Problems with Full Preterism
Philip B. Brown ( www.newwine.org )

The word ‘preterism’ means past fulfillment.  The preterist view of a specific Bible passage is that it has already been fulfilled.  Traditional preterism (or partial preterism) has been around since the earliest days of church history.  Full preterism, on the other hand, has only become well-recognized during the last forty or so years.  Full preterist believe that every specific event of New Testament Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled.  This includes the second coming (parousia) of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the Great White Throne Judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.  Full preterist believe all these events occurred by 70 AD.

Full preterism can be complex because many terms such as resurrection and the parousia (coming) of Christ are defined differently than their traditional meanings.  The event of the new heavens and the new earth, for example, is defined as the new covenant.  The Scriptural arguments for full preterism almost always begin with these three verses:

Matthew 10:23 ESV  When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:28 ESV  Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 24:34 ESV  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Was Jesus telling the disciples that he would return within their lifetimes?  These three verses would seem to say yes.  Full preterists argue that Jesus did in fact come in 70 AD.  Did Jesus fail to keep his promise?  Full preterists, therefore, argue that Jesus actually did come (parousia) in 70 AD.  He came in the clouds, in the Great White Throne Judgment, when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 tells us the resurrection happens before the coming (parousia) of Christ.  If Christ came in 70 AD, then the resurrection must also have occurred in 70 AD.  Full preterists believe the resurrection is not a physical body resurrection.  They believe the resurrection was a time when souls were brought from Hades (Sheol) into heaven and given spiritual bodies there.  They believe this happened in 70 AD.

2 Peter 3:1-13 relates the coming (parousia) of Christ to the time of the destruction of the heavens and the earth, and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (verse 13).  Since full preterist believe the parousia (coming) of Christ was in 70 AD, then the new heavens and the new earth must also have been in 70 AD.  Full preterists believe the new heavens and the new earth is the new covenant.

Revelation 20:11 - 21:1 tells us the Great White Throne Judgment is before the new heavens and the new earth.  Therefore, full preterist believe the Great White Throne Judgment was also in 70 AD.  They believe the Book of Life was opened in 70 AD, and all who were not in it were thrown into the lake of fire, again in 70 AD.  Most full preterists believe that people who have died after 70 AD are judged when they die.  They go either to heaven or the lake of fire (hell).

Paul tells us that Christ must reign until the last enemy is destroyed, which is death (1 Cor. 15:26).  Again, full preterists interpret this as something that was fulfilled in 70 AD.  Those living in heaven will not die, so the last enemy is destroyed, in heaven.  But sin and death will continue here on earth indefinitely.  Of course they say God could still do something about sin and death here on earth.  But all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, so the Bible does not say what God might do in the future.

Under the full preterist system, Satan continually receives souls that God has created and will be eternally tormented in hell.  There is no end in sight for this.  It could go on throughout eternity.  God just continues to create more souls to burn in hell.  Satan just keeps laughing all the way to the First National Bank of Hell.  And there is no end in sight for this.  The world just keeps getting worse and worse.

At this point, most people want to go back and reevaluate those three original verses.  Many people simply choose to ignore the problem.  Others take the full preterist argument seriously, and spend lots of time reading thick books written from the full preterist viewpoint.  Other people come up with creative ways of explaining the three verses.

For example, the promise Jesus made about some disciples tasting death is recorded in Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:2, and Luke 9:27.  In all three cases, the mount of transfiguration is recorded immediately after.  All three accounts say the mount of transfiguration was six (or eight) days after Jesus made this statement.  Some theologians have said the mount of transfiguration was the fulfillment of people standing there not tasting death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew’s account,) or until they see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark’s account), or until they see the kingdom of God (Luke’s account.)

Of course the full preterist sees this as a real stretch.  And they are right.  Jesus was temporarily shown in His glorious state.  This falls way short of the natural interpretation of these three verses.  Also, these three verses strongly imply a longer period than six (or eight) days.  The fact that some would not taste death strongly implies that most would taste death before this event would happen.  It’s reasonable to say the event is within the time of a generation.  But it’s not in the next few days.

Others have said the kingdom of God would come (with power) spiritually.  Since this has to be a future event from the time of the statement, the day of Pentecost is sometimes used.  Others have used the resurrection of Christ.  At stoning of Stephen he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (ESV Acts 7:56).  Some believe this is what Jesus was talking about.

However, these interpretations bring one very close to full preterism.  Matthew’s account said they would see the “Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”  Can we clearly distinguish statements like this from Christ’s Second Advent?

