Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 62

A POSTMILL INTERVIEW (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-094 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I was recently interviewed for a documentary on postmillennialism. Here are a few of the questions and a summary of my answers. Hopefully these succinct statements will prove helpful to you!

1) How would you define Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the view of biblical eschatology that understands that Christ established the prophesied Messianic kingdom when he came to the earth in the first century. He established his kingdom then commissioned his disciples to promote it through evangelism and discipleship. Since the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, we expect his kingdom to gradually grow as history unfolds in the long run. There will be many ups-and-downs (just as in our own personal sanctification). But eventually the vast majority of men and nations will become Christians and will promote a biblical worldview that will apply all the Bible to all of life. This era of the dominance of the Christian faith will last a long period of time, after which Christ will return to end history and establish the consummate state.

2) What are the main differences between Postmillennialism and the two other main eschatological views (Premillennialism and Amillennialism)

THE fundamental difference between postmillennialism and the other two millennial views is the notion of historical optimism. That is, postmillennialism is the only system that expects the triumph of the Christian faith over men and nations in history before Christ returns. That is:

• as systems of gospel proclamation, the amills and premills are pessimistic, believing the majority of men will be lost.

• as systems of historical understanding, the amills and premills are pessimistic, believing that human culture and society will inevitably collapse, causing worsening conditions toward the end.

• as systems of Christian discipleship, the amills and premills are pessimistic, warning Christians that their Christian influence will be limited and ultimately fail.

3) If you could choose one passage of Scripture and had five minutes to present the Postmillennial perspective from that passage, what would that look like?

I wouldn’t do it. Ha! Biblical eschatology cannot be explained and defended on the basis of one proof-text, for it involves the whole of Scripture and the eternal plan of God.

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

However, if pressed for time, I might choose two texts in attempting to capture the eschatological hope of Scripture, one from the OT and one form the NT.

Isa 2:2-4 reads: 2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. 3 And many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.

Though involving much symbolism, this well captures the postmillennial hope. It notes that in (i.e., during) the “last days” God’s house (his temple, his church) will be raised above the chief mountains (i.e., world influences). The “last days” is defined in the NT as those days following the first coming of Christ (Acts 2; Heb 1) and leading up to the “last day,” when Christ returns, the resurrection occurs, and history ends. This prophecy says “in” or “during” those days, the church will be firmly established and all nations will flow into it in order to be discipled in God’s ways. This will ultimately lead to a time in which peace will prevail throughout the world, wherein men will no longer produce weapons but tools for peaceable pursuits.

Matt 28:18–20 has this sort of hope in the background and seeks the same end: 18 “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Jesus declares that he has all authority in heaven and on earth. Then he commands that his followers make disciples of “all that nations.” That is, bring them into a state of discipleship which involves baptism and teaching. Then he promises he will be with them to the end to see that this is done. This is powerful evidence that Jesus directed his church to actually disciple the nations on the basis of his universal authority and powerful presence. This does not allow for pessimism.

[image error]The Lord’s Prayer (8 mp3 sermons)

Eight part expository sermon series covering each element in the Lord’s Prayer. Very practical; very theological. Shows the glory of God, in his sovereignty as prayer underscores the victory of his kingdom and the rule of his law in history. Excellent postmillennial resource from this beloved prayer.

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

4) In the Lords Prayer we are told to pray “thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” what exactly are we asking and how is that accomplished.

This prayer is the foundation to all of our prayers. It is given as Christ’s specific instruction on how to pray. It opens with praise of God as our loving Father who is in heaven-exalted above. Then it urges us to pray for the advance of his kingdom so that his will should be done on earth after the pattern of heaven. This is not a prayer that is filled with empty platitudes, but is filled with hope in our heavenly Father’s will coming to expression in history.

This prayer is not simply for our utterance, unaccompanied by any labor. It is to promote our hope-filled action. We are to pray and do. We must recognize that the difference between “try” and “triumph” is a little “umph.”

5) Doesn’t Postmillennialism undermine the idea that Christ could return at any moment?

Yes. As does 2000 years of church history without his coming. But we have two responses to this:

(1) Christ does not tell us to expect his coming soon. In fact, he warns that no one knows when he will return (Matt. 24:36). Rather he urges us to be alert, awake, etc. That is, to be living responsibly at all times (Matt. 24:42; 25:13). We must understand that we live in the sight of God at all times, regardless of our guessing when Christ might return. And we could die at any moment and stand before him. Therefore, our sanctification is not imperiled, as is usually feared.

(2) Christ does give a few parables suggesting it may be a long time. The parable of the virgins shows that the bridegroom comes so late that the maidens fell asleep and some did not take enough oil (Matt. 25:1–13). The parable of the talents says “after a long time the master of those slaves came (Matt. 25:19). For this reason we often hear of calls to patience (Rom. 9:22), and even of challenges to Christians that he is not coming: “where is the promise of his coming” (2 Pet. 3:3–4, 9).

According to the great commission, we have a lot of work today and that is not yet done. This also suggests that the imminency doctrine is in error.

6) Does Postmillennialism deny a literal understanding of the Bible? How would you respond to Dispensationalist who claim that those who disagree with their interpretation are simply adopting an allegorical interpretation of Scripture?

The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years in 66 books. It was not written in one genre. It involves many genres, even much imagery. Who interprets all verses literally? Do we pluck out our eyes when we lust? Cut off hand? Is there going to be a seven-headed beast? A woman standing the moon with wings?

The literalism of many is selective. When they claim all OT prophecies come to literal fulfillment in the NT, they are mistaken. In Matt 12:28 Jesus says the kingdom of God has come to you. Luke 17:20–21 says “the kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, for the kingdom is in your midst.” In Acts 2:30 Peter says of the promise that God would seat one of David’s descendants on his throne “spoke of the resurrection of Christ.”

Dispensationalists are not literalist all the time. JDP says that Mal 4:5–6 dealing with the coming of Elijah is talking about John the Baptist, “not a literal Elijah.” My HSHD quotes many such examples from dispensational scholars.

Besides literalism is not a protection of orthodoxy, for the Mormons believe God has a literal body.

To be continued! Stay tuned.

CALVIN’S POSTMILLENNIALISM? (4)

[image error]PMW 2019-093 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final posting of Calvin’s exposition of the latter verses of Isaiah 19, which present a postmillennial hope.

In that day shall Israel.

Isaiah concludes the promise which he had briefly glanced at, that the Egyptians and Assyrians, as well as Israel, shall be blessed (Isa 19:24).

Isaiah concludes the promise which he had briefly glanced at, that the Egyptians and Assyrians, as well as Israel, shall be blessed (Isa 19:24).

Formerly the grace of God was in some measure confined to Israel, because with that nation only had the Lord entered into covenant. The Lord had stretched out a cord over Jacob (Deut 32:9,) as Moses speaks; and David says, “He hath not done so to any nation, and hath not made known to them his judgments.” (Psa 147:20).

In a word, the blessing of God dwelt solely in Judea, but he says that it will be shared with the Egyptians and Assyrians, under whose name he includes also the rest of the nations. He does not mention them for the purpose of shewing respect, but because they were the constant enemies of God, and appeared to be more estranged from him and farther removed from the hope of favor than all others. Accordingly, though he had formerly adopted none but the children of Abraham, he now wished to be called, without distinction,” father of all nations.” (Gen 17:7; Exo 19:5; Deu 7:6).

