Preterism is aChristian eschatological view or belief that interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism)prophecies of theBible as events which have already been fulfilled in history. This school of thought interprets theBook of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the seventh century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of theBook of Revelation, as well as Christ's predictions within theOlivet Discourse, as events that happened in thefirst century AD. Preterism holds thatAncient Israel finds itscontinuation or fulfillment in theChristian church at thedestruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
_La_distruzione_del_tempio_di_Gerusalemme_-Francesco_Hayez_-_gallerie_Accademia_Venice.jpg)
The termpreterism comes from the Latinpraeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is'past' or'beyond'.[1] Adherents of preterism are known aspreterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet Discourse had come to pass by AD 70.
Historically, preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that theJesuitLuis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecyVestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi, published during theCounter-Reformation.[2]
At the time of theCounter-Reformation, the JesuitLuis de Alcasar wrote a prominent preterist exposition of prophecy.[3][page needed][4]Moses Stuart noted in 1845 that Alcasar's preterist interpretation advantaged theRoman Catholic Church during its arguments withProtestants,[5] and Kenneth Newport in an eschatological commentary in 2000 described preterism as a Catholic defense against the Protestanthistoricist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as apersecuting apostasy.[6]
Due to resistance from Protestant historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[7][page needed] Among Protestants preterism was first accepted byHugo Grotius[8][9] (1583–1645), a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[10] His first attempt to do this in his "Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist" (1640) arguing that the texts relating toAntichrist had had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. Protestants did not welcome these views[11] but Grotius remained undeterred and in his next work, "Commentaries On The New Testament" (1641–1650), he expanded his preterist views to include theOlivet Discourse and theBook of Revelation.
Preterism continued to struggle to gain credibility within other Protestant communities, especially in England.[12] The English commentatorThomas Hayne claimed in 1645 that the prophecies of theBook of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century,[13]andJoseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel's prophecies in 1650,[14]but neither of them applied a preterist approach to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the EnglishmanHenry Hammond (1605–1660). Hammond sympathized with Grotius' desire for unity among Christians, and found his preterist exposition useful to this end.[15][page needed] Hammond wrote his own preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though giving pride of place to Grotius.[16][page needed] Hammond was Grotius' only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected Grotius' interpretation of Revelation, which gained no ground for at least 100 years.[17][18][19]
By the end of the 18th century preterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. In 1730 the Protestant andArian, FrenchmanFirmin Abauzit wrote the first full preterist exposition, "Essai sur l'Apocalypse". Abauzit worked in the then independentRepublic of Geneva as a librarian.[20] This was part of a growing development of more systematic preterist expositions of Revelation.[21] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this approach after a critical examination by his English translator,Leonard Twells.[22]
The earliest American full-preterist work,The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event, was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view.[23]
The two principal schools of preterist thought are commonly calledpartial preterism andfull preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of preterist thought.
Some partial preterists prefer to call their positionorthodox preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of theEcumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the full preterists' rejection of the same.[24] This, in effect, makes full preterism unorthodox in the eyes of partial preterists and gives rise to the claim by some that full preterism is heretical. Partial preterism is also sometimes calledorthodox preterism,classical preterism ormoderate preterism.
On the other hand, some full preterists prefer to call their position "consistent preterism", reflecting their extension of preterism toall biblical prophecy and thus claiming an inconsistency in the partial preteristhermeneutic.[25]
Sub-variants of preterism include a form of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries of the current era, culminating in thefall of Rome. In addition, certain statements from classicaltheological liberalism are easily mistaken for preterism, as they hold that the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and theApostles' belief that all prophecy would be fulfilled within their generation. Theological liberalism generally regards these apocalyptic expectations as being errant or mistaken, however, so this view cannot accurately be considered a form of preterism.[26]
Partial preterism (often referred to asorthodox preterism orclassical preterism) may hold that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, theAntichrist, theGreat Tribulation, and the advent ofthe Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either inAD 70[27] or during the persecution of Christians under the EmperorNero.[28][29]
Some partial preterists may believe that theAntichrist, theGreat Tribulation, and the advent ofthe Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were not historically fulfilled.
