Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 65

WHY THE NUMBER 144,000?

PMW 2019-064 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

[image error]Some readers of Revelation are perplexed as to why 12 squared times 1000 is significant to the original readers in the 144,000? What is at about that number that would lead the original readers to think, ‘Oh that’s a number signifying a perfect amount of Jewish converts?’”

1. The Nature of Revelation

In the first place, no one would suggest Revelation is an easy book whose images leap out at you. John himself is left wondering about things within it from time to time (Rev 7:13, 14; 17:6-7).

In fact, in his opening sentence he informs his readers that the book is symbolic. Symbolism obviouislyi requires some thought. His introductory sentence is: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.”  The word “communicated” is esemanen which could be translated “sign-ified,” i.e., symbolized.

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

2.The Fact of the Number

Secondly, whatever the answer to your question is, the mysterious number 144,000 must mean something. John does specifically mention it. In Revelation John often — but not always —  informs us what the symbols mean.

In his very first vision (1:13–18), for instance, we might well imagine that the Son of Man is merely walking around a room with candlesticks in it, for John states: “I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man” (1:12–13). But John tells us very clearly that this image speaks of Christ’s presence among the seven churches. “The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches” (1:20).

In Rev 17 an interpretive angel informs John that the seven heads of the beast do not really picture a grotesque polycephalic creature. Rather we read: “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings” (17:9–10a).

Other samples appear elsewhere: the seven lamps are the “seven Spirits of God” (4:5); the seven eyes of the Lamb are “the seven Spirits of God” (5:6); the incense bowls are “the prayers of the saints” (5:8; 8:3–4); the dragon is “Satan’ (12:9); the “tabernacle” represents “those who dwell in heaven” (13:6); the frogs from the mouth of the dragon, beast, and false prophet are “unclean spirits” (16:13–14); the ten horns on the beast are “ten kings” (17:12); the waters of the harlot are “peoples and multitudes” (17:15); the fine linen is “the righteous acts of the saints” (19:8).

3. The Error in the Question

Finally, you are looking at the number wrongly, I believe. The number 144,000 does not stand alone, but derives from other expressly mentioned numbers in the context. John specifically lists 12 tribes, so we have the number 12 directly given to us by the historic fact of the 12 tribes of Israel.

But then the 144,000 results from the fact that each of the 12 tribes is multiplied by 1000. Hence, we have 12,000 from each of the 12 tribe times, which gives us the 144,000. So 12 is not randomly squared. Thus, the question ultimately is: Why is the number 1000 significant?

The number 1000 derives from 10 cubed. In Scripture 10 represents quantitative perfection — apparently based on the number of fingers on a man’s hand. Regarding the number ten in antiquity, its significance “no doubt derives from simple calculations on the fingers” (ISBE2 3:560). The Jewish Philosopher Philo speaks of “the perfect number ten” (Spec. 2:11 §41).

Therefore 10 speaks of completeness — as we see in there being ten commandments (Ex 34:28), ten plagues (Ex 7:8–11:10), a tithe (Ge 14:20; Nu 18:21), ten righteous men would have saved Sodom (Ge 18:32), Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins (Mt 25:1), and so forth (cp 12:3; 13:1; 17:3, 7, 12, 16).

And the cube of 10 does not appear out of the blue in Revelation — in fact the color blue is not found in Revelation :). We find the number 1000 used throughout Scripture as designating completeness. Scripture often uses the value of 1000 symbolically.

[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

For instance, God shows his mercy to a 1000 generations (Ex 20:6) — which suggests the perfect fullness of his grace (10 x 10 x 10). The Lord promises to make Israel a 1000 times more numerous than they are in Moses’ day (Dt 1:11) — bringing them to numerical fullness as a people. The Lord even claims the cattle on 1000 hills (Ps 50:10) — showing that he owns all the cattle of the earth. None of these statements should be interpreted literally.

Thus, the figure of 1000 more often than not expresses complete fullness, not an exact numerical accounting of 999 + 1.

