Hubbry Logo
PreterismPreterismMain
Open search
Preterism
Community hub
Preterism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Preterism
Preterism
Preterism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Christian eschatology
Contrasting beliefs
The Millennium
Biblical texts
Pseudepigrapha
Key terms
Christianity portal

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view or belief that interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already been fulfilled in history. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the seventh century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, as well as Christ's predictions within the Olivet Discourse, as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Francesco Hayez painting pictured) is seen by preterists as being allegorically portrayed in the Book of Revelation.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is 'past' or 'beyond'.[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet Discourse had come to pass by AD 70.

Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi, published during the Counter-Reformation.[2]

History

[edit]
Title page of Luis del Alcázar's Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (1614), the founding text of modern preterism

At the time of the Counter-Reformation, the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar wrote a prominent preterist exposition of prophecy.[3][page needed][4] Moses Stuart noted in 1845 that Alcasar's preterist interpretation advantaged the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[5] and Kenneth Newport in an eschatological commentary in 2000 described preterism as a Catholic defense against the Protestant historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[6]

Due to resistance from Protestant historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[7][page needed] Among Protestants preterism was first accepted by Hugo Grotius[8][9] (1583–1645), a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[10] His first attempt to do this in his "Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist" (1640) arguing that the texts relating to Antichrist had had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. Protestants did not welcome these views[11] but Grotius remained undeterred and in his next work, "Commentaries On The New Testament" (1641–1650), he expanded his preterist views to include the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation.

Preterism continued to struggle to gain credibility within other Protestant communities, especially in England.[12] The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed in 1645 that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century,[13] and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel's prophecies in 1650,[14] but neither of them applied a preterist approach to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond (1605–1660). Hammond sympathized with Grotius' desire for unity among Christians, and found his preterist exposition useful to this end.[15][page needed] Hammond wrote his own preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though giving pride of place to Grotius.[16][page needed] Hammond was Grotius' only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected Grotius' interpretation of Revelation, which gained no ground for at least 100 years.[17][18][19]

By the end of the 18th century preterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. In 1730 the Protestant and Arian, Frenchman Firmin Abauzit wrote the first full preterist exposition, "Essai sur l'Apocalypse". Abauzit worked in the then independent Republic of Geneva as a librarian.[20] This was part of a growing development of more systematic preterist expositions of Revelation.[21] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this approach after a critical examination by his English translator, Leonard Twells.[22]

The earliest American full-preterist work, The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event, was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view.[23]

Schools of preterist thought

[edit]

The two principal schools of preterist thought are commonly called partial preterism and full preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of preterist thought.

Some partial preterists prefer to call their position orthodox preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the full preterists' rejection of the same.[24] This, in effect, makes full preterism unorthodox in the eyes of partial preterists and gives rise to the claim by some that full preterism is heretical. Partial preterism is also sometimes called orthodox preterism, classical preterism or moderate preterism.

On the other hand, some full preterists prefer to call their position "consistent preterism", reflecting their extension of preterism to all biblical prophecy and thus claiming an inconsistency in the partial preterist hermeneutic.[25]

Sub-variants of preterism include a form of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries of the current era, culminating in the fall of Rome. In addition, certain statements from classical theological liberalism are easily mistaken for preterism, as they hold that the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy would be fulfilled within their generation. Theological liberalism generally regards these apocalyptic expectations as being errant or mistaken, however, so this view cannot accurately be considered a form of preterism.[26]

Partial preterism

[edit]

Partial preterism (often referred to as orthodox preterism or classical preterism) may hold that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70[27] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[28][29]

Some partial preterists may believe that the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were not historically fulfilled.

Head of Nero on a silver denarius: [The beast] also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Some partial preterists identify "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17–18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright, Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, David Chilton, and Kenneth Gentry identify it with the city of Jerusalem.[27][30] Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][a] while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[38] Another partial preterist view regards first and second century events as recurrent patterns with Nero and Bar Kochba presented as archetypes. There is evidence that the epithet of Bar Kochba is a play on the Hebrew Shema with the value equating to the gematria value of 666. The pun on his patronymic equates to the variant reading 616.[39] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero's suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in AD 95 or 96".[40] Many Protestant scholars agree.[41][42] The Second Coming, resurrection of the dead, and Final Judgment however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[43]

Full preterism

[edit]

Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus's Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment.[44][page needed]

Other names of full preterism include:

  • preterism (because the term itself means "past")
  • consistent preterism
  • true preterism
  • hyper-preterism (a pejorative term used by opponents of preterists)
  • pantelism. (The term "pantelism" comes from two Greek roots: παν (pan), "everything", and τελ- (tel-), referring to completion).
  • Covenant Eschatology
  • Fulfilled Eschatology[45]

Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them will not taste death until they see him coming in his kingdom)[46] places the second coming in the first century. This precludes a physical second coming of Christ. Instead, the second coming is symbolic of a "judgment" against Jerusalem, said to have taken place with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70.[47] For this reason, those who oppose the notion also call full preterism "the AD 70 doctrine", since the whole eschatology is hinged on this one event.[48] R. C. Sproul said of full preterist Max R. King, "for this schema to work, the traditional idea of resurrection must be replaced with a metaphorical idea of resurrection".[49] Detractors of full preterism often refer to the school as hyper-preterism.[50]

In recent years full preterism has divided into sub-groups. An important offshoot that differs markedly from the theology of Max King is the Individual Body View (IBV) of full preterism. The term refers to a belief in a rapture of individuals that occurred in AD 66 (or AD 70), an event that first involved an experiential change into spiritual bodies. This is counter to the Max King variant of full preterism, the Corporate Body View (CBV), which Edward E. Stevens, debating against that view, defines as "a spiritual-only change of status for a collective body, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the resurrection of individual disembodied souls out of Hades to receive their new immortal bodies and go to heaven where their fellowship with God was eternally restored."[51]

[edit]
  • Pauline Eschatology
  • Israel Onlyism

Influences within Christian thought

[edit]

Partial preterism is generally considered to be a historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church.[52][53][54] Still, partial preterism is not the majority view among American denominations founded after 1500 and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espouse dispensationalism.[52][54][55] Additionally, dispensationalists are concerned that partial preterism logically leads to an acceptance of full preterism, a concern which is denied by partial preterists.[56]

Full preterism is sometimes viewed as heretical,[52][53][54] based upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), and also from biblical passages that condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection or transformation of the body –doctrines which most Christians believe to be essential to the faith. Critics of full preterism point to Paul the Apostle's condemnation of the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus,[57] which they regard as analogous to full preterism. Adherents of full preterism, however, dispute this assertion by pointing out that Paul's condemnation was written during a time in which (their idea of) the resurrection was still in the future (i.e., pre-AD 70). Their critics assert that if the Resurrection has not yet happened, then the condemnation would still apply.

Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

[edit]

Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the first century.[58] Preterists believe that the dating of the book of Revelation is of vital importance[59] and that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Preterism was first expounded by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter-Reformation.[3][60][61] The preterist view served to bolster the Catholic Church's position against attacks by Protestants,[5][6] who identified the Pope with the Antichrist.

Interpretation of the Great Tribulation

[edit]
Main articles: Great Tribulation and Abomination of Desolation

In the preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past when Roman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of the First Jewish–Roman War, and it affected only the Jewish people rather than all mankind.

Christian preterists believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promised Messiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of the Roman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.

A preterist discussion of the Tribulation has its focus on the Gospels, in particular the prophetic passages in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and the Olivet Discourse, rather than on the Book of Revelation. Most preterists apply much of the symbolism in Revelation to Rome, the Caesars, and their persecution of Christians, rather than to the Tribulation upon the Jews.

Jesus's warning in Matthew 24:34 that "this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled"[62] is tied back to his similar warning to the scribes and the Pharisees that their judgment would "come upon this generation",[63] that is, during the first century rather than at a future time long after the scribes and Pharisees had died. The destruction in AD 70 occurred within a 40-year biblical generation from the time when Jesus gave that discourse. Preterism maintains that the judgment on the Jewish nation was executed by the Roman legions, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet."[64] This can also be found in Luke 21:20.[65]

Since Matthew 24 begins with Jesus visiting the Jerusalem Temple and pronouncing that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (vs. 3), preterists see nothing in scripture to indicate that another Jewish temple will ever be built. The prophecies were all fulfilled against the temple of that time, which was subsequently destroyed within that generation.

Key verses

[edit]

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

— Matthew 10:23, NRSV[66]

But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.

— Luke 9:27, NRSV[67]

for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written.

— Luke 21:22, NRSV[68]

Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

— Matthew 16:28, NRSV[69]

Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

— Matthew 24:34, NRSV[70]

This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to:[citation needed]

  1. Jesus' transfiguration
  2. the resurrection
  3. the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost
  4. the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the early church
  5. the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem in AD 70
  6. the second coming and final establishment of the kingdom
  7. the coming of Jesus Christ in vision to the apostle John in revelation.

