Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 51

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 4

[image error]PMW 2020-101 by Kenneth L Gentry, Jr.

This is my fourth and final installment regarding my confusion about Don Preston’s confusion about the disciples’ confusion in Matthew 24:3. To add to the confusion: I am interacting with his book, Were the Disciples Confused? Now you are probably confused!

While reading this article, you should keep in mind Matthew’s opening three verses that introduce the Olivet Discourse and which are at the center of my disagreement with Preston’s argument:

1. In Matthew 24:1, as Jesus is dramatically leaving the temple, his disciples “came up to point out the temple buildings to him.” The aorist infinitive action verb epideixai (“to show, point out,” an emphatic form of deiknumi) demonstrates purpose. That is, it informs us of the reason the disciples “came up” [prosēlthōn] to him: to “point out” the temple buildings. This results from his dramatic departure from the temple which Matthew emphasizes in three ways. He states: Kai exelthon ho Iēsous apo tou hierou eporeueto. Thus, he says: (1) “Jesus came out [exelthōn],” (2) “away [apo signifies separation] from the temple,” and (3) “was going away [eporeueto].” Through prophetic theater he is dramatically re-enacting God’s abandoning of the temple in the Old Testament (Eze. 11:23).

2. In Matthew 24:2, Jesus responds to the disciples’ pointing out the temple buildings to him by prophesying their destruction: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” Jesus was well aware of the temple and its majesty (cp. Mark 13:1) and he had just come away from it. The disciples are surprised and confused about his negative words (Matt. 23:38) and actions (Matt. 24:1) against the temple. As Hagner (Matthew, 687) puts it: “the disciples must have been astounded at the response of Jesus” in rejecting the temple. Or as Davies and Allison (Matthew, 3:334) surmise: “they find it incredible.”

3. In Matthew 24:3, the disciples respond in confusion to the prophecy of the temple’s absolute destruction by asking two questions: “Tell us, [1] when will these things happen, and [2] what will be the sign of Your coming [parousia], and of the end of the age?” These questions are what my whole four-part series is about.

In this series, I am defending the widespread scholarly evangelical consensus that the disciples’ questions about Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction show their surprised confusion. For they immediately (and wrongly) associate the demise of the temple with his second coming in judgment at the end of history. That is, at his parousia (“coming”) and “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3b). This, of course, goes against the Hyper-preterist doctrines that Jesus is not physically coming again, that there will be no physical resurrection of the dead at the end of history, and that history goes on forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and then forever ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever, so that God must always endure a fallen and rebellious universe, never finally ridding it of sin.

We should note that the disciples are extremely focused on the issue. For the text says they twice approached Jesus about his denigration of the temple! (1) In Matthew 24:1 we read that “His disciples came up to point out the temple building to Him” after he declared it “desolate” (23:38) and then dramatically departed from it (24:1a). Then (2) after he prophesies its destruction (24:2), the disciples approach him once again to ask their questions: “the disciples came to Him privately, saying” (v. 3).

In my previous article, I presented evidence of Preston’s mistaken argument. He claims the disciples are not confused at Jesus’ prophecy when they link the temple’s destruction with his parousia and “the end of the age.” In this current article I will present additional evidence of his book’s confusion in this regard. This problem undermines Preston’s entire argument in that his book is asking the question: Were the Disciples Confused? and answering that question, “No.” In other words, his confused arguments destroy the whole purpose of his book! So I will continue a little longer in my analysis by noting that this issue is for Preston:

A recurring problem

I encourage my reader to recall all of Preston’s mistakes which I pointed out in my previous article. Now in this current article I will demonstrate that those are not merely evidence of a momentary stumble by Preston. He has not simply slipped a time or two as he is briefly blinded by his rage at the arrogance (p. i, 92), and “lamentable ignorance” (p. 93) of “most commentators” (pp. 34, 35) who are “desperate” (pp. 80, 83) to “forcibly impose” their views on Scripture (p. 103).

No! Rather, he continues flailing about by repeatedly and erroneously broadening the scope of the disciples’ questions to Jesus. That is, he broadens the scope of the disciples’ very specific concern by extending it beyond the temple (which is their very point, Matt. 24:1–3) to include the dismal end of the Jewish leadership and the city of Jerusalem. Of course, AD 70 does greatly impact both of these elements of Jewish society and culture. But these issues are not the concern of the disciples’ two questions.

Note the following quotes from Preston, where we see him shifting back-and-forth between a proper presentation of their questions (which focus on the temple) and his broadened presentation (which brings in the Jewish leaders and their capital city). And we must understand that Preston’s error is a sleight-of-hand that is necessary for him — if his “evidence” for his argument against the disciples’ confusion is to work.

Very early on, Preston rightly states regarding the disciples’ questions: “Matthew 24:3 stands in the cross hairs of the eschatological controversy. Jesus had just predicted the demise of the awesome Herodian Temple” (p. i ¶1). This is certainly true! And Jesus’ disciples’ response to this prophecy reads: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

[image error] As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But Preston rejects the view that: “the apostles simply could not imagine that marvelous edifice being destroyed” (p. i ¶2). He argues this even though in his We Shall Meet Him in The Air (p. 2) he himself states about the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ prophecy: “Jesus’ response shocked the disciples.” He argues that the disciples would not have been confused about the temple’s coming destruction. Then in the next paragraph he starts inaccurately broadening the point of their questions. He writes: “Were the apostles confused. Did they wrongly connect Christ’s coming, the end of the age and the destruction of Jerusalem?” (p. i ¶3; emph. KLG). But Jerusalem’s destruction is not the issue; the temple’s destruction is. At this point Preston is as confused as Jesus’ disciples were.

A little later Preston once again recognizes the issue is the destruction of the temple: “We are concerned here about Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple” (p. 3 ¶2). And: “Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple” (p. 3 ¶ 3). But immediately after rightly noting that “Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple” (p. 6 ¶2), in the very next paragraph he wrongly asks: “upon what basis would the disciples have EVER linked the fall of Jerusalem and the temple with the end of the Christian Age?” (p. 6 ¶3).

And remarkably, several times later he correctly limits the disciples’ questions regarding the prophecy of the temple’s destruction (e.g., p. 8¶1, 30 ¶6, 35 ¶2). But then he stumbles again elsewhere: “were the disciples wrong to connect the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age” (p. 9 ¶4)? And he speaks of “the question of whether the disciples were confused to link the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the age” (p. 12 ¶3).

The issue before us is the disciples’ questions that they ask regarding the destruction of the temple. Not the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is more of this error in his book, for Preston even presents:

An enumerated error

On pp. 90–91 Preston presents a summary wherein he carefully numbers his evidence attempting to prove that the disciples were not confused about the coming destruction of the temple:

“So, what does all this mean?

1.) It means that we have emphatic OT prophecies of the end of the age and coming of the Lord that posit fulfillment at the time of the destruction of the Old Covenant World….

2.) We have Jesus citing one of the central OT prophecies of the end of the age resurrection which unambiguously places the consummation at the time of Israel’s national destruction (i.e., Daniel 12).

3.) Not only does Jesus cite that OT prophecy, but in three pericopes and parables prior to Matthew 24 Jesus predicted the impending destruction of Jerusalem at the coming of the Lord.

4.) When Jesus told the parable of the end of the age, and cited Daniel 12, he then asked his disciples if they understood what he had taught them, and they affirmed that they did understand.”

(He has two more observations [numbers 5 and 6] in this list, which are irrelevant to my purpose here.)

But again notice: not one of his numbered issues mentions the destruction of the temple. And that is the issue confusing the disciples. According to the “consensus among commentators” (p. 33), their questions to Jesus in Matthew 24:3 assume the temple will last until the end of time (i.e., until the parousia which brings about “the end of the age”). [2]

So now I will consider a few additional problems with Preston’s argument, by exposing:

Three unfounded surmises

Regarding three key surmises stated elsewhere by Preston, I would note that his line of reasoning runs into several dozen problems. Due to space and time limitations, however, I will cite just three issues that he raises, then present a few of the problems I have with his arguments.

Issue #1: The disciples’ knowledge of OT prophecies of God’s judgment.

Preston holds that the disciples would have had “knowledge of the Old Testament prophets which foretold the destruction of Jerusalem at the coming of the Lord” (p. 91). Thus, they should not have been confused at Jesus’ prophecy. (I will overlook his missing the point one more time when he refers to Jerusalem and not the temple.)

Issue #2: The disciples’ knowledge of rabbinic predictions of the temple’s destruction.

On the next page Preston writes: “We can safely assume that the apostles were well aware of the rabbinic predictions of the coming destruction” (p. 92).

Issue #3: The disciples’ prophetic training in the synagogues and temple.

Preston asks: “if the ancient rabbis believed — and taught — that the OT, and very specifically Daniel 9, foretold the AD 70 destruction, are we to suppose that the apostles were blithely ignorant of that? Had they never heard that in the synagogues or the temple?” (p. 163).

My several responses

First, regarding Issue 1 and the disciples’ knowledge of the prophets:

This is a weak argument. Did not the disciples miss the prophets’ teaching on the death and resurrection of Christ? We read in the New Testament that his death, burial, and resurrection were “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), which “written of Him” (Matt. 26:64), and were spoken of him by “the prophets” (Luke 24:25–27). What happened to their “knowledge of the Old Testament prophets”?

Besides could not dispensationalists argue that they have much knowledge of the prophets? Knowledge of the prophets and holding a proper understanding of the prophets are two different issues.

Second, regarding Issue 1 and the disciples’ knowledge of the prophets:

The disciples even had stronger teaching regarding Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection than offered in the prophets. This is due to Jesus himself personally and directly teaching this several times during his three and a half year ministry to them (Matt. 16:21; 20:17–18; 28:6a; Mark 16:10–11). Yet his teaching on this point was lost on the disciples — for the disciples did not believe he would be resurrected from the dead (Mark 16:7–13; John 20:8–9)!

Third, regarding Issue 1 and the disciples’ knowledge of the prophets:

Preston himself informs us “that the OT prophets did not fully understand either the time or the nature of what they predicted” (p. 56). If the prophets did not fully understand what they themselves predicted, is it not possible that the disciples just might not have fully understood these things — especially prior to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost?

This is especially a strong possibility since we see the disciples misunderstanding Jesus himself so many different times (see examples in PMW 2019-002). Preston is certainly aware that the disciples were often confused, for he states “I have demonstrated that in virtually all other occasions, the only way that we know the disciples were mistaken is because the Gospel writers tell us so” (p. 80). His mention of “virtually all other occasions” shows that he is aware that there are a good number of them.

Fourth, regarding Issue 1 and the disciples’ knowledge of the prophets:

Preston is well aware that Jews back in the first century did not have their own personal copies of Scripture (handwritten copies were very expensive to produce and therefore very rare). The disciples simply did not carry around their personal “Prophecy Knowledge Study Scrolls” in which they could look up Bible prophecies for themselves. And they certainly would not have had biblical scrolls with penciled-in corrections by Hyper-preterists.

[image error]

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

Fifth, regarding Issue 2 and the disciples’ awareness of rabbinic teaching:

Why does he think that we may “safely assume” the disciples were aware of what some rabbis taught about the destruction of the temple? The rabbis certainly did not all teach the same thing or always in agreement with one another. In fact, much of the Mishnah and the Talmud records debates between the various rabbis regarding many issues. Were these fishermen rabbinic scholars? Were they up on all the debates of the many rabbis?

After all, we cannot even “safely assume” that the learned Jewish philosopher Philo, who wrote large, studied volumes on Scripture, was aware of this prophetic interpretation promoted by some of the rabbis. Apparently, on Preston’s analysis, this noted, first-century biblical scholar himself was “blithely ignorant” (p. 163) of this position among some rabbis, for he speaks of the eternal nature of the temple:

“The temple has for its revenues not only portions of land, but also other possessions of much greater extent and importance, which will never be destroyed or diminished; for as long as the race of mankind shall last, the revenues likewise of the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world” (Spec. Laws 1:76).

And does not the writer of book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles mention the pre-AD 70 Jewish belief that the temple was indestructible? There we read:

“When I saw the second Temple cast headlong, / soaked in fire by an impious hand, the ever-flourishing, watchful Temple of God / made by holy people and hoped / by their soul and body to be always imperishable” (Sib. Or. 5:399–402).

Thus, Jewish scholar Gedaliah Alon (The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, 49) points out that “there was a strong belief among the people that the Temple was eternal, as indestructible as the nation itself.”

Sixth, regarding Issue 3 and the disciples’ instruction in the synagogues and the temple:

Preston asks: may we believe that the disciples were “blithely ignorant” of what had been taught in the synagogues and the temple? Well, … yes! Again, we must recall that the disciples were “blithely ignorant” of what Jesus directly and specifically taught them about the most important part of his earthly mission, his death, burial, and resurrection (see Second comment above). Why would it be surprising if they were confused about the prophetic statements, which we know to be sometimes difficult (e.g., Acts 8:26–31; 1 Pet. 1:10–11; cp. Isa. 6:11; Dan. 7:15–16)? Daniel shows his difficulty in understanding Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the Babylonian captivity (cp. Dan. 9:1–3, 22–23; Jer. 25:11–14)

After all, did not all the first century Jewish religious leadership miss the appearing of the Messiah and even condemn him to death (Luke 23:13–21; 24:19–20; John 11:47–50)? And this despite his death, burial, and resurrection were “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), “written of Him” (Matt. 26:64) and spoken of him by “the prophets” (Luke 24:25–27). These temple and synagogue teachers were supposedly “experts” in God’s word and had access to copies of it (unlike the fishermen disciples), but badly misunderstood it. And they certainly wrongly taught it.

Do we not see constant debates between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the proper interpretation of various portions of Scripture (e.g., Matt. 12:2, 5; 19:3) leading Jesus to warn the disciples about these religious authorities (Matt. 16:6, 11)? Jesus even calls the Pharisees “blind guides” (Matt. 23:16, 17, 19, 24, 26) who “tie up heavy burdens” on men’s shoulders (v. 4), “shut off the kingdom of heaven from people” (v. 13), whose converts are “twice as much a son of hell” as they themselves are (v. 15). He also warns his disciples regarding “the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12). How much accurate instruction would the disciples have received in the temple and the synagogue from such men?

A difficulty I will deal with later

On pp. 199ff of We Shall Meet Him in The Air Preston makes an enormous gaffe that absolutely undermines his entire argument. He is attempting to argue that Matt. 24:36 does not preclude our knowing the nearness of Christ’s coming. Thus, he is arguing against orthodox Christianity’s view that this verse states that we cannot know when Christ’s Second Coming is near, because Jesus says that only the Father knows this. Preston thinks he is scoring big against this view when he writes on p. 199:

“An appeal to Matthew 24:36, to mitigate the apostolic statements of the nearness of Christ’s coming is an implicit denial of the inspiration of the apostles. It was the Father — who knew the day and hour — who sent the Spirit to the apostles, to show you things to come.’ Thus, all apostolic declarations of the nearness of the end were, in fact, statements from the Father!”

In his mind, this allows that we can know the nearness of Christ’s coming, the day and the hour, after the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost (around AD 30). And of course for Preston that “coming” is not the historic Christian view of the future, bodily Second Coming but is the Lord’s (metaphorical) judgment-coming against the temple in AD 70.

I will not show how three rather clear observations destroy his argument, causing him to shoot himself in the foot. He stumbles badly here, but I will demonstrate this in a future Olivet Discourse book, which I am currently working on. Stay tuned. But for now, I will just simply state that this is a self-destructive argument for Preston. I will leave my reader with a challenge: Think it through. Perhaps you will see his error, since once you notice it, it sticks out like a black fly on a white wedding cake. But for now, I must close. Prior obligations are calling.

Conclusion

So, Preston’s arguments simply do not hold water. His arguments about the disciples’ confusion are themselves confused. He certainly has a fertile imagination. But sometimes I worry about what he fertilizes it with.

Notes

1. As I noted in my opening article, I am not entirely sure of the title to Preston’s book. The front cover of the book is itself very confusing in this regard. The larger type font reads: “Watching for the Parousia.” Though just below it is a much smaller font stating: “Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?” But the spine has: “Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?” It is not until you get to the title page and back-of-title page that you find the apparent official title that he would have submitted for its ISBN: Were the Disciples Confused?

What is more, Preston’s larger (450-page) work, We Shall Meet Him in The Air, is laid out in quite a bizarre way. The first page you see when you open the book contains the material that is invariably put on the back of the book’s title page (publishing information, copyright, etc.). Then the next thing you read is the Table of Contents. Then after the Table of Contents comes the Foreword. And then comes the title page! I have never seen such a strange layout. Plus, I don’t know why the definite article “The” in the title is capitalized. Perhaps his untraditional layout is an acted parable about his untraditional theology.

2. I am aware of the views of the Hyper-preterist regarding the parousia and “the end of the age.” But I will deal with their errors on these issues in another context.

 

 

 

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 3

[image error]

PMW 2020-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I am continuing a brief, four-part analysis of Hyper-preterist Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? In my last two articles I noted some general frustrations with Preston’s attitude in presenting his material. In this one I will focus on a key problem with his argument. I will be (mostly) considering his book’s third chapter, titled “Jesus’ Earlier Predictions of The Destruction of Jerusalem.” And especially his interaction with my thoughts. (All parenthetical page references are to this book unless otherwise noted.)

In this chapter Preston is arguing against the view that the disciples were confused in their questions (Matt. 24:3) about Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction (v. 2). Yet I and many scholars [1] believe they were in fact confused when they asked: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (v. 3). We believe that in this question they erroneously associate the destruction of the temple historically with both the Second Coming and the “end of the age” (i.e., the second coming which brings about the end of history).

Why the confusion?

It would be remarkable if the disciples were not surprised and confused by this sudden, dramatic prophecy of the temple’s absolute, block-by-block destruction, as I (following “a consensus among the commentators,” p. 33) believe.

After all, does not the text itself suggest this? Consider the disciples’ immediate response to his temple-destruction prophecy. After uttering the prophecy, as he is departing the temple we read that “His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him” (Matt 24:1b). Why would they do this? He had just been in the temple (Matt. 24:1a)! And he was still near it (24:1a)! He was not blind. Furthermore, having been in it and as he is heading out of it and up the Mount Olives, he would have a panoramic view of it. Thus, he would know of its imposing magnificence, which they point out to him: “one of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!'” (Mark 13:1).

This was confusing to them . . . in light of Jesus’ long-held, often-declared reverence for the temple. Consider the following.

Throughout his life he had spoken reverently of the temple, calling it God’s house. We see this as early as age twelve. When his parents thought he was lost (Luke 2:44-45) but then eventually found him in the temple (Luke 2:46), they asked him: “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” He responded to them: “Did you not know I had to be in My Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). The expression “had to” is a translation of the Greek dei, which is a common expression speaking of divine necessity. Thus, at this early age he was compelled by divine necessity to go to “My Father’s house.” Why then would Jesus now declare that God was going to destroy his own house? The house to which he was divinely compelled to go as a twelve year old?

And when he finally engages his public ministry, he continues to speak lovingly and reverently about the temple. He continues to call it the “house of God” (Matt. 12:4) and even affectionately “My Father’s house” (John 2:16). Why then would Jesus eventually declare God was going to destroy his own house?

In fact, Jesus calls the temple God’s “house” at the beginning of his ministry (cf. John 2:11) as well as at its closing (Matt. 21:12–13). Why then would Jesus now declare God was going to destroy his own house?

Indeed, early in his ministry the disciples themselves remember the Scripture that called the temple “Your [i.e., God’s] house” and even noted regarding Jesus that the “zeal for Your house will consume me” (John 2:17). Why then would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house despite Jesus’ “zeal” for it?

Besides, just two days earlier the disciples had seen Jesus vigorously defending the integrity of the temple by driving the moneychangers out of it (Matt. 21:12). And did they not remember he did this while quoting the prophet Isaiah, wherein God himself called it “My house” and said that it should be a “house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13)? Why would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house? Which he had designated as a place for prayer? And which Jesus himself was defending?

What is more, just a few moments before the disciples’ questions (Matt. 24:3) about his prophecy (v. 2), Jesus speaks of God as dwelling in the temple: “whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it” (Matt. 23:21). This “dwelling” is a present participle, which speaks of a current dwelling. The word translated “dwelling” is katoikeō, which is a more emphatic way to speak of dwelling somewhere (as contrasted with oikeō). Katoikeō means “to live or dwell in a place in an established or settled manner” (Louw & Nida, Geek English Lexicon of the New Testament; 1:731). So then, why would Jesus suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house where he dwells?

Furthermore, as devout Jews, the disciples obviously deem the temple to be a beautiful testament to God’s glory and a worthy place of worship. After all, Jesus had just stated that the beautiful gold of the temple is “sanctified” by being associated with it (Matt. 23:17). Why, then, would he suddenly declare God was going to destroy his own house that sanctifies the various elements associated with it?

Unfortunately, though Preston thinks he is riding to the defense of the disciples, he mistakenly rides off at full gallop in the wrong direction. For he talks about the wrong issue, while thinking he is destroying my argument. Let me explain.

Preston believes that the disciples could not have been confused by Jesus’ prophecy regarding the temple’s destruction. Why? He points out several places in Matthew’s Gospel prior to Matthew 24 where Jesus had spoken of the coming judgment on Israel. That being so, Preston thinks this should have alerted the disciples to the fact of the temple’s coming destruction. But his “evidence” misses the point. Every single time. Entirely. World without end. Amen.

Let’s consider some proof-texts that Preston brings out in this regard.

Matthew 10:22–23

Notice his argument on p. 36. As evidence that the disciples had heard this before, Preston cites Matthew 10:22–23. He notes that “Matthew 10 shows us, unequivocally, … that [Christ is] coming for the vindication of the suffering of his apostles and in judgment of their persecutors.” This is true, of course. But it is irrelevant to the issue before us! For the issue before us is: Were the disciples confused about Jesus’ judgment prophecy. . . about the destruction of the temple? Please ponder Preston’s peculiar problem (hey, I like this alliteration!):

Nowhere in Matthew 10 does Jesus speak of . . . the temple’s destruction. And the prophecy of the temple’s coming destruction (Matt. 24:2) is what causes the disciples’ confused questions (24:3). This is significant in that I and (as Preston admits) “a consensus among the commentators” (p. 33) believe the disciples were shocked and confused about . . . the temple’s destruction. They were not shocked that the Jewish leadership would be judged or that the nation would be punished. Rather they believed that the beautiful temple (Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1) was a worthy place to worship God. After all, Jesus twice “cleansed” the temple to make it suitable for God’s continuing worship (John 2:13–17; 21:15).

Thus, they apparently assumed that it would survive God’s judgment of Israel and her leadership. The renowned, first-century Jewish philosopher Philo (d. AD 50) certainly believed it would stand until the end of time, for he wrote:

The temple has for its revenues not only portions of land, but also other possessions of much greater extent and importance, which will never be destroyed or diminished; for as long as the race of mankind shall last, the revenues likewise of the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world. (Spec. Laws 1:14 [76])

And the writer of book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles also speaks of the Jewish belief that the temple of Jesus’ day was indestructible:

I saw the second Temple cast headlong, / soaked in fire by an impious hand, / the ever-flourishing, watchful Temple of God / made by holy people and hoped / by their soul and body to be always imperishable. (Sib. Or. 5:399–402)

The first temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians, to be sure. But Herod’s temple was constructed with more massive stones. Some of these weighed well over 100 tons, the largest ones measuring 44.6 feet by 11 feet by 16.5 feet and weighed approximately 567 to 628 tons. And its walls stood twenty stories high. Besides, Philo and the author of the Sibylline Oracles both knew about the Babylonian destruction and yet still believed the current temple would last forever. This hope was rooted in post-Babylonian destruction biblical prophecies. These seemed to promise the rebuilding of the destroyed Solomonic temple and expected it to be a final, permanent place of worship (e.g., Eze. 37:26–28; 43:5–7).

[image error]

Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Matthew 16:27–28

On p. 37 Preston cites Matthew 16:27–28 as evidence that the disciples would have known of the temple’s coming destruction prior to Jesus’ Matthew 24:2 prophecy:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

But notice once again: there is no mention of the temple, but rather the repaying of “every man according to his deeds” (v. 27). Could not the Jews and their leadership be judged while God’s temple (his own house) is spared — by his sovereign action and under his providential care?

In fact, in 63 BC did not the Roman general Pompey lay siege against and conquer Jerusalem, thereby wresting power from the century-old Jewish Hasmonean kingdom? And he did this even while leaving the temple physically unharmed (Josephus, Wars 1:7:1–7)? Could the disciples not believe that Jesus’ reconstituted people of God (cf. Matt. 6:10; 8:11–12; 12:32; 19:28; Luke 22:30) might well use this temple for God’s worship? Especially since the OT has prophecies about the temple being everlasting (e.g., Eze. 37:26, 28; 43:5–7)?

[image error]

Matthew 24 Debate: Past or Future?

(DVD by Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice)

Two hour public debate between Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice on the Olivet Discourse.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Matthew 21:33ff

On p. 38 Preston deals with Matthew 21:33ff. According to him (and rightly so), this is speaking “of the coming judgment of the Jerusalem leaders for persecuting the saints.” But again: there is no mention of the beautiful temple where God is worshiped. And this is the very point at issue before us! Could not the Jews and their leadership be judged and their temple spared? Could the disciples not believe that the reconstituted people of God (cf. Matt. 6:10; 8:11–12; 12:32; 19:28; Luke 22:30) might well use this temple for God’s worship? Especially since the OT has prophecies about the continuing temple as everlasting (Eze. 37:26, 28; 43:5–7)?

Matthew 22:1ff

On pp. 39–40 Preston mentions the Parable of the Wedding. This does speak in parabolic form of the destruction of “their city” (v. 7), to be sure. In the parable, this destruction will be accomplished by a king who is the father of a son for whom the wedding feast was prepared. The father obviously represents God the Father. And the son represents Jesus. But again, nowhere in this parable is the destruction of the temple mentioned. Rather it only mentions the burning of “their city.” But since it is God destroying those ungrateful leaders and burning their city, he could easily spare the temple. For it was a beautiful place worthy of his worship (in the disciples’ view, Matt. 24:1; 13:1).

Luke 13:25–30

Then on pp. 42–44 Preston mentions Luke 13:25–30. And we have the same problem: the temple is not mentioned. Read it yourself. Preston is not dealing with the issue at hand. He hits a target, but the wrong one. And that does not count.

A recurring problem

Preston continually broadens the disciples’ question regarding the destruction of the temple. He does this by extending it beyond the temple to either the people, their leadership, or the city of Jerusalem. But he does not seem to notice his error. Note the following quotes from Preston:

“Matthew 24:3 stands in the cross hairs of the eschatological controversy. Jesus had just predicted the demise of the awesome Herodian Temple” (p. i ¶1). Then he reiterates this: “the apostles simply could not imagine that marvelous edifice being destroyed” (p. i ¶2). But in the next paragraph he starts broadening the point: “Were the apostles confused. Did they wrongly connect Christ’s coming, the end of the age and the destruction of Jerusalem?” (p. i ¶3).

He properly recognizes the issue is the destruction of the temple elsewhere: “We are concerned here about Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple” (p. 3 ¶2). “Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple” (p. 3 ¶ 3). But after rightly noting that “Jesus foretold the destruction of the temple” (p. 6 ¶2), he then states: “upon what basis would the disciples have EVER linked the fall of Jerusalem and the temple with the end of the Christian Age?” (p. 6 ¶3).

And several times later the spark to the disciples’ question is rightly limited to the prophecy of the temple’s destruction (e.g., p. 8 ¶1, 30 ¶6, 35 ¶2).

But Preston stumbles again later: “were the disciples wrong to connect the fall of Jerusalem with the end of the age” (p. 9 ¶4)? And: “the question of whether the disciples were confused to link the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the age” (p. 12 ¶3). And: “when Jesus foretold the impending destruction of Jerusalem, the disciples were so shocked and confused that they wrongly conflated that coming destruction with the end of time” (pp. 26 ¶5–27 ¶1).

On and on I could go. But it’s almost lunch time. [2] And I am not one to miss lunch.

This is only one chapter of the book, but it betrays the failure of the rest of the book. Preston’s argument against the disciples’ confusion is confused. And his argument causes further confusion to any alert reader. In fact, I am now so confused that I would even ask my readers:

Turn your eyes away from me,

For they have confused me;

Your hair is like a flock of goats

That have descended from Gilead. (Song 6:5)

Now that is confusing! In my next article I will conclude my disappointments with Preston’s arguments.

Notes

1. As Preston confesses, he stands against “a consensus among the commentators” (p. 33), “most commentators” (p. 34), “most commentators” (p. 35), and a “widespread agreement among commentators” (p. 47).

2. If I am not mistaken, we are having tacos for lunch. But they will all be gone by the time you read this. Sorry. There is only one bad thing about eating Mexican food and that is: once you are finished, five or six days later you will be hungry again.

3. There is no third note. So you are wasting your time trying to find it! Even though Jesus says, “Seek and you shall find.”

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

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 2

[image error]PMW 2020-099 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I began a four-part response to Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? In this (and my first article) I am pointing out his attitudinal problem that turns off so many of his potential readers. You will need to read the preceding article (PMW 2020-098) before engaging this one. For in this one, I am concluding my concerns regarding Preston’s attitude.

My two major points in the preceding article were that Preston has “A new theology complete with arrogance.” Then my second one dealt with his “False charges based on erroneous understanding.” I am now ready to finish this line of thought with my concern that Preston has engaged in:

A careless misreading of my argument

On p. 40 (¶2) Preston writes: “Gentry claims that Jesus had not mentioned his coming or the end of the age prior to Matthew 24:2.” This is a serious (though not at all surprising) misreading of my argument for two reasons:

First, I was dealing with the surprised question of the disciples at Matthew 24:3. I point out that there is nothing in the immediate context that could be seen as prompting the question as presented. Certainly there is much before this verse that speaks of the judgment of Israel and even Jerusalem. But this is not the issue; the issue involves the destruction of the temple, which Jesus had just prophesied (Matt. 24:2) and about which the disciples ask (v. 3). (I will have more to say about this error on Preston’s part in my next installment.)

[image error]

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

Second, my point is actually that Jesus does not mention either the parousia or the “end of the age” in the immediately preceding context so as to spark their questions as uniquely framed. But these are the very issues raised in their questions (Matt. 24:3).

Nowhere previously in the Gospels do we read of Jesus using the word parousia in his teaching. And it is only much earlier (not in the near context of the Olivet Discourse) that he uses the phrase “end of the age” (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49). Obviously Preston disagrees with me (and “most commentators”, as well as the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith) regarding the proper understanding of the parousia and “the end of the age” as these concepts appear in Matthew. But that is an issue for another time. [1] Here, though, I am only correcting his misreading of my blog article as presented.

Interestingly, though he confuses my point most of the time, Preston does seem to know what I was actually arguing. For on p. 41 (¶2) he writes: “while Gentry tries to make a point in Matthew 23 stating that Jesus did not mention either his coming or the end of the age in that temple discourse….”

There are more such concerns, but I must get to work on Preston’s position, instead of focusing solely on his attitude. Oops! Time is out. I will continue this in my next blog.

Notes

In this article, I will not be dealing with the unique terminology of parousia and “end of the age” found only in Matthew — and very rarely at that. I will deal with this issue in my new edition of The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. If interested, the reader may look up Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (Concordia Commentary) (St. Louis: Concordia, 2018), 1250. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 531, 535, 889-896.

ANOTHER CONFUSED DISCIPLE (Matt 24:3) Part 1

[image error]

PMW 2020-098 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of my readers who thought I was not busy enough sent me a copy of Don Preston’s book Were the Disciples Confused? (At least I think that is the title. The front cover of the book is itself very confusing in this regard. The largest typefont on the cover reads: “Watching for the Parousia.” The spine even has: “Watching for the Parousia: Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?” It is not until you get to the title page that you find what perhaps is the official title: Were the Disciples Confused?)

As I read through the book I thought that Preston must have left the Church of Christ and joined the Disciples of Christ denomination. For while claiming to be a disciple, he himself is confused. Now having read the book, I too am confused!

Perhaps some day — if I ever finish my several current contractual obligations! — I may find time to engage Preston’s arguments presented in this book. Despite Preston’s insistence that I spend more of my time dealing with him, for now I want simply to show how that in especially one particular chapter (ch. 3) Preston thinks he has accomplished something that he has not. In fact, as he challenges me, he misses my point. Entirely. His third chapter is titled “Jesus’ Earlier Predictions of The Destruction of Jerusalem.” (Besides my many time-dominating obligations, this is another reason I do not set aside my life and deal with him: it is too frustrating to clean up after a bull in a china shop.)

In this chapter Preston is largely (but not solely) responding to an argument I present on this blogsite (e.g., see his pages 5, 7, 8, 40, 59–62, 135). And of course I am most interested in his argument against my statements on this site. I argued that the disciples were surprised when Christ prophesied the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). Preston even admits their surprise, for in another book he writes: “Jesus’ response shocked the disciples” (Preston, We Shall Meet Him in The Air, 2). I noted that their surprise at his prophecy led to their confusion in their questions (24:3). That is, in their confusion they wrongly linked the temple’s destruction historically to the second coming (parousia) and the end of history (sunteleias tou ainos, “the end of the age“).

(Please note: the page references in the comments in this and my next blog articles refer to pages in Preston’s Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused? unless otherwise noted.)

In the first two of my four-article presentation, however, I must express my frustration with Preston’s attitude. This attitudinal problem almost invariably annoys anyone who is not a Hyper-preterist (and there are 7.2 billion of those people). In the third and fourth articles I will highlight some problems I have with his actual argument. I have long realized that discussing eschatology with a Hyper-preterist is like trying to saddle a wild moose: it is a whole lot of trouble and not worth it. So by way of introduction, I will just briefly mention a few of my particular frustrations arising from his attitude exhibited in this book.

The Early Date of Revelation and the End Times: An Amillennial Partial Preterist Perspective

By Robert Hillegonds[image error]

This book presents a strong, contemporary case in support of the early dating of Revelation. He builds on Before Jerusalem Fell and brings additional arguments to bear.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A new theology complete with arrogance

Like Joseph Smith, founder of the “Latter-day Saints” cult, Hyper-preterists have created a whole new theology. That is, they are not just differing from evangelical Christianity on a few eschatological issues. Their innovative approach to Scripture has generated a full-blown, radically new theology, which is set over against historic Christian orthodoxy. [1] In fact, Hyper-preterism borders on being cultic — partly due to the rabid, argumentative nature of its adherents. Apparently, they also are developing their own ritual holy weeks, for Preston even mentions a gathering called the “Preterist Pilgrim Weekend” (pp. 49, 65). This must be like the pilgrim festivals in Scripture. I expect that one day, one of them will attempt to write A New Systematic Theology of the Preterist Faith. Or even publish a Preterist Study Bible with penciled-in corrections.

In 2012 I spoke in Dallas at the Criswell College conference on “Perspectives on the Millennium.” [2] Also presenting papers were Dr. H. Wayne House, Dr. Craig Blaising, Dr. G. K. Beale, Dr. Craig Blomberg, and Don Preston. Don had one of the most confusing and unenlightening presentations I have ever heard. Afterwards several of the presenters gathered in private and mused: “What in the world was he talking about?” This confusion was not due solely to the alien theology flowing from Preston’s Hyper-preterism. Rather, it focused on his rambling, connect-the-dots presentation on an issue that did not even seem related to his assigned topic. Apparently, Hyper-preterists follow Nancy Pelosi’s practice: they believe you have to adopt the Hyper-preterist system in order to understand it. At that conference only the “initiated” understood Preston. But only Preston was initiated. And I am not entirely sure that he knew what he was talking about. But that may have been just me and everyone else there.

As I have argued in several blog articles previously (see: PMW 2020-056; PMW 2020-026; PMW 2020-018; PMW 2019-002; PMW 2020-020), when Jesus pronounces the coming destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2), the disciples are surprised. Their surprise leads to their confused questions which in their minds link the temple’s destruction with the end of history (Matt. 24:3). Preston, with his innovative Hyper-preterist theological construct governing his every word, thought and deed, challenges the charge that the disciples are confused here. As he does so, he admits that he has set himself against “a consensus among the commentators” (p. 33), “most commentators” (p. 34), “most commentators” (p. 35), a “widespread agreement among commentators” (p. 47), “the great consensus of very learned men through the ages” (p. 93), and the “commentators [who] commonly ascribe” (p. 105). Of course, in itself this is not deadly. But Preston does not merely note a difference of interpretive opinion with “most commentators.”Rather, he dramatically overstates his case in opposition to a longstanding and widespread scholarly consensus. Consider the following.

Preston declares:

All of this means that in spite of the great consensus of very learned men through the ages, who have affirmed that the apostles were so lamentably ignorant, or confused, we can confidently say that it was not Jesus’ apostles that were confused, or ignorant. It is the commentators who say they were, that are in fact the ones who are confused or ignorant. (p. 93)

So according to Preston, the “great consensus” of “very learned men” have “through the ages” been ignorant? Apparently, he thinks of himself as God’s gift to the church, who must stop God’s people from being blown about by every wind of doctrine (cf. Eph. 4:8–14).

He even goes further! He complains that “the modern commentators . . . forcibly impose the concept of ignorance or confusion onto the apostles” (p. 103). So the commentators “forcibly impose” their views on the apostles? That is a rather absurd, bold, and vacuous charge!

This bold, proud thinking leads him to state of the commentators’ arguments on the issue before us that the interpretation of “most commentators” is “arrogantly” ascribed to the apostles (p. i)! “Arrogantly”? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary “arrogant” means “exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner.” Thus, for Preston “most commentators” are not simply mistaken in their views, but overbearingly proud and pompous in asserting them to be the views of the apostles! This is an absolutely incredible charge!

Later he asks: “Does it not border on theological arrogance to claim — as Gentry and others do — that the disciples were so horribly confused when in fact they affirmed their understanding?” (p. 92). So I and the commentators are caught up in “theological arrogance”? This is not only incredible in itself, but is itself an arrogant charge.

In addition, in Preston’s view I am not only “ignorant” and “arrogant,” but actually a fraud and a huckster. For he is concerned that I engage in intentional deception: “the text proves that Gentry is either ignorant, perhaps confused himself, or perhaps even willfully hiding important text evidence from his  readers” (p. 98). So I am “willfully hiding” information? Thus, he charges that “Gentry tries to avoid” certain issues (p. 61).

False charges based on erroneous understanding

Regarding the disciples’ confused question at Matthew 24:3, Preston misconstrues my point (which is not surprising). He claims I argue that “the apostles were sinful men [which] proves they did not know what they were asking about!” (p. 6). This is incredible. I actually claimed that they suffered from a “sinful dullness” on several occasions. I was not writing them off as “sinful men.” I never say their problem is that they were “sinful men.” For they remain sinful men even though they are used by God to write Scripture (e.g., Rom. 7:8–11; cf. Gal. 2:11–14). Divine inspiration does not depend on human sinlessness, as we can see in that sinful Solomon wrote several books of Scripture. Otherwise, we would not have any Scripture.

And is not my understanding of their frequent dullness clearly the case? Before Jesus died and was resurrected, the disciples did not believe he would be resurrected (Mark 16:7–13; John 20:8–9). And this is despite the fact that he taught it several times well in advance (Matt. 16:21; 20:17–18; 28:6a; Mark 16:10–11). This is no small error. For his death, burial, and resurrection are the very reasons for his taking on a human body and coming into the world in the first place (Heb. 2:9, 16–17; 10:5; 1 Pet. 2:24). I would say this is surely an issue showing “dullness.” After all, not only did he teach them this over his three and a half years of ministry, but his death, burial, and resurrection were even “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), for “it is written of Him” (Matt. 26:64) and was spoken of him by “the prophets” (Luke 24:25–27). This is significant in that Preston frequently and forcefully argues that they would definitely know of his parousia and the resurrection coming in AD 70 because it was taught in the prophets (e.g., pp. 16, 26, 28, 29, 136, 163).

In fact, the disciples did not simply misunderstood this supremely important issue regarding Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection until it actually happened, John 2:21–22; 20:8–9). But they even “were afraid to ask Him” about it: “He was teaching His disciples and telling them, ‘The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.’ But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him” (Mark 9:31–32).

Indeed, on another occasion after Jesus presents a parable, Peter asks him to explain it to them (Matt. 15:15). Jesus responds: “Are you still dull?” (NIV, Matt. 15:16). The word translated “dull” is asunetos, which is a word Paul applies to the “foolish heart” of unbelievers (Rom. 1:21). And on another occasion, when Peter resists Jesus’ teaching that he must die, the Lord even rebukes him by calling him “Satan” (Matt. 16:23). I would say that certainly represents a serious level of “sinful dullness.”

[image error]

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

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

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

Then Preston continues — thinking he is scoring big:

Gentry is essentially saying that he is not a man of ‘sinful dullness’ while Jesus’ own chosen apostles, instructed by him and later inspired by the Spirit, were indeed dim witted, ignorant and confused. (p. 6)

I absolutely say nothing of the kind — either about myself (and the many other commentators who hold the same view as I do) or the disciples. And what in the world does the apostles being “later inspired by the Spirit” have to do with their current confusion? For as Preston notes, “the Spirit had not yet been poured out, as he was in Acts 2” (p. 117).

Preston continually fails in engaging in the logical fallacy of “emotive appeal.” This fallacy substitutes emotional appeal for facts. And the emotive appeal fallacy is constantly engaged by Preston’s use of terms that are commonly associated with the fallacy. Scholars note that such words as Preston uses in responding to critics betray this fallacy. For instance, Preston presents his views as “indisputable” (p 97), “undeniable” (pp. 91, 105), “irrefutably true” (133), and so forth.

For instance, Preston summarizes his argument on the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3. Then he states regarding the commentators who disagree with him: “are we to attribute such utter, abject ignorance to Jesus’ apostles? To do so stretches credulity far beyond it limits” (p. 29). “The commentators” do not speak of the “utter, abject ignorance” of the apostles! Nor are they guilty of stretching “credulity far beyond its limits.” This emotional statement sounds rather “arrogant” of Preston.

Preston even claims that commentators who believe the disciples were confused in Matthew 24:3, believe that the disciples were “completely ignorant,” “totally ignorant” (p. 28, ¶3, 4, 5), suffering from “abject ignorance” (p. 29 ¶3), were “so ignorant” (p. 25 ¶2), “horribly confused” (p. 92, 117), “lamentably ignorant” (p. 93), “amazingly dumb” (p. 34), “dense” (p. 81), “abysmally ignorant” (p. 119), had “thick skulls” (p. 103), were “dimwitted” (p. 103), and “blithely ignorant” (p. 163). This is ridiculous! In fact, it is downright childish. And only those who do not follow Preston blindly could avoid wincing at such charges. Being confused on a point is not evidence of “abject ignorance” or evidence someone is “abysmally ignorant.” Preston’s attitude (which generates such wild charges) is why few reputable scholars dialogue with Hyper-preterists.

On pp. 32–33 Preston goes to Matthew 13, which highlights the “end of the age” (vv. 39, 40, 49). At the conclusion of his Kingdom Parables Discourse, Jesus explains the parables in private to his disciples (vv. 36ff). Then he asks: “‘Have you understood all these things?’” to which “they said to Him, ‘Yes’” (v. 51). Here Preston states: “unless the disciples lied — per Gentry — about understanding Jesus’ discourse about the end of the age in Matthew 13….” “Lied”?! Did I say they lied to Jesus? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: to “lie” is “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.”

And Preston repeatedly brings up this charge of my (and others!) claiming the disciples lied to Jesus (pp. 29, 32, 79, 80, 81, 83, 91, 139). I absolutely did not make such a ridiculous charge. [3] Besides, Preston himself recognizes the disciples were often confused. For instance, he states: “Make no mistake. The disciples were often confused about Jesus’ teaching” (pp. 86; emph. his; cp. p. 87). Preston even notes that on one occasion “his own disciples were … shocked at such an abhorrent idea as eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood” (p. 88). That certainly involved confusion. Consequently, by thinking that they had understood Jesus, the disciples could well have been confused about what they thought they knew. But it is absurd to claim they were lying to him.

Did Preston lie from the pulpit through the early years of his ministry when he was a futurist? In his We Shall Meet Him in The Air (p. 81) he writes: “I personally taught for years, that the time of the resurrection is associated with the end of time, the destruction of material creation.” Or does he now view his earlier view as mistaken, as misunderstanding what he thought he understood well enough? I suspect the latter. Later in We Shall Meet Him in The Air (p. 144) he writes: “My personal journey has caused me to jettison many of the theological beliefs handed to me by my forefathers.” Using what he calls “logic,” we could say that when he taught these views in the past, he was lying.

Later in Were Jesus’ Apostles Confused?, Preston returns to this incredible charge of lying, applying it to other “desperate [i.e., non-Hyper-preterist] commentators.” There he writes: “do you realize how desperate commentators such as Kenneth Gentry (and others of course) have to be to deny that the apostles did understand, in spite of their affirmation? They said they understood, but Gentry says they really didn’t — they must have lied” (p. 80) I never said “they must have lied”! I never even implied it. And I do not believe it. They were not lying; they simply did not understand as much as they thought they did.

On p. 83 he once again writes: “consider how desperate a measure it is to actually accuse Jesus’ apostles of lying to him, after he had told them he was giving the parables so that they would understand.”

And I know of no reputable commentator who even suggests the disciples were lying! For instance, Grant Osborne’s commentary on Matthew 13:51 states: “This does not mean they understood fully; in fact, in 15:16 they are reproved for being so dull. But they are beginning to perceive the reality of what Jesus has been teaching them” (Osborne, Matthew [ZECNT], 543). Leon Morris agrees: “This may perhaps be a trifle glib, for there is evidence in the remainder of the Gospel that their understanding was somewhat imperfect” (Morris, Matthew [PNTC], 256).

This is a quite common human failure. Have you, my reader, ever confidently held to a particular understanding of a Scripture passage and taught it to others, only to eventually realize your understanding was mistaken? Did you go around to those whom you taught and confess to them that when you said you understood that passage you were lying? Preston is making a ridiculous charge.

And the disciples struggled with fully understanding Jesus on several occasions. Often they only gradually came to a fuller realization of what he was teaching. For instance, in Matthew 15:10–11 we read: “After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, ‘Hear and understand. It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.'” He was explaining to the crowds and his disciples what his parable meant. But just a little while later we read this interchange between Peter and Jesus about that which he had just explained: “Peter said to Him, ‘Explain the parable to us.’ Jesus said, ‘Are you still lacking in understanding also?'”

The disciples’ gradual understanding of what Jesus is teaching occurs often. Notice also John 12:16: “These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.”

And notice Matthew 16:6, then compare it with vv. 7–12. Or Luke 18:31–33, compared to v. 34. This is why Jesus can say on one instructional occasion without rebuking them: “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter” (John 13:7).

Then again later in his book, Preston charges: “Stunningly, the fact is that Kenneth Gentry all but accuses the apostles of lying” (p. 80). Then on the next page (p. 81) he writes: “it takes an amazing amount of arrogance to say they were lying” (p. 81). This is preposterous. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance for Preston to charge that I accuse the apostles of lying. And such balderdash is why I normally do not read Preston.

Consider this: did not Peter promise Jesus that he would never forsake him? But then he did! This was also true of the other disciples, for we read: “Peter said to Him, ‘Even though all may fall away because of You, I will never fall away.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You.’ All the disciples said the same thing too” (Matt. 26:33–35). But then in Matthew 26:56 we read: “all the disciples left him and fled.” Peter and the other disciples were not lying in verses 33–35. And Jesus does not call them liars.

Preston’s charge is absurd. The disciples  were not lying; they were over-confident, spiritually weak, and naively unaware of the enormous difficulties they would have to face during Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. I never said or even implied that the disciples lied. [3] Preston is committing the Fallacy of Bifurcation: He believes there are only two options for understanding their response: the disciples are either (1) intending to tell the truth or (2) intending to tell a lie. But there are other options: they could well have believed they understood, only to find out later that they did not fully understand or properly understand. This is not lying. This bifurcation problem is much like asking the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It wrongly assumes only two possibilities.

An aside

If you go through the torture of reading Preston, be careful about his quotations. He stumbles there as well. For instance, on p. 83 we read:

With these things before us, we are ready now to address the objection — Gentry’s key argument (and others agree with him) — that says, “Jesus’ disciples were constantly confused or ignorant and simply dull. That is true on many occasions. It is therefore entirely  possible —  if not probable —  that they were confused when they asked their questions in Matthew 24:3.”

Despite his quotation marks, I never made that statement. [4]

On p. 33 he writes:

I shared earlier a quote from Craig Blomberg:

“The disciples conflated (Blomberg) all of this (end of the age and the parousia, DKP) into what Jesus announced….”

But this (and the full citation that he gives) is not a quote from Blomberg. This is a quote from Sam Frost, which Preston gave earlier in his book on p. 4. There he noted in introducing the quotation: “In a 2019 FaceBook exchange with Sam Frost, former preterist, he made the following statement…..” Then follows the quotation given verbatim on p. 33. I even noticed several places where he had an opening quotation mark, but no closing mark. This makes it difficult to determine how much of a statement was quoted.

So, it is not just the confusing cover of the book that you have to consider. But the confused attributions of quotations that Preston gives.

