Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 115

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?

WHY IS PRETERISM GAINING POPULARITY?

PMT 2015-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Preterism is getting traction in the modern evangelical world. Dispensationalism, though still a behemoth, is on its last legs. All proposed rapture dates have failed; all identifications of the Antichrist have been exhausted. What is there to do? Evangelicalism is now living in a gap period: between dispensationalism’s heyday and its total demise. This is one gap theory I love.

But why is preterism gaining a footing? In this introductory article, I will summarily list the leading indicators, as they apply to the book of Revelation. Then in the next articles I will flesh them out.

Basically, three factors generate preterism:

1. The importance of chronological indicators in biblical prophecy.

2. The impact of OT apocalyptic language on eschatological discourse.

3. The significance of A.D. 70 for redemptive history.

Let us see how these impact Revelation.

Olivet Discourse Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Exegetical observations

First, preterism relies heavily upon Revelation’s assertions of the nearness of certain prophetic events (1:1,3; 22:6,10), while non-preterists disingenuously re-interpret these.

“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…. 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 1:1, 3).

When the preterist comes upon didactically-seated, temporal delimiters, such as these, he allows them their literal significance. And he seeks an historical fulfillment in antiquity, since he believes the Bible is without error. Where absent, then other issues must suggest the proper interpretation, which may or may not demand a past fulfillment.

Interpretive recognition

Second, the preterist recognizes the hyperbolic-symbolic nature of the dramatic visual imagery in apocalyptically-framed prophecies. Although most evangelicals recognize the symbolic character of OT apocalyptic, its influence in NT passages is often overlooked.

John opens Revelation with the clear statement:

“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.”

The word “communicated” translates esemanen. It fits well with “to show” (deixai). Together they indicate: “to show by means of symbols.” And why would anyone not expect such in a book populated with seven-headed beasts, fire-breathing prophets, a woman standing on the moon, and so forth?

Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil

(by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation,

Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Historical realization

Third, preterists hold that the birth of new covenant Christianity at Pentecost (AD 30) necessarily leads to the death of old covenant Judaism in the holocaust (AD 70).

According to Acts 2:16-21, 40, tongues-speaking was a sign of the “blood and fire to envelop Jerusalem in AD 70.”[1] For rejecting her prophesied Messiah (Lk 23:18-32; Mt 21:33-46; cp. 1Th 2:14-16), God judges Israel’s people, land, city, and temple (Mt 23:34-24:34).

This judgment concludes for all times the typological-ceremonial era of the OT (Heb 8:13; cp. Jn 4:21; Heb 10:23-25; 12:18-29), which narrowly focused on one people (Dt 7:6; Ps 147:19-20; Am 3:2) in a confined land (Gen. 15:18; Psa. 135:10-12). This dramatically opens God’s redemption to all peoples in all the world (Mt 8: 10-11; 24:29-30; 28:18-20; Lk 24:44-49; Ac 1:8).

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

Preterism is quite biblical and historical. Therefore, it is not given to emotional and fantastical interpretations. Thus, historically it has not sold well. But as Christians are beginning to awaken to the necessity of careful biblical interpretation, “the times, they are a’changing.”

Note

1. O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word (Banner of Truth, 1993), 41-49.

FAVORITE POSTMILLENNIAL VERSES?

PMT 2015-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I became a postmillennialist after becoming dismayed with dispensationalism. But I did not leap from dispensational despair to postmillennial progress in a single bound. Nor was my move faster than a speeding bullet. Nor did I deem it necessary to wear a red cape to do this. (I’ll see how many of you watched Superman on TV in the 1950s.)

Eschatological journey

I was converted in a dispensational ministry: my dispensationalist uncle’s church in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Then I enrolled in Tennessee Temple College (which just closed down this week!) where I secured a B.A. in Biblical Studies. Now armed-and-dangerous with dispensational proof-texts, I set sail to Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. There I was being trained in a higher level, more scholarly version of dispensationalism.

But something did not click for me. I began seeing problems with the system, and longed for something less complicated, more clear, and more biblical. In the GTS library I stumbled upon O. T. Allis’s Prophecy and the Church. And that did it. I raptured out of dispensationalism. And never looked back (except to pick up my hat — it was snowing that day).

Rather than jumping into postmillennialism, by default I stopped off at amillennialism for about a year while in seminary. This was the final few months of my enrollment at Grace Theological Seminary and the first few of my classes at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi.

I have often called amillennialism the “parking lot” of eschatology. It is a comfortable place to get away from the eschatological debate and the heavy traffic it generates when you have “no particular place to go” (pardon me, Chuck Berry). As an amill you are not in a fast lane going north or going south. You are just sitting there conserving energy (and dreaming that one day you too may be Dutch).

www.KennethGentry.com

">Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Yet while at Reformed Seminary, I took a class called “Eschatology and History” which was taught by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen. He was not Dr. Bahnsen then though. He was Dr. Joe Cleveland. Just kidding. He was in process of getting his doctorate, so he did not have his Ph.D. yet. He was simply “Mr. Bahnsen.”

Through the first few weeks of the class I resisted him. I “kicked against the goads,” you might say. But Bahnsen could be very persuasive, bringing pretty big goads against you. He was armed with a great command of the Bible and theology, as well as keen skills in logical persuasion. (And he would often throw in a little rhetoric, just for fun.) Before the semester was out: I had overhauled the ole Gentrymobile, exited the amill parking lot, and entered into the postmillennial fast lane to the future. And the rest, as they say, is aluminum foil. (Well, not many people say, that. Most will say “the rest is history,” but I like to mix things up a bit.)

Bahnsen persuaded me with his double-barreled, whole-Bible approach to eschatology. He did not load mainly from the Old Testament, nor mainly from the New Testament. He was interested in showing what the whole Bible has to say about eschatology. And the whole Bible, he argued, is postmillennial in its orientation and character.

Leading verses

Now the question arises: What verses were most influential in persuading me? Just to pick two passages from each testament, I would say in the Old Testament Psalm 72 and Isaiah 2 greatly impacted my thinking. Then in the New Testament the Kingdom Parables (Matt 13//) and the great commission (Matt 28:18-20) did the trick.

Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism Debate

(DVD by Gentry and Gaffin)

Formal, public debate between Dr. Richard Gaffin (Westminster Theological Seminary)

and Kenneth Gentry at the Van Til Conference in Maryland.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In Psalm 72 we learn of Christ’s ruling “from the River to the ends of the earth” (Psa 72:8). And we learn that this will occur before the consummational conflagration (2 Pet 3:10-12) that produces the new heavens and new earth, because he will reign “till the moon is no more” (Psa 72:7).

In Isaiah 2 we see that God’s righteousness and peace will come with the exaltation of his kingdom “in the last days” (Isa 2:2). That is, during the last days we will witness “many peoples” streaming into the kingdom of God where they will taught God’s ways (Isa 2:2-3). Then eventually this will issue forth in worldwide peace (Isa 2:4).

This is the foundation to the New Testament hope, which Jesus promoted — and taught his disciples. In the Kingdom Parables we see that the kingdom will grow incrementally to world dominance (Matt 13:31–33).

The Old Testament hope is also the spark that leads Jesus to give his great commission. In that commissioning Jesus calls his small flock to “disciple the nations” so that they might be baptized and learn to observe all things he teaches us (Matt 28:18–20).

These are not the only verses that lead to the postmillennial hope. In fact, it was hard to reduce my “favorite” postmillennial passages to just two Old Testament and two New Testament passages. My book He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology has over 600 pages and deals with hundreds of verses.

Interested request

But now, I wonder: What verses were most influential in leading you to postmillennialism? I would love to hear from you.

OUR BLESSED HOPE (2)

PMT 2015-028 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article I began considering a common objection against postmillennialism: that it diminishes the second coming of Christ. Oftentimes, Paul’s statement to Titus is brought forward as if it is an objection to the allegation that postmillennialism is “this worldy” in orientation. In that passage Paul speaks of his “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.”

I have already considered two responses. I will add three more.

Third, this complaint overlooks our definition

The very name of our eschatological system demands the significance and the reality of the glorious second advent as the polestar of our eschatology. Postmillennialist Loraine Boettner includes in his definition of postmillennialism: “the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace.” In fact, he points out that the very name “postmillennial” emphasizes “that He will return after the Millennium” (Boettner, The Millennium, 4). Postmillennialist John J. Davis agrees: “This perspective is called postmillennial because in this understanding Christ will return after the period of millennial blessing” (Davis, Christ’s Victorious Kingdom, 11)

Our system name speaks of Christ’s return! In fact, each of the labels given to the four main evangelical eschatologies highlight two and only two features of eschatology: the nature of the kingdom and the timing of Christ’s coming relative to the kingdom. The fact that “millennium” is in each label indicates the nature of the kingdom as being composed either of glorious earthly conditions (premillennial, dispensational premillennial, postmillennial) or no glorious earthly conditions (amillennial). The timing of Christ’s return relative to the kingdom is related by the prefixes “pre” and “post” (amillennialism does not hold that any “millennial” conditions will prevail).

