In accord with the “futurist” position that I’ve been defending in the last six articles, it’s my understanding that the events prophesied by Jesus in his “Olivet Discourse” (as recorded in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21) have yet to occur. This includes the eon-concluding events of which we read in Matt. 24:29-31:
“Now immediately after the affliction of those days the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not be giving her beams, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory.
“And He shall be dispatching His messengers with a loud sounding trumpet, and they shall be assembling His chosen from the four winds, from the extremities of the heavens to their extremities.”
What Christ referred to as “the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory” is, I believe, the same future event of which the celestial messengers spoke after Christ ascended to heaven. In Acts 1:10-11 we read the following:
And saying these things, while they are looking, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him up from their eyes. And as they were looking intently into heaven at His going, lo ! two men stand beside them in white attire, who say also, “Men! Galileans! Why do you stand, looking into heaven? This Jesus Who is being taken up from you into heaven shall come thus, in the manner in which you gaze at Him going into heaven.”
In contrast with this understanding, those who hold to the doctrinal position known as “Preterism” believe that most – if not all – of the events of which Christ prophesied in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the events leading up to and culminating in the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the second temple by the Romans in 70 AD. This includes the coming of Christ of which we read in Matt. 24:29-31.
In this article I’m going to argue that a “futurist” understanding of the Olivet Discourse – particularly the event of which we read in Matthew 24:29-31 – is superior to the preterist view, and will be responding to a number of objections raised against the futurist position by another believer (Andrew P.) who, on his blog, has defended the preterist interpretation.
“This generation”
Perhaps the most well-known and commonly-used argument for the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is based on Christ’s statement in Matthew 24:34. In this verse we read the following:
“Verily, I am saying to you that by no means may this generation be passing by till all should be occurring.”
In his defense of the preterist understanding of this verse, Andrew P. objects to what he calls “the most common futurist view” of this verse as follows:
The most common futurist view is that “this generation” refers to the generation which “sees all these things.” However, this reduces Jesus’ statement to a meaningless tautology; of course the generation which “sees all these things” will not pass away until “all these things” take place. (The Christian Universalist: The Olivet Discourse (part 1 of 2))
In response to Andrew’s objection, I think it would be more accurate to say that the generation that Christ had in mind is the generation that will see the beginning of everything that will be occurring during the time period that Christ had in view. In other words, the same generation that will see the first events of which Christ prophesied (i.e., the “beginning of pangs” referred to in Matt. 24:8) will also see the last of these prophesied events (i.e., the eon-concluding coming of Christ referred to in Matt. 24:30). Christ’s point, then, is that the future events prophesied in his discourse will be occurring within the time span of a single generation.
In defense of this understanding of what Christ had in mind when he used the words “this generation,” let’s consider the following statement of Christ in Matt. 24:33:
“Thus you, also, whenever you may be perceiving all these things, know that He is near – at the doors.”
When Christ said, “whenever you may be perceiving all these things,” he obviously didn’t mean that everything that would be perceived would be occurring all at the same time, and that those who will be perceiving “all these things” will be perceiving them all at once. Instead, Christ’s meaning is this: whenever believers begin to perceive all of the things of which he was speaking, they could know that he is near. In other words, he’s talking about the generation that would see the start of “all these things.” We know this is the case because Christ is assuming that, “whenever [they] may be perceiving all these things,” they will have not yet seen the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven (for he immediately added, “…know that He is near–at the doors”). If “perceiving all these things” meant perceiving every prophesied event of which he spoke from start to finish – including his coming (and the coming of the kingdom) – then the words “know that He is near – at the doors” would make no sense.
Thus, Jesus’ point is simply this: the generation that sees the commencement of the “beginning of pangs” (Matt. 24:8) – and which will later perceive “the abomination of desolation…standing in the holy place” (v. 15) – will be the same generation that sees the celestial signs referred to in Matt. 24:29 (and Luke 21:25), and the subsequent eon-concluding coming of Christ. And this means that understanding “this generation” to refer to the generation that begins to see “all these things” does not reduce Jesus’ statement to “a meaningless tautology.” Jesus was essentially telling his disciples that the time period during which these prophesied events would be occurring would not drag on and on through multiple generations. The time period will, instead, be short enough that the same generation that will be on the earth when the events begin will not have “passed by” before the events end.
