A Challenge to Kenneth Gentry and Steve Gregg’s Partial Preterism.
Dr Stephen Whitsett
Adapted from the book, “Historical Premillennialism.”
ABTRACT:
Partial Preterism begins with the presupposition that Revelation narrative is mostly about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (Rev 6-18). While all PP are not in complete agreement, the fundamental assertion are based on the early date of Revelation composition and that the Revelation is John’s Olivet discourse. This paper brings three challenges fundamental to the claims of PP (1) The historical testimony of the early church, namely Irenaeus and his views on the beast. (2) The Revelation account of the attack against Jerusalem. (3) The demise of the beast is instigated by the return of the Christ.
Partial Preterism
Partial Preterism, as proposed by Kenneth Gentry, Steve Gregg, R.C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, and Joel McDermott, is a newer model of eschatology based on the influence of historical Preterists such as Foy Wallace and James Stewart Russell. While they affirm time statements much in the manner of the FP, they hold to the idea that most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70, and that all the church now awaits is the ending of the Millennium (the Amillennial or Postmillennial construct), in which Christ returns and ushers in the great white throne judgment, to be followed by the new heaven and earth. Essential to their arguments is an early date for the composition of Revelation.[1]
The second form of PP places the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in the past and, with the composition date for Revelation in AD 96–98 to which it holds, reserves the rest of End Times events for future fulfillment. Their logic suggests that, with a late-date composition, it nullifies any idea for its fulfilment in AD 70.
Scholarship is genuinely divided regarding the Olivet Discourse. Dispensationalists confer a future fulfillment based on the Second Coming passage found within the discourse, i.e., Matthew 24:30. Partial Preterists regard the Olivet Discourse as mostly being fulfilled in the past; therefore, modern scholarship is divided either in defense of the Dispensational system or an attempt to blend a PP viewpoint with a futurist perspective.
When it comes to the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, in all of these views, the scholars will tell you it is based on the exegesis that they come to their conclusions and yet they still come to dissimilar conclusions that are in many ways polar opposites. How do they all use exegesis and yet one camp says it’s all past and the other all future?
Gentry, like many other preterists, have insisted that the Revelation is John’s “exposition of the Olivet discourse.”[2] In an exploratory examination of the earliest partial-preterist material the dominate feature missing from them is the application of textual evidence to prove that the two differing views presented in Revelation and the Olivet are of the same events. Meaning in the context of the Olivet, the θλῖψις μεγάλη, great tribulation, described entails events that take place upon Israel, and Jerusalem specifically. No other regions or cities are said to undergo the same types of affliction. The tribulation of Revelation is upon the church of the whole earth. The seven letters to the seven churches begin by warning them of tribulation that is come upon them and the whole earth.
In 2021, Booth presented his doctoral dissertation, “First Jerusalem Then the Parousia A Case for a Simple Preterist-Futurist Interpretation of Matthew 24-25.” The goal of his work is to “explore further evidence in support of the simple Preterist-Futurist interpretation of Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse.”[3] This approach demonstrates the growing acceptance of Preterist ideals being incorporated into classic interpretation of New Testament prophecy, in which adherents attempt to explain what was fulfilled in the past but still claim the Second Coming will come in the future. Booth’s paper postulates that errors in interpreting the timing of the Olivet’s fulfillment arose due to faulty scholarship on the part of early academics, yet it fails to acknowledge ANF testimony stating that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the events of AD 70. He makes note of these errors in his opinion that the scribes failed to recognize in some cases the shift in topic of Matthew 24:36 to be that of a Second Coming.[4]
R.C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus (1998) supports the PP viewpoint of the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in AD 70 alongside the events of Revelation concerning the tribulation while assigning a future Second Coming.[5] Richard Mayhue directly challenges Sproul’s arguments in his essay, “Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist?” in which he challenges what Sproul defends as four “time” references that demand fulfilment in the first century. Mayhue offers a counterargument for the interpretation of these time references yet bases his argument on the assumption that the phrase “Son of Man coming on clouds” refers to a Second Coming, therefore demanding future fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse.
In Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright writesthat the exegetical evidence does not support Second Appearing language in the text of Matthew 24 (Luke 21, Mark 13). He makes the astounding claim, “The first thing to get clear is that, despite widespread opinion to the contrary, during His earthly ministry Jesus said nothing about His return.[6]
In 1985, David Chilton might not have considered himself a “Partial Preterist,” but he would have found agreements with Gentry, McDermott, Gregg, and Hanagraff. Chilton is accepted as being a “father” to PP, as many point to the Olivet’s fulfillment in AD 70 as a crucial foundation for the view.
Walvoord’s views concerning the Olivet Discourse remain similar as well. The more well-known works of Kenneth Gentry, Postmillennialism Made Easy and The Beast of Revelation, by Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: The Folly of Trying to Predict When Christ Will Return[7] wrote to support a Postmillennial view that also includes a PP perspective. He holds to the idea that Revelation was written before AD 70 and, therefore, that chapters 6–18 were fulfilled in AD 70 in response to Rev 1:1, “what things must come to pass soon” and from the Olivet Discourse that it was to happen in that generation.
