Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 25

VOS ON 2 CORINTHIANS 5 (Part 2)

PMW 2023-052 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry Introductory Note:
I am continuing a three-part presentation of Geerhardus Vos exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5. He wrote this in opposition to the arising of the new (in his time) liberal view that Paul’s theology changed over time. He originally believed in a physical resurrection of the dead, but eventually began to believe that at the moment of death believers received their new resurrection body as a spiritual body. This is the second in the series. Let us hear Vos!

VOS PRESENTATION CONTINUED

“Our habitation from heaven.” A contact for the idea of pre-existence has further been sought in the closing words of 2 Corinthians 5:2: “our habitation from heaven.” But this “from heaven” is simply another form of statement for what is called in verse 1 “from God.” The resurrection-body is from heaven because it is in a special supernatural sense from God. Heaven is the seat and source of the Pneuma by which the resurrection-body is formed. [1]

On the other hand, the word ependusasthai, in this second verse is distinctly unfavorable to the view that Paul looked forward to or weighed the possibility of receiving the new body at or immediately after death. Endusasthai means “to put on,” and ependusasthai signifies “to put on one garment over another garment.” The preposition epi effects this plus in the meaning. The latter word expresses the same thing, which in 1 Corinthians 15:53, Paul calls endusasthai. There the subject of the act is the present earthly body: “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” Here in 2 Corinthians 5, on the other hand, the subject is the self, the incorporeal part of the believer. It is conceived as already clothed upon with its present body-garment, and desiring to put on over this, as some over-garment, the eschatological body.

Now, how did or could Paul conceive of the realization of this desire? The answer seems plain. He could hardly conceive of it as taking place at death, for death is precisely the putting off of the first garment previously worn. On such a supposition room would remain for an endusasthai only, no longer for an ependusasthai. It yields an utterly incredible thought to assume that the Apostle expected at death to carry over, even only for a moment, the earthly body, and then to slip on over it the new body. In such a case there would have been no real death, nothing would have remained for burial. The only way in which we can intelligibly construe for ourselves this ependusasthai is that it takes place at the parousia, and then, in those to whom the parousia takes place before death. Under these circumstances alone Paul would still be wearing the old body, and therefore able to put on over it the habitation from heaven. Second Corinthians 5:2, therefore, is utterly irreconcilable with the modern exegesis of a reception of the new body at death.

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We wish to pass by verse 3 without comment for the moment. This is because it is exceedingly obscure, owing in part to the uncertain reading of two words. Thus it is incapable of yielding any definite conclusions on the question before us. We shall revert to it presently, when endeavoring to paraphrase the passage as a whole.

“We would not be unclothed.” Coming to verse 4, we notice several points entirely inconsistent with the idea that Paul is thinking of something to happen at death. He declares: “We that are in the tent do groan being burdened, because we would not be unclothed, but be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life.” Here an alternative is formulated by Paul and a preference expressed. The alternative is between the two experiences, first of being unclothed, and then being clothed anew, the second of being clothed upon immediately. And he prefers the latter. the preference is a strong one. Under the influence of the uncertainty of its decision Paul groans.

Now the question arises: Does this situation fit the case of the bestowal of a new body at the moment of death or the case of bestowal of it at the parousia? In answer, let us make clear to ourselves that the groaning and the strong preference become entirely unintelligible, if we conceive Paul thinking of both members of this alternative as attached to the moment of death. For, how could the resolution of such an alternative at the moment of death become to him a matter of burdensome uncertainty? It would have certainly been regarded by him as pertaining to the formalities of getting into the proper apparel for a solemn occasion. In both cases the outcome would have been precisely the same. If once it was fixed that the new body comes immediately, it certainly, in comparison with that tremendous fact, must have appeared a matter of slight importance, whether it immediately (with the smallest of intervals between) shall succeed the old body or shell, casting a veil over all that goes on beneath, swallow up the old body, absorbing it, as it were, into itself.

For one who was assured that death without fail would bring with itself a new body, it would seem cowardly to groan on account of the trifling question whether the instantaneous occurrence should take place one way or the other. Paul was, with his entire perilous and painful life-experience behind him, hardly the man to let his mind be distracted to the point of groaning fear over such matters. All this vexing uncertainty and painful weighing of a small issue must have lacked real importance for a man of his temperament. The fear of death per se, as a momentary experience we have no reason to ascribe to him.

It follows, therefore, that the strong sense of uneasiness and the strong preference expressed must have revolved around another, far more serious and solemn question. That is: would there be awaiting him in the near future a protracted state of being unclothed, that is “naked” between his possible death and the arrival of the parousia? The uncertainty, therefore, arising from this cannot stand in direct contradiction to the “we know” in verse 1. In other words “we know” cannot, consistently with what follows, carry the meaning: we know that we receive a new body at the time of death. Such a conviction would from the outset have rendered all subsequent burdensomeness and groaning out of place. Thus, the simple sense of the verse must be as above intimated. In a general way Paul affirms that instead of the tent dissolved a new structure will be received, but he does not indicate here when or how it will be given.

“Being clothed upon.” It is said that verse 5 proves the “being clothed upon” to be in Paul’s view the common lot of all believers. This is because of the statement “He that wrought us for this very thing is God.” The plural “us” is on this view understood of all Christians. Likewise the further words “who gave us the earnest of the Spirit” are taken to bear out this exegesis. This is because all Christians are recipients of the Spirit and must consequently share in what this gift is the pledge of. He could not have affirmed these things, had he confined the “being clothed upon” to those found alive at the parousia.

To this our answer is that from the “us” and the statement concerning the gift of the Spirit as an earnest, no such conclusion can be legitimately drawn. But suppose that Paul does not use “us” here as a rhetorical plural, but actually includes all believers. This simply shows how he lived in the expectation, that the parousia might still find the great majority of the Christians of his day alive, and looked upon the cases of those who died in the interval as exceptions. After all, he could well say of believers in general, that they had been prepared by God to be “clothed upon,” at the last day. He could say this as easily as on the hypothesis under review affirm of his readers collectively, using the word “us,” that they had been prepared of God for investment with a new body at death. For on every view he must have been aware that some would be found alive at the parousia, whom God could not have prepared for that peculiar experience, and to whom He could not have given the Spirit as an earnest for such experience.

We have answered this argument on the assumption, that “this very thing” (auto touto) in 2 Corinthians 5:5 actually refers to the “being clothed upon,” as excluding the “being clothed” of verse 4. Of course, the affirmative answer brings us face-to-face with a difficult question: How Paul could so positively affirm that God had prepared the majority of the then-living believers to survive till the parousia, then to be changed in the way indicated by “being clothed upon”? For this reason we feel inclined to give to “this very thing” another reference. For the present, however, it suffices to have shown, that the usual interpretation of verse 5 does not compel us to place the “clothing upon” at death.

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

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." data-large-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." class="alignright size-full wp-image-254" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyperpreterism" width="95" height="150">

When Shall These Things Be?
(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

“At home in the body.” Finally, verses 6–8 are said to demand the modern exegesis. Here Paul declares himself of good courage, because immediately after death he will be with the Lord. For to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord, while being absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. And this goal of his desire which he expects to reach at death is taken as identical with what is described in verses 2 and 4 as the “being clothed upon.” This is because the “therefore” connects it with the foregoing: “Being therefore always of good courage,” etc. Hence the conclusion drawn runs as follows: the being at home with the Lord is effected through the “being clothed upon” at death.

