Eschatology Matters

Revelation’s Meaning: Why Partial Preterism Prevails

Series Overview: In this multi-part series we argue that partial preterism – the view that most of Revelation’s prophecies were fulfilled by A.D. 70 – best respects the Bible’s context, genre, and covenant theology.  We will draw on Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s verse-by-verse expositions of Revelation, and on the writings of Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar, to show how a first-century audience, not a distant future one, is in view.  Along the way we will carefully refute rival views (dispensational futurism, historicism, and full preterism), while emphasizing sound hermeneutics (the normal grammatical–historical method) and Reformed theological commitments.  Throughout we will look closely at Scripture and history, and show what Revelation’s message means for the church today.

Hermeneutical Foundations – Why Context and Covenant Matter

Partial preterism understands Revelation within the first-century context it addresses, rather than projecting most of its visions to the future.  As one Reformed scholar explains, “the preterist understanding of biblical prophecy sees Christ’s predictions in the Olivet Discourse… as referring to the Roman army’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.  Preterists also argue that…the Book of Revelation [was written] before A.D. 70 and… describes Nero Caesar’s persecution of the church.  The references to judgment on Babylon refer to Israel, not Rome.” .  In other words, partial preterists take Jesus’ and John’s time statements at face value: when Jesus said “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34), He meant it, and John wrote before Jerusalem fell, so the “holy city” and “temple” he mentions naturally mean the literal Jerusalem and temple of his day .

Partial preterism preserves key gospel truths: it affirms a bodily resurrection, a final judgment, and a coming of Christ for all nations in the future, while recognizing that Christ also “came” in judgment on first-century Israel (a parousia) to end the old covenant age and inaugurate the church age .  This solves the tension in Scripture between texts that expected Christ’s coming soon (e.g. Matt. 24:34, “this generation”) and the clear teaching of a final resurrection and advent.  As Kim Riddlebarger notes, “partial preterists… do not believe that the second coming and the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70… they believe Jesus did come back in judgment on Israel (a parousia), to bring about the end of the Jewish age (this age) and to usher in the age to come.” .  In practical terms, partial preterism uses the normal historical-grammatical method on Revelation’s vivid symbols, asking “What would these images have meant to the first readers?” – in contrast to, say, a strict futurist approach that demands postponing almost everything to distant future tribulations.

Key hermeneutical principles underlie this approach:

• Context and Dates: Revelation names actual churches and historical figures.  It was addressed “to the seven churches in Asia” (Rev 1:4–3:22) and repeatedly mentions contemporary conditions.  If Revelation was written in the 60’s A.D., its prophecies naturally pointed to events soon to occur (e.g. Jerusalem’s fall in 70, Rome’s persecution) .  If it were written later (as late-date theories hold), we must explain why John would frame near-future prophecies after the fact – a path fraught with speculation and “double vision” (see below).

• Literal-Grammatical Reading: We interpret Revelation’s symbolic language according to genre (prophetic/apocalyptic), using Scripture to interpret Scripture.  For example, John’s “four beasts” in Rev 4:6–8 echo Ezekiel and Daniel but signify universal creation and divine worship, not four future world empires.  Key terms like “first resurrection” (Rev 20:5–6) are taken as the true resurrection to eternal life, since Revelation emphasizes Christ’s ultimate triumph (cf. Rev 1:18).  Nothing compels us to spiritualize or allegorize every phrase; we seek the sense a first-century believer would grasp.

• Consistency in Covenant Theology: The Bible speaks of one covenant people, not two separate programs.  As Gary DeMar observes, classic dispensationalism splits Israel and the Church into two parallel plans, but “the idea of an Israel–Church distinction… is built on an interpretive fiction. There is continuity between the covenants .”  In partial preterism, the Church inherits the promises to Israel (cf. Romans 11; Galatians 3), so when Revelation foretells judgment on “the beast” and on the Jewish nation, it means the covenant nation as it stood in A.D. 70, not some future re-gathered Israel.

• Expectation of Immediacy: Jesus’ words like “this generation” (Matt 24:34) should be understood normally.  As one Reformed expositor notes, the “straightforward reading” of Jesus’ warnings is that His coming and kingdom would be in the lifetimes of His hearers .  Preterists appeal to such explicit time indicators and to the early dating of Revelation to avoid forcing prophetic visions beyond what John intended.  If prophecy can be fulfilled almost immediately, as Daniel and Jesus often teach (e.g. “it must [soon] happen” in Daniel 8:19, Rev 1:1), then postponing fulfillment to the 21st century is the real innovation, not treating Revelation as a book about then-times.

