!

This is some deep research on a hot topic that is always being debated at my small group.

I’ll conduct a deep research study comparing Preterism and Futurism/Dispensationalism, focusing on biblical evidence, historical development, theological arguments, and scholarly perspectives. I’ll analyze key scriptural passages (e.g., Revelation, Daniel, Matthew 24) and how they are interpreted by each view. Additionally, I’ll explore how historical events are used to support or challenge these perspectives and highlight relevant theological debates. I’ll get back to you with a comprehensive analysis soon.

Preterism vs. Futurism/Dispensationalism: An In-Depth Comparison#

Introduction#

Preterism and Futurism/Dispensationalism represent two major approaches to biblical eschatology (end-times interpretation). Preterism (from Latin praeter, “past”) holds that many or all end-time prophecies in Scripture have already been fulfilled in the past, especially in events of the first few centuries A.D. (Preterism - Wikipedia). In contrast, Futurism expects that most of these prophetic events are yet to occur in the future, often in a climactic period just before the second coming of Christ (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ) (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). Dispensationalism is a modern form of Futurism that divides history into distinct “dispensations” or eras of God’s plan, maintaining a future role for national Israel separate from the Church (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). This study will compare these viewpoints by examining their biblical evidence, historical development, theological arguments, and perspectives from scholars. Key scriptures – including the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24, the prophecies of Daniel, and the Book of Revelation – will be analyzed in light of each interpretation. We will also note historical events each side cites as fulfillments or foreshadowings, and highlight modern debates and scholarly consensus where applicable.

(For clarity, we will focus primarily on “partial” preterism (which allows for some future events) versus dispensational futurism, since full preterism – the view that all prophecy and even Christ’s return occurred in the first century – is considered outside mainstream Christian theology (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin).)

Understanding Preterism#

Preterism is the view that the major prophetic portions of Scripture – especially passages like Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and most of Revelation – were fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and related first-century events (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Preterists point to Jesus’ own words “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34) as a timing indicator that forces a first-century fulfillment for the bulk of end-time prophecy (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). They also note Revelation’s repeated statements that Christ’s coming was “soon” or “at hand” (e.g. Rev. 1:1, 22:6–10), suggesting the events it describes were imminent for its original audience (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). In light of these claims of nearness, preterists interpret the apocalyptic imagery of prophecy as referring to the Roman-Jewish War and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D., rather than to a distant future apocalypse.

Partial vs. Full Preterism#

Within preterism there are varying degrees. Partial (or moderate) preterists believe most end-times prophecies (tribulation, Antichrist, etc.) were fulfilled by A.D. 70, but still expect a future literal second coming of Christ, a bodily resurrection of the dead, and final judgment at the end of history (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). They hold that passages like Acts 1:11 or 1 Corinthians 15, which clearly predict a visible return of Jesus and the resurrection, await future fulfillment. In contrast, full preterists (sometimes called “consistent” or extreme preterists) assert that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled by 70 A.D., including Christ’s second coming and the resurrection – but they interpret those events spiritually (for example, saying Jesus “came” in judgment on Israel in 70 A.D. and that the resurrection is spiritual) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Full preterism thus concludes we are already living in the promised age of the New Heavens and New Earth now, with no future consummation to come (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). This view is considered heterodox by almost all churches, since it effectively negates key future Christian hopes (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Partial preterism, on the other hand, is considered an orthodox option and has been adopted by some conservative theologians.

Biblical Basis for Preterism#

Preterists build their case on several key scriptural observations. First, as noted, Jesus’ statement “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matt. 24:34) is taken at face value to mean the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries would see the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Indeed, the apostles had asked Jesus when the Temple would be destroyed and what sign would signal “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3), and Jesus gave a series of signs (wars, famines, false messiahs, etc.) that, in the preterist view, correspond to events that occurred in the 30s–60s A.D., leading up to the siege of Jerusalem. Preterists cite historical records (e.g. the Jewish historian Josephus) showing that prior to 70 A.D. there were false messianic claimants, numerous wars and rebellions in the Roman Empire, earthquakes, and famine – just as Jesus predicted (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). They point out that Christians in Jerusalem did “flee to the mountains” (Matt. 24:16–20) when the Roman armies approached, heeding Jesus’ warning – according to early church historians, the Jerusalem church escaped to Pella before the final destruction (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). Preterists also argue that the “great tribulation” Jesus described, “unequaled from the beginning of the world until now” (Matt. 24:21), was fulfilled in the unparalleled horrors of the Jewish War and the siege of Jerusalem, in which up to a million Jews perished and the Temple was completely destroyed (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange).

In Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus says, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20) – a clear reference to the Roman army encircling the city in 70 A.D. Preterists see this as solid biblical evidence that the discourse was meant to warn about first-century events. Even the cosmic signs (sun and moon darkened, etc.) in Matthew 24:29 can be understood as typical prophetic symbolism for national judgment (drawing on Old Testament imagery) rather than literal astronomical events. Thus, the “coming of the Son of Man on the clouds” (Matt. 24:30) is taken to refer not to Jesus’ final return at the end of time, but to a coming in judgment within history – specifically, His vindication and judgment upon unbelieving Israel via the Roman invasion (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice). Preterists note that similar cloud-coming imagery was used in the Old Testament for God’s coming in judgment on nations (e.g. Isaiah 19:1 describes the Lord “coming on a swift cloud” to judge Egypt). In this reading, Christ’s “coming” in 70 A.D. was a providential act of judgment rather than His final personal appearance.

The Book of Revelation is likewise seen as largely (or entirely) fulfilled in the early centuries. Preterists often hold that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. (during Nero’s reign, c. 65–68 A.D.) so that it would be a genuine prophecy of the imminent turmoil. They point to internal clues: for example, John is told to measure the Temple in Revelation 11, suggesting the Temple was still standing at the time of writing. They identify the Beast of Revelation with Emperor Nero (who reigned 54–68 A.D.), noting that the infamous “number of the beast – 666” can correspond to “Nero Caesar” when spelled in Hebrew letters (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision). Early preterist interpreters (including the 17th-century Jesuit Luis de Alcázar, see below) taught that “Antichrist refers to Nero and…the prophecies were fulfilled long before… the medieval church” (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision). Some also see the “seven kings” in Revelation 17:10 as a coded reference to the line of Roman emperors, with “five…fallen, one is, and one is to come for a short time” – by one reckoning, at the time of the Jewish War five emperors (Augustus through Claudius) had died, the “one [that] is” would be Nero (the sixth, reigning during the war), and the next to come (“for a little while”) could be Galba or one of the short-lived emperors of 69 A.D. This kind of analysis leads preterists to see Revelation’s vivid judgments as depicting God’s wrath on apostate Jerusalem (the “harlot Babylon” drunk with the blood of prophets and saints, see Rev. 17–18) and on pagan Rome, rather than on the whole globe (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). In fact, one strain of preterism holds that the first half of Revelation focuses on the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and the second half on the fall of imperial Rome (fulfilled by the 5th century) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). In either case, the events were “soon to take place” for John’s readers (Rev. 1:1, 22:10), not millennia distant. Preterists often interpret the “New Heavens and New Earth” (Rev. 21–22) as a description of the New Covenant era that followed the passing of the old covenant order in 70 A.D. – in other words, we are now spiritually living in the inaugurated new heavens and earth in Christ’s kingdom (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). (Partial preterists would add that there will be a final consummation of that kingdom when Jesus literally returns in the future, even if most of Revelation’s storyline is past.)

Historical Development of Preterism#

Historically, the preterist interpretation as a systematic approach first emerged in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries, historicist readings dominated Protestant thought – Reformers like Luther and Calvin viewed the Antichrist and beast imagery of Daniel and Revelation as fulfilled in the ongoing history of the Church (especially in the medieval papacy or oppressive regimes) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). In response, scholars of the Counter-Reformation sought alternative explanations that would steer prophetic interpretation away from identifying the Roman Church with the Antichrist. In 1614, a Spanish Jesuit named Luis de Alcázar (Alcazar) published Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (“Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse”), the first comprehensive preterist exposition of Revelation (Preterism - Wikipedia) (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). Alcázar proposed that Revelation dealt not with the end of the world, but with events in the early centuries: the triumph of Christianity over its Jewish and pagan foes in antiquity (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision) (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision). One summary of Alcázar’s preterist thesis says: “The Revelation [was] explained by the fall of Jerusalem or by the fall of pagan Rome in 410 A.D.… [it] deals with events in the Pagan Roman Empire, that Antichrist refers to Nero and… the prophecies were fulfilled long before… the medieval church” (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision) (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision). This interpretation conveniently exonerated the contemporary Catholic Church from Revelation’s dire judgments, by locating those prophecies in the past.

Outside Catholic circles, preterism spread gradually. It was “first promulgated in completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar” and later adopted in part by some Protestants like Dutch theologian Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). Grotius, eager to find common ground with Catholics, applied many prophecies to the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman Empire (Preterism - Wikipedia). Over time, other interpreters such as the French Catholic Bishop Jacques Bossuet (1627–1704) also advocated preterist views (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). Still, until the 19th–20th centuries, preterism remained relatively marginal in Protestant theology (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ) (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). The dominant Protestant view through the 1800s was historicist (especially among historic churches and groups like Seventh-day Adventists) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice), while futurism began gaining ground in the 1800s (see below).

