#-997 Was the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 the Second Coming of Christ?

Dr. craig’s response

As I work through these difficult questions for vol. V of my Systematic Philosophical Theology on eschatology, I suppose that I agree with you, Jim, in affirming partial preterism. That is to say, much of what Jesus had to say in the Olivet Discourse has already come to pass—but not all of it!

At the end of his discourse Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13.30). What was he referring to in the original context when he said “all these things?” Coming after the prophecy in vv. 24-27, his statement appears to include the coming of the Son of Man among “all these things.” But, as you note, a similar phrase occurs repeatedly in Mark 13 before Jesus uses this phrase in v. 30. The disciples ask, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all (tauta panta) to be accomplished?” (v. 4).Then after describing the tribulation in Judea and the false Christs that will come, Jesus says, “But take heed; I have told you all things (panta) beforehand” (v. 23). Finally, he says, “So also, when you see these things (tauta) taking place, you will know that he is near, at the very gates” (v. 29).

So, we ask, what are “these things”? “These things” are the events that will happen before the coming of the Son of Man. He will not come until “after that tribulation” (v. 24), so that “those days” refers to coming days. So when Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things (tauta panta) take place,” this saying in its original context could well have been about the destruction of Jerusalem and the tribulation that will happen at that time. In that case what we have are prophecies about things that will take place before Jesus’ generation dies off, but not a prophecy predicting that the coming of the Son of Man will occur before that generation passes away, any more than Matthew thought that the return of the Son of Man would occur before the Twelve had completed their mission to Israel, despite Jesus’ saying in Matthew 10.23 that before they have gone through all the towns of Israel they will see the Son of Man come.

According to the full preterist interpretation, in a.d. 70 the Son of Man was enthroned in heaven. In support of their view, preterists point out that Daniel’s vision in Daniel 7 does not describe the coming of the Son of Man to Earth. Rather, it is a description of the coming of the Son of Man into the throne room of heaven and his presentation before God, who then delivers to the Son of Man all kingdom, glory, and dominion. So the coming of the Son of Man that Jesus predicts in Mark 13 is not meant to be a visible return of Christ to Earth but rather his enthronement in heaven.

But the interpretation that the coming of the Son of Man occurred in a.d. 70 faces some very considerable objections:

1. The coming of the Son of Man predicted by Jesus is a visible coming to Earth. Notice that Jesus speaks, not of the Son of Man’s appearing (parousia), but of his coming (erchomai). Preterists, who claim that Christ appears in the heavenly throne room, fail to take cognizance of the fact that “coming”  and “going” are in normal usage indexical terms, “coming” indicating motion relative to the speaker from there to here and “going” indicating motion from here to there. Acts 1.11 provides a nice illustration: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come (erchomai) in the same way as you saw him go (poreuomai) into heaven.” The language of the coming of the Son of Man indicates that he is coming to the place where the speaker is. Thus the coming of the Son of Man indicates his arrival on Earth, where Jesus and his disciples are, not his going to heaven. One cannot legitimately appeal to the Son of Man’s appearance before the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 to override this conclusion, for Jesus’ utilization of the language of Daniel 7 to describe his coming to Earth does not preclude his giving a different location to the Son of Man’s coming. Besides, even in Daniel 7 the dominion given to the Son of Man is an earthly dominion (Daniel 7.14). If this is right, then the coming of the Son of Man that is predicted by Jesus is not some invisible, secret event that took place in a.d. 70 that nobody saw. It will be the public, visible, overwhelming advent of the Son of Man to Earth that will be experienced by everyone.

2. The Son of Man need not wait until a.d. 70  in order to be enthroned. Recall that according to the full preterist view, with the coming of the Son of Man and the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 Christ is enthroned in his Kingdom as the Son of Man. But what happened in between a.d. 30 and a.d. 70? For some forty years did the Son of Man have to wait about to be enthroned? That seems preposterous. Jesus rose triumphant and glorified from the grave and ascended into heaven to the right hand of the Father. He does not have to wait until a.d. 70 to assume his Kingdom (I Corinthians 15.23-25). Keep in mind that I Corinthians was written by Paul around a.d. 55, that is, before the supposed coming of the Son of Man in a.d. 70. So Paul’s perspective is one of looking forward to that event. But in a.d. 55, Christ is already on his throne. He is reigning as King but will deliver the Kingdom over to the Father when he comes again. So Christ does not have to wait around until a.d. 70 to be enthroned in his Kingdom. He is the risen and ascended King already when Paul writes in a.d. 55. So either Paul greatly misunderstood Jesus’ teaching, which seems highly unlikely, or else what Jesus describes in the Olivet Discourse is not the presentation of the Son of Man in the throne room of heaven where he is crowned and receives his Kingdom. It seems much more plausible that what Jesus describes is the coming of the Son of Man as King and Conqueror – the glorious return of Christ to the Earth as the risen and conquering Lord.

3. The full preterist view cannot make good sense of the resurrection of the dead. This is the real Achilles Heel of the preterist position. Paul in his letters looks forward to the parousia. His Thessalonian correspondence, for example, where he describes at length the second coming of Christ, is some of the earliest material in the New Testament. In it Paul looks forward to the parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the dead at his return (I Thessalonians 3.13-17; II Thessalonians 2.1-2). Now obviously the resurrection of the dead did not occur in a.d. 70. So what preterists are forced to say is that what Paul was looking forward to and describing as the coming of the Lord is not the event that took place in a.d. 70 but rather an event that will occur at the end of history when Christ comes back once again and the dead are raised. The preterist has to postulate that Paul is not talking about the same event that Jesus is talking about in the Olivet Discourse, despite the commonality of vocabulary and the connections between the two. The preterist has to say that what Paul is talking about in his correspondence is an end-time event, not the event that Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse. That seems extremely ad hoc and implausible. Ironically, the Preterist view, like Darbyism, has to posit an invisible coming of the Son of Man prior to his second final coming to Earth. So Preterism, like Darbyism, winds up postulating multiple comings of Christ.

So with all the best will in the world, at the end of the day I do not find full preterism to be a plausible interpretation. Better to stick with a partial preterism that does not include the coming of the Son of Man among “all these things” discussed in the Olivet Discourse.

But what about your objection, that the task of worldwide evangelism, which must be completed before the coming of the Son of Man, is comprised in “all these things” and therefore must have taken place prior to a.d. 70? In response, I guess I would say that Jesus thought that the process described in Mark 13.9-13 would be initiated prior to Jerusalem’s destruction in a.d. 70, but he never imagined that it would be completed by that time. Notice the phrase “he who endures to the end will be saved” (v. 13). The proclamation of the Gospel to all nations would have appeared a daunting task even in the known world of the first century, which encompassed not only the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire, from Britain and Scandinavia in north to Mediterranean Africa in the south and from Spain in the west to Parthia in the east, but also nations well beyond the Roman world, including Ethiopia and the east coast of Africa, India and parts of central Asia, and even China. I doubt that Jesus thought that the task of proclaiming the Gospel to every nation would be finished before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. When all is said and done, what Jesus taught about the timing of the second coming is summed up in his saying, “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (v. 32).