By Angus Harley

In recent years, partial-preterism has made considerable inroads into the realm of theology. Partial-preterism stresses that texts such as Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation are predominantly fulfilled in the events of 70AD and Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. These events, in both texts, are considered to be a phase of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ at the end of time. It is not that there are two comings of the Son of Man, according to Matthew 24; rather, there are two phases: an ‘already’, present, coming of the Son of Man, via the Romans in AD70; and the ‘yet to come’ literal physical Second Coming as understood in traditional theology.[1]

Partial-preterism is not the heresy of full-blown preterism (aka, hyper-preterism) that says all the events in Matthew 24 and in Revelation were fulfilled entirely by 70AD. This aberrant theology entails that Jesus will never return physically on the clouds at the end of time, and so it concludes that the bodily resurrection of God’s saints has already taken place.  

As this article and those that follow it are not responding only to partial-preterism but also to the postmillennial version of Matthew 24, they will use the abbreviation of ‘PP’ to convey this combo of partial-preterism and postmillennialism. Now, as if this is not enough to handle, the articles also interact with those PPers who intertwine a form of theonomy. Indeed, many of the leading PPers are theonomists, so that, in effect, we really have three ‘ingredients’ to at least one prominent modern version of PP.

Due to this, we will not go straight into exegetical mode, but will begin in this article with critiquing the theological layers of PP. This critique will aim to stay as close to Matthew and Matthew 24 as possible, but inevitably goes into various Scriptures.

CHEAT SHEET

Due to the high intensity complication factor in exegeting Matthew 24, and because this is a series of articles, I will now give a kind of ‘cheat sheet’ that is a summary of the key areas where my exegesis of Matthew 24 differs from PP. The reader can then use this cheat sheet to go back and forth to recall my basic arguments.

  • There is strong agreement with PP concerning much of the text of Matthew 24 being fulfilled before and until 70AD. Thus, “this generation” is that of Jesus’ era. And both our positions believe the text teaches the physical, in-person, visible return of the Son of Man at the end of time to judge all the nations.
  • Both interpretations believe that Jesus is therefore speaking prophetically, and so he is prophetically conjoining the soon-to-be events of the immediate future (up until 70AD) with the physical return of the Son of Man at the end of time.
  • The key difference is in regard to the Son of Man’s return itself. PP says it has two phases: the ‘coming’ of the Son of Man, who remained in heaven, via the Romans in AD70; and the visible, in-person, return of the Son of Man at the end of time. I reject such a dual-phase return of the Son of Man, for the context allows for only one return. The return of the Son of Man is only at the end of time, and is always described as visible and in-person.
  • Exegetically, PP subordinates Matthew 25 and fails to pay sufficient attention to its crucial role. It consolidates Matthew 24’s pattern of Jesus’ presence, then absence, followed by his return. This pattern is woven throughout both chapters.
  • PP does not recognize that the destruction of the temple is reflective of the absence of the glory of the Son of Man, an absence that afflicts mankind until he finally returns at the end. This theology prophetically fulfills the OT model of the glory of God leaving Israel to bring judgment on the land and its people. Similarly, the return of the Son of Man in glory at the end is the prophetic fulfillment of the OT model of Israel being returned to God from exile, and, at the same time, Babylon is punished for having held Israel in exile. For the Son of Man will return in his glory to set free his own disciples from their ‘exile’ here on earth, and to punish their international enemies.
  • Another major difference is that PP’s focus is Jewish-centric, giving most of its energy to defending its temple hermeneutic. This is most unfortunate, as the text is Christologically, Gospel, driven and addresses Jesus’ response to his disciples within a global setting. Indeed, the text is presented as various perspectives that are about the elect. Key vistas are the presence of the elect in foreign nations, and the state of affairs globally speaking that affect the elect. The temple verse (v15) is merely one event of many that will afflict Judea, and is itself part of Jesus’ greater focus on the world. In Matthew 24, Jerusalem is not specifically mentioned.
  • Unfortunately, this Jewish-centric hermeneutic of PP makes AD70 become a hermeneutical control. This turns a text that is not about the ‘when’ of Christ’s return to be about ‘when’.
  • The key is to understand Jesus’ prophetic model. His dealings with the stubborn Israelites and the judgments that will come on Judea are prophetically used by him in two significant ways: to prophetically symbolize the state of affairs that will exist on earth until ‘the end of time’; and, two, to prophetically signify the Final Judgment at the end. The “end” in Matthew 24 is the actual end of time, not the cutting short of events in Judea.
  • Consequently, the nearness language of Matthew 24 is not indicative of the nearness of a supposed first phase of Jesus’ coming via the Romans. Rather, the language of immediacy and nearness pertains solely to the Son of Man’s return at the end.

