Category Archives: AD 70

MATT. 16:27-28: AD 70 AND FINAL JUDGMENT (2)

AD 70, Daniel, Great Commission, Preterism, Second Coming November 4, 2025 Comments: 2

PMW 2025-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my preceding article I began a brief study of Matthew 16:27 and 28. I am providing evidence that Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man” as applying to his Second Coming at the Final Judgment to end history. Upon declaring this, he adds a note about his near-term coming, which demonstrates his authority at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. This article will conclude the argument by providing my fourth point, following upon the preceding three.

So now we must note not only the wording of the passage, but its flow, setting, and purpose.

In v. 28 Jesus inserts the “truly I say to you” formula (v. 28), which he often uses. He always uses this formula as a bold underscoring of something he has said. So? How does it function here? This will explain his rationale in the setting of his current instruction. Continue reading →

MATT. 16:27-28: AD 70 AND FINAL JUDGMENT (1)

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism, Second Coming October 31, 2025 Leave a comment

PMW 2025-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the more remarkable brief aside statements by Jesus, which impacts eschatology, is found in Matthew 16:27–28. Jesus’ declaration reads:

[v. 27] For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. [v. 28] Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

As an orthodox preterist, I hold that this passage brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment. [1] As orthodox preterists argue (following most conservative, evangelical theologians in general), the AD 70 destruction of the temple is a dramatic judgment of God in itself. But it is also a typological foretaste of the universal Final Judgment, which it pictures through the local judgment on Israel. [2] (This is much like the Israel’s Old Testament exodus event being an important act in itself, while serving as a type of coming redemption through Christ.) Continue reading →

ISRAEL DESERVED GOD’S WRATH

AD 70, Israel June 6, 2025 Comments: 4

.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

AD 70, hyperpreterism April 4, 2025 Leave a comment

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

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 →