Partial Preterism And the Dating of Revelation

Today, Partial Preterism has been accepted by most Roman Catholics and mainline Christians but also among notable Calvinist scholars. Among its recent adherents are: Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin (Roman Catholic), George Grant and Doug Wilson (Presbyterian), R. C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry (Presbyterian), James White (Reformed Baptist), and N. T. Wright (Anglican). For reasons discussed briefly in this post, Preterism seems the best understanding of the events described in The Apocalypse, also known as Revelation. Full Preterism, which asserts that Christ has already returned, is generally regarded as heresy by the historic Christian traditions. 

While most Biblical scholars today believe that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian sometime after the destruction of the Temple, a minority of Biblical scholars believe that it was written earlier. Indeed, the minority claim that the Book of Revelation was likely written c. 68 AD, during the reign of Emperor Nero. If true, this would mean that Revelation was actually written before some of the other books of the New Testament. Thus, while it is listed chronically last in English Bibles, the chronological list of Biblical books does not necessarily always follow the pattern of the canon itself. 

There is a lot of evidence that Revelation was written before AD 70 such as the fact that the Syriac versions of Revelation seem to allude to this, the presence of the temple throughout the book, and the role of Judaism and in the apocalypse. The Mutorian Fragment (late second century) of the Book of Revelation, for example, actually says explicitly that the book was written by John during the reign of Nero. 

There is actually substantial evidence from the ancient church that Nero was an Antichrist. This was the view of Saint Jerome, for instance*1. Many in the ancient church saw the events of Revelation as mostly fulfilled through Titu's direction of the Temple in AD 70, etc. 

It should be noted that preterism does not necessarily say the world is getting better. Nor does it necessarily hold to a millennial glorious kingdom before Christ's second advent. Rather, it understands the events in the Book of Revelation to mostly describe the days of Nero. There are premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists who are all preterists. Indeed, endorsing preterism does not necessarily mean believing in one of the three main views of the millennium. 

On the other hand, futurism has gained prominence throughout Christendom. Though popular among Roman Catholics during the Counter-Reformation, it is now also endorsed by dispensationalists. Historically, though, evangelicals were dominantly postmillennial. 

And to make matters even more complicated, within Preterism, there are substantial differences of thought. N. T. Wright, a retired bishop from the church of England, and Scott Hahn, a major Roman Catholic apologist, both differ in important ways concerning the interpretation of the book. For example, Hahn's interest in the whore of Babylon in Revelation 18 is Jerusalem, as the Jews turned away from Christ in the first century. Wright, though, believes the whore to be the empire itself. 

While much more could be said about Revelation's composition, there are good arguments both before the work was completed after AD 70, as well as before. 

Among some of the greatest arguments for the Preterist understanding of Revelation are 

1. The churches are literal churches of the first-century world throughout the book. While some claim that John's use of seven churches is allegorical, John could have just been allegorical without mentioning any real churches. 

2. The Temple is still standing in Revelation 11. It would make sense that the book was written before its destruction by Titus. 

3. First-century Christians would have understood the allegories and their meanings in the book better than those in later centuries. Jerome, for example, identified Nero as an Antichrist and Jerome lived centuries after Nero, demonstrating that he did not just think Nero was an Antichrist because he was afraid of what Nero might do...Nero's evil deeds were long done by Jerome's time. Likewise, the beast or Antichrist (a word never actually mentioned in the book) seems to be identified as Nero or Domitian rather than a later figure in history. Although many Christians today look for 666 as the mark of the Antichrist, they assume the meaning of Antichrist according to the dictates of the English language rather than how the number was understood in New Testament Greek. Ironically, not all of the New Testament manuscripts say ''666.'' Some actually say, ''616,'' which if the latter is true, would defeat almost everything that Lahaye and Hagee have said concerning the identity of the Antichrist. On the other hand, however, the numerical numbers for the Name of Nero equates to both 666 and 616, important marks of John's writing that modern people won't know unless they know the Bible in its original language. While most today are excited about looking for the Antichrist (as people have done on going Hitler, the papacy, Reagan, etc), this was not the understanding of first-century Christianity. This is one of the dangers, though, of people reading The Book of Revelation outside of a first-century lens, and reading it according to modern interpretation and as if the book was written in a different context than that of the Roman Empire. Read Revelation 13, a chapter that never uses the word, ''Antichrist,'' but does say, ''Beast.'' For all the reasons provided above, it seems best to think of Nero as the Antichrist (or possibly Domitian, his successor). 

