The existence of these symbols has led to two extremes. One extreme states that the existence of these symbols shows that this book cannot be understood and must simply be interpreted in terms of a general conflict between good and evil, the good winning out in the end. Beyond this, they say the book is not to be understood in any great detail. This is how the book has suffered from its enemies. In the second extreme, the symbols are used for unchecked speculation, sensationalism, and all kinds of guesswork in trying to interpret these symbols in terms of current events. Such speculation has resulted in farfetched interpretations, and changes are made as current events change. It has also led to date-setting. In this area, the book of Revelation has suffered at the hands of its friends. There is a balance between the two extremes.1
The schemes which interpreters have proposed in order to try and “understand” the book of Revelation run from one extreme to the other, but most often deny a straight-forward reading in favor of obscure theories involving the symbols it contains:E. Boring has summarized an approach to interpretation of symbols in the Apocalypse that has come to be widely held. In his view, the symbols are not to be decoded into propositional language that refers to objective realities, but are to be left as nonobjectifying pictorial language that only points to ultimate categories of language. . . . Revelation’s language does not adhere to the laws of logical propositional language and is noninferential because John attempts to communicate the reality of God’s transcendent world by words bounded by space and time. [emphasis added]2
One wonders how the book can claim to be revealing information to show His servants (Rev. 1:1+) if the language failed to “adhere to the laws of logical propositional language and is noninferential”? In this section, we discuss what is perhaps the most important aspect of studying the book of Revelation: how to read and understand the text. While this may sound simple, it is amazing how frequently the principles of normative reading and comprehension are jettisoned when expositors come to the book of Revelation.The Apocalypse (“unveiling”) has become Apocrypha (“hidden”). This should not be. The book was written to show those things which were coming to pass, not to obscure them in a maze of symbolism and dark sayings. Great blessing was promised to all who would read (or even hear) the words of the book of this prophecy (Revelation 1:3+), but how could anyone be blessed by words he could not even understand?3
Even when the interpreter forgoes a tendency to look for meaning “below” the text, there are still a variety of ways in which meaning can be understood:Some identify the meaning with the human author’s intention, while others hold that meaning is identical with God’s intention. Still others claim that meaning is as broad as the canonical interpretation of the text. And finally, there are a group of NT scholars who would identify apostolic hermeneutics with first-century Jewish hermeneutics.4
Feinberg identifies the following ways to define meaning:The word hermeneutics is ultimately derived from Hermes the Greek god who brought the messages of the gods to the mortals, and was the god of science, invention, eloquence, speech, writing, and art. As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible.5
Bible study consists of three primary steps: observation, interpretation, and application.6 . After observing the text, interpretation should yield the understanding of God’s Word which He intended resulting in its fruitful application in the life of the reader. If interpretation goes astray, then a proper understanding will not result and the application of God’s message to the life of the reader will not be what God intended. Our position is that the book of Revelation is to be interpreted normally, like any other writing, and especially like the rest of the Scriptures. We part company here from those who seek to classify the book as being representative of the apocalyptic genre so they can apply a mystical or spiritual “spin” to the text and make it mean all manner of things. D.L. Cooper gives a reasonable definition of normal interpretation in his Golden Rule of Interpretation:When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.—The Golden Rule of Interpretation, D.L. Cooper7
The rule includes the important phrase, studied in the light of related passages. This is the biblical equivalent of a “safety net.” In the same way that trapeze artists performing on the high-wire are protected by a net below which catches them in the event of a fall, comparing Scripture with Scripture provides a doctrinal “safety net” to keep the interpreter from “falling” into an inconsistent understanding or interpretation. This principle is also known as the Analogy of Scripture or Systematic Theology: the systematic study of the Scriptures across all the books of the Bible to arrive at a self-consistent understanding of any particular topic. This principle is founded upon the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. That the inspired books, being ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit (2Pe. 1:19-21), are without error and consistent in their teaching from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21+. When we encounter what seems to be an inconsistency (commonly referred to as a “Bible Difficulty”), we must assume that the problem is one of our own understanding and not God’s Word. The experienced student of the Word will recognize how frequently what appeared to be contradictory turned out, upon further insight, study, and illumination, to be by design.8 Notice that the Golden Rule holds that we adhere to the plain sense of Scripture and not seek any other sense unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. These reasons must be found in the immediate context of the passage under study or related passages. It is not sufficient to simply classify the book of Revelation as an apocalypse and therefore turn the rules of interpretation upside-down as does this commentator:A failure to take full account of [the apocalyptic] feature has led to some of the most outlandish teachings on this book by some whose rule of interpretation is “literal, unless absurd.” Though this is a good rule when dealing with literature written in a literal genre, it is the exact opposite in the case of apocalyptic literature, where symbolism is the rule, and literalism the exception. [emphasis added]9
