To Answer a Few Questions


“Would you consider writing an idiot’s guide to preterism? I find it compelling yet know that guys I respect and trust would almost rather that I was Dispy-leaning rather than preterist leaning.”

The idiot’s guide to Preterism is as follows:

Preterism is the belief (distinguished from hyper-preterism) that some of the events prophesied by Chirst in the Olivet Discourse, by Daniel in chapter 7, and John in Revelation 20 specifically have already been fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

Now there is some nuance within the Preterist camp as to which ones have been fulfilled but generally one can look specifically at Matt 24:1-28 as having been fulfilled as well as much of Revelation up to the last couple of chapters.


“Benjamin, how is amillennialism different or the same as Peterism? I notice that doesn’t get mentioned in this essay. I guess I could look it up but I’m lazy tonight.”

Viola, A-millenialism deals with the nature of the Millenium in Revelation 20. Preterism deals with what prophecies have been fulfilled so while they both deal with eschatological questions they have different emphasis in the discussion. For instance both Post-Millenialists and A-Millennialists believe that the Millenium is symbolic and not a literal 1,000 time period that began with the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. However few A-Millenialists are Preterists. Just different categories.


I’m interested in your reasoning why a “thousand years” did not mean a literal one thousand years.

Marcellus Kik in his book An Eschatology of Victory does an excellent job in laying out why this is the case. But for this purpose let me tell you this way. If you read the first part of Revelation 20 is highly symbollic. Look at the binding of Satan for example. Satan is a spirit how would one chain a spirit? Is it a literal key and chain? Do the saints sit on literal thrones? So if this be the case why would then the thousand years alone be literal?


Ben, may I assume that Gentry is speaking of preterism broadly and that he would make a distinction b/t the partial and hyper/full flavors?

Yes that would be a safe assumption. Gentry and many others are trying to reclaim the word “Preterist” though they can be safely categorized as “Partial-Preterists” in today’s nomenclature.

Hope this answers some of your questions. If you have any others please feel free to ask them.


5 thoughts on “To Answer a Few Questions

  1. The whole book of Revelation seems that it is highly symbolic to me except as to time cues where it is very specific in a conventional sense. I tend to take it that all that is symbolically described was accomplished in the very specific time cues described; apparently in ways I am unaware of or don’t completely understand and/or recognize.

  2. Benjamin, wouldn’t it be save to say that Rev 20 is a picture of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, where he bound Satan in the sense that Jesus brought salvation to his children on his cross. I know my husband and son-in-law, he is a New Testament professor, disagrees with me. But that seems to me to be a better understanding of Revelation 20.

  3. Cameron,

    I agree that the vast majority of the Book of Revelation is symbolic. We get lost in the trees when we use “schemes” to figure out the symbolism.


    I do think that is a part of it. Satan’s binding allows for the Gospel to spread throughout the earth. This “binding” was accomplished by Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s