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,
The scoffers make it obvious. Their argument makes no sense at all, unless people were then waiting for the soon appearing of Jesus. Peter was then telling the folks in Asia Minor that “the end of all things is at hand” (1Peter 4:7). He claimed that the prophets of old prophesied of their day in the first century AD (1Peter 1:10-12), and said that Jesus in their very day was “ready to judge the living and the dead (1Peter 4:5). He told his readers that “the end of all things is at hand,” so how would you get a sense of a later date from these remarks. They all point to the generation in which Peter and his readers lived. The “judgment” was already occurring in Peter’s day, beginning with believers (1Peter 4:17).
John in the Apocalypse wrote of things that “must shortly come to pass (Revelation 1:1), and he quotes Jesus: “the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3; 22:6, 10), also saying that Jesus said “behold I come quickly” (Revelation 22:12, 20), and he claims that the very ones who pierced Jesus would see him come (Revelation 1:7). These are not words for our day. You cannot get “I come quickly” said back in the 1st century AD to be meaningful to folks 2000 years away. If the time was at hand in the first century AD, then it is too late 2000 years later. If it didn’t happen then, it won’t happen today, because the prophecy would have failed. The wording is clear: “the time is at hand” and “I come quickly!” If Jesus didn’t come in the first century as he said he would (Matthew 16:27-28), then clearly he is not coming at all. His prophecy would be no better than that of a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). If Jesus truly is the Prophet who was to come (Deuteronomy 18:18-19), then his words cannot have failed. He had to have come when he saidh he would (Matthew 16:27; cf. Matthew 23:34-36).
Actually, I have all my eggs in one basket. If he didn’t come in the 1st century AD, as he said he clearly intended to do (Matthew 16:27-28), then he isn’t coming at all (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). Concerning the “thief in the night” you could say that about any time within the 40 year period between Jesus’ Ascension and his return cir. 70 AD. He threatened to come early when the persecution surrounding Stephen escalated into foreign cities. That’s what the Gospel of Luke was about. He addressed it to Theophilus, the high priest at Jerusalem (Luke 1:1-4). Theophilus repented and stopped the persecution (Acts 9:31). Luke tried to get Theophilus to influence his son Matthias (the reigning high priest at Jerusalem at the outbreak of the Jews’ war with Rome) to stop the persecution that again escalated into foreign cities (Acts 1:1), but that attempt was unsuccessful. Paul could say that the time was much nearer at his writing to the Romans than when they first believed (Romans 13:11). Paul wrote Romans cir. 56 AD. That was 25-26 years into that “generation”. In another 10 years war would have broken out between Jerusalem and Rome.
You are missing the point, Gary. ALL the “witnesses” died (Revelation 11:7-8; cf. Matthew 23:34). None of them lived to see Jesus return. They were killed in order to stomp out the message of the Gospel. The fact that they wouldn’t live to see “that day” does not mean it didn’t or couldn’t occur in the first century AD. As far as Peter and John not “reinforcing” the hope of Jesus soon return, clearly your and I read the New Testament from a different perspective.
May the Lord bless you as you study his word, Gary.
Eddie,
I think our discussion has become a bit circular, you clearly believe that Jesus promised to return in the first century and I’m totally convinced that he did not. Seems we’re stuck on that one point and I can see that you’re quite locked into Full Preterism, even though the implication would be that Jesus failed to deliver on all the other promises that his second coming was to bring.
When we receive our new immortal bodies, become like the angels, meet Jesus in the air and see him as he is, then everyone will know that Jesus has returned. Of course, the sites and sounds, seen and heard around the world, of Jesus riding down from heaven on a great white horse, millions of angels at his side, will also be a clue.
The really amazing thing to me is that it’s even possible to have such radically differing viewpoints all derived from the same word of God, this does leave me most perplexed. In the final analysis, God must have intended for total confusion to rule the day, since that is the present state of His church. Of course, as God does unfold more of his plan onto the world scene, perhaps those of us honestly watching will get a little better synchronized. That’s my hope.
Anyways, Eddie, it has been fun, but I’ll have to stick with believing that the second coming is still a future event, the blessed hope that we’re commanded to wait for. And if the rapture does happen first, I’ll be more than happy to be wrong on that point, but I’m not going to count on that saving us from the tribulation, I really think we’re going to have to be on high alert to avoid those troubles.
God bless you in your studies,
-Gary