Dating Revelation
Since the dating of Revelation is paramount to establishing claims of fulfillment, it is an issue that has been debated for hundreds of years. A late date of AD 96-98 composition invalidates any claim of fulfillment prior to its authorship.
Kenneth Gentry, who represents the Partial Preterist, Postmillennial position, wrote Before Jerusalem Fell. In his doctoral dissertation that was converted to book form, he seeks to present a compelling case for the early dating (AD 64-67, or Neronic) of the book of Revelation. He uses what he considers internal and external evidence to support his case. With regard to internal evidence, the passages Gentry uses are highly contested in the nature of their interpretation. His arguments focus on the historical evidence of the ANF and their statements concerning the timing of John’s banishment. In his book, he cites the statements that have been traditionally applied as late-date evidence and presents an argument to demonstrate why these statements are ambiguous. Yet Gentry never provides a single statement from ANF that points to a clear-cut early date of composition. Based on further study of Irenaeus, he imputes a distant future fulfillment of Revelation.
In 2005, Hitchcock responded to Gentry’s work in “A Defense of The Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation,” arguing for the late date through the omissions in Gentry’s work. Hitchcock first examines the earliest evidence that comes from statements made by Hegesippus and Irenaeus in support of the late date and in refutation of Gentry’s arguments. He expounds on Gentry’s research, providing further historical evidence concerning what the early church believed concerning the date of Revelation’s composition. In the second section, Hitchcock directly counters Gentry’s arguments concerning the internal evidence. In the last section, he presents the five accepted late-date arguments for the evidence of the Domitianic date. Hitchcock is careful in presenting his line of reasoning; it invalidates the early date in light of the timing of John’s banishment, release, and the writing and distribution of Revelation to the seven churches.
Historical Evidence
The ANF present two reasonable observations; The first is that historical facts and things they were eyewitnesses too; does not require they are “inspired” to relay those historical facts. It takes no inspiration to note that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70 as it was common knowledge, just as it was common knowledge who was Caesar and when he died. The same is true for the Apostles. When any 3 ECF declared John lived to about 98-100 AD, we must follow what Jesus said, “so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Mathew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1).We have no evidence from their writings that demonstrate apostasy[8]nor that they are wrong about historical facts when every fact can be collaborated by the testimony of other men who said the exact same thing.[9] Any one person can make a mistake and so that does not demand they are wrong in everything else or that the mistake was believed.
Secondly, the ANF demonstrated in their writing what they believed doctrinally. We have their writing, so we know where they disagreed, and no one is saying that we should believe every word of what they teach. Yes, there were many differences doctrinally BUT, on the essentials, they agreed, there was no differences in what they believed is the Gospel. By mid-300’s they solidified those core doctrines such as the Trinity, Incarnation, and the 66 books of the New Testament, which demonstrates God was providentially involved. They codified these beliefs in a creed to abbreviate what they understood it meant to be a Christian, to give an answer for the hope that lives within them. To separate Christianity from the heresies of the day; Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Marcion, Docetism, and Nestorianism.
Three essential timing issues are resolved based on the historical narrative at the onset of any discussion concerning eschatology but not without some controversy. The first issue resolved is that the events of AD 70 are a fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse which is based on the testimony of the ANF and other historians concerning the Jewish Wars. Secondly the dating of Revelation composition is justifiably the late date, and thirdly, the context of Revelation demonstrates the lack of fulfillment in any previous time period especially in AD 70.
What the ANF believed and taught concerning eschatological issues is clearly exhibited in what they wrote forming the fundamental beliefs propagated among the early churches. While many present-day scholars question the dating of Revelation composition[10] it was not seriously questioned at all by the ANF.
As to when Revelation was written, the current debate revolves around an early date for Neronic persecution between 64-68 AD or a later Domitian dating of 96-98 AD. The preponderance of the evidence rests upon a late date and the arguments presented against a Domitian dating are produced in the negative, with the notable absence of any such similar positive references for a Neronic date that can be found among the ANF.
From Revelation 1:9 it is acknowledged that John’s confession as to the circumstances surrounding his banishment to the Island of Patmos plays a significant role in the dating process. John reveals that he ἐγενόμην ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ, He was on the island of Patmos, when he received the vision so investigating as to when the ANF state that John was on the Island can be known and verified by two or three witnesses. The written evidence implies that John saw the vision while on the island, after leaving, or returning home, he composed the letter..[11] As to when in time this took place, the evidence is gleaned from those who wrote concerning John’s life in church history which most testify to that time being during the reign of Domitian.
Hitchcock takes note that the precarious position that the preterist posture has brought them to entirely hinges on the early date.[12] It does not seem likely that any eschatological paradigm should rise, or fall based on the date of Revelation composition. The natural implication of course is that if Revelation was written after AD 70 then the events of Jerusalem destruction have nothing to do with the events foretold in the Revelation account.
