Introduction to Preterism
Yes, it may come as a surprise to many Christians to hear of such an idea that “The Great Tribulation” has actually already occurred. Yet, despite their shock, this view does exist and it has considerable evidence to support it from history and, most importantly, from Scripture itself. This view is referred to as preterism.
It is important to note that I am here asserting and defending, however, a very particular kind of preterism. That is, partial preterism. Partial preterism must be distinguished from a similar sounding, yet altogether different, view known as full preterism, or hyper-preterism. Hyper-preterism holds that all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, and thus there will be no second coming of Christ (a view which is most certainly heretical). Hyper preterists typically believe that the current space-time continuum is eternal in its present state, and that history will simply continue on forever.
Partial preterism, on the other hand, affirms the second coming of Christ at the end of history, at which time there will be a general resurrection; a final judgement will ensue; and the heavens and the earth will be restored, as the kingdom of God is consummated at the coming of its Lord. Thus, partial preterism fits within the conservative evangelical mold, and is not itself a form of liberal theology or neo-orthodoxy. This leads to another important preliminary comment in regards to the hermeneutics of partial preterism.
Hermeneutical Consideration
Within every philosophical system (of which Christianity is its own), comes the study and development of an epistemology. Epistemology refers to one’s particular “theory of knowledge.” That is to say, epistemology deals with that area of philosophical inquiry that pertains to how one acquires knowledge. To ask yourself how you know what you know, and by what means you arrive at that knowledge, is to consider the subject of epistemology.
For the Christian, his/her chosen epistemology ought to be by means of revelation. Which is to say that the Christian ought to base their knowledge about the world upon the foundation of what is revealed to them by the infallible word of God. The Bible ought to be the sole rule of knowledge. And yet, to assert this is to leave open the question of how one interprets Scripture.
The claim of the dispensationalist, who holds to the futurist view of The Great Tribulation (as described in the introduction with Screwtape sarcasm), is that the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. It is important to note that this literal interpretation of the Bible is not only used as an interpretive methodology, but also as a sword to cut down anyone who breaks from a literal interpretation in exchange for a more symbolic approach. Because there is some merit to this argument, and because there are few greater against whom the dispensationalist swings this sword than against the preterist, it is important to comment upon preterisms view toward Bible interpretation.
According to Dr. Kenneth Gentry, a confirmed partial preterist and well-known expert on the subject, the exegetical method of partial preterism (which I will henceforth refer to only as preterism) is the grammatical-historical approach.1 This is a significant observation in light of dispensationalism’s popular claim that one must resort to “allegorization” of the Biblical text in order to reach the preterist position. Far from embracing allegorization, Gentry actually admonishes the allegorical approach, and sets his hermeneutical method against it by saying,
We must be careful to distinguish between a “figurative” use of language (a legitimate function of the grammatical-historical method) and a “spiritual” [allegorical] interpretive methodology. Figurative expressions portray historical events by means of colorful, dramatic, and overdrawn descriptions. Spiritual interpretation, however, is a system of hermeneutics that evacuates all historical sense from a text.2
In other words, while Gentry acknowledges the legitimate use of figurative language which is not to be taken literally, he actually cautions against the adoption of a “spiritual” or “allegorical” approach to hermeneutics. The main difference between the two, is that figurative language, while perhaps being highly dramatic, retains the historicity of the events in which it describes, while allegorization deprives the text of any historical basis for the sake of reaching a loftier spiritual interpretation. Thus, the dispensationalist’s claim that preterists resort to allegorical interpretation is a strawman argument.
The Great Tribulation in A.D. 70
I will now turn to the main subject at hand. Namely, how can one possibly assert that The Great Tribulation events, as described in the book of Revelation, already occurred? Even more, how can one hold to such a position while maintaining Biblical inerrancy and perspicuity?
