Bro. Chalfant’s reasons for the Great Tribulation not being in the first century are simply based upon his already established and repeated thoughts that prophecies in Revelation are to be interpreted literally.  We’ve already noted that the very first verse indicates the prophecies are symbolic and not literal.  John said the angel SIGNIFIED the events to occur in the visions of the Revelation.  Chalfant notes that since there was no mark of the beast placed on foreheads and right hands around the world, then there was no “beast” noted in Revelation 13.  He feels modern computer technology of numbering and recording human beings is inferred here.  However, that is as silly as reading the following:

A 19th century preacher named JL Martin quoted Revelation 9:17-19 where we read of an army numbering hundreds of thousands, and interpreted it in light of the "technology " of his day.

"John is pointing to the modern mode of fighting on horseback, with the rider leaning forward, which, to his sight, and to the sight of one looking on at a distance, would appear as the great mane of the lion; the man leaning on his horse’s neck. He would, in fighting with firearms, have to lean forward to discharge his piece, lest he might shoot down his own horse that he was riding. In John’s day the posture was very different. . . . Now, I want to ask my friendly hearers if it is not as literally fulfilled before our eyes as anything can be? Are not all nations engaged in this mode of warfare? Do they not kill men with fire and smoke and brimstone? . . . Do you not know that this is just ignited gunpowder? . . . Could an uninspired man, in the last of the first century, have told of this matter?"

(JL Martin, The Voice of the Seven Thunders: oc Lectures on the Apocalypse (Bedford, IN: James M. Mathes, Publisher, sixth cd., 1873), pp. 149f.)


We laugh at that today, and yet we do not flinch at looking at Revelation 9 today as prophesying nuclear weapons and Chinese armies numbering in the millions, or Revelation 13 as computer chips on the arm and forehead. It’s the same thing that Martin did!

What the mark has to do with the Great Tribulation is beyond me, anyway!

Then he interprets the two witnesses literally.  The fact is that the two witnesses are noted in Rev 11, where the temple must have still stood since it is said to be destroyed in a duration of 3.5 years.  This alone proves Revelation was written before 70 AD when the temple was destroyed.  However, the two witnesses, as Rev 1:1 stated, are signifying emblems, representing, most likely, the Word and Spirit.  The preaching of the Gospel was “slain” as it were in the streets of Jerusalem during the siege because the Church had already fled Jerusalem before the great tribulation began.

The earthquake that divides the city into three parts is noted by Chalfant to indicate that its historical absence during a resurrection of the two witnesses, as though they were actual people, demands these events as having not yet transpired.  However, we already noted that the sixth seal mentions an earthquake that divides the city three ways.  This was repeated in Ezekiel where his hair was cut and divided three ways to depict what would happen to Jerusalem.  It’s all signifying or symbolic.


Chalfant admits that there are some confusing passages about Christ’s coming, implying they readily do not seem to fit a futurist coming.

Matthew 16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 26:63  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 10:23  But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Not only are these verses confusing to futurists, but they simply cannot be answered by futurists logically!  Talk about preterists twisting scriptures!  You should read what futurists say about these verses!

Chalfant points us to the context of this verse, and comments on the preceding verse.

Matthew 10:22  And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

And he then states, “Jesus has put this passage in the context of ‘enduring to the end’. Therefore, verse 23 also has to be in the context of the ‘end’ of things.”

However, Jesus did not say the end of the planet.  First of all, Jesus is speaking to the men standing with Him in that ancient day.  He saying that they, themselves, must endure to the end.  And that they, themselves, would not be able to cover all the cities of Israel until the Lord comes.  How can that refer to a future time 2,000 years later?

Chalfant notes that the mention of persecution and “cities of Israel” contrasts with “all men” persecuting the disciples.  What is so wrong about saying all men will persecute them, and referring to the Jews in saying that?  All flesh would have the Spirit poured out upon them, but we know that is not so literal as to mean the flesh of donkeys, chickens and whales are intended to be understood as receiving the Holy Ghost.  

