PMW 2019-012 by Various Authors
For all those interested in eschatology, three biblical texts stand out as essential for our study: Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and Revelation. I have written a commentary on Revelation (which should be available this Spring, 2019). I am writing a commentary on the Olivet Discourse in context, covering Matthew 21–25 (which should be available in early 2019). But regarding Daniel, I have only written a brief commentary on Daniel 9 (which is available in my book Perilous Times).
Thus, I am pleased to announce the publication of Jay Rogers’, In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective (740 pages). Rogers’ work is a fully-orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel. I highly recommend this book to my readership. Thus, in this blog article, I will list the endorsements to In the Days of These Kings, which I hope will whet your appetite. Continue reading →
PMW 2018-061 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 →
PMT 2015-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
From time-to-time I get questions that I think are insightful and may be helpful to other readers. The question below came from a Facebook friend, Cindy D. I believe this will be helpful to publish more broadly than simply in a Facebook “message.”
I have a question! I loved your book, The Beast of Revelation, and to me, it cleared up a lot of questions, and had a hand in bringing me OUT of futurism. I just now saw a post by a guy in a group I am in who wrote the following about why he says Nero can’t be the Beast. Can you give me some feedback on his post that I can share with him on it? Continue reading →
PMT 2014-140 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In Daniel 12:1–2 we find a passage that clearly speaks of the great tribulation in AD 70: “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued” (12:1). But it also seems to speak of the resurrection occurring at that time: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt” (12:2).
How are we to understand this passage? Does Daniel teach that the eschatological, consummate resurrection occurs during the great tribulation in AD 70? No, he does not. Let me explain. Continue reading →
PMT 2013-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I am continuing a critique of dispensationalism’s gap theory for Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy. In my last posting I presented four of their arguments with my rebuttals. I will continue now with the fifth and final dispensational argument.
Fifth, the order within the prophecy: “In the record of the prophecy, the destruction of the city [v. 26b] is placed before the last week [v. 27a].” 1 Since this occurs in A.D. 70, we must allow a gap to account for it.
This argument overlooks the peculiarities of Hebrew poetic style. Oriental expression often confounds the Occidental concern for chronological succession; the Western framework may not be foisted upon the passage. This “revelational pattern” 2 allows a parallel rehearsal and expansion of the topic without requiring actual succession in time. Even classic dispensationalists understand that some prophetic passages do not flow chronologically. 3 A better understanding of the relation between verses 26 and 27 is given above. Continue reading →
PMT 2013-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Dispensationalism interposes this gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks; it spans the entire Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rapture.1 The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider the leading arguments for this gap. I will state the argument briefly with some documentation and then respond.
First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cutting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’” 2 This allows for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off does not occur in the sixty-ninth or the seventieth weeks, there must be a gap wherein it does occur. Continue reading →
PMT 2013-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is part 5 of an ongoing series examining Daniel’s prophecy regarding the Seventy Weeks determined for Israel. In this article I will begin focus on the first of three fundamental errors in the dispensational approach to Daniel’s seventy weeks. These errors involve: (1) The proper understanding of the terminus; (2) the unity of the seventy weeks; and (3) the identity of the covenant of verse 27.
Dispensationalists are pressed by their system to radically re-interpret Daniel 9:24. They place these events in our future, deferring them until Israel’s return to the Lord during a seven year Great Tribulation. 1 Pentecost observes that “this future period is the unfulfilled seven years of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24-27).” 2 Price agrees, admitting this is a peculiar dispensational approach: “A distinctive tenet of dispensational interpretation is the recognition of prophetic postponement. . . . Daniel 9:26-27 [is] a much contested model for demonstrating time intervals in eschatological passages.”3 Continue reading →