Four Views of Revelation

Dr. Patrick Zukeran presents a summary of four of the major

approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation and its
meaning for the end times: the idealist, the preterist, the
historicist, and the futurist views. For each, he presents the
basic approach, strengths of the approach and weaknesses of
the approach. Recognizing that God is the central mover in all
of these, he encourages us to keep these questions from
dividing Christians in our mission of sharing Christ with the
world.

The Debate
One of the most intriguing books of the Bible is
the book of Revelation. The imagery of the cosmic
battle in heaven and on earth makes it a
fascinating book to study. However, much debate
surrounds the proper interpretation of this
apocalyptic work. Is this book a prophecy of future events yet
to take place, or have the prophecies of this book been
fulfilled?

Two popular authors highlight the debate that continues in our

present time. In his hit series Left Behind, Tim LaHaye writes
a fictional account based on his theological position that the
events of Revelation will occur in the future. Popular radio
talk show host Hank Hanegraaff responded by attacking the
theology of LaHaye. In his book The Apocalypse Code,
Hanegraaff asserts that the events of Revelation were largely
fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. He
criticizes theologians like LaHaye for taking a hyper-literal
approach to Revelation.{1} The debate has raised some
confusion among Christians as to why there is such a debate
and how we should interpret the book of Revelation.

The issues at the core of the debate between Hanegraaff and

LaHaye are not new. Throughout church history, there have been
four different views regarding the book of Revelation:
idealist, preterist, historicist, and futurist. The idealist
view teaches that Revelation describes in symbolic language
the battle throughout the ages between God and Satan and good
against evil. The preterist view teaches that the events
recorded in the book of Revelation were largely fulfilled in
AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. The historicist
view teaches that the book of Revelation is a symbolic
presentation of church history beginning in the first century
AD through the end of age. The prophecies of Revelation are
fulfilled in various historic events such as the fall of the
Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation, and the French
Revolution. The futurist view teaches that Revelation
prophesies events that will take place in the future. These
events include the rapture of the church, seven years of
tribulation, and a millennial rule of Christ upon the earth.

Each view attempts to interpret Revelation according to the

laws of hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation.
This is central to the debate about how we should approach and
interpret Revelation. 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 goal of this work is to present a brief overview of the

four views of Revelation and present the strengths of each
view as well as its weaknesses. It is my hope that the reader
will gain a basic understanding and be able to understand the
debate among theologians today.

The Idealist View

The first view of Revelation is the idealist view, or the
spiritual view. This view uses the allegorical method to
interpret the Book of Revelation. 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. 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 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.”{2}

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.”{3}

The symbols in Revelation are not tied to specific events but

point to themes throughout church history. The battles in
Revelation are viewed as spiritual warfare manifested in the
persecution of Christians or wars in general that have
occurred in history. The beast from the sea may be identified
as the satanically-inspired political opposition to the church
in any age. The beast from the land represents pagan, or
corrupt, religion to Christianity. The harlot represents the
compromised church, or the seduction of the world in general.
Each seal, trumpet, or bowl represents 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. God
ultimately triumphs in the end.

The strength of this view is that it avoids the problem of

harmonizing passages with events in history. It also makes the
book of Revelation applicable and relevant for all periods of
church history.{4}

However, there are several weaknesses of this view. First,

this view denies the book of Revelation any specific
historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present
conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical
process.{5} Rev.1:1 states that the events will come to pass
shortly, giving the impression that John is prophesying future
historical events.

Second, reading spiritual meanings into the text could lead to

arbitrary 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.{6} Merrill Tenney
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 according to the whim of the
interpreter.{7}

Unless interpreters are grounded in the grammatical,

historical, and contextual method of hermeneutics, they leave
themselves open to alternate interpretations that may even
contradict the author’s intended meaning.

The Preterist View

The second view is called the preterist view. Preter, which
means “past,” is derived from the Latin. 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. 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 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.
Partial preterists view full preterism as heretical since it
denies the second coming of Christ and teaches an unorthodox
view of the resurrection.

