Interpreters of Revelation have done their work with various emphases in mind. Many works on Revelation emphasize its historical background and relationship to the church in the first century. Others emphasize the importance of Revelation as a guide to future events that will occur at the end of time. A third emphasis tends to get less attention than it deserves. It falls in line with an increasingly common recognition that New Testament teaching presents an approach to eschatology that involves a tension between the already and the not yet. For instance, Christians are already new creatures in Christ (realized eschatology), and they will one day dwell with God in his new creation (consummated eschatology). This tension between the already and not yet is prevalent in Revelation. It is true that many aspects of Revelation have to do with consummated eschatology, which is more prevalent in Revelation than it is in the Gospel and Epistles of John. However, Revelation contains a number of elements of realized eschatology that need to be brought out as well. In this commentary, I am interpreting the book of Revelation with an emphasis upon the tension between the already and the not yet. In terms of theological labels, my approach is consistent with a historic premillennial perspective on the book. A historic premillennial perspective appears in certain recent commentaries. Nevertheless, many Christians have had little exposure to this view.
This section provides a succinct overview of common approaches to interpreting Revelation. It also indicates how my approach fits with other common approaches. Revelation yields tremendous truths for living and for a Christian worldview. Like some other parts of Scripture, it does not yield these truths apart from careful study. Taken on its own, Revelation is a challenge for Christian readers. They often feel like they need a commentary or guide to help them approach the book and learn something from it. Anyone who has gone looking for such a guide quickly realizes that not all books on Revelation come from the same perspective. Furthermore, some books present perspectives that are not easy to harmonize with one another. It is helpful to know something about common approaches to the interpretation of Revelation. Every book on Revelation follows a certain approach or combination of approaches. It is important to determine what each author’s approach to Revelation is. Otherwise, the uninformed reader will not know what accounts for radically different interpretations of a particular passage. We will look briefly at preterist, historicist, and idealist approaches. We will spend more time on the futurist approach. A look at the subdivisions of this approach, including historic premillennialism, will reveal some of the basic agreements and disagreements among interpreters whose focus is the futurist approach.
Preterist, Historicist, and Idealist Approaches
These three perspectives offer something important to the interpretation of Revelation. Among these, the preterist and idealist are the best represented in our time. The historicist view has a following in some circles, but it is generally regarded today as an example of what not to focus on when interpreting the book of Revelation.
- Preterist Approach. A preterist is someone who interprets the book of Revelation with respect to the past. Specifically, the preterist believes that John wrote Revelation in the first century to address the situation faced by the church at that time. John’s prophecy should be interpreted in relation to the persecution of the church in Asia Minor, which is part of the Roman Empire.[1] The fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) or the fall of Rome (A.D. 476) is a significant event, because John is predicting the fall of one of these cities (Rev. 18).[2] The preterist approach generates a lot of data relevant to those sections of the book where historical background is helpful for interpretation. A good example would be the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. The preterist interpreter also reminds all interpreters that one important aspect of the interpretation of Revelation is to pay attention to the relevance of the book for John and Christians of his day.
- Historicist Approach. Historicist interpreters relate the book of Revelation to specific historical events. Some attempt to show how Revelation predicts events from the first century up until their own time. For example, E. B. Elliott relates the judgments associated with the trumpets (Rev. 8:6-9:21) to events “beginning with the attacks on the Western Roman Empire by the Goths [in A.D. 395] and concluding with the fall of the Eastern empire to the Turks [in A.D. 1453].”[3] Of course, they tend to have an interest in showing how Revelation predicts events that occur within their own time period. A common goal of these interpreters is to show that most of Revelation’s prophecies have been fulfilled. As a result, their time period is the final time period right before the second coming of Christ. Examples of this type of interpretation are around today. They are generally greeted with skepticism, because we know of too many failed attempts to pinpoint the timing for Christ’s second coming. The historicist interpreter’s positive contribution is that he expects to see the book of Revelation fulfilled in world events. As we will see, some aspects of the book of Revelation do correspond to historical events that have happened in the past or that are happening now. The historicist, like the preterist, tends to relate too much of Revelation to the past. He does not leave enough room for Revelation to predict cataclysmic and unprecedented events that immediately precede the second coming of Christ.
- Idealist Approach. The idealist approach differs radically from the historicist. It would be attractive to someone who is tired of conflicting attempts to pinpoint how Revelation is fulfilled in specific past or future events. The idealist approach focuses on some of the main points of the theology of Revelation, like assurance of the victory of Christ over Satan and his allies. The idealist divides the book into major sections. Each major section describes events that span the course of history from Christ’s first coming to his second coming.[4] The stress of the idealist falls upon looking to Revelation for principles that would help Christians to live rightly in the here and now. In doing so, it is going to be unsatisfying to those who want to know what Revelation says about the future and the end events. The idealist approach is a helpful challenge to interpreters. It challenges them to bring out the relevance of the book’s message for the Christian life and worldview.
