Many today have given up on the book of Revelation, citing confusion and controversy. There are many views on how best to interpret the Apocalypse, and debates amongst interpreters have often been embarrassingly unkind.
But understanding the book of Revelation does matter!
“Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it”, Rev. 1:3).
But how can we receive if we do not keep? And how can we keep what we do not understand? The book of Revelation is meant to be clearly understandable for fishermen and peasants. But it has been taken away from us by confusion and controversy. Due to the confusion and controversy, many believers basically ignore it.
Fortunately, the Apocalypse is understandable! Sound principles of interpretation that we apply to similar literature in scripture - the book of Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel and others - produce a simple and clear meaning.
Church history reveals that the controversy over what the Revelation means is not fundamentally down to interpretive difficulty, but rather confused approaches to interpretation that emerged mostly due to socio-political factors.
See below a one-page summary of the history of interpretation of the book of Revelation.
At the bottom of this post, you will find this 1 slide unpacked in a more comprehensive, but still digestible, 200-slide presentation on the history of interpretation of the Apocalypse.
So what's the punchline? The 'Classic Premillennial' view of the early church is the interpretation that is most faithful to scripture. That is the interpretation which holds: (i) The events described in Revelation should be understood in their plain sense.
(ii) The book therefore describes events which have not taken place in history, and therefore will be fulfilled in the future.
(iii) As such, this age will close with a final great tribulation under 'The Beast' / Antichrist, leading to the second coming of Jesus, His 1,000 year reign with His saints on earth, the final judgment of all souls, and then eternal state in the new creation.
This was the view of John's disciples. (This is absolutely not a trivial point! While this point on its own is not determinative of right interpretation of biblical eschatology or any other doctrine, it is certainly not insignificant. Is it not highly relevant to know how John the Apostle himself understood the book of Revelation which he penned? If so, is it not relevant to know what his disciples taught about it’s interpretation? And if we have writings from those disciples which indicate how they understood its meaning, should we not pay great attention and hesitate greatly to disagree with them? Well, the good news is we have lengthy writings recording just those insights. Polycarp is one of the most famous disciples of the Apostle John, discipled by him over many years in his home territory of Smyrna in Asia Minor, one of the 7 churches to which the book of Revelation was written. Think about that for a moment! It is unfathomable that – after John's unforgettable encounter with the glorified Jesus Christ on Patmos – John would have failed to teach on the book of Revelation, his final work under the hand of the Holy Spirit, how to understand it. Polycarp reflected at length on John the Apostle’s teachings. It is unfathomable that Polycarp, having heard from the very mouth of John the Apostle the meaning of the book of Revelation, would teach any other interpretation. It is equally unfathomable that Irenaeus would teach any other interpretation of the book of Revelation than that handed down by John to Polycarp. He was instructed in person by Polycarp over decades about the words directly out the mouth of the Apostles - think about that for a moment!! - and he was the man God chose to fulfill the unique task in the history of the church of faithfully documenting how the Apostles themselves interpreted scripture, in order to defend against the dangers of gnostic and other heresy. It is inconceivable that this man - who's entire ministry rested on faithfully recording no other interpretation of scripture than that given by the Apostles themselves - would now break ranks and record any other interpretation of Revelation and other end times texts than that given by John, through Polycarp. So it is in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies that we find exactly what we seek: a record of what John taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus about the end times. 11 other ancient authors who expressed their understanding on the end times are in agreement with the plain sense interpretation which Irenaeus recorded. A summary of this early church eschatology can be found below.
No competing interpretations can be found in the early church records until c380AD, except from the Alexandrian school's heretical Origen and the disciples who followed in his rejected eschatological teachings. While some evidently objected to the offensive 'Chiliastic' interpretation of a future millennium, no record of them putting forward an alternative interpretation can be found.
It is the view held by the majority of theologically trained evangelicals today, after the theological progress of the last 200 years.
It is the only view which survives robust critique. Every other view is in conflict with some combination of (and, in general all of) the details of the scriptural texts, the details of history, the rules of language and with reason.