So then, the 144,000 represents the fullness of Israel as found in the new covenant Church.

MILLENNIUM AS A DISPENSATIONAL PROBLEM

PMW 2019-063 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

[image error]Dispensationalists are prone to boast that Revelation 20 presents their system in clear and certain terms. They often declare that they can go to one text of Scripture and find their system. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This text actually presents them with serious problems. Consider the following.

First, the concluding period of earth history, which experiences the glorious victory of Christ, is a thousand years long, but its length appears in only one chapter of the entire Bible.

Second, Christ’s thousand year rule not only appears in only one chapter in Scripture, but that chapter is in the Bible’s most symbolic book. This book has a seven-headed beast, a woman standing on the moon, fire-breathing prophets, and more.

Third, consistency requires that dispensationalists literally interpret the “key” to the abyss as a physical object (Rev 20:1). Yet the same book presents Christ as holding a “key” to death (Rev 1:18). Surely death does not have a literal key.

Fourth, if we interpret Revelation 20 literally then only those Christians who live during the beast’s time will enter the premillennialist’s millennium. This is because the text only states that those who are martyred under him and effectively resist him will rule (Rev 20:4). Even if dispensationalists place the beast toward the end of history, just prior to the Rapture, the problem remains: The text only speaks of those who are martyred under him.

[image error]

Dispensational Distortions

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Fifth, if Revelation 20 presents only two resurrections, a problem arises. For according to their system the first resurrection is of all the saints. Then the second resurrection is at the end of the millennium and involves only the lost. Consequently, there is no resurrection for converts who die during both the tribulation and in the millennium.

Sixth, their view of a millennium in which Christ personally rules the nations is terribly problematic. For it results in his second humiliation, wherein his kingdom turns against him and surrounds him in Jerusalem (Rev 20:8–9). And this despite his own personally ruling them with a rod of iron.

Seventh, the premillennial view presents an absurd situation. On this view mortals who are aware that immortal, resurrected saints have been ruling them for a thousand years will nevertheless revolt against those immortals in trying to defeat them. This does not make sense.

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

GARY NORTH AND GENTRY COMMENTARY

[image error]GARY NORTH SENT THIS TO ME A FEW MINUTES AGO

Gary is funny, but I fear he is also a prophet. Ha!

(AP) Wars and rumor of wars cease.

The United Nations, Inc., a subdivision of Amazon, has announced that there have been no wars or rumors of wars for 12 months.

Also in the news: the long-awaited commentary by Kenneth Gentry on the Book of Revelation has been published. “My great-great grandfather prophesied these days,” said Billy Joe Gentry, of Atlanta.

 

SATAN’S LOOSING IN POSTMILLENNIAL THOUGHT

PMW 2019-019 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

[image error]I received this question from a reader. I think it might be helpful to other blog readers for me to answer it. Here is the question:

“As I’ve been reading your whole series on Revelation, I have come realize more and more how much we A-Mill Folks agree with you Post Mill Guys. But how does the loosing of Satan coincide with your postmillennial preterist hermeneutic? This seems to be the only area where I have a problem from the Preterist Viewpoint. Please advise where this fits.”

This is a good question that touches on an issue that seems to confront both preterism (Satan’s loosing occurs after 1000 years in a book set to transpire shortly) and to undermine the idea of the universal conquest of the gospel expected by postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is a theological construct whereas preterism is a methodology, rather than a theology. Both merge well in my understanding of postmillennialism. Let me explain.

First, regarding the loosing of Satan after the 1000 year reign of Christ and how it impacts the preterist hermeneutic:

I would point out that although the vast majority of Revelation focuses on events that will occur “soon” (Rev 1:1, 3), Rev 20 presents us with a period of a 1000 years which appears to begin shortly (thereby fitting into the preterist expectation). But it is not necessary for it to be completed shortly, i.e.,  before AD 70. By necessity, 1000 years extends into the distant future. Otherwise, if we could compact 1000 years into a short time frame (“shortly come to pass,” Rev 1:1), then why can we not just as legitimately declare that all the events that are to “shortly come to pass” speak of issues 1000 years or more years distant?

