Starting with the reformers of the sixteenth century, Protestantism has found it virtually impossible to resist using The Apocalypse against the Catholic Church. They spoke of the Pope as the false prophet, the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, and Rome as the great city, Sodom. As a result of this apologetic ploy, they have been forced as a group into some variation of Joachim’s historicism when interpreting these visions.

But these methods do not do justice to the original intent of St. John. Recently, Evangelicals have discovered that much of The Apocalypse can be best understood through the lens of the first century. This method of interpretation has been labeled “preterism” (ZPE). Evangelical preterists have done valuable work in interpreting The Apocalypse. As we have noted, however, this interpretation of these visions is not recent by any means. Andreas of Cappadocia made it clear that this view was widespread a thousand years before the Protestant Reformation (ITR, Apoc. 6:12; Apoc. 7:1). I believe St. John intended us to see the first century in his descriptions, and then apply those lessons to our own times.

As so often happens in Protestantism, however, the valuable rediscovery that preterism makes has recently led to an overreaction. It entails the transformation of a valid hermeneutic (interpretive) tool into a theological system: hyperpreterism, or strict preterism. Hyperpreterism emphasizes the events of the first century to the exclusion of all else that the Bible teaches about the future. They end up denying the future return of Christ at the final eschaton. They believe that even these promises were fulfilled in 70 A.D. Obviously, this is not a valid option for loyal Catholics.

There are two major difficulties with hyperpreterism that are immediately obvious. First, the Church has always cherished those passages that clearly speak of Christ’s return at the final eschaton. Second, strict preterism has no adequate explanation for the existence of death in our present experience.

There are certain passages that clearly teach a still-future return of Christ. We see evidence of this in His Olivet Discourse (see Chapter 6). The second half of Christ’s answer is awkward for the hyperpreterist. Of course, there are others that predict the second coming as well. The Apocalypse looks to a future consummation of the world order at Christ’s second advent.

All of this hints at a problem that makes hyperpreterists squirm. The early Church, without exception, hoped for a physical resurrection and a literal return of Christ. The hyperpreterist tries to separate the beliefs of the early Church from the Bible passages they examine. They believe in sola Scriptura on steroids!

In this way, preterists are similar to rapturists. The preterist begins with a theology and then seeks to force all Bible passages and Church belief into conformity with that presupposition. They both try to fit the biblical data into a pre-existing system. As a result, they are left with “problem passages” that do not support their theology and must be explained away.

An example of early Church belief exists in the Didache, written just after 100 A.D. It says, “May your grace come and this world pass away!” The Didache was written after the events surrounding 70 A.D., but still within the generation of people who had known some of the Apostles. The Church was still awaiting the final eschaton: the final consummation had not yet occurred by their generation.

Although we believe that here “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the Kingdom” has begun, we still wait “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells” (LUM, 3:5). “The pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the Son of God” (LUM, 48ss3).

The ancient prayer of the Church has always been, “Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!” It still is. The second coming is proclaimed in every Mass: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Christians have always believed that the Bible teaches there will one day be a second coming.

This brings us to a second problem for the hyperpreterists: death. Because they do not anticipate any future, bodily resurrection at Christ’s return, they are forced to claim that death has already been destroyed. They know that Scripture tells us that death is the last enemy to be conquered, and it will happen at Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:26). Because the hyperpreterist believes there is no future second advent of Christ, he is forced into the rather foolish argument that death has already been destroyed! Without repeating his claims, let me assure you that they do not match present reality. Death is the separation of our soul from our body, and that event is occurring throughout the world even as you read this page.

Justin Martyr reminds us that “death is a debt which must at all events be paid,” even today (ACR, XI). Yet, as Catholics, we remind ourselves that death is not final. At death, Catholics point their hearts and minds to Christ’s second advent. At funerals, we pray that we will “share in Your glory when every tear will be wiped away. On that day we shall see You, our God, as You are. We shall become like you and praise You forever through Christ our Lord.”

If the only victory over death is the present one, with no hope of a future resurrection, then “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19).

Hyperpreterists fail to understand the Bible adequately for several reasons: they hold to a radical sense of sola Scriptura, they come to passages with a preset agenda, and they impose a twenty-first-century American mindset on a book written by and for first-century Christians.

For an example of this third failure, we will examine the biblical use of the word temple. The Bible uses this word in many ways, but it always signifies a specific physical place where God dwells.

