Why I Believe Jesus came in Finality in 70 A.D.

Actually, Why I Believe Jesus came in Finality in 70 A.D., is the title which appears in Don K Preston’s four part video series. The title, Why I Believe Jesus Returned in 70 A.D, is as the videos appear in YouTube. Just to be clear both of these refer to the same video work by the author. The title of this article does not reflect my understanding of the scriptures or my convictions. The title is Preston's own title. I do not agree with and I reject the overall content of the video messages. If there is any difference between the Part 1 and Part 4 videos I am not able to see it. Those two video messages appear to be the same and even the three videos bear much repetition which does not constitute a problem in itself. I played and listened to all four videos in their entirety. The appearance of the title on this blog article reflects neither my understanding nor agreement with his message. Here are the four video links for you. I encourage you to view them yourself. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Just for the record and by way of a perspective, my understanding is that Matthew 24 relates the prophecy declared by Jesus himself to his disciples concerning his coming. I take no offense nor am I troubled by whatever label has instantly been pinned on me just now. I believe, as I have briefly done in this article and as I refer readers to my own blog article, that my explanation involving the particular elements of that prophecy (while being hardly original or unique) is a marked difference from the general double brush stroke, gloss-over given to the prophecy, namely, that it is about 1) the destruction of the temple and 2) the second coming of the Lord.

Don K. Preston, or Dr. Don Preston as he is also known, has done a great study. He has done a rare, exceptional and commendable job of presenting both Old and New Testament passages appropriately and without a convoluted babble. His presentation is very balanced and is in favor of those who may not be versed in the original languages of the Bible or who would like to study, review or share this message with others in plain English. I have no doubt as to his sincerity, humility and desire to be truthful and true to the scriptures. I do not feel a need to blast or cast condemnation on him. I am mindful that he seeks to know the Lord God whom he and all the saints in Christ love.

I am not going to present a refutation here in part because I do agree with the particulars of the overall message of his presentation. What he has presented is not new to me concerning the coming of the day of the Lord, the day of the Lord or his coming. These are not separate or different and I believe Preston has made that clear in numerous ways and numerous times. I believe Preston has much belabored a true and biblical teaching to the point where he has cut off the work of God when he overstated his message and went outside the framework of his message to refer to it as the finality, if I have understood him correctly, as the final and last time Jesus is or was to come. It is this particular point which I would like to address in this article.

words

First, a brief point about one peculiar word choice by Dr. Preston. I should preface this with something which I have often reiterated, namely, that neither theology, understanding nor edification are accomplished on the basis of a single word. Certainly, this is not what Dr. Preston has attempted, but the word choice seems, to me, to be suggestive of something more than a single word. Preston’s working term for apocalyptic language is what he calls _ de-creation language? Never does he at least offer seekers for consideration the simple synonym for apocalyptic or apocalypse as that which is revealing, predictive or prophetic. What does a term like de-creation language reveal for the edification of the saints? Nothing.

There is a another term along with apocalyptic which is often swept away and aside in a similar manner, the term eschatology which has to do with things at the end or last time. As an example of both apocalyptic and eschatology are the words which make up a common phrase associated with these words, such as, the sun being darkened, the moon becoming blood red and not giving its light, and the stars falling from heaven to earth. Here is my blog article concerning the expressions the sun darkened, the moon not giving its light, and the stars falling. The saints in Christ rarely hear anything more substantive about these words which make up these expressions than that they are apocalyptic.

There is usually a much quicker route taken through the discussion by simply calling it apocalyptic, eschatological, or de-creation, language which keep these terms shrouded in dark, obscure mystery. Here is an excerpt from the blog article under the sub-heading of the day of the Lord.

*****************************************************

The phrase the day of the Lord appears numerous times in the history of Israel. It appears with respect to the destruction of Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon and Jerusalem and beyond among several other instances. The expression, or elements of sun, moon and stars in that expression, appear in the sense of the healing of Israel. The three, sun, moon and stars are what clothed the woman who gave birth in the book of Revelation. Yet, as the phrase portends doom and gloom and terror it appears that the expression involving sun, moon and stars is rooted in a plain and clear reality with which Israel was familiar and with which some, perhaps many of us, have experienced without recognizing it.

the sun will be darkened

If you were living close to Mount St. Helens or in the path of the ash cloud from its eruption in 1980 you experienced the sun being darkened in broad daylight. Almost every year there are extensive grass and forest fires in California and the northwest region of the United States which wreak destruction on nature, people’s home and people’s lives. The smoke from those fires which often goes on for days is what darkened the sun in broad daylight on the day of the Lord when Nineveh felt the fulfillment of the judgment of the Lord God.

the moon will not give its light

These same conditions of smoke and dust from cities under destruction filled the air when Egypt fell under the prophetic fulfillment of the word of the Lord in the day of the Lord. The moon loomed over the night skies and because of its relatively close distance to the earth compared to the sun it was visible even in the smoke and dust-filled skies. However, its appearance was not the usual and familiar sight of a bright-lit moon. It was blood red and although it was visible it could not give its light because its light could not penetrate the smoke and dust in the air.

the stars will fall

If the distant and very bright sun is blotted out in broad daylight and the nearby moon cannot give its light how much more so the much more distant stars. They appear to have fallen to earth in the sense that although they are certainly out their in the cosmos they are not visible in the night skies. They, too, are blotted out by the smoke and dust of the fire and destruction.

