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 As just noted, I am actually writing this article on May 19, and it will not be published until July 10; so the book will be out by now.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!

Hyper-preterist Concerns

When my old seminary buddy and long-time friend, Gary DeMar (or perhaps his mentor, Kim Burgess), saw this promo, he (they?) thought an advance discrediting of the work might be helpful to their cause. So, Gary wrote a brief article titled “Should the Olivet Discourse Be Divided?” and published it on the American Vision website (May 7, 2026). This is, of course, an important question.

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Gary asked “Should the Olivet Discourse Be Divided?” Unlike Gary, I can answer “yes” or “no” to direct questions. [1] And my answer to this question is: “Yes.” And, of course, Gary knows my answer. But I would like to engage with his article just a bit to clear up some of his confusions presented therein. Some of these confusions recur from time-to-time in other contexts and by other writers, so I am hoping that I might clear up some issues.

As a recent convert to hyper-preterism and the co-developer of its newest form, Gary opened his article with the following:

“I saw the following on Facebook: ‘The Sign of His Coming By Hugo Grotius: A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse with Commentary by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry and Jay Rogers.’ The authors argue that the subject shifts from the judgment on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple from Matthew 24:4-24:34 to a distant future coming of Jesus in Matthew 24:35-36 and following.”

Gary is correct that Jay and I argue regarding Olivet “that the subject shifts from the judgment on Jerusalem … to a distant future coming of Jesus.” And, like Grotius, we do so for numerous exegetical reasons — which I will not be engaging in this article, because my concern lies elsewhere. (Buy the book!)

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

My Frustration

My frustration fueling my concern is this: I constantly hear people speak of “Gentry’s view” of this-or-that, when I make certain orthodox preterist arguments. I will confess, however, that few of my published ideas on preterism are my own unique contributions to the debate. Actually, I stand on the shoulders of giants, at the end of a long line of scholars before me — and many who are currently writing! Thus, the division in Olivet (at 24:34–36) is not “Gentry’s view” or even the view of “Gentry and Rogers.”

Although I did not know it until Rogers presented me with the translation of Grotius: 400 years before I was born Grotius propounded this view. And though I did not get it from Grotius, I did get it from many contemporary scholars. In fact, I was taught this view by my favorite seminary professor, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen in his class “History and Eschatology” (at Reformed Seminary in 1976). Some of the best exegetical work on the “transition” appearing at Matthew 24:35–36 was written by internationally noted, highly respected scholars. And I would like to present the following works that you can consult for helpful discussions on the transition passage — none of which mention me:

Brown, Jeannine K. The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples. Boston: Brill, 2002.

Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew (Teach the Text). Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015.

Brown, Jeannine K. and Kyle Roberts. Matthew (THNTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

France, R. T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Garland, David E. Reading Matthew: Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel. St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000.

Gibbs, Jeffrey A. Matthew 21:1-28:20 (Concordia Commentary). St. Louis: Concordia, 2018.

Letham, Robert. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2019.

Quarles, Charles L. Matthew (EBTC). Bellinghom, Wash.: Lexham Academic, 2022.

Quarles, Charles L. Matthew: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2017.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Sproul, R. C. Matthew: An Expositional Commentary. Orlando, Fla.: Reformation Trust, 2019.

Wilson, Alistair I. When Will These Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21-26. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2004.

I could add other representatives of this view who are not as prominent, such as: J. Marcellus Kik,  An Eschatology of Victory (Nutley, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971); Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2013); Jonathan Menn, Biblical Eschatology (2d. Ed.: Eugene, Ore.: Resource, 2018); and others.

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

My Consolation

It is easy to write-off an argument as “Ken Gentry’s view.” And I sometimes wonder if that might be the motive for making such statements. I would very much like to help gain a hearing for orthodox preterism in today’s dispensational world. That is, I gladly promote preterism as a hermeneutical approach to certain passages, not as a whole new theological system overthrowing historic Christianity. But if the views I publish are simply written off with the wave of a hand as “Ken Gentry’s,” they can be easily dismissed with: “Ken who?”

But the bibliography above contains several noteworthy scholars promoting the transition from AD 70 to the final judgment in the Olivet Discourse. For instance, one of the world’s leading Matthew scholars has been R. T. France (d. 2012). He was member of the Committee on Bible Translation responsible for the New International Version of the Bible (NIV), and for Today’s New International Version (2005). He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies at London Bible College. A prominent, respected scholar. This does not prove he is correct, but I never hear anyone scoffing, “that’s R. T. France’s view.”

Not only so, but France actually published several commentaries on Matthew: including in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary series (IVP) and the New International Commentary on the New Testament series (Eerdmans). He has also published prominent commentaries on Mark and on Luke in the Teach the Text commentary series (Baker), the New International Greek Text Commentary series (Eerdmans).

France provides a vigorous, deeply exegetical argument for the transition at Matthew 24:34–36, allowing for two comings of Christ: a metaphorical judgment-coming in AD 70 and a history-ending second coming introducing the final judgment. And both of these are mentioned (and distinguished!) in Matthew 24.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Another solid scholar arguing for this view is David E. Garland. He has served as professor of Christian Scriptures at Baylor’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. He is a prominent New Testament scholar who has written and edited commentaries on three of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. He has also written major commentaries on Acts, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians, and Philemon. His publishers include Mercer University Press, Baker Books, and Zondervan Publishing. His commentaries on various Gospels have been published by ZondervanAcademic (in the Biblical Theology of the New Testament series) and The NIV Application Commentary series (Zondervan). This does not prove he is correct, but I never hear anyone scoffing, “that’s David E. Garland’s view.”

Jeffrey A. Gibbs is Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary. He has a massive, three volume commentary on Matthew in the Concordia Commentary series (Condordia Publishing) and a very important orthodox preterist work titled Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’ s Gospel (Concordia). This does not prove he is correct, but I never hear anyone scoffing, “that’s Jeffrey A. Gibbs’ view.”

These and the others listed above are noteworthy scholars of international renown who should not be written-off simply because they are orthodox Christians holding to the historic Christian faith. I highly recommend their work.

I will respond to some other confusions in Gary’s article in my next posting.

Note

1. A set of three questions was sent to Gary seeking his affirmation of three key eschatological issues historically affirmed by Christians everywhere. We were seeking to determine if he had defected to hyper-preterism. He refused to answer them. Those three questions were:

a. Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
b. Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
c. Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?

Unfortunately, a long-running debate over the issue has run ever since. See: https://www.reformation.blog/p/when-refusal-becomes-a-confession