Category Archives: Preterism

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 →

HELPFUL WORKS ON ORTHODOX PRETERISIM

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism August 7, 2026 Comments: 2

PMW 2026-060 by Ken Gentry

Preterism has certainly developed a following among evangelicals. Unfortunately, a cult-like version of historic preterism is turning off some people to the proper preterist exegesis of certain passages. Hyperi-preterism is developing a cult following, though thankfully is still small. I therefore would like to recommend some helpful orthodox works that my reader might appreciate and find helpful in their own studies. The more important academic works are marked with an asterisk (*)

Adams, Jay E. Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? Stanley, N.C.: Timeless Texts, 2003.

Adams, Jay E. The Time Is At Hand. Nutley, N.J. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966.

Bahnsen, Greg L. and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology. 2d. ed.: Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997.

Ball, Larry E. Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation. Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, 2022.

*Brown, Jeannine K. The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples. Boston: Brill, 2002.

*Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew (Teach the Text). Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015.

*Brown, Jeannine K. and Kyle Roberts. Matthew (THNTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
Continue reading →

ROBERT LETHAM ON POSTMILLENNIALISM

Great Commission, Preterism, Theologians March 13, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-019 by Robert Letham

Gentry note:

Robert Letham is Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at the Union School of Theology. He is also Adjunct Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is a Reformed, conservative, orthodox postmillennial preterist (he has strong words condemning hyper-preterism as heresy, p. 848). This blog article quotes material from Letham’s excellent Systematic Theology, pp. 835–838. I highly recommend this fine work.

Now for Letham’s argument:

The Church and the Progress of the Gospel

Paul on events preceding the parousia (2 Thess. 2:1ff.). Paul warns his readers against letters claiming that the day of the Lord, the parousia, is at hand. Some in the church, thinking Christ was about to return, had stopped working in order to prepare for his appearance (2 Thess. 2:1ff.; 3:6ff.). This, Paul says, is unacceptable behavior based on an untenable hypothesis.

Continue reading →

ARE POSTMILLENNIALISM & PRETERISM DIFFERENT?

Interpretation, Preterism January 16, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I frequently receive a question regarding the difference between preterism and postmillennialism. Some folks are confused as to whether they contradict each other or whether they are speaking of the same thing. Let me briefly distinguish the two theological concepts.

Preterism

The word “preterist” is the transliteration of a Latin word that means “passed by.” The orthodox preterist sees certain passages as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, though many evangelicals understand these to be speaking of the second coming of Christ at the end of history. Continue reading →

MATT. 16:27-28: AD 70 AND FINAL JUDGMENT (2)

AD 70, Daniel, Great Commission, Preterism, Second Coming November 4, 2025 Comments: 2

PMW 2025-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my preceding article I began a brief study of Matthew 16:27 and 28. I am providing evidence that Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man” as applying to his Second Coming at the Final Judgment to end history. Upon declaring this, he adds a note about his near-term coming, which demonstrates his authority at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. This article will conclude the argument by providing my fourth point, following upon the preceding three.

So now we must note not only the wording of the passage, but its flow, setting, and purpose.

In v. 28 Jesus inserts the “truly I say to you” formula (v. 28), which he often uses. He always uses this formula as a bold underscoring of something he has said. So? How does it function here? This will explain his rationale in the setting of his current instruction. Continue reading →

MATT. 16:27-28: AD 70 AND FINAL JUDGMENT (1)

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism, Second Coming October 31, 2025 Leave a comment

PMW 2025-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the more remarkable brief aside statements by Jesus, which impacts eschatology, is found in Matthew 16:27–28. Jesus’ declaration reads:

[v. 27] For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. [v. 28] Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

As an orthodox preterist, I hold that this passage brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment. [1] As orthodox preterists argue (following most conservative, evangelical theologians in general), the AD 70 destruction of the temple is a dramatic judgment of God in itself. But it is also a typological foretaste of the universal Final Judgment, which it pictures through the local judgment on Israel. [2] (This is much like the Israel’s Old Testament exodus event being an important act in itself, while serving as a type of coming redemption through Christ.) Continue reading →