Most people who have read the materials on this blog know that I am a staunch opponent of the doctrine known as “Preterism.”  In its protean forms, Preterism teaches that the parousia and “end of the age” described in Matthew 24: 3 happened in A.D. 70, at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.  Because of the confusion and heterodoxy often caused by this view, I’ve written a number of articles intended to point out its potential dangers, and to bring others to a correct understanding of Biblical eschatology.

  After studying the doctrines of Preterism at great length, I’ve come to the conclusion that most of its corruptions arise (ironically) from a misunderstanding of the doctrinal significance of the destruction of Jerusalem.  Unlike some, I am not prepared to say that A.D. 70 had no importance whatever in God’s scheme of things.  However, I must point out that the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem is not eschatological, but Dispensational.  That is, it had nothing to do with the end of the age.  On the contrary, it marked the close of a Dispensation.

   The trouble with Preterists is that they confuse the close of the ”Mosaic Dispensation” with the “the end of the age.”  A simple glance at the context of the applied passages, however, reveals that the term “this age” involves the entire Adamic economy, and not the Judaic system of statutes and ordinances. When the New Testament writers used the term “this age,” they were referring to the world-system, as rendered corrupt by the fall of Adam (Matt. 13: 22; Luke 16: 8; Luke 20: 34-35; Acts 15: 18; 1 Cor. 2: 6-7; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Galatians 1: 4; Eph. 1: 21; 2 Tim. 4: 10, etc.).

   Over against this age is the age to come, which denotes the reign of the Second Adam over a renewed and restored creation (Matt. 10: 30; 12: 32; Mark 10: 30; Luke 18: 30; 20: 35; Eph. 1: 21; Hebrews 6: 5).  What Preterists have done is compressed the meaning of “this age” into the confines of the Mosaic Dispensation.  But what Christ is clearly talking about in Matthew 24: 3 is the “end of the age.” And this is quite distinct from the close of a Dispensational period.

  The temple was destroyed at the end of the Mosaic Dispensation, and not at the end of the age.  In fact, there is no such thing as the “Mosaic Age.”  Unless we understand this at once, the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13) will be to us a closed book.  The destruction of the temple was significant, inasmuch as it changed/altered God’s principle of administration concerning the Jewish nation.  Because the temple-service was taken away, the means of approaching God by way of the Levitical ordinances was closed.  This isn’t to ignore the new and better way which had been opened up at the cross.  It is only to remind the reader that the Levitical priesthood was still recognized by God prior to A.D. 70. (Acts 21: 17-24).  Why?  Shouldn’t the Cross have annulled the Jewish ordinances at once?  What was meant by the renting of the veil? If this did not affect a change in God’s adminstration, what significance could A.D. 70 have had?

  We must remember that what logically should have followed Christ’s crucifixion was the punishment of His enemies and the judgment of the world.  But because of the merits of Christ’s sacrificial work, effected by the shedding of His precious blood, punishment was postponed, and the throne of judgment replaced by a throne of grace.  The Cross therefore effected a change in God’s principle of administration, and thus marks a Dispensational turning-point.  However, because the Gospel was previously offered to the children of Israel, by means of the types and shadows of the Mosaic administration (Heb. 4: 2), it was necessary that when the Messiah arrived, attainment of the awaited promises should first be held out to them. 

   Hence during the intermediate Dispensation covered by the Acts period, the Gospel was held out to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles (Romans 1: 16).  The Jews were given a 40-year period of probation, within which time restoration was possible on the condition of national repentance (Acts 3: 19-21).  The condition has never been abrogated, in fact it remains it force today. However, the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem formed a special window of grace for Israel.  Had the nation repented during this time, the 70th week of Daniel would have commenced, the Great Tribulation have run its course, and the nation been saved at the end of seven years by the return of Jesus Christ from heaven.

