Revelation 4 Views

Introduction

This week we continue our series through the Book of Revelation, a series that we started just last week. We began with some introductory remarks related to the book itself, and eschatology in general (that is, the study of last things). I argued that eschatology is not unimportant, and that Revelation, while it is hard to understand, is meant to be understood, that it is meant to be profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

And as it relates specifically to the book, that it’s not like other NT letters that we’re familiar with, that it is written in a literary genre that has no modern equivalent, that it was written using an apocalyptic literary style couched in biblical prophecy, a prophecy of real historical events. And as we begin walking through the book together to not be intimidated by the book’s symbology, but to realize that as we become more acquainted with the OT that Revelation will begin to spring into clarity. And lastly, we must not forget that John’s Apocalypse is pastoral, that it isn’t intended to be merely a cryptic future telling letter, but a letter that blesses and strengthens the church, especially the church in John’s own day.

Now, this week I want to continue those introductory remarks by looking at four traditional interpretations of Revelation, or four differing views of Revelation. Because the Book of Revelation is undoubtedly the most challenging book in the NT to understand it’s no surprise that four categories of interpretation have emerged over church history. And as I pointed out in our last time, all four of these views fall within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. You’ll find faithful conservative Bible teachers and scholars holding any one of these views over the course of church history. This doesn’t mean all of them are correct, but it does mean that we shouldn’t divide and plant new churches based upon disagreements over these doctrines. We should be able to have strong convictions in matters of eschatology while also being able to maintain fellowship and charity toward one another.

Four views

The four views that we’re going to look at are the following, the futurist, the historicist, the idealist and the preterist. And I want us to look, briefly, at each of these views for a couple of reasons. The first reason, is because most of us are probably only familiar with one of them (that is, the futurist position), and it would do us some good to know and understand the other views that Christians have held throughout church history. It’s easy to become pigeonholed into a particular way of thinking and concluding that our approach must be correct simply because we’ve heard no other perspectives. Proverbs 18:17 famously says,

English Standard Version Chapter 18

17  The one who states his case first seems right,

until the other comes and examines him.

If one of our goals is to rightly understand the book then we should make a point to expose ourselves to what other faithful Christians have said on the subject. I couldn’t even begin to tell you how many times my understanding of a particular text or doctrine has been changed after another brother, whether by book or in person, has brought to light information or a perspective that I hadn’t known or accounted for. Now, this isn’t to say that our minds should always be changing and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, but only that further examination should help us reach better, more accurate conclusions.

Another reason we should examine these four views is so that we can acquire a greater respect for the positions that other Christians hold. Even if your eschatological position remains unchanged after we’ve surveyed this book, I hope, at the very least you will have acquired a greater respect for other Christians who hold different views. The idea here is that such respect would result in greater charity toward one another and become a grounds for deeper fellowship. That as “iron sharpens iron,” so we would be better equipped to “sharpen one another”.

Futurist

So, the first view that we’re going to look at is what you’re probably most familiar with already - the futurist interpretation. This view understands the Book of Revelation, specifically chapters 4-22, as describing future events, events that we’re still looking forward to. The futurist understands Revelation to be describing the events that immediately precede the second coming of Christ. They argue that what’s described in Revelation are the same events Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 in his famous Olivet Discourse when he described the destruction of the Temple to his disciples, often referred to as the Great Tribulation. The futurist argues that Revelation is descriptive of the signs immediately preceding the second coming of Christ, and that when we see these signs we will know the time is near.

The futurist also sees the rapture, Jesus’ second coming, a literal thousand year reign of Christ on the earth, final judgment, and the new heavens and earth as all being described in John’s vision. In essence, what defines the futurist position is that they see all or most of the events in Revelation as still yet future. And they see those events unfolding, largely, in chronological order from chapters 4 to 22.

Literal approach

While not all futurists think in lockstep, to one degree or another, futurists are also known for taking a very literal approach to the book. Dispensationalists are especially of this mind, using the rule of thumb, “always literal, unless totally absurd.” For instance, in Revelation 8:12 it says,

English Standard Version Chapter 8

12 The fourth angel blew his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of their light might be darkened, and a third of the day might be kept from shining, and likewise a third of the night.

