Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary

edited by
Steve Gregg
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, 528 pages.
Dont confuse this with a book with a similar title edited by Marvin Pate, which I also recently
reviewed. That book allowed the proponents of each of four different views to present an overall
summary of their approach to the book of Revelation. This book by Gregg, on the other hand, is
a detailed, verse-by-verse commentary, with the text divided into paragraphs, and each paragraph
followed by four parallel columns. Each column represents the interpretation of the text from one
of the four major views. Gregg has studied over 60 commentaries (listed on pages 6-8) written
from various perspectives, which basically fall into one of four major views advocated by
evangelical students and scholars throughout church history.
Not only does he present four different views, he also includes the variations within each view,
so that, for example, he will tell how John Walvoords view differs from Robert Mounce,
although they are both in the futurist camp. The names of individual commentators are generally
included, so you can see some of the variations within each camp, and check out the particular
commentaries yourself if you want to go a little deeper.
This book is a tremendous tool for anyone wishing to understand how different schools of
interpretation approach the book of Revelation. The four parallel columns allow the reader to
compare the views and hopefully identify the strengths and weaknesses of each. In the
Introduction, Gregg says that his object has not been to advocate any position above another, so
I hope that my own opinion will not be evident (page 4). Rather he has attempted to present
the very best arguments and evidences for each view, (and ) to encourage Bible students to
wrestle with the inspired text of Revelation and with the earnest efforts of godly interpreters to
unfold its meaning for the people of God (page 4).
Gregg says that whereas some readers may be curious about his own position, the commentary is
not a showcase for his opinions, which have changed a number of times and may do so again in
the future (page 4). Rather, he says that in his research, he has become increasingly convinced
that , as Albertus Pieters wrote:

None of these schools of interpretation can claim any monopoly on scholarship or faith. Each
group numbers many fine scholars and devout Christian believers. Therefore complete certainty
in regard to the interpretation of the Apocalypse is not to be had. It is our duty to do the best we
can, to study the various systems and accept the view that seems to us to be right, but always
with a certain amount of reservation and of respect for the opinions of others (pages 4-5).
The format for the main body of Revelation, chapters 4 through 19, consists of four columns for
the four major views: the historicist, the preterist, the futurist, and the spiritual approach.
The historicistview sees Revelation as a record of the course of history from the time of the
apostles to the end of the world; it is thus still in progress. The preterist view sees Revelation as
future from the standpoint of the writer, but having been fulfilled not long after the authors own
time (generally 70 AD), and thus it is history from our standpoint. Some preterists believe the
final chapters of Revelation still look forward to a future second coming of Christ, while others
believe that all of Revelation has been fulfilled. Thefuturist view believes that the prophecies are
of events which are yet future from our perspective. Everything after chapter 4 is usually held to
refer to things that will occur in a short period (i.e. a 7- year period known as the Tribulation)
before the return of Christ. Rather than seeking to find individual fulfillments of the visions,
the spiritual view takes Revelation as a kind of drama, which depicts spiritual truths which may
occur over and over throughout history, such as the conflicts between Christ and Satan, between
the saints and the antichristian world powers, and depicting the final victory of Christ and his
saints (page 3). Thus fulfillment may be seen as entirely spiritual or as recurrent, finding
representative expression throughout the age, rather than in one-time, specific fulfillments (page
3). Thus the prophecies are applicable to Christians in any age.
Because there are not four distinct opinions among exegetes of chapters 1-3, those chapters do
not lend themselves to the approach just discussed, and therefore the commentary for that portion
of Revelation is not divided into four columns. It is not that commentators are in agreement, but
rather the differences are on another basis. In fact, Gregg says that the views really do not part
company until chapter 4, and the radical differences apply only to chapters 6-19 (page 5). Still,
a chart showing how each of the views generally approaches that section precedes the
commentary on chapters 1-3 (see page 51).
In a similar manner, evangelical debate over chapters 20-22 has not turned so much on whether
one is a futurist or a historicist as on whether one is a millennialist, and if so, of what variety
(page 5). Therefore, in the commentary for those chapters, Gregg switches from the four column
format to a three column format, presenting the premillenial, postmillennial ,
and amillennial views. Thepremillennial view holds that Christs second coming will precede

(and thereby launch) a golden age in which the kingdom will be established on the earth for
1,000 years, with the final judgment and the eternal new heavens and new earth to follow. There
are two principal varieties of premillennialists: historic and dispensational. The differences
between those two perspectives center around a future place for national Israel (yes, says the
dispensationalist), and anticipation of a rapture of Christians to heaven before the beginning of
the Tribulation (yes, says the dispensationalist). The postmillennialistteaches that Christ will
return after the millennial period, which is a quite different kingdom than the one envisioned by
the premillennialist. The postmillennials golden age occurs as the world is gradually won over
by the gospel, and is marked by a period of peace before Christ returns.Postmillennialists are
often, though not always, inclined toward the preterist view. The amillennialistbelieves there is
no literal millennium as understood by the other views, but rather that the 1,000 years
of Revelation 20 corresponds to the entire span of time from the first coming of Christ until His
second coming, and most aspects of Revelation are held to be symbolic.
The author emphasizes here that it should be remembered that the various approaches to
Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position (page 28). For
example, amillennialists have been found among adherents of several approaches to Revelation,
including thehistoricist (e.g. Martin Luther), the preterist (e.g. Jay Adams), and
the spiritualist (e.g. William Hendriksen), but only rarely of the futurist (Abraham Kuyper is an
exception) (page 28). For another example, in the commentary on the sixth seal of 6:12-17, the
author notes that Matthew Henry, in most respects a historicist, applies this seal in
a preterist manner (page 122).
Here I will list some of the interesting points, or characteristics, I noted in reading the book:
1. The commentary on the text is preceded by a very helpful introduction (pages 9-50), which
includes such discussions as literary type; authorship; date and historical setting; structural
parallelism; Revelations use of the rest of scripture; additional interpretative considerations
(geographical scope, meaning of the coming of Christ in Revelation, and the meaning of the
1000 years in Revelation); history of interpretation; and an analysis of each of the four
approaches (historicist, preterist, futurist, and spiritualist).
2. As regards the aforementioned section on structural parallelism, the author notes that some
portions of Revelation double back to cover the same ground that was covered in previous
sections(and) there are other indicators that the details of Revelation do not follow each other
chronologically(which) militates against making firm chronological predictions based on a
passages position in the book (pages 19-20).

3. In the previously mentioned section on the meaning of the coming of Christ in Revelation,
the author notes the various ways in which a coming of God or Christ is used in scripture,
whereby Christ is sometimes said to come in a spiritual sense (Rev 3:20, John 14:16-18,
and John 14:23), or a visitation by God in temporal judgment is said to be a coming. This is
relevant to the preterist view which holds that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was a
coming of Christ, as He had predicted in such passages as the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:34, et
al). The author says that while none of these considerations negate the doctrine of the Second
Comingthey demonstrate that there is more than one event or phenomenon that can be spoken
of as a coming of Christ (pages 24-27).
4. In the section in the introduction analyzing the four approaches, Gregg first analyzes
thehistoricist view, and notes that while commentators from the past who held this position
would make up an all-star list from church history (Wycliffe, Knox, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin,
Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, et al), modern commentaries presenting this
approach are rare to nonexistent (page 34). He does state, however, that he has heard of a small
group of evangelicals who are trying to revive this view of the book of Revelation.
5. In analyzing preterism, he distinguishes between those who believe that all of Revelation was
fulfilled in 70AD and those who believe that the first half of Revelation describes the fall of
Jerusalem, the second half predicts the fall of the Roman empire, and the final chapters describe
the second coming of Christ (page 39). Later, in the commentary on 8:8-9, he notes that the
words of Josephus, who had never read Revelation, seem almost as if they were calculated to
present the fulfillment of this trumpet judgment (page 156). (Josephus was the historian who
witnessed and recorded the events of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD).
6. In analyzing futurism, he notes that this approach is held by the majority of the most popular
contemporary evangelical writers and Bible teachers(and) has so dominated the Christian
media, in fact, that many Christians and virtually all non-Christians are unaware even of the
existence of other approaches (page 40). He also says that belief in the futurist approach frees
the reader to take a more literal view of the visions, reducing the difficulty of interpreting the
symbols (since) for example, there has never been a time in the past when a third of the sea
turned to blood (page 40). He does state, however, that most of the elements of the scenario
predicted by dispensationalists appeal to the book of Revelation do not arise from a literal
application of any particular passage (page 41), as for example, a seven-year Tribulation
divided in the middle by the Antichrists violating a treaty he had made with Israel (page 40).
He says that even dispensationalists often must allow for some symbolism in Revelation. He also
discusses those futurists who are not dispensationalists, but who nevertheless expect a future
Antichrist to arise in a future Tribulation period to persecute the saints, and they do anticipate a
literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (page 42).

7. In analyzing the spiritualist view, he notes that it has a character entirely of its own, and sees
Revelation from an entirely different perspective than do the more strictly historicoeschatological approaches (page 46).
8. It is here that we should note that the lines are not as clearly drawn as one might imagine. For
example, one common tendency is to mix the spiritual approach with the preterist, such as Leon
Morris and Michael Wilcock. Gregg also classifies William Hendriksens commentary as
essentiallyspiritual/idealist in character, with some preterist or historicist elements (page 45).
George Eldon Ladd is a futurist who believes that the correct method of interpreting Revelation
is the blending of the preterist and futurist methods (page 46), but he also in some instances
brings in spiritual/idealistviews. The same can be said for futurist Robert Mounce.
9. The structure of Revelation is seen in Greggs major divisions of the book, which are as
follows: The Seven Letters (chs. 1-3); the Seven-Sealed Scroll (chs. 4-7); The Seven Trumpets
(chs. 8-10); The 1260 Days (chs. 11-13); The Seven Last Plagues (chs. 14-16); The Great
Babylon (chs. 17-19); The Millennium (ch. 20); and The New Creation (chs. 21-22).
10. The major divisions are preceded by charts giving an overview of the section from the
standpoint of each of the different views, and followed by charts giving a summary of the section
according to each of the views. Other helpful charts and outlines are interspersed throughout the
commentary. All of these combine to enhance the usefulness of this commentary, as the
summaries can be reviewed at a glance.
In summary, this commentary is a terrific piece of work. I cant imagine any student of
Revelation being without it. It has a tremendous amount of useful information that will be readily
accessible to compare the various views. The format is excellent, and Gregg goes to great lengths
to present all sides.
In reading the commentary from cover to cover, I elected to read it as written, i.e. to read the text
for each paragraph, and then read the comments from each perspective on that paragraph. That
approach worked for me, although I did find my head swimming from time to time. An
alternative, as suggested by the author, would be to read through the entire commentary from the
perspective of one viewpoint at a time, as for example reading through the entire book from
the historicist view, and then going back and reading it through from the next perspective
(the preterist), and so on, until you have read all four views. That might help keep your head
clear.

But whatever approach you take to this commentary, you will find it to be a great help in coming
to an understanding of Revelation with an appreciation of the views of other evangelicals who
differ from your interpretation.
Reviewed by:
Ron Maness