Each of the three predominant schools of eschatological thought (Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism) has its own copious share of offshoots. Consider the Premillennial paradigm which branches into Classic Premillennialism, Progressive Premillennialism, and Dispensationalism. The Dispensationalists further subdivide into Pre-tribulation, Mid-tribulation, and Post-Tribulation camps.1

The Preterist system presents itself as an attractive alternative to the three prevailing modes. The Preterist model of eschatological analysis contends that Biblical prophecies which foretell the end of the world, the second coming of Christ, the last judgment and related events deal primarily with past events; namely the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman legions in A.D. 70.

A cursory examination reveals that even the Preterist community bifurcates into its own unique subgroups. Full (or hyper) Preterists contend that all Biblical prophecies were realized by the time of the fall of Jerusalem. Partial (or hypo) Preterists suggest that while the majority of Biblical prophecies came to completion in A.D. 70 a significant minority—including a return of Christ and a physical resurrection—await future fulfillment. Further subdivisions characterize the Preterist movement such as the one that pits IBD (Immortal Body at Death) Preterists against IBN (Immortal Body Now) Preterists.

Preterists reside in major Christian denominations and hold to unique sectarian identifications and practices. Preterism has a grass-roots presence in churches as varied as Reformed congregations, Churches of Christ, and charismatic fellowships. Some Preterists baptize for the remissions of sins, others believe in the continuing miraculous ministry of the Holy Spirit, and still others adhere to John Calvin’s TULIP.

The permutations of the sort of Preterist one may be is almost endless. In the August 2002 issue of Quest, JoAnne Gerety spells out some of the excessive variations of Preterism. Moreover, raucous debates between rival bands of Preterists rage in on-line chat rooms and in print with Partial Preterists accusing the Full Preterists of being heretical Hymenaens. Full Preterists retort by alleging the Partial Preterist group is closed-minded and timid.

Living Eschatology

Obviously, there are myriads of opposing systems competing in the eschatological marketplace—Preterism included—and this is the precise problem with eschatology today. Generally, it is perceived to be a system, a tidy way to organize doctrine thereby making divine sense of theology, cosmology, and history.

The apostle Paul was the eschatological theologian par excellence, but for Paul eschatology was never simply a system. He lived his eschatology and encouraged the readers of his letters to do the same. Three of Paul’s texts illustrate his relating eschatology with living.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul composed his lengthy dissertation on the resurrection—an eschatological subject to be sure. He ended his essay with an admonition. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (15:58). From there, Paul moved into chapter 16 where he instructed the Corinthians to give of their financial means to alleviate the poverty of the Jerusalem Christians.2 Eschatological realities prompted Paul to work toward a human equity in the distribution of finances and resources. In this particular case he instructed wealthy Greek congregations to share with poor Hebrews.

Another one of Paul’s distinctly eschatological texts is Philippians 4:5. “Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand.” The eschatological proximity was not simply a method for interpreting scripture. Instead, it had practical implications for the Philippians; specifically, they were to get along with one another in a spirit of joy. “I implore Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord” (4:2). To achieve this unity, Paul encouraged his “true companion [to] help these women who labored with me” (4:3). Eschatology meant following the example of Christ to bring about reconciliation between embattled parties.

The third text to consider is Ephesians 4:17-5:5. Here, Paul considered the demise of the old man and the formation of the new. As a consequence of the arrival of the new humanity (i.e. resurrection), Paul expected the Ephesians to act in accordance with an ethic of holiness. “Therefore, putting away lying, each one speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another” (4:25). Their mutual connection with one another resulted from the eschatological act of the love of God in Christ Jesus. “Forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you…walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself an offering for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (4:32-5:2). In Paul’s theology, eschatology meant that real people were to love, serve, and forgive one another.

These three cases (and we could point to several others) serve to demonstrate that as far as Paul was concerned eschatology was not just for believing, but for living. It was not a sterile system to be boiled down into brief statements and debated in academic formal propositions. Rather, it was the divinely-appointed means by which humanity could be reconciled to God and to one another. As such, Paul expected Christian communities to practice the theological aspects of eschatology in their daily activities. Eschatology’s intent has always been an on-the-ground reality, not just a pie-in-the sky theory.

My Personal Journey

I began my personal journey through the eschatological minefield as an Amillennialist. After much study and help from people who love God and His word, I entered the Preterist camp. There I found many good-hearted people on a quest for truth. They extended to me a spirit of camaraderie and encouragement because their traditional faith communities had banished them just as mine had exiled me.

