Actually, all Christians–even dispensationalists–are preteristic to some extent. This is necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic passages have already been fulfilled in Christ’s first coming.

Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Postmillennialist / Reconstructionist Modern Preterist

The last days spoken of in the New Testament were eschatological last days only for national Israel, not for the New Covenant church. The “last days” were in fact the early days of the church of Jesus Christ.

RELEVANT WORKS:

• KennethGentry.com – Official Website
• PostmillennialWorldview.com
• 1985: Bahnsen-Gentry, House Divided, The Break Up of Dispensational Theology (pdf)
• 1985: Ken Gentry, The Spiritual Nature of the Kingdom – In response to the Pharisees, Christ specifically declared that the kingdom does not come visibly and gloriously (as the dispensational construction would have it!)
• 1988-95: Dispensationalism in Transition
• 1989: Ken Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell – Dating the Book of Revelation – An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-AD70 Composition of the Book of Revelation
• 1989: Ken Gentry, The Beast of Revelation – Now it is almost universally agreed that Nero was one who was possessed of a “bestial nature.” Nero was even feared and hated by his own countrymen. A perusal of the ancient literature demonstrates that Nero “was of a cruel and unrestrained brutality.”
• 1992: Ken Gentry, Boy, O, Boyd! – When Boyd wrote the historical study, he was a dispensationalist. According to Tommy Ice, he remains an ardent (premillennialist, but not Dispensationalist) to this day.
• 1992: Ken Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (pdf)
• 1995: Ken Gentry, A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper Preterism – First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside 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.
• 1997: Ken Gentry, Book Review, Revelation: Four Views – David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance (despite some flights of fancy, use of astrology, and high liturgy) is an extremely insightful commentary.
• 1999: Ken Gentry, Apocalypse Then – the preterist view of Revelation, which reached its zenith in the period spanning the 1600s through the 1800s, is experiencing a remarkable revival in our times.
• 2000: Ken Gentry, Back to the Future – The Preterist Perspective – One of the best known and most accessible of the ancient preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the “father of church history.” In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem’s woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that “it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events”
• 2000: Ken Gentry, The “Transitional Verses” in Matthew 24 – An Answer to Full Preterism – Now, is it hermeneutically possible for identical terms or phrases to be applied to different events? As a matter of fact, it is not only possible, but quite common in human language and biblical revelation.
• 2001: Ken Gentry, As Lightning Cometh From the East – The specter of A.D. 70 haunts the New Testament record (being frequently and vigorously prophesied). Its occurrence dramatically impacts first-century history (being one of its more datable and catastrophic events).
• 2001: Ken Gentry, Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate – A cult-like enthusiasm fuels this unorthodox movement, which teaches that the total complex of end time events transpired in the first-century: the Second Advent, the resurrection, the rapture of the saints, and the great judgment.
• 2003: Ken Gentry, Christ’s Resurrection and Ours – The phrase “flesh and blood” shows the need for transformation. It highlights the weakened, sinful estate, not the material condition.
• 2003: Ken Gentry, The Book of Revelation and Eschatology
• 2010: Ken Gentry, Zechariah 14 and Prophetic Symbolism – Calvin goes on to state that Zechariah is “employing a highly figurative language” by which he “accommodates himself, as I have said, to the capacity of our flesh.”
• 2011: Ken Gentry, Anti-Semitism and Dispensationalism – But even while encouraging Jews to return to Israel, dispensationalists teach that “Zechariah predicts that two-thirds of the Jewish people in the land will perish during the Tribulation period.”
• 2011: Ken Gentry, Witnessing to Dispensationalists – (1) When approaching a dispensationalist, never — never! — walk up from behind.
• 2012: Ken Gentry, Not One Stone Upon Another? – Now what is this challenge that some raise against the AD 70 fulfillment of the first portion of the Olivet Discourse?
• 2014: Ken Gentry, AD70 and the Second Advent in Matthew 24 – Jesus is shifting his attention from the destruction of the temple in AD 70 to his second coming at the end of history. In this and the next few articles I will present more than a dozen arguments for the transition in Matthew 24.
• 2016: Rapture Ready, Kenneth Gentry and his preterist errors – The entire preterist argument goes up in smoke since they have reversed the interpretative process by declaring first that “this generation” has to refer to Christ’s contemporaries, thus all these things had to be fulfilled in the first century.
• 2018: Jason Bradfield, Irrefutable Refutation of Hyper Preterism – Some
• 2017: Ken Gentry, O Templo Judaico: local de Adoraçãoao Imperador (pdf)
• 2018: Ken Gentry, I am NOT a Preterist! – “This is due to the arising of unorthodox preterism”
• 2018: Ken Gentry, Hyper-Preterist Confusions – A part of the lure of Hyper-preterism is its proud, pompous, pulpit-pounding pummeling of orthodox believers who “foolishly” hold to historic Christian theology. Unfortunately, they too often misunderstand and therefore misrepresent the facts.

