From Full Preterism to Flat Rejection: The Battle Over Revelation
Revelation is the last book of the New Testament and is usually read as an apocalyptic vision of Christ’s victory, judgment, and the final renewal of all things. Different Christian traditions interpret its symbols and timing in very different ways.
Partial Preterism teaches that most of Revelation’s prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, especially in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but it still expects Christ’s future return, resurrection, and final judgment.
Full Preterism goes further and says all of Revelation, including Christ’s return and the final judgment, was fulfilled in the past. That view is widely regarded as outside orthodox Christian belief because it denies a future bodily second coming.
Some Christians do not believe Revelation should be read as a literal prediction of future events at all. They may see it as highly symbolic, as a message to the first-century church, or as a book whose meaning is too uncertain to build an end-times system on.
The main theological reason orthodox Christians reject Full Preterism is that it denies a future bodily return of Christ, a future bodily resurrection, and a final judgment—all of which are central to historic Christian teaching and creedal Christianity. It also tends to reshape the Christian hope away from the renewal of the body and creation, which critics say conflicts with passages like 1 Corinthians 15 and the apostolic expectation of Christ’s coming.
Core doctrinal concerns
Christ’s return: Full Preterism holds that the “coming” texts were fulfilled in the first century, whereas orthodox theology expects Christ to return visibly and publicly in the future.
Resurrection: Critics argue that it turns the resurrection into a past or spiritual event, but the New Testament presents it as bodily and future.
Final judgment: It removes the final, universal judgment from the end of history and relocates it to the past, which critics see as incompatible with the biblical storyline.
Why it is seen as serious
Many theologians treat Full Preterism as more than a minor eschatological difference because it affects Christology, anthropology, and the hope of salvation: what happens to Christ’s bodily reign, what it means for humans to be embodied creatures, and whether redemption includes the body. That is why some describe it as outside orthodox Christianity rather than just an alternate end-times view.
In simple terms
Partial preterists usually say, “some prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, but the final return and resurrection are still future.” Full preterists say, “it is all past.” That final claim is what most Christians reject, because it appears to empty out the future hope the New Testament keeps pressing forward toward.
A note from my Facebook friend:
For those who don’t know, I absolutely loathe the book of Revelation.
I’d just as soon set fire to every copy on earth, completely ridding the cosmos of the nonsense it contains. May the smoke of its destruction rise “forever & ever.”
Strong stance, I know... but most Christians assume that the Book of Revelation has always enjoyed universal acceptance within the Church. Historically, however, Revelation was one of the most disputed books in the New Testament.
Many respected church fathers questioned its authorship, omitted it from their lists of Scripture, or openly rejected it.
One of the earliest critics was Dionysius of Alexandria (3rd century). Although he respected the book and acknowledged that many believers valued it, he denied that it was written by the Apostle John:
“I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I do not regard it as the work of the apostle.”
Dionysius pointed to major differences in language and style between Revelation and the Gospel of John.
The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea preserved these criticisms and noted the ongoing controversy surrounding the book:
“Some reject the Apocalypse, while others rank it among the accepted books.”
Other influential fathers were also hesitant.
Cyril of Jerusalem omitted Revelation from his canonical list of New Testament books.
Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the greatest theologians of the fourth century, likewise excluded it from his catalog of Scripture.
Theodore of Mopsuestia appears to have rejected the book outright and denied its apostolic authority.
Even among those who accepted Revelation, many treated it with caution.
The churches of the Christian East often avoided using it in public worship, and figures such as John Chrysostom made little or no use of it in their preaching and theological writings.
The skepticism did not end with the early Church. During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther expressed profound doubts about Revelation.
In his 1522 Preface to the book, he famously wrote:
“My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.”
He then gave the reason for his hesitation:
“Christ is neither taught nor known in it.”
History demonstrates that doubts concerning the book are not a modern invention.
From Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century to Martin Luther in the sixteenth, respected Christian thinkers have questioned its authorship, challenged its authority, or regarded it with deep reservation.
Rejecting Revelation may be a minority position, but it has existed throughout much of Christian history.
If this position makes me appear even more heretical to some, then so be it.
But....
“Even if we or an angel from heaven should present to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached.....”.
Cheers.
From Howard Schreiber:
My take on Joshua’s Note:
The Bible (Galatians 1:8). It was written by the Apostle Paul to an early Christian church.
“The original message about Jesus is final. If anyone comes along and tries to change it—even if it’s me, or even if a literal angel flies down from heaven with a ‘new’ message—do not listen to them. They are wrong.”
The main point: Stick to the original truth. Do not accept new versions or additions, no matter how important or supernatural the messenger seems. Joshua believes the Book of Revelation has a completely different, harsher message than the original, simple teachings of Jesus. By using this quote, he is basically saying: “The Book of Revelation goes against the original gospel, so I am ignoring it, exactly like Paul told us to do.”
lol. I could Go either way. What do I know?
Not sure where you stand on all this and not sure where I do either. Am I missing something?
I like that the conversation exists. Keep on writing!