Partial preterism is a view of biblical prophecy that claims many end-times events described in the New Testament were fulfilled in the first century, particularly around the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, partial preterists still believe some prophecies remain unfulfilled, like the Second Coming of Christ and final judgment. This position faces significant challenges when it comes to consistently interpreting certain passages, especially in the book of Revelation. Let’s explore why partial preterism struggles with consistency and how it can logically lead to full preterism.
The Challenge of Revelation’s “Timing Texts”
The book of Revelation contains several “timing texts” that seem to indicate the prophecies will be fulfilled soon. For example:
- “The time is near” (Revelation 1:3)
- “I am coming soon” (Revelation 22:7, 12, 20)
- “These things must soon take place” (Revelation 22:6)
Partial preterists use these verses to argue that most of Revelation’s prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. They claim these statements wouldn’t make sense if the events were thousands of years in the future.
However, this interpretation faces a significant problem. These “timing texts” appear not only at the beginning of Revelation but also at the end. This creates a dilemma for partial preterists who want to maintain that some prophecies remain unfulfilled.
The Logical Inconsistency
Here’s the crux of the issue:
- Partial preterists use the “timing texts” at the beginning of Revelation to argue for a first-century fulfillment of most prophecies.
- But the same type of “timing texts” appear at the end of Revelation, after descriptions of events partial preterists believe are still future (like the Second Coming and final judgment).
- If the “timing texts” at the beginning of Revelation indicate imminent fulfillment, logically the same should apply to those at the end.
- This would mean all of Revelation’s prophecies, including the Second Coming, should have been fulfilled in the first century.
This is the position of full preterism, which argues that all biblical prophecy, including the Second Coming, was fulfilled by 70 AD. While most partial preterists reject this conclusion, it’s difficult to avoid if their interpretive approach is applied consistently.
The Danger of Inconsistency
Kenneth Gentry, a prominent partial preterist, acknowledges this challenge. He admits that the use of these timing words at the end of Revelation is “injurious to the partial preterist system.” This is because their existence logically leads to the conclusion that the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD, not just most of it.
This inconsistency is why some scholars argue that partial preterists should more accurately be called “inconsistent preterists,” while full preterists are “consistent preterists.”
The Slippery Slope to Full Preterism
The logical progression from partial to full preterism is not merely theoretical. There are real-world examples of this shift occurring:
- David Chilton, originally a partial preterist, eventually embraced full preterism before his death.
- Other scholars have noted the difficulty of maintaining a partial preterist position without sliding into full preterism.
This transition happens because once you accept that most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century based on the “timing texts,” it becomes increasingly difficult to justify why the remaining prophecies should be treated differently.
Theological and Doctrinal Concerns
The slide from partial to full preterism is not just an academic issue. It has significant theological implications:
- Orthodox Christianity: The belief in a future, physical return of Christ is a core tenet of orthodox Christianity. Full preterism denies this, placing it outside mainstream Christian doctrine.
- Church Creeds: Major church creeds, like the Nicene Creed, affirm a future return of Christ. Full preterism contradicts these historical statements of faith.
- Biblical Interpretation: The shift to full preterism often requires increasingly allegorical or symbolic interpretations of Scripture, moving away from a more literal hermeneutic.
Alternative Approaches to the “Timing Texts”
Given these challenges, how can we understand Revelation’s “timing texts” without falling into the inconsistency of partial preterism or the heterodoxy of full preterism? Here are some alternatives to consider:
- Prophetic Perspective: The “soon” language could be from God’s perspective, for whom “a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).
- Imminent, Not Immediate: The texts could indicate that these events could happen at any time, not that they must happen right away.
- Certainty, Not Chronology: The emphasis might be on the certainty of fulfillment rather than its timing.
- Beginning of Fulfillment: Some argue these texts refer to the start of the prophetic fulfillment process, not its completion.
Conclusion
The inconsistency of partial preterism in dealing with Revelation’s “timing texts” presents a significant challenge to the view. While attempting to take these texts seriously, partial preterists struggle to maintain a consistent hermeneutic without logically progressing to full preterism.
This issue highlights the importance of a careful, consistent approach to biblical interpretation. It also underscores the complexity of eschatological study and the need for humility when dealing with prophetic texts.
Ultimately, as we grapple with these challenging passages, we must remember the central message of Revelation: Jesus Christ will return, God will judge evil, and He will establish His eternal kingdom. Regardless of our position on the timing of these events, this hope should inspire us to live faithfully and expectantly.
