Introduction
The term ‘preterism’ is not featured in my Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms from 1999. Neither do I see it listed in McClintock and Strong’s exhaustive Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature from the late 1800s. And I have never come across the word in any of the many theological books that I have read from centuries previous to that, even those that deal with Revelation’s last things, like Samuel Hopkins’ Treatise on the Millennium from 1794, for example. Regardless of this absence, the word is commonly used now, in the 21st century. Wherever I look for the meaning of the word, I find that ‘preterism’ comes from ‘praetor,’ a Latin word, which means ‘had.’ Except in one place I find that it comes from the longer Latin word, ‘praeteritus,’ which means ‘past’ or ‘bygone.’ This last opinion more exactly pinpoints the view of the full preterist: that all prophecy is bygone, or fulfilled. I have heard ‘preterism’ referred to as ‘pastism.’ That word-hook is a good way to remember what cryptic ‘preterism’ means. On a website called English Learner, it says that the first use of the word was by a clergyman from the Church of England, George Faber (1773-1854.) What his view on it was, I have not bothered to gather.
Writing about an odd heresy like full preterism would never have occurred to me if an old friend had not fallen for it and spoken of it to me. Wanting a more thorough answer to this friend than one that I could come up with in the moment and on the spot, I sought out full preterists on videos, watched videos by men who opposed the view, and watched several debates on it. Having done all of that, I still had no satisfying closure. So I thought about what the Scriptures taught in relation to what I had heard. Then an outline began to form, into which I could set down a biblical response. Because coming from myself, the answer gave me some assurance of having dealt with the matter to my satisfaction. “That business does not usually go on well, which you transact with the eyes of other persons” (Livy.)
Prophecies viewed as pertaining to last things is that part of theology called ‘eschatology.’ These things that have traditionally been taken as events to look forward to are, to full preterists, things that have long ago come to pass. Full preterism—also called ‘consistent preterism,’ ‘radical preterism,’ and ‘hyper preterism’—is a view that is wholly backward-looking where prophecy is concerned. To full preterists, even the second coming of Christ, as well as the general resurrection and the final judgment that are connected with it, is nearly two thousand years gone by. They say that these monumental prophecies were somehow fulfilled in the year A. D. 70. So maybe the best name for this eschatological belief is ‘realized eschatology.’ My name for it is ‘A. D. 70-ism’ because the Siege of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 is what full preterism is based on. Don K. Preston, a full preterist, calls the movement ‘covenant eschatology,’ which dignified name it does not deserve.
In order to avoid making a slip in this article, observe that for me, the ‘full preterist’ is synonymous with the ‘preterist’; if I use both terms, I will use them interchangeably. As for the ‘partial preterist,’ to me this is the traditional interpreter who does not reckon prophecy to have been entirely fulfilled. I will show, later, that every Christian is at least a ‘partial preterist.’
Full preterism is not, to my surprise, a view that is as easy to dismiss as the belief in Neanderthals or Piltdown Man. Because some apocalyptic passages can be easily shown as fulfilled, all other apocalyptic passages are susceptible, in the wrong hands, to the same explanation. Moreover, since resurrection is sometimes used in the New Testament in a non-material sense, every reference to resurrection is, to a degree, likewise impressionable.
I must show what I mean, firstly, about the interpretation of apocalyptic passages; then, secondly, about the interpretation of resurrection.
Here is an apocalyptic passage that has been fulfilled: “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine” (Isaiah 13.10.) This, in apocalyptic speech, concerns the judgment that was prophesied against Babylon; this prophecy has been fulfilled by the warring Medes and Persians. The language reminds us of what we read in Matthew 24, which passage appears to be a cosmological description of Christ’s return: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” (verse 29.) The full preterist argues that this verse, and the passage of which the verse is a part, was fulfilled in the year A. D. 70 when General Titus and his Roman forces overcame to destroy Jerusalem. This was, says the full preterist, when the Son of man came ‘in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’ (verse 30.) This sense is convincing, given the context in light of history. Great Commentators are divided concerning the passage. John Gill says that it refers to the Siege of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. Matthew Poole says that it refers, rather, to the second coming of Christ, or perhaps to that and the siege. Gill’s view has the similar language of Isaiah concerning Babylon for support; Poole’s view has the similar language of 2 Peter 3.10 for its helper, which text, more particularly than most, seems to point to the second coming of Christ to judge, not Jerusalem merely, but the World. Here is that verse: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Both Gill and Poole take this verse from 2 Peter 3 in the futuristic sense, though Gill does not exclude the A. D. 70 holocaust in his interpretation of it. The full preterist, however, excludes what Gill and Poole reckon as constituting the essence of the passage: the actual future judgment of the world by Jesus Christ. Because some apocalyptic passages have been fulfilled, it is possible, on the strength of that, to be inveigled to believe that they all have.
