Did Jesus’ Prophecy Fail Or Did Jesus Contradict Himself?

Did Jesus’ Prophecy Fail or Did Jesus Contradict Himself?

I have stated very often about my amazement of those who abandon the truth of Covenant Eschatology and the desperation that they exhibit to justify their abandonment (Argumentum ad desperatum – My own invented non-Latin, “Latin” term to describe arguments created out of desperation to defend a traditional view). Sam Frost is a prime example of this, being guilty of a serious lack of logic, cogency and an abandonment of proper hermeneutic and exegesis.

Just recently, (June 2025), on FaceBook, William Vincent posted that the apostles were confused about what they were asking about in Matthew 24:3. He insisted that they had a cosmological “end” of some sort, although not a literal end of time. Sam Frost chimed in, praising Vincent’s post. I responded that the post was rife with presuppositions and bad logic. Frost then asked some questions about the time indicators in the NT. I will post the entire exchange below, so that the reader can see the current direction of Mr. Frost’s theological journey. I will insert some additional editorial comments in certain points.

Don K. Preston
Samuel M Frost Nothing excellent about it. Pure eisegesis, false assumptions and bad logic.
Tell me, Mr. Frost, were the apostles confused, just ignorant, or dumb, to associate the destruction of the temple with his coming and the end of the age?

Edit: Frost refused to answer this question.

Samuel M Frost 6-14-2025
Don K. Preston was the second century Greek Christians dumb, ignorant and just plain stupid?

Edit– One might ponder: Just exactly what does Mr. Frost’s question here have to do with my question? I was not discussing or asking about the second century Greek Christians. I was asking about Jesus’ own apostles. Mr. Frost’s question is mere deflection.

William Vincent
Don K. Preston if the Apostles association was correct, then why isn’t there a single mention of it after Pentecost? Not one … how do you say… keystroke.

Don K. Preston 6-14-2025
Samuel M Frost Are you now claiming that the second century (Hellenized) church was infallible?
Funny, btw, how so many of those second century Greek Christians used mello with the sense of “about to be.” Were they just dumb, ignorant or just plain stupid?

Edit: Mr. Frost did not respond to my question.

Don K. Preston 6-15-2025
William Vincent Hey, William, they did make the association since they constantly spoke of how “the end of the ages has come upon us”; “the end of all things has drawn near”: “the appointed time for the judgment has come’ “knowing the time (kairos, divinely appointed time”, it is high time to awaken out of sleep: The night is far past, The Day is at hand.”
So yea, that made the connection that the parousia and the end was to occur in their generation, just as Jesus predicted.

William Vincent 6-15-2025
Don K. Preston surely you see that none of the phrases you reference speak of the destruction of the Temple or Jerusalem? As I stated earlier, there is not one mention of this supposedly all-important event after Pentecost. Perhaps this is because that most of the NT is written to Christians who would have hardly been impacted at all by the destruction of a city in Judea. Further, where are the important teachings like “end of the age of Law” ect. I contend that none of the Preterist teachings about the Olivet prohecy are ever once taught in the NT.

Don K. Preston 6-15-2025
William Vincent Logical fallacy. Who said that the apostles had to use the identical words, terms and phrases as found in the OD?
And by the way, all of the constituent elements of Matthew 24:29-34 are in fact found in 1 Thess. 4:13-18. Even, you know, some of the identical words! So, you are clearly wrong to say that the apostles did not use the language of the OD.

And this raises the question, what words, terms and phrases in the OD DO actually speak of the events of the first century judgment of Jerusalem in your new paradigm?

To say that believers- nor anyone- outside of Judea would be impacted by the fall of Jerusalem manifests a limited knowledge of the impact of that event. For someone who claims to be such a great researcher to make such a bold comment is more than revealing.

As to the impact of the passing of the Law, perhaps you should spend some time in 2 Corinthians 3 where Paul emphasized the glory being manifested (present tense verbs) in the covenant transition from “glory to glory” i.e. from Torah to Gospel.

You can claim that //none of the Preterist teachings about the Olivet prohecy are ever once taught in the NT.// But that is patently false.

Tell me, William, at the end of what age did Jesus appear (Hebr. 9:26)?
And what end of what age did Paul speak of when he said “the end (telos) of the ages has come upon us”?

What “end” did Peter have in mind when he said “the end of all things is at hand.”

And what was that “kairos” (the divinely appointed time” of the end of all things that he mentioned in 1 Peter 4?

