Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 56

THE FOUR ALLs OF THE GREAT COMMISSION

[image error]PMW 2020-045 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In any study of the Christian worldview there are two passages that cannot escape one’s research: Genesis 1:26-30, called the Cultural Mandate, and Matthew 28:18-20, the Evangelistic Mandate, better known as the Great Commission. We will focus on the second, emphasizing the four appearances of the word “all” in these verses. Understanding each of these four aspects will help us better undertake the task of evangelism in the business world. And this will help establish the postmillennial argument.

All Authority

It is extremely important to remember that the Great Commission is given after the resurrection. Prior to the resurrection, a frequent refrain of Christ was: “I can do nothing of Myself” (John 5:19; 8:28; 12:49; etc). But now after the resurrection, Christ says, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). This grant of “all authority in heaven and on earth” is given by the Father, who according to similar terminology in Matthew 11:25, Acts 17:24, and elsewhere, is called “Lord of heaven and earth.”

This investiture of Christ with universal authority is a frequent theme of Scripture. Acts 2:30-31 tells us that David knew God “would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30). He is seated there in confident expectation of victory, as Peter points out by citing Psalm 110 in Acts 2: “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:34-36).

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What, then, is the nature of this grant of “all authority”? The “all” here is used in the distributive sense, indicating all “kinds” of authority, or authority in every realm. He possesses every kind of authority in heaven (the spiritual realm) and on earth (the temporal realm). He does not claim authority only over the Church or over individual redeemed people. He claims authority over the family, education, business, politics, law, medicine—all areas of life. When you call Jesus “Lord,” you are not just speaking of His lordship over your spiritual life as an individual. You are affirming His lordship in all areas of life, in whatever calling you undertake “on earth.”

All Nations

Though the gospel is “to the Jew first” (Romans 1:16), Matthew clearly sets forth the Messianic king as One who will rule all peoples. In Matthew 8:10-12 Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

As with “all authority,” it is important we grasp the significance of “all nations.” The Greek word for nations speaks of collected masses of people, bound together by social bonds, forming a culture. It is important to recognize that the Lord did not say “disciple all men,” as if His interest was individualistic, concerned with people only as stray individuals. Neither did He command “disciple all kingdoms” as if His interest was purely political. The command to disciple “all nations” is directed to the conversion and discipling of the human race in all of its cultural endeavors. It begins deep within, involving the personal, spiritual aspects of life. But it branches out to include the social, legal, academic, economic, and political areas of life, as well.

Thus, we see how the Great Commission is a counterpart to the Cultural Mandate. In the Commission, Christ is implementing a plan to redeem all people and nations. The Commission is not designed so the Church might “snatch brands from the fire.” It seeks the salvation of man in his every relationship, as massed in cultures. The Great Commission not only has cultural implications, but it creates a redeemed culture. Consider the strong redemptive terminology used in 2 Corinthians 5:19: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”

Truly Christ expects to see a redeemed world one day! We are to disciple “all the nations” so the world as a system of people and things will become Christian. He is even now King of kings and Lord of lords, ruling to that end (Revelation 1:5). It is abundantly clear that He seeks the actual discipling of all nations, who are to be brought under the authority of God.

All Things

The Great Commission does not merely speak of being a witness to all nations. The discipleship idea involves training in the Christian faith. Certainly this entails evangelism. That is the absolutely crucial starting point for Christian discipleship. The Lord clearly taught that “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). We ought to be engaged in reaching out to the lost and presenting them the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

But it does not stop there. Christ did not limit His teaching to the message of individual salvation from hell. In the Sermon on the Mount, we read the Lord’s reaffirmation of the Law of God: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Surely the Law of God cannot be limited solely to personal salvation. It must apply to the wider culture of man. This is one major feature of the “all things” Christ taught, so our discipleship instruction ought to include God’s law as well.

Christ promised to lead His disciples into all truth, so everything they taught was what He wanted them to teach. Yet they did not limit their teaching to personal redemption either. When we read the Apostles’ writings we discover a broad scope in their teaching, as broad as the world. We easily recognize that the New Testament is concerned with marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:27-32), family relations (Ephesians 5:22-33), and child rearing (Colossians 3:21). But it also instructs us regarding the rich man’s duty to the poor (Matthew 25:31-46), employer-employee relationships (Ephesians 6:5-9), honest wages (Luke 10:17), free-market bargaining (Matthew 20:1-15), private property rights (Acts 5:4), godly citizenship and the proper function of the state (Matthew 22:21), the family as the primary agency of welfare (1 Timothy 5:8), the dangers of debt (Romans 13:8), the obligation to leave an inheritance (2 Corinthians 12:14), and more. In doing so, it reflects and supplements the social concern of the Old Testament, urging the people of God to live all of life under Christ’s authority, not just the personal or family or church areas of life.

Thus the Christian discipleship program should teach the whole Word of God, exposing works of darkness and supplanting them with a positive restructuring of all of life (2 Corinthians 10:4-5; Romans 12:1-2).

All the Days

The Great Commission is truly a great commission. It institutes a program of immense proportions, calling for world transformation. How can such a program be accomplished? Surely He did not expect it to occur over night. Millions of Christians teach that Christ’s coming to end history as we know it has been imminent ever since He ascended into heaven. Who would set themselves to the long, expensive, difficult, time consuming task of world transformation if they believed the world as they know it could end at any moment?

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion (Kindle version) 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

But the language of the Great Commission strongly implies the historical long run. Christ says literally, “I will be with you all the days.” He did not say, “Expect me to return to end your labors at any moment.” Just as the preceding “alls” are to be understood in their fullness, so is this statement of the duration of His presence with His people. “I will be with you through all the great number of days stretching out before you.” Had He not taught His disciples to expect a long delay before His return? In the Parable of the Virgins, He warned that “while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept” (Matthew 25:5). In the Parable of the Talents, He warned, “After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them” (Matthew 25:19).

