Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 54

THE TRUE MEANING OF REV 1:1 AND 1:3 (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I have been doing a survey of various excuses made by scholars who seek to avoid preterist understanding of Revelation. It is incredible how many different interpretations of Revelation 1:1 and 3 have been created.

Now I have come to the end of the survey of views, so I will present the evidence to support the preterist analysis. Why do we believe the bulk of Revelation was near when John wrote? Let’s see.

NEARNESS EVIDENCE

Revelation 1:1 reads: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon [en tachei] take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.”

That en tachei means “soon” and that Revelation primarily prophesies near term events is based on the following evidence. Each of the arguments below will not apply equally against each one of the alternative interpretations above. Some will apply more directly to one alternative than to another. All of these observations together, however, should demonstrate the strong, multi-faceted case for the preterist analysis.

[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

1. Lexical meaning

According to EDNT (3:338) tachos means “immediately, without delay,” and “soon.” BAGD (992) gives the significance of the word as: “a very brief period of time, with focus on speed of an activity or event, speed, quickness, swiftness, haste.”

The adverb tachos appears in the NT only in the phrase en tachei (Lk 18:8; Ac 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Ro 16:20; 1Ti 3:14; Revelation 1:1; 22:6). In these places it means “soon, in a short time” (BAGD 993). Though some argue that in Ac 12:7 and 22:18 the emphasis is on the rapidity of movement rather than chronological nearness, both of these verses express urgent warnings to leave an area. Consequently, the purpose of the swift action is to get out of the area as soon as possible. Peter in the collapsed prison and Paul in antagonistic Jerusalem are not being urged to move rapidly whenever they get a chance to do so at some time in the future.

Some commentators cite en tachei in Lk 18:8 as indicating rapid action rather than temporal nearness (e.g., Walvoord 32; Ryrie 13). Others view this text as teaching ever-impending imminence (e.g., Mounce 41; Johnson 1981: 416; Osborne 55). However, this key text itself must signify soon-ness. Note that:

(1) Note that elsewhere the promised vindication of God’s saints “speedily” will be before the disciples “finish going through the cities of Israel” (Mt 10:23). Even in Revelation we have a parallel sentiment to Lk 18:8 which demands a near-term interpretation. In 6:9–11 the souls of those slain cry out to God: “How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The reply comes: “they should rest for a little while longer.”

(2) This statement is preceded by a promise of certainty that “God [will] bring about justice” (18:7). So this issue is already expressed even before the additional promise of v 8. Furthermore, (3) to promise that an action will come rapidly whenever it may come offers no comfort to saints who are suffering now. To promise that Christ will be moving at the speed of light some two or three thousand years from now offers no relief.

2. Translational consensus

A survey of the translation of Revelation 1:1 in the leading English versions of Scripture clearly evidence temporal nearness:

“must soon take place” (NASB)

“must shortly take place” (NKJV)

“must shortly come to pass” (ASV)

“must soon take place” (RSV; NRSV; NIV; TNIV; ESV)

“must shortly happen” (NEB)

“must happen very soon” (TEV; NET).

The views of most commentators, however, differ from the translators. The commentators’ interpretations could have been served better by John had he avoided the temporal designate “soon” and simply stated: “the things must take place.”

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

3. Varied expressions

Almost as if to ensure that he be understood, John employs several terms to emphasize his point of temporal nearness: (1) Here in 1:1 he uses en tachei (see above). (2) In 1:3 he uses the phrase ho gar kairos eggus, “for the time is near.” (3) In 6:11 while presenting his first judgment vision in the main drama — a vision which highlights one of Revelation’s leading concerns (martyr vindication) — he states that the martyrs should rest only chronon mikron, “a little while longer.” (4) In 10:6 he learns that chronos ouketi estai, “there shall be delay no longer.” (5) In 12:12 he states that the devil has oligon kairon, “a short time.”

The word eggus (1:3; 22:10) pertains “to being close in point of time, near” (BAGD 271). It “indicates the proximity of a place, a time, a person, or a theological abstraction” (EDNT 1:371). It is used of summer approaching soon after the budding of a fig tree (Mt 24:32 ), Jesus’ death nearing at his last Passover (Mt 26:18 ), and the fast approaching Passover (Jn 2:13; 6:4; 11:55) and the Feast of Booths (Jn 7:2).

The whole point of 6:11 is to assure the reader/hearers that martyrs for Christ’s sake will be vindicated — and soon: just “a little while longer.” They are seen beneath the altar in heaven crying out with a loud voice, specifically demanding: “how long” (eōs pote)? Pote is an interrogative adverb of time (cp. Mt 24:3; 25:37–39; Jn 6:25; 10:24). At 6:11it literally means “until when”? The martyrs’ concern is with the time of their vindication.

In ch 10 John hears seven peals of thunder (10:3) and was about to write what they uttered (10:4a) when a heavenly voice commanded him not to do so (10:4b) because “there shall be no longer delay” (10:6). In ch 12 we see a “war in heaven” between Michael and the dragon (12:7) which resulted in the dragon being thrown out of heaven down to the earth (12:9). Because of this, “now” (arti, temporal adverb meaning here “the immediate past, just [now],” BAGD 136) God’s salvation, power and kingdom have come (12:10). As a result of this battle and casting out of the dragon, the heavens rejoice, but the earth is to experience his great wrath because he knows “he has only a short time” (12:12).

But there is more! So join me again next time. For one last time.

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (5)

[image error]PMW 2020-064 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my fifth study in a survey of the scholarly options for interpreting the introductory verses of Revelation. Those verses are Revelation 1:1, 3. And they read:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, . . . 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

We have looked at seven options among scholars. We are now ready for three more!

8. John speaks from the future

George Beasley-Murray emphasizes “imminence” (Revelation, 168) and “no more delay” (170) but not for the original audience. Actually “in his vision John stands near the close of the period of messianic judgments” (Beasley-Murray 170). Thus, he sees John as speaking from within the future context when the events are about to explode on the seen.

This is highly unlikely for John opens his book with these words of temporal nearness before anyone knows what he will be saying. And even before he gets caught up “in the Spirit” (1:10; 4:1–2) or transported into the scenes (17:1; 21:9–10). This approach might be more plausible if he said something to the effect: “I was carried in the Spirit into the future to see things that were soon to come to pass.” Or: “the Spirit entered me and set me in the Day of the Lord where I saw things that were soon to take place.” Besides, in 1:3 he blessed the original reader of Revelation and the original hearers who would “heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near” (1:3). Surely the time was near for the reader and hearers.

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

9. The events are inaugurated

The events have already been inaugurated and are gradually unfolding through history. G. K. Beale (Revelation, 182) presents this view which is quite widely held in the current scholarly discussion: “the focus of ‘quickness’ and ‘’nearness’ in vv 1–3 is primarily on inauguration of prophetic fulfillment and its ongoing aspect, not on nearness of consummated fulfillment, though the latter is secondarily in mind as leading from the former.” Thus, “the beginning of fulfillment and not final fulfillment is the focus.” Grant Osborne (Revelation, 55) agrees: “In salvation history the events indicated in the book have already begun to ‘come to pass’ and await the final consummation.”

This is basically the view held by J. P. M. Sweet (Revelation, 58), Simon Kistemaker (Revelation, 77), and Vern Poythress (The Returning King, 70).

This approach is semi-preteristic and acceptable as a partial answer to the question of John’s meaning. But its application by scholars is generally rather nebulous allowing recurring events throughout history continually to unfold. John’s terminology, however, seems more concrete and constraining. Indeed, he uses the aorist infinitive genesthai (“take place,” i.e., come to be) which should be translated “must have come to pass” (Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 545). This dei . . . genesthai wording occurs seven times in Scripture (including 1:1; 22:6) and signifies fulfillment, not the beginning of fulfillment. It speaks of the fulfillment of Scripture prophecies of Jesus’ death (Mt 26:64) and the wars and rumors of wars that must occur before the “end” (Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9 ). (Revelation 4:1 cannot serve as evidence one way or the other because it is a part of the question as to whether the things in Revelation must occur soon.)

Clearly, John expects the actual fulfillment of the overwhelming majority of his prophecies. In fact, in only one place does he glance into the distant future to reveal the long-term consequences of its first-century fulfillment: in 20:1–15. But there he expressly states that the events will not occur soon, for he states that some of them will transpire after 1000 years are “completed” (20:3, 5, 7).

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

10. The events will occur soon

The events will occur soon — within the lifetime of John’s audience. Philip Carrington (The Meaning of Revelation, vii) expresses this approach clearly: “When the Revelation was written it was naturally accepted as an account of current events and of events ‘shortly to come to ‘pass’; that is how it describes itself, and that is how it was naturally taken.”

He later states: “we cannot, however, do justice to his very plain opening statement (cf. 1.3; iv:1; xxii. 10) by saying that he foresaw a long series of events covering centuries, which could be described as imminent because they were to begin shortly. Whatever earthly realities correspond to John’s symbols, he expected them to be accomplished quickly in their entirety” (Carrington 12).

Moses Stuart (Apocalypse, 1:5) calls this the “plain and obvious sense” of the phrase. Kurt Aland (History of Christianity, 1985: 1:88) observes:

In the original text, the Greek work used is tachu, and this does not mean “Soon,” in the sense of “sometime,” but rather “now,” “immediately.” Therefore, we must understand Rev. 22:12 in this way: “I am coming now, bringing my recompense.” The concluding word of Rev. 22:20 is: “He who testifies to these things says, ‘surely I am coming soon.” Here we again find the word tachu, so this means: I am coming quickly, immediately. This is followed by the prayer: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” . . . The Apocalypse expresses the fervent waiting for the end within the circles in which the writer lived — not an expectation that will happen at some unknown point X in time (just to repeat this), but one in the immediate present.

F. W. Farrar (The Early Days of Christianity, 1884: 432) captures the frustration preterists feel when interacting with the alternative positions: “it is curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the perfectly simple [un]ambiguous expression ‘speedily’ (en tachei), to mean any length of time which they may choose to demand.” Indeed, the “language is simply meaningless if it is to be so manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words ‘speedily’ and ‘near’ imply any number of centuries of delay.” For the preterist “the primary focus is on John’s own generation” (Ian Boxall, Revelation 24).

