Kenneth Gentry: Confused, Confusing and Desperate-

#3
donkpreston.com/kenneth-gentry-confused-confusing-and-desperate-3/

Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused in Matthew 24:3

Kenneth Gentry: Confused, Confusing and Desperate – #3

This is installment #3 of my response to four articles by Kenneth Gentry, posted on his

blog, in which he attacks my new book, Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles
Confused? Be sure to read those first two articles #1 #2.

The thing to notice is that Gentry’s response / review of my book is the very epitome of
an ad hominem attack. He offers no exegesis. He simply engages in acerbic, caustic, and
insulting verbiage that has no evidentiary or probitive value. None.

Gentry continues:

He even goes further! He complains that “the modern commentators . . . forcibly

impose the concept of ignorance or confusion onto the apostles” (p. 103).
So the commentators “forcibly impose” their views on the apostles? That is a rather
absurd, bold, and vacuous charge!

This bold, proud thinking leads him to state of the commentators’ arguments on the
issue before us that the interpretation of “most commentators” is “arrogantly” ascribed
to the apostles (p. I)! “Arrogantly”? According to the Marum- (Sic) Webster dictionary
“arrogant” means “exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or
importance often by an overbearing manner.” Thus, for Preston “most commentators”
are not simply mistaken in their views, but overbearingly proud and pompous in
asserting them to be the views of the apostles! This is an absolutely incredible charge!

Later he asks: “Does it not border on theological arrogance to claim — as Gentry and
others do — that the disciples were so horribly confused when in fact they affirmed their
understanding?” (p. 92). So I and the commentators are caught up in “theological
arrogance”? This is not only incredible in itself, but is itself an arrogant charge.

In addition, in Preston’s view I am not only “ignorant” and “arrogant,” but actually a
fraud and a huckster. For he is concerned that I engage in intentional deception: “the
text proves that Gentry is either ignorant, perhaps confused himself, or perhaps even
willfully hiding important text evidence from his readers” (p. 98). So I am “willfully
hiding” information? Thus, he charges that “Gentry tries to avoid” certain issues (p. 61).

False charges based on erroneous understanding

1/15
Response:

The reader needs to remember, as I have documented, that Gentry takes a decidely and
admittedly non-historical, non-creedal view of Revelation. Does that not mean that per
Kenneth Gentry, almost the entire church, the vast majority of scholarly commentators,
the creeds, have exhibited ignorance and arrogance? Essentially, Gentry is saying that
those commentators and creeds, and the early church were all ignorant, they were
confused, and they, “forcibly impose (d) their ignorance and confusion onto the church
for almost two millennia!”

Gentry continues:

Regarding the disciples’ confused question at Matthew 24:3, Preston misconstrues my

point (which is not surprising). He claims I argue that, “the apostles were sinful men
[which] proves they did not know what they were asking about!” (p. 6). This is
incredible. I actually claimed that they suffered from a “sinful dullness” on several
occasions. I was not writing them off as “sinful men.” I never say their problem is that
they were “sinful men.” For they remain sinful men even though they are used by God to
write Scripture (e.g., Rom. 7:8–11; cf. Gal. 2:11–14). Divine inspiration does not depend
on human sinlessness, as we can see in that sinful Solomon wrote several books of
Scripture. Otherwise, we would not have any Scripture. Amazing! This is a falseood. Flat
out falsehood! (DKP– Oops!!! Notice the mis- spelling of “falseood”, i.e. falsehood.
Perhaps Gentry should have been more cautious about attacking the typos in my
book?).

Response:

Notice that Gentry simply affirms “the disciples’ confused question” in Matthew 24:3.
He asserts but does not prove. He does this repeatedly. He seems not to understand that
surprise is not the same as confusion.

Reader, Gentry did argue that the apostles misunderstood because they were “sinful
men.” He has been caught in his own words and is now denying them – or trying to
explain them away! Here is the quote from his own blog that I cited:

How can this be? How can these hand-picked “disciples” (learners)
misconstrue the three-year, daily instruction of their Master, known as
“Teacher” (Matt. 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36; 26:18)
regularly misunderstand Jesus’ instruction? The short answer, of course,
is: the problem is not in Jesus’ teaching ability, but in his Disciples’ sinful
dullness (cp. Matt. 8:17; Luke 24:25; John 14:9). (Gentry’s Blog post)

And based on those comments he then says:

And is not my understanding of their frequent dullness clearly the case?

