PP12: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? Part 2

This is now the twelfth post in our series on “A Partial-Preterist Perspective on the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.” This is the same title as a term paper I recently submitted to Northwestern College. All the previous posts can be found here, and it’s recommended that they be read in order before reading this post:

[1] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/brief-explanation-of-partial-preterism/
[2] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/pp2-references/
[3] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/pp3-external-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation/
[4] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp4-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-1/
[5] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp5-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-2/
[6] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp6-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-3/
[7] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp7-internal-evidence-for-an-early-date-revelation-part-4/
[8] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/pp8-daniels-70-week-prophecy-part-1/
[9] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/pp9-daniels-70-week-prophecy-part-2/
[10] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/pp10-jerusalems-destruction-foretold-in-the-olivet-discourse/
[11] https://kloposmasm.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/pp11-did-jesus-come-in-70-ad-part-1/

In the previous post we entered into a two-part discussion of Christ’s non-physical return in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. That post is a definite prerequisite for this one. They are broken up for the sake of readability. This post continues that discussion, and will also address the words of Jesus declaring that His generation would not pass away until all that He had prophesied would take place.

Adam Maarschalk


Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? (Part 2)

Earlier Jesus had also said to His disciples: “For the Son of Man is going to come with His angels in the glory of His Father, and then He will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:27-28). If this statement was fulfilled in His transfiguration six days later, as some contend, in what sense did Jesus “come with His angels” then and repay each person according to what he had done (a clear picture of judgment), and why would He have done so before their lives had come to an end? Also why did Jesus say that “some” (rather than all) would not taste death before they saw this happen? None of Jesus’ disciples died during the six days after Jesus made this statement, but some were indeed martyred before 70 AD.

In the common Preterist view, then, those who were still alive in 70 AD indeed saw “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” before they tasted death. John Wesley, clearly holding to this view, said of this passage, “For there is no way to escape the righteous judgment of God. And, as an emblem of this, there are some here who shall live to see the Messiah coming to set up his mediatorial kingdom with great power and glory, by the destruction of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews” (Todd Dennis [10], 2009). Dr. Thomas Newton (1704-1782) and Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) also held this view, as does R.C. Sproul (Todd Dennis [16], 2009). Some Preterists see Matthew 16:27-28 as being identical to the prophecy Jesus gave in Revelation 22:12, revealing the purpose for His soon coming: “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.”[1]

In some way, Jesus tied His coming[2] to the lives of His listeners in Matthew 16:27-28 and 26:64, though it continues to be debated whether He spoke there of His coming in judgment in 70 AD. One instance, though, where He did clearly connect His judgment-coming in 70 AD to His audience was in Matthew 24:34. Here we read the following statement concerning all He had revealed in the Olivet Discourse up to that point, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

As already noted, this very clear time marker has been taken by Dispensationalists to mean that all the things Jesus prophesied would take place in one future generation which would see them begin. This is not the historical viewpoint, however. Indeed, the question can be asked why Jesus would have meant anything different by the phrase “this generation” here than He did in Matthew 11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 17:17; 23:26; Mark 8:12; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32; 17:25 (all clearly referring to His immediate audience). Charles Spurgeon, in his 1868 commentary on this passage, remarked:

The King left his followers in no doubt as to when these things should happen: ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.’ It was just about the ordinary limit of a generation when the Roman armies compassed Jerusalem, whose measure of iniquity was then full, and overflowed in misery, agony, distress, and bloodshed such as the world never saw before or since. Jesus was a true Prophet; everything that he foretold was literally fulfilled” (Joe Haynes, 2001).

The reformer John Calvin, in his commentary on this verse, said, “This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation [in Jesus’ time] will not experience” (Todd Dennis [9], 2009, emphasis added). John Wesley, in 1754, stated, “The expression implies that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was; for the city and temple were destroyed thirty-nine or forty years after.”

These men were in good historical company. Clement (150-220 AD) said, “And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken” (Puritan Lad, 2008, emphasis added). Eusebius (263-339 AD) also assigned the meaning of “this generation” to those alive when Jesus spoke these words (Todd Dennis [4], 2009):

And when those that believed in Christ had come thither [out] from Jerusalem [in obedience to Matthew 24:15-16], then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men (Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Ch. 5).

Eusebius, in fact, taught that Jesus came at that time in judgment. After detailing how the other signs given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse had been fulfilled prior to 70 AD [see next section], Eusebius concluded that His predicted coming likewise had occurred (Todd Dennis [19], 2009):

[W]hen the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled” (Proof of the Gospel, Book VIII, emphasis added).

Henry Alford, an English scholar and theologian who was also Dean of Canterbury from 1857-1871, believed that Jesus’ 70 AD coming should also be apparent from His telling of the Parable of the Tenants in Matthew 21:33-45. There He identified the tenants of the vineyard as the Jews, who consistently killed God’s servants whenever they were sent to collect fruit. They finally killed God’s own Son, begging the question (verse 40), “When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will He do to those tenants?” Jesus affirmed the answer of the chief priests and the Pharisees (verse 41) by stating that they would be put to a miserable death, they would be crushed (verse 44), and the kingdom of God would be taken from them “and given to a people producing its fruits” (verse 43; cf. Daniel 7:18-27). Alford notes:

We may observe that our Lord makes ‘when the Lord cometh’ coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is incontestably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage therefore forms an important key to our Lord’s prophecies, and a decisive justification for those who, like myself, firmly hold that the coming of the Lord is, in many places, to be identified, primarily, with that overthrow (Todd Dennis [19], 2009, emphasis in original).

