Preterism Archives - Reading Acts

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

Perhaps more than any other New Testament book, the date for the writing of Revelation is important for interpreting the book. If the book was written in the 90s, then the immediate background for the book is persecution of Christians under Domitian. But if the book was written before A.D. 70, then the persecution in the background of the book is Nero’s backlash against Christians after the fire of Rome.

Fall of Jerusalem (David Roberts, 1850)

Another factor is the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is fairly obvious the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple are somehow related to the images in the book. For a preterist like Ken Gentry, the book of Revelation is revealing “what will happen soon,” and the soon-event is the destruction of Jerusalem. (See his Before Jerusalem Fell, for example.) For other preterists who do not feel the need to preserve Revelation as a book of prophecy, the fall of Jerusalem is in the background as a past event that provides a set of metaphors.

The majority of the early church assumed that it was under Domitian’s persecution that the book was written. Irenaues said that John wrote “nearly in our generation,” at the end of the reign of Domitian. All of the secular evidence for persecution under Domitian comes from after his reign. Pliny the Younger wrote a tribute to Emperor Trajan:

He [Domitian] was a madman, blind to the true meaning of his position, who used the arena for collecting charges of high treason, who felt himself slighted and scorned if we failed to pay homage to his gladiators, taking any criticism of them to himself and seeing insults to his own godhead and divinity; who deemed himself the equal of the gods yet raised his gladiators to his equal.

In 1 Clement 1:1, written in A.D. 96, alludes to “the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses that have befallen us.” 1 Clement 4-7 contains several references which might be taken as either referring to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul or the present persecutions under Domitian.

Since all of the sources describing Domitian as a megalomaniac who demanded worship as a god date from after his reign, some argue the later sources are painting the old emperor in a negative light (perhaps to paint Trajan in a good light). DeSilva disagrees, arguing instead that “Domitian valued cultic language as an expression of social and political relationships.” This language would have been imposed on the lower levels of society as a method of declaring loyalty to the state (“The ‘Image of the Beast’” TrinJ 12 [1991], 199).

I am personally inclined to retain the late date for the book and see the imperial cult as the potential background for many things in the book. I am not opposed to the destruction of Jerusalem as a possible background, but (for me) it does not have to be predictive of the event. There is no problem for John to be using a past event like Rome’s obliteration of the city of Jerusalem to talk about other, still future judgments.

What difference might it make to reading Revelation if the book is early (pre A.D. 70) as opposed to in the 90s?

Interpreting Revelation – Preterism

As one of the two reactions to the long-hallowed historicism position, preterism reads the book of Revelation as referring entirely to the events of the first century. There is no real prediction of future events. Essentially, Preterism argues the Book of Revelation was written to describe the events of the first century and there was little if anything that referred to the history of the church beyond that period. Preterism has become the standard solution for reading Revelation among a- or post-millennialists.

One of the earliest representatives of this view among Protestants was Moses Stuart (Commentary on the Apocalypse [Andover: Allen, Morrill and Ward, 1845; New York: Newmann, 1845]). Stuart blames Joseph Mede for universal application of the year-to-day theory in prophetic studies and popularizing the 1260 year reign of papal-antichrist. Stuart is willing to accept the year-to-day interpretation in Ezekiel 4 and even Daniel 9, but argues that these two passages do not require every day mentioned in prophecy to be a year. For example, he notes that if the year-to-day principle were applied to Daniel 4:32, then Nebuchadnezzar ate grass for 2520 years!

A major point in favor of preterism is that Revelation claims to be describing what will happen soon (1:1-3). Soon cannot mean some 2000 years in John’s future. The Greek word in 1:1 τάχος means “a very brief period of time, with focus on speed of an activity or event, speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” (BDAG). A preterist like Ken Gentry cannot understand why a literalist (like Thomas) chooses to take the plain meaning of the text “soon” and “allegorize” it into a meaning of 2000 years in the future.

The Fall of Jerusalem

According to some preterists, the main theme of Revelation is God’s judgement on the Jews who crucified Christ. This is one of Ken Gentry’s main points in Four Views, but he does not represent all preterists here. See also G. L. Murray, Millennial Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1948), 107-130). Gentry cites Matthew 27:22, 25 and John 19:1-6 as evidence the Jews are under God’s judgment for the sin of killing Jesus. In these passages the Jews ask for Jesus to be crucified and accept the blame for his death.

The preaching of the Apostles connected the crucifixion of Jesus with the Jews, see Acts 4:10, 2:22-23, 5:30; 10:39. The judgment on the Jews, according to Gentry, is the fall of Jerusalem. According to Gentry, Revelation is written in the A.D. 60’s, so the prophet is describing the horrors of the Jewish revolution in 66-70 as a just judgment against the Jews for their rejection of the Messiah. It would be possible to date the book later (commonly in the 90’s) and still see the fall of Jerusalem as the focal point, although it is no longer a prophecy at that point.

