Not at all. As I explain in chapter 1:
More importantly where you or I are concerned, this is a book for us. God gave it to Yeshua to give to Yochanan so that we—you and I personally—would know the things that are soon to take place. Unlike Daniel’s visions, which were sealed from that prophet’s understanding,[1] Revelation is not sealed from ours.[2] It was not sealed to the Reformers, or the Roman Catholic Church. Nor was it sealed to the first-century Community to which it was first delivered. From the moment that He gave it to us, God intended that we be able to read and understand this book. As Unger states, “It is mere pious chatter to say that God does not intend this book to be understood or that the symbolism and figures of the prophecy are incomprehensible.”[3]Therefore, even though the full fulfillment of Revelation was 2000 years in their future, Revelation was still very relevant to the First Century Church, for it still served as their roadmap to draw together and understand the rest of the Scriptures' disperate prophecies.That denies the approach of historicism, which says that the early Church could not understand it because they had not lived through the two thousand years of Church history that it prophesied of. It also denies the approach of Hal Lindsey, who says, “The encoded prophecies can be understood only when we prayerfully seek to decipher what in today’s vast arsenal of technical marvels fits best John’s 1st century description of them.”[4] I rather hold the opposite to be true. Instead of viewing Revelation as a mystery that can only be understood by some special key, whether that key be mystical insight or our arrival at a certain point in human history, I have actually come to understand that Revelation itself is the key to the prophecies of the rest of Scripture. It serves to tie together the many diverse prophecies of the Second Coming that are scattered, a verse here and a chapter there, throughout the other sixty-five books of Scripture. In fact, the unsealed book of Revelation serves to likewise unseal the visions of Daniel to our understanding. “John is to write and send out to the churches that which Daniel had been bidden to shut up and seal.”[5] However, just like a map key without the map doesn’t do one very much good and a key without a lock to open is useless, neither will Revelation do anything but confuse the reader who does not have a good grasp of the whole of the Bible, especially the Tanakh.
Not only is Revelation intended to be understood, it also promises a special blessing on the person who reads it and obeys its words. That’s an audacious claim, and one unique to any book in Scripture. But what does it mean?
The word translated “obey” or “keep” is tereo, which can mean either to guard (as when Yeshua prayed that God would “keep,” or protect, His disciples from the Evil One[6]) or to observe and follow, where we are told to obey the commands of the Father and the Son respectively.[7] Both are applicable here. This book does contain some very important commands for us to follow, especially in chapters 2 and 3. Moreover, the one who guards the words of Revelation in his heart will find the book unfolding and in turn being unfolded throughout the rest of his or her Scriptural studies. Some have estimated that there are over 800 allusions to the Tanakh in Revelation’s 404 verses—that means that there is an average of two allusions in every verse that one could look up! J. Vernon McGee described it as “a great Union Station where the trunk lines of prophecy come in from other portions of Scripture.”[8] You simply cannot study Revelation without coming away with a deeper knowledge of the rest of the Bible—if you are willing to take it seriously and let the Spirit teach you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:
[1] Dan. 12:9
[2] Rev. 22:10
[3] Unger, Merrill F., The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, R.K. Harrison, ed. (Moody, 1988), “Revelation, Book of the,” p. 1077
[4] Lindsey, Hal, Apocalypse Code (Western Front, 1997), p. 37
[5] Barnhouse, Donald Grey, Revelation: An Expositional Commentary (Zondervan, 1971), p. 27
[6] Jn. 17:15
[7] cf. Mt. 19:17 and Jn. 8:51
[8] Quoted by Unger, ibid., p. 1078
That has to be demonstrated, not just asserted.
That would amount to trying to prove a negative. But since you asked:
Irenaeus’ interpretations of Revelation are decidedly consistent with modern premillennialism. Bear in mind that he wrote Against Heresies primarily as an apologetic work. If Revelation were really so manifestly a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction, wouldn’t the early Church fathers have recognized it and used it as a part of their witness? Yet history tells us that’s not what happened. Only centuries removed from the event was the “discovery” made of Revelation’s supposed intent to prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction.To that, I'll add that it's not just Irenaeus who interprets Revelation in a futurist manner, but many other worthy fathers as well, like Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Victoranius, etc.
Especially in light of time texts such as "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Rev. 1:3)
Joel 1:15 and 2:1 claim that the Day of the Lord is "at hand," and yet even if we understand the Day of the Lord to be the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that still makes a difference of 800-900 years. Even if we say there are many days of the Lord and suppose Joel to be referring to Nebuchadnezzar's conquest, that's still a 200 year gap. Clearly then, "at hand" means something different in God's view.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.In other words, God's time is not our time. He tells us that the Day of Judgment is "at hand" not to set times by our reckoning, but to impress on us a sense of urgency as we go about our Master's business.
--2 Peter 3:8-9
In view of all this, insisting on a rigid interpretation of "the time is near" while allowing for a very loose interpretation of everything else in Revelation to fit the preterist schema seems a bit inconsistant as a hermeneutic. Using that manner of interpretation, one can make the Bible say literally almost anything one wants.
No, actually the "day of the Lord" spoken of in Joel (and elsewhere in the OT prophets) was speaking often of immediate temporal judgment against either Israel or the enemies of Israel. Peter, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, applied Joel prophecy to the events of Pentecost in Acts 2. But in neither case is there some requirement to place the "at hand" to mean an undetermined, already multi-millennia time period from the giving of the prophecy. That is a supposition of the futurist.
The word translated “obey” or “keep” is tereo, which can mean either to guard (as when Yeshua prayed that God would “keep,” or protect, His disciples from the Evil One[6]) or to observe and follow, where we are told to obey the commands of the Father and the Son respectively.[7] Both are applicable here.
"Obey" is the primarily meaning with respect to the Word of God. We are not told to "guard" ("tereo") the Word. We are told to obey it. "I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me, and they have kept Thy word." "If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death." There is another word "phulasso", that is more in line with your suggestion, and used that way "O Timothy, guard ("phulasso") what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "--" "Guard ("phulasso"), through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you."
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
This "God time" verse is probably one of the most misused verses in the futurist arsenal. There is nothing in the context to suggest that when God says "at hand" or "near" or "the things which must soon take place" (Rev. 1:1) He really means some undetermined amount of time in the future. Otherwise we are left to all sort of hermeneutical gymnastics. E.g., that the "thousand years" of Rev. 20 is really only 1000 days in our time, or perhaps 365,000 years depending on how one does conversion according to "God math".
"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near ("eggus", cf Rev. 1:3);"
Are we really to believe that the expectation Jesus is putting forth here is that when a farmer goes out and sees the leaves coming on his trees that summer is actually (in "God time") thousands of year in the future?
This is the sort of interpretation the futurist relies on all over the place. If this is where your "midrash" leads you, then you can have it.