Four Views on the Book of Revelation

This little book is a wonderful resource for teachers, pastors, and all who want to gain a better understanding of the book of Revelation. The introduction by Marvin Pate is a real gem. It gives a helpful (and sometimes humorous) overview of the various positions expounded in the remainder of the book, and it offers a valuable apology for the study of prophecy. He points out that neither fanaticism nor the neglect of biblical prophecy is a healthy option for the follower of Christ. The heart of this volume is the presentation of four common interpretations of the book of Revelation. Kenneth Gentry does a nice job of presenting the preterist position, which is normally linked to postmillennialism. This position found a resurgence in the late 1980’s and 90’s after being on the brink of extinction. Gentry gives a good deal of historical information from Josephus’s Jewish War to bolster his interpretation of Revelation, yet questions remain. Do the atrocities of which Josephus writes reach the global proportions mentioned in Revelation? In addition, do the many passages quoted in support of a glorious earthly kingdom really affirm a postmillennial kingdom? Finally, the preterist position articulated by Gentry necessitates a pre 70 AD date for the composition of Revelation. While this is not impossible, it is improbable, as most NT scholars hold to a post 70 date. The idealist view is ably defended by Sam Hamstra. The idealist view is often associated with amillennialism and has a long history stretching back to Augustine. It sees Revelation as a representation of the ongoing battle between good and evil. It denies a chronological and literal reading of revelation. The real value of this position is that it excels in bringing out the timeless theological truths which are embedded in Revelation. These truths can provide hope and encouragement for saints of any time or place. However, it does seem questionable whether Revelation was intended to be read in a nonchronological manner. The other difficulty is that it tends to strip Revelation of historical specificity. By saying that the prophecies of Revelation can apply to any age in general, one comes close to saying that they apply to no age in particular. The final view is that of premillennialism, which is represented by both a classical dispensationalist and a progressive dispensationalist. The two views have much in common as they both read Revelation more literally than the other two positions, and both see chronological progression in the book of Revelation. Robert Thomas defends the classical dispensationalist approach by stressing a literal hermeneutic and a chronological reading of Revelation. Marvin Pate represents progressive dispensationalism which synthesizes many of the positive features of the other three views while still maintaining a distinction between Israel and the church. One of the key elements of progressive dispensationalism is the emphasis on “pattern prophecy”. This understanding of prophecy allows for the repetition of prophetic events throughout history with escalating levels of fulfillment. Classical dispensationalist writers include John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, and Charles Ryrie. Progressive dispensationalism is represented by Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising. While dispensationalism is grounded in biblical soil, some would question whether it does justice to the highly symbolic and figurative language of biblical prophecy, and whether those prophecies should be seen as referring to actual future events that will occur in a chronological progression. This book is especially helpful when comparing eschatological systems and how they influence the interpretation of the book of Revelation. If one is looking to study the book of Revelation, this is a great place to start.

The Zondervan Counterpoints series prides itself in giving known advocates of specific views a place to exposit their positions on various theological topics while also giving other positions an equal opportunity. This work continues to shine in that department. Each view was given enough space to give a general outline of the book of Revelation as well as a defense of their specifically preferred view.Each essay was very well done and gave a fair reading of the views that were included. However, it was very disappointing to see that unlike most other books in the series, this one did not have specific sections for each author to respond to the other views. There was some interaction via footnotes about the other essays, but the book would have been much better if each author had been given an opportunity to interact with the others.Reading the other reviews, I noticed lots of disappointment with the lack of including the historicist position. I share that disappointment, but would be hesitant to agree with the reviews that insisted there were only three views presented. The two dispensationalists included in the book had radically different approaches to hermeneutics. There were genuinely 4 views presented.Finally, I have noticed many of the reviews on here tend to give the book fewer stars based on their preferred view either not being there or because other views were perceived as so obviously wrong as to deserve attack. I give the book four stars because I think each presentation was an accurate, thought-provoking look at the view presented. It is disappointing that the historicist view was not included. It was also disappointing that the authors had little interaction other than the footnotes. But overall, if you want a book introducing major views on the book of Revelation, this is a good one to pick up.

These are the four main views of the Book of Revelation. Sometimes the approach to each view somewhat comes from from the opposite side expected but it is worth the effort to help understand the different approaches to a difficult book of the bible....Bill

Great read

Good reed

Je suis très content qu'un tel livre existé. Plutôt que d'expliquer la signification du Millenium, ce livre prends le temps d'expliquer le genre d'herméneutique qu'utilisent les théologiens lorsqu'ils lisent le livre de l'Apocalypse. Ainsi, malgré ma préférence frappante pour l'une des herméneutique, j'ai pu vraiment apprécier l'explication et le survol de chacun des auteurs.Le seul hic de ce livre est que je m'attendais a une réponse de la part des auteurs sur l'essai de chacun, ce qui n'a pas eu lieu. dommage!