A better approach, I believe, is to reevaluate how we interpret Bible prophecy instead of how we interpret these three verses.  To this end, let’s take a look at another Bible prophecy:  The sign of Jonah.

The Sign of Jonah

Jonah 3:4-10  Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried out, and said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"  (5)  The people of Nineveh believed God; and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.  (6)  The news reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and took off his royal robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.  (7)  He made a proclamation and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, "Let neither man nor animal, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor drink water;  (8)  but let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and animal, and let them cry mightily to God. Yes, let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the violence that is in his hands.  (9)  Who knows whether God will not turn and relent, and turn away from his fierce anger, so that we might not perish?"  (10)  God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way. God relented of the disaster which he said he would do to them, and he didn't do it.

Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days (verse 4).  The prophecy was not fulfilled.  And after 40 days, it became impossible for it to be fulfilled.  The prophecy was changed because of repentance.  Does that mean Jonah is a false prophet?

The Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as the Messiah.  Because of this, Jesus prophesied Jerusalem would be destroyed, and 40 years later it was destroyed.  But during those 40 years, the Jewish leaders could have repented as the city of Nineveh did.  Nineveh had 40 days to repent.  Jerusalem had 40 years to repent.  This was what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah.  (The sign of Jonah is also about the third-day resurrection.)

Matthew 23:36-39  Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation.  (37)  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I would have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!  (38)  Behold, your house is left to you desolate.  (39)  For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!' "

To whom was Jesus speaking?  According to this prophecy, Jesus cannot and will not return until the people of Jerusalem say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”  One could argue Jesus is speaking to Jews in general.  Some Jews have accepted Christ as Savior.  However, the Jewish people in Jerusalem had already said these exact same words, earlier that week, when Jesus rode in on a donkey (Matthew 21:9).  Therefore, the context of the passage must be used to determine who Jesus expects to say these words.  Jesus was speaking to “the scribes and the Pharisees [who] sit on Moses' seat" (ESV Matthew 23:2).  The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, who sit on the seat of Moses, must say these words before Christ will return.

Today, nobody sits on Moses’ seat.  The physical temple has been destroyed.  So how can Jesus return?  Perhaps full preterists would argue that Jesus will never return in such a way that we, who are still alive here on earth, will see him.  However, the only reasonable interpretation here is that Jesus expected those who sit on Moses’ seat will someday say these words.  The seat of Moses cannot be reestablished without rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem.  Therefore, this is an unfulfilled New Testament prophecy that requires the rebuilding of the Temple before it can be fulfilled.

At this point full preterists will probably work up some technical way of explaining these words of Jesus.  However, what’s the difference between doing that and applying the mount of transfiguration to those not tasting death in Matthew 16:28?  If we are going to be honest and interpret the verses in the natural ways the audiences would have understood, we must do so consistently.  But let’s get back to the sign of Jonah.

Matthew 12:38-41  Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."  (39)  But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.  (40)  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.  (41)  The men of Nineveh will stand up in the judgment with this generation, and will condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, someone greater than Jonah is here.

The repentance began with the people of Nineveh.  When the word reached the king, he also repented and led the people in further repentance.  The people of Jerusalem honored Jesus as the Messiah.  But the leaders did not repent.  The people of Jerusalem would not continue honoring Jesus as Messiah without the Jewish leadership doing likewise.  In the cases of both Jerusalem and Nineveh, the leaders of these two cities must repent if the city was to be saved.  Without the leaders repenting, the people would soon turn back to their old ways.

Those who sat on the seat of Moses could have repented during the next 40 years after Jesus said these words.  After the 40 years, the seat of Moses was destroyed.  There were two possible futures as far as prophecy was concerned.  If they had repented, then Jesus would have physically returned in 70 AD, and Jerusalem would have been saved from the invading armies.  As it was, they didn't repent.  So Jerusalem will be saved from invading armies at a future time, at Armageddon, when Christ returns (Zechariah 14).

There are two aspects of the sign of Jonah.  The first aspect is the resurrection after three days and three nights.  The second aspect is a comparison between Nineveh and Jerusalem.  It remained to be seen if Jerusalem would repent, especially after Christ was raised from the dead after three days and three nights.  The parallels are very striking.  Nineveh was given forty days.  Jerusalem was given forty years.

Jesus really did believe that he would be returning within the time of that generation.  The desire of His heart was that they would repent.  Jonah, on the other hand, actually did not want Nineveh to repent.  Jonah became very depressed when his prophecy of destruction did not come to past.  Jesus’ heart was in the right place.  Jonah’s heart was in the wrong place.

