Systems of Interpretation - Part 3

Futurist Interpretive Systems 

This system of interpretation is characterized by maintaining that most (some would say all) events foretold in the New Testament using apocalyptic imagery or symbolic language will not be realized until the last generation. This places prophetic fulfillments in our own future and means that during all the ages of the church from the earliest days until now none of these was fulfilled. These include such passages as the prophecy that Jesus shared on the Mount of Olives (often termed the Olivet Discourse) about the coming destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21), Paul's reference to the man of lawlessness (II Thessalonians 2:1-12 - which some equate with the idea of a personal antichrist) and the events depicted symbolically in Revelation chapters 4-22. There are others as well, but the key concept is that most futurists assert that all of the New Testament apocalyptic prophecies represent future events. Further, they also affirm that other eschatological sections of the Bible, such as the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel, are also going to occur in our own future. 

Many futurists divide the book of Revelation into three sections according to Revelation 1:19 where John is commanded to "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later." In this interpretive schema, chapter 1 of Revelation describes the past ("what you have seen"), chapters 2 and 3 relate to the present of John's day ("what is now"), and the remainder of the book describes future events ("what will take place later"). 

Literalism Discussion 

A number of futurist systems posit that a portion of the language of Revelation is symbolic and not intended to be interpreted literally. However, a hallmark of futurism is its insistence on a literal interpretation for visionary or symbolic events. To a futurist, interpretation should be realized through a grammatical, historical and contextual method of interpretation. By grammatical they intend an interpretation according to the grammatical rules. By historical they state they want to maintain consistency with the historical setting of the passage. By contextual they propose to examine the passage in accord with its literary context. Literalism focuses on the actual words and phrases of a passage. They maintain that allegorical or non-literal interpretation may alter the concept to one not intended or implied in the text of a passage.  

While there may be some apparent merit to such an approach, it is really rather shallow and not consistent with hermeneutic principles such as the PARDES type of approaches to Biblical exegesis. This approach has its roots in rabbinic Judaism but is still very useful for Christian Biblical students. This approach leads to a surface understanding only (the peshat or the plain, simple or direct meaning). Careful examination of Scripture will show that while it is intended for anyone studying Scripture to understand the surface meaning, God's Word always has deeper levels of meaning beyond the surface meaning. The PARDES exegetical approach recognizes this and attempts to look much deeper, interpreting meanings beside the plain text. Serious Bible scholars will look to see what additional meanings God has and insights He intends for us to achieve. 

We know that Jesus often used the remez portion of this approach in His teaching by trying to point the deeper allegoric or symbolic meaning beyond just the literal sense. One example that should be familiar to all students is when He discussed being "born again" with Nicodemus in John 3:1-21. Nicodemus at first did not understand when only looking at the surface or literal meaning. This lead to the famous reply that begins with "You are Israel’s teacher and you do not understand these things" and culminates in the beloved John 3:16ff so often cited.  We examined remez in some detail in an earlier post relating to Jesus and His use of Jeremiah symbolism during His last week in Jerusalem. In particular, His cursing of the fig tree (which on a surface level may be a seemingly capricious and arbitrary act) was intended as a direct allegory to Jeremiah even though Scripture presents it as a literal event with no commentary. If Jesus used remez and similar strategies in His direct teaching, does it stand to reason that God and Jesus intended us to only look at the surface meaning of apocalyptic or prophetic imagery? To use another example, Christians are familiar with the parables. Are we to interpret the parables only with their surface meaning? The answer is obvious to any serious Bible student. 

Even when a futuristic approach asserts it is trying to achieve the goal of a literal interpretation for symbolic passages, in reality futurists often go beyond the text and try interpret it by fitting events or current (in their era) historical trends into their view of prophecy very much like preterists or historicists. The difference is that while the other two schools try to fit events that have already occurred (or are in the process of unfolding) into fulfillments of the symbolic prophecies, futurists look to the future and try to fit trends in their own current era into the fulfillment of the symbols. This means that futurists are more dependent on "current events" in their own era when trying to give a real world understanding to the allegorical language of Revelation. 