Revelation, God and Man

(24 mp3 lectures by Ken Gentry)

Formal Christ College course on the doctrines of revelation, God, and man.

Opens with introduction to the study of systematic theology.

Excellent material for personal study or group Bible study.

Strongly Reformed and covenantal in orientation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Davis even declares the second advent as the fifth of his five “main tenets of the postmillennial position”: “Finally and simultaneously there will occur the visible return of Christ, the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, the final judgment, and the revelation of the new heavens and the new earth” (Davis, Christ’s Victorious Kingdom, 10, 11). In my definition of postmillennialism in chapter 4, I include the following: “After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows.” Does this sound as if I am diminishing the second advent? By definition, then, postmillennialism emphasizes the second coming.

Free downloadable Gentry sermon: “Here Comes the Sun.”

The significance of Day 4 of creation.

Fourth, this complaint forgets the point of the debate

The eschatological debate necessarily focuses on the differences between the millen-nial systems and the distinctives of the postmillennial viewpoint. Each of the four evangelical eschatological systems is anchored in the future, bodily return of Christ. This is not a point of dispute.

In postmillennialism’s case our distinctive lies in the kingdom’s victorious unfolding in history under Christ’s providential rule prior to his Return. Hence, we must emphasize the historical hope of victory in the debate, or else we are not defending postmillennialism as such. What is more, we press this distinctive blessing of the postmillennial view in that it involves very practical matters for the Christian’s current labor.

Marcellus Kik states the historical phase of postmillennialism well, then notes the postmillennial anticipation of the second advent:

The postmill looks for a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of a glorious age of the church upon earth through the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. He looks forward to all nations becoming Christian and living in peace one with another. He relates all prophecies to history and time. After the triumph of Christianity throughout the earth he looks for the second coming of the Lord. (Kik, An Eschatology of Victory, 4)

Fifth, this objection is impractical

After affirming Christ’s coming as our “blessed hope,” then what do we do? What becomes of the many other Scripture passages urging our attention to issues other than the second advent? It may be that William Miller made his view of the blessed hope practical by sitting on a hill waiting for it on March 21, 1843, then again on October 22, 1844 — but surely the objection does not require this sort of activity!

OUR BLESSED HOPE (1)

PMT 2015-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Pessimistic eschatologies often use Titus 2:13 as evidence that postmillennialism wrongly directs the Christian’s hope regarding the future as it promotes true revival and cultural renewal. Here Paul states that he is “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Non-postmillennialists see postmillennialists as taking their focus off of the second advent.

Yet postmillennialists recognizes that Paul urges believers to see the second advent as their “blessed hope.” In Romans 8:22–25 he mentions that we groan in this fallen world “waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved.” This eager expectation looks to our resurrection at the end of history.

In 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 he commends the Thessalonians regarding “how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.”

In 1 Peter 1:3 the Apostle speaks of our “living hope” in obtaining “an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled” which will “be revealed in the last time,” so that we “may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” In 2 Peter 3:11–13 he states that we are “looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” because “according to His promise we are looking for a new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” See also Hebrews 9:28 and James 5:7.

Thine Is the Kingdom

(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consider the following charges against the postmillennialist outlook:

Craig Blaising responds to my presentation of postmillennialism: “Scripture repeatedly tells us that our hope is to be fully set on Christ’s coming.” (Blaising in D. Bock, Three Views on the Millennium, 75)

Cornelis Venema agrees: “The fifth and final objection to be urged against golden-age Postmillennialism is that it alters the focus of the believer’s hope for the future.” (Venema, Promise of the Future, 355)

Robert Strimple agrees, citing Venema against me (Strimple in Bock, Three Views on the Millennium, 66.). He vigorously asserts with italics that “the New Testament everywhere makes clear that the focus of the believer’s hope is to be the second coming of Christ.” (Strimple in Bock, Three Views on the Millennium, 65)

Free downloadable Gentry sermon: “Creation Series Introduction“

The significance of the Genesis creation account.

Donald Bloesch claims postmillennialism is deficient in that it “tends to lose sight of the two-sidedness of the millennial hope — hope within history and hope beyond history” (Bloesch, Last Things, 103)

Postmillennialist Iain Murray recognizes this recurring complaint:

“Probably the most common contemporary prejudice among orthodox Christians against the view of prophecy advocated in the preceding pages arises from the belief that it misdirects the true hope of the Church. That hope, it is said, is nothing less than the second advent of Christ, together with the ushering in of an eternal kingdom — it is not a temporal hope relative to the prospects of this world” (Murray, The Puritan Hope, 209)

How shall we respond to this form of objection? Is it a proper charge against postmillennialism?

First, the charge is unfounded

I would point out that the second advent is, in fact, the postmillennialist’s ultimate hope. What postmil-lennialist downplays the second advent of our Lord, which brings with it the resurrection of the body and our eternal glory? I challenge our critics to present documentary evidence in this direction from the writings of postmillennialists. I have never seen a postmillennial author dismiss the second coming of Christ as inconsequential. This objection is based on (false) implications drawn from postmillennial presentations, not from presentations themselves.

Wall of Misconception: Separation of Church and State

(by Peter Lillback)

Examines our nation’s historic understanding of and the founding fathers intention in the relationship of our Constitution to matters of faith, ethics, and morals, taking into account the historical and biblical context as well as the concept s relation to today’s culture.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Indeed, all postmillennialists would agree with Iain Murray that “the privileges brought by Christ to the believer at death and at his Coming rightly represent the latter as the culminating glory. It is incomparably the blessed hope” (Murray, The Puritan Hope, 215). He continues:

“However bright, comparatively, the world may become when the Church reaches her fullest development in history, the Advent of Christ will ever remain the pole-star of faith and hope. For earth, however blessed, will never begin to equal heaven. As Bengel points out, even in that future time when there shall be ‘an overflowing fulness of the Spirit,’ Christians will still be in conflict with indwelling sin, they will still face temptation and meet with death” (Murray, The Puritan Hope, 217—18).

Murray even titles a chapter in his postmillennial work: “Christ’s Second Coming: The Best Hope” (Murray, The Puritan Hope, ch. 10).

Second, this objection is confused

Christianity does not have just one hope. Indeed, our faith offers hope at every level of life. The postmillennial hope regarding the historically unfolding future is one of those levels. Though again: our ultimate hope is the “blessed hope” of the second advent, which ushers us into our perfect eternal state. What greater hope can there be?

But is hoping for a better future for the church and our families misguided or ill-conceived? Was Abraham wrong to “hope against hope” for offspring (Ro 4:18)? Was Isaiah wrong for hoping for earthly justice and better days for Israel (Isa 59:9, 11)? In Thine Is the Kingdom I state regarding this sort of objection: “we do not prefer earthly dominion over consummational glory.”1 But we do hope for earthly dominion for the church.

Conclusion

I will continue my reply to non-postmillennial scholars in the next blog posting. But I believe that the observations already made are sufficient to dismantle the objection.

Righteous Writing Correspondence Course

This course covers principles for reading a book, using the library,

determining a topie, formulating a thesis, outline, researching, library use,

writing clearly and effectively, getting published, marketing, and more!

AUGUSTINE, OPTIMISM, AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

PMT 2015-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Modern postmillennialism is the result of a growing understanding of biblical eschatology. And though it undergoes much systematization from its nascent beginnings to the present, in its most basic form, clear adumbrations of it appear in antiquity.

Scholarly Analysis

Most scholars would agree with Millard J. Erickson that “all three millennial positions have been held virtually throughout church history” (he collapses dispensationalism into premillennialism in mentioning only three basic views) (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1212). Robert G. Clouse writes: “Whereas the other strains of millennialism all have deep roots in the history of the church, the dispensational variety is of recent origin” (Clouse, et al. New Millennial Manual, 56). Donald G. Bloesch goes even farther: “Postmillennialism has been present throughout Christian history” (Bloesch, Last Things, 102).

Augustine (AD 354–430) looms as the greatest Christian thinker in the early church and one of the greatest of all time. Originally a premillennialist, Augustine turned away from the system (Augustine, Sermons, 259; City of God 20:7). Many assume his views correspond more closely with amillennialism, some rather strong evidence of postmillennial-type thinking appears in his writings, as various scholars note. See:

John O’Meara, “Introduction,” in Augustine, City of God, viii.

S. LaSor, The Truth About Armageddon, 160.

David W. Bebbington, Patterns in History, 54.

Adolf von Harnack, “Millennium,” Encyclopedia Britannica (9th ed.) 16:314ff.

Thomas N. Finger, Christian Theology, 113–115.

Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory, 19, 22, 161, 239.

Loraine Boettner, Millennium, 10.

Paul Erb, Bible Prophecy, 101–102.

Even Walvoord is aware of these tendencies in Augustine: Millennial Kingdom, 8.

According to religion journalist Wendy Zoba, Augustine believes that history “would be marked by the ever-increasing influence of the church in overturning evil in the world before the Lord’s return” (Zoba, “Future Tense,” Christianity Today [October 2, 1995]), 20).

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Ken Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600 pages)

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Literary Evidence

Several statements in Book 18 of The City of God certainly express a postmillennial-like optimism. Of Nahum 1:14 and 2:1 Augustine states:

Moreover, we already see the graven and molten things, that is, the idols of the false gods, exterminated through the gospel, and given up to oblivion as of the grave, and we know that this prophecy is fulfilled in this very thing. (City of God 18:31)

“The tents of Ethiopia shall be greatly afraid, and the tents of the land of Midian;” that is, even those nations which are not under the Roman authority, being suddenly terrified by the news of Thy wonderful works, shall become a Christian people. “Wert Thou angry at the rivers, O Lord? or was Thy fury against the rivers? or was Thy rage against the sea?” This is said because He does not now come to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (City of God, 18:32)

Augustine comments on Haggai 2:6:

“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Yet one little while, and I will shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will move all nations, and the desired of all nations shall come.” The fulfillment of this prophecy is in part already seen, and in part hoped for in the end. . . . so we see all nations moved to the faith; and the fulfillment of what follows, “And the desired of all nations shall come,” is looked for at His last coming. For ere men can desire and wait for Him, they must believe and love Him.” (City of God, 18:35)

We may also reference his comments on Psalm 2. Regarding the Lord laughing at the nations (Ps 2:4) he writes: “it is to be understood of that power which he giveth to His saints, that they seeing things to come, namely, that the Name and rule of Christ is to pervade posterity and possess all nations.” At v. 7 he writes: “‘Ask of Me,’ may be referred to all this temporal dispensation, which has been instituted for mankind, namely, that the ‘nations’ should be joined to the Name of Christ, and so be redeemed from death, and possessed by God. ‘I shall give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance,’ which so possess them for their salvation, and to bear unto Thee spiritual fruit” (Augustine in Nicene and Post-Nicene Father 8:3).

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In one of his sermons he proclaims:

Lately, kings are coming to Rome. A great thing, brothers, in what manner it was fulfilled. When it was spoken, when it was written, nothing of these things was. It is extraordinary! Pay attention and see; rejoice! May they be curious who do not want to give attention to it; for these things we want them to be curious. . . . Let them discover that so many things which they see of late were predicted beforehand. . . . Every age [of individual] has been called to salvation. Every age has already come — every dignity, every level of wealth and human capacity. Soon let them all be inside. Presently a few remain outside and still argue; let them wake up at some time or another to the rumbling of the world: the whole world clamor.

(Cited in John A. Maxfield, “Divine Providence, History, and Progress in Augustine’s City of God,” Concordia Theological Journal 66:4 [October 2002], 340–41.

Free Gentry sermon for listening or downloading: “The Future Hope of Christ’s Church“

Indeed, Augustine taught that history would eventually issue forth in a “future rest of the saints on earth” (Sermon 259:2) “when the Church will be purged of all the wicked elements now mixed among its members and Christ will rule peacefully in its midst” (Brian Daley, Hope of the Early Church, 133).

Interpretive Caution

I must provide a cautionary word here: I am not claiming that Augustine is a full-blown postmillennialist. I am simply pointing out elements in his views that suggest a postmillennial-like optimism. He is one of the “adumbrations” of postmillennialism “in its simplest form,” as I state above.

IS LAODICEA A PROBLEM FOR REVELATION’S DATE?

PMT 2015-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Many scholars argue that Jesus’ rebuke of Laodicea in Rev 3:17 is evidence for a late-date for Revelation. But the postmillennial preterist sees Revelation as being written in the mid-AD 60s, well before the mid-90s (late date). Let’s consider this alleged problem for the early-date.

Revelation 3:17 reads:

Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked.

Leon Morris notes that in the Laodicean letter “we are told that the church in Laodicea was ‘rich, and increased with goods’ (iii. 17). But as the city was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 60/61 this must have been considerably later” (Morris, Revelation, 37). Mounce and Kummel also endorse this observation, a major component of the complex of evidence derived from the Seven Letters (Robert Mounce, Revelation, 35 and W. G. Kummel, New Testament Introduction, 469).

It is true that Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake about this time; the evidence for both the fact of the earthquake and its date are clear from Tacitus (Tacitus, Annals 14:27). The idea behind the argument is that such a devastating event as an earthquake must necessarily have severe and long term economic repercussions on the community.

Before Jerusalem Fell (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, in such a community, the minority Christians could be expected to have suffered, perhaps even disproportionately. If Revelation were written sometime in the period from A.D. 64-70, it would seem to Morris, Mounce, and others, that the time-frame would be too compressed to allow for the enrichment of the church at Laodicea, as is suggested in Revelation. But by the time of Domitian a few decades later, such an enrichment of the church would not be difficult to imagine.

