Partial-Preterism and the Book of Revelation
The book of Revelation is one of the most complicated books of the Bible. This much is admitted by futurists, preterists, idealists, and historicists alike. For this reason, Revelation ought to be handled carefully. It should also be handled non-dogmatically with respect to interpretations considered orthodox. However, just because we are to be non-dogmatic does not mean that we are to give up interpreting the book altogether. There are many who stray away from forming even a cursory interpretation of the book because they think its contents are divisive. However, if we can treat one another with charity, discussions of the book of Revelation will be nothing but fruitful. Theological refinement happens over time and with much labor. Throughout church history, doctrine has developed and improved by thorough and consistent debate. This particular debate, I believe, must start by contending over interpretive frameworks for the book of Revelation. A good framework must be derived from the text itself and must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is important to note that interpretive frameworks are not bad as long as they are biblical. It is only when frameworks of interpretation are created a priori and imposed on the text that they become dangerous. That being said, I think a preterist, postmillennial framework ought to be employed in interpreting the book. Because the entirety of the line of argumentation that led me to this conclusion could not be covered in the space provided, I will stick to one particular aspect of the presentation. In this essay, I wish to show that the time indicators found within the book of Revelation necessitate a preterist view of the book.
By preterist, I mean that all of the book’s prophetic contents were future to its original audience, but that the prophetic material is largely in our past. Partial preterists are inclined to see the bulk of the book of Revelation as having its fulfillment in the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This prophetic understanding is one which flows from the text itself. As the book opens, John tells the audience to which he is writing, in the first century, that the things he is about to write “must soon take place” (v. 1). He exhorts the church in Philadelphia saying, “I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown” (3:11). Many similar statements could be given. It is from this phraseology that the preterist builds his interpretive grid. Now, that is not to say that this grid may be rigidly applied. The entirety of the book needs to be allowed to speak to the building of this interpretive grid. That being said, it has been argued convincingly that this grid does fit with the overall message of the book as well as its specific pronouncements. I believe the time indicators to be among the strongest proofs for this interpretive grid, so they will be considered below.
Revelation’s genre should be considered partially apocalyptic and partially epistolary. John notes that his writing is “to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4). The purpose of the letter, according to John himself, was “to show to his servants the things that must soon take place” (1:1). Thus, contrary to the assumptions of some, Revelation is meant to be understood. John is writing to reveal to the first century saints events which are in their near future. I say that the events are in their near future because John says they “must soon take place.” He also adds that the churches ought to heed the words of the prophecy “for the time is near” (1:3). Kenneth Gentry notes the importance of these statements’ locations being at the beginning of the epistle: “[John] places these expressions early (1:1,3) to alert the readers and hearers in advance that the following prophecies are near at hand. Before anyone could form any opinion about when they think these things might occur, he informs them right up front.”[1] Gentry is pointing out that John is, by providing these statements at the very beginning of the letter, attempting to give interpretive clues for the material that follows. It is important to note that this is also what John does in the prologue of his Gospel. The prologue of John, perhaps the locus classicus text in regards to the deity of Christ, hints to his readers that the Gospel ought to be read christologically and with an eye out for the associations Jesus makes between Himself and Yahweh. In like manner, Revelation’s prologue is hinting at how the following prophecies ought to be understood.
Not only does the book open with statements of imminence, but similar statements occur in the concluding chapters as well. John writes, “And he said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place’ . . . And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’” (22:6,10 emphasis mine). About this, Gentry writes, “The significance of these words lies not only in their introducing Revelation, but also in their concluding its drama. They bracket and, therefore, qualify the entire book.”[2] Gentry’s argument is that John brackets the text for a particular literary purpose. Namely, John is attempting to provide a lens by which the prophecy may properly be read. John is also likely utilizing the literary tool of allusion in verse ten. The book of Revelation is littered with allusions to the Old Testament. In verse ten, the language would inevitably draw a Jewish believer’s mind to Daniel 8 where Daniel is told to “seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now” (v. 26). Because the contents of Daniel’s prophecy were a long ways out, he was told to seal up the prophecy. John, on the other hand, is told, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book,” and the reasoning he is given is that “the time is near” (Rev. 22:10).[3]
It is important to recognize that these words are directed toward the first century church in order that they might pursue certain actions (keep the words of the prophecy, hold fast to what they have, etc.). The words were also meant to be a comfort to the persecuted Christians in the first century; for, when Christ comes, He is coming to judge evildoers and avenge the blood of the martyrs (22:12).[4] Because these time indicators were actually used in an attempt to communicate the necessity of pursuing certain actions, we should understand them to denote the nearness of Christ’s coming as the first century readers would have understood “nearness.” To ascribe this “nearness” as being in relation to God’s conception of nearness instead of the reader’s would be to disconnect these statements from the actions they were attempting to elicit. In other words, the time indicators would be proven to mean absolutely nothing at all. If two thousand years could be considered near, then the words “soon” and “near” have become incapable of communicating anything at all. As Gentry notes, “What mockery of anguished pain and mental suffering to write to persecuted saints: ‘Help is on the way in God’s time – which may be a couple of thousand years or more away.’”[5] If John did not mean to communicate that the time was near with respect to human perspective, it would be hard to conceive of how he could have communicated such a thing. Not only is the book of Revelation bookended with these kinds of statements, but it contains statements of imminence throughout.[6] It seems clear that John is trying to belabor this point for the sake of those to whom he is writing. He is warning the first century church so that they can do what Jesus told them to do in Matthew 24: “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (v. 16).[7] Thus, the readers are to stay “awake, keeping [their] garments on” (16:15).
There are many who attempt to explain these phrases in a way that does not imply temporal nearness as the first century believers would have understood it, but none of these interpretations allow for the most natural reading of the text to come through. When Jesus says to these saints “I am coming soon,” it would be the most natural reading of the text to expect Him to come soon. Even if some want to argue that “soon” is ambiguous in regards to the duration of time implied, it is hard to understand how anyone could see a two thousand year passage of time as “soon.” So, an interpretation of Revelation that is partially preteristic would be the most natural framework to construct given these time texts.
Bibliography
Gentry, Kenneth. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.
Gentry, Kenneth. “A Preterist View of Revelation.” In Four Views on the Book of Revelation, edited by Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, 31-85. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic. 1998.
Gentry, Kenneth. 2020. “The True Meaning of Rev 1:1 and 1:3 (2).” Postmillennial Worldview, August 21, 2020. https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/08/21/the-true-meaning-of-rev-11-and-13-2/.
[1]Kenneth Gentry, “The True Meaning of Rev 1:1 and 1:3 (2),” Postmillennial Worldview, August 21, 2020, https://postmillennialworldview.com/2020/08/21/the-true-meaning-of-rev-11-and-13-2/.
[2] Kenneth Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, eds. Stanley N. Gundry and C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1998), 34.
[3] For a fuller explanation of this, see Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around (Moscow: Canon Press, 2019), 260-263.
[4] That is, He is coming in judgment. I am not saying that Jesus came physically and bodily in 70 A.D. This He will do at the end of time (Acts 1:10-11).
[5] Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 140.
[6] See Revelation 2:16; 3:11; 6:11
[7] Due to space constraints, it will have to be assumed that the book of Revelation and the contents of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:1-35 are referring to the same event. This is affirmed by scores of scholars on all sides.