The most controversial book in the Bible would have to be Revelation.  Virtually every mature Christian I’ve talked to has a slightly different interpretation of this book.  Amazing how 1900 years after it was written, nobody seems to fully know what it means!  About a year ago I purchased a book by Steve Gregg called Revelation: Four Views.  It is a parallel commentary of Revelation, meaning, it displays a passage and then has four columns explaining the passage according to the four, main interpretations of this book: Historicist, Preterist, Futurist and Spiritual.  I have barely started the book and the only thing I can tell you is that I KNOW that I don’t know the correct interpretation.

Teachers in my church typically (or, almost always) are from the preterist persuasion.  In order to get a fuller understanding of this view, I am going to attend a class which starts next month and I read the teacher’s book in preparation.  The author is Andy Confer and the title of the book is Three Woes for Babylon.  After finishing the book, I am left with a pretty good understanding of the preterist position, but am also left with many questions that I hope will be answered in the class.  (I’d hate to bug the teacher about them, but I will.)  In the meantime, if anybody reading this blog has the answers, please comment.

Before I start, here is a quick description of the preterist position from the book Revelation: Four Views (pg. 2):

“The preterist approach sees the fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies as already having occurred in what is now the ancient past, not long after the author’s own time.  Thus the fulfillment was in the future from the point of view of the inspired author, but it is in the past from our vantage point in history.  Some preterists believe that the final chapters of Revelation look forward to the second coming of Christ.  Others think that everything in the book reached its culmination in the past.”

Without further ado, here are my biggest questions (in no particular order):

1. Every reader can tell that Revelation is hard to understand.  It seems that the preterists believe the reason it was “veiled” or encrypted was so Christians would understand the message but others would not.  If the book fell into the hands of their enemies they would not understand what it said.  My question is: why?  If persecution of Christians was so bad that even saying you were a Christian (Jesus is Lord, not Caesar) was punishable by death, then why would it matter if you have a book in your possession saying that Jesus will win in the end?  What difference would it make?  Is there any ancient document that indicates this is the case?

2. One of the rules of interpretation that preterists hold to is this: all of the New Testament must be understood literally unless the context indicates otherwise.  The exception is Revelation, which must be understood symbolically unless the context indicates otherwise.  My question is: how do you know?  Isn’t that a preconceived idea to bring to the table?  The book I read pointed to Revelation 1:1-2 as proof that the book had to be taken symbolically, but after reading these verses I don’t see how it proves this point.

What if Revelation is to be read as an allegory rather than merely symbolic?  Allegory is when you tell a story where the characters represent something.  If Revelation is symbolic then the main characters represent something and the details merely add dramatic effect to the symbolism, they are not necessarily true or accurate.  On the other hand, if it is an allegory, then the main characters are symbolic, but the details are absolutely true: sometimes literal and sometimes symbolic, depending on context.  It seems that the author of the book I read was not taking allegory into account – it was stated several times that if some details are literal then everything has to be literal, including the dragons, beasts and everything else!  My question stands: what if Revelation is allegory?

3. One of the most-used arguments for preterism seems to be the timeliness of the message sent to Christians.  The question is asked: if these Christians were in the middle of terrible persecution, why would they care about a book of prophecy dealing with things thousands of years in the future?  John would have wanted to encourage them with hope for Jesus’ victory in the short term, not in the distant future!  This initially sounded good and logical, but after reading the book, I was left with a question: what deliverance or victory did these suffering Christians ever receive?  The book I read has the Emperor Domitian as the “beast” and his assassination is the victory that the Christians would celebrate.  Other preterists, from what I hear, have a different opinion, but all of them point to some victory for Christians in the midst of persecution.  My question is what was this victory?  The deaths of Nero or Domitian did not stop Christians being martyred.  Christians were persecuted and killed for hundreds of years during “10 seasons” as described in the book Martyr’s Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght.  The first persecution began in AD 66 under Nero, the second persecution was the one under Domitian in AD 93, the third under Trajan beginning in AD 102, and so on until the 10th persecution which began in AD 302 under Emperor Diocletian at which time, according to the writings of J. Gysius “the whole world was stained with the holy brood of the martyrs.”  If this is so, then where is the victory which John was supposedly telling his readers was to “soon” take place?  Even after the death of Domitian in AD 96-97 there was very little respite for Christians between then and AD 102 when the next season of persecution began.  Timothy reportedly was killed in AD 99 and many others at this time as well.  So how can you look at this historically and say that John was prophesying about a victory and deliverance for Christians by Domitian’s death?  And if the persecution did continue for hundreds of years, then what is the difference for a believer alive in AD 95 if the victory would come 200 years later or 2000 years later?

4. Another of the arguments that is often used is the use of the phrase “coming soon” eight (8) times in Revelation.  Revelation 1:1 starts off by saying: “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.”  The argument is that we are clearly told that these things would happen soon, not 2000 years later.  However, when you think about it, two questions come to mind.  First, why is “soon” to be taken literally when nothing else is (see question #2)?  And second, the last three (3) references (22:7, 12, 20) speak of Jesus coming soon, rather than the other events happening soon.  Are the preterists saying that Jesus already came?  Because the same word “soon” is used for both the things prophesied to come soon, and Jesus to return soon.  So if we agree that Jesus has not come back yet, even though He said it would be soon, then why wouldn’t we apply that same meaning to the word “soon” used elsewhere in the book?

I have many other questions which I intend to ask, but these are probably the four biggest ones that seems to me have to be answered before accepting the preterist position.  I would be very happy if someone else answers them for me!  But if not, I will follow up with the answers I am given once I take the class.  Until next time!