Kenneth Gentry: Confused and Confusing- My First Response to His Third Article

Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused in Matthew 24:3

My First Response to Kenneth Gentry’s Third Article

As previously, with the exception of some ads placed in his articles which I deleted for space considerations, I will be giving the entirety of Gentry’s article, his third, in his attack on my book: Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus Apostles Confused?

Be sure to read my previous responses to Gentry’s articles, beginning here. Also, let me urge the readers to obtain a copy of my book, Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused” to see for yourself if my book is so egregiously wrong as Gentry is trying to convince you.
*********************************************************************

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 3
AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Temple November 17, 2020

PMW 2020-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I am continuing a brief, four-part analysis of Hyper-preterist Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? In my last two articles I noted some general frustrations with Preston’s attitude in presenting his material. In this one I will focus on a key problem with his argument. I will be (mostly) considering his book’s third chapter, titled “Jesus’ Earlier Predictions of The Destruction of Jerusalem.” And especially his interaction with my thoughts. (All parenthetical page references are to this book unless otherwise noted.)

In this chapter Preston is arguing against the view that the disciples were confused in their questions (Matt. 24:3) about Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction (v. 2). Yet I and many scholars [1] believe they were in fact confused when they asked: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (v. 3). We believe that in this question they erroneously associate the destruction of the temple historically with both the Second Coming and the “end of the age” (i.e., the second coming which brings about the end of history).

Why the confusion?

It would be remarkable if the disciples were not surprised and confused by this sudden, dramatic prophecy of the temple’s absolute, block-by-block destruction, as I (following “a consensus among the commentators,” p. 33) believe.

After all, does not the text itself suggest this? Consider the disciples’ immediate response to his temple-destruction prophecy. After uttering the prophecy, as he is departing the temple we read that “His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him” (Matt 24:1b). Why would they do this? He had just been in the temple (Matt. 24:1a)! And he was still near it (24:1a)! He was not blind. Furthermore, having been in it and as he is heading out of it and up the Mount Olives, he would have a panoramic view of it. Thus, he would know of its imposing magnificence, which they point out to him: “one of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’” (Mark 13:1).

Response:

Well, once again, Gentry makes his appeal to “many scholars” (argumentum ad veracundium) which he admits is not an evidentiary, probitive argument.

I want the reader to take careful note that Gentry is guilty, tremendously so, of petitio principii. He says this: “We believe (meaning himself and all those many orthodox scholars) that in this question they erroneously associate the destruction of the temple historically with both the Second Coming and the “end of the age” (i.e., the second coming which brings about the end of history).

Now, does Gentry attempt to prove the reality of a literal, physical, bodily Second Coming of Christ? No. Does Gentry give even a keystroke to prove to the reader that this proposed coming will be at the “end of history”? No. As I have urged on many, many occasions, I ask that the reader consider the following:

1. The apostles knew that Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed in BC 586. They knew that destruction was the Day of the Lord. They knew it was the Presence (from the LXX Greek prosopon, meaning face- thus presence) of the Lord. They knew that coming was the judgment of heaven and earth. The Jews even had four fasts to commemorate that horrific pogrom (Zechariah 9). Thus, to suggest that the apostles knew of that horrific event, when the city and temple was razed, knowing that history did not end, but that now, with the destruction of the Herodian temple, they HAD to think of the end of human history, is truly illogical.

2. And to make matters worse for Gentry, he must explain how and why it would be that the apostles would think of the end of the Christian age, when Jesus predicted the destruction of the Herodian temple. Does Gentry think, for one moment, that the Herodian temple represented the current Christian age? One would certainly hope not! And by the way, one should take note that Gentry assiduously avoids speaking of “the end of the Christian age.” Why? Because he knows that the temple did not represent, in any way, the Christian age! Thus, he carefully avoids using “the end of the Christian age” realizing that is a problematic issue, and speaks instead of “the end of human history.”

