Matthew 24: The Foundation of Preterist Interpretation

  We’ve sometimes dealt with those who place the fulfillment of Christ’s Olivet Discourse in the time frame of the Jewish war (A.D. 67-70).  These folks, most of whom stand in the Reformed/non-evangelical lists, teach that there was a ‘coming of Christ’ at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction by Titus.  This makes a sharp distinction between two schools of theology, respectively known as Preterism and Futurism.

  An in-depth study of the Olivet Discourse, however, really makes us wonder how this “past fulfillment” theory can be held by serious students of Scripture.  It is no surprise that Preterism is mainly a product of Reformation theology.   As most of us have learned, the Reformers were excellent in the field of soteriology, but very poor students of prophecy.  It was reserved for later generations to clear the board of historicist errors and continue where early church fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius left off.

  As my studies progress, I find that the main reason Protestant commentators sometimes placed the greater part of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 in the past was because of their failure to properly interpret the visions of Daniel.  Because of their historicist leanings, they were unable to see that the visions of Revelation are tied to those of the Old Testament, and that Christ, in speaking of “things to come,” often alluded to O.T. prophecies whose sense John later revealed in the Apocalypse.

   Here’s a case in point.  When Christ mentions the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt. 24: 15), He is pointing His finger to a series of inter-related prophecies in the Book of Daniel, which correspond to key passages in the Apocalypse.  Any correct interpretation of Christ’s discourse must take these prophecies into account.

  What is the problem with Preterism?  It blithely ignores the correlation of the prophetic texts, and so loses the true meaning of Christ’s words.  John Lightfoot (1602-1675), for instance, in his Talmudic commentary on Matthew, sees in the “abomination of desolation” nothing more than Roman armies.   

   Lightfoot writes:

Matt. 24: 15: ‘The abomination of desolation.’  These words relate to that passage of Daniel (chap. ix. 27), which I would render thus; ‘In the middle of that week,’ namely, the last of the seventy, ‘he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, even until the wing or army of abomination shall make desolate,’ &c.; or, even by the wing of abominations making desolate.”

‘Let him that readeth understand.’  This is not spoken so much for the obscurity, as for the certainty of the prophecy: as if he should say, ‘He that reads these words in Daniel, let him mind well that when the army of the prince which is to come, that army of abominations, shall compass Jerusalem with a siege, then most certain destruction hangs over it; for saith Daniel, ‘the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary,’ &c. ver. 26.  And the army of abominations shall make desolate even until the consummation, and that which is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.’  Flatter not yourselves, therefore, with vain hopes, either of future victory, or of the retreating of that army, but provide for yourselves; and he that is in Judea, let him fly to the hills and places of most difficult access, not into the city.”

  Such is an early sample of Preterist interpretation, which seeks, in a half-hearted way, to explain the meaning of Christ’s words.  But it is not typical of the Preterism espoused today.  In his book, The Parousia, J. Stuart Russell (1816-1895) gives us a more common example of how Preterists deal with Matt. 24: 15

   Russell writes:

   “Most expositors find an allusion to the standards of the Roman legions in the expression, ‘the abomination of desolation,’ and the explanation is highly probable.  The eagles were the objects of religious worship to the soldiers; and the parallel passage in St. Luke is all but conclusive evidence that this is the true meaning.  We know from Josephus that the attempt of a Roman general (Vitellius), in the reign of Tiberius, to march his troops through Judea was resisted by the Jewish authorities, on the ground that the idolatrous images on their esigns would be a profanation of the law.  How much greater the profanation when those idolatrous emblems were displayed in full view of the temple and the Holy City!  This was the last token which portended that the hour of doom for Jerusalem had come.  Its appearance was to be the signal to all in Judea to escape beyond the mountains, for then would ensue a period of misery and horror without a parallel in the annals of time.”  (pg. 73).

  Notice how Russell fails to reference a single passage in the Bible; but after making a vague remark about what “most expositors” think, he claims the evidence is “all but conclusive” that the Roman ensigns were the true fulfillment of the “abomination of desolation.”  And then he cites Josephus! 

   Such interpreters obviously have their minds made up, and would see the Jewish War in every eschatological passage in the Bible.  Unlike Russell, Lightfoot went so far as to provide his own translation of a difficult passage. But both of them completely disregard and pass over the following Scriptures:

    (Daniel 11: 31) “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”

   (Daniel 12: 11) “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

  As Christ warned of the very “abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” these Scriptures provide a vital clue to the correct meaning of Matthew 24: 15, and stand parallel with Daniel 9: 27: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.”  

  A prophetical week equals seven years.  Thus, whatever your interpretation of the “70 weeks,” it is clear that the “midst of the week” will leave exactly three-and-a-half years until the consummation.  This remaining period is found elsewhere in the Book of Daniel, being referred to as a “time, and times, and the dividing of time” (Dan. 7: 25) and a “time, times, and a half” (Dan. 12: 7).  

    The context of these Scriptures speaks of a persecution of the saints by Antichrist.  Read also the connected passage of Daniel 8: 9-14, which speaks of the time when the “daily sacrifice” is taken away, and the “place of His sanctuary cast down.” The oppressor is a “little horn” who magnifies himself even to the Prince of the host, casting the truth to the ground.  During his tyranny, the sanctuary and the host is trodden under foot.  Compare with the above, and then read Revelation 11: 2, which speaks of the same 42 months–the remaining half of Daniel’s 70th week.

   It is this final 42 month period to which our Lord is referring.  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand): Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.  And woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matt. 24: 15: 21).

  According to Christ, the tribulation begins when the abomination of desolation is seen standing in the holy place.  This has nothing to do with Roman emblems “being displayed in full view of the temple and holy city.” The abomination of desolation in the midst of the week sets off the Great Tribulation of which Christ speaks in His Olivet Discourse.

   This same tribulation is spoken of in Daniel 12: 1, where the prophet writes: “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time.” 

  At what time? Obviously, the time mentioned in the preceding part of the prophetic discourse (Daniel 11: 31-45).  The period begins when Antichrist takes away the daily sacrifice and places the abomination that maketh desolate (11: 31), ending when he “plants the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain” (11: 45; cf. 2 Thess. 2: 4). The time of trouble occupies the remainder of Daniel’s 70th week, when Antichrist, the “beast” of Revelation 13, shall afflict the people of God.  Notice that John again mentions the period of 42 months (Rev. 13: 5).

  By making the Roman siege of Jerusalem the fulfillment of the “Great Tribulation” mentioned by Christ and the prophet Daniel, Preterists have little choice but to make Titus the Antichrist.  But Titus was not declared emperor until Vespasian’s death in 79 A.D.  Nor does he fit the descriptions of Daniel’s Antichrist, whether it be the “little horn,” the “prince that shall come” or the “vile person” who deals treacherously against the holy covenant. 

  Preterists try to sidestep this discrepancy by claiming that the Antichrist was actually Nero.  But Nero committed suicide in June of A.D. 68, two years before the temple fell!  Therefore, neither does Nero match the description of Daniel’s Antichrist, who would begin his tyranny in the “midst of the week” and function for 42 months until the “time of the end.”  Who, then, can this 1st century Antichrist have been?

   Without identifying this individual, and placing him amidst the events of the Roman occupation, one cannot prove that there was any “abomination of desolation” set up or “daily sacrifice” taken away; and consequently, no evidence that the Great Tribulation occurred during the siege of Jerusalem!

  Also, placing the “time of the end” in A.D. 70 would make the “midst of the week” fall out in A.D. 67, an impossibility according to any Preterist scheme, as modern Preterists (unlike Lightfoot) hold that “the midst of the week” occurred in A.D. 30, when Christ was crucified!

   What Preterists are dealing with is a complex riddle that can only be solved by conceding that the main events spoken of in Christ’s Olivet Discourse are yet future.  If this position be taken, the 70th week of Daniel must be relegated to the future, as well as the whole of the Apocalypse.  This is a large leap for Preterists to make.  However, all the Scriptural evidence insists on a fulfillment of the above visions of Daniel 7, 8, 9, 11, & 12 during the period known as “the time of trouble” or “Great Tribulation.”  Unless Preterists can prove that these visions were fulfilled during the Roman siege, they are erroneous in affirming that there was any “coming of Christ” in A.D. 70.  And that’s the milk in the cocoanut.


