Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 68

JOHN DID NOT WRITE SEVEN “LETTERS” (3)

[image error]PMW 2019-035 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the final installment in a three-part study of seven “letters” to the seven churches in Revelation. I have been arguing that they are not really letters at all. Rather they are judgment oracles. This fits perfectly with the preterist understanding of Rev as a covenant lawsuit against Israel. In the previous article I offered the first two arguments for the oracular nature of these seven messages. In this article I will complete my argument by presenting my final three points.

Third, the oracles are a part of the crucial, introductory vision of the Son of Man and even flesh out this visionary unit that extends from 1:9 all the way through to 3:22. The oracles are not separate, free-standing material. Unfortunately, this is obscured by the modern chapter divisions imposed upon the text. But we can see the unified nature of this larger section from several lines of evidence:

(1) The initial portion of the vision of the Son of Man ends with a statement regarding the seven churches (1:20). Then it immediately begins presenting oracles to those very churches: “to the angel of the church in Ephesus write” (2:1a). This by itself should compel us to recognize this material as a related unit.

(2) The Son of Man in the vision is repeatedly declared to be the very one who is charging John to write (1:11, 12, 17, 19; cp. 1:3): this continuing charge is carefully repeated in introducing each of the seven oracles (2:1a, 8a, 12a, 18a; 3:1a, 7a, 14a). Thus, John is evidently still in the presence of the visionary Son of Man and continues to hear him speaking (which speaking began in 1:12) in the authoritative oracles: “the One who . . . says” (2:1b; cp. 2:8b, 12b, 18b; 3:1b, 7b, 14b).

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

(3) The descriptions of the Son of Man in the vision (1:12–20) are repeatedly brought into the oracles to underscore the fact that he is the one who continues to speak. For instance, in 2:2 he is presents himself as “the One who holds the seven stars” which reflects the vision of 1:20. In 2:8b he calls himself “the first and the last” which is based on 1:17c. And so on (see more on this below).

(4) John provides no internal break, no textual clue to suggest that he has left his visionary experience (1:10). That is, we do not hear such transitional statements as “after these things” (4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1). Interestingly though, the actual name “Jesus” or “Christ” is never given in the oracles, though it appears in 1:1, 2, 5, 9; 11:15; 12:10, 17; 14:12; 19:10; 20:4, 6; 22:16, 20, 21)

Thus, regarding the importance of the seven oracles, we must recognize that they are a part of the all-important, opening vision of the risen, death-conquering Christ who will dominate the entire story of Rev. They are therefore important as introductions to the judgment/salvation visions to follow. All of this “is very important” in that by recounting “this vision as he does at the beginning of the work” he “established, in the customary fashion of Judaeo-Christian rhetoric, his ēthos as a prophet — the trustworthiness of character that Aristotle identified as perhaps the most effective source of rhetorical proof” (John Kirby).

Fourth, as historically-focused oracles they anchor Rev in the first century, which we should expect in light of John’s near-term indicators (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). John opens his book with a vision of the Son of Man (1:12–22) among those particular churches (1:4, 11, cp. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), then immediately applies this vision to the real circumstances of his original audience. The preterist approach sees these messages as providing strong evidence for its understanding of the overall point of Rev.

Fifth, the presence of the oracles as microcosms of John’s larger story is also helpful for our understanding a very practical matter: the relationship of the seven churches to the drama therein. After all, the redemptive-historical preterist sees the main focus of Rev to be on Israel’s AD 70 judgment (1:7). If John is writing to Asia Minor churches about the approaching fall of Jerusalem over 450 miles across the Mediterranean Sea to the southeast how is Rev important for its original recipients? I would point out the following.

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

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

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

John writes to the seven churches of Asia but through them to all the churches: note that the Son of Man “holds the seven stars” in his hand (2:1), each of the oracles speaks to “the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), and at one place we specifically hear that “all the churches” are to learn from the experience of one (2:23). Thus, “these seven churches have been singled out to complete the sublime number that figures so prominently in the symbolism of the book, and thus to epitomize the first-century church as a whole” (Kirby). The smaller story of the seven churches plays out on the larger canvas of the judgments closing out the old covenant in the fall of Jerusalem and the permanent collapse of the Jewish temple as a redemptive-historical act in establishing the new covenant. The larger story to unfold in Jerusalem is not irrelevant to the local churches far away in Asia Minor.

JOHN DID NOT WRITE SEVEN “LETTERS” (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-034 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In the preceding article in this three-part series, I introduced the concept that the seven messages that appear early in Rev are not really letters. Rather they should be understood as prophetic oracles built on the covenant lawsuit model of the Old Testament. These seven oracles are important for several reasons. I will highlight two of those in this article, and the remaining ones in my next article.

First, a major reason John writes Rev is to encourage faithfulness through the storm of persecution befalling John’s original Christian recipients. Throughout Rev he urges perseverance through the coming trials (1:3, 9; 12:11; 13:10; 14:4–5; 16:16; 17:14; 21:7). For instance, John opens with: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:9). So at the very beginning of his book John declares that he and his recipients are “in the tribulation” and that they must also engage in “perseverance.” The several other verses I list above also testify to the urgent call to hold on through the storm.

This perseverance theme holds true in the oracles as well (2:2–3, 10, 17, 19, 25–26; 3:3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 21). In this distinct section (2:1–3:22). For instance, in the opening comments in the opening oracle, we read: “I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary” (Rev 2:2–3). Christ speaks directly to the churches regarding their own specific issues in their own historical contexts and calls them to overcome (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21).

Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In each oracle Christ states: “I know your x” (2:2, 9, 13, 19; 3:1, 8, 15). He also calls for spiritual faithfulness in each of the seven churches by using “an aphorism rooted in the Jesus tradition”: ho echōn ous akousatō (“he who has an ear”; 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). This call reflects that which Jesus issues to his listeners (Mt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mk 4:9, 23; Lk 8:8; 14:35).

