PMW 2024-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse that applies its opening portion to first-century Israel is called “preterism.” [1] This theological term derives from the Latin preteritus, which means “gone by, past.” [2] The evangelical, orthodox preterist sees many (not all! [3]) important New Testament prophetic passages as being fulfilled in the first century, thus in our distant past. These prophetic events transpired in the era surrounding the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish temple. These events powerfully, publicly, and permanently close the old covenant, typological era (Heb. 8:13; cp. Matt. 21:33–43; John 4:21–23).

The preterist perspective is initially prompted by two powerful impulses. The first involves the New Testament’s textual notices. These involve various words and phrases that declare near-term expectations. Among these temporal indicators are such words or phrases as: “near” (Matt. 24:33; Rev. 1:3), “quickly” (Luke 18:8; Rev. 22:20), “soon” (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 1:1), “this generation” (Matt. 23:36; 24:34), “some of those who are standing here who will not taste of death until” (Mark 9:1), “you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until” (Matt. 10:23), and so forth.

Perspectives on Pentecost (Richard Gaffin)
A careful examination of the New Testament teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. Makes a case for the cessation of tongues at the close of the apostolic era. Gaffin is professor emeritus of biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, having discovered such textual notices, the perceptive reader is alerted to another indicator: narrative function. Though more subtle, this also suggests an imminent expectation for the events in view. The narrative function involves the unfolding storyline in Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, noting that it anticipates AD 70 destruction of the temple.

As the major biblical statement regarding Israel’s approaching judgment, the Olivet Discourse does not appear in Christ’s teaching as a sudden, disconnected literary aside or random intrusion. In fact, it is not only subtly anticipated throughout Matthew’s whole record, but is certainly expected. It appears as a major discourse well-placed toward the end of the Lord’s ministry as a dramatic climax to his conflict with Israel (Matt. 10:5; 15:24; cp. Matt. 10:15; 11:21–24; 15:24; 23:37; John 1:11) as he begins turning to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43; 28:20). This is not to say that Matthew stylistically arranges his Gospel so that the Olivet Discourse appears at the end of Jesus’ ministry for narrative effect even though Jesus actually presented it earlier. Jesus himself gave the Discourse toward the end of his ministry. Thus, narrative and history concur.

I am focusing on Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse as the longest, most detailed, most distinctive, most highly structured, and best-known account. Now I will show how the apostle carefully and dramatically fits it into his overall narrative flow as he traces out Christ’s ministry and message.

I will deal with this narrative preparation for Olivet in my next posting.

Notes

1. In today’s confused theological environment we must explain that orthodox theology involves “partial preterism”; it is not a one-size fits all construct. See previous PostmillennialWorldview posting.

2. Compact Edition of the English Oxford Dictionary, 2:1330.

3. Some Christians have fallen into hyper-preterism, the view that all key prophecies of Scripture were fulfilled in AD 70, including the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. For rebuttals against this unorthodox error, see my book Have We Missed the Second Coming? A Critique of the Hyper-Preterist Error (Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, 2016). See also: Keith A. Mathison, When Shall These Things Be?: Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2004). Samuel M. Frost, Why I Left Full Preterism (Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, rep. 2019). Jay E. Adams, Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? Stanley, N.C.: Timeless Texts, 2003. Steve Gregg, Why Not Full Preterism?: A Partial-Preterist Response to a Novel Theological Innovation (Maitland, Fla.: Xulon, 2022). C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Moscow, Ida.: Canon, 1999). Peter Holaas, Blessed Hopelessness: Preterist Denial of Biblical and Historic Futurism Examined (Blaine, Wash.: Grace Ministries, 2017).