The apostles undeniably conflated Jesus’ prediction of that coming destruction with the “end of the age” (συντελείας tou αἰνος)- Gentry agrees. The key issue is, what age did that temple represent, and what age would the apostles think was to end with the destruction of that temple? Unless Gentry can prove that the apostles were thinking of the end of the Christian age, (that had not yet been established and that Scripture says is endless!) and not the end of the age that the temple actually represented, his claims are baseless and without merit.

With this question before us, consider Gentry’s own words. In his written debate with Thomas Ice, Gentry had this to say about AD 70:

The change of the age is finalized and sealed at the destruction of Jerusalem; allusions to the A.D. 70 transition abound: ‘Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God present with power ‘(Mark 9:1) (Kenneth L. Gentry and Thomas Ice, The Great Tribulation Past or Future?, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 63).

Well, was the change of the age finalized in the destruction of Jerusalem– and not the temple? Gentry knows– yes, he knows– that both Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70. There was no “temple but not city” in view of Jesus or the apostles– and not in Gentry’s own comments! But, according to Gentry, the destruction of Jerusalem which he says brought the end of the age, was unrelated to the end of the age that the apostles were asking about. Yet, he recognizes that the end of the age came in AD 70! Is that the same “end of the age” that the apostles were asking about? How would Gentry prove that it was, or wasn’t? Are you confused yet? It surely seems to me that friend Gentry’s theology is sadly confused and confusing.

3. Since Gentry clearly and undeniably agrees that Jesus foretold the destruction of the city and temple prior to Matthew 24:2-3, as we will show from his own keyboard, his claim that in 24:2-3 the discussion must be restricted to only the temple is, to say the least, tenuous.

4. There is something abundantly strange going on in Gentry’s claims. He says that the apostles had no idea that the temple was to be destroyed. Yet, they (supposedly) understood, evidently pretty clearly per Gentry, that the rulers of Jerusalem, Jerusalem itself, that human history and the Christian age was to come to an end with the coming of Christ out of heaven, riding on a cumulus cloud! To say that this is remarkable– and illogical – is an understatement. Where would the apostles have had such a clear understanding of those things, but not the coming destruction of the temple? Where had Jesus spoken of the end of human history? It takes a lot of presuppositional manipulation to make such claims, and Gentry makes no attempt at all, not a keystroke, to prove any of this. Yet, it is essential that he be able to prove his assumption.

5. Gentry cites a few sources, Philo, the Sibylline Oracles, etc. that posited that the temple would stand forever. Yes, one can cite a few such sources. But, what Gentry conveniently fails to tell his readers is that there were other authorities– extremely influential sources – that denied that, and taught that the temple was in fact to be destroyed.

For instance, prominent scholar Dale Allison Jr., cites several Jewish texts from before AD 70 that announced that the temple would not continue into the New Age. (He cites the Book of Enoch, (circa 2nd Century BC), Book of Jubilees, (circa BC 100), the Qumran scrolls etc. as sources). (Dale Allison Jr. The End of the Ages Has Come, Philadelphia; Fortress, 1985), 31f).

FYI, the Book of Jubilees was considered, “one of the most important documents in the history of the Jewish religion.” And Enoch is actually cited in the NT! (Cited by Moyer Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought, (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 26, n. 1).

Oh, did you notice that the Sibylline Oracle does not actually state emphatically that the temple would never be destroyed. (Even if it did, that would contradict Daniel 9). It says of the “Temple of God / made by holy people and hoped / by their soul and body to be always imperishable.” Thus, there is no definitive declaration that the temple would not ever be destroyed. It says that they “hoped” that it would never perish, but clearly their hope was dashed! Gentry has evidently mis-read the text.

The point here is that Gentry simply assumes that the apostles would have believed that the temple was to endure forever. His claim: “The disciples undoubtedly imbibe the Jewish conviction that the temple is a permanent institution. Thus, for it to be destroyed must signal the end of history”- far over reaches – actually violates – the evidence. (The Olivet Discourse Made Easy, Draper, VA; Apologetics Group Inc., 2010), 47).

