Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 31

NEARNESS IN REVELATION 1:1

PMW 2022-091 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Despite the historic difficulty of Revelation, the key to understanding it is in its front door. That is, they key interpretive clue that we need to even begin to properly understand it is its opening verse: Revelation 1:1. When the original recipients of Revelation first heard it read to them (Rev. 1:3), they heard it without having any knowledge of Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth, or Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind, or David Jeremiah’s, The World of the End. They heard John’s words first. And that is the way it should be.

In this and the next article I will simply be listing the Bible translations of Revelation 1:1, then 1:3 to show that all versions of these verses clearly speak of the nearness of its fulfillment. Then following these two articles, I will present three articles answering the leading objections to the nearness of the Revelation events. When I speak at conferences on Revelation, I always challenge the attendees to look up these verses in any reputable version and note the clear near-term implications.

So let us begin:

Rev 1:1 in the Versions
(see below for the identity of these abbreviated translation titles)

KJ21
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John.

ASV
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

AMP
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ [His unveiling of the divine mysteries], which God [the Father] gave to Him to show to His bond-servants (believers) the things which must soon take place [in their entirety]; and He sent and communicated it by His angel (divine messenger) to His bond-servant John.

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/

AMPC
[This is] the revelation of Jesus Christ [His unveiling of the divine mysteries]. God gave it to Him to disclose and make known to His bond servants certain things which must shortly and speedily come to pass in their entirety. And He sent and communicated it through His angel (messenger) to His bond servant John.

BRG
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

CSB
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

CEB
A revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. Christ made it known by sending it through his angel to his servant John.

CJB
This is the revelation which God gave to Yeshua the Messiah, so that he could show his servants what must happen very soon. He communicated it by sending his angel to his servant Yochanan.

CEV
This is what God showed to Jesus Christ, so that he could tell his servants what must happen soon. Christ then sent his angel with the message to his servant John.

DARBY
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John.

DLNT
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His slaves the things which must take-place quickly, and He signified, having sent-forth through His angel to His slave John.

DRA
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John.

ERV
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen soon. And Christ sent his angel to show it to his servant John.

EHV
The revelation from Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place. Christ expressed this revelation by means of symbols sent through his angel to his servant John.

ESV
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

ESVUK
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

EXB
This is the revelation ·of Jesus Christ [about Jesus Christ; or given by Jesus Christ; C the author could be intentionally ambiguous], which God gave to him, to show his servants what must ·soon [quickly] happen. And Jesus sent his angel to ·show it [make it known] to his servant John.

GNV
2 He declareth what kind of doctrine is here handled, 8 even his that is the beginning and ending. 12 Then the mystery of the seven Candlesticks and stars, 20 is expounded. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly be done: which he sent, and showed by his Angel unto his servant John.

GW
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

GNT
This book is the record of the events that Jesus Christ revealed. God gave him this revelation in order to show to his servants what must happen very soon. Christ made these things known to his servant John by sending his angel to him.

HCSB
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John.

ICB
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave this revelation to Jesus, to show his servants what must soon happen. And Jesus sent his angel to show it to his servant John.

ISV
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John.

PHILLIPS
This is a Revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him so that he might show his servants what must very soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who is the witness of all that he saw—the message of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

JUB
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John.

KJV
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

AKJV
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

LEB
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his slaves the things which must take place in a short time, and communicated it by sending it through his angel to his slave John.

TLB
This book unveils some of the future activities soon to occur in the life of Jesus Christ. God permitted him to reveal these things to his servant John in a vision; and then an angel was sent from heaven to explain the vision’s meaning.

MSG
A revealing of Jesus, the Messiah. God gave it to make plain to his servants what is about to happen. He published and delivered it by Angel to his servant John. And John told everything he saw: God’s Word—the witness of Jesus Christ!

MEV
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His servants things which must soon take place. He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.

MOUNCE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him · to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. · He made it known by sending · his angel to his servant John.

NOG
This is the revelation of Yeshua Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

NABRE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NASB
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.

NASB1995
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.

NCB
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God entrusted to him so that he might show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NCV
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must soon happen. And Jesus sent his angel to show it to his servant John.

NET
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John.

NIRV
This is the revelation from Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show those who serve God what will happen soon. God made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NIV
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NIVUK
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

THE BEAST OF REVELATION
By Ken Gentry
A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: www.kennethgentry.com

NKJV
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.

NLV
The things that are written in the Book are made known by Jesus Christ. God gave these things to Christ so He could show them to the servants He owns. These are things which must happen very soon. Christ sent His angel to John who is a servant owned by Him. Christ made these things known to John.
NLT
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John.

NMB
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him so that he could show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and showed it by his angel to his servant John.

NRSVA
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NRSVACE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NRSVCE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NRSVUE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

NTE
Revelation of Jesus the Messiah! God gave it to him to show his servants what must soon take place. He signified it by sending a message through his angel to his servant John.

RGT
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly be done; which he sent and showed by his angel to his servant John.

RSV
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

RSVCE
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

TLV
The revelation of Yeshua the Messiah, which God gave Him to show to His servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John.

VOICE
This is the revelation of Jesus the Anointed, the Liberating King: an account of visions and a heavenly journey. God granted this to Him so He would show His followers the realities that are already breaking into the world and soon will be fulfilled. Through His heavenly messenger, He revealed to His servant John signs and insight into these mysteries.

WEB
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John.

WE
God showed these things to Jesus Christ to show to his servants. These are things that must happen soon. Then God sent his angel and showed them to John, his servant.

WYC
Apocalypse of Jesus Christ [Apocalypse, or revelation, of Jesus Christ], which God gave to him to make open to his servants, which things it behooveth to be made soon. And he signified, sending by his angel to his servant John.

YLT
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify [it], having sent through his messenger to his servant John.

