Pastor David B. Curtis


Media #1036 MP3 Audio File Video File

A Third Coming?

Matthew 24:36-42

Delivered 11/01/20

We have been periodically studying the Olivet Discourse of our Lord found in Matthew 24. This is a very important chapter; it is in fact the heart of New Testament prophecy. We have seen that looking at this text through first-century eyes gives us a whole new meaning of Yeshua's words. Yeshua is not talking to us twenty-first century Americans but to His disciples, first-century Jews. Things that were future to them at the time of the writing are ancient history to us.

This whole discourse is concerned with answering the disciple's questions concerning the end of the Jewish age (not the world) and the Parousia of Christ–both of which would be demonstrated by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.

The majority within Christendom look for a future Second Coming of Christ; but according to Yeshua's own words, the "all these things" (including the Second Coming) took place in "this generation," (i.e. the one He was speaking to). Yeshua came in A. D. 70 in power and great glory. This was manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem. The heavens and earth of Old Covenant Israel passed away and the new heavens and earth of the New Covenant, the church, were consummated.

Partial preterists agree that Matthew 24:1-35 deals with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The conflict arises, however, over verse 36. These futurists propose that this verse marks a shift in topics and eras. It is their transition verse which ends the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem (vss.1-35) and begins the topic of the "end of the world" vs36ff). They reject the interpretation that these verses all deal with one timeframe that includes both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age.

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 24:36 ESV

J. Marcellus Kik writes in his commentary on Yeshua's Olivet Discourse, An Eschatology of Victory, that "Many have recognized that with verse 36 a change in subject matter occurs. [Charles H.] Spurgeon indicates this in his commentary on verse 36 [of Matthew 24]: 'There is a manifest change in our Lord's words here, which clearly indicates that they refer to His last great coming to judgment.'" Kenneth L. Gentry, author of many helpful works on prophecy, takes a similar view.

Is it a big deal if Matthew 24 can be divided or not? Absolutely! If the chapter is only dealing with a first-century fulfillment, which I believe it is, then the futurist has no text to indicate a future coming of Christ. And he must admit that the Parousia of Christ was a first century spiritual event which keeps intact all of the imminent time statements made concerning His coming (e.g. Matt.16:27-28; Lk.21:20-36; Jn.21:22-23; Rom.13:11-12; 1 Cor.1:4-8; Heb.8:13; 10:25,37; Jas.5:7-9; 1 Pet.4:5,7,17; 1 Jn.2:18; Jude 17-19; Rev.1:1-3,7; 22:6,7,10,20; to name a few).

The full preterist view is that the second coming of Christ happened in A. D. 70. It was a judgment upon and removal of the Old Covenant system (heaven and earth), and it established fully the kingdom, the New Covenant (new heavens and earth). Yeshua came in the first century just as He said He would. There is NO mention anywhere in Scripture of a "third" coming.

Let's look at some different arguments that demonstrate that this chapter cannot be divided.

1. "This" day and "That" day

One of the KEY arguments by those who divide this chapter is that four times in three different verses, Matthew 24:19,22,29, Yeshua refers to "those days" while in verse 36, Yeshua talks of "that day" ("But concerning that day and hour no one knows" Kik emphasized this distinction: "The expression 'that day and hour' gives immediate evidence of a change of subject matter." Gentry writes, "We should notice the pre-transition emphasis on plural 'days' in contrast to the focus on the singular 'day' afterwards.

Gentry also writes, "There seems to be an intended contrast between that which is near (in verse 34) and that which is far (in verse 36): this generation vs. that day. It would seem more appropriate for Christ to have spoken of 'this day' rather than 'that day' if He had meant to refer to the time of 'this generation.'"

I think "that" all of "this" is much ado about nothing. "This generation" refers to the present generation which Yeshua was addressing. "This" is therefore the appropriate word for something present while "that" is the most appropriate word for something that as still future to them. Arndt and Gingrich agree: "This refers to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away."

These writers do not believe "that day" can be a reference to the fall of Jerusalem. They argue that the singular, "that day," can only refer to a future (to us) coming of Christ. It is easy to show how wrong they are by comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Luke 17:

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, Luke 17:20 ESV

In this verse, Yeshua is talking to the Pharisees about the coming of the Kingdom of God which was to come in its fullness at the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple.

