[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[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.