Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog

PMW 2026-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

God judged Israel in the first century because of her rejection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The preterist analysis of the Gospels highlights indisputable evidence of Jewish rejection in numerous places, as do most evangelical readings of Scripture. However, preterism goes a step further by also pointing out several more subtle indicators of Israel’s rejection of Christ — even where such are not expected. A case in point in Luke 4:22–30.

As I will show, reading this passage surprises us. However, a Narrative Critical reading can highlight important subtleties that are both helpful for interpretation and significant for a preterist analysis. The point of Narrative Criticism (NC) s to read a passage in its full context, i.e., here the whole Gospel of Luke. In Luke, for instance, NC recognizes that Luke is telling a full, unfolding story of Jesus and his earthly ministry. Thus, NC presses us to notice what is going on in the whole Gospel in order to better understand its various pericopes. These are not random collections of stories that are loosely strung together. Rather they are developing parts of the whole unfolding narrative.

Let’s see how a Narrative Critical reading impacts our preterist understanding of Luke 4.

In Luke 4 Jesus enters the synagogue in Nazareth, the town in which he grew up (4:16). He is given the scroll of Isaiah and stands up to read from Isaiah 61. When he explains the passage, all eyes of the synagogue “were fixed on Him” (v. 20). Then we learn that “all were speaking well of Him and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from his lips” (v. 22a). This sounds very much like a rather positive response. But a surface reading taken out of context is not a proper reading.

Israel in the Bible and History (9 mp3 lectures)
by Ken Gentry
The people of Israel are the people of God. But the modern church is divided over the nature, call and identity of Israel. This lecture series covers key issues for understanding the biblical concept of Israel.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

When analyzing this passage as a part of the narrative context of the whole Gospel of Luke, we can detect some important insights.

Narrative Insights

In the first place, we see that the reaction of the Jews in Nazareth falls far short of any true insight into Jesus’s identity. For the hearers respond: “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (v. 22b). Thus, they see him only as one of them, not as he truly is, “the Son of God.” Luke has been taking great pains to demonstrate that he is the Son of God (Luke 1:32, 35; 4:3, 9) and he will continue to do so throughout his narrative (4:41; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22; 12:8; 22:69, 70).

The failure of the people to recognize Jesus’ true identity is significant in the developing historical narrative. For it will eventually result in their rejection of Christ (Luke 23:13-25) and Israel’s judgment (23:27-31).

But secondly, we also suspect something is not as it seems when we read Jesus’ response to the Nazarenes’ seemingly positive reaction to his teaching. After their “speaking well of him” regarding his “gracious words” (v. 22a), we are shocked at Jesus’ response:

“And He said to them, ‘No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, “Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’” And He said, ‘Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown. But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian’” (vv. 23–27).

How could he be so rude by uttering harsh words against those who seem to be praising him? The people did not take this well. In fact, they took it very poorly, to say the least. For they are “filled with rage” and “drove him out of the city” in an attempt to kill him (4:28–29)! How can we explain this?

Narrative Expectation

In Luke’s earlier infancy narrative, we have a record of Simeon’s prophecy about the baby Jesus. There we receive a hint of what will be going on behind the scenes in Nazareth. On the positive level, Simeon himself has the requisite spiritual insight to recognize who the baby Jesus really is. Unlike the Nazarenes, he understands Jesus’ true identity. But on the negative level he prophetically warns of the exposure of many false hearts that will result from Jesus’ ministry:

Thus, positively we read of Simeon saying: “Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, / According to Your word; / For my eyes have seen Your salvation” (Luke 2:29–30). But negatively we learn that Simeon prophesies: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed — and a sword will pierce even your own soul — to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed” (2:35).

Simeon’s prophecy shows that Jesus will reveal the true nature of men’s sinful hearts. And we see this fact at work numerous times in Luke’s Gospel (5:21–22; 6:8; 9:46–47; 24:38). In these several passages we see Jesus looking behind the words and actions (and silences!) of men to expose the true nature of their hearts. Thus, we read: “Jesus, aware of their reasonings” (5:21–22); “He knew what they were thinking” (6:8); “knowing what they were thinking in their heart” (9:47); and “why do doubts arise in your hearts?” (24:38). Truly the “thoughts from many hearts” are being “revealed.” And it is not a pretty picture.

“Jesus, Matthew, and the Rejection of Israel” (downloadable mp3)
by Ken Gentry
Surveys the Gospel of Matthew and highlights the numerous references — direct and indirect — that suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least in part) to demonstrate that God was rejecting Israel. A great many passages in Matthew are surveyed and briefly elaborated upon.
See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Narrative Continuation

The dismal insight by Jesus not only occurs in Nazareth, but in the next town to which he immediately goes: Capernaum. These two towns are not only linked by the narrative proximity of the scenes (Luke 4:16-30 cp. 4:17-36), by the direct linguistic notice connecting the scenes (“And he came down to Capernaum,” Luke 4:17), and by the fact that both episodes begin the same (with his teaching on the Sabbath day, vv. 16, 31). But they are also linked by the mention of Capernaum in the Nazareth episode (Luke 4:23).

In Capernaum, Jesus’ synagogue teaching is once again received with delight (cp. Luke 4:32 with 4:22). And though the immediate context does not expose any overt opposition, as occurred in Nazareth (vv. 28-29), we read later in the same Gospel that Jesus calls down judgment on this very city In Luke 10:15 we read his excoriation: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!” Despite a surface reading of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaum in Luke 4, a later pronouncement by the Lord shows that he was not well received deep down within the people.

This is why Jesus sometimes does not commit himself to those who seem to be converted and express faith in him. For instance, in John 4:23 we read: “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing.” Yet John immediately and surprisingly informs us: “But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man” (John 2:24–25). The same problem arises in John 8:30–59.

So, Jesus exposes the hearts of the people of Nazareth, despite their seeming acceptance of him and his ministry.

Narrative Expansion

No only so, but Jesus’ rejection of the Nazarenes makes certain allusions that seem out of place there. In vv. 25–27 he speaks of Elisha and Elijah’s ministries. Both of these prophets healed Gentiles rather than Jews (e.g., Zarephath in Sidon and Naaman of Syria, vv. 26–27). This exposes a conflict between Israel and God, just as Jesus’ respondents are showing. And for this reason Jesus will not perform healings in Nazareth (v. 24).

So, not only does he not perform miracles for these Jews, but he subtly alludes to the developing acceptance of the Gentiles in God’s plan. This will become dramatically evident later in Christ’s commission at the end of Luke:

He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 4:46-48)

And we discover this developing in earnest in vol. 2 of Luke, which we know of as “The Acts of the Apostles.” Acts opens with “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). This continues in earnest throughout the historical narrative (see especially: Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46; 14:27; 15:3, 7; 14–19; 18:6; 21:19; 22:21; 26:17; 28:28).

Thus, both these subtle and not so subtle observations perfectly fit the preterist analysis of the rejection of Israel and the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

[image error]



[image error]

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.

My reply:

R.W.:

Thanks for reading. And for interacting. However, I believe each one of the points you are concerned about is mistaken.

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history. Provides exegetical reasons for a transition from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matthew 24:36.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Actually the first observation you mention about the inceptive nature of the verse is mistaken. The eos (“until”) is linked with the particle an (untranslated) that immediately follows it. Thus, the subjunctive genetai simply implies the indefinite time of the events. That indefinite time is when “all these things take place,” i.e., all the things predicted before this verse. These will occur in “this generation” (of Jesus’ day) but we don’t know how long that will take — though they must occur before that generation vanishes away.

Your second observation is also mistaken. The reason the Jewish believers are to flee Jerusalem is NOT because “the end is not yet.” Rather it is because they will be destroyed if they remain in Jerusalem (vv. 17–22). Thus, they are not to worry about their property items; they are to be concerned for their very lives. And how are “the days cut short” (v. 22) if they have already lasted 2000 years? Your view doesn’t make good sense.

If “the great tribulation” began in AD 70 and continues until Christ’s return, then is isn’t so “great” after all. For I am comfortable — as would be anyone taking their time to use our technology-produced computer to access the Internet to share ideas about Christ, while sitting in an air conditioned room looking through their Christian books that have been widely published for personal study.

