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.”[1] 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 great white throne 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 great white throne of Jesus but about the first one.[2]
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.[3]
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.
The following apologetic is in response to Dr Eberle and Dr Trench book on Partial Preterism, Victorious Eschatology.
The PP makes the appeal, “only if you approach this subject with the willingness to change do we have any chance of showing you end time truths from another perspective.”[4] The issue at stake is clear as can be. The futurist view sees Revelation fulfilled in the future and the PP sees it mostly in the past. Only one perspective can be truth and the other false. They are asking you to abandon your view as being dead wrong and theirs the correct one. Meaning you are wrong if you hold the Futurist position. From there the exaggerations multiply.
If you embrace the partial preterist view you will also realize that it is possible to experience and walk in God’s Kingdom today that Kingdom consists of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit as you seek first God’s Kingdom you will experience the blessings of God through which all these things food clothing and other provisions will be added to you.[5]
If this is true then the opposite is also true, : if we hold on to our Futurist positions we will NOT experience the blessings of God through which all these things food clothing and other provisions will be added to you. Based on these exaggerated claims is a good reason to reject the PP paradigm as it seems right off the bat it dichotomizes their eschatology as true Christianity.
It is unsettling to have your present paradigm challenged because you may not know with what to replace your present beliefs if they crumble. We want to reassure you that if you embrace the partial preterist view you will soon have a victorious optimistic view that will give you confidence and energy to plan for the future and look today.[6]
Personally, I thought those two things, confidence, and energy, came from Christ and not from an Eschatology.
There are very few PP books written by recognized scholars and most professors reject PP and especially FP. On what basis then is the PP perspective ignored by mainstream Universities and Seminaries? Two things stood out.
Seminaries and Universities are divided into two groups, Three if you count the “degree mills” which are very common. You simply pay a fee; write a paper and you get a “Dr” degree. The other two are divided by accredited and then non accredited. Non accredited schools simply refuse to accept Government money. It allows them to keep costs down and many operate on a self-study type of program at the Graduate level. Yet some non-accredited schools have a very rigid program that is equal in quality to any mainstream university such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Fuller, or Biola University. Accredited universities have a much stricter academic structure.
When researching PP and FP scholars it is discovered that several of their doctorate degrees are from Vison International and other non-accredited Universities where they are restricted from offering PhD’s. Several degrees have been handed out are honorary based on other mitigating factors in which the least is where a prolific author is given the honorary degree to promote the school. Such as Don Preston’s from Vison International. The school itself is now a “Partial Preterist” school and yet gave an honorary D.Min. to a FP.
A PhD requires strong immersion in at least three languages two of course are Greek and Hebrew. Vision International is not a recognized credential university with any recognized Christian affirmations. The goal of accreditation is to guarantee the student that the level of education is of a high academic standard. Which does not mean the school lacks in higher academic level but becomes a “buyer beware” as credits are not transferable from one institution to another as the higher-level institutions recognize the lower academic standards from these non-accredited universities. Most University’s web site usually has a statement of why they rejected accreditation. Some universities seek after government and Christian recognition of standards while some only seek Christian accreditation.
Some common Christian accreditation: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), Higher Learning Commission (HLC), WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), and Association for Biblical Education (ABHE) Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and Association of Biblical Higher Education (ABHE). Or Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI.)
Kenneth Gentry as a leading PP proponent is the most educated among their ranks. He has a B.A. degree in Biblical Studies from Tennessee Temple College (Chattanooga, Tenn.); a M.Div. in Pastoral Ministry from Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, Miss.); and the Th.M. and Th.D. degrees in New Testament from Whitefield Theological Seminary[7] (Lakeland, Fla.)
So why do I bring this up? Two reasons.
There are no PhD, in NT or OT scholar among the ranks of the PP authors or public teachers. Or from a higher level of Academic standard. Those with the Dr after their name are usually Doctor of Ministry or Doctor of Theology (ThD, D.Min.)
The second reason is that proper adherence to hermeneutics, and Exegesis is not stressed in a D.Min degree or even a strong background in languages or Systematic Theology. They lack the strong academic classroom experience of multiple teachers who guide their reasoning and skills in logical thought and philosophy. For example:
In the arguments made by some for a form of Universalism:
There is the claim that the lake of Fire is for the purpose of a “refiners fire.” Based on the Greek word βασανίζω, meaning to torture. From Rev 20:10 where they are to be tortured for ever and ever. The number one meaning presented in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states that “Basanos” means to test metals by the touchstone. Which is a refiner’s process of extracting the debris from the Gold. They ignore the rest of the ways it used in scriptures. Therefore, they conclude with a theology that the LOF is a place where Christians are refined by the fires of hell to removes the impurities and refine them like gold so that they can eventually get out and go to heaven by “doing their time.”
Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The only way to make it into heaven is through the acceptance and belief in Christ shed blood on the cross which pays for man’s sins because man is unable to pay the cost for his own sins. Therefore, By Christ death on the cross people enter into heaven. NO ONE COMES to the FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM, but this form of Universalism theology states you don’t need Jesus to get to heaven. You just need to pay for your sins in the LOF. Yet the wages of sin is death, and upon death there is no release from your state of “death.”. Once a person has died they face judgment, there are no “do overs” or people getting saved after death because at that point every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Jesus is Lord. There is no such thing as a dead unbeliever as after death all men believe.
