1. The Historicist Approach: REVELATION SURVEYS THE WHOLE OF CHURCH HISTORY.
Modern commentaries presenting this approach are rare to nonexistent, though an abbreviated list of the luminaries of the past who took this view would have to include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Philip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Jan Huss, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton.
In our time, historicism is clearly not in vogue. My reason for including it in this volume alongside the other approaches is that it survives in most of the classic commentaries of the past few centuries which are still published and used today. It is too early to pronounce as finally deceased a view whose advocates continue to speak in print to modern readers of their works. Modern Seventh-Day Adventists, also, with their widely-promoted “Revelation Seminars,” present their own version of this approach, connecting at many points with the views of the historic Protestant commentators. In addition, I have heard of a small movement of evangelicals who are trying to revive respect for this view as the true understanding of 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.
A unique characteristic of this line of interpretation is its advocacy of what is called the “year-for-a-day principle” 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. On this principle, five months (150 days) is taken to designate 150 years. The significant period of 1260 days is interpreted as the same number of years. “An hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” becomes (depending whether a year is 360 days or 365 days) 391 years and 15 days, or 396 years and 106 days.
In support of this procedure, appeal is made to Ezekiel 4:4-6, in which the prophet was required to lie on his left side for 390 days, and upon his right side for 40 days, representing the same number of years of judgment decreed upon Israel and Judah respectively. This principle is then extrapolated to apply to “prophetic time” in all plausible cases in Daniel and Revelation.57
Like preterism and futurism, the historicist approach is able to align specific historic events with certain details in Revelation. Though this process requires a fair degree of conjecture so that the preterist critic Professor Moses Stuart accused historicists of setting the reader of Revelation “afloat upon a boundless ocean of conjecture and fancy, without rudder or compass,”58 yet it claims for itself some interesting success stories.
Sometime around 1690, it is reported, historicist interpreter Robert Fleming was invited before the English court of William Orange, King William III, to lecture on Bible prophecy. The king asked the man of God when the temporal power of the papacy in Europe would fall. Fleming’s reply was published in his 1701 book entitled Apocalyptic Key. Concerning the fall of the papacy as the ruling power in Europe, the prophecy scholar wrote: “I say this judgment will begin about a.d. 1794 and expire about 1848.” This prediction was made approximately one hundred years prior to the projected dates. Historicist apologists point out that in 1794 the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror” occurred, which, they say, marked the beginning of the end of the pope’s temporal power in Europe. In the year 1848, the pope was temporarily driven from Rome.59
One non-negotiable feature of classical Protestant (historicist) exposition is the assertion that the papacy is “Antichrist.” Since the principal advocates of this view were the Reformers, this identification leaves the interpreters open to the charge of forcing their exegesis into an ideological straightjacket for partisan reasons for the sake of maintaining the diabolical nature of their opponents.
On the other hand, assuming this identification to be correct, the historicists see in all other approaches to Revelation satanically-inspired smoke screens to obscure the true identity of Antichrist. They assert, specifically, that preterism and futurism are inventions of the Jesuits, designed to neutralize the bad publicity given to the pope by the Reformers.60
Though few today seem to credit this approach, the preface to Albert Barnes’ Notes on Revelation (1884-85 edition) demonstrates that it is not without impressive historical confirmations:
Up to the time of commencing the exposition of this book, I had no theory in my own mind as to its meaning. I may add, that I had a prevailing belief that it could not be explained, and that all attempts to explain it must be visionary and futile ... In this state of things, the utmost that I contemplated when I began to write on it, was to explain, as well as I could, the meaning of the language and the symbols, without attempting to apply the explanation to the events of past history, or to inquire what is to occur hereafter. . . . Beginning with this aim, I found myself soon insensibly inquiring whether, in the events which succeeded the time when the book was written, there were not historical facts of which the emblems employed would be natural and proper symbols, on the supposition that it was the divine intention, in disclosing these visions, to refer to them.... To my own surprise I found, chiefly in Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a series of events recorded, such as seemed to me to correspond, to a great extent, with the series of symbols found in the Apocalypse. ... It was such, in fact, that if it had been found in a Christian writer, professedly writing a commentary on the book of Revelation, it would have been regarded by infidels as a designed attempt to force history to utter a language that should conform to a predetermined theory in expounding a book full of symbols. So remarkable have these coincidences appeared to me in the course of this exposition, that it has almost seemed as if he had designed to write a commentary on some portions of this book. ... It was in this manner that these Notes on the Book of Revelation assumed the form in which they are now given to the world; and it surprises me — and, under this view of the matter, may occasion some surprise to my readers — to find how nearly the views coincide with those taken by the great body of Protestant interpreters (pp. vi-viii).
