Preterist, historicist and futurist approaches

Program / Course 10: Salvation and Eschatology / Lesson 8.4

What you will learn

• Define the four main approaches to reading Revelation: preterist, historicist, idealist and futurist.
• Explain what each says about when the visions are fulfilled, with its strengths and difficulties.
• Identify which churches or movements have favored each approach.
• Distinguish partial preterism from full preterism, and say why churches treat them differently.

The big idea

Interpreters of Revelation and of Jesus’ end-time sermon have asked when the visions are fulfilled. The preterist reading says that most were fulfilled in the first century. The historicist reading says that they unfold across church history up to the end. The futurist reading says that most belong to a short period just before Christ returns. The idealist reading says they describe in symbols the permanent conflict of the church and the powers of evil. Many scholars and preachers combine these approaches. Each has serious defenders, and each deals differently with the book’s clues.

Key terms

Preterism

From Latin praeter, ‘past.’ The view that most of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) were fulfilled in the first century, especially in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the persecution under Nero.

Partial preterism

The view that many prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, while Christ’s second coming, the resurrection and the final judgment remain future.

Full (hyper) preterism

The view that all prophecy, including the second coming and the resurrection, was fulfilled in AD 70. Almost all churches reject it as contrary to the creeds.

Historicism

The view that Revelation outlines the history of the church from the first century to the end, and that its symbols correspond to successive historical events.

Futurism

The view that most of Revelation from chapter 4 onward describes events just before Christ’s return.

Idealism (spiritual or symbolic approach)

The view that Revelation does not map particular events but shows, in images, the timeless struggle between Christ and evil.

Year-day principle

A historicist method that treats prophetic days as years, based on texts such as Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6.

Background

The previous lessons dealt with the thousand years. A wider question governs how readers interpret the whole book: where does it fit in time? The words ‘soon’ and ‘at hand’ (Revelation 1:1, 1:3, 22:10) suggest to many that it speaks to events near its first readers. Its vision of the final judgment, new creation and Christ’s return suggests to others that it points to the end. Four main approaches have emerged. They are not completely exclusive, and many modern commentators use elements of several.

A responsible student should avoid choosing quickly. Each approach arose in a historical setting, and each has been used for good and ill. It is also important to remember that most Christian readers across history have been concerned less with predicting events than with finding comfort and exhortation in the book.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Preterism

Preterists argue that the first readers must have understood the book as relevant to them. They stress the phrases ‘must shortly come to pass’ and ‘the time is at hand.’ They identify the beast with Nero or the Roman empire, the number 666 with the Hebrew letters of Nero Caesar, and the harlot Babylon with Jerusalem or with Rome. They link the Olivet Discourse, where Jesus says ‘this generation shall not pass’ (Matthew 24:34), with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Partial preterism is held by some Reformed and Catholic scholars today, and in earlier centuries by writers such as the Jesuit Luis de Alcazar, who proposed it in 1614. It holds that the second coming and resurrection remain future. Full preterism teaches that these were fulfilled in AD 70 as well. Most churches consider full preterism inconsistent with the creeds, which confess a future return and resurrection, and it has been rejected by Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical bodies.

Critics of preterism point out that the evidence for an early date is disputed, that the book’s description of universal judgment and new creation seems to go beyond AD 70, and that the phrases about nearness might be read differently.

Step 2: Historicism

Historicists see in Revelation a sketch of church history: seals, trumpets and bowls as successive eras, the beast and the harlot as the powers which opposed or corrupted the church. Joachim of Fiore, a twelfth-century abbot, set out an influential scheme. Reformation writers applied it to the papacy: the Lutheran Smalcald Articles called the pope the Antichrist, and the original Westminster Confession said the same. Isaac Newton, Johann Bengel and John Wesley wrote on historicist lines. Seventh-day Adventists and some other groups continue the tradition.

Historicism lost ground because the schemes kept being revised as time passed, and because later interpreters in different countries identified different events. Catholics rejected the identification of the pope with the Antichrist, and many Protestant bodies, including most Lutheran and Reformed churches, have dropped it from their official teaching. Defenders say that the book does cover long periods, as shown by the letters to the seven churches, which some read as successive ages.

Step 3: Futurism

Futurists hold that after the letters to the churches (chapters 2 and 3), the book describes events yet to come: the tribulation, the Antichrist, the return of Christ and the final judgment. The view was proposed in the sixteenth century by Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit, partly as a reply to Protestant historicism. It was developed by some Protestants, and has become common in dispensationalism and in popular prophecy. Futurists stress the book’s references to the end and its connection with Daniel’s prophecy.