Another problem is that when intending to be quite literal, futurists often incorrectly apply the very symbols they seek to interpret in this manner. We already examined the symbolism of mountains in an earlier post about interpretation principles. In that examination we found that the usage of a mountain symbolically refers to the leadership of the people being addressed in the prophecy. Often this was symbolic of the Jewish leadership (both civil and religious) but it can also refer to other governments (including secular ones). However, futurists often try to interpret an image like a mountain being cast into the sea (Revelation 8:8) as necessarily implying a literal event such as a large meteor strike or a nuclear missile. One example follows where we can look at how this literalism may be misplaced. We will examine the seventy weeks (seventy sevens) prophecy of Daniel in detail. 

Daniel's Final Week and Armageddon - In futurist interpretations the period called the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:16) is often connected with the seventieth week of Daniel 9:24-27. This week is "cut off" in the middle and thereby to futurists is interpreted as either the week itself being separated from the previous sixty-nine weeks or as the second part of the week only being separated. This separation covers many centuries (over 2,500 years as of the present day) and the fulfillment in that school of thought is in the events of Armageddon. 

In actuality this analysis represents a failure of the literalist method of interpretation. First, it misses the context of Daniel 9 where the entire chapter revolves around Daniel realizing that the 70 years of Babylonian Exile (Captivity) prophesied by Jeremiah had concluded. Daniel petitions God in an intercessory prayer, first acknowledging the sins of Judah and God's righteous judgment and then pleading for God's grace to restore Jerusalem. The angel Gabriel flies to Daniel and gives the seventy weeks prophecy.  

1.     The number 70 is an interesting one in Jewish thought. First it is a compound number with the factors of 7 (often symbolic of perfection) and 10 (often symbolic of completeness). Taken together this means a symbolism of complete perfection. Jesus used this in a remez teaching when Peter asked how many times to forgive in Matthew 18:21-22 and thought his concept of forgiving seven times (symbolic of perfection) is good. Jesus answers with needing to forgive seventy times seven (many modern translations try to say 77 instead) which is interesting because it implies perfection that is raised to completeness and then multiplied again by perfection. This number also parallels the 490 year period of Daniel chapter 9.  We will examine numerical symbolism in more detail in future posts since these are important components of both Gods' Word both in prophecy and in interpretation.

2.     Gabriel, acting as God's prophetic messenger, declares "seventy weeks [of years] are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place [one]". Note that the culmination is to bring the perfection of God's righteousness. Futurists get this wrong since this is a Messianic promise in a direct response to Daniel's acknowledgement of God's plan in restoring righteousness to Judah. Just as God restored righteousness in Judah, now He promises He will bring complete perfection to the world through the coming Messiah and the symbol will be the time period which will be another period of seventy (seventy times seven years).

3.     Rather than follow an arbitrary cut off for the seventieth week, we can examine if there is a holistic 490 year period that matches this prophecy. We can do so as follows:

a.   The prophetic period starts "from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" in verse 25. There are three candidate dates for this. The first is the initial return to Judah and the environs of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel in approximately 539 or 538 BC which was shortly after the prophecy in Daniel 9 as told in Ezra 1-5. The second is the return under Ezra (beginning in Ezra 7) in 458-457 BC with the proclamation of the Persian king Darius to carry out the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the decree of Artaxerxes I for Ezra to carry out the decree of Cyrus (which is the primary focus of the book of Ezra). The third is a private commission to Nehemiah in 445 BC. Of these, the return under Ezra most closely meets the concept of the "word going out" since the first decree was thwarted and it required a second decree from both Darius and Artaxerxes I to be carries to Jerusalem with a lot of fanfare for Jerusalem and the Temple to be rebuilt. This return is the primary event or focus for the book of Ezra. The return under Nehemiah was a private pilgrimage.

b.  If we begin with 458-457 as the starting point, this would place the end of a 490 year period (the end of the seventieth week) to be either 33 or 34 AD (there is no year 0 AD). However, the seventieth week has an important event where the anointed one "shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease". This "midweek" event would then be about 29 or 30 AD (3½ years prior to the end of the week) . We know Jesus was born as much as 2 years prior to the death of Herod the Great which we can reliably date to 4 BC and we know He was 30 years old when He began His public ministry (Luke 3:23). If Jesus were born in 4-5 BC, He would have begun His ministry in about 26-27 AD and continued until about 29-30 AD (interestingly that ministry spanned 3½ years or half of a week of years) when He made "sacrifice and offering cease" with His own death on the cross. History tells us the death of Stephen triggered the expansion of the early church out of Jerusalem and is variously dated around 32-35 AD, most commonly 34-35. We simply do not know the exact date, but it is interesting that these dates also correspond to the end of the seventieth week in this prophetic period.

c.   There is another interesting (though somewhat speculative) line of evidence to consider. Remember that Daniel was made ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed in charge of all its wise men (magi) after interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2. It is very likely that these wise men or magi became familiar with the prophecies of Daniel and that this is one reason why they were aware that the time of the seventy weeks was near to being fulfilled. This may have been why they followed the star and came to Jerusalem looking for the Messiah. 

