Home
The Bible
Old Testament
New Testament
The Canon
Prophecy
Four Views
Revelation
Warnings
About Sin
Salvation
Authority
Doctrine

The Four Views of Revelation

Introduction

That there are differing views on the interpretation of the apocalyptic writings in the book of Revelation is no secret. The plethora of views, however, can be distilled into essentially four main categories. These categories are: the historicist view, the preterist view, the futurist view, and the idealist view. These four views are the subject of this paper.

Historicist View

The historicist view contends that all of the events in the book of Revelation are history – that they were fulfilled either during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) or Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD). Those who see the book this way claim that it is an inspired forecast of the whole of church history.  Those who support this view claim that in Revelation one can find the history of the church from the days of John to the end of the age.  The proponents of the historical view claim that the symbols contained in Revelation signify the rise of the papacy, the corruption of the church, and various wars throughout church history (Ryrie 9). Gregg, in his commentary on Revelation, states (35) that one non-negotiable feature of classical historicism is the assertion that the papacy is “Antichrist.”  According to Gregg, present-day supporters of historicism have all but vanished, and “hardly any new commentary can be found (today) espousing this view.” Nevertheless, historicism has had its fair share of noteworthy supporters: among them, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Foxe, John Wesley, Charles Finney, C.H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, and a host of others. While classical historicism is not in vogue today, it has had some impressive points in its favor. It seems most of these, at least from our vantage point of looking backwards, are a result of favorable coincidences where proponents have successfully been able to align some prophetic events with actual historical occurrences. One such incident, according to Gregg (36) was the alignment of the fifth trumpet of Revelation with the rise of Mohammedanism and of the sixth trumpet with the coming of the Turks. The things described in the Revelation, says Gregg, would surely be an apt description of these great calamities – but prove nothing when taken in the system as a whole.

Preterist View

The second view is known as the Preterist view.  The word “preter” comes from Latin, meaning ‘past,’ so this view contends that Revelation is essentially a view of the past.  The Preterist viewpoint wants to take seriously the historical interpretation of Revelation by relating it to its original author and audience.  Preterists locate the timing of the fulfilling of the prophecies of Revelation in the first century AD just before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  Despite the opinion of many that Revelation was written in the 90’s during the reign of Domitian many who hold to this view would argue that the date of the book is rather much earlier during the time of Nero (54-68 AD).  Those who support this view see Revelation as having already been fulfilled in the early centuries of the church.  The view differs from the historicist in that preterism sees Revelation as a panorama of church history from the apostolic era to the end of the ages.  Chapters 5-11 are said to record the church’s victory over Judaism; chapters 12-19, her victory over Pagan Rome, and chapters 20-22, her glory because of these victories (Ryrie 8).  The principal criticism of the preterist approach is its heavy dependence on the pre-AD 70 date of writing. While this date has some defense it is not undisputed. Another problem associated with the preterist approach, says Gregg (39) is related to its alleged roots.  Critics have traced the origins of preterism to a Jesuit priest named Louis de Alcazar. Thus, some hold to the view that preterism is said to have a disreputable origin and was a Roman Catholic response to Protestantism.

Futurist View

The label “futurist” is derived from the fact that this interpretation sees Revelation from chapter 4 to the end of the book as yet to be fulfilled. If one follows the plain, literal and normal principles of interpretation, one can conclude that most of the book describes what is yet future. The futurist argues that their view can be the only one because of the fact that no judgments in history have ever equaled those described in chapters 6, 8, 9, and 16 (Ryrie 9). The resurrections and judgment described in chapter 20 have not yet occurred. There has been no visible return of Christ as portrayed in chapter 19 of Revelation.  The concept of a literal interpretation raises questions for some since the book obviously contains symbols.  Futurists do not deny the presence of symbols in the book, nor do they claim to be able to explain every detail with certainty. They do insist however, that the principal of literal interpretation be followed consistently throughout the book. This view sees the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments as prefiguring the second coming of Christ.  This view of Revelation is supported in the outline provided in the book itself (Revelation 1:19). When the principles of “comparing scripture to scripture” and “letting scripture interpret scripture” are followed, the futurist view seems to emerge as the most credible view when taken in the broad perspective of both the entire Bible, and our perspective of history.

Idealist View

The fourth or idealist view maintains that there are few or no references in Revelation to actual happenings, whether at the time it was written or subsequently.  Their approach to Revelation sees the book as a pictorial unfolding of great principles in constant conflict. The book does not actually record events, idealists say, that have been fulfilled or that are going to happen; rather, it merely portrays the struggle between good and evil.  Those who hold to this view have been criticized of spiritualizing and allegorizing the text. Those who hold to this view argue that in many of the visions that John saw and in his constant use of the word “like” shows that the reader should not interpret this passage literally. It is the idea that John is trying to convey that is of central importance, they say.   In this view the whole book is concerned with ideas and principles.  Idealists would argue that the main propositions for this book are: (1) It is an irresistible summons to heroic living. (2) It contains matchless appeals to endurance. (3) It tells us that evil is marked for overthrow in the end. (4) It gives us a new and wonderful picture of Christ, and (5) it reveals to us the fact that history is in the mind of God and in the hand of Christ as the author and reviewer of the moral destines of men (Pate 23). It is amazing that in these propositions the coming of Christ and his kingdom – the central theme in Revelation – are nowhere mentioned.

Conclusion

An honest evaluation of the four views of the book of the Revelation leads to the conclusion that the futurist view aligns most closely with our overall understanding of scripture and events in history as we have observed them. Some see three of the four views, according to Pate (19) in Revelation 1:19. “Write, therefore, what you have seen” (preterist), “What is now,” (idealist), and “What will take place later” (futurist), but I think that is taking an interpretation to an incorrect extreme. Some have argued the main weakness of the futurist view is that it robs the book (of Revelation) of any significance for the early Christians, and indeed all generations up to the last. The opponents to the futuristic view argue that the book really has significance only for the final generation if the events described are all future.

This directly contradicts the introductory verses of Revelation itself, where we read God gives the book to his servants so they will know, (and in knowing, obey) the words of the book. In Revelation 1:3 we read of the blessing God promises to those who will “digest” the book. The blessing comes to those who “read,” “hear,” and “keep” (or obey) the things written in the book. The flow of information (Rev. 1:1) is from God, to Jesus Christ, to John, written down, passed to the seven churches, and through them, to us. So the book clearly is to all of God’s people in every generation.

Marvin Pate, in his Four Views on the Book of Revelation (231) correctly states, I believe, that how one approaches Revelation 1:1 will determine how one concludes at Revelation 22:21.  How one sees the opening phrases like “these things,” “will soon take place” and “immediately” will govern one’s subsequent approach.

In the midst of the diversity of opinions, however, we can be sure of one thing: the God Who intervened in history past to provide a Savior through the finished work of Jesus Christ, is the same God Who can be trusted to triumphantly conclude his plan in the future.

Of this we can be certain: Jesus shall reign.

Summary of the Four Views on Revelation

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker   Book House, 1974.
House, Wayne H. Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Jensen, Irving L. Jensen’s Survey of the New Testament. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1981.
Lahaye, Tim. Revelation Unveiled. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1999.
Milligan, William. The Book of Revelation. New York, NY. A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1889.
Morris, Leon. Revelation. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1994.
Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1977.
Pate, Marvin C. Four Views on the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan Publishing House, 1998.
Revelation – Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. Steve Gregg, Ed. Forward by Dr. Robert Clouse. Nashville, TN. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1997.
Ryrie, Charles C. Revelation – New Edition. Chicago, IL. Moody Press, 1996.
 

Top of Page     Home