Though he rejects this approach, Albertus Pieters grants that historicism has some impressive aspects:
That some points in the interpretation, as developed by these expositors, seem excellently to fit the history, must be frankly conceded. One of the best, in my judgment, is the identification of the fifth trumpet with the rise of Mohammedanism and of the sixth trumpet with the coming of the Turks. The things there seen in the vision would surely be appropriate symbolical descriptions of those great calamities. Yet an occasional hit of this kind does not prove anything with regard to the system as a whole.61
When one examines the verse-by-verse expositions of the historicists, 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 Bible!62
Most modern scholars, however, find little good to say about this approach. F. F. Bruce, for instance, wrote:
No important contribution to the exegesis of Revelation was made by [historicists], whether J. A. Bengel in Germany or Joseph Mede, Sir Isaac Newton and William Whiston in England — eminent as these exegetes were in other fields of study. The book itself has suffered in its reputation from the extravagances of some of its interpreters, who have treated it as if it were a table of mathematical conundrums or a divinely inspired Old Moore’s Almanack.63
One of the weaknesses of the historicist approach is seen in the inability of its advocates to agree upon the specific fulfillments of the prophecies. Moses Stuart (preterist) charged that “Hitherto, scarcely any two original and independent [historicist] expositors have been agreed, in respect to some points very important to their bearing upon the interpretation of the book.”64
For example, while most historicists see the seven trumpets as pertaining to the Islamic forces attacking the eastern Roman Empire, they disagree among themselves about the preceding section (the seven seals) as to whether they refer to the defeat of he western Roman Empire by Huns and Vandals, or to the destruction of Jerusalem by he Romans. Walvoord (futurist] asserts, “At least fifty different systems of interpretation have arisen from the historical view alone.”65 If the prophecies’ meanings cannot fee identified with certainty, even after their fulfillments, the value of the prophecies to the readers of any period, whether before or following the fulfillments, is in serious question.
Another criticism of historicism has been that it is too flexible in the service of its advocates, allowing most of them to identify their own times as the culmination of history. Walvoord (futurist) criticizes historicism on these very grounds, saying “its adlerents have succumbed to the tendency to interpret the book in some sense climaxing in their generation.”66
Historicism is criticized as being too parochial, failing to take the development of the church throughout the world into consideration. Tenney (futurist) has made this observation:
The Historicist view which attempts to interpret the Apocalypse by the development of the church in the last nineteen centuries, seldom if ever takes cognizance of the church outside Europe. It is concerned mainly with the period of the Middle Ages and the Reformation and has relatively little to say of developments after A.D. 1500.67
George Eldon Ladd (futurist) also finds fault with the historicist position. “The view has little to commend it,” he writes, “for the Revelation would in that case have little to say to the churches of Asia to which it was addressed.”68 The historicist might counter that the only approach more vulnerable to this particular criticism than historicism would be futurism.
2. The Preterist Approach: FULFILMENT IS IN THE PAST, SHORTLY AFTER THE TIME OF WRITING.
Among those identifying themselves as preterists, there are two types:
1. Many exegetes whose method is actually literary-critical have chosen to label their approach as preterist or, alternately, as contemporary-historical. The writers to whom I refer are not preterist in the evangelical sense. They are referred to by Pieters as “Left Wing” of preterism.69 They apply the term to themselves because they believe that contemporary elements of John’s own day can be identified in the symbolic language he uses. But they do not generally insist upon any actual fulfillment in ensuing events of the things prophesied in the Apocalypse. They almost all believe in a date of writing in Domitian’s reign (i.e. a.d. 95-96) and believe that John’s desire for a soon vindication in the coming of the kingdom was expressed in his prophecy, but failed to be fulfilled. Of such scholars, Albertus Pieters wrote:
Some of these writers have no respect whatever for the Apocalypse as an inspired writing ... This seriously affects their exegesis. In their opinion, the writer knew nothing of the future by inspiration, and hence an interpretation that has been falsified by history does not on that account seem to them inadmissible.70
2. In contrast, those who hold to the classical preterism of centuries past take a high view of the inspiration of Scripture and date the Book of Revelation prior to A.D. 70. They are capable of pointing out many details in Revelation that they believe were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem, and some see in the later chapters the prediction of the fall of Rome and beyond to the second coming of Christ. What I am representing as preterism in this volume is this theologically conservative, earlydate preterism that has had worthy advocates for several centuries.