And what was that “divinely appointed time” that the Father told John to warn his audience of the seven churches of Asia, had arrived, and “these things must shortly come to pass”?

Edit: Mr. Vincent did not answer any of these questions.

Samuel M Frost
Don K. Preston why is the perfect tense used in those phrases?

Edit: Notice again the deflective and obfuscatory nature of Frost’s “response.” He refused to deal with anything I said.

Don K. Preston 6-16-2025
Samuel M Frost LOL! To show that the time had arrived, Mr. Frost. To emphasize the nearness of the consummation. The perfect tenses were not used to indicate that the consummation was far off, or that it was always near.
What had once been far off and not near, had now come.

The Appointed time of the end foretold by the OT prophets had arrived with John the Baptizer and Jesus– “The time (kairos) is fulfilled, the kingdom of heaven has drawn near (eggeken).”

As F. F. Bruce put it: “These words express, among other things, the assurance that an ardently desired new order, long since foretold and awaited. was now on the point of realization.” (F. F. Bruce, The Time is Fulfilled, (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 15).

So, once again, what was once NOT NEAR, NOT AT HAND was now, in the first century, at hand, near, coming shortly.

Samuel M Frost 6-16-2025
Don K. Preston so, when John said that (31 AD) the time HAD already drawn nigh…..is that correct?

Don K. Preston 6-16-2025
Samuel M Frost Yea, Sam, the time for the laying of the foundation of the kingdom had arrived. Do you deny that?
Was Jesus wrong to say that the appointed time had come near / had arrived?
Yes OR No?

Edit: Once again, Frost refused to answer my question.

Samuel M Frost 6-16-2025
Don K. Preston so….when Jesus says, “WHEN you see all these things, THEN know it is nigh,” what did he mean? That’s a conditional statement. When you see Jerusalem surrounded. Did John the Baptist see Jerusalem surrounded?

19h

Don K. Preston 6-16-2025
Samuel M Frost Good grief, Sam! The apostles were asking about the consummation, “the end,” the “telos,” not the initiation.

And yea, that time statement of “WHEN” means that when they saw the completion – not the initiation- of the World Mission, they were to know that the END- not the initiation– was nigh, even at the door.

That is why in the epistles, after the Gospel had been preached into all the kosmos, the ethnoi, the oikoumene, to every creature under heaven, that they proclaimed that the end (the telos) had drawn near.

And of course, you totally ignored my question:

Was Jesus wrong to say that the appointed time had come near / had arrived?
Yes OR No?

And you ignored this as well:
Are you now claiming that the second century (Hellenized) church was infallible?

Funny, btw, how so many of those second century Greek Christians used mello with the sense of “about to be.” Were they just dumb, ignorant or just plain stupid?

Wonder why you ignored these questions! Oh, never mind, we know, don’t we?

18h

Edit: Frost ignored all of the questions here.

Samuel M Frost 6-16-2025
Don K. Preston so, the end was nigh in 30 AD, and really, really, really nigh in 68?

Don K. Preston 6-17-2025
Samuel M Frost Ridicule is not refutation, Mr. Frost.

And yes, in a generational sense it is true! What was once centuries away was now, imminent since the kairos, had arrived.

When are you gonna answer my questions? I will just drop my previous post here as a gentle reminder.

That is why in the epistles, after the Gospel had been preached into all the kosmos, the ethne, the oikoumene, to every creature under heaven, that they proclaimed that the end (the telos) had drawn near.
And of course, you totally ignored my question:
Was Jesus wrong to say that the appointed time had come near / had arrived?
Yes OR No?
And you ignored this as well:
Are you now claiming that the second century (Hellenized) church was infallible?
Funny, btw, how so many of those second century Greek Christians used mello with the sense of “about to be.” Were they just dumb, ignorant or just plain stupid?
Wonder why you ignored these questions! Oh, never mind, we know, don’t we?

Samuel M Frost 6-17-2025
Don K. Preston we’ll take one at a time….you said the gospel was preached to every creature, “THEN comes the end.” Paul wrote to the Collosians (sic) in the mid-late fifties…..Jerusalem wasn’t even surrounded yet! Shouldn’t the end have come then? I mean, how could it have come without them finishing the cities of Israel!?? Did they finish preaching in all the cities of Israel BEFORE he came?