[image error]

Revelation, God and Man

(24 mp3 lectures by Ken Gentry)

Formal college course on the doctrines of revelation, God, and man.Opens with introduction to the study of systematic theology. Excellent material for personal study or group Bible study. Strongly Reformed and covenantal in orientation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Israel shall be the third blessing.

Some render it, Israel shall be the third I do not approve of that rendering; for the adjective being in the feminine gender, ought to be construed with the noun berachah, “blessing,” and blessing means here a form or pattern of blessing.

Because the Lord of hosts will bless him (Isa 19:25)

He assigns a reason, and explains the former statement; for he shews that, through the undeserved goodness of God, the Assyrians and Egyptians shall be admitted to fellowship with the chosen people of God. As if he had said,” these titles belonged exclusively to Israel, they shall likewise be conferred on other nations, which the Lord hath adopted to be his own.” There is a mutual relation between God and his people, so that they who are called by his mouth” holy people” (Exo 19:6), may justly, in return, call him their God. Yet this designation is bestowed indiscriminately on Egyptians and Assyrians.

Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands.

Though the Prophet intended to describe foreign nations as associated with the Jews who had belonged to God’ household, yet he employs most appropriate marks to describe the degrees. By calling the Egyptians” people of God,” he means that they will share in the honor which God deigned to bestow in a peculiar manner on the Jews alone. When he calls Assyrians the work of his hands, he distinguishes them by the title peculiar to his Church. We have elsewhere remarked that the Church is called” workmanship” of God (Eph 2:10), because by the spirit of regeneration believers are created anew, so as to bear the image of God. Thus, he means that we are” work of God’ hands,” not so far as we are created to be men, but so far as they who are separated from the world, and become new creatures, are created anew to a new life. Hence we acknowledge that in “newness of life” nothing ought to be claimed as our own, for we are wholly “the work of God.”

And Israel my inheritance.

When he comes to Israel, he invests him with his prerogative, which is, that he is the inheritance of God, so that among the new brethren he still holds the rank and honor of the first-born. The word inheritance suggests the idea of some kind of superiority; and indeed that covenant which the Lord first made with them, bestowed on them the privilege which cannot be made void by their ingratitude; for” gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” as Paul declares, (Rom 11:29), who shews that in the house of God they are the first-born (Eph 2:12). Although therefore the grace of God is now more widely spread, yet they still hold the highest rank, not by their own merit, but by the firmness of the promises.

Postmilllennialism and Preterism[image error]

Four lectures by Ken Gentry (downloadable 4 mp3s).

(1) Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?

(2) The Identity of the Beast of Revelation.

(3) The Resurrection of the Dead.

(4) The Great Tribulation is Past.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Gentry note: Thus, endeth the exposition of John Calvin. Be warmed and filled! And while you are at it, Go, and sin no more.

CALVIN’S POSTMILLENNIALISM? (3)

[image error]PMW 2019-092 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Isaiah 19:18ff is an encouraging prophecy that relates the postmillennial hope of the gospel conquering the world. It shows the gospel will even overwhelm the historic enemies of God. Calvin’s exposition of this passage is extremely helpful for encouraging the postmillennial outlook. I am continuing citing Calvin’s material, beginning now with Isa 19:21.

And the Lord shall be known by the Egyptians (Isa 19:21).

Isaiah now adds what was most important; for we cannot worship the Lord, or call upon him, till we have first acknowledged him to be our Father. “ How” says Paul, “ can they call on him whom they know not?” (Rom 10:14.) We cannot be partakers of the gifts of God for our salvation without previously having true knowledge, which is by faith. He therefore properly adds, the knowledge of God, as the foundation of all religion, or the key that opens to us the gate of the heavenly kingdom. Now, there cannot be knowledge without doctrine; and hence infer, that God disapproves of all kinds of false worship; for he cannot approve of anything that is not guided by knowledge, which springs from hearing true and pure doctrine. Whatever contrivance therefore men may make out of their own minds, they will never attain by it the true worship of God. We ought carefully to observe passages like this, in which the Spirit of God shews what is the true worship and calling of God, that, having abandoned the inventions to which men are too obstinately attached, we may allow ourselves to be taught by the pure word of God, and, relying on his authority, may freely and boldly condemn all that the world applauds and admires.

The Egyptians shall know.

It is not without good reason that he twice mentions this knowledge. A matter of so great importance ought not to be slightly passed by; for it holds the chief place, and without it there is nothing that can properly be called worship.

And shall make sacrifice and oblation. This passage must be explained in the same manner as the former, in which he mentioned an altar. What would have been the use of sacrifices after the manifestation of Christ? He therefore describes metaphorically confession of faith and calling on God, which followed the preaching of the gospel. Here he includes everything that was offered to God — slain beasts, bread, fruits of every description, and all that was fitted to express gratitude. But we must attend to the difference between the Old and New Testaments, and under the shadows of ceremonies we must understand to be meant that” worship” of which Paul speaks (Rom 12:1) .

[image error]

Special Studies in Eschatology (6 mp3 downloads)

by Ken Gentry

In this collection of individual lectures you will find presentations of important eschatological themes, including a lecture given at Criswell College in Dallas, Tex. Click on tile (above) to read more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And shall vow vows to the Lord and perform them.

What he adds about vows is likewise a part of the worship of God. The Jews were accustomed to express their gratitude to God by vows, and especially they rendered thanksgiving by a solemn vow, when they had received from God any extraordinary blessing. Of their own accord also, when any one chose to do so, they made vows on various occasions (Deu 12:6). And yet every person was not at liberty to make this or that vow according to his own pleasure; but a rule was laid down (Num 30:3). Whatever may be in that respect, it is evident that by the word vows the Prophet means nothing else than the worship of God, to which the Egyptians devoted themselves after having learned it from the word of God; but he mentions the acts of devotion by which the Jews made profession of the true worship and religion.

Hence the Papists draw an argument to prove, that whatever we vow to God ought to be performed; but since they make vows at random, and without any exercise of judgment, this passage lends no aid to defend their error. Isaiah foretells what the Egyptians will do, after having embraced and followed the instruction given by God. In like manner, when David exhorts the people to vow and to perform their vows, (Psa 76:11,) they think that he is on their side; but be does not therefore exhort them to make unlawful and rash vows (Ecc 5:2). There always remains in force the law of vows, which we are not at liberty to transgress, namely, the word of God, by which we learn what he requires from us, and what he wishes us to vow and perform. We never received permission to vow whatever we please, because we are too much disposed to go to excess, and to take every kind of liberty with regard to God, and because we act more imprudently towards him than if we had to deal with men. It was therefore necessary that men should be laid under some restraint to prevent them from taking so great liberties in the worship of God and religion.

This being the case, it is evident that God permits nothing but what is agreeable to his law, and that he rejects everything else as unacceptable and superstitious. What a man has vowed of his own accord, and without the support of the word, cannot be binding. If he perform it, he offends doubly; first, in vowing rashly, as if he were sporting with God; and secondly, in executing his resolutions wickedly and rashly, when he ought rather to have set them aside and repented. So far, therefore, is any man from being bound by vows, that he ought, on the contrary, to turn back and acknowledge his sinful rashness.

Now, if any one inquire about the vows of Papists, it will be easy to shew that they derive no support from the word of God. If those things which they highly applaud and reckon to be lawful, such as the vows of monks, are unlawful and wicked, what opinion must we form of the rest? They vow perpetual celibacy, as if it were indiscriminately permitted to all; but we know that the gift of continence is not an ordinary gift, and is not promised to every one, not even to those who in other respects are endued with extraordinary graces. Abraham was eminent for faith, steadfastness, meekness, and holiness, and yet he did not possess this gift (Gen 11:29). Christ himself, when the apostles loudly commended this state of celibacy, testified that it is not given to all (Mat 19:11). Paul states the same thing (1Co 7:7). Whosoever, therefore, does not possess this gift of continence, if he vow it, does wrong, and will be justly punished for his rashness. Hence have arisen dreadful instances of want of chastity, by which God has justly punished Popery for this presumption.

[image error]

Sovereignty of God

(7 mp3 Gentry downloadable sermons)

In these seven sermons will be found a practical demonstration of God’s absolute sovereignty.

This series serves as an excellent introduction to this difficult doctrine.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

They likewise vow poverty, as if they would have nothing of their own, though they have abundance of everything beyond other men. Is not this an open mockery of God? The obedience which they vow is full of deceit; for they shake off the yoke of Christ, that they may become the slaves of men. Others vow pilgrimages, to abstain from eating flesh, to observe days, and other things full of superstition. Others promise to God toys and trinkets, as if they were dealing with a child. We would be ashamed to act thus, or to pursue such a line of conduct towards men, among whom nothing is settled till it has been agreed to on both sides by mutual consent. Much less is it lawful to attempt anything in the worship of God but what has been declared by his word. What kind of worship will it be, if the judgment of God has no weight with us, and if we yield only to the will of men? Will it be possible that it can please God? Will it not be “ will-worship,” which Paul so severely censures? (Col 2:23). In vain, therefore, do they who make such vows boast that they serve God; and in vain do they endeavor to find support in this passage; for the Lord abhors that kind of worship.

Therefore Jehovah will smite Egypt (Isa 19:22)

From what has been already said the Prophet draws the conclusion, that the chastisement which he has mentioned will be advantageous to the Egyptians, because it will be a preparation for their conversion; as if he had said, that it will be for the good of Egypt that the Lord will punish her. Those who translate the words,” will strike with a wound that may be healed,” misinterpret this passage, and greatly weaken the Prophet’ meaning; for it means that the wounds will be advantageous to them, and that by means of these wounds the Lord will bring them back. Hence we ought to conclude, that we must not refuse to be chastised by God, for it is done for our benefit (Pro 3:11; Heb 12:5). Exemption from punishment would cherish a disposition to sin with less control. As men are exceedingly prone to give way to their own inclinations, whenever God spares them for a little, it is necessary on this account that the Lord should prevent this danger, which he does by chastisements and stripes, which excite and arouse us to repentance. A remarkable instance of this is here exhibited in Egypt, which abounded in superstitions and wickedness, and went beyond all nations in idolatry, and yet experienced the mercy of God.

For they shall be turned to Jehovah.

We must attend to the manner of its accomplishment, which is, their conversion to God. It is the explanation of the former clause; as if he had said, “ will heal the Egyptians, because they shall be converted.” The copulative vav signifies for. Hence we infer that conversion may be said to be a resurrection from eternal death. We are utterly ruined so long as we are turned away from God; but when we are converted, we return to his favor, and are delivered from death; not that we deserve the favor of God by our repentance, but because in this manner God raises us up, as it were, from death to life. To repentance is added a promise, from which we conclude, that when we sincerely repent, we do not in vain implore forgiveness. Now, when the Prophet says that the Lord will be gracious and reconciled to the Egyptians, he at the same time shews, that as soon as they have been converted, they will obtain forgiveness. It will therefore be a true conversion when it is followed by a calling on God. But without faith (Rom 10:14) it is impossible to call on God; for even the ungodly may acknowledge sin; but no man will have recourse to the mercy of God, or obtain reconciliation, till he be moved by a true feeling of repentance, which is likewise accompanied by faith.

And will heal them.

He does not repeat what he had said, that God strikes in order to heal; but he promises healing in another sense, that is, that God will cease to inflict punishments. The former healing, which he mentioned a little before, was internal; but the latter relates to stripes and wounds. In short, he means that it will be a speedy remedy for all their distresses. After having been reconciled to God, there is nothing in us that calls for punishment; for whence comes punishment but on account of guilt? and when guilt is pardoned, exemption from punishment will quickly follow. And if we be chastised, it is an evidence that we are not yet sufficiently prepared for repentance.

In a word, let us remember this order, which the Prophet points out to us; first, that stripes prepare men for repentance; secondly, that they are healed, because they are delivered from eternal destruction; thirdly, that when they have been brought to the knowledge of their guilt, they obtain pardon; fourthly, that God is gracious and reconciled to them; fifthly, that chastisements cease after they have obtained pardon from God. There is no man who ought not to acknowledge in himself what Isaiah here declares concerning the Egyptians, in whom the Lord holds out an example to the whole world.

In that day (Isa 19:23).

The Prophet now foretells that the Lord will diffuse his goodness throughout the whole world; as if he had said,” will not be shut up in a corner, or exclusively known, as it formerly was, by a single nation.” Here he speaks of two nations that were the most inveterate enemies of the Church, and that appeared to be farther removed than any other from the kingdom of God; for much more might have been expected from distant nations, because the nations here mentioned openly made war with God and persecuted his Church. And if the Lord is so gracious to the deadly enemies of the Church, that he pardons and adopts them to be his children, what shall be the case with other nations? This prophecy thus includes the calling of all nations.

There shall be a highway. Now, when he says that, in consequence of a highway having been opened up, there will be mutual access that they may visit each other, he describes brotherly intercourse. We know that the Egyptians carried on almost incessant wars with the Assyrians, and cherished an inveterate hatred towards each other. He now foretells that the Lord will change their dispositions, and will reconcile them to each other, so that they will have mutual communications, mutual coming in and going out, in consequence of laying open the highways which were formerly shut. Here we ought to observe what we formerly remarked at the fourth verse of the second chapter, namely, that when men have been reconciled to God, it is likewise proper that they should cherish brotherly kindness towards each other. Strife, quarreling, disputes, hatred, and malice, ought to cease when God has been pacified. We need not wonder, therefore, that he says that a highway to Egypt is opened up for the Assyrians; but this ought undoubtedly to be referred to the reign of Christ, for we do not read that the Egyptians were on a friendly footing with the Assyrians till after they had known Christ.

And the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrians (or, with the Assyrians). This clause may be rendered,” serve God;” but as the name of God is not expressed here, it may refer to the Assyrians, which is also pointed out by the particle eth. It may therefore be explained thus. They who formerly burned with a desire to injure one another will be changed in their dispositions, and will desire to shew kindness. In short, the fruit of true repentance will be made evident, for they who formerly distressed each other in mutual wars will lend mutual aid. And this opinion will agree very well with those words of the Prophet with which they stand connected. Yet I do not set aside another interpretation which is almost universally adopted, namely,” who formerly worshipped other gods will henceforth acknowledge one God, and will assent to the same confession of faith.” I leave every one to adopt that interpretation which he thinks best. If the latter interpretation be preferred, the Prophet makes brotherly love to flow from godliness, as from its source.

Stay tuned for the finale of Calvin’s exposition of Isa 19:18–25.

CALVIN’S POSTMILLENNIALISM? (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-091 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing my citation of John Calvin’s postmillennial-like exposition of Isaiah 19:18ff. Calvin does an excellent job on these important verses.

