Introduction to Biblical Prophecy

Beware. This blog site may be uncomfortable to some Christians who have blindly accepted what you have been taught about Bible prophecy without checking it against God’s Word. Remember: We are instructed to search the Scriptures to find out whether the things we have been taught are so (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). 

This is a very brief introduction to my book: Christian Hope through Fulfilled Prophecy: Is Your Church Teaching Error about the Last Days and Second Coming? The Surging Preterist Challenge to Eschatology. It is available at Amazon:

Have you ever been concerned that what your church is teaching about Bible prophecy does not match up to what the Bible actually says?

Biblical eschatology appears to be undergoing a radical revision among scholars. R. C. Sproul, for example, perhaps the most influential theologian in America, has said that his views on eschatology had changed to a version of “preterism.” Preterism is the view that most if not all prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century. Hank Hanegraaff (the popular Bible Answer Man) has adopted a similar view. On the other hand, Dallas Theological Seminary, a highly influential center of dispenational “end times” prophecy, appears to be modifying its views. Christians have simply tired of the continual failed predictions about the end of the world, which have been a persistent but embarrassing theme of many Christians. We are ready to take a fresh look at what the Bible actually teaches. The coming years are likely to witness an upheaval in the field of eschatology.

Eschatology—the study of prophetic “last things”—is an area in which there is remarkable disagreement among Christians. It is a complicated area for several reasons. One reason is that there are so many passages of Scripture on the topic that must be reconciled. Over one-fourth of the New Testament is about this, and includes such topics as: a new heaven and new earth, the Day of the Lord, a Great Tribulation, the “rapture,” the Second Coming of Jesus, and more.

In my book, CHRISTIAN HOPE through FULFILLED PROPHECY, I explain the different views of Bible prophecy: premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism,  historicism, idealism, and preterism. Surprisingly, the church has never had a serious and concluding discussion on eschatology. The continued failed predictions of the Second Coming and the end of the world have been embarrassingly wrong. Much clarity is needed.

There are over 100 passages in the New Testament that declared the imminence of the prophesied events. It is clear that Jesus and his disciples expected his return while some of them were still alive—in their own generation. (See Preterism 101.) 

Here are just a few interesting passages, to which the question must be asked, “Were Jesus and the writers of the New Testament wrong?”:

  • In Matthew 10:23, Jesus told his disciples that He would return before they had finished going through all the towns of Israel.
  • In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus told his disciples that He would return before some of them had died.
  • In Matthew 26:64, Jesus told Caiaphas, the scribes, and the elders that they would personally see Him returning in judgment.
  • In Luke 21:22 and 32, Jesus told his disciples that all prophecy would be fulfilled in THEIR generation. In Luke 21:36 Jesus further emphasized that the prophetic events He just listed were ABOUT TO HAPPEN. (See the New International Version or Young’s Literal Translation.)
  • In 1 Peter 4:7, Peter said that the “end of all things” was at hand (for him and his contemporaries).
  • In 1 John 2:18, John insisted that it was “the last hour.”
  • In Revelation 1:1-3 and 22:20 Jesus said to the first-century Christians that the events of Revelation “must shortly take place” and further that his return was “soon.”

What’s at stake? Well, nothing short of the authority of Scripture and indeed the divinity of Christ. Perhaps the number one charge against Christians over the years is that Jesus promised his return in his own generation—that virtually all of the New Testament writers spoke of this as well—but they were wrong. So, they say, Jesus did not return as he predicted, making him a false prophet, and thus the Bible is unreliable. For example, skeptics Bertrand Russell in his book Why I Am Not a Christian, and Albert Schweitzer in his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus, made this charge. Jewish and Muslim critics make this charge as well.  

Indeed, even the famous Christian apologist C. S. Lewis recognized the problem. In reference to various passages of Scripture, including the “Olivet Discourse” found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, Lewis said this:

“Say what you like, the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things are done.’ And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”

Christians address these challenges by putting their head in the sand. This must change. In my book I explore the compelling biblical and historical evidence that Jesus (and his disciples) were right all along, proving the opponents of Christianity wrong, and confirming the incredible accuracy of Scripture! While this may seem strange at first glance to those unschooled in biblical apocalyptic language, I examine whether Christians have wrongly interpreted the “last days” as the end of physical universerather than the end of the Old Covenant Age. And perhaps they have compounded the error by wrongly expecting a return of Jesus in his pre-ascension body, rather than a coming in judgment (similar to numerous comings of Yahweh in the Old Testament).

What I and my several contributors explore is the possibility that most if not all biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled—the preterist viewThis is a minority view among Christians today. But authors Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock in their book The Early Church and the End of the World argue that forms of preterism were an important, if not the dominant, view in the early and medieval church. It is again gaining ground as Christians return to Scripture for answers.

The torrent of popular books and claims about biblical prophecy in recent decades, aside from taking up lots of shelf space in Christian book stores, seems to have a peculiar appeal to lay believers who, curiously enough, find hope in an expected destruction of the planet and its replacement with a utopia in which even carnivorous animals will take up vegetarianism. It is simply taken for granted that the Bible predicts and explains an end of time, and that there is no number of elapsed centuries spent waiting for it that cannot be called the “end times.”

Such notions should be critically examined. My book should be of considerable interest to any Christian who takes the Bible seriously, but is not confused, confounded, and frustrated with the near comical but sad state of affairs that afflicts modern Christianity on the question of the supposed end of all things.

Instead of reading the Bible through the lens of the daily newspaper, perhaps Christians should read it through the lens of first-century audience. In doing so, the reader may agree that the prophetic events were fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and along with them the end of the Old Covenant system of sacrifices for sin. Every objection to the preterist view is examined in detail in the book.

There is always much resistance to a challenge to widely held beliefs. We often have very ingrained presuppositions and we have much at stake if most of our neighbors hold to a common (but perhaps incorrect) view of something. There is the problem of what psychiatrists call “cognitive dissonance,” which is “a mental conflict that occurs when . . . confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information.”


Fear not to be challenged and changed. See other articles on this site. And check out the book at Amazon!

                                                                   —Charles S. Meek

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Prophecy Questions Futurists Cannot Really Answer

There is astounding disagreement among Christians on Bible prophecy. About a dozen years ago I decided that I could no longer blindly listen to my pastoral staff on this subject, and I became determined to get to the bottom of this subject. There were too many questions I had that the church just could not answer adequately.

I became a preterist. Preterism is the view that most if not all prophetic events happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It appears to be the fastest growing view of eschatology as other systems are being discredited. I see a dramatic upheaval coming in the church on eschatology.

Over one-fourth of the New Testament is concerned with eschatology. If you are willing to consider a different viewpoint from the one you may now hold, below are some of the questions I could not honestly answer as a futurist:

If time means nothing to God, why does God constantly use time-restricted statements about the fulfillment of prophecy—such as: shortly, at hand, near, quickly, soon, last times, last hour, last days, this generation, etc.?

Why did Jesus frequently insist that his PAROUSIA (Second Coming) and indeed the fulfillment of all prophecy would be fulfilled while some of his disciples were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:20)? Was Jesus simply wrong? If so, can we trust Him on other things He said?

If the teaching 1 day=1000 yrs and a 1000 yrs = 1 day to the Lord…DOES THAT MEAN?—1000 yrs in Revelation is a single 24 hr day?

If any of the New Testament was written after AD 70, why is there no mention anywhere in the New Testament IN THE PAST TENSE about the incredible events surrounding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in that year?

If the Great Tribulation is still future to us, why did Jesus tell the first century Christians that they could avoid it by fleeing to the mountains (Luke 21:21; ref. Matthew 24:21)? And why did the Apostle John tell his readers a few years later that THEY were in the tribulation (Revelation 1:9)?

If the book of Revelation is for us today, why would John write to the 7 churches if it had nothing to do with them? Why would John torture these first-century Christians with impossible and intricate symbolic labyrinths that applied only to people 2,000 years later? Why does Revelation say some 30 times that the events MUST be fulfilled SOON?

Why does Hebrews 10:37 say that in a VERY VERY (it’s there twice in the Greek) LITTLE WHILE Jesus would return and not delay? Were the writer of Hebrews and the other biblical writers that expressed the same thing FALSE PROPHETS?

If the biblical “last days” are in the 21st century, why does Peter and Paul both say the last days were in their time (Acts 2:16-17; Hebrews 1:1-2)?

John said it was the “last hour” (1 John 2:18). Does that mean that its fulfillment is now 17 million hours late?

If the GREAT COMMISSION is not yet fulfilled, why did Paul say it had been fulfilled when he was writing (Roman 1:8; 10:18; Colossians 1:5-6)?

If “heaven and earth” have not yet passed away, does that mean that not one jot or tittle has passed from the law and Jesus has not fulfilled it yet (Matthew 5:17-18)?

If the NEW JERUSALEM is a future physical location, how is it possible that the Hebrews in the first century were already there (Hebrews 12:22)?

If Jesus was going to return literally and physically (Acts 1:11), why do we read that his ascension was hidden from view by a cloud? If Jesus is going to return LITERALLY “in like manner” (Acts 1:11), does that also mean that He will return riding a white horse (Revelation 19:11)?

If Jesus was to be returning in a physical visible appearance to the whole world, why did He tell his first-century disciples (John 14:19) that the world would never see him again?

If the King James Version of the Bible really speaks of an end to the physical universe, why is “end of the world” found there consistently translated as “end of the AGE” in modern translations?

If the prophetic passages were fulfilled once in the first century, and then again thousands of years later, why is there no hint of this by Jesus and the biblical writers?


Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Prophecy Questions for Christians

Don’t just let your eyes glaze over with these questions. This is a serious study of Scripture and Christians must come to grips with the implications of this material.

Note that the questions are organized by topic. Here are the topics:

A. Questions about the “End of the Age,” “Last Days,” and the “Day of the Lord”

B. Questions about the timing of the Second Coming (the Parousia) and judgment according to Jesus

C. Questions about the timing of the Parousia and coming judgment according to the New Testament writers

D. New Testament questions about a first century fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse

E. Old Testament questions about a first century fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse

F. Questions about the book of Revelation

G. More Questions

If you are in a dispensational church, please note the blog entry that has questions just about issues from this viewpoint.

James Stuart Russell (1816-1895) in his classic work The Parousia says this, “In prophecy, as in poetry, the material is regarded as the type of the spiritual, the passions and emotions of humanity find expression in corresponding signs and symptoms in the inanimate creation. The earth convulsed with earthquakes, burning mountains cast into the sea, the stars falling like leaves, the heavens on fire, the sun clothed in sackcloth, the moon turned into blood, are images of appalling grandeur, but they are not necessarily unsuitable representations of great civil commotions—the overturning of thrones and dynasties, the desolations of war, the abolition of ancient systems, the great moral and spiritual revolutions.” 

A. Questions about the “End of the Age,” “Last Days,” and the “Day of the Lord”: 

1. In such passages as Matthew 13:40; Matthew 13:49; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 28:20, etc., isn’t Jesus referring to the end of an age (Greek aion)  rather than the end of the world (Greek kosmos)? In other words, if the author was talking about the end of the world, wouldn’t he have used kosmos when he actually used aion? (Compare the King James Version, which has been confusing people for a long time, with newer translations including the New King James Version.)

2. Since the thrust of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/25; Mark 13; Luke 21) is the destruction of the temple, isn’t it reasonable to believe that the age in question was the age of the Jewish dispensation, thus the Old Covenant order—especially since the ancient Jewish system of temple sacrifices for sin ended with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?