Here, some like Hal Lindsey, understand this to be a literal description of the pollution generated by a nuclear weapon. The futurist understands the use of cosmic language (like the earth, sun, moon, and stars) as primarily descriptive of literal comets falling from heaven, or something like the results of nuclear warfare.

Scope

It’s also important to understand that futurists assume these events take place on a global scale. That these events impact the entire cosmos and impact every human being on planet earth. Futurists point out that the language seems to very plainly describe the global scale of these events.

For instance, when they read in Revelation 1:7,

English Standard Version Chapter 1

7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.

the futurist sees, first, the second coming of Christ, second, his arrival on literal clouds, and third, an arrival that every human being on planet earth will see and wail on account of him. They see this not as an event directed at any particular nation or nations, but as a global event. That Revelation is describing Christ’s final judgement upon the whole earth.

Premillennialists are futurists

We should also note that the futurist approach is typically held by premillennialists. That is, those who argue that the 1,000 years referred to in Revelation chapter 20 is a literal 1,000 year reign on the earth, and that the second coming of Christ comes before that millennial kingdom. The prefix ‘pre’ refers to the timing of Jesus’ second coming in relation to this millennial kingdom, that Jesus will return prior to establishing his millennial kingdom.

And it might be helpful at this point to mention that all three eschatological positions that we’ve likely heard of, premillennialism, amillennialism and postmillennialism all refer to the timing of Christ’s return in relation to this millennial kingdom, or 1,000 year reign. Whether one believes Jesus will return before or after this millennial kingdom. And to simplify it even further there really are only two categories, premillennialism and postmillennialism, whereas amillennialism is a position within the postmillennial category. The primary difference between amillennialists and postmillennialists is how they view the nature of that 1,000 years, whether it’s primarily spiritual or referring to a spiritual kingdom that also results in the Christianization of the nations prior to Christ’s return.

Now, I point this out because typically how you interpret the Book of Revelation will determine what you believe about the millennium. What you believe about the one impacts the other. And as I mentioned already, premillennialists typically take a futurist view of the Book of Revelation. And as we’ll see later amillennialists and postmillennialists typically adopt either the idealist or preterist views of Revelation.

The reason for this is that how you read or understand Revelation will inherently impact your view or interpretation of the millennium. Therefore, you won’t find an amillennialist with a futurist view of Revelation. Fundamental to the amillennialist position is that the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 is symbolic of a very long time, rather than a literal 1,000 year period, and it’s this symbolic understanding of the millennium, along with the other symbolism in Revelation, informs their conclusions concerning the millennium and its timing in relation to Christ’s second coming. So, as we look at the rest of these views of Revelation remember that certain views are usually paired with certain views on the millennium.

Modern adherents

Now, notable, modern adherents to the futurist view are people like John MacArthur, Henry Morris, Hal Lindsey, Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, most Baptists, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, non-denominational evangelical churches, etc. Most books over the last 40-50 years have been written from this perspective, including Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series and Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth. This is by far the most popular understanding of Revelation in our day.

Strengths

Now, what I can appreciate most about this perspective is that it sees the Book of Revelation as a prophecy of real historical events, that it ties the prophecies of this book to specific events in history, whereas an idealist, for instance, would not.

Weaknesses

However, this position is weak at several points. The futurist reads the book almost as if it were historical narrative, with a tendency to ignore the highly symbolic language of the book, failing to take the book’s apocalyptic genre into account. The futurist also tends to overlook John’s original audience asserting that the book’s prophecies were meant primarily for a future generation, now more than 2,000 years removed from John’s day, that it’s describing things like Apache Helicopters and Nuclear warfare, all of which would have been unintelligible to the churches in Asia Minor.

Moreover, while not necessarily the fault of the position itself, this view has often lead every generation of futurists to think the events of John’s Apocalypse were being fulfilled in their own day. And, again, while not necessarily the fault of the position, the futurist view isn’t testable. In other words, books like the Left Behind series can be imagined and written with very little testable scrutiny since all of the events are yet in the future, therefore the writers can portray the events of Revelation with whatever cultural context that fits their era (such as WWIII, nuclear warfare, chip implants, robots, etc.). Which starts to make some wonder whether this is really what Jesus had in mind when he gave this vision to John, and ultimately the 7 churches in Asia Minor.

