What About Jewish National Repentance?

Is Jewish national repentance inseparably connected with Jesus Christ’s second coming? To those who know their Scriptures, the answer is yes! However, Preterists and Hyper-Preterists, in their mania to generalize the teachings of eschatology, lose sight of this important doctrine. In this 35-minute Bible study lesson, Brian Simmons looks at several Old Testament passages which speak of Jewish national repentance as associated with the second coming of Jesus Christ — as either the effect or cause of His advent. This podcast will be found helpful to those studying Biblical eschatology.

Listen now: repentance

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 3)

  As we continue our studies of Apotelesmatic Truth, many will probably be asking whether Christ was indeed willing to return in the first century. The answer is obvious to anyone who studies the inspired New Testament record. Of course, we must realize that Christ’s return was conditional upon the repentance of the Jewish nation. Wherefore Christ, upholding the text of Hosea 5: 15, solemnly declared: “Ye will not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39).

   On the Day of Pentecost, Peter re-affirmed this condition, telling Israel that Christ was now exalted, and ready to return upon the repentance of His people (Acts 3: 19-26). One can hardly understand the events of the Book of Acts properly until this one underlying fact is realized. In this study we shall give more proof that during the first century the “time was at hand” for Christ to return; and that because Israel formally rejected the kingdom, their city was destroyed and His second coming postponed to a future time.

   In order to know what the term “restitution of all things” means, it is necessary to understand what the “Kingdom” is all about. This can best be done by tracing the doctrine back to its very source. The kingdom began in the Garden of Eden, and involved Adam’s sovereignty over all creation (Gen. 1: 26-28), which God freely gave Him on the condition of obedience. When Adam fell, however, he and Eve forfeited the kingdom, and were cast out of God’s presence. God promised Adam that the kingdom would be restored by the Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3: 15); but he didn’t tell our first parents when.

   Until the Seed of the Woman fully accomplishes His work (and this involves two advents), God has chosen to mediate His kingdom through men. After the eviction of Adam and Eve from Eden, God brought a flood upon the old world, but saved Noah and his house. After the flood God transferred the kingdom to Noah (Gen. 9: 1-2); but as the sequel shows, Noah’s posterity forfeited the kingdom also, and the confusion of tongues ensued (Gen. 11). This ended the Dispensation of Human Government.

   As we know, God’s next choice was Israel. However, the intervening Patriarchal Dispensation was necessary to prepare the way for the special nation through which God was to bless mankind. The Legal Dispensation began after God saved Israel from Egyptian bondage. In the wilderness of Sinai he made a covenant with them, promising that they would inherit the kingdom upon the one condition of national obedience.

  (Exodus 19: 5-6) “Now therefore if ye will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine. And ye shall be unto Me a nation of kings and priests, and an holy nation.“

  In all of Israel’s history, however, they never acquired permanent possession of the kingdom, because they broke Jehovah’s covenant again and again, defiling His name. Remember, the law can convict of sin, but it gives the sinner no strength to meet its conditions. Therefore, when the promised Seed (Jesus Christ) arrived to fulfill the promises made at the beginning, and supplemented by later promises, the nation rejected Him, and Christ was crucified. Since Messiah’s own people rejected Him, He removed His throne to heaven, and on the basis of His vicarious sacrifice, which was “well pleasing” to the Father, a throne of judgment was exchanged for a throne of grace.

   This brings us to Pentecost. Now with the blessings of the Holy Spirit available to regenerate the nation, the time was ready to make Israel that holy nation, if they only would repent and accept Jesus as Messiah. If they did this, He would return and dwell among them, thus fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies of Israelite restoration. For Christ came to confirm, and not to abrogate, the promises made to the Fathers (Romans 15: 8).

   To Peter had been given the keys of the kingdom (not the church), which he first used on Pentecost, preaching that Christ’s return was at hand, and that they must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sins (Acts 2: 38-39). But because the leaders of the nation (and later the people) continued to reject Christ, the second coming never materialized.

   The Book of Acts is the record of Israel’s final offer of the Kingdom, and the struggle that went on between Christ’s apostles and the Jewish nation, as the former labored to bring about the promised coming of Messiah. Hence, the book begins with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and Peter’s subsequent admonition to repent and be saved. It ends with Israel’s formal rejection of the kingdom in A.D. 63. After that date the Kingdom was no longer imminent. This fact may be verified by carefully studying the New Testament writings dated after Acts 28. These include Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, Titus, and 1 & 2 Timothy. All other New Testament writings (including the Book of Revelation) can be proved to have been written prior to A.D. 63.

   But that must form the topic of a separate article. What we are dealing with now is the imminent coming of Christ as it was taught and believed during the Acts period. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, written in A.D. 58, affords awesome proof that Christ’s coming was indeed at hand, and would have been brought about if only the Jewish nation had fulfilled the condition of national obedience. Of all texts, one of the most revealing is Romans 8: 22, in which Paul wrote that the creation was then undergoing birth-pains. The deliverance was about to happen!

   Because the kingdom had been formally passed on to Israel by way of the Mosaic charter, the hope of all creation was (as it still is) bound up with the hope of Israel. Therefore, when we come to study the Book of Romans, it is essential that we read it in its historical and chronological context, as this alone will reveal to us the basis of Paul’s expectation that the kingdom might at any time be manifested. Anyhow, Paul’s statement that the creation was then in “earnest expectation” ought at least to motivate our curiosity. What was he talking about?

   Let us examine the historical details. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written in the Spring of A.D. 58, during his three-month stay in Greece (Acts 20: 3). He had left Ephesus after making quite a stir; and a reading of Acts 18 & 19 will reveal that the Gospel was making serious headway. When Sceva and his seven sons were confounded (Acts 19: 13-16), the name of Jesus was magified insomuch that many who believed “came, and confessed, and showed their deeds” (Acts 19: 18). Books were burned, and witchcrafts repudiated. Conversions were made in unprecedented numbers. “So mightily grew the Word of God, and prevailed” (Acts 19: 20).

   Now this was just the sort of crisis that could have tipped the balance, and brought about the repentance of the Jewish nation. But there were powerful forces working to prevent Paul’s labors from reaching fruition. After Demetrius the silversmith and his guild violently opposed the Gospel (Acts 19: 23-41), Paul decided that it was time to go into Macedonia (Acts 20: 20); something he had already purposed while in Ephesus (Acts 19: 21). This resulted in a three-month stay in Greece, where at Corinth, Paul penned his epistle to the Romans.

   During this time, the controversy between Paul and the Grecian Jews reached a head, though we don’t know all the details of what happened at Corinth. It must have been along the lines of his previous endeavors, for the Jews “laid wait for him” as he was about to sail into Syria. However, Paul changed his mind, and passed back through Macedonia (Acts 20: 3). This sudden change of itinerary, brought about by Providential design, must have saved his life.