In the late 20th century, preterism saw a surge of interest among some evangelical scholars and Reformed theologians. Notably, Dr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017), a respected Reformed teacher, embraced partial preterism and helped popularize it in his 1998 book The Last Days According to Jesus. This marked a significant entry of preterist ideas into mainstream conservative Christianity (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). One observer in 1999 noted that the rise of “evangelical Preterism” was an attempt to challenge the long-dominant futurist scenario, and in a span of a few years, the number of preterist adherents grew from mere hundreds to many thousands (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Today, partial preterism is espoused by a number of scholars, particularly in Reformed and postmillennial circles (e.g. Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar). However, full preterism is rejected by virtually all academic and church authorities; even many partial preterists vigorously oppose full preterism as it conflicts with creedal Christian doctrines of a future bodily return of Christ and resurrection of the dead (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition).

Understanding Futurism and Dispensationalism#

Futurism is the approach that treats most prophetic events in books like Daniel and Revelation, as well as passages like Matthew 24, as future realities still awaiting fulfillment. In a futurist reading, prophecies about a time of great tribulation, a sinister Antichrist figure, worldwide plagues, the return of Christ, and the resurrection and judgment are interpreted literally and placed at the end of the present age, just before and including Christ’s second coming (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). While futurists acknowledge that some predictions (such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) have past fulfillments, they maintain that the ultimate referent of New Testament eschatology is the end of the age and the consummation of history, not the first-century events alone. As one summary puts it, “the futurist generally believes that all of the visions from Revelation 4:1 to the end of the book are yet to be fulfilled in the period immediately preceding and following the Second Advent of Christ.” (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin)

Dispensationalism is a specific framework within futurism that became very influential in the last two centuries. Dispensational theology, founded by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century, divides God’s dealings with humanity into distinct eras or “dispensations” and emphasizes a distinction between Israel and the Church in prophecy (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Dispensationalists are always futurists, as they believe the prophetic clock for Israel paused with Christ’s first coming and the Church Age, and will resume in the end-times. All dispensationalists anticipate a coming seven-year Tribulation period (often understood as Daniel’s 70th week) in which many end-time prophecies will unfold, followed by Jesus’ second coming to establish a literal 1,000-year Millennium on earth (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). A hallmark of classic dispensationalism is the belief in a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church – Christ snatching away believers to heaven before the Tribulation begins – allowing God to focus again on Israel during those final seven years (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). (Not all futurists hold to a pre-trib rapture; some are historic premillennialists who expect the Church to endure the Tribulation and Christ to return after it (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). In other words, all dispensationalists are futurists, but not all futurists are dispensationalists (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin).)

Biblical Basis for Futurism#

Futurists argue that while certain prophecies had preliminary fulfillments in the past, many biblical predictions clearly await a future, global, and climactic fulfillment. They point to the plain meaning of texts that describe the visible, bodily return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead as obviously not having occurred yet in history. For example, Jesus said His coming would be as openly manifest as lightning flashing across the sky (Matt. 24:27) and that “all the peoples of the earth… will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). Such an event, futurists note, did not occur in 70 A.D.; that year, the Roman armies came, not Christ himself visibly in glory. They also highlight that Jesus’ coming is linked with the judgment of all nations and the gathering of the elect by angels (Matt. 24:31), and insist this did not happen in the first century (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Thus, however one interprets “this generation” in Matthew 24:34, the ultimate fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse prophecies must be future. Some futurists concede that Luke 21’s version of the discourse mixes near and far events (with 70 A.D. as a foreshadowing of the end), but they see in Matthew 24:21 an open-ended description: “then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again”. They argue that the horrors of 70 A.D., while terrible, do not match the scale of uniqueness implied here (for instance, later events like the Black Death or World Wars caused far more worldwide devastation) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Therefore, Jesus must have been looking beyond the first-century to an even greater future tribulation that will immediately precede his Second Coming.

The Pauline epistles and other New Testament writings are also cited in support of futurism. Paul expected a future “man of lawlessness” who would exalt himself in God’s temple and perform false miracles, only to be destroyed by Christ’s coming (2 Thess. 2:3–8). Futurists identify this figure with the final Antichrist, not seeing any first-century person who completely fits that description (some preterists suggest Nero or another emperor, but Nero did not literally sit in the Jerusalem Temple or get slain by Christ’s arrival) – thus they place this “lawless one” in a future context. Likewise, the book of Revelation describes apocalyptic plagues (e.g. a third of humanity killed, Rev. 9:15–18) and other catastrophes that, according to futurists, have no documented equivalent in past events, certainly not confined to 70 A.D. or the Roman Empire. These are taken as literal future judgments God will pour out on a wicked world in the end-times. The mark of the beast system (Rev. 13:16–17), which controls buying and selling, also has no known fulfillment in antiquity – futurists often speculate it points to a future global economic control, perhaps via technology. In summary, futurism reads prophecy “straightforwardly” as predicting real, observable events on a worldwide scale that are still pending. Passages that preterists interpret symbolically (like cosmic disturbances or Jesus coming on clouds in judgment) futurists tend to interpret more literally or at least as events that will be unmistakably obvious when they happen. As one scholar observed: “The more literal an interpretation one adopts, the more strongly will he be construed to be a futurist.” (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin)

Dispensational futurists in particular lean heavily on the Book of Daniel to outline the future. Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:24–27) is a cornerstone: Futurists contend that this prophecy forecasts a 490-year timeline for Israel, of which 483 years (69 “weeks” of years) were fulfilled between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the first coming of Christ, but the final 7-year “week” is separated by a long gap and will only occur at the end of the age (Daniel’s 70 7’s: Futurist vs Preterist Perspectives). They interpret Daniel 9:27 (“he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week, and in the middle of the week shall put an end to sacrifice… and on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate”) as referring to a future Antichrist who will make a 7-year pact involving Israel, then betray it by stopping Jewish sacrifices and committing a sacrilege (the “abomination of desolation”) in a rebuilt temple, triggering the Great Tribulation. By this view, “at an unknown time in the future, the 70th week… will commence”, inaugurating the final seven-year Tribulation (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). This approach requires that the prophetic clock “paused” after the Messiah’s first coming, allowing the Church Age (a mystery not seen by Daniel) to occupy the interim (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). Dispensationalists justify the gap partly because Daniel 9:26 seems to separate Messiah’s coming and the temple’s destruction from the 70th week in verse 27. By contrast, preterists object that this gap is an artificial insert, noting that they interpret the 70th week as following sequentially with no break (fulfilled by Christ’s ministry and the events of 70 A.D.) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). But futurists respond that certain aspects of Daniel’s prophecy were not fully satisfied in the first century (for example, the prophecy speaks of bringing in “everlasting righteousness” and completely ending sin (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations), which did not literally occur by 70 A.D.). Thus, they see Daniel’s final week as still pending – the future Tribulation period. During that future period, many Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel’s restoration and repentance (e.g. Zechariah 12–14) are expected to occur.

When it comes to the Book of Revelation, futurists assert that from chapter 4 onwards, John’s visions describe the end-times. The letters to the seven churches (Rev. 2–3) address first-century congregations, but the apocalyptic scenes that follow – the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, the Beast/Antichrist’s reign, the Battle of Armageddon, etc. – are taken as literal future events unfolding in the final crisis of history (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). This interpretation has been popularized not only in scholarly commentary but in many popular books and novels (such as the best-selling Left Behind series, which was based on dispensational futurism) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Futurists often correlate Revelation with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and with Daniel: for instance, the Beast’s 42-month reign (Rev. 13:5) is equated to the latter half of Daniel’s 70th week (3½ years), and the “abomination of desolation” Jesus mentioned (Matt. 24:15) is linked to the image of the Beast set up in Revelation 13. They anticipate actual fulfillment of the terrifying plagues (Revelation 8–9, 16) and a literal gathering of the world’s armies against Jerusalem for the final war (Rev. 16:14–16). After Christ returns in glory (Rev. 19), Revelation 20 is read as a prophecy of a real Millennial Kingdom – a 1,000-year reign of Christ and the resurrected saints on earth – followed by a final rebellion by Satan, the last judgment, and the creation of a new heaven and new earth. All of these, according to futurists, are still future.

To bolster their case, futurists often cite early church writings which indicate that the first generations of Christians expected a future Antichrist and a future millennium. Indeed, many of the earliest Christian commentators (in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) were premillennial (chiliastic) and believed in a coming period of tribulation. For example, Church fathers like Justin Martyr (d. 165), Irenaeus (d. ~195), and Hippolytus (d. 236) all anticipated a literal future fulfillment of Antichrist prophecies and a millennial reign of Christ on earth (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). These early expositors held a view that “various forms of [futurism]” were the norm in the ante-Nicene church (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Futurists argue this shows their reading is not a modern invention but was a natural understanding of the prophecies from the beginning, whereas preterism as a system came much later. (Preterists counter that the New Testament itself shows many prophecies were fulfilled early – such as Jesus’ clear prediction of Jerusalem’s fall – and they assert that the early church’s expectation of an imminent second coming, while fervent, does not negate the possibility that some prophecies had immediate fulfillments too.)