Andrew went on to claim that, from a grammatical standpoint, the expression translated “this generation” better supports the preterist view:
“Moreover, if this were Jesus’ meaning, then it would be more accurate for him to speak of “that generation” (Gk: hē genea ekeinē) rather than using the near demonstrative “this generation” (Gk: hē genea autē).”
In response to this objection, the demonstrative pronoun “this” (autē) can refer to either a nearby physical referent or a logical referent. That is, it can refer to something that physically exists in close proximity to the speaker, or to something that the speaker is talking about. John 4:15 is a good example of both a logical referent and a physical referent. In this verse we read the following:
“Lord, give me this water that I may not be thirsting, nor yet coming to this place to draw.”
Significantly, Jesus and the woman were both standing by a well of real water (which was a potential physical referent). Jesus even referred to the water in the well as “this water” (v. 13). Yet, Jesus had told the woman that he had living water that was not in the well (v. 10). The woman used the near demonstrative “this water” to refer to the water of which Jesus was speaking (and not the water that was in the well), and the demonstrative “this place” to refer to the well.
In a similar way, we can understand Jesus to have had in mind the generation that will perceive the commencement of “all these things” when he referred to “this generation.” And since we have good reason to believe that “all these things” have not yet occurred (or so I will be arguing), we can reasonably conclude that the generation Christ referred to as “this generation” is the future generation of Matt. 24:32-33 (the immediate context), and not the first-century generation that “passed by” before “all these things” occurred (or even began to occur).
Christ’s presence and the conclusion of the eon
In Matthew 24:1-3 we read the following:
And, coming out, Jesus went from the sanctuary. And His disciples approached to exhibit to Him the buildings of the sanctuary. Yet He, answering, said to them, “Are you not observing all these? Verily, I am saying to you, Under no circumstances may a stone here be left on a stone, which shall not be demolished.”
Now at His sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?”
In the other accounts of this exchange between Jesus and his disciples, the disciples’ questions are recorded as follows:
“Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign whenever all these things may be about to be concluding?” (Mark 13:4)
Now they inquire of Him, saying, “Teacher, when, then, will these things be, and what is the sign whenever these things may be about to be occurring?” (Luke 21:7)
In light of what we read in Matthew’s account of the disciples’ questions, we can conclude that the events referred to in Mark and Luke as “all these things” and “these things” are events that the disciples understood to be inseparably connected with “[Christ’s] presence” and “the conclusion of the eon.” That is, we can conclude that it was the disciples’ understanding that the future event of which Christ was speaking – i.e., the destruction of the buildings of the sanctuary – would take place at the time of “[Christ’s] “presence” at “the conclusion of the eon.”
With regard to the differences between the disciples’ questions as recorded in Matthew’s account and in Mark and Luke, I think it’s likely that the way in which the disciples’ questions are worded in Mark and Luke more closely reflects what the disciples actually asked Jesus. According to this view, Matthew’s account of the disciples’ questions is an inspired interpretation of what the disciples asked Jesus, and is intended to help us better understand what the disciples actually had in mind when they referred to “these things.” However, even if the disciples worded their question in a way that corresponds more closely with what we read in Matthew’s account (and that what we read in Luke and Mark are shortened versions of what they asked), it would still mean that, when they referred to “these things,” they had in mind events that would coincide with (or be inseparably connected with) “[Christ’s] presence” and “the conclusion of the eon.” But what, exactly, did the disciples have in mind by “[Christ’s] presence” and “the conclusion of the eon”?
Concerning “the conclusion of the eon,” Christ had previously taught on this subject in his explanation of one of his parables. In Matt. 13:36-43 we read the following:
Then, leaving the throngs, [Jesus] entered into the house. And His disciples come to Him, saying, “Elucidate to us the parable of the darnel of the field.” Now He, answering, said, “He Who is sowing the ideal seed is the Son of Mankind. Now the field is the world. Now the ideal seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. Now the darnel are the sons of the wicked one. Now the enemy who sows them is the Adversary. Now the harvest is the conclusion of the eon. Now the reapers are messengers. Even as the darnel, then, are being culled and burned up with fire, thus shall it be in the conclusion of the eon. The Son of Mankind shall be dispatching His messengers, and they shall be culling out of His kingdom all the snares and those doing lawlessness, and they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just be shining out as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
According to Christ’s explanation, one of the events that will be taking place at “the conclusion of the eon” will involve the removal of “all the snares and those doing lawlessness” out of Christ’s kingdom (i.e., the territory over which Christ is going to be reigning after the kingdom of God is set up on the earth, and in which “the just” shall be “shining out as the sun”).