No doubt Jesus was also depressed when the Jewish leaders did not repent after the forty years, when time ran out on them.  No doubt Jesus was also depressed that his prophecy did not come to pass.  However, this did not make Jesus be a false prophet anymore than Jonah was a false prophet.  Both their prophecies were based on wither or not their respective cities would repent.  Prophecy does not predestine repentance, or the lack of repentance.  Man has the free choice to accept or reject Christ.

Jesus was not deceiving the disciples, because Jesus himself believed he would be returning within their lifetimes.  Not even the angels in heaven knew when Christ will return.  Later on, as it became more and more likely that the Jewish leaders would continue to reject Christ, the prophecies were less and less likely to be fulfilled in their lifetimes.  Jesus cannot return until those who sit on the seat of Moses acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.  Therefore, the promise of Christ’s return became postponed.  The disciples will not see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matthew’s account) until after they are raised from the dead.  They will not see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark’s account) until after the last day.  They will not see the kingdom of God (Luke’s account) until Christ returns.  But this does not make Jesus a false prophet anymore then Jonah.

Prophecies Are Conditional

At this point, one could argue that Jesus as a man may have really believed he would return in their lifetimes, but that the Father in heaven would have known otherwise.  The Father in heaven would have known that those who sat on the seat of Moses would continue in their sins for the next forth years.  Jesus, as directed by the Holy Spirit, should not have made these promises. 

However, Jeremiah tells us that all prophecies concerning kingdoms, nations, cities, or individuals are conditional.

Jeremiah 18:7-10  At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it;  (8)  if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do to them.  (9)  At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;  (10)  if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they not obey my voice, then I will repent of the good, with which I said I would benefit them.

All prophecies concerning kingdoms, nations, cities, or individuals are conditional.  These prophecies are conditional upon obedience to God.  The prophecy does not need to explicitly state this condition.

As we have seen, Christ cannot return until those who sit on the seat of Moses say, “Blessed his he who comes in the name of the Lord.”  Therefore, any prophecy that Jesus made concerning the time of His return was conditional upon whether or not the scribes and Pharisees would repent during the next forty years.  There was no need to explicitly state this condition, because (A) the rules of prophecy do not require it, and (B) the disciples would have known that Jesus would not return if the Jewish leaders didn’t repent.  They would understand that he had hoped to return, but that it had become impossible for Him to do so.  They would not have felt they had been told a lie, because it was not a lie.  Jesus was simply speaking His heart’s desire.

This hermeneutic of conditional prophecy works much better than full preterism.  Why?  We should interpret Scripture not only by what is said, but in the way the Jewish audience of that would have naturally understood.  They would have naturally understood that Jesus really would come, and be physically seen, in their lifetimes.  The disciples would not have interpreted Jesus as saying he would just come in the clouds or come with judgment, or come in some spiritual way.  This is not what they would have naturally believed Jesus to be saying.  Did Jesus intentionally deceive or mislead them?

You see, it works both ways.  Futurists must admit that the tricky ways to explain these verses are not what the disciples would have naturally believed.  Likewise, full preterists should realize that the words of Jesus must naturally be interpreted as a physical return in their lifetimes - not just in the clouds.  That's not what they would have understood.  Jesus was not deceiving them.  The words of Jesus should be interpreted like they would have naturally believed.  It simply became impossible for Christ to return when Jerusalem's time for repentance ran out.

Two Generations

At this point, some full preterists could say that if the timing of Christ’s return was conditional, then the very fact of Christ’s return could also be conditional.  In other words, those who sat on the seat of Moses didn’t repent.  Therefore, the Temple was destroyed forever.  Because of this, Jesus can never return, and he won’t because His return was conditional.  Could this be argued?

As it turns out, the Olivetti Discourse of Luke 21 assumes that Jerusalem would be destroyed.  Therefore, this prophecy assumes those who sit on the seat of Moses would not repent.  Yet, Luke 21 includes the return of Christ after a period of time called the time of the Gentiles.  The promise of Christ’s future return is not conditional upon whether that generation would repent.  There can be a future generation, of those who sit on the seat of Moses, who will repent.

