The Failure and Remedy of Reductionist Hermeneutics

In the article “On Missing Jesus’ Point” (see https://postmillennialworldview.com/2024/05/24/on-missing-jesus-point/) Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. makes the case that the reductionistic approach to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and parallel passages in Mark and Luke by futurists and orthodox preterists serve to miss the hermeneutical mark in mining the meaning of those passages as well as the whole New Testament eschatology. In other words, application of these opposite interpretations to the entire scope of Scriptures by either school is misleading the adherents resulting in erroneous interpretations and systems of doctrine.

The author clears the dilemma up by introducing the preterist-futurist approach to hermeneutics that ensures a genuine interpretation of the intended meaning of bible passages, maintaining the proper contextual setting, especially for eschatological scriptures. This leverages the doctrinal solidity of the “orthodox preterist who theologically remains within the historic Christianity regarding the fundamentals of the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” while balanced by a partial preterist approach that discretionally applies the preterist hermeneutic only when called for by the biblical context. Likewise, this system includes use of a futurist interpretation when the passage of scripture clearly warrants it.

The Olivet Discourse is best-suited for application of this in that Jesus is addressing both the first-century destruction of Jerusalem and His second-coming in answer to his disciple’s two-part question (Matt 24:1, 22). The preterist approach properly addresses the first point (24:36) and the futurist interpretation addresses the second point (chapter 25). In contrast, David Turner is noted to say that “the preterist and futurist views [i.e., separately] are both reductionistic and cannot handle the complexities of the passage that stem from the disciples’ dual question about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. A valid approach to the passage must handle both of these matters.”

The article continues with calling attention particularly to the misinterpretations produced by the reductionism of the futurist view of the end-times great tribulation vs. a balanced non-reductionistic viewpoint. This contrast adroitly illuminates the extreme errors stemming from pure futurism that often results in missing Jesus’ point on eschatological passages.