Before I begin on this series about Revelation, I should disclose that I understand the Bible grammatically and historically, not allegorically or symbolically unless the context demands it. Thus when we come across a sentence with a straightforward grammatical construction, such as, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this,” I understand that “up” means at a higher elevation; that “after” is an adverb indicating action in a certain time frame, and so on. I believe that God not only is able to communicate clearly and straightforwardly to His audience, which is laymen (you and me, and regular folks), but that He did in fact do so.
I had already begun writing about Revelation on this blog, I remembered. In this post, I recounted why I had rejected the interpretation of Revelation which I had been taught, which was futurist, in favor of the traditional understanding of Revelation which the church has had from the time of the apostles, which is historicist.
This post was about the design of the book of Revelation: that there are three series of seven judgments each which occur sequentially, with an interval between the sixth and seventh judgment in each series.
Now a rabbit trail. We know that John saw the Revelation during the reign of Caesar Domitian. Domitian became emperor in 81 A.D., and was assassinated in 96 A.D. So Revelation had to have been given between the years of 81 to 96 A.D. How do we know that Revelation was given during the reign of Domitian? The early church fathers write that it was (Victorinus, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself, all agree on this point. Eusebius draws from their writings.)
This fact, of which there is documented evidence, that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, is the reason I have rejected the preterist view of interpretation. The preterists, if I understand their position correctly, say that the Revelation was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, an event which occured in 70 A.D. This interpretation depends on John receiving the vision before 70 A.D., because Revelation makes it clear that the events John is about to see are events which are future, to John at that time, at least. Since we know that John in fact received the vision after 70 A.D., we can reject the preterist interpretation of Revelation. That is not to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was not foretold, it was. Just not in Revelation.
to be continued …
***
Update: continued in Revelation 1 through 3
FULL preterists believe what you link to. Partial preterists believe that many of the scritptures where Jesus says, "This generation will not pass away until…" did come to pass at the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. That Jesus' predictions of trials and tribulations to "this generation" was exactly what he meant. It is important to note that. If Revelation was written when you say it was written (and I believe the same) it would be impossible for it to have come to pass in AD 70 as that would make no sense at all. 🙂 That is one of the biggest reasons that I cannot embrace full preterism.
Warmly,
Kate
Edited by UndertheSky on Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 1:53 PM
“I believe that God not only is able to communicate clearly and straightforwardly to His audience, which is laymen (you and me, and regular folks), but that He did in fact do so.”
You’re entitled to your belief. But there’s no scientific evidence for such
a silly conjecture.
Those who adhere to the religion of naturalism believe (by faith, I might add) that the limited discipline of science contains every truth in existence. Philosophy is the study of the question, What is true? Science, a subset of philosophy, is the study of the question What is true of the natural world? a study of much more limited scope. Naturalists usually, without scientific evidence, claim that the study of nature is all there is, ignoring 3000 years of the writings and ongoing dialogue across the generations of philosophy, a much more comprehensive discipline (in which naturalism is a minor school).
Unfortunately, most naturalists are not only woefully ignorant of the nature of the religion of naturalism to which they adhere, they also tend to be completely ignorant of the entire discipline of philosophy, and completely disdainful of those who are not naturalists (calling the beliefs of others “silly conjectures”), without even the slightest critical examination of their own tenets, or the tenets of others. I have addressed the philosophy of naturalism more thoroughly in the post, Godless post prompts reaction, at http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/christinemiller/151399/.