   These facts give us something of a historical setting for the “time statements” found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Although verses such as 13: 11 and 16: 20 are often taken by Preterists as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem, the theory is hardly worth our attention. An event twelve years in the distance, and still contingent on whether Israel would accept or reject the Gospel, could hardly have occupied Paul’s thoughts when he wrote his epistle.

   No. When Paul said that the creation was groaning in birthpains, the destruction of Jerusalem was the very farthest thing from his mind. Rather, he was thinking of something that concerned his readers at that very time. And this was none other than the impending crisis between Paul and the nation of Israel. Would they obey the apostolic admonition to repent? or wouldn’t they? The matter was still unsettled in A.D. 58.

    At that time, the deliverance of the whole creation was about to be wrought! But it could only be accomplished through the nation to which God had transferred His kingdom by way of promise. Already Peter had written to the Jews of the Dispersion to tell them that “salvation was ready to be revealed” (1 Peter 1: 5), and that they had the promise of being that “holy nation” and “royal priesthood” that God had called them to be (1 Peter 2: 9). But this was dependent on an upcoming “fiery trial” (1 Peter 4: 12) by which Israel’s dross would be purged away, that the nation might shine forth as pure gold (Zeph. 3: 13; Mal. 3: 3: 3-4). This trial belongs to the last seven years of Israel’s history, which they forfeited in A.D. 63. Hence, it is now in abeyance.

   When Paul wrote Romans the glory was about to be manifested. But fulfillment hinged on the outcome of his labors; and we see the outcome four years later, when Israel formally rejected the kingdom (Acts 28: 23-25). It was then that Paul’s ministry to the Jews ended, and the offer of an imminent coming of Christ was withdrawn. Jeshurun surely “found” his life. But he subsequently “lost” it in the destruction of Jerusalem.

   Hence, the then-present [A.D. 58] reality of a creation groaning to be delivered, and entirely dependent upon Israel’s repentance, cannot be understood in the same sense after A.D. 63. There was a deliverance about to take place, but it proved a stillborn birth. If Israel had accepted the apostolic testimony, we are fully persuaded that the 70th week of Daniel would have commenced in accordance with the Apocalyptic prophecies, and Christ would have returned in in A.D. 70.

   But since Israel rejected the Gospel, their city was destroyed, and the second coming of Christ postponed to a future time (see Matt. 22: 1-10). The present Dispensation of the Mystery is a parenthetical period that comes in between Israel’s “rejection” and “renewal.” We know not when it will end. But after the church is raptured, the 70th week will begin, and the first-fruits offering of national repentance will be waved before God. And then, after Israel passes through the final affliction of the Great Tribulation, the new birth of the nation will come, Christ will return to save His people, and all the promises made to the Fathers will be fulfilled to the very letter. Maranatha!

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 2)

   One of the foremost weapons against Preterist theology is the principle of “Apotelesmatic Fulfillment.” This holds that the imminent first-century coming of Christ was postponed due to Israel’s failure to meet the required condition of national repentance. Far from being any newfangled theology, the concept was systematically laid out by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work, The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. In this book Dr. Bullinger examines the various “time texts” used by Preterists to posit a first-century coming of Christ. Bullinger shows that all of these texts denoting “imminency” had sole reference to the 40 years of Israel’s probation, during which the kingdom “drew nigh” to them. But because of their refusal to repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming postponed to a future time.

  Because this principle clears up all the difficulties connected with Preterist theology, and allows for a consistent “grammatical, historical, contextual” exegesis of the Scriptures, I have decided to write a series of papers on “Apotelesmatic Truth.” My purpose in these articles is to show that Dispensationalism (as Bullinger taught it) is superior to Preterism, and in perfect accord with the truths revealed in the Scriptures.

   When we go back to the Old Testament, we find that the promise of God coming to dwell with His people was intimately connected with Israel’s calling as a nation (Leviticus 26: 1-12). However, the condition was national obedience. Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. 5: 17), but to fulfill them, and confirm the promises made to the Fathers (Rom. 15: 8). In order to “fulfill” the law, it was necessary for Christ to uphold the conditions of the Mosaic charter. This He did when taught that repentance was necessary to inheriting the Kingdom (see Matt. 4: 17).

   But we must understand what the “kingdom” is all about. It has to do with the sphere of earthly dominion forfeited by Adam when he fell. This sovereignty was (and is) to be reclaimed by the Second Adam, the Son of Man (see Psalm 8). But when the fullness of time arrived, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not (John 1: 11). Yes, the kingdom drew near to Israel. It was already “among them” in the person of the King (Luke 17: 21). But because of Israel’s unrepentance and rejection of their Messiah, He removed His throne into heaven, to reign over the Gentiles.

   These truths were played out in the history of Joseph. Because Joseph’s brethren would not have “this man” to reign over them (Gen. 37: 8; Luke 19: 14), He was cast out, and later exalted among the Gentiles. The type shows us that Israel’s rejection was essential to accomplishing God’s purposes concerning the church. But the national rejection was progressive, taking place over a forty year period. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fruit of which Christ’s crucifixion in A.D. 30 was the seed. During the forty year interval, Christ’s return was constantly proclaimed as “about to come.” But the condition was national repentance.

   Instead of preaching a new message at Pentecost, Peter merely re-affirmed Christ’s statement that “Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39). Now that Christ’s sacrifice for sin had been accomplished, and the Lord exalted to His Father’s throne, the time of His return was at hand. But Peter preached the necessity of individual and national repentance. As repentant individuals, they would receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2: 38). But by repenting nationally, Jesus Christ would be “sent,” and the restitution of all things would take place (Acts 3: 19-21). If only they had hearkened to Peter’s admonitions!

   When Peter’s ministry in the land was rejected with the murder of James the brother of John, and Peter’s own imprisonment (Acts 12), Paul was then sent to the Dispersion. During the entire Dispensation of Acts, the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Paul did not change this order, until Israel formally rejected the offer of the kingdom, and their judicial hardening began. The book of Acts closes abruptly with Israel’s rejection of the Gospel (Acts 28: 25-28). This occurred in A.D. 63, leaving just enough room for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40-year period of probation, and thus fulfill the type played out by Israel’s entrance into “the land.” But since the Jews did not repent, the offer of the imminent coming was withdrawn. Because the nation chose to follow Moses and not Christ, their city was destroyed, and since then, the kingdom has been in abeyance.

   These principles will explain why the second coming was always spoken of as being “imminent” in the first century. They will also explain why there was no eschatological coming of Christ in A.D. 70. All hinged upon Israel’s repentance, and in A.D. 63 the matter was settled. They chose their own way, and like Moses, they died in “the wilderness.” But after the type of “Joseph and his brethren,” Christ will be made known to them “the second time” (Acts 7: 13), that is, when He returns (Zech. 12: 10; Matthew 24: 30; Rev. 1: 7).

