Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 57

DISPENSATIONALISM’S LITERLISM 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!

THE POPULARITY OF NEGATIVITY

[image error]PMW 2020-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I have just received an email from a postmillennial reader who does not live in America. He has two questions that probably are on the minds of other postmillennialists. So I thought I would briefly respond to his questions and post my answers for other readers to consider. (I will slightly tweak his comments to remove personal information).

My reader writes

“Where I live it seemed to me that the interest in end times faded a bit over the last couple of years. However more and more videos and links are now reaching my digital shores and it seems caused by the newest crises to hit the world — the doom and gloom prophesied re Coronavirus.

The Coronavirus provides ample fertile ground for faded premils to get their motor started one more time, but also providing a gateway for younger people to adopt what seems to them an easy escapist argument. I am sensing some animosity from some people because of this basic optimism and my Christian dominion approach. This is at odds with the current pessimistic view prevalent among friends.

I have therefore dusted the old books and started reading your Perilous Times again. As I am reading I was wondering why the premill and amill views are the more popular approach to a view of end times.

In relation to the above have you ever considered whether an incorrect understanding of the foundational teaching of original sin could add to the pessimistic approach to end times?

Example: why do we deserve a better future as humans when we are unworthy in the eyes of an exclusive judgmental God?

The example is not my view but could be stuck in a psychological part of the thinking process of many people causing them to believe that they (and humanity) must suffer for their sins.”

[image error]Your Hope in God’s World (Kenneth Gentry)

5 DVDs; 5 lectures

This series of lectures presents the theological and exegetical argument for the postmillennial hope in our fallen world. The last lecture answers the major practical, theological, and exegetical objections to postmillennialism. An excellent series for both introducing and refreshing one’s understanding of postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

My quick reply

I will briefly answer your two questions.

First: Why are the amill and premill views more popular?

I suspect the following at least partially account for this:

a. Like the news media, people tend to notice and focus on bad news more than good news. So people are constantly fed bad news, which impacts their outlook. And both amill and premill thought comports well with this bad news outlook.

b. Folks tend to like the more exciting stories. When you explain biblical eschatology the amills and premills have the more dramatic, exciting stories. Postmillennialism requires people labor for a better, slowly developing, distant future. What’s the fun in that! An exciting story carries more punch than an obligation to work hard for the long haul.

I remember once explaining to my mother my view of the Book of Revelation as dealing with past events (associated with the temple’s destruction). My mother’s response after hearing my fifteen-minute synopsis was: “Well then, what do we have to look forward to?” I replied, “Mom, surely you are not looking forward to boils, earthquakes, persecution, and wars?”

c. People love to be the first to know something and if they “know” there are some dramatic events coming soon, they like being “in the know” regarding the supposed coming events.

d. People are generally more now-oriented. They tend to interpret life from where they are currently. They are so influenced by current circumstances that it is difficult to imagine those circumstances changing. So when bad news comes, it confirms their negative outlook.

Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism Debate[image error] (DVD by Gentry and Gaffin)

Formal, public debate between Dr. Richard Gaffin (Westminster Theological Seminary) and Kenneth Gentry at the Van Til Conference in Maryland. The debate focuses on whether the church is called to perpetually suffer in history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

e. However, this approach to eschatology involves a wrong method. It looks to current events rather than to Scripture. Then it also involves too narrow a sample, overlooking the great progress that has been made in the world since the days of Nero’s persecution.

f. This view also is impacted by a wrong definition of postmillennialism. Nothing in the postmillennial definition requires either relentlessly forward progress or the kingdom’s reaching its highest advance by any particular date. Postmillennialism is gradualistic, teaching that before the end the kingdom of God will reach world-dominating proportions. Thus, until history ends this argument cannot undermine the postmillennial hope. Glorious revivals may yet occur — as the postmillennialist expects.

Second: Does the doctrine of original sin psychologically impact them, whereby they expect that they must suffer for their sins?

a. The doctrine of original sin is probably one of the biggest influences discouraging any positive eschatology. How can the world get better in the long run if original sin is true? This complaint discounts the reality of salvation. We must note the obvious: despite the presence of sin, sinners do nevertheless convert to Christ. We must remember that each and every convert to Christ was at one time a totally depraved sinner. And yet we have hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today. Salvation comes by the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).

b. Regarding your concern that Christians may expect that they must suffer for their sins: The certainly teaches that we will always have indwelling sin, that God judges sin, and that he chastens his own people. However, we must look at other issues in our theology.

