Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 37

DEFINING POSTMILLENNIALISM

PMW 2022-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time-to-time a review is helpful for understanding a system of thought. And basic definitions are therefore in order. This is especially true in presenting postmillennialism because it is widely misunderstood and subject to radical misconceptions. This is a particular problem for attempting to explain postmillennialism to someone who has been a dispensationalist for a long time.

For one to understand any system he must have a proper definition of it. Perhaps more than any of the other evangelical millennial options, postmillennialism has endured much abuse by mis-definition. Indeed, it is the easiest eschatological position to misunderstand in our era and therefore inadvertently to misrepresent. Consequently, we must remind all parties to the debate of this system’s actual claims.

Erroneus Preconceptions
Before I provide a careful, working definition of the system, I would caution non-postmillennialists regarding three faulty assumptions that they must avoid when responding to our eschatological system. And though few competent theologians would intentionally apply these conditions to postmillennialism, I fear that these sometimes lurk unrecognized in the subconscious of too many critics.

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

First, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies universalism. Postmillennialism does not claim that at some point in temporal history each and every individual then living will be saved. Even at the very height of the advance of the gospel in history, unbelievers will remain among us, though in a minority status. Some of these will be false converts to the faith, others openly unrepentant resisters to it. Jesus clearly teaches this in his Parable of the Tares among the Wheat (Matt 13:30), just before declaring the enormous victory of the faith in all the world (Matt 13:31-33). This is a part of the “mysteries of the kingdom” (Matt 13:11): the glorious kingdom of God does not overwhelm the world catastrophically (but grows gradually like a mustard plant and penetrates little-by-little as does leaven) and it will not conquer the world absolutely (but grows to a majoritarian dominance like wheat in the field).

Second, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies perfectionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that at some point in temporal history Christians then living will be perfected. Despite the worldwide victory of the Christian faith, Christians will remain sinners—sanctified sinners, of course, but redeemed vessels of mercy suffering the complications of indwelling sin. Just as no current evangelical church is perfect, neither will an evangelical world be perfect. But if the majority of the human race were conducting themselves as the average church-going, born-again Christian of today, the world would certainly be a different and much better place—despite this lack of perfection.

Third, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies satisfactionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that Christ’s people should prefer temporal, earthly conquest through gospel dominion over eternal, heavenly victory in consummational glory. Any believer with even a modicum of spiritual sanctification and biblical understanding must recognize the surpassing glory that awaits him in the resurrected estate. Then—and only then—will we see God face-to-face, experience the transformation of our bodies from mortality to immortality, enjoy perfect and permanent freedom from temptation and sin, live forever in blessed circumstances, and be reunited with our saved loved ones. The glory of Christian dominion in the earth pales in comparison to the glory of resurrection majesty in the new earth.

Common Objection

In addition to these three clarifications, postmillennialists endure dissenters reminding us of present sinful world conditions as evidence against our expectations. We must insist that our eschatological system be properly understood: nowhere in the definition of postmillennialism do we declare that by the year 2011 (for instance) we will witness the glorious blessings of worldwide gospel conquest. Until the moment the Lord returns postmillennialism cannot be disproved by evidences from cultural decline and social chaos in the world. Who knows how long God will take to effect the glorious transformation? Just as Christians should not doubt the second coming of Christ because it has not occurred yet (2 Pet 3:4), neither should evangelicals discount the cultural dominion of Christ because it is not full now. All our system requires is that the world be Christianized before the Lord returns—and we do not know when that will be (Matt 24:36; Acts 1:7).

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 mp3 lectures)
Southern California Center for Christian Studies seminar.
Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction.
Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Careful Definition

So then, how should we define postmillennialism? My definition of postmillennialism reads as follows:

Postmillennialism is that eschatological system arising from Scripture that expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ’s return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with the general resurrection and the great judgment of all humankind.

Hence, our system is post-millennial in that the Lord’s glorious return will occur after an era of “millennial” conditions. The postmillennialist confidently proclaims in a unique way that history is “His story.

This is only a brief definition, but it is important to have this definition as our starting point. The fullness of the postmillennial system will be fleshed out as we study postmillennialism together on this blog!

DISPENSATIONALISM, ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH

PMW 2022-035 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Classic dispensationalism has virtually disappeared among academics. Replacing it today is “progressive dispensationalism.” But though the head has died, the body yet liveth. In the lives of untold millions of unthinking Christians. Therefore, it is important to rebut the system in order to make the case for postmillennialism. This is another installment in my critique of dispensational errors.

House and Ice (Dominion Theology, 29, cp. 166) are correct to point out that “Reconstructionists appropriate for the church (seen as the new Israel) the material blessings for obedience–and curses for disobedience–originally promised by God to defunct national Israel.” How they could possibly set this forth as a “Reconstructionist” distinctive is beyond us, however. The dispensational view is the one with the distinctive element!

Dispensationalist John Feinberg writes: “It is clear that holding a distinctive future for ethnic Israel is essential to Dispensationalism” (Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity, 81). Ryrie states that “this is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 45). Indeed, this has been a dispensational distinctive since dispensationalism first arose 185 years ago!

I will quickly survey the Scripture evidence for the Church’s being the continuation — or better, the fruition — of Israel.

Christians individually considered and the Church as a collective body are called by distinctively Jewish names: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom. 2:28-29). Hence, it may be dogmatically and, dare we say, eternally proclaimed: “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:11; 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17).

Christians are called “the circumcision”: “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3).

We are called “the children” and “the seed of Abraham”: “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham…. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:7, 29).