   When the Jews failed to repent, however, their temple was destroyed, and they were scattered among the nations.  Christ’s second coming, which would have issued in their national and spiritual deliverance (Zechariah 12: 8-14), was postponed, and the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse now await a future fulfillment.  Of course, this was all foretold by Christ and the Old Testament prophets: that the Jews would be scattered among the nations, and bear their iniquity, until they acknowledge Him who vicariously bore the burden of their offenses (see Hosea 5: 15; Micah 5: 3; 2 Sam. 7: 14).

  We know that prior to A.D. 70, believers “in Christ” were released from the obligations of the ceremonial law (Gal. 6: 15; Colossians 2: 14).  But this law remained in effect until the destruction of the temple.  The reason is quite obvious.  The temple occupied an important place in God’s Dispensational dealings with the Jewish people.  Its taking away marked the end of that Dispensation.  What the cross did was to provide a “new and living way” to God through the blood of an all sufficient-sacrifice.  But until the Mosaic Dispensation was concluded, the old administration existed alongside the new.  Furhermore, the temple was what kept the old administration alive.  The implication is obvious, that the intention of the Cross was not to annul the temple-services, but to bring in the new covenant.  For when the new covenant is fulfilled, the temple services will be re-established with some modifications (see Ezekiel 20: 40-44; 43: 18-46: 24; Mal. 3: 3-4).

   However, because of this erroneous view that the Cross abrogated the temple-service (which Scripture expressly contradicts), many teach that God’s covenant with the nation of Israel ended at the destruction of the temple.  But if it did, then Jehovah broke His own covenant.  The covenant that God made with Israel is everlasting, and will not be fulfilled until He gives them the land which He promised to their fathers.  This will happen when He brings them under the bonds of the New Covenant (Ezekiel 20: 37). 

   Until then, the Jews have a Divine promise of perpetual remembrance (Leviticus 26: 40-45; Psalm 111: 5), as well as restoration upon condition of national repentance (Deut. 30: 1-10).  This condition cannot be fulfilled under the law; for the law, while it condemns, leaves no strength to fulfill the condition.  Only when Jesus Christ Himself returns from heaven to gather His elect (the Jews) from the four winds, and bring them into the promised land, will God’s part of the New Covenant be fulfilled (Deut. 30: 4-5; Isaiah 27: 13; Matt. 24: 31).  And every jot and tittle of the law will be fulfilled before “heaven and earth shall pass away.”

   Now, it’s obvious that as faith establishes the moral law, but does not annul it (see Romans 3: 31), so the Gospel is subservient thereto.  In fact, the essence of the Gospel is fulfillment of the two tables of the moral law! (Mark 12: 28-31).  So, if the law passed away in A.D. 70, then the Gospel passed away also.  But if God is still visiting the Gentiles to gather to Himself children of Abraham–that is, children of faith–then the law is still in effect.  Furthermore since the fourth commandment was a sign between Israel and God (Exodus 31: 15-17; Ezekiel 20: 12), the perpetuity of the moral law (as proved above) demands that Israel’s identity as a nation remain intact throughout the remainder of this age.  This fact is confirmed by a simple reading of Jeremiah 31: 35-37 and 33: 23-26.

  No, friends.  It was never God’s purpose to “destroy the Jewish nation.”  But it was His purpose to change His principle of administration.    Not to abrogate His covenant, but to suspend its application until the better covenant might take its place.  Remember, the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New.  The one merges into the other.  Thus Israel’s re-gathering to their own land, and subsequent re-establishment of the temple ordinances must precede the Great Tribulation, second coming of Christ, and consequent fulfillment of ”all things that are written.”  A prayerful reading of Ezekiel 16: 59-63 will be found helpful to those studying this issue.

   I will conclude this article by re-affirming that until the promises of the law and the prophets are fulfilled to the letter, the establishment of the New Covenant remains in abeyance.  For this reason it is important to note that the doctrine of the parousia is inseparably bound up with the salvation and restoration of Israel (compare, e.g., Romans 11: 26-27 with Isaiah 59: 20-21).  If we but grasp this concept correctly, all the pieces of the eschatological puzzle will fall into place.  Then we’ll correctly see the events of A.D. 70 as Dispensational in nature, and as having no eschatological significance.