First of all, I am a Postrib Amillennialist. I am also an Idealist – meaning I believe Revelation consist of 7 recaps culminating in a climactic return of Christ.
Like Partial Preterists and Historicists, and other Idealists, I believe Daniel 9 has been fulfilled in and through the earthly Messianic ministry of Christ. Idealists also hold that a lot (but not all) of Matthew 24 Mark 13 and Luke 21 was fulfilled in AD70. For example, I believe the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:15-22, Mark 13:14-20 and Luke 21:20-24 relates to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Saying all that, having debated with Partial Preterists over the years, and most recently on this site, I have many real deep biblical concerns about Partial Preterist teaching which I believe are dangerous, and which lead many into the heresy of Full Preterism. Much of what is advocated on this board by Partial Preterists is only a thin paper wall away from Full Preterism. Partial Preterists even freely quote their writers.
An unhealthy fixation with 70AD
There seems to be very little in Scripture that is literal or real in Partial Preterist thinking. Words that are clear in their meaning and context, and which every unindoctrinated objective Bible student would quickly understand are spiritualized away to carry no literal or physical meaning. Passages that are expressly referring to the glorious climactic coming of the Lord Jesus Christ are lightly treated and swiftly dismissed and conveniently reapplied to the coming of Titus and relocated to 70 AD. No text seems safe from their extreme form of spiritualization of Scripture.
In Partial Preterist theology the First Advent and the Second Advent take back stage to their obsession with the coming of Titus and 70 AD. It is all about Titus! It is all about 70 AD! It is all they want to talk about. In their mind, it is the focal event in history. It is the pivotal moment of the divine plan. Of course, this alone should be grounds to question the theory. But there are many other reasons.
Where Partial Preterists miss the mark is that they are captivated with the wrong event. They are fixated with the coming of Titus and 70 AD. In that, they stand alone in their fixation. The Old Testament is not so. The New Testament is not so. Genesis to Revelation is focused on Jesus Christ, His new covenant, His messianic rule, His climatic return and the introduction of His perfect eternal kingdom. The sacred pages point to our Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit points to Jesus Christ. The Father’s blessing is upon Jesus Christ.
My biggest red flag is Partial Preterist's obsession with the coming of Titus and 70 AD. This fixation is alarming, unhealthy and plainly unscriptural. To them, it is the focal point of history. Little do they realize, in their preoccupation with this by-gone year, that they are overlooking and undermining the two focal events in Scripture and history – the First Advent and the Second Advent.
When you look in the Old and New Testament, the central emphasis of both is the earthly ministry of Christ and His glorious and majestic second coming. Christ’s sinless life, His atoning death and victorious resurrection were long-anticipated by Moses and the Old Testament prophets. It is also the focus of the New Testament. The glorious final majestic return of Jesus Christ is the final anticipated event in history that every believer has longer for since the fall of man. It is then that corruption will finally be banished and everlasting perfection will be introduced forever.
In the Old Testament, the saints of old yearned for the coming Messiah who would deliver His people and redeem them from their sin. His Messianic ministry ushered in “the last days” period.
Just like Premils are fixated with their supposed future 1000 years after the coming of Christ, and dump multiple unrelated Scriptures into Revelation 20, Preterists are similarly obsessed with AD 70, and dump every and any text they find into the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70, as if it was the pivotal moment in time and eternity. No Scripture is safe. It is as if the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has nothing else to speak about but this passing fleeting event that was perpetrated by the Roman soldiers.
· Passages that clearly pertain to
the cross (and the introduction of the new covenant) are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to
the intra-Advent period are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to
the glorious climactic coming of Christ are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
· Passages that clearly pertain to
eternity are stolen, reinterpreted and reapplied to AD 70.
What they apply to AD 70 is totally unbiblical and insane. They are indeed fixated with that date, whereas Scripture is fixated with the cross and the Lord's final return.
- They have the old covenant ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have the new covenant commencing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “this age” ending at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the age to come” starting at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the last days” finishing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the day of redemption” happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD70.
- They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
- They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing at the coming of Titus in AD 70.
This is absolutely ridiculous! Such is their obsession with this much vaunted year (AD 70), that their advocates and websites can do nothing else but speak on its virtues.
Partial Preterists neutralize every possible future coming of the Lord passage in order to sustain their position. No text is safe. The only event they seem to see in the New Testament is AD 70. When you engage with them you quickly find that they are totally fixated with this innocuous date. There is such a delusion and duplicity here.
Their teachers
When challenged, Partial Preterists habitually hide behind the statements of their teachers, and are quick to advancing weblinks to their Preterist mentors. This tactic is normally found among the cults. This shows a distinct weakness in their position and an unhealthy reliance upon man. Like Pretribbers, it is a doctrine that must be taught to be fully gasped. This also shows how absurd many of their claims are, and how uncertain they even are with their own doctrine. A normal unbiased straightforward reading of Scripture reveals many clear second coming passages that show a literal climatic return of Jesus Christ at the end of the world. Partial Preterist teaching does not abide the scrutiny of Scripture.
Partial Preterism does not hold up to normal sensible hermeneutical scrutiny. They shamelessly force mystical meanings on literal texts to support their forced doctrine, rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. They seem to have no regards for either the detail of the texts or the context of the setting. They refuse to acknowledge the countless repeated Scriptures that depict a literal physical future climactic coming of Christ in all His final majesty and glory.
The truth!
