“In their efforts to limit Revelation to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, preterists take the beast to be Nero. But a simple reading of the text indicates that the beast is destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ (Rev. 19:20). The contradiction couldn’t be clearer: How could Nero be the beast of Revelation when he perished in A.D. 68 yet Christ has yet to come?”
Yes, that’s a bit of a pickle. The only logically consistent option is moving Christ’s return back to that era as well, and that just brings up more problems.
If Christ already returned, then why are didn’t he gather all the Christians to Him and resurrect them to everlasting life, as He promised He would do when He returned? Why didn’t He bring peace on earth, and goodwill toward man? Why didn’t he mete out vengeance to God’s enemies and tread the winepress of His wrath? For preterists trying to wrap up all the prophecies into a nice little fulfilled package, there is an awful lot of unfinished business anyone can see Christ still needs to take care of.
It also brings up the problem that, if these prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, why did none of the Christians alive at that time seem to notice? Why were they still speaking of these series of events culminating in Christ’s return being something in the future to look out for in the Didache, written not long after that period? I guess some of them could have been spiritually blind, but the entirety of the church? If that were true, what would that say of the utility of the prophecies, if nobody even recognized them after they were fulfilled in front of their eyes?
Where did he promise that, and what was the context? Recall that Christ speaks of a "first" resurrection, but only for select individuals:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:4-6 KJV)
Who were those people? It was certainly a special kind of resurrection. We know that at least some of them were the disciples, since Jesus promised them thrones and seats of judgement over Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30.) Others were "beheaded" for their witness, but that could mean they were simply killed for their witness and/or their refusal to worship the beast. Note that those will not be hurt of the second death that occurs in the future.
So, there was a "first" resurrection, so we can assume there will be a "second." There is also a "second" death, so we can assume there was also a "first" death. Putting it all together, each resurrection occurred/will occur exactly as prophesied in the old testament (Daniel) and the new (the Gospels) where both the just and unjust are resurrected in each case, some to eternal life and some to damnation.
>>>Why didn’t He bring peace on earth, and goodwill toward man?<<<
Jesus never made such as promise. To the contrary, he said he came to send a sword:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Mt 10:34-36 KJV)
Even after Satan was bound (at the first resurrection) he retained most of his powers. He is still able to cause murders, thefts, immorality, and all sorts of evils, which we have seen over the centuries. The only power he lost was the ability to deceive the nations. Therefore, until he was released, we were able to recognize his evil ways. But once he was released, he was able to deceive many into believing evil was actually good. I believe that is where we are now.
>>>Why didn’t he mete out vengeance to God’s enemies and tread the winepress of His wrath?<<<
He did, to Jerusalem and outlying cities. And he will, again, to Satan and his minions.
>>>It also brings up the problem that, if these prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, why did none of the Christians alive at that time seem to notice?<<<
Maybe the only ones that were on hand to witness the resurrection were either killed or resurrected. There were millions killed, and the entire countryside was made desolate.
Of course, even if witnesses were present, what would they see, if anything? We have only the interpretations of men to go by. The scripture provides few details of how a resurrection actually takes place.
>>>Why were they still speaking of these series of events culminating in Christ’s return being something in the future to look out for in the Didache, written not long after that period? <<<
Why not? From what I understand there were no eyewitness documents, except for Josephus, and maybe Tacitus; nor was anything written about the event for many decades afterward, from about AD70 to 150: better known as "The Silent Era." There are a few early documents available (mostly Apocrypha, and of uncertain dating;) but they are not much help in determining if a resurrection happened or not. They are:
Epistle of Mathetes
1st Clement (of Rome)
Barnabas
Apocalypse Of Baruch
Shepherd of Hermas
Esdras 2 (4 Ezra)
Gospel of Peter
Odes of Solomon
Ignatius
The first writing about the event by a Church Father was, I believe, by Justin Martyr about AD 150, or about 80 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp, who was born about AD 70, claims he knew John the apostle. But I seriously doubt that person was actually John. John, of all people, would have written of the fulfillment, or at least mentioned it, if he was still around.
There were, however, many strange events recorded by Josephus and Tacitus, both of which wrote about a mysterious "army" in the clouds. This is what Josephus wrote, as translated by William Whiston, 1737:
"Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]
This is from a two volume set on Josephus by a different translator, Robert Traill, 1851:
“What I am about to relate would, I conceive, be deemed a mere fable, had it not been related by eye-witnesses, and attended by calamities commensurate with such portents. Before sunset were seen around the whole country chariots poised in the air, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and investing the cities.” (Wars of the Jews, Volume II, Chapter VI, p.197.)
This is Tacitus, a Roman Historian, on the same event (among others):
"There had happened omens and prodigies, things which that nation so addicted to superstition, but so averse to the Gods, hold it unlawful to expiate either by vows or victims. Hosts were seen to encounter in the air, refulgent arms appeared; and, by a blaze of lightning shooting suddenly from the clouds, all the Temple was illuminated. The great gates of the Temple were of themselves in an instant thrown open, and a voice more than human heard to declare, that “the Gods were going to depart.” [The Works of Tacitus, Vol 4, Book V, The Summary]
That gives a whole new meaning to the prophecies, "behold, he cometh with clouds," and "he shall send his angels, and shall gather together his elect."
>>>I guess some of them could have been spiritually blind, but the entirety of the church? If that were true, what would that say of the utility of the prophecies, if nobody even recognized them after they were fulfilled in front of their eyes?<<<
Maybe most of the new Testament prophecies were only for the early church. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; so the early Christian Gentiles may have not been privy to the prophecies. They could have been strictly on a need-to-know basis; that is, only those who were to be resurrected were privy, and those who were not were only warned to get out of Jerusalem.
Note that there are no Gentile servants mentioned in the Revelation. In fact, the only mention of a Gentile anywhere in the book are those who tread the holy city under foot for forty and two months (3.5 years) in Revelation 11:2.
Philip