After examining Matthew 23 in its immediate context alongside chapters 24–25, it might seem natural to transition directly into the Olivet Discourse. However, given Jesus’ declaration to the religious leaders in Matthew 23:39—that “youwill not see Me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord’” at one of their feasts—it is worthwhile to pause and consider another critical passage. In this text, Jesus not only reiterates His promise to return within the first century but also emphasizes His judgment upon Israel’s contemporary corrupt leadership once again.
Matthew 26:63-65:
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man [Dan. 7:13] sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One [Ps. 110] and coming on the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7;13].” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus consistently applies Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 to Himself. He presents Himself as the divine “Son of Man” riding on the clouds (Dan. 7:13) and as the exalted “Lord” of Psalm 110, seated at the right hand of God and destined to subdue His enemies. He also promises that some among His first-century listeners would live to witness His coming in judgment and glory (cf. Matt. 10:22–23; 16:27–28; 24:30; 25:31–46).
In Matthew 22:41–46, Jesus identifies Himself as both the Messiah and the pre-existent “Lord” of Psalm 110. The Jews acknowledged the Messianic nature of these texts but struggled with their implications—particularly the divine status of the “Son of Man” and the exalted “Lord” seated with God. Some interpreted these texts through the lens of the “Two Powers in Heaven” doctrine, affirming that the Messiah was an eternal being distinct from, yet equal to, the Father. Others rejected this notion. Jesus clearly affirms the former view.
Combining these Messianic texts is theologically rich. Psalm 110 emphasizes Christ’s ascension and reign from heaven, putting His enemies under His feet. Daniel 7 adds the temporal dimension—He would return on the clouds through the instrumentality of the Roman armies to judge Jerusalem in AD 70. Psalm 110 thus portrays His exaltation in AD 30, while Daniel 7 points to His coming in judgment in AD 70.
The Parable of the Ten Minas – Luke 19:11–27
To correct the mistaken expectation that the kingdom would appear immediately during His earthly ministry, Jesus tells a parable about a nobleman (Himself) who goes to a “far country” (heaven) to receive a kingdom and later returns. He entrusts ten servants with resources to steward in His absence. Upon returning, the nobleman evaluates their faithfulness—rewarding the faithful and condemning the unfaithful. One servant, representing unbelieving Israel, slanders the Master and fails to produce fruit, symbolizing Israel’s rejection of both the Old Testament and the Gospel. Consequently, the rebellious are judged.
This parable mirrors both Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. Christ’s reign from heaven is demonstrated through His Church and the outpouring of the Spirit. He gave Jerusalem a generation to repent. When they refused, He returned in AD 70 to judge those who did not want Him to reign over them.
Of this parable in Luke 19:11-17 John Gill concedes this is Christ describing His “ascension” and His reference to His “return” very well could be referring to his return or coming in AD 70:
“…went into a far country…hither Christ went at his ascension;…
“…and return;…to destroy the Jews; the doing of which fully proved he had received his kingdom, was vested with power and authority,…”[1]
John Lightfoot seems even more convinced that the time frame of this parable is between Christ’s ascension to His coming to judge Jerusalem in AD 70 which were the “last days” of old covenant Israel:
“That nobleman or king that went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom is Christ in his gospel, going forth to call in the Gentiles to his obedience: returning, he cuts off the nation of the Jews that would not have to reign over them….”
“Jerusalem was destroyed, because she knew not the time of her visitation.”
He describes these events as what took place:
“…in the last days, i.e. in the last days of Jerusalem.”
Israel’s last days being connected to:
“the worst generation” that “lived in them [the last days].”[2]
Therefore, for Christ to go “into a far country” is Christ “going to the Father’s right hand.” Christ making His “enemieshis footstool” answers to when He “returned” in AD 70 and brought “these enemies of mine” before Him and slew them by means of the Roman armies (Lk. 17:11-27 = Ps. 110:1). The time frame between His ascension and His “return” to judge the “enemies” of Psalm 110 was in Israel’s “last days” or in their “worst generation” [AD 30 – AD 70].
Matthew 25:14-31ff.: The Parable of the Talents
Matthew’s version, found in the Olivet Discourse, parallels the parable in Luke. The man going on a long journey represents Christ ascending to the Father (Ps. 110), and the “long time” between His departure and return refers to the period from AD 30 to AD 70. When He returns, He judges the unfaithful and casts them into outer darkness.
