2) Popular Ways to View the Book of Revelation
Many in the church may not realize that Revelation has been interpreted in several different ways over the past 2,000 years. It's likely that your church leans into one of four main approaches historically used to understand this book. In this lesson, we'll explore these four basic interpretations, starting with how first- and second-century Jews and early church fathers understood Revelation, and tracing these perspectives through to modern times.
As you may have guessed, this website leans toward an interpretation that closely aligns with how first-century Jews would have understood Revelation.
Futurism
The first approach we’ll tackle is futurism. Simply put, from today’s perspective, futurism views everything from Revelation 4:1 onward as something that will be fulfilled in the future. This view aligns with the basic framework of first-century Jews. If you asked them whether things would get better or worse before the Messiah came, they’d say it would get worse, with an anti-Messiah desecrating the temple and oppressing God’s people. This belief carried over into the early church, with figures like Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus interpreting Revelation in a fundamentally futuristic way. As far as we know, all of the early apostolic fathers were all futurists. While they didn’t fully adopt a Jewish apocalyptic perspective, their futuristic interpretation was clearly an extension of that worldview. It’s important to note that the early church believers perspective shifted from the original Jewish apocalyptic view.
Modern preterists like N.T. Wright often claim that futurism didn’t exist until the 19th century, when they’re really referring to dispensationalism. That’s technically true, dispensationalism did not develop until the 19th century, but failing to acknowledge any form of futurism before dispensationalism is just misleading. The two aren’t the same, and it’s dishonest to equate them.
Futurism has existed throughout church history, though it was less prominent from the 4th and 5th centuries onward, especially during the Middle Ages. Some monastic groups held onto it, and during the Reformation, you had groups like the Anabaptists, Huguenots, Bohemian Brethren, and English Puritans embracing it. There was a resurgence of futurism during this period, as well as in the German Pietist movement. But when people think of futurism today, they often associate it with the type of futurism tied to dispensationalism, which started in England and spread to America, where it gained a lot of traction. Now, however, dispensationalism has been on the decline.
Modern evangelicalism, especially following George Ladd’s lead, has embraced a blended futurism—combining elements of "already-not-yet" preterism and futurism. This blended view has become the consensus among many evangelical scholars.
Dispensationalism
Phil Vischer is becoming one of the main voices promoting dispensationalism views nowadays. Dispensationalism gets really complicated because instead of focusing on the consistent themes of the New Testament, dispensationalism highlights certain elements, but then there's this whole movement against it. These interpretations likely emerged from individuals studying Revelation in isolation, without placing sufficient emphasis on the broader Biblical narrative and its proper context.
The idea that Jesus changed everything, including concepts like resurrection and eternal life, and then applied this to the Book of Revelation, is something that modern scholars like N.T. Wright and other preterists argue. We’ll get to the preterist view later, but the claim that futurism didn’t exist until the 19th century is simply wrong. They’re referring specifically to dispensationalism.
Regarding where dispensationalism fits within the various viewpoints, the modern-day church must often figure out where Israel fits within the Biblical picture. On one end of the spectrum, some churches deny a physical Israel consisting of descendants from Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph. Some will state that the Jewish people have been so scattered throughout the world that they no longer have an identity. Others will say they have an identity but are no longer significant within God's redemptive plan. In other words, they lost significance when they denied Jesus. Therefore, they hold no importance. Dispensationalism is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, leaning a little closer to giving Israel identity but a separate identity from the believers in Jesus.
Dispensationalism is a theological framework that views God's dealings with humanity as being divided into distinct periods of time, or "dispensations," in which God relates to human beings in different ways based on specific sets of rules or responsibilities. This perspective often includes the belief that God has different plans for Israel and the church, and that there will be a future period of tribulation followed by the second coming of Christ and a millennial kingdom.
The biggest issue with dispensationalism is the fact that there's no Gentile redemptive plan separate from Israel for Gentiles within the Bible. The Second Temple Jewish Narrative does not assume a separate redemptive plan for the Gentiles. Israel’s promises and expectations become the same for the Gentiles who are “grafted” in to Israel. The nations join the Jewish narrative. We need to throw away the whole Gentile program and go with the Jewish program.
