Category Archives: AD 70

COUNTERING KEN’S CONFUSED COMMENTARY CRITIC

PMW 2025-090 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In an on-line posting, dispensationalist, Baptist pastor Miska Wilhelmsson (of Finland) has critiqued portions of my Revelation commentary. He does not seem to like it. And if I read it like he did, I would not like it either! One of his articles is titled: “Preterism, Church History, and Kenneth Gentry’s New Revelation Commentary.” I will briefly reply to his concerns.

My critic

Wilhelmsson opens his critique by writing:

“I want to point out a few issues relating to Gentry’s commentary, and how this novel preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7 connects to church history.

“Notice (see picture below from Gentry’s commentary) how after speaking of this preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7, Gentry follows with a paragraph saying ‘This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications. First…Second…Third…Fourth…Fifth…’ And then Gentry follows by saying ‘Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms, including Justin (Dial. 1:35), Origen…, Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 8:18)….’

“So, when the reader reads Gentry’s commentary, how is he supposed to understand what Gentry says regarding these early post-apostolic Christians? Well, it certainly seems that the ‘in these terms’ might suggest that they understood Revelation 1:7 as a preteristic ‘judgment-coming’ event in 70AD, which is what Gentry has been here talking about, right? Well… when we actually read the early church fathers, we find out that they would have NOTHING to do with ‘these terms’ of preterist understanding!”

Continue reading

EL AÑO 70 D. C. Y LA SEGUNDA VENIDA EN MATEO 24 (Parte 1)

Translation of PMT 2014-051 por Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Gentry note:
Carlos Sanchez Lafuerza has volunteered to begin translating some of my PostmillennialWorldview articles into Spanish. I very much appreciate his willingness to do such, since I receive a lot of interaction from Hispanics and have had several of my books translated into Spanish. See the page on this site titled “Spanish-translated Articles” for a brief bio of Carlos.

Now for his translation of my older article, numbered PMT 2014-051

And now for Carlos’ translation of PMT 2014-051:

El discurso del Monte de los Olivos (Mateo 24-25) es uno de los cinco discursos principales de Jesús que estructuran el Evangelio de Mateo. Está motivado por la dramática denuncia de Jesús contra Jerusalén y el templo (Mateo 23:37-38), su ceremonial partida definitiva del templo (Mateo 24:1a), la confusa pregunta de sus discípulos sobre el templo como un hermoso lugar de culto (Mateo 24:1b) y su declaración de su inminente destrucción (Mateo 24:2).

Continue reading

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

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

.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