In varying forms, what has come to be known as preterism in the Christian study of end-time events—often called eschatology—is the notion that the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation describe events that transpired within the general time frame in which they were written [1]. According to both preterists and non-preterists, this approach to Bible prophecy originated with the teachings of the Jesuit scholar Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613) during the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation [2]. It is commonly recognized that this teaching, among others, was designed “as a Catholic defense against the Protestant historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy” [3].
Others, including some contemporary Adventists, find themselves attracted to the premises of preterism for different reasons. One commentator, in citing what he holds to be weaknesses of Adventist historicism, writes of how this approach to prophecy supposedly “marginalizes the meaning and importance of the books of Daniel and Revelation for those who first read them or had them read to them” [4].
This approach to the Bible holds a certain attraction for those who see the inspired text as primarily (if not solely) a product of its time—a local instrument of affirmation, consolation, and even propaganda, as distinct from a divine missive perhaps applicable but by no means confined or constrained by immediate circumstances. The Bible presents itself as the Word of the eternal, transcendent God of the universe (II Peter 1:20-21), not only able to address immediate challenges faced by His people, but also fully capable of reaching into the future and predicting events beyond the here and now (Isa. 42:9; II Peter 1:19).
Problems With Preterism
Unfortunately for the assumptions behind preterism, little or no evidence can be produced as to how the original readers of the Bible’s apocalyptic passages actually understood them. Indeed, one can rightly ask whether in fact we are safe in assuming that the original or subsequent audiences of these portions of Scripture actually believed them to be already fulfilled or in process of fulfillment. And even if such assumptions existed during the times in question, who is to say they carry inspired authority?
Jesus’ explicit designation of Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” prophecy as applying to the future offers decisive evidence that the Daniel’s original readers were not to expect fulfillment of this prediction in their day—certainly not one anticipated by the Biblical text itself. In Jesus’ words:
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand:) (Matt. 25:15).
Notice how Jesus is inviting His hearers to read and understand Daniel’s prophecy, and to look for its fulfillment in the future. No past fulfillment of this prophecy, in Daniel’s day or otherwise, is anticipated either by the words of our Lord, those of Daniel, or any other inspired author’s. One is likewise fascinated by the following verses from the book of Hebrews, chapter 9, which describe the Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary:
And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly (verses 3-5).
Here we see the apostle, as he outlines the various features and functions of the earthly sanctuary, closing his description of the Most Holy Place with the statement: “of which we cannot now speak particularly” (verse 5). This statement not only dovetails with the projection into the post-New Testament future of Jesus’ Most Holy Place ministry in heaven by the books of Daniel and Revelation (Dan. 7:9-14; 8:14; Rev. 11:18-19); it demonstrates how an inspired author can describe a sacred reality as belonging to the future rather than the present.
Preterism and the Three Angels’ Messages
As of this writing, the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church is studying the three angels’ messages through the Adult Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly [##5|Mark Finley (principal contributor}, Three Cosmic Messages (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, April-June 2023).##]. Certain so-called “progressive” scholars in the church are suggesting that the author of these messages “understood his message and expected his readers to do so” [6], that “we should read it through their experience and understanding in around A.D. 100” [7].
Unfortunately for his argument, the author cited above claims—without any persuasive support from the text—that no connection can be found between Revelation 14:6-12 and the remainder of the chapter in question, declaring at one point that the passage containing these messages “is not tied to what precedes or follows it” [8]. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that the first five verses of the chapter are depicting those who respond to the messages that followed, and that the respective harvests described in the verses following the three angels’ messages (verses 13-20) represent the respective consequences attending those who accept or reject the messages thus delivered.
This author follows the pattern of so many other theological “progressives,” who persist in analyzing a Biblical passage every possible way, in isolation from its immediate setting within the text and detached from the larger Biblical consensus. Heedless of the historical panorama foretold in the previous chapters, the author makes strange references to those worshiping the beast power as “animal worshipers” [9], seemingly ignoring the contextual and other Biblical evidence as to the symbolic nature of these verses and the historical and eschatological identity of the wicked power thus symbolized.
While he acknowledges that “keeping ‘the commandments of God’ (Rev. 14:12) seems to be an obvious reference to broadly obeying the divine commands in the Hebrew scriptures in general and the Decalogue in particular” [10], he tries to muddle the meaning of “the faith of Jesus” in the same verse, insisting that it could mean either “the faith that Jesus displayed” or “the faith in Jesus, the Christ” [11]. Why he insists that “the latter meaning is more likely” [12] in view of the verse’s earlier description of these faithful souls as commandment-keepers, he fails to explain. In Scripture, faith is the indispensable means by which obedience to God’s commandments and thus pleasing God is accomplished (Heb. 11). But as the author of these comments refuses to permit either the immediate context of the verses he is studying or the larger Biblical message to affect his conclusions, he misses this and numerous other points within the passage.
Reapplication of Prophecy the Exclusive Province of Inspired Writers
Bible passages and prophecies can, of course, be understood as meaning one thing in a particular context and something else in another. The application of Bible prophecy to more than one setting or event—what some have at times called the apotelesmatic principle—is most assuredly contained in the Biblical record. We see this principle at work in Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 24 on the future destruction of Jerusalem and its application to the events just before His second coming. Earlier in the Gospel of Matthew we again see this principle at work in the application of a statement by the prophet Hosea regarding Israel’s exodus from Egypt, to the return of Mary, Joseph, and the child Jesus from their flight to Egypt following Herod’s threat to the infant Savior:
When he (Joseph) arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called My Son (Matt. 2:14-15).