Despite the prima facie plausibility of this argument it does not carry sufficient weight to serve as an anchor for the late-date theory. Some suspicion is immediately cast on the argument when it is noted that it is avoided by such noteworthy late-date advocates as conservative scholars H. B. Swete and Donald Guthrie, and such liberal proponents as R. H. Charles and James Moffatt. The refusal of these scholars to make reference to this argument is not necessarily destructive to the cause, of course. But it is at least curious that such vigorous liberal and conservative advocates do not deem it to have merit.

What Was the Nature of Their “Riches”?

We should note also that it may be that the reference to “riches” made by John is a reference to spiritual riches, and not to material wealth at all.

These riches and other goods in which the Laodicean Church and Angel gloried we must understand as spiritual riches in which they fondly imagined they abounded.　.　.　. [T]his language in this application is justified by numerous passages in Scripture: as by Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. i:5; 2 Cor. viii. 9; above all, by two passages of holy irony, 1 Cor. iv. 8 and Hos. xii. 8; both standing in very closest connexion with this; I can indeed hardly doubt that there is intended a reference to the latter of these words of our Lord. The Laodicean Angel, and the church he was drawing into the same ruin with himself, were walking in a vain show and imagination of their own righteousness, their own advances in spiritual insight and knowledge. (R. C. Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches, 210).

A good number of commentators suggest an allusion here to 1 Corinthians 4:8 and Hosea 12:8. Additional passages such as Luke 18:11,12; 16:15; and 1 Corinthians 13:1 may be consulted, as well. If this interpretation of “riches” in Rev 3:17 is valid, then the entire force of this argument is dispelled. Surprisingly, this is even the view of Mounce:

“The material wealth of Laodicea is well established. The huge sums taken from Asian cities by Roman officials during the Mithridatic period and following indicate enormous wealth.　.　.　. The ‘wealth’ claimed by the Laodicean church, however, was not material but spiritual.　.　.　. The Laodiceans felt they were secure in their spiritual attainment.” (Mounce, Revelation, 126)

How Devastating Was the Earthquake?

In addition, there is the impressive historical evidence of the situation that tends to undermine the rationale of the argument, even if material riches are in view. Most ruinous to the entire argument is the documented fact of Laodicea’s apparently effortless, unaided, and rapid recovery from the earthquake.

Tacitus reports that the city did not even find it necessary to apply for an imperial subsidy to help them rebuild, even though such was customary for cities in Asia Minor. As Tacitus records it, Laodicea “arose from the ruins by the strength of her own resources, and with no help from us.” (Tacitus, Annals 14:27) This is as clear a statement as necessary to demonstrate that Laodicea’s economic strength was not radically diminished by the quake. Despite the quake, economic resources were so readily available within Laodicea that the city could easily recover itself from the damage. Interestingly, both Morris and Mounce make reference to this statement by Tacitus, despite their using the argument to demand a late date (Morris, Revelation, 37 and Mounce, Revelation, 123).

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture

(DVD by Ken Gentry)

A summary of the evidence for Revelation’s early date.

Helpful, succinct introduction to Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, it would seem that the time element would not be extremely crucial since “earthquakes were very frequent thereabouts, and rebuilding doubtless followed at once” ( F. J. A. Hort, Apocalypse, xx). The quake occurred in A.D. 61; if Revelation were written as early as A.D. 65 or early A.D. 66 (as is likely), that would give four years for rebuilding. We must remember that the recovery was self-generated. Simple economic analysis demands that for the resources to survive, rebuilding would have to be rapid.

Free downloadable Gentry sermon: “The Antichrist“

Where Was the Quake?

In addition, who is to say that the Christian community was necessarily overwhelmed by the quake in that city? After all, in the Revelation 3:17 statement it is the church that is in view, not the city. Even the horribly destructive earthquakes in Mexico City on September 19 and 20 of 1985 did not destroy every sector of the city. Perhaps, by the grace of God, the Christians were in areas less affected by the quake, as Israel was in an area of Egypt unaffected by the plagues (Exo. 8:22; 9:4, 6, 24; 10:23; 11:27). Would this token of God’s providence lead the Laodiceans to a too proud confidence in their standing as suggested in Revelation 3:17? Perhaps a roughly analogous spiritual situation is found with the church at Corinth, which Paul set about to correct (1 Cor. 4:6-8).

Conclusion

The Laodicean earthquake is not strong evidence against the early-date of Revelation. Several issues render it unuseful for determining Revelation’s date.

 

WAS REVELATION TOO NEAR?

