Duncan, I will reply in more detail tomorrow but I did want to say that let us stop for a moment & see how we have been affected by this whole “hyperpreterism” issue. Historically there was no such thing as a “partial-preterist” or even a preterist for that matter (except in a really limited sense). This distinction is a recent situation, only as old as the 1970s with Max King. So, before we can get too far into what might be a great discussion (& I thank you for posing these questions), we have to strip ourselves of the false framework that the Max King offspring have created (with these false distinctions) & instead get back into the history before 1970.

I think it was Dee Dee who first realized that those who use or allow the use of the terms “partial & full preterism” are really murking up the discussion. I’ll get back with you soon & I am glad you think “full preterism” doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

God bless & keep you,
Roderick

Duncan:

>>My study (especially of Daniel) has convinced me that J.S. Russell was correct. The one and only Second Coming happened at AD 70 but that was the beginning of the millennium not the end (cf. Dan. 7:21-22).>>

This is a category error to the extreme. Second of what? Similar comings? No. And Jesus came in judgment between 30AD and 70AD. And if the millennium is not over, the resurrection has not happened.

>>On the other hand, I don’t think partial preterism has a leg to stand on when it trys to separate the great tribulation from the resurrection (cf. Dan. 12:1-2). The resurrection would begin at the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation, the destruction of those who were destroying the Land (Rev. 11:15-18; cf. Rev. 14:8-13).>>

I have a quite lengthy analysis here on Daniel on this blog. Search for my review of hyperpreterists Evans “Four Kingdoms of Daniel.” The “resurrection” is a discrete event. It is not something that “begins” and continues - and this is where I think the “preterist idealists” are going, and if so, it is no better than hyperpreterism. In fact, perhaps worse.

>>One last thought: “orthodox” partial preterism and its teaching of two comings of the Lord essentially has as little historic support from Church tradition as full preterism does.>>>

One last thought: That is false. Historically the church has believe that Christ has come in judgment many times. In fact, it is even embodied in song. “Mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord….” Battle Hymn of the Republic. I doubt there was some cultic sect then that was claiming that the Civil War was the Second Coming. Church tradition - eschatologically speaking - is a disorganized mess except for three strands that are clear as crystal. The future bodily return and consummation, the future bodily resurection, and the future final judgment. Those are the only eschatological statements that were ever creedalized and thus we let the early church tradition tell us what they thought important enough to agree upon.

Roderick -

Wondeful blog post.

>>Duncan, I will reply in more detail tomorrow but I did want to say that let us stop for a moment & see how we have been affected by this whole “hyperpreterism” issue. Historically there was no such thing as a “partial-preterist” or even a preterist for that matter (except in a really limited sense). This distinction is a recent situation, only as old as the 1970s with Max King. So, before we can get too far into what might be a great discussion (& I thank you for posing these questions), we have to strip ourselves of the false framework that the Max King offspring have created (with these false distinctions) & instead get back into the history before 1970.

I think it was Dee Dee who first realized that those who use or allow the use of the terms “partial & full preterism” are really murking up the discussion. I’ll get back with you soon & I am glad you think “full preterism” doesn’t have a leg to stand on.>>

Yes, you and I had that interview in 2006 on this topic. This is very timely because my next podcast (up this weekend God willing) will be on this very issue. But I am having to go back and revise a lot of it because my material originally was arguing against you when you were a hyperpreterist!!!

I think many people are realizing that hyperpreterism has no legs to stand on - but I am growing just as leery of some of the “preterist-idealist” talk I am hearing which seems to be (by some, it is way too new for me to have a firm opinion on) even more openly gnostic in its denial of the need for the redemption of the physical world - and the consummation. Any system which denies a future bodily resurrection and consummation is a heretical system. And I am beginning to think that some who are going under the banner of “preterist-idealist” are quite simply - idealist. The term “preterist-idealist” doesn’t seem to make much sense to me, but I am reserving judgment as this new turn is…. well so new. I just hope it isn’t like the classic song, “Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss”

Duncan, if you are not aware of my podcast, you can find the feed at the main site of http://www.preteristpodcast.com

Dee Dee

At least I am not an idealist (preterist or otherwise). I was hoping this discussion would not be too strident. Judging by you intital response, I may be idealistic on that point, however.

Duncan

Duncan

Since I don’t share the opinion that post to you was too strident, but merely meeting head-on certain truth-claims that you made which were demonstrably incorrect, I just may be a realist on that point, however.

