Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 114

Our Collapsing Culture

Sadly Walmart, a putative icon of middle-America, has joined the march of our value-less, immoral, collapsing society as it heads over the cliff of despair.

According to a report by Fox News, Walmart is responding against Arkansas’ legislative proposal to defend Christian business owners’ rights against homosexual-targeting and persecution: “Doug McMillon, the CEO of Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, issued a statement Tuesday pressing Hutchinson to ‘veto this legislation,’ and adding that the law would ‘undermine the spirit of inclusion’ in the state. [It] does not reflect the values we proudly uphold,’ McMillon’s statement read.”

“Values” are no longer linked to a universal, invariant, objective moral standard. Rather they are arise from the slime stirred up with each new wave of political-correctness as tokens of our cultural demise. In this new “values” system, those deemed “brave” and of whom we are “proud,” are no longer soldiers fighting in our defense, policemen risking their lives to secure our safety, good Samaritans facing death to save others from a fire, but perverse people engaging in immoral activities against nature and nature’s God.

Homosexual Question

(5 mp3s sermons by Ken Gentry)

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of

American culture and to our Christian influence in culture.

In this sermon series Dr. Gentry tackles the homosexual question head on

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com 

Recently, Target launched a Gay Pride T-shirt line, introduced a wedding gift registry showing homosexual couples holding hands, and endorsed gay marriage. Apparently, Walmart is moving in that direction as they “proudly uphold” a value-less society (while hoping culture doesn’t collapse so far as to reduce economic productivity and a downturn in sales, of course). I no longer shop at Target; is Walmart about to enter my Deshopping Zone?

The truly “brave” companies, such a Chic-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, will continue enduring the onslaught of degenerate, politically-correct culture.

http://www.foxnews.com/…/arkansas-passes-religious-freedom…/

THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF POSTMILLENNIALISM

PMT 2015-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism expects that before the end of history, the vast majority of the world’s population will be converted to Christ as a consequence of the Spirit-blessed proclamation of the gospel. In light of present world conditions, though, many non-postmillennial Christians are surprised at the resilience of the postmillennial hope. In this article I will briefly show that though the hope of gospel victory sounds strange to the modern evangelical, the basic theology of Scripture is quite congenial to it. Indeed, these factors suggest the prima facie plausibility of postmillennialism.

God’s Creational Purpose

In Genesis 1 we find the record of God’s creation of the universe in the space of six days. As a result of God’s purposeful creative power, all is originally “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Of course, we expect this in that God creates the world for his own glory: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Rom. 11:36). “All things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16b). Frequently, Scripture reaffirms God’s love of his created order and his ownership claim over all things: “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” The postmillennialist holds that God’s love for his creation prompts his concern to bring it back to its original purpose of bringing positive glory to Him. Thus, the postmillennialist’s hope-filled expectation is rooted in creational reality.

Postmillennial Lectures

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Formal seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

God’s Sovereign Power

Our evangelistic task in God’s world should be emboldened by the certainty that God “works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). We confidently believe that God controls history by means of his decree, whereby he determines “the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10). Consequently, postmillennialists assert that God’s Word, as he says, “shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11), irrespective of the opposition of men or of demons, despite natural phenomena or historical circumstances.

The Christian, then, ought not use past historical factors or present cultural circumstances to pre-judge the prospects for future gospel success. Rather, he should evaluate its possibilities solely on the basis of the revelation of God in Scripture — for the success of the gospel is “not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit” (Zech. 4:6). Thus, the postmillennialist’s ultimate confidence is in the sovereign God.

God’s Blessed Provision

In addition, the Lord of lords amply equips his church for the task of world evangelistic success. Among the abundant divine provisions for the church are the following:

(1) We have the very presence of the Risen Christ with us (John 6:56; 14:16-20, 23; 15:4-5; 17:23, 26; Rom. 8:10; Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27; 1 John 4:4). He is the One who commands us to “go and make disciples of all nations,” while promising to be with us to the end (Matt. 28:19-20). “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).

(2) We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit from on high (John 7:39; 14:16-18; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16). Thus, we believe that “the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4b). Among his many ministries he causes the new birth, empowers believers for righteous living, and blesses their gospel proclamation in bringing sinners to salvation (John 3:3-8; 1 Cor. 6:11; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:11-12, 22).

(3) The Father delights in saving sinners (Eze. 18:23; 33:11; Luke 15:10; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:5). In fact, the Father “did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).

(4) We have the gospel which is the very “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16; 15:19; 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:18, 24; 1 Thess. 1:5). We also wield the powerful word of God as our spiritual weapon: “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12).

Christian Theistic Ethics

(29 lectures on mp3 USB)

Formal Christ College course on Christian Theistic Ethics.

Demonstrates theonomic underpinnings of Christian ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(5) To undergird and empower us to gospel victory, we have full access to God in prayer (Matt. 7:7-11; 21:22; Eph. 2:18; Phil. 4:6; Heb. 4:16; 10:19-22; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15) through Jesus’s name (John 14:13, 14; 15:7, 16; 16:23, 24, 26; 1 John 3:22; 5:14, 15). Christ even directs us to pray to the Father: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).

(6) Though we have supernatural opposition in Satan, he is a defeated foe as a result of the first advent of Christ. “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14; cp. Matt. 12:28-29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; 16:11; 17:15; Acts 26:18; Rom. 16:20; Col. 2:15; 1 John 3:8; 4:3-4; 5:18). Consequently, we can so resist him that he will flee from us (Jms. 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9); we can crush him under our feet (Rom. 16:20). Indeed, our God-given mission is to turn men “from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18). Thus, the church’s ample equipment is given by a gracious Savior.

Therefore, since God creates the world for his glory, governs it by his almighty power, and equips his people to overcome the Enemy, the postmillennialist asks: “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31). Our confidence is in the service of the Lord Jesus Christ, “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5). He sits at God’s “right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph. 1:20-22). We have confidence that the resurrection of Christ is more powerful than the fall of Adam.