As already noted, we have the testimony of Jonathan Edwards a century earlier (1776), saying, “Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” John Owen (1721), commenting on Matthew 24, noted the similarities between Christ’s coming in judgment in the first century and His final future coming:

That the language is similar to that in which Christ’s final coming is described, cannot be denied. But that is not strange, when we consider, as has been remarked, that the one event is typical of the other; that his coming to destroy Jerusalem is a representation, faint indeed but real, of his glorious and awful coming to take vengeance upon the finally impenitent, and that language therefore is used of it, which seems appropriately to belong to the final judgment (Todd Dennis [20], 2009).

[1] Todd Dennis again, though, does not see in this passage a direct connection to 70 AD. Instead, he says, the immediate context for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 is the subject of self-denial, persecution, and potential martyrdom, “with the attendant rewards which follow” (Todd Dennis [2], 2008). It’s a suffering/vindication motif which finds frequent mention in the New Testament (e.g. Stephen’s martyrdom in Acts 7:54-58, where Stephen sees Jesus revealed in power and glory just prior to tasting death; Hebrews 9:27-28, where judgment is said to follow death, and—in Todd’s view—there is a personal coming of Christ for each of His followers at the occasion of their deaths (in the manner of Christ saying, “I will come again and will take you to Myself, that where I am you may be also” [John 14:3]). The “death of the individual is where the focus lies in [Matthew 16:28],” he adds, and only some would have the privilege of seeing Him come in His kingdom before tasting death because some (i.e. Judas) would reject Him.

[2] Or “a coming of His”; Even Dispensationalists generally believe that some of Jesus’ disciples saw Him come in His kingdom before they died, albeit only three of them six days later when He was transfigured. Holding to this belief, then, they should have no logical problem believing that Christ came within the lifetime of the generation that heard Him speak, in some sense other than His Second Coming.

3 thoughts on “PP12: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD? Part 2

  1. This post discussed Jesus’ use of the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, in which I agreed with Clement, Eusebius, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, and others that Jesus was referring to His audience which heard Him speak these words. This phrase, of course, is also important to Dispensationalists, who take it to refer to Israel’s inception as a nation in 1948. Their reasoning generally has to do with Christ’s mention of the fig tree in Matt. 24:32, which they say is always a symbol of the nation of Israel. Gary DeMar answers this claim with some insightful commentary in a very recent article. Here is an excerpt from that article:

    [CLAIM:] “The fig tree has always been representative of the nation of Israel.”

    [GARY DEMAR:] The fig tree has NOT always been representative of the nation of Israel. I noticed that your sister-in-law did not offer any biblical support for her claim. If there is a tree that represents Israel, it’s the olive tree (Rom. 11:17, 24). It seems rather odd that Paul would choose the olive tree when, as your sister-in-law claims, “the fig tree has always been representative of the nation of Israel.” Notice that in the parallel account in Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus says, “Behold the fig tree and ALL THE TREES; as soon as THEY put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near” (Luke 21:29–30).

    If the fig tree represents Israel, then there is the problem of what Jesus says about the fig tree earlier in Matthew’s gospel: “Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. Seeing a lone fig tree [Israel] by the road, He came to it [Israel] and found nothing on it [Israel] except leaves only; and He said to it [Israel], “NO LONGER SHALL THERE EVER BE ANY FRUIT FROM YOU [ISRAEL].’” (Matt. 21:18–22). Notice that Matthew 24:32 does not say anything about fruit; it only mentions leaves. It was a “leaves-only” tree, the same type of tree that Jesus said would never bear fruit. So, if the fig tree represents Israel, then there is a contradiction. She can’t have it both ways (“not Israel” in Matthew 21 and “Israel” in Matthew 24).

    More of DeMar’s thoughts on this matter can be seen here:


    In this same article, DeMar also points out that Tim LaHaye has changed his definition of “this generation” over the years, from beginning in 1917 to beginning in 1948. Here is that excerpt:

    When Tim LaHaye attempted to calculate the timing of “this generation,” he began with 1917. In the first edition of The Beginning of the End, which was published in 1972, Tim LaHaye wrote, “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. It is the generation that ‘sees’ the four-part sign of verse 7 [in Matt. 24], or the people who saw the First World War. We must be careful here not to become dogmatic, but it would seem that these people are witnesses to the events, not necessarily participants in them. That would suggest they were at least old enough to understand the events of 1914–1918, not necessarily old enough to go to war.”[5]

    A number of things changed in LaHaye’s 1991 revised edition of The Beginning of the End. The “strategic generation” has been modified significantly. It’s no longer “the people who saw the First World War”: “Carefully putting all this together, we now recognize this strategic generation. It is the generation that ‘sees’ the events of 1948. We must be careful here not to become dogmatic, but it would seem that these people are witnesses to the events, not necessarily participants in them.” The change from 1917 to 1948 gave LaHaye another fifty years before this new generation passes away.[6]


    • Hi William. Here’s Daniel’s 70 Weeks Prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27). This is a quote from the New King James Version. Which part of this text are you saying speaks of “the 70 AD coming”?

      24 “Seventy weeks[a] are determined
      For your people and for your holy city,
      To finish the transgression,
      To make an end of sins,
      To make reconciliation for iniquity,
      To bring in everlasting righteousness,
      To seal up vision and prophecy,
      And to anoint the Most Holy.
      25 “Know therefore and understand,
      That from the going forth of the command
      To restore and build Jerusalem
      Until Messiah the Prince,
      There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
      The street shall be built again, and the wall,
      Even in troublesome times.
      26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
      Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
      And the people of the prince who is to come
      Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
      The end of it shall be with a flood,
      And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
      27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
      But in the middle of the week
      He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
      And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
      Even until the consummation, which is determined,
      Is poured out on the desolate.”

      Also, what do you mean by “FIRST coming”? Are you speaking of Christ’s incarnation, His life in the flesh on this earth from about 3 BC – 30 AD?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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