Recently, I listened to the above Crosspolitic episode, in which Gary DeMar and Toby Sumpter debated the heresy of Full Preterism (the view that all prophecies — including the resurrection, Second Coming, and Final Judgment — were fulfilled by AD 70). DeMar, I take it, is not exactly a Full Preterist, but his views certainly lean in that direction. The debate took me back to March and April of 2024, during which I developed several strong arguments against the doctrine.

This was necessary because, in my search for truth, I found myself pushing hard in the direction of Partial Preterism (the view that many prophecies were fulfilled by AD 70). I quickly realised, however, that I would need good brakes if I was going to stop before skidding into the Full Preterist ditch. In order to responsibly play around and have fun in the eschatological paddock, I needed a solid fenceline on the left side of the paddock.

The following discussion, for me, is that fenceline — and it’s as solid as any I’ve come across.

Nomenclature

Necessary though it may be, I dislike eschatological nomenclature — especially when applied to people, not prophecies. I am not a “Preterist” (even though many of my opinions might be labelled as such). I do not “apply a preterist method of interpretation to prophecy.” I have no preterist glasses on. I simply appeal to what I consider to be the plainest meaning of scriptural texts, and, it so happens, this has led me to believe that many Bible prophecies were primarily fulfilled in the past.

But this methodology has also resulted in many futurist positions — particularly on texts like Acts 1:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:28. Indeed, I flip-flop between praeter and future more liberally than a university student between gender identities.

To be clear: with regards to sex, I am a chest-beating male. I’ve even proven it on my chin. Eschatology, on the other hand, finds me embracing the spectrum like a veritable TikToker.

The Preterist Template

Full Preterism, to reiterate, claims that everything prophesied in the Bible — including the resurrection, Second Coming, and Final Judgement — was fulfilled by AD 70. According to this view, we now live in the completed New Heavens and Earth, in which death has been abolished, every tear has been dried, Christ’s enemies have all been made his footstool, and God is ‘all and in all.’

Now, it seems to me that the only way this conclusion can be arrived at is by taking “preterism” not as a label to describe particular interpretations, but as a template through which to view scripture. Indeed, Full Preterists argue for such a template on the grounds that scripture explicitly demands it.

Of course, if it were clearly stated in 2 Zebedee 4:3 that “Verily, it shall come to pass that every word of prophetic scripture shall be brought to pass within twenty years” then at least we have a real debate on our hands. But even if a verse did say something like that, then, according to every Biblical norm I have observed, this truth would be proclaimed in many parts and many ways, and it would be utterly inescapable. We would see it all over the gospel of Bartholemew, throughout the epistle of Philip, and weaving in and out of Thaddaeus’ apocalypse.

There are a few verses to which Full Preterists point to prove that a preterist template is necessary. They argue that, even though many other texts do not look like they fit Full Preterism, they must fit — they are made to fit — because otherwise they damage the framework. In pursuing this course, the Full Preterist proves the point I am making: that the only way to reach his conclusions is by forcing every text into preconceived preterist categories — categories established by a few supposedly clear texts.

These texts are, usually: Luke 21:22, Daniel 9:24, and Matthew 5:17-18.

For starters, examine the Lukan Olivet Discourse:

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.” (Luke 21:20-23)

The phrase “to fulfill all that is written” is taken to mean “every word of the Old Testament will be fulfilled.” But in context, this is simply not what is intended. Suppose, for example, you were talking excitedly about an upcoming cricket game, and you said:

“When you see Cummins with the ball, then recognise that the game is over; because he’s going to get his revenge, and all the pundits’ predictions will come true.”

When you said this, you did not mean that every last pundit prediction since the dawn of time would come true. You were talking about the ones concerning Cummins. By the same token, Christ is talking about “Jerusalem,” “those who are in Judea,” “those who are inside the city,” “those who are out in the country,” and “this people.” Thus, when he point to a fulfilment of “all that is written,” his meaning is that everything written concerning judgement on Jerusalem will be fulfilled.

This is indicated by the word “because.” It links v22 causally with v20-21. The judgement on Jerusalem is coming because everything written against Jerusalem is about to be fulfilled. (The argument is further strengthened by the fact that the equivalent verses in Matthew and Mark only mention the prophecy of Daniel, and cite Daniel 12:1).

Like the rubber-necked futurist, therefore, the lesser-spotted Full Preterist wants to universalise a statement that is clearly limited to the nation of Israel. The statement does sound very momentous; and to a certain extent, it is. But we should not ignore context because of how momentous the language sounds — that logic is applied incorrectly by futurists to v25.

By understanding the context, similar errors can be avoided in the case of Daniel 9:24 and Matthew 5:17-18. In the former case, the phrase “seal vision and prophecy” seems to emphasise the vindication and authentication of prophecy, rather than its utter completion (and, in any case, probably refers to the specific prophecies of Daniel). In the latter, “all things being fulfilled” refers to the fact that Christ fills up, or brings into full force, the principles of the Law of Moses. Neither of these texts signify an end of Old Testament prophecy. Rather, they show that the Old Testament scriptures come to life in Christ.

Therefore, I reiterate that it is simply arbitrary to make a principled application of preterism to every text of scripture, because the Bible nowhere requires this. Just because you can understand a text through a preterist lens does not mean you should.

A Summary Case Against Full Preterism

I have shown that a Full Preterist framework is unnecessary, but what makes Full Preterist conclusions untrue? In summary, the reason I reject it is because it ends the story too soon. It is like concluding the Harry Potter series after book one. It is like entering retirement the day after leaving school. It is like adjourning to the lounge room without finishing your plate. God is the best story-teller, and he wouldn’t make such a rookie mistake.

The Biblical narrative does not begin with Israel, and so it should not end with Israel, either. Such a perspective is one order of magnification too far in. We must zoom our lens out a click. God’s purpose with the earth began with the human race as a whole, and so it will end with the human race as a whole.

The Bible presents us with a problem to be solved — sin and death — and the presence of Israel serves only as the exemplar of God’s covenantal dealings with the rest of mankind in order to overcome that problem. This is enormously clear from scripture (Gen 12:2-3, Ex 19:5-6, Deut 4:6-8, Psa 67:1-2, Rom 11:11-12, Eph 2:11-13). This means that the rise and fall of Israel cannot be the be-all and end-all. Sure, it is a major sub-plot which must be resolved; but the Biblical narrative must close all of its open threads, chief of which is the problem of sin and death. Full Preterism is, in this way, asymmetrical. Indeed, if the biblical narrative closed in AD 70, it would be akin to a novel whose plot ran as follows:

Once upon a time a wise man built a beautiful city, and many happy people lived there. Then a dragon rose up and destroyed the city, convincing all of its inhabitants that the wise man did it. The wise man assembled an army to fight the dragon, but most of them took the dragon’s side. So the wise man destroyed his army… and took the remaining good ones up to a remote mountain to play harps. The end.

Though a novice in the novel-writing business, I am fairly sure this wouldn’t sell.

The overall trajectory of the Bible requires a real, tangible redemption of earth, not an escape to heaven. Eden must be restored. Otherwise, all who observe the condition of earth could justly say of God: “He began to build, and was not able to finish.”

It is also helpful to Biblical redemption in terms of a narrowing and subsequent widening of the scope of salvation. In Genesis, God began with the entirety of humanity, slowly narrowing his scope of focus — first to one nation, then to a faithful remnant within the nation, then to a single man within the remnant. Isaiah says:

“He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him.” (Isaiah 59:16)

God reconciled the entire world through one man. A single individual. But, as we would expect, that victory is being sent progressively outwards, like ripples on a pond — to the Jew first, then to everyone else. God sent Christ to save the world, and he will be content with nothing less than a saved world.

In this way, Biblical redemption looks like an hourglass, where the human race is funnelled through the death and resurrection of Christ, and AD 70 is about an inch below the neck. I say this because AD 70 was significant, but it wasn’t everything. When Christ died, in symbol he neutered the Jew-Gentile distinction — “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph 2:15). This judgement of his flesh, we are told, was symbolised by the tearing of the temple veil (Heb 10:20). In abolishing the temple, Christ was eliminating the Jews’ ethnic privilege. He was widening the scope of God’s salvific lens beyond them.

But tearing the veil was only a symbol of what was to come. Until AD 70, the temple still stood. And so, until that time, the Jew-Gentile distinction was upheld, for the commandment was repeated: “to the Jew first, and then the Gentile” (see Matt 10:5-6, Acts 1:8, 13:46). Thus, it is only after AD 70, when the temple was literally destroyed, that the gospel could truly go forth to all nations without obstacle.

If we say that the entire biblical narrative ends here, we have missed the point of God’s purpose. We must, again, zoom out and refocus. What did God want originally? He wanted the earth to be full of his image and likeness (Gen 1:26-28). Please check the pulse of anyone who says that was true in AD 70.

When we consider the overall picture, therefore, it is, in my opinion, obvious that the biblical narrative did not end in AD 70. Both scripture, and our God-given instinct for symmetry demand that the good work begun in Eden will be completed at the end of history. Creation, which currently groans, will be resurrected to newness of life (Rom 8:18-23), when, among other improvements, the Onchocerca volvulus will find something more helpful to do than bore holes in the eyes of children.

The Second Coming

To prove the literal, physical Second Coming of Christ, I am going to avoid the cheap proof-text approach. Instead, I intend to show how the entire biblical corpus points forward to this reality.

Nascent Expectations

We begin in Genesis:

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”” (Genesis 1:26)

The climax of all creation, man, was in God’s image and likeness—he was like God. But why? Based on the next two verses, it would seem that God intended him to procreate, and fill the earth with billions of little Adams and Eves and Annies and Steves, each of whom were also like God.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”” (Genesis 1:27-28)

Note that this is the only part of creation that remains unfulfilled. As far as man is concerned, Day 6 has been drawn out into many millennia of toil in which we labour to “fill the earth, and subdue it,” so that we can enter God’s seventh day of rest.

Yet, it is only through Christ that we can possibly fulfil this commandment. A world full of fallen men is a world full of sin, in which the image of God is mocked. On the other hand, a world full of believers in Christ is a world full of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God.

Why the Ascension?

Now, if Christ’s mission was to fill earth with God’s image, we should ask ourselves why he ascended to heaven. The scriptural answer is quite plain:

• Psalm 2 — To rule the nations with a rod of iron.

• Psalm 8 — To gain dominion over all of creation.

• Psalm 110 — To conquer the nations.

• Daniel 7 — To be given dominion, authority and power.

• Matthew 28 — To acquire all divine authority, and to send his followers out in that authority.

• John 16 — To send the Holy Spirit to be with the disciples.

• Acts 1-2 To receive the promise of the Holy Spirit, so that he could pour out power on his disciples.

• Revelation 12 (quoting Psalm 2) — To rule the nations with a rod of iron.

There is no question, therefore, that the reason for Christ’s ascension to heaven was so that he could reign over the world with the power of God himself. It would not be acceptable for the Son to remain on earth whilst the Father ruled the nations, for the whole purpose of Genesis 1 was that a man should have dominion. Only Christ could fulfil this.

What Happens Then?

The next logical step, however, is to ask if this is the permanent situation, or if there is a stopping point. What happens once the nations have submitted to Christ (Psa 2)? What happens once all his enemies are under his feet (Psa 110)? What happens once all people, nations and languages do serve him (Dan 7)?

At this point, there is no longer a reason for him to be in heaven. As a man, the Son’s home is earth (Psa 115:16, Jn 1:14), and so he will come home. This goes back to Genesis 1 again. God created man on the earth; he created him to fill the earth. This part of creation is yet unfinished, and there is only one man who could possibly complete it. Are we going to claim that this one man will not be physically present on the completed earth?

Indeed, the anomaly in scripture is not that Christ would return to earth, but that he ever left at all. The apostles certainly did not expect it. Which brings us to Acts 1:

“And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”” (Acts 1:9-11)

Sense the confusion of the apostles as they gazed intently after him, dumbfounded at what was occurring. They expected him to be present with them—as he promised he would (Matt 28:20)—whilst they established the kingdom of God on earth.

Now, consider the response of the men in white. If they meant only to reiterate what the apostles already knew — that Jesus was “coming” in judgement to end the Old Covenant age (Matt 24:3) — then they are providing no real explanation for what has happened. The apostles could have replied: Yes, we know that, but why has he gone to heaven?

The true implication of what the angels said, therefore, is this:

Why are you staring up into heaven like stunned mullets? Your duties are on earth! Get back to Jerusalem like he told you, and get cracking. Jesus is coming back to earth—yes, quite literally, just the same way you saw him go—but there’s work to be done in the meantime.

If this is the intention of v11, it would make sense of the interaction in v6-8. The apostles ask the Lord: Is now the time that you will establish the kingdom? He effectively turns the question around and says: You will receive power through the Holy Spirit. Just as he did in Matthew 28, he is handing earthly responsibility to his followers while he is in heaven.

Upon this basis, I submit that Acts 1:11 is an unequivocal promise of the literal, bodily, Second Coming of Christ to the earth. I also think it is implied that it will only occur at the completion of the Great Commission — once Christ’s followers have done their work. The verse has a thoroughly exhortational tone. Everyone needs to stop gazing into heaven and get to work.

This is why, throughout Acts, we see the apostles’ emphasis on repentance, and conversion. Notice what is said in Acts 3:

“Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.” (Acts 3:19-21)

Peter clearly wants Christ back. He wants to see him again as soon as possible. But he realises that the Second Coming of Christ can only happen once he has obeyed the Great Commission, and all nations are converted. So in this chapter, he passionately implores his own people (“to the Jew first”) to return to God “so that he may send Jesus.” In short, according to Peter, Christ will be in heaven, until everything has been restored (cp 1:6). This fits very well with the earlier statements about the first chapter of Acts.

Comings Galore

How, then, do we distinguish between texts that speak of the Second Coming of Christ, and those which speak of his judgement-coming in the first century? Are there two Second Comings?

In my opinion, there is a simple way to understand this, but it will first require some preparatory explanation. I believe the issue has been confused by a misunderstanding of exactly how Christ “came” in the first century.

Firstly, it seems that when Christ spoke of a truly imminent “coming,” he was referencing Daniel 7:

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.” (Daniel 7:13)

Importantly, this is not a coming-from-heaven, but a coming-to-heaven. Christ is ascending to take possession of the kingdom, and rule on the throne of Yahweh. Thus, whenever Christ refers to the Son of man “coming with clouds,” we should think of his ascension to heaven, not his return from heaven. For example:

“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30)

The first phrase of this verse is very telling. For it seems, looking at various translations, that what Christ meant was not that the sign was in heaven, but that the Son was in heaven. To paraphrase clearly: then shall appear the sign that the Son of man is in heaven, for they will perceive his ‘coming in the clouds of heaven’ and being given all power in heaven and earth. 

Jesus, I believe, is saying that his judgement on Jerusalem (the subject of the prophecy — see v2-3) was the public vindication of his ascension to heaven. It was the proof of his inaugurated reign. He could not have meant, as many suppose, that he was coming back to earth, since his disciples did not know he was going to leave earth in the first place — and it was they who introduced his “coming” (v3).

Now consider another example of Daniel 7 language in Acts 1:

“And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.” (Acts 1:9)

There was no need for Luke to mention the cloud, unless he was drawing our attention to Daniel 7. So the connection is, in my opinion, a definite one. Now, if the subsequent statement by the angel in Acts 1:11 was referring to the same “coming” as Matthew 24:30 — which we have established is the coming to heaven — then the section becomes incoherent. We would have a ‘coming to heaven’ in v9, followed by the same ‘coming to heaven’ promised in v11. This furnishes further proof that Acts 1:11 refers to a coming other than the one prophesied by Christ in the Olivet Discourse.

We have another clear reference to Christ’s coming-to-heaven in Matthew 26:

“Jesus said to him, You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64, NRSV)

The phrase “ἀπ’ ἄρτι” is correctly translated “from now on” in the NRSV (the two words literally mean “from” [ἀπ’] and “now” [ἄρτι]). But how is that possible? How could they see Christ’s coming “from now on”? Surely it is one event.

Not so. Note that he couples “coming on the clouds” with “seated at the right hand of Power.” The two are inseparable, and refer to the same truth. Soon it would be impossible to deny that Christ had ascended, for the Holy Spirit would testify to it (see Acts 2ff). And in AD 70, the crowning vindication arrived, as Christ fulfilled his own prophetic word in the Olivet Discourse. In this way, they would see, or perceive, the ascension and enthronement of Jesus, their rejected Messiah.

I suggest, therefore, that the New Testament does not describe two Second Comings at all. It describes a going (to heaven), and a return (to earth). The Holy Spirit outpouring was the ecclesiastical vindication of the going (Acts 2:33); and AD 70 was the public, crowning vindication of that going (Matt 24:30). But history has continued to furnish the trained eye with many proofs of Christ’s ascension and kingship. Whenever God judges the nations, we “see” the coming of Christ in clouds, in that we perceive that he has “all power in heaven and earth.”

When Rome fell, we saw the coming of Christ on clouds. When Constantinople fell, we saw the coming of Christ on clouds. In the French Revolution, we saw the coming of Christ on clouds. The faithless eye sees pointless bloodshed, meaningless history, and no progress. To the mind trained in Biblical eschatology, it is proof of the lordship of Christ, and the growing of God’s kingdom.

So it is quite true to say, as Matthew 26:64 does, that Christ’s coming on clouds would be constantly and repeatedly perceived from those times and onwards.

Upon this basis, I would like to suggest a set of principles which can be used to classify New Testament references to the “coming” of Christ:

1. When emphasis is placed on the status of Christ, the statement refers to his ascension to the Father, or the vindication of his heavenly enthronement.
   Verses I believe fall in this category: Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 19:28, 23:29, 24:3, 24:30, 25:31-33, Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:26, 14:62, Luke 9:26-27, 21:27, 22:69, Acts 2:33-36, 3:13, 5:31, 7:55-56, 10:42, 13:33-34, Romans 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:20-23, 4:8-10, Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 3:1-3, 1 Timothy 1:17, 3:16, 6:15-16, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12-13, 1 Peter 3:22, 2 Peter 1:16, Revelation 1:5-7, 11:15, 12:5, 14:14, 19:11-16.

2. When emphasis is placed on an event that is longed for and worked towards, the statement refers to his Second Coming to earth.
   Verses I believe fall in this category: Acts 1:11, 3:20-21, 1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 4:5, 5:5, 11:26, 15:23-26, 2 Corinthians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30, Philippians 1:6,10, 2:16, 3:20-21, Colossians 3:4, 1 Thessalonians 1:10¹, 2:19, 3:13, 4:16, 5:23, 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 4:8², Titus 2:13, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 5:4, 1 John 2:28, 3:2, Revelation 21:3.

^{1. Whilst “wait for his son from heaven” is a clear reference to the Second Coming, “the wrath to come” is just as clearly a reference to AD 70 (cp 1 Thess 2:16, Matt 3:7).}

^{2. Although Paul’s reward seems clearly to point to the Second Coming, in context, the “appearing” to which he refers at the end of the verse is the First Coming of Christ (see 2 Tim 1:10). The phrase is translated by the NASB in the past tense: “all them that have loved his appearing.” In 2 Timothy 4:1, the NASB translates: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1, NASB). With the context of 2 Timothy 1:10 in mind, the ‘appearing’ of Christ was His First Coming, when, explicitly, the kingdom of heaven was “at hand.” This also agrees with the fact that Paul viewed the kingdom as a present reality (Rom 14:17, 1 Cor 4:20, Col 1:13, Eph 2:6 etc) inaugurated by the First Coming and Ascension of Christ. The same distinction is made in Titus. Titus 2:11 mentions that the grace of God “has appeared” to all men (the First Coming). But v13 reiterates that we are still looking for “the glorious appearing” of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. So the word is certainly used for both First and Second Comings.}

There is also a third classification, requiring a little more explanation. In Genesis 11, God “came” to curse the men building Babel; in Exodus 21:24, he promised to “come” to bless those who built altars to him. Whenever there is a ‘day of the Lord’ (which for Christians is every Lordsday), he comes either to curse or bless, according to our works (cp 1 Cor 11:29). Thus, Christ could tell the Laodiceans “I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with Me.”

But there are also more long-term periods, at the end of which Christ comes to bless or curse as he sees fit. Thus, Christ could tell the Ephesians “repent, or else I will come to you quickly,” and mean it. He would not literally turn up in Ephesus, but his judgements would certainly be felt.

It is important to note that this type of “coming” is used to describe just about everything, including judgement on Egypt, the First Coming of Christ, the sending of the Holy Spirit, AD 70, and the Second Coming. It is like a divine audit that may result in a promotion, or getting fired. I therefore add a third point to the set of principles:

3. When the statement is given as a warning, and especially when using the language of imminence, it refers to a coming for judgement, and must be interpreted in context.

(To list all verses that fall in this category would be a monumental task, and I’ll leave that to someone with more time.)

I would not claim to have thus solved all eschatological difficulties — 2 Thessalonians won’t give up the fight that easily — but, to my mind, these three principles provide a clarity to the New Testament that is invaluable.