On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Luke 17:31 ESV

Here Yeshua uses the singular expression, "that day" as a clear reference to the same situation that He spoke of in Matthew 24:17. Interestingly, those who divide Matthew 24 agree that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, Matthew 24:17 ESV

You cannot say that "that day" of Luke 17:31 refers to a past event to us while at the same time contend that the same words in Matthew 24:36 refer to an event still future to us. They are clearly speaking of the same event! When Yeshua uses the expression "But concerning that day" in verse 36, He is still talking about the same subject–the second coming of Christ.

Doesn't it make sense that "those days" would culminate in "that day?" "Those days" led to the passing away of the heavens and earth in "that day" referred to in verse 36.

One of the reasons a distinction between "those days" and "that day" is seen by many commentators is because of a pre-conceived idea that the disciples had asked questions about two subjects–the destruction of Jerusalem and end of time. With this presupposition, the interpreter then sees Yeshua changing the subject in verse 36. Ken Gentry writes, "Matthew 24 is answering two questions from the disciples. They assume the destruction of the temple means the destruction of the world (Matt 24:1-3)" [].

Where is the contextual evidence that the disciples assumed that the destruction of the temple mea the destruction of the world? They asked about the end of the "age" not the world. Where is the evidence that they had any other coming in mind other than the coming just mentioned by Yeshua–his coming to destroy Jerusalem in that generation? It is pure eisegesis to import another coming into this context!

2. Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

Another argument that those who divide the chapter use is the absence of signs in verse 36. They say that Yeshua gave signs in the first part of the chapter, but in verse 36 He says, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows." They say contend that because one day has signs and the other does not, it can't be the same day!

North wrote: "He had told the disciples…precisely when the destruction of Jerusalem would be: during their lifetime and they could read the sign of the approaching army so closely that they could escape it. But of His coming, no one knows when it will be–neither man, his angels, nor Jesus himself."

If you examine carefully all three synoptic accounts, you will see that Yeshua never told them that they would know "the Day" in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. You will not find it anywhere. The signs He gave them were to tell them when it would be "NEAR." He never gave them a day or hour.

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 24:36 ESV

Yeshua, as the God-Man, laid aside the prerogatives of deity, one of them being omniscience. As a man, Yeshua himself did not know the exact day or hour of Jerusalem's destruction.

And Yeshua increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. Luke 2:52 ESV

Many today use verse 36 to prove that we have no knowledge of the time of a future-to- us, second coming of Christ. But, as we have already seen, "that day" refers to the passing away of the heavens and earth in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant. Yeshua had already told them in verse 34 that it would happen in their generation (forty years or so). But they did not know the "day or hour" that it would happen.

When a woman gets pregnant, we know that in about forty weeks she is going to have a baby. We do not know the day or hour, but we can know that it will happen in about forty weeks. That is exactly what Yeshua is saying here. And it is quite interesting that the time prior to the consummation of the kingdom is often referred to as birth pangs.

All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. Matthew 24:8 ESV

The Greek words translated "birth pains" is odin. It means a pang or throe, especially of childbirth: pain, sorrow, travail. This same word is used in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 translated, "labor pains."

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-4 ESV

The illustration of gestation and childbirth is a biblical one. We know when the birth of the child is near, but we do not know the day or hour.

John Lightfoot (1859) said, "Of what day and hour? That the discourse is of the day of the destruction of Jerusalem is so evident, both by the disciples' questions, and by the whole thread of Christ's discourse, that it is a wonder any should understand these words of the day and hour of the last judgment" (vol. 2, p.442)

N. Nisbett (1787) said,

But though the time was hastening on for the completion of our Lord's prophecy of the ruin of the Jews; yet the exact time of this judgment, laid hid in the bosom of the Father. Verse 36. "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." St. Mark has it: "Neither the Son, but the Father;" but the sense is the same. Some men of great learning and eminence have thought that our Lord is here speaking, not of the destruction of Jerusalem, but of that more solemn and awful one of the day of judgment. But I can by no means think that the Evangelists are such loose, inaccurate writers, as to make so sudden and abrupt a transition, as they are here supposed to do; much less to break through the fundamental rules of good writing, by apparently referring to something which they had said before; when in reality they were beginning a new subject, and the absurdity of the supposition will appear more strongly, if it is recollected that the question of the disciples was, "When shall these things be?" "Why," says our Saviour, "of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only" (pp. 38-39).

Adam Clarke (1837) said, "Verse 36. But of that day and hour is translated season by many eminent critics, and is used in this sense by both sacred and profane authors. As the day was not known, in which Jerusalem should be invested by the Romans, therefore our Lord advised his disciples to pray that it might not be on a Sabbath; and as the season was not known, therefore they were to pray that it might not be in the winter; Matthew 24:20. See on Mark 13:32." (Adam Clarke's Commentary On Matthew 24)

So, they knew the season but not the day or hour.

3. Does the word "but" signal a transition?

It has been said that by the use of the word "But," Yeshua changed the subject to something else. Stafford North says, "Verse 36 starts with the word 'but', suggesting a contrast with what has gone before. Before verse 34, moreover, Jesus uses the plural 'days' to refer to his major subject, while after verse 34 he speaks in the singular of 'that day.'"

Does the fact that verse 36 starts with "but" signal a contrast in subject matter? No! The word "but" is used as a conjunction and not a preposition. As a conjunction, "but" is not a word of contrast but joins what has just been said with what is about to be said. The New Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament says, "The conjunctival usage of 'de,' is by far the most frequent use of the particle `de' in the New Testament".

If the use of "de" at the beginning of a verse introduces a break in subject, there are 8 subject changes in chapter 24 alone! See Matthew 24:6,8,13,20,32,36,43,48. By examining the verses before 24:36 and after, you will see that the most common usage of "but" in Matthew 24-25 has nothing to do with changing subjects!

Thomas Newton (1754) said, "It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, 'All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation.' It seemeth as if our Saviour had been aware of some such misapplication of his words, by adding yet greater force and emphasis to his affirmation, v 35 - 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away'" (p. 426)

4. Matthew's words for "coming."

By noticing Matthew's use of the Greek words for "coming," I think that we can clearly prove that verse 36 is not a transition verse to another subject. The Greek word "parousia" is used four times

As he sat on the Mount of, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?" Matthew 24:3 ESV
For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:27 ESV
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man... and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37-39 ESV

Not only is "parousia" used on both sides of verse 36 but so also is the Greek word "erchomai" which is also translated coming.

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming (erchomai) on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30 ESV
Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming (erchomai). Matthew 24:42 ESV

"Erchomai" is also used in verses 44, 46, and 50. Some commentators apply all three "coming" passages before verse 36 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 and claim that the same words used after verse 36 refer to a future-to-us coming of Christ. Are there two comings of Christ discussed in this passage? Does Yeshua use the exact words to speak of two totally different events in the same passage of Scripture? I think not!

David Chilton (1996) said, "…any proposed division of Matthew 24 into two different 'comings' is illegitimate, nugatory, and gossamer. Scripture foretells a Second Coming (Heb.9:28) - not a third!" (Foreward to What Happened in AD70?)

Thus far I have given you four arguments as to why this chapter cannot be divided. We have looked at the "this day"/"that day" argument, the absence of signs argument, the big "but" argument, and the Greek words used for "coming" argument. But all of these pales in comparison (and I think they are all good) to the next argument that I want to put forth. To me this one ends the discussion and sends the dividers of Matthew 24 running. My final argument is a divine answer that ends all questions. It is Luke 17.

In the parallel account of Luke, all of these same signs and symbols are applied to the question asked by the Pharisees as to "when the kingdom would come." If Yeshua was using signs in Luke's account to answer when the kingdom would fully come (signs Matthew's account applied to the destruction of Jerusalem), then it doesn't take a "brain surgeon" to figure out that any attempt to apply Luke's coming of the kingdom to Pentecost is patently false.

The dividers of Matthew 24 assert that the first part, verses 1-35, can only refer to the destruction of Jerusalem at A.D. 70, while the second part, verses 36-51, is completely different and can be applied only to the end of the world and the "real" second coming of Yeshua.

