Category Archives: Matthew 24

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 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 →

WHY FOCUS ON MATTHEW’S DISCOURSE?

Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse April 15, 2025 1 Comment

PMW 2025-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Matthew

The “Olivet Discourse” is known by scholars as the “Eschatological Discourse.” This title focuses on its content, not its context; on what it teaches, not on where it was given. Though this fundamental Discourse appears in all three of the Synoptics (Matt. 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21), in this posting I will explain why I focus on Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse in my research. I will present seven important reasons.

First, Matthew’s version is in the most Jewish Gospel
“It is agreed on all hands that this is a very “‘Jewish’ Gospel” (Leon Morris). This is significant in that the Discourse is sparked by deeply Jewish concerns raised by the Lord’s disciples (Matt. 24:1–3; cp. Mark 13:4). This includes highlighting the Jewish temple (“holy place,” v. 15; cp. vv. 1–2), its geographical setting in Judea (v. 16), and a distinctly Jewish Sabbath concern (v. 20). Robinson declares that “Matthew is more concerned than any other evangelist with the relationship of Christianity to the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices” (J. A. T. Robinson).
Continue reading →

FOUR DISCIPLES; TWO QUESTIONS

Matthew 24 February 23, 2024 Comments: 9

two fingersPMW 2024-015 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

An Important Question
A reader of my blog wrote and asked an important question:

“Hello, and thanks for the interesting blog posts!

I have a question concerning the amount of the questions Jesus’ disciples asked him in Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse.

Those who reject the preteristic interpretation of the discourse, argue that disciples asked three questions:

1) when will these things be (the destruction of the temple, which they admit that Jesus talks a bit)

2) what will be the sign of your coming (the second advent)

3) what will be the sign of the end of age (the end of the present world order we all are living)

My question: Is there any grammatical or other structural arguments for two and not three questions?
Continue reading →

THE GREAT TRIBULATION vs. THE POSTMILLENNIAL HOPE? (7)

AD 70, Matthew 24 September 22, 2023 Comments: 4

PMW 2023-074 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final installment in this series on the great tribulation as understood within postmillennialism. We come now to a few more difficult texts.

Christ’s coming

In Matthew 24:27 Jesus states: “For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” This is the sort of language we expect regarding the second coming of Christ, when he comes publicly and gloriously to conclude world history. Did Christ come like lightning in AD 70: How can this sort of language apply to AD 70?

We must understand this declaration in terms of the context. The Lord had just cautioned his disciples: “If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go forth, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them” (Matt 24:26). We must recall Josephus’ report in Jewish Wars 2:13:5 [261–62] cited above that records an episode in which an Egyptian false prophet arose in the wilderness claiming a great deliverance.

Jesus dismisses such by stating that when he physically comes again to the earth, it will be an unmistakable event: “For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt 24:27). The “for” (gar) here shows that he is giving the reason why his disciples should not think he is off in some wilderness or in an inner room somewhere. When he does return in his second coming, it will be as visible and dramatic as a lightning flashing. Continue reading →

THE GREAT TRIBULATION vs. THE POSTMILLENNIAL HOPE? (6)

AD 70, Matthew 24 September 19, 2023 Leave a comment

PMW 2023-073 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

We are nearing the end of our series on the great tribulation in postmillennialism. if you endure to the end, you surely must be saved! Let us know consider the verse that directly mentions “the great tribulation.”

In Matthew 24:21 the Lord states that

“then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.”

Was AD 70 the worst catastrophe ever? What about World Wars I and II? Surely they were much worse than the first-century Jewish War with Rome. How can we explain this statement of Jesus while maintaining our first-century interpretation? Continue reading →

THE GREAT TRIBULATION vs. THE POSTMILLENNIAL HOPE? (5)

AD 70, Matthew 24 September 15, 2023 Leave a comment

PMW 2023-072 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I offer my fifth contribution in this series on the role of the great tribulation in postmillennialism, we come now to consider several interpretive difficulties. At least, verses that seem difficult to apply in the first century.

Jesus expressly states that all these things shall occur in “this generation” (Matt 24:34). Regardless of how difficult a first-century fulfillment may seem for some of Jesus’ statements, his clear time frame statement control our interpretation of the passage. Let us consider the troublesome issues that arise in the remaining prophecies.

Gospel proclamation

Many opponents of the first-century analysis point first of all to Jesus’ statement regarding the preaching of the gospel: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come” (Matt 24:14). How can we explain this statement? The “whole world” heard the gospel? This looks like a formidable objection against a first-century fulfillment. But looks are deceiving. Continue reading →