To this we reply as follows: Paul’s good courage in view of the fact that to die means to be at home with the Lord attaches itself to the preceding context in the general import of the latter. And that general import finds its clearest expression in 2 Corinthians 4:17–18 and 5:1. The general proposition, in regard to which Paul felt absolute assurance, was that after the present affliction, or in reward for it, there is eternal glory in store for the believer. And more specifically that, after this earthly tent-body shall have been dissolved, the believer will be put in possession of an eternal heavenly body. And the secondary question is whether this consummate state of glory would be reached with or without an intervening period of nakedness of death. As to this Paul felt no conviction, either one way or the other, but only a desire and a preference. Hence he contents himself with expressing this preferential desire as growing out of a strong dislike of the state of nakedness.

Now his assurance on the general question far outweighed the uncertainty on that one particular point. Thus, Paul could, notwithstanding the unresolved doubt of verses 2 and 4, proceed in verse 6 with the declaration that he was always of good courage. Of course, he had to put the ground of his good courage under the circumstances in the form of the minimum of what he felt sure about. He could not say: we are always of good courage, because to be absent from the earthly body means to be put immediately in possession of the heavenly body. His uncertainty as to whether he would survive till the parousia forbade him that. Therefore he says only as much as he could with full certainty profess: to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. Even in case that happened which appeared to him the less desirable, he would still be contented. This is because in this being with the Lord everything else was potentially given.

Why Not Full-Preterism? by Steve Gregg
This work exposes some of the key flaws in Hyperpreterism by someone who has formally debated them. Much insightful material for those who might be tempted to forsake historic Christian orthodoxy.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Looking at it closely, the words of verses 6–8 even seem to disparage the idea of the new body being given at death. He speaks here of death as meaning absence from the body. Of course, he means the earthly body. Yet he would scarcely have expressed himself precisely thus, had he meant that immediately another body would be substituted. For the state in such a new body would hardly be describable as the state of one absent from the body. And likewise the phrase “to be present with the Lord” is so general that Paul, had he had in mind the presence with Christ in the new glorified body, would in all probability have chosen a more definite mode of expression in contrast to that of “being absent from the body.” Our conclusion, therefore, is that verses 6–8 do not favor the exegesis under review.

FOOTNOTE

[1] Cp. 1 Cor 15:47: “the Second man is (by virtue of the resurrection) from heaven.” Notice also the difference between ex ouranou (“from heaven,” singular) relating to the origin and en tois ouranois (“in the heavens,” plural) of locality in v. 1.

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!

VOS ON 2 CORINTHIANS 5 (Part 1)

PMW 2023-051 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry Introductory Note:
I am currently working on an edited version of some of Geerhardus Vos’ eschatological writings. In this work my friend Bill Boney and I are editing Vos’ technical, Dutch-impacted style of writing, as well as updating some of his early 1900s features (use of Roman numerals, long sentences, very long paragraphs). We are doing this to make his writing more easily accessible in the current environment.

In this and the next two articles, I will be posting Vos’ insightful exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5, which has been so abused by some in the current eschatological debate. Vos is rebutting the view that Paul’s eschatological developed over time, allowing us to trace his changing outlook on the basis of the dates of his epistles. We begin citing Vos where he engages the innovate liberal view of his day that argued that Paul began to believe that believers received a spiritual resurrection body at the moment of their death. So, here we go!

VOS’ PRESENTATION BEGUN
Let us discuss the alleged third stage in the evolution of Paul’s resurrection-belief. This is the stage in which the Apostle is supposed to have moved forward the endowment with a new body to the moment of death in case the death of his earthly body should occur before the parousia. This view is not ascribed to Paul as a firmly established conviction. Rather, it is a more or less contingent eventuality, which nonetheless he seriously reckoned with. The passage on which it is chiefly based is 2 Corinthians 5:1–8, a context extremely difficult of interpretation. This is partly as a result of some uncertainties in the text. These, however, may themselves have arisen from a desire through emendation to remove exegetical or doctrinal obstacles. Paul writes:

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling, so that by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we sigh with anxiety; not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:1–8)

The best method of dealing with the passage seems to be as follows. First, give first a cursory exegesis of the successive clauses, paying particular heed to their syntactical coherence. Then sum up the results obtained in a brief paraphrase. This would be so that the exegesis may be conducted with the greatest degree of discrimination. Thus, it is desirable to place clearly before our minds the traditional understanding of the words.

THE PROSPECTS BEFORE PAUL
This was common up to the time when the modern exegesis took hold of them. This old view interpreted as follows: Paul felt himself in uncertainty as to whether he was destined to survive till the parousia or die previously to that point. If the former happened, the eagerly desired heavenly body would become his immediately. And that would occur without any strange, fearsome process of first stripping off the earthly body now clothing him. In both respects this mode of transformation appeared to him the more desirable. There would be no delay, and there would be nothing of the dread ordinarily associated with death. But in case the other alternative happened through his dying before the coming of the Lord, both of these advantages would be lost. Not only so but there would in addition ensue the far more serious detriment of having to spend the interval between his death and the parousia in a disembodied state, a state of “nakedness” as he calls it.

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Confronted with these two possibilities and their differing implications, he gives voice to a strong desire for obtaining the former and escaping the latter. But he never reckoned with a third option, i.e., that the new body could possibly become his immediately upon death. That which on the modern exegesis formed the very pivot of the movement of his hope, did according to the ancient exegesis never enter his mind. He had before him a maximum and a minimum. The former he preferred, but with true Christian resignation expressed himself contented with the latter, should the Lord have that in store for his servant. He could be thus contented with fulfillment of the lesser hope. Because after all it had in common with the higher desire the assurance of being with Christ immediately after death, even if the supreme satisfaction of entering upon that blessedness in the body were denied him.

THE PROPER EXEGESIS

We shall now proceed to our cursory exegesis of the complex of thought. We observe that the opening statement in 2 Corinthians 5:1, when read in the AV, has perhaps more than anything else in the passage given rise and encouragement to the modern interpretation: “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved (kataluthe), we have a building from God,” etc. This subjunctive “were” injects into the statement the thought of the improbability of its happening after the manner the sentence describes: “Even if it were — but it is not likely to happen.” This rendering at the outset prejudges the Apostle’s state of mind as to the outcome, and is in no wise required by the Greek text.

The conjunction “if” (ean) with the aorist subjunctive frequently has the force of a future perfect. The correct rendering accordingly would be: “We know that in case our earthly tent-house shall have been dissolved, we have a building from God,” etc. The inaccuracy has been corrected by the RV, which reads: “For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved” (“be” instead of “were”), etc. Through this correction of the rendering, the impression is made less obtrusive. It is as if Paul in these words reflected upon the availability of a new body for himself in the very moment that the less desirable event of his pre-parousia death should occur. All that the words, strictly taken, mean is that the loss of the earthly body will be made up for (sooner or later) by the supervening of a wholly-differently complexioned body pertaining to another sphere. But of the point of time when this certainty shall enter into actuality, nothing is said. Nor do the words, taken by themselves, contain an intimation as to whether the “dissolution” is near or not.

Paul’s “we have” statement. But, it will be asked, does not the present tense “we have” (echomen, 2 Cor. 5:1), when joined to the foregoing, imply that the new body must be in possession of the Apostle, when he dies? Otherwise how could he declare that at the extreme moment of his earthly life he has it? There is more than one way to meet this difficulty.

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

The verb “we have” can be given the sense of assured possession, carrying a title by right to something that may or may not as yet be in existence. Or “we have” might be a case of imaginative projection into the world to come. The closing words of 2 Corinthians 5:1 (en tois ouranois, “in the heavens”) favor the latter, for they do not, of course, describe where the body now is or has been from the first. That would be a formal avowal of the pre-existence of souls. This could hardly in the Apostle’s view have been confined to souls, when once embraced with regard to them.

