THE HERESY OF PRETERISM

'Consistent preterism' or 'full preterism' holds that all prophecy is fulfilled in the A. D. 70 destruction of the Temple, including the Second Advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the great Judgment. The impetus behind this preterist position is the effort to explain descriptions of the Second Advent, the resurrection and the great Judgment in contexts where such temporal indicators as "shortly", "near", etc. are employed by the apostolic writers.

The fundamental assumption of preterism (both 'full preterism' and scaled back 'partial preterism') is "that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as "this generation," "shortly," "at hand," "near," and similar wording) are to be applied to A. D. 70", quoting the words of the 'partial preterist' Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. From this fundamentally flawed assumption arises the preterist heresy.

Even most 'partial preterists' recognize the dangers inherent in 'full preterism' (which they sometimes refer to as 'hyper-preterism') and recoil from them, while erroneously not acknowledging how their own view is similarly flawed (albeit not as dangerously heretical). Dr. Kenneth Gentry, himself a 'partial preterist', acknowledges and outlines these failures of full preterism in "A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism" as follows:

Creedal Failure

First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A.D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A. D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?

Biblical Perspicuity

Second, hyper-preterism has serious implications for the perspicuity of Scripture. This viewpoint not only has implications for the later creeds, but for the instructional abilities of the apostles: no one in church history knew the major issues of which they spoke -- until very recently!

Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance? Clement of Rome lived through A. D. 70 and had no idea he was resurrected! He continued to look for a physical resurrection (Clement 50:3). Jude's (supposed) grandsons still sought a physical resurrection (cf. Eusebius, EH 3:24:4).

Whoever these men were, they came right out of the first generation and in the land of Israel -- with absolutely no inkling of an A. D. 70 resurrection or a past second Advent. See also the Didache 10:5; 16:1ff (first century); Ignatius; Trallians 9:2; Smyrnaens 2:1; 6:1; Letter to Polycarp 3:2 (early second century); Polycarp 2:1; 6:2; 7:1. See also Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr.

Berkouwer rightly notes that the reason the resurrection found early creedal acceptance was because of the clear emphasis of the New Testament. The hyper-preterist view has serious and embarrassing implications for the perspicuity of Scripture -- and despite the fact that we are now (supposedly) in our resurrected states and have the outpoured Holy Spirit and his gift of teachers who were to protect us from every wind of doctrine ( Eph. 4 )!

No Canon

Third, the hyper-preterist system leaves the New Covenant Christian (in our post-A. D. 70 era) without a canon. If all prophecy was fulfilled prior to A. D. 70 and if the entire New Testament spoke to issues in the pre-A. D. 70 time frame, we do not have any directly relevant passages for us. The entire New Testament must be transposed before we can use it.

Hermeneutic Failure

Fourth, hyper-preterism suffers from serious errors in its hermeneutical methodology. When a contextually defined passage applies to the A. D. 70 event, the hyper-preterist will take all passages with similar language and apply them to A.D. 70, as well. But similarity does not imply identity; Christ cleansed the temple twice and in virtually identical ways; but the two events are not the same.

Furthermore, we must distinguish sense and referent; there are several types of "resurrection" in Scripture: the dry bones of Ez. 37; spiritual redemption in John 5:24; physical redemption at the grave in John 5:28; Israel's renewal in Christ in Rom. 11:15; and of the Beast in Rev. 13:3.

I hold that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as "this generation," "shortly," "at hand," "near," and similar wording) are to be applied to A. D. 70, but similar-sounding passages may or may not be so applied.

[Gentry's main point here concerning hermeneutic failure is correct, but he fails to recognize the violation of his own principle in the case of the meaning of temporal indicators. It is simply erroneous to hold to uniformity of reference regarding temporal indicators. This will be addressed in the next section.]

Resurrection Errors

Fifth, there is a serious problem with the removal of the physical resurrection from systematic theology. Christ's resurrection is expressly declared to be the paradigm of our own ( 1 Cor. 15:20ff) . Yet we know that his was a physical, tangible resurrection ( Lk. 24:39 ), whereas ours is (supposedly) spiritual. What happens to the Biblically defined analogy between Christ's resurrection and ours in the hyper-preterist system?

Anthropological Errors

Sixth, there are numerous other theological and exegetical problems with a spiritual-only resurrection. For one thing, the hyper-preterist view tends to diminish the significance of the somatic implications of sin: Adam's sin had physical effects, as well as judicial and spiritual effects; where are these taken care of in the hyper-preterist system? Death's implications are not just judicial and spiritual, but also physical ( Gen. 3:14, 19; Rom. 6:23 ).