But a simple reading of Luke 17:20-37 will reveal that Luke's arrangement of the signs and symbols demonstrates that he understood Christ to be referring to only one event–the full coming of the kingdom in AD 70. No distinction is possible when examining Luke's context. He uses the signs from the first part of Matthew 24 and the second part in an intermingled fashion.

The way I see it, we have one of two choices. We can either say that Luke is wrong, thus denying inspiration, or we can conclude that Matthew 24 also speaks of one event. Which do you choose? Think carefully now. The simple answer is that Yeshua returned in the first century, just as He said He would, and there is no "third" coming mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

J. Stuart Russell said, "There is not a scintilla (1. a spark. 2. a particle; the least trace.) of evidence that the apostles and primitive Christians had any suspicion of a twofold reference in the predictions of Jesus concerning the end." (The Parousia p. 545)

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Matthew 24:36 ESV

There is something very important to the understanding this verse. Yeshua used Feast of Trumpets language when He said "But concerning that day and hour no one knows." His audience would have been familiar with this. This was the first of the fall feasts. The Feast of Trumpets is the only one of the seven feasts which began on the first day of the month. The beginning of each month was originally dependent upon the sighting of the New Moon. In other words, it was when the moon was but a crescent. The precise timing of the New Moon was not always easily determined due to weather conditions and a lack of witnesses. Since no one knew the exact day or hour of the New Moon's appearance, people were kept in a continual state of alertness. They knew approximately when the New Moon would reveal itself, but they did not know the exact hour of its appearance.

The Feast of Trumpets pictured judgment and resurrection. The blast of the shofar is a type of that blast which called the faithful home to be with the Lord (resurrection), but it is also a type of the shofar that was blasted to call judgment on the nation Israel who refused to come to Christ. This feast is about judgment on Israel and not on the world. This is not speaking of a future judgment of the world, but as with the rest of Matthew 24, it is talking about judgment on the nation Israel.

We see the spiritual anti-type of the Feast of Trumpets in the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Christ in A. D. 70. Therefore, at the blowing of the trumpet in Matthew 24, the scene was set for Christ to fulfill the feast. What month was it when Jerusalem fell? [Tishrei usually occurs in September-October on the Gregorian calendar]. "The city was taken on September 8, A.D. 70, after the last siege had lasted about five months" (Josephus, vol. 1, p. 467). This judgment is all about Israel and it all happened in A. D. 70.

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37-39 ESV

Yeshua draws on a familiar judgment event in the Tanakh–the flood. Yeshua, teaching by analogy, shows how the coming of the flood waters and His own coming are similar.

It is clear that Yeshua is still speaking about His coming and the destruction of Jerusalem. Twice He says, "so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Yeshua is here making a comparison between His coming and Noah's flood. As the flood came and took them all away, so the judgment on Israel would take them all away. The unbelievers of Israel, just like the unbelievers in Noah's day, would be taken away in judgment. Keep in mind what he was just talking about–"no one knows the day or hour." The point that Yeshua is making is that just as in the days of Noah, the wicked did not know until the flood came and took them away. So it would be at His coming.

In the days of Noah, they were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage with no sense of apprehension of the coming flood. So also would it be in those days prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

In answering the Corinthian's questions on marriage, Paul reminded them of the coming judgment.

Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 1 Corinthians 7:25-29 ESV

In light of the judgment that was coming, Paul cautioned his readers against marriage. Being married during the Jewish wars would make life all the more difficult.

But the unbeliever would go on with life as if nothing was happening, just as they did in Noah's day. To the account of Noah, Luke adds a word about Sodom.

Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot–they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all– so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. Luke 17:28-30 ESV

In the case of both Noah and Lot, judgment came swiftly and completely on the unbelievers while the believers escaped. Just as Lot escaped the fires of judgment on Sodom and Gomorah by leaving the city, so the early Christians escaped the judgment that fell on Jerusalem by fleeing to Pella.

In verse 30, Luke mentions that the Son of Man would be "revealed." In Matthew 24 it mentions "the coming of the Son of Man." Both of these expressions refer to the same thing. His parousia /coming was His apokalupto (revelation). In the destruction of Jerusalem, it was revealed to all that Yeshua was truly the Messiah of Israel. Jerusalem's destruction was the sign that the Son of Man, Yeshua, was in heaven.