 

THE GRADUALISM PRINCIPLE

PMT 2015-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The principle of gradualism has long been the method of God and the experience of God’s people in Scripture. I will be showing below that if we are to properly understand Scripture’s eschatological victory, we must recognize this important redemptive-historical means of divine operation. In short, this principle expects the kingdom’s developmental unfolding and incremental expansion to grow slowly over time in the historical long run.

Contrary to postmillennialism, though, the dispensational and premillennial views operate on the basis of the principle of catastrophism. As premillennialist theologian Millard Erickson puts it: “Whereas the postmillennialist thinks that the millennium is being introduced gradually, perhaps almost imperceptibly, the premillennialist envisions a sudden, cataclysmic event.” [1] Dispensationalism believes that at Christ’s second advent “he will depose the earthly rulers and will begin His millennial reign.” [2] In their theological systems Christ’s kingdom with all of its attendant glory will invade history as a great catastrophe, being suddenly imposed on a recalcitrant world in remarkably brief period of time.

Theological Truths and Gradualism

A careful survey of Scripture suggests that gradualism is a common divine method of operation in history. Consider five clear samples:

Creation. Even God’s creating the universe proceeds upon a gradualistic principle — an accelerated gradualism, to be sure, but gradualism nonetheless. God creates the world out of nothing, but he does not create it as a complete system by one divine command — though he could easily do so. He employs a series of successive divine commands that stretch out over a period of six days (Gen 1; Exo 20:11).

Faith of Our Fathers

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Explains the point of creeds for those not familiar with their rationale.

Also defends their biblical warrant and practical usefulness.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Dominion. Though God places Adam in the Garden of Eden with a command to cultivate the soil there (Gen 2:15), he expects Adam to begin working the implications of the Cultural Mandate into all the world (Gen 1:26–28). Chung notes that “Adam’s rule was anticipated to be extended to the entire creation beyond the boundary of the garden of Eden.” [3] This obviously requires a long, slow process.

Redemption. God promises redemption just after sin enters into the human race in Eden (Gen 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam, when Christ finally comes “in the fulness of time” (Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10).

Revelation. Rather than giving his total special revelation all at once, God gradually unfolds his word to men over a period of 1,500 years (Heb 1:1, 2; 1Pe 1:10–12).

Sanctification. Even in salvation, justification, which is a once-for-all act (Rom 4:2–3; 5:1), gives rise to sanctification, which comes by process (Php 2:12–13; 1Pe 2:2).

The Kingdom and Gradualism

Now we must note that God’s redemptive kingdom also develops gradualistically. It incrementally unfolds through history, progressing from small, imperceptible beginnings to a glorious, dominant, worldwide conclusion. I will survey several relevant passages illustrating this important principle.

An historical indicator of kingdom gradualism appears in the Promised Land’s conquest. In Deuteronomy 7:22 we read: “And the Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you.” Here Moses specifically informs Israel that gradual conquest is for her good, allowing her people to conquer where they could secure and maintain control.

In Daniel 2:31–45 Christ’s kingdom comes down to earth as a stone smiting the world kingdom, which exists under a fourth imperial rule. As we read through the passage we learn that the kingdom grows to become a great mountain in the earth:

“You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces . .　.　. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” (Dan 2:34–35, 44)

God Gave Wine

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Presents and defends the case for a moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In this imagery we have both linear continuity over time and upward development: the stone grows to become a “great mountain.” We also witness struggle and resistance: the stone smashes the image. Finally, we rejoice in its fortunes: the God-defying image is thoroughly crushed.

In Ezekiel 17:22–24 God promises to establish the kingdom as a small “sprig from the lofty top of the cedar.” Then he will nurture it until it becomes “a stately cedar.” Ultimately, it will produce great boughs so that “birds of every kind will nest under it.” This growth is certain for “I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will perform it.”

In Ezekiel 47:1–9 redemption flows forth from God’s temple as an ever-deepening stream. The waters of life trickle from under the altar, first “to the ankles” (Eze 47:3), then they flow gradually deeper to the knees (Eze 47:4a), then deeper still to the loins (Eze 47:4b), until the stream finally becomes “a river that I could not ford” (Eze 47:5). This is the river of life (Eze 47:9). In fact, in John 7:38 Christ  presents himself as fulfilling this prophecy. This water-from-the-altar is quite consistent with Christ’s presenting himself as the true temple (John 2:19–21). In John 7:38 we read: “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” At Pentecost the torrential flow of the living water begins in earnest (Acts 2:33).

In Matthew 13 the Kingdom Parables speak of the kingdom’s growing increase in external size and transformational influence (see Ch. 3 above). Matthew 13:3–9 portrays the kingdom as scattered seed that gradually grows to bear abundant fruit. Matthew 13:31–33 likens the kingdom’s external growth to a mustard seed which becomes a great plant and its internal penetration working like a little leaven leavening three bushels of meal. In Mark 4 God’s kingdom begins as mere seed (Mark 4:26), then it puts forth the blade, then the head, the mature grain (Mark 4:27–28).

In Romans and 1 John the apostles see the kingdom light as already shining, ready to dispel the darkness:

“The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.” (Rom 13:12)

“On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.” (1 John 2:8)

Satan will not be able to thwart the kingdom’s progress and growth, for the “gates of Hades will not be able to prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). Though slow, it will advance in God’s good time.

Notes

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (1998), 1217.
Bobby Hayes, “Premillennialism,” Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, 311.
Chung in Blomberg and Chung, Historic Premillennialism, 139.

DISTANT EVENTS IN REVELATION?

PMT 2015-037 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I often receive e-mail questions from readers. Here is a good question from Micah Thompson:

Question

“I have appreciated your teachings regarding Revelation. Through personal study, I came to believe that each book of the Bible was written to benefit those of its day and to which it was written, otherwise it really didn’t make much sense excluding, of course, the redemptive weave throughout the OT. So when I was given your presentation I felt it was confirmed even more.

