Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 2

POSTMILLENNIAL PARABLE OF THE SOWER

PMW 2025-068 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Apostle Matthew appears, at least in part, to place the Kingdom Parables in the narrative context, according to R. T. France, in order to explain the “problems” surrounding the kingdom. In Matthew 12:28 we read: “if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” But if the kingdom now exists, why does it not show itself? Remember: the Jews expect a political Messianic kingdom. Why does it appear so small and weak? Why do so many reject it? Indeed, most of Israel is rejecting the king, as we see in Mt 13:57: “And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.’”

The Lord presents this whole set of parables, then, so that his followers might “know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” — though to others “it has not been granted” (Mt 13:11), and intentionally so (13:13–16). Consequently, the parables frequently mention the kingdom’s hidden nature, small presence, and wavering condition (Mt 13:9–17, 19–22, 35–28, 31, 33, 44–45). This is not the first century Jewish hope for the Messianic kingdom; nor is it the premillennialist or dispensationalist expectation of an Armageddon-introduced kingdom. Contrary to such thinking, Matthew carefully records our Lord’s explaining the “mystery” of his kingdom, a mystery that confuses even his followers: “we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel” (Lk 24:21; cp. Mt 13:36). As per the postmillennial system (and much like its sister, amillennialism) the Kingdom Parables sketch the present, spiritual, and developmental nature of the kingdom.

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Parable of the Sower (Mt 13:3–23)

The first parable, The Parable of the Sower (Mt 13:3–23), fits well with a postmillennial scheme and differs greatly from premillennial expectations. In fact, we know that in the wider Gospel record Christ rejects all political and revolutionary implications for his kingdom. He simply shows no interest in a political kingship. When he perceives that a crowd was “intending to come and take Him by force, to make Him king” he “withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone” (Jn 6:15). When the Pharisees press him regarding his kingdom’s coming, he distinguishes it from political kingdoms and from the dramatic Jewish expectations: “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Lk 17:20–21). When he stands before the Roman procurator Pilate, who was entrusted with keeping Judea under Roman control, the Lord declares that his kingdom “is not of this world” and therefore his servants will not fight (Jn 18:35). Rather his kingship is “to bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37). His response to Pilate is so clear — and so different from the Jewish accusations — that Pilate declares: “I find no guilt in Him” (Jn 18:38). Pilate sees Christ in a far different light than he does the revolutionary Barabbas (Mt 27:16–17).

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

In the Parable of the Sower Jesus notes that the kingdom spreads by means of God’s Word — not by “sword’s loud clashing” (Mt 26:51–52; Lk 17:30–31). And that its message fails to convert some hearers, though not those of good heart (Mt 13:18–23). He even explains that Satan hampers the kingdom’s growth (Mt 13:19). But despite this means of the kingdom’s spreading and its resistance from Satan, the kingdom nevertheless “bears fruit, and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty” in those who convert (Mt 13:23). Furthermore, rather than awaiting the distant future for establishing his kingdom, in the first century Christ sows his kingdom in the world.

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.

For more information on this new Vos work or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos/

DOMINION COMMANDED

PMW 2025-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The postmillennial hope is not just a hope. It is a command given to use by Christ himself. We must exercise our hope in promoting his kingdom on earth.

The postmillennial view is the only one of the four major evangelical eschatologies that builds its case on the very charter for Christianity, the Great Commission (Mt 28:18–20). David Brown wrote over a century ago:

“The disciples were commissioned to evangelize the world before Christ’s second coming; not merely to preach the Gospel, ‘for a witness,’ to a world that would not receive it till he came again . . . but to accomplish, instrumentally, the actual ‘discipleship of all nations,’ to baptize them when gathered in, and to train them up as professed Christians in the knowledge and obedience of the truth, for glory – all before his second coming. In the doing of this, He promises to be with them – not merely to stand by them while preaching a rejected Gospel, and to note their fidelity, but clearly to prosper the work of their hands unto the actual evangelization of the world at large, before his coming.”

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Sixty-five years later postmillennialist O. T. Allis cited the Great Commission and commented:

“There is no room for pessimism or defeatism in these words. The Captain of our salvation is an invincible commander. His triumph is sure and assured.”

Dispensationalists scoff at postmillennialists because the latter “believe that the Great Commission will be fulfilled” (Charles Ryrie). Amillennialists such as Anthony Hoekema also note the postmillennial reliance upon the Great Commission. But the postmillennial case, based (in part) on the Great Commission, is not so easily dismissed.

Here I will mention the Great Commission as New Testament evidence for Christianity’s victorious future. The Great Commission reads:

Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.” (Mt 28:18–20)

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

Here are the disciples, just days after the Roman procurator oversees their Lord’s cruel crucifixion. Christ confronts the little group, who had all forsaken him and fled (Mt 26:56) in fear of the Jews (Jn 20:19). Though earlier he confines their ministry to Israel (Mt 10:5–6; 15:24), he now commissions them to disciple “all the nations.” Luke traces the gospel’s nascent progress among the nations in Acts, which takes up the history of the Christian faith where the Gospels leave off. Acts opens with the Lord reissuing a commission to the same few disciples. He directs them to promote his message in “Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Ac 1:8); Acts ends in chapter 28 with Paul in Rome (Ac 28:16). This progress from Jerusalem to Rome witnesses thousands of conversions, testifying to the dramatic spread of Christianity.

Only after claiming the Lord God’s unbounded authority over heaven and earth (Mt 28:18; cf. Mt 11:25; Jn 17:2) does Christ commission his disciples. And we must carefully note the nature of his commission. As I note above (p. 224), non-postmillennial writers greatly reduce its meaning — and this despite the wording being unambiguously clear. They have Christ simply sending the disciples into the world, or being a verbal witness to all men, or providing a testimony to others, or preaching the gospel message far and wide. These ideas are obviously included in the commission, for without them it could not even get started. But these notions fall far short of the full implications of what Christ actually commands. Only the postmillennial approach adequately handles the greatness of this Great Commission.

According to the Commission’s specific wording the Lord Jesus Christ commands his disciples to go forth and actually make disciples of all the nations. They are not simply to preach the word to all, that is, simply to deliver the message. Rather, they are to labor to bring the hearers under Christ’s yoke of authority. They are to lead the nations to baptism into the name of the Triune God and to formally instruct them in all things that he taught them. They themselves are “disciples” of Christ, as we see in many Gospel references (e.g., Mt 10:1; 11:1; 13:36; 16:24). Their task in this Great Commission is to replicate in others what Christ has effected in them. They are to make “all the nations” his disciples, just as they have become his disciples. Though the task is enormous, and though their numbers are few, and though they are initially fearful and fumbling, Christ promises that he will be with them (and all his people) “throughout all the days” (pasas tas hemeras) until the end (Mt 28:20) to insure the task’s successful completion. Thus, the enormous task may take much time, he encourages them to understand that he is with them to see that they accomplish it in good order. They are not left to themselves: the Lord of Glory not only commissions them but accompanies them in their task.

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Clearly pessimistic assessments of the Great Commission, such as the following by A. denHartog, are without warrant:

“We do not imagine that there will be a worldwide conversion of all or even of the majority of peoples on the earth. The Lord gathers unto Himself a remnant according to the election of his grace.”

Even a cursory reading of the Commission shows that it strongly supports the optimistic postmillennial eschatology by commanding God’s people to seek the discipling of all the nations. This encourages Christ’s church to seek universal victory among men, in service of the King of kings and Lord of lords (1Ti 6:15; Rev 17:14).

OUR EARTHLY HOPE

PMW 2025-066 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In his letter to the troubled Corinthian church, Paul lists three Christians virtues while exhorting them to a closer walk with Christ: faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13). This three-fold cord of holy values provides a strong bond of commitment for the Christian, and has tied the Church of Jesus Christ together throughout the ages.