[image error]

Satan Issues

A two-message consideration of Satan. Actually one of the messages exposes a misunderstanding about Satan (he is not Lucifer), while the other demonstrates that Satan was bound by Christ in the first century.

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

Yet is seems very clear that Revelation insists that its judgments are approaching in the very near future (Rev 1:1, 3; 6:9–11; 10:6c; 22:6, 10). This is a continuing drumbeat in Revelation. It must be speaking of the near term. That is, the main body of Revelation focuses on the near term.

But preterism is a hermeneutic insight, not a theological observation. Hermeneutically, Revelation’s main point comes to pass “soon” because “the time is at hand” (Rev 1:1, 3). Nevertheless, while its judgment prophecies are largely approaching, the preterist hermeneutic does not prohibit a glance at the long term implications of the near term events. That is, the great majority of judgments in Revelation will occur in the context of AD 70. But history does not end with AD 70; there are consequences to those judgment events. And those consequences look into the distant future.

Second, regarding the loosing of Satan after the 1000 year reign of Christ and how it impacts the postmillennial eschatology:

The very idea of a final rebellion of Satan fits easily into the postmillennial outlook. For in the first place, the idea of his loosing to initiate a rebellion indicates that until then he has not been able to exercise such an influence. It presupposes that he has been constrained, which is exactly what postmillennialism expects. (See earlier study on the binding of Satan.)

During the time of his binding, the gospel will go forth and gradually gain a greater and growing influence. Postmillennialists expect that the world will come under the dominant influence of the gospel which will remain a dominant influence for a long period of time.

Yet, according to God’s revelation in Scripture, the Lord will release Satan toward the very end so that he can gather out those who are merely “culturally Christian” but not truly regenerate. He will prompt these to revolt against the Christian majority in an attempt to disestablish the Christian faith. But as Revelation 20 shows, Christ’s return will crush him and the eternal state will begin in earnest.

[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/

The fact that he has an army as large as “the sand of the seashore” (Rev 20:8b) should not make us believe that this is the vast majority of the human race. This is a hyperbolic statement in an enormously symbolic book. And this figure is a common ancient image used of large-scale armies in (Jos 11:4; Jdg 7:12; 1Sa 13:5; 2Sa 17:11), various local populations (1Ki 4:20; Isa 10:22; 48:19; Jer 15:8; 33:22; Hos 1:10), the patriarchs’ offspring (Ge 22:17; 32:12), and so forth. In fact, the 1 Sam 13:5 reference specifically mentions only 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen accompanying Philistia’s army. In 2 Sam 17:11 the writer is referring to early Israel’s own army, which could hardly approach this enormous number literally. In Jeremiah God speaks against Jerusalem warning that “their widows will be more numerous before Me / Than the sand of the seas” (Jer 15:8a). Sandy (2002: 41) notes that prophets often “express emotion rather than exactness . . . in order to shock listeners.”

Thus, the loosing of Satan after a 1000 year period does not undermine either the preterist hermeneutic or the postmillennial theology.

[image error]

THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF REVELATION

[image error]PMW 2019-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A significant issue debated by Revelation scholars revolves around the “seven spirits” first mentioned in Rev. 1:4 (see also Rev. 3:1; 4:5; and 5:6). That initial text (with a portion of its context) reads:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Rev. 1:4–5)

Despite the debate, the evidence strongly suggests that John is speaking of the Holy Spirit when he mentions the seven spirits. Here is some of the evidence.

(1) This identity fits with the context that is presenting the Father (1:4c) and the Son (1:5).

(2) It would be strange to put angels here before Christ himself since he is the dominant character in the drama and the angels are his subordinates.