The question I did have is in regard to Revelation. Since John did say “shortly” in the beginning and ending as you mentioned: Is there anything in between those chapters that we could speculate could still happen or is yet to happen other than the return of Christ?

Do you feel all the apocalyptic language stuff has ALREADY happened since it does fall between the beginning and ending chapters?

Answer

This is an important question, both for understanding Revelation and explaining its preterist orientation. How are we to understand these declarations? And do they prohibit any and all reference to the distant future?

As a matter of fact, I do see some historical events in Rev that stretch beyond its near-term time frames. By the very nature of the case, these are rare, since John brackets both ends of his prophetic work with near-term indicators. But these do exist.

Against Dispensationalism

(DVDs by Jerry Johnson with Ken Gentry)

Provide deep insights into both dispensationalism’s errors, as well biblical eschatology itself.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

I believe that Rev 20 is the one place where the reader is taken into the distant future from John’s day. In fact, I believe we are taken through history to the very end. Let me explain.

In Rev 20 we read six times of a thousand-year period of time. This clearly points beyond the near term and projects out into the distant future. Whatever John means by his reference to the “thousand years,” he surely cannot mean a short period of time. In Scripture a thousand years is deemed a long time. And the number “one thousand” pictures an enormous number, even where it is not understood literally.

For instance, when the Psalmist has God state that “the cattle on a thousands” are Mine (Psa 50:10), he is most definitely not having the Lord state: “I own a few cattle here and there.” And when he declares for himself and his own comfort that “a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside” (Psa 84:10), he surely is not stating that “a day in Your courts is better than five or six days outside.” Obviously, when a thousand of something is mentioned, it indicates a very large number.

In Psa 90:4 we read: “For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.” So that which is an enormously long period for us on earth, is but a flash for the eternal God. But he would not say: “For three and one-half years in your sight is like yesterday.”That would not be impressive.

This is true of the one thousand year period in Rev 20. The thousand year reign of Christ must indicate an enormously long reign. And indeed, most non-dispensationalist or non-premillennialist scholars hold that the this period represents Christian history from the first century to the last, whenever that may be.

Consequently, we must understand John to be making a rare breech of his time-constraints. And this is for the purpose of looking at the long-term consequences of the near-term events. Since he is writing to a martyr church, he is basically encouraging them: Your persecutors will have their day, and it will all be over. But you will be taken up into heaven where you will exercise Christ’s authority through to the end of history. Therefore, hang in there!

Beast of Revelation: Identified (DVD by Ken Gentry)

A biblical and historical argument for Nero being the beast of Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We must recognize, however, that the thousand years of Rev 20 actually begin in the first century. In fact, I believe they begin in the context of AD 70. Upon the judgment of the beast (Nero’s death) in AD 68) and the collapse of the temple and th false prophet (the high-priesthood) in AD 70, the martyred Christians will be exercising rule in heaven with Christ.

When you compare Rev 6:9 with Rev 20:4 you will note the strong parallels of words and sentiment. In Rev 6:11 the martyrs are told they must wait only “a little while longer,” i.e., until the conclusion of the judgment of Israel. In another study Iwill show how Rev 20:4 is the fulfillment of the prayer in Rev 6:10: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood”?

REVELATION’S PROPHECIES WERE NEAR (2)

PMT 2015-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I began a two-part series showing that the text of Revelation clearly expects that the prophecies were coming soon in John’s own first-century time-frame. I will conclude this study in this article.

5. Didactic placement

John places his two leading terms in his introduction and conclusion (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10): (1) He places these expressions early (1:1, 3) to alert the readers and hearers in advance that the following prophecies are near at hand. Before anyone could form any opinion about when they think these things might occur, he informs them right up front. Thus, the audience hears these statement upon entering the book and are reminded of them upon exiting it. Furthermore, (2) these statements appear in the more didactic portions of the book before and after the dramatic symbolism confronts — and confounds — the reader/hearer.

We must recognize that the first-century recipients of Revelation were not privy to Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Roman Empire. Nor to Tim LaHaye’s, Left Behind a Rock. They were stuck only with John’s own words.

6. Frequent appearance

John’s concern with the near-term prospects of his prophecy do not serve as a quick sidebar comment. He frequently reiterates his temporal expectations, using the words/phrases thirteen times in Rev. Eggus  (“near”) appears at 1:3 and 22:10. Tachos (“soon”) and tachus (“quickly”) appear eight times: 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7, 12, 20. Chronon mikron (“short time”) appears in 6:11; chronos ouketis estai (“time [delay] no longer”) in 10:6; and oligon kairon  (“little time”) in 12:12.

Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert

(by Rosaria Butterfield)

Remarkable testimony of a former lesbian professor who was a leading spokesperson for

the feminist movement, but whom Christ saved.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

7. Prophetic contrast

Later in John’s conclusion one of his time-frame indicators which occurs also in 1:3 reappears in 22:10. Here it comes in a particular way that expressly demands its near-term emphasis. The angel commands John as his book is concluding: “‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” Most commentators recognize that this statement is reversing a command given to Daniel in Da 12:4: “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time.” So then, Daniel must seal up his book because the time is not near, whereas John must not seal up his because “the time is near.”

8. Literary parallel

Rev clearly parallels the Olivet Discourse in many respects (e.g., Rev 1:7 = Mt 24:30; Rev 11:2 = Lk 21:24; Rev 18:24 = Mt 23:35). In Rev 1:7 we find a unique merging of Da 7:13 and Zec 12:10 that only occurs elsewhere in Scripture at Mt 24:30 (see discussion at 1:7 below). Both prophecies speak of Christ’s coming with clouds, the tribes of the earth, and their mourning. Interestingly, both are also set in near-term contexts. As I have been arguing John expects Rev’s events to “soon take place” (1:1) because “the time is near” (1:3); likewise Mt 24:34 states that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

9. Audience circumstances

John is writing to Christians under severe duress and tribulation. In fact, he is enduring tribulation with them as he is banished to Patmos: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation” (1:9). He shows concern for their cries for vindication (6:9–11) and highlights the deadly assaults they are enduring (11:7; 13:7; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24). He warns his audience that through it all they must persevere (1:3, 9; 2:2–3, 10, 17, 19, 25–26; 3:3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 21; 12:11; 13:10; 14:4–5; 16:16; 17:14; 21:7) for there are severe consequences for failure (2:4–5; 14–16, 20; 3:3, 16, 19). He offers them a special blessing if they should die for the faith (14:13) and shows them God will vindicate them (18:20; 19:1–5).