What the phrase really means is that heaven is the place in which the body, when received, will be permanently possessed, in which it will exist and move and live. That such is the correct interpretation can be verified from the corresponding phrase “earthly” (epigeios), applied by way of contrast to “tent-house” (oikia tou skenous). Actually the term “house” (oikia), which is the object of “we have,” is used from the standpoint of the actual and permanent possession in the heavenly life. This appears from the difference between it and the term “building” (oikodome) used just before. In the latter the emphasis rests on the origin of the body: it is a building, something constructed. Hence the added words ek theou: it is a building provided “by God,” of his own making. In the former the emphasis rests on the existence of the body as a finished product, a “house.” Second Corinthians 5:1, therefore, leaves it undecided when this body will be received, and in no way implies its pre-existence. The characterization of the new body as “eternal” only intends to set it off against the frail and collapsible “tent-house,” serving as a figure for the earthly body.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

A. A. HODGE ON THE RESURRECTION

PMW 2023-050 by A. A. Hodge

Gentry note: We are witnessing in our day a small but growing and tenacious number of Christians who are defecting from orthodox Christianity to a gnostic-like conception of salvation. By that I mean that these folks are denying the physical resurrection of the body and a physical eternal new heavens and new earth. And in this they are corrupting the biblical understanding of salvation as necessarily involving man in his fullness, body and soul. They are also so-reinterpreting Christ’s resurrection (as spiritual, not physical in nature!) that they deny his ongoing (resurrected) incarnation. And that is just the beginning of their slide out of orthodoxy.

I thought it might be helpful to present a Reformed discussion of the resurrection from A. A. Hodge, son of Charles Hodge. He presents his “Outlines of Theology” in a Q&A format, which is both succinct and helpful. The following material is from A. A. Hodge’s notes on the resurrection:

1. What is the meaning of the phrase, “resurrection of the dead,” and “from the dead,” as used in Scripture?

Anastasis signifies etymologically (based on earliest known translations) “a rising or raising up.” It is used in Scripture to designate the future general raising, by the power of God, of the bodies of all men from the sleep of death.

2. What Old Testament passages bear upon this subject?

Job 19:25–27; Psalm 49:15; Isaiah 26:l9; Daniel 12:1–3.

3. What are the principal passages bearing upon this subject in the New Testament?

Matthew 5:29; 10:28; 27:52, 53; John 5:28, 29; 6:39; Acts 2:25– 34; 13:34; Romans 8:11, 22, 23; Philippians 3:20, 21; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17, and 1 Corinthians15

4. What is the meaning of the phrases, soma psuchikon, “natural body,” and soma pneumatikon, “spiritual body,” as used by Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:44?

The word psuche, when contrasted with pneuma always designates the principle of animal life, as distinguished from the principle of intelligence and moral agency, which is the pneuma. A soma psuchikon, translated natural body evidently means a body endowed with animal life, and adapted to the present condition of the soul, and to the present physical constitution of the world it inhabits. A soma pneumatikon, translated spiritual body, is a body adapted to the use of the soul in its future glorified estate, and to the moral and physical conditions of the heavenly world, and to this end assimilated by the Holy Ghost, who dwells in it, to the glorified body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:45–48.

5. How does it appear that the same body is to rise that is deported in the grave?

The passages of Scripture which treat of this subject make it plain that the same bodies are to be raised that are deposited in the grave, by the phrases by which they designate the bodies raised: 1st, “our bodies,” Philippians 3:21; 2nd, “this corruptible”, 1 Corinthians 15:53, 54; 3rd, “all who are in their graves,” John 5:28. 4th, “they who are asleep,” 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17; 5th, “our bodies are the members of Christ,”1 Corinthians 6:15; 6th, our resurrection is to be because of and like that of Christ, which was of his identical body.–John 20:27.

6. How does it appear that the final resurrection is to be simultaneous and general?
See below, Chap. 39., Questions 9 and 10. [Gentry: This material is not included in my posting.]

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

7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of the resurrection body?

1st. It is to be spiritual.–1 Corinthians 15:44. See above, Question 4.
2nd. It is to be like Christ’s body.––Philippians 3:21.
3rd. Glorious, incorruptible, and powerful.––1 Corinthians 15:54.
4th. It shall never die. —Revelation 21:4.
5th. Never be given in marriage. Matthew 22:30.

8. How may it be proved that the material body of Christ rose from the dead?

1st. Christ predicted it. John 2:19–21.
2nd. His resurrection is referred to as a miraculous attestation of the truth of his mission, but unless his body rose literally there was nothing miraculous in his continued life.
3rd. The whole language of the inspired narratives necessarily implies this, the rolling away of the stone, the folding up of the garments, etc.
4th. He did not rise until the third day, which proves that it was a physical change, and not a mere continuance of spiritual existence. 1 Corinthians 15:4.
5th. His body was seen, handled, and examined, for the space of forty days, in order to establish this very fact. Luke 24:39.

9. How can the materiality of Christ’s resurrection body be reconciled with what is said as to them odes of its manifestation, and of its ascension into heaven?

The events of his suddenly appearing and vanishing from sight, recorded in Luke 24:31; John 20:19; Acts 1:9, were accomplished through a miraculous interference with the ordinary laws regulating material bodies, of the same kind precisely with many miracles which Jesus wrought in his body before his death, e.g., his walking on the sea. Matthew 14:25; John 6:9–14.

10. How does the resurrection of Christ secure and illustrate that of his people?

Body and soul together constitute the one person, and man in his entire person, and not his soul separately, is embraced in both the covenants of works and of grace, and in federal and vital union with both the first and the second Adam. Christ’s resurrection secures ours:
1st. Because his resurrection seals and consummates his redemptive power; and the redemption of our persons involves the redemption of our bodies. Romans 8:23.
2nd. Because of our federal and vital union with Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; 1 Thessalonians 4:14.
3rd. Because of his Spirit which dwells in us (Romans 8:11), making our bodies his members. 1 Corinthians 6:15.
4th. Because Christ by covenant is Lord both of the living and the dead. Romans 14:9. This same federal and vital union of the Christian with Christ likewise causes the resurrection of the believer to be similar to, as well as consequent upon that of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:49; Philippians 3:21; 1 John 3:2.

In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective
by Jay Rogers
This orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel is not a book, but a library. Extremely helpful for the postmillennial orthodox preterist.
For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com/

11. To what extent are objections of a scientific character against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entitled to weight?

All truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent, whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or of the words of inspiration. On the other hand, it follows from our partial knowledge and often erroneous interpretation of the data both of science and revelation, that we often are unable to discern the harmonies of truths in reality intimately related. Nothing can be believed to be true which is clearly seen to be inconsistent with truth already certainly established. But, on the other hand, in the present stage of our development, the largest proportion of the materials of our knowledge rests upon independent evidence, and are received by us all as certain on their own respective grounds, although we fail as yet to reconcile each fact with every other in the harmonies of their higher laws. The principles of physical science are to be taken as true upon their own ground, i.e., so far as they are matured, and the testimony of revelation is to be taken as infallible truth on its own ground. The one may modify our interpretation of the other, but the most certain of all principles is that a matured science will always corroborate rightly interpreted revelation.

12. How may the identity of our future untie our present bodies be reconciled with 1 Corinthians15:42, 50?

In verses 42–44 this identity is expressly asserted. The body is to be the same, though changed in these several particulars. 1st. It is now subject to corruption, then incorruptible. 2nd. It is now dishonored, it will then be glorified. 3rd. It is now weak, it will then be powerful. 4th. It is now natural, i.e., adapted to the present condition of the soul and constitution of the world. It will then be spiritual, i.e., adapted to the glorified condition of the soul, and constitution of the “new heavens and new earth.” Verse 50 declares simply that “flesh and blood,” that is, the present corruptible, weak, and depraved constitution of the body can not inherit heaven. Yet the passage as a whole clearly teaches, not the substitution of a new body, but the transformation of the old.

