Interpreting Revelation - Four Views: Preterist

This is part 3 of 5 in a series this week giving an overview of the four major interpretive approaches to the book of Revelation. Yesterday we discussed the futurist view, which sees most of Revelation as being prophecy looking to our future and has not yet occurred. 

Today we are taking a look at the interpretive opposite of the futurist view called the "Preterist" view. The word for this view comes from Latin word "praeter" which means "past". While the futurist view sees Revelation as mostly in the future, the preterist view sees Revelation as mostly in the past. While the futurist sees John's testimony as referring to signs and events that are in our future, preterist interpreters view John's prophecy as either symbolic retelling of events in John's past or prophetic forecasts of things which were in John's future, but our past. 

The name for preterists therefore comes from a description of the nature of the relationship of the interpreter and the events of Revelation. All preterists would affirm that Revelation is mostly about things which are in OUR past.  Some preterists believe that Revelation is mostly about things in OUR past and JOHN's past. Some preterists argue that Revelation was written in the last decade of the first century (usually between 94-98 A.D.), while others argue Revelation was written in the early to mid 60s A.D. 

Two sorts of Preterists

Just like there is differentiation among futurists over symbolism and chronology within Revelation, there are differences among Preterists regarding just how much of Revelation is about the past. While the futurist sees Revelation 1:19 as the proverbial "table of contents", preterists differ over exactly what and when different events within Revelation have already happened. 

Because much of this debate within preterism hangs on the date of when Revelation was written we will call one group the "later daters" and one group the "early daters". Insert whatever joke you'd like to make about 1st century courtship practices here. 

One group of preterists believe that the entirety of Revelation has already happened. Meaning that the book of Revelation was either a recap of events that occurred around 70 A.D. (That date will come up frequently today due to its special significance for preterists) or a prophetic vision of what would occur around 70 A.D. with the destruction of the temple in the culminating disaster of the Roman siege of Jerusalem. Preterists heavily cite historical points of reference and internal passages within Revelation to further argue their case. Particularly of note are early Roman historians and Jewish contemporaries of John such as Josephus who wrote a detailed account of the rebellion leading up and the ghastly conclusion to the siege of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).

Not all "later daters" are believers. Some academic scholars have been very receptive to the argument that Revelation must have been written after 70 A.D. and that it was a rather vindicative and hopeful literary work of John (or potentially someone pretending to be John). These scholars' perspective needs to be clearly set apart from other preterists who are, Bible believing, Jesus loving, born-again, repentant Christians. 

The second group of preterists in the "early daters" group interpret most of Revelation as though it was prophecy given to John prior to the events of the catastrophic, systematic, complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Roman Vespasian. In this view, Christ gave John his vision and message as a forewarning of the judgement to come in time and space within the lifetime of the original audience.  Some "early daters" believe that portions of Revelation extend beyond the events of 70 A.D. into the early stages of the life of the church. 

Some preterists consider all of Revelation to have already been fulfilled (including new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21-22). These sorts of preterists sometimes go by the names of "full preterist" or "hyper preterist" or "consistent preterist". For these preterists there is no prophecy that is yet to come, the resurrection of the dead has already taken place, and the final coming of Christ has already occurred. (This is the only time in this series I will speak to my own interpretive framework. I am NOT a full preterist. This position I believe is not reconcilable with the rest of the scriptures in my understanding)

Other preterists consider most of Revelation to have been fulfilled within the first century, while other portions have not yet been fulfilled (such as Revelation 20-22). These sorts of preterists sometimes are called "partial preterists". Partial preterists still look forward to a bodily resurrection after death, a final coming of Christ, and a remaking of the heavens and earth. 

This view has the advantage of immediate relevance to the original readers, a feature we would strongly expect to find in an epistle. It also is the only view that does not need an alternative to the literal sense of passages like Revelation 1:1 and 19, which affirm that the events predicted “must shortly come to pass” and “are about to take place”; and like Revelation 22:10, where John is told not to seal up the book, because “the time is at hand.” When this is contrasted with Daniel’s being commanded to seal up his book because it would not be immediately fulfilled (Dan. 12:9), this seems a deliberate promise that there would be no great interval between the time Revelation was written and the time of its fulfillment. A degree of stretching, or even desperation, is sometimes discernible in the comments of non-preterists on such passages.

Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), 38.

Since preterists see the first century as the interpretive framework for John's prophecy, connections are made between the symbolic language of Revelation and the people, places, and events of the first century. For many within the partial preterist group the beast of Revelation is the Roman emperor Nero. Some believe that the city of Babylon in Revelation is the capital city of the empire: Rome. The woman riding the beast (who is later devoured) is Jerusalem, or the Sanhedrin which rejected Jesus. Some interpret the coming judgement of Christ as a preview of the ultimate destruction of the temple as a result of a rejection of Jesus. Some preterists believe the new heavens and the earth new are the dawn of the age of the church. As preterists posit, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was the signal that Christianity would now be centered on the worship of Christ, rather than on the celebration and observance of temple rituals. 

For preterists Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are key accompanying guides in interpreting Revelation. In both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Jesus gives his "Olivet discourse" in response to the disciples asking when will the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem take place. For the preterist there is great confidence in honoring Christ's prophecies as being mostly fulfilled (if not totally fulfilled) from those gospel passages. 

A few thoughts about the preterist perspective

Most of you have not heard of preterism before, either conceptually or in practical teaching. Preterism (both full and partial) requires enough of a knowledge of history to theorize either fulfillment of John's writing (early daters), or motivate John to write at all (later daters). For some of us it sounds utterly absurd to consider Revelation as either partially or completely fulfilled. We might think "I haven't seen Jesus riding any clouds lately" even as we consider this interpretive perspective. Yet even the Gospel of Christ was new to us at one time, so we should be respectful and genuine in our questioning of this interpretive framework. Here are a few questions I ask regarding preterism:

• The New Testament frequently speaks about the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4) and Christ's return. How does preterism account for these otherwise seemingly future events stated elsewhere in the New Testament? 
• Preterism depends heavily on the dating of when John received his vision wrote this book. What internal (inside Revelation) and external (outside of Revelation) evidence is there for the dating that a particular version of preterism asserts?
• Without the benefit of historical data from archeology and witnesses like Josephus would preterism be as convincing to you? 

I ask these questions with the utmost respect for this interpretive approach to Revelation. These are some questions to consider for my brothers and sisters in the Lord who take a preterist approach to interpreting Revelation. I'll be doing the same thing for the next 2 interpretive perspectives.