Tag Archives: hyper-preterism

CHRIST’S RESURRECTION IN 1 COR 15

New Creation, Resurrection February 25, 2022 Leave a comment

PMW 2022-016 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Awhile back a reader/listener of mine expressed some confusion with some statements I made. He asked me to clarify my point to clear up his confusion. Here is a part of the exchange, which might be helpful to others who may have had the same concerns.

Reader (1st inquiry):

I am currently listening to your lecture (sermon?) entitled “Ken Gentry on 2 Thessalonians 2 – The Man of Lawlessness”. In that message you state that “the second coming” will occur at the end of time. According to your understanding, what will the second coming of Jesus the Christ be like when it does occur? What will actually take place during that “second coming”? Continue reading →

RESURRECTION, PAUL, & ACTS 24:15 (2)

AD 70, Preterism, Resurrection February 22, 2022 Comments: 2

PMW 2022-15 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article, I began a brief consideration of Acts 24:14–15. This passage is often used by Hyper-preterists in an attempt to demonstrate that the corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith has not been mistaken on one of its foundational doctrines for 2000 years. They mistakenly hold that this passage points to the expectation of a first-century resurrection of the dead.

In my opening article I focused on the lexical issues involved in the key term mellein in this passage. They believe it means “about to,” which it does not. Please read that article to orient yourself to the argument. In this article I will conclude by noting their syntactical and contextual error. Continue reading →

RESURRECTION, PAUL, & ACTS 24:15 (1)

AD 70, Preterism, Resurrection February 18, 2022 Comments: 2

binocularsPMW 2022-014 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Hyper-preterism may be a small movement, but it is a vociferous one. Hyper-preterists believe that the eschatological expectations in Scripture were all fulfilled in the destruction of the temple in AD 70 which closed the old covenant era. Though they are correct in noting the overlooked significance of AD 70, they are incorrect in applying all eschatology to that event.

One of their favorite passages is Acts 24:14–15. In this passage we come upon passage that is significant to the debate. Continue reading →

IS ORTHODOX PRETERISM RE-BRANDED FUTURISM?

Preterism February 1, 2022 1 Comment

Futurist preterist

PMW 2022-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In the last thirty years or so the Hyper-preterist movement has made its presence felt in dozens of evangelical churches. But it is has developed an especially strong Internet presence that has been able to attract hundreds of theological enthusiasts. In fact, it is largely through its Internet presence that it has been able to grow in numbers, spread in geography, and infiltrate in churches.

Hyper-preterism (or Full Preterism or Consistent Preterism or Covenant Eschatology, as it is known by its adherents), is an extension of preterism. But it is an extension that has pushed its theology beyond biblical limits. Continue reading →

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 4

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse November 20, 2020 Comments: 16

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 →

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 3

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Temple November 17, 2020 Comments: 8

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 [1] 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 →

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 →