Hyper-Preterism IS Full Preterism
Don't Be Fooled By Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess
There’s a growing trend among certain preterist thinkers to distance themselves from the label hyper-preterist. You’ll often hear claims that what they hold to is not “hyper” or “full-stop” preterism but something more “exegetically nuanced,” more balanced—something supposedly in between hyper and partial. A recent statement by Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess illustrates this rhetorical move well:
Neither Gary nor I espouse what has been called “hyper preterism” or what I prefer to label as “AD-70 full-stop preterism.” The position on preterism taken herein seeks to carve out a much more exegetically nuanced and, therefore, a more faithful version of preterism. It is neither a hyper or full-stop preterism that goes too far by seeing everything as wholly completed by AD 70, nor is it the all-too-common position known as “partial preterism” which is “inconsistent preterism” or “arbitrarily-bifurcated preterism.”1
This sounds thoughtful and measured until you understand the history behind the term hyper-preterism, and how such rhetorical shifts function to mask the underlying theological problems.
The term hyper-preterist was originally coined by Reformed theologians to distinguish a certain extreme form of preterism, one that went beyond the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.2 It was meant to highlight that this version of preterism denied future realities that are essential to the Christian faith: the bodily return of Christ, the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. By claiming that all of these eschatological events had already occurred in the first century, proponents of this view had, in effect, abandoned historic Christian doctrine.
Naturally, those holding to full preterism didn’t appreciate being labeled "hyper," as they saw it as dismissive and derogatory. In response, full preterists like Ward Fenley attempted to shift the terminology.3 They sought to reserve "hyper-preterism" for an even more radical fringe—those who denied the ongoing relevance of the Gospel altogether, asserting that it was merely a promise to Old Covenant Israel and has no bearing on anyone today. This group, which many inside the full preterist movement used to call "Israel Only" (or I.O.) preterists, became the new scapegoat to absorb the "hyper" label, allowing the broader movement to appear more moderate by comparison.
Unfortunately, individuals like Gary DeMar have either forgotten or misunderstood this history. He has adopted the rhetorical sleight of hand that Ward Fenley and others introduced, which comes as no surprise. This is consistent with the broader strategy within hyper-preterism, which often depends on redefining theological terms like “resurrection,” “second coming,” and “judgment.” If you can successfully reshape the vocabulary, you can redirect the theological conversation. Gary, along with others like Kim Burgess, participates in this effort to make their version of full preterism appear more acceptable by distancing it from the more radical "hyper" expressions. But the irony is hard to miss: the so-called "I.O." position is simply the logical end point of full preterism. It is not some aberration; it is the natural conclusion of the system.
Consider David Curtis, one of the most prominent voices in the full preterist movement and frequently promoted by Gary DeMar. Within that circle, Curtis is treated as balanced and thoughtful. No one in the movement would call him a "hyper-preterist." And yet, Curtis has plainly taught that since the consummation is already fulfilled, there will be no meaningful change in the believer at death. Incredibly, he even asserts that heaven will not be a sin-free zone.4 This is not some fringe view. It is full preterism carried to its logical conclusion. If everything has already taken place, and you already possess all there is to possess, then there is nothing left to anticipate. There is no resurrection to await, no final deliverance from sin, and no future glorified life with Christ. That is not good news. It is the death of Christian hope.
But the New Testament gives us a different picture. First, it never separates salvation from eschatology. The two are bound together throughout the biblical witness. Salvation is not only about what Christ has already accomplished through His death and resurrection, but also about what He will yet bring to completion at His return. And secondly, since Scripture does not separate salvation from its future fulfillment, any theology that does so by placing the consummation entirely in the past ultimately departs from the biblical Gospel. Forgiveness and reconciliation are essential, but they are only part of the larger redemptive work. The full scope of salvation includes the resurrection of the body, final glorification, and the renewal of creation. These are not past events. They are future promises that define the hope of the Church and the very purpose of Christ’s ongoing work as our risen and returning King.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul insists that if there is no future resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised, and we are still in our sins. In Romans 8:23, Paul says that we "wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." This is not a hope that belongs to the past. It is something yet to be fulfilled.
In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul tells us that our citizenship is in heaven, and from there we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly bodies to be like His glorious body. This transformation has not yet occurred. It is tied directly to the personal return of Christ. Likewise, in Acts 3:21, Peter speaks of a time when Christ will return to restore all things. That restoration is still future.
In 1 Peter 1:5, believers are described as being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. And in 2 Peter 3, Peter rebukes those who scoff at the promise of Christ’s coming, and he reminds us that the present heavens and earth will be replaced by new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. This is the world we are waiting for, not one that arrived in AD 70.
To deny these promises is to deny the shape and content of biblical salvation. Full preterism does not simply place the Gospel in the past. It replaces the Gospel altogether. It removes resurrection, judgment, and glorification from the Christian message. It breaks the link between Christ’s finished work and His coming consummation. In doing so, it leaves no room for a future inheritance, no deliverance from sin’s presence, and no final victory over death.
This is not a harmless shift in emphasis. It is a wholesale theological rejection. Once you redefine the Gospel to exclude the promises God gives to His people, you are not preaching another version of Christianity. You are preaching something else entirely.
Do not be misled by those like Gary DeMar who claim that their version of full preterism is moderate or more refined. It is not. It is the same system, with the same fatal consequences. There is no meaningful difference between what they teach and what has historically been called hyper-preterism. Changing the label does not change the reality. A view that denies the return of Christ, the future resurrection, and the final judgment is not just extreme. It is false. And it cannot save.
Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar, The Hope of Israel and the Nations: New Testament Eschatology Accomplished and Applied, Vol. 1 (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2024), xvii.
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., “A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism,” The Chalcedon Report, July 1997, 22–24; Vern Crisler, “The Eschatological A Priori of the New Testament: A Critique of Hyper-Preterism,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 15 (Winter 1998): 225–56.
http://www.newcreationministries.tv/full-vs-hyper-preterism.html