Actually, the greatness of the great tribulation is to involve intense warfare from the Roman invaders in that generation long ago (Luke 23:28–30) because of its great evil in rejecting Christ and persecuting his followers (Matt. 23:34–38) — in “this generation” (Matt. 23:36).

I hope these thoughts are helpful!

Keep studying!

Reader responds:

Thank you for your response. I thought it was very good and I see your point.
Are you saying that “take place” in Mt. 24:34 absolutely cannot be in the ingressive sense, or that the best interpretation is that it is not ingressive?

How would this apply to Luke 1:20? It clearly seems to use the ingressive sense there.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.
It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

My second reply:

Grammatical rules are not mechanical and invariable mathematical formulas, to be sure. That is why we have so many Greek text commentaries making different assertions on the same texts. That is why we have so many different functions of the aorist tense and subjunctive mode, etc. Greek grammars would be much shorter if we could just give one meaning for a tense or mode.

But I do not see how Luke 1:20 is evidence in the inceptive direction. In fact, it appears to be the exact opposite.

The context shows that Zacharias was being disciplined (v. 20) for not believing that his old wife (v. 7) would have a baby. (v. 18). That is the basic point of the angelic prophecy — for the angel Gabriel came to answer that particular prayer or petition to God about having a child (v. 13). All the other factors of John’s future life are not the issue: Zacharias did not pray for those things; they were additional blessings. Thus we read that “your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John” (v. 13). This is the fact that would bring him joy (v. 14).

So then, on the day of John’s birth wherein he is formally named “John,” Zacharias was “suddenly, immediately, at once” (Gk., parachrema) able to speak (v. 62-64). This is just as the angel prophesied (v. 20).

I hope this is helpful!

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

[image error]

[image error]

PMW 2026-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism is perhaps the easiest eschatological position to misunderstand in our era and therefore inadvertently to misrepresent. Consequently, we must remind our brothers in the debate of postmillennialism’s actual claims. In a Westminster Theological Journal article I wrote a few years ago, I caution non-postmillennialists regarding three faulty assumptions that they must avoid when responding to our eschatological system. And though few competent theologians would intentionally apply these conditions to postmillennialism, I fear that these sometimes lurk unrecognized in the subconscious.

First, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies universalism. Postmillennialists do not argue that at some point in temporal history each and every individual then living will be saved. Consequently, even at the very height of the postmillennial advance, unbelievers will remain among us, though in a minority status—some as false converts to the faith, others as openly unrepentant resisters. Jesus clearly teaches this in his Parable of the Tares among the Wheat (Matt 13:30), just before declaring the enormous victory of the faith in all the world (Matt 13:31-33). This is a part of the “mysteries of the kingdom” (Matt 13:11): the glorious kingdom of God does not overwhelm the world catastrophically (but grows gradually like a mustard plant and penetrates little-by-little as does leaven) and it will not conquer the world absolutely (but grows to a majoritarian dominance like wheat in the field).

The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies perfectionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that at some point in temporal history Christians then living will be perfected. Despite the worldwide victory of the Christian faith, Christians will remain sinners—sanctified sinners, of course, but redeemed vessels of mercy suffering the complications of indwelling sin. Just as no current evangelical church is perfect, neither will an evangelical world be perfect. But if the majority of the human race were conducting themselves as the average church-going, born-again Christian of today, the world would certainly be a different and much better place—despite this lack of perfection.

Third, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies satisfactionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that Christ’s people should prefer temporal, earthly conquest through gospel dominion over eternal, heavenly victory in consummational glory. Any believer with even a modicum of spiritual sanctification and biblical understanding must recognize the surpassing glory that awaits him in the resurrected estate. Then—and only then—will we see God face-to-face, experience the transformation of our bodies from mortality to immortality, enjoy freedom from temptation and sin, live forever in blessed circumstances, and be reunited with our saved loved ones. The glory of Christian dominion in the earth pales in comparison to the glory of resurrection majesty in the new earth.

In addition to these three clarifications, postmillennialists endure dissenters reminding us of present world conditions as evidence against our expectations. Consequently, we must insist that our eschatological system be properly defined: nowhere in the definition of postmillennialism do we declare that by the year 2016 we will witness the glorious blessings of worldwide gospel conquest. Until the moment the Lord returns postmillennialism cannot be disproved by evidences from cultural decline and social chaos in the world. Who knows how long God will take to effect the glorious transformation? Just as Christians should not doubt the second coming of Christ because it has not occurred yet (2 Pet 3:4), neither should evangelicals discount the cultural dominion of Christ because it is not full now. All our system requires is that the world be Christianized before the Lord returns—and we do not know when that will be (Matt 24:36; Acts 1:7).

[image error]

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

PMW 2026-037  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Though Hal Lindsey is now a postmillennialist (as of November 25, 2024), he once complained, that postmillennialists “rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man” (Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth, 176). I would note, however, that postmillennialists do not believe in the inherent goodness of man, but Lindsey most definitely believes in the inherent weakness of the gospel. He believes that man’s sin successfully resists the gospel even to the end of history. Jonah also had a concern regarding the power of the gospel: he feared its power to save wicked, powerful Nineveh (Jon 1:2–3, 10; 3:2; 4:1–4).

Gary North notes the irony of the complaint that I am considering here. Anti-postmillennialists “believe that a postmillennial revival is inherently impossible because of the power of rebellious autonomous men. They have great faith in man — autonomous, unsaved man. He can thwart the plan of God. Autonomous man says “no” to God, and God supposedly chooses never to overcome this ‘no.’ So, it is in fact the critic of postmillennialism who has faith in autonomous man. He believes that unsaved mankind has such enormous power to do evil that God cannot or will not overcome evil in history by the Spirit-empowered gospel.” (North and DeMar, Christian Reconstruction, 63)

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history. Provides exegetical reasons for a transition from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matthew 24:36.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though it is true that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer 17:9), yet the postmillennialist firmly believes that “God is greater than our heart” (1Jn 3:20). We are confident that “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1Jn 4:4). After Christ’s resurrection the church receives the Spirit’s outpouring (Jn 7:39; Ac 2:33). And God promises that historical power is “not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit” (Zec 4:6).

We must emphasize this point: We may not convincingly argue for any optimistic expectation for mankind’s future on a secular base. This glorious postmillennial prospect is not in any way, shape, or form rooted in any humanistic effort. We cannot have a high estimation of man’s future based on man in himself, for “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Ro 8:7–8). When left to himself man’s world is corrupted and destroyed — a classic illustration being in the days of Noah (Ge 6:5). But God refuses to leave man to himself.

But neither does the hope for the man’s progress under the gospel relate to the Christian’s self-generated strength, wisdom, or cleverness. Left to our own efforts, we Christians too quickly learn that “apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). Were our future outlook rooted in the unaided power even of redeemed man, all would be hopeless. But our hope is in the resurrected Christ. “The labor is ours; the subduing is His.” (Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, 422)

Amillennialist Bernard Woudenberg’s complaint against postmillennialism is woefully ill-conceived: “It is like the children of Israel rushing in to take the land of Canaan, but without Moses at their head (Numbers 14:40–45). Christ alone holds the right to rule, and he does (Ephesians 1:19–22), and we are never more than simply servants of His” (Woudenberg, “Hope as an Incentive to Godliness,” Standard Bearer, 1990,161). As Woudenberg notes in his self-vitiating argument, Christ does rule! Therefore, postmillennialists humbly bow themselves before him and seek to employ his Law-word under his headship. Would Woudenberg dismiss authoritative church leadership? Is eldership a usurpation of the authority of Christ who is the Head of his church? How, then, can he dismiss the prospect of Christian leadership in the world, as if it implies a usurpation of Christ’s authority?
[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-495" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="" width="96" height="149" />

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Sin is a huge factor in world affairs, to be sure. But God has established redemption to overcome that factor. Despite all the sin in the world, we must faithfully pray: “Your will be done, / On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). And in praying, we must believe. “All things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive” (Matt 21:22).

For Godawa’s Chronicles of the Apocalypse, click: HERE

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.

Although many scholars have argued that the disciples asked three questions here, currently most appear to hold that only two questions are asked: (1) “when will these things happen” and (2) “what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age.”[2] There is much exegetical support for this two-question view. I will be presenting much fuller argumentation in a forthcoming work co-edited with Jay Rogers: Hugo Grotius: A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse (which should be published this year, 2026).

