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

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 reconstructionist, 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 reconstructionist communities can consistently claim to be both postmil or reconstructionist 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 reconstructionist (theonomic postmillennialist) on exegetical grounds (although his heart might wish for the reconstructionist worldview).

In regard to Gentry’s charge that full preterists cannot consistently be theonomic or reconstructionist, 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 “reconstructionist,” and who were in on the foundation of the reconstructionist 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 imminency 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.