13. What facts does physiological science establish with respect to the perpetual changes that are going on in our present bodies, and what relation do these facts sustain to this doctrine?

By a ceaseless process of the assimilation of new material and excretion of the old, the particles composing our bodies are ceaselessly changing from birth to death, effecting, as it is computed, a change in every atom of the entire structure every seven years. Thus there will not be a particle in the organism of an adult which constituted part of his person when a boy, nor in that of the old man of that which belonged to him when of middle age. The body from youth to age is universally subject to vast changes in size, form, expression, condition, and many times to total change of constituent particles. All this is certain; but it is none the less certain that through all these changes the man possesses identically the same person from youth to age. This proves that neither the identity of the body of the same man from youth to age, nor the identity of our present with our resurrection bodies, consists in sameness of particles. If we are sure of our identity in the one case, we need not stumble at the difficulties attending the other.

14. What objection to this doctrine is derived from the known fact of the dispersion and assimilation into other organisms of the particles of our bodies after death?

The instant the vital principle surrenders the elements of the body to the unmodified control of the laws of chemical affinity, their present combinations are dissolved and distributed throughout space, and they are taken up and assimilated by other animal and vegetable organisms. Thus the same particles have formed, at different times, part of the bodies of myriads of men, in the successive periods of the growth of individuals, and in successive generations. Hence it has been objected to the scriptural doctrine of the resurrection of the body, that it will be impossible to decide to which of the thousand bodies which these particles have formed part in turn, they should be assigned in the resurrection; or to reinvest each soul with its own body, when all the constituent elements of every body have been shared in common by many. We answer that bodily identity does not consist in sameness of constituent particles. See above, Question 13. Just as God has revealed to us through consciousness that our bodies are identical from infancy to age, although their constituent elements often change, he has, with equal certainty and reasonableness, revealed to us in his inspired word that our bodies, raised in glory, are identical with our bodies sown in dishonor, although their constituent particles may have been scattered to the ends of the earth.

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

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." data-large-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" width="99" height="150">

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

15. What is essential to identity?

1st. “It is evident that identity depends upon different conditions in different cases. The identity of a stone or any other portion of unorganized matter consists in its substance and form. On the other hand, the identity of a plant from the seed to its maturity is, in a great measure, independent of sameness of substance or of form. Their identity appears to consist in each plant’s being one organized whole and in the continuity of the succession of its elements and parts. The identity of a picture does not depend upon the sameness of the particles of coloring matter of which it is composed, for these we may conceive to be continually changing, but upon the drawing, the tints, the light and shade, the expression, the idea which it embodies,” etc.

2nd. Bodily identity is not a conclusion drawn from the comparison, or combination of other facts, but it is itself a single irresolvable fact of consciousness. The child, the savage, the philosopher, are alike certain of the sameness of their bodies at different periods of their lives, and on the same grounds. This intuitive conviction, as it is not the result of science, so it is no more bound to give an account of itself to science, i.e., we are no more called upon to explain it before we believe it than we are to explain any other of the simple data of consciousness.

3rd. The resurrection of our bodies, although a certain fact of revelation, is to us, as yet, an unrealized experience, an unobserved phenomenon. The physical conditions, therefore, of the identity of our “spiritual bodies” with our “natural bodies,” we can not now possibly comprehend, since we have neither the experience, the observation, nor the revelation of the facts involved in such knowledge. This much, however, is certain as to the result––1st. The body of the resurrection will be as strictly identical with the body of death, as the body of death is with the body of birth. 2nd. Each soul will have an indubitable intuitive consciousness that its new body is identical with the old. 3rd. Each friend shall recognize the individual characteristics of the soul in the perfectly transparent expression of the new body.

16. To what extent was the doctrine of the resurrection of the body held by the Jews?

With the exception of some heretical sects, as the Sadducees, the Jews held this doctrine in the same sense in which we hold it now. This is evident:
1st. Because it was clearly revealed in their inspired writings, see above, Question 2.
2nd. It is affirmed in their uninspired writings.– Wisdom. 3:6, 13; 4:15; 2 Maccabees 7:9, 14, 23, 29.
3rd. Christ in his discourses, instead of proving this doctrine, assumes it as recognized.– Luke 14:14; John 5:28, 29.
4th. Paul asserts that both the ancient Jews (Hebrews 11:35), and his own contemporaries (Acts 24:15), believed this doctrine.

17. What early heretical sects in the Christian church rejected this doctrine?

All the sects bearing the generic designation of Gnostic, and under various specific names embodying the leaven of oriental philosophy, which infested the church of Christ from the beginning for many centuries, believed, 1st, that matter is essentially vile, and the source of all sin and misery to the soul; 2nd, that complete sanctification is consummated only in the dissolution of the body and the emancipation of the soul; 3rd, that consequently any literal resurrection of: the body is repugnant to the spirit, and would be destructive to the purpose of the whole gospel.

18. What is the doctrine taught by Swedenborg on this subject?

It is substantially the same with that set forth by Professor Bush in his once famous book, “Anastasia.” They teach that the literal body is dissolved, and finally perishes in death. But by a subtle law of our nature an etherial, luminous body is eliminated out of the ψυχή (the seat of the nervous sensibility, occupying the middle link between matter and spirit), so that the soul does not go forth from its tabernacle of flesh a bare power of thought, but is clothed upon at once by this psychical body. This resurrection of the body, they pretend, takes place in every case immediately at death, and accompanies the outgoing soul.––See “Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,” Theophilus Parsons.

19. How do modern rationalists explain the passages of Scripture which relate to this subject?

They explain them away, denying their plain sense, either, 1st, as purely allegorical modes of inculcating the truth of the continued existence of the soul after death; or, 2nd, as concessions to the prejudices and superstitions of the Jews.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

PAUL’S CONCERN IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15

PMW 2023-049 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A QUESTION ABOUT THE FIRST FRUITS

A reader wrote a question in response to my article: “Spiritual Resurrection at Death?” (PMW 2023-042). In that article I argued for the universal, historic doctrinal position of orthodox Christianity that our eschatological resurrection will be material/physical. There I pointed out that the “first fruit” resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:20, 23) demands that the final resurrection will be of the same kind as Christ’s, which was material/physical (Luke 24:38–39; John 2:19–21; 20:19–20, 25–27).

In response, my reader wrote: “It seems that could make for an extremely long germination period. How does one decide whether the similarity of the harvest to the first fruit, i.e. Christ’s resurrection, is in nature and/or in timing?”

MY ANSWER ABOUT THE FIRST FRUITS

The first concern. I would point out in reference to his first concern: you must remember that this is a metaphor, it is a figurative use of an historical agricultural / ritual practice from ancient Israel. It is not teaching us about literal wheat seeds and the ultimate wheat harvest from those seeds. Such a period from germination to harvest literally takes only four months. Paul is not arguing that four months after Jesus was resurrected the eschatological resurrection occurred. Nor does this image deal with how long the ancient Jew must hold on to his first fruits before he offers them to the Lord. Nor should we be concerned that he is speaking of a literal wheat harvest that is taking over 2000 years.

Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)

Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

We must understand that what seems long to us is not long to God, with whom a day is as a thousand years. We should not be like Eve when God promised a Redeemer to come (Gen. 3:15). She believed that her first child was the Redeemer she was to expect (Gen. 4:1). Yet thousands of years passed before God — in his own good timing — sent the Redeemer in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4).

The second concern. Regarding whether Paul is dealing with the (1) nature of the resurrection or its (2) timing, the answer is actually quite simple. And it shows why virtually all Bible-believing scholars speak of the first fruits as both temporal and factual, but with Paul’s main interest on the factual, i.e., physical, nature of the resurrection.

Clearly Paul’s primary concern lies in the factual nature of the physical resurrection. Notice how he introduces this very chapter: his deep interest in the physical nature of the resurrection prompted him to write this lengthy chapter (1 Cor. 15). He opens with the declaration that Christ was buried and that his physical body was raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:4) and was seen by so many (vv. 5–8). Then he directly challenges and castigates those who say there is no resurrection of the dead (vv. 12–19). He shows these proto-gnostics the folly of their view by his arguments: “If the dead are not raised at all” (v. 29), “If the dead are not raised” (v. 32).

After this he mentions Christ as the first fruits, which speaks both temporally (he is the first fruits) and factually: he explains that the resurrection of Christ in the first century will ultimately lead to the resurrection of his people at the end of the last century. He notes that these two resurrection phenomena will occur, but “each in his own order” (v. 23). This “each”-statement refers to the two events in view: the resurrection of Christ himself (who is the first fruits) and then the resurrection of all of Christ’s people (who will all simultaneously be corporately raised from the dead): “those who are asleep”; vv. 20–23, 52–53; cp. John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15).

After all, Paul is rebutting those who deny the resurrection itself (see above). And he tells us that he is answering two burning challenges that these proto-gnostics present: “But someone will say, [1] ‘How are the dead raised? And [2] with what kind of body do they come?” Their interest is not in the timing of the event but in its factuality, i.e., its physical occurrence — because they don’t believe a physical resurrection will happen at all (vv. 1–19). Though Paul will bring in the temporal angle, it will be for the purpose of demonstrating that the eschatological resurrection will not occur until “the end” (vv. 24, 52). Thus, they cannot say at any time before it occurs that it is already passed (e.g., 2 Tim. 2:16–18).

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

Thus, Christ is both the (1) first one temporally to experience (2) the actual eschatological resurrection. The future, corporate eschatological resurrection, will not be like Lazarus’ resurrection — or any previous historical resurrection. Rather it is the ultimate resurrection that involves the body rising from death as imperishable, glorious, powerful, and Spirit-dominated (vv. 42–44, 50, 52–53). Christ’s resurrection occurs first, then later his people will be resurrected in the same way as his, since his is the first fruit of theirs. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, does not mean it will not happen. But when it does happen “the end” comes.

The word “now” (Gk. nun) in 1 Corinthians 15:20 does not necessarily present a solely temporal concern. “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” For as the BAGD Lexicon notes: this word as found in this phrase (nun de, “but now”) “not infreq[uently] serves to contrast the real state of affairs with the statement made in an unreal conditional clause.” Here it means “as a matter of fact,” as it introduces the real situation. Though the proto-gnostics of Paul’s day deny the resurrection of the body, as a matter of fact the body will be resurrected.

When Paul writes: “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable,” he is not saying the resurrection body will not be physical. Rather he is saying the resurrection body will not be frail and sinful. It will no longer, therefore, be subject to death (vv. 54–55). Again timing is not the issue.

Neither Paul nor the proto-gnostics is concerned with the timing of the eschatological resurrection. Thus, Paul deals at length with the kind of body that is raised (vv. 29, 35): it will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and Spirit-dominated (vv. 42–49, 50–54). The body that is sown is not the body which is to be. That is, the body that dies is sown as perishable, inglorious, weak, and “soulish” (psuchikos), i.e., a body subject to animal needs (vv. 44, 50). But it is not raised as such. Rather it is raised as just mentioned: imperishable, glorious, powerful, and Spirit-dominated (a pneumatikos-body).

Consequently, the first fruit is a pledge of more to come. Verse 20 involves a temporal logic as well as a representative logic (representation is clearly an issue here in this chapter in that Paul speaks of the first Adam and the last Adam). And the representative logic is primary in Paul’s mind because of the troublesome proto-gnostics denying the physical resurrection altogether. Christ’s physical resurrection represents the physical resurrection of believers (Paul is not here concerned with the resurrection of unbelievers, so he does not mention them).

Why Not Full-Preterism? by Steve Gregg
This work exposes some of the key flaws in Hyperpreterism by someone who has formally debated them. Much insightful material for those who might be tempted to forsake historic Christian orthodoxy.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

NEW CREATION & NO MORE SEA? (2)

PMW 2023-048  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article (PMW 2023-047) I opened the question regarding the meaning of John’s statement in Rev 21:1: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.” Why is there “no longer any sea?” In the previous article I discounted the literal interpretation as well as the chaos approach. But now, what does it mean?

I believe the idea of the sea here pictures a barrier separating man from God. Let me explain. You have read this far, why not?

In that the vision of the heaven and earth passing away signifies God’s removing the old covenant order (as is appropriate given Rev’s theme, 1:7), probably the “sea” here continues that symbolism. Mealy (After the Thousand Years, 194–98; cp. Brighton, Revelation 594) presents a compelling argument that the absent sea in Rev 21:1 refers back to the first use of “sea” in Rev — the “sea of glass” before God’s heavenly throne (Rev 4:6; cp. 4:2–5, 9–5:1, 6–7). That sea appeared in a context emphasizing creation (Rev 4:11; 5:13), which further links the sea imagery in 21:1. It also appears in a context emphasizing God’s throne (Rev 21:3, 5; cp. 22:1, 3), while dealing with the removal of the old creation. But what is this sea’s significance requiring its removal in the new creation?
[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." data-large-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" width="99" height="150">

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

In Rev 4:6 the “sea of glass [thalassa . . . krustallō]” appears beneath the throne, apparently serving as a barrier to any who would enter into heaven. John had to have a door opened before he could enter heaven (Rev 4:1). In Rev 15:2 we see martyrs standing on this glass sea, having passed to it from the earth below. In Eze 1:22 the prophet sees a “firmament” [sterōma] that gleamed like “crystal [krustallou],” which separated the heavenly beings below from God’s throne above (Eze 1:26; cp. 10:1). This is why God’s coming down to earth to judge nations can require his “breaking through the apparently solid dome of the heavens” (Oswalt, Isaiah 2:620; cf. Ps 18:9; 144:5; Isa 64:1; cf. Isa 51:6). In Rev 6:14 the “sky was split apart” when God judged Israel. Dark thunder clouds pierced by lightning serve as an image of God’s judgment coming down from heaven to strike the earth (Ex 19:16; 20:18–19; Dt 33:2; Psa 18:12–14; 77:17–18; 97:2–4; Jer 51:16).

Thus, immediately after mentioning the absence of the sea (sea of glass?) John witnesses the new Jerusalem “coming down out of heaven” (Rev 21:2). In John’s drama the collapse of the Jewish temple in AD 70 opens direct access to God (Rev 11:2, 19; cp. 19:1–2, 9; 22:14). If God descends with his New Jerusalem people “then the barrier of the glassy sea, which in the present age separates his dwelling from the earth, will have to have been done away with” (Mealy, 195). This is precisely what we see in Rev 21:3–5.

This new covenant principle of open access to God appears elsewhere in the NT. For example, we see this when Jesus promises that soon people will no longer need to worship in Jerusalem but can call upon God from anywhere (Jn 4:21, 23; cp. Mal 1:11). This begins to occur when the temple veil is torn and creation is darkened and shaken (Mt 27:45//, 51b; cp. Rev 21:1), for after that event Christians are urged to “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace” (Heb 4:16; cp. 7:19) because of the removal of the old covenant (Heb 8:13; 12:22–28) which blocked access to the holy place (Heb 9:8). This removal of the old covenant is dramatically exhibited and finalized in AD70.