For starters, in going through a survey of the Bible, it does not take one long to notice that the book of Revelation is quite unique to each of the previous books. This uniqueness has to do with the book’s genre- a factor that is very important to the grammatical-historical interpretive methodology acclaimed by Dr. Gentry. More specifically, the book of Revelation is often accredited with the genre of apocalyptic literature. The Reformation Study Bible, edited by Dr. R.C. Sproul, calls the genre of Revelation an “apocalyptic prophecy,”3 thus combining both Old Testament prophetic and apocalyptic writings together. This, of course, is vital to understanding how one is to correctly interpret the book of Revelation, because as the RSB goes on to say,
Since OT apocalyptic prophecy is characterized by its use of highly figurative and symbolic language, the identification of Revelation as an apocalyptic prophecy indicates that it is likewise characterized by the use of symbolic language.4
This point is not established to undermine the Bible’s perspicuity or imply that Revelation cannot be understood correctly. However, it is to say that the interpretation of Revelation may not be as easily obtained, or obtained in the same manner, as other genre’s such as historical narrative, or epistolary writings. As such, a “literal” interpretation of Revelation, as prescribed by dispensationalists, is not reasonable for the given genre, and actually breaks from sound hermeneutical principles by not taking the genre of Revelation into account. In arguing for the preterist position, Dr. Gentry, who was quoted earlier, cites two dispensational scholars, C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines Jr., who wrote as much, saying,
It is in the failure to grasp the interplay between prose and poetry that doomsday prophets make a major mistake, overemphasizing the literal meaning to the neglect of the symbolic.5
So, if Revelation is not to be interpreted literally, how else is it to be interpreted? Pastor Douglas Wilson, a confirmed preterist, said in relation to interpreting the book of Revelation that one is to, “Interpret the unclear text in light of the clear text.”6 In other words, we ought to interpret the book in light of what Scripture elsewhere says about it. This is a sound hermeneutical principle referred to as the “analogy of faith,” or interpreting Scripture with Scripture; a principle that dispensationalists themselves employ.
In searching to discover the Bible’s teachings elsewhere on the same topic that Revelation addresses, we may turn our attention to the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which are recorded in His famous Olivet Discourse, reported on by the writers of all three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Both premillennialists and preterists admit that Jesus spoke in this discourse of the exact same events that the book of Revelation centers around. Turning to Matthew, chapter twenty-four we read,
Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:1-3).
These verses provide the backdrop to the lengthy discourse which proceeds. Now, in examining these verses, take note of the setting and the questions that Christ is directly asked. Jesus, in the first, leaves and sits directly opposite the Jewish temple, on the Mount of Olives (see also Lk. 13:3). He then declares to His disciples that every stone of that temple would be thrown down, prophesying its devastating destruction. This prophecy then provokes His disciples to ask, “When will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Because of the wording of the second question asked by the disciples in Matthew’s gospel (the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age), many people, particularly premillennialists, are inclined to think that the following discourse is at least partly concerned with events that are still yet future to modern Christians. Yet, this interpretation cannot be. It may not be so, because upon further investigation we see that the same question is significantly altered in Mark and Luke’s gospel.
In Luke 13:4 the disciples ask,
“Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?”
In Mark 21:7 we read,
“Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?”
Here, Mark and Luke both include the two questions asked by the disciples, but the second question, as phrased in Mark and Luke’s gospel, is significantly changed from the way it was asked in Matthew’s. It is changed in such a way that any mention of Christ’s second coming is omitted. Instead, both questions are centered around “these things,” speaking of Christ’s prophecy in regard to the destruction of the temple. This omission quite seriously changes the entire meaning of the questions themselves, and therefore the meaning of the Olivet Discourse itself (a discourse which is prompted by the questions).
I assert then, that the disciples’ questions, as recorded in Matthew, must be interpreted in light of the phraseology in Mark and Luke, and thus be harmonized with one another, lest there be a contradiction between the three gospel writers.
If this assertion be granted, then there is no contextual evidence in the background of the Olivet Discourse that would suggest that Jesus was intending to speak of the end of the space-time continuum when answering the question in regards to His coming and of the end of the age. Rather, this was an equation that the disciples made because of the grand significance of the temple to Jewish culture. The disciples were equating the destruction of the temple to the end of the world/age. Thus, there is no reason to demand that the events of the Olivet Discourse be yet future on the basis of the disciple’s questions. Instead, it is actually better to think of the disciple’s inquiry as being centered around the destruction of the Jewish temple, for this is what harmonization of the synoptic gospels would require.
Why then did Matthew write of Christ’s coming and the end of the age in his record of the disciples’ questions? This is most logically articulated by the legendary John Calvin himself, as referenced in the book The Last Days According to Jesus, by Dr. R.C. Sproul. Calvin writes of Matthew’s questions saying,
Matthew tells us that they inquired about the time of Christ’s coming, and of the end of the world. But it must be observed that, having believed from their infancy that the temple would stand till the end of time, and having this opinion deeply rooted in their minds, they did not suppose that, while the building of the world stood, the temple could fall to ruins. Accordingly, as soon as Christ said that the temple would be destroyed, their thoughts immediately turned to the end of the world.7
Keeping in mind that the discourse which follows is prompted by two questions which both center around the Jewish temple, Jesus then responds by elaborating upon events that would take place shortly before and during the temple’s destruction which occurred in A.D. 70. There would be wars and rumors of wars; nation would rise up against nation; there would be earthquakes, famines and pestilences; and the disciples would be given up to martyrdom.