Faith and love are not only beautiful threads knitting together the fabric of the Christian life, but are easily recognized as such. They weave a strong carpet for the Christian walk; they serve as dual strands tugging us forward in our holy calling. And though hope is certainly not a detached thread from the Christian garment, it has been snagged loose and at best is only partially visible to the eye of faith today.

Certainly all Christians are united in recognizing our ultimate, glorious resurrection hope in our heavenly home. We know that the present fallen order is not all that we may expect in our experience of God’s grace. The beatific vision in Scripture encourages us to keep a hopeful eye on heaven above even as we watch our steps in the earth below. And though eternal life in the presence of God is the ultimate hope of the Christian and the abiding consequence of the gospel, it does not exhaust the full significance of biblical hope.

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing (459 pp; paperback). Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Earthly Hope Encouraged

The Scripture urges us not only to look to our eternal estate in heaven, but also to labor in hope in the temporal realm on earth, knowing that “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Psa. 24:1). We must remember that this present material order was created by God’s power and for His glory: “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created” (Rev. 4:11). Consequently, a robust Christian faith must also share in a prophetic hope for our earthly future. Unfortunately though, many evangelicals cannot penetrate the cloud of gloom cloaking our present earthly labors; with troublesome nearsightedness we see only the short-term decline of Christianity rather than its long-range revival.

One reason historical hope is so obscured for us is that, as with the news media, so is it with the modern Christian: We tend to focus on the bad news and overlook the good. Of course, we would certainly be naively foolish if we closed our eyes to the many glaring problems in this rebellious world. But to help us overcome this myopia we must exercise the eye of faith. We should look back at the glowing embers of temporal hope that have flared up in history from time to time. These “thousand points of light” gloriously demonstrate the unquenchable fire of an ever burning Christian hope. These historical specimens provide confirmation of the certainty of the prophetic hope of Scripture. They should encourage us in our faith, love, and hope.

Earthly Hope in Scripture

Consider the Old Testament struggle of faith. Childless, aged Abram was called by God to leave his homeland, and “by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go . . . and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11:8). Why? Why would a weary old man leave home and country? Because of bright prospect of hope in the future! The ellipsis in the preceding citation from Hebrews notes that he was called “out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance.” An earthly inheritance lay before him, for God Himself promised him: “Go . . . to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing” (Gen. 12:1-2). Abram departed his father’s house for a strange land because of a God-revealed hope of a more fruitful earthly future. Due to Abram’s confidence in God’s earthly promise, his name was change to “Abraham” — “father of multitudes” (Gen. 17:5).

And should we today not follow Abraham’s example, trusting in God’s promise regarding our earthly hope? The Abrahamic Covenant not only brought forth a populous nation of God’s people, but promised that in Abram “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3c). That is, biblical hope promised that from an elderly, barren man would descend not only a great nation in history, but ultimately the Messiah who would bring blessings “to all the families of the earth.”

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

This glorious One from Abraham’s loins conquered sin (Rom. 7:24-25), death (1 Cor. 15:54-55), and the devil (Col. 2:15) through his redemptive labors. And on that basis redemptively secured the Abrahamic hope of blessing in time and on earth. For Christ commanded his disciples themselves to go out into an alien and resistant world in order to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). “All the nations” and “all the families of the earth” are to be brought under the sway of God’s covenant love and Christ’s redemptive kingdom.

Earthly Hope in History

The early ante-Nicene church struggled mightily in their task. Initially, they were but a “little flock” (Luke 12:32) who humbly committed their lives to a despised, rejected, and crucified Lord (1 Cor. 2:8). Initially, they were hunted down by the mightiest empire of the world, to be thrown to the beasts for refusing to worship Caesar, to be burned in the fires for affirming Christ’s lordship. Surely their times were fraught with unspeakable terror such as we have not known in modern America. Yet by the grace of God, a little over 200 years after the Apostles left the scene the emperor Constantine professed faith in Christ, lifting the earthly burden from our spiritual forefathers. Christ’s little flock was witnessing His kingdom coming with power, His gospel exercising a growing influence in the world.

Indeed, shortly thereafter Athanasius wrote: “the Saviour works so great things among men, and day by day is invisibly persuading so great a multitude from every side, both from them that dwell in Greece and in foreign lands, to come over to His faith, and all to obey His teaching” (Incarnation 30:4). In ever greater numbers idol worshipers were turning from their lifeless idols to serve the living God (cp. 2 Thess. 1:9). The mustard seed was growing in stature; the leaven was powerfully penetrating the earth (Matt. 13:31-33).

Consider the plight of faithful Christians who were later tormented by a corrupted form of Christianity in the Middle Ages. They were burned at the stake for their evangelical faith in Christ. And though the Church of the day was in such a tragic condition, the Reformation erupted on the scene shaking the very foundations of western civilization. Christians were witnessing the answer to their continuing hope-filled petition to God: “Thy kingdom come; they will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Once again Christian hope burned anew in time and on earth. The flame of Christ was inextinguishable.

Consider the plight of the bold believers in England as the Reformation flared up there, then died back, only to flame forth again. Faithful ministers were hounded from their pulpits and humble saints beheaded for their faith, taunted as “Puritans.” Yet, as before, the evangelical faith shook itself and arose, bringing forth the Puritan hope and the explosion of a massive Christian missionary outreach. In their earnest hope of serving God without constraints, they migrated to the New Land to establish “a city set on a hill.”

Earthly Hope in the Present

Of course, once again we today look around with growing despair and a deepening concern for our country. Our Christian influence is waning in America. We hear tragic reports of various evils in our land and in the world. What are we to think? Shall our hope fade with the troubling news? May it never be! As did lonely Abram of old, so must we advance in hope of God’s will being effected in the earth which belongs to Him. We should be encouraged by the continuing historical resilience of our faith. What a “great cloud of witnesses” has preceded us!

Dispensational Distortions
Three Lectures by Kenneth Gentry. Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We must remember the bold hope of Jeremiah. Though he prophesied the fast approaching destruction of Jerusalem, even penning a book of prophecy so disturbing we call it “Lamentations,” yet did he still hope. He looked beyond the dismal events of his day, his eyes penetrating the dark clouds of despair. He was so confident that the earthly future was in God’s hands that he purchased a piece of land in doomed Israel (Jer. 32). He believed that history was indeed “His story,” and not man’s.

We must have a hope such as did righteous Simeon. His beloved nation was subjugated to Imperial Rome. His longed-for Messiah had not come despite hundreds of years of prophetic hope. Yet like Abram and Jeremiah before him, he too continued with hope. He confidently awaited the Messiah in the Temple of God: “And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him” (Luke 2:25). And what became of his hope? He saw in the baby Jesus “Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel’” (Luke 2:30b-32).

Ultimately, of course, we must draw our hope for the earthly future not from “below the sun,” feeding it solely from an historical tributary. After all, we do not yet see the end result; we can trace only the slow, developing providence of God through the shifting sands of time. Yet we know that He has promised that His kingdom will grow imperceptibly in the earth, like a budding twig (Eze. 17:22-24), a growing stream (Eze. 47:1-12), a developing mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32), penetrating leaven (Matt. 13:33), a sprouting seed (Mark 4:26-29). Nowhere does the Scripture promise that by the year 2002 will we see the full fruit of a conquering faith and the mature and final blossoming of earthly hope. We must draw our hope from above the sun, from the light of God’s revelation in the prophetic Scriptures. But we can discern the ways of God from his actions in the past in delivering His people and granting them victory despite opposition.

We should no more be discouraged in our hope of the conquest of our faith in the earth because it has not yet transpired in fulness, than we should despair regarding the Lord’s return simply because He has not yet done so. We must have a hope in the future.

