Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 60

JESUS AND ARMED CHURCH MEMBERS

[image error]By Gary DeMar (American Vision)

In September of 2019, Joe Biden criticized a new Texas law that permitted church members to be armed while attending church services.

It is irrational, with all due respect to the Governor of Texas, it’s irrational what they’re doing. … And we’re talking about loosening access to have guns? Being able to take them into places of worship, store them in schools, it’s just absolutely irrational.

Biden and other Leftists seem oblivious to the fact that evil people don’t obey laws. If they are hell-bent on killing people, what makes anyone think they are going to obey gun laws?

There was a time in the United States when it was unheard of that someone would shoot up a church. There was no need to be armed. It’s different today. There are people who argue that there is no god and live consistently with that belief. Morality is relative. There’s no judgment after death. We’re just evolved bags of meat and bones. Survival of the fittest.

With this dramatic change in worldview thinking, all that the Left can think of is taking defensive weapons away from law-abiding Americans.

[image error]Political Issues Made Easy

by Kenneth Gentry

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What about Jesus’ injunction to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:38-39)? There’s a big difference between slapping someone across the face and someone wanting to take a baseball bat to your head or the head of your wife and children. Self-defense is a biblical option in such cases. Consider this passage from biblical case law:

If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (Ex. 22:2-3).

The homeowner can assume that someone breaking into his house at night has nothing but bad intentions. He may be armed or not. The homeowner does not have to ask any questions to find out. The homeowner can respond by striking the intruder “so that he dies.” If this happens, even if the attempt was only theft (unknown to the homeowner), the homeowner is cleared of all guilt in the thief’s death.

Daytime is a different story because the victim can make a better assessment of intent. If two people enter a building with a shotgun, as happened in the Texas church, killing these people before they kill you and others is the right thing to do. Being loving, peaceful, just and generous, and self-giving do not apply. To put it simply, there’s no time.

In the 1959 film Ben Hur, there is a discussion between Balthasar and Judah Ben Hur about seeking revenge.

“Judah: I must deal with Messala in my own way.

Balthasar: And your way is to kill him. I see this terrible thing in your eyes, Judah Ben-Hur. But no matter what this man has done to you, you have no right to take his life. He will be punished inevitably.”

Overhearing their conversation, Sheik Ilderim says, “Balthasar is a good man. But until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright!” If all those in the world had the heart of Balthasar, then there would be no need to discuss what the right response is regarding self-defense.

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The story of David and Goliath is helpful since “five smooth stones” and a “sling” are the closest equivalent to a handgun we can find in the Bible. David seems to have been armed with his sling at all times. There was no way he could run home to get his sling when a lion or a bear was about to attack his flock (1 Sam. 17:31-37, 41-54).

It’s possible that Jesus had the Old Testament case law in mind when offered this injunction to His disciples:

“But be sure of this, 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).

But of course, you rarely know when someone is going to break into your house or decides to kill people in your church, therefore, you must be on guard all the time.

In another passage, Jesus is teaching by analogy:

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder” (Luke 11:21).

A fully armed strong man is a deterrent to a thief. . . .

To read full article: click

THE RISE OF THE CHURCH IN IRAN

[image error]By Afshin Ziafat (DesiringGod.org)

Robert Bruce, a Scottish missionary to Iranian Muslims in the late nineteenth century, wrote home to his supporters, “I am not reaping the harvest; I scarcely claim to be sowing the seed; I am hardly ploughing the soil; but I am gathering out the stones. That, too, is missionary work; let it be supported by loving sympathy and fervent prayer.”

For many years, Iran was one of the most difficult regions of the world to reach with the gospel. A significant development occurred in 1979, however, with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The ruling monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was overthrown, and in his place an Islamic Republic was birthed, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Sharia law became the law of the land, and Muslim clerics became the heads of state.

Many in those days believed the revolution would lead to a time of flourishing in Iranian society. The new regime made great promises about rights and economic progress, as Iran was finally free from the influence of the West. The laws of man would be replaced by the laws of God, they claimed. Under the Republic, conversion to any other religion was considered apostasy and could be punished with death.

Door Opens

As we near the fortieth anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, however, we see that the prayers of many Christians over the years have been answered, and the climate in Iran is vastly different. The gospel has spread throughout the land in unprecedented fashion despite increased persecution of Christian believers. To use the words of the apostle Paul, “A wide door for effective work has opened . . . and there are many adversaries” (1 Corinthians 16:9).

[image error]The Truth about Salvation  By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As of 1979, there were about five hundred known Christians from a Muslim background in Iran. In 2005, it was estimated that there were 40,000 ethnic Iranian Christians (not including ethnic minority Christians who live in Iran). That number grew to about 175,000 Christians in 2010, according to the Joshua Project. Today, the average estimates of Christians within Iran range from 300,000 to upwards of one million, according to some missions experts. Operation World, a missions research organization, continues to list Iran as having the fastest-growing evangelical church in the world. In fact, more Iranians have become Christians in the last twenty years than in the previous 1,300 years, since Islam came to Iran.

Four Reasons for Growth

Several factors have contributed to the rapid growth of the church in Iran. Here are four of the most important.

1. Disillusionment with Islam

Since the time of the revolution, the Islamic regime, which promised much in the way of economic development and freedom, has not delivered. Rather than prosperity and growth, the economy stagnated. The people also have been oppressed — women punished for not covering their hair, and others punished for speaking out freely in protest. As a result, the country has isolated itself further from the rest of the world.

Ironically, because the Islamic Republic in Iran has tied religion and state so closely together, the people’s disappointment with the government has led to great skepticism of Islam. Consequently, Iranians have become increasingly open to hearing the Christian message.

2. Persecution

The rise of persecution against Christians in Iran has served both as a sign of the rapid growth of Christianity within the country and as fuel for further growth. In the 1990s, several key leaders of the church in Iran were killed. One of the most famous martyrs, Mehdi Dibaj, gave a defense before the Islamic courts prior to his death that has become a rallying cry for many Christians in Iran. Dibaj declared,

[image error]Political Issues Made Easy

by Kenneth Gentry

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

I would rather have the whole world against me, but know that the Almighty God is with me; be called an apostate, but know that I have the approval of the God of glory. . . .

Life for me is an opportunity to serve him, and death is a better opportunity to be with Christ. Therefore I am not only satisfied to be in prison for the honor of his Holy Name, but am ready to give my life for the sake of Jesus my Lord and enter his kingdom sooner, the place where the elect of God enter to everlasting life.

Examples like this have emboldened the church as the faithful remember the words of Jesus, “Because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19). In 2010, many church planters and leaders were arrested. I had the privilege of visiting with one of these faithful brothers after he served five years in prison. He recounted the moment when he received news that many of his colleagues were being arrested.

Briefly, he considered fleeing. But then he remembered the words of Jesus from John 10, that he is not the hired hand who sees the wolves coming and flees, but he is rather the good shepherd, who lays his life down for his sheep (John 10:11–12). He told me he went home knowing it would lead to his arrest, but he saw prison as an assignment by God to be a ministry post for him to reach many within prison.

This persecution has served to motivate further evangelistic zeal among Iranian Christians. These faithful servants are modern-day examples of Paul, who once wrote, “Most of the brothers, having become confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, are much more bold to speak the word without fear” (Philippians 1:14).

3. The Diaspora and Use of Media

A countless number of Iranian Christians have been scattered around the world. Many of these saints sense a unique calling to continue supporting the work of gospel advancement within Iran from the outside.

The advancement of technology through the Internet and satellite TV has made the Christian message more accessible to Iranians who may have never even met a Christian. The diaspora Christians have been active in broadcasting the gospel and Bible teaching into Iran. In the last decade, social media also has been a powerful tool to reach Iranians and teach them the truths of Scripture.

4. Bible Distribution

Although persecution has not produced the results that the Iranian authorities wanted, they have continued to work hard to stamp out the message of Christianity. The Bible (especially the New Testament) is banned literature in Iran. .