In the strongest case presented by both sides of the debate for the dating of Revelation, is the statement made by Irenaeus, concerning what was seen. It is rejected by Gentry as being unreliable based on the interpretation of the Greek word ἑωράθη.[13]
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 ἑωράθηwas seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.[14]
Gentry addresses the quote from Irenaeus and concludes no definite answer can be determined as the word ἑωράθη can be translated in several ways based on the grammar. The question is raised, “what was seen” was it John or was it the Revelation? This infers ἑωράθη can be translated as “he” or “it.” Gentry points to “announced by him” as the antecedent for what is seen, but a stronger case can be made that what was “beheld” was the apocalyptic vision.[15] It has been established previously by Irenaeus that John was seen during the days of Trajan.
In examining what Irenaeus wrote, from the same book and section that centered on the identity of the “antichrist,” Irenaeus made it clear that he understood John lived until the time of Trajan.[16] Irenaeus stated twice previously in the book, “For he remained among them until the time of Trajan”[17] which establishes that John was seen during the reign of Trajan, as Gentry admits.[18] This would suggest there is no need to question if what was seen was John or the Revelation of John in the preceding contested quote. By naming Domitian as the time frame in which something was seen would strongly suggest it was the vision and not John since Irenaeus had already established John was seen up to the time of Trajan. If John lived to the time of Trajan who proceeded Nerva, and Domitian, what was being seen nearly in their day would have been the apocalypse and not John himself according to the context of the discussion, which was about the visions of John and not John himself.
Gentry seeks to use a negative approach to undermine Irenaeus’ credibility referring to other statements made by him that prove his historical testimony as unreliable. In one such negative argument Gentry claims that Irenaeus believed that Jesus attained the age of fifty during His earthly ministry and used this as a means to discredit Irenaeus.[19] Yet in the same passage and discussion Irenaeus strongly supports that Jesus was thirty years old when He began his ministry and that He only saw or experienced three times the day of Passover during His ministry and before His crucifixion[20] suggesting that Irenaeus spoke of His maturity and respect level from among the people as being equal to a leader of the age of fifty.
In Gentry’s one argument he puts forth the idea that the Beast is Nero as a statement of fact.[21] What Gentry seems to overlook is that in this same chapter of Against Heresies, Irenaeus is presenting his argument and states that,
It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved.[22]
so that it is implied that Irenaeus believed these Revelation events were all future and not something fulfilled in AD 70. Irenaeus clearly expressed his opinion on the matter of who the Beast was,
But now as he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition, Revelation 17:8 as one who has no existence; so, neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed.[23]
From the same source Irenaeus also stated,
He will reign for three years and six months and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire.[24]
this places the Revelation account into a future time of fulfillment. At this point in time of Irenaeus’s writing the temple had been destroyed and the sacrifices had ceased along with the nation of Israel. Clearly Irenaeus did not identify Nero or any such person as the Beast in the events leading up to AD 70 or after. Irenaeus does make the implication that the temple would exist in the future for these predictions of His Coming to be accomplished.
Gentry’s position is that nearly all of Revelation was fulfilled and Nero is identified as the Beast, which by implication makes for the Second Coming to be in the past. Irenaeus is clear that at Christ’s coming Jesus kills the Beast, placing the tribulation and the Beast far into the future in clear cut contradiction to Gentry’s assertions (2 Thess 2:8.) There is no answer to who the false prophet was or what signs and wonders did Nero perform to trick people or from the false prophet as well.
Gentry concludes the section with:
In light of all this “We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero.[25]
The weakness of this stated position is easily provable as being untenable based on historical records of events and actions of John either by direct reference or tradition, secondly by scriptures themselves. There is no early external evidence that states anything specific of John writing the vision during the reign of Nero. All evidence that could point to Nero comes from the third or six century writers,[26] while historical evidence towards the life of John[27] and the events of AD 64–70 bear no possibility as proof for John’s exile and return during the reign of Nero.
