Limited Historicism

[dnlcnwy]

Are there any limited historicists on this page? That is, people who read Revelation as primarily a metaphor for the conflict between the early church and the Roman Empire until the sack of Rome in 410?

[dnlcnwy]

What, no takers? Judging by some of what I have seen on this board I figured I would have been flames into oblivion by now.

[KingsGambit]

I have to question its viability somewhat in light of the language of imminence used in much of the NT, which I find difficult to square with any sort of historicist interpretation.

[dnlcnwy]

The imminence language in the NT is probably in reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Revelation was written later, around 92 AD on the isle of Patmos and is more concerned with the Church and her relation to an oppressing State than with Judaism.

[Littlejoe]

The imminence language in the NT is probably in reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Revelation was written later, around 92 AD on the isle of Patmos and is more concerned with the Church and her relation to an oppressing State than with Judaism.

The imminence language is echoed in 1st ch. of Rev. also...

Rev 1: 1-3 ESV

1. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2. who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.

he echo's the imminence again in ch 22:6, 7, 12 & 20 where Christ says 4 times he is coming soon...

The dating of Revelation is pretty hotly contested, and the later dating cannot just be "assumed". You can appeal to the majority, but it is by no means unanimous. For instance, Rev 11 has the Temple and the Altar still standing in Jerusalem. There is a lot of other comparisons to Paul's writings, Hebrews etc that make the earlier date (65-69 ad) possible.

LJ

[seanD]

Though I think double fulfillment is always possible; since Christ proclaimed himself Alpha and Omega in the opening of John's Revelation, wouldn't that explain the "imminent" parts in Revelation -- i.e. Psalms 90:4?

[KingsGambit]

Revelation was written later, around 92 AD on the isle of Patmos

Your profile lists you as a partial preterist, so I'm curious how you square this belief with preterism. It's been said that if Revelation was written post-70 AD, then Revelation has nothing for the preterist. (Also, for what it's worth, the strength of the case for the post-temple destruction writing of the book is why I am no longer dogmatic about being a preterist as I was before).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Not all preterists are preterists with relation to Revelation.

[KingsGambit]

Not all preterists are preterists with relation to Revelation.

So some approach it from a, say, idealist perspective? I guess that would make sense.

[dnlcnwy]

I am listed as a partial preterist, that is true. The destruction of the temple (and the nation) in AD 70 was an eschatologically important event that marked the "end of the age". The rules or interpreting Revelation are the same ones for interpreting Daniel or any other of the OT apocalyptic books. For instance, when John sees a sea beast and an earth beast in Revelation 13, they should be interpreted as kingdoms, just as when Daniel saw his beasts. Specifically, the two beasts of John's apocalypse are the pagan Roman Empire and the Constantinian, ostensibly Christian Roman Empire that followed it.

[KingsGambit]

Alright, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes KG, I know many preterists who are idealists with Revelation.

[Littlejoe]

By idealist, does that mean that these folks would see the interpretation of Rev. in a similar fashion as Historicists...at least as dnlcnwy is describing?

[Littlejoe]

Though I think double fulfillment is always possible; since Christ proclaimed himself Alpha and Omega in the opening of John's Revelation, wouldn't that explain the "imminent" parts in Revelation -- i.e. Psalms 90:4?

Are you by this statement, conceding that there was a fulfillment in 70 AD as preterists believe?

I think even DD has stated that a double fulfillment isn't excluded by preterism...so sure, it's plausible.

However, double fulfillment isn't necessary for preterism, but it seems to make it absolutely necessary for futurism in order to explain the imminence language.

LJ

[dnlcnwy]

There is room for Idealism in Revelation. Although I identify the "Great City" as Rome until her sack in 410 the plagues that were poured out on her over the course of the book would apply equally well to any modern, church oppressing state. Note that one of the principal threats I see facing the Chinese church as it spreads in to be co-opted by the state, as the early church was by Constantinian Rome. A true believer has about as much luck of finding spiritual nourishment in a co-opted church as he does finding the oppressed church in an oppressing state.