PMW 2024-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse has a large presence in the Gospel record (two whole chapters of ninety-seven verses in Matthew, as well as being preserved in Mark 13 and Luke 21). But since so many evangelical Christians are hypnotized by its prophecies of woe (generating multi-million-selling books), and since, as we will see, it is a valuable tool for apologetics in confirming the integrity of biblical prophecy (showing Christ’s ability to prophesy future events), it well deserves our careful consideration in the contemporary eschatological debate.

Unfortunately, Christ’s woe-filled teaching found pointedly here is woefully misunderstood practically everywhere. This is as true among biblical scholars as it is among evangelical students. And it is especially true among self-appointed, back-slapping “prophecy experts” (also known as “televangelists”). Therefore, as Michael Theophilos notes: “It is no understatement to suggest that more ink has been spilt on this chapter, with its synoptic parallels, than on any other in the Gospel narratives.” [1]

Of course, my reader knows that I am an orthodox preterist who sees much of Olivet as referring to the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. But I am an orthodox preterist who theologically remains within the historic Christianity regarding the fundamentals of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Thus, I am simultaneously affirming that I am a “partial preterist.” By this I mean that preterism is not my theology controlling all aspects of New Testament interpretation. Rather it is my hermeneutic which prevails when required by the biblical context. In this respect, then, I am a preterist-futurist. Let me explain.

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As David Turner has noted: “A preterist-futurist view understands the discourse as addressing both the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the yet-future coming of Jesus.” And in arguing this, he points out that “the preterist and futurist views are both reductionistic and cannot handle the complexities of the passage that stem from the disciples’ dual question about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. A valid approach to the passage must handle both of these matters. [Thus] the preterist-futurist view understands the discourse as addressing both the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the yet-future coming of Jesus.” [2]

Consequently, preterism cannot explain all New Testament prophecies, nor can futurism. They have their own realms of reasonable expectation. We should not be reductionistic by adopting one approach in every instance while discounting the other approach in any instance. Such reductionist thinking does not allow Scripture to speak for itself.

The average evangelical approach to the great tribulation is dominated by a pre-supposed full-scale futurism that overrides contextual indicators in the Olivet Discourse. This is so seriously disorienting that it places the opening section of Olivet (the preterist section, Matt. 24:4–34) at the wrong end of history, applies its judgments to the wrong community, and misplaces its focus geographically, thereby missing Christ’s whole point entirely. Thus, the popular conception has the wrong time, objects, place, and purpose for its judgments. You could not miss the meaning of a prophecy more seriously than through this four-fold failure.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

The dominant, popular (futurist) understanding regarding the great tribulation holds the following:
• Jesus is referring to events in the distant future which are to occur at the very end of the Church age (whereas he is actually speaking of events in the lifetime of his original audience at the end of the old covenant age).
• Jesus is prophesying events regarding a distantly future rebuilt temple ( whereas he is actually prophesying the destruction of the first-century temple).
• Jesus is speaking of catastrophes befalling Gentile unbelievers who persecute the Jews (whereas he is actually focusing on judgments overwhelming the Jews for persecuting Christ and Christians).
• Jesus is declaring judgments engulfing the entire world (whereas he is actually focusing on judgments in Israel).

The two interpretations could hardly be farther apart. These two approaches are known as the futurist view, which teaches that the prophecies of the great tribulation still lie in our future even today, and the partial-preterist view, which teaches that the these prophecies have already occurred in the first century.

Notes

1. Michael P. Theophilos, The Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24.15 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2012), 81.

2. David L. Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 566.