Throughout this extensive journey in eschatology, I have consistently made it known my dissatisfaction with pre-tribulation interpretations. This was not done empty-handed just to cast doubt. The criticism was always secondary to the eschatological position I was teaching. The pre-wrath teaching was always at the forefront of my focus. However, in doing so, it still resulted in a very defensive writing style for most of my eschatology posts. My series on Daniel is a great break from that and demonstrates the Pre-Wrath eschatological model well without me interrupting to argue with myself. I encourage you to read that if you haven’t. However, I do believe that there is a place for the defensive form of writing that I have primarily used. It is necessary to address the “opposition” with all its shortcomings to show where my argument fills and resolves those holes biblically. There has been a lot of holes, both small and great, that I have called into question concerning pre-trib interpretations. So much so, that one may think that it’s because I think so low of it and place it alongside some of the worst heresies. That is surely not the case. Yes, I believe it’s unbiblical. Yes, I believe it greatly bends scripture to fit what people want to hear. Yes, it fails to follow the eschatological model seen in Daniel. But in comparison to other faulty interpretations, it is SO CLOSE! Just get your terms right and then read scripture under that proper veil. It’s because I have the most hope for those misguided by its teachings that I have hit them the most. That wall is easier to break. It’s because there is so little interpretive variance that I spend so much time breaking down the wall between the two views. I do admit that there is a rather large subsurface obstacle that complicates things. That is, Dispensationalism, which is the monster to which pre-trib eschatology rides upon. But at the surface, it’s just the terms that need fixed. The wrath of God is not the Great Tribulation. They are two distinct and very different events presented in scripture. Get that straight and we are good.
For other eschatological interpretations, it’s not so simple. There are layers to get through. That’s why I have refrained from arguing against many other interpretations thus far. But here I am now – feeling pretty satisfied with the quality of work I have labored to produce – now at a point where I believe it’s time to branch out and address some of the apples that have fallen farther away from the tree.
This apple in particular hasn’t fallen as far away as I once thought. Im talking about Preterism, or particularly, Partial Preterism. Preterism is the belief that all or most of the events described in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse have been fulfilled already. It is believed that all or most of this prophecy took place during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or just prior to it. The word “preterism” is derived from the Latin word “preter”, meaning “past”. That’s an easy way for you to remember that Preterism means “it happened in the past”.
There are different levels within Preterism. The two primary levels are Full Preterism and Partial Preterism. Full Preterism fits the example I gave concerning the apple that has fallen far from the tree. It falls outside the realm of orthodoxy. It follows the erroneous understanding that all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, and we are currently living in the New Heaven and New Earth already. There are so many things wrong with this that I will not even bother talking about it to any great extent. It’s straight foolishness. How depressing the new heaven and new earth is if they are right. There is no rapture. There is no resurrection. There are no glorified bodies. There are still plenty of tears, plenty of pain, plenty of suffering and plenty of death. But this is apparently as good as it gets. That’s Full or extreme Preterism, as it also is called.
Partial Preterism, however, is a lot more reasonable of a beast. It holds to the belief that most of prophecy has already been fulfilled in 70 AD, but Christ is yet to return still in the future to rapture His believers unto Himself. We are not living in the New Heaven and Earth yet. We are in the age of the gentiles and Christ will return for us someday. This view does fit into the realm of orthodoxy. Though I believe it is incorrect, it is not entirely crazy to believe. This apple isn’t too far from the tree. Surprisingly enough, it’s a view held by the very respectable theologian, R.C. Sproul. This post serves as an introduction to a small series refuting Partial Preterism. Particularly, it will be the proof texts examined today. R.C. Sproul will largely serve as a mouthpiece for Partial Preterism because I believe he represents it very well, provides very Biblical arguments and support for his claims.
In this introduction I can only address so much. “Time” is going to be my focus here today. Time is considered to be the greatest defense Partial Preterism has. It all has to do with specific terms Jesus used in what we come to know as The Olivet Discourse. We see this discourse in Matthew 24, Luke 22, and Mark 13. I am simply going to follow Matthew’s account to describe this conversation between Christ and his disciples. It begins in Matthew 24, verses 1 through 3, which says,
“Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
So, Jesus and his disciples are leaving the temple, and the disciples are marveling about how great the temple is. Jesus basically tells them that’s it’s all going to get destroyed, so enjoy it while it lasts. And the disciples then ask the question: When will this happen, and what will signify the end of the age? The disciples are concerned about the time in which this will take place. And they place this question alongside the understanding that this will happen at the end of the age. When a futurist, like myself, reads this passage, we link “the end of the age” to the end of the world, or to the beginning of the age of Christ’s reign. As premillennialists, we believe that when Christ returns, he will abolish the kingdoms of man and establish His kingdom here on earth for 1000 years. That is what marks the new age. We go from the age/day of man to the age/day of the Lord. Partial Preterists don’t see it that way. They believe that the “end of the age” is not talking about the end of the world. It’s talking about something different, that we will get into here in a second. The reason for this is because as Jesus continues speaking in the Olivet Discourse, they believe that He gives us a timeline to work with. After Jesus mentions all these signs to answer the disciples’ question, He then says in Matthew 24:33-24,
“So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
There is the Preterist proof text. Jesus is speaking to his disciples, and he says “this generation” will not pass away before these things take place. Therefore, the preterist concludes that the “end of the age” is not talking about the end of the world, but rather, it’s talking about the Jewish age. And the Jewish age, they suggest, ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Partial Preterists are highly concerned about time. To them, for these events to take place beyond the generation that Jesus was speaking to directly would make Jesus a liar.
Time is their greatest strength. The preterist proclaims, “See! ‘this generation’ is talking about the generation that was alive when hearing these words from Christ. They will by no means pass away until the abomination of desolation takes place, the great tribulation takes place, and Christ, the son of man comes. All of these things must have taken place in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the temple was destroyed!” Furthermore, they quote passages highlighting the nearness of his coming and question why Jesus and the Apostles would say He’s coming back soon if it’s not going to be for over 2000 years? These things “must take place soon”, so that means it happened as early as 70 AD.
R.C. Sproul gave an analogy comparing the end of the age to D-Day during WWII. D-Day was the turning point of the war where the Allied Soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy, occupied by Nazi Germany, and triumphantly won the victory. This significant event took place on June 6, 1944. As great a victory as it was, the war was not over yet. The war ended in the spring of 1945. Yes, the tide of the war greatly shifted on D-Day, but the war trickled on while Germany slowly exhausted the last remaining efforts they had until the Allied forces won in totality. R.C. Sproul likened D-Day to the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ’s death and resurrection was the great turning point of the spiritual war. It was the catalyst needed for victory. But did the war completely stop then? No. Though Christ has the upper hand, there was still work to be done. That “end of the war”, Sproul argues, was complete at the judgement of the Jewish people on 70 AD. I believe this analogy better fits the “already, not yet” understanding of the kingdom. Yes, Christ was the turning point of the war. The kingdom is reigning and ruling in the hearts of those who believe in Him. But the war ends for good when that kingdom is fully realized – when Christ establishes his Millennial Kingdom and ultimately ushers in the New Heaven and New earth. R.C. Sproul apparently doesn’t like how that sounds because of this simple question: why does it take over 2000 years for this to happen after the great turning point? Can it really be seen as a turning point if there is still 2000 or more years of war left to fight? Time is the question once again.
As much as these questions concerning time sound plausible, when we put them up against scripture they fall flat. The Preterist prides themselves over their arguments concerning time, but time is ultimately working against them.
The futurist does not have a problem with time. 2 Peter 3:8 says that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Christ is not delayed. Christ is not bound to our subjective view of nearness for his return. He is still coming soon, though it may not seem soon according to our own personal schedules. Let us also not be ignorant of what Peter mentions just prior to this. In chapter 3, verse 3, it says,
“knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
It’s bad enough when we hear this coming from outside the body of Christ. Let’s not fall into this similar category by questioning and scoffing at Christ’s future return and resort to preterist models of eschatology to fit our subjective concept of nearness.