Moreover, as is evident from what we read in the above passage, when Christ and the disciples referred to “the conclusion of the eon,” they had in mind an event (or series of events) that would bring the present eon to a close and result in the commencement of a future eon (one in which the kingdom of God will be present on the earth, and from which the wicked will be absent). Christ had this future eon in mind in, for example, Matt. 19:28-29. In these verses we read that Christ declared the following to his disciples:
“Verily, I am saying to you, that you who follow Me, in the renascence whenever the Son of Mankind should be seated on the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who leaves houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of My name, a hundred-fold shall be getting, and shall be enjoying the allotment of life eonian.”
Based on what we read in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30, it’s clear that the time period in which Christ shall “be seated on the throne of his glory” (and during which some “shall be enjoying the allotment of life eonian”) is “the coming eon” – i.e., the eon that will succeed the present eon after its “conclusion.”
With regard to the “presence” of Christ, it’s reasonable to believe that the disciples did not have in mind an event involving a return of Christ to earth. For at that time, the disciples didn’t yet understand that Jesus was going to die, be roused the third day and then ascend to heaven 40 days later. In fact, shortly before Christ ascended to heaven, the disciples asked him if he was, at that time, going to be “restoring the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). Thus, rather than having in mind Christ’s return to earth, the disciples likely had in mind the restoration of the kingdom to Israel by Christ (an event that would involve Christ “coming in his kingdom” – i.e., his coming to be present in his kingdom).
With regard to the disciples’ use of the word “presence” (παρουσια or “parousia”), BDAG lists two principal meanings for this word (with numerous examples). The following is a summary:
1. The state of being present at a place, presence (1 Cor. 16:17; Phil. 2:12)
2. Arrival as the first stage in presence, advent (2 Cor. 7:6, 7; Matt 24:3; 1 Cor. 15:23; 2 Thess. 2:8; 2 Peter 3:4; 1 John 2:28; Matt 24:27, 37, 39
In every other verse in which the word parousia is used, it denotes someone’s personal/bodily presence in a certain location (in addition to the above verses, see also 2 Cor. 10:10 and Phil. 1:26). We therefore have no good reason to understand the disciples’ use of the term as a reference to something other than Christ’s being visibly and bodily present in a certain location (and at a certain time).
Christ himself confirmed this understanding of the disciples’ use of the term “presence” later in the Olivet Discourse. In Matt. 24:26-28 we read that the coming of the Son of Mankind will be just as personal, locational and visible in nature as was the ascension of Christ to heaven (hence the messengers’ declaration that Christ would “come in the manner in which” the disciples gazed at him going into heaven; see Acts 1:11). According to Christ, anyone who would claim that the Messiah is “in the wilderness” of “in the storerooms” at some future time will necessarily be in error (Matt. 24:26). And why is this? Answer: Because Christ’s presence at the time of his coming won’t be hidden or private. As Christ went on to explain in v. 27, his future presence will be just as observable (and clearly visible) as the lightening that “is coming out from the east and is appearing as the west.”
We know that Christ had previously taught the disciples concerning the event about which they asked when they referred to (or had in mind) his “presence.” For example, in Matthew 16:27-28 we read that Christ declared the following to his disciples:
“For the Son of Mankind is about to be coming in the glory of His Father, with His messengers, and then He will be paying each in accord with his practice. Verily I am saying to you that there are some of those standing here who under no circumstances should be tasting death till they should be perceiving the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom.”
The disciples would’ve understood these words of Christ as a prophecy concerning the coming of the kingdom of God. That is, they would’ve understood the coming of Christ “in the glory of His Father, with His messengers” as a reference to the time when Christ restores the kingdom to Israel (in accord with the question they asked Christ shortly before his ascension), and when Christ thus comes to be present in his kingdom. We know that Christ did not come “in the glory of His Father, with His messengers” in 70 AD, or “pay each in accord with his practice” at this time. The very fact that the “coming” of which Christ spoke is one that will involve his messengers being “with” him means that he will be just as personally present at this time as his messengers will be. But just as we have no reason to think that this occurred in 587 BC (when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians), so we have no reason to think that this occurred in 70 AD (when Jerusalem fell to the Romans).
