This essay is free for distribution in any manner, with the
provision that it remains completely intact, with this notice,
the author's name and the full text of the essay.  Any
comments are gratefully welcomed.  Copyright 1996.


INTRODUCTION

      Over the last 1900 years, four primary
understandings of the Book of Revelation have developed -
the Idealist, Preterist, Historicist and Futurist
viewpoints.  These understandings are distinct with their
own notable characteristics.  Horton believes that part
of the reason for this incompatible variety stems from
whether the hermeneutics employed tend to interpret the
Bible more literally or figuratively (Horton, 1994, p.
619).  As will be explained however, there are stronger
reasons for the variety, which pertain to one's
objectivity.


IDEALIST

      The Idealist believes simply that Revelation does
not refer to any historical or future event at all;
rather it is a timeless allegory of the conflict between
good and evil (Stern, 1992, p. 784) - a description of
the spiritual principles of God that equip one for
spiritual battles, which constantly confront the Church
(Goswiller, n.d., p. 5).

      This view originated with the Alexandrian School of
Theology represented by Clement and Origen, who
(consistent with their other teachings) taught that the
"true spiritual interpretation" of the book could only be
discovered through an allegorical interpretation
(Goswiller, n.d., p. 5; Wilson, n.d., p. 15).

      Nevertheless, though the book does have many
symbolic figures, they all represent realities.  The
Antichrist is called a beast, but he will be a real
person and will fulfill plain statements given in other
prophecies (such as II Thessalonians 2:3-12).  Jesus must
personally come to bring about the final triumph (Horton,
1994, p. 619).

      The Idealist view does not appear to have much
serious support, its deficiencies being apparent.  Morris
(1980, p. 1338) states, "The difficulty is that the seer
does claim to be prophesying of later days".  Wilson
(n.d., p. 6) writes, "The results of this method were not
satisfactory, for each interpreter understood the symbols
and figures according to his own ideas".  Jensen (1981,
p. 498) goes as far as to claim that this view is anemic.


PRETERIST

      The Preterist view derives its name from the Latin
word praeter meaning "past".  It attempts to relate all
of Revelation except for the very end to events in the
first century, with Rome and its early emperors,
particularly Nero, being the only principals (Horton,
1994, p. 619).

      Kenneth Gentry (n.d.) sustains this position by
appealing to 1:9 ("I John, who also am your brother, and
companion in the tribulation") as evidence that "the"
tribulation was a reality in John's time (although most
translations do not render the verse this way).  Gentry
continues, citing the continual warnings, "He that has an
ear, let him hear" (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13,
22) as evidence that the events of Revelation were taking
place in that day.

      Gentry further appeals to Revelation 17 where a
vision of the seven-headed beast is recorded, verses 9
and 10 explaining,

    Here is the mind which hath wisdom.  The seven heads
    are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.  And
    there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is,
    and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh he
    must continue a short space.

      Gentry (n.d.) proceeds to explain that the seven
mountains represent the famous seven hills of Rome.  The
seven heads also have a political reference, being
simultaneously seven kings.  Gentry states,

    It surely is no accident that Nero was the sixth
    emperor of Rome.  Flavius Josephus, the Jewish
    contemporary of John, clearly points out that Julius
    Caesar was the first emperor of Rome and that he was
    followed in succession by Augustus, Tiberius, Caius,
    Claudius, and, sixthly, Nero (Antiquities, books 18
    and 19).

      Gentry next enlists the aid of the number of the
Beast from Revelation 13:18 to prove "Nero and Nero alone
fits the bill as the specific or personal expression of
the Beast" (Gentry, n.d.), stating

    A Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar's name was Nrwn Qsr.
    . . . It has been documented by archaeological finds
    that a first century Hebrew spelling of Nero's name
    provides us with precisely the value of 666.

