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”
Greetings Gary, and thanks again for your comment.
I wonder if you would help me out here. Suppose for a moment you were one of the writers of the New Testament and (just for argument sake) you absolutely knew Jesus said he would come in that current generation. You also knew with almost certainty, that you would not be one of the one’s who would survive until that day. You expected to be martyred. How would you phrase it in one of your Gospel narratives or in one of your epistles to help your brethren realize the persecution they were enduring wouldn’t last long, because Jesus would come very soon to vindicate them. How would you phrase that?
When I go on you tube (haven’t been there in awhile) I often find people who claim the same thing you do—namely that Preterists ignorantly pack the whole of the Old Testament prophecies into 70 AD, and such a thing is impossible. What I never here is this. No one seems ready to say which prophecy couldn’t have been fulfilled in 70 AD. The whole argument is merely a general statement. Why should I be uncomfortable with what they say? How is my “stronghold” in eschatology assaulted or damaged with such a statement? Their roar is nothing but a paper lion.
If I understand you correctly, you want to take Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:27-28 figuratively and the one in Matthew 24:23-30 literally. In the one we have Jesus (literally) coming in the first century AD, while in the other we have (literally) everyone on the whole of the globe seeing Jesus coming in the clouds, all at the same time. The first wouldn’t contradict any known physical law, while the other does, and that without further explanation.
How is the 70 AD coming not like what we read in the Bible? Before 70 AD kingdoms enlarged its borders through warfare. Afterwards, the Kingdom of God is enlarged through beating our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks. Our weapons of warfare aren’t carnal, but we do pull down the strongholds of the mind and cause folks who would bend the knee to no one to submit to Jesus. Why do you think 70 AD couldn’t have had a worldwide impact? Prior to 70 AD the Lord worked through the Jewish nation and very few gentiles wanted to hear of their God. After all, weren’t the Jews the servants of Rome and every other world empire before that? How strong could that God be? After 70 AD, however, the gentiles began submitting to the Gospel, because Jesus returned, just as he said he would, and judged the Jewish nation, just as he claimed he would do. Folks began listening to the persecuted church, and today it is spread worldwide, still persecuted, but who could deny the worldwide impact of Jesus’ 70 AD coming?
Well, I know folks do deny that coming, but what good argument do any of them have, aside from a few one-liner generalities. Do you have a good argument, Gary? If not, how are you not “locked into a theory” that keeps you from understanding what is clearly stated in God’s word?
Lord bless you in your studies of his word, Gary. It’s always a pleasure hearing from you.
Eddie,
The problem here is that the disciples did not believe that Jesus promised to return in their generation, that’s the assumption that the entire Preterist theory rests upon. I’ve already given sufficient biblical proofs for this, since the second coming has not yet occurred, it follows by simple logic that it did not already happen in 70 AD. Here a few of the many scriptures describing the second coming:
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 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 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. 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.
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
1 John 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.
Acts 1:11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
1 Thessalonians 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
Revelation 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen.
Revelation 19 and 20 It’s also clear from Revelation that both the battle of Armageddon and the Gog/Magog battle are waged in defense of Jerusalem, not as an attack against them. Clearly, if 70 AD was the second coming of Jesus, he would have been attacking the Romans, and the nations, not slaughtering the Jews.
Of course there are many more that would overflow the size of a reasonable post, but these are quite sufficient to prove that the 70 AD did not fulfill the prophecies of Christ’s second coming. As I’ve already posted, when we receive our new heavenly bodies, when we’re gathered together with our friends and family who are dead in Christ, when we are made like Jesus and we see Him as he is, then we will know that the Messiah has arrived, for the second time.
So, my theory is really simple, and no I do not claim to have the whole thing figured out, but of this much I am sure: Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9:28).
