Keys to Unraveling Revelation: End-Times Approaches

Editor’s Note: Students of the Bible have often found themselves confounded by how to interpret sections of the book of Revelation. A handful of interpretive approaches have arisen, each of which offers the student a framework for understanding Revelation. But which framework is most biblical? In this article, biblical scholar Larry Pechawer (PhD, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) introduces these frameworks and clarifies the main dangers to watch out for. End-times frameworks are not “essentials” of the faith (although full Preterism does undermine the essential doctrine of Jesus’ second coming), and however you have traditionally approached Revelation, you will find this article a helpful overview.

The last book of the Bible was the last book I thought I wanted to focus upon at this stage of my writing efforts. However, attempts to wrap up a book on the second coming of Christ resulted in a major course correction. I eventually named the detour Unraveling Revelation: Hope, Wisdom, and Mystery in John’s Apocalypse. A thirty-page wrap-up for a work on the second coming became some four hundred pages honing in on details and descriptions in Revelation noted for spawning widespread and longstanding disagreements. People take Revelation seriously—a good reason to proceed with caution.

I tell people that my target audience for the book was ME. I had to convince myself that there was a way to make sense of this challenging work full of strange images, complex sequences, suspicious numbers, and striking scenes portraying glorious fellowship with God alongside depictions of tragic alienation and jarring violence. Controversies abound and sentiments run deep.

“Controversies abound and sentiments run deep.”

Where to start? How do we gain some traction when encountering such a complex and controversial ancient document? I for one am hesitant to encourage Bible classes to jump into a book like Revelation without some level of prep work. Unless topics like figurative language, poetic structure and style, symbolic numbers, perhaps millennial views and historical background, etc., are examined ahead of a study like one on Revelation (or Daniel or Isaiah…), the prospects for a satisfying result are not great. I have witnessed such disappointing results firsthand. (With this in mind, at the back of my book I offer an appendix: “Basic Principles for Interpreting Prophecy.” A number of readers have expressed appreciation for such an introductory overview.)

Issues to Address

In order to tackle Revelation specifically, we will dedicate the next article to an overview of the key introductory issues the book presents (author, genre or type of writing, date, location of origin and destination, intended audience, purpose of writing, etc.). Another important avenue to explore, however, relates to the history of the interpretation of Revelation and related works (e.g., Old Testament prophetic books, extra-biblical Jewish works like Enoch and 4 Ezra, etc.). Here we encounter, among other things, the various millennial views that regularly guide any discussion of Revelation and related topics. Unfortunately these views and the terminology associated with them are essential elements for attempts at sorting out the options and opinions that accompany any end-times study. Things can get complicated, but here is a brief primer.

“These views and the terminology associated with them are essential elements for attempts at sorting out the options and opinions that accompany any end-times study.”

End-Times Approaches

In Unraveling Revelation, I offer an overview of six specific end-times approaches: amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism, historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, and progressive dispensationalism (Unraveling, 24-54).The terminology for most of these views relates to the question of how to interpret the “thousand years” (millennium from Latin) found in Revelation 20. The saints reign with Christ for a thousand years while Satan is bound for that same duration (Revelation 20:2-7). But when and for how long if, say, one thousand is symbolic, not literal?

Amillennialism

In amillenialism, the number one thousand in Revelation 20 is not taken literally. The prefix a- (Greek) means “no, not,” so the millennium might express a significant lapse of time but not necessarily a literal thousand years. The key here, however, is that with amillennialism the reign of the saints with Christ occurs during the church age before the second coming and refers to the reigning of saints (especially martyrs for Christ) following their physical deaths. Note: My book and this series are done from a basic amillennial perspective (with a few wrinkles along the way).

“With amillennialism the reign of the saints with Christ occurs during the church age before the second coming and refers to the reigning of saints (especially martyrs for Christ) following their physical deaths.”

