Category Archives: Preterism

2 TIM 3 (# 8): DESPAIR OR HOPE?

Last Days, Pessimism, Preterism January 28, 2015 Leave a comment

False facePMT-2015-013 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Apostle Paul presents us with helpful insights into the postmillennial hope. We see some of his strongest material (which serves as a good foundation for the postmillennial hope) in Rom 11 and 1 Cor 15. And yet Paul makes some statements that cause us to wonder about his long-term view of history. Second Tim 3 is deemed by the adherents to pessimistic eschatologies to be destructive of postmillennialism.

What are postmillennialists to say in response?

Introduction

This is my eighth article in a study of this famous “last days” passage. Basically I have been pointing out that Paul is speaking to Timothy about issues he is facing in the first century. As with all of the New Testament Scripture, we may apply his statements beyond the first century — when similar conditions prevail. Yet, I do not believe Paul is prophesying that history will always be filled with “difficult times” until the end. Continue reading →

DOES OLIVET POINT TO AD 70? Part 2

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Temple November 12, 2014 Comments: 10

Roman attack JerusalemPMT 2014-137 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article (PMT 2014-135) I began a brief (two-part) argument that the first portion of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. If you have not read that article, I encourage you to do so before reading this one.

Now we are ready to briefly summarize the evidence for an AD 70 occurrence of the first portion of the Lord’s Olivet Discourse. So then, without further delay, consider the following;

First, in Matt 23:1–33 Jesus issues a long and biting denunciation of the first-century Pharisees. These were the spiritual heroes of the common man and the constant nemeses of the Son of Man. He delivers a seven-fold woe against them here, toward the end of his earthly ministry (Matt 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29 — Matt 23:14 is textually precarious). Continue reading →

DOES OLIVET POINT TO AD 70? (Part 1)

AD 70, Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Temple November 10, 2014 Comments: 5

Olivet and DisciplesPMT 2014-136 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is an important key to New Testament prophecy. It is found in the three Synoptic Gospels at Matt 24–25; Mark 13; and Luke 21. I believe also that John’s Gospel does not have it because John re-casts it in dramatic, symbolic imagery in his Book of Revelation. After all, John titles his great prophetic work: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1). And it certainly reflects the Olivet Discourse in a number of places (e.g., cp. Luke 21:24 with Rev 11:2; Matt 23:35 with Rev 18:24).

This Discourse is the Lord’s climactic prophecy which he gives not long before his public rejection by Israel (Matt 23:37), condemnation by her high-priestly aristocracy (Matt 26:65–66), and crucifixion at the insistence of that legal body (Matt 27:1–2, 12, 20–22). In Jesus’ ministry, several distinct prophecies lead up to this grand finale; but this is clearly his most focused and sustained prophecy from his teaching ministry. Continue reading →

LIGHTFOOT WAS NOT A PRETERIST!

History, Preterism August 18, 2014 1 Comment

Lightfoot Whole WorksPMT 2014-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

For several years I have stated that the Westminster divine and great Talmudic scholar John Lightfoot (1602–75) was a preterist. I was wrong. He was an historicist.

By the very nature of the case, historicism often deals with prophecies that refer to events now past, hence prophecies that would agree with preterism. This is because historicism tends to view Revelation as a prophecy of the church from the first century until the end.

Continue reading →

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: PRETERISM (2)

Interpretation, Preterism, Revelation July 11, 2014 Comments: 12

PMT 2014-083 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Preterism 2

Preterism is still largely unfamiliar to dispensationalists who dominate the evangelical publishing market. Yet it is making headway. And I believe it is making its presence felt due to its great strengths. Let’s consider those, then consider its weaknesses.

Preterism’s strengths

The leading strengths of preterism are:

(1) It retains and emphasizes the relevance of Revelation for John’s first-century audience (the seven churches in Asia Minor and apostolic Christianity more broadly), which is enduring a worsening period of persecution and oppression (1:9; 6:9–11; 14:13; 17:6) that would require Christians to strive to “overcome” (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). John writes to a particular people at a particular time, and those people are urged to carefully “hear” (1:3) what Revelation presents. Continue reading →

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: PRETERISM (1)

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism, Revelation July 9, 2014 1 Comment

PreterismPMT 2014-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Of the four interpretive schools of Revelation, one of the most neglected in our times has been preterism. It is however experiencing a strong resurgence in recent days. This seems to be due to two powerful influences: (1) Futurism has warn out the evangelical market with false predictions. (2) As Christians look at the alternatives they find a powerful exegetical and theological case for preterism in recent contributions to the debate.

Preterism is the “ancient history” view of Revelation. Preterism practically points past people to the past, you might say (but I doubt you can say it five time very quickly). As I move toward the end of this series on interpretive approach to Revelation, I will engage preterism in two articles. Continue reading →

APPROACHES TO REVELATION: INTRODUCTION

Interpretation, Preterism, Revelation June 25, 2014 Comments: 2

PMT 2014-076 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Four View Rev

Revelation is a difficult book. Except perhaps for tele-evangelists, who have spent dozens of hours studying it and thousands of hours preaching it. But even John had difficulties understanding what was going on in his own book (Rev 7:13-14; 17:7; 19:10; 20:8–9). And it is deemed a difficult book by most biblical scholars and commentators. Continue reading →