We know Jesus wants to return.  We see that it’s in His heart to come back, as he told His disciples he would do, even thinking it would be in that generation.  This desire would not be in the heart of Christ if the Father did not intend for it to happen.  Luke 21 shows us that prophecy, and the failure of that generation to repent does not prevent God from using a future generation to allow Christ to return.  This can be seen in the Olivetti Discourse when Matthew 24’s account is interpreted as a different generation than that of Luke 21.  Two different generations are involved in the whole picture of the Olivetti Discourse.

When we read Matthew 24, Jesus tells us to watch for the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel.  But when we look at the account in Luke 21, we get the preterist perspective.  Instead of the abomination of desolation, it speaks of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, and its desolation being near.  Obviously this was fulfilled in 70 AD.

The key to the problem is found in the original question that was asked by the disciples.  All of Matthew 24 and 25 was in answer to this question.  The disciples were wandering through the temple, looking at the buildings.  Jesus had just left the temple.  The disciples caught up with him and called his attention to the buildings.  Jesus said, "Do you see all these things?"  He asked, "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" (verse 2, NIV).

The disciples were in culture shock.  The temple was the greatest and most important thing they had ever known.  Its construction had started before they were born and was still under way.  The construction of this temple was not finished until 64 AD, just six years before it was destroyed.  From the disciple’s point of view, its destruction must be the end times.  The group went up the Mount of Olives, which is just outside the eastern gate leading from the temple mount.  They were speechless.  It probably took about fifteen minutes to walk out the eastern gate and up the Mount of Olives.

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately.  "Tell us," they said, "when will all this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (verse 3, NIV).  "All this,” that would happen, was the destruction of the temple. "Not one stone here will be left on another."  This is one question.  Another question is, "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"  There are two fulfillments to the prophecy.  One is when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.  The other is when Jesus returns at the end of the age.  The prophecy is true about both times.  I don't believe the disciples actually understood that they were asking more than one question.  But prophecy is prophecy.  God's word is God's word.  You ask the question, you get the answer to the question(s) you ask.

When we read Luke's account, we notice some differences.  Matthew's account reads, "So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (Matthew 24:15 NIV).  Luke's account instead reads, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near" (Luke 21:20 NIV).

Luke's account is primarily in answer to the first question.  Matthew's account is primarily in answer to the second question.

Matthew's account reads, "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equaled again.  If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect, those days will be shortened" (Matthew 24:21-22 NIV).  Luke's account instead reads, "There will be a great distress in the land and wrath against this people.  They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.  Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (Luke 21:23-24 NIV).

Matthew's account ends in victory.  Luke's account ends in defeat, but jumps in time to the point of victory.

(By the way, how does full preterism deal with the fact that the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled after Jerusalem is no longer trampled on by Gentiles?  This has to be an unfulfilled prophecy.  And full preterism, by definition, says there are no unfulfilled prophecies left in the New Testament after 70 AD.)

The greatest distress of all time is at the end times, at the time of the resurrection.  It's a greater distress than that of 70 AD.  Depending on how you measure distress, there has since been wars of much greater distress and scope than in 70 AD.  Consider the Holocaust of World War II.  70 AD was not the greatest distress of all time.  Christ will return and save Jerusalem and his people.  This is Matthew's account.

A great distress, but not the greatest of all time, was in 70 AD.  Luke’s account says it’s a great distress, but not the greatest of all time.  Luke’s account is about when the Gentiles (Rome) conquered Jerusalem and the Jews were taken as prisoners to all the nations.  Gentiles trampled on Jerusalem from 70 AD until 1967, when Israel regained Jerusalem.  Today, Jerusalem is no longer being trampled upon by the Gentiles.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus gives this speech in private to the disciples, up on the Mount of Olives.  If you read Luke’s account, without letting Matthew’s account influence what you read, the speech is given in the temple.  Luke’s account was a warning to the people in Jerusalem.  Matthew’s account is a private warning to the disciples and the Church.

In Matthew’s account, we are told to watch for the abomination of desolation.  In Luke’s account, we are told to watch for the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies.  Which one did Jesus say?  If both accounts are of the same speech, then we have a problem of Scriptural accuracy.  The text does not say, “the abomination of desolation which is the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies.”  That’s not what the text says.  One text says one thing, and the other text says the other thing.  There are other examples of multiple accounts of the same event, as seen by different disciples.  But the question of whether he said to watch for the abomination or for the surrounding of Jerusalem is a more than just different perspective of the same event.  On the argument of Scriptural inerrancy alone, it must have been two different speeches.