Gary DeMar correctly observes that the “long time” in both the parables of the ten virgins and tenants is referring to the period of AD 30 – AD 70:
“Notice that the evil slave says, “My master is not coming for a long time” (Matt. 24:48). The evil slave then proceeds to “beat his fellow-slaves and eat and drink with drunkards” (24:49). But to the surprise of the “evil slave,” the master returned when he least expected him (24:50). The master did not return to cut the evil slave’s distant relatives in pieces (24:51); he cut him in pieces. The evil slave was alive when the master left, and he was alive when the master returned. In this context, a “long time” must be measured against a person’s lifetime. In context, two years could be a long time if the master usually returned within six months.
The same idea is expressed in the Parable of the Talents. A man entrusts his slaves with his possessions (25:14). The master then goes on a journey (25:15). While the master is gone, the slaves make investment decisions (25:16–18). We are then told that “after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them” (25:19). In this context “a long time” is no longer than an average lifetime. The settlement is made with the same slaves who received the talents. In every other New Testament context, “a long time” means nothing more than an extended period of time (Luke 8:27; 23:8; John 5:6; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 28; 26:5, 29; 27:21; 28:6). Nowhere does it mean centuries or multiple generations. The delay of the bridegroom is no different from the “long time” of the two previous parables. The bridegroom returns to the same two groups of virgins (25:1–13). The duration of the delay must be measured by the audience.”[3]
So again, we have a reference describing Christ’s ascension in AD 30 to the time He returned in AD 70 to put His enemies under His feet and slew or cut them in pieces (Psalm 110:1 = Matt. 25:14-31ff.).
Matthew 21:33-45 / Mark 12:1-12 / Luke 20:18: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants and Kenneth Gentry’s or the Partial Preterist Dilemma
Although the Parable of the Tenants does not directly address Christ’s ascension, it focuses on the judgment of AD 70 and the defeat of God’s enemies. To align the “long time” in Luke 20:9 with other parables and ensure consistency, we should explore this further.
The Parable of the Tenants, found in Matthew 21:33–46, Mark 12:1–12, and Luke 20:9–19, is a parallel account across the Synoptic Gospels. These passages describe the same parable taught by Jesus, sharing core elements: a landowner rents his vineyard to tenants, sends servants to collect the harvest, and the tenants mistreat or kill the servants. Ultimately, the landowner sends his son, whom the tenants also kill. The parable concludes with the landowner’s judgment on the tenants, often referencing the “stone the builders rejected” (Psalm 118:22–23).
While the accounts are parallel, they vary slightly in details, wording, and emphasis:
Matthew (21:33–46) mentions more servants and highlights the Pharisees’ realization that the parable was about them.
Mark (12:1–12) is the most concise, explicitly describing the vineyard’s features (e.g., a wall, tower, and winepress).
Luke (20:9–19) emphasizes the crowd’s reaction (“God forbid!”) and the tenants’ rejection of the son. Luke also includes the phrase “a long time” before God’s judgment (v. 9).
These differences reflect the authors’ theological perspectives and audiences but do not alter the parable’s core message. Scholars generally agree that the accounts stem from a common tradition, likely a single teaching event, making them parallel.
In all three accounts, the context centers on God sending John the Baptist with the necessity of the leadership to listen and obey his testimony. With this in mind, let’s examine the “long time” and identify the servants sent by the Father before Jesus, who were similarly mistreated:
1). The Father went into another country for a “long time”: This represents God’s longsuffering and patience during the generation of Jesus’ last days (AD 27–67), which some mocked as “slowness” or “delay” (2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 24:48).
2). The “appointed time” to “send the servants” seeking “fruit”: This refers to the ministry of John the Baptist and his disciples, marked by his baptism and call for repentance (Matt. 3:8) in Israel’s last days. Israel and its leaders were expected to bear fruit for God’s vineyard but failed to do so (see Luke 20:1–8; Matt. 3:8).
3). Last of all, He sent His Son, the heir, whom they killed outside the vineyard: This clearly points to the killing of Jesus outside Jerusalem’s gates.
4). When the owner comes, what will He do to these tenants?: During the “long time” from AD 27–67, God showed patience with that generation, even extending the call to the Gentiles, or “giving the vineyard to others” (Luke 20:15; Matt. 21:43). Then God came, sending Roman armies to burn the city (Matt. 22:7), with Christ coming in the “glory of His Father” (Mark 8:38).