The “idealism” comments were more part of an ongoing conversation between myself and Roderick as I am trying to pin down where some of these guys are going. To me, right now, it seems quite nebulous - and all I hear is “idealism” and not “preterism” so am wondering why they choose the moniker “preterism-idealism” at all. True orthodox preterism inherently has idealism echoes.

IOW - Duncan, if you wish this to be an A and B conversation between you and Roderick and would like me to C my way out - I would not be offended. I veered away from the points you made that were specific to Roderick and stuck to the general statements of which I am qualified to answer.

Dee Dee,

I don’t mind if you stay (after all it is your website I was just not looking for some long drawn out vitriolic (sp? need a spell check on your site) debate. I was basically curious as to what Roderick’s defintion of hyperpreterist is. As I said I think both poles on this debate (i.e. tradtional partial preterism and full preterism) are wrong and that there is an area in between that needs exploration. Somewhat ironically I upset both sides when I try to explore the inbetween.

Duncan

Hey Roderick,

Just saw your newest article. Great stuff! Let me know if it’s ok to pin some of this material onto my blog. Also, Dee Dee, concerning “Modern Idealism,” don’t buy it. In my view these people are just Hyper-Preterists in disguise. They’ll deny it with passion, but you can never get a handle on anything they’re saying. Although I have adopted certain views which may be called Idealist, I’ve somehow become lumped with these people. Todd Dennis even changed the wording on one of my articles to make it agree with his own views. The system is obviously off the tracks. But I am too busy with other things right now to give it any treatment. Besides, as nobody but three individuals really knows what it is about, there is no sense in discussing it at any length.

Peace and Health,

Brian

Brian,

Thanks for the comments. By all means use this material but you might link back to this site so that folks can see the other resources Dee Dee has compiled on this subject.

I don’t want to get side-tracked by talking too much about the pret-idealist issue except to say three things:

1. I’m pleasantly surprised to see you no longer supporting that view.
2. I think Todd originally just wanted to figure out an alternative “ism”
3. I think Todd & at least Scott have backed away from that “ism”.

Talk to you more later.

P.S. Duncan — I’ll respond tonight. Thanks for being patient.
–Roderick

Brian, thank you for confirming what I had been suspecting. I had forthrightly written Todd a little while back asking pretty pointed questions, and received no response. Now, it is certainly possible he never received the email for whatever reason.

It seems they are doing the exact same spiritualization of the resurrection as hyperpreterists minus the one-time Big Event in AD70. I can’t seem to get my hands around it. I don’t see Noe saying anything different than what he said when he was a professed “full preterist” when it comes to the resurrection. The appendix on Noe in Chori Seraiah’s book “The End of All Things” seems to be precisely what the “preterist idealists” are saying, so I am wondering, what’s the diff?

Duncan, I really wasn’t trying to fight. And the reason I offered to leave the discussion is that I have told Roderick that he has full oversight over his own blog entries and discussions. I never intended this site to ever be purely “my site” - and had always been looking for collaborators, so Roderick can feel free to tell me if I am taking the discussion in an undesired direction. I am very glad to have his work here, it is much more in line with what my original intention for this site was. I work much better when it is a group effort such as TheologyWeb and the Apple fan blog I started.

Roderick, I am not in a hurry. I must say though I have a problem with any system that presupposes it answers ahead of time. That applies to full preterism (with its all fulfilled by AD 70 unstated creed), that also applies to partial preterism with its range of acceptable answers that are dictated by the creeds.

Dee Dee, No problem. I just didn’t want to jump into a debate concerning the millennium, resurrection and nature of the AD 70 coming of Jesus (whatever one wants to call it) all at once.

Ok Duncan, sorry for the delay but I wanted to make sure I could sit down & devote direct attention to your questions. Before I address the questions, let me state again that we should stop operating in the false framework of “preterism” (so-called partial or full) since preterism was never a major eschatological position. The Reformers & other pre-dispensationalism Christians saw the importantance of the AD70 event but just as we don’t have an entire group advocating “Crossism” those early theologians did not latch on to that one element of theology & turn it into the guiding force behind everything.