Dispensationalism is kind of futurist but kind of not as well. While there are things within dispensationalism that are a step in the right direction, it still misses the mark when it comes to Israel and the Gentile's relationship with Israel. The Jewish narrative does not stop becoming the Jewish narrative. When we fail to recognize this or see it in its proper context, we come up with some peculiar interpretations of the Bible. If you would like to study more about Dispensationalism you can click here.
Idealism
Next we have idealism. If we’re looking at four basic approaches to the Book of Revelation in chronological order, we see the futurist perspective dominate the first and early second century, where everything is still seen as future. But then we come to idealism, which views Revelation as more spiritual. It doesn’t focus on prophetic events or God’s covenant with Israel but rather presents a symbolic battle between good and evil. This view became popular around the time of Augustine and Constantine, from the 4th century through the early Middle Ages.
If you study church history, you’ll notice that the proponents of idealism were responding to what was the consensus view before them, without completely dismissing other perspectives. In a way, it reflects a loss of hope in waiting for Christ's return, which was easier to hold onto during periods of persecution or marginalization when an apocalyptic worldview felt more relevant. You see figures like Clement and Origen—especially in Alexandria, which had a tendency to spiritualize things—developing these ideas. Augustine is really key here, as he’s considered the origin of idealism, though some argue Origen influenced him as well.
Augustine initially entertained futurism, but certain aspects of it didn’t sit well with him, particularly the literal descriptions of the banquet, which he found too carnal. He became known for interpreting the first resurrection as a spiritual one, where souls are reborn, and the binding of Satan in Revelation wasn't seen as a future event but rather a current spiritual reality. He viewed the thrones in Revelation 20 as symbolic of the authority governing the church in the present age. So, for Augustine, Revelation became an allegory for how the church age is unfolding, similar to preterism in rejecting future fulfillment, but without the emphasis on the events of 70 AD.
Clement and Origen, working in Alexandria, leaned heavily on Hellenistic and Platonic ideas, where the material world was seen as bad, and the goal was to escape to the immaterial. For them, Revelation was a visionary parable describing the battle between flesh and spirit, material and immaterial, until we escape to a heavenly, immaterial destiny, as seen in Revelation 21 and 22. Augustine, however, marked a transition toward seeing Revelation’s fulfillment in historical reality rather than in some immaterial afterlife.
Idealism has persisted in some form throughout church history, and even today, you see a mixture of futurism, idealism, and preterism in how different parts of Revelation are interpreted. Scholars like Greg Beale, Craig Keener, and Grant Osborne exemplify this modern blend, but idealism remains a significant approach to interpreting the book.
Historicism
In the first and early second centuries, you mainly see the futurist perspective, which later transitions to idealism around the 300s through the early Middle Ages. The third approach is historicism, which views Revelation not just as a symbolic battle between good and evil but as a prophecy fulfilled throughout church history, specifically between the first and second comings of Jesus. For example, Franciscan monks, and later the Reformers, interpreted the Antichrist as the head of the church, with the pope being identified as the Antichrist.
Today, historicism is pretty much non-existent, with only a few isolated groups holding onto it. Historicism was huge, especially during the Reformation. Nearly every major Reformer—Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Edwards, Wesley—held some version of it. It was motivating for them because they saw themselves as living through the events foretold in Revelation. They interpreted significant church events, like the rise of the papacy, as fulfilling biblical prophecy, seeing the papacy as the great apostasy and identifying the pope as the Antichrist.
This gave the Reformers a sense of urgency, as they felt the events of Revelation were unfolding around them. While they saw the papacy as the Antichrist, they still believed the Lord would ultimately destroy him. However, their interpretation was detached from the first-century Jewish context of Revelation, focusing more on the glory of the church than on themes like the resurrection or the day of the Lord, which we’ve often discussed here.
Historicism, despite its popularity back then, largely faded by the 19th century. Figures like Charles Finney and Henry Alford Washington were among the last well-known historicists, and today, very few remain. One of the few modern examples is Francis Nigel Lee, a British theologian who taught in Australia, but historicism is no longer a common way to interpret Revelation, especially chapters 6 through 18.