In such a foreboding work as this, how could John write to his beleaguered audience about events thousands of years off in the future? This is especially problematic in that he early and repeatedly uses language that suggests Rev’s near-term fulfillment, though in fact its judgments will not ultimately fall for thousands of years.

Solid Ground

(by Gabriel Fluhrer)

Insight and answers on: knowing God, the sufficiency of God’s Word, the truth of God, scripture alone, God’s word in the church, the accessibility of God’s Word, and the power of God’s Word.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

10. Redemptive-historical significance

Rev is focusing on a dramatically significant redemptive-historical event: the destruction of God’s temple in AD 70. This finally and forever closes the old covenant’s typological, sacrificial economy so that the final “new covenant” economy may be established (Jn 4:21; Heb 8:13). This event is so significant that Jesus prophesies it in one of his longest recorded discourses, the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24-25, the first portion of which covers the events leading up to and including AD 70 (Mt 24:4-34).

In fact, many of his actions and much of his teaching warns of the approach of AD 70, as we may discover by a quick survey of the Gospels. We can see that John’s dramatic-symbolic imagery easily applies to this enormously significant episode.

Even dispensationalist Robert Thomas (Revelation 1:55), who opposes preterism, admits: “A major thrust of Revelation is its emphasis upon the shortness of time before the fulfillment.” Thus, we must understand John’s near-term language in Rev exactly for what it says. The events of Rev “must soon take place” (1:1) because “the time is near” (1:3).

REVELATION’S PROPHECIES WERE NEAR (1)

PMT 2015-035 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Most commentators attempt to get around John’s near-term statements in his opening and closing chapters. But it is with great difficulty that they make the effort. The reason it is so difficult to discount John’s statements is because they are so clear. In this and my next article, I will be providing some textual insights for understanding his statements. But first, I will cite two of his statements:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon [en tachei] take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.” (Rev 1:1)

“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near [eggus].” (Rev 1:3)

These appear to seal the case for the preterist analysis of Revelation. Unless of course John was kidding. But if you were to read Revelation in order to provide a psychological profile, you would conclude that he was altogether humorless. I recommend taking him at his word and letting the chips fall where they may. Unless you are employed by a dispensational church or school, then just shuffle on because it will not work. Dispensationalists are also perfectly humorless.

That en tachei means “soon” and that Rev primarily prophesies near term events is based on the following evidence. Each of the arguments below will not apply equally against each one of the alternative interpretations above. Some will apply more directly to one alternative than to another. All of these observations together, however, should demonstrate the strong, multi-faceted case for the preterist analysis.

1. Lexical meaning

According to Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3:338) tachos means “immediately, without delay,” and “soon.” BAGD (992) gives the significance of the word as: “a very brief period of time, with focus on speed of an activity or event, speed, quickness, swiftness, haste.”

The adverb tachos appears in the NT only in the phrase en tachei (Lk 18:8; Ac 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Ro 16:20; 1Ti 3:14; Rev 1:1; 22:6). In these places it means “soon, in a short time” (BAGD 993). Though some argue that in Ac 12:7 and 22:18 the emphasis is on the rapidity of movement rather than chronological nearness, both of these verses express urgent warnings to leave an area. Consequently, the purpose of the swift action is to get out of the area as soon as possible. Peter in the collapsed prison and Paul in antagonistic Jerusalem are not being urged to move rapidly whenever they get a chance to do so at some time in the future.

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Some commentators cite en tachei in Lk 18:8 as indicating rapid action rather than temporal nearness (e.g., J. Walvoord 32; Ryrie 13. Others view this text as teaching ever-impending imminence (e.g., R. Mounce 41; A. Johnson 1981: 416; G. Osborne 55). However, this key text itself must signify soon-ness. Note that: (1) Note that elsewhere the promised vindication of God’s saints “speedily” will be before the disciples “finish going through the cities of Israel” (Mt 10:23). Even in Rev we have a parallel sentiment to Lk 18:8 which demands a near-term interpretation. In 6:9–11 the souls of those slain cry out to God: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The reply comes: “they should rest for a little while longer.” (2) This statement is preceded by a promise of certainty that “God [will] bring about justice” (18:7). So this issue is already expressed even before the additional promise of v 8. Furthermore, (3) to promise that an action will come rapidly whenever it may come offers no comfort to saints who are suffering now. To promise that Christ will be moving at the speed of light some two or three thousand years from now offers no relief.

2. Translational consensus

A survey of the translation of Rev 1:1 in the leading English versions of Scripture clearly evidence temporal nearness: “must soon take place” (NASB); “must shortly take place” (NKJV); “must shortly come to pass” (ASV); “must soon take place” (RSV; NRSV; NIV; TNIV; ESV); “must shortly happen” (NEB); “must happen very soon” (TEV; NET). The views of most commentators, however, differ from the translators. The commentators’ interpretations could have been served better by John had he avoided the temporal designate “soon” and simply stated: “the things must take place.”

Unlike the commentators, the translators’ hands are tied. They must translate it as the Greek demands. And think of this: If John saw the events as fast-approaching in his day, how else could he have said? He is very clear, as the translators recognize.

3. Varied expressions

Almost as if to ensure that he be understood, John employs several terms to emphasize his point of temporal nearness: (1) Here in 1:1 he uses en tachei (see above). (2) In 1:3 he uses the phrase ho gar kairos eggus, “for the time is near.” (3) In 6:11 while presenting his first judgment vision in the main drama — a vision which highlights one of Rev’s leading concerns (martyr vindication) — he states that the martyrs should rest only chronon mikron, “a little while longer.” (4) In 10:6 he learns that chronos ouketi estai, “there shall be delay no longer.” (5) In 12:12 he states that the devil has oligon kairon, “a short time.”

The word eggus (1:3; 22:10) pertains “to being close in point of time, near” (BAGD 271). It “indicates the proximity of a place, a time, a person, or a theological abstraction” (EDNT 1:371). It is used of summer approaching soon after the budding of a fig tree (Mt 24:32 ), Jesus’ death nearing at his last Passover (Mt 26:18 ), and the fast approaching Passover (Jn 2:13; 6:4; 11:55) and the Feast of Booths (Jn 7:2).

Predestination Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

A thoroughly biblical, extremely practical, and impressively clear presentation of

the doctrine of absolute predestination.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The whole point of 6:11 is to assure the reader/hearers that martyrs for Christ’s sake will be vindicated — and soon: just “a little while longer.” They are seen beneath the altar in heaven crying out with a loud voice, specifically demanding: “how long” (e s pote)? Pote is an interrogative adverb of time (cp. Mt 24:3; 25:37–39; Jn 6:25; 10:24). At 6:11it literally means “until when”? The martyrs’ concern is with the time of their vindication. In ch 10 John hears seven peals of thunder (10:3) and was about to write what they uttered (10:4a) when a heavenly voice commanded him not to do so (10:4b) because “there shall be no longer delay” (10:6). In ch 12 we see a “war in heaven” between Michael and the dragon (12:7) which resulted in the dragon being thrown out of heaven down to the earth (12:9). Because of this, “now” (arti, temporal adverb meaning here “the immediate past, just [now],” BAGD 136) God’s salvation, power and kingdom have come (12:10). As a result of this battle and casting out of the dragon, the heavens rejoice, but the earth is to experience his great wrath because he knows “he has only a short time” (12:12).

4. Alternative options

Upon reading these several temporal statements we must ask: If John had intended to speak of the events as near, how could he have expressed that more clearly? By eliminating these phrases from his vocabulary we deny him common means of expressing shortness.

Two of these are particularly common expressions for indicating temporal proximity: eggus and tachos/tachu. The word eggus appears frequently in the NT, occurring thirty-one times (11 times in John’s Gospel and twice in Rev). Its verbal form eggiz occurs another forty-two times, with about half of those indicating temporal rather than spatial nearness. This is an important expression in the Gospels for declaring the nearness of Christ’s kingdom which he establishes during his ministry: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 3:2). “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Mt 4:17). “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Mt 10:7). The words tachos appears eight times and its related term tachus thirteen. Thus, these terms appear a total of ninety-four times.

Were John speaking of ever-looming imminence the word ephist mi (21 x) would have been more appropriate. In 2Ti 4:2 the minister is always to “be ready” in any season to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. This word can also suggest that which has been set in motion (Ac 28:2) or suddenly (surprisingly) appears or erupts (Lk 2:9, 38). Were he speaking of suddenness whenever the events were to occur, the word aiphnidios would have been useful. It also bears the connotation of suddenly or surprisingly (Lk 21:34; 1Th 5:3).

Conclusion

The evidence is quite compelling that John was prophesying events that were to come very soon and within his own lifetime. But this is not all the evidence. I hope you will return for the second installment on this issue, because it will soon take place. And I am most definitely not kidding.

JOHN’S REVELATION WAS NOT NEAR (3)

PMT 2015-034 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. I have 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.”

But again, John could have better expressed this view by simply stating that he was referring to “the things which must take place.” The word “soon” simply confuses the matter. Or he could have used the simple future: “the things which will take place.” Or he could have used amen to affirm its certainty, especially since John is fond of amen both in Rev (1:6, 7; 3:14; 5:14; 7:12; 19:4; 22:20, 21), as well as in his Gospel where he always doubles it (25 x): “the things which must take place. Amen.”

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?

(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

8. John speaks from the future

G. R. Beasley-Murray emphasizes “imminence” (168) and “no more delay” (170) but not for the original audience. Actually “in his vision John stands near the close of the period of messianic judgments” (Beasley-Murray 170). Thus, he sees John as speaking from within the future context when the events are about to explode on the seen.

This is highly unlikely for John opens his book with these words of temporal nearness before anyone knows what he will be saying. And even before he gets caught up “in the Spirit” (1:10; 4:1–2) or transported into the scenes (17:1; 21:9–10). This approach might be more plausible if he said something to the effect: “I was carried in the Spirit into the future to see things that were soon to come to pass.” Or: “the Spirit entered me and set me in the Day of the Lord where I saw things that were soon to take place.” Besides, in 1:3 he blessed the original reader of Rev and the original hearers who would “heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (1:3). Surely the time was near for the reader and hearers.

9. The events are inaugurated

The events have already been inaugurated and are gradually unfolding through history. G. K. Beale (182) presents this view, which is quite widely held in the current scholarly discussion: “the focus of ‘quickness’ and ‘’nearness’ in vv 1–3 is primarily on inauguration of prophetic fulfillment and its ongoing aspect, not on nearness of consummated fulfillment, though the latter is secondarily in mind as leading from the former.” Thus, “the beginning of fulfillment and not final fulfillment is the focus.”

G. Osborne (55) agrees: “In salvation history the events indicated in the book have already begun to ‘come to pass’ and await the final consummation.” This is basically the view held by G. R. Beasley-Murray (46), J. P. M. Sweet (58), S. Kistemaker (77), and V. Poythress (70).

This approach is semi-preteristic and acceptable as a partial answer to the question of John’s meaning. But its application by scholars is generally rather nebulous in allowing recurring events throughout history continually to unfold. John’s terminology, however, seems more concrete and constraining. Indeed, he uses the aorist infinitive genesthai (“take place,” i.e., come to be) which should be translated “must have come to pass” (H. Alford 545). This dei . . . genesthai wording occurs seven times in Scripture (including 1:1; 22:6) and signifies fulfillment, not the beginning of fulfillment. It speaks of the fulfillment of Scripture prophecies of Jesus’ death (Mt 26:64) and the wars and rumors of wars that must occur before the “end” (Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9). (Rev 4:1 cannot serve as evidence one way or the other because it is a part of the question as to whether the things in Rev must occur soon.)