In one such argument made by Gentry, he quoted from Tertullian
But If thou art near to Italy thou hast Rome where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church is that on which the apostles poured out all their doctrine with their blood: where Peter had a like passion with the Lord where Paul hath for his crown the same death with John where the apostle John was plunged into boiling oil and suffered nothing and was afterwards banished to an island.[28]
Gentry suggests the quote means that John was banished by Nero at the same time as Peter and Paul’s martyrdom, as suggested by Jerome comment on Tertullian. Yet the context of the above quote focuses on Rome as the place where John was boiled in oil. It says nothing about the time. It would seem the author is so focused on proving his case that references from the ANF are forced by a way of thinking to fit the proposed narrative which ignores basic grammar, where the apostle John was plunged into boiling oil not when.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Paul notes that the wicked one is killed by the coming of Christ, and in Revelation 19, the Beast is thrown ζῶντες into the Lake of Fire. Nero committed suicide in AD 68 removing the possibility that Nero is the Beast. Josephus reported no Roman leader being killed in AD 70, who would fit the description of the Beast let alone the false prophet.[29]
The Beast’s power and authority only lasts forty-two months (Rev 13:5) which would suggest he holds power with the other nations only during the Jewish Wars. Nero ruled from ’54 to ’68, fourteen years. Also, John would not have been released until after Nero’s death as Eusebius notes is a customary practice among the Roman senate.[30] When John wrote down the vision he stated, the things he was writing about must soon take place not “were” taking place. If John wrote Revelation in or close to AD 68 about what must soon take place, how can it soon be taking place when the events of Revelation are already half over according to the forty-two-month restriction of his reign in Rev 13:5? Why would the seven churches have to be warned of the judgment to come in Jerusalem (Israel)? Why would these seven letters be sent to churches in Asia and not to Jerusalem itself and to the believers to warn them to flee? Hitchcock states in agreement with the same observation.[31] There would have been no time to flee based on a warning that came too late. Eusebius records that the saints were warned by a prophet and fled to Pella.[32]
According to Gentry’s claims the forty- two months cannot begin any later than AD 66, and Nero did not rule for forty months nor the forty-two months prior to AD 70. Eusebias recorded that,
Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, (after Nero’s death in AD 68) Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.[33]
Gentry must change the date to AD 71 for the complete fall of Jerusalem to account for the full forty-two months by starting in ’68 or abandon the position all together. Gentry cannot have John being released by AD 68 based on the evidence provided by Eusebius and other ANF pertaining to John’s banishment not ending until after Caesar’s death.
Hanegraaff states in his book,
… The literal principle of Exegetical Eschatology. Simply put, this means that we are to interpret the Word of God just as we interpret other forms of communication—in the most obvious and natural sense. And when Scripture uses a metaphor or a figure of speech, we should interpret it accordingly.[34]
This plainly specified that the goal of exegesis is to separate the imagery from the literal nature of the events being described in the language used which means the language must be identified as symbolical or some type of figure of speech and not merely asserted because the literal understanding contradicts the presuppositions of a view. The literal understanding veiled behind the imagery or symbolism should be sought as the understanding of the text’s purpose.[35]
Gentry goes on to argue from Revelation 17 that all we must do is find out who the Beast was is that “one is ” is to identify who the current Roman leader is in order to follow the timing. Gentry then makes a list of Caesars that ruled during the time when John was writing to make Nero the sixth. Interesting enough if we follow the six kings starting after Nero who died in ’68 AD, we have the start of the Flavian dynasty with Galbo[36] followed by Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian is named as the sixth after the fall of Jerusalem. Nerva (7) only reigned two years and makes his rule a “little while.”
The year AD 69 of four Caesars also disproves the preterist theory of “who reigns a short time” since the historical nature of the events disprove a literal singular king who reigns a brief time without justifying why one or the other should be counted in the latter list. In the other, Trajan becomes the (eighth) one who is to come, the one in which John died under.
Contradiction
In one observation, the Greek word ζῶντες demands the Beast and False Prophet were living, alive when they were thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:20.) In Wallace’s Greek Grammar he points out the proper interpretation for the word ζῶντες is while still alive.[37] The Beast while still alive demands that it could not be Nero who died in AD 68 by his own hand. The grammatical structure also demands that this was not a metaphorical or spiritual “being” who is thrown into the LOF as a war is taking place and the two enemies are captured alive and being alive, they are thrown into the lake of fire. Secondly John specifically states the Beast is “the number of a man” who’s name numerical numbering equals to 666 (Rev 13:18) making the Beast a singular person.
In Revelation 20 Jerusalem is called the “camp of the saints” and the city he loves defying the idea that she is a harlot to be cast out and to be found no more forever (Rev 18.) in AD 70. In Rev 20:9 the word παρεμβολὴ[38] is the camp, barracks, or a fort in which an army resides is the characterization made by John concerning Jerusalem after the Second Coming. The saints are identified in Rev 19:8, 14 as the ones wearing the “fine linen, bright and pure” who come following after on white horses as the armies of heaven (Rev 19:14.) In this return the saints who come with Him take up residence in which Jerusalem becomes the barracks for this army. Which does two things for the interpretation; it demonstrates a continued presence of Jesus in Jerusalem after the resurrection and His coming (Zech 14:16.) Secondly, it refutes the claims of scholars who suggest chapter 20 is a recapitulation of history from Christ ascension to his Second Appearing. This would suggest emphatically that Jerusalem has not been the camp of the saints for the last two thousand years. Before AD 66 the saints were warned to flee Jerusalem and they escaped to Pella.[39] It would not have been a “camp of the saints” just prior to the events of AD 66.
In the narrative of Revelation 20 these armies of Satan surround the beloved city, it is not the Beast and False Prophet with their armies instead they are said to be in the lake of fire (Rev 19:20 20:10) which demonstrates a different time. The Beast and his army gather first in the valley of Megiddo[40] (Rev 16:16) for battle and is not a siege against Jerusalem. No siege takes place in Revelation 19 or in 20:9 as Christ brings the armies of the ungodly to a quick end who gather against the city. It seems inconceivable that when the armies of Gog and Magog gather against Jerusalem, that God could not make an end of it very quickly or that somehow it was a struggle to bring judgment against the world of the ungodly.
