End-Time Prophecy - (Part Two)

Most of what we believe about Bible prophecy has come from trusted sources: parents, teachers, pastors, congregations, and denominations. Most of us have been given one perspective and one perspective alone, and we often find ourselves woefully unaware of the teaching in other Christian faith traditions. No book of the Bible offers a better illustration of how these preconceived religious presuppositions work than the Book of Revelation.

Over the centuries Christian scholars, authors, priests, and pastors have attempted to blaze new interpretive trails to discover the treasures contained in the Book of Revelation. Most of these ideas and methods can be summarized within four foundational methods. What you have been taught about Revelation is almost certainly some permutation or modification of one or more of these views. Each of these perspectives claims to be based in Scripture. Each one has strengths and weaknesses, is now believed, and has been believed by millions of Christians throughout history.

The primary flaw in all of these methodologies is that each one (with the possible exception of idealism) places a premium on attempting to answer the when of Revelation. While the when is definitely an issue, it is not THE issue.

The primary characters in Revelation are Jesus and religion (religion being defined as a system of belief that human relationship with God and His salvation for us is directly tied to human performance and accomplishment). Jesus is the Message, the Subject, the Object, and the Goal of Revelation.

The first method of interpreting Revelation is PRETERISM. Preterists believe that most and possibly all of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled during the time of the Roman Empire. They believe that this fulfillment took place in the years prior to and with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. They point to passages such as Revelation 1:1 which say that the message must “soon take place.” They point to Jesus’ Olivet Prophecy in Matthew 24 as being fulfilled in 70AD.

Their view is that most and possibly all of the apocalyptic language of events described in Revelation were fulfilled in the horrific events leading up to and surrounding the fall of Jerusalem.

The second method of interpreting Revelation is HISTORICISM. Historicists believe that the prophecies of Revelation have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today and refer to the entire history of Christianity.

Historicism isn’t as popular today as it once was, but most of the great Bible commentators from a century or more ago were historicists. Many of the leaders of the Reformation were historicists: Wycliffe, Knox, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli for example.

They say that Revelation is a kind of survey of church history with historical events symbolically portrayed. For example, most Protestant historicists of the past believed that the Antichrist of Revelation referred to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, the two witnesses were Luther and Calvin, with the triumph of Protestantism over Catholicism being the ultimate victory promised by Revelation.

Critics point out that historicism has not kept up with history much past the fourteenth century and that it is Eurocentric, not recognizing more recent and significant developments in the church in other parts of the world. Historicists can miss the big picture of God’s grace while they attempt to retrofit history into the text.

The third method of interpreting Revelation is FUTURISM. This is the view held by many contemporary North American evangelical pastors and teachers. Ironically, many of its current advocates would be shocked to find that modern futurism originated in 1585 with Francisco Ribeira, a Spanish Jesuit priest, for the purpose of refuting the anti-Catholic views of the Protestant reformers.

The most popular version of futurism today has only been around since the 1830s when J.N. Darby began teaching his ideas of a secret rapture of the church followed by the “great tribulation” and the millennium – the thousand year rule of Christ and the saints. They believe in a literal view of Revelation, and from the 1830s until the present, each new generation has projected chapters four through twenty-two of Revelation into a future time, often future dates on the calendar that occur within, or just after, their lifetime.

When futurists insist upon a literal interpretation of Revelation, they not only ignore the apocalyptic style of writing Jesus inspired John to use, but they can also unwittingly twist and distort the meaning given and inspired by the divine Author.

The fourth method of interpreting Revelation is IDEALISM. Idealists believe that most prophecies in Revelation portray an ongoing cosmic conflict of spiritual realities. They look for lessons or principles that are symbolically depicted in Revelation. They take into account the apocalyptic style of Revelation, and see the central theme as the triumph of good over evil, Christ over Satan. While other approaches may take certain passages as chronological, idealists take these as recurring realities in history, as part of God’s sovereign plan for humankind.

So we have four ways that Christians have interpreted the Book of Revelation over the centuries. But incredibly, many Christians today are not aware of these four views. They are only aware of the futurist interpretation that their pastor or favorite televangelist or favorite prophecy writer teaches.

Although scholars and teachers may identify themselves with one of these distinct methods for interpreting Revelation, in practice they may use various combinations of the four.

There is some value in each of these views, but attempting to fit Revelation into one humanly devised time-bound interpretive mold is missing the boat.

And what is the “boat” being missed?
[To be continued in Part Three.]

[Back to Home]