Those who adhere to this view of Bible prophecy known as preterism, refer to themselves as “preterists.” Why? The word preterism is based on the Latin word preter, which means: “past”. And that’s what preterists believe. Preterists believe that many (if not all) of those things that most Christians would consider future events on the prophetic calendar are actually things of the past. According to preterists…
• The Tribulation
• The Antichrist
• The Abomination of Desolation
• Jesus’ Coming (Matthew 24; Revelation 19)
…are all things of the past.
Now, preterism is actually very similar to an unbiblical teaching that was making its rounds in the early church.
Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:17-18… “…Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection [a future event] has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.”
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord [a reference to the Tribulation, still future] has come. Let no one in any way deceive you.” And this is precisely what preterists are doing today. And the result today is the same as in the first century: “they upset the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18). Other hearers are having their faith “shaken” or “disturbed” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
Back in the first century, Paul tells us, there were two men, Hymenaeus and Philetus, who were confusing people in the church because they were talking about a future event as though it already happened. We might call these two men the first preterists.
Christians are growing tired of waiting “where is the sign of His coming?”
When did it start. At the time of the Counter-Reformation
Why did it start
he Jesuit Luis de Alcasar wrote a prominent preterist exposition of prophecy.[3][page needed][4]Moses Stuart noted in 1845 that Alcasar’s preterist interpretation advantaged the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[5] and Kenneth Newport in an eschatological commentary in 2000 described preterism as a Catholic defense against the Protestant historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[6]
Due to resistance from Protestant historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[7][page needed] Among Protestants preterism was first accepted by Hugo Grotius[8][9] (1583-1645), a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[10] Protestants did not welcome such views[11] but Grotius remained undeterred and in his next work, “Commentaries On The New Testament” (1641–50), he expanded his preterist views to include the Olivet discourse and the Book of Revelation.
The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed in 1645 that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century,[13] and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel’s prophecies in 1650,[14] but neither of them applied a preterist approach to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond (1605-1660). Hammond sympathized with Grotius’ desire for unity among Christians, and found his preterist exposition useful to this end.[15][page needed] Hammond wrote his own preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though giving pride of place to Grotius.[16][page needed] Hammond was Grotius’ only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Protestants overwhelmingly rejected Grotius’ interpretation of Revelation, which gained no ground for at least 100 years.[17][18][19]
By the end of the 18th century preterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. In 1730 the Protestant and Arian, Frenchman Firmin Abauzit wrote the first full preterist exposition, “Essai sur l’Apocalypse”. Abauzit worked in the then independent Republic of Geneva as a librarian.[20] This was part of a growing development of more systematic preterist expositions of Revelation.[21] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this approach after a critical examination by his English translator, Leonard Twells.[22]
The earliest American full-preterist work, The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event, was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view.[23]
Some partial preterists may believe that the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ, were not historically fulfilled.
Whenever anyone says Antiochus was the fulfillment of any part of the book of Daniel, that person is either a preterist or has been influenced by preterism. Preterism rejects the application of Daniel’s writings to the second coming of Christ. Preterists find fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecies in persons and events which preceded even Christ’s first coming. Preterists would close the book of Daniel for good and keep it closed.
Secondly preterists believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled. They don’t see any prophecies in the book having to do with a future coming of Jesus Christ. Instead these people hold that the book of Revelation is a record of the conflicts of the early churches with Judaism and paganism.
John L. Bray says in his book “The Rapture Of The Christian” that the tragic holocaust of 67 to 70 AD when the Romans crucified thousands of rebellious Jews was the great tribulation. Farrar saw the beast of Revelation 13 as being the emperor Nero and most shocking of all he said that “. . . the fall of Jerusalem (in 70 AD) was in the fullest sense, the Second Advent of the Son of Man . . .”
Events in Daniel 10-12 are specifically stated to be yet in the future. They are said in Daniel 11:40 to be “at the time of the end.”
This is decisive in denying preterist attempts to find Antiochus Epiphanes in this part of Daniel because Antiochus died 163 years before Christ came the first time. Also the Lord Jesus specifically states in Matthew 24:15 that the setting up of the abomination of desolation was still future when He (Christ) was living on earth. Turn to it.
“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”
Antiochus could not possibly have set up the abomination of desolation in 164 BC because Jesus Christ, 194 years later, spoke of this event as still being future. No, the Lord Jesus Christ rejected the preterist view concerning the book of Daniel and nowhere do those who try to make Daniel entirely history fail more miserably than here in Daniel 10-12.
Worst of all, preterism takes away the blessed hope from God’s people and thus robs God’s people of their comfort and encouragement as they face the difficulties and trials and troubles of this old wicked world.
MATTHEW 24:34
And then notice v. 34. This is the most popular proof text preterists point to. Notice what Jesus says…
Matthew 24:34
“Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”
And so our preterist friend says…
PRETERIST: “Ahh, you see! Jesus promised that “this generation” (v. 34)—the generation that was alive at His time—would by no means pass away until all of these things took place (the Abomination of Desolation, the great tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man). Therefore, these things must have taken place. Jesus must have come back or He would be a false prophet!”
Because of this verse (Matt. 24:34) and a couple of others that we’ll look at, preterists insist that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, including…
• the Tribulation events (spoken of in Revelation)
• and the coming of Christ
…had to have occurred before the generation of people living at the time of Jesus, died off.
Well, I disagree that this is what Jesus meant. “Then, what ‘generation’ was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?” He was talking about the generation that would see “all” (v. 34) the things He just mentioned.
The key to understanding this verse (Matthew 24:34) is found by backing up a verse. Notice verse 33. Jesus said…
Matthew 24:33-34
33 “Even so you too, when you see these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who, in v. 33, sees “all” those things] will not pass away until all these things take place.”
So, Jesus says “when you see all these things” (v. 33).
What things?
• The “Abomination of Desolation” (v.15)
• The time of “great tribulation” (v. 21) “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now nor ever shall.”
• The stars falling from the skies (v. 29)
That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man to the Earth (mentioned in v. 30).
Jesus was talking about the generation of people who would be alive during the events leading up to His Second Coming, that is, during the time of tribulation.
None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred. By “church fathers” I am referring to those leaders in the church of the first three centuries A.D. following the original disciples (e.g., Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp).
The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event. In other words, not only did the early church not refer to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they refer to it as a future event.
In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like…
• Papias
• Clement of Rome
• Ignatius
• Polycarp
• Justin Martyr
…wrote of a future Second Coming.
Well, this raises a question. Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later? I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.
So, that is a third reason to reject preterism: The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
This poses a big problem for the preteristic view. Preterists believe the Book of Revelation was a prophecy written by the apostle John describing events that would shortly come upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people as their city would be destroyed by the Romans.
For the preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70.
But there is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
For example, consider Irenaeus. He lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).
So get this in your mind…Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus!
Well! In Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
[Hold on. Stop there for a second. That’s interesting!]
Note that Irenaeus (AD 120-202) believed that the “Antichrist” had still not been revealed. Well, that throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint. Why? Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff, believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.
CONCLUSION
So, as we have seen this brief article, there are very good reasons why the preteristic view of Bible prophecy should be rejected.
1. Preterists’ proof texts fail to support their own view.
2. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred.
3. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.
4. A strong case can be made that the Book of Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of A.D. 70.
5. The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist or “the Beast” as preterists suggest.
6. The Tribulation events in the Book of Revelation are too global and cataclysmic to be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Any one of these reasons alone is great reason to doubt the preterist position. All six of these reasons taken together are reason to reject this view of Bible prophecy outright.
