Category Archives: Olivet Discourse

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 Leave a comment

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 →

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 →