btw – I object not because I totally disagree with your approach. My objections are an effort to seek some balance. Thanks for you enthusiasm for God’s Covenant Book to man.

Thanks for your objections! Great to have some interaction.

We can indeed respect the presence of types and motifs in Scripture without making them the primary window through which we must see every single portion of Scripture.

A simple point that I think Doug Wilson was making in his post today ‘Drive a Textual Nail.’ Some times there is an indescribable beauty in seeing a singular connection between one text in Scripture and another – the beauty of one line from one significant point in the OT to a later one in the NT. In such cases the beauty is evident not only in its unadorned bond, but also in the pure simplicity.

http://www.amazon.com/review/RU0ISWZIDE69/

I hope that helps. Discovering we are part of a bigger picture of Conquest-by-Covenant, not just sitting tight till Jesus rescues us, is a big part of holiness and perseverance. it shows that our daily lives are organically connected to God’s work in history. We ourselves are types, images.

I guess what I’m saying is that a direct/non-direct debate is a false dichotomy. I’m saying that attempting to interpret many passages without taking typology into account will give you the WRONG interpretation, which is why I disagree with Carson and others on their eschatology. Their failure to understand AD70 as Christ’s imminent return for His firstfruits means they actually rip the New Testament out of context and make it fluffy in application for modern Christians. It’s actually Carson’s approach that distances us from the text by getting the interpretation wrong.

Your structures and chaisms are very creative and indeed interesting, but they remove me a couple of steps or more from what the text itself is saying.

I have some posts on here that might help:

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/05/30/moses-vs-hyperpreterism/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/11/07/here-comes-success/

Basically, Revelation does what all the previous prophets did — speak to the audience of their day, predicting an impending judgment with warnings to repent. The book is about the end of the Old Covenant, but with vengeance for all the crimes against the prophets since Abel. But it follows the standard Covenant structure, so the final section gives us a glimpse of the future, the “Succession” kept in store for those who obey the prophecy. In the case of Revelation, it is “the heavenly country” for the slain, and the end of persecution by Herod/Nero for the living. Chapter 20 covers this, and it is this chapter that pulls the rug out from under full preterism. They can’t handle it without doing all sorts of weird acrobatics to get around it. Unfortunately, they don’t see their interpretatinos as weird because they aren’t familiar with the structures contained in previous scriptures, which Revelation recapitulates.