Category Archives: Interpretation

IMPORTANT REBUTTAL TO HYPER-PRETERISM

PMW 2019-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am a preterist and a postmillennialist. The fact that I am a postmillennialist proves that I am not a Hyper-preterist, for postmillennialism has a number of prophecies that remain to fulfilled. I am, thus, an Orthodox Preterist, sometimes called a “Partial Preterist” by those who have made off with a perfectly good hermeneutic label and mutated it into a whole new unorthodox theology.

Though Hyper-preterism is a very small Internet movement, it has caused debates in no small number of local churches. Thus, I have published several brief critiques/rebuttals to this theological system, such as my chapter in Keith Mathison’s When Shall These Things Be? and my small book Have We Missed the Second Coming? Of course, more needs to be said. And I hope to write more on the topic in the future, when I have completed several current and projected projects. Continue reading

Advertisements

THE BEST COMMENTARIES ON MATTHEW

PMW 2019-006 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am working on a commentary on Matt. 21:1–25:46, tentatively titled The Olivet Discourse in Context. As I engage the research, I am investigating a number of commentaries on Matthew (I do not fly by the seat of my pants as some preterist enthusiasts do!). I have found help in many of them, even when they do not hold to a preterist understanding of Olivet. Yet, several commentaries have become absolutely essential in my investigation. And I highly recommend them to my reader.

In this brief article I will recommend some good commentaries for you. If you are interested in the Olivet Discourse in particular (which is also found in Mark and Luke) or the Gospel of Matthew in general, you really need to get hold of these (legally, of course). Continue reading

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (1)

PMW 2019-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is a popular and important text in eschatological discussions. Indeed, it is Jesus’ largest recorded eschatological instruction.

Unfortunately, verses can be yanked from their context and be used in a seemingly compelling construct that goes against what Christ is actually teaching. This passage in particular requires careful investigation and thoughtful deliberation. For as D. A. Carson notes (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:488): “Few chapters of the Bible have called forth more disagreement among interpreters.” Sentiments such as Carson’s could be multiplied to distraction. (In fact, I am distracted just now, and will go get a Krispy Kreme doughnut. But I will return.) Continue reading

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (3)

PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and concluding article in a three-part series highlighting a few samples of Hyper-preterist confusion regarding my writings. Their stumblings here illustrate how they can stumble elsewhere. And how they can confuse their followers so easily: they themselves are confused! Their poor followers are making the mistake that Jesus warned about: “If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). You should read the first two articles before reading this one.

Continue reading

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (2)

PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part series highlighting several Hyper-preterist confusions regarding my writings. Hyper-preterists stumble here just as they do in their attempted exegesis of key passages of Scripture. You should read my first article before reading this one.

In the previous article I pointed out that my arguments for a transition in Matthew 24 between AD 70 and the Final Judgment are not my (distinctive, self-created) arguments. I picked them up from others. In this article I will point out the arguments from those other writers, my predecessors.

For instance, the following commentators see Matt. 24:36 (or its parallel Mark 13:32) as shifting the focus of the Discourse from the near-term (“this generation”) AD 70 destruction of the temple to the distant (while “delaying,” Matt. 25:5) Second Advent and Final Judgment at the end of history. This, of course, does not prove that the shift is true, but it will prove that the argument for a shift at v. 36 was not created by me. I will list a few of these scholars: Continue reading

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (1)

PMW 2018-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Hyper-preterism is an heretical view of eschatology that denies the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith. (Don’t mention this to them, though, for they want by themselves to determine what the church of our Lord Jesus Christ should believe.)

Specifically, the four leading (but not only!) Hyper-preterist errors involve their denying important biblical doctrines:

1. They deny a future, physical resurrection of all men. Some even deny the continuance of Christ’s physical resurrection after he left the earth!

2. They deny a future, visible, glorious, physical return of Christ.

3. They deny a future, universal, final great judgment of all men.

4. They deny a future end to temporal history and the beginning of the final, physical, consummate, reconstructed new creation order (which is anticipated in the spiritual new creation existing now in the gospel, 2 Cor. 5:17). In their view, history continues forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. Thus, God must forever endure a sinful universe without any final judgment and removal of sin. God’s created order will continue in a sinful estate. Continue reading

THE BIBLE IS NOT ALWAYS NORMATIVE

PMW 2018-099 by Larry E. Ball

The entire Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. The Bible is authoritative and fully trustworthy in everything it says.

In my book on the Revelation of John[1], I make the statement that the Bible was written “for us but not to us.” The New Testament (as well as the Old) must always be interpreted in terms of a particular historical context. No, this does not make me a liberal theologian!

As a simple example of the importance of historical context, Paul wrote, “When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments (2 Tim 4:13).” This text was written to Timothy and not to me – not to Larry Ball – although it was written for me. Continue reading