I don't believe that the "time statements" (which in many cases are "spatial/nearness statements") actually mean what they are made to say. In many cases, the statements are of nearness in space, not nearness in time ("the kingdom is at hand"), and in many other cases the eschatological focal point is personal in nature through the approach of martyrdom, and not at all the approach of the fall of a building in Jerusalem (i.e. Paul's "the time (of my departure) is at hand". Yes, there are indeed a couple of times were the fall of the temple is in view.. but even in those cases the fall thereof is subservient to a higher revelatory purpose, in my opinion... Such as when Jesus said "destroy this temple, and in three days..." which "temple" is declared in the Word to be His body. So we must seek to recognize which of these "temples" is greater -- that which is built by man, or that which is built by God? The one is just the sign of the other... and likewise the prophecies regarding one are just part of that "sign" pointing to "the son of man in heaven." The point is that the FP view of the time texts assumes the very point in question.
*1. Matthew 10:23 Jesus said: "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.” *
Don't forget that it is also taught by most Full Preterists that the gospel would be preached to the whole world before AD70. So the FP model here suggests that all of the disciples coved the entire known world, but did not even cover the cities in their back yard! This curiosity lends itself to a deeper investigation than the typical FP usually gives. I mean, if you read the materials surrounding this passage, it is simply stated as fact that this text clearly looks at AD70.. Yet declaring AD70 to be the focal point is assuming the matter in question. Mustn't do that. There is also no mention of the end of the Mosaic system in this passage. Yet just because the FP assumption about this passage isn't sound, doesn't mean that the futurist is either. There is a third way.
Recall the teaching of Jesus Christ regarding the coming of the spirit, as being His coming (John 14:18-19 "we will come and make our abode with you") or his declaration to the high priest "from here henceforth you will see the son of man.. coming.." in Matt 26:64. The teaching of the coming in the New Testament is not so simple as just a singular coming at one point in history (be it past or future). That teaching doesn't satisfy the treatment of Jesus on the coming of the Son of man at all. In fact, that idea is completely absent from this entire passage ; rather, there are revealing references to the ministry of the Holy Spirit prior to, and after this declaration.
But regardless of whether the ministry and presence of the Holy Spirit is in view here, one thing is for certain - AD70 is directly or indirectly mentioned in this passage at all.
*According to a plain reading of Scriptures, Jesus should have returned to the very generation to whom He was speaking. *
Indeed He did.. and yet it wasn't just simply a cut-and-dried singular coming in AD70. An important point of audience relevance is that one must remember that what is spoken to a particular group may speak specifically of their circumstances, while not at the same time being the exclusive occurrence of like events. Meaning that what is true of them (the coming of the son in the person of the Holy Spirit) can be true of others as well. They were not the only ones to receive the Spirit. Nor did they have to wait until AD70 to receive Him. My only real point is that "AD70" is no where in this text. It is an assumption to make this equal AD70.
*2. Matthew 24:34 Jesus said: "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”*
Jesus gave visible signs regarding visible events that would take place upon that nation... but that doesn't mean that it is all that it is about. What took place historically in the natural realm is given as an expression of those everlasting things which come upon all people throughout all generations. In fact, scripture says that we must ALL through tribulation enter the kingdom. It also says that it is appointed unto men to die, and after that the judgment. These aren't things that ceased in AD70.. as though these passages are not meant for today... which is a very sad overthrow of the Word of God. Others feel comfortable sticking the Bible through a "AD70 terminus" grinder, to see what comes out, but not myself. We must be a lot more reverent for the Word than to do that.
Getting back to the symbolism, we would do well to recognize the utility of the temple imagery. The temple is a symbol, simple as that. It is a model of other things. For a couple of things, it is a symbol of the world, and it is a symbol of the body. In fact, the same greek root word is used in these cases - "oikos" as in "house". Jesus uses "temple" in reference to his body, and Paul uses "temple" in reference to our body... so it is a very pregnant and suggestive term, which is used as a symbol -- and as we know, symbols do not symbolize themselves.
That these outward symbols are the visible show of the invisible is also a principle able to be taken as axiom, in my opinion.... that the visible is the revelation ("apocalypse") of the invisible. Paul himself says as much in II Cor 4:18.. that we "look not at things which can be seen".. but rather at the unseen things. The book of Hebrews makes this case as well. In fact, there are well over 101 passages which make reference to the revealing of what is hidden, through the revelatory work of Jesus Christ.
In short, it is a choice of hermeneutic. We can choose to look at the New Testament like the Jews looked at the Old Testament -- as a roll of natural history, showing natural things, regarding the fulfillment of prophecy in their natural realm -- or we can choose to look at the New Testament like Christians have always looked at the Old Testament
-- as a picture of Jesus Christ, laid out in highly symbolic and parabolic fashion. The "Tropological Method" is another term that has historically been used for this approach.
One of the main problems I have with the full preterist hermeneutic is its inconsistency. This is made plain in the fact that these systems look at the FINAL generation of Israel's history different than it does for every other generation. We must remain consistent, and see the entire scope of natural Israel's history as a schoolmaster pointing to invisible things in Jesus Christ. We mustn't change our approach once we get to the last generation, and all of a sudden abandon the shadow model to declare it to be the substance instead. By making every previous generation point to that one generation, the hermeneutical approach is changed.