Many preterists find view 6 unacceptable because it implies a mistake on the part of Jesus about the timing of his return. Many[quantify] preterists believe the immediate context seems to indicate the first view, the transfiguration, which immediately follows.[71] This view seems to satisfy that "some" disciples would see the glory of the Son of Man, but it does not satisfy the statement that "he will repay every man for what he has done". The same situation occurs with views 2 through 4. Only view 5 (the judgement on Jerusalem in AD 70) appears to satisfy both conditions, reinforced with Revelation 2:23, 20:12 and 22:12,[72] as a preterist would argue.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Preterism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Preterism is a Christian eschatological framework that interprets many or all biblical prophecies regarding the "end times"—particularly those in the (, , Luke 21) and the —as having been fulfilled in the past, chiefly during the Roman destruction of and the Second Temple in AD 70. The term derives from the Latin preter, meaning "past," emphasizing a fulfillment rather than expectation. Preterism encompasses two primary variants: partial preterism, which posits that prophecies concerning judgment on Israel and the initial establishment of the new covenant era were realized in the first century, while affirming the future second coming of Christ, bodily resurrection of the dead, and final judgment; and full preterism (also termed hyper- or consistent preterism), which claims all eschatological events, including the parousia, resurrection, and consummation of the kingdom, occurred by AD 70 without remainder. Partial preterism aligns with orthodox creeds like the Nicene and Apostles' by preserving futurist elements, whereas full preterism is broadly rejected as heretical for denying a future physical return of Jesus and general resurrection, contradicting scriptural promises and early church testimony. The interpretive approach gained systematic form in the early 17th century through Jesuit scholar Luis de Alcázar, who advanced preterism in his Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (1614) as a counter to Protestant historicist readings of tying papal to the . Earlier patristic figures like exhibited partial preterist leanings by linking apocalyptic imagery to the fall of , but systematic preterism emerged amid Reformation-era debates over prophecy. Notable modern partial preterists include Reformed theologians , Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., and , who emphasize this generation (Matthew 24:34) as first-century fulfillment while upholding amillennial or postmillennial eschatology; full preterism's proponents, such as Max King and Don K. Preston, remain marginal and face ecclesiastical censure. Critics argue preterism, especially its full form, undermines the literal bodily and cosmic renewal depicted in passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and , reducing to historical events without transcendent consummation, though proponents counter that it resolves apparent timing issues in prophetic texts via first-principles adherence to audience relevance and covenantal continuity. This view's emphasis on as the pivotal transition from old to underscores causal links between Christ's and the temple's obsolescence, yet it sparks ongoing debate over prophecy's scope amid empirical historical corroboration of Jerusalem's fall.

Definition and Core Principles

Etymology and Fundamental Tenets

The term "preterism" derives from the Latin prefix praeter-, meaning "" or "beyond," reflecting the interpretive approach that views certain biblical prophecies as already fulfilled historical events rather than future occurrences. This etymology underscores the system's emphasis on chronological proximity between and fulfillment, distinguishing it from futurist eschatologies that project events into an undetermined . At its core, preterism posits that many eschatological prophecies in the —particularly the (–25; ; Luke 21) and the —were fulfilled in the first century AD, culminating in the Roman destruction of and the Second Temple on August 10, 70 AD, under . Proponents argue this interpretation aligns with temporal indicators in the texts, such as ' statement in :34 that "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," which they date to the lifespan of his contemporaries (approximately 30–100 AD). Key tenets include recognizing the judgment on apostate as the primary referent for apocalyptic imagery, often drawing parallels to prophetic judgments (e.g., Babylon's fall in Isaiah 13 or Egypt's in Ezekiel 32), and viewing events like the "" (:21) as historical sieges and famines documented by in . Preterism maintains that these fulfillments validate the prophecies' credibility while shifting focus from speculative future timelines to the establishment of the era post-70 AD, with the church inheriting Israel's covenantal promises. However, it encompasses variants: partial preterism affirms a future bodily return of Christ, general , and final judgment, treating only prophetic judgments on as past; full preterism extends all eschatological elements—including the second coming and —to 70 AD, interpreting them covenantally or spiritually rather than physically future. This distinction arises from hermeneutical commitments to audience relevance and first-century context over global, end-of-history applications.

Distinction from Futurism, Historicism, and Idealism

Preterism posits that the bulk of prophecies, including those in the and the , found fulfillment in historical events of the first century AD, particularly the Roman destruction of and the temple in , which it regards as the culmination of on apostate . This past-oriented focus sets it apart from , which anticipates literal fulfillment of most such prophecies in a yet-to-come eschatological , often linked to a seven-year tribulation, figure, and millennial kingdom, as emphasized in dispensational since the . Futurists, drawing on 1:19's structure ("things which are, and... which shall be hereafter"), argue that chapters 4–22 describe unprecedented global cataclysms post-church age, rejecting preterism's compression of these into AD 66–70 events under or early emperors. Unlike , which maps prophetic symbols—such as the beasts in —to successive historical eras from the apostolic age through the (e.g., equating the papacy with the in Protestant interpretations from the ) to modern times, preterism confines primary fulfillment to a discrete near-term horizon referenced in phrases like "things which must shortly come to pass" ( 1:1). Historicists, prominent among Reformers like and , view as a continuous of , allowing for ongoing recapitulation of judgments, whereas preterists see such language as audience-specific to first-century believers facing imminent , with later applications being typological rather than predictive. Preterism further contrasts with , which interprets apocalyptic imagery not as tied to verifiable historical sequences but as perennial allegories depicting the ageless between and , divine sovereignty over , and the ultimate triumph of , without insistence on datable fulfillments. , often aligned with , emphasize Revelation's cyclical patterns (e.g., seals, trumpets, bowls as repeated motifs of tribulation) to convey timeless truths applicable across epochs, dismissing preterism's emphasis on empirical correlations like the siege of matching the "" (:21) or Nero's name in equaling 666 (:18). While preterism incorporates symbolic elements, it prioritizes causal links to concrete events for exegetical coherence, critiquing for potentially rendering non-falsifiable and detached from the text's stated imminence. These distinctions arise from differing hermeneutical priorities: preterism's commitment to grammatical-historical within the original context yields a localized fulfillment model, whereas projects forward for relevance to contemporary believers, surveys the for providential patterns, and abstracts for universal applicability. Partial preterists may blend elements, affirming some future (e.g., bodily and final judgment), but full preterism's total past fulfillment sharpens the contrast, though both challenge the other views' extension of timelines beyond the apostolic era.

Historical Development

Antecedents in Early Church and Jewish Apocalypticism

Jewish apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period, including the (composed circa 165 BCE) and 1 Enoch (spanning 3rd century BCE to 1st century CE), depicted eschatological upheavals as imminent divine interventions against imperial oppressors, symbolized by successive beasts representing historical empires such as Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. These texts emphasized a compressed timeline for judgment, with cosmic signs and a messianic deliverer establishing God's kingdom through events perceivable within a single generation, influencing the apocalyptic expectations of figures like and the Essene community at . This framework provided a causal precedent for preterist by linking prophetic imagery to verifiable historical crises, such as the desecration under (167–164 BCE), which Daniel 11 retroactively frames as partial fulfillment amid deferred consummation. Early Christian interpreters built on this tradition by associating Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:1–35; Mark 13:1–30; Luke 21:5–24) with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple on August 10, 70 CE, during the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 CE). Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE), in Ecclesiastical History (Book 3, Chapters 5–8), explicitly identified the siege's horrors—including famine, internal strife, and the temple's profanation—as precise realizations of Christ's warnings about wars, false christs, and the "abomination of desolation," portraying the event as God's judgment on unbelieving Israel and a validation of prophetic authority. While patristic consensus, as evidenced in writers like Irenaeus (c. 130–202 CE) and Hippolytus (c. 170–235 CE), maintained futurist eschatology for a bodily resurrection and final advent, selective retrospective applications of apocalyptic texts to AD 70 events constituted embryonic preterist reasoning, prioritizing empirical historical correspondence over ongoing imminence. Such views contrasted with dominant chiliasm but aligned with Josephus' contemporaneous account (Jewish War, Books 5–7, written c. 75 CE) of the catastrophe as unparalleled divine retribution, underscoring causal links between covenant unfaithfulness and temporal downfall.

Post-Reformation Emergence and Key Proponents

Preterism emerged among Protestant scholars in the early seventeenth century as a minority interpretive approach to apocalyptic prophecies, contrasting with the dominant historicist view that identified the papacy with the and extended prophecies across . The Dutch jurist and theologian (1583–1645) became the first prominent Protestant proponent, advancing preterist exegesis in his Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum published in 1644. Grotius interpreted key elements of the () and much of the as fulfilled in the Roman destruction of in AD 70, emphasizing first-century historical events like the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66–70) under emperors and . Grotius's adoption of preterism reflected his broader irenic efforts to bridge divides between Protestants and Catholics, downplaying futurist or ongoing historicist applications that fueled polemics against by relocating prophetic fulfillments to the apostolic era. His work built on but diverged from the earlier Catholic systematization by Jesuit Luis de Alcazar (1614), which Protestants had largely rejected, adapting it instead to affirm scriptural timelines while critiquing overly allegorical or continuous-historical readings. Grotius argued that phrases like "this generation" in :34 referred literally to Jesus's contemporaries, supported by Josephus's accounts of famines, temple desecrations, and mass deaths aligning with prophetic imagery of tribulation and . Subsequent seventeenth-century figures extended this framework. English scholar Henry Hammond (1605–1660) incorporated preterist elements in his 1653 Paraphrase and Annotations upon All the Books of the New Testament, viewing the Olivet prophecies as primarily realized in AD 70's cataclysmic events, including over 1.1 million Jewish deaths as recorded by Josephus. Scottish Presbyterian Robert Baillie (1599–1662) and Anglican Thomas Manton (1620–1677) similarly applied preterist lenses to Revelation's early chapters, tying symbols like the "beast" to Nero (whose name in Hebrew gematria yields 666) and the harlot Babylon to apostate Jerusalem rather than Rome or future entities. Irish archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), renowned for his biblical chronology dating creation to 4004 BC, endorsed partial preterist fulfillments for the Olivet Discourse in his 1650 writings, aligning them with pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation while maintaining futurist elements for final resurrection. These proponents, often from Reformed or Anglican backgrounds, prioritized empirical alignment with extrabiblical histories like Tacitus and Josephus over speculative futurism, though their views remained marginal amid Protestant historicism's prevalence.

