Notes (6 of 6)

104. The claim that partial preterism's developed systematic form dates from after the Reformation is stated from recall and is not sourced here. It is offered to hold both systems to the same historical standard, and nothing in the argument depends on its precision. Chrysostom's reading of the discourse's disasters as fulfilled in AD 70 is cited in note 29.

105. Daniel 12:4 and 12:9, Revelation 22:10, 1:3, and 22:6, all NET, checked against the NET Second Edition text. The "revelation is complete" answer is reported from the study notes on Revelation 22:10 hosted at netbible.org, which say Daniel's seal reflects more prophecy still to come and that John's book is left open because the revelation is now complete. The author of those notes is not confirmed here, they are reported and not quoted, and they are one source, not a survey of the tradition.

106. Daniel 12:1–2, NET. The distress and the resurrection stand under one "at that time." Whether Daniel 12:1 refers to AD 70, to a future tribulation, or to both is disputed and is not decided here. The inaugurated reading of Revelation's time language, in which the end-time has begun with Christ, is attributed in the author's research notes to G. K. Beale and Grant Osborne, mostly through Kenneth Gentry's summaries. Neither work was read, and neither is cited as a source for the argument above.

107. Romans 16:25–26, 1 Peter 1:11–12, and Ephesians 3:5–6, NET. That what these texts name as disclosed is the inclusion of the nations (Ephesians 3:6; Romans 16:26, "to all the nations") and, in Peter, the sufferings and glory of Christ is this essay's reading of the verses. Whether traditional dispensationalists confine the new revelation to the mystery of the church is known only from a truncated page of Pentecost and is not cited.

108. Luke 24:27 and 24:44–47, NET. The observation that the three contents Jesus names are suffering, resurrection, and the mission to the nations, with no land or throne among them, is read from the NET text of 24:46–47, and no scholarly source is cited for it. Darrell Bock's treatment of Luke 24, reported secondhand as widening the promises to the Gentiles without canceling those to Abraham's physical seed, was not read and is not relied on. Ryrie's second essential is as stated in note 44.

109. Acts 15:13–18 and Amos 9:11–15, NET. That Acts follows the Septuagint's wording of Amos 9:12 and not the Hebrew's is stated from recall and was not re-checked. Futurist readings of Amos 9 (Walter Kaiser, Michael Vlach, and David Cooper are reported to place its fulfillment in the future) and an article by Tanner in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55:1 (2012), reported to read the rebuilding of David's booth as begun at the resurrection and ascension, were reached through summaries and were not read.

110. Jeremiah 31:31 and 31:34, Hebrews 8:6, 8:8–10, 8:13, and 10:15–18, NET. Jeremiah 31:33 is not quoted. The NET renders a phrase there "after I plant them back in the land," while Hebrews 8:10 gives the corresponding words as "after those days," and nothing here rests on a land reading of the phrase. Four claims were reached through summaries, and none of the articles was read: that the two-covenant view is "seldom held today" (Decker, Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608); that the church "participates" in the one covenant (Pettegrew, The Master's Seminary Journal 10:2) and does so "only by way of application" (Dean); and that the shift from "house of Israel" to "with them" is deliberate (Compton, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 8, Fall 2003, 3–48). The association of the two-covenant view with Chafer is stated from recall. That the present-tense verbs in Hebrews 8:6 and 10:15 amount to more than application, and that 10:15–18 speaks of forgiveness already in hand, is this essay's argument and is not a quotation of any author.

111. Romans 11:25–29, NET; Hebrews 10:11–14 and 10:18, NET. That Paul's covenant sentence echoes Jeremiah 31:33–34 and Isaiah 27:9 is stated from the standard cross-references and agrees with the NET's translator notes, which were read for research and are not quoted. The holders of the four options are reported, not read. They are: Merkle for the elect of every age; Compton, Vlach, and Blaising for national restoration with the land; Bock and Blaising for a staged fulfillment; Gentry and Wellum for a reading in which the promises are fulfilled in Christ and the land is typological, with the objection from Jeremiah 31:36 and Romans 11:29 attributed to Vlach and Blaising. Moo's reading of Romans 11:27 as a future covenant with Israel without clear land or temple promises is likewise reported. That Hebrews 10:18 answers continued sacrifice is this essay's reading of its context in 10:11–14. Which reading the essay prefers is stated in the text as a fit with its two commitments, not as a proof.

112. Jeremiah 31:36, Amos 9:15, and Romans 11:29, NET. Nothing in this paragraph is sourced beyond the NET text and the argument already made in Section 2.

113. Revelation 1:20, 12:9, 11:1–2, 11:8, 17:9–10, 17:15, 17:18, and 19:8, NET. That some partial preterists read the great city of 17:18 as Rome and others as Jerusalem is stated from recall, as is the dispute over where the count of the seven kings begins. Neither is sourced here.

114. Revelation 1:1, 1:3, 22:6, and 22:10, NET. The NET renders the verb in 1:1 "made it clear," and some translations render it "signified"; this essay builds nothing on that choice. The three alternatives to a near-term reading (suddenness, inaugurated, impending) are attributed in the author's research notes to Walvoord, to Beale and Osborne, and to Mounce respectively, mostly through Gentry's summaries. None of those works was read, and the account of what each costs is this essay's own analysis.