Historicist

The second view that we need to consider is the historicist position, which some of us may actually be familiar without realizing. This view is similar to the futurist, however, it understands the events described in Revelation as being fulfilled progressively throughout church history. In other words, rather than expecting these events to come to pass exclusively in the future, the historicist ties the prophecies of John’s Apocalypse to various historical events, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Protestant Reformation. One poignant example would be the assertion that the Pope is the antichrist, or that the papacy is one of the beasts of Revelation, which I suspect many of us have heard before.

Literal approach

Like futurists the historicist position tends to take the text in a more literal fashion. However, they interestingly use what they refer to as the “year for a day” principle when handling time references. They take the numbers as literal and exact but believe that a day represents an entire year. For instance, the 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation 11-12 is argued to represent 1,260 years. They refer to this as “prophetic time” and argue that the Book of Ezekiel provides precedent for their interpretation. However, one notable exception is the 1,000 years spoken of in Revelation 20, likely because it would result in a period of time spanning 360,000 years.

Adherents

Now, today, there are very few modern adherents to the historicist position. The only major group that takes a historicist view of Revelation are the 7th Day Adventists. However, this view was extremely popular during the Protestant Reformation and shortly thereafter, where the likes of Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, John Knox, Sir Isaac Newton, John Foxe, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry all held some kind of historicist position.

Now, for many of them their circumstances, undoubtedly, had a hand in their understanding of Revelation, especially near the time of the Protestant Reformation, where they were quick to see the papacy as the antichrist. And I find this particularly helpful and sobering, because it ought to give us pause, to ask ourselves whether, or how much, our own modern circumstances and biases play a role in our own eschatological preferences. Every generation is tempted to think they’re immune to the sins and mistakes of the past, that somehow we’ll see things as they are, when someone else before us missed it, but to think so would be naive. Therefore, the history of the historicist approach I think can serve as a good lesson for us as we consider how we are to understand the Book of Revelation.

As I mentioned, the historicist view has all but died out in our day, and some speculate that this is for one primary reason, that they simply ran out of timeline in the Book of Revelation, that as the end of Revelation’s timeline seemed near human history kept marching forward. That historicists grew tired of having to adjust and rework their interpretations of Revelation’s timeline every time a new generation came along. In fact, some argue that the historicists advocated for the “year for a day” principle primarily because without it there’s just not enough time and events in Revelation to span more than the time that’s already passed in world history. The further we get from the writing of John’s Apocalypse the harder it become to stretch Revelation’s timeline that far.

Strengths

But what I appreciate about this perspective is, like the futurist, the historicist sees the Book of Revelation as a prophecy tied to real historical events, that it ties the prophecies of this book to specific events in history. I also have some respect for the view for making a valiant attempt at tying the prophecies of John’s Apocalypse to real historical events. This is no small task and I think adherents to this view ought to be applauded in some regard for at least pushing their chips out onto the table. And as I said, the futurist is unable to do this since they argue that all the events are yet in the future, they don’t have to prove any historical correlations as the historicists do, and as we’ll see shortly neither do the idealists.

Weaknesses

The weaknesses of this position, though, are many. First, the historicist timeline has to be constantly reworked and adjusted as history marches forward. It also suffers from a similar problem as the futurist interpretation, with every generation of historicists thinking the events of John’s Apocalypse are reaching their culmination in their day. While not to the same extent as many futurists, Historicists also tend to overlook the symbolism throughout Revelation.

Idealist

Now, we come to the third view of Revelation, the idealist. This category of interpretation has been given many names throughout church history, including thematic, nonliteral, allegorical, symbolic, etc. Futurists often speak disparagingly of this approach and sometimes even associate it with theological liberalism. This is because futurists interpret Revelation using a very strict literal approach, so they’re often inclined to see the idealist as one who merely turns the text into a wax nose, potentially allegorizing away any of it’s objective meaning. We should agree with the futurist that Revelation does have a certain objective meaning. And that this meaning should be ascertained by using good biblical hermeneutics.