   Note: To see how the predictions of Daniel correspond and synchronize so that they cannot be broken up, please consult the following charts prepared by noted Bible scholar and theologian E.W. Bullinger:


14 Comments Add yours

  1. Dman says:

    Pretty good points, looks as like you actually read the Holy Bible rather than persuming what is says. Only negetive comment would be is, “What do you believe in?” Your articles of faith presented only some, but by reading them I concluded your either: Calvinists, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, or even a Seventh Day Saturdayist. Please, be blunt, pick a side, passionatly defend it and storm the gates of Hell with a Super Soaker. Very good article, but where on the map do you stand?

  2. Hi there!

    My statement of faith just gives the basics. But for your information, I’m a Pre-Millennial Baptist who believes in the future imminent second coming of Christ!

    Peace & Health,


  3. F.O. Hunter rev. says:

    I really appreciate your scholarly article. It seemed very apparent to me that you were of the evangelical camp.I belieive you have fairly addressed the issues of Preterism and clearly exposed the great tensions between Preterism and acceptable Orthodox Christian eschatology.
    thank you! Keep up the great work! Sincerely, Y.B.I.C. rev. Hunter

  4. Bro. Hunter,

    Your comment made my day! For months I’ve been trying to show that Preterism is exegetically false, and it seems my efforts are slowly but surely bearing fruit. Thankfully, many are now seeing the fundamental distinction between Preterism and the “faith delivered to the saints.” I believe it’s a major one.

    Peace & Health,


  5. William says:

    It will take a bit more than dogmatic assertion and 4 months to disprove Preterism by the arguments submitted. I do hope that you will give readers and opportunity to read this rebuttal. Then we will truly know your sincerity and honesty. I also notice that like a good debater, you negate a lot, but you never told us what in your view the abomination of desolation is. Is that too complex of a riddle for you in light of all the scripture cited and arguments made?

    1. First, I begin with a question. How can the coming of Christ be imminent to you today (21st century) when it must be preceded by the abomination of desolation, especially in view of the plain facts that there is no holy place (temple/sanctuary) in which to commit that abomination of desolation?

    Further, to know that something is near, you must have some indication, at least in general of when that event should occur, for only then can you know when it is near based upon that chronological marker. Paul wrote that “knowing the time, that it was the “hour” to awake out of sleep, for “now” is our salvation was nearer than when they “first believed.” The night is far spent, the day is at hand…(Rom. 13:11,12).

    What inspiration do you have that makes your belief in an “at hand” present day coming of the Lord, more real and truthful than an inspired apostle’s “first century” at hand day of the Lord? Further, he gave clear points from which he determined that nearness, i.e. from the time of their initial belief up to “that present time,” indicated by “now,” clearly a first century reference in his day.

    Now taking Jesus’ words on the destruction of Jerusalem and his associated coming within that generation, and Pentecost of A.D. 30, which is when the Romans first heard the gospel,(Acts 2:10), by approximately A.D. 58-60 when Romans was written, their salvation was in fact “nearer” then when they first believed. Now may I have the evidence by which you assert it is near today?

    By the way, Paul is quoting from Daniel 12:2.

    2. What sacrifice is there today to be taken away by the Antichrist in view of no temple sacrifices being offered to set the stage for this activity of the Antichrist to signal this imminent return of Christ? (Dan. 11:31; 12: 11) Is this why you made no “affirmation” on the abomination of desolation?

    3. Now since you have introduced Dan. 7:25, into the equation, as the little horn/antichrist associated with the endtime, it is this character who makes “war against the saints” during the
    “midst of the week,” i.e. times, times & 1/2 time, who is defeated by the coming of the Lord.

    It is agreed this cannot be Nero who died before the temple fell in 70 A.D., and hence does not survive the coming of the Lord, which you correctly acknowledge. Further, the abomination of desolation is not the Romans general Vitellius during the reign of Tiberias who is turned back by the Jews due to their emblems. (This is the heart of your straw man argument).

    4. You have cited Daniel 8:9-14, as the text indicating the time in which the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot.

    This passage emphatically states and implies that the sanctuary, the sacrifices and the “host” i.e. the people are yet in tact when this abomination of desolation occurs. Otherwise how can the sacrifices be taken away and sanctuary defiled with the transgression of desolation in order that the sanctuary and host be trampled under foot?

    Remember, the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, therefore it must be in existence, until the end of the war, (Dan. 9:27).

    5. Now it is quite clear that Dan. 8:9-14, is part of the vision which Daniel receives. However, the interpretation follows the vision, the meaning of which was so utterly shocking to Daniel that he fainted and was sick for days, v. 27).

    I suggest to you that because Daniel understood that this vision related to the “shattering” of the power of national Israel, i.e the holy people is what made him faint with sickness.”

    6. Gabriel made Daniel understand that the vision referred to the time of the end, so I ask again, How Can Christ’s coming be imminent today, void of the context for the removal of the sacrifices, the temple and the transgressors to be trodden under foot?

    7. The vision occurs in the latter time of the indignation in the consummation of the end, (Dan. 8:19).

    8. Now you have affirmed that the work of the “little horn” per Daniel 7:25, is that of

    (1) persecuting the saints. This is true per Dan. 7:21.

    (2). You have also affirmed that this persecution occurs during the times, times and 1/2 time, of 7:25. That means that the persecution of the little horn is active and continues until the sanctuary and temple is destroyed.

    Here’s your quote: “During his tyranny, the sanctuary and the host is trodden under foot. Compare with the above, and then read Revelation 11: 2, which speaks of the same 42 months–the remaining half of Daniel’s 70th week.”(B.S.) Thus you must agree.

    (3) Now the persecution of the little horn continues until the “Ancient of Days” comes, i.e. [the coming of the Son of Man], by whom he is defeated, Dan. 7:22, 2 Thess. 2:8. This must be a reference to the little horn for things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

    The ancient of days comes and destroys the little horn who opposes and persecutes the saints, Dan. 7:22.
    The Lord comes and destroys the “man of sin,” who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, i.e. against the saints, 2 Thess. 2:7,8.
    Therefore, the little horn and the man of sin both opposers of God, and being destroyed by Christ’s coming are one and the same. Besides, you’ve already agreed this is Daniels’ little horn.

    (4)The man of sin (little horn) was “sitting in the temple of God.” (Sitting mans exercising authority as God), as in the scribes sit in Moses’ seat, i.e. exercise the authority of Moses in teaching the law, (Matt. 23:2,3)This confirms #2 that the temple was yet in existence during the time of the little horn of Daniel 7:21, 8:9-14, Rev. 11:2) etc. Hence, Paul affirms that his activity was present and being restrained as early as 50 AD, but would later be revealed, i.e. manifested at which time thereafter, the Lord would consume (destroy him).

    You have therefore, by your “logic” acknowledged and admitted that the little horn’s activity was already present in the first century, while the sacrifices were yet being offered and the temple yet stood. (It only gets worse from here).

    (5)The “little horn” cannot be:

    (a) the Ancient of Days; he is destroyed by him.
    (b) The saints of the most high; he fights against them.
    (c) Rome, for the “little horn” makes his “seat” in the temple which the Romans did not do as
    cited in Jos. Ant. 18:5, 3., per your comments and Russell.

    (5) Again, the work of the Antichrist was already at work per Paul in 2 Thess. 2:4, as acknowledged by you in stating this equates with 11:31-34 and Revelation 11:2), you have conceded that the chronological setting for the transgression/abomination of desolation was already present in the first century.

    (6) The text indicates that the man of sin was not yet revealed therefore, 51 AD was a tad bit early for the abomination of desolation which precipitated the end by a flood in which desolation was determined.

    (7). Now it is the case that the Thessalonicans (as were saints throughout the empire) were already being persecuted (1 Thess. 2:16-18; 2 Thess. 1:4-6, with a promise that God would recompense tribulation to their persecutors. This persecution was definitely war against the saints (Eph. 6;11f), which led some to believe that the end time had prematurely occurred, (2) but which Paul warns them of developments which had to occur before the man of sin could be revealed.