Second, the themes set forth in the oracles are developed in the dramatic visions to follow in Rev. John Kirby observes that “these serve more or less as ‘cover-letters’ for the rest of the work.” Consequently, as G. K. Beale notes, they serve as a “literary microcosm of the entire book’s macrocosmic structure.” James Barr agrees: “In this way, the story of the letters is really the story of the whole work.” Barr adds: “The letters to the seven churches are small rhetorical gems, not only perfectly balanced within themselves, but each correlated with the opening vision of the risen Christ. . . . They also contain all the basic themes of the work. . . . They are, in other words, a sort of miniature of the Apocalypse in prosaic style.” Or as Alan Bandy expresses it: “the impact of these messages cause ripples throughout the entire vision evident by the intratextual reverberations later in the book.”

We may see that the oracles anticipate the larger narrative of Rev in several respects. In addition to the

perseverance theme just stated, the later visions expand other oracle themes such as: overcoming (2:7, 11, 17, 26 = 12:11; 15:2; 17:14; 21:7), tribulation (2:9, 10 = 22; 7:14), Satan (2:9 = 13; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7), martyrdom (2:13 = 6:9–11; 11:7–10; 14:13; 17:6), idolatry (2:14, 20 = 9:20; 13:4; 21:8; 22:15), sword judgment (2:16 = 6:4; 13:10; 19:15, 21), salvation blessing (2:7 = 22:2; 2:11 = 20:6; 21:8; 2:26b-27 = 20:4 ), and more.

[image error]

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

This is especially significant in that Rev’s theme regards God’s imminent judgment against the Jews for their killing Christ (1:7), for in the oracles we also see Jewish opposition against the local churches (2:9; 3:9) and the divine judgment upon them that is approaching (3:10). Christ’s judgment-coming against Israel is also anticipated by his chastening-coming against the individual churches themselves (2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 11). Significantly, “the conclusion of each message carries a theme that runs through Revelation — viz., God’s mercy and loving-kindness toward his own (cf. 7:15, 17; 19:7–9; 21:3–7). A conditional promise of salvation then follows after an exhortation to ‘listen’ (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 12, 22)” (Robert Muse).

I will continue this study in my next and final article.

JOHN DID NOT WRITE SEVEN “LETTERS” (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The literary genre of Revelation is one of the key issues in its proper interpretation. The question of genre even affects our understanding of the seven letters in Rev. 2 and 3. The “Seven Letters of Revelation” are a familiar and popular section of John’s Revelation. Unfortunately, these popularly-designated “letters” to the seven churches are not actually letters at all.

Rather the so-called Seven Letters are actually more adapted to Revelation’s overarching literary genre and judgment message. They are prophetic oracles or royal proclamations. And as such they perfectly fit in with the theme and flow of Revelation.

These seven messages do not appear to be epistles in that they “diverge from the normal models of Greco-Roman epistolary writing” (Alan Bandy). Each one begins with a command to write to a church rather than a salutation which is altogether lacking (even though Rev as a whole has a salutation, 1:4–5). Nor do they have appropriate conclusions which were “a standard part of all personal letters in antiquity” (R. L. Muse).

In addition, the opening of each “letter” immediately declares tade legei, “thus says,” or more literally “these things he says.” This is more in keeping with a prophetic oracle or royal proclamation. Clearly, these oracles are uniquely framed in the NT, differing from common epistolary forms.

In the OT the prophets occasionally send prophetic oracles by way of letter, but they are most decidedly oracles — oracles structured by the covenant lawsuit pattern. In Rev the seven oracles come from Christ who “is above all the Faithful Witness (1:5) whose legal testimony will be decisive when the heavenly tribunal examines the earthly covenant partners” (G. Campbell). The OT prophetic oracles open with “thus says” and are followed by a statement of who speaks (Yahweh). This is like the seven oracles in Rev beginning with tade legei (“thus says”) followed by a description of the authoritative speaker (usually the Son of Man, 1:13–20).

[image error]

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In this regard, we must consider the following OT examples: “Then a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet saying, ‘Thus says the LORD God of your father David’” (2Ch 21:12). “Now these are the words of the letter which Jeremiah the prophet sent. . . . ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel’” (Jer 29:1, 4). “Zephaniah the priest read this letter to Jeremiah the prophet. Then came the word of the LORD to Jeremiah, saying” (Jer 29:29–30). We also see this form in the OT in a royal proclamation: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia” (2Ch 36:23). Outside of Rev the only time this common prophetic phrase is used in the NT is in Ac 21:11b. There Agabus issues a prophetic pronouncement regarding Paul’s coming captivity: “This is what the Holy Spirit says [tade legei].”

The oracles generally present two fundamental messages. Both of these message types conform to the OT prophetic pattern. They are:

1. A warning message is presented to each of the churches, even to the two who are not rebuked: Smyrna (2:10) and Philadelphia (2:10–11).

2. A promise of salvation is given as the high point of each oracle (2:7b, 11b, 17b, 26–28; 3:4–5, 12, 21). These two message run throughout Rev’s narrative, with the salvation message being the goal of Rev.

Since Revelation is an apocalyptic prophecy detailing God’s covenant curse on Israel, the structure and significance of these seven messages as prophetic oracles is significant. Even if widely misunderstood. Stay tuned for Part 2.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

EVIL KING MANASSEH’S CONVERSION?

[image error]PMW 2019-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Elsewhere on this blog site I define postmillennialism as follows:

Postmillennialism holds that the Lord Jesus Christ established his kingdom on earth in the first century through his preaching and redemptive work. Since then he has continued to equip his Church with the gospel, empower her by his Spirit, and charge her with the Great Commission to disciple all nations. Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of men living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ’s return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions, the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and gloriously, to end history. Associated with his return will be the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows. Because of its worldwide historical implications, postmillennialism generates an holistic worldview touching on all areas of life.