The Futurist Approach
When most Christians think about the book of Revelation, they think about the book as a prophecy of the end events and the second coming of Christ. They may or may not realize that even futurist interpreters disagree over which parts of Revelation describe events that began in the past and continue until the second coming of Christ, that is, the “already” aspects of the book. This disagreement is one of the factors that separate futurists into several camps, including some amillennialists, dispensational premillennialists, and historic premillennialists. In this section, we will look at each of these camps and indicate what it means for this commentary to fit within the historic premillennial camp.
1. Amillennialist. G. K. Beale is a good example of an amillennialist who is at least somewhat of a futurist.[5] According to him, the judgments associated with the first four seals (Rev. 6:1-8), the first six trumpets (8:6-9:21), and the first five bowls (16:1-11) began to occur after the ascension of Christ to heaven (12:5) and continue until the great day of God’s wrath (6:17).[6] The great day of God’s wrath occurs at the end of time when Christ comes back. Consequently, the judgments associated with the end and the second coming of Christ include the sixth and seventh seals, the seventh trumpet, and the sixth and seventh bowls.[7] Similarly, the three and a half year reign of the Beast (Rev. 13) is a symbolic time period. It begins with the ascension and exaltation of Christ (12:5-6) and continues until Christ defeats the Beast (Rev. 19). Other futurists might agree with aspects of Beale’s interpretation up to this point, but would generally associate more of Revelation with the future, that is, the final events and the second coming of Christ.
In addition, Beale’s view of the millennium clearly separates him from other futurists. Amillennialists, like Beale, have a distinctive interpretation of the millennium (20:1-6). They see the millennium as spanning the same time period when most of the judgments and the reign of the Beast occur. The millennium is a symbolic time period that begins with the exaltation of Christ. It continues until Satan is released from the abyss to gather his troops to fight against the armies of Christ. This means that Revelation 20:7-10 is a second presentation of the events of Revelation 19:17-21.[8] Thus, the millennium is already underway. Christians already enjoy a spiritual resurrection and are ruling with Christ in heaven.[9] In contrast to this view, other futurists see the millennium as a 1,000 reign of Christ that takes place in the future.
2. Dispensational Premillennialist. The dispensational premillennialist camp has been quite influential in Evangelical circles. Dispensational interpreters are known for four emphases. First, they emphasize the pretribulational rapture of the church. According to this view, “Christ’s return will occur in two stages: the first one for his church, which will be spared the Great Tribulation; the second one in power and glory to conquer his enemies.”[10] As a result, the rapture of the church must occur sometime in Revelation before the beginning of the Great Tribulation. Second, they also emphasize the distinction between ethnic Israel and the church. Therefore, when John speaks about “Israel” in Revelation 7:4, he is speaking about ethnic Israel and not about the church. Third, they are committed to premillennialism. Premillennialists believe that Christ will come back to conquer the Beast (Rev. 19:11-21). After that victory, he will set up his kingdom and rule with his people for 1,000 years. Fourth, dispensational interpreters are generally committed to interpreting prophecies literally. As a result, they usually favor a literal, rather than symbolic, interpretation of the numbers in the book of Revelation.
The dispensationalist camp now has its own subdivisions, which include classical and progressive forms of dispensationalism.[11] With the exception of the four emphases listed above, progressive dispensationalists share a good bit of common ground with historic premillennialists. For instance, Pate emphasizes the importance of approaching Revelation with an “already/not yet hermeneutic.”[12] This allows him to relate some of Revelation’s prophecies to the first century and to the time period before the rapture, including the partial fulfillment of the first six seal judgments (Rev. 6). Dispensationalists who are more traditional are focused more on the future. Revelation’s prophecies find their fulfillment in the future, at the time of the rapture and the glorious return of Christ.[13]
3. Historic Premillennialist. Historic premillennialism is a view that was championed by George Ladd and is therefore commonly associated with him.[14] Ladd was primarily responding to dispensationalism. The adjective “historic” in historic premillennialism refers to Ladd’s contention that some early Church Fathers were clearly premillennial, but none of them believed in the pretribulational rapture of the church.[15] As a result, the chief distinctive of historic premillennialism is belief in a single return of Christ that will take place before his millennial reign. Like amillennialists, historic premillennialists also believe in a posttribulational rapture of the church. This means that the church will be present on earth during the tribulation under the Beast. Even so, Revelation assures Christians that they are secure with God even if they die a martyr’s death (Rev. 11:1-2; 12:11) and God will protect them from his wrath on the Beast and his followers (Rev. 7:3-4).
A historic premillennial interpreter of Revelation will have much in common with an amillennial interpreter, like Beale. Both will generally be open to the possibility that numbers in Revelation are symbolic. Both will tend to see significant continuity between Israel and the church. This makes it possible, for example, to interpret “Israel” in Revelation 7:4 with reference to the fullness of the people of God, which is composed of both Jews and Gentiles. The historic premillennialist diverges from the amillennialist when it comes to interpreting the millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20:1-6).
Historic premillennial interpreters do not all agree on how much of Revelation describes events that begin in the present and continue until the second coming of Christ. In addition to the timing of the millennium, some would disagree with other aspects of Beale’s amillennialist interpretation summarized above. They might think, for instance, that the three and a half year reign of the Beast did not begin in the past, but belongs solely to the future.[16] Most would disagree with Beale regarding the timing of the 21 judgments, especially the trumpets and the bowls. They would see these as predictions of future, cataclysmic events that are much worse than anything that the world has ever seen.[17]
Conclusion
The preceding overview of common approaches to Revelation discloses the variety that is out there. It has become common for commentaries and other books on Revelation to claim that they follow an eclectic approach, which means that the writer includes insights from more than one approach. This is reasonable. As I have noted above, the four basic approaches (preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist) contribute at least some helpful emphases for every interpreter to benefit from. It is even more helpful if the writer discloses his favored approach or the commentaries that have most influenced him. Of course, this may not tell us very much, unless we are able to decode what a writer’s favorite commentaries might indicate in terms of a favored approach to the book. In cases where one is unsure, the best way to discern an author’s approach is to search for book reviews. Published book reviews are now widely available, because they can often be accessed in electronic form.[18] Book reviews are often more blunt than the author is when it comes to categorizing an author’s approach to the book of Revelation.
[1] For a fuller overview of the preterist approach, see Osborne, Revelation, 19-20.
[2] See, for example, Caird (Revelation, 220, 227), who focuses on the fall of Rome. Many contemporary scholars would be classified as preterists. In the present time, this is the most common view among nonevangelical scholars. Many, but not all, contemporary preterist interpreters would be in agreement with certain norms of historical criticism. According to these norms, the Bible’s authors, including its prophets, are like other human authors. Like other human authors, their books relate primarily to their own time and circumstances. In the case of biblical prophets, their prophecies are also products of their time and circumstances and should be interpreted as such. As a result, even aspects of biblical prophecy that appear to point to something beyond the prophet’s historical circumstances are generally interpreted as if these were the prophet’s only concern (and all that he is writing about). This is evident in many preterist commentaries on Revelation, especially in relation to chapters like Revelation 13 and 17. Poythress discusses the importance of interpreting the Bible, and its prophets, with its divine and human authorship in view (“Divine Meaning of Scripture,” especially 241-2, 258-60).
[3] Elliott’s book is called Horae Apocalypticae (1847). The quote is from Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, 138.
[4] To get a good overview of what an idealist approach would look like, see Hamstra’s presentation in Pate’s Four Views of the Book of Revelation, 95-131.
[5] Not all amillennialists are futurists (some are idealists). Beale actually claims to be following a modified idealist approach, because he wants to leave adequate room for “a final consummation in salvation and judgment” (Revelation, 49).
[6] See also Smalley’s comments on the trumpet plagues (Revelation, 233, 245).
[7] Beale, Revelation, 146-8.
[8] Ibid., 1028.
[9] Ibid., 996-7.
[10] Pate, Four Views on Revelation, 29. I am grateful for the model that dispensationalists have provided for all Christians. Dispensational scholars, Bible teachers, and pastors have been faithful in teaching the truths of the book of Revelation widely. They have generated tremendous interest in Revelation and its importance for all Christians.
[11] Ibid., 29-30.
[12] Ibid., 31-34. Also, see how he works out his perspective in more detail later in the book (pp. 133-75).
[13] Interestingly, it has been common for dispensational interpreters to interpret the seven letters to the seven churches in a historicist manner. The letters may have a historical referent, but also anticipate “the seven periods of church history from the time of composition to the coming of Christ for the church” (Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 507; see also 505-515).
[14] Weber, “Dispensational and Historic Premillennialism as Popular Millennialist Movements,” 19-20. Ladd’s relevant works include Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God (1952); The Blessed Hope (1956); A Commentary on the Revelation of John (1972).
[15] Ladd, Blessed Hope, 19-31. See also Fairbairn, “Contemporary Millennial/Tribulational Debates,” 105-31.
[16] For instance, see Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 200-1; Osborne, Revelation, 464.
[17] For example, see Osborne, Revelation, 374.
[18] Although published book reviews are preferable, one can also find online reviews of books. One should give preference to reviews by reputable scholars.