Historical Development of Futurism and Dispensationalism#

In the Reformation era, as mentioned, the dominant Protestant view was historicist. However, a form of futurism was introduced by Catholic writers as a defensive strategy. In 1590, Jesuit theologian Francisco Ribera published a commentary on Revelation that proposed most of it referred to a brief period just prior to the end of the world, featuring a single future Antichrist who persecutes the Church (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). This effectively removed the Papacy from the line of fire by pushing Antichrist into the future. Ribera’s Futurist view argued that “Revelation looks beyond the first century to the period immediately before the end times… Jesuit scholars after the Reformation refined this approach to prove that [the] attempts to identify the Pope as the Antichrist could not be true since the Antichrist will not be revealed until far into the future, just before the Parousia.” (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ) In the 17th–18th centuries, elements of futurism cropped up among some Protestant interpreters, but it did not become widespread in the churches.

The explosion of futurism (especially in its dispensational form) occurred in the 19th century. John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher and a leader among the Plymouth Brethren, is often called “the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism” (John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia). Darby around the 1830s developed a detailed end-times scheme: he taught that the Church would be secretly raptured before a final tribulation, during which a restored Israel would face the Antichrist, followed by Christ’s return to inaugurate the millennium. This was a new synthesis of biblical prophecy that Darby and his associates vigorously promoted in Britain and North America. It caught on especially in the United States after American Congregationalist minister C.I. Scofield produced the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which included dispensationalist notes and timelines. Scofield’s study Bible became immensely popular in the early 20th century and helped entrench futurist–dispensational interpretations in American evangelicalism (John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia) (John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia). By the mid-20th century, many evangelical churches and Bible colleges taught some form of dispensational futurism as standard. Well-known evangelical pastors and authors (from Hal Lindsey of The Late Great Planet Earth in the 1970s to Tim LaHaye of Left Behind fame in the 1990s) further publicized the view, often by linking Revelation’s prophecies to current events and future scenarios (e.g. speculating about the identity of the Antichrist, the meaning of 666, or the role of modern Israel). Because of this, by the turn of the millennium, futurist prophecy beliefs – especially the expectation of a rapture and a coming Antichrist – were part of the mainstream imagination in many evangelical circles (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin).

It should be noted that not all futurists are dispensationalists. Many classical Protestants (and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions) are futurist in the sense that they affirm a future great apostasy, a final Antichrist, and the second coming with resurrection and judgment. But these non-dispensational futurists may reject the idea of a pre-trib rapture or a literal thousand-year Jewish kingdom. For instance, historic premillennialists believe in a future tribulation and return of Christ followed by a millennium, but they see the Church (all believers) present through the tribulation and do not divide prophecy into separate tracks for Israel and the Church (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Meanwhile, amillennialists and postmillennialists (common in Reformed theology) are often futurist/preterist hybrids: they may agree with preterists that many tribulation prophecies were fulfilled in the first century (e.g. by Rome), yet they still expect a future, literal second coming of Christ, a general resurrection, and a last judgment (they just interpret the “millennium” of Revelation 20 symbolically as the present Church age). Thus the landscape is varied. But in terms of the Dispensational Futurism vs. Preterism contrast, one is dealing with either expecting the tribulation/Antichrist in our future or locating them in our past. And in that dichotomy, dispensationalism has been highly influential but also increasingly debated.

By the late 20th century, some scholars and church leaders began pushing back against the dominance of dispensational futurism. The rise of partial preterism (as with R.C. Sproul) and the spread of Reformed theology led some evangelicals to re-examine New Testament passages in their first-century context. At the same time, sensationalist predictions by some futurists failed to materialize (for example, popular books in the 1970s–80s predicted the return of Christ by the 1980s or 2000, which did not happen), causing disillusionment for some and prompting calls for more responsible interpretation. Mainline biblical scholars often criticized dispensationalism as a relatively modern doctrine without historical precedent before Darby (John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia). Indeed, academic consensus holds that dispensationalism “was not formulated earlier than 1830” and was introduced by Darby ([PDF] Futurism – and Dispensationalism). Many theologians in traditional denominations remain amillennial or postmillennial, reading Revelation in either an idealist or partial-historical way rather than a strictly futurist timeline. Nonetheless, futurist expectation of a future second coming and final judgment is universal in orthodox Christianity, even if the specific futurist timeline of events differs.

Comparing Key Prophecies and Their Interpretation#

To better understand how Preterism and Futurism/Dispensationalism diverge, it is helpful to compare how each view interprets major prophetic passages in Scripture. We will focus on three key areas: Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and parallels), the Book of Daniel (especially the 70 Weeks prophecy), and the Book of Revelation. Along the way we’ll note historical events cited by each side as fulfillment evidence.

The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)#

Context: In Matthew 24, Jesus responds to His disciples’ question about when the Jerusalem temple will be destroyed and what will be the sign of His coming and the end of the age. This discourse contains prophecies about coming false messiahs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution, the “abomination of desolation,” great tribulation, cosmic signs, and the coming of the Son of Man.

• Preterist Interpretation: Preterists contend that most or all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the events leading up to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. They point out that Jesus’ first prediction – “not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt 24:2) – was literally fulfilled when the Romans dismantled the Temple, prying apart the stones to get at its gold. The general signs (wars, earthquakes, etc.) match the tumultuous period of the 30s–60s A.D. For example, the Emperor Caligula attempted to set up a statue of himself (a pagan idol) in the Temple around A.D. 40, which could be seen as an abomination of desolation threat. Later, during the Jewish revolt, Jewish Zealots and Roman forces committed sacrilegious acts in the Temple. Luke’s Gospel makes the reference plain by saying, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies… then know that its desolation has come near” (Luke 21:20), instead of “when you see the abomination of desolation” – indicating that the Roman armies were the sign. Preterists believe this was clearly fulfilled when Roman legions encircled Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ). The severe “great tribulation” (Matt 24:21) is seen as the horrendous siege documented by Josephus, where famine, disease, and violence inside the city were so extreme that it could be described as unparalleled suffering (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Even the cosmic imagery (“sun darkened, stars falling”) is interpreted against Old Testament backgrounds as symbolic of world-shaking events – in this case, the end of the Mosaic age and the judgment of Israel. Preterists often note that similar language was used by OT prophets regarding the fall of Babylon, Edom, or Egypt (e.g. Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7), none of which literally entailed the end of the physical cosmos. Thus, they assert, Matthew 24’s language does not require a literal astronomical event but signifies the spiritual significance of the Temple’s fall – it was the “end of the age” of the old covenant.

  Importantly, preterists claim Jesus’ phrase “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34) forces the whole prophecy (up to verse 34 at least) into a first-century fulfillment (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). “This generation” is taken to plainly mean the generation he was speaking to – a timeframe of roughly 40 years. Indeed, the Temple fell about 40 years later (A.D. 70) within the lifespan of many of Jesus’ contemporaries. Preterists also interpret “the coming of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:30 as Christ’s coming in judgment. They often draw on Matthew 26:64, where Jesus tells the high priest, “From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This suggests that in some sense the vindication of Christ (as the divine Son of Man from Daniel 7:13) would be witnessed by that generation – and the collapse of Jerusalem, viewed as divine judgment on those who rejected Christ, fits that requirement.

  Some partial preterists concede that from verse 36 onward (where Jesus says “but of that day or hour no one knows”) the subject may shift to the final second coming, which is beyond 70 A.D. They argue Jesus intertwined near-term and far-term prophecies. However, others (including full preterists) maintain that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 A.D. In that case, references to the Son of Man coming on the clouds and angels gathering the elect (24:30-31) are understood spiritually: Christ gathering His “elect” (chosen) could refer to the Church being called out and protected, or to the great ingathering of believers that followed the judgment on old Israel.

  Historical events often cited: The siege of Jerusalem (66-70) by Rome is the centerpiece. Preterists cite the flight of Christians to Pella, the slaughter of Jews, the burning of the Temple (August 70), and various purported signs (one account speaks of a comet, a vision of armies in the clouds, etc., recorded by Josephus and Tacitus) as fulfilling Jesus’ words. The chronology in early 67 A.D. even included a retreat of Roman general Cestius Gallus from Jerusalem for a short time, which believers see as providential – it gave an opportunity for Christians to flee, as Jesus urged (“let those in Judea flee to the mountains”). Additionally, Nero’s persecution of Christians (A.D. 64–68) is sometimes seen as part of the foretold tribulations: “then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake” (Matt 24:9). Indeed, both Jews and Romans persecuted the early Christians intensely prior to 70. Thus, in the preterist reading, every detail Jesus gave found a fulfillment in that generation – validating Jesus’ prophetic credibility and demonstrating that God’s judgment on Israel and deliverance of His elect Church already occurred in the first century. What remains for partial preterists is the eventual visible return of Christ to raise the dead and judge the world, but not a separate future tribulation or Antichrist reign, since those are seen as past (e.g. Nero as Antichrist).