But what about Christ’s declaration that some of his disciples wouldn’t die before they perceived him “coming in his kingdom?” As argued in my earlier refutation of preterism (https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-refutation-of-preterism-part-one.html), this was fulfilled approximately one week later when three of his disciples were given a vision of Christ (as well as of Moses and Elijah) in the kingdom of God after it has been established on the earth. It was by means of this vision that Peter, James and John perceived “the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom.” That is, they saw, by means of a vision, Christ come to be present in his kingdom.
This understanding of the words “perceiving the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom” is confirmed by how Mark and Luke interpret what Jesus said here. In Mark 9:1, we read the following: “…there are some of those standing here who under no circumstances should be tasting death till they should be perceiving the kingdom of God having come in power”). Similarly, Luke has Jesus simply declaring “…till they should be perceiving the kingdom of God.” We can thus conclude that, by means of a vision, Peter, James and John perceived Christ being present in his kingdom after it has “come in power.”
Against this understanding of when “some” who were standing with Christ perceived “the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom” (or “the kingdom of God having come in power”), Andrew P. has raised the following three objections:
(1) This “coming” is said to be “with his angels” and to involve judgment of the wicked; this did not take place in any way at the Transfiguration.
(2) Jesus’ statement in Matt. 16:28 implies that some of the disciples would die prior to the “coming,” especially given that the context is a prediction of persecution and martyrdom (16:24-26); the Transfiguration took place only a week later, long before any disciples died.
(3) Peter says explicitly that the Transfiguration confirmed the validity of the prophecy (2 Pet. 1:16-18), not that it directly fulfilled the prophecy.
Against the first objection, Andrew has failed to distinguish what Christ said would be occurring in the future (as stated in v. 27) from what he said “some” would “be perceiving” before they died (as stated in v. 28). Christ didn’t say that those among his disciples who would perceive “the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom” would also perceive Christ coming with his messengers and paying each in accord with his practice. He simply said that they would be “perceiving the Son of Mankind coming in His kingdom” (or would be “perceiving the kingdom of God having come in power”). As noted earlier, “coming in His kingdom” simply means “coming to be present in his kingdom.” This state of affairs was, in fact, perceived in the vision that Peter, James and John were given approximately one week later.
Moreover, while Andrew is correct in saying that the coming of Christ with his angels/messengers (and the rewarding of people in accord with their acts) didn’t occur at the Transfiguration, the same can be said regarding 70 AD. Christ did not come “in the glory of His Father, with His messengers” at this time. And the clear implication of the words “and then he will be paying each in accord with his practice” is that the judgment Christ had in view will involve the rewarding of believers by Christ in accord with what they did prior to his coming in the glory of his father. Thus, while the judgment of the nation of Israel in 70 AD was a “judgment of the wicked,” this historical event could not have been the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy here.
Against Andrew’s second objection, it should be kept in mind that, unless one was/is given a vision of it, the only way to perceive the coming of Christ in his kingdom is to perceive it by means of sensory perception at the future time that it occurs. Every other disciple who was with Peter, James and John at the time when Jesus declared what he did in Matt. 16:27-28 died (or “tasted death”) without perceiving Christ coming in his kingdom. And they won’t perceive this until after they’ve been resurrected in the kingdom (at “the resurrection of the just”). In contrast, Peter, James and John perceived this before they died (since they – and no other disciples – were given a vision of it). Thus, in fulfillment of Jesus’ words, there were indeed “some” who perceived what Jesus said would be perceived before they tasted death (with the implication being that everyone else would “taste death” before they’re able to perceive that which Peter, James and John were able to see by means of a vision).
Against Andrew’s last objection, there is nothing said by Peter in the verses referenced by Andrew that is in any way inconsistent with the view that Jesus prophesied of his eon-concluding coming in Matt. 16:27 and that Peter, James and John saw, by means of a vision, Christ being manifested in glory in his kingdom. In fact, this understanding is consistent with Andrew’s remark that “the Transfiguration confirmed the validity of” Jesus’ prophecy (for they were given a vision of a prophesied future time when the kingdom of God has come in power).
Having considered what the disciples would’ve had in mind when they asked Christ about his “presence” and “the conclusion of the eon,” let’s now consider another important question: Why did the disciples closely associate “[Christ’s] presence” and “the conclusion of the eon” with what Christ had previously said concerning the demolishing of the buildings of the sanctuary (for we know that, when Christ said what he did concerning the buildings of the sanctuary being demolished, he didn’t explicitly mention either his “presence” or “the conclusion of the eon”)?