(3) It would be odd for John to omit the Holy Spirit here when he speaks of him frequently elsewhere in Rev (1:10; 2:7, 11, 29; 3:1, 6, 13, 22; 4:2; 14:13; 17:3; 21:10; 22:17). The fact that he does not directly call him “the Spirit” or that he actually pluralizes his singular person (“seven spirits”) does not counter this observation. After all, John uses a variety of images for both God and Christ; and his apocalyptic imagery can allow for a symbolic, pluralized image-form.

(4) The benediction of grace and peace flows equally “from” each of these three persons: apo / apo / apo (1:4–5). This expects a divine source rather than a mixed source such as from God, the divine Christ, and created angelic 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

(5) The context employs a pattern of threes which would most naturally expect the paralleling of the divine Spirit with the divine Father and Christ. The benediction comes from three (apo / apo / apo, 1:4–5); the Father has a three-fold title (is / was / coming, 1:4); Christ’s identity is presented in a three-fold manner (witness, first-born, ruler, 1:5); and John gives a three-fold benediction rooted in Christ’s work (to him who loves / released / made us, 1:5–6).

(6) Rev expressly rejects any adoration of angels (19:10; 22:8). To elevate angels as a source of grace and peace clashes with this tendency.

(7) In the NT the source of grace and peace — the source of benedictory blessings — is always divine. By way of example, see the Pauline and Petrine benedictions listed above.

(8) The Holy Spirit is the characteristic identification of pneuma in the NT when found in conjunction with or as part of an apparent formula with God and Christ.

(9) Rev’s three parallel appearances of this designation all point to the Holy Spirit. In 3:1 an image of Christ drawn from the vision at 1:16 appears where he “has [exōn] the seven Spirits of God” (also in 5:6 the Lamb’s “seven eyes . . . are the seven Spirits of God”). John’s Gospel emphasizes Christ’s receiving the Spirit (Jn 1:33), giving the Spirit (Jn 3:34; 20:22), and baptizing with the Spirit (Jn 1:32). Christ is the one who asks the Father to give the Spirit (Jn 16:5–7) so that “when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth” (Jn 15:26; cp. Jn 7:39). He graciously imparts the Spirit to his apostles to lead them into all the truth (Jn 16:13; 20:22; cp. Rev. 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10). The indwelling of the Spirit is the coming of Christ within (Jn 14:17–18; cp. Ro 8:9; Gal 4:6). In 4:5 and 5:6 the seven spirits echo Zec 4.

In Rev 4:5 the seven spirits of God are called “seven lamps” which reflect Zechariah’s seven lamps (Zec 4:2). In 5:6 the “seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth” are associated with the “seven eyes” of the Lamb which allude to Zec 4:10 where “the eyes of the Lord . . . range to and fro throughout the earth.” And in Zec 4 all of this speaks of the work of “My spirit” (Zec 4:6). Zechariah 4 also impacts a later vision in Rev 11:4. Thus, John appears to be associating the seven spirits with Zechariah’s imagery and the work of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, also back of John’s image appears to be the seven-fold spirit of Christ from Isa 11:2 (LXX) which mentions the “stem of Jesse” (Isa 11:1) which parallels John’s “the Root of David” (5:5).

[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

(10) The following context comports well with the seven-fold spirit. That is, the first vision of Christ (1:12–20) presents him walking among the seven lampstands, which represents the seven churches of Asia (1:20). The seven-fold Spirit would provide the oil in the seven lamps thereby showing the Spirit works through their witness to the world.

[image error]

POSTMILLENNIALISM’S “SIN PROBLEM” (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-060 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I began a brief consideration of the challenge: How can postmillennialism have a hope for the future in light of the total depravity of man? This is a reasonable challenge. Our eschatology must be compatible with out theology. One doctrine should not undermine another: “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

Hal Lindsey complains that postmillennialists “rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man” (Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth, 176). I would note, however, that postmillennialists do not believe in the inherent goodness of man, but Lindsey most definitely believes in the inherent weakness of the gospel. He believes that man’s sin successfully resists the gospel even to the end of history. Jonah also had a concern regarding the power of the gospel: he feared its power to save wicked, powerful Nineveh (Jon 1:2–3, 10; 3:2; 4:1–4).