The passage here cited from Hosea reads as follows:
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1).
No reference to the future sojourn of the coming Messiah in Egypt and subsequent return to Israel can be found in the context of the above passage. But this shouldn’t concern us, as the inspired writings are first and foremost the product of divine revelation, the authors of these writings working under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. An inspired author can be instructed by the Holy Spirit to apply another inspired passage in a way not discernable through a simple reading of the passage in question. Provided the passage being thus applied offers nothing at variance with the inspired consensus, the reader can be assured that the inspired author has rendered the passage in question in accord with the divine will.
But such reapplication of Scripture, in particular the prophetic portions, is most dangerous when undertaken by uninspired commentators. This is where certain creative interpreters within Adventism at times run into trouble. Some, for example, will acknowledge Ellen White’s endorsement of the historicist interpretation of the sixth of Revelation’s trumpets in Revelation chapter 9 [##13|Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 334-335.##], while at the same time promoting a reapplication of the trumpets into the future. Sincere as these creative souls may be, such speculation does not lie within the purview of uninspired individuals. If an inspired writer reapplies a previously fulfilled prophecy, that is right and good, as in the case of Matthew’s reapplication of Hosea (Hosea 11:1; Matt. 2:14-15) or Jesus’ reapplication of His prophecy of old Jerusalem’s pending destruction to the events preceding His second coming (Matt. 24). But when an uninspired person tries to reapply prophecy, it becomes little more than speculative guesswork, and becomes a source of confusion rather than clarity.
Conclusion: Preterist Folly
Toward the close of his article promoting a preterist view of Revelation 14, the commentator cited above again reveals his disrespect for the Bible when he writes as follows:
In my view of Scripture, I place the highest values on the intentions of the writers—whether they are right or wrong—and on the expected understanding of their initial readers, given their time, place, and circumstances [14].
The writers of Scripture, in his view, can be either right or wrong, their pronouncements “real or fictitious,” as he claims [15]. The Bible is obviously not a transcendent measure of right and wrong for this commentator, as the Bible professes itself to be (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11).
And what were, in fact, the “intentions of the writers” or the “expected understanding of their initial readers”? The above author admits he doesn’t know:
Apart from a broad understanding that Christians seemed to be encountering serious challenges to their faith and practice from those within and outside their group, especially public officials, I have no idea what the symbols and metaphors, obviously known to the writer and expected of the readers, actually meant around AD 100. I am content with that, even as I and others continue to seek more evidence to further enlighten us [16].
So much for the “sure word of prophecy” (II Peter 1:19)! Such statements as the above remind us of Ellen White’s statement contrasting Jesus’ approach to Scripture with that of the religious teachers of His day:
But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty. But Jesus taught the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority. Whatever His subject, it was presented with power, as if His words could not be controverted [##17|White, The Desire of Ages, p. 253.##].
The commentator quoted above goes on to effectively repudiate the heart of the Seventh-day Adventist message, and to write himself out of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when he states as follows:
None of the language—literal or figurative—and none of the characters, plots, prohibitions, or commands— real or fictitious—have any prophetic reference to times, places, or circumstances beyond the writer and original readers. Furthermore, this statement contends that no person or group after the time of the original readers may legitimately claim to see themselves uniquely in this text or to justify their specific existence, significance, or mission by appeals to it. Revelation 14:6–12 simply did not have them in mind [18].
Ironically, while on one hand the above author has no idea what the symbols of Revelation meant to the author or his original audience, he seems absolutely certain that the author had no reference to any future group of Christians, their message, or their mission. The old saying comes to mind: “Consistency, thou art a jewel.”
But the message of Revelation 14 need not be relegated to ambiguity in this fashion. The call to fear God and give Him glory because of the coming judgment, to worship the Creator, to reject Babylon’s apostasy and confusion, and to be part of God’s faithful remnant who “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17; 14:12), is self-explanatory and beyond dispute when read in context and within the larger consensus of Holy Writ. The message of classic Seventh-day Adventism, encapsulated in the threefold proclamation of Revelation’s 14th chapter, is both Biblically unimpeachable and as relevant to our chaotic, polarized, disaster-ridden world as tomorrow’s headlines. The confused folly of preterism is in no way a credible option for informed, thoughtful members of God’s remnant church.
REFERENCES
1. “Preterism,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. David R. Larson, “Ten Weaknesses of Seventh-day Adventist Historicism,” Spectrum, May 3, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2023/ten-weaknesses-seventh-day-adventist-historicism
5. Mark Finley (principal contributor), Three Cosmic Messages (Silver Spring, MD: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, April-June 2023).
6. Warren Trenchard, “Revelation 14:6-12 and the Case for Preterism,” Spectrum, May 5, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/sabbath-school/2023/revelation-146-12-and-case-preterism
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 334-335.
14. Trenchard, “Revelation 14:6-12 and the Case for Preterism,” Spectrum, May 5, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/sabbath-school/2023/revelation-146-12-and-case-preterism
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 253.
18. Trenchard, “Revelation 14:6-12 and the Case for Preterism,” Spectrum, May 5, 2023 https://spectrummagazine.org/sabbath-school/2023/revelation-146-12-and-case-preterism
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan