Differing Interpretations

Differing Interpretations

There have been a number of different ideas about the best way to interpret The Revelation over the years. So that we are not ignorant of these, let’s look at some of the more prominent of them. Don’t worry, we will not spend a great deal of time digging into every aspect of these lines of thought.

View Number One: Preterist

The Preterist view interprets The Revelation as referring to the past. Specifically, with the usual exception of the last two chapters, the book speaks of events which have already taken place. Many in the first century AD (CE). They understand the events depicted to have occurred during the period of the reign of either Nero, if The Revelation was written in the 60’s AD (CE), or Domitian, if it was written in the 90’s through the destruction of the Roman Empire in the fifth century (the 400’s). Part of the basis for this line of thought is the statement in Revelation 1:1 that the book speaks of “things which must soon take place.”

A strength of preterism is its recognition that The Revelation speaks of events that “must soon take place,” not events far in the future, which would have little value for the early Church. Preterism is correct to focus on The Revelation’s relevance to the first century Church. A problem this can present is that with reference to the struggles of the Church throughout history and today, the book can seem irrelevant. This can lead to it being ignored by teachers and readers alike.

View Number Two: Historicist

The Historicist view interprets The Revelation as referring to events that will occur throughout the history of the Church, from Christ’s first coming to His second coming at the end of the age. In this view the visions in The Revelation are typically understood to be in chronological order and to present the most significant events during the history of the Church. Consequently, in this view the visions and symbols are seen to correspond to actual events, institutions, governments, and even people throughout the history of the Church.

In its recognition that the visions recounted in The Revelation refer to events occurring throughout the history of the church as well as at the time of its writing, is a strength of historicism. However, to the degree historicism assumes that the visions reflect a simple chronological sequence of events, it neglects strong evidence that they signify the same events from different viewpoints.

View Number Three: Futurist

Those who approach The Revelation from a Futurist perspective typically recognize chapters 1-3 as the past, since they contain letters to actual first-century churches. The remainder of The Revelation is seen as signifying events in a seven-year tribulation, the second coming of the Lord Jesus, and a 1000-year millennial reign. Often Revelation 1:19, which reads, “Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.” (NASB 2020) is seen as the key to understanding the structural flow of the book.

Futurism’s recognition that The Revelation teaches ongoing and increasing, tribulation and suffering for the people of God before the end of history is a strength. Futurism also emphasizes that the ultimate triumph of Christ and His Church will occur at the second coming of Christ. The weakness of the futurist viewpoint is its view that the bulk of The Revelation describes events in a distant future. This makes much of the book irrelevant to the persecuted believers in the seven churches to whom the book was originally addressed.

View Number Four: Trumphalist (also called Idealist)

The Trumphalist interpretation of The Revelation sees the visions as expressing the conflict of good and evil, God and the enemy (Satan), the Church and the world systems including government and religion. In this view the visions are seen as signs and symbols pointing us toward spiritual truths and the triumph of the Lord Jesus Christ across the ages.

Whereas futurists, preterists, and historicists generally see Babylon the harlot in Revelation 17 as an end-time, first-century, or historical figure, respectively, Triumphalists typically view Babylon as symbolizing political and/or religious opposition to the Church and the Gospel throughout history.

Each of these views has value. As James (Jim) Fowler says in “A commentary on the Revelation of John; Jesus: Victor over Religion” “From the preterist we can learn that Christianity is contextually rooted in the historical past, and so is the Revelation. From the historicist we can learn that Christianity continually timely, and so is the Revelation. From the Futurist we can learn that Christianity is confidently hopeful for the future, and so is the Revelation. From the Triumphalist we can learn that Christianity is constantly recognizing Christ’s victory, and the book of Revelation certainly reveals such.”

As you may have surmised by now, my preferred interpretation most closely aligns with the Triumphalist view. Interpreting The Revelation, as I do, from the point of view of symbolism, signs, and the victory of the Lord Jesus across all of history affords me comfort, peace, and a clear-eyed view in the midst of the turmoil and tribulation in which I find myself immersed. I hope this study will provide that for you as well.

Whatever interpretive viewpoint you may employ, it need not be a source of division. No one’s salvation hangs in the balance based upon their understanding of The Revelation.