Gary North notes the irony of the complaint that I am considering here. Anti-postmillennialists “believe that a postmillennial revival is inherently impossible because of the power of rebellious autonomous men. They have great faith in man — autonomous, unsaved man. He can thwart the plan of God. Autonomous man says “no” to God, and God supposedly chooses never to overcome this ‘no.’ So, it is in fact the critic of postmillennialism who has faith in autonomous man. He believes that unsaved mankind has such enormous power to do evil that God cannot or will not overcome evil in history by the Spirit-empowered gospel.” (North and DeMar, Christian Reconstruction, 63)

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though it is true that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer 17:9), yet the postmillennialist firmly believes that “God is greater than our heart” (1Jn 3:20). We are confident that “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1Jn 4:4). After Christ’s resurrection the church receives the Spirit’s outpouring (Jn 7:39; Ac 2:33). And God promises that historical power is “not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit” (Zec 4:6).

We must emphasize this point: We may not convincingly argue for any optimistic expectation for mankind’s future on a secular base. This glorious postmillennial prospect is not in any way, shape, or form rooted in any humanistic effort. We cannot have a high estimation of man’s future based on man in himself, for “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Ro 8:7–8). When left to himself man’s world is corrupted and destroyed — a classic illustration being in the days of Noah (Ge 6:5). But God refuses to leave man to himself.

But neither does the hope for the man’s progress under the gospel relate to the Christian’s self-generated strength, wisdom, or cleverness. Left to our own efforts, we Christians too quickly learn that “apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5). Were our future outlook rooted in the unaided power even of redeemed man, all would be hopeless. But our hope is in the resurrected Christ. “The labor is ours; the subduing is His.” (Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew, 422)

[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

Amillennialist Bernard Woudenberg’s complaint against postmillennialism is woefully ill-conceived: “It is like the children of Israel rushing in to take the land of Canaan, but without Moses at their head (Numbers 14:40–45). Christ alone holds the right to rule, and he does (Ephesians 1:19–22), and we are never more than simply servants of His” (Woudenberg, “Hope as an Incentive to Godliness,” Standard Bearer, 1990,161). As Woudenberg notes in his self-vitiating argument, Christ does rule! Therefore, postmillennialists humbly bow themselves before him and seek to employ his Law-word under his headship. Would Woudenberg dismiss authoritative church leadership? Is eldership a usurpation of the authority of Christ who is the Head of his church? How, then, can he dismiss the prospect of Christian leadership in the world, as if it implies a usurpation of Christ’s authority?

Sin is a huge factor in world affairs, to be sure. But God has established redemption to overcome that factor. Despite all the sin in the world, we must faithfully pray: “Your will be done, / On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). And in praying, we must believe. “All things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive” (Matt 21:22).

[image error]

POSTMILLENNIALISM’S “SIN PROBLEM” (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-059 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the most frequent, forceful, and compelling objections against the postmillennial hope of world conversion is based on the problem of sin. Like me, many Christians are committed to Calvinistic doctrine regarding man’s total depravity. Total depravity teaches that man is a fallen sinner and depraved in every aspect of being. How can we have any hope for a better world governed by sinful men?

In dispensationalist J. Dwight Pentecost’s assessment of the deficiencies of postmillennialism, his fourth objection is along these lines. He speaks of “the new trend toward realism in theology and philosophy, seen in neo-orthodoxy, which admits man is a sinner, and can not bring about the new age anticipated by postmillennialism” (Pentecost, Things to Come, 387). Prophetic populist Hal Lindsey asserts that postmillennialism believes in “the inherent goodness of man” (Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, 176).

Herman Hanko, a strong Calvinist, is convinced that “from the fall on, the world develops the sin of our first parents. This development continues throughout history. . . . More and more that kingdom of darkness comes to manifestation as time progresses” (Hanko, “An Exegetical Refutation of Postmillennialism,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal [11:2] 25). Indeed, in his view postmillennialism “is a mirage, therefore, a false hope, because it fails to reckon properly with the fact of sin” and “cannot take sin as seriously as do the Scriptures” (Hanko, “The Illusory Hope of Postmillennialism,” Reformed Witness, 159).