In that day shall there be an altar in the midst of the land of Egypt (Isa 19:19).

Isaiah continues what he had said in the former verse, and states more clearly that the aspect of Egypt will be renewed, because there true religion will flourish, the pure worship of God will be set up, and all superstitions will fall to the ground. He employs the word altar to denote, as by a sign, the worship of God; for sacrifices and oblations were the outward acts of piety. By the midst of Egypt he means the chief part of the whole kingdom, as if he had said, “the very metropolis,”or, “the very heart of the kingdom.”

And a statue to the Lord. Let it not be supposed that by statue are meant images which carry the resemblance of men or of saints; but memorials of piety; for he means that they will be marks similar to those which point out the boundaries of kingdoms, and that in this manner signs will be evident, to make known to all men that God rules over this nation. And indeed it usually happens that a nation truly converted to God, after having laid aside idols and superstitions, openly sets up signs of the true religion, that all may know that the worship of God is purely observed in it.

Josephus relates (Ant. 13:3:1) that Onias perverted this passage, when he fled to Ptolemy Philometor, whom he persuaded that it would be advantageous to erect an altar there, on which the Jews who dwelt in that country might sacrifice; and he brought forward this passage, alleging that what the Prophet had foretold ought to be accomplished. The wicked and ambitious priest persuaded the king to do this, though it was openly opposed by the Jews; for the king looked to his own advantage, and that scoundrel, who had been deprived of his rank, sought to obtain additional honor and advancement; so that no entreaty could prevent the execution of that wicked counsel. But Isaiah simply describes the pure worship of God under the figure of signs which were then in use; for he has his eye upon his own age and the men with whom he had to do. This passage, therefore, was wickedly and maliciously perverted by Onias.

But not less impudently do the Popish doctors of the present day torture a passage in Malachi to defend the sacrifice of the Mass. When he says that “pure oblation will everywhere be offered to God, (Mal.1:11), they infer that it is some sacrifice different from the ancient sacrifices, because oxen and sheep must no longer be sacrificed, and therefore that it is the Mass. A witty and ingenious argument truly! Now, it is evident that under the legal figure Malachi describes nothing else than the pure worship of God, as Isaiah does here; and we ought carefully to observe such forms of expression, which are frequently employed by the prophets.

This will be clearly explained by a passage in Joel, which we shall quote as an example. “sons and your daughters,”says he, “prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”(Joel 2:28.) Peter shews (Acts 2:16) that this prediction was fulfilled, when the apostles spoke various languages through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Having formerly been uneducated men, they began to be qualified for declaring the mysteries of God. On that occasion we perceive no “”so that it might be thought that Peter quoted that passage inappropriately; but it is evident that Joel there describes nothing else than prophecy, and for the purpose of adorning it, he mentioned “and dreams,”by means of which the Lord anciently held communication with the prophets (Num12:6). He kept in view the ordinary custom of that age; for otherwise the Jews would have found it difficult to comprehend the gifts of the Spirit which at that time were unknown. Having been reared under that preparatory instruction of the Law, they could rise no higher than where they were conducted by sacrifices, ceremonies, sacraments, and signs. So then the prophets addressed them as children, who ought to have nothing set before them beyond what they can learn in a homely style by custom and experience.

This doctrine will unfold to us various passages, the obscurity of which might lead to much hesitation. It is plain that the Prophet speaks of the kingdom of Christ, and that these things were not fulfilled before his coming. We must therefore take away the shadows and look at the reality of things, in order that by the altar we may understand a true and sincere calling on God. But by these signs the Prophet likewise shews that the worship of God cannot be maintained without external acts of devotion, though we have no right to lay down rules for them. Away with the inventions of men, that we may listen to God alone on this subject.

And he will send them a Savior (Isa 19:20).

We cannot serve God unless he first bestow his grace upon us; for no one will dedicate himself to God, till he be drawn by his goodness, and embrace him with all his heart. He must therefore call us to him before we call upon him; we can have no access till he first invite us. Formerly he shewed that they must be subdued by various afflictions in order that they may submit to God, and now he repeats the same thing; for men never deny themselves and forsake idle follies any farther than the scourge compels them to yield obedience. But he likewise adds another kind of invitation, that, having experienced the kindness of God, they will freely approach to Him.

[image error]Contemporary Theological Issues

by Ken Gentry (21 mp3 downloadables)

A Christian college course dealing with contemporary theological debates within the church. Covers several important topics of concern to Christians, including abortion, homosexuality, alcoholic beverages, and more

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

They will cry unto the Lord. The cry of which he speaks proceeds from faith, for they would never resort to this refuge till they had been allured and delighted by the goodness of God. When the Lord promises that he will send a Savior, by whose hand the Egyptians will be delivered, this can mean no other than Christ; for Egypt was not delivered from its distresses before the doctrine of Christ reached it. We read of various changes which that country suffered for four hundred years, foreign and civil wars by which it was wasted and almost destroyed; but when we would be ready to think that it is utterly ruined, lo! it is converted to the Lord, and is rescued from the hand of enemies and tyrants. Thus Christ delivered that country, when it had begun to know him. In like manner, we must be brought to the knowledge and worship of God, that, where we have suffered various afflictions, we may learn that salvation is found in him alone. Would that the world would now learn this lesson, having suffered so many calamities that it appears to be on the brink of ruin! For what can be the issue but that it shall either perish or by repentance acknowledge that it has been justly punished for so great wickedness?

That he may deliver them. When he adds these words, we ought to draw from them a profitable doctrine, that God assists us through Christ, by whose agency he gave deliverance to his own people from the beginning. He has always been the Mediator, by whose intercession all blessings were obtained from God the Father; and now that he has been revealed, let us learn that nothing can be obtained from God but through him.

And the Lord shall be known by the Egyptians (Isa 19:21).

Isaiah now adds what was most important; for we cannot worship the Lord, or call upon him, till we have first acknowledged him to be our Father. “How”says Paul, “they call on him whom they know not?” (Rom10:14). We cannot be partakers of the gifts of God for our salvation without previously having true knowledge, which is by faith. He therefore properly adds, the knowledge of God, as the foundation of all religion, or the key that opens to us the gate of the heavenly kingdom. Now, there cannot be knowledge without doctrine; and hence infer, that God disapproves of all kinds of false worship; for he cannot approve of anything that is not guided by knowledge, which springs from hearing true and pure doctrine. Whatever contrivance therefore men may make out of their own minds, they will never attain by it the true worship of God. We ought carefully to observe passages like this, in which the Spirit of God shews what is the true worship and calling of God, that, having abandoned the inventions to which men are too obstinately attached, we may allow ourselves to be taught by the pure word of God, and, relying on his authority, may freely and boldly condemn all that the world applauds and admires.

The Egyptians shall know. It is not without good reason that he twice mentions this knowledge. A matter of so great importance ought not to be slightly passed by; for it holds the chief place, and without it there is nothing that can properly be called worship.

And shall make sacrifice and oblation. This passage must be explained in the same manner as the former, in which he mentioned an altar. What would have been the use of sacrifices after the manifestation of Christ? He therefore describes metaphorically confession of faith and calling on God, which followed the preaching of the gospel. Here he includes everything that was offered to God — slain beasts, bread, fruits of every description, and all that was fitted to express gratitude. But we must attend to the difference between the Old and New Testaments, and under the shadows of ceremonies we must understand to be meant that “worship”of which Paul speaks. (Rom 12:1.)