In that the Exodus motif appears frequently in Rev, the removal of the sea may also reflect the drying of the Red Sea so that Israel could enter the Land (Ex 14:21–22; Ps 18:15; 106:9; Isa 44:27; 50:2; 51:10; 63:11–12; Jer 51:36; Nah 1:4). But even here we may note the separation from God involved, for the sea separated Israel from God’s promised inheritance, requiring that God overcome this impediment. Hence, the image of the Exodus / Red Sea underscores the symbol of open access to God.

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/

I do believe the absence of the sea in Rev 21:1 portrays just this sort of image. The new covenant access to God is a major consequence of the removal of the old covenant and rituals portraying the hiddenness of God. As Christianity takes the place of Israel at AD 70, God’s people can come boldly before the throne of grace in a way they could not have in the OT.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

THE NEW CREATION & MORE SEA? (1)

PMW 2023-047 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Rev 21:1 an unusual statement appears at the coming of the new heavens and earth: “and there is no longer any sea.” Commentators have long debated the meaning of the absence of the sea (thalassa) in this text. Is this literal? And if it is literal, why would the sea not be part of the consummate order? Or is it metaphorical? And if so, of what is it a metaphor?

The Sea as Literal

Walvoord (Revelation 311) takes a strongly literal approach: “the new earth apparently will have no bodies of water except for the river mentioned in 22:2.” He even argues that this must be a consummational reality beyond the millennium because other passages speaking of the millennium make “frequent mention of bodies of water” (Walvoord 312). Ryrie (Revelation 119) states that “understood literally this indicates a complete change in climatic conditions.”

But if we understand this literally, it makes no theological sense: Why would the sea not be apart of the eternal new creation order? Did not God re-create the “new earth”? Why would he not also re-create the sea? Did not God create and bound the sea at the original creation (thalassas, Ge 1:10; Exo 20:11; Ps 33:6–7; 95:5; 104:24–25; 146:6; Pr 8:29; Jer 5:22; Am 9:6; Ac 4:24; 14:15; Rev 5:13; 10:6; 14:7). And is it not a feature of God’s creative work which is “very good” (1:31; cp. Ps 104:24, 28)?

The 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

Nor does it make contextual sense, for what becomes of the “river” that flows through the city (22:1–2)? Does it evaporate? Does it make a complete, endless circle around the globe? Rivers naturally and necessarily end — into a pool of some sort, such as a lake, sea, or ocean (Ecc 1:7; cp. Eze 47:8; Zec 14:8). Besides, Scripture can speak metaphorically by employing the drying up of a sea, as when God judges OT Babylon (Jer 51:36; cp. 50:38). Why could not this sea absence be metaphorical? The literalistic approach is unworkable — and unnecessary.

The Sea as Chaos

Many commentators understand the sea to represent the chaos and woe in the world. In the OT the sea sometimes pictures the turmoil caused by the wicked, as in Isa 57:20: “But the wicked are like the tossing sea, / For it cannot be quiet, / And its waters toss up refuse and mud.” Jer 6:23 b, c reads: “They are cruel and have no mercy; / Their voice roars like the sea” (cp. Ps 65:7; Isa 17:12; Jer 50:42; 49:23; 51:42; Eze 26:5; Da 7:2–3; Zec 10:11).

In Rev 13:1 the beast arises from the sea. Beale (Revelation 1042) argues that “the evil nuance of the sea metaphorically represents the entire range of afflictions that formerly threatened God’s people.” This would point to the removal of opposition to God and his people in the new order, which would certainly fit the ultimate consummation order. This would also fit the postmillennial hope for the future victory and prosperity of the Church as the new covenant / new creation spoken of by John.

But again, God created the sea as an important part of his creation (Ge 1:10; Ex 20:11; Neh 9:6; Ps 24:1–2; 95:5; 146:6; Jnh 1:9). He owns his creation and claims the seas (Ps 24:1–2; 95:5). Furthermore, the sea is not invariably a negative image, for it can also represent good (Isa 48:18; Eze 47:8; Zec 14:8; Hab 2:14) and abundance (Dt 33:19; Isa 60:5). Unfallen man was given dominion over the sea (Ge 1:26–30; Psa 8:6–8). The sea’s roar does not always picture man’s rebellion, for the roaring sea represents God’s power (Psa 33:6–7; 89:9; 104:24–25; 107:22–24; Jer 31:35; Eze 43:2; Am 5:8; 9:6). And the sea rejoices in God (1Ch 16:32; Ps 65:5; 69:34; 96:11; 98:6–8; Isa 42:10).

Nor does the sea represent evil in Rev itself. Mathewson (A New Heaven and New Earth 65) speaks of the “metaphorical usage of the sea complex in the discourse of Revelation” standing as a “symbol of chaos, the source of evil.” But he only cites 12:18–13:1 and 17:1–15. Boring (Revelation 216) quite mistakenly declares that “throughout” Rev the sea represents “the chaotic power of un-creation, anti-creation.”

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

More often than not, however, the sea appears simply as one aspect of God’s glorious creation, rather than as an intrinsically negative image (Rev 5:13; 7:1–3; 8:8–9; 10:2, 5, 8; 12:12; 14:7; 16:3; 18:17, 19, 21). And in those contexts it is on equal terms with the other elements, not on an inferior level. In Rev various judgments certainly befall the sea (Rev 8:8–9; 16:3), but they also fall upon the earth (Rev 6:4, 8, 13; 8:5, 7, 13; 9:3–4; 11:6; 12:4, 9, 12; 14:18–19; 16:1), without implying the earth is evil (in fact, the earth remains in 21:1). The beast does arise from the sea (Rev 13:1); but then the dragon comes from heaven (12:7) and the second beast from the earth (13:11).

So then, the absence of the sea in the new heavens and new earth of Rev 21 does not appear to be a literal lack in the consummate order. Nor is the argument for its representing chaos in the world a compelling one. What is John saying, then? You will have to come back and read my next article.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE MILLENNIUM (3)

PMW 2023-046 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and final installment in this three-part series. If you want anymore installments, you will have to write them yourself. I am weary because I have been up late worrying about next week. I told me wife that I finally decided that I want to be cremated. She immediately went out and got me an appointment for next Tuesday. How do I get in these messes? [1]

CHRIST AND THE POSTMILLENNIAL HOPE

In Christ’s earthly ministry we witness the coming of the prophesied kingdom. For instance, in Mark 1:15 we hear the Lord himself proclaim: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Thus, not only does he declare that “the” time is fulfilled (the prophetically-expected time) and that the “kingdom of God is at hand,” but he also associates it with the proclamation of the gospel. Later in Matthew 12:28 we read him state: “if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

This is why we hear of the early Christians being charged with preaching another king (Acts 17:7). This is why Paul informs the Colossians that “He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col 1:13). This is why John can say in Revelation: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father — to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever” (Rev 1:6). [2]

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

But I want to focus on the Lord’s powerful statement in John 12:31–32: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” This sort of statement is exactly what the postmillennialist would expect to hear from Christ.

Let’s note first:

Christ’s dethronement of Satan

As Jesus faces the cross he declares his judgment of the fallen, rebellious world system. Through the horror of the cross he sees the glory of victory. He soon will “cast out” Satan as “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). What does this mean? Obviously it does not mean Satan is totally removed from any influence in the world, for we see later references to Satan operating in the world.

