home > articles > IS PRETERISM BIBLICAL?
IS PRETERISM BIBLICAL?
Preterism comes the Latin word ‘praeter’ which means ‘the past’. When it comes to understanding Bible prophecy all Christians are preterists to one degree or another. It is only logical and reasonable to examine the past to see if a prophecy has already been fulfilled. Most Christians would acknowledge that Isaiah 7:14 describing a virgin giving birth has been fulfilled in the past. But not all Christians would agree about the nature of prophecies relating to Christ’s “second coming”. Preterists argue that all of the prophecies relating to Christ’s ‘coming’ (as described in Matthew 24) have already been fulfilled. This contrasts with two other schools of prophecy interpretation.
Essentially there are then three general schools of eschatology:
- Futurism – the contents of Revelation pertain to the very end of time on earth.
- Historicism – that the contents of Revelation have unfolded throughout history from the time of its writing to the present day (and beyond).
- Preterism – before assuming that a prophecy is not fulfilled, it should be evaluated in the light of the past. That is, how did the original audience understand what was written to them – and what was the original intention of the text. If it can be demonstrated that a prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, then that prophecy should be considered as fulfilled prophecy.
An exact copy of Beatus of Liébana’s 460 page commentary on Revelation originally copied in A.D. 970.
Within Preterism there are two streams. Both streams identify themselves as “Preterist”. To distinguish between them, two pejorative terms are often employed: Hyper-Preterism, and Partial-Preterism. Full Preterists, also referred to as Hyper-Preterists, or Pantelogists, regard all Bible prophecy fulfilled by A.D. 70. Those who regard that most prophecy was fulfilled by A.D. 70 (including the parousia of Christ’s Vindication, the commencement of the Kingdom of Christ, the First Resurrection, but not including the Final Judgment, the banishment of Satan to eternal torment, or the General Resurrection) are referred to as Partial-Preterists or more correctly: Classical Preterists. The proceeding table of comparison between Full-Preterism and Partial Preterism will highlight the differences.
Criticism of Preterism can be summarised as-
Futurists – claim that Preterism ‘spiritualises’ Bible prophecy rather than taking it literally.
To which Preterists counter that they are actually more literal in their interpretation of Bible prophecy because they strive for the original intention of a passage rather than impose fanciful modern understandings onto an ancient text.
To which Preterists counter that they are actually more literal in their interpretation of Bible prophecy because they strive for the original intention of a passage rather than impose fanciful modern understandings onto an ancient text.
Historicists – claim that Preterism was developed by Jesuits in the seventeenth century to counter the growing the Reformation claims that the Papacy was the Anti-Christ.
This is actually one of the weakest methods of debate: attack with innuendo and name calling and ignore the content of the proposition. The roots of Preterism go back to the First Century AD when people clearly saw the events foretold by Christ as having been fulfilled up until the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea in A.D. 70. The sticking point between Full-Preterists and Partial Preterists is the nature of the Resurrection. Resolve this issue Biblically and you will conclude that one of these two positions is thoroughly Biblical and (while Creeds are not authoritative) in agreement with the earliest Creeds of the Church.
A COMPARISON BETWEEN
FULL-PRETERISM (PANTELISM)
&
PARTIAL-PRETERISM (PRETERISM)
|
FULL PRETERIST
|
PARTIAL PRETERIST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why I am not a Full Preterist…
-
There are reasonable grounds for regarding Matthew 24 as being entirely fulfilled, but Matthew 25 as current-and-yet-to-come.
-
There is enough evidence to make a case for Satanic/Demonic activity still today which torpedoes any possibility of Full Preterism being correct. This demands that the “1000 years” of Revelation 20 commences after 70 AD.
-
All through Revelation up to chapter 19 the Full Preterist rightly argues that the locus foci of God’s judgment was Jerusalem (the seat of wicked Judaism) which is referred to as ”Sodom, Egypt, Bablyon, the Harlot”. But in Rev. 20.9 the locus foci shifts to “the camp of saints” also called “the beloved city”. This contrasts sharply with how the rest of Revelation has described Jerusalem. It is therefore unreasonable to consider Rev. 20:9 as referring to earthly Jerusalem. This demands that Revelation 20 continues on from chapter 19 rather than a reiteration of the vision commenced from chapter 6.
-
Scholars disagree about the exact point in Revelation of Christ’s coming. Some appeal to Revelation 19 which describes the Rider of the White Horse coming in judgment as the coming of Christ to consummate time. Curiously there is no mention of fire in this passage (note 2Thess. 1:8). It is therefore very reasonable to equate the revelation of Christ from Heaven with Rev. 20:9 which describes fire coming down from Heaven.
-
If Full Preterism was obvious to the First Century Christians, most especially the author of the Book of Revelation, John the Apostle, there would reasonably be some written record of this interpretation by them. However, we have no such interpretation promoted by First or Second Century Church Fathers. Yet, we have the record of both Polycarp and Irenaeus who have direct and second degree (indirect connection) with the Apostle John. What we do find is references from the Ante-Nicean Church Fathers to the expectation that Christ would return, and the God would culminate time with a Judgment Day. We also find supporting references from several Ante-Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers supporting the Partial (Classical) Preterist position whereby they acknowledge that the destruction of Jerusalem was the fulfilment of Matthew 24.
Dr. Andrew Corbett preaching in Budapest Free Christian Church, Sunday 20 September 2018
My views are more fully explained in my eBook, The Most Embarrassing Book In The Bible, where I go through the Book of Revelation and explain it chapter by chapter.
Andrew Corbett
5 Comments
Submit a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Is there a definitive website for Partial Preterism? I am more inclined toward partial than full, and would like a definitive, all-encompassing place to study. Or, is there a book?
Hopefully, you’ll find a trove of study resources on this site which would enable you to understand why Partial Preterism is an accurate way for understanding Biblical Eschatology. Apart from my book, The Most Embarrassing Book In The Bible, you will find authors such as RC Sproul have also written eschatological books from a Partial Preterist perspective.
I have been watching telecasts from a pastor who teaches full preterist beliefs. I accept most as truth because Yeshua Christ did tell his deciples that some would still be alive when he came again and that it would be soon (easily seems like maybe 40 years maximum) but also if He did return circa AD70, are their any post Bible scripts available to show this happened? I understand the canon of the church which decided which manuscripts were deemed divine but why were no AD200+ writings included? I am seeking only truth in understanding God’s will and sharing it, I have no other agenda. God bless
Hi Wayne. I am not a Full-Preterist as I do not see that it comports with either the Biblical or historical data. I believe there are good reasons for understanding the term “coming” to mean God’s judgment, and should not be eisegetically understood to mean “return”. Christ therefore came in judgment in A.D. 70, but is yet to return.
-A.
Thanks for your reply. It makes sense too. The full Preterist stand leaves me with questions but the concept you consider that Christ came in AD70 but that was not the prophesied second coming? Am I reading you right? Is that part-Preterist? and is predestination by God the father at the beginning consistent! I will read more from your site. Thanks heaps.