Revelation ...according to a preterist

The preterist approach is the first under the spotlight. It’s popular and scholarly, but is it right! First an introduction. Preterism considers the majority of events in Revelation to have happened in the distant past. So every day, we’re getting further from what went on. “Full” preterism places the entire book in the prophecy-fulfilled box. This means denying Jesus’ future bodily return; denying the physical resurrection of believers at history’s end (hmm...worrying!) and denying the physical renewal/replacement of the new heavens and earth. Of course (you’ll join me in saying), such a view has no place in our evangelical beliefs. Ok!

But there is such a thing as moderate preterism. It accepts the really really end-time stuff mentioned above, but the rest of the book is seen through two different lenses. 1) That Revelation was a prophecy of the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century. 2) That it was a prophecy of the fall (read judgment) of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Often it’s seen through a mixture of both (if lenses can be mixed?!).

If it’s the first, Babylon is Rome and Christians are encouraged not to compromise with this corrupt system. In its favour, the date the book was written isn’t such a problem and the whole Babylon idea makes much more sense. If it’s the first, it must have been written before A.D.70 to encourage Christians that their God-rejecting Jewish persecutors – the “Babylon” of ch.17 – will be judged. Also the church is now the true “Israel”. So it acknowledges the significance of the fall of Jerusalem and end of the old order (see Hebrews) and it matches lots of Rev.4-18 to specific events in the Jewish War.

The overall view has several strengths. It makes sense of the words ‘quickly’ and ‘soon’ (see Rev.1:1). Also, it’s true that Christ proclaimed and brought a new kingdom. There was a transition, beginning around A.D.30-70, from covenant with Israel to new covenant with all nations. And compared with Matthew 24 (prophecy of destruction of Jerusalem) there’s similar structure and judgment language. So God could be judging Jerusalem as he did with the Babylonians, but in a more final sense to picture the ultimate universal judgment the world faces.

Preterism doesn’t have to cut out the great unfulfilled prophecies, but sees the main relevance of Revelation to be on the context of its original hearers – the fall of Jerusalem, the persecution by Nero, etc. It allows a mixture of symbolic and literal interpretation. In short, is there anything wrong with preterism! My next post says, “yes!”...and hopefully an explanation why.