Answer: According to what’s prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures, a magnificent Jewish temple is going to be constructed in the land of Israel after the kingdom of God has been set up on the earth (see Ezekiel 40-48 for the most detailed description of this future, eonian temple). For a study on this subject (and a defense against the view that the prophecies in Ezekiel and elsewhere concerning a future temple shouldn’t be understood literally), see the following article: A Defense of Israel’s Expectation, Part One
We thus have good reason to believe that the disciples’ questions were informed by the prophecy-based understanding that, after Christ restores the kingdom to Israel, there is going to be a new temple constructed in the land of Israel. And this means that any temple that isn’t the eonian temple prophesied in Ezekiel is necessarily going to be destroyed. Thus, when Christ predicted the destruction of the temple, the disciples understood him to have been referring to an eon-consummating event that will happen so that the eonian temple prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures can be built.
Now, although I believe it’s prophesied in Daniel 9:27 that the second temple would be destroyed (and that this event would occur sometime between the first 69 “weeks” and the final, 70th “week” of this prophecy), I think Christ also knew that any temple constructed in Jerusalem before the final, eonian temple prophesied in Ezekiel is constructed would inevitably be destroyed (for the final, eonian temple prophesied in Ezekiel cannot coexist with any temple built during this eon). Thus, Christ’s prediction of the destruction of the temple also applies to any subsequent period during this eon in which the Jewish temple is rebuilt. It should also be noted that, in accord with what we read in Haggai 2:3-9, a rebuilt Jewish temple can be validly regarded as a continuation of the temple that preceded it (for the temple that was destroyed in 70 AD was understood to be a continuation of the temple that was destroyed in 587 BC).
Thus, if the Jewish temple is rebuilt prior to “the conclusion of the eon,” it must (and will) be demolished. And since we have good reason to believe that there will be a Jewish temple standing just prior to “the conclusion of the eon,” we can conclude that Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple applies just as much to the temple at this future time as it did to the temple in the first century. That is, Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple will again come to pass (such that what occurred in 70 AD will happen again at “the conclusion of the eon”).
Moreover, we know that, when the disciples asked their questions, they had in mind the future temple-destroying event that will coincide with “[Christ’s] presence” and “the conclusion of the eon.” And since Christ’s prophecy also applies to this future event, we can understand his response to their question as being in accord with what he understood them to have had in mind when they asked their questions. Since Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple is going to come to pass again, Christ’s response concerns the future events that will lead up to the destruction of the third and last temple that will be built before “the conclusion of the eon” (and not the events that led up to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD).
“I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle”
In Luke 21:20-28 we read that Christ declared the following:
“Now whenever you may be perceiving Jerusalem surrounded by encampments, then know that her desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains, and let those in her midst be coming out into the country, and let not those in the country be entering into her, for days of vengeance are these, to fulfill all that is written. Yet woe to those who are pregnant, and to those suckling in those days; for there will be great necessity in the land and indignation on this people.
“And they shall be falling by the edge of the sword and shall be led into captivity into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden by the nations, until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun and the moon and the constellations, and on the earth pressure of nations in perplexity, at the resounding of the sea and the shaking, at the chilling of men from fear and apprehensiveness of that which is coming on the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then they shall be seeing the Son of Mankind coming in a cloud with power and much glory. Now at the beginning of these occurrences, unbend and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is drawing near.”
It must be emphasized that the events referred to in the last two verses – i.e., the coming of Christ “in a cloud with power and much glory” and the “deliverance” of believers at that time – will be inseparably connected with the arrival of “the kingdom of God” (v. 31). That is, the same believers who, at the beginning of the prophesied occurrences, will be able to “unbend and lift up [their] heads, because [their] deliverance is drawing near” will also have reason to think that the arrival of the kingdom of God will coincide with their deliverance.
Now, it’s my understanding that the events of which we read in the above passages involving Jerusalem and the nations (as well as the arrival of the kingdom of God on the earth) were foretold by the prophet Zechariah more than 500 years before Christ, and that the time period that’s in view in Luke 21:20-28 is the same time period that’s in view in Zechariah 14. Here’s how Zech. 14:1-6 reads in the Legacy Standard Bible:
Behold, a day is coming for Yahweh when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. Indeed, I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished, and half of the city will go forth in exile, but those left of the people will not be cut off from the city.
Then Yahweh will go forth and fight against those nations, as the day when He fights on a day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. And you will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; indeed, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then Yahweh, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him!
And it will be in that day, that there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. And it will be a unique day which is known to Yahweh, neither day nor night, but it will be that at evening time there will be light.