That is, we must understand that Christ suffered for our sins. And because of this, there is no theological requirement that we must suffer for them ourselves. Furthermore, the Scripture not only teaches that God chastens his people when they sin (to discourage their sin) but that he also blesses them. So now we must consider whether or not the Bible holds forth the prospect of a better future. And this is where all the evidence for postmillennialism must be brought to bear.

c. Furthermore, we do not have a one-dimensional view of God’s dealing with us. He does warn us of his chastening, but he also promises us blessings. Even in the midst of much suffering the Apostle Paul, for instance, held a positive psychological outlook as he kept his mind on things above. Which should dominate our psyche: God’s wrath or his blessing?

Conclusion

I hope these brief thoughts are helpful. I really must go, for I have to fly to Rome so that I can get on my knees and climb the steps at the Scala Sancta. For as I tell my pessiimistic friends, this helps keep me from rejoicing in the Lord always.

I invite any reader to share their thoughts on these matters.

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!

HISTORICISM, REVELATION, AND THE REFORMATION

[image error]PMT 2015-120 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

My computer is getting lighter as I remove more of the questions that have been sent to me by readers. Today’s question regarding the Book of Revelation, one of my favorite pastimes!

Reader’s question:

You are committed to the Reformed faith, yet you don’t take the historicist approach to eschatology which was widely held among the Reformers. Why do you not follow the Reformers in this part of their theology.

My response:

Thank you for your inquiry. You are correct that I am committed to Reformed theology. However, I differ from the Reformers in that I take a preterist approach to Revelation rather than an historicist approach. I do so for the following reasons:

First, we should remember that Revelation was not well received among some of the Reformers. Martin Luther, the famed reformer and untiring interpreter of Scripture, originally rejected Revelation as non-canonical, complaining, “My Spirit cannot adapt itself to the book.” In his German translation of the Bible, he complained in the preface to Revelation that the book was “neither apostolic nor prophetic.”[image error]

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Twenty-four careful, down-to-earth lectures provide a basic introduction to and survey of the entire Book of Revelation. Professionally produced lectures of 30-35 minutes length.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Fellow reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) refused to take a doctrinal proof-text from Revelation. Calvin himself wrote no commentary on it, despite his writing a very thorough series of commentary on almost all of the Bible.

Second, the Reformers were locked in a literal life-and-death struggle with Romanism. Consequently, they tended to view many judgment passages through the lens of their opposition to Rome. They let application override interpretation in some situations.

Such an exposition is known as an “actualizing interpretation.” “Actualizing interpretations take two forms. In one form the imagery of the Apocalypse is juxtaposed with the interpreter’s own circumstances, whether personal or social, so as to allow the images to inform understanding of contemporary persons and events and to serve as a guide for action” (J. Kovacs and C. R. Rowland, Revelation: Apocalypse of Jesus Christ [Oxford: Blackwell, 2004], 9).

For instance, we see this in the original Westminster Confession of Faith (25:6) where the Pope is called the Antichrist and the “man of lawlessness.” This not only gives too much credit to Romanism, but clearly misinterprets Scripture. If the Pope were Antichrist, then the papacy existed in the first century, for John confronts the antichrist in the first century (1Jn 2:18-22). But the Pope cannot be the Antichrist, for John defines the Antichrist as “one who denies the Father and the Son” (1Jn 2:22), as those who “do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (2Jn 7). This is clearly not referring to Roman Catholic teaching.

Third, historicist expositions of Revelation from that era, the 1500-1600s are impossible today. If you can find an historicist exposition of Revelation from you will quickly observe that they believed Revelation outlined church history up to their own time, when they believed its final prophecies were coming to fulfillment. Just reading an earlier historicist exposition today refutes it.

Kovacs and Rowland note this problem: “Altogether more contentious and daring is the way certain interpreters saw these figures appearing in their own day. For some this reflects a conviction that the last days have come” (Kovacs, 128; referenced above). M. E. Boring seems to be correct when he notes that “although widely held by Protestant interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view” (M. Eugene Boring, Revelation: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching [Louisville: John Knox, 1989], 49).

Fourth, by the very nature of the case historicism suffers from a need of constant revision. The historicist school, also called the “continuous historical,” sees the prophetic drama in Revelation as providing a panorama of Church history from the apostolic era to the return of Christ. Historical continuity is the main focus of this approach which forecasts future history. Historicists deem Revelation an “almanac of church history.” Historicists apply the numerous judgment scenes to various wars, revolutions, and socio-political and religious movements (e.g., the rising of Roman Catholicism, the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, World Wars I and II), as well as important historical /persons (e.g., various Popes, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Mussolini).

