Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic


End Times Chart

Introduction and Key


AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.    Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell.    Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.


"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website.  The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor).  The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.  Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.


Systematic Hyper Preterism
(aka "Full Preterism")

Study Archive

Jesus: "It is finished" (AD30)
cf. Hebrews 10:19-22

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

Hyper Preterism: Defining "Hyper Preterism"- Criticisms from the Inside - Criticisms from the Outside || Progressive Pret | Regressive Pret | Former Full Preterists | Pret Scholars | Normative Pret | Reformed Pret | Pret Idealism | Pret Universalism

William Bell
Max King
Don Preston
Larry Siegle
Kurt Simmons
Ed Stevens


It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view.   Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view.   Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:


  • All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70

  • Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70

  • The Supernatural Power of Evil Ended in AD70

  • The Spirit of Antichrist was Destroyed in AD70

  • "The Consummation of the Ages" Came in AD70

  • "The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70

  • Nothing to be Resurrected From in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed

  • The Christian Age Began in AD70 ; Earth Will Never End

  • "The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction ending in AD70

  • The "Second Coming" of Jesus Christ Took Place in AD70-ish

  • The Great Judgment took place in AD70 ; No Future Judgment

  • The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70

  • "The Resurrection" of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken Place in AD70

  • The Context of the Entire Bible is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World

(under construction)

  • Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Prayer was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Supper was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Holy Spirit's Paraclete Work Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)

  • The Consummation in AD70 Caused Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)

  • The Resurrection in AD70 Changed the "Constitutional Principle" of Marriage (Noyesism)

  • Israel and Humanity Delivered into Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)

  • The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)

  • Adam's Sin No Longer Imputed in Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)

  • When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive Grace?)

  • The Book of Genesis is an Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical Man (Covenantal Preterism)


Some Problems With Premillennial Preterism

By Tracy D. VanWyngaarden

Response to Marc Gibson's "The AD 70 Doctrine Examined"
Dualistic Eschatology: An Extensive Refutation of Partial Preterism

J.S. Russell and Premillennial Preterism

James Stuart Russell was a premillennialist and a preterist! As Duncan McKenzie has pointed out, this “at first sounds like an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, something like ‘thunderous silence’”. Nevertheless Russell’s preterist beliefs allowed for the millennium to begin at 70 A.D. in connection with the one and only second coming of Christ. With regard to the entire period of “the thousand years”, including the “short time” of Satan’s release, in Revelation 20 Russell stated that “Some interpreters indeed attempt to get over the difficulty by supposing that the thousand years, being a symbolic number, may represent a period of very short duration, and so bring the whole (of the book of Revelation) within the prescribed apocalyptic limits; but this method of interpretation appears to us so violent and unnatural that we cannot hesitate to reject it. The act of binding and shutting up the dragon does indeed come within the ‘shortly’ of the apocalyptic statement, for this is coincident, or nearly so, with the judgment of the harlot and the beast; but the term of the dragon’s imprisonment is distinctly stated to be for a thousand years, and thus must necessarily pass entirely beyond the field of vision so strictly and constantly limited by the book itself. We believe, however, that this is the solitary example which the whole book contains of this excursion beyond the limits of ‘shortly”.

As noted above, Russell acknowledged that some interpreters in his time recognized that the “thousand years” may be symbolic of a short duration of time (As it is more frequently used in scripture) rather than a long or even “literal” duration of time. Even Russell must admit to the “symbolic” nature of the designation “thousand years”. This is evident in that he believed the “thousand year” era to still be ongoing at his present time (nearly two thousand years after A.D. 70, or, the alleged “beginning” of the thousand years).