On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Luke 17:31-32 ESV

Yeshua warned His disciples that they could end up like Lot's wife if they failed to get out of Jerusalem quickly once they saw the abomination of desolation. He also told them that they would be able to escape the judgment if they did not look back like Lot's wife had.

It should be obvious that this has no reference to a future second coming where the earth is barbecued and all life on earth ends. How could they possibly flee from that? They couldn't! This reference to Noah and Sodom makes it clear that this is not a reference to the annihilation of the universe. Human life on earth did not end. But the wicked were judged and the righteous were spared.

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. Matthew 24:40-42 ESV

These verses have nothing to do with the "rapture." "Be taken" is not a reference to being "caught up." It actually means to "be taken" in judgment. In case you doubt this, let's go to Luke again.

I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left." And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." Luke 17:34-37 ESV

If you remember our study in of Matthew 24:28, you will recall that this is a picture of judgment. They were to be taken away to judgment and slavery and not to heaven.

In light of His coming in judgment on Jerusalem, Yeshua cautioned His disciples to "stay awake" or "watch."

Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. Matthew 24:42 ESV

Whom is Yeshua talking to here? His disciples! Would it make sense for Yeshua to urge His disciples to "stay awake" for something that was not to take place for another 2,000 years or so?

Bereans, you cannot divide Matthew 24. There is no indication that Yeshua is describing two comings separated by an indeterminate period of time. What would have led the disciples to conclude that Yeshua was describing a coming different from the one He described moments before when He used identical language to describe both of them?

I think it is pretty plain to anyone who is honestly looking that you cannot divide this chapter. So why the big effort to divide it? Why do they insist that have some verses speak of a future (to us) coming of Christ? The answer is that they simply cannot let go of the traditional view of a future coming of Christ to destroy the earth. Therefore, they try to get two comings out of Matthew 24. But it cannot be done. Yeshua only spoke of one coming and that happened in A. D. 70. In reference to the judgment coming of Christ upon Jerusalem, notice again what Yeshua said:

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Luke 21:20-22 ESV

Yeshua said that the destruction of Jerusalem would, "fulfill all that is written." All prophecy was fulfilled in AD. 70. There is no future coming or any other prophecy yet to be fulfilled.

There are some men who believe that all of Matthew 24 and 25 have been fulfilled and yet they still believe in a future coming of Christ. The desperation of this position is clearly seen in John Bray's booklet, Yeshua is Coming Soon! Mr. Bray says the following:

"The New Testament references to the parousia/coming of Christ had reference to that 'momentous' and signal event which occurred in AD 70. The time statements in the New Testament prove this. Any reference to a future (to us) coming of Christ found in the new testament is found by inference and deduction, and not by express statement."

Do you hear what he is saying? He is saying that he holds to a future coming of Christ but there is no Scripture to support it. It can only be found throughs inference and deduction. Soon after this Mr. Bray came to understand that there is no future coming of Christ.

Notice what Paul tells Timothy about the final judgment.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Yeshua, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 Timothy 4:1 ESV

Here Paul tells Timothy that Yeshua is going to judge all men at his appearing. Young's literal translation puts it this way:

I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation and his reign–2 Timothy 4:1 YLT

Paul says that Christ is "about to" judge the living and the dead. He said this in the first century.

All prophecy was fulfilled in A. D. 70 in the day of God's wrath, just as Yeshua said it would be. Any ideas of a" third coming" are truly speculation and have no shred of biblical backing. There is only one parousia talked about in the New Testament. That is the parousia that took place in the fall of Jerusalem and brought about the fulfillment of all of the promises that God make to the fathers of Israel.

Where does the New Testament differentiate between two comings? Where is the New Testament passage that states that the A. D. 70 event is but a type of something yet to come? Why is there needed a future coming to bring about an end to something which was designed by God to be eternal?

Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Yeshua, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Yeshua the Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20-21 ESV

The New Covenant is an eternal covenant, an everlasting covenant to which there will be no end. There is no coming of Christ or judgment or resurrection in our future. All prophecy has been fulfilled.

Continue the Series

Berean Bible Church provides this material free of charge for the edification of the Body of Christ. You can help further this work by your prayer and by contributing online or by mailing to:

Berean Bible Church
1000 Chattanooga Street
Chesapeake, VA 23322