Notice how this commentator appeals to the apocalyptic genre in order to dismiss normative interpretation and to assert that we should avoid normative interpretation in favor of pure symbolic conjecture! The easy answer to this proposal is to simply ask, “Whose symbolic interpretation?” No real answer can be given. This is because there in an infinite variety of interpretations possible when using symbolic conjecture. The result is that no two interpreters hold to the same meaning except in a handful of areas. This fact alone disqualifies a non-literal framework because it has factually demonstrated its bankruptcy at conveying a reliable message from God. In effect, it makes the book of Revelation unknowable by man. The recommendation that normalcy be inverted reminds us of our high-school literature class where we read Melville’s Moby Dick and then spent weeks guessing at obscure, hidden, multiple meanings which the author “might” have intended. It was great fun and students were awarded an “A” for creativity, but I often thought of how Melville would likely turn in his grave if he heard the things he was supposed to have communicated! But interpreting God’s Holy Word is the antithesis of the high-school literature class, for here creativity is awarded a grade of “F!” Why do we insist on normalcy in our interpretation of all of Scripture? Couch identifies a number of reasons:Those who are committed to a normal reading of Scripture offer at least three reasons: First, the obvious purpose of language is to enable effective communication between intelligent beings. Words have meaning and in their normal usage are intended to be understood. . . . God is the originator of language. When He spoke audibly to man, He expected man to understand Him and respond accordingly. Likewise, when God speaks to man through the inspired writings of His apostles and prophets, He expects man to understand and respond accordingly. . . . A second reason for a normal reading of Scripture concerns the historical fulfillment of prophecy. All the prophecies of the Old and New Testament that have been fulfilled to date have been fulfilled literally. . . . Thus, . . . all prophecies which are yet to be fulfilled will be fulfilled literally. A third reason concerns logic. If an interpreter does not use the normal, customary, literal method of interpreting Scripture, interpretation is given over to the unconstrained imagination and presuppositions of the interpreter.10
Neglect of this last reason is most evident in the widely-varying imaginative interpretations of the non-literal interpreters. Once the “tether of normative interpretation” is cut, the helium balloon of the interpreter’s imagination floats ever further afield from the intended meaning of the text. This single factor accounts for the majority of nonsense which is offered as commentary on the book of Revelation. As an example of how quickly those who forsake literal interpretation choose to ignore the pattern of previously-fulfilled literal prophecy, Couch’s second reason for normalcy, consider Beale’s statement which asserts that the plagues in Revelation are unlikely to be literal like those recorded elsewhere in Scripture:The parallel with Exodus does not supply unambiguous demonstration in support of a literal fulfillment. All that it shows is that the two descriptions are homologous, that is, that they have an essential relation in some manner. But the nature of that relation needs to be determined. Are they homologous in their physical form and effects, or in theological significance, or both? The images depicted certainly refer to actual events on the referential level.. . . In Revelation the fire and hail are to be understood on the symbolic level as representing particular facets of divine judgment that can be drawn out further by thorough exegesis of the theological meaning of this particular Exodus plague. [These] speak of God depriving the ungodly of earthly security. [emphasis added]11
Beale denies literal fire and hail in the book of Revelation as found elsewhere in Scripture asserting that the reader is to seek for a theological meaning beyond the plain text. The fire and hail are themselves no longer important, but the theological meaning behind the text is now primary. But who determines the meaning behind the text and how is it determined? A perusal of the writings of expositors employing this approach readily reveals the enormous subjectivity which enters upon the process of answering these questions to arrive at an interpretation. Another key advantage of normal interpretation is it is minimal, contributing the barest interpretive layer over the inspired text from God. “The best interpretation of a historical record is no interpretation but simply letting the divine Author of the record say what He says and assuming He says what He means.”12 The “thicker” the layer of interpretation required to make sense of the underlying text, the greater the danger that the commentator will wind up adding to or subtracting from the meaning intended by God (Rev. 22:18-19+).13 This minimalist interpretation is the way a reader would most likely understand the text when absent from the guidance of an allegorical interpreter.If one were on a desert island and read Revelation for the first time, how would he normally interpret the book? The answer would be “actual and literal,” unless there was an amillennialist and allegorist around to say, “No, no, these events are not real! They have some hidden meaning that no one is sure of, but don’t let that bother you!”14
In opposition to the practice of literal interpretation, some interpreters grossly misrepresent what it means to interpret literally:Would we understand the Twenty-third Psalm properly if we were to take it “literally”? Would it not, instead, look somewhat silly? In fact, if taken literally, it would not be true: for I daresay that the Lord doesn’t make every Christian to lie down in literal, green pastures.15
As Ramm explains, literal interpretation is not the ridiculous caricature that the previous commentator attempts to portray it as:To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a “wooden literalism,” nor to a “letterism,” nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any “mechanical” understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation which includes “tacit” understanding.16
Literal interpretation recognizes variations in the style of the text and maintains a consistency of interpretation driven by the text itself, not the predilections of the interpreter:It is not true that the premillennialists require every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception. They do hold, on the other hand, that if the language is symbolic, it is to be governed by the laws relating to symbols; if figurative, by the laws dealing with figures; if typical, by the laws connected with types; if literal, by the laws of non-figurative speech.17
All interpreters utilize this normal literal approach most of the time. For example, in interpreting John’s words:I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1:9+)
There is almost universal agreement that the “island that is called Patmos” is Patmos! And that John is located on that island, and that he is there due to his connection to the Word of God. Where the difference comes in, is that some interpreters change their interpretive process when they encounter passages employing symbols, prophecy, or especially controversial doctrine. In these passages, they jettison normal interpretation in favor of conjecture about symbols thereby reducing the text into an allegory concerning spiritual principles. This “dual hermeneutic” is employed much like the gearshift in an automobile. On the major “freeway” of the gospel text, they generally stay in literal gear. But when a prophetic off-ramp or doctrinal mountain looms ahead, they shift into a non-literal gear. This inconsistency leads to all manner of confusion and allows for the most amazing conclusions which are often in complete contradiction to the plain meaning of the text! McClain recognizes this “gearshift” between two systems of interpretation:It should be clear, however, that regardless of the terms chosen to designate the anti-millenarian scheme of prophetical interpretation, it is a combination of two different systems, shifting back and forth between the spiritualizing and literal methods. The hermeneutical plow is pulled by ‘an ox and an ass.’ For this reason, the scheme may be appropriately be called eclectical.18