Contrast the preceding with the futurist logic that ties the seventieth week to the end times and divorces it from any Messianic promise. According to many futurists, Chapters 4-19 of Revelation refer to a period known as the seven-year "Tribulation" (using Daniel 9:27). The futurists seek to compress the events of Revelation into this seven year period (some compressing them into a 3½ year time frame). During this time of "Tribulation", God will pour out His judgments upon the remnant of mankind left behind after the so-called Rapture in the events of the various seals, trumpets, and bowls. According to this theory, chapter 13 describes a future world government headed by a political and religious leader depicted by the two beasts. Chapter 17 pictures a harlot who represents the church in apostasy during this time frame. Chapter 19 refers to Christ’s return (really this would be the Third Coming since he came and "raptured" Christians) and the battle of Armageddon followed by a literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth in chapter 20. Chapters 21-22 are events that follow the millennial rule of Christ on the earth. These include the creation of a new heaven and a new earth and the arrival of the heavenly city of Jerusalem upon the earth.

The point of this is to show that trying to make the seventieth week of Daniel 9 correspond to a period of tribulation at the end of time is actually less likely to be a correct interpretation of that passage. This is especially true in if the last week is artificially dissociated from the preceding weeks. Unless the entire prophecy of Daniel 9 represents a future event this does not seem to represent a valid analysis. If one were to take the position that the entire prophecy is a future event, the corollary is that the final week may not occur for at least another 483 years since there has never been a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. Some futurists maintain that the establishment of the secular state of Israel in 1948 is that event in which case then it would have two problems. The first is that it would be at least the year 2431 before the "Rapture" would occur. The second (more critical) error is that this would contain the mistake of pinpointing the end when the Bible is clear that no one will know when that day will occur (Matthew 24:36-41, Luke 17:26-30).

Futurism Concepts 

Modern proponents of futurism hold a number of concepts that have been popularized and often appear as ideas adopted into in popular media since they are somewhat sensationalistic. A few of these include: 

Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12-17) - Futurists maintain this passage predicts that literal earthquakes and astronomical events will occur as a forerunner of Christ's return. 

Rebuilding the Temple and the Two Witnesses (Revelation 11:1-3) - To the Futurist viewpoint, this passage predicts that the Temple must be rebuilt by the Jews and that subsequent to the rebuilding Moses and Elijah will return to the Earth as witnesses. This viewpoint ignores similar apocalyptic imagery found in Ezekiel and Zechariah. It also ignores some clear passages in the Gospels. For example Moses and Elijah already appeared to Jesus and to James, John and Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-5). Jesus also stated that John the Baptist was Elijah who was prophesied to come before the Messiah (Matthew 17:10-13 - "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking about John the Baptist").  

The Rapture - This is a concept that is not found from Revelation at all but instead results from an artificial combining of the seventieth week from the Messianic prophecy in Dan. 9:27, the passage in I Cor. 15:51-54 (where Paul says that we shall not all sleep but shall be changed when the last trumpet sounds)  and the language of I Thess. 4:13-5:4 (where Paul discusses the status both of Christians that have fallen asleep and those who are alive at the Lord's return). In particular, Futurists emphasize the portion of the passage from I Thessalonians that says that those who are alive shall be caught up together with the risen dead to meet the Lord in the air. They interpret that passage as portending that the saved will be "caught up in the air" and avoid the "War of Armageddon." As we discussed above, to the futurist the purpose of the Rapture is to keep the saved from experiencing the judgments of the seven years of tribulation which will see the unfolding of the entire prophecies of Revelation up to the millennium. During the "millennial reign," the Raptured Christians will return to earth and reign with Christ in the Earthly kingdom He failed to establish when He was on Earth (the church is just a "stop gap measure" by this viewpoint). Futurists who believe in the Rapture also use the secondary, somewhat obscure passage in Revelation 20:1-10 where John writes that the martyred dead reigned with Christ for a thousand years and that the rest of the dead did not return to life until the thousand years were finished, calling this the "first resurrection." However, it is quite clear either (1) that the language of Revelation 20 must be figurative or else (2) all of the passages quoted and any others that deal with the resurrection of the dead are in error in their description of the resurrection at the Second Coming. 

