Steve, have you read this book?

[Guest]

Steve, I was wondering if you have read this book on revelation.
The Theology of the book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham.

If you've read it, what do you think about it, what category does it fall into?

[Guest]

Sean,
I am not familiar with the book. Is it a newer book, or an old one? I haven't read many books on Revelation since reading most of fifty commentaries on it in the mid-nineties, when I was doing research for my book. Sorry I can't help. If you read it, let me know. Okay?

[Guest]

It has a copyright of 1993. It is pretty good. I've talked to people about their view(s) on Revelation but I haven't read any books dedicated to it until this one. I got it because it's non-dispensational and still in print. It actually speaks out breifly against the historist and futurist views of interpretaions. It's not a line-by-line exegesis. Rather it's a summary of the overall meaning of the book and how other symbolic books were interpeted in the 1st century. It's kind of a spiritualist/preterist view, contrasting the idolatry of the Roman empire with the perserverance of the Saints in the early years of the Church.

I've got about 20 pages to go, it's only 164 pages long.

I'm currently listening to your tapes on Revelation as well. He also looks at the two whitnesses as the Church, BTW. Interesting book.

[Guest]

Dear Sean,
Thanks for introducing us to Richard Bauckham.
Sincerely,
John Barbour

[Guest]

I am a minister in the deep bible belt and am currently teaching on Revelation. I have scoped out all the major and recent commentaries on the subject and have found G. K. Beale's Commentary very good. Richard Bauckham's Theology of the Book of Revelation is the best overview of Revelation's themes I have come across. His larger volume, the Climax of Prophecy takes the same theme approach but goes into detailed study. These books and the Beale comm. are the main sources I personally use in my presentation of Rev. Even though I have been a modified a-mill. since '86, most bible belt Christians are steeped in dispensationalism. I really appreciate the discussions I have found at this sight and strongly encourage checking out Beale and Bauckham's work on Revelation.

[Guest]

And then there are those of us who are both amil and dispensationalist... 8)

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,
you are the 1st I have met who views eschatology from this perspective. What was your journey that brought you to seeing things from a amill-dispensationalist point of view? Have you also read any of Bauckham and what did you think of the writings?

[Guest]

No, I haven't read any of his writings, although I've talked to several people who are amil and have read things that have been written from that perspective.

I've mentioned it somewhat before in another post, but briefly, I come from a religiously divided background. My parents ended up getting divorced, in part because they couldn't see eye to eye in regards to their religious beliefs. My dad is Catholic whereas my mother is a member of one of the many different "Church of God" groups. So, it's been somewhat of a personal thing that I try to understand different religious perspectives and discern what's worthwhile and true. I've also done quite an extensive amount of research into the history of Israel and the Church, and biblical symbolism as compared with other cultures of the Ancient Near East.

It's basically because I seek to find what's worthwhile in different perspectives that I consider myself to be both amil and dispensationalist, although there's a lot more to it than that. I believe I've found a way to harmonize the two.

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,
Thanks for your response. Have you ever read any N.T. Wright in your research of Israel and the Church? I have found his writings and teaching to be very insightful on Christian Origins with a strong emphasis of understanding Jesus within a Jewish context. If you haven't seen his website it is: the N.T.Wrightpage.com.

[Guest]

Interesting stuff!

I started reading the article titled "Jerusalem in the New Testament." I can tell that this guy can really see how the Gospel accounts would have been understood by the people at that time, like no one else I've ever read. And yet...he's missing something.

Like I'd mentioned before, I've done an extensive amount of research into biblical symbolism from the perspective of the surrounding cultures in the Ancient Near East. Although I can see why what he's saying makes a great deal of sense, it misses out on what the biblical symbolism was supposed to tell us.

For instance, on page 5 he talked about the four beasts of Daniel. Although he makes a connection between the fourth beast and the hierarchy in Jerusalem - which is incredibly accurate! - his timing is off. This connection is only strictly valid at the very end, when Jerusalem literally becomes Babylon the Great. It's because he doesn't pay close enough attention to how the beasts are symbolically identified, and hence how the beasts in Revelation 13 should be identified, that he misses this.

Again, I'm not blowing off everything Mr. Wright has to say. He's got a tremendous amount of insight! But I don't think he has the whole picture.

That's my take, anyway...

Damon