What do you think?
Rate this book
Problems with Preterism: An Eschatology Built upon Exegetical Fallacies, Mistranslations, and the Misunderstanding of a Genre
Preterism is the belief that the majority, if not all, of the eschatological passages in the New Testament have already been fulfilled in the first century. Although there are some needed correctives that preterism provides when interpreting eschatological statements in the Synoptic Gospels, the interpretive methodologies employed are largely plagued with exegetical and logical fallacies. On top of these, the genre of apocalyptic is often completely lost on the modern interpreter and as a result leads to numerous non sequiturs made when it comes to the nature and time of biblical eschatology.
This book seeks to correct these hermeneutical missteps by providing exegetical principles that may help guide the reader to a more biblically sound conclusion concerning the timing and nature of biblical eschatology.
This book seeks to correct these hermeneutical missteps by providing exegetical principles that may help guide the reader to a more biblically sound conclusion concerning the timing and nature of biblical eschatology.
284 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 28, 2022
1 person is currently reading
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 4, 2023
I really want to be fair in my review if this book, so I will type up a much more detailed review a different day. In the meantime, I am only giving this book two stars. One is for originality, and the second is for trying. Allow me to explain each.
This book is original insofar as it attempts to be scholarly, attentive to details, thorough, and on topic. The topic is a refutation of “preterism,” which is extremely broad. Originality is worth noting, too, because no one else to my knowledge has offered a scholarly overview of preterism and its alleged problems. A second star is for trying. By trying, I mean the author really tries to cover a vast “ism”. That has to be worthy of one star, right? In my mind, it is.
These two stars highlight an obvious factor in this rating of mine: I left out three stars.
Typically, a three star rating is given when a book is scholarly (credible, showing understanding), tries to offer a significant contribution (unique, tested, reasonable), and succeeds enough to stay on my bookshelves. This book is not going to stay on my shelves. It’s getting boxed once I write a more detailed review of its problems. Here’s a spoiler of what is forthcoming in another review:
1) the book is not merely unpersuasive; it is not coherent. Surely, with a sub-title as bold as this one, the reader hopes to find a significant amount of logical coherence—at least enough to leave the reader questioning the “ism” it’s arguing against. Certainly, there is a little logical coherence to be found in a small handful of ideas presented in the intro, but it’s really sloppy in its delivery. It’s so sloppy in its delivery, actually, that the author repeats himself ad nauseam. The reader would not be able to reason along with the author (following an actual argument, instead of mere opinion) unless the author goes out of his way to tell you how to think; oddly, in doing so ad nauseam, the reader learns best how the author feels or imagined is “logical”, but not WHY such an endeavor is worthwhile. There are no series of logical deductions offered. Far too much ‘argument’ is actually ad hoc autobiographical remark. There are many credible alternatives to what he claims to understand and tries to ‘argue’ against.
2) this book bites off far more than it can chew. By no means does the author propose weighty arguments that are sufficient to refute preterism as an “ism.” It’s really a collection of ideas the author imagines he understands about preterism. Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to obsess over an “ism” and misrepresent it with gross oversimplifications and cheap adverbial invectives? Yes, that would be embarrassing. Almost every page is filled with such embarrassing irony.
3) this book is very poorly organized—like a really bad blog or an armchair theologian on a bunch of rants in his basement after six beers. Imagine starting with the topic of logic, then jumping to Daniel, then discussing literary genres, then discussing a statement by Paul, then the subject of resurrection-bodies, then Daniel again, then a segue into “true context”, then Revelation, then Daniel again, then Enoch, then Paul, then Peter, then Enoch, then Daniel again, then the Olivet Discourse, then John 5, then “time sensitive” verses, then “logic” again, then Daniel again, then Revelation again, then “Word studies” of the “end” and “about to”, then Paul again, then revelation. Would such an order look well organized? (I’m botching the actual organization of the book, but you get the point—it’s very poorly organized!)
4) a case can legitimately be made that the author commits some of the fallacies he attributes to preterists. Even when he does not commit the same fallacies, he commits others without realizing how vulnerable his “arguments” are. He is overly confident on almost every page. He is not charitable at all. He is not even careful in his selections of preterists to represent “preterism”. His bibliography is a whopping THREE pages long. I have written thirty page academic essays with longer bibliographies.
