Combining a Late Date for Revelation and Partial Preterism with META AI

 

From the late 1980s to around 2002 I was a premillennialist. Moving from something like Historic Premillennialism, to Dispensational Premillennialism, then briefly to Progressive Dispensationalism. Then around 2006, give or take a few years, I gradually became convinced of partial preterism and postmillennialism. 

However, the brand of preterism I held required the book of Revelation to have been written before AD 70. While I'm still open to Revelation being written before AD 70, for the past few years I wondered and speculated that maybe a combination of a partial preterist interpretation of Revelation and an idealist interpretation of Revelation made the dating of the book moot. Because when you couple both preterism and idealism, then the book could have been written in AD ~95 and still in some sense be about the events in Jerusalem surrounding AD 70, as well as future events.

The following is a conversation I had with META AI, and it turns out I'm not the only one who has come to these conclusions. 

Of course, as always, take what AI writes with a grain of salt. AI is notorious for making mistakes, and even making things up.

AP: Is [it] possible to combine, and [have] there been people who have combined, partial Preterism with a late date of the book of Revelation in the mid 90s CE?

META AI: Yes, it's possible — and it's actually very common today.

You have to separate two issues that get lumped together:

*1. Partial Preterism* = most prophecy in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) and _some_ of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem. Full Preterism says _all_ prophecy including Second Coming was fulfilled then — that's considered heretical by most churches.

*2. Date of Revelation* = Early date (pre-70 AD, under Nero) vs. Late date (mid-90s AD, under Domitian).

Classic partial preterism _prefers_ the early date, because if Revelation was written in 65 AD, it can be a prophecy _about_ 70 AD.

But you can absolutely hold a late date (95 AD) and still be a partial preterist. You just shift what you apply preterism to:

### How people combine them:

*Option A — Split the fulfillment:*

- Matthew 24 / Luke 21 = fulfilled in 70 AD (preterist)

- Revelation = written in 95 AD, so it _cannot_ be mostly about 70 AD. It is about Rome, the ongoing persecution of the Church, and future consummation. Only Revelation 1-3 or 11 might look back at 70 AD symbolically.

This is the position of the majority of Reformed partial preterists today because the external evidence for the late date is so strong (Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius all say John was exiled under Domitian).

Examples:

- *G.K. Beale, D.A. Carson, N.T. Wright, Sam Storms* — all hold late date of Revelation (∼95) but are partial preterist on the Olivet Discourse.

- *Hank Hanegraaff* — in his _The Apocalypse Code_ he holds late date but still uses partial preterist interpretation for much of the symbolism.

*Option B — Late date, but Revelation still looks back:*

Some argue Revelation was written in 95 AD as a _theological interpretation_ of what 70 AD meant — like a retrospective, not predictive prophecy. God's judgment on Jerusalem still stands as the fulfillment, John is just explaining it after the fact. Less common, but argued.

*Option C — Early date full partial preterism:*

The stricter camp says you _must_ have early date for Revelation to be truly preterist. That's *Kenneth Gentry, R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar*. They argue the internal evidence (Rev 11 temple still standing, 666 = Nero) demands pre-70.

So:

> Early date almost forces you into partial preterism.

> Late date does NOT force you out of partial preterism — you just become partial preterist about the Gospels, not about all of Revelation.

If you want late date + partial preterism to hold together logically, most people do it by saying: "Jesus came in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matt 24), and Revelation was written 25 years later about the coming judgment on Rome and the final return of Christ."

AP: Seems like another reason that you can combine a late date and partial preterism is if you also interpret Revelation by combining a partial preterist interpretation of Revelation with an idealist interpretation of Revelation

META AI: Exactly — that's exactly how most scholars who hold the late date do it. That's called the *eclectic* or *preterist-idealist* approach.

You're spot on about why it works.

Pure preterism needs Revelation to be _about one specific date_ — 70 AD or the fall of Rome. If it was written in 95 AD, 70 AD is already 25 years in the past, so it can't be a predictive prophecy about 70 AD.