This is proven by the fact that Gentry claims that Philo and the Sibylline Oracles and his other sources got their belief that the temple would stand forever from, “post-Babylonian destruction biblical prophecies.” This is remarkable– and you must see how Gentry has falsified his own claims!

Did you notice that Gentry gives us no examples- none – of a single OT prophecy that indicated that the temple– the Herodian temple that Jesus was talking about– was to never be destroyed? The reason for that is simple: there are none. If there were, then for Jesus to predict the destruction of that Herodian temple would have contradicted those OT prophecies. And if there are some OT prophecies that the first century temple would never be destroyed, those prophecies would also contradict Daniel 9 – which Gentry says predicted the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem.

By the way, in his Dominion, (2009, 196), Gentry argues against the Dispensational argument that God gave the land to Abraham and his seed “forever” (from the Hebrew word olam). Gentry takes note that the word olam:

frequently applies to long-term temporal situations rather than eternal ones. Is the Passover literally forever (Ex. 12:14, 17, 24)? The priesthood (Ex. 29:28; 40:15; Nu. 25:13? Sin offerings (Lev. 6:18)? Burnt offerings (Lev. 7:36)? The temple (2 Chronicles 7:16)?

So, we have Gentry arguing that scripture itself does not teach that the temple would be eternal. Yet he demands that we believe that the apostles would have “undoubtedly” believed that it was to never be destroyed! (And it matters not whether the subject is the Solomonic temple or the Herodian. The fact is, as I document in my book, the OT foretold the destruction of the Herodian temple, and Gentry knows this, since he applies Daniel 9 to that destruction in AD 70).

Do you see Gentry’s dilemma here? Which horn of this dilemma will Gentry take? Will he maintain that there are OT prophecies that the Herodian Jerusalem temple would never be destroyed, or will he continue to say– which is patently true – that both Daniel 9 and Jesus foretold the destruction of that temple? Gentry cannot have it both ways. He is clearly confused.

Gentry assumes too much, and offers no proof. To sustain his claim Gentry must reject his own observation that the OT (Daniel 9) predicted the destruction of the “city and sanctuary” and that Jesus’ Olivet Discourse draws on that prophecy of Daniel 9. He must prove that the apostles were either ignorant of Daniel, (unimaginable), or had no understanding of it. And that becomes a bit strange when even Josephus understood that Daniel 9 foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Did Josephus understand Daniel better than Jesus’ apostles?

Consider: Gentry says that Matthew 24:4-34 is Jesus’ answer to the apostles’ question about the temple (only the temple, per Gentry). But keep in mind that Gentry himself applies the prophecy of Daniel 9 to that impending AD 70 destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26-27). So, since Jesus applied Daniel 9 and the prediction of the coming destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” to Matthew 24:2f, then Gentry’s attempt to limit those verses to the coming destruction of only the temple cannot be true. Jesus’ own application of Daniel 9 to the coming destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” effectively negates Gentry’s atomistic hermeneutic of “temple but not city.”

You must understand that according to Kenneth Gentry himself, Matthew 24 was not such “a sudden dramatic prophecy of the temple’s absolute stone by stone destruction” as he wants his readers to believe. In fact, per Gentry, as I will demonstrate later, from early in his ministry Jesus had told his apostles, as well as the Jewish authorities, that the nation, the city and the temple, were going to be destroyed. Hang onto this, because what you will read from Gentry himself is amazing in light of his claim that Matthew 24:2-3 was a “sudden and dramatic” prediction of (only) the temple’s demise.

6. In fact, prior to the Olivet Discourse, Jesus had in fact spoken of a “stone by stone” destruction that was coming on the CITY. This is important when we realize that Gentry tries to divorce the stone by stone destruction of the temple prediction, from the fate of the city. To say that this is a specious, untenable and illogical argument is a huge understatement, but it is essential to Gentry’s entire paradigm.

Notice Luke 19:41f:

Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” Then He went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’”

Notice the following:

Jesus was approaching the CITY.

He wept over the CITY.