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing (459 pp; paperback). Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Consider the following brief exegetical support for the two-question view:

First, lexical observation

Lexically the disciples’ questions present only two interrogatives, not three. They ask “when” (Gk., pote) and “what” (Gk., ti): “when [pote] will these things happen, and what [ti] will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?

Second, syntactical observation

Syntactically the two nouns parousia (“coming”) and sunteleia (“end”) are “linked as a single subject by the lack of a resumptive article before” the second noun. [3] As Charles Quarles points out with more detail: “The use of the sg. art. noun semeion with two gen. modifiers parousias and sunteleias both sharing the same def. art. suggests the disciples assumed a single sign would announce both events and thus that the parousia and the end of the age would be concurrent.” [4] Dana and Mantey state that this is the Granville Sharp rule of the article, “where the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case” so that when “the article … is not repeated before the second noun or participle … it denotes a farther description” of the first noun. [5]

The Book of Revelation Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, grammatical observation

Grammatically the second question is united by the fact grammatical structure used: “the sign” (to semeion) is a singular noun that governs both “Your coming” (ho ses parousias) and “the end of the age” (sunteleias tou aionos).

Fourth, noun distinctions

The Discourse, as reported by Matthew, employs two different nouns for “end”: sunteleia (v. 3) and telos (vv. 6, 13, 14). This suggests two different ends are in view and that they are to be distinguished. Elsewhere Matthew’s Gospel reserves sunteleia for references to the consummation of all things (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). But in the Discourse telos (which has a wider semantic range) appears to be used for referring to the end of something else. And in this context that “end” regards the temple (per Jesus’ prophecy, v. 2). Thus, Quarles states that “the expression ‘the end’ (to telos) is different from the expression ‘the end of the age’ (sunteleia tou aionos) in 24:3, and the two references must not be confused. Although the ‘end” in 24:3 refers to the end of the current age and beginning of the eschatological kingdom, the ‘end’ here [in 24:6] refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.” [6] Thus, Jeannine Brown and Kyle Roberts well note that “Matthew takes care to distinguish this temporal horizon (… telos) from ‘the end of the age’ (… sunteleia tou ainos; 24:3).” [7]

Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Fifth, transition indicator

Matthew records a distinct break in the Discourse that supports the two-question view. Matthew 24:36 (cp. Mark 13:32) has Jesus state: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” As I note in my exposition of Matthew 24 elsewhere in this work, the grammatical structure of the new section suggests a change of subject as we see in the phrase introducing this new section: peri de (“but of” or “but concerning”). Indeed, France (and many others) insists verse 36 “marks a deliberate change of subject,” [8] thereby transitioning from Jerusalem’s approaching temple judgment to the distant final judgment that AD 70 anticipates.

Sixth, content distinction

The content of the section before 24:36 is quite distinct from that which follows beginning at v. 37. [9] Before verse 36 we read of historical precursor events leading to the destruction of the temple signifying its approaching end (e.g., 24:4–15, 24–25; cp. vv. 32–33). So, Jesus warns that these precursors to the siege of Jerusalem could be misconstrued as the end itself (cf. 24:8, 26).

But with his statement at v. 36 Jesus surprises us with a declaration regarding “that day and hour” (i.e., “the end of the age, v. 3): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Thus, the time of “the end of the age” is wholly unknown (e.g., 24:37–41, 42–44). If Jesus did not know when “that day and hour” was to come, when the end of th age was to come, how could he confidently declare that it was to occur in his very own “generation” (24:34)?

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This commentary is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book. It takes an orthodox preterist approach, giving serious attention to the details of John’s many visions.

Click: The Divorce of Israel
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Conclusion

I apologize for the truncated presentation. But I hope my readers will check out our editing of Hugo Grotius’ work on the Olivet Discourse. Not only are we translating Grotius’ Latin work into English for the first time (which is a significant contribution to the eschatological debate), but we offer several appendices that interact with him, both positively and negatively.

Notes

1 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 190.

To save space I will not provide bibliographies but will simply list a few scholars whose two-question convictions are found in their Matthew commentaries: R. T. France, Robert H. Gundry, Robert H. Mounce, Leon Morris, Jeffrey A. Gibbs, David L. Turner, Craig L. Blomberg, Craig S. Keener, Donald A. Hagner, R. V. G. Tasker, Grant R. Osborne, David A. Garland, Charles L. Quarles, Douglas R. A. Hare, Frederick Dale Bruner, Ulrich Luz, Michael J. Wilkins, Jeannine K. Brown, Kyle Roberts, Robert G. Bratcher, Floyd V. Filson, Stuart K. Weber, Jeffrey Glen Jackson, Philip C. Stine, and Timothy J. Christian.R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 894 n. 12. See also Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 227.Charles L. Quarles, Matthew: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2017), 281. He references Hagner and France: Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Dallas: Word, 1995), 688; France, Matthew, 894.H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 223. This is cited by Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, 170.Charles L. Quarles, Matthew (EBTC) (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Academic, 604–05.Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew (THNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 216.R. T. France, Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 1985), 347.Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 170–77.

PMW 2026-035 by David Schrock

Gentry note: The article below is excellent, showing that the revelation of the Lord’s third day resurrection begins in Genesis 1. Insightful! This article is taken from “Christ Over All.”

On the Third Day: Seeing Resurrection from Beginning to End

Waking from sleep. Seeds sprouting through the earth. New life emerging in Spring. Children entering the world through the breaking of water.

These and other images are used in the Bible to described the glorious reality of resurrection and related doctrines. For instance, Jesus says in John 12:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” Similarly, Paul speaks of the mortal body as a seed that is buried in dishonor and raised in glory (1 Cor. 15:42–49). Or, consider how waking from sleep is compared to the resurrection when Paul says in Ephesians 5:14: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

This light-giving testimony emerges from a host of Old Testament texts (e.g., Isa. 51:17; 52:1; 60:1; Mal. 4:2), as the theme of waking from sleep becomes a wonderful euphemism for the believers’ death in the New Testament (see Matt. 27:52; John 11:11; 1 Cor. 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13–15, etc.). But it is not only waking from sleep, or seeds sprouting to life that captures the wonder of resurrection; there are a host of other creational images that pair with resurrection, too. For instance, Jesus is called the firstborn from the dead in Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:5. And equally, Jesus calls himself the true vine (John 15:1), from which his branches will sprout forth and bear fruit.

Long story short, imagery surrounding the resurrection of Christ and his people is not lacking in the New Testament. And as we have considered throughout this month at Christ Over All, evidence for resurrection is not lacking in the Old Testament either. For as Paul outlines his gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, he says that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

As Stephen Dempster and Nicholas Lunn have shown in their masterful essays on the third day in the Old Testament, there emerges in the storyline of Scripture an anticipation that redemption, hope, and life are found on the third day.[1] For instance, Isaac is received back from the dead on the third day (Gen. 22:4). The Lord met with his people on Sinai (Exod. 19:11). Jonah is returned to the land on the third day (Jonah 1:17). These and more than twenty other third day “resurrections” can be found in the Old Testament, and they set a trajectory toward the third day resurrection of Christ.[2]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Yet, in what follows I will argue that this pattern of third life is grounded in creation itself, and not a later feature of redemptive history. While Christ’s resurrection is regularly observed to be the dawning of the new creation, it less often observed that creation itself, especially Genesis 1:9–13, points to the resurrection. But it does, and in what follows, I will make a connection between the third day in creation and the new creation that comes in Christ’s resurrection. But before making the argument, let me offer three observations on the structure Genesis 1:9–13, for these three textual features will guide our steps between creation and Christ.

Three Structural Observations on Genesis 1:9–13

In Genesis 1:9–13, Moses reports the work of God on the third day of creation. And by comparison to the other days of the creation week (especially Days 1 and 2), we can observe at least three unique features.[3]

First, Day 3 has two sections.

In Day 3, the first section consists of the division of dry land from the sea (Gen. 1:9–10). The second section describes the planting of grains and fruit trees (Gen. 1:11–12). This double act of creation on Day 3 stands out in comparison with Days 1 and 2, where each day only had one speech-act ordering creation.[4]

Second, Day 3 repeats “and God saw that it was good” in verse 10 and verse 12.