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As I will show below in defending the preteristic understanding of the phrase here, John expects the actual fulfillment of the overwhelming majority of his prophecies. In fact, in only one place does he glance into the distant future to reveal the long-term consequences of its first-century fulfillment: in 20:1–15. But there he expressly states that the events will not occur soon, for he states that some of them will transpire after 1000 years are “completed” (20:3, 5, 7).

10. The events will occur soon

The events will occur soon — within the lifetime of John’s audience. P. Carrington (vii) expresses this approach clearly: “When the Revelation was written it was naturally accepted as an account of current events and of events ‘shortly to come to pass’; that is how it describes itself, and that is how it was naturally taken.” He later states: “we cannot, however, do justice to his very plain opening statement (cf. 1.3; iv:1; xxii. 10) by saying that he foresaw a long series of events covering centuries, which could be described as imminent because they were to begin shortly. Whatever earthly realities correspond to John’s symbols, he expected them to be accomplished quickly in their entirety” (Carrington 12).

M. Stuart (1:5) calls this the “plain and obvious sense” of the phrase. Kurt Aland (1985: 1:88) observes:

In the original text, the Greek work used is tachu, and this does not mean “Soon,” in the sense of “sometime,” but rather “now,” “immediately.” Therefore, we must understand Rev. 22:12 in this way: “I am coming now, bringing my recompense.” The concluding word of Rev. 22:20 is: “He who testifies to these things says, ‘surely I am coming soon.” Here we again find the word tachu, so this means: I am coming quickly, immediately. This is followed by the prayer: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” . . . The Apocalypse expresses the fervent waiting for the end within the circles in which the writer lived — not an expectation that will happen at some unknown point X in time (just to repeat this), but one in the immediate present.

F. W. Farrar (1884: 432) captures the frustration preterists feel when interacting with the alternative positions: “it is curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the perfectly simple [un]ambiguous expression ‘speedily’ (en tachei), to mean any length of time which they may choose to demand.” Indeed, the “language is simply meaningless if it is to be so manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words ‘speedily’ and ‘near’ imply any number of centuries of delay.” For the preterist “the primary focus is on John’s own generation” (I. Boxall 24).

In addition to Carrington, Stuart, Farrar, and Boxall, this view is held by F. J. A. Hort (6), W. Milligan (2), M. S. Terry (276), J. E. Adams (50), J. M. Ford (373), D. Chilton (52), E. Corsini (72), and B. Malina (31).

Conclusion

In my next blog article I will begin presenting the exegetical evidence for properly understanding John’s near-term statements. Unless the rapture comes. In which case I will say: I was just kidding.

JOHN’S REVELATION WAS NOT NEAR (Part 2)

PMT 2014-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second 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.

3. Revelation is motivational

The events are declared to be soon, but only for dramatic, motivational purposes. Michaels (48) argues that “Christians tend to get nervous about any implication that the Bible might be mistaken. yet a great deal is lost when the striking words soon and the time is near are not given their proper force. The conviction that the end of the world is near is what makes the book of Rev larger than life. . . . The intense awareness of the end of all things infuses the book’s imagery with sharpness and rich color. The announcement that ‘the time is near’ provokes not resignation or a feeling that nothing matters, but on the contrary a kind of jubilation at the preciousness of life and at the world God created and will create anew in the events that must soon take place.” J. L. Resseguie (63) holds a similar view when he states that John is building a sense of “tension” in his dramatic work. J. L. Maier (124) comments that “Jesus, like Godot, is just around a corner that is never turned.”

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole,

then focuses on its glorious conclusion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Perhaps we may suppose that this approach would have infused the book with sharpness and color for its original recipients. But now nineteen hundred years of delay would surely dull that cutting edge and wash out the color considerably. And surely Jesus is not like Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot that depicts the meaninglessness of life.

4. The events will occur rapidly

The events will unfold rapidly whenever they begin to occur. Dispensationalist scholar John Walvoord (35) understands Rev’s opening comment thus: “That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘soon’ (Gr. en tachei), that is, ‘quickly or suddenly coming to pass,’ indicating a rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke f18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20). A similar word, tackys, is translated ‘quickly’ seven times in Rev.” Charles Ryrie (13) and LEGNT (610) also hold this view.

This interpretation does not offer any encouragement whatsoever. If the Church must wait hundreds and hundreds of years before the events occur, what is the significance of their finally arriving rapidly? Besides the soon-ness embodied in this phrase occurs again in other expressions in 1:3, 19, and elsewhere. F. D. Mazzaferri well argues: “Though tachos may connote speed rather than imminence, the former makes little sense in terms of 22:10, or in context with engus. Likewise, Jesus’ promise erchomai tachu, is scarcely intelligible, let alone a motivation for perseverance, except in the sense of imminence.” He even notes that in 1:7 “the pres. tense eloquently speaks of imminence in its own right” (Mazzaferri, 237).

5. John is speaking of God’s time

The events will occur soon according to the eternal God’s measure of time. Dispensationalist R. L. Thomas (1:55) recognizes the weakness of Walvoord’s position noting that “to say that relief will come ‘suddenly’ offers no encouragement but to say that it will come ‘soon’ does.” He argues that “when measuring time, Scripture has a different standard from ours. . . . It must be kept in mind that God is not limited by considerations of time in the same way man is (cf. 2 Pet. 3:8).”

L. Morris (46–47) holds a similar view: “We must bear in mind that in the prophetic perspective the future is sometimes foreshortened. In other words the term may refer to the certainty of the events in question. The Lord God has determined them and he will speedily bring them to pass. But this refers to his time, not ours, to the quality of the time rather than the quantity. With him one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet. 3:8).” Indeed, Alford (4:545–46) warns that this statement “must not be urged to signify the events of apocalyptic prophecy were to be close at hand.” According to C. Keener (61) “Revelation functions, therefore, as a “summons to readiness.” G. Osborne (797) agrees: “to God the period between John’s time and ours still connotes ‘soon.’” See also Ocemenius (22), H. B. Swete (2), H. Alford (4:535), M. Vincent (2:407), A. T. Robertson (283), M. R. Mulholland (9), D. W. Hall (11), and R. Stefanovic (57).

How this offers any more encouragement to a severely persecuted Church than Walvoord’s view is not clear. After all, on this view John would be stating: “The events within are imminent, but may in fact take 2000 years before they occur.” In addition I would make a three-fold rebuttal to the possibility that John is speaking of time as does Peter in 2Pe 3:8:

In the first place, Peter expressly states the fact that God views time differently from man. John does not. We cannot go about interpreting all temporal indicators by God’s estimation of time. Secondly, Peter is talking about God, whereas John is giving directives to men. Peter makes a theological statement regarding God and his perception of time; John provides an historical directive to men regarding their unfolding hardships. We must not confuse theological truth about God with historical directives to men. Thirdly, Peter is expressly dealing with the objection that certain prophecies have failed because they have yet to occur: “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation’” (2 Pe 3:3–4). Peter is facing the slowness of God’s judgment. John, however, is warning suffering Christians (among which he numbers himself, Rev 1:9) about what they must expect. He dogmatically declares repeatedly and in various ways that his prophecies “must soon take place” because “the time is near.”

Four Views on the Book of Revelation

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

6. The events are always imminent

The events are imminent in that they could theoretically occur at any minute. Premillennialist R. H. Mounce (41) takes this approach: “John writes that the events that constitute the revelation must ‘soon take place.’ That almost 2,000 year of church history have passed and the end has not yet come poses a problem for some. . . . The most satisfying solution is to take the expression ‘must soon take place’ in a straightforward sense, remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent. Time as a chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy. This perspective is common to the entire NT.” Later (404) he writes: “One answer to the problem of this as-yet-unfulfilled expectation is to hold that God is more concerned with the fulfillment of his redemptive purposes than he is with satisfying our ideas of appropriate timing.”

B. M. Metzger (105) adds: “In the Christian doctrine of the last things, the imminence of the end is moral rather than chronological: each successive generation, so far as can be known to the contrary, may be the last generation. In that sense the time is always near (22:10).” This views is held by G. E. Ladd (22) and A. F. Johnson (1981: 417).

But against this view we must wonder why John would use time-laden words to express his view of prophecy rather than simply saying these events “must” come about. Indeed, in 22:10 John’s revelatory angel seems intentionally to be reversing Daniel’s heavenly directive which stated: “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time” (Dan 12:4). John’s directive is “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Rev 22:10). Thus, we have the odd situation that around 600 years before John’s day, Daniel was commanded to seal up his prophecy until the end, but John is commanded not to seal up his prophecy for the end is near — though we have now gone over 1900 years into the future.

Besides this understanding of imminency in the futurist scheme is an abuse of the term: Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary defines “imminent”: “appearing as if about to happen; likely to happen without delay; impending.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “imminent”: “Impending threateningly, hanging over one’s head; ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence; coming on shortly.” Imminency has no meaning if that which is “imminent” stretches out for 2000 years — or more.

Conclusion

The efforts a re-interpreting John do not end with these six valiant attempts. There are more to come! And they will come “soon.” I promise.

Free Gentry sermon on the future hope of Christ’s church: Church

 

JOHN’S REVELATION WAS NOT NEAR (1)

PMT 2015-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Revelation is a fascinating and exciting book that is also perplexing and disorienting. It is as much debated as it is understood. The controversy over Revelation begins with its opening statements. And it continues until his closing words.

John opens Revelation with two seemingly clear statements:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.” (Rev 1:1)

“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (Rev 1:3)

Then he closes his glorious book with two parallel statements, reiterating his point:

“He said to me, ‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.” (Rev 22:6)

“He said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’” (Rev 22:10)

Before Jerusalem Fell

(by Ken Gentry)

My doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing.

Every home should have a copy! :)

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

These near-term statements have tripped-up commentators over the years. I would like to point out several of the leading attempts to re-interpret John’s introductory and concluding statements. Then after that I will engage a lengthy discussion of the near-term indicators. This is an important exegetical endeavor for the postmillennialist because many modern Christians see Revelation’s judgment scenes as contradictory to the postmillennial hope.

The following statements are made by those who do not believe Revelation’s events were near.

1. John was mistaken

The events were expected soon, but John was wrong. M. E. Boring (73) asserts that John’s near-term expectation for “all the events his letter envisions” erred: “Does this mean he was wrong? Yes. Christians who reverence the Bible as Scripture, the vehicle of God’s word, ought not to hesitate to acknowledge that its authors made errors. . . . When John adopted apocalyptic as the vehicle of his message, he adopted its errors as well.” W. J. Harrington (44–45) concurs: “When John declares that the time is near, he means that, in his view, the End is soon. Was he, then, mistaken? In one sense, obviously yes. The end did not happen in his day, nor has it occurred nineteen centuries later. What we might learn from him is a sense of urgency.”

Nigel Turner (1045) agrees, noting that “conservative scholars try to see in this word the meaning ‘quickly’ (i.e. catastrophically) as well as soon, for the simple truth is that the events did not have an immediate fulfillment. James Barr (1984:39) notes that Rev “failed rather spectacularly to deliver on its promise that Jesus would come ‘soon.’” B. Robinson (1988: 16) is more gracious to John but agrees that: “John’s expectation of a speedy winding up of history . . . was premature.” But the meaning really is ‘soon.’”

W. Buchanan (35–36) puts the matter boldly: “John thought Christians were then near the end of the tribulation, and it would be only a short time before the predestined period would be over and the nation would be free from foreign rule. . . . John was not expecting to wait a thousand years. Based on Daniel, he expected an end to take place within three and one half years. That did not happen, and John made a mistake. That is all there is to it, and no one should try to claim some infallibly correct interpretation that will absolve John of error.”

