Page 25

Hopefully, "space" will not "forbid" my doing what Payne proclaimed

but fell far short of accomplishing.

Turner advocated that "some combination of the two (preterist-futurist

views)" offered "the most promising solution to the exegetical difficulties of this
[Matthew 24:1-41] passage."

But his treatment was limited to this passage.

Dockery was definitely on the right track when he recommended that the book
of Revelation be approached from both the preterist and futurist views:

Both the futurist and preterist views have their strengths and weaknesses.
Instead of choosing only one or the other, a "both/and" approach that applies
the strengths of each is a better option. . . . Combining the preterist and futurist
views allows us to understand both that the message of Revelation spoke
directly to John's own age and that it represents the consummation of
redemptive history. . . . The preterist position by itself fails to understand that
Revelation confronts the modern reader with promises, challenges, and choices
that are similar, if not identical to those faced by the book's original readers.
The futurist position by itself is prone to see Revelation as a crystal ball with a
literal timetable of events that will happen in the future.

But Dockery limited his scope to only the book of Revelation and did not
incorporated the idealist or historicist approaches.

Moody employed a novel methodology in his Ph.D. dissertation. He

attempted to satisfy the tension between the timing of Christ's Parousia between
a preterist and futurist understanding. He elasticized its fulfillment nature from
A.D. 70 through "the end of human history:"

The model is a Parousia beginning with the judgment coming of Jesus in or

around A.D. 70, an abiding presence reflected in His reigning rule over the
nations and the Church and the "not yet" ending of the Parousia in His final
"appearance."

While I have basic heremeneutical disagreements with each of these

synthesis attempts, they are attempts. For that I applaud them. They are steps in
the right direction and precursors of what I propose to do. But they are too
limited in scope and not as comprehensive as I intend to be.

Although he did not mentioned the preterist view, Grenz certainly

grasped the validity of a synthesis concept when he discerned that "we would be
mistaken if we merely weighed the evidence, chose one, and ignored the other

David L. Turner, "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with

Evangelical Treatments," Grace Theological Journal 10.1 (1989): 3, 26.

David S. Dockery, "Is Revelation Prophecy or History?," Christianity Today, 25

October 1999, 86.

Stanley A. Moody, "The Nature of the Parousia: Truth as Dialectic" (Ph.D. diss.,

Trinity Theological Seminary, 1999), 222.

Ibid., 224.