This double statement makes us look back of Day 2, where we find that there was no mention of goodness on the Second Day. Easily missed with only a quick reading, this pattern of Good (Day 1), Silence (Day 2), and Double Good (Day 3) is the first key that unlocks this section, and we will revisit it momentarily.

Third, Day 3 is the first day to fill the earth.

In Days 1 and 2, we find the separation of light and darkness, followed by the separation of heaven and earth. Or more exactly, Day 2 presents the separation of the waters above the firmament from the waters below it. In Day 3, we have another separation of Land and Sea, but we also have the creation of plants and fruit-bearing trees. This means that Days 1–3 are not simply dedicated to forming the earth, for Day 3 begins to fill the earth, even as Days 4–6 will do the same.

So, as we press into the connections between the third day of creation and Christ’s third day resurrection, these are three observations we need to keep in mind as we read Genesis 1:9–13.

[§ 1] 9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. [1] And God saw that it was good.[§ 2] 11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. [2] And God saw that it was good.13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

From these five verses emerge a number of textual features that point forward to Christ’s resurrection. Yet, to see them it is vital to read the text the right way. In other words, there are, in my estimation, admissible and inadmissible ways to “find” Christ’s resurrection in Genesis 1:9–13. And so, before making a constructive argument from the text, let me share a few methodological commitments.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Reading Genesis 1

As we begin to look at Genesis 1, it is worth asking: How should we read this passage? Is Genesis 1 history? Or symbolism? Or something of both?

I have already revealed my hand by saying that the third day in creation is connected to the theme of resurrection on the third day. But it is worth asking: Is this what the author intended? Or is this my own imaginative reading?

If you believe Genesis 1 is history—as I do—this does not eliminate the possibility or potentiality that embedded in creation are types, patterns, and shadows that prefigure later events in history. Indeed, the Bible is filled with real history and a real creation, which in turn creates real symbols and prophetic signs that point forward to future glories. So, in answer to the question—How should we read Genesis 1:9–13?—I have two commitments.

[1] Genesis 1 is not written as purely symbolical, nor should we interpret it allegorically.

[2] Genesis 1 contains historical events, persons, and things that were created by God to institute patterns (types) for the rest of creation, Scripture, and redemptive history.

Let me explain.

[1] Genesis 1 is not written as purely symbolical, nor should we interpret it allegorically.

Allegory is the practice of saying this thing (in the Bible) means that thing (outside of the Bible). For instance, Origen once said that the dry land of Day 3 was good deeds done in the body, and the waters under heaven were the sins and vices we must separate ourselves from.[5] That is certainly clever, and it may even cohere with Christian doctrine or ethics, but that allegorical reading ignores the main point of Genesis 1—namely, how God made the world. And accordingly, such a reading of Genesis 1 minimizes the historical fact of creation and invites readers to look for symbols under every rock.

Yet, Origen is not alone. Matthew Henry does something similar. In his popular commentary, Henry allegorizes Genesis 1:9–13 when he says, “Many of God’s gifts are received in vain, because they are buried… [and one must] make them to appear, [so that] they become serviceable.”[6] That too sounds profound, but I have no idea what it means, because Henry doesn’t say how to make buried gifts emerge from the ground. Nor, does he explain how the Genesis account offers such a moral compass.

To repeat: Genesis 1 reveals what God did in the beginning, and while men made in his image are to imitate him, God alone is the creator. And that means that he alone can make the dry land appear, and there is nothing here for humans to imitate in any material way. Rather, this passage reveals something about God, what God did, and perhaps what God can and will do again—if there is a new creation.

[2] Genesis 1 contains historical events, persons, and things that were created by God to institute patterns (types) for the rest of creation, Scripture, and redemptive history.

For those who are familiar with biblical typology, this second commitment should be familiar.[7] But let me illustrate it with respect to resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says Christ’s resurrection is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest. Until that final day of resurrection, the body of believers is like a seed planted in the ground—a seed that is buried perishable but raised imperishable. Paul is using imagery from creation to speak of the new creation reality of resurrection.

And where does he get this imagery? Multiple places, but it begins with the creation week. If the resurrection is a new creation reality, then it is fitting that the creation week informs the resurrection—and that includes resurrection on the third day, when fruit of the ground springs forth into life, just like the fruit-bearing trees on Day 3.

In other words, what God did in creation and what Moses wrote in Genesis 1 provides a pattern of resurrection life that we find throughout the rest of the Bible. When man fell into sin, God did not look around at his creation to see what he could do. God is not like a cosmic MacGyver, a quick-fix inventor who makes a plan of salvation with whatever random circumstance he finds on the ground.[8] No, far better: God filled his world with land and sea, trees and seeds, so that he could give us categories to explain to us the meaning of resurrection—a reality planned by God before the creation of the world (cf. 1 Pet. 1:20).

Putting the pieces together, then, this reading of Genesis 1 is not allegory, but typology. And in the creation of the world, God separated land and sea and planted seed-bearing trees, just as Genesis 1:9–13 says. Yet, hidden in plain sight is a pattern of resurrection life that would be revealed in the fulness of time, such that looking back to creation from Easter Sunday, we can now see how God’s words in Genesis 1:9–13 were charged with resurrection life. And this is true in general, but also with great detail, as we will now see from the next three evidences of resurrection.

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Dry Land ‘Appeared’

In Genesis 1:9–10, Moses speaks of how the waters are pushed back and dry land emerges. Interestingly, the language for dry land is used throughout the Old Testament to speak of the land that God created in events like Israel passing through the Red Sea or crossing the Jordan River.

For instance, Exodus 15:19 reads, “For when the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, the Lord brought back the waters of the sea upon them, but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.” Or consider Joshua 4. When Israel walked through the flooded waters of the Jordan, verse 22 says, “then you shall let your children know, ‘Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.’”[9]

In later periods of redemption, God re-enacted the creation event of Day 3. When the Red Sea stood before Israel, God created the dry land as a bridge of salvation. Likewise, when the flood waters of the Jordan River blocked Israel’s path to the promised land, God made dry land in the middle of the river.

In short, God alone is able to make dry land, just as Psalm 24 says of the earth: “For he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.” Or as Psalm 33:7 says of the seas: “He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap.” Indeed, God is the one who controls all things, including the emergence of dry land coming through the waters, which also prefigures resurrection in at least two ways.

First, the dry land coming up out of the water anticipates the creation of humanity. As Genesis 2:7 indicates, God formed the man from the dust of the earth. This dust comes from the dry land, which appears on Day 3. So, reading Genesis 1 and 2 together, it is not out of bounds to see how this emergence of dry land points us towards the creation of mankind, or how the resurrection of Christ can be spoken of with respect to the formation of man (“firstborn from the dead”). Certainly, this formation of the dry land is not sufficient for making a connection with the resurrection, but it is necessary, because there can be no human life without the dry land coming up from the waters.[10]

Even more stunning, however, is the fact that the water events in the Bible—which are often called “baptisms”—use imagery that matches Genesis 1:9–10. When Noah passed through the waters of judgment in the Flood, Peter likened it to baptism (1 Pet. 3:21). Likewise, Paul says that Israel was “baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). Equally, baptism into Christ, according to Romans 6:3–4, is a death and resurrection. All told, the life that comes on the other side of God’s judgment-waters is a pattern that runs through the Bible, but this resurrection life seen first in Genesis 1:9–10.

In fact, the resurrection becomes more visible on Day 3 when we consider the word “appear” in verse 9 and how Paul uses that word in 1 Corinthians 15. As Paul describes the resurrection of Christ in verses 4–6, he uses the word “appear” twice. “Christ was raised from the dead on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive.”

Now, Paul could simply be using the word “appear” in a general sense. But two things stand out. (1) He could have used a number of other words to speak of Christ showing himself after his resurrection, but he doesn’t. He uses the word horaō, which is the same word used in Genesis 1:9–10 (LXX). (2) We know that Paul was explaining the resurrection of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15 by connecting it to Genesis 1. How do we know? Because, creation themes run through the whole of the chapter. As Nicholas Lunn summarizes it.

