We are accustomed to getting from Jon Paulien useful materials on the interpretation of the book of Revelation and this volume is no exception. It is basically a guide to the study of the book and the principles of biblical interpretation that will help the investigator obtain a proper understanding of it. In fact, Paulien has provided for us an introduction to biblical interpretation in general with particular application to the book of Revelation. There is a brief introduction to Revelation and its first century setting. A long chapter addresses the question of biblical prophecy and examines materials from Genesis and the prophetic literature—not from Genesis to Revelation as was intended by the author—to obtain from them biblical principles of interpretation. That section deserves a careful evaluation that we cannot provide in this short review. Distinctions are made between biblical exegesis, biblical theology and systematic theology and the importance of those distinctions in the hermeneutical process. The material dealing with the interpretation of the writings of E. G. White and their use in the interpretation of Revelation is very valuable. Furthermore, Paulien has provided useful discussions on the literary structure of Revelation, its use of the OT materials, its relation to the rest of the NT, and the role of the sanctuary scenes.

At a very fundamental level, Paulien’s book is challenging. He is in fact suggesting a methodological way of reading Revelation that appears to be significantly different from the one Adventists are using. That may explain why he did not interact with other Adventist scholars who have written on the interpretation of biblical apocalyptic literature. At the present time it is difficult to determine the full impact of his approach on the traditional Adventist interpretation of Revelation. In the interpretation of that book Adventists thus far have employed the historicist method. This method acknowledges that some of the prophecies of Revelation have already been fulfilled, others are being fulfilled and the rest will be fulfilled in the future. Paulien is suggesting that in the interpretation of Revelation we need an eclectic approach that will incorporate methods as diverse and sometimes as contradictory as preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism. He wants to approach the text of Revelation anew, through an objective exegetical analysis that will allow it to speak for itself. He gives the impression that in the exegetical task one can set aside all pre-understandings and be totally objective. But the truth is that he himself begins with a very powerful presupposition, namely that in the interpretation of Revelation we have to use different methodologies and that the exegetical task will help determine which method is applicable to specific sections of the book. Those distinctions are difficult to maintain in the interpretation of any piece of literature.

We must ask on what grounds did he conclude that the use of different methods is indispensable for a correct interpretation of Revelation, and that the methods to be used are the ones he has identified? He did not raise that question and yet it deals with an issue of fundamental importance for the way he is going to read and interpret Revelation. Adventists have correctly claimed that the use of the historicist approach in the interpretation of Revelation is justifiable because that is the method the interpreting angel provided for Daniel, and it has shown itself to be extremely useful in decoding Revelation. A significant change in the Adventist approach to Revelation faces in the long run the risk of replacing a biblical methodology with human ones. Whatever Paulien is trying to tell us, the least we can say is that his approach raises serious concerns. Time will tell whether they are justified or not.