Idealism solves that:

*Idealism* = Revelation is not primarily about one event, but about timeless patterns — the Church vs. the Beast, the martyrdom and vindication of the saints, which recurs in every age.

If you combine them:

1.  *Preterist layer:* When John writes about Babylon, the Beast, the harlot, emperor worship, tribulation — his first readers in Ephesus in 95 AD would have immediately thought: "That's Rome under Domitian. That's what we are going through right now. And yes, that's also what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD — same pattern."

2.  *Idealist layer:* But those images are not _locked_ to Rome. They are archetypes. Babylon is Rome _and_ Jerusalem _and_ every oppressive world system until Christ returns. So 70 AD can be a partial fulfillment without being the _only_ fulfillment.

So you get:

> "Revelation 11's trampling of the temple? That _did_ happen in 70 AD — that's the preterist part. But Revelation as a whole is _still_ relevant in 95 AD because it's showing the idealist principle: God judges apostate cities and empires, whether it's Jerusalem or Rome or anything after."

That's why almost everyone who holds the late date _and_ partial preterism is a preterist-idealist:

- *William Hendriksen* — called it "progressive parallelism"

- *G.K. Beale* — late date, but says Revelation recapitulates the fall of Jerusalem as a type of the fall of all evil systems

- *Sam Storms, Dennis Johnson* — same approach

They will say: Revelation was written in the 90s, about the situation in the 90s, _using_ the theological vocabulary of 70 AD, to describe a reality that keeps repeating until the Second Coming.

In that system you don't need early dating to be a partial preterist. You just need to believe Matthew 24 was mostly fulfilled in 70 AD, and Revelation uses that as a _type_.

That's probably the most defensible way to hold late date + partial preterism together, and it's become the dominant view in Reformed seminaries for exactly that reason.

AP: Can all this be combined with postmillennialism too?

META AI: Yes — in fact, that's the classic combination. Late date + partial preterist/idealist + postmillennial is the system most modern postmills run.

Here's why it fits together so cleanly:

*Postmillennialism* = The millennium in Revelation 20 is not a literal 1,000 years, but the current Church Age. The Gospel will gradually Christianize the world, evil will be progressively restrained, and then Christ returns after a long golden age. It's optimistic.

That needs three things:

*1. Partial preterism for Matthew 24*

If Matthew 24 is mostly future (futurism), then Jesus predicted things will get _worse_ and worse until He returns. That's hard to square with postmill optimism.

If Matthew 24 was mostly fulfilled in 70 AD, then the big "judgment" obstacle is out of the way. What remains is the Great Commission succeeding.

*2. Idealist / preterist-idealist for Revelation*

If Revelation is all about a future Antichrist and Tribulation (futurism), you get pessimism.

If Revelation is idealist — it describes the ongoing battle between Christ and Satan, but Christ _wins_ progressively in history — and chapters 17-19 (fall of Babylon) are _types_ that have already started to be fulfilled (fall of Jerusalem, fall of Rome), then you can read Revelation 20 as: the Church age is winning.

The late date actually _helps_ postmillennialism here. If Revelation was written in 95 AD _after_ both Jerusalem and the first Roman persecution, and John still says "Christ reigns," that proves the kingdom continues to advance even after those judgments.

*3. Late date of Revelation is fine for postmill*

Postmill doesn't need Revelation to be early. It just needs Revelation 20 to be about the present age, not about a future 1,000-year utopia after Jesus returns (that's premill). Whether John wrote it in 65 or 95 doesn't change that.

### The standard package looks like this:

- *Olivet Discourse:* 70 AD judgment (partial preterist)

- *Revelation:* Late date (95 AD), written to persecuted churches under Domitian, using idealist symbolism — Babylon = any anti-Christian empire (Rome then, but also future systems). Its message is timeless: evil systems fall, Christ's kingdom grows.

- *Revelation 20:* We are in the millennium now. Satan is bound in the sense that he can no longer deceive the nations to stop the Gospel (compared to the OT era). The Church will win.

That's exactly what you see in:

- *Kenneth Gentry* (postmill, partial preterist, though he prefers early date — but admits his system works with late date)

- *Gary DeMar, Keith Mathison, Douglas Wilson, James White*

- *19th century Princeton guys:* B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge — all late date, partial preterist-idealist, postmill

The only tension is:

If you are _strict_ partial preterist who says Revelation is _mostly_ about 70 AD, late date is awkward. But if you are preterist-idealist (70 AD is _a_ fulfillment, Rome is _another_, and there are ongoing fulfillments), late date + postmill fit perfectly.

So yes: Late date + partial preterism (Matt 24) + idealist (Rev) + postmillennialism is not only possible, it's the most common way postmillennialism is taught today.

Eschatologies in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

 

 The following is a discussion I had with ChatGPT. I asked questions as if I were more ignorant than I actually am in order to get the AI to explain more thoroughly; and so that if there were any lacunae in my understanding, they could be filled in. As always take what Artificial Intelligence writes "with a grain a salt." AI can be mistaken in a number of ways.

---

---

---

 

  AP: As a Protestant I know about Protestant theological permutations and options on eschatology. When it comes to the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned in Rev. 20 there's amillennialism, premillennialism, postmillennialism. When it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation, there's preterism, futurism, historicism, idealism [idealism can also be combined with the former three]. When it comes to the Rapture, some Protestant's options are (usually associated with premillennialism) Pre-Tribulationism; Mid-Trib; Post-Trib; Partial Rapture; Pre-Wrath Rapture. But what are the options, permutations and usual positions of the persons and institutions in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on these issues?



ChatGPT:

Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy approach these questions somewhat differently from much of modern Protestantism. In both traditions, there is generally less emphasis on constructing detailed end-times systems and more emphasis on preserving the broad eschatological framework inherited from the early Church. As a result, many of the categories familiar in Protestant debates either do not exist as major options or are regarded as speculative.

1. The Millennium (Revelation 20)

Roman Catholicism

The official position of the Catholic Church is essentially amillennial, though the term itself is not often emphasized in magisterial documents.

The standard Catholic interpretation is:

• Christ is reigning now from heaven.

• Satan has been "bound" in a limited sense through Christ's victory.

• The "thousand years" symbolizes the present Church age between Christ's first and second comings.

• Christ will return once, at the end of history.

• There will then be the general resurrection, final judgment, and eternal state.

The Church explicitly rejected forms of "millenarianism" (chiliasm), especially the expectation of a future earthly political kingdom of Christ before the final judgment.

The most important text is the discussion of the "Antichrist's deception" and millenarianism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§676).

Catholic spectrum

Within orthodoxy, Catholics can hold views that look like:

• Classical amillennialism (most common).

• Augustinian amillennialism (dominant historically through Augustine of Hippo).

• Some forms of optimistic historical theology that resemble postmillennial instincts, though not usually called postmillennialism.

A straightforward dispensational premillennialism would generally be regarded as foreign to Catholic tradition.

---

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Eastern Orthodox Church is also overwhelmingly amillennial.

Orthodox theology generally teaches:

• The millennium is symbolic.

• The Kingdom is already present sacramentally and spiritually in the Church.

• Christ reigns now.

• There will be a single future Second Coming.

• General resurrection and final judgment occur together.

Orthodoxy has never developed a detailed dogmatic eschatological system comparable to many Protestant schools.

Historically, some early Christian writers held premillennial views, but Orthodoxy generally follows the later interpretation associated with figures such as John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo rather than the earlier chiliasts.

Orthodox spectrum

You can find:

• Symbolic/amillennial interpretations.

• Mystical interpretations.

• Patristic variations.

But virtually no mainstream Orthodox support for modern premillennialism.

---

2. Approaches to Revelation

Your fourfold Protestant scheme (preterist, futurist, historicist, idealist) does not map neatly onto Catholic and Orthodox thought.

Roman Catholicism

Catholics commonly combine:

Idealism

This is probably the dominant theological approach.

Revelation is viewed as depicting:

• The ongoing conflict between Christ and evil.

• The struggle of the Church through history.

• Spiritual realities transcending any single historical period.

Partial Preterism

Many Catholic scholars also see Revelation as referring to:

• The persecution of Christians under Nero or later emperors.

