Luke 21:22. Was All Bible Prophecy Fulfilled at AD 70?

[Duncan]

Hi Steve,

If I am not mistaken, you have a debate coming up with Don Preston. While my position is closer to Don's, I strongly disagree with the full preterist hermeneutic that demands that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. I think it will be helpful if you have a solid answer in response to Luke 21;22. Maybe you already do but just in case I wanted to put my two cents in.

LUKE 21:22: DID JESUS TEACH THAT ALL PROPHECY WOULD BE FULFILLED AT AD 70?
Luke 21:22 is one of the foundations of the full preterist paradigm of all prophecy being fulfilled by AD 70; as such it deserves careful consideration:

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-22

This is a clear reference to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Full preterists maintain that the "all things" referred to here means that all the prophecy in the Bible would be fulfilled at this time. This is simply incorrect. What Luke 21:22 is saying is that all the things written about the days of vengeance on God’s disobedient old covenant people would be fulfilled by AD 70, not that all Bible prophecy would be fulfilled at that time. The meaning of Luke 21:22 is important; it has a major impact upon the full preterist’s interpretive framework. Any scripture that a full preterist comes upon is assumed to have been fulfilled by or before AD 70; full preterists have to come to this conclusion or abandon their paradigm. In this sense the belief in all prophecy fulfilled by AD 70 functions much like a creed for full preterists.

In terms of the subject of Luke 21:22 (i.e., the days of vengeance), there are a number of passages that speak of God's vengeance on his old covenant people when they broke the covenant. The two major sections are found in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-32. The days of vengeance were to involve God bringing a sword (i.e., a nation) against his unfaithful old covenant people in retribution for their breaking the covenant. This would result in God’s old covenant people being scattered among the nations.

And I will bring a sword against you that will execute the vengeance of the covenant . . . I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.
Leviticus 26:25, 32-33; cf. Deuteronomy 32:28-43; Matthew 23:32-36

In Luke 21:22 Jesus is saying that all the covenant punishments spoken of in Leviticus and Deuteronomy would be fulfilled at the AD 70 desolation of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20; cf. Matt. 23:32-36) and that the Jews would be scattered to the nations. He was not saying that all Bible prophecy would be fulfilled at this time. While God's old covenant people had been judged before for breaking the covenant (cf. Dan. 9:10-13), the ultimate judgment would come in AD 70; it would be focused on the generation that rejected Jesus and had him killed. This is because the murder of Jesus was the ultimate act of breaking the covenant (cf. Matt. 21:33-45). With the death of her King, unfaithful Israel went from being a queen to a widow (cf. Rev. 18:7-8).

DOES “ALL THINGS” MEAN EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE?
In evaluating what the “all things’ in Luke 21:22 refers to, it is useful to look at other sections of Luke that have similar references to “all things.” Consider Luke 18:31:

Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, Behold we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished.
Luke 18:31

In Luke 18:31 Jesus tells his disciples that "all things" written about him by the prophets would be accomplished at Jerusalem. If one uses the logic that full preterists use on Luke 21:22, one would say that all the prophets said about Jesus was fulfilled at Jesus’ crucifixion in AD 30. This, of course, is not correct; to use such logic would be making a serious error. One would end up trying to fit the AD 70 coming of God to defeat the Antichrist (Dan. 7:21-22)—what the NT reveals as the parousia of Jesus (Rev. 19:11-21)—in with, or before, the crucifixion. What Luke 18:31 is saying is that all that was written about Jesus’ suffering, dying, and rising in victory on the third day would be fulfilled in his death and resurrection at Jerusalem. All the specifics written about these events would be fulfilled at that time, not all things written about Jesus by the prophets.
Another Lukan “all things” statement was made by Jesus after his resurrection.

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
Luke 24:44

Once again, this did not mean that all the prophecies in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms (i.e., all the prophecies in the Bible) about Jesus were fulfilled by the time of his resurrection. Few, if any, would deny that Jesus’ Second Advent and full kingdom reign still awaited a post-AD 30 fulfillment (cf. Matt. 16:27-28; Luke 19:11-27). What Jesus meant by “all things” was that everything that happened at Jerusalem had to happen to fulfill all the prophecies about him dying and rising again. This is made clear as Jesus continues in chapter 24:

And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things.”
Luke 24:45-48

To summarize: taking into consideration Luke’s similar uses of “all things” (e.g., Luke 18:31; 24:44), Luke 21:22 is saying that all things that were written in the Old Testament about the days of vengeance on unfaithful Israel would be fulfilled by AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. To say the "all things" of Luke 21:22 means that all the prophecies in the Bible were to be fulfilled by AD 70 is unwarranted. When one looks at Luke's use of "all things" they speak of all the specifics of a given prophetic event being fulfilled, not all the prophecies in the Bible being fulfilled.

[Barnsweb]

Luke might be a secondary resource, as he wasn't one of the twelve disciples. Jesus appointed and promised the twelve that they would have Spirit inspired recall of all He said to them. Luke is a historian and only reported as best he could from eyewitness testimony that may or may not have been 100% correct. This is why my studies center on Matthew and John for the gospel accounts, and additionally the letters of Peter and John, the second letter of Peter being put to the side because the early Church considered II Peter to be a pseudograph. It wasn't adopted as cannon until almost 400 AD.

I'm just wondering what your take of the topic would lead to conclude with only Matt, John, Acts 1-8 and excluding Pauls' writings..?

Joel 2 is quoted by Peter in Acts. Joel 3 says Israel will return to their land after 'those days', which is the age the Gentiles were to trod down Jerusalem...so it seems odd that anyone who believes Joel 2 fulfillment might ignore Joel 3... but people believe the strangest things:-)

[dwilkins]

You didn't give a reason for throwing out Acts after chapter 8. I'm curious what your rationale for that is. And, I'm curious about why you'd include Matthew 1-8 since Matthew hadn't been called yet and was a witness to any of these events. But, if we are going to accept Matthew, or at least the second 2/3's of it I'd suggest that this is about all you'd need to make the point since Matthew contains the most detailed section on the Olivet Discourse. If this is all you had to go on I doubt there'd be much debate on the topic.

I think you might be mistaken in locating Joel 3 in our future. The condemnation there is against nations, specifically the Greeks, who'd trodden down Jerusalem and sold some of the Jews into captivity. All of the language associated with this judgment is parallel to that of the day that the faithful remnant is finally delivered from their enemies and a new Jerusalem is set up. If you look at this passage through the lens of Isaiah 65-66 it is clearly when the apostate members of the nation are killed along with those who've participated in the oppression of Judah (see Daniel 2 and 7 for a list of nations who did so). Since you left John's writings in the Bible I'd point to his definition of the New Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Jerusalem references here.

Connected with Duncan's point, I'm not bothered by most of the historical fulfillment argument that Preston makes. What bothers me is the application of this argument to things that the scripture sees as ongoing such as salvation, resurrection, and the kingdom of the saints. Full Preterists have an easy time saying the happened at some point in history, but they have a hard time explaining how they can keep happening afterwards. See Ed Stevens' (Ed considers himself to be a Full Preterist but is critical of Preston's view of resurrection and salvation) critique of this in the following podcast: http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633/107769- ... t-not-here

Doug

[robbyyoung]

Cherry-Picking Scriptures

This is another reason why the Full Preterist position makes plenty of sense. We have copies of what, most likely, was spoken and written in the Hebrew language. What belongs, and what doesn't belong - and so on... all makes the point that YAHWEH's original Word for the eminent time reached the intended audience. That is exactly why the Bible it written in an historical context ending pre 70 A.D. Those who attempt to push last days events past the 1st Century, IMHO, must deal with NOT HAVING the original source documents, and YAHWEH's decision to have it this way. I say, because the matter is closed and YAHWEH have been tabernacled with mankind ever since 70 A.D. YAHWEH obviously intended for the world to have Greek copies after 70 A.D., NOT the original.

Maybe one day the original Hebrew text will be unearthed. Either way, The Full Preterist is not shaken by the Greek copies some currently hold as infallible, as if they are The Original.

God Bless!

[Paidion]

There are plenty of Biblical prophecies which were not fulfilled at AD 70.

Jesus prophesied that He would raise his disciples at the last day.

Joh 6:39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Joh 6:40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Did the last day dawn in 70 A.D.? Seems to me that there have been a lot of days since that time!

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. (Matt 25:31-33)

Were all nations gathered before Jesus in 70 A.D where He separated the "sheep" from the "goats"? If so that would have been such a momentous event that
it would have been recorded in history books, and virtually all people would have known about it. Surely Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) would have recorded it in his lengthy church history!

“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. Mark 13:24-27)

Did a wondrous astronomical as this ever occur? When did this happen? When did anyone see Jesus coming in clouds with great power and glory? Again why did Eusebius not record this most amazing event?

So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lighting comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matt 24:26-27)

Just as the lighting (not "lightning") of the sun comes up in the east and throughout the day shines into the west, and everyone is fully aware of it, so it will be when Jesus returns. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (Rev 1:7)

Just as the rising sun is obvious to all, so will Jesus coming be obvious to all. Such an event would have been recorded in history. "Every eye will see Him" when He returns. Did every eye see Him in 70 A.D. or at any other time? I do not think so. It will not be a secret coming "in the inner rooms" as Jesus said.

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11)

The "two men" (angels) prophesied that just as they saw Jesus ascend into the sky, so He will come in the same way. In other words, it will be a literal coming of Jesus. Just as Jesus' apostles saw him literally ascend into the sky, so some will see Him when He descends from the sky on the day of his coming.
Nobody saw Him descend in 70 A.D. or at any other time.

The apostle Paul prophesied:
Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1 Cor 15:53)

Has any living person been changed into an imperishable body? Has anyone become immortal yet? If so, why have we never heard of a company of immortal persons?

[robbyyoung]

Oh my dear brother... Yes, the last days were in the 1st Century and everything took place. The time statements are irrefutable! You can only be left to argue "The Nature" of last days events. You, it seems, take a literal approach to most things probably. But "The Time Statements" will immediately suppress any future fulfillment outside the context. It amazes me how so many people continue to be duped into this futurism nonsense, I say this in all due respect, after clearly seeing the audience relevance context. Here's the most troubling part, if 100 years past soon, or "at hand", "at the door", "shortly", etc... doesn't make one examine a faulty interpretation, what does 500, or 1000, or how about 2000 years! prove. Your interpretation has no biblical validation of the text whatsoever, Yeshua will forever in the future be coming soon - which makes absolutely no sense (nonsense). 10,000 years from now it will be the same same thing!

It's over! The text speaks for itself without any gymnastics of the timing.

By the way, I'm sure you know of Ed Stevens and others like him who see no reason to believe that the resurrection, as spoken to have happened, in the 1st Century didn't in fact happen. The timing demands it, after all. Most importantly, the promise wasn't made to US, but to the relevant generation or audience. STOP READING YOURSELF INTO THE TEXT! Most of your error is this fact.

God Blesss!

[john6809]

Robby Young wrote,

This is another reason why the Full Preterist position makes plenty of sense. We have copies of what, most likely, was spoken and written in the Hebrew language. What belongs, and what doesn't belong - and so on... all makes the point that YAHWEH's original Word for the eminent time reached the intended audience. That is exactly why the Bible it written in an historical context ending pre 70 A.D. Those who attempt to push last days events past the 1st Century, IMHO, must deal with NOT HAVING the original source documents, and YAHWEH's decision to have it this way. I say, because the matter is closed and YAHWEH have been tabernacled with mankind ever since 70 A.D. YAHWEH obviously intended for the world to have Greek copies after 70 A.D., NOT the original.

Maybe one day the original Hebrew text will be unearthed. Either way, The Full Preterist is not shaken by the Greek copies some currently hold as infallible, as if they are The Original.

I may not be understanding what you are trying to get across, but I am curious why you are so confident that your views would be proven correct if the "original documents" were to be discovered? What makes you think that the greek copies of what was, in your own words, "most likely spoken and written in the Hebrew language", are so vastly different as to prove fatal to any futurist view? It seems as though those who restrict last days events to pre-70 AD must also "deal with NOT HAVING the originals" to back up your claims.

Again, not sure exactly what you are trying to say - am I missing something?

John

[dwilkins]

On the point of the resurrection being in the past, the primary position of the church regarding the kingdom has always been that it was so (though most didn't realize this implication of their kingdom theology). This comes through the paradigm of Amillennialism, which can only exist if the millennium is ongoing. But, a key component of the ongoing millennium is that the First Resurrection of Rev. 20 has already occurred. That resurrection is irrefutably tied to the one described in Daniel 12 and referred to in Daniel 7. The early church fathers thought so strongly that the kingdom that had begun was not one that would pass away in 1,000 literal years, or that the kingdom would not be a literal 1,000 year one on earth, that they deliberately included a line in the 381 revision of the Nicene Creed so that chiliasm, or the belief in a literal 1,000 year kingdom on earth, would be a heresy.

Whether there remains a second resurrection is open for discussion, but the church has always taught that the first resurrection began in the NT era (I'd suggest at the time of the judgment of the Old Covenant nation, and the rest of those from the nations who'd died up to that point).

For a more detailed explanation of this I'd refer you to a short book I released on Amazon called "Making Sense of the Millennium".

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Mill ... millennium

Doug

[paulespino]

Duncan wrote:

Full preterists maintain that the "all things" referred to here means that all the prophecy in the Bible would be fulfilled at this time. This is simply incorrect. What Luke 21:22 is saying is that all the things written about the days of vengeance on God’s disobedient old covenant people would be fulfilled by AD 70, not that all Bible prophecy would be fulfilled at that time

I agree with you, we have to know to what is the word "ALL" referring to.

In Romans 5:12 Paul used the word "ALL"
NIV
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

The people who believe in the doctrine of Original Sin understood this as All human beings including new born babies but I think Paul is referring to a specific group of people and they are the one who committed the act of sin.
Paul is telling us that "ALL" humans who committed the act of sin had died, this does not include new born babies because they have not committed the act of sin.

[dwilkins]

In answer to Duncan's original point, Ed Stevens just did a pretty powerful podcast arguing that the times of the Gentiles was specifically the Roman war in 66-70AD. You can find that podcast here:

http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633/181738- ... s-lk-21-24