1 Corinthians 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"

The battle lines in the preterist movement are as clearly drawn as they have ever been.  The key distinction is between "AD30 Preterism" and "AD70 Preterism".  AD30 Preterism is completely orthodox in its historical Christian orientation, and is often called Partial Preterism.  AD70 Preterism has no historical Christian orientation aside from 19th Century Universalism, and is often called Full Preterism.  AD30 Preterism focuses on the events surrounding Calvary, seeing this as the period of arrival for redemption in Jesus Christ.  AD70 Preterism focuses on the events surrounding the fall of Herod's Temple, seeing this as the period of arrival for redemption in Jesus Christ.

Though many of the finer points of AD70 Preterism can be displayed in detail, doing so can often be hard to understand for those unstudied in biblical theology.

As with currency, the best way to spot the counterfeit is to know the genuine article very well. And so, perhaps the easiest way to show just how different this error is from the entire scope of historical Christianity is to point out the view's vastly different storyline. Throughout Christian history, the focal point for the total revelation of New Covenant redemption has always been the cross of Jesus Christ. This is the genuine article.

Most Christians are probably aware that the removal of separation between man and God is a gift revealed in its fullness by Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. These same people may be surprised to hear that, according to AD70 Preterism, the cross of Jesus Christ was insufficient for this purpose, and needed to be augmented by the fall of the Jewish temple 40 years later. So far as I know, every outlet of this doctrine endorses the view that the the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 was the "consummation of the ages" event that removed the separation between man and God.

Not until forty years following the cross, it is taught, was the New Covenant finally established in its fullness, and the separation between man and God removed. This is the counterfeit.

Follow up:

The teaching that the New Covenant wasn’t in its full establishment until long after the cross event shows how AD70 Preterism is fundamentally different from Christianity as it has always been known. This "AD70 storyline" is foreign to the Bible, and to Christianity as a whole throughout all of its centuries and denominations. Only the Universalists of the last 200 years have embraced this type of AD70-centrism.

"IT IS FINISHED"

When the life of Jesus was draining away on the cross, He Himself noted that the redemptive work had been accomplished in saying "it is finished". John 19:30's word for "It is finished" (Tetelestai), comes from the verb teleo, means “to complete, to accomplish" (as all preterists know). The parsing of this Greek verb shows that it is only this sacrificial death of Jesus which saves, and that nothing else can be added to that finished accomplishment.

"The word occurs in John 19:28 and 19:30 and these are the only two places in the New Testament where it occurs. In 19:28 it is translated, “After this, when Jesus knew that all things were now completed, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, he said, ‘I thirst.’” Two verses later, he utters the word himself: “Then when he received the sour wine Jesus said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (bible.org)

Though this view tends to diminish the meaning of the cross and Jesus' declaration prior to His sacrificial death (which diminishment in itself serves as a litmus test for error), it was of the utmost significance. In fact, in order to maintain continuity with Christianity, it must remain the central focus. To diminish the centrality of the cross for redemptive accomplishment is to fundamentally alter the message that has been handed down and delivered throughout all generations.

To diminish the cross event is not just a small matter of end times disagreement; Rather, it is an attack on the very foundations of Christianity.

Undoubtedly to underscore the central focus and total accomplishment of God's redemptive purposes, God in His Sovereignty tore the "veil of separation" that hung inside the Jewish temple. Undeniably, this signified the ceasing of separation between God and man, through the cross of Jesus Christ.

This event was also attended by other signs and wonders -- all given, Christianity teaches, to segregate the cross event as the most significant moment in world history. And yet, to listen to the presentation of this view, it was AD70 that was the most significant moment in redemptive history. See Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28; 26:28.

In my honest opinion, this is gross heresy which is worthy to be vigorously opposed. It is certainly as bad - if not much worse - than the Dispensationalist teaching that animal sacrifices will be re-instituted in a salvation-sense in a rebuilt temple!

WAY INTO HOLIEST OF ALL PRIOR TO AD70

And so, in short:

Instead of fixing upon the “it is finished” declaration of Jesus, AD70 Preterism demands another 40 years before believers were allowed to enter "within the veil".

Paul, in Hebrews 8-10, makes a rock solid case that access into the holiest places were already then a present reality in Jesus Christ. In many forms he refers to the good things which have come in Jesus, with absolutely no reference to more work that needed to be done in order to accomplish the redemptive work of God.