The most commonly-held view among preterists is that Zechariah’s prophecy was fulfilled (or began to be fulfilled) by events that occurred during the First Jewish-Roman War in 66-70 AD. While I obviously disagree with the preterist view that Zechariah’s prophecy has already been fulfilled, I think that preterists who believe that the same event is being prophesied in both Luke 21 and Zechariah 14 are correct. For what we read in Zech. 14:3-6 certainly appears to look forward to the eon-consummating events that will usher in the kingdom of God, and will thus fulfill the prophecies that comprise Jesus’ Olivet Discourse.
In addition to the geographical changes/implied earthquake referred to in verses 4-5 (see also v. 10) and the dwindling of “the luminaries” referred to in v. 6, we read of the “coming of Yahweh” (which I believe refers to the coming of Yahweh’s anointed representative) with “all the holy ones with him.” All of these remarkable events are connected with the eon-concluding coming of Christ prophesied in the Olivet Discourse and elsewhere (Matt. 16:27; 24:7, 29-31; Luke 21:11; Rev. 6:12; 16:18; 19:11-14). And what we go on to read in Zechariah 14 certainly appears to look forward to the state of affairs that will be present after the kingdom of God has arrived (and the “eon to come” has begun).
With these considerations in mind, let’s consider the following statements from Zechariah 14:1-3:
“Indeed, I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished, and half of the city will go forth in exile, but those left of the people will not be cut off from the city.”
“Then Yahweh will go forth and fight against those nations, as the day when He fights on a day of battle.”
Based on what we read here, it’s reasonable to conclude the following: those by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished” are “all the nations” that Yahweh said he “will gather…against Jerusalem,” and whom Yahweh will later “go forth and fight against.” In other words, the scene being described here is one in which Jerusalem will be forcefully (and violently) occupied by the nations until Yahweh goes forth and fights against them. Keeping these points in mind, let’s now consider the following statements by Christ:
“Now whenever you may be perceiving Jerusalem surrounded by encampments, then know that her desolation is near.”
“And they shall be falling by the edge of the sword and shall be led into captivity into all nations.”
“And Jerusalem shall be trodden by the nations, until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled.”
When we read these verses in light of what’s prophesied in Zechariah 14, it’s reasonable to conclude the following:
1. The “encampments” by which Jerusalem will be surrounded will be comprised of the nations that Yahweh said he will gather against Jerusalem to battle (and by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished”).
2. “The nations” into which the people of Jerusalem shall be led into captivity are the nations that Yahweh said he will gather against Jerusalem to battle (and by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished”).
3. “The nations” by which “Jerusalem shall be trodden…until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled” are the nations that Yahweh said he will gather against Jerusalem to battle (and by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished”).
Thus, given the understanding that the same event involving Jerusalem and the nations is being prophesied in both Luke 21:20-24 and Zechariah 14:1-2 (which I believe is correct), it’s reasonable to conclude that “the nations” by which “Jerusalem shall be trodden…until the eras of the nations may be fulfilled” are the nations that Yahweh said he “will gather against Jerusalem to battle.”
With this in mind, let’s now consider what’s revealed in Revelation 11:2. In this verse we read that the treading of Jerusalem by “the nations” will continue “forty-two months.” This means that “the eras of the nations” referred to in Luke 21:24 will be fulfilled after this city-treading period of 42 months has ended.
We can therefore conclude the following: The nations that Yahweh said he will gather against Jerusalem to battle (and by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished”) are going to be treading Jerusalem for 42 months (after which Yahweh “will go forth and fight against [them], as the day when He fights on a day of battle”).
This creates a big problem for the preterist who believes that the events prophesied in Zechariah 14 and Luke 21 are the same. For Jerusalem was not “trodden by” the Romans for 42 months (or for any period of time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD). It is for this reason that some preterists – such as Andrew P. – interpret “the nations” referred to in Luke 21:24 and Rev. 11:2 as being identical with (or as forming a large part of) the Jewish Zealots with whom the Romans were at war during the First Jewish-Roman War. But this interpretation won’t work. Even if it were somehow possible to identify (and validly refer to) those with whom the Romans were at war during the First Jewish-Roman War as “the nations” (and I don’t think it is),[i] “the nations” by which “Jerusalem shall be trodden” are the very nations that Yahweh said he will gather against Jerusalem to battle (and by whom Jerusalem “will be captured, the houses plundered and the women ravished”), and into which the people of Jerusalem “shall be led into captivity.” In other words, it’s simply not possible for “the nations” by which “Jerusalem shall be trodden” for “forty-two months” to be the people with whom the Romans were at war during the First Jewish-Roman War.