GOODBIRTH AND THE TWO AGES
I am currently researching a technical study on the concept of the Two Ages in Scripture. This study is not only important for understanding the proper biblical concept of the structure of redemptive history. But it is also absolutely essential for fully grasping the significance of the Disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3, which spark the Olivet Discourse. This book will be the forerunner to a fuller commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s comprehensive presentation. This issue must be dealt with before one can seriously delve into the Discourse itself.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated! https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4XXFLGKEQU48C&ssrt=1740411591428

OUR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATION

PMW 2025-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.cjir

I see so many Christians in America who have disassociated themselves from particular church membership. They do not see any reason for or value in joining a local congregation. So what is the biblical argument for formal church membership? Though there are many arguments, here are four that should encourage us in seeking church membership.

First, Scripture teaches that believers are to associate themselves together in worship.

In Hebrews the writer is discouraging Jews who have professed faith in Christ not to leave the church and return to the synagogue: “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Heb 10:25). In fact, in the earliest appearance of Christianity we see the disciples doing just that: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

This is why the Lord’s day became so important in the early Christianity. It was the time for the formal, public gathering of Christians to worship. In Acts 20:7 we read: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them.” Had they not gathered together, they would not have heard Paul’s message and would not have been instructed in the things of God properly.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation
(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read Paul’s directive regarding taking up offerings. His question assumes churches do gather together in their various localities, and that they gather on the first day of the week: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.”

This, of course, does not mandate formal, vow-taking church membership, but it is a foundational point upon which we can build a case for church membership. Too many Christians are lone gunners for Jesus, sleeping in on Sundays, and declaring they can worship God just as well at home with their own families. Usually all it takes to explode this assertion is to ask a simple question: “But do you”? And if you meet the rare person who does actually worship with his family alone, ask them: “Do you take the Lord’s supper which Jesus commanded us to do until he returns (1 Cor 11:26)?”

Second, the NT establishes elders and deacons as officers in the church.

In Acts 14:23 we read: “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” In Acts 20:17 we read of Paul: “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. In Acts 6:1-6 we see the first deacons established in church office by election. In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 Paul gives the pre-requisites for church office, for both elders and deacons.

But now the question arises: How are we to elect church officers if there is no formal church membership? Can just anyone vote for church officers? Could Muslims come into our gathering and vote to elect officers to govern Christ’s church? Certainly not. The very concept of elected church office requires formal church membership, just as nations require citizenship to vote for rulers

Third, church officers are to exercise a real governmental oversight

Church officers are obligated to exercise a real governmental oversight in the gathered body of Christ. In Hebrews 13:17 we read: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. But how can this be if there is no one formally under that oversight — as in formal church membership?

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-495" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="" />

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Fourth, the NT speaks of church discipline

The NT speaks of church discipline whereby some Christians are put outside the church for their sin. In Matthew 18:15–18 excommunication is established in which a person is put out of the church. But if they are not members of the church, how can they be put out? If the church body has no formal oversight of them, how can they put them outside the church? Paul speaks of the necessity of church discipline so that one “would be removed from you midst” (1 Cor 5:2).

This important factor of church government requires some form of formal oversight, and therefore membership. I cannot simply self-excommunicate someone from the Christian faith. This requires an organized and authorized body of officers who are elected to office. And this requires church membership.

Thus, in the final analysis, formal church membership is implicit in how the church operates, according to the NT.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

HELPFUL ESCHATOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS

PMW 2025-064 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am currently working on a book on the Two Ages of Redemptive History, which is a book that will supplement another projected I have almost completed researching: “The Olivet Discourse in Context.” In this blog posting I will simply list some well-stated, random observations of various theologians regarding eschatological phenomena. I hope you find these helpful, for I will have them in my book!

Just for fun, I will begin with one of my own:

Ken Gentry
In Romans 8:23 Paul speaks of the redemption OF the body, not a redemption FROM the body. This fits nicely with his statement in the much abused fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, where Paul speaks of “THIS” body being resurrected, NOT removed or replaced. See verses 53–54.

Paul Beker, Paul the Apostle, 180, 152–53
(p. 180): “A theology of the cross that is unrelated to the resurrection as ‘first fruits” of the kingdom of God and the future resurrection of the dead is in danger of neglecting the created order and the hope of God’s final cosmic victory over his rebellious creation, which he promised in the resurrection of Christ…. The proleptic victory of the cross and the resurrection moves toward the future publica victory of God in the final resurrection.”
(pp. 152–53): “Paul does not think of Jesus’ ascension in terms of a removal scene, as if a Gnostic savior figure leaves the scene of corrupted matter by shedding his body on the cross and by ascending to his proper heavenly abode, where Spirit conjoins Spirt… [Christ’s resurrection] is a proleptic event that foreshadows the apocalyptic general resurrection of the dead and thus the transformation of our created world and the gift of new corporeal life to dead bodies.”

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Larry J. Kreitzer, “Resurrection,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 807
“It is important to note that the English phrase ‘resurrection from the dead’ evokes a rather different mental picture than does its Greek equivalent anastaseos nekron (Rom 1:4; cf. Phil 3:11 which has ek nekron, lit. ‘out from the dead ones’)… In Greek, however, the noun behind nekron is a plural one, which means the phrase anastasis nekron may be translated literally as ‘resurrection from out of dead ones’ (cf. Phil 3:11). The Greek expression contains a much more dynamic image, conjuring up a picture of ‘the standing up from the midst of corpses.’”

William Dennison, Paul’s Two-Age Construction and Apologetics, 30
“On the one hand, therefore, Paul states that the new creation has been fulfilled because we have entered into the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4; II Cor. 5:17; 6:2), and on the other hand he asserts that the believer still lives in the present evil world with the expectation that it will cease (Rom. 87:18; 11; 15:12:2).”

Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 45
“When [Paul] speaks here [in 2 Cor. 5:17] of ‘new creation’ this is not meant merely in an individual sense (‘a new creature’), but one is to think of the new world of the re-creation that God has made dawn in Christ, and in which everyone who is in Christ is included. This is also evident from the neuter plurals that follow: ‘the old things have passed away, the new have come,’ and from the full significance that must be ascribed here to ‘old’ and ‘new.’ It is a matter of two worlds, not only in a spiritual, but in a redemptive-historical, eschatological sense. The ‘old things’ stand for the unredeemed world in its distress and sin, the ‘new things’ for the time of salvation and the re-creation that have dawned with Christ’s resurrection.”

The Book of Revelation and Postmillennialism (Lectures by Ken Gentry)

In the first of these three 50-minute lectures Gentry explains Revelation’s judgments to show they do not contradict postmillennialism. In the next two lectures he shows how the Millennium and the New Creation themes strongly support the gospel victory hope found in postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 27, 467
(p. 27): “The coming of the kingdom is the initial stage of the great drama of the history of the end.”
(p. 467): “At his death and after his rising from the dead came the signs of the catastrophe of the world and of the palingenesis attendant upon the parousia of the Son of Man, Judgment is visited upon the temple (‘the veil of the temple was rent’) and rising of the dead is seen (‘many bodies of the saints which slept arose,’ Matt. 27:51–53; cf. also vs. 45, ‘there was darkness over all the land’). All these events clearly point to the connection between the resurrection and the coming of the parousia of the Son of Man.”

Geerhardus Vos, The Eschatology of the New Testament, 26
“The present state continues to lie this side of the eschatological crisis, and, while directly leading up to the latter, yet remains to all intents a part of the old age and world order. Believers live in the ‘last days,’ upon them ‘the ends of the ages are come,’ But ‘the last day,’ ‘the consummation of the age,’ still lies in the future (Matt. 13:29, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; John 6:39, 44, 54; 12:48; I Cor. 10:11; II Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 9:26; James 5:3; I Pet. 5:20; II Pet. 3:3; I John 2:18; Jude 18).”

Willem Van Gemeren, The Progress of Redemption, 353, 33
(p. 353) “Our Lord spoke of the kingdom as present, as growing, as cataclysmic, and al future.”
(p. 33) The new heavens and new earth speaks of: “transformation and restoration: a new heaven and earth; redemption of creation; a holy people; the beneficent presence and rule of God and his Messiah.”