Add to that (& let me tread lightly here), I agree that “partial-preterism’s” concept of a “return in judgment” in AD70 is also erroneous. Most of the apparent imminent “about to come” passages concerning Jesus were NOT about any kind of “return” to earth (spiritual or physical) but rather those passages speak about Him “about to come into power & glory”. Christ was about to come into the kingdom. About to come into His throne at the righthand of the Father, about to come before the Ancient of Days. (compare Dan 7:13 & Mt 26:64 for instance, along with the thief’s statement to Jesus of Jesus “coming into His kingdom”) Rather, the thing we were seeing in the destruction of Jerusalem & the scattering/shattering of the “Holy People” was the Landowner exacting vengence on those vinedressers who sought to take the kingdom by violence from the time of Moses until the first-century & inherit the kingdom by killing the Landowner’s son, & the kingdom would be taken from them & given to those who bear the fruit of it. (see: Dan 12:7, Mt 11:12, Mt 21:33-45) This was NOT Jesus coming back. It was God/the Landowner in action. So, yes I agree — so-called partial preterists feed into the hyperpreterists premise or at least allow the hyperpreterists to claim partial-prets are contradictory when partial-prets advocate for a “coming in judgment” coming of Jesus in the first-century. There needs to be more work in this area.

Now, as for your question of whether I see you as a hyperpreterist. There are two reason why I must say yes you would be defined as a hyperpreterist.

The first reason may be best explained by the following analogy:

Suppose there was a mob that all wore the same apparel & chanted the same slogans & got together to hurl rocks at & deface a historic monument. Now, suppose you are in the crowd with the same apparel & with a rock in hand & then asking me if I considered you part of the mob even though you claim you threw no stones, did not defacing, & chanted no slogans. What am I to think? I know some people try to claim there is no such thing as “guilt by association” but there most certainly is. We humans are ALL guilty by our association with Adam & Christians become innocent only by our association with Christ (or rather His association with us). Your main influences & audiences are not merely marginal hyperpreterists but the worst of the worst advocates of hyperpreterism. I have to consider that in my answer.

Secondly, you stated “the one and only Second Coming happened at AD 70″ — this is the slogan of hyperpreterism, the one the mob is chanting. You even make distinction from the partial preterists that it was not merely “a type of coming” or “a” coming but THE ONE & ONLY coming. By this advocacy you define yourself as a hyperpreterist. Just because you see the millennium as still progressing doesn’t remove you from the mob.

But I am encouraged to see your public admission that hyperpreterism doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Now we just need to determine what they are calling “legs” (one & perhaps the most central “leg” they claim is that the “one & only Second Coming happened at AD 70″ — is this not the same leg you advocate?)

You seem to be an honest man Duncan & if I recall you didn’t come into hyperpreterism by the usual route (being a former dispensationalist) so perhaps you can find a way out of it.

Thanks again for asking the questions. I hope my answers were helpful or at least explanatory of the position I am trying to foster.

–Roderick

Hey Roderick:

>>Add to that (& let me tread lightly here), I agree that “partial-preterism’s” concept of a “return in judgment” in AD70 is also erroneous. Most of the apparent imminent “about to come” passages concerning Jesus were NOT about any kind of “return” to earth (spiritual or physical) but rather those passages speak about Him “about to come into power & glory”. Christ was about to come into the kingdom. About to come into His throne at the righthand of the Father, about to come before the Ancient of Days. (compare Dan 7:13 & Mt 26:64 for instance, along with the thief’s statement to Jesus of Jesus “coming into His kingdom”) Rather, the thing we were seeing in the destruction of Jerusalem & the scattering/shattering of the “Holy People” was the Landowner exacting vengence on those vinedressers who sought to take the kingdom by violence from the time of Moses until the first-century & inherit the kingdom by killing the Landowner’s son, & the kingdom would be taken from them & given to those who bear the fruit of it. (see: Dan 12:7, Mt 11:12, Mt 21:33-45) This was NOT Jesus coming back. It was God/the Landowner in action. So, yes I agree — so-called partial preterists feed into the hyperpreterists premise or at least allow the hyperpreterists to claim partial-prets are contradictory when partial-prets advocate for a “coming in judgment” coming of Jesus in the first-century. There needs to be more work in this area.>>

First you do not need to tread lightly. I do not expect you to agree with everything I do at all - your expertise on hyperpreterism is valued no mattter what position you eventually identify with. As I have hinted to you in my various emails over the years, I have a bit of a different perspective on the “coming” issue than most “partial preterists” that I think you would agree more with, and I have spoken more extensively with this with Keith Mathison, who told me that he had come to the same conclusion. That was wonderful verification to me that I was on the right track.

