Revelation of Jesus Christ
Daunting Task
Okay – the Book of Revelation. The amount of information and interpretations and insights and abuses are so abundant that to tackle the book is daunting for a person like myself. Why? I want the truth. (beat) There are some really, really smart men and women who differ so vastly over the contents and meaning of Revelation that to cover it as a truth seeker is intimidating to say the least. Many teachers come to the table with pre-suppositional positions about Revelation and then teach their position as fact. Again, my nature and desires prohibit me from teaching anything as fact . . . unless it is a fact.
Another difficulty with my teaching the Book of Revelation is I want to at least adequately understand the other reasonable positions to scripture before I reject or accept them. This has forced me to therefore learn about as many of the positions out there regarding the book – and I am no towering intellectual – I get everything I know from God and hard work. Additionally, I have to admit being prejudiced by a preterist world view – and prejudices are a stumbling block to seeing or accepting other valid points of view. Finally, to really be able to understand Revelation a teacher has to understand the Old Testament well.
I do not. I have read it (a few times) and refer to the stories and illustrations therein but have an admitted disability in understanding much of its prophetic nature. I am, however committed to incorporating all the Old Testament passages that can reasonably seen as applicable to our understanding of this book as a means to try and get to the root of its purpose and meaning. So admittedly we embark on this project with some difficulties just relative to my person.
Obstacles in Teaching
That being said, I am going to do all I can to properly exegete its contents. I am convinced that in so doing we will be able to present an open, notated, chronicled, videotaped verse by verse teaching of its twenty-two chapters, four hundred and four passages, and 9851 English words. But my person and prejudices are not the only obstacle we face in our examination of Revelation. We almost have an obstacle at every word – I’m not kidding. Interestingly enough, the four main ways that Revelation is interpreted (ways we will cover and appeal to over the entire audit of the book) also represent obstacles to understanding Revelation properly.
For instance, the preterist view, which says that the contents of the book have been fulfilled, comes forth as a partial preterist stance and a full preterist stance. And within each, there is the living debate as to how to prove and how to illustrate that the contents have happened – in other words, who gets to interpret what is supposed to have happened and how do we know their interpretations are correct? In the idealist or spiritual view of revelation, we are then left up to the spiritualization of the contents of the book and again are forced to ask, “Who’s spiritual interpretations are correct? Origins? Augustine's? David Koresh?
Then we are met with the historicists interpretation of the Book – an interpretation I find not only interesting but pretty rational. But again, we are left up to our own devices (minds and imaginations) on how to apply passages to historical events. Finally, there is the futurist interpretation of the Bible. And again we are left with wondering which futurist interpretation is correct and which application to our day (or the coming day) holds water. This book is so “up in the air” with private and corporate interpretations it is no wonder that it has served more to divide than unite – which makes me wonder about its purpose.
Canonical Challenges
We know from our study of some of the later non-Pauline epistles that the coming together of the New Testament canon is a fascinating one. There are books that were accepted very quickly, almost from the start (like the four gospels), and there are other books that struggled to find a home (like 2 Peter) and that was just from the early church leaders – forget about the opinions of the Reformers. The interesting thing about the book of Revelation is that it was initially very well received as a canon. So where other books took time to find support Revelation was respected as of apostolic origin in spite of its controversial, esoteric composition.
Early Church Leaders and the Book of Revelation
Example early church leaders like Papias (125 AD) and others like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all support it as authoritative and canonical. Additionally, every one of these early church leaders accepted the book of Revelation as having been written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. B.W. Bacon, an American theologian of repute was so impressed with Revelation’s initial reception that he wrote: “There is no book in the entire New Testament whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, definiteness, and positiveness of statement” (That’s from, The Making of the New Testament, 190).
The first evidence of any real objection to the book of Revelation comes from a Roman Christian named Gaius in the early third century. He rejected the book on the grounds that it was a forgery of the heretic Cerinthus, a Christian gnostic and heretic. Curiously, this is really the only specific objection we hear about from someone who rejected the book. (There was another group called the “Alogoi” mentioned by Epiphanius but it is believed that they were not real). Then there was Dionysius of Alexandria, in the late third century, who made the argument that Revelation was written by another John besides the apostle. Eusebius appears to agree with him. However, Dionysius does not reject the book on these grounds (despite the impression many give that he did).