    Meanwhile, the last seven years of Israel’s history are held in reserve, and will be fulfilled when the present Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) is finished. Then the age-times, which were broken off in A.D. 63, will take up their course again. It is with this final seven years that the Apocalypse deals. While I believe that book was written around A.D. 62, the date really isn’t important. The point to keep in mind is that the book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward, and that it contains the last seven years of Israel’s history.

   In studying the principles of Apotelesmatic Fulfillment, we begin to see the Scriptures harmonize in a wonderful manner. Things begin to clear up and make sense, whereas they didn’t before. Now we know why Jesus Christ told John that, “The time is at hand” (Rev. 1: 3). The time WAS at hand! But we mustn’t forget that the Mosaic charter was still in force, as well as the conditions connected therewith. The events described in the Apocalypse never materialized because the one condition needed to set them in motion was never met.

   Because the nation refused to repent, the age stopped running in A.D. 63, and that which had been hidden in God from the foundation of the world (Eph. 3: 4-5) revealed for the very first time in Paul’s prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). If Israel had not rejected the offer of the kingdom, the riches of this valley of the Mystery (the church) would never have been revealed. But we rejoice that they have! We are now traversing this valley, and know not when our sojourn will be over. Yet we press forward for the prize of our “calling on high” (Phil. 3: 14) waiting for our bodies to be changed by a glorious transformation and resurrection (Phil. 3: 21). Then when these things have happened, the age-times will re-commence, and the last seven years of Israel’s history be fulfilled according to the Apocalyptic narrative. And Christ’s coming will happen “on time” and according to schedule. Maranatha!

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 1)

   The forty years of probation allotted to national Israel after Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, were patterned after Israel’s wandering in the wilderness. The Old Testament type had two outcomes. On the one hand, “that generation” died in the wilderness (Psalm 95: 10-11). On the other, Caleb and Joshua entered the land after the forty years were finished. But Caleb and Joshua represented the tribes of Judah and Ephraim, respectively (Numbers 13: 6, 8). These tribes were later revealed to be representative of “all Israel” (Ezekiel 37: 16-23). So, when we come to the antitype of the forty years of wandering, we have to ask: how could all Israel enter the promised blessings in A.D. 70? Indeed, it may be said that “that generation” died in the wilderness, because they chose to follow Moses instead of Christ. But then it is impossible that the same nation can have attained “their rest” in A.D. 70.

   What students do not understand, is that both facets of the Old Testament type were to have an antitypical fulfillment at the end of the 40 year period; however, NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Because Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom at the close of the Acts dispensation (in A.D. 63), the age was cut short, and the final seven years of Israel’s history held in reserve, that both parts of the type might have their fulfillment. That generation’s dying in the wilderness happened at the destruction of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But “all Israel’s” entrance into the land remains to be fulfilled at Christ’s return, at the end of the seven years which would have ensued in A.D. 63, had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. This final seven years is what the book of Revelation is all about.

   Although there is a great deal of controversy concerning when Revelation was written, I believe the internal evidence declares for an early date. The book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward. It was probably written around A.D. 62-63, immediately before the Acts 28 crisis in which Israel rejected the King, and as a consequence, the King’s glorious return, and those Millennial riches that lay beyond.

   It is a bold statement, but true, that the main “timing texts” used by Preterists to support the doctrine of an A.D. 70 parousia were all written during the Acts dispensation, prior to A.D. 63. This may be seen in the canonical arrangement of the so-called “General epistles,” which in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts are placed after the book of Acts. Their doctrinal connection with the Acts period needs no comment.

   The Pauline epistles, however, which canonically follow the General epistles, contain doctrines relevant to both the Acts period and the present church Dispensation which began with the close of Acts. Therefore, statements respecting Christ’s return must be “rightly divided” according to “pre-Acts 28” and “post-Acts 28,” if we would know the truth. Interestingly, the canonical order of Paul’s church epistles never varies in the hundreds of manuscripts that have come down to us. It is the canonical order which concerns us today, just as the historical and chronological would have concerned first century believers.

   The doctrines of grace revealed in the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians) could not be revealed until Israel had formally rejected the kingdom (see Acts 28: 25-28). During the whole Acts period, the kingdom was offered to the “Jew first,” and Paul could declare that “for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28: 20). Upon Israel’s rejection of their hope, however, the offer of an “imminent” parousia was necessarily withdrawn, and Paul amended his statement (in accordance with Acts 28: 28), saying that he was the prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles (Eph. 3: 1; cf. 1 Tim. 2: 7). From this point onward, the offer of salvation was never given to the “Jew first.” The charismata ceased in A.D. 63 (Phil. 2: 26; 1 Tim. 5: 23; 2 Tim. 4: 20), not to be renewed until the last seven years of the age, when God’s purposes concerning the church shall have been concluded.

   What a difference there is between the earlier Pauline epistles and those written after Israel’s formal rejection of Peter’s call to “repent” (Acts 3: 19-26). While in the earlier epistles, Paul lays great stress on an imminent parousia, this doctrine is de-emphasized in his later writings. The word “parousia” is never even used after A.D. 63 in connection with Christ’s return. The last epistles written by Paul were to Titus [A.D. 67] and Timothy [A.D. 67-68] in which he places emphasis on orderly church government, the establishment of a long-term Gospel ministry, and domestic relations. Studying these last epistles closely, it is impossible for us to conclude that he any longer considered the Day of the Lord as “near.”

   Instead of giving advice not to marry, with remarks like “the time is short” and “such shall have trouble in the flesh” (1 Cor. 7: 28-29), he writes, “I will therefore that the younger women marry and bear children” (2 Tim. 5: 14). Instead of expressing a belief that he might remain unto the coming of the Lord, Paul indicates that he expects to die before the Lord will come (2 Tim. 4: 8). Had he thought that the church was then passing through the telos (last 3 1/2 years of the age, known as the Great Tribulation) he would not have hesitated to indicate such in these later epistles. But the Day of the Lord, which was so near during the Acts period, is spoken of as more remote in his later writings (2 Tim. 1: 12, 18).

   True, the church had already begun to see signs whereby they knew it was the “last hour;” for “many antichrists” had arisen (1 John 2: 18) in fulfillment of Christ’s own warning in the Olivet and Temple Discourses (see Matt. 24: 5; Luke 21: 8). The fulfillment of these earlier signs took place around A.D. 58-60. But the signs mentioned as following (the wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes) are never recorded as historical facts in the New Testament, because they belong to the sunteleia. Therefore, they are only found in the Apocalypse! (See Revelation 6). The preliminary signs would have merged into the sunteleia beginning in A.D. 63 had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. But because they didn’t, the age was cut short and further development relegated to the future. The Apocalypse contains the last seven years of Israel’s history which must be re-taken up when this present valley of the “mystery” has been crossed.