3. The end time mentioned in the book of Daniel was to be when the burnt offering was taken away (Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11). Since burnt offerings ended in 70 AD, must not this be the time line, thus the “last days” of which the Bible speaks?

4. Considering audience relevance, can John’s declaration that “it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18) be construed to be far future events? (The last times become the last days which become the last hour, as the decisive moment was now imminent.)

5. Didn’t Peter proclaim the last days to be the time of Pentecost, or more generally the time in which he and his hearers were living (Acts 2:14-20)?

6. Doesn’t Peter insist that the Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled in his day (Acts 3:23-24)?

7. Doesn’t Peter in his epistles reiterate, or at least strongly imply and reaffirm, that the last times were in his era (1 Peter 1:5, 20; 1 Peter 4:7; 2 Peter 3:3, 12)? Remembering that Peter puts the last days in the first generation in Acts 2, read all of 1st and 2nd Peter to see if the imminency of the events of which he speaks is not evident.

8. Wouldn’t readers of Peter’s epistles have understood the radical nearness of the coming judgment? How else can you interpret Peter’s words in 1 Peter 4:7 that “The end of all things is near/at hand”? Unless you think Peter was a quack, doesn’t it make sense that he is speaking of the end of all Old Covenant things?

9. Isn’t the other New Testament writers’ understanding of what was to happen well explained by Paul when he says in 1 Corinthians 10:11 that “the end of the ages has come” and in 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 the it was the form or fashion of the world that was passing away, not the end of the physical universe?

10. When the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) refers to his day and time as “these last days,” can he be referring to the far distant future? Don’t Hebrews 9:26 and Hebrews 10:25-27 confirm a first century setting? If the end of the ages is still in the future, why does Hebrews 9:26 declare the end was present in the first century?

11. Can there be any doubt that James 5:3-9 is telling his readers that they themselves are in the last days?

12. Does any mention of the “last days” or equivalent (last times, last hour) in the New Testament clearly refer without exception to any time outside of the first century (Hebrews 1:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1; James 5:3; 2 Peter 3:3; Jude 18; 1 John 2:18)?

13. Again considering audience relevance, doesn’t Paul imply in 1 Corinthians 1:7-8 and 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 that the Day of the Lord will come during the lifetimes of his readers? Does it make any sense for Paul to tell his Thessalonian Christian brothers in 52 AD to be watchful for the Day of the Lord if the catastrophe was not to take place until thousands of years later?

14. The phrase “the day of the Lord” is used in 17 or so passages in the Old Testament (Isaiah 2:12, 13:6, 13:9; Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31, 3:14; Amos 3:8:18-20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7, 14-18; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 4:5) and in some 5 passages in the New Testament (Acts 2:20; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is also alluded to in other passages (Revelation 6:17, 16:14). Since this phrase in the Old Testament at least sometimes refers to historical judgments that have already been fulfilled in some sense (Isaiah 13:6-22; Ezekiel 30:2-9; Joel 1:15; Joel 3:14; Amos 5:18-20; Zephaniah 1:14-18), isn’t it reasonable to infer that the times in the New Testament that we see this term may also refer to already fulfilled events?

15. Since other times in the Old Testament where we see the term “day of the Lord” refer to divine judgments that will take place toward the end of the age (Joel 2:30-32; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 4:1-5), and since we can reasonably infer that the “end of the age” was the end of the Old Covenant age which ended in 70 AD, isn’t this consistent with a 70 AD fulfillment of the New Testament mentions of the Day of the Lord?

16. If you think there is more than one “end of the age” or “last day” or “Day of the Lord” period—one in the first century, and one in the 21st century—where is the Scripture support for this view?

Again quoting Russell, “His ‘coming’ or ‘coming again,’ always refers to one particular event and one particular period.” And: “The phrase, ‘the end of the ages’ (Heb 9:26; 1 Cor 10:11) is equivalent to the ‘end of the age’ (Mat 13:39, 40, 49, 24:3, 28:20) and ‘the end” (Mat 10:22, 24:6, 24:13, 24:14;  1 Cor 1:8, 15:24; Heb 3:6, 3:14, 6:11; 1 Pet 4:7; Rev 2:26). All refer to the same period, viz. the close of the Jewish age, or dispensation—that is, The Old Covenant—which was now at hand….It is sometimes said that the whole period between the incarnation and the end of the world is regarded in the New Testament as the ‘end of the age’ [or the ‘last days’]. But this bears a manifest incongruity in its very front. How could the end of a period be a long protracted duration? Especially how could it be longer than the period of which it is the end? More time has already elapsed since the incarnation than from the giving of the law to the first coming of Christ: so that, on this hypothesis, the end of the age is a great deal longer than the age itself.”

B. Questions about the timing of the Second Coming (the Parousia) and judgment according to Jesus:

1. Doesn’t Jesus make it clear that the days in which he and his contemporaries were on earth—his literal generation—were the days of vengeance to fulfill ALL Old Testament prophecy (Luke 21:22,32)? If there is any yet any unfulfilled prophecy, why did Jesus say that his days were the days of vengeance to fulfill ALL that was written?

2. Doesn’t Luke 21:20, 22 provide biblical proof for 70 AD fulfillment of prophecy? (“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near….For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.”)

3. The term Parousia is the Greek word used 24 times in the New Testament which is often translated as “coming,” that is Christ’s Second Coming or his return. Can’t this term also legitimately mean “divine presence” or “nearness,” or even in specific reference to Christ’s punishment of Jerusalem or finally the wicked? (See Strong’s #3952.) Isn’t it indeed translated as “presence” in 2 Corinthians 10:10 and Philippians 2:12? Doesn’t this understanding at least open up the possibility of a past fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Luke 21: 22, 32?

4. Doesn’t Matthew 10:23 clearly say that his Parousia would be before his disciples finished going through the cities of Israel?

5. Doesn’t Matthew 16:27-28 clearly say that his Parousia would be before all his disciples had died? Isn’t it also clear that this could not mean the time of the transfiguration (just a few days away) unless Jesus thought that some of his disciples would die in those few days? (Compare the language here to see if it is not essentially the same as in the Olivet Discourse, just a few chapters later in Matthew 24/25).

6. What does Jesus mean in John 21:18-23? Isn’t the time line the same as the previous passages (Jesus’ own generation)?

7. The term generation (this generation) is used in 23 passages in the New Testament outside of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and every time it clearly means without debate the generation of people alive when Jesus spoke. Isn’t it reasonable to interpret this generation the same way in the Olivet Discourse? How can “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 be talking about people thousands of years later? Jesus does not say “some future generation.” (Here is a list of all the times that generation is used in the New Testament:

8. Note especially that Jesus, in Matthew 23:35-36 uses this generation to refer to people living right then and there—the scribes and Pharisees. Wouldn’t this have strong implications about his meaning just a few verses later in Matthew 24?

9. Isn’t the focus of Jesus in his “this generation” prophecies (Matthew 12:38-45; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:38-9:1; Luke 11:50-51) about judgment upon Israel? Wouldn’t this coincide with the destruction of Israel and the temple in 70 AD?

10. Don’t many of Jesus’ parables speak directly to the coming judgment on Israel and the Jewish leaders—The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19), The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14), The Parable of the Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9, ref Mark 11:12-21, Isaiah 5:1-7). etc.? Don’t they perfectly fit the destruction of Israel and the temple in 70 AD?

11. If Jesus’ Second Coming would be the world seeing him coming in a physical body, why does Jesus say “In a little while and the world will see me no more” in John 14:19?

12. If you think that Matthew 24 speaks of two different time periods, some to near events (Matthew 24:1-34), and some to far away (Matthew 24:35ff), please comment on this statement:  The problem with this idea is that in Luke 17, where Jesus speaks of the same events (“the day that the Son of Man is revealed”), Luke mixes the events up and thus cannot be divided out. When were these events to take place?  Jesus tells us: the “generation” alive when he spoke those words.  Here is a web link:

13. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day were looking for their Messiah, but when he arrived they did not recognize him. They were looking for a Messiah that would reign over a materialistic kingdom. Could it be that Christians have made the same mistake as the Jews, and are still looking for a Second Advent in a way different than what Jesus meant—when in fact he came just as promised in the generation of those then living, but in a way different from what was expected?

C. Questions about the timing of the Parousia and coming judgment according to the New Testament writers:

1. Doesn’t every book in the New Testament (except Philemon) attest to the expectation of a soon fulfillment of the great prophesied evens spoken of by the prophets?

2. Don’t the New Testament writers indisputably affirm that the Old Testament prophecies were being fulfilled in their day (Acts 3:23-24), confirming what Jesus said (Luke 21:22, 32)?

3. Doesn’t Paul declare in Acts 24:14-15 that the resurrection was about to be? (See Young’s Literal Translation.)

4. Doesn’t Paul in Acts 17:31 insist that God is about to judge the world in righteousness? (See Young’s Literal Translation.)

5. Doesn’t Paul further declare that Jesus was about to judge the living and the dead in 2 Timothy 4:1? (See Young’s Literal Translation.)

6. Here are all 19 times the phrase “at hand” is used in the New Testament: Doesn’t James’ pronouncement that the Lord’s Coming is near/at hand (James 5:7-9) mean just that? Can it possibly mean anything other than the literal interpretation? If “at hand” means 2000 years later or longer, how could the original audience (or anyone else for that matter) know when “at hand” would be? Why isn’t there a single instance in the New Testament that says Christ’s coming was not “at hand”?

7. Does “near” mean “far distant?”

8. What about Paul’s comment that the “time is short” (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)? Can “short” mean “long?” What time frame did Paul have in mind when he said that the present form of the world was passing away? What time frame would Paul’s readers have understood? (To quote R. C. Sproul, “Surely the Corinthians would not have understood Paul to be urging them to do something because the time is short when in fact it is thousands of years away.”)

9. When Paul says that “the end of the ages has come” (1 Corinthians 10:11), could he mean the “end of the world”? If so, why didn’t he say what he meant? If so, why does the Bible speak of the world NEVER ending (Psalms 78:69; 89:36-37, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 148:4-6; Ecclesiastes 1:4; Ephesians 3:21)? Isn’t it clear that Paul did not have the end of the world in mind since he spoke of more distant ages and generations elsewhere (Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:21)? Doesn’t Paul clarify in 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 that what is soon to pass away is the present form or fashion of the world, not the world itself?

10. Doesn’t 1 Timothy 6:11-21 refer to the Parousia as something to come to pass while Timothy and his brethren are alive?

11. If Paul had taught the churches to believe in a physical resurrection, how could Hymaneus have overthrown the faith of some so easily, saying the resurrection was past already (2 Timothy 2:17-18)? If Hymaneus told them the resurrection was past already, and they believed in a physical resurrection, wouldn’t they have looked in their local cemeteries to see that the bodies were still in the graves? If Hymaneus taught a different nature of the resurrection than Paul did, why did Paul only condemn the fact that Hymaneus was off on the timing?

12. Isn’t Paul strongly suggesting in Titus 2:11-13 that he and his readers would witness Jesus’ Parousia?

13. Isn’t Paul in Colossians 3:4-6 telling his readers to expect the Parousia and judgment in their lifetimes?

14. Doesn’t it seem clear in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-10 and 2:14-19 that the Parousia and judgment was imminent—the time frame being so close at hand that it “has come upon them?” Isn’t the wrath here the same as in Luke 21:21-28, which is limited to Jesus’ generation?

15. Did Jesus come to grant relief to the Thessalonians as promised by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10 ? Would it make any sense to reassure those to whom he is speaking that relief was on its way in thousands of years? (That would be like your calling 9/11 for a life threatening situation and the dispatcher says the ambulance will be there soon or quickly, but doesn’t show up for many years later. For this to mean that soon or quickly means that whenever they do come in the future that they would come very fast—would make language ridiculous.)

