“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”  Matthew 7:14

Oh dear. This verse proves postmillennialism wrong. It also proves the rest of the Bible wrong because that is postmillennial too. Fortunately, this problem seems almost as simple to deal with as Irenaeus’ ambiguous text that non-preterists use to “unfound” preterism.[1]

Jesus built the sermon on the mount upon the Bible Matrix pattern. [2] Why wouldn’t He? He is the living Word without Whom nothing was made that was made (heptamerous Creation). He is Yahweh Who led Israel from Egypt to the promised Land (heptamerous Dominion). He is the fulfilment of all the annual festivals of the nation (heptamerous Feasts).

At this point in the sermon, the Lord has reached Yom Kippur. It is also Day 6, Adam standing at the door as mediator; it is Joshua as Captain crossing through the Jordan (the Laver), choosing between blessing and cursing at Mounts Ebal and Gerizim (a veil split in two) and letting Canaanite blood sate the horns of the “four-cornered” Land.

The narrow gate was guarded by real cherubim, God’s bouncers, veiled from the eye of every priest but One, guarded again by cherubim sewn into the tent curtains, and again by the Aaronic priesthood, who incidentally carried swords to deal with any man or beast that dared to approach.

When Jesus said the way was narrow and difficult, this is what He meant. It was a tunnel in the Temple of Doom.

It’s not that this narrow gate is now obsolete. There are still guards on the door – the saints – but as the body of Christ grows to fill the earth, so does the door. It is still difficult, but no longer narrow. Or should be say that it is still narrow but increasingly ubiquitous? It is anywhere faithful, vocal saints find bread, wine and water.

“See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name.” Revelation 3:8

The “harlot” is also an open door, a narrow door given wide appeal through compromise. She wears the robes (veils) of chaste religion to cover her  nocturnal “inclusiveness.” Her forehead says “all-embracing” to men but “SLUT” to God. If we are postmillennial, we believe that as history progresses, the “narrow” door will eclipse the wide way. The other woman always ends up alone and destitute. As Solomon said, it is she who is the true Temple of Doom. [3]

____________________________
[1] David Chilton’s brief mention of this in The Days of Vengeance [A4 PDF] led Kenneth Gentry to write a big book about it: Before Jerusalem Fell. Gentry makes an, I believe, irrefutable case for a pre-AD70 date of authorship of the Revelation.

[2] You can see the whole thing in my book, Totus Christus. Interestingly, the Lord’s prayer follows the pattern as a”seven-sealed scroll” within the larger pattern (the sermon), which is also the “Deuteronomy” of an even larger pattern that covers the first section of Matthew’s gospel.

[3] See Godly Intolerance.

…but slack on Creation.

“What’s so great about Christianity? D’Souza gives this question a book-length answer, exploring Christianity’s effect on government, science, philosophy and morality, while answering the objections of atheists along the way. He also gives a warning: most of the West is living on the inheritance of the Christian culture handed down to it by previous generations, but the secular worldview is slowly eating away at the best things Western culture offers. In a mostly masterful apologetic for Christianity, D’Souza shows that Christianity is intellectually reasonable and produces positive results in the cultures that adopt it, and that atheism is unreasonable and produces worse results than even Christianity gone wrong. However, D’Souza’s position on creationism is a major flaw in an otherwise superb resource…”

“…This hostility to religion exists in spite of the fact that most of the rights that the secularists hold dear have their origin in Christianity. D’Souza shows that Western civilization owes its survival to Christianity, and that ideas such as limited government, religious tolerance, human dignity and equality, and individual freedom all have explicitly Christian origins. Western culture also owes much to Christianity; the great works of art, music and architecture were overwhelmingly influenced by Christian themes, even those created by people who rejected the Christian faith. Many secularists want to leave Christianity behind while keeping the benefits it has had on Western civilization, but D’Souza echoes Nietzsche’s warning: Though some of the values built on Christianity seem to have taken on a life of their own, they are still inextricably tied to their Christian foundation; if that foundation is removed, the values that were built on that foundation will inevitably vanish as well.”

“…He is wrong about Irenaeus, who accepted a literal interpretation of the days of Genesis 1. D’Souza may have misunderstood Irenaeus’s view that the six (literal) days of creation were types of six thousand-year periods which made up the totality of human history. That is, each Day of Creation corresponded to (but was not equal to) one thousand years of subsequent Earth history, and the seventh day of rest corresponded to a future Millennium. For this to work, the days had to be literal—and Earth history had to be only a few thousand years.

Augustine and Origen did not interpret the days of creation literally, but they also were against interpreting the days as long periods of time. Instead, they believed that the days must be instants, because God’s commands would have been obeyed immediately; they did not think it could be as long as a literal day. Both of these explicitly stated that the Earth was only a few thousand years old at the time they wrote, and strongly denounced long-age ideas.”

Read full review.