Thanks,
-Gary
Greetings Gary and thank you for your comment. We don’t agree that you presented evidence in the past that proves Jesus didn’t come in 70 AD. You presented scriptures, as you do here, and you interpret these scriptures according to your belief that Jesus couldn’t have come, if they were literally fulfilled. The problem is, however, there are other scriptures that would deny a “literal” fulfillment of the scriptures you have offered—both in the past and those submitted above. Let’s take a few examples.
Matthew 24:27 says only that Jesus coming would spread throughout the world like lightening. I could say the same thing about the election results of any president of the United States. News of whoever gets elected spreads like lightening. We use the expression all the time, especially in sports. It is a literary term known as hyperbole, an exaggeration the expresses the importance of a thing. The scriptures tell us concerning John the Baptist’s ministry that “ALL Judea and ALL the region round about the Jordan” went out to be baptized of him. Did EVERYONE in Judea and EVERYONE in the region of the Jordan River actually go out to be baptized? I don’t think so, but John’s ministry was very important to the ministry of Jesus. Hyperbole was used to express that idea. We use it when we claim EVERYONE will be at an important event we wish to attend.
The heavenly signs of Matthew 24:29 are apocalyptic language used often in the Old Testament, yet nothing like these things “literally” occurred. For example, when the Lord judged Egypt by bringing the King of Assyria against him to destroy his nation, the prophet claimed Pharaoh would see the Lord coming in the clouds (Isaiah 19:1). What surprises me is that you would believe Matthew 24:29 MUST be “literally” fulfilled while Matthew 16:27-28 MUST be taken metaphorically. The Olivet Prophecy is interlaced with apocalyptic language (not to be taken literally), but Matthew 16 is a simple statement that Jesus would come in the glory of his Father, with his angels and judge every man according to his works, and SOME of the people standing there would see that occur. There is nothing apocalyptic about Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16, yet this is the scripture you wish to take symbolically.
And, the list can go on, but as you say above, these “would overflow the size of a reasonable post.” However, I do wish to address something else you claimed that simply isn’t true, and a simple reading of the text proves you are wrong. You claimed above the “disciples did not believe that Jesus promised to return in their generation.” Peter spoke of a “salvation” that was ready to be revealed in the last time (1Peter 1:5), in which Jesus would appear (1Peter 1:7). We already know that Jesus came to us as a man in the last time (Hebrews 1:1-2), and Peter claimed that he and his readers were living in the “last time” (1Peter 1:20) – a time all the prophets prophesied about (1Peter 1:10-12). In other words their prophecies would be fulfilled in Peter’s generation.
Peter claimed that “the end of all things” was at hand (1Peter 4:7), and Christ was at that time ready to judge the living and the dead (1Peter 4:5). He even told his readers that, when Christ would appear, “they” Peter’s readers in Asia Minor would receive the crown of glory. So, we have Peter saying he and his immediate readers were living in the last time, that the prophets spoke of the days in which Peter lived, and in those last days Jesus was to appear the second time and reward his saints. What other age could say what Peter claimed? He knew and walked with Jesus—in the flesh. Jesus “literally” taught Peter. Yet, so many are so willing to set aside Peter’s witness in order to cling to the “traditions of men” that cannot be supported with scriptures.
By the way, Gary, you never answered my questions in my previous reply to you. Obviously, if you don’t believe the New Testament claims that Jesus would return during the first century AD, you must have an idea what the New Testament should have said, if that were to have occurred in 70 AD. I just asked how you would have worded a Gospel or an epistle to let everyone know Jesus would return soon—in the lifetimes of some of the people you wrote to. It’s a simple request. I’m surprised you didn’t reply with a simple phrase that you would expect to find in the New Testament if Jesus intended to return 2000 years ago.
Lord bless you, Gary, and may he guide you in all your studies of his word.
