Craig L. Blomberg is a National Merit Scholar, a magna cum laude graduate from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He received his doctorate in New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, and later served as a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of an elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. He is a member of the Society for the Study of the New Testament, Society for Biblical Literature, and the Institute for Biblical Research. (He's also a Chicago Cubs fan but I'm not going to hold that against him.)
On page 41 of his book "The Case for Christ", Lee Strobel says that early Christians were convinced Jesus was going to return during their lifetimes and consummate history. Strobel is making the argument that because of this, there was no attempt by early Christians to preserve any historical records about his life or teachings. Why bother if he was going to return and end the world at any moment?
Don K. Preston's Response: The common misconception shared by both of these good men is the idea that the early church-- and ancient Jews-- expected Christ to return to "consummate history" i.e,. put an end to the time-space continuum. I should point out that there are many, many scholars, none of them preterists, that reject this idea.
N. T. Wright has written extensively on the idea that the Jews never expected the end of history, but, a radical remaking of history.
R.T. France (Wrights mentor), shared the same view.
Mark Nanos (The Mystery of Romans) affirms that the Jews had no such belief.
Scott McKnight (A New Vision for Israel)-- agrees with this concept.
I could go on an on-- (I can give the documentation for all of the above and more if you wish. In fact, in my books I give tons of this kind of documentation). The point is that there is no reason to view the "decreation" language of the scriptures as predictive of the destruction of literal creation. In my book The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat (available on both my websites: www.bibleprophecy.com, www.eschatology.org), I offer an extensive discussion and demonstration that there simply is no justification for the idea that the Jews or early Christians expected a literal descent out of heaven by Jesus on the clouds, to destroy the earth and end time.
"Blomberg disagrees and Strobel asks him why. Blomberg responds, "First, I think the premise is a bit overstated. The truth is that the majority of Jesus' teachings presuppose a significant span of time before the end of the world. "
Response: This is where Blomberg is patently wrong. Jesus did not anticipate a gap of so far two millennia between his ascension and his parousia. He said that his coming in judgment would be in the lifetime of his first century generation (Matthew 10:23; 16:27-28), and would be in his generation, without fail (Matthew 24:29-34). It is only by manipulating these texts to migigate their meaning that one can extrapolate Jesus coming into a future far distant from him. Even Jesus' references to a "delay" in his coming is confined to the first century generation . Furthermore, his own disciples and apostles affirmed in the clearest of language that the end was near and coming "without delay" (cf. Hebrews 10:37). Only by doing violence to the apostolic epistles can one deny the imminence.
But second, even if some of Jesus' followers did think he might come back fairly quickly, remember that Christianity was born out of Judaism.
"For eight centuries the Jews lived with the tension between the repeated pronouncements of prophets that the "Day of the Lord" was at hand, and the continuing history of Israel. And still, the followers of these prophets recorded, valued, and preserved the words of the prophets. Given that Jesus' followers looked upon him as being even greater than a prophet, it seems very reasonable that they would have done the same thing."
Response:
First of all, there is no question about whether Jesus' disciples believed his coming was near. Might I suggest that you read my book Can God Tell Time. The book catalogues the NT predictions of the imminent parousia, and examines and refutes the claims that "at hand" does not mean near, etc.. As a matter of fact, in my book Who Is This Babylon, I have the most extensive, comprehensive examination of the objections offered against the objective nature of the time statements of scripture to be found anywhere that I am aware of.
Blomberg's problem here is the failure to recognize that the Day of the Lord passages in the OT were fulfilled shortly, and soon! Blomberg has a monolithic view of the Day of the Lord. He thinks it means one thing: the end of history. This is patently false. In Isaiah 34 the Lord said the Day of the Lord was coming on the Edomite nation. No time statement is given as to when, but, two centuries later, the Babylonians were about to come in that judgment, and Obadiah says "The Day of the Lord is very near" (Obad. 15-17). That judgment fell in BC 583! Furthermore, Malachi 1:2-3 looks back on the destruction, and cites the prediction of Isaiah 34! So, the Day of the Lord came in the judgment of Edom at the hands of the Babylonians. Thus, the Day of the Lord was an "in history" not "end of history" event. This is something that Blomberg simply does not admit, but, it is fatal to his claims. See my Like Father Like Son book (at the printer now after extensive revision and enlargment), for a fuller discussion of these issues.
I agree with Blomberg in his assessment of why the early Christians would accurately record what Jesus said. But this is a highly educated person, who says Jesus' teachings presuppose a significant span of time before the end of the world. Preterism (whether partial or full) defines that "significant span of time" as being around 40 years. If Blomberg is saying this span of time is actually in the area of two+ thousand years, why is he wrong?
Response:
Think about this for a moment. Would it not have been horrible embarrassing to the apostles and disciples to record Jesus' statements about his soon coming parousia, trying to produce faith in him, all the while knowing (per the idea that the gospels and epistles were written post AD 70) that Jesus' predictions of his imminent coming had failed? It is difficult to create faith in someone, legitimately, if you are telling people that the one you are trying to get them to believe in, has failed!
To me, this is one of the greatest problems confronting the church today. The enemies of Christ are fully aware of Jesus' and his apostles' predictions of the soon coming parousia. Lamentably, men like Blomberg (as well intentioned as they surely are) add fuel to the fire by admitting that those predictions did fail. (Blomberg, to his credit, is seeking to "salvage" Jesus' standing. He does this by trying to avoid the problem of the imminence, by denying that Jesus and his disciples actually predicted and imminent end, but, linguistically and textually, even the enemies of Christ know better! You cannot salvage Jesus' position by denying his oft repeated, undeniable words!)
I hope these comments, although brief, are helpful.
Thanks for contacting me!
Make your plans to be with us for the Seventh Annual Preterist Pilgrim Weekend, July 15-17, 2010 here in Ardmore.
The theme will be The Eschatology of 1 and 2 Peter.
This will be a great event, so come be with us!
Don K
News 
