I was recently involved in symposium on the Book of Revelation sponsored by several churches in Reno, Nevada and held at Sierra Bible Church. Gary Demar defended a preterist, Jim Hamilton a futurist, and I an Idealist approach to the Book. The symposium consisted of three major presentations 55 minutes in length in the morning and three 20 minute responses and question and answer time in the afternoon. Here from my major presentation is my introduction a modified idealist approach to the Book of Revelation.

When I read Wikipedia’s description of the position I am supposed to be defending at this conference, I have to admit that it made me think twice.  Here is a portion of Wikipedia’s description of Idealism:

Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols…. It is distinct from Preterism, Futurism and Historicism in that it does not see any of the prophecies (except in some cases the Second Coming, and Final Judgment) as being fulfilled in a literal, physical, earthly sense either in the past, present or future, and that to interpret the eschatological portions of the Bible in a historical or future-historical fashion is an erroneous understanding.¹

Now I know that Wikipedia is not the final authority about anything, but this still made me wonder what I had let Brian get me into!

Some of you may wonder what I am doing reading somebody else’s definition of Idealism in preparation for this conference.  You may be asking, “You’re defending it.  Don’t you know what it?”  I am supposed to be the expert on it, right?  Here is the problem.  If you had walked up to me and asked me to name my view of the Book of Revelation before being invited to this conference, I probably would not have told you that my view is Idealism.  I’m not sure what I would have called it, but it probably would not have been that.  But now that I have looked in a little more detail at some of the literature on the subject, it appears that there are only four choices.  You can be a historicist, and scarcely anybody is that today.  You can be a preterist and, of course, that is what Gary has defended.  You can be a futurist, and that is what Jim has defended.  And if you are not any of those three things, then you have to be an idealist.  OK!  So I am an idealist, but I am quite certain I am not the kind of idealist described on Wikipedia and elsewhere.  I was comforted, however, to discover that in not wanting to be the kind of idealist described by Wikipedia I was in good company.  G. K. Beale writes:

The idealist approach affirms that Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan.  The most radical form of this view holds that the book is a timeless depiction of this struggle.  The problem with this alternative is that it holds that Revelation does not depict any final consummation to history, whether in God’s final victory or in a last judgment in the realm of evil.  The idealist notion encounters the opposite problem facing the preterist and historicist views, since it identifies none of the book’s symbols with particular historical events.

Having said this, Beale proceeds to describe the view of his commentary as “Eclecticism or a Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism.”²  I cannot put it any better than Beale.  I will be presenting to you in this lecture, A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Let me unpack this Puritan-length title a little bit.  Defining Idealism in the same way as Wikipedia, Patrick Zukeran asserts:  “According to this view, the events of Revelation are not tied to specific historical events.”³  My Idealism is different.  It is a modified Idealism.  To put this in a better way, it is a relative Idealism.  That is to say, it is not tied to specific, historical events in the same way as preterism, historicism, or futurism.  They find references to Nero, America, Russia, Napoleon, the Papacy, and Attack Helicopters in the Book of Revelation.  I do not.  Nevertheless, I do believe that it is vital to understand that certain, historical events are referenced in the Book of Revelation.  And that brings me to another aspect of my title.

I spoke of my view as A Redemptive-Historical, Modified Idealist Approach to the Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.  While the common events of history are not specified (in the visions of Revelation 4-22 at least), the great events of redemption are certainly in view.  And these events are certainly historical.  Let me postulate, then, that the visions of Revelation 4-22 do refer to historical events like the enthronement of Jesus in heaven as Mediatorial Priest-King, the present gospel or missionary age, the Second Coming of Christ in glory to judge wicked, the new heavens and new earth, and I think as well the brief period of global persecution of the church which precedes the Second Coming.  These are specific and real, historical events and my kind of Idealism sees them as depicted in the Book of Revelation.  In fact, I think this cycle of events forms the very backbone of the Book.