Let’s proceed to the theological critique.

HOW IS MATTHEW 24 RELEVANT FOR POSTMILLENNIALISM?


Certainly, when combined together, partial-preterism and postmil make for a jarring reading of Matthew 24.

Jarring reading

The modern merging of postmil with preterism accentuates dates and times in such a pronounced fashion that they clash with old-school postmil. It teaches that the world, at some point, will be transformed on a gradual basis as the Gospel takes root in the world. However, as to the text, partial-preterism locates itself in the chronological period of 33-70AD, and, in effect, makes AD70 a hermeneutical control. However, in PP, these models of partial-preterism and postmil are forced together to create a jarring reading. The brevity of the period of 33-70AD, coupled with the suddenness of Christ’s return in Matthew 24 and 25, do not suit the postmil model of a gradual Gospel transformation, or even the modern claim of a ‘golden age’. If PP is taken to its logical terminus, then does it not require that the first phase of the Golden Age came in 70AD and it will be completed at the end of time? In regard to the Son of Man’s involvement in both Matthew 24 and 25, it is entirely sudden and judicial, and not at all over time and transformative. Similarly, the going forth of the gospel into all the nations is not considered, in context, as gradually transformative but as a judgment (see ahead).

Persecution and tribulations

A vital aspect of the postmil model- whether the old or new- is that as the world is transformed by the Gospel, persecution for the people of God decreases and the world’s problems are reduced.

Yet, even a cursory look at Matthew 24 reveals the opposite to the above, for we are informed of tribulation upon tribulation, one form of ugliness after another, until the end intervenes. The Gospel is opposed in the nations. The nation of Israel does not repent. The Romans do not turn to the Lord. The elect are persecuted unto death. Indeed, the tribulations of the world, of Judea, of the elect, are cut short for the sake of the elect. Then the end comes. All these things are so many precursors of the Son of Man’s Second Coming in-person, visibly, and with finality.

Revelation and the Jews

What particular ‘millennial’ value does Matthew 24 hold, then?

Implied value

It is common to read PPers saying that modern postmil is not incongruous with partial-preterism and its reading of Matthew 24-25. It would seem, then, that one millennial value of Matthew 24-25 is not found in the text itself, but in its supporting role to PP’s wider millennial theology. In other words, it is that its partial-preterist model fits in comfortably with the structure of the book of Revelation, including its teaching on the millennium.  

Jewish value

Another millennial value is, it would seem, a Jewish one. Jews are said to be judged in Matthew 24 for breaking the Old Covenant and for rejecting the Christ and his Gospel, thereby sealing the completion of the New Covenant era and the ending of the Old, PP says. This fits the overall message of Revelation that incorporates the judgment and salvation of the Jews, it is claimed.

Super-Jewish value

There is a third reason that I can determine; it particularly belongs to the branch of PP that also adheres to a form of theonomy. It is an intensified Jewish model. In it, the Jewish Law of Moses is given a place of eminence in the New Covenant age, albeit in a Christological and revivified form. The impact of this theonomist rendition is that it draws attention once more to the Jews as central to interpretation. All-in-all, this theonomist rendition of PP is more intensely Jewish-centric, for the common-denominator in all these things is the Jews: their rebellion, their temple, their Law, the removal of the kingdom from them, the last throes of a Jewish Old Covenant, a millennium that creates godly Jews en masse, how the destruction of their temple impacts redemption of the new-creation era, and so forth.

‘Israel is not a central focus’

Some PPers will respond that they are not concerned with highlighting Israel as such, merely that the place of Israel plays into the exegesis of Matthew 24 and of Revelation, too.

