I appreciate you and the work you do. I have many friends who, like you, believe Revelation is about Jerusalem. I respect your opinion but still believe Rome fits the overall book far better than Jerusalem. Have you read "Unlocking Revelation" by Stafford North? It is a short, easy-to-read book that I believe provides a clear explanation of Revelation. Revelation is one of my favorite books and I look forward to continuing to explore it, and maybe some time my opinion will change (won't be the first time). So far though, while there are things that do fit Jerusalem well, there are other things that do not fit that view at all. Rome is still the best understanding to me. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint though.
I have not, but I do believe I have it boxed away somewhere. I will have to check it out.
I appreciate your comment, and the reasonable disagreement. It's a tough subject, and as I said there are many good brethren on either side. My biggest recommendation for the preterist view is to read the rest of the New Testament through its lenses and see how it comes together. I came to preterism not by beginning in Revelation but by preaching through Mark, actually.
Not meaning to argue at all and appreciate your thoughts but recommending reading the bible with a preconceived viewpoint (through the lens of preterism) is backwards IMO. I know we cannot blank out our previous views completely but I suggest a better route is to read the bible with as little subjective thoughts/views as possible, and simply take it at face value, using the historical grammatical and literal approach.
When Revelation and other prophetic portions of scripture (Daniel for one) are read this way, the dispensational point of view trumps all else IMO.
I understand there is room for disagreement on eschatology amongst Christian’s as it is not an essential in terms of salvation so please know I respect your opinion.
To be honest, I did not originally have a preterist viewpoint. Studying the Olivet Discourse in Mark made it unavoidable to me, and as (I think we can agree) Jesus, Revelation, and Daniel were all discussing the same event, it all comes together nicely.
Your take on Revelation is spot-on. I would add that Jim McGuiggan's commentary on Revelation is still the best I have ever read on this book (I have had up to 20-21 different commentaries and studies on Revelation). Also, Richard Rogers' study on the Destruction of Jerusalem is the best on that subject I have ever used. It handles Matthew 23-25 admirably, along with Mark 13 and Luke 21 (with part of Luke 17). The church of Christ has a traditional take on Matthew 24 that is just ridiculous; saying half of it is the D of J and the second half is the end of time. It just won't work. Stafford North has some good material as well, as pointed out by Johnie Fredman. Revelation is just not as complicated as it's been made to be. Oh, and a good study of OT judgment passages (addressed by Rogers) will help considerably.
There is certainly an ongoing struggle, and I think the postmillennialists are too optimistic to project a future in which the church rules the world unopposed. I agree with you there.
I think your article goes almost perfectly with F I Stanley's book
"As a Lamb Slain". An example of this is found in his discussion of the mark of the beast! He explains this as circumcision because the numerical value of 666 adds up to the word circumcision and no other nation that I'm aware of made this a requirement for their male children. This makes sense as, although the Roman's crucified Christ, it was the Jews that shouted for his death!
I appreciate you and the work you do. I have many friends who, like you, believe Revelation is about Jerusalem. I respect your opinion but still believe Rome fits the overall book far better than Jerusalem. Have you read "Unlocking Revelation" by Stafford North? It is a short, easy-to-read book that I believe provides a clear explanation of Revelation. Revelation is one of my favorite books and I look forward to continuing to explore it, and maybe some time my opinion will change (won't be the first time). So far though, while there are things that do fit Jerusalem well, there are other things that do not fit that view at all. Rome is still the best understanding to me. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint though.
I have not, but I do believe I have it boxed away somewhere. I will have to check it out.
I appreciate your comment, and the reasonable disagreement. It's a tough subject, and as I said there are many good brethren on either side. My biggest recommendation for the preterist view is to read the rest of the New Testament through its lenses and see how it comes together. I came to preterism not by beginning in Revelation but by preaching through Mark, actually.
Not meaning to argue at all and appreciate your thoughts but recommending reading the bible with a preconceived viewpoint (through the lens of preterism) is backwards IMO. I know we cannot blank out our previous views completely but I suggest a better route is to read the bible with as little subjective thoughts/views as possible, and simply take it at face value, using the historical grammatical and literal approach.
When Revelation and other prophetic portions of scripture (Daniel for one) are read this way, the dispensational point of view trumps all else IMO.
I understand there is room for disagreement on eschatology amongst Christian’s as it is not an essential in terms of salvation so please know I respect your opinion.
To be honest, I did not originally have a preterist viewpoint. Studying the Olivet Discourse in Mark made it unavoidable to me, and as (I think we can agree) Jesus, Revelation, and Daniel were all discussing the same event, it all comes together nicely.
Your take on Revelation is spot-on. I would add that Jim McGuiggan's commentary on Revelation is still the best I have ever read on this book (I have had up to 20-21 different commentaries and studies on Revelation). Also, Richard Rogers' study on the Destruction of Jerusalem is the best on that subject I have ever used. It handles Matthew 23-25 admirably, along with Mark 13 and Luke 21 (with part of Luke 17). The church of Christ has a traditional take on Matthew 24 that is just ridiculous; saying half of it is the D of J and the second half is the end of time. It just won't work. Stafford North has some good material as well, as pointed out by Johnie Fredman. Revelation is just not as complicated as it's been made to be. Oh, and a good study of OT judgment passages (addressed by Rogers) will help considerably.
There is certainly an ongoing struggle, and I think the postmillennialists are too optimistic to project a future in which the church rules the world unopposed. I agree with you there.
I think your article goes almost perfectly with F I Stanley's book
"As a Lamb Slain". An example of this is found in his discussion of the mark of the beast! He explains this as circumcision because the numerical value of 666 adds up to the word circumcision and no other nation that I'm aware of made this a requirement for their male children. This makes sense as, although the Roman's crucified Christ, it was the Jews that shouted for his death!