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This long-awaited commentary has now been published. It is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book.

Click: https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-divorce-of-israel-2-vols-by-gentry-pre-publication-offer/

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

CHRIST AND OUR CALENDAR

PMW 2025-063 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Gentry note:
These few paragraphs are taken from Oscar Cullman’s book, Christ and Time. His book is arguing that God controls time and that history is properly divided by the birth of Christ as the key event in history. In other words, he is presenting ancient Christianity’s Christo-centric view of history. These few sentences below are important to understand.

Cullmann:
Our system of reckoning time does not number the years in a continuous forward-moving series that begins at a fixed initial point. That method is followed, for example, in the calendar which Sextus Julius Africanus created at the opening of the third century A.D., and in the Jewish calendar, which thinks it possible to fix the date of the creation of the world, and hence designates that event by the year 1 and simply numbers forward from that point. Our system, however, does not proceed from an initial point, but from a center; it takes as the mid-point an event which is open to historical investigation and can be chronologically fixed, if not with complete accuracy, at least within a space of a few years. This event is the birth of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Thence proceed in opposite directions two enumerations, one forward, the other backward: “after Christ,” “before Christ.”

The practice of numbering back from the birth of Christ, to be sure, did not prevail until the eighteenth-century. Prior to that, and indeed from the Middle Ages, it had long been the practice to reckon the years following the birth of Christ as “years of the Lord”; this method had been introduced in A.D. 525 by the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus. Down to the eighteenth century, however, the numbering of the pre-Christian period was not oriented with reference the date of the birth of Christ; rather, the pre-Christian continued to be dated, in accordance with older calendar systems, from the Creation.

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Hence the theologically decisive and interesting point is not the fact that goes back to Dionysius Exiguus, that the birth of Christ was taken as the starting point of subsequent enumeration; a similar practice had been adopted previously in Babylon, where the enumeration was carried forward from the con quest of the country by Seleucus Nicator, and in Rome, where it was carried forward from the year the city was founded or, in a later system, from the year of Diocletian’s accession.³ The decisive thing is rather the practice, which has been in only for the last two centuries, of numbering both forward and backward from the birth of Christ. Only when this is done is the Christ-event regarded as the temporal mid-point of the entire historical process. The point of departure here, there fore, is not the beginning of the series of happenings. This beginning, according to this enumeration, lies rather at an undetermined point on the line that runs back from the mid point, just as the end lies at an undetermined point on line that stretches forward; on both sides the possibility re mains open of unlimited further enumeration. When we consider the entire line in its chronological course, the result is that the large numbers of the pre-Christian period move in decreasing series toward the number one, while the years after Christ, on the contrary, move forward from the year one into ever larger numbers.

We shall see how this scheme of conceiving time and history corresponds to the Primitive Christian conception of time and history which is to be analyzed in this study. If our task were to present in graphic form the result of our investigation, this Christian system by which we reckon time could serve as pattern.

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" />

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

We say “Christian system of reckoning time.” But it is the common system in the Western world. For the attempt to abolish it, undertaken by the French Revolution in the year 1792, was only a brief episode. Yet today scarcely anyone thinks of the fact that this division is not merely a convention resting upon Christian tradition, but actually presupposes fundamental assertions of New Testament theology concerning time and history. These presuppositions are just as foreign to present day thought as the Christian calendar is familiar to it. To this strangeness we desire to point in the following introductory remarks; they simply present in a preliminary way, but in all their bluntness, the consequences that result from the conception which Primitive Christianity had of time and history.

Gentry closing note:
I recommend getting and reading this entire book. Not everything in it is acceptable, but his main argument is very insightful and helpful. To read the whole book, you may get it at Amazon

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

“THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF GOD” REVIEW

PMW 2025-062 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

James P. Ware’s The Final Triumph of God: Jesus, the Eyewitnesses, and the Resurrection of the Body in 1 Corinthians 15 (Eerdmans, 2006) is one of the most compelling and insightful books I have read in many years. It is absolutely spell-binding in its careful exegetical observations regarding the physical resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15. And in our day of the arising of a new neo-Gnosticism (!) it is a “must have” book. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Christ’s physical, bodily resurrection or our own. And to any who might want to witness to hyper-preterists (or liberals who hold the views). This might be a good tract to  give them.

Instead of my own personal review, I will simply cite most of the Foreword by A. Andrew Das. He focuses on the essence of the book and the importance of Ware’s own triumph!

Here is the Foreword:

James P. Ware’s groundbreaking commentary on 1 Corinthians 15 is perhaps the most comprehensive to date. Not a page goes by without fresh, satisfying interpretations building on the best recent scholarly work. This rich volume remains accessible to the pastor, Bible study leader, or interested lay reader. While it is well researched, Ware cites only what is relevant to the text at hand and does not catalogue every ancient or modern source. This text-based approach models the wisdom of the late Abraham Malherbe, who admonished his Yale students to interpret texts from the inside out. One must never lose sight of the meanings of words, the grammatical features of a text, genre, similar features and parallels among contemporaries, and how the ideas fit together into a larger, cohesive whole. So absorbed is Ware with the text — in the very best sense — that he does not offer concluding reflections. Perhaps I may indulge a friend by highlighting some of the treasures the reader will encounter in these pages.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Ware’s text-based approach raises substantial questions for a new paradigm in Pauline studies. Historic Christianity interpreted the resurrected Jesus in 1 Cor 15 as endowed with an improved version of his earthly body but still flesh and bones, just as in the Gospels and Acts. As early as 1872, however, Hermann Lüdemann described the pneuma (“spirit”) of the resurrected “spiritual body” (soma pneumatikon) in 1 Cor 15:44 as consisting of “heavenly light substance” in agreement with Stoic patterns of thought. Otto Pfleiderer likewise denied a fleshly resurrection, whether Jesus’s or the believer’s at the Last Day, favoring a “spiritual corporeity,” a “heavenly light-substance.” Ernst Teichmann’s 1896 book claimed a non-fleshly spiritual resurrection consisting of fine, pneumatic stuff. By the mid-twentieth century, Rudolf Bultmann summarily claimed, “The accounts of the empty grave, of which Paul still knows nothing, are legends.”

….

Prominent voices have dissented: Richard B. Hays, Martin Hengel, N. T. Wright, and Volker Rabens. Missing has been a careful, text-based study of 1 Cor 15. Enter James P. Ware. Ware points early on to vv. 5–8, a pre-Pauline confession of resurrection appearances that Ware dates to within two to five years of Jesus’s death and resurrection (!), and as Ware demonstrates, 1 Cor 15 is the climax of the letter. From the very first chapters, Paul has been targeting the wisdom of the world that had made its way into the Corinthian congregation, a wisdom that categorically dismissed that flesh and bone will one day rise from the dead. Not even the Greek and Roman gods possessed such power. Whether in Greek antiquity (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Herodotus), the philosophical schools, or the mystery cults, corpses will remain just that, garbage according to the second-century Celsus. Paul draws attention in v. 35 to the mockery of the resurrection by “some” at Corinth (15:12, 34). This philosophy threatens to render the proclamation of Christ’s death and resurrection “in vain” (15:2, 14, 17, 58).

