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.