To finish reading the article: click

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” AND PSALM 2 (10)

[image error]PMW 2020-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final installment on the issue of “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. Hopefully, this rather thorough study has been helpful.

In the NT we discover the apostolic church engaging in the pesher method of interpretation of OT passages. So not only does the contemporary Qumran community engage in such, but also the apostolic community of Christianity. I will focus on one particularly important OT passage whose contemporizing interpretation will be relevant to our current study.

Acts 4 Illustration

In Ac 4 we read of the arrest and jailing of Peter and John for preaching Jesus in Jerusalem (4:2–3). The two apostles are taken before the Sanhedrin (4:15) which included “their rulers and elders and scribes . . . and Annas the high priest . . . and Caiaphas and John Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent” (4:5–6). Peter addresses these men collectively as “rulers and elders of the people” (4:8). The Sanhedrin warned Peter and John “to speak no more to any man in this name” (4:17) then “threatened them further” and let them go (4:21).

After their release the Apostles returned to the body of believers and “reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them” (Ac 4:23). Upon hearing these things the church spontaneously erupted in unison praise: “they lifted up their voices to God with one accord” (4:24). In their praise response they instinctively cite Psalm 2:1–2. Witherington cites Gaventa who observes that “this incident marks the beginning of the church’s response to persecution” (Witherington 1998: 200).

[image error]

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, as formal persecution from the rulers of Israel begins, the followers of Christ turn to Psalm 2 for their comfort and encouragement. Indeed, they provide a pesher treatment of Psalm 2, applying it to themselves (Witherington 1998: 200). As Bock (2007: 205) notes, the church is “thinking theologically” regarding their circumstances. That is, they not only praise God as the Creator of all things (Ac 4:24), but they turn to Spirit-inspired revelation in the Scriptures for an explanation of their situation (4:25). The church’s response is significant in several respects, and helpful to our consideration of John’s use of the “kings of the earth” in Rev. Let me explain.

First, the apostolic church frequently employed Psalm 2, a major messianic psalm not only for apostolic Christianity but many ancient Jews as well (cf. Pss. of Sol. 17:26 and 4QFl). Craigie (1983: 68) notes that “Psalm 2 is one of the psalms most frequently quoted and alluded to in the NT.” That the early church used this Psalm rather frequently is evident from the following observations. (1) They reflexively resort to Psalm 2 when under pressure. (2) They are able to use it corporately and in unison, for “they lifted up their voices to God with one accord and said” (Ac 4:24a). (3) We see this Psalm used even in several NT writings (Ac 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:5). Thus, this becomes an important Scripture for the early church.

Second, the apostolic church engaged in a pesher-like interpretation of Scripture. That is, they took Scriptures that referred to other issues and applied them to themselves in their own situation. Ps 2 speaks ultimately of the Messiah and earthly opposition to him, as the Jerusalem believers’ explanation of the passage clearly shows: “For [gar] truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” (Ac 4:27). Nevertheless, they use it to explain their own persecution. Having cited and explained the Psalm they say: “And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence” (Ac 4:29).The threats “against the Lord, and against His Christ” become a threat to Christ’s followers, and they humbly call God’s attention to the matter.

Third, the apostolic church employs ironic re-application of Scriptures against the Jews. No Jew reading the original Psalm would understand that the opposition to Christ includes his own ethnic kin. After all, the text expressly asks: “Why did the Gentiles (ethnē) rage?” And in its poetic parallel it speaks of various “peoples” who “devise futile things” (Ps 2:1). It sets up the kings and rulers of the earth as opposing Yahweh and his Anointed (2:2). It speaks of the gift of all “the nations” and the “very ends of the earth” to Messiah (2:8). And finally, it warns earth’s kings and judges (2:10). All of these elements involve Gentile opponents.

Yet the Jerusalem community of believers and the apostles among them are very clear in their use of the passage. After citing the Psalm they interpret it as including Jews among Messiah’s opponents: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” (Ac 4:27). So they take this passage that speaks of Gentile opposition and re-orient it to include Jewish opposition.

Argument application

Now I will apply all of this to my analysis of the phrase the “kings of the earth.” Many argue that since John in Rev is using an OT phrase that regularly applies to Gentile rulers, we should so interpret it in Rev. But I have shown that the church quotes Ps 2, which refers to Gentile opposition, and applies it to “the peoples of Israel.” Thus, this shows the NT practice of re-application whereby Gentile-focused passages can be turned against the Jews. John could easily be doing the same with this OT phrase. After all, this book calls Jerusalem “Sodom and Egypt” (11:8) and speaks of synagogues as “a synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9).

Furthermore, the portion of Ps 2 that is quoted expressly mentions our phrase: “kings of the earth.” And these “kings of the earth” are paralleled with “the rulers.” Thus, we read: ‘the kings of the earth took their stand, / And the rulers were gathered together” (Ac 4:26). For what reason were these authorities, these kings/rulers, gathered? They were gathering in opposition “against the Lord, and against His Christ” (Ac 4:26). But when we hear the church’s interpretation of the passage those who “were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed” include no only the Gentile “Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles,” but also Herod, the king of the Jews, and “the peoples of Israel” who demand that Christ be crucified. Thus, here the “kings of the earth” apply not only to non-Israel kings, but to a king of the Jews.

[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

What is more, through the pesher contemporizing interpretation of Ps 2, the Jerusalem Christians apply this to their own situation. After reading the Psalm, they say: “and now, Lord, take note of their threats” (Ac 4:29a). Whose threats? In the Psalm the threats come from the “kings of the earth” / “the rulers,” but in church’s current predicament it applies also to the religious authorities of Israel. Bock (2007: 208) notes of the “and now” statement: “this refers to the threats of the Sanhedrin (4:21).” Kistemaker (1990: 167) agrees and notes further that this quotation “is appropriate to the situation at hand, for the apostles feel the religious hierarchy and the Jewish government closing in on them.”

So then, very clearly their opponents who are gathering against them include: “the priests and the captain of the temple guard, and the Sadducees” (Ac 4:1); “rulers and elders and scribes . . . and Annas the high priest . . . and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent” (4:5–6); “rulers and elders of the people” (4:8); “the Council” (sunedriou) (4:15); “the chief priests and the elder” (4:23).

Thus, we see that the early church could apply the phrase “kings of the earth” to Jewish religious authorities.

So now, at long, long last:

Conclusion

Following upon the preceding evidence (and much more to come in the commentary), I would argue that “the kings of the earth” is a special character-set in Rev which denotes the religious authorities in the Land of Israel. They are quite significant for John’s forensic drama in that they are the ones who secure Christ’s death by exercising their power and influence over him in the Land. They are also the ones who persecute Christ’s followers, for they constantly attack Christians and seek Rome’s help in persecuting them (Ac 4:27; 16:20; 17:7; 18:12; 21:11; 24:1–9; 25:1–2).

The death of Jesus is a fundamental issue in Rev. In the first place his death is included in Rev’s very theme (1:7). Furthermore, Rev’s central character is the Slain Lamb (5:6, 9, 12; 13:8). For the first-century church, so oppressed by Israel, Rev holds forth his death as the very source of Christian hope and victory (1:5, 18; 5:9,12; 7:14; 12:11). The vindication of the persecuted followers of Christ is the key concern in Rev (1:9; 2:9–10; 3:9–10; 6:9–11; 11:7–8, 11–13, 18; 12:10; 13:10; 14:11–13; 16:5–6; 17:6; 18:20, 24; 19:2; 20:4, 6).

[image error]

 

 

“THE KINGS” OF “THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” (9)

[image error]PMW 2020-004 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

We have been through eight installments of a study on “the kings of the earth” as found in Revelation, particularly in Rev. 17:18, which is a stumbling block for some who are considering preterism. We are now ready to consider:

Not surprisingly, basileus is a common word in the NT occurring 115 times (thirty-eight of these apply to Christ). We discover eighteen of those appearances in Rev (1:5; 6:15; 9:11; 10:11; 15:3; 16:12, 14; 17:2, 9, 12, 14, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:16, 18, 19; 21:24). Within Rev it appears in the phrase “kings of the earth” ten times. In the NT our full phrase occurs only two times outside of Rev: Mt 17:25 and Ac 4:26. The word basileuō (“to reign”) occurs twenty-one times, with six of those in Rev (5:10; 11:15, 17; 19:6; 20:4, 6; 22:5).