If Christians now are fulfilling the resurrection expectation of Scripture, then the gnostics of the early Christian centuries were correct! The physical world seems to be superfluous, in the hyper-preterist viewpoint. The anthropology of hyper-preterism is defective in this, not allowing the theological significance of the body/soul nature of man ( Gen. 2:7 ). This can also have implications for the person of Christ and the reality of his humanity.

Piercing Questions

Seventh, regarding the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, we must wonder why Paul was mocked by the Greeks in Acts 17 for believing in the resurrection, if it were not a physical reality.

We must wonder why Paul aligned himself with the Pharisees on the issue of the resurrection ( Ac. 23:6-9; 24:15, 21). We must wonder why we Christians still marry and are given in marriage, since Christ said in the resurrection we will not marry ( Lk. 20:35 ).

We must wonder why the apostles never corrected the widespread notion of a physical resurrection, which was so current in Judaism (cf. Josephus, Talmud, etc.).

We must wonder why we "resurrected" Christians must yet die; why should we not leave this world like Enoch and Elijah? Furthermore, where and what is the resurrection of the lost ( Jn. 5; Rev. 20 )? Paul considered Hymenæus and Philetus as having made ship-wreck of men's faith by saying the resurrection is past ( 2 Tim. 2:17-18 ). A wrong view of the resurrection is a serious matter to Paul.

Effects of the Resurrection

Eighth, practically I wonder on the hyper-preterist view what the difference our resurrection makes in this life? We get ill and are weak on the same scale as those prior to the A. D. 70 resurrection. Did this glorious resurrection of the "spiritual body" have no impact on our present condition?

A hyper-preterist analysis might leave us to expect that Paul looked to A. D. 70 as an agent of relief from the groanings and the temptations of the flesh ( Rom. 7:25 ), yet we still have such -- despite the supposed resurrection.

Christology Implications

Ninth, Acts 1 clearly defines Christ's second Advent in terms of his ascension, which was physical and visible. For example, in Acts 1:8-11 Luke is careful to say the disciples were "beholding" him as he ascended; he was received "from the eyes of them" (v. 9b); they were "gazing" as he was "going" ( v. 10); they were "looking" ( v. 11); they "beheld" ( v. 11). Clearly his ascension was a visible and glorious phenomenon involving his tangible resurrected body. And there was an actual visible cloud associated with it ( v. 10).

The angelic messengers resolutely declare "this same Jesus" (i.e., the Jesus they knew for over three years, who is now in a tangible resurrected body) will "so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven" ( v. 11).

The Greek on tropon literally means "what manner." The Greek phrase "never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner" (A. Alexander, Acts, ad loc.).

Consequently, we have express Biblical warrant to expect a visible, bodily, glorious return of Christ paralleling in kind the ascension. The hyper-preterist position goes contrary to this clear teaching of Scripture.

A Brief Millennium

Tenth, if A. D. 70 ends the Messianic reign of Christ (cf. the hyper-preterist view of 1 Cor. 15:24, 28), then the glorious Messianic era prophesied throughout the Old Testament is reduced to a forty-year interregnum, whereas by all accounts it is a lengthy, glorious era.

A problem with premillennialism is that it reduces Christ's reign to 1000 literal years; hyper-preterism reduces it further to forty years! The prophetical expressions of the kingdom tend to speak of an enormous period of time, even employing terms that are frequently used of eternity. Does Christ's kingdom parallel David's so that it only lasts for the same time frame?

History and Church Errors

Eleventh, hyper-preterists eternalize time, by allowing history to continue forever. This not only goes against express statements of Scripture, but also has God dealing with a universe in which sin will dwell forever and ever and ever.

There is no final conclusion to the matter of man's rebellion; there is no final reckoning with sin. Christ tells us that the judgment will be against rebels in their bodies, not "spiritual" bodies ( Mt. 10:28 ).

The hyper-preterist system does not reach back far enough (to the
Fall and the curse on the physical world) to be able to understand the significance of redemption as it moves to a final, conclusive consummation, ridding the cursed world of sin. The full failure of the First Adam must be overcome by the full success of the Second Adam.

Ecclesiastical Labor

Twelfth, hyper-preterism has serious negative implications for ecclesiastical labor. Is the Great Commission delimited to the pre-A. D. 70 era, due to the interpretation of "the end" by hyper-preterists ( Mt. 28:20 )? Is the Lord's Supper superfluous today, having been fulfilled in Christ's (alleged) Second Advent in A. D. 70 ( 1 Cor. 11:26 )?"

These flaws and failures so catalogued can only be described as grave and dangerous.

Insisting upon uniformity of reference and fullness of realization to A.D. 70 with temporal indicators like "shortly" or "near" is a fundamentally flawed hermeneutic error.

There are at least eight reasons such an assumption should be dismissed. First, scripture itself teaches that temporal prophetic references are to be interpreted with God's time frame kept in mind, and not man's natural time frame.

As II Peter 3:8 reads: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. " This apostolic warning comes in response to the very context where men were questioning the timing of Christ's coming and judgment of the earth.

Second, the exact timing of certain prophetic events was clearly not something God wanted to reveal to man. As we read in Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

John Calvin rightly observes regarding this text:

Third, temporal indicators followed by descriptions of future events can refer to the inception of their realization, and not necessarily to their fullness of realization.

As Matthew Henry comments regarding Revelations 1:1, "These events (it is said) were such as should come to pass not only surely, but shortly; that is, they would begin to come to pass very shortly, and the whole would be accomplished in a short time. For now the last ages of the world had come."

Another example would be the New Creation, New Heavens and New Earth. There is a sense in which Christ's resurrection ushered in a New Creation. This is why the Apostle Paul speaks in II Corinthians 5:17 about old things passing away and new creatures in Christ in a New Covenant. (Notice here that he did not imply this New Creation and New Covenant must wait until 70 AD. It was already begun before he wrote II Corinthians.)

And it is why the New Heavens and New Earth described in Isaiah 65:17 can refer in one sense to this time as well. And it is one reason the Sabbath was changed at Christ's resurrection to the first day of the week, because there was a newly created order.

Yet, in terms of its full realization, the New Heavens and New Earth must await Christ's Second Coming. This is why Peter regarded it as a future event when he wrote II Peter (see 3:13).

And this is why in the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelations 21-22 "death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain." It is an extraordinary and incredible assumption of preterists that temporal indicators like "shortly come to pass" must always imply full realization, and not simply initiated realization.

Fourth, there is no clear statement in scripture that these temporal indicators all refer to AD 70, and that exclusively. This contrasts with the clarity in scripture regarding the literal second coming of Christ, the bodily resurrection and the great Judgment. We should interpret the less clear in scripture in the light of the more clear, not vice versa.

Fifth, why should we believe in prophetic eschatological contexts that temporal indicators like "near" or "shortly" must always be interpreted quite literally in human terms, yet not interpret the ‘thousand years’ of Revelations 20:2 in a similar literal fashion?

And why should we focus only on the "I come quickly" passages and ignore the "after a long time" of Matthew 25:19 and "the preaching in all the world" of Matthew 24:14? Again, if we fail to heed the admonitions of II Peter 3:8 and Matthew 24:36 we are bound to stumble in our interpretation.

Sixth, preterism ignores the use of typology in scriptural prophecy, arguing that New Testament prophecy can only have one reference.

For example, the commentator A.R. Fausset comments concerning the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14: "Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained "accommodation"; rather the temporary fulfillment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ ( Rev 19:10 ). Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet's son; "virgin" applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who ceased to be a virgin when she "conceived"; "Immanuel," God with us ( Jhn 1:14 Rev 21:3 ), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly ( Isa 9:6 ), "the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Isa 8:18 ), the mighty God."

Local and temporary features (as in Isa 7:15, 16 ) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire to discover them." Similarly, just because certain prophesied events receive partial fulfillment in the judgments of AD 70 does not preclude their fullest accomplishment in the eschatological events of Christ's literal Second Coming and judgment. Just as it would be wrong to deny that Isaiah 7:14 had any reference to Christ's literal First Coming, it would be equally mistaken to deny that Matthew 24:30 has any reference to Christ's literal Second Coming.

Many other examples of such typology could be cited in addition. For instance, Matthew 2:15 indicates the prophecy of Hosea 11:1 ("when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt") was fulfilled during Christ’s stay in Egypt.

Commenting upon this passage in Hosea, Matthew Henry writes:

And Matthew 2:18 indicates the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 ("a voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping") was fulfilled in Herod’s murder of the children of Bethelehem, which was certainly also fulfilled by use of types during the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.

Such scriptural use of typology goes to the heart of the preterist error, for preterism must insist New Testament prophecy contains no use of typology, or else it would be fool hardy to insist that a prophecy like Matthew 24:30 can only have one reference, and that to events during the time of the Apostles.

The standard preterist response is to admit that Old Testament prophecy contains use of typology, but to deny this in New Testament prophecy. Preterists suggest that New Testament prophecies contain no typologies because the New Testament age is complete (having no need of shadows) and its revelation is full. But such an assertion is flawed in at least two respects.

First, it should be pointed out the circular reasoning in such argumentation. It is as if to say, ‘there is no use of typology in New Testament prophecy because there are no shadows and types in New Testament prophecy."

Second, it flies in the face of what the New Testament itself teaches concerning New Testament revelation.

Until we see Christ face-to-face, shadows and typologies will be necessary. One very concrete example of this typological character of even our current age in relation to the age to come is our weekly Christian Sabbath day in comparison to our coming eternal Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:9-10). We must not be so naïve as to believe our current age and the prophecy Christ delivered to it contain no shadows and typologies.

Seventh, if consistently applied preterism leaves Christ's church on earth now in a state of destitution. On the one hand, the church does not really have what scripture says it should have in the New Heavens and New Earth. Yet on the other hand, the church militant does not even have what was bestowed upon it in the New Testament.

For example, preterism steals the Lord's Supper from the church. As one full preterist writes concerning the Lord's Supper: ""The Lord's Supper," the sacramental neomorphosis of Passover[256] in the "last days,"[257] was properly celebrated in a home.[258] Jesus commanded this Passover to continue to be observed[259] until the world of the old sacral order came to a complete end[260] at His coming in A.D. 70.[261]"

And preterism even steals from the church the ministry of human ecclesiastical teachers and preachers, for in the fully realized New Covenant there will be no need of such human preachers and teachers (Hebrews 8:11). Preterism would have us act like we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, even though we are not. By so doing, the church militant is left exposed without the aids God has given it until the New Heavens and New Earth in its full realization really do appear.

Eighth, as 'full preterism' exemplifies, the preterist assumption is a flawed assumption which if consistently applied leads to dangerous heresy. It leads to the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus who said that "the resurrection is past already" (II Tim. 2:18).

If the 'partial preterist' is correct to insist that similar language concerning temporal indicators must have a uniform reference, then why not insist similarity of language concerning other things does not have uniformity of reference? It is simply arbitrary for partial preterists to insist upon uniformity of reference with regards to time indicators but to deny the same principle to other language.

Indeed, given the Apostle Peter's warning in II Peter 3:8, it is far less likely temporal prophetical indicators imply uniformity of reference than other things. Overall, the preterist assumption leaves partial preterists with an inadequate scriptural defense of the orthodox doctrine of future eschatological events.

As one full preterist has noted: "A "partial" preterist believes in a future second coming but doesn't have very many -- if any -- verses to prove it, since he believes Matthew 24 and most of Revelation have been fulfilled (in the fall of Jerusalem, AD70). (Some "partial preterists" admit that there are no verses at all which teach a yet-future "second coming," but they believe it anyway because "Holy Mother Church has always taught us so.")"

We must reject the flawed preterist assumption at the outset. The reality is that similarity of language can in many cases point to a uniform referent, but context and other scriptural instruction must determine whether it does in a particular instance. And especially with regards to temporal prophetic indicators of coming events we must be more cautious than the preterist assumption allows.

Given the danger of preterism, it should concern us how many have bought into its tenets, especially in the Christian Reconstruction movement.

For instance, the partial preterist Gary DeMar writes concerning the full preterist Russell: "Russell's Parousia takes the Bible seriously when it tells us of the nearness of Christ's return…. Reading Russell is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with smoke and mirror hermeneutics."

And Kenneth Gentry writes concerning this same book:

In embracing preterism even to the extent partial preterists have, they have rejected some important tenets of the reformation confessions like the Westminster Standards, and put many others in jeopardy. Most notably, these preterists have rejected that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ, suggesting instead that it is Nero.

This conveniently serves these Christian Reconstructionists in two respects. First, it allows them to embrace a 'Christian state' which incorporates Romanists and is not distinctively reformed. Many do not want national covenanted reformation where the nation upholds the Westminster Standards and the moral aspects of the Solemn League and Covenant are renewed.

Second, it allows Romanism to appear in a better light, and not as an arch-enemy of true Biblical Christianity. Since many Christian Reconstructionists have themselves denied important tenets of the reformed faith (like the regulative principle of worship) and adopted Romish errors, not surprisingly Rome does not look so bad. But we should not be similarly blinded.

Preterism invites us to swallow a camel in order to be able to swallow a peanut. For the sake of our spiritual health, we should decline.

This tract was written by J. Parnell McCarter. More tracts like it can be obtained at http://www.puritans.net/tracts/