In addition to Carrington, Stuart, Farrar, and Boxall, this view is held by F. J. A. Hort (Apocalypse, 6), William Milligan (Revelation, 2), Milton S. Terry (Biblical Apocalyptics, 276), Jay Adams (The Time Is at Hand, 50), Ford (373), David Chilton (Days of Vengeance, 52), Eugenio Corsini (Apocalypse, 72), and Bruce Malina (Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 31).

Will it ever stop? Can there be more intepretations? Alas, there are. And I will continue with them in my next installment.

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (4)

[image error]PMW 2020-063 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a survey of the various interpretations of the first three verses of Revelation. These are crucial for understanding what John’s mysterious book involves. Those verses read:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, . . . 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

We are now ready for two more interpretations that are found among scholars. And dispensationalists.

6. The events are always imminent

The events are imminent in that they could theoretically occur at any minute. Premillennialist Robert Mounce (Revelation, 41) takes this approach: “John writes that the events that constitute the revelation must ‘soon take place.’ That almost 2,000 year of church history have passed and the end has not yet come poses a problem for some. . . . The most satisfying solution is to take the expression ‘must soon take place’ in a straightforward sense, remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent. Time as a chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy. This perspective is common to the entire NT.”

Later (p. 404) Mounce writes: “One answer to the problem of this as-yet-unfulfilled expectation is to hold that God is more concerned with the fulfillment of his redemptive purposes than he is with satisfying our ideas of appropriate timing.” Metzger (105) adds: “In the Christian doctrine of the last things, the imminence of the end is moral rather than chronological: each successive generation, so far as can be known to the contrary, may be the last generation. In that sense the time is always near (22:10).” This views is held by G. E. Ladd (22) and Alan F. Johnson (Revelation in Gaebelein, 1981: 417).

Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But against this view we must wonder why John would use time-laden words to express his view of prophecy rather than simply saying these events “must” come about. Indeed, in 22:10 John’s revelatory angel seems intentionally to be reversing Daniel’s heavenly directive which stated: “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time” (Dan 12:4). John’s directive is “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (Revelation 22:10). Thus, we have the odd situation that around 600 years before John’s day, Daniel was commanded to seal up his prophecy until the end, but John is commanded not to seal up his prophecy for the end is near — though we have now gone over 1900 years into the future.

Besides this understanding of imminency in the futurist scheme is an abuse of the term: Webster’s New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary defines “imminent”: “appearing as if about to happen; likely to happen without delay; impending.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines “imminent”: “Impending threateningly, hanging over one’s head; ready to befall or overtake one; close at hand in its incidence; coming on shortly.” Imminency has no meaning if that which is “imminent” stretches out for 2000 years — or more.

7. The events are certain

The events are certain irrespective of when they occur. Stephen B. Smalley (Revelation, 27) states that “this phrase indicates the sure accomplishment of God’s purposes, rather than a ‘hasty consummation’ of history.” Louis Brighton (Revelation, 642–43) concurs: “The events described will certainly take place: human evil and the resulting sufferings under God’s judgment, and the church of Christ completing her mission. It is necessary that these events take place.”

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

Problems

But again, John could have better expressed this view by simply stating that he was referring to “the things which must take place.” The word “soon” simply confuses the matter. Or he could have used the simple future: “the things which will take place.” Or he could have used amēn to affirm its certainty, especially since John is fond of amēn both in Revelation (1:6,7; 3:14; 5:14; 7:12; 19:4; 22:20, 21), as well as in his Gospel where he always doubles it (25 x): “the things which must take place. Amen.”

These views cannot overthrow the surface meaning and regular usage of these words. So we are back to accepting redemptive-historical preterism. But there are more to come! See you next time.

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (3)

[image error]PMW 2020-062 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is a third installment in my series presenting the various scholarly approaches to John’s all-important opening verses to Revelation. These verses are too easily overlooked by the average Christian trying to get to “the good stuff” about the Beast and the Harlot. But to jump over these is to miss John’s point.

How are we to understand Revelation 1:1 and 3? What else have the scholars attempted with these verses?

These verses read:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, . . . 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

We are now ready for the fourth and fifth approaches.

4. The events will occur rapidly

The events will unfold rapidly whenever they begin to occur. Dispensationalist scholar John Walvoord (Revelation, 35) understands Rev’s opening comment thus: “That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘soon’ (Gr. en tachei), that is, ‘quickly or suddenly coming to pass,’ indicating a rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke f18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20). A similar word, tackus, is translated ‘quickly’ seven times in Rev.” Charles Ryrie (Revelation, 13) also holds this view.

This interpretation does not offer any encouragement whatsoever. If the Church must wait hundreds and hundreds of years before the events occur, what is the significance of their finally arriving rapidly? Besides the soon-ness embodied in this phrase occurs again in other expressions in 1:3, 19, and elsewhere. F. D. Mazzaferri well argues: “Though tachos may connote speed rather than imminence, the former makes little sense in terms of 22:10, or in context with engus. Likewise, Jesus’ promise erchomai tachu, is scarcely intelligible, let alone a motivation for perseverance, except in the sense of imminence.” He even notes that in 1:7 “the pres. tense eloquently speaks of imminence in its own right” (Genre of the Book of Revelation, Mazzaferri, 237).

