Have you done much study in regards to how the early church fathers? viewed the book of Revelation?? I know the book was not universally accepted but I was wondering of those that embraced the book did they interpret it from a futurist, historisist, or preterist view?

I am reading a book titled "The Paourusia" coupled with Hank's new book "The Apocalypse Code" which view The Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation from a Preteristst/semi-preterist perspective. In criticizing LaHay and other "prophecy experts" they are both quick to point out that dispensational-premellinalims is relatively new on the scene so I was wondering how late in the game did preterist belief take to surface in the church? Also, they both attack Ireneous for dating the Book of Revleation erroneously at 95 AD. What are your thoughts on when the book was written since the preterists position rises and falls on when the book was written?
(Kevin, from _____ )

Kevin,

This, I must say, is an interesting and amusing question for me.
It is not the first time I have been questioned on this issue. I will only give you the short answer here, then I will have to do some research for a more thorough treatment.

1. I know many get tired of hearing me say this, but I am not an expert in this area, not in the early church thinking and even less when it comes to understanding and having a credible idea about Revelation. In fact, I really do not have a working knowledge of the terms you are using: preterist, semi-preterist, dispensational-premillenialists, etc.

This just is not my cup of tea. I have never been convinced of any particular position on this stuff. I call myself a "pan-millenialist," I believe it will all pan out in the end.? God is sovereign and He will do what He wants.

To begin a conversation about the early church view of The Revelation of St John I would point you to Martin Rist's introduction to Revelation in the Interpreter's Bible Commentary set, 1957. He has a very good section on how Revelation was seen/accepted in the early church. I will summarize the early church position:

- The Revelation had difficulty making it into the NT canon for a few reasons. One was that authorship was not certain (similar to the letter to the Hebrews). But another reason was the strange nature of the writing - nobody has ever truly known or understood what the writer was trying to say. Some of the early fathers thought he was describing current events of his day and the struggle against Rome. Some thought he was describing the future.

- The immediate return of the Lord to the earth was always taken seriously. It was never universally thought that particular things "had" to happen - believers in almost every era of struggle have thought the end could be happening.

- The 1,000 year reign was believed by some at the end of the first century. We know this because of the Revelation, but also through the fragments of Papias. He speaks of this reign in miraculous terms. Justin Martyr believed this as well as did the writer of the Shepherd of Hermas. However, a section of the church rejected this whole concept, to a great degree BECAUSE they did not accept Revelation as inspired.
Listen to Eusebius on Papias:

11 “The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.
12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.”?
E.H. III.19.11-13

Eusebius follows Origen in his thinking. Indeed, the church in the east fell into the Alexandrian school of biblical interpretation, using allegory and symbolism to explain many things that did not appear to have an immediately clear meaning (they even used allegory for things that did appear to be clear!). It was probably difficult for Eusebius to see The Revelation as a prophetic view of the future - he saw it as symbolic. He also believed that Constantine had ushered in a new age - the age of the Church, and he saw the emperor as the personal representative of Christ on the earth.

My summary of the first four centuries would be that the immanent return of Jesus was held at first, died away after the Romans wiped the Jews out in 70, and slowly regained strength in the 90’s due again to persecution. My limited understanding of The Revelation is that it was written in the late 90's during the persecution of Domitian. The immanent return of Jesus stayed fresh during the persecutions of the second century, but by the time you come to the end of that century the fathers, probably through witnessing such harsh persecution without a parousia, do not speak of the second coming or the end of time very often (if at all - I do not recall any discussion on this topic, but it has not been something I looked for). Finally, as was mentioned earlier, Constantine comes to power, becomes a Christian and reverses Roman antagonism - this probably brought the thoughts of the second coming to its lowest point in the history of the church.