Critics say futurism makes much of the book irrelevant to its first readers and leads to speculation about current events. Futurists reply that the book is clearly predictive, and that the first readers also needed to know what would come.

Step 4: Idealism and eclectic readings

Idealists hold that the book’s images describe, again and again, the same conflict: the church faces persecution and temptation, God judges, the faithful overcome by the blood of the Lamb. They point out that the book’s visions overlap and repeat. Idealism appears in early writers such as Victorinus and Tyconius and in modern commentators such as William Hendriksen. Its strength is that it makes the book speak to every age. Its weakness, say critics, is that it may not take seriously the sense of a real end.

Many scholars today combine elements. They hold that the book addressed its first-century readers, drew on a repeated pattern of conflict and victory, and also points to a final consummation. This eclectic approach is common in biblical scholarship and seems to fit the book’s layered character.

Step 5: Cautions

Several cautions apply to every approach. The book itself resists date-setting, as Jesus said that no one knows the day or hour (Matthew 24:36). The history of interpretation is full of confident identifications that failed. The creeds confess the essentials: Christ will come again to judge, the dead will rise, and the kingdom will have no end. Beyond that, the churches have allowed room for different readings.

1. How would a first-century reader have understood the phrase ‘must shortly come to pass’?
2. What is the danger of identifying a present person or institution with the Antichrist?
3. What do you think of the claim that Revelation speaks to every generation?
4. Why do churches reject full preterism while allowing partial preterism?
5. Which approach best fits the letters to the seven churches, and which best fits the final chapters?
6. What would a combined reading look like?

Examples

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic exegesis has used several approaches, including preterist suggestions in the seventeenth century and futurist ones in the sixteenth. The Church has not defined any scheme. It rejects identifications that treat the Church or the pope as the Antichrist, and holds that the final trial of the Church will come before Christ’s return.

Orthodox

Orthodox interpretation has been shaped by Andrew of Caesarea, who read the book as a spiritual and moral guide with reference to the end. The Orthodox do not give a prescribed scheme, and the book is read more for its worship than for its timeline.

Lutheran

Early Lutheran teaching identified the papacy with the Antichrist, as in the Smalcald Articles, and used a historicist reading. Most Lutheran churches today read Revelation primarily as pastoral comfort and keep to the creedal hope. Some Lutheran bodies retain the older statement.

Reformed

Reformed writers have been preterist, historicist, idealist and futurist. The seventeenth-century confessions assumed a historicist reading. Today most Reformed scholars hold a modified preterist, idealist or eclectic position, and some are historic premillennial.

Arminian and Wesleyan

Wesley’s notes follow Bengel’s historicism. In the twentieth century, many Wesleyan and Pentecostal churches turned to futurist dispensationalism, while others adopted idealist or eclectic readings.

Scholarly views

Most historical-critical scholars read Revelation in its first-century context, in the preterist or eclectic manner, while recognizing that it speaks of a future consummation. They regard identifications with modern events as outside the intent of the text.

Why it matters

How one dates Revelation’s fulfillment affects how one reads current events, politics and fears. Learning the four approaches helps a student to evaluate prophecy teaching that circulates in sermons, books and media. It encourages humility about identifications and appreciation for the book’s central purpose: to give the church courage to endure and worship in the face of powers that claim ultimate allegiance.

Common misunderstandings

Knowledge check

Think it through

1. Which approach seems to you to fit the whole book best, and which part of the book is hardest for your preferred approach to explain?
2. How would you respond to a friend who is frightened by a prophecy chart or video?
3. Why might a book of visions be more useful to the church when it is not made into a timetable?

Independent assignment

Four readings of one chapter

In your notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Choose one chapter of Revelation, such as chapter 13. Summarize what it says in plain words. Then write a short paragraph on how a preterist, a historicist, a futurist and an idealist would each read it. End by writing what clues in the text each approach would use as support, and what it would find difficult.

Further study

• Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Read the chapter on Revelation for guidance on its genre and symbols.
• John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions See sermons that treat the last judgment and the signs of the times.
• Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3: The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches See the historic confessions for their statements on the Antichrist and the last things.
• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) See sections on how the church has understood the last things across the centuries.
• Matthew 24:34 This generation shall not pass.
• Revelation 13:18 Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast.
• Revelation 22:10 The time is at hand.
• Matthew 24:36 Of that day and hour knoweth no man.