Bible Versions Key

21st Century King James Version (KJ21) Copyright © 1994 by Deuel Enterprises, Inc.; American Standard Version (ASV) Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?); Amplified Bible (AMP) Copyright © 2015 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA 90631. All rights reserved.; Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC) Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation; BRG Bible (BRG) Blue Red and Gold Letter Edition Copyright © 2012 BRG Bible Ministries. Used by Permission. All rights reserved. BRG Bible is a Registered Trademark in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office #4145648; Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved. ; Common English Bible (CEB) Copyright © 2011 by Common English Bible; Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) Copyright © 1998 by David H. Stern. All rights reserved. ; Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American Bible Society For more information about CEV, visit http://www.bibles.com and http://www.cev.bible.; Darby Translation (DARBY) Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?); Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT) Disciples’ Literal New Testament: Serving Modern Disciples by More Fully Reflecting the Writing Style of the Ancient Disciples, Copyright © 2011 Michael J. Magill. All Rights Reserved. Published by Reyma Publishing; Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) Public Domain (Why are modern Bible translations copyrighted?); Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) Copyright © 2006 by Bible League International; Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV) The Holy Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version®, EHV®, © 2019 Wartburg Project, Inc. All rights reserved.; English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.; English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.; Expanded Bible (EXB) The Expanded Bible, Copyright © 2011 Thomas Nelson Inc. All rights reserved. ; 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition. Published by Tolle Lege Press. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles, reviews, and broadcasts. ; GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) Copyright © 1995, 2003, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020 by God’s Word to the Nations Mission Society. All rights reserved.; Good News Translation (GNT) Good News Translation® (Today’s English Version, Second Edition) © 1992 American Bible Society. All rights reserved. For more information about GNT, visit http://www.bibles.com and http://www.gnt.bible.; Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.; International Children’s Bible (ICB) The Holy Bible, International Children’s Bible® Copyright© 1986, 1988, 1999, 2015 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission.; International Standard Version (ISV) Copyright © 1995-2014 by ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission of Davidson Press, LLC.; J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS) The New Testament in Modern English by J.B Phillips copyright © 1960, 1972 J. B. Phillips. Administered by The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England. Used by Permission.; Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB) Copyright © 2013, 2020 by Ransom Press International ; King James Version (KJV) Public Domain; Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) KJV reproduced by permission of Cambridge University Press, the Crown’s patentee in the UK.; Lexham English Bible (LEB) 2012 by Logos Bible Software. Lexham is a registered trademark of Logos Bible Software; Living Bible (TLB) The Living Bible copyright © 1971 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.; The Message (MSG) Copyright © 1993, 2002, 2018 by Eugene H. Peterson; Modern English Version (MEV) The Holy Bible, Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Published and distributed by Charisma House. ; Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) The Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) Copyright © 2011 by William D. Mounce. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. “Reverse Interlinear” is a trademark of William D. Mounce.; Names of God Bible (NOG) The Names of God Bible (without notes) © 2011 by Baker Publishing Group. ; New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE) Scripture texts, prefaces, introductions, footnotes and cross references used in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC All Rights Reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. ; New American Standard Bible (NASB) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.; New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995) New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.; New Catholic Bible (NCB) Copyright © 2019 by Catholic Book Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.; New Century Version (NCV) The Holy Bible, New Century Version®. Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.; New English Translation (NET) NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2017 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com All rights reserved.; New International Reader’s Version (NIRV) Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1998, 2014 by Biblica, Inc.®. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.; New International Version (NIV) Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.; New International Version – UK (NIVUK) Holy Bible, New International Version® Anglicized, NIV® Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.; New King James Version (NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; New Life Version (NLV) Copyright © 1969, 2003 by Barbour Publishing, Inc.; New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.; New Matthew Bible (NMB) Copyright © 2016 by Ruth Magnusson (Davis). All rights reserved. ; New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition, copyright © 1989, 1995 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Catholic Edition, copyright © 1989, 1993, 1995 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) New Revised Standard Version Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1989, 1993 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE) New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.; New Testament for Everyone (NTE) Scripture quotations from The New Testament for Everyone are copyright © Nicholas Thomas Wright 2011.; Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International; Revised Geneva Translation (RGT) © 2019 by Five Talents Audio; Revised Standard Version (RSV) Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE) The Revised Standard Version of the Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1965, 1966 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.; Tree of Life Version (TLV) Tree of Life (TLV) Translation of the Bible. Copyright © 2015 by The Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society.; The Voice (VOICE) The Voice Bible Copyright © 2012 Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Voice translation © 2012 Ecclesia Bible Society All rights reserved. ; World English Bible (WEB) by Public Domain. The name “World English Bible” is trademarked.; Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) © 1969, 1971, 1996, 1998 by SOON Educational Publications; Wycliffe Bible (WYC) 2001 by Terence P. Noble; Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) by Public Domain

OVER-REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY AT CORINTH (2)

PMW 2022-092 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog post, I began a two-part study of the over-realized eschatology problem at Corinth. Throughout 1 Corinthians Paul has to continually rebuke and correct the Christians there. I am pointing out the source of their confusion and abuse of privilege: they have adopted an “over-realized eschatology.” I recommend that you read the previous post before reading this one.

But now, let us re-start our study

What is “realized eschatology”?

Now simply put, the problem Paul faces at Corinth is what we may call an “over-realized eschatology.” Let me explain what I mean by first presenting what a legitimate “realized eschatology” is.

After the resurrection of Christ in the first-century, redemptive history entered into a “realized eschatological” experience. That is, Christ completed his work of redemption by means of his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. And because of this, redemptive history, which began with the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15, finally entered what the New Testament calls “the last days” (Heb. 1:2), “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11), “the consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26), “these last times” (1 Pet. 1:20), and so forth. That is, the eschatological-redemptive hope of the Old Testament finally began coming to fruition in Christ.

Christ’s first-century coming was truly an eschatological event. It set in motion the eschatological “last days” (Isa. 2:2–4; Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2). And these days will continue unfolding until the “last day” of temporal history at the general resurrection (John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24; cp. Acts 17:31). This is what Reformed (and many evangelical) theologians call “realized eschatology.” That is, due to its current “realization” or contemporary experiencing of redemption, we have several blessings unavailable to the Old Testament saints. For instance, we are already spiritually resurrected (John 5:24–25; Rom. 6:13; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12; 3:1) in anticipation of our future physical resurrection (Matt. 22:29–32; John 5:28–29; Acts 23:6–8; 24:21; 1 Cor. 15:12–19; 1 Thess. 4:16); we are already a spiritual new creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:24) in anticipation of the consummate new creation (Rom. 8:19–23; 2 Pet. 3:10); we are already in the spiritual kingdom (Matt. 5:3, 10; 12:28; Col. 1:13) in anticipation of entering into the consummate-order kingdom (Matt. 6:10; 25:34; Jms. 2:5).

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

There is much more involved in our experience of realized eschatology than the spiritual resurrection, new creation, and kingdom. I will bring those other matters out more fully in a book I am writing on Two-Age Model of redemptive history. This model teaches that two ages structure the history of redemption: “this age” (i.e., world history since Adam and in its fallen character, Gal. 1:4) and “the coming age” (the consummate order in its fullest and perfect expression).

But as we must understand, we have entered the “last days” period of “this age” and are therefore in an overlap of the two ages. Because of this overlap of the ages, we can already and by anticipation taste “the powers of the age to come” by means of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:5). For the Spirit’s outpouring was given in celebration of Christ’s resurrection and in order to inaugurate “the last days” (Acts 2:17, 32–35). Thus, the “age to come” is already penetrating “this [fallen] age” in which we live. We currently live in “the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4), that is, an age in which we endure sin, suffering, and death, and in which even inanimate creation suffers corruption (Rom. 8:21–22). Nevertheless, by the Spirit we now have an advanced experience of “the age to come” in which all of these evils will be permanently and finally removed. God will not endure a fallen, rebellious universe for ever and ever. And we will ultimately benefit from his redemption by living in his fully redeemed, renewed, new creation.

What was the Corinthians’ problem?

Now, in this current study I will be briefly demonstrating the problem Paul is facing at Corinth. That is, the tension he is facing with the Corinthians who are committed to what we call an “over-realized eschatology.” Like Hyperpreterism and Hyper-Calvinism, the Corinthians have taken a helpful biblical principle and stretched it beyond recognition, grotesquely warping its true meaning and significance. Their theology was proto-gnostic in structure and experience.

Where can we detect the Corinthians’ “over-realized,” proto-gnostic eschatology? Evidence for this is actually found on almost every page of 1 Corinthians — if we look carefully at it. I will provide just a few samples by way of illustration.

By their over-realized eschatology the Corinthians believed that the kingdom of God had already come, which was true (Luke 17:21; Col. 1:13). But they believed it had arrived in its final and fullest expression, that they were experiencing the “the age to come” in all of its glorious power. They believed they were enjoying all that God had promised regarding the coming of his promised kingdom through their life in the Spirit. They believed the full coming of the kingdom has been demonstrated in them through their abundant Spirit-endowed charismatic gifts (1 Cor. 1:8; 12:1–14:40).

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

Unfortunately, the Corinthians interpreted their redemptive standing from their own erroneous perspective. Because they deemed themselves so “Spiritual” (filled with and driven by the Holy Spirit), they believed that their current physical bodies had no real significance for the kingdom. Thus, they believed “all things are lawful” for them (6:13). This allowed them to engage in whatever physical sexual activity they desired (1 Cor. 5–7) — including even incest (5:1) and immoral relations with prostitutes (6:15–18).

And at the other end of the moral spectrum, the over-realists could denigrate marriage (7:1–6). Paul is quoting them when he says “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1), which would undermine the creation purpose in marriage (Gen. 1:28; 2:24). In their over-realization they believed that they were fully and finally resurrected, which made marriage irrelevant. This almost certainly was based on their mistaken understanding of Jesus’ teaching, which we have recorded for us in Matthew 22:30 (and Mark 12:25): “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

The Corinthians deemed themselves Spiritual (note the capital “S” as signifying Holy Spirit indwelt) and resurrected members of God’s kingdom. Thus they also apparently believed they would not die, since they were like angels (Luke 20:36). They believed this was confirmed to them in their speaking with the tongues of men and “of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1). But Paul explains that kingdom believers are not like undying angels, but are actually subject to suffering as “a spectacle to … angels” (1 Cor. 4:9).

And since angels are not composed of separate genders, the Corinthians’ view that they are like angels may also explain another problem in the church. They they did not distinguish between proper male and female roles in congregational worship (1 Cor. 11:3–15; 14:34–35).

Furthermore, “some” of them were claiming that “there is no [physical] resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:12) and that such was unnecessary. They believed that they would not die but simply continue to live and reign in the current, already fully-arrived kingdom up to and after Jesus returns. This is why Paul warns them that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50). That is, they need to be physically transformed by means of resurrection in order to enter the perfect, final, consummate stage of God’s redemptive kingdom. Their current weak, corruptible, perishable flesh-and-blood bodies cannot expect to live forever in God’s kingdom (vv. 50–54).

In addition, their over-realized eschatology gave an erroneous significance to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They apparently felt that engaging in the sacraments spiritually guaranteed protection from physical harm. This is why Paul uncharacteristically plays down baptism, even expressing relief that he had baptized none of them, but one (1 Cor. 1:13–15). This is despite the fact that Christ himself was baptized (Matt. 3:13–16; Luke 3:21) and called his apostles to baptize men (Matt. 28:18–19; Mark 16:16; John 4:2). Not only so but they did command baptism (Acts 2:38; 10:48) and practiced it (Acts 2:41; 8:12–13, 36–38; 10:47). In fact, Paul himself was baptized (Acts 9:18; 22:16) and he baptized others (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5). But at Corinth, he was glad he had not baptized them.

Paul also mentions the “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” partaken in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:3–4). As the context demands, these function as analogous to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:16–17). But Paul overthrows the Corinthians’ faulty proto-gnostic theology of the Lord’s Supper. He points out that despite “all” in Moses’ generation partaking the “same” spiritual food and spiritual drink (1 Cor. 10:3–4), God was not pleased with most of them for their immorality, so that they died (1 Cor. 10:1–8). This is despite the fact that the Old Testament called manna food “from heaven” (Exo. 16:4), which functioned as “the bread of angels” (Psa. 78:24–25), which concept was appealing to the Corinthians.

Then Paul adds to this the fact that, despite the Corinthian’s over-realized view of the Lord’s Supper, partaking it (1 Cor. 11:23–26) can itself lead to death (1 Cor. 11:27–29). Finally, Paul notes that this is why many of the Corinthian partakers are “weak and sick, and a number sleep [i.e., are dead].”

Thus simply put, despite their proud presumption (1 Cor. 10:12), the Corinthians did not perfectly possess the glorious power of the fullness of the age to come. Their over-realized eschatology was faulty and destructive to their theological understanding and their Christian living.

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

OVER-REALIZED ESCHATOLOGY AT CORINTH (1)

PMW 2022-091 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Christ’s resurrection and ours

First Corinthians 15 is an important chapter regarding the resurrection. Here Paul clearly ties the believer’s resurrection to Christ’s, requiring that we understand both in the same way (Phil. 3:20–21). For he states that Christ’s resurrection was the “first fruits” of the believer’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). This first fruits image establishes two important truths:

(1) Christ’s resurrection is actually the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead. This is because the first fruits of a harvest are a part of the full, final harvest, though occurring before the full harvest (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12–13).

(2) As the first fruits of the resurrection, Christ’s resurrection serves as a divine promise that our resurrection body will be like his. The first fruits of wheat are also wheat. Thus, like him we will have a physical body though it will be glorified and incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:42–43, 52–54). For after his resurrection, Christ’s tomb where his physical body was placed was empty (John 20:1–7), he was seen alive (1 Cor. 15:5–7) and could be touched and felt (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:27) by witnesses.

So, as C. K. Barrett notes in his commentary on 1 Corinthians (p. 350), the word means “the first instalment [sic] of the crop which foreshadows and pledges the ultimate offering of the whole.”

Though we are currently spiritually resurrected (John 5:24–25; Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:13; 3:1; 1 John 3:14), like Paul we still today continue to await “the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23). This will occur on the final day of temporal history at the resurrection of the dead (John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24).

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

Paul’s teaching and current naivete

Unfortunately, too many Christians do not carefully analyze passages in terms of their original settings. This is especially the case when they are busy trying to establish a whole new theology to overthrow the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith. The fifteenth chapter in 1 Corinthians is easily misunderstood if one simply jumps into it and interprets it by a surface understanding of certain words, rather than by using Paul’s contextual meaning.

Because of this superficial approach, many orthodox Christians are confused about Paul’s statement that when we are resurrected we will have a “spiritual [pneumatikos] body” (1 Cor. 15:41). They believe this wording speaks of an immaterial, intangible, ethereal spirit-body and forbids the notion of a material physical body. If that were a proper interpretation of the word “spiritual” (pneumatikos), however, we would have to believe that the Christian who properly understands God’s thoughts (1 Cor. 2:11–14) has an immaterial body – for “he who is spiritual appraises all things” (1 Cor. 2:15). In fact, several Bible versions legitimately translate 1 Corinthians 2:15 as “spiritual man” or “spiritual person” (English Standard Version; Amplified Bible; Revised Standard Version; New American Bible Revised Edition; Contemporary English Version; God’s Word Translation; International Standard Version; Phillips Bible).

On this naive understanding of pneumatikos in 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul would be wishing that the Corinthians were ethereal spirit-beings. For there the same word is used for faithful, committed Christians: “I could not speak to you as spiritual [pneumatikois] men” (see also 14:37). The same would be true in Galatians 6:1, where we read “Brethren, even if one is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual [pneumatikoi], restore such a one.” Surely Paul is not calling on Christians who are spirit-beings to help the fallen brother. And should we believe that the children of Israel who crossed through the sea ate immaterial food and drank immaterial drink, because Paul says that they ate “spiritual” (pneumatikon) food and drank “spiritual” (pneumatikon) drink (1 Cor. 10:3–4). No wonder they were hungry (Exo. 16:3)!

Then to make matters worse, these Christians stumble once again by misconstruing what Paul means by declaring that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (v. 40). They wrongly suppose that this means that in eternity we will not have “flesh and blood” bodies, i.e., physical bodies. But that is not at all what Paul is arguing.

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

Paul’s context and proper understanding

An important first step in understanding Paul’s wording is to understand the peculiar problem he is facing in Corinth and the consequent method he employs to confront it. This will not immediately explain his expressions in 1 Corinthians 15, of course, but it will put the interpreter on the right track for tracing Paul’s logic, and therefore for understanding why he chose the words that he did.

Unfortunately, in this post I will not be analyzing the verses about the “spiritual” or “heavenly” bodies that trip up naive interpreters (e.g., vv. 40, 41, 44, and 48). Rather I will be giving a short introduction to and summary of the problem Paul is facing. This is a necessary first step to properly seeking Paul’s meaning.

To be continued.

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

GALATIANS 1:4 & THE PRESENT AGE

PMW 2022-090 by Thomas R. Schreiner

As I am researching the Two-Age structure of redemptive history in the New Testament, I am finding a lot of helpful insights in various technical commentaries. A key passage in the Two-Age model is Galatians 1:4, which states regarding Christ:

“He gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age [hopos exeletai hemas ek tou aionos tou enestotos ponerou], according to the will of our God and Father,”

I will be dealing much with this passage in the book I am currently researching: Olivet and the Two Ages. In my research I have found quite helpful Thomas R. Schreiner’s commentary on Galatians in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (pp. 77–78). On Galatians 1:4 Schreiner well captures the significance of the passage and Paul’s instruction. There Schreiner comments:

“The eschatological character of Galatians emerges here [at Gal. 1:4b], for Jesus came to rescue believers ‘from the present evil age.’ Jewish thought distinguished between ‘the age’ and ‘the coming age.’ We find such a distinction in Jesus’ teaching as well (Matt 12:32; 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:35). Paul also uses the language of this age and the age to come (Eph 1:21). This age is also designated as ‘the present world [age]’ (to nun aioni, 1 Tim 6:17), and believers are not to be conformed to this age (Rom 12:2) as Demas was (2 Tim 4:10), for the world dominates the lives of unbelievers (Eph 2:2). Believers have been granted grace to live the life of the age to come in the present age (to nun aioni, Tit. 2:12). The rulers of this age crucified Jesus Christ because they were unaware that he was the glorious Lord (1 Cor 2:6, 8).

“The intellectual worldview that controls the mindset of unbelievers is limited to this age (1 Cor 1:20; 3:18), and Satan rules as the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). The present evil age is not the only reality, for the ‘fulfillment [ends] of the ages (ta tele ton aionon) has not dawned in Jesus Christ (1 Cor 10:11). The cross of Christ represents the intrusion of the new age, or as Paul says in Gal 6:14–15, the new creation. Indeed, the reference to the new creation at the close of the letter functions as an inclusio with the text here, so that at the beginning and end of the letter the arrival of the last days in Christ is featured. The world in its present form is passing away (1 Cor 7:31). Jesus reigns I the present evil age, and his rule will reach its climax in the age to come (Eph 1:21; cf. 1 Cor 15:24–28), so that in the coming ages all will marvel over the grace of God displayed in Jesus Christ….

We see as well here the eschatological tension of Paul’s thought, for even though the new age has come in Jesus Christ, the old age has not vanished entirely. Believes live in the interval between the already and not yet. God’s promises are already realized in Christ, but ‘the present evil age’ still exists, so that believers must remain vigilant and keep putting their trust in the cross of Christ.”

On p. 80 he summarizes the Already/Not Yet tension in Gal 1:4:

“The new age has dawned in Christ but it is not yet consummated. As Christians we live between the times. We are rescued from the present evil age through Christ’s death (1:4) and yet we must be warned not to revert back to the old era. We are delivered from sin but are not sinless. We are perfect in Christ but not yet perfected. Hence, we must remain vigilant so that we do not become captive to a false gospel that actually panders to our selfishness and pride, even after we have become Christians.”

I highly recommend Schreiner’s commentary as one that recognizes the influence of the Two-Age model on Galatians.

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

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY

PMW 2022-089 by Philosophical Investigations

Resurrection Is Central to Christianity

The resurrection of Christ is a vital foundation for the faith. Paul writes to the Corinthian church:

“If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:14-19).

However, Paul is equally definite about the importance of the resurrection of believers too: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor 15:13). He goes on to affirm: “Listen, I tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed –in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Cor 15:51-52).

In the Apostles Creed we confidently affirm: “I believe in the resurrection of the body.” But what do we mean? Does it mean our present body is raised or is it a totally new body? Is it a physical body? What does Paul mean when he refers to the resurrection body as a “spiritual body”? He writes about the body at death: “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).

What Does Paul Mean by a Spiritual Body?

Does he mean it is no longer a physical body?

Physical objects and people in this life can be described as “spiritual.” Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians Paul uses the word ‘spiritual’ to describe people or objects which are clearly physical.

The literal translation of what Paul writes in Greek in 1 Cor 2:14–15 is: “… a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them because they are spiritually discerned. But the spiritual one discerns all things.” (The NIV translates “spiritual one” as “the person with the Spirit” which is not literal but shows Paul is speaking of human beings in this life, i.e. physical human beings. Yet he calls them spiritual).

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

Similarly in 1 Cor 10:3–4 Paul speaks of the manna eaten by Israel in the wilderness and the water Moses brought forth from the rock as “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink.” Yet it was, of course, physical.

We ourselves may refer to someone as a spiritual person, but we don’t mean they are not physical. Professor Andrew Lincoln writes; “By the term spiritual we must not understand this to mean non-material or non-physical, but that it is a way of describing a bodily existence that is fully energised by the Spirit.”

Our Resurrection Body Like Jesus’ Resurrection Body

Paul says that Jesus “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). Jesus resurrection body was spiritual but it was also physical:

The risen Jesus could be touched: “They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him” (Matt 28:9). Jesus said to Thomas “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side” (John 20:27). Similarly he said: “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

The risen Jesus ate with the disciples: “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence” (Luke 24:42–43).

The risen Jesus broke bread and gave it to his disciples: “When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them” (Luke 24:30).

The risen Jesus made a fire and cooked fish for breakfast for the disciples: “When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread …. Jesus said to them, ‘Come and have breakfast.’ None of the disciples dared ask him, ‘Who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish” (John 21:9, 12–13).

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

Our Resurrection Body a Glorified Body

Paul says that our resurrection bodies will be imperishable, glorious and powerful: “The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” (1 Cor 15:42–43).

Our bodies will be imperishable and powerful. They will not experience tiredness, weakness, sickness, injury, ageing or death.

Our bodies will be glorious. Professor Wayne Grudem makes an interesting comment: “Because the word `glory’ is so frequently used in Scripture of the bright shining radiance that surrounds the presence of God himself, this term suggests that there will also be a kind of brightness or radiance surrounding our bodies that will be an appropriate outward evidence of the position of exaltation and rule over all creation that God has given us. This is also suggested in Matthew 13:43, where Jesus says, ‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.’ Similarly, we read in Daniel’s vision, ‘And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever’ (Daniel 12:3).”

The risen Jesus was able to appear and disappear and to move through solid objects: “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord …. A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’” (John 20:19-20, 26). There is some debate over whether this will be true of our resurrection bodies. Some say it was something unique Jesus did but I see no reason why it should not be an ability of our risen bodies.

However it is not helpful to pursue further speculation. St Thomas Aquinas does in his Summa Theologica. He considers questions about whether our hair and nails will grow etc!

What about “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”?

Some have thought this means that the resurrection body cannot be physical. But that is to misunderstand the term “flesh and blood.” Professor N T Wright says: “Ever since the second century doubters have used this clause to question whether Paul really believed in the resurrection of the body. In fact, the second half of verse 50 [“nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”] already explains, in Hebraic parallelism with the first half [“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”], more or less what he means, as Paul’s regular use of ‘flesh’ would indicate: ‘flesh and blood’ is a way of referring to ordinary, corruptible, decaying human existence. It does not simply mean, as it has so often been taken to mean, ‘physical humanity’ in the normal modern sense, but ‘the present physical humanity (as opposed to the future), which is subject to decay and death.’” Other scholars agree.

In other words, our present body in its ageing and decaying state, cannot, as it is, inherit the kingdom of God, it has to be glorified by resurrection. But it remains a physical body in its glorified state.

Is our resurrection body continuous with our present body? . . .

To continue reading the full article and to see the footnotes, go to: https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/article-resurrection-body/

THE “SPIRITUAL BODY” IN 1 CORINTHIANS

PMW 2022-088 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction

A key problem with  contemporary American Christianity is its disinterest in a careful study of Scripture. This encourages church membership decline as people drift away from the unnourishing pablum diet offered in too many churches. Sadly, it also gives heresies a footing in that true Christians have an internal emptiness due to their spiritual thirst for God’s word — even when they do not really recognize it (apparently confusing it with heartburn). Heresies can gain traction within evangelical circles when purveyors of heresy act like they are digging deeply into Scripture. We need Spirit-generated true revival whereby God’s people stand up and declare: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn” (Isa. 8:20). I do not care how good the band is or how cool the pastor looks in his casual attire, we need more of the word declared in depth from the pulpit!

One area of confusion among some evangelicals regards the nature of the resurrection body of the believer. As some confused Christians read 1 Corinthians 15:44–45 they stumble, opening the door to heresy. That text has Paul’s statement about the resurrection body, which reads: the resurrection body

“is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

Unfortunately, a surface, non-contextual reading leaves the impression that Paul is declaring the resurrection body to be ethereal rather than physical. This results from a naive plucking of this text from its broader context without understanding what Paul is doing and what he is arguing against. I have heard several Bible teachers (competent ones who should know better) state that this passage undermines the concept of a future, physical resurrection. I am astonished that these folks are apparently unaware that all orthodox scholars know these two verses are in the Bible, many have dealt with them, and have shown that they do not undermine a corporeal resurrection body. All one has to do is look up a few evangelical commentaries on these verses. And yet, these confused Christian slide off into unorthodoxy as if there has been no explanation of this passage in all of Christian history.

What Paul is actually saying in these verses is that in the resurrection we will be fully controlled by the Holy Spirit over against our present control by animal appetites. To understand this, one must carefully deal with (1) the Greek grammar of the text while also (2) recognizing (in the context of the whole epistle) what Paul is dealing with in Corinth (a very troubled church).

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

My Current Studies

I am currently engaging in research for a book on the Two-Age structure of redemptive history (you can help finance my research by donating to my tax-exempt ministry, GoodBirth Ministries). This redemptive-historical scheme distinguishes the current fallen world (“this present evil age,” Gal. 1:4) from the future perfected world in the consummation wherein we will receive eternal life in its fullness and finality (“the age to come,” Mark 10:30).

This Two-Age view explains that we are now living in the overlap of these two ages. That is, as believers we have one foot in the present world and one in the coming future world. Thus, we still live in this present evil age of fallenness (enduring temptation, suffering, and death), which will last until Christ’s Second Coming. Yet since his resurrection, we enjoy an advance penetration of the future into the present by way of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who was poured out at Pentecost in celebration of his resurrection victory (Acts 2). Consequently, believers are now tasting “the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:4–5), which coming age will bring in the fullness of eternal life, wherein we will be free from temptation, suffering, and death.

The “Spiritual Body”

I said all that in order to introduce the explanation of the “spiritual body” that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:44–45. For Paul deeply leans on the Two-Age view to deal with the proto-gnostic problems in Corinth. And as noted above, he speaks of the resurrection body as a Spirit-body, i.e., a physical body driven fully by the Holy Spirit. In my reading I have come across an insightful book by Andrew T. Lincoln: Paradise Now and Not Yet (Baker 1981). And though his explanation is found in many commentaries on 1 Corinthians, Lincoln admirably expresses the matter in the following comments taken from pages 41 and 42 of his book.

[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" />

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

All the following (after the heading) is a direct quotation of Lincoln’s argument. Lincoln writes (my very few translational additions or explanations are in brackets [ ]):

Lincoln’s Observations

“In a Christian context pneuma (‘spirit’) was seen to be most appropriate for describing experience of supernatural endowment and was set over against the ordinary endowment of psuche [‘soul’]. Paul, then, takes up this terminology current among the Corinthians and gives it his own connotations. Those in Corinth who regard themselves as already possessors of the blessings of the eschatological kingdom thought of themselves as pneumatikoi [‘spiritual ones’] (cf. 3:1; 12:1; 14:37). They claimed a superior spiritual wisdom in contrast to those Christians who only had their ordinary psuche. To deflate such a boastful attitude Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3, takes up the term psuchikos [‘soulish’] and uses it against the very people who considered themselves ‘spiritual.’ It becomes synonymous with sarkinos [‘fleshly’] and sarkinos [‘flesh-like’] (1 Cor. 3:1, 3) and designates one who simply cannot understand the things of God because he or she does not have the Spirit of God and whose activities are therefore on a merely human level (2:13; 3:3) and part of this age (2:6). In contrast, the age to come, the blessedness of which is described in 2:9, has already been revealed and opened up by the Spirit, so that the person who is truly pneumatikos [‘spiritual’] belongs to the age to come. For Paul then the distinction is no longer merely describing an anthropological dualism but takes on its force from his eschatological perspective.

“It is natural to see similar connotations involved when Paul applies the terms psuchikos [‘soulish’] and pneumatikos [‘spiritual’] to the body in 15:44. Just as sarx [“flesh”] in Paul can stand for ordinary human existence in this age and also take on a negative ethical nuance when this age is seen as evil through the disobedience of Adam, so psuchikos [‘soulish’] has a similarly nuanced meaning. In view in the verses under discussion is particularly the human body as it has become subject to sin and death, while in what follows the neutral sense comes to the fore. On the other hand pneumatkios [‘spiritual’] is to be related to the Spirit and the life of the age to come. Hence the psychical body which is sown is that characterized by the old aeon [‘age’], while it is raised as a spiritual body by virtue of the transformation it has undergone through the Spirit who characterizes the new aeon.

“This conjunction of soma [‘body’] with pneumatikon [‘spiritual’] was bound to be striking and even incongruous to the Corinthians who believed the new aeon and its Spirit to be fully present. The very thing they could not imagine, that the body should be an integral part of such an age [due to their gnostic tendencies], Paul asserts as essential to his perspective. They had to recognize that the Spirit who was presently at work in them would only at the resurrection fully dominate and control their lives and this would be in such a way that their bodies would become spiritual bodies no longer subject to the weakness and perishability of the age (cf. also Rom. 8:11). Thus ‘spiritual’ in connection with body should not be confused with adjectives such as ethereal or immaterial. Nor should it be understood as describing a substance, for just as the psychical body does not describe a body consisting of a psychical substance so neither does the spiritual body signify one made of a spiritual substance. Rather the all important concept involved is that of domination by the Spirit.”

Thus, endeth the reading of Lincoln.

As my alert reader might recognize, Paul’s rebuttal of the proto-gnostic heresy in Corinth serves nicely as a rebuttal to the Hyperpreterist heresy adopted by scores of people on the border of evangelicalism today. By the way, a Coca-Cola bottle is not made of Coca-Cola: it contains Coca-Cola as its dominant product.

ANSWERING AN OVERLAP OF THE AGES QUESTION

PMW 2022-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

With my recent articles commenting on the two-ages in Scripture, I have received some questions. One of those I will answer in this posting. So, here we go.

Reader’s question

I was reading this post about the two ages and had a question. It seems that what makes the most sense to me is that the transition between these ages happened in 70AD and we are now living in the “age to come.” However, I finding it challenging to reconcile Matthew 13:39-40 and Luke 20:34-35 with that understanding. It looks like Gaffin introduces the concept of an overlap of the ages. But are you persuaded that this is taught by the Biblical authors explicitly instead of being deduced from assumptions brought to the text? The overlap seems to not be present in some of the “this age, age to come” references.

My answer

Yes, I believe this two-age-overlap interpretation is taught as clearly in the NT as is the doctrine of the Trinity. We have no express declaration of it, but we do have powerful statements that can only be understood in this way.

Thus, I firmly believe this age-overlap interpretation is a logical implication of the relationship of the two ages. This is largely due to eternal new creation issues being applied spiritually in the present fallen realm, such as new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), resurrection (Eph. 2:6), and so forth. And when these are recognized as consummate realities spiritually invading the present, the logic is irresistible. This recognizes the already/not yet principle at work in the NT. Thus, since Christ’s finished work on the cross, we currently have “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5).

This understanding keeps Christ and his work at the center of redemptive history rather than the temple. This is why you find spiritual creation and spiritual resurrection occurring after Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and about 40 years before the temple’s destruction. This also removes the “challenge” you sense in Matt. 13 and Luke 20. Furthermore, it has an extra-added attraction: it helps serves as a brake stopping one from descending into unorthodox views.

I highly recommend reading Gaffin’s In the Fullness of Times, at least chapter 10. I would also check Geerhardus Vos’ Pauline Eschatology. Reformed theology is hard to beat!

I will be writing a fuller, book-lenth defense of the two-age and overlap view soon. I believe this understanding of the structure of redemptive history has been overlooked due to the excitement of so many who have been caught up in “preterist fever.” Hyperpreterists see AD 70 in every verse and phrase of Scripture, but even some orthodox preterists have slid toward hyperpreterism, partly due to not understanding the two-age schema.

Understanding the Olivet Discourse (by Ken Gentry)

This 5 DVD lecture set was filmed at a Bible Conference in Florida. It explains the entire Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24–25 from the (orthodox) preterist perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

MORE ON “THIS AGE” AND “THE AGE TO COME”

PMW 2022-086 by Ken Gentry

I have had a couple of folks send me messages expressing confusion about my promoting Richard Gaffin’s book In the Fullness of Time. In that book Gaffin provides excellent exegetical arguments for “this age” referring to the old creation in its fallenness and “the age to come” referring to the new creation in its righteousness. He argues that we are now in an overlap of the two ages, where fallenness continues but new creation realities are spiritually operating in the redeemed. For some reason some folks think that because Gaffin is an amillennialist (whom I debate publicly in 2003), his view of the New Testament structure of redemptive history is contrary to postmillennialism.

I am flabbergasted by this anti-postmillennial claim since I was taught both postmillennialism and the two-age structure of history by postmillennial scholar Greg L. Bahnsen. I learned both from him when I took his “History and Eschatology” course at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1976. Bahnsen used Geerhardus Vos (though an amillennialist! — like Van Til, Bahnsen’s mentor) and John Murray (a postmillennialist, see his commentary on Rom. 11; though I do not follow Murray’s exposition of the Olivet Discourse) to set up the two-age structure of history. This concept places Christ as the turning point in redemptive history, rather than placing the destruction of the temple as that turning point.

I suspect that these folks probably do not understand (and probably haven’t studied!) the two-age structure. There is nothing in it that compels one to amillennialism or that undermines postmillennialism. What it does do, however, is undermine hyperpreterism and its denial of the future Second Advent and the future resurrection of the dead. By not understanding the two-age structure of redemptive history, hyperpreterists think that because we now enjoy our resurrection spiritually in conversion, there is no future resurrection physically at the Second Coming. Their confusion brings heresy into their theology. In fact, for hyperpreterists, preterism is not simply an exegetical tool that helps explain some passages, but a whole theology that governs all of Scripture.

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

Sadly, opposition to the two-age structure of history usually involves a difficulty in holding to a future, bodily resurrection of the dead. If you know someone who rejects the two-age structure, ask them if they believe in a future, bodily resurrection of the dead at the end of history. You will hear a lot of stuttering.

JOHN MURRAY

The two-age structure of history is compatible with postmillennialism and is even held by postmillennialists (such as myself!). In a previous posting, I highlighted postmillennialist John Murray’s 1954 presentation “Structural Strands in New Testament Eschatology” (found reprinted at Kerux 6:3, December 1991). He clearly and persuasively argues for the two-age structure. I also showed that Rushdoony and Kik (just two samples of postmillennialists) held that “the end of the age” mentioned in Matthew 24:3 spoke of the end of history, not the end of the Jewish “age” (a favorite misconception of hyperpreterism).

GREG BAHNSEN

Now I will present a paragraph (a long one, to be sure!) from Greg Bahnsen, which is found in his book Victory in Jesus (pp.131–32).

Bahnsen writes:

“From the fact that ‘this world’ is interchangeable with ‘this age’ (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:20ff; 2:16; 3:19), we infer that the phrase ‘this age’ can also be understood as referring to an ethical or spiritual realm, rather than exclusively to a set period of time. From the perspective of New Testament theology, the ‘age to come’ has broken in on ‘this age’; those who are saved now enjoy the presence of the future age. With the first advent of Christ, God’s ordained moment has arrived (Gal. 4:4), the kingdom has drawn near (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11), the great jubilee has arrived (uke 4:!6–21), the good news of the kingdom has come into effect (Luke 16:16; Matt. 11:2–15), the Old Testament promise has been realized (Rom. 1:2; 16:25–26), the messianic marriage supper has approached (Mark 2:18–22). With the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, the ‘last days’ of Joel’s prophecy have arrived, and God’s Anointed is declared to be permanently enthroned in David’s kingdom (Acts 2); this Spirit is our down payment (‘earnest’) on the future inheritance (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14) and the first-fruits of the resurrection order (Rom. 8:23; cf. Col. 1:18). The kingdom of God and coming age have been installed. After a long period of anticipation, God has now spoken to us by His Son ‘at the end of these days’ (Heb. 1:2). Christ has been manifest ‘at the end of the ages’ (Heb. 9:26), ‘in the last times’ (I Pet. 1:20). Consequently, ‘the ends of the ages has arrived’ (1 Cor. 10:11). The eschatological age has already begun, which means that ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’ are coexistent during the present era. God’s kingdom of salvation is already experienced by some, but rejected by others. The ‘coming age’ and ‘this age’ live side by side for a time. The redemptive work of Christ has delivered us from the power of darkness (Col. 1:13), that is, from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). Being ‘in Christ’ (in contrast to being ‘in the evil one,’ 1 John 5:19) means that the ‘new creation’ has dawned, making the old things new (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. 6:2). Therefore, it is now possible for men to ‘taste the power of the coming age’ (Heb. 6:5). Two orders (old creation and new creation, spiritual death and regeneration, damnation and salvation) are presently operative, and the Bible expresses this fact by teaching that ‘this age’ and ‘the coming age’ are currently contemporaneous.”

KEITH MATHISON

I would also reference postmillennialist Keith Mathison (author of the excellent book, Postmillennialism) who employs the two-age structure. In his book From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology, just to cite a few samples, consider the following:

Mathison speaks often of the “age to come” as already present since the redemptive work of Christ was completed in AD 30. He approvingly cites G. E. Ladd: “The events of the eschatological consummation are not merely detached events lying in the future about which Paul speculates. They are rather redemptive events that have already begun to unfold within history. The blessings of the Age to Come no longer lie exclusively in the future; they have become objects of present experience. The death of Christ is an eschatological event. Because of Christ’s death, the justified person stands already on the age-to-come side of the eschatological judgment, acquitted of all guilt.” (From Age to Age, p. 495)

On the next page, Mathison presents (amillennialist) Vos’ two-age diagram. This shows the present historical world is “this age” whereas the heavenly eternal order is the “age to come,” while since the first century coming of Christ, we live in the overlap period between the two ages. Thus, we now partake of both elements, i.e., fallenness and redemption. We now have one foot in “this age” and one in “the age to come.” As Mathison puts it on p. 451: “The life of the age to come is available now, but it will be received in fullness only at the resurrection on the last day.”

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

CONCLUSION

Those who mistakenly believe the two-age structure of redemptive history undermines postmillennialism do not understand either the two-age construct or even postmillennialism itself. It is ironic that some hyperpreterists claim to be “postmillennial.” But since “post” millennial speaks of Christ coming after the expiration of the millennium, they cannot be “postmillennial,” for they neither believe Christ is returning nor that history will end.

HYPER-PRETERISM & BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY

PMW 2022-085 by Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
Professor of Old Testament

Hyper-preterism, the belief that the New Testament expectation of Christ’s return in glory has already occurred, has taken at least two basic forms. On the one hand, it has become a fairly standard part of critical approaches to biblical faith as they have developed during the modern period. Critical theologians tend to reject the expectation of a future cosmic consummation of the Kingdom of God because they hold that modern rational people can no longer embrace such hopes. Their reflections tend to focus almost exclusively on what Christ has already done, rather than on what he may do in the future. On the other hand, hyper-preterism has also taken root in recent years within circles that are otherwise orthodox and evangelical. These theologians affirm classical views of biblical authority and build their distinctive views of the return of Christ on these assumptions of biblical authority. As strange as it may sound, these conservative hyper-preterists insist that belief in biblical authority requires believers to reject the notion that we are still waiting for a cataclysmic return of Christ. A central line of their reasoning has to do with their understanding of biblical authority and prophecy. In this article, we will explore the contours of this line of reasoning.

I. THE PROPHETIC ARGUMENT FOR HYPER-PRETERISM

This aspect of the hyper-preterist argument may be summarized as follows.

Biblical prophecies predict an imminent return of Christ.All biblical prophecies must be fulfilled as predicted.Therefore, the imminent return of Christ was fulfilled.

First, hyper-preterists typically insist that biblical predictions portray the return of Christ as an event that will take place quickly, within a generation after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Second, they insist that belief in the authority of Scripture requires us to believe that all biblical predictions must be fulfilled just as they are stated. These affirmations lead to the conclusion that the return of Christ was fulfilled within a generation after the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

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

The premises of this argument are so central to hyper-preterism that if either of them proved to be false, the case for the conclusion would be significantly weakened. For the most part, opponents of hyper-preterism have argued against the first premise. They have challenged the idea that the Scriptures speak of Christ’s imminent return. Yet, to my knowledge no critiques of hyper-preterism have focused on the second premise. No one has challenged the idea that biblical prophecies must be fulfilled just as they predict future events to be. In this article, we will explore whether all predictions made by true prophets must come to pass exactly as they are stated. 1 In many respects, questioning this premise may be even more important than challenging the first one. If prophecies do not have to be fulfilled precisely as stated, then it does not matter if the Scriptures depict Christ’s second coming in close proximity to his first coming.

In this article, we will argue that hyper-preterists oversimplify this complex issue and arrive at a number of seriously misguided conclusions. In contrast to the hyper-preterist proposal, we will argue that biblical prophecies are seldom fulfilled exactly as they are stated. Therefore, even if the Scriptures did predict that Jesus’ return would take place within a few years, his return could still be in our future, even more than two thousand years later.

From the start we should acknowledge that many Christians endorse the view on the fulfillment of prophecy taken by hyper-preterists. 2 Their outlook on prophetic fulfillment is largely based on Deuteronomy 18:22, where Moses warns against false prophets:

“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.”

It is quite common on a popular level for evangelicals to understand this passage to teach that everything a true prophet says about the future will come to pass.

To be sure, many evangelical scholars have been subtler in their interpretations of the verse, 3 but little effort has been put into adjusting general perceptions of prophecy to account for these more subtle understandings. 4 As a result, evangelicals seldom dispute the hyper-preterist interpretation of this passage.

We will return to look directly at Deuteronomy 18:22 later in this article. At this point, however, we should merely state that we will see how this interpretation is far too simplistic. Instead, we will observe that it is the very nature of authoritative biblical prophecies that fulfillments often differ significantly from predictions because of historical contingencies that intervene between predictions and their fulfillments. Historical contingencies such as fasting, repentance, worship, indifference, rebellion, and recalcitrance that occur after a prediction and before its fulfillment often move God to redirect history in ways that seem appropriate to him. These redirections always match biblical prophetic predictions when understood in the light of larger theological considerations, but they often do not match with an atomistic reading of what biblical prophets announced.

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

II. CONTINGENCIES AND THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY

In light of the ways open theism is capturing the imagination of so many believers in our day, any mention of historical contingencies in a theological context raises questions about the relationship between God and history. 5 For this reason, we should distinguish our position from open theism by explicitly framing our discussion in terms of the traditional Reformed view of divine immutability and providence.

A. Contingencies and the Sovereignty of God

When we speak of historical contingencies affecting the fulfillment of prophecies, we have in mind a concept of contingency that complies with the emphasis of traditional Reformed theology on the sovereignty of God. 6 In the first place, this study is built on the doctrine of God’s sovereign immutability. Unfortunately, this doctrine is often misunderstood to teach that God is unchangeable in every way imaginable. But such an outlook denies the biblical portrait of God’s ability to have meaningful interaction with the creation (to judge, redeem, answer prayer, become flesh, etc.). It is for this reason that Reformed theologians have distinguished ways in which God is immutable from ways in which he is not. For example, Louis Berkhof puts the matter succinctly:

“The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purposes, His motives or actions, or His promises.” 7

We can summarize Berkhof’s position by saying that Reformed theology has identified at least three ways in which God is unchanging: (1) God’s character does not change; he cannot become something other than what he is. (2) God’s covenant promises are immutable; he will not break his covenant oaths. (3) God is immutable in his eternal counsel or plan for all of history; God has an unchangeable plan, and this plan governs every detail of history.

This last sense of immutability is especially important for the purposes of our study. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). Following this statement, we affirm in no uncertain terms that every event that takes place in history, even if it may in a secondary sense be called contingent, is nevertheless a part of God’s eternal and immutable plan for the universe. 8

In the second place, although it is important to affirm divine immutability, it is equally important to stress the Reformed doctrine of God’s sovereign providence when dealing with the fulfillment of prophecy. The traditional Reformed doctrine of providence provides a framework for understanding the role of historical contingencies. The providence of God may be defined as God’s active involvement in history as he sovereignly works out his eternal plan for the universe. 9 According to the Scriptures, God does not simply have a plan that he watches take place as a distant observer; he is actively involved in history. 10

The Westminster Confession faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture in this regard. For our purposes, one aspect of its teaching on divine providence moves to the foreground:

“Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decrees of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently” (WCF 5.2).

We see here that the eternal decrees of God will not fail. He works out his immutable plan by ordering events so that they occur either necessarily (necessario), freely (libere), or contingently (contingenter). The proof texts associated with these three words in the Confession make the concepts here clearer. 11

First, sometimes God orders history so that events occur necessarily (Gen 8:22; Jer 31:35). . . .

To finish the article and see the footnotes, go to: Pratt, Hyper-Preterism

WHY CHOOSE MATTHEW FOR STUDYING OLIVET?

PMW 2022-084 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Each of the three Synoptic Gospels records the Lord’s Olivet Discourse, though with slight differences.

When studying this intriguing and much abused discourse, we ultimately need to deal with all three versions. But sometimes it might not be possible to do a proper harmony of the three, such as when preaching a sermon series or teaching a Bible study under time constraints. Which one would you choose in such situations?

I believe Matthew’s version is the key to understanding the discourse, and even to understanding the other two versions. Let me provide seven reasons why I recommend focusing on Matthew’s Olivet Discourse.