For about a decade I resided in the Preterist Community, first as a Partial Preterist then as a Full Preterist. I wore the tag of Preterist with pride and distinction. I was an IBN Preterist before I even knew there was such a thing. However, since the introduction of Transmillennialism™, I have personally abandoned the description, Preterist.

The primary reason for my switch is my experience with Preterism as it is today sadly runs contrary to the divine purpose of eschatology on several levels, not the least of which is the stifling tendency to make eschatology a closed doctrinal system rather than an integrative approach to dispensing the love and grace of God to all humanity. So, for this reason I favor the moving beyond Preterism into Transmillennialism™.

First, a disclaimer. Over the years, the Preterist Community has been very good to me. I would not be where I am today without the teaching, love, and support of many Preterists, and I truly love the people who continue to reside in the Preterist community. What I offer here is not a personal assault on any individual Preterist, but a constructive critique of the entire Preterist community as a whole by one who knows it from the inside. My suggestions for moving beyond Preterism arise from my longing for the intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually rich Preterist community to explore and attain the maximum God-given potential it has for transforming the world.

Stuck in the Past

There is an inherent conundrum with Preterism. Preterism means “past”, and as such Preterism inherently tends to be backward looking. Preterism always asks, “What happened?” It seldom asks, “What is happening? What will happen?” Preterism focuses the vast majority of its attention of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the connected historical events.

Many Preterists point to this as a strength of Preterism. After all, Preterism contends that eschatology was fulfilled in the first century, and there is nothing left for us to look forward to. Preterism does a great job of addressing historical questions, performing Biblical exegesis, and developing theology by explaining eschatology. Preterism’s weakness is that its historical hindsight cannot interpret what was into a meaningful comprehensive theology of insight for today and foresight for tomorrow. Simply put, its historical conclusions by and large do not influence the way we live. Hans Kung writes, “The crucial point, however, is how one concretely perceives this historico-critical responsibility, how one applies the results of exegesis.”3 Preterism lacks the conceptual apparatus to apply the results of its exegesis to anything beyond a post-first-century world.

Whereas Preterism fails to offer the tools necessary to address the future, Transmillennialism™ seeks to translate historical scholarship, exegetical understanding, and theological wisdom into meaningful applications to today’s world and to humanity’s collective future.

Transmillennialism’s recent development of Archonology provides opportunities to interpret the past into the present and the future in all areas of human enterprise. Archonology provides a forum for expressing the God-given gifts of creativity. Walter Wink contends, “Humanity is called to create a new and hitherto unknown world through creativity.”4 Through Archonology this is precisely what Transmillennialism™ proposes to achieve.

A Closed System

Because of its predilection for concentrating on the past, Preterism ultimately is a closed system. Preterism generally contends that since God completed His redemptive plan in A.D. 70 He has finished acting altogether.

Preterism treats the Parousia as a one-time act that forever sealed the deal rather than an eternally living relationship. With this approach, Preterism unwittingly promulgates a deistic concept of a watchmaker god whose alarm clock rang in 70 A.D., only he went back to sleep. Preterism as it stands today ironically transforms the Parousia of God into His aparousia; His presence has become His absence. As a result, Preterism cannot create anything because it adheres to a god who is done creating.

Recently I had a conversation with a Preterist friend who suggested that today’s Christians are at a disadvantage in comparison to the first-century church. He lamented “the Holy Spirit was taken away so they had something we don’t.”

I pointed out to my friend that even if his approach is accurate (and I do not think it is), we today live in the light of the kingdom have something greater than miraculous manifestations. We have the very presence of God himself. God is all in all, and that is much better.

Since Transmillennialism™ believes that God is present, it offers a Parousia Christianity—a Christianity of presence. This is a theology that fuels ethics, behavior, and engagement with the world by incarnating the presence of God. We are to be present to bear one another’s burdens instead of disappearing into the ivory tower of theological speculation. We are to confront pressing human issues such as homelessness, poverty, war in the Middle East, and Third World debt. Where Preterism creates a distance through academic explanation, Transmillennialism™ seeks to close the gap by integrating theology into a comprehensive reality.

Transmillennialism™ asserts that God indeed consummated human redemption in the new creation in A.D.70, but rather than ending God’s interaction with humanity it had only just begun. Transmillennialism™ further affirms that God is always active, more so in the new aeon than prior to A.D.70. We must take seriously passages such as Isaiah 9:7. “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end.” Additionally, Paul foresaw that in the consummation of the ages, God would be all in all (Eph. 1:23). The new age is an on-going reality where with God all things are possible.

