Although Preterists universally hold that Jesus Christ’s parousia happened in A.D. 70, it is my position that the case is otherwise.  Evidence for an A.D. 70 coming of Christ is lackluster, at best.  In fact, there is no evidence in Scripture that Christ returned in A.D. 70 at all.  Before I get attacked, however, I do affirm that Christ’s coming was imminent in the first century.  This matter is beyond dispute.

  Yet that which draws near may also draw away — especially when you’re dealing with a Dispensation based on conditional promises, and in which fallen man forms one of the contracting parties.  The fact is, the second coming of Christ and related blessings are tied to the Abrahamic covenant — not to the Mosaic covenant. 

   Under the Mosaic covenant these blessings are held out, but only on conditional of obedience.  The trouble is, the law brings knowledge of sin, but it gives no strength to meet its demands.  

   Preterists rightly acknowledge the parousia as an unconditional promise.  However, they fail to see that its fulfillment under the Mosaic charter is entirely conditional. 

   The unconditional promises were never made under the Mosaic Covenant.  They were made under the Abrahamic covenant.  This was demonstrated when God, in ratifying the promised blessings, Himself passed through the pieces of the sacrifice (Genesis 15: 17-18), showing that the covenant would be secured by one contracting party alone. 

   Whereas in confirmation of the Mosaic covenant, “the princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land” (Jeremiah 34: 18-19) had to pass between the parts of the calf — showing that there were two contracting parties.  This makes the difference.

  In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul records that the Abrahamic covenant was made without a mediator (Gal. 3: 15-17).  That means that God was the only contracting party.  Therefore, the promises under that covenant are unconditional, and cannot be abrogated. 

    On the other hand, the Mosaic covenant was made through a mediator (Gal. 3: 19; cf. Acts 7: 53).  This renders blessings under that covenant conditional in nature.

   As Charles H. Welch observes: “Where there is a mediator, there are two parties, and when one of those contracting parties is fallen man, failure and instability is a certainty” (Dispensational Truth, 2008 edition, pg. 124).

        Now, it is clear that if the Mosaic covenant was in effect during the 40-year period when the New Testament writings declared Christ’s coming as “near,” then the parousia was conditional on the stipulations contained in that covenant. 

   Wherefore we are not surprised to hear Christ Himself say: “Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord“  This brings us back to Leviticus 26: 11, where Jehovah promised to place His tabernacle among the people of Israel —  if only they would keep His statutes and commandments.  

   Peter confirmed the essential condition of national repentance in Acts 3: 19-21.     Therefore, Christ’s coming in the first century was subservient to this stipulation.  Christ would come, if only His people would repent and accept Him as Messiah. 

   This truth is illustrated in Acts 7: 55-56, which records Stephen the martyr’s vision of Christ standing at the right hand of the Father, as if in expectation that the leaders of the people would repent.  If they had repented, He would have returned.  But because they didn’t, His second advent did not materialize.   

   The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 merely ended the period of probation given for Israel to attain the promised blessings according to the terms of the Mosaic charter. Because they failed, their city was destroyed, and the second coming relegated to a future time.   

   A further illustration of the contingent nature of the parousia is given in Malachi 4: 5-6, where the prophet writes: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of that great and dreadful Day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I smite the earth with a curse.”

  Now, it is obvious that the land was smitten with a curse in A.D. 70 (see Deut. 28: 15 ff.).  And since the hearts of the fathers were never turned to the children, and vice versa, it is clear that Elijah’s ministry was never fulfilled in the first century.  Therefore, the destruction of Jerusalem did not constitute the Day of the Lord.

   True, John the Baptist would have fulfilled that role.  However, the condition was national acceptance of his ministry.  Christ said: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come” (Matt 11: 15).  Did the nation ever receive John the Baptist as Elijah?  According to Christ, they did not!

  (Matt. 16: 11-12)  “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.  But I say unto you, Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.”

  This failure of Israel to acknowledge John’s mission explains why his baptism was still being administered twenty-six years after the ascension of Christ (Acts 19: 3).  Because Israel had not received John, his baptism was still valid.

  Now, if the nation failed to acknowledge John Baptist as the “Elijah” of Malachi’s prophecy, then it is absurd to claim that his mission was accomplished in the first century.  Malachi tells us that if the ministry was not fulfilled, the land would be smitten with a curse.  That is exactly what Preterists say happened in A.D. 70.  Therefore, they cannot claim that John the Baptist fulfilled the role of Elijah without contradicting themselves.

   Although these examples may be superficially perceived as a subversion of the doctrines of grace, they are really an attestation of the fact that the Mosaic covenant was in effect during the first century; and that the blessings connected with the parousia could only be obtained by way of the New Covenant, and not according to the terms of the Mosaic charter.

    This great object lesson was taught by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.   It marked Israel’s failure under law, but is not connected with fulfillment of the unconditional blessings. 

   Preterists must concede that a “casting away” has nothing to do with grace, but presupposes legal transgression.  It was precisely that which brought about the national dispersion of Israel.  Therefore, it is no token of grace, or of the fulfillment of New Covenant promises.

   Actually, the New Covenant is about regathering and restoration, which will be obtained at the parousia of Christ.  Only when we “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 3: 15) will the parousia be seen for what it really is.  

   The burden of proof is not on orthodox Christians who claim that the second advent is yet future, but on Preterists who posit an unscriptural A.D. 70 parousia, which disregards the testimony that God has been pleased to record for our instruction.  Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.