Chalfant admits the disciples could not go over all the cities of Israel before the destruction of Jerusalem came.  They only had “a 37 year period before the uprising in Jerusalem was crushed by the Romans.”  However, he then stretches reason and states that this is still speaking about the end of the planet by adding, “It is doubtful today that the apostles (and disciples of today) have even yet gone over all the cities of Israel. Many of the disciples left Jerusalem many years before the 66-70 AD Jewish Rebellion. In other words, we don't have to presuppose a 70 AD invisible ‘coming’ of the Lord to understand the difficulties in going over the cities of Israel with the gospel before He returns in glory!”

That is grasping for straws.  The context clearly notes that those disciples were themselves considered as not being able to preach to all Israel before 70 AD.  Jesus was not thinking of 2000 years of time, as though Israel has yet not had the Gospel preached to them.

He then says, “It is presumptuous to put a time element on this type of a passage. There are two many variables. What does ‘enduring to the end’ mean time-wise?”

It means enduring to the end of the age of actual Law-keeping in the temple, after the cross spiritually ended law.  The term end of the WORLD in Matthew 24 is referring to the end of the “age”.

He then asks, “Are we not still required even today at this late date to ‘endure to the end’? How can His disciples be ‘hated of all men’ if their activities are so short-lived as to be restricted to a small number of years in one little country in the first century?”  Of course we endure persecutions today also!  But not until the “end” that those specific disciples would endure until.  They lived to see the end of temple ritual and Mosaic law-keeping in practice.

And Chalfant then implies that being hated of all men cannot be restricted to the first century because of some idea that all men refers to all nations.  He refers to North American Indians as not even having heard the Gospel!  However, the same words apply to us today who will be hated of all men.  It’s speaking of the world fighting and resisting us.  It’s not saying anything similar to some sort of demand that these words cannot apply to the first century alone in the context of those disciples’ ministries.

Chalfant states the Gospel had not been preached “to ‘every nation’ as Jesus required in Matthew 24.14,” by the time of 70 AD.  This is from the Greek word also translated as TRIBES.  Although all cities might not be reached, all Israel’s tribes heard the Gospel!   That may sound odd to people who have always felt nations here meant nations of the planet.  But the Greek word does primarily mean tribes!  Try to think out side our traditional paradigms, and honestly ask ourselves if nations cannot truly mean tribes in Greek!

Chalfant admits “In Colossians 1.6 Paul uses the phrase to the effect that the gospel has come into 'all the world', but we must consider that he means ‘all the known ancient world’.”

But he refuses to apply that to Matthew 24:14 where we read the Gospel shall be preached in all the world.  And he resorts to his tradition he has not yet proven as valid in saying, “The 'full number' of the Gentiles is apparently not yet come in, and the task of the New Testament church remains.”  Who said the fullness of the Gentiles is speaking about the fullness of gentiles coming into the church?  Not the Bible!

And he really grabs for a straw when he writes, “That is why there is another interpretation to the effect that the disciples would not even have gone over every community in their own little country before the return of the Lord. It takes men years sometimes to reach a city. They pour out their labor and some even spend their lives there. To blithely think that in just a short number of years the disciples could have reached the entire country of Israel with the gospel is a bit ambitious.”

It is not at all overly ambitious, because Jesus was telling those specific disciples what they, themselves, would accomplish and not accomplish!  This very point is mocked or else overlooked by futurists.  Nevertheless, Jesus looked into their eyes and spoke about them, themselves!

And Chalfant insists that if the cities have not yet all been gone over with the Gospel, then the prophecy remains yet open for fulfillment.  This is simply and honestly not conclusive thinking.   Chalfant must admit, though he does not do it in his writing, that if we were told we would not reach our province with the Gospel before destruction would come, that it is not necessary to have us think we are meant to understand that thousands of years are implied.  That may be one interpretation, but it is not necessarily the correct one!