On this view, the book has only such value to modern readers as does any fulfilled prophecy in the Bible (e.g., most prophecies of the Old Testament), but to the early readers, who were enduring persecution from the Jews at the time, it served as a promise of soon deliverance and of the vindication of those who died as martyrs.
This view has the advantage of immediate relevance to the original readers, a feature we would strongly expect to find in an epistle. It also is the only view that does not need an alternative to the literal sense of passages like Revelation 1:1 and 19, which affirm that the events predicted “must shortly come to pass” and “are about to take place”; and like Revelation 22:10, where John is told not to seal up the book, because “the time is at hand.” When this is contrasted with Daniel’s being commanded to seal up his book because it would not be immediately fulfilled (Dan. 12:9), this seems a deliberate promise that there would be no great interval between the time Revelation was written and the time of its fulfillment. A degree of stretching, or even desperation, is sometimes discernible in the comments of non-preterists on such passages.
Another point favorable to the early-date preterist approach is that the prophecies of Revelation exhibit many points of correspondence with the fall of Jerusalem as recorded in awful detail by the eyewitness historian Flavius Josephus. Since Josephus was not a Christian and probably never had opportunity to read Revelation, these correspondences seem to bolster the credibility of this interpretation, just as appeal to Gibbon’s history of Rome enhances the plausibility of the historicist approach.
The Olivet Discourse in Mark 13 (and parallels) is often called the “little apocalypse,” because many believe that the discourse covers more succinctly the same information as does Revelation. In fact, since the discourse is included in Matthew (ch. 24), Mark (ch. 13) and Luke (chs. 17 and 21), but not in John, some have suggested that Revelation might be regarded as John’s expanded version of the Olivet Discourse. J. Stuart Russell points out the significant amount of subject matter common to the discourse and the Apocalypse:
What do we find in our Lord’s prophecy? First and chiefly the Parousia [the principal Greek word for the “coming” of Christ]; then wars, famines, pestilence, earthquakes; false prophets and deceivers; signs and wonders; the darkening of the sun and moon; the stars falling from heaven; angels and trumpets, eagles and carcasses, great tribulation and woe; convulsions of nature; the treading down of Jerusalem; the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven; the gathering of the elect; the reward of the faithful; the judgment of the wicked. And are not these precisely the elements which compose the Apocalypse?71
Much of the Olivet Discourse was given in response to the disciples’ question concerning the timing of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (see Mark 13:1-4 and parallels), and can arguably be viewed as answering their inquiry. Since Revelation appears to share the same subject matter as does the discourse, preterists think it fair to assume that Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 is the concern of both prophecies.
Some preterists believe that the book of Revelation looks no further into the future than the Jewish holocaust in A.D. 70.72 Others,73 however, believe that the first half of Revelation describes the fall of Jerusalem, the second half predicts the fall of the Roman Empire, and the final chapters describe the second coming of Christ.
The principal criticism of the preterist approach is its heavy dependence on the pre-A.D. 70 date of writing, which is defensible but not undisputed (see earlier discussion under Date and Historical Setting). If the book was written after that date, it obviously cannot be predicting events that occurred in that year.
Another problem associated with the preterist approach is related to its alleged roots. Critics have traced the origins of preterism to the Jesuit Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613), who formulated it to refute the Reformers’ historicist view. Thus preterism is said to share similar disreputable origins with futurism (see below), with both of them being Roman Catholic responses to Protestantism.74
However, elements of the preterist approach to both Revelation and the Olivet Discourse were held by some much earlier than Alcazar’s time. In the early fourth century, the church historian Eusebius, after reviewing-Jesephus’ description of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, wrote:
It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: ‘Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be great tribulation, such was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be’ [Matthew 24:19-21].75
This quote indicates that Eusebius recognized in the Olivet Discourse a description of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans. It is the same belief \haipreterists hold concerning that discourse, though Eusebius did not extend the application to Revelation, since he held to the later date of writing.
