Response To Gentry’s Analysis of the
Full Preterist View
©1997 Edward E. Stevens, Editor
Kingdom Counsel
Great Commission
and Lord's Supper
Introduction
We wish to thank Dr. Kenneth Gentry for taking time out of his extremely busy
schedule (teacher at Christ College, full-time senior pastor for Reedy River
Presbyterian Church, three different book contracts with major Christian
publishers, writer for various Reformed publications, speaker all over the
country, with many other responsibilities too numerous to mention) to compose
such a clear critique of the full Preterist position. It has stimulated much
thought and discussion on the Internet, and has precipitated this and several
other responses. Many will benefit from all this interaction.
Thanks especially to who read the rough draft and submitted many valuable
suggestions for improvement. Among those who made significant contributions in
this regard were Walt Hibbard, David Chilton, Ken Davies, David Green, Albert
Pigeon, Mark Baker, Pat Forseth, Michael Grasso, Joe Lewis, Arthur Melanson, Joe
Canfield, Jim Plummer and Bob Lewis. Several in the online Preterist discussion
groups also made valuable suggestions. I can’t remember them all, but they are
much appreciated just the same. I also wish to thank those who helped
financially underwrite my research and writing during the production of this
response. Your partnership was a Godsend. May God richly reward you for it.
Gentry first wrote his “Analysis” in 1995. I did not hear about it nor receive a
copy of it until late in 1996. As soon as I received it, I began writing a
response. Before this could be finished, Chalcedon Report (July, 1997, issue
#384, edited by Andrew Sandlin) decided to reprint Gentry’s “Analysis” along
with two other articles by Andrew Sandlin and Jim West which were also critical
of the full Preterist view. Most of the concerns raised by Sandlin and West have
been addressed in this response to Gentry, so I will merely attach an appendix
(Appendix II) at the end of this response to deal with the items that were not
covered.
If you would like to receive a copy of Gentry’s original “Analysis”, it is
available for any who request it. We can send it by email if you prefer. But, I
really don’t think that is necessary. Almost all of it is included in the
excerpts at the beginning of each section here, so as to convey Gentry’s primary
concerns, make our points clear, and enable this to basically be a stand-alone
document. Nothing of significance was left out as far as I am aware. Quotes from
Gentry will be set off from the text of our response by a non-indented boldfaced
all-cap bracketed [GENTRY], followed by a quote in all italics, as you
see immediately below. Paragraphs without the bracketed “Gentry” are this
author’s response to Gentry. Let’s get right into the interaction with his
opening statements.
[GENTRY] The "consistent Preterist" believes that all prophecy is fulfilled
in the A.D. 70 destruction of the Temple, including the Second Advent, the
resurrection of the dead, the great judgment, etc.
Gentry is not exactly correct when he states that full Preterists believe “that
all prophecy is fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of the Temple, including the
Second Advent, the resurrection of the dead, the great judgment, and so forth.”
This leaves the impression that we don’t believe there are any ongoing
fulfillments of prophecy in the eternal kingdom today, and is similar to the
incorrect charge of “post-everythingism” in David Chilton’s Paradise Restored
(p. 138), which was written before he himself adopted the full Preterist
position.
Full Preterists believe that both Old and New Testaments speak of an ongoing
rule and “healing of the nations” as well as a continual growth and spread of
the kingdom. As Rev. 21 and 22 show, there are definitely some ongoing
implications of the kingdom that very much apply to us and the world after AD
70. Much of Jesus’ teaching was directly related to life in the kingdom. It
began among the Jews in a provisional way at Pentecost, but became empire-wide
and irreversible by AD 70. The destruction of Jerusalem was a milestone in the
development of the kingdom of God, but it was not the end of the kingdom nor its
fullest development. The kingdom was destined not just to survive in some small
isolated corner of the world, but to conquer the cultures and nations of the
world and become the dominant force shaping human life. The kingdom has made
significant progress toward that dominion mandate already, but the best is yet
to come! Jesus talked about the little mustard seed which starts out almost
imperceptibly, yet grows and becomes large enough to provide shelter for all the
birds of the sky (see Mk. 4:30-32). Other passages talk about the growth of the
kingdom after AD 70 until it becomes so pervasive it is like a river overflowing
its banks and providing life to all the nations (cf. Ezek. 47:1ff and Rev.
21:22–22:5). Jesus repeatedly introduced His parables and discourses with the
phrase, “The kingdom is like unto...” Full Preterists do not reject the
relevancy and applicability of Scripture to the post-70 church, no more than
Gentry would reject the application of the atonement of Christ to us today (even
though it was a once-for-all fulfillment of prophecy that occurred two thousand
years ago in a remote corner of the world and was largely ignored by the media
of that day). The meaning and benefits of those once-for-all fulfillments still
apply to everyone who is a part of the kingdom in this or any future age. So
Gentry’s charge that the full Preterist view destroys Biblical relevance beyond
AD 70 is misdirected.
[GENTRY] I do not know how anyone could credibly claim to be postmillennial
and hyper-Preterist, nor do I understand how they could claim to be
Reconstructionists, while maintaining their hyper-Preterism. If all prophecy was
fulfilled in the first century events, then who is to say it is the will of God
for the gospel to exercise world-wide victory? There is no remaining word of
prophecy to inform us of such.
It’s not clear what Gentry intended to communicate when he used the term “hyper”
in “hyper-Preterist.” Surely he is not using it for ridicule or derisive
purposes, although others on the Internet have so used it. I fail to see what
point Gentry is making, that could not be made with a less pejorative term. Why
not simply stick with “consistent Preterist” (as in his opening paragraph), or
“comprehensive Preterist” (as in his third paragraph)? Actually the term
“preterist” is all that is needed to describe our view. “Preterist” means past
in fulfillment. Only those who take a past fulfillment of all the eschatological
events (e.g. the return of Christ, resurrection, judgment) can rightly be called
“Preterist.” Those who believe the major eschatological events (i.e. Second
Coming, Resurrection, Judgment) are still future are really just another kind of
futurist. So Gentry and other “partial Preterists” should more properly be
labeled amil or postmillennial historicists or futurists. Only someone who puts
all of the eschatological events in the past can rightly be called “preterist”
in the true sense of the term. Gentry and most other postmil Reconstructionists
claim to be “Preterists”, but in reality they are only postmil futurists,
historicists, or idealists. The term “preterist” belongs to the “full
Preterist,” not to the “partial Preterist” futurists like Gentry.
If the term “hyper-preterist” is valid at all, it would only properly apply to
those rare extreme Preterists who take everything in the Bible as past in
fulfillment with no ongoing fulfillments or contemporary applications. Such
would be subject to the charge of “post-everythingism.” These folks would see
the church as a temporary transitional phase of the Kingdom, with its phase-out
in AD 70. These folks would also see baptism, the Lord’s Supper and other such
physical expressions of our ongoing covenant relationship with God as being no
longer valid in the post-70 Kingdom. This is certainly an extreme “hyper”
Preterist position, and very few have taken that route. The vast majority of
full Preterists believe in an ongoing fulfillment and application of the Kingdom
principles found in both the OT and NT (e.g. Ezek. 47:1ff and Rev. 21-22; Jesus’
kingdom parables; and much of Paul’s teaching about the Kingdom). So, Gentry has
misunderstood what full Preterists are saying, and has misrepresented us as
being “hyper-preterists” when in fact we are not.
Even though Gentry says he has “not had time to deal extensively with the
issue,” I do know he was directly exposed to a significant amount of Preterist
thinking in preparation for participation in and during the week-long Covenant
Eschatology Symposium held in Orlando, Florida in January, 1993, where Max King
and his son Tim assembled with a dozen of the best Reformed theologians in the
USA to interact with Max’s brand of full Preterism (“covenant eschatology”).
Gentry presented an excellent paper there in defense of his pre-70 date for the
book of Revelation, in conformity with his excellent book on that subject,
Before Jerusalem Fell (hereafter referred to as “BJF”). His presentation there
explained some of the significance of AD 70 for Judaism and Christianity. But,
some of the argumentation in Gentry’s “Analysis” that we are responding to here,
sounds more like the critical comments made by some of the other non-Preterist
speakers in that 1993 Florida symposium. Gentry admits in his first paragraph
that he has “a great number” of full Preterist publications and books in his
library. So, he has been exposed to the full Preterist viewpoint fairly
extensively, both pro and con. He is familiar enough with it in some areas to
begin to critique it, and we will point out other areas where we feel he has
misunderstood it.
Gentry asks how full Preterists within the Reformed and Reconstructionists
communities can consistently claim to be both postmil or Reconstructionists and
full Preterist at the same time. This is a legitimate question. Let’s deal with
the postmil idea first.
What does the term postmil really mean? It is used in reference to the return of
Christ. It means that Christ would return “after” (post) the millennium. It is
not necessarily saying Christ’s return is future or past, but merely that the
return occurs after the millennium. This means a Preterist (past fulfillment of
Christ’s return) can be a postmil just as easily as a futurist. There are
postmil Preterists and there are postmil futurists. Almost all full Preterists
believe the millennium occurred during the period from AD 30-70, and that Christ
returned in AD 70 at the end of that millennial period. So, full Preterists can
be postmils in respect to the technical meaning of the word. But, we are not
postmil futurists (or partial Preterists) like Gentry.
[GENTRY] Furthermore, the hyper-Preterist position cannot be theonomic in
that in their view the Law came to fulfillment in the passing away of the Jewish
order (Matt. 5:17-19). So a hyper-Preterist cannot be a Reconstructionists
(theonomic postmillennialist) on exegetical grounds (although his heart might
wish for the Reconstructionists worldview).
In regard to Gentry’s charge that full Preterists cannot consistently be
theonomic or Reconstructionists, I would agree with him only if his
interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19 is the correct one. Notice what this text says:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to
abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all
is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and
so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever
keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matt. 5:17-19, NASV, emphasis added)
The question is whether we are consistent with what the text says, not whether
we are consistent with how fellow Reconstructionists interpret it. Full
Preterists interpret Matt. 5:17-19 as being past in fulfillment. We believe the
Old Testament world (the old “heaven and earth”) passed away at AD 70, so the
Old Testament Law is no longer binding upon us in the same way it was upon
Jewish Christians living in Palestine before the end of the Jewish government in
AD 70. Notice the tight connection in this text between the end of the old
heaven and earth and the arrival of the kingdom. Does this sound familiar? Yes!
Heb. 12:22-29 makes the same connection. The unshakable kingdom is the new
heaven and earth, and it arrives when the old covenant heaven and earth pass
away. And we believe this world-changing process was consummated at AD 70.
Gentry already believes the “new heaven and earth” mentioned in Rev. 21 arrived
at AD 70. How can he distinguish between the passing of the old heaven and earth
then and the one mentioned here in Matt. 5:17-19? See his discussion of Heb. 12
and Rev. 21 in his book, He Shall Have Dominion, (hereafter referred to as
“HSHD”, p. 363-365). Does NT eschatology speak of two different sets of “old
heavens and earths” and “new heavens and earths?” How many are there? We may be
inconsistent with Gentry’s interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19, but we are not
inconsistent with the proper historical-grammatical interpretation of this text.
Gentry is inconsistent with his own interpretation of the other “heaven and
earth” passages in the NT.
Others who think of themselves as “Reconstructionists,” and who were in on the
foundation of the Reconstructionists movement almost from the very beginning
(e.g. Jim Jordan and David Chilton) would agree that the “heaven and earth”
mentioned in Matt. 5:17-19 have passed away. For example, here is what Jim
Jordan said about Matt. 5:17-19 in his book, Through New Eyes (pp. 260-262,
311):
The word “fulfill” here does not mean simply “cause to stand,” but implies
transformation into a newness of power. It means to bring something into its
fullness, a fullness not previously seen. Thus, it is a good term to use to
refer to the transformation of the old into the new. The New Covenant is not
going to replace the Old with something different in kind, but only different in
glory. ...As we have seen throughout this book, the passing away of the heaven
and earth does not need to refer to the physical world. It often refers to a
covenantal establishment. Here that is clearly what is in view. After the Cross,
the Church certainly does not keep every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant law.
