Are Partial-preterism and Premillennialism Compatible?

[ukchristian28]

Is it possible to combine partial-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 except the glorious appearing and resurrection of the dead) with premillennialism (the belief that the thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is yet future, and will involve Christ physically reigning with His saints in glorified resurrection bodies)? I have been told that it is not possible to combine, but to be honest I don't see why they could not be. I think that partial preterism has an awful lot going for it but I also think that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is more sensible. It speaks of two resurrections separated by the 1000 years.

This question is mostly for those who hold to partial preterism view of the end times, but I welcome thoughts from anyone.

[seanD]

Wouldn't it be as simple as saying Rev 20:1-10 is not literal, therefore metaphor, allegory, spiritual symbolism, etc.; but everything after Rev 20:11 is literal?

[One Bad Pig]

Is it possible to combine partial-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 except the glorious appearing and resurrection of the dead) with premillennialism (the belief that the thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is yet future, and will involve Christ physically reigning with His saints in glorified resurrection bodies)? I have been told that it is not possible to combine, but to be honest I don't see why they could not be. I think that partial preterism has an awful lot going for it but I also think that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is more sensible. It speaks of two resurrections separated by the 1000 years.

This question is mostly for those who hold to partial preterism view of the end times, but I welcome thoughts from anyone.

Partial preterists believe that Christ has already begun to reign; premillennialists believe that Christ's reign has not started yet. Your two resurrections belief does not require a premil basis.

[alaskazimm]

Well, the belief in two separate physical resurrections does require the premil basis. If, as preterists assert, the reign of Christ has already begun then the first resurrection has already occurred, which it obviously hasn't. Two physical resurrections with the 1000 year reign sandwiched between. And the return of Christ is at the beginning of the mil concurrent with the resurrection.

However, (most?) preterists would take the first resurrection as a spiritual one - specifically when one is saved, see John 5:25 for resurrection language applied to the present. A spiritual resurrection with those who believe reigning now with Christ and then a finial physical resurrection at the end of time.

Edit: I meant that John 5:25 applied to the present when Jesus was speaking.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Is it possible to combine partial-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 except the glorious appearing and resurrection of the dead) with premillennialism (the belief that the thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is yet future, and will involve Christ physically reigning with His saints in glorified resurrection bodies)? I have been told that it is not possible to combine, but to be honest I don't see why they could not be. I think that partial preterism has an awful lot going for it but I also think that a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is more sensible. It speaks of two resurrections separated by the 1000 years.

This question is mostly for those who hold to partial preterism view of the end times, but I welcome thoughts from anyone.

You can but you'll be pressed to justify it. People become either premillenialist (dispensational) or amillenialist (partial-preterist) for a reason. There's a slight difference in worldview which usually precedes one or the other. I don't think it would be too uncommon though, because it seems that everyone mixes flavors of eschatology more than any other branch of theology, but that could just be my perception.

[ukchristian28]

You can but you'll be pressed to justify it. People become either premillenialist (dispensational) or amillenialist (partial-preterist) for a reason. There's a slight difference in worldview which usually precedes one or the other. I don't think it would be too uncommon though, because it seems that everyone mixes flavors of eschatology more than any other branch of theology, but that could just be my perception.

I just need to nitpick something. Not all premillennialists are dispensational and not all amillenialists are preterists. Wesley, Gill and Spurgeon are examples of non-dispensational premillennialists. Wayne Grudem is a modern day example. Dispensationalism is a relatively new view from the 19th Century. I believe Louis Berkoff was futurist (believed in a future tribulation period and future antichrist) but believed the millennium started at the cross.

I used to be a futurist premillennialist (without the pre-trib rapture), but after reading arguments from partial-preterists I believe their position has a lot going for it. The only thing which prevents me from being sold out to it is the little problem of Revelation 20. If Revelation 20 were not in the Bible I would be an amillennialist and preterist. As I said before, Revelation 20 to me seems to present two resurrections. The believing dead before the 1000 years and the rest of the dead after it. Viewing the first resurrection as referring to conversion to Christ seems problematic to me in light of verse 4:

" I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

This has the martyred saints coming to life after the time they had been beheaded for their testimony about Jesus and the word of God. Their conversion obviously happened before they testified about Jesus and the word of God.

