Revelation: Four Views

[DanSSwing]

Just finished “Revelation: Four Views” by Steve Gregg. Great one-stop book for familiarizing yourself with nearly all the orthodox views and arguments on Revelation wherever people differ on the various sections. It takes one pericope at a time and, broken into columns, gives the historical, preterist, futurist, and idealist interpretations (sometimes more than one within a given tradition). Then toward the end it breaks into premil, amil, postmil instead. I think the book might have been originally recommended to me in this forum.

The only things that could have been better, but it would have taken up too much space:
1. There was little room for counter-argument or cross-examination. For the most part, we only see the positive arguments.
2. There was some interaction with other Scriptural texts, but I would have liked to have seen even more of it.

 

[B.L.]

I've been meaning to read this book. Which position did you find most convincing?

 

[DanSSwing]

I've been meaning to read this book. Which position did you find most convincing?

The preterist position, especially the variant that sees the judgments as being generally against apostate Israel instead of switching to Rome halfway through. On the millennium issue, I generally agreed with the position that is halfway between amil and postmil as argued by Warfield and Rushdoony.

I liked a lot of the idealist argument in terms of application, but it seemed Origenist to me, skipping over how the original readers would have understood it and going straight into what lessons we can learn from it today.