Once Jesus had accomplished His work, the law was changed, for “when the
priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also”
(Heb. 7:12). The old heaven and earth passed away in the first century A.D.; and
at that time, many of the jots and tittles also passed away, their purpose
fulfilled at last. ...In my book, The Law of the Covenant (Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics, 1984), I took a different view of these verses, arguing
that the passing of the heaven and earth is the end of the physical world, and
that Christians are still supposed to keep the “fundamental principles” of the
jots and tittles. I find that this interpretation, though it has weighty
advocates, simply will not stand up in the light of the work presented in the
present book as a whole. Thus, I must differ with so fine a work as John Murray,
Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 149ff. Murray simply
does not take sufficient account of the redemptive historical setting of this
passage, though his ethical exhortations are surely invaluable all the same. Let
me direct the reader to an older work, equally Reformed and profound, that sets
out what I now take to be the correct view of the passage: John Brown,
Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 vols. (London: Banner of
Truth Trust, [1852] 1967) 1:171-174.
Having said this, it is important to note that even though Jordan no longer
claims to be a “theonomist,” he still seems to be very much involved in efforts
to reconstruct America and the nations of the world around the principles
contained in OT Law. Perhaps it is not consistent for him (or me) to do that,
but nevertheless, I’m glad that we are all working toward reform and
reconstruction of our nation around a solid biblical base. I’m glad to be a part
of the efforts to reconstruct America and the world, and I would welcome the
participation of all other true Christians, consistent or not. Apostle Paul said
the Law is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12) and is beneficial if used
“lawfully.” (1 Tim. 1:8) And Paul said that “all Scripture” (not just the NT) is
inspired and profitable for teaching, correction and training in righteousness.
(2 Tim. 3:16f) Does the world need to be trained (reconstructed) in
righteousness? Do we have the right (I dare say the obligation) to use all of
inspired Scripture in that process of training the nations? What else would we
use? Yes, I believe that full Preterists must be involved in reconstructing our
society and the world around biblical principles of law, justice, economics,
ecology, science, technology, morals and ethics. Our world is not about to end.
There is an indefinitely long future ahead of us here on the Earth. The
reconstruction idea is perfectly in harmony with the long-term view of the full
Preterist. It is not the exclusive property of the postmil partial Preterists
like Gentry. It is exactly what the Reformation was all about (reformed and
always reforming). Every generation must continually be reforming and
reconstructing the church and society around rightly interpreted and applied
Biblical law. It may not be consistent with Gentry’s interpretation of Matt.
5:17-19 for full Preterists to do that, but it is perfectly consistent with
covenant theology and the biblical teaching about the growth and spread of the
kingdom.
It is the theonomists (postmil futurist Reconstructionists such as Bahnsen and
Gentry) who are inconsistent with Matt. 5:17-19. Why aren’t they keeping every
jot and tittle of the Law, if they believe it is still bound upon us, including
the Sabbath, kosher laws, purifications, festivals, sacrifices and priesthood?
Bahnsen and Gentry (in House Divided, pp. 107-108) suggested that “other texts”
in the NT show that “the ceremonial provisions” have now been “set aside.” But,
my question to them is not whether the ceremonial law has passed away, but when
it passed away. This is the question Bahnsen tried to deal with in his Theonomy
In Christian Ethics and in House Divided. This timing question is the crucial
one for Gentry and Bahnsen’s thesis. Bahnsen went to Hebrews 8 to try to paint
the ceremonial law as already invalid at the time Hebrews was written. Chilton
shows the fallacy of Bahnsen’s reasoning here: [emphasis his]
I noticed what seems to me a major error in the typical theonomist argument. In
Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen cites Hebrews 8:13 four times (on pp. 194,
209, 213, and 227) – cites but does not quote! That is a crucial and fatal
error, considering his chief referent is Matthew 5:17-18 – “Think not that I am
come to destroy the law and the prophets: I am not come to abrogate, but to
confirm. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Bahnsen says:
“It is the very point of slightness that Jesus brings forcefully before us. Not
even the very least extensive number of the very least significant aspect of the
Older Testamental law will become invalid until heaven and earth pass away....
It is hard to imagine how Jesus could have more intensely affirmed that every
bit of the law remains binding in the Gospel age” (pp. 73f). As Hamlet says,
“Tis the sport to have the Engineer hoist with his own petard!” (Act 3, Scene 4,
Lines 206-7) If what Bahnsen says is true, it means that the entire Christian
Church has been violating God’s Law for almost 2000 years! It means that God
still, to this very day, requires His people to obey even the slightest, most
minute details of Biblical Law – including not only the dietary laws but the
ceremonies and sacrifices as well (which actually is quite impossible since the
Temple’s destruction in A.D. 70)! To repeat Bahnsen’s carefully-chosen words:
“Not even the very least extensive number of the very least significant aspect
of the Older Testamental law will become invalid until heaven and earth pass
away” – meaning, in his terms, “at least as long as the physical universe lasts
. . . this phrase was a graphic and strong way of saying ‘never.’” (p. 76). As I
wrote in the September and October (1996) issues of Biblical Worldview, the
“passing of heaven and earth” was coincident with the final annihilation of the
Old Covenant in the destruction of the Temple. In fact, I can’t think of a
single text that indicates the world will ever end (see e.g., Psalm 104:5;
119:90; Eccl. 1:4; Eph. 3:21). But back to my point about Hebrews 8:13: as I
said, Bahnsen cites, doesn't quote -- because the very quote would refute his
thesis! Hebrews 8:13 reads: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made (or
declared: perfect active of pelaio) the first old. Now that which decayeth
(palaioumenon: present passive participle) and waxeth old (geraskon: present
active participle) is ready (eggus, near,) to vanish away (afanismou,
disappearing)." The writer, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, is describing
the progressive ruin of the Old Covenant, and speaks of it in process of
annihilation; but it wasn’t quite completely gone yet! The Old Covenant was
going, but it was not (quite) gone! It was near disappearing, but hadn't quite
completely disappeared yet! Make sure you focus on that point – writing about AD
63, the Hebrews writer says: “He hath made (or declared -- perfect tense) the
first (Covenant) old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old (present tense!) is
ready to vanish away.”
But look at what Bahnsen says on p. 194: "Hebrews 8:13 says that the old age is
past, but the age of the Son is here to stay." But is that what it says? No! It
says it's passing, not past! But since he doesn't quote it, we don't read it,
and (since it is indeed past for us) we fail to see the sleight-of-hand trick
involved. Bahnsen cleverly disguises the fact that the passing of the Old
Covenant was a process, not one fell swoop!
On p. 209, he says: “The perfect has come, thus making the sacrificial,
priestly, temple system irrelevant. (Heb. 8:13)” But is that what it says? No!
It says it was becoming irrelevant -- not there yet!
On p. 213, he writes: "The observation of this system of ordinances (redemptive
ceremonies) was intended to be superseded (Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19); it was a
foreshadow of Christ's saving economy and has become obsolete with His
historical work (Heb. 10:1; 8:13)." Almost true; not quite! It was becoming
obsolete, as the text states, but it was not completely gone yet!
The final bit of faulty interpretation occurs on p. 227, where he cites the same
text, but an actual quotation would reveal its incompatibility with his
proposition: "The age of the law and the prophets is past; the age of the Son
(and its fuller revelation) is here to stay (Heb. 8:13; 1:3)." But is that what
it says? No! It says it was passing -- not completely past! We New-Covenant
believers, nearly 2000 years later, don't pick up the subtle sleight-of-hand
trick involved, because of course the age of the law and prophets is past for
us; what's disguised by Bahnsen's argument is that it was (present tense) still
in the process of passing for believers in the first-century era of transition
before AD 70!
The fact is that the whole milieu of that age is so foreign to us that we fail
to see the utter and complete shock the end of the Old Covenant meant, which is
precisely why the Apostles had to keep reminding their readers of the change in
the elements of covenantal life (Gal. 4:9-10; Col. 2:8, 16-23; Heb. 5:12; 2 Pet.
3:10-12). That is why, in his otherwise generally instructive primer Ethics &
God's Law, William Einwechter "cheats": Quoting Matt. 5:17-19, he says: "Jesus
here declares that His disciples are responsible to do and teach the ethical and
moral principles contained in the law and the prophets" (p. 29). That is
emphatically not what Jesus declared! Jesus demanded obedience to every last jot
and tittle! And only when the Old Covenant was fully abolished and annihilated
-- so that even the most dedicated Pharisee is now literally unable to keep it
-- is Bahnsen's statement fully valid. What Bahnsen consistently fails to
recognize is the transitional nature of the Last Days (NT) period. [Taken from
two of David Chilton’s email messages to Ed Stevens shortly before Chilton’s
death on March 7, 1997.]
Incidentally, this and several other fine specimens of closely reasoned
statements from Chilton show that he was in full command of his theological and
exegetical sensibilities up to the very end. He did not adopt full Preterism on
a whimsical basis. He and this author had many lengthy and intense interactions
in which he closely examined every aspect of the Preterist view. He was as
skeptical as anyone. But ultimately creeds and tradition had to surrender to
Scripture and reason.
Chilton’s exposŽ of the flaws in Bahnsen’s interpretation above reveals the
problems in Gentry’s views as well. The passing of the Old Covenant brought the
end of the ceremonial law, which was the end of the old heaven and earth and the
beginning of the new heaven and earth (the kingdom). This change of covenant
worlds was reflected in the “change of law” (Heb. 7:12). Christ had not already
changed that law and covenant and world. It was in the process of disappearing
and its end was imminent. Bahnsen and Gentry both fail to make that connection.
So, full Preterists differ with theonomists on the timing of the end of the
ceremonial law’s passing by forty years. We would expect that theonomists would
also put the end of the “heaven and earth” somewhere in the first century, but
they totally disconnect it from the end of the ceremonial law and suggest it is
the end of the physical planet in the future. Full Preterists have exegeted
Matt. 5:17-19 in harmony with Heb. 8:13, and shown how it was fulfilled at the
destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is Gentry, Bahnsen and other
Reconstructionists who are out of sync with Heb. 8:13.
In regard to this whole issue of Matt. 5:17-19 and the passing away of “heaven
and earth,” it might be interesting for our readers to simply ask Gentry why
neither one of his books (BJF and HSHD) deal with, nor even mention, Matthew
24:35. This passage talks about the passing away of “heaven and earth” in the
context of the destruction of Jerusalem (with immanency time indicators
adjacent). This is certainly a predictable omission on Gentry’s part, given his
arbitrary interpretation of that phrase throughout the rest of the NT. In one
place (Matt. 5:18) he says it refers to the future cataclysmic end of the
physical world. In another (Rev. 21) he says it was fulfilled in AD 70. What is
even more interesting is that in Rev. 21 (which he applies to the consummation
of the marriage of Christ to His bride at AD 70), we see the arrival of the new
heaven and earth accompanied by the passing away of the old heaven and earth.
Again, this is something which Gentry says occurred at AD 70. Gentry elsewhere
states that Revelation is Apostle John’s version of the Olivet Discourse. If
Revelation is speaking about the same events as Matthew 24, and Rev. 21:1 is
talking about the old heaven and earth passing away at AD 70, why isn’t Matt.
24:35 referring to the same passing away of heaven and earth in John’s version
of the Olivet Discourse in Rev. 21-22? Why is Gentry so silent about Matt.
