It seems obvious that the debate over preterism and futurism is heating up. About a year ago, Harvest House released The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack by LaHaye and Ice. One may perhaps forgive the "attack" designation as a tactic to sell books. Yet it is also clear that these writers (the editors; though Ice seems to have written over half the book, and LaHaye, only the intro) view preterism as an ideological threat and aren't hesitant to use the same language. Ice calls preterism a "toxic and dangerous framework in which to cast God's holy word" [63] (while also, from the other side of his mouth, complaining of an "arrogant attitude" and belittling of dispensationalists by preterists [66]). A threat to their pocketbooks as well (given LaHaye's Left Behind series and other prophetic books), as some may say? I don't think so, but take it for what it is worth; I'll have my own polemic to offer. Our plan here is to look at this book chapter by chapter and see what's cooking.

The Introduction, which offers LaHaye's only written contribution to the book, quite honestly had me wanting to thump LaHaye with several copies of Left Behind novels, a temptation I already have a hard time with given the overabundance of these texts compared to truly informative and scholarly works in Christian bookstores, and their despiscable literary quality. (If you are a dispensationalist, you'll be better served by BeauSingeur's Christ Clone series, which I did enjoy.) LaHaye's whining objection that folks have heard only "one side" [7] of the argument seems rather ghastly in light of just how much space his books (fiction and non-fiction) do take up, to say nothing of his cohorts like Lindsey and even (echh) Hagee and Marrs. LaHaye also indicates immediately that his understanding of what preterism actually teaches is marginal. No, we do not say "Christ returned spiritually" in 70 AD. This is one of many cases in the book where preterism is vetted through the linguistic of dispensationalism, and the end result, like combining recipes for chocolate cake and corned beef, is an intractable mess. Better said: "Christ assumed the throne of heaven in 70 AD (or thereabouts), fulfilling the vision of Daniel 7, and events on earth at the time vindicated his identity as that Son of Man." That's perhaps too much of a mouthful for a pseudo-scholar like LaHaye to handle, but lest one think this atypical, it keeps on going. LaHaye clearly does not understand that for preterists, the Kingdom of God is an ideological kingdom in the minds and hearts of believers; thus a series of questions he asks [11ff], many of which amount to, "If Jesus came back, why is the world in such lousy shape?", are so misdirected as to be ridiculous. We do not say Jesus is "in charge of the world" [11] in the sense that he micromanages. He is in charge. But there remain rebels, as under virtually any kingship. Even LaHaye's view admits that after the millienial reign, Satan will be released and there will be a rebellion. Is Jesus not in charge of that world of LaHaye's either? Does Jesus abdicate during that dispensational millenium? LaHaye seems desperately anxious to cut off our preterist nose to spite his dispensational face, with such questions as, "How can preterists possibly prove Jesus came back in 70 AD?" and, "How do they prove Satan was bound" for 1000 years? [11] Good heavens! This sounds like an atheist who asks us to prove that Christ really stands at the right hand of the Father. More than that, LaHaye has obviously not even read preterist views of texts such as Matthew 24:27-31 and Is. 65:17-20, of which he still has to ask, "Duh, what's this about then?"

If I seem disgusted by LaHaye, yes, I am. All of his works (not just the ones having to do with prophecy) represent a sort of ignorant brand of Christianity that I find has turned American Christian faith into an intellectual cesspool, along with certain works of popular apologetics which I won't name here but will mention the initials J. M. with an askew glance and a whistle. LaHaye is one of the types of writers for whom the most basic concepts we deal in here at Tekton (such as Semitic Totality, a crucial concept when understanding the Kingdom of God language in the NT) are as familiar as Mandarin Chinese to a New York garbage truck driver. I find it unsurprising that LaHaye's first degree came from Bob Jones University, that hideous repository of all that is Christianly ignorant, and that his doctorate is in Ministry, not in anything resembling Biblical studies. (I'd like to say Ice is more qualified, and he is, but not far enough in the right direction -- a degree in Historical Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D in systematic Theology from Tyndale Theological Seminary, are fantastic practical, operative degrees for a pastor -- but not good equipment from matching with the likes of a Wright or a Witherington, or even someone like Gentry who still actively teaches courses in New Testament!)

I suppose that's enough ranting about the cesspool. Let's get down to the meat.

Chapter 1 by Ice is just a chapter for defining terms, and contains little that needs discussion. I do find it telling that Ice sees a need to bray about association of preterist ideas with those that "liberals feel at home with." [27] As one who has read and appreciated the works of some of those "liberals," many of whom have defended the integrity of our faith, I find it principally nauseating that Ice sees a need to press this hot button for brownie points (and that he does so numerous times, even in later chapters). No real scholar would do this. A red-faced pastor shouting from the pulpit, who has no sturdy answer to his critics otherwise, does. Enough said.

Chapter 2 is about the "history of preterism" and Ice, again the author, pomps much over "lack of support for the preterist viewpoint's presence in the early church." This is a part of this book DeMar has ably responded to, so I see no reason not to simply let him handle this point:

As anyone familiar with dispensationalism knows, there is scant evidence of anything resembling dispensationalism prior to 1830.5 Certainly there is no evidence of dispensationalism among the early church fathers up until the time of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), which produced the Nicene Creed, a document that says absolutely nothing about dispensationalism6 or even premillennialism. In fact, as dispensationalist Patrick Alan Boyd concludes, even premillennialism is hard to find prior to Nicea. As a result of his study, Boyd admonishes his fellow dispensationalists "to be more familiar with, and competent in patristics, so as to avoid having to rely on second-hand evidence in patristic interpretation." He suggests that "it would seem wise for the modern system [of dispensational premillennialism] to abandon the claim that it is the historic faith of the church."

Ice should have followed Boyd's counsel and the directives of dispensational icon Charles C. Ryrie before he decided to take on the historical argument against preterism. Knowing that dispensationalism has a recent history, and critics have used its novelty against the system, Ryrie responds:

The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong, unless, of course, it is unscriptural. . . . After all, the ultimate question is not, Is dispensationalism--or any other teaching--historic? but, Is it scriptural?

Agreeing with Ryrie on this point, we can ask, "After all, the ultimate question is not, Is preterism--or any other teaching--historic? but, Is it scriptural?" So even if it could be proved that no form of preterism can be found in first-century Christian documents, this in itself does not mean the Bible does not teach it. Ice knows of this argument, but like so much of The End Times Controversy, he conveniently leaves out evidence damaging to his position...

DeMar has more to say about use of patristic writings, and about indications of preterism in early documents, but we will leave it to the reader to consult his comments themselves. He does well to note (even as Mormons do for their purposes!) that closeness to the time is no automatic guarantee of correct interpretation, as indeed Paul himself dealt with error-prone Christians, and of course we have argued here that the Gentile church fell at understanding key Jewish ideas like Semitic Totality. One pertinent example of this fallacy does emerge in Ice's chapter, where he claims it is a "fallacy to think that something has to be fulfilled in one's lifetime in order for something to relate to or be important to an individual." [38] What someone like Ice would not know -- having no relevant training in the social world of the Bible -- is that the ancients' present orientation makes it the burden of those who claim far-future fulfillments to prove their case. Preterism neatly dovetails into this psychological orientation, as it sees far-future prophecies as rare and very short (as even Ice's cite of Joel 3:18-21 -- a mere three of our verses! -- indicates). Dispensationlism requires a complete reversal of this ancient mindset -- and thus digs itself even deeper into the pit of unlikelihood.

Chapter 3 -- also by Ice -- sure enough shows us that Ice's degrees are not in Biblical history or exegesis. I wanted badly to take this chapter out and rub Caird's Language and Imagery of the Bible on it, though no doubt we would be told that all of Caird's erudtion and insight, and evidence of the use of language by Eastern peoples, is erased entirely by his "liberal" orientation (though he was actually a moderate). I have little to say otherwise about this chapter. The real issue is not, "how literal can we take it," but, "how literal would the authors have taken it"? In dispensationalism I have yet to see any form of contextual or cultural study done; whereas, preterism at least has some indirect appeal to contextual studies like Caird's. We've been doing our own contextual efforts here, and although my study of context was done independently of eschatological study, I find it hardly coincidence that the two mesh so well.

I do find it a sign of Ice's desperation that he resorts to fallacious linguistic gerrymandering to make a point. Preterists note, quite rightly, contextual-literary indicators that interpret the "coming on a cloud" language used by Jesus. The OT uses this as a metaphor. But for Ice, ah, the other passages speak of God going across the sky in a cloud; Jesus speaks of coming in a cloud -- big difference! Yes indeed. Horizontal versus vertical certainly does make a huge difference. Not that it does help anyway, since that "coming" (as Wright observed) is a word that also means "going," and fits smack in hand with Daniel 7, a scene of the Son of Man in heaven riding clouds to a throne in heaven.

There is also a blatant error worth noting. Ice cites (but does not quote) Matthew 24:31 as saying, "the Lord returns to earth to rescue his people Israel". This verse says nothing about Israel; it speaks of God's "elect": And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Foisting Israel out of this is another case of the tail wagging the dispensational dog.

It is in Chapter 4 that we actually enter into some hard exegesis, and Ice (yet again!) I am sorry to say repeats wholesale what he has already said, and which we addressed here, about the "time texts". In fact, much on this chapter is the same thing, word for word, that Ice had already said. I was assured by a reader that Ice had some new arguments, but it is all once again the same circle of begged questions, in which Ice questions the first century fulfillment by ignoring or waving off preterist exegesis of the texts, and with such "Glory to God!" explanations as this one:

Now if Matthew 24:29 is describing literal signs in the heavens, then these events have not happened yet....Are we to interpret these signs as literal? Yes! One of the reasons the sun, moon and stars were created is "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" (Genesis 1:14). What bigger event than the second coming of Christ would demand signs of a global magnitude?

Ice counfoundingly calls the preterist understanding of sun, moon and stars as political entities a "dumb down" (!) interpretation, but before he gets too dumb, he should notice that only sun and moon -- not stars -- were so designated in Genesis; the stars were an afterthought with no such designation mentioned (1:16; God "made the stars also"). What this amounts to though is an argument by pious outrage: "It has to be literal! To say otherwise is to reduce the glory God gets from the event!" Ice demands more proof that that "this generation" will see it, and he has it -- in the form of the sort of linguistic data someone like Caird provides. (I rather wonder too if Ice is fudging when he says Gentry has "not been able to tell us exactly what" the fulfillment of passages in 24:30-1 was. I know DeMar has, and Wright did, even as a proclaimed non-preterist; and I doubt Gentry has not.)

Again, there's nothing new in Chapter 4, so now we move to Chapter 5, and now someone new makes an appearance, John MacArthur. But for the respect I have for MacArthur as a teacher, there is also nothing new here either. It comes right out of MacArthur's book The Second Coming (the footnote says so clearly), and is all of what we addressed here. MacArthur also plays the card of "why didn't the early church know this" addressed above (and note as well that DeMar and I would both date the Didache prior to 70 anyway).

Chapter 6 also offers a newcomer, a raw recruit this time, a Ph. D. candidate named Mark Hitchcock. His assignment has to do with the date of Revelation, and he wishes to date it to 95 AD so as to deliver, as he says, a "stake in the heart" to preterism. Right away Hitchcock shows that that Ph. D. will need some sharpening, as he demands to know, if the date of Revelation was so important, "why didn't John clearly state the time of its composition"? I am wondering whether Hitchcock here is any better than atheists who ask why Jesus didn't mention redwoods and space travel so as to impress future generations. John is not responsible for enlightening the peculiar errors of our day; nor (in his high-context environment) would we expect him to relate what his own readers would already know, regardless of the date.

Hitchcock does get back on the right foot with a proper anaylsis of dating techniques using internal and external evidence, and here is where we might compare with our linked article. Hitchcock doth protest overmuch that scholars who date Revelation pre-70 also date it too late for Gentry, who wants it in 65 where they put it in 68-9. Obviously that later date comes only because of something both sides decry: a presumption against predictive prophecy. Hitchcock should be ashamed of himself for using this argument. He should also be ashamed of using anecdotal support such as the unnamed Greek Orthodox priest on Patmos who "scoffed" at an early date for Revelation. What in blazes kind of rigorous argumentation is this? Has this priest ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Have his views of Revelation ever been published or criticized?

Gentry does not mention the writings of Hegesippus in his book on dating Revelation (other than that he mentioned the martyrdom of James), and rightly so: Nothing Hegesippus says has any bearing on the date of Relevation, and Hitchcock offers a completely speculative argument that because Eusebius spoke of John being on Patmos, and because in "the very next section" of his work Eusebius names Hegesippus as a source when relating something else on a different subject, Hegesippus must have been "in the mind of Eusebius" and must have offered the same position! He also takes Eusebius' statements about Domitian, and a reference to those who "committed the story of those times to writing", and -- although it comes BEFORE Eusebius' statement about John on Patmos -- assumes that those who were "writing" also must have written about John being on Patmos during Domitian's reign! This kind of cockamamie argumentation is so forced that I think it requires little comment! Hitchcock has resorted to mind-reading to create an argument. And this is actually verging on dishonesty anyway, since Eusebius could never use Hegesippus as support for the date John wrote Revelation -- he didn't believe that John wrote it!

Next up is Irenaeus, and here Hitchcock does not even bother to directly confront Gentry's five points we noted; rather he bumbles through some non-explanations, such as Aune's idea that the passive verb used "does not appear to be the most appropriate way to describe the length of a person's life" -- which is not what Gentry says; he says it refers to John's public appearances. Hitchcock argues that a "vision" is something better "seen" than a person, but ignores Gentry's point that Irey uses the word "seen" of persons in his work. He objects that to bring the matter close to his time as possible, Irey would have "said that John lived into the time of Trajan," even though Irey does indeed say this elsewhere and hardly needs to repeat it! Finally, Hitchcock merely cites some who disagree with Gentry's view, offering no critical comparison of arguments.

Next up is another non-citation, this one of -- get ready -- the Roman poet Statius. He had not a word about Relevation in him, but Hitchcock reaches for Statius' observed and alleged parallels to Revelation, in an adulation to Domitian. So it is said that John somehow writes as a reaction to Statius, who wrote in 92 AD. The basis for this is a dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary which would be impossible for us to procure. However, we have been able to get a copy of the alleged source material by Statius, the Silvae, and I have to say that anyone who sees any relationship to Revelation in this work has to be using imagination far more than scholarship. From a literary perspective (my area of specialty), it is impossible to see a relationship between the two. The author of the dissertation speaks in terms of "parallel contrastive motifs" -- which seems a vague way of saying, Statius praised Domitian while John dissed him. More than that we cannot say without access to the dissertation, which will not be possible.

Next, Clement of Alexandria, and Hitchcock completely glosses over Gentry's most important evidences (which we relate here -- no mention of Nero being called directly a "tyrant" and that he was commonly called one, as related by Apollonoius or that he was called a "beast"!); no comparison of the respective careers of Nero and Domitian to decide who better deserved the title. Instead, Hitchcock ignores all of these points and trots out two of his own that have nothing to do with the meaning of "tyrant". He notes a story in Clement of John galavanting after someone on horseback; Gentry noted that this seemed unlikely for someone in his 90s, but would fit someone in his 60s better. Hitchcock thoroughly misrepresents this point and says that Clement's "forgot his age" comment fits better someone in his 90s, for someone of 60 would not have to "forget his age" -- a rather ludicrous comment, in light not only of 60 being indeed for many persons that kind of experience, but also in that the inadequate health and nutrition of the day made even the 50s a time when galavanting around on a horse would be a drag, unless you were a member of royalty or the well-fed aristocracy, which John was not. Hitchcock demonstrates further ignorance in saying that "a healthy 60-year-old man is hardly old enough to ask for a favor based on pity." [131] This shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the agonistic tenor of John's statement. He is not asking for a favor; he is shaming the young man for fleeing from someone who would be no physical threat to him -- whether he was 60 or 90 or 120. Hitchcock obviously does not recognize the cultural relevance of the young man being described as "ashamed".

Tertullian is next on Hitchcock's list; we have no word from Terty himself as to when John wrote. Hicthcock appeals though to two later writers who credited Terty with a statement to the effect that John wrote under Domitian's reign, though what they actually say is that he was banished to Patmos at that time, not that he wrote. One of these is Eusebius, who as noted does not believe John wrote Revelation, so this testimony is useless for Hitchcock's arguments. The other is Jerome, but the citation, Against Jovianian 1.26, does not say what Hitchcock claims:

An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a master; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, a thing which no other of the Apostles, excepting Matthew, did; a prophet, for he saw in the island of Patmos, to which he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr for the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the boundless mysteries of the future Tertullian, more over, relates that he was sent to Rome, and that having been plunged into a jar of boiling oil he came out fresher and more active than when he went in. But his very Gospel is widely different from the rest.

Tertullian is not cited as saying anything about John on Patmos; he relates a story about John being put in boiling oil, and Jerome only testifies to the banishment himself -- not at all using Terty as support. In this regard Hitchcock has some nerve objecting (rightly as it happens) to Gentry taking another statement by Terty to mean more than it says.

We skip the point on the Muratorian Canon, for we agree that Gentry's pro-early argument using it is weak. Next up is Origen, and his "king of the Romans" statement, and Hitchcock entirely ignores Gentry's point that Nero was the last Julian emperor to be hailed by this title, instead resorting to the vague refuge of Origen not being specific as to who the king was, and the hypocritical begged question (in light of his "more than it says" condemnation above!) that the tradition Origen refers to "must have been handed down by Irenaeus, because at this time there was no other tradition in the church"! [133]

After citing Dio Cassius' irrelevant note that those Domitian banished were freed, and noting Victronius and then later Jerome (both of which Gentry acknowledges provides a Domitianic date), Hitchcock moves to Eusebius, who plainly refused that John authored Revelation. This makes his testimony useless for Hitchcock's case, but wanting to have his cake and eat it too, Hitchcock insists that he can be used anyway. Severus' testimony of John writing under Domitian is also noted, though unlike Gentry's report, Severus' contradictory application of Rev. 13:3 to Nero is not reported by Hitchcock. The testimony of Orosius mentions only John's banishment under Domitian, not the date of Revelation; Hitchcock mentions nothing of Gentry's point of two banishments of John, especially ignoring Gentry's pertinent comments about the Acts of John fitting such a scenario perfectly. Epiphanius' date of the book under Claudius is ignored. Finally, in a fit of hypocrisy, Hitchcock acknowledges the Neronian date assigned by the Syriac NT, but dismisses it because it is the "first unambiguous testimony" (!) of such, and is 450 years later than the time of writing -- even as he procedes to use later sources than this (Venerable Bede, 700 AD!) as support! As we have noted, Gentry's evidence from Origen and Clement is not in the least "ambiguous" once the terms they use are contextualized. Hitchcock closes his section on external evidence with a ream of sound bites from authorities in favor of a late date, making no effort to show that any of these dealt with any of Gentry's arguments. I would expect such shenanigans from a cultist or an atheist -- not from a Ph. D. student.

In terms of internal evidence, and as we noted in the article linked above, much evaluation of this has to do with presupposition. Some points however cannot be so easily dealt with. Here is how Hitchcock deals with three arguments:

The temple still standing: Rev. 11:2 Robinson, who cared about as much about preterism as he did about sock darning, took this as a prime reason to date Revelation before 70, and also applied it to the Gospels. Cutting off his nose to spite his face, Hitchcock delivers three counterpicks. The first is that Daniel and Ezekiel referred to Temple sacrifices even though there was no temple standing at the time of their writing. Obviously this explanation is intrerpretive; it begs the dispensational question to achieve an answer. His second pick revolves upon his ignorance of preterist interpretation; he wants to know when the 42 months and the two witnesses took place, and the preterist answer, we provide in the linked article. Third, he notes 1 Clement speaks of the Temple still standing though it was written in the 90s, but not all agree to this late date for 1 Clement, and Hitchcock makes no arguments against this, again settling for appeal to majority view.

666 = Nero Hitchcock offers two picks against this. The first is that Nero has many titles, and one could use any of them to get a gematriac equation. How this argues for any worthwhile point is hard to say. Hitchcock does not say how many titles Nero held, nor what prominence they had relative to the "Caesar" title (never mind that it was part of his "official" name and appeared on coins!). His claim of convenience and of "adapting facts" is remarkable in light of dispensational conveniences that have tried to apply 666 to everyone from Gorbachev to Reagan to Prince Charles, using whatever language was needed. Second, he objects to the use of the Greek form rather than the Hebrew, and then asks -- rather idiotically! -- why John would use this form for a Greek audience, rather than a Hebrew form! Hitchcock wanders further over whether or not the vowels ought to be included in the Hebrew starting point; apparently he missed Gentry's note that the Hebrew spelling of "Nero Caesar" as found in rabbinic writings and in one Qumranic document renders a 666, so if "defective" as he claims [142] it was apparently not too defective for these Jews to make use of it. Hitchcock then wonders why church fathers didn't make this identification, and why it was not made until the 19th century, a rather silly complaint in light of dispensationalism's overall failure to appear in the patristic record and until the same century, as noted above. Finally Hitchcock objects that Nero did not fulfill the actions in Revelation, failing at all to deal with how preterists interpret Revelation to show that he indeed did do so, resorting to an "if one part is literal, all parts must be" interpretation which is literarily absurd.

King Six = Nero Here Hitchcock resorts yet again to a hypocritical refuge (in light of dispensational shenanigans applying Revelation to i.e., Middle East oil!) noting that "there are many different schemes for counting these kings." No attempt is made to determine which method is most likely, as was done by Gentry and Ford. Hitchcock throws in the air questions Gentry and Ford clearly answered (i.e., forget the triumverate, as contemporaries did), then resorts to a historical interpretation in which the seven hills represent seven kingdoms from Assyria to Constantine, never mind the more immediate fact that Rome was and still is a city associated with seven hills -- we are asked via Beale to look beyond that to see the cunning of the dispensational logic, which sees the first seven empires as successive and then a huge, nearly two-millenium (so far!) gap until an eighth king. Finally Hitchcock fails to understand Gentry's point of the "beast" as the Roman Empire itself, with Nero as merely the current (to John) representative of that beast.

Hitchcock then presents a few "pro-"late date internal arguments; the first few center on the condition of the seven churches:

Ephesus It is objected that:

1. John's portrayal of Ephesus does not square with Paul's last words to Timothy in 2 Timothy, with no mention of the "loss of first love" or of Nicolaitans. This is false. Gentry notes [329n] that one suggested derivation of "Nicolaitan" connects it to the Greek words which mean "conqueror of the people," which is related to the Hebrew "Balaam," which means "destruction of the people." The Nicolaitans are thus Judaizers, which fits in with Paul's admonitions against the use of "fables and endless geneaologies" (1 Tim. 1:4) which were undoubtedly related to Jewish and perhaps proto-Gnostic Jewish speculations. The "loss of first love" is confirmed by the need Paul stresses to keep the faith.
2. There is no mention of these things in Ephesians, which Hitchcock dates to 62 AD. Even if this is the case, it is just as well to complain that Ephesians does not mention 1 Timothy's "endless genealogies" nor of the need to establish elders. On the other hand, Paul's admonitions to "walk worthy" (Eph. 4:1) may as well relate to loss of "first love".
3. Against Gentry's point that error can erupt quickly in a church, Hitchcock points to a difference in the maturity level of Ephesus and the Galatian church -- never mind that what is at issue is the maturity of individual members who can just as readily and quickly bring in error, especially in the syncretistic religious environment Rome afforded. If Ephesus was such a mature place, unable to be in error, why is Timothy having issues with Jewish proto-Gnostics?
4. Finally, an Earl Doherty complaint is registered that Revelation does not mention Paul, which I find just as "inexplicable" (read: it isn't) in the 90s as in the 60s.

Smyrna It is objected that this church did not exist in the 60s; against Gentry's point of evangelization in this area, Hitchcock gives the asinine retort that "just because the gospel came to Smyrna during Paul's third missionary journey does not necessarily mean that a church was founded during this time." [148] Hitchcock is apparently unaware that "church" here is used after the mode of "synagogue" in Judaism -- it merely means an assembly of people; in Jewish thought, ten males were all that was needed for a synagogue, and it did not need a building, but could meet in a home. Gentry's other points about Polycarp (which we note) are not mentioned.

Laodecia Even though he quotes Tactius' direct statement that Laodecia was so rich that it did not need help to rebuild after an eathquake, Hitchcock insists that Revelation points to a late date, because at Nero's time Laodecia wasn't producing many coins. How "numismatic poverty" equates with material poverty is something we'd like to have explained. If a quake hits Washington DC and destroys the US Mint, I fail to see how this would make Washington DC or even America any poorer. Beyond this Hitchcock's own point that individual citizens of Laodecia paid to rebuild the city itself refutes his contention that John could not be addressing a city of great wealth. It is precisely because of this wealth that Laodecia was in need of nothing. With as many wealthy patrons as it had, even a destructive earthquake couldn't dampen this city!

Other than this, Hitchcock has two minor arguments. First he wonders why Nero would execute Peter and Paul, but only banish John; apparently he supposes that Nero, a man of wild inconsistencies, paradoxes, and madness, ought to have delivered consistent sentences. What does not occur to him is that exile to Patmos was as good as a death sentence; without any agricultural skills, and without the support of an urban center (any residents there would not aid a dishonored felon, of course!) a slow death was John's most likely fate. He did manage to escape it, but that is beside the point of what would be Nero's or Domitian's intent. Hitchcock should also not be allowed to get away with noting that banishment was one of Domitian's "favorite modes of punishment." [149] Nero had his own ways with this method, as he banished his wife Octavia (contrary to some Christian sites that say he never banished anyone). The second argument is that John mentions a "New Jerusalem" and this suggests that the old one had been destroyed, which ignores that by preterist understanding, John predicts the destruction of the old one and thus his comment is easily seen as proleptic. Thus ends Hitchcocks' skein, and it is a mix of pedagoguery and significant ommission of data.

Chapter 7 goes back to Ice again, and is on the Olivet Discourse. The first part of the chapter is but a dispensational reading of the Discourse with no direct reference to preterism. We have our own take on that here. The second part actually engages some preterist claims, including some that Ice missed in our prior response. Let's look at these that I disagree with (I do not endorse all the points by Gentry and DeMar that Ice addresses) and those that do not involve blatantly begged questions.

1. The all-important oikoumene is waved off with a shimmy, with Ice admitting that it did mean the Roman Empire at this time, but that because it means "inhabited world," "its meaning has multiple possibilities depending upon the referent." Thus Ice grossly decontexualizes and begs the question, so that Jesus now says, allegedly, "the oikoumene at the time when all this will happen," just as some dispensationalists whack "this generation" into "what generation is alive when this happens." Standing against this is the fact that Rome knew that what was outside the oik was inhabited. Acts 17:31 ("he will judge the world in righteousness") is then used by Ice for a "Glory to God!" argument; this must be a global oik, he says, because "not a single individual will escape God's judgment" -- never mind that reference to a temporal judgment on Rome's habitat hardly excludes a later one (as preterists do see happening before the White Throne), or the propriety of Peter appealing to a judgment on his hearers' "home turf" about which, socially, the would be solely concerned. At any rate Ice is forced to admit that a 70 fulfillment would restrict this word to Rome's empire, and thus he is compelled to admit that his presupposition drives his interpretation, and it is he -- not preterists -- who must grossly decontextualize the word so that it means something that it never would to those who heard Jesus speak or read any of the Gospels. He is allowed to suppose a future oik, but it is his burden to show why it is better (especially under the ancient present-orientation) in context than the one all of Jesus' hearers' knew. (Indeed, given as Ice acknowledges the Roman arrogance of defining the oik via civility, would they not see today's oik restricted to those areas affected by Greco-Roman culture -- to wit, today's Western nations? No Revelation effects on Africa, the Near East, Asia?)

   My view does not require the interpretation of Col. 1:6, 23 and Romans 16:26 that DeMar offers and Ice addresses (though I do accept it as viable), so we close this part with a minor point, in which Ice supposes that by preterist logic, Matthew 28:19, to evangelize all the nations, requires a 70 fulfillment, but this is in error, for the geographic delimiter in that passage is "to the ends of the earth" -- not the oik. I do not require that "end of the age" in Matt. 28:20 be the end of the age of the law, but rather the messianic age (which we are now in, and which started at Jesus' resurrection in my view).

