Article by: Kenneth J. Ester
Preterisms Great Tribulation
One of the main frameworks of the Preterist (and to some degree Historists) beliefs is that the destruction in 70 AD is the great tribulation Jesus speaks about in Matthew 24. In the past, I have always argued against that, using the logic that Jesus clearly tells us the great tribulation will be the worst this world has ever seen or ever will see. Since everyone who is not being biased to save their beliefs would say that the Holocaust was worse, it means that 70 AD was not the worst that ever will be, so it cannot be the great tribulation that Jesus was speaking of.
Of course, Preterists (and Historists) would just give reasons why they thought that 70 AD was worse than the Holocaust. I have always believed them ridiculous arguments, but in all honesty, all that did was leave it to those who read it to decide what they believed. It didn't actually prove it false. I believe I won those debates based on logical understanding, but I never really proved Preterism false.
In the same way, there are many issues with their beliefs that they cannot answer. I have often laid these many issues out to them and all they ever do is pretend those issues dont exist. They wont even acknowledge them because they know they dont have answers. Once again, I believed I showed a logical reason to know they had things wrong, but I never truly proved them false.
In my studies, God has been more than faithful to open my eyes to things that are not the mainstream beliefs. In the past this has even led me to actually proving that if one pays attention to what the Bible actually says and not just to interpretations man teaches, you find that it is literally impossible for the rapture to happen at the second coming. It must happen prior to the second coming. Which means God has opened my eyes to the actual proof that the Post-Trib rapture is false. If you are interested, you can read that article here.
Well recently God has opened my eyes to true proof that the Preterist stance is false as well. It comes from comparing Matthew 24 to Luke 21.
In these accounts, the disciples are amazed by the large building in Jerusalem and they point them out to Jesus. Jesus replies to them that the day is coming when the city will be destroyed to the point that not one stone will remain upon another. After Jesus reveals this to them, the disciples ask Him a question that is actually two different questions meshed into one.
What are the signs of His coming and of the end of the age.
What are the signs of His coming?
What are the signs of the End of the age?
In Matthew 24:4-6 & Luke 21:8-9, Jesus warns them to see to it that they are not misled, for many false Christs will come. In both cases Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars. Also in both cases, Jesus clarifies to them to take note that these things must happen but it is not yet the end.
In both accounts, Jesus then continues on to tell them that kingdom will rise against kingdom and nation against nation, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
The first 8 verses of Matthew 24, and the first 11 verses of Luke 21, are clearly the same accounts being told. But then something happens that most Christians just gloss over.
Matthew 24:9 begins with "Then they will hand you over to tribulation..."
Luke 21:12 begins with, "But before all these things"
In Matthew, he is clearly telling us that he is continuing with the same story. That they will be handed over to tribulation 'after' all the signs He had already mentioned.
In Luke however, Jesus stops the story at this point and now begins to tell them of something that will happen 'before' all the signs He had already given.
From the wording of those two verses, there can be no argument made that they are continuing to tell the same event. That is literally impossible. One cannot possibly speak of what happens 'before, the birthing pains, and the other continues forward with what happens 'after' the birthing pains and both be telling about the same event.
In Luke however, Jesus only speaks of one event before moving into what is clearly the second coming. So everything between the birthing pains and the second coming in Luke's account must be 'before' the birthing pains. And there is only one event between those accounts in Luke. The destruction of Jerusalem.
In Matthew however there is nothing in any scripture that gives us any reason to believe we are going back in time. His account only moves forward. So everything Jesus says in Matthew is 'after' the Birthing pains.
In both books, it has a warning to the Jews to flee, but these are in no way the same warning. The purpose for their fleeing is not the same. In Matthew, they are to flee when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place. In Luke it is when Jerusalem is surrounded on all sides. So this would be before they were attacked that Luke is telling them they must flee. However, in Matthews account, Jesus warns them to flee 'after' they were attacked and the abomination is already in the temple.
So not only do we have the verses clearly changing the timeline in Luke to before the birthing pains, but the two books also have the people being warned to flee at two different times.
The only account that mentions a great tribulation is the one that never takes us back in time but continues moving forward. Which means it is literally impossible for the destruction in 70 AD to be the great tribulation Jesus tells us about. The great tribulation clearly happens 'after' the Birthing pains and the desolation in 70 AD clearly happens 'before' the birthing pains.
Preterists and Historists will try to argue that the two events are one and the same, but to do so they ignore two clear contradictions.
There is no question, when you look at what scripture actually says, that 70 AD cannot possibly be the great tribulation. To insist it is, while ignoring the evidence I just put forth, would only be evidence that one does not care about the truth, but will push their beliefs even if they are false. So the real question now, is whether Preterist and Historists will show they care about the truth and change their beliefs, or if they will knowingly hold onto, and push a false belief.
Of course, Preterists (and Historists) would just give reasons why they thought that 70 AD was worse than the Holocaust. I have always believed them ridiculous arguments, but in all honesty, all that did was leave it to those who read it to decide what they believed. It didn't actually prove it false. I believe I won those debates based on logical understanding, but I never really proved Preterism false.
In the same way, there are many issues with their beliefs that they cannot answer. I have often laid these many issues out to them and all they ever do is pretend those issues dont exist. They wont even acknowledge them because they know they dont have answers. Once again, I believed I showed a logical reason to know they had things wrong, but I never truly proved them false.
In my studies, God has been more than faithful to open my eyes to things that are not the mainstream beliefs. In the past this has even led me to actually proving that if one pays attention to what the Bible actually says and not just to interpretations man teaches, you find that it is literally impossible for the rapture to happen at the second coming. It must happen prior to the second coming. Which means God has opened my eyes to the actual proof that the Post-Trib rapture is false. If you are interested, you can read that article here.
Well recently God has opened my eyes to true proof that the Preterist stance is false as well. It comes from comparing Matthew 24 to Luke 21.
In these accounts, the disciples are amazed by the large building in Jerusalem and they point them out to Jesus. Jesus replies to them that the day is coming when the city will be destroyed to the point that not one stone will remain upon another. After Jesus reveals this to them, the disciples ask Him a question that is actually two different questions meshed into one.
What are the signs of His coming and of the end of the age.
What are the signs of His coming?
What are the signs of the End of the age?
In Matthew 24:4-6 & Luke 21:8-9, Jesus warns them to see to it that they are not misled, for many false Christs will come. In both cases Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars. Also in both cases, Jesus clarifies to them to take note that these things must happen but it is not yet the end.
In both accounts, Jesus then continues on to tell them that kingdom will rise against kingdom and nation against nation, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
The first 8 verses of Matthew 24, and the first 11 verses of Luke 21, are clearly the same accounts being told. But then something happens that most Christians just gloss over.
Matthew 24:9 begins with "Then they will hand you over to tribulation..."
Luke 21:12 begins with, "But before all these things"
In Matthew, he is clearly telling us that he is continuing with the same story. That they will be handed over to tribulation 'after' all the signs He had already mentioned.
In Luke however, Jesus stops the story at this point and now begins to tell them of something that will happen 'before' all the signs He had already given.
From the wording of those two verses, there can be no argument made that they are continuing to tell the same event. That is literally impossible. One cannot possibly speak of what happens 'before, the birthing pains, and the other continues forward with what happens 'after' the birthing pains and both be telling about the same event.
In Luke however, Jesus only speaks of one event before moving into what is clearly the second coming. So everything between the birthing pains and the second coming in Luke's account must be 'before' the birthing pains. And there is only one event between those accounts in Luke. The destruction of Jerusalem.
In Matthew however there is nothing in any scripture that gives us any reason to believe we are going back in time. His account only moves forward. So everything Jesus says in Matthew is 'after' the Birthing pains.
In both books, it has a warning to the Jews to flee, but these are in no way the same warning. The purpose for their fleeing is not the same. In Matthew, they are to flee when they see the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place. In Luke it is when Jerusalem is surrounded on all sides. So this would be before they were attacked that Luke is telling them they must flee. However, in Matthews account, Jesus warns them to flee 'after' they were attacked and the abomination is already in the temple.
So not only do we have the verses clearly changing the timeline in Luke to before the birthing pains, but the two books also have the people being warned to flee at two different times.
The only account that mentions a great tribulation is the one that never takes us back in time but continues moving forward. Which means it is literally impossible for the destruction in 70 AD to be the great tribulation Jesus tells us about. The great tribulation clearly happens 'after' the Birthing pains and the desolation in 70 AD clearly happens 'before' the birthing pains.
Preterists and Historists will try to argue that the two events are one and the same, but to do so they ignore two clear contradictions.
There is no question, when you look at what scripture actually says, that 70 AD cannot possibly be the great tribulation. To insist it is, while ignoring the evidence I just put forth, would only be evidence that one does not care about the truth, but will push their beliefs even if they are false. So the real question now, is whether Preterist and Historists will show they care about the truth and change their beliefs, or if they will knowingly hold onto, and push a false belief.