Only through a horribly mangled usage of Hebrews 9:8 and 28 (grandly mistaking not only the meanings of "the way", "made manifest", "first", "tabernacle", "had standing", and "unto salvation", but also the very intent of the entire verse, chapter, and book!) is this AD70-centrist view able to to support the devilish doctrine of the non-occurrence of prophecy at the cross.

In Hebrews, Paul was looking back to things that had already been fulfilled in the fall of the GREATER TEMPLE - not something future depending on the fall of the LESSER TEMPLE. (Lesson: In the Bible, the "lesser" points to what is accomplished in the "greater", and not the other way around)

If you wish to be able to better detect the error in the Hyper Preterist counterfeit, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the genuine article as revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

There are many essential differences between the narrative storyline of AD70 Preterism and that of Christianity. These are just two of the profoundly divergent story lines between the standard held by hyper preterism (AD70) and that held by the entire scope of historical Christianity (the CROSS).

And even though, through ignorance of what is being taught or through the old debater's trick called "misdirection", certain ones who embrace this view may claim that AD70 isn't really the focal point of their doctrine, all evidence points to the contrary.

One of the most revealing comments ever given by a (now former) teacher of this view is that their form of "Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D." (Frost)

Even without such a claim, all one has to do is listen and read to the bulk of materials coming from the movement. The basis and total thrust of all such preterist evangelism is the fall of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.

The fall of Jerusalem is very often noted as the focal point for the actual full start of the New Covenant "Age to Come" era. (I am not accusing these men of diminishing the cross; rather, I am saying that the doctrine being taught diminishes the cross. These are not bad people, this is just bad doctrine. Please note the difference. These quotes are given fully in good faith.)

Don Preston - "The New Day fully came in 70 AD when Jesus returned in judgment of the Old World of Darkness and brought the New Day of Salvation. The Day has come."

Michael Sartori - "I would contend that the O/C passed away in AD70 and the N/C commenced in AD70, at the destruction of Jerusalem. "

Though many others could be added, I would like to turn attention specifically to the Most Holy Place, and the teaching that entrance was not given until 40 years after the cross of Jesus Christ.

Despite the demand of AD70 Preterism, entrance into the Holiest of All was not dependent upon AD70, but upon the self sacrifice of Christ, who is the anti-type to all the Old Testament shadows of the centrality of the offering. It is this point, in particular, which reveals how the one foundational error yields others. Notice how this issue is so fundamental to this theology:

William Bell - "We all know when it fell, in A.D.70! Entrance into the Most Holy is a blessing of the "age to come." Entrance was opened up at the fall of the temple. Therefore, the blessings of the "age to come" were opened up or received at the fall of the temple, specifically ETERNAL LIFE!"

Ward Fenley - "Paul saw such importance in the holiest of all that he could with full assurance declare that while they were still out of the holiest of all they were STILL in the OC body of death, from which Paul was longing to be delivered.. What Paul was declaring in Romans 8 is that without the complete salvation and growth of the first century church AS A WHOLE, there would be no complete salvation, for God promised He would SAVE HIS people from their sins."

"The promise of God to give His people a new heart and a new spirit and to cause them to walk in His laws through the righteousness of Christ was finally initiated at Pentecost by the Spirit. This was ultimately consummated at the Parousia of Christ when He returned at the destruction of the Jewish Temple and nation and brought to completion the Heavenly Jerusalem, the church, the body of Christ. Since that time the elect of God are given faith and regenerated by the presence of God in their hearts."

"The ministration of righteousness, the N.C. kingdom, was exceeding in glory while the ministration of death, the O.C. kingdom, was diminishing in glory. In fact, though the literal veil was torn in two at the crucifixion of Christ, the actual veil of spiritual death was still upon the elect unsaved Jews, but was in the process of being done away as the remnant according to the election of grace were believing in Christ. Not only this, but for those who were believers, the veil was in the process of being removed as they had not yet entered into the holiest of holies."

Again, these claims of the non-occurrence of prophecy regarding entrance into the Most Holy goes directly against Paul's explicit testimony to the contrary in Hebrews 10:

"19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God.."