Before Jesus died and was resurrected, the disciples did not believe he
would be resurrected (Mark 16:7–13; John 20:8–9). And this is despite the
2/15
fact that he taught it several times well in advance (Matt. 16:21; 20:17–18;
28:6a; Mark 16:10–11). This is no small error. For his death, burial, and
resurrection are the very reasons for his taking on a human body and
coming into the world in the first place (Heb. 2:9, 16–17; 10:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). I
would say this is surely an issue showing “dullness.” After all, not only did
he teach them this over his three and a half years of ministry, but his death,
burial, and resurrection were even “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor.
15:3, 4), for “it is written of Him” (Matt. 26:64) and was spoken of him by
“the prophets” (Luke 24:25–27). This is significant in that Preston
frequently and forcefully argues that they would definitely know of his
parousia and the resurrection coming in AD 70 because it was taught in the
prophets (e.g., pp. 16, 26, 28, 29, 136, 163).

And so, Gentry speaks of the apostles’ “sinful dullness,” He can deny this if he wants,
and all he wants, but his own words betray him.

And notice once again that Gentry constantly appeals to the apostles’ confusion on other
occasions and on other subjects, and he projects that confusion onto the apostles’
understanding of eschatology. That is improper.

I note that Gentry posted, 11-24-2020, on his “Postmillennial World View,” a quote
from the noted author Milton Terry, in which Terry, in his Biblical Apocalyptics, (p.
477-478) claimed that the apostles were confused in regard to Jesus’ eschatology. What
is interesting, which Gentry admits, is that Terry denied that the apostles were
confused in Matthew 24:3! So, on the one hand Terry claims that the disciples were
sometimes confused about Jesus’ teaching on eschatology, but, in regard to the critical
text of Matthew 24:3, he denies that they were confused! Thus, Gentry’s citation of
Terry clearly backfires on him.

(Gentry offers no citations or examples from Terry about the apostles’ confusion on
eschatology. And, by the way, Terry was convinced that all of the temporal statements of
the imminence of the coming of the Lord had to be applied to Acts 1:11! Does Gentry
accept that?– Milton Terry Biblical Apocalyptics: Baker Book House; (1898), 246-247).

Gentry continues:

In fact, the disciples did not simply misunderstand this supremely important issue
regarding Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection until it actually happened, John 2:21–
22; 20:8–9). (DKP- Note the lack of initial parenthesis before the scripture referent!)-
But they even, “were afraid to ask Him” about it: “He was teaching His disciples and
telling them, ‘The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill
Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.’ But they did not
understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him” (Mark 9:31–32).

3/15
Indeed, on another occasion after Jesus presents a parable, Peter asks him to explain it
to them (Matt. 15:15). Jesus responds: “Are you still dull?” (NIV, Matt. 15:16). The word
translated “dull” is asunetos, which is a word Paul applies to the “foolish heart” of
unbelievers (Rom. 1:21). And on another occasion, when Peter resists Jesus’ teaching
that he must die, the Lord even rebukes him by calling him “Satan” (Matt. 16:23). I
would say that certainly represents a serious level of “sinful dullness.”

Response:

First of all, note how Gentry doubles down on the “sinful dullness” of the apostles, even
though he claims that I misrepresented his comments in this regard. No, I did not. Just
read his comments above carefully. Gentry tries on the one hand to deny that their
“sinful dullness” had anything to do with their confusion, but then turns around and
tells us that they were confused because of their “sinful dullness.” It certainly appears
that Mr. Gentry is confused about what he actually said.

And then consider the following:

1. The apostles were not afraid to ask about the end of the age.
2. The texts that Gentry cites tell us of their confusion about other subjects, but none of
those texts say one word about the Lord’s parousia and the end of the age.
3. The Olivet Discourse has no such information about their confusion.

Gentry’s comments are nothing but deflection and obfuscation. He tries to make it
appear as if he is making a strong point by pointing out the occasions that the apostles
were confused when the reality if that in my book I make the very point that they were
confused on other occasions, and about different subjects. Gentry tries to cloud this
issue by pointing to those other different occasions and different subjects seeking to
prove that they must have been confused about eschatology, even though they denied
such.

Gentry continues:

Then Preston continues — thinking he is scoring big:

Gentry is essentially saying that he is not a man of ‘sinful dullness’ while Jesus’ own
chosen apostles, instructed by him and later inspired by the Spirit, were indeed dim
witted, ignorant and confused. (p. 6) (no period– Typo)

I absolutely say nothing of the kind — either about myself (and the many other
commentators who hold the same view as I do) or the disciples. And what in the world
does the apostles being “later inspired by the Spirit” have to do with their current
confusion? For as Preston notes, “the Spirit had not yet been poured out, as he was in
Acts 2” (p. 117).

Response:

4/15
Folks, let me be very candid here. Gentry most assuredly DID ascribe the apostles
confusion to their being sinful men, possessing “sinful dullness.” He ascribes their
confusion to their “sinful dullness” as his own words given above prove beyond
refutation. So, in Gentry’s own words, the apostles’ confusion was directly due to their
“sinful dullness.” Again, Gentry can deny that all he wants, but I have copied and pasted
it directly from his own blog. Thus, the reality here is that Gentry is claiming that he- an
acknowledged man of sinful dullness (as we all are, he says), and yet, he claims to know
more about the apostles’ comprehension of Jesus’ words than the apostles themselves.

Gentry continues:

Preston continually fails in engaging in the logical fallacy of “emotive appeal.” This
fallacy substitutes emotional appeal for facts. And the emotive appeal fallacy is
constantly engaged by Preston’s use of terms that are commonly associated with the
fallacy. Scholars note that such words as Preston uses in responding to critics betray
this fallacy. For instance, Preston presents his views as “indisputable” (p 97),
“undeniable” (pp. 91, 105), “irrefutably true” (133), and so forth.

Response:

Reader, if you want to see an “emotive appeal” fallacy just read Gentry’s comments
carefully.

And speaking of logical fallacies, Mr .Gentry’s entire article is full of them. Let me offer
a few examples:
Gentry makes strong appeal to tradition and church history– argumentum ad
antiquitatem.
He appeals to the popularity of the masses (7.5 Billion people disagree with Preston!) –
an argumentum ad populum.
He appeal to scholarship – argumentum ad verecundiam. Remember that Gentry
himself admits that this kind of argument proves nothing!
He makes the argument from passion – argumentum ad passiones.
He is guilty of what is known as Petitio Principii. This means that he “begs the question”
assuming to be right when he does not prove that he is right. He simply states as a fact
that since the apostles were surprised at Jesus’ prediction of the coming judgment, that
they must have been confused. Upon what basis does Gentry make this claim? His own
unproven claim that they were confused. Surprise does not equate to confusion! I have
surprised my wife on several occasions by sending flowers, (just recently as a matter of
fact!!), but that does not mean that she – or I– was confused about anything!

Of course, the irony here is that Gentry, when defending his own unorthodox, non-
historical, non-creedal views that stand in opposition to the long standing scholarly
consensus on Revelation, he makes the following comments:

5/15
An appeal to venerated scholarship (an argumentum ad verecundiam)
cannot settle the issue, to be sure. But the very fact that a good (and
growing) number of astute biblical scholars hold to the minority position
should at least forestall too hasty a dismissal of that position.” (Beast of
Revelation, P. 107).

So, once again, Gentry has no problem rejecting the consensus of scholarship and
history when it suits him, but he vehemently condemns true preterists for rejecting that
same consensus when the scholars stand opposed to the clear testimony of scripture.

And I would also note that, “a good (and growing) number of astute biblical scholars
hold to the minority position” of the true preterist view! Thus, perhaps, just perhaps,
Bible students “should at least forestall too hasty a dismissal of that position.”

Gentry continues:

For instance, Preston summarizes his argument on the disciples’ question in Matthew
24:3. Then he states regarding the commentators who disagree with him: “are we to
attribute such utter, abject ignorance to Jesus’ apostles? To do so stretches credulity far
beyond it limits” (p. 29). “The commentators” do not speak of the “utter, abject
ignorance” of the apostles! Nor are they guilty of stretching “credulity far beyond its
limits.” This emotional statement sounds rather “arrogant” of Preston.

Response:

The commentators may not use those precise words, but they assuredly do – as Gentry
– accuse the apostles of possessing sinful dullness, and thus, being confused, whereas
Gentry and those commentators ascribe perfect understanding to themselves! Make no
mistake about this. Gentry says that he and the scholars know more about the apostles
intellectual understanding than the apostles themselves. That is an amazing claim, and
should be viewed very carefully with great caution.