• Futurist Interpretation: Futurists agree that the early part of the Olivet Discourse includes the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) – after all, Jesus explicitly predicted the Temple’s destruction. However, they typically view that event as a foreshadowing or partial fulfillment of a greater future scenario. Many futurist interpreters read the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 as multi-faceted: “When will this [Temple destruction] happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” They see Jesus weaving the answers together. Luke 21:24 is often noted: after describing Jerusalem’s fall, Jesus says, “Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled,” implying a long gap before the end. Thus, while Luke emphasizes the near-term fall of Jerusalem, Matthew’s account, many futurists argue, places more emphasis on the end of the age. From their perspective, certain statements in Matthew 24 simply did not occur in 70 A.D. – for example, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened…and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven… and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds” (Matt 24:29-30). This immediate heavenly upheaval and visible coming did not transpire in the first century (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). Therefore, futurists posit that “the tribulation of those days” in verse 29 refers not to 70 A.D. but to a future Great Tribulation at the end of the age, after which Christ will literally come in glory. They often interpret “this generation will not pass away…” (24:34) not as Jesus’ contemporaries, but as either (a) the generation that sees the final signs (i.e. once end-time events start, they will conclude within one generation), or (b) taking “generation” to mean “race” or “people” (understood by some to mean the Jewish people will not pass away before these things occur – a less common interpretation). In any case, they do not think Jesus intended to limit all prophetic fulfillment to the first-century generation, especially given that He also said “no one knows the day or hour” (24:36) and consistently taught believers to stay watchful for a return at an unknown future time.

  Futurists emphasize that the Great Tribulation (Matt 24:21) is characterized as worse than anything before or after – language they feel 70 A.D. alone does not satisfy, especially as the book of Revelation portrays an even more cataclysmic tribulation. They also note that Jesus said “unless those days were cut short, no human being would be saved” (24:22), which suggests a near-extinction level event – again, not true of 70 A.D., which while devastating for Judea, did not threaten all human life. This, they assert, points to a future global catastrophe (perhaps nuclear war or divine plagues) that, if not divinely shortened, would wipe out humanity. The abomination of desolation (Matt 24:15) in a futurist view is tied to 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 13 – the Antichrist setting up an image of himself to be worshiped. Since no figure did that in the Jerusalem Temple prior to its destruction (the Roman standards in the Temple and other profanations are seen as only a dim preview), they expect a future fulfillment – potentially involving a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem where a final Antichrist will proclaim himself God.

  Regarding Matthew 24:30-31, futurists take these verses in a straightforward way: after the future tribulation, Jesus will return in the clouds with power, visible to all, and His angels will gather the elect (often correlated with the resurrection/rapture at the end of the tribulation). This is the classical Second Coming of Christ that the whole Church awaits. Since this clearly has not happened yet, the futurist contends that Matthew 24 cannot be completely past. Instead, 70 A.D. was an initial “type” or partial realization (a localized day of the Lord) pointing toward the ultimate fulfillment when Christ returns. In practice, some conservative interpreters adopt a “dual fulfillment” approach to the Olivet Discourse: 70 A.D. fulfills it in part (especially Luke’s version), but the prophecy will reach its climax in the last days with events on a larger scale.

  Modern futurists also sometimes connect Jesus’ phrase “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) to the fact that from 70 A.D. until 1948 Jerusalem was largely under Gentile control, and even today remains contested. The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and Jewish control of Jerusalem since 1967 are seen by some as prophetically significant, suggesting that end-time prophecies concerning Israel could soon come into play. This is often cited as a stage-setting for the final events (though interpretations vary widely and are speculative).

  Historical events cited by futurists are typically contemporary signs that they believe align with prophetic expectations (though not fulfillments per se, since fulfillment is future). For example, the rebirth of Israel and return of Jews to the land is seen as necessary for a literal fulfillment of a future tribulation in Jerusalem. Technological advances (like microchip implants) are sometimes pointed to as making a literal “mark of the beast” globally enforceable, something not possible in ancient times. Globalization and moves toward one-world governance are cited as foreshadowing the prophesied world order under Antichrist. However, futurist scholars caution against date-setting. They rather emphasize that because so many prophecies (global war, plagues, a world dictator, etc.) have no clear past fulfillment, a Christian must logically anticipate their fulfillment in the time to come. This expectation is reinforced by the near-universal Christian tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant alike) of looking for a future return of Christ in glory to judge the living and the dead (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition). As The Gospel Coalition notes, “most readers of biblical prophecy since the beginning of the church” have indeed expected a future climactic intervention of God, with Christ personally present and a physical resurrection of the dead (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition). This consensus undergirds the futurist stance against full preterism.

The Book of Daniel (Prophecies of Kingdoms and the Seventy Weeks)#

Context: The Book of Daniel contains key apocalyptic prophecies. Notably, Daniel chapters 2 and 7 describe a sequence of four great kingdoms (often understood as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome), after which God’s everlasting kingdom arrives. Daniel 8 and 11 give detailed visions often linked to the Greek era (Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century B.C.). Daniel 9:24-27, the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy, predicts a timetable for Jerusalem’s restoration, the coming of an Anointed one (Messiah), and the occurrence of profound events including the cessation of sacrifice and the coming of one who desolates.

• Preterist Interpretation: Preterists (especially partial preterists) view much of Daniel as already fulfilled by the time of the first century A.D. They agree with mainstream scholarship that Daniel’s visions of the empires reached up to the Roman Empire. For instance, Daniel’s fourth beast (chapter 7) is Rome, which devoured the whole earth. The “little horn” in Daniel 7 that persecutes the saints is often identified by preterists as a Roman ruler like Nero (who viciously persecuted Christians) or possibly another caesar involved in the Jewish War. Some preterist interpretations follow a traditional line that the little horn was the Emperor Domitian (a later persecutor of the Church), since ancient Christian writers like Irenaeus saw Domitian as a second Nero and also a fulfillment of Antichrist foreshadowings. Others think the little horn in Daniel 7 primarily referred to the line of Herodian kings who oppressed the Jews and Christians (this is a less common view). In any case, preterists see Daniel’s prophecy that the beast’s dominion would be taken away and “the kingdom given to the saints of the Most High” (Dan 7:27) as fulfilled in the triumph of Christ’s church over the pagan powers. This triumph began spiritually with Jesus’ resurrection and the spread of the gospel (the stone that struck the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, becoming a great kingdom – Dan 2:34-35 – is commonly understood as Christ’s kingdom overcoming Rome). Some preterists even cite the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in the 4th century (under Constantine) as a historical fulfillment of Rome being judged and the faith of the saints vindicated – corresponding to that “kingdom given to the saints” (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). (This corresponds to what was earlier described as a “mild” preterist view: Revelation and Daniel fulfilled by A.D. 70 for Israel’s fall and by A.D. 476 for Rome’s fall (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin).)

  The 70 Weeks of Daniel 9 are a centerpiece of difference. Preterists interpret the 70 weeks (490 years) as running consecutively and ending in the first century. While there are variations, a common preterist view holds that the 70 weeks began with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem (many opt for Artaxerxes’ decree in 457 B.C. or Cyrus’s decree in 538 B.C.) and that the 69th week culminated with Jesus’ public ministry (His baptism or triumphal entry, depending on the reckoning) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). The 70th week then covers either the ministry of Christ plus the immediate aftermath or the period leading up to the temple’s destruction. Specifically, many preterists identify the “Anointed one” (Mashiach) in Daniel 9:26 as Jesus Christ, who was “cut off” (crucified) after the 69 weeks (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). Then, “he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week” (Dan 9:27) is seen as Christ establishing the New Covenant during His ministry (the first half of the 70th week), particularly through His death and resurrection, which brought an end to the need for temple sacrifice (Hebrews 10 explains Christ’s sacrifice caused the old offerings to cease) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). In this reading, “in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering” is fulfilled by Jesus’ crucifixion (which happened roughly 3.5 years after His ministry began, if one takes a 7-year “week” for His ministry plus the early church era) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). Alternatively, some apply that phrase to the Romans halting the sacrifices by besieging Jerusalem (in 70 A.D., the daily sacrifice did cease during the final siege). Both interpretations agree that by 70 A.D. the 70th week was complete – either with the Gospel being preached and the church established (spiritual fulfillment) or with the destruction of the temple (literal end of sacrifice). Preterists assert that this scheme is more straightforward and literal than the dispensational scheme: the prophecy says “70 weeks are determined for your people and city” and they simply interpret it as 490 actual years from the decree to the first-century climax, with no unforeseen gap (Chapter 78: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks - Third Peter) (Daniel’s 70 7’s: Futurist vs Preterist Perspectives). As one comparison noted, “The 70th week is where the preterist interpretation is far simpler and more literal. The futurists insert a 2000-year (or so) gap here…” (Chapter 78: Daniel’s Seventy Weeks - Third Peter). Preterists also often see “the people of the prince who is to come” in Dan 9:26 as the Roman armies (“prince” being General Titus or the Roman authority) who destroy the city and sanctuary, which indeed happened in 70 (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). Thus the desolation decreed was the devastations of the Jewish War.

