Category Archives: Preterism

PRETERISM IN THE SCIENTIFIC ACADEMY?

LonerPMW 2024-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

QUESTION TO ME

Hello, Mr. Gentry, good morning!

It is always a privilege to have the opportunity to interact with you via email.

I am currently studying preterism/postmillennialism through your writings and those of others (such as Douglas Wilson, Frank Brito, Sproul, Gary DeMar…). I would like to ask you a question, if you don’t mind:

Why do you think that those who embrace preterism/postmillennialism are a minority in academy, particularly among the Reformed? I was talking to a friend of mine who studied at Westminster (California), and he mentioned that he did not encounter any professors who advocated for this position…

Continue reading

THE TEMPLE IN REVELATION 11

Temple 2PMW 2024-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Revelation is an important book in eschatological discussions. The most vigorous Revelation debate in ecclesiastical circles today revolves around the dispute between preterism and futurism. Preterism holds that Revelation was largely fulfilled not long after John wrote it. Futurism holds that it deals largely with events yet to come.

Because of this debate, the identity of the temple in Rev 11 arises as a serious matter. In Revelation 11:1, 2 we read:

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Here we find a Temple standing in a city called “the holy city.” Continue reading

TWO PROBLEMS WITH AION TERMINOLOGY

PMW 2023-079 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry note:
Soon a new version of several of Geerhardus Vos’ works on eschatology will be published. This book collects together some of his important eschatological articles and updates them in the process — removing his awkward, cumbersome, early-20th century writing style. In this clip from updated Vos, we will note his helpful observations on the Greek words kosmos and aion. These words overlap in meaning and significance, making it easy to confuse matters when interpreting biblical texts. I hope this posting is helpful.

Continue reading

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (2)

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

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

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

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

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (1)

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIONS TO JOHN’S “NEAR” STATEMENTS (3)

Einstein wrongPMW 2022-097 By Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

John states in his opening of Revelation that the events within “must soon take place” (Rev 1:1) because “the time is at hand” (Rev 1:3). This has caused commentators to trip all over themselves to explain what John “really” meant. In the preceding articles I reviewed six proposed answers, starting with those that are the least likely.

I will now present the final four answers in this article. These are the most reasonable ones. But of course, only one of them will be the correct one. And since it is the correct one, I have decided to choose it as my own.

7. The events are certain

The events are certain irrespective of when they occur. S. S. Smalley (27) states that “this phrase indicates the sure accomplishment of God’s purposes, rather than a ‘hasty consummation’ of history.” L. Brighton (642–43) concurs: “The events described will certainly take place: human evil and the resulting sufferings under God’s judgment, and the church of Christ completing her mission. It is necessary that these events take place.” Continue reading

OBJECTIONS TO JOHN’S “NEAR” STATEMENTS (2)

PMW 2022-096 By Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.Wrong answer

This is the fourth in a series focusing on the question of the temporal expectation in Revelation.

I am first presenting the attempts of non-preterist interpreters to get around John’s near-term declarations in Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10. Once I have presented these efforts, I will provide extensive exegetical arguments showing that John does focus on the first-century. And then I will eventually answer the question as to whether John ever looks to the distant future.

In my last blog I noted the first two responses to John’s near-term expectations: (1) John was mistaken. (2) John was ambiguous. As you might surmise, I am offering the worst answers first — just to show you how desperate some commentators get over John’s statements. Now I pick up with a third explanation. Continue reading