Gentry continues:

Preston even claims that commentators who believe the disciples were confused in
Matthew 24:3, believe that the disciples were “completely ignorant,” “totally ignorant”
(p. 28, ¶3, 4, 5), suffering from “abject ignorance” (p. 29 ¶3), were “so ignorant” (p. 25
¶2), “horribly confused” (p. 92, 117), “lamentably ignorant” (p. 93), “amazingly dumb”
(p. 34), “dense” (p. 81), “abysmally ignorant” (p. 119), had “thick skulls” (p. 103), were
“dim-witted” (p. 103), and “blithely ignorant” (p. 163). This is ridiculous! In fact, it is
downright childish. And only those who follow Preston blindly could avoid wincing at
such charges. Being confused on a point is not evidence of “abject ignorance” or
evidence someone is “abysmally ignorant.” Preston’s attitude (which generates such
wild charges) is why few reputable scholars dialogue with Hyper-preterists.

Response:

6/15
More “attitudinal problems” from Mr. Gentry. Evidently it is wrong, arrogant,
ridiculous and childish for Preston to challenge the views of the scholars who disagree
with him, but, it is okay for Gentry to call Preston, arrogant, childish, blind, “hyper” and
a host of other adjectives that he employs. And it is just fine for Gentry to challenge and
condemn as error, the longstanding, scholarly consensus of the historical church in
regard to Revelation. And make no mistake, Gentry stands in direct opposition to the
Westminster Confession of Faith, the “second Bible” of Gentry’s Reformed views, in
regard to the identity of the Man of Sin, in 2 Thessalonians 2. That is tantamount to
saying that the entire eschatology of the historical Reformed church, supported by
longstanding scholarly consensus, is wrong, and has been wrong for centuries!

Let me point out again the ad hominem nature of Gentry’s comments. Where is his
logical argumentation? Where is his exegesis? Where is his proof of any of his claims?

Gentry continues:

On pp. 32–33 Preston goes to Matthew 13, which highlights the “end of the age” (vv. 39,
40, 49). At the conclusion of his Kingdom Parables Discourse, Jesus explains the
parables in private to his disciples (vv. 36ff). Then he asks: “‘Have you understood all
these things?’” to which “they said to Him, ‘Yes’” (v. 51). Here Preston states: “unless the
disciples lied — per Gentry — about understanding Jesus’ discourse about the end of the
age in Matthew 13….” “Lied”?! Did I say they lied to Jesus? According to the Marum-
Webster dictionary: to “lie” is “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.”
(Sic– Mis-spelling! Typo! What is the Marum -Webster Dictionary???)

Response:

Let the reader take careful note of the following:

Jesus told the parable of the end the age.
The disciples came to Jesus and asked for him to explain it.
Jesus explained the parable.
The parable posits the end of the age at the time when Daniel 12:2 would be fulfilled.
Daniel 12:2 would be fulfilled in AD 70 – the time when Jerusalem and the Temple
would be destroyed, as Jesus predicted in Matthew 24 – and as Kenneth Gentry agrees!
The disciples said they understood Jesus’ explanation of the end of age and thus its
application to AD 70.
But, Kenneth Gentry says No, they did not understand, they just said they did!

Who are we to believe here, the apostles who, after being instructed about the meaning
and application of the parable said they understood, or Gentry, who, in order to sustain
his fundamental eschatological paradigm, simply must be able to prove that in spite of
their assertions, they only thought and said they understood. They really didn’t, cause
Gentry says he knows better than them!

7/15
How does Gentry try to “prove” that although the disciples said they understood, that in
fact they did not? Well, he reminds us that as humans we often think we understand
something when we actually don’t. Clearly there is no doubt about that! But the
question is, where is the evidence, where is the proof, that the apostles truly did not
understand what Jesus taught them about the end of the age? Where do we find the
“post facto” comments informing us that they did not actually understand, although
they said they did?