FULL PRETERIST RESPONSE:

• 1999: Dan Harden, Split Decision – Olivet Stands United
• 2000: Walt Hibbard, A Response to Ken Gentry’s “A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism”
• 2004: David Green, The Arbitrary Principle of Hyper-Creedalism

Olivet Discourse Transition Text at Matthew 24:36
Book of Revelation Fulfilled to chapter 19

(Where Gentry Stood on The Olivet Discourse 9/98)
“I do not believe that I am THEOLOGICALLY committed to requiring that both judgments (A.D. 70 and Second Advent) appear in Matthew’s Olivet Discourse. My evangelical creedal commitments require a Second Advent, to be sure, but not necessarily a Second Advent in Matthew 24-25. Indeed, these chapters could theoretically speak ONLY of A.D. 70 (even though I believe such would be quite awkward). I do not have any unyielding theological commitments against applying the entire Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 to A.D. 70. If these chapters apply only to A.D. 70, so be it!” (The Great Tribulation in Progressive Dispensationalism (Part 3) – Dispensationalism in Transition, September, 1998)

(Where Gentry Stood on The Olivet Discourse 2/99)
“But again — as I argue in an earlier newsletter (Oct., 1998) — WHERE is the temporal marker serving as the springboard from the first century into the distant future? I have no problem with A.D. 70 texts coming into close association with Second Advent texts: they are theologically related (see Matt. 24:3-35 with Matt. 24:36ff in my September, 1998 issue). I do, however, have a problem with the mere ASSERTION without proper exegetical notation — and especially since such goes AGAINST positive contrary evidence.” (An Introductory Disclaimer, Orlando Conference)

(On the Fulfillment of John’s Revelation)
“I believe that the judgment chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6- 19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67- 70).” (Quoted by Tim LaHaye)

(On the Second Advent)
“The cloud-coming of Christ in judgment is reminiscent of Old Testament cloud-comings of God in judgment upon ancient historical people and nations.” [He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1992) 388-389]

“The final collapse of Jerusalem and the Temple.. Through these events the Jews were to “see” the Son of Man in His judgment-coming in terrifying cloud-glory: clouds are symbols of divine majesty often entailing stormy destruction.   The members of the Sanhedrin and others would experience such in their life times (Matt. 26:64; Mark 9:1; cf. Rev 1:7 with Rev 1:1,3).” (ibid. 348)

“The nature of the event has to do with a ‘Cloud-Coming’ of Christ. It is necessary here to understand the Old Testament backdrop for a proper comprehension of the matter. The Old Testament frequently uses clouds as indicators of divine judgment.” (Before Jerusalem Fell; Bethesda, MD: Christian University Press, 1997; p. 121)

• (The following are quoted in Olivet Stands United)

“I certainly agree that A.D. 70 is a pointer to the Second Advent. And I agree that the two events can be drawn into the same eschatological contexts.” (August, 1998)

“Bock and I agree that Matthew brings together the A.D. 70 catastrophe AND the Second Advent.” (September, 1999)

“The Lord brings the Second Advent and A.D. 70 together in his discourse, even though they are two distinct events. They are thematically RELATED even though they are not historically IDENTICAL.” (September, 1999)

“Contextual evidence suggests that Christ is distinguishing two different comings. One coming is his judgment upon Jerusalem to end the old covenant era (24:4-35; cp. Heb. 8:13; 10:24-25; 12:18ff). The other is his coming at the Second Advent in final judgment to end history (24:36ff). These two ‘comings’ are theologically related (one is a microcosmic expression of the other) while historically distinct.” (September, 1999)

(On Matthew 16:28)
“we should note that on another occasion Christ specifically promised His hearers “there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). Some of those very persons standing before him would not die before the event! Which one of them is still alive today?” (House Divided, 180)

“In Mark 9:1 Jesus promises that some of his hearers would not “taste of death” before witnessing the “coming of the kingdom with power.” This almost certainly refers to the destruction of the temple at the behest of Christ…” (Before Jerusalem Fell, p. lii)

(On Matthew 24:27)
“Jesus warns His followers that He will not appear bodily in the first-century judgment (vv. 23-26).  Nevertheless, He will “come” in judgment like a destructive lightening bolt against Jerusalem (v.27).  This coming, however, is a providential judgment coming, a Christ-directed judgment, rather than a miraculous, visible, bodily coming.

