Four Views
of
Revelation
.
The book of Revelation is a fascinating book. Despite our
various views, there are some common threads upon which Christians agree. All
views believe that God is sovereign and in charge of all that occurs in history
and its ultimate conclusion. All believe in the physical second coming of
Christ. All views believe in the resurrection from the dead. All believe there
will be a future judgment. All believe in an eternal state in which believers
will be with God, and unbelievers will be separated from Him. All agree upon
the importance of the study of prophecy and its edification for the body of
Christ. We all await the return of our Lord and together with the saints of all
ages say, “Amen, come Lord Jesus!”
Dr. Patrick Zukeran
Dr.
Patrick Zukeran presents a summary of four of the major approaches to
interpreting the book of Revelation and its meaning for the end times: the
idealist, the preterist, the historicist, and the futurist views. For each, he
presents the basic approach, strengths of the approach and weaknesses of the
approach. Recognizing that God is the central mover in all of these, he
encourages us to keep these questions from dividing Christians in our mission
of sharing Christ with the world.
The Debate
One of
the most intriguing books of the Bible is the book of Revelation.
The
imagery of the cosmic battle in heaven and on earth makes it a fascinating book
to study.
However,
much debate surrounds the proper interpretation of this apocalyptic work.
Is this
book a prophecy of future events yet to take place, or have the prophecies of
this book been fulfilled?
Two
popular authors highlight the debate that continues in our present time. In his
hit series Left Behind, Tim LaHaye writes a fictional account
based on his theological position that the events of Revelation will occur in
the future.
Popular
radio talk show host Hank Hanegraaff responded by attacking the theology of
LaHaye.
In his
book The Apocalypse Code, Hanegraaff asserts that the events of
Revelation were largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem
Temple.
He
criticizes theologians like LaHaye for taking a hyper-literal approach to
Revelation.
The
debate has raised some confusion among Christians as to why there is such a debate
and how we should interpret the book of Revelation.
The
issues at the core of the debate between Hanegraaff and LaHaye are not new.
Throughout
church history, there have been four different views regarding the book of
Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, and futurist.
The
idealist view teaches that Revelation describes in symbolic language the battle
throughout the ages between God and Satan and good against evil.
The
preterist view teaches that the events recorded in the book of Revelation were
largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple.
The
historicist view teaches that the book of Revelation is a symbolic presentation
of church history beginning in the first century AD through the end of age.
The
prophecies of Revelation are fulfilled in various historic events such as the
fall of the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation, and the French
Revolution.
The
futurist view teaches that Revelation prophesies events that will take place in
the future.
These
events include the rapture of the church, seven years of tribulation, and a
millennial rule of Christ upon the earth.
Each
view attempts to interpret Revelation according to the laws of hermeneutics,
the art and science of interpretation.
This is
central to the debate about how we should approach and interpret Revelation.
The
idealist approach believes that apocalyptic literature like Revelation should
be interpreted allegorically.
The
preterist and historicist views are similar in some ways to the allegorical
method, but it is more accurate to say preterists and historicists view
Revelation as symbolic history.
The
preterist views Revelation as a symbolic presentation of events that occurred
in AD 70, while the historicist school views the events as symbolic of all
Western church history.
The
futurist school believes Revelation should be interpreted literally. In other
words, the events of Revelation are to occur at a future time.
The
goal of this work is to present a brief overview of the four views of
Revelation and present the strengths of each view as well as its weaknesses.
It is
my hope that the reader will gain a basic understanding and be able to
understand the debate among theologians today.
The
first view of Revelation is the idealist view, or the spiritual view. This view
uses the allegorical method to interpret the Book of Revelation.
The
allegorical approach to Revelation was introduced by ancient church father
Origen (AD 185-254) and made prominent by Augustine (AD 354-420).
According
to this view, the events of Revelation are not tied to specific historical
events. The imagery of the book symbolically presents the ongoing struggle
throughout the ages of God against Satan and good against evil.
In this
struggle, the saints are persecuted and martyred by the forces of evil but will
one day receive their vindication.
In the
end, God is victorious, and His sovereignty is displayed throughout ages.
Robert Mounce summarizes the idealist view stating,
“Revelation is a theological poem presenting the ageless struggle between the
kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. It is a philosophy of history
wherein Christian forces are continuously meeting and conquering the demonic
forces of evil.”