That being the case, we must be alert to an important distinction between true and false conversions. Postmillennialists are glad for the general influence of Christianity on the world. But what we labor for and ultimately expect is a dramatic impact on the world that is rooted in true conversions by the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). We are all aware that much of Christianity is today made up of falsely-professing “believers.” These people should be targets of our evangelistic outreach, for being “almost persuaded” is not enough.

We can even examples of false conversions in Scripture. These should forewarn us of the danger of false conversions so as to forearm us to confront them. One classic example is evil King Manasseh.

The picture of Manasseh that we see in 2 Kings is wholly negative. For example, we read: 21:11 “ Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols” (2 Kgs. 21:11; cp. vv. 9, 16, 17). However, the 2 Chronicles report is distinct in its ending on a positive note suggesting his repentance and conversion.

In 2 Chronicles we read that he “entreated the LORD” and “humbled himself greatly” before God (2 Chron. 33:12). And that he also “prayed to” God who “heard his supplication” then brought him out of captivity, with the result that he “knew the LORD was God” (v. 13). This is followed by his removing idols from the temple (v. 15) and setting up an altar to God and offering peace and thank offerings on it, while ordering his people to “serve the LORD” (v. 16). Then the concluding summary of his life highlights “his prayer to his God” (v. 18), noting how “God was entreated by him” when he “humbled himself” (v. 19).

Conservative scholars are divided as to whether or not Manasseh truly repents. However, I believe the evidence suggests that his “conversion” is superficial at best, not being deeply-rooted and genuine. In fact, it appears to be prompted solely by his emotional “distress” while in captivity (2 Chron. 33:12). As a result, it produces only partial, temporary results. The negative evidence against his conversion includes the following.

First, the writer of Kings does not mention it, though it would be a remarkable example of God’s covenant faithfulness and mercy. And if Manasseh’s conversion were real, it would afford an opportunity for the writer to commend him. For the historian frequently highlights good kings who did “right” in God’s eyes (1 Kgs. 15:5; 22:43; 2 Kgs. 10:30; 12:2; 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:3; 22:2). Yet, no evaluative commendation of Manasseh appears in the biblical text.

Lord of the Saved[image error]

(by Ken Gentry)

A critique of easy believism and affirmation of Lordship salvation. Shows the necessity of true, repentant faith to salvation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, immediately after the report of Manasseh’s supposed “conversion” (2 Chron. 33:12–18), he is used as an evil standard by which his own son is denounced (2 Chron. 33:22). It would be odd for someone to be praised as a devout follower of God in one breath then used as an example a great evil in the next — if he were truly converted.

Third, Manasseh remains a standard of evil that is used to evaluate bad kings:

“He did evil in the sight of the LORD, as Manasseh his father had done” (2 Kgs. 21:20; 2 Chron. 33:22).

“The LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger burned against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him” (2 Kgs. 23:26).

Fourth, despite good king Josiah’s later reforms (2 Kgs. 23:4–25), God’s wrath is not turned from Judah. Thus, we may used 2 Kgs. 23:26–27 once again, but from this additional perspective: “because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him” (2 Kgs. 23:26–27).

Fifth, Jeremiah also points to Manasseh as the reason for Judah’s “doom” — despite his supposed conversion. In fact, he says that not even Moses or Samuel could appear before God to effectively plead for Judah, such is the depth of her sin . . . “because of Manasseh”:

“Then the LORD said to me, Even though Moses and Samuel were to stand before Me, My heart would not be with this people; send them away from My presence and let them go! And it shall be that when they say to you, Where should we go? then you are to tell them, Thus says the LORD: Those destined for death, to death; / And those destined for the sword, to the sword; / And those destined for famine, to famine; / And those destined for captivity, to captivity. I will appoint over them four kinds of doom, declares the LORD: the sword to slay, the dogs to drag off, and the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy. I will make them an object of horror among all the kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, the king of Judah, for what he did in Jerusalem.” (Jer. 15:1–4).

[image error]

Postmillennial Lectures

By Ken Gentry

These six DVDs contain sixteen lectures. They were given as a full, formal seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology. Generally follows the outline of He Shall Have Dominion. Covers entire range of cosmic eschatology. Excellent material for college, seminary, or church classes.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Sixth, Manasseh is frequently presented as the cause of Judah’s collapse (2 Kgs. 21:11–15; 23:26–27; 24:2–4). Earlier, though, God put off Judah’s destruction because of God’s love for David (2 Kgs. 8:18–19; 13:23; 2: Chron. 21:7). But this gracious delay is soon coming to an end — because of Manasseh:

“The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets. Surely at the command of the LORD it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the LORD would not forgive.” (2 Kgs. 24:2–4).

Seventh, Manasseh’s religious reforms are only partial for: (1) The people continue worshiping at the “high places” (2 Chron. 33:17). In this case we apparently have a syncretism with pagan worship, unlike in previous situations where “the people were still sacrificing on the high places, because there was no house built for the name of the LORD until those days” (1 Kgs. 3:2). We may surmise this difference because of Manasseh’s originally rebuilding these places in his rejecting God’s worship (2 Kgs. 21:3). True reform should stop evil worship practices (2 Kgs. 23:4–7; 2 Chron. 34:3ff).

(2) Manasseh only moves the idols out of Jerusalem: “he also removed the foreign gods and the idol from the house of the Lord (2 Chron. 33:15a). He does this rather than destroying them per God’s law (Exo. 23:24; 34:13; Deut. 7:5; 12:3). Idol destruction is used by several kings who succeed an idolatrous king (1 Kgs. 19:10; 2 Kgs. 15:3; 23:6–8, 12, 15; 23:17; 2 Chron. 15:12; 34:4, 7). Consequently, Manasseh’s idols that were merely moved (re-located) will be brought back and used by his son Amon (2 Kgs. 21:21).

(3) Manasseh also simply removes the pagan altars (2 Chron. 33:15b), as we learn from Josiah’s later destroying these very altars as a part of his thorough reform (2 Kgs. 23:12). (4) No mention is made of Manasseh even removing the altars for the “hosts of heaven” that he set up (cf. 2 Kgs. 21:3b), whereas the particular reforms he does make reverse the false worship he established (2 Chron. 33:15 with vv. 3, 7). (5) He apparently removed “the book of the law” and the ark of the covenant from the temple but never returns them. For they are not returned until fifty years later during Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs. 22:8; 2 Chron. 35:3).

But why does the Chronicler present Manasseh’s apparent conversion? It seems designed to mirror Judah’s national pattern based on Manasseh’s personal life. That is, his life serves to illustrate how Judah sins against God, half-heartedly returns to him, then rebels, only to be ultimately cast away from God.

Even though we can be thankful for the general influence of Christianity in the world, what we must seek is the specific influence of true Christianity. A Manasseh-conversion will not do.

A VOTE AGAINST ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY

[image error]

Gentry note:

With Christianity and its moral values the whipping boys of our collapsing culture, Christians ought to be pleased that not everyone is walking lock-step (goose-stepping) downward into the void. This is a helpful news article that should encourage our hope, though our hope is not in politics but in Christ.  The spiritual, moral, and social values of Christianity rooted in God’s law will one day be the rule rather than the exception. We not only need to be aware of the change that is coming, but of the problem we now face with liberalism and secularism as the dominant cultural outlook.

A Vote Against Anti-Christian Bigotry

by David French (National Review)

Wisconsin supreme-court candidate Brian Hagedorn was supposed to lose. He was running in a state that had just ousted Governor Scott Walker. A year ago, a liberal supreme-court candidate had won her race by almost twelve points. And to make matters worse, the media had labeled Hagedorn as a bigot, a Christian hater outside the Wisconsin mainstream. Business groups had abandoned him. One trade association had even demanded a return of its donation, claiming that his “issues” directly conflicted with the “values” of its members.

The headlines were brutal. On February 14, one in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Hagedorn had founded a Christian school that “allows bans on teachers, students, and parents in gay relationships.” In other words, his school — like thousands of other Christian schools — banned sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Its statement of faith included the entirely orthodox declaration that “Adam and Eve were made to complement each other in a one-flesh union that establishes the only normative pattern of sexual relations for men and women, such that marriage ultimately serves as a type of the union between Christ and his church.”

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Kenneth Gentry writing as “Christian Citizen”)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

On February 20, another Journal Sentinal headline contended that Hagedorn had been paid $3,000 for “speeches to legal organization dubbed hate group.” The “hate group” was my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom. And who “dubbed” it hateful? The discredited and scandal-ridden Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Wisconsin Realtors Association revoked its endorsement. Other business groups sat out of the race. The narrative seemed set. Wisconsin was drifting back to blue, business groups capitulated to the cultural Left, and the conservative majority of the court would remain at 4–3, with another election set for next year, on the day of the Democratic primary.

But the narrative was set before the voters had their say. When business retreated, the grassroots advanced. “They picked up the slack,” as Wisconsin pro-life activist Colin O’Keefe told me. They “went nuclear,” in the words of another activist I talked to this morning. Yet another used more colorful language: “People were pissed.”

The attacks on Hagedorn’s faith crossed a red line. At issue was a single, vital question: “Can a Bible-believing Christian still hold office in the state of Wisconsin?”

But the outcome surprised even his supporters. There had been whispers of a pre-election poll that put Hagedorn within six points, but no one anticipated the twelve-point swing from 2018’s supreme-court race that would be needed for a victory. No one anticipated that, as of this moment, Hagedorn would be clinging to a half-point lead — a margin large enough that he’ll lose his race only if the inevitable recount reveals a serious error.

Wisconsin isn’t part of the Bible Belt. A 2014 survey of church attendance put it in the bottom half of American states. But one doesn’t have to be a practicing Christian to reject intolerance of people of faith. Even casual believers and secular Americans can recognize there is a world of difference between the kind of hate groups that the SPLC was originally formed to combat and organizations that simply uphold traditional Christian morality and defend religious freedom. They know enough Christians to understand that disagreement over sexual ethics isn’t motivated by malice but grounded in love.

[image error]

Saving Freedom

(by Sen. Jim DeMint)

(Former) Senator DeMint’s firsthand account of the unsettling socialist shift—behind-the-scenes actions in Congress that are changing the character of our nation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

There are also a great many Americans who instinctively understand that there is something unseemly about religious tests for public office — even if the federal constitutional prohibition doesn’t directly apply.

Cameron Joseph at Talking Points Memo described Hagedorn’s tentative victory as an “ominous sign for Democrats who see the state as perhaps the most important on the presidential map in 2020.” I’d call it a promising sign for conservatives who often feel outmanned and outgunned as they push back against efforts to banish orthodox Christianity from public office and fight against efforts to tarnish their faith in the public square.

To finish reading this article, click: here

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

TRANSGENDERISM IS KILLING WOMEN’S SPORTS

[image error]PMW 2019-030 by Edwin Benson (Return to Order)

Gentry note: As liberalism defies God ever more vigorously, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), it is tending to destroy itself. Self-destruction is the expected result that comes with denying reality and the God-created order.

One of the more remarkable areas of liberalism that has gone to seed is the arising of the militant transgender rights movement. As this article shows, it is now even beginning to undermine the advancement of liberalism’s women’s rights movement. Liberalism will eventually blow itself up as it collapses into wholesale absurdity. Christianity will be there to help pick up the pieces and move culture back to reality. This is a helpful article for understanding the absurdity and tragedy of the transgender rights movement.

As Van Til has taught us, atheism (liberalism) is integrating downward into the void.

