Partial Preterism is the belief that many of the prophetic passages in Scripture, including much of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation, were fulfilled in the first century, primarily through the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. However, it maintains that certain events, such as the final resurrection, the bodily return of Christ, and the final judgment, are still future. Critics often argue that this view departs from the historic Christian faith. Yet a careful reading of both Scripture and early Christian writings shows that while the church fathers did not use modern categories like “preterism,” they held several views that align more closely with Partial Preterism than with the popular futurism of today.
The Biblical Basis for Partial Preterism
Partial Preterism arises from taking Christ’s time statements seriously. Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matthew 24:34). He warned His disciples about events that would affect “you” and told them to flee when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20–22). These prophecies found precise fulfillment in the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The same applies to Revelation. The book opens by stating that the events “must soon take place” (Revelation 1:1, 3). The original audience was told to “heed the words of this prophecy,” indicating relevance to their time. This temporal language cannot be ignored without doing violence to the text. Partial Preterism takes such passages literally and interprets them within their first-century context.
The Early Church and Eschatology
The early church fathers were not uniform in their eschatology. Many expected an imminent end, while others viewed some prophecies as already fulfilled. It is important to remember that their writings came from a time when the canon was still being discussed and systematic theology was developing. Despite this diversity, several aspects of their teaching fit within a framework consistent with Partial Preterism.
1. The destruction of Jerusalem as divine judgment
Writers like Eusebius and Chrysostom saw the destruction of Jerusalem as the direct fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies. Eusebius, writing in the early fourth century, described the Roman conquest as a clear demonstration of Christ’s words in Matthew 24. He understood that God had judged Israel for rejecting the Messiah, which is exactly the preterist reading of those texts.
2. The continuing hope of Christ’s bodily return
No church father denied the future, physical return of Christ. Even if they believed some prophecies were fulfilled in their own time, they still confessed the Second Coming as future. This matches Partial Preterism perfectly, which maintains that while AD 70 fulfilled much of biblical prophecy, it did not fulfill the resurrection or final judgment.
3. The tension between imminence and delay
The fathers often spoke of the nearness of the end. This “nearness” language, though confusing to later generations, shows that they interpreted Jesus’ words in a temporal sense. The destruction of Jerusalem was indeed near to their generation. Partial Preterism gives this imminence a clear historical fulfillment without denying the future hope of the church.
Comparison with Other Eschatological Views
Futurism, the dominant modern view, often reads Matthew 24 and Revelation as referring mostly to end-time events still awaiting fulfillment. This view tends to ignore the first-century context of the prophecies and stretches the meaning of “soon” or “this generation” beyond reason. It arose mainly in the nineteenth century through dispensationalism and lacks grounding in early church writings.
Full Preterism goes too far in the opposite direction by claiming that all prophecy, including the resurrection and final judgment, was fulfilled in AD 70. This view contradicts the consistent teaching of the church throughout history and denies central doctrines such as the bodily resurrection of the dead.
Partial Preterism stands between these extremes. It is faithful to the biblical time statements, honors the historical context of the first century, and affirms the historic creeds regarding Christ’s future return and judgment.
Continuity with Historic Christianity
Historic Christianity affirms two core truths that Partial Preterism upholds:
-
Christ’s kingdom is present and growing.
The early church viewed the kingdom as inaugurated by Christ’s first coming, not as a future earthly reign. Partial Preterism affirms that Christ reigns now and that the gospel continues to spread until all nations are discipled. -
Final judgment and resurrection remain future.
The Apostles’ Creed states that Christ “will come again to judge the living and the dead.” Partial Preterism affirms this without qualification. The events of AD 70 were a temporal judgment, not the consummation of all things.
The fathers, while not using modern labels, would have recognized this framework. They saw the fall of Jerusalem as a turning point in redemptive history but still anticipated the final consummation at Christ’s return.
Conclusion
Partial Preterism does not reject historic Christian belief. Rather, it recovers the early church’s understanding that Christ’s prophecies about Jerusalem were fulfilled in the first century, demonstrating His faithfulness and authority. It holds in harmony both the past fulfillment of judgment and the future fulfillment of glory.
In this way, Partial Preterism stands as a biblically grounded, historically aware, and confessionally orthodox view within the broad stream of Christian eschatology.
References and Primary Sources
-
Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 5–6.
Eusebius describes the Roman siege of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecies in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. -
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 75.
Chrysostom interprets the desolation of Jerusalem as the result of divine judgment for rejecting Christ. -
Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 40.
Athanasius notes that the fall of Jerusalem demonstrated that the old covenant had passed and the new had been established through Christ. -
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 16.
Justin argues that God’s judgments upon Israel were already being fulfilled in his day, showing that messianic prophecies about rejection and judgment were complete. -
Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chapters 13–15.
Tertullian connects the destruction of the temple with the prophecies of Daniel and Jesus, emphasizing that it marked the end of the old covenant order. -
Origen, Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 13.
Origen refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as evidence of Christ’s prophetic accuracy. -
The Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed (4th century).
Both creeds affirm the future bodily return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment, consistent with Partial Preterism. -
Josephus, The Jewish War, Book 6, Chapter 4.
Although not a Christian source, Josephus’s eyewitness account of Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70 provides historical confirmation of the fulfillment described by Jesus.