Tag Archives: justifications for preterism

IS REVELATION PAST? (4)

Revelation past babyPMT 2015-155 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am now drawing to the conclusion of my four-part series on the reasoning behind a preteristic understanding of Revelation. Many deem the great judgments and upheaval of Revelation as undermining the glorious postmillennial hope. This is mistaken in that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. As we have been seeing.

I am now ready for my concluding article with the: Thematic Indicators Continue reading

IS REVELATION PAST? (3)

Look both waysPMT 2015-154 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third installment on the question of the evidence that Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. As surprising as this conclusion is for the modern evangelical, the proof is in Revelation itself. In this article I will consider the Historical Indicators for preterism.

I agree with the Puritan Talmudic scholar, John Lightfoot: Revelation appears to prophesy Christ’s judgment upon the Jews in A.D. 70. John’s opening statement of purpose (1:7), the seven letters (2:9; 3:9), and the body of Revelation (4-19; e.g., 7:1-8; 11:1-8) all reflect this truth. Continue reading

IS REVELATION PAST? (2)

Objects are nearerPMT 2015-152 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article I introduced the first of four arguments for approaching Revelation from the preterist perspective. The first article focused on the temporal indicators that John places in Revelation. Lexically, it is clear that he expected the events to “soon” take place (Rev 1:1) because “the time is near” (Rev 1:3).

But after placing that argument as the foundation stone for the preterist house, we need to notice that there are other indications as well. In this installment I will consider Audience Indicators. Revelation did not fall down out of heaven as book of concepts. It was given in a real, historical context. It is what scholars call, “occasional literature.” That is, it was written regarding a certain occasion, which I believe to be the fall of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Continue reading

IS REVELATION PAST? (1)

Revelation past tensePMT 2015-151 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Due to the widespread influence of dispensationalism, the preterist approach to Revelation shocks many Christians. So it is important to carefully introduce them to the exegetical rationale for this approach.

I believe we should present a four-fold exegetical justification for preterism in Revelation. These justifications are rooted in interpretive demands derived from the text itself, not from theological predispositions (e.g., anti-premillennialism) or from traditional predilections (e.g., Moses Stuart, Milton Terry).

So I will begin with in this first article with: Temporal Indicators. Continue reading