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. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A Stoic approach to the bodies of 1 Cor 15, Ware shows, just does not work. The verb “raise” (egeiro) never means an assumption into heaven or transubstantiation into an ethereal state. Further, the Stoics defined pneuma in terms of the sublunar, airy heavens and not the celestial sphere. No ancient text identifies pneuma with that sphere. For the Stoics, the planets and heavenly bodies were not made of pneumatic “stuff” but rather divine fire. Paul does not refer to “spirit-matter” elsewhere in his letters. The key, for Paul, is his innovative contrast of pneuma with psuche, and the pneuma remains God’s Spirit. In vv. 42–44 a soma psuchikon is changed into a soma pneumatikon. The same subject governs vv. 42–44; it is the same body. Body x does not metamorphosize to body y, but a perishable body x is changed to an imperishable body x in what is not a subtraction but an addition, an enhancement. A body enlivened or determined by its soul will enjoy an enlivening. also by the Spirit in its return to life (contra Fredriksen). Paul therefore uses gar to refer to a whole person apart from God’s Spirit. For x to “change” (according to Paul’s mystery), it must continue to exist. Similarly, the use of psuchikos rules out a future ethereal body without flesh and bones. Even as the psuchikos person of 1 Cor 2:14 has flesh and bones and is not just soul, the pneumatikos would have to be similarly endowed. The Spirit, enjoyed as a down payment (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5) or firstfruits (Rom 8:23) “in” the body, will be given directly “to” the resurrected body! The “life-giving Spirit” in v. 45 is not, then, astral stuff. As for “flesh and blood” not inheriting the kingdom of God in v. 50, one must consider the chiastic structure connecting this to v. 53, as Paul identifies “corruptibility” as the defining feature of “flesh and blood” (cf. Sir 14:17-18; 17:30-32; Matt 16:27; Gal 1:16; 1 En. 15.4; T. Ab. 13.7; cf. the positive “flesh and bones”). The mortal, corruptible body will be rendered incorruptible and immortal. In denying a fleshly resurrection, modern scholars have, ironically, joined the very ranks of those Paul opposed at Corinth.

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-211" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="" />
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

Since this volume is a commentary, Ware is not just responding to the new Stoic paradigm in Pauline studies. He is also resolving perennial interpretive issues along the way, including the untimely birth of Paul, the baptism for the dead, and the supposed subordinationist Christology of the chapter. As for Paul’s untimely birth (1 Cor 15:8), Ware dispenses with the notion that Paul received only a visionary experience of the risen Christ, against David Friedrich Strauss of old (The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History, 1835) and Adela Yarbro Collins and Dale Allison of late. Christ appeared to Paul as an ektroma prematurely cut short in the birthing process and not a late birth. Paul’s birth had failed in the womb, and so he did not see Jesus in the same way as the others before the ascension. Even as they had seen the risen Jesus, so also had Paul, but lastly. He saw the crucified (1:23) one arisen!

In vv. 20–28 Paul looks forward to the moment when the Son submits to the Father, leading many to affirm a sort of modern Arianism, a nondivine, nonincarnational Christology (with James D. G. Dunn and Wayne Meeks), or even the eternal functional subordinationist Christologies of some modern evangelicals (e.g., Wayne Grudem). Second Temple Judaism, however, never anticipated a temporary, interim reign of the coming Messiah but one that would last forever. “Until” (achri) does not necessarily point to the end of an action but an action’s goal, in this case to deliver the kingdom to the Father. Paul never says the Son ceases to rule, nor do early Christian sources. The Father reigns in and through the Son! Paul ascribes descriptions, actions, and functions of the Father to the Son, often with both as subjects, and sometimes including also the “life-giving Spirit” an early trinitarian theology on display. Ware documents the many biblical texts alluded to in the chapter, referring to Yahweh in the original, which Paul reapplies to Christ (e.g., Jer 9:23-24 in 1 Cor 15:31).

Paul asks in v. 29 about those “baptized for the sake of (huper) the dead.” The most common view, proxy baptism, is unattested in antiquity, except for Marcion’s use of this verse. Nor is this a reference to Christians’ being baptized in general, since Paul is identifying a subset of the faithful. Ultimately, Ware interprets this verse in its immediate context: Paul’s own suffering and struggle with wild beasts at Ephesus (vv. 30-32) should be taken literally (anticlimactic if not) as Paul em- ploys a word limited to arena combat (with which even Roman citizens sometimes had to contend). Thus Paul is pointing in v. 29 to people baptized in view of the dangers the martyrs faced. Whereas scholars such as Candida Moss have con- tended that early Christian martyrdom is largely a myth, if he is correct Ware is identifying the earliest reference to it, and even to arena combat.” At the end of the day, at the end of the age, as Augustine put it: “[Christ] came from heaven to be clothed with a body of earthly mortality, that He might clothe it with heavenly immortality” (Civ. 13.23; trans. Marcus Dods, NPNF 2:258).

A. Andrew Das
Niebuhr Distinguished Chair and Professor of Religious Studies

Elmhurst University

GOODBIRTH AND THE TWO AGES
I am currently researching a technical study on the concept of the Two Ages in Scripture. This study is not only important for understanding the proper biblical concept of the structure of redemptive history. But it is also absolutely essential for fully grasping the significance of the Disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3, which spark the Olivet Discourse. This book will be the forerunner to a fuller commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s comprehensive presentation. This issue must be dealt with before one can seriously delve into the Discourse itself.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated! https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4XXFLGKEQU48C&ssrt=1740411591428

REFORMATION & MODERN POSTMILLS

.PMW 2025-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In a previous posting I listed a few ancient postmillennial writers, noting that this would have been a budding postmillennialism, not a full-blown postmillennial scheme. In this article I will present the names of some Reformation postmillennialists, as well as some contemporary ones

Reformation Postmillennialism

As Donald Bloesch notes, “postmillennialism experienced an upsurge in the middle ages,” as illustrated in the writings of Joachim of Fiore (A.D. 1145-1202) and others. But a more fully developed postmillennialism enjoys its greatest growth and influence in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, especially under Puritan and reformed influence in England and America.

Rodney Peterson writes that “this perspective had undergone changes, particularly since Thomas Brightman (1562-1607).” Brightman, who died in 1607, is one of the fathers of Presbyterianism in England. His postmillennial views are set forth in detail in his book A Revelation of the Revelation, which was published posthumously in 1609 and quickly established itself as one of the most widely translated works of the day. In fact, some church historians consider this work the “most important and influential English revision of the Reformed, Augustinian concept of the millennium.” Thus, Brightman stands as the modern systematizer (not creator) of postmillennialism.

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. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Bloesch lists subsequent “guiding lights” from “the heyday of postmillennialism”: Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), John Owen (1616-1683), Philip Spener (1635-1705), Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the Wesley brothers (1700s), and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). To this list we could add John Calvin (1509-1564) as an incipient postmillennialist. In his Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, Calvin writes: “Our doctrine must tower unvanquished above all the glory and above all the might of the world, for it is not of us, but of the living God and his Christ whom the Father has appointed King to ‘rule from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the ends of the earth. . . .’ And he is so to rule as to smite the whole earth with its iron and brazen strength, with its gold and silver brilliance, shattering it with the rod of his mouth as an earthen vessel, just as the prophets have prophesied concerning the magnificence of his reign.”

Calvin is a forerunner to the flowering of the postmillennialism of the reformers Martin Bucer (1491-1551) and Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Following in their train but with greater clarity still are the Puritans William Perkins (1558-1602), William Gouge (1575-1653), Richard Sibbes (1577-1635), John Cotton (1585-1652), Thomas Goodwin (1600-1679), George Gillespie (1613-1649), John Owen (1616-1683), Elnathan Parr (d. 1632), Thomas Brooks (d. 1662), John Howe (d. 1678), James Renwick (d. 1688), Matthew Henry (1662-1714), and others.

The Puritan form of postmillennialism generally holds not only to a future glory for the church, but that the millennial era proper will not begin until the conversion of the Jews and will flower rather quickly thereafter, prevailing over the earth for a literal thousand years. A purified church and a righteous state governed by God’s Law arises under this intensified effusion of the Spirit. This culminates eventually in the eschatological complex of events surrounding the glorious Second Advent. Many of the Puritans also hold that the Jews would return to their land during this time.

Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Modern Postmillennialism
Generic postmillennialists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries generally do not hold that the Jewish people will return to their land as a fulfillment of prophecy — though Iain Murray and Erroll Hulse are notable contemporary exceptions. They also believe that the millennium spans all of the new covenant phase of church history, developing incrementally from the time of Christ until his Second Advent.

Prominent generic postmillennial writers include: Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), William Carey (1761-1834), Robert Haldane (1764-1842), Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), Charles Hodge (1797-1878), Albert Barnes (1798-1870), David Brown (1803-1897), Patrick Fairbairn (1805-1874), Richard C. Trench (1807-1886), J. A. Alexander (1809-1860), J. H. Thornwell (1812-1862), Robert L. Dabney (1820-1898), William G. T. Shedd (1820-1894), A. A. Hodge (1823-1886), Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921), H. C. G. Moule (1841-1920), B. B. Warfield (1851-1921), O. T. Allis (1880-1973), J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), John Murray (1898-1975), Loraine Boettner (1903-1989), and J. Marcellus Kik (1903-1965).

Contemporary defenders include: R. C. Sproul, Norman Shepherd, John Jefferson Davis, Erroll Hulse, Iain Murray, Donald Macleod, Douglas Kelly, John R. deWitt, J. Ligon Duncan, Henry Morris III, and Willard Ramsey.

Published advocates of theonomic postmillennialism include: Greg L. Bahnsen, Gary North, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Mark Rushdoony, Martin Selbrede, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., David Chilton, George Grant, Francis Nigel Lee, Steve Schlissel, Douglas Jones, Reuben Alvarado, Jason Quintern, Bruce Gore, Jeff Durbin, James White, Douglas Wilson, Stephen C. Perks, Jack Van Deventer, Stephen J. Hayhow, Andrew Sandlin, Joseph Boot, Colin Wright, Jay Rogers, Jeff Ventrella, and Joseph C. Morecraft III.

Conclusion
Though our numbers are not what they one day will be, postmillennialism is not without witnesses in Christian history. But our hope is in the future of God’s providential development of his kingdom.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

[image error]

HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (3)

PMW 2025-060 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
This is my third and final article in a short series on 1 Corinthians. I am showing that Paul is warning the Corinthians that denying the physical resurrection ends up denying the gospel. Thus, 1 Corinthians should serve as a warning to any Christians being tempted by hyper-preterism and its neo-Gnostic spiritual resurrection of the body. Sadly, hyper-preterists who teach a “spiritual” resurrection instead of a “bodily” resurrection are adopting humanism over biblicism.

The wisdom of the world
Once again, I am beginning with Paul’s first major section opening the main body of his epistle: 1 Cor. 1–4. In this section, which is the foundation for the whole epistle, Paul is warning against the wisdom of the world (i.e., that of fallen man) as he sets it over against the wisdom of God, which is found in Paul’s preaching. In 1 Cor. 3:18 he expresses concern about some “among” the Corinthians who are teaching the wisdom of the world in the church there [1]:

“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you [en humin] thinks that he is wise in this age [sophos … en to aioni touto], he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world [sophia tou kosmou toutou] is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.’ So then let no one boast in men.”

According to William Baird and others, in this opening section of the main body of his letter (chs. 1–4), Paul establishes an important point. He sets human wisdom or philosophy (logos and sophia) over against God’s wisdom and word (logos and sophia). God’s wisdom comes in power to them through Paul:

“my message [logos] and my preaching [keriugma] were not in persuasive words of wisdom [sophia], but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men [sophia anthropon], but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom [sophian] among those who are mature; a wisdom [sophian], however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom [theou sophian] in a mystery.” (1 Cor. 2:4–7)

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" />

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

Thus, in 4:19–21 Paul warns the humanistic troublemakers among the Corinthians:

“I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words [logon, “word,” is in the singular, therefore it speaks of their teaching as a body of thought, their doctrine] of those who are arrogant but their power [dunamin]. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words [logo, singular, therefore teaching, doctrine] but in power. What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?”

By this statement, Paul is relating his plan to come to them with a rod (i.e., to rebuke them). He will expose the fact that their words are arrogant pretension possessing no inherent divine power. This is much different from the true word of the kingdom which is very much a word of power — for it saves men, changing their lives (1:18; 2:4; 6:14; cp. Acts 8:13, 16). So then, Paul promotes his apostolic word (doctrine) over against the false philosophy of the world which is held and promoted by some in Corinth.

Three issues clustered
As James Ware points out, in 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul summarizes three significant issues for the Corinthians as he opens his letter. But these will not appear clustered together again until he reaches the letter’s climax in 1 Cor. 15 (as I will show below). Those three issues are: (1) his apostolic calling by the resurrected Christ; (2) his proclaiming of the gospel of Christ; and (3) the foundational nature of his preaching among those at Corinth. Note in this regard:

(1) Paul’s apostolic calling by Christ: “Christ did not send me to….” The word translated “send me” is apesteilen, from apostello, which means “to send with an authoritative commission.” We get our word “apostle” from this term. Paul was, in fact, authoritatively sent by Christ — though not for the purpose deemed significant by some among the Corinthians.

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

(2) Paul’s proclaiming the gospel: he was sent “to preach the gospel [eueggelisamen], not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” Here Paul effectively equates “the gospel” with “the cross of Christ”; it is not a mere human philosophy. The phrase translated “in cleverness of speech” is en sophia logou. This literally means “in a word of wisdom,” which speaks of unaided, fallen human philosophy (cf. 1:19–21), “the wisdom of the world” (v. 20). Rather, Paul proclaimed the gospel regarding the cross of Christ.

(3) Paul’s founding of the church through preaching: “Christ did not send me to baptize.” Paul was sent by Christ to the Corinthians to preach so as to found a church (cf. Acts 18:8–10). He was not sent simply to baptize them in order to gain a following for himself (cf. vv. 12–15) — as if he was establishing a philosophical school. Baptism is the public rite of initiation into the church (Acts 2:41). Though Paul did not baptize many of them, he was the one who preached the gospel in its saving power to them, founding the church there at Corinth. In fact, he notes in 3:6 that he was the one who “planted” the church at Corinth, as we discover in the historical record in Acts 18:1, 8–11. Thus, he declares later in this main opening section (chs. 1–4): “I became your father through the gospel” (4:15).

As noted above, these three issues are not linked together in one cluster again until Paul arrives at his climax in 1 Corinthians 15. This will once again show the anticipatory nature of the opening of the letter as it moves toward Paul’s climax in chapter 15. There we see this collection of three issues pulled together once again in 1 Cor. 15:1–2, 9–11:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel [to euaggelion] which I preached [ho eueggelisamen] to you … by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached [eueggelisamen] to you…. And last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles [to apostolon] and not fit to be called an apostle [apostolos]…. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”

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. Provides an important, lengthy Introduction to Revelation also.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So in chapter 15 we notice once again the clustering of his three opening issues anticipated in 1:17: (1) Paul’s apostolic calling [he notes here that he is “the least of the apostles,” but an apostle nevertheless], (2) the gospel preached [“the gospel … preached”; “by which you are saved”], and (3) Paul’s own foundational preaching at Corinth [“the gospel I preached” and “we preach and so you believed”].

And Paul emphasizes that his preaching of the gospel was “not in cleverness of speech,” which literally is “in wisdom of word” (en sophia logou). That is, the gospel is not rooted in human philosophizing, the kind of wisdom that Greeks seek after (1:22; cf. Acts 17:17–21). Thus, in chapters 1–4 Paul strongly contrasts the “wisdom of the world” (1:19, 20, 21; 2:5, 6, 13, 19) with the “wisdom of God” (1:21; 24, 30; 2:7).