Postmillennialism

In brief, postmillennialism teaches that the second coming will occur after (post-) the millennium and that the millennium itself refers to a later phase of the church age in which the blessings from the spread of the gospel are evident. Postmillennialists tend to view the number in a more literal fashion. In this view, things will tend to get better and better leading up to Christ’s return. According to this take, we perhaps are already experiencing the millennial kingdom in a material, tangible way. However, the violence and brutality of the last century and years since have dimmed the light of such optimism for many.

Preterism

Preterism stands out because of its striking claims. The component preter- relates to the past (from Latin praeter). In strict or full preterism, Jesus returned in connection with the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. There is no future second coming (!). All the second coming language in the New Testament, including that in Revelation, was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem during the first century. From my perspective, this is a difficult view to defend! It is important to note, however, that some if not many preterists are partial preterists: those who believe Jesus fulfilled much of the Bible’s “second coming language” at the fall of Jerusalem but will also return in the future as prophesied.

Both partial and full preterism have become more popular in recent decades, perhaps as a response to the perceived extremes found in other views (e.g., pretribulational dispensational premillennialism!). Preterists argue that the book of Revelation was penned before the fall of Jerusalem. They place the writing of the book in the time of the emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), while most students of Revelation, including present company, place its writing during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96).

It should be noted that many who do champion the earlier Nero dating end up finding mistakes in Revelation’s attempts to describe near-future (late-first-century) events. They may not always find true inspired prophecy here, thus rejecting the book’s own claims. Forms of preterism have been held for many years by less-than-conservative scholars.

“Both partial and full preterism have become more popular in recent decades, perhaps as a response to the perceived extremes found in other views.”

Historic Premillennialism

The various premillennial views understand the second coming of Christ as occurring before (pre-) the millennium. In premillennialism the millennium refers to a thousand-year period on earth between the church age and the eternal state, that future state that Revelation calls “the new heavens and new earth.” Many premillennialists favor a strongly literalistic interpretation of Bible prophecy in general and that carries over to Revelation 20 where they understand the thousand-year reign of the saints with Christ to be a future literal thousand-year period.

The term historic premillennialism describes the basic, traditional premillennial approach that has endured throughout the church age. Numerous excellent contemporary Bible scholars are of the premillennial persuasion. Many historic premillennialists actually differ little from their amillennial counterparts regarding the use of figurative language in Scripture, the role of symbolic numbers, etc.

However, most premillennialists still maintain that in the case of Revelation 20 one must interpret the number one thousand literally. What about Satan being “bound”? More than a few historic premillennialists recognize the fact that Satan is in a real sense “bound” today. He was defeated at the cross, his power is diminished, and Christ and those in His church do “reign” right now. But…according to loyal premillennialists, all that is not an adequate explanation for what Revelation 20 describes. Satan’s binding as described there must still be in the future.

“In premillennialism the millennium refers to a thousand-year period on earth between the church age and the eternal state.”

I find this conclusion rather puzzling. Should our understanding of Satan’s being bound derive from Scripture as a whole or from a single passage near the very end of our Bibles, a passage inundated with symbolic language? (I understand Revelation to be the last or nearly the last biblical book penned.)

Again, according to the historic premillennial view, the second coming will be “premillennial,” meaning that it will come before the “millennium.” The church age will end with the second coming and a new age, the “millennial kingdom,” will be ushered in. This will be a one-thousand-year earthly kingdom in which Christ reigns over His people. At the end of this period, Satan will be loosed for his “little season” and his armies, “Gog and Magog,” will be destroyed by fire from heaven, while he himself is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:7-10). At this point the Great White Throne Judgment takes place (Revelation 20:11-15)—an earlier Sheep and Goats Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46) had supposedly occurred at the second coming before the “millennium.” Following this final judgment at the end of Revelation 20, the “eternal state” is ushered in.

Dispensational Premillennialism

What about dispensational premillennialism? It is crucial at this point to distinguish the premillennialism described above from the view that most seem to hold today. Much of modern premillennialism is characterized by several distinctive newer features. This more recent viewpoint is known as dispensational premillennialism or simply dispensationalism. This view teaches that God works with and tests man according to various divine “administrations.” The popular Scofield Reference Bible distinguished between seven such “administrative periods” or “dispensations.”

