Full Preterism understands the major eschatological promises of the New Testament as reaching their fulfillment in the first century, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
The most important objection to Full Preterism is that Paul supposedly teaches a future resurrection of physically dead bodies in 1 Corinthians 15. But before deciding what Paul meant, we need to follow Paul's own argument.
Paul begins by saying that Christ was raised from the dead and that He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep:
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."
— 1 Corinthians 15:20
Then Paul gives the sequence:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end."
— 1 Corinthians 15:22-24
Notice the structure:
Christ → those who belong to Christ → the end.
Paul is describing an eschatological sequence. The question is therefore not whether resurrection happens, but what Paul means by resurrection and what he means by "the end."
Paul anticipates the obvious question:
"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"
— 1 Corinthians 15:35
Paul's answer is crucial. He does not say that the exact same biological body simply comes back to life. Instead, he compares resurrection to a seed.
"That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die."
— 1 Corinthians 15:36
A seed is planted, and what emerges is not simply the seed in its previous form. Paul uses this transformation to explain resurrection.
He then gives four contrasts:
Paul's conclusion is explicit:
"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body."
— 1 Corinthians 15:44
This is the point often missed in the objection. Paul does not describe the resurrection body as another ordinary natural body. He specifically calls it a spiritual body.
Paul then says:
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
— 1 Corinthians 15:50
Paul is explaining why transformation is necessary. The corruptible must put on incorruption. The mortal must put on immortality.
This is why Paul says:
"We shall all be changed."
— 1 Corinthians 15:51
The emphasis is therefore transformation, not merely the resuscitation of corpses.
Paul's language becomes even more significant when we reach the climax:
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
— 1 Corinthians 15:26
Full Preterism understands this "death" within the covenantal framework Paul inherited from Scripture.
The Bible had already used death and resurrection language to describe Israel's covenantal condition and restoration. Ezekiel 37, for example, describes Israel as dry bones and then describes those bones being brought to life:
"These bones are the whole house of Israel."
— Ezekiel 37:11
Israel's restoration from covenantal death is therefore explicitly described as resurrection.
Paul's resurrection teaching should consequently be read within this larger biblical framework rather than assuming that the word "resurrection" automatically means the physical reanimation of every corpse in world history.
Paul connects the resurrection with Christ's coming:
"Afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
— 1 Corinthians 15:23
He then says:
"Then cometh the end."
— 1 Corinthians 15:24
Jesus had already told His disciples that His coming and the events of the Olivet Discourse would occur within their generation:
"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
— Matthew 24:34
Therefore, the Full Preterist argument is not: "Paul didn't believe in resurrection."
It is: "Paul believed in resurrection, but the resurrection he described was the transformation from the old covenant age into the perfected New Covenant order, and he placed its consummation at Christ's coming and the end."
That interpretation also explains why Paul could speak of believers already possessing resurrection life while still awaiting its consummation:
"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."
— Ephesians 2:1
The resurrection reality was already being experienced spiritually, while its covenantal consummation remained future to Paul's generation.
The objection assumes:
"Resurrection = physical corpses coming back to biological life at the end of world history."
But Paul himself describes resurrection as:
"It is raised a spiritual body."
The real debate is therefore not whether Paul believed in resurrection. He unquestionably did. The debate is what kind of resurrection Paul described, what "death" was being defeated, and when Paul expected its consummation.
Critics argue that Christ's coming must mean a future physical descent from heaven to earth. But Scripture repeatedly uses "coming" language for divine intervention and judgment.
"Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt."
— Isaiah 19:1
The LORD's "coming" against Egypt describes judgment, not a literal human-like journey through the atmosphere.
Jesus uses the same prophetic imagery:
"They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
— Matthew 24:30
And immediately establishes the time:
"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
— Matthew 24:34
Full Preterism therefore understands Christ's coming as His coming in judgment and kingdom authority, culminating in the events of AD 70.
The Bible can use "heaven and earth" to describe more than the physical universe. Moses uses the language covenantally:
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you."
— Deuteronomy 30:19
Isaiah then speaks of a "new heavens and a new earth":
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth."