“In [1 Corinthians 15:]39–41 he [Paul] lists the various elements created on Days 4–6 (Gen. 1:14–27) in exact reverse order (men, animals, birds, fish, heavenly bodies). Since Paul definitely had these other days of creation in mind, it is extremely plausible that he was also contemplating Day 3 in the context.”[11]

The Book of Revelation and Postmillennialism (Lectures by Ken Gentry)

In the first of these three 50-minute lectures Gentry explains Revelation’s judgments to show they do not contradict postmillennialism. In the next two lectures he shows how the Millennium and the New Creation themes strongly support the gospel victory hope found in postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

If this reading holds, then what we have in the inspired words of Paul is an explanation of the resurrection of Christ as a new creation and one that is intended to mirror the first creation. For in that first creation, the appearance of dry land is not only historical and real; it is typological in the way that it prepares us for seeing the later and greater reality of God’s power to raise the dead. So, this is one lexical connection that stands between Genesis 1:9–13 and 1 Corinthians 15….

To finish reading the article and to see the footnotes: https://christoverall.com/article/longform/on-the-third-day-seeing-resurrection-from-beginning-to-end/

PMW 2026-034 by Tobin Perry (Global Christian Relief)

Gentry: The full title of this February 27, 2025 article is: “Top 20 Countries Where Christianity is Growing the Fastest.” This is an encouraging article. But as we can see, we need reformation as well as revival.

Where Christianity is Growing the Fastest

Christianity is growing at an unprecedented rate in several regions around the world, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, known as the Global South. From the spread of passionate faith-based communities to the establishment of thriving churches in urban centers, Christianity’s growth rate continues to climb.

“According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary”, these trends indicate that Christianity is expanding in new and dynamic ways, particularly as we head toward a projected global Christian population of nearly three billion by 2050. Here, we’ll explore the top 20 countries where Christianity is growing the fastest and examine the factors fueling this growth.

Where is Christianity Growing the Fastest in the World?

The growth of Christianity is notably strong in countries with higher population growth rates and in regions where the faith is newer and often embraced by the youth. The Global South—particularly sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia—has seen some of the most substantial increases in Christian populations.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

In contrast, in many Western nations, Christianity has experienced slower growth. Factors like migration, high birth rates, and the influence of revivalist movements are all contributing to the rapid growth.

Let’s examine where in the world Christianity is growing the fastest. These regions are experiencing a significant rate of population increase among Christians, often driven by unique cultural, social, and political factors.

Nigeria
Growth Factors: High birth rates, Christian charismatic movements

Highlights: Nigeria is a Christian powerhouse in Africa, where Christian groups are growing swiftly, contributing to Nigeria’s booming Christian population. This is despite the increases in violent Islamic extremism.

China
Growth Factors: House churches, underground church growth, urban outreach

Highlights: Despite government restrictions, China has a rapidly expanding Christian population projected to reach around 100 million by 2050. Increasingly, young, educated individuals are embracing Christianity.

India
Growth Factors: Evangelical outreach in rural areas

Highlights: India’s Christian community is growing, particularly among marginalized groups, with many drawn to the message of hope and inclusion in Christianity. Additionally, Christianity offers an appealing alternative amid increasing Hindu nationalism.

Indonesia

Growth Factors: Christian charismatic influence

Highlights: Known as a Muslim-majority country, Indonesia is experiencing rapid Christian growth. Despite governmental restrictions on churches, this is one of the largest and fastest-growing Christian populations in Asia.

Brazil

Growth Factors: Christian growth, population increase

Highlights: Amid rising conflict in Latin America driven by drug cartels and organized crime syndicates, Brazil remains one of the largest Christian populations worldwide, with strong Catholic roots. Over 185 million people are Christian.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation (ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Philippines

Growth Factors: Strong cultural ties to Christianity

Highlights: Despite some regional outbreaks of extremism, the Philippines has a vibrant Christian population, with an emphasis on charismatic faith communities that continue to grow. Nearly 80% of the country identifies as believers.

Ethiopia

Growth Factors: High birth rate, evangelical outreach

Highlights: Ethiopia is experiencing a resurgence in Christian growth, driven by high birth rates and strong evangelical presence. Almost 20% of the population is Christian.

United States

Growth Factors: Evangelical movements

Highlights: The United States remains one of the largest Christian countries in the world, with growth among non-denominational groups. Younger people are also being drawn back to church.

Kenya

Growth Factors: Youth interest, high birth rate

Highlights: Amid challenges of displacement caused by extremist violence, floods, and more, Kenya’s youthful population is drawn to Christianity, contributing to steady growth in Christian groups. By 2050, Kenya could have as many as 95 million Christians.

South Korea

Growth Factors: Evangelical movements

Highlights: South Korea has a high percentage of Christians, particularly among urban professionals, and is known for its strong missionary influence. 20% are Christian, compared to 17% Buddhist. Global Christian Relief has assisted North Korean defectors as they arrive in South Korea and hear the gospel for the very first time. We invite you to read Dongwon’s story of faith on the GCR blog.

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Mexico

Growth Factors: High birth rate, evangelical growth

Highlights: Amid heightened attacks on outspoken church leaders who condemn the nation’s drug cartel violence, Mexico has seen rapid growth in evangelical movements.

Uganda

Growth Factors: High birth rates, evangelical missions

Highlights: Christianity is expanding quickly in Uganda, where 82% of the population identifies as Christian.

Vietnam

Growth Factors: Missionary efforts, underground churches

Highlights: Vietnam’s Christian population is growing through underground churches, largely due to the influence of charismatic Christianity.

Ghana

Growth Factors: Charismatic growth, youth interest

Highlights: Ghana has a fast-growing Christian community–the fastest growing religion in the country, with charismatic Christian groups leading the way.

Argentina

Growth Factors: Charismatic expansion

Highlights: Christianity is thriving in Argentina, particularly through evangelical churches.

Iran

Growth Factors: Underground church networks

Highlights: Iran’s Christian community, while small, is growing rapidly despite government opposition. Many are drawn to Christianity’s message of hope and freedom. Global Christian Relief and our partners have worked to distribute Bibles to new converts and seekers in Iran. Learn more on the GCR blog.

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology

By Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry

This book presents and defends Christian Reconstruction theology, particularly theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology. It does to by responding to dispensationalism’s social and exegetical theology.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

Mozambique

Growth Factors: High birth rate, missionary activity

Highlights: Christianity is expanding in Mozambique, particularly among young people.

Tanzania

Growth Factors: Youth engagement, evangelical missions

Highlights: The Christian population is increasing steadily in Tanzania, where it is one of the most prominent religions.

Russia

Growth Factors: Missionary influence, evangelical movements

Highlights: Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attacks on the church during its war with Ukraine, Russia’s Christian population is growing.

Colombia

Growth Factors: evangelical growth

Highlights: Despite Colombia’s notorious and violent drug cartels, Colombia has a vibrant Christian scene, with Christian groups showing impressive growth rates.

Causes for Growth

Rapid, grassroots-style Movements: Christianity is spreading rapidly in regions like Latin America and Africa, these grassroots movements is attracting new believers with its dynamic and personal approach to faith.

Birth Rate and Population Growth: The rate of population growth in the Global South is contributing to larger Christian populations. African nations, in particular, have high birth rates that add to the growth of Christianity.

[image error]For more information and to order click here." data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" class="wp-image-209"/>

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Urbanization and Education: As more people move to cities and have access to education, Christianity has gained traction in urban settings, especially among young professionals and the educated middle class. Global Christian Relief and our partners are building new schools in places like Nigeria, where displaced children lack access to education.

Regional Highlights: Latin America, Africa, and Asia

To finish the article go to: https://globalchristianrelief.org/stories/countries-where-christianity-is-growing-the-fastest/?c_src=2603NB1&c_src2=2603NB1-NB1

PMW 2026-033 by Abbas Milani (Hoover Institute)

Gentry note: This interesting historical article was originally published by the Hoover Institution on December 9, 2025.

Christian “Resurrection” in Islamic Iran?

