gentry eschatology preterism AD 70

As Preterists, we are charged with making AD 70 our hermeneutic and thus have a small interpretive grid. When an interpreter can take one verse and span the entire scope of eschatology, that, in my opinion, is a pretty solid interpretation. Yet it becomes the point of attack in Gentry's interview on true Preterism. Apparently, Luke chapter 21, verses 20 through 22, is as disturbing to some partial Preterists as it is to Dispensationalists. They have a great need to explain it away as a full Preterism text. Kenneth Gentry attempts to do this in his interview on hyperpreterism posted on youtube.com. The verse in context reads, But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Luke chapter 21, verses 20 through 22. Unable to loose what God bound together, Gentry does not attempt to take the verse out of its contextual relationship to the fall of the Temple in AD 70. He responds with a very poorly crafted argument that further weakens his own position against Dispensationalists. Now note all things written. The best Gentry offers on the text is the following. He wants us to answer, When did Christ say this? To which he replies, Sometime around the year AD 30. Then he adds, When were the New Testament books written? Again he answers AD 95. He then assumes without contextual warrant that Jesus is talking about New Testament prophecies which had not yet been written and thereby erroneously concludes that Gentry makes some novice interpretive errors here for a man of his exegetical capabilities. He assumes two things. First, he assumes that Jesus is speaking of prophecies which had not been written. This is a fatal flaw in his logic. The prophecies which Jesus referred to all had been written. They were not New Testament prophecies, but Old Testament prophecy. The had been written is past perfect tense in English and is the perfect tense in Greek. It means something completed at a definite time in the past with existing results of that completed action continuing on into the present. Therefore, Jesus does not have in mind any new New Testament prophecies, but the already old Old Testament prophecy. Did Peter, Paul, and John preach a different message than the Old Testament prophets? The second assumption Gentry makes is that there are New Testament prophecies which are different from the prophecies found in the Old Testament. Again, he is in error. He nor anyone else in the partial preterist camp can find a single jot or tittle of New Testament prophecy which is not already contained in the Old Testament. Need we remind, Mr. Gentry, that Paul's gospel comes straight out of the Old Testament and that, as his manner was, he reasoned with Jews in their synagogues from their own scriptures, proving that Jesus was the Christ? Now, let's consider the testimony of Paul. But let's allow passages from Paul and the New Testament to testify in this case. Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come, that the Christ would suffer, that he would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. Acts 26, verses 22-23. Now here is the Apostle Paul saying that he taught no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come. His statement is so comprehensive that it takes in the cross, worldwide evangelism, and the parrhesia. The prophetic statement of proclaiming light to the Jewish people and the Gentiles is a quote from Isaiah 60, verses 1-3. In that context, it is the resurrection of the dead in view. May I remind you that it is Paul who pronounces anathema upon any man or angel who preaches a different gospel than that he and the other apostles preached. Galatians 1, verses 6-9. Now we have his word that he taught nothing other than what was found in Moses and the prophets. Peter likewise affirmed that his gospel was the message of the law and the prophets. Speaking of Christ in heaven, he says, Whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world or age began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things whatever he says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people. Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow after, as many as have spoken, have also foretold of these days. Acts 3, verses 21-24. Here then is Peter's testimony that agrees with Paul. Beginning at Moses and continuing with Samuel and all the prophets who followed him formed the scope of their apostolic ministry. In his letter to the pilgrims of the dispersion, Peter affirms the salvation taught in the prophets was about to come to his readers. 1 Peter 1, verses 10-11. John, in Revelation, another of those who made up the pillars in the church, taught that the gospel, that is, the mystery of God, would be fulfilled as he has declared to his servants the prophets. Gentry's work on Before Jerusalem Fell would limit this fulfillment to A.D. 70. Thus he must debate himself in his attempt to refute a full preterist on the meaning of all things written in Luke 21, verse 22. We do not just make the claim. In fact, we have Gentry's own written testimony that all does mean all when he is debating a dispensationalist. Now, he retracts his reasoning on the same subject, that is, the fall of Jerusalem, when speaking against full preterists. I believe you will see his inconsistencies. Here is a quote from The Great Tribulation, page 65, in his debate with dispensationalist Thomas Ice. Then, to wrap it all up, he argues in his conclusion that, A simple reading of Matthew 24, 34, lucidly reveals that all, and he emphasizes the word all, of the things Christ, the great prophet, mentions up to this point, that is, everything, in verses 4 through 34, will occur in the same generation of the original disciples. Again, that's emphasized by Gentry. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled. His emphasis, The Great Tribulation, page 65. Now, what does Gentry use to solidify his argumentation on the word all, to include all things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse up to that point? He makes an argument on the temporal indicator, this generation as follows. Here, this generation is identical to this generation of Matthew 23, 36. In chapter 23, the Lord rebukes the scribes and Pharisees of his own day, verses 13 through 16, 23, 25, 27, and 29. Then assures them, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Verse 36. These woes upon the scribes and Pharisees may not be catapulted two thousand years or more into the future without violence to the text. Again, his emphasis, The Great Tribulation, page 65. Now, if partial preterists can make the argument that this generation governs all in the context in Matthew 24, and this is a very sound argument, then why is not the same argument equally sound when a full preterist argues the same in Luke 21, verse 22? Christ assures his disciples in Luke 21, 32, that all the things spoken up to that point would happen in the same generation of the original disciples, to use Gentry's own wording. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Therefore, this generation is the time when all things written in the Old Covenant are fulfilled. We have demonstrated that Peter, Paul, and John, and thus all the apostles only taught the things written in the Old Testament. There is no such thing as new New Testament prophecy. Gentry, therefore, must refute himself, renounce another major argument he made against dispensationalists in an attempt to avoid full preterism. His logic is inconsistent, faulty, and a hyper-desperate attempt, or blindness to see the obvious.