As a preterist, Ken Gentry and Bruce Chilton apply everything in Revelation to the fall of Jerusalem. This is not, however, the only way of handling the book as a preterist. A number of commentaries on Revelation interpret the books as describing the situation of the church in the first century under Roman rule. The conflict in the book is not God’s judgment on the Jews for crucifying Christ, but rather then persecution of Christians by the Roman empire for refusing to worship the Emperor / Empire.

Preterism is beneficial in that it applies the book of Revelation to very real events in the first century (whether that is the fall of Jerusalem or Roman persecution). It avoids the embarrassment of unfulfilled predictions which plagued historicism and is solidly a-millennial, an important factor for many in the reformed traditions. But I am not convinced Revelation is only anchored in the past.

I certainly think that the apocalyptic events of A.D. 70 are in the background of the book. But does the fall of Jerusalem (or Roman persecutions) exhaust the value of the book? The book claims to be prophecy as well as apocalyptic – if the book was “entirely fulfilled” in A.D. 70, is there anything in the book for the future?

Interpreting Revelation (Part 2)

The Preterist View of Revelation

The most serious problem for the historicist position is that none of the historical identifications could be proven, most would be considered obscure and anachronistic in the light of the 21st century. By the early nineteenth century, historicism was running out of new ideas. There were two reactions to the historicist position among some Protestant writers – preterism and futurism.

Because both of these reactionary movements had precursors in Catholic theology, many Protestants who began to view Revelation as either entirely past or entirely future were viewed as giving aid and comfort to the “Papists” and were accused of not holding firmly to reformation truth. Both preterism and futurism are found in Catholicism, although the motivation for both futurism and preterism seems to have been to avoid the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. For example, in James Durham’s A Commentarie Upon the Book of the Revelation (1658) 496, he states his belief that a futurist interpretation of Revelation is a “…conceit or dream of the Papists expounding all so literally of an Antichrist who shall come from the tribe of Dan, and that shall reign just three and a half years, sitting in Jerusalem … This dream [was] invented by them to keep their Pope from being apprehended as the true Antichrist.”

Preterism argues the Book of Revelation was written to describe the events of the first century and there was little if anything that referred to the history of the church beyond that period. One of the earliest representatives of this view among Protestants was Moses Stuart. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 Volumes (Andover: Allen, Morrill and Ward, 1845). Stuart blames Joseph Mede for universal application of the year-to-day theory in prophetic studies and popularizing the 1260 year reign of papal-antichrist. Stuart is willing to accept the year-to-day interpretation in Ezekiel 4 and even Daniel 9, but argues that these two passages do not require every day mentioned in prophecy to be a year. For example, he notes that if the year-to-day principle were applied to Daniel 4:32, then Nebuchadnezzar ate grass for 2520 years!

Preterists argue that Revelation is a highly figurative book which cannot be approached with a straightforward, simple, literalism. For preterists, literalism will only confuse the meaning of the book. The meaning of the book is to be found in its rather bold use of symbolism to describe the fall of Jerusalem, not modern-era warfare, etc. For example, Literalism is impossible with bizarre figures of speech such as the three frogs in chapter 16. Ken Gentry surveys a few literalist commentaries and notes these “frogs” are normally interpreted as demons, but with frog-like features. Do the two witnesses in chapter 11 really “spew fire” from their mouths? Is that what John meant for us to understand?

Secondly, Revelation claims to be describing what will happen soon (1:1-3). Soon cannot mean some 2000 years in John’s future. The Greek word in 1:1 tachos means “a very brief period of time, with focus on speed of an activity or event, speed, quickness, swiftness, haste” A preterist like Gentry cannot understand why a literalist (like Robert Thomas) chooses to take the plain meaning of the text “soon” and “allegorize” it into a meaning of 2000 years in the future.

Preterists like Gentry and Chilton apply everything in Revelation to the fall of Jerusalem. This is not, however, the only way of handling the book as a preterist. Their view requires a date for Revelation before A. D. 70, a difficult position to defend.

A number of commentaries on Revelation interpret the books as describing the situation of the church in the first century under Roman rule. The conflict in the book is not God’s judgment on the Jews for crucifying Christ, but rather then persecution of Christians by the Roman empire for refusing to worship the Emperor / Empire (see the commentaries by R. H. Charles, Sweet, Roloff, for example).

A growing number of scholars deny Rome was persecuting Christians during Domitian’s reign, therefore the crisis in Revelation is an “internal spiritual crisis.” (See commentaries by Yarbo Collins, L. Thompson, Krodel, Barr, for example). The church is struggling with mixing Christianity with the worship of local gods in order to mix in Roman society; the problem of the book is compromise with false teachers such as the Nicolatians.