Personal Antichrist - Futurists state that the first (sea) beast of Revelation 13:1-10 refers to a great world ruler of personal unrighteousness, erroneously combining Dan. 7:23-28, 8:23-26 and 11:21-39 into this view. In actuality the passage in Daniel 7 refers to Rome and the power of Rome, Daniel 8 and 11 both refer to the times of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties and chapter 11 discusses the notorious Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes. Futurists generally identify the sea beast of Revelation 13 beast as being Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" (II Thess. 2:1-12), but this most likely is a misidentification. The "restraint" on the man of lawlessness actually was the strength of the secular Roman Empire which had to be removed before the apostate rebellion of the church could be revealed. This would logically imply that the sea beast is actually symbolic of the secular persecuting power of Rome and the second (land) beast is the resurrected power of persecution in the rise of the apostate church which was restrained until the first beast was mortally wounded. This corresponds better with what Paul wrote about the man of lawlessness and the restraint. Futurists generally maintain the land beast (Revelation 13:11-18) is the helper of the first beast rather than being the successor beast who takes over from the first. There is a problem in calling either beast the antichrist. The term antichrist only appears in I John 2:18-22; 4:3 and II John 1:7. The term antichrist always (1) refers to numerous individuals, not a single individual, (2) defines antichrist as anyone who denies the fleshly incarnation of Jesus and (3) is said to already be in the world and active in John's day, not in a future era. The term antichrist never occurs in Revelation. 

Premillennialism - This is one of the keynotes of futurist schools (although there is at least one amillennial futurist school that is not recognized as valid in modern times). In the view of premillennialists, Christ will return to Earth, sit on the throne of David with a rebuilt Temple at Jerusalem, and will reign over the Earth for 1000 years from Jerusalem. There are differing positions among futurists as to the nature and character of the millennium and the final state of the saved and lost (for example some believe people may receive a "second chance" during the Millennium and many believe that the non-Raptured people who fight "on the Lord's side" during "Armageddon" will attain salvation). The millennial rule will end in the final victory over the forces of Satan. Since premillennialism is an ubiquitous doctrine and since it simultaneously is so antithetic to Scripture, it should be studied closely. There are at least two major schools of premillennialism. These are Classic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. 

1.     Roots of Premillennialism - The actual roots of the doctrine lie in secular Jewish apocalyptic literature which predicts 1000 years of prosperity and peace for Israel. This concept was applied to Revelation 20 by early Christian writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus. However, these writers all freely admitted that others thought their viewpoints were wrong. Other early Christian writers such as Origen, Dionysius, and Gaius all refuted the millennial view. Finally, Augustine (circa 430 AD) made such a convincing argument for a non-literal (amillennial) interpretation of Revelation 20 that millennial views were not widely accepted until the early 1700s when the views of a number of people reestablished that viewpoint. Among these were Daniel Whitby (1688-1726), Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758).

2.     Dispensationalism - Dispensationalism was a school of premillennialism philosophy developed during the 19th century, a period that also saw the rise of a school of philosophy that secularized the Bible and denied its inspiration and authority. Dispensationalism developed from the speculations of John Nelson Darby during the 1800s. Prior to 1910, there was a conviction that the millennium would represent a period of peace and prosperity that would occur prior to Christ's return (a philosophy first conceived by Daniel Whitney in 1726 and adopted into the mainstream during the 1800's). Since World War I, scholars and theologians have discredited and discarded the Dispensational belief system.

3.     Classical Premillennialism - This school is more conservative than Dispensationalism and only maintains that Christ will come back to Earth and reign for 1,000 years. This "simplistic" view is not accepted by modern millennialists.

4.     Dispensational Premillennialism (Darbyism) - Beyond the admittedly simplistic Classical conviction, dispensational premillennialism reinterprets all Scripture relating to the final judgment. It adds in the doctrines of the postponement of the kingdom using a temporary, stopgap measure (the church), the idea that Satan defeated Christ when He was on earth the first time (hence the need for the final battle of Armageddon), the need for two resurrections, the Rapture, the reestablishment of Israel as God's chosen nation, the rebuilding of the Temple, the battle of Armageddon, and many flavors of interpretations of symbols. This is the "modern" viewpoint held by most futurists, and it is interesting to note that not only does the philosophy have serious problems, but it is very similar to the philosophy that Augustine rejected. 

