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.



Main Page

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


Ambrose, Pseudo
Baruch, Pseudo
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
King Jesus
Apostle John
Justin Martyr
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
St. Symeon

(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus

David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce

Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards

E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange

Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther

James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
 Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink

Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius

Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon

Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield

Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright

John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke

Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward

(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any Particular Eschatology)

Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm. Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd
E.B. Elliott
G.S. Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice

Benjamin Jowett
John N.D. Kelly

Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce

Eduard Reuss

J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith

Norman Snaith
Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord

Quakers : George Fox | Margaret Fell (Fox) | Isaac Penington


Lucius Robinson Paige
Universalist Author


Selections from Eminent Commentators, who have Believed in Punishment After Death ; Wherein they Have Agreed with Universalists, in their Interpretation of Scriptures Relating to Punishment


Preterist Commentaries By Modern Preterists

Dividing Line Between Destruction of Jerusalem and General Judgment - None, Matthew 24 & 25 Specifically About Destruction of Jerusalem

(On Matthew 25)
THIS chapter contains three parables, of which the passage quoted is the first. Some are of opinion that the whole chapter relates to the day of judgment in the world to come; others, that a part, only, relates to that day, and the remainder to the subject embraced in the preceding chapter; others, among whom are Universalists, that the whole of both chapters is to be understood as descriptive of events then near at hand, of which the destruction of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it, form. a very conspicuous part. I shall first offer a few quotations on different parts of this chapter, as on the foregoing, and then mention some circumstances equally applicable to both, and to the opinions entertained in relation to them." (p. 134)

"Most of the commentators, as I have already said, are confident that the latter part of chap. xxv. relates to the general judgment. They all allow that the former part of chap. xxiv. relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the circumstances attending it. They also allow that the two chapters embrace a single connected discourse; that this discourse was delivered at one time, and without interruption. Entertaining these views, it was necessary for them to fix on the place where Jesus changed the subject of discourse, where he ceased to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem, and commenced speaking of the day of judgment. That there is such a place, they are very confident; but where it is, they are by no means agreed.

While examining a variety of authors, in the preparation of this work, I noted down, as a matter of curiosity, several of the places which different writers have assigned as the precise point where Jesus changed his subject, and commenced describing an event which should not occur for two thousand, and I know not how many more, years after the events concerning which he was before speaking. I am by no means certain that I have noticed all the places; but the following are submitted to the reader. Where two or more writers have fixed on the same point of division, one only is named.

Guyse, Poole's Continuators, Wynne, and others, apply the whole of chap. xxiv. and xxv., both to the destruction of Jerusalem and the day of general judgment, saying it is difficult to separate what is said in relation to the one subject from what is said in relation to the other: Dr. S. Clarke gives this double application as far as chap. xxv. 13, and applies the remainder of chap. xxv. exclusively to the day of judgment: Trapp fixes on chap. xxiv. 23, as the point where Jesus commenced speaking of the general judgment: the authors of the Dutch Annotations, on xxiv. 29: Heylin. on xxiv. 36: Macknight, on xxiv. 44 : Dr. Scott, on the latter part of chap. xxiv., but he does not designate the particular point; ' towards the close,' is his expression : Dr. A. Clarke, on xxv. 1; though, when he comes to verse 31, he admits that the preceding part may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem ; the remainder, he imagines, must apply to the general judgment : Bishop Porteus fixes on xxv. 31: Dr. Hammond gives a double application to this verse, and applies all which follows, to the general judgment: while Bishop Pearce admits that Jesus continued to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem as far as ver. 41; but there, he imagines, he ' had the day of general judgment in his thoughts.'

One would suppose that, if this discourse of Jesus embraced two periods between which was an interval of two thousand years or more, there would be something in his language by which it might easily be determined where he passed from one period to the other. But orthodox critics seem to be in utter confusion on this point. If they cannot agree where this transition is, are we not justified in the belief that no transition is made, but that the whole is to be interpreted in reference to the same period ?

I cannot better close my remarks on this subject, than by introducing the following extract from a work entitled ' The Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures asserted,' &c., by Rev. S. Noble.

 'It is related, in the first verse, that "Jesus went out and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple;" and it is added, in the second verse, that " Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things ? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be thrown down." First, then, let it be admitted, that these words apply, in their immediate reference, to the temple at Jerusalem and its destruction, which, as is known from the history of Josephus, was as total as is here implied. Let also the detailed prediction that follows, through the whole of this and the next chapters, be understood of the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, as far as they can possibly be adapted to those occurences. It is allowed, however, on all hands, that the whole cannot be so adapted : let then the place be pointed out where the new subject commences. But let this be done in such a manner as to be consistent with the fact, that a space of not much less than two thousand years, at least, was to intervene, between the accomplishment of the latter part of the prophecy and that of the former : for the first part of it is considered to have been fully accomplished about A. D. 70, and the remainder not to be accomplished yet: it is also to be recollected, that no events belonging to this intervening period are supposed to be treated of in the prophecy, but that, in whatever place the transition is made, it skips at once from the destruction of Jerusalem to the end of the world.