I do believe in some respects preterists are unwittingly leading people into hyperpreterism, and you may speak your mind, even if you think that in some way I am doing the same thing. I see that flaw in some of those of my own camp - in fact, in most of those of my own camp - but for me it is their denial of what can be crudely called “multiple fulfillments.” That is the soft white underbelly of many of those in the preterist camp - Gary DeMar very noteably so. I believe that DeMar has done much to push people towards hyperpreterism even though that is not his intention.

Oh and I would like to comment on this Roderick:

>>Secondly, you stated “the one and only Second Coming happened at AD 70″ — this is the slogan of hyperpreterism, the one the mob is chanting. You even make distinction from the partial preterists that it was not merely “a type of coming” or “a” coming but THE ONE & ONLY coming. By this advocacy you define yourself as a hyperpreterist. Just because you see the millennium as still progressing doesn’t remove you from the mob.>>

I have seen this millennial issue as a new trend. We had a theologyweb member (perhaps it was you Duncan under another username? - no problem if it is, nothing wrong with using whatever username a person wants) who started a thread claiming that since Russell believed in this progressive millennium he was fully orthodox. I posted briefly that such a claim would be wrong and make him not only still heretical but also pretty incoherent on that particular point (I understand that he is very articulate on many points).

This is a landscape that is fast changing. It reminds me in some respect of when the leader of the WWCOG turned his church around from denying the Trinity and the splinter heretical groups that were just in a mess when some of the prominent WWCOG repented of the heretical teaching. Now of course hyperpreterism was never as organized as the WWCOG but I think that is simply a product of the times and the Internet, and that such will be the way of future cultic movements - at least in developed countries.

Dee Dee,

From what I understand, John Noe is an “Idealist Preterist,” whereas Todd is a “Preterist Idealist.” Noe’s seems to make a lot more sense, though he denies the resurrection, last judgment, etc. What Todd’s system looks like is personal application of the doctrines of Hyper Preterism. See http://idealistarchive.com/modern/index.html, where he uses the same A.D. 30-70 Millennium, etc. as a foundation. Of course, if you ever point out that ‘Full Idealism’ is based on ‘Full Preterism,’ they’ll deny it up and down. My guess is that they agree with the H.P> hermeneutical approach, but disagree with the Universalist conclusions. The system seems to be a clever way of isolating the premises from the real conclusions. It’s funny, but Sam Lee, P.S. Desprez, endorsed ideas almost exactly simililar. This M.I. really has its roots in classic HYper Preterism.

Rod,

Thanks for that permission. I’ll do a run on those articles as they appear. Looking forward to reading more!

Peace and Health,

Brian

Roderick, you wrote,

“Add to that (& let me tread lightly here), I agree that “partial-preterism’s” concept of a “return in judgment” in AD70 is also erroneous. Most of the apparent imminent “about to come” passages concerning Jesus were NOT about any kind of “return” to earth (spiritual or physical) but rather those passages speak about Him “about to come into power & glory”. Christ was about to come into the kingdom. About to come into His throne at the righthand of the Father, about to come before the Ancient of Days. (compare Dan 7:13 & Mt 26:64 for instance, along with the thief’s statement to Jesus of Jesus “coming into His kingdom”) Rather, the thing we were seeing in the destruction of Jerusalem & the scattering/shattering of the “Holy People” was the Landowner exacting vengence on those vinedressers who sought to take the kingdom by violence from the time of Moses until the first-century & inherit the kingdom by killing the Landowner’s son, & the kingdom would be taken from them & given to those who bear the fruit of it. (see: Dan 12:7, Mt 11:12, Mt 21:33-45) This was NOT Jesus coming back. It was God/the Landowner in action. So, yes I agree — so-called partial preterists feed into the hyperpreterists premise or at least allow the hyperpreterists to claim partial-prets are contradictory when partial-prets advocate for a “coming in judgment” coming of Jesus in the first-century. There needs to be more work in this area.”

First let me say be careful of going from one pole to the other. As I think you have acknowledged in a different entry, you are still somewhat in flux.