This approach is unacceptable to those who believe Rev is divinely revealed (as John claims in 1:1, hopefully truthfully). And it is based on a radical misunderstanding of what Rev is really teaching, as we shall see. Furthermore, it certainly would not create a sense of “urgency” but rather a profound sense of disappointment and disgust akin to those who followed William Miller to the mountain top in 1843. Rev should be nothing more than a Qumran-like specimen of failed expectations.

2. John was ambiguous

The events were prophesied to be soon, but as was customary with Israel’s prophets, the special prophetic language is intentionally “ambiguous.” Prophetic ambiguity is intentional and designed to heighten the hearers’ expectations for moral purposes of readiness. Though not applying his discussion to Rev, we may easily see how Scot McKnight’s understanding of Hebrew prophecy would explain John’s nearness imagery. In discussing Jesus’ Gospel statements regarding the nearness of the kingdom and the apocalyptic judgments associated with it, McKnight (1999: 129) writes: “I will argue that Jesus had an imminent expectation and that this view is consistent with the prophetic movement in Israel. His perception was not erroneous. In its limitation, ignorance, and ambiguity, prophetic knowledge is not erroneous knowledge, but it is different from everyday, empirical knowledge.”

Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting.

Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though McKnight (129) argues against employing “exegetical gymnastics” to evade the import of prophetic near-term pronouncements, his approach seems to encourage just that. John’s statements are quite clear, repeated, and balanced with one another. He opens (1;1, 3) and closes (22:6, 10) with these nearness statements. He never declares that he does not know the time; he does not use ambiguous language in making his statements. Any prophetic-ambiguity argument will not suffice to discount the approaching judgments.

Conclusion

These are the most disappointing of the scholarly efforts to understand John’s near-term indicators. But they are not the only ones that miss the mark. Come again and discover some more vain attempts at ridding John of his point of view.

Free Gentry sermon on the Antichrist: Antichrist

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AD 70

 

PMT 2015-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Today we are so distant from the events of AD 70, so removed from the ancient culture, so little acquainted with the first-century Jewish outlook, and so accustomed to the Christian perspective, we tend to overlook the enormous redemptive-historical significance of AD 70. Those events are not merely another sad instance in the history of “man’s inhumanity to man which makes countless thousands mourn.” They serve not as demonstration of “nature, red in tooth and claw.” Neither do they merely remind us of “the carnage of war, the blood-swollen god.”

But such is mistaken. Rather the devastating events of the Jewish War are the historical manifestations of the furious wrath of the offended God of Israel. Transcendent realities stand back of these temporal events. With Nahum we see the smoke of destruction as the dust clouds from God’s feet (Na 1). We learn that truly “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:27) for “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 10:31).

Israel’s failure and God’s response

Jehovah God sent His own Son to his covenant people, but they “received him not” (Jn 1:11). Indeed, they spitefully abused him in defiance of his gracious and loving overtures (Mt 11:28; 21:33-46; 23:34-47; Ac 7:51-53). Consequently, with His rejection, “the sons of the kingdom were cast out” (Mt 8:12), and “the kingdom of God was taken” from them (Mt 21:43).

When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyperpreterism

(ed. by Keith Mathison)

A reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.

Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Hebrews was written to warn of the disastrous consequences of Jewish Christians apostatizing back into Judaism (Heb 2:1-4; 6:1-4; 10:26-31), just as Jesus had warned (Mt 24:10, 12). It portrays “the day drawing near” (Heb 10:25; cp. Ac 2:16-20,40). This would effect a grand change in God’s redemptive administration — a change that both the author of Hebrews and John liken to “a new Jerusalem” (21:1; cp. 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Heb 12:22; Rev 21:2), which is Christianity (Heb 12:23-25; cp. Gal 4:25-26; Rev 14:1-5).

In Hebrews 12 the writer powerfully presents his conclusion to his book-long warning. After reminding them from whence they had originally come (OT Israel, Heb 12:18-21), he informs them of where they have most recently been (NT Christianity):

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:22-24).

But many are defecting back to Judaism. And at the worst possible time. They were leaving the spiritual, anti-typical, fulfillment realities of Christianity to return to the material, typical, ceremonial world of a now-defunct Judaism. This apostasy occurred when God was about to “shake not only the earth, but also the heaven” (Heb 12:26). The shaking of the “created things” (12:27) speaks of the destruction of the temple system with its “made with hands” ritual implements (9:11, 24; cp. Mk 14:58), which are “ready to vanish away” (8:13; cp. Jn 4:21; Ac 6:14; 7:48; 2Co 3:11; Gal 4:25-30). In place of the OT system, Christianity will remain as a “kingdom which cannot be shaken” (12:28).

Israel’s failure and John’s Revelation

John’s message in Revelation performs the same play but on a different stage and in slightly different dress. John’s new creation presents a new world order: Christianity, which arises from within Israel (Rev 12) and remains after the destruction of the Jewish temple-based system (Rev 11). We know this is John’s point because immediately after describing the new creation in Revelation 21:1–22:5, we read:

“’These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place. And behold, I am coming quickly…. Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (22:6-7, 10).

Against Dispensationalism

(DVD set: hosted by Jerry Johnson)

Provide deep insights into both dispensationalism’s errors, as well biblical eschatology itself.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though even today we await a final, consummational, eternal new creation order (2Pe 3:7-13), we now live in the preparatory, spiritual new creation order established in the first-century. Calvin comments on Isaiah 65:17 noting that the “new heavens and new earth” is metaphorical language that “promises a remarkable change of affairs” when God “restores his Church” so that it “shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world” (Isaiah, ad loc.). Westminster divine John Lightfoot even relates it to the destruction of Jerusalem “which is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world” (2:318). We know Isaiah 65 does not speak of the consummate order for it includes child bearing, sinners, death, and curse (Isa 65:20).

Free downloadable Gentry sermon: Genesis’ Days or Evolution’s Ages?