The Preterist Approach to Revelation

[kudzu]

The preterist approach to Revelation is most clearly contrasted with the futurist approach.

According to the preterist approach, most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation were fulfilled not long after John wrote.v

In other words, their fulfillment is past from the perspective of the twenty-first century.vi The fourth major approach to the book is the idealist or symbolic approach.

According to this view, Revelation does not contain prophecies of specific historical events. Instead, it uses symbols to express timeless principles concerning the conflict between good and evil.


Until recently these various approaches have been considered by most to be mutually exclusive. A number of scholars, however, have begun to propose a fifth approach, which may be termed the eclectic approach. As one proponent of this view explains, “The solution is to allow the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized.”vii One of the first to espouse such an approach was George Ladd.

He concluded that the correct method of interpreting the book of Revelation was to blend the futurist and preterist methods.viii He has been followed in this basic eclectic approach, although with different emphases, by a number of scholars including Gregory Beale, Grant Osborne, and Vern Poythress.ix


Because the approach one takes to the book of Revelation dramatically affects one’s exegetical conclusions, it is necessary that I explain the reasons I take the approach I do. I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach.

This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled.


My approach then may be considered as essentially preterist.x


continued

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/preter...l-eschatology/

[kudzu]

Before explaining why I believe this approach to be correct, I must explain why I do not believe the other approaches to be fully adequate.

Proponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history.

This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies.

The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10).

The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come.

The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies.

The historicist approach faces more serious difficulties than the futurist approach. As Poythress observes, “Of the four schools of interpretation, historicism is undoubtedly the weakest, though it was popular centuries ago.”xi

The most serious problem with the historicist approach is its subjectivity and arbitrariness.xii Historicist interpreters through the ages invariably identify their own age as the final age.xiii

They then fit the prophecies of the book with whatever important events have transpired between the first century and their own day. The result is that the basic historicist interpretation of the book changes from one generation to the next.

The idealist approach is held by many in the present day, but it is fundamentally flawed as a method of interpreting the book of Revelation. It’s most serious problem is that it brushes over the specificity found within the text. Bauckham explains,

Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today.xiv

Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same.xv

continued

[kudzu]

Proponents of the futurist, historicist, and idealist approaches offer several criticisms of the preterist approach to the book.

Probably the most serious criticism is that this approach robs the book of any contemporary significance.

John Walvoord, for example, writes, “The preterist view, in general, tends to destroy any future significance of the book, which becomes a literary curiosity with little prophetic meaning.”xvi Leon Morris echoes this sentiment, claiming that the preterist approach “has the demerit of making it [the book of Revelation] meaningless for all subsequent readers (except for the information it gives about that early generation).”xvii

It is actually rather surprising that this criticism is repeated so often by conservative evangelical scholars. It implies that any biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled are meaningless for readers in later generations.

But are the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meaningless for later generations? Are the multitudes of Old Testament prophecies concerning the destruction of Israel and Judah and the subsequent exile meaningless for later generations?

Obviously not, and neither would the prophecies in Revelation be any less meaningful or significant if it were shown that many or most of them have already been fulfilled. All Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), even those parts of Scripture containing already fulfilled prophecies.

When misguided criticisms, such as the one above, are set aside and the case for a basically preterist approach is objectively considered on its own merits, it is seen to be quite strong.

In the first place, our basic hermeneutical approach to the book should be determined by the nature and content of the book itself. As we have already seen, the book itself indicates when at least most of its prophecies are to be fulfilled. In both the first and last chapters, John tells his first century readers that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6) and that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). These statements are generalizations, so they do not require that every event prophesied in the book must be fulfilled in the first century, but the generalizations do provide us with a “general” idea of how we should understand the book.xviii

The bulk of John’s prophecy concerns something that was impending in his own day.

Secondly, when the genre of the book is taken into consideration, it provides strong evidence for a basically preterist approach to the book. The book is a prophecy (1:3; 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). It is an apocalyptic prophecy set within the form of an epistle, but it is a prophecy nonetheless.

Why is this important? It is important because it means that our approach to the other prophetic books of the Bible should provide us with some guidance in how we approach this last prophetic book of the Bible.

We should approach it and read it in the same basic way. We do not read any of the Old Testament prophetic books as a whole in an idealist manner, and there is precious little in any of them that could be approached in a historicist manner. We recognize that these prophecies were given to specific people in specific historical contexts.

Many of the Old Testament prophecies deal with impending judgments upon either Israel or Judah or the nations that oppressed Israel. They also contain glimpses of ultimate future restoration.

In short, we take a basically preterist approach to the Old Testament prophetic books, recognizing that they speak largely of impending events, yet also deal at times with the distant future.xix Given that this is the way in which the Old Testament prophetic books are approached, it seems that our presumption should be in favor of the same basic approach to the prophetic book of Revelation.

continued

[kudzu]

The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of first-century conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times.

