FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

Four Views on Book of Revelation

The word “Revelation” translates the Greek word apokalypsis, which means
“disclosure” or “unveiling.” Revelation unveils the unseen spiritual war in which
the church is engaged: the cosmic conflict between God and his Christ on the one
hand, and Satan and his evil allies (both demonic and human) on the other. In this
conflict, Jesus the Lamb has already won the decisive victory through his
sacrificial death, but his church continues to be assaulted by the dragon, in its
death-throes, through persecution (the beast), deceptive heresy (the false prophet),
and the allure of material affluence and cultural approval (the prostitute). By
revealing the spiritual realities behind the church’s trials and temptations, and by
affirming the certainty of Christ’s triumph in the new heaven and earth, the visions
of Revelation fortify believers to endure suffering. The reader of Revelation is
encouraged to stay pure from the defiling enticements of the present world order.
The book of revelation in New Testament has been one of the most discussed
books among the entire Bible books. One of the most intriguing books of the Bible
is the book of Revelation. The imagery scene of the revelation book is fascinating
book to study. However, in this paper we shall look into four scholarly views on
book of revelation with its concept of interpretation.

1. 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 (AD185-
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.”1

1
William Milligan, The Book of Revelation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889), 153-4.

Page | 1
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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.”
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.2
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.
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. 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.

2. The Preterist View

2
Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation (Grand Rapids: William
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 20.

Page | 2
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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). A l c a z a r’ 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.
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.

Page | 3
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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. 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.3
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. 4 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.5

3
Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, ed., The End Times Controversy (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House
Publishers, 2003), 377.
4
Hanegraaff, 125.
Page | 4
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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.
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).
3. 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 chapter 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
5
Robert Mounce, The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Book of
Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 42.

Page | 5
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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 17-19.6
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.”7 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.”8
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.
4. 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,

6
Steven Gregg, Four Views of Revelation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 31, 217,
309, & 399).
7
John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 19.
8
Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart & Co., 1847),
35.
Page | 6
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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.9
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

9
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.
Page | 7
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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.10
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). 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.”
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
10
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 91
Page | 8
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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,

Page | 9
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

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. 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).

Selected Bibliography
Gregg, Steven. Four Views of Revelation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers),
1997.
LaHaye Tim and Thomas Ice, ed., The End Times Controversy (Eugene, OR.:
Harvest
House Publishers), 2003.
Milligan, William. The Book of Revelation. (London: Hodder and Stoughton),
1889.
Morris, Leon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation (Grand Rapids:
William Eerdmans Publishing Company), 1987.
Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart
& Co., 1847.
Page | 10
 FOUR VIEWS OF BOOK OF REVELATION BY CHINKU RAI

Mounce, Robert. The New International Commentary of the New Testament:

The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing
Company), 1977.
Walvoord, John. The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press), 1966.
J. P. Lange, Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: Revelation (New York:
Scribner’s, 1872
quoted in Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007

Page | 11