16. If Jesus and the apostles all taught Jesus’ Second Coming was thousands of years away, why where the Thessalonians so upset about their loved ones who died before the coming of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13)? Is it possible that the inspired apostle Paul had told them Jesus was coming in their lifetime, which is why they were upset when some of them died before Christ came?

17. If Paul taught that some of those to whom he was writing would still be alive at the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), but in fact none were since the Second Coming was thousands of years away, was Paul not inspired?

18. When the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 10:37) states that Jesus is coming again in a very little while (will not delay/tarry), what time-frame reference did he have in mind?

19. Is there any doubt about the time frame in mind by the writer of Hebrews 8:6-14 when he stated that what is becoming obsolete and growing old was ready to vanish away?

20. Isn’t the writer of Hebrews 9 calling his time the end of the ages (Hebrews 9:26) in the context of Christ closing out the Old Covenant and Christ’s Second Coming which is eagerly awaited (Hebrews 9:28)—as his readers would see the day drawing near (Hebrews 10:25) and Jesus coming in a little while (Hebrews 10:37)?

21. Consider Peter’s words in 1 Peter 1:5-7, 20; 4:5-17—salvation ready to be revealed, the last times and the end of all things/fiery trial were at hand/near for Peter’s readers in which Christ’s glory would be revealed, and the time for judgment had come! What time frame reference did Peter have in mind? (It is worth comparing Peter’s statement in chapter 4 about the coming glory to Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 where that glory is the New Covenant, which was about to be ushered in once for all as the Old Covenant with its animal sacrifices was about to end. It is noteworthy that the tone of Peter’s words is more urgent than that of Paul in 2 Thessalonians; the catastrophe was now imminent. Peter’s epistle was written close to the outbreak of the Jewish war, if not after its actual commencement.)

22. Also consider Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:1-18—as you look forward to the Day of the Lord and the speed of its coming, with its destruction of the heavens by fire, ushering in a new heaven and earth, etc. While an end-of-the-world interpretation is the standard one for this passage, wouldn’t you agree, that in light of Peter’s comments in 1 Peter, that this Day of the Lord and the new heaven and earth would be known to those to whom he was speaking? Isn’t the language here similar to the Olivet Discourse—fire symbolizing God’s judgment and foreshadowing of the fires that burned the temple in 70 AD?

23. Given the overwhelming immanency of the events described in Peter’s epistles, and given references to Old Testament language with which Peter and his readers would have been familiar (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; Haggai 2:6), as well as New Testament language (Hebrews 12:26-28, et. al.), is it reasonable and consistent to interpret “new heaven and earth” as a theological (covenental) term rather than a cosmological term? That is, could this refer to a new religious order at the end of the Jewish age?

24. When Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 says that a day is like a thousand years, can this be literal? Wouldn’t it be nonsense if so? A short time cannot really mean a long time, can it? Isn’t Peter merely quoting Psalm 90:4 to assert that God is sovereign over time and that his perspective on time differs for ours? Indeed, in context, isn’t Peter using this phrase to tell his listeners that the expectated events would be soon in coming rather than a long time away?

25. Doesn’t more confirmation about Peter’s language come from an understanding of the term elements in 2 Pet. 3:10-13 (incorrectly translated as “heavenly bodies” in some translations, see Strongs #4747), in that while literalists think this term refers to physics, the term is always used in the New Testament in connection with the Old Covenant order (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20; Heb. 5:12)?

26. Is there a shred of evidence that the first century Jews and Jewish Christians were anticipating a cosmic catastrophe that would terminate time, burn up planet Earth, and end human history?

27. Consider Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:18: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot [jot and tittle] will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (See also Matthew 24:29-35.) This is confusing if the Second Coming is still in the future because we know that Jesus ushered in the New Covenant of grace—so why wouldn’t every detail of the law still be in effect today? In other words, if heaven and earth have not passed away yet, does that mean not one jot or tittle has passed from the law and Jesus did not fulfill it yet (Matthew 5:17)? Isn’t this logic further evidence of a new heaven and earth being a theological expression used by Jesus (also by Isaiah in Isaiah 13:13, 51:16, 65:17, 66:22, by Haggai in Haggai 2:6, 21, 22, by Paul in Ephesians 1:9-10, by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 12:22-28, by Peter in 2 Peter 3:13, and by John in Revelation 21:1)? Repeating and emphasizing, isn’t this covenantal language rather than physical world language, referring to the end of the Old Covenant and ushering in of the New Covenant? Isn’t the time-frame reference made clear in the Olivet Discourse where Jesus puts the context of the passing of heaven and earth in the generation then alive?

28. Isn’t Jesus’ promise that Peter refers to in 2 Peter 3:13 concerning the new heavens and new earth the one that Jesus mentions in the Olivet Discourse, and which Jesus told us would be in his generation?

29. Since Jeremiah 4:23-31 uses heaven and earth language about the imminent fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC, isn’t it reasonable to view the heaven and earth language in the New Testament as a parallel to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

30. Isn’t the context of heaven and earth language in Ephesians 1:9-10 in the context of the gentiles being grafted in discussed by Paul in the first three chapters of Ephesians (the “mystery”), which would further fit the end of the Old Covenant order and the ushering in of the New?

31. If Jesus’ purpose for coming in the flesh was to destroy the devil (Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8), and Paul said Satan would be crushed shortly in the first century (Romans 16:20), how can Satan still be here? Did Jesus forget to destroy Satan and decide to let Satan linger 2000 years longer?

32. Are there any passages in the Bible that clearly offer a time-reference for the Parousia past the first century?

33. Did Paul and the other inspired writers mislead their readers about the timing of the Parousia, or did Jesus in fact come—but in a different sense than what most futurists envision?

Christians widely acknowledge that the New Testament writers expected the Parousia along with a cataclysmic world-changing event to occur soon, thus openly admitting the time-texts to be of first century fulfillment. From whom did they get this expectation? Wasn’t it from Jesus himself? This is most perplexing. How can all of these supposedly inspired writers have been wrong? Is not the logic obvious—that if they were wrong they were not really inspired?! Should not our conclusion be that the New Testament writers were in fact correct and the modern interpreters are wrong in thinking that it was the end of the world (rather than end of an age) that was in view?

D. New Testament questions about a first century fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/25, Mark 13, Luke 21):

1. Isn’t it clear from Luke 21:20-21 that Jesus was not speaking about the end of the world since people would be able to escape the prophesied desolation by fleeing to the mountains? (Josephus confirmed that people did in fact flee to the mountains to avoid the destruction in 70 AD.)

2. Doesn’t the New Testament itself (Romans 1:8, 16:25-27; Colossians 1:6, 23; Acts 2:5, 19:10; 2 Timothy 4:17) prove that the gospel was indeed proclaimed to the “whole world” (Matthew 24:14), that is, to all nations (Mark 13:10), fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that it would be done in his generation? (The Greek word translated “world” in Matthew 24:14 is the same Greek word used in Luke 2:1—oikoumene—to describe a “world-wide” census that took place during the time of Jesus’ birth, and the same as found in Acts 11:28, 17:6, and 24:5.) So isn’t this word best translated “known world,” thus the “borders of the Roman empire.” See Strong’s # 3625.)

3. Doesn’t Acts 11:28 explicitly show that the prophecy Jesus made concerning famines was fulfilled in his generation—just as he predicted? Note: similar to the above, this passage describes the famine is described as being “throughout all the world,” which means the “known world” since the Greek word is oikoumene (“inhabited earth” or “known world”) and not kosmos (“world”).

4. Isn’t there sufficient evidence from the Bible outside of the Olivet Discourse to prove that Jesus’ prophecy about false prophets would come in his generation (Acts 5:36-37, 8:9-11, 13:6, 20:29-30; 2 Cor. 11:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:16-18, 3:13; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18-19, 4:1; 2 John 1:7)?

5. Isn’t there sufficient evidence from the Bible outside of the Olivet Discourse to prove that Jesus’ prophecy about the persecution of Christ’s disciples was fulfilled in his generation (Acts 4:3, 4:17, 5:40, 7:54-60, 8:1, 9:1, 12:1-3, 14:19; 2 Cor. 11:24-26; Rev. 1:9)?

6. Didn’t the most prominent of Jesus’ predictions—the destruction of the temple—occur just as he prophesied, within his generation?

7. Other examples can be given. But don’t the above questions, using Scripture to interpret Scripture, establish that key events of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled by 70 AD—in his generation just as Jesus predicted!

Russell insisted, “These predictions are bounded by certain limits of time. The time is explicitly declared to fall within the period of the then existing generation. No artifice of logic, no violence of interpretation, can evade or gainsay this undeniable fact…the Parousia, the end of the age, the consummation of the kingdom of God, the destruction of Jerusalem, the judgment of Israel—all synchronize. To find the date of one is to fix the date of all.”

E. Old Testament questions about a first century fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/25, Mark 13, Luke 21):

1. Doesn’t Jesus’ reference to the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-22; Matthew 24:32), which is elsewhere in the Bible a symbol of the Jewish nation, confirm that the cataclysmic events in the Olivet Discourse apply specifically to the Jewish nation? Didn’t the Jewish nation essentially end in 70 AD, confirming Jesus as a true prophet?

2. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture, doesn’t the destruction of the temple in 70 AD qualify as the “abomination of desolation” Jesus predicted, as this phrase is originally from Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, where it refers to the desecration of the temple? Doesn’t Luke 21:20-24 further clarify that the desolation event is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

3. Doesn’t Daniel expressly state that the prophecies he wrote would be fulfilled when the power of the Jewish nation was scattered and destroyed (Daniel 12:7; cf. 10:14; 9:24-27)? Isn’t Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy fulfilled by 70 AD when the old covenant world, symbolized by Jerusalem and the temple, finally passed away in the flames of 70 AD?

4. Doesn’t Daniel tell us exactly when the time of distress (12:1), the resurrection (12:2), the time of the end (12:9), and the abomination of desolation (12:11)—all occur—that time being the time when the power of the holy people has finally been broken (12:7) and the burnt offering taken away (12:11)? Can there be ANY doubt that this was 70 AD?

5. Isn’t the language of astronomical signs that Jesus uses in the Olivet Discourse, such as the darkened sun and heavenly bodies being shaken, etc., typical of God’s comings in judgment in the Old Testament? Consider these examples which we know were fulfilled: Isaiah 13:9-13 (predicting doom on Babylon by the Medes); Isaiah 24 (prediction of the judgments about to come on the land of Israel), Isaiah 34:4-5 (judgment on Edom); Ezekiel 32:7-8 (concerning Egypt); Amos 5:18-20, 8:9 (on the Northern Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (on Judah)? See also Luke 10:18; Acts 2:15-21; Revelation 6:12-17. In other words, isn’t Jesus is using stock-in-trade language that the Jews would have understood as non-literal language about God’s coming judgment upon Israel (in their generation)?

6. Isn’t there further confirmation with the angels language? Isn’t the coming “with angels” in Matthew 24 similar to the coming of God to the Israelites from Mt. Sinai when “He came from the midst of the thousand holy ones” (Deuteronomy 33:1-2)—and similar to language in Jude 13-14 regarding the coming of the Lord in another context? In other words, is there any reason to think that the “angels” language has to be the end of the world?

7. Isn’t the image of lightning in the Olivet Discourse a parallel to Old Testament passages signifying the figurative presence of God and his coming in judgment (Exodus 19:16-19, 20:18; Psalm 18:14; Job 36:30; Ezekiel 21:15, 21:28; Zechariah 9:14)?