Most Christians are “dispensational” to the extent that they at least recognize the distinction between the old and new covenants. Dispensationalism goes far beyond this basic distinction, however. According to dispensational premillennialism, the church age, God’s current “dispensation of grace,” will be replaced in the future with the seventh and final dispensation, the “millennial kingdom.” Central in dispensational thinking is the Jewish nationalistic flavor of this kingdom. Christ came, it is claimed, to set up an earthly Jewish kingdom (quite similar to what many who rejected Christ expected!).

When the Jews rejected their Messiah, so the view goes, the promised kingdom was “postponed,” and in its place the church, a temporary stop-gap “parenthesis,” was established. According to dispensational premillennialism, this promised kingdom will be established with a future Jewish generation (perhaps already living on earth now) after God’s dealings with the church are through. Accompanying this novel approach is the idea of a secret “rapture” or “catching up” of the church to heaven prior to a “great tribulation” poured out against unbelievers, including unrepentant Israel.

“Central in dispensational thinking is the Jewish nationalistic flavor of this kingdom.”

This view seems to come from around 1830 in England and is generally credited to the Plymouth Brethren leader John Nelson Darby. Most dispensational scholars today acknowledge this basic fact, although some have strained to find earlier examples of a two-part return of the Lord in previous church writings. The rise of this distinctive approach clearly is to be connected with Darby, who found fertile soil for his novel ideas in his five or so trips to America in the 1860s and 1870s.

The eventual popularity of Darby’s views was due to a great extent to the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) in which the text of the King James Bible was supplemented by the dispensational notes of C.I. Scofield. Unfortunately, many readers did not always clearly recognize where the Bible stopped and Scofield started! The founding of Moody Bible Institute (1886) and Dallas Theological Seminary (1924) spearheaded the rise of numerous dispensational colleges and seminaries, and a strong missionary movement promoting dispensational theology worldwide thus emerged.

In the last half of the twentieth century, dispensationalism hit the mainstream through the writings especially of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. Multiple printings of Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth (1970) and related works and the enormously successful Left Behind series (1995-2007) created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have sold many millions of copies. Numerous Christians who have grown up in the church today are unaware that there is any viewpoint on the end times other than that which such popular contemporary publications have promoted.

“Numerous Christians who have grown up in the church today are unaware that there is any viewpoint on the end times other than that which such popular contemporary publications have promoted.”

Unfortunately, the dispensational viewpoint contains numerous problematic teachings. I would contend that it is a big deal to deny that the church was prophesied in the Old Testament, but that is what classic dispensationalism must do. What was prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Christ’s kingdom was “postponed” when the Jewish nation rejected Christ as their Messiah. In its place the church was established as a type of “parenthesis” in between Christ’s first and second comings. This approach has been labeled the “postponement theory” as well as the “parenthesis church theory.”

Whichever term is used, it represents a radical departure from normative Christian theology and the church’s traditional understanding of what the New Testament teaches. As a consequence, millions of dispensational Christians have been taught in such a way so as perhaps to miss the biblical teaching of the church’s true role in God’s plan.

According to dispensationalism, after the “rapture” the “great tribulation” will unfold as a prelude to Israel’s salvation at the second coming. The second coming (allegedly some seven years or so after the rapture) introduces the millennial kingdom in which converts, especially the converted Jewish people, will be ruled by Jesus Christ as He sits on the “throne of David” in Jerusalem. Christians who are either transformed or resurrected at the “rapture” technically do not participate in the earthly millennial kingdom. Their hope is different from Israel’s, it is alleged. They perhaps view the millennial scene from their heavenly vantage point.

“What was prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Christ’s kingdom was ‘postponed’ when the Jewish nation rejected Christ as their Messiah.”

Who then will participate in this alleged earthly millennial kingdom? (1) those “left behind” after the rapture who subsequently convert to the faith and are still alive when Christ returns; and (2) those who are converted after the rapture and then are martyred for their faith but are later resurrected when Christ returns. Both Jews and Gentiles are among these converted “tribulation saints,” but special emphasis is placed upon the supposed fulfillment of the promises to Israel made by God in the Old Testament.