Then he arrives at Matthew 16.28.

He says, “Matthew 16.28 cannot be taken out of context. It must be understood in relation to Matthew 16.27”

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. -Matthew 16.27,28 KJV

He mocks the idea of an invisible coming in wrath because Jesus noted it would be seen.  However, they did see the wrath.  Wrath and destruction were often noted as synonymous thoughts throughout the Bible.

When David cried to God in his distress, he said that God came and was “seen” riding on the wings of the wind.

2 Samuel 22:11  And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.

Was God visibly seen?  Of course not!  No man hath seen God at any time.  Yet we read that He was seen riding the wings of the wind!  What was seen?  God’s fury and wrath.  So Chalfant better not mock these instances of God’s coming that were seen, when nobody literally saw Him coming.

So let me ask Bro Chalfant about 2 Samuel in the same manner he asks us about Matthew 16, “If the coming were ‘invisible’, then who would ‘see it’?”

He then asks when did the Lord give reward to every man according to his works?  Judgment upon Jerusalem was determined by the laws of God from Moses who said they would be cursed if they rejected the commandments, which commandments were said to bring one to Christ.  What greater breaking of law could there therefore be other than rejecting Christ, to whom the Law pointed Israel?   And blessings would be rendered to those who obey.  Revelation is fulfilled with blessings and cursings.  This reflects those words of Moses.  The church accepted Christ and the Jews rejected Him.  So blessings and cursings were handed forth!

Chalfant demands these rewards be the crowns we will receive upon our physical resurrection.  Jesus does not say that, though.

He then cites Matthew 25 where we read, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”.

He fails to note that this, too, refers to the cursings and blessings God listed at Mt. Ebal and Gerizim, where the curses were proclaimed on the left and the blessings on Mt Gerizim on the right of the ark of the covenant that was in the midst!  Jesus is that ark!  (Josh 8:30-35; Deut. 11:29).

Finally Chalfant attempts to interpret Matthew 16:28.

“It is possible to see something that you will never live to personally experience. Moses was allowed to ‘see’ the Promised Land of Canaan, but he never personally lived to experience it.”

However, Jesus explicitly stated they would not taste death until they saw this coming!  

Then he says, “Jesus did not say that there were those standing there with Him who would not taste of death until the Son of man came. Rather Jesus said that they would not taste of death until they saw the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom. They would live to see His coming. We know, for example, that the apostle John saw his visions of the coming of the Lord before he (John) died. (1) since we know that Jesus has not yet returned in the glory of His Father with His holy angels, and (2) since we know that all of the men with Him that day died, it is the best answer available. To say that Jesus had to return before the end of the first century because of this one scripture is like trying to make the word of God fit our preconceived notions.”

 This is really twisting scripture!  Jesus distinctly said they would not taste death until they saw Him come.  They would not die, in other words, before He came.  John saw visions of His coming, but did not see Him actually come.  And simply because Chalfant forces the coming of the Lord with angels of glory to mean a visible coming, that is no basis to demand that since his interpretation has not yet been fulfilled, then this scripture is not yet fulfilled.  We must not make the mistake of thinking our interpretations are God’s intended interpretations by default!  How can you say, “since we know that all of the men with Him that day died” the best answer is that they saw visions of the coming?  He did not say they would see visions.  The best answer is that they saw the destruction upon Jerusalem before they died, just as actually happened historically!  

David never visibly saw God ride on wings of the wind, but he saw God’s wrath fall on his enemies!

We then come to John 21.18-24.  But the vagueness of this reference does not lend itself to an argument one way or the other.  I do not personally contend that reference proves partial preterism.  Neither does Chalfant contend it disproves it.  