*****************************************************

finality

What do I mean that Dr. Preston has cut off the work of God? There is something which I have often observed when men and women in Christ are led by the Spirit to a discovery or realization of that which had long eluded them previously. They tend to swing back and go past the center vantage point in an overreaction to what they have just learned. No, I will not presume to dictate or define exactly what and where that center point of a theological finding or understanding is located. What do I know, but I wonder if Preston has not overreacted to what he learned some years ago after living and perhaps teaching something which was, if not in error, incomplete. It is in this way that I believe he has cut off the work of God when he concludes that the coming of the Lord in 70 A.D. is the last and final coming of the Lord Jesus. Certainly I rejoice with Dr. Preston in the realization of the coming of the day of the Lord, of the day of the Lord, as in Matthew 24 which he rightly notes is the fulfillment of the prophecy which Jesus declared to his disciples while he was still with them, but here is where I believe he has belabored the point and is thus not able to see anything future beyond what he has called the finality of Jesus’ coming in 70 A.D.

the nature of prophecy

I believe, from what I have seen in the video presentations, that Preston has an excellent understanding and command of prophecy with respect to eschatology. I heartily concur with him that Matthew (and Thessalonians) represent the heart of New Testament eschatology. I would qualify that by saying this is with respect and with a view to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Only because the book of Revelation, no less eschatological and perhaps even more so, was written two decades after that destruction and why I would not group it together with Matthew and Thessalonians.

Preston reiterates throughout his message some very good points quite well about prophecy. However, it is also while he does so that I noticed a curious and peculiar shift near the end of Part 1 from his reference to what is figurative to what is spiritual. Preston rightly emphasizes the figurative nature of an Old Testament prophecy such as the destruction of Egypt, Babylon or Jerusalem to emphasize a no less similar figurative nature of those prophecies such as when they are cited or quoted by the New Testament writers. I do not wish to violate or distort his words even as I consider that I may possibly have misunderstood him, but I believe Preston would readily agree that the destruction of those cities did occur. In other words, those prophecies were not figurative. They were literal. Again, and at the risk of engaging in my own belaboring of this moot point, I believe he understands that and that he would agree.

from figurative, literal and spiritual to fulfillment

This is where this discussion must revert to my earlier reference to Preston’s term about apocalyptic language as being de-creation language. Specifically, this is how he refers to the sun being darkened, the moon becoming blood red and not giving its life, and the stars falling from heaven to earth. These are, indeed, figurative terms, but the origin and roots of these expressions is, as I explained in my blog article, quite literal. Do not distort my words. No, the stars did not fall to earth from the heavens. There is nothing mystical, mysterious, obscure and certainly, nothing of a de-creation nature in these apocalyptic terms. These terms are revealing such as they were much used by the prophets as well as Jesus, Paul and Peter. I do not believe Preston has misused the terms figurative, literal, spiritual or fulfillment. Mostly his use of these, and he is by no means alone, may fall short so as to offer an incomplete explanation and understanding.

conclusion

So what does this understanding (whether we accept it being a different matter altogether) have to do with Preston’s view of the coming of the Lord as the finality, as in, there is no future coming of Jesus? It has to do with the nature of prophecy and how either the prophecy in its entirety or elements (such as the sun, moon and stars) appear throughout the scriptures repeatedly. The same or very similar wording of the prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem appears again concerning the destruction of Babylon and Egypt and other cities.

Again, Preston does good to explain the absence in the New Testament of a plurality of comings, or parousia, of the Lord. He does so to drive his point on what he sees as the finality of the coming of Jesus in 70 A.D. Although the term finality with respect to the coming of the Lord is itself not found in the New Testament I understand and am willing to work with his use of the term. However, this very well-made point holds equally true of the the coming of the day of the Lord with respect to Jerusalem and then again with respect to Babylon and so on. We rightly understand without problem or confusion, I believe, these multiple and different prophecies concerning the coming of the Lord without a key word such as a plural form of parousia, which means, the presence or coming of the Lord. In other words, there was a coming of the Lord or the day of the Lord with respect to Egypt, and then again with respect to Jerusalem and then again with respect to Babylon. Our understanding of these different and multiple occurrences of the fulfillment of the word of the Lord, as in plural comings or parousia, do not pose a problem for us. However, this same understanding seems to have been lost as we grapple to understand the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24.

How then is it that Preston, with all due respect, concludes that prophecy concerning the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24 or I Thessalonians is no less capable of being repeated in the same manner as the prophetic utterances concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt? Certainly, there was no finality associated or ascribed to the first or subsequent occurrences of those prophecies in the Old Testament.

One specific example of such a prophecy is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel in Joel chapter two. We know it and are most familiar with this prophecy as it is cited and quoted by the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2. There is no literal destruction in question in the passage in Acts 2 even with its corresponding apocalyptic terminology involving the sun, moon and stars. The prophecy is cited and quoted as the fulfillment of what the Lord had declared through his servant Joel. There is no less reason and there is ample good reason for an understanding of the fulfillment of the prophecy of Matthew 24, given the example of Joel 2 in Acts 2, as the hope of a future fulfillment of the coming of the Lord Jesus in the clouds. Peace, joy and love to all.