The Eschatology Circus
People are commonly the most easily fooled with regards to the things they know the least about. Realistically for most people, eschatology is on the “things I am clueless about” list right above “smelting iron”. Due to the levels of general misunderstanding regarding eschatology, experts abound that claim to rightly explain eschatology, often with a newspaper in one hand and a bible in another, saying that the end is “just around the corner”. Gary Demar sums up the atmosphere of popular eschatology when he says “Sensationalism, not sound biblical study, sells.” Responding to television prophecy gurus and eschatology literature from Costco, some have attempted to closely consider the biblical text and in doing so have apparently arrived at the position that the Bible doesn’t teach much of a future eschatology at all. Instead, they claim that the Bible teaches of a tribulation and second coming that are in the past. This eschatological position is known as “Preterism” and Kenneth Gentry defines it thusly: “Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which holds that they have already come to fulfillment.”
Variations of Preterism
So what has already come to fulfillment? That depends on which preterist a person consults, though all forms of preterism believe that the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. marks some sort of fulfillment of prophecies regarding the tribulation and second coming. Preterism has historically come in three forms: mild, full and moderate preterism. Mild preterism was first put forth by a Jesuit friar named Alcazar in 1614 who taught that Rev. 6-12 were fulfilled with the destruction of the temple by Nero in 70 A.D. and Rev. 13-19 were fulfilled with the rise of Constantine in the fourth century. Mild preterism did not find popularity and has no modern proponents. Full preterism seems to be pioneered by J. Stuart Russell. He wrote The Parousia in 1887 and taught that the tribulation, second coming and rapture all occurred around 70 A.D. He also taught that Christians are currently living in the new heavens and new earth of Rev. 21-22, which are exclusively ‘spiritual’ in nature. Though it has found a few modern proponents, it is condemned by moderate preterists as a heresy since it denies the bodily return of Christ. Moderate preterism believes that much of the prophecies regarding the tribulation and the second coming were fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, but also that the New Testament teaches a bodily second coming of Christ and a bodily resurrection of believers. Modern proponents of moderate preterism are Kenneth Gentry, Gary Demar and RC Sproul. Moderate preterism, by far the most common strand, will be the form of preterism evaluated in this paper.
The Preterist Proposal
Preterists put forth a variety of exegetical, logical and historic arguments in an effort to make their case that some, if not much, eschatological prophecy was fulfilled in and around 70 A.D. when Rome laid siege to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. That being said, there are basically two main arguments that run throughout the majority of preterist literature. The least formidable argument of the two is the preterist interpretation of Revelation and the entire preterist reading of Revelation presupposes a pre-70 A.D. writing of the book of Revelation. Kenneth Gentry suggests that preterism “stands or falls on the early date of Revelation…” The second, and more formidable argument, is the case made for preterist in the Olivet Discourse. This case is mainly made from the text of Matt. 24:1-34, though there is a minor supporting argument made by some from Matt. 16:28. Regarding Matt. 24:34, Kenneth Gentry writes “This is the statement that must be reckoned with by the futurist or historicist viewpoints.”
Now it stands to reason that for the 70 A.D fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ from the Olivet Discourse, John could not have written the book of Revelation after 70 A.D. and taught about a future tribulation and second coming of Christ. If John had written the book of Revelation around 95 A.D., as almost all non-preterist readings of Revelation recognize, preterism would receive a fatal blow. In challenging the late date authoring of Revelation, preterists and non-preterists alike appeal to both internal and external data. This presents a problem to the critical engagement of preterism; neither preterists nor non-preterists have an objective position from which to evaluate the internal data of the book of Revelation; both interpret the text in the light of their differing historical presuppositions regarding Revelation. The possible interpretations of the data of scripture are presupposed. Hence it seems more fitting to limit the scope of exploring preterist arguments for the early date of Revelation to the external data alone.
Of the external data regarding the date of the authorship of Revelation, the exceedingly most significant argument comes from the testimony of Irenaeus. In section 3 of chapter 30 of book 5 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes “…for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” Kenneth Gentry has, far and away, given the most exhaustive presentation for an early authorship of Revelation. In addressing this quotation, Gentry admits that few scholars struggle with this passage, which seems straightforwardly attesting to the vision of John occurring toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Gentry also writes “Undoubtedly, Irenaeus’ observation is the strongest weapon in the late date arsenal.”
