Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 58

UPDATING EARLY-DATE SCHOLARSHIP

[image error]PMW 2020-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction

An early-date composition is important for the preterist analysis of the Book of Revelation. For if Revelation were written prior to the destruction of the temple in AD 70, the way is at least open for considering the prospect that John’s great prophetic work is looking ahead to that dramatic redemptive-historical event. Unfortunately, the majority opinion of scholars today is that Revelation was written much later than AD 70, no earlier than Domitian’s reign some twenty years later.

But cracks in this dike of scholarly opposition to the early date are showing. A growing number of scholars from a broad array of religious convictions (spanning conservative-evangelicals to liberal-critical scholars) is turning back to the early-date view that was the majority opinion in the nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. And for this shift, I am grateful. I also believe it is important to make this news known in our current setting. For the preterist analysis of Revelation is often written off with a wave of the hand that ends with the pointing of the finger to the majority of scholars.

My friend, Robert Cruickshank, sent me a book with an interesting chapter on this topic. The book is Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer, edited by Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, and Arie Zwiep (Boston: Brill, 2013). The chapter of interest is: Arie W. Zwiep, “Eight Kings on an Apocalyptic Animal Farm

Reflections on Revelation 17:9–11″ (pp. 218–37).

Dr. Zwiep is a noteworthy scholar. He serves as Associate Professor of New Testament and Hermeneutics and Director of the Graduate School of Religion and Theology at the University of Amsterdam.

In this blog-post I will not be interacting with Dr. Zwiep’s chapter. I will simply cite an important observation that should encourage early-date advocates. I hope to return to this chapter in a future posting.

Before Jerusalem Fell[image error]

(by Ken Gentry)

Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing. Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Current statistics

On p. 281 of the book before us, Zwiep states:

“A brief survey of recent New Testament introductions, commentaries and scholarly articles on the Book of Revelation suggests that a growing number of biblical scholars favour an early date for the book’s composition, i.e., shortly after the death of Nero (68 CE) and before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple two years later. This was, in fact, the dominant position of nineteenth-century biblical scholarship. While John A. T. Robinson’s pre-70 CE dating of the book was part of larger experiment to see if it was possible to have the entire New Testament collection completed before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE — one that could easily be dismissed as an idiosyncrasy of an anti-establishment scholar — in recent times a growing number of biblical scholars of various persuasions have come to defend an early (“Neronian”) date of the book: Christopher C. Rowland (1982), Kenneth L. Gentry (1989), Robert B. Moberly (1992), J. Christian Wilson (1993), E. Earle Ellis (2000), Gonzalo Rojas-Flores (2004), Stephen S. Â.Smalley (2005), Ian Boxall (2007), George H. van Kooten (2007), and Karl Jaroš (2008), to name but a few.”

Works cited

In order to allow your following-up on Zwiep’s comment, I will list the works he cites from the authors he lists.

• Christopher C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), 403–413.

• Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell. Dating the Book of Revelation. An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [1989] 3d. ed.: 1998)

• Robert B. Moberly, “When Was Revelation Conceived?,” Bib 73 (1992): 376–92.

• J. Christian Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,” NTS 39 (1993): 587–605.

• E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Biblical Interpretation 39; Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1999; Boston, Leiden: Brill Academic, 2000), 210–16.

• Gonzalo Rojas-Flores, “The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign,” Bib 85 (2004): 375–92 /

• Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005), 2–3.

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

• Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (BNTC; Peabody: Hendrickson; London, New York: Continuum, 2006), 7–10.

• George H. van Kooten, “The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John. The ‘pro-Neronian’ Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome,” JSNT 30 (2007): 205–248.

• Karl Jaroš, Das Neue Testament und seine Autoren: Eine Einleitung (UTB 3087; Köln,

Weimar, Wien: Böhlau, 2008), 191–203.

Conclusion

Thus, as we can see: early-date advocacy is alive and well on planet Earth, you might say. This, of course, does not prove the early date. But as mentioned above, it does encourage orthodox preterists to stay the course. And it does hamper a hasty dismissal of the preterist view of Revelation.

 

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION REVISITED

[image error]PMW 2020-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Article introduction

Recently I offered a series on the Disciples’ tendency to be confused at Jesus’ teaching (see March 6, 10, 13, 17 articles). I did this to show the Disciples’ confusion regarding certain issues in Jesus’ eschatological teaching. I was showing that they wrongly assumed that the end of the world/age would come in conjunction with the destruction of the temple.

We see this problem dramatically exhibited in the Olivet Discourse setting. For after Jesus prophesies the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:2), the Disciples immediately show their confusion by their question: “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’” (Matt. 24:3).

That they are confused is seen in several ways: (1) Through Jesus’ carefully structuring his Discourse to sort out the issues arising from their double-question (see my article: “Matthew 24:3 and Olivet’s Structure”). (2) Through Jesus’ using distinctive language, which is recorded only in Matthew’s version (e.g., parousia, Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39). And (3) Matthew’s distinctive wording of the Disciples’ question regarding “the end [sunteleias] of the age ” (24:23). Matthew’s version of the Discourse is extremely helpful in that it is by far most extensive and detailed record of the Olivet Discourse.

My series was explaining that the Disciples’ historical linkage of the temple’s destruction and “the end of the age” was mistaken. I was arguing that this should not surprise us since they so often were confused regarding Jesus’ teaching. I even noted that this is why Jesus did not commission them to “teach” (Matt. 10:1) until after his full ministry was concluded (Matt. 28:19). This was because they were not ready to teach others until they themselves had a full understanding of his mission.

And in that series we saw that during his ministry the Disciples even rebuked him for saying he was going to die (Matt. 16:16–23)! Even though this was the very goal of his incarnation (Matt. 1:21; 12:40; 16:21; 17:12, 22–23; 20:28; 26:28; John 12:31–32; cp. Heb. 10:5–7).

[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But now I have received a:

Reader’s question

In this article I will pick up this theme of Disciple-confusion once more. I do this because a reader (David Morsillo) has asked an insightful question:

Thank you for this series. I found it interesting though, that you seemed to skip Matthew 13 where (among others) Jesus gives the parables of the weeds (36-43) and net (47-50) – both of which mention the end of the age and where in verse 51 Jesus asks his disciples “Have you understood all these things?” and ‘They said to him ‘Yes.’”

What are we to make of their answer and Jesus’ response (52)?

So now I must give:

My explanation

Thanks for visiting my site and for interacting with it. My four-part series involved a brief survey of the Disciples’ tendency to misunderstanding Jesus’ teaching — not a full psychological analysis. Thus, I only hit some of the leading evidence speaking directly to this matter. Unfortunately, the text that concerns you is Matthew 13, which does not provide further direct evidence.

Regarding the Kingdom Parables, which mentions “the end of the age” (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49): as you correctly point out, the Disciples do claim to have understood him (Matt. 13:51). That certainly is their claim. But the question now becomes: how much do they understand? And how does it impact my series point regarding their faulty eschatological understanding. Regarding this, please note the following:

First, the Disciples’ claim does not demonstrate that they finally understand all that Jesus is teaching.

We know this because after their affirmation in Matthew 13:51, they continue to misunderstand various issues. My series showed this in its third and fourth installments. For example, I pointed out their subsequent, continuing confusion in Matthew 14:25–31; 15:15–20, 32–39; 16:6–12, 21–22; and so forth.

Not only so, but in Mark’s version of the Kingdom Parables, Mark highlights their inability to understand him. And he shows Jesus’ frustration with them for this: “And He said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?’” (Mark 4:13). Then he explains the parables to them (v. 34).

Second, the Disciples’ claim only shows that they understand some of what Jesus is teaching.

My series did not argue that they understood nothing of what Jesus taught. In the second article I stated that they suffered from “frequent confusion.” This observation is important. Regarding the eschatological issue, the Disciples obviously understood that the world will one day end and that God’s judgment will be effected at that end, i.e., at “the end of the age” (Matt. 13:39, 40, 49). This would explain their statement in Matthew 13:51. They do not declare, “Now we understand all things that you have taught.”

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

Third, the Disciples’ claim shows that they do not fully understand what Jesus is teaching.

Apparently they do not fully understand all that is involved in “the end of the age.” For later in Matthew 24:3 they associate the end of the temple with the end of history. But Jesus did not even mention the temple in his Kingdom Parables in Matthew 13. Yet in Matthew 24:3 the Disciples directly link the temple’s destruction with “the end of the age.”

Thus, due to their Jewish identity and religious heritage, they assumed that the end of history must come about in conjunction with the temple’s destruction. Even though Christ never taught such — in Matthew 13 or anywhere else. That is, they believe the temple must remain until the end of the world. In this, they held the same view as Philo, John of Gischala, and other devout Jews around that era (see “The Disciples’ Confusion at Olivet (2).”

Hopefully, this answers your basic question about my skipping Matthew 13:51. But now I have a:

Final observation

My reader also presents a question about Matthew 13:52, which immediately follows upon the Disciples’ claim to understand. Note its context:

“Have you understood all these things?” They said to Him, “Yes.” And Jesus said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matt. 13:51–52)

This logion about “a head of a household” bringing out new treasures is ultimately saying: “Listen to my teaching. I am bringing out new observations on God’s kingdom that are not held by Israel’s current scribes” (cp. Matt. 9:16–17). We must understand that a “scribe” is a literate man who professionally writes and keeps records, and who therefore is able to publicly read and teach God’s written word (Matt. 23:2).

Jesus states this while he is rejecting Israel’s own “scribes and Pharisees” who are “hypocrites” (Matt. 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). Israel’s scribes confuse matters, effectively condemning people to hell (Matt. 23:13, 15, 33). But he will soon be sending out his own scribes with his correct views of God’s new covenant kingdom. But these scribes will be rejected by Israel’s scribes: “behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city” (Matt. 23:34).

Interestingly, Matthew is unique in recording this among the other Gospel writers. This seems to be a veiled reference to himself and his own work in writing the Gospel. Of course, it also covers all other inspired Christian writers such as Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and others. They will be presenting the “new covenant” (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24) which effects a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), wherein will be established a “new man” (the merger of Jew and Gentile into one body, Eph. 2:15). They will declare the “new and living way” to God (Heb. 10:20; cp. John 14:6) and a “new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2).

2 THESSALONIANS 1:7 AND “RELIEF”

[image error]PMW 2020-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader contacted me with this question:

“Why do you think 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is referring to the final return while denying the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ? That is, if 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is not the AD 70 coming but the final return, then didn’t Paul believe the final return could happen in his day since he wrote to the believers in his day, ‘and to grant relief to you.’ Just wondering how you deal with that?”

My response:

Thanks for reading my materials and for thinking through the issues. I will offer a brief answer. I hope that in the future I will have time to provide a fuller analysis of this passage. But in brief, note:

Paul’s General Purpose

To understand Paul’s statement in v. 7, we must first recognize his general purpose in writing this letter (2 Thessalonians). His purpose is to encourage long-term faithfulness to Christ in all circumstances. Thus, he opens this letter by praising the Thessalonians for their “perseverance,” which is being demonstrated despite their suffering:

“We ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance [Gk., hupomone, i.e., “perseverance”] and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure” (2 Thess. 1:4).

Then later he begins closing this letter by declaring his confidence that they will continue to persevere: “We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command. May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness [Gk., hupomone, i.e., perseverance] of Christ” (2 Thess. 3:4–5).

[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

And he finally closes with a benedictory prayer to this end: “now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance” (2 Thess. 3:16). Thus, he closes his letter by praying that God will grant the Thessalonians peace in “every circumstance.” That is, in every circumstance whether good or bad — even in such circumstances as in the “persecutions and afflictions” which they are in fact currently enduring (cf. 2 Thess. 1:4).

In all this, Paul aligns his praise for these suffering believers with his expectations elsewhere. For he warns that suffering awaits the followers of Christ:

“Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).

“No one should be disturbed by these afflictions; for you yourselves know that we have been destined for this” (1 Thess. 3:3).

“Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3:12).

But now let us consider:

Paul’s Specific Encouragement

In 2 Thessalonians 1 Paul encourages these believers by noting their need to persevere in the faith is not without hope of resolution. Our text reads:

“This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire” (2 Thess. 1:5–7).

Note that he does not leave them wondering if their persecutors will be let off without punishment. Or if God will reward the faithful believers at Thessalonica for their steadfastness. Rather, he is encouraging them in the long haul by noting that, despite their current, ongoing persecutional suffering (v. 5), one day in the future God will: (1) not only repay those who persecute them (v. 6) but (2) grant ultimate, glorious relief to these faithful believers who are suffering in history (v. 7a).

But then he notes when this relief will be granted: “when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven” (v. 7b). That is, “at the revelation of the Lord Jesus [Gk., en te apokalupsei tou kuriou Iesou].”

[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

Here we must note that there is no date suggested for this relief. Thus, there is no statement that it will be “soon.” Paul presents the ultimate hope for eternal resolution for all parties involved: for the Thessalonians, there will be full and final relief in the final estate; for the persecutors there will be a full payment for their evil at the judgment that Christ will bring about when he is revealed from heaven (v. 6).

Thus, in keeping with the purpose of his letter in encouraging long-term faithfulness despite opposition, the Thessalonians must continue to endure. This passage is similar to Paul’s statement to the Philippians, which encourages their “standing firm” and not being “alarmed” by those opponents who will endure “destruction” from God:

“Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God” (Phil. 1:27–28).

It has already been 2000 years since Paul wrote these word. This shows that the “imminence” of Christ’s coming is not the issue. Rather, the issue is the eschatological fact of God’s fully repaying the persecutors and fully rewarding the faithful . See Rev. 20:11–15 for the full , complete, and final expression of these rewards.

In the meantime, the Thessalonians must recognize their suffering is not in vain. For as Paul says elsewhere: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58; cp. Phil. 2:16).

Paul’s Broader Hope

In addition, Paul’s words to the Thessalonians remain for us still today: we must remain steadfast, knowing that our labor is not in vain, and that God will recompense. His particular encouragement to the Thessalonians is the foundation for our general encouragement as Christians.

For my Righteous Writing course on how to research, write and get published, click here: Righteous Writing

[image error]

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part series explaining how postmillennialism can be true even though Jesus warns of “the days of Noah” that lay in our future. A reader asked me about postmillennialism in light of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37–39, which reads:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:37–39)

This is a good question, which is frequently brought up in eschatological discussions. It needs answering. And as I am showing, it can be answered by the postmillennialist — even more easily than many expect.

In my last article I pointed out two important points: (1) Postmillennialism recognizes that sinful tares will always exist in the righteous wheat field, which we expect to come to pass in earth history. Yet (2) postmillennial eschatology teaches that there will be a final, brief rebellion at the end, just before the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Thus, postmillennialism could place these “days of Noah” in this final, brief stage of history. This would quickly and easily solve the “problem.”

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

However, I noted that this is not our actual answer. Though the final, evil rebellion is most definitely a part of the final days of earth history, that is not what Jesus is talking about here in Matthew 24:37–39. That is not what he is referring to by mentioning “the days of Noah.” Now I must explain what this reference actually means. So at this point in my answer to my reader, I will make two additional observations. These will wholly remove the supposed problem from the discussion of postmillennialism. What do I mean? I move now to my second argument:

Second, the objector must understand Jesus’ point

We must note that the stated point of Jesus’ comment has nothing to do with the evil character of Noah’s day. Rather, his statement is referring to the unexpected nature of Jesus’ Second Coming and Final Judgment.

Notice that the Lord carefully explains why he mentions Noah’s days. Not for moral categorization, but for temporal expectation. He mentions the days of Noah as an illustration of the unexpected nature of “the coming of the Son of Man.” Notice that he twice uses the conjunction “for” in our text: once for introducing and then for explaining his thought:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.” (Matt. 24:37–38)

The first “for” associates the coming of the Son of Man somehow with the days of Noah. The second “for” explains what he means by this association. We must notice that he clearly references common, mundane life-activities that were engaged in Noah’s day. None of these activities in-and-of themselves is a reason for judgment. Each of these is a God-ordained normal, human activity: eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage.

Jesus does not say, the world situation will be morally like that which prevailed in Noah’s day. That is, he does not say anything regarding the evil that characterized Noah’s day.

Rather, this mention of normal, daily activities shows that the people in Noah’s days simply went about their daily routines — without realizing (“they did not understand,” v. 39) that disaster was coming. Thus, his second “for” emphasizes the unexpectedness of his coming, not the evil characterization of those days. That is, he is telling his disciples that his coming will be sudden, right in the midst of normal life — like when Noah’s flood “came and took them all away” (Matt. 24:39).

Then he confirms this focus. For he immediately declares: “so will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt. 24:39b). That is, the coming of the Son of Man will be like the coming of the flood, altogether unexpected (cp. 2 Pet. 3:3–5).

Postmilllennialism and Preterism[image error]

Four lectures by Ken Gentry (downloadable 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

Third, the objector must understand Jesus’ context

Even though the structure of Jesus’ isolated reference to the days of Noah in Matthew 24:37–39 sufficiently discounts the use of this passage against postmillennialism, there is more. The very context itself demands this interpretation and further supports the postmillennial understanding.

The whole context is clearly focusing on the unexpected nature of the Second Coming. In fact, this passage opens with a clear statement about the unpredictable time of his coming: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36).

Then this declaration is illustrated in several ways — in order to discourage Christians from forgetting that judgment will come. And that they must always be ready for it. Notice the following illustrations of the truth of v. 36:

“They did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be” (24:39).

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42)

“But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into” (Matt. 24:43).

“For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt. 24:44).

“The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know” (Matt. 24:50).

“Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13).

Conclusion

These three observations on Matthew 24:37–39 (in this and my preceding article) should discount any objection that might be brought against postmillennialism by means of this Noah text. The postmillennial hope of a future, long era of righteousness, peace, and prosperity can stand alongside of Jesus’ statement about “the days of Noah.”

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET

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!

POSTMILLENNIALISM AND THE DAYS OF NOAH (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader sent me a question regarding postmillennialism’s glorious hope in light of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37–39. Jesus’ statement reads:

“For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matt. 24:37–39)

The problem we face

This statement appears to undermine postmillennial expectations for the improvement of world conditions under the spread of the gospel. In fact, it seems actually to teach the opposite: that history will descend into wholesale corruption equivalent to the worldwide debasement experienced in the days of Noah. This is quite significant in that the corruption in those days was so notorious (Gen. 6:5, 11–12) that God was “grieved” that he had created man (Gen. 6:6), leading him to determine to destroy all men except for Noah’s family (Gen. 6:7–8, 13, 17–18; 7:4). In fact, God does eventually send a worldwide flood to destroy all men for their evil (Gen. 7:21–23).

How can the postmillennialist explain Jesus’ statement while maintaining his hope-filled system? This is an important question in that this passage is frequently deployed against postmillennialists in eschatological debates. What’s a postmillennialist to do?

[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

Before I give the postmillennial response, it is important to note that reputable postmillennial scholars over the centuries have been very much aware of Jesus’ famous statement, while persisting in their hope-filled expectations. Noteworthy scholars such as J. A. Alexander, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, John Jefferson Davis, and many others. This does not prove postmillennialism, of course. But it should give pause to those who think  that merely pointing to this passage settles the argument.

The solution we offer

I will offer a three-fold response to the postmillennial objector. In this article I will focus on the first part of my response. Then complete the second two points in the following article.

First, the objector must understand what postmillennialism teaches.

Before you can effectively rebut a theological system, you must understand that system. As I have argued in other contexts, postmillennialism is the easiest millennial view to misunderstand because of our contemporary theological environment. And this is where the “Noah objection” can so easily fail. Let me explain.

Postmillennialism teaches the victorious spread of the gospel throughout the world. It expects the gospel gradually over time to usher in a long period of time (an era) in which righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail among men. It expects Christianity to become the rule in history, rather than the exception. In fact, this is the essence, the sine qua non of postmillennialism.

However, postmillennialists do not believe in a form of universalism. Notice that our definition holds that the gospel will usher in a “long period” of righteousness that “will prevail among men” so that Christianity will “become the rule in history, rather than the exception.” It does not declare that each-and-every person living in that era will be perfect. Nor even that each-and-every person will be a Christian.

Rather postmillennialism teaches that Christianity will dominate among men. It expects that the Christian faith will hold a worldwide gracious sway in human society and culture so that the vast majority of men will be converted. We recognize that there will always be tares among the wheat that will remain until the Final Judgment at Christ’s Second Coming (Matt. 13:24–30).

[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, while we affirm that the world will eventually become a wheat field rather than remaining a tare field, we hold that tares will still exist — even through the glory years and to the end of time. This is much like a Christian recognizing that the church which he attends is a Bible-believing, Christian church, even though there may be some unbelievers within. Despite the presence of some unbelievers within a truly Christian church, however, it is a Christian church where Christianity is the rule rather than the exception. And it seeks to operate on biblical principles, even if it fails to do so perfectly. This is small-scale, local picture of the large-scale, cosmic victory of the gospel in history.

Consequently, postmillennialism is majoritarian rather than universalistic. And in addition to its non-universalism, postmillennialists also hold that after a long period of righteousness, peace, and prosperity prevailing throughout the world, God will allow the sinners within the Christianized world of that time to engage in a final display of their culturally-suppressed sin.

At that time, God will release Satan from his being bound (Rev. 20:7; cp. Matt. 12:28–29) so that he might go forth and organize a final rebellion against him (Rev. 20:8). This final rebellion will be brief (“a short time,” Rev. 20:3) and will be put down by the Return of Christ (Rev. 20:9; cp. 2 Thess. 1:6-–10) followed by the Final Judgment (Rev. 20:11–15).

Thus, the first step in explaining “the days of Noah” within the postmillennial system is to point out that postmillennialism involves a long period of righteousness, not an everlasting period. It is a long period of wide-scale righteousness, not a long period of absolute righteousness. Consequently, in Matthew 24:37–39 Christ could be speaking of this final phase of history after the long period of righteousness. On this view, postmillennialism can account for Jesus’ statement.

Yet, though this is a possible response, it is not our actual response. I will explain this in my next two points, which will be presented in my next article.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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

IS MATTHEW 25:31-46 A PARABLE?

[image error]PMW 2020-022 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader recently responded to an aside comment that I made in an article on the Olivet Discourse. Though the issue is not a major one, it is an interesting one nevertheless. And it is at least potentially helpful for better understanding the matter before us.

THE INTERPRETIVE CONCERN

The reader writes:

“I can’t imagine why you would think that Mt 25: 31 & 32 is not a parable. Sheep and goats are metaphors which is exactly what makes a parable a parable.”

My response:

Thanks for reading my posts, and taking the time to interact. Much appreciated!

However, I believe you are mistaken in assuming that because “sheep and goats are metaphors” that this is what “makes a parable a parable.” Just a quick observation regarding your statement about metaphors and parables: we speak in metaphors all the time today without anyone claiming we are speaking in parables. You are apparently working with an inadequate definition of a parable.

Your comment indicates that you have not done any extensive work in dealing with parables. Defining a “parable” is a lot more complex than you suppose. I have a dozen books on the parables of Jesus in my library. They invariably have to wrestle with the definition of a “parable.” Defining “parable” is a widely debated issue in New Testament interpretation.

But now regarding your basic concern, which is found in your statement: “I can’t imagine why you would think that Mt 25:31 32 is not a parable.”

I would admit that there are, in fact, many scholars who believe that the Sheep and Goats Discourse is a parable. However, I do not believe they are correct; and I am not alone in this. I will be presenting numerous observations on Matthew 25:31–46 by leading scholars that deny that the passage is a parable. No one should respond to these men by complaining: “I can’t imagine why you would think that Mt 25: 31 & 32 is not a parable.”

Of course, counting noses does not establish the matter. But at least it should discourage any hasty dismissal of the view. Consider the following scholarly comments. (Be aware that these men sometimes refer to the Olivet Discourse” by its more scholarly designation: “Eschatological Discourse.” This designation highlights its thematic content rather than its geographical origin.)

THE OLDER COMMENTATORS

John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, (1:313):

“What is before signified in the two preceding parables, is here clearly and distinctly represented without a parable.”

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary (5:378):

“We have hear a description of the process of the last judgment in the great day. There are some passages in it that are parabolical; as the separating between the sheep and the goats, and the dialogues between the judge and the persons judged: but there is no thread of similitude carried through the discourse, and therefore it is rather to be called a draught [draft] or delineation of the final judgment, than a parable.”

Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (v. 1; p. 255):

This description is not a parable, though there are in it parabolic passages, e.g., [“as a shepherd’]; and for that very reason, that which is illustrated by those likenesses is not itself parabolic.”

Charles J. Ellicott, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (6:156):

“We commonly speak of the concluding portion of this chapter as the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, but it is obvious from its very beginning that it passes beyond the region of parable into that of divine realities.”

Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book on the Gospel of Matthew (p. 443):

He never calls it a parable, and does not discuss its literary form. Rather, he speaks of “this discourse about the judgment.”

A. Lukyn Williams, St. Matthew in The Pulpit Commentary (15: 480):

“Before entering upon the exposition of this majestic section, which is a prophecy, not a parable, we have to settle the preliminary question as to who are the subjects of the judgment here so graphically and fearfully delineated.”

MORE RECENT COMMENTATORS

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Matthew (International Critical Commentary) (3:418):

“Although reminiscent of the earlier parables of separation (13.24–30, 36–43, 47–50), this is not a parable but a ‘word-picture of the Last Judgement.’” They note the numerous future tense verbs which are “uncharacteristic of parables.”

Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (3:1343):

“One hears 25:31–46 referred to as ‘the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.’ It is not, however, a parable under any normal understanding of that term. The unit reports a direct teaching from Jesus about what will happen at ‘the consummation of the age’ (24:3)…. Jesus ends the Eschatological Discourse with direct teaching, not a parable.”

[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

Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (1:932):

“This picture of judgment is often called a parable but technically is not. Instead, it is an extended metaphor using the analogy of separating the sheep and goats for the judgment of the nations.”

Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (p. 633):

“This passage is often described as a parable, but Jesus does not use this term for it. … This concluding part of the discourse reads like a description of what will happen on Judgment Day rather than like another parable.”

R. T. France, Matthew (Tyndale New Testament Commentary) (p. 354):

“This powerful description of the final judgment is sometimes misleadingly described as a ‘parable.’ In fact, while vv. 32–33 do contain the simile of a shepherd, otherwise this is a straight-forward judgment scene similar in its conception to the prophetic and apocalyptic visions of the ‘day of the Lord’ found in the Old Testament.”

Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 746):

“Unlike the preceding parables, however, this narrative is based not on a fictitious story but on the description of a very real, though future, event. Despite some clear parabolic elements, the passage with its future tense forms is more properly categorized as an apocalyptic revelation discourse.”

[image error]

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

For all those who fear that the Bible is a mysterious labyrinth through which they cannot find their way, Doriani provides wonderful guidance. Written with craft and wit, this highly readable book combines great biblical insight with marvelous practical wisom.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

David L. Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 604):

“Although some scholars call 25:31–46 a parable . . . its metaphorical elements (25:32b–33) do not extend throughout the discourse. It begins and concludes as a prose narrative of the judgment of the nations.”

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary) (p. 1023):

“The Eschatological Discourse now comes to a climactic end with this account of the final judgment. The three preceding parables about being ready to meet the master have all defined readiness in terms of an abstractly expressed principle… In this final scene the basis of judgment is concrete acts of compassion to those in particular need.”

Notice that he speaks of preceding parables, but then refers to the Sheep and Goats as an “account,” not another parable. He repeatedly refers to it as “an account” in his following paragraphs. Then he adds (p. 1024): “What was probably originally a parable by Jesus about a king who entered into judgment with his people has been progressively allegorised (to a considerable degree already before Matthew) to the point where it has become an account of the final judgment and no longer a parable.” Thus, his Redaction Criticism has him supposing that this may have been a parable originally. But he clearly states that in the form we have it (which is the divinely-inspired revelation of God) it is “no longer a parable.”

Stu Weber and Max Anders, Matthew (Holman New Testament Commentary):

“While this passage has parabolic elements (the shepherd, the sheep, the goats, and the process of sorting), it is not a parable but an apocalyptic glimpse into the day of judgment—a real event in future history. The simile of 25:32–33 serves to help us understand how the judgment will be carried out.”

Ulrich Luz, Matthew (Hermeneia Commentary) (p. 264):

“Many people still refer to the text as the “parable of the judgment of the world.” However, in the usual sense of the term it is not a parable.”

Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary) (p. 375):

“The use of a simile in v. 32 (“as a shepherd separates”) and a metaphor in v. 33 (“the sheep and goats”) has led many to classify this passage as a parable, but from v. 34 on nothing else appears that cannot be taken literally, so it is better not to use this label.”

E. Michael Green, The Message of Matthew (p. 338):

“This parable (actually, it is not really a parable) has been endlessly discussed.”

William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Commentary) (p. 885):

“What follows is not really a parable, though it does contain parabolic elements. It is a very dramatic, frequently symbolic, description of the last judgment.”

Ed Glasscock, Moody Gospel Matthew Commentary (p. 494):

“This account is not a parable for teaching a lesson but a prophetic declaration closing the Lord’s teaching.”

John Barton and John Muddiman, The Oxford Bible Commentary (p. 878):

“Although reminiscent of earlier parables of separation (13:24–30, 36–43, 47–50), this, the poetic and dramatic climax of the final major discourse, is not a parable but a ‘word-picture of the Last Judgement.’”

G. J. Wenham, J. A. Motyer, et al,, New Bible Commentary (p. 938):

“Though often described as a parable, it is not an illustrative story, but a vision of the future. The only ‘parable’ element in it is the simile as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats in vs 32–33).

E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Matthew (New Century Bible Commentary) (p. 330):

“Although the story is often referred to as a parable, it cannot really be classified as such. The only parabolic features it contains are the shepherd, the sheep and the goats (verse 33) and these, in fact, are just passing illustrations. . . . The story seems to be a picture of the Last Judgment.”

D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (8:518):

“Strictly speaking, this passage is not a parable. Its only parabolic elements are the shepherd, the sheep, the goats, and the actual separation.”

HELPFUL PARABLE STUDIES

Robert H. Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (p. 131):

“Is the above properly called ‘a parable’? Strictly speaking the only pure parabolic element in the passage is found in vs. 32–33 where we have the similitude of the shepherd separating the sheep from the goats.”

Richard Longenecker, The Challenge of Jesus’ Parables (pp. 189–190):

“The final section of Jesus’ discourse about the future in Matthew 25 has only a limited place in a discussion of parables. Its language is vivid and visionary. It is not, however, at least in any normal sense of the word, a parable.”

Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary (p. 310):

“This unit is not truly a parable. It is actually an apocalyptic discourse with a parabolic element in 25:32b–33 — the simile of a shepherd separating the sheep from the goats. Yet it is often called (even if miscalled) ‘The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.’”

CONCLUSION

I hope this is helpful for understanding why I deny that Matthew 25:31-46 is a parable. I stand with a great many noteworthy scholars on this matter. Jesus is speaking directly to what will occur at his Second Coming: the Final Judgment.

Though the Disciples’ assumed that Jesus’ Second Coming and the end of the age would occur when the temple was destroyed (see my studies on Matt. 24:3), they were confusing two separate, though related, issues. They thought the day of the Lord against Jerusalem in AD 70 was the final Day of the Lord at the end of history. But Jesus relates the two events theologically, while distinguishing them historically. The local AD 70 event is a pointer to, a harbinger of, a foreshadowing of, a distant adumbration of the universal Final Judgment event.

Rather than a parable, Matthew 25:31-46 may better be described as a “delineation of the final judgment” (Henry), “a discourse about the judgment” (Meyer), “a word-picture of the Last Judgement” (Davies and Allison), “a direct teaching” (Gibbs), “a description of what will happen on Judgment Day” (Morris), “a straight-forward judgment scene” (France), “an apocalyptic revelation discourse” (Hagner), “a prose narrative of the judgment” (Turner), “an account of the final judgment” (Nolland), an “apocalyptic glimpse into the day of judgment” (Weber and Anders), “a very dramatic, frequently symbolic, description of the last judgment” (Hendriksen), “a prophetic declaration” (Glasscock), “a vision of the future” (Wenham), “a picture of the Last Judgment” (Ellis), “a prophecy” (Williams), or “an apocalyptic discourse” (Hultgren).

Thus, properly understanding Matthew 25:31-46 is helpful for understanding the larger biblical eschatological picture. And understanding it as an apocalyptic judgment passage rather than a parable is important for making that distinction

[image error]

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

Presents solid principles and clear examples of biblical interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (4)

[image error]PMW 2020-021 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the fourth and final installment in a series highlighting the tendency for the Disciples to confuse Jesus’ teaching. This is relevant to a study of the Olivet Discourse in that the very question that prompts the Discourse is rooted in the Disciples’ confusion.

In their question, the dull Disciples assume that the temple’s destruction would occur at the end of the world. That is, they believe it cannot happen until the parousia which occurs at “the end of the age”:

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming [Gk. parousia], and of the end of the age?’” (Matt. 24:3)

I ended our last study in Matthew 16. Moving along, we notice that shortly after the Matthew 16 events, we have the dramatic Transfiguration episode (Matt. 17:1–8). But though Peter recently declared Jesus to be “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt. 16:16) and though he saw Jesus gloriously transfigured before them (Matt. 17:2–3), he nevertheless asks to make three tabernacles, one for Moses, Elijah, and Jesus (Matt. 17:4). God immediately rebukes him, declaring “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matt. 17:5). Peter did not understand what was happening before his very eyes. He effectively put Moses and Elijah on an equal footing with Jesus.

In Matt. 17:14–16a, we read of a man who brings his son to the Disciples for healing. Even though Jesus had commissioned them to do such (Matt. 10:1), they are unable to do so (v. 16b). Jesus rebukes them as representative of the entire generation: “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.’ And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once” (Matt. 17:17–18).

[image error]Special Eschatology Studies (3 MP3 downloads)

by Ken Gentry

Includes: (1) Radio interview on the Beast and Daniel 9: WMCA Radio (New York). (2) “The Beast is an Eighth,” a study on the tricky verse Rev 17:11 that is sometimes used to rebut the Neronic date for the writing of Revelation. (3) “The New Creation in Rev 21,” which presents a picture of the glory of the Christian faith as the spiritual phase of the New Creation that anticipates the consummate New Creation. See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Then when the Disciples ask him in private why they could not drive out the demon (v. 19), he said it was “because of the littleness of your faith” (v. 20). They have an inadequate understanding of their calling to perform miracles, which evidenciesa misunderstanding of the glorious nature of their giftedness by Christ (Matt. 10:1).

In Matt. 17:22–23a Jesus informs them once again that he must die. But when they hear this, they are “deeply grieved” (v. 23b). They hear the “must die” part but do not understand that this is his God-ordained mission (i.e., he “must” die). And they wholly overlook the stated promise of his resurrection (v. 23a), thereby misunderstanding all that he is saying.

Then in Matt. 18:1, despite all of Jesus’ teaching beforehand, the Disciples ask him: “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Clearly, they are misunderstanding his teaching on the kingdom and their role in it. They do not understand his calling to self-denial (Matt. 16:24). He even explains that they must become humble like a child (Matt. 18:3–4). This is not so that they might enjoy kingdom greatness, but so that they might enter the kingdom (v. 3). They desire status, contrary to Jesus’ calling to humility.

Then in Matt. 18:15 Jesus immediately explains that a brother who sins against another must be sought out and restored rather than written-off as lesser in status. They clearly misunderstand the nature of true discipleship, which Jesus constantly teaches.

Then in Matt. 18:21 Peter seeks to know how many times he must forgive a fellow believer: must we do so seven times? He is looking for limits on forgiveness rather than offering full forgiveness such as Jesus teaches. Therefore, “Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven’” (v. 22). Effectively he is telling him there is no limit on forgiveness. Peter has not understood Jesus’ preceding call to seek the restoration of a sinful brother (v. 15). He does not understand kingdom values and their practical relevance for community life.

In Matt. 19:3–9 the Pharisees challenge him on his view of divorce. Upon hearing Jesus’ response, the Disciples are startled and declare: “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry” (v. 10). This is obviously not Jesus’ point; they terribly misunderstand him. For Jesus had just taught that marriage was ordained by God in the beginning (vv. 4–6). Therefore, he challenges them: “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (v. 12). At this juncture they are not accepting this; they are not understanding Christ.

In Matt. 19:13a, some parents brought their children to Jesus that he might bless them, but “the disciples rebuked them” (v. 13b). Jesus then rebukes the Disciples and basically reformulates his earlier statement (18:1–5) on childlikeness, commanding them to reverse their misguided action: “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom belongs to such as these” (v. 14). They do not understand the nature of the kingdom he has been preaching.

Then in Matt. 19:16–22 we read of Jesus’ encounter with the Rich Young Ruler. When the young man turns away, Jesus says it is “hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom” (vv. 23–24). In reaction to this, the Disciples are “astonished” and ask desperately, “Then who can be saved?” (v. 25). Clearly they are not understanding Jesus’ teaching.

Then in Matt. 19: 27a, with a clear sense of pride, Peter responds by proclaiming that the Disciples’ have left all to follow him. But he thinks it is appropriate to ask Jesus about their reward for such noble service: “what then will there be for us?” (v. 27b). This shows a continuing misunderstanding of the kingdom: Jesus did not teach that we are to see what we can get from the kingdom. Peter has totally forgotten Jesus’ call to self-denial (Matt. 16:24; cp. 10:38).

[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In Matt. 20:20–28, James and John (“the sons of Zebedee, v. 20; cp. 4:21) accompany their mother as she asks that her sons be seated on the right and left hand of Jesus in the kingdom (v. 21). Jesus replies to their mother — and the men themselves: “You [plural] do not know what you [plural] are asking. Are you [plural] able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” To which “they” respond that they can (v. 22).

The request of these two brothers infuriates the other ten Disciples (Matt. 20:24). Once again we see the Disciples interested in their status in the kingdom. This shows a radical misunderstanding of Jesus’ teaching about the character of both the kingdom itself and discipleship life in the kingdom. He compares their attitude to the Gentiles (v. 25). So he corrects their misunderstanding, noting that the one who “wishes to be great among you shall be your servant” (v. 26; cp. v. 27).

In Matt. 21:18–22, the Disciples witness Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree and its immediate withering (v. 19). The Disciples are surprised and amazed at this (v. 20). Once again they do not understand the authority and power of Christ, the Son of the Living God (cf. Matt. 8:27).

In Matt. 26:6–13, we have the report of the woman at Behany anointing Jesus with expensive perfume (v. 7). But the Disciples become “indignant” and complain: “Why this waste”? (v. 8). Jesus rebukes them for bothering this woman who was anointing him for burial (vv. 10, 12). They do not understand his coming death and the need to prepare for it, though the woman does. And this is despite Jesus giving the Disciples four prophecies regarding his coming death (Matt. 16:21; 17:22–23; 20:17–19) — with one of them in the context of this woman’s action (26:1–2)!

On and on I could go. Clearly, the Disciples have a constant tendency to misunderstand Christ’s teaching. Consequently, we should not be surprised that they misunderstand the relationship of the destruction of the temple to the Final Judgment, as their question indicates (Matt. 24:3). Despite the Disciples’ confused question, Jesus divides the question and organizes his response in two stages, the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and Final Judgment at the end of the age.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (3)

[image error]PMT 2020-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Issue before Us

This is the third installment in a series highlighting the Disciples’ confusion regarding Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction. As proud first-century Jews and slow-learning Disciples, they assume that the temple’s destruction would signal the end of the world, that is, that it would occur at the parousia at “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3).

My previous two articles were spent setting-up this study on the Disciples’ confusion. I am now ready to directly demonstrate what many evangelical Narrative Critics and orthodox preterists have argued regarding the Disciples as presented in Matthew’s Gospel: Though they spent three years of intensive instruction under Jesus’ ministry, they were too often mistaken in their defective perception of Jesus’ message.

This problem has eschatological significance in that it directly impacts their question in Matthew 24:3 — and our proper understanding of Jesus’ answer in Matt. 24:4–25:46. Most Christians are wholly confused regarding Jesus’ instruction in the Olivet Discourse, more technically known as the Eschatological Discourse. This is because far too many American Christians are caught up in Dispensationalism. But even many who have either avoided or finally escaped the Dispensational system are also confused about the structure of the full Olivet Discourse. They confuse the theological relationship between AD 70 and the Final Judgment by misunderstanding the historical disjunction between the two events.

[image error]

Matthew 24 Debate: Past or Future?

(DVD by Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Disciples are major characters in the Gospel’s historical narrative. It is important that we watch them and then listen to Jesus’ response to them. We want to share their love of Christ but avoid their misunderstanding of his teaching. We need to learn from their experience. For though they receive Christ’s revelation, they falter in their understanding of it, causing them often both to fail him and to misunderstand his teaching.

We need to understand that there is a reason why Jesus does not call on them to “teach” people during his ministry. Notice the conspicuous absence of teaching from his original commission (Matt. 10:1). They were to proclaim the presence of the kingdom, to heal the sick, and to cast out demons (10:1, 7–8). But they are never told to teach; Jesus has reserved teaching to himself for the time being. It is not until he has finished his ministry with them that he finally gives them the commission to “teach” (Matt. 28:18–20). For they were not ready to do so earlier — due to their constant misunderstanding.

The Issue’s Evidence

So new let us begin a brief survey of some evidence of this problem.

In Matt. 8:23–25 the Disciples become terrified when a storm tosses their ship on the sea. Jesus rebukes them, saying: “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith” (v. 26a). Then he arises and stops the storm (v. 26b). At this the Disciples are “amazed” and exclaim: “What kind of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?” (v. 27).

Their problem is that they do not understand the extent of Jesus’ authority and power. They do not understand his authority over all things — despite having just witnessed remarkable miracles in the healing of a leper (Matt. 8:2–3), a centurion’s paralyzed servant (vv. 5-13), the fever of the first Pope’s mother-in-law (vv. 14–15), and many who were demon-possessed and ill (v. 16). Thus, Jesus declares they are men of “little faith” (Matt. 8:26) — for not understanding the extent of his authority and power.

In Matt. 14:25–31 Jesus walks on the water (v. 25) and bid Peter to do so (vv. 28–29). But after Peter walks toward Jesus on the water, he begins to sink (vv. 29–30). Jesus reaches out to rescue him and says to him: “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (v. 31; cp. 16:8). Here Peter does not understand the extent of Jesus’ authority and power. And this problem will arise again and again, despite their recent declaration to Christ: “You are certainly God’s Son” (Matt. 14:33).

In Matt. 15:15–20, Peter speaks for the Disciples after a brief parable given by Christ (v. 11). He expresses confusion, which elicits an annoyed response from Jesus: “Peter said to Him, ‘Explain the parable to us.’ Jesus said, ‘Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?’” Again we see Jesus rebuking the Disciples for a “lacking in understanding.”

In Matt. 15:32–39, the Disciples express dismay that 4000 people have come to hear Jesus speak, since they do not have enough food to give them (v. 33). And they say this despite his earlier miraculous feeding of the 5000 (Matt. 14:13–21)! They do not understand Jesus’ authority and power to feed the masses, even though they saw him do so once before.

[image error]Prophecy Studies (4 downloadable mp3s)

by Ken Gentry

Dispensationalism dominates the evangelical market regarding eschatological discussions. But dispensationalism is radically mistaken regarding the eschatology of Scripture. In this series not only is dispensationalism analyzed, but also the postmillennial eschatology of the Psalms, and a preterist analysis of Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In Matt. 16:6 Jesus warns them: “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” But then we read of their radical misunderstanding of his statement and Jesus’ rebuke of them:

“They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, ‘He said that because we did not bring any bread.’ But Jesus, aware of this, said, ‘You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’” (Matt. 16:7–11).

After this rebuke they finally understand him: “Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Matt. 16:12).

In Matt. 16:16 Peter makes a bold and dramatic declaration of faith in response to a question from Jesus. “He said to them,’Who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” But after this marvelous declaration of faith, we read the following just five verses later In Matt. 16:21 Jesus began “to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.” But what was their response?

They did not understand it! For immediately we read: “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You’” (v. 22). Then we read Jesus’ reply: “He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (v. 23). Talk about a misunderstanding on the Disciples’ part!

To this we shall return next time! See you then!

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (2)

[image error]PMT 2020-019 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a series on the confusion of Jesus’ Disciples when they ask him about his prophecy of the temple’s destruction. They assumed that the temple would last until the end of the world. Thus, they understood Jesus’ prophecy of its destruction to be a prophecy regarding the end of the world.

Jesus’ prophecy and the Disciples’ questions are found in the following verses:

Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” (Matt. 24:1–3)

I will be highlighting Matthew’s emphasis on their continual confusion throughout Jesus’ ministry. But I must point out, first, that their assumption of the temple’s indestructibility was common among first-century Jews (despite the fact that Solomon’s temple had been destroyed in the OT!). Consider the following.

The Convictions Regarding the First-century Temple

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

[image error]

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture

DVD by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Responding to Josephus’ pleas to surrender, John of Gischala declares that “he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God’s own city” (J.W. 6:2:1 §98). Josephus (J.W. 5:11:2 §459) records the confidence of the beleaguered city when they mock Titus. They believe “that yet this temple would be preserved by him that inhabited therein, whom they still had for their assistant in this war, and did therefore laugh at all his threatenings, which would come to nothing, because the conclusion of the whole depended upon God only.”

As the Sib .Or. 5:420–23 expresses the matter, the “temple of God [was] made by holy people and hoped by their soul and body to be always imperishable.” Thus Gedaliah Alon (1980: 49) points out that “there was a strong belief among the people that the Temple was eternal, as indestructible as the nations itself.” David Flusser adds: “the hope that when the Gentiles invaded the Holy Land, Jerusalem would not fall, was widespread at that time. As we have seen, others that thought even though Jerusalem would be conquered, the Temple would not succumb. This the opinion of the Zealots in the besieged city” (cf. 1 En. 56:5–8; Sib. Or. 5:106–10).

In fact, the second-century Roman historian Dio Cassius (65:5:4) even speaks of the despair of the Roman soldiers’ “suspecting . . . that the city was really impregnable, as was commonly reported.”

The Reason for Jesus’ Disciples Confusion

With this widespread conviction regarding the temple’s impregnability, the enormous love of the temple by the first-century Jews, and the Disciples’ whole life being lived within first-century Israel, we can see why they would be confused about Jesus’ prophecy.

Though first-century Judaism was not unified in its theological views (e.g., Sadducees vs. Pharisees on the resurrection, Acts 23:7–8), there was a basic pride in their descent from Abraham (cf. Matt. 3:9) and love for her temple (cf. Matt. 26:61; 27:40). In fact, the Disciples show this deep love for the temple when they subtly rebuke Jesus for denouncing (Matt. 23:38) and dramatically leaving (Matt. 24:1a) the temple:

“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him” (Matt. 24:1).

[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Why did they need to show him the temple? He knew it well. He could see its majesty! And yet he will be speaking about its destruction. And because of this, the Disciples are confused about his prophecy.

Conclusion

My study will be tracing their frequent confusion throughout Matthew’s Gospel. This will serve as the backdrop and explanation for their confused question in Matthew 24:3. In my next study, I will begin directly engaging the evidence for their continual confusion regarding Jesus’ teaching. Hang on!

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (1)

[image error]PMT 2020-018 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A year ago I published a three-part series of articles noting that the Disciples were often confused about Jesus’ teaching (PMW 2019-002; PMW 2019-003; and PMW 2019-004). This observation is significant for properly understanding the nature and implications of their question, which prompts the Olivet Discourse. Their question appears in Matthew 24:3:

“As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the Disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’”

I noted — as do a great many orthodox, evangelical scholars — that the Disciples mistakenly assumed the destruction of the temple prophesied by Jesus in v. 2 would occur at the end of the world, when Jesus returns in judgment. Their confusion explains their double question, which leads Jesus to divide their double question. His division of their question has him present the near-term fulfillment of the temple’s destruction in AD 70, which serves as a distant adumbration, a typological harbinger of the Second Advent/Final Judgment conclusion of world history.

AD 70 and the Final Judgment are directly related. They are, however, not related historically. Rather they are related theologically, though being distantly separated in time. This theological v. historical relationship is much like the several distinct OT “day [singular!] of the Lord” events that are related to and point to the final Day of the Lord that is mentioned in the NT.

In various places I have presented numerous arguments explaining the double-question and how Jesus separates it into its two component parts. I have noted the importance of the transition text at Matt. 24:33–36. For the most part, my arguments have largely been derived from various reputable scholars, such as J. M. Kik, R. T. France, David A. Garland, Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jeannine K. Brown, etc. Thus, these arguments are neither unique to me, nor are they new to the eschatological debate with the recent arising of the Hyper-preterist heresy.

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

The idea that the Disciples were confused here, just as they were often confused at other times, has intrigued some of my readers. Especially since the Disciples spend so much time learning from the greatest teacher the world has ever known, the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 7:28–29; Luke 24:31–32).

How can this be? How can these hand-picked “disciples” (learners) misconstrue the three-year, daily instruction of their Master, known as “Teacher” (Matt. 8:19; 9:11; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16, 24, 36; 26:18) regularly misunderstand Jesus’ instruction? The short answer, of course, is: the problem is not in Jesus’ teaching ability, but in his Disciples’ sinful dullness (cp. Matt. 8:17; Luke 24:25; John 14:9).

This New Series

In this series of articles I will not only be highlighting the fact, but the significance of the fact of the Disciples’ frequent confusion. This is so important for our understanding their confused question in Matt. 24:3. I will focus on the Disciples’ confusion in Matthew’s narrative, since it seems to be emphasized by Matthew and plays a large role in the development of his narrative storyline. These studies have arisen from my researching a book, tentatively titled: Olivet in Context: A Commentary on Matthew 21–25.

My readers might be interested to know that the idea of the Disciples’ confusion receives great emphasis in Narrative Criticism and has become a common focus of discussion among Narrative Critical scholars. Just briefly I must note the basic point of (the newer) Narrative Criticism over against the (too often liberal) practice of (the older) Redaction Criticism in approaching the Gospels.

[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

Just briefly: Redaction Critics study the development of the Gospels, arguing that the Gospels were built up as edited and re-edited (redacted) documents over several decades in the first century. They try to discover the various pieces (sources) of “Jesus material” that lie behind the Gospel stories. Narrative Critics, however, do not concern themselves with the origins (i.e., redactional development) of the Gospels. Rather they focus on the Gospels as completed documents. They seek to understand each Gospel as we have it: as a complete, fully-formed historical document.

Perhaps one of the most helpful Narrative Critical studies of the very issue before us is by Dr. Jeannine K. Brown. She follows much of the thinking of R. T. France’s orthodox preterist analysis of Matthew 24. Her insightful book arose from her 2001 Ph.D. dissertation from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Her book is titled: The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). (If any of my readers can find out a copy of this book for an affordable price, I hope you will let me know!)

I will be drawing on the work of Brown and others as I flesh out this presentation of the Disciples’ confusion in Matthew’s Gospel. I hope that you will follow this series and my line of thinking so that you will not be a Confused Disciple. Stay tuned!

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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