During the thousand years between the Jewish War and the Crusades, Judea enjoyed relative peace.

This peace; only briefly interrupted by the Bar Kokhba Rebellion, the Sassanid invasion and occasional bouts of Roman persecution; continued until A.D. 313 when Emperor Constantine granted religious liberty.

In A.D. 638, Moslems negotiated the peaceful surrender of the city; and for the next three hundred years, Christianity flourished unmolested under Moslem rule.(See Treaty of Omar)

Then in A.D. 1071, one thousand years after the fall of Jerusalem, Satan was released from the Abyss, and the Seljuk Turks took control of Judea making travel dangerous for Christian pilgrims. This angered Europeans and in 1095, Europe declared war on Jerusalem and thus began the Crusades

[Guno צְבִי]

"Then in A.D. 1071, one thousand years after the fall of Jerusalem, Satan was released from the Abyss,"
Since god is all, nothing can exist outside of god


He (Satan) is clearly subordinate to God, a member of His suite (Heb. Bene ha-elokim), who is unable to act without his permission. Nowhere is he in any sense a rival of God.


There isn’t a single verse in the entire Tanach (Hebrew bible) that states that Satan ever created evil or ever disobeyed a command from God. Satan is an obedient servant of God in the Tanach who serves the role of man’s accuser in God’s court.


God created the temptation to do evil partially to test our loyalty, and partially to improve us. That is why the word (Satan- שטן) in Hebrew literally means an adversary (Numbers 22:22) that comes to challenge us. We find this notion throughout the Book of Job, where God gives permission to the Satan to challenge the righteous Job.

[evince]

all very interesting guys


thanks


so glad we live in a time of science to be able to confirm so much about so many things


I feel most religious texts need to be studied and respected


but none should be taken as infallible documentation of past reality


They are not written as history books


they had a much different aim when they were written


most do contain human lessons of all sort



take whats valuable for mankind


Be good to each other


don't lie


don't cheat


honor life


they are the things that make the study of religion truly important

[kudzu]

"Then in A.D. 1071, one thousand years after the fall of Jerusalem, Satan was released from the Abyss,"
Since god is all, nothing can exist outside of god


He (Satan) is clearly subordinate to God, a member of His suite (Heb. Bene ha-elokim), who is unable to act without his permission. Nowhere is he in any sense a rival of God.


There isn’t a single verse in the entire Tanach (Hebrew bible) that states that Satan ever created evil or ever disobeyed a command from God. Satan is an obedient servant of God in the Tanach who serves the role of man’s accuser in God’s court.


God created the temptation to do evil partially to test our loyalty, and partially to improve us.

That is why the word (Satan- שטן) in Hebrew literally means an adversary (Numbers 22:22) that comes to challenge us. We find this notion throughout the Book of Job, where God gives permission to the Satan to challenge the righteous Job.

I don't know much about the Book of Jubilees.. Can you explain this to me?

The fact that Satan is bound does not necessarily mean that there will be a literal heaven on earth. A similar binding of Satan is found in the Book of Jubilees.

In Jubilees 48:15, Satan was bound in order to allow the Jews to escape their Egyptian pursuers. This book also lists several other points in Jewish history when Satan was bound; and as a result, the people enjoyed prosperity and peace (Jubilees 23:25-30; 40:9; 46:2).

[kudzu]

all very interesting guys


thanks


so glad we live in a time of science to be able to confirm so much about so many things


I feel most religious texts need to be studied and respected


but none should be taken as infallible documentation of past reality


They are not written as history books


they had a much different aim when they were written


most do contain human lessons of all sort



take whats valuable for mankind


Be good to each other


don't lie


don't cheat


honor life


they are the things that make the study of religion truly important

Yes ... Most scholars consider them morality tales or didactic literature.

[evince]

rightly so

[kudzu]

The Christians went to Pella at the time of the tribulation.

[Bobb]

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies.

The most serious problem with the common futurist approach is the claim that Jews (Satan's children) are God's people (Christians are God's people).

[Adolf_Twitler]

Imagine there is no heaven! It's easy- if you try! [John Lennon]

Mic Drop! BLAHAHAHAHA!

[kudzu]

The most serious problem with the common futurist approach is the claim that Jews (Satan's children) are God's people (Christians are God's people).

Where on earth did you get the idea that Jews are Satan's children?

[kudzu]

The most serious problem with the common futurist approach is the claim that Jews (Satan's children) are God's people (Christians are God's people).

Jesus wasn't talking to all Jews, but specific individuals. Obviously, the apostles were all Jews, and even his mother was a Jew. Jesus himself was a Jew. He wasn't calling them children of Satan.

[Bobb]

Jesus wasn't talking to all Jews, but specific individuals. Obviously, the apostles were all Jews, and even his mother was a Jew. Jesus himself was a Jew. He wasn't calling them children of Satan.

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me..."

Jews don't love Jesus. The Apostles loved Jesus, and therefor were not Jews.