      Although Preterists believe that the last two
chapters of Revelation pertain to the future (Jensen,
1981, p. 498), the essence of their position is that the
events of Revelation arose

    out of conditions in the Roman empire of the 1st
    century AD.  The seer was appalled at the
    possibilities for evil inherent in the Roman empire
    and he used symbolic imagery to protest against it,
    and to record his conviction that God would intervene
    to bring about what pleased him (Morris, 1980, p.
    1338).

      Nevertheless, despite Gentry's firm belief, one
must conclude that the Preterist position is untenable.
It overlooks the fact that the book calls itself a
prophecy (1:3).  Mickelsen finds fault with the Preterist
understanding of the mark of the Beast, stating,

    Nero Caesar in Hebrew letters comes out right if the
    consonants are NRWN QSR.  But in the Talmud the word
    Caesar is spelled QYSR.  If this is adopted, the
    total numerical value comes to 676.  In Greek, of
    course, no form of Nero Caesar comes to 666
    (Mickelsen, 1963, p. 202; also Morris, 1980, p.
    1338).

      Finally, the Preterist view is highly dependant on
Revelation having been written before 70 A.D., yet the
evidence for a 95/96 A.D. date is overwhelming
(Goswiller, n.d., p. 3), Irenaeus even explicitly stating
that John wrote the book during Domitian's reign
(Glasson, 1965, p. 8; Morris, 1980, p. 1338).


HISTORICIST

      The Historicist view of Revelation attempts to map
the events described in the book to historical events,
providing a panorama of the history of the Church from
the days of John to the end of time (Ryrie, 1978, p.
1785).

      Thomas Foster (1983, p. 8), co-founder of the
Christian Revival Crusade, sees the seven Churches in
chapters two and three of Revelation as being an overview
of the entire Church age (which many Futurists would also
believe).  Chapters four to 19 of Revelation are claimed
to be a more in-depth view of Church history, with the
Millennium being described in chapter 20.  According to
Foster (1983, p. 123), "the Millennium proper commences
about 2000 A.D." although the Laodicean period finished
in 1967 (Foster, 1983, p. 18) with the six-day war in
Israel.

      Foster's views are strongly anti-Catholic.  The
beast worship of Revelation 13 is related to allegiance
to the Papal Empire in 533 B.C (Foster, 1983, p. 68).
The mark of the beast is the Latin language (lateinus
having the value 666) which is significant because Pope
Vitallian issued a decree commanding the exclusive use of
Latin in all services of the Catholic Church in 666 A.D.
(Foster, 1983, p. 74-75).  Further, the battle of
Armageddon is claimed to be nothing more than Russian
Communism challenging Britain and the USA for supremacy
(Foster, 1983, p. 94), Britian and the USA having
replaced Israel, and Communism being related to Roman
Catholicism.

      This view is fraught with complications - its
interpretations are subjective and internally
inconsistent.  Foster, for example, believes that the 42
months of blasphemies by the beast refers to 1260 years
of Papal power from 606 A.D. to 1866 A.D. (Foster, 1983,
p. 68).  Nevertheless, the closest Foster can come to a
historical event for this is the capturing of Rome by
Italy in 1870 (Foster, 1983, p. 89).  One must also
question the hermeneutic involved in "a day stands for a
year" (Foster, 1983, p. 55) used to achieve certain dates
in this scheme.

      Further, Morris (1980, p. 1338) states, "It is
difficult to see why the outline of history should
confine itself to W[estern] Europe, especially since in
earlier days at least much of the expansion of
Christianity was in E[astern] lands."  Finally,
Historicist adherers tend to continually rework the whole
interpretation to come out in their own generation
(Horton, 1994, p. 619; Morris, 1980, p. 1338).  This has
been the case with Historicists in the past and
undoubtedly certain of Foster's dates would now be
different.