In both Psalms 90:4 and 2Pet. 3:8 the designation “a thousand years” is clearly likened to a short period of time. For David “a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night”. The night watch was divided by three each consisting of about three hours. This short period, taken along with “yesterday when it passes by”, and also Peters’ declaration that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” should be sufficient grounds for allowing the full preterist some leeway in his assertion that the Thousand years may indeed be indicative of the short forty year inter-advent period from the cross to the second coming in A.D. 70. Or to be precise (as in my view) the manifestation of the Messiah “in the flesh” when He declared to have “bound the strong man” (Matt. 12:29; Cf. Rev. 20:1) to the beginning of the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21), which I believe to be identical with the “short time” of Satan's’ release from the Abyss (Matt. 12:44:Rev. 9:1-2,11; 20:3). My views on the millennium will be more fully set fourth during the course of this paper but for now it must be seen that Russell interpreted the scriptures according to the hermeneutic principle of allowing scripture to interpret scripture. Had Russell “hesitated” before condemning those in his day of interpreting “the thousand years” as a short period of time, based upon the scriptural notoriety of such an interpretation, he may have avoided some of the more obvious problems with premillennialism which shall be examined momentarily. Nevertheless, it is on the basis of allowing scripture to interpret scripture that he recognized the full preterist implication of all prophecy being fulfilled in A.D. 70. His one exception being the “thousand years” and the “short time” after its completion (Rev. 20:3).

I believe that Russell’s foremost problem with interpreting Johns “thousand years” as reflecting upon a past “binding of Satan” and present “millennium” (prior to the outbreak of the Jewish war) lies in what Duncan McKenzie has called, “meta-hermeneutic”. McKenzie posits that.

“One of the underlying problems here is that full preterists use verses like Luke 21:22 to establish a higher order interpretive principle, what I call a “meta-hermeneutic“ Full preterists interpret Luke 21:22 ("For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled”) as saying that all prophecy in the Bible was to be fulfilled by A.D. 70. If this is true (which it isn’t) then the millennium must fit in before AD 70 even though the context of Revelation doesn’t allow for it. . . This hermeneutic constraint (that all bible prophecy must be fulfilled by AD 70 is what makes full preterists feel they need to fit the millennium in before AD 70. see his “premillennial preterism“, The Preterist Archive.)

While it is true that full preterists, as myself, believe this scripture to teach that “all things written” were indeed fulfilled in A.D. 70 it is not as if this scripture is the “linchpin” for full preterism. Full preterism is determined from the context of the entire bible. The passage in Luke is only one scripture out of many that leads the full preterist to believe that all things, including the millennium, were fulfilled in 70 A.D. Nevertheless, preterists who use this scripture as an “I GOT YA!” passage are surely abusing it. For it cannot be made to hold the weigh of full preterism on its own.

Russell, however, relied heavily upon the “Meta-hermeneutic” principle that all must fall within the “shortly of the apocalyptic limits”. To be precise, he did not allow that any portion of the book of revelation dealt with past events nor present events. All of it dealt only with events which were “shortly” to occur. Hence, in order for him to recognize the preterist view to be correct, the view that the millennium was present when John received the Revelation, having begun in the past with the “binding of the strong Man (Matt 12:21) and to continue until his shortly future release at the outset of the Jewish war (the “completion” of the millennium, and the beginning of his short time”), he would necessarily have to reconsider his “meta-hermeneutic”. An example of Russell's “meta-hermeneutic” in action can be seen in his treatment of Rev. 12:1-2. Russell rejected a common view that the dragon who persecuted the woman bringing fourth the man child to rule the nations with a rod of iron (v. 2) refers to Mary and Jesus who, no sooner after he was born, was persecuted by Herod, later to ascend to the throne of God. (Russell p>449). Russell says that an “Objection which is fatal to this interpretation” is that “It is outside the bounds which the Apocalypse itself expressly draws around its scene and time of action. It is not among the things ‘which must shortly come to pass.’ If we were taken back to look at symbolical representations of the birth of Christ, we should not be upon apocalyptic ground. to leave this ground is to travel out of the record, to forsake the terra firma of historical fact, and to launch out upon a shore less sea of conjecture, without a compass or a guiding star.” This is strong language which makes it clear that he did not recognize any “history” embodied in the “Symbolic representations” of the book of revelation. However, if the “apocalyptic limits” were to include past, present, as well as “imminent future”, then it would be permissible for other portions of the book of revelation, particularly the “binding of Satan” (beginning of the millennium” to be included therein.

“Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which are about to take place after these things. (Rev. 1:19).