In his commentary on Revelation, late nineteenth century scholar
William Milligan stated, “While the Apocalypse thus embraces the whole
period of the Christian dispensation, it sets before us within this period the
action of great principles and not special incidents; we are not to look in the
Apocalypse for special events, both for the exhibition of the principles which
govern the history of both the world and the Church.”
The
symbols in Revelation are not tied to specific events but point to themes
throughout church history.
The
battles in Revelation are viewed as spiritual warfare manifested in the
persecution of Christians or wars in general that have occurred in history.
The
beast from the sea may be identified as the satanically-inspired political
opposition to the church in any age.
The
beast from the land represents pagan, or corrupt, religion to Christianity.
The
harlot represents the compromised church, or the seduction of the world in
general.
Each
seal, trumpet, or bowl represents natural disasters, wars, famines, and the
like which occur as God works out His plan in history.
Catastrophes
represent God’s displeasure with sinful man; however, sinful mankind goes
through these catastrophes while still refusing to turn and repent.
God
ultimately triumphs in the end.
The
strength of this view is that it avoids the problem of harmonizing passages
with events in history.
It also
makes the book of Revelation applicable and relevant for all periods of church
history.
However,
there are several weaknesses of this view.
First,
this view denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment.
The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of
the historical process.
Revelation
1:1 states that the events will come to pass shortly, giving the impression
that John is prophesying future historical events.
Second,
reading spiritual meanings into the text could lead to arbitrary
interpretations.
Followers
of this approach have often allowed the cultural and socio-political factors of
their time to influence their interpretation rather than seeking the author’s
intended meaning.
Merrill
Tenney states,
The idealist view . . . assumes a “spiritual” interpretation,
and allows no concrete significance whatever to figures that it employs.
According to this viewpoint they are not merely symbolic of events and persons,
as the historicist view contends; they are only abstract symbols of good and
evil. They may be attached to any time or place, but like the characters
of Pilgrim’s Progress, represent qualities or trends. In interpretation,
the Apocalypse may thus mean anything or nothing according to the whim of the
interpreter.
Unless
interpreters are grounded in the grammatical, historical, and contextual method
of hermeneutics, they leave themselves open to alternate interpretations that
may even contradict the author’s intended meaning.
The
second view is called the preterist view.
Preter, which
means “past,” is derived from the Latin.
There
are two major views among preterists: full preterism and partial preterism.
Both
views believe that the prophecies of the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and
Revelation were fulfilled in the first century with the fall of Jerusalem in AD
70.
Chapters
1-3 describe the conditions in the seven churches of Asia Minor prior to the
Jewish war (AD 66-70).
The
remaining chapters of Revelation and Jesus’ Olivet Discourse describe the fall
of Jerusalem to the Romans.
Full
preterists believe that all the prophecies found in Revelation were fulfilled
in AD 70 and that we are now living in the eternal state, or the new heavens
and the new earth.
Partial
preterists believe that most of the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in
the destruction of Jerusalem but that chapters 20-22 point to future events
such as a future resurrection of believers and return of Christ to the earth.
Partial
preterists view full preterism as heretical since it denies the second coming
of Christ and teaches an unorthodox view of the resurrection.
Church
historians trace the roots of preterism to Jesuit priest Luis de Alcazar
(1554-1613).
Alcazar’s
interpretation is considered a response to the Protestant historicist
interpretation of Revelation that identified the Pope as the Anti-Christ.
However,
some preterists contend that preterist teachings are found in the writings of
the early church as early as the fourth century AD.
Crucial
to the preterist view is the date of Revelation.
Since
it is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preterists hold to a pre-AD
70 date of writing.
According
to this view, John was writing specifically to the church of his day and had
only its situation in mind.
This
letter was written to encourage the saints to persevere under the persecution
of the Roman Empire.
Preterists
point to several reasons to support their view.
First, Jesus stated at the end of the Olivet Discourse, “Truly
I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take
place” (Matthew 24:34).
A
generation usually refers to forty years. The fall of Jerusalem would then fit
the time Jesus predicted.
Second,
Josephus’ detailed record of the fall of Jerusalem appears in several ways to
match the symbolism of Revelation.
Finally,
this view would be directly relevant to John’s readers of his day.
There
are several criticisms of this view.
First,
the events described in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and in Revelation 4-19 differ
in several ways from the fall of Jerusalem.
One example is that Christ described his return to Jerusalem
this way: “[A]s lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the
west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew
24:27).
Preterists
believe this refers to the Roman army’s advance on Jerusalem.
However,
the Roman army advanced on Jerusalem from west to east, and their assault was
not as a quick lightning strike.
The
Jewish war lasted for several years before Jerusalem was besieged, and the city
fell after a lengthy siege.
Second,
General Titus did not set up an “abomination of desolation” (Matthew
24:15) in the Jerusalem Temple.
Rather,
he destroyed the Temple and burned it to the ground.
Thus,
it appears the preterist is required to allegorize or stretch the metaphors and
symbols in order to find fulfillment of the prophecies in the fall of
Jerusalem.
Another
example of allegorical interpretation by preterists is their interpretation of
Revelation 7:4.
John
identifies a special group of prophets: the 144,000 from the “tribes of
Israel.”
Preterist
Hanegraaff states that this group represents the true bride of Christ and is
referred to in Revelation 7:9 as the “great multitude that no one could
count from every nation, tribe, people, and language.”
In
other words, the 144,000 in verse 4, and the great multitude in verse 9 are the
same people.
This
appears to go against the context of the chapter for several reasons.
First,
throughout the Bible the phrase “tribes of Israel” refers to literal
Jews.
Second,
John says there are 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is a
strange way to describe the multitude of believers from all nations.
Finally,
the context shows John is speaking of two different groups: one on the earth
(the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 7:1-3), and the great multitude in heaven
before the throne (Revelation 7:9).
Here
Hanegraaff appears to be allegorizing the text.
Robert
Mounce states,
The
major problem with the preterist position is that the decisive victory
portrayed in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse was never achieved.
It is
difficult to believe that John envisioned anything less than the complete
overthrow of Satan, the final destruction of evil, and the eternal reign on
God.
If this
is not to be, then either the Seer was essentially wrong in the major thrust of
his message or his work was so helplessly ambiguous that its first recipients
were all led astray.
Mounce
and other New Testament scholars believe the preterists’ interpretations are
not consistent and utilize allegorical interpretations to make passages fit their
theological view.
Second,
the preterist position rests on a pre-AD 70 date of writing.
However,
most New Testament scholars date the writing of the book to AD 95.
If John
had written Revelation after AD 70, the book could not have been a prophecy of
the fall of Jerusalem. This presents a significant argument against the
preterist position.
Preterists
point to several lines of evidence for a pre-AD 70 date of writing.
First,
John does not mention the fall of the Jerusalem Temple.
If he
had been writing two decades after the event, it seems strange that he never
mentioned this catastrophic event.
Second,
John does not refer to either Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple (Matthew
24, Mark. 13, Luke 21) or the fulfillment of this prophecy.
Third, in Revelation 11:1, John is told to “measure the
temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.”
Preterist
argue that this indicates that the Temple is still standing during the writing
of Revelation.
The
preterist view, particularly the partial preterist view, is a prominent
position held by such notable scholars as R. C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff,
Kenneth Gentry, and the late David Chilton (who later converted to full
preterism after the publishing of his books).
The
third view is called the historicist approach.
This
view teaches that Revelation is a symbolic representation that presents the
course of history from the apostle’s life through the end of the age.
The
symbols in the apocalypse correspond to events in the history of Western
Europe, including various popes, the Protestant Reformation, the French
Revolution, and rulers such as Charlemagne.
Most
interpreters place the events of their day in the later chapters of Revelation.
Many
adherents of this position view chapters 1-3 as seven periods in church
history. The breaking of the seals in chapters 4-7 symbolizes the fall of the
Roman Empire.
The
Trumpet judgments in chapters 8-10 represent the invasions of the Roman Empire
by the Vandals, Huns, Saracens, and Turks.
Among
Protestant historicists of the Reformation, the antichrist in Revelation was
believed to be the papacy.
Chapters
11-13 in Revelation represent the true church in its struggle against Roman
Catholicism.
The
bowl judgments of Revelation 14-16 represent God’s judgment on the Catholic
Church, culminating in the future overthrow of Catholicism depicted in chapters
17-19.
There
are several criticisms of this approach.
First,
this approach allows for a wide variety of interpretations.
Adherents
have a tendency to interpret the text through the context of their period.