Early in the sixth century Andreas of Cappadocia wrote a commentary on Revelation that is still in existence. Though he did not take the preterist approach, he knew of some who did. Commenting on Revelation 6:12, he wrote: “There are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.” Also at Revelation 7:1, he wrote: “These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews.”76
Another commentary on Revelation written (probably) in the sixth century by Arethas77 says of Revelation 6:12: “Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian.” On Revelation 7:1, Arethas writes: “Here then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ.” At 7:4: “When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans.”
These data prove that something like the modern preterist understanding at least of the early part of Revelation existed in the church as much as a thousand years before the time of Alcasar.
3. The Futurist Approach: EVERYTHING AFTER CHAPTER THREE AWAITS FULFILLMENT IN THE FUTURE.
The futurist approach is held by the majority of the most popular contemporary evangelical writers and Bible teachers. It has so dominated the Christian media, in fact, that many Christians and virtually all non-Christians are unaware even of the existence of other approaches. The best-known version of futurism today is that of dispensational theology. This is the camp of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Clarence Larkin, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, and many others. The principal difference between the dispensationalist view and other futurist views of Revelation would be the fact that the former places the rapture of the church at Revelation 4:1, while other futurists would place it later (e.g., in chapter 19).
According to this view, Revelation divides into three sections, defined in 1:19, where John is told to write “the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be after these things.” Following this outline, chapter 1 describes the first division, or the things John had seen, which was the vision of the glorified Christ on Patmos. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the things “which are,” that is, the present realities of the churches (or the church age78), and everything after chapter 3 describes events, which were not only future at the time of writing, but are still future from our own standpoint. The majority of the material (chapters 6—19) is thought to describe a seven-year (or, alternatively, a three-and-a-half-year) Tribulation period, followed by the return of Christ (chapter 19), a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (chapter 20), and the new creation (chapters 21—22). Futurists, like historicists, often understand Revelation to be chronologically continuous, though some futurists see two parallel sections of Revelation (chapters 4—11 and chapters 12—19), both of which describe a future time of tribulation.
Belief in the futurist approach frees the reader to take a more literal view of the visions, reducing the difficulties of interpreting the symbols. Of the various approaches to Revelation, the futurist is most likely to take a literal interpretation,79 since it alone has the luxury of doing so. For example, there has never been a time in the past when a third of the sea turned to blood, killing a third of the fish and sinking a third of the ships (Revelation 16). If this is to have a literal fulfillment, it must still be in the future. Other approaches must take the passage nonliterally.
The same is true of other events anticipated in the chapters of Revelation, such as hailstones of a hundred pounds weight, locusts that sting like scorpions, two prophets who die in Jerusalem and rise again in three and a half days only to be publicly translated into the heavens for all to see, a mandatory mark applied to the forehead or right hand of every noncompliant citizen, etc.
Henry Morris makes this point:
It is inevitable that literalistic expositors of Revelation will be primarily futurists since practically none of the events of Revelation 4—22 have yet taken place in any literal sense. Many futurists do accept a cyclical development, but probably most (including myself) follow a strictly chronological approach.80
The desire to understand Revelation literally may be the leading factor favoring the adoption of a futurist approach, although most of the elements of the scenario predicted by dispensationalists’ appeal to the Book of Revelation do not arise from the literal application of any particular passage. For example, a major feature of the Tribulation expected by futurists is its seven-year duration, divided in the middle by the Antichrist’s violating a treaty he had made with Israel and setting up an image of himself in the rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Yet none of these elements can be discovered from the literal interpretation of any passage in Revelation. Similarly, there is no passage, which, literally applied, will yield a prediction of 200 million Chinese troops, cobra helicopters, a global cashless economic system, or nuclear war.
