The Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation

The book of Revelation can be confusing and the narrative difficult to follow. The timeline is not always clear, the symbolic language can be difficult to interpret, and much of the imagery is foreign. Throughout the centuries, biblical scholars have posited four broad approaches for interpreting the book of Revelation.

The four approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation are: preterist approach, historicist approach, idealist approach, and futurist approach. Understanding each approach will assist the reader in interpreting the book of Revelation and help the reader interpret books written about Revelation.

1. Preterist Approach to Interpreting Revelation

The preterist approach interprets the book of Revelation with respect to the past. This is the interpretive approach held by most biblical scholars in the academic world today. The preterist believes that the book of Revelation was written to address the situations faced by the church in the first or second century, depending on when one dates the book. As such, the book of Revelation does not speak about future events, but about events in the first or second century in Asia Minor. Because preterists understand the book of Revelation to be about the time when the author wrote it, those who hold this view put special emphasis on the historical background (the geographical-political-social-religious background of the first century ancient Mediterranean world) in an attempt to align the contents of Revelation with the geographical-political-social-religious situations of first or second century ancient Mediterranean world.

Preterists fall into one of two groups. The first, and largest group, are those who believe Revelation focuses on the Roman Empire, specifically its persecution of the church and its idolatrous influence upon the church. Within this view, Babylon the prostitute represents Rome or various aspects of Rome and the Sea Beast represents the Emperor of Rome (usually Nero or Domitian). The fall of Babylon in Revelation 18 is not a prophecy of the fall of a future city, but a hopeful prediction of the fall of Rome in AD 476.

The second preterist group are those who believe Revelation focuses on Jerusalem, specifically how it turned away from God, became idolatrous, and persecuted God’s true people—the church. Within this view, Babylon the prostitute represents the first-century Jerusalem and the Sea and Land Beasts represent its corrupt religious leadership. The fall of Babylon in Revelation 18 is not a prophecy of the fall of a future city, but details the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Pros and Cons: The preterist approach reminds its readers that the book of Revelation must be relevant for its original readers—John the apostle and the seven churches mentioned in chapters 2–3. However, the preterist approach relegates too much to the past. According to the preterist approach, the book of Revelation is irrelevant for modern Christians or the modern church because it is only about the first or second century church.

Three good commentaries that approach Revelation from the Preterist perspective are:

David Aune. Revelation. Word Biblical Commentary, vols. 52a, b, c. Dallas: Word, 1997–99. Aune believes Revelation addresses the fall of Rome.
Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966. This was the Preterist commentary prior to Aune’s.
J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. Ford takes the less prominent position that Revelation is a critique against first-century Jerusalem.

2. Historicist Approach to Interpreting Revelation

The historicist approach relates the book of Revelation to specific events throughout history culminating in the present. Thus, those interpreting Revelation from this approach attempt to demonstrate how Revelation predicts events from the first century up to the interpreter’s own time. For example, Edward Bishop Elliott, in his 1847 book entitled Horae Apocalypticae, aligned the trumpet judgments of Revelation 8:6–9:21 with world events starting in AD 395 with the Goth attacks on the Western Roman Empire and concluding in AD 1453 with the fall of the Eastern empire to the Turks.

Historicists always attempt to show how most of the prophecies in the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled, resulting in their own time period being the time when the final prophecies will be fulfilled and Jesus will return. In short, historicists attempt to demonstrate that Jesus will return in their own day. A popular modern-day historicist is Hal Lindsey who predicted the return of Jesus in his own day multiple times. As of this writing, he is 93 and Jesus has still not returned.

Pros and Cons: The historicist approach reminds its readers that God is working out his plans of judgment and salvation throughout history. The historicist approach also encourages its readers to look for God’s work in their own generation. The biggest downside to this approach, however, is that literally every person who has ever taken this interpretive approach has been wrong because Jesus has not yet returned. This has led many to disregard view this approach and to view those holding it as crazy. In the end, there will only be one generation of historicists that are correct and that is the generation alive when Jesus returns. Another downside to this approach is that it downplays the cataclysmic and unprecedented worldwide events that Revelation predicts as localized events. The book of Revelation predicts worldwide cataclysmic and unprecedented events preceding the return of Jesus, but historicists see many of these as already fulfilled.

Because this approach isn’t adopted by many in the academic world, the list of academic sources are few. Two good commentaries that approach Revelation from the Historicist perspective are:

Edward Bishop Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, or A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical, 3^rd ed. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847.
Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Book of Revelation. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1859.
Seventh-Day Adventists take the historicist approach. So, their literature is a good place to learn about this approach.

3. Idealist Approach to Interpreting Revelation

Whereas the preterist, historicist, and futurist approaches to interpreting Revelation focus heavily on time and when events in the book occurred (or will occur), the idealist approach focuses on the theology of the book that is applicable to all Christians from Jesus’ ascension to his return. The idealist approach is unconcerned about what the book of Revelation has to say about future events. For example, idealists focus on theological truths such as God’s authority over all creation, Jesus’ victory over Satan and evil, and the need to remain faithful to Jesus regardless of one’s circumstances. Idealists also like to identify principles in the book of Revelation that help Christians live faithful lives in the present.

Pros and Cons: The idealist approach reminds its readers that the book of Revelation must be relevant for Christians of every generation, not just the original recipients. The idealist also helpfully focuses on the Christian life and worldview, two areas which are frequently neglected in the other approaches. Unfortunately, the idealist approach wrongfully (in my opinion) interprets much of Revelation as allegory, not seeing it as a prophecy of current or future events.

Three good commentaries that approach Revelation from the Idealist perspective are:

William Milligan, The Revelation of St. John. London: Macmillan, 1886. The modern emergence of idealism is attributed to Milligan.
R. C. H. Lenski. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963.
Michael Wilcock. I Saw Heaven Opened: The Message of Revelation. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: IVP, 1975.

4. Futurist Approach to Interpreting Revelation

The futurist approach interprets the book of Revelation with respect to the future. The futurist approach relegates most of the events in Revelation to the distant future, just before the return of Jesus. For example, the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, as well as the fall of Babylon are frequently seen as events that happen just prior to Jesus’ return in the distant future. The futurist approach is the approach held by most Christians. Unbeknownst to many Christians, however, is that futurists disagree over which aspects of Revelation refer to the past, the present, and the future. For example, some futurists believe the war in heaven where Satan is cast out of heaven (Rev 12:7–9) happened before Adam and Eve were created, others believe it happened at the ascension of Jesus, and others believe it will happen just prior to Jesus’ return. This disagreement over which aspects are future and which are not has separated futurists into three primary groups: dispensational premillennialists, historic premillennialists, and amillennialists (there are more, but these are the main ones).

A. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensational premillennialism was made famous by Cyrus Scofield and his Scofield Study Bible, published at the beginning of the 20^th Century (1909 and revised in 1917). Dispensational premillennialism theology was made more popular in academic circles by Charles Ryrie and in cultural America by Tim LaHaye. Dispensational premillennialism has a number of key characteristics in interpreting Revelation:

A more literalistic interpretation of Revelation (less symbolism).
There are two peoples of God: The Jews and the Christians (the church).
Revelation 1–3 is about the Church; Revelation 4–20 is about the Jews; Revelation 21–22 is about both Jews and the Church.
Jesus returns twice. Jesus will first return and “rapture” all the Christians to heaven before the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments begin. Jesus will then return a second time to set up his millennial (1000 year) reign where the Jews will reign with Jesus for 1000 years. When the New Jerusalem comes after the millennium, then Christians will return to earth and live with Jesus.
The millennium is a literal 1000 years that begins after Jesus’ return.

Pros and Cons: Dispensational premillennialism takes the worldwide cataclysmic events in Revelation seriously, resulting in a futurist approach. Unfortunately, it takes many aspects of Revelation too literally, resulting in the errant theological position that there are two peoples of God, when the Bible (OT & NT) is clear there is only one people of God. Further, the dispensational premillennialism approach errantly reads passages outside of Revelation into the book resulting in two future returns of Jesus when Revelation and the New Testament clearly states Jesus will return only once.

Two good commentaries that approach Revelation from the dispensational premillennialism perspective are:

John Walvoord, Revelation. Revised and Edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock. The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries. Chicago: Moody, 2011. This is the classic treatment of this view.
Robert Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1992 & 1995. This is the best academic treatment of this view.

B. Historic Premillennialism

Historic premillennialism was made famous by George Eldon Ladd, who claimed this position was held by the early church. Historic premillennialism has a number of key characteristics in interpreting Revelation:

A more symbolic interpretation of much of Revelation than dispensationalists.
Tends to see more of Revelation as about the present ‘church age’ than dispensationalists. For example, the seal judgments are in effect from Jesus’ ascension to his return. The Sea Beast (the antichrist) is active from Jesus’ ascension to his return.
Jesus returns only once after the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments.
Jesus’ sole return sets up the millennial reign, which may or may not be a literal 1000 years (1000 is symbolic for a very long time).
There is only one people of God—those who believe in Jesus.
This is the view that I hold 🤗

Pros and Cons: The historic premillennialism approach views a decent amount of events in Revelation as occurring between Jesus’ ascension and return, allowing the book to have meaning and significance for the first-century church, the modern church, and every church of every generation. Historic premillennialism also seeks an interpretation that is consistent with Jesus’ sayings about the end times and the New Testament’s claims about the end times. Since this is the approach to which I adhere, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, which is why I have adopted this approach. Check out my other articles about Revelation to see what I mean!

Two good commentaries that approach Revelation from the historic premillennialism perspective are:

George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. This is classic treatment of this view.
Paul Hoskins, The Book of Revelation: A Theological and Exegetical Commentary. Charleston: Christodoulos, 2017. This is the most recent commentary from this perspective.

C. Amillennialism

The most prominent Amillennialist today is Greg K. Beale. This approach is frequently adopted by confessional scholars. There is one key distinction between amillennialism and historic premillennialism: the millennium is symbolic for the ‘church age,’ the time period between Jesus’ ascension and return. Thus, Jesus returns after the millennial period.

Pros and Cons: Amillennialism has many of the same positives as historic premillennialism. The biggest negative is its view that the millennium is the ‘church age.’ This position is untenable because in Revelation Satan is bound and unable to deceive the nations for the millennium (Rev 20:1–3). However, both the book of Revelation and a look out your own window are clear that Satan is still deceiving and will continue deceiving the nations until Jesus returns.

Two good commentaries that approach Revelation from the amillennialism perspective are:

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
G. K. Beale, Revelation: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. This is a much shorter commentary than is lengthier one above.

Summary and Concluding Thoughts

Many scholars, such as Grant Osborne (BECNT) claim to take a multifaceted approach, employing elements from all perspectives. This is certainly possible to a degree, but ultimately, every scholar and person falls into one of the four major interpretive approaches listed above. My encouragement to you is to first read the book of Revelation and become very familiar with its contents, then begin to research the various approaches to see which one is the most faithful to the biblical text.