No matter which futurist eschatology one embraces as true, premillennialist, amillennialist or postmillennialist, it says Jesus’ Second Coming is yet future, and the predominant view is that at that time Jesus will set up is Kingdom. It will be a physical Kingdom, ruled by Jesus in a physical body and his throne will be located in physical Jerusalem. I have to wonder what folks, who embrace this eschatology, do with Luke 17:20-21. When he was asked when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied that one couldn’t see it with his physical eyes, nor could anyone point to it here or over there. If Jesus came in a physical body, wouldn’t men be able to see him? If his Kingdom was physical wouldn’t folks be able to say the Kingdom is there but not here or vise versa. In other words, folks would be able to see it with their physical eyes, just like we are able to see the location of the government of the United States or Canada or Great Britain.
Did Jesus know what he was talking about when he claimed the Kingdom doesn’t come with observation, and that no one could point to it here or there? Now I don’t mean to imply that Jesus doesn’t rule the kingdoms of this world. John tells us in Revelation 11:15-18 that the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of God and of his Christ. There is no question, in other words, that all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Jesus (Matthew 28:18). Whether or not Christ rules the affairs of men is not the issue here. What is at issue is this. What would the Kingdom of God that Jesus described in Luke 17:20-21 look like at his Second Coming?
Although futurists look for Jesus’ Second Coming to occur in our future, many of them agree that Luke 19:11-27 is a parable about him coming in 70 AD to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple! Jesus said in verse-12 that a “certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.” Before his departure he commissioned his servants to carry out his business until he returned. His citizens, however, hated him and sent a message after him, saying they did not want him to reign over them (Luke 19:13-14). When he returned, having received the kingdom (Luke 19:15), he commanded that those who refused to have him reign over them to be brought before him and slain (Luke 19:27).
This certainly appears to foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. It certainly fits the context of the Jews hating Jesus and not wanting him to reign as their Messiah. Nevertheless, it should be noted that judging the citizens was not the only reason the nobleman returned. He returned to reign, having received the kingdom. Therefore, in this context, Jesus did not return to simply judge Jerusalem and destroy the Temple in 70 AD (cf. Matthew 26:64). He returned to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. Yet, futurist eschatology won’t allow this interpretation of the text. But, how else could we interpret it, if Jesus did, indeed, judge Jerusalem as he promised to do (Matthew 26:64)? Is there a **third** coming promised? If so, where would we find that in the Bible? If it isn’t there, isn’t futurist eschatology more like eisegesis instead of exegesis, since a ‘third’ coming isn’t predicted?
The writer of Hebrews says that, for those who look for Jesus to return, he will appear a second time without sin for salvation (Hebrews 9:28), and the writer of Hebrews claimed this would have been in a little while at the time of his recording these things (Hebrews 10:37). If he was not referring to the Lord’s judgment in 70 AD, when could he have possibly been referring to? Certainly not 2000 years afterward! Common sense and the natural reading of the text tells us that the writer expected Jesus to return very shortly and would judge Jerusalem. This was done in 70 AD when Jesus brought the Old Covenant to an abrupt end by destroying the Temple. If this was not Jesus Second coming, what was it? Certainly, his first was when he was made flesh (John 1:14). He came again cir. 70 AD to judge Jerusalem (Matthew 26:64). What coming was that? Looks like the second to me. Is there a third, and if so where is that predicted?
Smoodock's Blog 
17 responses to “Not With Observation”
Hi Eddie,
I’m thinking that you’re setting up a false argument here by saying “Although futurists look for Jesus’ Second Coming to occur in our future, many of them agree that Luke 19:11-27 is a parable about him coming in 70 AD to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple!”. Is that accurate? I’m not a futurist, but I agree with them that 70 AD was a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy that the temple would be destroyed, and not much more.
In my thinking, Luke 17:20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Aligns perfectly with 1 John 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
While the kingdom has already arrived, and is within our midst, it will not be completed until Christ returns to begin his rule, with a rod of iron. At that point, clearly a future event, we will be like him and will see him as He is, and we will be ruling alongside of Him, in our new physical bodies. That is our blessed hope.
I would also like to recommend another website I found which attempts to more generally refute Preterism [ http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/preterist.html ]. The author takes a tough stance against Preterism, but does so in a biblical manner.
God bless,
-Gary
Greetings Gary, and thank you for reading my study and for your comment.