Why Transgender Equality is the Death of Women’s Sports

by Edwin Benson

“The revolution eats its own.”

Revolutionaries always tend to turn upon and eliminate fellow revolutionaries for the slightest deviation from revolutionary dogma.

One example of this fratricide is the turbulent arena of women’s athletics.

The issue can be summed up in a simple question, what is a woman?

There is a civil war brewing in Equality-land over this question and its answer. Complicating the issue is the fact that both sides are defending a part of the feminist orthodoxy that developed during the late sixties.

[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

That war involves the role of “transgenders” in women’s sports. On one side, all the forces of the transgender tyranny are ready to fight to the death to defend the idea that a person born male can become a woman, and then compete as a woman in sports.

The other side consists of female athletes who have worked hard over many decades to secure their place on sports. Their argument is that including “transgendered” athletes who are really men will ruin women’s sports. Such men enjoyed the natural male advantages of muscle mass and limb length that allows them to dominate in any competition.

The root of this struggle is Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title IX intended to expand the law to forbid discrimination against women.

The enforcement of Title IX was most controversial in an unexpected area: high school and collegiate sports. Until Title IX, women’s sports consisted for the most part of cheerleading, field hockey, and tennis. Schools typically allocated far less money to women’s athletics than to men’s sports. The courts now forced those schools to create some level of equality for female athletes.

Move the clock ahead to May 2016. With less than a year before the end of his term, President Obama issued an executive order extending Title IX protection to “transgenders,” those attempting to change their sex to their biological opposite.

This transitioning process typically takes months, even years. For men, it begins with injections of estrogen hormones, which causes the body to acquire the outward characteristics of a female gradually.

When the debate turned to how such “transgenders” should be treated in sports, this raised many questions about fairness in competitions. Those who govern the world of sport knew that the “wrong” answers could land them in court. Most took the legally safe position of simply going along with the athlete’s new self-identification. Obvious biological traits no longer mattered, nor did the language on a birth certificate. If the participant claimed to be female, that decision would be accepted. One of these accepting organizations is the UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale).

Decisions made in fear of lawsuits are seldom good ones, and this was no exception.

With the governing authorities displaying such fecklessness, it is not surprising that men are now competing in women’s cycling. They are doing well – very well.

[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

One such athlete is R. McKinnon, Ph.D. Dr. McKinnon (once Mr. Rhys McKinnon) is a member of the Philosophy Department at South Carolina’s College of Charleston. As the official College web site shows, McKinnon has made a career out of this issue. McKinnon is also an avid bicycle racer. A furor ignited when McKinnon won the UCI women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket Masters Track Cycling World Championship in Los Angeles in October 2018. McKinnon edged out natural-born female contestants Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen of the Netherlands and American Jennifer Wagner. Claiming to be the first openly transgender athlete to win a world championship in any sport, McKinnon shared the thrill of victory on social media.

The third-place finisher was not impressed. Jennifer Wagner’s response to McKinnon’s victory was a claim that it was unfair. A quick look at the photograph in the New York Post of the top three finishers at the event lends credence to Wagner’s claim. McKinnon clearly enjoys a physical advantage over the competition.

Of course, McKinnon dismisses any such concerns as transphobic bigotry. A USA Today article quotes McKinnon,

“This is bigger than sports and it’s about human rights. By catering to cisgender people’s views, that furthers transgender people’s oppression. When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority? I bet a lot of white people were [aggravated] when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”

The New York Post article quotes McKinnon, “We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports. Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue…. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.”

Apparently the cisgendered, which means embracing one’s biological sex, have no rights. Those who do not accept the transgender tyranny must remain quiet because their rights are unimportant.

To make this even more unbelievable, McKinnon believes that any requirement that such athletes be required to have undergone hormone and surgical treatments is discriminatory. Presumably, to enter women’s sports and gain the prizes and awards that come with success, one must merely claim to be a woman, regardless of any biological standard at all.

The long-time women’s tennis champion, Martina Navratilova, sharply disagrees. The BBC quotes Navratilova, “A man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision … if he so desires. It’s insane, and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

Navratilova’s remarks are made more interesting by the fact that she is a longtime pro-homosexual advocate. An organization with which Navratilova has long worked, Athlete Ally, cut all ties with the tennis star. It said that her comments were “transphobic, based on a false understanding of science and data, and perpetuate dangerous myths that lead to the ongoing targeting of trans people through discriminatory laws, hateful stereotypes and disproportionate violence.”. . .

To read the rest of the article, click: here

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

SOCIAL JUSTICE MINISTRY?

[image error]PMW 2019-029 by Levi J. Secord (Riverview Baptist Church)

There is a growing trend in evangelical circles to re-brand mercy ministries as justice ministries. I recently came across this reality when I was asked for church recommendations in a different area. In my research, I came across a church with a justice ministry. Under this ministry there was everything from feeding the poor to adoption. Such ministries were once identified as mercy ministries, so why relabel them as justice ministries? What does this shift reveal about us?

You may be wondering if this is even a big deal, and that’s a fair question. With the rise of social justice in our culture, mercy has taken a backseat. It is very hip to advocate for justice, and as Christians, we certainly should promote justice biblically defined. That’s the problem, much of the modern thinking around justice is manifestly unjust. Within Christianity, the problem is more subtle as we have blended mercy and justice together as evidenced with the current re-branding of mercy ministries.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Kenneth Gentry writing as “Christian Citizen”)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Justice and mercy are both important to Christians. We must advocate for both without collapsing them upon each other. Justice is giving someone what they have earned, what they are due. Justice is based on merit.

Conversely, mercy forgoes merit and gives good to those who are undeserving. In a very real way, the two are opposites. It was only through a supernatural act of God that both justice and mercy were meet at the cross (Rom. 3.26). To make it plain, justice is something we can demand while mercy is something we have no right to whatsoever. It is the ability to demand justice which makes it more appealing today.