19th-20th Century Revival and Contemporary Spread

In the nineteenth century, preterism underwent a significant revival, particularly through the influential work of James Stuart Russell, a British Congregationalist . His 1878 book The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the Doctrine of Our Lord's presented a comprehensive preterist , arguing that the apostolic predictions of Christ's parousia, the , and the judgment were fulfilled in the Roman destruction of in AD 70. Russell's analysis focused on the and epistolary references, positing that these events marked the consummation of the old covenant age rather than a future global cataclysm, thereby challenging dominant futurist eschatologies of the era. This text, initially published anonymously, circulated widely among Protestant scholars and contributed to renewed interest in historical fulfillments of biblical prophecy, though it faced criticism for its perceived denial of a future bodily . The twentieth century saw further development and divergence, with partial preterism integrating into Reformed and postmillennial frameworks, viewing as fulfilling much of the apocalyptic imagery in and while preserving doctrines like a future second advent and final . Proponents such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg L. Bahnsen within adopted partial preterist elements to support theonomic views of cultural transformation, interpreting passages like 20's as commencing after Jerusalem's fall. Full preterism, extending Russell's logic to claim all prophecies—including the and new creation—were spiritually realized by , gained traction through Max R. King's 1971 publication The Spirit of Prophecy, which systematized a covenantal tying eschatological fulfillment to the cross and transition. King's work influenced a niche but vocal cadre, emphasizing over futurist expectations. Contemporary preterism has spread primarily through independent authors, online resources, and specialized organizations, with partial variants more accepted in orthodox evangelical circles and full variants often marginalized as heterodox. Authors like , in works such as Last Days Madness (1999), have popularized partial preterism by critiquing dispensational futurism and linking first-century events to scriptural judgments, appealing to those skeptical of imminent doctrines. Full preterist advocates, including Don K. Preston and Ed Stevens, continue Russell and King's legacy via books, lectures, and websites, arguing for a completely realized eschaton that reinterprets ongoing Christian hope as covenantal victory rather than physical return. The International Preterist Association, founded to promote hyper-preterist (full) views, hosts conferences and publications asserting all biblical prophecies concluded circa , though it encounters opposition from mainstream denominations for undermining creedal affirmations of future . This dissemination occurs largely outside institutional academia, relying on self-published materials and digital platforms, reflecting preterism's fringe status amid dominant premillennial eschatologies in global .

Variants of Preterist Interpretation

Partial Preterism: Core Beliefs and Defenses

Partial preterism holds that the majority of prophecies concerning judgment, tribulation, and the "coming" of Christ in vindication refer to events fulfilled in the first century AD, particularly the Roman destruction of and the temple in AD 70. This view interprets passages like the (, , Luke 21) and much of the as primarily addressing the end of the old covenant order through divine judgment on apostate , rather than distant global cataclysms. Unlike full preterism, it affirms the bodily of Christ, a general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment as unfulfilled eschatological consummations. Adherents, including theologians and Kenneth L. Gentry, maintain compatibility with amillennial or postmillennial , rejecting a literal millennial kingdom as in dispensational . Central to partial preterist is the distinction between Christ's "coming in judgment" on —manifested through Roman armies as instruments of divine wrath—and his ultimate parousia at the end of . Prophecies of abomination, tribulation, and celestial signs (e.g., Matthew 24:15–31) are seen as fulfilled in the siege of , documented by historian Flavius as involving over 1.1 million deaths and the temple's total desecration by AD 70. The "beast" and "harlot" imagery in corresponds to Nero's (ca. AD 64–68) and 's covenant unfaithfulness, respectively, with the book's structure dated pre-70 AD to align with its imminent warnings. This framework preserves the integrity of apocalyptic genre, where symbolic language depicts historical upheavals without negating literal future events like the general foretold in 1 Corinthians 15. Defenses of partial preterism emphasize scriptural time texts, such as "this generation will not pass away" (:34) and "things which must soon take place" ( 1:1), which grammatically and contextually target ' contemporaries rather than millennia-later fulfillments. Proponents argue this resolves tensions in futurist views, where near-expectation language (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17) appears unmet if deferred indefinitely, while historical records confirm precise matches: false christs, wars, famines, and temple defilement preceding AD 70's unprecedented horrors. Critics from dispensational circles contend it spiritualizes too much, but partial preterists counter that it honors authorial intent and avoids date-setting pitfalls, as evidenced by early like linking to Jerusalem's fall. By limiting fulfillment to covenantal judgments, the view upholds creedal orthodoxy on final and avoids full preterism's denial of bodily parousia, positioning itself as a balanced alternative grounded in textual and historical fidelity.

Full Preterism: Claims and Logical Extensions

Full preterism, also known as hyper-preterism or consistent preterism, asserts that every eschatological prophecy in the New Testament—including the second coming (parousia) of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the establishment of the eternal kingdom—was completely fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. Proponents such as J. Stuart Russell, in his 1878 work The Parousia, argue that the "coming" of Christ referenced throughout the New Testament refers to a judicial manifestation in divine judgment against apostate Israel, rather than a future visible return, drawing on passages like Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 to claim fulfillment in the Roman armies' siege as instruments of God's wrath. Similarly, modern advocate Don K. Preston maintains that the "end of the age" (Matthew 24:3) and the "last day" (John 6:39-40) denote the close of the Jewish old covenant era in AD 70, with no unfulfilled prophecies remaining. Central to full preterist claims is the interpretation of the resurrection as a covenantal or spiritual event tied to the vindication of first-century saints, rather than a future physical raising of bodies, based on texts like 1 Corinthians 15, which they argue parallels the "quickening" of believers from spiritual death under the law to life in Christ, culminating in AD 70. The final judgment is viewed as executed upon the generation Jesus addressed (Matthew 23:36; 24:34), with the defeat of Satan (Revelation 20:10) symbolizing the end of demonic influence over Israel through the temple's fall, establishing an already-realized millennial kingdom without a future millennial period. Logically extending these claims, full preterism denies any future bodily second advent, physical of the unevangelized dead, or cosmic renewal of creation, implying that continues without a terminal universal judgment and that the current age persists indefinitely in its post-AD 70 form, with unchecked by eschatological finality. This framework reduces redemptive consummation to a first-century spiritual transaction, potentially diminishing the ongoing relevance of physical and bodily hope in Christian doctrine, as critiqued by orthodox theologians who see it as collapsing into realized . Full preterists counter that such extensions affirm the full gospel's completion within the lifetime of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:1-8), obviating expectations of delayed parousia, though this position remains a fringe interpretation rejected by major Christian confessions for contradicting creedal affirmations of future and advent.

Partial vs. Full: Key Divergences and Borderline Positions

Partial preterism and full preterism diverge primarily in their treatment of eschatological consummation events, with partial preterism affirming that while many prophecies—such as those in the and large portions of —found fulfillment in the events surrounding the destruction of in , core elements like Christ's bodily , the general of the dead, and the final remain future realities. Full preterism, by contrast, extends fulfillment to all biblical prophecy by the close of the first century, interpreting the parousia (), , and as spiritually realized events contemporaneous with , thereby eliminating any expectation of future physical or cosmic consummation. This distinction arises from differing hermeneutical commitments: partial preterists prioritize a dual fulfillment model for certain texts, allowing historical events to prefigure ultimate eschatological realities, whereas full preterists insist on a "consistent" past fulfillment to avoid alleged inconsistencies in prophetic timing. A central divergence lies in the nature of the parousia. Partial preterists, following figures like R.C. Sproul and Kenneth L. Gentry, view references to Christ's "coming" in passages such as Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 as partially fulfilled in the providential judgment on Israel via Roman armies in AD 66–70, yet maintain a future, visible, bodily return as articulated in creeds like the Nicene Creed (AD 325), which states Christ "will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead." Full preterists, however, equate the parousia entirely with AD 70 events, often spiritualizing it as Christ's "coming in the clouds" through judgment on apostate Jerusalem, denying any post-first-century advent and rendering ongoing expectations of a physical return incompatible with their framework. Similarly, resurrection interpretations split sharply: partial preterism sees first-century "resurrection" language (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17) as typologically pointing to a future bodily event involving the just and unjust, aligned with 1 Corinthians 15:51–54's transformation of perishable bodies; full preterism reinterprets this as a spiritual covenantal transition from old to new covenant saints around AD 70, rejecting a future general resurrection as a materialistic misreading.
AspectPartial PreterismFull Preterism (Hyper-Preterism)
Parousia (Second Coming)Partially fulfilled in judgment; future bodily, visible return expected.Fully realized spiritually/invisibly in ; no future physical advent.
ResurrectionTypological in (covenantal); future general bodily .Spiritual/covenantal fulfillment in ; denies future bodily .
Final JudgmentElements in (on ); ultimate future judgment of all humanity.Completed in as transition to eternal state; no ongoing or future judgment.
New Heavens and EarthInaugurated post-; fully realized at future consummation ().Fully present since ; current world is the eternal state, spiritually transformed.
Borderline positions emerge among some interpreters who adopt "moderate" or "orthodox" preterism—synonymous with partial preterism in much literature—yet push interpretive boundaries by emphasizing extensive AD 70 fulfillments in texts like Revelation 20's millennium as largely historical, while still anchoring orthodoxy through affirmation of future eschatology. Critics like Gentry warn that such leanings risk "slip-sliding" toward full preterism's errors, particularly if spiritualization of resurrection or judgment gains traction, as seen in early critiques likening full preterism to the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17–18), who claimed the resurrection had already occurred. Full preterism, deemed heretical by partial preterists and broader Reformed circles for contradicting apostolic teaching on future bodily hope (e.g., Acts 24:15), lacks endorsement from historic creeds and has been refuted for implying an ongoing "millennial" deception or denial of physical death's defeat. These fringes highlight preterism's spectrum, where partial views preserve compatibility with amillennial or postmillennial frameworks, but full variants isolate themselves by nullifying future-oriented promises central to New Testament ethics and hope.