Gentry continues:

And Preston repeatedly brings up this charge of my (and others!) claiming the disciples
lied to Jesus (pp. 29, 32, 79, 80, 81, 83, 91, 139). I absolutely did not make such a
ridiculous charge. [3] Besides, Preston himself recognizes the disciples were often
confused. For instance, he states: “Make no mistake. The disciples were often confused
about Jesus’ teaching” (pp. 86; Emp. his; cp. p. 87). Preston even notes that on one
occasion “his own disciples were … shocked at such an abhorrent idea as eating Jesus’
flesh and drinking his blood” (p. 88). That certainly involved confusion. Consequently,
by thinking that they had understood Jesus, the disciples could well have been confused
about what they thought they knew. But it is absurd to claim they were lying to him.

Response:

Let the reader note that Gentry is attempting an “end run.” He says, “Preston himself
recognizes the disciples were often confused. For instance, he states: “Make no mistake.
The disciples were often confused about Jesus’ teaching” (pp. 86; Emp. his; cp. p. 87).”

What Gentry ever so conveniently fails to share with his readers is that I stated that the
disciples were indeed very often confused, BUT, that the only way we know that is true
is BECAUSE THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SAYS THEY WERE CONFUSED! Why did
Gentry fail (refuse) to tell his readers the full story of what I said?

Here is the reality: The apostles were often confused, and scripture tells us of that, but,
we have NOT ONE example of the Bible stating, suggesting, hinting, implying or
inferring that the apostles were confused about Jesus’ teaching on the end of the age!
Gentry conveniently ignores this fact which I stated repeatedly and documented
thoroughly. And so, when Gentry gives examples of the apostles being confused about
other subjects, keep in mind that he does not give a single example of the apostles
being confused about the end of the age! NOT ONE! And that is because he can’t.

Gentry continues:

Did Preston lie from the pulpit through the early years of his ministry when he was a
futurist? In his We Shall Meet Him in The Air (p. 81) he writes: “I personally taught for
years, that the time of the resurrection is associated with the end of time, the
destruction of material creation.” Or does he now view his earlier view as mistaken, as
misunderstanding what he thought he understood well enough? I suspect the latter.
Later in We Shall Meet Him in The Air (p. 144) he writes: “My personal journey has
8/15
caused me to jettison many of the theological beliefs handed to me by my forefathers.”
Using what he calls “logic,” we could say that when he taught these views in the past, he
was lying.

Later in Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?, Preston returns to this incredible charge of
lying, applying it to other “desperate [i.e., non-Hyper-preterist] commentators.” There
he writes: “do you realize how desperate commentators such as Kenneth Gentry (and
others of course) have to be to deny that the apostles did understand, in spite of their
affirmation? They said they understood, but Gentry says they really didn’t — they must
have lied” (p. 80). I never said “they must have lied”! I never even implied it. And I do
not believe it. They were not lying; they simply did not understand as much as they
thought they did.

On p. 83 he once again writes: “consider how desperate a measure it is to actually accuse

Jesus’ apostles of lying to him, after he had told them he was giving the parables so that
they would understand.”

And I know of no reputable commentator who even suggests the disciples were lying!
For instance, Grant Osborne’s commentary on Matthew 13:51 states: “This does not
mean they understood fully; in fact, in 15:16 they are reproved for being so dull. But they
are beginning to perceive the reality of what Jesus has been teaching them” (Osborne,
Matthew [ZECNT], 543). Leon Morris agrees: “This may perhaps be a trifle glib, for
there is evidence in the remainder of the Gospel that their understanding was somewhat
imperfect” (Morris, Matthew [PNTC], 256).

This is a quite common human failure. Have you, my reader, ever confidently held to a
particular understanding of a Scripture passage and taught it to others, only to
eventually realize your understanding was mistaken? Did you go around to those whom
you taught and confess to them that when you said you understood that passage you
were lying? Preston is making a ridiculous charge.

Response:

Again, Gentry is conveniently ignoring the indisputable fact that Jesus explained the
parable to them, and applied Daniel 12 – which Gentry applies to AD 70.

He is ignoring the fact that:

In all occasions of misunderstanding / confusion / retrospective recognition of

confusion, etc., the Biblical text emphatic tells us of that confusion and how they now
understood. Every time, without fail.

We never read how the apostles confessed- ever- their confusion about the end of the
age. No. We have just the opposite, their affirmation that they were NOT CONFUSED.