24:35? Does it threaten his consistency in applying Matt. 5:18 to a future end
of planet earth? Is he hoping nobody notices? Check the Greek phraseology in all
three texts for yourself (Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35; Rev. 21:1). The “passing
away” in all three uses a form of ercomai (erchomai), and the terms “heaven and
earth” are the same Greek words (ouranos “ouranos” and ge “ge”). There is more
than just “similarity of language” here. It is identical language about the same
subject.
What “world” is Gentry referring to in his phrase “world-wide victory?” Is this
the same “world” mentioned in Colossians which he applies to the Roman world? In
regard to the gospel exercising “world-wide victory,” we simply need to ask
ourselves if the gates of Hades prevailed over the church. Jesus said He would
build His church (the kingdom) and the dominion of Death and Hades would not
prevent it. Is the church here? Did it survive the Jewish attempts to destroy
it? Has it made any progress in the last two thousand years? What does that
imply? The victory is ours, and our dominion is becoming more pervasive by the
day! Christ predicted this ongoing spread of His kingdom after its humble
beginnings. Full Preterists do not believe AD 70 ended the applicability of
Scripture to the post-70 church. Quite the opposite. We probably see more
relevancy and applicability than theonomists do. Jesus constantly taught about
the nature of the kingdom and what life in it would be like, as did Paul and the
rest of the NT writers. The NT is a manual for life in the kingdom. The pre-70
saints only had an “earnest” or “pledge” of the benefits that we now enjoy in
the fully-arrived kingdom. Jesus promised His kingdom would prevail, and it has.
Just because Jesus fulfilled the great once-for-all soteriological events in the
first century does not mean there are no continuing benefits for us today. The
same is true of the once-for-all eschatological fulfillments. Gentry
misunderstands what full Preterists are saying about this.
Gentry seems to apply Rev. 21:1 to AD 70 (see BJF, p. 240n-241n), while at the
same time believing the millennium is still in progress. This is not consistent.
If we are still in the transitional millennial period, the Paraclete is still
actively revealing new Scripture and giving out charismatic gifts in Christ’s
absence. The Paraclete is to operate until Christ’s return (which Gentry
believes will occur after the millennium which is still in progress). One of the
main functions of the Paraclete was to reveal new information about the plan of
redemption. (cf. John 14-16) If Christ has not returned, the Paraclete must
still be at His work of revealing new things about the yet unfinished plan of
redemption and consummation of all things. This implies that the gift of
inspiration along with all the other miraculous charismata are still around, and
that the canon is not closed, and soteriological redemption is not complete.
Gentry and all other postmil partial Preterists have a real inconsistency at
this point, as I clearly explained in my written debate with Joseph Balyeat a
few years ago in the pages of Kingdom Counsel. I would agree with Gentry that
“there is no remaining word of prophecy” for us today that has not already been
consummated in Christ and His Church. But, just because the last things have
been fulfilled does not mean there are no benefits or applications for us today.
A lot of once-for-all events in the first century have lasting benefits and
applications for us today. The cross and the resurrection of Christ are just two
examples. It is the theonomist who has the problem of consistency here on two
counts. First, he is not keeping every jot and tittle of the Law, and secondly,
he does not believe the charismata are still around. This is where the full
Preterist view shines absolutely consistent.
It makes more sense for a full Preterist (who believes the earth will be here
for an indefinitely long time to come) to be concerned about reconstruction and
reform, than it does for a partial Preterist postmil futurist who believes that
Satan is yet to be released at the end of the present millennium for some very
pessimistic and de-constructive work, and that this present physical planet will
be removed or changed. Postmils admit that they do not know how long it will be
before the release of Satan or what the implications of that will be. Will it
mean the resumption of demon-possession, and the reoccurrence of the charismata
to counteract Satan’s influence? Some charismatics and Premillennialists are
claiming that very thing for today. The partial Preterist postmil theonomist has
no consistent way to counter their arguments. And if the end of planet earth is
just about upon us, how can postmils really claim to be consistently optimistic?
Some very pessimistic events are still ahead of us, even by their own
interpretation of Rev. 20-22. The argument, “Why polish brass on a sinking
ship?” would certainly apply to the partial Preterist postmil position in that
case. As Michael Grasso aptly remarked, “Gentry is also on a sinking ship just
like the Premillennialists. Even though his ship has less holes and will be
around a lot longer, it still sinks eventually.” Only the full Preterist can
consistently avoid that exegetical and theological dilemma.
[GENTRY] Furthermore, there are numerous exegetical and theological problems
I have with the hyper-Preterist viewpoint. I deem my historic, orthodox
Preterism to be exegetical Preterism (because I find specific passages calling
for specific Preterist events); I deem Max King and Ed Stevens’ views to be
theological Preterism or comprehensive Preterism (they apply exegetical
conclusions drawn from several eschatological passages to all eschatological
passages, because of their theological paradigm).
I like what David Green said in response to Gentry’s point here: “He implies
that he doesn’t interpret eschatology through the grid of a paradigm! Does he
really think that he interprets with the objectivity of a robot, and without
regard to long-held party dogmas? ....Also, if his view is exegetical in
contrast to ours which is theological, why didn’t he use exegetical means to
refute the full Preterist view?”
Gentry says he has “numerous exegetical and theological problems” with the full
Preterist view. He claims his eschatological interpretations are the “historic,
orthodox” ones. I wonder how many of the good Reformed brothers who were at the
Covenant Eschatology Symposium in 1993 would agree with that? Can Gentry
document his own flavor of partial Preterism and postmillennialism from the late
first to fourth century writings to show that it was, in fact, the one and only
universal “historic, orthodox” view of eschatology in the church? If he can, he
has probably done the full Preterist view more favors than he realizes. If it
can be shown that the early church had a clear understanding of Gentry’s view of
the fulfillment of Revelation in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem,
it will open the way for an even more comprehensive view of Preterist
interpretation.
Speaking of “comprehensive” Preterism, it is interesting to note that there are
a number of Reformed writers dating back to the days of the Westminster Assembly
(e.g. John Lightfoot) and afterwards (e.g. John Brown, John Owen, et al) who
interpreted many of the NT eschatological passages as being fulfilled in AD 70.
Very few (if any) of them took a full Preterist view, but each of them took a
different set of passages as being fulfilled at AD 70. If we put all the
passages together (that at least one of them interpreted as having fulfillment
in AD 70) into a comprehensive system, what would we have? It would basically
give us the full Preterist view! And that is essentially what we full Preterists
are doing. Instead of inconsistently taking a passage here and there and
capriciously applying one to AD 70 and another to the yet future, we are simply
putting them together into a consistent system of eschatological fulfillment. If
the individual texts can legitimately be interpreted separately as AD 70 in
fulfillment, why isn’t it reasonable to string them all together into a coherent
full Preterist system? That would indeed be a “comprehensive” and “consistent”
Preterism. Aren’t the Reconstructionists trying to do something similar when
they take quotes from well-known Reformers and string them together to produce
the theonomic system? Are they the only ones who have a right to do that without
charges of non-conformity or heterodoxy? Isn’t Scripture supposed to be
interpreted “consistently” and “systematically” and “harmoniously?” Gentry is
inconsistent for failing to do that. His partial Preterist system is disjointed
and full of loop-holes and inconsistencies. We will point more of them out as we
go through this response.
Creedal
Failure
[GENTRY] First, hyper-Preterism is heterodox. It
is outside of the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any Second
Advent in A.D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily
one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not
of a representative judgment in A.D. 70.
First – Since when did the label “heterodox” (different doctrine) get re-defined
in terms of conformity with the creeds? The Reformers were very careful to
define “orthodoxy,” “heterodoxy,” and “heresy” in terms of conformity or
non-conformity with Scripture. Who says anyone’s orthodoxy must be judged by
conformity with uninspired documents that came into existence many years and
even centuries after inspiration ceased? Gentry has put himself in close
proximity to the Romanist position (the pope above or on a par with Scripture)
by allowing the creeds to be the standard by which we judge orthodoxy (“straight
doctrine”). That is putting uninspired human interpretations into a position
above or on a par with Scripture. It is the same thing as Romanism, except the
Romanists put a man (the pope) in that position instead of the creeds. The
Reformers would not have tolerated such a compromise of the sola Scriptura and
tota scriptura principles. Gentry’s appeal here is to the creeds. True Reformers
should cry “foul” at this point. Something can be in-line with human creeds and
still not be “ortho” with Scripture (and vice versa). Now, I’m not suggesting
the creeds and historic traditions of the church don’t have a valid utility in
helping us understand the truth of Scripture. But their interpretations should
never be set up as an ultimate standard of authority for judging what is
orthodox with Scripture. Only Scripture has that kind of absolute authority. Our
“doctrines” (doxy) must be “straight” (ortho) in line with Scripture, but not
necessarily with the interpretations in the creeds. So, Gentry is out of bounds
using the creeds as the basis for his decision about whether something is
orthodox. Scripture alone is to be used for that purpose.
I am surprised at Gentry’s hesitancy to believe the historic church could have
missed a few things. The Reformers (and theonomists) had no difficulty
rationalizing their formulation (or re-formulation) of new doctrines and creedal
statements which the early church would not necessarily have understood,
believed or agreed with. David Green shared this material from Gary North’s
book, Dominion and Common Grace, to illustrate what I’m saying here:
On the linear, progressive character of church history, Gary North had this to
say in his book, Dominion and Common Grace:
There has also been progress. We see this especially in the progress of the
Christian creeds. Look at the Apostles’ Creed. Then look at the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Only a fool or a heretic would deny theological progress.
...The creeds have been steadily improved. [Gary North, Dominion and Common
Grace, Chapter 4, Van Til's Version of Common Grace, Differentiation and
Progress, pg. 101.]
Van Til ...was unwilling to challenge the older Reformed creeds on this point
(natural law as a “common ground” link between covenant-keepers and
covenant-breakers), ...His ideas have made creedal revision mandatory, but he
was unwilling to call publicly for a revision of the creeds leading to more
biblically precise definitions of such seventeenth-century concepts as “general
equity” “moral law,” and “the covenant of works.” (Gary North, Dominion and
Common Grace, Chapter 5, Eschatology and Biblical Law, Postmillennialism and
Common Grace, Van Til's Dilemma, pg. 115)
The church’s creeds improve over time. This, in turn, gives Christians cultural
power. Is it any wonder that the Westminster Confession of Faith was drawn up at
the high point of the Puritans’ control of England. ...It was the Reformation
that made possible modern science and technology. (Gary North, Dominion and
Common Grace, Chapter 7, Epistemological Self-Consciousness and Cooperation, pg.
182)
To sum up: North says that if there is really ethical/epistemological/cultural
progress in history because of Christ's favor and gifts in behalf of His Church,
then there must necessarily be “improvements” and “revisions” in the creeds,
even in the ecumenical creeds! To deny this one must be a “fool or a heretic.”
Of course, North is not advocating changing any of the Biblical content of the
creeds or confessions, but rather merely the interpretations and applications
that have been added to the Biblical material, the same way full Preterists are.
Are the Reformers and Reconstructionists the only ones who have the right to
formulate new creeds, catechisms and confessional statements? And if the earlier
creeds, confessions and catechisms were such infallible bastions of orthodoxy,
why did the Reformers in various European countries compose new ones or make
changes to them? Why did American churches go further to revise them again?
Reconstructionists have added more on top of that. Full Preterists are
Reformers, and as such it should be obvious that we believe the early church and
the creeds can be (and have been found to be) mistaken. Isn’t that what the word
“reform” implies? Even Gentry’s own little tract entitled, The Usefulness of
Creeds, notes that the creeds contain more than just biblical content. He admits
they contain “interpretations and applications” of Scripture. I am certainly not
suggesting that the Biblical content of the creeds is mistaken. That would be
charging Scripture with error. But, I am saying that our “interpretations and
applications” of Scripture can be and often are mistaken. And when centuries of
further Bible study reveals that there are some problems in our “interpretations
and applications” of Scripture, we owe it to ourselves and posterity to correct
those errors and reform our creeds to reflect this better way of interpreting
and applying the Bible, and to do so as quickly as possible, lest an erroneous
creed be appealed to as an ancient boundary which must not be moved.
