Preterists Kenneth Gentry defines preterism: “The term ‘preterism’ is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’ Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which hold that they have already come to fulfillment” (He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, page 159).
Preterists interpret most if not all, depending on whether the preterists are partial or extreme, the prophecies of Matthew 24:1-34 as already fulfilled in AD 70. The same is true for the prophecies of the Book of Revelation. The Second Coming of Christ took place spiritually in AD 70.
Thomas Ice gives two quotes from a preterist in the chapter of The End Times Controversy that helps understand the thinking of preterists. Preterist David Chilton makes this point in two statements. “The Olivet Discourse is not about the second coming of Christ. It is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of Dominion, page 224). “The book of Revelation is not about the second coming of Christ. It is about the destruction of Israel and Christ’s victory over His enemies in the establishment of the New Covenant Temple” (The Days of Vengeance, page 43). Preterists interpret Revelation 1:7 to refer to Christ’s spiritual coming in judgment on Israel in AD 70 when the verse says Christ will come back and every eye shall see him and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” This verse cannot be limited to the nation of Israel.
What are the two types of preterism? Which is the most popular type?
Thomas Ice identifies three types of preterism but only two contemporaries. The three are mild preterism, moderate preterism, and extreme preterism. The only two active today are moderate and extreme or full preterism.
Mild or partial preterism sees most of the prophecy fulfilled in AD 70 but not all. For example, partial preterism would see all of the signs of Matthew 24:4-33 fulfilled at AD 70 but the events predicted after 24:34 are still future. Partial preterists take “generation” in verse 34 to refer to the first generation of the early church. So when Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things are fulfilled,” the partial preterists say the generation Christ was teaching had to the see fulfilled the signs preceding that statement in AD 70.
Extreme or full preterism believes all prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70. Thomas Ice explains full preteristism.“This means there will never be a future second coming, for it already occurred in A.D. 70. Further, there will be no bodily resurrection of believers, which is said to have occurred in A.D. 70 in conjunction with the second coming…. In fact, full preterists say we are not merely in the millennium, but we are now living in what we would call the eternal state or the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21-22” (The End Times Controversy, page 23).
Who are some advocates of partial or moderate preterism?
Thomas Ice identifies several important partial preterists. Within the Covenant theology men like Jay Adams and J. Marcellus Kik are partial preterists. Ice also identifies Greg L. Bahnsen, who is a Reformed and Reconstructionist preterist who was influential in producing other preterists like David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry.
Ice makes note that the growing popularity of partial preterism today is due in part to “R. C. Sproul’s conversion to partial preterism in the 1990s as expressed through his book The Last Days According to Jesus. In February 1990, Dr. Sproul sponsored a conference on preterism at his annual Ligonier Ministries national conference in Orlando, Florida. About 4,000 people attended, and this exposure did a lot for the spread of preterism, especially in the Reformed community. The speakers at the conference included Dr. Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar” (The End Times Controversy, page 62).
Sproul writes in his The Last Days According to Jesus: “While partial preterists acknowledge that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 there was a parousia or coming of Christ, they maintain that it was not the parousia. That is, the coming of Christ in A.D. 70 was a coming in judgment on the Jewish nation, indicating the end of the Jewish age and the fulfillment of a day of the Lord. Jesus really did come in judgment at this time, fulfilling his prophecy in the Olivet Discourse. But this was not the final or ultimate coming of Christ. The parousia, in its fullness, will extend far beyond the Jewish nation and will be universal in its scope and significance” (page158).
Partial preterists like Sproul consider full preterism heretical because it denies the future second advent of Christ and the physical resurrection of believers.
What is the difference between the preterist (moderate) approach to the Book of Revelation and the historicist approach?
Merrill Tenney defines historicism: “The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time” (Interpreting Revelation, page 137). Ice says this theory is built on the day/year theory, whereby the 1260 days (literally 3 ½ years) mentioned in Daniel and Revelation cover the time (1260 years) of the domination of Antichrist over the church” (The End Controversy, page 18). Ice provides Albert Barnes’ historical interpretation of Revelation 6-19 as an example of Historicism’s attempt to show how prophecies in Revelation are being fulfilled throughout the Church Age.
Preterists like Ken Gentry and R. C. Sproul see the book of Revelation as already fulfilled in AD 70, not throughout the entire Church Age. For example, partial and full preterists say the Second Coming prophecy of Revelation 1:7 was fulfilled in AD 70 by Jesus coming in spiritual judgment on Israel. Partial preterists, however, would say this was “a” not “the” coming of Jesus. Preterists try to limit the coming of Christ as an act of judgment that happened only to Israel in AD 70 because of the phrase “and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him.” This last statement is taken from Zechariah 12:10-14 and is a reference to Israel’s reaction to the coming of Christ. But the rest of the verse clearly goes beyond the nation of Israel. “Every eye shall see Him” is not mentioned in the Zechariah 12 passage. Not only will Israel see Christ when he slowly descends like the angels told the disciples in Acts 1:9, but every eye shall see him. Not only will the nation of Israel see Christ but “all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” This was not fulfilled at AD 70. The only time “every eye shall see him” will be at the future second coming of Christ which is described in Revelation 19:11-21.