PMW 2023-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Recently a reader responded to one of my articles with a lengthy question. Rather than quickly answering it and moving on, I have decided to provide an answer in a full article. Perhaps later I will deal with it even more thoroughly in a series.
MY READER WROTE:
I’m not advocating for full preterism, but reading Mt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4-5 side-by-side (noted below) I can see a 1st century fulfillment in both places. To me, the only real clear passage that speaks to the end of time as we know it is, 1 Cor. 15:24.
Further, I am of the opinion that all of Mt. 24/25 was fulfilled in AD 70 as well, or is in the PROCESS of being fulfilled (an ONGOING reality). Further to the point, in Matthew 25, the bridegroom of the wise and foolish virgins returns to the same people he left. Similarly, the parable of the talents tells us the lord of the servants returned “after a long time” to the same people he left. “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Cor. 10:11. Continue reading →
PMW 2020-101 by Kenneth L Gentry, Jr.
This is my fourth and final installment regarding my confusion about Don Preston’s confusion about the disciples’ confusion in Matthew 24:3. To add to the confusion: I am interacting with his book, Were the Disciples Confused? Now you are probably confused!
While reading this article, you should keep in mind Matthew’s opening three verses that introduce the Olivet Discourse and which are at the center of my disagreement with Preston’s argument: Continue reading →
PMW 2020-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this article I am continuing a brief, four-part analysis of Hyper-preterist Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? In my last two articles I noted some general frustrations with Preston’s attitude in presenting his material. In this one I will focus on a key problem with his argument. I will be (mostly) considering his book’s third chapter, titled “Jesus’ Earlier Predictions of The Destruction of Jerusalem.” And especially his interaction with my thoughts. (All parenthetical page references are to this book unless otherwise noted.)
In this chapter Preston is arguing against the view that the disciples were confused in their questions (Matt. 24:3) about Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction (v. 2). Yet I and many scholars  believe they were in fact confused when they asked: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (v. 3). We believe that in this question they erroneously associate the destruction of the temple historically with both the Second Coming and the “end of the age” (i.e., the second coming which brings about the end of history). Continue reading →
PMW 2020-099 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my last blog article I began a four-part response to Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? In this (and my first article) I am pointing out his attitudinal problem that turns off so many of his potential readers. You will need to read the preceding article (PMW 2020-098) before engaging this one. For in this one, I am concluding my concerns regarding Preston’s attitude.
My two major points in the preceding article were that Preston has “A new theology complete with arrogance.” Then my second one dealt with his “False charges based on erroneous understanding.” I am now ready to finish this line of thought with my concern that Preston has engaged in:
A careless misreading of my argument
On p. 40 (¶2) Preston writes: “Gentry claims that Jesus had not mentioned his coming or the end of the age prior to Matthew 24:2.” This is a serious (though not at all surprising) misreading of my argument for two reasons:
Continue reading →
PMW 2020-098 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
One of my readers who thought I was not busy enough sent me a copy of Don Preston’s book Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?  (At least I think that is the title. The front cover of the book is itself very confusing in this regard. The largest typefont on the cover reads: “Watching for the Parousia.” The spine even has: “Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?” It is not until you get to the title page that you find what perhaps is the official title: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?)
As I read through the book I thought that Preston must have left the Church of Christ and joined the Disciples of Christ denomination. For while claiming to be a disciple, he himself is confused. Now having read the book, I too am confused!
Perhaps some day — if I ever finish my several current contractual obligations! — I may find time to engage Preston’s arguments presented in this book. Despite Preston’s insistence that I spend more of my time dealing with him, for now I want simply to show how that in especially one particular chapter (ch. 3) Preston thinks he has accomplished something that he has not. In fact, as he challenges me, he misses my point. Entirely. His third chapter is titled “Jesus’ Earlier Predictions of The Destruction of Jerusalem.” (Besides my many time-dominating obligations, this is another reason I do not set aside my life and deal with him: it is too frustrating to clean up after a bull in a china shop.) Continue reading →
PMW 2020-096 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
A reader recently wrote me with the following observations, for which he wondered how I would reply:
I recently read your book, The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. I thought it was very good.
What is your view of the following?
1. “Take place” in Mt. 24:34 does not require completion but only inception. Compare with Luke 1:20. “ginomai” in the aorist subjective indicates coming into existence without speaking at all regarding completion.
2. The reason Jesus gave to flee Jerusalem when surrounded by armies was that the end is not yet. The end would be the Jews defeating Rome and ending the age of the Jews being without a king.
3. The tribulation of which Jesus spoke began prior to 70 A.D., but continues until the bodily return of Jesus to earth.
R.W. Continue reading →
PMW 2020-068 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Many evangelicals express surprise, dismay, and alarm when the preterist focuses so much attention on the destruction of the temple in AD 70. They are not aware of this catastrophe’s enormous redemptive-historical significance. In this posting I will provide a summary statement of its significance for evangelical theology and practice. I will not be highlighting all that could be said, but these few observations should help show why AD 70 is so significant for Christian theology and practice. Continue reading →