The meaning of basileus

The word “king” (basileus and cognates) generally represents “one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm” (BAGD 169). But it can apply to a political ruler who is not formally a basileus, such as Herod Antipas (Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14) who was technically a tetrarch (Mt 14:1; Ant. 17:8:1 [188]). Archelaus who was an ethnarch (Jos., Life 1 [5]; Ant. 17:11:4 [317]; 18:2:1 [116–19]; J.W. 2:9:1 [167]), though he is not called a basileus in the NT, is said to “reign” (basileuō) (Mt 2:22). But because of his high political power, Josephus calls him a “king” (basileus) (Ant 17:8:2 [194]; 17:11:2 [304]; etc.).

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

Basileus can even apply to the Roman emperor (Jn 19:12, 15; J.W. 3:8:3 §35]; 4:10:3 §596; 5:13:6 §563), though he is formally a Princeps and not a king. In fact, Josephus notes that the self-appointed leaders of the Jewish revolutionaries in the Jewish War deemed themselves “kings” (J.W. 2:4:2-3 §57-65; 2:17:8-10 §278–84; 4:9:4 §510; cp. Ant. 17:10:6 §273–76; 17:10:7 §278–85; cp. Tacitus, Hist. 5:9). Carrington (277) points out that the word basileus can be applied even to wealthy persons, as in Horace. So the term can refer not only to the legal head of state but “by extension, a head or representative of a group, one who reigns or presides at an event” (TLNT 1:256).

Specific application of Basileus in Revelation

John appears to use the phrase “kings of the earth” (1:5) to represent Israel’s religious authorities. According to Josephus, Israel’s highest authorities include: “the high priests [archiereis], and the men of power [dunatoi], and those of the greatest eminence [gnōrimōtaton] in the city” (J.W. 2:14:8 §301). Elsewhere he associates with the high priests various men he calls “men of power [hoi dunatoi]” (J.W. 2:15:3 §318; 2:16:2 §337; 2:17:5 §422; 2:17:6 §428; 2:22:1 §648), “the sandherin [boulē, council]” (J.W. 2:15:6 §331), “the principal men [gnōrimōn]” (J.W. 2:17:2 §410), the “nobility [eugenōn]” (J.W. 6:2:2 §114). In fact, according to Neusner (DJBP 501) “the chief priests appear to have been, in effect, the ruling aristocracy of Judea … under Herod and the Roman governors.” After all, “the Jews were a nation dedicated to religion and ruled by priests. The essence of their nation lay in the Temple in Jerusalem” (Goodman 1987:30). McLaren (1991: 93) notes that “‘the chief priests’ are portrayed as being central to all Jewish [political and judicial] initiatives.”

Evans (2005: 433) points out that “after the collapse of the Davidic dynasty, the high priest was often the highest Jewish authority” (cf. 2Macc 5:5–7). He continues: “After the successful Maccabean revolt, the Hasmonean family not only serve as high priests, thus usurping the Zadokite succession, but even regarded themselves as kings” (cf. Jos. J.W. 1:3:1 §70; Ant. 13:11:1 §301; 14:12:1 §320; b. Sanh. 107b). Josephus observes that when Pompey conquered Jerusalem for Rome he “restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, and made him governor of the nation, but forbade him to wear a diadem” (Ant. 20:10:4 §244). We should also understand that there was a “large number of potential and former high priests” in first-century Israel which probably “explains the use of the term ‘chief priests’ in Josephus and the New Testament,” which we see in Mk 14–15; Mt 21:26–27; Lk 22–23; Jn 19; Ac 4–5; Ant. 2:1:1 §6, 20:8:8 §181; 20:9:2 §207; J.W. 2: 12:6 §243; 2:14:8 §301; 2:15:3–5 §318–36; 4:5:2 §315; 6:2:2 §114) (Wardle 2010: 41).

Obviously the designation “kings of the Land” could theoretically include the actual political rulers in Israel who were associated with the emperors of Rome (Ford 290): Antipater and Hyrcanus are associated with Julius (J.W. 1:9:3 §187–203); Herod the Great with Augustus (J.W. 1:20:1 §386–400). Caligula made Agrippa I king (J.W. 2:9:6 §181); Claudius extended Agrippa’s kingdom (J.W. 211:5 §214–16); and Nero extended the kingdom of Agrippa II (J.W. 2:13:2 §252). But given John’s abundant liturgical imagery, it probably focuses on the religious rulers, the “chief priests” including the high priest (several of whom were alive at any given time and involved in Christ’s trial and death), the captain of the temple and the other high-ranking priests (Jn 19:15, 21; Mt 20:18; cp. Mt 2:4; 16:21; 21:15, 23, 45), as well as the sanhedrin (Mt 26:59//; Lk 22:66; Ac 4:15, 21; 6:12-15; 22:5) which was headed up by the presidency of the high priest (Jeremias 1969: 151). I would argue this for the following reasons:

Josephus speaks of the high priests’ political function in the first century after Herod Archelaus’ rule: “the government became an aristocracy, and the high priests were intrusted with a dominion over the nation” (Ant. 20:10:1 §251). As Horsley (1986: 53) puts it elsewhere: “the government itself was dominated by, if not composed exclusively of, high priests, other notables, and leading Pharisees.” Aristeas (82) refers to the high priest as “the ruler of the land.” In the Assumption of Moses (6:3) the Hasmonean high priests were called “kings.”

[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

Josephus states “by my mother I am of the royal blood [tou basilikou genous]; the children of [the high priest] Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king [ebasileusan, LCL: “were kings”], for a long time together” (Life 1 § 2). Elsewhere he observes that “the high priests were intrusted with a dominion over the nation” (Ant. 20:10:1 §251). He even speaks of “the royal authority [hē basileia proteron], which was a dignity formerly bestowed on those that were high priests [archiereusin], by the right of their family” geneology (Ant. 14:4:5 § 78). He cites Hecataeus (ca. 190 BC) as referring to the priests who “managed public affairs [ta koina dioikountes]” (Ag. Ap. 1:22 §188).

Hayward (1996: 21) notes that Diodorus Siculus 40:3:5 teaches “that priests rule the Jewish state.” Philo comments regarding the high priest that “the man who is consecrated to God, as his high priest, should, during the time of his exercising his office be superior to all men, not only to all private individuals, but even to all kings” (Moses 2:26 §131). Because of this, the high priest’s turban was a symbol of his authority. In the Greek version of Sir 45:12-13 we read: “a golden crown upon the mitre, / An engraving of a seal of holiness; / the glory of honour, work of might.” We read similarly in Wis 18:24: “Thy majesty was upon the diadem of his head.”

Thus, “since the Jerusalem temple exerted such a powerful influence on the Judaism of the Second Temple period, the priests who oversaw it became the religious and political power-brokers of the nation. . . . In the Second Temple period, however, the political role of the high priest began to increase in the absence of other forms of Jewish leadership” (Wardle 30). Wardle even cites Paul D. Hanson in a footnote to this statement, noting that “the decline of royal and prophetic influence in the post-exilic period may have been due in part to efforts by the Zadokite priesthood to consolidate power.” Thus, on p. 33 he states: “the high priest and priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem stepped in to fill the v oid left by the absence of king and prophet, a situation which led to Josephus’ assertion that the high priest was the de facto ruler of the country.” When Josephus speaks of Judea as a “theocracy” (Ag. Ap. 2:17 §164–65; cp. Ant. 11:4:8 §111) he means a hierocracy. Some call this a “priestly monarchy.”