Scriptural Foundations and Exegesis

Treatment of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)

Preterists maintain that the prophesies events culminating in the Roman destruction of and the Temple in , viewing the prophecy as fulfilled within the generation addressed (:34; :30; Luke 21:32). This interpretation hinges on the discourse's immediate context: the disciples' question ties the Temple's end to "the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" (:3), which preterists equate with the close of the old covenant order rather than a global eschaton. Empirical correlations with first-century history, particularly Flavius Josephus's Wars of the Jews, provide evidentiary support, as the siege involved unprecedented distress matching the described "" (:21). The preliminary signs—false messiahs, wars, famines, persecutions, and seismic events (:4–8; Mark 13:5–8; Luke 21:8–11)—are characterized as "the beginning of birth pains," which preterists link to documented upheavals from AD 30–70, including Roman-Jewish tensions, the under (Acts 11:28), and earthquakes in (AD 46), (AD 51), and elsewhere. These do not signal the consummation but prelude the central fulfillment. The "" (:15, referencing Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11) is identified as Roman forces encircling , per the parallel in Luke 21:20 ("armies surround you"), with entry into the holy place by idolatrous troops or standards desecrating the Temple. Partial preterists like Kenneth L. Gentry emphasize this as a localized judgment sign, urging flight from , which Christians reportedly heeded by evacuating to before the siege. The ensuing tribulation (Matthew 24:15–28; Mark 13:14–23; Luke 21:20–24) aligns with Josephus's accounts of the AD 66–70 revolt: Jerusalem's encirclement by 30,000–60,000 Roman troops under and , internal factional violence, mass starvation leading to , and over 1.1 million deaths amid slaughter, , and . Preterists argue this "such as has not been from the beginning of the world" (:21) reflects hyperbolic emphasis on covenantal judgment, comparable to sieges (e.g., Deuteronomy 28:53–57), rather than universal history. False prophets and christs (e.g., zealot leaders like or ) proliferated, deceiving many as predicted. Cosmic upheavals—"the sun darkened, moon not giving light, stars falling" (Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24–25; Luke 21:25)—employ apocalyptic idiom drawn from prophets like Isaiah 13:10 (Babylon's fall) and 34:4 (Edom's), signifying political collapse rather than astrophysical events. Preterists posit fulfillment in the "eclipse" of Jewish religious authority and the scattering of its leaders. The "Son of Man coming on the clouds" (Matthew 24:30) denotes judicial visitation, echoing Daniel 7:13, as divine vindication against persecutors (cf. God's "coming" in Isaiah 19:1 against Egypt). Partial preterists distinguish this from Christ's final bodily return, seeing it as providential intervention via Rome; full preterists equate it with the parousia itself, rendering future advent unnecessary. The gathering of the elect (Matthew 24:31) symbolizes the post-70 ingathering of Gentiles into the church or the preservation of Jewish believers. Temporal indicators reinforce near fulfillment: events occur "immediately after the tribulation" (:29), within "this generation" (spanning ~40 years to ), and before some disciples taste death (:34; :30; cf. :28). Partial preterists often transition at :36 ("that day and hour no one knows"), applying preceding verses to while reserving final and parousia for an undisclosed future, avoiding full preterism's denial of bodily . Critics note inconsistencies in delineating sections, but proponents counter with audience relevance and historical precision, privileging the discourse's Jewish-Roman over readings detached from first-century verifiability.

Interpretation of Daniel's Prophecies

Preterists maintain that the Book of Daniel's prophecies, written during the Babylonian exile around 530 BC, primarily address the historical unfolding of God's judgments on and surrounding empires, culminating in events of the first century AD rather than distant future scenarios. This approach aligns Daniel's visions with verifiable historical records, such as those from detailing the Roman-Jewish War (AD 66-73), emphasizing fulfillment through causal sequences like imperial succession and military conquests over speculative end-times projections. In the vision of four beasts from the sea (:1-8), partial preterists identify the beasts successively as the Babylonian Empire (lion with eagle's wings), Medo-Persian Empire (bear raised on one side), Greek Empire under (leopard with four wings and heads), and (terrifying fourth beast with ten horns). The "little horn" emerging from the fourth beast, which uproots three horns and speaks boastfully, is interpreted as a Roman figure such as Emperor (r. AD 54-68), whose and indirect role in the Jewish revolt fit the description of warring against the saints for "a time, times, and half a time" (3.5 years, aligning with the Neronic persecution from AD 64-68). The heavenly throne room scene (:9-14), with presiding and receiving dominion, preterists link to divine vindication of the saints via the AD 70 judgment on , where Roman forces executed God's covenant curse on unfaithful , as corroborated by Jesus' application of :13 in the (:30). Full preterists extend this to deny any future bodily return, viewing the "everlasting kingdom" as the inaugurated church age post-AD 70. The seventy weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) forms a , decreed to accomplish six objectives for Daniel's people and : finishing transgression, ending sin, atoning for iniquity, bringing everlasting righteousness, sealing vision and prophet, and anointing a most holy place. Preterists typically date the starting decree to Artaxerxes I's order in 458 BC (or 445 BC per some calculations using 360-day years), yielding 69 weeks (483 years) to the Prince's arrival circa AD 26-33, marked by ' baptism and ministry. The 's "cutting off" after 62 weeks corresponds to the circa AD 30-33, halting and mid-week through his atoning , with the "overspreading of abominations" and desolator's arrival fulfilled in the Roman armies' encirclement and destruction of the temple in AD 70, sealing the prophecy without inserting a parenthetical gap as in views. This timeline empirically matches historical markers, including the precise cessation of temple sacrifices under Roman , though critics note variances in decree dates and year-length assumptions. References to the abomination of desolation (Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11) are treated as typologically escalating: an initial antitype in Antiochus IV Epiphanes' desecration of the temple in 167 BC (erecting a Zeus altar and halting sacrifices for 1,150 days per 1 Maccabees 1:54, 4:52), but ultimately fulfilled in first-century events as Jesus indicated (Matthew 24:15). Partial preterists identify it with Roman standards (bearing imperial images treated as idols) planted in the temple by Titus' troops in AD 70, or preceding zealot factions' murders and civil strife within the sanctuary (e.g., high priest Ananus' slaying in AD 66, per Josephus), removing the daily sacrifice for 1,290 or 1,335 days until total desolation. This causal link to AD 70's siege—where famine and infighting rendered the temple desolate before Roman entry—supports preterist claims of prophetic closure, evidenced by archaeological remnants of burned temple gates and Eusebius' records of the event's precision. Daniel 12's time of distress and resurrection language is thus read covenantally, as national judgment and vindication for the righteous remnant through Christianity's emergence amid Israel's fall, not a global future event.

Approach to the Book of Revelation

Preterists interpret the as an apocalyptic primarily addressed to first-century churches under Roman , with most events fulfilled imminently after its composition in the AD 60s. The genre's symbolic imagery draws from precedents like Daniel, focusing on God's judgment against covenant-breakers and imperial powers rather than distant future events. Time-sensitive phrases such as "must soon take place" (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) and "the time is near" (Rev. 1:3; 22:10) underscore fulfillment within the audience's generation, aligning with ' warnings of near-term tribulation. In partial preterism, chapters 4–19 depict judgments on apostate and , culminating in Jerusalem's destruction by in , while chapters 20–22 inaugurate a present millennial age with a future physical return of Christ, final , and reserved beyond AD 70. Proponents like Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. and argue this view harmonizes Revelation's historical context—Nero's persecution from AD 64–68—with ongoing church encouragement, without negating ultimate eschatological hope. Full preterism, by contrast, applies this immediacy to the entire book, viewing the parousia (Rev. 19–20), general , and new heavens and earth (Rev. 21–22) as spiritually consummated in AD 70's covenantal shift from old to new creation, rendering all prophecy exhausted. Central symbols reinforce first-century referents: the beast from the sea (Rev. 13:1–10) embodies the or specifically, whose name in Hebrew yields 666, and whose 42-month reign (Rev. 13:5) matches his AD 64–68 terror against following the . The second beast (Rev. 13:11–18) signifies the enforcing emperor worship, while the harlot (Rev. 17–18) represents idolatrous , drunk on saints' blood (Rev. 17:6) and riding the beast in temporary alliance before mutual destruction, fulfilled in Rome's and temple desecration. The seven heads (Rev. 17:9–10) denote Rome's seven hills and emperors from to or , with the eighth as a revival under . This approach prioritizes the book's epistolary structure to Asia Minor assemblies, urging endurance amid tribulation (Rev. 1:9; 2–3), and views seals, trumpets, and bowls as recapitulating divine wrath on Israel and pagan powers, not sequential end-times chronology. Critics note that while partial preterism preserves bodily resurrection texts (e.g., Rev. 20:11–15) for the future, full preterism's spiritualization risks contradicting apostolic expectations of visible parousia (Acts 1:11). Nonetheless, preterists substantiate claims via Josephus' records of AD 70 horrors—famine, infanticide, and temple fires—mirroring Revelation's cosmic upheaval imagery.

Central Events and Fulfillments

The Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as Pivotal Fulfillment

The Roman siege of commenced in April AD 70 under , son of , involving four legions amid the First Jewish-Roman . Internal Jewish factionalism exacerbated the crisis, with and other groups clashing violently while the city faced acute famine; reports instances of and daily deaths exceeding 500 from starvation alone before the walls breached. The temple was set ablaze on August 10, 70 AD (10th of Lous), whether by Roman soldiers or accidental means during looting, resulting in its total destruction and the cessation of Jewish sacrificial rites; estimates 1.1 million deaths in , including combatants and civilians, with 97,000 taken captive and dispersed as slaves. In preterist exegesis, this event fulfills core elements of the , where predicted the temple's annihilation (:1-2; Mark 13:1-2) and attendant tribulations within his generation (:34). Partial preterists identify the "" (:15, referencing Daniel 9:27) as the Roman armies encircling the city (Luke 21:20), culminating in their profane entry and of the holy place. The preceding signs—false messiahs, wars, earthquakes, and famines (:4-8)—align with documented precursors, including Cestius Gallus's failed siege in AD 66 and subsequent portents like a comet and temple lights extinguishing, as recorded by . This destruction pivots preterist theology by embodying the "" (Matthew 24:21) as judgment on covenant-unfaithful , ending the old covenant economy and vindicating ' messianic credentials through precise prophetic realization. Advocates such as contend the discourse's cosmic imagery (e.g., darkened sun and falling stars in :29) draws from 13:10 and 32:7, symbolizing theocratic collapse rather than global cataclysm, with AD 70's scale—unparalleled in Judean history until then—fitting the description without requiring literal fulfillment. Full preterists extend this to encompass the parousia and , viewing as exhaustive eschatological closure, though partial adherents maintain residual future elements. Historical corroboration via , an eyewitness, bolsters the case against dismissing these prophecies as unverified, emphasizing empirical alignment over speculative .

The Great Tribulation and Nero's Persecution

Preterist interpreters identify the "great tribulation" prophesied in Matthew 24:21 and referenced in Revelation 7:14 as primarily fulfilled during the intense persecutions of early Christians in the mid-first century AD, with Nero's persecution from AD 64 to 68 serving as a central component. This view posits that the biblical descriptions of widespread betrayal, hatred from all nations, and martyrdom (Matthew 24:9-10) align with the historical suffering under Roman imperial policy, culminating in the broader tribulations associated with the Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-70. Partial preterists, such as Kenneth Gentry, argue this period marked an unprecedented distress for the Jewish-Christian communities, though not literally global, but encompassing the known Roman world as hyperbolic prophetic language. The persecution initiated following the on July 19, 64 AD, which destroyed much of the city over six days. Emperor , seeking to deflect suspicions of arson directed at himself, scapegoated the Christians, a viewed with disdain for their "superstitions." The Roman historian records that inflicted punishments of "extreme cruelty," including sewing victims into animal skins to be torn by dogs, crucifying others, and using some as human torches to illuminate his gardens at night. corroborates this, noting that "punishments were inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." Though the executions were concentrated in and involved a "vast multitude" according to , preterists contend this event symbolized the prophetic tribulation's severity, especially as it targeted the apostolic leadership, with traditions holding that apostles Peter and Paul were martyred under around AD 64-67. The persecution's duration, roughly two years until 's suicide in AD 68, overlapped with escalating Jewish unrest, framing it within the Olivet Discourse's sequence of birth pains leading to Jerusalem's fall. Preterists further associate with the "beast" of via Hebrew , where " Caesar" equates to 666, reinforcing the era's fulfillment of end-times imagery tied to tribulation. Critics of this interpretation note the persecution's limited geographic scope to , questioning its match to prophecies of worldwide affliction, yet preterist proponents counter that the represented the "whole inhabited earth" (oikoumene) in first-century context, and the event's notoriety amplified its prophetic resonance. from Roman sources like and supports the of Nero's actions, though exact casualty figures remain uncertain, estimated in to low thousands based on the scale of arrests and public spectacles. This alignment underscores preterism's emphasis on first-century historical events as the causal fulfillment of .

Resurrection, Judgment, and Parousia in Preterist Readings

In partial preterism, the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and parousia (second coming) of Christ are anticipated as future events distinct from the judgments fulfilled in AD 70, preserving a literal, bodily resurrection of believers and unbelievers at the end of history, followed by Christ's visible return to consummate the kingdom and execute eternal judgment. While partial preterists interpret passages like Matthew 24:30-31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 as involving a providential "coming in judgment" against Jerusalem in AD 70—linked to the Roman siege that resulted in over 1 million Jewish deaths and the temple's destruction on August 10, 70 AD—they maintain that the ultimate parousia entails Christ's physical descent from heaven, the rapture of living saints, and a general resurrection, as described in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, where the dead are raised incorruptible and the mortal is clothed with immortality. Theologians such as R.C. Sproul, in works like The Last Days According to Jesus (1998), argue that AD 70 fulfilled Old Covenant judgments but not the eschatological resurrection or parousia, which await fulfillment to vindicate the apostolic expectation of a transformative cosmic event. Full preterism, by contrast, posits that the resurrection, judgment, and parousia were entirely fulfilled spiritually in AD 70, reinterpreting biblical language covenantally rather than individually or physically. Adherents like Don K. Preston contend that the "resurrection" in 1 Corinthians 15 refers to a corporate vindication of the righteous—emerging from the "death" of the Old Covenant system—manifested through the church's triumph over Judaism amid the temple's fall, without requiring bodily reanimation of the deceased. The parousia is viewed as Christ's non-visible, judicial arrival in the clouds of heaven (per Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30), enacted via Roman armies as divine instruments, culminating in the "end of the age" (Matthew 24:3) as the Jewish age's termination, with judgment separating covenant faithful from apostates eternally in spiritual realms. This framework denies any future physical resurrection or general judgment, equating the AD 70 events with the defeat of death (1 Corinthians 15:26) through covenant transition, though critics from orthodox perspectives, including partial preterists, charge it with undermining core creedal affirmations like those in the Apostles' Creed regarding bodily resurrection. Preterist of these doctrines often hinges on first-century apocalyptic symbolism, where "" (anastasis) and "" evoke exodus motifs of national deliverance and reckoning, as in 37's valley of dry bones representing Israel's restoration. Partial preterists integrate this with futurist elements, seeing AD 70 as a type foreshadowing the antitype, supported by historical records like Josephus's Jewish War documenting the siege's horrors as tribulation fulfillment (:21). Full preterists extend typology exhaustively, arguing unmet expectations of a delayed parousia (e.g., 2 Peter 3:4) resolve only if realized within the apostles' generation, per Jesus's words in :34. Empirical challenges persist, as no widespread first-century records attest a transformative global or beyond localized events, prompting debates over whether spiritualized readings align with emphasis on physicality (e.g., Luke 24:39; Philippians 3:21).

Theological Implications

Alignment with Covenant Theology and Postmillennialism

Partial preterism aligns closely with 's emphasis on the unity of God's redemptive plan, interpreting the destruction of in as the historical consummation of old covenant shadows and the inauguration of realities, thereby fulfilling typological prophecies like those in Daniel and the within the framework of progressive revelation. This perspective maintains continuity between and the church as one , avoiding dispensational discontinuities while affirming that Christ's and the Spirit's outpouring transitioned covenant administration without negating future eschatological elements such as the general . Reformed theologians, including Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., have articulated this compatibility, arguing that partial preterism resolves apparent tensions in by grounding apocalyptic language in first-century fulfillments that validate the Abrahamic and promises of blessing to the nations. The synergy extends to , where partial preterism's assignment of "" prophecies—such as :15-21 and Revelation's seals—to Nero's persecution (AD 64-68) and the Roman siege of Jerusalem (AD 66-70) liberates the church age for triumphant advance, construing the () as a present era of expanding Christian influence culminating in Christ's return. Proponents like and Greg L. Bahnsen, operating within Reformed circles, contend this hermeneutic supports postmillennial optimism by exhausting covenantal curses (Deuteronomy 28) in , enabling the "leavening" effect of the kingdom through cultural and societal transformation without awaiting a future cataclysm. Full preterism, however, diverges sharply, as its claim that even the second coming, , and final judgment occurred spiritually in contradicts covenant theology's eschatological trajectory of bodily renewal and postmillennialism's anticipation of visible kingdom victory, rendering it incompatible with confessional standards like the (1646), which affirms a future advent and physical . Critics within covenantal traditions, including , label full preterism heretical for undermining these doctrines, prioritizing instead partial preterism's balanced that preserves while enhancing theological coherence.

Effects on Views of the Church Age and Future Hope

Partial preterism interprets the Church Age, spanning from Christ's ascension to his anticipated future return, as the inaugurated Messianic kingdom where prophecies of restoration find primary fulfillment through the gospel's expansion following the destruction of . This perspective posits that events like the and much of pertain to first-century fulfillments, thereby framing the current era as one of spiritual victory and covenantal continuity rather than mere anticipation of unfulfilled apocalyptic upheavals. Adherents, often aligned with Reformed theology, view the Church Age as empowered for cultural and evangelistic , frequently coupling this with postmillennial optimism that anticipates gradual Christian influence over society before Christ's return. In contrast, full preterism extends fulfillment to all eschatological elements, including a spiritualized and in , rendering the Church Age equivalent to the eternal state with no distinct future consummation. This leads proponents to emphasize realized eschatological blessings—such as victory over death and on unbelieving —as already accessible, shifting focus from bodily or final to present spiritual realities. Critics from orthodox perspectives argue this undermines the New Testament's emphasis on future bodily hope, potentially fostering complacency or redefining core doctrines like the parousia. For partial preterists, future hope remains anchored in scriptural promises of Christ's visible return, general , and eternal judgment, unencumbered by reinterpreting intervening prophecies as past. This allows an emphasis on ethical and missional urgency in the present age, with proponents claiming it enhances hope by demonstrating God's faithfulness in historical fulfillments like the fall of the temple, thereby bolstering confidence in ultimate vindication. Full preterism, however, is widely rejected as inconsistent with creedal , as it eliminates anticipation of cosmic renewal and equates the current age with the "new heavens and new earth," which empirical observation of ongoing and contradicts.

Empirical and Historical Evidence Supporting Preterist Claims

The siege of Jerusalem by Roman legions under Titus, commencing in April AD 70 and ending with the temple's destruction on August 10, AD 70, furnishes primary historical validation for preterist views that this event fulfilled core elements of Jesus' Olivet Discourse, including the desolation of the temple where "not one stone [would] be left upon another." Flavius Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat turned Roman collaborator and eyewitness to the campaign, chronicles in The Jewish War (Book VI) the systematic breaching of the city's walls, the internal Jewish infighting that hastened collapse, and the ensuing razing of structures, with the temple set ablaze despite Titus' alleged orders to preserve it. Josephus tallies over 1.1 million Jewish deaths from starvation, combat, and slaughter, alongside 97,000 enslaved, figures that underscore the prophecy's scale of unprecedented tribulation "such as has not been from the beginning of the world." The preceding Neronian persecution of Christians, erupting after the Great Fire of Rome on July 19-27, AD 64, aligns with preterist identification of the "great tribulation" as a first-century ordeal targeting the early church before Jerusalem's fall. Roman historian Tacitus, drawing on official records, describes Nero scapegoating Christians—convicted not merely for arson but for "hatred of the human race"—through cruelties including crucifixion, immersion in pitch for nighttime torch-burning, and dismemberment by dogs in the Vatican Circus. This pogrom, spanning AD 64-68 and claiming thousands amid Nero's reign (AD 54-68), temporally precedes the Judean War (AD 66-73) and matches scriptural motifs of deliverance into persecutors' hands, with the beastly emperor's name gematria (Nero Caesar = 666 in Hebrew transliteration) further invoked by preterists as evidentiary. Preterists cite the Roman army's encampment around —explicitly flagged in Luke 21:20 as the "desolating sacrilege"—and the erection of military standards (eagles) within the temple as fulfilling Daniel's "" (Daniel 9:27, 11:31). details the legions hoisting these idolatrous ensigns in the sacred precincts post-breaching, where soldiers offered sacrifices to them, an act of pagan precipitating the site's ruin. Corroboration from (Histories 5.12-13) notes the siege's tactics and portents like a cow birthing a lamb, while (Vespasian 4) affirms the era's portents and massive casualties exceeding 600,000. further records prodigy-like signs, including chariots and armored squadrons wheeling silently over the temple and city in the clouds during AD 70, paralleling the Discourse's "sign of " and shaken heavenly powers. These events unfolded within the prophesied "this generation" (:34), spanning roughly 40 years from ' ministry (circa AD 30) to , a timeframe frames as divine retribution for rejecting the amid prior signs like famines and pseudo-prophets. Roman sources independently verify the war's ferocity without Christian interpolation, lending empirical weight to partial preterist contentions that apocalyptic language typologically depicts 's covenantal judgment on apostate rather than distant .

Criticisms and Controversies

Charges of Heresy Against Full Preterism

Full preterism, by asserting that the second coming of Christ, the general of the dead, and the final judgment were entirely fulfilled in the destruction of in , has faced accusations of from orthodox Christian theologians and denominations, primarily for contradicting core doctrines affirmed in and apostolic teaching. Critics argue that this view denies the future bodily promised in passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:52, which describes a physical transformation at the last , and parallels the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, who claimed the had already occurred and thus "overthrew the of some." Such interpretations are seen as undermining the expectation of a visible, cosmic return of Christ (Acts 1:11; 1:7), reducing eschatological hope to a past event and implying ongoing death and sin without ultimate resolution. Reformed theologians, including Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., have labeled full preterism as heretical for its rejection of a general of the body, which they contend violates explicit and historic confessions like the (Chapter 32-33), which affirm a "general " and "." Gentry further critiques it for spiritualizing the in a manner akin to ancient Gnostic heresies, which denied the physicality of bodily events despite Christ's own corporeal as a (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Similarly, the (OPC) has issued statements rejecting hyper-preterism (a for full preterism) as incompatible with , noting its failure to account for unfulfilled prophecies of a renewed creation and final defeat of death (Revelation 21:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:26). These charges extend to full preterism's implications for Christian and ethics, as proponents' denial of a future advent and judgment are said to erode incentives for perseverance and moral accountability beyond , echoing warnings against deceptive teachings that "gangrene" the gospel (2 Timothy 2:17). In Reformed circles, figures like , a partial preterist, explicitly distanced themselves from full preterism, viewing it as a radical departure that crosses into by collapsing all "last days" events into the first century, contrary to the creedal affirmation in the of Christ's future "coming to judge ." Denominational bodies, such as those within Presbyterian traditions, have disciplined members advocating full preterism, treating it as a to confessional orthodoxy rather than mere interpretive disagreement. Proponents of the charge emphasize empirical continuity in , pointing out that full preterism revives views condemned by early councils against realized eschatologies, while partial preterism—limiting fulfillment to events like the temple's fall—avoids such pitfalls by preserving future consummation. This distinction underscores the critique that full preterism not only misreads time indicators in prophetic texts (e.g., Matthew 24:34) but also fosters a realized kingdom without teleological endpoint, potentially leading to or disillusionment amid ongoing global suffering post-AD 70.

Objections from Dispensational and Futurist Perspectives

Dispensational and interpreters contend that preterism, by assigning primary fulfillment to first-century events like the destruction of , undermines the literal, future-oriented nature of biblical prophecy, particularly in the (–25) and the . They argue this approach reduces eschatological expectations to historical curiosities, stripping away the imminent hope of Christ's physical return, a global tribulation, and a millennial kingdom on earth. John F. Walvoord, a prominent dispensational scholar, asserted that the preterist view "tends to destroy any future significance of the book [of Revelation], which becomes a literary curiosity with little prophetic meaning." Similarly, Thomas Ice described preterism as a "destructive view" for relocating the tribulation prophecies to the first century, thereby negating their anticipated future impact on and the nations. A core objection centers on the , where preterists interpret "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (:34) as referring to the AD 30–70 era witnessing Jerusalem's fall. Futurists counter that the phrase denotes the future generation observing the preceding signs, including the and cosmic disturbances, which extend beyond local Judean events to a worldwide scope. Dispensationalists emphasize that :21 describes a tribulation "such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be," implying unprecedented global affliction incompatible with the regional siege of Jerusalem, which, while severe, did not match the prophesied universal famine, wars, and earthquakes. Early , such as and , interpreted these prophecies futuristically, anticipating an and visible parousia rather than a past judgment coming, providing historical evidence against preterist retrofitting. Dispensationalists further object that preterism erodes the biblical distinction between and the church, a foundational tenet viewing God's covenants with Abraham's descendants as entailing unfulfilled national restoration promises (e.g., ; Romans 11). By applying prophecies like the land inheritance and primarily to the church in , preterism aligns with covenant theology's , which futurists reject as inconsistent with literal that preserve 's future role in the tribulation and kingdom. Andy Woods, in a futurist response, highlights that Revelation's depiction of a rebuilt temple, worldwide beast worship, and sealed 144,000 from 's tribes (, 11) demands future literal fulfillment, as no first-century equivalents—such as Nero's equating to 666 or a healed fatal —fully satisfy the global, elements described. Critics also charge partial preterism with hermeneutical inconsistency, applying a past-fulfillment lens selectively to avoid full preterism's denial of a bodily and general judgment, yet retaining elements like the second advent. This hybridity, dispensationalists argue, lacks exegetical rigor, as the same time indicators (e.g., "soon," "at hand" in Revelation 1:1, 3) would demand total past realization if consistently applied. Thomas notes that partial preterism's partial adoption of preterist principles risks sliding into by spiritualizing core doctrines like the parousia, evidenced by its appeal to full preterists who deny any advent. Ultimately, maintain that preterism's emphasis on fulfillment ignores unverified historical parallels, such as the absence of documented cosmic signs or a visible descent of Christ, preserving instead a premillennial framework aligned with promises of Israel's regathering and Christ's earthly reign.

