Postmillennial Worldview

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 →

PMW 2024-048 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am working my through Matthew showing the rejection of the Jews from God’s kingdom and the inclusion of the Gentiles. This helps us to see why the Olivet Discourse is given so late in Jesus’ ministry. He has given Israel every opportunity to believe in him, but they have refused. In the process we are seeing the gradual inclusion of the Gentiles in the biblical narrative. We are now ready to consider a few parabolic warnings to Israel, especially her leaders.

Matthew 22

In Matthew 22:1–14 Jesus presents the parable of the king (God) who gives a wedding feast for his son (Jesus). Those originally invited (the Jews, Matt. 10:5; 15:24) refuse to come (they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, Matt. 23:37; 27:25; cp. John 1:11; cp. Acts 13:46; 18:6; 19:19)). As a consequence, “the king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire” (22:7).

This speaks of the Romans burning Jerusalem in AD 70, of which Josephus writes: “one would have thought that the hill itself, on which the temple stood, was seething hot, as full of fire on every part of it” (J.W. 6:5:1 §275). Of the Romans we read that: “they went in numbers into the lanes of the city with their swords drawn, they slew those whom they overtook without and set fire to the houses whither the Jews were fled, and burnt every soul in them” (J.W. 6:8:5 §404). Continue reading →