    (8). However, in 1 John 2:18, 19, by 68 AD, the antichrist had been revealed and John says it was proof that the last hour had arrived. The antichrists were among the saints, had apostatized and “gone out from the church.”

    (9) In Israel’s history, the abomination of desolation which precipitated the destruction of their temple, was always commmitted first by Judah.

    (a), They set up the image of jealousy in the inner court of the temple which provoked God to jealousy, (Ezk. 8:3)
    (b). They set up and image of jealousy at the north of the altar gate in the entrance., Ezk. 8:5. Note: Furthermore He said to me, “son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the
    house of Israel commits here, to make Me go far away from My sanctuary? Now turn again, you will see greater abominations.’
    (c)They committed abominations in worshiping every “creeping thing” v. 10.
    (d)The women were committing abomination in weeping for Tammuz.
    (e) Twenty men had their backs toward the temple and were worshiping the sun toward the east, v. 16.

    Now hear God’s words for the abominations which Israel committed. “And He said to me, Have you seen this, O son of man? Is it a trivial thing to the house of Judah to commit the aboininations which they commit here? For they have filled the land with violence; then they have returned to provoke me to anger. Indeed they put the branch to their nose.

    God’s response: Therefore I also will act in fury. My eye will not spare nor will I have pity; and thought they cry in My ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them.

    In chapter 9, the temple was defiled with bloodshed.

    Do we find any such activity of violence and bloodshed, profaning of the temple, etc, by Jews that meets this criteria of abominations?

    Now again, the Romans surrounded the city of Jerusalem to prevent escape from the city, just as Christ predicted, “For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground…” (Luke 19:43-44). Thus by the time the Romans arrived, there was no escape. Thus, the “abomination of desolation” occurred before that time. Josephus records 2,000 people in one night were disemboweled trying to flee the city after the Romans arrived.

    According to Kittel, the abomination of desolation is a Hebrew idiom which means that which causes the abomination of desolation, just as we’ve seen in the references from Ezekiel.

    The following quotes from eschatologyreview’s website are offered.

    “Desolation: “The nature of the sanctuary is to be used by those who come to worship God there. The abomination does not destroy it; it makes it desolate by causing pious worshippers to avoid it because of the abomination, and by thus depriving it of any meaning or purpose” [Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.].”

    But for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; and also many of the vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things … he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used (each of them) about an hin of them; and here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening up upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that had suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed [Josephus; Wars; 5.13.6].

    For there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews and their own hands should pollute the temple of God. Now while these Zealots did not (quite) believe these things, they made themselves the instruments of their accomplishment [Josephus; Wars; 4.6.2]. (my emp. wb)

    Clearly, the “abomination of desolation” occurred at the hands of the Jews themselves, and took place before the legions of Rome reached the city.

    “… for I venture to affirm, that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition….so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes on our own people …” [Josephus; Wars; 5.6.1].

    14. What you have built is a straw man, by making the abomination of desolation the Roman army. What Luke says is that when Jerusalem was encompassed by armies, its desolation was near, i.e. not the “transgression/abomination of desolation, but the destruction of the city. But the desolation of Jerusalem followed the abomination of desolation which was a transgression by the Jews themselves which preceded and caused the latter’s destruction a point you have conceded by your logic.

    15. The historical case of Israel proves, the abomination which caused the desolation of the temple was caused by Israel themselves as noted in scripture, Ezk. 8 and 9, just before Israel was destroyed by God through the instrument of the Chaldeans.

    16. The little horn therefore is the Jews themselves who persecuted, made allegiance with Rome, persecuted (made war with the saints), defected back to Judaism from the church and denied the Lord who bought them, committed the abomination of desolation, and were destroyed by the Lord’s coming, all within that first century generation.

    Without being dogmatic about it, we have covered every single point you’ve raised, given scripture and documentation from history, exposed your arguments as weak and fallacious, and established the return of Christ in A.D. 70, per your own logic to be in harmony with the scriptures.

  6. Hi William,

    I appreciate the input. However, in your desire to prove that “all Biblical prophecy” was fulfilled in A.D. 70, you’ve overlooked several important points.

    First of all, I think the second advent is “imminent” in the sense that it could “happen at any time.” No need to get into pre-trib/post-trib, etc. However, I agree that during the first century it was imminent in a more particular sense. Israel was on probabtion for 40 years, and the one requirement essential to Christ’s second coming was (and still is) NATIONAL REPENTANCE (Acts 3: 19-21; Matt. 23: 39; Hosea 5: 15). During this 40-year period, the second coming drew “near.” But because the Jews failed to repent, the temple was destroyed, and the second coming put off to a future time.

    Therefore, in order for the Tribulation to take place, the temple must be rebuilt. There is no difficulty in this view, because when Daniel prophesied concerning the “little horn,” the first temple was already in desolation. So, fulfillment of the prophecy necessitated the return of the Jews from captivity, and the rebuilding of the sanctuary. Same as today.

    Some of Daniel’s prophecies were partly fulfilled during the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. I think even I Maccabees states that the “abomination of desolation” was Antiochus’s profanation of the temple. Therefore, any application of “exhaustive fulfillment” to A.D. 70 is subjective. It could have been then. But it could also be at some future time.

    Daniel said that “the people of the prince” would destroy the sanctuary. The “people” were the Roman armies, certainly. However, it is the prince himself who stops the daily sacrifice and sets up the abomination that maketh desolate (Dan. 9: 27; 11: 31). It is a “he” that scatters the power of the holy people, and a “he” that persecutes the saints for 3 and a half years. All this is done through the agency of an individual. It is not correct exegesis to call the “little horn” the Jews, for Daniel never speaks of the little horn as “they.” If “he” means “they,” then we may as well throw the dictionary out the window with our Bibles.

    Also, to say that the Jews of the first century the “holy people” is absurd. No. The tribulation should be analogous to the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. See Dan. 11: 31-45. Incidentally, the “sitting in the temple” is clearly referenced in Dan. 11: 45. When the angel says that “at that time” there will be great tribulation, he’s referring to the time he was just talking about in Dan. 11: 31-45.

    But here’s the clincher. Josephus says that the daily sacrifice was stopped on the 5th of August, A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed. This totally invalidates the Hyper-Preterist view. The abomination is the event that triggers the Great Tribulation, NOT the event that accompanies the destruction of the temple. Besides, if Christ returned on August 5th of A.D. 70, then it was too late for the abomination of desolation. Christ doesn’t come in the midst of the week, but at the end of the 70 weeks! This fact alone proves that Hyper-Preterism is false.

    As for your quotation of Ezekiel 8-9, yes, it was the image of jealousy, etc. that caused the destruction of the first temple. But if you apply this again to A.D. 70, how does that invalidate future fulfillment? 90% of the O.T. prophecies Hyper-Preterists apply to A.D. 70 could more logically be applied to destruction of the first temple.

    If anything, A.D. 70 was a “repeat performance” of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction. But still the Jews had a promise of returning to the land and re-instituting their worship. Therefore, the promise still remains good, according to Deut. 30: 1-10; Leviticus 26: 40-45. The only way we’ll find out when something is fulfilled is to wait for the event to “come to pass.” See Deut. 18: 22. An argument out of the text does not qualify as “fulfillment.”


    P.S. ~ About the abomination of desolation, I think it is clearly identified in Rev. 13: 14-15. It has nothing to do with Roman ensigns and armies.

  7. William says:


    Your “thoughts” are not God’s “thoughts.” You are speculating here without proof. I’m not very fund of Joe Isuzu theology, so I can’t just take your word for it. That is a clear dodge. Please supply a better response than “I think.” Shall the world put their trust in a hope based on what you think may happen?

    You have overlooked the obvious in your rush to “run past Jerusalem” of 70 AD. Acts 3:19-21, is applied by Peter to the words of all the prophets from Samuel to those who follow after who foretold of these days. Those were the days currently running their course in the apostolic age with then current national Israel, who would be cut off from Israel (Gal. 4:30), if they did not believe that Prophet.