2. On the "abomination of desolation," aside from begging the dispensational question and making the same incorrect assumption about Israel being the ones saved in Matt. 24:30, Ice merely ignores and/or gives inadeqaute account of preterist interpretations. One particular note of miscalculation is one in which Ice objects that by the time Roman standards were in the Temple, "it would be too late for the followers of the Lord Jesus to escape" because Rome had alrady taken Jerusalem. However, if the abomination relates to the actions of the Zealots in the Temple, as we hold, then it is not at all too late. Further, Ice's complaint that this could not have fulfilled Zechariah's prediction of "nations" surrounding Jerusalem falls on the point that "nations" used by Zech simply means Gentiles and thus is adequately fulfilled only by Rome. He also is clearly unaware of preterist views of Daniel.
3. Ice clearly shows his lack of awareness of the techinical meaning of parousia as he says, of DeMar's argument that Christ acts providentally through Roman armies, "The logic of such an approach would demand that Christ comes many times every day through the vehicle of his providence." [186] That is a blatant misunderstanding -- we do not have events comparable to a parousia (the advent of a king) every single day! Ice is typically vetting preterism with dispensational terms and understanding ("comes"). His own understanding of parousia [187] derived from lexicon cites is inadequate. Parousia does indeed require a presence -- but the "presence" of Christ here is in heaven, per Daniel 7, as he takes the throne; the events on earth are a corollary to his enthronement.
4. Ice has also obviously missed DeMar's extensive explanation of stellar symbols derived in part from the OT [189]. He falsely claims that Luke 21:24-5 ("And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations...") indicates that the cosmic signs must happen after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled; but this is a begged dispensational reading. The text itself does not give such an order; rather, v. 24 completes the idea of the time of the Gentiles, and v. 25 returns to the chronology.
5. Let it speak for itself that Ice admits [193-4] that the word order of Matthew 24:30 is amenable to a preterist understanding.
6. Rather amusing is Ice's comment that preterists "confuse coming with going" [196] in Acts 1:9-11, in light of N. T. Wright's comment that the word often used for this means both depending on context! (I do not agree with the view of Acts 1 he ascribes to Gentry, and refer it instead to the Daniel 7 fulfillment.)
7. Ice's attempt to apply Matthew 24:31 to Israel suffers from a typical dispensational quandry: Physically and spiritually, there is absolutely no continuity between Judaism and Jews of the first century and those in the modern state of Israel. Modern Judaism is rabbinism; a legitimate expression of its own, but not the same as the Judaism practiced in the ancient world.

Chapter 8 is truly a degrading contribution, as Larry Spargimino is permitted to vomit forth his amateur ravings. To remind the reader, Spargimino is responsible for a crybabyish attempt to dislodge preterism; the trend continues here, with extensive ad hominem against Josephus made in an attempt to detract from his credibility as a source, and with a ridiculous diversion about Suetonius in which Spargimino notes Suey's reports of Nero's perverse sexual habits, and then points out that Revelation 13 said nothing about the beast having sexual perversions. The bulk of Spargimino's comments, however, consist in begged questions; in claiming that preterists take liberties with interpretation (supposedly equitable to or worse than attempts to turn the locusts of Revelation into helicopters!); waving the word "liberal" around like a hanky, and offering explanations rooted in superstition that sound like an atheist begging the questions (i.e., what Josephus described can't be ascribed to demonic enhancement of human activity, because all he describes can be "attributed solely to the natural course of events" that develop in a siege; the "hailstones" of Revelation can't relate to boulders lobbed at Jerusalem, of the same weight specified, because hailstones can only come from the sky! -- this one is also repeated by Franz, next chapter). There is little appreciable in such "Glory to God!" responses as the one taken from Robert Thomas, he of the "Blomberg is promoting devaluing Scripture" claim, that it is "doubtful that men will blaspheme God because of something symbolic only." [218] This is not only a poor view of what preterism says (that something literal lies behind the symbol), but also ignores the fact that men have blasphemed God for far less, and continue to do so today!

Chapter 9 by Gordon Franz questions the equation of "Babylon" in Rev. 17-18 with Jerusalem and claims to use history to do it. It's short, so here are the points with which we take issue (which is not all of them):