In fact, the NT can even speak of the Pharisee Nicodemus as a “ruler [archōn] of the Jews” (Jn 3:1). Peter (Ac 4:8) and Paul (Ac 13:27) also speak of Israel’s religious leaders as “rulers.” Paul himself applies Ex 22:28 to the high priest after inadvertently rebuked him, apologizing by stating: “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people’” (Ac 23:5). Elsewhere the NT refers to other persons as “rulers” who are not technically “kings” (Lk 23:13, 35; Jn 7:26, 48; 12:42; Ac 4:5, 8; 13:27).

For our purposes we should note that “the Temple and high priesthood were the central and dominating political-economic institutions of ancient Judea, their religious dimension inseparable from their political-economic function” (Horsley 1995: 139). In fact, these are so concerned about Christ and his influence that they deliver him up to the Romans in order to protect “our place [authoritative position] and our nation” (Jn 11:48; cp. Mt 26:14–15, 47, 57-68; 27:1-2, 20-25, 41-43, 62-66). “The Temple hierarchy leading the Sanhedrin brings about Jesus’ death, in that they are the persons who hand him over to the Romans” (Witherington 1998: 200). Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin was conducted in the high priest’s aulē (court yard), or palace (Mt 26:58, 69). They exercise their authority by pressuring the Roman procurator Pilate to condemn Christ even as they affirm their loyalty to Rome (Jn 19:6, 12, 15).

I would point out that several high priests can be alive at one time, in that “with the High Priests constantly changing, there was always a considerable number of them no longer in office. These too nevertheless occupied an important and influential position” (Schürer, History 2:232). This was because “the office conferred on its bearer an indelible stamp in virtue of which he retained, even in retirement, a large part of the rights and duties belonging to the officiating High Priests, including of course the title, archiereus” (Schürer, History 2:233). As the Mishnah (m. Hor. 3:4) notes: “a High Priest in office differs from a former High Priest only in regard to the bullock offered on the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of the Ephah….”

The opposition to Christ and his followers arose from the religious authorities in Israel. In fact, as Klink (2008:112) notes: “it is likely that the tension had existed from the very beginning of the Christian movement.” Alexander (in Dunn 1992, 19) observes that “opposition ranged from central authorities in Jerusalem (the High Priest and the Sanhedrin) to leaders of the local synagogues. It extended from Palestine (both Galilee and Jerusalem) to the Diaspora (e.g., Asia Minor and Achaea). It began in the time of Jesus himself and continued unabated in the period after the crucifixion.” Wenham (1997:149–78) and Robinson (1985:81–86) agree. We see this even in Scripture in the example of Paul (Ac 9:1–2; 22:5; 26:10).

Later on in the commentary (see 16:13; 19:20; 20:10; cp. 13:11) I will argue that the “false prophet,” aka the “beast coming up out of the Land,” highlights the high priestly office particularly. This differs slightly from the denotation of the “kings of the earth” which includes the high priest along with other members of the Sanhedrin and perhaps other prominent religious leaders.

[image error]

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” AND “THE EARTH” (8)

[image error]PMW 2020-003 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief study-within-a-study. I am focusing on the little word with a big mean: the word “land” or gē in Greek.

The use of Gē in the NT

In a number of places in the NT this word speaks either of the Promised Land as a whole, or some portion of it. We may find some of the more obvious uses in such phrases as “the land of Judah” (Mt 2:6), “the land of Judea” (Jn 3:22), “the land of Israel” (Mt 2:20, 21), “the land of Zebulun” (Mt 4:15), “the land of Naphtali” (Mt 4:15), and “the land of the Jews” (Ac 10:39). Thus, upon purely lexical considerations, the term can be understood as designating the Promised Land so that tēs gēs becomes “a Semitism translating hā’ āre (= Palestine)” (Van De Water 255).

As noted above John is expanding on Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, which he himself heard (Mt 24:1). That being so, the Lord’s words will necessarily exert an influence on Rev. In that prophecy Jesus’ focus is on the destruction of the temple (Lk 21:5–6) and God’s wrath upon Jerusalem and Judea (21:20–24). Therefore, he warns regarding those in the Land: “Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land [epi tēs gēs], and wrath to this people” (21:23). This clearly refers to the Land of Israel — even though surrounding appearances of gē have a different referent, the whole world: 21:25 contrasts the heavenly bodies with the earth; 21:33 speaks of the earth passing away; and probably 21:35.

With the coming of the new covenant in Christ and his fulfilling of the OT promises, the NT de-emphasizes the Land (Davies 1974:266–74; Walker 1996:116–19, 222; Robertson 2000: 25–31). In fact, Jesus himself takes its place in the hopes and aspirations of God’s people (see Burge 2010). As we will see, Rev’s frequent references to the judgment on hē gē helps illustrate the new covenant’s removal of the Land’s significance for God’s people. In Rev It becomes (ironically!) the sphere of judgment and woe rather than the place of rest and hope.

The use of Gē in Revelation

I am arguing that in Rev an important and frequent meaning of hē gē is “the Land.” Of course, like in all other books of Scripture, Rev can use the word in any of its several senses. But I believe that most appearances refer to the Land for the reasons to follow. Stuart (2:154; cp. 161) states that gēs like eretz “is more or less extensive, as the nature of the context demands. Here [at 6:4], not the whole earth, but the land of Palestine is especially denoted.”

[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

Now consider:

First, redemptive-history’s 2000 year-old focus on the Land (beginning with Abraham, Ge 12) which dominates the 1500 years of old covenant revelation (beginning with Moses) when coupled with John’s abundant use of the OT as his major image source. This suggests that John himself could be referring to this fundamental reality of biblical revelation, especially in that: Second, John’s intentionally Hebraic presentation which mimics the old covenant prophets who frequently focused on Israel and her land-promises to explain her banishment from it. When we compare Rev with John’s Gospel, we see that John can write Greek in a more polished and acceptable form. Something is going on in Rev to account for his solecisms. We should recall that John was called to labor among “the circumcised” (Gal 2:9) which would have kept alive his dealing with the matter of the Land.

Third, his clear and repeated near-term expectations (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10) introducing this earth-shaking, universe-collapsing prophecies. Since he expects something fast approaching to fulfill his prophecies, this requires events of dramatic historical consequences. This would fit with the collapse of the 1500 years of formal, centralized Jewish sacrificial worship, first by means of a tabernacle, then for the remaining 1000 years in a temple. When we look in the first century we can find nothing else on that order of magnitude for redemptive-history. In fact, with the coming of Jesus as the center point of redemptive history and the hinge of the covenant leading to the firm establishment of the new covenant, we should expect his interest in the question of the Land as the place where the old covenant people and worship operated.

Fourth, Rev reaches its climax in the appearing of “new Jerusalem” (21:2, 9). In that this is a “new” reality it must be replacing the old, original, historical Jerusalem in the Land (cp. Gal 4:25–31; Heb 12:22–24). Jerusalem and the Land dominate the old covenant experience as the historical setting of the promises of God. Fifth, as I will show at 1:7 (see commentary below) John’s theme is Christ’s (metaphorical) judgment-coming against Israel. In his Olivet Discourse warning of this same event (cp. Rev 1:7 with Mt 24:30), he urges his followers to depart Judea as hastily as possible (Mt 24:16–19).

Malina (122) argues similarly from a social-science perspective:

The Greek word gē may mean either “land,” “earth,” “territory” or the like. The meaning of the word depends on the social system and point of view of the speaker. Since the prophet John is of Israelite background, concerned with a cosmic lord called Jesus Messiah (an exclusively Israelite category), uses Israelite scripture for his groups found in Israelite enclaves (whose presence is indicated by references in the letters to Smyrna and Philadelpia [2:9; 3:9]), and looks to the emergence of a new Jerusalem (capital of Judea), there is little reason to expect any concern with non-Israelites.

Later he writes regarding Rev 8:5: “As we have repeatedly indicated, there simply is no solid reason for [translating gē as “earth”]. The focus is the house of Israel, specifically Judea” (Malina 122).