Symbolism

However, despite their accusation I’ve found their assertion lacking any real substance. The reason being, is that all of the idealist interpretations I’ve encountered have been very concerned with the objective meaning of the text, but rather than reading the text in a more literal fashion they have recognized that the text is highly symbolic. That Revelation is a unique genre of literature using apocalyptic language, and that it should be understood with this in mind. That the symbolism should be interpreted using the analogy of scripture, that Revelation’s symbolism should be understood and defined as the Scriptures defines those symbols elsewhere already.

Parable in the sky

The idealist view is also unique from the other three positions in that it does not see the book’s descriptions as being tied to any single or specific events in history, but rather that the book is meant to articulate principles and recurring themes that the Church will face throughout all times leading up to Christ’s second coming. Pastor Doug Wilson puts it well when he describes the idealist position as understanding Revelation as “one big parable in the sky.” The idealist sees beasts, harlots and dragons all throughout church history. The idealist argues that these themes of governments persecuting the church, false religions committing adultery with the nations, the church triumphing over them, etc. as generally descriptive of human history. One writer, William Milligan, puts it this way, “the Apocalypse … sets before us within this period the action of great principles and not special incidents.”

Not chronological

The idealist also doesn’t read Revelation as if it were chronicling events in a particular order from beginning to end, starting in chapter 4 and ending in chapter 22. They point out that there is repetition, recapitulation, and structural parallelism throughout. For instance, idealists typically see the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls as a recapitulation of the same themes rather than a strict chronology of events as the futurist or historicist my suppose. This is one of the reasons, for instance, that futurists place Jesus’ 1,000 year reign at the end of their chronology, since it’s not mentioned until chapter 20, near the end of the book. Whereas the idealist sees chapter 20 not as describing events that immediately follow the events in chapter 19, but instead the order in which the visions were presented to John. They point out that chapter 20 opens with these words, “Then I saw....” depicting a transition from one vision to another instead of a chronology of events.

Adherents

There are many modern adherents to this view, including Sam Storms, Voddie Baucham, Kim Riddlebarger, G.K. Beale, Tim Schreiner, DA Carson, and it’s been a longstanding view within the Reformed tradition, and has seen a recent resurgence in our own day. It’s also important to note that the other three positions often borrow from the idealist interpretations to one degree or another.

Strengths

Because, likely, the greatest strength of the idealist interpretation is it’s ability to effectively mine the OT to understand Revelation’s apocalyptic imagery. Idealists are good at recognizing the recapitulation of OT imagery in John’s Apocalypse, finding that same imagery in the OT, and then applying its meaning to Revelation.

One of its other strengths is its applicability to the church throughout all of history. Since the idealist approach doesn’t see fulfillment in any specific events in history, but rather descriptive of recurring events in history the themes in Revelation become highly applicable to the church at anytime, no matter the historical context.

Weaknesses

However, it still has several weaknesses, one of which is it’s claim that John’s Apocalypse is fundamentally one big parable in the sky. I think this overlooks at least two points, the first is that Revelation is clearly intended to be prophecy, that these events are shortly to take place in John’s day. This seems to tie the prophecies of Revelation to specific tangible events that John’s audience was experiencing and would shortly experience, rather than unspecific, recurring spiritual realities.

The second point I believe the idealist overlooks is that if Revelation is merely a parable of transcendent spiritual principles, then this book would be a departure from all other forms of prophetic and apocalyptic literature already in the Bible. For instance, I don’t know anyone who would interpret Ezekiel or Daniel in this way, but rather our historical interpretations of similar literature, like Ezekiel and Daniel, should set precedent as to how we interpret a book like Revelation, which isn’t merely to communicate recurring spiritual themes.

Preterist

And, finally, we come to the fourth approach of interpreting Revelation, the preterist view. The word preterist comes from the Latin prefix ‘preter’ which means ‘past’ or ‘passed by’. In many respects the preterist view is like the futurist and the historicist views in that it sees John’s Apocalypse as describing specific events in history. However, the preterist argues that these events are now in our past, or have already taken place, at least in large part. The preterist still understands the second coming of Christ as yet future, but argues that most of the events described in Revelation have already come to pass.