He said that the days were coming when their enemies would camp around “the city” and put up an embankment. Just for information sake, the Romans never put up an embankment around the temple.

In that coming judgment: “they will not leave in you one stone upon another.”

Now, Gentry wants his readers to believe that the prediction of the “no stone on another” could only apply to the temple. He does this in his (desperate) attempt to bifurcate between Jesus’ prediction of the city from the prediction of the temple’s fate. But, unless Gentry can prove that the “no stone on another” of Luke 19 was to be another totally distinct event from the “no stone on another” catastrophe of Matthew 24:2, then his attempt to create a sharp distinction between the fate of the city and the fate of the temple is totally falsified.

The fact is that the city was to be dismantled- and was– and the temple was to likewise be destroyed, no stone on another- and it was.

Gentry Continues:

This (Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s coming destruction, DKP) was confusing to them . . . in light of Jesus’ long-held, often-declared reverence for the temple.

Consider the following.

Throughout his life he had spoken reverently of the temple, calling it God’s house. We see this as early as age twelve. When his parents thought he was lost (Luke 2:44-45) but then eventually found him in the temple (Luke 2:46), they asked him: “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” He responded to them: “Did you not know I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). The expression “had to” is a translation of the Greek dei, which is a common expression speaking of divine necessity. Thus, at this early age he was compelled by divine necessity to go to “My Father’s house.” Why then would Jesus now declare that God was going to destroy his own house? The house to which he was divinely compelled to go as a twelve year old?

And when he finally engages his public ministry, he continues to speak lovingly and reverently about the temple. He continues to call it the “house of God” (Matt. 12:4) and even affectionately “My Father’s house” (John 2:16). Why then would Jesus eventually declare God was going to destroy his own house?

In fact, Jesus calls the temple God’s “house” at the beginning of his ministry (cf. John 2:11) as well as at its closing (Matt. 21:12–13). Why then would Jesus now declare God was going to destroy his own house?

Indeed, early in his ministry the disciples themselves remember the Scripture that called the temple “Your [i.e., God’s] house” and even noted regarding Jesus that the “zeal for Your house will consume me” (John 2:17). Why then would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house despite Jesus’ “zeal” for it?

Besides, just two days earlier the disciples had seen Jesus vigorously defending the integrity of the temple by driving the moneychangers out of it (Matt. 21:12). And did they not remember he did this while quoting the prophet Isaiah, wherein God himself called it “My house” and said that it should be a “house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13)? Why would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house? Which he had designated as a place for prayer? And which Jesus himself was defending?

What is more, just a few moments before the disciples’ questions (Matt. 24:3) about his prophecy (v. 2), Jesus speaks of God as dwelling in the temple: “whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it” (Matt. 23:21). This “dwelling” is a present participle, which speaks of a current dwelling. The word translated “dwelling” is katoikeō, which is a more emphatic way to speak of dwelling somewhere (as contrasted with oikeō). Katoikeō means “to live or dwell in a place in an established or settled manner” (Louw & Nida, Geek English Lexicon of the New Testament; 1:731). So then, why would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house where he dwells?

Furthermore, as devout Jews, the disciples obviously deem the temple to be a beautiful testament to God’s glory and a worthy place of worship. After all, Jesus had just stated that the beautiful gold of the temple is “sanctified” by being associated with it (Matt. 23:17). Why, then, would he suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house that sanctifies the various elements associated with it?

Response:

I must say that this bit of “argumentation” from Gentry is amazing – amazingly bad – and self-contradictory. It appears to me– and anyone else familiar with Gentry’s own writings – that he has seriously (fatally) contradicted himself. This truly is stunning!