All of this explains a statistical peculiarity regarding Rev: the word gē occurs eighty-two times in Rev, almost a full third of the times it appears in the entire NT (250 x). The translation “the Land” should appear more frequently than it does in most commentaries.

By way of quick sampling, we should note some rather obvious “Land” uses of gē in the following Rev passages. At 3:10 the whole world is contrasted to the Land when it speaks of “the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.” When God holds back the “four winds of the earth” (7:1) it is so he can seal the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel (7:3–4). The 144,000 are immediately contrasted to an uncountable multitude from “every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (7:9). These 144,000 are later said to have been “purchased from the earth” (14:3). This reflects the historical reality of Christianity beginning in Israel where it was initially made up almost entirely of Jews. The angel preaches the gospel “to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people” (14:6). The widely recognized image of Israel as a vine appears in 14:19 where the sickle gathers “the clusters from the vine of the earth.”

[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

These appearances of gē represent the more obvious evidence for its application to the Land. The fuller commentary will demonstrate the contextual demands for an even wider use of gē. In the following Table I will sort out the uses of gē in Rev as I understand it. I would note that the term appears eighty-two times in Rev with 64% speaking of the Land.

[image error]

In the commentary I will demonstrate the dramatic significance of the translation “the Land” for hē gē. Though “the Land” itself is significant, its significance intensifies when it appears in the two most important phrases involving it: “the kings of the earth” (1:5; 6:15; 17:2, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:19; 21:24) and “those who dwell [katoikeō] on the earth [epi tēs gē]” (3:10; 6:10; 8:13; 11:10; 13:8, 12, 14; 17:2, 8).

At 1:7 Beale (197) disputes this interpretation arguing that “gē (“earth, land”) cannot be a limited reference to the land of Israel but has a universal denotation.” Though here he does so at 1:7 because of that verse’s associating the land with “all the tribes,” he never allows this word to signify simply the Land of Israel anywhere in Rev. I would point out, though, that some of Beale’s own methods allow this use and can be used to counter his argument. For instance, regarding Rev 3:9 Beale (94) notes that “promises given to Israel, who are prophesied to be persecuted by the nations, are now ironically applied to and understood to be fulfilled in Gentile believers persecuted by Israel.”

As I argue above this ironic re-application of prophecy can also explain the ironic re-application of the OT phrase “the kings of the earth” in order to refer to Israel’s high-priestly aristocracy along the lines of John’s method at 3:9. This would be an especially significant rhetorical irony since he is focusing on Israel whose synagogue is no longer “the synagogue of the Lord” (LXX: Nu 16:3; 20:4; 31:16; cf. Pss Sol 17:18; cp. Philo, Post. 19 §67) but a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9) and whose “holy city” (11:2) Jerusalem becomes “mystically . . . Sodom and Egypt” (11:8).

Furthermore, Beale (91) argues along with Vanhoye and Vogelgesang and many others for John’s practice of “universalization.” By this method John “has a tendency to apply to the world what the OT applied only to Israel or to other entities.” I agree. But I would argue that John can also employ an opposite method in Rev, which we might call “localization.” That is, since John’s focus is on Christ’s judgment of Israel (cf. 1:7), he can re-orient global judgment language and apply it to Israel as a local reality. After all, “John creatively reworks the OT and changes its application” (Beale 92). If he can universalize some passages and prophetic concepts, why may he not also localize other passages and prophetic concepts? Thus, John may engage in more than one form of “inverted or ironic use,” “polemical irony,” and “retributive ironies” as a “reversal phenomenon” (Beale 92–93).

Gē in scholarly opinion

My argument for gē often referring to “the Land” in Rev is held by a number of commentators. The following do not necessarily interpret the word in as many Rev contexts as I do (most even omitting our text, 1:5). But I would note that this interpretive approach is presented in several contexts in Rev by: Clarke (6:971, 993, 996), Stuart (2:154, 161, 165, 236), Desprez (11–16, 36), Russell (8, 77, 380, 410, 494),Terry (379, 435), Charles (1:298–90), Carrington (131, 138, 277, 291), Beagley (43ff, 52, 85, 68), Ford (2, 3, 180, 213), Chilton (198, 242, 282), Leonard (96–97), Barker (237), Van de water (245–61), Malina (61, 102, 122–23, 144), and Smolarz (240; 273).

As you might expect, this is to be continued. Of the making of blog studies, there is no end.

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” AND “THE EARTH” (7)

[image error]PMW 2020-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I open this phase of my study of Revelation’s “kings of the earth,” I will give note that to this point I have not proven that Rev in fact employs “kings of the earth” to refer to the religious leaders of Israel. Yet I have paved the road that travels in that direction. Of course, the true test of this thesis will come only through a careful consideration of Rev’s argumentative flow and contextual exegesis. But this is not the entire argument; let us move a little further in our consideration.

Let us now consider a key term: the Greek word gē.

To understand the identity of these “kings” we need to reflect on the two key components in their designation: they are “kings” who operate over “the earth.” In the first place I will note that John presents them: as kings of the earth. Then I will focus on their title as “kings.” The phrase “the ruler of the kings of the earth” is: ho archōn tōn basileōn tēs gēs. The two words meriting our attention are: basileōn (“kings”) and gēs (“earth”).

1. The Meaning of Gē

Gē in the OT. According BAGD (196) gē carries several connotations requiring different translations: (1) “Surface of the earth as the habitation of humanity, earth.” (2) “Inhabitants of the earth, people, humanity.” (3) “Portions or regions of the earth, region, country.” (4) “Dry land as opposed to sea, land.” (5) “Earth-like surface that forms the bottom of a body of water, ground, bottom.” (6) “Earth w. ref. to limited areas and the material that forms its surface,” including the translations: ground, soil, or earth.

[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

I believe that the proper connotation of the term in John’s phrase is the third one: “region, country.” NICNTT (1:517) notes of this use: “The meaning ‘land,’ as area controlled by a single state, emerged by analogy alongside these natural meanings.” That is, the foundational connotations of the term signify various aspects of the created realm or mankind itself, whereas this extended use is a socio-political construct that shifts with the fortunes of peoples and nations.

More particularly for our present purpose, I would note that the particular region in view is the holy land, the Land of Israel. This is significant in that the Hebraic character of Rev suggests quite readily this translation in that “the Holy Land is a central category in Judaism” (DJBP 323). Indeed, “it became central to their national identity that their place was in the land” (Sandy 2002: 46). According to TDNT (1:677): gē frequently appears in texts speaking of “the land promised to Abraham” (e.g., Ge 12:1; Ac 7:3; Heb 11:9).

In fact, regarding its OT usage AB (4:144, 145) observes that “in the majority of contexts, ‘land’ is identified as the land to which Israel has a claim” noting that it is often called an “inheritance” from God (Nu 34:2, 29; 36:2; Dt 3:28; 4:21; 15:4; 19:14; 25:19; 31:7; 1Sa 26:19; 2Sa 14:16; 1Ki 8:36; 1Ch 16:18; Ps 68:9; 79:1; 105:11; Jer 2:7; 3:18; cp. Ac 13:19) and that it also appears as the “land of possession” (Ex 6:8; Lev 14:34; Nu 33:53; Dt 1:21; 2:12; 4:22; Jos 1:6; 12:7; Eze 33:24; Am 2:10).

Thus, it represents “the land of Israel” (cf. 1Sa 13:19; Eze 40:2; 47:18; 1Ch 22:2; 2Ch 2:16; 34:7), “the Lord’s land” (Isa 14:2; Jos 22:19; Hos 9:3), “My land” (2Ch 7:20; Isa 14:25; Jer 2:7; Eze 36:5; 38:16; Jer 16:18; Joel 1:6; 3:2; 4:2), “His land” (Dt 32;43; Isa 36:18; Eze 36:20; Joel 2:18, the land the Lord swore to the fathers (Dt 1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 8:1; 10:11; 11:9; 19:8; 26:3; 30:20; 31:7, 23). In Zec 2:12 and 2 Macc 1:7 it is found in the phrase “holy land.” Elsewhere it is called “holy” (Ps 78:54; Is 57:13). Therefore, God grants it a special status requiring protective legislation (Lev 25:23ff).

