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.
Confusion Over My Changes
After Gary’s opening paragraph (see my last posting), he writes:
“Matthew 24:27 and 24:37 presented a problem for Gentry because they use the same language related to Jesus’ coming.
• ‘For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be’ (24:27).
• ‘For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah” (24:37).’”
This is not the case at all! Not even close! I did not hold the view that v. 27 referred to AD 70, only to later see theological problems that forced me to change my view. For I clearly stated my reason for my change of view. I stated in the very footnote that Gary himself cites (!) regarding my original view of v. 27 as referring to AD 70: “This is certainly possible, given the dramatic nature of prophetic language.” Thus, I stated that the view that Jesus’ catastrophic (metaphorical) judgment-coming against Jerusalem in AD 70 could theoretically be pictured as a destructive lightning bolt.
The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry
A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
I did change my view, however. But not for reasons cited by Gary. I did not see a “problem.” And I certainly did not respond in the way in which Gary psychoanalyzes me. Gary says that I “had to postulate two comings to avoid being charged with aiding and abetting full preterism.”
Now I do admit that I do not like it when people call me a full preterist. I consider it an insult to my commitment to orthodox Christianity throughout my entire adult life and biblical ministry. But my reason for changing my view was clearly and succinctly stated in my aforementioned footnote:
“I should note that my interpretation of this verse [Matt. 24:27] has changed recently. In earlier works (Perilous Times; The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?) I argued that the lightning flash could refer to his spiritual judgment-coming in AD 70. This is certainly possible, given the dramatic nature of prophetic language. But I now reject that view because of grammatical and contextual reasons. The ‘for’ (grammar) in v. 27 clearly gives the reason (context) why they should not expect that he may be off somewhere in a wilderness. His physical return will be visible to all. After all, the original question (24:3) shows the disciples’ conflating of the two events: AD 70 and the second advent. Just a few verses later (24:36ff), Jesus will begin focusing on that more glorious event.”
And notice this. Gary asks:
“How does Gentry’s interpretation square with his interpretation of Matthew 24:34? If one item before verse 34 has not been fulfilled, then why not the other items? This is quite the dilemma.”
Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)
Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history. Provides exegetical reasons for a transition from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matthew 24:36.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Correcting DeMar’s Confusion
But there was no dilemma for me whatsoever! When I noted my change of view, I clearly stated how the second coming could be mentioned in the Discourse prior to v. 34. It is a parenthetical aside! It is a forewarning for his disciples, encouraging them not to believe false claims about a secret coming of Jesus in the wilderness or his hidden presence in a room somewhere. Why? Because as v. 27 clearly says, his second coming will be as noticeable as a lightning flash!
What was the problem? There was no problem squaring this with my interpretation of v. 34. I simply saw the contextual argument presented by J. M. Kik, R. T. France, J. A. Gibbs, D. E. Garland, A. I. Wilson, J. K. Brown, K. Roberts, and other orthodox preterists as more suitable. I did not desperately “postulate two comings” of Christ in the Discourse. And it is absurd to think that was the motive for Kik, France, et al. Thus, I followed the argument from a number of evangelical scholars before me and from some who came after I adopted this position. These certainly did not “postulate two comings” in facing a “dilemma.”
Political Issues Made Easy
by Kenneth Gentry
Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
For instance, consider just three samples of scholars holding the view that I presented after noticing their contextual arguments:
R. T. France (Matthew in NICNT, p. 917) states of v. 27:
“This verse is a sort of ‘aside’ which draws a sharp distinction between the events during the siege and the still future parousia. The real parousia, when it comes, will not be like the claims of impostors during the siege. The ‘for’ which introduces this saying indicates how it fits into this context.”
Charles L. Quarles (Matthew in the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary, p. 624, 625) states of v. 27:
“Jesus refers to his parousia at this point in the discourse only to warn his disciples that the emergence of messianic claimants in the wilderness and in the storerooms soon before the fall of Jerusalem is very different from his own glorious Advent…. The second advent will not require a sign because it will be obvious to everyone.”
Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts (Matthew in the Two Horizons Commentary, p. 217) states of v. 27:
“In what we understand as a parenthetical comment, Jesus reassures his disciples that, in contrast to the difficulties of disambiguating harbingers from the event of Jerusalem’s capture by Rome, his own reappearing (parousia) will be as clear as lightning across the sky (24:2).”
Clearly, then, I changed my position based on a review of grammatical and contextual exegetical considerations. My changed view was prompted by reading J. Marcellus Kik, R. T. France, Jeffery A. Gibbs, and David A. Garland’s exegetical arguments. Their arguments opened my eyes to the insufficiency of my earlier view. I did not change my view because I “had to postulate two comings.” That is a psychological guess by Gary that goes contrary to what I state and that Gary cites.
Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)
Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
Not only so, but Gary’s argument does not make sense! For even while holding the view that v. 27 referred to AD 70, I still saw the second advent in the Discourse — beginning at 24:36. This is clearly and forcefully stated in Perilous Times (on pp. 89–93) and in the original version of The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. I did not make the change because I had to “postulate two comings” of Christ in the Discourse. I already affirmed two comings in the Discourse.
I will continue my response to DeMar’s confusion over my views in my next posting.
Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.
For more information on this new Vos work or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos/
Leave a Reply