come eventually?
At that time I wasn’t very informed about the other points of view, but I didn’t mind that either. I had a general knowledge of what all the titles meant, except for full preterism. That one was a mystery to me, but I wasn’t very curious about a belief that didn’t look forward to a future coming of Christ. I didn’t know that they believed Jesus came cir. 70 AD, but I’m not certain how much of a difference that would have made 15 to 20 years ago.
I guess, since I’ve come around to believing full preterism is the truth, I have come to believe that eschatology is really important. The reason is not simply that it is correct. Being correct has always been important to me, but the big reason eschatology has come to be so important is this: a big reason why Jews, Moslems and atheists reject the New Testament is that all the writers of the New Testament claimed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus saying all things would be fulfilled in that first century AD generation that rejected Jesus as Messiah. Therefore, these folks have a good argument against divine inspiration, if Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament were wrong. As little as a year ago I would have tried to argue for a future coming of the Lord, but I know that argument couldn’t have been very convincing to a knowledgeable Jew, Moslem or atheist.
Jesus once told his scoffers (Jews of the first century AD), “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not” (John 10:37). In other words, Jesus challenged his scoffers and scoffers of all ages (Jews, Moslems, Atheists etc.), saying don’t believe what he says, unless he is able to perform what his Father gave him to do! That’s a powerful all-or-nothing challenge! Jesus simply laid it all on the line at that point. ‘If I can’t do what I say I’ll do, don’t believe me” (my paraphrase of Jesus at John 10:37. Would it be important, then, if Jesus promised to return to that generation of the folks living in the 1st century AD? I have to believe it makes a whole world of difference, given his statement in John 10:37. He told his disciples: “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father” (John 16:16). In other words Jesus said in a little while he would go to be with the Father, but in a little while he would return. In his own words, if he didn’t return “in a little while” then don’t believe him (John 10:37; 16:16). Did Jesus do what he said he would do? My answer to that question really does determine my colors.
I have to say, that I understand the unbelief of the scoffers (Jews, Moslems and atheists) on this point, because I’ve lived to be 70 years of age and have never heard of even the possibility of Jesus’ Second Coming to be an accomplished event. I understand that the unbelief of Jews, Moslems and atheists is more complicated than whether or not Jesus returned cir. 70 AD, but I also understand it is a ‘big’ point with them. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, my eschatology is extremely important at this point in my life, and, if God grants me the privilege of speaking with anyone who scoffs at Jesus’ promise to return in the 1st century AD, or anyone who mocks the writers of the New Testament who foretold that he would, I’ll set them straight on that point. No one will be able to use ‘failure to perform’ as a legitimate argument against Christianity with me ever again.
Smoodock's Blog 
14 responses to “What Difference Does It Make?”
Greetings Gary, and thank you for your comment. I like a little stretch every now and then and experience the way other folks look at the scriptures. We differ, of course, on John 10:35. For me, it is a matter of faith (my faith I speaking of here) to simply trust God to reveal his word to me, and guard me from getting too far into error, when he knows my heart is to love the truth.
I had my faith overcome years ago by a cultist. I used to be Roman Catholic, as a young man. I wanted to know the Bible with a fierce desire. I didn’t want anyone or anything to stand in the way of that effort. Of course, I really didn’t know what I was doing or even asking, but God permitted me (led seems too strong a word) to get involved with a cult that lived in the Old Testament. It took six years to figure out the big mistake I made, but on the plus side, I really knew my way around the Bible.
The point is, I’m no longer afraid of being wrong. I hate being wrong, but I’m not afraid to be wrong. In other words I’d rather be wrong and find that out, than do nothing and be unsure. I saw that the Lord will save me out of error, if my heart toward him is right. I hate being on the outside. I’m more comfortable jumping in, even if I am over my head. I trust God will see to it that I come to no harm (spiritually). There may be a price to pay physically, but I’m willing to fork that over for the understanding that “I know that I know” a thing. In this case it is Preterism. As long as no one is able to point out specifically where it is in error, I’m in for the long haul. If later I’m proved wrong, well, I will be able to say: “I know that I know” it is wrong, and these are the reasons.
I’ve used John 10:35 to correct myself, so it isn’t like I’m trying to twist it into acknowledging Preterism. I trust John 10:35, so if I find Preterism doesn’t measure up, then I’ll chuck the whole thing. But, my way of doing that is jumping right in and not looking back. I’ve already proved to myself that futurism has a bad record at being right, and a lot of people have been hurt (economically destroyed), because they trusted some of these men were sent by God to preach what they said was true. I don’t see Preterism paved with that kind of pain and loss. Maybe I’ll find out differently in a few years, but until then, I’m in, looking for the Lord to guide the way.
Lord bless you, Gary.