This particularly abundant use of gē is significant in that the land promise to Israel is central to God’s covenant with her (e.g., Ge 12:1–7; Ex 3:7–18; 6:2–8). The Land is one of the three realia dominating her devotion: the Land, Jerusalem, and the temple. As NIDOTTE (1:522) puts it: “the land on which Israel lived forms one of the primary theological and ethnic foci of the faith of Israel and of the OT scriptures” (cp. ISBE2 3:71). When God establishes Israel as a nation, her founding documents elevate the Land as the first of these great hopes: “In terms of the Hexateuch there is probably no more important idea than that expressed in terms of the land promised and later granted by Yahweh.” In fact, “the motif of the Promised Land is a major pattern in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua” (DBI 665), which record the historical foundations of Israel as a people, society, and nation. The Land is also “of central importance to all of the” writing prophets” (AB 4:149).

Indeed, “the prominence of the Land of Israel in the Bible is the result of deep religious conviction, pervading all sacred Jewish literature,” so that “it is hardly an exaggeration to assert that Zion is the central theme of the Bible. From the moment that God instructed Abraham ‘to go forth to the land which I will show you,’ the Holy Land became the subject along with the people of Israel” (Halkin 1961: 18). Indeed, “it became central to their national identity that their place was in the land” (Sandy 2002: 46). “The Jews’ very name (Ioudaioi) linked them to the land (Ioudaia) from which they could be thought to derive” (J. Barclay 1996: 422).

Because it is God’s gift to Israel the Bible speaks of it in glowing terms. It is called “an exceedingly good land” (Nu 14:7), “a pleasant land, / The most beautiful inheritance of the nations” (Jer 3:19), “a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey; a land where you shall eat food without scarcity, in which you shall not lack anything; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you can dig copper” (Dt 8:8–9). It is “a land for which the Lord your God cares; the eyes of the Lord your God are always on it, from the beginning even to the end of the year” (Dt 11:12). It is “his land, / With the choice things of heaven” (Dt 33:13).

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Amaru (1980–81: 202, 205) well observes:

“A perusal, let alone a close reading, of either the Masoretic or Septuagint texts of Torah and Prophets immediately reveals the prominence of land theology in classical Jewish thought…. In fact, the idea of covenanted land is so dominant therein that one might describe it as the major theme of the patriarchal introduction to the Biblical history of Israel.”

“Throughout the Biblical narrative of the patriarchal period the land is a central focus for promising and for describing God’s relationship to the forefathers and their descendants. . ; never… is the covenant presented without some reference to the land promise.”

In Hosea, for instance, the Hebrew equivalent (‘r ) occurs nineteen times, with ten of those meaning “‘land’ in the sense of a dwelling place for a single people,” so that “the meaning of ‘land’ is that area in which Israel lived” (Wolff 51).

Significantly, “the land theme is so ubiquitous that it may have greater claim to be the central motif in the OT than any other, including ‘covenant,’” for it is “the tangible token of God’s faithfulness, the concrete expression of the covenant relationship, and the goal of Israel’s wanderings where the people will find rest” (AB 4:146, 147). The hope of Israel was strongly tied to the Land (cf. Ex 20:12; Ps 25:13; 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34; Isa 49:8; 57:13; 60:21; Eze 40; 45).

As a result, “one cannot exaggerate how important the image of land was to the OT mind and heart,” so that “next to God himself, the longing for land seems to dominate all others” being “a virtual obsessions with the patriarchs” (DBI 487). “Jewish life and experience centred on the territorial reality of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem its capital, on the Temple in its midst and the people living in the Land and in Jerusalem” (Safrai and Stern 1976: 1:186).

Consequently, in the extra-biblical sources the devout Jew deems Israel to be the “holy land” (Wis 12:3; 2Mac 1:7; 3Mac 3:735; 2 Bar 65:9, 10; 71:1; Philo, Embassy 30 §205; 42 §330; Heir 40 §293; Sib. Or. 3:266ff; 5:281; Wis 12:3). He also may refer to it as the “goodly land” (Tob. 14:4-5; Jub 13:2, 6; 1 En 89:4); “the great land of Judea” (Sib. Or. 5:328); “delightful Judea” which is “your [God’s] land” (Sib. Or. 5:263, 265); “the land most precious of all to you [God]” (Wisd 12:7).

Indeed, because of its centrality to Jewish hopes and aspirations “fully 30 percent of the Mishnah prescribes guidance which can only be practiced within the land” (Burge 2010:12). Two examples from rabbinic literature illustrate the Jewish emphasis on the land. According to m. Kel 1:6–9, there are “ten degrees of holiness” and “the land of Israel is holier than any other land.” R. Akiba expresses the deep devotion to the land: “he who is buried in lands other than the Holy Land is as though he were buried in Babylonia” (ARN 26). We could cite scores of such statements in ancient rabbinic literature.

Believe it or not, I have more to say on this important topic. But this will have to await my next installment.

[image error]

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” AND JOHN’S METHOD (6)

[image error]PMW 2020-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my sixth installment of a study on the phrase “the kings of the earth’ in Revelation. This important designation needs to be understood properly in order to grasp the meaning of Revelation’s judgments. In this study I will consider John’sInterpretive Method.

I have already pointed out the broad scholarly consensus that John draws very largely from the OT as his primary source. Now I would like to briefly focus on how he employs his OT sources. This will be abundantly illustrated in the commentary, but here I will summarize two particular literary methods he uses. These are important for identifying the “kings of the earth.” The two methods upon which I will focus are: scriptural re-application and rhetorical irony.

Scriptural Re-application

Understanding how John employs the OT is important in that even though “allusions and echoes are found in almost every verse of the book” he “seldom quotes the OT directly” and has “no formal quotations” whatsoever (Beale and Carson 2007:1081, 1082). The reason he never formally cites the OT appears to be that he is presenting his work as a prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10), in which he is taking up the prophetic mantle and intentionally mimicking OT prophetic language as he speaks of Israel’s coming judgment. Mazzaferri (379) is surely correct in noting that John “archaises his style to mimic classical biblical Hebrew” in order to reinforce his identity “as a prophet in classical OT style.”

[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

John is not so much presenting fulfillments of OT prophecies — this is why he never directly cites them. Rather he is adapting them for and re-applying them to new circumstances. Though Beale and Carson (2007:1087) argue that “prophecies from the OT are fulfilled in Revelation” they admit that the various OT prophecies “may be fulfilled in various ways” including their being subjected to “creative changes” (1085) and even being “creatively reworked and applied.” Indeed, “there is unanimous consensus that John uses the OT with a high degree of liberty and creativity” (Beale 81).

Regarding John’s tendency to adaptation, Mulholland (1990:342) well notes:

The reality of his vision, therefore, was both experienced and conveyed through the matrix of language, myths, and symbols that were drawn primarily from the image pool of the Old Testament and intertestamental Judaism. . . . Frequently the language, images, and even literary forms are ‘bent out of shape’ in the service of an experience that transcends the limits of the old frames of reference. The reality that John experienced was only shadowed or intimated by much of his prevailing image pool. Thus John combined old images and symbols in new ways in order to express the depths of the reality that he experienced. The old images, myths, and symbols have become flexible and polyvalent in the service of a multifaceted visionary experience. Yet they have retained enough of their meaning to be significant aids in understanding what John is conveying.

As Corsini (88, 104) states of John, “his usual method” is to “take a passage in its original meaning, and then deepen it, altering it as he uses it.”

