Eschatology has been at the forefront of recent debates within the Reformed world. The debate is particularly between partial-preterists and full-preterists. A partial-preterist is someone who believes that many — but not all — of the apocalyptic prophecies in the New Testament were fulfilled in the first century, by the year A.D. 70. A full-preterist is someone who believes that all of the apocalyptic prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. For example, partial-preterists believe that a bodily return of Jesus, a final judgment, and a resurrection of the dead are in our future. Full-preterists deny that these things are in our future.
These views are in contrast to what we might call “full-futurism.” A full-futurist believes that all of the apocalyptic passages are yet to be fulfilled. This is the most popular position among Christians today. I was raised in a full-futurist home, but I have adhered to partial-preterism for nearly 20 years. I believe it is the most biblical and balanced position. Partial-preterism (and therefore partial-futurism) avoids the opposite extremes of full-futurism and full-preterism.
Having come from a full-futurist upbringing, I can attest to the excitement of learning deeper truths of scripture. There is perhaps no greater paradigm shift than an eschatological paradigm shift. Consequently, once you dive into the preterist perspective, you’ll find yourself asking, “Which passages are still future?” That’s the question this essay attempts to answer.
The Bible must be read in proper context, as with any piece of literature. We must pay attention to the Bible’s own terms and premises and interpret within those parameters. When we read the NT from the beginning, starting with Matthew, the first apocalyptic passage we come to is Matthew 16:27-28. Jesus says…
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.
This language is normally interpreted to be about the end of the world, when Jesus returns for the final judgment. However, Jesus plainly says that some of his hearers would live to see it happen. This means that Matthew 16 was fulfilled in the first century, in the lifetimes of the apostles. Partial-preterists interpret this coming of Jesus in spiritual and symbolic ways, not as a physical return to earth.
The second apocalyptic passage we come to is Matthew 24, which uses similar language as Matthew 16. Jesus says that all tribes will “see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” and “he will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet” (vv. 30-31). This, again, sounds like the end of the world. Yet Jesus quickly adds, “This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (v. 34). Jesus himself said these things would take place within the generation of his audience, within the first century.
I believe that Matthew 16 and Matthew 24 give us the hermeneutic key to know which passages were for A.D. 70 and which ones are still future. Take notice of what is absent from these passages — the resurrection of the dead. With all the talk of coming on clouds, being seen, and bringing angels, there is no mention of the dead rising. Neither do the “resurrection of the dead” passages use the same language as Matthew 16 and Matthew 24. The silence speaks volumes! When you compare various passages side by side, I believe an obvious distinction emerges.
Consider John 5:28-29, for example. Jesus says, “The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5 is about the resurrection of the dead, and it says nothing about the Son of Man being seen on clouds or bringing angels in his audience’s lifetime.a That type of language, reserved for the first century, is noticeably absent. The same is true for 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 and Revelation 20:11-15. Therefore, these passages are for our future. They have not been fulfilled.
This hermeneutic does not mean that every futurist passage must mention the resurrection of the dead. Acts 1:11 gives us a prophecy of Jesus’s bodily return to earth. The apostles watched Jesus, in his glorified body, ascend into heaven. The angels said, “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven.” The key phrase is “in like manner.” Jesus was seen bodily going into heaven, so he will be seen bodily coming back to earth. This has not happened yet; it is for our future.
Even if all the apocalyptic passages in the Gospels were for the first century (which I do not agree with), Acts 1 gives us an explicit prophecy of Jesus’s bodily return. Any interpretation of “in like manner” that discards the bodily component is not being honest with the text. This establishes two different kinds of comings: Jesus would come in judgment in A.D. 70, but he will also come to earth bodily at some other time.
Let’s put what we’ve learned into practice. Two puzzling passages for preterists are 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 5:1-6. Are they about two separate events, or the same event? Are they about Jesus’s bodily return, A.D. 70, or a mixture? I believe they are about two separate events. The “coming of the Lord” in 4:15 is accompanied by the resurrection of the dead (same as John 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 20). Verse 16 says the Lord “himself” will descend from heaven (same as Acts 1) and the “dead in Christ will rise first.” These details immediately place the event in our future. Paul then changes the subject in the next chapter: “But concerning the times and the seasons…the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night…let us watch and be sober” (5:1-2, 6). He is now talking about something in his audience’s lifetime that they should be watching for. Paul moves from Jesus’s future, bodily return (chapter 4) to his coming in judgment in the first century (chapter 5). The two events are analogous.
This essay is by no means exhaustive. I have not addressed every NT passage, and there are OT passages that need to be explored. But in comparing these NT passages, I believe vital distinctions have become clear. The passages about the first century don’t talk about the resurrection of the dead. The passages about our future don’t use the same descriptors or the same time-indicators as the first century passages. They are distinct. It’s not as though these concepts are mixed together in the Bible and we’re artificially separating them. No, the text distinguishes them as two different prophecies for two different events.
We can affirm that Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in A.D. 70. We can also affirm, with the universal church, that Jesus will return bodily for the final judgment. Avoid the extremes of full-preterism and full-futurism. Stay balanced. Partial-preterism (or partial-futurism) is the middle way.
- I do not deny that resurrection language can sometimes be metaphoric. Readers might point to John 5:24-25 as an example of this. I agree that Jesus is speaking of spiritual resurrections in those verses. Spiritual resurrection precedes bodily resurrection. But verses 28-29 are not identical to verses 24-25. Verses 28-29 specifically describe people coming forth from the grave. Jesus is now speaking of bodily resurrection. Revelation 20, also written by John, follows the same pattern. There is a “first resurrection” of souls who were beheaded, but then a second resurrection of all people coming out of the grave for the great white throne judgment. John 5 and Revelation 20 include both concepts in the same order. (back)
AD 70, full-preterism, hyper-preterism, partial-preterism, Preterism, Resurrection
