Many Christians today fear the future. Most, if they are honest, have been influenced by Left Behind theology and cling tightly to every news story that breaks regarding Middle Eastern conflict. Do you ever wonder if what you've been taught really jives with what Scripture teaches. How much of what you've been taught is simply "implication" or "assumption" or just plain "theory." Christians have been confused about this subject since the 1st century.
I believe the main problem revolves around the interpretation of Scripture. Churches have been taught for the longest time that everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally. Personally, I find this type of thinking illogical and simply incorrect. Unfortunately in today's church, believers aren't being taught the basic principles of hermeneutics, the study of interpreting scripture.
Christians don't know that context is the guiding light as to what type of hermeneutic to use. Many Christians read the Bible like they read their fortune cookie. They think each verse stands alone with a small snippet of truth that gives them a nice thought to pass the time.
Scripture is made up of all kinds of literary genres. There are narratives, poetry, symbolism, parables, letters, doctrines, proverbs, songs, and prophecy...just to name a few.
The real key to understanding the end times is knowing when and how to use hermeneutics.
With that said, here are the main hermeneutics of apocolyptic literature:
There are 4 approaches to interpreting Apocolyptic
Literature that conservative theologians use.
1. The first is called the historic approach.
John
Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich
Zwingli, Sir Isaac Newton, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield,
Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, A.B. Simpson all used this hermeneutic when interpreting the book of Revelation.
Those who teach this view believe that God revealed the
entire Church age in advance through the symbolic visions of the Apocalypse.
For example, the breaking of the seven seals (chs 6-7) is often said to be the
barbarian invasions that sacked the western Roman empire. The scorpion/locusts
that come out of the bottomless pit (ch. 9) are the Arab hordes attacking the
eastern Roman Empire, followed by the Turks, represented as the horses with
serpents for tails and flame-throwers for mouths. The beast (ch. 13) represents
the Roman papacy.
Some highlights of this perspective is (1) the
year-for-a-day” principle. This principle is used when dealing with
designations of time in Revelation. It is believed that God revealed literal
and exact time periods, but cast them in a symbolism that represents a year as
a day. So 5 months or 150 days would be taken as 150 years. This principle is
taken from Ezekiel 4:4-6.
Another non-negotiable feature of this hermeutic is the
assertion that the papacy is the Antichrist. They believe that preterism and
futurism are inventions of the Jesuits, designed to neutralize the bad
publicity given to the pope by the Reformers.
Albertus Pieters said, “When one examines the verse-by-verse
expositions of the historicisits, I think one will have to say that the scheme
makes more than a few ‘occasional hits.’ In fact, the development of history
has been shown to fit the outline of the book of Revelation so nearly that, in
the days when this view predominated, it was said that a missionary might go to
heathen lands armed only with a copy of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in one hand and Barnes’ Notes on Revelation in the other, and
prove beyond question the inspiration of the Bible.”
However this view is not widely accepted today. I think the
most valid criticism that I found was that the historicist view seldom looks
beyond the church outside of Europe during the Middle Ages and the Reformation.
It has little to say of history after AD 1500.
George Eldon Ladd says, “The view has little to commend it
for the Revelation would in that case hav little to say to the churches of Asia
to which it was addressed.” George Eldon Ladd is a futurist and a
premillenialist. What I think is interesting about his critique is that the
same could be said of furturism since it speaks mainly to the Western world
when it is expounded.
2.
The partial preterism approach
Kenneth Gentry, R.C. Sproul, Keith Mathison, and
other modern Reformed thinkers would be found in this camp. This view is very favorable in the sense that it would have
been immediately relevant to it’s original audience. This view shows the Book
of Revelation as a promise of soon deliverance and vindication of those who
were dying as martyers.
This view is the only view that does not need an alternative
literal fulfillment of Rev. 1:1, 1:19 and 22:10. This view dates the Book of Revelation prior to AD70. This
allows the book to predict the fall of Jerusalem, the fall of the Roman empire,
etc… with the second coming as part of the finale of Scripture. So this view
would also see the bulk of Revelation being fulfilled in the past.
Many theologians like this view because the prophesies of
Revelation exhibit many points that correspond with the fall of Jerusalem as
recorded by Josephus. Some in this camp believe that the Olivet Discourse covers
the same information as the Book of Revelation. Since the olivet discourse is
covered in Matthew, Mark, and Luke but not in John...many believe Revelation is
John’s expanded account of the Olivet Discourse.
The main criticism of the preterist view is its heavy
dependence on the pre AD 70 date of writing, which is defensible but not
undisputed. If the book was written after that date, it obviously cannot
predict events that occurred in AD 70. Some also critique its origin as Roman Catholic. They say it
originated with a Jesuit priest named Luis de Alcazar who formulated this view
to refute the Reformers. However it is undisputed that Eusebius, one of the
church fathers, held this view which refutes the Roman Catholic agenda.
3.
The futurist approach
This view is held by most evangelicals today, but that doesn't mean it's right.
J.N. Darby,
C.I. Scofield, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, John MacArthur, Wayne Grudem,
Craig Blasing, and Darrel Bock are just a few that hold this view.
Within this hermeneutic lies what’s called
dispensationalism. The main difference between dispensationalism and other
futurist hermeneutics is the placement of the rapture and the belief that the nation of Israel is completely distinct from the Church. The Dispensationalist
place the rapture at Rev. 4:1 while others place it around Rev. 19.
According to this view, Revelation is divided into 3
sections: (1) the things which you have seen, (2) the things which are, and (3)
the things which shall be after these things (Rev. 1:19) Chapter 1 describes
what John had seen…vision of Christ, chapters 2-3 describe the church age, and
everything after chapter 3 describe future events that still have not happened.
Chapters 6-19 are thought to describe a 7 year future worldwide tribulation
period, Chapter 19 describes the return of Christ, chapter 20 describes a 1,000
year earthly theocracy of Christ, and chapters 21-22 describe the new heavens and
the new earth.
This view takes the vision of John as literal as possible, and has
the freedom to do so. For example, chapter 16 describes a time where a third of
the sea turns to blood, kills a third of the fish and sinks a third of the
ships. That has never happened in history past, so the futurist has the liberty
to say it will happen literally... instead of that being symbolic
of some other real historical event.
Criticism comes at all angles here. There are events that these people
hold to that do not originate from the literal application of any particular
passage in the Book of Revelation. Examples would be the antichrist’s violating
a treaty he made with Israel and setting up an image of himself in the rebuilt
Jewish temple in Jerusalem. There is no global cashless economic system
predicted in Revelation. Nuclear war is not predicted in Revelation.
Also, leading futurist theologians will admit that they
cannot adhere to a strict literal interpretation 100% of the time, especially
with the numbers that are mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
John Walvoord says, “These numbers may be understood
literally, but even when understood they way, they often carry with them also a
symbolic meaning…Though the symbolism is not always obvious, the general rule
should be followed to interpret the numbers literally unless there is clear evidence
to the contrary. The numbers nevertheless convey more than their bare numerical
significance.”
Theologians seem to think that whenever they can associate
current political events to their interpretation, it bolsters evidence for this
view. This view seems to make the Book of Revelation highly
inapplicable to the original readers and almost all Christians throughout
church history for that matter since they will be raptured before most of the
prophesies are fulfilled.
Many disregard this view due to it’s lack of historical
roots. The earliest accounts are traced to a Jesuit in 1585 to deflect the
Reformers view of the pope as the anti-christ, however a more full development
of this view was put together in the early 1800’s by John Nelson Darby.
It should be noted that there are some futurists who believe they will go through
the future tribulation, and do not hold to a strict literal interpretation. Many of your historic premillenialists will disregard dispensationalism for a quasi-literal/historical/symbolic hermineutic, but seem to believe prophecies like Isaiah 65 do mention some future earthly kingdom prior to the new heavens and new earth.
4.
The spiritual approach
Some theologians believe that the Book of Revelation should
be interpreted spiritually. Instead of looking for specific fulfillments of the
prophesies, some believe that the Book of Revelation only gives spiritual
lessons and principles that are depicted by the symbolism in the vision.
Depending on who you are reading and how you understand
them, you most likely see that each author uses each approach in some manner.
The trick is figuring out who is rightly interpreting the text within the
context it is written. Some call this the idealist hermeneutic.
According to this view, the great themes of the triumph of
good over evil, of Christ over Satan, of the vindication of the martyrs and the
sovereignty of God are played out throughout Revelation without necessarily
referring to a single event. Battles in Revelation may refer to spiritual
warfare, the persecution of Christians, or war throughout history. The harlet
may be the church or the seduction of the world. The broken seals and trumpets depict some
reality such as war, famine, natural disaster…things that happen in history on
a recurring basis as part of God’s sovereign plan.
This position does not have to harmonize every single verse
in Revelation. This view pulls from the partial preterist and historicist views
to refer to certain fulfilled prophecies.
Many today will mix the spiritual approach with preterism
and call their view some sort of preterist view or just leave their view
unlabeled. William Hendrickson’s progressive parallelism would fall
into this category.
Depending on your background, you will tend to lean towards one of these hermineutics. It's important to realize what you are doing when you are interpreting the Bible. You need to ask yourself if you are imposing your own view, bias, or desires for a certain outcome on the text. It is very difficult to break down apocolyptic literature objectively when 1) you've been taught something your whole life and 2) it's just hard to understand anyway.
If you are going to attempt to understand the Book of Revelation, ask God to help you look at this book objectively. Ask God to show you the purpose behind this writing. Don't just read commentaries from one perspective. Look at each view and compare it to the actual text of Scripture.
For a more complete understanding of this topic, go check out my source: Revelation: Four Views Edited by Steve Gregg.
Be Edified!