Consequently, Rev’s OT allusions frequently refer to something other than that of which the prophets originally spoke. For instance, both “Egypt” and “Babylon” have concrete historical meanings in the OT. Yet John uses these OT villains in Rev, maintaining their evil character while reapplying their historical meaning. Thus, Jerusalem, the placed where the Lord was crucified is mystically called “Egypt” in 11:8. In the commentary I will argue that Babylon also represents Jerusalem, in that she appears in high-priestly attire in 17:4–5 and is distinguished from “the cities of the nations” in 16:19. This suggests that John may even use other OT personnel and nations in a new, dramatic way. It allows that his references to the “kings of the earth” may have a very different meaning than its use in the OT. Indeed, I am arguing that he actually applies this phrase to Israel’s religious aristocracy rather than to the kings of the Gentile nations.

This creative use of the OT allows John to powerfully employ a second literary device: rhetorical irony.

Rhetorical irony

Irony is an inescapable and widely recognized factor in Rev’s drama. John engages in “remarkable symbolic transformations” in that he “completely reverses the value of certain symbols of power and conquest by transforming them into images of suffering and weakness” (Barr 1984:41). The most dramatic example of this is the slain Lamb presented as the ultimate victor (5:6, 12; 17:14). Along these lines we also see robes being washed and made white in blood (7:14), Christians overcoming through the blood of the Lamb (12:11), and being blessed by dying (14:13). Other transformations include the angel of the church of Sardis having “a name that you are alive, but you are dead” (3:1), a lion that appears as a lamb (5:5), men asking mountains and rocks to fall on them to hide them (6:16a), a lamb that exercises wrath (6:16b), another lamb that speaks as a dragon (13:11), and much, much more.

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

Rev’s irony can also involve a surprising re-application of OT texts or phrases that originally applied to one thing, but now apply to the opposite. For instance, Beale and Carson (2007: 1087) note regarding Rev 3:9 that “promises given to Israel, who are prophesied to be persecuted by the nations, are now ironically applied to and understood to be fulfilled in Gentile believers persecuted by Israel.” Of this passage Beale (94) writes that it:

refers to Isaianic prophecies that the Gentiles will come and bow down before Israel and recognize Israel as God’s chosen people (Isa. 45:14; 49:23; 60:14). This Jewish hope has been turned upside down. Now it is the Jewish persecutors of Christians whom God will make to submit to the church. This reversal of Isaiah’s language is probably a conscious attempt to express the irony that the submission that unbelieving ethnic Jews hoped to receive from Gentiles, they themselves will be forced to render to the church. John concludes that ethnic Jews have become like unbelieving Gentiles because of their rejection of Christ and persecution of Christians.

Many commentators agree with such an analysis of 3:9 (e.g., Hort 35; Swete 55; Caird 53; Kistemaker 161; Smalley 91; Osborne 191).

This ironic reversal does not simply occur at 3:9, for Beale (95) speaks of several of John’s OT allusions as often involving “retributive ironies” that turn the tables on the enemies of God’s people. He sees such polemical irony at work in numerous passages in Rev, including 12:4, 9 (cf. Da 8:10), 5:6–7 (cf. Da 7:7ff), 13:7–8 (cf. Da 7:14), 13:14 (cf. Ex 3:14). This practice is even followed by the Essenes at Qumran who separate themselves from Israel and her corrupt priestly establishment. For instance, Provan (93) notes that in 4QpNah the writer “has accommodated the whole test of Nahum to Jerusalem (‘Nineveh’), indicating the way in which even texts that did not originally concern faithless Israel could be read as if they did.”

This practice is important in that often in the LXX the phrase “kings of the earth” refers to leaders of Gentile peoples beyond Israel’s borders (1Ki 4:34; 10:23; 2Ch 9:23; Ps 148:11; Isa 24:21; Lam 4:12). In fact, John’s primary source here is Ps 89:27: “I also shall make him My first-born, / The highest of the kings of the earth.” I am suggesting that John adopts this phrase that is used in the OT of God’s and Israel’s Gentile enemies and turns it — by ironic re-application — against the first-century Jews, applying this evil image to their own religious leaders.

This irony appears in Lam 4:12 which mentions the “kings of the earth” in an especially relevant way: “The kings of the earth did not believe, / Nor did any of the inhabitants of the world, / That the adversary and the enemy / Could enter the gates of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was deemed impregnable by the kings of the earth, but they besieged and conquered it. In Rev John will be re-casting these “kings of the earth” as Jewish religious authorities who will witness the final destruction of Jerusalem.

When John employs ironic reversal he is following the example of the OT prophets. For instance, in Isa 1:10 Isaiah writes: “Hear the word of the Lord, / You rulers of Sodom; / Give ear to the instruction of our God, / You people of Gomorrah.” Isaiah does this because rebellious Israel displays their sin like Sodom (Isa 3:9; cp. Eze 16:49). We see this in Jesus’ own denunciation of Jewish cities when he compares them with Sodom (Mt 10:15; 11:23). In fact, this re-application of “the kings of the earth” follows the apostolic church’s practice (which includes John himself, Ac 4:13, 19) of ironic re-application of Ps 2. In Acts 4:26–27 “the kings of the earth” include “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” (Ac 4:26–27) (see discussion of Ac 4 below).

Interestingly, throughout his Gospel John repeatedly records Jesus being called the “King of the Jews” (18:33, 39; 18:33, 39;19:3, 14, 19, 21) or “the King of Israel” (Jn 1:49; 12:13). When Pilate offers to release him as “the King of the Jews” (Jn 19:14), the Jews vehemently reject that offer declaring that they want no king but Caesar (Jn 19:12, 15). Rev will show how her religious aristocracy sold out to Caesar in rejecting their true Messiah (see discussion in Rev 13:11ff and Rev 17:5ff). Though Israel rejects Christ in deference to Caesar, Jesus ironically becomes the ruler of the “kings of the earth,” the leaders of Israel. John makes this very point here at 1:5 in his introduction. Indeed, Christ is even Caesar’s ruler in that he is the “King of kings” (17;14; 19:16).

I will continue this study in my next installment. Stay tuned!

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” INDICATORS (5)

[image error]PMW 2019-106 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I open the fifth study of my analysis of “the kings of the earth” in Revelation, I now turn to John’s:

Hebraic Grammar

I will also note in my commentary’s Introduction the widely-known fact of John’s distinctive, quite Hebraic grammar and syntax. This feature of Rev is so striking that some commentators even develop a special grammar in their introductions (Charles 1:cvii–clix; Aune clx-ccxi), while other scholars have written whole works on the subject (Mussies 1971; S. Thompson 1985).

What is more, John appears to do this for dramatic effect. Beale and Carson (2007:1087) note that his Hebraic grammar ‘howlers’ are “deliberate attempts to express Semitisms and septuagintalisms in his Greek, the closest analogy being that of the LXX translations.” Thus, the whole original experience in reading and hearing Rev is strongly Judaic.

Key Indicators

In such an OT-oriented, Jewish-sounding book we also discover abundant Jewish imagery and even direct statements against the Jews. For instance, two of the seven letters highlight strong opposition to churches from local Jewish synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia. In these two letters Jesus charges the Jews with blasphemy and lying about their claim to be true Jews, while deriding them as “synagogues of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). Interestingly, these are the only two churches that receive no rebuke (contra 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, 4, 15–16).

[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

Temple imagery and ritual worship appear abundantly throughout Rev (see: Paulien 1995; Stevenson). For example, in Rev we see temple (7:15; 11:1, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5, 8; 16:17), incense (5:8; 8:3; 18:13), priestly figures (1:13; 15:6), altar (6:9; 9:3, 5; 9:13; 11:1; 14:18; 16:7), slain lamb (5:6, 12; 13:8), golden bowls (5:8, 15:7), worship (4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 15:4), singing (5:9, 11–12; 14:2; 15:3; 19:6), etc.

Edersheim (1948:141–42) expresses this forcefully: “Indeed, the Apocalypse, as a whole, may be likened to the Temple services in its mingling of prophetic services with worship and praise. But it is specially remarkable, that the Temple-references with which the Book of Revelation abounds are generally to minutiae, which a writer who had not been as familiar with such details, as only personal contact and engagement with them could have rendered him, would scarcely have been noticed, certainly not employed as part of his imagery.”