So, Gentry thinks that because Jesus spoke reverentially of the Temple in his ministry, that this somehow proves that the apostles had to be confused when he predicted that temple’s destruction. He seems to be saying that because of these positive comments prior to Matthew 24, that this means that he could not have predicted- at the same time- the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

What is fascinating– and revealing- is that in his Dominion, Gentry strings together 20+ texts from Matthew alone in which, from Jesus’ very early ministry onward, he foretold and anticipated the coming judgment on Jerusalem, the leaders and the temple! Those prophecies of the coming pogrom were given at the very same time that Jesus spoke the positive words concerning the temple. And yet, I suppose we are to take Gentry’s word for it that the apostles never understood any of those predictions. Instead, they properly understand all of Jesus’ comments in which he spoke of the temple as God’s house, to mean that he approved of that edifice. Thus, again, it seems that Gentry is arguing that since Jesus spoke of the temple with admiration at times, he simply could not have, at any time prior to Matthew 24, predicted its destruction. But, this flies in the face of Gentry’s own writings – not to mention logic!

Take a look at the passages that Gentry himself adduces from Matthew to show that from the early days of his ministry, Jesus knew, taught and predicted his rejection by the Jews and the resultant judgment on Jerusalem and the temple. The following list is taken from his He Shall Have Dominion, 2009, 171+:

Matthew 1 “Is preparing us for the Lord’s rejection by the Jews, and his acceptance by the Gentiles.”
Matthew 3:9-12- “This anticipates AD 70.”
Matthew 8:10-12– Speaks of “the Jews themselves are ‘cast out.’”
Matthew 10: 23– He promises that he will return to judge before they finish going through all of Israel (referring to AD 70).
Matthew 11:14- Christ declares John the Baptist the fulfillment of the prophecy of Elijah’s return. “When we read of this in Malachi 3-4 we discover that Christ will come to judge Israel.” He then refers to Matthew 12:39 and 12:41-42 as reference to that judgment. (P. 175).
Matthew 12:43-45 / 13:58 / 15:7-14 / 16:4– He uses these verses to speak of Israel’s sin and rebellion and Christ’s reference to them as “an evil and adulterous generation.”
Matthew 16:21- He speaks of the Jewish leaders who will kill him.
Matthew 16:28 – “He notes that some of his followers will live to see the kingdom come with power.” Interesting that he ignores verse 27!
19:28 – The apostles will sit on the thrones judging Israel. He refers to that judgment as AD 70.
Matthew 20:18-19- “Christ once again prophecies that the chief priests will condemn him to death.”
Matthew 21:12– “He casts out the money changers and overturns their tables– as prophetic theater showing the soon overthrow of the temple.”
Matthew 21:19-21– He curses the fig tree and speaks of throwing ‘this mountain’ into the sea, as signs of judgment on Israel ‘this mountain’ probably points to the temple mount.”
Matthew 21:33-43, 45 – “The parable of the landowner shows God taking the kingdom from the Jews and crushing them.” He cites H. Alford on Matthew 21:40– “We may observe that our Lord makes ‘when the Lord cometh’ coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem’ which is incontestably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage therefore forms an important key to our Lord’s prophecies, and a decisive justification for those who like myself, firmly hold tat the coming of the Lord is, in many places, to be identified, primarily, with that overthrow.” (P. 281).
Matthew 22:2-7- “Prophesies the AD 70 burning of ‘their city,’ Jerusalem.”
Matthew 23- “Jesus pronounces seven woes on the Pharisees. In 23:34-36 first century Israel will be judged for the righteous blood shed in the land.
Matthew 23:36-38– “He laments the temple and prophesies its destruction.”– When Jesus spoke of the temple– he also spoke of the city – “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem…. your house is left to you desolate!” Jesus did not dichotomize between city and temple.
Matthew 24:16- He notes that, “his followers are to flee Judea, because in 24:34, ‘this generation,’ will experience judgment.”
Matthew 26:63-64- “Jesus warns the High Priest will see him coming in judgment.”

Ask yourself the question: Could it be argued, based on all of these predictions adduced by Gentry himself, that the apostles just did not get it, that they had no clue that judgment on Jerusalem and the temple was on the horizon? We are supposed to believe that they “understood” Jesus’ positive comments about the temple, but never had any inkling that he was, nonetheless, at the same time, predicting its demise? We are to believe that the apostles fully understood that the leaders of Jerusalem, the nation itself, the land of Israel, the city and the people were to be judged, but that they could not believe that the temple was to be likewise destroyed?