Preterism
Moving on to the fourth main view of how Revelation has been understood throughout history: preterism. Preterism comes later in the timeline of interpretations and is generally understood in two main ways. Most people associate it with the idea that the prophecies in Revelation, as well as those in the Law and the Prophets, were fulfilled in the first century, specifically with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Another interpretation holds that Revelation was fulfilled with the fall of Rome in the 400s. But when people talk about preterism, they primarily focus on the events of 70 AD, including the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
Passages like Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and parts of Revelation—especially themes related to the Antichrist—are seen as having been fulfilled in 70 AD. The history of how preterism developed is really fascinating. It seems to have emerged during the Counter-Reformation within the Catholic Church, particularly through the work of Luis de Alcazar. The Jesuits, who were organized at the Council of Trent, developed preterism as part of their response to the Protestant Reformation. On one hand, they pushed preterism, which claimed that the prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, while on the other hand, futurism emerged, claiming that these events were still to come.
The Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was mostly idealist or historicist in its interpretation of Revelation. Preterism and futurism were proposed to shift the focus away from the idea that the pope was the Antichrist, which was a common belief among the Reformers. Reformers were heavily eschatological and apocalyptic, believing they were living at the end of the age, with Jesus’ return imminent. To counter this, the Catholic Church promoted the idea that either the prophecies were fulfilled in the first century (preterism) or they were still future (futurism). Figures like Francisco Rivera and Robert Bellarmin advocated for futurism, while Alcazar pushed preterism.
There are two main camps within preterism. The first believes that the book of Revelation was fulfilled with God’s judgment on the Jews, which is intriguing given that they base this interpretation on the Bible—a book written by Jews and primarily directed toward the Jewish people. The second camp holds that Revelation was fulfilled with the fall of the Roman Empire, culminating around 400 CE.
In the 20th century, preterism gained traction, particularly as the "negative side" of realized eschatology. Realized eschatology focuses on the positive fulfillment of Israel's hopes through Jesus, while preterism focuses on the negative aspect, like the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Scholars like C.H. Dodd viewed the Book of Revelation as a regression, where early Christians fell back into Jewish apocalyptic thought after initially embracing realized eschatology. Dodd saw Revelation as not fully aligned with Jesus’ teachings.
Some examples of modern preterism, figures like R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry come to mind. These scholars seem to sit somewhere on a spectrum between idealism and preterism. Preterism, in many ways, tries to address the inconsistencies of idealism by connecting them to historical events like 70 AD. Some preterists emphasize 70 AD so much that it becomes central to their interpretation, often accompanied by an anti-Jewish sentiment that views the fall of Jerusalem as the end of everything Jewish.
It’s interesting to see how modern preterists, such as N.T. Wright, straddle this line between hard preterism and a more idealistic view of the church age. Some take a more academic approach, but others see 70 AD as the key to understanding everything in the New Testament, constantly contrasting Jewish apocalyptic hope with what they view as the Christian hope.
An unknown source once said that preterism tends to rise in popularity between major world events, like the world wars, when people believe the world is improving rather than heading toward catastrophe. After something like the events of 2020, preterism might lose some followers, but it often makes a comeback during calmer periods.
More hardcore preterists, like followers of David Chilton or Don Preston, critique scholars like N.T. Wright for not fully committing to preterism. They argue that Wright started in the right direction by recognizing the fulfillment of Israel's narrative in Jesus, but he didn’t take it far enough. Full preterists believe in a completely realized eschatology, while partial preterists maintain a more moderate view, combining preterism with inaugurated eschatology.
It’s interesting to step back and think about how far preterism is from first-century Jewish apocalyptic thought. Jewish hopes centered on the restoration of Israel, the glory of Zion, and the coming of the Messianic Kingdom. To claim that the fulfillment of those hopes came through the destruction of Israel is a strange and somewhat contradictory interpretation.
Blended View of Revelation
That really brings us to the final way Revelation is commonly interpreted today, which tends to be a blend of preterism, futurism, and idealism. In modern evangelicalism, there's a strong focus on idealism, often due to a desire to distance from the early Jewish apocalyptic beliefs, which can seem uncomfortable or embarrassing. However, you still find elements of futurism and preterism within evangelical circles. This mix has led to the popular concept of inaugurated eschatology, which suggests that key aspects of the kingdom of God, the resurrection, and the age to come have already begun in a spiritual sense.
One of the key figures in this shift was George Ladd, who applied the "already-not-yet" framework to Revelation, blending preterism and futurism. Since then, other major commentators like Greg Beale have emphasized idealism and preterism. While they may acknowledge future events, such as in Revelation 21 and 22, they lean heavily on these earlier views. Scholars like Grant Osborne and Alan Johnson, on the more conservative side, focus more on the futurist perspective but still include idealist elements.
