How to Become
a Wacked-Out Consistent
Hyper-Preterist

I know, I know . . . you're not asking "how."

You're asking "Why?"

“Why would anyone want to become a wacked-out consistent hyper preterist? Are you insane?”

And of course the answer that every wacked-out consistent "hyper" preterist will give you is . . . “Because the doctrine is Biblical.”

To which the anti-full-preterist will reply, "That's what they all say."

Don't bother reading another word on this web page unless you agree with these two Bible verses:

Acts 17:10-12

Now these [The Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the Word with all readiness of the mind,
searching the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.

Proverbs 27:17

Just as iron sharpens iron,
friends sharpen the minds of each other.

Outline

• identifying the parties
• reasons for adopting consistent preterism
  • proper hermeneutics
  • answering atheists
  • not being an anti-christ
  • understanding why God created you

Identifying the Parties

Most "partial preterists" I know are "Christian Reconstructionists," and nearly everyone who identifies himself as a "Reconstructionist" is a partial preterist. Almost by definition, nobody who is a "Reconstructionist" is a full preterist. Many noteworthy Reconstructionists have gone on the war-path against "full" or "consistent" preterism. One Reformed Church has officially set forth its view that a person who is a
       • sola scriptura,
       • sola fide,
       • six-day creationist,
       • Trinitarian
       • Calvinist
       • but also believes in full preterism
is damned and going to hell.
Gary North and Andrew Sandlin have spoken in no uncertain terms against the "heresy" of full preterism, even to suggest that no debate or discussion of the issues should be engaged in with full preterists; those who adhere to it have denied Christianity itself.

So I'm assuming that you're a Reconstructionist.

I was once a Reconstructionist. I'll let you decide if I still am.

The belief that Matthew 24 predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and not the end of the world two or three thousand years in the future is Eschatology 101 for Reconstructionists. I became a Reconstructionist around 1977. I remember when R. J. Rushdoony introduced those of us in Southern California to the writings of J. Marcellus Kik. Kik showed us that

• "Wars and Rumors of War"
• "Famines"
• "Earthquakes"
• "Signs in the Heavens" (Matthew 24:29-30)
  • the sun shall be darkened,
  • and the moon not give her light,
  • and the stars shall fall from heaven,
  • and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken
• The Great "Tribulation"
• "Falling Away and Betrayal"
• "False Prophets"
• "Increased Lawlessness"
• "The Gospel Preached to the Whole World"

were all fulfilled in the years prior to AD70, and we were ready for debate with all the Calvary Chapel folks around us who were waiting for the rapture. (We loved controversy. We loved saying controversial things to people and watching their jaws drop. We loved the shock-value of "preterism." Hopefully we've all grown up and are a little more persuasive. Preterism can be abused, but it's still good hermeneutics [at this point].)

From there, one New Testament prophecy after another was taken from the jigsaw of Hal Lindsey and added to the picture of what happened in AD70.

• The Beast
• The Antichrist
• The Man of Lawlessness
  -- Gary DeMar finds them all in the first century.

All prophecies about "the Great Tribulation," the antichrist, the preaching of the Gospel to the whole world, and Christ coming in the clouds, already happened. They happened in "the last days" of the Old Covenant, which ended in 70AD when Jerusalem was destroyed.

• even "The New Heavens and the New Earth" (2 Peter 3)
  -- David Chilton ( following the Puritan John Owen ) concluded that even this had been brought in at AD70 by the destruction of "the old world" of Judaism and its temple economy.

Wow! That didn't leave much for the future.

At one point Chilton believed in a future Second Coming of Christ even though he admitted there were no verses (left) that spoke of a future (for us) coming. (He believed in a future Second Coming anyway because "Holy Mother the Church has taught the doctrine for 2,000 years.")

Then Chilton took the plunge and became a full preterist.

But Chilton was a unique person. Most people will not as easily become preterists. This book is designed to help partial preterists become full preterists by answering the most difficult objection -- the final objection -- the last hold-out -- against full preterism.

The last straw seems to be a passage found in the synoptic Gospels at Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 8:38-9:1, and Luke 9:26-27,

Everyone agrees that before the dead can be judged, they must be resurrected. Everyone agrees that the resurrection and judgment occur at (or just after) the "Second Coming." When Jesus speaks of "the Son of man coming in His kingdom with power," one might ask, "the power to do what?" "Resurrect the dead" might be an accurate answer. This passage certainly teaches that all these things would happen before about AD 70 (40 years after the words were spoken to those eye-witnesses of Jesus). Either they happened in that generation, or Jesus was mistaken.