The idea that the harlot of Revelation is the Roman Catholic Church and that the
Beast is the Pope, has been a very dear belief (credo) of many Reformers for the
last four hundred years, and was even included in both the Belgic (Art. 36) and
the Westminster (Ch. 25, Par. 6) confessions, the latter of which Gentry’s
denomination supposedly holds to rigidly. People died for that interpretation.
Gentry is obviously not in “strict subscription” to the WCF, since his
commentary on Revelation teaches the Beast was Nero. Why didn’t Gentry stick
with it? Who gave him the freedom to reform it? This is an eschatological
“interpretation and application” of Scripture. Is he the only one who has the
right to interpret and apply Scripture in a different way than past generations?
He has come up with a different interpretation of the time and nature of
fulfillment of these endtime events. If he has the right to correct errors in
previous generations’ eschatological concepts, why don’t we? He has not
questioned the biblical content of the creeds (the actual events themselves),
and neither have we. He still believes Scripture predicted the return of Christ
and the other eschatological events, but he reinterprets the time and nature of
the fulfillment of those events. He has added his own “interpretation and
application” of the time and nature of fulfillment. If he has the right to do
that, so does everyone else.
To be “outside creedal orthodoxy” is not the same as being outside biblical
orthodoxy. One can be biblically orthodox without being creedally orthodox if
the creeds have any biblically un-orthodox “interpretations and applications” in
them. That is exactly the case here. Gentry and I both subscribe to the same
list of biblical events and doctrines in the creeds. The difference is the time
and nature of fulfillment “interpretations” that have been applied to those
doctrines. Gentry seems to think full Preterists are tampering with the biblical
material in the creeds, when in fact we are only correcting the erroneous
interpretations that have crept into them. There is a big difference.
Gentry says, “No creed allows...”. This is an important issue, but the crucial
question must always be whether Scripture allows for different interpretations
and applications of the eschatological texts. On the basis of Gentry’s
assertions here, it could be argued that the creeds don’t allow any kind of
coming of Jesus at AD 70. This presents a problem for Gentry, since he does
believe there was some kind of coming of Christ at AD 70. Do the creeds allow
him that freedom? One of the fundamental presuppositions of the Reformation was
that very allowance of different interpretations and applications of the
biblical content in the creeds. What Gentry has done here is to say that there
is no other possible way to interpret the time and nature of fulfillment of the
biblical eschatological events than a physical, visible, “personal,” “bodily”
one (and still be orthodox with Scripture). This sounds like the Premillennial
dispensationalists who are so certain that the kingdom of Heaven is not here
yet, simply because they haven’t seen it with their eyes. Gentry differs with
their view in regard to the time and nature of fulfillment, yet believes in the
same list of eschatological events as they do. Are he and they the only ones who
have the freedom to interpret and apply Scripture differently? Full Preterists
are not inventing a new list of eschatological events to substitute for the list
in the creeds. We have the same list of biblical events (the same biblical
content in the creeds). We just differ on the time and nature of their
fulfillment, just as the Premillennial dispensationalists do. If there is no
freedom for the full Preterist “interpretations and applications,” there is no
freedom for Gentry’s or anyone else’s, no matter how slightly or radically
different they are from the creeds.
It is one thing to say that the creedal writers did not come up with the same
interpretation of those events as we have, but quite another to say that their
interpretation is the only correct one. Again, we are not questioning the
biblical content of the creeds, but merely the time and nature “interpretations
and applications” of that content. Gentry seems to ascribe virtual infallibility
(inspiration) to the creeds. This should make any true Reformer shudder. The
Westminster Confession did not go that far. It recognized that it could have
missed some things and allowed for revision and correction. Just compare the
breadth and depth of scholarship sitting on the Westminster Assembly to the men
involved in the various ecumenical councils. If a document so late as the WCF
has errors in it, why can’t we believe earlier documents which do not stand on
as much interpretative efforts or depth of scholarship can also be mistaken in
some of their interpretations and applications?
Ken Davies reminded me that “the subject of eschatology was never debated by any
of the ecumenical councils.” As Jim Jordan has well said (Biblical Chronology,
“Problems With New Testament History,” Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 1):
Finally, though the Church Fathers are “fathers” in a sense, and are of real
value to us, they are also the “Church Babies” in another sense. All this should
be born in mind when it comes to their haphazard testimony... [emphasis added]
How much confidence and authority can we place upon the church “fathers” and
their creeds in those doctrinal areas (like eschatology) that they really spent
little time with? What is the danger of putting the creeds into an authoritative
position? Isn’t it doing the same thing as the Pharisees were doing
(“invalidating the Word of God for the sake of their traditions”)? David Chilton
read J. S. Russell’s book (The Parousia) while he was at Tyler back in the
mid-80’s, but he told me that his allegiance to the creeds at that time
prevented him from accepting Russell’s full Preterist position. But in the last
two years of his life he began to see that the creeds could be mistaken, and
that Scripture alone is qualified to be our authority and guide in matters of
true Biblical orthodoxy. He closely examined Eastern Orthodoxy, but backed away
when he began to see where it leads (away from the absolute authority of
Scripture and away from the need to reform). Creedalism moves one toward either
Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, and several within the Reformed camp
have already gone down that path (e.g. Franky Schaeffer, Jerry Mattiticks, Scott
Hahn, and others). This is exactly the danger of Gentry’s position. If his
creedal stance is followed consistently to its logical end, it would force him
out of Reformed theology into either Romanism or Orthodoxy. Several others (e.g.
Andrew Sandlin, Jim West, John Campbell, et al) have similarly expressed their
allegiance to the creeds. They shouldn’t be surprised later when some of their
disciples apply their creedal ideas consistently and leave the Reformed (and
always reforming) faith.
The real question that must be addressed is whether the Bible (not the creeds)
allows “any second advent in AD 70,” and “any other type of resurrection than a
bodily one.” Just because the creeds may not allow it, does not mean the Bible
does not allow it. Disagreement with the creeds only points to a possible
problem. The determination of whether it is a fatal problem must be made on the
basis of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura and tota scriptura). It seems that
Gentry does not even want to consider that possibility. He is content with the
creedal interpretations. He seems to assume that no other interpretation of the
nature of fulfillment is Biblically possible or defensible. This response
certainly aims to challenge his assumptions and presuppositions in that regard.
[GENTRY] It would be most remarkable if
the entire church that came through A.D. 70 missed the proper understanding of
the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the
next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has
the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology
for its first 1900 years?
It is evident that most within early Christianity missed the full significance
of AD 70. The question is, why? The early church was so intimately involved in
the events, they couldn’t see the big picture like an outsider or historian can.
Like a person down in the middle of a forest, they can’t see the whole forest
because the trees right around them block their field of vision. The early
church failed to recognize just how pivotal the events of the first generation
of Christianity were. They just didn’t sense the bigger picture. We are in a
similar situation today. Historians will love to write profound things about how
pivotal the Twentieth Century has been. In one century we have gone from horse
and buggy to space shuttles, lunar landings and planetary probes; and from
signal fires, smoke signals, and pony express to telephone, satellite
communications, computers and email. The magnitude and pace of change in this
century is nothing short of staggering. But we who have lived through it quite
often fail to realize just how truly revolutionary it really has been. The same
thing happened in the first century. They just didn’t grasp the significance and
implications of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
It is indeed “most remarkable” that mainline Christianity has overlooked the
full implications of AD 70, but that doesn’t mean the eschatological fulfillment
didn’t occur just because the Jews or the Christians didn’t recognize it. Many
of the fulfillments Gentry claims in his commentary on Revelation cannot be
documented using Scripture. He has to rely on eye-witnesses and contemporary
historians to support his first century interpretation. He has come up with some
applications of the book of Revelation that I have not seen in any other
Christian writings heretofore. Should we throw those out merely because they are
innovations? Or do we check them against Scripture and history to see if they
make reasonable sense? The principles Gentry is using here against the full
Preterist view could be applied to his own “untraditional” opinions about the
date of Revelation and its first century fulfillment. In fact, some of the
Reformed theologians present at the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium
suggested that very thing. Some of them questioned Gentry’s interpretations and
applications quite closely. Gentry is trying to paint himself as being radically
different from full Preterists, yet totally in harmony with creedal and
confessional interpretations. He is not as far from the full Preterist view as
he tries to make others believe, and he has his own set of differences to
justify, and must do so using the same kind of approach full Preterists are
using.
If we granted Gentry’s presuppositions about the nature of the “second advent,”
“bodily resurrection,” and “personal judgment,” we might arrive at the same
conclusions he has. However, what if his presuppositions about the time and
nature of fulfillment are not orthodox with Scripture? What if it can be shown
that the historic church failed to comprehend the correct time and nature of
fulfillment of biblical eschatology? This may be surprising, and probably
unsettling for many of us, but it is much less disastrous to our faith than the
alternatives suggested by Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann and Bertrand
Russell. We have to do something with the immanency of the NT. If we don’t take
a full Preterist approach, we leave the integrity of Jesus and the NT writers
utterly defenseless. Certainly, it impugns the interpretative accuracy of the
historic church in matters of eschatology, but as R. C. Sproul observed,
“...people have attacked the credibility of Jesus. Maybe some Church Fathers
made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide
with that. I can’t abide with Jesus being a false prophet.” [We need to state it
clearly for the record that R. C. Sproul, Sr. is not a full Preterist, but he
does see a lot of merit in the partial Preterist approach similar to Ken
Gentry.] When the mid-second century church confronted the seeming
non-fulfillment of the supposedly imminent eschatological events, they decided
to re-interpret the time statements instead of re-examine their presuppositions
about the nature of fulfillment. Justin Martyr, Shepherd of Hermas and Clement
of Rome all postulated the idea of an indefinite postponement. They tampered
with the time of fulfillment, rather than change their presuppositions about the
nature of fulfillment. To this date, the historic church has never fully
recovered from that early and fundamental error. They could just as easily have
questioned their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment, and if they
had, we might not be having this debate today.
So, in response to Gentry’s question about whether most of the historic
“Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its
first 1900 years,” I would have to answer this way: The historic church
understood that its soteriology was fully consummated by the advent of Christ
and His establishment of the Church. What it did not realize is that eschatology
was nothing more than the final consummating events of its soteriology. They
disconnected eschatology from soteriology (because of their presuppositions
about the physical nature of fulfillment), and thus failed to see the
eschatological fulfillments. They saw the spiritual fulfillment of soteriology,
but continued looking for a physical, visible and materialistic fulfillment of
eschatology – the same way the Jews missed the soteriological fulfillments. The
early church knew that the true Israel was no longer defined racially and
nationalistically, and was now universal in scope, but many of them (esp. the
Ebionites, Montanists, and other chiliasts) kept on thinking this “new”
universal Israel had a materialistic paradise in its imminent future. They never
seemed willing to question their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment
of eschatology. The early church fathers who were apologists against the Jews
are the best source for illustrations of this problem. (See especially
Athanasius’ On The Incarnation and his Festal Letters). Athanasius posited
complete fulfillment of all soteriological events in conjunction with the
(singular) advent/Parousia of Christ and the establishment of the church in the
generation leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. He spoke of the victory
over death (which is an eschatological event) in soteriological terms, failing
to see the inconsistency of disconnecting it from its eschatological
implications. How can the final soteriological enemy (Death) be conquered if the
other final events of eschatology (i.e. the Parousia, resurrection, judgment,
etc.) have not also been consummated? This is the very inconsistency these
beloved brethren never quite grasped. Even today, Bible interpreters have
difficulty seeing this inconsistency. The confusion is even more apparent when
one studies the various positions different branches of the church have taken in
regard to where people go at death and what their state is there until the
resurrection and judgment. Yet through all this, the historic church has allowed
diversity of opinion on the “interpretations and applications” of the time and
nature of fulfillment of the Biblical eschatological events. So, why is Gentry
now trying to anathematize us for exercising that freedom?
For more information about the eschatological beliefs of the early church and
how full Preterists handle creedal issues, the reader is encouraged to obtain
and read the articles by Edward E. Stevens entitled, “The Early Church and The
Creeds” and “What If The Creeds Are Wrong?” They are available as a set from
Kingdom Publications for a donation of $5 including postage. These articles deal
with the rest of Gentry’s objections based on the creeds and the historic
church, and show when the mistakes were made, who made them and why. It should
not surprise us that the early church missed some things. I am at a loss to
explain how Montanism, chiliasm, sacerdotalism, the doctrine of purgatory,
indulgences, Maryolatry, baptismal regeneration, Arianism, Pelagianism, and a
host of other departures from biblical orthodoxy could ever develop in the
church. How do we explain the Ebionites failing to recognize the “change of law”
that occurred, or the rejection of the deity of Christ by some of the Nazarene
(Jewish) sects and the Arians? How could the Montanists have so much success in
their teaching that Montanus was the inspired mouthpiece of the Paraclete and
that the charismata were still around? There didn’t seem to be very many who
recognized any kind of “coming in judgment” at AD 70 (like Gentry and many other
amils and postmils do). How does any error get into the church and stay around
for so long? How could the church miss it on so many things? Why haven’t the
Roman and Greek churches abandoned all their errors in view of the great reforms
clearly delineated by the Protestant Reformers? In view of this, it seems
obvious that the vast majority of Christians overlooked the fulfillment of
eschatology at AD 70. The church has always had difficulty defining and
maintaining orthodoxy. But, there are bright spots in the patristic writings
which do show that some Christians in the early centuries understood eschatology
as having been accomplished in at least a soteriological sense. But even if none
of them had, it would not disqualify a better understanding of biblical truth if
one comes along. Our faith rests on inspired biblical truth, not on uninspired
interpretations and applications in the creeds.
Biblical Perspicuity
[GENTRY] Second, hyper-Preterism has
serious implications for the perspicuity of Scripture. This viewpoint not only
has implications for the later creeds, but for the instructional abilities of
the apostles: no one in church history knew the major issues of which they spoke
- until very recently! Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that
significance?
Second. I can’t believe I’m reading these words from the pen of a
Reconstructionists who claims to be a Preterist. Gentry has taken some very
Preterist positions on many of the eschatological passages in his writings
against the dispensationalists, and in his presentations at the 1993 Covenant
Eschatology Symposium. After reading and listening to his many eloquent and
thorough defenses of Preterism, it seems strange to read what he says here. His
statements under point number two seem to unravel the great Preterist statements
he has made elsewhere. Why is he laboring so hard to leave the impression that
there is a huge difference between his partial Preterist position and the full
Preterist view? He’s only discrediting his own fine defenses of the Preterist
view elsewhere.
The perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture and the instructional abilities of the
apostles are not jeopardized by the full Preterist view, any more than they are
threatened by Gentry’s partial Preterist view. Gentry asks, “Are the Scriptures
that impenetrable on an issue of that significance?” The same argument could be
levied against his early date for Revelation and his near full Preterist
interpretation of the Apocalypse. In fact, I think arguments like that were
raised against Gentry in Orlando by some of the other non-Preterist theologians
there. If Scripture is so clear, why aren’t children seminary professors? Why do
we even need seminaries at all? And why don’t all seminary professors and
theologians agree on eschatology if it is so clear? If the early church had such
a perfect understanding of it, why haven’t more Christians down through the ages
taken Gentry’s position regarding the book of Revelation? Why does he need to
write a whole book in defense of the early date of Revelation, and another whole
book defending his postmil view, if Scripture is so clear about eschatology and
the church understood it so perfectly from the beginning? Gentry needs to answer
his own question. It applies to him just as much as it does to any other
Preterist. It should be obvious to all that eschatology is one of those Biblical
subjects which Apostle Peter said is “hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16).
I do not know any full Preterists who affirm that the early church understood
everything perfectly, but we certainly would agree that the church received a
perfect revelation. There was really no excuse for them not to understand it.
But, as many experts in patristic studies can attest, the early church did not
understand the TIME and NATURE of fulfillment of eschatology very well. They
kept on repeating the immanency ideas until the middle of the second century
until it finally was no longer possible to conceive of themselves as a part of
“this generation.” Whether you are a Preterist or a futurist, this continuation
of the immanency idea is embarrassing and destructive to the church’s integrity
as interpreters. For the Preterist it is only somewhat puzzling, but for the
futurist it is fatal. If Jesus and the apostles taught immanency (as in fact
they did), then a non-fulfillment destroys the inspiration and integrity of
Christ and the apostles. However, if it was fulfilled and the church only failed
to understand it, then we can charge the mistake to non-inspired churchmen and
leave the integrity of Christ and the apostles intact. As R. C. Sproul and
others have well noted, this is where the lines for the looming war over the
integrity of the Bible are being drawn. And it is the real dilemma the futurist
faces. The full Preterist view has already solved it, and it is the only view
which can solve it consistently and still preserve Biblical integrity.
Joseph M. Canfield (in his separate response to Gentry) has pointed out a
similar threat to the integrity of Jesus and the Apostles coming from an Islamic
author, Jabril Muhammed (“The Final Call” Sept. 8, 1996, “Is The Pope The True
Representative of Jesus” p. 27):
More dangerous is the statement of Jabril Muhammed, a current Mohammedan writer
who says that the plain words of Jesus called for a First Century return. He
follows most unbelieving interpreters in holding that since no Return occurred,
then Jesus was mistaken. But he takes this a step farther and says that Jesus’
alleged mistake proves that Mohammed is greater than Jesus. As we are faced with
an upsurge of Islam, the statement is conveniently ignored by Futurists. How
would Gentry answer Jabril Muhammed?
The ignorance of the early church is certainly surprising, but not unexplainable
or overwhelming. What will unravel Christian Faith is to see the immanency being
unequivocally taught by Christ and the apostles, but then believe (like Albert
Schweitzer and Bertrand Russell) that they were mistaken. That is exactly what
all futurist and partial Preterist views are ultimately forced to conclude.
Which would you rather believe – that Jesus and the apostles were mistaken, or
that the early church misunderstood and misinterpreted the TIME and NATURE of
fulfillment? Why are we so quick to defend the integrity of the creeds, while
leaving the inspiration of Christ and the apostles defenseless? This is
“invalidating the Word of God for the sake of our tradition” (Mk. 7:13), just
like the Pharisees were doing with their rabbinical traditions. I do not
apologize for saying that the early (post-70) apostolic fathers misunderstood
biblical eschatology, especially when the only alternative is to strip Christ
and the apostles of their inspiration and integrity. One of the two groups was
in serious error. There is no way to preserve the integrity of both groups.
Liberal, skeptical and anti-Christian scholars have left no alternative for the
conservative Christian. A mistake has to be charged to either Jesus and the
inspired NT writers, or to the uninspired church fathers who interpreted them.
Full Preterists have made the only choice that consistently preserves the
integrity of our faith. Gentry seems to be taking the other alternative by
paying homage to the creeds.
See the Tenth section of this response where we show Gentry’s inconsistency in
splitting the immanency and coming statements in Matthew 24. His weakness and
vulnerability to the liberal attack is more obvious there.
All branches of Christendom (except maybe those who worship the creeds)
recognize that our understanding of Scripture is getting progressively better.
We did not start out with a perfect understanding. We instead started out with a
perfect revelation, but a very imperfect understanding of it. One implication of
a progressive understanding is that older concepts will be found slightly or
largely in error, requiring adjustment or replacement by the better
understanding. Note what Iain Murray (1977) said about John Murray in the
Preface to Vol. 2 of the Collected Writings of John Murray:
“...this is not to say that [John Murray] thought Reformed theology had reached
definitive conclusions on all biblical subjects. On the contrary, he judged it
to be the constant business of the Church to seek a larger knowledge of
Scripture for, as he writes in a characteristic sentence, ‘We are but touching
the fringes of the mystery of God’s will...” [emphasis added]
Those who tend to hold the creeds as authoritative and inspired will be the
first to raise the red flag when their long-held traditional “interpretations
and applications” are questioned. Philip Schaff, who composed the three-volume
work, The Creeds of Christendom, had these relevant comments about that behavior
(Vol. I, p. 7):
In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human
compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with, but always
subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith
and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement
with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and
relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the
progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and
infallible. ...Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and
essentially Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and substitutes
the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living pope. [emphasis added]
Note the words of Schaff in the quote above: “In the best case a human creed is
only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may
be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church.” I suspect Philip Schaff
is a little more qualified in the area of patristics than Gentry (and some other
creedalists I know who will be reading this), and consequently in a better
position to know what the limitations of the creeds are and how to improve them.
However, creedalists will still be horrified at Schaff’s suggestion that the
creeds are only “relatively correct” and may require improvements after the
church has made progress in its understanding. I suspect they will also take
offense at his suggestion that, “Any higher view of the authority of symbols is
unprotestant and essentially Romanizing.” And, lest any creedalist think Schaff
fails to understand the true nature of “Romanizing,” he explains how
creed-olatry and pope-olatry are similar: “Symbololatry is a species of
idolatry, and substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living
pope.” They are both idolatry. I believe Schaff has clearly reflected the true
spirit of the Reformation’s sola Scriptura battle cry. Gentry seems to be
speaking otherwise.
At least three times in the first chapter of volume one (of Schaff’s
three-volume work on the Creeds), he mentions the idea of growth and development
in our understanding of the Christian faith, and constantly warns about the
dangers of esteeming creeds above the Word of God. As I stated in my debate with
Joseph Balyeat in Kingdom Counsel, if someone is really satisfied with judging
the merits of the full Preterist position by Scripture alone, he won’t need to
use the creeds against it. He will only bring the creeds into the picture if he
presumes that the creeds are flawless (inspired) and therefore authoritative. If
there was the slightest doubt about the correctness of the creeds, he would not
use them as a standard.
There is an infinite difference between the creeds and Scripture. Scripture is
inspired, and therefore infallible. Creeds are not inspired, so they can be
mistaken, and always have to be held in some measure of suspicion. If I didn’t
attach significant value to the creeds, I would have given Gentry’s whole
objection here the quick brush off. But, they are more valuable than most other
historical documents of uninspired human origin because they give us a window to
view what the understanding of the church was at the time of their composition,
and because they were formulated by so many brilliant minds over the course of
several centuries of debate and discussion. But their main value is in the areas
of theology that they were working on at the time (mainly Christology). They did
little (if any) work on the eschatological statements in the creeds. And we must
never forget that some of those same people formulated other doctrines and
practices that have since been found to be in error, and went to extremes in
dealing out cruel punishments upon those who disagreed with them. They condemned
and killed men and women whom we now know to have been saints. This should be
cause for pause before we enshrine these men’s opinions on a level with or above
Scripture.
Some creedalists with whom I exchanged email stated that this whole issue of
creedal orthodoxy is a matter of authority. I agree with them. I would go even
further to assert that ultimate authority is bound up with inspiration and
infallibility. Nothing can be ultimately authoritative unless it is infallible
and inspired. The Roman Church knows this and that’s why they had to develop the
doctrine of the infallibility (inspiration) of the Pope. The creedalists are
doing the same thing with the councils and creeds. They have to vest
infallibility and inspiration into the creeds in order to use them as an
ultimate authority. Authority and inspiration go together. If the men who
composed the councils were not inspired in the same way Scripture writers were,
then their products (the creeds) have no more authority than any other writings
of uninspired men. More value? Yes! More authority? No!
It is Gentry and other creedalists who are running counter to the principle of
continual reform by locking us up with their creeds. It is time for another wave
of Reformation to break out of that prison cell. And the Preterist
interpretation of eschatology has just provided the key to unlock the door of
continuing reform. If Gentry and other theonomists really want to be on the
cutting edge of the continuing Reformation, here is their chance. The partial
Preterist view just won’t cut it when the skeptic critics of the Bible fire
their laser cannons at the integrity of the imminent coming passages. Only the
full Preterist view can provide the consistent basis upon which to build a
conservative and thoroughly Reformed systematic eschatology. Opportunities like
this don’t come around every century, perhaps not even every millennium. Don’t
miss it. Don’t trade your “reformed and always reforming” birthright for a mess
of creedolatry pottage.
Every generation of Christians must be perceptive and vigilant. We can never
assume that any uninspired document or system of theology is perfect. The
possibility always exists that further study will reveal a flaw. When a builder
discovers a flaw in his construction, what should he do? Cover it over, pretend
like it isn’t there, and hope no one gets hurt when the building collapses
later! Or, stick our heads in the sand and hope the critics go away! Killing the
messenger won’t make the bad news go away! The battle is already being fought.
Albert Schweitzer and others of his liberal critical armada have already fired
their cannons. Traditional futurist eschatology is not only failing to fight
back, but is manufacturing more ammunition for the opposition to use against the
integrity of Scripture. They insist the immanency passages can mean anything we
want them to mean, except “immanency”). The liberals just smile and load it in
their cannon and fire another round. A partial Preterist position does not solve
the problem. The dilemma remains. How long will Gentry and other partial
Preterists hesitate between two opinions on this (1 Kings 18:21)? Whose side are
they really on? Quit helping the faithless critics!
Surely Gentry has an uneasy feeling about using creedal arguments against the
full Preterist view, since he has elsewhere come down solidly in favor of sola
Scriptura. In his book, HSHD (top of p. 494), he said the following to counter
the Premillennialists arguments against his partial Preterist views: “For the
devout Christian, the ultimate issue determining the validity of a particular
eschatological system is none other than the Word of the Living God.” All of us
can say “Amen” to that. But, does Gentry really mean it? If so, why does he use
the creeds and patristic testimony as his first line of argumentation here? From
reading his statements against the Premillennialists, we would have expected him
to focus on the biblical arguments first, fully and finally. Why the
inconsistency?
In regard to the instructional abilities of the apostles, I have always wondered
exactly what Peter meant in 2 Pet. 3:16 when he said that some of Paul’s
eschatological teaching was “hard to understand.” The Jews missed both the
soteriological and eschatological meaning of the OT Scriptures. They are still
looking for a physical-literal fulfillment, even though Christ repeatedly said
His kingdom was not of this world (John. 18:36) and was to come in that
generation “without observation” (Luke. 17:20-21). In the gospel accounts where
Jesus was explaining the meaning of the parables to the twelve, did you ever
notice that the apostles were very often “dull of hearing”? The twelve still
didn’t really believe Christ would rise from the dead. When Jesus was crucified,
they thought it was all over. If it was difficult for someone who had been
personally taught by Christ to understand, why should we be surprised that the
average Christian missed it? It was not the fault of the inspired, accurate and
complete revelation. It was the fault of the uninspired interpreters who did not
expend enough perspiration to understand inspiration. When did the saints ever
understand God’s revelation completely? Do we understand it completely even
today? Or has God so worked in His revelation that it will forever challenge
(and humble) even the greatest minds in the church? Certainly, the saving
essentials are simple enough for a child to understand, but all the subtle
nuances of biblical typology may never be exhaustively unveiled even though
mankind has an eternity to interpret it. As John Murray often said about our
present state of understanding, “We are but touching the fringes of the mystery
of God’s will.” So why is Gentry so shocked that the church missed some things?
If we don’t believe we can make progress in our understanding of God’s Word, why
are we constantly trying to refine our hermeneutics (interpretative skills)? If
the early church really solved all the enigmas, exegeted faithfully all the
biblical doctrines, and infallibly formulated all the creeds, why bother
reforming or reconstructing anything? What was the Reformation all about? Why
bother “always reforming” if there is nothing else left to be reformed? Why
spill so much blood and ink if it was all infallibly set in stone from the
creedal era? Why not just take what the early church has given us
(sacerdotalism, Maryolatry and all) and just stick with it? Have Gentry’s books
made any improvement upon the early church’s understanding of eschatology? Or is
he just regurgitating what the historic church “always and everywhere” believed?
Why bother writing any more books if there is no possibility of improving our
understanding?
[GENTRY] Clement of Rome lived through A.D. 70 and had
no idea he was resurrected! He continued to look for a physical resurrection
(Clement 50:3). Jude's (supposed) grandsons still sought a physical resurrection
(cf. Eusebius, EH 3:24:4). Whoever these men were, they come right out of the
first generation and in the land of Israel - with absolutely no inkling of an
A.D. 70 resurrection or a past Second Advent. See also the Didache 10:5; 16:1ff
(first century); Ignatius, Trallians 9:2; Smyrnaens 2:1; 6:1; Letter to Polycarp
3:2 (early second century); Polycarp 2:1; 6:2; 7:1. See also Papias, Irenaeus,
Justin Martyr.
Gentry cites several patristic writers in defense of his futurist position,
leaving the impression that no early writers made any significant Preterist
statements, and that early writers were mostly futurist in orientation. It is
quite surprising to see Gentry do this, especially in view of the other great
quotes of patristic writers in his books in defense of the Preterist view of
Revelation. For example, see his BJF (pp. 41-109, 343-353) and The Beast of
Revelation (pp. 129-166). Which list of patristic citations does Gentry want us
to use? Is there support for the Preterist view in the patristic writings or
not? Does Gentry really believe that the Preterist view implies that “no one in
church history knew the major issues of which they spoke - until very recently?”
If he does, why does he take a basic Preterist approach to so many passages that
the historic church did not? Gentry needs to make up his mind. He is arguing
against his own position here. The historic creeds did not teach “some kind of
judgment coming at AD 70” like Gentry. It is amazing to see Gentry use Papias,
Irenaeus and Justin Martyr here as evidence against the Preterist view, when in
his other writings against the Premillennialists, he repudiates their value as
witnesses, and even uses some of them to buttress his own partial Preterist
view. There seems to be a little “doublespeak” going on here. Whose side is
Gentry really on? He keeps manufacturing ammunition for the skeptical
opposition!
David Chilton’s Paradise Restored has some excellent quotes from patristic
writers which support the Preterist viewpoint. And my two articles on the creeds
(mentioned above) quote several more, as well as some of the leading patristic
scholars who show what the early church really believed about eschatology. They
didn’t understand the full implications of AD 70 any more than they understood
any of the other systematized views which we moderns have formulated, including
Gentry’s own views. And if we have to have clear and universal patristic support
for our position before it can be seriously considered, Gentry’s own views would
be just as disqualified. Who says we have to have any patristic support for a
doctrine that can be proven from Scripture? What was the whole point of the
Reformers’ stand on sola Scriptura?
Gentry makes a big deal here about Clement of Rome and others, whose lifespans
overlapped the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Clement supposedly wrote his
epistle to the Corinthian church about AD 96. I will quote the section Gentry
makes reference to (50:3) with the Scripture references Clement alludes to
inserted in brackets:
All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those
who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect [1 Corinthians. 13:10] in
love, now possess a place [John 14:3] among the godly, and shall be made
manifest [Rom. 8:19; 1 Corinthians. 1:7,8; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 1:3-9; 1 John. 3:2]
at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, “Enter into thy
secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will
remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves. [Isa. 26;
Ezek. 37]”
Note that this passage does not use the words “physical resurrection,” but even
if we agreed with Gentry that Clement was referring to a “physical
resurrection,” that would not remove all the other embarrassing problems in this
text. Does Gentry really accept all the other “interpretations and applications”
of Clement here? In the context around this quotation, Clement is talking about
Paul’s discourse on love (1 Corinthians. 13). Notice the flip-flop between
realized (“already”) events and imminent future (“not yet”) events. Clement
leaves the impression that the “perfect” had already come and that the eternal
dwelling “place” (which Jesus said would be given at His return) had already
been given to those who had already “been made perfect.” But Clement was still
expecting the (imminent, i.e. “a little time”) arrival of the kingdom of Christ.
The “propitious day” of the kingdom’s arrival and their resurrection was
imminent (only “a little time” away). Gentry says that when there are imminent
time indicators in a passage, they mean “imminence.” So what was the
resurrection that was imminent to Clement? Was it really imminent? Did Clement
goof? I suspect Gentry would not agree with all of Clement’s interpretations
here in this one brief text, much less with all the other ones in the rest of
Clement’s writings and the other early writers he cites. Does Clement really
carry any weight with Gentry? Would he agree with what Papias, Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr and the other apostolic fathers say about the book of Revelation and its
late date? Absolutely not! In BJF Gentry spends a whole chapter discounting
Irenaeus’ value as evidence. Why then is he using them against the Preterist
view? It looks like he is shooting himself in the foot again. I’m sure his
Premillennial opponents will love the nice things he says about the apostolic
fathers.
Before we leave Clement, I must deal with his interpretation of the
resurrection. He quotes or alludes to several ideas found in Isa. 26, Ezek. 37
and other OT resurrection texts. Clement says God “will raise you up out of your
graves.” The passage here could easily be taken in the same collective national
sense as Ezek. 37’s restoration from Babylonian captivity, or may simply be
speaking of the eschatological regathering of all those who were “dead in sin”
back to life in the kingdom of God, the true Israel. There is more than one way
to interpret the language here. Gentry and other futurists have made some
assumptions about this text that are clearly unwarranted, especially in view of
the fact that Gentry admits (in his point four) that Scripture speaks of more
than one type of resurrection, and mentions Ezek. 37 as a case in point. What is
also interesting is that Ezek. 37:12f even mentions the nation of Israel coming
up out of their “graves” (captivity) and being restored to the land of Israel.
This resurrection was Israel’s return from Babylonian captivity under Ezra and
Nehemiah in 536 BC and following. Was it a literal physical resurrection of
physically dead Jews out of physical graves? No, of course not. Gentry would
agree that it is speaking of their restoration from captivity. Even if Clement
was expecting a physical resurrection, he was alluding to passages that were not
teaching a physical resurrection. So, Clement was wrong not only in his
interpretation of the TIMING of the eschatological events, but also of their
NATURE of fulfillment as well. The same can be said for most (if not all) of the
patristic writers Gentry lists here. No Christian should jump for joy as we
realize how mistaken the early church was in their understanding of the time and
nature of eschatological fulfillments. But, we shouldn’t hesitate too long in
admitting their failure and correcting them, however, since the only alternative
is to charge the mistake to Jesus and the apostles. Which of these two
alternatives does Gentry pick? Is he going to keep manufacturing ammunition for
the liberals, skeptics, and anti-Christian critics?
[GENTRY] Berkouwer rightly notes that the reason the
resurrection found early creedal acceptance was because of the clear emphasis of
the New Testament. The hyper-Preterist view has serious and embarrassing
implications for the perspicuity of Scripture - and despite the fact we are now
(supposedly) in our resurrected states and have the outpoured Holy Spirit and
His gift of teachers who were to protect us from every wind of doctrine (Eph.
4)!