Academic

Today’s Preterism tends to be academic. By that, I mean that Preterism has a penchant for debating issues and questions of theoretical knowledge while excluding the application of the eschatological realities it avows. One of the strengths of Preterism is Biblical exegesis, but Biblical comprehension for its own sake is irrelevant. Jesus himself said, “You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (John 8:39). Paul contended, “Though I have the gift of prophecy and understanding all mysteries and knowledge…but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2).

The ceaseless internecine debates amongst competing Preterist factions create much heat but little edification. Paul admonished, “avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless” (Tit. 3:9). At this point, Preterism argues that this passage does not apply today because it was written about first-century folks fighting over the Judaized gospel. While this may be exegetically accurate, it misses the spirit of the verse.

Last summer, I had a conversation with a Preterist who dismissed the notion of saying the Lord’s Prayer. His point was that we should not say “Your Kingdom come” since God’s Kingdom has already arrived. I asked him about a homeless man who was hungry and without clothes. Yes, on a theological level the kingdom has arrived, but this man’s experience of pilgrimage, emptiness, and nakedness told him otherwise. In this way, Transmillennialism™ prays for the kingdom to come into the daily experience of all people.

Transmillennialism™ realizes the importance for free and open discussion. In fact, Transmillennialism™ has often been criticized by Preterists for dialoguing with folks who reside outside the fulfilled-prophecy camp.

 Transmillennialism™ encourages conversation, but it does not end with talk. Transmillennialism™ proposes an active engagement with a wider world that includes the entire scope of human activity: art, music, government, medicine, athletics, architecture, technology, economics, business, education, ecology, poetry, psychology, physics, labor relations, and the like.

At this point, Preterism begins a debate on the Biblical meaning of the word “world”. It asks, “Which world do you seek to engage? The kosmos or the oikuemene? The old world of Biblical Judaism was done away with in 70 A.D.” The world Transmillennialism™ aspires to address is our world, the world of our children, and the world of their children. For this reason, we need to move beyond Preterism.

Elitist and Exclusionary

An unintended and often unnoticed condition of today’s Preterism is an elitist and an exclusionary mentality. Much of the Preterist world belittles those who adhere to traditional eschatological schemes as ignorant, dishonest, or fearful. Today’s Preterism criticizes Amillennials, Premillennials, and Postmillennials for failing to study hard enough, for not sincerely addressing the Scriptures, or for keeping silent for fear of “being put out of the synagogue.”

Because Preterism tends to inflate its own sense of self-worth, it easily dismisses others who have not reached its same conclusions. What can you learn about Scripture from someone who still thinks Jesus might come back any day now to destroy the world and to rapture the church?

Transmillennialism™ has its own unique point of view based on the theological foundation of covenant eschatology first developed by Max King. However, Transmillennialism™ is a living, growing, evolving entity that seeks input from all people. Everyone is welcome into this inclusive conversation, and there is space for you to contribute your wisdom, service, and skill. The Council on Transmillennialism™ gathers people of all backgrounds, faith traditions, and expertise to meet and discuss the future the of Transmillennial® movement.

Conclusion

In my early days of associating with the Preterist community, I encountered a community that was quick to learn, to develop, and to nurture our theology. We often wrestled with cognitive dissonance, but we were terribly excited about what we were seeing. Our thinking was being transformed, but after some time we settled in. We reached a certain plateau and became entrenched. Yes, we continually sought to refine our theology, but nothing new burst upon us. In fact, the opposite was often true. The old became all too real. We had a new theology, but the same old praxis.

Preterism is great as far as it goes; but it has no way to press forward. Preterists who believe in the transformation of the covenants are already well-equipped to step into Transmillennialism™.

Transmillennialism™ offers not just a new theology, but a new way of applying that theology. In moving beyond Preterism, at stake is not just how we understand the Gospel message, but how we live out the meaning of that message. Preterism is a system of historical faith (thereby relegating it to the past), but Transmillennialism™ is a living and life-giving body able to engage the present and transform the future. Join us as we move beyond Preterism.

ENDNOTES:
1 For a further examination see Contemporary Options in Eschatology, by Millard J. Erickson.
2 I deal with the eschatological implications of the collection in “A Certain Contribution”, Presence, issue #8.
3 Hans Kung, Theology for the Third Millennium, p. 194.
4 Walter Wink, The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of Man, p. 258.