Key Takeaway: A sound hermeneutic respects Revelation’s genre and historical context.  Partial preterism holds that John spoke of the imminent judgment on first-century Jerusalem and Rome, consistent with Jesus’ own timeline statements and the pattern of Bible prophecy.  Our next article will look more closely at that historical background and how Dr. Greg Bahnsen explained it.

Historical Context – Bahnsen’s Exposition of Revelation

Greg Bahnsen’s Reformed exposition of Revelation repeatedly emphasizes its concrete first-century setting.  Drawing on history, he shows that John’s symbols fit well with events in the 60’s A.D. but not with later centuries.  For example, John speaks of the Jerusalem temple being “trampled by the Gentiles” (Rev 11:2).  Bahnsen explains that if Revelation was written before 70, then the “holy city” is literally Jerusalem of John’s day.  In that case, prophecy required no rebuilding of a new temple (which a late-date interpretation would imply) .  As he argues, once scholars allow Revelation to date before A.D. 70, many otherwise mysterious details fall into place: the temple is still standing, Nero’s tyranny is current, and Rome is the obvious candidate for “Babylon.”  Bahnsen even coins the phrase “exegetical diplopia” for those who insist on post-70 interpretations, saying they strain to see double – two Jerusalems or two empires – when one suffices .

Bahnsen also underscores parallels between Revelation’s imagery and first-century events.  For instance, F. F. Bruce summarizes this insight: “The Apocalypse… addressed in the first instance to seven churches in the province of Asia, portrays the city of Rome as the scarlet woman ‘Babylon the great,’ in whom ‘was found the blood of prophets and of saints’ (Rev. 17:5; 18:24) – a reflection of the events of A.D. 64 – and sees tribulation such as the Roman Christians had endured lying in store for their Asian brethren. Indeed, in some parts of Asia it has already begun…” .  Bahnsen notes that this description fits the Neronian persecution of the church – when Rome (symbolized by “Babylon”) had shed Christian blood – and that John warned of more local judgments coming to Asia (e.g. the letters to the seven churches in Rev 2–3 all address conditions in Asia Minor, not future continents).

In verse-by-verse study, Bahnsen points out many examples of “past fulfillment” clues.  When John predicts a beast rising out of the sea (Rev 13:1), Bahnsen identifies the sequence of Roman emperors.  When John hears the cry “Babylon is fallen” (Rev 18:2), Bahnsen sees the collapse of the Jewish nation.  He cautions that Revelation’s visions can span decades but do not skip ahead centuries without indication; each vision must begin within John’s era.  For example, Revelation 16 describes plagues on “the earth dwellers,” which Bahnsen sees as describing Jewish rebels/insurgents and apostate Israel in the Jewish War (A.D. 67–70), not some vague end-of-world scenario.

Throughout his exposition Bahnsen stresses faithful symbolism: John’s imagery often comes from Old Testament prophecy (the seven trumpets echo Joel, the great tribulation echoes Daniel).  The book is Christ-centered – Jesus is presented as victorious Lamb, ascended King, and mediator.  For instance, Bahnsen notes that in Revelation 5–6 the Lamb alone opens the seals (Rev 5:5–9) – signifying Christ’s authority in history.  In application, Bahnsen observes that Revelation’s warnings encouraged John’s churches to persevere under Roman pressure, trusting God’s judgment would soon fall on their persecutors.  When we interpret Revelation “verse by verse” with this backdrop, every motif finds a natural fit: the kingdom is coming soon for that generation (Mat 24:34).

Key Takeaway: The first-century setting is decisive.  Bahnsen’s detailed exegesis shows Revelation’s references to Jerusalem, Rome, temple, and kings all align with events in the 60’s A.D. .  A pre-A.D. 70 date makes the most sense of John’s symbols and promises (for example, the 1st-century Temple and cities truly were destroyed shortly thereafter).  In our next article we will deepen this case by examining Kenneth Gentry’s arguments for Revelation’s early date and fulfillment.

Article 3: Kenneth Gentry on Revelation – Dating and Fulfillment

Kenneth Gentry is a leading Reformed advocate of partial preterism.  His comprehensive study Before Jerusalem Fellrigorously defends a 60’s A.D. date for Revelation, showing how every major prophecy points to that era .  One summary notes that this work is “the most in depth defense of the early dating… to the late A.D. 60’s… [and] the most exhaustive contemporary defense… of the partial preterist position” .  Gentry’s conclusions echo Bahnsen’s: Revelation was penned under Nero, and it describes the fall of Jerusalem and Rome’s tyranny, not events in the 21st century.

Gentry correlates specific passages with first-century history.  For example, he highlights that Revelation speaks of the death of the beast (emperor) and the fall of Babylon (the Jewish city).  As one commentary notes, Gentry argues Revelation even “anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem (August A.D. 70), the death of Nero (June A.D. 68), and the formal imperial engagement of the Jewish war (spring A.D. 67)… the earliest Revelation could have been written… is [late 64]… the latest… spring A.D. 67” .  In other words, the book must date to the Neronic persecution to make sense.  Gentry thus ties Revelation 13’s “beast” to Nero Caesar and the 666-number, and Revelation 17–18’s “Babylon” to Jerusalem/Rome.  He also notes parallels like the famine and martyrdom at Jerusalem (Acts 21–26) echoed in the martyrs under the altar (Rev 6:9–11) and famine judgment (Rev 6:6).

In terms of covenant fulfillment, Gentry observes that Revelation’s judgment language fits Israel’s rejection of Christ.  He cites Romans 11:25–26 (all Israel will be saved), suggesting the “partial hardening” was lifted when the Jewish age ended in A.D. 70.  Thus Revelation’s judgments purify God’s people, just as Matthew 3:12 pictured unfruitful trees being “thrown into the fire.”  The new “kingdom” images (e.g. Rev 1:6, 5:10) fit the church’s spiritual reign after Israel’s fall.  For Gentry and other postmillennial preterists, Christ already began reigning in this age (Luke 17:21; Rev 11:15), with Revelation narrating His victory.

Gentry’s work also critiques other approaches.  He quotes Reformed scholars like R.C. Sproul: “If the book [of Revelation] was written after A.D. 70, then its contents manifestly do not refer to the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem — unless the book is a wholesale fraud.” .  In fact, Sproul and Gentry agree that late-date models force us to see John as fraudulently predicting things that already happened.  Gentry warns that if Revelation is misdated, Chilton’s entire commentary (a fellow preterist) would “go up in smoke” .  Such remarks underscore that an early date is not a whimsical theory but a necessary inference from the text itself.

Key Takeaway: Kenneth Gentry’s scholarship ties Revelation’s imagery closely to 60’s A.D. events, reinforcing the partial preterist stance.  When John’s visions are read against first-century history, “it all fits,” as Gentry finds – Nero’s persecution, Jerusalem’s destruction, and Roman dominion – whereas future-date theories require contortions.  The next articles will show how this interpretation stands up against major alternatives.

Dispelling Dispensationalism and Futurism

Having laid out partial preterism, we now contrast it with futurism (often associated with dispensationalism) and show the problems with those views.  Dispensational futurism teaches that most of Revelation is yet to occur: a coming “rapture,” a seven-year Tribulation, a rebuilt temple, a final Antichrist, etc.  In Gary DeMar’s words, “the most popular version — dispensational premillennialism — teaches that… a ‘rapture’ of the Church precedes a seven-year period that includes the rise of an antichrist, a rebuilt temple, and a Great Tribulation” .  This system rigidly separates Israel and the Church into two programs (one for each dispensational “plan”), but this separation conflicts with the New Testament’s teaching of one covenant people.  DeMar points out that the dispensational “Israel–Church distinction… is built on an interpretive fiction.  There is continuity between the covenants” .  In Scripture we see Gentile believers grafted into Israel (Rom 11) and the Church fulfilling Israel’s mission (Gal 3:29), not a completely separate thread.

Dispensational futurism’s literalism also leads to difficulties.  For example, dispensationalists insist on a physical Jewish temple and animal sacrifices in a future Tribulation.  But as Bahnsen notes, Revelation itself never explicitly demands a rebuilt temple – that idea comes only when interpreters assume a future setting and think John must have meant a “second” temple.  In reality, if John wrote before 70, the temple he mentions (Rev 11:1–2) is the one already standing, and the prophecy means it will be trampled (as it soon was).  Any attempt to force Revelation’s words into a post-70 Roman context creates needless complication (“rebuilding,” “revived Empire,” etc.) .  Dispensational futurism essentially reads into Revelation a series of novel institutions (a seven-year covenant, future sacrifices, a rebuilt temple) that are nowhere mandated by the text.

Moreover, futurism neglects the early church’s understanding.  Church fathers generally did not await a mid-Tribulation rapture; they expected tribulation preceded by Christ’s visible triumph (as partial preterism teaches, see Rev 19–20).  The late-date dispensational schedule (Tribulation still in our future) also undermines the apostolic witness that Christ’s return was near (e.g. “some are asleep” in 1 Thess 4:15 implying imminence).  Dispensationalism, by denying that first-century events fulfilled many prophecies, risks making Christ’s coming distant and evading accountability.  In contrast, partial preterism takes Jesus at His word that some things would “happen soon” (Rev 1:1; Luke 21:22).

Key Takeaways (Against Dispensational Futurism):

• Dispensationalism falsely divides God’s one people into Israel vs. Church (noted by DeMar ) and adds speculative institutions (future temple, animal sacrifices) unsupported by Revelation.

• It postpones Revelation’s judgment and kingdom promises, whereas the text itself points to events in John’s generation .

• A strict futurist reading often contradicts other biblical passages (e.g. Matthew 24’s timing, and Revelation’s own “soon” statements ).

In short, futurist dispensationalism is built on assumptions (modern Israel, a literal rapture, etc.) that Scripture itself does not require, and it conflicts with the Reformed emphasis on covenant continuity.  By contrast, partial preterism maintains the literal historical meaning of Revelation’s symbols and harmonizes all Scriptural teaching on Christ’s coming and Israel.

Historicism and Full Preterism – Further Refutations

Besides futurism, two other interpre­ta­tive systems claim authority for Revelation: historicism and full preterism.  Historicism, popular among many Reformers, treats Revelation as a panoramic prophecy of church history (often identifying the “beast” with the papacy, etc.).  One summary observes: “This perspective views Revelation as a symbolic prophecy of the entire history of the church down to the return of Christ and the end of the age… One prevailing feature… has been the view that the beast is the Roman papacy… [long called] the Protestant view.” .  While this view once addressed medieval concerns (e.g. papal abuses), it stretches Revelation’s symbols across 2,000 years, often ignoring John’s own statements about timing.  Historicism tends to find its main cues in vague phrases like “many” or “beginning of birth pains” (Matt 24:8) to justify seeing Revelation’s letters or seals as unfolding through successive centuries.  In practice, historicism was a useful warning against medieval Catholic power, but it has fallen out of favor.  Critically, historicist readings are not required by Revelation itself: John never outlines church eras or dates his visions by kings beyond Domitian.  By turning Revelation into an abstract timeline, historicism often reads the text through church tradition rather than the text’s own context.

Full preterism (or “consistent preterism”) pushes the envelope in the opposite direction.  It claims all prophecy — even the final resurrection and Christ’s personal return — already happened by A.D. 70.  This position is explicitly rejected by mainstream Reformed theology.  Kim Riddlebarger rightly warns: “Full preterists teach… that Christ has already returned and that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70… To teach, as full preterists do, that Christ has already returned and that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70 is heresy, according to the apostle Paul.” .  Indeed, full preterism undermines the gospel promise of a future bodily resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13–18), making Christ’s second coming entirely past.  Traditional Christians have never accepted that extreme view.

Partial preterism holds the balance: it sees the fall of Jerusalem as Christ’s coming in judgment for Israel’s temple-system (end of the Old Covenant age), but it keeps the ultimate resurrection and final worldwide judgment still future.  In Bahnsen’s words, John’s Revelation speaks of the old covenant “being destroyed just a few years following…the fall in 70 A.D.” .  We thus agree with Riddlebarger that partial preterists “do not believe that the second coming and the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70” .  By maintaining a future “final Antichrist, final tribulation, and final resurrection” while acknowledging Christ’s first-century parousia to Israel , partial preterism preserves the core Christian hope.

Key Takeaways (Against Historicism and Full Preterism):

• Historicism’s model (Revelation as a 2000-year allegory) relies on post-hoc symbolism and lacks explicit textual support.  It reads history into Revelation rather than letting Revelation speak to its first readers.

• Full preterism crosses a biblical line by denying Christ’s final coming and bodily resurrection.  Leading Reformed scholars label it “heresy” because it contradicts passages like 1 Cor 15 and 2 Tim 2:17–18 .

Partial preterism avoids these errors: it interprets Revelation by the clues given (time words, first-century events, covenant fulfillment) and holds fast to the one true Christian hope – Christ will visibly return at history’s end.

Consistency with Reformed Theology and Modern Application

Partial preterism fits naturally within Reformed theology.  Reformed covenant theology has long emphasized the unity of Scripture and the Christ-centered continuity of God’s kingdom.  Like many Reformers (e.g. Grotius) and Puritans (e.g. Brightman in the 1600’s), modern Reformed thinkers (Bahnsen, Gentry, Mathison) have often leaned toward early-date interpretations of Revelation.  For example, one Reformed commentator lists Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry alongside G.B. Caird and N.T. Wright as holding preterist views .  Partial preterism is also congenial to postmillennial hope: if Christ’s kingdom advances through the church era, many of Revelation’s judgments (on apostate Israel and pagan Rome) can be seen as already accomplished, while Christ’s consummation remains ahead.

Scripturally, partial preterism highlights how prophecy often has near-term fulfillment.  John’s Revelation quotes Jesus about “the dead [being judged] and making your reward with your Master” (Rev 14:13) – judgments which indeed fell on the Jews in A.D. 70.  It harmonizes with Luke 21:22–24, where Jesus clearly says Jerusalem’s fall was imminent (“your enemies will build an embankment… they will not leave one stone on another”).  It also takes Paul literally: if all Israel is not hardened forever (Rom 11:25), then the “age of Israel” had to end (and that age did end in 70).  Partial preterism thus affirms that most Old Testament types and prophecies of judgment (Jeremiah’s, Ezekiel’s, etc.) were fulfilled in the Jewish War and Roman context.

For the contemporary church, a partial preterist reading has meaningful applications.  It shows that Revelation’s message is relevant to any generation: its calls to faithfulness, worship, and endurance remain timeless (Rev 2–3).  It also warns that nations and leaders are accountable to God – exemplified by Rome’s fall and Israel’s judgment – so we should take sin seriously today.  But we avoid the fearfulness of dispensational countdowns.  Instead of looking for secret rapture dates, we watch Christ’s kingdom grow (Matt 24:14) and serve our Savior who “lives and was dead, and behold, he is alive for evermore” (Rev 1:18).  The bright hope of partial preterism is that God already secured victory through Christ’s first-century work, and one day He will restore all things visibly (Acts 3:21).

Series Conclusion: In this series we have argued that partial preterism – properly grounded in Scripture, history, and Reformed doctrine – offers the most coherent understanding of Revelation.  By dating the book to before Jerusalem’s fall (as Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, and Gary DeMar demonstrate) , we honor the text’s own indicators and avoid the speculative pitfalls of rival systems.  Revelation then becomes a hopeful proclamation: Christ’s kingdom has already begun in history, even as we await His final coming.  As believers today, we can therefore interpret Revelation’s symbolism with confidence, expect Christ’s ultimate triumph, and live faithfully until He comes again.

References

• Bahnsen, Greg L. The Historical Setting of the Writing of Revelation (unpublished manuscript). Cited in Bahnsen’s Revelation lectures .

• Bruce, F. F. New Testament History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 421 .

• DeMar, Gary. “Who Is Defending Classic Dispensationalism Today?” American Vision blog, Oct. 27, 2020 .

• Effectual Grace Blog (“Dispensationalism Today,” Oct. 27, 2020) .

• Gentry, Kenneth L. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989) .

• Precept Austin: “Date of Revelation,” commentary (online) .

• Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), cited in James Jordan, “Preterism, Futurism, Historicism, or Idealism?” The Reformed Classicalist .

• The Reformed Classicalist. “Preterism, Futurism, Historicism, or Idealism?” (article) .

• Reformed Books Online. “Partial-Preterist Commentaries on Revelation.” Online listing of preterist literature .

• Trent, Martin D. (Athanasian Reformed blog). “Full Preterism, Partial Preterism… and Heresy.” pandrewsandlin.substack.com (citing Kim Riddlebarger) .

• Spurgeon, C. H. (in Commenting & Commentaries—Catalogue).  (“I. Preterists. The prophecies… fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of heathen Rome,” quoting historical views) .

• Warfield, B. B. (cited in secondary sources).