We are of the “Jerusalem which is above” and are called the “children of the promise” (Gal. 4:24-29). In fact, Christians compose “the Israel of God” for we are a “new creature” regarding which “circumcision availeth nothing” (Gal. 6:16).

James designates Christians as “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (Jms. 1:1). Peter calls the Christians to whom he writes, the “diaspora” (Gk., 1 Pet. 1:1). Paul constantly calls the Church the “Temple of God” which is being built in history as men are converted (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21).

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Show the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Peter follows after Paul’s thinking, when he designates Christians as “stones” being built into a “spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5-9). But he does more; he draws upon several Old Testament designations of Israel and applies them to the Church: “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation.” (1 Pet. 2:9-10; Exo. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6). He, with Paul, also calls Christians “a peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:10; Tit. 2:14), which is a common Old Testament designation for Israel (Deut. 14:2; 26:18; Psa. 135:4).

Clearly, the biblical record presents Christianity as the fruition of Israel, never to be undone.

THE STRENGTH OF PRETERISM IN REVELATION

PMW 2022-034 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am an exegetical preterist. By that I mean that I come to the text of Scripture and am led by the textual indicators in many biblical passages to adopt a preterist analysis of those passages. I am not a theological preterist. A theological preterist is one who comes to Scripture with the pre-commitment that all prophecy has been fulfilled and preterism controls all of biblical eschatology.

Many theological preterists (aka Hyper-preterists) began as partial preterists but in their excitement they took a bridge too far. This is like an enthusiastic Calvinist who becomes a Hyper-Calvinist. He refuses to do personal evangelism and invest in missions because God is absolutely sovereign and will see that all the elect are saved. The Hyper-Calvinist is certainly Calvinistic, but he has abused the Cavinistic system. Sadly, the Hyper-preterist has a heavy-duty HP hammer and every Bible verse he sees looks like a nail to be driven into his system. Thankfully more and more of those who shot beyond the bounds of historical preterism to become Hyper-preterists are beginning to make their way back to a full evangelical faith.

Unfortunately, like a squeaky wheel those who abuse a system tend to get much attention for the grating noise they make. And even more sadly, it is easy to write-off a system because of some proponents who have taken it too far.

But the orthodox preterist must answer serious objections to the preterist system. And in the book of Revelation there are many issues that can raise serious objections. One objection that I often hear is: Since Revelation is almost wholly fulfilled it is irrelevant to use today. There seems to be no point in our having it in the Bible.

The problem with this complaint is that we could do away with much of the Bible on that basis. For instance, Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church is very personal and deals with several local issues troubling that church 2000 years ago. Yet, what Christian would declare 1 and 2 Corinthians to be irrelevant to us today?

Properly considered, Revelation is somewhat like 1 Corinthians in that it deals with ancient issues, but in a way that establishes abiding principles for us today. I will have more to say on this in a later PostmillennialWorldview article. But for now, we need to press the point that: When Revelation was written, it was much needed in the era of the establishing of the new covenant church in the world.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

This book introduces the reader to the reasons for the preterist analysis of Revelation. Very helpful for those who are not acquainted with the strengths of preterism in Revelation.

This book is available at : http://www.KennethGentry.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Three of the leading strengths of preterism are due to its original relevance:

First, preterism’s relevance. Preterism retains and emphasizes the relevance of Revelation for John’s first-century audience (the seven churches in Asia Minor and apostolic Christianity more broadly, Rev. 2–3). The nascent faith was enduring a worsening period of persecution and oppression (1:9; 6:9–11; 14:13; 17:6) that would require Christians to strive to “overcome” (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

John writes to a particular people at a particular time, and those people are urged to carefully “hear” (1:3) what Revelation presents. As Isbon Beckwith (319) well notes: “Like ‘every scripture inspired of God’ the Apocalypse was certainly meant to be to those to whom it first came ‘profitable for teaching’ (2 Tim. 3:16), and so the writer must have counted on its being understood in its chief lessons.” This differs radically from futurism which must argue that “the full meaning of the Apocalypse shall only be understood ‘when all has come to pass’ (Abraham Kuyper, p. v). John Walvoord (8) admits that “as history unfolds and as prophecy is fulfilled in the future, much will be understood that could be only dimly comprehended by the first readers of the book.”

Second, preterism recognizes John’s time-frame. Preterism takes seriously Revelation’s time-frame indicators: “the things which must shortly take place” (1:1, 22:6) in that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). These temporal qualifiers appear in the introduction and the conclusion of Revelation, so that any unprejudiced original reader should expect that what he will hear and what he should understand is a prophecy about fast-approaching events. Not only so but these temporal delimiters appear well before and immediately after the perplexing symbolic visions. Consequently, they appear in the more didactic and less dramatic sections.

Third, deals with a fundamental redemptive-historical issue. Preterism dramatically presents major redemptive-historical matters: the demise of Judaism and the temple system (after 2000 years of Jewish focus and 1500 years of tabernacle/temple worship) and the universalizing of the Christian faith as it permanently breaks free of its maternal bonds to temple-based Israel. We must understand that “the patriarchal family was only a stage in the development of the people of God, so national and territorial Israel in the Old Testament period was a stage toward the development of an international and global people of God. This is not just a ‘Christian idea’ but intrinsic to the Old Testament itself” (N. T. Wright 1994: 2). Wright notes the OT evidence, citing especially Zech. 2:11a: “And many nations will join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become My people.” See also: Gen. 12:3; Psa. 22:27; 47:8ff; 72:17; 86:9; 87:1ff; 102:13–22; Isa 11:1–9, 10, 12; 19:19–25; 25:1ff; 42:6; 44:5; 45:22ff; 49:6; Jer. 16:19; Amos 9:12; Hag. 2:6ff; Zech. 8:20—23; Mal. 1:11.

During its earliest years Christianity gravitates to the temple (e.g., Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:20, 42; 21:26; 22:17; 24:11) and Jerusalem (e.g., Acts 1:4; 6:7; 8:1; 15:2; 19:21). Thus, this covenantal transition is a major, recurring theme in the NT. We see this especially in Hebrews which has this as its central, controlling point: John “depicts the replacement of the Old Covenant by Christianity in language reminiscent of the epistle to the Hebrews” (Martin Hopkins, 44). But we also witness numerous allusions to AD 70 in many texts in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 8:11–12; 21:43; 22:1–7; 23:35–38; 24:1–34) as well as elsewhere (Acts 2:16–21, 37–40; 7:48–53; 1Thess. 2:14–16).

Fourth, preterism establishes an example for all ages of the church. By enduring such catastrophes as appearing in Revelation, the first-century church serves as an example of Christ’s providential protection of his people — giving hope for not only that day but all ages. If Christ can deliver the church in its infancy during its weakest stage of development from two ubiquitous enemies, then the future looks bright with hope.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Book of Revelation and the Postmillennial Hope (DVD lectures)

These three 50-minute lectures explain how Revelation does not contradict the postmillennial hope, as many assume.

This DVD set is available at : http://www.KennethGentry.com

JESUS REPEALED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT!

PMW 2022-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I was just kidding. But now that you are here, I want to consider the question: Did Jesus repeal capital punishment when he was challenged regarding the woman caught in adultery?

A reader sent me a question: “Many Christians are for capital punishment, but it seems to me that Jesus would be opposed to it, for in John 8:1–11 he told the Jews in that day that they should not capitally punish the woman caught in adultery. He challenged them with the legitimacy of such by stating: ‘Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone.’ How can we as Christians overlook Christ’s challenge against capital punishment?”

Answer: This is an important issue that is very relevant in contemporary culture and criminal jurisprudence. The question arises in regard to Christ’s actions in John 8: Did he forbid capital punishment by laying down the principle: “Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone”? I don’t believe he does; his statement is misinterpreted when used to this end. Consider the following.

GOD’S LAW MADE EASY
by Ken Gentry
Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful condensation of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

First, we must always consider the historical circumstances in which a statement is made. Something is quite peculiar in this situation. Note that the woman was allegedly “caught in the very act of adultery” (John 8:4). But this present a problem: Where is the man? Those who present her to Jesus are notorious for false accusations in attempts to entrap Christ or accuse him of wrongdoing (Mark 14:55-57). This situation has the appearance of a false accusation designed to cause Christ trouble. And if it is a false charge the woman does not deserve capital punishment.

Second, when he demands “he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7) he is not dismantling the law’s principle of capital punishment. Rather he is calling for the careful keeping of God’s Law.

According to God’s law, witnesses in capital cases must not be guilty of the crime themselves: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits” (Deut. 19:15a). Christ’s “without sin” reference has to do with this judicial safeguard. It is not a condemnation of capital punishment but a demand that capital punishment law be carefully executed.

Furthermore, in the law the witnesses were to begin the act of execution: “The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). Hence Christ’s statement “let him throw a stone at her first.” The court witness, innocent of the crime, was to begin the process of capital punishment. Apparently this law was a safeguard to deter false accusations. False witnesses would be less apt to testify if his own hand had to begin the process, for his conscience would deter the shedding of innocent blood.

Third, quite significantly we should note that nowhere in the context does Jesus tell the woman’s accusers not to execute her. They themselves drop the charges and turn away (John 8:9-11). Apparently, these men either recognize the baselessness of their false accusation or are themselves guilty of adultery in that “adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39).

Fourth, if we took your suggested interpretation of Jesus’ action, the whole civil jurisprudence system would grind to a halt. For then Jesus would be saying, “No one who has committed any sin may judge another in court.” No crime could be punished on such a perfectionistic standard.

COVENANTAL THEONOMY
By Ken Gentry

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

HOW TO SAFELY WITNESS TO DISPENSATIONALISTS

PMW 2022-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Below is a humorous article on dealing with dispensationalists.

My Background Training

I graduated from a dispensationalist college. There, I have said it: I was a teenage dispensationalist. I am not proud of it, but I am honest about it.

When I was a student at the Christian college in Tennessee , the faculty continually emphasized that proper methods are essential for successfully witnessing to unbelievers. Because of their commitment to methodology, in the view of the administration and faculty the most important early church father was evangelist Charles G. Finney. (They noted that he was not real, real early, but that he was certainly earlier than any of the faculty — most of whom were fathers.) Finney’s important contribution to evangelism lies in the fact that he invented the “anxious bench” that was so vital for helping the sinner to convert himself.

Super church pastor Jacques Hills spoke frequently in our chapel services. He emphasized how very important it was for soul-winners to use mouthwash, so as not to turn off the unbeliever who opens the door when you come knocking. He pointed out that it would be a tragedy if on Judgment Day some poor sinner was denied entry into heaven because you ate cabbage-wrapped bockwurst the day he met you. Because there were so many eager students gathered on one campus, many debates broke out regarding the best brand of mouth wash to use. This was never fully resolved in that the school year lasted only nine months.

We also learned from John R. Oats the importance of using a piano rather than an organ in evangelistic services. He pointed out that the slow building crescendo of a note on an organ was not as effective as the staccato, piercing sound of the piano. He emphasized how urgency was better promoted by a piano than an organ.(Dr. Oats even pointed out exegetically that no verse in all of the Bible mentions the electric organ.)

For more Christian educational materials, visit my web store: KennethGentry.com

Tragically some students went out immediately and started smashing organs as “instruments of the devil.” One was even electrocuted because he used an iron crowbar that conducted electricity when it penetrated the electronic components within the organ. Needless to say, at his funeral we heard only the piano as we were all urged to come forward. Many of the students were born-again once again as they crowded the church aisles. And this was all because of this well-orchestrated funeral service. This student truly laid down his life for his friends.

My Personal Challenge

With these practical matters in mind, I have developed a helpful approach for witnessing to dispensationalists. I have seen too many erstwhile Reformed theologues stumble away from a fruitless encounter with a dispensationalist. They slink away with the profound realization regarding their dispensationalist friend: “the lights are on, but nobody’s home.”

My method helps soften up the resistance, so as not to turn off the dispensationalist as he scours the newspaper for material for next Sunday’s message. I hope that these ideas might prove helpful to you as you seek to minister to dispensationalists in the highways and byways. And in the Christian bookstores, and trinket shops. And at prophecy conferences and church camps. And on church basketball teams, and baseball teams, and bowling leagues, and badminton leagues. And so forth, and so on.

You can say one thing for dispensationalists: they certainly have been fruitful and multiplied. Perhaps the methods I suggest below might even be helpful for you to start an effective church slimming seminar. I know these have certainly worked for me.

My Recommended Method

When witnessing to dispensationalists, you will find the following recommendations quite effective.

(1) When approaching a dispensationalist, never — never! — walk up from behind. They are always looking up, absorbed in contemplation, eagerly awaiting the Rapture. Thus, any sudden movement from behind might scare them, turning them off as potential converts. Plus it may result in their mercilessly stabbing you with their gold-plated Bible marker.

(2) In fact, if you really want to be successful in your witness to dispensationalists, buy a convertible and let them actually see you drive up in it. They will realize how seriously you take the any-moment Rapture and how prepared you are for it. (Be aware though: They will immediately look to your bumper to make sure you have a bumper sticker that says: “In case of Rapture this car will be unmanned.” You must always have the proper bumper sticker prominently displayed. And don’t buy defective bumper stickers, such as the one that says: “In case of rupture this car will be un-manned.”)

(3) If you are earnest in your desire to effectively witness to dispensationalists, you should always have a Scofield Reference version of the King James Bible with you. As you approach them, be sure to have the Bible out in front of you with the cover clearly visible. When they see the gold lettering “Scofield Reference Bible,” they will at once find perfect peace.

(4) I highly recommend also that you carefully fray the pages of the Book of Revelation. The dispensationalists will see this and believe that you are diligent student of Revelation and one of them. This will cause them to be warmed and filled. They might even spontaneously erupt with their favorite greeting: “Maranatha!”

(5) Though some Reformed evangelists discourage this in our litigious society, I believe that it is always a good idea to accidentally bump dispensationalists when first approaching. This proves to them that you are literal, and not some spiritual interpretation. This will make them believe you are on the same wave-length. (Some may believe in the corpuscular theory of light, but statistics show that the average dispensationalist believes in the wave theory — after all, it is easier to think about. Always, always, always go with the law of averages.)

(6) Before you open your mouth to speak, let them see the colorful charts you have carefully placed in your shirt pocket. (Wearing pocketless tee-shirts is not recommended; when you go hunting, dress for the hunt. You wouldn’t want someone to miss the Rapture because you chose to wear some tee-shirt with a cheesy slogan on it, would you? I didn’t think so.) Once they see the colorful graphics they will surmise that you are either a dispensationalist or a Jehovah’s Witness, giving you a 50/50 chance to engage them in conversation.

(7) When you first begin speaking to the unwary dispensationalist, end each sentence with a confident sounding: “according to biblical prophecy.” They will hear this and be intrigued. I would recommend also that you do something that strikes people as Jewish. But be careful, don’t over do it. Many dispensationalists don’t trust people with biblical looking beards. (This is an odd inconsistency in their worldview that I don’t have space here to discuss. Besides, I am tired.)

(8) A good conversation starter would be something on the order of:

“Hey, did you hear the latest date predicting the Rapture? This is not some ‘off-the-wall’ stuff. I actually heard it from a televangelist!”

Or perhaps:

“Did you read in the news there was another earthquake? How many does that make this year? Don’t you enjoy living like a person who doesn’t expect to be around much longer? I know I do.”

A dispensationalist finds it impossible to turn away from such salient and intriguing information. In fact, they may pull out their own Scofield Reference Bible and take some notes based on your comments. You have primed the pump. I often drop into conversations that I lived in California for several years, consequently, I have personally felt earthquakes.

(9) You are now ready to engage them properly. But, darn. I forgot what I was going to say. I hate it when that happens. One time my mind wandered all the way to Venus and ordered a meal I couldn’t afford. Don’t you hate it when that happens?

DISPENSATIONAL DISTORTIONS
by Ken Gentry

Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

CREATION IN THE CONFESSION

PMW 2022-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I will highlight the structure of the Westminster Confession in demonstration of its confirmation of six day creation.

In my last study, I began a brief study of creation as is found in the Westminster Standards. This is an important matter for ministers in confessionally-based, Presbyterian churches. The Confession of Faith is historically definitional of Presbyterianism, and must be approached seriously. Presbyterian ministers must “sincerely receive and adopt” the Westminster Standards in their solemn ordination vows.