Church historians trace the roots of preterism to Jesuit

priest Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613).{8} Alcazar’s
interpretation is considered a response to the Protestant
historicist interpretation of Revelation that 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.{9}

Crucial to the preterist view is the date of Revelation. Since

it is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preterists
hold to a pre-AD 70 date of writing. According to this view,
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.

Preterists point to several reasons to support their 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). A generation usually
refers to forty years. The fall of Jerusalem would then fit
the time Jesus predicted. Second, 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.

There are several criticisms of this 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. However, the Roman army advanced
on Jerusalem from west to east, and their assault was not as a
quick lightning strike. The Jewish war lasted for several
years before Jerusalem was besieged, and the city fell after a
lengthy siege.{10} Second, General Titus did not set up an
“abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15) in the Jerusalem
Temple. Rather, he destroyed the Temple and burned it to the
ground. Thus, it appears the preterist is required to
allegorize or stretch the metaphors and symbols in order to
find fulfillment of the prophecies in the fall of Jerusalem.

Another example of allegorical interpretation by preterists is

their interpretation of Revelation 7:4. John identifies a
special group of prophets: the 144,000 from the “tribes of
Israel.” Preterist Hanegraaff states that this group
represents the true bride of Christ and is referred to in Rev.
7:9 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.{11} 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.

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.{12}

Mounce and other New Testament scholars believe the

preterists’ interpretations are not consistent and utilize
allegorical interpretations to make passages fit their
theological view.
Second, the preterist position rests 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 (Mt. 24, Mk.
13, Lk. 21) 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.{13}

The preterist view, particularly the partial preterist view,

is a prominent position held by such notable scholars as R. C.
Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, Kenneth Gentry, and the late David
Chilton (who later converted to full preterism after the
publishing of his books).

The Historicist View

The third view is called the historicist approach. This view
teaches that Revelation is a symbolic representation that
presents the course of history from the apostle’s life through
the end of the age. The symbols in the apocalypse correspond
to events in the history of Western Europe, including various
popes, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, and
rulers such as Charlemagne. Most interpreters place the events
of their day in the later chapters of Revelation.

Many adherents of this position view chapters 1-3 as seven

periods in church history. The breaking of the seals in
chapters 4-7 symbolizes the fall of the Roman Empire. The
Trumpet judgments in chapters 8-10 represent the invasions of
the Roman Empire by the Vandals, Huns, Saracens, and Turks.
Among Protestant historicists of the Reformation, the
antichrist in Revelation was believed to be the papacy.
Chapters 11-13 in Revelation represent the true church in its
struggle against Roman Catholicism. The bowl judgments of
Revelation 14-16 represent God’s judgment on the Catholic
Church, culminating in the future overthrow of Catholicism
depicted in chapters 17-19.{14}

There are several criticisms of this approach. First, this

approach allows for a wide variety of interpretations.
Adherents have a tendency to interpret the text through the
context of their period. Thus, many saw the climax of the book
happening in their generation. John Walvoord points out the
lack of agreement among historicists. He states, “As many as
fifty different interpretations of the book of Revelation
therefore evolve, depending on the time and circumstances of
the expositor.”{15} Moses Stuart echoed the same concern in
his writings over a century ago. He wrote, “Hithertho,
scarcely any two original and independent expositors have
agreed, in respect to some points very important in their
bearing upon the interpretation of the book.”{16}

Second, this view focuses mostly on the events of the church

in Western Europe and says very little about the church in the
East. Thus, its narrow scope fails to account for God’s
activity throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Finally,
this view would have little significance for the church of the
first century whom John was addressing. It is unlikely they
would have been able to interpret Revelation as the historical
approach suggests.

Prominent scholars who held this view include John Wycliffe,

John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich
Zwingli, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield,
Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry. This view
rose to popularity during the Protestant Reformation because
of its identification of the pope and the papacy with the
beasts of Revelation 13. However, since the beginning of the
twentieth century, it has declined in popularity and
influence.