Thus, many saw the climax of the book happening in their generation.
John
Walvoord points out the lack of agreement among historicists.
He states, “As many as fifty different interpretations of the
book of Revelation therefore evolve, depending on the time and circumstances of
the expositor.”
Moses
Stuart echoed the same concern in his writings over a century ago.
He wrote, “Hitherto, scarcely any two original and
independent expositors have agreed, in respect to some points very important in
their bearing upon the interpretation of the book.”
Second,
this view focuses mostly on the events of the church in Western Europe and says
very little about the church in the East.
Thus,
its narrow scope fails to account for God’s activity throughout Asia and the
rest of the world.
Finally,
this view would have little significance for the church of the first century
whom John was addressing.
It is
unlikely they would have been able to interpret Revelation as the historical
approach suggests.
Prominent
scholars who held this view include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale,
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards,
George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry.
This
view rose to popularity during the Protestant Reformation because of its
identification of the pope and the papacy with the beasts of Revelation 13.
However,
since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has declined in popularity and
influence.
The
fourth view is the futurist view. This view teaches that the events of the
Olivet Discourse and Revelation chapters 4-22 will occur in the future.
Futurist
divide the book of Revelation into three sections as indicated in 1:19: “what
you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.”
Chapter
1 describes the past (“what you have seen”), chapters 2-3 describe the
present (“what is now”), and the rest of the book describes future
events (“what will take place later”).
Futurists
apply a literal approach to interpreting Revelation.
Chapters
4-19 refer to a period known as the seven-year tribulation (Daniel 9:27).
During
this time, God’s judgments are actually poured out upon mankind as they are
revealed in the seals, trumpets, and bowls.
Chapter
13 describes a literal future world empire headed by a political and religious
leader represented by the two beasts.
Chapter
17 pictures a harlot who represents the church in apostasy.
Chapter
19 refers to Christ’s second coming and the battle of Armageddon followed by a
literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth in chapter 20.
Chapters
21-22 are events that follow the millennium: the creation of a new heaven and a
new earth and the arrival of the heavenly city upon the earth.
Futurists
argue that a consistently literal or plain interpretation is to be applied in
understanding the book of Revelation.
Literal
interpretation of the Bible means to explain the original sense, or meaning, of
the Bible according to the normal customary usage of its language.
This
means applying the rules of grammar, staying consistent with the historical
framework, and the context of the writing.
Literal
interpretation does not discount figurative or symbolic language.
Futurists
teach that prophecies using symbolic language are also to be normally
interpreted according to the laws of language. J. P. Lange stated,
The
literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that
symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are
set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be
normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any
other utterances are interpreted – that which is manifestly figurative being so
regarded.
Charles
Ryrie also states,
Symbols,
figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and
they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation.
After
all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the
reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved.
Figures
often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning
that they convey to the reader.
Futurists
acknowledge the use of figures and symbols. When figurative language is used,
one must look at the context to find the meaning.
However,
figurative language does not justify allegorical interpretation.
Futurists
contend that the literal interpretation of Revelation finds its roots in the
ancient church fathers.
Elements
of this teaching, such as a future millennial kingdom, are found in the
writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96), Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus (AD
115-202), Tertullian (AD 150-225) and others.
Futurists
hold that the church fathers taught a literal interpretation of Revelation
until Origen (AD 185-254) introduced allegorical interpretation.
This
then became the popular form of interpretation when taught by Augustine (AD
354-430).
Literal
interpretation of Revelation remained throughout the history of the church and
rose again to prominence in the modern era.
The
futurist view is widely popular among evangelical Christians today.
One of
the most popular versions on futurist teaching is dispensational theology,
promoted by schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible
Institute.
Theologians
such as Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost are noted scholars
of this position.
Tim
LaHaye made this theology popular in the culture with his end times series of
novels.
Unfortunately,
there have been and continue to be popular preachers who mistakenly apply the
futurist approach to connect current events to the symbols in Revelation.
Some
have even been involved in setting dates of Christ’s return. Although their
writings have been popular, they do not represent a Biblical futurist view.
Critics
of this view argue that the futurist view renders the book irrelevant to the
original readers of the first century.
Another
criticism is that Revelation is apocalyptic literature and thus meant to be
interpreted allegorically or symbolically rather than literally.
Hank Hanegraaff states, “Thus, when a Biblical writer uses a
symbol or an allegory, we do violence to his intentions if we interpret it in a
strictly literal manner.”
One of
the key elements in the debate, particularly between preterists and futurists,
is the date of writing for Revelation.
Preterists
argue for a pre-AD 70 date while futurists hold to a date of AD 95.
There
are several reasons for the later date.
First,
Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, states that John wrote
Revelation at the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign, which ended in AD 96.
Irenaeus
was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He thus had
a connection with a contemporary of the Apostle John.
Second,
the conditions of the seven churches in Revelation appear to describe a
second-generation church setting rather than that of a first-generation.
For
example, the Church of Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7) is charged with abandoning
their first love and warned of the Nicolaitan heresy.
If John
had written Revelation in AD 65, it would have overlapped with Paul’s letter to
the Ephesians and Timothy.
However,
Paul makes no mention of either the loss of first love or the threat of the
Nicolaitans.
Ephesus
was Paul’s headquarters for three years, and Apollos served there along with
Aquila and Priscilla.
The
church of Smyrna did not exist during Paul’s ministry (AD 60-64) as recorded by
Polycarp, the first bishop of the city.
Laodicea
(Revelation 3:14-22) is rebuked for being
wealthy and lukewarm. However, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul commends
the church three times (Revelation 2:2, 4:13, 16).
It
would likely take more than three years for the church to decline to the point
that chapter 3 would state there to be no commendable aspect about it.
Also,
an earthquake in AD 61 left the city in ruins for many years. Thus, it is
unlikely that in a ruined condition John would describe them as rich.
Preterists who favor the AD 70 date pose the question, “Why
doesn’t John mention the fall of the Temple which occurred in AD 70?”
Futurists
respond that John wrote about future events, and the destruction of the temple
was twenty-five years in the past.
He also
wrote to a Gentile audience in Asia Minor which was far removed from Jerusalem.
Preterists
also point to the fact that the Temple is mentioned in chapter eleven.
Futurists respond that although John mentions a temple in Revelation 11:1-2,
this does not mean it exists at the time of his writing.
In
Daniel 9:26-27 and Ezekiel 40-48, both prophets describe the temple, but it was
not in existence when they described a future temple in their writings.
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 when He said, “[T]his
generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”?
The
common futurist response is that Jesus was stating that the future generation
about which he was speaking would not pass away once “these things” had
begun.
In
other words, the generation living amid the time of the events He predicted
will not pass away until all is fulfilled.
Conclusion
The
book of Revelation is a fascinating book, and the debate regarding its interpretation
will continue.
Despite
our various views, there are some common threads upon which Christians agree.
All
views believe that God is sovereign and in charge of all that occurs in history
and its ultimate conclusion.
Except
for full preterism and some forms of idealism, all believe in the physical
second coming of Christ.
All
views believe in the resurrection from the dead.
All
believe there will be a future judgment.
All
believe in an eternal state in which believers will be with God, and
unbelievers will be separated from Him.
All
agree upon the importance of the study of prophecy and its edification for the
body of Christ.
Unfortunately,
the debate among Christians has often been harsh and hostile.
It is
my hope that the debate would continue in a cordial, respectful manner which
will challenge every believer to accurately study and interpret the Word.
We all await the return of our Lord and together with the saints of all ages say, “Amen, come Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20)
Dr. Patrick Zukeran, former Probe staffer, is the founder and Executive Director of Evidence and Answers, a research and teaching ministry specializing in Christian apologetics, the defense of the Christian faith. He is the host of the radio show Evidence and Answers (www.evidenceandanswers.org). Pat is the author of several books including The Apologetics of Jesus co-authored with Norman Geisler; God, Eternity, and Spirituality (ed.); and Unless I See . . . Is There Enough Evidence to Believe? Pat is a popular conference speaker and he also serves as an adjunct faculty for several colleges and institutes worldwide. He earned a B.A. from Point Loma Nazarene University, a Master of Theology (Th.M.) from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Doctorate of Ministry (D.Min.) in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Pat lives in Honolulu, Hawaii and can be reached at pat@evidenceandanswers.org.
Probe
Ministries
is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the
minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage
the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games
conferences for youth and adults, our 3-minute daily radio program, and our
extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
https://probe.org/four-views-of-revelation/
No comments:
Post a Comment