1 Corinthians 15 and the gospel
Not only is this the case, but Paul’s gospel, which is first mentioned in 1:17 by way of anticipation, is finally summarized and defined in 15:1–11. Note that in 15:1–2 we read the summary statement that he is emphasizing for their understanding: “Now I make known to you [gnorizo de humin], brethren, the gospel [to euaggelion] which I preached to you [ho eueggelisamen humin].” Indeed, this is the gospel by which they “are saved.” He is now going to explain in some detail his view of the “gospel.”

So, in verses 3–4 Paul declares the gospel as of “first importance” for it involves Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Then in verses 5–11 he proves Christ’s resurrection by listing many people who saw him afterwards. This listing of witnesses includes 500 brethren, “most of whom remain until now” (v. 6; cp. Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39). He mentions that most of these are still alive to inform the church that they could thus be contacted as witnesses for confirmation of his resurrection, if need be. For as Gordon Fee notes this “functions as a kind of open-ended invitation for the Corinthians to inquire for themselves.”

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-495" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="" />

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Here Paul is clearly presenting Christ’s resurrection as a physical resurrection. The one whose body was buried is the same one whose body was raised. The Gospel record is clear about the physical nature of Christ’s resurrection. (1) Early in his ministry Jesus promised: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” which referred to his body (John 2:19–22). (2) It records the fact of the empty tomb (Matt. 28:11–15; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:1–11). (3) The risen Lord showed the disciples his “flesh and bones” in order to prove that he was not a “spirit” (Luke 24:38–39). (4) He showed the disciples the wounds in his body (John 20:2). And more!

And in 1 Cor. 15 Paul emphasizes the bodily character of our resurrection, for it is preceded by Christ’s resurrection, which serves as the “first fruits” (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; cp. Col. 1:18). Furthermore it is called a “raising up” (egeiro, 15:4, 12–17, 20, 29, 32, 35, 43–44, 52). The verb egeiro means “get up” or “rising to stand,” often from a sleeping position. According to Ware, “in no instance within ancient Greek literature does egeiro denote the concept of ascension elevation, or assumption. Rather, it denotes the action whereby one who is prone, sitting, prostrate, or lying down is restored to a standing position.” [2]

Ancient philosophy and resurrection
But no ancient philosophy or religion (beyond Israel) believed in a permanent resurrection of the body, though some allowed a temporary resuscitation of the dead. In fact, ancient philosophy denied the very possibility of such. For instance, Christian philosopher and theologian James Ware records many of the ancient philosophers on the subject. He notes regarding ancient philosophers and religionists “all were agreed on the impossibility of resurrection — return from bodily death to an everlasting embodied life. No philosopher, regardless of school, envisioned that a human being, once dead, might live again.”

Ware notes that the poet Anacreon wrote that “no one who goes down to the grave will ever come up again.” Athena explained in the Odyssey that “a god if he wished can easily rescue a living man, even from afar…. But surely not even the gods can deliver anyone, even one they love, from death, the common fate of all.” The god Apollo declared in Eumenides: “There can be no resurrection. All other things his [Zeus’s] mighty power can do or undo with effortless ease, but for death alone my father Zeus has no divine enchantment.”

But in Israel (alone among the nations, philosophies, and religions of the world), the Jews held to a bodily resurrection from the dead. We see this represented in the Old Testament (Job 19:25–27; Isa. 25:7, 19; Dan. 12:2 [3]) and among the early Jews, such as the Pharisees (2 Macc. 7:9), and in 1 Enoch 22–27; 45:4–5; 51:1–5; Jubilees 1:29; Testament of Judah 24; Sybylline Oracles 4:179–93, the Mishnah (10:17), and other Rabbinic writings. Indeed, the hope of the resurrection was “the hope of Israel “ (Acts 28:20)

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Of course, the Sadducees famously denied the resurrection, while the Pharisees (along with Paul) acknowledged it:

“But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, ‘Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!’ As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.”

Paul vs. proto-Gnosticism
So Paul confronts the proto-Gnostic error that denies the physical resurrection by challenging “some” in Corinth: “Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). These “some” are the ones Paul warned about in his first major section of the body of his the letter, who held to the wisdom of the world:

“Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power.” (4:18–19)

The false teaching of “some” in Corinth involves arrogant words, teaching, doctrine. But they do not possess “power.” Whereas “the kingdom of God does not consist in mere words but in power” (v. 20).

Conclusion

Therefore, to deny the physical resurrection of the dead is to adopt the wisdom of the world. It is to deny the power of God. Demonstrating this was the goal of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which is anticipated in its opening section (1:17; and chs. 1–4).

Notes

1. In an earlier article in this series, we saw that these “some” are denying or questioning the resurrection of the dead, 15:12, 35.

2. For further evidence that 1 Cor. 15 speaks of a bodily resurrection, see my six-part series “Stand Firm in the Resurrection Hope,” which is on this site [PMW 2025-033–38]. That series explains the proper interpretation of the “spiritual body” and other confusing issues in 1 Cor. 15.

3. Regarding the resurrection in Dan. 12:2, it appears that Daniel is drawing on the fact of the resurrection and applying it to the rejuvenation of Israel. Nevertheless, the fact of resurrection must be true or else the application in a different context would be pointless. See: Daniel 12:2 article.

HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (2)

PMW 2025-059 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
This is the second in a three-part series on 1 Corinthians that will be showing that Paul warns that a denial of the physical resurrection ends up denying the gospel of Jesus Christ. This should be a deep concern for any young theologue toying with hyper-preterism and its neo-Gnostic convictions. This charge of neo-Gnosticism arises due to hyper-preterists denying the physical nature of the resurrection body, arguing that the resurrected body is composed of spirit.

In this series I am slowly building my case from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Paul was no hyper-preterist!

Reminder
In my last posting I focused on how Paul’s leading concern for the Corinthians is highlighted in the first verse in the opening of the main body of his letter. There at 1 Corinthians 1:10 we read:

“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

In that posting I noted that Paul’s core concern (not his only concern) with the confused, squabbling church at Corinth regarded their doctrine. Here at 1:10 we find his first exhortation-clause appearing very early in his epistle. When properly understood, it clearly underscores his theological concerns. We see this in that he urges the Corinthians to “agree,” be of “the same mind” (i.e., “united in your beliefs”), and have “the same judgment” (i.e., thought or viewpoint). These words focus on doctrine, teaching, theology within the church.

Tongues-speaking: Meaning, Purpose, and Cessation

by Ken Gentry

The position presented within is that tongues-speaking allowed the gift person to speak in a known human language without previously knowing it; tongues brought inspired revelation from God; the gift was a sign confirming the apostolic witness and warning of the coming destruction of Jerusalem; and therefore the gift ceased in the first century.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

I also pointed out in that article that commentators agree that Paul’s formal introduction runs from 1:1 to 1:9. And in his introduction, two of its last three verses (vv. 7–8) were designed intentionally to point ahead to his climactic chapter, his enormously important eschatological chapter 15. Significantly, these two verses highlight the doctrine of the second coming of Christ at the end of history. So, in chapter 15 he will provide a detailed discussion of the bodily (physical) resurrection of the dead. This eschatological event is associated with the second coming and is a serious concern regarding the proto-Gnosticism impacting the doctrine of some within that first-century church. [2] Now to:

The business at hand
James Ware, John C. Hurd, Gordon Fee, and other commentators inform us of the basic structure of 1 Corinthians. They have noted that after the introduction-thanksgiving section (1:1–9), the opening of the main body of the letter is found in 1:10–17, and that the main body itself runs from 1:10–15:58, while chapter 16 forms Paul’s conclusion. Fee writes of 1:10: “with this sentence Paul makes an immediate transition from the thanksgiving to the body of the letter proper.”

The eight verses in the 1:10–17 unit serve as an important introduction — especially to the epistle’s first main section (chs. 1–4). Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner show that this first main section is “marked off as a major unit by the repetition of ‘I appeal to you’ in 1:10 and 4:16.” This four-chapter section deals with the dangers of division and false wisdom (James Ware; Carl Bjerkelund). But in these few verses in chapter 1 (vv. 10–17), we see something that has long been confusing to commentators. Let me explain.

