The Book of Revelation and “Preterism”
In our midweek meetings recently, we have been studying the book of Revelation. Something we encountered early on in our studies is the fact that Christians have taken different approaches to interpreting Revelation throughout the past. It’s helpful to observe this point and highlight the approach that this church takes so as to be clear.
Dr. Robert Godfrey, an American minister and theology professor, outlines four basic major approaches to Revelation:
1. The preterist approach
“Preterist” is derived from a Latin word “praeter,” which means “beyond” or “before.” The preterist view of Revelation is that most of its content is already fulfilled, and the radical or “full” or “hyper” preterist would say it is all already fulfilled. This approach says that the book is about what has already taken place (from our vantage point), mostly arguing that the book was written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70 and so most of what is written relates to this significant event in Israelite history. Under this approach there are plenty of subdivisions.
2. The church-historical approach
This approach takes the book to be a book of prophecy about the whole history of the church from the time of Christ to the time of his second coming. Interestingly, at the time of the Reformation, almost all interpreters understood Revelation using this approach. Today, however, it’s almost entirely disappeared.
3. The futurist approach
This approach treats the book (from CH4 onwards, at least) as a book about the future – it is yet to be fulfilled. The best known futurist approach in recent times has been dispensationalism. In late nineteenth century into the twentieth century, dispensationalism became very widespread among Protestants in America and the UK. Amongst dispensationalists, there are various differences in their approach to Revelation (e.g. pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, mid-tribulation – don’t worry if you’re not familiar with these terms!).
One of the problems with this approach is that it claims to take the Book of Revelation literally, whilst the rest of us do it a disservice by taking it “spiritually.” Well, in Revelation 1:1, we are told that the things spoken about in the book must take place “soon.” If, as futurists argue, everything in the book is yet to be fulfilled, then two thousand years have gone by since this statement. It’s difficult to claim to take “soon” literally and have it mean more than two thousand years.
That said, “soon” in Revelation 1:1 is somewhat problematic for every approach except the preterist approach, and the preterists unsurprisingly point to this verse as grounds to justify their approach.
4. The idealist approach / the spiritualist approach / the present-blessing approach
This approach takes the book as a book given for a spiritual blessing to the church (Rev 1:3), describing what is going to happen throughout the whole period of the church. The church-historical approach (see above) interprets Revelation chronologically, so the question is always, what chapter of Revelation are we currently in? This fourth approach, in contrast, interprets Revelation as describing generally what is going to happen in the church, not what will happen century-by-century. Thus, in every century we can be encouraged – “blessed” – by this book, as we wait for the second coming of Christ.
This is the approach we have been taking as a church in our studies. As Godfrey puts it,
“Revelation is not all in the past (preterist approach), it’s not all in the future (futurist approach), it’s not revealing century-by-century what’s going on in the life of the church (church-historical approach), but it’s given as pictures of what the Lord is doing in history for His people, and how that history will culminate in the glorious return of Christ.”
If you are interested, recent commentators and scholars who take this same approach include:
William Hendriksen, More than Conquerors
G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (The New International Greek Testament Commentary)
Dennis Johnson, The Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation
- - -
A comment on why this church does not adopt the (hyper-)preterist approach
Now, you may not be the least bit interested in what is about to follow - and that’s OK! Feel free to stop reading.
But some further comment might be useful on the views that are sometimes called “hyper-pretorist,” views that take the above preterist approach to the N’th degree. In short, this is a brief explanation as to why this church doesn’t share those views, which you may or may not be interested in reading!
Preterism
The first thing worth saying is that because preterism more broadly relates to the fulfilment of events described in the Bible, we want to affirm what might be called a “partial” or “moderate” preterism. Many prophecies throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, have been fulfilled.
Hyper-preterism
The preterist approach in its strongest form, however, argues that “the totality of eschatological events, in particular the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, were fulfilled in the events of AD 70” (the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). This strong approach is sometimes called “hyper-preterism.” Whilst a partial-preterist approach understands the second coming of Christ and the final resurrection to be events that have not yet happened, the hyper-preterist approach argues that they have already happened. Because Christ spoke of his imminent return, and because of the use of language like “soon” in Revelation 1:1, the argument goes that we should understand that Christ’s second coming happened when he came in judgement in AD 70, and that the final resurrection spoken of throughout the Bible should be understood in spiritual rather than physical terms.
Christ’s second coming
Now, the events of AD 70 were clearly significant. We can even say that Christ did visit Jerusalem in judgment at this time, although he did not physically descend from heaven to do so. The events mark God’s salvation no longer being restricted to the Jewish nation with its temple, but going out to the Gentiles through the proclamation of the Gospel.
However, in the Apostles’ Creed, summarising the teaching of the Bible, we affirm that Christ will come from heaven “to judge the living and the dead.” This judgment is far more extensive than the judgment inflicted upon the Jewish nation in AD 70, and we read of it foretold in places like Matthew 25:31-46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. At this point we must recognise that “the totality of eschatological events” foretold in Revelation were not fulfilled in AD 70, because we still await Christ to return and administer this judgment.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
Now, if Christ’s return actually took place in AD 70, then the church should no longer be administering baptism and the Lord’s Supper. When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, the instruction was for it to be observed until Christ returns. We read in 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.”
Similarly, when Christ instituted the practice of baptism in Matthew 28:18-20, he gives a time-reference for the practice with the statement “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” If the end of the age occurred at AD 70, we should understand baptism, too, to no longer be necessary. At this point we can see that the hyper-preterist approach is at odds with historic orthodox Christianity, where baptism and the Lord’s Supper are viewed as being key in the life of the church today.
The final resurrection
A person who is drawn to hold hyper-preterist views in relation to the final resurrection, arguing that the Bible does not refer to a physical resurrection but a spiritual resurrection, will also have great difficulty explaining passages like 2 Timothy 2:18, where Paul laments the fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus had “swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened.” The indictment against Hymenaeus and Philetus was serious, with Paul claiming that their swerving-from-the-truth views were “upsetting the faith of some.” As we see in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20, Paul views the physical resurrection of Christ and the physical resurrection of believers to be a fundamental Christian belief.
Summary
Given that the historic Christian creeds – and, relevant to our context, the Reformed confessions – affirm both the second coming of Christ and the final resurrection as events yet to come, hyper-preterism falls outside the boundaries of what we accept as faithful biblical teaching.[1]
- - -
[1] It is worth thinking through whether hyper-preterist views as outlined here are compatible with membership in a Reformed and Presbyterian church. As a starting point, see Hyper-preterism and the OPC, https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=324. This helpful article provides the basis for much of this post’s interaction with the subject.