Category Archives: Olivet Discourse

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 4)

hyperpreterism, Olivet Discourse September 4, 2026 Comments: 2

PMW 2026-068 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third posting on the reason I am writing a book on the two ages doctrine of redemptive history. If you don’t believe me, just count them. We now come to an important historical application of this study:

My theological concerns

The third issue prompting this book is my deep concern over the troubling development of a new heterodox theology rooted in (though not limited to) eschatology. This theology has set itself over against historic Christian doctrine, and is known by orthodox Christians as “hyper-preterism.”

Three fundamental, core errors of “hyper-preterism” that render it heterodox define the system in all of its various, differing, and competing forms. These include its denials of: (1) a future, physical, bodily return of Christ, (2) a future, physical, bodily resurrection of the dead, and (3) a future, physical, restored new creation. [1] However, hyper-preterism is mutating over time, such that its errors are not confined just to eschatology but are negatively impacting numerous other areas of theology. Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 3)

Olivet Discourse, Two Ages September 1, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief explanation for my working on a new book dealing with the two age doctrine of redemptive history. This is my third installment, I am only just now getting to my second reason. Why do I want to write a book on the two ages?

Second, my Olivet research. The second issue prompting this book on the two ages was my deep and abiding interest in the Lord’s Olivet Discourse (aka the Eschatological Discourse). I have been especially interested in the extended version found in Matthew’s Gospel to which I have given much attention. [1]

Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s coming destruction (Matt. 24:2; cp. Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6) serves as the very impetus giving rise to his great Discourse which generates the disciples’ question regarding “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3–4). Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 2)

Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Two Ages August 28, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-066 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second article introducing my reasons for writing a book on the doctrine of the two ages of redemptive history. Three particular issues have mainly prompted me to write this book.

First, my eschatological interests

The first issue is more general: my long-standing interest in and engagement with Reformed eschatology (after having converted out of dispensationalism while in seminary). Eschatology is not simply one locus of systematic theology; neither is it a secondary or inconsequential one. Rather it is an intricate part of God’s over-arching redemptive plan. Eschatology and soteriology are inextricably linked. And as strange as it may initially seem, Reformed theologians argue that eschatology actually precedes soteriology. Thus, Geerhardus Vos (2001: 77) can declare that “eschatology is older than soteriology.” Or as he puts it elsewhere: “the eschatological is an older strand in revelation than the soteric” (1948: 15). Continue reading →

MY WORK ON THE TWO AGES (Part 1)

Olivet Discourse, Preterism, Uncategorized August 25, 2026 Comments: 4

PMW 2026-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this short series I will introduce my reasoning for my currently working on  a book on the two age doctrine of redemptive history. I will begin this series with an important issue which forms a necessary backdrop to understanding the two age doctrine:

The unity of the Bible

The Bible is the divinely-ordained collection of sixty-six books which were directly revealed by God’s Holy Spirit for his own glory and the benefit of man (1 Pet. 1:10–12; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Yet despite the Bible’s collective nature it is fundamentally one book. The very word biblios is a word in the singular form that signifies the unified nature of Scripture. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:10–12 and citing WCF 1:5, Richard Gaffin (2023: 49) argues that the “overarching activity of the Spirit explains why in the Old Testament as such ‘the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole’ is present and discoverable. The multi-authored diversity and varied genre of the Old Testament constitute an organically unfolding and divinely determined didactic unity.” Continue reading →

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 →

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 →