Revised Edition
“The Generation That Sees the Signs”
is the Clause of Subtle Deception
by Mark Mountjoy
Abstract
From the Maranatha Global Bible study the presenter asks, “Was this fulfilled in history (in 70 A.D.), is this a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future? Or, is it a mixture of both and a happy medium in between? That’s what we are going to look at today.
This is a bonus session that accompanies the Maranatha Global Bible Study that is running alongside of the Maranatha fast that’s happening right now between March 25th and April 8th. . .
We’re working our way through the Bible looking at key end-time eschatological passages we loved to have you jump in with us. . .
“I’m going to give a number of reasons, eight to be precise, I’m going to give eight reasons why I don’t believe that Matthew 24 and 25 were fulfilled in history, and why it’s not a mixture of the two. This is an explicitly eschatological prophecy and it’s important that we understand that. Because it has profound implications, consequences, and ramifications if we believe something else.1 And I’ll explain what I mean by that why and how that is meted out as we go through this.
To begin I want to quote one of the premier leading scholars and theologians of our day who believes the opposite, just to give you an idea of what the contrast and the different views are here and then we will work our way through the reasons why I don’t believe that this actually a faithful reading and application of the texts. This is from N.T. Wright, who is, again, probably one of the most renowned alive on the earth today. He says this in his book, Who is Jesus?,
“When the Jewish writer spoke about the sun and the moon being darkened . . .when they spoke of the Son of man who would come on the clouds, they meant this in a metaphorical way. It is flagrantly absurd to think that Jesus, and saying this sort of thing that he would come back, envisioned or himself 
This is in direct reference to Matthew 24 where Jesus said at the end of the age you’ll see me coming in the clouds of heaven, coming in great power and great glory. N.T. Wright says this is a metaphor and it’s absurd to actually believe that Jesus actually meant he would return in power and glory in the clouds. In his book, Jesus and the Victory of God, he says this,
“The coming of the Son of man does not refer to the Second Coming in the modern, scholarly, and popular sense of a human figure traveling downwards toward the earth on actual clouds. The coming of the Son of man is thus good first-century metaphorical language. . . ”
“He actually meant Jesus would go away on the clouds at the end of the Jewish age when, in fact, the privileges, identity, and destiny of national Israel were stripped from her and applied to, attributed to, bestowed upon the new true Israel, the Church.”
This is actually one of the reasons why I believe it’s such a destructive teaching it’s because it’s at the foundational bedrock of basic streel-level Replacement Theology.2
Frontier Alliance International Propaganda
Presentation on the Reasons Why They Believe
Matthew 24 Was Not Fulfilled in 70 A.D.
This is the reason why so many in our Bible schools and seminaries bought into Replacement Theology because they bought into Matthew 24 and 25 being a metaphorical event that doesn’t speak about Jesus’s return to Jerusalem but speaks about Jesus going away in 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed and Jesus ascended some decades earlier and somehow that’s supposed to be a coherent intelligible one event that Jesus referred to.”
Discussion
In this essay, the speaker embarks on a challenging and ultimately futile endeavor: attempting to divorce the Second Coming of Christ from the destruction of the Second Temple in his critique of the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in AD 70. Despite his earnest efforts to establish a logical and consistent argument, the very terms he sets forth as fair and reasonable render his task impossible.
The intricate tapestry of prophetic statements and historical events woven throughout Matthew 24 creates an inseparable bond between the Second Coming and the Temple's destruction. Trying to untangle these two momentous occurrences is like attempting to separate the warp and weft of a finely crafted garment – it would only result in the unraveling of the entire piece.
Furthermore, the author's approach fails to consider the broader context of biblical prophecy and the consistent themes that run throughout the New Testament. The destruction of the Second Temple and the Second Coming are not isolated incidents but crucial moments in the unfolding of God's redemptive plan. To divorce them is to risk misinterpreting the very nature and purpose of Christ's return.
The author's valiant attempt to have his cake and eat it too – to maintain the grammatical integrity of Matthew 24 while denying its fulfillment in the events of AD 70 – is a recipe for inconsistency-and disaster. He wants to cling to the promises of Christ's return but dismiss the clear connection to the Second Temple's destruction that Jesus himself established.
In the end, we must approach this subject with humility, acknowledging that our understanding of biblical prophecy is always subordinate to the wisdom and sovereignty of God. While the author's intentions may be sincere, his efforts to critique the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in AD 70 by separating the Second Coming from the Temple's destruction are misguided and ultimately doomed to failure.
As we examine the author's claims, let us do so with a commitment to faithful exegesis, a reliance on the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, and a willingness to embrace the profound unity of God's prophetic word. Only then can we hope to grasp the true significance of Matthew 24 and its fulfillment in the remarkable events of the first century.
The Urge to Separate the Second
Temple From the Second Coming
The author's attempt to separate the Second Coming of Christ from the destruction of the Second Temple in his critique of Matthew 24's fulfillment in AD 70 is an arduous and ultimately futile endeavor. The intricate interconnectedness of the prophetic statements and historical events in Matthew 24 creates an unbreakable bond between these two pivotal occurrences.
The author's approach disregards the broader context of biblical prophecy and the consistent themes woven throughout the New Testament. The Second Temple's destruction and Christ's Second Coming are essential components of God's redemptive plan, and attempting to divorce them risks 
misinterpreting the purpose and nature of Christ's return.
Moreover, the author's efforts to maintain the grammatical integrity of Matthew 24 while denying its fulfillment in AD 70 lead to glaring inconsistencies. He seeks to uphold the promises of Christ's return while dismissing the clear connection to the Temple's destruction that Jesus himself established.
The author's assertion that the abomination of desolation did not occur in AD 70 is misguided, as historical evidence suggests that it had been ongoing for 42 months, beginning in AD 66 and culminating in the Temple's destruction in AD 70. Additionally, the claim that the gathering of saints did not happen in AD 70 overlooks the significant loss of life and the martyrdom of Christians during this tumultuous period, as documented in Josephus' writings and the Book of Revelation.
The author's attempt to separate the Second Coming from the Second Temple's destruction fails to recognize the profound implications of the Temple's loss for the Jewish people. The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new covenant, as foretold by Jesus in his teachings and parables.
In conclusion, the author's efforts to critique the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in AD 70 by divorcing the Second Coming from the Temple's destruction are misguided and ultimately untenable. As we examine these claims, we must approach the subject with humility, faithful exegesis, and a reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to grasp the true significance of Matthew 24 and its fulfillment in the remarkable events of the first century.
The Main Arguments That Come Up Short
Let's address each of the author's main points and provide a counter-argument to make what is true stand out.
1. The author argues that Jesus was answering the disciples' questions about the Second Coming and the end of the age, not the events of AD 70. However, Jesus' response in Matthew 24 clearly addresses the destruction of the Second Temple, which he connects to his return and the end of the age. The disciples' questions and Jesus' answers are inextricably linked to the events that would unfold from AD 66 to 70.
2. The author claims that the abomination of desolation did not occur in AD 70. However, historical evidence from Josephus' writings suggests that the abomination of desolation had been ongoing for 42 months, beginning in AD 66 with the Jewish Zealots' occupation of the Second Temple and culminating in its destruction by the Romans in AD 70.
3. The author asserts that the gathering of the saints did not
happen in AD 70. However, this claim overlooks the significant loss of life and the martyrdom of Christians during this period, as documented in Josephus' writings and the Book of Revelation. The gathering of the saints can be understood as the resurrection and vindication of the faithful martyrs.
4. The author argues that the Second Coming did not occur in AD 70 because the Romans, not the Jewish Zealots, destroyed the Second Temple. However, this argument fails to recognize that the abomination of desolation was carried out by the Jewish Zealots, while the Romans were instrumental in terminating those specific atrocities and sacrileges that had persisted for forty-two months.
5. The author claims that the resurrection of the dead, as mentioned in Daniel 12:1-3, did not occur in AD 70. However, the Book of Revelation depicts the resurrection and vindication of the martyrs who died for their faith during this period (Rev. 11:1-18).
6. The author asserts that the events of AD 70 did not bring about the redemption and restoration of Israel. However, this argument fails to recognize that Jesus taught about the transfer of the kingdom from the Jewish religious leaders to a new people who would produce its fruits (Matt. 21:33-46). The destruction of the Temple marked the end of the old covenant and the full establishment of the new covenant.