The Futurist View

The fourth view is the futurist view. This view teaches that
the events of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation chapters
4-22 will occur in the future. Futurist divide the book of
Revelation into three sections as indicated in 1:19: “what you
have seen, what is now and what will take place later.”
Chapter 1 describes the past (“what you have seen”), chapters
2-3 describe the present (“what is now”), and the rest of the
book describes future events (“what will take place later”).

Futurists apply a literal approach to interpreting Revelation.

Chapters 4-19 refer to a period known as the seven-year
tribulation (Dan. 9:27). During this time, God’s judgments are
actually poured out upon mankind as they are revealed in the
seals, trumpets, and bowls. Chapter 13 describes a literal
future world empire headed by a political and religious leader
represented by the two beasts. Chapter 17 pictures a harlot
who represents the church in apostasy. Chapter 19 refers to
Christ’s second coming and the battle of Armageddon followed
by a literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth in
chapter 20. Chapters 21-22 are events that follow the
millennium: the creation of a new heaven and a new earth and
the arrival of the heavenly city upon the earth.

Futurists argue that a consistently literal or plain

interpretation is to be applied in understanding the book of
Revelation. Literal interpretation of the Bible means to
explain the original sense, or meaning, of the Bible according
to the normal customary usage of its language. This means
applying the rules of grammar, staying consistent with the
historical framework, and the context of the writing. Literal
interpretation does not discount figurative or symbolic
language. Futurists teach that prophecies using symbolic
language are also to be normally interpreted according to the
laws of language. J. P. Lange stated,

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that

figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor
does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth
therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to
be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws
of language) as any other utterances are interpreted – that
which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.{17}

Charles Ryrie also states,

Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted

plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to
literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any
meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the
literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the
meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain
meaning that they convey to the reader.{18}

Futurists acknowledge the use of figures and symbols. When

figurative language is used, one must look at the context to
find the meaning. However, figurative language does not
justify allegorical interpretation.

Futurists contend that the literal interpretation of

Revelation finds its roots in the ancient church fathers.
Elements of this teaching, such as a future millennial
kingdom, are found in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96),
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus (AD 115-202), Tertullian
(AD 150-225) and others. Futurists hold that the church
fathers taught a literal interpretation of Revelation until
Origen (AD 185-254) introduced allegorical interpretation.
This then became the popular form of interpretation when
taught by Augustine (AD 354-430).{19} Literal interpretation
of Revelation remained throughout the history of the church
and rose again to prominence in the modern era.

The futurist view is widely popular among evangelical

Christians today. One of the most popular versions on futurist
teaching is dispensational theology, promoted by schools such
as Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute.
Theologians such as Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight
Pentecost are noted scholars of this position. Tim LaHaye made
this theology popular in the culture with his end times series
of novels.

Unfortunately, there have been and continue to be popular

preachers who mistakenly apply the futurist approach to
connect current events to the symbols in Revelation. Some have
even been involved in setting dates of Christ’s return.
Although their writings have been popular, they do not
represent a Biblical futurist view.

Critics of this view argue that the futurist view renders the
book irrelevant to the original readers of the first century.
Another criticism is that Revelation is apocalyptic literature
and thus meant to be interpreted allegorically or symbolically
rather than literally. Hank Hanegraaff states, “Thus, when a
Biblical writer uses a symbol or an allegory, we do violence
to his intentions if we interpret it in a strictly literal
manner.”{20}

One of the key elements in the debate, particularly between

preterists and futurists, is the date of writing for
Revelation. Preterists argue for a pre-AD 70 date while
futurists hold to a date of AD 95. There are several reasons
for the later date. First, Irenaeus, in his work Against
Heresies, states that John wrote Revelation at the end of
Emperor Domitian’s reign, which ended in AD 96. Irenaeus was a
disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John.
He thus had a connection with a contemporary of the Apostle
John.