9/15
Where is that correction of the apostles’ confusion in the Olivet Discourse? It is not
there. It is not hinted at. It is not inferred. It is not implied. There is not a syllable of
correction of any misunderstanding on the part of the apostles. Gentry does not give it,
does not even try– simply re-asserting– with not a keystroke of proof, that in Matthew
24 we find their confused questions! Petitio principii in full bloom!

Thus, Gentry’s illustration of my early years when I taught futurism, and his question of
whether I was “lying” is totally off-base. Guess what? I did not have Jesus personally
explaining the “end of the age” to me! I was operating on the “faith of my fathers” (read
that “the traditions I had received”) and not my own careful Biblical research. When I
discovered that my church tradition was wrong, I rejected it as false. I would have been
lying had I continued to preach as truth what I had discovered was false, however!

What Gentry is doing is making an unfounded, unproven and unprovable assertion and
assumption. Here is what Gentry is arguing– as I set forth in my book.

Jesus’ apostles were very often confused about Jesus’ teaching. This is true of course, as
I document extensively in my book.

Because the apostles were often confused – about other issues and subjects– this
supposedly proves that they did not understand the issue of the end of the age. This in
spite of the fact that although they said they were not confused, and although they
stated emphatically, unambiguously and explicitly that they DID understand, they were
nonetheless confused, they were still ignorant, they just thought (wrongly) that they
understood – all because of their “sinful dullness.” Gentry is guilty of an illegitimate
transfer and illegitimate projection of other contexts, and other subjects onto the text of
Matthew 24.

Gentry continues:

And the disciples struggled with fully understanding Jesus on several occasions. Often
they only gradually came to a fuller realization of what he was teaching. For instance, in
Matthew 15:10–11 we read: “After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, ‘Hear
and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what
proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.’” He was explaining to the crowds and
his disciples what his parable meant. But just a little while later we read this interchange
between Peter and Jesus about that which he had just explained: “Peter said to Him,
‘Explain the parable to us.’ Jesus said, ‘Are you still lacking in understanding also?’”

The disciples’ gradual understanding of what Jesus is teaching occurs often. Notice also
John 12:16: “These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus
was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that
they had done these things to Him.”

And notice Matthew 16:6, then compare it with vv. 7–12. Or Luke 18:31–33, compared
to v. 34. This is why Jesus can say on one instructional occasion without rebuking them:
“What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter” (John 13:7).
10/15
Response:

Remember folks, I am the one that makes the point about the apostles’ confusion on
other occasions, on other subjects in my book. Gentry is not “proving” anything
different from what I said repeatedly in that work. The fact that the apostles were
confused about other subjects, on other occasions is NOT the question and Gentry
knows it. The question, that I pose repeatedly in my book, Were the Apostles Confused?
is, where is the evidence, from the text – any text– to prove that in spite of their
asservation of understanding in Matthew 13, that in reality, they did not understand?
Let the reader take careful note that Gentry does not give us a word of proof. Not one
text, not one argument.

We have not one retrospective comment from any Biblical writer that says, “after Jesus’
ascension the apostles understood his teaching on the end of the age.”

We have not one retrospective comment from any Biblical writer, that says, “after the
sending of the Spirit the apostles understood his teaching on the end of the age.”

We have not one word in the Olivet Discourse, in response to the apostles’ questions, in
which Jesus, cognizant of their supposed ignorance and confusion, in which he said,
“Guys, you don’t get it! You are conflating the end of the age and my coming with the
coming destruction of Jerusalem! You are wrong! Those events are– will be – separated
in time by countless thousands of years!”

We literally have not one word of correction, not a hint of disappointment by Jesus at
their confusion (Cf. John 14), not one word of not a hint of a clue of a suggestion that
Jesus was even slightly perturbed at the continuing ignorance.

All we have is Gentry’s insistence that although the apostles said, emphatically, that they
understood, after Jesus instructed them about the meaning of the parable of the end of
the age, in reality, they were still confused, they were still ignorant.

Gentry continues:

Then again later in his book, Preston charges: “Stunningly, the fact is that Kenneth
Gentry all but accuses the apostles of lying” (p. 80). Then on the next page (p. 81) he
writes: “it takes an amazing amount of arrogance to say they were lying” (p. 81). This is
preposterous. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance for Preston to charge that I
accuse the apostles of lying. And such balderdash is why I normally do not read Preston.

Consider this: did not Peter promise Jesus that he would never forsake him? But then
he did! This was also true of the other disciples, for we read: “Peter said to Him, ‘Even
though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Truly
I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.’
Peter said to Him, ‘Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.’ All the disciples

11/15
said the same thing too” (Matt. 26:33–35). But then in Matthew 26:56 we read: “all the
disciples left him and fled.” Peter and the other disciples were not lying in verses 33–35.
And Jesus does not call them liars.

Preston’s charge is absurd. The disciples were not lying; they were over-confident,
spiritually weak, and naively unaware of the enormous difficulties they would have to
face during Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. I never said or even implied that the disciples
lied. [4] Preston is committing the Fallacy of Bifurcation: He believes there are only two
options for understanding their response: the disciples are either (1) intending to tell the
truth or (2) intending to tell a lie. But there are other options: they could well have
believed they understood, only to find out later that they did not fully understand or
properly understand. This is not lying. This bifurcation problem is much like asking the
question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It wrongly assumes only two
possibilities.

Response:

Where is the proof? Of course we as humans sometimes think we understand when in

fact we don’t. That was certainly true in my case– as Gentry ponders– when in my
earlier years I thought I understood eschatology. But Gentry’s anecdotal “argument” has
no probitive force because we are still waiting for him to produce the singular text that
speaks of the apostles coming to understand that they did NOT after all, understand
what they were asking about in the OD.

But, here is the reality. While Gentry does not overtly call the apostles liars, he makes
the unproven assertion that they only thought they understood Jesus’ teaching about
the end of the age. As Jesus continued to instruct them, they came to realize that they
had not, after all, understood. But, as already noted, in stark contrast to the other
situations, adduced by Gentry, and many times in my book. At the risk of redundancy,
let me say again:

✖ We have not one text that says that after further instructions the apostles realized
that they did not understand.

✖ We have not one text in which Jesus said they were still confused.

✖We have not one text in which they confessed any ignorance concerning that which
Jesus had explained to them in Matthew 13.

✖ We have not one text– certainly none in the Olivet Discourse – in which Jesus
expressed disappointment, chagrin, or exasperation at their failure to understand the
end of the age after he had instructed them on the meaning of the parable.

Gentry needs to face the fact that his claim of the Fallacy of Bifurcation, suggests that
there is another option, another possibility (which he conveniently fails to give): The
Apostles truly did understand Jesus’ teaching on the end of the age, just as they said

12/15
they did. And unless and until Gentry can produce the evidence, not just his words, but
the actual textual evidence to prove that the apostles were truly confused, in spite of
their words, then fairness suggests that we accept their words as truth.

Gentry continues:

If you go through the torture of reading Preston, be careful about his quotations. He
stumbles there as well. For instance, on p. 83 we read:

With these things before us, we are ready now to address the objection — Gentry’s key
argument (and others agree with him) — that says, “Jesus’ disciples were constantly
confused or ignorant and simply dull. That is true on many occasions. It is therefore
entirely possible — if not probable — that they were confused when they asked their
questions in Matthew 24:3.”

Response:

Well, I must confess to a bit of chagrin, a bit of confusion, and even a bit of amusement
here. See my fuller explanation immediately below, but let me make an observation. My
books generally go through a minimum of three separate proof readers, all of whom
have varying degrees of professional proof reading / editing experience. For instance,
my wife was employed by a newspaper as proof reader for a couple of years. A good
friend, Scott Fisher has done professional proof reading. I could name others who
assist. What does this mean?

Well, as anyone who has published a book can attest, there is no such thing as a
“perfect” book. I have lots and lots of scholarly books that have been through arduous
editing / proof reading and yet, you find typos, grammatical errors, and shock and dis-
belief, sometimes even quotations are not present!

Now, does this mean that those books– futurist books in 99.9% of the cases, were being
sloppy or that they were “stumbling”? Well, the proof readers did miss the errors, but
anyone with a sense of fairness – and especially someone who has published books
themselves, as Gentry has– should not be hyper-critical about such things. Gentry is
patently being “hyper-critical and nit-picky.” And speaking of typos and proof-reading.
I have found no less than five– perhaps six- typos, i.e. misspellings, missing periods,
missing quotation marks, etc. in Gentry’s article. Was he being “careless,” or “sloppy”?