You also have scholars like Robert Mounce, Leon Morris, and C. Marvin Pate, who balance futurism with some preterist and idealist ideas, emphasizing the future aspects of the book. One unique commentary I found was by Daniel Stromara, a Catholic scholar who frames Revelation in a Jewish apocalyptic context. He highlights themes like the Festival of Weeks and seeks to interpret Revelation within that first-century Jewish framework
Another name to mention is Robert Thomas, who leans toward a dispensationalist view. Though dispensationalism has its quirks, like the concept of a secret rapture and dual plans of salvation, Thomas’ work on Revelation is still solid in many respects. Dispensationalist scholars like Thomas, Walvoord, and Gabelein offer valuable insights, though their two-salvation framework heavily influences their interpretation. They combine futurism and idealism, but the progressive dispensationalists—like C. Marvin Pate, Darrell Bock, and Craig Blasing—have more grounded interpretations, as they emphasize the historical context of Jewish apocalyptic thought.
The upper part of the arrow illustrates the historical evolution of Revelation’s interpretation, while the lower part indicates where modern theologians’ perspectives on Revelation align.
The First Century Apocalyptic Worldview
That brings us to the primary point of reviewing all of these various views of Revelation: Revelation is best understood within a Jewish apocalyptic framework. The closest most scholars come to this interpretation is futurism. John Harrigan recommends commentaries on Revelation from scholars like Daniel Stramara, C. Marvin Pate, and Robert Thomas. The closer we get to futurism, the closer we get close to what the early church fathers believed and closer to the context of the New Testament.
Themes within the Jewish apocalyptic framework like the resurrection of the dead, the Day of the Lord, the age to come, and the future Davidic kingdom are central to the book. This naturally ties into the concept of the "messianic woes," often referred to in modern discussions as the Great Tribulation. The messianic woes aren't caused by the Messiah but represent the period of hardship that precedes His coming in glory.
The term "apocalyptic" is often misunderstood. While we’re not using it in the strict academic sense, Revelation clearly fits within Jewish apocalyptic literature. One common feature of apocalyptic works is the theme of messianic woes, where tribulation or suffering precedes the arrival of the Messiah. This theme appears in everything from apocryphal texts to pseudepigrapha to New Testament writings, and even later rabbinic material.
For example, in Daniel 7, we see the "little horn" oppressing the saints, and though he exalts himself, his dominion is ultimately taken away and destroyed. This sudden reversal, where the wicked ruler falls and the faithful are vindicated, is a key apocalyptic theme found in Revelation and other Jewish literature.
It's fascinating how the study of Jewish apocalyptic material evolved. There was a lot of debate in the 20th century about using the term "apocalyptic," especially after scholars like Albert Schweitzer popularized it, only for it to get mixed up with realized eschatology. Yet, the term "apocalyptic" comes from the Book of Revelation, even though the book itself is often not interpreted within that same Jewish apocalyptic framework.
Later prophetic writings, especially Daniel, developed the idea of a messianic figure emerging during a period of great suffering. This theme of the righteous enduring oppression, particularly under an anti-Messiah figure, carried forward into late Second Temple Jewish literature. Works like 4 Ezra expand on Daniel’s ideas, describing the terror and tribulation that precede the Messiah’s arrival.
In 4 Ezra 5, we read about the signs of the end of the age, when terror and unrighteousness will increase, and wisdom will be hard to find. This builds the expectation of a climactic confrontation between good and evil, which culminates in the Messiah’s coming. Such themes of suffering, oppression, and ultimate vindication form the backbone of Revelation’s apocalyptic narrative.
It's so important to recognize how Second Temple literature carries these same themes, just like we see in the prophets and in Jesus’ own words. A familiar example is Matthew 24, where Jesus speaks about the messianic woes—troubles, trials, and tribulations that will precede His return. Early in His Olivet Discourse, Jesus talks about wars, famines, earthquakes, and persecution. Then in Matthew 24:15, He references Daniel 9 with the "abomination of desolation" and warns of false messiahs in verses 23 and 24. He also uses prophetic imagery like the sun, moon, and stars not giving light, which we later see in Revelation.
When we read Revelation 6 and encounter the seals, we recognize this familiar language, much of it directly quoting or echoing the words of Jesus and the prophets. The messianic woes are central to Jesus' teachings and are carried forward into Revelation.