Hi Eddie, seems there’s a little glitch in your blog system, there’s no reply on some of the posts [ including your last one ], so this one is a little out of order. You posted:
By the way, Gary, you never answered my questions in my previous reply to you. Obviously, if you don’t believe the New Testament claims that Jesus would return during the first century AD, you must have an idea what the New Testament should have said, if that were to have occurred in 70 AD. I just asked how you would have worded a Gospel or an epistle to let everyone know Jesus would return soon—in the lifetimes of some of the people you wrote to. It’s a simple request. I’m surprised you didn’t reply with a simple phrase that you would expect to find in the New Testament if Jesus intended to return 2000 years ago.
The answer is really simple, Jesus didn’t want to promise either case, he wanted every generation to live their lives as if Jesus may return any day, and that’s exactly what the apostles understood to be true. Peter explains this perfectly in 2 Peter 8-10, and John also corrects all the rumors in John 21:23, those that assumed they could figure out when Christ would return. Of course, they were all wrong, since even Jesus claimed to not know the day or hour of his own return. God wanted us to be constantly on watch and that’s exactly what has happened, every generation since the good news spread has anticipated his return, as if was right around the corner.
As for signs and wonders versus literal events, you are correct and it’s hard to argue that the bible isn’t filled with many thing that are very difficult to interpret. However, it’s quite clear that the bible describes a worldwide cataclysmic event that no one will be able to hide from. And it’s also clear that when the messiah does return that everyone will receive their reward, good or bad, and that we will have new bodies, like Jesus has, and we will see him as he is. Until then, we’re still waiting.
As for 70 AD, as horrific an event as it was, it was not the second coming. The only thing that matches the descriptions of the second coming is the fact the Jerusalem was surrounded by enemies. However, it’s quite clear that Jesus did not return to save them, as promised, and he clearly did not return to judge us all. The day of the Lord is still a future event, 70 AD will barely register in comparison, a minor blip in the grand scheme of things. Well, that’s the way I read it anyways…
God bless,
-Gary
Hi Gary, no glitch… every comment you made is posted, and my reply to each comment appears directly under yours. Check the dates. The dates for your comments are out of order, but that may occur, if you click to reply to a comment, in which case your reply appears directly under my previous reply to you. On the other hand, if you simply enter your comment in the comment box, your comment goes to the top (I think) or it may go to the bottom, whichever way the comments are laid out by Word Press. Nevertheless, each of my replies to you can be found directly under each of your comments, except that I usually reply to you on the following day. So your April 3rd comment is directly above my April 4th reply to you, and likewise for each of your other comments.
We don’t seem to be understanding one another very well in this series. You still didn’t answer the question I posed. I placed you in the office of an Apostle in the first century AD. Then (pretending that Jesus did claim he would return in the first century) I asked you to tell me how you would have recorded that in one of YOUR Gospel accounts or one of YOUR epistles. The thing I’m trying to find out is this: if Jesus did say he would return in the first century AD, what might that look like in a New Testament that YOU helped write.
Obviously, you have an opinion about what that would look like, because you reject everything I submit that seems obvious to me that the Apostles DID TRY TO CONVEY to their readers that there would be an immediate return of Jesus in the first century, and I posted a number of scriptures from Peter’s first epistle in my previous reply.
Concerning what you wrote above, about the Apostles trying to “correct” false rumors about the Lord coming in the first century AD. That doesn’t fit well with 2Peter, which you try to use above to say Peter was one of the Apostles who tried to “correct” the rumors. Notice in 2Peter 3:3 Peter’s scoffers were coming to the churches in Asia Minor, asking “Where is the promise of his (Jesus’) coming?” Their scoffing wouldn’t make a lick of sense, if Peter was saying Jesus wouldn’t come for another 1000 – 2000 years. Their scoffing makes sense, only if Peter (and the other Apostles) were saying Jesus would return soon. You need to keep your interpretation of 2Peter in context. You cannot remove verses 8-10 from the context of the scoffers argument in verse 3. Your interpretation has Peter agreeing with the scoffers! That’s just not good.
Lord bless you Gary.