So Matthew’s account must be more about the end time generation.  And Luke’s account must be more about the generation of Jesus.  In Luke’s account, the statement "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" is our clue that the prophecy skips over time. It skips over the times of the Gentiles. From Luke's perspective, everything before this statement is about the generation of Jesus, and everything after this statement is about the end time generation.

The statement, "this generation shall not pass away," is applied to the adult generation of Jesus, and to our adult generation today.  The baby boom generation that was born right after World War II had just reached adult age when Israel regained Jerusalem in 1967. Israel became a nation again right after World War II.

Basically, what we have here is a timeline as follows:

1) The adult generation of Jesus, that didn't pass away before 70 AD.

2) The time of the Gentiles, when Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

3) The baby-boom generation, born when Israel became a nation (1948), and as adults, saw the Jews regain Jerusalem (1967).

The statement, "This generation shall certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," is applied to both generations!  And the time in between both generations is the time of the Gentiles.  If you were born after World War II, the baby boom generation, you should live long enough to see the return of Christ Jesus.

Those who Deliberately Forget

I have had conversations with many full preterists who had a great anger towards the futurist views that Christ will return, especially in our lifetime.  Some, but not all, have become mockers or scoffers of those who still hold the futurist belief in the "blessed hope [of] the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (ESV Titus 2:13).

Back in the 70's there was a big interest in books like Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth."   There was a lot of excitement that Christ could return in our lifetimes.  After a while, some of the things that were being predicted were not coming about.  The USSR was supposed to be the great evil empire of the end times.  Then the Berlin wall was knocked down.  Many people realized that the daily newspaper might not be the place to see all the events of Bible prophecy.  It just didn't seem to line up the way Bible teachers had been saying.  Many people reacted very emotionally against the original futurist zeal of those days.  I remember a book titled, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988."  300,000 copies of the book were mailed free of charge to ministers across America, and 4.5 million copies were sold in bookstores everywhere.  I remember seeing this book and immediately thinking it was a bunch of baloney.  When the rapture did not happen, Edgar C. Whisenant was able to publish another book titled, “On Borrowed Time.”  This baloney made someone very rich.  Hal Lindsey also got rich.  Many people became full preterists because of that emotional disappointment, and the feeling that they had been sold a can of worms.  People were getting rich off of these books.  And there was a strong, and very understandable, emotional backlash.  So I do believe emotion against the futurist hope of Christ's return is very much alive in the full preterist movement today.

It strikes me as very interesting that the very things full preterists use to argue their position are the very things 2 Peter 3 argues against.  Like the new heavens and the earth being the new covenant.  In the very same context where Peter is saying mockers will say Christ is not coming, he argues against their view that the destruction of the heavens and the earth is not literal.  I simply cannot ignore the fact that it sounds exactly like what full preterism believe.  And I cannot ignore the fact that Peter called it a "deliberate" forgetting, which sounds to me like people who are very knowledgeable of Scripture, and thus are inside the Church.  If it were people outside the Church, their forgetting would not be "deliberate."  At least that's how it strikes me.  It sounds to me like people in the Church who are having an emotional backlash about the return of Christ.

2 Peter 3:3-7 NIV  First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  (4)  They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."  (5)  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  (6)  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  (7)  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

In my opinion, full preterists are the scoffers of the end times.  They not only say, “Where is this coming.”  They deny that the coming will ever happen.  To a small degree, there have been scoffers that are not in the Church.  But they have been few.  Most people outside the church pay little attention the timing of Christ’s return.  The real scoffers are the full preterists within the Church of this generation.  Therefore, full preterists are Christians in the Church who know the Bible, but reinterpret it in a way that “deliberately forgets” certain fundamental truths of Scripture.

As Peter prophesied, the full preterists of this generation deliberately forget that the heavens and the earth is a term that’s defined in Genesis 1:1, and that the meaning of that term should remain consistent.  They say the old heavens and earth is the old covenant, and that the new heavens and new earth the new covenant.  They deliberately forget that when God gave the word for the destruction of his creation in Noah’s day, that this exact same word will destroy the creation by fire.  The destruction by water was literal.  But they say the literal creation of Genesis will never be literally destroyed by fire, even though it’s the exact same word.  The full preterists want everything to go on as it has since the beginning of creation.  In other words, they say the Bible is completely fulfilled, so that everything will continue has it has since the beginning of the creation.

