Why are there so many different (and even wrong) views about the book of Revelation?

Misinterpretations, poor teaching (which is quite different from false teaching), and false teachings abound about Revelation, especially in the Midwest of the United States (my current context where God has sent me). These misreadings of the text are mutli-faceted and not everyone misreads the text for the same reasons.

I have been guilty of misreading Revelation throughout my time as a Christian. Through ongoing growth and study I've grown to see that interpretations I once held, are not so faithful to the text as others interpretations. Sometimes our reading of the text hits the nail on the head, sometimes, we bend the nail through repeated misses in our interpretations.

While much of the church through history has debated the various interpretive approaches to Revelation, in the United States today the most popular and "mainstream of consciousness" interpretative approach is the futurist dispensational approach. This is in no small part due to the furthering of the Scofield reference Bible (first published in 1909). For several generations of Americans in the Midwest, the futurist (and dispensational) approach is the only view ever considered or heard. Without exposure to the possibility that not everything in Revelation 4-22 is about the distant far off future these folks drink deeply from the wells of poor and false teaching which abound. Poor teaching can come from true gospel witnessing yet suffer an underdeveloped understanding. False teaching on the book of Revelation can range to outright denials of the 2nd coming (full preterist) or the more prevalent contemporary calls for the immanent return of Christ featuring the setting of dates predicting the 2nd coming (such as the Millerites of the 1800s, Hal Lindsay, or the 7th day Adventist approach today).

Because of these sorts of errors, many read Revelation through the lenses of their newspaper, rather than reading their newspaper through the lenses of Revelation. Many of the reformers we're also guilty of this sort of interpretation (I recognize this may not be a popular thing to say among believers who owe a debt of history and legacy to the European Reformation, I bring this up in trying to do justice to their historic positions). 

With the massive gospel explosion that was the Reformation in Europe, many of our most studied and influential servants of God's word from France, England, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland approached Revelation attempting to place timelines of history upon each verse (known as the historicist approach). It is hard to fault them too drastically as the wars against the papacy certainly would have been a context where the apocalyptic drama of John's vision would have contemporary meaning. Yet, as the Scofield Bible and dispensational approach encourages a misreading of the text with an eye to the future and current events, the reformers viewed (and many misread) Revelation with an eye to the scope of history up to their present current events.

Many by this point in the discussion will have surmised I believe Christ's intended meaning in giving to John the vision of Revelation a idealist/and partial preterist view to warn, bless, and encourage believers of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I won't defend or articulate the entire partial preterist perspective here. If anyone is interested I can give some recommended resources to study (in addition to the Biblical text which is of course the best text on the topic 😂

Those who are aware of multiple views of Revelation and haven't been exclusively exposed only to dispensational thinking (through generational adoption and influence of the Scofield reference Bible) often reject the partial preterist understanding and timeline of Revelation for 2 reasons:

1. The potential for heresy from full preterist denial of the 2nd coming. In doing so this unfortunately throws the "baby out with the bath water". But I'm patient (to the best of my abilities) in walking through the texts of the New Testament, including Revelation and elsewhere that demand a 2nd glorious coming of Christ Jesus. In fact, in a wierd way, it's encouraging that folks can make the logical connection that one possible heresy is full preterism. Never go full preterist is the joke among Partial Preterists. 

2. Contemporary scholarship over the last 125+ years has a tendency to date Revelation as being written during the reign of Domitian (90-95 A.D.) which would by necessity go against Revelation as a prophetic preview of the destruction of Jerusalem. Because this view has been the popular and dominant view of scholarship (including some of the most influential commentaries during the last 100 years) many simply dismiss (without doing the rigorous history to check into the possible date of writing) an earlier dating of Revelation prior to 70 A.D.

A final reason I'll give for the many erroneous interpretations of Revelation: the American church (in the mainstream) has reduced the prophets of the Old Testament (both major and minor prophets) to single verse quotations. This approach would be more genre appropriate to Proverbs than to God's prophetic Words through servants in time and history. Because of this reductionist approach, rather than preaching through the 12 minor prophets or the 3 major prophets, these prophets (like Joel) only come up as reference citations during celebrations around Pentecost, or as special readings during Advent and Christmas (with Isaiah 9 in particular being the chosen passage most often). Thus the vast array of people in the pews come away from these prophets (which make up a huge chunk of God's Word) with the basic interpretations "God wants me to prosper like eagles spreading their wings" and "the church is a no judgement zone" and even "the God of the Old Testament must be different from the God of the New Testament since the OT is so judgey, and the New Testament is so lovey".

Look through the archives of almost any church (reformed churches in name as well) and see if they dare to approach the texts of Daniel (beyond the narrative chapters), the 12 minor prophets (beyond a single topical sermon) or the major prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.

At this point you are wondering "Ok Jacob...what does this have to do with Revelation again?" - simply this. If in contemporary settings the church is neglectful and misinterpreting (even teaching heresy) in approaching the ancient prophets which led up to Christ, by consequence there will also be an accompanying error in approaching the more "modern" prophetic apocalyptic vision from Jesus to John in Revelation. 

One of the "shibboleths" (Or watch words/measuring tools) I've begun to develop when reading commentators and schools of thought discussing NT eschatological systems and texts, is to examine those same writers/preachers/commentators in their Old Testament exegesis. If someone is getting Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi wrong (and we have clear fulfillments of those books in the NT as cited by NT inspired writers), then I'm skeptical in their teaching on NT unfulfilled or partially fulfilled prophecy. If you want to earn my ear and set me to reading God's Word in Revelation through an interpretation, demonstrate you can handle other prophetic texts with Godly faithfulness, humility, and exposition.

By way of illustration, if you cannot be reliable in nailing two planks together, you certainly are not worthy of building a whole home. To do the more difficult, one must first be able to do the more simple. 

To sum up, why are there often so many poor and false interpretations of Revelation?

1. The Scofield reference Bible, along with contemporary commentaries have dominated the US the "mainstream" of Biblical teaching for the last 100+ years. 

2. Historic giants who have exercised massive influence on protestantism haven't provided a consensus  interpretive view that follows sound exegetical principles. 

3. Alternative interpretations are discounted because of potential valid concerns regarding "slippery slope" heresy. 

4. A lack of faithful biblical exposition of the Old Testament prophetic books has led to a lack of faithful biblical exposition of the New Testament prophetic writings. 

In closing, I'll take a brief stab at some solutions. How can we avoid misinterpreting Revelation? 

Individually, read the text, be studious and expect error from a wide variety of commentators. Devote yourself to the study of the text in light of the rest of scripture, prior to arriving at a conclusion "this is what the text means". That sounds like hard work? Yup. It isn't easy to build a house, but it is tremendously comforting and rewarding to dwell safely in your well constructed home. The same is true with interpreting Revelation. It isn't easy to interpret, but it is tremendously comforting and rewarding to dwell in the safety of God's intended meaning of His Word. 

Corporately, God continues to provide faithful teachers and preachers of the Word. We must challenge one another and encourage each other to listen to those who speak the truth, not those who have a particular size in following. Sometimes this means really long sermon series that last for multiple months (or even for multiple years). Sometimes this means gathering together with a group or another individual believer and asking questions together as you read Revelation jointly. These can be opportunities of growth in our trust in God and relationships with one another.