8. How about the cloud language in the Olivet Discourse? Aren’t clouds a metaphor for how God figuratively shows himself in the Old Testament (Exodus 13:21, 14:24, 19:9, 20:21, 24:15, 33:9, 34:5; 1 Kings 8:12) or is his figurative mode of transportation (Psalm 104:3)? Here are other passages as to God and clouds: Psalm 97:2; Jeremiah 10:13, 51:16, Ezekiel 30:3; Joel 2:2; Nahum 1:3.

9. Didn’t the chief priests and Pharisees understand in Jesus’ parables and elsewhere (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62) that Jesus was speaking to them when he said the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to others? In this passage Jesus proclaims that he will be coming in his power on the clouds of heaven. Upon hearing his words, Caiaphas goes into a rage and accuses Jesus of blasphemy. Isn’t that because Caiaphas was aware that God himself is the one that comes on a cloud to judge the Jews?

10. Aren’t the judgment comings of God situations where God was not literally seen visually but He did come nevertheless? Note: here are other instances in which God effectively comes down to affect his will in which people could experience the effects of his coming rather than literally seeing Him: Genesis 14:19-20, 15:17-20; Exodus 3:8, 14:19-20; Deuteronomy 4:11, 5:22, 33:1-2; 2 Samuel 22:10-12; Psalm 18:1-11, 47:2-5, 72, 19:1, 78:49; Ezekiel 32:7-9; Daniel 7:13; Joel 2; Zechariah 2:6; Acts 2:19.

11. Didn’t God use the Romans to punish the Jews in 70 AD just as God used the Babylonians to punish the Jews in an earlier time?

12. Isn’t it reasonable, given the Old Testament comparisons to God coming in judgment on various occassions, that Jesus indeed did come—not visibly, but in judgment—in 70 AD to judge the Jews? Wouldn’t this satisfy Jesus’ predictions in the Olivet Discourse, confounding the skeptics who say that He did not come as predicted?

As Russell says, “Our Lord, in answering the question of his disciples respecting the destruction of Jerusalem mixes up different events—now to Jerusalem and now to the human race; now to events close at hand and now to events indefinitely remote—that to distinguish and allocate the several references and topics, is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Is this the manner in which the Savior taught his disciples, leaving them to grope their way through intricate labyrinths? There are no words too strong to repudiate such a suggestion. The disciples came to their Master with a plain, straight forward inquiry, and it is incredible that he would mock them with an unintelligible riddle for a reply.”

Both liberal and conservative New Testament scholars have been busy re-dating the book of Revelation. For example, both liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament and conservative scholars Kenneth L. Gentry in his book Before Jerusalem Fell and Don Preston in his book Who Is This Babylon, argue convincingly that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. Part of their argument is that Revelation always mentions the temple as still standing (Revelation 11 and 21). That the New Testament, including Revelation, would have been written after the events of 70 AD and not mention those events would be even more unlikely than writing a book about the history of New York after 2001 and not mentioning the 9/11 attack.

F. Questions about the book of Revelation:

1. Don’t Revelation 1:1-3, 3:11, 22:6, 22:7, 22:10, 22:12, 22:20 apply specifically to the readers of John’s Apocalypse? Can we overlook or minimize audience relevance? Can “soon” or “quickly” mean far distant future—or that when Jesus does come that he will come quickly? Wouldn’t that be like calling an ambulance and have the driver say, “Well, when we do come in a few months or years, we will certainly come quickly”? When Paul said the he trusted that Jesus would send Timothy to the Philippians soon, could that have meant thousands of years later?

2. Don’t the instructions in Revelation 22:10 not to seal the words of this prophecy stand in deliberate contrast to the instructions Daniel received at the end of his book to seal the words of his prophecy? Isn’t this a strong implication that, in contrast to Daniel (Daniel 12:4, 9), the time for the culmination of prophecy was imminent—indeed near, thus at hand (Revelation 22:10)?

3. In other words, Daniel was to be sealed because it was for “many days” (Daniel 10:14, NKJV), which turned out to be 500 years until the time of the writing of the book of Revelation.  And if that is true, how can “at hand” in Revelation be for 2000 years?

4. Why would John write to the seven churches if his message was not directly and principally for them? Wasn’t the book written specifically and obviously about events relevant to John’s first readers? Wasn’t the book to have been read out loud to the churches? How could hidden meanings of things to come thousands of years later have been relevant to these first century Christians?

5. Do you really think that Revelation should be given literal or scientific interpretations (a third of the sun smitten, etc. in 8:12)? Isn’t this language drawn from an Old Testament context—the judgment and destruction of nations (Isaiah 14:12 and Jeremiah 9:12-16)?

6. Why should we read the “thousand years” in Revelation 20 as literal, when the number thousand is used figuratively elsewhere in the Bible to mean perfection, completion, etc. (Deuteronomy 7:9; 1 Chronicles 16:15; Psalm 50:10; Psalm 105:8)?

7. If the teaching that 1 day = 1000 years and 1000 years = 1 day to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8) is how we are to read time in Scripture, does that mean that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 is a single 24 hour day?

8. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, why does John give time statements throughout the book pointing to imminent events which fit the description of Jerusalem’s destruction from Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17/21?

9. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, why was John told to measure the temple (Revelation 11:1-2), if the temple was already destroyed?

10. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, why is there nothing mentioned about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple?

11. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, how could there be other apostles alive (Revelation 2:2), when all the apostles except John were dead before 70 AD?

12. If Revelation was written after 70 AD, why were there two different numbers used in different manuscripts to calculate the same beast in Revelation 13:18 which point to Nero? (666 spells Nero in Hebrew, 616 spells Nero in Latin.)

13. Doesn’t John make it clear in Revelation 1:9 that the tribulation was already present when he wrote the book?

14. What purpose would it serve for John to tell the first readers of his prophecy to “calculate” the number of the beast if he was not to born for thousands of years later?

15. John told the seven churches in Asia that “Behold he is coming with the clouds and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him.” Doesn’t that mean that those who killed Jesus would be alive when Jesus returned? If you think this statement refers to heaven, doesn’t the mention of “tribes” in the same passage (Revelation 1:7) refer to the tribes of Israel, confirming a first century fulfillment?

16. If you think that Revelation is about heaven, why does Revelation 22:2 refer to the healing of the nations? What needs healing in heaven? Isn’t the world of Revelation 21-22 about “our world,” where the gospel of Jesus Christ makes sinners whole again?

17. Don’t numerous other passages in Revelation tie the date of the events in the book to first century Israel either (a) by specific time-reference, (b) correlate to other texts that are limited by a time reference (such as those we have pointed out throughout this article), (c) point specifically to Jerusalem or the nation of Israel, or (d) confirmed by actual historical accounts of first century Jerusalem as the place and time of the apocalypse? See Revelation 1:7, 1:10-11, 1:19, 2:10, 3:10, 4:1, 6:16-17, 8:7-13, 11:15-19, 14:14-20, 15:5-8, 16:6, 16:19, 20:7-15.

18. When John says in Revelation 14:7 that “the hour of his judgment has come,” could he possibly be talking about the far distant future?

19. Is there anything in the text of Revelation to suggest that John speaks of generations and generations into the future?

20. Wouldn’t the readers of Revelation 6:16-17 have clearly understood the radical nearness of the coming judgment—“the great day of His wrath?”

21. If Revelation would occur thousands of years after it was written, why does John say the sixth king is the one who “is” which would mean his present day (Revelation 17:10)?

22. Doesn’t the coming of Christ in Revelation 22:12 parallel the judgment coming of God in Isaiah 40:10 (which according to Revelation was to happen soon/quickly/near)?

23. If the 144,000 from Revelation 7 and 14 are still yet in the future, why are they described as “firstfruits” (Revelation 14:4)? Since they are the “firstfruits,” wouldn’t they be the first Christians rather than the last ones?

24. Summarizing the above questions, isn’t there strong evidence to tie the book of Revelation to the first century?

25. Since John did not have an Olivet Discourse in his gospel, is it reasonable to think that Revelation is an expanded version of the Olivet Discourse?

G. More Questions:

1. If Jesus has not returned, then why do people say Christians go to heaven and the wicked go to hell at death? If Christians go to heaven and the wicked go to hell at death, wouldn’t that mean that salvation, redemption, and judgment have already come to the world? In other words, if Christians go to heaven and the wicked go to hell at death, then doesn’t that suggest that Jesus has returned in some sense?

2. If most Bible prophecy has not been fulfilled or is being fulfilled today, why doesn’t ANY New Testament passage say its fulfillment would be 2000 years later?

3. If “like manner” is exactly how Jesus would return as he left in Acts 1:11, does that mean Jesus left while all the tribes of the earth (land) were wailing (Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7)?

4. If “like manner” is exactly how Jesus would return as he left in Acts 1:11, does that mean Jesus left riding a white horse (Revelation 19:11)?

5. If “like manner” is exactly how Jesus would return as he left in Acts 1:11, does that mean Jesus left with a sword coming out of his mouth (Revelation 19:15)?

6. If “like manner” is how Jesus would return as he left, wouldn’t he be in fact hidden per Acts 1:9?

7. If the Jews in the first century missed the first coming of Jesus because of their ignorance of the scriptures (Mark 12:24), isn’t it entirely possible that Christians living in the twenty-first century have missed the second coming of Jesus for the same reason?

8. Do you put your complete trust in Christ’s finished work on the cross, or is there a footnote? Please read Romans 13:11-12 and Hebrews 9:26-28. Can you call yourself saved and able to enter God’s presence in heaven? Are you still waiting on your salvation?

The good news is this: Christ’s work of redemption is complete! If you are confident that this is true, Christ’s Second Coming has already happened!

Don’t these questions show that Jesus did in fact come—in judgment—in 70 AD, just as he predicted?!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Salvation after AD 70

By Charles S. Meek


Because there is confusion on this point by certain hyper-preterist parties, I would like to answer the question about salvation to heaven after AD 70. This is a summary of my article on resurrection which can be seen here:

Personhood View of the Resurrection

First of all, what does the Bible say about heaven? In my opinion, a key problem for some preterists (as well as futurists) is that they think that every time they see cosmic language in the Bible (heaven, heavens, heaven and earth, kingdom of heaven, sun, moon, stars), that they have to mean the same thing every time. Context, as well as audience relevance, should determine how to understand these things.

Sometimes, such terms mean the material universe. Examples include: Genesis 1; Psalm 96:3-10; 102:25-27; 139:13-16; Jeremiah 10:11-16 (“all things”); 31:35-38; Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6; Acts 14:15; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:16-17; etc. Sometimes they do not mean the physical universe, but, especially in prophecy, are used symbolically about judgment warnings or covenantal change. Examples include: Joel 2; Matthew 5:18; 24:34-35; 2 Hebrews 12:22-29; 2 Peter 3:7; etc.

Often, the more literal usage is in past tense, the figurative is in future tense. However, literal and figurative concepts can even be used in the same passage. For example, in Jeremiah 31:31-38, the author used the enduring order of the physical universe to express the measure of God’s commitment to his people. In Hebrews 8, the writer used the heavenly temple of God (verses 1-2) as the original, after which the earthly tent and the temple were copied and applied as a shadow to the context of the new covenant (verses 3-13).

As in modern English, the biblical words or phrases “heaven and earth,” “heaven,” “heavens” can have different meanings ranging from literal, physical things—to metaphoric symbology, or even something outside of time and space. Just think for a moment about how such words are used in everyday English.