It is apparent that the order and structure of the Confession of Faith are such that foundational issues of major consequence are placed first. The Confession of Faith is not a haphazard collection of doctrinal maxims, neither is it a systematic theological approach to doctrine. Instead it has an essential overall harmony that proceeds along a clear line of development: it first lays down foundational matters, then builds upon those in a logical and coherent fashion. As Philip Schaff notes: “The Confession consists of thirty-three chapters, which cover, in natural order, all the leading articles of the Christian faith from the creation to the final judgment” (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1990], 1:766).

William Hetherington’s classic work on the Confession elaborates a little more fully:

“The first thing which must strike any thoughtful reader, after having carefully and studiously perused the Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith, is the remarkable comprehensiveness and accuracy of its character, viewed as a systematic exhibition of divine truth, or what is termed a system of theology. In this respect it may be regarded as almost perfect, both in its arrangement and in its completeness. Even a single glance over its table of contents will show with what exquisite skill its arrangement proceeds, from the statement of first principles to the regular development and final consummation of the whole scheme of revealed truth…. Thus viewed, the Confession of Faith might be so connected with one aspect of Church history as to furnish, if not a text-book according to chronological arrangement, in studying the rise and refutation of heresies, yet a valuable arrangement of their relative importance, doctrinally considered….

A few remarks may be made with regard to the plan according to which the Confession is constructed. A Confession of Faith is simply a declaration of belief in religious truths, not scientifically discovered by man, but divinely revealed to man. While, therefore, there may fairly be a question whether a course of Systematic Theology should begin with disquisitions relative to the being and character of God, as revealed, or with an inquiry what Natural Theology can teach, proceeding thence to the doctrines of Revelation, there can be no question that a Confession of Faith in revealed religion ought to begin with that revelation itself. This is the plan adopted by the Westminster Confession. It begins with a chapter on the Holy Scriptures; then follow four chapters on the nature, decrees, and works of God in creation and providence: and these five chapters form a distinct division, systematically viewed, of the Confession.” (William M. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines [Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival, 1887, rep. 1991], p. 350, 351, 357).

In other words, foundational to the “system of doctrine”  contained in the Confession and “sincerely received and adopted” by elders in the PCA (BCO 21-5, #2) are the first five chapters of the Confession. Note the foundational logic of the Confession:

Chapter 1 secures for us the infallible means whereby we know God, His will, and ways, i.e., through Scripture. May we deny God speaks infallibly and inerrantly in Scripture? May we deny any of the sixty-six books of Scripture? This chapter establishes for us our ultimate authority for framing our system of doctrine: the Word of God contained in the Old and New Testaments. All else fails in our doctrinal system if this chapter is not true.

AS IT IS WRITTEN: THE GENESIS ACCOUNT LITERAL OR LITERARY?
by Ken Gentry

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

See more studies at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Chapter 2 moves quite necessarily to the nature and being of the God whom we worship and serve. Which elements of our statement regarding the being of Almighty God may we remove? He is our very reason for existence. Indisputably chapter 2 must also be foundational to the whole system of doctrine contained in the Confession.

Chapter 3 flows quite logically into a consideration of the decrees of God, which explain, uphold, and direct the entire universe. The God we worship and serve is a sovereign Who planned all things by His eternal decree. This sets Christianity against all forms of unbelief and establishes our reason for serving the Lord God: He is absolutely sovereign. It explains also the rationality, significance, and value of the universe as rooted in the eternal plan of God.

Chapters 4 and 5 turn to consider the very creation of the entire universe and all of its elements and the actual outworking of the decree of God in providence. This is the arena in which man will live in the service of God: a God-created, God-governed universe. Nothing other than God Himself accounts for the existence and control of all reality. The stage is set for considering the following doctrinal formulations of our faith and practice in the world God created and governs.

A denial of the Confessional position on creation is a denial of a foundational principle of the Confession and our “system of doctrine.” The Presbyterian Church in America deems “the doctrine of creation” to be one of “the fundamentals of our standards” (M19GA 2:479, 481). Not only so, but his denial of six day creationism is also a capitulation to the most significant unbelieving opposition to Scripture and Christianity today, a secular, humanistic-based science that proceeds from a chance oriented universe by means of uniformitarian science (although some states that they do not hold to any form of evolutionary theory).

THE TALKING IDOL IN REV. 13:15

PMW 2022-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Rev 13:15 we come upon an idol with the power to speak. What is John prophesying here? And how can it fit into a preterist analysis of Revelation? In this article I will be considering the Land-beast’s image which deceives and speaks (Rev 13:12, 15). But before I begin this (too) brief study, we must remember our previous study.

Presuppositions

(1) I believe “the beast coming up out of the earth” (Rev 13:11) is the beast arising from “the Land,” of Israel. Specifically, it is the high-priestly aristocracy of Israel which has effectively become idolatrous in rejecting God’s Messiah and preferring idolatrous Caesar as their king (Jn 19:12, 15).

(2) The “image of the beast” is a derogatory reference to the Jerusalem temple, which has become an instrument of Rome rather than of God’s worship (cp. a similar thought in the OT, Isa 66:3). The Jews preferred their temple over their Messiah, and put him to death (partly) for speaking of the temple’s destruction (Mk 14:55–58). In an important sense, the Romans control the temple by appointing many of its high priests, and the high priests use the power and prestige of the temple to maintain their Rome-granted authority over Israel (note their fear in Jn 11:48).