The second problem I have is the binding of Satan. Verses 1-3 has Satan being seized, bounded with a chain and thrown into a pit which is then sealed over him so he cannot deceive the nations anymore. The description seems to suggest total removal of power. He can have no more influence at all. However, it does appear from scripture and experience that Satan is still very much in the habit of deceiving the nations. He is called the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4) and is described "a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Peter 5:8). I will grant that the cross of Christ delivered the death blow to Satan and His angels. Their power to deceive and destroy has been reduced significantly, but not totally removed as the language of Revelation 20:1-3 suggests.

The 1000 years would appear to be yet future based on the above. So would it be possible that Revelation 1-19 is speaking of events fulfilled in the 1st Century, but Revelation 20-22 provides a glimpse of yet future things i.e. the return of Jesus, a literal 1000 year reign, the Great White Throne Judgement and the ushering in of the eternal state? Hence, partial-preterism and premillenialism combined. It seems possible to me, but I have never come across anyone who believes that way.

I am not trying to be difficult folks. I really want to come to a proper understanding of these things because Bible skeptics are very fond of accusing the Bible and Jesus of preaching false prophecy. I really want to know how to answer them. A lot of Christians think eschatology is just not important and brush it aside. It's reaction to those who have End Times Fever. I think there's a happy medium between being totally obsessed with the subject and saying "who cares?".

Thank you to those who have offered their thoughts so far.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I just did a podcast on the binding of Satan

As far as I can see, premill and preterism are incompatible-- doesn't mean that someone hasn't tried it, but I don't see it as possible

[ukchristian28]

As far as I can see, premill and preterism are incompatible-- doesn't mean that someone hasn't tried it, but I don't see it as possible

Ok, but why are they incompatible? Also, where can I find your podcast?

[seanD]

I misread the OP. Disregard my earlier post.

As far as an incompatibility issue, I don't see why. Most futurists are pre-mils but I don't see that much of a difference between preterism and futurism. Preterism basically believes things will get better overall in the future before Christ returns; futurism believes things will get a lot worse prior to his coming. The rapture is optional (many futurists are agnostic about the rapture). Neither one (minus the rapture) cancels out a pre-mil belief.

[Dee Dee Warren]

UK, it is at preteristpodcast.com or in iTunes as The Preterist Podcast.

I will have to give a whole lot more thought to adequately answer why.... It just seems self-evident to me. I rejected premill before I rejected futurism so I came to preterism already a non premill but I know if no preterists who produce written defenses who hold premill. The interpretive methodology prohibits it--- you get to premill from a literalism that is foreign to preterism

I have a millennial page at preteristsite.com you might find helpful

Then again I just met in the past few years a non premill dispy preterist but find it incoherent--

[AlphaBravo]

I just did a podcast on the binding of Satan
As far as I can see, premill and preterism are incompatible-- doesn't mean that someone hasn't tried it, but I don't see it as possible

I agree. I think that the binding of Satan is a natural part of the first century preterist chronology. That automatically initiates the millenium.

You can be a-millenial or post-millenial or in-millenial but not pre-millenial to be consistent i think.

Editing...

The devil has wrath in Rev 12:12 because he knows he only has a short time to afflict the inhabitants of the earth. That argues against his binding some time in the distant future if his time on earth began prior to AD 70 per a preterist-type viewpoint. Jesus says that he saw Satan fall down from heaven so that would put his total time on the earth at about 40 years by my way of thinking.

[ukchristian28]

You can be a-millenial or post-millenial or in-millenial but not pre-millenial to be consistent i think.

That would depend on whether the amilennialism/postmillennialism is an essential part of preterism I suppose.

The devil has wrath in Rev 12:12 because he knows he only has a short time to afflict the inhabitants of the earth. That argues against his binding some time in the distant future if his time on earth began prior to AD 70 per a preterist-type viewpoint. Jesus says that he saw Satan fall down from heaven so that would put his total time on the earth at about 40 years by my way of thinking.

That is certainly food for thought but would you say that his influence is now totally removed or just extremely limited?

[Dee Dee Warren]

UK, in that recent podcast on the binding of satan, I really get into those questions.

[AlphaBravo]

That is certainly food for thought but would you say that his influence is now totally removed or just extremely limited?

Good question. Reading Rev 20:7-10 at face value it would mean that Satan was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone about 1000 years ago and is a non-issue today.

[zwan]

Is it possible to combine partial-preterism (the belief that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 except the glorious appearing and resurrection of the dead) with premillennialism

John Gill maybe? I think he had a PP view of the OD.