It can be damaging to over-literalize or over-spiritualize certain texts. Genesis 1-3 is a good example. There are, most certainly, elements of both the literal, physical universe, as well as highly symbolic language found in this text. It would be a mistake to attempt to force everything in this marvelous passage to be either/or. That creates far more problems than it solves.

The Bible teaches that heaven is the abode of God. Christians have always understood heaven to the place where believers will abide with God in a status better than we have here on earth. While the Bible does not tell us precisely what heaven is like,  here is a sampling of passages about our blessed afterlife in heaven:

Nehemiah 9:6; Job 19:26; Psalm 23:6; 33:13-14; 49:14-15; 89:5; 103:4; Daniel 12:1-2; Matthew 5:8, 12; 6:9; 8:11; 22:30; Mark 12:25; 16:19; Luke 6:23; 23:43; John 1:32; 3:13-16; 6:38; 11:24-26; 14:1-6; 17:24; Acts 23:6-8; Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 2:9; 13:12; 15:12-20, 35-54; 2 Corinthians 4:14-18; 5:1-10; Ephesians 1:20; Philippians 1:22-23; 3:10-12, 20-21; Colossians 1:5, 20; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16; 5:8-11; 2 Timothy 4:18; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Hebrews 8:1; 9:24; 11:13-16; 1 Peter 1:3-9; Revelation 5:6; 11:12; 14:1-13; 19:1-9.

Just a few points about how we understand heaven. God, obviously, is not flesh and blood. He created time and space, but “resides” outside of it in heaven. It seems apparent, too, that Jesus is now in his glorified body outside of time and space, or at least outside of time. At some point Jesus must have changed—probably at the ascension. After his ascension, Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus in a manner that Paul could see a light and hear the voice of Jesus, but neither he nor his companions actually saw Jesus in physical form (Acts 9:3-9; Acts 22:6-11; Acts 26:12-19; cf. John 17:5; Hebrews 5:7).

In Acts 26:19 Paul describes what he saw as a “heavenly vision.” This would seem to be an appearance by Jesus in his glorified state. That Jesus’ body had changed into a spiritual one is confirmed by such passages as 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 2 Corinthians 3:17. So our heavenly body will be more like that of the glorified ascended Jesus, rather than the earthly flesh-and-bone Jesus. It will be a body suitable for our eternal existence. Noting that Jesus never gave us any specific information about the afterlife, I believe that Paul made as good an attempt as he could to explain it in such passages as 1 Corinthians 15:35-54; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, and Philippians 3:20-21. Paul uses both the terms “spiritual body” and “glorious body.” Because “spiritual” can be a confusing term because of its multiple uses, I am inclined to think that “glorified body” is the most helpful term for the nature of our afterlife.

So who goes to heaven? There are three possibilities as to what happens to believers, specifically, when they die biologically:

a. Nobody goes to heaven, thus believers do not go to heaven. This is atheism.
b. Everybody goes to heaven. This view is universalism—a favorite idea of liberals who have a low view of Scripture and a high view of wishful thinking.
c. Only faithful believers go to heaven. By default, this is the only biblical conclusion.

Some preterists (See Hyper-Preterism), seem to think that subsequent to AD 70, God no longer judges in the same way. This seems patently ridiculous to me. God did not change (holy and just), nor did the nature of man (sinful, thus our need for salvation). The New Covenant was initiated at Christ’s First Advent, not in AD 70. And the New Covenant continues indefinitely (Ephesians 2:7; 3:21; Hebrews 13:20). But, indeed, as Paul explains in Romans 4, justification by faith was there all along!

Numerous passages in the New Testament explain that one’s personal salvation is by grace through a living faith in Jesus Christ alone. These passages were written after the initiation of the New Covenant, and there is no indication in them that God’s plan of justification will ever change. Examples: Matthew 7:13-20; John 3:16, 18, 36; 14:6; Acts 2:38; 4:10-12; 10:34, 35, 43; Romans 8:1; 10:9-10; Galatians 3:1-29; Ephesian 2:8-10; James 2:14-26; 1 John 1:6-9; 2:23; 5:12. There is no other gospel than the one that Paul preached (Galatians 1:6-10). By the way, these passages are all about our personal salvation, not about corporate salvation.

The black-and-white, all-or-none error of some preterists extends to the subject of judgment too. Just because the Great Judgment is about the punishment of the Jews in AD 70, it does not mean that judgment by God of individuals then and now doesn’t happen. The Bible teaches that we as individuals are judged at death (Hebrews 9:27). Further, by force of logic, if (a) God is just and holy, if (b) He hates sin, and (c) since we all sin—then He cannot just wink at our sins. His judgment of us as individuals must be ongoing.

So what happened at the Parousia in AD 70 relative to these things? This is the storyline of my book CHRISTIAN HOPE THROUGH FULFILLED PROPHECY. In summary, Christ’s Parousia sealed our salvation.

The Bible is clear that Christ’s death on the cross paid the penalty for our sins (Romans 8:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Hebrews 9:15-26, etc.). And his resurrection provided our hope for eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:1-11, etc.).

Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that at the Parousia, Christ’s work of redemption and salvation was completed (Luke 21:28; Romans 13:11-12; Hebrews 1:14 note mello; Hebrews 9:26-28; 1 Peter 1:3-9; Revelation 12:10; etc.)

CONCLUSION: AD 70 enhances our understanding of classical Christianity, it does not detract from it.

Charles Meek is the editor of and the administrator of a Facebook page by the same name. He is also an administrator of the Facebook page Evangelical Preterism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


In part because the church has never had a formal discussion about eschatology, there is a diverse array of opinions on this subject among Christians. Eschatology is the Theological Wild West, guns a-blazin’.

Even among preterists there is much disagreement. It is my opinion that some preterists (partial-preterists) do not go far enough in acknowledging what happened in AD 70. Other preterists (hyper-preterists) go too far.

Hyper-preterism is a term used to describe taking the past fulfillment of biblical prophecy beyond what the Bible teaches. I am concerned that hyper-preterism is damaging the preterist cause. While there have been other attempts at defining hyper-preterism, I will give it a go myself. As I see it, there are five errors that define hyper-preterism:

1. OVER-LITERALIZING THE TERM “ALL IS FULFILLED.” Just as in modern English, the Bible sometimes uses the word “all” or “every” in a sense other than “every last thing.” Context and reason are determinative. Even hyper-preterists cannot consistently cling to this mantra. For example, when Peter said that the “end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7), he obviously did not mean literally all things because we are here!

2. THE IDEA THAT SOTERIOLOGICAL (SALVIFIC) WORKINGS OF GOD ENDED IN AD 70, WHICH OFTEN RESULTS IN UNIVERALISM. Just because all specific prophecies have been fulfilled does not mean that God’s work ended in AD 70. This error stems from the failure to grasp that (a) The Kingdom of God was instituted progressively during the 40 year transition period, commencing with Jesus’ First Advent (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 11:20); (b) The New Covenant only began in the first century and continues indefinitely into the future (Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 18:29-30; Ephesians 1:21; 2:7; 3:21; Revelation 11:15); (c) God’s judgment continues into the future (Hebrews 9:27), and (d) God did not quit working (John 16:13; Hebrews 13:8; etc.)! The conclusion of universal salvation, given the multitude of passages in the New Testament about the exclusivity of Christ and the necessity to believe in Him alone for salvation, is an incredible twisting of Scripture (Matthew 7:21-23; John 3:16, 18, 36; 6:47; 8:1; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 9:14-18; 10:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:23; 5:10-12; etc.).


a. It is a failure to appreciate that the idiom “(new) heaven and earth,” just as in modern English, is not the same thing as heaven itself. I discuss this at some length in my book, but this should be pretty obvious when you stop to think about it.

b. It is a failure to understand that there are two types of resurrections: a soteriological resurrection of the living (“The First Resurrection”) and an eschatological resurrection of the dead (“The Second Resurrection”) per Revelation 20 and John 5. While this will garner a lot of disagreement even from solid full-preterists whom I respect, I am persuaded that these two types of resurrections are necessarily different. While the first is spiritual, the second is bodily (“glorified” body). Many futurists quickly notice that some preterists limit resurrection to a spiritualized-only version, and it becomes a stumbling block for them to pursue the preterist viewpoint. See my article

c. In addition, these hyper-preterists apparently think we are in heaven now because of a gross over-literalization (or misuse) of 1 Corinthians 13:12 and 1 John 3:2, which imply that since AD 70 we have seen Jesus “face-to-face” and have seen Him “as He is.” Obviously no living person has seen Jesus literally face-to-face and these passages cannot be used legitimately to say that we are in heaven now.

4. THE IDEA THAT WE MUST NECESSARILY GIVE UP THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER, BASED ON CERTAIN PASSAGES, ESPECIALLY 1 CORINTHIANS 11:26. This passage may suggest that the Lord’s Supper should cease at the Parousia in AD 70. It is true that the New Testament focuses intensely on the coming Parousia, as that would mark the fulfillment of Jesus’ eschatological promises. But 1 Corinthians 11:26 does not preclude celebrating the Lord’s Supper after AD 70. It strikes me as ironic that some preterists are so intent on challenging futurists (especially dispensationalists) about interpreting the Bible in a wooden-literal sense, when these same preterists are guilty of the identical error! How can it NOT honor Jesus to continue with these wonderful institutions today?

5. THE NOTION THAT SIN ITSELF ENDED IN AD 70. This error is related to #2 above, as it contributes to universalism. It is, frankly, an outrageous biblical error that places these hyper-preterists outside of Christianity itself, in my opinion. This error is so obvious from the Bible that it hardly seems necessary to address it, but since some preterists are so vocal in this, we are forced to address it. The sinful nature of man is a doctrine that separates Christianity from all other worldviews and religions. All others, including Islam and secular humanism, teach that man is basically good and is perfectible by law and education. And especially for the Christian, to deny sin opens the door for any and all immorality. This error also means that repentance and confession are no longer necessary—an incredible conclusion.

Let us consider further this last error. The Bible teaches that mankind has a sinful or “fleshly” nature which is universal and runs deep. Take the time to go back and read these passages: Genesis 6:5, 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 14:1-4; 25:2-6; Psalm 14; 51:3-5; 53:1-3; 58:3-5; 143:1-2; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Isaiah 53:6; 55:8-9; 59:2; 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9; Daniel 9:1-11; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 3:9-20; 5:12-21; 7:13-25; 8:5-8; 14:23; Galatians 5:16-21; Ephesians 2:1-3; James 2:10-11; 1 John 1:8-10. The nature of man did not change at Christ’s Parousia!

By the way, the doctrine of man’s sin nature does not mean that we can do no good at all, which is what theologians sometimes refer to as “utter” (or “absolute”) depravity. Rather, it means that every aspect of our lives is touched by sin—that is, “total depravity” or “radical corruption.”

These no-sin hyper-preterists have erred on multiple fronts. May I make five points:

FIRST, this error is based on the mistaken notion that moral law no longer exists. This is a theological error referred to as “antinomianism.” It stems from taking certain passages out of context. For example, Romans 5:13b states: “but sin is not counted where there is no law.” The argument is that the Law was only in existence from Moses till Jesus. So, sin did not exist prior to Moses nor does it exist after Jesus. But the verses just prior to and after 5:13b make it clear that sin did exist prior to the Law of Moses! (Cain, of course, knew that his murder of Abel was a sin.) And certainly the distinction between right and wrong—that is, moral law—still exists today.

Another example is Matthew 5:18b which says that no detail will pass from the Law “until all is accomplished.” Since “heaven and earth,” that is, the old covenant order, passed away (verse 5:18a) in AD 70, thus the Law itself passed away—or so the argument goes. Of course, such an interpretation ignores the context of the rest of the New Testament, as I will further elaborate below.