Christians of many hues have lived in Iran long before 633 CE, when Islam arrived on the heels of the Arab invading army. The Cyrus Cylinder, often considered one of the first declarations of human rights and religious tolerance, is rightly seen as emblematic of the culture of the Persian Empire before the invasion. When the Zoroastrian faith became dominant in that empire, there are sadly many instances when Christians were subjected to brutal suppression and murder. Nevertheless, for centuries, churches and monasteries dotted ancient Iran’s landscapes. Often called “Nestorian” by Westerners, these Iranian Christians not only had a prominent presence in ancient Iran’s capital — the famous city of Ctesiphon whose architecture, and even pillaged bricks, helped shape Baghdad as the capital of the Islamic caliphate in its “Golden age,” but Nestorian bishops presided over schools that would, even in later centuries, send monks as far as India and China. It has even been reported that the “True Cross” believed to be the one Jesus was crucified on was seized by Sasanian armies in 614 and taken to Ctesiphon, to be later retrieved by Christians. Christianity was, in short, a visible, albeit occasionally brutalized, part of the Persian empire’s intellectual and spiritual fabric. In literature, too, some of the greatest love stories of Iran’s rich poetic tradition include lauded Christian heroes and heroines.

With the Islamic conquest of Iran, the life of the country’s Christians also began to change. The invading Arab armies call to action was Allah-o Abar, or Allah is the Greatest (usually misconstrued as Allah is Great—a gesture of reconciliation, or an effort to hide the global claims of Islam?). That meant that the Jewish and Christian faiths were, within limits, respected as earlier incarnations of a less complete manifestation of the Abrahamic prophetic tradition, one that finds its final, and full iteration in Islam and Mohammad. Even in recent years, Shiite theologians close to the regime in Tehran have claimed that the Bible has been manipulated by Jews and Christians to eliminate any references to the final emergence of Mohammad as the expected new messiah and the last of the prophetic line. Christ and Mary are both particularly venerated in the Qur’an, but the text is categorial that Jesus is not the son of God, with Jesus saying in the text that he is only Abd Allah (Servant or slave of Allah), not his son. (Maryam, 30). In other passages, Allah is categorically named as One who is not begotten and does not beget.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Nevertheless, Jews and Christians were afforded a protected status as Ahl-e Ketab—people of the book. If they paid special taxes, if they abided by a covenant first developed after the conquest of Egypt with the Christian Copts there, they could keep their faith as Zimmies. Under the covenant, they must live in their own neighborhoods, refrain from proselytizing, respect all Islamic laws, follow certain protocols to identify themselves when leaving the neighborhood, and then they are free to keep their faith. In essence the covenant posited that if Christians accepted second class citizenship, they could remain Christians. Compared to how Europe at the time treated, for example, its Jewish population, this covenant was certainly more tolerant of religious minorities. In today’s world, such a covenant is tantamount to a kind of religious apartheid.

Iran’s path to accepting the new faith was different than most nations conquered in the first decades of Islam’s expansion. This trajectory impacted the lives of Iranian Christians living accordingly. The dominant discourse in Islamic governance treated Christians as subjects rather than citizens—tolerated but socially inferior, occasionally humiliated, and sometimes coerced toward conversion. Those who were not “people of the book” were apostates and could be killed. In Iran today, for examples, while Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are treated as “people of the book,” members of the Bahai faith are, like all non-believers in some Abrahamic religion, dismissed in official dogma as apostates.

Iranians begrudgingly accepted Islam but refused to accept Arabic as its supposedly divine language. Scholars have argued that it took almost four hundred years before Arabs conquered the entire Iranian empire. In those centuries of turmoil, Iranian Christians and Jews—like Zoroastrians who had been the dominant faith in the empire—were often subjected to the terrors of a local pious Muslim bully. By the fifteenth century, Shiism—one of the main branches of Islam—forcefully became the “state” religion of Iran, but even that did not altogether destroy Christian life in the country. Assyrians and Armenians continued to live in parts of the country. Thousands were forcefully moved from Julfa, near Iran’s border with Armenia, to Isfahan, then the capital of the new Shiite Safavid state. This traumatic migration paradoxically laid the foundation for one of Iran’s most dynamic Christian communities. The Armenians of New Julfa became vital intermediaries in Iran’s silk trade, linking Isfahan to Venice, Amsterdam, and Manila. Within their schools, printing houses, and guilds, Armenians cultivated art, architecture, and theater that enriched Safavid culture itself.

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.

For more information on this new Vos work or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos/

The Pahlavi era brought new forms of tolerance and assimilation for Christians. Reza Shah’s drive for modernization and national unity recognized Christians as more or less full citizens. They were barred from most top political jobs, but their churches, schools, and charitable associations flourished. Christian architects, musicians, and teachers played conspicuous roles in shaping Iran’s urban and cultural modernity.

The Islamic Revolution of 1979 once again changed the conditions of the country’s Christians. The new constitution recognized Armenians and Assyrian-Chaldeans as official religious minorities, granting them parliamentary seats and freedom of worship. In practice, however, the atmosphere grew restrictive. Church publications were censored, religious education was monitored, and conversion from Islam to Christianity was treated as apostasy—a capital offense in Islamic jurisprudence. Some theologians in Iran had in the past, and even in recent years, offered a different legal opinion, allowing for conversion; but the law of the land still forbids it. When Christian missionaries began to arrive in Iran in the later part of the nineteenth century, they had very little success in converting any Muslims. But having fallen in love with the land and its people, many of these missionaries did not leave Iran, gave up the mission of converting Muslims, and refocused on establishing schools and hospitals. As one scholar has pointed out, many of the “Arabists” in the State Department—diplomats who favored a more pro-Arab foreign policy for the US—were children of these early missionaries. What the missionaries failed to do in conversion, the Islamists who rule Iran did for them.

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As the revolution radicalized and the Iran-Iraq War devastated border regions like Urmia and Salmas, mass emigration followed….

Continue reading this article:
https://www.hoover.org/research/christian-resurrection-islamic-iran

PMW 2026-032 by Rod D. Martin

Gentry note: An excellent and encouraging article by Baptist theologian Rod Martin. (Please note the photo of a man’s muscular bicep. I would have used a photo of my own bicep, but I feared it would have been an illustration for amillennialism and the decline of Christianity.)

Rod Martin article:

One year ago, Pew showed the decline had ceased. Now, new data suggest the secular surge may be going into reverse — and young men are helping lead the turn.

Published by Rod Martin on April 26, 2026

The rumors of Christianity’s demise were not merely exaggerated. They may have been exactly backward.

A year ago, Pew Research Center released one of the largest surveys of American religion ever conducted, finding that after decades of decline, the Christian share of the country had stabilized. Christianity was no longer in freefall. The “Nones” — atheists, agnostics, and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” — had stopped their long march upward.

The secularization story every elite institution treated as inevitable had hit a wall.

Pew’s 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study found that 62 percent of American adults still identified as Christian, 29 percent were religiously unaffiliated, and 7 percent belonged to non-Christian religions. More importantly, Pew found that the Christian share had been relatively stable for five solid years, since around 2019.

Now the story has advanced.

Ryan Burge, statistician and professor at the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University, finds that the secular surge may not merely have stalled. It may be going into reverse. His numbers, based in part on the newly released 2025 Cooperative Election Study, show that the share of Americans identifying as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular fell from 36.2 percent in 2022 to 35.6 percent in 2023, 34.1 percent in 2024, and 31.8 percent in 2025.

Burge notes that the decline is statistically significant, and that the General Social Survey points in the same direction, with religious “Nones” down to just 25.2 percent in 2024.

That doesn’t prove a full-scale revival. Not yet, anyway. But it does prove that the old story is dead.

For decades, it seemed America was following Europe’s path toward a post-Christian society: churches emptying, traditional belief systems collapsing, and no end in sight. The media, academia, and Democrat policymakers gleefully anticipated the day when Christianity would be an afterthought, a relic of an outdated era.

He Shall Have Dominion (paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Meanwhile, a “Third Way” movement within the church, led by popular figures like Tim Keller and Russell Moore, sought to be “winsome” to people whose beliefs were not merely non-Christian but actively anti-Christian — sort of like begging a bully not to hurt you.

Every bit of that was wrong.

The Numbers Have Stabilized. There’s a Reason.

Last year’s Pew study surveyed over 35,000 American adults across all 50 states, making it one of the most comprehensive religious studies ever conducted. Its results were striking:

62 percent of American adults still identified as Christian, including 40 percent Protestants and 19 percent Catholics.The religiously unaffiliated — the “Nones”, or those identifying as atheist, agnostic, or “nothing in particular” — held at 28 percent, virtually unchanged from multiple previous surveys.7 percent of respondents identified with a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism.The percentage of Christians remained stable over the five years from 2019-2024, marking the first time in decades that the decline had stalled.