7. The author argues that the events of AD 70 were local and not global in nature. he states that 'nobody knew' -which is not correct: The Jewish-Roman war was an international event in the truest sense of it. And besides this, the terms "nations," "whole earth," and "whole world" should be understood within the context of the Jewish world at the time of Jesus and the apostles, which included Asia Minor, Macedon and the Balkans, Egypt, Cyrene, the islands, Syria, and other regions in the Levante and Mediterranean Basin which was in an uproar because of explosive events that happened in Judæa and Jerusalem.
8. The author claims that Jesus did not establish his throne and government in Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the Bible teaches that Jesus would sit on the throne of God in the New Jerusalem, not on David's throne in the earthly Jerusalem (Rev. 21-22). The establishment of Christ's kingdom is a spiritual reality, not limited to a physical location.
By addressing each of the author's points and providing counter-arguments, we can engage in a more robust and thought-provoking discussion about the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in AD 70. This approach encourages a deeper exploration of the historical, biblical, and theological evidence, ultimately leading to a more comprehensive understanding of this significant topic.
The Speaker Thinks He is a Champion
of Matthew 24, But He is a Denier of It
The speaker's sees himself as a champion of authentic expectations, but in reality, he is denying the very promises and prophecies he claims to uphold. This ironic contradiction lies at the heart of the his flawed argument and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the biblical text and historical context.
His insistence on separating the Second Coming from the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 is not only inconsistent with the clear teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24 but also demonstrates a failure to grasp the profound significance of these interconnected events (2 Thess. 2:1-12). By attempting to divorce these two pivotal moments in redemptive history, the author inadvertently undermines the very truth he seeks to defend.
In his zeal to champion a future fulfillment of Christ's return, the author blinds himself to the abundant evidence that points to the realization of Jesus' prophecies in the events surrounding the destruction of the Second Temple. He overlooks the historical testimony of Josephus, the powerful imagery of the Book of Revelation, and the consistent themes that run throughout the New Testament.
Moreover, the author's stance reveals a deeper issue: a reluctance to accept the full implications of Christ's teachings and the transformative nature of his kingdom. By clinging to a narrow, futuristic interpretation of the Second Coming, he fails to recognize the spiritual realities that were inaugurated through Christ's life, death, resurrection, and the establishment of his Church.
In this way, the author's argument becomes a self-defeating exercise in denial. He claims to be a defender of biblical truth while simultaneously rejecting the clear evidence that supports the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies in the first century. He champions an "authentic" expectation that is, in fact, a misrepresentation of the Gospel message and the nature of Christ's kingdom.
As we engage with this topic, it is crucial to approach the text with humility, openness, and a willingness to follow the evidence where it leads. We must be cautious not to allow our preconceived notions or desired outcomes to cloud our judgment or hinder our understanding of the profound truths contained within Scripture.
In doing so, we can begin to appreciate the astonishing accuracy and power of Jesus' words, the transformative impact of his sacrifice, and the ongoing reality of his spiritual reign. We can embrace the fullness of the Gospel message, recognizing that Christ's kingdom is not confined to a distant future but is a present and eternal reality that continues to shape the course of history and the lives of his faithful followers.
The speaker fails to recognize that the Jewish Christians were the redeemed individuals who were saved from the catastrophic events that occurred between AD 66 and 70. These beloved people formed the core of the first-century Church, and those who survived faced new challenges and persecutions as they encountered fresh obstacles going into the post-Second Temple era.
The Hebrew Christians, who made up a substantial portion of the early Church, were indeed the redeemed remnant that Jesus promised would be delivered from the impending judgment upon Jerusalem (Rev. 7:1-8 cf. Rev. 14:1-5). These faithful believers heeded Christ's warnings in Matthew 24 and escaped the punishment and damnation that befell the Jerusalem and the Second Temple.
However, the author's narrow focus on a future fulfillment of Christ's prophecies causes him to overlook the profound significance of this deliverance and its impact on the development of the early Church. By failing to acknowledge the Jewish Christians' central role in the formation and growth of the first-century Church, the author misses a crucial aspect of biblical history and the fulfillment of Jesus' words.