Most importantly, it is the view which aligns to the plain sense reading of the scriptures. It is self-evident to fishermen, laymen and peasants like you and I.
The first seedling form of early church eschatology can be found in extant early church writings dated c130AD-160AD. But Irenaeus - the spiritual grandson of John the Apostle, through Polycarp (who sat at John's feet to receive direct teaching, and handed this on to Irenaeus) - was the first to record early church eschatology in detail and somewhat systematically in c180AD in his Against Heresies. Much of his eschatology is based on the books of Revelation and Daniel but he presents an integrated, semi-systematic eschatology that harmonises texts in Revelation, Daniel 2, 7, 9, 10-12, 2 Thes. 2, Matthew 24, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Joel, Isaiah, and others. After Irenaeus, came 4 other early church 'Fathers of early church eschatology' who wrote systematic expositions on the end times, including: Hippolytus (responsible for the earliest surviving church commentaries on scripture, including on the book of Daniel, and a treatise on Antichrist, in the early 200's AD); Victorinus (who wrote the earliest surviving commentary on Revelation in c260AD), Commodianus and Lactantius (tutor to Emperor Constantine's son after he converted to Christianity). All 5 of these gigantic early church figures are in agreement on how the scriptures on the end times should be interpreted. From them, we can discern 18 tenets of early church eschatology held to by either 4 or all 5 of these Fathers (12 of the 18 tenets of early church eschatology were held by all 5; the remaining 6 tenets were held to by 4 of the 5).
In addition to the 5 fathers of early church eschatology (listed above), there are 7 additional gigantic early church fathers or works who expressed their understanding on the end times more briefly in works of a more general nature, including: the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Tertullian (father of the Latin church), Justin Martyr (greatest church apologist of the second century), Papias (who was taught directly by John and other unnamed Apostles), Africanus (the first church chronographer, who's works on biblical chronography are unparalleled in the early church) and Methodius. Their interpretations are in agreement with the 18 tenets of early church eschatology.
In a nutshell, early church eschatology can be summarised in 4 main points:
(i) Plain sense interpretation, future fulfilment: Classic eschatology texts should be interpreted in their plain sense. Revelation too, should be interpreted this way. Thus, only obvious symbols are symbols, as opposed to a highly spiritualized reading in which everything is a symbol. This reading yields prophecies of events that have not taken place in history, thus requiring a future fulfilment. This includes (1) Rev 20-22; (2) Rev Ch 6-19, (3) Dan 2 & 7 (the 4th Kingdom's final phase & destruction); (4) Dan Ch 11:36- 12:10; (5) 2 Thes 2; (6) Mt 24.
(ii) Literal future Millennium: There will be a future 1000-year reign of Christ with His saints on earth, after His second coming, before the eternal state.
(iii) Literal future Antichrist: Rev. 13 describes Antichrist, the climactic last days world dictator, to be defeated at the 2nd Coming. Antichrist will rise to become the most completely totalitarian and wicked satanic ruler of all time. This is the same character described in Dan. 7 ('the little horn'), Dan. 11:36ff ('wilful king'), 2 Thes. 2:1-10 ('man of lawlessness'), and Dan 9 ('man of lawlessness').
(iv) Literal future Great Tribulation: Antichrist will declare himself god and demand worldwide allegiance and worship. From that moment will commence a 42-month time of the greatest tribulation in history, preceding the 2nd Coming, as described in Rev. 13, Dan. 7, Dan. 11:36-12:10, 2 Thes. 2:1-9, and Mt. 24:15ff.
The below table expands this summary into a list of all 18 tenets of early church eschatology (plus 2 held by fewer teachers).
The early church interpretation of key end times scriptures is compatible only with the Classic Premillennial view; early church eschatology is incompatible with Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Preterism, and Dispensational Premillennialism, as summarised in the below matrix.
Below is the detailed 200 slide overview of the history of interpretation. Take a look. History is a great teacher... And what history teaches us is that what Revelation sounds like it says is what it actually says, according to the early church and most theologically trained evangelicals today.
If you are not a Scribd subscriber and want to avoid the ads, see here a pdf download.
Comments