Objections and Support Over the Centuries
Interestingly, the real rejection of Revelation was not driven by authorship or historical evidences. Instead, as said earlier, the main person who offered specific objections to Revelation in the early church was Gaius who believed it was a forgery of Cerinthus. But what led Gaius to this conclusion was not the historical merits of the book, but rather Gaius’ objection to chiliasm (which taught that there will be a Golden Age on earth where Christ will reign in bodily presence for a 1000 years before the final judgment of the earth). Gaius opposed the chilastic teachings in the church, particularly the chiliasm he attributed to Cerinthus. It was in all probability the reference to a millennium in Revelation 20 that led Gaius to erroneously presume that Revelation was a product of Cerinthus’ pen.
Even though Gaius is pretty much alone in his specific objections to Revelation his resistance apparently did have a negative effect in some quarters of the church, particularly in the East, there was a resurgence of doubt about the book in the fourth century and later. Nevertheless, there were also many who supported the book including the synods of Hippo (c.393) and Carthage (c.397). It was also received by Philastrius of Brescia (c.385), Rufinus of Aquileia (c.404), Jerome (c.414), and as stated, Augustine (c.426).
Martin Luther's Perspective
Out a thousand two hundred years Luther said: “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly — indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important — and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep. Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in…”
Understanding the Debate on the Book of Revelation
Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous. Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me, this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely. So there you have it.
The Book of Revelation is perhaps the most important eschatological book in the Bible and as I’m sure you are well aware it presents the information through imagery that depicts a cosmic battle in heaven and earth in very esoteric language. Because of its apocalyptic leanings and often cryptic descriptions, great debate thrives regarding its contents. As we read it we must constantly ask ourselves – “Is this book a prophecy of future events yet to take place or have the prophecies of this book been fulfilled – or both?”
In our day we have two public figures – one recently died – that take completely different stands on how to understand the book – Tim LaHaye of Left Behind fame and the Bible Answerman Hank Hannegraaf. In Hannegraaf's book, The Apocalypse Code, Hanegraaff asserts that the events of Revelation were largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. Here he openly criticizes people like LaHaye for taking a hyper-literal approach to Revelation.
Different Interpretations of Revelation
But there’s more. For instance, Hannegraaf, while supporting what is called the partial-preterist view, stops at Revelation being fulfilled when we arrive at chapter 20 – believing that that chapter awaits us in the future – a stance that makes Hannegraaf a partial preterist versus people who believe that Revelation 20 has been fulfilled and are called full preterists.
The debate has raised some confusion among Christians as to why there would be division on a book of the Bible – after all, Hannegraaf and the late LaHaye appear to be solid Christians who love the Lord. But the debate between these two is nothing new. Throughout church history, as mentioned, there have really been four different views regarding the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, and futurist. If we really think about it there are actually seven main views –
- The Idealist
- The Historicist
- The Dispensationalist Futurist
- The Pre-Millenialist Futurist
- The partial Preterist
- The full Preterist
- The Revelation is not inspired and The Wacko
Various Approaches to Interpretation
I believe that spread out across the world there are good loving Christian people who love the Lord that embrace all of these. Each view attempts to interpret Revelation according to the laws of hermeneutics – which is a word to describe the art and science of interpretation. 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 Not Inspired View suggests, similar to Luther, that the Book has no place in scripture and the Wacko take the book and allow for some rather bizarre interpretations.
Now, proponents of each view include –
Partial Preterist: RC Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, The Late David Chilton
Full Preterists: David Chilton, Stuart Russell, Max R. King, Ed Stevens, Don Preston, John Noe, John Bray
Idealist (or Idealism, the Spiritual approach): Origen, Augustine, Karl Barth, Christian Anarchist Jacques Ellul
Historicist: Joachim of Fiore, Nicolas of Lyra, Martin Luther, Isaac Newton, Wycliffe, and a favorite commentator of mine Albert Barnes
Futurist (note on premillennial, amillennial, postmillennial dispensationalism, and the like. There are historic premillennialists and dispensational premillennialists): Tim Lahaye, Calvary Chapels
No-Book of Revelation: George Weakly Junior
Wacko: David Koresh, Charles Manson
I want to work through five main views of Revelation before we embark on trying to understand a single word of its text. Today we will address the Idealist, the Historicist, the Preterist, and the Futurist. Next week we will consider the Revelation does not belong in the Bible at all view. After that, we will work our way through the book. Now, because the book is in the Bible I am going to take the liberty to assume it’s supposed to be.