How can the postmillennialist get around such objections? Especially Calvinist postmillennialists, like me? I will answer this question in two articles.

In the first place I would point that despite the presence of sin, sinners do nevertheless convert to Christ. We must remember that each and every convert to Christ was at one time a totally depraved sinner. Is this not the case? Has it not always been the case?

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And yet we have hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today. Salvation comes by the gospel which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom 1:16). How can we deny the gospel’s power that has already saved millions of depraved sinners? What God can do for one sinner he can do for another. This is evident in the apostolic era (Ac 2:41; 4:4), as well as in biblical prophecy (Isa 2:3–4; Psa 86:9; Rev 5:9; 7:9).

A fatal objection to postmillennialism cannot arise from the power of sin. After all, the power of God to save greatly overshadows the power of sin to destroy. Indeed, “with God all things are possible” (Lk 18:27). In the ultimate analysis, the issue is not the power of sin, but the power of God. As I point out in the PostmillennialismToday blog, and as all postmillennialists argue, It is God’s will to bring redemption gradually to the whole world as a system through the proclamation of Christ’s gospel while building his church.

But in one sense though it is true that the postmillennialist overlooks the depravity of man. He overlooks it — that is, looks over and beyond it — to see the resurrection of Jesus Christ. David Chilton challenges us: “Like Peter walking on the Sea of Galilee, [despairing evangelicals] looked at ‘nature’ rather than at the Lord Jesus Christ; like the Israelites on the border of Canaan, they looked at the ‘giants in the land’ instead of trusting the infallible promises of God; they were filled with fear, and took flight” (Chilton, Paradise Restored, 232).

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond[image error]

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We see the glorious power of Christ’s resurrection overwhelming the destructive power of Adam’s fall. We need to consider the strength of grace in comparison to the power of sin. The Christian should ask himself: “Have I ever seen a lost man become saved?” The answer is: Yes. This being the case, it is evident that grace is stronger than sin. The Christian should then ask a follow up question: “Does the Bible teach that a saved man can lose his salvation?” Here the answer is: No. In both cases, we see the superior power of God’s grace over man’s sin. As postmillennialist scholar David Brown once put it: “Souls that have felt the Saviour’s grace know right well its matchless power. After their own conversion, they can never doubt its converting efficacy on any scale that may be required” (Brown, Christ’s Second Coming, 302–303).

To be continued.

[image error]

UNPLANNED: A DEEPLY MOVING STORY

[image error]Note: The full title of this article is: “Unplanned: A Deeply Moving Story of a Planned Parenthood Whistleblower.” It is an important movie  exposing the horror of abortion. I highly recommend it. Ken Gentry

The true story of Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director who presided over tens of thousands of abortions. But when she finally sees an actual abortion, her entire life is turned upside down.

I just saw the premiere a couple days ago in Los Angeles. I was blown away. Put it on your calendars NOW to see it opening weekend March 29.

If you care at all, even a little bit, about the issue of abortion in this country, you must see this woman’s story. It is a deeply moving portrait of redemption. It is both gripping and beautiful.

Ashley Bratcher plays Abby Johnson with a fresh innocence, a growing awakening, a broken heart, and a freed soul. Her journey is nuanced, honest and without malice.

The Cover Up

All the demons of hell are going to come out against this movie. Why? Because it is good story told well that will move the hearts of anyone with a conscience who watches it.

And it isn’t a propaganda piece. It shows some pro-life protestors at their worst, and all the Planned Parenthood workers at their best. It is honest about the nuances and complexities of the issue of abortion in the real world of women’s lived experiences.

This is not good news for Planned Parenthood. It’s a whistleblower movie about justice that is on the level of Silkwood, The Insider, Erin Brockovich, A Civil Actionand Michael Clayton.