In Revelation 19 the saints are the bride, dressed in white linen who returns with Christ as His army (1 Thess 3:13). Christ returns to the mount of Olives in which His feet stand again (Zech 14:4; Acts 1:11.) In Zech 12:8 Jerusalem is protected, and salvation is given to Judah and the city in that day the armies gather against her and the rider on the white horse.
A common argument put forth by Gentry, Mathison, and Boettner, is that the apocalyptic nature of the book of Revelation disqualifies the necessity for a literal interpretation. Gentry sites several other scholars who he finds fault with such as Ladd, Blevins, and Warfield, concerning a Millennium theology that is based on one passage alone in Revelation then trying to harmonize all other NT passages into a strict literal interpretation. Gentry asks the question, “If the thousand years serve as a literal time frame, why is it only mentioned in one highly symbolic book?” Realistically, if a single verse introduces a truth, even though it is mentioned once in all of scriptures, it does not negate the truth of that single passage. It is incumbent on the interpreter to understand that one passage through the harmonization of other passages of similar thought.
Beale stated concerning the Book of Revelation,
There is always a literal meaning underlying the symbolic meaning, though this literal meaning is often about spiritual realities and sometimes about physical realities, both of which have to do with some kind of historical reality.[41]
to assume we cannot come to some consensus on Rev 20 contributions to eschatology brings into question the Holy Spirit’s ability to illuminate truth.
Apologetic
Historical Premillennialism is not a form of Partial Preterism as no church father looked at eschatology as some past and some future from their perspective. All eschatology was future since it concerns the end of days… or the last days. AD 70 was not part of the last days and so are not the end of days or part of any other such paradigm. Those were the last days concerning the completion of the Old Covenant and the sacrificial system.
Two points of order need to be made from the outset of a discussion on Partial Preterism. The first, being that they repeat constantly in their books, “Reading the Scriptures from a preterist perspective is a great asset in centering eschatology on the kingdom of God.”[42] Meaning that their goal is to get you to see scriptures from their point of view. For example, the two parables in Matt 25 are commonly seen as references to the Second Coming as the one references a master who goes away. What if the reference to the “going away” was the intertestamental period in which God went away, entrusted the kingdom to his people the jews, and then He returned? As in Christ first coming.
In their original setting, the point of these stories is that Israel’s God, yhwh, is indeed coming at last to Jerusalem, to the Temple—in and as the human person Jesus of Nazareth. The stories are, in that sense, not about the second coming of Jesus but about the first one.[43]
This completely changes the perspective. The PP is all about “audience relevance, so how would that first century Jew understand these parables?
They belong in the Jewish world of the first century, where everyone would hear the story to be about God himself, having left Israel and the Temple at the time of the exile, coming back again at last, as the postexilic prophets had said he would, back to Israel, back to Zion, back to the Temple.[44]
By the introduction of a new thought a whole paradigm can shift in your thinking. The goal of the PP is for you to read their books and arguments and capture this different perspective. A perspective never once solidified in any real sense of the ANF but something that came much later, starting in the 18th century. Nowhere does the ANF claim that Revelation was fulfilled in the events of AD 70.
PP is a new paradigm in one sense and a very slow growing one because for centuries the book of Revelation was seen written after AD 70 and so very little thought was made to put it into a first century perspective. The PP view when it was introduced was mostly rejected by mainstream scholarship in the 18th and 19th century. The books and such that were written in the PP perspective came and went almost unnoticed based on current scholarship of that day. Imagine trying to present Mormon theology to Luther and how far that would go over.
Eberle and Trench stated,
The PP are free to understand each passage in its own context and historical setting partial preterists look for indications within the text whether prophetic passage is about to be filled very soon or within that generation or a long time off the Partial Preterist consider the historical record to see if there are any clear historical events that could correspond to the prophetic message and this way partial preterists let both the scriptures and history speak for themselves this pattern allows for an understanding of scriptures without having to force passages and to a predetermined expectations.[45]
In the preceding arguments it was demonstrated that the ANF insisted that the contents of Revelation were for future fulfillment not for any type of past fulfillment or even present fulfillment. When PP say they seek “historical events that correspond to the fulfillment of prophecy” means they seek to match things that happened within the Jewish wars as the proof of a specific prophecy was fulfilled. For example, they see the siege stones that were launched by the Romans were the “giant hail stones” that fell on Jerusalem in Rev 16:21. This approach is completely backwards and selective. Josephus documented the events of the war. The PP simply tries to match the events with Revelation to claim fulfillment while the ANF having lived through those events testify that Revelation is for a future fulfillment. There is no written testimony by the church that meets the claims of fulfillment that does not involve a “predetermined expectation” since the PP has predetermined that Revelation was written before AD 70 without any concrete historical evidence and that the context of Revelation is about the Destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, they are looking to find proof of fulfillment, this is a form of predeterminism.
The most confusing and contradictory point of order is the conundrum created by their attempts to identify the beast. The PP is left with three possibilities: Nero, The leader of the Zealot factions, John Levi or to spiritualize this person to be the carnal nature of humanity as a whole,[46] The central character of Revelation is the beast whose number is 666 and a false prophet who forces people to worship this person. The Beast is the leader of his Kingdom as all men worship the beast.
Two people.
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet… These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire. Rev 19:20.
The beast cannot be spiritualized to be humanity. The Zealot leaders operated within Jerusalem during the siege according to Josephus. The funniest of all explanation is that it was Nero. Nero died in ’68 and was not present during the siege of Jerusalem so I ask how could these “two” be captured and thrown alive into the LOF. How is it that if they were revealed in that day why is it no one knows who he was? How can scriptures get it so wrong. How do you reconcile Rev 19 with the events of AD 70?
AD 70. A Roman army invades Jerusalem and destroys the city.
In Rev 19, Armies gather against the rider on the white horse and is defeated.
AD 70 the Romans armies got the victory.
Rev 19 Christ gets the victory.
Which version is more victorious?
The PP turns the Second Coming of Jesus into a spiritual event where Christ get the spiritual victory and not the literal physical victory. Eberle and Trench stated,
This is the common pattern we’ve seen scriptures when someone sees in the spiritual room first a vision with images symbols and metaphors reveals what is in the spiritual realm. Second it becomes evident that what was seen in the spiritual room correlates with some event in the natural realm.[47]
How does the Roman army gaining victory over Jerusalem corelate into the Spiritual realm of Christ getting the victory over the Roman army “in that day?”
In 2 Thess 2:9 “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing.” Paul explains that the beast is being controlled by satan himself. The Parousia, the coming and presence of this lawless one is by the activity of Satan. 2 Thess 2:1 places the coming of the lawless one at the same time as the Second Coming of Christ. Now the PP will straight up tell you the beast is a first century character based on the “audience relevance” as this was a warning to the Thessalonians only.
The entire narrative of PP is undermined by 2 Thessalonians 2:8, (Rev 19) and Zech 12, 14. The later deals with the beast or antichrist in the day of His appearing and the other the day of the Second Appearing. 2 Thess 2:8 states that the lawless one will be ἀποκαλύπτω,[48] revealed or exposed, at Christ’s ἐπιφανείᾳ of His παρουσίας then ἀναιρέω, which means he will make and end of him. 2 Thess 2:9, confirms this παρουσίας of the lawless one is a working of satan, using signs and wonders in order to deceive the people. The beast of Rev 13, comes and “by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth.” At Christ coming the beast is revealed to be a deceiver and not the true God. The lawless one is identified as the beast of Rev 19 and when Christ appears the Beast and False Prophet are both cast alive into the LOF (Rev 19:20.) It is simply impossible to insert a two-thousand-year gap between the death of the Beast and the return of Christ when the return of Christ is the cause for the death of the Beast and the end of his 42-month rule.
The second point mentioned previously from Zech 12, 14 demonstrates on the day of His coming the battle takes place in which the forces of Jerusalem are triumphant. Those nations who survived the battle are to come year after year to Jerusalem to worship the king. The language of 12:5, “Then the clans of Judah shall say to themselves, “The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God.” Of Zech 12:7, “And the LORD will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah.” Of Zech 12: 8 “On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” are all indication of victory for Israel on the day He comes against those armies of the nations. In the context of Revelation those armies of every nation are described in Rev 19:18 as the armies of the Beast. For all practical purposes, the ending of the Beast and his armies is the Second Coming of Christ. The Beast therefore cannot be a historical figure or of the Roman armies as the two-go hand in hand. Christ is victorious on that day He comes. AD 70 is a historical narrative of armies victorious against Jerusalem in a day of judgment not the day of His Second Coming. These are two different events, and they cannot be harmonized as one.
To reiterate one last time the most compelling contradiction of the Partial preterist view is in dividing the beast rule to AD 70 and the Second Coming of Christ years in the future. The Beast is revealed and destroyed by the Return of Christ. The PP tries to avoid the conundrum by arguing the “lawless one” of 2 Thess 2 is not the Beast of Rev. Yet the correlation of the timing and nature of the Beast indicates otherwise. The PP denies this but offers no alternative understanding.
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.
Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
The lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
The dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth.
The problem this paper has sought to address is the inherent challenges concerning three fundamental issues with the process of interpretation of NT eschatology. The first being the acceptance of spiritual interpretation over symbolism based on an assumption or presuppositions and not based in the wording used in the verse being discussed. It has been demonstrated that the over spiritualization of difficult passages has led to multiple interpretations where many disagree with one another. In the midst of apocalyptic language of the OT or in Revelation, symbolic language always represents something that is literal.