Peter starts out describing the scoffers as being people who deliberately forget the Creation.  Today, the theory of evolution denies the Creation.  But does the denial of the Creation mean that you “deliberately forget” the Creation?  I think it depends on whether or not you profess to believe in the Bible.   It depends on whether or not you profess Christianity.  If you are not a Christian, if you don’t profess to believe the Bible, then you are not “deliberately forgetting” Scripture.  If you never believed in the Bible, then you are not forgetting the Bible.  Those who “deliberately forget” Scripture are those who think they believe in the Scripture, but who find ways to deny certain aspects of the Scripture.  They are not simply letting Scripture speak with authority.  They impose their own belief systems upon Scripture.

Full preterists believe the “new heavens and new earth” is the “new covenant.”  They argue that the new covenant was not completely established until 70 AD.  This is done using Hebrews 8:13, which says the old covenant was obsolete, aging, and would soon disappear.  They will argue that the destruction of the present heavens and earth, in 2 Peter 3, would be the destruction of the present covenant.  Thus, they argue that Peter referred to the old covenant as the present covenant, saying that the present covenant would be destroyed by fire.  Then they argue the fire is figurative, or that it’s literal fire that destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Let’s look at the verse again with “heavens and earth” changed to “covenant.”

2 Peter 3:3-7 NIV  First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  (4)  They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."  (5)  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the [old covenant existed and] was formed out of water and by water.  (6)  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  (7)  By the same word the present [covenant is] reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Was the old covenant really formed out of water and by water?  Is the old covenant reserved for fire?  Or is the present covenant reserved for fire?  Peter would never call the old covenant the “present covenant.”  In other words, I can see Peter referring to the new covenant as the present covenant, even if it was not fully implemented.  But I have a hard time seeing Peter refer to the old covenant as the present covenant, even if the old covenant had not yet completely disappeared.  So is Peter saying that the new (present) covenant will be destroyed?  All this just shows how you can make Scripture say anything you want it to say.  It’s the “evil desire” to impose what one wants to believe upon Scripture.  You just redefine some terms, and the meaning is changed.  But when you closely examine this new changed meaning of the words, it simply doesn't work.

Genesis 1:1 clearly establishes the heavens and the earth as being God’s Creation.  Just because Isaiah may have used it figuratively in poetry, does not mean that Peter was using it figuratively.  Peter was going out of his way make his words be literal.  Peter was not writing poetry like Isaiah.  He is comparing the destruction of the heavens and earth with the literal destruction of the earth by water at the Great Flood.  The destruction by water was literal.  And thus the destruction by fire is also literal.  Peter even says that the destruction of the heavens and earth by fire is with the “same word” as the destruction earth by water.  Full preterists “deliberately forget” by saying that while the destruction by water may have been literal, the destruction by fire is only a new age.  Anyone who is truly honest with Scripture knows that this is not what Peter was saying.  Peter was taking about “scoffers” who would come in the last days and claim that Christ will not return.  That is exactly what the full preterists are doing today.  The full preterists have become their own worst nightmare.  They themselves have become a “sign of the times,” that this is the generation who will see Christ return.

If you to have taken the full preterist view, it means that you are not afraid of looking at non-traditional views with an open mind, yet with Scripture at your heart.  For that I applaud you.  Perhaps you would be willing to consider one more system of interpretation.  Perhaps you would be willing to at least just take a look at the New Wine System as a possible alternative to full preterism.  Consider ordering my book, “New Wine for the End Times,” sold on this web site.  I hope you will consider it.

The Resurrection

Full preterists must change the obvious meaning of Acts 1:9-11.

Acts 1:9-11  When he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.  (10)  While they were looking steadfastly into the sky as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white clothing,  (11)  who also said, "You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who was received up from you into the sky will come back in the same way as you saw him going into the sky."

Prior to this, Jesus had been appearing to the disciples for a period of forty days (Acts 1:3).  He would eat with them, and they could touch him (John 20:27).  He make a point of telling them that he had flesh and bones, and was not a ghost (Luke 24:37-39).  After forty days, after teaching the disciples on the Mount of Olives, Jesus ascended up into the sky.  The Greek (and Hebrew) word for sky and heaven is the same word.  But the text clearly teaches that they were looking upward into the sky as Jesus left.  Then two angels appeared and told the disciples that Jesus would return “in like manner.”  Any reasonable reading of this passage shows that Jesus will return physically and that we will literally see him when he returns.  But that didn’t happen in 70 AD.  Full preterists, therefore, use various arguments to deny the obvious truth of this Scripture.  The following preterist arguments against the traditional meaning of Acts 1:9-11 comes from Keith A. Matheson’s article titled, “Acts 1:9-11 and the Hyper-Preterist Debate.”
(Originally at: http://www.ligonier.org/articles/Acts1andHyperpreterism.pdf)

J. Stuart Russell was the original author of full preterism.  He says that “in like manner” should not be pressed to far.  He then points out differences between the ascension and the return as with the angels.  He thus denies that the return will actually be all the way to the ground.  But that’s not the obvious meaning that Luke intended, based on the words of the two angels.