In attempting to deal with the testimony of Irenaeus, Gentry offers several arguments. He writes that Irenaeus’ use of εωράθη refers likely to John and not his vision since in his writing, Irenaeus usually uses οράω to refer to people. Gentry suggests that the testimony of Irenaeus should not be held as highly as many do since the early church fathers did not consider Irenaeus the final authority on details of the life of John. He writes that the text of Irenaeus comes from a corrupted Latin translation and that Irenaeus was contradicted himself by saying that John lived until the end of Domitians reign and also until Trajan’s reign. Gentry suggest that the temporal phrase “it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation” was written a century later, and unlikely to be referring to the Revelation of John. Gentry suggests that Irenaeus should not be held as a reliable witness to the dating of Revelation since he learned this information from Polycarp and possibly up to 75 years passed before he wrote Against Heresies. Interestingly, after his critical engagement of the testimony of Irenaeus, Gentry writes that the external evidence of history should not be allowed to “over-shadow a book’s own self-witness to its date.”
Little has been added to the offerings of Gentry by other preterist writers. For the most part, Sproul essentially restates Gentry’s arguments and concludes that the arguments and reinterpretations of Irenaeus quote in Heresies Against at best shows what Irenaeus’ quote “could have meant”, as well as agreeing with Gentry in concluding that “the external evidence regarding the date of Revelation is neither monolithic nor homogeneous…but…the preponderance of the his evidence supports a Neronic date”. Sproul also builds a case on the internal evidence from Revelation but seems to ignore the subjective nature of arguing for hermeneutical systems for interpreting Revelation from within Revelation. Demar mostly ignores the question of the date of the writing of Revelation altogether, and Hank Hanegraaf essentially makes two arguments on the issue. First, the date for Revelation is built on the ambiguous testimony of one individual (Irenaeus) who taught that Jesus was crucified at the age of 50, thus is unreliable. Second, Hanegraaf writes that it is impossible to suggest that John had written Revelation in 95 AD since he doesn’t mention the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. In his typical fashion, Hanegraaf writes “when prophecy is fulfilled, the biblical writers mentioned it. And when the mother of all prophecies is fulfilled, it is inconceivable that John is not going to mention it.” It seems that Hanegraaf is committed to his preterism beyond the possibility of critical engagement.
The Precedent of Matthew 16
Though the exegetical arguments made in support of preterism are mainly based upon Matt. 23:34-24:36, there is a minor supporting argument for their understanding of the Olivet Discourse made by preterists based on Matt. 16:27-28. Matt.16:27-28 is seen as a parallel passage to Matt. 24:34; both discuss the ‘coming’ of Christ before the deaths of his listeners. Preterists suggest that Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 discuss the same event and that Matt. 16:27-28 is talking about the same “coming” as Matt. 24:34. Preterists suggest that the language of “coming in glory” with angels to dispense rewards is eschatological language; describing a coming of judgment. Demar parallels the language in Matthew 16:27-28 with the language in passages like Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Jer. 17:10 and Ez. 18:30 in an effort to show that “Jesus assumes the Old Testament apocalyptic language referring to Jehovah’s coming and applies it to himself.” Demar understands John 21:18-23 to comment on the fulfillment of Matt. 16:27-28, seeing that Peter died before 70 A.D. and John did not. Sproul suggests that the fulfillment of Matt. 16:27-28 in the transfiguration is too near and “if the word generation refers to a forty year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus’ reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events…”
The Key of the Olivet Discourse
The main exegetical support for preterism is the Olivet Discourse, which in preterism is called the “key to eschatology”.  In opening the “key”, preterists claim to interpret “literally”, which means interpreting of the Olivet Discourse as apocalyptic literature with apocalyptic figures of speech and taking the time indication language literally but event descriptions metaphorically. Also, in opening the “key”, preterists argue that in Matt. 24:3 the disciples were asking not about the end of the world, but the end of the Jewish age. Hanegraaf writes that in the Olivet Discourse “our Lord is delineating the very signs that would precede the judgment of Jerusalem and the end of the age of sacrifice.” Sproul suggests that Luke 21:24 teaches the presence of a definite Gentile epoch as opposed to a definite Jewish epoch. Sproul also suggests that the phrase “the end of the ages has come” in 1 Cor. 10:11 is referring to how the end of the ages has come upon the Jews.