The futurist believes that Revelation 20 describes a period of world peace and justice with Christ reigning on earth from Jerusalem, though no part of this description can be found in the chapter itself, taken literally. This observation does not mean that this futurist scenario cannot be true. But it must be derived by reading into the passages in Revelation features that are not plainly stated.
Dispensationalists themselves often must admit to the necessity of recognizing some symbolism in Revelation, all the while clinging as much as possible to the literal hermeneutic that is their boast in contrast to most other theological systems. An example is Walvoord’s treatment of symbolic numbers. After giving a list of the most prominent numbers found in Revelation, he writes:
These numbers may be understood literally, but even when understood this 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 never-the-less convey more than their bare numerical significance.81
In the pages immediately following, Walvoord lists twenty-six images in Revelation that he believes must be understood symbolically. Charles Ryrie, another prominent dispensational futurist writes:
The concept of literal interpretation always raises questions since it seems to preclude anything symbolic, and the book obviously contains symbols. . . . Futurists do recognize the presence of symbols in the book. The difference between the literalist and the spiritualizer is simply that the former sees the symbols as conveying a plain meaning.82
Henry Morris, who believes he has written probably the “most literal” commentary on Revelation, acknowledges, “Many futurists still employ much symbolism, while others take most of these future events in a very literal sense.”83
In one sense, there is a strong psychological appeal to the futurist approach. Many of us would like to have a divinely-inspired channel of insight into the future. Futurists believe that to reveal the future in advance is in keeping with God’s character and methods throughout Scripture, and sometimes see in this book just such a tool of prediction.
Confidence in this approach is enhanced whenever a commentator is able to match current political events with his interpretation of Revelation, as when an Associated Press article dated April 28, 1964, reported that the Red Chinese had an estimated “200 million armed and organized militiamen,” the very number of the invaders mentioned in Revelation 9:16.84
That the Euphrates is to be dried up to allow passage for the “kings of the East” (Rev. 16:12) finds its confirmation in the claim that “this kind of thing has been made technically possible by the Russians’ recent construction of a dam near the headwaters of the Euphrates.”85 Some futurists, mostly of the dispensational camp, are very fond of finding this kind of evidence in support of their view of Revelation. In fact, every generation of futuristic interpreters for the last 150 years or longer has been able to find in Revelation a description of their own times.86
Not all futurists are dispensationalists and not all approve of engaging in what some refer to as “newspaper exegesis.” There are notable futurist scholars who reject the dispensational distinctives. An example would be Dr. Theodor Zahn, who, in 1929, was the foremost conservative scholar in Germany in the field of New Testament literature and exegesis. Some more recent futurists have, like Mounce and Ladd, tempered their futurism with a touch of preterism or some other approach, taking Revelation less literally, and they refer to dispensationalism as “extreme.” They do, however, expect a future Antichrist to arise in a future Tribulation period to persecute the saints, and they do anticipate a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.
It is not surprising that the futurist approach, more than any of the others, has appealed to popular sentiments. However, some biblical scholars have complained that futurism, like historicism, renders the Book of Revelation about 90 percent irrelevant to the original readers, since, on this view, they lived nearly 2000 years prior to its fulfillment (despite the repeated affirmations of the near fulfillment of the prophecies87). If we go along with dispensational interpreters in finding the Rapture of the church at Revelation 4:1, then the book becomes largely irrelevant, not only to the original readers, but also to all Christians of any age. This is because the church will be in heaven before the majority of the prophecies begin to unfold, neither experiencing nor witnessing their fulfillment. This leaves it far from obvious why Christians should take an interest in such events, or why God wished to reveal them.
Some critics object to futurism on the basis of its origins. Francisco Ribeira, a Spanish Jesuit, is known to have originated this approach to Revelation in 1585 for the purpose of refuting the historicist view, and the Reformers’ insistence that the “beast” was the papacy. Ribeira taught that the “Antichrist” had not yet come and would be an individual arising “in the last days.” Protestants rejected this view for over 200 years, but it was finally introduced in Protestant circles by Samuel Maitland in 1827 and popularized in the works of J. N. Darby, the founder of dispensationalism, beginning in 1830. Protestant interpreters sometimes still look upon this approach with suspicion because of these roots.