Nor is the coming as lightening in Matthew 24:27 a publicly visible, physical coming.  Rather, it is a judgment coming against those who call down Jesus’ blood upon them and their children (v.25).  The Lord here speaks about His judgment coming against Jerusalem (see 23:37-24:2) as analogous to “the lightening [that] comes from the east, and flashes even to the west.”  As I begin to interpret the passage, remember that the local context demands this coming occur in “this generation” (24:34), having reference to the destruction of the temple.” (The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, MI: Kregel, 1999,  p. 53-54)

The direction of this judgment coming of Christ in Matthew 24:27 apparently reflects the Roman armies marching toward Jerusalem from an easterly direction.  Josephus’ record of the march of the Roman armies through Israel shows they wreak havoc on Jerusalem by approaching it from the east.” (The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?, MI: Kregel, 1999,  p. 53-54; cf. Josephus’ Wars 4:8:1; 4:9:1)

(On Matthew 24:34)
“We must not miss the clear references to the contemporary expectation. Enclosing the relevant portion of the discourse, we have Christ’s own time-element designation. In 23:36, he dogmatically asserts ‘all these things shall come upon this generation.’ He closes the relevant portion of the prophecy by repetition of the time frame: Matthew 24:34 says, ‘Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.’ And just forty years later Jerusalem was destroyed! Contextually the ‘this generation’ of Matthew 24:34 must speak of the same idea as that of Matthew 23:36” (He Shall Have Dominion, p. 162).

(On Luke 21)
“…Luke’s account in Luke 21, which definitely speaks of the A.D. 70 destruction of the physical temple to which the disciples actually pointed. (Beast of Revelation, p. 128)

(On II Thessalonians 2:1,2)
“Verses 1-2. Paul’s reference ‘concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him’ (2 Thessalonians 2:1) is the crux interpretum of this passage. Paul is here speaking of the A.D. 70 judgment on the Jews – the very judgment given emphasis in the first portion of the Olivet Discourse, the Book of Revelation, and several other passages of Scripture.” (He shall have Dominion, p.386)

(On Hebrews 9:26)
“Notice the key phrase: ‘in the end of the world.’ In the original Greek, it reads: ‘completion of the ages.’ This phrase must be taken literally, but its literal frame of reference was the fall of Jerusalem and the annulment of the temple’s sacrificial system. The author was therefore prophesying the imminent end of national Israel as God’s covenant people.”  (The Beast of Revelation, p.xiv)

(On Hebrews 12:25-29)
“The Jerusalem holocaust was coming in that generation… I Thessalonians 2:16 speaks of Jews who ‘always fill up the measure of their sins’ and upon whom ‘the wrath has come…to the utmost.’ Hebrews 12:18-29 contrasts Judaism and its fulfillment, Christianity, and notes that there is an approaching ‘shaking’ of the old order coming.” (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.235)

(On Revelation 1:19; Mello)
“…this term means ‘be on the point of, be about to.’…According to Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, Revelation 1:19 reads: ‘Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come [mello] after these things.” The leading interlinear versions of the New Testament concur. This is surely the proper translation of the verse.” (The Beast of Revelation pp.23-24)

(On Revelation 11:1)
“If John wrote about literal Jerusalem (“where also their Lord was crucified” ) twenty-five years after the destruction of the literal Temple (as per the evangelically formulated late date argument), it would seem most improbable that he would speak of the Temple as if it were still standing. The symbol would be confusing in its blatant anachronism. The Temple is required to be standing for the symbolical action of the vision to have any meaning. John uses the future tense when he speaks of the nations’ treading down the city. As just stated, this is not a reminiscence of a past event, but rather a future expectation.” (p.175)

(On Revelation 17:10)
“It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D. 68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) “has not yet come.” In addition to all the foregoing, it would seem unreasonable to exclude Julius from the list in light of the circumstances and subject matter of the book.” (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.151)