And like those movies, the evil corporate beast seeks to crush the hero.

The powers that be already tried to suppress it by giving it an R-rating, even though it is only a PG-13 movie. . . .

To read full article: click

[image error]

WHAT WAS SODOM’S SIN?

[image error]PMW 2019-057 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Gen. 19:5 we read: They called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” What do these men intend by this request to Lot?

Historically, Jew and Christian alike have recognized Sodom’s pervasive sin (highlighted in Gen. 18–19) as widespread homosexual conduct. But in the contemporary world of collapsing moral values, many “affirming” scholars, whole liberal denominations, and an increasing number of evangelical Christians have challenged this understanding.

These interpreters invariably point to Ezekiel’s reference to Sodom in his condemnation of Jerusalem. They argue there that Jerusalem’s population (Eze. 16:1–3) was inhospitable to Lot’s visitors, which the prophet links to Israel’s sin of refusing to “help the poor and needy”: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy” (Eze. 16:49).

[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

Yet, Ezekiel’s surrounding verses speak of “abominations” (Ezek. 16:2, 22, 43, 47, 50, 51, 58), a designation too severe for inhospitality and neglecting the poor (cp. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 22:5). It also employs other sex-based terms in rebuking Jerusalem, such as referring to her “harlotries” (Eze. 16:15–17, 2, 22, 25–31, 33–36, 41), “adultery” (Eze. 16:32, 38), “nakedness” (Eze. 16:7, 8, 22, 36, 37, 39), and “lewdness” (Eze. 16:27, 36, 43, 58).

Why would the sin of inhospitality lead God to execute “capital punishment” against Sodom (Gen. 18:20–32; 19:13, 24, 25, 29; Deut. 29:23; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15; 11:24; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7)? After all, homosexual conduct is a capital crime in God’s law, as recorded by Moses, the author of Genesis (Lev. 20:13).

Furthermore, the historical context stands against this inhospitality interpretation. We must recognize that twice before the episode in Gen. 19, the men of Sodom were already denounced as “wicked exceedingly and sinners” (Gen. 13:13) or rejected because “their sin is exceedingly grave” (Gen. 18:20).

Many who do admit the desire for homosexual relations in Gen. 19 insist that the men of Sodom were bent on homosexual rape, not consensual homosexual relations. They see their actions as a desire to humiliate these foreigners through this means of sexual dominance. But this does not explain the situation either. Why would the men of Sodom request that Lot allow them to rape his visitors (Gen. 19:5, 8b) whom he had welcomed into his home (Gen. 19:2–3)?

Rather, Sodom is so overrun by homosexuality that these citizens expected Lot’s visitors to have sexual relations with them. Sodom’s sin was widespread homosexual conduct (Gen. 19:4), seeking “strange flesh” (Jude 7). Initially they were not asking to rape the two men, for rape passages always speak of coercion (e.g., Jdg. 19:25) or use different words than the Hebrew yada, which is used here (Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 13:14; Deut. 22:25). Though eventually when rebuffed the Sodomites do threaten rape (v. 9).

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of American culture and to our Christian influence in culture. In this sermon series the homosexual question is tackled head on.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In God’s law homosexuality is not a civil right, but an abomination (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The New Testament re-states the criminal prohibition of homosexuality in God’s law (1 Tim. 1:8–11). It also warns that tolerance of homosexual conduct is not evidence of social freedom, but is a sign of God’s judgment on a God-denying culture (Rom. 1:24, 26–28). This is because it is contrary to God’s creational design (see note on Gen. 1:27).

Nevertheless, the Christian worldview presents the reality of God and his sovereign, saving grace. Thus, the New Testament also points out that homosexuals can be healed, just as can habitual fornicators and adulterers (1 Cor. 6:9–11). God’s word promises that “though your sins are as scarlet, / they will be as white as snow” (Isa. 1:18; cp. Psa. 51:7; Isa. 43:25).

[image error]

THE PROMISED LAND FOREVER?

