Revelation is one of the hardest books to understand in the Bible. Certainly, it is the most mysterious in the New Testament. Sadly, this has resulted in either great neglect of Revelation and its message or bizarre obsession with the book, which leaves faithful interpretation behind for the sake of wild imagination and speculation.
Elsewhere, I have laid some foundations for biblical interpretation of Revelation in regards to its profitability as Scripture (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17), the centrality of Jesus Christ (see Rev. 1:1), and the need to apply the “analogy of faith” (i.e. interpreting Scripture with Scripture) in interpretation. While these fundamental and basic foundations are helpful and necessary, I would like to dig deeper in this article and discuss a biblically faithful approach to how we understand and interpret the book of Revelation.
We’ll begin by surveying the four primary interpretive approaches that have been applied throughout church history.
Four Approaches to Revelation
1. Historicism
The historicist approach to interpreting Revelation has been popular throughout church history but is seldom applied today. The historicist looks at the book of Revelation and sees it describing a progression of historical events occurring throughout the history of the church. For example, some historicist interpreters in the Reformation interpreted the whore of Babylon as a reference to the Roman Catholic papacy.
The problem with this approach is that it is difficult, from the text of Scripture itself, to determine the true meaning of the visions described in Revelation. Arguments can be made that certain things described in Revelation relate to things like the Reformation, the rise of Islam, the French Revolution, etc. But when interpreters disagree throughout history about these correlations it’s hard to define a standard by which to judge them. If someone in the 16th century interprets the whore of Babylon as a reference to the Roman Catholic pope and someone in the 19th century interprets as something else entirely, how can we decide between the two?
For the many strengths of Reformation theologians, this appeal to a historicist approach was a weakness. Historicism tends to lead to interpretations based more on history books or current events than to biblical exegesis. As a result, historicism in mainstream Christianity is all but gone today.
2. Futurism
While Historicism is all but gone from modern interpretations of Revelation, the opposite can be said for futurism. The futurist approach is by far the most common approach to Revelation in the American evangelical church today and has become something of an “air we breathe”.
Futurism contends that Revelation is written about events at the end of history, thus putting it in our future. Futurists take much of what is described in chapters 4 through 20 as a progression of events that will transpire at the end of the world when God’s eschatological judgment is poured out. Therefore, the “great tribulation”, the beasts, the wrath of the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, and other such things are things which lie in our future.
Many futurists (though not all) also insist on taking the book of Revelation’s visions as “literally” as possible and eschew an approach that sees these visions as symbolic.
An example to illustrate the futurist approach in action would be the identity of the Beast (from the Sea). Many futurist interpreters take this beast as a future one-world government that will persecute Christians and those who refuse to have the “mark of the beast”.
While there are certainly portions of the book of Revelation that have to do with the end of history and the far-distant future, there are a number of problems with the futurist approach.
For one, the text of Revelation itself indicates that its contents are far more imminent than futurists suggest. Right away, in verse one of chapter one, we are told that Revelation contains a revelation of “the things that must soon take place”. In verse three, we are told that the time for these things “is near”. The end of the book also indicates this imminence: “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 behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book…And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (Rev. 22:6-7, 10)
Furthermore, one questions why John would write an epistle of encouragement and exhortation to believers in the first century that was concerned primarily with the end of time, thousands of years in the future. It’s not that the end of the age is irrelevant to Christians throughout the centuries, but one has to wonder how the practical implications (expressed in 1:3 for example) of Revelation connect with a far-flung future fulfillment.
The argument goes that since the events of Revelation have yet to be fulfilled literally in history, the fulfillment is still in the future. But this, I believe, misunderstands the nature of John’s vision and hyper-literalizes Revelation’s symbolism in a way it was never meant to be taken.
3. Preterism
The word preterism comes from the Latin word for “past” and so, in direct contrast to futurism, preterism looks at the distant past for Revelation’s fulfillment, not the future. The preterist approach to Revelation has been predominantly associated with the interpretation that the book of Revelation is a prophecy primarily about the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. (In this case, the preterist approach to Revelation needs to be distinguished from the eschatological viewpoint of “full preterism” or “hyperpreterism” which declares that all biblical prophecy has been fulfilled including the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment. This view is heretical.) This conclusion depends on the date of the writing of the book to be pre-AD 70 (often proposed to be written in the early to mid-60s). Much debate has occurred around the date of the writing of Revelation, with preterists arguing for a date in the 60s and others arguing that John wrote Revelation in the 90s.
While a pre-AD 70 date of writing is debated (and the preterist approach depends on it), the preterist approach has some things going for it. Primarily, of course, are the many “near” time indicators referenced above. Furthermore, Douglas Wilson points out that John is told to not seal up his prophecy (Rev. 22:10), which the prophet Daniel is told to do (Dan. 12:4). Daniel’s prophecy foretold events that lay only several hundred years ahead of him, so why would John’s “near” prophecy not have an even sooner realization?¹
Before addressing the preterist approach in-depth, let’s move on the final approach often used when interpreting the book of Revelation.
4. Idealism
Idealism, unlike the other three approaches, does not primarily view Revelation as referring to specific historical events with a one-to-one correspondence. Instead, idealism views Revelation as a cycle of visions portraying the cosmic war between God and His enemies throughout all of time, particularly since the first coming of Jesus Christ.
In this approach, things like the Beast are not symbolic of one event, person, or institution only. Whereas historicists find reference to the Beast in things like the papacy, futurists see a future one-world government, and preterists see reference to first-century Rome, an idealist sees a symbol of evil oppression and persecution against the people of God in general. One could think of idealism as viewing Revelation as a “timeless parable”.
This certainly seems to be a more relevant way to read the book, since it has application for every generation of the Church. However, it’s hard to get away from the near time indicators of the book and from some of the very overt symbolism pointing to fulfillment in specific historical empires like Rome.
One on hand, idealism’s emphasis on application for all times is good and well-founded. On the other, we need to be careful that we don’t lose the historical context that this book was written in, for that context is essential to a faithful interpretation.
These are the four main approaches to interpreting Revelation. Some are more grounded than others. Now I would like to turn to make a case for an approach that blends the preterist and idealist views.
A Preterist-Idealist Approach
When determining how to interpret Revelation we must begin by how the book itself tells us how to interpret it.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Revelation 1:1, ESV
A number of things can be deduced from this one verse alone that help us in understanding this difficult but rewarding book.
First, it is a revelation (unveiling) of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ our Lord is the hero of all the books of the Bible. And the New Testament in particular is concerned with Him. The gospels record His ministry, His death, and His resurrection. The book of Acts records what Jesus “continued to do and teach” through His church. The epistles of the New Testament look back at Christ’s person and work and give instruction to the church on how to live in the light of who Christ is and what He has done. Revelation is no different. Particularly, we could summarize the theme of Revelation as the preeminence and dominion of the resurrected Christ, the effect of such on history, and the call for Christians to live faithfully in response.
Second, Revelation uses largely symbolic imagery. G.K. Beale points out that the Greek word in verse 1, translated by the ESV as “He made it known” can refer to the notion of communicating through signs and symbols. He argues for this reading by drawing out an allusion to Daniel 2:28-29 where the symbolism of dreams is the topic at hand.² A straightforward reading of Revelation also reveals that symbolic imagery is used overwhelmingly. Images of a drunk prostitute riding a seven-headed beast or a cosmically-gargantuan woman crowned with stars giving birth are bizarre when taken literally. These are symbols indeed.
Third, as already noted above, the book of Revelation had an imminent fulfillment. The visions show symbolically that which “must soon take place”. We cannot push out the fulfillment of Revelation to the very end of the world, lest we strip it of its intended meaning within its original context.