The second pushback I give regarding time is the time in which the book of Revelation was written. If the book of Revelation is to be a prophetic book of the events largely to take place in 70 AD, then it requires that the book be written before 70 AD. That, however, is one of the fatal flaws of Preterism because there is much evidence to suggest that it was written at a later date. In fact, it’s not even close. It is estimated to have been written 25 years later, in 95 AD.
The first and most well known account of this came from a 2nd century Christian theologian named Irenaeus. Irenaeus lived from 120 through 202 AD. He was a bishop of Lyons and the disciple of Polycarp. (Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John) If there was to be anyone in the 2nd century who knew when John wrote the book of Revelation, it would be Irenaeus. That game of telephone was pretty short, from John to Polycarp, then right to Irenaeus. He also grew up living in Smyrna, which was one of the first places where the book of Revelation was circulated through. Irenaeus has always been considered a respected and reliable source. In one of his more popular pieces of writing called, Against Heresies, he says this concerning the anti-Christ and book of Revelation:
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For it (or he) was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Point number 1: Irenaeus admits that the antichrist’s name had not been revealed at his time yet. He says that if the anti-Christ was already revealed prior to his time then it would have been revealed by John himself. John was alive during the reign of Nero. Preterists consider Nero, the Roman emperor between 54-68 AD, to be the anti-Christ. If that is true, then John would have written the book of Revelation during Nero’s reign and would have mentioned him by name. He didn’t though.
Point number 2: Irenaeus says that it, possibly referring to the book of Revelation, was seen towards the end of Domitian’s reign. I put “or he” in parentheses because a third-person verb is used there. This means that the subject could be either a “he”, “she”, or an “it”. In other words, Irenaeus could be talking about John himself was seen towards the end of Domitian’s reign, not the Book itself. Domitian’s reign began in 81 AD and ended in 96 AD. If this is talking about “it”, the book of Revelation, then this clearly means it was written in the early to mid 90’s AD. Many scholars have come to understand this as true. Of course, however, the preterist’s use this loophole to desperately squeeze in a breath as they claim that it’s talking about John himself, and therefore the book still could have been written before 70 AD. It doesn’t really make much sense with the beginning of Irenaeus’ statement, however, because he just said if the antichrist was revealed already, John would have pointed it out. In other words, if Irenaeus was referring to John, then his first statement wouldn’t make any sense. John would have written it during the reign of Nero and called him out by name. This also kind of defeats the whole purpose of a prophecy. If you can see the characters in play and see the events unfolding in a certain direction, then it’s a predictable prophecy. The Bible is known for its fulfilled prophecies that are so early and displaced by time that there is no way they could have been predicted or fabricated. If John could see Nero and wrote Revelation during his reign, he would have seen his erratic blasphemous behavior and predict that it would probably end bad for Jews and Christians. You could make a whole case for why Revelation was completely made up, or at best, predicted. But surely not inspired by God.
Furthermore, Nero wasn’t really known for exiling people. He killed people brutally, and often made them into spectacles. Domitian, on the other hand, commonly used exile as punishment. This further supports that it was Domitian who exiled John, who then went on to write the book of Revelation around 95 AD.
Another early church father, Clement of Alexandria, mentions that John was exiled to the isle of Patmos until “after the death of the tyrant.” Clement was born in 150 AD and died in 215 AD. This is another early testimony. Who was this tyrant? Domitian. Domitian was known as a the cruel and paranoid tyrant. This checks out.
In the year 304 AD, an early church Biship named Victorinus claimed that the apostle John was given the vision of Revelation while “he was in the island of Patmos, condemned by Caesar Domitian”. There are countless other early church fathers and theologians throughout time that have all pointed to the later dating of Revelation. This is a desperate attempt to try to make preterism sound reasonable when it it simply is not. It means that every church father, who also spoke of these end times related prophecies as future events, was wrong. No one, not even the immediate church following 70 AD, considered it to be the fulfillment.
To the preterist, this is fine, because at least Jesus isn’t wrong. This concern is noble, but it is unnecessary because of the language used by Jesus in this passage. Jesus is speaking in 2nd person when giving this Olivet Discourse. He says, “when you see these things”, and “then you will be handed over”, “when you see the abomination of desolation”, and “this generation will not pass until these things take place”. Is he merely talking about the immediate audience? Context says no. Conveniently, Preterists stop reading 9/10ths of the way through the Olivet Discourse. They don’t bother to finish the last verse of Mark’s account of this. Mark 13:37 says,
“And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!”