  In summary, preterists believe Daniel’s prophecies reached their fulfillment in Christ’s first coming and the judgment on Jerusalem, signaling the end of the old covenant era. Ancient Israel’s mission was fulfilled and her curses fell for rejecting the Messiah, and the kingdom was given to the Church, the new Israel (Preterism - Wikipedia) (Preterism - Wikipedia). This fits the preterist conviction that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian Church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Preterism - Wikipedia) (Preterism - Wikipedia).

• Futurist/Dispensational Interpretation: Futurists also glean much from Daniel but come to very different conclusions about timing. They acknowledge that Daniel’s earlier prophecies (chapters 2, 7, 8, 11) accurately predict historical empires (Babylon through Rome, and conflicts involving the Greek kingdoms and Antiochus Epiphanes). However, they argue that certain elements in Daniel intentionally leap to the end times. For instance, Daniel 7’s vision of the fourth beast and little horn is sometimes seen as not only ancient Rome but a future revival of the Roman-like empire in the last days (often conceptualized as a ten-nation confederacy corresponding to the beast’s ten horns). The “little horn” then is the future Antichrist, who will persecute the saints for “a time, times, and half a time” (3.5 times, interpreted as 3.5 years – Dan 7:25) before God intervenes. Dispensationalists frequently tie this to the last 3.5 years of the future Tribulation (the Great Tribulation). They might assert that while Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 B.C. was a type of the abomination (in Daniel 8 and 11 he clearly fits), the ultimate “little horn” is yet to come. This view leans on a principle that prophecies can have dual fulfillments or that Antiochus’s oppression of the Jews prefigures the Antichrist’s future oppression.

  The 70 Weeks prophecy is a critical piece for dispensational futurists. They break down the 70 weeks as 7 + 62 + 1. The first 69 (7 + 62) weeks – 483 years – lead up to Messiah’s first coming (ending perhaps at Jesus’ triumphal entry or crucifixion, depending on the exact chronology used). They agree the Messiah was “cut off” (Dan 9:26) in the first century, fulfilling that part. But here is the key: they argue that the final, 70th week (the last 7 years) did not immediately follow. Instead, “the Dispensational view associates this period [the 70th week] with [Christ’s] Second Advent” (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). In other words, the prophetic clock paused after the 69th week due to Israel’s rejection of Christ, and the remaining 7 years are postponed until the end of the Gospel age. This is often called the “great parenthesis” or Church Age, a mystery period not counted in the 490 years. Dispensationalists see biblical warrant for a gap in phrases like “the end will come with a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations are decreed” (Dan 9:26) – to them, this implies a span of desolations after Messiah’s cutting off (indeed, Jerusalem’s destruction, the diaspora, etc.) before the final week. During this long gap, God’s focus is on the primarily Gentile Church, while the “time-clock” for Israel is on hold (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations).

  Thus, they place Daniel 9:27 wholly in the future. The “he” who makes a covenant for one week is not Christ (as preterists say) but a coming prince — specifically the Antichrist (often called “the prince who is to come” from verse 26). He will broker a 7-year pact (perhaps a peace treaty involving Israel). In the middle of that seven (after 3.5 years), he will break the covenant, likely by stopping Jewish sacrifices and declaring himself God, thereby committing the “abomination of desolation.” This lines up with 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 13, as mentioned earlier. The remaining 3.5 years then correspond to the worst part of the Tribulation (the “Great Tribulation”), which ends when Christ returns to destroy the Antichrist (“until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” – Dan 9:27). After that, the prophecy says “to anoint the Most Holy” and to bring in everlasting righteousness, which futurists see as fulfilled in the establishment of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom and ultimately the eternal state.

  In summary, dispensationalists assert the 70th week of Daniel is future, equating to the final 7-year Tribulation period (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations). The Church Age sits between the 69th and 70th weeks as a kind of parenthesis in God’s plan for Israel (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). This approach is admittedly complex, but proponents argue it is necessary to harmonize all prophetic passages. Critics (like preterists) say it violates the natural reading of Daniel by inserting an unwritten gap. Dispensational scholars respond that other prophecies also telescope far future events (for instance, Isaiah 61:1-2, which Jesus reads in Luke 4, stops short of “the day of vengeance” – suggesting a gap between the “year of favor” at His first coming and vengeance at His second). They also point out that after the 69 weeks, Daniel 9:26 mentions both Messiah’s death and Jerusalem’s destruction – events separated by almost 40 years – indicating the 70th week did not start immediately at the 69th. Moreover, the nature of the final week’s events (global Antichrist, etc.) did not occur historically in the first century as described.

  Futurists see Daniel and Revelation as tightly interwoven. Daniel’s beasts correspond to Revelation 13’s beast. Daniel’s timeframes (1260 days, 42 months, “time, times and half a time”) appear in Revelation as well, reinforcing the idea of a future 3.5-year intense period. The book of Daniel even ends with an angelic command to “seal the book until the time of the end” (Dan 12:4), which futurists contrast with Revelation 22:10 where John is told “do not seal” his book because the time is near. They interpret Daniel’s sealing as meaning his final visions were not for near fulfillment but for the distant future “time of the end.” (Preterists, by contrast, say Revelation’s command not to seal indicates its prophecies were at hand in the first century, whereas Daniel’s were long off in his context – the second century B.C. events or beyond – thus the instruction differences align with each being near to its respective fulfillment.)

  Historical events cited: For futurists, since Daniel’s last week hasn’t happened yet, they look for precursors or set-up. The destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. is acknowledged as fulfilling Dan 9:26 (the people of the prince to come destroyed city and sanctuary), but they view that as evidence that the “prince to come” (future Antichrist) will be somehow related to the Roman sphere (thus the idea of a revived Roman Empire or leader from that lineage). They often pay attention to developments in Europe or the Middle East in light of this. The re-establishment of Israel in 1948 is sometimes considered a necessary precursor so that Israel is back in their land (and potentially able to rebuild a temple) for the end-times – dispensational charts from early 20th century anticipated Israel’s return because of these prophecies. Futurists will also cite that no figure in history after Christ has definitively fulfilled the role of destroying a rebuilt temple after making a covenant, etc., which is why they await one.

The Book of Revelation#

Context: Revelation, written by John, is a complex apocalypse describing, in a series of visions, the spiritual and cosmic conflict between God’s kingdom and evil. Key elements include letters to seven churches (chapters 1–3), the throne of God and the Lamb (4–5), the opening of seven seals (6–7), seven trumpets (8–11), a vision of a war between a woman and a dragon (12), two beasts (13), seven bowls of wrath (16), the fall of “Babylon the Great” (17–18), the second coming of Christ (19), the 1,000-year reign and final judgment (20), and the new heavens and new earth (21–22).

• Preterist Interpretation: Preterists approach Revelation as a book written primarily for first-century Christians, using symbolic imagery to portray the events they were about to face. Many preterists hold that Revelation was composed before 70 A.D. (during Nero’s reign, c. 65 A.D.), which would mean it was predicting the impending Roman-Jewish war and related persecutions. They note that John tells his readers “the time is near” (Rev 1:3, 22:10) and uses expressions of imminence (Christ coming “soon”) that make best sense if the fulfillments were in their lifetime (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). As one source summarizes, preterists argue Revelation “prophesies the judgment of God on apostate Israel,” with its main focus on events that were “soon to take place” from the perspective of the first-century church (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice).

  Revelation and 70 A.D.: Preterists often identify “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots” (Rev 17–18) with Jerusalem or the corrupt Israelite leadership. They point out that the woman Babylon is pictured drunk with the blood of prophets and saints (Rev 17:6), and Jesus had said “O Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her” (Matt 23:37). Also, the great city in Revelation 11:8 is symbolically called Sodom and Egypt, “where also their Lord was crucified” – a clear reference to Jerusalem. Thus, they argue a substantial portion of Revelation is about God’s wrath on Jerusalem for rejecting Christ, culminating in the Roman legions (the beast) destroying her (the harlot) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice). The Beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev 13, 17) is seen as representing the Roman Empire and/or a specific emperor like Nero. One head is mortally wounded and healed – some tie this to the Nero Redivivus legend (after Nero’s death in 68, rumors spread he would return to life or that one of the upcoming emperors was Nero resurrected). The Beast’s 42 months of authority (Rev 13:5) roughly matches the length of the Jewish War or Nero’s persecution. Nero’s brutal persecution of Christians (64–68 A.D.) fits the Beast “making war on the saints.” Additionally, as noted, 666 as the number of the Beast can correspond to “Neron Caesar” in Hebrew gematria (Was Preterism Invented by the Jesuits? - The American Vision), which is a strong internal clue for the Neronic context (some manuscripts of Revelation even have 616 as the number, which would correspond to the Latin spelling “Nero Caesar”).