Past events

Like the futurist, the preterist argues that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation are describing the same events (the Great Tribulation), however, the preterist argues that these events were descriptive of the events in AD 70 during the Jewish-Roman War when Rome laid seige against Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. Where the futurist envisions a rebuilt Roman Empire and the destruction of a rebuilt Jewish Temple, the preterist see’s Jesus in Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation as describing the original Roman Empire and the destruction of the original Jewish Temple.

Soon and near

The preterist points out that in Matthew 24 when Jesus’ disciples asked him, “When will these things be?” Jesus answered them clearly by saying, “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” And then in Revelation a similar time indicator is given in chapter 1, verse 7,

English Standard Version Chapter 1

7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

The idea here is that “even those who pierced him” will see him, that Jesus is going to bring judgement against the very men who pierced him within his disciple’s lifetime. Preterists also point out the time indicators that bookend John’s Apocalypse. In chapter 1, verse 1, John says,

English Standard Version Chapter 1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.

Then again in verse 3,

English Standard Version Chapter 1

3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

Then at the end of the book, in chapter 22, verses 6,

English Standard Version Chapter 22

6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”

and then again in verse 10,

English Standard Version Chapter 22

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

The preterist understands the evens of Revelation as imminent in John’s day.

The preterist approach also argues that not all NT references to Christ’s coming are an allusion to Christ’s second coming, but that while Jesus’ second coming is yet future, he also came in judgement against Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that Revelation was a prophecy of those events.

Scope

The scope of the preterist interpretation is also important to understand, while the futurist understands John’s cosmic language to refer to a global event, preterists contend that despite John’s use of cosmic language, that the scope of this judgement is centered upon Jerusalem, God’s covenant people and the surrounding Roman Empire, which, for all intents and purposes, encompassed all of the known world at that time. Moreover, preterists, at many points, argue that the Greek word usually translated as ‘earth’ should be translated as ‘land’. For instance, consider Revelation 1:7 again,

English Standard Version Chapter 1

7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

Imagine how this would sound if translators used the word ‘land’ instead of ‘earth’. In our modern context the word ‘earth’ carries with it a very global connotation, whereas if John said, “and all of the tribes of the land will wail on account of him” how we understand that text immediately changes. When you combine the words ‘tribes’ and ‘land’ the twelve tribes of Israel and the land of Canaan immediately come to mind. Therefore, preterists argue that this would be a more helpful translation at many points in order to convey the right idea. And from an exegetical standpoint the underlying Greek word can legitimately be translated either way depending upon its context.

Symbolism

It’s also notable, that the preterist view is very adept, like the idealists, at seeing OT imagery used throughout John’s Apocalypse, while also maintaining that the events in Revelation, to one degree or another, are descriptive of the specific events that transpired in John’s day.

Strengths

The strengths of this position I think are many, and this will be the view we’ll take as we continue our study in Revelation. In fact, in our next time we’ll begin surveying the book of Revelation from a preterist perspective, but, even so, I’ll list a few of its obvious strengths now. I think the preterist view rightly understands Revelation to be prophecy that describes specific events in history. The preterist view rightly recognizes the literary genre of the book, and seeks to understand the symbolism like the idealist without divorcing its symbols from the events they mean to describe. I also think that the historical events that the preterist attempts to correlate with John’s Apocalypse are the most compelling, being both near to John’s day and aligning most accurately with the characters, political entities, and events in the first century. I’ve also come believe that the preterest interpretation of Revelation coincides best with what we should expect at that time in redemptive history. I’ll elaborate more on that in our next time.

Weaknesses

As for weaknesses, this position has no weaknesses right? There are no legitimate objections right? While I certainly think the preterist view is the strongest of all the other positions it does have some explaining to do. Probably the most significant objection to the preterist approach is that most scholars from the last century believe the book was written sometimes in the last decade of the first century, in the 90’s. If this is the case then it become an impossible challenge to argue that John’s Apocalypse is a prophecy of events that took place between AD 64 to 70 AD. In fact, many liberal scholars, who don’t believe the Bible is true, are preterists but think the book was written after the events it describes. They’re convinced of the preterist view, but are also convinced that it was written in the 90s. Therefore the preterist has to make a case that the book was written at least before 66 AD when the Jerusalem-Roman War began. There are several other challenges that this position has to overcome, but we’ll look at those in our next time.

Prayer

Until then, let’s pray.