Another way of looking at "partial" preterists is to call them "double" preterists. Partial preterists believe some prophecies were fulfilled in the past ("preterism"), but will also have a "double fulfillment" in the future ("futurism"). This chart may explain the conflict:

Futurists believe that at least some distinctive prophetic events are yet to occur. Consistent Preterists believe that Jesus fulfilled all New Testament prophecies by "coming" in AD70 in a great and terrible "Day of the Lord," in which the Jews were judged and the dead resurrected. Preterists believe that most Christians are mistaken in believing that New Testament passages predict the future physical destruction of the planet, and the future physical coming of Christ.

But if the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment (it's always capitalized) have already taken place, some ask, "What's left?" "No future resurrection?" "Are we already in heaven?"

It seems to me that this is where all arguments about preterism end up. We can talk about the meaning of "this generation" or 101 "any moment" verses, or even the meaning of "The New Heavens and the New Earth." But even if the non-preterist could be convinced that there are no verses that speak of a future Second Coming, Resurrection, or Last Judgment, nearly everyone is unprepared to admit that we are now in heaven.

I must confess that even if I am intellectually able to say, "Yes, the passages traditionally used to support the idea of a future resurrection and last judgment must have referred to some events in the first century, or else the authors were mistaken in their time references," and even if I conclude with David Chilton that there are no scripture passages that teach a future Second Coming, Resurrection and Judgment, I am emotionally unable to deny that there will be a future Second Coming, Resurrection and Judgment. I have lived all of my life believing in these future events.

But as a Reconstructionist I have come to believe that these events -- if still future -- will not take place until after the complete Christianization of the nations (postmillennialism).

Postmillennialists do not believe in a second "coming" of Christ. Christ does not step foot on planet earth. All that happens to earth at the second coming is its destruction and the end of time and history. Christ doesn't "come" to earth again at the "second coming." And this cannot occur until after "millennial conditions" have been re-created on earth. Many postmillennialists believe this could be hundreds of thousands of years in the future. Chilton, Ken Gentry,* Gary DeMar, and other Reconstructionist teachers all seem to agree that these events will not occur for thousands of years.

So why does it matter whether I believe them or not? If they occur, great. If they don't, oh well. I'll be dead if they occur or dead if they don't, that I know for sure.

And I trust God. God is Love and God has imputed the death and righteousness of Christ to my account. The sting of death is gone. Whatever happens to me after I die will be more than fair, more than merciful, and more glorious than anything I can imagine.

Hermeneutics

In order to become a consistent  preterist, you have to develop a consistently Biblical hermeneutic. "Hermeneutics" is the science of interpreting verses. The standard method of Bible interpretation is called "the grammatical-historical method." This means arriving at the meaning of the words as the author intended them at the time he wrote them. If he wrote the words in a day when a word meant "X," we should give the verse the "X" interpretation, even if the word today means "Y." This is the same way the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended their document to be interpreted by subsequent generations.

There is not a single verse in the New Testament which was intended by its author to convey the idea of something occurring thousands of years in the future.
There is not a single verse in the New Testament which was understood by its original audience to convey the idea of something occurring thousands of years in the future.

Another way to interpret the Bible (but one which full preterists deny is Biblical) is to claim that Popes and Bishops will be guided by the Holy Spirit, who will reveal to them entirely new meanings of the verse which are not evident in the words themselves, nor intended by its original author, nor understood by the original audience.

Consider Matthew 24:30. John Nelson Darby, the godfather of dispensational premillennialism, an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher associated with the early years of the Plymouth Brethren, published a translation of the Bible which translates Matthew 24:30 in this way:

Matthew 24:29-31
²⁹ But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
³⁰ And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the land lament, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
³¹ And he shall send his angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from [the one] extremity of [the] heavens to [the other] extremity of them.

The vast, overwhelming majority of Christian Reconstructionists/partial preterists believe this passage was fulfilled in the events of A.D. 70. If I could think of a single exception, I would list his name here. Futurists think it's goofy to believe that the stars fell from heaven in the first century. But "all the tribes of the land" understood that Jesus was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. In its textual context (Matthew 24), in its grammatical context (the celestial language was a common way for Old Testament prophets to speak of the fall of a great nation), and historically, this passage was understood to be describing events that would come to pass during the lifetime of that generation.

“This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Matthew 24:34)

Nobody  -- I repeat, nobody -- believed that Jesus was talking about events that would take place thousands of years in the future.

This hermeneutic -- used by all partial preterists -- should be used consistently. Doing so will make one a consistent preterist.

The Westminster Assembly (1643-1653), unfortunately, is not consistent. Here is how Matthew 24:30 is used in Q. 56 of the Larger Catechism:

Let's examine each of the assertions and the prooftexts.

This is not about the Second Coming. "Extreme preterists" agree with this.

This is plain error. The Westminster Divines ascribe to a yet-future Second Coming prophecies of the judgment of Israel in A.D.70

Many Reconstructionists can remember the first time they read Rushdoony, who relied on the work of J. Marcellus Kik, who showed with clear and convincing passages of Scripture that Matthew 24:30 was talking about events in A.D.70, not a future Second Coming. The Westminster Divines erred on this point. Their basic hermeneutical approach is erroneous. They lack even the most basic understanding of preterism. Whatever you believe about Matthew 24:36ff., you should know by now that Matthew 24:30 is talking about Jesus' Coming in judgment against covenant-breaking Israel. This is now (in the 21st century) Eschatology 101.

This basic hermeneutical failure has led Reformed commentators into other errors. Our purpose is to purge our world view of these premillennial errors, not to deny any truth about the "Second Coming" which may remain. This exegetical purging is strenuously resisted by those who oppose "extreme preterism," to the point where they say that those who favor this purging are "outside the Faith." This is sinful.

Luke 9:26 is erroneously applied by the Westminster Divines to a yet-future Second Coming, as can be seen from the very next verse:

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

An argument (worthy of respect and thoughtful consideration) can be made that Matthew 25:31 also applied to events in A.D.70. It is shockingly uncharitable to say that a Christian who holds this interpretation of Matthew 25 is "outside the Faith." One who makes such an egregious and divisive slander would do well to "examine himself" (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5).

This text is admittedly difficult to place in an A.D.70 framework. But given that nearly all other New Testament prophecies concerning Christ's "coming" have been misapplied by premillennialists (and too many postmillennialists), are we really "outside the Faith" for enquiring as to whether this passage has also been historically misapplied?

Ed Stevens writes:

J.S. Russell, Milton S. Terry, Ernest Hampden-Cook, Richard Weymouth and other preterists have suggested that there was in fact a literal "catching up" of a limited group of saints (not everyone) in AD 70. Most other preterists, however, see this as just another way of describing the "gathering together" of both Jew and Gentile into the Kingdom of Christ. This latter view is probably the majority opinion. But there are some strong and ancient advocates of a literal "rapture" in AD 70. I am writing a chapter on the rapture in my resurrection book. I plan to present the evidence for both positions, point out what the issues are, what sources for information must be used, and let the reader do his own further research and make up his mind. On internal evidences, contextual and linguistic considerations, the rapture view is stronger. But it has some historical and external problems. It is not as easy to exegete as it looks. The place to start is in the whole 1 Thes. and 2 Thes. context. Then study the Greek word usage in the immediate (1 Thess. 4:13 -- 1 Thess. 5:10) context. Do an especially careful study on the Greek word for "caught up." Study the other verses in the NT which use this Greek word (harpazo). Ask yourself what the Thessalonians were really upset over, and what Paul was actually promising them, which would keep them from "grieving as do the rest who have no hope." What would they get that would solve their grief problem? Was Paul promising them an actual reunion with their departed brethren, or just a "positional" or "spiritual" union with them? Think about it. :-)

And would Paul have been of any help to the Thessalonian believers by promising them a rapture some 2,000 years (or more!) in the future?

Finally, the Catechism cites Acts 17:

One must treat the Westminster Divines with respect. One must also note that Paul is here addressing the Greeks, not the Jews. One would therefore not be "outside the Faith" if he concluded, based on the teaching of the Catechism, that Paul is speaking of a yet-future universal judgment.

But given the fact that all the other passages concerning predicted judgment seem to have been misapplied by the Westminster Divines, and given the fact that Paul elsewhere speaks of judgment as imminent, affecting "this generation," is one "denying the Gospel" for simply asking whether the judgment spoken of here by Paul is not also speaking of judgment in A.D.70? And if one concludes, based on exegetical grounds, that Paul is in fact referring to the judgment in A.D.70, is he for that reason truly "outside the Faith?" Such a claim is outrageous.

Russell writes:

I will admit that there are several verses which are tough to understand from a consistently preterist perspective. But there are 10x more troublesome verses for the futurist. Matthew 16:27-28 is an impossible hurdle for the futurist. The vast majority of the relevant verses are clearly preterist, not futurist.

I would rather patiently and humbly wait for God's answer to the right question
than instantly and triumphantly possess man's answer to the wrong question

These are the hermeneutical options

• What the original author intended the words to mean, and what the original audience in historical context understood them to mean;
• What Popes and Bishops tell us it means.

Answering Atheists

"What do you mean, 'Jesus isn't coming soon?' Doesn't the Bible say Jesus is coming soon?"

Yes, the Bible clearly says Jesus was coming soon, and either He came when the Bible said He would come, or the Bible is mistaken and untrustworthy.

There isn't a single verse in the Bible that can be reasonably translated "Jesus is not coming soon, but He will come in about one thousand nine hundred and seventy-five years."