(On Revelation 22:10)
“…Thayer expands on the idea of the word ‘…concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass.’ He lists Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 in his series of examples. The word is used frequently of chronologically near events, such as approaching summer (Matt. 24:32), the Passover (Matt. 26:18; John 2:13; 11:55), the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), etc. How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered “at hand”…? …Several generations of these Christians would have waxed and waned over such a period. Even more difficult to understand is how events two or three thousand years in the future could be considered “at hand” …How could such events so remotely stretched out into the future be “at hand”? But if the expected events were to occur within a period of from one to five years… then all becomes clear.”   (Before Jerusalem Fell, pp. 140-141)

(On Preterist History)
“The term ‘preterism’ is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’ Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which holds that they have already come to fulfillment. Actually, all Christians–even dispensationalists–are preteristic to some extent. This is necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic passages have already been fulfilled in Christ’s first coming.” (He Shall Have Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997], 162–163).

(On the Significance of A.D.70)
“…in Acts 2:16ff. the Pentecostal tongues event in Jerusalem was pointed to as a harbinger of ‘the day of the Lord’ that was coming. Tongues-speaking was a warning sign to Peter’s hearers of the necessity of their being ‘saved from this perverse generation’ (Acts 2:40) before the ‘great and glorious day of the Lord’ (Acts 2:20).” (Before Jerusalem Fell, p.234)

(On the Dating of Revelation)
“My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external.  In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D.64 and before the declaration of the Jewish war in early A.D.67.  A date in either A.D.65 or early A.D.66 would seem most suitable.” [Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), 336.]

“John emphasizes his anticipation of the soon occurrences of his prophecy by strategic placement of these time references.  He places his boldest time statements in both the introduction and conclusion to Revelation.  It is remarkable that so many recent commentators have missed it literally coming and going!  The statement of expectancy is found three times in the first chapter – twice in the first three verses: Revelation 1:1,3,19.  The same idea is found four times in his concluding remarks:  Revelation 22:6,7,12,20.  It is as if John carefully bracketed the entire work to avoid any confusion.”  (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 21-22).

“Think of it: If these words in these verses do not indicate that John expected the events to occur soon, what words could John have used to express such?  How could he have said it more plainly?” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 24).

(On the ‘Last Days‘)
“In A.D.70 the ‘last days’ ended with the dissolution of the temple and the sacrificial system.” (ibid., p. 38)

“The last days spoken of in the New Testament were eschatological last days only for national Israel, not for the New Covenant church. The “last days” were in fact the early days of the church of Jesus Christ.” (Beast of Revelation, xiv)

(On the 144,000)
“In Revelation 7:1-8 we find an interesting temporary divine protection of ‘the land’ where four angels are seen holding back the winds of destruction… Then follows the sealing of the 144,000 from the Twelve Tribes of Israel… Clearly the reference to the Twelve Tribes is to Christians… of Jewish extraction… they are contrasted with the “great multitude” from “every nation” who praise God (v.9). …While speaking in the Olivet Discourse of the destruction of the very Temple to which the disciples could physically point… He also clearly taught that all of these things would happen to “this generation” (Matt. 24:32). Indeed, this coming event was to be “the great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21) – the very tribulation of which John writes (Rev. 7:14).” (Before Jerusalem Fell, pp.232-234)

(On Full Preterism – Called “Hyper-Preterism” by Gentry)
“…goes too far by extending valid observations gathered from temporally confined judgment passages (texts including such delimitations as ‘soon’ and ‘at hand’) to passages that are not temporally constrained and that actually prophesy the future advent of Christ.” (Tabletalk magazine, January 1999, p.56)

“Before I begin my analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite) circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though, like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith.” (An Introductory Disclaimer)

“Unfortunately, a new gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history. As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the resurrection of Christ. Before I demonstrate this, I must briefly summarize the argument for Christ’s physical resurrection, which is the effective cause of our own future resurrection. ” (Christ’s Resurrection and ours)

(On John Lightfoot)
“In fact, one of the finest intellects of the Westminster Assembly was a strong preterist: John Lightfoot (1601-1675). In his Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1674; rep. 1989) Lightfoot offered a fine preterist exposition of Matthew 24 (2:308-321), with allusions to 2 Thessalonians 2. Of the Thessalonian passage he argued that the “restrainer” therein “is to be understood of the emperor Claudius enraged at and curbing in the Jews” (2:312).