PMT 2015-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Occasionally, I answer questions sent to me on Facebook. One Facebook friends asked:

“If Revelation was written in AD 65-66 about events in AD 70, how could John have expected it to be widely circulated in so short a period of time? It seems the book’s grandiose vision would be largely wasted because of the time frame involved. It couldn’t do much good, especially since the bulk of its actions (on your view) occur in Palestine.”  S. F.  Los Angeles, CA

This is a good question that many folks have. However, this concern tends to evaporate on closer consideration.

John’s knowledge

First, we do not believe John knew the exact date the events would play out. It is not like he thought: “Well, it is now AD 66. I had better get to work on this book because these events are going to start up in earnest in AD 68 and will be over in AD 70.” Remember, he said the dates were “at hand” and “soon.” He did not say: “They will begin on March 15, A.D. 68.”

John’s target

Second, nevertheless, Revelation is directed specifically to seven particular churches who could have easily gotten it quickly enough. These were the ones John was directly addressing and specifically concerned with. In fact, according to the majority of commentators, including dispensationalists Robert L. Thomas and John F. Walvoord (at Rev 1:11 in their commentaries), the order of appearance of those churches shows that they were arranged according to a Roman postal road. They would fairly quickly receive Revelation since they were on this known postal road.

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Twenty-four careful, down-to-earth lectures provide a basic introduction to and survey of the entire Book of Revelation. Professionally produced lectures of 30-35 minutes length.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

John’s usefulness

Third, Revelation’s usefulness does not evaporate with the occurrence of the events of the Jewish War. Consider Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2 they do not cease to be useful when Christ is finally born of a virgin in Bethlehem. Does Paul’s letter to the Corinthians about their particular problems (divisions among followers of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos; a man marrying his father’s wife; and so forth) have no meaning for us today? Most of the NT epistles are “occasional letters.” That is, they were written to address specific issues on certain occasions. Yet their authority and applicability still remain for us today as we apply the principles embodied therein.

Regarding Revelation, even after Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed, Christians would need to know what happened and why — since God had worked for so many centuries through Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. Revelation presents these events in dramatic fashion to underscore the vitally important redemptive-historical truths involved of the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. The destruction of Jerusalem was no accident of history; it plays into the plan of the Lamb who had been slain as he avenges himself and his people against his assailants.

John’s application

Fourth, we can (and should! and must!) draw lessons from Revelation for all times. For example:

Like Paul warns in Rom 11, God judges his people and we should not boast against the branches because we might be broken off. Wasn’t Israel God’s special people for so long? But look at what he did to them when they became unfaithful to him, and finally rejected and killed their own Messiah!

Revelation shows that Jerusalem’s destruction was no accident of history. It shows that behind the historical scenes, spiritual forces are at work as God works his plan in history.

Revelation shows very clearly that God in the NT era also exercises wrath. He is not the liberal God-of-love that we hear so much about. Liberals often try to distinguish the OT conception of God from the NT conception. The God of Scripture is a God of love and wrath, controlled by righteousness. Revelation clearly undercuts the attempt of liberals.

Keys to the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Provides the necessary keys for opening Revelation to a deeper and clearer understanding.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Revelation shows that God upholds his people in their trials. He answers their prayers — in his time and according to his plan. Though the Jews and Romans were persecuting our first-century fathers, God upheld them. He will uphold you as well. After all, in each of the seven letters he urges upon the broader church: “He that has ears to hear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation shows that despite the might of Nero and Rome, when God opposes them, they are doomed. His people should not fear earthly forces arrayed against them.

Revelation shows that God’s redemptive forces have been established (the redemptive new creation, cp. Rev 21:1-2 with 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15-16) in time and on earth, and that they will gloriously impact the outcome of history. This occurs as the new creation forces gradually (like a mustard seed or like leaven!) flow out into the world. God is at work in history and moving it toward its goal which is already unfolding around us.

Etc., etc.!

GREAT COMMISSION AND CULTURAL MANDATE (2)

PMT 2015-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part series looking into the relationship between the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26–28). Both mandates feed the postmillennial hope.

There are a few evangelicals who disassociate the Creation (or Cultural) Mandate from the Great Commission, which has also been called the New Creation (or Evangelistic) Mandate. This is an unfortunate mistake that detracts from the greatness of the Great Commission and a proper engagement of the Christian calling in the world. Nevertheless, the two mandates are intimately related. This may be seen from several considerations.

Both Mandates are Granted at Strategic Times

In its setting, the Creation Mandate occurs as the “swelling of jubilant song” at the accomplishment of God’s creative activity. At that time, the creation had just been completed and pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1:31-2:2). Genesis declares that “God finished His work.” The Greek word for “finished” here is suntetelesen, which is based on the root word teleo. On the basis of the completion of God’s work, the joyful declaration is given.

The New Creation Mandate, too, occurs at the climax of divine labor. It was given at the completion of Christ’s work in securing man’s redemption, not long after He declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30). His statement in the Greek is tetelestai, which is based on the root word teleo, the same root found in the statement in Genesis 2:2.

Because of the work of Christ, a “new creation” has begun; there are several verses that speak of salvation as a new creation. The old creation involves the material world in which we live; the new creation involves the spiritual world, which governs the life we live as saved creatures. Consequently, the old creation and new creation correspond to one another. Thus, the Creation Mandate and the New Creation mandate supplement each other, as well.

Both Mandates Claim the Same Authority

The ultimate authority of the Triune God specifically undergirds both the Creation and the New Creation Mandates. The Creation Mandate was given directly from the mouth of God, who had just created all reality by means of His spoken word (Gen. 1:26-31). This was the very God who said, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26), thus indicating His Trinitarian being.

“Israel and the New Covenant”

(2 CDs by Ken Gentry)

These messages provide a Reformed analysis of the role of Israel in the New Covenant.

They show that racial Israel will one day turn to Christ as the gospel spreads further

in the world and that Israel is no longer a distinctly favored people.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The activity of the later New Creation Mandate is to be performed “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the Triune God (Matt. 28:19). It also was uttered by the very mouth of God: God the Son, who holds “all authority in heaven and earth” (Matt. 28:18) and by whom the universe was created.

Both Mandates are Given to Federal Heads

The Creation Mandate was initially under the federal headship of Adam. By “federal” is meant that Adam did not act just for himself, but for us. When he was tempted in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16-17) and fell (Gen. 3:6ff), he did so in our stead, as our federal head (Rom. 5:14ff). We are all born sinners on the basis of this federal connection with Adam. We do not earn our sinful estate; we are born into it.

The New Creation Mandate is under the continuing headship of the Last Adam, Christ. When Christ lived according to God’s Law through all His trials (Heb. 4:15) and died under that Law (Gal. 4:4), He did so in our behalf, as our federal head (Rom. 5:14ff). Christians are all born again on the basis of this federal headship connection with Christ. We do not earn our righteous standing; we are born into it.

Both Mandates Engage the Same Task

Both the Creation and New Creation Mandates are designed for the subduing of the earth to the glory of God. The Creation Mandate was to begin at Eden (Gen. 2:15) and gradually to extend throughout all the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). It was restated after the Great Flood (Gen. 9:1-7).

The New Creation Mandate, which supplements, undergirds, and restores man ethically to the righteous task of the Creation Mandate, was to begin at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) and gradually to extend throughout the world (Matt. 28:19). As we will show in the following chapters, the Great Commission sets forth the divine obligation of the true, created nature of man. It seeks the salvation of the world, the bringing of the created order to submission to God’s rule. This is to be performed under the active, sanctified agency of redeemed man, who has been renewed in the image of God.

Both Mandates were Originally Given to Small Groups

The Creation Mandate originally was given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27), and then renewed to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1). The New Creation Mandate was given to Christ’s disciples (Matt. 28:16) for all ages (Matt. 28:20).

Major Bible Prophecies (5 mp3 lectures)

Gentry conference lectures on the Millennium, Daniel’s 70 Weeks,

Man of Sin, Heaven, and Unfulfilled Prophecies.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It is clear from the New Testament that the few original disciples, though initially intimidated by the resistance to Christ from their native countrymen, eventually overcame their cowardly hesitance. Upon witnessing the resurrection of Christ, they became convinced of the power of God. They received the command to “disciple all nations” on the basis of “all authority in heaven and on earth.” They accepted the obligation to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15).

Both Mandates Require the Same Enablement

As I have shown above, the Creation Mandate establishes a close connection between the interpretive revelation regarding man’s being created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26a, 27) and His command to exercise rule over the creation order (Gen. 1:26b, 28). Man lives up to His creational purpose as He exercises righteous dominion in the earth. God has implanted within man the drive to dominion. The entrance of sin, however, perverted godly dominion into a desire to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5).

The New Creation Mandate provides the essential restoration of the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). The Creation Mandate is consequently undergirded by the restorational activity of God by means of the New Creation power.

Conclusion

A major foundation of the Great Commission is found firmly placed upon the bedrock of Scripture and creation in Genesis. An awareness of man’s divinely ordained task in the world is essential to grasping the greatness of the Great Commission. The Great Commission is a corollary of the Creation Mandate.