Does this passage say, “And what I say to you, I say only to the Jews”? No. Does it say, “And what I say to you, I say to just this current generation of believers”? No. Does it say, “And what I say to you, all other Christians following 70 AD can disregard”? NO! It says, “And what I say to you, I say to ALL”. On the contrary, to the noble preterists who claim Jesus would be a liar if the rapture were to take place beyond 70 AD, actually, Christ would be a liar if this passage wasn’t talking to all believers of all time. We are all called to watch and wait for the Lord to return bodily, in the same manner in which he ascended. This message was to ALL believers, not a local community of Jews in a local timeframe.
That leads to my next point. It’s a small point, but its importance is astronomical. Mark 13:10 says,
“And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.”
Preterists are on a hardcore time crunch here. The Gospel, before these things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse are to take place, is to first be preached to ALL the nations. This did not happen before 70 AD. There was not enough time. Preterists instead of taking the text at face value, decide that this must not mean all nations. Maybe it means the nations surrounding Israel in the Roman empire. Once again, I think that’s quite the copout. I believe that when the Bible say all nations, it means ALL nations. Time is working against the Preterist.
The last problem Preterists have with time is relating to prophecy. I am very surprised that I haven’t seen this point being presented very much elsewhere because in my opinion, it is one of the most conclusive points of criticism. Since I just finished my series in Daniel, this point became very obvious to me as a problem for Preterism.
Preterism falls short because of the prophecy of Daniel’s 70th week. This prophecy consists of 490 years that begins with the call to rebuild Jerusalem in 459 BC. It says that during the 69th seven (483 years) the messiah will be cut off (Killed) and appear to have accomplished nothing. This was fulfilled by Christ, exactly 483 years after the call to rebuild Jerusalem. There remains 7 years of this Biblical prophecy. The events and characters that are said to proceed after Christ are not seen in the following 7 years. This includes the rise of the Anti-Christ confirming a covenant with many, setting up the abomination of Desolation in the temple, the ending of sacrifices and offerings, great persecution, and finally, the judgement of the antichrist. These events did not happen in the proceeding 7 years after Christ died. So where did the remaining 7 years of this prophecy go? A futurist, like myself, heed the words of Apostle Paul, who says that the time of the gentiles we are living in was a mystery to the Old Testament prophets. Paul makes sense of this gap in time by saying that now is the time for salvation to come unto the gentiles before this climactic ending will take place. The remaining 7 years of this prophecy will cap off this age we are currently living in. We are, in a sense, in between the 69th and 70th “seven” of Daniel’s prophecy. There is a pause in it for salvation to be extended over to the gentiles, as we are grafted into the promise. When the full number of gentiles to which God foreknows comes to be, the final 7 years of this prophecy will resume.
However, there is no good explanation in a preterist interpretation for why this prophecy failed to take place in the immediate 7 years after Christ. In their view, they took place in 70 AD. What explanation is there for that gap in time? Surely it wasn’t for salvation to come unto the gentiles because it was not nearly enough time to reach the ends of the earth with the Gospel as Matthew 24 says it will. There is just a random 35 to 40 years of prophetic silence following Christ’s death. Preterism would have a much better case if Jerusalem was destroyed 7 years after Christ’s death. So actually, the problem with Preterism here is that there is too much time between the Christ’s death and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD to adhere to Daniel’s prophecy of 70 sevens. There is a purpose for the long pause in the futurist interpretation. There is absolutely no purpose for the short pause in a Preterist interpretation.
This is where we will take a short pause of our own on this matter. Preterists pride themselves for holding to the supposed timeframe Christ gave himself for His future return. However, time is the greatest enemy of this interpretation as well. In my next post of this series, we will be diving into the various events described in the Olivet Discourse. Do the events that transpired in 70 AD really match up with the text? Keep your eyes open for the next post to find out.
Thank you for reading. Have a blessed day!
Softly Spoken Truth 