In working in a preteristic definition of “literal interpretation”, and in understanding that the “end of the age” refers to the end of the Jewish age, preterists build a majority of their case for interpreting the Olivet Discourse on a straightforward understanding of Matt. 24:34, specifically the meaning of the phrase “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse. Unashamedly, Gentry writes “we find the key to locating the Great Tribulation in history in Matthew 24:34.” The straightforward understanding of the phrase “this generation” is the main argument put forth by preterists. Hanegraaf writes “…it is grammatically impossible for Him to have been referencing anything other than the generation present during His delivery of the Olivet Discourse.” Demar writes “If some future generation had been in view, Jesus could have chosen the adjective that” and “‘this generation’ always means the generation to whom Jesus was speaking.” Sproul comments that the phrase “this generation” refers to the contemporaries of Jesus. Gentry suggests that all the temporal indicators in Matt 24:34 demand contemporary fulfillment. He suggests that “this generation”, “verily”, “I tell you” and “by no means” all indicate a strong and purposeful reinforcing of a contemporary idea. Gentry writes about the statement of Christ in Matt. 24:34, saying “He is staking his credibility, as it were, on the absolute certainty of this prophetic pronouncement.” Gentry reveals his textual bias when he writes “Whatever the difficult apocalyptic imagery in some of the preceding verses (eg., vv.29-31) may indicate, Jesus clearly says that ‘all these things’ will occur before ‘this generation’ passes away.” It seems that the phrase “this generation” is the key to unlocking all interpretive questions in the Olivet Discourse.
Given that preterists are foundationally committed to the idea that Matt. 42:34 is the interpretational key to the entire Olivet Discourse, and given that the prophecies in Matt. 23:36-24:35 are said to be fulfilled in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., the interpretations of the ‘meanings’ of the specific prophecies in the Olivet Discourse are both varied and creative. The “wars and rumors of wars” in Matt. 24:6 are the “disturbances in Germany” or “commotions in Africa” recorded by Tacitus according to Demar but are the “many battles fought as the Romans systematically and relentlessly moved across the land like a juggernaut” recorded by Josephus according to Sproul. The “abomination of desolation” of Matt. 24:15 was the defiling of the temple with “the corpses of unbelieving Pharisees” according to Hanegraaf, according to Demar the “abomination of desolation” is the rejection of Christ by the high priest, according to Sproul it is the Roman standards that were erected in the temple and according to Gentry it is a composite event that is fulfilled in the murder of the Pharisees in the temple, the surrounding of the city by the Romans and the erecting of the Roman standards in the temple. According to Hanegraaf and Gentry, the darkening of the sun, moon and falling of the stars refer to “judgment metaphors”, according to Demar they refer to things like an appearance of Haley’s comet in 60 A.D. which suggested that Nero had been dethroned by ‘the gods’, according to Sproul they refer to several events recorded by Josephus (Haley’s comet, visions of chariots and soldiers in the clouds, a bright light shining around the temple and a star resembling a sword appearing in the sky). Clearly, there is a lack of unity in interpretation when applying apocalyptic language and truly “literal interpretation” to the understanding of the Olivet Discourse.
Problems with Proposals
Preterists have offered thousands of pages of writing to support their claims. They have produced substantial works that have sought to deal seriously with the objections to their positions, and they have sought to be biblically driven in their interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and eschatology. That being said, there are still serious and articulate biblical challenges and responses to their arguments.
History and John’s Revelation
Regarding the arguments for the dating of Revelation, a few things can be said. First, the late date of the writing of Revelation was almost exclusively held until 18th century. Hitchcock shows that the first millennia has three external witnesses for an early date. Secondly, Gentry himself admits that few scholars find much ambiguity in the testimony of Irenaeus. Third, Allen rightly suggests that the testimony of Irenaeus is too quickly dismissed by preterists, writing
Irenaeus, who died about A.D. 180, is the chief early witness for the dating of Revelation. It should be remembered that this man was one of the greatest defenders of Christianity, writing against the Gnostic Heretics. His association with Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, had been close. His evidence for the whole tradition of John’s last days in Asia Minor is among the most solid legacies of church history.