Given what you said above, How would you categorize the parable of the minas. (Luke 19:11-27)? In that parable a nobleman goes into a far country to receive a kingdom and then returns to share His kingdom reign with his faithful followers. The subjects that did not want him to reign over them are destroyed at that time. To me this clearly speaks of Jesus coming back at the AD 70 full establishment of God’s kingdom (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1). Like the parable of the vineyard (and the wedding feast Matt. 22:1-14) the destruction of those that rejected Jesus alludes to the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation.

As to Daniel 7:13-14 I see that as a reference to AD 30, not AD 70. In v. 14 the one like a son of man is given a universal dominion and kingdom. I see this as equating with Jesus’ post resurection statement in Matt. 28:18: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

Using the language of the minas parable. The nobleman received his kingdom at AD 30: he fully shared that reign with his followers at his AD 70 coming (cf. Rev. 3:21).

Duncan

Dee Dee,

The poster who claimed he was orthodox because he followed Russell’s postion was not me. I usually use my name. I do the best with the understanding I have and will let others categorize me how they want. On that subject I don’t care for either or categorizations (i.e. Heretic vs non heretic. Preterist vs hyperpreterist). I find it more useful to look at error as a continuim (sp?). We all have some error. Their is moderate error and their is severe error. At what point one’s error is so severe that they are probably not a Christian (i.e they don’t have the spirit of God dwelling in them) is an intesting question. I would say someone who preaches a Jesus who is just a man or is an angel is in that kind of error. I would say someone who preaches that it is ok to sin or live anyway one wants (because we will all be reconciled to God in the end) is in that kind of error. Anyway it is an interesting and important question (I might phrase it as, “what is mortal error?”).

Duncan

By this definition every Mormon & JW would be considered a Christian.

Roderick,

Either you are not reading very closely or I am not making myself very clear (or a little of both).

This is what I said:

“At what point one’s error is so severe that they are probably not a Christian (i.e they don’t have the spirit of God dwelling in them) is an intesting question. I would say someone who preaches a Jesus who is just a man or is an angel is in that kind of error.”

I was giving some examples of teachings of a different Jesus; I was not meaning to provide a comprehensive definition. JWs teach Jesus is Michael the arch angel so they would be in the kind of error I am talking about. Mormons don’t see Jesus as the eternal Word of God so I don’t consider them Christian either.

Duncan

Wait, what if someone was advocating a position, or rather an entire premise that was NOT the premise of the Jesus of the Bible? How “severely” different does this need to be before we must begin to wonder if the person is really depicting the Jesus of the Bible?

Or what if a person using the label “Christian” goes about advocating something unlike anything in the history of Christianity? How “severely” different from historical Christianity can those teachings be before we can begin to wonder about what is being advocated?

I’m not trying to pick a fight here Duncan. I still think your questions are good, but I’m trying to push you a little. I’m trying to bring out Duncan the person, not Duncan the preterist or Duncan the planetpreterist writer. Are your loyalties to the Christ of the Bible? Are your loyalties to the Church that same Christ instituted & said the gates of hades would prevail against? These questions will keep coming back unless you create a “new kind of Jesus” & a “new kind of Christianity” & become a “new kind of Christian” (like the postmodernists claim) — Once you buy into the notion that the Church has misunderstood Jesus & His message for 2000+ years you would then be free to buy into all this “new kind-ism…” that is so prevelantly proffered at the places which you currently frequent.

Come out of that Duncan.

Roderick,

All I can do is call em like I see em. I don’t feel the need to boycot Planet Preterist to do that.

Duncan

Then why ask me the question whether you should be considered a hyperpreterist when you stand in the mob, wear their mantle & speak their slogans?

Brian,

>>From what I understand, John Noe is an “Idealist Preterist,” whereas Todd is a “Preterist Idealist.” Noe’s seems to make a lot more sense, though he denies the resurrection, last judgment, etc. What Todd’s system looks like is personal application of the doctrines of Hyper Preterism. See http://idealistarchive.com/modern/index.html, where he uses the same A.D. 30-70 Millennium, etc. as a foundation. Of course, if you ever point out that ‘Full Idealism’ is based on ‘Full Preterism,’ they’ll deny it up and down. My guess is that they agree with the H.P> hermeneutical approach, but disagree with the Universalist conclusions. The system seems to be a clever way of isolating the premises from the real conclusions. It’s funny, but Sam Lee, P.S. Desprez, endorsed ideas almost exactly simililar. This M.I. really has its roots in classic HYper Preterism.>>

Thanks, I will have to check out that link thoroughly. Do you really see any change now though in Noe’s position from what it was when he was a self-avowed “full preterist.” It seems to me as if he just adopted a new label.

Duncan -

>>All I can do is call em like I see em. I don’t feel the need to boycot Planet Preterist to do that.>>

If you continue to do so as a staff writer at PP I doubt it will last long. Obviously a site wants as their representatives people who support the position. Now perhaps PP has become so loosey goosey that agreement with hyperpreterism isn’t even the official position of the site - if so, then it shouldn’t be planetpreterist, but anythinggoesplanet.

I haven’t read much of your material there. I hadn’t visited there in nearly six months until last night, and it was the same old, same old. One reason I don’t is purely personal, and some have told me the same of this site, so it is all personal opinion - but the site is hideously ugly in its design. FWIW I think the same of preteristarchive. PA gives me an utter headache with the way stuff is just plastered up all over the place. This could be my Mac snobbery talking.

Dee Dee,

Noe probably just amended his conclusions. I doubt he ever changed his exegetical approach. And here is where all the error comes in. Idealism relies on Gnostic views of spirituality. Everything has a dark and mysterious meaning that can only be untapped by those ‘initiated’ into higher mysteries. As they themselves avow, their system is based on shadows. This is all wrong. Idealism, Hyper-Preterism, etc. all stand on the moveable sands of GNosticism, and that is why they lack spiritual power. I don’t know.. I think that the Word of God must first be taken on its own terms before it can be understood. And I don’t think understanding is hard, because Christ used Galilian fisherman to spread His word. That is why I have gone back to Chiliasm (http://chilasm.blogspot.com) because it is the only view I’ve found that gives a satisfying interpretation of the Scripures, on a level which can be comprehended by children.

Duncan,

You and I have never spoke, but I read your posts and find them interesting. I used to agree with you that the Millennium began in A.D. 70–however, the theory relies on an important condition–that the Book of Rev. was written prior to that date. After holding this view for some time, I had to drop it, for I can’t find any satisfactory evidence to back that view. The early Fathers were all very vocal in their statement that Revelation was composed during Domitian’s persecution. And their verdict I accept. The whole “A.D. 70 Millennium” idea also imposes some serious exegetical inconsistencies, for the ‘nations’ have never been freed from their delusions concerning Christianity. Christians have always been a minority in the world. From Christ’s ministry onward, the church has been waging an uphill battle all the way. I frankly believe that the world will enjoy a future period of peace, when Christ shall sit on His throne, personally and visibly–not invisibly & hypothetically. And the Scriptures both of the Old Testament and New, fall in very nicely with this concept. I think that a true system will always come with its own credentials. There are many views of eschatology which seem logically plausible. But logical plausibility does not make something true. There must be something more besides–that is, the power to revolutionize hearts and souls, and to change lives. We must do a closer look to find if Hyper Preterism really brings forth the spiritual fruits that alone will declare our worth before God. I can’t see that it does. As Charles Spurgeon said, the truth will always have power. It is only when we blind ourselves to the truth and stand in the wisdom of men that we fail to understand that. By shutting our eyes we do not make the light go away, but we prevent ourselves from seeing the light. I was blindfolded by Hyper Preterist hermeneutics for almost two years, and I am just recovering from the blindness it caused. There is a sense in which we can almost ‘brainwash’ ourselves into believing that something is the truth, and it isn’t until later that we see the error of it all. HYper Preterism is a pernicious and dangerous system, and the sooner we throw it away the better, in my estimation.

Peace and Health,

Brian

Brian,

I must say I am a little dumbfounded by the following statement by you:

“I can’t find any satisfactory evidence to back that view [the pre AD 70 date of Revelation]. The early Fathers were all very vocal in their statement that Revelation was composed during Domitian’s persecution. And their verdict I accept.”

