Some people like to shop. Usually I only shop in a few specific stores. Some like shopping in lots of different stores. For example, my wife likes to grocery shop in several different stores. She thinks she is saving money, but then again she is not calculating the gas she burns up as she drives all around town trying to save a few nickels and dimes with her expired coupons—lol. However, as far as I’m concerned, if she is enjoying herself then great—but I am digressing. Some people approach interpreting the book of Revelation as if they are shopping; in other words, correctly interpreting the book of Revelation for them is about one’s personal preference. Such an attitude is a very perilous one when it comes to studying the Bible, regardless of which book one is reading. When studying this book people are often introduced to 3 basic approaches of interpretation, which are the Premillennial view, the Amillennial view, and the Postmillennial view. Some scholars assert that the Amillennial view dates back to the earliest days of the church, and they may cite Origen and Augustine in defense of their position. The problem with this assertion is that Papias predates Origen by almost 100 years (Papias wrote about Jesus’ teachings on a future physical/visible Millennial Kingdom on Earth). Moreover, if the first church figure you can cite in defense of any position is Origen or Augustine, then it is questionable as to whether that position dates back to the earliest days of the church. The fact is that with respect to many theological concepts, Origen is a very poor standard for what first-century church taught. That being said, many people are familiar with these different approaches to the book of Revelation.
However, these are not the only approaches for interpreting the book of Revelation. Other approaches are as follows: the Futurist, the Preterist, the Idealist, and the Historicist approach. Some are not even aware of these divergent schools of thought, so further explanation of them and their differences is warranted. All 4 approaches are at their core fundamentally different from one another, meaning that they are essentially mutually exclusive. The “Furturist” approach recognizes that Revelation contains prophecies concerning real future events, some in the near future, while most are still in the distant future and will occur closer to the final days (i.e., the final “eschaton”). Some criticize the Futurist approach by claiming that it makes content in Revelation “irrelevant” to modern believers because it teaches that some things occurring in the future are not relevant to the contemporary church; consequently, they say that the end result is that it produces a “who cares” attitude within today’s believers. This is a terribly weak criticism; the fact is that there have been many prophecies throughout scripture concerning things that would occur far into the future, such as the birth of the Messiah. No one asserts that those prophecies were not relevant to those that first heard these prophecies since they did not occur in the same year when the prophecy was given. Another example is the coming of the “Antichrist” (2 Thes 2.1ff). Prophecies concerning him are relevant to the church even if it is not fulfilled next year. Consequently, regardless of the era a believer lives in, prophecies in the far future still provide confidence for believers even if they are not fulfilled in their life times. Moreover, God has graciously provided these future prophecies for future believers so that they will understand what to do, what not to do, and to know that the rapture of the church and the Lord’s second coming are close.
The Preterist views all the major events predicted in the book of Revelation as having already occurred and thus fulfilled during the first century AD (an exception being prophecies concerning the final judgment). The Historicist approach views most or all of the major events described in Revelation as having already occurred during the Middle Ages. And lastly, the Idealist approach interprets Revelation as not providing specific prophecies predicting real future events, but only communicating that there is a great spiritual conflict in the world today, and that God will ultimately win. In other words, there are no specific or real future events being prophesied about in Revelation, instead the book’s purpose is to communicate the basic “idea” that God will inevitably conquer over this world’s struggle against evil and sin. Consequently, the purpose of Revelation is not to predict specific future events, but only to encourage God’s people that they are on the “winning” side, even though things may be tough at times.
Of course within each of these different approaches there are varying schools of thought and interpretations, and on some minor issues these different schools of thought may even agree with respect to an interpretation of a specific passage or use of imagery. Nevertheless, generally speaking, these different approaches are fundamentally irreconcilable, although some scholars try to harmonize them. However, such efforts are neither well defended or particularly productive. Therefore, when studying Revelation, the most important issue is not which of these approaches do you like the most based upon your personal subjective preference, but what did the apostle John mean as he wrote. Consequently, the essential issue is not what you “feel” is the best way for interpreting the book; instead, it is about what John meant as he wrote by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. This being said, it is now important to explain some inherent differences between these 4 approaches.