[image error]PMW 2019-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Gen. 13:14–15 God promises that he will give the land to Abraham’s descendants “forever” (cp. Gen. 12:7). This will soon be confirmed by solemn covenant (cp. Gen. 15:7, 18) and is noted elsewhere in Scripture (Exo. 32:13; Josh. 14:9; 2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 60:21).

Since “the earth is the LORD’s, and all it contains, / The world, and those who dwell in it” (Psa. 24:1), as Moses well knows (Exo. 9:29; Deut. 10:14), the land is God’s to give to whomever he pleases. Besides this, the evil Canaanite culture would eventually (Gen. 15:16) justify God’s expelling them from the land (Lev. 18:2–3, 24–28 and “Deuteronomy Introduction” at “Special Issues”).

The “forever” nature of this promise must be understood in terms of both the lexical significance of the Hebrew “forever,” the moral sanctions involved in God’s covenant, and the typological function of Old Testament redemptive history.

Israel in the Bible and History (9 mp3 lectures)[image error]

by Ken Gentry

The people of Israel are the people of God. But the modern church is divided over the nature, call and identity of Israel. This lecture series covers key issues for understanding the biblical concept of Israel.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

First, a lexical observation

Lexically, the Hebrew word translated “forever” is olam. It does not necessarily indicate unending perpetuity, but may represent a long period of time. For instance, it applies to the Old Testament sacrificial system, as in the practice of the Passover (which was fulfilled in Christ, Exo. 12:14, 17, 24), the continuation of offerings for the Aaronic priesthood (which has long since vanished, Exo. 29:28; cp. Exo. 40:15; Num. 25:13), and the permanence of the temple (which was fulfilled in Christ and destroyed in AD 70, 2 Chron. 7:16).

Clearly these samples of “forever” do not speak of unending duration, not even until the end of temporal history. This is further confirmed when “forever” speaks of the permanent status in Israel of a slave who wants to remain with his master’s house (Exo. 21:6) and the memorial stones set up by Joshua (Josh. 4:7).

Calvin observes regarding the language here that “in promising the land ‘for ever,’ he does not simply denote perpetuity; but that period which was brought to a close by the advent of Christ.” He adds, “the change which Christ introduced was not the abolition of the old promises, but rather their confirmation.” All of this fits perfectly with the typological nature of the Old Testament, which finds its fulfillment in the New.

Second, a covenantal observation

Covenantally the Lord gives this land to Abraham in terms of a formal covenant transaction (Gen. 15:12–20), not as a simple gift without any obligations or breach-of-covenant sanctions.

This is evident in that God often warns Israel that she may lose the land if she breaks covenant with him: Israel is warned that she must obey him “so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you” (Lev. 18:28). Indeed, in the great covenant blessing and curse chapter, we find that it draws near to its conclusion warning: “It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it” (Deut. 28:63).

[image error]

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology

10 mp3 downloadable lectures. Southern California Center for Christian Studies seminar. Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction. Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, a typological observation

Typologically the Promised Land serves as a type of the whole earth. As such, it pictures the spiritual rest brought by Christ’s kingdom, which shall cover the earth (see Heb. 3–4). We see this, for instance, in Psa. 37:11, which speaks of God’s promise to his people: “But the meek shall inherit the land.” Yet in Matt. 5:5 Jesus expands this very promise to include the entire earth. Also Abraham apparently understood the land promise as a down payment representing his inheriting the whole world (Rom. 4:13). Paul expands the land promises to extend across all the earth, when he draws them into the New Testament (e.g., Eph. 6:3).

In the unfolding story of redemption in the Old Testament, we see the expanding of the land promises: God gives Adam a garden (Gen. 2:8); he grants Abraham’s seed a country (Josh. 1); he promises the New Covenant church the world (Matt. 28:18–20). Ultimately, in fact, Hebrews 11:8–16 shows that the land received by Abraham was not his ultimate longing. Rather, he understood it as referring to the eternal city of God’s kingdom (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22–29).

[image error]