Moreover, the author's perspective fails to consider the new challenges and persecutions that the Jewish Christians faced in the aftermath of the Temple's destruction and the subsequent decades. As these believers navigated the complex landscape of a post-Second Temple world, they encountered unique hurdles and hardships that tested their faith and resilience.
The Jewish Christians had to grapple with the loss of their ancestral heritage, the need to redefine their identity in light of Christ's teachings, and the ongoing persecution from both Jewish authorities and Roman oppressors. These challenges were not limited to the first century but continued well into the second century as the Church expanded and faced new threats.
By neglecting to recognize the experiences and struggles of the Jewish Christians who formed the core of the early Church, the author presents an incomplete and distorted picture of biblical history. He fails to appreciate the depth of Christ's love and provision for his people, as demonstrated through the deliverance of the faithful remnant from the horrors of AD 66-70.
As we seek to understand the fulfillment of Matthew 24 and the birth of the early Church, it is essential to acknowledge the central role played by the Jewish Christians. Their faith, perseverance, and witness in the face of unimaginable difficulties serve as a testament to the power of the Gospel and the faithfulness of our Lord.
By recognizing the significance of the Jewish Christians' deliverance and their ongoing struggles, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of the Church's foundation and the profound implications of Christ's prophecies. This perspective allows us to appreciate the continuity of God's redemptive plan, the resilience of his people, and the ultimate triumph of his kingdom in the face of adversity.
Summary
In this essay, we critique FAI's attempt to separate the Second Coming of Christ from the destruction of the Second Temple in their interpretation of Matthew 24. They argue that the prophetic statements and historical events in Matthew 24 are intrinsically interconnected, making it impossible to divorce the Second Coming from the Temple's destruction without disregarding the clear message conveyed by Jesus Christ. But their approach fails to consider the broader context of biblical prophecy and the consistent themes throughout the New Testament, leading to misinterpretations of the nature and purpose of Christ's return.
We address each of the FAI's main points, providing counter-arguments that demonstrate the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies in the events surrounding the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 66-70: we highlight the abomination of desolation, the gathering of saints, the resurrection of the dead, the redemption of Israel, and the establishment of Christ's kingdom as key elements that the FAI overlooks or misinterprets.
Furthermore, the we argue that FAI's stance reveals a reluctance to accept the full implications of Christ's teachings and the transformative nature of his kingdom. We emphasize the importance of approaching the text with humility, openness, and a willingness to follow the evidence, rather than allowing preconceived notions to hinder understanding.
Lastly, we must underscore the significance of the 144,000 as the redeemed remnant who formed the core of the early Church and faced new challenges in the post-Second Temple era. We maintain that recognizing the Firstfruits' central role, victory, and their ongoing struggles is essential for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the Church's foundation and the profound implications of Christ's prophecies.
Conclusion
The speaker's attempt to "cherry-pick" the Second Coming out of the events surrounding the destruction of the Second Temple is a strategic maneuver that ultimately fails under careful scrutiny. By selectively emphasizing certain aspects of Matthew 24 while disregarding the clear connections between the Second Coming and the Temple's destruction, the speaker creates an artificial divide that undermines the integrity of Jesus' prophecies.
A close examination of the speaker's arguments reveals a pattern of negotiating through the chapter in a way that best suits his predetermined conclusion. By ignoring the historical evidence, the broader context of biblical prophecy, and the consistent themes in the New Testament, the speaker constructs a narrative that aligns with his desired interpretation rather than the clear message conveyed by Christ.
In conclusion, the attempt to separate the Second Coming from the destruction of the Second Temple in Matthew 24 is an untenable position that fails to withstand careful analysis. By recognizing the intrinsic connection between these two pivotal events and acknowledging the historical, biblical, and theological evidence that supports their fulfillment in the first century, we can gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of Christ's prophecies and their profound implications for the early Church and the nature of his kingdom. As we approach this subject, it is essential to do so with humility, openness, and a commitment to faithful exegesis, allowing the truth of God's Word to guide our understanding and shape our perspective.
Related Essays
[Click the image]
The Fig Tree of the Olivet Discourse
A Third Temple and an Impending Second