The question is, how does Gentry’s hyper-critical comments have anything whatsoever
to do with the validity of the teaching in my book? Now, if my book was so filled with
grammatical errors, typos, etc. – as some books I have personally reviewed have been–
that a person could not cut through all the errors and focus on the contents, then
perhaps Gentry would have a point. But my book is not like that, and he well knows it.
He is desperately grasping at a broken straw in his attack of my book.

13/15
As to my books being “torturous” to read, I can produce the testimonies of countless
readers, including professional academics, who praise my books for their clarity, their
logic, the proper application of exegesis and hermeneutic and their depth of research.
So there is that.

Gentry continues:

Despite his quotation marks, I never made that statement.

Response:

Well, I was putting Gentry’s sentiments, and those of the scholars, into a quote for
convenience sake. Notice that I did not give a page number from Gentry which I would
have done had I actually been quoting him. He thus misrepresents what I was doing.

Then, in his footnote #4, Gentry says: “Apparently Preston is committing his own
“illegitimate, artificial hermeneutic of ‘Missing Words / Missing Elements” when
analyzing what I say, or rather, don’t say.”

Perhaps Mr. Gentry does not fully understand what I mean by the Missing World
Hermeneutic– (I suspect he does, since I discuss it length in my We Shall Meet Him In
The Air: The Wedding of the King of kings that he cites in his current article!). But
wants to simply muddy the waters. This is a blatant “apples to oranges”
mischaracterization. For those who wish to read my thoughts on the horrible Missing
Word Hermeneutic that Gentry and a host of others employ, and to understand how
misguided his current claim is, read my article on this issue, and get a copy of my book
just mentioned.

For an in-depth discussion of the fallacy of the “Missing Word Hermeneutic” employed by Gentry
and others, be sure to get a copy of this book!

In Gentry’s third installment of his series, which is just another attack on my

“attitudinal problems” he hints that his real argument is that, “Jesus does not mention
either the parousia or the “end of the age” in the immediately preceding context so as to
spark their questions as uniquely framed. But these are the very issues raised in their
questions (Matt. 24:3).”

This is indeed a form of the Missing Word Hermeneutic, but since Gentry did not
develop it in that third installment, I will wait to read his entire, developed argument,
before I offer a critique. I will simply say that just because Jesus had not used the word
parousia prior to Matthew 24 does not support Gentry’s claim that the apostles were
confused.

Gentry continues:

On p. 33 he writes:
14/15
I shared earlier a quote from Craig Blomberg:

“The disciples conflated (Blomberg) all of this (end of the age and the parousia, DKP)
into what Jesus announced….”

But this (and the full citation that he gives) is not a quote from Blomberg. This is a quote
from Sam Frost, which Preston gave earlier in his book on p. 4. There he noted in
introducing the quotation: “In a 2019 FaceBook exchange with Sam Frost, former
preterist, he made the following statement…..” Then follows the quotation given
verbatim on p. 33. I even noticed several places where he had an opening quotation
mark, but no closing mark. This makes it difficult to determine how much of a
statement was quoted.

So, it is not just the confusing cover of the book that you have to consider. But the
confused attributions of quotations that Preston gives.

Response:

Funny that Gentry calls my book, including the cover, confusing. The amazing thing is
that I have heard from a very large number of people who think that the book is
anything but confusing. As one reviewer on Amazon stated: “Dr. Preston (as is his usual
practice) gives a though refutation of the idea that the Apostles were confused when
they asked the questions in Matthew 24.” This reviewer surely thought he understood
my points clearly enough. I could produce several similar quotes.

Now, Gentry has indeed called attention to the fact that on page 33 I ascribed a quote to
Blomberg when in reality it was a quote from Sam Frost who was citing Blomberg. I had
given that quote from Frost on page 4, and later on page 33, I wrongly credited it to
Blomberg. (Blomberg did indeed say that the apostles wrongly conflated the fall of
Jerusalem with the end of the world). So, it was Frost who cited Blomberg, and I
wrongly ascribed the entire quote to Blomberg on page 33 and not Frost. Thus, I
actually appreciate this being noted, and in the future I will do my best to correct this
ascription.

I will conclude this third installment here. Let me remind you that I am offered a great
discount on my book, Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused. Be
sure to take advange of this great price!

My next article #4 will be my final response to Gentry’s first article. After that, I will
address the rest of his articles in order, so stay tuned!

Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused in Matthew 24:3

15/15