Three Interpretive Views of Revelation
Introduction: That there are differing views on the interpretation of the apocalyptic writings in the book of Revelation is no secret. The plethora of views, however, can be distilled into essentially three main categories. These categories are: the historicist view, the preterist view, and the futurist view.
Historicist View: The historicist view contends that all of the events in the book of Revelation are history - that they were fulfilled either during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) or Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD). Those who see the book this way claim that it is an inspired forecast of the whole of church history. Those who support this view claim that in Revelation one can find the history of the church from the days of John to the end of the age. The proponents of the historical view claim that the symbols contained in Revelation signify the rise of the papacy, the corruption of the church, and various wars throughout church history. Gregg, in his commentary on Revelation, states that one non-negotiable feature of classical historicism is the assertion that the papacy is "Antichrist." Present-day supporters of historicism have all but vanished, and "hardly any new commentary can be found (today) espousing this view."
Preterist View: The second view is known as the Preterist view. The word "preter" comes from Latin, meaning 'past,' so this view contends that Revelation is essentially a view of the past. The Preterist viewpoint wants to take seriously the historical interpretation of Revelation by relating it to its original author and audience. Preterists locate the timing of the fulfilling of the prophecies of Revelation in the first century AD just before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Despite the opinion of many that Revelation was written in the 90's during the reign of Domitian many who hold to this view would argue that the date of the book is rather much earlier during the time of Nero (54-68 AD). Those who support this view see Revelation as having already been fulfilled in the early centuries of the church. The view differs from the historicist in that preterism sees Revelation as a panorama of church history from the apostolic era to the end of the ages. The principal criticism of the preterist approach is its heavy dependence on the pre-AD 70 date of writing. Critics have traced the origins of preterism to a Jesuit priest named Louis de Alcazar. Thus, some hold to the view that preterism is said to have a disreputable origin and was a Roman Catholic response to Protestantism.
Futurist View: The label "futurist" is derived from the fact that this interpretation sees Revelation from chapter 4 to the end of the book as yet to be fulfilled. If one follows the plain, literal and normal principles of interpretation, one can conclude that most of the book describes what is yet in the future. The futurists argue that their view can be the only one because of the fact that no judgments in history have ever equaled those described in chapters 6, 8, 9, and 16. The resurrections and judgment described in chapter 20 have not yet occurred. There has been no visible return of Christ as portrayed in chapter 19 of Revelation. The concept of a literal interpretation raises questions for some since the book obviously contains symbols. Futurists do not deny the presence of symbols in the book, nor do they claim to be able to explain every detail with certainty. They do insist however, that the principal of literal interpretation be followed consistently throughout the book. This view sees the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments as prefiguring the second coming of Christ. This view of Revelation is supported in the outline provided in the book itself (Revelation 1:19). When the principles of "comparing scripture to scripture" and "letting scripture interpret scripture" are followed, the futurist view seems to emerge as the most credible view when taken in the broad perspective of both the entire Bible, and our perspective of history.