Even those who use literal interpretation when viewing OT passages in the light of the NT often fall into this inconsistent approach when they come to the book of Revelation:Two or three generations ago, students of prophecy received incalculable help from the simple discovery that when the Holy Spirit spoke of Judea and Jerusalem in the Old Testament Scriptures He meant Judea and Jerusalem, and not England and London; and that when He mentioned Zion He did not refer to the Church. But strange to say, few, if any of these brethren, have applied the same rule to the Apocalypse. Here they are guilty of doing the very thing for which they condemned their forebears in connection with the Old Testament - they have ‘spiritualised.’ . . . What then? If to regard ‘Jerusalem’ as meaning Jerusalem be a test of intelligence in Old Testament prophecy, shall we be counted a heretic if we understand ‘Babylon’ to mean Babylon, and not Rome or apostate Christendom?19
Couch describes the two main approaches to interpretation as they relate to prophecy:Among evangelicals there are generally two major camps regarding how prophetic passages should be read. Amillennialists will generally allegorize large portions of the prophetic Word, especially passages that speak of the Second Advent of Christ and the establishment of the one thousand year literal Davidic kingdom. In contrast, premillennialists, following the teaching of the early church, treat the Second Coming with the same literal hermeneutic as they would the First Coming of Jesus. They hold that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, should be understood literally from a normal reading unless typology or poetry is used. And even then, premillennialists believe that “literalness” is implied behind the figure of speech or illustration used.20
The most serious charge that can be leveled against non-literal interpretation is that of perverting the promises of God. God’s promises, both in the OT and NT, were given to specific recipients using words which they understood in the context in which they lived and in which the promises were given. When a nonliteral view of these passages is adopted, this robs the original recipients of the promises as God gave them:Adopting a nonliteral view of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies raises some disturbing questions: What did those prophecies mean to those to whom they were addressed? If prophecies seemingly addressed to Israel really apply to the church (which did not exist at that time), did God give revelation that failed to reveal? And if those prophecies were meant to apply symbolically to the church, why were they addressed to Israel? What meaning could such prophecies have in their historical settings? Ironically, many who spiritualize Old Testament prophecies reject the futurist interpretation of Revelation because it allegedly robs the book of its meaning for those to whom it was written. Yet they do the very same thing with the Old Testament kingdom prophecies.21
God’s promises involve both ends of the communication channel: the things God said and what those who received His promises understood them to mean in the original context. It is not permissible, after the fact, to make what God said mean something different which would have been entirely foreign to those who originally received His word. Allegorization and spiritualization do just that.Allegorizing is searching for a hidden or secret meaning underlying but remote from and unrelated in reality to the more obvious meaning of a text. In other words the literal reading is a sort of code, which needs to be deciphered to determine the more significant and hidden meaning. In this approach the literal is superficial, the allegorical is the true meaning.23
Completely in line with Zuck’s description is the following statement by Trench regarding his understanding of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2+):The dream of an actual material city to be let down bodily from heaven to earth, . . . has been cherished in almost all ages of the Church by some, who have been unable to translate the figurative language of Scripture into those far more glorious realities of the heavenly πολιτεία [politeia] , whereof those figures were the vesture and the outward array. [emphasis added]24
Notice how the language of Trench confirms the statement of Zuck: the allegorical meaning represents far more glorious realities. The literal text represents figures which are the vesture and outward array. According to Trench, the true (allegorical) meaning is “clothed” by the representation of the literal text. Presumably, the interpreter must remove this outer garment of literal text to see the deeper and more glorious reality beyond.25 Trench doesn’t inform us that each interpreter that does so finds a different glorious reality!26 Using allegorical interpretation, it is possible to “find” all manner of meanings beyond the plain sense of the text:To cite a few examples [of allegorical hermeneutics]: The journey of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran is interpreted as the imaginary trip of a Stoic philosopher who leaves sensual understanding and arrives at the senses. The two pence given by the Good Samaritan to the innkeeper has the hidden meanings of Baptism and the Lord‘s Supper. The river Euphrates means the outflow of manners and is not an actual literal river in Mesopotamia. Pope Gregory the Great’s interpretation of the Book of Job is equally disheartening: ’The patriarch’s three friends denote the heretics; his seven sons are the twelve apostles; his seven thousand sheep are God’s faithful people; and his three thousand hump-backed camels are the depraved Gentiles!’27
While it is tempting to chuckle at these examples from early Christianity, what is alarming is how often equally obscure results attend modern interpreters of the book of Revelation. So where did this tendency begin? Evidence is lacking within Scripture that Jesus or the Apostles understood the Old Testament in this way.The allegorical interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of exile, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and His apostles. Although the Sanhedrim and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament according to the testimony of the New Testament writers, they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus has nothing of it.28
The flowering of allegorical interpretation as applied to Scripture can be traced to Jews in Alexandria Egypt who were interested in accommodating the OT Scriptures to Greek philosophy as a tool for removing or reinterpreting what were considered embarrassing anthropomorphisms and immoralities in the OT.Two names stand out in Alexandrian Jewish allegorization: Aristobulus and Philo. Aristobulus, who lived around 160 B.C., believed that Greek philosophy borrowed from the Old Testament, and that those teachings could be uncovered only by allegorizing. . . . Philo (ca. 20 B.C. - ca. A.D. 54) . . . sought to defend the Old Testament to the Greeks and, even more so, to fellow Jews. He was led to allegorize the Old Testament, . . . because of his desire to avoid [seeming] contradictions and blasphemies.29