Thomas comments that the historical, late date supporting interpretation of the statement of Irenaeus has stood until the current era. Fourth, Smalley says that the early date means that Revelation was written before the Gospel of John (80AD) or the Johanine Epistles (90-93 AD). This is combined with the problem of suggesting that John had somehow established himself as an authority in Asia, especially when it is generally accepted that Paul was still authoritative in Asia around 65 A.D. If John had established himself as influential in Asia with his writing of Revelation, one would wonder why Paul never mentions him in his pastoral epistles and why John remained silent for 15-20 years, especially while Paul was combating rampant heresy. Fifth, Thomas suggests that the most reliable reports from church history place John arriving in Asia around 66 A.D. Sixth, Osborne writes that Nero’s persecution was only limited to Rome, and there is no evidence that extended throughout Asia. Norm Geisler writes a list of 10 reasons why the date of Revelation’s authorship could not be prior to 70 A.D. and lists several of the reasons already mentioned, along with suggesting that the empire worship reflected in Revelation started under Domitian, Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 61 A.D., Smyrna did not exist in 64 A.D. and the Nicolaitans were not established until near the turn of the century. The evidence is not inescapable, but it is arguably a match for the arguments presented by preterists.
The Parousia of Mathew 17
This argument, in the opinion of this author, is fraught with two inescapable flaws. First, Sproul admits that the term παρουσία is not mentioned in Matt. 16:28, hence it is only possible that Matt. 16:28 and the Olivet Discourse are talking about the same event. Secondly, and much more definitively, in 2 Peter 1:16 Peter records how he was an eyewitness of Christ’s παρουσία, and quotes Matt. 17:5 to remove any confusion with regards to which event he is referring. Under the weight of Peter’s testimony, it seems inescapable that the fulfillment of Matt. 16:28 occurred in the transfiguration. Regardless of the doubts and arguments of preterists, the testimony of Peter outweighs them all.
The “All-Of-It” Discourse
The largest issue with preterism is the insistence of taking Matt. 24:34 as the exegetical key to the Olivet Discourse; when it comes to the Olivet, all-of-it is understood via Matt. 24:34. Preterists claim to take the Olivet Discourse literally, but in practice they have to resort to almost absurd back-peddling to make the content of the Olivet Discourse make sense in conjunction with a 70 A.D. fulfillment. Preterists claim to take “this generation” in 24:34 as exactly how it sounds, but they essentially claim that any difficulty in sustaining a consistent preterist reading of the Olivet Discourse lies in understanding the difficult passage as “figurative language” or “judgment metaphors”. The tribulation (i.e. the siege of Jerusalem and razing of the temple) was somehow the worst suffering in history (Matt. 24:21), but Rieske writes that if this were the case, “one would have to prove it was exceedingly more devastating than the historical judgments that happened to Israel in the past”. Matt. 24:22 talks about being saved from death, but it is very difficult to understand how the presence of Christians in Jerusalem prevented “all flesh” (Matt. 24:22) from being destroyed; apparently “all” does not mean “all”.  Hendricksen suggests that this verse clearly indicates that in the tribulation, if not for God’s grace, all people on earth would have died a violent death. Even though Matt. 24:27-28 seems to clearly indicate that Jesus second coming would be obvious and not missed by anyone, preterists suggest that the language is language that symbolizes a coming in judgment. This seems to strongly go against Acts 1:9-11, which lacks any cataclysmic terms and strongly indicates a physical, visible, glorious second coming. Even Sproul admits that Acts is a difficult passage, though he simply dismisses it on the basis of similar apocalyptic language that appears in the Old Testament. The mourning of all the tribes of the land in Matt 24:30 is actually “all the tribes of the land (of Israel)” which only makes a larger problem, suggesting that all the Jews (both regenerate and unregenerate) in Israel recognized the siege of Jerusalem and razing of the temple as divine judgment and the second coming (since they “see” the Son of Man). If this is the case, no apostle who wrote after 70 A.D. said anything to suggest such an understanding. Obviously, many passages of the Olivet Discourse, if taken with a similar “common sense” reading as preterists demand of 24:34, did not occur at all. David Turner sums up the case against preterism by writing “It is very doubtful that the global language or Matt. 24 can be satisfactorily explained by a local even in 70 CE…as significant as that event was.”