As you can see it is not true that preterists, “spiritualize away those prophecies that are inconvenient to them.”  Such an accusation is absolutely incorrect.  Preterism is the most common sense interpretation I have yet seen, after I once agreed with Bro. Chalfant’s pre-trib futurists doctrine.  He jokingly says that “the virgin birth means the virgin birth, Egypt means Egypt, a donkey means a donkey” in saying we cannot always use the argument of something being imagery. Of course he is correct about such things.  Yet will he argue that 2 Samuel 22 is not imagery?  Of course not!  Yet the very same thoughts of riding in clouds are noted in Matthew 24 and elsewhere that he demands must be interpreted physically.


Since it is technically possible to dry up the Euphrates River using a damn, Chalfant insists that we must therefore believe that the mention of it is literal in the Book of Revelation. Once again, that flies in the face of the very first verse that told us these pictures were symbolized.

Instead of saying, “No matter that this is actually happening today in biblical places like Iraq and Turkey, it is still just ‘biblical imagery’. The Bible does not mean what it says-when it is not convenient to someone’s doctrine….. this is exactly what the amillennialists, such as the Campellites, have resorted to in order to refute the clear meaning of prophecies….. what else will preterists next decide to ‘spiritualize’ away. Baptism? Speaking in tongues? Once the door to allegorization is open, there is no limit,” he should have stated that we only see figurative metaphors when they are conclusively used elsewhere in scripture.

This is very deceptive means of approaching the issue concerning what preterists believe about this verse in Revelation.  Preterists have noted that the drying up of the Euphrates is a reference to the Old Testament times when Cyrus dried up that very river in successful efforts to invade Babylon and conquer it.  Since Jerusalem is called spiritual Babylon in Revelation, then it is not a spiritualizing of the drying of the river just to avoid the obvious fact that it could not literally apply to Jerusalem.  It is a reference point for us to consider what happened to physical Babylon.  Judgment came upon Jerusalem, the spiritual Babylon, by the conquest and destruction of it.  As a and end came to Ancient Babylon, so an end would come to spiritual Babylon, Jerusalem of old.

Saying this is nothing similar to what he accuses us of doing when he wrote, “I really believe this is what helped to ancient Catholic church to deny the baptism of the Holy Ghost.  They allegorized it to the point that when the priest laid his hand upon the supplicant, confirmation came and they were said to have received the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.”

Partial Preterism’s use of allegory is not at all similar to the Roman Catholic and Protestant denial of Holy Ghost baptism.


Chalfant insists that because, “Revelation 16.12 mentions a specific river by name,” that Nahum reference to drying up of rivers is totally different from Revelation’s thought. Simply because revelation names an actual river, Chalfant believes that is grounds to say it will literally occur.  But the mention of this specific river is to point us to ancient Babylon’s demise through means of the very river Euphrates being dried up.    

We know that there is a point of reference we are being directed towards when we read of Revelation 5’s lamb who redeems us by His blood.  That reference is Israel’s means of exodus from Egypt, when the lamb’s blood was struck upon the doorways of the Hebrews’ homes.  Does Rev. 5, then, demand that we believe we are saved today by the same blood of a literal lamb?  Of course not.  But Revelation is filled with similar references to the Old Testament.  And I contend that this reference to the drying up of the Euphrates is a similar reference meant to convey a point that is readily understood once we refer back to that event in ancient times when the actual Euphrates did dry up, and Cyrus thereby conquered Babylon.

God is simply trying to tell us that Jerusalem, spiritual Babylon, would likewise fall!

Chalfant insists, “The apostle Peter does not hold this view that prophecy is only ‘biblical imagery’ in his interpretation of Joel 2.”   I contend that Peter certainly did hold that view!  Did all flesh receive the Spirit in Acts 2?  Did animals and birds and fish receive the Spirit?  Joel said it would be all flesh!  Did North American Indians receive the Spirit that day?  They were flesh, too!  “All flesh” literally did not receive God’s Spirit that day in Acts 2.  