Of course, with these premises assumed, every reader will expect to perceive some well-defined mark of so great an hiatus. How will this expectation be answered ? So far from discovering any thing like it, no person can read the two chapters, and draw his inference from their contents alone, without concluding, that the events announced are to follow each other in succession, unbroken by any wide interruption whatever. Accordingly, though commentators are now generally agreed that the hiatus must exist, they are by no means unanimous in fixing its situation.

As before observed, the circumstances foretold, as far as the twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, may, by having recourse, here and there, to figure, be applied to the calamities which befell the Jewish nation : what follows, respecting the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, and his sending his angels with a great sound of a trumpet to gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other, does not, with equal convenience, admit this application : wherefore many eminent writers consider the prophecies relating to the Jews to terminate with the twenty-eighth verse, and all that follows to belong to the greater events commonly designated as the second coming of the Lord, and the general judgment on the world. Unfortunately, however, let both parts of the chapter denote what they may, they are connected together by the binding word "immediately:" "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened," &c., " and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven." Extreme violence, therefore, is done to the words, by those who thrust in, between the tribulation previously described, and this immediate appearing of the Son of man, an interval of two thousand years! On this account, other eminent writers understand the appearing of the Son of man, and all the rest of the chapter, to be merely added in amplification of the previous subject; affirming, however, that "Jesus Christ intended that his disciples should consider the judgment he was going to inflict on the Jewish nation, as a forerunner and emblem of that universal judgment he is to exercise at the last day;" wherefore, they add, "he gives in the twenty-fifth chapter a description of the last judgment: " [Beausobre and L'Enfant's Note on Matt. xxv. 1. ] for which reasons, they place the grand hiatus between the two chapters. But, unhappily, a particle, the nature of which is to draw things into such close connection as admits of nothing being interposed between them, here also occurs. The divine prophet concludes the twenty-fourth chapter with describing the reward 'which the faithful servant, and the punishment which the unfaithful, shall receive at his coming: and he commences the twenty-fifth chapter thus : " Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins." Who cannot see that the parable of the ten virgins, "five of 'whom were wise, and five were foolish," is a continuation and further illustration of the subject introduced by the parable of the faithful and wicked servant that both relate to the same series of events, and leave no room for supposing an interval of two thousand years between the one and the other ? And even if the subjects were not so obviously connected, what propriety would there be in passing from one event to another so distant, by such a copulative as then a word that always denotes either identity of time, or immediate succession ? '

A third modification of the same general plan of interpretation has therefore been proposed by Dr. Doddridge. He adheres to the system of the hiatus, but he seems to have felt more strongly than some, the difficulties with which it is attended : Wherefore, in hopes to avoid them, he steers a middle course between the two theories already noticed.  Let us see, then, what degree of probability he has been able to give to the scheme.

'He paraphrases the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses thus : " Immediately after the affliction of those days which I have been describing, the sun shall, as it were, be darkened, and the moon shall not seem to give her usual light; and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens, all the mighty machines and strong movements above, shall be shaken and broken to pieces; that is, according to the sublimity of that prophetic language to which you have been accustomed, the whole civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the nation shall not only be shocked, but totally dissolved. And then shall there evidently appear such a remarkable hand of providence in avenging my quarrel upon this sinful people, that it shall be like the sign of the Son of man in heaven at the last day ; and all the tribes of the land shall then mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming, as it were, in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory; for that celestial army which shall appear in the air, marshalled round the city, shall be a sure token to them that the angels of God, and the great Lord of those heavenly hosts, are set, as it were, in array against them." Upon this paraphrase I shall only observe, that if the fiery appearances in the sky mentioned by Josephus, and which seem to have been similar to those observed during the civil wars in England, and at various other places and times, are really alluded to in the prophecy, it must be in the former part of it. Where Matthew merely says, that there should be "famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places," [Chap. xxiv. 7] Luke amplifies thus: "And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences ; and fearful sights and great wonders shall there be from heaven." [Chap. xxi. 11]

This will agree with Josephus ; for that historian describes the celestial phenomena as having been seen before the siege and capture of Jerusalem, and as portending those events ; [Jewish War, B. vi. Ch. 5, 3.] wherefore it is violating the facts, to represent these as being what are foretold as the appearing of the Son of man, and his coming in the clouds of heaven, "after the tribulation of those days," besides being a mean application of a most majestic prediction. However, we have only introduced this popular writer's paraphrase, for the sake of his note upon it. On the words, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, he remarks thus : "Archbishop Tillotson, and Brennius, with many other learned interpreters, imagine, that our Lord here makes the transition from the destruction of Jerusalem, which had been the subject of his discourse thus far, to the general judgment; but I think, as it would be very harsh to suppose all the sufferings of the Jewish nation, in all ages, to be called the tribulation of those days" [what occasion, by the by, for supposing the sufferings of the Jewish nation in all ages to be treated of at all ?] "so it would, on the other hand, be equally so to say, that the general judgment, which probably will not commence till at least a thousand years after their restoration, will happen immediately after their sufferings ; nor can I find any one instance in which eutheos (immediately) is used in such a strange latitude. What is said below (in Matt. xxiv. 34, Mark xii. 30, and Luke xxi. 32,) seems also an insuperable objection against such an interpretation. I am obliged, therefore, to explain this section as in the paraphrase ; though I acknowledge many of the figures used may with more literal propriety be applied to the last day, to which there may be a remote, though not an immediate, reference." Moved by these considerations, this worthy divine, though he sees some difficulties in the way, determines to apply the prophecy, thus far, to the destruction of Jerusalem. But when he comes to the thirty-sixth verse, though the series continues to flow without the least sign of interruption, he paraphrases the words " But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only," in reference to the "final sentence" of all mankind; and adds this note: "I cannot agree with Dr. Clarke in referring this verse to the destruction of Jerusalem, the particular day of which was not a matter of great importance ; and as for the season of it, I see not how it could properly be said to be entirely unknown, after such an express declaration that it should be in that generation. It seems, therefore, much fitter, with Dr. Whitby, (after Grotius,) to explain it of the last day, when heaven and earth shall pass away." Well, then, the Doctor has now taken a leap. The simple connective "but " has carried him over an interval of not less, according to his computation, than three thousand years. No sooner, however, has he taken this leap, than he deems it necessary to jump back again. He seems to apply the very next verses to the subject just dismissed : but in a note on the fortieth and forty-first verses, "Then shall two be in the field," &c., he explicitly says, that though these words " may allusively be accommodated to the day of judgment, yet he doubts not they originally refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, to which alone they are properly applicable." He now, however, determines to fly for the last time across the gulf; so he adds, " I humbly conceive, that the grand transition, about which commentators are so much divided, and so generally mistaken, is made precisely after these two verses." Let the reader then examine whether he can here find the marks of "the grand transition," so conspicuous to Dr. Doddridge ; or whether he will not rather find that the discourse proceeds in the same unbroken series, making no transition but from the announcement of awful facts, to the deducing from them of. weighty admonitions. Thus Dr. Doddridge's well-meant attempt to relieve the hiatus scheme of its difficulties, only issues in demonstration, that the difficulties are insuperable.' pp. 217223." (p. 145-152)




Many passages occur in the New Testament, which are understood by some to indicate endless misery in the future life, and by others to indicate severe temporal judgments in the present life. In their interpretations of these passages, Universalists have been accused of wresting the Scriptures from their true import. And not unfrequently it has been remarked that, if Universalists are correct in their expositions, it is unaccountable that some of the pious and learned divines of the last two centuries should not have discovered the true meaning of the controverted passages. I do not mean that any reputable critic has urged this apology for an argument: but it is a favorite theme with many laymen; and some clergymen have not hesitated to adopt this expedient, to persuade their hearers that the views exhibited of the Scriptures by Universalists must necessarily be false; and that they are adopted and defended merely to give some semblance of support to a favorite theory.

To remove this objection, and to exhibit the true state of the case, is the principal object of the following pages. It will be discovered that these pious and learned divines, although they believed in the endless misery of the wicked, have yet given interpretations of the Scriptures similar to those now given by Universalists. Hence it follows that the charge alleged against Universalists, of thus interpreting Scripture merely to support a favorite theory, is unfounded and unjust; for orthodox commentators have given the same interpretations in spite of their own theory.

Of course, it is not pretended that any one orthodox commentator explains every disputed text in accordance with the views entertained by Universalists. But among them ah, some have furnished us authority on every text of this description, with a very few exceptions; some furnishing authority on one text, some on another.

It is proper to observe, in this place, that I would not be understood to adopt, as correct, all the expositions contained in the body of this work. The quotations are introduced, on each text, with reference to a single point; to wit, does this text teach or imply a state of misery in the future life, or does it not ? When any commentator allows that it does not, I consider him to be proper authority to quote in confirmation of the exposition given by Universalists, even though they do not agree with him in regard to what the text does mean. I will illustrate my meaning by a single example. By referring to the notes on Rev. vi. 1217, it will be seen that Hammond and Lightfoot interpret the passage as descriptive of the ' destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state:' the authors of the Assembly's Annotations think it relates to 'the troubles that were to befall the Roman empire;' while Clarke says that' ah1 these things may literally apply to the final destruction of Jerusalem, and to the revolution which took place in the Roman empire under Constantine the Great.' Clarke adds,' some apply them to the day of judgment; but they do not seem to have that awful event in view.' These writers differ among themselves concerning the precise meaning of the passage; but they agree that it is descriptive of events which should be accomplished on the earth, and that it does not refer to the future life. Without deciding which is correct, in regard to the point in which they differ, and even without necessarily adopting either opinion as correct, I quote their authority in relation only to the point before mentioned, does this passage teach or imply a state of misery in the future life, or does it not ?

They all agree that it does not, and declare that it has especial reference to temporal concerns, not having what is called the- day of general judgment in view. So much may suffice to show the propriety of agreeing with these commentators in relation to what a text does not mean, even though we may disagree in relation to what it does mean. I only add that, in a large majority of cases, the interpretations quoted in this work are precisely the same which are now given by Universalists; and which, when so given, are by some of our opposers stigmatized as foul heresy.




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