It may be noted that, unlike the historicist and preterist approaches, the futurist approach cannot be tested from history. One may evaluate the historicist and the preterist approaches partially on the basis of their claims that actual historical events have occurred which correspond to their interpretation of Revelation’s predictions. The futurist view, however, cannot be verified or falsified in this manner, since the things predicted, it is asserted, have not yet occurred. It can be argued in the absence of certain knowledge of the future that anything might yet happen to fulfill the futurist’s expectations. The dispensationalists, in particular, do not stand ever to be embarrassed by future developments, since they believe that they will be raptured before any of the predicted events occur. Whether this invulnerability to falsification is an asset or a liability to futurism is not a matter of universal agreement.
4. The Spiritual Approach: NO SINGLE FULFILLMENT; ONLY TRANSCENDENT PRINCIPLES AND RECURRENT THEMES.
I am using the label spiritual approach to include all approaches that do not look for individual or specific fulfillments of the prophecies of Revelation in the natural sense, bat which believe only that spiritual lessons and principles (which may find recurrent expression in history) are depicted symbolically in the visions. Though this kind of approach is sometimes associated with theological liberalism, it is entirely consistent with a high view of inspiration of Scripture, and there are many commentaries by theological conservatives who believe that John had the visions revealed to him exactly as he claims, but who believe that their meaning is to be spiritually understood in a sense that would be edifying to believers of any age.
D. T. Crafer traces the modern emergence of this view to William Milligan:
There is one other method of interpretation worthy of mention; it is that associated with Milligan himself. He divorces the book almost completely from history, and finds in it little more than a noble expression of those great principles of the divine government whose operation we can trace in every age of the world.88
It was not easy to choose a label for this approach. Many writers refer to it, but they prefer differing ways of designating it. The most common name for the view is the idealist.89 Some commentators call this view the nonliteral, allegorical90 or the symbolic, poetic91 interpretation; others call it the philosophy of history school.92 To call it the spiritual approach is not to call into question the spirituality of the rival approaches but to distinguish it from the more concrete historico-eschatological character of the other approaches.
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 necessary reference to single historical events. The battles in Revelation may be seen as referring to spiritual warfare, to the persecution of Christians, or to natural warfare in general throughout history. The beast from the sea may be identified as the satanically-inspired political opposition to the church in any age, and the beast from the land as the opposition of pagan or corrupt religion to Christianity. The Harlot represents either the compromised church or the seduction of the world in general. Each broken seal or sounded trumpet depicts some reality (e.g., famine, war, natural disaster) which happens in history on a recurring basis as part of the sovereign outworking of God’s purpose in history. Milligan puts it this way:
While the Apocalypse thus embraces the whole period of the Christian dispensation, it sets before us within this period the action of great principles and not special incidents.93
An advantage of this view is that it avoids the problem of harmonizing specific passages with specific fulfillments—a difficulty which has plagued the historicist, futurist, and preterist views—and makes every passage relevant and edifying to any generation of Christians.
The significant disadvantage of the spiritual position is that the Book of Revelation itself claims to be predicting events that must shortly come to pass (1:1), giving the impression that some specific events in some particular historical setting are intended. For this reason, most modern commentators, both of the evangelical wing and of the literary-critical type, have mixed some of the ideas of the spiritual approach with one of the other historically-based approaches. This is not a difficult merger to effect, as Pieters rightly observes:
[Spiritual] interpretations combine readily with those of the Preterists or of the Historicists, because any symbol, understood by them to refer to a certain force or tendency may be considered fulfilled in any event in which such a force or tendency is dominant.94
Most commonly, the combination is with late-date preterism, as Walvoord points out with reference to the trend of liberal scholarship:
Contemporary liberal works usually follow a combination of the preterist and the symbolical methods of interpretation, disregarding the strictly historical interpretation as well as the futurist.95
This has been my observation as well, not only among liberals, but also in many modern evangelical writings on Revelation. Though evangelical commentators commonly list the idealist (or some equivalent designation) as one of the approaches alternate to their own, they employ its methods in their actual comments. The most common tendency is to mix the spiritual approach with the preterist and then either call their view preterism, leave their view unlabeled or give it an original name.
Typical of this blending of approaches is that of Harvey J. S. Blaney expressed in The Wesleyan Bible Commentary:
John anticipated a great persecution, of which he had tasted a sample, which would be followed by the destruction of the evil forces of the world and the establishment of a rule of righteousness and peace of permanent duration. But the delay of that Kingdom has made the truths contained in this book applicable to all ages in the struggle of right against evil while the church continues to wait and expect the return of its Lord and Savior. 96
Blaney describes himself as a preterist, but ends up without any actual historical fulfillment and is left making the same application as does one who takes the spiritual approach. This is extremely common with modern neo-evangelical commentators on Revelation. In fact, Pieters asserts:
Today, scholars are prevailingly in favor of this system [preterism], either unchanged, or combined with the ideas of the Philosophy of History [spiritual School.97
Leon Morris and Michael Wilcock are among those who follow such a procedure without hazarding a name for their mixture. Earl Morey also attempts the same, but refers to the result as “the classical approach.” Herschel H. Hobbs and Homer Hailey (alliteration unintentional) take the same approach, but call it the historical background view.
I would have to place William Hendriksen and his 1939 book, More Than Conquerors, in this same general category, though he calls his view progressive parallelism. He has given it this name because he sees Revelation as a series of seven segments parallel to each other, each concerned with the entire church age, but depicting the age with different symbols in each segment. His is thus similar with what has been called the dramatic approach. This understanding of the structure of Revelation was championed prior to the appearance of Hendriksen’s book (e.g., Erdman’s The Revelation of John in 1936)98 and is followed to a greater or lesser extent by several modern treatments (e.g., Wilcock and Wilson).
Hendriksen’s interpretation is essentially spiritual/idealist in character, with some preterist or historicist elements. A. T. Robertson categorizes this view as another kind of historicism, and calls it synchronous historicism, but since no specific historic fulfillments are identified, it seems more appropriate to include it under the rubric of the spiritual approach. Indeed, Hendriksen’s sixth and seventh propositions about the Book of Revelation identify his approach as a combination of idealism and preterism, respectively:
PROPOSITION VI. The seals, trumpets, bowls of wrath, and similar symbols refer not to specific events, particular happenings, or details of history, but to principles—of human conduct and of divine moral government—that are operating throughout the history of the world, especially throughout the new dispensation. [idealism]99
PROPOSITION VII. The Apocalypse is rooted in contemporaneous events and circumstances. Its symbols should be interpreted in the light of conditions which prevailed when the book was written, [preterism]100
Occasionally, futurism is even thrown into the spiritual/preterist mix. After surveying the four principal approaches, for instance, George Eldon Ladd—who is largely a futurist—concludes that “the correct method of interpreting the Revelation is the blending of the preterist and the futurist methods.” However, he also says “The beast is both Rome and the eschatological antichrist—and, we might add, any demonic power which the church must face in her entire history”101 (emphasis mine). Thus he combines not only the preterist and futurist approaches, but the spiritual/idealist as well.
This is also Mounce’s approach. Like Ladd, he is largely a futurist in his treatment of the major prophecies of Revelation, but we find idealism combined with preterism and futurism in his view of the beast: “In John’s vision the beast is the Roman Empire [preterism] ... Yet the Beast is more than the Roman Empire. In a larger sense, it is the spirit of godless totalitarianism that has energized every authoritarian system devised by man throughout history [idealism]. At the end of time, the Beast will appear in its most malicious form. It will be the ultimate expression of deified secular authority [futurism].”102
Although many of these scholars combine the spiritual approach with others, and use innovative labels or none to describe their preferred amalgam, the spiritual interpretation has a character entirely of its own and sees Revelation from an entirely different perspective than do the more strictly historico-eschatological approaches. As J. Barton Payne has observed:
Allegorizing commentators may treat the Apocalypse according to principles of mystical interpretation ... or according to theories of liturgical, poetic, or dramatic literary forms such as have been proposed by modern critics; but all writers of this type unite upon reducing the book’s ‘real’ teaching to certain matters of timeless truth, or at least to interpretations that are devoid of concrete, historical specification.103
That is the distinctive feature that makes an interpretation fall into the spiritual category in this volume. The authors that I cite for this view include some from among the ranks of those who identify themselves by some other label or even with one of the other viewpoints. It is the spiritualizing element in their interpretations that I have placed in the spiritual column when quoting them there.