SECOND, The New Testament teaches that the superficial lists of Old Testament civil and ceremonial rules (“laws”) have been dispensed with (Acts 10:12-15; Romans 14:17; Colossians 2:11-16; 1 Timothy 4:1-5) in favor of simplified moral laws (Romans 12:9-21; Galatians 5:16-21; 1 Timothy1:8-11; Hebrews 13:1-9; etc.). But moral law continues. Indeed, nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated as valid in the New Testament (the exception is the rigid demand for Sabbath keeping).

THIRD, the law continues as it is “written on our hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 2:15; 1 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 10:16), which the honest Christian will have to admit when he or she examines himself. In other words, we have a conscience. These hyper-preterists have somehow managed to dismiss reality by letting their consciences become seared through wishful thinking. This is sociopathic! As the Bible teaches, If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8), and whenever we stumble on one point we are guilty of breaking the whole law (James 2:10)! If they justify the notion that they are without sin—because of an interpretation of the New Testament—looking into their own hearts (not to mention their past actions) should force them to see that they must have misinterpreted the New Testament. (Maybe they should take the Good Person Test:

FOURTH, they have completely failed to grasp that Jesus in fact magnified our understanding of sin! Unlike in the Old Covenant, our understanding of law and sin surpasses the notion of a superficial list of rules. It now goes to the inner man (Matthew 5:22, 27-28; Mark 7:14-23; Romans 2:15; 1 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 10:16). The “Law of Christ” is a summary of moral law in that it requires us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love our neighbor as our self (Luke 10:27; Galatians 6:2).  Who has attained that standard for even a moment?! This law extends even to loving our enemies (Matthew 5:44)!

FIFTH, there is an utter failure to understand the doctrine of imputed righteousness, which means that the righteousness of Christ is credited to the account of the believer because of the work of Christ. See Genesis 15:6; Isaiah 43:25; Romans 3:21-25; 4:5-11, 22-24; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 3:13; Philippians 3:9; Colossians 1:22; 1 John 1:5-10; Hebrews 8:12; 10:17. The Bible teaches that believers are no longer enslaved to sin—not that we no longer actually sin (Romans 6:6, 11, 14, 22). Sin continues to exist in the New Age (Matthew 12:31-32; Revelation 22:14-15), but it is no longer master over God’s people. Everyone still sins, but Christ has paid the penalty for that sin by his death on the cross (1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Hebrews 9:11-26).

It is difficult to know how these hyper-preterists have come to the understanding that they do not sin. But I suspect that some of it can be traced to the high percentage of them that have come out of legalistic backgrounds. Even after coming out of legalism, they have yet to grasp the doctrines of grace adequately.

It may also be that these people are merely living in a utopian dream world in which there is no judgment against them or their friends. This, of course, is the same tired idiocy of liberalism. (If you don’t like the implications of what is true, just deny it and it goes away.)

Hyper-preterists have a lot in common with standard ole liberals: Everything and nothing are true. We need to go back to basics. So let me conclude this article with a declaration of the gospel, which Christians have in one form or another given to the world for two thousand years, and which I proclaim again but in a preterist format:

The gospel is Jesus’ perfect life, his atoning death, his resurrection, and his completed redemption at his AD 70 Effectual Divine Presence—which is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.

For more information, see the article at my Faith Facts website “What is the Gospel?”:

Charles Meek is the author of CHRISTIAN HOPE THROUGH FULFILLED PROPHECY: IS YOUR CHURCH TEACHING ERROR ABOUT THE LAST DAYS AND SECOND COMING, which is available at He is an administrator of two Facebook sites, and

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Preterist Websites

Preterist websites are exploding in number. Some are listed below. Many, though not all, are from a full preterist perspective; others are from a partial preterist perspective. We are not endorsing any of these in particular. Indeed, some may be teaching things with which we strongly disagree. There is a lot of room for debate among Christians, but if it is brought to our attention that any of these sites are teaching things that seem particularly egregious and dishonoring to God, we will delete them from the list. But we offer the list here to give the reader an opportunity to see differing views and to do independent research.

Preterist Questions and Answers: (Virgil Vaduva quoted) (Richard Anthony) (Riley O’Brien Powell) (Edward E. Stevens) (David A. Green)

Here are places to go for preterist books and other resources:

These sites are hubs for preterist websites, books, sermons, Facebook pages, and networking: (Allyn Morton) (Tony Denton)

Misc. Preterist Websites: (the apologetics site of the author, Charles S. Meek) (William Bell) (William Bell) (Gary DeMar) (Tony Everett Denton) (Berean Bible Church, David Curtis) (Ken Davies) (Don K. Preston) (Don K. Preston) (Don K. Preston) (Don Preston) (Michael Alan Nichols) (Gary Parrish, Michael Day, Terry Kashian, David Warren) (Jessie Mills) (Blue Point Bible Church) (Charles Coty) (Charles Coty) Coty) (Spring and Case Church of Christ) (John Scargy) (Kelly Birks) (Hank Hanegraaff) (Ward Fenley) (Ward Fenley) (Jim Wade) (Ron McRay) (Full Preterist Christian Church) (Brian Martin)  (Tim Liwanag) (Mike Sullivan with various contributors David Green, Ed Hassertt, Don Preston, William Bell) (Kenneth Gentry) (Adam Maarschalk) (Frank Speer) (R. C. Sproul) (Lynn Schuldt) (Tina Rae Collins) (New Covenant Eyes Church, Alan Bondar)  (Ward Fenley, Brian Maxwell, Shannon Shogren) (New Covenant Fellowship Church) (Thomas K. Burk) (Virgil Vaduva) (Michael Fenemore) (Michael Bennett) (Taffy Boyo) (Edward E. Stevens, International Preterist Association) (Edward E. Stevens) (Todd Dennis) (Kurt Simmons) (Allyn Morton)  (John Noe) (Jonathan Welton) (Timothy King) (Timothy King) (Mike Sullivan)! (Ed Hassertt) (Ed Hassertt) (Steve Gregg) (Steve Gregg) (Terry Cropper) (Mesa Biblical Church)  (John Paul Crandell) (Victory Baptist Church, Philippines)

Facebook Pages: (Charles Meek)–

Evangelical Preterism (Charles Meek, Robert Wells, Tim Cruz, Sandra Cruz)–

Bible Fulfilled Prophecy (Mike Zeman)–

Charismatic Preterist Movement–

Consider Yesterday: An End of Times Study (Michael Miano)–

Covenant Creation (Dan Kortkamp, Hollan Linn)–

Covenant Talk (Tony Denton/Terry Cropper)–

Eschatology Debate Forum (Jason Watt)

Eschatology Forum (Robert Summers)–

Fulfilled Communications Group (Brian Martin)–

Fulfilled Eschatology (Allyn Morton)–

Fulfilled Eschatology Only (Tim Liwanag, Jerry William Bowers)–

Full Preterism (Mike Sullivan)

Jesus Logos Preterism (Gary Alan Hagen)–

Noble Bible Students (Tim Liwanag) —

PretCosmos (David A. Green)

Don Preston–

Preterism: Past in Fullfillment–

Preterism Review (James Metzger)–

Preterist Archive (Todd Dennis)–

Preterist Forum for the New Comer (Rodney Alexander, Gerrie van Wyk, Robin L. Elliot)–

Preterist Friends (John Harding)–

Preterist and Fulfilled Theology (Donald Hochner)–

Preterist Gear/Allyn Morton–

Preterist Now (David Pease)–

Preterist of NW Arkansas–

Preterist Theological Society (Joseph Vincent)–

Preterist Voice Announcement Center–

Prophecy Fulfilled/B. S. Raju–

Questions Dispensationalists Cannot Honestly Answer (John Paul)–

Really Genuine Preterism (Joe Simpson)–

Rethinking Eschatology (Jason Watt)–

The Parousia of Christ (Shannon Brook Parker, Terry Cropper)–

The Pret-Net Group (Quentin Duffy)–

The Ongoing Eternal Kingdom of Christ (Terry Cropper)

World without End (John Paul)

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Endnotes 1-137 (Christian Hope)

Below are the endnotes for my book Christian Hope through Fulfilled Prophecy: Is Your Church Teaching Error about the Last Days and Second Coming? The Surging Preterist Challenge to Eschatology. (Available at


2. The war is sometimes referred to as the First Jewish Roman
War or The Great Revolt. See

3. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6 (6.9.3). Available
online at The
number of dead is far more even than the US Civil War, which is estimated
to be between 600,000 and 750,000.

4. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6 (6.3.4). Available
online at

5. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5 (5.10.5) and Book
6 (6.9.4). Available online at

6. See these websites:


8. Many scholars place the year of Jesus death on the cross at AD
33. So the intervening time till the destruction of the temple would have
been 37 years.

9. Edward E. Stevens, Introduction to the New Testament Canon, for
the Fulfilled Covenant Bible, Michael Day, editor, April 2011. This work
was still in progress and yet unpublished as of mid 2012. Here is the entire article: We highly recommend this article to our readers. Stevens is the founder of the International Preterist Association, website

10. The Reformation Study Bible, published in 2005, has contributions
from over fifty esteemed scholars; General Editor R. C. Sproul, Sr. In the introduction to the book of Luke, this source says (page 1451), “Luke and Acts may have been written about A.D. 63. Acts ends with Paul still under house arrest in Rome, and it is reasonable to think that if Luke knew of Paul’s release or death he would have mentioned it. Luke notes that the prophecy of Agabus was fulfilled (Acts 11:28); he would surely have done the same with Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) if he was writing after A.D. 70. Acts mentions nothing that must be dated after A.D. 62 and shows no knowledge of Paul’s letters. All these factors argue for an early date.” In the introduction to the book of Matthew, The Reformation Study Bible (page 1359) states, “Further, there is some evidence in the context of the book that Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Gospel warns against the Sadducees, a group that rapidly declined from prominence after A.D. 70 and ultimately ceased to exist. The language used to describe the destruction of Jerusalem in ch. 24 reflects Old Testament prophecies of the divine judgment that Jesus foresaw as connected with the coming of His kingdom. There is no need to explain the content of ch. 24 as the author’s memory of a historical event.” Scholars generally agree that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. The Reformation Study Bible was published by Ligonier Ministries, 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL  32746.

11. Here is a partial list of authors who argue for dating the New
Testament prior to AD 70:

  • David Chilton, Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of Dominion (Tyler, Texas: Dominion Press, 2000)
  • Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1999), Fourth revised edition. Available from their website is considered a partial preterist. 
  • Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1998). Gentry is considered a partial preterist/postmillennialist. 
  • Arthur M. Ogden, The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets(Pinson, Alabama: Ogden Publications, 2006), Third Edition. Excellent argumentation for the early pre-70 date of the book of Revelation. Available from their website:  
  • John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1976). (Robinson is considered a liberal scholar who was convinced that the entire New Testament was written prior to AD 70.) 
  • J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s  Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003), originally published in 1878. 
  • Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, a division of Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), originally published in 1898. Available in a free online versionat 
  • Cornelius Vanderwaal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada: Paideia Press, 1978). 

12. The Reformation Study Bible says, “Revelation was written during a time of persecution, probably near the end of the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68) or during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95.” As a preview to Chapter 9, these websites list numerous advocates for a pre-AD 70 authorship of Revelation:

13. C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1960), pages 97-98. Available online at

14. Quote by Michael A. Fenemore and Kurt M. Simmons in The Twilight of Postmillennialism; Fatal Errors in the Teachings of Keith A. Mathison, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. etc. ( Publishing, 2010), page 57.