Olivet Discourse Made Easy
by Ken Gentry
Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(3) In my last Revelation Research update I explained his making “fire come down out of heaven” (Rev 13:13) as a back-reference to the divine establishment of Israel’s altar. There God himself causes fire to fall from heaven to ignite the altar as it is initiated for formal worship in the tabernacle (Lev 9:24)., and then later in the newly built temple of Solomon (2Ch 7:1). John’s imagery, therefore, is showing the priesthood’s claim that the current temple worship continues to be from God, despite the rejection of the temple by Christ and his apostles.

The Speaking Image

Now in Rev 13:15 we read the following remarkable aspects of the vision of the Land-beast. Not only does the Land-beast (high priest) call down fire from heaven, but he causes the image of the beast (the Jewish temple) to speak:

“And it was given to him [the Land-beast] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.”

We must recall that the land beast “spoke as a dragon” (Rev 13:11), that is, deceptively. And since John is casting their beloved (but doomed, Mt 24:2//) temple and its services as an idolatrous image, the speaking of the image may refer to either: (1) The deceptively alluring temple liturgy as speaking delusory words of peace and acceptance to all who submit. Or (2) the satanically inspired orders (Jn 8:44; 13:2) from Jewish temple authorities against Christ and his followers. Perhaps this speaking alludes to both the delusive liturgy and the deadly decrees from the temple in that they issue from the same source and have the same end in view: the confirmation of the dominance of the religious authorities over Israel. Double entendre is a common enough feature in dramatic presentations, as it is in Rev itself (e.g., Rev 11:8; 17:9-10).

Though it appears the image miraculously speaks, we must remember that this is an act in an apocalyptic drama. In that John is writing a drama for Asia Minor Christians, we should understand that prosopopoiia (personification) was a common rhetorical device in antiquity (B. Rossing, The Choice Between Two Cities, 1999: ch 2). Rossing (22) cites Quintillian in arguing that “by means of personification ‘cities also and peoples may find a voice,’ as in the example, ‘Your country, Catiline, pleads with you, and though she utters never a word, cries to you.’” This even happens in Rev itself, for in 16:7 we read: “I heard the altar saying, ‘Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments.’”

Predestination Made Easy

by Ken Gentry
A thoroughly biblical, extremely practical, and impressively clear presentation of
the doctrine of absolute predestination
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Elsewhere even in Scripture itself, inanimate objects are said to speak by way of testimony, as when Abel’s blood cries from the ground (Ge 4:10), when Job’s land cries out (Job 31:38), or the stone in the wall of a house cries out against the haughty (Hab 2:11). For instance, mountains shout (Ps 89:12; Isa 44:23), sing (Ps 98:8), and skip (Ps 114:4, 6). Valleys shout (Ps 65:13), trees sing (Ps 96:12) and the heavens declare (Ps 50:6; 97:6). Or, more significantly, John may be reflecting on Joshua’s altar stone which “shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the Lord which He spoke to us” (Josh 24:27).

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY?

PMW 2022-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article is a study on the new covenant application of Deuteronomy 13 showing that it does not establish capital punishment for unbelief — despite popular misconceptions.

How does the theonomic ethic understand the capital sanctions regarding apostasy, as recorded in Deuteronomy 13 and 17:2-7? Do we call for civil governmental enforcement of all excommunication decrees by capital punishment? These are important questions. Let us set forth some critical observations regarding the application of these laws “when properly interpreted.”

First, it should be noted at the outset that the framing of the law in Deuteronomy 13 has in view solicitation and seduction to idolatry (Deut. 13:2, 6, 13). It does not have in mind personal unbelief or even personal rejection of faith in Jehovah God. Those who mistakenly assume that this law would inevitably draw the State sword into church discipline for unbelief are mistaken. In point of fact, unbelief in Israel was not punishable by death. For one to refuse to be circumcised (an expression of unbelief, cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 9:25-26; Eze. 44:7) meant that he was “cut off” from the religious community (Gen. 17:14). He was excluded from the worship in Israel (Exo. 12:48; Eze. 44:7, 9); he was not capitally punished.

Second, in Deuteronomy 13, we have what in essence is the framing of a law against treason. This is evident on the basis of the following three-staged consideration: (1) By the very nature of the case, the god of a society is that society’s source of law. It has been thus in the fallen world since the temptation of Eve to be as “God” by “knowing” (determining, legislating) good and evil (Gen. 3:5). Hence, the pagan tendency for political rulers to be deified, as illustrated in the Babylonian king (Isa. 14:4, 13-14) and the Roman emperor (Matt. 22:15-22; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:4ff). Hegel clothed this pagan conception in modern dress: “The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth.” To seek another god, therefore, is to turn from the Law of the present God, Jehovah, which Law was the constitutional basis of the nation of Israel.

(2) The context preceding Deuteronomy 13 speaks of the gods of the nations around Israel. It speaks of nations serving their gods: “When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, `How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise’” (Deut. 12:29-30). This leads me to note that:

(3) The Deuteronomic law is developed in such a way as to indicate the ultimate outcome of such apostasy. It is wholesale, treasonous rebellion against the lawful authority and integrity of the nation: “If you hear someone in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell in, saying, `Certain corrupt men have gone out from among you and enticed the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” gods whom you have not known’ “ (Deut. 13:12-13). As Craigie puts it: “In its implications, the crime would be equivalent to treason or espionage in time of war.” Thus, in a certain respect such a law was a right to “self-defense” for the nation, as was the right to wage defensive warfare.

Third, any perception of idolatry as a quietistic unbelief is wholly mistaken. The very nature of idolatry involved the ancient worshiper in a number of capital crimes. Thus, the punishment for idolatry is a punishment for those particular crimes. As Mayes notes, Deuteronomy 12:29-32 is the “general introduction” to chapter 13. This “general introduction” clearly speaks of certain “abominable acts” of idol worshipers:

When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, `How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deut. 12:30-31)

Idolatry involved wide-scale criminal conduct and was a dangerous cancer. The Canaanites were not thrust out of the land for unbelief, but for wholesale moral and criminal perversion. That idolatry was a real danger is evident in the days of Israel’s apostasy, when abominable acts were committed (2 Kgs. 16:3; 21:6; 23:10). All nations served idols in those days (2 Kgs. 17:29). Israel fell right in with them and with their grossly immoral crimes (2 Kgs. 17:7ff, 17-19), thus corrupting and subverting the moral fiber of their culture by legalizing child sacrifice, bestiality, homosexual conduct, cult prostitution, and the like.

Thus, as we have seen, the apostasy laws of God’s Laws are not laws against mere unbelief or against misguided worship. Those laws were designed to protect the legal integrity of the nation (criminalizing such actions as treason, conspiracy, seditious revolt, and espionage) and to bring judgment against wicked idolatry (criminalizing such actions as cultural subversion and public mayhem).

POLITICAL ISSUES MADE EASY
by Kenneth Gentry

Biblical principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

REVELATION’S 42 MONTH TREADING

PMW 2022-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Revelation must be understood preteristically. That is, we must recognize that John was primarily writing about the Jewish War which led to the September AD 70 destruction of the Jewish temple and the conclusion of biblical (Torah-based) Judaism.

In Rev 11:1–2 we read a much debated passage: “There was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, ‘Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.’”

The time-frame of forty-two months has been a large focus of this interpretive debate. Most commentators see this period as either speaking of a brief time of tribulation toward the end of history (G. E. Ladd; G. Beasley-Murray; R. Mounce; B. Witherington; G. R. Osborne), or as symbolic for the whole of Christianity’s historical experience until the end (J. P. M. Sweet; L. Morris; S. Kistemaker; C. Keener; J. L. Resseguie; V. Poythress). Most preterists recognize this period as referring to the period of the first-century Jewish War with Rome (M. Stuart; J. S. Russell; A. Clarke; D. Clark; J. M. Ford; J. M. Court; J. E. Adams; D. E. Aune; M. Barker; M. Wilson)—though, surprisingly, not M. S. Terry or D. Chilton.

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We must recognize that the Revealer (1:1; cp. 11:1, 3) of the symbolic time-frame is also the Governor of temporal history (4:11; 5:13; 10:6). And he promises that his word “will not return to Me empty, / without accomplishing what I desire” (Isa 55:11). Consequently, a direct correspondence may well exist between revelational declaration and historical execution, between symbolical image and temporal incident. In fact, in the Old Testament, forty-two months represent the literal period of God’s chastening Israel for worshiping Baal (1Ki 16:29–18:46) and Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem under Zedekiah’s reign (Jer 52:4–5). We find this same time period in Antiochus Epiphanes’ oppression of the Jews (Da 7:25; 12:7). Josephus (J.W., Pref., 1:1:32–33; cp. 5:5 §397) notes that Antiochus “took their city (Jerusalem) by force . . . and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice for three years and six months.”

Providentially then, this forty-two month period actually does conform very closely to the length of the Jewish War that ended with the destruction of “the holy city” and the temple. And this is not merely a “curious coincidence” (P. Carrington). The Jewish War unfolded as follows.

In AD 66, after a dreadful period of procuratorial incompetence, Israel revolted against her oppressive Roman governor Gessius Florus. By late October / early November, C. Cestius Gallus (the Roman legate of the Syrian province which included Judaea) led a Roman military force to Jerusalem in an attempt to put down the uprising. He assembled “an army of over thirty thousand men in Antioch—the whole of one of the Syrian legions, XII Fulminata, and vexillations from the others, ten auxiliary units, and large contingents supplied by Agrippa, who led his force in person, and two other client kings, Antiochus IV of Commagene and Sohaemus of Emesa” (M. Smallwood). But after surrounding Jerusalem, he unexpectedly withdrew for reasons that are unclear (J.W. 2:18:9–19:9 §499–555; Tacitus, Hist. 5:10). His withdrawal was disastrous, encouraging the Jews in their revolt by giving them hope of success against Rome (J.W. 6:6:2 §341). This transformed the regional revolt against the procurator Gessius Florus into a full-scale war against the emperor Nero Caesar.

Thus, “such was the situation when Nero, in February 67, appointed Titus Flavius Vespasianus with the rank of legatus to carry on the war” (Cambridge Ancient History). M. Bunson states that Vespasian “was given command of the legions in Palestine in February 67, the rank of governor of Judaea, and the task of suppressing the revolt of the Jews.” John would likely count the beginning of the war from the time that the white horseman actually “went out [ex lthon]” to conquer (6:2), that is, when Vespasian initially entered Israel to engage military operations. Shortly thereafter, “the war began in earnest only in March or April of 67, when Vespasian and his son Titus gathered their legions in Ptolemais. By July of the same year, Jotapata had fallen and Josephus was in chains. Jerusalem would not fall until September of 70.”

Nourishment from the Word
(by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues, God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

T. Parry writes that Vespasian made war from “roughly April 67 at Ptolemais [J.W. 3.29] until the fall of Jerusalem in September 70 (J.W. 6.407; 435), a period of three and a half years.” N. Faulkner observes that “the Jewish Revolution against Rome ended, to all intents and purposes, when, on 7 September, the morale of the militiamen, who had struggled so hard for so long, suddenly collapsed.” Though Masada remained unconquered until 73, the conquerors officially treated the war as over, and Vespasian and Titus returned to Rome and celebrated a magnificent Triumph. This was because “from the practical standpoint, after the fall of Jerusalem all else were mopping-up operations” (R. H. Worth).

Considering the above scenario, M. Stuart correctly observes that “the active invasion of Judea continued almost exactly this length of time, being at the most only a few days more; so few that they need not and would not enter into a symbolical computation of time.” M. Barker (186) agrees that this figure represents “the duration of the final struggle with Rome [for] Vespasian entered Galilee with his armies in the Spring of 67 CE (War 3:29-34) and Jerusalem fell forty-two months later, in September 70 CE.”

Thus, we see that from Spring of AD 67 to August/September of AD 70, the time of formal imperial engagement against Jerusalem, is a period right at forty-two months. J. Court (87) speaks of “the period of the Flavian war, from the spring of AD 67 to 29 August 70, during which time Jerusalem was ‘profaned.’” Even in Rabbinic tradition we read: “for three and a half years Vespasian surrounded Jerusalem” (Lam. R. 1:31). Of course, all of this fits perfectly within Revelation’s temporal limits (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).

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

NEW CREATION; OLD LAW

PMW 2022-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I often receive queries from folks who are thinking through the issue relative to the postmillennial hope. Though not all postmillennialists are theonomic, I am. I believe our hope leads to the expectation that God’s Law will prevail in the world.

Here is a series of emails I received from a reader.

Question 1:
I have a question for you that has bothered me off and on. As a partial preterist, I defend the interpretation of “New heavens and Earth” as the figurative establishment of the New Covenant and the passing away of the old heavens and earth as the passing of the Old Covenant. But as a reluctant theonomist, this puts pressure on my understanding of Matt 5:17 (Jesus saying that the Law will not pass away until the heavens and earth pass away). Because that would seem to indicate then that the binding authority of the Mosaic Law DOES pass away with the Old Covenant if we maintain a consistent interpretation of the “heavens and earth” metaphor as covenants. See what I mean? How do you understand this conundrum?

Answer 1:

The theology of the new heavens / earth parallels that of the resurrection. There is a spiritual dimension that begins in the first century. Then there is the consummate, permanent condition that comes at the end of history. We are spiritually resurrected beginning in the first century; we will be physically resurrected at the end (see John 5:25-29. Likewise there is the spiritual new creation that begins in the first century but that ultimately finds its consummate perfection at the end. Likewise the kingdom came in the first century, and will find consummate perfection at the end.

This theology is the “now / not yet” theology of historic Reformed orthodoxy. In fact, the very notion of a spiritual resurrection, new creation, kingdom virtually demands a consummate, perfected, permanent resurrection, new creation, kingdom.

God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We see this now / not yet dimension at work in the victory of Christ. Christ has subdued all things: “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.” Ephes. 1:22

But in another sense (eschatological, permanent future), this awaits the final subduing of all things as per Heb 2:8: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” Hebrews 2:8.

Question 2:
But as I think about this some more, if the old heavens and earth is the old covenant passed away, and Jesus is linking the binding authority of the Mosaic Law to that passing, then does this not discredit the theonomic thesis that the Mosaic Law is still binding except for NT changes?

Answer 2:

This approach is not possible. Jesus is not speaking of the passing away of the Old Covenant in this context. Rather he is speaking of the coming of the consummate New Heavens and New Earth in its final condition:

(1) It is unreasonable to think he is teaching: “Do not even begin to think that I have come to destroy the Law or prophets, for I will not do so for three years.”

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

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) It cannot be that he connects the passing of the Law with the closing of the old covenant because he expressly mentions that those in the Kingdom of Heaven must teach and keep it (Matt 5:19), and it his ministry that brings in, initiates, starts, establishes the Kingdom of Heaven as a new spiritual (new covenantal) reality that we now dwell in. Note that:

He associates the Law promotion and Law keeping with the Kingdom of Heaven:
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19

And note that he is bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven:
“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 3:2

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17.

(3) In Jesus’ explanation of his teaching after declaring Matt 5:17-19, he goes into great detail showing the intensification and deepening of the Law in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 5:20ff). None of what he teaches there (which requires the Law as an abiding reality) sounds as if it were only temporary for the next three years. It sounds like a permanent call and condition.

(4) In Matt 5:18 the phrase “passing away of H/E” does not stand alone. It parallels the “accomplishing of all things” (i.e., the end of God-ordained history wherein the plan of God is completed. See Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

(5) Remember that the theonomic argument does not depend on this one passage. See my Covenantal Theonomy, including its citations from Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Other passages demand that the Law of God prevails in the New Covenant era: Rom 3:19, 31; 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8-11. Including the indwelling of the Spirit in the New Covenant age, which indwelling causes us to keep the Law: Rom 8:3-4.
(6) It leads to absurdity: Will Christ dis-establish the Law of God, including its core, the Ten Commandments? Yet the Ten Commandments (and other specific legislation) is repeatedly promoted in the Epistles. All agree that the Ten Commandments is the core of the Law. If the Law is dis-established, surely its core, central identifying element will pass away, too.

(7) Even the New Covenant itself (Jer 31:31-34) portrays the New Covenant condition as involving the Law of God. The difference in the Old Covenant and New Covenant (in Jer 31 and elsewhere) involves its putting the Law in the heart, at the controlling core of our being, so that it is not merely imprinted on stones.