Max King, of Presence Ministries International, says that “in like manner” simply means that it’s the same Jesus who will return.  He says it’s not a physical appearance.  He denies that we will actually see him.

Randall E. Otto is an author that is cited regularly by full preterists.  He denies that Christ’s resurrected body was actually physical.  So, he argues, the return of Christ is spiritual and invisible in nature.  He describes the ascension as not something physical that they were actually seeing, but that Christ was spiritually lifted up in their understanding of his statue or dignity.

Edward E. Stevens, president of the International Preterists Association, equates the ascension with the high priest ascending into the holy of holies in heaven.  Thus it’s not to be interpreted as a literal ascension.  The coming in 70 AD is suppose to be when Christ returned from the holy of holies to announce that his blood had been accepted.  “In the same way” meant that Jesus came in the clouds in 70 AD, but not back to earth.

John Noe is the founder of the Prophecy Reformation Institute.  He believes that “in like manner” means that people would not see Christ when he returned because he would remain hidden in the clouds.

So full preterists are not all that consistent among themselves as to why Acts 1:9-11 doesn’t mean what it obviously says.  But they themselves are fully convinced Christ will not return back to this earth in a body so that every eye will see him (Revelation 1:7).  These are ways of “deliberately forgetting” the clear teaching of Acts 1:9-11.

Matthew 24:30 says that when Christ does return, that all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven.  Now I don't believe the Christians, those who know Jesus, would mourn at His coming!  It's the wicked of the world that mourn.  They will mourn because they will realize that they have been wrong, and that their continued sin remains to be judged.  So, the second coming will be something that no one mistakes (Matthew 24:26-27).  Not even the wicked of the world will mistake or fail to see the second coming once it happens.  Every tribe of the world, according to this verse, will mourn!  This didn’t happen in 70 AD.

Revelation 1:7  Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, including those who pierced him. All the tribes of the earth will mourn over him. Even so, Amen.

This has not been fulfilled.

The ‘Soon’ Return of Christ

Both partial and full preterists place emphasis on the verses which say that Christ’s return is “soon,” or “near,” or “at hand.”  Revelation 1:1-3 is a good example.

Revelation 1:1-3  This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,  (2)  who testified to God's word, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, about everything that he saw.  (3)  Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it, for the time is at hand.

Scripture is always written in such a way that the authors and the readers can believe, and should believe, that Christ will come in their lifetimes.  Such a belief brings holiness.  Revelation 1:1-3 gives a promise of blessing to those who read the book and take it to heart, because the time is near (or soon).  If you don’t believe the time is near, then Revelation cannot give you that blessing.  And if you think it’s already happened, then the blessing is also not received.  The blessing only works if it’s soon, and in the future.  The blessing involves knowing the things that must happen prior to Christ’s return.  (And not believing that you will skip over them with the pre-tribulation rapture.)  The blessing brings holiness.  Christ is returning “soon” for all generations.  Paul believed Christ would return soon.  He used the second person “we” in taking about being caught up into the clouds.  And that is what we are taught to believe.

And from the perspective of individuals it’s true for all generations.  It’s true when you think of the resurrection as being right after one’s death.  Everyone will experience the future last-day resurrection right after they die.  So for everyone, it’s soon, because their death is soon.  Consider, for example, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-11:

2 Thessalonians 1:5-11  This is an obvious sign of the righteous judgment of God, to the end that you may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you also suffer.  (6)  Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you,  (7)  and to give relief to you who are afflicted with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire,  (8)  giving vengeance to those who don't know God, and to those who don't obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus,  (9)  who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,  (10)  when he comes to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired among all those who have believed  (because our testimony to you was believed)  in that day.  (11)  To this end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire of goodness and work of faith, with power;

Is it not reasonable to assume that relief would come soon?  Does this relief involving Christ’s return come after these saints have spent two thousand years or more in heaven?  Does this relief of Christ’s return come after those who afflicted them have spent two thousand years or more in hell?  The full preterist would say this requires the return of Christ to have been within the lifetimes of those being afflicted.  Without doubt, this verse would have given the original readers the full expectation that Christ would soon return.  Even the partial preterist has the same problem with this verse.