Repeated Scripture locates
the replacement of the current heavens and earth with the new heavens and earth and incorruption at the second coming. Job 14:12-14, Isaiah 13:9-11, Isaiah 34:1-4, 8, Isaiah 65:17-21, Isaiah 66:22-24, Joel 2:3, Joel 2:10-11, Malachi 4:1-3, Matthew 24:29-30, Matthew 24:35-44, Mark 13:24-26, Luke 21:25-27, Romans 8:18-23, 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Hebrews 1:10-12, Revelation 6:13-17, Revelation 16:15-20, Revelation 19:11-16 and Revelation 20:11-15 shows us that this occurs at the second coming. This is indeed the end of time, the end of corruption, the end of the wicked, the end of sin, the end of death, the end for the devil. It is the beginning of eternity. It is the beginning of perfection. It is the beginning of incorruption. It is the beginning of a new arrangement.
It seems like whatever angle you examine the second coming it appears to be climactic, final and glorious.
· All creation is judged at the one final future coming of Christ.
· It is a perfect glorified age, which allows only perfect glorified inhabitants.
· Another proof that there will be no thousand years after the second coming is that time terminates with Christ’s coming. The age to come is eternal.
· It is an age that belongs exclusively to the glorified saints (the meek).
· Many Scriptures speak of the inter-Advent period as “the last days” (plural) and describe the second coming as “the last day” (singular). It is described as “the end.”
The detail that accompanies the second coming depictions give no opportunity for survivors. All the wicked are destroyed. The detail is climactic. The second coming is final and all-consummating. This current earth is completely regenerated.
Nobody seems to have any difficulty understanding the phrase “the beginning.” Every Christian knows that it is talking about the beginning of creation. It should be the same with “the last day” and “the end” – that is unless someone has a theological agenda to push, which requires that they dismiss or redefine the meaning of these simple unambiguous straight-forward conclusive statements in order to sustain their preconceived doctrine. In fact, I struggle to see how any Christian would have a difficulty with the whole concept of “the end.” It is talking about the end of this current corrupt arrangement and the beginning of the new perfect eternal state.
In order to get their theology to fit, Partial Preterists butcher the meaning and significance of these popular words in the New Testament. They explain them away to mean something they do not, in order to justify their prejudiced theology.
Partial Preterists take common linguistic terms that are easily understood by the unindoctrinated observer in any language to mean the opposite to what they actually say. For example, they do not believe that “last” means last. The English word “last” is taken from the Greek word
eschatos and is widely accepted by all unbiased theologians to denote exactly what it says. The word
eschatos means end, last, farthest and final.
All sensible and objective Amillennialists should recognize that “the last days” were introduced by the Lord Jesus Christ, and relate to this current Messianic period, which will end at “the last day” of “the last days” when the Lord comes again. Many Scriptures speak of the inter-Advent period as “the last days” (plural) and describe the second coming as “the last day” (singular). It is also described as “the end of the age” or simply “the end” – when Jesus returns to introduce eternity.
Partial Preterists do not believe “the end” refers to the end. The New Testament word from which we get our phrase “the end” is the Greek word
telos which refers to the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. the conclusion of an act or state. It is the termination point of a thing. When Scripture talks about “the beginning” without any other additional words or contextual reason to identify it with a specific event, then most sane theologians agree it is talking about “the beginning” of creation. Whilst all sound theologians agree on this many are inconsistent when it comes to “the end.” The reason I believe is because it cuts across a lot of their end-time theology they have been taught. But I believe we should treat both sayings similarly. Unless Scripture specifically identifies “the end” with a particular event or matter like “the end of barley harvest” (Ruth 2:23) “the end of the sabbath” (Matt 28:1), “the end of the year” (2 Chron 24:23), “the end of the rod” (1 Sam 14:27), or “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim 1:5), etc, etc, then we should understand it as the end of the world (which is the end of the age).
When it comes to time, Scripture shows us that it has a definite beginning and a definite end. Before and after time we are looking at eternity. The beginning of time occurred when God created a means of measuring time – namely night and day. This revolves around His creation of the sun and the moon to provide distinct and calculable days, weeks, months and years. This takes us right back to creation. Time will end when Jesus comes in all His final majesty and glory. Time takes us from the commencement of “this age” to “the end of this age.” The term “this age” therefore applies to the whole period that covers time. Time finishes when Christ usher in eternity at His return.
This is seen by comparing the vivid and repeated biblical detail pertaining to “this age” and “the age to come.” This age is depicted as evil, carnal, corrupt and temporal, whereas, the age to come is depicted as perfect, renewed, glorified and eternal. This age involves mortal believers and unbelievers. The age to come belongs exclusively to the glorified elect. One must be worthy to inherit it (namely being redeemed). One must be fittingly prepared to enter it (namely through glorification). Sin, sinners, death and decay, rebellion and war, attend the whole duration of “this age,” whereas, the age to come is described as a perfected unending arrangement where perfected believers possess a perfected earth. All the ugly result of the fall is finally removed. Satan has been stripped of his power and banished to the lake of fire. Sin and sickness, corruption and the curse are now destroyed, never to race anymore.
Conclusion
Partial Preterism in my opinion is largely unbiblical. It gives Amillennialism a bad name. But what ultimately exposes it is the inspired Word of God. It seems like modern-day Partial Preterism is an extreme overreaction to the error of Pretrib. Its advocates should take a major step back and ascertain what the real focus of Scripture is, not what their teachers have taught them.