So I am here to defend a Relative or Modified Idealism.  But this does not worry me too much.  It puts me in about the same situation as both Gary and Jim.  Gary defends not a full but a partial preterism.  Having read large parts of Jim’s commentary, it is clear to me that he believes and is defending something much less than the consistent futurism of Dispensationalism.  I read with pleasure and appreciation, for instance, his interpretation of Revelation 11-12 and found his comments about the meaning of the 70^th week of Daniel both appealing and attractive.  Here is the bottom line.  Gary defends what we well might call a Relative Preterism.  Jim defends what might well be called a Relative Futurism.  So I am not embarrassed to say that I defend a Relative Idealism.

All this relativity makes possible, I hope, a reasonable discussion among us about the Book of Revelation true to the purpose of what Brian has called this conference.  It is a symposium and not a debate.  This relativity also, however, creates a difficulty for me and the other participants.  In the midst of the modifications we each want to introduce to the more extreme variants of our respective positions it becomes more difficult to distinguish our positions from one another.  What I propose to do to solve this problem, therefore, is to present the various principles of interpretation which control my kind of modified Idealism in conjunction with the one passage in regard to which I am quite sure we do differ, Revelation 20:1-10.  By doing this, I may suggest in the clearest possible way the distinction between my Relative Idealism, and the Relative Preterism of Gary, and the Relative Futurism of Jim.

After reading and listening to the positions of both Gary and Jim, I believe they both want to say that Revelation 20:1-10 is about something different from—something that goes beyond—what is taught in the rest of the Book of Revelation.  For both of them, it is my impression, the vision of Revelation 20:1-10 stands in a kind of contrast to, or at least goes beyond, the teaching or focus of the rest of the Book.

I think Gary would say that the rest of the Book is about the period of time surrounding the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but Revelation 20 vastly expands the vision of the Book to the period following.  At least if he agrees with his friend, Ken Gentry, that is what he thinks.  He does not want to identify the thousand years with the 40 year period of time between Jesus’ crucifixion and Jerusalem’s destruction.

Similarly, I think Jim would say that the period in view in Revelation 20 is different than the period in view in Revelation 11 and 12 or the time in view in the rest of the Book.  The rest of the book discusses the time leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, while Revelation 20 discusses what happens afterwards in a way unparalleled in Scripture.

For me in contrast, Revelation 20 is literally about the very same period of time about which the rest of the Book speaks.  It is exactly about the 1260 days and 3 and ½ days of Revelation 11.  It is exactly about the period of time discussed in Revelation 12.  I will, therefore, illustrate my principles of interpretation from Revelation 20 in an attempt to distinguish my Relative Idealism, from the Relative Preterism of Gary and the Relative Futurism of Jim.

In the time that remains, then, I want to provide you with a number of  principles of interpretation that constitute the hermeneutics of my Relative or Modified Idealism.  The various definitions of strict or extreme Idealism to which I have previously referred emphasize that Idealism understands the Book of Revelation symbolically.  They also go on to say that these symbols do not have any historical fulfillment.  Please read Wikipedia’s definition once more.

Idealism (also called the spiritual approach, the allegorical approach, the nonliteral approach, and many other names) in Christian eschatology is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols….

Listen also to Patrick Zukeran:

However, there are several weaknesses of this view. First, this view denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.⁴

My Relative Idealist approach to the Book of Revelation stands in contrast to such extreme Idealism.  Of course, I do believe that the literary genre of the Book of Revelation is relatively symbolic as compared to most of the rest of Scripture.  It is mostly apocalyptic.  Further, I believe that a method of interpretation that takes this into account is necessary.  But I do not want to describe this method of interpretation as either “allegorical” or “spiritual.”

Further, and as I have said, I do believe that both Preterism and Futurism have typically gone too far in identifying certain prophecies in Revelation with specific historical events.  At the same time, I emphatically disown the kind of Idealism that according to Zukeran “denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment.”  I also deny that its symbols “portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.”

But having said all of this, I admit that my relative Idealism assumes a relatively more symbolic approach to the Book of Revelation than that typically associated with either Preterism or Futurism.  With this in mind, I will present five principles of interpretation which guide my Relative Idealism in my following posts.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.