Partial Preterist Commentaries on the OT Prophets

[anochria]

I can't seem to find any real meaty, relatively systematic commentaries on the OT prophets from a partial preterist perspective. I'm talking about more than just preterist-friendly commentaries like Matthew Henry. I'd really like to see a partial preterist tackle, in particular, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Am I missing something? Help me out if you know of any good resources.

[backwoodsman]

Have you looked at Albert Barnes? He's preterist regarding Daniel and Matthew 24, although not so much regarding Revelation. Most of the O.T. was actually written by others, not Barnes; in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it's F. C. Cook. He understands Jeremiah 31:40 (from your other thread) to be spiritual Jerusalem, not speaking of the physical city, so he might be worth a look. I'm not enough of a theologian to know what "systematic" means, so can't comment in that regard.

[anochria]

Don't get me wrong, I'm leery of the idea of a completely systematic theology (Scripture itself doesn't pretend to be such), but I just meant something that works out preterism more thoroughly across the canvas of scripture.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

[Perry]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a leery of the idea of a completely systematic theology (Scripture itself doesn't pretend to be such)

What is it about systematic theology that gives you pause?

[steve]

I will be teaching through the prophets this summer at my school in Washington State. Of course, it will be partial-preterist commentary. Too bad I don't have time to write up and publish the lectures. I don't know specifically about printed commentaries of the preterits leanings, but Dan (Backwoodsman) is right about some of Barnes' notes. On Revelation, though, Barnes is historicist.

[anochria]

Steve, does your current audio on Jeremiah touch on preterist interpretations? I'm planning on listening to whatever you have on Jeremiah- I'm a bit slow to get into listening to your audio teachings, but I'm getting there...

[anochria]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a leery of the idea of a completely systematic theology (Scripture itself doesn't pretend to be such)

What is it about systematic theology that gives you pause?

Often attempts to systematize theology lead theologians to do violence to texts that don't fit their paradigm. It's fine to try and understand and explain Scripture coherently, but I think we need to let the parts that don't sit super well with our current understanding remain untamed rather than force them to fit in a box.

[Perry]

I think we need to let the parts that don't sit super well with our current understanding remain untamed rather than force them to fit in a box.

Wow, that's well said.

I just picked up a copy of Geisler's Systematic Theology. It's a massive tome, and I haven't gone through much of it yet, but there are areas where I don't agree with this conclusions. In a way, I think I'll probably get more from those areas than the areas where I agree with him, and I'll either 1). change and a agree with him, which is good if I'm wrong, or 2). have a better understanding for why I disagree.

[anochria]

True, true.

As a side note, I own Erickson's Systematic Theology and have benefited from it.