And shall vow vows to the Lord and perform them. What he adds about vows is likewise a part of the worship of God. The Jews were accustomed to express their gratitude to God by vows, and especially they rendered thanksgiving by a solemn vow, when they had received from God any extraordinary blessing. Of their own accord also, when any one chose to do so, they made vows on various occasions (Deut 12:6). And yet every person was not at liberty to make this or that vow according to his own pleasure; but a rule was laid down (Num 30:3). Whatever may be in that respect, it is evident that by the word vows the Prophet means nothing else than the worship of God, to which the Egyptians devoted themselves after having learned it from the word of God; but he mentions the acts of devotion by which the Jews made profession of the true worship and religion.

Hence the Papists draw an argument to prove, that whatever we vow to God ought to be performed; but since they make vows at random, and without any exercise of judgment, this passage lends no aid to defend their error. Isaiah foretells what the Egyptians will do, after having embraced and followed the instruction given by God. In like manner, when David exhorts the people to vow and to perform their vows, (Psa 76:11), they think that he is on their side; but be does not therefore exhort them to make unlawful and rash vows (Eccl 5:2). There always remains in force the law of vows, which we are not at liberty to transgress, namely, the word of God, by which we learn what he requires from us, and what he wishes us to vow and perform. We never received permission to vow whatever we please, because we are too much disposed to go to excess, and to take every kind of liberty with regard to God, and because we act more imprudently towards him than if we had to deal with men. It was therefore necessary that men should be laid under some restraint to prevent them from taking so great liberties in the worship of God and religion.

This being the case, it is evident that God permits nothing but what is agreeable to his law, and that he rejects everything else as unacceptable and superstitious. What a man has vowed of his own accord, and without the support of the word, cannot be binding. If he perform it, he offends doubly; first, in vowing rashly, as if he were sporting with God; and secondly, in executing his resolutions wickedly and rashly, when he ought rather to have set them aside and repented. So far, therefore, is any man from being bound by vows, that he ought, on the contrary, to turn back and acknowledge his sinful rashness.

Now, if any one inquire about the vows of Papists, it will be easy to shew that they derive no support from the word of God. If those things which they highly applaud and reckon to be lawful, such as the vows of monks, are unlawful and wicked, what opinion must we form of the rest? They vow perpetual celibacy, as if it were indiscriminately permitted to all; but we know that the gift of continence is not an ordinary gift, and is not promised to every one, not even to those who in other respects are endued with extraordinary graces. Abraham was eminent for faith, steadfastness, meekness, and holiness, and yet he did not possess this gift (Gen 11:29). Christ himself, when the apostles loudly commended this state of celibacy, testified that it is not given to all. (Matt 19:11). Paul states the same thing (1 Cor 7:7). Whosoever, therefore, does not possess this gift of continence, if he vow it, does wrong, and will be justly punished for his rashness. Hence have arisen dreadful instances of want of chastity, by which God has justly punished Popery for this presumption.

[image error]Postmillennialism Explained, Defended and Applied (6 mp3 lectures)

by Ken Gentry

These five lectures explain the biblical foundations to postmillennialism, while providing practical applications for the modern Christian.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

They likewise vow poverty, as if they would have nothing of their own, though they have abundance of everything beyond other men. Is not this an open mockery of God? The obedience which they vow is full of deceit; for they shake off the yoke of Christ, that they may become the slaves of men. Others vow pilgrimages, to abstain from eating flesh, to observe days, and other things full of superstition. Others promise to God toys and trinkets, as if they were dealing with a child. We would be ashamed to act thus, or to pursue such a line of conduct towards men, among whom nothing is settled till it has been agreed to on both sides by mutual consent. Much less is it lawful to attempt anything in the worship of God but what has been declared by his word. What kind of worship will it be, if the judgment of God has no weight with us, and if we yield only to the will of men? Will it be possible that it can please God? Will it not be “will-worship,” which Paul so severely censures (Col 2:23)? In vain, therefore, do they who make such vows boast that they serve God; and in vain do they endeavor to find support in this passage; for the Lord abhors that kind of worship.

[image error]

CALVIN’S POSTMILLENNIALISM? (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-090 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this and the following ones, I will be citing John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 19:18–25. We find in his exposition a strong encouragement to the postmillennial hope. Before I begin citing Calvin, I will cite Isaiah since he is almost as good as Calvin!

POSTMILLENNIAL UTOPIA?

[image error]PMW 2019-089 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One PostmillenialWorldview read asks: “What is your response to the ‘Utopia’ charge leveled by (especially) Premills? This is a common charge levied against the postmillennialist. And the erstwhile postmil would do well to consider the matter.

Unfortunately, in the eschatological debate, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological option to misconstrue. This is due to its going against the prevailing pessimistic expectations of the other millennial views. Hope for our historical future seems like Utopia to these folks. And as we know “Utopia” comes from the Greek: ou (“not”) and topos (“place”) and means “no-place.” So if postmillennialism is utopic, it is going no place.

[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

Unfortunately, faulty hidden presuppositions often taint millennial arguments, even though the evangelical and reformed critics are seldom aware of these. In this regard I must dispel three common errors that infect their understanding of postmillennialism. Dismissing these will not make them postmillennialists, but it will bring them back to considering what postmillennialists actually believe.

First, postmillennialists do not assert universalism. The postmillennial hope is of a widespread, culturally influential presence of the true Christian faith. We believe that one day Christianity will be the rule rather than the exception to the rule in human affairs. However, we do not hold that all will be saved at any point in history. The world will always experience the presence of unbelievers. But in the future it will be more on the order of tares in a wheat field. Such a postmillennial understanding cannot lead to any utopia of an ideal society.

Second, postmillennialists do not believe in perfectionism. Not only will there always be the presence of unbelievers on earth — even at the height of the kingdom’s historical advance —, but the kingdom will always be composed of sinners. These will be sinners saved by grace, to be sure. But like any good, evangelical church, these saved sinners will never reach a state of spiritual perfection while on earth. That sanctification level awaits our leaving these mortal bodies and entering into the presence of God. Who would say any local church on earth is a utopia? And yet at the same time, who would not say they would rather the world be more like a church community of believers than like the streets of Detroit at night?

Third, postmillennialists do not engage in satisfactionism. By this we mean that we do not prefer the advancing kingdom on earth — even at its height! — to entering into the presence of our Lord and dwelling with him in eternity. We have a work to do. A work which God has called us to. But we never take our eyes off the glory of the eternal order and complete freedom from indwelling sin that we receive there. Thus, we can never be fully satisfied with even the highest advances in history. Thus, we do not prefer earthly dominion over consummational glory.

[image error]Spacecraft Earth by Henry Richter

Evolutionists believe the universe, the earth and life came about by chance events and processes. In this book, a Dr Richter, a pioneer in aerospace, challenges these views by exploring what is required for us to exist in the universe. He shows that our planet can be thought of as a sophisticated spacecraft designed for our benefit.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

If the critics would do a “virus check” for these three latent errors, we could more accurately and fruitfully focus the debate.

I would point out a more accurate definition of postmillennialism to those making the utopia charges. Then we could get the debate on track. A useful working definition is found on my “Definition” page here at PostmillennialismWorldview.

IS CHRIST’S RETURN “IMMINENT”? (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I began a brief analysis of the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. I began setting up the matter and also showing its problems for dispensationalism. In this article I will conclude the study.