Historical Roots of Futurism 

The futurist interpretation of Revelation and Daniel has been around since the earliest centuries of the church. Irenaeus held many of the tenets now espoused by futurists. These include the millennial rule of Christ, the idea of the seventieth week of Daniel being the time of the rise of a personal antichrist and similar views. However, his concepts were not as detailed as we find in modern futurist views. Besides Irenaeus, a concept of a future millennial kingdom may be found in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96), Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Tertullian (AD 150-225) and others. Based on this, futurists contend that the literal interpretation of Revelation has roots in the earliest days of the church. Futurists maintain that the church followed a literal interpretation of Revelation until Origen introduced allegorical interpretation and Augustine promulgated amillennialism. 

The arguments of Augustine were persuasive enough that futuristic interpretations were virtually non-existent during the time period from his era until after the Reformation. Jesuit theologian Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) wrote a commentary on the Book of Revelation to counter the Protestant interpretation of historicism. This commentary established the beginnings of modern futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. 

Strengths of Futurism 

1.     There are some events of Revelation which have yet to occur. Although futurists overemphasize the degree and number of the prophecies that remain to be fulfilled, they are correct that parts of Revelation have yet to occur.

2.     Futurists do attempt to combine Scripture outside of Revelation to support their position. They do accept the inspiration of Revelation. They present a strong, logical argument for the merits of their viewpoint, seemingly based on an exhaustive interpretation of Scripture. 

Weaknesses of Futurism 

The principal weakness of the futurist viewpoint is that it is not Biblically accurate. Both the internal and external evidence of Revelation cast doubt on the validity of futurism. 

1.     The system does not properly address the immediacy of Revelation 1:1-3. The language of that passage clearly suggests that the events of Revelation would begin unfolding near John's own day, not in our own future. Any argument that "what must soon take place" implies a time in our own future and thus nearly two millennia removed from the early church is weak and does not meet the futurist's own literalistic interpretative schemes.

2.     The strict literalness of interpretation of the symbols in Revelation constitutes a serious objection. Apocalyptic literature has always been interpreted figuratively unless the context specifies a literal interpretation. Making Revelation into a special case apart from other apocalyptic literature is not a valid position.

3.     Futurists hold that the kingdom is yet to be established and that the church is an afterthought, a stopgap measure instituted by Christ to assuage His defeat by Satan. The church is not a stopgap measure instituted by a defeated Christ. Christ was victorious over Satan on Earth; He was not defeated by Satan. Also the New Testament clearly teaches that the church and the kingdom are synonymous.

4.     The key issue of premillennialism was rejected by early writers from the time of Augustine until it was revived in the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries.

5.     Futurism divorces Revelation entirely from the Christians to whom it was principally written. What comfort would martyred 1st century Christians have had in a divine judgment that would not happen for thousands of years (nearly 2000 years now)?

6.     Futurism not only divorces Revelation from 1st century Christians but also from Christians in all ages except the "last generation". Almost every century has thought Revelation predicted theirs to be the "last days". Since none of the events have yet occurred, futurism divorces Revelation even from the 21st Century. Note that near the end of each century, and particularly at the end of the first and second millennia, many always look to the fulfillment of the literal signs of Revelation and the "end times."

7.     Futurists insist that the visions in the book of Revelation are a continuous series of events and ignore the break between chapters 11 and 12. This indicates a lack of scholarship on the part of futurists based on internal structural evidence from Revelation. It also does not correspond well with their approach to contextual literalism.

 

Systems of Interpretation - Part 2

Preterist Interpretive Systems

The name preterist derives from the English prefix preter (from the Latin praeter) and means past. Preterists schools claim that with the exception of the specific events associated with the Jesus' return, all of the symbolic and visionary prophecies of Revelation have been fulfilled already. Depending on the specific school of thought, the events depicted in the symbols of Revelation were fulfilled either prior to 70 AD or by the end of Diocletian's reign with the Edict of Toleration by Galerius in 311 AD  and the Edict of Milan issued by Constantine in 313 AD.

