Full preterism, or consistent eschatology as it is sometimes called, is the belief that all of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the consummation of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity, including but not limited to the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection, final judgment, and the establishment of the new heavens and the new earth, occurred in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. This event in their understanding marked the eschatological transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, meaning that no further fulfillment is necessary. The new has come; it is really and truly here to its fullest extent. There is no need for any further act of God to complete his redemptive purposes in the world.
Now, let me be clear, this position is complete and utter heresy. It is a false gospel, because it denies the essential orthodox belief that “He will come again to judge the living and the dead” (Apostle’s Creed). It denies “the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come” (Nicene Creed). These denials among others put the views of full preterism wholly outside the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy. In the space that remains here, I would simply like to outline a few of the methodological and theological errors that are typical of this view, and then I will conclude by reaffirming the orthodox Christian hope.
The first error of full preterism is that they have a conspiracy theory view of hermeneutical method. In other words, their interpretations are based on a string of loosely related or even unrelated texts that are tied together by the occurrence of similar words. Of course, they would claim that they are following the principle of sola scriptura, namely that “scripture interprets scripture,” but I would submit that this is a theological conviction for biblical interpretation not a hermeneutical method for biblical interpretation. (See my post here). In stringing texts together the way that they do, they completely disregard concerns for the text’s historical and theological context and the author’s flow of thought. Instead, they flatten out the distinctive emphases of particular texts by smashing them together to say that same thing. More often than not, their exegesis comes across like someone throwing paint against a wall and then concluding they’ve painted Mona Lisa.
A second error of full preterism is that they hold to a gnostic view of the human person. Gnosticism is a heresy from the second century CE that suggests that Christ came to save us from this evil material world so that we could throw off the limits of our physical bodies and exist eternally as pure spirit. Of course, there is much more to it than this simple definition, but its weakness is that it disregards God’s design for human beings as embodied souls. We were made with a body and a soul, and to exist without either one of these is to be incomplete from the biblical point of view. This is why the resurrection of the body is such a primary doctrine; we are not merely transformed spiritually, we will be transformed physically when He comes again. Full preterism denies the future bodily resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, and they suppose that when we die, we either go to heaven or hell to continue on as a “spiritual” being for eternity.
Thirdly, full preterism has an adoptionistic view of the incarnation. Adoptionism, or dynamic monarchianism, is a heresy from the third century CE that suggests that the divine logos came upon the man Jesus as his baptism, left him at his crucifixion, but then came upon him again at his resurrection. In other words, the man Jesus was “adopted” by God at his resurrection. The view of full preterism is not unlike adoptionistic Christology because they seem to believe the body of Jesus was only necessary during his earthly life. Often they suggest that his body was burnt up, or maybe it disappeared, at His ascension, so that He no longer has a body in heaven now. In other words, the son “adopted” a body for as long as he needed it, but then, when he no longer needed it, he discarded it. Along with the gnostic notions discussed above, this position negates the necessity of the resurrection. Why did Jesus even have to be resurrected from the dead with a body? Why not just rise as pure spirit? Here again, this view cannot explain the glorified body of Jesus, because it makes the incarnation temporary.
A fourth error that is part of the full preterist view is that they seem to have a fatalistic view of human history. Since they view this world as it is now as the “new heavens and new earth,” they have no expectation for any kind of renewal or transformation of the created order. According to this view, sin, death, disease, heartache, and the like will continue in perpetuity, eternally, without end. The only escape from the harsh realities of this world is when we die and go to heaven. But a renewed earth free of the corruption of sin and death is not in the purview of full preterism. This is fatalistic, because it essentially says that this is how the world is and this is how it will be. Nothing will ever get better, paradise will never be restored. Among others problems, this perspective denies the original purity and goodness of God’s creation and God’s intent to restore creation to that state of purity and goodness.
