Category Archives: Olivet Discourse

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 →

NARRATIVE FLOW IN THE GOSPELS

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 31, 2024 Leave a comment

GenrePMW 2024-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last posting I noted that an important issue impacting the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew is: narrative flow. We will now briefly consider this matter.

GOSPEL GENRE

To properly recognize Matthew’s redemptive-historical flow, we must understand that the Gospels are not biographies per se. J. K. Brown declares Matthew to be “theological history or theological biography.” This is a helpful observation, though more needs to be said.

Gospel scholar John Wenham notes that “gospel” is a “newly invented genre.” Therefore, Warren Carter states that “because of their theological content and pastoral orientation,” the Gospels are “a unique genre in the ancient world.” Clark Pinnock explains that “these works constitute a new literary phenomenon. They are not biographies as such, for they omit much material normally found in such works.” Continue reading →

ON MISSING JESUS’ POINT

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 24, 2024 Comments: 2

Missing the targetPMW 2024-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse has a large presence in the Gospel record (two whole chapters of ninety-seven verses in Matthew, as well as being preserved in Mark 13 and Luke 21). But since so many evangelical Christians are hypnotized by its prophecies of woe (generating multi-million-selling books), and since, as we will see, it is a valuable tool for apologetics in confirming the integrity of biblical prophecy (showing Christ’s ability to prophesy future events), it well deserves our careful consideration in the contemporary eschatological debate.

Unfortunately, Christ’s woe-filled teaching found pointedly here is woefully misunderstood practically everywhere. This is as true among biblical scholars as it is among evangelical students. And it is especially true among self-appointed, back-slapping “prophecy experts” (also known as “televangelists”). Therefore, as Michael Theophilos notes: “It is no understatement to suggest that more ink has been spilt on this chapter, with its synoptic parallels, than on any other in the Gospel narratives.” [1]
Continue reading →

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (2)

AD 70, hyperpreterism, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Preterism July 18, 2023 1 Comment

PMW 2023-056  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second (and final) presentation of an interview conducted with me on preterism and postmillennialism.

Interviewer: Shifting to a related topic. Do preterist and non-preterist postmillennialists differ significantly in their reading of Matthew 24? Are there different interpretations of the two “days” even among preterists?

Gentry: Matthew 24 has been subjected to a fairly wide variety of interpretive approaches. Perhaps the more widely endorsed one holds that the Lord more or less jumbles together material on A.D. 70 and the Second Advent, in that A.D. 70 is a microcosmic precursor to the Second Advent. This view makes it difficult to sort out the verses in regard to which event the particular verses focus on. Among evangelical preterists two basic positions prevail: that 24:4–34 focus on A.D. 70 and 24:36ff focus on the Second Advent (this is my view, and the view presented by J. Marcellus Kik). The other view holds that all of Matthew 24–25 deals with A.D. 70. Continue reading →

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (1)

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Preterism July 14, 2023 Comments: 6

PMW 2023-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Awhile back I was interviewed about the relationship of postmillennialism with preterism. Here is the interview. I hope it will provide some insights for you as you discuss such issues with your friends.

Interviewer: Dr. Gentry, when we speak of “schools” of interpretation or theological opinion — like “theonomists,” or “postmillennialists,” or “preterists” — there is a tendency to think of these groups in monolithic terms, as if all their proponents hew exactly to a single “party line.” In what ways, if any, does the contemporary revival of biblical postmillennialism differ from earlier versions within the Reformed tradition (e.g., Puritan postmillennialism)?

Gentry: You are correct that we need to be aware of a lack of lock-step unanimity in any millennial viewpoint, including postmillennialism. “Puritan postmillennialism” is so widely variant that for sorting through the various positions, I highly recommend reading Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium: Literature & Theology 1550-1682 (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2000).

But in broad strokes we may distinguish between an historicist postmillennialism (held by the Puritans) as opposed to a preterist postmillennialism which is currently the more popular view. Continue reading →

1 THESS. 4 AND THE OLIVET DISCOURSE

AD 70, Interpretation, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse February 28, 2023 Comments: 6

PMW 2023-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.double vision 2

Recently a reader responded to one of my articles with a lengthy question. Rather than quickly answering it and moving on, I have decided to provide an answer in a full article. Perhaps later I will deal with it even more thoroughly in a series.

MY READER WROTE:

I’m not advocating for full preterism, but reading Mt. 24 and 1 Thess. 4-5 side-by-side (noted below) I can see a 1st century fulfillment in both places. To me, the only real clear passage that speaks to the end of time as we know it is, 1 Cor. 15:24.

Further, I am of the opinion that all of Mt. 24/25 was fulfilled in AD 70 as well, or is in the PROCESS of being fulfilled (an ONGOING reality). Further to the point, in Matthew 25, the bridegroom of the wise and foolish virgins returns to the same people he left. Similarly, the parable of the talents tells us the lord of the servants returned “after a long time” to the same people he left. “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” 1 Cor. 10:11. Continue reading →

WHY CHOOSE MATTHEW FOR STUDYING OLIVET?

Olivet Discourse November 8, 2022 1 Comment

PMW 2022-084 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Each of the three Synoptic Gospels records the Lord’s Olivet Discourse, though with slight differences.

When studying this intriguing and much abused discourse, we ultimately need to deal with all three versions. But sometimes it might not be possible to do a proper harmony of the three, such as when preaching a sermon series or teaching a Bible study under time constraints. Which one would you choose in such situations?

I believe Matthew’s version is the key to understanding the discourse, and even to understanding the other two versions. Let me provide seven reasons why I recommend focusing on Matthew’s Olivet Discourse.

Continue reading →