A confusing matter
In his first chapter, verses 10–17 introduce several themes that are vitally important for the Corinthian church: (1) the exhortation to unity (v. 10), (2) the problem of internal divisions within the church (vv. 10–12), (3) Paul’s preaching of the gospel, his speech, and his wisdom (v. 17), and (4) the undermining of the gospel through human wisdom (v. 17). Yet these issues wholly disappear from the rest of the epistle after chapter 4! That is, until they reappear in chapter 15.

We see disunity as a crucial concern in 1:18–4:21 (cf. 3:1–4, 18, 21; 4:18–20). And we also see in these early chapters the themes of Paul’s preaching, speech, and wisdom highlighted by use of the words logos (“word, message,” 1:17, 18; 2:1, 4, 6a, 13) and sophia (“wisdom,” 1:21, 24, 30; 2:1, 4, 5). And in this regard, we also see a strong rejection of human “wisdom” (1:19, 30; 2:4, 5, 6b, 13; 3:19). But again, these issues are wholly absent from chapters 5–14. In those later chapters Paul deals with practical matters and conduct issues, such as immorality (5:1–2), in-church lawsuits (6:1, 12), marriage responsibilities (7:1–3), Christian liberty (8:1–2), worship conduct (11:18-34), etc.

So we must recall how chapters 1–4 relate to the following chapters of the epistle. In my previous article I noted the underlying cause of the divisions troubling the Corinthians was doctrinal disunity. We saw this in 1:10 where Paul urged agreement in their public speaking (to auto legete, he urges them to “say the same thing”), thinking (ho autos nous, “the same mind”), and viewpoint (te aute gnome, “the same judgment”).

This doctrinal concern comes to clear expression toward the end of his first major section. There at 4:16, Paul parallels his initial parakaleo-clause (exhortation-clause) in 1:10 with a second one. Here in 4:16 he writes: “I exhort [parakaleo] you, be imitators of me.” By this he is calling them — again — to doctrinal conformity with his practice and his teaching. We see this in the next verse (4:17) where we read that Timothy “will remind you of my ways [tas hodous mou], which are in Christ, just as I teach [didasko] everywhere in every church.”

The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So here Paul is calling the doctrinally disoriented and socially disunified church back to their proper foundation: the gospel that he preaches in every church (cp. 3:10–11). As noted in 1:10, Paul’s first parakaleo calls on them “to speak the same” (to auto legein), i.e., agree in doctrine proclaimed. And we discover there that this involves Christ sending Paul to “preach the gospel” (1:17), which is “the word of the cross” (ho logos … ho tou staurou,1:18), i.e., it is a “word” (or doctrine) concerning the gospel.

But Paul waits until 1 Corinthians 15 to fully define this preached “word” and to emphasize its fundamental significance. There we read:

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel [to euaggelion] which I preached to you [ho eueggelisamen humin], which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word [logo] which I preached to you [tini logo eueggelisamen humin], unless you believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:1–2)

Thus, as noted in my first article, 1:10 summarizes Paul’s “real concern” in the epistle (James Ware, Carl Bjerkelund), which is doctrinal unity. But in the process it also anticipates the fuller definition of the doctrine of the gospel which will eventually be given in 1 Corinthians 15 (the great resurrection chapter), and is summarily stated at 15:1–2.

The enormity of Paul’s concern
So now let us notice his deep concern for them expressed in those two verses (15:1-2): he states that they have had the gospel preached to them, have received it, currently stand in it, and are saved by it. But this is true only if they “hold fast the word” — “unless [they] believed in vain.” [1] This is a serious concern indeed! This doctrinal concern will be fully disclosed and developed in this climactic chapter 15, the goal toward which Paul is pressing.

This is a very real concern for Paul because in 1:10 he calls on “all” to agree in doctrine. This implies that some at Corinth do not agree on doctrine. In fact, in the very next verse (1:11) he notes that “I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you,” apparently over doctrine.

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology
By Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry

This book presents and defends Christian Reconstruction theology, particularly theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology. It does to by responding to dispensationalism’s social and exegetical theology.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

Then he actually states that very fact toward the close of his first major division: “some [tines] have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you” (4:18). And these are arrogant regarding their own prideful teaching (their “word”): “I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words [ton logon, literally, “the word” in the singular, i.e., doctrine] of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words [ton logon, literally, “the word” in the singular, i.e., doctrine)] but in power” (4:19–20; cp. 2:1–15).

So here Paul wants to discover if the teaching (“word”) of these arrogant people is having an influence in the church, that is, if it is exercising power over the people. Because God’s word as preached by Paul does have power. The problem Paul is countering is that some at Corinth are arrogant in following human wisdom and speech (cp. 1:19–21, 26–31) over against Paul’s teaching (word).

The few, the proud
Significantly, as James Ware notes, Paul’s use of the plural indefinite pronoun “some” (tines) is applied to a group causing division in the church in only three places in the letter: here in 4:18, then later it appears twice in 1 Corinthians 15:

“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some [tines] among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12)

“Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some [tines] have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame” (1 Cor. 15:34).

This is another line of evidence showing that Paul’s argument is intentionally leading to (i.e., anticipating, foreshadowing) 1 Corinthians 15. And there it is linked specifically to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which Paul deals with in great detail. There Paul asks how “some” can say “there is no resurrection of the dead” (15:12. He then rebukes them, calling on them to be “sober-minded,” to “stop sinning,” noting that this is to their “shame,” showing they “have no knowledge of God.” This is serious indeed!

We must remember, that in 1:10 he urges the Corinthians that they “all say the same thing [to auto legete pantes],” i.e., they all hold the same doctrine, belief, public profession. And it is only in 15:12 and 35 that we discover some who are saying/teaching something different regarding doctrine:

“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say [legousin based on lego] that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12)

“But someone will say [erei, from lego, “I say”], ‘How are the dead raised?’” (15:35)

Obviously the resurrection of the dead is not Paul’s only concern in 1 Corinthians, but it is his leading concern. For only here in 15:12 and 35 do we find a return to the matter of “some” who are saying different things, i.e., who teach a different doctrine. And Paul deals with the problem in great detail in this 58-verse chapter as the goal of his letter.

As James Ware concludes his study of the anticipatory nature of Paul’s opening chapters:

“I am not arguing for the resurrection as the sole topic or theme within the letter…. But the elements within the epistolary thanksgiving (1:4-9) and the opening parakaleo clause (1:10) pointing forward to chapter 15 are unmistakable, and they reveal that the foremost concern on the apostle’s mind is the denial of the resurrection at Corinth. Moreover, in chapter 15 we will learn that the Christian moral life and the resurrection are inseparably connected, for there Paul will portray his model of cruciform discipleship to Christ as grounded in the hope of the resurrection (15:19, 30-32, 58; cf. 6:12-20) and undermined by its denial (15:32-34). The language and thought of 1:10 reveals that the apostle’s concern is above all a doctrinal and theological one. In chapter 15 we learn the doctrine about which Paul is chiefly concerned: the resurrection of the dead.

Conclusion

So I now must conclude with these uplifting and informative words: “Happy trails to you / until we meet again.” Don’t you miss Roy Rogers?

Notes
1. The conditionality of their salvation here does not undercut the fact that God sovereignly elects men to salvation and sovereignly causes them to persevere in the faith. This conditionality statement notes two things: (1) not all who call upon the name of the Lord are truly saved (Matt. 7:21-23; 1 John 2:19). (2) And, as Charles Hodge taught long ago, warning those who profess faith of this danger is one means by which God causes his elect to persevere.

2. I say “proto-Gnosticism” because full-fledged formal Gnosticism did not arise until the second century. But the seeds for it were sown much earlier and were impacting the Hellenistic believers in Corinth.

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