We can thus conclude that the event of which Zechariah and Christ prophesied concerning Jerusalem and the nations has not yet occurred. While we can certainly understand it to have been “foreshadowed” by events that occurred during the First Jewish-Roman War (and at other times in Israel’s history as well), its fulfillment is yet future.
Now, some preterists believe that Zechariah’s prophecy was fulfilled by events leading up to, and occurring during (and after), the Maccabean Revolt of 167-160 BC. I should note that I do think Zechariah 12:1-9 is likely a prophecy of the Maccabean Revolt. But regardless of whether one thinks the events prophesied in Zech. 12:1-9 are past or future, I don’t think the same events are in view in Zechariah 14. The fact that both prophecies involve Jerusalem being surrounded and invaded by gentiles doesn’t mean they’re referring to the same event (for Jerusalem has, throughout its history, “been destroyed at least two times, attacked 52 times, besieged 23 times, and recaptured 44 times.”).[ii] And there’s no good reason to believe that Jerusalem couldn’t be surrounded by (and then invaded/captured by) a gentile army again in the future.
Although we have at least some reason to believe that the events prophesied in Zech. 12:1-9 were fulfilled by the Maccabean Revolt, the same cannot be said with regard to what’s prophesied in Zech. 14. The events described after verses 1-2 do not line up with anything that’s happened in the past. There are, of course, some similarities between what’s prophesied in Zechariah 14:1-2 and what took place in both the second century BC and in the first century AD (just as there are similarities between the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and that by the Romans). But there is simply too much that one has to ignore (or explain away as “highly figurative language”) in order to claim that the events prophesied in Zech. 14 have already occurred.
For example, we know that the events of both the Maccabean Revolt and the First Jewish-Roman War did not include, or result in, the following remarkable state of affairs:
“…the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. And you will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; indeed, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah.”
According to one preterist who holds to the Maccabean Revolt interpretation of Zech 14, the splitting of the Mount of Olives was fulfilled by the construction of a road by the Romans “as far back as the first century AD” (he also suggests that this Roman road could’ve been preceded by a “cut in the middle of the mountain” that “miraculously” occurred at the start of the Maccabean Wars). This interpretation is simply not in accord with what’s said in the prophecy. Notice that the valley that’s formed by the splitting of the Mount of Olives is described as “a very large valley.” This valley will not only be big enough for people to flee through, but it will actually be used for this purpose by those who will be in Jerusalem at the time (i.e., those who, according to Zech. 14:1-2, will be among the city’s inhabitants who “shall not be cut off from the city” following the invasion).
In addition to what’s said concerning the supernaturally-caused splitting of the Mount of Olives, we also read that “living waters” will begin flowing out of Jerusalem (with “half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea…in summer as well as in winter”). This same remarkable event is, I believe, prophesied in Joel 3:18 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 as well. However, no such event has ever occurred. Nor did the other remarkable geographical changes of which we read in Zech. 14 occur during the time of the Maccabean Revolt or the Jewish-Roman War. “All the land” was not, at these times, “changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem.” Nor was Jerusalem elevated to “inhabit its site from Benjamin’s Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses” (this prophesied event involving the geographical elevating of Jerusalem is also prophesied in Isaiah 2:2, Ezekiel 40:1 and Micah 4:1).
The preterist proponent of the Maccabean Revolt interpretation of Zech. 14 went on to claim that what we read in Zech. 14:16-19 was fulfilled after the Maccabean Revolt by Jews from every nation going to Jerusalem every year to observe Hanukkah. But this understanding is contrary to what’s actually being prophesied by Zechariah. Here’s how these verses read in the CVOT:
And it shall come to be that everyone left of all the nations coming against Jerusalem, shall also go up, a quota, year by year, to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, and to celebrate the celebration of booths. And it comes, whoever will not go up from the families of the earth, to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, then the downpour shall not come on them. And if a family of Egypt shall not go up, and shall not come, then it is not on them; to it shall come the stroke with which Yahweh will strike all the nations, which will not go up to celebrate the celebration of booths. This shall be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all the nations, that will not go up to celebrate the celebration of booths.