• The fall of pagan Rome.

• First-century realities facing the churches of Asia Minor.

Moderate Futurism

Most Catholics also affirm that some portions point forward to:

• The Antichrist.

• Final tribulation.

• Second Coming.

• Last Judgment.

In practice, Catholic exegesis often combines:
partial preterism + idealism + limited futurism.

Historicism

Historicism has never been a major Catholic approach.

One reason is that Protestant historicists often identified the papacy with the Antichrist, making the approach unattractive in Catholic scholarship.

---

Eastern Orthodoxy

Orthodox interpretation is generally:

Strongly Idealist

Revelation is often treated as:

• A liturgical vision.

• A revelation of heavenly worship.

• A portrayal of spiritual warfare.

Selective Futurism

Orthodoxy certainly expects:

• Antichrist.

• Great apostasy.

• Final tribulation.

• Second Coming.

But usually without detailed prophetic timetables.

Limited Preterism

Many Orthodox commentators acknowledge first-century historical contexts, but this is usually secondary to spiritual interpretation.

Historicism

Almost absent in mainstream Orthodoxy.

---

3. The Rapture

This is where the difference from much of Protestantism becomes most dramatic.

Roman Catholicism

The Catholic Church rejects the modern dispensational doctrine of a secret rapture.

The common Catholic understanding is:

• Christ returns once.

• The dead are raised.

• Living believers are "caught up" to meet Christ (based on First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:17).

• The final judgment follows.

This resembles what Protestants would call a post-tribulational gathering of believers, though Catholics generally do not frame it in those terms.

Catholic theology therefore rejects:

• Pre-tribulation rapture.

• Mid-tribulation rapture.

• Pre-wrath rapture.

• Partial rapture.

• Two-stage second comings.

The typical Catholic position is:

One Second Coming → Resurrection → Gathering of believers → Judgment

---

Eastern Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is even more resistant to rapture theories.

The standard Orthodox understanding is:

• One visible return of Christ.

• One resurrection.

• One judgment.

Modern rapture doctrines are usually viewed as recent Western innovations.

Orthodox theologians generally reject:

• Pre-tribulationism.

• Mid-tribulationism.

• Pre-wrath views.

• Partial rapture theories.

• Dispensationalism generally.

---

4. The Antichrist and Tribulation

Interestingly, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are somewhat more futurist here than many Protestants realize.

Both traditions traditionally affirm:

• A future personal Antichrist.

• A final period of deception.

• Great tribulation before Christ's return.

• Worldwide testing of the Church.

• Final victory of Christ.

The difference is that they usually refuse to specify timelines or identify contemporary political figures.

---

5. Rough Comparison Table

Question	Roman Catholicism	Eastern Orthodoxy
Millennium	Amillennial (officially dominant)	Amillennial (dominant)
Premillennialism	Generally rejected	Generally rejected
Postmillennialism	Rare but some compatible tendencies	Very rare
Revelation	Idealist + Partial Preterist + Moderate Futurist	Idealist + Spiritual + Moderate Futurist
Historicism	Rare	Rare
Secret Rapture	Rejected	Rejected
Pre-Trib Rapture	Rejected	Rejected
Mid-Trib Rapture	Rejected	Rejected
Post-Trib Rapture	Not usually framed this way, but closest approximation	Not usually framed this way, but closest approximation
Antichrist	Future personal figure generally affirmed	Future personal figure generally affirmed
Final Tribulation	Affirmed	Affirmed

If you mapped them onto Protestant categories

A "typical" Roman Catholic theologian would often look something like:

Amillennial + Idealist + Partial Preterist + Moderate Futurist + No Rapture

A "typical" Eastern Orthodox theologian would often look like:

Amillennial + Strong Idealist + Moderate Futurist + No Rapture

So compared with the Protestant landscape, Catholicism and Orthodoxy allow far fewer permutations. Their mainstream traditions converge on a symbolic millennium, a single visible return of Christ, rejection of dispensational rapture schemes, and a mixed interpretation of Revelation that combines spiritual symbolism, first-century fulfillment, and future eschatological expectation.