There is no conflict between Jesus’ sometimes honorific words concerning the temple, and his words of the impending destruction. I want the reader to take careful note of just one of many quotes from Gentry that we could address:

In fact, Jesus calls the temple God’s “house” at the beginning of his ministry (cf. John 2:11) as well as at its closing (Matt. 21:12–13). Why then would Jesus now declare God was going to destroy his own house?

This is an amazing “sleight of hand.” Gentry is clearly trying to get the reader to believe that Matthew 24 had to be such a shocking, sudden and unexpected “new prophecy” that it blew the apostles away, making them think of the end of the current (Christian) age. But look closer!

Did Jesus refer to the temple as God’s house? Yes! But did he not also lament the fact that the Jews were turning that house, intended to be a light to the nations, into a “den of thieves”? Of course. And then notice that Gentry tries to put a totally positive spin on Jesus’ words by appealing to Matthew 21:12-13, where Jesus called the temple the house of God, and thus, Gentry asks: “Why then would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house despite Jesus’ “zeal” for it?” Did you notice what Gentry ever so conveniently failed (refused) to share with the reader?

He failed, conveniently, to remind the reader that in the very chapter – in that very context – that he cites to prove that Jesus loved the temple, (and thus, evidently could not predict its destruction) in that very chapter and immediately after, Jesus, according to Gentry’s own assessment, made the following observations:

Matthew 21:12– “He casts out the money changers and overturns their tables– as prophetic theater showing the soon overthrow of the temple.” So, on the one hand Gentry suggests that Jesus thought so highly of the temple that he could not predict its destruction, but in the very text that he cites, Jesus DID anticipate the coming destruction of that temple– by Gentry’s own admission!

Matthew 21:19-21– “He (Jesus, DKP) curses the fig tree and speaks of throwing ‘this mountain’ into the sea, as signs of judgment on Israel ‘this mountain’ probably points to the temple mount.”

So, Gentry clearly understood that in the same chapter that he brings forth to suggest that it would be too shocking for Jesus to predict the temple’s destruction, Gentry would nonetheless have us believe that the Lord did indicate the coming cursing of the “mountain” of the temple! And notice how he conflates the destruction in “the judgment on Israel” and the overthrowing of the temple mount. It was not “either Israel and not the temple” or, “the temple and not Israel.” It was ONE judgment.

Matthew 21:33-43, 45 – “The parable of the landowner shows God taking the kingdom from the Jews and crushing them.”

And then, in the very chapter that Gentry cites to show how Jesus spoke so reverentially of the temple, posing the question: “Why then would Jesus now declare God was going to destroy his own house?” we have Jesus providing us the answer (again, which Gentry conveniently ignored). That temple and the city was in fact to be destroyed at the Lord’s coming because the leaders of the Jews killed (would kill) the Son of the Master of the Vineyard.

It surely seems to be the case that when Gentry is not arguing against the true preterist view that he can see very clearly that Jesus could speak reverentially of the temple on one hand, but then, with sadness (Matthew 23:37 / Luke 19:41) speak of its coming razing. But, when Gentry seeks to counter the arguments in my book, he cannot– or will not– even acknowledge that both of these facts are true. He literally ignores – and contradicts – his own writings in order to suggest that Jesus had not predicted the AD 70 catastrophe prior to Matthew 24, when in fact he KNOWS that is not true.

Thus, for Gentry to ask, repeatedly, when he considers the positive words concerning the temple from Jesus: “So then, why would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house where he dwells?”– the very texts that he adduces give us, emphatically, the prediction of the coming destruction and the reasons why. Why does Gentry ignore this? I think it is self-evident why.

We will stop here for brevity sake and will post installment #2 next week if all goes well. In the meantime, avail yourself of the special price we are offering for the month of December 2020, on three books. Our special price will save you $20.00!!