Lightfoot even adopted the view that Revelation 1:7 speaks of “Christ’s taking vengeance on that exceeding wicked nation” of Israel (2:319 and 422). There he interpreted Christ’s coming as a providential judgment upon “those who pierced him” (the Jews) from among “all the tribes of the land literally” (Israel). This committed Lightfoot so strongly to preterism that he suggested Revelation’s overall theme is Israel’s judgment: “I may further add, that perhaps this observation might not a little help (if my eyes fail me not) in discovering the method of the author of the Book of the Revelation” (3:210). This led him to conclude that the “judiciary scene set up in Rev. 4 and 5, and those thrones Rev. 20:1” speak of “the throne of glory” and “is to be understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous, rebellious, wicked, Jewish people. We meet with very frequent mention of the coming of Christ in his glory in this sense” (2:266).” (Back to the Future)

“Introduction” to the 1990 reprint of David Brown Book:
“Christ’s Second Coming, Will It Be Premillennial?”

“It is with great pleasure that I avail myself of the opportunity to write a forward to ….David Brown’s “Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?”…this work is widely regarded as ‘a classic’….

“Lest it be misunderstood by my endorsement of Brown, I would like to point out on major area of disagreement. This has very little to do  with the millennial question, ironic as it may first appear. Brown’s approach to Revelation is along the lines of historicism. That is, he sees the prophecies of Revelation as stretching out over the long ages of history. This, of course, helps explain his latter day view of the millennium mentioned above (in that Revelation 20 occurs after Revelation 6-19). My interpretive approach to Revelation, as is evident in each of my three most recent works is that of Preterism. That is, I believe that the judgment chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6- 19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67- 70).

“Nevertheless, the differences between Brown’s historicist approach to Revelation and my preteristic approach has absolutely no bearing on the postmillennial question. Either approach to Revelation could be rejected and postmillennialism would still remain. Postmillennialism is not dependent upon the book on Revelation, whereas premillennialism and dispensationalism very much are….

“Clearly Brown’s historicism allows a postmillennial dominion for Christ in earth’s history before His Second Advent. So does my preteristic view. Despite the confusion in the minds of some, the issues just mentioned are in two wholly different arenas of debate. The postmillennial question involves a locus of theology: eschatology; the preteristic verses the historicist approach to Revelation involves an interpretive methodology — to one particular book of the Bible. In other words, I would have desired more access to preterism by Brown that he offers (he does approach a number of prophetic passages as preteristically relevant to the destruction of Jerusalem).”

Ann Rice (2005)
“When Jewish and Christian scholars begin to take this war seriously, when they begin to really study what happened during the terrible years of the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple.. when they focus upon the persecution of the Christians in Palestine by the Jews; upon the civil war in Rome in the 60s which Kenneth L. Gentry so well describes in his work Before Jerusalem Fell; as well as the persecutions of the Jews in the Diasporia during this period — in sum, when all of this dark era is brought into the light of examination — Bible studies will change.”  (Anne Rice, Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt, p. 316)

ON BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL

“An academic work clearly argued, with full documentation and detailed footnotes on the subject” (Banner of Truth). “Thorough and outstanding” (George W. Knight). “Impressive job of collecting evidence…. Well researched and cogently presented” (Criswell Theological Review). “A strong case for the early external evidence” (J.P.M. Sweet, Journal of Theological Studies). “Comprehensive survey of the issues, sources and modern writers” (E. Earle Ellis).

Date:  29 Aug 2003
Time: 11:44:17

All preterists make the same highly unspiritual error. They know SOMETHING “passed away” in the first century (Rev. 21:1) and after gazing carefully with their mere natural eyes they conclude that SOMETHING must have been Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Although the Bible begins by talking about the heaven and the earth in connection with the creation of the world, preterists’ natural vision assures them that the world didn’t pass away in the first century. And it’s impossible to convince them that in God’s eyes – in his spiritual eyes – the old, natural world DID pass away 1,900 years ago, when the new, spiritual and eternal world of Rev. 21 and 22 appeared. Impossible to convince them because they can still SEE the old, natural world and they CAN’T SEE the new, spiritual world. Their view of the New Testament is based entirely on natural, rather than spiritual, observations. So it’s not surprising that after 2 Peter 3:5,6 clearly refers to the world, they blithely assure us that the very next verse refers to Israel. As in the case of the dispensationalists, “it is so because it is so.”