Edit: Pay particular attention here to how Mr. Frost is affirming that the apostles did not fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 24:14. This is setting the stage for Mr. Frost’s position that demands that Jesus contradicted himself.
Also observe that Mr. Frost is taking Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:14 in an improper way. Jesus said that Mission would be completed “then comes the end.” Mr. Frost is taking that to mean mission will be completed and “immediately comes the end.” But of course, that is NOT what the text says. All that Jesus said was that the end would come when the Mission was completed and that it would be in that generation. Mr. Frost is imposing the word “immediately” onto the text with no justification as I pointed out in my response.

13m

Don K. Preston 6-17-2025
Samuel M Frost You are defining “then” as immediately, which is not what it means or meant.
Jesus said that when they saw the fulfillment of the signs, “know that it (the end, the parousia, the kingdom) is nigh, even at the door.”

And your allusion to “finishing the cities of Israel” is just another distortion. Jesus did not tell them that they would not finish evangelizing the cities of Israel before He came. That would be a contradiction, since in Matthew 24, the end / parousia, would be AFTER they fulfilled the Mission. The “you will not have finished” is referent to their flight from persecution as a result of their preaching.
Flight from persecution is the focus, NOT the completion of the Mission.

We thus have Jesus saying the Gospel would be preached into all the world, then comes the end.
But we have Frost telling us that Jesus said they would not even finish preaching to all the cities of Israel (Much Less to all the world!!) before he would come!
Who is right here? It ain’t Mr. Frost.

What you are suggesting DEMANDS a contradiction in Jesus’ teaching. But, hey, you might feel comfortable positing a contradiction between Matthew 24:14 and Matthew 10.
I don’t, and it is not contextual and not justified.

Jesus said the Gospel would be preached into all the world, then comes the end.
Paul and the NT writers affirmed that the Gospel had been–by the early AD 60s- preached into all the world.
They also affirmed that the end was near, at hand, coming shortly and without delay.
Were they wrong to say the Gospel had been preached into all the world? Yes or No?
Were they wrong to say that the time of the end had arrived? Yes or No?
You are grasping at broken straws.
William Bell, William Vincent, Larry Siegle, John Watson, Roy Runyon, Brent Bischel, Julienne Chambers, Julie Hand, Michael Karris,

Samuel M Frost 6-17-2025
Don K. Preston what’s sad here is that you are contradicting what Jesus plainly said: you will NOT finish until…..

20h

Edit: Notice that Mr. Frost ignores the actual text and imposes his view onto the text. That is eisegesis.

Don K. Preston 6-18-2025
Samuel M Frost What is sad is that you are REFUSING to answer the question: “You will not finish…” “What was it that they would not finish before the coming of the Son of Man? You say it is the preaching of the Gospel. The text says otherwise.
You are ignoring and actually perverting the text:

“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

They would be persecuted city to city.
They were to FLEE to another city when persecuted in another.
//I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.//
That is flight from persecution. Flight from persecution is the subject of “you will not have gone through…”

It is NOT, you will not have preached into all the cities before the Son of Man comes.

It clearly does not bother you in the least to have a position that makes Jesus contradict himself:
Matthew 24:14– This gospel will be preached into all the world, then comes the end Versus Sam Frost’s version of Matthew 10:22-23… You will NOT finish preaching the gospel into all the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man.

So, according to Mr. Frost, they would not even preach the Gospel in all the cities of Israel — MUCH LESS INTO ALL THE WORLD– before the coming of the Son.

And YET, irony of ironies, Mr. Frost does not believe that Christ came before they even preached in all the cities of Israel!

Mr. Frost believes that we are STILL WAITING for the coming of the Son of Man— RIGHT, Mr. Frost?

Mr. Frost, did Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 10:22-23 fail?

Did Jesus come before the Apostles preached in all the cities of Israel?

Will you answer? Inquiring minds sure want to know!

What about YOU, William Vincent, will you answer?

Edit: It has now been several days since this exchange took place and I posed these questions to Mr. Frost. So, on 6-24-25 I reposted the post from just above, urging Frost to respond and to answer my questions. He re is what he posted in “response.”

Here is what he offered in ‘response”:
Samuel M Frost 6-24-24
Don K. Preston I responded….. Jesus’ words are quite plain….you will NOT finish before the Son of man comes…. it’s black and white…..

Don K. Preston 6-24-25
Samuel M Frost Yea, it is plain: You will not finish going through the cities of Israel …. in fleeing from their persecutors.

And what is plain is that YOUR position demands that Jesus contradicted himself!