  Preterists also see the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11 as possibly representing a testimony in Jerusalem during the final assault (some identify them with historical figures who opposed the Zealots or called the city to repentance during the siege). Their death and resurrection after 3.5 days could symbolize the seeming defeat of the church but then its vindication by God. The seven churches addressed in Revelation 2–3 were real congregations in Asia Minor facing persecution and trials; preterists think much of Revelation’s content was meant to encourage those Christians that their Jewish persecutors and Roman oppressors would soon be judged by God. For example, Revelation 3:9 speaks of Christ making those of the “synagogue of Satan” (hostile Jews) come bow down at the Christians’ feet – perhaps alluding to the coming vindication of the church when Jerusalem falls.

  Some preterists extend the scope beyond 70 A.D. and also see Revelation 17–19 as depicting the subsequent judgment on pagan Rome. The harlot Babylon could be seen as Rome itself in its decadence and idolatry (this is a more traditional identification; indeed, historicist Protestants also equated Babylon with Rome, though they meant papal Rome). If Babylon is Rome, the vision of its fall could correspond to the decline of the Roman Empire (in the West, the sack of Rome by the Goths in 410 A.D. is sometimes mentioned). Preterist interpreters like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry lean toward Jerusalem as Babylon, while others acknowledge an application to Rome. There is a variant called “mild preterism” that holds Revelation was fulfilled in stages: first half by A.D. 70 (defeat of Israel), second half by the 4th-5th century (defeat of Rome) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange). In any case, preterists assert that by the time Christianity triumphed (whether that be the conversion of Constantine or the covenantal transition of A.D. 70), the prophecies of Revelation had served their purpose and been largely fulfilled. They view the Millennium of Revelation 20 not as a literal future thousand years, but often as a symbolic representation of the current reign of Christ with His saints (either an “inaugurated” millennium that began after those first-century victories, or as a portrayal of the church age). Full preterists, taking it further, say we are already in the New Jerusalem era (the spiritual state of the church in the New Covenant). Partial preterists might say the New Jerusalem (Rev 21) is primarily spiritual now but will have its full consummation at the eventual return of Christ – in other words, there’s an “already and not yet” aspect.

  A key point in favor of preterism, from a scholarly perspective, is that Revelation’s symbols make sense in the context of the Roman Empire and first-century conflict between the church, Israel, and Rome. For example, the mark of the beast (Rev 13:16-17) could allude to the imperial cult; perhaps those who wanted to buy or sell had to show allegiance to Caesar (figuratively “marked” by idolatry). The second beast (earth beast) might represent the local authorities or false prophets enforcing emperor-worship in Asia Minor. Many academic commentators (even those who are not preterists in the theological sense) acknowledge that Revelation was written to seven historical churches facing persecution and that its imagery of beast and Babylon calls to mind Rome and its allies. In that sense, the scholarly consensus is that the original historical context of Revelation is the Roman persecution (some favor the Neronian persecution around 65–68 A.D., others the Domitianic persecution around 95 A.D.). Either scenario is inherently past from our standpoint, aligning with a partial preterist perspective that sees the book as addressing events of its time (though many scholars would also say it contains timeless symbolism, not strictly a chronological code of events).

  It should be noted that date of authorship is crucial here: Most scholars favor a date around A.D. 95 under Emperor Domitian (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen). If that is correct, a purely 70 A.D. fulfillment is less likely (since writing after the fact would make it a retelling, not a prophecy). Preterists who hold to the 70 A.D. fulfillment often argue for an early date of writing (during Nero’s reign). They cite early church statements (though ambiguous) and internal evidence like the relevance to the Jewish War. This debate is ongoing: the majority of modern scholars indeed lean toward the Domitianic date (95 A.D.) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen), but some conservative scholars (and many preterists) argue the evidence for a Neronic date (late 60s) is compelling, which would validate the prophecy being about the imminent fall of Jerusalem (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen).

  Regardless of the date, preterists maintain that Revelation’s primary application was to the early church. They see it as a pastoral letter cloaked in apocalyptic symbols to encourage Christians that though tribulation was coming (or had begun), God was still in control and would soon judge their enemies – be those enemies apostate Jewish authorities or the pagan Roman system. The victorious scenes of Revelation (Christ on a white horse in Rev 19, the dragon defeated in Rev 12, etc.) are taken as metaphorical of Christ’s victory over the forces of Judaism and paganism that occurred by the end of the 1st century and into the 4th. Thus, to a preterist, Revelation is not a blueprint of the end of the world, but a symbolic record of how God ended the Old Covenant age and fully established the New.

• Futurist Interpretation: Futurists, especially dispensationalists, read Revelation as largely unfulfilled prophecy. They see in it a detailed order of future events that will occur during the end-times, often aligning it with the last “week” of Daniel and Jesus’ end-time teachings. In the futurist view, after the letters to the seven churches (historical churches which also can represent types of churches throughout the ages), John is caught up to heaven (Rev 4) which some dispensationalists even see as a type of the rapture – because after Revelation 3, the “church” is not mentioned on earth again until Revelation 19 (the bride of Christ). They speculate this suggests the church is taken to heaven, and from chapter 4 onward the focus is on Israel and the world during the Tribulation. Not all agree on that detail, but the common ground is that from Revelation 4–19 we are dealing with the coming Tribulation period.

  Chronology: The seven seals (Rev 6) are interpreted as the start of sorrows in the future tribulation: conquest, war, famine, pestilence, martyrdom, cosmic disturbances. Many tie Jesus’ Olivet Discourse chronology to these seals. The seventh seal opens into the seven trumpets (Rev 8–11), which bring harsher judgments (asteroid impacts, poisoning of waters, demonic plagues, etc.). The seventh trumpet then opens into the seven bowls (Rev 16), which are the final wrath of God (sores, all-seas-to-blood, scorching heat, darkness, global earthquake, etc.). This intense sequence is believed to occur in that final 3.5 years of the tribulation (the Great Tribulation). The Beast in Revelation 13 is taken as the future Antichrist, a world dictator who will emerge, blaspheme God, persecute believers, and dominate the nations for 42 months. The False Prophet (the second beast) is seen as his religious propaganda leader, who will enforce the worship of the Antichrist and institute the mark of the Beast – without which no one can buy or sell. This is seen as a future economic control system (futurists in the 20th/21st century often imagine this as microchips, digital IDs, or other technology that could serve as the “mark”).

  Futurists identify “Babylon the Great” (Rev 17–18) not with Jerusalem (which by their scenario is being protected/refined as God’s people during the tribulation) but usually with a future godless world system. Some say Babylon represents the apostate world church (a false religious system) allied with Antichrist, which he will eventually destroy (Rev 17:16). Others think “Babylon” is a code name for the literal city of Rome or a “Babylon reborn” – possibly a rebuilt city of Babylon in Mesopotamia or just a symbol of human civilization arrayed against God. There’s a lot of diversity: one line of Protestant futurist thought still sees Babylon as connected to Rome (the city), implicating either the Roman Catholic Church or a future empire centered in Rome. Another line (including some dispensationalists) posits Babylon could be an actual city in Iraq revived as a commercial hub in the last days (because Rev 18 emphasizes Babylon’s great wealth, trade, and sudden destruction). Regardless of the specifics, in futurist interpretation Babylon’s fall in Rev 18 is the defeat of the evil world system just prior to Christ’s return.

  Revelation 19 is then the Second Coming of Christ in power, depicted as Jesus riding a white horse, striking the nations, and defeating the Beast and his armies at the Battle of Armageddon. Following this, Revelation 20’s prophecy of the Millennium is taken literally: Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, Satan will be bound in the abyss so he cannot deceive the nations during that time, and the resurrected saints will govern with Christ. This fulfills numerous Old Testament prophecies of a golden age of peace (Isaiah 2, 11, etc.) and God’s promises of a restored kingdom to Israel. Dispensationalists in particular see this millennium as the time Israel as a nation will be exalted and the Jewish people will experience the messianic kingdom (with Christ on David’s throne in Jerusalem). At the end of the thousand years, Satan is released to mount a final rebellion (Rev 20:7-10), which fails, leading to the last judgment (Great White Throne) and then the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth (Rev 21–22) – which is the ultimate eternal state where God dwells with redeemed humanity.

  Futurists thus see Revelation as the master schedule of the future Great Tribulation, Second Coming, Kingdom, and Eternity. They assert that interpreting Revelation’s judgments as past events doesn’t align with the scale and finality described. For instance, nowhere in history did we see a global catastrophe killing a third of mankind (Rev 9) or all sea life (Rev 16) or islands and mountains removed (Rev 16:20). Nor have we seen a single individual rule all nations and demand a mark on everyone’s right hand or forehead. Those inclined to match Revelation to history (the historicist school) tried to see its fulfillments across many centuries, but futurists argue those attempts have been inconsistent and often arbitrary. Instead, taking the text at face value points to these things being future. They also rely on the early church’s futuristic expectation as corroboration: e.g., Irenaeus (2nd century) believed Revelation 13’s beast was a future evil person and even speculated about what name 666 could signify. The consistent teaching of the Church through the ages (in creeds, etc.) has been that Christ will come again, there will be a resurrection and judgment, and “He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” Futurists see themselves as upholding this plain forward-looking hope, whereas full preterism effectively says “it’s all done.”