Preterism is a complicated system with a number of differences in viewpoints; hence it should not be viewed as a single system but rather as a general philosophy of interpretation with multiple variants. Most scholars maintain there are two principal subdivisions of preterist interpretive schools, frequently termed partial preterism and full preterism. A somewhat different classification system breaks preterism into three main subdivisions which are liberal or "left-wing" preterism, Jewish era preterism and conservative preterism. Regardless of how we decide to classify the various views of this system, the real key to all of variants is the philosophic viewpoint that the events depicted in Revelation were fulfilled early in the history of the church. The main contention among the various views relates to the time frame of that fulfillment. A critical factor in this system of interpretation is the date when Revelation was written. According to most of the preterist interpretive systems, Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. This is not universal to all preterist schools because some variants of partial or conservative preterism will look to prophetic fulfillments ending with the Edict of Toleration and the Edict of Milan.

Partial Preterism

Partial preterism teaches that the various Biblical eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem prophesied in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and the antichrist allusions by John in his letters, were either fulfilled in AD 70 or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero. In this view, Chapters 1-3 describe the conditions in the seven churches of Asia Minor prior to the Jewish revolt (AD 66-70). The remaining chapters of Revelation should be combined with Matthew 24 and are a description of the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Some partial preterists identify the image of Babylon the Great (Revelation 17:3-6) as the pagan Roman Empire while others identify it with the city of Jerusalem. Many preterist interpreters identify Nero as the Beast of Revelation 13 and the mark of the beast is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire. One obvious problem with this is that Jesus already used a Roman coin when the Pharisees were testing Him about paying taxes to Rome. When the leaders replied that it was Caesar's image on the coin, Jesus replied with the well known saying "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:20-22 - KJV). It seems inconsistent to think that God's Word would use Roman coinage in this way after Jesus made such a profound observation. Others maintain the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in 68 AD and identify the Beast as another emperor. The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead are the only events that have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.

Full Preterism

Full preterism is similar to partial except that it maintains all eschatological ("end times") events in the New Testament were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem. This includes the resurrection of the dead, Jesus' Second Coming (Parousia) and the Final Judgment. In this view, Christ's Return (or the Day of the Lord) is a judgment of Christ on Jerusalem and not a literal return of Jesus to the earth. This system maintains we are now living in the age of the new heavens and the new earth. Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus says " Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom") requires the second coming to be a first century event. This precludes a physical return of Christ. Full Preterism is considered by most, including preterists with other viewpoints, to be outside of the Christian mainstream. Detractors often refer to full preterism as hyper-preterism due to the extremity of these views. Most Christians view full preterism as heretical because it denies the physical return of Christ and because it teaches an unorthodox (most would say unscriptural) view of the resurrection.

Liberal Preterism

The liberal or so-called "left-wing" school embodies an interpretive viewpoint adopted by radical scholars who generally do not support Biblical inspiration. According to this theory, John modeled Revelation on uninspired (or secular) Jewish apocalyptic literature. According to this analysis, the basic prediction of Revelation was that God would usher in a new Messianic Age which would be preceded by upheavals of the Earth and visitations by God on the unrighteous. Scholars from this perspective maintain that John predicted the rise of an "Antichrist" in his immediate future, and the rise of this personal Antichrist would lead to the destruction of the city and empire of Rome. These scholars maintain that John perceived that the end of the world would be juxtaposed with the immediately forthcoming fall of Rome. However, since Rome lasted several centuries after John's time and since the world still exists, the liberal preterists believe John was wrong and that Revelation is uninspired. Since this is the perspective of scholars who do not support Biblical inspiration, it obviously does not merit further consideration.

Jewish Era Preterists

This is an interpretive viewpoint that maintains Revelation was written as a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem. This argument is used by scholars who date Revelation during Nero's era or prior to 70 AD. The Jewish Era preterist interpretive system encompasses both the partial and full preterist viewpoints that we examined above. The issue of whether or not the Second Coming, the Final Judgment and the new heaven and new earth are future events is not central to this categorization. Instead it seeks to encompass all of the viewpoints that Revelation was written as a prophecy of judgment on Israel in general and Jerusalem in particular. It focuses on God's judgment of Israel due to the rejection of Christ and Rome is generally an agent of that judgment (although Rome itself is seen as an enemy). As with both partial and full preterism, the argument stands or falls on the date of Revelation's writing. If Revelation was written subsequent to 70 AD and it relates to judgment on Israel and Jerusalem, then it is not prophetic. Instead it would be about events that were past. Therefore those who hold this view must date Revelation prior to 70 AD and the viewpoint stands or falls around that crucial date.

