In respect to preterist studies of the Book of Daniel, I count it a very good thing that we finally have a strong, contemporary alternative to James B. Jordan’s 2007 volume with the 2018 appearance of Jay Rogers’ In the Days of These Kings.
In the nature of the case, preterist analyses are tethered to history. Whereas futurists can fantasize and speculate (and thereby tickle many ears), preterists must observe a stronger discipline that respects what God has already fixed in time, in the historic record. A preterist must not only deal with Scripture coherently, he is also on the carpet to tie the Scriptures to that historic record. Those correlations must move from being merely plausible to being formidable. A huge investment in historic research is thus required to steer the reader’s confidence in that direction. This work by Rogers is not slack in regard to meeting these challenges as it makes the preterist case. The historic research he presents is voluminous, well-organized, and easy to follow, making the volume a very strong asset that materially advances the ongoing eschatological debate.
My views don’t readily fit into the commonly-received categories that Rogers puts forward, but this is hardly a flaw of the book. Going off into the weeds to cover every doctrinal variant out there is a sure path to diminishing returns, and Rogers avoids such distractions by staying on message. Even readers like myself who differ with the author about, say, the time frame for Revelation (to take just one example) will still find tremendous benefit in his discussion of Daniel’s prophecies. The light that Rogers shines on some passages of Daniel (both in respect to cross-referencing to other scriptures and to historic events) is often decisive.
Further, it is incumbent on all students of Scripture to know all the salient positions, as put forward by their best proponents, so long as eschatology remains a matter yet to be settled once for all. For that purpose, In the Days of These Kings would be a valuable book for both advocates and opponents of preterism. It puts forward a perspective with a long and august history in the Church of Jesus Christ, a perspective that must be respected even when disagreeing with it.
I’m on record as a sympathetic critic of preterism, but I am able to commend this book whole-heartedly. I do not need to agree with every single historic correlation or scriptural parallel that Rogers makes to know that I’m holding a valuable new book in my hand, one that the Church very much needs in a day and age when men no longer endure sound doctrine. By pointing us back to the strong discipline of the past, Rogers puts our feet on firmer ground, and gives subsequent generations a stronger foundation for further advancing our understanding of this key book of the Bible.
— Martin Selbrede, Vice-President, The Chalcedon Foundation