Postmillennial Worldview

PMW 2024-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I continue my brief introduction to preterism in Revelation, we come now to the important: Historical Indicators

I agree with John Lightfoot: Revelation appears to prophesy Christ’s judgment upon the Jews in A.D. 70. John’s opening statement of purpose (1:7), the seven letters (2:9; 3:9), and the body of Revelation (4-19; e.g., 7:1-8; 11:1-8) all reflect this truth.

Just after mentioning the nearness of the events (1:1, 3) and just before alluding to the dire circumstances of his original audience (1:9), verse 7 warns: “Behold he comes with the clouds, and will see him every eye and those who him pierced, and will wail over him all the tribes of the land. Yes, amen” (Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English NT; cp. Robert Young, Literal Translation). Though this sounds like a Second Advent reference, the following evidence points to A.D. 70. Continue reading →

PMW 2024-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I began this brief series to introduce the preterist approach to Revelation to those who might be unfamiliar with it. And there are about 7.95 billion of those people. (I would really like to tap into that market!) In the first article I laid down the founding principle: temporal indicators. In this article we will move on to a second exegetical indicator:

Audience Indicators. John emphasizes the nearness of his prophetic events, in a way most relevant to his original recipients. In fact, to delay the prophetic events thousands of years would contradict his whole point in writing Revelation.

First, John writes to seven historical churches. Immediately after twice declaring the nearness of the events (1:1, 3) we read: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4a). In 1:11 and 2:1–3:22 he specifically names the churches. John informs these first century churches of events ‘soon’ (1:1) to come to pass because “the time is near” (1:3). Continue reading →

PMW 2024-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In light of the release (finally!) of my commentary on Revelation, I thought it might be helpful to introduce four basic principles that provide exegetical justification for preterism therein. Many are unfamiliar with the preterist understanding of Revelation. These justifications are rooted in interpretive demands derived from the text itself, not from theological predispositions (e.g., anti-premillennialism) or from traditional predilections (e.g., John Lightfoot emulation). By doing this, I hope these articles might be a brief “tract” to help introduce family and friends to this very different approach than that held by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye.

The leading preterist evidence derives from John’s temporal delimitations, which he emphasizes by strategic placement, didactic assertion, frequent repetition, and careful variation.

He strategically places them twice in his introduction (1:1, 3) and five times in his conclusion (22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20), thereby bracketing the highly wrought drama within (4:1–22:6). In these didactic passages John employs two terms demanding preterism: tachos / tachu (1:1, cp. 22:7, 12, 20) and eggus (1:3; cp. 22:10). For example:
Continue reading →

PMW 2024-053 by Purely Presbyterian

Gentry note: I received this article from “Purely Presbyterian” by email the other day and thought it worthy of promotion on my website (since I am a Westminster Confessionalist).

PAEDO-BAPTISM, YES; PAEDO-COMMUNION, NO

A common objection against infant baptism by credo-baptists is that if children are to be baptized, then, for the sake of consistency, they ought to also be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In other words, the logical conclusion of infant baptism necessarily leads to the absurdity of infant communion; paedocommunion is obviously unbiblical and absurd, therefore paedobaptism must likewise be unbiblical. In like manner, paedocommunion advocates endorse the same logic, but instead of denying both infant baptism and infant communion, they affirm and practice both under the same pretense of consistency (cf. Infant Communion? By Douglas Wilson). Since paedobaptism is true, paedocommunion is likewise true, and it is inconsistent to treat them differently by giving one sacrament to infants but not the other.

But is this charge of inconsistency a valid criticism of confessional Reformed sacramentology?
Continue reading →