    “You” [1st century national Israel] are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with Abraham…To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.(v. 25, 26).

    Are you arguing that a “national Israel of the 21st century will be the “you first”/was the 1st to receive the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection?

    That’s a pretty good Ginsu knife job on Hosea’s prophecy. God prophesied of the restoration of Ephraim (the 10 northern tribes cut off under Jeroboam’s reign for their idolatry, (2 Ki. 17:18-24)

    Hosea prophesied that God would restore them, Hos. 1:10, 11; 2:23; 3:5, in the
    latter days under David (Christ) their king. Both Paul and Peter affirm the fulfillment of this prophecy in their apostolic ministries to the Gentiles/Diaspora, Rom. 9:25,26; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9respectively. Hosea chapter 6:1 shows this return, of Ephraim (Israel) per v. 15, occurs in after Christ’s resurrection, “that we [Ephraim may live in his sight]. Ephraim who died (was cast off) through Baal worship, 13:1,2, and sinned more and more, would be reconciled to God, (13:14)

    Not all of the nation accepted him as both Paul, (Romans 10:17-21), and Peter show, (1 Pet. 2:6-8)

    I’ve never heard anyone say that because the Jews failed to repent, the second coming was delayed, put off post-poned. That is the most anti-biblical argument for the second coming I’ve heard or read…no joke.

    So, does that mean that if the Jews/people do not repent today, Christ will put off his return for another two centuries? And by that logic, will he never return because all men are never going to repent? What a position! Upon whom, then would God execute wrath?


    Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (Rev. 3:3). Isn’t Christ promising that he will come in spite of non-repentance?

    To whom does his “like a thief” coming refer to, the saved or the lost?

    “For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them and they shall not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. You are sons of light and sons of the day….1 Thess. 5:2-4

    “Behold, I am coming as a thief, Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.” (Rev. 16:16)

    “And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.’ And behold I am coming quickly, and My reward is with me to give to every one according to his work. Rev. 22:10-12

    And there certainly were unbelieving Jews in A.D. 70 when Christ returned, for they mourned at his coming, (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7, Rev. 2:9, 3:9). I mean, wasn’t that why he destroyed the temple?

    Even if this “at hand, “1st century imminent coming were future, Rev. 22:11, shows the non-penitent do not avert Christ’s coming. The coming is so urgent, he says let them remain as they are, –it’s too late!!!

    Matt. 23:39, shows that within their generation, their house was left to them desolate, v. 36. The only time a Jew can “see” the Lord is when they recognize and receive him through the preached message, as one who comes in the name of the Lord. As Paul says, speaking of “national Israel:

    How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent [in the name of the Lord] as it is written:

    How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace who bring glad tidings of good things? But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report. (Rom. 10:14-15) See also 10:1-4)

    True to the words of Christ that they would “see” him no more, Paul writes, Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we him after the flesh no more. (2 Cor. 5:16). He can only be known by faith.

    What you have overlooked re: the temple is that as long as the Old Covenant stood, the temple had a divinely decreed or authoritative standing. So even if the building was in ruins, the “temple” yet had a standing. (Heb. 9:8). Check out the Greek there.

    However, today, now that the Old Covenant has passed, (Heb. 8:13), the temple no longer has a covenantal standing/authority from God, whether in ruins or not, and hence, your argument is nullified. Even the rebuilding of a temple would not divinely re-institute that order by God. All you would have is a “building, i.e. a house made with hands.”

    That means there can never be an authorized rebuilding of the temple in order to fulfilled a future “great tribulation/abomination of desolation. Remember God gave Moses the command to build the temple. He forbade David because he had shed too much blood. He stirred up the people to rebuild the temple. This completely kills all the rest of your arguments. I wouldn’t presume rebuild a temple for God without his instructions. Hence, orthodox Jews who consider themselves in exile since 70 AD, say they are not allowed to rebuild the temple.

    Whatever may have been the case with Antiochus Epiphanes, it does not meet the divine requirements of Daniels prophecy which were appointed for the time of the end.

    Surely, you are not going to to argue that the “little horn” fought against the saints until the Ancient of Days came in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes? Besides the great tribulation of Daniel 12:1, is tied to the resurrection of Dan. 12:2. Same as Matt. 24:21, 31. How about it? Do we get
    the resurrectino in Antiochus’ day also? Not!

    You don’t seem so sure with your “could have been” evasiveness. Again, Daniel is told repeatedly that the fulfillment of the vision is for the the time of the end. How many times does the end end?

    Your “he” argument is really lame to me, (no personal offense). God often speaks of Israel as “he” “my son” etc, attributing the singular to the corporate body of Israel and not only Israel but to many things.

    Further, God says “He” would destroy Israel, but we both know “He” used many Romans as his instrument, right?

    Further, when Christ makes of “himself” one new man, from the two bodies of (Jew and Gentile) is he denying that His body is made up of many members? Is the church “one member?”

    Did he means that there was only one Jew and one Gentile respectively in the two bodies he made one?

    When Jude spoke about the “body of Moses” Jude 9, who disputed against Satan (Zech. 3, -which could not have been the man Moses, but rather the corporate body of Israel), did he mean only one Israelite. You are so “not” biblical here, as I’m sure anyone should be able to see.

    Now let’s get a little more specific on the little horn. When Daniel saw the Babylonian kingdom as a “head” of gold, (ch. 2) or as a “Lion” chapter 7, did he only mean 1 person in ALL the Kingdom of Babylon?

    I submit the same question for each part of the image in chs. 2 and 7, for the bear, leopard and the 4th beast. You see, when you are dealing with these apocalyptic images, you cannot restrict them to an individual which is the MAJOR FALLACY in speaking about the little horn.

    There is no one man who fights against the saints. It is as proper to regard the little horn as “Jews” as it is to regard the Lion as the Babylonian kingdom, or the Bear as the Medo Persian kingdom or the Leopard as the Macedonian kingdom and the 4th beast as the Roman kingdom/empire. Why I could have beat up Rome if it was only one man!

    Was it absurd for God to first century Jerusalem as the “holy city, Dan. 9:24;” their covenant as the “holy covenant” 11:28? Doesn’t seem unlikely at all to refer to Jews of the first century from “Daniel’s” perspective as the “holy people” especially in Apocalyptic language. Wasn’t it the temple which “sanctified” the “gold.” Why not the people? Even Revelation which speaks of it’s destruction calls it the “holy city” which be trodden under foot. But even if they weren’t, the prophecy applies to the first century, That is the point. It’s unlikely however, that it could refer to the Romans as the “holy people.” The LXX translates the word diaskorpidzo as to disperse or scatter until ended. Was God “scattering” or “gathering” Christians to himself? Doesn’t make sense to tranlate it as the scattering of Christians, but the Jews were certainly scattered in A.D. 70, and remain so till this day.

    Again, you are gone on Dan. 11:31-45. Remember, you’ve already agreed it is 2 Thess 2:4ff, which Paul affirmed, was already at work in the first century. So what’s your point? The point there is the that the manifestation of the man of sin is what signals the end time. Once “he” is revealed, Christ comes and destroys him. Do you know any “man” who lived in Paul’s day who is yet alive today, waiting for prophecy to be fulfilled so that he might be destroyed by Christ’s coming?

    Paul while saying he sits in the temple as God, does not trigger the end time, but his manifestation does, i.e. when Israel commits the abominations. 51 AD was a bit early for that. Sin must not only be in the “cup” of iniquity, but must “fill it.” Jesus said to the Jews, “fill up, the measure of your father’s guilt. (Matt. 23:32) God would not give Israel the land in the time of Abraham because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full/complete, (Gen. 15:16). The man of sin would be revealed in his own time.

    In similar manner, Christians were already “sons of God, but they were not manifested as such until the time of the final overthrow of Judaism, (Romans 8:14, 18, 19, Col. 3:3,4).

    Now, with all the above, you have no clincher argument. You have no argument. You are ignoring the fact that John of Gisgala, Eliezar and Simon with other Jews, profaned the temple with crimes, dead bodies, thievery, violence, etc, long before Aug 5th when the temple was destroyed. My point was those events and any others of like nature was the abomination, transgression by the Jews.

