Online Articles

Online Articles

The Menace of Radical Preterism (Part 2)

The Components Explained and Briefly Refuted

Let us give brief consideration to the four eschatological events that are supposed to have occurred in A.D. 70—the Lord's second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment, and the end of the world.

First, was there a sense in which Christ "came" to folks at various times and places? Yes. And no serious student of the Bible denies this. Jesus "came" on the day of Pentecost via the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (see John 14:18). The coming was representative, not literal. The Lord warned the brethren in Ephesus that if they did not repent, he would "come" to them in judgment, and they would forfeit their identity as a faithful congregation (Revelation 2:5). In describing the horrible judgment to be inflicted upon rebellious Jerusalem, Jesus, employing imagery from the Old Testament, spoke of his "coming" in power and glory (Matthew 24:30). Again, this was a representative "coming" by means of the Roman forces (cf. Matthew 22:7). Verse thirty-four of Matthew 24 clearly indicates that this event was to occur before that firstcentury generation passed away. For further consideration of this point, see the essay on Matthew 24.

The Lord's "second coming," however, will be as visibly apparent as his ascension back into heaven was (Acts 1:11). Indeed, he will be "revealed" (2 Thessalonians 1:7), or "appear" to all (2 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 9:28).

It is a mistake of horrible proportions to confuse the symbolic "comings" of Christ with the "second" (cf. Hebrews 9:28) coming. And this is what the preterists do.

Second, it is utterly incredible that the preterists should deny the eventual resurrection of the human body—just as the Sadducees did twenty centuries ago (Acts 23:8). The entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians was written to counter this error: "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead [ones — plural]?" (15:12). But those who subscribe to the notion of realized eschatology spiritualize the concept of the resurrection, alleging that such references are merely to the emergence of the church from an era of anti-Christian persecution. In other words, it is the "resurrection" of a cause, not a resurrection of people. The theory is flawed in several particulars, but consider these two points:

  1. The Scriptures speak of the "resurrection" as involving both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Where, in the preterist scheme of things, is the resurrection of the "evil"? Was the "cause" of evil to emerge at the same time as the "cause" of truth?
  2. As noted above, the resurrection contemplated in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the raising of "dead ones" (masculine, plural)—not an abstract "cause" (neuter, singular). Significantly, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is cited as a precursor to the general resurrection—in this very context (15:20,23). Christ charged that those who deny the resurrection of the body are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God (Matthew 22:29).

Third, the Bible speaks of a coming "day of judgment" (Matthew 11:22). Preterists limit this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But the theory simply does not fit the facts. The devastation of A.D. 70 involved only the Jews. The final day of judgment will embrace the entire human family—past, present, and future (Acts 17:31). The citizens of ancient Nineveh will be present on the day of judgment (see Matthew 12:41), as will other pagan peoples. But these folks were not in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. How can clear passages of this nature be ignored?

Here is an interesting thought. When Paul defended his case before the Roman governor, Felix, he spoke of "the judgment to come," and the ruler was "terrified" (Acts 24:25). Why would a Roman be "terrified" with reference to the impending destruction of Judaism—when he eswould be on the winning side, not the losing one?

Fourth, according to the preterists, the "end of the world," as this expression is employed in Bible prophecy, does not allude to the destruction of this planet. Rather, "world" has reference to the Jewish world, thus, the end of the Jewish age. This, they allege, occurred in A.D. 70.

But this view simply is not viable. Consider these two brief but potent points.

  1. The responsibilities of the Great Commission—to teach and immerse lost souls—was commensurate with that era preceding the "end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20). If the "end of the world" occurred in A.D. 70, then the Lord's Commission is valid no longer. This conclusion, of course, is absurd.
  2. In the parable of the tares, Jesus taught that at "the end of the world" the "tares" (i.e., evil ones) would be removed from his kingdom and burned (Matthew 13:39-40). Did that transpire with the destruction of Judaism? It did not. The notion that the "end of the world" is past already is false.

The dogma of preterism—or realized eschatology—is erroneous from beginning to end. For a more detailed consideration of this matter, see our book, The A.D. 70 Theory.

A Common Method of Propagation

The doctrine of preterism is so radically unorthodox that its advocates realize that their efforts to win converts represent a formidable task. Consequently, they have developed a covert strategy that seeks to quietly spread their novel dogma until such a time when taking over a congregation can be accomplished. The distinctive traits of this "discipling" methodology are as follows.

  • It is alleged that this system represents an attractive, consistent method of interpretation. But there is no virtue in consistency, if one is consistently wrong!
  • Preterists criticize what they call "traditional" views of interpreting Bible prophecy. They suggest they have a new, exciting approach to the Scriptures—with a spiritual thrust. Of course the "new" is always intriguing to some.
  • The messengers of realized eschatology frequently are secretive in their approach. They select only the most promising candidates with whom to share their ideas. Eventually, then, the A.D. 70 theory will be woven subtly into classes, sermons, etc.
  • When ultimately confronted relative to their teachings and methods, they will argue that eschatological issues are merely a matter of opinion, and that divergent views—especially theirs—should be tolerated. This, of course, ignores plain biblical implications on these themes (cf. 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 3:16). If church leaders fall for this ploy, more time is gained for the indoctrination of the entire congregation.


Wise church leaders will inform themselves relative to the theory of preteristic eschatology. If such ideas are discovered to be circulating within a local church, the proponents of such doctrines should be dealt with quickly and firmly. It is a serious matter.