The final error that I see with full preterism, and perhaps the greatest, is that it offers a hopeless view of the Gospel. The reason for this is that it does not offer a final and full defeat of sin. Sure, the penalty of sin has been paid on the cross, and Satan has been defeated. But according to the full preterists, Satan and sin continue to run free forever. There is no final end to sin; there is no final defeat of Satan, no final judgment of the wicked. These things continue into perpetuity. The fact of the matter is that this is not the Gospel. Christ came, yes to pay the penalty for our sin, but also to free us from sin, and not only us, but the entirety of His creation. This is why the creation groans with yearning for the revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8.19-22). We look forward to a world that will be free of the domination and corruption of sin, free of the decay of death, where there will be no more tears, no more pains, no more heartaches. This is hope. This is the Gospel. And so we say, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22.20)
For further study:
On Christian Hope: Heaven or Resurrection
On Eschatology and the Gospel
Faith seeking Understanding 
On Biblical Interpretation and the Holy Spirit
Recently, I was following a thread on a friends Facebook post where the participants were discussing their disagreement on a question of biblical interpretation. The specific issue under debate is not important at the moment, and I’ll just say that I was surprised to find that this particular exchange was more graceful than these kinds of forums usually are. However, with that being said, after reading through the various points and counterpoints being made, I came across one response that made me pause. Figuring that the minds of the other participants were unlikely to change, one commenter attempted to conclude the discussion by saying:
In my previous post, I examined the question of “man-made” bible study resources, and I concluded that there is great wisdom in listening to the voices of those who have studied the Bible before us. We were never intended to approach Bible study as if we are the “lone ranger” of Bible interpretation, carving a path that has somehow never been carved before. Commentaries, theologies, and the like are part of God’s gift to the church (Ephesians 4.11-13); they are part of that “great cloud of witnesses” within which we pursue Christian maturity and godliness (Hebrews 12.1). However, even greater than these is the gift that is God’s Spirit. In the New Covenant, we who have been united with Christ by faith have been indwelt by God’s very Spirit, and He is the one who writes the Word upon our hearts and moves us to obey it (Jeremiah 31.33, Ezekiel 36.27). This is what makes Christian biblical interpretation unique; we have God’s Spirit (1 Corinthians 2.10-16).
Unfortunately, there is great misunderstanding as to the exact nature of the Spirit’s role in biblical interpretation, and in the space that follows, I would like to explore the contours of the Spirit’s work in Bible interpretation. According to the view represented by the Facebook comment above, all we need to do is read the Bible and then open our hearts and minds so that the Spirit can tell us what the Scripture means. This approach is essentially a recapitulation of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. In other words, it suggests that Biblical knowledge comes to us by some kind of secret mystical experiential revelation from the Spirit apart from the text. But this is not the way that the Spirit works. Revelation is fixed, and the canon is closed. Moreover, the Spirit will not do for us what God has equipped us to do for ourselves. He has given us rational minds with the ability to read and comprehend His revealed Word. This is why we are repeatedly commanded to read, study, and grow in the knowledge of the Scriptures.
The Spirit’s work in biblical interpretation is not primarily revelatory; He does not impart the content of biblical meaning. Rather, His work pertains more to our accepting and obeying the principles that are revealed in the Scriptures. This is what is known in theology as the doctrine of illumination.
The Spirit illuminates our hearts to accept the truth of God’s Word, and He helps to conform our will in submission to that Word through conviction. This illumination comes to us not through some mystical experiential supra-rational revelation, but through the classic word-centered spiritual disciplines. In other words, once we have done our exegetical work in the text, then we must do our closet work (ala Matt 6.6) through memorization, meditation, and prayer. When we engage in these rhythms of the Spirit, we put ourselves in a posture where He can use the fruits of our study to sift our souls. As the Scripture says,
Under the New Covenant, one of the primary roles of the Spirit is to mediate the knowledge of God, but this ministry cannot, nay must not, be separated from the Word of God. Throughout all of Holy Scripture, the Spirit of God and the Word of God work together to transform the people of God into the image of God. More often than not, this transformation happens in ways and means that are consistent with the way God has made us. We do not seek any secret mystical revelation of God’s Word; rather, we use all of the natural and supernatural resources that God has given us to understand His revelation of Himself to us through His Word.
For further study:
On the Spirit and the Word
Share this:
2 Comments | tags: Bible Study Resources, Closet Work, Commentaries, Exegetical Work, Gnosticism, Holy Spirit, Illumination, Meditation, Memorization, New Covenant, Phillip Powers, Prayer, Spiritual Disciplines, Theologies | posted in Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Spiritual Formation