You are correct, you don't see the point.
A few cnp's from an article, let me know if you are interesting I can post a link.
"Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in a.d. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August a.d. 70, then it had to have been written by a.d. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility."
"The futurists interpretation is not dependant upon the date of Revelation since it does not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time. However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains why they are so focused upon defending an early date."
Preterists like to misuse Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman conquest in a.d. 70. Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24. During this time Jesus speaks of a signal event connected with the Temple - its desecration by an abomination which was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). What Temple is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the Temple that was to be desecrated the same Temple as the one predicted to be destroyed? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different Temples:
1. The Temple described in Matthew 24:15 is not said to be destroyed, only desecrated (see Revelation 11:2). By contrast, the Temple in Jesus' day (or Matthew 24:2) was to be completely leveled: "not one stone would be left standing on another" (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44).
2. The Temple's desecration would be a signal for Jews to escape destruction (Matthew 24:16-18), "be saved" (Matthew 24:22) and experience the promised "redemption" (Luke 21:28). By contrast the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:2 was a judgment "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [Messiah' s first advent]" (Luke 19:44b) and resulted in the Temple being level[ed] to the ground and your children [the Jews] within you" (Luke 19:44a).
3. The generation of Jews that are alive at the time that the Temple is desecrated will expect Messiah's coming "immediately after" (Matthew 24:29), and are predicted to not pass away until they have experienced it (Matthew 24:34). By contrast, the generation of Jews who saw the Temple destroyed would pass away and 2,000 years (to date) would pass without redemption.
4. The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple' s desecration, Daniel 9:27, predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus' prediction)- the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus - were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.
5. The time "immediately after" (Matthew 24:29) the time of the Temple' s desecration would see Israel's repentance (Matthew 24:30), followed by, as Matthew 23:29 implies, a restoration of the Temple. By contrast, the time following the destruction of the Temple only saw a "hardening" happen "to Israel," which is to last "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25) - still 2,000 years and counting.
6. For the Temple that is desecrated, the scope is of a worldwide tribulation "coming upon the world" (Luke 21:26; compare Matthew 24:21-22; Mark 13:19-20), a global regathering of the Jewish people "from one end of the sky to the other" (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27), and a universal revelation of the Messiah at Israel's rescue (Matthew 24:30-31; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26-27). This scope accords with the prophesied end-time battle for Jerusalem recorded in Zechariah 12-14, where "all nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3). By contrast the a.d. 70 assault on Jerusalem predicted in Luke 21:20 is by the armies of one empire (Rome). Therefore, if there are two different attacks on Jerusalem, separated by more than 2,000 years, then two distinct Temples are considered in Matthew 24:1-2 and Matthew 24:15.6
The above points demonstrate preterist problems that have no resolution in their attempt to cram still future prophecy into a past mold. Details of Matthew 24 cannot be made to fit into a first century fulfillment. Maranatha!
Hey, dartuser, how you are doing? I’d be happy to take a look at it.
As far as I know, I’m not a preterist in any strict sense except regarding Christ’s Olivet discourse in Matthew 24. I’m pretty sure that’s historically the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I agree that the futurist view isn’t date dependent, but the futurist hermeneutic can be a little slippery when it comes to going from literal to figurative. Sometimes it seems a little like global warming — if it’s hot it’s proof of GW; if it’s cold it’s proof of GW.
I think the Revelation probably has a late date. My pastor who is a solid futurist, pre-trib rapture man often cites the fact that the Revelation is “doctrinally rich”. We can enhance our understanding of soteriology and sanctification from the Apocalypse. This is why I think the book was written: to encourage believers suffering or about to suffer persecution. When we go through trials we understand that God’s plan continues to be worked out no matter what the outward appearance may be or what kind of temporary victories the forces of antichrist may achieve.
In the sense that persecution and apparent setbacks to the Kingdom are always imminent, John could say “...to show His servants what must quickly take place”.