"I'm walking through Revelation with some people in my bible study and from the commentaries I have read it seems part of Revalation already took place with the fall of Rome. What do you think?"
First, let's define four different interpretations to the book of Revelation.
- Allegorical View
- Preterist View
- Historical View
- Futuristic View
After defining each viewpoint, I will give my humble opinion of which seems to make the most sense.
Allegorical View
This view became popular around 300 AD with the rise of a new theological school in Alexandria, Egypt. The ideas they were promoting were that the bible is largely allegorical, meaning symbolic. Take for example the OT, which conservative Christians would agree is filled with factual and historical events that were meaningful to the people going through them. However, conservative Christians also believe that the OT is useful for the believer in that it is symbolic of the Christian walk. The proponents of allegory would say all of those events were ONLY to be used for the Christian and some would question whether the events actually even existed.
It should be said that allegory is a wonderful thing that does exist in the bible. (ie: the book of Joshua) However, like many people who are off theologically, they take a good thing and run with it.
When Augustine came on the scene in the fourth century, he said allegory should not be used so widely, but should be limited to the end times. His views have been held by some Christians for thousands of years.
For instance, the Tribulation period of Rev 4-18 is allegorical (or symbolic) for all Christians who struggle. The coming of Christ in victory in Rev 19 is allegorical for the fact that Christ will reign victoriously in all believers.
The problem with applying allegory as the primary meaning to any portion of scripture is that scripture itself makes no claim to be primary allegorical. For instance, in Joshua, many see the crossing of the Jordan river by the Israelites as allegorical to a point in the Christian's life where they begin to walk in the Spirit. While this is fine, it is important to note that the bible claims that the Jordan crossing did actually occur. When we look at the book of Revelation, the bible also claims that these events did truly take place. NOT that they are primarily symbolic to the Christian.
Preterist View
The preterist view is similar to the allegorical in that it views the book of Revelation as a primarily symbolic book. The main difference is that the preterist view claims it is symbolic of certain historical events that took place in the early church. Also, this view typically only views Revelation as descriptive rather than prophetic. In a nutshell, the preterist is a more limited form of the allegorical which sees the events of Revelation happening right after John wrote them.
Historical View
The historical view is also similar to the preterist in that it attempts to find the events of the book of Revelation throughout history and maintains that the fulfillment of the book is yet future. If the preterist view saw the events of Revelation as all happening shortly after John's writing them, the historical view sees Revelation beginning after John writes it and continuing to the future.
Many have tried to take the historical view of Revelation and apply it to the timeframe they lived in. Because of this wide range of view points, there has never been a solid understanding from an authorized source on what exactly Revelation is depicting. For example, depending on when they were writing, some saw Nero as the anti-Christ, others various Popes, others various kings, others Hitler, and even some George Bush!
Futuristic View
A literal reading of the text of Revelation leads one to the futuristic view. Within this view, there is an understanding that some of the book is clearly symbolic, while other parts literal. When the bible makes a claim about an event taking place, it is taken as literal. If it uses symbolic language, it is taken to be symbolic. This is the same way other portions of Scripture are view, for instance, Jesus as Lord = literal... Jesus says "I am the door" = symbolic.
The futuristic view sees all events after Rev 4 as future events. Many futuristic scholars point to Rev 1:19 "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this" as a sort of table of contents to the book. Rev 1-3 incorporates the things which he has seen and are because it deals with the churches. Rev 4-22 reveals the "things which will take place after this."
Which View is Best? (In JD's opinion...)
First, let me say that no one is heretical for choosing one of these ways of interpreting Revelation. These are things to discuss in love and not to split a church over. If someone is a Christian and loves Jesus and believes differently from me on this, then praise God. However, some of the views involve seeing Revelation in a non-literal sense. My concern for the proponents of such views is, "How is Revelation to be interpreted differently than any other book of the bible?" Some might say, "All of the bible is to be interpreted symbolically." And to this I would have to voraciously disagree. Others might simply believe this about Revelation because of its apocalyptic language. I understand that, but would like to challenge that viewpoint.
With that said, I hold to the futuristic view because of its literal view of the book as well as how well it fits in with other scripture like Ezekiel and Daniel. If anyone wants to know specifics, I would be happy to spend the time to lay them out, but time constrains me for right now.
JD,
ReplyDeleteA very nice overview of prophetic interpretation. I must protest one point, none of the proposed views are truly "literal." All of the views have to interpret and look for the symbolic meaning at some point or other. None of us believe that a "literal" seven headed dragon is going to be lurking around. Or, out of the mouth of Jesus will come a "literal" sword. These are symbolic of something else.
The problem with apocalyptic literature is that our western society is not quite sure what to do with it interpretively. We want to have a literal meaning and reading of the text because if we do not, then we may have a problem with the how we may read the rest of sacred scripture.
Also, a futuristic reading of Revelation does not seem to take into account the significance and meaning of the text for the original readers. If we interpret Revelation 3-22 as all taking place in the future we then have to ask ourselves what the original readers must have thought about what they read (heard). There are futuristic aspects in Revelation (i.e. the new heavens and earth, the return of Christ, etc.), but the whole of the letter is to encourage 1st century readers primarily.
As may be seen, I do not hold to a futuristic reading primarily because I think that is a modern interpretative grid imposed on the text. We must seek to understand what Revelation meant to believers living in the Roman Empire in the 1st century. This is the major flaw-in my humble opinion-in the futuristic reading of the book.
There are more that can be said, but I want to thank you for discussing such an important topic. And whatever we hold to, we know that Christ is returning. Maranatha!