Regarding the phrase “this generation” in 24:34 specifically, many interpretations about, but the best interpretation of “this generation” in the context of the Olivet Discourse seems to be to take it as a contemporary generation, but one that is the generation who sees the events of the great tribulation; the generation that is contemporary with the tribulation will not pass away before the second coming occurs. Considering that in the Olivet Discourse the disciples had asked for a sign of the second coming (24:3) and Jesus replies that the sign of the second coming will be the events of the great tribulation, it seems logical that the generation that sees the events of the tribulation will know that the second coming is drawing near. This interpretation allows for the normative use of “this generation” in the gospels (referring to a contemporaneous generation) but also allows for a futuristic and consistent reading of the Olivet Discourse.
Serving the Skeptics
One last argument needs to be considered as one considers preterism. It is not so much a positive argument for preterism as it is an indication for the need for a preteristic understanding of the Olivet Discourse. It seems that Hanegraaf, Demar, Sproul and Gentry are all exceedingly conscious of how biblical skeptics have seized Matthew 24:34 as some sort of “proof text” against the Bible; apparently Jesus made a clear and obvious prediction that was inescapably wrong (and is either a liar or a fool). Hanegraaf writes about the Matt. 24:34, saying “Skeptics have been quick to point out that by these very words, Jesus disqualified Himself as deity and demonstrated beyond peradventure of doubt that He was a false prophet.” Talking about Russell, Schweitzer and Gerald Sigal (Jewish skeptic), Hanegraaf says “Had these men understood the language of the Bible, they may not have been as quick to wag their fingers at the Master.” Demar laments on the problems that have been introduced by non-preteristic understandings of the Olivet Discourse when he writes “Critics of the Bible have studied Jesus’ words in these passages and have concluded that he was wrong! Jesus predicted that he would return within a generation, as Matthew 24:34 clearly states, and He did not. The conclusion? The Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable book”. Sproul writes that Bertrand Russell thought Jesus was wrong about his own second coming and thereby could not be God. Sproul also spends time sharing his understanding of how non-preterist eschatology has fueled unbelief, saying
“My own academic training took place for the most part at institution of higher learning that are not identified with conservative or evangelical Christianity. One of my chief professors in college was a doctoral student under Rudolph Bultmann. In seminary I was exposed daily to the critical theories espoused by my professors regarding the Scripture. What stands out in my memory of those days is the heavy emphasis on biblical texts regarding the return of Christ, which were constantly cited as examples of errors in the New Testament and proof that the text had been edited to accommodate the crisis in the early church caused by the so-called-parousia-delay of Jesus.”
Gentry comments on how Matthew 22:7 “…so clearly warns of the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem that critical scholars claim it is ex eventu prophecy.” It seems that the opinions and misunderstandings of skeptics are consistently involved in the motivations for the preterists’ exegetical efforts and defense of Christ’s eschatological teaching.
One must wonder if these various individuals have a biblical understanding for the reasons that people like Bertrand Russell and other unbelieving skeptics reject the claims of Christ regarding his person and work. The scripture is exceedingly clear that the reason for unbelief is due to the sinfulness of the individual’s own heart, not any lack in the scripture. Secondly, one must wonder why people with a Biblical understanding of unbelief would be bothered when unbelieving skeptics do not understand the difficult passages in the scripture; without the Holy Spirit, no unbelieving skeptic can fully understand any scripture, let alone difficult passages. It seems biblically inconsistent that a person would attempt to defend the scripture against the unbelieving skeptics who, as unregenerate sinners, are at war with God and unable to discern the truth of his word.
After presenting the argumentation offered by preterists for the date of Revelation, the arguments from Matt. 16:28 and the Olivet Discourse and the critical responses to preterist offerings, one must recognize that there is no shortage of reasonable and biblically defensible responses to preterist arguments, and one can establish biblical precedent against arguments offered by preterists. Given the unsubstantiated skepticism of Irenaeus and the external evidence for the date of the writing of Revelation, the testimony of Peter, the inconsistent interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the strange motivation that fuels preterism, one finds that though the preterist writers make a comprehensive case for preterism, it is neither consistent nor convincing. Given the excessive amounts of eschatological questions that lie in the wake of preterism, one can rightly suggest that preterism ignores more eschatological questions than it actually answers.
