Category Archives: AD 70

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 →

PRETERISM & NARRATIVE CRITICISM

AD 70, Israel June 2, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

God judged Israel in the first century because of her rejection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The preterist analysis of the Gospels highlights indisputable evidence of Jewish rejection in numerous places, as do most evangelical readings of Scripture. However, preterism goes a step further by also pointing out several more subtle indicators of Israel’s rejection of Christ — even where such are not expected. A case in point in Luke 4:22–30.

As I will show, reading this passage surprises us. However, a Narrative Critical reading can highlight important subtleties that are both helpful for interpretation and significant for a preterist analysis. The point of Narrative Criticism (NC) s to read a passage in its full context, i.e., here the whole Gospel of Luke. In Luke, for instance, NC recognizes that Luke is telling a full, unfolding story of Jesus and his earthly ministry. Thus, NC presses us to notice what is going on in the whole Gospel in order to better understand its various pericopes. These are not random collections of stories that are loosely strung together. Rather they are developing parts of the whole unfolding narrative.

Let’s see how a Narrative Critical reading impacts our preterist understanding of Luke 4. Continue reading →

HAVE WE MISREAD MATTHEW 24:34?

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse May 29, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-040by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader recently wrote me with the following observations, for which he wondered how I would reply:

My reader:

I recently read your book, The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. I thought it was very good.

What is your view of the following?

1. “Take place” in Mt. 24:34 does not require completion but only inception. Compare with Luke 1:20. “ginomai” in the aorist subjective indicates coming into existence without speaking at all regarding completion.

2. The reason Jesus gave to flee Jerusalem when surrounded by armies was that the end is not yet. The end would be the Jews defeating Rome and ending the age of the Jews being without a king.

3. The tribulation of which Jesus spoke began prior to 70 A.D., but continues until the bodily return of Jesus to earth.

Thank you.

R.W. Continue reading →

THE DISCIPLES’ TWO QUESTIONS IN MATT 24:3

AD 70, Olivet Discourse, Second Coming May 19, 2026 Comments: 2

PMW 2026-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the leading interpretive cues in Matthew 24 is the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” In terms of Matthew’s rhetorical strategy, his record of their questions here may be equal in significance to the Lord’s own statement at Matthew 24:34 regarding “this generation.” After all, as Ulrich Luz notes: “much depends on the interpretation of the double question, since in the opinion of most exegetes it determines the interpretation of the entire chapter.” [1]

What is more, the significance of the Discourse is emphasized in its circumstances: Jesus is “sitting” and he is “on the Mount.” When Jesus sits to speak, this introduces his formal instruction on an important matter. We can see this, for instance, in Matthew 5:1 (where he gives his Sermon on the Mount) and 13:1 (where he presents his parabolic instruction to the crowds on the beach). This formal teaching posture is enhanced by the where he is delivering the Discourse: he is speaking from a mountain. We see the significance of such a setting when Jesus’ takes three of his disciples to “a high mountain by themselves” (Matt. 17:1), where the transfiguration was experienced. And also when he issues his world-challenging great commission (Matt. 28:16ff), which was delivered on “the mountain which Jesus had designated” (Matt. 28:16). Consequently, the disciples would understand that what they are about to hear is of great importance.

Continue reading →

THE BEST MATTHEW COMMENTARIES

AD 70, Interpretation, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse April 10, 2026 Comments: 3

PMW 2026-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I am working on a new book, tentatively titled The Two Ages of Redemptive History, I am investigating a number of commentaries on Matthew (I do not fly by the seat of my pants as some preterist enthusiasts do!). I have found help in many of them, even when they do not hold to a preterist understanding of Olivet. Yet, several commentaries have become absolutely essential in my investigation. And I highly recommend them to my reader.

In this brief article I will recommend some good commentaries for you. If you are interested in the the Two Ages concept, especially regarding how it impacts the Olivet Discourse in particular  or the Gospel of Matthew in general, you really need to get hold of these. Continue reading →