What an insult to the father who gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him might have eternal life. In this form of “universalism” you can reject Jesus, pay for your sins in hell and then get out and go to heaven. If this was true why did God send his only son to die for us? If there is another way to get into heaven, he could have told us outright. This argument makes Jesus a liar in claiming He is the only way to the Father in heaven, if indeed doing penance in the LOF earns you the right to go to heaven one day.
Now people can try to argue against this reasoning and logic, but it has withstood the test of time. People will still try to argue their case but the strength of the one verse, John 14:6, the argument made by the Universalist is refuted. They will then cling to their paradigm and so remain in deception. Deception is the belief in something that is not true. Cognitive dissonance is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.
In the following apologetic I will be responding to common arguments made by PP against futurism but in reality most PP apologetics is against Dispensationalist paradigm. So, I will be responding from the Historical Premillennial view.
- Olivet was fulfilled in the events of AD 70.
- No temple is to be rebuilt/torn down
- Jerusalem dwells in Security.
- Jerusalem is not the Harlot Babylon of Rev 17, 18.
- Late date of Revelation (96-98).
- Nero is not the BEAST
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.[8]
In the last chapter 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,[9] 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 Great white throne 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.[10]
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?”
Eberle and Trench go on in their confusion.
This does not mean that we should equate the beast with Nero remember we’re talking about what John watched in the spiritual realm. We all saw how the beast influenced seven Caesars not just one and it’s better to think of the beast as an evil spiritual being that worked amidst several generations of Caesars to bring about as if the beast was particularly effective in controlling Nero and through Nero the beast desire was fully manifested.[11]
Place the discussion back in the context in which the Book of Revelation was written. The apostle John was writing to real Christians who were enduring real persecution. That persecution was being carried out under a man whose name is equivalent to 666 to the 1st century Christian the meaning would have been clear.[12]
Two thoughts come to mind. 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 Great white throne 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. Eberle and Trench stated,
However, we have to be honest and say that people can imagine anything they want but it’s clearly wrong to say that there is any biblical evidence telling us that there will be some Antichrist coming in our future.[13]
And yet again we are told the coming of the lawless one is at the time of the Great white throne according to 2 Thess 2. The Great white throne is still future even to the PP.
Eberle and Trench again stated,
That legendary figure has a built on the mistake of equating the Antichrist of 1st and 2nd John the beast of Revelation and the man of lawlessness of second Thessalonians as we have discussed there’s no biblical basis for equating these.[14]
As we just stated above, Thessalonians demonstrate the coming of the lawless happens at the time of Christ coming so of course there is a biblical basis. The lawless man, and the beast, is a “spirit of Antichrist.”
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 Great white throne. 2 Thess 2:8 states that the lawless one will be ἀποκαλύπτω,[15] 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 Great white throne 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 Great white throne. These are two different events, and they cannot be harmonized as one.
Kingdom of God
In my freshman year of College, we had visiting professor teach for three classes on the “kingdom of God.”[16] He had written books on the subject, taught classes, and the basic principle he taught was that the Kingdom was the rule and reign of Christ in men’s hearts who made up the church. It was a spiritual kingdom, operating in this present physical realm through the believer. Eberle and Trent stated,
Many Christians who believe the future view claim these benefits but then a moment later teach that the king of God will not be available until the great white throne of Jesus hence they tried to hold two contradictory views at the same time, or they facilitate between the two views. if you embrace the partial preterist view you will be convinced that the Kingdom is already here it is growing and advancing every day when Jesus Christ returns he will subdue all remaining evil and establish his perfect wealth throughout the world since God’s Kingdom is advancing progressively on earth you can confidently say that God’s Kingdom is here, and it is growing.[17]
In reality we do not hold to a contradictory view. We confess the kingdom is Spiritual now and at His coming the Kingdom becomes the physical kingdom on earth in which He reigns from Jerusalem. It is the restoration of the kingdom where the Historic Premillennialist acknowledges that one day at His coming He will establish the Earthly Kingdom in a “Millennial Kingdom” the endures for a “thousand years.” Eberle and Trent went on to say,
First you will understand that the Kingdom of God may be experienced by Christians now furthermore the Kingdom is growing on earth and will come upon earth in full power at the great white throne of Jesus.[18]
Amen on both counts but the language is deceiving. In their view Christ comes down in power and raises the dead, wipes out the armies (Rev 20:9) and then ascend into heaven. We have argued in order to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron after His coming requires an extended stay. Ruling requires a period of time.
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 Great white throne 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 Beats indicates otherwise. The PP denies this but offers no alternative understanding.
2 Thess 2 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.
Rev 13: 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.
[1] 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.
[2] See N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, 126.
[3] Ibid 126.
[4] Martin Trench and Harold Eberle, Victorious Eschatology; A partial Preterist View, third ed. (Yakima, WA, Worldcast Publishing, 2022) 81.
[5] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 96.
[6] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 96. .
[7] Is not an accredited institution.
[8] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 78.
[9] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 283. FP also holds to Nero being the beast.
[10] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 140.
[11] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 166.
[12] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 172.
[13] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 286.
[14] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 285.
[15] TGL, s.v. “ἀποκαλύπτω.”
[16] https://www.jackhayford.org/teaching/articles/the-kingdom-of-god/
[17] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 96.
[18] Eberle, and Trench, Victorious Eschatology, 107.