Category Archives: AD 70

SURPRISING ADVANTAGES OF HYPER-PRETERISM

AD 70, hyperpreterism January 28, 2025 Comments: 15

Have we missedPMW 2025-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I reflect on the presence of the small, but growing number of Christians committing to hyper-preterism, I have wondered what its drawing power is.

Initially, I thought that one of its strengths was that it is mutating so quickly that there are many versions floating about. Consequently, this conveniently allows for a great variety of options to anyone looking for a new theological hobby horse. The latest version of hyper-preterism (as of today, January 28, 2025) is Gary DeMar’s version, “Gospel Eschatology.” This has evolved from and is set over against other recent versions with their various distinctives. We can think of other versions such as Don Preston’s “Covenant Eschatology,” or Tim Martin’s “Covenant Creation Preterism,” or Max King’s “Transmillennialism” (aka “Corporate Body Preterism”) or Ward Fenley’s “Sovereign Grace Preterism,” or the “Preterist Universalists,” or of the work of the grandfather of hyperpreterism, J. Stuart Russell, author of The Parousia.

However, I really should not be surprised at the hyper-preterist aberration receiving a following. For I have long been amazed at the remarkable growth and influence of the eschatological movement known as the Latter-day Saints (i.e., Mormonism), despite its being patent heresy rooted in absolute absurdity. And as I continue wondering in ever-deepening perplexity and amazement, I am reminded also of the presence of another successful eschatological movement known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses: they have been among us for more than 100 years, happily knocking on our doors and delighting in being sent away without even being warmed and filled.

History teaches us that aberrant movements can gain a foothold within Christian circles and take on a life of their own (unless, of course, they drink the Kool Aid, as in Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple” cult: that movement is definitely “preter,” i.e., past!). It remains to be seen if hyper-preterism will be able to attract enough followers to finally establish itself as a full-blown church. Currently it is basically an Internet movement with occasional small conferences here and there, where self-published books are hawked. But still, I have wondered why some evangelicals are being attracted to it (in any of its several divergent, mutating forms). Recently, however, I believe I have uncovered a few overlooked reasons why some folks are finding it of interest. Consider its following advantages in three major areas of human experience.
Continue reading →

DOMITIAN’S PERSECUTION (AGAIN)

AD 70, persecution, Revelation July 2, 2024 Comments: 2

PMW 2024-052 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.domition 2

I keep hearing and reading folks referring to Domitian’s severe persecution of Christians, claiming that it was much more severe and widespread than Nero’s earlier persecution. This is significant in light of the debate over the dating of Revelation. Late-date advocates argue that Revelation was written about the intense persecution under the emperor Domitian. Whereas early date advocates argue that it was written prior to Nero’s persecution twenty years earlier.

I have found that too often people are simply regurgitating what they have heard someone else say. They do this as if it were self-evident that Nero’s persecution paled in comparison to Domitian’s. But when we read many competent biblical and historical scholars, we see a serious diminishing of this proposed understanding of early persecution. In this article I will simply cite a few academic sources that should discourage us from simply assuming Domitian was a great persecutor, a beast . . . in fact, the beast of Revelation. Continue reading →

NARRATIVE FLOW IN THE GOSPELS

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 31, 2024 Leave a comment

GenrePMW 2024-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last posting I noted that an important issue impacting the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew is: narrative flow. We will now briefly consider this matter.

GOSPEL GENRE

To properly recognize Matthew’s redemptive-historical flow, we must understand that the Gospels are not biographies per se. J. K. Brown declares Matthew to be “theological history or theological biography.” This is a helpful observation, though more needs to be said.

Gospel scholar John Wenham notes that “gospel” is a “newly invented genre.” Therefore, Warren Carter states that “because of their theological content and pastoral orientation,” the Gospels are “a unique genre in the ancient world.” Clark Pinnock explains that “these works constitute a new literary phenomenon. They are not biographies as such, for they omit much material normally found in such works.” Continue reading →

PRETERIST IMPULSES

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism May 28, 2024 Leave a comment

Narrative flowPMW 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). Continue reading →

ON MISSING JESUS’ POINT

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 24, 2024 Comments: 2

Missing the targetPMW 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]
Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (3)

AD 70, History, Objections, Revelation May 21, 2024 Comments: 2

Nero redivivusPMW 2024-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief series on problems scholars have with the early (pre-AD 70) date of Revelation. I am using his Leon Morris’ book: The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) as my main source. Let’s get to work!

A most unusual phenomenon seems to appear in Revelation, according to Morris. His third argument is very popular among late-date theorists. This evidence regards the very unusual and ancient legend known as the Nero Redivivus myth. Morris briefly explains the myth and confidently employs it: “Again, it is urged that the book shows evidence of knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. xvii. 8, 11). After Nero’s death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually dead. Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as early as we can expect it” (Morris 37). Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (2)

AD 70, Objections, Revelation May 17, 2024 Comments: 4

Roman persecutionPMW 2024-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Revelation’s early date is generally held by modern postmillennialists of the preterist variety. I have argued elsewhere positively for the early date. So here I am offering a short series that briefly responds to late-date evidences. I am focusing on Leon Morris’ arguments, due to their cogency, succinctness, and his stature as a Revelation commentator.

Morris discovers “indications that Revelation was written in a time of persecution.” This evidence is felt to accord “much better with Domitian.” [1] W. G. Kümmel is quite confident that “the picture of the time which the Apocalypse sketches coincides with no epoch of the primitive history so well as with the period of Domitian’s persecution.” [2] Morris, Kümmel, and a number of other scholars list this as among their leading arguments for the A.D. 95-96 date. Continue reading →