Chalfant argues that, “The activity of the Holy Ghost is described in real, literal terms (prophesying, seeing visions, dreaming dreams).”  But what about the following, that we already noted…

John 7:37-39  In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.  (38)  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.  (39)  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Does water literally flow out of our stomachs, as Christ said the experience of the Holy Ghost would accomplish?  Let’s be consistent.


Despite Bro. Chalfant’s reference to rare instances of allegory in the New Testament we have already shown that the Holy Ghost activity in filling souls was likened allegorically to rivers of water finding their way into our lives and becoming wells there.  We also read about “all flesh” receiving the Spirit, when this literally could never occur!  In fact, God said the Spirit would be “poured out” which is never taken to be literal.  Jesus said the Church was salt, a light and a city!

Matthew 5:13-14  Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.  (14)  Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Revelation, which used the thought of Euphrates drying up, is introduced in its first verse of being filled with allegory, since it was events that were “signified”.  To say Revelation is not symbolic is to say that symbolism is not symbolism.

We are talking about the Book of Revelation.  It is jam-packed with imagery.  Jesus is shown as a lamb with seven eyes and horns!  He has fire for eyes in chapter 1!  A sword comes from His mouth!  A city is dressed like a bride with veil and the whole nine yards… or rather 12,000 cubits!  You cannot compare reference to an allegory in Revelation with the rest of the New Testament and say the New Testament rarely uses allegory.

Had Bro. Chalfant referred to the rest of the book of Revelation, and noted that the rest of Revelation rarely uses symbolism, he would easily be proven wrong.  But he wisely chooses to take our attention off Revelation’s jam-packed book of allegories and turn us to the rest of the New Testament.  The Revelation is a unique book in the New Testament.  No other book was introduced as being “signifying.”

Bro Chalfant’s, “real astronomical phenomena”  involve the stars of Heaven falling to earth, which is an utter impossibility due to the size of stars, in comparison with our local sun!


Chalfant wrote, “Joel Used The Phrase ‘Nigh At Hand’ For An Event Some 800 Years Later”.  He hereby implies that John’s use of “at hand” in Revelation is therefore not restrictive to a mere 30 years or less, as partial preterists insist.  Joel’s writings and John’s writings, though, must be delineated as distinct in style in their instances of the use of  “at hand”. Here is the reason why.  

When such a statement as “at hand” or “soon to come” is made in the midst and as part of an actual vision, even the statement is figurative.  The setting of the vision being described, with such a statement being said outside the vision  would be a literal statement, but such a statement made in the midst of a vision would not be.  

Deuteronomy 32:35  To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Notice “at hand” is mentioned here.  This is the song of Moses.  We know this was not fulfilled for centuries.  This is spoken, though, in the song, in the prophetic spirit.  But when we refer back to the setting of the vision, with statements made outside the song and the prophecy itself, we read…

Deuteronomy 31:29  For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Deuteronomy 32:29  O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end!

We read about the “latter days” in chapter 31 outside the prophetic.  But in the prophetic song, we read of “at hand”.  Revelation’s statements of “at hand” are spoken outside the actual visions.

This is all speaking of 70 AD.

Deuteronomy 32:43  Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.

The above words are fulfilled here:

Rev 19:2  For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

So we cannot dismiss the “at hand” statements in Revelation as being literal, by looking to the Old Testament statements mentioned in visions and the spirit.

Chalfant assumes that Jesus ends his speech from Isaiah 61:2 at the point He did because the events following verse 2 are supposed to be futuristic endtime events.  He claims, “Jesus, at His first coming, only fulfilled part of Isaiah 61.2.”  It is pure and absolute assumption to state that was the reason Jesus stopped reading.  Are we to assume all New Testament quotes from the Old Testament stopped where they did because the latter parts regarded some future endtime set of events separated by thousands of years from the issues at hand?   Or do we do so just when it is convenient for futurists to demand we do so in order to believe their futuristic interpretation of prophecy?  



I already listed reasons that prove Revelation was written before 70 AD.  Let me list them again.