I think that Preterism clearly crosses a line in the sand when attempting to document the second coming of Jesus Christ at the time of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The bible is so clear about Christ’s return being a worldwide phenomenon, something that everyone will see and hear:
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and EVERY eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and ALL tribes of the earth will wail on account of him…
Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Matthew 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then ALL the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
We’re literally promised that we will not miss it, we will not mistake this for any false coming – for any past, present or future deceptions. And, not only will everyone see and hear His coming, they will be an integral part of what’s happening. For the saved, both alive and dead:
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.
Matthew 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
1 Corinthians 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
And, then for everyone else, those that have not accepted Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, God’s own Son sacrificed for our salvation:
Revelation 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Revelation 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
And, this is really just a short list, it seems quite futile for Preterists to claim these events have already taken place, the whole concept is loaded with blatant contradictions. It should also be noted that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 does NOT predict the second coming of Christ. So, while it seems like good debate to stretch Daniel 9 to include the destruction of the temple [ or at least to the predictions of Jesus about the temple ], and to use that to argue against the whole 70th week gap theory. However, it’s a very wide overstretch to try and include the return of our Lord into the same event.
It’s also clear to me that AD 70 does not really mesh with the events described in Revelation even in the sense of the documented accounts of the warfare. In Revelations, looking at either the battle of Armageddon or the battle of Gog/Magog [ and I’m really not sure if these may actually be two descriptions of the same battle – the millennium debate still has me really puzzled ], we can see that God defends those in Jerusalem by killing those that have surrounded them. According to all accounts, this is NOT what happened in AD 70, the Romans killed more than a million Jews, and then went on about their business.
Jesus did NOT return to settle up all accounts in 70 AD, but He is going to do that in the Great Day of The Lord. For some it will be the blessed hope, for others not so blessed, but I believe the bible says clearly that no one is going to miss out on the action…
Greetings Gary and thank you for your comment. My previous reply to you was a very general statement that I would continue on my course in Preterism in order to discover its truth or its flaws (or both). Your most recent reply seems to indicate your desire to debate Preterism or at least challenge my intention to jump into that camp and experience it for myself. I don’t mind you doing this, I just didn’t want to appear that I wanted you to either do what I intend to do or to accept Preterism as the truth. You are welcome to believe as you choose and that without any challenge on my part. However, I do intend to reply to your comment as kindly as I possibly can for a person who is opposed to your point of view.
Concerning Revelation 1:7, does this verse claim that **every** eye would see Jesus at his coming—every eye of every person who ever lived, from Adam to the coming of the Lord? The scriptures are a real marvel to me. No book ever written is quite like this book. It is written in so many contexts: law, history, poetry, biographical narrative, letters, prophecy and apocalyptic. It also uses so many different literary forms: prose, poetry, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, ellipsis, allegory, parable, and even myth, and so many other figures of speech that are simply too numerous to number here. The Bible, simply put, it one of a kind, and nothing comes close to it in the writings of men.
So, “every eye” would see Jesus. Would this be anything like all Judea (every last man woman and child) going out to see John the Baptist to be baptized by him (Matthew 3:5)? Might there be a little hyperbole being used here to show how successful John’s ministry was? What about Revelation 1:7? Should this be literally true (in the most symbolic book of the Bible), or should we see it in the light of hyperbole in order to express the importance of the event. You know, like we might have told our parents about a party we wanted to go to, “But, Dad, **everyone** will be there!”
What about the context of Revelation 1:7?
This is exactly how you quoted the verse. Jesus claimed that all the righteous blood ever shed from Able to that of Zacharias would be avenged upon that generation of Jews listening to Jesus (Matthew 23:35-36). Furthermore, he told the high priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin that he / they would see him sitting at the right hand of the Father, coming in the clouds to judge Jerusalem (Matthew 26:64). Do you see how this context changes and limits the meaning of Revelation 1:7? “Behold he is coming with clouds…” this is judgment (cf. Isaiah 19:1); the Egyptians saw judgment coming, but they didn’t actually see the Lord coming.
“…and EVERY eye will see him, even those who pierced him…” the “EVERY eye” is defined here with “those who pierced him”, which is exactly what Jesus claimed would occur in Matthew 26:64. “…and ALL tribes of the earth will wail on account of him…” Yes, all the 12 tribes of the “earth”, i.e. the Jewish lands, will mourn due to their judgment – 2/3 of the people dead, the loss of their Temple and the destruction of their lands. They mourn because of Jesus’ judgment upon them.
All this scripture claims is that the coming of the Son of Man (i.e. his judgment) would be known worldwide. When Jerusalem fell the whole empire and beyond knew. And, anyone who heard the Gospel, but rejected it, would have remembered that this very thing was predicted by Jesus’ disciples.
Again, Jesus coming in the clouds is apocalyptic language for judgment (see Isaiah 19:1). Jesus predicted he would come in the glory of the Father and many folks listening to him would see that occur (Matthew 16:27-28). The **sign** that the Son of Man is in heaven is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Judgment upon Jerusalem (Matthew 26:64) was Jesus’ vindication, showing he was not in the grave (as many Jews claimed – see Matthew 28:11-15) but in heaven.
First of all, we need to see the context of this scripture. The Thessalonians had written Paul, sorrowing over loved ones who had died before the coming of the Lord, and Paul was responding to that (cf. 1Thessalonians 4:13). At the very least, this puts the coming of the Lord in the first century AD. Both the Thessalonians and Paul expected Jesus to return in their generation. So, at the coming of the Lord the dead in Christ would rise first, and this resurrection in the context of 1Thessalonians 4 was to occur in the 1st century AD. No matter what else can be said of what Paul wrote, this is a fact that, in as much as I can tell, cannot be denied. The resurrection was to occur in the 1st century AD at the coming (parousia – G3952) of Christ (1Thessalonians 4:15). What is interesting about the parousia is that whenever a dignitary was to visit or come (parousia) a city, the city’s citizens watched for his coming (parousia), and when they saw him, they would all go out to meet (G529 – apantesis) him and escort him back to their city. In the context of 1Thessalonians 4:15-17 this shows the Lord’s coming (parousia) was to be with and remain with his people. In other words, the Tabernacle of God was with men (Revelation 21:3). We shall meet (G529) him in the air (aer – G109). Ephesians 2:2 implies that the air in this sense is the spiritual realm of evil, but at Christ’s return it becomes the heavenly realm of his saints. We are seated in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:6). The theme of 1Thessalonians 4 is the **near** coming (parousia) of Christ, whereby we who are alive meet him only to escort him to the earth in order that he remain with us (Revelation 21:3). This language has been abused by literalists with an agenda of a future coming of the Lord.
All this verse is saying is that the elect will be gathered together from every direction, and this is being done even today with the Gospel. In the context of the coming of the Lord, all the elect had to be sealed (with the Holy Spirit – viz. Revelation 7) before the coming of the Lord could occur. This was done through preaching the Gospel.
I’ve already demonstrated above that the resurrection would occur (according to Paul) in the first century AD. The word’s “we shall be changed” has to do with a covenantal change. Paul speaks of this at length in 2Corinthains 3 where he writes about Moses and the veiled glory of the Old Covenant and Christ who is not veiled, and we behold him and are changed from glory to glory. At the coming (parousia) of Christ, the Old Covenant was destroyed and the New Covenant was established. Paul lived under the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) but worshiping Christ. The New Covenant wasn’t fully established until the coming of Christ in 70 AD. The fact that we live under the New Covenant is evidence that the Old has passed and Christ has returned.
Are you saying by quoting these scriptures that Christ is NOT reigning now? Does Jesus have a literal sword coming out of his mouth? What are the implements of the spiritual warfare that Christ wages? You seem to be taking this scripture literally, and it comes from the most symbolic book of the Bible. According to Paul in 2Corinthians 12 John saw and wrote about things the human language has no words for, but you seem to know exactly what to look for by quoting these two verses. In any event Revelation 19 cannot be used to say Jesus did not return in 70 AD. There is nothing here that points to a future event.
Lord bless you, Gary, as you study his word.
Hi Eddie, I really wan’t issuing a challenge, especially since it seems clear to me that you are already challenging yourself to an in-depth study of God’s word and are keeping an open mind about all angles. Perhaps I did want to test you a little bit to see how your response would be framed, but I was thinking that you’re already fairly committed to Full Preterism so I really see that you’re likely to play that out as far as it takes you. For myself, I’ve really been focused on better understanding the second coming of Christ, so that I can be as prepared as possible, as I was instructed to do, over and over again.
I can thank the Preterist crowd for this idea that the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel has already been fulfilled – by scripture – the first coming of our Lord, his death, and the tearing of the veil. This really does line up quite well with a literal 70 weeks of years, and has really opened my eyes. Because of this, I’m still trying to work through all the things that I need to adjust in my own attempts to understand a more complete picture of the end-times.
And, I can share the Preterist struggles in absorbing Matthew 24:32-24. I’m quite sure you’ve already researched all the possible explanations for this little puzzle, so I don’t need to repeat those here. But the main concept that I cannot accept is the idea that all of these end-time events have already happened in 70 AD. As tragic as this was, it simply does not line up with the litany of bible prophecy describing the end-times and the second coming of Jesus – an event in which everyone will participate.
God bless you in your search for truth, but in this one area, I’m fairly confident you’re on the wrong track.
-Gary