   These simple principles given above will help us to understand how the term “end of the age” is used by Christ, and show why, in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Herod’s temple is placed alongside Christ’s coming at the end of the forty year period. It was entirely contingent on Israel’s national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15; Lev. 26: 3-12; Jer. 17: 24-27; 22: 3-5; ). Hence, when enough time had elapsed for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40 year period and bring about a glorious finale, the crisis of Acts 28 took place, and Israel chose to die in the wilderness, thus forfeiting the promise of Christ’s first-century return.

   From that time forward, the kingdom has been in abeyance. Had Israel repented any time later than A.D. 63, the Old Testament type would have been spoiled, placing fulfillment beyond the 40 year limit. But we see the perfection and symmetry preserved in the events of A.D. 70, when Israel fell in the wilderness. Nevertheless, the story doesn’t end there! In like manner, we will see Israel’s entrance into national blessings when the present dispensation is finished, and the last seven years of the age take up their course again. And Christ will return exactly as promised, and “on time” as well. Maranatha!

“A Little While, and Ye Shall See Me”

  Among the numerous proof-texts put forth by Preterists, John 16: 16 is generally not mentioned. Although one will often hear them tout the phrase “in a little while,” it is usually in connection with Heb. 10: 37. Of course, Hebrews was written sometime prior to Paul’s first imprisonment, and bears the unmistakeable stamp of the intermediate Acts Dispensation, which ended with Israel’s formal rejection of the offer of the Kingdom (Acts 28: 25-27) made by those who heard Jesus Christ (Heb. 2: 3) and bore witness to His words with “signs and miracles” following (Heb. 2: 4; Mark 16: 20).

   But while we might say much about Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, we are more interested now in looking at some of the timing-indicators used by Christ in John’s Gospel. In particular is the following verse: “A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father” (John 16: 16). A simple reading of the verse by anyone will reveal at once the grave problems of interpretation attending the Preterist view.

   Since this is among the final words Christ gave to His disciples before His crucifixion, it is essential we know what the phrase “in a little while” means, and not be led away by the fancies of our own imagination. Preterists who are unware of the difficulties tell us that in the former clause “in a little while” means a few days, but that in the latter clause, it means an extended period of forty years.

   Now this is quite contradictory, and it is for this reason that John 16: 16 is seldom quoted by Preterists. But it comforts us to know that the discrepancy does not arise from the text itself, but the minds of those who do not accept the plain literal statements of Scripture as authoritative.

   My understanding of the text is that the phrase “in a little while” points to Christ’s ascension, and that in both clauses it denotes a period of time nearly identical. For it really was “a little while” after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection that He ascended up to heaven. And ten days later, when Peter delivered His addresses to the nation of Israel, affirming that Christ was risen, it was stipulated that Christ was ready to return and fulfill ALL THINGS written by the prophets (Acts 3: 19-26). Therefore, His promise “in a little while, ye shall see Me” must have held good upon His ascension into heaven. There is nothing in the text to indicate that “in a little while” means forty days in one instance, and forty years in another! If that is the case, then words are useless for the purposes of revelation.

  Well, if you are a Preterist you say that Christ never returned “in a little while;” but that He returned in A.D. 70. But how do you know? The text says “in a little while,” not “in a long while.” All we have to indicate the timing of the Lord’s return is the simple phrase “in a little while.” I believe that translates into “a very short period of time,” no matter what language you speak.

   Of course, I agree that Christ never returned in a little while. But neither did He return at the destruction of Jerusalem! There was one essential condition of Christ’s return which we must keep in mind; and that was Jewish national repentance. In Christ’s last public discourse He closed the account-books against the Jewish nation by saying: “Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39).

   This statement is, for all practical purposes, identical to that of Hosea 5: 15: “I will go and return unto my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek My face: in their affliction they will seek Me early” This verse is remarkable, inasmuch as it contains an unmistakable reference to Jesus Christ Who ascended up to heaven after His people rejected Him. Who else could the prophet be speaking of? It was due to this very rejection of His own people that the Roman armies came against Jerusalem and burned up their city, as foretold in the parable of the Marriage Supper (Matt. 22: 7). Therefore, that event can have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Matthew 23: 39 or Hosea 5: 15.

  Yes, Christ returned and ascended back to the Father. Then He endued His disciples with the power of the Holy Spirit, that they might bear witness to Him beginning in the very land where He was rejected and crucified (Acts 1: 8; cf. 2: 39; 3: 25-26).

   But Peter, after making public proclamation of Christ as the crucified, resurrected, and risen Messiah, said: “Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may be sent from the Presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive, until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3: 19-21).

   This verse is the perfect key to unlocking John 16: 16, as well as Matthew 23: 39 and Hosea 5: 15. Read all these verses together, and then you will see what Christ meant when He said, “in a litte while ye shall see Me again.” It was a bona fide offer to return at once, if His people would only repent, confess their sins, and accept Him as that Prophet that Moses said should come (Deut. 18: 18-19).

   Remember, He spoke the words “in a little while” privately after He had already pronounced judgment upon the nation, and laid down the requirement for repentance; so all the texts must harmonize. It was truly “in a little while” that He should return. But as His people rejected the message of the kingdom once more, the city was destroyed and the second advent put off to a future time.

   Had the leaders of the nation repented, the 70th week of Daniel would have run its course, Antichrist have risen, the Great Tribulation have followed, and Israel’s salvation been consummated with the return of the Messiah from heaven, and the destruction of the heathen nations (Isaiah 59: 18-20; Zeph. 3: 8, 15; Zech. 12: 7-14; 14: 1-5). Christ clearly references the Great Tribulation in John 16: 20-22, indicating exactly what He meant should be accomplished in connection with His return. It was none other than the new birth of the nation. Compare with Isaiah 66: 7-9.

   Christ had to be ready to return upon His ascension into heaven– if His people would only repent. Remember when Stephen was arraigned before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). That was a crucial turning-point. Upon making his defence to the leaders of the Jewish nation, they rejected His message concerning Jesus Christ. But he, looking steadfastly up to heaven, saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7: 55-56).

   Pay attention closely. Stephen saw Christ standing, as if in expectation that His people would accept Him; and ready to return the moment they did. The Holy Ghost was working powerfully that day (Acts 7: 51); yet the leaders again rejected Christ, and Stephen was stoned as a blasphemer (Acts 7: 57-60). This happened in A.D. 35. If the parousia had been a scheduled event, not to take place for another thirty-five years, then why was Jesus seen standing at the right hand of God, as if ready to return in fulfillment of Matthew 26: 64? Oh, how near to Israel His coming was that day! But in rejecting the Lamb of God, they put it away from them once more.