Notice, in Matthew 24:16, that this tribulation event would be localized, not global in extent. Jesus warns the disciples that when they see the “abomination of desolation,” those in Judea should, “flee to the mountains.” Indeed, all these things about which our Christ warned of did come to pass!
The preterist position is proven finally, by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in Matthew 24:33-34. Here we read, “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near- at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” This proclamation harkens back to the condemnation that Jesus had previously laid upon the Pharisee’s inside the temple in Matthew 23. In v. 36, Christ says to the Pharisee’s, “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
For comparison, the same usage of “this generation” may be found in Luke 11:30 where Jesus says, “For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation.” The Greek word for generation is genea (γενεά), and when used within this context refers to a period of about forty years.8 Since Christ made this prediction in A.D. 30, forty years after would have made it precisely A.D. 70- the year that the temple was indeed destroyed by the Roman army.9
Premillennialists argue that the generation about which Jesus spoke refers to the generation of people who will be alive when these signs begin to take place. However, there are several major problems with this assertion. First of all, as we previously saw, Jesus was reacting to the questions posed by the disciples in regards to the destruction of the temple, not the end of the world as we know it. Therefore, it would make no sense for Christ to be referring to events that were to take place two-thousand years into the future. This is a gross disregard for the context of the Olivet Discourse. Secondly, there is no clear divide within the discourse between what was to be fulfilled in the destruction of the temple and what would still be to come two-thousand years into the future. Since there is no clear divide within the text, the assertion of such a divide is arbitrary. Finally, the presence of v. 33 does not allow for Christ to be referring to a far distant generation. He tells the disciples, “So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near- at the doors!” Twice, Jesus directs this warning toward His present audience. It is on the back of this that He declares that “this generation will not pass away.”
Put simply, it is most implausible to assert that Christ was speaking on one hand about events that would come to pass within that generation (i.e. the destruction of the temple), while on the other hand referring also to events that were 2,000 years (and counting) ahead of when He spoke, and with no clear divide between the two subjects.
Conclusion
In the spirit of “interpreting the unclear text in light of the clear text” it is my assertion that the events described in the book of Revelation must be interpreted through the lens of what the gospel writers, and the Lord Jesus Himself, clearly spoke and recorded. After all, they offer the only divine commentary on the book of Revelation. In applying sound hermeneutical principles to Jesus’ Mount Olivet Discourse, we must be driven to the conclusion that the events about which He spoke were to be fulfilled in the generation He spoke these things to. This inevitably leads one to adopt the partial preterist view of the Olivet Discourse and therefore view the book of Revelation through the partial preterist lens.
Rather than the Great Tribulation being in our imminent future, these events occurred in A.D. 70, and the years that led up to the devastating destruction of the Jewish temple, which the Jews adorned as the very house of God. This temple was destroyed for two major reasons. Firstly, it was a sign that the Lord’s grace was now being extended to the Gentile nations. And secondly, because of the Jews grievous sins, the most dreadful of which was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ the Son of God. This fact is revealed in the Old Testament when God spoke to Solomon of the temple saying,
But if you or your sons at all turn from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and this house which I have consecrated for My name I will cast out of My sight. Israel will be a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And as for this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss, and say, “Why has the Lord done thus to this land and to this house?” Then they will answer, “Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore, the Lord has brought all this calamity on them (1 Kings 9:6-9)
Rather than the future of this present age being one marked by outstanding defeat for the gospel of Christ, I hold that the future of this present age is that of victorious gospel success! No, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18), because all authority has been given to Christ in heaven and on earth (28:18). Jesus declared, “Now is the judgement of this world, now will the ruler of this world be cast out” (Jn. 12:31). The gospel itself is that binding of Satan. So, bind him!
Footnotes
1 Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publishing, 1999), 15.
2 Ibid.
3 R.C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible, (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2015), 2295.
4 Ibid.
5 Gentry, The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, 15.
6 Desiring God, “An Evening of Eschatology- Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism,” YouTube, March 28, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S0TQ2dXnms
7 R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1998), 27-28.
8 Gentry, The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, 27.
9 Ibid.
