When it comes to the interpretation of what are termed apocalyptic prophecies which use imagery to convey what will happen in the future – particularly in the last days and concerning Jesus' second coming – there has always been widespread disagreement and contention amongst believers throughout the whole of church history.

 Has this debate been fruitful and helpful in spreading the Good News of Jesus or has it been largely divisive and counter-productive? For some it propels them into rants. For others it simply gets disproportionate attention. A dearly loved and elderly Pentecostal pastor, who fathered me from when Sue and I were married until we went to Bible College, said to me: "I really regret now having spent so much of my life preoccupied with prophetic interpretation. I should have simply been passionate about Jesus." I remember him saying at an earlier point, with eyes flashing, "I have just bought Leon Morris' Tyndale Commentary on Revelation. It doesn't say anything!" What he meant was "It doesn't take the historical view". See below. (I agree with Leon Morris' approach by the way as his analysis is unbiased.)

There are four main schools of thought regarding the interpretation of sections like Daniel 7-12 and Revelation 4-22.

1.       The Preterist View: that it refers principally to the time in which it was written and very soon after.

2.       The Historical View: that it is an inspired forecast of the whole of human history.

3.       The Futurist View: that it is exclusively concerned with what will happen at the end of the age and the second coming.

4.       The Idealist View: that it is primarily concerned with theological principles and ideas and general concepts.

When I had to teach a course on all of this in the Bible School in Guinea-Bissau, I prepared with great diligence believing I would land squarely on one of these, but what I found was that they all have strengths and weaknesses. I found it totally impossible to categorically defend any one of them from Scripture. They were all partly justifiable, but all contained unsubstantiated conclusions.

Throughout the whole of the history of the church each generation has had their own interpretation of the mark of the beast and the number 666 and, as can be imagined, within each generation there have been many different suggestions! We are called to obey those in authority over us unless they force us to specifically do things against God’s clear commandments. I think the words "force" and "clear" are the important ones here.

 Sue and I have just read 2 Tim. 2:14-28 together. Before Revelation was even written there were some who had "left the path of truth, preaching the lie that the resurrection of the dead had already occurred; and they have undermined the faith of some." This is surely a timely warning not to be dogmatic on the way we interpret prophecy. We must make room for mystery.