Gentry makes note that Ryrie styles three arguments in support of the dispensationalist interpretations; 1. In the first place seeking the plain literal sense of the words used, 2. Prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled literally in the NT, and 3. The idea of objectivity is lost when applying a symbolical meaning that is not expressly explained within the text.[49] While Gentry argues against the literal approach, he seems to miss the idea that the literal approach is used until it becomes evident that the literal language cannot be regarded as having a literal intent.
The over spiritualization of any Revelation passage leads to inconsistency, a lack of coherence, and contradictions in logic. A prime example is that it makes it illogical to acknowledge that Jerusalem is defeated in AD 70 according to the Olivet Discourse and then claim that Rev 19 is also fulfilled (according to partial preterism) when in the details of Rev 19 Christ comes with his army of saints to defeat the armies arrayed against Jerusalem and cast the Beast and False Prophet alive into the LOF. Such arguments made by either PP or FP render the preterist paradigm completely incoherent and inconsistent.
New Testament eschatological passages can be harmonized with the Revelation narrative, specifically regarding the chronological sequence of Rev 20. Those who were beheaded for their faithfulness to the word of God are found to come to life in the first resurrection of the dead at the beginning of the Millennium and the rest of the dead are raised at the end of the Millennium. The resurrected dead are then set to rule and reign with Him over the nations in their vindication. The saints coming with Christ as His army makes more sense in describing Jerusalem as the camp of the saints after His coming. The chronology makes more sense with a coming of Christ that ushers in a time of peace than a time of peace being ushered in by the greatness of the church’s conversion of the nations.
It has been a long-held debate concerning the timing of the fulfillment for the Olivet Discourse. The discussion developed around trying to understand in which part Jesus is talking about events that were to happen soon and others to happen sometime in the future. Many scholars have claimed to unlock the key for understanding the dual nature of the prophecy, but it was surprising to discover the ANF believed the words of Jesus were fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the fulfilment of the “abomination of desolation” that took place. Accepting that the Olivet was fulfilled in AD 70 removes many of the contradictory issues that ensue such as claiming a third temple must be built and the sacrifices reinstituted so that it has to be torn down again when no evidence is present in the Revelation narrative. As stated, the evidence reflected in Zech 12, 14 completely negates such a scenario where Jerusalem is defeated as being possible in the days of his coming. Zech 14:16 further demonstrates the continued existence of nations following his coming completely harmonizing with the Rev account of the nature of the millennium..
While Rev 16, 19 narrative demonstrates He gathers “the kings of the entire world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty, in the hills of Megiddo. It is then He comes like a thief. The language is the same as Zech 12:3, when the nations gathered against Jerusalem, that He will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem (Zech 12:9) “the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with Him. Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths.”
Now if the early church had understood the second coming was still future to them, they first had the knowledge that it had not happened in AD 70. If the Olivet Discourse talks about the Second Coming then how did the ANF avoid this conundrum? It was primarily acknowledged that no Christian in the first century understood that the Second Appearing took place. No one saw Christ return to the Mount of Olives. There were no witnesses to a resurrection of the dead that Paul taught would happen at His coming. No one person was changed and made immortal or imperishable. Not even John declared that he saw Him. The Olivet Discourse could not have been a promise of his Second Coming in that generation.
The Olivet narrative comes alive in the events of AD 70 and the symbolism is explained through the things that took place. “The sun was darkened, and the moon did not give its light, and the stars would fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens were shaken. Then there appeared in heaven the sign of the Son of Man. All the tribes of the earth mourned when seeing the great city destroyed and the temple left to them desolate!” If there was no appearing of Christ or the bodily resurrection of the saints in AD 70 the events of Rev wait their turn. If Jerusalem was destroyed and not one stone left upon another in that generation then the Olivet is fulfilled.
It is unfortunate that any paradigm should be disseminated on the weakest of platforms namely the early dating of Revelation. While the writings of ECF provide the most solid evidence of a post AD 70 authorship these things are dismissed based on an imposed hermeneutic of time statements which under exegetical scrutiny actually do not support a comprehensive NT paradigm of fulfillment for that first century. Timing statements are taken prima facia while nature statements are obfuscated, and specific words are redefined to fit the assumed narrative to make it fit the timing markers by partial and full preterists.
Suffice it to say the OT prophecies of Zech 12 and 14 seems to be the most supportive for a chronology of events starting with a literal understanding of Christ return to the mount of Olives and the battle that takes place in which Judah and Israel have the victory over the nations that have gathered against her. Partial and full preterism are fraught with so many contradiction there is simply no way to bring them into semblance of unified order even among their staunches defenders.
The rise and fall of the Beast and False Prophet are related to the second appearance in which both receive their judgments by being cast while alive into the LOF. This battle with the saints takes place in hills of Megiddo, far away from Jerusalem in which they gathered to attack the rider on the white horse and those who followed after. The armies that follow after are the saints who were raised immortal and imperishable. They are clothed with fine white linen, the prayers of the saints.
[1] Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, eds., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 9.
[2] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, EBL 130.
[3] Robbie Booth, “First Jerusalem, then the Parousia: A Case for a Simple Preterist-Futurist Interpretation of Matthew 24–25,” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021). XV. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/first-jerusalem-then-parousia-case-simple/docview/2531226206/.
[4] Booth, “First Jerusalem, then the Parousia,” 108.
[5] R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 30.
[6] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (NY: Harper & Collins, 2008), 125.
[7] Chilton in the last years of his life embraced Full Preterism. Since the writing of this book DeMar has embraced FP paradigm as in no longer a PP.
[8] The ECF Apostasy? Full Preterist, including Don Preston realizing the complete opposition the ECF present, they create the argument that the ECF having not recognized Jesus had returned is proof that they had fallen into apostasy, demonstrating a fundamental inconsistency in their ability to think through their own arguments. These same men they reject, were the ones who denied Jesus returned in A.D. 70 but were also the ones who harmonized the Trinity doctrine and the Incarnation doctrine. While many accept the Trinity doctrine, or technically that Jesus was God they are unable to theologically explain from scriptures with real clearness of how this theology is arrived at. Secondly the doctrine of Incarnation they accept as Jesus becoming a man, but they fail to accept Jesus became fully man and remains fully man with both natures. Preston argues that Jesus retained the knowledge of what it meant to be a man but is no longer a man in the sense of how man was created, which he argues that is how he can still be called “man” after his ascension. Which brings us to the third failure in their understanding theology. Man was created to be a “body – Spirit – and soul creation and that earth was created for the place for man and God to dwell face to face in relationship
[9] FP argue that one person made the mistake of claiming John lived to 98-100 AD, and so everyone repeated the same with no substantiation for the claim.
[10] See R. C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Max King, John Bray, Ed Stevens, and Walt Hibbard.
[11] This position is justified in Rev 1:9, where the verb γίνομαι indicates in a past tense that John was on the island but is no more at the time of his writing the book.
[12] Mark L. Hitchcock, “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation.” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/defense-domitianic-date-bookrevelation/docview/304957595/
[13] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 94.
[14] καὶ ὑποκαταβὰς περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φάσκει·* “ἡμεῖς οὖν οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς. εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν ‹ἐν› τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, διʼ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑορακότος· οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιαμοῦ ἀρχῆς. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3.
[15] Gentry deals with the historical context of the translation issues and how the ANF understood Irenaeus references as one that is repeated as fact but based in error. See Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, chapter 4.
[16] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5.
[17] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5.
[18] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4 has John living until the time of Trajan.
[19] This is covered in Part II chapter 4 of Gentry, “Before Jerusalem Fell,” EBL 2229.
[20] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.3.
[21] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 219.
[22] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.3.
[23] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.4.
[24] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.4. This also supports the historical premillennial view.
[25] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 67.
[26] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 153.
[27] Recounted in Eusebius, History of the Church, Book 3 Chapters 14-21.
[28] Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 132. Tertullian, Exclusion of Heretics, 36.
[29] Some FP recognize this problem and now suggest that the beast was actually the High Priest, or the Zealots who started the civil war in Jerusalem just prior to the siege.
[30] Eusebius, History of the Church 3. 20.10.
[31] Hitchcock, Mark; “A Critique of the Preterist View of Revelation and the Jewish War” BSac 164, (January-March 2007): 100.
[32] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5.3
[33] Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5.1
[34] Hank Hanegraaff, , The Apocalypse Code, (Nashville: TN:Nelson Pub. 2007), 2.
[35] Woods, “Case for the Futurist Interpretation,” 3.
[36] According to FP accounting it began with Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius—had fallen, Nero was presently on the throne sixth, and Galba the seventh king had not yet come; But when he did, he only remained on the throne for seven months—or as John put it— “a little while.” Hanegraaff and Gentry use both lists.
[37] Wallace, , “Greek Grammar,” 627.
[38] TGL, s.v. “παρεμβολὴ.”
[39] Eusebius, Church History, 3.5.3.
[40] “Armageddon” comes from the Hebrew, הַר har, meaning hills or mountain, hill country Megiddo is a location in Manasseh or located in the Jezreel Valley about a hundred miles southwest of Jerusalem. Not to be confused with the modern-day city of Megiddo.
[41] G. K. Beale, and David Campbell, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary,” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.) 12.
[42] Stan Newton, Glorious Kingdom, Ramona, CA, Vison Publishing, 2012. See also Duncan Shennea Prophecy without Panic, A Brief Introduction to Partial Preterism, Ottumwa, IA Vision Publishing, 2015.
[43] See N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, 126.
[44] Ibid 126.
[45] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 78.
[46] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 283. FP also holds to Nero being the beast.
[47] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 140.
[48] TGL, s.v. “ἀποκαλύπτω.”
[49] Kenneth L. Gentry, Postmillennialism Made Easy, (USA: Gentry Family Trust 2009), 79.
Leave a Reply