    But do you say that Jesus Christ’s offer of returning “in a little while” was not a sincere offer? Then think again. The epistle of James was written around A.D. 45 (according to the best sources). In that epistle, James told Jewish believers, “Behold, the Judge standeth before the door” (James 5: 9). Why would Christ be standing before the door if He had no intention of returning at once, and making good His promise of “in a little while ye shall see me?”

   Likewise, in Peter’s second epistle (written around A.D. 60) the apostle affirmed that “holy conversation and godliness” would hasten the coming of the Day of God! (2 Peter 3: 11-12). Yes, these Jewish believers of the Diaspora (see 2 Peter 3: 1; cf. 1 Peter 1: 1) were told that they could hasten the coming of Christ! Peter’s sincerity on this score was an echo of Christ’s own.

   When Christ said, “In a little while ye shall see Me,” He meant that He was willing to return right away. Yet there was a condition appended to His return which was never met. And therefore, Christ’s coming never materialized in the first century. With the breakup of Israel’s national structure, the promises concerning the parousia were postponed, and now remain in abeyance; though we are now seeing signs that the end of the age has again drawn nigh.

   But perhaps you’ll say to me, that it was God’s Sovereign purpose that Israel should reject Him, and that therefore Christ’s offer to return at once was not a bona fide offer. My answer: While the events that came to pass were certainly brought about according to God’s pre-arranged plan, this does not negate human responsibility. Making God the “efficient cause” of Israel’s rejection is a miserable theology which turns Christ’s Messianic work into a stage-play and a show. It was to “reconcile” the world that Christ died for sins. If God were the efficient cause of sin, then there had been no need for “reconciliation,” for all things would be according to God’s will. But “sin” is contrary to God’s will.

   My stance is that Christ’s offer to return at once and redeem Israel was a sincere offer, and conditional upon the repentance of the nation. This alone would justify Christ’s statement of “in a little while ye shall see Me.” This phrase could not mean “forty years,” but a short period of time which would follow His ascension into heaven. These facts explain the urgency of first-century expectations regarding the parousia, and also point out the fallacies of the Preterist argument, which claims that Jesus really did come according to His promise, when everyone knows He didn’t.

Luke 21: 22 Not a Hyper-Preterist Proof-Text

   Another one of the common proof-texts used by Hyper-Preterists in support of their view that Jesus Christ “returned” in A.D. 70, is Luke 21: 22. Speaking of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Jesus says, “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” This verse is often seen as a convenient “clincher” for proving the Hyper-Preterist case. However, their interpretation is based on a very superficial reading of the text, which ignores the context and the laws of common sense.

   That Christ could not possibly have meant “all Bible prophecy,” as the Hyper-Prets would like us to believe, is clear from the following. Firstly, Christ told the disciples that His coming would occur after the fall of Jerusalem and the filling up of the times of the Gentiles (see Luke 21: 25-27). Since the day of the Lord was a predicted Old Testament event, the fulfillment of all things during the destruction of Jerusalem is not a bona fide interpretation.

   Contrary to Preterist assertions, Christ does not equate the day of the Lord with the destruction of Jerusalem. A simple harmony of the Olivet and Temple discourses reveals that Luke 21: 12-24 is a parenthetical passage which takes place before the tribulation.

   While Luke 21: 8-11 is in all respects parallel with Matt. 24: 4-8 and Mark 13: 5-8, the Temple Discourse diverges, introducing a parenthesis which starts in verse 12. Instead of saying, “These are the beginnings of sorrows,” Christ stops short and introduces subject matter that must take place “before all these” beginnings of sorrows (Luke 21: 12). The parenthesis carries us through the destruction of Jerusalem down to the very end of the age, and closes in verse 24, where it again converges with the Olivet Discourse.

   Notice that in this parenthetical passage, Christ nowhere mentions the “Abomination of Desolation“or “Great Tribulation,” as in the Olivet Discourse. Instead, He speaks of the surrounding of Jerusalem with armies, and the “days of vengeance.” This latter phrase is quite distinct from what is commonly called the Great Tribulation.

   The “Days of Vengeance” consist of Divine punishment for Israel’s sins, as in Jeremiah 5: 9: “Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” There the prophet was predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. See Jeremiah 39: 1-8. This came to pass some twenty-five years after it was foretold by Jeremiah. The taking of the city by Titus in A.D. 70 was a repeat of that event. Both sieges issued in the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the nation.

   On the other hand, the “Great Tribulation” is a special period of Divine chastisement which will result in Israel’s restoration. It will not be fulfilled more than once (Matt. 24: 21; Mark 13: 19). It is known as a time of “travail,” for its effect will be the new birth of the nation. As Isaiah writes: “Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.” (Isaiah 66: 8). The tribulation has nothing to do with Israel’s scattering, but involves the nation’s final testing and ultimate salvation. See Jeremiah 30: 7-24; Ezekiel 20: 37-38; Daniel 12: 1.

   This distinction between the “Days of Vengeance” and the “Great Tribulation” is ignored by Preterists. Indeed, it is a fact not known. True, the tribulation is sometimes referred to as a time of “visitation.” However, it will be a visitation for deliverance, and not destruction! See Zephaniah 2: 7: “For the Lord their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.”

   This deliverance will occur at the personal return of Jesus Christ immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24: 29); and is an event expressly declared by Christ to follow the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish captivity, and the filling up of the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21: 24-27). Hence, when Christ says that “these be the days of vengeance, when all things written shall be fulfilled,” the required exclusion of passages pertaining to the Great Tribulation invalidates any Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22.

   Incidentally, here is where common sense is needed. For if it is impossible that all prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, then we must interpret Christ’s words in a restricted sense, and supply the ellipsis, as follows: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written [concerning them] may be fulfilled.” The “all things that are written” pertain to the days of vengeance of which Christ was speaking, and not to all Biblical prophecy.

   But to show that we are not being arbitary in our methods, please note that there are numerous examples in the New Testament in which the phrase “all things” is used in a qualified sense.

   (Matt. 17: 11) “And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” Obviously, Christ was not referring to “all things” in an absolute sense. It was the Jewish national spirit that Elias was to restore. See Malachi 4: 4-5. It is our Lord’s own prerogative to restore all things absolutely.

   (Mark 9: 23) “Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible unto him that believeth.” That is, all things in agreement with the will of God. See 1 John 5: 14-15.

   (Luke 18: 31) “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished.” Here Christ is speaking of all things relative to His first advent; His betrayal, sufferings, crucifixion, and resurrection. This verse alone effectively dispatches of the Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22, giving us an example of where Christ Himself used the phrase “all things that are written” in a qualified sense.