To understand this statement in its redemptive-historical context we must understand that before the coming and victory of Christ, all the nations of the world except for little Israel were under
the dominion of Satan. In Psalm 147:19–20 we read: “He declares His words to Jacob, / His statutes and His ordinances to Israel. / He has not dealt thus with any nation; / And as for His ordinances, they have not known them.” Similarly in Amost3:2a we read: “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth.” Therefore Satan could legitimately say to Christ when he offered him “the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5b): “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish” (Luke 5:6).

But now Christ declares to his people while standing in the shadow of the cross: “now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.” This dramatic reality appears frequently in the New Testament record. Consider the following three samples of Christ’s victory over Satan:

“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt 12:28–29)

“When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.” (Col 2:15)

“Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14)

“The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8)

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

This is why we notice that some New Testament passages referring to Satan show his curtailed influence in the presence of the Christian faith:

“Taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.” (Eph 6:17)

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Rom 16:20)

“Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” (Jms 4:7)

“Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith.” (1 Pet 5:7–8a)

This can only be because of Christ’s casting out of Satan, his binding his power. And this leads to the ultimate result of Satan’s being cast out:

Christ’s enthronement over men

The Lord defeats Satan so that he is no longer able to dominate the world. The result is that Christ himself will “draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32b).

Notice that profound nature of this declaration. He states that if he is “lifted up” (on the cross, John 12:33) that he will draw “all” men to himself. Not some. Not just Jews. Surely not just a remnant. He is not plucking brands from the fire. Rather he is declaring that he will draw the great mass of men to himself.

Christ’s kingdom will grow with more and more conversions. Daniel speaks of the kingdom’s coming in Christ during the Roman empire. He states that it will come as a “stone” (Dan 2:45) but that it will become “a great mountain” that fills “the whole earth” (Dan 2:35). Ezekiel sees its gracious influence trickling from the altar in God’s house (Eze 47:1). But it grows to ever greater depths (Eze 47:3-4) until “it was a river that I could not ford, for the water had risen, enough water to swim in, a river that could not be forded.”

Jesus declares this gradualistic advance of his kingdom by comparing it to a mustard seed and to leaven. “He presented another parable to them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds, but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.’ He spoke another parable to them, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened’” (Matt 13:31–33).

Christ’s kingdom is a living principle. It carries within it a growth tendency. Indeed, it will tend to grown until it draws “all men” to Christ (John 12:32). Thus, as John puts it elsewhere: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).

But I must hurry on, and just very briefly consider:

PAUL AND THE POSTMILLENNIAL HOPE

In 1 Corinthians 15:20–27 we discover a Pauline statement that vigorously declares Christ’s kingdom victory in the present era.

1 Corinthians 15:22–24 reads: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end.” [3] This verse contradicts premillennialism in teaching that the resurrection of believers is the finale of history, not the initiation of a new 1000 year period. The resurrection punctuates the end; no new era follows — and certainly no millennium.

In 1 Corinthians 15:24 Paul makes a statement that rebuts the amillennial position: “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” Here he notes that when the end comes “He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father.” But he also observes that this end will not come until after he has “abolished all rule and all authority and power.”

The Greek here is important. The NASB translates the pertinent phrase as: “when he has abolished.” But the NIV and ESV offer better translations: “after he has abolished.” In the Greek text the hotan is followed by the aorist subjunctive, katargēsē. Such a construction indicates that the action of the subordinate clause precedes the action of the main clause. [4]

Thus, the end will not come until after Christ abolishes all rule and authority. This is not only grammatically necessary, but contextually. The next verse continues: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor 15:25). That is, he is currently reigning and must continue to reign until all of his enemies are vanquished.

CONCLUSION

This is the postmillennial hope. As Isaiah put it “Now it will come about that In the last days / The mountain of the house of the LORD / Will be established as the chief of the mountains, / And will be raised above the hills; / And all the nations will stream to it. / And many peoples will come and say, / ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD’” (Isa 2:2–3).

As Christ expresses it as he approaches the cross: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31–32).

As Paul declares: “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor 15:23–25).

NOTES

1. This is a joke. I will not be cremated. On purpose.

2. For other kingdom verses see: Acts 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; 2Ti 4:1; 4:18; Heb 1:8; 12:28; Jms 2:5; 2 Pet 1:11.

3. For a discussion of the Greek word tagma (“turn”), see: Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, rep. 1952), 484.

4. BAGD, 731.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE MILLENNIUM (2)

PMW 2023-045 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is part 2 in a three-part series on Postmillennialism and the Millennium. We are now at the place where we must define what we mean by “postmillennialism.”

So now: What is the postmillennial outlook? Why is it called post-millennial? And what are its expectations?

Postmillennialism teaches that Christ will return to earth after a long era of gospel progress and worldwide righteousness. As the gospel wins greater influence the world will witness a long era of social stability, economic development, and international peace. The basic structure of the postmillennial hope is as follows:

First, Christ came into the world in the first century and established his kingdom, the Messianic kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament. We are in that kingdom now (the “millennium,” if you will) (Luke 17:20–21; Col 1:13).

Second, he confronted and defeated Satan while on earth, through his ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Satan is bound from deceiving the nations, so that they are open to the power of the gospel (Matt 12:28–29; Rev 20:3).

Third, he gave the marching orders for his kingdom in the “Great Commission.” This commission is great because it is established on his grant of “all authority,” he command to “make disciples of all the nations,” his directive for us to teach the nations “all that I commanded you,” and his promise that “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” to get it done (Matt 28:18–20).

Fourth, he promised to bless his kingdom with growth, likening it to a mustard seed that begins incredibly small but results in a tree that dominates the garden; and comparing it to leaven that leavens the entire bushel (Matt 13:31–33).

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

Fifth, the world will eventually be converted, becoming a “Christianized” world. At the height of Christ’s kingdom’s development the overwhelming majority of men will be born-again of God’s grace which will lead them a peaceable, worldwide kingdom (Isa 11:9; John 3:17).

Sixth, at the end of history after a long era of gospel victory, Christ will return bodily, visibly, and gloriously (Acts 1:9–11). He will raise the dead in a general resurrection (John 5:29; Acts 24:15) and will conduct the final judgment (Acts 17:31; Rom 2:5–6). He will then end world history and establish the consummate order resulting in a physical new creation (2 Pet 3:10–13).

Thus, postmillennialism teaches that Christ wins the victory in history, before he returns (hence, it is post-millennial). It offers believers the optimistic prospect of earthly victory and historical hope. In fact, postmillennialism is the only evangelical eschatological system that is historically optimistic. Of course, all evangelical systems are optimistic in believing that Christ ultimately wins the victory: premillennialists at his coming when he establishes the earthly millennium; amillennialists at his coming when he ends history by defeating Satan and setting up the eternal order.

But what I mean by claiming that postmillennialism is the only eschatological system that offers historical hope is: it is the only system offering hope within the continuous, unfolding history in which we presently live. It offers a distinctive hope in three important senses:

First, as systems of gospel proclamation, both amillennialists and premillennialists do not expect a majority influence for the gospel. Whereas postmillennialists believe that the gospel will win the victory in the historical program under which we now live.

Second, as systems of historical understanding, amillennialists and premillennialists expect that history will decline into irresistible chaos and upheaval. Whereas postmillennialists believe that history is moving toward a time of great righteousness and prosperity under the gospel.

Third as systems of evangelistic discipleship, postmillennialists train Christians for wide-scale, cultural, social, and political success in the world.

But now: why do we believe in large-scale historical progress? Obviously in one article I cannot cover the entire biblical argument. In fact, in my 600 page He Shall Have Dominion I even had to cut short the full argument. So I will only briefly highlight why we believe such. I will focus on one Old Testament prophecy, a few verses in Jesus’ teaching, and one important passage in Paul.

To be continued.