Concerning the interpretation of resurrection, now; the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is asserted in Scripture as clearly and boldly as anything can possibly be. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, declares vain that faith which doesn’t believe it: “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (verse 14.) But there is, too, an immaterial kind of resurrection in Scripture. “If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,” urges the apostle to the Colossians (3.1.) This resurrection, obviously, can only be an immaterial one; otherwise the Colossians could not obey the command until their bodies were physically raised from the dead, and they weren’t even dead yet. The resurrection referred to in this verse is likely a regenerative one; we must at least admit that it has to do with the soul, not the body. Full preterists, though, interpret even the resurrection of bodies in some sense other than material, except, I presume, those bodily resurrections that are recorded in Scripture and that precede the year A. D. 70, like the resurrections of Tabitha and Lazarus. As for the general resurrection of literal bodies from the dead, they don’t believe it; it may be more proper to say, for most of them, I think, that they no longer believe it. “That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts 24.15)—this they disavow; to them this verse does not refer to literal bodies being raised at some future time. It is difficult to find what, to them, the nature of resurrection is in passages that, to the rest of us, speak of the general resurrection. William Bell says that it is a ‘hope of righteousness.’ That is his ‘body of resurrection.’ To him, there will be no literal, physical resurrection of bodies from their graves. Whatever full preterists interpret from the resurrection of the body in verses like Acts 24.15, they do not mean actual bodily resurrection. Resurrection is sometimes spoken of in Scripture in a metaphorical sense. The full preterist is right about that, though he is wrong about this verse. Because resurrection is sometimes used metaphorically, full preterism, if cunningly wielded, can present a plausible case to uninstructed persons.
So apocalyptic language does not guarantee that its prophecy awaits fulfillment; and resurrection is not always of the body. These two facts are taken advantage of by preterists who believe or want, for whatever reason, all prophecies to be in the past.
If we take the book of Revelation as that which tells us of last things, we all are preterists at least partially. It is foretold, for example, in Revelation 2, that the church in Smyrna will suffer tribulation and that members of this church will have their faith tested ‘unto death.’ The history of this fulfillment is well-known, and has been recorded by such reliable historians as Eusebius and John Foxe. The church of God in Smyrna wrote a letter about how the prophecy about them, in the book of Revelation, was fulfilled in certain members of their church. Foxe, via Eusebius, gives the tenor of this epistle, of which here is a part: “Their patience was so admirable (saith the epistle) that the bystanders were amazed; while they beheld them torn with whips till their veins and arteries appeared, yea and even their bowels and the inward structure of their frame were laid open to view; then, laid on prickly sea-shells, and on little sharp spikes or nails…in short, made to go through every kind of punishment and torture that could be devised; and, lastly, thrown to the wild beasts to be devoured” (John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Volume I, p. 671.) Partial pastism of eschatology is therefore unavoidable. Furthermore, the ‘last days’ were begun even before the book of Revelation was written. They were in effect when Jesus Christ ministered on earth. The writer to the Hebrews says that God ‘hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son’ (1.2.) Far from these last days being in the past, though, we are still living in them. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6.54.) This ‘last day’ is at the end of the ‘last days.’ It is the last day of the last days. And this resurrection at the last day is yet future. Here is how we know that. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking Jesus’ blood—this speaks of faith which obtains eternal life by believing, which could happen even today. What comes after? “I will raise him up at the last day.” Therefore the resurrection happens after a person believes on Jesus. This resurrection cannot be regenerative because regeneration happens before, or at least when, faith is obtained—when whoso eateth Jesus’ flesh, and drinketh Jesus’ blood. Therefore what kind of resurrection is it? We know that it is a personal one because of the word ‘him’—which refers to any person who consumes, by faith, the life, death, and doctrine of Christ. I have consumed this holy body and blood; but this I did post-A. D. 70. Therefore my resurrection did not happen back then. I know that it didn’t (not even in an allegorical sense) because the text says that it happens after I eat Jesus’ flesh and drink Jesus’ blood. It must be that I am still waiting for it. Suppose that a sinner does not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, which he consumes in a mystical sense by believing, until the year 2020, or 1590, or even 75 A. D. By appropriating the body and blood of the Lord, he is the ‘whoso’ in the verse, which ‘whoso’ must yet be raised up; therefore, his resurrection is not past, but to come. Besides, if we (today, not just Christians of the first century) are supposed to ‘eat this bread and drink this cup,’ by which we shew the Lord’s death ‘till he come’ (1 Corinthians 11.26), then it must be that the Lord is coming back, even after A. D. 70 and even after 2020 to raise us up ‘at the last day.’
Full preterism, therefore, is unorthodox and heretical, denying as it does, a future resurrection for persons who consume the body and blood of the Lord. The following three points will, I believe, distinctly show the unorthodoxy of this movement. In consideration of full preterism under a New Testament light, three blemishes may be observed: an eerie similarity, an egregious dissimilarity, and an eradicated expectancy.