Observe how often Christian aberrations have arisen from a faulty attempt to defend the Scriptures before skeptics. Preterism, and its belief that non-believers reject Scripture because Jesus’ prediction to come “soon” was misunderstood, is a recent example. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-216) was influenced by Philo and proposed a system of interpretation where any passage of the Bible might have up to five meanings.30 Thereafter, Origin, who studied Platonic philosophy and is thought to have been a pupil of Clement, went so far as to say that Scripture itself demands that the interpreter employ the allegorical method.Amillennialist Schaff is fair when he describes the great hermeneutical failings of Origen: “His great defect is the neglect of the grammatical and historical sense and his constant desire to find a hidden mystic meaning. He even goes further in this direction than the Gnostics, who everywhere saw transcendental, unfathomable mysteries.”31
[Origen] lays down the principle that the true meaning of prophecy is to be found only by going beyond the literal and historical sense to the spiritual; and he says specifically of the Apocalypse that the mysteries hidden in it can be understood only in this way. His whole interpretation of the book is therefore spiritual rather than literal. [emphasis added]32
Origen’s interpretive approach had great influence on those who would follow in the Middle Ages, as did Augustine (354-430) who, like Philo, saw allegorization as a solution to Old Testament problems.33 The allegorical system of interpretation prevailed throughout most of the Middle Ages:During the Middle Ages, the fourfold sense of Scripture was taught. Medieval scholars took Origen‘s threefold sense—the literal, the moral, and the spiritual—and subdivided the spiritual into the allegorical and the anagogical. As schoolman Thomas Aquinas affirmed, ’The literal sense is that which the author intends, but God being the Author, we may expect to find in Scripture a wealth of meaning.’ An example of how the fourfold sense was worked out during the Middle Ages is Gen. 1:3, ‘Let there be light.’ Medieval churchmen interpreted that sentence to mean (1) Historically and literally—An act of creation; (2) Morally—May we be mentally illumined by Christ; (3) Allegorically—Let Christ be love; and (4) Anagogically—May we be led by Christ to glory.34
Although Aquinas endorsed looking beyond the primary meaning of the author, he did recognize some of the dangers of allegorization. “Aquinas put forward a threefold argument against allegory: (1) it is susceptible to deception; (2) without a clear method it leads to confusion; and (3) it lacks a sense of the proper integration of Scripture.”35 All three of these significant drawbacks are evident in much interpretation of the book of Revelation today.Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of Bible prophecy dominated the understanding of eschatology during the medieval period. It found acceptance also with the Roman church and among the leaders of the Reformation. Even today, Augustinian eschatology is held by large segments of the Christian church.36
Even the Reformers, who cast off the darkness of Medieval allegorization in so many areas, failed to escape the influence of those who went before them in their understanding of the book of Revelation.37 As we’ve observed in the origination of this method of interpretation, there was a motive for its use. This remains the case today. At times it has simply been unbelief:As someone has said, “The Book of Revelation isn’t hard to understand—it’s hard to believe!” The main reason why so many have resorted to allegorical interpretations is that they have found the literal meaning of its prophecies difficult to accept, scientifically, and aesthetically, and have tried to “explain” them on some less offensive basis.38
At other times, the motive has been to teach unorthodox doctrines twisted from the proper understanding of the text, something which has been with us all along:Metaphysical cults, theosophical cults, divine science cults, pantheistic cults all base their interpretation of Holy Scripture on the theory that the meaning of Scripture is plural. The first meaning is the ordinary historical or grammatical one; and the second meaning is the one the cultist brings to Scripture from the particular metaphysical system or religious system he is pushing.39
Even as far back as Tertullian, the dangerous freedom offered by figurative interpretation for manipulating the meaning of the text was recognized. “On the proper method of interpreting prophecy Tertullian stated: “Now to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the preliminary idea on which they [heretics] rest their assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of speech. Now if this were the case, the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities would not have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched. And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that of which they are the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also literal statements.””40 As we will see as we progress, allegorical interpretation is frequently used by Christians who hope to avoid the plain implication of the teaching of Scripture. Christian Reconstructionists utilize forms of allegorical interpretation in order to work around passages in the book of Revelation which do not conveniently fit into the newspaper events surrounding the times prior to 70 A.D. Since John’s writings clearly indicate a coming time of wrath and judgment upon the earth, their motive is to attempt to remove this reality in favor of a more optimistic future for Christianity:Reconstructionism’s interest in this subject stems from its optimistic outlook regarding Christianity’s ability to gain control of secular society. Because Revelation is admittedly pessimistic in this regard, the system’s scheme for disposing of this unfavorable evidence is to relegate its fulfillment almost entirely to the past, to a time prior to A.D. 70.41
Those who stand opposed to God’s promises made to the Jewish nation find the plain sense of Revelation 20+ much to their disliking as it suggests the fulfillment of the Messianic Kingdom prophecies scattered throughout the OT. Again, allegorical interpretation provides the “solution” in that the thousand years (Rev. 20:4+) becomes an indefinite period and the physical rule and reign with Christ represents the current spiritual standing of the believer. Never mind that interpreting the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-5+) as being spiritual and the second (Rev. 20:12+) as literal runs rough-shod over the rules of sound hermeneutics. The net result of allegorical interpretation is to place a veil of darkness over God’s divine Word. It takes that which God has graciously revealed to the saints and subjects it to the dark vagaries of human imagination and speculation. The result is predictable. Those who major in it remain as much in the dark regarding the Second Coming of Jesus as many Jews were in relation to His predicted suffering at the First Coming.42 Concerning the inconsistency of the allegorical method and the damage which results, Seiss notes:Good and able men have satisfied themselves with it; but, on the same principles of interpretation, there is not a chapter in the Bible, nor a doctrine of our holy religion, which could not be totally explained away. By a happy inconsistency do they not so treat other portions of Scripture, or they would transmute the whole Revelation of God into uncertainty and emptiness.43