— Isaiah 65:17
Peter later uses the same prophetic language in 2 Peter 3. The Full Preterist interpretation therefore understands the "new heavens and new earth" as the New Covenant order replacing the old covenant order, rather than requiring the physical destruction and recreation of the universe.
The objection depends upon defining resurrection as the future reanimation of physical corpses. But Paul describes resurrection as transformation into a spiritual body, explicitly contrasting the natural body with the spiritual body.
He also says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The passage therefore describes a transformation from mortality and corruption into immortality and incorruption.
The question becomes one of timing. Paul places the resurrection at Christ's coming and then says, "Then cometh the end." Jesus placed the fulfillment of His eschatological coming within His generation.
Full Preterism therefore understands 1 Corinthians 15 as describing the consummation of resurrection life at the end of the Old Covenant age rather than a resurrection thousands of years after Paul's generation.
2 Timothy 2:17-18 says that Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection was already past.
Paul's condemnation establishes that their teaching was false, but it does not establish that the resurrection could not be fulfilled in the first century.
Full Preterism does not claim Paul taught that the resurrection had already occurred when Paul wrote 2 Timothy. It places the fulfillment at the later consummation associated with Christ's coming and AD 70.
Acts 1:11 says:
"This same Jesus ... shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."
The key background is Daniel 7:13, where the Son of Man comes with the clouds to the Ancient of Days and receives kingdom authority.
Jesus applies this same imagery to Himself before the high priest in Matthew 26:64.
Full Preterism therefore understands the coming of Christ primarily through the biblical imagery of enthronement, judgment, and kingdom authority rather than assuming that the passage requires a future physical descent to earth.
Romans 8 describes creation groaning while awaiting the revealing of the sons of God. 2 Peter 3 speaks of new heavens and a new earth.
But Peter is using language already found in Isaiah 65. The interpretive question is therefore whether Peter is describing the destruction of the physical universe or the covenantal transformation described by Isaiah.
Full Preterism understands the language through its Old Testament prophetic context and sees the new creation as the New Covenant order.
The New Testament certainly contains both present and future language. The question is: future relative to whom?
The kingdom was already inaugurated, believers already possessed spiritual life, and Christ had already been raised. Yet the apostles continued to await the consummation of the age in which they lived.
Full Preterism places that remaining "not yet" within the first-century transition from the Old Covenant age to the fully established New Covenant order.
Historic Christianity overwhelmingly came to confess a future resurrection and future consummation. That historical fact should be acknowledged.
But historical tradition and biblical exegesis are not identical questions. The decisive question for a Protestant interpretation is what the biblical authors actually meant.
Full Preterism therefore gives priority to Scripture's own language, context, time statements, and Old Testament background.
Full Preterism does not teach that Christianity ended in AD 70. It teaches that the prophetic transition ended in AD 70.
Christ reigns. The New Covenant is established. Believers have access to God through Christ. God dwells with His people. The New Jerusalem represents the fulfilled covenant relationship between God and His people.
"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them."
— Revelation 21:3
The Christian is therefore not waiting for God to finally establish the New Covenant. The Christian lives within it.
Paul's resurrection language describes transformation into a spiritual body and connects the resurrection with Christ's coming and the end.
Biblical "coming" language can describe divine judgment and enthronement, and Jesus explicitly connected His coming with events occurring within His generation.
"New heavens and new earth" already existed as prophetic covenant language before Peter used it, making a covenantal interpretation of 2 Peter 3 possible without requiring the destruction of the physical universe.
The Full Preterist case ultimately rests on allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Resurrection should be interpreted through the Bible's resurrection language. Christ's coming should be interpreted through the Bible's coming and judgment language. New heavens and new earth should be interpreted through their prophetic context. And all three should be interpreted alongside the explicit time statements made by Jesus and the apostles.
The central question is therefore simple:
Did Jesus and the apostles teach that these eschatological promises would be fulfilled in their generation?
If they did, then AD 70 is not merely an interesting historical event. It represents the covenantal climax of the prophetic age described throughout the New Testament.