Introduction

Matthew 10:17–23

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.  But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues.  You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.  But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.  “Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.  And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matt. 10:17–23, NKJV).

Jesus told His first-century disciples—not a future generation—that they would not run out of cities in Israel to flee to before He returned. These cities served as places of refuge during persecution, and the coming He refers to is His return in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70.

Premillennialist D.A. Carson explains and concedes,

“vv. 17–22, pictures the suffering witness of the church in the post-Pentecost period during a time when many of Jesus’ disciples are still bound up with the synagogue.  vv. 2 The “coming of the Son of Man” here refers to his coming in judgment against the Jews, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (so France, Jesus, p. 140; Feuillet, “Les origines,” pp. 182–98; Moule, Birth, p. 90; J.A.T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming [London: SCM, 1957], pp. 80, 91–92; and others).^[1]”

Amillennialist Sam Waldron also concedes,

“My conclusion is that the “coming” of Matthew 10:23 is a reference to His sending of judgment upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 through the Roman armies.”[2]

Yet many interpreters avoid this conclusion, instead suggesting Jesus’ “coming” here was fulfilled at the cross, resurrection, or Pentecost. This view fails for two reasons:

First, Jesus listed specific events that would precede His coming:

1. Some would be scourged in synagogues.
2. Some would be brought before governors and kings.
3. The Holy Spirit would be given as a miraculous defense.
4. Some would be put to death during a period of severe persecution.

None of these events occurred before the crucifixion, the resurrection, or Pentecost; however, all are documented in the book of Acts and took place before Christ came in the judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.

Second, Matthew 10:17–23 previews what Jesus would expand upon in Matthew 24–25: persecution, divine aid, the gospel going to the nations, and the parousia or “coming”—all within “this generation” (Matt. 24:34).

The AD 70 Parallels and Domino Effect of Matthew 10:17-23

Jesus’ words in Matthew 10 foreshadow the broader pattern of events He later elaborates in the Olivet Discourse, forming a unified eschatological framework: one coming, one judgment, fulfilled within the lifetime of His disciples. The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and the Olivet Discourse are striking:

Many commentators, noting the strong parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25, overlook the audience relevance and temporal context, teaching that Matthew 10:17-23 refers to a future to us second coming of Jesus. They assume both Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24-25 describe events still to come. However, we align with the commonsense position of Premillennial D.A. Carson, Amillennial Sam Waldron, and Postmillennial Partial Preterists whom interpret Matthew 10:23 as Christ’s judgment coming in AD 70. We also agree with certain futurists who point out the obvious in that the parallels between Matthew 10:17-23 and Matthew 24-25 indicate they refer to the same coming of Christ.  These two orthodox views have formed Full Preterism.  This is not an “either or” but a “both and” solution.

The parallels between Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 24–25 create exegetical challenges for Premillennialists like D.A. Carson and Amillennialists like Sam Waldron, who argue that these passages do not refer to the same coming of the Son of Man. If Jesus promised to return to judge Jerusalem, as they both affirm Jesus teaches here in Matthew 10:23, would He not have referenced this “coming” elsewhere in His teachings such as Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24-25, and Matthew 26:64-65? Furthermore, if New Testament authors, under divine inspiration, describe Christ’s coming as “at hand,” “soon,” or “about to” occur, why would these references not also point to the AD 70 judgment, consistent with Matthew 10:23? Many partial preterists such as Gary DeMar recognize the implications of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 10:23, connecting it to Matthew 16:27–28 and other New Testament passages that emphasize a “soon” coming, all pointing to AD 70. In contrast, Carson and Waldron treat the “coming” of Christ in Matthew 10:23 as an isolated event, disconnected from Jesus’ other teachings on His imminent return in the Gospels and the broader New Testament.

In the immediate context of Matthew 10, Jesus proclaims, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:7). As we will see, Christ connects His coming with the arrival of the kingdom in subsequent passages. Futurists err by limiting the “at hand” kingdom solely to Christ’s first coming, especially since Jesus draws from Daniel 7:13–27, which ties the coming of the Son of Man to receiving the kingdom. Daniel 2 further clarifies that this kingdom is spiritual, distinct from human kingdoms.

Let’s examine the parallels between Jesus’ teaching here in Matthew 10 with his OT source material in Daniel:

Scholars like Carson and Waldron often overlook that Jesus’ Old Testament source in Matthew 10:17–23 is Daniel 7:13–27, which develops the same eschatological themes:

• The coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13 = Matt. 10:23).
• Persecution precedes inheriting the kingdom, the time of the end and the coming of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13–27 = Matt. 10:7, 17–23).
• Contextually, this is described as “the day of judgment,” even for the dead of Sodom and Gomorrah, when Christ would sit on His throne, judge the nations, and strip them of their dominion (Dan. 7:9–27 = Matt. 10:15).

Before leaving our text, it is important to point out that Jesus is not saying that His disciples would fail to reach all towns in Israel before His return. Rather, while they carried out their mission from roughly AD 26–66, He assured them there would always be another city of refuge. Some scholars, like B.M. Metzger, interpret the Greek to mean just that:

“…the Committee preferred to regard the words as a natural continuation, inserted in order to explain the following statement, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἕως [ἂν] ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (which was taken to mean, “You will not exhaust the cities of Israel [as cities   of refuge], before the Son of Man comes”).”^[3]

Up to the end (of the old covenant age), He would provide them with cities of refuge somewhere within Israel. Paul later confirms that all nations throughout the then-known Roman world had heard the gospel in his day just as the end of the old covenant age was approaching (cf. Rom. 10:18; 16:25–26; Col. 1:5–6, 23).

Conclusion

Matthew 10:17–23 presents a clear and unified teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man, fulfilled in AD 70 with the judgment on Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ promise that His disciples would not exhaust Israel’s cities of refuge before His return (Matt. 10:23) ties directly to the persecution, divine empowerment, and gospel proclamation detailed in the passage, all of which were realized in the apostolic era as documented in Acts. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–27, Jesus frames His coming as a singular eschatological event, bringing judgment, the kingdom’s arrival, and vindication for the persecuted, all within “this generation” (cf. Matt. 24:34). The striking parallels with the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25) confirm this as one coming, not two, refuting dispensationalist and partial preterist attempts to posit multiple returns or a distant future fulfillment.

Scholars like D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron correctly identify Matthew 10:23 as fulfilled in AD 70 but falter by isolating it from Jesus’ other teachings (e.g., Matt. 16:27–28; 24–25) and Daniel’s prophecies (Dan. 7:13; 9:26–27; 12:4–7), which consistently point to a first-century consummation. The preterist interpretation, harmonizing Matthew 10 with these texts and New Testament imminence (“soon,” “at hand”), affirms that Christ faithfully returned in AD 70, spiritually establishing His kingdom and bringing closure to the Old Covenant system.

Major Premise:
Daniel prophesied a singular coming of the Son of Man during the Roman Empire, involving persecution, judgment, and the inauguration of the Kingdom, to be fulfilled at the “appointed time of the end” (Dan. 7:13–27; 9:24–27; 12:1–7).

Minor Premise:
Jesus taught in Matthew 10:17–23 that His disciples would face persecution, be empowered by the Holy Spirit, and not finish fleeing through Israel’s cities before the Son of Man came. He later repeated and expanded these same themes in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), placing them all within His generation.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 10 and the Olivet Discourse describe the same AD 70 fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy—the coming of the Son of Man in judgment upon apostate Israel and the establishment of the Messianic kingdom within the first-century generation.

Study Questions for Chapter 5: Matthew 10:17–23

1. What two major questions does this chapter seek to answer about Jesus’ coming?
2. Why do many scholars such as D.A. Carson and Sam Waldron believe Matthew 10:23 refers to Jesus’ coming in AD 70? And if this coming of Christ was fulfilled in AD 70, then doesn’t it beg the question as to why the NT coming of the Lord that was “near” “soon” and would “not be delayed” is the same AD 70 coming Jesus prophesied here?
3. List four events Jesus said would occur before His coming in Matthew 10. Did any of these occur before the transfiguration, crucifixion, ascension, or Pentecost?
4. How do the themes in Matthew 10:17–23 parallel the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25?
5. How does the language of “the end” and the coming of the Son of Man connect Matthew 10 to Daniel 7 and 12? Why don’t you think men like Carson and Waldron avoid that study?
6. Why is the phrase “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” significant to audience relevance?
7. What is the meaning of the Greek term Metzger interprets in reference to “cities of Israel”?
8. How does Paul’s declaration that the gospel had been preached to “all nations” by his time support an AD 70 fulfillment?
9. What errors do partial preterists and futurists make when interpreting Matthew 10:23, according to this chapter?
10. Why does the chapter argue there is only one coming of Christ described throughout the Gospels and Daniel—not two?
11. What evidence shows that Matthew 25:31 is a recapitulation of Matthew 24:30 and not a different event?
12. How does the use of “soon,” “near,” and “in a very little while” in NT texts confirm the first-century timing of Christ’s coming?

Books by Michael Sullivan: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

^[1] D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 252.

[2] Sam Waldron, THE DOCTRINE OF LAST THINGS AN OPTIMISTIC AMILLENNIAL VIEW, (Free Grace Press, 2025), 384

[3] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 25. Emphasis added.