Having examined a long list of these symbolic and allegorical interpretations, and followed the processes by which their authors have tried to apply them, I have not found one which does not completely break down under the weight of its own cumbrous unfittingness. They each and all fail to explain the facts and relations of the record, and treat John as a half-demented sentimental old man, trying to make a grand poem out of a few dim anticipations touching the earthly fortunes of the Church, which could have been better told in one well-written chapter. They are, at best, the wild guesses of men who have never got hold of the real thread of the matter, whilst under the necessity of saying something.44
Σημαίνω [Sēmainō] [“signified,” Rev. 1:1+] can overlap with the more general and abstract idea of “make known” in the sense of “indicate,” “declare,” “be manifest.” But its more concrete and at least equally common sense is “show by a sign,” “give (or make) signs (or signals),” or “signify” . . . σημαίνω [sēmainō] typically has the idea of symbolic communication when it is not used in the general sense of “make known.” . . . Of its five other NT occurrences, two have the sense of “make known” (Acts 11:28; 25:27), . . . three others are in John‘s Gospel where it summarizes Jesus’ pictorial description of crucifixion (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19). . . . The symbolic use of σημαίνω [sēmainō] in Daniel 2 defines the use in Rev. 1:1+ as referring to symbolic communication and not mere general conveyance of information . . . [indicating] that a symbolic vision and its interpretation is going to be part of the warp and woof of the means of communication throughout Revelation. . . . Some commentators contend that since Revelation sometimes explicitly explains the meaning of an image in a vision there is a “presumption that, where expressions are not explained, they can normally be interpreted according to their natural [i.e., literal] meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise”. . . . But the results of the analysis of Rev. 1:1+ indicated that this rule should be turned on its head: we are told in the book’s introduction that the majority of the material in it is revelatory symbolism . . . Hence, the predominant manner by which to approach the material will be according to a non-literal interpretive method. [emphasis added]45
Elsewhere Beale states:As we have seen, Rev. 1:1+ programmatically introduces the pictorial visions of the book as having a symbolic meaning without any one-to-one relation to literal historical events. [emphasis added]46
Having conveniently dispatched normative hermeneutics, Beale fails to offer anything substantive in its place. As with all interpretations which major on “symbolic meanings,” the meaning is to be found in the interpreter’s own ideas. Contrary to Beale’s assertion that the symbols are “without any one-to-one relation to literal historical events,” Osborne follows most literal interpreters in recognizing the symbols as representing literal events and personas.47 As Thomas observes, Beale has made the mistake of confusing the way in which the revelation was made (via symbols) with how it should be interpreted by those who follow:The verb ἐσήμανεν [esēmanen] (“he signified”) in Rev. 1:1+ furnishes an advance notice of the symbolic nature of God’s communication with John. This has nothing to do with how the resultant communication should be interpreted, . . . [interpreters] fail to distinguish between the process of revelation and that of interpretation.48
It is also frequently the case that commentators attempt to utilize the appearance of one symbol as license to treat the entire passage in a symbolic way.49 But each symbol must be treated individually as there are numerous cases where symbols are embedded among non-symbolic vision.Once a prophecy is found to contain symbols, interpreters often succumb to the temptation of treating everything else in that prophecy as symbolic. . . . The presence of symbols in a prophecy, however, does not indicate that everything else in that prophecy is symbolical. The designation of symbols must be on an individual basis. Each symbol must be carefully examined, weighed, and adequately supported by strong evidence before a symbolical designation is made. Symbols are not cheaper by the dozen.50
Symbols are frequently employed in the book of Revelation within similes where resemblance is emphasized.51Revelation is interpreted from a literal base, taking into account comparative language that points to a literal ultimate meaning. Two words indicate that comparative language is being used: ὥς [hōs] and ὅμοιος [homoios] . Hos and words related to it are used sixty-eight times in Revelation and approximately 416 elsewhere in the New Testament. Homoios is used twenty-two times in Revelation and about twenty-six times in the rest of the New Testament. Both words are used for comparison and should be translated “Like, as, like as, it seemed to be, something like, etc.” [Often, hos] indicates John is comparing what he sees (something beyond his own experience or comprehension) to the closest known object with which he is familiar. . . . John uses comparative language to describe a literal event, not a symbolic or even figurative event, and certainly not an allegorical event.52
Symbols employed within simile have several advantages over other literary forms of communication. A simile can carry a richness of communication which a simple non-symbolic statement cannot (e.g., the description of the Beast in Rev. 13:2+). Simile is also used when that which is being described exceeds the experience of the writer and the symbol is the best analogy at hand for the writer to convey the sense of what he is seeing (e.g., the description of the demonic locusts in Rev. 9:7-10+). The utilization of simile is not license for interpreting the comparisons within the text as some form of purely symbolic communication. As for determining whether a literal object or figurative symbol is involved, we note several guidelines:First, the interpreter should accept as symbols that which is so designated in the context or seen under the harmony of prophecy. . . . Second, the interpreter should accept as symbols those elements that are truly impossible in the realm of reality, taking care to note that eschatological times are real times. . . . [But the] prophetic Scriptures contain many descriptions of the future that are possible or plausible. In such instances, the interpreter should not assign these to the realm of symbolism.53
To these we may add a third from Tan:The determination of what is figurative and what nonfigurative in prophecy is a question centuries old. From Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana to the present, interpreters have attempted to give different rules and guidelines. . . . the key to determining the figurative from the nonfigurative lies in ascertaining whether a given word or act is at variance with the essential nature of the subject being discussed. If a word or act, taken in the literal sense, fails to harmonize with either the flow of thought in the text or context, or with the analogy of Scripture, it is to be understood as figurative. Otherwise, it is nonfigurative.54