Often dispensationalists try to distinguish between Christ’s return being imminent and its being soon. This strives to protect them against charges of date-setting. This does not protect them from the charge, however, because it is inconsistently held.

In a letter to me dated June 1, 1994, from Thomas D. Ice, Executive Director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, Ice writes: “We distinguish between imminent and soon in the sense that soon would require a near coming, while imminent would allow, but not require a soon coming.” Bundled in that very letter was his first newsletter entitled: “The Pre-Trib Research Center: A New Beginning.” The first sentence of the newsletter (once past the headings) was: “Our purpose is to awaken in the Body of Christ a new awareness of the soon coming of Jesus.” The system giveth and taketh away. In fact, in a book edited by Ice, Tim LaHaye speaks of “the soon coming of Christ.”

Ironically, dispensationalists should be the last people to seek signs of the approaching end, for such a quest undermines their most distinctive doctrine: the ever-imminent, sign-less, secret rapture. Yet, date-setting has long plagued premillennialism, especially dispensationalism. The last twenty years are particularly rife with cries of the approaching end. In 1990–91 needless American fears over the 30-day Gulf War — Iraq’s great tribulation — fuel the flames of date-setting, much like in World War I. Hal Lindsey writes: “At the time of this writing, virtually the entire world may be plunged into a war in which this city [Babylon] may emerge with a role and destiny that few have any inkling of.” Later he sums up: “This is the most exciting time to be alive in all of human history. We are about to witness the climax of God’s dealing with man.” LaHaye’s chapter in When the Trumpet Sounds (1995) is titled “Twelve Reasons Why This Could Be the Terminal Generation.”

Even noted dispensational theologians are engaging in date-setting. Ironically, in the summer of 1990, as the Gulf War clouds loomed, Walvoord’s book review appeared in which he wrote disparagingly of my insistence that dispensationalists are date-setters: “So premillennialism and dispensationalism have been derided as a date-setting system of doctrine, even though very few of its adherents indulge in this procedure.” But in 2001 Walvoord writes: “Many indications exist that human history is reaching its climax in end-time events.”

[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

The New Testament teaches, however, that the Lord’s glorious, bodily return will be in the distant and unknowable future. It is neither imminent nor datable. Bahnsen notes that “distinctive to [postmillennialism] is the denial of the imminent physical return” of Christ. Mathison agrees: “Scripture simply does not teach the dispensational doctrine of the ‘imminent’ return of Christ.”

Christ’s return has not been imminent since the ascension. Jesus clearly teaches: “While the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept” (Mt 25:5). “For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. . . . After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them” (Mt 25:14, 19). This passage does not expect an any-moment return — indeed, the “wise” virgins prepare for his delayed return.

Just before his ascension Christ deals with a problem among his often-confused disciples (e.g., Mt 16:21–23; Lk 24:25; Jn 20:9): “They asked Him, saying, ‘Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ And He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times [chronos] or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” (Ac 1:7). Chronos indicates a long period of uncertain duration. In fact, it appears in the plural, which indicates “a rather long period of time composed of several shorter ones.” As premillennialists Blomberg and Chung put it: this “Acts passage utilizes the two broadest words in Hellenistic Greek for ‘time’ (chronos and kairos),” which precludes any “claim to be able to pin down end-times events to any definable period of time.”

Peter seems to reflect this long-term waiting in Acts 3:19, where he speaks of the “times of refreshing” for here “the plural may be intended to convey the idea that it is a long way off” (cf. 2Ti 3:1). According to William Urwick “the only errors mentioned in the New Testament respecting the time of our Lord’s coming, all consist in dating it too early.” We see this problem in the passages I cite above, as well as in the famous passages: 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 and 2 Peter 3:3–4.

Matthew 28:20 states that the Great Commission will stretch through “all the days” (literal translation of the Greek, pasas tas hemeras). This indicates a great many days before the end. The parables of the mustard seed and leaven set forth a gradually developing kingdom, which grows until it dominates the world’s landscape and penetrates all of the world’s cultures. This surely suggests a long period of time.  2 Peter 3 allows a long delay before Christ’s coming as evidence of the “longsuffering” of God. This fits well with postmillennial eschatology, for it allows time for the advancing victory of Christ’s kingdom and encourages a future-orientation for the church’s labors.

[image error]Dispensational Distortions (3 downloadable mp3s)

by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A frustrating feature of much amillennialism is the dialectical tension within the system regarding this matter. Amillennialists often hold to contradictory positions, balancing the one (imminency) against the other (a long wait). And they often proclaim this double-speak as a positive merit of the system! For instance, Kim Riddlebarger states: “As we have seen in part 3 in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus taught that his coming is both immanent [sic] (‘this generation will not pass away’) and distant (the parable of the ten virgins). He also taught that specific signs precede his coming and yet that his coming will occur when we least expect it, apparently, after a delay of an indeterminate period of time.” Cornelis Venema concurs: “A balanced and complete reading of the Gospels, therefore, reveals a double emphasis. Some passages emphasize the ‘soon-ness’ or imminence of Christ’s coming; others suggest something of a delay or a considerable period of time intervening.”

But if imminency can cover 2000 years of church history, then postmillennialists have no problem with it. Considered from this perspective, Venema is mistaken when he asserts that “amillennialism has a clearer expectation of the imminence (the ‘soon-ness’) of Christ’s return than does Postmillennialism.” Richard Gaffin holds that “Christ could have returned at virtually any time since the ministry of the apostles.” But if imminency can stretch out for 2000 years (so far!), then imminency is not imminency. How can 2000 years be called “soon-ness”? We cannot reasonably stretch imminency over a 2000 year period, then declare “as the end approaches and the return of Christ becomes ever more imminent.” For then imminency has no meaning: it can fit any time-frame and cannot become “more” imminent.

Interestingly, not all Reformed scholars agree with Riddlebarger, Venema, and Gaffin. John Murray denies the doctrine noting that “the insistence that the advent is imminent is . . . without warrant, and its falsity should have been demonstrated by events.” O. T. Allis and Morton Smith associate imminency doctrine with dispensationalism. Amillennialist Venema can even argue for “the great length of time symbolized in the imagery of the thousand years [in Rev 20],” which covers the entire inter-advental period.

Christ’s return is not datable. Rather than giving specific signs that allow even generalized date-setting, the Scripture forthrightly states: “of that day and hour no one knows, no, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only” (Mt 24:36). A danger lurks among some who claim to be his people and who may be caught unawares: they will let down their guard because the date is unknowable (Mt 25:1ff). Although prophecy portrays a long era in history in which Christianity will reign supreme, it never gives information allowing us to determine the end. Christ’s glorious rule through his covenant people will be for a long time before he returns in judgment — but for how long, no man knows.

IS CHRIST’S RETURN “IMMINENT”? (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A most remarkable feature of prophetic interest is the Christian’s conviction that we are living “in the shadow of the second coming,” that we are in a “countdown to Armageddon.” We often find linked with a radical misunderstanding of the last days the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ, especially among dispensationalists and premillennialists — but also even with amillennialists.

I will deal with the question in two articles. In this one I will set up the matter; in the next one I will answer it. I will focus largely on the dispensational approach to the question. Interestingly, the doctrine of imminence is simultaneously one of dispensationalism’s most potent drawing cards while being also its most embarrassing error.

John F. Walvoord explains imminency for us: “The hope of the return of Christ to take the saints to heaven is presented in John 14 as an imminent hope. There is no teaching of any intervening event. The prospect of being taken to heaven at the coming of Christ is not qualified by description of any signs or prerequisite events.”