The reason I am dumbfounded by your statement is nothing personal (most scholars would agrre with you by the way) but because of the content of Revelation; it has the judgment of harlot Israel written all over it. See my article “Revelation: Book of the Covenant Curses” http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/2006_mckenzie_covenant-judgment.html

Even “orthodox” partial preterists disagree with the early Fathers for a Domitian date of Revelation. This is a perfect example of why not to blindly follow church tradition. As for Revelation being written under Domitian, here is something I wrote:

Revelation 17:10 reads “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come…

If Revelation were written during Domitian’s reign then Revelation 17:10 should either read, “eleven have fallen one is” (if one starts the count with Julius Caesar and includes the three short lived emperors, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, in the list) or “ten have fallen one is” (if one starts with Augustus and includes the three short-lived emperors), or “eight have fallen one is” if one starts with Julius and excludes the three short lived emperors or “seven have fallen one is” (if one starts with Augustus and excludes the three short lived emperors). Saying that Revelation was written during Domitian’s reign simply can not legitimately be made to fit Revelation’s text of “five have fallen one is.” As Ladd noted, “no method of calculation satisfactorily leads to Domitian as the reigning emperor…”

If one wants to see what a book written during the reign of Domitian looks like, one should look at 2 Esdras (a.k.a. IV Ezra). In that book, the beast (an eagle, a symbol of Rome) has twelve wings, representing twelve emperors (Julius-Domitian) and three heads, which are the last three of the twelve emperors (Esdras 11:1-9). The three heads represented the Flavian dynasty, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, (2 Esdras 12:10-30). The writer of 2 Esdras believed that Rome would fall in his day during the reign of Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.

To summarize: Depending on whether one starts the count of the rulers with Julius or Augustus and includes or excludes Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, then Domitian is either the 8th, 9th, 11th, or 12th ruler of Rome. There is no legitimate way to make him the 6th ruler (as Rev. 17:10 requires).

If Revelation were written around AD 95, then what does the soon to come fall of harlot Babylon that it speaks of refer to?

Duncan

Some people who finally see the error of hyperpreterism may recoil so much that they give up positions even held by the historic Christian Church — such as the early dating of the book of Revelation (see Phillip Schaff, one of the most respected Christian historians that advocates an early dating of the book of Revelation — http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/1_ch12.htm) — However, the hyperpreterists take these things & turn it into their false premises & conclusions so I can see why a person would want to recoil from it as far as they can.

Duncan:

>>Even “orthodox” partial preterists disagree with the early Fathers for a Domitian date of Revelation. This is a perfect example of why not to blindly follow church tradition. As for Revelation being written under Domitian, here is something I wrote:>>>

Saying “orthodox” partial preterist is redundant. My newest podcast, hopefully up on iTunes tonight, ironically deals with this very point. The Early Fathers most certainly had a single source for their belief, one that is highly disputed, so I think it disingenous (unintentionally I am sure) to use this as a reason not to follow church tradition. There is much early tradition supporting an early date - most importantly to me, the Syriac version of Revelation which explicitly states in the title “during the reign of Nero” - of course all this is documented by Kenneth Gentry, no need to rehash here. Also, unintentionally I am sure, your very choice of words “blindly follow” insinuate that such is what people such as myself do. That is poisoning the well.

Support for the early date is now coming from many diverse camps, even staunch dispies such as Norman Geisler, who I personally heard say “There is no good reason to date any book in the New Testament canon after AD70.”

Duncan,

You’re certainly entitled to your views. I feel no passionate urge to move you from your beliefs. Although I disagree with the early dating, I’ve heard cogent arguments from both sides. I suppose that if the events themselves furnish any key, the dating factor can only be secondary, at best. It seems that those who argue for early dating must do so, as they rely on hypothetical & unverifiable views of fulfillment.

Peace and Health,

Brian

[...] Former full preterist Roderick Edwards (no relation, as far as I know) has been posting his thoughts on extracting himself from that view [see here and here]. [...]

Interesting stuff Roderick! I guess now I am glad I haven’t put much effort into the whole preterist thing. I never could wrap my mind around the total fulfillment, but now seeing some of these bizarre ideas they are coming up with, I suppose I am thankful for that. Reading Brian’s comments several posts above about brainwashing etc. just makes me think of John Owen’s book - he surely outlines how exactly we get ourselves into these situations of “deception”.

Thanks for helping me keep my eyes wide open.

Hi there Lizzy, indeed praise God for keeping you from fully embracing hyprerpreterism. But you actually have to feel a bit sorry for us who had/have fallen into it. 200+ years of the craziness of dispensationalism has caused the reactionary theology that is now known as preterism. As you have seen from reading Owen’s work, there were strong, theologically solid Christians before the surge of dispensationalism. We merely need to get back to that & stop over-reacting to fads like dispensationalism.

Glad to see you here — when are you gonna do that review?

–Roderick