Without a doubt, Revelation is one of the most difficult Bible books to understand. It has baffled ancient and modern commentators alike. Yet Revelation continues to capture the church’s imagination.
The church remains divided over how to interpret the Apocalypse. There are two main approaches for reading the book: the futurist perspective and the recapitulation perspective.
G. K. Chesterton famously quipped, “Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.” Let’s take a moment to consider how Christians in the 21st century should interpret this enigmatic book. We’ll see that Revelation presents itself as symbolic communication that stirs the heart and captivates the mind.
Literal vs. Symbolic
Some interpret most of Revelation as taking place in the future. This futurist perspective is often wedded to a “literal” approach to interpreting the book, whereby it must be primarily read in light of physical realities.
So, for example, the horde of locusts in Revelation 9 is interpreted literally or physically. The locusts are real, physical entities that emerge out of the earth at the very end of history. John MacArthur states that these locusts are “vile demons, taking on a visible form resembling locusts, swarmed out of the abyss to plague the earth” (emphasis added).
Other scholars, though, argue that Revelation is composed of a series of visions that rehearse or “recapitulate” the same event. This reading is largely based on a symbolic approach to the book. The locusts in Revelation 9 aren’t physical locusts but figurative ones. They symbolize a demonic attack on unbelievers.
To read Revelation symbolically means to interpret it primarily (but not exclusively) through figures of speech, such as metaphors, symbols, similes, personification, and hyperbole.
Both sides admit that Revelation contains symbols, but commentators disagree as to the frequency. Is the dominant form of communication couched in symbols or physical descriptions? Let’s see if Revelation gives us any interpretative clues.
‘He Signified It’
Revelation 1:1 is of utmost importance to interpreting the book: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.”
We learn three things here: the source of the book of Revelation, its content, and how the book was communicated. We are interested in the last point.
The clause “He made it known” is one word in Greek (sēmainō), and translations usually render the verb as “made it known” (NIV, CSB, ESV, RSV). This Greek term in 1:1 alludes to Daniel 2:45. We can be sure that John has this allusion in mind because he shows considerable awareness of Daniel throughout Revelation, especially in the prologue.
According to the Greek translation of Daniel 2:45, the word sēmainō describes the symbolic vision that King Nebuchadnezzar saw: “The Great God has signified [esēmane] to the king what will come to pass in the latter days” (author’s translation). We could also translate this verb sēmainō as “communicate through symbols.”
What does God communicate to Nebuchadnezzar through symbols? The great colossus composed of gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay! A rock then smashes this colossus. Each part of the statue symbolizes a pagan kingdom, and the rock symbolizes God’s eternal kingdom (2:24–45).
So, in Revelation 1:1, John deliberately employs language taken from Daniel 2:45 to demonstrate that Revelation’s content is likewise symbolic. Don’t miss what John is doing here: He’s telling the reader how to read Revelation. As a rule of thumb, then, it should be largely read and interpreted symbolically.
As a rule of thumb, Revelation should be largely read and interpreted symbolically.
Two translations—HCSB and KJV—are therefore right to translate the verb sēmainō as “[he] signified it.”
G. K. Beale was one of the first commentators to notice John’s allusion to Daniel 2:45 in Revelation 1:1 and tease out its significance for the whole book. He concludes, “The programmatic statement about the book’s precise mode of communication in 1:1 is that the warp and woof of it is symbolic.” I’ve even heard him say, “Because I interpret Revelation 1:1 literally, I interpret the whole book figuratively.”
Objections to Symbolism
Two common objections arise against a symbolic approach to Revelation. Some think it hollows out the text’s referent. Since a symbolic reading doesn’t primarily interpret the visions of Revelation “literally” (or physically), the visions lack a referent. This simply isn’t the case.
Though Revelation is filled with symbols, these symbols communicate genuine spiritual realities. Just as the symbol of the rock that smashes the colossus in Daniel 2 communicates the true reality of the coming kingdom, so too the symbols of Revelation contain genuine spiritual realities or truths. Revelation pulls back the curtain on the physical world and reveals spiritual realities at work.
Revelation pulls back the curtain on the physical world and reveals spiritual realities at work.
A second objection is that a symbolic interpretation lacks hermeneutical controls. The meaning of Revelation’s visions becomes something of a wax nose—easily manipulated by the interpreter. This point is well taken, and there is indeed a risk of misinterpreting the symbols.
But because Revelation is so dependent on the Old Testament, John expects his readers to interpret his visions in light of God’s dealings with his people then. We don’t have to guess what the symbols mean—we need only to find those same symbols in the Old Testament and import their meaning into Revelation.
John didn’t intend for Revelation to be read in light of CNN or Fox News. He wanted the local news to be interpreted in light of Revelation. God is at work in the world, and he gave us this precious book to discover it on our journey to the new heavens and earth.