As an example, Tan’s guideline can be applied productively in the case of the binding of Satan:Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-2+)
To answer the question whether the chain is literal, one need only observe that Satan is spirit and cannot be bound by material objects. Therefore, the chain is figurative of the bondage under which Satan will be placed. Learning to identify which aspects of a passage are figurative and which are literal is essential for correct interpretation:Some seem to believe that if anything in a given passage is symbolic, then everything must be symbolic . . . . In contrast, the approach recommended here can be illustrated by considering the statement, “It was raining cats and dogs outside.” . . . The key to a correct interpretation is (a) to recognize that there can be both literal and figurative elements in the same text and (b) to seek to discern which aspects of the text fal into which category. In this illustration, for example, “It was raining . . . outside” should be taken literally, and the “cats and dogs” should be taken figuratively. Both the literal and the figurative function together to communicate that it was raining very hard.55
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of determining whether a passage conveys figurative or literal events is found in the fact that prophetic content can span periods of time far beyond the time when the vision was first given. Thus, things which seemed clearly to be figurative at the time of writing due to their impossibility (e.g., the two hundred million horsemen in Rev. 9:16+; the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations viewing the dead bodies of the two witnesses in Rev. 11:9+) later become literally possible (e.g., a large world population; the advent of worldwide broadcasting). Writing almost one-half century ago, Tenney observed:The object like a burning mountain cast into the sea (Rev. 8:8+), the opening of the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:2+), and many other episodes must be interpreted symbolically if they are to be taken as applying to current or to past history. If they are yet to come, they may be a more accurate description of actual phenomena than most expositors have realized, for the physical and psychical researches of recent years have opened to the mind of man worlds that in John’s time were completely unknown. The atom bomb, guided missiles, and the scientific devices of modern warfare have made the Apocalypse seem much less apocalyptic [dramatic hyperbole] than it did fifty years ago.56
The fact that Revelation 19+ sets forth the Second Coming of Christ which has obviously not yet occurred renders unlikely the stance of Osborne and others who hold that all the symbols found in the book were understood by the original readers:We no longer need to guess what modern events may be prophesied, for every symbol was understandable to the first-century readers. . . . we seek . . . the background knowledge from the first century to unlock the tensive symbols and to see what the original readers would have understood when they read them. This is not a perfect science, of course, and scholars debate the background behind each symbol. [emphasis added]57
Since some of the symbols relate events which have not yet been fulfilled, we cannot simply assert they were all understood by the original readers. For one thing, it is highly unlikely that the original readers had access to the entire corpus which came to be recognized as the canon of Scripture, thereby lacking perhaps the most important key to understanding some of the symbols in the book of Revelation: the comparison of related passages (analogy) of Scripture. (See our discussion on the audience and purpose of the book for more on this.) The insistence that all symbols were understood by the readers of John’s day ignores the reality that not even John understood everything which he saw (Rev. 7:13-14+). It is important to notice that John is told to write, “what you see ” (Rev. 1:11+) rather than what he understood. In other words, John was to record his immediate experiences and visions. He was not given the vision and then told to cogitate over it for a period of time to eventually produce a literary masterpiece in the apocalyptic genre perfectly understandable to first century readers! Fortunately, many of the symbols are explained in their immediate context. And we are also blessed with the entire corpus of inspired Scripture which we can apply to gain an understanding of what John relates.58 It is worth mentioning another aspect of symbols in prophetic Scripture: the tendency of literal interpreters to render symbolic descriptions by way of literal drawings. While these may be interesting or even provocative, it is generally a disservice to the prophetic text to utilize the symbols in such a way. Trench observes the priority of symbolism within the Jewish tradition as being that of conveying truth rather than rendering form:This description of the glorified Lord (Rev. 1:16+), . . . may suggest a few reflections on the apocalyptic, and generally the Hebrew symbolism, and on the very significant relations of difference and opposition in which it stands to the Greek. Religion and Art for the Greek ran into one another with no very signal preponderance of the claims of the former over the latter. Even in his religious symbolism the sense of beauty, of form, of proportion, overrules every other, and must at all costs find its satisfaction; so that the first necessity of the symbol is that it shall not affront, that it shall satisfy rather, the aesthetic sense. . . . But with the Hebrew symbolism it is altogether different. The first necessity there is that the symbol should set forth truly and fully the religious idea of which it is intended to be the vehicle. How it would appear when it clothed itself in an outward form and shape, whether it would find favour. . . as satisfying the conditions of beauty, this was quite a secondary consideration; may be confidently affirmed not to have been a consideration at all; . . . but rather that it should remain ever and only a purely mental conception, the unembodied sign of an idea;—I may observe, by the way, that no skill of delineation can make the Cherubim themselves other than unsightly objects to the eye.59
The results of such renderings are often held up to ridicule as the result of the literal method of interpretation. But this misunderstands the purpose of such symbols as being primarily art form rather than representative of characteristics which are not as easily conveyed textually. All the more so when such figures are described by simile providing a definite clue that the image conveyed by the text is only an approximation of the reality being described.In all speculations upon numbers we may very profitably lay to heart the wise caution of Fuller, [A Pisgah Sight of Palestine, b. iii. c. 6.] . . . “For matter of numbers fancy is never at a loss. . . . But such as in expounding of Scripture reap more than God did sow there, never eat what they reap thence, because such grainless husks, when seriously threshed out, vanish all into chaff.”61