Standard Bearer: Festschrift for Greg Bahnsen (ed. by Steve Schlissel)

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy. Also chapters on apologetics, politics, ecclesiology, covenant, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE MILLENNIUM (1)

PMW 2023-044 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

Postmillennialism and amillennialism are closely related. In fact, they are both “post” millennial in that they believe the current age (the Church Age, if you will) is the “millennium,” and that Christ will return “post” (after) the millennium.

Both Post- and Amillennialists note that the “thousand year” reign of Christ occurs in only one passage in Scripture, Revelation 20:1–6. We further observe that it appears in the most symbolic book in all of Scripture. In Revelation we see a seven-headed beast, fire-breathing horses, locusts with the faces of men and the teeth of lions, a woman standing on the moon, and many more symbolic features. Consequently, we prefer that eschatological discussion begin elsewhere in more didactic portions of Scripture, and that it be controlled by passages other than the apocalyptically-charged, highly-wrought symbolic images in Revelation.

The millennial passage in Revelation 20 is prominent in contemporary eschatological discussion today. Indeed, it has given us the eschatological nomenclature highlighting our distinctive eschatological positions as millennial views. Yet I agree with James Blevins in the Mercer Bible Dictionary when he complains: “The millennium becomes the tail that wags the dog.”

As a postmillennialist I do not see Revelation 20 as a key text for eschatological discussion.[1] I do believe it is an important text for the story-line of Revelation. But biblical eschatology begins far earlier than in one of the last books of the Bible. And it is exhibited more clearly in those earlier passages.

In fact, by definition “eschatology” emphasizes end-time events. But Revelation is tied to the first century. John introduces and closes his remarkable vision with clear, near-term expectation 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)

“And 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)

“And 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 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

Besides this, Revelation 20 (the famed millennial passage) is actually the answer to the cry of the first-century martyrs mentioned earlier (and throughout Revelation). It has nothing to do with all Christians throughout Christian history. We can see this in the shared words and parallel assertions found between Revelation 6:9–10 and Revelation 20:4:

“When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” (Rev 6:9–10)

“Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4)

We should note that according to the direct statements within Revelation 20:4, John is dealing with those Christians who had been slain because of their commitment to God’s word (thus, he sees “souls” and he declares they were “beheaded”). He also adds that they “had not worshiped the beast” (whom I believe to be Nero Caesar, the first imperial persecutor of the church [2]). Both of these facts fit within the time-frame designates of Revelation, i.e., that the events must
“soon take place” (Rev 1:1; 22:6) because “the time is near” (Rev 1:3; 22:10). [3] Both of these facts also militate against a future, earthly millennial reign of all the saints on earth.

Consequently, we must understand that biblical eschatology deals with the larger question of cosmic history, rather than narrowly focusing on the trials of the first-century church. Hence, postmillennialists go elsewhere to develop our eschatological outlook.

To be continued (barring the Rapture foiling my theories).

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

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." data-large-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" width="99" height="150">

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

NOTES

1. By stating this I am not denigrating Revelation. In fact, I have a deep and abiding interest in this fascinating book. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on Revelation’s dating (arguing for a pre-AD 70 composition, 1989), am a
contributor to Zondervan’s Four Views on the Book of Revelation (1998), have written several books on Revelation (including The Book of Revelation Made Easy and Navigating the Book of Revelation), have produced two video lecture series on Revelation (“Keys to the Book of Revelation” and “A Survey of the Book of Revelation”), and have completed a 1700 page commentary (The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-historical Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2023 forthcoming).

2. See my book: The Beast of Revelation (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2002. He is the sixth “king” of the seven-hilled city of Rome (Rev 17:9–10): Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, Gaius Caesar, Claudius Caesar . . . then Nero Caesar. See: Josephus (Ant. 19:1:11; cp. 18:2:2; 18:6:10), Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Caesars, which began with Julius), Sib. Or. 5:12-51; and 4 Ezra 11-12 [2 Es 12:15] He was the one given power “to make war with the saints and to overcome them” (Rev 13:7). He was the one tortured Christians so badly that even the Roman historian Tacitus was appalled (Ann. 15:44).

3. For a defense of the pre-AD 70 composition date for Revelation see my: Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, 2010).

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!

WHERE’S THE BEEF?

PMW 2023-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

PLEASE NOTE: I accidentally posted this article on 4/26/23 before it was complete. Here is the full article I was working on.

A reader’s question:

A reader, Nathan Radcliffe, responded to my posting of Andrew Sandlin’s article “DeMar’s Hidden Views”:

“Where’s the link to the clip Nathan Anderson provided in which Gary denies the future physical resurrection?”

My reply:

The clip is here (at 1:29 mark): https://hyperpreterism.substack.com/p/gary-demar-denies-the-resurrection

Here is Gary’s mocking the historic Christian position on the matter as he derisively interacts with the idea of a future, physical resurrection.

To answer Gary’s two questions, consider the following:

The Scripture teaches that our spirits return to God at death

Ecclesiastes 12:7: “Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.”

Luke 23:46: “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ Having said this, He breathed His last.”

Acts 7:59–60: “They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’ Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’ Having said this, he fell asleep.”

Hebrews 12:22–23: “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 firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect.”

Revelation 6:9: “When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.”

He Shall Have Dominion (paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Our resurrection is still future and is corporate

John 5:28–29:
“An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.”

1 Corinthians 15:22–26, 51–58:
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death…. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, ‘death is swallowed up in victory.’ ‘O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?’”

Is there a third coming?

I really do not understand why hyperpreterists cannot distinguish between a metaphorical coming (such as Jesus’ judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70) and a literal, physical coming in our future. They constantly charge orthodox preterism with arguing for three comings. There are only two literal comings of Christ: one at his incarnation in the first century, the other at his act of consummation on the final day of history. Thus, Christ came literally in the first century (0 BC, you might say) and metaphorically at the destruction of the temple (AD 70), but will come once again physically to introduce the Final Judgment, completing our salvation in its fullness. He also “comes” in the Person of the Spirit who is poured out a Pentecost (John 14:18–24). But this is not a “fourth” coming. If you are going to criticize another view, you should properly understand it then accurately present it.

Jesus will publicly, permanently complete our redemption

At the Final Judgment our “justification” becomes full, complete, and final. Though we are justified now (remember the Now/Not Yet principle), we still sin and act as unjustified people. Then at the Final Judgment we will be publicly declared just and finally, fully justified in our physical bodies as complete men, composed once again of both body and soul (cf. Gen. 2:7; Matt. 10:28).

Likewise, we are sanctified now (though still sinning against God), whereas then we will be publicly declared sanctified as we are reunited with our bodies which will be finally, fully sanctified and relieved of all sinful tendencies.

We are spiritually resurrected now (though we still suffer and died), whereas then we will be finally, fully resurrected bodily, no longer subject to death and disillusion. This is why Paul can speak of the groaning of creation awaiting the resurrection of the body (Rom. 8:21–23).

I will have much more to say about this Now/Not Yet principle in a book I am writing on the Two Age understanding of redemptive history. Once the two ages is understood, then all becomes clear. And clearly hyperpreterism is shown to be a false theological construct. Hyperpreterism has an incomplete, faulty soteriology that well matches their faulty and misdirected eschatology. At least they are consistent! Consistently wrong.

THE TWO AGES AND OLIVET (advertisement)
I am currently researching a study of the Two-Age structure of redemptive history. My starting point is based on the disciples’ questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3. Much confusion reigns among those unacquainted with the Two-Age analysis of history, which was promoted by Jesus (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:29-30) and by Paul (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21). The Two Ages are not the old covenant and the new covenant, but world history since the fall and the consummate order following the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

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!