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

5. John is speaking of God’s time

The events will occur soon according to the eternal God’s measure of time. Dispensationalist Robert L. Thomas (Revelation, 1:55) recognizes the weakness of Walvoord’s position noting that “to say that relief will come ‘suddenly’ offers no encouragement but to say that it will come ‘soon’ does.” He argues that “when measuring time, Scripture has a different standard from ours. . . . It must be kept in mind that God is not limited by considerations of time in the same way man is (cf. 2 Pet. 3:8).”

Leon Morris (Revelation, 46–47) holds a similar view: “We must bear in mind that in the prophetic perspective the future is sometimes foreshortened. In other words the term may refer to the certainty of the events in question. The Lord God has determined them and he will speedily bring them to pass. But this refers to his time, not ours, to the quality of the time rather than the quantity. With him one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet. 3:8).”

In fact, Henry Alford (Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:545–46) warns that this statement “must not be urged to signify the events of apocalyptic prophecy were to be close at hand.” According to Craig Keener (61) “Revelation functions, therefore, as a “summons to readiness.” Grant Osborne (797) agrees: “to God the period between John’s time and ours still connotes ‘soon.’” See also Ocemenius (22), H. B. Swete (2), Henry Alford (4:535), Marvin Vincent (2:407), A. T. Robertson (283), Robert Mulholland (9), David Hall (11), and Ranko Stefanovic (57).

[image error]An Eschatology of Victory

by J. Marcellus Kik

This book presents a strong, succinct case for both optimistic postmillennialism and for orthodox preterism. An early proponent in the late Twentieth-century revival of postmillennialism. One of the better non-technical studies of Matt. 24. It even includes a strong argument for a division between AD 70 and the Second Advent beginning at Matt. 24:36.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Problems

How this offers any more encouragement to a severely persecuted Church than Walvoord’s view is not clear. After all, on this view John would be stating: “The events within are imminent, but may in fact take 2000 years before they occur.” In addition I would make a three-fold rebuttal to the possibility that John is speaking of time as does Peter in 2 Peter 3:8:

In the first place, Peter expressly states the fact that God views time differently from man. John does not. We cannot go about interpreting all temporal indicators by God’s estimation of time. Secondly, Peter is talking about God, whereas John is giving directives to men. Peter makes a theological statement regarding God and his perception of time; John provides an historical directive to men regarding their unfolding hardships. We must not confuse theological truth about God with historical directives to men.

Thirdly, Peter is expressly dealing with the objection that certain prophecies have failed because they have yet to occur: “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation’” (2 Pe 3:3–4). Peter is facing the slowness of God’s judgment. John, however, is warning suffering Christians (among which he numbers himself, Revelation 1:9) about what they must expect. He dogmatically declares repeatedly and in various ways that his prophecies “must soon take place” because “the time is near.”

To be continued! I hope you will join me.

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a short series that is presenting the various views of commentators in their understanding of the opening verses of Revelation, specifically Revelation 1:1, 3. These verses introduce the book and are therefore crucial for its understanding. However, commentators disagree on how these verses are to be interpreted.

So now I will be presenting two more view of these verses.

2. John was ambiguous

The events were prophesied to be soon, but as was customary with Israel’s prophets, the special prophetic language is intentionally “ambiguous.” Prophetic ambiguity is intentional and designed to heighten the hearers’ expectations for moral purposes of readiness. Though not applying his discussion to Revelation, we may easily see how Scot McKnight’s understanding of Hebrew prophecy would explain John’s nearness imagery.

In discussing Jesus’ Gospel statements regarding the nearness of the kingdom and the apocalyptic judgments associated with it, McKnight (A New Vision for Israel, 1999: 129) writes: “I will argue that Jesus had an imminent expectation and that this view is consistent with the prophetic movement in Israel. His perception was not erroneous. In its limitation, ignorance, and ambiguity, prophetic knowledge is not erroneous knowledge, but it is different from everyday, empirical knowledge.”

[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

Though McKnight (129) argues against employing “exegetical gymnastics” to evade the import of prophetic near-term pronouncements, his approach seems to encourage just that. John’s statements are quite clear, repeated, and balanced with one another. He opens (1;1, 3) and closes (22:6, 10) with these nearness statements. He never declares that he does not know the time; he does not use ambiguous language in making his statements. Any prophetic-ambiguity argument will not suffice to discount the approaching judgments.

3. Revelation is motivational

The events are declared to be soon, but only for dramatic, motivational purposes. J. Ramsey Michaels (Revelation, 48) argues that

“Christians tend to get nervous about any implication that the Bible might be mistaken. yet a great deal is lost when the striking words soon and the time is near are not given their proper force. The conviction that the end of the world is near is what makes the book of Revelation larger than life. . . . The intense awareness of the end of all things infuses the book’s imagery with sharpness and rich color. The announcement that ‘the time is near’ provokes not resignation or a feeling that nothing matters, but on the contrary a kind of jubilation at the preciousness of life and at the world God created and will create anew in the events that must soon take place.”