Conservative Preterism

Conservative (sometimes referred to as "right-wing") preterism contends that chapters 6 through 16 of Revelation refer to the history of the church during the era of Roman civil persecution, ending with the defeat of persecuting power of Rome when power is taken away from it. According to this philosophy, chapters 6-16 cover a span of time roughly from John's day to the Edict of Milan by Constantine in 313 AD. Chapters 17-19 refer to the final judgment upon, overthrow of, and sacking of Imperial Rome. Other events include:

1.     Revelation 12:6 - "The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days." The 1260 days is also interpretable as 3½ years. This period represents a time of persecution of Christianity by Rome (3½ is the symbol of an indefinite but limited time of suffering).

2.     Revelation 20:1-3 - The "binding" of Satan for a thousand years represents the downfall of organized persecution (loosing would then suggest a future resurgence of persecution?).

3.     Revelation 20:4-6 - In this preterist ideology, the first resurrection symbolizes the triumph or "resurrection" of the cause for which the martyrs died.

Conservative preterism does not require Revelation to have been written prior to 70 AD. In fact, the later date of 95-96 AD accords well with the tenets of this subdivision. This system differs from historicism in that the events are confined to the judgment of God on secular Rome for its persecution of the church; culminating in Rome losing its secular power (although some might maintain this is a subset of historicism).

Conservative preterists do not view the successive events in Revelation as occurring in a continuous series. Instead, scholars who follow this conjecture generally divide Revelation between chapters 11 and 12 into two major series of visions. The first series of visions relate God's Judgment on an evil world, while the second series of visions detail the struggles which the churches will confront. Conservative preterists take an amillennial stand. The millennium is simply a lengthy period during which the church is not actively persecuted.

Brief History of Preterism

One of the earliest references to preterism may derive from Eusebius (ca. 263–339 AD) in his work entitled Theophania. In that tome he cited the works of Josephus and looked to the eschatological implications of Luke 19:41-44 (Jesus' lament over Jerusalem) and the events of Matthew 24 as they related to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not clear that he was advocating a preterist type interpretation of Revelation but he certainly understood the agency of God in the destruction of Jerusalem and judgment against Israel. Proponents of preterism sometimes argue that preterism was the original eschatological understanding of the early church. However that claim is disputed by historicists and futurists.

There has historically been general agreement among scholars that the first roots of preterism trace to the Jesuit priest Luis de Alcazar during the Counter Reformation. His interpretation is basically a reaction to the historicist interpretation of Revelation that identified Catholicism with apostasy and the pope as being the "Antichrist". This emergent interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants. For this reason, preterism has been described as a Catholic defense against the view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.

Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church. It became more widely accepted during the 18th and 19th centuries among Protestant groups.

Strengths of the Preterist System  

1.     The preterist viewpoint in general recognizes appropriate interpretative patterns for the symbols used in Revelation and relates them to Old Testament imagery.

2.     Conservative preterists recognize the correct divisions of Revelation, especially the natural division that falls between chapters 11 and 12.

3.     The conservative interpretative scheme makes Revelation immediately meaningful to 1st century Christians since it promises that God will act to avenge the death of faithful Christians, will vindicate the church, and will destroy the political and persecuting power of Rome.

4.     The preterist interpretative system has been adopted by numerous conservative scholars as constituting the best interpretive system. Within conservative churches, there is a difference of opinion between preterists and historicist interpreters, with the main focus of the difference being the time frame of the period during which the visions will come to pass. While historicists and preterists can and often do disagree on specific interpretations for portions of Revelation (based principally on the respective time frames), they do agree in most cases on the basic method of interpreting the symbols in the book.

Weaknesses of the Preterist System  

1.     Most scholars recognize a division in the series of visions between chapters 4-11 and 12-20 in Revelation. The two series of visions suggest a continuous series of events beginning in or near John's generation that culminate in the Second Coming and Final Judgment. The text strongly implies these are two distinct series of events focusing on different judgments. The first series appears to focus on the secular world and the second series on problems within the church. Preterism addresses this rather weakly by stating that the first series of visions culminates with God's judgment on Jerusalem (or on Rome depending on the specific orientation), while the second series is a reiteration of the first with more differing detail. No really new information is given in Revelation 12-20, only an amplification of 4-11. Some support can be seen for this position by comparing Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 - both visions complement each other. However, there is no internal support for this from Revelation and in fact the book itself indicates these are two disparate series of visions.