Not only so but Rev frequently alludes to Jesus’ Olivet Discourse (Mt 24; Mk 13; Lk 21) which is a prophecy against the temple (Mt 23:38–24:3) and Judea (Mt 24:16) and which is to occur in the first century (Mt 24:34//). Consider the following few samples.

In 1:7 John’s theme verse parallels Jesus’ statement at Mt 24:30. Both of these passages speak of Christ’s judgment “coming on the clouds” against “the tribes of the earth.” In all of Scripture only Rev 1:7 and Mt 24:30 merge Da 7:13 and Zec 12:10. Beale (196) comments: “Matt. 24:30 may have influenced John to use the same combination here.” Swete (10) comments that Matthew “turns the sentence precisely as John does.” In 6:1ff “the content corresponds very closely to the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Luke 21:9–36, par.” (Smalley 146; cp. Charles 1:xxxv; Kistemaker 224).

In 11:1–2 a voice directs John to measure the “temple of God” that stands in the “holy city” where the “Lord was crucified” (11:8) so that it might be “tread under foot” by the nations. This “appears to be parallel with Luke 21:24” (Beale 569). Indeed, Scott observes “it is hardly possible to escape the conclusion” that Revelation 11 is using Luke 21 (cited in Payne 1973: 616). Thus, it reflects Jesus’ warning against first-century Israel and her temple (Lk 21:24; cp. Lk 21:5–6). In 18:24 the judged harlot has within her “the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.” John draws this language from the context of Jesus’ prophecy against Jerusalem where he utters seven woes against the scribes and Pharisees which is to occur in “this generation” (Mt 23:35–36). Beale (923) notes that this language “echoes” the Olivet Discourse, at Mt 23:35, 37.

Commenting on 18:24 Swete (241) states that “it is remarkable that the same is said of Jerusalem before her fall.” The glorious goal of the book is the coming of new Jerusalem (21:2, 10) to replace the old historical Jerusalem. Smolarz (17), referring to Bauckham, notes that “he has explained that John consciously integrated various parts of his work into a literary whole. . . . The whole book is a composition which is directed to its climax in 17:1–19:10 and 21:99—22:9; the destruction of the harlot Babylon and the replacement by the bride of the Lamb, the new Jerusalem.” These and numerous other allusions reflect a strong concern with historic, first-century Israel.

Eschatological Themes: Postmillennialism and Preterism (7 downloadable mp3s)

These lectures cover themes important for understanding the relationship of preterism and postmillennialism. The issues covered are not only important but fascinating as you come to realize better and better that the looming of AD 70 had an enormous influence on the New Testament.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

All of these Judaic/Hebraic tendencies within Rev would fit well with the make-up of the seven churches. As Lambrecht (in Bieringer 2001: 279n) notes: “most probably the majority of Christians in the churches of Revelation were Jewish Christians who still considered themselves ‘Jews’” (cp. Keener 71). We may surmise this not only from the high concentration of Jews in Asia Minor, and from the general practice of Christians operating among the Jews (Ac 13:14; 14:1; 17:1, 10; 18:4, 19, 26; 19:8), but also from the fact that in letters to two of Rev’s churches the title of “Jew” is denied to racial Jews and claimed by the churches (2:9; 3:9).

Thus, if we interpret the “kings of the earth” as representing Israel’s religious authorities, it would fit perfectly within both the strong NT redemptive-historical setting of transitioning from old to new covenant, as well as in Rev’s Judaic drama of the Slain Lamb which leads to a “new” Jerusalem. The early apostolic preaching repeatedly blames the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion (Ac 2:22-23, 36; 3:12–14; 4:10; 5:24, 28–30; 10:39). But the primary focus of that blame falls upon Israel’s religious leaders (Mt 26:59, 66; 27:1; Mk 14:64; Lk 23:22–23; 24:20; Acts 7:52 [cp. 6:12–7:1]; 13:27–29; 1Th 2:14–15).

I will not leave you comfortless, but will return to our study in my next installment. Be warmed and filled until then!

“THE KINGS OF THE EARTH” IN THE OT (4)

[image error]PMW 2019-104 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

After a brief Christmas break, I will now return to my study on “the kings of the earth” in Revelation. At this point I will open with:

Their Specific Revelation Setting

As noted in my commentary’s Introduction, and as I have argued elsewhere on 1:7, Rev is focusing on Israel’s judgment for rejecting Christ and persecuting his followers. Because of this Israel-judgment theme, Rev’s own setting opens the possibility that these “kings of the earth” picture the Jewish religious aristocracy. I will briefly rehearse some of Rev’s Judaic tendencies focusing on three angles.

Rev is the most OT-oriented book in the entire NT. “Rev contains more references to the Old Testament than any other document in the New Testament” (Smalley 9; cp. Osborne 25). Thus, as Bauckham (1993a: x–xi) notes: its “use of the Old Testament Scriptures is an essential key to its understanding” because “it is a book designed to be read in constant intertextual relationship with the Old Testament.” OT scholar Provan (81) agrees: “That the book of Revelation as a whole has been composed in intimate conversation with the Old Testament is widely acknowledged. It is a book which can scarcely be understood at all without reference to the Old Testament texts to which it constantly and variously alludes.” In fact, “the reader unfamiliar with the OT is hard pressed to make any sense of Revelation” (Beale and Carson 2007:1088).

This will be significant for our interpretation of the “kings of the earth” for the OT serves not only as the only Bible of early Apostolic Christianity, but it was central to ancient Israel’s very life and character. The OT (the Tanakh) is first-century Israel’s canon of faith and practice which distinguishes her from the nations. It defines her in terms of her ethnic origins, distinctives, and meaning as well as her redemptive mission and purpose in history.

[image error]

Keys to the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

DJBP (642) notes of the Torah of Moses, itself the very foundation of the OT, that “when people acted rightly in conformity to the Torah, they carried out the requirements of the covenant that Israel had made with God.” This article goes on to note that “the national life found definition in scripture” and that Scripture “defined the nation’s sense of itself in the world.” Thus, the Torah particularly was “to regulate the life of all Jews,” by emphasizing the worship of one God, as well as such religio-cultural distinctives as “the honoring of the Sabbath, circumcision, ritual purity, and dietary laws” (DJBP 637).

Consequently, “in the Second Temple period, certain Jewish writings — portions of what today is known as the Hebrew Bible — were accorded a special, authoritative religious status” in that they were deemed “inspired repositories of perfect truth that derived directly from God. This understanding of ‘scripture’ is generally prevalent in the late Second Temple and subsequent Judaism” (DJBP 561). In fact, Israel’s Scripture-based life so distinguished her from the nations that it created tension with and generated strong responses from the Gentiles (cf. Tob 1:4–20; 1Macc), and even caused conflict within developing Christianity (cf., Ac 15; Gal).

We see Israel’s veneration of Scripture, for instance, in Josephus’ high estimation of Moses. He notes that Moses’ writings serve as ancient evidence of Israel’s origins as God’s special people: ”To this very day the writings left by Moses have so great a force, that even those that hate us do confess, that he who established this settlement was God, and that it was by the means of Moses, and of his virtue” (Ant. 3:15:3 §322). Elsewhere Josephus states regarding his own work Antiquities and its dependence on the OT Scriptures: “Our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally; as also, I have therein declared how we came to inhabit this country wherein we now live. Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years, and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue” (Ag. Ap. 1:1 §2).

[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

This Jewish historian also compares the Jews’ high regard for the Scriptures to other ancient people and their writings: “As to our forefathers . . . they took no less care about writing such records (for I will not say they took greater care than the others I spoke of) and that they committed that matter to their high priests and to their prophets, and that these records have been written all along down to our own times with the utmost accuracy” (Ag. Ap. 1:6 §29).

He continues: “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have) but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine. . . . It is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them” (Ag. Ap. 1:8 §28, 42–43).

To be continued. Next year (which happens to be next week)!

Merry Christmas!

[image error]