16. Stevens is the founder of the International Preterist Association,

17. J. I. Packer, Fundamentalism and the Word of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958), pages 69-70.

18. Francis X. Gumerlock, The Day and the Hour: Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2000), page 2. One can also find various lists of historic false prophets on the Internet, such as these websites:
• (The interested reader can search for more such sites in the Internet.)

19. Cited by Don K. Preston, The Last Days Identified (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Productions LLC, 2004), page 79. See also this article by Daniel Walther entitled “RESEARCH: Martin Luther and the End of the World”:

20. From “American Lutheran Views on Eschatology and How
They Related to the American Protestants” by John M. Brenner.

21. The reader can find numerous lists of failed predictions on the
Internet. Sources include:
• Kenneth Dahl,,  also Dahl’s book All  These Things
• Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1999), Fourth revised edition, chapter 1.

22. See:
• Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock, The Early Church and the End of the World (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2006), pages 27-38.
• Gary DeMar, Is Jesus Coming Soon? (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2006).
• See also Samuel M. Frost, Misplaced Hope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology (Colorado Springs, CO: Bimillennial Press, 2002).

Online sources for many of the preterist quotes from the early church fathers include:

23. See Francis X. Gumerlock, The Day and the Hour: A Chronicle of Christianity’s Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2000). Most of what the early Church Fathers wrote remain untranslated—some 218 Latin and 166 Greek volumes.

24. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Church History), Book lll, chapters 28, 39. Available online here: See also, and

25. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Church History). Noteworthy are Book lll, chapters 7, 8, and 39 (against Papias and Irenaeus). Available online here:

Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel (Demonstratio Evangelica) trans. W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981). Some noteworthy passages about the Lord’s coming in AD 70 include: Book VI, Chapter 13, paragraphs 13-18; Book VI, Chapter 18, paragraphs 26 and 27; Book VIII, Introduction first paragraph; Book VIII, Chapter 4, paragraphs 144, 146, 147; Book X, Chapter 7, paragraph 214. Available online at these sites:

Eusebius, Theophania. Noteworthy sections include: Book III, paragraph 4; Book IV, paragraphs 16-22, 28-29, 34-36; Book V, paragraph 17. You can see the work online at these links, as well as a summary by Samuel Lee:

See also:

See also Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock, The Early Church and the End of the World (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2006), Chapter 2 and pages 74-75. The authors point out that in addition to Eusebius’ view that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70, Eusebius also placed crucial passages from Zechariah as having been fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

See also Don K. Preston, We Shall Meet Him in The Air: The Wedding of the King of Kings (Ardmore, Oklahoma: JaDon Management Inc., 2010), pages 292-294.

26. The Reformation Study Bible (Lake Mary, Florida: Ligonier Ministries,
2005), page 1185.

27. Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical
Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981), page 16.

28. Christians take different approaches to the Bible. (1) It is authoritative. This view holds that, while there may be errors in the Bible, it is accurate enough to be a basis for Christianity. In this view, the Bible “contains” the word of God but is not in its entirety the word of God. (2) It is the inspired word of God in its entirety. This is a higher standard based on self-identification within the Bible itself, including: the term “thus says the Lord” used over 400 times in the Old Testament, the term “God said” used 42 times in the Old Testament and 4 times in the New Testament, the term “God spoke” used 9 times in the Old Testament and 3 times in the New Testament, the term “the Spirit of the Lord Spoke” used 3 times in the Old Testament, also specific passages such as Psalm 119:99, 160; Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Acts 3:18; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 7:12; 1 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:14-16. (3) It is inerrant (without any error in the original manuscripts). This is an inference from the previous position, as well as a result of critical textual analysis. (4) It is infallible, that is it could not possibly err—this being the highest standard.

See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

See also:

29. The Westminster Confession formerly had a statement in it about the Pope being the antichrist, but that was removed. There is at least one denomination that we are aware of that still says the Pope is the antichrist in its official statements: the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church.

30. We are not suggesting that the Bible contradicts science. It does not. Sometimes Christians assume that the Bible is speaking of scientific things when it is really speaking of theological things.

31. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003), originally published in 1878, page 328-329.


33. See and also specifically verse 16:5 of the Epistle of Barnabas:

34. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of
Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist
Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 198.

35. Don K. Preston, from an article “The Passing of the Elements: 2
Peter 3:10”:

36. David Green, Michael Sullivan, Edward Hassertt, Samuel Frost, House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, A Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Romana, CA: Vision Publishing, 2009), page 165.

37. See Joseph M. Vincent II, The Millennium: Past, Present, or Future? A Biblical Defense for the 40 Year Transition Period (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Publishing, 2012), pages 63-80. Jubilees is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, as well as Jews in Ethiopia (

38. Daniel 2:28; 7:26; 8:17; 8:19; 9:26-27; 10:14; 11:27; 11:40; 12:4; 12:9; 12:13. Not all of these refer to the same end. There are various periods of time prophesied in Daniel. Some are clearly about pre-Messianic worldly kingdom dynasties and are often identified as such in the text, for example Daniel 8:20 and 8:21. So the “time of the end” in these instances refers to the end of those dynasties. However, some are clearly Messianic references, such as those identified with the term “Son of Man” (Daniel 7:13 and 8:17), which Jesus applied to himself. Daniel 7:9-27 clearly ties to the Second Coming predictions made by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/25; Mark 13; Luke 21) in which Jesus promises to return in judgment on clouds in his generation. In terms of confirming full preterism, Daniel 12 is the most important first century AD eschatological reference in the book of Daniel.

39. The NASV translates Daniel 12:4 as the “end of time.” But this is a mistranslation. Other translations such as NKJV, ASV, and NIV correctly translate it “time of the end.”

40. The removal of the daily sacrifice could refer to a time shortly before the destruction, when the zealots brought an end to the priesthood and sacrifices. Or it could potentially refer to a time even earlier around AD 66 when the Jews stopped making sacrifices to Caesar.

41. While this can be a bit confusing, the taking away of the burnt offering is also mentioned in Daniel 8:11 and 11:31. These mentions probably refer to the first such cessation of the burnt offering in the mid-2nd century BC, when King Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ruler of the Seleucid Kingdom from 175-164 BC) forbade ceremonies and the worship of God in the Jerusalem temple and in the cities of Judah. In around 168 (or perhaps 167) BC Antiochus entered the Most Holy Place and plundered the silver and gold vessels. He erected an altar to the Olympian Zeus on the altar of God in the temple court and sacrificed pigs there. The books of 1 and 2 Maccabees (books in the Roman Catholic Bible but not in the Protestant Bible) mention the abomination of desolation in reference to these actions of Antiochus. There are some confirming indications within Daniel that at least the 8:11-14 mention of the abomination of desolation/cessation of the burnt offering refers to the Antiochus abomination. First, the context is the pre-Messianic visions. Secondly, verse 8:14 indicates that the temple would be restored. The temple was indeed cleansed and rededicated under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus in 164 BC. Other instances of the burnt offering cessation and the abomination of desolation (Daniel 9:27 and 12:11) are portrayed differently by Daniel than the Antiochus situation. At the end of the AD 66-70 abomination period, instead of being cleansed, the temple would be destroyed (Daniel 9:26) and the Jewish nation would be shattered (Daniel 12:7-11).

42. Citations for these quotes are from Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), 5:401-403, 417-420. Also, Josephus, The Essential Works, ed. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 1988; Revised edition, May 17, 1995), page 358. We derived this information from Tina Rae Collins, The Gathering in the Last Days (New York: M. F. Sohn Publications, 2012), page 66.

43. The Apocrypha is a group of ancient writings that are not considered canonical, but have appeared in some versions of the Bible throughout history. Most modern Protestant Bibles omit them.

44. See Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1 (4.5.1). Available online at See also these links: and

45. Michael A. Fenemore and Kurt M. Simmons, The Twilight of Postmillennialism; Fatal Errors in the Teachings of Keith A. Mathison, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. etc.( Publishing, 2010), pages 13-17, 88.

46. Three and a half years, on a 360 day calendar, is 1260 days. On a 365 day calendar three and a half years is 1278 days. According to one source who has worked on these numbers, the Jewish month was either 29 or 30 days. Corrections were made from time to time to keep the calendar in line with the seasons. According to this source, the Jews added an “intercalary” thirteenth month to their calendar (sort of a leapmonth) every third year or so. This adjustment could account for the difference between 1290 days and 1260 days. But a strong conclusion with absolute precision remains elusive. 47. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6 (6.1.1). Available online at

48. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 7 (7.1.1). Available online at

49. If the reader is concerned that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was limited in scope compared to the Great Flood which you assume was worldwide, there is a book that might be of interest: Beyond Creation Science by Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn, PhD. This book makes a strong case that the Great Flood was not, as many Christians think, worldwide. Rather it was regional. They give many valid biblical arguments; for example, the Bible tells us that the Nephilim were present on the earth before the flood as well as after the flood, so
not everyone outside of Noah’s family was killed in the flood. If their arguments are valid, Jesus’ comparing the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Great Flood makes even more sense than previously thought.


51. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 45. Available from the International Preterist Association at their website:

52. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987).

53. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), pages 64, 65, and 546.

54. For the uses of these words in the New Testament see: See also this article:

55. Hebrews 9:28 in most translations states that Christ “will appear a second time.” The phrase “will appear” is the Greek verb optanomai. In John 14:3 Jesus says He “will come again.” Here the phrase “will come” is the Greek verb erchomai.

56. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1999), Fourth revised edition, page 160.

57. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), Appendix to Part II, pages 350-354.

58. [This link is broken.]

59. Some people might focus on Matthew 23:39, where Jesus says: “You will not see Me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” Their objection is that this seems to be a visible coming of Jesus which they believe has not yet occurred. But this statement is in the immediate context of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, and in the “this generation” time frame of verse 36. Coming “in the name of the Lord” could be an affirmation of his divinity and thus consistent with Matthew 24. It seems best to understand this as “see Me in the judgment that I will bring.” Thus, the Jews would see the effects of the judgment, not Jesus visibly. See also Chapter 12 for a discussion of the visibility of Jesus’ return.


61. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 69.

62. For an interesting discussion of how some partial preterists see two separate Second Comings of Jesus in the Oliver Discourse, see this article by Daniel E. Harden entitled “When Is a Heretic Not a Heretic?”:

63. Stevens is the founder of the International Preterist
Association, website

64. We note that Jesus spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic. But the New Testament was written in Greek. The region at the time was multicultural and multilingual. So Jesus perhaps may have known Greek, or even Latin. See

65. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision), Fourth revised edition 1999, . DeMar is a partial preterist postmillennialist rather than a full preterist. See also these additional books: (1) Kenneth Dahl’s book All These Things: (2) Samuel G. Dawson, Essays on Eschatology: An Introductory Overview of the Study of Last Things (Amarillo, Texas: SGD Press, 2009), pages 47-64.


67. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878). This quote is a summary of Russell’s comments on pages 56 and 57.

68. John L. Bray, Matthew 24 Fulfilled (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1996), page 85.

69. Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology, Death and Eternal Life, Second Edition (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988, originally published in German in 1977), page 39.

70. Ibid, page 46.

71. We will see the word mello numerous times in our study. While some would deny the imminency connotation of this Greek word, author Joseph Vincent analyzes how the word is used in non-eschatological passages and shows that the word normally means “near in time.” See Joseph M. Vincent II, The Millennium: Past, Present, or Future? A Biblical Defense for the 40 Year Transition Period (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Publishing, 2012), pages 95-99.