Gerald Stanton states that imminency means the event “is next on the program and may take place at any time.” Indeed, “his coming is next on the revealed program of God.” It is “the next predicted even in God’s prophetic timetable.”

[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

Earl D. Radmacher vigorously denies any prophecy is being fulfilled today: “Equally as unjustified as date-setting for Christ’s return are the numerous sermons attempting to find fulfillment of prophecy in this age.”

Unfortunately, Walvoord’s statement clashes with the wider body of his work. In his more recent Prophecy in the New Millennium he dogmatically asserts: “In the centuries of human progress since Adam, the twentieth century deserves its own unique place as an era of unusual prophetic fulfillment that is unequaled in history, except possibly in the first century.” Which is it: (1) The Bible offers “no teaching of any intervening event”? Or (2) the twentieth century is “an era of unusual prophetic fulfillment”? If prophecies are fulfilled in the twentieth century are they not “intervening” events until they occur? Are they not events that must transpire before the end?

In another work, Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, Walvoord even provides a detailed list of the “predicted order of prophetic events related to Israel,” which include the German holocaust, the United Nations action to form Israel as a nation — and more. Thus, “in the predictions that Christ made almost 2,000 years ago, He accurately portrayed the progress in the present age” so that “all these situations have been fulfilled in history.”

LaHaye agrees: “there are more fulfilled signs today than in any previous age.” Lindsey concurs: “This is a unique time in history in which all of the predicted signs that were to precede the Second coming of Christ are coming into focus within the same generation.” Fruchtenbaum follows suit noting of Israel’s reformation as a nation in 1948: “Israelology sees this as a definite fulfillment of prophecy.”

Furthermore, many dispensational theologians hold this imminency doctrine quite inconsistently. For they simultaneously hold that Revelation 2 and 3 outline the entire Church Age up into our own era. For instance, Towns outlines the “history” forecast in the letters, showing that Philadelphia points to 1750–1900, while Laodicea deals with the time from 1900 to the present. (Though he apparently has changed his view in his article in the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology. He must have re-computed the biblical evidence and determined that the Philadelphia era lasts a full ten years more, ending in 1910.) The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy holds that the Philadelphia period starts exactly twenty years earlier, it still sees this era as prophetically determined: “Philadelphia — Missionary church (AD 1730–1900).” How could Christ’s return be imminent in the first century if Scripture prophesies events unfolding up through history even to our day? Would these prophecies fail if Christ returns in the second century?

[image error]

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Apparently this problem finally dissuades Walvoord from promoting the view. In his commentary on Revelation he writes: “Many expositors believe that in addition to the obvious implication of these messages the seven churches represent the chronological development of church history viewed spiritually. . . . There does seem to be a remarkable progression in the messages. It would seem almost incredible that such a progression should be a pure accident, and the order of the messages to the churches seems to be divinely selected to give prophetically the main movement of church history.” But twenty-five years later he states: “Some hold that these churches also, in general, represent the history of the church. . . . There is, however, no scriptural verification of this type of interpretation.” Nevertheless, the view still remains popular among dispensationalists.

Even though some dispensationalists attempt to discount this view, they end up with the same problem. For instance, Benware rejects the view but states that the seven churches more generally “represent churches throughout the Church Age, from John’s day until the Rapture.” But if the second coming has been “imminent” since Christ’s ascension, how can Scripture prophesy even the general condition of the church age, which occurs after the ascension, after Pentecost?

To be continued!

IS THE “END OF THE AGE” AD 70?

[image error]PMW 2019-085 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am not always able to engage in theological discussion by email, due to my time constraints and the number of requests for such that I receive. But occasionally I will engage a discussion briefly. Here is one I just had with a PostmillennialWorldview reader. It regards the two-age structure of history.

PMW reader wrote:

I have a question to throw in the works if I may: Matthew 24:3 says ” What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

This could mean the end of the Old Testament age. I back this up with Jesus comments on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven “in this age or the age to come” (Matthew 12:32.)

“This age” – the old Testament age in which Jesus was at the time. “The age to come” the New Testament age. The Age to Come could not mean heaven or after Christ’s return because there is no sin in that age.

My reply:

Actually I believe that “this age” is history and the “age to come” is eternity.

In Luke 20:34-36 we read: “Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.’”

Jesus’ statement that blasphemy will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come means it will never be forgiven.

Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

PMW reader responds:

Thank you for your prompt reply – please know that I do not intend to argue but to understand – hence my questions and proposals.

Where I am coming from in this discussion is the belief that the death of our Lord was a far more important event than many Christians realise. And therefore that our present age, the church age is very different from the previous Jewish dispensation. Here I refer to James Kennedy with “What if Jesus had never been born?” The earth would probably degenerated back into the immediate preflood era – filled with violence, whereas now the forces of darkness fight a long retreat as the forces of the Lord progressively occupy until He comes. I also cite Oswald Chambers concerning the death of Christ as well as my fellow South African, J J van den Burg, in his Gospel According to Luke.

God is making all things new from the inside out as it were – whereas the original creation was “top down” and ending with the creation of man, first his body then finally his spirit, breathed into him by God, the New Creation begins with the creation of the new race of humans – in the reverse order first the new spirit in the born again experience…. There are now two species of humans on the planet ! – the saved and the lost.

As we Postmillenialists believe, this age, the church age ends very well, precisely because of the death of Christ !

My reply:

I agree with your disappointment that Christians do not better comprehend the implications of Christ’s death and the changes he effected thereby. For instance, he began in spiritual principle the new creation.

Actually, because of Christ the present age (history) is being impacted by the age to come (eternity). We see this in that we are new creations (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), are spiritually resurrected (John 5:24-27; Eph 2:6), and so forth. We live in the now / not yet era of mixed realities: we are in the old creation though we are new creation beings.

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

Thus, we live in the great overlap of the ages. But we are only in the overlap, not the fullness of the age to come. We have “tasted the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:5). This does distinguish the new covenant era from the old covenant era, but we still endure old covenant era physical death and so forth, which is a characteristic of the present age.

Therefore the end of the age has not yet come, consequently we are to continue evangelizing (Matt 28:20) because the unbelievers have not yet been finally separated from the believers (Matt 13:39-40, 49). And we are to continue instructing men to deny ungodliness in this age (Tit 2:12). And we remain “sons of this age” because we marry and are given in marriage (Luke 20:34).

JESUS AND PRETERISM (3)

[image error]PMW2019-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the final article in a three-part response to Dr. Wayne Briddle of Liberty University. He presented a paper critiquing orthodox preterism and asked me to reply. These articles represent my reply.

Matthew 10:23

As I noted (too briefly!) at the ETS meeting, I disagree with Dr. Briddle’s observation (drawn from Toussaint) in his third paragraph. He states: “At the time that Jesus sent out his apostles, he was enjoying great popularity. There is no evidence that the apostles were in this kind of danger until after the crucifixion of Christ.” I disagree with this on several grounds:

(1) Even if Jesus was enjoying popularity among the common folk at the time, we surely could not say that the religious leadership found him popular. And they were the ones who would have him crucified. In fact, in John 2 (near his first miracle) he gives the cryptic statement about destroying the Temple and his raising it up, which was really speaking of his crucifixion. Much earlier than 10:23 he urges his hearers to a better righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20) and he rebuts the sayings of the elders of old (5:21ff), so that the people are impressed with his teaching as one with authority (7:28-29). He warns about “false prophets” who are “ravenous wolves” (7:15). In Matthew 9:10 (before 10:23) the Pharisees were charging that “he casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.”

