CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hello:
As I read the material of both the Partial and Full Preterists on the web there is a nagging question that comes to mind concerning this unique eschatology. (Just for the record I am an Historicist of the WCF and Calvin type).
In reading the Preterist arguments for the internal evidences for an early date of the Book of Revelation they point out in Revelation 1:3 this:
...for the time is at hand.
They argue that the Book of Revelation must be referring to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because the language requires an immediate fulfillment.
The Partial-Preterist, I understand, argues that the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth will not occur until Judgment Day - the end of the world. This has led me to believe that the Partial Preterist is logically inconsistent with his own hermeneutic.
In Revelation 22:6 we are told:
the things which must shortly be done
This passage encompasses eveything that was said before - including the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.
Revelation 22:10 says:
for the time is at hand
Again, including the resurrection, etc...
In Revelation 22:20, Jesus says:
Surely I come quickly
I think the problem has become evident. If the Apostle is talking about an immediate fulfillment in Revelation 1:3, then the same interpretive principle should reign in Revelation 22:6,10,20 where the same language is used. If we interpret Revelation 22 as a long period of time, then there is no bar to interpreting Revelation 1:3 in the same fashion.
I would then argue that Full Preterism is the logical outcome of Partial Preterism.
Blessings,
-CH
As I read the material of both the Partial and Full Preterists on the web there is a nagging question that comes to mind concerning this unique eschatology. (Just for the record I am an Historicist of the WCF and Calvin type).
In reading the Preterist arguments for the internal evidences for an early date of the Book of Revelation they point out in Revelation 1:3 this:
...for the time is at hand.
They argue that the Book of Revelation must be referring to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because the language requires an immediate fulfillment.
The Partial-Preterist, I understand, argues that the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth will not occur until Judgment Day - the end of the world. This has led me to believe that the Partial Preterist is logically inconsistent with his own hermeneutic.
In Revelation 22:6 we are told:
the things which must shortly be done
This passage encompasses eveything that was said before - including the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.
Revelation 22:10 says:
for the time is at hand
Again, including the resurrection, etc...
In Revelation 22:20, Jesus says:
Surely I come quickly
I think the problem has become evident. If the Apostle is talking about an immediate fulfillment in Revelation 1:3, then the same interpretive principle should reign in Revelation 22:6,10,20 where the same language is used. If we interpret Revelation 22 as a long period of time, then there is no bar to interpreting Revelation 1:3 in the same fashion.
I would then argue that Full Preterism is the logical outcome of Partial Preterism.
Blessings,
-CH