4. Revelation 17: 10 describes how five kings have fallen, one is still reigning, and one more is to come. Nero, ironically, was the sixth emperor of Rome and Revelation describes the sixth king as ruling. Thus, a natural reading of Revelation 17 is understanding Nero as the Antichrist. The first-century Christians would have understood this reference, unlike Christians two thousand years ago trying to speculate who the seven kings were. 

5. Even if it was proven that Revelation was written after AD 70, the events described in the book seem to be describing either Nero or Domitian and the context of much of the book is about Christians vs. Jews, as well as Christians vs. the Roman Empire. Interestingly enough, after AD 70, there was no more serious conflict between the Jews and the Christians, showing that the book seems to be focusing on the first-century world primarily. 

6. Some early Christians believed that Nero resurrected and returned as Domitian. Thus, even if Irenaeus of Lyons was right that John wrote the book at a later date, the reign of Domitian also fits well with the events described in the book. 

7. There are some strong arguments that imply that the book may have been written after Nero and during the reign of Domitian including that Domitian demanded public worship of himself as does the best in the book (Revelation 13: 4, 15-16, 14: 9-11, 15: 2, 16: 2, 19: 20, 20: 5.) But again, for reasons already described above, even if Revelation was written after Nero, this does not destroy the Preterist position. Another possible theory is that Revelation was written over decades, which may explain possible references to both Nero and Domitian. 

8. Most reformers were historicists. They saw the papacy as the Antichrist. Whatever one thinks about the papacy, however, the reformers' views on this topic were tarnished by their lack of first-century knowledge. On topics from justification to eschatology, to see the Catholic Church as the Pharisees, they wrongly read much of the New Testament as being about the state of the sixteenth-century church, rather than the context of first-century Judaism. Beginning in the 1800s, though, more Reformed Christians have began to adopt to the Pretyerist position as theologians from David Chilton to Peter Leithert began to read Revelation not from the lens of the Reformation,  but to how a first-century Jew would have understood these apocalyptic writings. As further proof of the Reformer's fault integration, see Luther's comments and views about the Jews. Why did he dislike the Jews so much? Because Luther did not see the Synagoes of Satan in Revelation 2: 9 as specifically referring to only the Jewish temples of the first century, but rather, to all Jews. While many dispensationalists have avoided Luther's thoughts on the Jews in particular, they have followed many of his and Calvin's hermeneutics of reading into the first century later problems of the church. Saint Jerome of Rome, on the other hand, had real dialogue with the Jews, as did Justin Martyr and many of the Early Christians knew Judaism on both justification and eschatology from the Jewish perspective far better than most of the reformers ever did. The reformers allegorized much of Scripture as their minds were on abuses in the Roman Church...though by doing this, they openly contradicted the fathers and most others in church history on notable theological subjects. 

9. Nothing in Revelation says that Christ will return when the best is still reigning. In the final battle, Christ will cast Satan and all the demons of this world into the abyss. However, it is an assumption to think that the Antichrist will necessarily be reining before Christ returns. 

10. Although many have interpreted the Whore of Babylon as a future counter fit church or the current Roman Catholic Church, the most natural reading of Revelation 18 is that the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Empire itself. Rome is sick from the blood of the saints that she has caused. She is the counterfeit of the Bride of Christ, as she was in the first-century world. 

11. Furthermore, Paul's writings were written before the gospels and Revelation. Thus, his discussion of Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2 was the future for him, and not necessarily for the author of Revelation. 

For all of the reasons that I discussed above, Preterism makes sense in light of the literary, historical, and grammatical contexts of the book. Although more on this topic could be said, I wanted to keep this post brief. Even if one believes the thousand year reign is to commence on this earth, and if we believes that it will occur after Christ's return (premillennialism), the early church, as I have argued, understood Rome itself as the Antichrist. 

Notes:

*1-https://providencechristiannm.com/church-history-preterism/