If we make feeding the poor an issue of justice instead of mercy, then we are saying the poor have the right to demand satisfaction. Moreover, they have the right to demand they receive what belongs to others. They can demand it be taken from others and given to them. Such an action violates the eighth commandment and is therefore unjust. Feeding the poor and adoption are acts of mercy, and there is nothing wrong with calling them that. We must remember, not all poverty is caused by a manifest injustice. It is true that some people become poor because of injustice, but it is also true that they may be poor because justice has been executed. Some people are poor because that is what they have earned (Prov. 6.9-11; 24.30-34). In a broken world, things are broken. Justice and mercy are both virtues Christians should support, but we must keep them distinct. If we confuse mercy and justice, we lose both.

What does this trend of mercy ministries becoming justice ministries tell us about ourselves?

First, we have become bored with mercy. This is a dangerous place to be. We look at mercy and think it isn’t nearly as appealing as justice. Claims of justice have power behind them today, while mercy is swept aside. One reason for this is mercy requires transformed hearts who have tasted the mercy of God. God’s mercy motivates our mercy. Mercy appears more challenging than justice because we cannot demand it from others. Our indictment is that we are bored and uninspired by God’s mercy. We would rather demand justice than do the hard work of promoting mercy through transformed hearts. We are in a perilous place when we neglect mercy for justice, as our standing before God is based wholly on his grace given through Christ.

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, this trend reveals our self-righteousness. When we cast out mercy and replace it with our redefinition of justice, it reveals a hideous self-righteousness. When mercy ministries become justice ministries, it reveals that we think we are the just ones who have the right to make outrageous demands on others. In a very real way . . . .

To read full article: click

REFORMED POSTMILLENNIALISM

[image error]PMW 2019-028 by Jay Rogers (The Forerunner)

When thinking about eschatology today, few Christians are even aware of the postmillennial view. When I have traveled to Russia, Ukraine, Latin America and other nations on short term missions trips, I am usually asked this question by new converts: “Are you pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib?” as if these were the only three forms of eschatology. I often have to explain that I am not a dispensationalist. It is difficult to show some Christians that there is another way of looking at the end-times and the millennium altogether.

Postmillennialism (literally, “after the thousand years”) is the belief that Christ will physically return to the earth only after a non-literal millennium is completed. Postmillennialism is optimistic about the end times. Christ’s reign over the earth from heaven increases during the millennium, which is thought to be not a literal one thousand year period, but “a very long time.” Postmillennialism places the Church in a role of transforming whole social structures before the Second Coming and endeavoring to bring about a “Golden Age” of peace and prosperity with great advances in education, the arts, sciences and medicine.

All Christians must believe in the literal, physical return of Jesus Christ. Christians may differ in their opinions as to the nature of the millennium and the exact sequence of end times events without departing from biblical orthodoxy.

However, I believe that major problems have been caused by the most popular system: dispensational premillennialism. Ironically, I did not know anything of the postmillennial view until I became aware of the limitations of the dispensational paradigm. In searching for a view to replace dispensationalism, I found postmillennialism to be most convincing.

[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

Dispensationalism is the idea that God has worked in different ways throughout history through different economies or dispensations. A dispensationalist makes a major division between the Covenants, God acting with wrath and vengeance in the Old Testament, and with love and grace in the New Testament. Dispensationalism teaches pre-tribulational rapture, divides the end times into several dispensations and teaches a conspiratorial view of history. Dispensationalism is the system devised by two men who wrote in the 1800s.

John Nelson Darby, an Irish priest (Anglican), organized a group called the Plymouth Brethren. Darby taught that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent. He rejected the creeds of the early church and believed that social reform is useless. Darby’s followers concentrated on saving men and women out of the world.

C. I. Scofield, a Texas pastor, popularized the teachings of J.N. Darby in a systematic theology known as dispensational premillennialism. C.I. Scofield first compiled his reference Bible as a teaching aid for missionaries. It soon became one of the most widely used tools for Bible study among entire denominations such as Southern Baptists and Disciples of Christ.

Despite the fact that many of the dispensationalists stressed personal holiness, the paradigm shift toward dispensational theology has paved the way for a greater evil, antinomianism, which means literally “anti-law.”

Antinomianism is an anti-law position which states correctly that man is saved by faith alone; but states incorrectly that since faith frees the Christian from the law, he no longer bound to obey the law. Antinomianism creates a system in which the laws of the Bible cannot apply to governing an individual or society. Dispensationalism promoted antinomian thinking by de-emphasizing the relationship of the Old Covenant law to the individual. In turn this led to a waned influence of Christians in society.

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In my study of church history, I found that the great revivalists and reformers of past centuries were not dispensationalists. When I read Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield and Wesley, I found to my surprise that none of them ever spoke of “the rapture.” This is because they were either postmillennialists, amillennialists or historical premillennialists. They put “the rapture” (a synonym for the resurrection) at the end of history. According to the prevailing view of most Christians in history, the resurrection will occur at the same time as the Second Coming of Jesus and the final judgment. Darby and Scofield were the first Christians in history to place the resurrection seven years prior to the Second Coming of Jesus to the earth. In doing so, they proposed two Second Comings.

In rejecting dispensationalism, I became a sort of an “ad hoc amillennialist.” I became interested in questions about the nature of the millennium itself. I soon found that I could fully work out a postmillennial view, one that stresses victory for the church in time and history. I found this view to be very exciting.

In answering questions about eschatology from a postmillennial view, first I must stress that there is a difference between millennial viewpoints and hermeneutics. The manner in which one interprets the Bible (hermeneutics) will have something to do with one’s millennial viewpoint. However, one can often arrive at very different conclusions about the millennium or the end-times using either a futurist, preterist, historicist or idealist approach to the Bible. The definitions of these hermeneutical approaches are as follows.

Futurism: This is the “end-times view.” Most of the prophecies of the Mount Olivet Discourse (Mat. 24) and the book of Revelation are yet to be fulfilled. The locust plagues of Revelation 9 might be interpreted to be Cobra helicopters, and the northern invader of Israel described in Ezekiel 38 might be the Soviet Union’s army.

Preterism: This is the “before-times view.” Most of the prophecies of the Mount Olivet Discourse (Mat. 24) and the book of Revelation were literally fulfilled by 70 A.D. The book of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse (Mat. 24) are thought to deal with the coming persecution of the church by Caesar Nero and the destruction of the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

[image error]Great Tribulation: Past or Future?

(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Historicism: This view states that the prophecies of the book of Revelation was fulfilled sometime in history, but not in the first century or in the future. The black plague of the Middle Ages might be interpreted to be one of the plagues brought by the four horsemen of Revelation 6. The pope at the time of Martin Luther is often thought to be the Beast of Revelation 13.

Idealism: This is also called the spiritualist approach. This view states that the prophecies of Revelation are not to be taken literally, but have a general symbolic application in all history. The heavenly battle of Revelation 12 is thought to describe the ongoing battle between good and evil in the spiritual realm.

My view differs from premillennialism and amillennialism in approach as well as in application. I will be describing a postmillennial view that is partially preterist. However, not all postmillenialists of history were preterists. Most have been historical postmillennialists.

• Most postmillennialists are either preterists or historicists.

• Most amillennialists are either idealists or historicists.

• Most classical premillennialists are either historicist or futurist in their approach to Revelation.

• All dispensational premillennialists put virtually every biblical prophecy about judgment in a “seven year tribulation” thought to be coming in the near future.

Most Christians today know less about their eschatology from a careful study of the Bible than they do from books such as The Late Great Planet Earth, the Left Behind series, and the wild conjecture of films such as The Omen, The Seventh Sign, and even an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, The End of Days.

We have almost forgotten the postmillennial view of Bible prophecy which has had many adherents in church history. However, this historic view is being repopularized today by many well-known conservative Bible scholars, such as Loraine Boettner, J. Marcellus Kik, R. J. Rushdoony, Iain Murray, Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth L. Gentry, R. C. Sproul, George Grant, to name just a few.

The Great Tribulation and the Antichrist

In my view, the answers to these questions are determined more by hermeneutical approach than by a particular millennial view. . . .

To finish reading: click

[image error]

IMPORTANT REBUTTAL TO HYPER-PRETERISM

[image error]PMW 2019-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am a preterist and a postmillennialist. The fact that I am a postmillennialist proves that I am not a Hyper-preterist, for postmillennialism has a number of prophecies that remain to fulfilled. I am, thus, an Orthodox Preterist, sometimes called a “Partial Preterist” by those who have made off with a perfectly good hermeneutic label and mutated it into a whole new unorthodox theology.

Though Hyper-preterism is a very small Internet movement, it has caused debates in no small number of local churches. Thus, I have published several brief critiques/rebuttals to this theological system, such as my chapter in Keith Mathison’s When Shall These Things Be? and my small book Have We Missed the Second Coming? Of course, more needs to be said. And I hope to write more on the topic in the future, when I have completed several current and projected projects.

Good Critiques of Hyper-preterism

There are, however, several helpful critiques of Hyper-preterism that are available. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has published a brief analysis called, “Hyper-preterism and the OPC”. Another is by non-preterist amillennialist theologian Dr. Richard L. Pratt titled “Hyper-Preterism and Unfolding Biblical Eschatology,” published on-line by the Gospel Coalition.

An even more helpful rebuttal is by preteristic amillennialist, Jay E. Adams, Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox? He well understands both orthodoxy and preterism.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:[image error]

A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error

by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

We also have preteristic postmillennialists who have analyzed Hyper-preterism. For instance, Jason L. Bradfield has written a helpful article, “Irrefutable Refutation of Hyper-Preterism.” It is published on-line by Regnum-Christi. Jim West’s “The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of ‘Dispensable Eschatology’” is another example of a preteristic postmillennial analysis. And preteristic postmillennialist C. Jonathan Seraiah has written a book-length critique titled The End of All Things.

One former leader in the Hyper-preterist movement left the party and returned to orthodoxy: Sam Frost. He has written a valuable critique of Hyper-preterism that also provides instructive insights regarding his journey into and out of Hyper-preterism: Why I Left Full Preterism. For a breif review of this book, click: here.

The Best Critique of Hyper-preterism

However, the best one that I have seen is Joel McDurmon’s preteristic-postmillennial rebuttal of Hyper-preterism and defense of the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith. I highly recommend this book to all who might be interested in the topic itself or who may know of someone who may be struggling with this unorthodox theology.

Review of McDurmon’s We Shall All Be Changed: A Critique of Full Preterism and a Defense of a Future Bodily Resurrection of the Saints. Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2012 (142 pages)

Part I of McDurmon’s book is titled “A Critique of ‘Full Preterism’” (pp. 1–64), while Part II is “Defense of a Future Bodily Resurrection of the Saints” (pp. 67–131). Each section is around sixty pages of careful exegetical, theological, and logical (philosophical) observations.

In Part I, McDurmon critiques Hyper-preterism from three perspectives: Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Practical Theology. Each of these theological perspectives is important for a full-orbed Christian worldview.

McDurmon opens early with a devastating critique of Hyper-preterism’s key text (pp. 7ff), Luke 21:22. This verse refers to AD 70 and declares:

“these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.”

Hyper-preterists think this verse declares that all prophecy was fulfilled in the AD 70 event. Their understanding of this essential verse in their paradigm is an example of their rather pedestrian hermeneutic in particular and their peculiar theology in general.

[image error]

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Show the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As McDurmon argues, the Bible is not a cut-and-dried document, but a sophisticated and artistic declaration of God’s truth that challenges and convicts. Thus, prophecies of Scripture are “more like promises that are sustained in different ways through different epochs of history—though always the same promises” (p. 15).