This interpretation aligns with the immediate context of John the Baptist’s ministry and the leaders’ failure to bear fruit, despite God sending him and his disciples to call for repentance. The “long time” corresponds to Jesus’ use of the term in the parables of Matthew 24–25, referring to that generation.
All Partial Preterists view the judgment in the Parable of the Tenants as fulfilled in AD 70. Since the “long time” in Luke 20:9 contextually spans roughly AD 27–67, consistent with the parables in Matthew 24–25, and scholars like Gentry see the parable as fulfilled in AD 70, we should expect consistency in interpreting the “long time” as I have demonstrated.
Hebrews 10:12-37 and Psalm 110
The author of Hebrews places the judgment of the enemies of Psalm 110 to be imminently in AD 70 just as Jesus.
He quotes Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 10:12 – “Christ having ascended at the right hand of the Father waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.” Then we are told in the same chapter that the “Day” was “drawing near” for sabbath rest and for judgment (Heb. 10:25). Then we are told that a “fury of fire is about to consume the enemies” (Heb. 10:27 BLT / YLT / SLT / LSV). Contextually the “enemies” “about to be” judged and burned are the ones mentioned in verse 12 referring to Psalm 110. When would this judgment of fire take place? It was when Christ would come in “vengeance” to “repay” “in a very, very, little while and would not delay” “appearing a second time” in AD 70 (Heb. 9:26-28; 10:30-37).
1 Corinthians 15 and Psalm 110
Per Paul, the “last enemy” was the spiritual death that came through Adam that was already in the process of “being destroyed” (1 Cor. 15:25-27 WUESTNT). According to Paul this would take place at Christ’s parousia at the last trump during the lifetime of some of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:23, 51-53 – “we shall not all die…”).
Back to Matthew 26:63-65
John Gill favors the interpretation that this is referring to Christ coming in:
“…the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause, and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ’s coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Matthew 24:27.”[4]
Kenneth Gentry admits the obvious as well,
“The New Testament picks up this apocalyptic judgment imagery, when it speaks of Christ’s coming in judgment clouds during history. Mathew 26:64, for instance, must speak of a first century “coming to judge.” Christ says that his accusers in the Sanhedrin will witness it: “Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 26:64).”[5]
Yet Gentry does not connect this with the fulfillment of Psalm 110 in AD 70 as clearly as he should—for obvious reasons.
The Greek word for “you” is plural, indicating Jesus is addressing the Sanhedrin collectively. The word for “see” (horaō) means to perceive or understand—just as Israel “saw” God coming in judgment in the Old Testament through Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. Likewise, the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the visible sign that Christ had “come on the clouds.”
James, the brother of Jesus, connects Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 explicitly:
“Why do you ask me about Jesus, the Son of Man? He sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power [Ps. 110] and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven [Dan. 7:13].”
—Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Ch. 23 (AD 62)
This complements James’ epistle: “The coming of the Lord is near… the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:7–9).
Conclusion
Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 23:36–39—that the leaders of Israel would “see” Him come—matches His promise in Matthew 26:63–65. Both passages frame Matthew 24–25 with the same expectation: Christ’s coming in judgment within that generation.
We have now examined every “coming of the Son of Man” text in the Gospels and found that respected commentators—orthodox and preterist alike—recognize these as fulfilled in AD 70. This raises the question: Would the disciples have asked about any other “coming” in Matthew 24–25 except the one Jesus had just told them would happen in their generation?
Would Matthew 24–25 be the only place Jesus suddenly introduced a second, distant coming? Common sense—and the context—says no.
Now that we’ve established the framework for interpreting Christ’s “coming” in Matthew 24–25, I will proceed to demonstrate its fulfillment in the Olivet Discourse and its parallels in Mark 13 and Luke 21.
[1] John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, Biblehub.com
[2] John Lightfoot, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT FROM THE TALMUD AND HEBRAICA, (Hendrickson Publishers, Fourth Printing, 2003), Vol. 3, 195-196
[3] Gary DeMar, Is the Rapture Found in Matthew 24? https://christianfamilystudycentre.home.blog/ 2020/12/07/is-the-rapture-found-in-matthew-24/
[5] Kenneth Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper: VA., 2009), 280