Ultimately, it is the difference between a chronological and a spatial viewpoint. For instance, when Jesus says "the kingdom is at hand" is He really saying that it won't come for another 40 years ?? Think about that. ..or is He saying that it was within reach right THEN. If we see it as a chronological argument.. it could only have been near once... however, if we see it from a spatial perspective, it can be near now, just as it is was then. The difference is looking at these passages about nearness and such ("eggus" root passages in particular) from an earthly, chronological based assumption... vs. a heavenly, spiritual reality that effects all.
*3. Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." To Whom was Jesus speaking?*
Who do YOU think that Jesus was speaking to? I see many Full Preterists say that it was Caiaphas, as identified in v. 57, and as declared to be the recipient of Jesus' saying in the very verse prior "responding to the chief priest" and "i adjure YOU" and "say to YOU" that "YOU will see"... so its Caiaphas, right? Well, the only problem with teaching that Jesus was telling Caiaphas that he would see Jesus coming in AD70 is that Caiaphas didn't live that long. In fact, all available tradition holds that he died within about a decade of this event. And if that weren't enough, notice the world "hereafter" in there. Jesus didn't say "in 40 years you will see" but he said "hereafter will you see".. that is a big difference! The literal Greek is "From now you will see" - from NOW. This reopens that issue in Matthew 10:23 about them seeing the coming of the son before they returned from being sent out to the cities of Israel.
My only real point is that, again, AD70 is not in this verse, but is read into the verse. What people want to make a singular fixed point in AD70 just simply isn't in the text.
*4. Romans 13:12 The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. *
This is another good example. The day is "at hand". This doesn't say that the day is 30 years away and will arrive in AD70. That is an assumption. In fact, we see elsewhere, that for some the day had already arrived!
1 Jo 2:8 I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
Does that mean that I John was written after AD70? There are many other passages like this which make a present reality what some want to make an AD70 reality.
Also, Paul is not writing to people in Jerusalem here, but people in Rome.. and Christians who were suffering under ROMAN domination and persecution. So, I doubt that Paul was appealing to the fall of a building here as being what brought them deliverance. We need to be very persistent with the Word, and really be Bereans about the whole thing. Elsewhere Paul likewise talks about the time being at hand. In II Timothy 4:6, he declares "the time... is at hand" -- but, again, he is not talking about the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Instead, he is talking about the vindication that comes to all Christians in due course... as the full verse reads "the time *of my departure* is at hand." He fought the good fight, and there awaited him a crown and a victory for having run the race. Notice that Paul doesn't say that AD70 was the goal.. but rather his departure. This focus on martyrdom can be found in many of the "time texts" of things which were "at hand," because indeed many of them DID give their lives away. This was their focal point... not AD70.
But my only real point is that AD70 is not in this passage.
therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
*Do phrases like "night is almost gone" and "at hand" sound like 2,000 years?*
Not at all! But, then again, I am not a Futurist.
*5. Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.*
Yes. Same situation. Writing to people in Rome, Paul promises that the crushing of Satan and the overcoming of death is at hand. He exhorted them to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice" in preparation for the actual sacrifice that was determined for them. Nowhere is AD70 mentioned.
Again, look at who Paul was speaking to writing in the 40,’s, through the early 60’s of the first century C.E. How long would "soon" be to a person living then?
Some died the very day they read the epistle, I'm sure. The end for others, such as Peter or Paul himself, came in Rome later on. Yet this was their focal point.. not the fall of a building in a remote part of the world. And it would be our focus as well, were we to be living in those times.
But my only real point is that AD70 is not in this passage.
* 6. 1 Corinthians 7:26-3 1 I think that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Again, Paul wrote in the middle of the first century. In the early 60's Nero began his persecution of the church. That was just the beginning of the major trouble
that would befall Israel. *
I would say that the true people of God had been persecuted since the days of Abel. What was true of Abel was true of the first century people, which is why the previous historical events were used as examples from what they had to go through, and for what we have to go through. But my only real point is that AD70 is not in this passage.
Paul knew in his spirit that terrible things would happen in the days ahead. Therefore he advised against marriage because of the pain married life would involve in the very near future such as losing your new spouse and children in the onslaught that was to shortly come.
Yet keep in mind that these are Greeks. We must keep our audience relevance clear.. while recognizing that there are many different audiences to be found.
*7. 1 Corinthians 10:11 "Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. *
This is an important passage.. as we are shown by Paul the biblical example/"fulfillment in us" model. Israel was a model. He is using an example of Israel's idolatry to warn against the Pagan practices of idolatry. Writing to Greeks, Paul uses that model to show more clearly what is happening to them. And he even says that what was written was for THEIR admonition. Likewise, what Paul wrote is for OUR admonition. This goes back to that issue of applicability vs. exclusivity. Regarding the "full condition" (telos) -- Don K. Preston uses the word "goal" for telos -- of the ages... please not that this is not about AD70.. as though he is saying that it will soon arrive. He is saying that it HAS ALREADY arrived. And what is in view here is Jesus Christ.. not AD70, in my opinion. But my only real point is that AD70 is not in this passage. Well, my time is up. One of these months I look forward to going through the "101 Time Indicators" one by one, in order to show the number of presumptions that are brought to the passages. In short, however, it comes down to the nearness for them in their persecutions likewise being encouragement for us today in ours. We are not in a different dispensation than Christians were then. We must all through tribulation enter the kingdom, because all that live godly and Christ WILL suffer persecution. Therefore, the Bible is written to us in admonition and encouragement to us, just as it was to them. And for those who don't know Jesus Christ, the kingdom is at hand for them even now. And as for the Jewish people, they will not see Him, until they say "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
I hope this all makes sense... As I said, though, it would take a book to properly deal with it all.
