Scripture generally requires careful study to get the full value, and this is certainly true of apocalyptic scripture. But with a respect for the studies of devoted brethren preceding, a thoughtful look at history, and a reverent application to the prophetic word, we have every reason for optimism in trying to understand Revelation. Unlike Daniel who was told to “Go thy way … for the words are closed up,” we are urged…

“… blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:3)

Revelation has always been helpful to the Church. Evidently it helped the brethren early in the age see that a difficult adversary would come from Rome, the seven hilled city. (Revelation 17:5, 9) Bro. Streeter’s research on this is interesting. (The Rev. of Js. Christ, pp. xxxv-xxxvi)

“From Irenaeus (145 A.D.), a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John, to Chrysostom and Jerome (345 A.D.), there was a very general agreement on the following matters which may truthfully be said to constitute the key to Apocalyptic interpretation:

1. That the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7, the ‘man of sin’ of 2 Thess. 2, and the ‘beast’ of Rev. 13, were to rule from Rome, and that these prophecies referred to one and the same power – the Antichrist.
2. That the hindrance to Antichrist’s full development and rule, mentioned by Paul (2 Thess. 2), was the Roman emperors reigning in the city of Rome.
3. That the ten-homed dragon and the ten-homed beast of Rev. 12, 13, and 17, were the same as the fourth beast seen by Daniel (Dan. 7), and that they describe different aspects of the Roman Empire.
4. That the ‘ten horns’ on the beast seen by St. John and on the fourth beast of Daniel referred to a division of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms, at a time future from John’s day.
5. That when this breaking up of the Empire would take place, the predicted Antichrist would then begin to rule.

It is a most remarkable fact that all the noted expositors throughout the entire Age until now are agreed in these matters.  It is true that the writers who lived during the first two and a half centuries supposed that when Antichrist became seated at Rome, his career would be a brief one. However, it is reasonable to suppose this would be the case in view of the Divine rule of progressive interpretation of prophecy.”

Later, as the Man of Sin Paul warned of developed, the brethren were able to see that papal, rather than pagan Rome, was the greater adversary. This not only helped the reformers, but later allowed brethren to mark the end of papal power, and note the prophetic guide posts of Daniel leading to the Lord’s return. Now it helps us see that it has been time to “come out” of Babylon to the light of Present Truth. And with the light shining more brightly now than ever before, Revelation as a whole should be clearer than ever.

Today many brethren understand much of Revelation in a rather uniform and consistent way. Their understanding is a reasonable extension of the understanding gradually developed by the Lord’s people throughout the age, in response, we feel, to the leading of the Lord’s holy Spirit. In contrast to this, many “Protestant” fundamentalist interpreters follow a persuasion sometimes called the “futurist” view of Revelation. This view puts most of Revelation into the future, rather than applying it to the experiences of the Church throughout the age. The “futurist” view is a tangent which evidently originated from Catholic expositors during the Reformation. Protestant reformers were applying such passages as Revelation 17:5 to the Papacy (rightly so), and a defense was sought. We quote Bro. Streeter again, who in turn quotes H. G. Guinness.

“The Futurist interpretation applies the prophetic visions of the Apocalypse to the Jews after the Church is glorified. It originated in the Roman Catholic Church, and was a reply of the Roman Catholic theologians to the Reformers of the sixteenth century who applied those Apocalyptic visions that portrayed the great Apostasy, the Antichrist, to the Romish system.

Rome had her theologians, learned men, among whom were Ribera and Bellarmine.

‘Ribera was a Jesuit priest of Salamanca. In 1585 he published a commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the application of the prophecies concerning Antichrist to the existing Church of Rome. He was followed by Cardinal Bellarmine, a nephew of Pope Marcellus II, who was born in Tuscany in 1542, and died in 1621. Bellarmine was not only a man of great learning, but the most powerful controversialist in defense of Popery that the Roman Church ever produced. Clement VIII used these remarkable words on his nomination: ‘We choose him, because the Church of God does not possess his equal in learning.’ Bellarmine, like Ribera, advocated the Futurist interpretation of prophecy.

He taught that Antichrist would be one particular man, that he would be a Jew, that he would be preceded by the reappearance of the literal Enoch and Elias, that he would rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, compel circumcision, abolish the Christian sacraments, abolish every other form of religion, would manifestly and avowedly deny Christ, would assume to be Christ, and would be received by the Jews as their Messiah, would pretend to be God, would make a literal image speak, would feign himself dead, and rise again, and would conquer the whole world – Christian, Mohammedan, and heathen; and all this in the space of three and a half years. He insisted that the prophecies of Daniel, Paul, and John, with reference to Antichrist, had no application whatever to the Papal power.’

The earliest of what may be termed Protestant writers who adopted the system of Futurist interpretation are Todd and Maitland, the latter living from 1792 to 1866.

There have been many since their day who have adopted their views, with some minor changes. These views are very little different from those of the two Roman Catholic theologians above mentioned. It cannot therefore be successfully disputed that the Futurist interpretation of the Apocalypse had its origin in Rome at the end of the sixteenth century and was designed to relieve the Papacy from the terrible stigma cast upon it by the Protestant interpretation… The Historic interpretation was, of course, rejected with intense and bitter scorn by the Church it denounced as Babylon, and the power it branded as Antichrist, and it is still opposed by all who in any way uphold these.” (The Rev. of Js. Christ, pp. xxiv-xxvi)

In coming articles we will look at Revelation itself. We will examine the basic structure of the book, and some of the areas of detail which contemporary brethren often concern themselves with.

We hope that if the book appears formidable to some, grasping its basic order and plan will ease the mind, and make Revelation easier to reason upon. For it is a book meant for our upbuilding, our help.

A brief outline of Revelation will be helpful. To us the book seems to divide rather naturally into five segments.

• Introduction (Chapter 1)
• A series of 7-staged histories of the Gospel age (7 Churches, 7 Seals, 7 Trumpets – Chapters 2 -11)
• An historical overview of the Church, true and nominal (Chapters 12, 13)
• The Harvest (Chapters 14-19)
• The Kingdom (Chapters 20-22)

More on these divisions

Download PDF