Christianity experienced a severe decline in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In 1990, roughly 90 percent of Americans identified as Christian. By 2007, Pew found that number had already dropped to 78 percent. By 2014 it was 71 percent. In the latest Pew Religious Landscape Study, it stood at just 62 percent. It is not insignificant that the steepest declines took place in the Obama years.

That sounds grim until you notice the trend line. The plunge has stopped.

Now the secular side of the ledger appears to be shrinking. The “Nones” have not merely hit a plateau. They appear to be retreating:

36.2 percent nonreligious in 2022.35.6 percent in 2023.34.1 percent in 2024.31.8 percent in 2025.

Burge calls that decline statistically significant. He also notes that the General Social Survey points the same way, with the religiously unaffiliated falling to 25.2 percent. In other words, this is not just one odd data point. It is a pattern.

But why? Why would it stop? If the problem is that Christianity is outdated or offensive to our culture, why wouldn’t we continue to collapse?

The answer is simple, as I’ve been telling you for decades. The people who were leaving Christianity were not leaving because conservatives were “mean,” or because Christians “lacked winsomeness,” or because the church failed to wrap historic orthodoxy in the therapeutic language of NPR.

They left because they were leftists. The belief system of the modern Democrat Party is anathema to the Christian faith.

Or let me put that another way: the fakers have left.

There’s no longer any benefit to your business, or to your personal prestige, that derives from pretending to be a Christian. There is no financial gain that comes from sitting on the second pew. To be a Christian today means you have to really mean it, or you just wouldn’t bother.

And they don’t.

So the half-believers left. The brunch Christians left. The “Jesus was a socialist community organizer” crowd left. The people who wanted the church to baptize abortion, transgenderism, Critical Race Theory, and every other fashionable madness of the age left.

Good.

The Left’s Exodus from Christianity

Why does Woke Socialism repel Christian belief? Because the left’s worldview is completely incompatible with Christianity’s core tenets.

Progressivism champions moral relativism. Christianity demands objective moral law.

Progressivism deconstructs the family unit, asserts the right to murder children, and claims that all sorts of sins are “love.” Christianity actively opposes all these things.

Progressivism says objective truth is impossible, that “math is racist” and “2 + 2 = whatever the Party tells you.” Christianity asserts not merely objective truth but precisely one such truth.

Progressivism defines you by your skin color, sexual preferences, or other superficial or behavioral characteristics, asserting that there are oppressors and oppressed, and that the latter cannot sin and the former cannot repent. Christianity says we’re all one race, all descended from Adam, and that all who believe are adopted into one family whose Father is God. It also says that deviant behavior is not your “identity”: you are not a prisoner of your sins, you are not defined by them, and there is both escape and redemption in Christ.

Progressivism worships the state, because its adherents can control the state and “become like God.” Christianity acknowledges not just a higher but an absolute and sovereign Authority Whose laws are above any enacted by mere men, and cannot be changed by their whims.

But let’s put that another way. Have you ever met anyone who converted to orthodox Christianity and, as a result, suddenly started advocating for Drag Queen Story Hour, or abortion-on-demand, or the abolition of the nuclear family, or the deconstruction of the faith?

Of course not.

The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Typically, new converts leave progressivism behind and embrace the values and the issues generally considered “conservative” in our debased cultural moment. As Machen pointed out a century ago, Christianity and theological/political liberalism are completely different religions, even when they share the same terms. They cannot coexist in harmony, certainly not within a single person.

The Pew survey confirms what many of us have known for years — leftists are running from Christianity because their politics demand it.

Consider these statistics:

61 percent of self-identified liberals identified as Christian as recently as 2007; that’s now just 36 percent.More than half (52 percent) of liberals now identify as religiously unaffiliated, compared to just 16 percent of conservatives.Among Democrats, Christian identification has fallen from 74 percent in 2007 to 52 percent in 2024. Without African Americans, it would be a small fraction of that.Republicans remain overwhelmingly Christian (82 percent), with only 14 percent identifying as religiously unaffiliated.

Christianity’s decline was never simply about intellectual skepticism or an embrace of “science over faith.” Lots of so-called “Christians” never truly were. Now that Democrats feel emboldened to seize control of society, the modern left has openly treated traditional religion as an obstacle to its ambitions, not as a positive or even a neutral institution.

From attempts to coerce churches into endorsing same-sex marriage and abortion to outright hostility toward public displays of Christian faith, the message has been clear: Christianity must conform to Woke ideology, or it must be dismantled.

Hence, for most white Democrats, church affiliation is a lot of effort for no reward. If anything, it makes you suspect or outright unacceptable to your peers. And if you truly believe in transgenderism, abortion on demand, Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality (not to mention ESG, DEI, SEL, etc.), why would you waste a perfectly good Sunday morning in a church?

Unless you just really like singing in the choir, you have better things to do.

Bottom line, particularly for white liberals, it has become much more socially acceptable to make snarky comments deriding “Sky Daddy” than to continue to feign belief.

Conservative values act as an on-ramp to Christian belief, while Woke ideology functions as an off-ramp. Since 2007, the percentage of self-identified liberals who claim to be Christian has plummeted by nearly half. Among conservatives, that decline has been minimal, from 89 percent in 2007 to 82 percent today.

The Pew data dismantles the tired claim that Christianity has suffered due to its perceived entanglement with conservative politics. If anything, it proves the opposite.

Political Issues Made Easy by Kenneth Gentry Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise. See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Young conservative men helped drive the stabilization, and they may now be helping drive the reversal. They are embracing Christianity as part of a broader rejection of leftist ideology, secular despair, and the cultural war against masculinity itself.

And that portends a much greater societal and cultural upheaval to come.

Young Men Are Finding Faith

Now the newer data make that point even sharper.

Gallup’s newest data show a remarkable shift among young men ages 18–29. In 2024–25, 42 percent of young men said religion is “very important” in their lives, up from 28 percent just two years earlier. Young women, by contrast, remained roughly flat at about 30 percent. Gallup says young men now surpass young women on this measure by a statistically significant margin, a stunning reversal of the long-standing pattern in which young women were more religious than young men.

Let’s put that in perspective. For the first time in 300 years, among young adults aged 18-24, the gender gap in religiosity has flipped. Historically, women have long been 15-20 percentage points more religious than men (which accounts for much of the church and the clergy’s feminization). But among Generation Z, those days are over.

This is a very, very big deal.

For generations, churches have been feminized. So has education. So has HR. So has corporate life. So has almost every “respectable” institution in America. Boys and young men have spent their entire lives being told that masculinity is toxic, ambition is suspect, leadership is oppression, and strength is dangerous unless it can be harnessed for the left’s political ends.

They were told to apologize for existing.

Christianity tells them something very different.

Christianity tells men they are sinners, yes. But it also tells them they are made in the image of God. It gives them a Father. It gives them a mission. It gives them discipline, hierarchy, purpose, sacrifice, courage, repentance, forgiveness, and ordered liberty. It tells them to become husbands, fathers, builders, protectors, providers, and leaders. It tells them that their strength is not a pathology. It is a stewardship.

No wonder they are listening.

The secular regime has produced loneliness, sterility, addiction, pornography, despair, broken families, cowardice, and an entire generation of young men who were told there was no higher purpose than self-expression and consumption. Then COVID came along and revealed the moral hollowness of the whole thing. The experts lied. The bureaucrats bullied. The schools closed. The churches too often complied. The media demanded fear. The state demanded obedience.

And millions of young people learned a lesson they will not soon forget: a life without God does not produce courage. It produces cowering compliance.

Those who obey a higher authority than government are harder to control. That was obvious during the pandemic. It remains obvious now.

If you are a young conservative man in America today, odds are increasingly good that you also identify as religious, and probably Christian. Why? Because the war on Christian values, the war on masculinity, and the war on national identity have all been fought on the same battlefield. To be a conservative today is to reject the nihilism and moral relativism that Wokeness has imposed.

So suddenly, Christianity is a lot more attractive.

But not the “seeker sensitive” kind. Not the lukewarm, focus-grouped, skinny-jeans-and-fog-machine version. Not the “let’s apologize for everything the Bible teaches and hope the left likes us” version.

