Views on the Book of Revelation

[Josh]

Elsewhere, Chris wrote:

In a nutshell, my view on the book of Revelation as a whole is a salad bar of a preterist, idealist, and futurist views (maybe even some historicist mixed in there as well ). I freely admit my view is very unpolished at this point. But it’s consistent with my general view of Christ’s “vocation” (as Wright would put it) and the new covenant and Kingdom of God established at Christ's first coming.

Some partial-prets see the book as John’s Olivet discourse, but I now tend to see it more like John’s apocalyptic version (inspired of course by visions) of the book of Hebrews, warning believers not to fall away. This is mostly due to how the book begins in the first 3 chapters.

I'd like to post this here to start a conversation about overall views of the book of Revelation. I'll be back when I get a chance.

[moritz]

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

[robin]

Like Chris, my view on revelation is a mixed bag. Perhaps that is what happens when one reads Steve Gregg's book, 'Revelation Four Views'. He gives the best arguments for all four views, which many times will leave the reader undecided as to which is best. I think that my understanding would include more of the historical view than most others.

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

I'm not sure why this quote is relevant. One could quote a thousand others (more qualified) who find the book of Revelation to be neither incoherent or unworthy of explanation. Thomas Jefferson , despite his historical importance, was in no way a theologian.

Robin

[Josh]

I'd like to say in response to Thomas Jefferson that the interpretation of Revelation may be vexing, but one thing the book definitely isn't is "incoherent".  Obviously the author had something very coherent to say and, rather than cataloguing random visions, has a very purposeful literary organization.  Interpreters may differ as to his intended meaning, but such a purposefuly contructed text is certainly not unworthy of explanation.