Wipf & Stock needs greater quality control. The publisher should be embarrassed for releasing this book in the format we find it in.
This book is original insofar as it attempts to be scholarly, attentive to details, thorough, and on topic. The topic is a refutation of “preterism,” which is extremely broad. Originality is worth noting, too, because no one else to my knowledge has offered a scholarly overview of preterism and its alleged problems. A second star is for trying. By trying, I mean the author really tries to cover a vast “ism”. That has to be worthy of one star, right? In my mind, it is.
These two stars highlight an obvious factor in this rating of mine: I left out three stars.
Typically, a three star rating is given when a book is scholarly (credible, showing understanding), tries to offer a significant contribution (unique, tested, reasonable), and succeeds enough to stay on my bookshelves. This book is not going to stay on my shelves. It’s getting boxed once I write a more detailed review of its problems. Here’s a spoiler of what is forthcoming in another review:
1) the book is not merely unpersuasive; it is not coherent. Surely, with a sub-title as bold as this one, the reader hopes to find a significant amount of logical coherence—at least enough to leave the reader questioning the “ism” it’s arguing against. Certainly, there is a little logical coherence to be found in a small handful of ideas presented in the intro, but it’s really sloppy in its delivery. It’s so sloppy in its delivery, actually, that the author repeats himself ad nauseam. The reader would not be able to reason along with the author (following an actual argument, instead of mere opinion) unless the author goes out of his way to tell you how to think; oddly, in doing so ad nauseam, the reader learns best how the author feels or imagined is “logical”, but not WHY such an endeavor is worthwhile. There are no series of logical deductions offered. Far too much ‘argument’ is actually ad hoc autobiographical remark. There are many credible alternatives to what he claims to understand and tries to ‘argue’ against.
2) this book bites off far more than it can chew. By no means does the author propose weighty arguments that are sufficient to refute preterism as an “ism.” It’s really a collection of ideas the author imagines he understands about preterism. Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to obsess over an “ism” and misrepresent it with gross oversimplifications and cheap adverbial invectives? Yes, that would be embarrassing. Almost every page is filled with such embarrassing irony.
3) this book is very poorly organized—like a really bad blog or an armchair theologian on a bunch of rants in his basement after six beers. Imagine starting with the topic of logic, then jumping to Daniel, then discussing literary genres, then discussing a statement by Paul, then the subject of resurrection-bodies, then Daniel again, then a segue into “true context”, then Revelation, then Daniel again, then Enoch, then Paul, then Peter, then Enoch, then Daniel again, then the Olivet Discourse, then John 5, then “time sensitive” verses, then “logic” again, then Daniel again, then Revelation again, then “Word studies” of the “end” and “about to”, then Paul again, then revelation. Would such an order look well organized? (I’m botching the actual organization of the book, but you get the point—it’s very poorly organized!)
4) a case can legitimately be made that the author commits some of the fallacies he attributes to preterists. Even when he does not commit the same fallacies, he commits others without realizing how vulnerable his “arguments” are. He is overly confident on almost every page. He is not charitable at all. He is not even careful in his selections of preterists to represent “preterism”. His bibliography is a whopping THREE pages long. I have written thirty page academic essays with longer bibliographies.
Wipf & Stock needs greater quality control. The publisher should be embarrassed for releasing this book in the format we find it in.
March 25, 2023
A Tour De Force
Hodge’s work is a tour de force undermining the most common preterist distortions systematically.
First through discussing the hermeneutics of apocalyptic language, next by discussing the language of resurrection and 2nd Temple Judaism, and finally by proceeding verse by verse to demonstrate repeatedly that the resurrection is bodily phenomenon that full Preterism allegorizes and spiritualizes away. Worth reading.
Hodge’s work is a tour de force undermining the most common preterist distortions systematically.
First through discussing the hermeneutics of apocalyptic language, next by discussing the language of resurrection and 2nd Temple Judaism, and finally by proceeding verse by verse to demonstrate repeatedly that the resurrection is bodily phenomenon that full Preterism allegorizes and spiritualizes away. Worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews