"Evangelical" preterism

I’m going to quote and comment on a major plank of Ken Gentry’s case for preterism:

The closer we get to the year 2000, the farther we get from the events of Revelation. This claim, as remarkable as it may sound, summarizes the evangelical preterist view of Revelation. “Preterism” holds that the bulk of John’s prophecies occur in the first century, soon after his writing of them. Though the prophecies were in the future when John wrote and when his original audience read them, they are now in our past (37).

The inspired apostle John clearly informs his original audience nearly two thousand years ago that they should expect the prophecies to “take place” (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime (41).

That is, a number of the historical, geographical, and political allusions in the letters show that John does in fact, have in view the specific churches he addresses. He would be taunting them mercilessly if he were discussing events two thousand or more years distance (42).

The preterist understanding of Revelation is rooted in sound hermeneutical and theological principles–and receives surprising historical verification. It takes seriously the temporal remarks of Revelation (1:1,3; 22:6,10,12), observes carefully Revelation’s historical setting (chaps. 2-3)… (91).

The weaknesses of futurism include the following: It almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering (92).

C. Marvin Pate, ed. Four Views of the Book of Revelation (Zondervan 1998).

i) In this post it’s not my primary intention to present or defend my own interpretation of the same data. Rather, I’m going to mainly consider if preterism succeeds on its own terms.

That said, I will make one simple observation: The temporal marker in Rev 1:1 (“quickly”) is an allusion to Dan 2:28. As such, the significance of the temporal marker is relative rather than absolute. It’s not something to be understood in isolation, but in contrast to its Danielic counterpart.

What John has done is to update Dan 2:28. He’s substituted “quickly” (or “shortly,” “soon”) for “latter days.” That’s because Daniel was writing in the 6C BC whereas John is writing in the 1C AD.

The point of this comparative usage is that Daniel, back in the 6C BC, wasn’t writing in the latter days. The latter days hadn’t arrived.

Therefore, this is John’s way of telling his audience that, unlike Daniel, they now are living in the latter days. In other words, John’s temporal marker (“quickly”) is a synonym for “latter days.”

Consider two different statements:

a) These things will happen when the latter days arrive.

b) When will these things happen in the latter days?

(a) Gives you the general timeframe. These things will happen sometime during the latter days. But it doesn’t specify when they will happen within that latterday timeframe. Just that they will happen at some point in the course of the latter days. It could be sooner or later within that laterday timeframe. It’s a mistake to confuse (a) with (b).

ii) But my primary concern is to consider how well preterism solves the problem it poses for itself and rival positions. Gentry doesn’t think futurism (or idealism) can do justice to the data he cites. But unless his alternative has greater explanatory power, it fails on its own grounds. So I’m going to measure preterism by its own yardstick.

iii) Gentry says the futurist interpretation renders the prophecies of Revelation irrelevant to the 1C generation of readers. But by parity of argument, the preterist interpretation renders the prophecies irrelevant to later generations. If what was future to them (the original audience) is past to us, then they are anticlimactic to us. That’s passé. Not something we look forward to. Not something that changes our current situation.

iv) Gentry says “I do believe Christ will come personally, visibly, and gloriously to end history with the resurrection of the dead and the great judgment of all humanity…the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-25:46 and Rev 20:7-15. (46n25).”

a) Yet the Olivet Discourse uses similar, stock eschatological language and imagery. So it’s unclear how Gentry can interpret Revelation preteristically, but Matthew futuristically.

b) Even more to the point, if he generally interprets Revelation preteristically, but makes an exception for Rev 20:7-15, which he interprets futuristically, then why stop there? Seems like he’s arbitrarily carving out an exception for Rev 20:7-15. But how does he draw the line? If he can construe Rev 20:7-15 futuristically, why can’t amils and premils interpret other prophecies in Revelation futuristically?

v) Gentry says “The original audience…should expect the prophecies to ‘take place’ (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime” (41).

Isn’t that an overstatement? What if one or more church members of the seven churches died before 70AD (Gentry’s terminus ad quem)? Wouldn’t their situation be analogous to futurism?

vi) Gentry says futurism “almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering.”

But how is consigning the fulfillment to 70 AD relevant to their suffering? Christians were persecuted by Rome before 70 AD, and they were persecuted by Rome after 70 AD. Indeed, persecution intensified over time.

How does the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD directly (or even indirectly) improve the plight of persecuted Christians living in Asia Minor? After 70 AD came and went, how was their situation any better in 71 AD than it was in 69 AD? What changed?

If anything, wouldn’t that worsen their situation? As long as Judaism was a religio licita, and the Roman authorities associated Christianity with a sect of Judaism, it enjoyed a measure of protection (e.g. Acts 18:12-16). But once Judaism fell into official disfavor (i.e. the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD), wouldn’t Christians be even more vulnerable? Wouldn’t that aggravate their legal jeopardy?