   Many other examples could be cited. For instance, what does Paul mean when he says, “All things are lawful unto me, but not all things are expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6: 12). “All things” cannot include sinful acts, for Paul places a caveat on fornication in the very next verse! Therefore, “all things” is to be understood in a qualified sense, as the context of the passage requires.

   But there is a another reason why Christ could not have meant that “all Biblical prophecy” would be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. When He said, “all things that are written,” the New Testament is excluded, for none of the Gospels or epistles were written when He spoke!

   But really, with all these points taken into consideration, little more is needed to prove that the Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22 is purely subjective in nature. It is not to be accepted by any student of Scripture. Of course, we know that this article won’t convince Hyper-Preterists. However, we trust that it will convince any sober-minded student of God’s word that our position is correct. And that is all we can ask for.

Resurrection and The Land Promises

   One of the strange inconsistencies of “orthodox Preterists” is seen in regard to the doctrine of the Resurrection. Preterists tenaciously hold to belief in a future resurrection of the body. Naturally, this is part and parcel of New Testament theology. And we’re glad that Preterists maintain their position against the outright denial of the Hyper-Preterist cult.

   But at the same time Preterists err in denying that there will be a future literal restoration of Israel to the land of promise. When Pre-Millennialists ask Preterists to give a reason for their denial of this future hope, we’re told that the land promises are now fulfilled “In Christ.” That is, somewhere along the line there was an abrogation of God’s promises made to Israel. Somehow, some way, the promise of a future physical reality was replaced by something entirely hypothetical. Do you see the inconsistency? If not, continue reading.

   Because Preterists believe in a future resurrection, they admit that something of a profoundly physical nature will occur at Christ’s second coming. Very well. So orthodox Christians have believed for centuries. But when it comes to the doctrine of restoration of the land, they don’t believe it. Why not? It is ten times more incredible that God should raise dead bodies from the dust, than that He should restore to the Jews the land God promised their fathers. Furthermore, if Scripture is carefully studied, it will be seen that both doctrines (land restoration and resurrection of the body) are closely related. So, my question is: If God will accomplish the one, will He not accomplish the other?

   Both promises are represented as having their fulfillment in connection with physical things. Why spiritualize the land promises, but maintain the literality of the resurrection? I am not quibbling. I am merely pointing out what seems a fatal anomaly in the Preterist theory. Orthodox Preterists believe that Christ will return in His own body, just as He ascended. And yet passages which describe this physical coming (like Zechariah 14) are understood as being entirely “spiritual.” Well, if this is the case, why can’t the resurrection be spiritualized as well?

   According to the prevailing mode of allegorizing the Scriptures, it would be easy to insist that the resurrection of the body is fulfilled “In Christ,” in precisely the same manner that the land promises are. Just suppose that when Paul spoke of the resurrection, he used language descriptive of earthly things to symbolize higher spiritual truths. “Heresy!” you cry. And so it is. But if such a view is condemnable, how are we to react to the spiritualization of such passages as Daniel 12: 2: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Surely, any spiritualization of this verse is also worthy of condemnation.

   But let us look at another passage that is often allegorized by Preterists. I speak of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the dry bones. “Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put My Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37: 12-14). How are we to interpret this passage, which ostensibly looks forward to a physical resurrection?

   I hear you respond that this is a hypothetical resurrection of which the prophet was writing. You say that it was fulfilled in the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Very well. So we are to understand the resurrection of the dry bones as being allegorical in nature. But what about the land? Was it allegorical land to which the Jews returned? Of course not. But if the “land” meant was really the land of Palestine, then what warrant do we have for spiritualizing the doctrine of the resurrection? For according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the resurrection would place them back in the land.

   Now do you admit that the land to which the dry bones would be restored was physical? Then move down to 37: 25. “And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever.”

   Neither does this passage admit of any spiritualization. The very phrase “the land wherein your fathers have dwelt” reveals this prophecy as relating to Israel, and not to the church. A simple glance at the succeeding context tells us that the passage will be fulfilled when the everlasting covenant (i.e., New Covenant) is established, and the Divine sanctuary placed in the midst of the children of Israel forever (Ezek. 37: 26-27).

   And this is not a mere isolated proof-text I am giving. Hearken to Ezekiel once more: “And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezekiel 36: 26-27).

   Again, the phrase “the land I gave to your fathers” (note the use of the personal pronoun “your“) identifies exactly what the prophet was talking about. It has nothing to do with spiritual promises to the church, but refers to the land of Palestine. The Christian church was not instituted until the first century A.D. Therefore, Ezekiel’s original audience could only have understood such promises as referring to themselves and to their children. However, if God made a promise to them, which was later abrogated, why may not promises made to church be set aside? If the land promises are fulfilled “in Christ,” then why may not the resurrection also be fulfilled “in Christ?”

   However, God’s promise to give Israel the land of Palestine is entirely unconditional, and based on the original grant made to Abraham. Dispensational scholar Clarence Larkin writes: “God’s promises to Abraham were progressive. At Ur the promises were the ‘land,’ and that his seed should become ‘a great nation.’ Gen. 12: 1, 2. At Shechem the promise of the ‘ownership of the land to his descendants.’ Gen. 12: 7. At Bethel, a” the land ‘thou seest,’ and that his seed should be as the ‘dust of the earth for number.’ Gen. 13: 15, 16. At Mamre, that his seed should be for numbers as the ‘stars of the heavens,’ and that the land should extend from the ‘River of Egypt’ to the ‘River Euphrates.’ Gen. 15: 5, 18. And at Moriah the promise as to the number of his seed was repeated. Gen. 22: 16, 18. These promises were unconditionally confirmed to his son, Isaac (Gen. 26: 1-4), and to his grandson, Jacob. Gen. 28: 10-15.”

   True, the law was added 430 years later, but this later addition cannot annul the original promise (Galatians 3: 15-17). The reason why the Jews have never gained permanent possession of the land, is because they sought it through the law. But the original promise was by grace. In Jeremiah 7: 5-7, the prophet lays down the conditions necessary for possessing the land: “For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.”

   Now because Israel could never meet these conditions, they never obtained permanent possession of the land. But once the conditions are met, what is to hinder God’s promises from being fulfilled? A bit of honest reflection will inform us that the land promises will be literally fulfilled when the New Covenant is established.

   Listen to Jeremiah, as he delivers the words of Jehovah Himself: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31: 33). Israel can only keep the law by being brought into the bonds of a new and better covenant. Once they receive the blessings of the Spirit, they will keep the law and be restored to the land forever.

   But you say that the above passage has already been fulfilled, for it was quoted by Paul in Hebrews 10: 16. The mistake, however, is obvious. Paul nowhere said that Jeremiah’s prophecy was “fulfilled.” In fact, he had previously said that the Old Covenant was still in effect, and ready to give place to the New (Hebrews 8: 13). Moreover, Paul could not have understood Jeremiah 31: 33 as already fulfilled, for he cites it again in Romans 11: 27, as proof that “all Israel will be saved.” This was cited hand-in-hand with Isaiah 59: 20, which refers to the same permanant sanctification of Israel, at the second coming of Christ (Isaiah 59: 16-21—read entire passage). Therefore, the fulfillment of the New Covenant remains future.

   If this be so, then it is clear that the resurrection and the land promises are intimately related, and both involve physical realities. For as the land was personally promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and as none of them ever lived to possess their inheritance, but wandered as strangers and pilgrims in the very land that God had given them (Acts 7: 5; Heb. 11: 9): then there must be a resurrection in order that God may keep His promise. Hence Christ’s quotation, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” was enough to put the Sadducees to silence (see Luke 20: 27-39). For God fully intends to keep His promises. And it is nonsense to claim that later promises can be used to upset and overthrow earlier ones.

   Therefore, if one spiritualizes the land promises, insisting that they are hypothetically fulfilled “in Christ,” then one may just as well spiritualize the resurrection. But as orthodox Preterists believe in a future coming of Christ in His own body, and a resurrection of the dead upon His return, it should not be hard to accept the doctrine of a future restoration of Israel to the land that God promised them. And this is precisely what Pre-Millennialists believe. As you can see, our doctrines are not so irrational, after all.

Zechariah 14: Preteristic Or Pre-Millennial?

   Whenever I deal with Preterists, and get to engaging in a discussion of theological differences, I always bring up Zechariah 14. This is to my mind one of the most important eschatological chapters in the Bible, illustrating as it does what will happen when Christ returns to the Mount of Olives from whence He ascended, and describing in glowing language the ensuing Millennium that will follow Israel’s sanctification in the sight of all nations.

   A few months ago, I wrote some articles in which I dealt with Zechariah 14. Yet since that time, and as my studies have deepened, I’ve found that it forms one of the most compelling topics of end-time dicussion. Not only do the visions the prophet describes tie in with crucial New Testament texts, but the whole passage, when read in its grammatical, contextual, and historical sense, makes any kind of Preteristic view of Christ’s coming impossible. In the following article I hope to demonstrate this, and to confirm once more that Pre-Millennialism is the correct system of eschatology.

I. Preterist Chicanery

   Preterists know that Zechariah 14 is an important link in the understanding of end-time fulfillment. Therefore, when doing a Google search of this Bible-chapter I wasn’t surprised to learn that Preterists have tried, as usual, to monopolize the discussion. But it heartens me to know that there are still several resources which give the correct interpretation of the prophetic text, and which anyone may find. Despite the differences, when notes are compared the Pre-Millennial view will always be found to make the most sense.

   Because of the correspondence between Zechariah’s Apocalypse and the prophecies of the Lord Jesus in His Olivet Discourse, it is alleged by many Preterists that Zech. 14 was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Is this the truth? or is it just another example of Preterist chicanery? A simple reading of the passage will clear things up. Zechariah is talking about the destruction of the enemy nations that will surround Jerusalem. This is a far cry from what occurred in A.D. 70, when the Romans destroyed the temple and the Jews were dispersed. When we try to force the Roman conquest into the context of Zechariah’s vision, the result will surely be confusion.

II. Who Are The Nations?

   Whenever in the Old Testament we see the term “nations” employed, it is always used in contradistinction to God’s chosen people of Israel. In Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 we read: “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” This tells us that God pre-determined His purposes regarding the people of Israel two hundred years before the call of Abraham (see Gen. 10: 32). For this reason, Israel has always remained distinct from the “nations,” or Gentiles. In Numbers 23: 9, Balaam is recorded as confirming this by prophetic utterance: “Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”

   With the above facts in mind, we ask how can anyone see in the phrase, “the nations that come against Jerusalem” (Zechariah 12: 9; cf. 14: 2-3) any reference to the Jewish people? Such an interpretation will surely induce a spiritual blindness as great as that which overtook the scribes and Pharisees. But their error is manifest to all.  As the same prophet predicts the deliverance of the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” from these very “nations” (Zech. 12: 8-9), one must marvel at anyone who would maintain a Preteristic view of Zechariah’s Apocalypse.

III. A Personal Coming of Christ

   It is suggested by Preterists that what Zechariah describes in 14: 4 is not a personal coming of Jesus Christ to the Mount of Olives from whence He ascended to take His seat at the right hand of the Father; but is in actuality a providential and non-personal coming. And of course, they claim that this coming was in A.D. 70, to destroy the Jews! Now, would any unbiased person reading this passage see in verse 4 a mystical, allegorical coming of Christ to destroy the very people He promised through His prophet to defend? If such be the case, language loses all meaning, and the words of God may be spiritualized in opposite directions to suit whatever view each interpreter desires.

   But God has not left His children in such darkness. We submit that no interpretation is needed to understand the predictions of Zechariah. For the Holy Spirit Himself has interpreted what man could never understand without a direct revelation. In Zech. 14: 4 Christ is described as standing on the Mount of Olives. “And His feet shall stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives.” If the Holy Spirit had meant that Christ’s coming would be providential and not personal, why did He use terminology which implies the exact opposite?

   On the other hand, if He had meant a personal coming, could He have described it any better? For the planting of Divine feet upon a mountain certainly denotes a personal visitation. Therefore, accepting the language of Scripture as absolute and authoritative, we conclude that the coming of Christ as described in Zechariah 14 will definitely be personal, and will constitute the fulfillment of Acts 1: 11, in which it was revealed by angelic sources that the Lord would return in “like manner” as the apostles saw Him ascend into heaven–that is, personally and bodily.

   Knowing that this never occurred in A.D. 70, Preterists twist these verses out of their context, enforcing an allegorical and mystical meaning which robs language of any kind of signification. They tell us that Zechariah 14 was written in “symbolic language;” but for some reason, they can’t explain to us what the symbols mean. The Hyper-Preterists are the main offenders in this department of eisegesis. But many partial preterists, knowing that their theology, too, is on the line, have agreed with the Hyper-Preterists in their assertions that Zechariah 14 is totally “past fulfillment.” Shame on them all.

IV. Geographical Disturbances

   Another point which proves that Zechariah’s visions relate to a yet future coming of Christ is that the prophet speaks of geographical disturbances which have never occurred in past history. When Christ descends from heaven with all His saints (Zech. 14: 5) and stands upon the Mount of Olives, “the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south” (Zech. 14: 4).

