PMW 2020-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this blog I have previously investigated the apparent problem involved when comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 17. See: “Orthodox Preterism and Luke 17.”
There I note that Matthew separates the local judgment-coming prophecies regarding AD 70 from the global ultimate-coming prophecies of the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Many prominent evangelical preterist scholars recognize Matthew’s clear structure. Scholars such as:
• J. M. Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (originally published as an article in 1948)
• R. V. G. Tasker, Matthew (Tyndale Bible Commentary) (1961)
• David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (1993)
• Alistair I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25 (2004)
• R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (2007)
• R. C. Sproul, Matthew: An Expositional Commentary (2013)
• Jeannine K. Brown, Matthew (Teach the Text Commentary Series) (2015)
• Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (vol. 3 of the Concordia Commentary on Matthew) (2018)
See my blog article: Best Matthew Commentaries. Thus, this view is not “Ken Gentry’s view,” as I frequently hear from Hyper-preterists. I got it from others. It is a well-known, highly-regarded view published by a number of reputable scholars.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, this clean separation is quite evident in Matthew 24:34–36. There Matthew’s peri de (“but concerning”) narrative transition-formula shifts his attention away from the known time of his local (metaphorical) judgment-coming against the Temple (Matt. 24:2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16), which was to be in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). He shifts his attention to “that day and hour,” which timing neither he nor the angels know (Matt. 24:36, 50; 25:13).  Continue reading