By that definition, of course, the ultimate Temple is the God-Man, Jesus Christ. Of course, the two buildings that stood in Jerusalem are the most obvious Temples. God did dwell in the Old Covenant Temple. When Jesus stood in the Temple courtyard, He used the different understandings of the word temple. Speaking of His own physical body, He said, “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Later His disciples realized this was a clear reference to His impending Crucifixion and Resurrection. The Jews, however, confused His reference to the Temple of His body with the Temple building that Herod had built of stone (Matt. 26:61).

But Jesus was not the only one whose body was a Temple. Your body is also a temple: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?… So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19–20).

Of course, aside from Jesus, the greatest example of a human temple is Mary, the mother of Jesus. She flawlessly housed God’s Spirit in the same manner that you and I do imperfectly. But she experienced much more. Her body was actually the physical home of God the Son for nine months during her pregnancy. This is why Scripture likens her to the new ark of the covenant. In his vision, John records, “God’s Temple in Heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His Temple.… And a great portent appeared in Heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun.… She brought forth a male Child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Apoc. 11:19; 12:1, 5). Just as the Old Covenant Temple received God’s glory, so Mary is said to have been “overshadowed” by the “power of the Most High” (Luke 1:35).

St. John was not making a novel comparison in this passage. John of Damascus writes that, as a group, the original Apostles applied the psalms that speak of the Temple to Mary (Homily I:12). He does not defend this, as though it were a novel idea. He mentions three psalms that the Apostles used to point to Mary as the true Temple: “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved; God will help her right early” (Ps. 46:4–5). “We shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, thy holy Temple!” (Ps. 65:4). “Look … at the mount which God desired for His abode” (Ps. 68:16).

Without reservation, the early Church continued this tradition of drawing an analogy between the Temple and Mary. Many in the early Church saw in Mary the fulfillment of the new Temple promises in the Old Testament. Tobit implies that certain Jews did not understand the Temple of Herod to fulfill the future Temple promised by God, so Mary fulfilled them (13:10).

There are more Temples than just human ones, though. Christ’s Church is also a Temple of God. The Church is made of physical members, but God’s Spirit enlivens her. St. Paul repeated this theme often: “You are … members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy Temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:19–21). “We are the Temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ ” (2 Cor. 6:16; Exod. 25:8; Ezek. 37:27).

In Old Covenant times, the Bible was viewed as a Temple. The Pentateuch—the first five books of the Bible—was the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies. The prophets were the Holy Place. The writings were the outer court of the Gentiles.

Even Jerusalem was considered a Temple. God dwelt in this city in a unique way, because of the sacrificial Temple.

There is one more Temple the Jews discerned within the Old Testament. The largest Temple of the Bible was the earth (or alternately, the whole universe) (AJ, III, 6, 4, 122–126; III, 7, 7, 180–183). Like the other Temples, it was a physical place that held God’s presence. As early as Genesis 1:2, God’s Spirit is present interacting within the universe. Isaiah compares the Jewish Temple to the Temple God built for Himself, namely the physical universe. “Thus says the Lord, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me?’ ” (66:1).

The way the Bible uses temple is really an illustration of ground rule 3. Biblical history prophesies the future. The Old Testament foretold that the Temple building must be destroyed and then rebuilt. History confirms that Jerusalem was destroyed and rebuilt. Our bodies are going to be destroyed in death and then resurrected (2 Cor. 4:16). Every temple must be destroyed and reborn. When the Messiah came, even the Temple of Jesus’ body would meet the destruction of death on the Cross. While the rebuilding of the Temple foreshadowed the Messiah’s Resurrection, Christ’s resurrection foreshadows the resurrection of all Christians at the end of history; because Christ is “the first fruits” of all human resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20).

Yet all of these temples point to the future destruction and rebirth of another temple. The final temple to be destroyed at the end of time is the temple of heaven and earth, the physical universe: “The heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:15). Some people understand St. Peter as describing the events of 70 A.D. I do not accept that view because of the context of verses 6 and 7, but that is largely irrelevant. If Peter is primarily speaking about the destruction of the Temple, it still points to that final death and resurrection of the temple of the universe at the final eschaton. That new heaven and new earth will be as different from the present one as the resurrected body of Christ is from His old body. (And the old one will be gone, just as Christ’s was!) All of the various temples in history point to that final cataclysmic event.

The Church reminds us that even the Bride of Christ must undergo this rebirth. The Catechism teaches that “The Church will enter the glory of the Kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in His death and Resurrection” (CCC, par. 677).

We must keep the mindset of the early Church and its Jewish forebears in mind when we look at various ideas concerning the future. Theological systems that discount the need for a death and rebirth of our bodies, the Church, or the universe should be immediately suspect. Hyperpreterism just does not do justice to the scriptural mindset.