I don’t care so much these days whether or not one is a futurist or a preterist in their eschatology, as both have their flaws and weaknesses. Whether you think Jesus returned symbolically in the first century, or whether you believe he will return “any day now” does not matter nearly as much to me as does the manner in which you believe he returned or will return.

If you see the bloody, fiery destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE as the direct handiwork of God, then, quite frankly, I’m glad your version of God isn’t going to return any day now. On the other hand, if, as a futurist, you believe Jesus will soon return and “kill multitudes,” to use Mike Bickle’s words, and literally bathe the earth in a sort of hellfire, then I’m equally glad to know that your prophetic interpretation is flawed and untenable.

Regardless of when you believe Jesus returned or will return, what matters most is how you see him returning. If his second coming contradicts his peaceful, non-violent first coming, then it isn’t Jesus. Period. The Jesus many are expecting to return looks a whole lot more like the anti-Christ they’re told to fear, as does the already-returned Jesus of *some (I know it isn’t all) in the preterist camp. I personally believe that the early church saw most of the “second coming” prophecies as having had their fulfillment in the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem, but I believe many also mistakenly attributed the work to God, instead of what it really was, which was a lack of willingness to trod the peaceful path laid out by a God who has rejected violence and the sword.
~Jeff Turner