James L. Resseguie (Revelation, 63) holds a similar view when he states that John is building a sense of “tension” in his dramatic work. Harry O. Maier (Apocalypse Recalled, 124) comments that “Jesus, like Godot, is just around a corner that is never turned.”

[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

Problem

Perhaps we may suppose that this approach would have infused the book with sharpness and color for its original recipients. But now nineteen hundred years of delay would surely dull that cutting edge and wash out the color considerably. This simply will not do.

Thus, I hope you will return for my next presentation, the third in this series.

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-060 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

All agree that Revelation is a difficult book. Except for televangelist Hal Lindsey. In this regard, one theologian has noted that for every five commentaries on Revelation you can find six different views.

How is this problem to be solved if we are ever to understand Revelation? The answer: exegetically. We must read what John says he expects at the very beginning of his mysterious work. And what does he say in his opening?

In Revelation 1:1and 3 we read:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, . . . 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Unfortunately, we will learn that most commentators do not see these words as meaning what they seem to mean. For if they did accept them at face value, they would all be redemptive-historical preterists. In this short series I will be presenting several of the leading interpretations of these verses. I will here present some of the leading options for interpreting John’s declaration. Some of these concepts can be and are blended in some of the writers highlighted.

1. John was mistaken

The events were expected soon, but John was wrong. M. E. Boring (Revelation, 73) asserts that John’s near-term expectation for “all the events his letter envisions” erred: “Does this mean he was wrong? Yes. Christians who reverence the Bible as Scripture, the vehicle of God’s word, ought not to hesitate to acknowledge that its authors made errors. . . . When John adopted apocalyptic as the vehicle of his message, he adopted its errors as well.”

The Beast of Revelation[image error]

by Ken Gentry

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

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

W. J. Harrington (Revelation, 44–45) concurs: “When John declares that the time is near, he means that, in his view, the End is soon. Was he, then, mistaken? In one sense, obviously yes. The end did not happen in his day, nor has it occurred nineteen centuries later. What we might learn from him is a sense of urgency.”

Nigel Turner (Peake’s Commentary, 1045) agrees, noting that “conservative scholars try to see in this word the meaning ‘quickly’ (i.e. catastrophically) as well as soon, for the simple truth is that the events did not have an immediate fulfillment. David L. Barr (“The Apocalypse of John,” 1984:39) notes that Revelation “failed rather spectacularly to deliver on its promise that Jesus would come ‘soon.’”

B. Robinson (“The Two Persecuted Prophet Witnesses,” 1988: 16) is more gracious to John but agrees that: “John’s expectation of a speedy winding up of history . . . was premature.” But the meaning really is ‘soon.’”

George Buchanan (Revelation, 35–36) puts the matter boldly: “John thought Christians were then near the end of the tribulation, and it would be only a short time before the predestined period would be over and the nation would be free from foreign rule. . . . John was not expecting to wait a thousand years. Based on Daniel, he expected an end to take place within three and one half years. That did not happen, and John made a mistake. That is all there is to it, and no one should try to claim some infallibly correct interpretation that will absolve John of error.”

[image error]

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture

DVD by Ken Gentry

A summary of the evidence for Revelation’s early date. Helpful, succinct introduction to Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Problem

This approach is unacceptable to those who believe Revelation is divinely revealed (as John claims in 1:1, hopefully truthfully). And it is based on a radical misunderstanding of what Revelation is really teaching, as we shall see.

Furthermore, it certainly would not create a sense of “urgency” but rather a profound sense of disappointment and disgust akin to those who followed William Miller to the mountain top in 1843. Revelation should be nothing more than a Qumran-like specimen of failed expectations.

This series will continue. Stay tuned.

WORLDVIEW APOLOGETICS (4)

[image error]PMW 2020-059 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the fourth and concluding article on worldview apologetics.

Presuppositions Make a Difference

Reality (Ontology). When asked to give the basis and starting point for the orderly universe and all external reality, the Christian points to the self-contained, omnipresent all-powerful, all-wise God of Scripture.

When the non-Christian is asked to give the basis and starting for the orderly universe and external reality, he points literally to nothing. All has risen from nothing by the irrational mechanism of chance. When asked if something can miraculously pop into being from nothing in an instant the non-Christian vigorously responds in the negative. Instant miracles are out of the question! But when asked if something can come out of nothing if given several billion years, the non-Christian confidently responds in the affirmative. As Van Til, has noted, the non-Christian overlooks the fact that if one zero equals zero, then a billion zeros can equal only zero.

Thus, the Christian has a more than adequate reason for the universe, whereas the non-Christian has no reason whatsoever.

Knowledge (Epistemology). The Christian establishes his theory of knowledge on the all-ordering omniscient God of Scripture. God has instantaneous, true, and exhaustive knowledge of everything. And he has revealed to man in the Bible comprehensive principles which are clear and give a sure foundation for knowledge. Such a foundation insures that what man does know (although he cannot know all things) he can know truly. Knowledge does work because man’s mind as created by God is receptive to external reality and is given validity by God Himself.

[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

On the other hand, the non-Christian must establish his theory of knowledge on the same foundation upon which he established reality: nebulous chaos and irrational chance. If followed out consistently the non-Christian theory of knowledge would utterly destroy all knowledge, causing it to drown in the turbulent ocean of irrationalism. There is no reason for reason in the non-Christian system. The concepts of probability, possibility, order, rationality, and so forth, are impossible in a chance system.

Thus, the Christian has a sure foundation for knowledge, whereas the non-Christian has none.

Morality (Ethics). When we consider the issue of moral behavior—how we shall conduct ourselves—again the question must be settled in terms of one’s system.

For the Christian, morality is founded upon the all-good, all-knowing, everywhere present, all powerful, personal, and eternal God of Scripture. His will, which is rooted in his being and nature, is man’s standard of right. Since God is all good (Psa. 119:137; Mark 10:18b) and all-knowing (Psa. 139:2-27; Prov. 15:3), moral principles revealed in Scripture are always relevant to our situation. Since God is eternal (Psa. 90:2; 102:12), his moral commands are always binding upon men.

For the non-Christian there is no sure base for ethics. Since reality is founded on nothing and knowledge is rooted in irrationalism, morality can be nothing other than pure, impersonal irrelevance. In such a system as presupposed by non-Christian thought there are no—there can be no—ultimate, abiding moral principles. Everything is caught up in the impersonal flux of a random universe. Random change is an ultimate in such a system, consequently ethics is reduced to pure relativism. Non-Christian thought can offer no justification for any moral behavior whatsoever.

Purpose (Teleology). To the question of whether or not there is any significance and meaning to the universe and to life, the Christian confidently responds in the affirmative. There is meaning in the world because it was purposely and purposefully created by and for the personal, loving, all-ordering, eternal God of Scripture (Neh. 9:6; Psa. 33:6-9). Man came about as the direct and purposeful creation of the loving God (Gen. 2:7). Furthermore, man was assigned a specific and far-reaching duty by God on the very day he was created (Gen. 1:26-29). Man and his task must be understood in terms of the eternal God and his plan rather than in terms of himself and an environment of chance and change.

Non-Christian thought destroys the meaning and significance of man by positing that he is nothing more than a chance fluke, an accidental collection of molecules arising out of the slime and primordial ooze. Man is a frail speck of dust caught up in a gigantic, impersonal, multi-billion year old universe. That, and nothing more. As the famous Twentieth Century atheist Bertrand Russell put it:

“The world is purposeless, void of meaning. Man is the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; all th devotion, all th inspiration, all th noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system. Only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair can the soul’s habitation be safely built. From evoltion no ultimately optimistic philosophy can be validly inferred.” (Russell, Mysticism and Logic [New York: Doubleday, 1917], 45-46)

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

Conclusion

To the question concerning which system is the most adequate to explain external reality, the possibility of knowledge, a relevant and binding ethic, and the significance of man, the answer should be obvious. Actually the defense of Christianity is simple: we argue the impossibility of the contrary. Those who assault the Christian system must actually assume the Christian system to do so. In fact, atheism assumes theism. If the God of Scripture did not exist there would be no man in any real world to argue—there would be no possibility of rationality by which an argument could be forged, and there would be no purpose in debate!

Charles Darwin stated it well in his personal letter to W. Graham on July 3, 1881:

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin [New York: Basic, 1959], 1:285)

Paul also spoke well when he declared in Romans 3:4, “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

The God of Scripture, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate and necessary foundation for a rational, coherent worldview. Every other system is built upon a lie. The Christian system begins with: “In the beginning God.” And from that foundational reality, all the rest of a rational worldview falls into place.

WORLDVIEW APOLOGETICS (3)

[image error]PMW 2020-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third installment of four articles on worldview apologetics. As we continue, we must consider:

The Christian System and Presuppositions

What is the Christian’s starting point? What is his most basic presupposition upon which he builds his entire world and-life view? Where do we begin our argument?

Christian thought holds as its logically primitive, fundamental, all-pervasive and necessary starting point or presupposition, the being of God who has revealed himself in Scripture. Thus, our presupposition is God and his word. The Scripture, being his own infallible word (2 Tim. 3:16), reveals to us the nature of the God in whom we trust.

God is self-sufficient, needing nothing outside of himself at all (Exo. 4:11; John 5:26). All else in the universe is utterly dependent upon him (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). God is the all-powerful Creator of the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Exo. 20:11; Neh. 9:6). God is personal, thus giving meaning to the vast universe (Acts 17:28). And God has clearly and authoritatively revealed himself in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:20-21), so we may build upon his word as Truth (Psa. 119:160; John 17:17).

The entire Christian system of thought is founded solidly upon this God; the all-ordering God of Scripture (Psa. 33:9; Isa. 46:10). We presuppose God for what he is. If God exists and demands our belief in Scripture, we cannot challenge or test him in any area (Deut. 6:16; Matt. 4:7). We recognize the independence of God and the utter dependence of man and the universe. Thus we do not have to exhaustively know everything to be sure. God knows all things and has revealed to us in his word the truth of uniformity (Gen. 8:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3) and all other truths we need to build upon.

[image error]

Van Til Conference on Eschatology (3 mp3 lectures)

Three formal lectures on various aspects of postmillennialsm.

An excellent introduction to postmillennialism from a distinctly Reformed perspective. Includes discussion of the leading objections to the postmillennial hope

as well as an application of Van Til’s apologetic method to the postmillennial argument.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Non-Christian System and Presuppositions

Against this presupposed system, what does the non-Christian presuppose as ultimate truth? What does the secularist have to offer as its ultimate authority?

The non-Christian must ultimately explain the universe not on the basis of the all-organizing, self-sufficient, all-wise, personal God as his starting point. Rather but by nebulous, chaotic, impersonal chance. He asserts that the universe was produced by a combination of impersonal chance plus an enormous span of time. Thus the ultimate starting point and the all-conditioning environment of the universe is time plus chance. Consequently, rational science is rooted in the irrationality of chance. The scientist cannot speak of design or purpose in the universe because there is no designer or purpose. There can be no goal or purpose in a random system.

On this view science must by the very nature of its non-Christian commitment assume facts to be bits of irrationalism strewn about awaiting rationalization by man. Thus modem science is schizophrenic. On the one hand, everything has its source in random, ungoverned chance. On the other hand, evolution assumes all is not random, but uniform: that all is ungoverned, yet, nevertheless, is moving in an upward direction from disorder to order, from simplicity to complexity.

In this regard Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til has noted: “On his own assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound by products of chance.” To prove a rational universe by chance man must believe the rational is the product of, and is dependent upon, the irrational.

Not only is all of reality founded on chance, but this leaves man to be the final criterion of truth, Man—sinful, fallible, finite man—becomes ultimate in the non-Christian system.

WORLDVIEW APOLOGETICS (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second of a four-part series on worldview apologetics. I will open with a continuation of:

The Role of Presuppositions in Thought (2)

The Impossibility of Neutrality. Everyone holds to presuppositions. No one operates—or even can operate— from a vacuum. We simply do not think or behave “out of the blue.” It is impossible to think and live as if we were aliens having just arrived in this world from a radically different universe, totally devoid of all knowledge of this world, absolutely objective and utterly un-predisposed to ideas about truth: People behave in terms of a basic world-and-life view which implements their conceptions regarding truth.

Consequently, neutrality in thought is impossible. Each person—the philosopher and scientist included—has his own bias. This bias has predetermined the facts on the basis of his presuppositions. Yet almost invariably scientists claim to be presenting neutral, unbiased, impartial and objective facts in their research. But man is not and cannot be truly objective and impartial. All thinking must begin somewhere! All thinking must have some fundamental, logically primitive starting point or presupposition. At the very least we must presuppose the reality of the external world, the rationality of mental activity, the compatibility between external reality and the mind, and the uniformity of nature, i.e., the law of cause-and-effect. As noted previously a certain faith is necessary in the selection and organization of the several facts chosen from the innumerable number flowing toward us in every moment of experience.

Teaching for a Change[image error]

(by Norman De Jong)

Calls Christians to a biblical philosophy of education that deals with human nature, revealed truth, and a child’s need to be transformed.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

By the very nature of the case presuppositions are necessarily self-authenticating or self-evidencing. Facts are inseparable from their interpretation. Facts cannot stand alone. They must be understood in terms of some broad, unified whole or system. They must be organized in our rational minds in terms of their general relationships to other facts and principles.

This leads us then to our most basic question: Which system of though can give meaning to the facts of the universe? Which world-and-life view can provide an adequate foundation for reality? Why is our state-of-affairs conducive to rational thought and behavior? What is the basis for an orderly universe?

World-Views in Collision. When we contrast Christian thought with non-Christian thought we must realize that we are not contrasting two series of isolated facts. We are not comparing two systems of truth sharing a basically similar outlook with only intermittent differences at specific turns. We are contrasting two whole, complete, and antithetical systems of thought. Each particular item of evidence presented in support of the one system will be evaluated by the other system in terms of the latter’s own entire implicit system with all of its basic assumptions. Each fact or piece of data presented either to the Christian or the non-Christian will be weighed, categorized, organized, and judged as to its possibility and significance in terms of the all pervasive world-and-life view held.

[image error]

World Religions and Cults (Bodie Hodge, ed.)

This work is helpful for understanding and combating false religions and cults. It deals with the leading false religious beliefs in the world today. Chapter on apologetics by Ken Gentry.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consequently, it is essential that we see the debate between the Christian and the non-Christian as between two complete world-and-life views—between two ultimate commitments and presuppositions which are contrary to one another. Two complete philosophies are in collision. Appealing to various scientific evidences would be arbitrated in terms of the two mutually-exclusive and diametrically opposed, presupposed truths held by the systems.

Thus, the debate between the Christian and the non-Christian must eventually work its way down to the question of one’s ultimate authority. Every series of arguments must end somewhere; one’s conclusions could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of argumentation and justification. So all debates must terminate at some point, at some premise held as unquestionable. This is one’s foundational starting point, one’s ultimate authority or presupposition.

The question which surfaces at this point is this: Which system of truth provides the foundational preconditions essential for observation, reason, experience, and meaningful discourse? Thus, which faith system should be chosen; the Christian or the non-Christian?

To be continued.

WORLDVIEW APOLOGETICS (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

God calls upon Christians to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). As we obey him we must defend the faith in such a way that it “sanctifies the Lord” in our hearts. We must defend the faith from a position of faith. Too many defenses of the faith cede the method of approach to the unbeliever and end up “proving” at best the possibility that a god exists — not the certainty that the God of Scripture exists.

In this four-part series, we will see how we may do this.

The Role of Presuppositions in Thought

The Uniformity of Nature and Thought. We exist in what is known as a “universe.” The word “universe” is composed of two Latin parts: “uni” (from unus meaning “one,” as in “unit”) and “verse” (from vertere, meaning “turn”). It speaks all created things regarded collectively. This word indicates that we live in a single unified and orderly system which is composed of many diversified parts. These parts function coordinately together as a whole, rational system. We do not live in a “multiverse”. A multiverse state-of-affairs would be a dis-unified, totally fragmented, and random assortment of disconnected and unconnectable facts. These unconnectable facts would be meaninglessly scattered about in chaotic disarray and ultimate disorder.

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

Reformed studies covering baptism, creation, creeds, tongues, God’s law, apologetics, and Revelation

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The concept of a universe is vitally important to science. For the very possibility of scientific investigation is totally dependent upon the fact of a “uni-verse”— an orderly, rational coherent, unified system. If it were the case that reality were haphazard and disorderly there could be no basic scientific laws that govern and control various phenomena. And if this were so there could be no unity at all in either reality itself, or in experience, or in thought.

In such a multiverse each and every single fact would necessarily stand alone, utterly disconnected from other facts, not forming a system as a whole. Consequently, nothing could be organized and related in a mind because no fact would be related to any other fact. Thus, science, logic, and experience are absolutely dependent upon uniformity as a principle of the natural world.

Uniformity and Faith. But now the question arises: How do we know assuredly that the universe is in fact uniform? Has man investigated every single aspect of the universe from each one of its smallest atomic particles to the farthest corners of its solar systems— and all that exists in between—so that he can speak authoritatively? Does man have totally exhaustive knowledge about every particle of matter, every movement in space, and every moment of time? How does man know uniformity governs the world and the universe? Furthermore, how can we know that uniformity will continue tomorrow so that we can conjecture about future events? And since man claims to have an experience of external things, how do we know our experience is accurate and actually conforms to reality as it is?

Such questions are not commonly asked, but are nevertheless vitally important to consider. The point of these questions is to demonstrate a particular phenomenon: we must realize that any and every attempt to prove uniformity in nature necessarily requires circular reasoning. To prove uniformity one must assume or presuppose uniformity.

If I set out to argue the uniformity of the universe because I can predict cause-and-effect, am I not presupposing the uniformity and validity of my experience? How can I be sure that my experience of cause-and effect is an accurate reflection of what really happens? Furthermore, am I not presupposing the trustworthy, uniform coherence of my own rationality— a rationality that requires uniformity?

The issue boils down to this: Since man cannot know everything he must assume or presuppose uniformity and then think and act on this very basic assumption. Consequently the principle of uniformity is not a scientific law but an act of faith which undergirds scientific law. Thus, adherence to the principle of uniformity—though basic to science—is an intrinsically religious commitment.

[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

Presuppositions in Thought. Scientists follow a basic pattern in discovering true scientific laws. First, they observe a particular phenomenon. Then on the basis of their observations they construct a working hypothesis. Next, experiments are performed implementing this hypothesis. This is followed in turn by an attempt to verify the experiments performed. Then a verified hypothesis is accepted as a theory. Finally a well-established theory is recognized as a scientific law which governs in a given set of circumstances.

Thus, the basic pattern of scientific activity is: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, verification, theory, and law. Christians agree whole-heartedly with the validity of this scientific methodology. We accept the notion of a uniform universe which allows for such, for “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Physicist Thomas Kuhn, in his epochal 1962 work titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, noted that scientists must work from certain preconceived ideas, certain presupposed concepts about things in order to begin formulating their theories and performing their experiments. That presuppositions are always silently at work is evident in that when dealing with a particular problem scientists select only a few basic facts to consider while rejecting or overlooking numerous others. They perform certain types of experiments while neglecting others. And they do this in keeping with their presuppositions. One of the most basic presuppositions held by scientists is the one we have been considering: the universe is in fact one orderly, logical, coherent system. Were this not assumed then science could not even get off the ground.

But, as a matter of fact, there are numerous presuppositions that all men hold that play a vital role in all human thought and behavior. The various presuppositions we hold govern the way we think and act all the way down to how we select and employ specific facts from the countless number presented to us each moment. Basic presuppositions are the foundation blocks upon which we build our way of understanding the world about us. Presuppositions are the very basis for what is known as our “world-and-life” view.

A world-and-life view is the very framework through which we understand the world and our relation to it. Everyone necessarily has a particular way of looking at the world which serves to organize ideas about the world in his mind. This world-and-life view must be founded on basic presupposed ideas that we hold to be truth. We begin with certain presuppositions and build from there in our learning, communicating, behaving, planning, and so forth.

This study will continue in my next posting.