Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are of course a number of different approaches to, and interpretations of the book of Revelation. When I read theological works on end times I stumble upon some of those. But I never really understand how widespread those are.

Approaches: Idealist approach, the futurist approach, the church historical approach and the preterist approach (among others).

Different views on the millennium: Historic premillennialism, premillennialism (and dispensialism), postmillennialism and amillennialism.

What I am interested in is some statistics of present day Christianity. Are there any estimates on how many people that support those different approaches and views on the millennium (I'm most curious of the later). And what kind of Christians do generally hold on to which view?

share|improve this question
It's a big question so even if you only can give a part of an answer - That's great. :) –  Niclas Nilsson Aug 8 '12 at 7:43
The following is not statistics, but Mike's answer to Study Sources of Book of Revelation lists who supports what view (based on the books they've written.) –  user1694 Aug 8 '12 at 8:25
Oh. That's great. I look into it. –  Niclas Nilsson Aug 8 '12 at 8:56
Related background for those who don't know what the different millennium views are about: What are the differences between the different millenialisms? –  Caleb Aug 8 '12 at 9:52
I figured the bounty would've drawn some more attention to this –  warren Aug 20 '12 at 14:10

2 Answers 2

I have still not found any good answer to this question. But I post some hints that have been helpful to me. Hoping that it might be helpful for someone else and maybe intriguing to give a better answer. The following is a quotation from Steve Gregg, Revelation - four views, 1997, p. 33-34.

The contemporary conservative protestant scene

Conservative Protestants commentaries (those that not follow the literary-critical approach) in the 19th and 20th centuries have been divided: The historicist approach continued into the 19th century in the writings of E. B. Elliott (Horae Apocalypticae, 1847), A. J. Gordon, Albert Barnes, and others. To my knowledge, the only modern commentaries that espouse this view have not come from recognized scholars (not that this fact should condemn them), but from essentially self-published authors who are desirous to reintroduce this viewpoint to a modern readership. Eugene Boring would seem to be correct when he writes, "Although widely held by Protestant interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view." The preterist approach was followed in the 19th century by Moses Stuart (1845), and in the early 20th century by James Snowden (1919). Preterism has had a recent resurgence in the writings of Christian Reconstructionists like David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry. On of the first popular presentations of the futurist approach, and the most influential, was that of J. A. Seiss (Lectures on the Apocalypse, 1909). In the 20th century, the futurist approach to Revelation has become most common - especially since the publication of the phenomenally successful The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey - having its place almost in the very common stock of American pop culture. Futurism has been advocated by sound scholars, such as Walvoord, Mounce, and Ladd, as well as by innumerable cranks and eschatelogical faddists, who have often given it a bad name by their repeated speculations concerning the date of the Second Coming and their assigning of correspondences between the symbolic visions and specific developments in an ever-changing modern political milieu.
The spiritual approach has received wide acceptance in modern commentaries, though various labels have been attached to it. Since Eichhorn, in the 18th century the dramatic nature of the book has intrigues many students of the book. In 1939, William Hendriksen popularized this view in his book, More Than Conquerors, though it was found in a number of works earlier in the 20th century as well. As I write, there appear to be more new commentaries published advocating a dramatico-spiritual approach to Revelation than there are advocating any of the other conservative approaches.

Authors emphasis. All spelling mistakes are (probably) mine. I do, by the way, highly recommend this book (even though I only started).

share|improve this answer

There are few answers to your question in the Bible, but I will give you the ones I know.

First of all in:

Revelation 1:1 KJV

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

We are told that things were to happen soon, but we do not have any definition of what is meant by soon. and we are told in:

Revelation 1:19 KJV

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

that some of those things were happening now, which may refer to the Church age which we are in now, and some of them will happen later, which I take to be a future age such as the period of the tribulation.

The Revelation breaks down into three parts things that are, things that were, and things which will be.

The millennium to which you refer comes in the things which will be category.

Most Protestants with whom I have talked believe in pre millennialism, based on the following Scriptures, but I do not know about Catholics.

Job 14:12 KJV

So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Mat 24:21 & 22 KJV

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Mat 24:29 through 31 KJV

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mat 25:31 KJV

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

This is the beginning of both the Bema judgment and on into the Great white throne judgment.

Most Protestants that I have talked to feel that Matthew 24:22 indicates that God will take his people from the Earth prior to the Great Tribulation, they believe that a loving God would not have his believers go through that, and I am inclined to agree with that assumption. There is no clear answer to exactly when this will happen, but since Jesus said:

Mat 24:36 KJV

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer, since there is no Biblical answer of which I know.

share|improve this answer
Of course there are no Biblical answers to present day statistics :) –  Niclas Nilsson Nov 4 '13 at 20:13
@christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1600/niclas-nilsson True, but are you really asking for a statistic which would have no real meaning since it would be impossible know what every Christian thinks or are you really asking which is more correct? any statistics you may get are conjecture on someone's part, and will be based on their perceived parameters. The only really important statistic is what do you believe, what is the truth. –  BYE Nov 4 '13 at 20:28
Statistic might be the wrong word. Estimations or a overview on denominations was more of what I meant. I think that you more propagate for your own view then gives an answer to the question. But I won't do -1, because you also try (at least a little) to share what most people you meet believe. And I guess that could be a part of an answer. Also, to know about other peoples view on escatology might not be that important. But is it not okey to be curious? –  Niclas Nilsson Nov 4 '13 at 20:46
@christianity.stackexchange.com/users/1600/niclas-nilsson Being curious is not only natural it is imperative to learning. I am a very curious person myself, but am also a person who is intent on finding the truth in my research. My answer and any comment I may make are not meant in any way to be critical or the lest bit demeaning. Sometimes I am unintentionally abrasive but it it nothing personal –  BYE Nov 4 '13 at 20:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.