The Revelation is the most difficult book to interpret of any in the New Testament canon. Its meaning is often involved in much obscurity, and the interpretation of eminent scholars has differed so widely in the past that we cannot always be sure, especially in the more difficult portions, that the particular view which appears to us the more satisfactory or convincing is certainly the correct one. This divergence of opinion has had the unfortunate effect of disparaging the worth of the Apocalypse as a part of the Word of God in the mind of many earnest students, who have come to regard its meaning as so obscure, and hidden in such hopeless perplexity, that any further attempt to interpret it is entirely fruitless. So much, too, has been written about the book which abounds in manifest vagaries that men of sober mind have often been thereby deterred from forming or expressing any definite opinion concerning its teaching. Indeed it is difficult to say whether the Revelation has suffered more in the hands of expositors by means of fanciful and mistaken interpretation of its true contents, or by the interpolation of ideas wholly foreign to its thought. But, however brought about, we have reached this strangely incongruous result, that what was originally designed to be the _revelation_ of mystery has become instead the _mystery_ of Revelation.
There is evident necessity, therefore, of particular care in forming our views with regard to the meaning of many portions of the book, and also of often holding our opinions tentatively and subject to review, especially in our earlier studies, as probable rather than positive interpretations. We should avoid alike the mistake of dogmatically asserting that the Apocalypse cannot be understood at all, or of affirming that it can be fully understood.(2) And yet with this reservation in mind the book is still a rich mine of spiritual wealth, much of which lies upon the surface, while even its deeper mysteries abundantly reward our careful search. For we are not justified in casting aside any part of divine revelation upon the plea of apparent obscurity; and to do so is practically to deny that it is a revelation. On the contrary we are under manifest obligation to interpret the message of the Apocalypse so far as we can, for to fail of this is to neglect the sure word of prophecy. And even though the original meaning of the visions to John’s mind, and the interpretation given them by those to whom they were first made known, oftentimes cannot now be definitely determined,(3) yet the value of the book does not depend solely upon that, however helpful it would be. The matter of supreme importance for us is to apprehend aright the far‐seeing and ulterior purpose in the mind of the Spirit in giving the Revelation. And in search for this we should not allow our zeal for the original interpretation to lead us to forget the significant lesson of the Old Testament, that the primary teaching of prophecy has often not voiced its deeper message, that God’s thought has mostly proved wider than man’s first apprehension; so that in our reading of the prophets we are not limited to the primary application, however important it may be, but should strive rather to grasp the broader sweep and deeper thought made plain by the fuller development of the divine purpose—the general meaning for the whole church in all time rather than the particular meaning for one age or generation. This consideration we will find of great value in dealing with the generic and flexile forms of imagery contained in the symbols of the Apocalypse, where in attending to a multiplicity of detail the deeper and broader thought may so easily be misapprehended or even entirely escape our notice.