It’s evident from what we read in this passage that those referred to as “everyone left of all the nations coming against Jerusalem” will be gentiles (and not Jews living among gentiles). That is, they will belong to the same category of people as those referred to earlier as “all nations” (Zech. 14:2), and will be among the “nations” whom Yahweh “will go out and fight against” (v. 3). These people are subsequently referred to as both “the families of the earth” (with “a family of Egypt” being used as an example) and “all the nations” (with the nation of Egypt being used as an example).
Notice, also, what the penalty is said to be for any of the families of the earth who don’t go to Jerusalem to celebrate the celebration of booths: “the downpour shall not come on them.” Here’s how verses 17-18 read in the LSB:
And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which Yahweh plagues the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
At no time in history has there ever been a state of affairs such as we find described in these verses. There has never been a time when God has withheld rain from any nation (such as Egypt) because of an unwillingness of a family from that nation to travel “year by year” to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Booths and “worship the King, Yahweh of hosts.” It should also be kept in mind that this state of affairs coincides with the time in which the geography-altering changes described earlier will have occurred.
Of course, preterists have to understand what’s said here – along with much of what’s prophesied in Zechariah 14 – as having been fulfilled in a way that’s not in accord with a literal, straightforward reading of the text. But the reason they must do so is because no historical events correspond to what’s actually being prophesied. In contrast, when a prophesied event does seem to correspond to a historical event (e.g., that of which we read in verses 1-2), preterists have no problem interpreting the text literally. They only interpret a prophecy literally when it’s convenient for them to do so, and such a reading supports their preterist interpretation of the prophecy. But I submit that, in order for the preterist to justify an interpretation of any part of Zechariah 14 that is less literal than the way they interpret the first two verses of this prophecy, the following should be true:
1. A literal interpretation of what Zechariah prophesied results in some degree of absurdity, or contradicts some known truth.
2. A figurative interpretation of what Zechariah prophesied brings some degree of clarity (or provides some degree of explanatory power) that a literal interpretation does not.
But is this the case? No. The only reason that one could have for thinking that what’s being prophesied in Zechariah 14 contradicts some known truth is if one is already presupposing a historical fulfillment of what’s being prophesied here. In other words, one has to already be assuming that the events prophesied in Zechariah already occurred in order to conclude that a literal interpretation of what’s being revealed is impossible.
For part two, click here: Did Christ come “on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory” in 70 AD? (Part two)
[i] Andrew P. has claimed that the Zealots “were mostly gentiles.” In support of this claim, Andrew appeals to Josephus as follows:
“When Vespasian subdued the land of Galilee in the summer of AD 67, he “sat upon his tribunal at Tarichaea, in order to distinguish the foreigners from the old inhabitants; for those foreigners appear to have begun the war” (Wars 3.10.10). Jerusalem was filled with thousands of Galilean and Idumean soldiers during this period, who committed atrocities (Wars 4.5.1-5; 9.10).”
However, the “foreigners” referred to by Josephus weren’t “gentiles.” They were Jews who weren’t native to the port city of Taricheae. It was the native Jewish inhabitants of Taricheae (the “old inhabitants”) who were hesitant to fight the Romans. However, a large number of heavily armed Jewish rebels from outside of this city had flooded into the city and forced them to resist.
The fact is that the Zealots were Jews. That is, they belonged to the race of people from whom “the nations” are distinguished in Luke 21:20-24 (and whom Jesus referred to as “this people”). Even the Idumeans who were allied with the Zealots were not considered “gentiles” in the first century. They were, instead, people who had been forcibly converted to Judaism after Idumea was conquered by the Hasmonean kingdom more than 150 years earlier. Thus, by the time of the First Jewish-Roman War, the Idumeans were essentially integrated Jews. And as such, their presence in Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman War could not accurately be described as Jerusalem being “trodden by the nations.”
And not only this, but Josephus states that most of the Idumeans who were fighting with the Zealots withdrew from Jerusalem before the final Roman siege in 70 AD. Those who remained (and who joined the faction of Simon bar Giora) suffered the same fate as the rest of the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the 70 AD siege (being either killed by the Romans, dying of famine, or being taken into captivity). In other words, the relatively few Idumeans who were in Jerusalem in 70 AD were among those who were either killed by actual gentiles (i.e., the Romans) or taken into captivity by them. This state of affairs involving a majority of Zealots and a minority of Idumeans (who, again, were regarded as Jews) could not be described as Jerusalem being “trodden by the nations.”
No comments:
Post a Comment