In response to these PPers, I cite the modern father of the PP model, Kenneth Gentry:

“…I focused in on three critical issues in order to illustrate the reasonableness of the postmillennial use of hermeneutics. Those issues were literalism in kingdom prophecy, preterism regarding certain judgment passages, and the function of Israel in Scripture.”[2]

In the course of these articles, I will continue to nibble at these three hermeneutical perspectives, as Gentry sees them. In practice, however, these three strands of his doctrine form with postmil a greater hermeneutical approach to the Scripture, one that is holistic.

Definitions

Following on from this is a related issue: that of definitions. Gentry and other PPers claim that certain theologians belong to postmillennialism or to PP. John Murray is said to be a postmiler. He was not, however.[3] To be sure, Murray followed an element of postmil thinking, but he was, as to a system, amil. Thus, his article supporting amil states:

“Now the amillennial view, as the name suggests, simply means that the amillenarian does not believe that he can find warrant in Scripture for a millennium either before or after the advent of the Lord. He parts company, therefore, with both the postmillenarian and the premillenarian.”[4]

Murray’s reading of assembly history is questionable here, as it is by no means clear that amilers have always embraced that there is a future ingathering of Israel. Even so, Murray is pointed: in contrast to both postmill and premil, there is no form of a millennial event either before or after the Lord’s return.

Why is this important? For two reasons. First, it shows that PP’s interpretive model is at points rather inflexible, imposing its own interpretation, due to an incorrect definition of what postmil is. Second, this error is in great measure due, once again, to the Jewish factor. Murray’s view is seized for postmil- even though he openly argues against postmil- all because of one factor in common with postmil, namely, a future ingathering of Israel. This Jewish-centric model is, in essence, just the same approach as Dispensationalism’s muddle-headed understanding of Israel’s place in redemption.

Conclusion

It seems to me that PP’s claim to a postmil link in Matthew 24 is gratuitous and foundationless. There is no golden age or gradual transformation of the world adverted to. Nor are the Jews singled out for blessing. There is nothing but divine ‘gloom and doom’, which even the elect are swept up into. Unless God cut those days short, the elect themselves would have been wiped out. Their ‘salvation’, here, is not spiritual, but that of being spared the further tribulations that eat up this world, and delivered from the enmity of the nations and their persecution of the elect.

Another factor must be underscored. It has to be said that, using PP’s interpretive model (aka, hermeneutic), one could take many a bible chapter and turn it into a resource for PP, making some tenuous connection with the book of Revelation, or with Israel. Or, just as sufficient, in PP, one does not need to find in a text a connection to PP; one merely needs to demonstrate that a connection is not rejected. What is the difference between this hermeneutic of Jewish-centricity and that of Dispensationalism? Moreover, the practical effect of PP’s model is, again like that of Dispensationalism’s, that the preacher and exegete jump all over the bible, especially to the OT, to ‘confirm’ their reading of Matthew 24 or Revelation.

I will stop there, as the aim is to do this subject in bite sizes, if at all possible. The next article will continue the theological angle and take us into a Christological reading of the Gospels and of Matthew 24.

[1] Some partial-preterists do not like to use the phrase ‘Second Coming’, for it, to them, deflects from the first phase of Jesus’ coming via the Romans in AD70. There are two phases of his coming placed together in Matthew 24, says PP. Also, some partial-preterists refer this first phase as the ‘spiritual’ return of the Son of Man, to be distinguished from his physical return at the end of time.

[2] Kenneth L Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 2nd ed., (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 173.

[3] Gentry cites Murray as an example of a postmiler. [Kenneth L. Gentry, “Postmillennialism”, in Three Views in the Millennium and Beyond, eds. Craig. A. Blaising, Kenneth L. Gentry, Robert B. Strimple, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 19.] However, Robert Strimple’s point is that Murray is incorrectly cited as a postmiler, for his view of a future ingathering of the Jews is equated, by postmilers, as evidence of postmil .[Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism”, in Three Views in the Millennium and Beyond, 112.]

[4] John Murray, “What is Amillennialism?”, The John Murray Archive: Westminster Media, accessed May 8, 2025, https://wm.wts.edu/read/what-is-amillennialism.