    Finally, you’ve admitted that it was the Jews in the Ezk. 8, 9, text which caused the abomination of desolation. I’m not applying the historical events, of that text to A.D. 70, but only the example of how Jews profaned their own temple.

    To have a future fulfillment, you must have defensible scriptural proof. Thus far, you’ve offered nothing that can be demonstrated as future prophecy beyond 70 AD. It’s easier to accept Jesus’ words that all came to pass before that generation passed away, Matt. 24:34, in connection with Jerusalem’s fall, Lk. 21:20-22.

    Re: P.S. I believe I’ve made my position clear on who committed the abomination of desolation. The point again is the chronological setting is the first century framework. Now we can discuss the details of how it all played out as much as you like.

    Besides on your Dan. 9:27, “he argument.” If it is the prince himself who stops the daily sacrifice and sets up the abomination which makes desolate, and per your argument that the daily sacrifice was stopped on August 5th of 70 AD, you have just adopted the argument, for which you chide “some” preterists.

    You argue that the “abomination” has to “precede” the destruction per your Luke 21:20-22, analysis in comparing Matt. 24:15. Yet you argue on Dan. 9:27, that the “prince” who is to come stops the daily sacrifice in 70 AD when the temple is destroyed! Thus, they’re both done at once. Now you are arguing against your own position.

  8. William,

    Sorry to hear you don’t like my theology. Actually, it’s not mine. However, it really doesn’t matter, because the Scriptures support my view. Acts 3: 19-21 was quoted by Peter because the time had come to make a new covenant with the house of Judah. However, it was not consummated, because God’s people did not repent.

    Every covenant is two-sided. Our side is to repent and believe; then God gives us the earnest of the future inheritance, and He fulfills His end completely when His Son returns. In order for the times of refreshing to come, Israel must accept Christ. When the nation of Israel repents, Christ will return from heaven in person. That is what Matt. 23: 39 and Hosea 5: 15 divulge. Ezekiel 37: 16-28 fixes the nature of fulfillment concerning Ephraim’s restoration. This includes land promises (see 37: 25) and not a mystical, figurative, whatever! Also see Jer. 31: 40-42, where land restoration is included as part of the New Cov. package. The secret is that Christ Himself will heal their backslidings (Isaiah 59: 16-21; Zech. 12: 10-14), and fight against their enemies (Zech. 14: 1-4; Jeremiah 30: 7-24; Micah 5: 15; Zeph. 3: 19, etc.). This is definitely a future event.

    The “coming as a thief” has to do with the tribulation, as Paul declares in 1 Thess. 5: 3. It will be an unexpected surprise. This “travail” will result in the new birth of Israel (Isaiah 66: 8-9). In Malachi 3: 5, God says, “I will come NEAR to you to judgment.” But He doesn’t actually RETURN until the nation repents. Not all “travail” issues in “birth.” See Isa. 37: 3. But when it does, it means DELIVERANCE, and not destruction. Therefore, the Great tribulation was not fulfilled in A.D. 70, because there was no national repentance or deliverance.

    Also, your statement that the “Old Covenant is passed” is not accurate. Please read Hebrews 10: 15. Christ is “mediating” between the Old and the New. The Old passes away when the New is established. This is what the tribulation (the REAL one) must accomplish (Ezek. 20: 37-38). The destruction of the temple has nothing to do with Christian salvation, because the saints were already delivered from ceremonial bondage prior to A.D. 70. They were not “waiting” for the temple to be destroyed. As for the rebuilding of the temple, I have plenty of Bible authority. For Paul says that when Christ returns, the man of sin will be sitting in the temple. (2 Thess. 2: 4). Also see also Isaiah 14: 13-14 from which Paul is quoting. He is referring to a “single individual.” So, the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 DID cause the fulfillment of Christ’s advent to be postponed. The ‘mystery of iniquity’ has been working ever since, but has had no open manifestation.

    Your “holy people” argument is also bad, because the holy people were to be persecuted by the little horn. Dan. 7: 25; 12: 7; Revelation 13: 5-7. The same 3-and-a-half years are spoken of in all three verses. This means the “holy people” are the saints, and not the Jews. The power Antichrist will scatter is the power of working miracles (see Rev. 11: 6). None of this fits in with any A.D. 70 fulfillment–for the simple reason that Christ didn’t return in A.D. 70.

    As for the Abomination of Desolation, Christ says it was the same one spoken of by Daniel. See Matt. 24: 15. Daniel mentions the abomination four times, and even says that it will accompany the taking away of the daily sacrifice (Dan. 9: 27; 11: 31; 12: 11). From then until the end of the week, there will be Great Tribulation. This is what Christ Himself teaches. See Matt. 24: 21 and compare with Daniel 12: 1-2. The resurrection follows Christ’s coming immediately after the tribulation. To say there was a resurrection in A.D. 70 is absurd. All the previous resurrections mentioned in Scripture were verifiable events (like Matt. 27: 52-53). Therefore, why not the main one?

    Arguments out of Scripture don’t qualify as proof. Sects have been arguing for 2,000 years. Again, Deut. 18: 22. The keyword is “come to pass.” That doesn’t mean spinning new theories. It means looking at facts. The destruction of the temple was a literal destruction, and not a figurative destruction. Therefore, the events of Christ’s coming will be literally fulfilled. Why not let the Bible say what it wants to say? Of the predictions concerning Christ’s first advent, 109 were literally fulfilled. Pentecost was spiritual, but it was a verifiable event. Therefore, the second coming will be verifiable as well.


  9. William says:

    1. You’re all the way gone on Acts 3:21. Besides, it’s a direct parallel of Luke 21:22. No difference between all things written by the prophets and all things spoken by the prophets. No need to rehash this. My argument stands as written.

    2. You’ve simply attempt to patch up the job you did on Hosea, the first time, adding more texts only makes it worse. The argument stands. I’ve already given you the contexts for the restoration of Israel, which is the joining of the two sticks, Judah & Ephraim, (Ezk. 37:16f), Hos. 1:10,11; 2:23; 3:5; Rom. 9:25, 26; 1 Pet. 2:9. Read carefully Eph. 2:11ff. You are bringing a different gospel and time than what the apostles preached, Gal. 1:7,8) Theirs happened in the first century. Yours hasn’t happened yet…and you have no clue when. It shows the land is not physical. See Heb. 11:13-16; 12:22-28.

    3. 1 Thess. 5:2-4 is about the day of the Lord, so I’ll not argue such an obvious point. You’re attempting to dodge the un-dodgeable. The argument stands. Besides Israel was reborn in the first century. Christ told Nicodemus a Jew, Marvel not that I say to you [Nicodemus, sing.} that you [Israel, pl.] must be born again. Hence they became the “new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17, and the “firstborn ones”, i.e. the church of the firstborn one (prototokon, pl).

    (a)By the way, how can someone living in the 21st century be one of the firstborn Christians? Impossible. Allowing about 40 years for a generation, let’s see…2008 – 30 AD = 1978 years, divided by 40 = 49.45 generations since the first century, that would make today’s Christians the 49th born ones.

    (b)Your position is so gone, even if you could limit it only to Israel. Surely you don’t advocate skipping over Peter, Paul and James,etc, the Israel of God, Gal. 6:16, do you? Wasn’t the new Jerusalem their “mother,” Gal. 4:26, who “birth” them, as Hagar “birthed (Gal. 4:24), Old Covenant Israel in the allegory?

    4. You’re attempting to stand where the Hebrews audience stood. You can’t. They were in the first century. That’s why one covenant was passing while the other was being established. More accurately, God was taking away the first to establish the second, Heb. 7:12, 18, 19; 8:13. Besides, to re-gurgitate the Levitical system would create a conflict with Christ’s priesthood, espcially if you’re advocating he will one day set foot as priest on earth, (Zech 6:12,13).

    (a) A priest could not be king, nor a king a priest under the Levitical priesthood. That would rule out Christ. “For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are [at that time before 70 AD] priests who offer gifts according to the law [of Moses] (and yet would be if you as your paradigm allows brings back the old priesthood so you can fulfill your view of the end time). No thanks!