Conclusion

When reading Preston be aware that you will constantly bump into two words: “logic” and “desperate.” When Preston faces a disagreement on interpretation, he paints his view as demonstrating “logic” and his opponent’s view as defying logic (e.g., pp. 6, 8, 9, 29, 62, 86, 89). And simultaneously, when anyone states a point of disagreement with him, Preston will introduce and conclude his response by claiming his opponent has adopted a “desperate” measure (e.g., pp. 28, 50, 59, 80, 83). Apparently, Preston believes that those who disagree with him live in a world of intense angst.

Preston’s charges of being “desperate” are simply his way of discounting his opposition. That which he calls “desperate” is simply an alternative interpretation to his own. I wonder what he thinks of books like Gleason Archer’s, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties or Walter Kaiser’s Hard Sayings of the Bible?These books take Bible verses that present apparent contractions, seeming historical errors, and so forth and explain them in a way that maintains the integrity of Scripture. For instance, Matthew appears to present Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree as occurring after his driving the moneychangers from the temple (Matt. 21:12–17). But Mark appears to present him doing this before he drove them out (Mark 11:11–19). Are Archer and Kaiser “desperate” in attempting to explain the apparent contradiction?

Would Preston be “desperate” if he explained that Jesus’ statement “you are gods” does not mean that those people were actually gods, such as God is? Would he be “desperate” in defending the full deity of Christ over against the seeming contradiction of this in John 14:28, where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I”? Would he be “desperate” by explaining away the alleged contradiction between Matt. 21:2 and Mark 11:2, wherein Matthew mentions a donkey and a colt tied up, though Mark mentions only “a colt”? Would he be “desperate” in explaining why John 1:18 can state “no one has seen God at any time,” whereas Exo. 24:10 states that “Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10  and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.” I suspect that he would attempt to “explain away” these difficulties. And rightly so. But he would not be “desperate.”

Preston’s arguments are too frequently superficial and depend on a Hyper-preterist blinders to guide him down his own “straight and narrow way.” But Jesus warns that when the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit (Matt. 15:14).

I will complete my response on Preston’s Hyper-preterist attitude in my next article. Then after that, I will focus on his argument against me and evangelical commentators.

Notes

1. For some samples of their innovations in theology, see: Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Have We Missed the Second Coming?:A Critique of the Hyper-Preterist Error (Chesnee, S.C.: Victorious Hope, 2016), 33–37 (see also 87–139).”

2. A summary of my presentation was published in the Criswell Theological Review, and is available at my website. It is titled “A Postmillennial Vision.”

3. Preston argues that we cannot say that the disciples were confused unless the text explicitly says so. On p. 91 he writes: “We have the undeniable fact that on all other occasions when the disciples did not understand what Jesus said, the Gospel writers record their misunderstanding, or Jesus himself speaks of their misunderstanding. In fact, the only way that we know the disciples were ever confused is because the Biblical text unabashedly tells us so!” But earlier, on p. 8 he wrote: “I have demonstrated that in virtually all other occasions, the only way that we know the disciples were mistaken is because the Gospel writers tell us so  — very clearly.” Well, which is it? Does Scripture tell us so “on all other occasions” or does it tell us so in “virtually all other occasions”? “Virtually” means “nearly.”

4. Apparently Preston is committing his own “illegitimate, artificial hermeneutic of ‘Missing Words / Missing Elements” when analyzing what I say, or rather, don’t say.

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

I AM NOT A PRETERIST (REVISITED)!

[image error]PMW 2020-097 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Much of this article repeats an earlier article which I think might be helpful once again. I am bringing it up-to-date due to some recent observations I have gathered in the eschatological debate.

As previously noted, I often have people ask me if I am a “preterist.” This is generally asked by someone who does not know what “preterism” means. They are usually fearful of the term because they do not understand what all is involved in the preterist idea. In fact, at a theological exam when entering a new presbytery, I was challenged as being an agent of the Hyper-preterist movement because of my orthodox preterist views. Fortunately, I was able to demonstrate that I am fully orthodox. But this experience showed me the danger of accidental false associations.

This will surprise some of my readers, but I would like to state categorically and unequivocally: I am NOT a preterist. To believe that I am a preterist is quite mistaken.

But: have I changed my understanding of biblical eschatology? The answer to this question is a resolute “Yes” and “No!” How can this be? What is going on here? Am I running for political office (though the official election date just passed)? Perhaps I am looking forward to receiving a lot of mail-in votes to be counted over the next few years! I admit I was tempted to run for office so that I could make myself fabulously wealthy on funds taken from the hard work of others. But, no, that is not the answer. Or am I striving to be Dr. Sic et Non? Let me explain.

Until the recent arising of the aberrant theology that calls itself “Full Preterism” or “Covenant Eschatology,” it was fine for someone like me to call himself “a preterist.” In fact, I have done that quite often myself. And probably will still do so — due to long-standing, historical use of this word. But in a technical sense, such a descriptive label for someone like me is mistaken . . . in our current theological context. This is due to the arising of unorthodox preterism, which is causing some believers to be “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14).

Have We Missed the Second Coming:[image error]

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

So what do I mean?

As is often the case in the history of theology, words take on fresh connotations and even alatogether new meanings. And if we are not careful, we might use a familiar, long-held word to describe an issue, but which is no longer accurate . . . in our current setting.

For instance, until the creation of the word “amillennial” in the early 20th Century, non-premillennial theologians who held to a pessimistic view of history called themselves “postmillennial.” They did this to set themselves over against those who were “premillennial.” They held that Christ would not return in his Second Advent until the “millennium” was completed. Hence they were “post-millennial.” But there were two categories of “postmillennials.” Many were optimistic regarding the flow of history, while many others were historically pessimistic. Today we distinguish the two by the terms “postmillennial”  (an optimistic eschatology regarding the outworking of history) and “amillennial” (a pessimistic eschatology regarding the outworking of history). See my article: “Amillennial Pessimism” for further discussion of this matter.

Similarly, it may be that one day the word “preterist” will be so widely used in a way much different from its historical meaning that it will suffer from what scholars call “semantic obsolescence.” That is, “preterist” may in the wider discussion come to mean something other than it did in earlier times. It may no longer function properly within the living, semantic range of the word in that day. This would be like the KJV word “prevent” in 1 Thess. 4:15. There the seventeenth-century word “prevent” meant “to vent beforehand,” i.e., “to precede.” But it later came to mean “to prohibit, preclude.” Those are radically different concepts.

This could well bes the case with the word “preterist.” Historically, the word “preterist” was used (and is still used) by those who understand certain New Testament prophetic passages as having already been fulfilled. This understanding sets them over against other Christians who believe that those passages remain to be fulfilled in our future ( “futurism” is the virtual opposite of “preterism”). Two key passages that are greatly impacted by the preterist approach are: the Olivet Discourse and the whole Book of Revelation. (However, these are not the only passages impacted by the debate.)

Today, however, we must distinguish the enormous differences existing among “preterist” interpreters. The preterism to which I hold is a hermeneutic tool, which is useful for better understanding part of one locus of systematic theology, i.e., eschatology. The preterism promoted by some unorthodox Christians (they call their view “full preterism”) is not simply a hermeneutic tool helpful for fleshing out biblical eschatology, but a wholesale, new, free-standing theology.

Orthodox Christians call “full preterism” by the term “Hyper-preterism.” This is much like the situation with “hyper-Calvinism.” Calvinism is a theological system emphasizing the sovereignty of God. But hyper-Calvinism goes beyond  Calvinism, hence it is hyper. Hyper-Calvinists believe that we do not need to evangelize or to send out missionaries, because God will sovereignly convert sinners. In fact, they even hold that it is not the obligation of sinners to trust in Christ in order to be saved — because God effects their salvation wholly apart from anything they do.

Similarly, “hyper-preterism” goes beyond historic “preterism,” in that it adds to preterism. That is, Hyper-preterism declares the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith held over the many centuries of Christianity’s existence to be mistaken. It does so by declaring that the future bodily Second Coming of Christ, the future physical resurrection of all men, the future Final Judgment of all men, and the conclusion of history that gives rise to the consummate order have already occurred (in AD 70). As Hyper-preterist Don Preston summarily states it in one of his books: “Preterism is the view that all prophecy of the end times, the Judgment, Second Coming, and Resurrection were fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” They therefore go beyond orthodox Christian doctrine.

Just recently a book by Preston has shown this tendency to rework Christianity’s whole historic theological system. Preston began his journey into preterism by initially noting particular passages of Scripture that have contextual near-term indicators in them. These he applied to his eschatological system. Then he moved on to begin altering broader, long-held theological views. Thus, he has worked his way from several eschatological notices in Scriptures to engage in wider theological changes. His journey is evidence of the tail wagging the dog. Let me (briefly!) explain:

Surprisngly for orthodox Christians, this tendency in Preston is actually helpful in a round-about way. For it shows the slippery-slope in Hyper-preterism. To provide just two sample of this problem, we should note that Preston now has re-interpreted the Fall of Adam and the principle of substitutionary atonement, as well. He continues to hold to the historical Fall of Adam and to substitutionary atonement, to be sure. But he holds them in ways that are altered, re-interpreted, and erroneous.

In this regard, we must realize that some Hyper-preterists who came on the scene before Preston actually jettisoned the doctrine of hell, re-worked the role of Satan, rejected the doctrine of theTrinity (becoming Unitarians), altered the role of the Holy Spirit in soteriology, and other historic doctrines. They made these changes in attempting greater “consistency” in their doctrine. You can see a list of a few such doctrines in my book Have We Missed the Second Coming?  (pp. 33–37).

Who knows where Preston will end up since he is untethered from historical Christianity? This tendency was already present in him while he was a pastor and before he changed his views on eschatology, which he had long preached, for he is a Church of Christ minister. And the Church of Christ was established as a phase of the Stone-Campbell Movement during the Second Great Awakenin. It had as a starting poiint a rejection of the historic ecumenical creeds.

What Preston and other Hyper-preterists write-off as “creedalism” or “traditionalism” needs to be understood for what it is. Those of us who hold to a preterist hermeneutic in certain contexts, but reject the innovative Hyper-preterist theological system are committed to . . . historic Christianity, not traditionalism. The historic Christian theological system is found in the creeds; it was not created by the creeds. And that is a big difference. But in a recent work Preston excitedly challenges his readers:

“there is a ‘New Reformation’ taking place in regard to the doctrine of the ‘last days.’ The movement called preterism, or Covenant Eschatology is growing and changing lives. Along tge way it is challenging the long standing traditions of the day…. Join with me and countless other Bible students who are beginning to see the Scriptures in a ‘new’ way, unfettered from the creedalism, traditionalism, and prejudice that can, and does, so often blind us to what the Scripture meant to the original readers.”

Preston’s sort of talk is commonly found in the writings of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses (for example, see the JW book Let God Be True). A Mormon site writes similarly to Preston:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not profess any of the Christian creeds. When Joseph Smith had his First Vision he asked which of all the Christian sects he should join. He was instructed they were all wrong, that “all their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight” (JS – History 1:19). In another instance Joseph Smith said, “I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’” (Teachings, p. 327).”

See: https://www.somemormonstuff.com/mormonism-and-the-creeds-of-christendom/

Besides, Preston sadly misunderstands the function of creeds altogether! In a recent work he complains of Mathison’s view of the spiritual judgment-coming of Christ in AD 70. Preston writes: “He resorts to an interpretation unknown in the creeds which he claims determine orthodoxy.” This is naive and absurd! The creeds do not record every element of doctrinal orthodoxy. Rather, they summarize key components foundational to historic Christianity. For instance, the creeds do not report that the temple was going to be destroyed, that the Spirit would be poured out at Pentecost, or that Jesus performed miracles. Preston should read my chapter on the function of creeds in my book Have We Missed the Second Coming.

[image error]

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

Thus, we need to be careful how we use — or at least understand — the term “preterism.” It speaks of a hermeneutic tool that becomes necessary for use in Scripture for understanding certain textual statements requiring it. Such as in passages stating that a prophetic event is “near” or “soon.” Some New Testament passages speak of our future, some of prophecies that are already fulfilled in the past. The context must decide. Furthermore, historic preterism originally dealt only with eschatology, whereas Hyper-preterism molds a whole new theological system.

What does this entail?

So more accurately, I am a hermeneutic preterist rather than a theological preterist. As a postmillennialist and orthodox Christian committed to the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith, I agree with premillennialists and amillennialists on the four issues mentioned above: the Second Advent, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Final Judgment, and the consummate New Heavens and New Earth. Thus, I am not a preterist in the new, alien, heretical sense of the the term as it is used in the Hyper-preterist movement, i.e., their “new Reformation.”

In light of the confusion in some circles, perhaps it would be clearer to describe my eschatology simply as “biblical eschatology.” As one committed to the Bible, I hold to some elements of preterism and some of futurism — depending on the context. (This is like my holding Jesus as a man and as deity without sacrificing one for the other.) I accept preterist elements when dealing with particular passages, for example, those dealing with the destruction of the temple. But I hold to futurist elements when dealing with passages promising a literal resurrection of the body, a physical second coming of Christ, a literal final judgment of all men, and a future consummate, eternal order wherein sin is removed from the universe so that righteousness and peace can prevail in perfection. God will not endure a rebellious, sinful universe forever. Thus, I am like Milton Terry and J. Stuart Russell, partly preterist, partly futurist — depending on the context. See: my article “J. S. Russell & Milton Terry: Futurists?” (By the way, I am more like Terry than Russell, for Russell goes way too far.)

Warfield has observed a sad truth: “the chief dangers to Christianity do not come from the anti-Christian systems. . . . It is corrupt forms of Christianity itself which menace from time to time the life of Christianity.” We are seeing that today in the spread of Hyper-preterism. As Paul lamented long ago: there are “men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some” (2 Tim. 2:18).

I will continue to use the word “preterist” in my writings. Unless it becomes intolerable. Fortunately, the Hyper-preterist movement is small enough so that we can continue to use historic terms and expect its historic meaning.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew’s perspective. My research will demonstrate that Matthew’s presentation demands that the Olivet Discourse refer to AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–35) as an event that anticipates the Final Judgment at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46). This will explode the myth that Jesus was a Jewish sage focusing only on Israel. The commentary will be about 250 pages in length.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!

HAVE WE MISCONSTRUED MATTHEW 24:34?

[image error]PMW 2020-096 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader recently wrote me with the following observations, for which he wondered how I would reply:

My reader:

I recently read your book, The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. I thought it was very good.

What is your view of the following?

1. “Take place” in Mt. 24:34 does not require completion but only inception. Compare with Luke 1:20. “ginomai” in the aorist subjective indicates coming into existence without speaking at all regarding completion.

2. The reason Jesus gave to flee Jerusalem when surrounded by armies was that the end is not yet. The end would be the Jews defeating Rome and ending the age of the Jews being without a king.

3. The tribulation of which Jesus spoke began prior to 70 A.D., but continues until the bodily return of Jesus to earth.

Thank you.

R.W.

[image error]

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

My reply:

R.W.:

Thanks for reading. And for interacting. However, I believe each one of the points you are concerned about is mistaken.

Actually the first observation you mention about the inceptive nature of the verse is mistaken. The eos (“until”) is linked with the particle an (untranslated) that immediately follows it. Thus, the subjunctive genetai simply implies the indefinite time of the events. That indefinite time is when “all these things take place,” i.e., all the things predicted before this verse. These will occur in “this generation” (of Jesus’ day) but we don’t know how long that will take — though they must occur before that generation vanishes away.

Your second observation is also mistaken. The reason the Jewish believers are to flee Jerusalem is NOT because “the end is not yet.” Rather it is because they will be destroyed if they remain in Jerusalem (vv. 17–22). Thus, they are not to worry about their property items; they are to be concerned for their very lives. And how are “the days cut short” (v. 22) if they have already lasted 2000 years? Your view doesn’t make good sense.

If “the great tribulation” began in AD 70 and continues until Christ’s return, then is isn’t so “great” after all. For I am comfortable — as would be anyone taking their time to use our technology-produced computer to access the Internet to share ideas about Christ, while sitting in an air conditioned room looking through their Christian books that have been widely published for personal study.

Actually, the greatness of the great tribulation is to involve intense warfare from the Roman invaders in that generation long ago (Luke 23:28–30) because of its great evil in rejecting Christ and persecuting his followers (Matt. 23:34–38) — in “this generation” (Matt. 23:36).

I hope these thoughts are helpful!

Keep studying!

Reader responds:

Thank you for your response. I thought it was very good and I see your point.

Are you saying that “take place” in Mt. 24:34 absolutely cannot be in the ingressive sense, or that the best interpretation is that it is not ingressive?

How would this apply to Luke 1:20? It clearly seems to use the ingressive sense there.

[image error]

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

My second reply:

Grammatical rules are not mechanical and invariable mathematical formulas, to be sure. That is why we have so many Greek text commentaries making different assertions on the same texts. That is why we have so many different functions of the aorist tense and subjunctive mode, etc. Greek grammars would be much shorter if we could just give one meaning for a tense or mode.

But I do not see how Luke 1:20 is evidence in the inceptive direction. In fact, it appears to be the exact opposite.

The context shows that Zacharias was being disciplined (v. 20) for not believing that his old wife (v. 7) would have a baby. (v. 18). That is the basic point of the angelic prophecy — for the angel Gabriel came to answer that particular prayer or petition to God about having a child (v. 13). All the other factors of John’s future life are not the issue: Zacharias did not pray for those things; they were additional blessings. Thus we read that “your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John” (v. 13). This is the fact that would bring him joy (v. 14).

So then, on the day of John’s birth wherein he is formally named “John,” Zacharias was “suddenly, immediately, at once” (Gk., parachrema) able to speak (v. 62-64). This is just as the angel prophesied (v. 20).

I hope this is helpful!

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

GOD VS. GOVERNMENT

[image error]PMW 2020-095 by Jason Lisle (Biblical Science Institute)

Many people have the impression that the Church is God’s institution and that the government is not. Consequently, the Church must abide by the Bible in all matters, but the government must stay away from religious matters. After all, isn’t there a separation of Church and state? In reality, both the Church and the state are God’s institutions and both are morally obligated to abide by biblical principles. When a government functions in the way God has specified, it is a blessing to all the people. But a government that will not follow biblical principles inevitably becomes a tyrannical “beast” that oppresses its own citizens.

The Biblical Purpose of Government

In Romans 13:1 the Apostle Paul states, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Since government is God’s idea, it is inherently good and right in principle. Paul continues, “Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”

What is God’s purpose for government? Romans 13:4 states, “for it is a minister of God to you for good… an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” So, God’s purpose for government is to punish criminals, and this is for the good of society. Paul explains, “for it does not bear the sword for nothing” (Romans 13:4). In other words, God has authorized the government to use deadly force for certain capital crimes. Therefore, the state should have a well-armed police force for the protection of its citizens. And the state should have judges to ensure that people accused of a crime receive a fair trial (Deuteronomy 16:18). This also keeps the police in check since they too must follow the law lest they be punished.

[image error]

“The Civil Magistrate in the Westminster Confession“ (4 mp3s)

by Ken Gentry

Four sermons on the theonomic understanding of civil government

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

There is a very good reason why God has authorized the state to punish criminals. It restrains violence and wickedness in society for the protection of law-abiding citizens.[1] And it does so in two ways. First, extremely violent crimes such as murder and rape incur the death penalty. This permanently prevents the criminal from any further acts of violence, thereby purging the evil (Deuteronomy 19:19). Second, it acts as a deterrent. Deuteronomy 19:20 states, “The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.”

There is another reason why God authorizes the state to punish criminals; it foreshadows justice. It is morally right for a law-breaker to be punished. We see this before our eyes when a criminal is rightly sentenced for his crime. Moreover, we understand that his punishment should fit the crime (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:20). A person who has wronged his neighbor should pay according to the severity of the crime. This is right and good, and we benefit from seeing the state rightly uphold this principle.

However, the state can only provide a foretaste of justice because it does not fully accomplish justice. Sin is ultimately a crime against God (Psalm 51:4). It is treason against the King of kings. As such, any sin is worthy of death and eternal separation from God’s love (Romans 6:23). But God is both patient and gracious. He delays ultimate justice for our benefit. The unrepentant will receive full justice only on judgment day (Revelation 20:11-15). And for those who have repented of sin and trusted in Christ, God Himself paid the debt on the cross and justice was satisfied.

[image error]Political Issues Made Easy

by Kenneth Gentry

Christian 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

So, the state does not accomplish full justice – God did not design it for that purpose. Nor can the state remove all evil. Only Christ can do that. Rather, the state exists to reduce wickedness and mitigate sin by punishing criminals for certain specified crimes. And it teaches us about justice.

The Limitations of the State

Note that God has not authorized the government to punish all sins. For example, coveting is a sin (Exodus 20:17), but the state is not authorized to punish those who commit it. Coveting is an internal sin of the heart and mind. And the state has no authority or capacity to evaluate such sin. In fact, if a government agent attempted to punish a person for something like coveting, the agent himself would be in sin because he is stealing vengeance from God (Romans 12:19). God reserves the right to repay for Himself, except for those specific crimes He has delegated to the state as His authorized servant (Romans 12:19; 13:4)….

To complete reading the article click: here

VOTING FOR THE LESSER-OF-EVILS (3)

[image error]PMW 2020-094 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and final installment on voting for the lesser-of-evils. Please see previous two for context.

The Question of Scripture

In this book I am promoting a Christian worldview rooted in Scripture. But how can we encourage Christians to compromise in their voting while maintaining their worldview? The question of compromise is particularly significant for Christians who are uncompromisingly committed to Scripture. So then, does the question of compromise undermine all the practical arguments brought up by Christian idealists?

This is an important matter to consider — especially in that it frequently arises in Christian political discussions. Does the Bible have anything to say regarding the question of compromise? Actually it does. It allows realistic, principled compromise. Consider the following examples.

The law of God. God’s law prohibited any labor on the Sabbath. For instance in Exodus 35:2–3 we read: “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day.” Exodus 34:22 commands cessation of labor even during plowing and harvest times: “You shall work six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest.”

Nevertheless, despite these clear prohibitions, Jesus himself taught that there are practical situations in which one may work on the Sabbath: “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him?” (Luke 13:15). “Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day? This is not a compromise of God’s Law, but is a practical application of God’s Law in grievous circumstances.

Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview[image error]

Ed. by David Hall

No other Christian teachings in the past five hundred years have affected our Western culture as deeply as the worldview of John Calvin. It extends far beyond the theological disciplines.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus’ practice. Christ specifically compromised on a matter so as not to cause offense. As the Son of God he was not required to pay the two-drachma tax. Nevertheless we read in Matthew:

“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?’ When Peter said, ‘From strangers,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.'” (Matt. 17:24–27)

He could have affirmed his immunity from paying the tax, which would have underscored his claim to his deity. But here he “compromised” on that particular issue and paid the tax — so as not to cause offense.

In fact, consider the following situation. Rome was a pagan nation dominating Israel, and each legion carried an idolatrous Standard (Signums) for their identification. The Jewish historian Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction the Jewish temple in AD 70. He reported that the Romans “carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, there sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator” (Wars 6:6:1). The church father Tertullian (AD 160–220) writes: “The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods” (Apology 16).

Nevertheless, though Jesus interacted with Roman soldiers he never encouraged them to leave the army (Matt. 8:5–13). Neither did John the Baptist when directly asked by soldiers “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).

Jesus employs an illustration in his parabolic teaching that recognizes that we must think in terms of practical solutions and be willing to compromise as we look to larger goals. He taught twin parables on discipleship that employed strategic compromise for securing our ultimate goals.

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’

“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.” (Luke 14:28–31)

In the second parable, the king here planning for battle surely has a desire for victory. Yet as he looks realistically at his prospects he realizes the potential for loss. Consequently, he begins working on a compromise to settle the differences with the opposing king.

Paul’s practice. In Acts 15 the Jerusalem council (which included Paul, Acts 15:12, 22) dealt with the question of circumcision. This issue was divisive and controversial in the early church because of Jewish converts to Christ (Acts 15:1, 5). The council rejected circumcision as necessary for Christians (Acts 15:1, 19, 23–29). It then sent Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia with the council’s letter stating this.

As Paul was in the very process of delivering the letter from the Jerusalem council (Acts 16:4), he went to Derbe (Acts 16:1) and met up with Timothy. Then we read the remarkable notice that “Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3)!

Of course, Paul was not compromising the principle by declaring that Timothy actually did need circumcision in order to be saved. But he did nevertheless circumcise Timothy — and that for a practical reason: so as not to offend the Jews. And he did so in the very historical context of his delivering a letter from the Jerusalem council declaring that circumcision was unnecessary. A heated context that caused “great dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2), even “much debate” (Acts 15:7).

In fact, Paul even denounced those who demanded circumcision for Christians: “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal. 5:2). This was a foundational principle for his doctrine of free grace. Yet not only did he have Timothy circumcised, during that same general time frame he wrote to the Corinthians stating that:

“to the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Cor. 9:20–21)

Of course, he never changed his conviction (principle) that circumcision was not necessary for salvation, yet he altered his action for practical (pragmatic) goals: to persuade Jews of the gospel.

Elsewhere Paul derisively refers to circumcision as “mutilation”: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil. 3:3). The word translated “false circumcision” is katatome, which literally means “mutilation.” He is using a play on words: the Jews offer katatome when they practice peritome (“circumcision”).

Paul even forthrightly teaches that “true circumcision” is not of the flesh but of the heart (Rom. 2:28–29; cp. Phil. 3:3). He states that Abraham was “the father of all who believe without being circumcised” (Rom. 4:12). He does not have his associate Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3). Yet, he has Timothy circumcised.

Likewise, today we do not compromise our conservative principles regarding proper constitutional government. But we sometimes have to alter our action (our vote) for the lesser of evils with a view to maintaining as many constitutional policies and practices as we can.

Our Long-term Strategy

As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

Why should we continually butt our heads against the wall each election cycle? It performs no useful service except for providing a steady drumbeat leading Christians in the march away from long-term influence. But what about those with less grandiose designs who hold that voting for the perfect Christian candidate will at least make “a statement”? More often than not they make the wrong statement: “Let’s lose this one for Jesus.” Their dismal poll numbers can make a statement, but not a very loud one. Sadly, conservative and moderate candidates can split the vote against the dangerous liberal candidate.

Recognizing the necessity of strategic compromise and incremental advance we should be willing to seek smaller political victories in the meantime. And rather than hoping against hope for the perfect presidential candidate to be elected, we will have to accept a tolerable candidate who functions like a finger in the dike effectively buying us more time — and keep us from throwing good money and our political hopes into a losing cause. Change tends to be generational rather than overnight.

We should not expect to change the nation in one fell swoop. Rather we should engage the more manageable work of changing a political party from within. Transforming a political party that is relatively close to several of our positions is easier than trying to change an entire nation that is literally “all over the map.” Like it or not, American government is effectively a two-party system.

If worse comes to worse, we may eventually need to create a new political party from within the established lesser-of-evils party. But this would need to start out on a more local level and build toward higher offices and larger goals in the long run. For instance, today many Christians tend to put too much hope in the presidential election, hoping for the big prize. Turnouts in mid-term elections are generally around 20% small than in presidential elections. We should begin by working locally in small realms rather than trying to leap to the presidency.

[image error]Political Issues Made Easy

by Kenneth Gentry

Christian 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

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill coined the phrase: “all politics is local.” By that he meant that people tend to vote on matters of local interest and significance. This requires that politicians must recognize the needs of their constituencies. And since this is generally true, it also underscores the significance of learning about local needs by working in lower offices — as training for higher office.

Our nation used to be more acclimated to localism in its early days. Of course, slow transportation and limited communication had much to do with that. Today Christians need to take a greater (not sole) interest in local elections, such as mayoral, city and county councils, county administrators, sheriffs, and so forth. Once we have built success and gained experience in these more local areas, we can move on to state legislatures and governorships. And then to congressional and senatorial office, and on to the presidency. Secure foundations must be laid before a gold dome can be placed on the top.

Conclusion

As conservative, evangelical Christians we are committed to principle at the very core of our being. The doctrinal convictions we hold regarding our holy faith serve as the very foundation for our lives — they are our most basic principles. And as servants of Christ we love and seek the right, just, and good. Consequently, it is difficult for us to compromise since our very lives are rooted in God-given principles.

We do not, of course, compromise our principles themselves. That would make us what we are not. But sometimes we must compromise our methods. In promoting Christian politics in a mixed and antagonistic environment such as we have in America, we must recognize the opposition we face. We must accept as a political principle that we will have to oppose the greater evil by sometimes voting for the lesser good.

In this chapter we have seen how our long term goal for victory must often involve a short term strategy which is painful but necessary. We must recognize the big picture and learn patience in seeking to bring it into proper focus. We saw how even theology and Scripture allow compromise in our methods in seeking the ultimate greater good. Voting the lesser of evils is necessary in a fallen world where all human action is tainted by evil.

My Hope

I hope you will get out and vote. And I hope you will vote for America, the Constitution, religious freedom, law-and-order, pro-life legislation, a free-market economy, higher minority employment, a defended border, and peace in the Middle East. That is, I hope you will vote for Donald Trump and a Republican Senate. Babies’ lives hang in the balance.

VOTING FOR THE LESSER-OF-EVILS (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-093 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part series on the Christian principle of voting for the lesser-of-evils. Please see the previous article for context.

Our Christian Response

In allowing the lesser-of-evils approach to voting from a Christian perspective, I would have us first note the principles involved, then consider their theological and biblical justifications. I present the question of principles first to introduce the argument; then I will show why I believe we can endorse it from within a Christian worldview.

The Question of Principle

We need carefully to reflect on the question of principle itself, which I will do under several headings.

First, distinguishing our principles. When we are engaging in politics we must be careful not to place our political actions (e.g., voting) on the same level as our doctrinal commitments (i.e., faith in Scripture). We must be careful not to develop a messianic political outlook. That is, we should not believe that if we can only elect the right candidate he will save our nation. Unfortunately, as Christians we can be so earnest in our desire for a better America that we can slide into this messianic conception of politics. This allows us to become so enamored with a particular candidate as the “right” one, that we see him as our great hope who will bring forth justice, peace and prosperity.

This problem of viewing political principles as if they are on the same level as doctrinal convictions is quite widespread. For instance, consider the “Defending Contending” website cited above. Notice how the writer (“Pilgrim”) sets up the debate: “true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” This writer is classifying “true” Christians by their voting rather than by their doctrinal commitments and personal lifestyle. This type of thinking apparently believes that “by their votes you shall know them.”

Our doctrinal convictions differ from our political actions in that they are immune from revision. Doctrinal convictions are rooted in the complete and permanent revelation of God in Scripture. Of course, our political positions should be rooted in our understanding of Scripture so that they are relatively secure commitments. But our political actions are not drawn directly from the Bible, and they are caught up in a system built on the necessity of compromise. We do not vote for our doctrinal convictions. Political actions are not on the same level as doctrinal convictions. They also invariably involve a commitment to fallen men and their political promises.

Evangelical Christian theologian J. I. Packer has wisely observed:

“Political compromise, the basic maneuver [of politics], is quite a different thing from the sacrificing of principles. Whatever may be true in the field of ethics, compromise in politics means not the abandonment of principle, but realistic readiness to settle for what one thinks to be less than ideal when it is all that one can get at the moment. The principle that compromise expresses is that half a loaf is better than no bread.”

Wall of Misconception: Separation of Church and State[image error]

(by Peter Lillback)

Examines our nation’s historic understanding of and the founding fathers

intention in the relationship of our Constitution to matters of faith, ethics, and morals,

taking into account the historical and biblical context as well as

the concept s relation to today’s culture.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, establishing our principles. Those Christians who argue that we must vote for the “right” candidate because of our principles overlook an important issue: the problem of competing principles. What do I mean?

Let us take as one example a commitment to “constitutional government.” Usually conservative Christians desire a candidate who will operate on constitutional principle. Now suppose three candidates are running for a particular office. Candidate A is promoting a platform based on strong constitutional commitments. Candidate B has some strong positions but is weak in other areas. Candidate C has little interest in maintaining constitutional policies and is promoting a platform clearly antithetical to the Constitution. But now suppose (as is often the case) that Candidate A has dismal poll numbers that indicate a virtually certain landslide loss.

The strongly-committed Constitutionalist Christian now faces a dilemma. He loves Candidate A’s platform, but recognizes that he almost certainly will go down to defeat. He knows that if he votes for Candidate A, then he is ultimately helping Candidate C by drawing off pro-Constitutional voters. Consequently, he decides to vote for semi-Constitutional Candidate B over anti-Constitutional Candidate C. By this action he is acting in a lesser-of-evils manner. But is he thereby acting in an unprincipled manner? No! Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Let me explain.

Since the Christian voting for the lesser of evils has strongly-held pro-Constitution principles, his basic political commitment is to defend and promote constitutional government. Therefore, in light of the very real circumstances he is facing, he is acting on virtually the same principle as the Christian who would only vote for Candidate A. That is, he is voting to support the Constitution by recognizing that if Candidate C were elected he would radically undermine it. He is voting therefore to limit the damage done to our Constitutional form of government. Therefore, by voting for Candidate B his principles regarding Constitutional government have led him to defend the Constitution as best he can in the current circumstances by opposing the greater, more dangerous enemy of the Constitution. Had he voted for Candidate A (who was certain to lose), then Candidate C would effectively be gaining a vote which would allow him to gain more anti-Constitutional influence in the long run.

By voting for the lesser of evils, the Christian is operating in terms of principled realism. The other Christian who will only vote for the “pure” candidate is voting in terms of idealism. The principled realist engages in a stop-loss voting with a long-term hope for the day when more greatly committed Constitutionalists will be able to win an election. Voting for a sure loss is like saying: “Be warmed and filled.” Your heart (i.e., principle) is right but your actions (i.e., voting) are unhelpful (even harmful).

Let me provide a helpful illustration of how principled realism (lesser of evils voting) can lead to a better outcome than idealism, while attempting to hold the line. Consider a parallel situation to the electoral process just stated. This one involves a deeply-held principle but has real-world results that are more quantifiable: abortion. Evangelical pro-life Christians deem abortion as an evil that clearly undermines the very sanctity of human life.

But now let us consider a scenario presenting itself to a Christian Congressman. Say two bills are presented in the House of Representatives regarding abortion. Both of these bills are being offered in our current legal climate which allows abortion-on-demand (abortion for any and all reasons) throughout the nation. Bill A takes a strong pro-life position by making all abortions illegal. Bill B takes a largely pro-life position by declaring most abortions illegal except in the case of the potential death of the mother or rape or incest.

Now suppose that a straw vote has clearly shown that the strongly pro-life Bill A would go down to a resounding defeat, but that the largely pro-life Bill B could win the House vote. For which bill should the Christian Congressman vote? He wants to stop abortion. But if he votes for Bill A which is destined to defeat, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land. If, however, he votes for Bill B then abortions will be largely curtailed. Tragically, if he stands on his idealism and refuses to vote for the lesser bill, he will have consigned tens of thousands of pre-born babies to death. On principle.

Choosing the lesser evil may be likened to an innocent person being wrongly convicted of a murder. In court he would have his lawyer seek prison time over execution. The lesser evil (prison) buys him time to seek his freedom in the future. Death, being much more permanent, removes the opportunity of future reversal of his fortunes.

Those who decry lesser-of-evils voting as mere pragmatism which rejects principle operate by faulty logic. Aaron Blumer explains this problem:

“The truth is that there are at least three approaches to the relationship between conscience (principle) and practical results:

1. Pragmatism: practical results are always decisive and are all that matter.

2. Idealism: practical results are completely irrelevant; only principle matters.

3. Principled realism: practical results are part of the principle that matters.”

Thus, Blumer observes that an unstated premise is at work in the argument against principled realism. That unstated premise is that practical matters have nothing to do with conscience. But this is erroneous. Two of these approaches allow the Christian to vote his conscience (#2 and #3). Therefore, two of these approaches stand on principle, one realistically (#3) and one idealistically (#2). One of these two approaches has positive practical results (#3); the other, negative practical results (#2). By this I mean that approach #3 strives to preserve as many principles as possible against large-scale opposition, while approach #2 holds a full panoply of firmly-held principles — but effectively allows them to be washed away by employing an all-or-nothing strategy.

Surely as Christians we should strive to do what we morally can to resist evil. In fact, this should be one of the basic principles of Christian social concern. But consider our a position today: we usually have voting choices that are imperfect, but nevertheless have the opportunity to vote against the “greater evil.” Since the very best candidate often has no chance of winning, should we not vote in a way that effectively opposes the greater evil? Is this not a good principle — in light of our circumstances? Why let the greater evil have the victory because we approach politics as an all-or-nothing proposition?

Third, evaluating our principles. We are considering political issues in this book, and are especially focusing on voting as an important political act that Christians should pursue. As believers we often find ourselves and our principles under assault. One of our principles should be to strive to protect our other principles as best we can against the majority opposition. I am arguing that, given our circumstances, we sometimes have to act as principled realists and vote for the lesser of evils in defending our principles for the long haul. Just as freedoms may be lost incrementally, they may also be re-established incrementally.

Unfortunately, many idealistic Christians will reject any call to voting for the lesser of evils. Sometimes they will ask: “As a Christian why would you vote for the lesser of evils?” The answer, of course is: “Because I want less evil.”

Some of these will indignantly rebuke principled-realist Christians by complaining that they should never vote for the lesser of evils. But when considered from a Christian perspective, this position is self-refuting and borders on a messianic conception of politics. After all, Christians should be aware that unless Christ is on the ballot every vote is for the lesser of evils. Does not Jesus say: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18b). In fact, he can even speak to his followers as children of the “heavenly Father” and yet call them “evil”: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13).

In opposing the lesser of evils the Christian could not even vote for the Apostle Paul, for he says of himself: “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. . . . For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. . . . I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Rom. 7:14, 19, 21). He even cites the Old Testament’s universal declaration: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).

Because of these realities no conservative Christian can avoid voting for the lesser of evils. A vote for the Apostle Paul would be — on Paul’s own admission — a lesser of evils! No candidate in this fallen world is perfect; all candidates have some flaws, some “evil.” In such a world we cannot escape lesser-of-evils voting.

Taking this a step further, I would argue that an attempt to vote for a “perfect” candidate by voting third-party in national presidential elections is unrealistic, risky, and self-defeating. It is unrealistic because excellent third party candidates fare miserably and embarrassingly in presidential elections. They have absolutely no chance of winning. And as a consequence they project the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.

This can be demonstrated statistically. In the 2000 election Patrick Buchanan of the Reform Party (deemed by many Christians as an excellent candidate) garnered only 448,895 votes out of 105,405,100 cast. This translates to 0.42 % of all votes. Howard Phillips, a strong Christian representing the biblically-faithful Constitution Party received only 98,020 votes, for 0.09% of the vote. In the 2004 election the Constitution Party candidate received only 144,499 votes, for 0.12% of all votes. In 2008 the Constitution Party garnered only 199,880 votes or 0.15% of the total.

Voting third party is also risky. The following statistics are not endorsing one candidate over the other, but are used to illustrate how just a few votes can make a difference in an election.

In the presidential election of 2000 a very few votes allowed George Bush to defeat Al Gore. In that remarkable election (which was so close that the winner was not determined until December 12th, over a month after the election), Bush lost the popular vote but won on the basis of the Electoral College vote. Gore, the Democratic candidate, received 50,999,897 votes to Bush’s 50,456,002. That is, he won 48.38% to Bush’s 47.87%. But Bush won the Electoral College vote that decided the election — due to Florida’s extremely tight voting results. Thus, Bush won the presidency because he won Florida (with its sizeable Electoral College votes), and he won Florida by only 537 votes (a victory of 0.061%). In that Florida vote, Howard Phillips received 1,378 votes and Patrick Buchanan 17,412. Had these two candidates received just 538 more votes between them, the race would have gone the opposite way.

Tragically, Hitler won Germany on a divided vote. “Hitler became Germany’s chancellor (prime minister) without ever having received more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the elections he had entered.” This shows the risky nature of third party candidacies. Split votes can often produce horrible results. Six million Jews paid with their lives on the basis of a split vote — as ultimately did over 40 million who died in the European theater of World War 2.

Fourth, explaining our principles. The principled realist recognizes the nature of our American political system: it is virtually impossible statistically for a third-party candidate to win. Generally, they only cause one of the two major party candidates to lose, such as Ross Perot in 1992. In 1992 George H. W. Bush was projected to win as much as 55% of the vote, coming off high approval ratings and a rather week unknown governor from Arkansas. But with Perot’s entry into the race and his securing of 18.91% of the vote, Bill Clinton won with only 43.01% of the national vote. Clinton never was elected by a majority vote in either of his two presidential wins.

Idealists often encourage third-party candidates by arguing: “this candidate or that party provides a dream platform.” That may well be true, but we have to wake up on the day after the election and realize the dream is over (or in the case of the 2000 election, we would have to sleep for a little over a month). We need to live in the real world rather than a dream world.

Some challenge the lesser-of-evils approach by arguing that it is simply a choice of fast poison (the bad candidate) versus slow poison (the tolerable candidate). They ask: “Why prefer slow poison over fast poison?” I would ask: Which would you prefer to accidentally ingest if you were thirty minutes from a hospital? In politics, if we have to vote for “slow poison,” we can at least buy some time to work on a “cure.” After all, the worst candidate often wins when conservative votes are drawn away to dream candidates. By drawing votes away from a tolerable but electable candidate you are actually taking fast-acting poison by default.

Others ask: “Why do we keep voting the same way (for centrist candidate) but expect different results (Christian- principled leaders)?” This question is a two-edged sword for it can be turned on the Christian idealist: “Why do some Christians keep voting for third party candidates and watching their candidate be demolished (receiving less than 1% of the vote), while allowing their votes effectively to be siphoned off to the more liberal candidate?” Beating our head against the wall in small numbers is not a good game plan.

But now we must consider:

The Question of Theology

As Christians living in God’s world, we must understand that we are here in the world for the long run. And as we come to grips with this it will be encouraging to recognize an important method of God’s dealings with man: gradualism, or incrementalism. That is, God generally works gradually over time to accomplish his purpose. We must therefore be willing to labor for our Christian influence in politics over time, not expecting all to be accomplished over night.

This theological principle should buttress our hope for the future. It allows us to seek smaller, stop-loss victories now with a goal to winning larger ones as history unfolds. Thus, this theological principle shows the practical wisdom in accepting compromise in our political actions (not compromise of our principles themselves) in the present time with a view to gaining influence in the long run. Rather than approaching politics as an all-or-nothing venture, we must recognize the significance of incremental victory over time.

In Scripture we find the principle of gradualism embodied in the actions of God in history. God works by slow providence over time by means of a “here a little; there a little” gradualism (Isa. 28:10). Indeed, he encourages his people by rhetorically asking: “who has despised the day of small things?” (Zech. 4:10).

For instance, we see divine gradualism at work in various theological issues in the Bible.

Creation. God created the universe on a gradualistic principle — an accelerated gradualism, to be sure, but gradual nonetheless. God created the universe step-by-step over a period of six days, though he could have easily created it all at once in an instant. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them” (Exo. 20:11a; cp. Gen. 1:1–31; Exo. 31:17).

Redemption. God promised redemption just after the entry of sin into the human race in Eden (Gen. 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam when Christ comes. “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5; cp. Eph. 1:10). Our chapter-heading verse speaks to this gradualism (Mark 4:26–27).

Revelation. God did not give us his entire, written revelation all at once. Rather he gradually unfolded his Word to men over a period of some 1,500 years, from Moses’s writings (1450 BC) until the last of the New Testament was written in the first century. “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1–2a; cp. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).

Sanctification. Even in God’s gracious salvation he works gradually in our lives. Though our justification brings salvation as a once-for-all act (Rom. 4:2–3; 5:1), God works sanctification within us by an ongoing process throughout our lives. “Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2; cp. Phil. 2:12-13).

It is difficult for us to be patient in a day of freeze-dried this and instant-that where scientists can measure actions in nanoseconds. But God teaches us in his Word to work patiently for the long run. We should not be dismayed if our political activities do not produce instant fruit. Sometimes we must expect less than we would hope for — by voting for the lesser evil.

But now how does this all square with:

The Question of Scripture

To be continued! See you tomorrow!

VOTING FOR THE LESSER-OF-EVILS (1)

PMW 2020-092 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

We are facing a watershed election that may determine whether or not we continue as a Constitutional Republic. Obviously, God is sovereign and in control. But as Calvinists we recognize the importance of human responsibility. I am posting this article this week in anticipation of the national elections in America next week.

Some Christians refuse to vote for Donald Trump because of his attitude and some past sins. I sympathize with them. However, like it or not, we will be electing only one of two candidates for President: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. This causes us to have to consider Lesser-of-Evils voting. I happen to believe we have the right to vote for a lesser-of-evils candidate. In this and the next few articles I will be summarizing my argument from my book Political Issues Made Easy.

I will not be voting so much for Trump, but for his policies. And I will do this on the basis of his policies being far superior to Joe Biden’s.

I will be reflecting on our political hopes and strategies for a strong Christian influence on America’s future. But before I get into this question, we must recognize our nation’s political structure.

America is a republic, not a democracy. Rather than being a democracy run directly by the people, we are a republic in which we elect our officials and empower them to make decisions on our behalf. The word “democracy” never appears in our Constitution, whereas it specifically states that “the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Art. 4; § 5). We are reminded of this important reality whenever we repeat our Pledge of Allegiance, for we the pledge is “to the republic for which it stands.” The fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to direct our national government in how to operate as a republic.

[image error]Political Issues Made Easy

by Kenneth Gentry

Christian 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

Nevertheless, in our constitutional republic we elect our government officials by majority vote. The Constitution states that members of the House of Representative are to be elected “by the People of the several States” (Art. 1; § 2). Originally Senators were elected by state legislators (who themselves were elected by the people): “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof” (Art. 1 Sect. 3). The Seventeenth Amendment (ratified, April 8, 1913), however, changed this, insuring “two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.” The President is elected indirectly by the people through the choosing of Electors by the (popularly elected) legislatures of each state (Art. 2; § 1). This system insures that each state, regardless of size, will be proportionally represented in the presidential election.

Thus, every adult citizen of the United States (unless he is a felon) has the right to vote. And as Christians our worldview obligates us to vote so that we might exercise a righteous influence on the governance of the nation. But now the rub. Though Christians are well-represented in America, two problems reduce our influence: (1) we do not represent a majority of the population, and (2) we are not in agreement among ourselves regarding political matters.

As a consequence of our present circumstances, we have few really good candidates from which to choose for our leaders. What are we to do? How shall we operate in such a mixed political environment? I would like to offer direction for what we as Christian citizens should do. As I begin I will first consider:

Our Current Dilemma

Because there are so few candidates operating on strongly-held biblical principles, and because more often than not those few good ones have little chance of winning a general election, we find ourselves facing a dilemma. The voting quandary we face is known as “the lesser of evils.” That is, if we as voters are in a political election involving several candidates and we realize that the best candidate cannot win, what are we to do? We face the prospect of either voting for our preferred candidate, knowing that he will lose, or voting for an alternative, more viable but less acceptable candidate with the hope that he will defeat the other even lesser qualified candidate. In this case the alternative candidate becomes the “lesser of evils” remaining among those who have a good chance of being elected.political c

Politically-conservative voters — and especially, Christian conservative voters — have a particularly difficult time facing this prospect. We are committed to principles rather than pragmatics. Consequently, voting for someone who is politically deficient in several respects is a hard pill to swallow, especially when there is a strongly-Christian candidate in the race. After all, we hold the truths of Scripture without compromise and are commanded in Scripture to “stand firm in the faith” (1 Cor. 16:13; cp. 2 Cor. 1:24; Gal. 5:1; Eph. 6:1, 13, 14; Phil. 1:27; 4:1; 1 Thess. 3:8; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Pet. 5:12). Indeed, our eternal destinies depend on such! How can we compromise our convictions in a political election? How can we vote for the lesser of two evils?

Many devout Christians, therefore, even urge us not to consider voting for the lesser of evils. For instance, a website called “Defending. Contending” states: “my current position is that true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” Peter Diezel puts it more forcefully: “I just can’t get myself to believe that it is good to vote for evil. The last I heard, the lesser of two evils is still evil.”

[image error]

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Dean Isaacson of the strongly-Christian Constitution Party concurs. He complains that:

“a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. If you are willing to compromise your principle for the sake of winning, don’t be surprised when the candidate you voted for compromises his. Isaiah warns us that if we do not stand firm in our faith, we will not stand at all (Isa. 7:9). Paul tells us, in Ephesians chapter six, after we have done everything to stand, we must stand and stand firm. Therefore, principle-attending to the laws of God must be our absolute goal. Our convictions dictate that we cannot win using the same strategies as the moderates, liberals and neo-conservatives. We do not win by building big tents and coalitions. In fact, we are not commanded to win; Christ taught us to be faithful.”

These are strong words representing vigorous evangelical challenges to Christians considering voting for a candidate lacking the full panoply of conservative convictions. And as I have been urging throughout this book, we certainly must bring our firmly-held Christian worldview to bear upon the political order. What are we to think of these challenges? How are we to respond to the challenge of the lesser of evils?

I believe that though these comments are well-intended, and though they have a surface plausibility, they ultimately fail as a proper Christian response to our predicament. Let me explain from a conservative-political and a Bible-based Christian perspective why I would say this, by noting:

Our Christian Response

I will consider this in the next installment tomorrow.