According to Alan Johnson, Joachim of Floris (d. 1202) popularized this view, though traces of it are found earlier in the Ante-Nicene fathers (Johnson, “Revelation” in EBC, 12:409). As noted above, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers greatly employed it against the Roman Catholic Church.[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

The weaknesses, though, are manifold. The position almost always assumes that present interpreters live at the conclusion to history so that all in Revelation leads up to their time just before the end. For instance Mede noted in his commentary: “While I write news is brought of a Prince from the North (meaning Gustavus Adolphus) gaining victories over the Emperor in defence of the German afflicted Protestants.”

Commenting on recurring problems in eschatological debate in general, Brethren historian F. Roy Coad well states: “Almost invariably interpretation has been vitiated by the reluctance or incapacity of commentators to visualise their own age as other than the end time” (F. Roy Coad, Prophetic Developments: A Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Occasional Paper [Pinner, England: 1966], 10).

As a consequence, beliefs are in a constant state of revision, especially for Revelation commentators in this school. Consequently, as history has grown longer, older varieties of this interpretive school have experienced a great number of failed expectations. This view long remained “strangely attractive in spite of the recurrent anguish and disappointment it causes” (John Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation [Atlanta: John Knox, 1979], 7).

Thus, this approach is continually in revision as it proposes more and more constructions based on the supposed prophetic allusions to historic events. For instance, this view was prominent in the Middle Ages when millennialism began to flourish once again. The system was used to show that “the millennium was about to dawn” (Carson, Moo, Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, [Zondervan] 482).

Furthermore, its relevance is confined to the Western world, with the progress of history traced only in a western direction (apparently where book sales are most profitable!).

In addition, it tends to lose its relevance for its original persecuted audience.

Its major problem, though, is that harmony among its proponents is almost wholly lacking due to its subjectivity.

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!

COMPUTERS, THE BEAST, AND 666

[image error]PMT 2015-117 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Once again I am offering some succinct answers to a reader’s question. Sometimes brevity can more quickly assist our understanding. (But please do not tell the publisher of my upcoming 1700 page commentary on Revelation.) Here is today’s question and brief answer.

Reader’s question

What is the “Mark of the Beast”? And since your answer will obviously have to have some first century application, isn’t it at all curious to you that for the first time in human history — with microchips, retinal scanners, a growing one-world economy, etc.—that the technology exists to make the “Mark of the Beast” a reality?

My response:

Thanks for your question. This type of thinking is fairly common in our American dispensationalist-dominated religious environment. However, I believe it is quite erroneous. The computer technology of today does not fit the requirements of the text of Revelation for the several reasons.[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

But first, let’s look at Rev 13:18: “Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.” Does this require computer technology? I do not believe so.

We must read this statement in its own literary setting. The mark of the Beast is no more a literal mark than the mark of the Lamb in the next few verse. In Rev 14:1 we read: “Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.”

I have never heard anyone teaching that the followers of the Lamb during the (supposed future) great tribulation will have a computer chip on their foreheads which holds the name of the Lamb in it.

In fact, this mark is actually an image of dominion and control. Notice that in Rev 13 no one may buy or sell without the mark (13:17). And note also that it is placed on the right hand and the forehead, which appear to represent that which we do (the right hand) and that which we think (the forehead). This speaks of oppressive, domineering control — which does not require computer chips to effect. There have been many totalitarian governments in the world.

In fact, today ISIS is a current example of such an attempt to control a person’s thinking and actions. And they do not need computer chips to do so.

The idea involved here is of a “beast” who imposes this mark due to his divine pretensions. He attempts for force men to worship him (Rev 13:4, 8). This may easily apply to emperor worship, which was well known in the historical setting of the seven churches of Asia (Rev 1:4, 11). And given a number of other interpretive angles this divine pretender would seem to be Nero Caesar, an egomaniac who actually did seek worship from men.

“Postmillennialism and Preterism“[image error]

Sacramento Eschatology Conference. Lectures (4 mp3s).

(1) Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?

(2) The Identity of the Beast of Revelation.

(3) The Resurrection of the Dead.

(4) The Great Tribulation is Past.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Book of Revelation is an extremely OT-oriented book. Thus, we always do well to check the OT background to see if we can find help. It appears that this mark on the right hand and forehead is a negative reflection on God’s requiring his Law on his people (Dt 6:8). God rightly imposes his Law on man; the “beast” (Nero Caesar?) wickedly seeks to impose his will, as if he is a god.
Any present day mark goes against John’s time-frame (near, Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10), relevance (persecuted churches, Rev 1:9), and theme (judgment of Israel, Rev 1:7; 11:1–2, 8). The computer chip idea may excite the minds of devotees of science fiction, but it should not sway devotees of God’s historical word.

Thanks for your question. I hope this helps.

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!

MEASURING EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE

[image error]PMW 2020-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I appreciate the questions readers send to me. I regret that I am not able to answer them quickly, due to my schedule. However, here is one that is a favorite among dispensationalists. And it is an intriguing one.

Reader’s question:

You argue that John must be measuring an actual, historical temple in Rev 11:1-2. Yet Ezekiel measures a temple, even though it does not exist in history. This suggests that the temple does not need to exist for John to measure it. How do you explain this problem for your view?

My response:

Thanks for your perceptive question. Please consider the following response.

Ezekiel’s prophecy expressly tells us that Israel has been attacked and destroyed. He opens with this statement: “Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.” (Ezekiel 1:1.) He is among the exiles because Jerusalem has been attacked and destroyed. Everyone knows that the temple was destroyed in these events.[image error]

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore in Eze 40 where Ezekiel begins the measuring, he opens this vision with: “In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that same day the hand of the Lord was upon me and He brought me there” (Ezekiel 40:1). Thus, he introduces the temple vision with words that show the historical temple no longer exists.

Just before this prophecy of the measuring, Ezekiel is promised by God: “Therefore thus says the Lord God, “‘Now I shall restore the fortunes of Jacob, and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I shall be jealous for My holy name'” (Ezekiel 39:25).

After he measures the temple, he writes:

“Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. (Ezekiel 43:1-3).

[image error]

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Twenty-four careful, down-to-earth lectures provide a basic introduction to and survey of the entire Book of Revelation. Professionally produced lectures of 30-35 minutes length.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will [future tense] dwell among the sons of Israel forever.” (Ezekiel 43:7a).

Consequently, even a surface reading of Ezekiel repeatedly reminds the reader that the city (and thus the temple) is destroyed and the people exiled. But in Revelation there is no indication that he is having a vision of a future rebuilt temple. The clear implication is that the temple is standing but is in danger.

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!

SATAN AND HIS ANGELS IN REV 12:4

[image error]PMW 2020-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader asks:

Dr. Gentry, I just got done watching your Revelation series on DVD. I just had a few questions.

I noticed you didn’t really touch much on Rev 12:4, and I’ve always been curious as to the meaning of that verse. A lot of people use it to say that when Satan rebelled he took a third of the angels with him. But that verse doesn’t seem to be talking about his rebellion at all, but rather his defeat during Christ’s earthly ministry. If that’s the case, then are there any other verse that talk about a “third of the angels”? Or is Scripture actually silent about that?

My reply:

Thanks for watching my lectures on Revelation in the “Survey of the Book of Revelation” DVD set. Obviously I could not deal with every verse and every topic in the twenty-four lectures, but this is a good question and deserves a reply. Please consider the following comments on Rev 12:4. Clearly, the dragon is Satan, as John makes clear in Rev 12:9. But what does he mean we he speaks of his “tail” which “swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth”?

Most commentators recognize that John draws his imagery here from Dan 8:10 where the “small horn” of the ram “grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth.”

How does John intend us to understand Satan’s sweeping down these stars? We know that he often re-interprets and re-applies his OT sources. For instance, G. K. Beale states: “Though Dan. 8:10 first had application to Antiochus, John now applies it in an escalated way to the devilish power behind Antiochus.” Craig Keener argues here that “Revelation rarely takes over Jewish symbols … even those from the divinely inspired Old Testament, without reapplying them.”

So then: What is John doing here as he re-applies Daniel’s reference?

[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

The action so vividly recorded here states that the dragon’s tail “swept away” a third of “the stars of heaven” (12:4a). The word translated “swept away” is surei, which means to “drag, pull, draw, drag away.” This word is used of Christians being dragged to prison (Acts 8:3) by Paul’s exercising the authority given to him from the high priest (9:1–2). It is also employed where Christians are being hauled before “city authorities” in Thessalonica (Ac 17:6). Thus, it shows the exertion of power or the exercise of authority over an object or person.

Here in 12:4 the verb is a pres. act. indic. (lit., “drags”) functioning as a historical present in order to vividly portray this past action. After these “stars” are dragged from heaven, the dragon “threw them to the earth” (12:4). The word translated “threw” is ebalen, an aor. act. indic. signifying a past action. But again: what is going on here? What do these stars and this Satanic action represent? I believe the following captures John’s point.

This does not speak of Satan’s original fall near the beginning of history. The immediate context of this chapter clearly shows the dragon is engaging in persecution, not only of the woman (ideal Israel, Rev 12:6, 13, 15), but her male child (Jesus Christ, 12:4b) and her other offspring (the first-century Jewish Christians,12:17). According to the NT, Satan involves his lesser cohorts, the fallen angels, in prompting persecution (Lk 22:3; Rev 2:9–10; 13:1–2, 6–7). Here Satan’s action in Rev 12:4 ironically anticipates the divine counterpart in 12:9: “the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

As Gordon Fee expresses it: 12:4 “serves here primarily as an identity marker, thereby setting up for Satan’s being cast out of heaven.” When we compare 12:3 and 12:9 we understand John’s ironic point to be: though Satan himself throws his angelic forces to the earth to afflict God’s people, God will throw Satan and his angels out of heaven in utter defeat.

The stars represent angels (supernatural spiritual beings). Perhaps the majority of scholars hold that these stars picture angels. Stars can represent angels in Scripture (Jdg 5:20; Job 38:7; cp. 1 En. 18:13–16; 86:1–6; 90:24). In Rev 9:1 the star that falls from heaven appears to be “the angel of the abyss” (Satan). As noted above, 12:4a anticipates 12:7–10, presenting the irony involved in Satan’s fall.

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

The reference to the “third of the stars” continues the pattern of partial, one-third destruction recently transpiring under the seven trumpets (Rev 8:7–12, 15, 18). Satan is focusing a sizeable portion of his demonic hordes on his current evil work in the first century. Satan’s power is great, but not as great as God’s, for God’s power is truly “almighty” (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). Though Satan’s “craft and power are great” and he is “armed with cruel hate,” to exercise his power in the important field of battle before him requires that he marshal an army of demons (12:9; Mt 25:41; Lk 11:18).

That Satan throws his angelic forces “to the earth” indicates that he rapidly moves his troops to the field of battle to confront Christ and his people. The phrase “to the earth,” should be translated “into the Land” (eis t n g n), i.e., of Israel. The focus of the Satan’s full-scale assault is during Jesus’ ministry and comes especially to a head in his crucifixion. Israel is small in comparison to the rest of the world (“you were the fewest of all peoples,” Dt 7:7) which Satan seeks to dominate (cf. Dt 32:17; Job 1:7; 2:1; Ac 26:18; 1Co 10:20; 2Co 4:4). Nevertheless, she is the central battleground for Satan’s assault on the kingdom of God.

Hence we see an enormous outburst of demonic activity at Christ’s coming: his casting out demons is a sign that “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28//). Because of this, at the very beginning of his ministry the Holy Spirit leads him into the wilderness to be tested by the devil (Mk 1:12//) and during his ministry “he cast out many demons” (Mt 8:16; 10:8; Mk 1:34; 6:13). As he establishes his kingdom the Lord authorizes his disciples to cast out demons (Mt 10:8//). Near the end of his ministry; the devil inspires Judas to betray him (Jn 13:2, 27).

Thus, Rev 12:4 is not speaking of Satan’s original fall into sin, but is picturing his own evil action in casting his demonic hordes into battle against Christ. And Christ’s victory ends up having Satan himself thrown out of heaven. This all comes to a dramatic conclusion in the context of AD 70 where his forces are defeated in their effort to destroy Christ’s people.

[image error]

 

POSTMILLENNIAL PAUL

[image error]PMT 2020-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Paul was a postmillennialist. We can know this by process of deduction. We know he was not a dispensationalist, because the dispensational system is so complicated that it took 1830 years to develop. Plus he never presents a Rapture chart in any of his known epistles (though admittedly he could have included one in either of his two lost Corinthians epistles). And we know he was not an amillennialist because he did not have a Dutch name.

But what exegetical evidence do we have for Paul’s postmillennialism? Romans 11 is one of the key texts demonstrating Paul’s historical optimism.

Paul writes in Rom 11:10–26:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? And if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if the root be holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, / He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

Here Paul is dealing particularly with the question of ethnic Jews in redemptive history’s new covenant phase. But the way he handles the matter leads him to assert global optimism regarding Christianity’s future — almost in passing as he simply assumes the gospel’s global conquest. Let us note the setting of his argument.[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

In Romans 8 and 9 he vigorously asserts God’s absolute sovereignty. But this causes a question to arise: What about the Jews? If God is sovereign, how can we explain their rejecting Christ and falling away from God’s favor? Are they not “His people” (Rom 11:1, 2)? Were they not the adopted sons who possessed the promises of God (Rom 9:4)? Romans 9–11 answers that important question.

Paul is clearly dealing with ethnic Jews when he raises the question for he writes: “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom 11:1). He defines “His people” by referring to Israel’s ethnic tribes (Rom 11:1), by citing Elijah’s experience (Rom 11:2), and by distinguishing them from the Gentiles (Rom 11:11–13, 25).

As he engages the thorny issue, he asks two questions: Has God rejected his people (Rom 11:1)? And has Israel stumbled for the purpose of absolutely falling away (Rom 11:11)? In answering these questions in his context, he argues that God’s sovereignty does not fail because: (1) Even “at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5; cp. 2–6) and God himself sovereignly hardens the rest (Rom 11:7–10). (2) God will bring the Jews back into God’s favor in the future and on an equal footing with the saved Gentiles (Rom 11:11–26). Thus, the current presence of a remnant shows his rejection is not total and the future hope of their fullness shows that his rejection is not final.

Millennial Orientations

The four basic millennial schools present distinctive approaches to Paul’s statement in Romans 11:25–26a: “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved.”

The premillennialist and the dispensationalist see the statement that “all Israel will be saved” as promising a future national, geo-political restoration of Israel’s kingdom. Generally the amillennialist sees this as signifying that the Church fulfills Israel’s promises by becoming the true Israel. The postmillennialist sees here the promise of world conversion as finally including ethnic Israel herself.[image error]

Postmillennial Lectures

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Formal seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The postmillennial approach best fits the flow of Paul’s argument, however. In the second phase of his argument proving that God’s sovereignty does not fail, he explains that Israel did not stumble at Christ for the purpose that (Gk., hina) they might utterly and finally fall away (Rom 11:11). In introducing the problem he vigorously rejects any such prospect: “May it never be!” for “God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew” (Rom 11:1, 2). He also rejects this possibility immediately after posing the question: “May it never be!” (Rom 11:11). Rather God’s purpose in Israel’s current condition is to bring in Gentile salvation, with the final result that this will spark widespread Jewish conversions: “salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (Rom 11:11).

Paul then states: “Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!” (Rom 11:12). We must understand that since Israel’s loss is almost total (only a remnant remains, Rom 11:5), her “fulfillment [Gk., pleroma]” must be commensurate with her loss, which means it must be virtually total. Hence, postmillennialists believe in future, massive conversions among the Jews, not only due to our general theological expectations regarding worldwide salvation, but also due to this particular exegetical evidence.

Amillennial Objections

Amillennialists dismiss this view for two contextual reasons: (1) This salvation of Israel is a “mystery” (Rom 11:25), which presents an unexpected resolution to the Jewish problem — that is, that the Church becomes Israel so that God fulfills Israel’s promises through her. (2) Paul uses the phrase kai houtos (“and thus”), which means “in this manner,” “in this way.” This phrase, so they argue, does not refer to temporal sequence tracing the falling away of the Jews, then the conversion of the Gentiles, followed finally by Israel’s salvation. Rather it refers to the unexpected manner by which God fulfills his promise: by making the Gentile Church the fulfillment of Israel’s hope.

Postmillennialism can answer both objections. First, in that Paul emphasizes ethnic Israel in his opening question (Rom 11:1–2) and in that he plays Gentiles over against Israel (Rom 11:11–13, 25), the “mystery” involved is the remarkable, unanticipated method God uses: he plays Israel off the Gentiles. This involves the salvific wave motion of Israel falling away from God’s favor, Gentiles coming in, then Israel being drawn back in.

Second, regarding “and thus”: though it is true that it often lacks sequential emphasis, this is not always the case. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:28 Paul writes: “But let a man examine himself, and so [same Greek phrase] let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Indeed, some major versions translate this usage temporally: “A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup” (NIV). “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (NRSV). Temporal sequence seems clear in other texts, as well (Acts 17:33; 20:11; 1 Cor 14:25). This presents no problem to the postmillennial interpretation.

Consequently, in Romans 11 Paul speaks of Christianity’s future glory: the Jewish failure will eventually bring “riches for the world” (Rom 11:12), resulting in “the reconciling of the world” (Rom 11:15), leading to “the fulness of the Gentiles” (Rom 11:25). All three references point to massive, worldwide conversions. All three underscore the postmillennial hope.

 

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND CHURCH

[image error]PMW 2020-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism holds a high view of the church. And of Christian worship in the church. And membership in the church. The church is the central focus of the kingdom of God. Much of the decline of Christianity that we are witnessing in America is related to Christians failing to understand the significance of the church for the Christian life.

In this article I will briefly present a biblical argument for church membership. Revival and reformation in our land must begin with the church, the household of God.

I see so many Christians in America who have disassociated themselves from particular church membership. They do not see any reason for or value in joining a local congregation. So what is the biblical argument for formal church membership? Though there are many arguments, here are four that should encourage us in seeking church membership.

First, Scripture teaches that believers are to associate themselves together in worship. In Hebrews the writer is discouraging Jews who have professed faith in Christ not to leave the church and return to the synagogue: “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Heb 10:25). In fact, in the earliest appearance of Christianity we see the disciples doing just that: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).

Ecclesiology Course[image error]

25 Gentry downloadable class lectures

Full Christ College course lectures on the doctrine of the Church.

Includes sizeable study of the sacraments.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This is why the Lord’s day became so important in the early Christianity. It was the time for the formal, public gathering of Christians to worship. In Acts 20:7 we read: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them.” Had they not gathered together, they would not have heard Paul’s message and would not have been instructed in the things of God properly.

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read Paul’s directive regarding taking up offerings. His question assumes churches do gather together in their various localities, and that they gather on the first day of the week: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.”

This, of course, does not mandate formal, vow-taking church membership, but it is a foundational point upon which we can build a case for church membership. Too many Christians are lone gunners for Jesus, sleeping in on Sundays, and declaring they can worship God just as well at home with their own families. Usually all it takes to explode this assertion is to ask a simple question: “But do you”? And if you meet the rare person who does actually worship with his family alone, ask them: “Do you take the Lord’s supper which Jesus commanded us to do until he returns (1 Cor 11:26)?”

Second, the NT establishes elders and deacons as officers in the church. In Acts 14:23 we read: “When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” In Acts 20:17 we read of Paul: “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. In Acts 6:1-6 we see the first deacons established in church office by election. In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 Paul gives the pre-requisites for church office, for both elders and deacons.

But now the question arises: How are we to elect church officers if there is no formal church membership? Can just anyone vote for church officers? Could Muslims come into our gathering and vote to elect officers to govern Christ’s church? Certainly not. The very concept of elected church office requires formal church membership, just as nations require citizenship to vote for rulers.

“Godly Worship“[image error]

7 downloadable messages by Ken Gentry

The Church of our Lord is to be a worshiping community. But today we are so experience-oriented and entertainment-driven that worship has been washed out. In this study we emphasize the significance of proper worship according to biblical principle. At the same time the study seeks to counter-balance those who would claim that we may only sing psalms in our worship service.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, church officers are to exercise a real governmental oversight in the gathered body of Christ. In Hebrews 13:17 we read: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. But how can this be if there is no one formally under that oversight — as in formal church membership?

Fourth, the NT speaks of church discipline whereby some Christians are put outside the church. In Matthew 18:15–18 excommunication is established in which a person is put out of the church. But if they are not members of the church, how can they be put out? If the church body has no formal oversight of them, how can they put them outside the church? Paul speaks of the necessity of church discipline so that one “would be removed from you midst” (1 Cor 5:2).

This important factor of church government requires some form of formal oversight, and therefore membership. I cannot simply self-excommunicate someone from the Christian faith. This requires an organized and authorized body of officers who are elected to office. And this requires church membership.

Thus, in the final analysis, formal church membership is implicit in how the church operates, according to the NT.

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

PRETERISM AND POSTMILLENNIALISM?

[image error]PMT 2015-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

From time to time I receive a question regarding the difference between preterism and postmillennialism. Some folks are confused as to whether they contradict each other or whether they are speaking of the same thing. Let me briefly distinguish the two theological concepts.

Preterism

The word “preterist” is the transliteration of a Latin word that means “passed by.” The orthodox preterist sees certain passages as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, though many evangelicals understand these to be speaking of the second coming of Christ at the end of history.

The second coming and the AD 70 judgment of Christ on Jerusalem are often spoken of with similar language. This is because they are theologically related concepts. The AD 70 holocaust is a microcosmic picture of the final day of history when Christ returns in judgment. That is, AD 70 is small, historical picture or advanced sample of what the final judgment will be like.[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Preterism has nothing necessarily to do with postmillennialism. There are preterist postmillennialists and there are historicist postmillennialists. Both are true forms of postmillennialism. There are also preterist amillennialists. Thus preterism does not commit one to any particular eschatological system.

Preterism is more of a hermeneutic tool than a theology. That is, it helps us understand certain passages without committing us to any particular eschatology.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is a theological position on “the last things” that are to occur toward the end of history, an eschatological school of thought. Postmillennialism is an optimistic eschatological system that believes that Christ’s kingdom is currently present in history and will gradually win a dominant sway over men and nations as the gospel makes fuller progress in the world.

Postmillennialism holds to a single final coming of Christ (no separate rapture), a general resurrection of the saved and the lost simultaneously, and a general judgment of the saved and the lost in one setting.[image error]

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, postmillennialism looks for the growing influence of the gospel in history before the end comes. After a long time of dominance, Christ will return to resurrect and judge all men and end history while establishing the eternal, consummate order.

Conclusion

Thus, preterism and postmillennialism are altogether different concepts. Preterism is basically a hermeneutic, whereas postmillennialism is a theological system. They may occur simultaneously in one’s worldview, or they may be found in differing systems of thought.

[image error]

GIBBS, MATT 24:3 AND THE DISCIPLES

[image error]Introduction by Ken Gentry

I have mentioned several times in various postings how much I appreciate the exegetical work on Matthew by Jeffrey A. Gibbs. Gibbs is a professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He earned his Ph.D. from Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. (1995). His three volume commentary on Matthew is one of the best evangelical works on this Gospel. I highly recommend this commentary and the one by R. T. France as the best you can get.

I will be citing several paragraphs from Gibbs’ analysis of Matthew 24:3, which he titles “The Disciples’ Confusion.” This material is drawn from his third volume on Matthew: Matthew 21:1–28:20 (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2018, pp. 1252–54). This will supplement my study on the Disciples’ confusion in several recent PostmillennialWorldview postings. Gibbs is the commentator who put me on this trail!

The following paragraphs are from Gibbs

Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (pp. 1252–54)

As the royal Son of God was leaving the temple precincts, his disciples approached him with a purpose On one level, Matthew describes that purpose in a neutral way; they approach Jesus ‘to show’ him the structures that were part of the magnificent edifice and courtyard (24:1). On another level, however, a careful reader might easily regard the disciples with some suspicion. Jesus has just predicted that the sanctuary will be left desolate (23:38); what can the disciples now mean by ‘showing’ him the buildings of the temple precincts?

[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

Jesus responds to their action of ‘showing’ with a strong ‘telling.’ In 24:2, Jesus clarifies and specifies the meaning of 23:38. What will it mean for ‘your house’ to be left as desolate (23:38)? It will surely mean the destruction of the very buildings they have now shown Jesus.

What do the disciples now make of Jesus’ prophecy in 24:2? Once again, Matthew gives us no inside view of their thinking, and we are left with careful reading of what the evangelist does give us. As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, presumably with the temple precincts in plain view, the disciples again ‘approached him’ (proselthon) and asked a double question, or rather, two questions (24:3). Here is even more reason to regard the disciples’ understanding as faulty. Note three features in and around 24:3.

First, Matthew has repeatedly narrated times when the disciples (or one or another of them) approached Jesus to say something or to ask a question. In one instance (and only one), the disciples are portrayed as neutral and reasonable, if you will: they approach Jesus and ask him, ‘Where are you will for us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?’ (26:17). In every other instance, however, the disciples show themselves to be ignorant or without understanding (13:1`0, 36) or as having little faith (8:25; 17:19) or as deeply flawed in their thinking (14:15; 15:12, 23; 18:1, 21; 20:20). At the very least, Matthew’s broader presentation of the disciples prepares his readers/hearers to wonder whether they know what they’re asking when they approach him and say, ‘Tell, when with these things be, and what [will be] the sign of your parousia and of the consummation of the age?’ (24:3).

Second, the disciples ask two questions, only the first of which connects with what Jesus has been saying to them. Following naturally on Jesus’ emphatic prediction that not one stone will be left upon another in the temple precincts (24:2), the disciples initially ask, ‘When will these things be?’ (24:3). Then, however, they immediately follow with a second question that brings to the fore something about which Jesus has not been speaking at all: ‘What [will be] the sign of your parousia and of the consummation of the age?’ (24:3). The term ‘parousia’ occurs for the first time here in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus has several times, however, already taught them about ‘the consummation of the ate’ (13:39, 40, 49). It is the disciples themselves who somehow have thought that the two questions go together, namely, the destruction of the temple and the consummation of the age. They do not, in fact, go together — at least not in terms of when they will happen. This conclusion is supported by a third observation.

[image error]

When Shall These Things Be?

(ed. by Keith Mathison)

A Reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.

Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Their, when Jesus responds, he beings with ‘keep watching, lest someone deceive you,’ (24:4). Jesus responds this way because the disciples have just shown themselves to be deceived. In fact, the first unit in Jesus’ teaching (24:4–14) directs the disciples not to be confused by the regular tumults and convulsions in Judea and the wider world around them. The disciples are not to be deceived into thinking that these troubles mean that the consummation of the age will happen soon.

When examined carefully, the disciples’ approach and two-part question actually anticipates the two-part structure of the Eschatological Discourse and its message. Jesus will now teach the disciples about the events leading up to the destruction of the temple and the city, the about the consummation of the age and about the importance of not confusing the two.

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!