(2) Even if Jesus was enjoying popularity at the time, as evangelicals we would all agree that he himself certainly knew the outcome of his ministry. He knew that he would be betrayed and die on the cross. And he certainly knew also that his disciples would be persecuted. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount he speaks blessings to those who would be “persecuted for righteousness sake” (5: 10) and “insulted” and “persecuted” (5:11), which seems to anticipate coming persecution.

[image error]

In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective

by Jay Rogers

This orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel is not a book, but a library. Extremely helpful for the postmillennial orthodox preterist.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com/

(3) The context of Matthew 10 clearly must be directly relevant to the ministry of the first century apostles: (a) He summons his twelve disciples and gives them authority (v. 1); and Matthew specifically records their particular names (vv. 2-4). Indeed, Jesus sends “these twelve out after instructing them” (v. 5) with the words to follow (including 10:23). (b) His instruction warns them about houses that will “not receive you,” urging them to respond by shaking “off the dust from your feet” (v. 14) and warning them that it will be “more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (v15). This certainly does not allow his current popularity to discount looming, violent opposition. (c) He specifically declares to the twelve that he is sending “you out as sheep in the midst of wolves” (v. 16), thereby warning them that men “will deliver you up to the courts, and scourge you in their synagogues” and ultimately deliver them to political authorities (vv. 17-18).

(4) From the very beginning of Christ’s ministry there was evidence of Israel’s rejection of his message. Matthew makes this very clear in the structuring of his Gospel: In Matthew 2:2-3 Jerusalem was frightened by Christ’s birth, while the Gentile Magi rejoiced in it. In 3:7-12 John Baptist warns the religious leaders to flee the “wrath to come.” In 8:11-12 the Lord warned that the “sons of the kingdom” would be cast out and “many will come from east and west” to enjoy the kingdom. On and on we can go through Matthew (in fact, in my public debate with Tommy Ice, I spend my twenty minute opening statement detailing such data.

In that same (third) paragraph under “Matthew 10:23” he maee a statement that doesn’t seem to detract from preterism: “In addition, the reference to the Spirit speaking through them is a clear post-Pentecost allusion. Thus Jesus looks beyond his immediate ministry to the evangelization of Israel during the church age.” We must remember that Pentecost was around A.D. 30 and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. I don’t see any problem with this reference to the Spirit being a “post-Pentecost allusion”; A.D. 70 is post-Pentecost, as well. And remember: he is speaking to and commissioning the “twelve disciples” as they become the “twelve apostles” (Matt. 10:1-2a). His directive cannot generically apply to all Christians; this is a specifically apostolic directive (which limits its reference to the first century, fitting well with the preterist view). If he applied this throughout the church age, then he would have committed to either Pentecostalism or charismatic theology, for the healing of the sick and raising of the dead (10:8) will accompany this work, as well as immediate prophetic impulses of the Spirit (10:19-20).

In his fourth paragraph under “Matthew 10:23” I believe he misread the text in question. His first point in that paragraph is: “(1), it seems clear that at no time during the entire church age has the church completely evangelized the people of Israel.” I don’t see how that is relevant to what Jesus says in v. 23. Two serious problems confront him. Remember, all Christ states there is: “But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.” This undercuts Briddle’s first concern, for: (1) Christ does not say anything about “completely evangelizing” the people of Israel. He is speaking only of “going through” the cities (NIV, RSV, NAS, KJV, NKJV). (2) What is more, he specifically says they will not have finished going through the cities of Israel. Even if Dr. Briddle takes this statement as referring to completely evangelizing Israel, he is overlooking the fact he says it will not be done (which fits also with the A.D. 70 situation too).

[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

This leaves us with the question of the terminus indicated by the phrase “before the Son of Man comes.” In the first full paragraph on page 4 of his paper, he argues this surely refers to the Second Advent. But again I would argue that these are directives to the newly commissioned apostles with their charismatic powers who have long since died.

I believe he also overstates his case in declaring that “most commentators historically have taken this statement to refer to Christ’s ‘Second Advent.’” I am not sure how he came up with the conclusion regarding “most” commentators. In Gaebelein’s Expositor’s Bible Commentary D. A. Carson presents seven views of the passage which have been held by commentators. Interestingly, he accepts the one that I prefer (EBC 8:252-53): “The ‘coming of the Son of Man’ here refers to his coming in judgment against the Jews, culminating in the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple,” and he cites R. T. France, C.F.D. Moule, J. A. T. Robinson, and William Barclay to name but a few. Leon Morris writes: “The variety of views shows that a decision on the meaning of the words is not easy” (Pillar New Testament Commentary: Matthew, 258). He notes that the A.D. 70 view was held by “Lenski, Carson, and others.” After examining various interpretations offered by commentators, D. A. Hagner calls the A.D. 70 view “The best one” (Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 2, p. 280).

Unfortunately, my free time to interact with his paper is drawing to a conclusion. I will jump to page 5 and his comments on Matthew 24:34. Although it is true that “verse 34 plays an extremely crucial role” in our understanding of the passage, it does not stand alone as evidence toward the preterist conclusion, after all:

(1) The Olivet Discourse flows out of Jesus’ denunciation of first century Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37) and her Temple (23:38). Followed by his departing that very Temple (24:1a), which leads to the disciples pointing out the stones of that Temple (24:1b). Jesus declares to them that the Temple would be destroyed stone-by-stone (24:2), to which the disciples ask “When shall these things be?” (24:3). Then follows his answer to that question.

(2) Verse 34 seems clearly to answer the express question as to “when shall these be?” (3) In 24:16 he clearly appears to be warning them to flee from Jerusalem to the mountains. (4) Both dispensationalists and preterists agree that the “abomination of desolation” refers to the Jewish Temple.

But the dispensationalist view requires that Jesus leap past the destruction of the first century Temple being spoken of in the context to an (alleged) rebuilt Temple in the distant future. This suppressed premise is counter-intuitive, especially given that there are so many clear indicators he is referring to the first century Temple in the very context. Although Dr. Briddle declares that the preterist “interpretation of the rest of the details of the chapter is forced and unnatural” (p. 6 ¶ 2), it seems that the dispensationalist view is “forced and unnatural.”

Another matter I would like quickly to state regards Briddle’s “Eschatological Expectation in the Book of Acts” (p. 8). In that the disciples constantly missed Jesus’ teaching regarding his crucifixion, I don’t see how we could be surprised if they missed his teaching regarding the restoration of the kingdom (as per Acts 1:6-7) — especially since this is prior to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). But as a matter of fact, my postmillennialism teaches that the Jews will be restored to the good favor of God before the last day.

Interestingly, Briddle omits one of the most potent preterist passages in Acts: Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:16ff. There he warns about the blood, fire and vapor of smoke that shall overwhelm Jerusalem before the great and notable Day of the Lord. We believe this is a clear warning to those in Jerusalem of the coming destruction of the city (hence, the Christians sell their property there because of its coming “market devaluation” through war).

I recommend my readers check my interpretation of Acts 3:19-21. It is found in my book He Shall Have Dominion.

Due to time pressures, I must call it quits at this point. Hopefully though, this should demonstrate the sort of concerns I have for the counter-evidence Dr. Briddle presented. Perhaps at a later date we can interact on the other issues.

[image error]