God has two distinct peoples, dispensationalism stresses. Promises to Israel are not the same as promises to the church according to this view. The hope of Israel is not the hope of the church (although Paul seems to differ—he claimed to be proclaiming the “hope of Israel” in his gospel preaching according to Acts 28:20). 

The issues and convictions enumerated above are closely tied to the overall interpretation of the book of Revelation. I contend that a proper understanding of the book undermines the above approach. It is the church, not physical Israel, that is emphasized throughout the book. The name “Jerusalem,” for example, is found only three times in all of Revelation and none of those occurrences refer to the earthly city! Each highlights the heavenly “New Jerusalem” (Revelation 3:12; 21:2, 10). The name “Israel” occurs only three times in Revelation as well (Revelation 2:14; 7:4; 21:12), while the term “Jews” is found only twice, each time bearing the derogatory label “a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

“Promises to Israel are not the same as promises to the church according to this view.”

I believe that the dispensationalists’ brand of premillennialism has dangerous flaws in several regards:

1. Their hyper-literal interpretation leads to a bizarre, complex sequence of future events.
2. Their use of the Old Testament often ignores the way in which the New Testament interprets many of the Old Testament prophecies.
3. Their “postponement theory” teaches that Christ’s church, rather than being central in God’s plans, was merely an “afterthought” brought about by the Jewish rejection of the kingdom. Some critics have labeled the church “plan B” in this regard.
4. One might conclude that Christ, then, apparently failed in His mission when He came into the world, in that He allegedly came to establish the “kingdom” for Israel.
5. The separate “rapture” of the church offers a second chance for those who are “left behind” then to accept Christ later and enter the “millennial kingdom.”

I believe this final flaw is one of the most unbiblical and dangerous teachings of today’s popular dispensational approach. If, say, a few hundred million or so Christians mysteriously vanished from the earth overnight and you were “left behind,” wouldn’t you get right with God in a hurry? Would you need to read a bestseller then (other than the Bible!) to figure this out? Hardly. Does God anywhere in His Word offer such a second chance? No.

Progressive Dispensationalism

It is ironic that at the very time more and more churchgoers seem to be jumping on the dispensational “pre-trib rapture” bandwagon, important premillennial voices raise concerns. Today many of the best and brightest within the dispensational fold are having second thoughts about many of the basic assumptions of that system. A somewhat recent movement known as progressive dispensationalism has sent shockwaves throughout the dispensational realm. Scholars such as Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Robert Saucy, Marvin Pate, and others have muddied the waters that divide dispensational and non-dispensational viewpoints, much to the dismay of classic dispensationalists. While still maintaining Israel’s special role in God’s future plans, progressive dispensationalists by and large reject the sharp distinction between Israel and the church and the related postponement theory regarding the kingdom. The church is today fulfilling Old Testament prophecies according to them—a view to which traditional dispensationalists have strenuously objected.

For some time now, the leadership at Dallas Theological Seminary, a former bastion for classic dispensationalism, has been trying to tone down some of the hardline dispensational rhetoric there. A number of Dallas faculty have joined the “progressives” and criticisms from classic dispensationalists have been sharp at times.

Other variations have emerged, a testimony to the fact that even more feel that classic dispensationalism is “broken” and needs fixing. None of the newer wrinkles such as the “pre-wrath rapture” (Marvin Rosenthal) or the “mid-trib rapture” (Gleason Archer) have gained much traction, however.

“While still maintaining Israel’s special role in God’s future plans, progressive dispensationalists by and large reject the sharp distinction between Israel and the church and the related postponement theory regarding the kingdom.”

Unhelpful Alternatives

Of course some refuse to wear any of the above labels. At least one scholar has called himself a “pro-millennialist.” He was not sure what the proper understanding of the millennium should be, but whatever it is, he was all for it! Another preferred the term “pan-millennialism.” He was confident that it would all “pan out” in the end!

To check out Dr. Larry Pechawer’s book Unraveling Revelation: Hope, Wisdom, and Mystery in John’s Apocalypse, click here.