First, it is essential to understand that each approach rejects the other three approaches in there entirety. Consequently, the poorest approach to interpreting the book of Revelation is to attempt to harmonize all 4 approaches as equally valid for correctly interpreting all passages within the book. Some may assert that they see some minor elements of all 4 approaches that might assist in correctly interpreting specific passages in Revelation; nevertheless, each approach is a “macro” decision on how to correctly interpret the book of Revelation as a whole. Consequently, each approach rejects the other 3 approaches with respect to correctly interpreting the entire book, as well as specific passages throughout the book. Simply put, the “Idealistic” approach rejects the position that the book of Revelation has any predictions of specific historical future events, while the Preterist approach rejects the notion that the book of Revelation predicts any future events in the same manner as the Historicist and Futurist approaches do (again, the final judgment being an exception). Therefore, all of these approaches are incompatible with one another; consequently, they cannot be subjectively integrated in any coherent manner. While some scholars may advocate for such an effort, generally speaking their attempts are generally not well defended, and this is more obvious when one attempts to actually interpret and apply specific passages within the book. The salient point is that while there may be points of agreement on issues of interpretation between the different approaches when dealing with minor issues; nevertheless, these approaches are essentially incompatible.
Let’s use a modern day illustration as an example. All the major religions recommend that we should regularly engage of some manner of meditation. That being said, if I engage in meditation it does not mean that I am embracing Hinduism or even the purposes of Hinduism’s manner of meditation. Christians should not engage in meditation that is promoted by Hinduism, rather we are to engage in biblical mediation. Does that mean that we cannot use some of the techniques that Hindus use as they meditate—of course not. Nevertheless, we are not called to embrace meditation with the same goals or purposes of Hindu meditation. Similarly, just because there are minor elements contained in all 4 approaches that “may” help us correctly interpret some passages in Revelation does not mean that all 4 approaches are compatible and/or helpful for correctly interpreting major passages throughout the book. For example, all examples recognize that the book of Revelation 12 describes a cosmic struggle between “good and evil,” but unlike the Idealistic approach, the other approaches also recognize (whether correctly or incorrectly) that the book prophecies about specific future events (whether in the late first century, or 1000s of years later, or still in the future). Whereas the Idealist approach rejects this particular assertion, and only interprets Revelation as describing the battle between good and evil, in which God ultimately wins, but how or when no one really knows, and for the Idealist, that is not really important anyway. Consequently, specific “signs” for identifying who the Antichrist will be or what he will attempt to accomplish are not really important for identifying any particular real person that may or may not show up in the future.
Secondly, there is such a thing as a wrong answer. Remember, in biblical hermeneutics, the issue is not how you subjectively feel about what was written with respect to accurately interpreting a biblical passage, but what the author meant and codified through what he wrote. Consequently, if you are going to promote one approach as the best approach, then you must provide adequate evidence to defend your assertion from the author’s text. In other words, you cannot simply assert that “I like this approach because it is the easiest to understand,” or “I choose this approach because my favorite pastor uses it.” It is a very perilous attitude to interpret any biblical passage based solely upon one’s feelings or because it is what someone else has asserted. More importantly, if you avoid doing the work necessary for discovering the correct approach to interpreting Revelation and choose to embrace all 4 approaches as equally valid, then you have necessarily chosen to reject not only the blessing promised at the end of the book, but also to remain ignorant about what the Lord has communicated concerning Himself in the book. In other words, not caring about how to accurately approach and interpret Revelation is the functional equivalent of rejecting God’s word. You may say that you believe that the book is a part of God’s inerrant and inspired word, but your decision indicates that you do not really think it is very important or helpful for understanding who the Lord Jesus Christ is and what He has promised to do. And ultimately the Lord Jesus Christ will hold you accountable for that decision. Having the opportunity to learn about the Lord Jesus Christ as he has revealed himself in Revelation, and then choosing to not take advantage of that opportunity by correctly interpreting and applying His word to your daily life is a form of rejecting Him. Consequently, given these issues, and the relevant data contained within the book of Revelation, the most defensible position for correctly interpreting it is from a Futurist perspective, and more specifically, from a Premillennial approach. But hey, don’t simply take my word for it, read the book for yourself, and if you do you will have the opportunity to be blessed, that is if you believe. Moreover, the promise blessing of this book is not that you will have an inside track on future events. It’s title is not the book of “Revelations” but the book of Revelation, i.e., singular. It reveals precisely who Jesus is, that he is God incarnate who is Lord of lords and King of kings. He alone is the world’s only savior, and as such he is worthy of all praise and worship.
Copyright, © by Monte Shanks 2015