I’m uncertain what you are looking for here, Gary. For one thing you say you are not a futurist, but you claim you look for the future coming of Jesus. I call that a futurist, so our vocabulary is at odds, which causes me to wonder what you want here. I’ll make a guess and say that you don’t think “futurists” see Luke 19:11-27 as the coming of Christ in 70 AD to judge Jerusalem. I have several commentaries that claim Jesus “came” in some manner in 70 AD to judge Jerusalem, but they all believe in a future coming of Jesus—so in essence they believe in three comings of Jesus or two “Second Comings” of Jesus. The commentaries that do this are: Matthew Henry, John Gill, Adam Clarke, the ICC of the New Testament; and Joseph Benson’s Commentary. There are probably more, but these are the one’s I could quote from, if you would like further proof.
Our seeing Jesus cannot be a **physical** sight, because he appeared to his disciples many times after his resurrection, yet none of them changed into something or someone other than who they were. Other than believing Jesus was alive, they were the same disciples they were before he appeared unto them. The same would be true of the Apostle, Paul. He saw Jesus in his glorious form and was blinded, but other than the fact that he then believed Jesus was alive, he was the same person after seeing Jesus as he was when he persecuted the church.
1John 3:2 in my opinion has to do with a covenantal relationship with Jesus. Paul mentions that at Jesus second coming, the dead will be raised, but we who are alive will be changed. In what way? According to 2Corinthians 3:18, Paul was saying that believers were already in the state of being changed, as they beheld Christ in their mind’s eye and were becoming more and more like him in glory. Yet, who would try to tell us that their physical appearance was then being changed into something different from what it was the day before? Jesus asked the Father to allow believers to be where Jesus is and behold his glory, which the Father had given Jesus before the world was. In answer to this prayer, at the second coming in 70 AD believers everywhere were changed completely, although not physically. We are, today, as Jesus is (spiritually speaking), and we are able to behold him in his glory, something unbelieving Jews of the first century AD did not see or anticipate. Later, believers went through a process of being changed from glory to glory (2Corinthians 3:18), which was completed at Jesus coming. We are blessed with the fulfillment of Jesus request of the Father.
I haven’t the time or desire to go to every website on the net and defend what I believe against what is said about it. This man makes some statements that he doesn’t even attempt to prove. He merely states them as though they were truth personified. He also makes some statements which he interprets from scripture and others which he attempts to prove through historical record. If you wish to see something defended choose one or two premises on his website and state them in your own words. I’ll defend my position under that circumstance, but not by pointing me to this or that website (ad infinitum) that may appear on the net.
Lord bless you, Gary, as you seek to understand his word.
Hi Eddie,
Again, I don’t want to argue for the futurists, but I think it’s incorrect to claim they accept the argument that 70 AD was anything like the second coming, and I would have to agree with them. I believe in the clear and simple promise that Jesus will return a “second” time, in similar fashion to when he left this earth after his first coming (Acts 1:11). There’s simply no way that the events of 70 AD fulfill all the prophecies about his second coming.
When Jesus does return, the bible is quite clear, there will be no arguing left, everyone will know exactly what’s happening (Revelation 1:7). The simple fact that we can have this debate about 70 AD proves that it was not the second coming. At that time, alive or dead in Christ, we will have our new heavenly bodies, which will be like Christ’s and we will see Jesus as he is ( 1 John 3:2 ). Nothing will be the same once He returns.
Since these things have not yet happened, it follows that 70 AD was not the second coming, and we’re definitely not looking for a third coming, or a secret rapture coming. Just the promised event: Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets (Acts 3:21).
And, I would have to disagree with you about the state of church, God cannot be happy about the sharply divergent viewpoints across the umpteen Christian denominations. The bible is the direct word of God, and it’s interpretation is backed up by the same Holy Spirit that we all have access to. In the end, so many Christians will be proven wrong, one way or another, they simply cannot all be correct. And so many have so over-invested in particular positions that it truly may be difficult to be reconciled with the final judge.
For myself, this has been the most discouraging thing about my deeper look into many of these contentious areas. The church is infected with dogma, with no end in site, except, of course, the blessed hope of Christ’s return, when he will set us all straight.
God bless,
-Gary
Greetings Gary, it is always a pleasure to hear from you, even though you don’t agree with my studies. That’s okay with me, because I understand why you don’t agree. I used to have the same reasons.
You mention above that you don’t want to argue for the futurists, but that is what you do. You have to believe in one of their theories, because they have all the bases covered (except for 70 AD). One believes Jesus will return BEFORE the millennium, another says it is AFTER the millennium and a third claims there is NO millennium. Is there another way of looking at it? They are all futurists, so you probably agree with one.
Matthew 5:17 says Jesus claimed he didn’t come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but he did come to fulfill them. He emphasized his claim by saying in Matthew 5:18 that not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law and the Prophets until ALL things have been fulfilled, and when ALL things were fulfilled, then heaven and earth would pass away. The question is did Jesus fulfill everything in the Law and the Prophets? If he didn’t then the Old Covenant is still the covenant through which God works with mankind. If the Old Covenant has passed away, then the Law and the Prophets and EVERYTHING said therein have been fulfilled. That’s what Jesus said. There is no denying it, unless you want to jump through a lot of hoops to do it.
Jesus said something else, too. In Matthew 16:27-28 he said he would return in the glory of the Father with all his holy angels and judge mankind, and some of the people listening to him on that day would live to see his words fulfilled. Was Jesus correct or did his prophecy fail? You know, Jesus claimed the scribes and Pharisees made the word of God of no effect upon the people through their vain traditions, and it was through their vain tradition of their understanding the Messiah, that they rejected Jesus’ claim to that office.
This is what I see. Jesus said the Old Covenant stands until ALL things were fulfilled. If and when the Old Covenant was fulfilled, he would return in the glory of the Father etc. and some of the people listening to him say these things would live to see them fulfilled. Now, folks today can deny that for whatever reason (tradition) they hold, but the fact is: THAT is what Jesus said. I have to throw my hat in with what Jesus says, rather than what some men say (as wonderful as some of them are). “I will not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly cling to Jesus name.”
Interpret it the way you see it, Gary. That’s your prerogative. You know what I believe, and I’ll continue to post things here, as I see them. Lord bless you in your studies of his word.
Eddie,
My primary objections to the futurist view is that they waste way too much time arguing about when the rapture is going to happen instead of focusing on God’s commands to always watch for the second coming, to literally be on alert for it. I’m convinced that waiting for the rapture instead of preparing for Christ’s return is a false doctrine and it is harmful to the church.
The other key futurist point is the gap theory that has spawned from their interpretation of Daniel 9, that the 70th week has been postponed since it was not fulfilled by the first coming of Christ. This is a perfect example of a whole set of theories that rest on one highly suspect assumption. The rest of the bible is twisted around to fit the one idea that God must not have meant 70 consecutive weeks, in spite of the fact that He likely did mean exactly that.
It doesn’t mean that that the events may not be a shadow of future events (e.g. does anyone really know what is meant by the abomination of desolation?). But it does mean that the 70th week cannot be used as a wedge to dictate a specific interpretation of the rest of the bible. This is a major flaw in many of the prevailing theories of eschatology, they have way too much investment in all those diagrams of our last seven years; they’ve made a theory into gospel truth.
Of course, the Preterists make the same mistake, taking one interpretation that Jesus promised to return within a single generation, totally ignoring the rest of the bible, and then leaping to the conclusion that Christ already came in 70 AD. Of course, the numerous descriptions of the second coming, the world wide impact it will have, the fact that every person that ever lived will be directly involved, this can all be explained away as figurative language.
Since the bible frequently uses figurative language, Jesus and the apostles could not have meant a literal cataclysmic event, not literally, or even anywhere near literally, because it’s already been decided that Jesus, literally, promised to return within the generation. However, since AD 70 was nothing like the second coming described in the bible, it seems clear that Jesus did not mean to say his second coming would come within a generation. He definitely did promise to return to settle up accounts with the entire human race, but our generation is still waiting.
So, while I do agree with some of the positions from each of the prevailing theories, it seems clear that there’s a real danger of locking in too tightly to a single concept and then folding the rest of the bible around that one idea, and there’s way too much of that going around. God is not the author of confusion, but it cannot be denied that the church body has made a total mess out of God’s word.
I guess at this stage in my own understanding, I’m more focused on what parts really don’t make sense and I’m looking more closely at the things that would change the way I live my life, the way I think about the future. For instance, I’ve found very little interest in exploring the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate since believing whether God chose me or I chose Him really seems like a pointless argument. It has fueled serious division in the church but, I mean really, who cares?
However, whether we’re still awaiting the second coming, or just hoping for the rapture to take us all away, these are real topics that have important implications for the way we live our lives. The bible makes it clear, over and over again, that we are to be on watch, constantly preparing ourselves for the second coming – the importance of this command cannot be understated, these are topics that really matter.
Until I get my new body and I see Jesus as he is, I’ll remain in wait mode. That part is just too plainly promised, and commanded, and it’s just too easy to understand. If I have to die while waiting, like the last 2000 years of generations have, then I’ll rest on the promise of my resurrection, believing that Jesus led the way, so I know I’ll still be a witness to the Lord’s Day.
God bless,
-Gary