This caution applies not only to numbers, but to the interpretation of symbols and typology. In the case of numerology, symbols, and typology, God undeniably conveys more than the surface text itself suggests, the problem is in determining how valid are the additional insights one may gain. As soon as the meaning attributed to a number, symbol, or type is carried beyond what God intended to convey, then we are eating Fuller’s “grainless husks.” So due caution must be exercised, especially by teachers.62 Beale provides us with illustrations of the most common abuse of numbers: a denial of any literal value and substituting a figurative meaning in its place:The seven kings [of Rev. 17:10+] are not to be identified with any specific historical rulers but represent rather the oppressive power of world government throughout the ages, which arrogates to itself divine prerogatives and persecutes God’s people.63
The name “Christ” appears seven times and the name “Jesus” fourteen times. “The Lamb” is used of Christ twenty-eight times, seven bringing the Lamb and God together. The 7 x 4 appearances of this title underscore the universal scope of the Lamb’s complete victory. . . . Twelve is the number of God’s people, which is squared to indicate completeness and multiplied by one thousand to connote vastness. [Rev. 7:4+; 14:1+]64
Notice how Beale puts his interpreter’s “spin” on the numbers in order to deny their literalness with phrases like to indicate and to connote. Some interpreters seem to despair of dealing with the numbers in the book of Revelation in any sort of literal way. This can be carried to such an extreme as to totally deny any literal meaning while failing to provide a figurative understanding in its place:65 Here we meet with both confusion (we can’t know what the numbers mean) and anti-supernaturalism (we can’t know the writer’s intention—never mind that he was told simply to record what he was shown). When it comes to numbers and their meaning in the book of Revelation, it is not uncommon for interpreters to ask the reader to exchange his gold (the number’s literal meaning) for fool’s gold (a fanciful, vague interpretation, or perhaps no interpretation at all). It may be valid in some cases to understand an additional well-recognized figurative meaning connoted by a number, but this should not be done in lieu of its literal value. There were, after all, twelve actual sons of Israel (Gen. 35:22-26) and Jesus ministered to twelve actual disciples (Mtt. 10:2-5).We cannot insist on a literal meaning for the three and a half years of the tribulation period or the thousand years of the millennium. They could be literal, but the numbers function symbolically in the book and probably signify a lengthy period of time that is under God’s control.66
We are being asked to trade gold for fool’s gold! Rather than understand three and a half as denoting a specific period of time specified by God,67 we are asked to accept the alternate meaning which our interpreter says is probably correct! There is a strong bias against literal understanding of numbers in the book of Revelation. Even when the text seems quite explicit as to the identification of what is being described, commentators refuse to take the text at face value:Let us consider the meaning of numbers in the book. . . . While some (Seiss, Walvoord, Thomas) tend to consider them literally, they are forced to some creative interpretations , for example, regarding the 144,000 who are sealed in Rev. 7:4-8+. Walvoord . . . believes this means that 12,000 sealed in each tribe are those selected to be God’s special witnesses through the tribulation period, but it seems more likely that the numbers in the book are meant symbolically as was common in ancient apocalypses. [emphasis added]68
Notice how those who adhere to a literal interpretation and who arrive at a uniform understanding are said to be employing “creative interpretations.” That the exact opposite is the case can be easily demonstrated by noting the wide variation in interpretation among the commentators who take the 144,000 Jews as being non-Jews. Here again we see an appeal to the literary genre including a host of non-canonical writings to undermine the straightforward text. We are told that we should not understand the 144,000 Jews to be 144,000 individuals nor Jews, because this book is to be read like any other “ancient apocalypse” where symbols serve as the vehicle for communicating inspirational musings and obscure political inferences. Never mind that the text goes to great lengths to make sure we know these are Jews (each of the twelve tribes is individually listed) and their appearance at this point in the events of the book of Revelation is in perfect accord with the doctrine of the believing Jewish remnant which runs throughout Scripture (1K. 19:18; 2K. 19:4, 30; 21:14; 25:22; Isa. 1:9; 6:13; 7:3; 10:20-22; 28:5; 37:4, 31-32; 46:3; 59:21; 65:8; Jer 5:10; 5:18; 23:3; 50:20; Eze. 5:3; 6:8-10; 9:8, 11; Eze. 11:13; Joel 2:32; Mic. 2:12; 7:18; Zec. 11:10; 13:8-9; Rom. 9:6, 27; Rom. 11:5, 17, 25; Gal. 6:16; 1Pe. 1:1; Rev. 12:17+).69 We believe the correct view on the interpretation of numbers within the book of Revelation is to understand them in their primary, literal sense, but to also recognize biblical numerology where certain numbers appear with special emphasis throughout Scripture and carry additional meaning beyond the bare facts they record:The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number. On the other hand, the nonsymbolic usage of numbers is the rule. It requires multiplication of a literal 12,000 by a literal twelve to come up with 144,000 in Rev. 7:4-8+. The churches, seals, trumpets, and bowls are all literally seven in number. The three unclean spirits of Rev. 16:13+ are actually three in number. The three angels connected with the last three woes (Rev. 8:13+) add up to a total of three. The seven last plagues amount to exactly seven. The equivalency of 1,260 days and three and a half years necessitate a nonsymbolic understanding of both numbers. The twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are literally twelve (Rev. 21:12-14+). The seven churches are seven literal cities. Yet confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible.70
Numbers may be understood literally, but even when understood in this way, they often carry with them also a symbolical meaning. Hence the number seven, . . . refers to seven literal churches . . . Yet by the very use of this number (which speaks of completion or perfection) the concept is conveyed that these were representative churches which in some sense were complete in their description of the normal needs of the church.71