There are at least 101 verses in the New Testament that claim that “Jesus is Coming Soon” –– not exactly those words, but clearly teaching that Christ’s Second Coming is “at hand,” “near,” or ready to happen. These verses are tied with the bold declaration that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and consummation of the Old Covenant is just around the corner. This is one of the most important themes in the entire New Testament. It is part of the thinking of all New Testament authors. It must be dealt with. Here’s what happens when we don’t:

Atheist Bertrand Russell, in his book Why I Am Not A Christian, discredits the inspiration of the New Testament based on the failed prediction of Christ and the Apostles:

Russell is mistaken when he starts with the premise that Christ and the Apostles were predicting the end of the physical world. They were talking about the end of the temple world; the Mosaic age.

Russell is correct when he says that much of the New Testament was based on this belief: that the “coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom” and the “end of the world” were “at hand.”

But if Christ and the Apostles were teaching the imminent destruction of planet earth and the inauguration of the “eternal state” or some kind of "millennial kingdom" like the Jehovah's Witnesses talk about, then the authors of the Bible were clearly mistaken. That would make them untrustworthy. That would destroy Christianity.

Don't Be an Antichrist!

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22

Is Jesus the Christ today? Right now?

Premillennialists say No. Jesus will not reign as Christ until after His second coming.

Amillennialists are anti-christs.

Partial preterist postmillennialists are wishy-washy. In some ways they believe Jesus is the Christ right now, but in other ways they defer all the power and blessings of the Messianic Age to the future. Whenever they deny present realities of Christ's reign, they are on the verge of becoming anti-christs.

This argument is spelled out in more detail here:

• JesusistheChrist.today
• Who is the Anti-Christ?

What is Your Purpose in Life?

Why did God create you?

Why did God create human beings and put them on planet earth?

In a nutshell, I would like to suggest that our purpose on earth is to build the New Jerusalem.

Another word for "New Jerusalem" is "City of God."

In another nutshell, our purpose is to create heaven on earth.

The first Adam rebelled against God. The Tempter said Adam should build the City of Man instead.

Rebellion against the commandments of God brings God's curse (Deuteronomy 28:15ff.).

But the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) restored mankind to Garden Fellowship with God. We are now in the position Adam was in before the Fall.

Except for those pesky thorns.

It is still our job to turn the Garden into the City of God. But now we also have to pull the weeds. God isn't going to do this for us and hand it all to us on a silver platter.

The Last Adam reversed the curse theologically (positionally) but not physically. It is our job to "work out our salvation" (Philippians 2:12). In the Bible, "saviors" brought  deliverance from archists. Our job is to preach the Gospel and get archists to repent. When we have removed all the physical effects of the Fall, faithful workers will give God all the credit.

This is not only a paradigm for life and calling, but it helps with our eschatology.

To pursue further study of this paradigm click here.

There are many thorny problems about eschatology. We will not answer them all in this generation. It is a work of Christians for many generations to come.

In fact, I would like to suggest that even if these events will occur in the future, it is unBiblical to think about them or allow them to affect my life. Perhaps that's an overstatement. To be sure, whenever those future events have affected the lives of Christians, it has been negatively. Oops, another overstatement: it is undoubtedly true that belief in a future "Last Judgment" has kept many people from sinning, and denial of "the Last Judgment" has encouraged others to declare their autonomy and increase their sin. But they should have obeyed Jesus because He is Lord right now, not merely because He will punish them after death. Even if certain individuals have been kept from individual sins because of the threat of future judgment, futurism has been bad socially and culturally. On balance, I contend, belief in a future Second Coming has been detrimental to the cause of Christ and His dominion now, in this life.

It would undoubtedly take a PhD dissertation to prove that last sentence. And some PhD's could easily conclude that it is belief in an imminent Second Coming that has been socially detrimental, at least more so than the belief in a distantly future Second Coming. So let me instead draw a fine point and argue from the Bible that anyone who believes in a future Second Coming is an antichrist.

Then I'll argue from history that retreat is costly, and "heavenly-mindedness" is of no earthly good.

Those two links branch out into the rest of this book. Or you can begin with this overview. I hope the book is life-changing for you.

Partial preterists strenuously and ultimately object to full-preterism on the grounds that full preterism logically means "we are now in heaven." If there are no unfulfilled prophecies, there's nothing left in our future but heaven. In fact, if preterism is true, we must be in heaven now! How ridiculous!

But many partial preterists are willing to admit that John Owen and other Reformed scholars are right, and that we are now in "The New Heavens and the New Earth," but they get hysterical over "full" preterism. Now really, what is the difference between living in "The New Heavens and the New Earth" now and living in "heaven" now?

This can't be heaven we're in now, so full preterism can't be true.

This is a serious objection, and it involves not only our view of heaven and prophecy, but our entire conception of Man's purpose on earth.

*  Gentry does not believe we are yet in "the New Heavens and New Earth," but he believes that thousands of years of human history remain before us.