PMT 2016-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the fourth and final article in a series exploring the meaning of “those who dwell on the earth” in Revelation. I am arguing that “earth” should be translated “Land” (i.e., of Israel), and that the phrase refers to the Jews in Israel. So let’s continue!
We find the second clear reference in our text in 6:10. Here we read: “They cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth [tōn katoikountōn epi tēs gēs]?’” (6:10). That the Land-dweller phrase clearly applies to Jews in Israel appears on the following evidence. Continue reading
PMT-2016-81 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In Revelation we have an interesting phrase that occurs time and again, and which plays an important role in the drama. This is the third in a short series analyzing the phrase and its significance for the redemptive-historical preterist view of Revelation that I hold.
But now let’s continue by beginning to consider the issue directly as we look at:
The “Land-dwellers” in Revelation
Of the twelve appearances of gē linked with katoikia, four of them quite clearly refer to the Jews in the Land of Israel (3:10; 6:10; 11:10 [2x]), two of them (13:7–8 and 14:6) seem strongly to refer to Israel, and two (17:2, 8) could very well do so. The remaining four references could go either way, but in light of the clearer allusions and John’s using the phrase as a recurring technical designation, they surely designate the same people. Continue reading
PMT 2016-080 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second article in a short series on a recurring phrase in Revelation, generally translated “those who dwell on the earth.” I am arguing that it should be translated “those who dwell in the Land,” i.e., of Israel. For brevity I translate the whole phrase as “Land-dwellers.” In this article I will begin with:
“The Land” in Revelation
Before discussing the Land in Rev I would remind the reader of Rev’s strongly Judaic character. As I argue in the Introduction (as per most commentators) Rev is wholly saturated with OT allusions, strongly expressed in terms of Hebraic syntactical peculiarities, and brightly colored by Judaic images. John also presents his work as a forensic drama wherein he is presenting a covenant lawsuit from God. All of this prepares us for recognizing the possible use of the Land as an important image in this remarkable work and the Land-dwellers as the recipients of most of its judgments. Continue reading
PMT 2016-075 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the third installment of a three-part mini-series on sovereignty in the Great Commission. As a New Testament cornerstone for the postmillennial hope, the Great Commission requires careful consideration. And in that consideration we must note how it is permeated with divine sovereignty. In this article I will consider sovereignty and:
Its Literary Context
The beautiful structure of Matthew’s Gospel merits our attention as we consider the Great Commission. Blair comments regarding Matthew 28:18ff: “Here many of the emphases of the book are caught up.” Cook concurs: “With this sublime utterance St. Matthew winds up his Gospel, throughout which he has kept the principles, which are thus enunciated, distinctly before our minds.” Continue reading
PMT 2016-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Paul was a postmillennialist. We can know this by process of deduction. We know he was not a dispensationalist, because the dispensational system is so complicated that it took 1830 years to develop. Plus he never presents a Rapture chart in any of his known epistles (though admittedly he could have included one in either of his two lost Corinthians epistles). And we know he was not an amillennialist because he did not have a Dutch name. Continue reading
PMT 2016-037 by R. Scott Clark
[Note: This is a helpful article by R. Scott Clark that responds to dispensational confusion regarding covenant theology.]
Recently I had a question asking whether “covenant theology” is so-called “replacement theology.” Those dispensational critics of Reformed covenant theology who accuse it of teaching that the New Covenant church has “replaced” Israel do not understand historic Reformed covenant theology. They are imputing to Reformed theology a way of thinking about redemptive history that has more in common with dispensationalism than it does with Reformed theology. Continue reading