    (b)You’re in too deep on the temple typology. Does entering the Most Holy have anything to do with salvation? Paul said “this hope” was the anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast and which enters the Presence behind the veil where Jesus the forerunner has entered… (Heb. 6:19, 20). Now do you really believe that “you” are in the Presence within the veil? You can’t if you believe Christ’s coming is future.

    (c)Further, Paul says the way into the Holiest of All [the Most Holy] is [present tense] not made manifest while the first tabernacle has a standing. (Heb. 9:8) So, not until the Old Covenant passed could the church enter the Most Holy. You say it has not passed, therefore, no entrance into God’s Presence within the veil. That means no salvation for you or anyone! Since this is hope, and we are saved in hope, why does one hope for that which he sees? (Rom. 8:24)

    (d)Before you begin arguing for a completed salvation before Christ’s return, you may want to do a thorough study on verbs tenses and the already but not yet. Remember, Paul said “now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. It was the same salvation, yet not complete. Peter said they were going to received the end (telos) of their faith, the salvation of your souls, (1 Pet. 1:9, the salvation the prophets spoke of which would come at the revelation (apokalupsis) of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. 1:13), and hence, Heb. 9:28, 10:37).

    (e) Remember, verse 28, Christ would appear, apart from sin unto salvation, –its tabernacle typology. (Restudy Lev. 16 on the work of the high priest in removing Israel’s sins and note very carefully when the atonement was complete)

    (f)Heb. 10:19, is an exhortation to enter the Holiest, and to draw near, holding that “hope” same as 6:19, 20, as they saw the “day approaching” 10:25, which would result in judgment of the adversaries (who didn’t repent) for the Lord will Judge His people (Deut. 32;36,[same text as in Dan 12:7] at his coming when he takes vengeance upon Israel, Deut. 32:43 in a little while in which he would not tarry, Heb. 10:37 This coming was for those who believed to the saving of the soul.. By the way, this is a quote from Habakkuk 2:3, a prophecy Paul applies to the Jews who reject eternal life, Acts 13:40, 41, causing him to go to the Gentiles.

    5. First on the holy people, I argued and maintained very clearly that the “little horn” persecutes –fights against the saints (the church), and subsequently, Rome destroys the “little horn.” That is my position simple and clear.

    (a)Now in Deuteronomy 32:36, Moses prophesies the end of Israel (which can only mean fleshly unbelieving Israel as the faithful are saved/delivered). He says “For the Lord will judge His people And have compassion on His servants, when he sees that their power is gone and there is no one remaining bond or free.”

    (b)This, according to Keil-Delitzsch is a reference to smattering or crushing the hand rendering it incapable of work or service, thus completely destroying the power.

    “Hand, is the emblem of active power; the shattering of the hand is thus the complete destruction of power to work, the placing in a helpless and powerless condition, such as Moses has described in the words of for the hand is gone”, Deut. 32:36)

    It is the same word used in Daniel 12:7, to mean that “Three and 1/2 times are given for the fullest unfolding of the power of the last enemy of God till his destruction; and when in this time of unparalleled oppression the natural strength of the holy people shall be completely broken to pieces, then shall these terrible things have reached their end.” (Daniel, p. 492,). They conclude, “This is the primary meaning of the word, from which is “attempted” to be derived the meaning, to burst asunder, to scatter.(p. 491) They also comment that it means to completely shatter [beat] to pieces, as in Psa. 2:9) See also Psa. 137:9; Isa. 27:9, Ibid, p. 490.

    (c)Thus, I maintain that in “this verse” the holy people refers to fleshly unbelieving Israel, whose power [hand] is completely broken by God, Deut. 32:36.

    (d)As I demonstrated before, the texts in Daniel 7:21-25, and Dan. 8:24-25, speak of the activity of the “little horn” who persecutes the church. God will not “beat the church” into oblivion, nor allow the little horn to do that for he only prevails against the saints until the Ancient of Days comes, i.e. the coming of the Lord, Dan. 7:21, 22, and the time comes that the saints possess the kingdom. But it is clear that the “little horn” will be broken without “human means,” thus by the kingdom of God, 8:24, 25, so that his dominion shall be taken away, 7:26). The church (saints) possess the kingdom forever and ever!

    (e)So again, The little horn persecutes (wars against the saints, Christians); The Romans destroy the “little horn”, i.e. the Jews.

    (f)If you make the “holy people” of Dan. 12:7, the church, you must explain how they are completely beat to pieces, destroyed and rendered powerless. If you did prove that, all you would be proving is that that particular verse refers to the church. However, it doesn’t change the time of it’s fulfillment, as you’re committed to 2 Thess. 2:4f where the little horn was already at work.

    (g)So the argument stands. You can’t do a bait and switch here and act as though its your argument. The point remains, the little horn you equate with the man of sin (2 Thess 2:4, as you’ve done in every reply) was already at work in the first century. That you can’t deny and you didn’t touch it, not to mention all the other “passovers” you did.

    6. Resurrection in 70AD. is not absurd. You’ve already admitted to the premise in logic, you simply don’t understand what you’ve agreed to.

    Daniel 12:1-2, = Matt. 24:21 and 31.
    Daniel 12:1-2 is the great tribulation and resurrection.
    Therefore, Matt. 24:21, 31, is the great tribulation and resurrection.

    Matthew 24:21, 21, was fulfilled in AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed before the first century generation passed away, Matthew 24:34.
    Matthew 24:21, 31, teaches the great tribulation and the resurrection which immediately followed.
    Therefore, the great tribulation and the resurrection which occurred immediately after was fulfilled before that 1st century generation passed. So thank you very much. On this, you’re a preterist in logic, though not in practice!

    What you’re missing about the destruction of Jerusalem is how that event revealed and affected the “unseen” also. Matt. 23;35. Not everything associated with the event was seen with the physical eye. Sometimes it takes the “eyes of your understanding being enlightened to know what is the “hope” of his calling and the riches of his inheritance in the saints.

  10. William,

    1. Luke 21: 22 is not a Hyper-Preterist proof-text. Compare with Luke 18: 31. In both cases, the “all things” are not absolute, but involve a special subject. The “all things which are written” concern the days of vengeance He was speaking of. “Days of Vengeance” and “Great Tribulation” are not the same event.

    2. Ezekiel 37: 25 says that Judah and Israel will be restored to the land wherein their fathers dwelt. This fixes the literal meaning. Note the use of the personal pronoun “your.” Was God talking to the church or Israel??

    3. True, their inner man was reborn after the image of Christ. But the outer man must also be reborn. See Romans 8: 11, 23.

    (a) Christ was the firstborn from the dead. He was physically resurrected. Therefore, the church of the firstborn is complete when they are physically resurrected. Since this didn’t happen in A.D. 70, your argument is based on a false premise.

    (b) They were reborn according to the inner man. This does not exhaust the meaning of “new birth.”

    4. Christ’s priesthood in the holy place is only “for the age.” When the age ends, He will sit as king and priest ON HIS throne.

    (a) Melichizedec was a priest and a king! That’s why Christ made a High priest after the order of Melchizedec. He will accomplish both offices.

    (b) The priest had to make intercession in the holy place before He could come out and bless the people. Once he returned from the holy place, the people knew their sins were forgiven. So, if He is still interceding in the Holy Place, then He hasn’t returned.

    (c) If the O.C. passed, then there is no NEED For salvation. Christ was the antitype of the Passover lamb. The only ones who ever needed salvation through His blood were those under the Old Covenant. If the Old Covenant ended in A.D. 70, there’s nothing left to be “saved” from.

    (d) I never argued for a completed salvation. I think it is still being consummated.

    5. And I said that the “little horn” is not “the Jews.” Remember the stone from heaven smites the ten toes of the image. See Dan. 2. The little horn defeats three of the kings represented by the toes. This does not refer to Israel, but a worldwide political ruler at the “time of the end.”

    (a) But the Jews had “power” enough to instigate another rebellion under Bar-Chochebas in A.D. 135! Therefore, their power could not truly have been broken in A.D. 70.

    (b) see above.

    (c) And yet in A.D. 135 they were so mighty that they instigated another rebellion, and the city was taken AGAIN after another 3-and-a-half year siege!