.jpg)
Some partial preterists identify "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17–18) with the paganRoman Empire, though some, such asN.T. Wright,Scott Hahn,Jimmy Akin,David Chilton, andKenneth Gentry identify it with the city ofJerusalem.[27][30] Most interpretations identifyNero as the Beast,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][a] whilehis mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[38] Another partial preterist view regards first and second century events as recurrent patterns with Nero and Bar Kochba presented as archetypes. There is evidence that the epithet ofBar Kochba is a play on the HebrewShema with the value equating to the gematria value of 666. The pun on his patronymic equates to the variant reading 616.[39] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero's suicide in AD 68, and identify theBeast with another emperor. TheCatholic Encyclopedia states that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman EmperorDomitian, probably in AD 95 or 96".[40] Many Protestant scholars agree.[41][42] TheSecond Coming,resurrection of the dead, andFinal Judgment however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[43]
Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilledall eschatological or "end times" events, including theresurrection of the dead and Jesus'sSecond Coming, orParousia, and theFinal Judgment.[44][page needed]
Other names of full preterism include:
Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them will not taste death until they see him coming in his kingdom)[46] places the second coming in the first century. This precludes a physical second coming of Christ. Instead, the second coming is symbolic of a "judgment" against Jerusalem, said to have taken place with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70.[47] For this reason, those who oppose the notion also call full preterism "the AD 70 doctrine", since the whole eschatology is hinged on this one event.[48]R. C. Sproul said of full preteristMax R. King, "for this schema to work, the traditional idea of resurrection must be replaced with a metaphorical idea of resurrection".[49] Detractors of full preterism often refer to the school ashyper-preterism.[50]
In recent years full preterism has divided into sub-groups. An important offshoot that differs markedly from the theology of Max King and Don K. Preston is the Individual Body View (IBV) of full preterism. The term refers to a belief in a rapture of individuals that occurred in AD 66 (not AD 70), an event that first involved an experiential change into spiritual bodies. This is counter to the Max King variant of full preterism, the Corporate Body View (CBV), which Edward E. Stevens, debating against that view, defines as "a spiritual-only change of status for a collective body, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the resurrection of individual disembodied souls out of Hades to receive their new immortal bodies and go to heaven where their fellowship with God was eternally restored."[51] A more recent reaction within full preterism is in adopting the term "Bible Preterism" to reassert basic Gospel doctrines such as salvation and forgiveness being available from the time of Calvary, a tenet that Don K. Preston denies, asserting these were only available in AD 70.[52]
 | The examples and perspective in this sectiondeal primarily with the United States and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this section, discuss the issue on thetalk page, or create a new section, as appropriate.(September 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Partial preterism is generally considered to be a historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church.[53][54][55] Still, partial preterism is not the majority view among Americandenominations founded after 1500 and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espousedispensationalism.[53][55][56] Additionally, dispensationalists are concerned that partial preterism logically leads to an acceptance of full preterism, a concern which is denied by partial preterists.[57]
Full preterism is sometimes viewed as heretical,[53][54][55] based upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), and also from biblical passages that condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection or transformation of the body –doctrines which most Christians believe to be essential to the faith. Critics of full preterism point toPaul the Apostle's condemnation of the doctrine ofHymenaeus andPhiletus,[58] which they regard as analogous to full preterism. Adherents of full preterism, however, dispute this assertion by pointing out that Paul's condemnation was written during a time in which (their idea of) the resurrection was still in the future (i.e., pre-AD 70). Their critics assert that if the Resurrection has not yet happened, then the condemnation would still apply.
Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the first century.[59] Preterists believe that the dating of the book of Revelation is of vital importance[60] and that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Preterism was first expounded by the JesuitLuis de Alcasar during the Counter-Reformation.[3][61][62] The preterist view served to bolster the Catholic Church's position against attacks by Protestants,[5][6] who identified the Pope with the Antichrist.
