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”
Eddie, I was mentioning the red “Reply” option at the end of each post. Not all of your posts have this option, for instance your posts on April 3rd and 5th in this section.
Eddie,
Perhaps I wasn’t totally clear, I really do not want to rewrite scriptures to fit the Preterist scheme and would much rather just read them the way the apostles wrote them. The point is that we are told that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night [ it is always at hand ], but that no one knows when [ we’re commanded to be on the watch at all times ].
The scoffers asked Peter why it was taking so long, which was a perfectly logical question, in fact you and I are asking the same question today. Peter told them that God was in control of the timetable and the reality of the matter was that it could as easily be tomorrow or thousands of years away. In other words, he really had no idea.
And, John, tells the rumor mongers the same message, if they read too much into some of the bible messages, it’s easy to get off track. And, he could so easily have set the record straight at that point, if he really knew that the second coming was still within the current generation, but he did not. He choose to leave it as a total unknown, just like Jesus said told them.
God bless,
-Gary
Greetings Gary,
I wasn’t asking you to “rewrite” scripture. I was asking what you would expect to find in scripture, if Jesus were to come in the first century AD. We make decisions like this all the time. For example, you say above that you “just read them the way the apostles wrote them” but I don’t think you do. You add to or take away from what is said. Your brackets above are just examples. I don’t mean to blame you for this, because we all do it, because we simply accept as true what others have taught us. It is only when we begin to question our teacher’s that we realize what we are saying isn’t what the scriptures say. At least that is how it worked for me.
Scoffers don’t ask questions in order to find out information. They do it to belittle and to shame their opponent. They weren’t asking what was taking so long; they were asking where the promise of Jesus’ coming was. The generation was nearly over, so where was Jesus? This is the context of their argument. They couldn’t have an argument at all, if that wasn’t what Peter and the other New Testament writers were saying, namely that Jesus was soon to appear. Peter never mentioned that Jesus’ coming could be in another thousand years. If you think that is what the ‘thousand year/day’ thing is all about, you aren’t reading Peter’s letter in the context of the scoffer’s argument.
John makes no such statements, nor does he mention anything the “rumor mongers” were saying. Off the top of my head, John mentions Jesus’ coming three times.
I see a sense of urgency here, but not a “calming” in the sense that the Lord may not come for another 1000 years or more. By the way, how would the Apostles be able to keep the disciples looking for Jesus to come in their day, if they were also telling them he may not come for another 1000 years or so? Did you ever see the difference in how people today react, when the think Jesus really will come on May 21 2011 or a reasonable facsimile? When folks really think Jesus is about to come, they have a sense of urgency. In the scriptures above, John isn’t trying to calm down that sense of urgency, he is fanning the flame. Everything said is in the context that his readers will experience the Lord’s coming and be rewarded.
I see what you mean now. That’s not a ‘glitch’ though. I have it in my options to limit how many comments will appear under one another before a new series must begin. I limited it to four, because, if I didn’t, the most recent comments would never appear at the top of the page. I’d rather have people who read these studies not have to go through everything in order to know what people are currently saying–presuming a discussion is still going on.
Eddie,
You asked how I would have the apostles communicate it more clearly if they had known that Jesus would return in the first century AD. Clearly, Peter or John could have added that right when they are both challenged regarding the timing of Jesus’ return, “yes, but don’t worry, remember that Jesus promised to appear before his generation expires”, and yet, neither one makes that “obvious” point.
John 21:22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
1 Peter 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
The problem with your question is really that you’re only considering two options, that they knew Jesus would return in the first century or that they knew it would happen 2000 thousand years later. But, you’re totally missing the real meaning that they didn’t know either case, which is quite clear from the text as written. Jesus said that his return would come like a thief in the night and that no man would know the day or the hour, until it was too late.
Like every generation since, they all held the blessed hope that Christ would return in their lifetime, a definite possibility, and it is clear that they urgently hoped for that. But neither John or Peter reinforce that wish. John is saying that his life is not tied to the timing and that he may well die before the second coming. Peter makes it clear that every generation, right up until the very last one, will still be urgently waiting, and scoffing, and that may well take thousands of years.
God bless,
-Gary