Internal Debates and Empirical Challenges to Partial Preterism

Partial preterists encounter internal tensions regarding the composition date of the , which is pivotal to interpreting its prophecies as largely fulfilled by . Proponents like Kenneth L. Gentry argue for an early date (circa AD 65–68), emphasizing textual elements such as the command to measure the temple ( 11:1–2), implying its pre-destruction existence, and the imminent language of "things which must shortly take place" ( 1:1). This view supports aligning the book's judgments with Jerusalem's fall under . However, critics within eschatological scholarship, including assessments of Gentry's arguments, highlight hermeneutical inconsistencies, such as selective application of internal evidence while downplaying external patristic data. Some partial preterists concede a late date (circa AD 95 under ) but reinterpret prophecies as typological previews of or ongoing covenantal shifts, creating debate over whether this dilutes the view's emphasis on first-century fulfillment. Another point of contention involves the distinction between AD 70's "judgment coming" of Christ—viewed symbolically as divine vindication against apostate —and a future literal parousia. Partial preterists uniformly affirm a bodily , general , and final judgment as eschatological consummations (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:51–54; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17), yet debate the exegetical boundaries separating these from time-markers like "this generation will not pass away" (:34). Figures such as maintained the separation to preserve , but others, including postmillennial partial preterists, grapple with accusations of arbitrary bifurcation, as texts like :29–31 appear to link cosmic signs, the Son of Man's arrival, and gathering of without clear qualifiers. This has prompted intra-view discussions on "double fulfillment" or progressive revelation to reconcile near-term language with deferred events, though such mechanisms risk reasoning. Empirically, partial preterism faces hurdles from historical records of , which, while confirming Jerusalem's devastation— tallies over 1.1 million deaths and the temple's burning on August 10, ()—lack attestation for prophesied cosmic upheavals or visible divine interventions on the scale described. Flavius chronicles portents like chariots in the clouds and voices from the temple (Jewish War 6.5.3), but these are localized, sporadic, and not universally witnessed as required by phrases like "every eye will see him" ( 1:7) or the sun darkening globally (:29). No Roman, Jewish, or early Christian sources record a parousia-like event observable by "all the tribes of the earth." Similarly, the beast's "fatal wound" healed (:3), often linked to Nero's suicide in AD 68 and the "Nero redivivus" myth, falters if Revelation postdates these, as Domitian's reign (AD 81–96) featured distinct persecutions without matching the seven kings' sequence (:10). Patristic silence compounds these issues: second-century writers like (Adversus Haereses 5.30.3) and expected a future bodily and visible return, interpreting apocalyptic imagery prospectively rather than as retrospectively fulfilled in . This absence of fulfillment claims in proximate sources—despite widespread awareness of Jerusalem's fall—suggests early interpreters did not equate it with eschatological consummation, challenging partial preterism's reconstruction of first-century expectations. While ' accounts validate tribulation-scale suffering, the non-correspondence of supernatural elements to verifiable history underscores empirical gaps in equating with comprehensive prophetic realization.

Reception and Influence

Adoption Among Reformed and Evangelical Thinkers

Partial preterism, which posits that many prophecies—particularly those in the (, , Luke 21) and sections of —found primary fulfillment in the events surrounding the destruction of in , has gained notable adherence among select Reformed theologians since the late 20th century. This view aligns with covenant theology's emphasis on continuity between Old and New Testaments and has been promoted as a bulwark against higher criticism by interpreting "this generation" (:34) as referring to the first-century Jewish contemporaries of rather than a era. Reformed proponents distinguish it sharply from full preterism, which they reject as heretical for denying a bodily , general judgment, and . Prominent Reformed adopters include (1939–2017), founder of , who defended partial preterism in his 1998 book The Last Days According to Jesus, contending that Jesus' prophecies targeted the end of the old covenant age in AD 70 while affirming future eschatological events. Similarly, Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., a Reformed Presbyterian minister and scholar, has advanced partial preterism through works like his ongoing commentary on (initiated in the 1980s), arguing for a pre-AD 70 composition and fulfillment of much of the book's content in the . Gentry traces partial preterist elements to earlier Reformed figures, such as John Lightfoot (1602–1675) of the , who interpreted as fulfilled in the first century. , associated with , has popularized the view via books like Last Days Madness (1999), applying preterist to debunk dispensational timelines while upholding orthodox doctrines of Christ's return and resurrection. Among evangelicals, adoption has been more sporadic and often tied to critiques of popular , with figures like —host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast until 2017—embracing partial preterism in The Apocalypse Code (2007), where he interprets Revelation's judgments as largely realized in and accuses of sensationalism unsupported by historical evidence. This shift, echoed in postmillennial evangelical circles influenced by reconstructionists like (1948–1995) and Gary North, reflects a broader 20th-century revival of preterism amid debates over prophecy's timing, though it remains a minority position amid dominant premillennial views. Partial preterism's appeal in these groups stems from its emphasis on verifiable first-century fulfillments, such as Josephus's accounts of temple desecrations and famines mirroring Revelation's imagery, bolstering against skeptics.

Impact on Broader Christian Eschatology

Partial preterism has prompted a reevaluation of eschatological timelines in by positing that key prophetic elements, such as the in and portions of , found primary fulfillment in the Roman destruction of in AD 70, thereby diminishing the scope of exclusively future-oriented interpretations. This hermeneutic shifts emphasis from anticipating imminent global cataclysms to recognizing historical judgments on apostate , allowing futurists to retain beliefs in a bodily , general , and final judgment while acknowledging layered fulfillments. Consequently, it challenges dispensational premillennialism's rigid , which anticipates a distinct seven-year tribulation and literal in the distant future, by arguing that such motifs echo first-century events like Nero's and the Jewish-Roman War. In amillennial and postmillennial frameworks, partial preterism reinforces the notion of an inaugurated kingdom present throughout the church age, interpreting the "millennium" of symbolically as the current era between Christ's ascension and return rather than a future literal thousand-year reign. By fulfilling apocalyptic imagery in —such as the "" and fall of the "harlot" city—it liberates these views from over-literalizing , fostering optimism about the gospel's gradual triumph over nations without necessitating a preceding cataclysmic intervention. This alignment has bolstered covenant theology's continuity between Old and New Testaments, portraying the church as the fulfillment of rather than a parenthesis in , thus influencing Reformed to prioritize ethical and missional imperatives over speculative timelines. The adoption of preterist elements has broadened eschatological discourse, encouraging a historical-grammatical that integrates archaeological and extrabiblical evidence, such as Josephus's accounts of of , to validate past fulfillments and curb in popular teachings. While critiqued by strict futurists as undermining urgency for , it has mitigated some skeptical challenges to biblical by demonstrating verifiable near-term completions, thereby strengthening against claims of unfulfilled predictions. Overall, partial preterism's permeation has diversified orthodox , promoting hybrid models that blend past realizations with future consummation, though full preterism's denial of ongoing eschatological hope remains widely rejected as incompatible with creedal .

Recent Developments and Ongoing Debates (Post-2000)

In the 2000s, partial preterism saw continued scholarly elaboration, particularly through the works of Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., who published analyses reinforcing the view that much of 's imagery pertains to first-century events while critiquing extremes that deny future eschatological elements like the bodily return of Christ. Gentry's contributions, including surveys of preterist approaches to , emphasized historical fulfillment in the fall of while upholding creedal affirmations of a future consummation. Similarly, extended preterist in publications and lectures, arguing for the Olivet Discourse's primary reference to events and challenging timelines as inconsistent with generational language. A notable development was the proliferation of "hyper-preterism" or full preterism, which asserts the complete fulfillment of all biblical prophecies—including the second coming, , and —by , prompting widespread condemnation as heretical for undermining physical and final doctrines affirmed in early creeds. This view gained online traction in the early through figures like Max and subsequent proponents, leading to internal divisions and defections, as some former adherents cited inconsistencies with apostolic teachings on ongoing eschatological expectation. Reformed responses, such as multi-author volumes critiquing hyper-preterism's denial of a future parousia, highlighted its parallels to ancient errors like those of Hymenaeus and Philetus. Ongoing debates post-2010 have centered on partial preterism's compatibility with amillennial or postmillennial frameworks, particularly regarding 20's , with proponents arguing for symbolic first-century fulfillment while futurists object that it diminishes incentives for by collapsing into history. Conferences like the annual gatherings of the International Preterist Association and the 2025 Fulfilled Conference have featured defenses of preterist timelines against dispensational critiques, often emphasizing archaeological and historical corroboration of AD 70's cataclysmic scale. Recent formal debates, including a 2024 exchange on partial preterism's , underscore persistent tensions over whether preterist emphases erode the "blessed " of Christ's visible return. Critics from evangelical and Reformed quarters maintain that even partial variants risk over-fulfillment, though adherents counter with appeals to covenantal progression and empirical alignments between and Josephus's accounts of Jerusalem's destruction.