There are several misunderstandings wrapped up in Gentry’s remarks above. When
he cites Berkouwer in defense of the idea that “the resurrection found early
creedal acceptance,” he builds a straw man argument. He leaves the impression
that full Preterists deny the biblical (and creedal) doctrine of a collective
resurrection. We don’t. It is a biblical eschatological event. Anyone who denies
it has definitely put himself outside biblical orthodoxy. Full Preterists
believe the Bible teaches that a collective resurrection would occur. We just
disagree with traditional “interpretations and applications” of the TIME and
NATURE of that resurrection. Gentry assumes that there is only one way to
interpret the NATURE of fulfillment of the resurrection (i.e. that it can only
be a physical resuscitation of the individual’s physical body and its physical
exit from the grave). On the basis of that assumption, he interprets the TIME of
fulfillment as still future (since there is no record of anything like that
occurring at AD 70). What if his presuppositions about the NATURE of fulfillment
are incorrect? That would invalidate his assumptions about the TIME of
fulfillment as well. If we must hold rigidly to traditional interpretations
about the time and nature of fulfillment, Gentry himself would be in trouble
with his Reformed predecessors, most of whom believed the Roman church is the
harlot of Revelation and that the pope is the Beast. Does Gentry have freedom to
interpret the time and nature of fulfillment of those eschatological events
differently than the Roman church or the Reformed churches? Is he the only one
who has that freedom? If the Bible speaks so clearly on this subject that no
other interpretations of the nature and time of fulfillment are possible, why is
there so much disagreement about the book of Revelation among the various
millennial camps? Is Gentry going to affirm that all other interpretations of
the book of Revelation besides his are “heterodox” (outside the creedal
orthodoxy of Christianity), and that his view (which is comparatively new also)
is the only orthodox one? I would like to have seen the reaction of the other
Reformed theologians present at the Symposium in Orlando (1993) if he had
affirmed such a position in their hearing. It would indeed have been one of
those occasions when “all heaven broke loose.” Since I will be dealing much more
with the resurrection in later sections, I will not say any more about it here.
What I find interesting in Gentry’s statements here, is that he seems to leave
himself hopelessly vulnerable to the charismatics’ arguments for a continuation
of the miraculous sign gifts, when he says that we today still “have the
outpoured Holy Spirit and His gift of teachers.” Full Preterists don’t believe
that. This is another one of those areas where Gentry radically misunderstands
what we full Preterists are saying. Charismatics will love him for his
statements here, and take him right to Acts 2:17-21 to show that the charismatic
gifts would be poured out “in the last days” up until “the great and glorious
day of the Lord.” Then they would go to 1 Corinthians. 1:5-8 to show him that
the saints would not be “lacking in any gift” as they eagerly awaited “the
revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “the end” and “the day of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” Gentry fails to show why this latter passage could not be
speaking about the return of Christ. The charismatics will keep stabbing him
with it until he gets the point. If Christ’s return (the one mentioned in 1
Corinthians. 1:5-8) has not happened yet, then the charismata must still be
around. Gentry has written a book against Wayne Grudem’s views explaining why he
believes the charismata ceased in the first century, but it did not explain away
the problem raised by this passage (1 Corinthians. 1:5-8). The full Preterist
can consistently affirm an AD 70 cessation based on these three texts (Acts
2:17ff; 1 Corinthians. 1:5-8; 1 Corinthians. 13:8ff). If Gentry does not take a
Preterist approach to these passages, he leaves himself defenseless against the
charismatic view. But if he does take a Preterist approach here, his statement
that we still “have the outpoured Holy Spirit and His gift of teachers” seems
inconsistent and contradictory.
Is the Holy Spirit still functioning as a Paraclete? Has the Paraclete ceased
giving those miraculous gifts? They were not supposed to cease until “the
revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” at “the End” and “the Day of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” (1 Corinthians. 1:7f) Will Gentry affirm that the “revelation of our
Lord Jesus Christ” has already occurred at AD 70 (as he implies in his
commentary on the book of Revelation). If not, then his whole book against Wayne
Grudem’s views falls flat on its face in hopeless inconsistency. Gentry also
leaves the door wide open for a loosing of Satan at the end of the millennium
(which he believes is still future), which implies a resumption of
demon-possession and lying signs and wonders. This would necessitate the
resumption of the Paraclete’s distribution of charismatic gifts to counteract
Satan’s activity. It is not surprising that many Premillennial
dispensationalists who believe the end of the world is imminent, also believe
Satan has been released and the charismata are back in full force. Gentry has no
consistent way to counter this argument for the fresh outbreak of the charismata
at the end of the millennium. And since he believes Christ’s major coming after
the millennium is still future, he must believe in either the continuance of the
charismata until that final return, or the resumption of them at the release of
Satan at the end of the millennium. And if the Paraclete is not done with His
work yet (which included inspired revelatory work), Gentry is put in the
unenviable position of believing the revelation, confirmation and consummation
of redemption is not yet complete. This would open the canon of Scripture and
unseat Christ as the ultimate in redemption.
Gentry says the charismatic gifts ceased and that the perfect (or fullness)
arrived in the first century, and that the transition period is over. But, as
the charismatics are very quick and fond of pointing out, it is inconsistent to
say the perfect has arrived and the transition period is over, if the
eschatology is not also consummated. The charismatic gifts and the transitional
state of partialness would not cease until the “apocalupsis” of Christ and “The
Day” of Christ arrived (1 Corinthians. 1:7,8). The cessation is tied directly to
the consummation. If the cessation has occurred (as Gentry affirms), then the
consummation of eschatology must also have occurred. If the transition period
for Pneumatology is over, the transition period of eschatology must also be
over. If the consummation has not yet occurred, the charismata have to still be
around. The constantly reiterated NT theme of an imminent completion of the
transition from a state of partial-ness to one of completeness (maturity or
perfection) is shared in common by soteriology, Pneumatology and eschatology.
This common thread of “somewhat already, not yet everything, but imminent”
consummation of all three of these theological systems is the worldview of the
NT. Schweitzer, Dodd, Cullmann and others have noted this. Paul’s writings
especially show that all three of these theological systems (soteriology,
Pneumatology and eschatology) were inseparably interconnected and were being
brought to consummation together in that transitional generation.
Non-charismatic Reformers only see the past fulfillment of soteriology and
Pneumatology. Their eschatological consummation is still futurized. Charismatics
agree that soteriology is fulfilled, but see Pneumatology and eschatology
fulfillments as still future. But full Preterists see all three as inseparably
interrelated, and by necessity consummated together at AD 70. Because Gentry has
a partially realized eschatology, he should also have a charismatic Pneumatology
and a partially realized soteriology to be consistent. The charismatic gifts
have not ceased unless Christ has returned for his final time. Gentry needs to
get consistent on this.
Without A
Canon?
[GENTRY] Third, the hyper-Preterist system leaves the New Covenant Christian
(in our post A.D. 70 era) without a canon. If all prophecy was fulfilled prior
to A.D. 70 and if the entire New Testament spoke to issues in the pre-A.D. 70
time frame, we do not have any directly relevant passages for us. The entire New
Testament must be transposed before we can use it.
Third. The full Preterist view does not render the NT Scriptures irrelevant to
Christians after AD 70. Nor do full Preterists teach that all prophecy has been
totally fulfilled with absolutely no continuing implications, applications and
ongoing fulfillments. This is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of
the full Preterist view. This would indeed be “post-everything-ism” and
“hyper-Preterism.”
In many of His parables and discourses, Jesus taught what life would be like in
the kingdom when it arrived. The church only had the “earnest” and “seal” of
their kingdom inheritance during that transitional generation (AD 30-70). If
anything, we in the post-70 period have a more relevant and applicable
revelation. We are now in the kingdom. The full inheritance is here. All the
things Jesus, Paul and the other apostles taught about the kingdom now apply
fully to us. Several prophetic passages have ongoing fulfillment in the kingdom
(i.e. Ezek. 47:1-12 and Rev. 21:24–22:5).
Gentry is the one who has a problem with kingdom passages being relevant to us
today if Matt. 5:17-19 is still in force. That passage implies that the kingdom
would not arrive until the present “heaven and earth” passed away. Gentry
believes that the “heaven and earth” mentioned in Matt. 5:17ff are still here,
so in order to be consistent, he would have to believe that the kingdom
(mentioned in that text) has not arrived yet either, and that all the kingdom
principles taught by Jesus and others are not yet relevant for us. He must still
believe that every jot and tittle of the Law is still binding upon us until
“heaven and earth” passes away. The theonomist interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19
is the one which “leaves the New Covenant Christian without” any “directly
relevant passages.” They are the ones who relegate full NT relevancy to a still
future period and still bind us under the OT sacrificial system. They are taking
us in the opposite direction away from full NT relevancy. It is that
interpretation which forces us to “transpose the entire NT before we can use
it.” Other Reformed theologians who are not theonomists have made that very
charge against them. Full Preterists are the ones who take Ezek. 47; Rev. 21-22;
Jesus’ Kingdom parables and Paul’s Kingdom teaching, and construct a fully
relevant NT plan of redemption and eschatology. We are advocating full relevance
of NT kingdom principles, while theonomists cannot consistently do so. According
to them, we are still saddled with the OT “jots and tittles” until the physical
“heaven and earth” pass away. Who is really robbing us of a fully relevant NT
canon?
Hermeneutic
Failure
[GENTRY] Fourth, hyper-Preterism suffers from serious errors in its
hermeneutical methodology. When a contextually defined passage applies to the
A.D. 70 event, the hyper-Preterist will take all passages with similar language
and apply them to A.D. 70, as well. But similarity does not imply identity;
Christ cleansed the Temple twice and in virtually identical ways; but the two
events are not the same. Furthermore, we must distinguish sense and referent;
there are several types of "resurrection" in Scripture: the dry bones of Ezek.
37; spiritual redemption in John 5:24; physical redemption at the grave in John
5:28; Israel's renewal in Christ in Rom. 11:15; and of the Beast in Rev. 13:3. I
hold that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators
(such as "this generation," "shortly," "at hand," "near," and similar wording)
are to be applied to A.D. 70, but similar sounding passages may or may not be so
applied.
Fourth. It may surprise Gentry to know that all full Preterists share his
hermeneutical concerns about the similarity of language. We agree that it takes
more than just similarity of language to prove identity of subject. All of the
historical, grammatical and hermeneutical tools must be applied to the
eschatological texts. No full Preterist writer has ever suggested otherwise. No
full Preterist builds his case on just similarity of language, as Gentry implies
here. That is only one of the many factors a careful exegete looks at, and
Gentry uses it to his advantage in his writings against Premillennialism.
Similarity of language does point in the direction of identity of application,
so it must be at least one of the tools used in correct interpretation.
It is at this very point where all interpreters differ. For instance, there are
other partial Preterists like Gary DeMar and John Bray who would interpret many
more of the eschatological passages as having an AD 70 fulfillment. They
certainly would not agree with Gentry’s charge of “serious errors.” Similarity
of language is one of their major arguments, as well as Gentry’s. Why is it
appropriate for them to affirm an AD 70 fulfillment of those same passages, but
not for full Preterists? It is simply because they still hold out for a future
coming, resurrection and judgment, even though they don’t agree as to which
passages really deal with it. If the perspicuity of Scripture is so easy and
clear on eschatology (as Gentry has alleged), how do we account for such
diversity of opinion among the partial Preterists?
There are several Reformed writers who take a Preterist position on most of the
eschatological passages. If we were to collect all their Preterist statements
into one volume and construct a systematic view of eschatology from them, what
would we end up with? John Owen, Gary DeMar, David Chilton, et al, take 2 Pet. 3
as finding fulfillment in AD 70. Gentry takes most of Revelation as being
fulfilled at AD 70. DeMar and Chilton take all of Matthew 24 as fulfilled at AD
70. Gentry understands all the passages with imminent time indicators as
fulfilled in AD 70, as does Gary DeMar. On and on we could go bringing writer
after writer from the past three centuries into the collection. When we
finished, we would have a full Preterist view systematically developed and
defended by respected Reformed exegetes, all of whom would deny they interpreted
Scripture merely on the basis of similarity of language. Gentry needs to
reexamine this line of argumentation. He uses similarity of language in his own
arguments against Premillennialism. He is shooting himself in the foot again.