Second, the conditions of the seven churches in Revelation

appear to describe a second-generation church setting rather
than that of a first-generation. For example, the Church of
Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) is charged with abandoning their first
love and warned of the Nicolaitan heresy. If John had written
Revelation in AD 65, it would have overlapped with Paul’s
letter to the Ephesians and Timothy. However, Paul makes no
mention of either the loss of first love or the threat of the
Nicolaitans. Ephesus was Paul’s headquarters for three years,
and Apollos served there along with Aquila and Priscilla. The
church of Smyrna did not exist during Paul’s ministry (AD
60-64) as recorded by Polycarp, the first bishop of the city.
Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) is rebuked for being wealthy and
lukewarm. However, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul
commends the church three times (2:2, 4:13, 16). It would
likely take more than three years for the church to decline to
the point that chapter 3 would state there to be no
commendable aspect about it. Also, an earthquake in AD 61 left
the city in ruins for many years. Thus, it is unlikely that in
a ruined condition John would describe them as rich.

Preterists who favor the AD 70 date pose the question, “Why

doesn’t John mention the fall of the Temple which occurred in
AD 70?” Futurists respond that John wrote about future events,
and the destruction of the temple was twenty-five years in the
past. He also wrote to a Gentile audience in Asia Minor which
was far removed from Jerusalem. Preterists also point to the
fact that the Temple is mentioned in chapter eleven. Futurists
respond that although John mentions a temple in Revelation
11:1-2, this does not mean it exists at the time of his
writing. In Daniel 9:26-27 and Ezekiel 40-48, both prophets
describe the temple, but it was not in existence when they
described a future temple in their writings.
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 when He said, “[T]his
generation will certainly not pass away until all these things
have happened”? The common futurist response is that Jesus was
stating that the future generation about which he was speaking
would not pass away once “these things” had begun. In other
words, the generation living amid the time of the events He
predicted will not pass away until all is fulfilled.

Conclusion

The book of Revelation is a fascinating book, and the debate

regarding its interpretation will continue. Despite our
various views, there are some common threads upon which
Christians agree.{21} All views believe that God is sovereign
and in charge of all that occurs in history and its ultimate
conclusion. Except for full preterism and some forms of
idealism, all believe in the physical second coming of Christ.
All views believe in the resurrection from the dead. All
believe there will be a future judgment. All believe in an
eternal state in which believers will be with God, and
unbelievers will be separated from Him. All agree upon the
importance of the study of prophecy and its edification for
the body of Christ.

Unfortunately, the debate among Christians has often been

harsh and hostile. It is my hope that the debate would
continue in a cordial, respectful manner which will challenge
every believer to accurately study and interpret the Word. We
all await the return of our Lord and together with the saints
of all ages say, “Amen, come Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20)

Notes

1. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Thomas

Nelson, 2007), 20.

2. Robert Mounce, The New International Commentary of the New

Testament: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 43.
3. William Milligan, The Book of Revelation (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1889), 153-4.

4. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation

(Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 20.

5. Robert Mounce, 43.

6. Robert Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary

(Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 31-2.

7. Merrill Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids:

William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), 146.

8. Steven Gregg, 39.

9. Ibid., 39.

10. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, ed., The End Times Controversy
(Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 377.

11. Hanegraaff, 125.

12. Robert Mounce, The New International Commentary of the New

Testament: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 42.

13. Evidence for the AD 95 date of writing will be presented

in the futurist section.

14. Steven Gregg, Four Views of Revelation (Nashville: Thomas

Nelson Publishers, 1997), 31, 217, 309, & 399).

15. John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago:

Moody Press, 1966), 19.

16. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Edinburgh:

Maclachlan, Stewart & Co., 1847), 35.

17. J. P. Lange, Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: Revelation

(New York: Scribner’s, 1872), 98, quoted in Charles Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 91.

18. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody

Publishers, 2007), 91.

20. Hanegraaff, 14.

21. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Conviction Without

Compromise (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 333.

© 2009 Probe Ministries