Many interpreters from futurist and preterist camps have recognized that Rev. 1:19 is a commission to John from Christ to write past things (things which you have seen), present things (things which are), as well as future things (things which are about to take place). While I disagree with the dispensational application of this verse which separates the prophecy into entire sections, I do believe that past present and future “things” are interwoven throughout the prophecy. And on this basis I believe the “apocaliptic limits” must include the past present and future. Clearly it can be seen that when John declared Jesus to be “the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and released us from our sins by his blood...” he was relating both “past” and “present” realities. Also When he saw “A lamb standing as if slain”, He saw the crucified Christ. All throughout the book of Revelation it is apparent that past present and future is intermingled together. In relation to the millennium, I believe that the binding of Satan corresponds with “the things which you have seen”, the period of his imprisonment corresponds with “the things which are”, and the future release for a short time corresponds with “the things which are about to take place after these things” (i.e. after the completion of the thousand years).

Notice that the same pattern given to John in the commission to “write” is evident in Chapter 20 of Revelation. John “Saw an angel” who bound Satan, hence, “the things which you have seen” , or things of the past. Satan was bound for a thousand years, hence, John writing during the time of Satan’s imprisonment was writing of “the things which are”. “:After these things (the completion of the thousand years) he must be released for a short time” . Hence John wrote of “the things which must take place after these things”. In this vein it must also be seen that in John’s commission to “write” there is not any hint that John was instructed to write anything “future” that lay beyond the imminent future (Mello). To say that John wrote of a long protracted millennium to begin in A.D. 70 (as posited by Russell) is to say that John wrote of a time period during which Jesus nowhere instructed him to write. This is, in my opinion, a grave error made by many interpreters of Revelation.

Russell and the binding of Satan.

“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. (Jn. 12:31”)

In Russell's treatment of John 12:31 and Rev. 20:1-2 (Parousia p.517) he stated , “What meaning can be attached to these significant words if they do not imply that powerful check was about to be given to the influence of Satan over the minds of men; a check arising wholly from the death of Christ upon the cross? From these words alone it seems that the “check” or “binding” of Satan, for Russell is to be attributed to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Such is the natural interpretation of this passage, as Russell endorses Himself. However, because of his narrow “apocaliptic limit” he is forced to place the “check” in A.D. 70 instead of A.D. 30. Russell continues thus, “But it is in the apocalyptic vision that we see the actual representation of this curbing of Satan’s power. It is here evidently defined as to the time of its commencement, and associated with the downfall of Jerusalem, and the consequent abrogation of the Jewish dispensation.” This interpretation is out of pure necessity, although contrary to what appeared to him to be “a check arising wholly from the death of Christ upon the cross”. If the “check is placed at the cross, then so is the representation of that binding in Rev. 20:1-2. But this would mean that the “thousand” years began there and not in A.D. 70.


“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Matt. 12:28-29) . “

The fact that Jesus was casting out demons is indisputable proof that the Kingdom of God had began to be manifested among them, also, this meant that the strong man (i.e. Satan as the context is clear) was “bound”. How else could Jesus carry off his property (cast out demons)? This is indisputable proof that Satan was bound during the ministry of Christ. The problem encountered by Russell and other premillennialists (futurist and preterist) is that for them there must be two “binding events” for Satan. This is not such a problem if it can be determined from scripture that there are two such events. However, in order for Satan to be bound again in A.D. 70 (per premillennial preterists) after he was bound during Jesus’ ministry, there must have been some change in the situation created by the first occurrence. In other words, Satan must have been loosed some time between the Cross and the fall of Jerusalem. This may send many rushing to their bibles to find such a passage of scripture in order to hold on to their views! But lets face it there is not any such scripture that would support two bindings and two loosings of Satan. This logic is similar to the duplication process of partial preterism. Partial preterism must have two comings of Christ, two resurrections, two passings of heaven and earth, two end times. . . etc. Nevertheless there are scriptures which support a pre A.D. 70 release of Satan from his prison. included among these is Rev. 20:3. In my opinion premillennialists must face the fact that the bible indisputably teaches that Satan was bound in connection with the first advent, not the second.

Consider the passage in Hebrews,

“Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is the devil” (Heb. 2:14).

It is through the death of Christ that Satan was rendered powerless. This relates Satan’s binding to the cross, not the second coming. Some may say that through the cross Satan would ultimately be bound at the second advent, however notice that the Hebrew writer used the past tense when speaking of Satan’s loss of power (“who had the power of death“). This rules out a “future” (from his day) “binding of Satan”.

Consider also that at the time Revelation was given to John (prior to A.D. 70) Jesus said “I have the keys (authority, power) of death and Hades” (Rev. 1-18) Jesus claimed to have the power of death that the Hebrew writer formerly attributed to the devil. Unless one can determine from scripture that there are two loosings of Satan, one after his first advent binding and another after his alleged second advent binding, one cannot escape the conclusion that “the thousand years” began in connection with the one and only “binding” of Satan, which occurred in connection with Christ’s first advent. Since Jesus clearly bound Satan prior to A.D. 70 (Matt. 12:31; Heb. 2:14), and John relates the beginning of the “thousand years” at that time, (Rev. 20:2). it only follows that Johns millennium episode is a recapitulation. John was looking back to the “things which you have seen” (or, past things). The “thousand year” binding of Satan was therefore among the “things which are” (the “thousand years“ being virtually identical with the Last Days) And most importantly, since Johns “futurism” is imminent, the loosing and punishment of the dragon in the lake of fire is among those things which “must soon take place”. Note also that since “the thousand years” was of necessity among the “things which are” none of the futuristic portion of revelation could be fulfilled until the thousand years were completed. Regarding the futuristic portion of the book of revelation Jesus said those things “are about to (mello) take place after these things”. The future “things” in Johns book awaited the fulfillment of the present “things”. In this same manner John, in Revelation, wrote that it is “after these things” (the “completion of the thousand years”) that Satan “must be released for a sort time.” (Rev. 20:3).

The Last Enemy.

Another important point that needs to be made about Russell’s premillennialism is that according to Paul “Death” is the “last enemy” to be defeated, and this is clearly to occur at the second advent.

“For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (1Cor. 15:25-26).

This passage of scripture poses a significant problem for “premillennial preterism”. Russell had this to say about it,

“But what shall we say of the destruction of ‘the last enemy, death’? Is it not fatal to this interpretation that it requires us to place the abolition of the dominion of death, and the resurrection, in the past, and not in the future? Does not this contradict fact and common sense, and consequently expose the fallacy of the whole explanation? Of course, if the language of the apostle can only mean that at the Parousia the dominion of death over all men was everywhere and forever brought to an end, it follows either that he was in error in making such an assertion, or that the interpretation which makes him say so is an erroneous one. That he does affirm that at the Parousia (the time of which is incontrovertibly defined in the New testament as contemporaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem) death will be destroyed, is what no one can with any fairness deny” (parousia pp.205-206).

From the above it can clearly be seen that Russell relegated the fulfillment of this prophecy with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is made clear in 1Cor. 15:54 where “death swallowed up in victory” is connected with the abrogation of the Law, the same Law which was “ready to disappear” near the outbreak of the Jewish war (Heb. 8:13). However, when Russell extended the millennium beyond A.D. 70 he placed the defeat of Satan and the enemies gathered together for the war (during the “short time” of Satans release, Rev. 20:7-8) after the defeat of death. For Russell, and those who hold his views, the casting of Death and Hades into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14) occurred in A.D. 70. If death was defeated in A.D. 70 at the parousia (which it was) and Satan and the armies gathered for the war are to be defeated thousands of years later (per premillennial preterism) then it follows that death was not the last enemy. All authority was not abolished. Not all His enemies were put in subjection under His feet (1Cor. 15:24-27). Premillennial preterism must be either “preterist” or “premillennial”, it cannot be both. At best it can only be “inconsistent preterism”. According to scripture death was the last enemy to be placed under Jesus’ feet. This would occur at “the end of the age” at Christ’s parousia in A.D. 70. Hence, Satan’s rebellion for the “short time” must have occurred just prior to A.D. 70 in order for him to be defeated prior to the “last enemy” Death.

Duncan McKenzie, who recently wrote an article on the preterist archive in support of Russell’s “premillennial preterism”, has offered some seemingly valid points in support of why he believes full preterism to be in error.

McKenzie wrote,

“Notice that the judgment committed to God’s people in Rev:4 (“and judgment was committed to them”) is something that has been promised to the believers at the judgment at Jesus’ Second Coming (which full preterists correctly say was AD 70).

‘Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 1Cor. 6:2’”.

The judgment committed to God’s people in Revelation 20:4 is the judgment that Paul was telling his readers they would participate in the future (at the judgment at the Second coming in AD70). To say the millennium of Revelation 20:4 is talking about A.D. 30 doesn’t fit the judgment that is shown being committed to the believer”.

At first this may seem correct but I question whether Paul’s question to the Corinthians, “do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” is the same as “judgment” being “committed to them” in Revelation. To be sure those given judgment in Revelation includes those whom Paul said would judge the world. And it is possible that their “judging the world” and “angels” is coextensive with the “white throne judgment” in Rev. 20. But Revelation 20:4 doesn’t depict a so called “judgment scene” where judgment is being acted out in a court of law by the saints as McKenzie would have us believe. All that Revelation 20:4 says is that “judgment was committed to them”. The only “judgment” scene in Revelation 20 has Jesus doing all the judging with no mention here of the saints. Therefore I see no scriptural warrant for identifying both passages as one and the same regarding time and event. I don’t see any reason to believe that “the judgment committed to God’s people in Revelation 20:4 is the judgment that Paul was telling His readers they would participate in”(McKenzie).” Furthermore, Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians was aimed toward getting them to recognize the judgment that was already committed to them (C.F. 1Cor. 6:1-11). He was chastising them for their lack of competence to even judge “the smallest matters of this life”. Their ability to judge needed to be recognized. Furthermore, Jesus said that “now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out” (John 12:31). Paul said that the saints would judge the world, however, as Jesus clearly pointed out, the worlds judgment had already begun.

McKenzie also wrote that

“Russell gave the following connection between the judgment given to God’s people in Rev/ 20:4 and the judgment promised to the disciples. ‘ We further observe that there is a manifest allusion in this passage [Rev. :20:4] to the promise of our Lord to His disciples, ‘Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19”28). That period has now arrived. The regeneration, when the kingdom of the Messiah was to come, is now regarded as present and the disciples are glorified with their glorified Master... (Parousia pp.519-520, emphasis his). In An attempt to show that the millennium began At A.D. 30 there are those in both the full and partial preterist camps that say the “regeneration” began at AD 30. Matthew 25:31 dispels this notion. Jesus had said in Matt. 19:28 that the regeneration would be at the time when He would sit on the throne of His Glory.” Matthew 25:31 puts this time when Jesus sits on the throne of His glory at the Second Coming in AD 70.

Matthew 25:31

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory, emphasis his.


This fits an AD 70 beginning to the millennium. Jesus promised his followers the power of judgment in the regeneration when He would sit on the throne of His glory (Matt. 19:28). Matt. 25:31 puts this time of Jesus sitting on His throne of glory as being the Second Coming. For full preterists this is an AD 70 event not an AD 30 event. The millennium (Rev. 20:4) shows this AD 70 event of judgment being given to believers (Paul included all believers as participating in the judgment of the world at the Second Coming 1Cor 6:2.)”

The crux of the problem presented by Mr. McKenzie is this: If the “regeneration”, when the disciples were to judge Israel is to occur when Jesus’ sits on his throne, and Jesus is to sit on His throne ONLY in A.D. 70, then the “regeneration” must begin in A.D. 70. If full preterists agree that the regeneration is when the disciples were to judge Israel then manifestly the period of time for the regeneration cannot begin in A.D. 30. For Jesus (according to McKenzie) did not sit on His throne until A.D. 70 (based upon Matt. 25:31).

To begin with, the author of Hebrews said that “the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens...” (Heb. 8:1 see also Col. 3:1). Prior to A.D. 70, the author declared Jesus, the Great High Priest to have already (has, past tense) “taken his seat”. He was currently sitting on the throne of His glory prior to the parousia in A.D. 70. Based on this passage it cannot be maintained that Matt. 25:31 teaches that ONLY at A.D. 70 would Jesus “sit on the throne of His glory”. Rather, in keeping with the nature of THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, he was then revealed to have been “sitting on His throne” since the ascension. Since this is the case, then it cannot be maintained that the “regeneration” MUST begin at this time. Rather we must look to the ascension, or A.D. 30 for its beginning. For it is there that Jesus ascended to His glorious throne. All that is taught in Matt. 25:31-32 is that only then would he sit on His throne judging the nations. I believe the “regeneration” is to be read as the time during which the disciples followed Jesus (you who have followed me in the regeneration). The “regeneration” would extend until the consummation of the age (A.D. 70). During this time Jesus sat upon His throne (cf. Rev. 3:21) and those who followed him were “seated with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). Prior to A.D. 70, it is clearly stated that the disciples were seated upon thrones (Eph. 2:6), therefore the time of their “coming to life” and “reigning with Him” during the millennium (Rev. 20:4) cannot be maintained to have begun in A.D. 70. Revelation 20:4 says that the millennial saints “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years“, whereas Eph 2:6 reads that the saints in pre-AD 70 time hade been “made alive together with Christ... and raised (us) up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus“. John was looking back to a “coming to life” and “reign” that began, for the saints” “with Christ” from the beginning of his Messianic mission (A.D. 30) not it’s consummation (A.D. 70).

McKenzie says that “The full preterist proposition of starting the millennium at or around A.D. 30 runs into a very big problem right off the bat. Consider the millennium verse of Revelation 20:4.

Rev.20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (emphasis his).

One of the groups that enter the millennium consists of martyrs who had not worshipped the beast or his image. These believers had overcome the beast at the cost of their lives Cf. Rev. 12:11. The beast was to be an eighth king (Rev. 17:11) he was to come after Nero (AD 54-56) who all preterists agree was the sixth king (the one ruling when Revelation was written, Rev. 17:10). The beast was to be destroyed at the Second coming in AS70 (Rev. 19:11-21). Whoever one wants to say the beast was (I am not going into his identity here) he existed around the time of AD 70 as he fights against Jesus at the Second Coming (Rev. 11:19-21). The mark of the beast is discussed in Revelation chapter 13> John was warning his readers not to take it. The millennium was being held out as a reward to those who would face the beast, some of them would be killed in the process of resisting him. Now to say the millennium started around AD 30 means that some of those coming alive at that time (AD 30) had been martyred by the beast. This just does not fit the timing of Revelation. One would have to come up with a pre-AD 30 beast (and remember the beast was to be an eighth king that was to come after Nero! {54--68} Rev. 1:17-11). Even if one comes up with a pre-AD 30 beast, why were Christians being warned about him some 35 years after the fact? (Revelation was probably written around A.D. 65). If the mark of the beast were a pre AD 30 phenomenon then Jesus should have been warning about it in A.D. 30 instead of John warning about it in AD 65. Again, the people who come alive for the millennium had overcome the beast, this fits an AD 70 beginning to the millennium not an AD 30 beginning.”

The main problem with McKenzie’s interpretation here is in his statement: “Now to say the millennium started around A.D. 30 means that some of those coming alive at that time had been martyred by the beast”. Why MUST this be so? Where in Revelation 20 does it say the martyrs came alive AFTER they were slain by the beast? It is for sure that the saints who came alive for the millennium were martyred by the beast But where in Revelation 20 is it said that the martyrs came alive AFTER they were slain by the beast? It simply is not! Most people assume this because it is believed that the “death” from which the millennial saints “come alive” from is that which was inflicted by the beast. Hence a chronology is allegedly implied in the text. However, this assumption is not correct. As McKenzie and Russell must admit, the death from which the millennial saints “come alive” from is not the physical death they received from the beast. If it were then are we to believe they are still alive? If, as in their view, the millennium began in A.D. 70 and extends until a still uncertain future, and the saints are said to “come to life” for the duration of that period of time (Rev. 20:4), then they must of necessity still be physically alive! I am certain that McKenzie does not hold this to be true. Nevertheless without this inference (used by many futurists) there isn’t any explicit reason to place the time of their coming to life and reigning with Christ after their martyrdom by the beast. John, in Rev. 20:4 was relating what he “saw”. He saw two groups of individuals, some who sat on thrones and some who were beheaded, having “not worshiped the beast or his image“. With regard to both groups of individuals it is said that they “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years”. Nothing here requires that their “coming to life” and “reigning” with Christ had to occur after they had resisted the “number of the beast” and “not worshipped him”.

In my view, since the millennium began with the first advent, the millennial saints “came to life with Christ” at that time. They “came to life and reigned with Christ” Rev. 20:4). Since Christ was reigning on His throne from the ascension to the parousia (A.D. 30-A.D.70) so were the millennial saints. When the millennium was completed at the outbreak of the Jewish war (the “great tribulation”), and Satan was released from his prison, it is said that Satan gave the beast “his power, and his throne and great authority”... he gave his authority to the beast” (Rev. 12:13:2-4). Again, Jesus “bound the strong man” (Matt. 12:31), and rendered the devil “powerless” ( Heb. 2:14) at His first advent (A.D.30). In order for Satan to have power and authority to give to the beast during the Jewish war he must have been released from his state of being bound and therefore received back his power (temporarily) prior to the beasts empowerment. Revelation 9 1-2,11 relates the release of Satan from the abyss at the outset of the Jewish war.

“And a fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him. And he opened the bottomless pit; and smoke went up out of the pit, like the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened. by the smoke of the pit. And out of the smoke came forth locusts upon the earth; and power was given them... they have as king over them, the angel of the abyss”.

Indeed, all preterist interpreters recognize that this scene of action is contemporaneous with the beginning of the Jewish war. The context of Rev. 9 makes it clear that the “locusts” coming fourth from the abyss (bottomless pit) are Demons. Note, however that they “have as king over them, the angel of the abyss”. This is none other than Satan “the ruler of the demons“ (Matt. 12:24). Proof that Satan is seen here coming out of the abyss with the Demons under his rule can be seen in v. 11, Satan is called “the angel of the abyss”. He is said to be the “angel of the abyss” because that was the place of his former habitation. Their “king” was released from the abyss along with the rest of the demons Jesus had banished there. Jesus not only cast out Demons, but he also cast out Satan. Jesus, before His death on the cross, said that “now judgment is upon this world, now the prince of this world shall be cast out’ (John 12:31). Since it is clear that Demons went to the abyss upon their being cast out (Legion “entreated Him mot to command them to depart into the abyss”, Luke 8:31) then why should this not also be the case for their ruler? I believe it is. Therefore since Satan was “bound”, “rendered powerless”, and “cast out”, in connection with the first advent he must have necessarily been released from his “bound” state, been given back “power” (for a short time), and returned from the place to which he was “cast out” (the abyss) during the brief time leading up to the second advent in A.D. 70. At this point (Satan’s release from the abyss) the millennium is completed. (Rev. 20:4). The Dragon enlists the beast to “Make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Rev. 13:7). Hence, they were “beheaded for the testimony o f Jesus” (Rev. 20:4). Their confrontation with the beast occurs after the thousand years is completed, not before. And this confrontation occurred during the Jewish war against Rome (Prior to A.D. 70).

Another aspect Duncan McKenzie’s “premillennial preterism” that I simply do not agree with is his statement that, “To me the fact that three of the seven churches (Smyrna, Thyatira and Laodicea) were being offered AD 70 incentives that related to them entering the millennium is a clear indication of the millennium beginning in A.D. 70” (again, see his “premillennial preterism” on the preterist archive.”

The promises to these three churches are as follows, respectively,

“He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death”, (Rev. 2:11)

“To him who overcomes I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of Iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also received authority from My father” (Rev. 2:26-27).

“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit don with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21).

It is clear that all these promises relate to the millennium, however I do not believe that their ultimate fulfillment was to be in the millennium. Rather, I believe all the promises made to the seven churches in Revelation were to have their fulfillment in the new heaven and new earth following after the millennium. Particularly, with relation to the promise of receiving “authority over the nations”, I believe the ultimate fulfillment of their “reigning with Christ” is not that which was received in pre-consummated form during the millennium but that which was received in the new heaven and new earth in consummation. It is clear that the reign of the saints during the millennium was to be acted out during a limited and temporary time period (a thousand years) . However , that which answers to all the promises given to the seven churches is to be found during the new heaven and earth. For it is there that it is said, “and they shall reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5). Are there “nations” during the new heaven and earth for them to have authority over? “:And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it” (Rev. 21:26). The distinction between the reign of the saints “for a thousand years” and the reign of the saints “forever and ever” must be seen. Their “reign” is the same, however their reign is to be seen as taking place during two distinct time periods, one is temporal (the last days of the old covenant age) and the other is eternal (the eternal new covenant age). Premillennial preterists do not ( as far as I can tell) make a distinction between these two time periods. For them the millennium and the new covenant age (the new heaven and earth) both have their beginning in A.D. 70. The only other view I see possible for them is that the new covenant age began at the cross, and was consummated at the parousia in A.D. 70. Still these two distinct time periods (one temporal and the other eternal) co -exist together. after A.D. 70 (in their view). The eternal reign of the saints must be paced at the parousia (Where premillennial preterists begin their temporal reign). This is not consistent. Rather, I believe the saints, at the parousia, then entered into the eternal age of the new covenant where the things to come, being already “tasted” during the last days/millennium, were fulfilled by means of the “consummation of the age” (Matt. 24:3).

McKenzie says that “If the millennium began in AD 30 then Jesus’ promise to share in his Messianic reign over the nations made little sense, as it would have been something the believer at Thyatira already had”. But as we have already seen, it is abundantly clear that every aspect of the millennium was ALREADY PRESENT PRIOR TO A.D. 70.

The saints sat upon thrones , reigning with Christ (Eph. 2:5:6: Rev. 20:4).

The saints “came to life” with Christ (Eph. 2:5-6; John. 5:25; Rev. 20:4).

The saints were “priests of God” (Rev. 1:6; 1Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6).

This fact puzzles McKenzie in that he said “This makes little sense”. However what I believe to be correct is that the state or resurrection, rulership and priestly authority, all of which are attributed to the millennial saints, are related to both pre-cross time and post -parousia time. In other words the “sense” to be gleaned from the “already” vs. the “not yet” in the book of revelation is the same as the rest of new testament scripture. Every aspect of eschatology in the bible is bound up with the already not yet principle. This does not give one the right to argue the one to the exclusion of the other. Both aspects need to be taken into account. The best explanation I can give is that Christians in the first century were living in a transition period during which, as the author of Hebrews said, they had already “tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come (Heb. 6:4-5). The “powers of the age to come” refers to every aspect of the new covenant creation, the “new heaven and earth where righteousness dwells” (2Pet. 3:13), including the eternal reign of the saints with their risen Lord in resurrection as priests of God (Rev. 21,22). Since every aspect of the “age to come” was given to the believer in Christ at A.D. 70 FOREVER I cannot, therefore, see any warrant in placing the temporal “thousand year” possession of those SAME THINGS in A.D. It makes more sense (in my judgment) to place the possession of those things during the only temporal time period mentioned in the bible wherein those things were offered and received (in pre-consummation form), namely, the Last Days of the old covenant aeon (Heb. 1:2).

One Last point that I wish to make before quitting has to do with Mr. McKenzie’s statement that,
“Again I Agee with full preterists that AD 30-70 was a transition period, I even agree with them on most of the particulars of this period; I just disagree that this transition period was the millennium.” (See his “premillennial preterism”). In particular Mr. McKenzie has tried to make a distinction between the “transition period” and the “thousand years” that he believes is irreconcilable. His argument is that “Those that lived in the transition period (AD 30-AD 70) could lose their salvation, those in the millennium can not (“over such the second death has no power” Rev. 20:6). On this basis he believes that the transition period and the millennium cannot be the same. Regardless of whether he is correct in his statement that “those that lived in the transition period could lose their salvation”, for arguments sake lets say he is (which I believe he probably is, see his arguments), his argument does not hold up. It is true that those who did not “hold fast until the end” probably lost that which they already had received (i.e. salvation) during the transition period or the millennium. But THESE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN JOHNS MILLENNIUM. John said He saw those seated on the thrones (which I believe to be the disciples) and those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast of his image and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand” (Rev. 20:4). In Revelation it is the overcomers who had reigned with Christ in resurrection during the millennium, holding the Word of God above all during the short time of tribulation (Satan’s release) that are not hurt by the second death, and therefore not subject to losing their salvation. Those who lost their salvation during the millennium, or transition period are not said to either “come to life” and “reign with Christ”. Neither are they said not to be hurt by the second death.

Much more could be written on these subjects, however I must bring it to a close. My main purpose above is to show some of , what I believe to be, the inconsistencies that premillennial preterism exhibits. I am not pretending here to have all the answers and am happy to read the views of Russell and McKenzie. I hope to read more from Mr. McKenzie as I think His articles are thoughtful and insightful. I Just don't agree with Him on the point that the Millennium is to be extended beyond A.D. 70.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ Opened in 1996