• The many "coming soon" and "at hand" passages (1:1, 2:16, 3:11, 22:6-20) only make sense if events matching the symbolism of Revelation were not too far in the future. The Jewish themes would make no sense after 70 A.D. - there was nothing left of the Jewish state.
• A 2nd Century manuscript of Revelation says it was written when Nero was Caesar (68 A.D.).
• There were still Judaizers in the church at that time (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) - impossible after 70A.D.
• The temple is apparently still standing in chapter 11.
• If the temple had already been destroyed, one would expect at least one mention of it somewhere in the book of Revelation, seeing that would be a monumental event to the church.
• Revelation 2:2 shows that there were other apostles around - yet it is believed that all but John were dead by 70 A.D.
• Irenaeus' statement regarding Domitian's reign is difficult to interpret and based on a secondary source (which I noted earlier in this letter). In the same passage he also mentions "ancient copies" of Revelation in existence which makes little sense if they were only a few years old.
• Evidence for a massive persecution by Domitian (81-96 A.D.) is lacking.
• The only time there were only 7 churches in Asia was the early 60's.
• John was told he must prophesy again before kings (10:11) . . . he would have been over 90 if the late date is correct. Stories of his actions after being released from Patmos are difficult to reconcile with an aged man.

As expected, Chalfant refers in external evidence to Irenaeus.  

“The greatest external evidence is the early witness of the prominent Catholic bishop Irenaeus (130-202 AD) of Lyons, France. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies (V.30.3) clearly states that the apostle John saw his vision on the isle of Patmos in c.96 AD during the reign of the emperor Domitian.”

It is not clear that Irenaeus referred to the writing of the book of Revelation as being made in the days of Domitian, as we noted beforehand.  Irenaeus may have referred to John, himself, or the document of the Revelation was seen then.  But a certain “it” was seen, and it is certainly not conclusive that “it” was the vision given to John.  

Arguments have always been given from both sides of the coin as to which date was correct for the writing of Revelation. I think the above reasons prove it was an early date.

At any rate, Chalfant’s entire fear of preterism is merely the thought that Preterism restricts the scope of judgment to be upon Jerusalem and Israel, when he feels it is global.  That was Chalfant’s major concern.  If Chalfant was correct, and the judgment is upon all the planet and not just upon Jerusalem in 70 AD, why is the contrary opinion so dangerous to Apostolics?  What difference does it make?

He was fearful that allegorizing scripture would lean towards the trinity belief or that speaking in tongues is allegorized away to something other than actually speaking in tongues.  That is sheer folly.  I have indicated repeatedly that our reference to allegory and imagery and figurative speech is carefully made upon research and reference to established Old Testament instances of the same, which cannot be refuted.  

In summary, I feel , as an Apostolic Partial Preterist, that it is absolutely unfair to accuse Apostolics, who preach partial preterism, of being dangerous in that sense, while we strongly preach and teach a future visible coming of Christ, physical resurrection and Great White throne judgment.  When none of the Apostles said anything close to the idea of a regathering of Israel to their land, a millennium, and a reinstatement of Mosaic animal sacrifice to be honoured by God, but stated quite the opposite, it is emphatically unfair and foolhardy to consider us a danger to the Apostolic movement.  We propose Acts 2:38 stronger than any futurist of prophecy could do so, since we allege that  nothing but Acts 2:38 will ever be the way to the Kingdom of God.  Pre-trib folks adhere to a reversion of God to Old Testament sacrifices, or at least they preach a watered-down version of that original dispensationalistic tenet.  We propose that Paul interpreted the commandment that Israel was to to obey, from Deuteronomyteronomy 30, to be obedience to the word of faith concerning Christ, in Romans 10, before God could regather Israel anywhere!  We propose Acts 2:38 salvation to be in effect when pre-trib proponents propose it will not.  If anything could be dangerous to Apostolic doctrine, which might it be in this light?