Understanding the Different Interpretations of Revelation
The topic I am going to cover today is the postulation that the Book of Revelation should not be in the Bible at all, and I am going to try and validate which of the four views of interpretation are best as we study the book. I am going to try and do this through a rating system I’ve created called the Revelation Scorecard. What we’ll do is work through all the passages and try and understand them from the four views and then seek to establish which view makes the most sense – Idealist, historicist, Preterist, or Futurist – and rank them accordingly 1-4 (with 1 being best and four being worst). In the end, the view with the lowest score will be what we deem the winner.
The Idealist View
Okay . . . the Idealist View or the spiritual view. This view uses what we might call “the allegorical method” to interpret the Book of Revelation. As stated, 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. NOT (so we cannot tie the meaning of the book to any actual events in actual real time history). 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, a scholar and expert in the book of Revelation 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.” Therefore, and again, the symbols in Revelation are not tied to specific events but point to themes throughout church history.
Symbolism and Interpretation
The battles in Revelation are viewed as spiritual warfare manifested in the persecution of Christians or wars in general that have occurred in history. In this way, the beast from the sea may be identified as the satanically-inspired political opposition to the church in any age. Or the beast from the land represents pagan, or corrupt, religion to Christianity. In a similar light, the harlot represents the compromised church, or the seduction of the world in general, and each seal, trumpet, or bowl may represent 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. Yet God ultimately triumphs in the end.
Revelation 1:1 states that “the events will come to pass shortly,” which gives the impression that John is prophesying some future historical things to actually happen.
Additionally, when we try and read “spiritual meanings” we are often left with arbitrary and private 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, an American professor and Greek Scholar, 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.”
The strength of this view is that it avoids the problem of harmonizing passages with events in history. Simultaneously it also makes the book of Revelation applicable and relevant for all periods of church history. However, there are a number of obvious weaknesses in this view. First, it denies the book of Revelation as having any specific historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.
The Preterist View
While this is one of the difficulties of the Idealist view it is admittedly one of the difficulties of all the views. The second view is called the preterist view. Preter, in Latin means “past,” and as stated 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. Summarized, 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 and Partial Preterism
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. Generally speaking, partial preterists (and most of Christianity) view full preterism as heretical since classically understood it denies the literal second coming of Christ in the flesh and teaches what most claim is an unorthodox view of the resurrection. I would state that as a full preterist I do NOT deny the material Second Coming of Christ (as having happened) nor see myself as teaching a heretical view of the resurrection but one that is instead in harmony with Paul’s teachings in 1st Corinthians 15.
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 which 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. We will also cover this prior to getting into the verse by verse study. Since it is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preterists hold to a pre-AD 70 date of writing. Accordingly 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.
Arguments and Criticisms
There are a number of reasons why preterist’s maintain this 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” (Mt. 24:34). Because a generation usually refers to forty years the fall of Jerusalem would then fit the time Jesus predicted. Also, 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.
But of course there are also a number of criticisms of the preterist 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” (Mt. 24:27). Preterists believe this refers to the Roman army’s advance on Jerusalem with lightening bolts inscribed on their uniforms. But the Roman army advanced on Jerusalem from west to east. The preterist response is that Jesus was simply saying that as lightening will move from one direction to the next so will the coming of the Son of Man.
Additional Criticisms
Another criticism of the preterist view is that General Titus did not set up an “abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15) in the Jerusalem Temple. Instead, he destroyed the Temple and burned it to the ground. A preterist responds to this by having Nero being the Abomination of Desolation not Titus. Another criticism of the Preterist view is the claim (typically from futurists) that preterists are required to allegorize or stretch the metaphors and symbols in the book in order to find fulfillment of the prophecies in the fall of Jerusalem. An example of such allegorical interpretation might be their interpretation of Revelation 7:4. John identifies a special group of prophets: the 144,000 from the “tribes of Israel.” Preterist Hanegraaff
The True Bride of Christ
Revelation 7:9 states that this group represents the true bride of Christ and is referred to 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. But 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 7:1-3), and the great multitude in heaven before the throne (7:9). Here Hanegraaff appears to be allegorizing the text. We’ll examine this when we get to it.
Again, scholar 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.
Pre-AD 70 vs. AD 95 Date Debate
Also, as you are well familiar with attending here, the preterist position rests heavily 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 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.
Upcoming Overview
We will continue with an overview of the varied approaches to the Book next week. Q and A