Another glimpse into this apocalyptic thinking is found in Paul’s letters. 2 Thessalonians 2 is fascinating, where Paul reminds them of things he had taught them during his brief time there, saying, "Don’t you remember I used to tell you these things?" It’s interesting that with just a short amount of time with these new disciples, Paul emphasized apocalyptic themes, showing how essential they were for staying on the path until the Messiah’s return.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Paul talks about the coming of the Lord and warns against those claiming the Day of the Lord has already come. He emphasizes that the Day won’t come until certain things happen, like the rebellion and the revelation of the man of lawlessness. This ties directly into Jewish apocalyptic expectations from Daniel 7 and 9. Paul’s teaching aligns with the idea that tribulation and hardship will precede the Messiah’s return.
2 Thessalonians 2 is often misunderstood as something unique Paul taught about the Antichrist. But in reality, this concept, along with the messianic woes, was widely known in first-century Jewish circles. Paul is simply reinforcing the common narrative that the Messiah’s return would be preceded by tribulation. His opponents were trying to undermine this narrative, claiming it had already happened, which Paul firmly refutes.
Some argue that Paul failed to grasp the significance of the kingdom's inauguration, especially after 70 AD. But the Didache, which was written after 70 AD and likely from the same community that produced Matthew’s Gospel, shows that this Jewish apocalyptic narrative persisted. In chapter 16 of the Didache, we find a direct rehearsal of Matthew 24 and the messianic woes, confirming that this expectation remained intact even after the destruction of Jerusalem. Here's an excerpt:
"Watch over your life... for you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming... in the last days, false prophets and corrupters will abound... the deceiver of the world will appear as the Son of God... the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will commit abominations... then the signs of truth will appear... the resurrection of the dead will occur, and the Lord will come on the clouds of heaven."
This shows that even after 70 AD, the early church maintained the expectation of the messianic woes, the return of Jesus, and the coming Day of the Lord. The narrative didn’t change—it remained future-focused, anticipating the Messiah’s return. Even in the late first century, after 70 AD, they were still looking ahead to the fulfillment of Matthew 24. The messianic woes and the Messiah’s judgment were still future events. Paul echoes this in 2 Timothy 3, where he warns that in the last days, there will be times of difficulty, with people becoming lovers of themselves, arrogant, and godless. His charge to Timothy was to stay on course and continue preaching boldly about the coming judgment and the fulfillment of Jewish eschatology. Paul’s encouragement to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1 is powerful:
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead... preach the word."
This same urgency should drive us today. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus validate that God will fulfill all He has promised, just as the law and the prophets foretold. Like Timothy, we are called to live in light of this truth and declare it boldly.
The messianic woes and the teachings of Jesus, combined with Second Temple literature, continue to shape our understanding of Revelation. They remind us to be clear and bold in proclaiming that the God of Israel will indeed accomplish all He has said.
For first-century Jews, whether in the Gospels or Revelation, the purpose was the same—to confirm that God’s apocalyptic plan was still unfolding. The record of Jesus’ interactions with His disciples, His teachings, miracles, and resurrection all served to affirm these Jewish eschatological ideas. The Book of Revelation should motivate us in the same way, just as Jesus motivated His disciples, sending them out to proclaim that the kingdom of God was near.
Revelation shouldn't intimidate us; it should inspire bold proclamation, just as Jesus sent out the 70 to announce that the kingdom was at hand. Our takeaway should be the same urgency and confidence in God’s plan. Revelation can seem mysterious, with its visions and symbols, but when placed within the broader redemptive narrative, it becomes much clearer. The blessing of reading Revelation comes from understanding it, not from confusion. As John says in Revelation 1:3, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy... for the time is near." The same urgency found in the Gospels, Epistles, and throughout Scripture is reiterated here—the Day of the Lord is near, and we must remain faithful.
The trials of this life, even those leading up to the Antichrist and the end of the age, are light and momentary compared to the eternal weight of glory awaiting us. Understanding this helps us take hold of Revelation, find the blessing in it, and push forward in faith. Revelation isn’t as complicated as some make it out to be. It’s not about decoding random symbols or predicting modern events, but about understanding the continuation of God’s redemptive plan as revealed through Jewish apocalyptic thought.
References
This study was curated using resources from The Apocalyptic Gospel Podcast and teachings from John Harrigan.