   For reasons which should be manifest, what Zechariah has depicted is a future event. As the prophet Joel describes the nations being gathered together for judgment in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3: 2, 14), our suggestion is that the new valley will be created, or the present one significantly enlarged, when the Lord descends from heaven to stand upon the Mount of Olives. According to Joel’s prophecy, this must take place after an invasion of the land of Israel by enemy forces (see Joel 2). We believe that these invaders will be the same enemies mentioned in Ezekiel’s prophecy of “Gog and Magog” (Ezekiel 38-39). A careful reading of these passages is necessary to get the full meaning of Zechariah’s vision. They speak of things which will be verifiable on earth, and in the physical realm: and not of any spiritual and unverifiable “events.”

V. Confusion of Enemies

   We find also that the nations that besiege Jerusalem will be put into confusion by the coming of the Lord. Not only will they be afflicted with sore and grievous plagues (Zech. 14: 12), but they will “lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor” (Zech. 14: 13). This depicts the unprecedented discord which will take place when all the armies are amassed together before Jerusalem. Compare with Ezekiel 38: 21.

   Turning to the prophecies of Jeremiah, chapters 50-51 give us a graphic description of the fall of Babylon. What do these chapters reveal? Is there any “sure truth” on which we may lay hold? Yes! And here is what the Word reveals. Shortly before the time of the end (probably near the close of the last-half of Daniel’s 70th week), Babylon will be invaded by armies which come from the northern regions (Jer. 50: 3, 41-42). These armies are identical with those described by Ezekiel in 39: 2, and by Joel in 2: 20.

   The prophet Daniel gives us to understand that when the “king of the north” (ostensibly Gog) comes against Antichrist “like a whirlwind” (Daniel 11: 40), it will cause him (Antichrist) to “enter into the countries,” “overflow,” “pass over,” and finally enter into the glorious land (Israel), at which time he will “plant the tabernacles of his place between the seas in the glorious holy mountain” (Dan. 11: 45).

 Hence we infer that the northern armies mentioned by Ezekiel, and alluded to by Joel, will be raised up against Babylon at the time of the end.  Chasing Antichrist out of his own land, they will force him to flee into Jerusalem, where he will seat himself in the temple and demand divine honors (see Isaiah 14: 13-14; 2 Thess. 2: 4).  The Minister of State Religion (the false prophet) will have already supported his claims (Revelation 13: 12).  But prior to this final profanation, the image of Antichrist alone will be worshipped.  In the middle of the week the image is set up. Toward the end of the week, Antichrist himself takes the place of the image.

   Before Antichrist’s ultimate destruction, the pursuing armies will reach Jerusalem, surround the city, and there will be a great battle, during which the armies will fight against each other. During this juncture the Jews will cry out in their affliction, and God will send Jesus Christ to deliver them from the wrath of the enemy. Now, reader, please ask yourself: did any such scenario occur in A.D. 70?

VI. Restoration of The Land

   Those who still maintain the Preterist view of Zechariah 14 have, however, another piece of evidence which they must get around. And that is, the glorious results of this last battle, as outlined in verses 6-11. When Jesus Christ returns to save His people, the Jews, living waters will go forth from Jerusalem (Zech. 14: 8), cleansing the land from all defilement. Then the land, having been leveled into a beautiful plain, will be “lifted up, and inhabited in her place” (Zech. 14: 10).

   The living waters will proceed from the sanctuary described by Ezekiel in 40-44. The waters will flow eastward from the sanctuary (Ezekiel 47: 1-12), and proceed southward, wending toward the rebuilt city of Jerusalem. From Jerusalem the river will part into two heads (Zechariah 14: 8). Half the river will flow toward the “former sea” (Dead Sea); while the other will find its way into the “hinder sea” (Mediterranean). And the waters shall be healed. Let us simply believe what God says, and we’ll never accept any view which claims a mystical and allgorical fulfillment. After all, haven’t we shown that the texts related to Zechariah 14 harmonize in a wonderful manner, and can only be undertood through an interpretive lens that understands the Divine words according to the established laws of human language?

VII. The Millennium

  As a final point, let us not forget that Zechariah provides an exellent delineation of the Millennial times which shall follow the destruction of Christ’s enemies.  He writes: “And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, and to keep the feast of tabernacles” (Zech. 14: 16).  Surely we cannot understand this in any allegorical sense.  Or let the allegorists themselves tell us what is meant by all nations coming to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles!

   We know, of course, that the fulfillment of that passage will be literal.  And what Zechariah tells us is corroborated by other inspired Scriptures.  David writes: “All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name” (Psalm 86: 9).  And hearken to Isaiah: “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 66: 23).  A glance at the preceding context tells us when this worship will take place.  It is after the Lord comes “with fire, and with His chariots like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire.  For by fire and by His sword will the Lord pleasd with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many” (Isaiah 66: 15-16).

   The nations which are left are evidently those who are mentioned in the latter part of Christ’s Olivet Discourse (see Matthew 25: 31-46).  They are the nations that receive the Jewish witnesses during the Great Tribulation, when the Gospel of the Kingdom is re-proclaimed.  Their reward will be entrance into Christ’s Millennial kingdom; even the kingdom of heaven, which was “prepared from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25: 34).  This kingdom is quite distinct from the kingdom of God, which was prepared “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1: 4).  The nations that enter into the Millennial kingdom are they who shall come to Jerusalem from year to year to keep the feast of tabernacles, when the kingdom is restored to Israel. 

VIII. Conclusion

   While there is plenty more in Zechariah’s prophecy which we could use to demonstrate that the Preteristic view is flawed, I am sure that readers will agree with us that the Apocalypse of Zechariah awaits a future fulfillment. As Thomas Ice once asserted, Preterists cannot provide a textual interpretation of this most important prophetic passage. But when we use the literal method, the vapors induced by man’s interpretation fly away like mist before a morning breeze. Oh, confusion, away with thee! How refreshing it is to know that God has not left us confounded when it comes to understanding prophecy. Anyone who accepts the grammatical meaning of the words used to describe Christ’s coming will avoid falling into the snares and traps laid out by Preterists.

   My suggestion is that we each take time to study Zechariah 14 as we’ve never done before. Knowing that the scenes depicted therein may take place in our own lifetimes will be a powerful incentive to our belief in a literal fulfillment. And above all, let no man rob you of the comfort of knowing that the victory will be won by Christ on His own ground, and according to His own terms. As Christ is the true Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3: 16), so He must return to His own inherited land to obtain the victory over His foes. And we being Abraham’s children through faith in Him Who shall one day conquer (Gal. 3: 29; Romans 4: 13), let us be assured that we shall see, with our own eyes, the fulfillment of all the promises written in the Holy prophets. To this we daily look forward. Maranatha!