F.F. Bruce and C.H. Spurgeon are quoted now, not in support of this historical Christian view (which needs no proof), but just as an expression of it:

Bruce: "He who, by "virtue of his own blood, entered the holy place once for all" (9:11) has procured for his people equal right of entry there by means of that same blood - that is, on the ground of his accepted sacrifice." (Hebrews, p.250)

Spurgeon: "Did not the miracle also mean that from that hour the whole system of types, and shadows, and ceremonies had come to an end? The ordinances of an earthly priesthood were rent with that veil. In token of the death of the ceremonial law, the soul of it quitted its sacred shrine, and left its bodily tabernacle as a dead thing. The legal dispensation is over. The rent of the veil seemed to say—"Henceforth God dwells no longer in the thick darkness of the Holy of Holies, and shines forth no longer from between the cherubim. The special enclosure is broken up, and there is no inner sanctuary for the earthly high priest to enter: typical atonements and sacrifices are at an end.. In actual historical fact the glorious veil of the temple has been rent in twain from the top to the bottom: as a matter of spiritual fact, which is far more important to us, the separating legal ordinance is abolished."

We have a choice: Agree (as with the entire spectrum of historical Christianity) that full entrance into the Most Holy Place was given based upon the fall of the Temple of the King of Kings, or (as with Hyper Preterism) that entrance awaited the fall of a temple built by an apostate king.

In my opinion, there is no way in which the fall of a building in AD70 could ever compare with the cross event of Jesus' passion narrative. No amount of fallen stones could ever challenge the cross of Jesus Christ for the scope or significance such sacrifice has been given by the Father.

The 40-year delay of Hyper Preterism - though seemingly a small matter - is of the greatest significance when it comes to the centrality of Jesus Christ’s body in redemption, among many other reasons. The cross of Jesus Christ - though not as significant to HyP in redemption as it is to historical Christianity - cannot be matched in its great significance for the accomplishment/fulfillment of redemption.

Paul specifies that the only grounds upon this entrance is "through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" - in other words, through his sacrificial blood shedding. To side with HyP that we enter through the veil by the (re)tearing of the temple's veil in AD70 is just simply divergent from historical Christian doctrine.

Robbing the meaning of “it is finished”, by stitching the torn veil back together theologically (just as the temple priests had in actuality), is to radically and fundamentally alter the message of the New Testament and the historical Church.

And then, of course, this judgment-worthy brutality to the person of Jesus Christ is finished off by teaching that today’s Christians live in a fundamentally different dispensation (this age / age to come) than those of the pre-AD70 era of the New Testament writings.

In many different ways is revealed the same truth. Separation between man and God being totally accomplished in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. There are many other passages which point out these truths which will be dealt with in time.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18)

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16)

I pray to the Lord of Glory that those sincere students of the Word who currently embrace hyper preterism will no join those HyP leaders who are trying to silence or disqualify all critics. Rather, I pray that all such Bereans will be given the wisdom to understand how far from the received gospel the HyP view truly is. Perhaps as this concept being exposed to them, love for the old rugged cross will inspire a sincerely critical examination of the "salvation in AD70" view.

(Note: this article is not an attack on those who embrace Hyper Preterism, but upon the doctrines and focus of Hyper Preterism itself. Those who detect a hateful smear are - purposely, I say - reading into what is being said. Surely it is possible for those who embrace Hyper Preterism to critically examine that view's focal point and to work towards making sure that the cross is central by minimizing AD70. It is not logical to take an attack on a theological position as a hateful attack on individuals personally, thereby (through logical fallacy) disqualifying critical exegesis. Doing so is just "that old debater's trick called misdirection". It is as if nobody is allowed to question Hyper Preterism without being accused of hate! There is nothing to be so feared in hard-hitting critical exegesis, as if it cannot but be taken as a personal threat on our very world. After all, Hyper Preterism serially attacks Dispensationalism.. does that mean that all HyPs are hateful towards Dispensationalists? No, as that is another matter entirely. I get the sense that those who want to see hate so badly do so to accomplish the very disqualification I warn against! Rather, let us all be Bereans by focusing on the exegesis of John 19:28,30 and Hebrews 10:19-22. Those who skip that part are dealing in misdirection.)

For a fuller look at just how radically different HyP's storyline is from historical Christianity's, read Spurgeon on The Rent Veil

All power and glory to He who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty!