Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 59

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (8)

[image error]PMW 2020-016 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final article on the study of Revelation’s seven-sealed scroll. In this one I will be focusing on Revelation 5 and the divorce grounds.

Covenantal marriage requires formal, legal grounds for divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1 we read that the husband must find something morally “unclean” (ervah) in her. Jesus affirms the moral grounds for issuing a covenantal divorce in Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:7–9: “fornication” (porneia). In Isaiah 50:1 God’s divorce decree against Israel mentions her “iniquities” (peshaim). In Jeremiah 3 her divorce decree appears in the context of a statement regarding her being covenantally “faithless” (meshubah) and “treacherous” (bagad) (Jer 3:6, 8). Whatever these terms mean, they show the necessity of moral grounds for divorce. In biblical law no one could secure a divorce for “any cause at all” — contrary to the Pharisees’ challenge to Jesus (Mt 19:3; see also: Jos., Ant. 4:8:23; m. Gitt. 9:10).

In Isaiah 1:21 Isaiah declares that the “faithful city has become a harlot” because she was “full of justice” and “righteousness” but “now murderers.” The “faithful [Heb., amen] city” is now acting like a “harlot,” the most unfaithful of women. As Young explains: Jerusalem’s “infidelity is one of the heart and can express itself in various ways. . . . One of these may have been idolatry, but since the following words seem to be explanatory, we may say that the presence of murderers and the general corruption of the state which has been described were also manifestations of this unfaithfulness. The word ‘harlot’ is emphatic; ‘how has become a harlot . . . . the faithful city!”

Isaiah had already deemed Old Testament Jerusalem like Sodom (Isa 1:10), a city well-known in Scripture for gross wickedness (Ge 13:13; 19:4–5; Jer 23:14; Eze 16:49; 2Pe 2:6–7; Jude 7) with no mention of idolatry.

[image error]Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)

Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

Revelation 5 presents Christ before the throne in such a way as to highlight the just grounds for God’s divorcing Israel. In Revelation 1:7 the whole theme of Revelation is rooted in Israel’s judgment for crucifying Christ (cp. Mt 21:33–40; 27:25; 1Th 2:14–16). In the court scene in Revelation 5 Christ is repeatedly (emphatically) referred to as the “Lamb that was slain” (Rev 5:12; cp. 6, 9). He is not just a Lamb who was once dead but is now alive (as per Rev 1:5, 18; 2:8, nekrōn, nekros); rather he is the Lamb who had been “slain” (esphagō), that is, ruthlessly murdered (Rev 5:6, 9, 12; cp. 13:8). Even Pilate wants to release Christ (Mt 27:18, 19, 23a, 24), but the Jews persist (Mt 27:20, 23b, 25) even bringing in false witnesses against him (Mt 26:60). John emphasizes that the Jews seek his death through much of his ministry (Jn 5:18; 7:1, 11; 10:31–33; 11:8, 47–53; 18:14; 19:7).

In Revelation this innocent Lamb is the only one in the Universe who is “worthy” to open the seals (Rev 5:2) and he was worthy because he had been ruthlessly slaughtered (Rev 5:9), even though innocent. His worthiness is emphasized three times (Rev 5:2, 9, 12), as well as necessitated by his heavenly praise as equal to God in blessing, honor, glory and dominion (Rev 5:13). Hence, the legal decree is justified in court.

Conclusion

Revelation comes late in the period of canonical revelation, 1500 years after the Mosaic revelation. It appears at the great redemptive-historical juncture reached in the first century with the coming of Christ. As God turns to the Gentiles he will soon finally remove his old covenant temple. The A.D. 70 catastrophe is a major event in redemptive history that an intensely Jewish-flavored book such as Revelation would not overlook. This opens the very strong possibility that the scroll in Revelation 5 represents God’s legal judgment against Israel, especially given the large role that Israel’s judgment plays elsewhere in the New Testament record (note for instance Luke’s four major Jerusalem oracles, 13:32–35; 19:41–44; 21:20–24; 23:38–31).

Thus, as one scholar argues. the judgments of Revelation “are best understood in the light of the ‘sevenfold chastisement’ that is evolved within Jewish legal theology as a scheme of punishment for disobedience to God” (cf. Lev 6:18, 21, 24, 28). This is affirmed by a mass of related contextual evidence in Revelation as well, which I develop in my forthcoming commentary.

In addition, the evidence even suggests that this judgment scroll is a divorce decree against God’s unfaithful wife, Israel. According to Christ’s own teaching, no man may divorce his wife to take another apart from proper moral justification and his securing a divorce certificate (Mt 5:31–32; 19:9). God certainly does this in the Old Testament in response to Israel’s engaging in harlotry (Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8). The moral justification which Christ demands for such a radical breach of covenant is porneia (fornication), which happens to be related to the word used for Revelation’s “harlot”: pornes. In fact, the harlot is guilty of porneia (Rev 14:8; 17:1–2; 18:2–3).

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

Revelation shows God issuing a divorce decree against his harlot-wife in a dramatic heavenly court-room setting before taking a new bride, the “new Jerusalem,” the Church of Jesus Christ. The local movement in this section of Revelation is from God’s throne (Rev 4), the presentation of the divorce decree and Christ’s opening it (Rev 5), the judgments flowing from it (Rev 6), to a pause to consider the faithful remnant of Jews (the 144,000 from the twelve tribes), and the resulting universal growth of the Christian Church (Rev 7). This movement parallels in important respects the revisiting of the scroll (Rev 10), the destruction of the temple in the holy city (Rev 11:1–2) in the presence of witnesses (Rev 11:3–8), with a reiteration of its universal consequences (Rev 11:15) and its viewing of the heavenly temple (Rev 11:16–18) which is now opens (Rev 11:19). The divorce of Israel leads to enormous redemptive-historical changes.

Clearly as one biblical scholar argues: “in Israel some kind of written document appears to have been necessary” to effect divorce, and this requires formal court proceedings and proper witnesses (as the Mishnah, Gittin shows). Consequently, I believe Ford’s approach is correct when she writes: “the bride and adulteress motifs in Revelation . . point to such a scroll. It might easily be a bill of divorce; the Lamb divorces unfaithful Jerusalem and marries the new Jerusalem.”

Thus, you now have before you my understanding of the crucial imagery of the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation. There is more that could be said, but it will have to be said later.

[image error]

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (7)

[image error]PMW 2020-015 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As we continue our study of Revelation’s seven-sealed scroll, we must continue with our insights into Jesus’ earthly ministry, which I began in the last article.

During his three and one-half year ministry, the Lord comes to his own but they do not receive him (Jn 1:11). The Apostle John is particularly concerned to demonstrate this recurring problem (Jn 12:37–41), so that he characteristically calls them “the Jews” in order “to denote the Jewish nation as hostile to Jesus.” And no wonder! They are of their father the devil (Jn 8:44). Early in John’s Gospel we witness the Baptist’s wilderness message (Jn 1:23) which reminds us of God’s marrying Israel in the wilderness (Ex 19:1–2); see an allusion to the coming destruction of the temple (Jn 2:19); learn of the dullness of Israel’s leaders (Jn 3:10); and discover that worship will be de-centralized away from the temple (Jn 4:21–23). In John’s Gospel “Jesus is largely rejected in Jerusalem and Judaea” whereas “it is in Galilee and Samaria that he is received and that many believe in him.” In Jerusalem “‘the judgment of this world’ and of its ruler takes place.”

Christ’s tender calling to Israel falls upon deaf ears, so that he deems first century Israel — like her Old Testament fathers — “an adulterous generation” (Mt 12:38–39; 16:4; Mk 8:38; cp. Jos., J.W. 5:9:4). New Testament scholars note that it is “skeptical Jews who ask for signs as ‘this adulterous generation.’” Thus, in John a “common theme in 2:1–4:42” is Jesus’ teaching on the “replacement of the old with the new,” the replacement of Israel’s story with that which Christ brings about: Israel’s water is replaced with Christianity’s wine (Jn 2:1–11), the temple is replaced by Christ himself (Jn 2:14–19), the old birth into Israel with the new birth (Jn 3:1–21), the old well water with the new living water (Jn 4:7–15), and finally the replacement of Zion as the place of worship with universal worship in Christ (Jn 4:16–26). Interestingly, in the pericope de adultera we discover that though they are presenting a woman allegedly caught in adultery, not one of them is without guilt so that he can properly witness against the woman (Jn 8:7–11).

[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

As I have shown in a previous blog post, Matthew drives home the Jewish rejection of Christ throughout his gospel. In fact, Telford cites Barclay in noting that “there is no gospel which so unsparingly condemns the Jews, and especially the Pharisees.” I will repeat some of Matthew’s later material that I rehearsed in Chapter 1 and make a few additional observations relevant to the present argument.

During the last few days before his crucifixion, Jesus increasingly denounces Israel and prophesies her coming destruction for rejecting his overtures. After zealously attacking the corruption in the temple, he charges that it has become a “robber’s den” and cites Scripture calling it “My house” (Mt 21:13). Shortly thereafter he curses the barren fig tree and calls for an unyielding faith from his disciples (Mt 21:18–22). This is clearly a symbol of Israel’s curse for “the passage coheres with Jesus’ teaching about impending judgment on the temple, his teachings about radical faith, and his commissioning disciples to carry on his work.” Thus, “the ravaged or withered fig-tree is a vivid emblem of God’s active punishment of his people in Jer. 5.17; 8.13; Hos. 2.12; 9.10, 16 and Am. 4.9 (cf. also Ps. 105.33; Is. 28.4; 34.4; Na. 3:12).”

The lesson from the withered fig tree intensifies in Jesus’ response to his disciples’ surprise: “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and cast into the sea,” it shall happen’” (Mt 21:21). Here Jesus urges his disciples to believe that the temple Mount will be destroyed for it “in like manner has failed to fulfil its raison d’être.”

Shortly thereafter he presents the Parable of the Landowner which shows God’s loving care for Israel and her continuing disregard for him (Mt 21:33–44), while warning that “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing the fruit of it” (Mt 21:43).

Then his next parable picks up on the image of marriage which introduced his ministry (Mt 22:1–7). The Parable of the Marriage Feast presents a king (God) preparing “a wedding feast for his son” (Mt 22:2). The call goes out to invite all to the feast, only to be rejected (Mt 22:3–6) causing the king to be so “enraged” that he sends his armies to destroy “those murderers and set their city on fire” (Mt 22:7). The A.D. 70 destruction of the temple “is here clearly predicted.” This parable once again shows the faithless “lack of response among the Jews to Jesus and his message.” Regarding this recurring wedding motif in Christ’s teaching: “the image can hardly be accidental.”

In Matthew 22:14 he holds out hope for a remnant in Israel, for “many are called, but few are chosen.” That is, many (all) of Israel received the call, but only a few (the remnant) were chosen and accept it. In Revelation 7:4 John pictures these few as the 144,000 “out of all the tribes of the sons of Israel” (ek pases phulēs huion Israel). They appear again in Revelation 14 with the Lamb on heavenly Mount Zion. In Revelation 14:4 they are designated as “chaste (lit., “virgins” parthenoi), which sets them apart from “adulterous” Israel (Mt 12:38–39; 16:4; Mk 8:38). They are an important part of those appearing in Revelation as the “purchased” ones (Rev 5:9) — they have been purchased with the bride price (Ge 29:18; 34:12; Ru 4:10; cp. m. Ket 4:4, 7–8) leading to their marital union with the Lamb in Revelation 21–22.

[image error]Theological Debates Today (5 mp3 messages)

Conference lectures on contemporary theological issues: 1. The Great Tribulation; 2. The Book of Revelation; 3. Hyperpreterism; 4. Paedocommunion; 5. God’s Law. Helpful insights into theological truths that are vigorously debated among Christians. Excellent tool for personal or group Bible study.

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

In Matthew 23 Jesus denounces Israel’s religious leaders, then weeps over Jerusalem for spurning his loving overtures: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Mt 23:37). He then not only declares the temple “desolate,” but no longer calls it “my house” (cp. Mt 21:13; cp. Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16) but “your house” (Mt 23:38) as he prepares to dramatically depart from it (Mt 24:1). “In doing so he took the presence of God with him, confiscating it from the Temple.” Indeed, “Jesus’ final departure from the temple should be understood as a sign that the sentence of God’s judgment in the words ‘your house is abandoned to you’ is immediately being brought to realization.”

After his declaring the temple is desolate, he pronounces its coming total destruction (Mt 24:2). In the Old Testament God’s judgment on Israel’s sin included his forsaking of his house (1Ki 9:6–9; Jer 12:7; 22:5; Eze 8:6; cp. Ps. Sol. 7;1). In fact, Ezekiel sees the Spirit departing the temple to stand over the Mount of Olives (Eze 11:22–25), which Jesus re-enacts by leaving the temple desolate and walking to the Mount of Olives (Mt 23:38; 24:1–3; cp. 24:15). The New Testament hereinafter expects the closing down of the temple system (Heb 8:13; 12:25–27).

Surprisingly, Josephus records various remarkable signs that the temple is now without God’s presence. He records one of these as follows:

as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple], as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” (J. W. 6:5:3).

This is even recorded by the Roman historian Tacitus who was born during the reign of Nero:

There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the Gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure. (Hist. 5:13)

Though Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ confirming his ministry to the Jews (Mt 10:6; 15:24), it is to no avail for they eventually demand his crucifixion — even though Pilate declares his innocence (Mt 27:17–24). In the end they cry out: “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:25) — which language is picked up from the first temple’s destruction in the Old Testament (Eze 33:4–5). Matthew appropriately closes his Gospel with the Great Commission to “all nations” (Mt 28:19), just as John closes Revelation with the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven with God’s provision for the “nations” (Rev 21:24; cp. 21:3).

In the first century the temple’s final destruction accomplishes God’s conclusive divorce of Israel. In his New Testament divorce action God so dis-establishes her that redemptive history is no longer the story of a Jewish-focused, Israel-exalting, geo-political work as in the Old Testament (Mt 8:11; 21:43; cp. Am 3:2a; Ps 147:19–20). God’s work now reaches out to “all nations” (Mt 28:19; Ac 1:8; 13:46–48; Col 1:6) whom will marry in Christ (Eph 5:25b–27, 32; 2Co 11:2).

The Apostle John’s early statement that “He came to his own but his own received him not” (Jn 1:11) is recalled in one of his closing scenes: As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar.” When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” They therefore cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he then delivered Him to them to be crucified. (Jn 19:12–16)

The end draweth nigh. Stay tuned for my final article next time.

[image error]

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (6)

[image error]PMW 2020-014 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this, the sixth installment of a study of Revelation’s seven-sealed scroll, we must consider Christ’s coming and its consequences.

Interestingly, Christ alludes to the Old Testament marriage imagery and relates it to his own coming and ministry. In the several places where he touches on this theme, he “moves wholly within the circle of ideas of His contemporaries when he expresses the meaning and glory of the Messianic period in the images of the wedding and wedding feast.”

Early in his ministry Jesus uses wedding imagery to explain why John the Baptist’s disciples fast though his do not: “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom do not fast, do they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast” (Mk 2:19∥). “It is clear . . . that in this connection the bridegroom is an allegorical indicator of the Messiah,” with the wedding imagery being built upon the Old Testament relationship of God to Israel.

With this announcement, Mounce notes of Matthew’s parallel account and its Old Testament backdrop that “the messianic wedding feast is under way.” Indeed, the marriage analogy was “so widely used by the Jews with reference to the kingdom of God that bridegroom = Messiah would have been immediately understood.” Here “the Lord identifies himself with the Bridegroom of O.T. prophecy.”

[image error]The Beast of Revelation (246pp); Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (409pp); Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues (211pp).

In the Logos edition, these volumes by Ken Gentry are enhanced by amazing functionality. Important terms link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Perform powerful searches to find exactly what you’re looking for. Take the discussion with you using tablet and mobile apps. With Logos Bible Software, the most efficient and comprehensive research tools are in one place, so you get the most out of your study.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

His next statement strikes a jarring note: “But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day” (Mk 2:20). “The idea of the bridegroom being removed from the wedding scene comes as a jarring surprise,” especially in light of all the rejoicing. Here and in Matthew’s parallel, the bridegroom’s being “taken away” (apairein) echoes Isaiah 53:8 and implies violence. This serves as an early pointer to Christ’s rejection and death at the hands of the Jews, as many commentators observe.

The following two parables in Mark 2:21–22 also exhibit a like incongruity: using new material as a patch on a new garment and pouring new wine into old wineskins are both unwise actions. The new garment may represent a wedding garment and the new wine may portray the celebration of a new marriage, as we may surmise from ancient culture in general and the biblical record in particular — even in this very context (see: Mk 2:19–20∥; cp. Mt 22:2–12; Jn 2:1–10; cf. Isa 62:5). These parables indicate that the old Judaistic forms would not allow expansion and must be wholly replaced and they also leave the clear impression that Christianity is the system that will replace them.

Early also is the ministry of John the Baptist. John understands his own role as fulfilling Scripture (Jn 1:23) in calling Israel to repentance (Mt 3:1–2) in preparation for the Messiah (Jn 1:23–27). As the last of the Old Testament prophets (Mt 11:13) and being well acquainted with Old Testament imagery, he also recognizes and announces the significance of Christ’s coming in terms of covenantal wedding symbolism. This is noteworthy in that John’s preaching represents some of the earliest revelation in the New Testament (after the birth and infancy of Christ):

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, “I am not the Christ,” but, “I have been sent before Him.” He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. And so this joy of mine has been made full. (Jn 3:28–29)

Morris, citing Murray, notes of this passage that “God Himself was in Christ betrothing His bride to Himself afresh.” John understands that “his office is to bring groom and bride together.” In this his final witness to Christ, he clearly bases his imagery on the Old Testament symbolism of God’s marriage relation to Israel. In fact, his rejoicing with the bridegroom echoes Isaiah 62:5 where “as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you.”

Even Christ’s first miracle appears to serve as a metaphor (a semeiōn) of his presenting himself to Israel in terms of marriage imagery (wine is associated with the messianic banquet, Isa 25:6; Joel 3:18; Am 9:13). In John’s Gospel his “beginning of signs” (Jn 2:11) to Israel turns water into wine at a wedding feast (Jn 2:1–10). As Barclay observes (with many others), we must read John on two levels, a surface level that is obvious, but also on a deeper level which presents a bigger theological picture. Ridderbos concurs. Morris notes that this “signifies that there is a transforming power associated with Jesus. He changes the water of Judaism into the wine of Christianity.”

Morris, Michaels, and others see this miracle paralleling the synoptic use of wedding feast and bridegroom images drawn from the Old Testament, and therefore exhibiting Christ as the bridegroom who has come. Indeed, there is “little doubt” that this miracle is a sign of the coming of God’s kingdom pictured in the Old Testament wedding feast imagery. And just as the other wedding imagery alluded to his coming death, this miracle does also (Jn 2:4; cp. Jn 7:30; 8:20; Mt 26:18) and is followed by more detail of his eventual violent death (Jn 2:19–21).

And once again we witness the replacement motif substituting the better wife (Christianity) with the old unfaithful wife (Israel); we see this in mere water being transformed into wine. And not only so, but it is surprising even to those who do not know of the miracle, because the “good wine” is brought to the wedding after the first wine (Christianity comes after Judaism) (see above discussion of Mk 2 and Jn 2). In addition, Jesus produces a large quantity of wine (120+ gallons) in vessels filled to the brim (heōs anō, Jn 2:7). As Feuillet points out, “Cana is a sign, a symbol of the new Covenant” and the miracle is part of a leitmotif in Jn 2–4 where we see the old temple compared to the perfect temple (Jn 2:13–22), the old birth into Israel compared to the new birth of the Spirit (Jn 3:1–21), and Jacob’s well paling in comparison to Christ’s living water (Jn 4:1–42).

The Truth about Postmillennialism

[image error]By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Interestingly, Ridderbos, citing Olsson, sees John 2–4 against the “Sinai screen” of Exodus 19. Olsson draws strong parallels between the Jewish interpretation of Exodus 19 and this section of John’s Gospel (Jn 1:19–2:11). And since Exodus 19 presents the covenantal formation of Israel as a nation and bespeaks her marriage to God, this is quite significant. “The Jewish tradition concerning the events at Sinai often mentions the marriage of the Lord and Israel.”

Just two more installments to go. You can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. Stay tuned.

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (5)

[image error]PMW 2020-013 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This article continues an eight-part series on the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation 4–5. This scroll occurs early in Revelation: it opens the plot-line of Revelation.

So now let us note that in the Old Testament economy God’s prophets function as his lawyers. They prosecute Israel’s breaches of God’s covenantal law by bringing his legal case (riyb) against them. Just as God was married to Israel at his throne (Ex 24:10), so her divorce issues from his throne.

In Isaiah 1:2 the heavens and earth are called as witnesses against Israel, as per the Mosaic example (Dt 4:26; 30:19; 31:26, 28). In Isaiah 3:14 the Lord “enters into judgment with the elders and princes” (cp. Isa 41:21; 43:26; 45:21). In Micah 6:2 we read: “Listen, you mountains, to the indictment of the Lord, / And you enduring foundations of the earth, / Because the Lord has a case against His people; / Even with Israel He will dispute.” The passage in which Micah 6:2 appears is “an elaborate representation of a legal case ‘Yahweh v. Israel,’ in which God brings a grievance against his people” in this “covenant lawsuit.” In Jeremiah 30:13–14 the Lord speaks through Jeremiah stating “there is no one to plead your cause” for “all your lovers have forsaken you.”

The prophet Hosea is a classic example of God’s “lawyer” bringing a lawsuit against his unfaithful wife. He writes that the Lord “has a case against the inhabitants of the land” (Hos 4:1) and “has a dispute with Judah” (Hos 12:2). Hosea 2 is especially compelling. His “use of the key word rib (“to contend, accuse,” 2:4[2]; 4:4; ‘lawsuit,’ 4:1; 12:3 [2]) clearly indicates that his proclamation of the divine word is modeled after the legal procedure in the city gate.”

In addition, one Old Testament commentator notes: “Hosea likens the relationship of Yahweh to Israel to a marriage, a metaphor which he combines in chapter 2 with the image of a trial. Yahweh is the husband who accuses his wife, Israel, of infidelity. The ‘trial’ thus suggests the form of a divorce proceeding.” God pursues formal divorce, even though she has left and married another: “she is not my wife, and I am not her husband” (Hos 2:2b); she says “I will go back to my first husband” God (Hos 2:7c).

[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

Clearly then, another scholar observes that “the prophets had spoken as God’s covenant prosecutors bringing God’s charge and stating God’s verdict.”

In that marriage is a legal covenant, it can only be set aside on sufficient grounds and by means of court proceedings issuing forth in a divorce certificate (Dt 24:1–4). Because of the marital relationship existing between God and Israel, God’s Old Testament lawyers (the prophets) can speak of his issuing a “bill of divorce” against her when she sins against him, thereby justifying her temple’s destruction and her Babylonian captivity:

“Thus says the Lord, / ‘Where is the certificate of divorce, / By which I have sent your mother away? / Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you? / Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, / And for your transgressions your mother was sent away.’” (Isa 50:1)

And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. (Jer 3:8)

Another scholar points out that God’s covenant “established a legally defined relationship” the “marriage exists under a marriage-law. Israel is charged not merely with having been deficient in love and affection, but with having violated distinct promises. She is legally guilty.”

Jeremiah 2–3 is a very interesting passage in this regard. Chapter 2 speaks of Israel’s sin, while chapter 3 calls her to repentance from it. “The whole [second] chapter has strong reminiscences of a legal form which was well known in the secular world, the so-called rib pattern. . . . Israel is, as it were, in the law court being arraigned by Yahweh in a lawsuit (rib).” After reminding Israel of “the love of your betrothals” (Jer 2:2), God calls her to listen (Jer 2:4–5), “contends” with her (Jer 2:9), and calls heaven as witness (Jer 2:12). He is effectively asking her in a court of law to explain what led her astray from him.

In that God is bringing a lawsuit against her, he appeals to the Mosaic law as the standard of justice. A Jeremiah commentar argues that in Jeremiah 3 “the opening verse contains a much condensed paraphrase of the legislation pertaining to marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Deut 24:1–4”: “God says, ‘if a husband divorces his wife, / And she goes from him, / And belongs to another man, / Will he still return to her? / Will not that land be completely polluted? / But you are a harlot with many lovers; / Yet you turn to me,’ declares the Lord. We must note that he not only specifically mentions “divorce” and alludes to the Mosaic divorce legislation, but that he also repeatedly calls her a ‘harlot’ (Jer 3:1–3, 6, 8–9) while once again reminding her of her youthful betrothal to God (Jer 3:4; cp. Hos 2:15).”

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

In Isaiah we learn of the importance of a bill of divorce. In Isaiah 50:1 God calls upon Israel to produce her bill of divorce. Why? As Alexander puts it: “That we may see the cause of her repudiation.” This is necessary in that the people are complaining that God lacks a just cause for turning from her: “Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, / And the Lord has forgotten me'” (Isa 49:14). But he argues in court that he did repeatedly call to her, yet she did not answer (Isa 50:2; cp. Jer 7:13). Jeremiah’s prophecy notes the same type of problem: Israel does not ask for God (Jer 2:6), nor did her priests (2:8). This disinterest in the Lord, this refusal to come back to him reminds us of Israel in the New Testament (Jn 1:11; Mt 10:6, 15–20; 15:7–9; 22:1–7; 23:37).

Jerusalem is the City of God wherein God dwells in his temple (2Ki 23:27; Ps 68:29). So when Jerusalem is destroyed in the Old Testament Babylonian Captivity, and her inhabitants are cast out, they are effectively cast out of the house, away from the God’s presence:

“For because of the anger of the LORD this happened in Jerusalem and Judah, that He finally cast them out from His presence.” (2Ki 24:20; Jer 52:3)

“And now, because you have done all these things,” declares the Lord, “and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear, and I called you but you did not answer, therefore, I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brothers, all the offspring of Ephraim.” (Jer 7:13–15)

In 1 Kings 6:11–13 God promises to live with Israel in this house if she would remain faithful (cp. Dt 12:10–11 and his earlier promise to live in his tent with her, Ex 25:8; 29:44–45). Thus, when she becomes unfaithful God issues his covenantal wife a divorce decree before he “sends her out from his house” (Dt 24:1), destroying her temple and sending her off into captivity (cp. Jer 15:1–2): “I have forsaken My house, / I have abandoned My inheritance; / I have given the beloved of My soul / Into the hand of her enemies” (Jer 12:7). In Jeremiah 11:15 he complains against Israel’s attempts to come to the temple while rebelling against him with strange gods: “what right has My beloved in My house?”

God is not simply abandoning Israel without warrant. He is suing her in “court” with just cause, proper witnesses, and legal evidence. He even calls her by pagan names to demonstrate the enormity of her unfaithfulness to him. In several places he calls Israel “Sodom” (Isa 3:8–9; Jer 23:14; Lam 4:6; Eze 16:46, 48–49, 55–56; Am 4:11), just as does John in Revelation 11:8 (cf. Mt 10:15; 11:23–24).

In the Ezekiel 16 passage the prophet is dealing with Israel as a harlot. Even the wicked Philistines are embarrassed at Israel’s evil conduct (Eze 16:27). The destruction of God’s temple speaks of his abandoning Israel for disobedience (1Ki 9:6–9; Jer 22:5; Lam 2:7; Mic 3:12; Bar 2:26; T. Levi 15:1; 1 Enoch 89:56; Pesiq. R. 138a; 146a), for “the temple [is] a symbol of the rise and fall of God’s people according to their moral, ethical and spiritual condition.” The land’s desolation also speaks of Israel’s troubled marriage (Isa 62:4). In the first century the Qumran community denounces Jerusalem as a hated wife (4QLam 179).

By the grace of God, later in the Old Testament period Israel eventually returns to her land from deportation (Ezr 2; Neh 7:6ff; 11:1ff) and rebuilds God’s house (Ezr 5:14–15), though on a smaller scale than Solomon’s original. Centuries later Herod greatly expands and magnificently adorns it (Jn 2:20) making it “the biggest structure of its kind in the ancient Near East,” “the largest, grandest, and shortest-lived of the Jerusalem temples.” This refurbished temple is God’s “house” which Christ and the apostles visited.

To be continued.

[image error]

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (4)

[image error]PMW 2020-012 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the fourth installment of an eight-part series on the crucial imagery involved in Revelation’s seven-sealed divorce decree.

In Jeremiah’s new covenant promise, God complains of Israel’s unfaithfulness noting that they broke his covenant, though “I had mastered [ba’l] them as a husband” (Jer 31:32). This verb derives from a root meaning “to become master.” Therefore, as Old Testament scholars note, it means to marry “with an emphasis on the rights and authority the husband exercised,” cp. Genesis 20:3; Numbers 5:19–20, 29; Deuteronomy 21:13; 22:22. Whereas the word for “husband” (‘hś ) “is apparently an endearing expression”, ba’l “emphasizes the legal position of the husband as lord and ‘owner’ of his wife.” The legal relation and subsequent obligation is clearly in view.

Scripture often expresses Israel’s turning to other gods as marital infidelity in breach of God’s legal covenant with her. In Deuteronomy God tells Moses that after he dies Israel will “play the harlot with the strange gods of the land” which will “break My covenant” (Dt 31:16). In fact, the most common use of znh (“act as a harlot”) in the Old Testament refers to “covenantal unfaithfulness on Israel’s part.”

Moses even warns against individual Israelites “playing the harlot” by worshiping false gods (Lev 20:5–6). Aune mentions “the analogy of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel and marriage contracts (Lev 17:7; 20:5–6; Num 14:33; 15:39; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; 8:27; 1 Chr 5:25; 2 Chr 21:11; Ps 73:27), a metaphor found with particular frequency in the prophets Hosea (1:2; 2:4 [MT: 6]; 4:15; 9:1), Jeremiah (2:20; 3:2, 9, 13; 5:7, 11; 13:27), and Ezekiel (6:9; 16; 23; 43:7, 9).”

[image error]

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The prophets speak of Israel’s unfaithfulness through idolatry as hurtful to her husband: “Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations to which they will be carried captive, how I have been hurt by their adulterous hearts which turned away from Me, and by their eyes, which played the harlot after their idols” (Eze 6:9a).

Hosea develops the theme of harlotry throughout his entire book, even marrying a harlot to illustrate Israel’s sin (Hos 1:2; 3:1–3). For instance, Hosea 2:2 reads: “Contend with your mother, contend, / For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband; / And let her put away her harlotry from her face, / And her adultery from between her breasts.”

Jeremiah 3:6 speaks similarly: “Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, ‘Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.’”

Ortlund well notes of this harlotry theme that “what begins as Pentateuchal whispers rises later to prophetic cries and is eventually echoed in apostolic teaching.” Eventually this harlotry image is used by the prophets Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel who “exploit it to the fullest.” Jeremiah and Ezekiel particularly develop it “into elaborate images.” The harlot metaphor is applied to Israel time and again in the Old Testament.

We must realize that although the charge of harlotry tends to focus on its most egregious manifestation in actual idolatry, it is not limited to idol worship. In the biblical view of marriage, the wife’s faithfulness involves a wholesale relationship of loving obedience (Nu 5:29; Jer 31:32; Eph 5:22–23; 1Pe 3:1, 6), not just her avoiding adultery. Consequently, there are places where charges of harlotry against Israel speak of situations not involving actual, formal idolatry.

When lawlessness (not idolatry) prevails in Jerusalem, the “faithful city” becomes a “harlot” (Isa 1:21–23). The same is true when a person consults a medium, seeking counsel (revelation) apart from God (Lev 20:6). This seems to be Gideon’s sin in making the ephod (for seeking revelatory counsel) which Scripture deems harlotry (Jdg 8:27). Israel sins as a harlot (Hos 6:10) in not trusting in God but in seeking alliances with Egypt and Assyria in Hosea 7:10–11.

In Hosea 7:11 the prophet “calls the dove ‘easily seduced’ (pitāh); it is ‘inexperienced’ and ‘unintelligent’ (‘en leb). The dove represents Israel, who is easily mislead politically by the powerful nations.” Rossing agrees: “Israel’s ‘prostitution’ may include economic indictment of Israel’s foreign liaisons in additions to changes [sic] of idolatry. . . . Alice A. Keefe suggests that Israel’s foreign lovers in Hosea ‘are not fertility gods but Israel’s foreign allies and trading partners.’”

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

As God’s wife, Israel must be faithful to her covenant with God. She must follow after “all My commandments” rather than following her own desires, in order to avoid harlotry (Nu 15:38–40). Wolff well captures the significance of this for us: “The net force of the declaration is that all the sinful preferences of the autonomous self, running contrary to the law of God, are a kind of whoredom, as if Yahweh’s wisdom and ways were not trustworthy.”

Israel is legally bound to God just as a wife is bound to her husband through mutual covenant.

To be continued!

I am currently doing research for a commentary tentatively titled: Olivet in Discourse: A Commentary on Matthew 21-25. If you would like to help by donating to my non-profit ministry, I would be grateful for your doing so. For more information, see: GoodBirth Ministries.

[image error]

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (3)

[image error]PMW 2020-011 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third article on the identity of the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation. In this article I will deal with covenantal marriage, which is essential for understanding the covenantal divorce transpiring in Revelation.

We must recognize at the outset that Revelation is an extremely Hebraic book that draws heavily from the Old Testament. And we should understand that John’s theme verse warns of Christ’s judgment-coming against the Jews.

In order to understand John’s court drama better, we must consider the all-important Old Testament backdrop, which all agree is so important for interpreting Revelation. John’s book is the capstone of biblical revelation; it is “the crowning finish of the entire Scripture, both Old and New Testament.”

Not only does it draw freely from the Old Testament, but it presents in bold relief the enormous redemptive-historical implications of the incarnational coming and work of Christ in the New Testament era. His advent transforms the biblical faith from its temporary, national, typological seed in Israel into its permanent, international, full fruit in the Church as “the Israel of God” (Rev 6:16).

The particular imagery John employs to this end is remarkable. I will cite several scholars who help us understand the matter. We must recall that “throughout the Bible, God’s relationship to his people is pictured as a marriage.” In the Old Testament particularly, “the relationship between God and Israel was . . . very frequently viewed as analogous to that of husband and wife.”

Consequently, marriage appears as the dominant metaphor portraying Israel’s relation to God. As the Old Testament clearly declares: “Your husband is your Maker, / Whose name is the Lord of hosts” (Isa 54:5a; cp. Isa 50:1; 62:4; Jer 2:2; 3:14, 20; 31:32; Hos 1:2; 2:2, 7, 16; 5:4; 9:1, 10). Even the land is deemed “married” to God (Isa 62:4). Thus, when Israel falls into idol worship she is in essence seeking to marry foreign gods: “Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which He loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god” (Mal 2:11; cp. Eze 23).

The Beast of Revelation[image error]

by Ken Gentry

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

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

Another scholar notes that Ezekiel “develops the metaphor to its greatest extent,” presenting the clearest imagery of God’s actually marrying Israel (Eze 16). He adds: “ Ezekiel 16:8 reflects on God’s original taking her for his wife in the wilderness after leaving Egypt: ‘Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine,’ declares the Lord God.’”

Jeremiah comes in a close second to Ezekiel in this regard. He also speaks directly of Israel’s original betrothal to God: “Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “I remember concerning you the devotion of your youth, the love of your betrothals, your following after Me in the wilderness, through a land not sown”’” (Jer 2:2; cp. Hos 2:15–16 which also recalls that happy occasion).

Rabbinic Judaism picks up on this imagery and speaks of the Mount Sinai covenant as being Israel’s “Day of Espousal,” with the Shekinah cloud’s descent upon the tabernacle portraying the marital consummation. An Old Testament scholar observes:

“Rabbis extolled the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai as the marriage of Yahweh with Israel.” Her marital “I do” appears in her vocal commitment: “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!” (Ex 24:3). Interestingly, Exodus 24 also includes a throne vision when the elders “saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself” (Ex 24:10). God’s covenantal marriage is legally affirmed. Ezekiel 16:8 shows “that entering into berith [covenant] with Israel is called a marrying her”; Hosea “identified the berith-idea and his favorite idea of marriage between Jehovah and Israel.”

Thus, the temple (and its precursor, the tabernacle) is God’s “house” wherein he dwells with his wife: “Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (Ex 25:8). Many references to the temple (or tabernacle) speak of its being God’s special dwelling place with his people (Ex 29:45; Lev 26:9–13; 1Ki 8:10–13; Ps 132:13–15; Mt 23:21; Jub 1:17; 25:21). This is emphasized in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the future temple, where he reminds Israel of her past failure to live in covenant with God: “when you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to profane it, even My house, when you offered My food, the fat and the blood; for they made My covenant void — this in addition to all your abominations” (Eze 44:7; cp. 37:26–28). God’s house is located in the city of Jerusalem where he has chosen for his name to “dwell” (Dt 12:5, 11; 26:2). As Josephus laments after Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70: “Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein?” (J.W. 7:8:7).

[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

As we continue reflecting on the marital imagery, “in the Pentateuch we hear of Yahweh’s jealousy, an emotion that is only proper to an exclusive relationship like marriage (Ex 19:3–6; 20:2–6; 34:14).” Jealousy is appropriate and even expected in marital relationships (Nu 5:14, 29, 30; Pro 6:32–34; Song 8:6). The word “jealous” (qanah) is the same as used in the law of jealousy designed for the husband to discover if his wife has committed adultery (Nu 5:11–31). As in a marital union “the jealousy of Yahweh insists that his people observe his exclusive claims upon them (Dt. 6:13–15).” The many references to God’s jealousy are significant in that “the word means conjugal zeal specifically, jealously in the married relation.” See: Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Numbers 25:11; Deuteronomy 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 29:20; 32:16, 21; Joshua 24:19; 1 Kings 14:22; Psalms 78:58; 79:5; Ezekiel 16:38, 42; 23:25; 36:5–6; 29:25; Nahum 1:2; Zephaniah 1:18; Zechariah 1:14; 8:2.

Very early in her national history, Israel’s potential for worshiping false gods is portrayed as prostitution against her husband whose name is “Jealous” (Ex 34:14). Hence, Israel’s obligation to “cling/cleave” to the Lord (Dt 10:20; 11:22; 13:4) is the same word (dabaq) which is used in Genesis 2:24 of a man cleaving to his wife.

In Scripture God ordains human marriage from the beginning so that two “shall become one flesh” (Ge 2:24). Thus, later in Scripture we learn that human marriage is established by covenanting before God, which effects a binding legal union (Mt 19:6). We see this covenantal reality behind two important Old Testament texts: In Proverbs 2:17 the adulteress who leaves her husband legally “forgets the covenant of her God.” In Malachi 2:14 God is “witness” against Israel because men are dealing treacherously with their wives, and a wife is deemed a “wife by covenant.”

Stay tuned! To be continuedd.

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (2)

[image error]PMW 2020-010 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second installment on the identity of the seven-sealed Scroll in Revelation. This symbol is crucial to understanding Revelation’s point. I will begin where I left off last time (sounds logical, doesn’t it?).

(10) In Revelation 10 we see the scroll fully opened and in a strong angel’s hand (Rev 10:2). This is Christ appearing as the “Angel of the Covenant” who is expected in Malachi 3:1 for the purpose of bringing judgment upon Israel. He appears here in angelic form, because he is a “messenger” [aggelos] swearing an oath as a legal witness (Rev 10:1, 5, 6). This vision appears just before Revelation’s clearest statement regarding the earthly temple in Jerusalem: Revelation 11:1–2 (see next point).

(11) Then the scene turns to the trampling of the earthly temple (God’s house) by the nations (Rev 11:1–2):

And there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, “Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it. And leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.”

This statement is clearly based on Jesus’ prophecy in Luke 21:24 wherein he denounces the temple (cf. Lk 21:5–6). This trampling is legally affirmed once again, this time by “my two witnesses” (Rev 11:1–3). In God’s Law two is the essential number for court testimony and is particularly important in capital cases (cp. Nu 35; Dt 17:6; 19:15; Jn 18:17; Heb 10:28).

(12) As the drama moves ever forward to its climax, John brings to the forefront two female personages. One is the Babylonian harlot (Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:1; 18:2, 10, 21; 19:2), who is described in great detail for emphasis (Rev 17:1–7). This harlot symbolizes historical Jerusalem, the capital of old covenant Israel (see Ch. 11 below). The other female is the Lamb’s bride (Rev 19:7–9; 21:2—22:5), who is the “new Jerusalem,” the very goal of Revelation. She is also described in detail for emphasis (Rev 21:10—22:5).

As Witherington notes: “The entire book has been pressing forward toward a conclusion, which is revealed in these two sections [Rev 17 and 22] involving the destruction of Babylon and its replacement by the New Jerusalem.” The witness of the two prophets is to prophesy against the earthly Jerusalem and the earthly Temple, and to announce the heavenly Jerusalem and the heavenly temple. The latter half of the book exactly corresponds to this programme. The earthly Jerusalem, under the figure of Babylon, is doomed and destroyed; the heavenly Jerusalem takes its place. “The whole literary framework of the book becomes clear and simple once the Harlot Babylon is identified with Jerusalem.”

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

(13) These two women play out the judgment theme in terms of both its negative and positive implications: the harlot is publicly stoned to death for her harlotry (Rev 16:19—17:1) so that the new bride of the Lamb may descend from heaven to take her place on the earth (Rev 21:2, 10). This portrays the judgment and removal of Israel in A.D. 70 so that Christianity might remain as the final redemptive-historical reality (cp. Mt 8:10–12; 19:28; Heb 12:18–28).

(14) The Babylonian harlot’s judgment gives way to a celebratory “marriage supper” (Rev 19:7, 9). This leads to Christ’s judgment-appearing in A.D. 70 as the Avenger-witness who is “Faithful and True” for “in righteousness He judges and wages war” (Rev 19:11).

(15) Then Revelation focuses on the taking of a new “bride” (Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9), which is the “new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:2, 10). “The very close resemblance of the wording of [Rev 21:9] to 17:1, where the judgment of the great harlot is announced, renders obvious the parallel intended” between the bride and the harlot. This “new Jerusalem” obviously replaces the old Jerusalem, following not only John’s story-line but also the pattern of Paul and Hebrews (Gal 4:25 –26; Heb 12:18, 22).

In a nutshell this is how Revelation’s forensic drama unfolds as it plays out its stated judgment theme (Rev 1:7). I will flesh out this movement in great detail in my commentary, but for now let me consider the redemptive-historical imagery that informs this approach.

[image error]The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

To be continued.

I am currently doing research for a commentary tentatively titled: Olivet in Discourse: A Commentary on Matthew 21-25. If you would like to help by donating to my non-profit ministry, I would be grateful for your doing so. For more information, see: GoodBirth Ministries.

[image error]

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (1)

[image error]PMW 2020-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am beginning a new series of studies that will present a detailed case for identifying the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation. Revelation is performative drama that employs forensic rhetoric. The succession of scenes will increasingly inform the audience of the legal action undertaken within. The identity of this scroll will exercise a large interpretive influence over the later chapters of Revelation.

By way of introducing this court-drama I will trace in broad strokes Revelation’s interesting legal plot-line, then I will backup and provide the particular evidence that leads me to this understanding.

(1) John opens by announcing in no uncertain terms the absolute authority of his message. It comes ultimately from God through Christ to the angel and finally to John (Rev 1:1). With such a chain of authority, John in legal fashion amply “bore witness” (Rev 1:2) to the message. Witnesses and testimony play an important role throughout the book. The Greek word for “witness” (martus) has as a primary meaning the idea of a legal witness, as in a court case (cf. Dt 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; 26:65; Ac 6:13; 7:58; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28).

(2) John declares that Revelation’s events are historically pressing issues imminent in his own day. They must “shortly take place” (Rev 1:1) for “the time is near” (Rev 1:3). Later he will conclude his drama by reaffirming the nearness of the prophetic events (Rev 22:6, 10). Whatever may be the drama that requires such authority and legal witness, it must directly relate to the first century Church — for it will play out in her experience.

(3) As John prepares to state his theme, he focuses on Christ as “the faithful witness” (Rev 1:5; cp. also 3:14). Clearly the original audience is to recognize the legal character of what is to follow.

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(4) He then establishes his legal theme which focuses on Christ’s judgment-coming against the Jews who had crucified Christ: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth (lit.: “land”) will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen” (Rev 1:7). (For evidence that his theme portrays Christ’s judgment of first century Israel, see Ch. 8 in my Before Jerusalem Fell.) In fact, two of the Seven Letters specifically warn the recipients about the antagonism of the racial Jews. In his estimation the Jews are not worthy of the name “Jew” (cp. Ro 2:28–29) for they are of the “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 2:9; 3:9; cp. Jesus’ similar denunciation, Jn 8:44).

In keeping with Revelation’s imminency-expectation and Israel-judgment theme, Christ even promises that those Jews so troubling them will soon be brought low — evidently in A.D. 70: “Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie — behold, I will make them to come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (Rev 3:9; cp. Mt 24:2, 16; 1Th 2:15–16).

(5) Christ appears in Revelation’s inaugural vision (Rev 1:13–20) to formally and authoritatively commission John to write the prophecy, further enhancing the authority of John’s witness: “Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall take place after these things” (Rev 1:19). In fact, the Lord lays his hand upon him to lift him up for his task (Rev 1:17). Jesus explains that he himself “was dead” but is now “alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18), despite the fact that the Jews “pierced him” to death (Rev 1:7).

(6) The actual judgment process begins with John being summoned before God where he sees the Lord seated on his judicial throne: “After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.’ Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne” (Rev 4:1–2). God is surrounded by his heavenly court, the twenty-four elders sitting on their thrones (Rev 4:4). John frequently mentions God’s throne and the heavenly control of earthly events in Revelation (see esp.: Rev 1:4; 4–5; 6:16; 7:10; 12:5; 19:4; 20:11).

(7) As John looks about this heavenly court he notices a sealed document in God’s right hand (Rev 5:1). This document involves the central matter for which he has been summoned to court, for the entire heavenly court focuses attention on it (Rev 5:2–4) and it initiates the first judgments to follow (Rev 6:1–8:1). After some consternation regarding who can open it (Rev 5:2–4) he soon discovers that the “Lamb” who had been “slain” (as per the theme, Rev 1:7) is the only one worthy of opening the court document (Rev 5:2, 5). The victim is the witness. The scroll’s being sealed and its handling in God’s court suggests it is some sort of legal document.

(8) In keeping with Revelation’s judgment theme against Israel (Rev 1:7) John presents the Lamb in very Judaic imagery: “Behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals” (Rev 5:5). This slain but living Lamb becomes the dominant figure of Revelation, appearing twenty-seven times in chapters 5–7, 12–15, 17, 19, 21–22. In the initial drama he appears between God’s throne and the elders (Rev 5:6) and is praised along with God (Rev 5:13). Later he appears “in the center of” and “on” the throne (Rev 7:17; 22:1, 3).

[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

(9) As the slain but living Lamb begins unsealing this legal scroll, judgments pour out upon “the land” of Israel (Rev 6–19 with interludes). At the opening of the fifth seal John sees the souls of deceased saints crying out for God’s “judging and avenging” their blood on those who “dwell in the land [literally]” (Rev 6:10). They are promised that they must wait only “a little while longer” (Rev 6:11). This scene reminds us of Jesus’ parable in Luke 18:1–8 where he promises God will speedily exercise justice for his elect who cry out day and night to him (Lk 18:7–8). We should also compare the scene to Christ’s denunciation of Israel’s leaders in Matthew 23. He promises their soon judgment (Mt 23:36) for shedding innocent blood (Mt 23:34–35). These victims of the Jews were persecuted because of their alignment with Christ (Rev 17:6; 19:2; cp. 7:14; 12:11): they have their names written in his Book of Life (Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8).

To be continued. It ain’t over til it’s over!

LUKE 17 VS. MATTHEW 24?

[image error]PMW 2020-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this blog I have previously investigated the apparent problem involved when comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 17. See: “Orthodox Preterism and Luke 17.”

Many prominent evangelical preterist scholars recognize Matthew’s clear structure. Scholars such as:

• J. M. Kik, An Eschatology of Victory

• R. V. G. Tasker, Matthew (Tyndale Bible Commentary)

• R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew: New International Commentary on the New Testament

• Alistair I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25

• Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (vol. 3 of the Concordia Commentary by Gibbs)

• David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel

• Jeannine K. Brown, Matthew: Teach the Text Commentary Series

• R. C. Sproul, Matthew: An Expositional Commentary

See my blog article: Best Matthew Commentaries.

Matthew separates the local judgment-coming prophecies regarding AD 70 from the global ultimate-coming prophecies of the Second Coming and the Final Judgment.

As I have argued elsewhere, this clean separation is quite evident in Matthew 24:34–36. There Matthew’s peri de (“but concerning”) narrative transition-formula shifts his attention away from the known time of his local (metaphorical) judgment-coming against the Temple (Matt. 24:2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16), which was to be in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). He shifts his attention to “that day and hour,” which timing neither he nor the angels know (Matt. 24:36, 50; 25:13). [1]

Consequently, after Matthew 24:36, instead of giving historical signs regarding the Temple’s soon-coming destruction (vv. 4–33), he issues warnings urging readiness at all times, at any moment — since no one knows (Matt. 24:36) when that day will occur (Matt. 24:37–39, 42–43, 50; 25:13). Thus, he moves from the known time to the unknown time; from the near-future to who-knows-when.

But in Luke 17, some of the statements that appear in both the earlier (AD 70) and the later (Second Advent/Final Judgment) sections of the cleanly-divided discourse in Matthew 24 seem to be interspersed in the “wrong” places in Luke 17. How can this be? Does this prove there is no division in Matthew 24? Not at all!

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

Previous Evidence Rehearsed

To see why there is no difficulty, we must first note that Luke 17 and Matthew 24 are not records of the same discourse. Matthew 24 is given on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24:3) after looking out over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37), well after Jesus’ entering Jerusalem (Matt. 21:10) and after he had entered the temple (Matt. 21:12). Whereas in Luke 17 he is on his way to Jerusalem (cf. Luke 17:11; 18:31; 19:11).

Furthermore, in Matthew, Jesus is answering his disciples’ question regarding the future of the temple (Matt. 24:3). Whereas, in Luke 17, he is interacting with the Pharisees’ question about the coming of the kingdom (Luke 17:20–21). Then he turns to speak to the disciples (Luke 17:22).

Thus, Leon Morris notes regarding liberals who argue that Luke places this teaching in the wrong context: “It is much better to hold that . . . Jesus [either] uttered the words on more than one occasion or . . . Luke is correctly applying them to another situation” (Morris, Luke, 286). So no matter what Jesus is speaking about, Luke is not shifting the material around. He is recording a different sermon altogether.

In addition, we must understand that similar language does not entail identical events. That is, because similar prophecies occur in Matthew 24 as in Luke 17 does not mean they refer to the same historical episode. We see that similar expressions do not require identical realities when Scripture refers to Christ as a “lion” in some places (Rev 5:5), while in other places it calls Satan a “lion” (1 Pet. 5:8).

[image error]Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)

Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

Also, consider the prophetic concept of “the day of the Lord.” In the Old Testament it occurs in several places and applies to different historical judgments. For instance, “the day of the Lord comes upon Babylon, Idumea, and Judah (Isa. 13:6, 9; Eze 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; Amos 5:18, 20; Oba. 15; Zeph. 1:7; Mal. 4:5) — at different time and in different places. Even though the language is the same (and why should that surprise us since all wars are basically similar?) and though the “day of the Lord” phrase occurs in the singular (which would seem to suggest there is only one particular day of the Lord), but each “day of the Lord” is an historically distinct event. They are, however, theologically related events: all of them being judgments of God anticipating the final Day of the Lord even though they are not historically identical.

More Evidence Presented

But now I would like to provide two other lines of evidence regarding this “problem.” One is more obvious; the other more subtle.

One obvious difference between Luke 17 and Matthew 24 is that in Matthew’s discourse Jesus clearly refers to the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3) in Judea (Matt. 24:15–16). Yet in his pronouncement in Luke 17, Jesus does not even mention the destruction of the temple. Or the temple at all. Or even Jerusalem or Judea. These are glaring omissions. If Luke 17 is talking about AD 70 and the temple.

The other, more subtle line of evidence arises when we note how Jesus’ language significantly differs in Luke 17 when compared to Matthew 24. In the AD 70 section of Matthew 24 (vv. 4–34), Jesus urges flight from Judea (Matt. 24:16). He warns people to leave the area in haste because of the approaching Roman troops: “Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak” (Matt. 24:17–18).

But in Luke 17, this warning is altered in such a way that is not easily applicable to historical warfare. Yet it fits nicely with the Second Coming and its instantaneous judgment: “I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left” (Luke 17:34–35). The ones “taken” in each of these examples are those taken to safety by the Lord. Thus, in this text the closest of people will suddenly be separated by God’s rescue action: two people lying together in one bed (husband and wife?), or sitting and grinding together at the mill (mother and daughter?). The Roman war would not suddenly take away to safety one person lying next to another or one woman grinding alongside another.

Confusing Material Explained

But now, what about Christ’s warns in Luke 17 that: “on that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back” (Luke 17:31). How can these be relevant to the Second Advent, when flight will be impossible? We must first note that, in fact, flight is not even mentioned (as in Luke 21:21). So what is going on here?

This directive by Christ does not overthrow the Second Coming argument. This is because the context explains Jesus’ point here. For he immediately adds: “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32) and “Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:35). So? How does this help us out of our conundrum?

Jesus is here warning people that they must not even think of holding on to the things of this world. They must be willing to leave behind all their possessions for his sake. Earlier in Luke, Jesus is recorded as warning by parable about “the seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are . . . choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity” (Luke 8:14).

So here in Luke 17 Jesus warns that his followers must not be like Lot’s wife who longingly looked back to what she was leaving behind (Gen. 19:26). For such will be worthless when Christ is “revealed” at his Second Coming (Luke 17:30). His true disciples need to live their lives for him rather than for material goods or earthly relations — a point frequently made in Luke (Luke 9:24, 62; 12:33–34; 14:26; 18:29;cf. Matt. 6:33). See also Paul’s testimony (Phil. 3:7–11).

Our deliverance on the Final Day of Judgment (a deliverance reflected in Noah’s [v. 27] and Lot’s [v. 29] deliverences from judgment, each on a particular “day”) requires a wholehearted-commitment and a single-minded orientation to Christ — over all else. As his followers, we are urged to abandon any love of material possessions and earthly matters above him. Lot’s wife came close to being delivered from Sodom’s destruction, but she disobeyed God’s word (issued through the angel, Gen. 19:17) and longed for what she was leaving behind (Gen. 19:26). Christ’s followers must not hold a mindset like hers.

Jesus’ analogy, then, is teaching his disciples (and us!) that there will be no time to prepare when he returns. Jesus uses the image in v. 31 as a metaphor for attachment to earthly things. Rather than such, he is commanding a wholehearted willingness to give up all for him. Thus, he warns; “Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it” (Luke 17:35). As Plummer notes: “The point is absolute indifference to all worldly interests as the attitude of readiness for the Son of Man.” On that day, there will be no point in even caring about such things. The event will happen so quickly that you will not even have an opportunity to retrieve your goods.

Conclusion

Therefore, we see from additional angles that Luke 17 does not contradict Matthew 24 thereby overthrowing the careful distinction drawn in Matthew 25 (at vv. 34–36). Luke 17 is talking only about the Second Advent, and not about the destruction of Jerusalem. But Matthew 24 speaks of both events, though separately and distinctly: The AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Matt. 24:4–34) and the Second Advent to Final Judgment (Matt. 24:37–25:46).

Note

1. We should not naively think Jesus is being overtly literal in Matthew 24:36. G. C. Caird warns against such a ludicrous approach. He scoffs that we must not think “Jesus knows roughly the year . . . but not whether it will be a Tuesday or a Wednesday, not whether it will be at 10 a.m. or 6 p.m.; and against such bathos it is pointless to argue.” G. C. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), pp. 266–267. His point is simply: he will return at an unknown and unpredictable time.

I am currently doing research for a commentary tentatively titled: Olivet in Discourse: A Commentary on Matthew 21-25. If you would like to help by donating to my non-profit ministry, I would be grateful. For more information, see: GoodBirth Ministries.

[image error]

THIS AGE / THE AGE TO COME

[image error]PMT 2015-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

An important eschatological issue involves the New Testament principle of “this age” and “the age to come.” Christ himself speaks of “this age” and another “age to come” (Mt 12:32; Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30; 20:34–35). The present age is sin-laden present in which we live. The “age to come” brings eternal life of the eternal order (Lk 18:30); it involves resurrection and will not include marrying (Lk 20:34–35). It is truly consummate and final.

From the linear perspective of the Old Testament, ancient Israel believes that the “age to come” will be the Messianic era that would fully arrive after their current age ends. Yet in the New Testament we learn that the “age to come” begins in principle with the first century coming of Christ. It overlaps with “this age” which begins in Christ. Thus, we are not only children of “this age” (present, sin-laden temporal history), but are also spiritually children of “the age to come” (the final, perfected eternal age). We have our feet in both worlds. Or as Geerhardus Vos put it: “The age to come was perceived to bear in its womb another age to come.”

Because of this principle, we already share in the benefits of “the age to come.” This is because the two ages are linked by Christ’s ruling in both, for he has a name “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come” (Eph 1:21). Therefore, we have already “tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:5), despite living in “this present evil age” (Gal 1:4).

The Truth about Postmillennialism

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

http://www.kennethgentry.com/the-truth-about-postmillennialism-by-gentry-new-1-10-2020/

We already experience resurrection — spiritually (Jn 5:24–25; Ro 6:4; Eph 2:6; 1Jn 3:14), though we look forward to a physical resurrection beyond “this present time” (Ro 8:18–23). Indeed, we even now sit “with Him in heavenly places” so that “in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6b–7). We already partake of the “new creation” (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15), though the eternal new creation still awaits us (2Pe 3:13). The shaking of the earth and splitting of rocks at Christ’s death (Mt 27:50–51) signal “that Christ’s death was the beginning of the end of the old creation and the inauguration of a new creation” (G. K. Beale).

We already enjoy the “new birth” into that new world (Jn 3:3; 1Pe 1:1, 23), though we will experience the fulness of “the glory of the children of God” only in the future (Ro 8:19, 23). We already possess the Spirit, who is the one who in that future age will “give life to your mortal bodies” (Ro 8:11). We already have victory over Satan (Mt 12:29; Ro 16:20; Jas 4:7), though he is the “god of this age” (2Co 4:4). We do good works now so that we might store up treasure “for the future” (1Ti 6:17–19; cp. Ro 2:5–7).

The central principle uniting “this age” and “the age to come” is the resurrection. Gaffin well states: “The unity of the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of believers is such that the latter consists of two episodes in the experience of the individual believer — one which is already past, already realized, and one which is future, yet to be realized,” so that our “resurrection is both already and not yet” (Richard Gaffin). Two worlds co-exist in us through the Holy Spirit (Geerhardus Vos). Thus, the “last days” are unique in involving a merger of “this age” and the “age to come” as an “already / not yet” phenomenon. Truly, “Christ’s life, and especially death and resurrection through the Spirit, launched the end-time new creation for God’s glory” (G. K. Beale).

[image error]Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)

Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com