2.     Preterism where the prophetic fulfillment is seen as limited to the destruction of Jerusalem also removes any special meaning for Revelation for Christians in any age. By the time the book would have circulated among the churches, only the letters to the seven churches in the first three chapters would have any meaning. The remainder would have already been fulfilled, and in any event would have little direct comfort for Christians facing persecution from Rome. This goes contrary to the promised blessing in the first verses of the book. What blessing or comfort is there in knowing Jerusalem was destroyed? The only messages left in Revelation for twenty-first century Christians are that God judged Jerusalem (or Rome) and that Christ will come again.

3.     Even conservative preterism (which may be viewed as a limited form of historicism) has limited meaning for Christians in any age except from the period between 100 and 313 AD. There are no events depicted for the church between about 300-400 AD and the Second Coming.

4.     In the preterist view, Revelation predicts that the Second Coming and Final Judgment will occur immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem (or the fall of Rome). This is a major problem since it creates an artificial "gap" in Revelation between the visions and the Second Coming. This means that contrary to the very detailed historical account of how God will judge Jerusalem (or Rome) given in chapters 6-11 and again in 12-20, we are now presented with an unexplained lapse of time with no comment at all from God (not even to mention that there is a break in the time stream). This goes contrary to the other major inspired apocalyptic work we have in the book of Daniel.

a.     There is a similar situation in the Old Testament where there would be a cessation of prophecy and inspired writing from the time of the rebuilding of the Old Testament Temple (ca. 400 B.C.) until the coming of the Messiah. In Revelation Christians are confronted with a similar discontinuation of prophecy and inspired writing from the time of the writing of the last books of the New Testament up to the time of Christ's Second coming (which is a Messianic forecast as well). Yet in the Old Testament God gave a detailed synopsis of history between the end of Old Testament revelation and the Messianic Age in various prophecies, particularly those detailed in Daniel.

b.    Daniel begins with two general visions of the rise of four kingdoms or the fact that there will be four world empires or great kingdoms (Daniel 2 and 7) that most scholars agree represent Babylon, Media and Persia, Greece, and Rome.

c.     The book of Daniel details the shattering of Babylonian power (Daniel 5), the rise of Media and Persia (Daniel 8:1-4), the rise of Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:5-8) and the division of his kingdom into four parts, and the rise of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties, culminating with the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8:9-14). The Jews are given assurance of this time frame for the interpretation (Daniel 8:15-26 - note esp. vs. 17b "the time of the end" and 26 "concerns the distant future").

d.    Daniel details specific chronological history in apocalyptic visions until the Messianic Age, chronicling what would happen during a period during which no direct revelation would be given.

e.     It is important to note that Daniel and other Old Testament apocalyptic prophecies detail what will happen relative to and from the perspective of God's people, the Jews. Daniel 11:1-12:4 delineates the major events, as they affect the Jewish people from a religious perspective, from the rise of Alexander the Great until the Messiah will come.

5.     Modern Christians are in a similar era of no direct revelation, and based on the Old Testament parallel it makes sense that Revelation should cover more history than simply the destruction of Jerusalem (or even Rome). In fact, it would seem out of place that God would not give Christians the same type of insight leading to our own Messianic Second Coming that he gave to the Jewish people leading up to the time of Jesus.

6.     Preterists maintain there is nothing in Revelation to let modern readers have insight into what future the church (God's people in the New Testament) faces in His plan for the world. If a pure preterist viewpoint is adopted, it creates an apparently artificial incongruity between how God divulged the future to the Jews (i.e., detailing the significant events leading to the Messianic "First Coming" to His people in the Old Testament) and how God disclosed the future to Christians (i.e., detailing the pivotal events that must occur prior to the Second Coming to His people in the New Testament).

7.     Overall on Preterism - Basically the preterist view is in general harmony with Scripture and is supported by many conservative scholars. It would be presumptuous to state preterism is wrong or that historicism is correct. However, these are the only two viewpoints that can be strongly supported by Scripture. Futurism which we will cover in the next post is flawed and in many cases holds tenets which are contrary to plain Scripture.