A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation by Andy Woods Introduction While previous generations of dispensationalists enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” is past. Today many scholarly and popular commentators are aggressively challenging the futurist interpretation of the book. Perhaps the most vociferous are partial preterists, who contend that most of the events in chapters 4–22 were fulfilled at the time surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.1 They believe that Revelation was penned in the mid–60s and that it predicted God’s divorce from and the A.D. 70 judgment upon harlotrous national Israel for her rejection of Christ. They claim that at that time, God was also at work creating the new, universal, international church to permanently replace disgraced and judged Israel (John 4:21; Galatians 3:9, 28– 29; 6:16; Ephesians 2:14). However, partial preterists are quick to distinguish themselves from full preterists by pointing out that they still hold to a future bodily return of Christ and the final judgment (20:7–15).2 Partial preterists rely upon several key texts in Revelation in order to portray the book as a prediction that was essentially fulfilled two thousand years ago. Although time constraints prevent an exhaustive study of how preterists handle the entirety of the book, this article will highlight several textual arguments relied upon by partial preterist Kenneth Gentry in some of his recent material surveying the Book of Revelation.3 While some futurists may believe that the preterist early date scheme ends the debate, this article will attempt to show that the preterist system should be rejected regardless of whether one holds to a Neronic (A.D. 65) or Domitianic date (A.D. 95) for the composition of the book, since the text itself favors futurism over preterism. 1 Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989); idem, He Shall Have Dominion, 2nd ed. (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997); idem, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998); R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, 4th ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999); idem, End Times Fiction (Nashville, TN: Harvest House, 2001); Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007); Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, The Last Disciple (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2004); idem, The Last Sacrifice (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2005). 2 Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 86, 46 n. 25. 3 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 407–34; idem, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 37– 92. Futurist Interpretation of Revelation 3 Hermeneutics In most theological controversies, differences among competing viewpoints are rooted in different hermeneutical methodologies.4 This holds true in the dispute between partial preterists and futurists. The futurist applies a consistently literal, or normal,5 interpretive grid. This method attaches to every word the same meaning that it would have in normal usage, whether in speaking, writing, or thinking.6 It also entails interpreting the Apocalypse according to the same hermeneutical rules as any other section of Scripture.7 Although its opponents often malign the normal hermeneutical method as a wooden and inflexible literalism that fails to consider Revelation’s symbolic character and multiple figures of speech,8 such a characterization is erroneous. As in ordinary communication, the normal interpretive method recognizes symbolism and figures of speech when they are conspicuous in the text. Clues such as the adverb “spiritually” (11:8), the noun “sign” (12:1), the comparative words “like” or “as” (8:8), direct correspondence with Old Testament concepts (Revelation 13:2; Daniel 7), and the interpretations of visions within the same context (Revelation 17:18) alert the interpreter to the symbolism and figures of speech employed in the text. When the interpreter encounters such language, he is assisted in his task by the immediate context (12:3, 9), the Old Testament (12:1; Genesis 37:9–10), or the notion of comparison inherent in a simile (8:8). A consistent application of a literal approach to Revelation leads one away from preterism and toward futurism.9 A relationship exists between literalism and futurism because the ordinary import of Revelation’s words and phrases makes it impossible to argue that the events Revelation describes have already been fulfilled. For example, the destruction of half of the world’s population (Revelation 6:8; 9:15) and the greatest earthquake in human history (Revelation 16:18) obviously have never taken place. The preterist escapes the normal meaning of language by assuming that Revelation is part of the “apocalyptic genre,” a special group of noncanonical writings10 “where symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception.”11 4 “Hermeneutics” may be defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. 5 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 86, explains that literal interpretation “might also be called plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech.” 6 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 89–92. 7 Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 38. 8 Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code, 13–36. 9 Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 139, 142. 10 Apocalyptic literature is an extrabiblical literary genre that flourished around the time of Revelation’s composition. The Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, Psalms of Solomon, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Sibylline Oracles are considered part of this genre. Apocalyptic works share the following common cluster of characteristics: extensive use of symbolism, vision as the major means of revelation (Rev. 1:10–11), angelic guides (Rev. 1:1), activity of angels 4 CTS Journal 13 (Spring 2008) Whenever the details of Revelation’s text do not square with the events of A.D. 70, this assumption allows the preterist to theorize that John is merely employing elevated apocalyptic hyperbole and to justify “cramming” Revelation’s contents back into the first century, in spite of the text’s global language.12 However, the assumption that Revelation is part of the apocalyptic category can be countered by noting that any similarities it has with these noncanonical works are outweighed by significant differences between the two.13 Table 114 Apocalyptic Genre Revelation Pseudonymous Not pseudonymous Pessimistic about the present Not pessimistic about the present No epistolary framework Epistolary framework Limited admonitions for moral Repeated admonitions for moral compliance compliance Messiah’s coming exclusively Basis for Messiah’s future coming is future His past coming (Rev. 5:9) Does not call itself a prophecy Calls itself a prophecy Traces history under the guise of Futuristic prediction prophecy (vaticina ex eventu) Concerns both the generation of the Primarily concerns a future author (2–3) and a future generation generation (1 Enoch 1:2) (4–22) and demons (Rev. 12:7–8), focus on the end of the current age and the inauguration of the age to come (Rev. 1:3), urgent expectation of the end of earthly conditions in the immediate future (Rev. 21:1), the end as a cosmic catastrophe, new salvation that is paradisal in character (Rev. 21–22), manifestation of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15), a mediator with royal functions (Rev. 3:7), dualism with God and Satan as the leaders, spiritual order determining the flow of history, pessimism about man’s ability to change the course of events, periodization and determinism of human history (Rev. 6:11), otherworldly journeys (Rev. 4:1–2), the catchword “glory” (Rev. 4:11), and a final showdown between good and evil (Rev. 19:11–21). The above citations from Revelation show that it has at least some affinities with these extrabiblical works. This list was adapted from Frederick J. Murphy, Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 130–33. 11 Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 11. 12 This is a tactic that Gentry applies repeatedly in his survey of Revelation. See Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” 38, 47, 56, 60, 64, 72, 81, 89. 13 Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary, 23–28. 14 Adapted from Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 338. Albrecht Oepke, “Kalupto,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: 1965), 3:578, similarly notes, “[Revelation] has many affinities with literature to which we now refer [i.e., apocalyptic], though it cannot be simply classified with it.” Futurist Interpretation of Revelation 5 Revelation’s “Time Texts” Preterists argue for a first-century fulfillment on the basis of Revelation’s so- called “time texts.” Because the book uses the words tavcos (“shortly” or “quickly”; 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7, 12, 20), ejggusv (“near” or “at hand”; 1:3; 22:10), and mellwv (“about to”; 1:19; 3:10), preterists believe that they have the literary license to locate the fulfillment of most of John’s prophecies in A.D. 70.15 However, they err in assuming that these words are technical expressions. In fact, they have a broad semantic range and their meaning must be determined by the context. For example, in addition to understanding these words chronologically as indicating the time of Christ’s return, it is also possible to understand them qualitatively as indicating the manner of Christ’s return.