FUTURIST

      Although the three views given above may entail
some recognition of predictive prophecy in Revelation,
not one of them permit Eschatological derivations to be
made.  The fourth manner in which Revelation may be
understood is the Futurist viewpoint, which views most of
the book (chapters 4 - 22) as prophecy yet to be
fulfilled.  Ryrie (1978, p. 1785) believes this to be the
only logical interpretation if one is to interpret the
text plainly.  Similarly, Walvoord states that the
Futurist (in particular, pre-millenial, pre-
tribulationism) viewpoint is the only one which most
literally follows scripture under "consistent and proper
hermeneutics" (Walvoord, 1978, p. 270).

      Nevertheless, the Futurist viewpoint itself
contains a number of variant views.  The seven Churches
in chapters two and three, for example, may be seen in a
Preterist manner (that is, relating solely to the Church
in the first century) or a Historicist manner (that is,
reflecting the history of the Church).  Yonggi Cho, for
example, holds to the latter view, with the Laodecian
Church reflecting the Church from 1905 until the
Tribulation (Cho, 1991, p. 47).  The most reasonable
view, however, is the Characteristic Interpretation where
the letters, while still written to physical Churches in
John's day, present a picture of the continuous
conditions of the Church throughout history - that is, at
any given time there will be an "Ephesian" Church, a
"Laodicean" Church and so on (Goswiller, n.d., p. 13).

      Another area for consideration is the millennium,
which has its basis in Revelation 20 - "He threw him
[Satan] into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over
him, to keep him from deceiving the nations any more
until the thousand years were ended" (20:3); "They came
to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (20:4,
also 20:5, 7).  "Millennium" means a thousand years, and
Christian thought is divided into three categories over
the millennium.  Amillennialists believe that the
millennium is not a literal period of time, rather

    the millennial kingdom is not future but is spiritual
    and is in progress at the present time.  There is no
    distinction between the Church and Israel and Satan
    is actually bound now through the victory of Jesus at
    the cross and Christ reigns in the world in the
    hearts of his followers (Goswiller, n.d., p. 2).

      Post-millennialists believe that the millennium is
a literal thousand year period, but in contrast to
Revelation's chronological ordering, "Christ will have a
spiritual reign which will last for 1,000 years.  His
second coming follows the thousand year reign"
(Goswiller, n.d., p. 2).  A flaw in post-millennial
thinking is that Christ's spiritual reign is to come
about because "the present gospel message will root out
all the evils of the world" (Goswiller, n.d., p. 2).
This notion was first perpetuated by Augustine who
claimed that the ever-increasing influence of the Church
would overturn evil in the world before Christ's return
(Zoba, 1995, p. 20).  The Bible however indicates that
the world's condition will worsen in the last days (I
Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 3:1-5).

      During the Middle Ages the thought of a literal
millennium was generally regarded as heretical (Berkhof,
1975, p. 263), but the faith of the early Church was
undoubtedly chiliasm - an ill-defined pre-millennial
outlook (Berkhof, 1975, p. 262; Zoba, 1995, p. 21) which
anticipated Christ's literal thousand year reign after
His Second Coming.

      Again, the Futurist viewpoint is divided over
chapters four to 19.  While all recognise the seven year
Great Tribulation, the timing of the rapture is in
dispute, the rapture being the "catching up" described in
I Thessalonians 4:13-18 and I Corinthians 15:51-52.
Post-tribulationists believe that the rapture occurs
after the Tribulation.  This means that the Church must
endure the Tribulation, and Willmington (n.d., p. 825)
dismises this view by appealing to I Thessalonians 5:9
("For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to
receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ").  Mid-
tribulationists believe that the rapture occurs midway
through the Tribulation, and finally pre-tribulationists
believe that the rapture occurs prior to the Tribulation.
It is important to note that "only in relation to the
premillennial position does the issue of when the rapture
takes place arise; for Post- and Amillennialists, the
rapture is vaguely identified with the Messiah's one and
only return" (Stern, 1992, p. 623).

      To realise the time of the rapture one must
recognise that the Tribulation is not merely a time of
suffering or persecution (indeed, Christ said, "in this
world you will have tribulation" in John 16:33).  It is
rather a time of God's wrath being outpoured on the
earth.  People will cry to the mountains and rocks, "Fall
on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the
throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!  For the great day
of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (Revelation
6:16-17).  Just as God delivered Noah and his family from
God's wrath (Genesis 7:6-7) and Lot and his daughters
(Genesis 19:14) and even the Israelites (Exodus 7:18;
8:3, 21-22; 9:3-4; 10:22-23; 11:6-7), so too the Church
shall be saved from the coming Tribulation by the rapture
- for the Church looks for "His Son from heaven who has
delivered us from the wrath to come" (I Thessalonians
1:10).


CONCLUSION

      Four (main) views of the Book of Revelation exist;
obviously not all can be simultaneously correct.  While
pondering the area of modern-day miracles, former Dallas
Theological Seminary professor, Jack Deere, made the
conclusion,

    . . . . the majority of what Christians believe is
    not derived from their own patient and careful study
    of the Scriptures.  The majority of Christians
    believe what they believe because godly and respected
    teachers told them it was correct.  (Deere, 1993, p.
    47).

      This is not necessarily negative, however.  Many
Christians believe in the deity of Jesus, for example,
and believe the Scriptures teach this, but they could
never defend His deity from the Scriptures, nor did they
personally come to this belief through their own study of
the Scriptures.  It is part of the tradition that has
been handed down to them by teachers.  In this case, they
benefit from tradition because this particular tradition
is fully supported by Scripture.  Nevertheless, for this
reason, many notions have been propagated which are not
Scripturally sound.

      Revelation should not be an overwhelming mystery.
John wrote to reveal, not to conceal truth, "revelation"
meaning an "opening up, uncovering" (Gentry, n.d.).  The
facts have been presented and conclusions may be drawn.
Everyone is encouraged to read Revelation; a blessing is
promised to those who persevere in its study -

    Blessed is he who reads, and they that hear the words
    of this prophecy, and keep those things which are
    written therein: for the time is at hand (Revelation
    1:3).


WORKS CITED

Berkhof, L. 1975 (1937). The History of Christian
     Doctrines, Baker Book House, Michigan.

Cho, P. Y. 1991. Revelation, Word Books, Milton Keynes.

Deere, J. 1993. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit,
     Zondervan, Michigan.

Foster, T. 1983. Amazing Book of Revelation Explained!,
     Crusade Centre, Victoria.

Gentry, K. L. n.d. The Beast of Revelation Identified,
     Southern California Centre for Christian Studies,
     California.

Glasson, T. F. 1965. The Revelation of John, Cambridge
     University Press, Cambridge.

Goswiller, R. n.d. Revelation, Pacific Study Series,
     Melbourne.

Horton, S. M. 1994. 'The Last Things', in Systematic
     Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed. S. M.
     Horton, Logion Press, Springfield.

Jensen, I. L. 1981. Jensen's Survey of the New Testament,
     Moody Press, Chicago.

Mickelsen, A. B. 1963. Interpreting the Bible, Wm. B.
     Eerdmans Publishing Company, Michigan.

Morris, L. L. 1980. 'Revelation, Book of', in The
     Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. F. F. Bruce,
     Inter-Varsity Press.

Ryrie, C. 1978. The Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press,
     Chicago.

Stern, D. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish
     New Testament Publications, Inc., Maryland.

Walvoord, J. 1978. The Rapture Question, Zondervan,
     Michigan.

Willmington, n.d. Willmington's Guide to the Bible,
     Pacific College Study Series, Melbourne.

Wilson, C. n.d. The Book of Revelation, Pacific College
     Study Series, Melbourne.

Zoba, W. 1995. 'Future Tense', Christianity Today, vol.
     39, no. 11.

davidmwilliams@oocities.com