  Futurist scholars do concede that Revelation spoke to its first-century audience’s situation too. Even dispensational commentaries acknowledge that the persecution under Rome is the backdrop for John’s imagery. But they would say Revelation intentionally describes archetypes (beast, harlot, etc.) that will have their ultimate manifestation at the end of the age. The first-century Roman persecutors were a type of the final Antichrist, and the fall of pagan Rome was a preview of the ultimate fall of the world’s powers. Thus, Revelation can both encourage the original readers (“God will judge Rome”) and still predict a greater future showdown (“Babylon/Rome stands for the final world system which God will destroy”). This dual application is a common futurist way of acknowledging past partial fulfillments without surrendering the future fulfillment. They often categorize interpretation into Historicist, Preterist, Futurist, Idealist and then say a sound approach might combine the strengths of each: acknowledging historical context (preterist), ongoing principles (idealist), and future culmination (futurist), while avoiding extremes.

  Modern debates in Revelation interpretation sometimes pit preterists and futurists on the book’s overall purpose. For instance, should Revelation be read primarily as historical (about Rome) or prophetic (about the end)? Many contemporary scholars lean to what could be called a “preterist” reading (in the broad academic sense) — meaning they read it in its first-century context of Roman imperial oppression and see it as conveying that message through symbols. Even if not denying a future second coming, they don’t read Revelation as a step-by-step end-times roadmap. By contrast, conservative futurists (like those at premillennial seminaries) insist Revelation’s prophecies of the second coming (Rev 19) and other end events should be taken as literal future prophecies, not just symbols of “God triumphs over evil in general.” There is also a mediating Idealist view that treats Revelation as symbolic of the spiritual battle throughout the church age, not tied to specific events past or future. But the question at hand is preterism vs futurism, so idealism/historicism aside, the differences are clear: one sees Revelation mostly fulfilled in ancient history, the other sees it mostly awaiting fulfillment at the end of history.

Summary of Theological Arguments and Implications#

Beyond interpreting individual passages, Preterism and Futurism rest on different hermeneutical approaches and theological frameworks:

• Literal vs. Symbolic Hermeneutics: Futurists (especially dispensationalists) advocate a more literal reading of prophetic texts whenever possible. They argue that promises and predictions (e.g. Israel’s restoration, Christ’s coming on clouds, cosmic disasters) mean what they say in plain terms, unless context clearly indicates symbolism. Thus they expect tangible fulfillments. Preterists are more willing to see the same language as symbolic or hyperbolic, consistent with Old Testament apocalyptic genre. They note that prophetic literature often uses dramatic imagery for historical judgments (e.g. Isaiah’s Day of the Lord on Babylon in Isa 13). So they feel justified in seeing Revelation’s and Matthew 24’s language as metaphor-laden, allowing a first-century event to satisfy it, albeit figuratively. This leads to the charge from futurists that preterists “spiritualize” or allegorize prophecies too much (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations), whereas preterists retort that futurists “woodenly literalize” highly figurative texts. In reality, both sides mix literal and symbolic interpretations, but it’s about where they draw the line. For example, both sides agree the beasts in Revelation are symbolic (no one expects a literal dragon or leopard-bear-lion beast); the question is whether that symbol corresponds to a past empire/person or a future one.

• The Role of Israel and the Church: Dispensational futurism holds that certain prophecies specifically concern ethnic/national Israel and must be fulfilled in Israel’s experience. For instance, the 70th week of Daniel is about Israel (Dan 9:24: “70 weeks are determined for your people and your holy city”) and thus they believe Israel as a people will go through that final period. Promises of Israel’s national repentance and blessing (Rom. 11:26, Zech. 12:10) are expected to occur in the end-times. The Church is a separate entity (“parenthesis”) in God’s plan, and will be removed (in the rapture) so God’s focus returns to Israel. Preterists (especially partial preterists) often come from a covenant theology perspective that sees the Church as the continuation or fulfillment of Israel (Preterism - Wikipedia) (Preterism - Wikipedia). They argue that the Mosaic covenant and the special status of ethnic Israel expired in 70 A.D. with the Temple’s fall, and that in Christ, believing Jews and Gentiles are one new people of God (Eph 2:14-16). Thus, promises to Israel are either fulfilled in the church or in the Messianic first-century remnant. This dramatically affects interpretation: where a dispensationalist sees, say, Revelation 7’s 144,000 from the tribes of Israel as literal Jews to be saved in the future tribulation, a preterist might see them as symbolizing the Jewish Christians of the first century or the fullness of God’s elect people (12x12x1000 symbolism). The theological argument here is whether prophecy should be Israel-centric (futurist) or Christ/church-centric (preterist). Each side marshals verses: futurists point to Paul’s expectation of future Jewish salvation (Romans 11) and a coming time of trouble for Israel (Jer. 30:7’s “Jacob’s trouble”), while preterists point to verses about the old covenant vanishing (Heb 8:13) and the new people of God inheriting God’s promises (1 Pet 2:9-10 applies Exodus 19’s Israel language to the church). This debate is extensive, but it underlies why dispensationalists insist certain prophecies can’t be “spiritualized” away – because they pertain to Israel’s destiny.

• Imminence and Delay: Preterists offer their view in part to resolve the New Testament’s apparent emphasis on the nearness of “the end” in the first century. Critics of Christianity (like Bertrand Russell, or Albert Schweitzer in the quote referenced by TGC (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition)) argued Jesus expected the end of the world in his generation and was mistaken. Preterists respond that Jesus wasn’t mistaken – those prophecies did come to pass (not the end of the world, but the end of the age in 70 A.D.), thereby preserving Jesus’ credibility. Full preterism is, in a way, an extreme attempt to solve the “delay of the Parousia” problem by saying there was no delay – it all happened. Futurists counter that the New Testament taught a tension of “already and not yet.” Yes, some things were near (destruction of Jerusalem as judgment, the spread of the gospel), but other things (Christ’s final advent) were always meant to occur at an unknown time. They point out that Jesus gave parables about a long delay (the Parable of the Talents in Matt 25 or the wise and foolish virgins implies the bridegroom is delayed). Also, 2 Peter 3 addresses the issue of “Where is the promise of His coming?” and urges that God’s timeline is not ours – a day to Him can be a thousand years. The modern theological debate often engages these questions: Was Jesus’ “coming” language meant to be two-tiered (a coming in judgment in 70 and an ultimate coming)? Or did the early church genuinely expect the end quickly and then adjust expectations when it didn’t happen? Preterists lean to the former, arguing for a deliberate two-tier fulfillment (70 and final) – at least partial preterists do. Scholars like N.T. Wright have even argued that “the Son of Man coming on clouds” in the Gospels refers to 70 A.D. vindication, not the end of world, thus absolving the texts of error while still affirming a final return taught elsewhere. In contrast, many futurist scholars hold that the “this generation” phrase is the toughest challenge; some, like Gleason Archer or John Walvoord, propose that “generation” means race (the Greek genea can mean lineage), i.e. “this nation/people (the Jews) will not pass away until all is fulfilled” (The Dangerous Lie of Preterism - Theology - Worthy Christian Forums). However, that is not widely accepted by scholars (Preterism and “This Generation” – By: Lawrence A. DeBruyn). More commonly, futurists say Jesus deliberately conflated near and far events, or that “generation” refers to the generation that sees the end-time signs begin. In any case, the handling of the time statements is a key theological argument. Preterists claim theirs is the only way to honestly take the “time texts” (like “soon”, “at hand”) at face value, whereas futurists claim the nature of prophesied events (worldwide destruction, resurrection) demands a future fulfillment and that “soon” from God’s perspective can still be centuries (especially if one views Revelation’s language as intentionally enigmatic on timing).

• Orthodoxy and Heresy Concerns: Church leaders have strongly rejected full preterism because it in effect says the general resurrection is past and we are already in the final state (albeit spiritualized). This contradicts the historic creeds (e.g. Nicene Creed: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead… we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come”). Partial preterists stay within orthodoxy by affirming those future realities, merely saying the tribulation and symbolic coming in judgment happened in 70. But some futurists worry that partial preterism is a slippery slope – they caution that mild or partial preterism can slide into full preterism if one is “consistent” (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin). Preterists, on the other hand, accuse dispensational futurism of novelty and say it is not grounded in historic Christian teaching. They point out no Christian before the 19th century taught a two-stage coming (rapture vs. return) or a parenthetical church age in the 70 weeks. They sometimes label it “newspaper exegesis” when futurists constantly match prophecy to current events, which can discredit Christianity when those predictions fail. Futurists reply that their core expectation of a future Antichrist and second advent is anything but novel – it’s deeply rooted in Scripture and tradition. The packaging (like pre-trib rapture) might be newer, but belief in a future tribulation and Antichrist can be traced to early church writings (although not in a fully systematized way).

• Scholarly Consensus: In academic biblical studies today, if one were to generalize, there is considerable agreement that: (1) Daniel largely refers to events up to the 2nd century B.C. (the Maccabean period and Antiochus Epiphanes) – a critical view many evangelicals might not share fully, but even evangelical scholars often agree Daniel’s detailed prophecy in chapter 11 matches history up to that point. Futurists, however, believe Daniel also leaps ahead to the end in places. (2) Matthew 24/Luke 21 is widely seen by scholars as primarily referring to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (especially Luke, which explicitly does). Many scholars think Mark 13 (the earliest version of the discourse) was a reassurance to early Christians undergoing turmoil that the fall of Jerusalem was not the end of the world but a vindication of Jesus’ prophecy. Still, most Christians (scholarly or not) also hold that Jesus and the apostles looked to a future literal Second Coming as well – the difference is whether Matthew 24 rolled both together or not. (3) Revelation – scholarly consensus is that it was written in the Domitianic era (~95 A.D.) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) and was intended to encourage believers under the threat of persecution by Rome. The symbols of Babylon, the beast, etc., are usually connected to the Roman Empire (Babylon being a cipher for Rome is almost a consensus in critical scholarship). Therefore, in terms of what Revelation meant to its first readers, scholars lean preterist/idealist (it was about their contemporary situation, albeit in symbolic form). However, when it comes to theological consensus, almost all Christian traditions (except full preterists) affirm that Christ’s final coming, the resurrection, and last judgment are future realities. So any interpretation must leave room for those. The debate is how much of e.g. Revelation refers to those ultimate events versus how much was about Rome. Many mainline scholars might say Revelation 19–22 is a vision of the ultimate future (general, not detailed timeline), whereas chapters 6–18 are symbolically about forces at work in the first-century (with possible relevance to any era).

In modern theological debates, you’ll find preterism gaining some traction especially among Reformed theologians who are uncomfortable with what they see as the speculative nature of dispensational futurism. Books like “Last Days Madness” by Gary DeMar or “The Parousia” by J. Stuart Russell defend preterism. On the other side, dispensational authors like Thomas Ice, Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock, and John MacArthur defend futurism and often critique preterism as downplaying the hope of Christ’s imminent return. Some have even called preterism “dangerous” for possibly dampening Christian expectation or spiritualizing promises (Matthew 24 Inconsistent With Preterism - The Narrow Path Ministries) (The Dangerous Lie of Preterism - Theology - Worthy Christian Forums). However, partial preterists argue they do expect Christ’s return – they simply put events like Antichrist’s tribulation in the past, somewhat similar to how amillennialists historically viewed Nero as a type of Antichrist and the tribulation as largely the trials of the early church. In fact, partial preterism isn’t far removed from classical amillennialism: both say the “great tribulation” occurred in the first century and we now live in the Gospel age awaiting the final return of Christ. The difference is that partial preterists are more likely to see specific fulfillment in 70 A.D., whereas amillennialists might see it more generally as the victory of the church over pagan Rome.

Conclusion#

Preterism and Futurism offer two distinct lenses through which to read biblical prophecy, each with its own strengths and challenges. Preterism grounds the fulfillment of prophecy in concrete historical events close to the biblical era – the fall of Jerusalem, the persecution under Nero, the collapse of Rome – thereby highlighting the immediate relevance and reliability of Jesus’ and the apostles’ predictions. It emphasizes the covenantal shift that took place in the first century: the judgment on Old Covenant Israel and the vindication of Christ’s fledgling Church. Futurism, on the other hand, underscores the forward-looking hope of the Church through the ages – the conviction that the ultimate climax of God’s plan lies ahead, with the visible return of Jesus to right all wrongs, defeat evil, raise the dead, and renew creation. It insists that many prophecies have an intensity and universality that history has not yet witnessed and thus must be realized in the future in a way all the world will recognize.

In balancing these views, many theologians today adopt a kind of “already/not yet” eschatology: acknowledging that significant prophetic events (the cross, resurrection, outpouring of the Spirit, even Jerusalem’s fall) have already occurred (as preterism notes), while also affirming that the story is not complete until Christ returns in glory (as futurism maintains) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition). Indeed, as one scholarly evaluation put it, the New Testament portrays this age as the inauguration of the kingdom and the age to come as awaiting its consummation at Christ’s return (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition). In that sense, both views capture part of the truth: there are fulfillments behind us and fulfillments still before us.

Historically, we see that interpretations often arise in response to circumstances – the early Church under persecution read Revelation as future hope, the Reformers under oppression read it as church history and papal critique, the Counter-Reformers proposed past or future schemes to defend their church, and modern readers often oscillate between wanting certainty that prophecy is fulfilled versus anticipation that prophecy will unfold in one’s own time. Modern scholarly consensus tends to place a great deal of Revelation and the Olivet prophecy in their first-century context (aligning with a preterist or at least partially preterist reading of those texts) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen), yet the same scholars uphold that core Christian doctrines (Second Coming, final judgment) are future. Meanwhile, in popular Christian culture, dispensational Futurism remains influential, especially in evangelical Protestantism, though it faces more critique now than in the recent past as more students of Scripture explore the merits of alternative views.

In any case, a well-rounded eschatology must account for the compelling biblical evidence presented by both sides. Preterism reminds us that Jesus’ prophecies did not fail – the generation he addressed did witness astonishing fulfillments as Christianity emerged from the ashes of Jerusalem’s destruction, showing God’s word is true in history. Futurism reminds us that God’s plan for the world extends to a real climax – evil will not simply fade away by 70 A.D. or by gradual progress, but will be decisively overcome by Christ’s dramatic intervention in the future, an event still awaited in hope. As such, many scholars advise an irenic approach: learning from both views without extreme dogmatism.

The debate between Preterism and Futurism is likely to continue as students of prophecy seek to discern which events best correspond to the biblical predictions. Ultimately, the study of these interpretations can enrich one’s understanding of Scripture’s depth – showing how prophecies spoke to an immediate audience in their own trials, and yet how they can also speak to all believers about God’s final victory. With careful attention to context, language, and the whole counsel of Scripture, one can appreciate that biblical prophecy often has layers – a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment, an already and a not yet (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition). Thus, rather than an “either/or” choice, many find a “both/and” approach compelling: significant aspects of Matthew 24, Daniel, and Revelation were fulfilled in the dramatic events of the first century, and these texts also direct our gaze to the ultimate consummation when “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever” (Rev 11:15).

References:

• Ice, Thomas. “Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?” (1999) – analysis of Preterism vs Futurism (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (HAS BIBLE PROPHECY ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED? by Thomas Ice) (history - What is the biblical and historical basis for the belief that the Second Coming of Christ hasn’t happened yet (as of 2021)? - Christianity Stack Exchange).
• Wikipedia: “Preterism” – overview of preterist eschatology and its history (Preterism - Wikipedia) (Preterism - Wikipedia).
• LaHaye, Tim & Ice, Thomas. Charting the End Times (2001) – dispensational futurist perspective (cited in PreceptAustin notes) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin) (2.12 - Systems of Interpretation | Precept Austin).
• Walls, J. L., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (2007) – notes on Counter-Reformation eschatology (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ).
• La Vista Church of Christ Q&A, “Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism?” – historical info on Ribera and Alcázar (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ) (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ).
• Alford, Henry. New Testament for English Readers (1872) – historical commentary noting Jesuit Alcázar as first systematic preterist (Did the Jesuits develop preterism and futurism? – La Vista Church of Christ).
• Wikipedia: “John Nelson Darby” – notes on Darby as father of dispensational futurism (John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia).
• Evidence Unseen, “Date of Revelation” – collation of scholarly quotes on Revelation’s dating (majority to Domitian’s reign, ~95 A.D.) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen) (Date of Revelation | Evidence Unseen).
• Ad Dei Gloriam, “Seventy Weeks of Daniel – Four Interpretations” – compares Preterist and Dispensational views of Daniel 9 (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations) (The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 - Four Interpretations).
• The Gospel Coalition, “Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled?” – evaluation of preterism and reaffirmation of future consummation (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition) (Preterism: Has All Prophecy Been Fulfilled? - The Gospel Coalition).

Verdict:
After weighing the biblical evidence, historical context, and theological nuances, the evidence most strongly supports a partial preterist interpretation. This view holds that many key prophecies—such as those concerning the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the judgment on apostate Israel—were indeed fulfilled in the first century (especially around A.D. 70). It reads passages like Matthew 24 and portions of Revelation in light of their original historical context, where imminent events (such as the Roman siege) provided a powerful vindication of Jesus’ words.

At the same time, partial preterism maintains orthodox Christian hope by affirming that the ultimate return of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment remain future realities. In contrast, a strict futurist or dispensational approach often requires inserting an extended gap into prophetic timelines and a highly literal interpretation of apocalyptic symbols—steps that can strain the immediate language of texts (e.g., “this generation will not pass away”) and complicate the historical record.

Thus, while both interpretive systems have internally consistent arguments, the partial preterist (or “already/not yet”) framework best harmonizes the biblical narrative with the known historical events of the first century and the enduring future promises of Scripture.