72. The Parousia of Christ may have begun at Pentecost per Matthew 26:64, but the consummation (i.e., his coming with his angels in the glory of his Father and rewarding every man according to his works) happened in AD 70.

73. According to Preston there are three exceptions. See the next endnote for the full quote.


75. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures, originally published in 1898, page 222. Terry was also the author of a classic work on hermeneutics entitled Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. See also:

76. Taken from the foreword by Gary DeMar in The Day and the Hour by Francis X. Gumerlock. These authors cite as the source for the quote: Gerald B. Stanton, “The Doctrine of Imminency: Is It Biblical?” in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, eds., When the Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), page 222.

77. Brian L. Martin, Behind the Veil of Moses: Piecing Together the Mystery of the Second Coming (Xulon Press, 2009), page 163.

78. Scholars disagree about how long after the giving of the prophecy that its fulfillment took place. For example, some say 200 years, others say 142 years. Alan Bondar cites Walvoord’s Bible Knowledge Commentary (page 1060) as saying that Babylon was destroyed within 15 years after the prophecy. See Alan Bondar, Reading the Bible through New Covenant Eyes (Baltimore, MD: Publish America, 2010), pages 193, 331.

79. Some people challenge preterists by pointing out that certain Old Testament texts that were to be fulfilled “soon” didn’t happen until hundreds of years later. Certain of these texts are Isaiah 51:5; Ezekiel 7:7; 30:3; Jeremiah 48:16; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Obadiah 1:15; Zephaniah 1:7, 14. Alan Bondar cites non-preterist authors who have each of these passages being fulfilled within a generation of the actual prophecy. He cites (1) Homer Hailey, Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 1973), and (2) John F. Walvoord and Roy
B. Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985). See Alan Bondar, Reading the Bible through New Covenant Eyes (Baltimore, MD: Publish America, 2010), pages 193, 331.




83. See this article by Duncan McKenzie:

84. Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 6 (6.5.3). Available online at

85. In addition to Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius, and the Jewish Talmud mentioned this phenomenon. See: Josephus Wars ( to 300), Tacitus Histories (Book 5), Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (Book 3, Chapter 8, Sections 1-6), Sepher Yosippon A Mediaeval History of Ancient Israel (Chapter 87, “Burning of the Temple”). See also Edward E. Stevens

86. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3 (3.6.4, and 3.7.7). Available online at See also


88. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 366.

89. For details, see Don K. Preston, D. Div., Who Is This Babylon (Ardmore, Oklahoma: JaDon Management, Inc., 2006), pages 2-3.

90. See (lists 62 scholars who support a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation). This book contains lists of authors who argue for a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation: Kenneth L.Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1998), chapter 4. Among numerous other books that address this and which argue for a pre-AD 70 date include: (1) Don K. Preston, D. Div., Who Is This Babylon (Ardmore, Oklahoma: JaDon Management, Inc., 2006), page 249-250. (2) Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock, The Early Church and the End of the World (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 2006), pages 167-177. (3) Samuel Frost, David Green, Edward Hassertt, Michael Sullivan, House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology, A Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Romana, CA: Vision Publishing, 2009), pages 131-149. (4) Brian L. Martin, Behind the Veil of Moses: Piecing Together the Mystery of the Second Coming. (Xulon Press, 2009), page 135. Articles about the dating of Revelation:

We also note commentary by Edward E. Stevens from Introduction to the New Testament Canon, for the Fulfilled Covenant Bible project, April 2011. It is a articularly interesting and helpful article. In it Stevens lists the probable dates that each New Testament book was written: Stevens wrote that the apostle John died during the Neronic persecution, about the same time as Peter and Paul (ca. AD 64-65). Eusebius (AD 263-339) cites two men before him that said that John lived until the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan (AD 98-117)—Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. But Eusebius also said that there were doubts as to John’s authorship of Revelation, so the accuracy of such statements is doubtful. In any case, assuming that John wrote Revelation as is commonly held, even if he did live past AD 70, that does not mean that Revelation was written after AD 70. See also: Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, A New Translation with Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), pages 110-115.

For even more detail, we also refer the reader to: Edward E. Stevens, “First Century Events in Chronological Order: from the Birth of Christ to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, A Pre-publication Manuscript” (International Preterist Association, 2009), pages 19-21.

91. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), page 141.

92. There is another interesting possibility concerning the Irenaeus quote, which purports to tie the writing of the book of Revelation to the reign of Domitian (AD 81-96). Domitian was the son of Vespasian (and brother of Titus). Vespasian was elected Emperor in December 69. But he was not in Rome at the time. It took Vespasian six months to make his way back to Rome from Jerusalem and Egypt, where he was securing foodstuff for his soldiers. During this half year, Domitian assumed the role temporarily as Caesar. He made a name for himself at this time as being a brutal tyrant. So, if Irenaeus was indeed saying that John was writing Revelation during the reign of Domitian, he may have been referring to this  period! See

93. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998), page 147.

94. Frederic Myers, Catholic Thoughts on the Bible and Theology (London: Dalby, Isbister & Co, 1879), The Fourth Book, chapter 35, page 327. Available online at






100. Don K. Preston, D. Div., Who Is This Babylon (Ardmore, Oklahoma: JaDon Management, Inc., 2006), pages 52f. This is an excellent book for those desiring to get deeper into this topic.

101. Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), pages 126-127.

102. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, Fourth Revised Edition 1999).

103. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998). 104. See endnote 21 at this source:–Identity%20of%20the%20Beast%20of%20Revelation.htm

Endnote 21 states: Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana,  vol., 1 [Loeb edition, vol., 16], Book IV. XXXVIII, Loeb Classical Library, translated by F. C. Conybeare (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1917, 2004), 437, 438.

105. For a description of Nero, see Kenneth Dahl’s book All These Things:, page 43.

106. There is quite a bit of discussion about this on the Internet, which the reader could check if so inclined.


108. Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: a Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers), page 143.

109. There are other preterist views of who the beast was. Edward E. Stevens has written about certain clues in Revelation that suggest that the beast was Jewish, therefore was not Nero. See Fulfilled! Magazine, Spring 2012, pages 10-12:

110. Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), pages 466-468.

111. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Meaning of the Millennium (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1977), page 161. Cited from Joseph M. Vincent II, The Millennium: Past, Present, or Future? A Biblical Defense for the 40 Year Transition Period (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Publishing, 2012), page 103. It should be noted that Hoekema was not a preterist.

112. A helpful book is Revelation: Four Views, a Parallel Commentary, by Steve Gregg (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.)

113. See these articles for various views:

114. Very helpful resources are Don Preston’s book Who Is This Babylon and his multi-part YouTube series (

115. Joseph M. Vincent II, The Millennium: Past, Present, or Future? A Biblical Defense for the 40 Year Transition Period (Ardmore, OK: JaDon Publishing, 2012), page 98.

116. While some scholars place AD 30 as the year of Jesus’ crucifixion and ascension, others including the respected Lutheran historian Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, places the date of the crucifixion as April 3, AD 33. See While this would make the millennium 37 years, the student of Scripture can scarcely miss the parallel of 40 years to other uses of 40 in the Bible, especially the 40 year wandering of the Exodus.

117. See David A. Green

118. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 525.

119. It could also be that John 3 refers to national rebirth/restoration of Israel, as explained in this article by Derrick Olliff:

120. It is conceivable that this first resurrection also included a physical resurrection of already martyred saints from the dead. If this is the case, one might conclude that the time span between the first and second resurrections was a period considerably shorter than 40 years. This would be consistent with Revelation 6:9-11 (“rest a little longer”). The student should not get hung up on this detail. The key to understanding Revelation 20 is verses 11-15 which was the general resurrection and judgment that happened coincident with the Second Coming.

121. Preterists offer somewhat different interpretations of who was resurrected and when per Revelation 20. Some preterists think that the first resurrection was the resurrection of the just, while the second resurrection was the resurrection of the unjust. Other preterists believe that the first resurrection refers to the resurrection from hades. And so forth.

122. Satan in these texts may be symbolic for apostate Israel.

123. One can get around this argument of the premillennial preterists by pointing out that the text does not say the beheaded were resurrected AFTER they were beheaded. It merely says “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Thus, they “lived” before they were beheaded.

124. See Duncan McKenzie’s articles:,

Also see his book The Antichrist and the Second Coming, A Preterist Examination (Xulon Press, 2012).

Preterist Milton Terry, a contemporary of Russell, held that verses 11-15 were still future (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 1898:

McKenzie notes that verse 5a (“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.”) does not appear in many ancient manuscripts and may not be part of the original text. If in fact this statement should not be part of the text, McKenzie’s view makes more sense as it allows for gradual “second resurrections” over time rather than a single resurrection at the end of the millennium that verse 5a would suggest. Most preterists take issue with McKenzie, Russell, and Terry’s conclusion in this matter. Don Preston has a section in his book that argues against the views of McKenzie : Don K. Preston, D.Div., Who Is This Babylon (Ardmore, Oklahoma: JaDon Management, Inc., 2006), pages 281-321. Full preterist Joseph Vincent also makes note that verse 5a is probably not part of the original text, and points out that certain translations such as the NIV and NLT have it in parentheses to separate it out. Vincent sees it this way: “The reason this is important is to avoid the misunderstanding that the ‘first resurrection’ took place at the ‘end’ of the thousand years.” (The Millennium, page 159).

125. See articles by Kurt M. Simmons: Also see Simmons’ book The Consummation of the Ages.

126. See article by Ed Stevens, “A 40-Year Millennium”: Stevens is the founder of the International Preterist Association, website

127. For a detailed discussion of this, see David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), chapter 21.

128. Fenemore has also co-authored a book with Kurt M. Simmons: The Twilight of Postmillennialism: Fatal Errors in the Teaching of Keith A. Mathison, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. et. al.

129.    The bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2, 9-10) is elsewhere in the Bible described as the church (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-23, etc.).


131. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation(Tyler, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), page 494, 502.

132. The concepts of salvation and redemption are linked in the New Testament to the point of being essentially equivalent. See such passages as Colossians 1:14 and Hebrews 9:15.

133. The reader can also consider such passages as Isaiah 27:9-12 and 59:17-21, as well as Romans 11:25-27.

134. Isaiah 28:11 and Joel 2:28-29 are further evidence, according to some, that speaking in tongues was a sign of God’s oncoming judgment. So, when God did judge the nation of Israel in AD 70, the gift of tongues was no longer to serve a purpose. Those who object to the interpretation that tongues ceased in AD 70 argue that in the same passage Paul says that “knowledge” will also cease. How can knowledge cease? One interpretation is that this means knowledge from the writings of the apostles; that is, the canon of Scripture would be complete by AD 70. This lends credence to the Reformation tenet that Scripture alone is sufficient for all matters of faith and life. Or perhaps a better understanding of the cessation of knowledge is that with the fulfillment of prophecy in the first century, the matters of the Old Testament that were vague for Jews became clear in their completion. For some additional discussion of the gift of tongues, see these links:

135. By one count, “kingdom” is found 122 times in the New Testament. Millennialists sometimes separate the two terms “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” in order to attempt to find a spiritual kingdom and an earthly kingdom. But this is incorrect. According to Joseph Ratzinger (Eschatology, page 26), Matthew used the term Kingdom of Heaven instead of Kingdom of God out of respect for Jewish tradition, which did not mention the name of God out of reverence. See also

136. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (Bradford, Pennsylvania: International Preterist Association, 2003, originally published in 1878), page 344.

137. Brian L. Martin, Behind the Veil of Moses: Piecing Together the Mystery of the Second Coming (Xulon Press, 2009), page 135.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment