Full-Preterism

In his second epistle to Timothy the apostle Paul mentions two individuals, Hymenaeus and Philetus, who had departed from the truth by saying that the resurrection had already taken place (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

Evidently, the unorthodox teaching that places the general resurrection in the past was already around in the first century. Yet it wasn’t until the 1970s that it began to emerge as a movement and develop into a peculiar theological system. Inspired by preterist writers like James Stuart Russell and Milton Terry, Max R. King, a minister in the Churches of Christ, at that time began to promote a theological innovation he dubbed Transmillennialism, today better known as Full-Preterism.

Full-preterists contend that all prophecies and purposes of God, including the parousia, the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment, have already been fulfilled in the first century in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans Under the Command of Titus

by David Roberts (1796-1864)

The Time-Texts

The whole system is centred around the all-important time-texts. David A. Green has compiled a list of 101 time-texts supposed to prove that all prophecies were intended to be fulfilled at the time of the apostles.

Although some of these passages do seem to indicate a specific time frame (for instance, Luke 21:32 “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”), the vast majority of the verses listed contain far more vague time references (such as Phil. 4:5 “the Lord is near”, Heb 1:2 “in these last days he [God] has spoken to us by his Son”, or Rev 1:3 “the time is near”).

Full-preterists compound all prophecy indiscriminately into a 70 AD fulfilment. This principle is the foundational, non-negotiable tenet of their exclusive view.

According to full-preterists, a high view of scriptures compels believers to take prophecies about the nearness of Christs coming literally. Paradoxically, they don’t apply this literalism to the passage about the millennial reign in Revelation 20 (significantly, James Stuart Russell was almost a full-preterist, except for this passage).

It should be mentioned that Full-Preterism is not monolithic.

Collective Body View (CBV)

According to some, the resurrection does not refer to individuals, but to a corporate entity. Rather than individuals receiving spiritual bodies, this view sees the covenantal resurrection of Judaism from its dead condition under the law into a New Creation in the body of Christ as the resurrection. This view is called the Collective Body View (CBV) and is sometimes also referred to as Covenant Eschatology. It is represented by Max R. King and Don K. Preston, among others.

Individual Body View (IBV)

Other full-preterists emphasise the individual character of the resurrection. They contend that since AD 70, believers at death receive a spiritual body suitable for life in heaven. This view is called the Individual Body View (IBV). Representatives include Edward E. Stevens, John Noe, John L. Bray, Randall E. Otto.

Proponents of Full-Preterism sometimes refer to it as Consistent Preterism, while its detractors also call it Hyper-Preterism.

Objections

That Full-Preterism is not in harmony with the overall teaching of Scripture is clear on multiple grounds. The following list is by no means exhaustive:

Christ has been raised (physically) from the dead and is the firstfruit of those who have fallen asleep. When He comes those that belong to him will be resurrected physically as well (1 Cor. 15:20-26).
Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for not believing in the resurrection. He also explained to them that it will then be an age unlike the present one, where marriage will be no more (Mark 12:24-27). This can’t be now.
1 Thess. 4:14 “For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him”. This must refer to physical rather than spiritual death (and resurrection). It also cannot be meant corporately as Paul is speaking of individuals.
Full-Preterism rejects a key element of the Christian doctrine: the eventual restoration of all creation in Christ (Acts 3:21, Rom. 8:21, Col. 1:20).
The New Jerusalem of Rev. 21 has not be realized at present: we’re still under the Edenic curse; but then tears and death will be now more (Rev. 21:4).
The church fathers all understood the resurrection as bodily resurrection and they spoke Greek as their native tongue. How could they have missed the AD 70 “resurrection event”?
Interpreting time texts literally, the full-preterist has a problem with the millennial reign that lasts only from about 30 AD to 70 AD when the new creation allegedly begins.
A major shift in God’s plan of salvation did indeed occur in the first century, but it was at the cross (about 30 AD), not in 70 AD.
How could the alleged Second Coming in 70 AD have passed unnoticed?

Conclusions

The New Testament contains indeed predictions about the 70 AD crisis, but this does not imply Full-Preterism. There is nothing wrong with paying attention to time references and interpreting passages in light of their original context. Yet this must never lead to denying the otherwise clear teaching of Scripture.

Full-preterists make a very serious error by trying to force every prophetic scripture into a 70 AD fulfilment. This leads them do deny the clear meaning of plain passages that speak about the resurrection (John 5:28-29, 1 Cor 15).

By denying the bodily return of Jesus Christ and the general physical resurrection, they deny core tenants of the Scriptures and the Christian faith. Full-preterism must therefore be classified as an unorthodox (and heretical) movement.