 Gary Demar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church. (4th ed.; Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 26.
 Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 163.
 Thomas Ice. “What is Preterism?” Pages 17-35 in The End Times Controversy. (ed. Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 22.
 Ibid, 23-24.
 Ibid, 22-23.
 Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 342.
 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 352.
 Richard Mayhue. “Jesus: A Preterist or Futurist?” TMSJ 14 no 1 (Spring 2003), 14.
 Irenaeus, “Against Heresies 5.30.3,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.p. [Cited July 18th, 2009]. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxxi.html
 Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 47.
 Ibid, 46.
 Ibid, 50.
 Ibid, 54.
 Ibid, 55.
 Ibid, 56.
 Ibid, 58.
 Ibid, 62.
 Ibid, 66.
 Sproul gives a brief delivery of Gentry’s main arguments in pages 140 to 149. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998).
 Ibid, 143.
 Ironically, the “preponderance of the his evidence” that Sproul looks at are 2 external and 2 (weak) internal arguments, which in the opinion of this author are engaged in a manner that suggest little effort to research or meaningfully engage the positions offered in non-preterist literature. Ibid, 145.
 Hank Hanegraaf, “Hank Speaks Out: Dating the Book of Revelation” Christian Research Institute, n.p. [Cited July 18th, 2009]. Online: http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_outs/dating-the-book-of-revelation.
 Sproul, 53.
Gary Demar does not explicitly state this idea but spends time in the third chapter of his book refuting attempts to separate the two verses are referring to separate events. Gary Demar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church. (4th ed.; Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 43-49.
 Sproul, 55.
 Demar, 49.
 Ibid, 44.
 Sproul, 54-55.
 Thomas Ice and Kenneth. L. Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 14.
 Sproul, 65.
 Sproul lists three ways that a person could interpret the Olivet Discourse. If one takes the time indications literally and various events literally, then several events in the Olivet Discourse did not come to pass. If one takes time indications metaphorically and various events literally, then one does not take Matt. 24:34 in its most logical sense. If one takes time indications literally and various events metaphorically, as preterists do, then all of Jesus’ prophecies came to pass as he said they would. Ibid, 66.
 Ibid, 32.
 Hank Hanegraaf, “Apocalypse When? Why Most End Times Teaching is Dead Wrong,” Christian Research Journal 30 no. 2 (2007). [Cited July 18th, 2009]. Online: http://www.equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAA188.pdf, 5.
 Sproul, 85.
 Ibid, 89.
 Ice and Gentry, The Great Tribulation, 26.
 Hanegraaf, Apocalypse When, 5.
 Demar, 58.
 Ibid, 56.
 Sproul, 62.
 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 167.
 Ibid, 168.
 Demar, 79.
 Sproul, 117.
 Hanegraaf, Apocalypse When, 8.
 Demar, 108-109.
 Sproul 39-40.
 Ice and Gentry, The Great Tribulation, 47.
 Ibid, 48.
 Ibid, 50.
 Hanegraaf, Apocalypse When, 9. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 361.
 Demar, 81.
 Sproul, 125.
 Mayhue, 14.
 Mark Hitchcock. “The Stake in the Heart – The A.D.95 Date of Revelation?” Pages 123-150 in The End Times Controversy. (ed. Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 138.
 Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 47.
 Isbell, Allen C. “The Dating of Revelation,” ResQ 9 no 2 (1966), 115.
 Robert L. Thomas. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 20.
 Stephen Smalley, The Revelation of John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 3.
 Robert Thomas. “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation” TMSJ 5 no 2 (Fall 1994), 200.
 Ibid, 201.
 Grant R. Osborne. Revelation: (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 8.
 Sproul, 53.
 Susan M. Rieske, “What is the Meaning of This Generation in Matthew 23.36?” BibSac 165 no 658 (April-June 2008): 223.
 Leon Morris. Matthew: (PTNC. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 606.
 William Hendriksen. Matthew. (NTC. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 860.
 Sproul, 44, 46.
 Demar, 166.
 David L. Turner. Matthew: (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 580.
 John MacArthur. Matthew. (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 63.
 Larry Pettegrew. “Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse,” TMSJ 13 no 2 (Fall 2002), 186.
 Hanegraaf, “Apocalypse When”.
 Sproul, 13
Ice and Gentry, The Great Tribulation, 20.