References

  1. https://www.gotquestions.org/preterist.html
  2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/preterism-prophecy-fulfilled/
  3. https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/preterism
  4. https://www.gotquestions.org/partial-preterism.html
  5. https://growrag.wordpress.com/2023/03/19/full-preterism-partial-preterism-gary-demar-and-various-heresies/
  6. https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/theology/full-preterism-is-full-of-error/
  7. https://puritanboard.com/threads/what-is-main-difference-between-partial-full-preterism.91253/
  8. https://israelmyglory.org/article/a-history-of-preterism/
  9. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/05/03/preterism-in-history/
  10. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/preterist-approach-revelation-unfolding-biblical-eschatology
  11. https://theofaith.org/2025/02/03/816/
  12. https://christiancourier.com/articles/the-menace-of-radical-preterism
  13. https://www.foi.org/2022/09/02/past-present-or-future-preterisms-dangers-to-the-church/
  14. https://baonline.org/what-is-preterist-eschatology/
  15. https://www.etymonline.com/word/preterist
  16. https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue100.htm
  17. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2022/09/23/three-preterist-principles/
  18. https://exegeticaltools.com/2020/07/30/four-interpretive-approaches-to-revelation/
  19. https://www.gotquestions.org/futurist-Revelation.html
  20. https://calvaryoxnard.org/blog/2024/05/10/four-views-of-revelation
  21. https://www.preceptaustin.org/revelation-intro-systems
  22. https://www.reformedclassicalist.com/home/preterism-futurism-historicism-or-idealism
  23. https://amillennial.org/how-to-read-the-book-of-revelation-idealist-preterist-historicist-and-futurist-views-explained/
  24. https://octabernacle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/4-Views-of-Revelation.pdf
  25. https://ehrmanblog.org/major-perspectives-of-ancient-jewish-and-jesus-apocalyptic-views/
  26. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-the-last-things/doctrine-of-the-last-things-part-5
  27. https://miskawilhelmsson.com/preterism-earlychurch-ireneaus/
  28. https://www.galaxie.com/article/jodt12-35-04
  29. https://preteristarchives.org/hugo-grotius/
  30. https://preteristarchives.org/church-historys-preterist-assumption/
  31. https://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/christ_has_come/russell.html
  32. https://preteristarchives.org/james-stuart-russell/
  33. https://www.logos.com/product/49333/the-parousia-a-critical-inquiry-into-the-new-testament-doctrine-of-our-lords-second-coming
  34. https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj15b.pdf
  35. https://truthunites.org/2008/06/25/reflections-on-revelation-2-a-brief-introduction-to-preterism/
  36. https://endtimesresearchgroup.com/partial-preterism/what-is-partial-preterism/
  37. https://reformedbooksonline.com/revelation-commentaries-preterism/
  38. https://fullpreterism.com/don-k-preston/
  39. https://fullpreterism.com/the-resurrection-of-the-dead-fulfilled-by-ad-70/
  40. https://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-preterism-second-coming-and-hell.html
  41. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2023/01/13/up-and-out-of-hyper-preterism/
  42. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2025/01/28/the-advantages-of-hyperpreterism/
  43. https://www.reformedclassicalist.com/home/the-heresy-of-hyper-preterism
  44. https://gentlereformation.com/2024/06/10/untitled-49/
  45. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/11/06/i-am-not-a-preterist/
  46. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2024/06/14/hyperpreterism-slip-sliden-away/
  47. https://www.padfield.com/1998/matthew-24-and-jerusalem.html
  48. https://cerebralfaith.net/the-case-for-preterist-reading-of/
  49. https://wv4g.org/2014/11/14/identifying-abomination-desolation-partial-preterist-understanding/
  50. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2018/12/21/hyper-preterist-confusions-3/
  51. https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/jesus-and-the-olivet-discourse-the-abomination-of-desolation-and-other-cosmic-stuff-part-4-the-jewish-war-series/
  52. https://evidenceandanswers.org/article/critique-preterist-view-olivet-discourse/
  53. https://learn.ligonier.org/sermons/mark-olivet-discourse-part-2
  54. https://cerebralfaith.net/why-im-partial-preteris/
  55. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2019/02/26/daniel-713-mark-91-and-eschatology-1/
  56. https://www.forerunner.com/daniel/
  57. https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-7-a-preterist-commentary/
  58. https://raefchenery.com/2021/01/15/daniel-7-a-preterist-interpretation/
  59. https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-9-24-27-commentary-daniel-9-miraculously-fulfilled/
  60. https://thirdpeter.com/2024/06/28/chapter-78-daniels-seventy-weeks/
  61. https://www.addeigloriam.org/commentary/ot-prophets/seventy-weeks-of-daniel.htm
  62. https://www.revelationrevolution.org/daniel-chapter-12-a-preterist-commentary/
  63. https://www.generationword.com/notes/preterism/Preterist-Revelation.htm
  64. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-6.html
  65. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/josephussack.html
  66. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.php
  67. https://lastdayspast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/TAN-2013.03.24-Great-Tribulation-Ed-Stevens.pdf
  68. https://postmillennialworldview.com/tag/nero/
  69. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm
  70. https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/tacitus-neros-persecution-of-the-christians/
  71. https://www.thecollector.com/primary-sources-information-emperor-nero/
  72. https://landmarkevents.org/neros-persecutions-begin-a-d-64/
  73. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/05/01/computers-the-beast-and-666/
  74. https://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/eschatology/what_is_the_preterist_view.htm
  75. https://www.clr4u.org/preterism-exposition-and-critique/
  76. https://preteristarchives.org/r-c-sproul-sr/
  77. https://www.revelationrevolution.org/1-corinthians-15-50-54-a-preterist-commentary/
  78. https://preteristarchives.org/does-1-corinthians-15-teach-a-physical-or-a-spiritual-resurrection/
  79. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-preterism-second-coming-and-hell.html
  80. https://www.olsenpark.com/SpecialStudies/answering-don-k-preston/answering-don-k-preston.pdf
  81. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/04/14/preterism-and-postmillennialism/
  82. https://reformed.org/eschatology/a-brief-theological-analysis-of-hyper-preterism-by-kenneth-l-gentry-jr/
  83. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2025/04/04/preterist-postmill-systematic-theology/
  84. https://cbtseminary.org/tag/partial-preterism/
  85. https://kuyperian.com/ad-70-or-the-future/
  86. https://puritanboard.com/threads/partial-preterist-view-of-the-end-of-the-age-in-matthew.113071/
  87. https://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/topical/where-is-my-hope.htm
  88. https://www.ritmeyer.com/2013/07/06/evidence-for-the-destruction-of-jerusalem-in-70ad/
  89. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html
  90. https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-christians/
  91. https://www.revelationrevolution.org/the-abomination-that-causes-desolation-explained/
  92. https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=680
  93. https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2005/witness-of-70-ad/
  94. https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-history-culture-society/first-jewish-revolt-against-rome
  95. https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=324
  96. https://www.galaxie.com/article/ctj06-17-04?highlight=epistle%2520romans
  97. https://puritanboard.com/threads/hyperpreterism-and-the-pca.52219/
  98. https://walvoord.com/article/258
  99. https://www.galaxie.com/article/ctj03-10-07
  100. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/1378/
  101. https://evidenceunseen.com/theology/eschatology/a-critique-of-preterism
  102. https://www.galaxie.com/article/ctj04-13-01
  103. https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/Woods-AFuturistResponseToThePreteristInterpretation.pdf
  104. https://theofaith.org/2025/07/07/top-five-reasons-a-dispensational-understanding-of-prophecy-is-better-than-a-preterist-understanding/
  105. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/12/18/revelations-date-external-evidence-1/
  106. https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/Thomas-AnAssessmentOfKennethGentrysInternalEvidenceForDatingRevelation.pdf
  107. https://evidenceunseen.com/new-testament/revelation/date-of-revelation
  108. https://pretribtruth.com/the-inconsistency-of-partial-preterism-why-it-logically-leads-to-full-preterism/
  109. https://alwaysbeready.com/preterism-examined-and-refuted/
  110. https://christiancourier.com/articles/when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written
  111. https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-problems-of-preterism/
  112. https://theaquilareport.com/preterism-exposition-and-critique/
  113. https://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-According-Jesus/dp/080101171X
  114. https://puritanboard.com/threads/kenneth-l-gentry-partial-preterism.20762/
  115. https://israelmyglory.org/article/the-trouble-with-preterism/
  116. https://sharedveracity.net/2019/08/31/are-the-end-times-about-the-future-or-partially-about-the-past/
  117. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2023/03/10/on-leaving-hyperpreterism/
  118. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2024/07/12/preterism-in-revelation-2/
  119. https://preteristarchives.org/gary-demar-shreds-of-preterism-among-first-century-writers-2003/
  120. https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/recent-developments-in-the-eschatological-debate
  121. https://puritanboard.com/threads/partial-preterism-and-the-millennium.69145/
  122. https://www.preterist.org/
  123. https://lets.church/media/555r4atQjr163mfCBBQfC8
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.