    (d) Please read Daniel 7: 27. The kingdom will be set up “under the heavens,” and “all dominions will serve and obey Him.” Doesn’t sound too much like A.D. 70, does it?

    (f) The holy people are the Jewish believers who will be tried and tested during the tribulation. Compare Daniel 11: 33, 35 with Dan. 12: 10.

    6. Please read Matt. 10: 28. Prove to me that “souls and bodies” were cast into hell on August 5th A.D. 70, and I MAY believe in Hyper-Preterism. Until then, I’ll continue to call it a massive hoax and colossal deception.


  11. William says:


    I will entertain your replies this once more. My schedule is too crowded at this time to continue an ongoing exchange, but I’m sure others can benefit from what’s here.

    1. You cited Lk 18:31, at least twice, to counter Luke 21:22. Not a good argument. In Luke 18:31, Christ explains precisely what “all things” means in that verse. To use it as a blanket for all references, including Luke 21, is mishandling the text.

    (a) Here are the Lord’s words which explain verse 31. “For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day he will rise again.” Now all things that Jesus mentioned in the text were done and that is the point.

    (b)For your argument to be valid, you must prove that something Jesus mentioned in that text was not fulfilled. Which was it? His deliverance to the Gentiles? No!; Mocking, No!; Insults, No!; Spitting, No;, Scourging, No!; Killing, No!; Rising the third day, No!

    Okay, please document what was not fulfilled according to Jesus’ words. I’ll wait, and everyone who reads this will see your error!

    Now, when the Lord looked back over his entire ministry “after his resurrection, he reminded the disciples of “all things which had to be fulfilled in the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, i.e. his death, burial and resurrection, and the world wide proclamation of the gospel (Isa. 2:2-4; Matt. 24:15) to all the nations, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, etc.” Are you going to argue for “partial fulfillment here too?” Hopefully not.

    Thus, on Luke 21:22, all things fulfilled means everything Jesus covered in the context relative to the time of the end/overthrow of the temple/Jerusalem’s fall. Not one of those would fail to come to pass. You are violating every principle of hermeneutics and context to lift what “you think” does not apply and place it into your own end time scheme and agenda, and then “as though you have divine authority” presume that “all things will come to pass as you “think” they should.

    You’re playing with straw men again. I did not make Luke 21:20, the same as the great tribulation, but showed you very plainly that the temple was defiled by the Jews before the Romans destroyed it. Remember my Ezk. 8, 9 reference, which you acknowledged as valid. I cited historical references. The man of sin, is a “biblical” reference.

    2. Paul quotes Ezekiel in 2 Cor. 6:16-18 to show that the church is the temple of the living God. The chapter was introduced with a quote from Isaiah 49:8-10, where Paul cites the text that says God would give his Holy One [Christ] as a covenant to the people [the Jews] to restore the land, and to cause them to inherit the desolate heritages, wherein they would feed along the roads…and where they would neither hunger nor thirst, and where the heat nor sun shall strike them as they are lead by the springs of water. This is the same context of Rev. 7:16, thus showing the correlation with 2 Cor. 6, in the manner of fulfillment. Interesting that at that time, the Jewish church was migrating out of the land of Israel, selling all of their real estate, etc. hmmm.(Heb. 13:13, 14)

    (a) Now please tell me, why does Israel need to be restored to the physical land if they will never get hungry, thus have no need to feed along the roads, and never thirst? Besides no sun will shine on them and they won’t have/need heat to shelter them from the cold. See what your literalism does to this apocalyptic language?

    Have you ever literally eaten righteousness? (Matt. 5:6). What does it taste like? Have you ever drank from the “rivers of living water” that flows from Christ’s belly (John 7:37, 38)? Believers can do that you know! I believe that thoroughly unfixes your literal meaning.

    I submit to you that Paul’s application of Ezekiel’s temple and the land promise, per 2 Cor. 6:1,2, 16-18, was at that very time being spiritually fulfilled in the church. See Eph. 2:11ff, especially verses 19-22. (Your two sticks of Ezk. are in that context) Else God will have two temples running side by side, unless you’re going to destroy the church by some means, which you already implied. Besides don’t most Dispensationlists view it as a symbol of God’s failure to keep his promise? Moreover, the alleged “3rd” temple gets destroyed anyway so why bother?

    Now, to the land promised to the “fathers.” “For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4:13. The fathers died in faith, confessed they were strangers and pilgrims in the land, [Canaan] and looked for the city (land/kingdom) which had foundations whose builder and maker was God. (Heb. 11:13-16). In chapter 12, Paul told the church they had not come to Mt Sinai, but to Mt. Zion. That’s the land promise and kingdom they were then receiving, Heb. 12:22, 23, 28.

    3. You’re standing on shaky ground on Rom. 8:11, 23. (No wonder Ezekiel heard a quaking when he talked about the resurrection of dry bones!) Note Paul says, If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin…but God would raised that body by His Spirit (miraculous) which dwelt in the 1st century Church.

    Brian, is your “outward” body dead? Again, “if Christ is in you, the body is dead. When did your body die? When did the Romans’ body die? Was Paul writing to physically dead people? Were they not in Christ and he in them? If so, their body was dead! Whatever that body is, it is the body that God would make alive through his Spirit.

    (b) Now since God “will” (future tense) make that body alive, it had not yet been made alive when Paul wrote. So, tell me, is it the same body of Romans 8:23, or are they different? Now, do we get 2 future physical resurrections? If they’re the same body, then the body of Rom. 8:23, was not physically dead, for ALL the Romans to whom Paul wrote were then alive.

    (c) Now since you place yourself in the same “eschatological/soteriological position of the 1st century New Testament saints, I ask you, is Brian’s body dead, right now, at this moment? Pinch yourself? If you do have a dead body now, what kind of death is it? When will it be made alive and how? Why is it dead “if Christ is in you?” Do you have two deaths, one from Adam, and one from Christ? Now are you dying because you are in Adam and in Christ? Will you die twice physically?

    (d) But wait, there’s more! Paul says the resurrection, i.e. redemption of the body is the “adoption” v. 23. The N.T. saints had received the Spirit of adoption, Rom. 8:15. Paul says those who were under the law were redeemed [from its curse, Gal. 3:13], in order that they might receive the adoption as sons, thus, they received the Spirit and cried out, Abba Father. (Gal. 4:5-7.

    (e). Again, the adoption is the redemption of the body, i.e. resurrection of the dead body of Rom. 8:10, 11. Were they physically adopted by God? Were they physically God’s sons? Were they procreated through a virgin, just like Christ, so they could be in the likeness of his death and resurrection?

    What did Paul mean when he said if they lived after the flesh they would die? Aren’t they all physically dead now? Guess none in the Roman church were faithful! Further, how were they going to put to death the deeds of an already dead body? How can you do that now, like the Romans did? Now what kind of body did you say this was….?

    4. You’ve already been answered on the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Besides Christ said, not one jot or tittle would pass till all is fulfilled, (Matt. 5:17, 18). (But I know for you, “all” means “some.” Nevertheless, someone should be keeping all the law if its yet in force.

    (a)Christ “is” a priest after the order of Melchizedek, [which was a priest hood without end, Heb. 7:3].

    (b) After Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice, he “sat down” at the right hand of God (Psa. 110:1; Acts 2:34; Heb. 1:3), as a priest on his throne, Zech. 6:12, 13. He had no business in the Most Holy (Heb. 9:11, 12, 23-28), if he were not a high priest, -a sin punishable by death, Lev. 16:2. Since he was a High Priest after the order Melechizedek, he has an unchanging, unending, priesthood, Heb. 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 17, 21,28.

    Israel’s power was not about “militarism” it is about “covenantal standing.” [Remember God always warned them about putting their trust in horses, bow and arrows, etc.] Their covenantal standing ended in 70 AD. The Jews have no more covenantal authority as the people. In 70 AD, God took the kingdom from the Jews and gave it to a nation bringing forth its fruits, Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9). So no matter what land or army they muster, they cannot have the “power” they once had, unless they choose gospel power. So your argument is nil.

    You concede my point above, thus spiritual salvation is not complete until Christ returns.

    So is the law still going on after Christ comes and pronounces blessings on those who do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and enter through the gates into the city? (Rev. 22:14)? Who are the dogs outside the city? And the sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers and idolaters, and those who love and practice lies? How do they do that? So one group continues to practice evil. The other group obeys the commandments and enters the city, but in your view, after Christ comes, none need to be saved!?!

    Rev. 21:24, says of the heavenly city, “And the nations of those who are being saved, sodzomenon shall walk in its light. (Same pres. pass. part. as in Acts 2:47,[added to the church those who were being saved] except the latter is acc. case, versus gen.) By the way, there is no more curse. (22:3)

    5. Concerning the little horn, when the stone strikes the image, the entire image falls, Dan. 2:35, 36. Now if you make this a physical battle of the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men, then you contradict Christ who says, “his servants do not fight in this manner, John 18:36).

    Also, you are incorrect in saying that the little horn “defeats” three of the ten horns. If that were the case, there would be no 10-horned beast. It would be a “seven-horned beast, 10-3 = 7.

    What Daniel 7:8, says is that while Daniel was considering the 4th, 10-horned beast, he saw another horn, a little one, coming up among, -not “within” them, i.e. all four of the horns/beasts before whom three of the “first horns” were plucked out by the roots. Now how can the fourth 10-horned beast be the “first horns’ plural, when it was the fourth, singular and in which all of its 10 composite horns appeared at once?

    If you start in verse 3, you will note that Daniel describes FOUR great beasts (horns), a lion, a bear, and a leopard. 1, 2, 3. Those were the first horns. Verse 7, says after this, meaning after he saw horns 1, 2, and 3, he saw a fourth beast. That explains the four he was describing per verse 3. It was the fourth beast which had the 10 horns, that came after beasts/horns 1, 2, and 3. While Daniel was considering the 4th beast with the 10 horns, and the first (1, 2, and 3 which came before it), he saw another “horn” a little one, thus the little horn. Since this was “after” in sequence he saw horns 1,2, and 3, it then makes sense when he says before whom, three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. That is, before horn 4 arrived on the scene, horns 1, 2 and 3, were defeated, not by the little horn, but before (in the presence of the little horn).

    That’s why you cannot make these beasts, or horns, individuals. The lion, bear and leopard is the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and Macedonian kingdoms, and correspond to the head of gold, chest and arms of silver, and belly and thighs of brass.

    Lion = Head of Gold = Bablyonion Kingdom
    Bear = Arms of Silver = Medo-Persian kingdom
    Leopard = Belly & Thighs of Brass = Macedonian Kingdom
    4th ten-horned beast = Legs of Iron = Rome
    feet partly of iron and partly of clay = little horn = Israel

    The vision is the same, described under different imagery, with progressively more details, in ch. 7. Now Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece had all been rooted up, defeated before Rome, the 4th beast came into power. And, the little horn was there to see it all. Israel saw all those kingdoms fall. Thus, before whom, i.e. in the presence of, –not by Israel, but in the midst of Israel they fell.

    Further, the little horn was also very resilient and existed even down to the Roman Empire, thus it came up among them, was subject to Rome, but would not mix with Rome as iron is not mixed with miry clay. Israel is the only kingdom in the vision that survived intact from Babylon to Rome. No human individual could do that.

    The reason the stone smites the image on its feet, is because those feet (made of iron and miry clay) were the real target of God’s wrath, i.e. to destroy Israel for rebellion against the Lord. Further, without the feet, the image could not stand, hence God shows that the destruction of Israel also marked fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles for in the vision the entire image is crushed together, Dan. 2:35; Lk. 21:20-24; Rev. 11:15. So, when God destroys one, all are destroyed. You can ask him how that works. Just note that the kingdom of God comes when the city of Jerusalem is destroyed, all before Jesus’ generation pass away, Lk. 21:31, 32. Remember that was a kingdom made without hands, (Dan. 2:45) and was without [physical] observation, (Lk. 17:20) So, trying to see all these kingdoms fall with your natural eye won’t work. Further, one can’t even see naturally, how the lion, bear and leopard continued per Rev. 13:1, but God says it did so it must be true, right?

    Now let me anticipate one objection which you might offer re:, Rome destroyed Rome. Well, you know what? That’s true. Judea was subject to Rome, rebelled against Rome and Rome defeated it’s own rebellious subjects. But they were not really Romans at heart. The nation hated Rome, were highly patriotic Jews and only feigned to be lawful citizens, when it was convenient. But the issue is why and how? Rome actually tried it’s best “not” to destroy Jerusalem. But the Jews provocation made its destruction inevitable. Thus, ironically, God used the Romans to destroy Israel, by Israel’s committing the very charge they made against Christ, that he stirred up insurrection against Caesar and obviously also for their impenitence in murdering Christ and his apostles and saints.

    No where does the text say the little horn plucked up and defeated three of the ten horns.

    Your “5c.” So why did the Gentiles who were not under the law, need to be saved?, Ask Peter, James and Paul? (Acts 11:14; 15:11; Rom. 1:16). Are you under the law of Moses? (I cringe to hear your answer.)Think about this one. When did the Levitical Priesthood cease?

    5d. God can set up a kingdom “out of heaven” that reigns over the earth, while he reigns “from” heaven. Remember the request for a kingdom reign on earth was apostasy, i.e. a rejection of God’s reign from heaven, (1 Sam. 8:7). Further, an earthly reign while the Levitical priesthood is in tact, would negate Christ’s priesthood (He is of Judah) remember. That’s why during their rule he could not be a priest on earth.

    Dan. 7:27, sounds like Rev. 7:9, so yes, it does sound like 70 AD. It is!

    Jewish believers in the church were tested before and up to 70AD, 1 Peter 1:6, 7; 4:12. James 1:12.

    6. “Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem…which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i.e., of an idol having he form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called Gehenna. [Thayer’s Gree-English Lexicon of the New Testament],

    Actually, since Gehenna was a proper name of a valley, it would have been called Gehenna whether or not any idolatry, burning, or dumping of garbage had ever occurred there, and it did, as we now see.

    “The valley bore this name at least as early as the writing of Joshua (Josh. 15:8; 18:16), though nothing is known of its origin. It was the site of child-sacrifices to Moloch in the day of Ahaz and Manasseh (apparently in 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). This earned it the name “Tophet, ” a place to be spit on or abhorred. This “Tophet” may have become a gigantic pyre for burning corpses in the days of Hezekiah after God slew 185,000 Assyrian solders in a night and saved Jerusalem (Isa. 30:31-33; 37:26). Jeremiah predicted that it would be filled to overflowing with Israelite corpses when God judged them for their sins (Jer. 7:31-33; 19:2-13). Josephus indicates that the same valley was heaped with dead bodies of the Jews following the Roman siege of Jerusalem about A.D. 69-70…(my emp.) Josiah desecrated the repugnant valley as part of his godly reform (2 Kings 23:10). Long before the time of Jesus, the Valley of Hinnom had become crusted over with connotations of whatever is “condemned, useless, corrupt, and forever discarded.” (Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes [Houston: Providential Press, 1982], p. 160.), quoted in “The Teaching of Jesus, by Samuel G. Dawson.pp. 238-239”

    John the Baptist prophesied Christ would destroy the unbelieving Jews with unquenchable fire, not “eternally burning fire,” but unstoppable, i.e. a judgment that could not be stopped. (Matt 3:10-12)

    The Jews understood very well Jesus’ reference to Gehenna per above. You can do your own research from here. That should get you started in the right direction. It’s up to you to “study to show yourself approved” so, I’ll leave you with that responsibility.

  12. William says:

    One additional note: In the above re: the nations, it is understood that Babylon is destroyed by the Medo Persians, they by the Macedonians and the Macedonians by Rome, but all in the presence/existence of Israel.

  13. Hi William,

    If you like, I’ll let you have the last word on this. Your comment will stand as a testimony of what Hyper-Preterists believe and teach. I don’t believe any of it, but I still think your comments are useful in showing others how far people will go to maintain a theory.

    If anyone else reading these comments has anything to say, please leave reply or contact me personally at


  14. Pingback: my blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s