However, from the perspective of individuals, the return of Christ is soon for all generations.  It’s true when you think of the resurrection as being right after one’s death.  Everyone will experience the future last-day resurrection right after they die.  So for everyone, it’s soon, because their death is soon.  Those who were being afflicted at the church of Thessalonica will be given relief when Christ returns.  For them, it will be soon, because they are currently at rest in Hades.  Daniel was told he would rest until the resurrection (Daniel 12:13).  The Thessalonians are also at rest, along with Daniel.

The New Wine System, presented in my book, “New Wine for the End Times,” requires there to be three types of people in the grave.  It’s not the traditional thinking of heaven and hell right when we die.  My view is that the intermediate state of the dead has not changed since Old Testament times.  Both the just and the unjust go to Hades when we die.  For example Samuel, after he died, was awakened from his rest.  Daniel was told that he would rest until the time of the end (Daniel 12:13), which by context is the time of the resurrection.

If you want to call this Old Testament teaching “soul sleep” then that’s OK.  But usually the term “soul sleep” is understood to mean soul-not-in-existence – like what the Jehovah Witnesses teach.  It’s generally used to argue that hell doesn’t exist, and that eternal punishment is not really punishment.  I don’t believe in that.  Just because the dead rest after the first death does not mean they rest after the second death.  After the great white throne judgment, the wicked will be “come to life” (Rev. 20:5).  This doesn’t mean they are resurrected.  It means they are no longer are resting.  There is no rest, day or night, for those who deliberately and knowingly reject Christ Jesus (Rev. 14:11).  The smoke of their torment goes up forever.  But that’s not until a thousand years after Christ returns.  Right now, basically it’s the Old Testament teaching that I believe with regard to the intermediate state.  The New Wine System requires this belief to work.

Revelation 22:12  "Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work.

There was no reward in 70 AD.  I wasn’t even born as yet.  But I will be rewarded for what I have done.  Also, there was no reward given to early Christians in 70 AD, for what they had done.  Perhaps you could say that the dead were rewarded in 70 AD.  But what about those who were still alive?  Were the Christians who were still alive in 70 AD rewarded for their works?

However, when you understand that the dead rest, and are not yet in heaven, then for them, Christ’s future return is soon.  The resurrection is soon for all generations.  Are there other verses that apply ‘soon’ to individual experiences?  How about this verse:

Romans 16:19-21 ESV  For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.  (20)  The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.  (21)  Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen.

I do not believe Satan has been crushed under anyone’s feet as yet.  However, for these individual Christians, who are currently at rest in the grave, it will happen soon.

Both full preterists and adherents of the New Wine System have systems that we both believe easily works with every verse of Scripture.  I’m sure we both would want others to see our view, and to switch to our own system.  But let’s consider another difference between the two systems, other than how well we think they are in harmony with Scripture.  How well does each of our systems fit what we both know of the character of God?

Under the full preterist system, Satan continually receives souls that God has created and will be eternally tormented in hell.  There is no end in sight for this.  It could go on throughout eternity.  Many of these souls have never heard about Christ.  Many have heard but because of their culture they won’t be able to understand about Christ.  The high majority of all souls ever created wind up burning in hell.  And God just continues to create more souls to burn in hell.  Satan just keeps laughing all the way to the First National Bank of Hell.  And there is no end in sight for this.  The world just keeps getting worse and worse.

In the New Wine System, eventually Satan gets no more souls.  In my system, Satan is eventually destroyed forever.  In my system, every person who ever lived, or who will ever live, from Adam on down, is brought to the point where they fully understand about Christ and are able to decide whether they want Christ to save them, or whether they want to knowingly and deliberately reject Christ.  In my system, the Church from every nation, tribe, people, and language is just the tip of the iceberg as to the total number of people who will be eternally saved.  Only those who knowingly and deliberately reject Christ will wind up being eternally punished.  Everyone else will inherit eternal life.

Both systems fit Scripture.  God is very smart.  If I could see this New Wine System in Scripture, then God also saw this system.  I’m not smarter than God.  Which system would a loving and impartial God have picked?  Would God, who loves the world, and loves his Son, who had to die for us all, tell his Son that the majority of all people will burn in hell because they didn’t get the message, or they didn’t understand the message?

Knowing this, what would it take for you (if you are a full preterist) to abandon the full preterist system in favor of the New Wine System?

Philip Brown
www.newwine.org