A number of other points could be made but we’ll start with these three. To summarize: our interpretation of Revelation must honor its self-interpreting declaration that it is an apocalyptic, prophetic epistle concerned with symbolically portraying the imminent events connected with Christ Jesus’ ascent to cosmic dominion, the war of the evil forces against such dominion, and the Christian’s call to faithful endurance in light of Christ’s victory over evil, both inaugurated and consummated (i.e. both “already” and “not yet”).
The Historical Context
As you can see, the above summary blends elements of the preterist and the idealist approach to Revelation. It borrows from idealism by reading symbolism, not literal reports of literal events, and by emphasizing the value of Revelation’s message for all Christians of all centuries since Christ, not just relevance for the first-century church. It borrows from preterism primarily by emphasizing the imminence of the book’s prophecy. John wrote to first-century Christians and these same Christians would see Revelation begin fulfillment in their lifetimes, not thousands of years in the future.
To put it briefly: the above summary agrees with preterism that Revelation began fulfillment in the first century and it agrees with idealism that Revelation’s fulfillment cannot be contained or restricted to the first century. Revelation began fulfillment imminently and it continues to be fulfilled today in “spiritual” ways. After all, Christ’s dominion and victory are just as true today as they were then, the opposition of the enemy is just as true today as it was then, and the call to Christian faithfulness is just as true today as it was then.
I mentioned above that the preterist approach depends on the controversial dating of the book to the early to mid-60s. There are a number of arguments for and against this dating of Revelation but I tend to side with the later date view (Revelation was written in the AD 90s). There are a number of reasons for this viewpoint which I can’t go into here. The bottom line is this: my use of the preterist modifier is not a reference to “AD 70” preterism but rather to general “first century” preterism. In other words, I don’t think Revelation is primarily concerned with the events of AD 70 (though I admit, I am not beyond convincing). My use of “preterist” is in reference to the belief that many of the symbols in Revelation had imminent relevance and correspondence to first century realities.
For example, I believe that the “beast from the sea” in Revelation 13 is symbolic of the Roman empire. This is a very common preterist interpretation. However, unlike many AD 70 preterists, I see the “beast from the earth” as the cult of emperor worship in Asia Minor in the late first century. Other preterists like Douglas Wilson see the beast from the earth as a reference to Israel’s apostate priesthood. Likewise, I believe that, in light of passages like Revelation 17:18, the whore of Babylon is also a reference to Rome, albeit the seduction of Roman culture rather than military might or persecution and oppression. Wilson sees Babylon as a reference, once again, to the apostate Jewish priesthood. In these things we differ though we agree that these symbolic characters point to first-century realities.
Furthermore, while the beast from the sea is presented in imagery symbolic of Rome, it is also presented with symbolism that alludes back to Daniel’s vision of beasts in Daniel 7. Daniel’s vision symbolized successive world empires including Persia, Greece, and Rome. So the composite beast in Revelation 13, composed of elements from all of Daniel’s beasts clue us in to the notion that the beast from the sea is not exhaustively fulfilled in the Roman empire. Rome’s persecution of Christians is the imminent and original fulfillment of the beast’s war against the saints but one could argue that the beast refers in a narrow sense to Rome and in a broader sense to all persecuting state power against the church, throughout the age, as in classic idealism.
Conclusion
There is a lot more that we could say about the interpretation of Revelation. For example, we could examine the historical and cultural context of the seven churches in Asia Minor that John writes to and how that context shapes our interpretation of the prophetic visions John sees.
While this article doesn’t have the space for such an in-depth examination, I hope this has been a helpful start in determining how to approach the text of Revelation. We should view it as a symbolic book, avoiding a hyper-literal approach. We should also honor the self-proclaimed imminence of Revelation. The time indeed was near at the moment of its writing and it remains relevant for us today since the things which John sees continue to find fulfillment today.
Footnotes
¹ Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2019), p. 262.
² G.K. Beale, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), pp. 10-11.