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 as well as the writings of Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar to show that 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. It does not project 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. John wrote before Jerusalem fell, so the “holy city” and “temple” he mentions naturally mean the literal Jerusalem and temple of his day.

Gospel Truths Preserved by Partial Preterism

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. Importantly, it recognizes that Christ also “came” in judgment on first-century Israel (a parousia) to end the old covenant age and inaugurate the church age. This insight 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.”

The Importance of Historical Context

In practical terms, partial preterism employs the normal historical-grammatical method on Revelation’s vivid symbols. It asks, “What would these images have meant to the first readers?” This approach contrasts sharply with a strict futurist methodology 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 60s A.D., its prophecies naturally pointed to events soon to occur (e.g., Jerusalem’s fall in 70, Rome’s persecution). A later date creates problems—why would John frame near-future prophecies after the fact?

• 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 understood as the true resurrection to eternal life, emphasizing Christ’s ultimate triumph. 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. It does not divide God’s plans between Israel and the Church. As Gary DeMar observes, classic dispensationalism creates two parallel plans for Israel and the Church. This idea 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). Therefore, when Revelation foretells judgment on “the beast” and the Jewish nation, it refers to the covenant nation as it stood in A.D. 70, not some future re-gathered Israel.

• Expectation of Immediacy: Jesus’ phrase, “this generation” (Matt 24:34), should be understood normally. The “straightforward reading” of Jesus’ warnings is that His coming and kingdom would occur in the lifetimes of His hearers. Preterists appeal to such explicit time indicators and the early dating of Revelation to avoid forcing prophetic visions beyond what John intended. If prophecy can be fulfilled almost immediately, as both Daniel and Jesus often teach, then postponing fulfillment to the 21st century is the real innovation.

  
  

Key Takeaway

A sound hermeneutic respects Revelation’s genre and historical context. Partial preterism asserts that John spoke of the imminent judgment on first-century Jerusalem and Rome. This view is consistent with Jesus’ timeline statements and the pattern of biblical prophecy. Our next article will delve deeper into the historical background and how Dr. Greg Bahnsen explained it.

Historical Context – Bahnsen’s Exposition of Revelation

Greg Bahnsen’s Reformed exposition of Revelation heavily emphasizes its concrete first-century setting. Drawing on history, he demonstrates how John’s symbols align well with events in the 60s A.D. but not with later centuries. For example, John speaks of the Jerusalem temple being “trampled by the Gentiles” (Rev 11:2). Bahnsen points out that if Revelation was written before 70, then the “holy city” is literally Jerusalem of John’s day. In this case, prophecy required no rebuilding of a new temple, which a late-date interpretation would imply.

Interestingly, Bahnsen coins the phrase “exegetical diplopia” for those who insist on post-70 interpretations. He argues that they strain to see double—two Jerusalems or two empires—when one suffices.

Parallels between Revelation’s Imagery and First-Century Events

Bahnsen also underscores the parallels between Revelation’s imagery and first-century events. F. F. Bruce captures this well: “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 […]” This description aligns with the Neronian persecution of the church, during which Rome (symbolized by “Babylon”) had shed Christian blood. Furthermore, John warned of more local judgments forthcoming in Asia; the letters to the seven churches in Rev 2–3 address conditions in Asia Minor, not future continents.

Examples of Past Fulfillment Clues

In his verse-by-verse study, Bahnsen points out many examples of “past fulfillment” clues. For instance, when John predicts a beast rising out of the sea (Rev 13:1), Bahnsen identifies this with a sequence of Roman emperors. When John hears the cry “Babylon is fallen” (Rev 18:2), Bahnsen perceives it as the collapse of the Jewish nation. Each vision must begin within John’s era. Bahnsen cautions against assuming that Revelation’s visions can span decades but can skip ahead centuries without indication.

For example, Revelation 16 describes plagues on “the earth dwellers,” which Bahnsen sees as describing Jewish rebels/insurgents and apostate Israel during the Jewish War (A.D. 67–70), not a vague end-of-world scenario.

Faithful Symbolism in Revelation

Bahnsen stresses faithful symbolism throughout his exposition. John’s imagery often draws from Old Testament prophecy. The seven trumpets echo Joel, and the great tribulation recalls Daniel. The book is primarily Christ-centered: Jesus is portrayed as the victorious Lamb, the ascended King, and the mediator. For example, in Revelation 5–6, the Lamb alone opens the seals (Rev 5:5–9), signifying Christ’s authority in history.

Additionally, Bahnsen notes that Revelation’s warnings encourage John’s churches to persevere under Roman pressure. They are reassured that God’s judgment will 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 (Matt 24:34).

Key Takeaway

The first-century setting is decisive. Bahnsen’s detailed exegesis shows how Revelation’s references to Jerusalem, Rome, the temple, and kings align with events during the 60s A.D. A pre-A.D. 70 date makes the most sense of John’s symbols and promises. 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 Fell, rigorously defends a 60s 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. 60s… [and] the most exhaustive contemporary defense… of the partial preterist position.” Gentry’s conclusions echo Bahnsen’s: Revelation was penned under Nero and describes the fall of Jerusalem and Rome’s tyranny, not events in the 21st century.

Correlation with First-Century History

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). One commentary notes that 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, this book must date to the Neronian persecution to be coherent. Gentry emphasizes how Revelation 13’s “beast” refers to Nero Caesar and the 666-number, while Revelation 17–18’s “Babylon” pertains to Jerusalem/Rome.

Judgment Language and Covenant Fulfillment

Gentry also observes that Revelation’s judgment language aligns with 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, mirroring Matthew 3:12’s image of unfruitful trees being “thrown into the fire.” The new “kingdom” images (e.g., Rev 1:6, 5:10) correspond with the church’s spiritual reign after Israel’s fall. For Gentry and other postmillennial preterists, Christ’s reign already began in this age (Luke 17:21; Rev 11:15), as Revelation narrates His victory.

Critiques of Alternative Approaches

Gentry’s work critiques other perspectives. 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.” Indeed, both Sproul and Gentry argue that late-date models force one to see John as fraudulently predicting things that have already occurred. Gentry warns that if Revelation is misdated, entire commentaries (like Chilton’s) would “go up in smoke.” Such observations emphasize that an early date is not merely a whimsical theory, but a necessary inference from the text itself.

Key Takeaway

Kenneth Gentry’s scholarship closely ties Revelation’s imagery to events of the 60s A.D., reinforcing the partial preterist stance. John’s visions, when read against first-century history, “fit” together seamlessly. Nero’s persecution, Jerusalem’s destruction, and Roman dominion all are clarified, whereas future-date theories often require contortions. The next articles will show how this interpretation withstands scrutiny in light of major alternatives.

Dispelling Dispensationalism and Futurism

Having laid out partial preterism, we now contrast it with futurism—often affiliated with dispensationalism—and highlight the concerns 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. Gary DeMar summarizes this idea well: “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 different plans, but this separation conflicts with the New Testament’s teaching of one covenant people. DeMar argues that the dispensational “Israel–Church distinction… is built on an interpretive fiction. There is continuity between the covenants.”

Challenges Posed by Dispensational Futurism

Dispensational futurism’s literalism also leads to difficulties. For instance, dispensationalists insist on a physical Jewish temple and animal sacrifices in a future Tribulation. However, Bahnsen highlights that Revelation itself never explicitly demands a rebuilt temple; that concept arises only when interpreters impose a future context onto John’s words. If John wrote prior to 70, the temple he mentions (Rev 11:1–2) is the one that stood then, and the prophecy indicates it would be trampled (as it soon was). Forcing Revelation’s words into a post-70 Roman context creates unnecessary complications—such as “rebuilding,” “revived Empire,” etc. Essentially, dispensational futurism reads into Revelation a series of novel institutions that the text does not mandate.

Furthermore, futurism disregards the early church’s understanding. Church fathers generally did not anticipate a mid-Tribulation rapture; they believed tribulation would be preceded by Christ’s visible triumph (as partial preterism teaches, see Rev 19–20). The late-date dispensational timeline (placing the Tribulation still in our future) undermines the apostolic witness that Christ’s return was near. For instance, “some are asleep” in 1 Thess 4:15 suggests imminence. Dispensationalism, by denying that first-century events fulfilled many prophecies, risks distancing Christ’s coming and evading accountability. In contrast, partial preterism trusts Jesus' word that some events would “happen soon” (Rev 1:1; Luke 21:22).

Key Takeaways (Against Dispensational Futurism)

• Dispensationalism unjustly divides God’s one people into Israel and the Church (as noted by DeMar), introducing speculative institutions (future temple, animal sacrifices) unsupported by Revelation.

• It postpones Revelation’s judgments and kingdom promises, even though the text itself points to events occurring in John’s generation.

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

  
  

In summary, futurist dispensationalism is built on assumptions (modern Israel, a literal rapture, etc.) that Scripture itself does not require. It conflicts with the Reformed emphasis on covenant continuity. Conversely, 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

In addition to futurism, two other interpretative systems claim authority over Revelation: historicism and full preterism. Historicism, popular among many Reformers, views Revelation as a panoramic prophecy of church history. This often identifies the “beast” with the papacy, among other interpretations. One summary observes, “This perspective sees 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… [which was] a long-held Protestant view.” While historicism adequately addressed medieval concerns (e.g., papal abuses), it stretches Revelation’s symbols across 2,000 years, often overlooking John’s timing statements. This view typically relies on vague phrases like “many” or “beginning of birth pains” (Matt 24:8) to justify seeing Revelation’s letters or seals unfold through successive centuries.

Limitations of Historicism

In practice, historicism served as a useful warning against medieval Catholic power but has largely fallen out of favor. It does not require the internal evidence of Revelation itself. John does not outline church eras or specify a timeline beyond Domitian. By transforming Revelation into an abstract timeline, historicism often interprets the text through church tradition rather than its original context.

Overview of Full Preterism

Conversely, full preterism (or “consistent preterism”) pushes the boundaries in the opposite direction. It asserts that all prophecy—even the final resurrection and Christ’s personal return—was fulfilled by A.D. 70. This position is expressly 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 only a historical event. Traditional Christians have never accepted such an extreme view.

Restoring Balance with Partial Preterism

Partial preterism finds a balanced view. It acknowledges the fall of Jerusalem as Christ’s coming in judgment for Israel’s temple-system (the end of the Old Covenant age), while keeping the ultimate resurrection and final worldwide judgment still future. Bahnsen explains that John’s Revelation addresses the destruction of the old covenant “just a few years following… the fall in 70 A.D.” We thus concur with Riddlebarger that partial preterists “do not believe that the second coming and the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70.” By maintaining the promise of a future “final Antichrist, final tribulation, and final resurrection,” while recognizing 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 original readers.

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

  
  

Partial preterism avoids these errors. It interprets Revelation based on the clues given—time indicators, first-century events, covenant fulfillment—and holds fast to the one true Christian hope: that 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 highlighted the unity of Scripture and the Christ-centered continuity of God’s kingdom. In the same vein, many Reformers (e.g., Grotius) and Puritans (e.g., Brightman in the 1600s) leaned toward early-date interpretations of Revelation. One Reformed commentator lists Greg Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry alongside G.B. Caird and N.T. Wright as adherents of preterist views. Partial preterism is also compatible with postmillennial hope: if Christ’s kingdom advances through the church era, many Revelation judgments (on apostate Israel and pagan Rome) can be understood as already accomplished, while Christ’s consummation remains ahead.

Scriptural Insights on Partial Preterism

Scripturally, partial preterism illustrates how prophecy frequently has near-term fulfillment. John’s Revelation references “the dead [being judged] and making your reward with your Master” (Rev 14:13)—judgments that indeed fell on the Jews in A.D. 70. This perspective aligns with Luke 21:22–24, where Jesus clearly states that Jerusalem’s fall was imminent: “your enemies will build an embankment… they will not leave one stone on another.” Additionally, it interprets Paul’s statements literally. If not all of Israel is hardened forever (Rom 11:25), the “age of Israel” must conclude; that age ended in 70. Partial preterism affirms that most Old Testament types and prophecies of judgment (such as those from Jeremiah and Ezekiel) were fulfilled in the Jewish War and Roman context.

Contemporary Implications of Partial Preterism

For the contemporary church, a partial preterist interpretation holds significant applications. It illustrates that Revelation’s message is relevant to any generation. Its calls to faithfulness, worship, and endurance remain timeless (Rev 2–3). Moreover, it serves as a reminder that nations and leaders are accountable to God—exemplified by Rome’s fall and Israel’s judgment—making it imperative to take sin seriously today. Instead of succumbing to fearfulness over dispensational countdowns, we watch for Christ’s kingdom to grow (Matt 24:14) and serve our Savior, who “lives and was dead, and behold, he is alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18).

Bright Hope of Partial Preterism

The bright hope of partial preterism is that God has already secured victory through Christ’s work in the first century. One day, He will visibly restore all things (Acts 3:21).

Series Conclusion: Throughout this series, we have argued that partial preterism—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 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 confidently interpret Revelation’s symbolism, expect Christ’s ultimate triumph, and live faithfully until He returns.

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).