In the preterist view, the Tribulation took place in the past whenRoman legions destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70 during the end stages of theFirst Jewish–Roman War, and it affected only theJewish people rather than all mankind.
Christian preterists believe that the Tribulation was a divine judgment visited upon the Jews for their sins, including rejection of Jesus as the promisedMessiah. It occurred entirely in the past, around 70 AD when the armed forces of theRoman Empire destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
A preterist discussion of the Tribulation has its focus on theGospels, in particular the prophetic passages in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and theOlivet Discourse, rather than on the Book of Revelation. Most preterists apply much of the symbolism in Revelation to Rome, theCaesars, and their persecution of Christians, rather than to the Tribulation upon the Jews.
Jesus's warning in Matthew 24:34 that "this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled"[63] is tied back to his similar warning to thescribes and thePharisees that their judgment would "come upon this generation",[64] that is, during the first century rather than at a future time long after the scribes and Pharisees had died. The destruction in AD 70 occurred within a 40-year biblical generation from the time when Jesus gave that discourse. Preterism maintains that the judgment on the Jewish nation was executed by the Roman legions, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet."[65] This can also be found in Luke 21:20.[66]
Since Matthew 24 begins with Jesus visiting the JerusalemTemple and pronouncing that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (vs. 3), preterists see nothing in scripture to indicate that another Jewish temple will ever be built. The prophecies were all fulfilled against the temple of that time, which was subsequently destroyed within that generation.
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.
— Luke 9:27, NRSV[68]
for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written.
— Luke 21:22, NRSV[69]
Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
— Matthew 16:28, NRSV[70]
Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
— Matthew 24:34, NRSV[71]
This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to:[citation needed]
Many preterists find view 6 unacceptable because it implies a mistake on the part of Jesus about the timing of his return. Many[quantify] preterists believe the immediate context seems to indicate the first view, the transfiguration, which immediately follows.[72] This view seems to satisfy that "some" disciples would see the glory of the Son of Man, but it does not satisfy the statement that "he will repay every man for what he has done". The same situation occurs with views 2 through 4. Only view 5 (the judgement on Jerusalem in AD 70) appears to satisfy both conditions, reinforced with Revelation 2:23, 20:12 and 22:12,[73] as a preterist would argue.[citation needed]
…appeared to me to be the meaning of this prophecie, hath, for this main of it, in the same manner represented it self to several persons of great piety and learning (as since I have discerned) none taking it from the other, but all from the same light shining in the Prophecie it self. Among which number I now also find the most learned Hugo Grotius, in those posthumous notes of his on the Apocalypse, lately publish'd.
For most divines in the (early) Enlightenment the choice between the preterist approach of Grotius and the historicist approach ofCocceius was not a difficult one: there was a strong predilection for the latter.
"Essay upon the Apocalypse", (was) written to show that the canonical authority of the book of Revelation was doubtful, and to apply the predictions to the destruction of Jerusalem. This work was sent by the author to Dr. Twells, in London, who translated it from French into English, and added a refutation, – with which Abauzit was so well satisfied, that he desired his friend in Holland to stop an intended impression..
We, on the contrary, fulfil every thing by that magic phrase, 'the destruction of Jerusalem.' But can we really and seriously refer these passages which I have quoted from Paul, to the destruction Jerusalem? Can we truly say that the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, let that mean what it may, exhausted all their meaning — the meaning which was the thought in Paul's mind when he wrote them? I must confess I cannot.
Finally something must be said, despite its difficulties, concerning the book of Revelation. The above presentation adds some weight to the quite controversial thesis that the city which is to be destroyed (the great whore that has become drunk with the blood of the saints) is to be identified, not with Rome, but with Jerusalem. As with any interpretation of Revelation there are problems with this, but there are also some strong arguments in favour..
notes in consensus that Revelation was written around 95 AD.