If you’re not getting the real thing, you have better things to do.

[image error]For more information and to order click here." data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="" class="wp-image-211"/>

Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Not Just Identity, But Practice

There are other signs as well.

Barna’s 2025 State of the Church data show weekly Bible reading among American adults rising to 42 percent, up 12 points from a 15-year low in 2024. Among self-identified Christians, the number reaches 50 percent, the highest level in over a decade. Millennials rose to 50 percent, while Gen Z rose from 30 percent to 49 percent in a single year. And like the others, Barna also reports that younger men are now outpacing younger women in Scripture engagement.

This is all incredibly surprising, but it really shouldn’t surprise us. Materialism does not answer the questions human beings actually ask. It cannot tell a young man why he exists. It cannot tell him why he should marry, have children, tell the truth, master his appetites, or die for something greater than himself. Secularism promises liberation and delivers chaos leading to tyranny. It promises autonomy and delivers loneliness. It promises pleasure and delivers despair.

Christianity tells the truth about the world as it actually is.

That is why it endures.

The Future of Faith in America

Is Christianity in America experiencing a full-scale revival? It’s too soon to tell.

But what is clear is that the once-unstoppable march toward secularism has hit a wall. The easy deconversions are over. The low-hanging fruit has been picked. What remains are those whose beliefs run deep, who have weathered the cultural storm, and who are now finding strength in the very faith the elites told them was fading.

Ironically, the very people who’ve long decried “cultural Christianity” have gotten what they said they wanted, even while doing their level best to drag the Church to the left.

The battle for America’s soul is not over. Indeed, as the Book of Judges shows us, it is never over, not until Christ comes. But for the first time in a long time, Christianity is no longer retreating. And if history tells us anything, it’s that faith doesn’t just survive adversity — it thrives in it. What Aaron Renn calls “negative world” may be just the tonic the faith in America needs.

The church may have been battered, but it is far from broken. In fact, it may be on the brink of something extraordinary….

To continue this lenghty reading: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/articles-new/
For daily geopolitical analysis sign up as a free or a premium member: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/join-us/

PMW 2026-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I often receive inquiries seeking recommendation on books on eschatology. And since the Olivet Discourse is a major eschatological passage in Scripture, I am most often asked about commentaries on this passage. The Discourse, Jesus’ only fully eschatological discourse, is found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And since Matthew’s version is much longer, I generally focus on it for all the additional insights it offers. The Apostle devotes two whole chapters of ninety-seven verses to the Olivet Discourse. Mark’s is the second longest version but is much shorter, containing only one chapter of thirty-seven verses.

Recently I published an article introducing some of the best preterist commentaries on Matthew (“The Best Matthew Commentaries,” April 10, 2026). Those commentaries have been my go-to works on the Olivet Discourse for a good while. They are immensely insightful and compelling. And fully orthodox.

My new discovery

But since publishing that article just a couple of weeks ago, I discovered I have been overlooking an enormously helpful commentary. I have now remedied my library’s deficiency and have now purchased and skimmed it. I can also highly recommend it, and look forward to employing it in some detail in my research. One more Matthew commentary for my library; thus, one more entry in my Dewey Decimal Classification system: “220.7 EBTC Matt.” And my belief is: the more the merrier (that may be why Santa Claus is so fat).

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

So, I would like to briefly introduce another Matthew commentary for your consideration: Charles L. Quarles, Matthew from the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary series. See: https://www.amazon.com/Matthew-Evangelical-Biblical-Theology-Commentary/dp/1683596587

This 830 page commentary was written by Charles Quarles, who is research professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology and Charles Page Chair of Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He received his Ph.D. from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, and has written several other books, including three others on Matthew. His Matthew works include:

A Theology of Matthew: Jesus Revealed as Deliverer, King, and Incarnate Creator (2013) from Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.

Matthew: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (2017), released by B&H Publishing.

Matthew: A 40-Day Bible Study, Fast and Reflective 10-15 Minute Scripture Deep Dive for Individual Quiet Time for Men and Women in the Planted in the Word series (2025), printed by Lexham Press.

His Matthew in the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary holds to a pre-AD 70 composition for Matthew’s gospel. Though this is not the dominant view in scholarly circles, thankfully a growing number of evangelical scholars is promoting this position. This happens to be the view that I hold.

Understanding the Olivet Discourse 
By Ken Gentry
This 5 DVD lecture set was filmed at a Bible Conference in Florida. It explains the entire Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24–25 from the (orthodox) preterist perspective. This lecture series begins by carefully analyzing Matt. 24:3, which establishes the two-part structure of the Discourse. It shows that the first section of the Discourse (Matt. 24:4–35) deals with the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70. This important prophetic event is also theologically linked to the Final Judgment at the end of history, toward which AD 70 is a distant pointer.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

Features I appreciate

Quarles’ commentary also holds to a preterist (a fully evangelical, orthodox preterist) view of the Olivet Discourse, which is one of my key reasons for recommending it. In fact, he holds to the same view of the Discourse’s structure and function that I do. Quarles argues that Jesus focuses on both the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and the second coming of Christ at the end of history. He presents his case that the destruction of Jerusalem section stretches from Matthew 24 verses 4 through 35, then v. 36 marks “a shift from Jesus’s answer the to the disciples’ first question (‘When will these things [the destruction of the temple] happen?’) to their second question (‘What is the sign of your coming [parousia] and of the end of the age?’)” (p. 637). His presentation matches well with that of J. M. Kik, R. T. France, Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jeannine K. Brown, David Garland, R. C. Sproul, Harold Fowler, Alistair I. Wilson, and others holding to an orthodox preterist view.

This understanding of the passage is extremely important for keeping one grounded in orthodoxy. And I am glad to see more and more authors adopting this viewpoint, especially given the gradual growth and continuing mutation into new schools of hyper-preterism.

His book is helpful for me as I am currently researching and writing on the two age doctrine of redemptive history. Quarles holds (quite correctly) the view that “this age” is human history from the fall of Adam until the return of Christ, the second Adam. At Christ’s visible, glorious, bodily resurrection at “the end of the age” temporal, fallen history will end. It will end as Jesus effects the corporate bodily resurrection and the final judgment to establish the consummate eternal order of a renewed physical creation.

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Yes, he believes the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith in its 2000 year history has been correct in affirming this complex of truths! He even believes that Jesus is still incarnate and remains united with us as the Son of Man, the God-man throughout eternity. I was afraid the New Kids on the Block were sweeping Christianity off its stand by employing a swarm invasion involving several new, competing brands of hyper-preterism. This battlefield tactic is designed to maximize target saturation, and thereby overwhelm or saturate the defenses of the principal target or objective, in this case: historic Christianity.

Quarles also recognizes the distinction between the two different “comings” in Matthew 16:27 and verse 28. Verse 27 presents the consummate, history-ending second coming, whereas verse 28 points to nearer anticipations of that consummate event, beginning with the transfiguration.

And just one additional positive note, which normally would not be essential except for the arrival of hyper-preterism in the midst of evangelical churches today: Quarles unashamedly holds to the historic, orthodox view of Jesus’ bodily resurrection (pp. 753ff). And he does not attempt the strange and innovative maneuver of many hyper-preterists who argue that though Jesus was physically resurrected, at the ascension his material body dissipated, being transformed into a body composed solely of spirit-matter. Though hyper-preterists seem to offer a reworked version of the resurrection that moves smoothly like a duck across quiet waters, beneath the surface there is a lot of fancy footwork going on.

One negative observation

Though I greatly appreciate this work, apparently Lexham Press has made a copy-editing mistake. They left out Quarles’ exposition of Matthew 13:36–43. This should have been number “9.” in his bolded outline, but the text skips from “8. Fulfillment of Prophecy (13:34–35)” (pp. 338–42) to “10. The Parable of the Treasure and Valuable Pearl (13:44–46)” (pp. 342–345). The Beatles tried to warn them about this when they recorded their prophetic song from the so-called “White Album” that repeatedly says, “Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9.”

Apparently, Lexham believes in a new theory of the partial rapture, whereby certain blocks of materials vanish from books touching on eschatology.

There is so much more that I could say, but my wife just called out to me that supper is ready. And I always enjoy eating supper since at our house, it is a proleptic anticipation of the marriage supper of the lamb.

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com