Gentry mentions only two other hermeneutical tools he uses to determine if
similar language is referring to the same subject (“contextually defined” and
“sense/referent”). I’m sure he uses other historical, grammatical and contextual
methods besides these. So it is presumptuous of him to leave the impression that
full Preterists don’t use any other tools except similarity of language. And I
totally agree with the other two tools he uses. I use them too. But evidently we
are not arriving at the same conclusions because of some of the other tools that
he and I are using (or failing to use).
Gentry looks for a time-frame indicator as one of his tests for an AD 70
interpretation of a “similar” passage. All full Preterists I know would agree
with that approach. Gentry admits that passages not having a time indicator
“may” still be “applied” to AD 70. And there are several partial Preterists who
would apply them to AD 70 and reject his charge of being guilty of merely
looking at “similarity of language.” Therefore, I think he has failed to justify
his charge of “serious errors in hermeneutical methodology.” We simply differ on
how to use the hermeneutical tools. I suspect there are a few non-Preterist,
non-theonomist, Reformed theologians who would accuse Gentry of “serious errors
in his hermeneutical methodology.” His weak position in regard to the cessation
of the charismata at AD 70, and his theonomic interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19
are only a couple of the examples where his hermeneutical failure shows up.
In regard to this hermeneutical rule about similarity of language, what do we do
with those texts which use not just “similar” language, but exactly the same
terminology and phraseology by the same author without any distinction or
clarification? Where does Jesus ever distinguish between two different “comings”
(Gr. Parousia) of “the Son of Man” accompanied by “the angels” “in glory” with
“the clouds?” But applying Gentry’s rule about similarity of language to the
whole Matthew 23-25 context, we would have to look for such a clarification
somewhere else in Jesus’ teaching (since it cannot be found in that context).
And what is interesting, the word Parousia is not used by Jesus anywhere else in
the four gospel accounts. So, there is no place in Jesus’ teaching where He
distinguishes between two different Parousia's separated by thousands of years.
What are we to conclude? What would the first century saints have concluded?
Where is any indication that they understood two different Parousia's separated
by thousands of years? Gentry’s hermeneutics creates an ungetoverable dilemma
for him here, and leaves him hopelessly vulnerable to the liberal skeptics who
assert that Jesus indeed promised His one and only Parousia in that imminent
generation. And since they (and Gentry) both agree that it didn’t occur, the
integrity of Christ and the apostles is destroyed. Gentry’s hermeneutics opens
the door to devastating conclusions about the integrity of Jesus and the
Apostles. It seems he would prefer to keep the reputation of the creed-writers
stainless, while letting the integrity of Christ and the apostles be wasted.
That is the very issue that is at stake here. It is Gentry, failing to take full
account of the identity of similar language in the eschatological texts, who
opens the door for the critics of Biblical integrity.
Resurrection Errors
[GENTRY] Fifth, there is a serious problem with the removal of the physical
resurrection from systematic theology. Christ's resurrection is expressly
declared to be the paradigm of our own (1 Corinthians. 15:20ff). Yet we know
that His was a physical, tangible resurrection (Luke 24:39), whereas ours is
(supposedly) spiritual. What happens to the biblically defined analogy between
Christ's resurrection and ours in the hyper-Preterist system?
Fifth – Here is another misrepresentation by Gentry. He claims the full
Preterist view removes “the physical resurrection from systematic theology” and
thereby negates “the biblically defined analogy [continuity] between Christ's
resurrection and ours.” Not exactly.
Before we can reasonably discuss the amount of continuity our resurrection
bodies have with Christ’s, we need to know what kind of resurrection body He had
with which we are supposed to be in conformity. Once we define the nature of His
resurrection body, then we can discuss the degree of our continuity with it.
This is where most studies of the resurrection falter. Too many assume that
Jesus’ resurrection body was nothing more than the same kind (or quality) of
pure physical body that He had before the crucifixion. Is that a valid
assumption? Is it possible that the nature of His resurrection body was
different? Or, was it still nothing more than a mere physical body, just like
the body with which Lazarus was raised?
I have asked several Reformed preachers this question: “Was Jesus’ resurrection
body exactly the same in every detail (with absolutely no changes of any kind)
as His pre-cross body?” Every single one of those to whom I asked this question
replied, “No, it’s different in some way.” A similar admission was verbalized by
one of the participants at the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium. During one
of the discussion periods, one of the participants argued strenuously for the
idea that Christ had a physical resurrection, but admitted that Christ’s
resurrection body was “...a transformed body, not completely identical with the
one before....” And in that same discussion period Max King made the observation
that while the Gnostics may have gone to the extreme of completely
spiritualizing the nature of the resurrection body, some in the church may have
gone to an equally un-biblical extreme of insisting on Christ having a
completely physical resurrection body.
During another of the discussion periods, Max King suggested there may be a more
biblical way of defining the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, which is
somewhere between the two extremes. I believe most full Preterists would agree
with that. Murray Harris, in his two books, Raised Immortal and From Grave To
Glory, has labored carefully to define that “third” position, which avoids both
of the extremes and better harmonizes the biblical data. J. I. Packer, Gleason
Archer and Peter Toon have all stated in print that they see Murray Harris’
position as Scripturally orthodox, though Norman Geisler has challenged it.
Unfortunately Harris’ books are now out of print. At the time of writing this,
Kingdom Publications still had a few copies of his From Grave To Glory left in
stock. We would highly recommend getting this book and reading it if you can.
In view of Harris’ excellent defense of the idea that Christ was raised
immortal, it would seem evident that Jesus’ resurrection body cannot be
accurately or exhaustively described as nothing more than a “pure physical
body.” His post-resurrection appearances reveal that He had more than just a
mere physical body. He was raised immortal. All the others who had been raised
from physical death before Christ were raised mortal (still subject to death).
Lazarus is a case in point. After being raised by Christ, he lived out the rest
of his life and died again. He was raised with a pure physical body, nothing
more. When Saul coerced the witch at Endor to summon Samuel from the realm of
the dead, it was not a resurrection of Samuel’s physical body. It was the
disembodied “pure spirit” form of Samuel (an apparition) which appeared and
frightened even the necromancer.
What we see here are two extremely different kinds of appearances: one purely
physical, and the other a pure spirit. Jesus’ resurrection body exhibited
characteristics of both. His resurrection body was not just purely physical. Nor
was it a pure spirit as was Samuel’s reappearance. Harris has shown convincingly
and in conformity with biblical orthodoxy that Christ was raised immortal, with
a kind of body that no human had ever possessed. How can we say that Jesus is
the “firstfruit” of the resurrection if He had the same kind of resurrection
body as all the others before Him who had merely been raised physically? Jesus
was the first one ever to be raised with that kind of body. He was the
“firstfruit” (1 Corinthians. 15:20) of the resurrection harvest. His
resurrection body was not “purely physical,” nor was it “pure spirit.” He was
raised with an immortal body. He was the same person, but a different kind of
body. He was raised bodily, but not with the same kind of body.
Note how Paul not only clarifies the nature of the resurrection body in 1
Corinthians. 15, but also affirms the continuity and conformity of our bodies
with Christ’s resurrection body:
...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a
natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first
man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
...as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have
borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now
I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Corinthians. 15:44-50)
We are supposed to get the same kind of body that Jesus has. Jesus’ and our
resurrection bodies are described by Paul in this text as being “spiritual,”
“glorious,” “imperishable,” “incorruptible,” “immortal” and “heavenly.” This
doesn’t sound like a mere physical mortal body at all. Harris has done an
excellent job of establishing this point from the Biblical teaching about the
resurrection. Jesus wasn’t raised with a physical body first and then changed
into a spiritual body. He wasn’t raised mortal and then changed to immortal. He
was “raised immortal” and “spiritual” already. As Peter said, “For Christ also
died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might
bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the
spirit...” (1 Pet. 3:18).
Jesus was raised with a body that was suited to His life in the heavenly realm.
The fact that He ascended into heaven with that same body suggests that it must
have been much more than just a pure physical body. Scripture affirms numerous
times that mere physical bodies cannot live in the spiritual realm. Christ was
able to manifest Himself in a tangible/visible form on several occasions after
His resurrection and before His ascension, but He was also able to disappear and
remain in an intangible, immaterial form. This is something new. No one had ever
been raised with that kind of body before. It was immortal (no longer subject to
physical death). When Jesus appeared, He ate with them, but not because His new
body needed food to stay alive. He did so for evidence purposes. It was to prove
that He truly had been raised and was not just a disembodied spirit (like
Samuel’s appearance) awaiting the final resurrection like everyone else. His
resurrection with an immortal body was proof that the long-awaited defeat of
Death and reign of Life had begun. His appearances were signs that the eschaton
had arrived and that the full and final destruction of Death and Hades was
imminent. He disappeared again to prove that He was not just a mortal body like
Lazarus’ resuscitated physical body. He was raised immortal. The fact that He
was able to exhibit both material and immaterial qualities in His resurrection
appearances was proof that He had brought true life and immortality to light. He
was the first fruit of that kind of eternal, immortal life. The fact that Christ
appeared in tangible/visible form does not prove that His resurrection body was
merely a physical body, nor does it prove that He even had “a physical, tangible
resurrection” as Gentry suggested in his point number five. Harris (in From
Grave To Glory) has shown the profound significance of these tangible
manifestations as evidence that Christ had indeed overcome the power of Death
and was raised with an immortal, spiritual, imperishable, incorruptible and
glorious heavenly body.
Gentry is merely repeating the shallow popular view when he says, “Yet we know
that His was a physical, tangible resurrection.” If Gentry is correct, Jesus’
resurrection body was nothing better than what Lazarus got when he was
physically resuscitated. Murray Harris was not the first to suggest an
alternative. Most of the various theories about the nature of Christ’s
resurrection body and ours was discussed by the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and
Post-Nicene ecclesiastics. J. N. D. Kelly, Jaroslav Pelikan, Louis Berkhof,
Brian Daley, Kurt Aland and Philip Schaff all discuss the various positions
taken by church fathers. Origen, Augustine and others took some similar ideas
about the nature of our resurrection bodies. This is not something new conjured
up by Murray Harris or the Preterists.
Preterists are not removing the physical body from the Bible’s systematic
theology regarding the resurrection. It was never the ultimate kind of
resurrection body God had planned and revealed in Scripture in the first place.
Our ultimate victory over “Death” was never intended to be the abolition of
physical death. Those who say the “death” God threatened in the Garden was
physical are making Satan the truth-teller and God the liar. God said they would
“die” the very day they ate. Satan said they would not die. Who told the truth?
If God was talking about physical death, then Satan was correct and God did not
deliver on His death threat. God would not be immutable after all. But man was
separated from God’s spiritual fellowship that very day. To be outside God’s
fellowship and presence is Death. There was a worse kind of death than physical
death from which mankind more desperately needed deliverance. There is a better
kind of life and resurrection than physical resuscitation could ever give us. We
were not destined to be raised with a mere physical and mortal body. There is
something much better. We were destined to be raised immortal with a spiritual
body like Christ’s with which to live in God’s presence forever with. All of us
agree that we cannot live in God’s presence eternally with a mere physical body.
Even those who believe we are raised with a pure physical body still understand
that we have to be changed into a spiritual, glorious, immortal body before
entering God’s presence. So, the difference between Gentry’s view and mine is
not about what kind of ultimate body we will live in God’s presence with. It is
merely a question of WHEN we get that new kind of body. Gentry says we are
raised physically and then later changed into that ultimate spiritual body.
Harris and many oth