For example, we understand that God completed His creation within a literal six-day period and rested on the seventh (Gen. 2:1; Ex. 20:11; 31:17). We also understand that He did this by design as a pattern to establish the working week for man (Ex. 20:9; 23:12; 31:15; etc.). The number has a two-fold significance. First, it has a literal meaning: the creation spanned six 24-hour days. Second, it has a symbolical meaning: the number seven carries the meaning of rest or completion. To deny the primary literal meaning in order to major on the secondary symbolism would be an error. So too would be an interpretation which denies the secondary symbolism. When we interpret numbers primarily in their literal sense, we are in the company of the earliest interpreters to whom the Scriptures were entrusted: the Jews. Prior to the rise of allegorical interpretation , the rabbis understood the Scriptures in the same way as literal interpreters today. For example, the last ‘seven’ of Daniel’s seventy sevens (Dan. 9:24-27) are understood as a literal period of seven years.72 When we read the book of Revelation, we do not enter some strange Alice in Wonderland world where normative communication is set aside in favor of speculation. Those commentators who do so would never dream of applying similar methods of interpretation to other passages of Scripture. In the gospels they understand twelve apostles as twelve apostles, three days as three days, and so on. The existence of symbols and categorization of writing as apocalyptic genre are not license for jettisoning the primary literal meaning of numbers.Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ (Luke 16:29-31)
It is no accident that it is Moses (representing the law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) who appear with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mtt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30). Many have noted the similarity between the miraculous activities of the two witnesses of Revelation 11+ and those of Moses and Elijah recorded in the Old Testament. Regardless of the actual identity of the two Revelation witnesses (see commentary on Rev. 11:3-13+), the similarity of their ministry to that of Moses and Elijah seems intended to underscore their role as witnesses to the law and the prophets. Within the “unholy trinity” of the Beast, the False Prophet, and Satan, it is significant that there are two human personages: the two beasts which rise from the sea and the earth, respectively (Rev. 13:1+, 11+). These two men stand as witnesses to the depravity of man, as empowered by Satan. Both are beasts, both rise from distinct human populations (the sea being a reference to Gentile nations and the earth a possible reference to the Jewish nation). The second beast has two horns which may emphasize his special role as a witness to the first beast, to whom he directs the attention and worship of those who dwell upon the earth.Four . . . is the signature of the world . . . . Four is stamped every where on this the organized world. Thus, not to speak of the four elements, the four seasons, neither of which are recognized in Scripture, we have the four winds (Eze. 37:9; Mtt. 24:31; Rev. 7:1+); the four corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1+; 20:8+); the four living creatures, emblems of all creaturely life (Rev. 4:6+), and each of these with four faces and four wings (Eze. 1:5-6); the four beasts coming up from the sea, and representing the four great world-empires which in the providence of God should succeed one another (Dan. 7:3); the four metals composing the image which sets forth the same phases of empire (Dan. 2:32-33); the four Gospels, or the four-sided Gospel, in sign of its designation for all the world; the sheet tied at the four corners (Acts 10:11; 11:5); the four horns, the sum total of the forces of the world as arrayed against the Church (Zec. 1:18); the enumeration, wherever this is wished to be exhaustive of the inhabitants of the world by four, kindreds, tongues, peoples, and nations (Rev. 5:9+ cf. 7:9+; 10:11+; 11:9+; 14:6+; 17:15+). For other significant enumerations by four, see Eze. 14:21; John 5:3; Rev. 6:8+. 82
The first four of the seven seals, the “four horsemen of the apocalypse” (Rev. 6:1-8+), are each represented by a rider on a horse whose action has worldwide effects. The worldwide or global connotation of the number four derives from the directions of the compass (North, South, East, West, cf. Eze. 7:2) and may be why there are four living creatures which are around the throne (Rev. 4:6+) surrounding it in all four primary directions. This same directional emphasis is seen in the camp of Israel which camped around the tabernacle in the wilderness in these four primary directions (Num. 2:1-34; 23:10). This same arrangement is reflected in the tribal names associated with the twelve gates surrounding the New Jerusalem: 3 tribal names written on the gates in each of the four directions (Rev. 21:13+). The living creatures seen by John bear a striking resemblance to Ezekiel’s cherubim83 (Eze. 1:10; 10:14) which appear to support the “chariot throne” of God as it travels in any direction (Eze. 1:12; 10:16-17), yet with notable differences. Each of Ezekiel’s cherubim have four faces (a cherub or ox, a man, a lion, and an eagle) whereas John’s four living creatures each have a different face (a calf, a man, a lion, and an eagle). See Four Gospels. The global emphasis of the number four is also seen in the four angels which kill a third of all mankind.84Six days were appointed to him for his labour; while one day is associated in sovereignty with the Lord God, as His rest. Six, therefore, is the number of labour also, of man’s labour as apart and distinct from God’s rest. . . . the number is significant of secular completeness.90
In the book of Revelation is presented the final great effort of the human secular system to achieve its ends apart from God. The cataclysmic events in response to the unbridled will of man are God’s ultimate reminder of man’s innate inability and deficiency apart from God, which the earth-dwellers refuse to acknowledge to the bitter end. Among the enemies of God marked by the number six: we find Goliath, whose height was six cubits, having six pieces of armor and a spear’s head weighing six hundred shekels of iron (1S. 17:4-7); Nebuchadnezzar, whose “image” was sixty cubits high and six cubits wide (Dan. 3:1); and Antichrist, whose number is six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:18+). Even Solomon at the height of his earthly glory received a mere six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold (1K. 10:14) each year and sat on a throne of only six steps (1K. 10:19). Solomon, in his advanced human wisdom, great power and influence, but eventual drift from God, illustrates characteristics shared by the Antichrist of the end. Throughout history, the best that man can produce by every available means and effort of rebellious will is “666” which falls short of God’s triune completeness (“777”).Even the most careless reader of the Apocalypse must be struck by the manner in which almost every thing there is ordered by sevens. Thus, besides the seven Churches, and their seven Angels, we have already in this first chapter the seven Spirits (Rev. 1:4+), the seven candlesticks (Rev. 1:12+), the seven stars (Rev. 1:16+); and further on, the seven lamps of fire (Rev. 4:4+), seven seals (Rev. 5:1+), seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb (Rev. 5:6+), seven heavenly Angels with their seven trumpets (Rev. 8:2+), seven thunders (Rev. 10:3+), seven heads of the dragon, and seven crowns upon these heads (Rev. 12:13+), the same of the beast rising out of the sea (Rev. 13:1+), seven last plagues (Rev. 15+;1+); seven vials (Rev. 15:7+), seven mountains (Rev. 17:9+), seven kings (Rev. 17:10+); not to speak of other recurrences, not so obvious, of this number seven as the signature of the Book; as for instance, the distribution of the entire Book into seven visions, the sevenfold ascription of glory to the Lamb (Rev. 5:12+), and to God (Rev. 7:12+).91
Hindson lists the following ‘sevens’ in the book: churches (Rev.