Category Archives: Matthew 24

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 2

AD 70, Matthew 24 November 13, 2020 1 Comment

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 →

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 1

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse November 10, 2020 Comments: 20

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? [1] (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 →

HAVE WE MISCONSTRUED MATTHEW 24:34?

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse November 3, 2020 Comments: 6

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:

My reader:

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.

Thank you.

R.W. Continue reading →

AD 70 IN THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE

AD 70, Matthew 24, Theology August 28, 2020 Comments: 12

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 →

MORE ON THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION

AD 70, Interpretation, Matthew 24, Second Coming July 14, 2020 1 Comment

PMW 2020-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Over the past few months I have written several articles on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Their two questions are: “Tell us, [1] when will these things happen, and [2] what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Thus, their two questions are asking “when” (Gk. pote) and “what” (Gk. ti). Understanding their questions and their state-of-mind is important for us if we ourselves want to understand the Olivet Discourse (known in academia as the “Eschatological Discourse”).

In those earlier articles I pointed out that the disciples were frequently confused at Jesus’ teaching, which often caused them to misunderstand it. I noted that their tendency to confusion explains why they ask him about his “coming [Gk.: parousia] and the end of the age [Gk.: sunteleias tou aiōnos],” when he prophesies the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). They obviously assumed that the temple’s destruction would occur at his Second Advent at the end of history. And they were mistaken in this Jew-centric supposition. Continue reading →

GIBBS, MATT 24:3 AND THE DISCIPLES

Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Second Coming April 10, 2020 Leave a comment

Introduction by Ken Gentry

I have mentioned several times in various postings how much I appreciate the exegetical work on Matthew by Jeffrey A. Gibbs. Gibbs is a professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. (1995). His three volume commentary on Matthew is one of the best evangelical works on this Gospel. I highly recommend this commentary and the one by R. T. France as the best you can get.

I will be citing several paragraphs from Gibbs’ analysis of Matthew 24:3, which he titles “The Disciples’ Confusion.” This material is drawn from his third volume on Matthew: Matthew 21:1–28:20 (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2018, pp. 1252–54). This will supplement my study on the Disciples’ confusion in several recent PostmillennialWorldview postings. Gibbs is the commentator who put me on this trail! Continue reading →

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION REVISITED

Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse April 3, 2020 Comments: 11

PMW 2020-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Article introduction

Recently I offered a series on the Disciples’ tendency to be confused at Jesus’ teaching (see March 6, 10, 13, 17 articles). I did this to show the Disciples’ confusion regarding certain issues in Jesus’ eschatological teaching. I was showing that they wrongly assumed that the end of the world/age would come in conjunction with the destruction of the temple.

We see this problem dramatically exhibited in the Olivet Discourse setting. For after Jesus prophesies the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:2), the Disciples immediately show their confusion by their question: “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’” (Matt. 24:3).

That they are confused is seen in several ways: (1) Through Jesus’ carefully structuring his Discourse to sort out the issues arising from their double-question (see my article: “Matthew 24:3 and Olivet’s Structure”). (2) Through Jesus’ using distinctive language, which is recorded only in Matthew’s version (e.g., parousia, Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39). And (3) Matthew’s distinctive wording of the Disciples’ question regarding “the end [sunteleias] of the age ” (24:23). Matthew’s version of the Discourse is extremely helpful in that it is by far most extensive and detailed record of the Olivet Discourse. Continue reading →