Category Archives: AD 70

THE KEY FOB TO OLIVET

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse August 14, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-062 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Matthew 24 is a well-known text that speaks of great prophetic judgments. Who has not heard of “wars and rumors of wars” (v. 6)? “False prophets” (v. 11)? “Enduring to the end” (v. 13)? “The abomination of desolation” (v. 15)? “Great tribulation” (v. 21)? “The powers of the heavens shaken” (v. 29)?

Unfortunately, for the most part, futurism controls the popular approach to Matthew 24 today. Futurists place all the events of Matthew 24:4ff thousands of years off from Jesus’s day and into our own approaching future. This is categorically wrong for various reasons that flow readily from the text itself. I am offering this running survey as a sample of a modern preterist exegesis. You will see many agreements with Grotius, but also some areas of disagreement. Preterism is not monolithic.

The most significant key for interpreting the Discourse is the Lord’s own express declaration in Matthew 24:34 regarding the timing of the “great tribulation” and other judgment events. In fact, this is a key fob that controls all things automatically. For that verse declares: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Here we have an authoritative, clear, and compelling pronouncement of the time of the events recorded in 24:4-33.

Continue reading →

GROTIUS AND GENTRY ON MATTHEW 24

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse August 11, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-061 by Jay Rogers

Gentry note: The following comparative summary is taken from the recently published commentary on the Olivet Discourse by Hugo Grotius. Jay and I were co-editors highly motivated to get this first-ever English version of Grotius’ The Sign of His Coming (2026).

Rogers writes:
This is a journal-style comparative article, integrating Grotius and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., highlighting agreements, differences, and why those differences do not undermine the shared preterist framework.

Continue reading →

HELPFUL WORKS ON ORTHODOX PRETERISIM

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism August 7, 2026 Comments: 2

PMW 2026-060 by Ken Gentry

Preterism has certainly developed a following among evangelicals. Unfortunately, a cult-like version of historic preterism is turning off some people to the proper preterist exegesis of certain passages. Hyperi-preterism is developing a cult following, though thankfully is still small. I therefore would like to recommend some helpful orthodox works that my reader might appreciate and find helpful in their own studies. The more important academic works are marked with an asterisk (*)

Adams, Jay E. Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? Stanley, N.C.: Timeless Texts, 2003.

Adams, Jay E. The Time Is At Hand. Nutley, N.J. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966.

Bahnsen, Greg L. and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology. 2d. ed.: Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997.

Ball, Larry E. Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation. Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, 2022.

*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.
Continue reading →

OLIVET’S TWO QUESTIONS (2)

AD 70, Second Coming, Uncategorized July 28, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing my presentation of the evidence that the Disciples of Christ ask him two questions in Matthew 24:3, not three questions. See preceding posting.

Eighth, disciples’ confusion tendencies. In their question the disciples confound two separate issues. In their interaction with Jesus in Matthew 24:1–3, their tendency to confusion leads them to associate the destruction of the temple with “your parousia and the end of the age.” And this despite the fact that they had already heard from the Lord that “the end of the age” was the end of time brought about with the final judgment (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49). Of course, the implied reader would also know of Jesus’ soon-coming great commission reaching to “the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). And the disciples’ confusion on this matter becomes even more evident to us in that Jesus’ prophetic statement (which gives rise to the disciples’ question) focuses solely on the temple’s destruction. Continue reading →

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 →

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 →