Date: 29 Feb 2004
Time: 08:58:37

“Behold he cometh with clouds”, I like to think that these clouds are the witnesses that have come with Christ. “He cometh with His saints”. These clouds are the witness that have come to witness against Jerusalem. When Jesus returned in power and great glory, He would not come alone to condemn, but rather come with a numerous host of His saints this proves how wonderful His judgements are, that is, He like our judicial system needs more than just one witness to pass judgement. “Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

Date: 16 May 2004
Time: 06:22:31

Who do you believe the ‘two witnesses’ were in Revelation? Charles cgillihan@bellsouth.net

Date: 12 Nov 2004
Time: 09:51:21

Could you tell me where I can get information regarding your writing course? Ina Painter at hipainter@charter.net

Date: 26 Jan 2005
Time: 12:08:56

There is a great amount of confusion about the New Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 Any recommentions about Modern Writings and /or Ancient Writings about these two ???

Date: 30 Jan 2006
Time: 16:58:10

Why doesn’t anyone notice that the list of tribes given in Revelation is NOT A NORMAL LISTING OF THE TWELVE TRIBES?!

The twelve tribes listed here has added tribes that aren’t, and removed tribes that are.

There is a great significance to this, if you understand what each name means. This is a listing of The Church. The 144,000 is the CHURCH.

JAMES PAUL
Pittsburgh, PA

Date: 18 Feb 2006
Time: 19:00:53

I just tell others to put any passage in the Bible below Luke 21:22 and harmonize this verse with it. This one is different than ALL things written about the SON OF MAN being fulfilled. This is actually the second part of Isaiah 61 being fulfilled.

Isaiah 61:2  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God;

Luke 21:22 “For these are the days of vengeance, that  ALL things which are Written may be fulfilled.

Date: 06 Oct 2006
Time: 06:25:13

Question on Replacement Theology: What is the meaning of 1Peter 2:9? Many thanks for your help.
sylvain.nicol777@wanadoo.fr

Date: 18 Nov 2006
Time: 16:05:46

my question is that in matthew 24 and 25 I do understand the genre of the chapters but I am having problems with reconciling the angels in the 24 with the angels in 25 and in mark 13. in other words I see an inconsistancy with saying that 24 has angels i.e. diciples of christ sent out with the angels in heaven not knowning the time and the angels in 25 coming with christ in glory as not being one and the same so my question is what justification can be given to applying one scense in 24:31 and a diferrence sense in mark 13 and matthew 25:31

Date: 30 Oct 2007
Time: 19:45:11

I just ordered DeMars book LAST DAYS MADNESS, nad am excited to read it. I am new to the reformed world having come from a dispensational backround. I realized that, among other things, dispenationalism is a convaluted system that people try to force onto the Holy Scriptures. The church is Israel.

Date: 28 Jan 2010
Time: 23:42:49

After reading Gary Demar’s “End Time Fiction”, there is no doubt in my mind and heart that the Partial Preterist view is the proper interpretation of the Scriptures. Well, not to be dogmatic, but rather seems to be the clearest view that I have ever heard in reference to eschatology.

Date: 23 Feb 2010
Time: 13:35:35

If indeed the Judgment in REV is speaking of the judgment upon Jerusalem as I think it is, where in scripture is the clear notion of a final judgment? Acts 17?

Date: 25 Jun 2010
Time: 19:02:39

Romans 10:9 “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” Psalms 22. Psalms 16:10.

Such passages prove that essential Biblical doctrines about Christ’s resurrection both predate the fall of Jerusalem and out-live it! Christians living many centuries after the fall (70 AD) can attest to the power of God. AD 70 can never be referred to as an essential article of our Faith. In so far as our resurrection is said to be linked only to the fall and rebirth of Jerusalem in 70 AD, it reduces the gentiles (future believers) to a plight they have no culpability in. In other words it forces them into the Jewish predicament (judgement) which even the hyper preterits agree was unique only to the the Jews of Christ’s day. Paul’s Gospel would mean nothing to the gentile nations if resurrection was limited to physical Israel and the 70 AD paradigm. The new Israel, in other words, depends of Christ’s resurrection alone without any strings attached, as in double jeopardy or accepting guilt for things we have no culpability in.” We answer only to the law which is the strength of sin 1 Cor 15:56.

Date: 24 Oct 2011
Time: 10:15:12

As saints, commanded to ” search the scriptures to see whether these things are so,” I’d have to say that pastor Gentry’s book is probably one of the most devastating critiques of the late day ( post 95) writing of the book of Revelation available. The proof of this is in the internal and external evidence that he ( most painstakingly) has provided. Also there is no work ( that I know of) out there to refute this incredible dissertation.If you are not afraid to have your eschatology tested,read it.