OLIVET’S TWO QUESTIONS (1)

AD 70, Second Coming, Uncategorized July 24, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Dscsourse is prompted by the Disciples questioning Jesus about his prophesying the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2–3). It is important to understand their questions in order to follow Jesus’ answer. I believe the evidence is clear that they ask only two questions, not three (as per John Walvoord and some others). The exegetical support for the two-question view is as follows.

First, lexical observation. Lexically the disciples’ questions present only two interrogatives, not three. They ask “when” (Gk., pote) and “what” (Gk., ti): “when [pote] will these things happen, and what [ti] will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? Continue reading →

INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY IN PAUL

Age(s) (Two Ages), Already/Not Yet, Two Ages July 21, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-055 by Thomas R. Schreiner

Gentry note:
The following few paragraphs are cited from: Thomas R. Schreiner, Magnifying God in Christ: A Summary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2010), 28–30. This is a helpful work for students of the New Testament and eschatology.

Inaugurated Eschatology in Paul

The tension between inaugurated and consummated eschatology identified in the Synoptic Gospels, and in the Johannine literature also informs the remainder of the NT. Indeed, the prominence of the already – not yet in Paul confirms that eschatological tension was a characteristic feature of NT theology.

Continue reading →

DEALING WITH OLIVET’S PAROUSIA (3)

AD 70, Creeds, Second Coming July 17, 2026 Comments: 4

PMW 2026-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third and final response to Gary DeMar, regarding his May 7, 2026 American Vision internet post titled “Should the Olivet Discourse Be Divided?” In that brief article he made a series of mistakes in critiquing me that I felt required a reply. But now:

Back to the Three Questions

By now, my first two postings have highlighted the confusion Gary has about my views. But now I want just briefly to note a months-long debate that has raged since he was originally sent a set of three questions to answer, with a “yes” or “no.” (See: “An Open Letter to Gary DeMar.”

Those three questions were:

Continue reading →

DEALING WITH OLIVET’S PAROUSIA (2)

AD 70, Second Coming July 14, 2026 Comments: 4

PMW 2026-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this posting I am providing my second response to some of Gary DeMar’s posted misconceptions regarding me and my approach to the Olivet Discourse. He presented these on May 7, 2026 in his American Vision online posting titled “Should the Olivet Discourse Be Divided?”

In my last article I introduced Gary’s response to the public notice that Jay Rogers and I are editing a newly translated English version of Hugo Grotius’ preterist work on the Olivet Discourse. Grotius was born in Delft, Netherlands in 1583 and died in 1645, dying in Rostock, Germany. He was an internationally prominent scholar in many fields in his day.

In that article I noted my frustration with people speaking (as Gary does) of “Gentry’s view” on this or that exegetical point that I make in explaining the Olivet Discourse. Usually the point cited by my critic is something I picked up from (and even quoted from!) someone else. I am usually promoting the views of noteworthy scholars who have impacted my thinking, particularly those listed in my previous posting.

Continue reading →

DEALING WITH OLIVET’S PAROUSIA (1)

AD 70, Second Coming July 10, 2026 Comments: 2

PMW 2026-052 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Grotius on the Olivet Discourse

In early February of this year, Jay Rogers invited me to join with him in co-editing Hugo Grotius’ preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse. Grotius’ 1600s work on Olivet has never been published in English before. So getting it translated from Latin into English, adding some editorial notes, and putting it in print sounded like a worthwhile project to me. As I write this (on May 19, 2026) the book is in the final stages of editing. It will be released before you read this.

Jay posted an advance notice of the forthcoming book on Facebook in early May, and on his website “The Forerunner.” If you want to read more about it, see: https://www.forerunner.com/blog/hugo-grotius-the-first-modern-preterist-commentary-on-matthew-24) We will be posting more information along the way. As just noted, I am actually writing this article on May 19, and it will not be published until July 10; so the book will be out by now. We are hoping the American church will find Grotius historically interesting and exegetically insightful. Because he is! Continue reading →

NOT “UNDER LAW”? (2)

Culture, Ethics, Worldview July 7, 2026 Leave a comment

foundations-destroyedPMW 2026-051 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This article continues and concludes the previous one. I am showing that the New Testament does not set aside God’s law as a righteous standard for all men.

Paul’s Liberty in Christ
We must comment on the meaning of his tricky statement.

First, when Paul refers to Christ’s “law” he appears to mean Christ’s “authority” (cp. Mt. 28:18; Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9-10; Col. 1:17-1) — not a new system of laws and obligations. Paul is under Christ’s lordship; he is Christ’s servant or slave (1 Cor. 9:16-17; 7:22). Continue reading →

NOT “UNDER LAW”? (1)

Culture, Ethics, Worldview July 3, 2026 Leave a comment

law-under-footPMT 2026-050 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Does God’s law apply to the new covenant era? Is postmillennialism lawless? Or does postmillennialism expect the worldwide influence of God’s law? Many Christians believe the law is God’s Law Emeritus. They believe the New Testament sets aside God’s law. But is this the case?

Many Christians believe that Paul sets aside the Old Testament law for “the law of Christ.” In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul wrote: “to those who are without law, [I am] as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.” The italicized phrases suggest that Paul here declares that in Christ — and, therefore, in the Christian era, our era — a new law prevails, which he calls: “the law of Christ.” This new law of Christ supplants the older law of God as the ethical norm for Christian behavior. Continue reading →