Category Archives: AD 70

ISRAEL DESERVED GOD’S WRATH

.PMW 2025-044 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Preterists believe that Jesus called down judgment upon Israel, and that this judgment was deserved by the people of Israel. Because of our modern historical situation — post-Holocaust — this view is deemed by some to be an immoral position because of its latent anti-Semitism. But is the charge legitimately brought against the preterist?

This is the second in a series on the question. More will follow. But now let us consider: Continue reading

PRETERIST POSTMILL SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

LethamPMW 2025-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

I frequently receive requests from readers seeking preterist and/or postmillennial works released by established publishers.[1] There are plenty of self-published and small-publisher releases available. I have recommended a few in the past and hope to continue doing so in the future. So, in this posting I will highly recommend an excellent systematic theology that is not only written by a prominent Reformed theologian, but is also (partial) preterist [2] and postmillennial in orientation: Robert Letham’s Systematic Theology (2019). Since this blog is fundamentally about eschatological issues, I will focus on Letham’s comments relevant to this locus of theology.

Robert Letham, Ph.D. (University of Aberdeen) is professor of systematic and historical theology at Union School of Theology. His Systematic Theology is published by Crossway, and endorsed by Joel R. Beeke, Sinclair B. Ferguson, Carl R. Trueman, Cornelis P. Venema, and Alan D. Strange — competent theologians one-and-all!
Continue reading

SURPRISING ADVANTAGES OF HYPER-PRETERISM

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)

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

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

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

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