This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached into all the world, then comes the end…’this generation shall not pass until all of these things are fulfilled.” And let’s not forget that you have admitted that “this generation” referred to the first century.

And let’s not forget that Paul said (circa AD 61 or so) that the Gospel HAD been preached in all the world (kosmos- Colossians 1:5-7) and “to every creature under heaven” (v. 23. I am assuming that if the Gospel had been preached into all the world that this would include all the cities in Israel– right?

And yet, you have the temerity to say that the apostles did NOT reach all of the cities of Israel in their preaching, flatly contradicting what Jesus predicted and what Paul affirmed!

And of course, you likewise deny that the Son of Man came before they had the chance to have gone through the cities of Israel.

And please, don’t try to tell us that he was speaking of his Ascension, cause that was not his coming to the apostles. The ascension was his departure, and he did not say that they would not finish going through the cities of Israel until he departed!

Not only that, but, even IF Jesus was referring to his Ascension (He wasn’t) that would mean that the apostles would not fulfill the Mission of Matthew 10 before his Ascension. But, and this is critical, the Mission– to Israel- in Matthew 10 is NOT the same Mission as in Matthew 24:14.

In Matthew 10, he told the apostles, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles or the Samaritans” (10:5-6). But the Mission of 24:14 was, “This gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached to all the world (oikoumene) as a witness to the nations (ethnoi).” And this is patently also the Mission of Matthew 28:18-20, which, again, was not just to the cities of Israel as was chapter 10. It included Gentiles, Samaritans and all nations (Cf. Acts 1– Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the uttermost parts of the world). This is patently NOT the Mission of chapter 10!

I asked “Grok” the duration of the Matthew 10 Mission, I got this response:

//Historical Estimates: Scholars estimate this mission could have lasted anywhere from a few weeks to several months, depending on the size of the region they covered (likely Galilee and Judea) and the logistics of traveling by foot. The lack of detail suggests it was a preparatory mission, not a decades-long endeavor.
Later Missions: The mission in Matthew 10 is distinct from the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, which has a global scope and no time limit. Matthew 10’s focus on Israel implies a more immediate, localized effort.

Without specific dates or durations in the text, we can only infer it was a short-term mission, likely completed within a year, based on the narrative context and the urgency of Jesus’ instructions.//

Likewise, ChatGPT says the Mission of chapter 10 took no more than seveal weeks or at most a few months. Clarity says some scholars posit the fulfillment within six months.

Now, if these scholarly estimates are anywhere near right, if you posit the “coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 10:23 as the Ascension, that demands that Jesus had to “Ascend” within a few months or at the most within a year of this prediction! Yet, in reality, Matthew 10 records the early part of Jesus’ ministry, well before his death, burial and resurrection, and thus, well before giving the Mission of Matthew 24, which was delivered in the last week of his earthly ministry!

The bottom line is that if Jesus was referring to his Ascension in Matthew 10:23, he did not “return” (i.e. the Ascension) before they completed that Mission which was likely completed well within a year. He ascended well after the fulfillment of that Mission! That means that they definitely WOULD have and DID complete the Mission of chapter 10 before he came (Ascended)! Yet, you have repeatedly told is that the apostles would NOT complete that Mission before the Lord came! Thus, you have Jesus making a false prediction. That leaves us asking: What coming was he talking about? Will you tell us, Mr. Frost?

I agree that the text and context is pretty black and white for sure! And it totally debunks your claims.

So, you implicitly charge Jesus with both making a false prediction as well as contradicting himself, which is not too terribly shocking, given the fact that you said in your debate with Gabriel that there was not actually a true prophet named Daniel.

Did I actually hear that right?? Feel free to correct me if that is not what you said. I look forward to reading what you have to say about this.

As of today, 6-29-2025, Mr. Frost has refused to answer my comments or my questions. More than revealing. Likewise, William Vincent refused to engage my comments.

Vincent’s Post can be found here. It was dated6-10-25. https://www.facebook.com/groups/172570659777916/?multi_permalinks=2348979492137011&hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&__cft__[0]=AZUna_16ZYZxHpeLwRgj1WdhQApRy8YBr5ITfwrpbLzECfVO9aRIc9-He961J-ddPsq-4kO3a-msA4Uczw207J6hTKqlhkn8d_IJJpZLUWP1VhNoNKanHhbP83EOa_i_ZHatvEg9x7vORCzIW5qY0PAN&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Did Jesus’ Prophecy Fail Or Did Jesus Contradict Himself?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply