Certain issues bear upon the interpretation of Revelation that do not enter into the consideration of how most other books are interpreted. Some pivotal issues include these:

· The geographical scope of the visions;

· The meaning of the “coming” of Christ in Revelation; and

· The meaning of the “1000 years” (the Millennium) in Revelation.

Adherents to the various major approaches will understand these issues differently. It is important, in assessing the four approaches, to understand the alternative man­ners in which these issues are viewed by each.

The Geographical Scope Of Revelation

In Revelation we read frequently of “all those who dwell on the earth” and of events affecting the “whole world.” Because of these and similar expressions, our first impression is likely to be that the judgments described in the book are global in extent. Whether this initial impression is to be trusted or not depends to a large extent upon the meaning of the Greek word usually translated as “earth” and of the usage of the word “world.”

The word used in the Greek text for “earth” is ge, which can be translated as “earth” or as “land” with equal legitimacy, depending on context.16 In any place where the intended meaning is “land,” it opens the possibility that reference is being made to the land of Israel, which is often denoted in Scripture by no more elaborate desig­nation than the expression “the land.”

In the Old Testament (and, arguably, in the New as well) the gentile nations are sym­bolically called “the sea” in contrast to “the land” (i.e., Israel).17 Thus, phrases like “those who inhabit the earth (or land)”18 and “kings of the earth (or land)”19 might be references to the people of Israel and their rulers, respectively.

In Revelation, as elsewhere in Scripture, the decision whether to translate ge as land or earth is largely determined by context. There may be some help in observing that sometimes the word is in contrast to “the sea,”20 suggesting that “land” may be the intended meaning, as when John sees an angel with one foot on the “land” (ge), and one foot on the sea (10:1). At other times, the word is contrasted with “heaven,”21 which would favor, in such contexts, the translation as “earth,” as when John sees a new heaven and a new “earth” (ge; 21:1). Unfortunately for this method of determining the meaning, the word is sometimes contrasted with heaven and with the sea in the same passages! 22

Likewise “the world” normally speaks to us of the planet earth. But to biblical writ­ers it often was limited in scope to the Mediterranean world or the Roman Empire (see Luke 2:1; Col. 1:6). Similar passages that employ language that sounds universal but where the scope is actually limited to the Roman Empire would include Daniel 7:23, Acts 2:5, and Colossians 1:23. Thus in Revelation, a statement about “the time of trial which shall come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth” (Revelation 3:10) may refer to an empire-wide crisis, which will especially place stress upon those who dwell in Israel.

Such a meaning could not be proved from linguistic considerations alone but might be determined contextually as part of the flow of the thought of the passage. Different approaches would incline differently in these determinations. Futurist and spiritual interpreters would usually incline toward seeing these expressions in the universal and global sense. Preterists and historicists usually understand them in terms of a narrower scope, limited to Israel or to the Roman Empire. Final decisions about this kind of language will ultimately hang on the larger considerations of which of the four approaches carries greatest weight in the judgment of the interpreter.

The “Coming” Of The Lord In Revelation

At least twelve times (possibly more) the Book of Revelation promises or warns that Christ is going to “come.” In most cases, the impression is given that his coming will not be very far distant. Evangelicals today commonly apply such references to what we usually call the Second Coming of Christ—meaning his final appearance in glory to judge the world at the end of history.

Adherents to each of the four approaches surveyed in this book anticipate the literal return of Christ at the end of the age, and (with few exceptions) all find reference to this eschatological coming in the Book of Revelation.23 Such a finding might seem abundantly obvious to those familiar only with the futurist approach to Revelation. However, if we carefully assess the way this terminology is used, we find that other interpretations are also plausible. It is instructive to consider at least three factors relevant to Revelation’s references to Christ’s “coming”:

1. Christ Is Occasionally Said To come In A Spiritual Sense.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. (Rev. 3:20)

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper ... the Spirit of Truth ... I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:16-18)

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. (John 14:23)

Each of these passages includes a promise to Christ’s disciples that he will “come” to them, though his Second Coming is not intended in any of them. It seems clear in the two passages in John and probable in the Revelation passage that what is being promised is Christ’s coming in the person of his Spirit to dwell within the believer. Thus the coming of the “Spirit of Truth” is spoken of as synonymous with the coming of Christ himself to his disciples (John 14:16-18), and Paul can speak of the “Spirit of God” or the “Spirit of Christ” dwelling in us (Rom. 8:9) as synonymous with “Christ” dwelling in us (Rom. 8:10).

2. Temporal Judgments Upon Nations Are “Visitations” From God.

The language of prophecy often expresses a perspective different from that of ordinary historical narrative or prosaic literature. The prophets recognized in the great political upheavals of history the acts of the sovereign God (Amos 3:6) exercising his prerogative of “removing” and “raising up” rulers and empires (Dan. 2:21). The conquest of one nation by another through invasion and war were little more than God’s means of judging the former—a nation that had been “weighed in the balances and found wanting” (Dan. 5:27). The use of one nation’s military machine for the punishment of another sinful nation did not require that the nation so used be aware of its being an instrument in the hands of God (Isa. 10:5-15). God is working invisibly behind the affairs of men, unperceived except by the prophetic vision. A consequence of this prophetic perspective is the frequent occurrence in Scripture of the language of God’s “coming” to a nation to judge it, even though what is envisaged is not a visible appearance of God, but a military conquest. Thus Isaiah, predicting the wasting of Egypt by the forces of Assyria, can write, “Behold, the lord rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt” (19:1). Similar language, when applied to Christ (Matt. 24:30), is apt to be applied by the reader to his Second Coming, though the language, when used in Isaiah, clearly does not allow this identification.

Similarly, other prophetic oracles, when describing national judgments which are political and military in nature, express these phenomena in terms of God’s “coming” against the land of his enemies: 24

For [the Lord] is coming to judge the earth [or land]. (Ps. 96:13; 98:9)

For behold, the lord comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth [or land] for their iniquity. (Isa. 26:21)

For behold, the lord is coming out of his place; He will come down and tread on the high places of the earth [or land]. (Micah 1:3)

Even so, in Revelation Christ threatens at times to “come” to various churches in order to redress the wrongs being perpetrated by them. He warns the church at Ephesus:

repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. (Rev. 2:5)

This threat probably had nothing to do with the Second Coming, since the effects of Christ’s “coming” to Ephesus would not be the end of the age, but merely the removing of that church’s lampstand from its place—a likely symbol for the extinction of that congregation (now fulfilled).

Christ threatened to “come” to at least two other churches as well:

To Pergamos:

Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. (Rev. 2:16)

To Sardis:

Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (Rev. 3:3)

Since these churches no longer exist, and will thus not be affected at the Second Coming, it is probably best to apply the language to a temporal judgment upon those churches and not His eschatological coming. It is necessary, in studying Revelation, to take this use of language into consideration.

3. He  Is  Coming  Quickly.

One other important observation we must make concerning this aspect of the message of Revelation is that Christ’s coming is repeatedly said to be near at hand.

For example, the church in Philadelphia was promised: “Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown” (Rev. 3:11). On two other occasions he makes the identical promise: “Behold, I am coming quickly!” (Rev. 22:7,12).

In light of these statements, we may draw three possible conclusions:

1 .They refer to the Second Coming, and were untrue, since that event did not occur shortly after the words were written;

2.They refer to the Second Coming, but we must not take the expression “quickly” to mean “very soon”; or

3.They refer, not to the Second Coming, but to some event that actually occurred shortly after the time of writing.

The first option does not set well with evangelicals (like myself) who accept the inspiration of Scripture and the canonicity of the Apocalypse, since the inclusion of failed prophecies would render the author a false prophet and his book a deception.

The second option is taken by many evangelicals, who explain “quickly” in a variety of ways. Some take it to mean “suddenly when the time comes, but not necessarily soon.” Others suggest that it means “certainly,” without implying anything about timing. Commonly, interpreters suggest that since “a day to the Lord is as a thousand years,” the Second Coming has not really been long delayed—only two days so far! To this last suggestion, it has been replied that, while 2000 years may be a short time in God’s way of thinking about time, it is nonetheless a very long time to those of us whose entire lifetimes generally fall short of 100 years. Had the Book of Revelation been written to God, rather than to humans, it might be of some comfort to him to know that the consummation was not very far distant—only 2000 years—but this would give little comfort and communicate no information of value to readers for whom 2000 years is not in any sense a short while.

When Paul told Timothy that he intended to come to him shortly (1 Tim. 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:9), it is unlikely that Timothy was expected to take into consideration that Paul, an inspired writer, was reckoning in divine terms and that if Paul came thousands of years later, he should not be thought to have defaulted on his promise. It is hard to believe that the repeated words of comfort to the suffering churches that Jesus would come quickly (Gr. “without delay”) were intended to convey anything other than their natural meaning to the human recipients.

The third option, that the promises of his soon coming refer to some event that ac­tually occurred shortly after the time of writing, is credible if we take into consideration the fact that the coming of Christ can refer to historical judgments, as discussed above. Jesus, when on earth, spoke of some event, to which he referred as his coming, as scheduled to occur within the lifetime of his own contemporaries:

Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt. 16:28)

And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ... So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near— at the very doors. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. (Matt. 24:30, 33-34)

Some evangelicals—being made unnecessarily uncomfortable by these statements and wishing to salvage their status as true predictions of the Second Coming—have interpreted the expression “this generation” in various ways. The phrase has been made out to mean “this race,” or “the generation that sees the signs of the Second Coming,” etc.—despite the fact that Jesus spoke of “this generation” in at least four other verses in Matthew in which no meaning can be ascribed to the expression but “those living at this time.”25 In any case, the similar phrase, “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till...” is not so easy to reinterpret. Both passages seem to tell us that something called the coming of the Son of Man was to occur within the generation of Jesus’ first followers.

Rather than being embarrassed by these inspired predictions or reinterpreting them beyond recognition, some interpreters find it more honoring to Christ to simply acknowledge that he told the truth in rather natural language. This approach indeed challenges our natural tendency to read every reference to the “coming” of the Son of Man as a reference to his eschatological appearing, but if such a challenge is necessary in order to make sense of the statement, this may not be too great a concession to make.

To acknowledge that some significant event that occurred shortly after it was predicted is in some passages referred to as a “coming” of the Lord renders intelligible some of these troublesome verses. It allows for a more natural understanding of another prediction made by Jesus: “For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23). It also vindicates James from the charge of making a gross miscalculation when he wrote (with an unmistakable allusion to Matthew 24:33):

the coming of the Lord is at hand .... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door! (James 5:8-9)

Some of the above statements have been applied to the transfiguration or to Pente­cost, though chronological considerations rule out the possibility that Matthew 24 or James predicts either of those events. Many preterists point out that Christ’s “coming” in judgment upon the rebel city of Jerusalem occurred within the generation of those to whom Jesus spoke (Matt. 24:34), before all of them had died (Matt. 16:28), and brought an end to their opportunities to evangelize the cities of Israel further (Matt. 10:23). Preterists and some historicists believe that this judgment is depicted in some portions of the book of Revelation. Most other approaches find ways of applying all such references to the Second Coming.

None of these considerations negate the doctrine of the Second Coming, but they demonstrate that there is more than one event or phenomenon that can be spoken of as a “coming” of Christ. This fact cautions intepreters against jumping to immediate conclusions when they encounter such expressions in Revelation and urges them to carefully consider the overall context of each statement through the eyes of the differing approaches.

The Millennium In Revelation

It may surprise many to learn that the greatest issue of controversy related to the book of Revelation, from earliest times to the present, has not been over the identity of the two witnesses, the meaning of the number “666,” or the timing of the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation. Already in the second century, the watershed issue in the interpretation of the Apocalypse was defined in terms of one’s understanding of the meaning of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20. The term “Millennium” (from the Latin: mille - thousand, and annus - years) has generally been adopted to refer to this period. In all the Bible, only this one chapter near the end of Revelation mentions the thousand-year reign of the saints with Christ, and those acquainted with the history of interpretation (see discussion below) will realize that it is no exaggeration to call this the most controversial chapter in the Bible. Most Christians have believed that this chapter refers to the same period as that depicted in the many Old Testament passages describing the golden age of the Messiah (e.g., Ps. 72; 110; Isa. 2:1-4; 11:1-11; Ezek. 34; Dan. 2; etc.).

However, the question of the chronological relation of this period to Christ’s Second Coming, and whether these passages are to be understood literally or in a spiritual sense, have never been answered with unanimity by the church. Three Christian views on the Millennium may be distinguished from one another: 1. premillennialism, 2. postmillennialism, and 3. amillennialism.

1.     Premillennialism (once known as chiliasm) is the belief that the second coming of Christ will precede the millennial kingdom. Taking a mostly literal approach, pre-millenarians expect a period of one thousand years’ duration, during which Christ will reign with his saints here on earth prior to the establishment of the eternal new heavens and new earth. The millennial reign will be characterized by international peace and justice resulting from the universal enforced rule of Christ over saved and unsaved alike. At the end of this time, Satan’s brief period of freedom will put humanity to one final test just before the final judgment.

There are two principal varieties of premillennialism: historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism or, simply, dispensationalism. The latter differs from the former in its emphasis on the continuing centrality of national Israel in God’s eschatological program and in anticipating a Rapture26 of Christians to heaven before the beginning of the Tribulation.27
Premillennialism has been accused by its critics of promoting a pessimistic outlook for the temporal future28—though, if this is what Scripture teaches, premillennialists can hardly be faulted for such pessimism. This view is most likely to be held by those adopting a futurist approach to Revelation (e.g., Walvoord, Ryrie, Gaebelein, Ironside, etc.).

2.     Postmillennialism teaches that Christ returns after the millennial period. Accord­ing to this camp, the millennial kingdom will be established through the evangelistic mission of the church. This enterprise will be so successful that all or most people will become Christians, resulting in a thousand years of peace on earth before Christ’s second coming. Many great evangelical leaders, including Benjamin B. Warfield and Jonathan Edwards, were postmillennialists, as are a growing number of modern evangeli­cals, known as Christian Reconstructionists. Postmillennialists are often (though not always) inclined toward the preterist approach to Revelation (e.g., Chilton, Gentry, though not Rushdoony), since their optimistic view of the future works better if the disasters described in Revelation are seen as belonging to a time now past, rather than to the end of history.

3.     Amillennialism understands the thousand years of Revelation 20 to symbolize an indefinitely long period of time, which happens to correspond to the entire span of time from the first coming of Christ until his second coming. Most aspects of chapter 20 (like most aspects of the rest of Revelation) are believed to be symbolic. The bind­ing of Satan happened spiritually at the Cross; the reign of the saints is the present age; the loosing of Satan is a final period of deception coming on the world in the end of the age; the fire from heaven that devours the wicked is the second coming of Christ. Those of this persuasion have included virtually every theologian from Augustine through the Reformation, and there are many adherents today. Amillennialists have been found among adherents of several of the various approaches to Revelation, including the historicist (e.g., Martin Luther), the preterist (Jay Adams), and the spiritu­al (William Hendriksen), but only rarely of the futurist (Abraham Kuyper).

It should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position, so that one’s eschatology does not necessarily dictate which approach to Revelation is to be preferred.

 

---