[...] I’ve never studied the matter closely, probably because I can’t see where it would make a lot of difference. Sure, it’s a ‘make or break’ for preterism. They absolutely MUST defend the early date with all their might, and you know the power of a subjective interest. But that is only because they are content with a hodge podge of inconsistent exegesis. For example, if we make Nero the Beast, then how can we NOT make him Paul’s man of sin, which is obviously Daniel’s ‘willful king’ (11:36) ‘little horn’ (7:21) and beast (7:11)? Since this figure is clearly destroyed at no time short of Christ’s return (whether mystically or literally conceived), then you have a real problem, because Nero meets his ‘apocalyptic’ demise quite some time before Jerusalem is destroyed by Titus, (the other so-called return of Christ in ‘mystical’ apocalyptic judgment) some years later. So what’s wrong with this picture? Exegetically everything! The Beast is slain and the millennium of the martyred souls is believed to begin with the death of the Nero, the Beast, some years before the siege and fall of Jerusalem. It’s silly. In the real world of biblical exegesis, the brief tenure of the Beast’s career coincides with the final desolations of Jerusalem as perfectly concurrent . So early dating John’s Apocalypse assists nothing for the preterist’s cause. I have no problem with an earlier date, because I have no problem that the book might have had a very beneficial early circulation, bracing both Roman Christians in the north of the empire and Jewish Christians in the south for two very horrific but distinct periods of tribulation, both having much of the essence of the final tribulation that closes this age with the “actual’ return of Christ. [...]

[...] The exercise of true prophetic authority assumes a depth of priestly identification. Thus it is that only one that has been processed through tribulation to become priestly (reflected in a brokenness of identification with human weakness) can be entrusted with true prophetic authority, which is far more than accurate preaching or even accurate prediction. Such authority comes by being “in touch” with God as God, which puts one in touch with man as man. This is why the prophets of the OT and the apostles of the NT were not only faithful to ” root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down …” But also to build, and to plant. The first four belongs to the office of the law, and the last two belongs to the ministry of the gospel. A true gospel in balance with the whole counsel of God is hard to come by, just as true apostles and prophets are hard to come by. It seems to me that our only safe hope to recognize and distinguish the true from the false, is to deeply and truly know the Lord. This means we are personally exercised in the laws and patterns of His ways in our own lives. Otherwise, even our estimation and evaluation of what would count as “fruits” will be just as faulty as our knowledge of God. So, once again, the burden is on the priesthood of every believer. [...]

Dear Reggie, Is it possible to pass on to me a concise plain speaking explanation of the word APOSTOLIC without losing too much of its meaning. Bless you. Shalom. The definitive paradigm for true apostleship is Isaiah (ch 6). The dynamics are all there. You will see it in the devastated twelve, the devastated Peter, [...]