We must train our children, and those who are converted to Christ through our evangelism, to dig in for the long haul. The task before us is enormous. But the equipment is sufficient—the One with all authority commands us. He has given us all the days. And He promises us, “I will be with you.” In Greek this statement has great emphasis: “I, I will be with you.” We may confidently expect success in the long run because Christ, Christ is with us. The Old Testament prophets, the New Testament apostles, and the Lord of glory all look to glorious days in earth’s future in which all nations will come and bow down before Him. And He uses His people to accomplish the task under His administration.

The Great Commission ends appropriately in some Bible versions, “Amen,” which means simply, “so be it.”

REVELATION AND LITERALISM? (2)

[image error]PMT 2016-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is part two of a two-part study on the question of literalism in Revelation. Despite televangelists and rapture-predictors, Revelation is not to be interpreted literalistically. I examined three reasons why this is so in the previous article. I now would like to present one final argument against literalism:

Even if we set aside John’s own opening announcement regarding the symbolic nature of his prophecy, and his explanation of his very first vision, and his interpretive practice elsewhere in Revelation, we should avoid literalism on the basis of common sense. Consider the following absurdities that would arise on the literalist approach.

Revelation 4—7

We should expect bizarre and rather grotesque angels in heaven: “Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back” (Rev. 4:6). And this is despite the fact that when men actually see angels on the earth, they can be confused with humans (e.g., Gen 19:1, 5; Dan 9:21).

Though John actually sees a lamb in some of his visions, we know that he is not literally teaching us about the actions of a mammal of the genus Ovis in the family Bovidae. “Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (Rev. 5:6). I noted previously in this chapter that this “Lamb” is actually worshiped and praised as the Redeemer of God’s people.[image error]

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole, then focuses on its glorious conclusion. Provides an important, lengthy Introduction to Revelation also.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Nor should we expect a time in the future wherein the world witnesses a global assault by four literal horsemen, each riding upon an Equus caballus:

“I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, ‘Come!’ I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest. When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, ‘Come!’ Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword. When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, ‘Come!’ I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, ‘A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!’ When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, ‘Come!’ I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth” (Rev. 6:1-8).

Elsewhere in Revelation John speaks of men actually washing robes in blood in order to make them white: “And he said, ‘These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’” (Rev. 7:14).

Revelation 9—16

And what shall we say of the locusts he sees? “And the appearance of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle; and on their heads, as it were, crowns like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men” (Rev. 9:7). Or of the horses and their riders? “And this is how I saw in the vision the horses and those who sat on them: the riders had breastplates the color of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone” (Rev. 9:17).[image error]

Keys to the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Provides the necessary keys for opening Revelation to a deeper and clearer understanding.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Do we really expect a literal multi-headed dragon to pull down one-third of the trillions of stars in the Universe, throwing them upon the earth? “Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born” (Rev. 12:3-4).

On the literalist approach, who is the winged woman who stands on the moon? And the serpent that vomits out a river of water? “The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent” (Rev. 12:14-15).

Will John’s dreaded beast literally look like a compound of three representatives of the mammalian order Carnivora? “The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion” (Rev. 13:2a).

Is the second beast John sees literal? “Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon” (Rev. 13:11). Is the angel of God actually going to reap the earth with a literal sickle? “Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, ‘Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe’” (Rev. 14:15). Do demon spirits literally appear in history in the form of frogs coming from the mouths of evil beings? “Then I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13).

Revelation 17—21

Is the Great Harlot really a vampire who drinks blood to the point of intoxication? “I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 17:6). Will Jesus physically ride out of heaven and through the sky on horse, while clamping a sword in his teeth? “Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations” (Rev. 19:15a).

Do we expect a literal city (complete with plumbing and electricity?) to descend to the earth from heaven? “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:10). And will it be so gigantic that it will extend from the earth’s surface upwards of 1500 miles, about 1200 miles higher than the Space Shuttle orbits? “And the city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal” (Rev. 21:16).

Surely no one would interpret Revelation in this way. And as we have seen, Revelation confronts the literalist with one problem after another. To paraphrase Mark Twain, we might say of Revelation’s absurdities if taken literally: “Revelation is just one darned thing after another.”

[image error]

REVELATION AND LITERALISM (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

By all accounts, Revelation is a difficult book. But naive Christians make it even more difficult than it needs be. A serious problem tripping up the modern would-be interpreter is the assumption of literalism when approaching Revelation. Too many contemporary prophecy students resist the symbolic approach to John’s glorious prophecy. “Literalism!” becomes the rally cry for those who believe Revelation lies in our approaching future.

I would point out that despite the popular claim of literalism: no one takes Revelation literally. We take it as God’s truth, to be sure. And it certainly deals with factual historical events. But we cannot take it as God’s truth in literal form. Let us see how this is so.

When interpreting any literary work, we should always listen carefully to the author himself. Especially if he provides information affecting the proper approach to interpreting his work. Certainly Revelation is considered the most difficult New Testament book to interpret. Given the widespread interest in Revelation, this exacerbates the difficulties in presenting John’s message in the modern context. Consequently, hermeneutic methodology becomes a paramount concern for the would-be interpreter. Interestingly, in his Gospel John shows the problem of literalism among Christ’s early hearers: by thinking literalistically they misconstrue Jesus’ teaching regarding the temple (John 2:19–22), being born again (3:3–10), drinking water (4:10–14), eating his flesh (6:51–56), being free (8:31–36), being blind (9:39–40), falling asleep (11:11–14), and his being king (18:33–37). This problem is exacerbated in Revelation with its rich imagery field.[image error]

Beast of Revelation: Identified (DVD by Ken Gentry)

A biblical and historical argument for Nero being the beast of Revelation. Professionally recorded and edited with Question and Answers session.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In the very first chapter of Revelation we find the first clues to John’s presentational method. He specifically informs his readers of the symbolic nature of his visions, and provides insights into how the reader should transpose his visions to understand his point.

John’s Opening Announcement

John wastes no time in alerting his readers to his symbolic approach. In the very opening sentence he declares:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.” (Rev. 1:1)

Here he informs us that Revelation is given “to show” (Gk.: deixai) the message being “signified” (Gk.: esemanen) by His angel (Rev. 1:1, NKJV). As Friedrich Düsterdieck notes: “The deixai occurs in the way peculiar to semainein, i.e., the indication of what is meant by significative figures.” In fact, forty-one times John says he “sees” these prophecies (e.g., Rev. 1:12, 20; 5:6; 9:1; 20:1).

Premillennial commentator Robert Mounce observes in this regard: “The revelation is said to be signified to John. The Greek verb carries the idea of figurative representation. Strictly speaking it means to make known by some sort of sign (Hort, p. 6). Thus it is admirably suited to the symbolic character of the book. This should warn the reader not to expect a literal presentation of future history, but a symbolic portrayal of that which must yet come to pass.” John encourages his readers to expect figurative symbols rather than literal events.

John’s Opening Vision

In fact, John’s first vision sets the pattern for later symbolic interpretation by presenting a vision then interpreting its key elements in a non-literal way. In Revelation 1:12–20 he records a vision of Christ walking among lampstands. On the literalist assumption the vision should be teaching that the Lord walks among candles in heaven. However, John will not allow that.[image error]

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture (DVD)

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

In verse 20 Jesus interprets the vision for us: “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches” (Rev. 1:20). So then, even though John himself actually saw seven stars and seven lampstands, the stars represent “the angels of the seven churches” and the lampstands represent “the seven churches.” This is what John himself teaches; we cannot dismiss this important clue to symbolic interpretation.

John’s Continuing Practice

What is more, John does not simply provide us one sample of his symbolic method. Several times in Revelation he stops to provide interpretive insights into the visions.

In Revelation 5 John sees a lamb with seven eyes. Even the most naive literalist recognizes this Lamb represents Christ the Lord, for he is called (not literally!) “the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Rev. 5:5). After all, the angels of heaven sing his praise as the Redeemer of God’s people (5:9–10) and as glorious because of his work (5:12). In the next verse he is praised equally with God the Father (5:13). In Revelation 14 the Lamb’s name is associated with God’s name on the elect of God (14:1).

John also provides interpretive directives on one of the more unusual features of the vision of the Lamb. He explains the “seven eyes”: “And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth” (Rev. 5:6). The vision’s seven eyes do not mean that the Lamb literally has seven eyeballs in his head. John tells us so himself.

Despite John’s speaking of “incense” in the angelic bowls in heaven, he re-directs our understanding. He clearly states that the incense which John actually saw really represented the “prayers of the saints”: “And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).

In Revelation 17:7, 9–10 the interpreting angel clears John’s confusion by noting that one image really represents two altogether different realities: “And the angel said to me, ‘Why do you wonder? I shall tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. . . . Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while” (Rev. 17:9–10). So then, not only do the seven heads not portray seven literal heads on one actual beast, but they symbolize two other realities: seven mountains and seven kings.

And what shall we say of the horns on the beast? They are not horns at all — even though certain mammals do actually possess horns made up of a bony core covered with a sheath of keratinous material. The interpreting angel interprets this for John and for us: “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour” (Rev. 17:12).

Even the water John sees should not be understood as referring to H2O. Rather, the angel explains: “And he said to me, ‘The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues’” (Rev. 17:15).

As we can see, John provides us with enough explanatory samples for interpreting Revelation that we should be able categorically to declare that the book should not be interpreted according to the principles of literalism.

Continued in next article.

[image error]

GUMERLOCK’S “REVELATION AND THE FIRST CENTURY”

[image error]PMW 2020-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The preterist approach to Revelation holds that Revelation is to be understood as already fulfilled in the first century. Consequently, it has a strong historical interest.

Ironically though, many critics of the preterist approach to Revelation attempt to discredit it on an historical basis. They argue such things as:

“Preterism goes against the witness of the very early church” (Mal Couch).

“Alcazar, a [17th century] Spanish Jesuit, started the idea that the Apostle John . . . was writing about what was happening in his own day, and that his Antichrist was probably the Emperor Nero or some other early persecutor” (Duncan McDougall).

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

How should the evangelical preterist respond? We must point out that preterism is found early in Christian history. And when we respond thus, we should consult Latin scholar and historical theologian Francis X. Gumerlock. Dr. Gumerlock has established himself as a credible proponent of preterism and an able defender of its historical bearing.

In this article I will provide a brief introduction to his important 2012 book: Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity. I highly recommend this book for both your historical encouragement and your apologetic defense of preterism in today’s futurist environment.

As Latin scholar and historical theologian Gumerlock is well-equipped to engage the question raised. In his eighteen chapters (plus an Introduction and Conclusion), he ably closes the mouths of those who complain about the unhistorical nature of preterist exegesis.

In his first chapter he engages one of the most important issues in the debate: the early date of Revelation. He cites evidence from ancient writings that demonstrate that “there were at least ten different traditions favoring a date of the book of Revelation before 70 A.D.” (p. 24).

And in doing so he cites modern scholars who have noted this. For instance, he cites Kym Smith’s book Redating the Revelation (2001) who, according to Gumerlock, “conjectured that John wrote Revelation about 62 A.D.” (p. 33).

Later chapters deal with such issues as John’s exile by Nero (ch. 2), the tribulation in the first century (ch. 3), as well as Revelation passages pointing to Titus (ch. 5), the Roman siege of Jerusalem (ch. 6), Nero’s fatal wound in Rev 13 (ch. 10), the number 666 as pointing to Nero (ch. 11), and much, much more.

[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

For anyone interested in preterism, and especially preterism regarding the Book of Revelation, this is a must-have book. I cannot commend it more highly than I do. Gumerlock is your one-stop-shopping for evidence for preterism among the early church fathers. You should buy this book today. If not today, then tomorrow. But if you put it off to the third day, you are a procrastinator who probably did not get a birthmark until you were four years old.

 

THE GATES OF HELL IN MATT 16:18

PMW 2020-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.[image error]

In Matthew 16:18 our Lord spoke these famous words to his leading disciple:

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”

This passage has generated significant debate because of grammatical difficulties within it. Some scholars even emend the text to “straighten out the problem.” There is an awkwardness in having stationary gates actively attempting to prevail or conquer the church. How can gates attack?

Another problem is determining what Jesus means by hades. This Greek word is the common translation for the Hebrew word sheol in the OT. Sheol (and therefore, its Greek translation hades) can refer to the place of the dead, signifying either the place of rest for God’s people or the place of torment for the sinner (hell). Or it may simply mean “the grave,” without any other connotation one way or the other (it represents death irrespective of reward or punishment). The NT uses each of these meanings in various places.

I believe hades here effectively signifies the place of torment for the evil dead, that is, what we call “hell.” We see this usage clearly in Jesus’ teaching in Mt 11:23: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.” This obviously means “hell” for two reasons:

(1) Hell is the direct opposite of heaven, and here Jesus is rebuking Capernaum for thinking it will be exalted to heaven. That evil city (its population) will receive the opposite of heaven: it must, therefore, receive hell.

(2) In the immediate context Jesus is clearly talking about judgment, for he warns of God’s judgment: “Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you” (Matthew 11:22). This involves hell.

[image error]

Bringing Heaven Down to Earth

(by Nathan Bierma)

A Reformed study of heaven. By taking a new look at the biblical picture of heaven,

Nathan Bierma shows readers how heaven can be a relevant, meaningful,

inspiring engine of Christian faith and kingdom service.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Now back to Mt 16:18. The word translated “prevail” is katischusousin (from katischeuin which is formed from the intensive pronoun kata and joined with the Greek word for “strength,” ischus). It has a wide range of meaning in the Greek version of the OT, the Septuagint (LXX). It can mean: “be strong against, resist, withstand.” Therefore, it does necessarily present an active image (how can gates be active?).

Though this is a minority view of the defensive use of katischusousin , it is not necessarily a view unheard of in exegetical discussion. H. A. W. Meyer (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 297–80) holds a different conception of “hades” as representing death. Yet he interprets katischusousin as defensive resistance that fails: “The gates of Hades will not be able to resist it, will not prove stronger than it. . . . When [the Church] becomes perfected in the Messianic kingdom at the second coming, then those gates will be burst open, in order that the souls of the dead may come forth from the subterranean world to participate in the resurrection and the glory of the kingdom . . . when death (who takes away the souls of men to imprison them in Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 26).” He goes on to say: “If we adopt the no less grammatical interpretation of: to overpower, to subdue (Luther and the majority of commentators), a most incongruous idea emerges in reference to the gates. . . . For the gates of Hades would thus be represented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropriate.”

In addition, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., in Matthew (The international Critical Commentary) (2:631) notes this defensive strength as an option held by some: “According to L. E. Sullivan (v), our text pictures the church on the attack, reaching into Hades to draw up its members.”

John Nolland (Matthew [New International Greek Text Commentary], 674) notes: “katischusousin: is a common verb in the LXX (more than ninety times). It is used in quite a range of constructions and with a surprising variety of meanings).” He goes on to comment: “Th main question is whether to view the gates as initiating the action or as recipients of/respondents to the action. The latter makes for a more natural image, but the former is possible. . . . Do we have an image of the church under divine protection or of the church militant?”

Tongues-speaking: Meaning, Purpose, and Cessation

[image error]by Ken Gentry

The position presented within is that tongues-speaking allowed the gift person to speak in a known human language without previously knowing it; tongues brought inspired revelation from God; the gift was a sign confirming the apostolic witness and warning of the coming destruction of Jerusalem; and therefore the gift ceased in the first century.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

He continues: “The alternative, which makes the church the aggressor, requires no appeal to what is not certainly present in the text. Arguably it offers a better (contrasting) pair for possession of ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’: the church can batter down the gates of Hades and can (in the person of Peter) open the gates of the kingdom of heaven; on this understanding, the church, once founded on the rock, has the vision set before it of rescuing people from the grip of Hades and opening up for them a future in the kingdom of heaven. Though scholars have recognized the difficulty with ‘the gates of Hades’ as an image of an aggressor, most of them have felt obliged to take the image this way because of what they have understood to be the semantic possibilities of katischusousin. It seems to me that the range of LXX usage removes this obstacle and allows ‘the gates’ to have a more natural function.” (Footnote 361: “Confronted by the church, the gates of Hades will not prove to be so unassailable.”)

Returning to my own view, the idea here, then, is that the gates of hell (Satan’s kingdom) are not strong enough to withstand the onslaught of the church (Christ’s kingdom, Mt 16:19). Two kingdoms are in view, and the kingdom of heaven will be the winner. With the coming of Christ appears the power of the kingdom of God to unbind the sinner under Satan’s control and to usher him into Christ’s kingdom: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house” (Mt12:28-29). Christ’s kingdom will plunder Satan’s kingdom. See also: Col 2:14-15; Heb 2:14; 1 Jn 3:8.

In the passage, the “keys” are an image of the agent for entering the kingdom of heaven. Whereas the “gates” are an image for “protecting” those within the gates (which are the gates of hell). The idea of keys v. gates makes a nice play on concepts.

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second (and final) presentation of an interview conducted with me on preterism and postmillennialism.

Interviewer: Shifting to a related topic. Do preterist and non-preterist postmillennialists differ significantly in their reading of Matthew 24? Are there different interpretations of the two “days” even among preterists?

Gentry: Matthew 24 has been subjected to a fairly wide variety of interpretive approaches. Perhaps the more widely endorsed one holds that the Lord more or less jumbles together material on A.D. 70 and the Second Advent, in that A.D. 70 is a microcosmic precursor to the Second Advent. This view makes it difficult to sort out the verses in regard to which event the particular verses focus on. Among evangelical preterists two basic positions prevail: that 24:4–34 focus on A.D. 70 and 24:36ff focus on the Second Advent (this is my view, and the view presented by J. Marcellus Kik). The other view holds that all of Matthew 24–25 deals with A.D. 70.

Interviewer: Is that latter view — that all of Matthew 24 refers to A.D. 70 — what you have called “hyper-preterism,” or are there “regular” preterists that hold that interpretation of Matthew 24? How would their interpretation differ from the “hyper-preterist?”

Gentry: Although it is true that hyper-preterism holds that the entire Olivet Discourse speaks of A. D. 70, one’s position on that particular question does not necessarily lock him into the hyper-preterist heresy. The difference in interpretation at this specific point might be altogether negligible between an orthodox interpreter and a hyper-preterist. In fact, there are several verses where we find disagreement among orthodox interpreters and in which similarity to the hyper-preterist position may be noted. Where the fundamental differences would arise would be in other passages and on specific theological questions. If an interpreter is challenged to produce a passage supporting the Second Advent and he cannot produce one, then we have a serious problem. Or if he cannot affirm a physical resurrection at the end of history.

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

Interviewer: What considerations in the text lead you to conclude that Jesus is distinguishing the two events in His prediction?

Gentry: Contextual evidence suggests that Christ is distinguishing two different comings. One coming is his coming upon Jerusalem in temporal judgment to end the old covenant era; the other is his coming at the Second Advent in final judgment to end history (24:36ff). These two “comings” are theologically related while historically distinct (and one of them speaks metaphorically of a “coming,” whereas the other speaks literally of a physical “coming”).

For example, by all appearance Matthew 24:34 functions as a concluding statement; it seems to end the preceding prophecy: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Consequently, the following events must relate to some episode not in “this generation.” That would suggest that all prophecies before verse 34 are to occur in “this generation.”

Interviewer: That seems to be borne out by the sense of urgency in the first section of the chapter.

Gentry: Yes. The character of the first section dramatically differs from that of the second. In the first section all is chaotic, laden with war and persecution. In the second section all appears tranquil, marrying and eating and drinking. What’s more, in the early section of Matthew 24 the time frame is short: “this generation.” In the following section (and through Matt. 25) the time frame is much longer: “But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming'” (Matt. 24:48). “But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept” (Matt. 25:5). “After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them” (Matt. 25:19). It is the very delay of the coming that tempts the church to forsake her watchfulness.

Interviewer: Many interpreters (of differing schools) lay great emphasis on the “signs” of the coming described in this passage. Can you comment on their significance?

Gentry: Before verse 34 Christ mentions signs pointing to the A.D. 70 coming: “wars and rumors of wars” (v. 6), “famines and earthquakes” (v. 7), “false prophets” (v. 11), and so forth. Accordingly, we may know the time of its approach; it is a predictable event. That’s Jesus whole point — be aware so you can act when the season of final danger is upon Jerusalem. Christ urges flight from the area (Matt. 24:16-20), clearly implying there will be time to flee.

On the other hand, after verse 34 signs are replaced by elements of surprise, indicating the coming in that section is unknown and therefore unpredictable: “they did not understand” (v. 39), “you do not know” (v. 42), “if the head of the house had known” (v. 43), “coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (v. 44), “he does not expect him” (v. 50), and “you do not know” (25:13). There is no warning — no opportunity for flight — for there can be no escape from that “day.” All befalls men suddenly (Matt. 24:48-51).

[image error]Great Tribulation: Past or Future?

(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Another interesting point is that even Christ Himself does not claim to know the time of the Second Advent (v. 36). Yet in the earlier section He clearly knows the time of the A.D. 70 judgment, for he tells his disciples that certain signs may come but “the end is not yet” (v. 6). He also tells them these things will certainly happen in “this generation.”

Interviewer: Thank you so much, Dr. Gentry, for answering our questions. I’m sure our readers have been piqued with an appetite to study these questions in more depth. If they do, they may consult you comprehensive exposition of biblical postmillennialism, He Shall Have Dominion.

[image error]

OF PRETERISTS AND POSTMILLENNIALISTS (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Awhile back I was interviewed about the relationship of postmillennialism with preterism. Here is the interview. I hope it will provide some insights for you as you discuss such issues with your friends.

Interviewer: Dr. Gentry, when we speak of “schools” of interpretation or theological opinion — like “theonomists,” or “postmillennialists,” or “preterists” — there is a tendency to think of these groups in monolithic terms, as if all their proponents hew exactly to a single “party line.” In what ways, if any, does the contemporary revival of biblical postmillennialism differ from earlier versions within the Reformed tradition (e.g., Puritan postmillennialism)?

Gentry: You are correct that we need to be aware of a lack of lock-step unanimity in any millennial viewpoint, including postmillennialism. “Puritan postmillennialism” is so widely variant that for sorting through the various positions, I highly recommend reading Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium: Literature & Theology 1550-1682 (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 2000).

But in broad strokes we may distinguish between an historicist postmillennialism (held by the Puritans) as opposed to a preterist postmillennialism which is currently the more popular view. That is, the earlier Reformational forms of postmillennialism tended to interpret Revelation as a picture of all of church history, whereas the preterist view interprets it as dealing with issues directly relevant to the first centuries of the Christian church. But in the final analysis the fundamental reality of postmillennialism remains the same: the gospel will win the great majority of man before the return of Christ.

[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

Interviewer: Were there any “preterists” among the older school of postmillennialism?

Gentry: Some of the historicist proponents were close to being preterists to a great degree. Westminster divine John Lightfoot (1658), though an historicist, held that Revelation 1:7 spoke of A.D. 70, and interpreted much of Revelation in this regard, though he saw it also developing later church history. Reformed preterists of the era included Westminster nominee Henry Hammond (1653), as well as Hugo Grotius (1630) and Jean LeClerc (1712).

Interviewer: R.J. Rushdoony, who contributed significantly to the revival of biblical postmillennialism in the last half of the 20th century was not a “preterist” — correct? Where did the “preterist” interpretation in contemporary postmillennialism get introduced to the stream?

Gentry: Rushdoony was an idealist. Of course, idealism can operate at the same time as preterism, if handled properly. After all, we believe that the historical statements of Scripture also establish paradigms for God’s acts among men. Contemporary reformed preterism arose with J. M. Kik in the early 1950s, was picked up by Jay Adams (The Time is at Hand, 1966), and promoted by Cornelis Vanderwaal (1978) and Greg Bahnsen (late 1970s).

Interviewer: Is there a hermeneutical or theological connection between postmillennialism and preterism or is it largely (may I say) coincidental? Are there preterist amillennials?

Gentry: Preterism is a hermeneutical tool; postmillennialism is an eschatological system. Preterism fits nicely with postmillennialism, but is not a necessary condition for it. Historically most postmillennialists were not preterists. And there are many non-postmillennial preterists, such as Jay Adams and Cornelis Vanderwaal. In fact, on Matthew 24 premillennial Puritan John Gill offers a preterist approach which I follow quite closely. Today some progressive dispensationalists are allowing for large preterist inroads into their system, for example, C. Marvin Pate and David Turner.

Interviewer: As a “preterist postmillennialist,” are you aware of any significant “in house” disagreements among those who share your same overall perspective on eschatology?

Gentry: Basically there are two competing schools of preterist interpretation (excluding the various and constantly mutating heretical hyper-preterist approaches): One school deems Revelation a picture of the Church’s struggles against two early enemies of the church: one religious, the other political, i.e., Judaic Israel and imperial Rome. The other branch sees the focus as concentrating primarily upon Israel, though noting a few places where John steps back for a broader political context and brings in Rome.

Interviewer: I understand you disagreed with Dr. Bahnsen on the interpretation of the book of Revelation.

Gentry: Dr. Bahnsen was my mentor in theology and exegesis. This was the one major area where he and I disagreed. He held the Israel and Rome view, I the Israel Only view. In fact, the last time we got together (about eight months before his death) he broached the question with me. We enjoyed about a one hour interchange on the subject. Actually, he enjoyed it; I sweated it out.

Interviewer: What did he consider to be the most significant indications that Revelation emphasizes both apostate Israel and pagan Rome?

Gentry: Given the complex nature of interpreting an entire book — especially one such as Revelation — the matter of discerning interpretive cues is both important and difficult. Some of the pro-Rome issues he presented to me were: (1) Revelation 10 (especially v. 11) seems to prepare John for a change of vision, transitioning from an Israel focus to a Roman focus. (2) The Harlot’s being seated on the seven hills (Rev. 17:9). (3) Her ruling over “kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18). (4) Her relationship with “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” (Rev. 17:15). (5) The enormous wealth of the Harlot City (Rev. 18), especially coupled with indicators of prosperity through international trading (Rev. 18:10-19).

Interviewer: How would you respond to these issues? They seem quite compelling?

Gentry: Just briefly: (1) Revelation 10 does direct John to prophesy regarding Rome. And he does do so in Revelation 13 especially, but also in snippets here and there where the Beast appears. (2) The Harlot’s being seated on the seven hills seems to suggest her legal dependence upon Rome to get at Christ and the Christians, not her geographic position. Remember how the Jews force the hands of the Romans in the crucifixion account and in persecuting Christians in Acts.

(3) I understand “the earth” to signify “the Land,” i.e., Israel. The “kings of the earth” prophecy signifies Jerusalem’s own political resistance to Christ and Christianity. (4) The relationship to the “peoples” highlights the fact that the Diaspora spread Jews throughout Empire, allowing her to exercise her influence beyond Palestine. This universal presence of the Jews was an aggravation to non-Jews who detested the Jews for their standoffish rituals (see Philo and Suetonius).

(5) The wealth of the city points to the enormous wealth generated through the temple system by means of the head tax on Jews throughout the Empire, especially as the Temple was being refurbished since the days of Herod up until just a few years before it was destroyed. This wealth was a source of irritation to Roman writers such as Tacitus and Juvenal.

Interviewer: What are the most weighty considerations that lead you to the conclusion that John’s visions focus largely on Israel and Jerusalem?

[image error]

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology

By Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This book demonstrates that dispensational theology has been shattered by its own defenders. They are no longer willing to defend the original system, and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Gentry: I am constrained by several key issues: (1) John insists that the events were to occur “soon” (e.g., Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). (2) The theme of Revelation in 1:7 occurs almost immediately after the notation of nearness and seems to point to A.D. 70 as a judgment on the Jews who caused Christ’s death. (3) Revelation 1:7 is identical in sentiment and very close in form (combining Zech. 12 and Dan. 7:13) to Matthew 24:30. The Matthew verse is controlled by (a) references to the Temple’s destruction (24:2), (b) focus on Judea (24:16), and (c) the temporal indicator (24:34).

(4) Revelation is contrasting two cities: “Babylon” and the “new Jerusalem.” In fact, as Babylon falls, the new Jerusalem is established (Rev. 18; 21). That it is a “new” Jerusalem strongly suggests its opposition to the old, historical Jerusalem (cp. Gal. 4:25-26; see also: Heb. 12:18, 22). John paints Jerusalem as a “Babylon,” an enemy of God who causes her own temple’s destruction, much like Isaiah calls her “Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isa. 1). Therefore John presents God on his judicial throne (Rev. 4), presenting his divorce decree against Jerusalem (Rev. 5; cp. Jer. 3:1-8 noticing the harlot imagery, forehead, and divorce, capitally punishing her for adultery (Rev. 6-9, 16-19), then taking a new bride, the Church (Rev. 21-22).

To be continued . . . .

OLIVET IN CONTEXT: A Commentary on Matthew 21–25[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!

AMERICA’S CHRISTIAN FUTURE?

[image error]A book endorsement by Ken Gentry.

I have come across a book that ought to be read by all Christians concerned with America’s future. The book is authored by Bobbie Ames and is titled Land That I Love: Restoring Our Christian Heritage (324 pp; Nordskog Press, 2020). I am offering this brief note due to the gravity of our current situation and the lethargy of the contemporary church in America.

Ames engagingly chronicles the astonishing original Christian character of the United States, resulting from God’s unique Providence among his people. From the beginning, God placed His Word in peoples’ hearts in such a way that for the first time in history, Christians thought they could form their own civil communities, with only Christ governing them as King.

Yet men are sinners, and sin forces evil consequences on even the best intentions. From the beginning then, America has suffered a dual or schizophrenic character—the best of the best, and some of the worst of the worst. For at least two hundred and fifty years of our history, the best managed to keep the upper hand. Then, with the prosperity, liberty with justice, and generosity that a general godliness had produced, the nation began wandering away from the One who prospered and blessed it, upon Whom that blessing depended and depends.

After over two hundred more years of a godly thrust of history battling against the wicked one, we have come to a crisis of faith, bringing the future of Christian civilization into question. Bobbie Ames outlines the remedy, while offering tremendous resources to flesh out the knowledge, spirit, and wisdom necessary to re-establish and maintain godly and free institutions.

This book not only traces our American heritage (which we have been squandering), but offers recommendations regarding what needs to be done to reclaim it. I highly recommend it as a helpful, readable, insightful work. It can be ordered from the Nordskog website: Nordskog Publishing.

DISPENSATIONALISM’S LITERALISM FRAUD (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last posting, I began a studying exposing the error of dispensationalism claimed literalism. Since this is such a big feature in the system and such a drawing card for it, it is important that Reformed Christians be able to refute it. I hope these two articles will be helpful to that end. The more recent form of dispensationalism, known as Progressive Dispensationalism, has largely recognized the problem and made important changes to the system. However, pew-sitting believers are still enamored with dispensationalism and its claim to literalism.

So, let us continue exposing the error.

Ezekiel and Literalism

In The New Scofield Reference Bible at Ezekiel 43:19 we read: “The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally.” How can this be? Indeed, on the opposite side of the issue we should note the dispensationalist treatment of Isaiah 52:15, which reads: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” The New Scofield Reference Bible comments: “Compare the literal fulfillment of this prediction in 1 Pet. 1:1–2, where people of many nations are described as having been sprinkled with the blood of Christ.” Is this literal? When was Jesus’ blood literally sprinkled on the nations? This sounds more like “spiritualizing” than “consistent literalism.”

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond[image error]

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But when it supports their eschatological system, dispensationalists vigorously argue for literalism. For instance, of Isaiah 9:7 the New Scofield Reference Bible explains: “‘The throne of David’ is an expression as definite, historically, as ‘the throne of the Caesars,’ and does not admit of spiritualizing.” [NSRB, 721] Yet dispensationalist Gordon H. Johnston writes: “God will fulfill His promises in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:8–16) to establish the eternal Davidic dynasty over Israel through a single ideal Davidic King who will reign eternally (Ps. 89:20–37).” [Gordon H. Johnston, “Millennium: Old Testament Descriptions of,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, 269.] But when we read this passage we discover it expressly mentions David himself, not a “Davidic King”: “I have found David My servant; / With My holy oil I have anointed him, / With whom My hand will be established; / My arm also will strengthen him” (Ps 89:20–21).

Johnston continues: “The Davidic King will rule as the co-regent, Prince (Ezek. 34:24), under the divine kingship of YHWH (Ps. 72:19; Isa. 40:4–5).” [Johnston in DPT, 269] Pentecost states that “the promises in the Davidic covenant concerning the king, the throne, and the royal house are fulfilled by Messiah in the millennial age,” then lists Ezekiel 34:23–25 and Hosea 3:5 as evidence. [Pentecost, Things to Come, 476.] But Ezekiel actually states: “And I, the Lord, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken” (Eze 34:24). Hosea’s reference reads: “Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king.”

Yet again Johnston declares: “Judah and Israel will serve the Davidic King.” [ Johnston, DPT, 269.] But the verse actually states: “But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer 30:9). Literally it seems that David himself should be resurrected to rule. How can references to “David” actually mean Christ — in a strictly literalistic system?

Emmaus Disciples and Literalism

The Emmaus disciples, holding to the then-prevailing, literalistic Jewish conceptions of the Messianic kingdom (Luke 24:21), need Christ to open the Scriptures to them to show them their error (Luke 24:25–27, 32, 45). Christ rejects the Jews’ literalistic political Messianism (Matt 23:37–38; Luke 19:41–42; 24:21–27; John 6:15; 18:36).

The Jewish rejection of their Messiah is at least partially due to the problem that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly the literal method of interpretation.” [Pentecost] After all, when Christ confronts Nicodemus, he points to this very matter: “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? . . . If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ “ (John 3:10, 12). Literalism plagued the Jews throughout Jesus’ ministry.

The Apostle John and Literalism

John’s Gospel presents almost a case study in the error of literalism.

In John 2:19–21 Jesus is speaking of his body-temple being destroyed and rising again, but the Jews think he is talking about the literal “temple.”

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

In John 3:5–7 Nicodemus thinks Jesus’ reference to being “born again” requires that a man literally re-enter his mother’s womb.

In John 4:10–15 is speaking to the woman at the well about spiritual water, whereas the woman thinks he is referring to literal water.

In John 4:31–38 Jesus says he has food to eat, which makes his disciples think he is referring to physical food, not spiritual sustenance.

In John 6:31–35, 51–58 Jesus calls himself “bread” that men must eat and refers to drinking his blood, which his audience thinks are calls to cannibalism.

In John 8:32–36 Jesus talks about being spiritually “free,” but his audience think he is speaking of breaking from physical slavery.

In John 8:51–53 promises that those who keep his word will never die, which his hearers interpret to mean they will never physically die.

In John 9:39–40 Jesus speaks of being “blind,” which makes the Pharisees think he is speaking about physical blindness. In John 11:11–14 Jesus states that Lazarus is “sleeping,” but “Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought He was speaking of literal sleep.”

In John 13:33–37 Jesus informs his disciples that he will soon be leaving (by which he means “dying”), but Peter thinks he is physically traveling somewhere else.

Literalism is literally a fraud. It has no form nor comeliness that we should desire it. To say the least.

OLIVET IN CONTEXT: A Commentary on Matthew 21–25[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!

DISPENSATIONALISM’S LITERALISM FRAUD (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-037 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Dispensationalists pride themselves in being consistent literalists. Not only so, but they warn that taking a non-literal approach in Scripture involves one in “encroaching liberalism. For instance, Charles Ryrie writes:

Although it could not be said that all amillennialists deny the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, yet, as it will be shown later, it seems to be the first step in that direction. The system of spiritualizing Scripture is a tacit denial of the doctrine of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. . . . Thus the allegorical method of amillennialism is a step toward modernism. [Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 34, 35, 46.]

Alleged literalism is probably one of the most important arguments for keeping dispensationalism alive and well on Planet Earth. It seems so obvious; it takes so little effort to understand. We need to lovingly confront our dispensational friends with a reality check. In this and the next article I will be focusing on dispensationalism’s literlism errors.

The problem of naivete

This argument is simply not at all persuasive and is embarrassingly naive. We must note that literalism does not necessarily protect orthodoxy. We may easily point out that many cults approach Scripture literalistically — and erroneously.

[image error]

Dispensational Distortions

Three Lectures by Kenneth Gentry. Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consider the premillennial cult of Mormonism. They teach that God has a literal, tangible body. After citing Genesis 1:26–27 regarding Adam’s creation “in the image and likeness of God,” LeGrand Richards, a former Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, writes:

“Attempts have been made to explain that this creation was only in the spiritual image and likeness of God. . . . Joseph Smith found that he was as literally in the image and likeness of God and Jesus Christ, as Seth was in the likeness and image of his father Adam.” [LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and Wonder, 16].

This is blatantly false as well as enormously heretical. Yet it is the produce of an attempted literalism. Dispensationalist friends: Rather than being warmed and filled, you need to be warned and chill!

The problem of consistency

Besides being naive, the dispensational claim to “consistent literalism” is frustrating due to its inconsistent employment — despite contrary claims. For instance, some dispensationalists do not interpret certain Old Testament prophecies about David’s millennial reign literally. H. A. Ironside writes: “I do not understand this to mean that David himself should be raised and caused to dwell on the earth as king. . . . The implication is that He who was David’s Son, the Lord Christ Himself is to be the King.” [Harry A. Ironside, Expository Notes on Ezekiel the Prophet, 262. Cf. Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 88. Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 60.] On what basis can a consistent literalist allow this view?

Neither is it necessary that we understand literally Elijah’s coming which Malachi prophesies in Malachi 4:5–6: “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.“ And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.” Pentecost writes: “The prophecy is interpreted by the Lord as being fulfilled, not in literal Elijah, but in one who comes in Elijah’s spirit and power.” [Pentecost, Things to Come, 311–313]

Walvoord recognizes the problem but hesitates: “It was clear that Elijah was a type of John and to some extent that John the Baptist fulfilled Elijah’s role. But, predictively, it is difficult to determine whether the future one will come in the spirit and power of Elijah or be Elijah himself.” [Walvoord, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, 339–40.]

[image error]

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology

By Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This book demonstrates that dispensational theology has been shattered by its own defenders. They are no longer willing to defend the original system, and their drastic modifications have left it a broken shell.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

On their “consistent” literal hermeneutic, why should this be difficult? Does not Walvoord himself open this very book with these words: “Unmistakably, the evidence is overwhelming that God means exactly what He says as prophecy after prophecy has already been literally fulfilled”? [ Walvoord, PKH, 7.] Thus, this leading, scholarly advocate of the literalistic approach to Scripture breaches his own declared principle of literalism — and in a book that opens with his expressly stated declaration that we must interpret Scripture literally.

I hope you will join me again in my next installment. Dispensational literalism is a canard. And it needs to be exposed as such.

OLIVET IN CONTEXT: A Commentary on Matthew 21–25[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!