First, Matthew’s version is in the most Jewish Gospel

“It is agreed on all hands that this is a very ‘Jewish’ Gospel.” [1] This is significant in that the Discourse is sparked by deeply Jewish concerns raised by the Lord’s disciples (Matt. 24:1–3; cp. Mark 13:4). This includes highlighting the Jewish temple (“holy place,” v. 15; cp. vv. 1–2), its geographical setting in Judea (v. 16), and a distinctly Jewish Sabbath concern (v. 20). Robinson declares that “Matthew is more concerned than any other evangelist with the relationship of Christianity to the temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices.” [2]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Osborne notes that “Matthew writes a Jewish gospel,” because he “especially had the Jewish Christian church and the Jewish people in mind.” [3] Nolland speaks of “the profound Jewishness of the whole of the Gospel of Matthew,” [4] reminding us that it is “often and truly described as the most Jewish of the Gospels.” [5] Bock writes that Matthew “is the one most focused on Jewish issues and concerns.” [6] Gundry speaks of “the profound Jewishness of the whole of the Gospel of Matthew.” [7]

As I have shown in my Olivet Discourse Made Easy, Matthew presents a quite negative view of first-century Israel. And the Olivet Discourse forms the very climax to this negative angle in his teaching. Thus, the Discourse finds its fuller context in its setting in the whole Gospel. It should be helpful, therefore, to consider the Jewish nature of Matthew’s presentation of Olivet.

Second, Matthew’s version is in the most influential Gospel

Though many scholars argue for Marcan Priority, the evidence from the early church Fathers strongly suggests Matthew was the first Gospel produced. [8] Because of this, Matthew was the most influential Gospel in the early church, being the one most cited by the Fathers. As ISBE2 (3:280) notes: “The Gospel of Matthew dominated the attention of the early Church, at least so far as the Synoptic Gospels are concerned, to the extent that it all but eclipsed the others.”

Matthew still remains the most influential of the three Synoptic Gospels even today. Osborne notes to this end: “Matthew has always been the gospel most widely read and the one first consulted for details about the life of Christ.” [9] As one major Bible encyclopedia comments: “The Gospel according to Matthew has always occupied a position of highest esteem in the faith and life of the Christian church…. It may be that the early Christians placed it in first position in the NT canon precisely because of the profound influence of its contents” (ZEB 4:131).

Third, Matthew’s version appears climactically as Jesus’ final discourse

A well-known feature of Matthew is its highlighting five major discourses: the Sermon on the Mount [10] (Matt. 5–7), the Missionary Discourse (Matt. 10), the Kingdom Parables (Matt. 13), the Community Life Discourse (Matt. 18), and finally the dramatic Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25). As Osborne observes: “Matthew has structured his gospel very differently from the others and organized it around the five discourse units.” [11] Each one of these ends with: “when he had finished these words” (Matt. 8:1; 11:1; 13:53; Matt. 19:1)). But as Gibbs points out, Matthew inserts a “summarizing addition of ‘all’ to it transitional formula” at Matt. 26:1, which concludes the five discourses: :when Jesus had finished all these words.”

As Christ’s last large-scale, formal instruction, it powerfully serves as the climax to his whole teaching ministry. Thus, it gives us insights into his ministry to Israel, which ministry was rejected by the nation as a whole (Matt. 23:37; 27:25). Olivet, therefore, serves as the Lord’s final warning to Israel.

However, Jesus is not merely a Jewish sage with a narrow, local, ethnic focus. The first part of the Discourse focuses on Jerusalem and the temple (Matt. 24:4–34). But this focus also provides a springboard for his warning of the Final Judgment of “all the nations” (Matt. 25:32), which is his concern in Matt. 24:37–25:46.

J. K. Brown well argues that “Jesus’ teachings turn from the signs portending the temple’s imminent destruction (24:4–35) to his reappearing (his parousia at the end of the age [see 24:3]), which will occur without warning (24:36–51).” This is significant in that as Jesus’ ministry unfolds to its end, Israel is turning more vehemently against him. This opens the door for the nations, which is the goal of the Gospel in its final verses containing the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20; contra Matt. 10:5–6; 15:24).

Fourth, Matthew’s version is the longest in the Synoptic Gospels

Matthew devotes two whole chapters of ninety-seven verses to Olivet. The second longest version is Mark’s, which is much shorter being contained within one chapter of only thirty-seven verses. [12] The fuller record of the Lord’s instruction should be helpful to better understanding that teaching. Plus this gives us more material to analyze as we seek a better understanding of Olivet. This also fits well with the observation that Matthew’s Gospel has a negative approach to first-century Israel. As Bock well notes: “For Matthew, Jesus’ relationship to Israel and explaining Israel’s rejection are major concerns.” [13] Thus, Matthew’s longer Discourse denouncing Israel shows his great interest in Jesus’ judgment against her.

 

Understanding the Olivet Discourse (by Ken Gentry)

This 5 DVD lecture set was filmed at a Bible Conference in Florida. It explains the entire Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24–25 from the (orthodox) preterist perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Fifth, Matthew’s version has the fullest historical introduction

The Discourse appears just after Jesus’ calling down seven woes upon the scribes and Pharisees, which finally demonstrates the failure of Israel’s leadership and the doom that awaits them. In Matthew the woes consume an entire chapter of thirty-nine verses (Matt. 23:1–39). But in Mark the woes are summarized in only three verses (Mark 13:41–44).

Literary context is an essential aid to proper interpretation. In their highly-regarded work on interpretation, Kaiser and Silva urge: “Do emphasize the context. This is the fundamental principle. It is in fact the guideline that undergirds all of the others…. Before tackling a specific problem in one verse, we ought to read and reread the whole chapter — indeed, the whole book of which it is a part.” [14]

Osborne provides a study of how to determine meaning in a text. He notes several errors of interpretation arising from focusing on smaller units of meaning: “Ignoring the Context. In one sense this is the basic error that encompasses the others and makes them possible…. The failure to note context may be the most frequently occurring error.” [15] Thomas notes that “traditional interpretation has consistently insisted on the importance of context in determining the meaning of a word or passage.” [16]

Sixth, Matthew’s version has the fuller question of the disciples

Matthew’s record of their question contains sixteen words in the Greek (Matt. 24:3). And though Mark’s version has about the same number with fourteen words (Mark 13:4), Matthew’s version contains two distinct terms that cast more light on the matter: the Greek word parousia (“coming, presence”) and the Greek noun sunteleia (“completion, close, end”). [17]

Seventh, my final observation

I was just kidding when I said I would give seven reasons for studying Matthew’s version of the Discourse. Thus, I will only give six reasons. But at least you can stop reading sooner, freeing up more time for your chores. Can you tell that I have been married for over fifty-one years? I really have to run now myself. My wife . . . er, I mean, my chores are calling me.

NOTES

Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 743.John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 104.Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (ECNT) (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010), 31. See also ZEB 4:152.John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 17.Nolland, Matthew, 46.Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 26.John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 17.For a helpful defense of the priority of Matthew, see Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996). Gary W. Derickson, “Matthean Priority/ Authorship and Evangelicalism’s Boundary,” TMSJ (Spring 2003): 14:1: 87–103. See also Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 1:1–11:1 (St. Louis: Concordia, 2006), 64–66.Osborne, Matthew (ECNT), 21.Of Jesus’ five major Discourses in Matthew, only the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1; 8:1) and the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:3). specify a mountainous location.Osborne, Matthew (ECNT), 23Though Mark’s version of Olivet is much shorter than Matthew’s, Mark’s version is the long discourse in Mark’s Gospel: “The speech in vv. 5–37 is the longest and most coherent of all those attributed to Jesus in Mark.,.. The length and coherence in 13:5–37 indicate the importance of the teaching there expressed.” Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia) (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 593.Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), p. 27.Bock, Jesus according to Scripture, p. 27.Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1991), 75.Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000), 204.Mark 13:4 has the related verb form suntele. But this suggests a different nuance: “to complete, accomplish.”