POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (1)

Last Days, Objections June 9, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader sent me a question regarding postmillennialism’s glorious hope in light of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37–39. Jesus’ statement reads:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:37–39)

The problem we face

This statement appears to undermine postmillennial expectations for the improvement of world conditions under the spread of the gospel. In fact, it seems actually to teach the opposite: that history will descend into wholesale corruption equivalent to the worldwide debasement experienced in the days of Noah. Continue reading →

2 THESSALONIANS 1:7 AND “RELIEF”

persecution, Second Coming June 5, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2020-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader contacted me with this question:

“Why do you think 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is referring to the final return while denying the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ? That is, if 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is not the AD 70 coming but the final return, then didn’t Paul believe the final return could happen in his day since he wrote to the believers in his day, ‘and to grant relief to you.’ Just wondering how you deal with that?” Continue reading →

PRETERISM & NARRATIVE CRITICISM

AD 70, Israel June 2, 2026 Leave a comment

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. Continue reading →

HAVE WE MISREAD MATTHEW 24:34?

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse May 29, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-040by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader recently wrote me with the following observations, for which he wondered how I would reply:

My reader:

I recently read your book, The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. I thought it was very good.

What is your view of the following?

1. “Take place” in Mt. 24:34 does not require completion but only inception. Compare with Luke 1:20. “ginomai” in the aorist subjective indicates coming into existence without speaking at all regarding completion.

2. The reason Jesus gave to flee Jerusalem when surrounded by armies was that the end is not yet. The end would be the Jews defeating Rome and ending the age of the Jews being without a king.

3. The tribulation of which Jesus spoke began prior to 70 A.D., but continues until the bodily return of Jesus to earth.

Thank you.

R.W. Continue reading →

UNDERSTANDING POSTMILLENNIALISM

Optimism May 26, 2026 Leave a comment

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). Continue reading →

POSTMILLENNIALISM’S “SIN PROBLEM”?

Objections, sin May 22, 2026 Leave a comment

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). Continue reading →

THE DISCIPLES’ TWO QUESTIONS IN MATT 24:3

AD 70, Olivet Discourse, Second Coming May 19, 2026 Leave a comment

PMW 2026-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the leading interpretive cues in Matthew 24 is the disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” In terms of Matthew’s rhetorical strategy, his record of their questions here may be equal in significance to the Lord’s own statement at Matthew 24:34 regarding “this generation.” After all, as Ulrich Luz notes: “much depends on the interpretation of the double question, since in the opinion of most exegetes it determines the interpretation of the entire chapter.” [1]

What is more, the significance of the Discourse is emphasized in its circumstances: Jesus is “sitting” and he is “on the Mount.” When Jesus sits to speak, this introduces his formal instruction on an important matter. We can see this, for instance, in Matthew 5:1 (where he gives his Sermon on the Mount) and 13:1 (where he presents his parabolic instruction to the crowds on the beach). This formal teaching posture is enhanced by the where he is delivering the Discourse: he is speaking from a mountain. We see the significance of such a setting when Jesus’ takes three of his disciples to “a high mountain by themselves” (Matt. 17:1), where the transfiguration was experienced. And also when he issues his world-challenging great commission (Matt. 28:16ff), which was delivered on “the mountain which Jesus had designated” (Matt. 28:16). Consequently, the disciples would understand that what they are about to hear is of great importance.

Continue reading →