For instance, the author points out that Luke 21:22 cannot properly be used to prove that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. He demonstrates this by dealing with the word “all,” the meaning of the concept of “fulfillment,” and other issues. He points out that though this verse appears at first blush to proclaim that all prophecy was fulfilled in that event, we must notice in the very next chapter that another passage would seem to teach that all prophecy was fulfilled forty years earlier at the cross (Luke 18:31–33). Which is it?

To make matters worse, McDurmon also highlights several Old Testament passages that could have been easily misinterpreted by Hyper-preterists — had they lived in the days of those prophecies! For example, Joshua 21:43, 45 appears to declare all God’s promises to Israel had been fulfilled in the conquering of the Promised Land by Joshua. And that “not one of the good promises” of the Lord remained to be fulfilled. But the remaining narrative history of Israel in the Old Testament shows that this is not so. McDurmon also points us to 1 Kings 8:20, 24, which appears to teach that the entirety of the Davidic Covenant is fulfilled at Solomon’s coronation. But this would leave nothing to be fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

This is only an introductory review of McDurmon’s book, We Shall All Be Changed. I have barely touched on the issues resolved — and I have only gotten to p. 15. And more is to come! Much more. But for that, you will have to buy his book. And I encourage you to do so! Soon.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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

JESUS, AD 70, AND THE FINAL JUDGMENT

[image error]PMW 2019-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I will offer a brief review of an important and helpful new book on the eschatology of Jesus, Jesus and the Future. To paraphrase a well-known biblical proverb, we might say that “the writing of many books on prophecy is endless.” And too many of current prophecy books are downright useless, so that we must confess “that such is wearisome, for the eye is not satisfied with seeing charts and graphs, nor is the ear filled with hearing Antichrist and Rapture predictions.” But this is one of the rare prophecy books that is well worth reading.

Review of Jesus and the Future: Understanding What He Taught about the End Times, by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Alexander E. Stewart and Apollo Makara (Wooster, Ohio: Weaver, 2017). Paperback, 196 pp.

Köstenberger, Stewart, and Makara have written a helpful summary of Jesus’ eschatological teaching that is aimed at evangelical laymen in our confused times. They have designed this small work to “cut through the maze of end-time teaching” that has so befuddled contemporary evangelical thought (p. 17).

In that this work is intended for laymen, it avoids exegetical technicalities and scholarly jargon (pp. 17, 28), even while offering serious reflection and careful argumentation. It is an easy read that offers substantial analysis. And though studying “cold” biblical doctrine (eschatology), it frequently offers warm evangelical calls to faith (e.g., pp. 169, 175). Thus, it is both instructional and exhortational. The authors also offer occasional helpful excursuses on important biblical, theological, and historical matters (e.g., pp. 42, 53, 58, 75, 113).

[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

Jesus and the Future focuses primarily on the Synoptic Gospels, which have more of Jesus’ prophetic teaching than John’s Gospel. Yet, it does offer one chapter on John. By the very nature of the case, the bulk of the discussion focuses on the Lord’s “Eschatological Discourse” — the Olivet Discourse, which is given three chapters of analysis. This is important in that this is Jesus’ most extensive teaching on the subject, and at the same time one of his most debated discourses. Significantly, Olivet does not appear in John’s Gospel.

The work is fully orthodox. The authors hold firmly to the deity of Christ, the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, a future, literal Second Coming, a future, bodily resurrection of the dead, the Final Judgment, and eternal hell, to name a few of the doctrines that become evident. Contrary to the most popular works on prophecy, the authors are very much opposed to dispensationalism (e.g., pp. 17, 27, 62, 74n, 79, 85, 146, 171, 173).

In addition, the work is also quite conservative. It holds that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel associated with his name and that Paul wrote all of the “Pauline epistles,” despite critical opinion. The book even holds to an early date for the Synoptics prior to AD 70 (e.g., v. 36) — though a late date for John’s Gospel (e.g., p. 158). It also appears to assume the priority of Matthew, over against widespread critical and evangelical commitment to Marcan priority (p. 32).

The important theological concept of the Already/Not Yet principle of kingdom inauguration is presented in the book (e.g., pp. 78, 127, 133, 154, 161). This principle is essential for sorting through some of the thorny issues in eschatology. And despite most so-called “prophecy experts” (i.e., televangelists, Hyper-preterists, and other Bible-thumpers) the authors recognize that it is sometime difficult to separate AD 70 statements from Second Advent statements (e.g., pp. 27, 38, 53, 128). Thus, they simply do not treat Scripture as if it were a mere box of Tinker Toys to be played with.

[image error]

Matthew 24 Debate: Past or Future?

(DVD by Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consequently, one often-stated position is well-summarized in the following statement: “we’ve seen that Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveal that, regarding the near future, Jesus prophesied that there would be (1) persecution of his followers and (2) a judgment of ‘this generation’ with special attention on the Jewish religious leadership for their rejection of him. Regarding the more distant future, we’ve seen that Jesus taught that (3) the Son of Man will come with power; (4) and there will be a future resurrection and final judgment followed by eternal reward and punishment” (p. 154; cp. p. 170). I whole-heartedly concur with this.

The authors offer an insightful analysis of the Olivet Discourse, recognizing that it begins with prophecies regarding the destruction of the temple in the first century, then turns to focus on the Final Judgment at the end of history’s last century. Consequently, they properly recognize that AD 70 is a pointer to the Final Judgment. I whole-heartedly concur with this.

A distinctive of this work is its offering an interesting structure for the Olivet Discourse. This structure rightly separates the Lord’s AD 70 statements from his Final Judgment comments. This is where so many “prophecy experts” stumble. Köstenberger et al. argue that “there are good reasons to think that Jesus transitioned [from the disciples’ first question, which deals with AD 70] to the second question (included only in Matthew’s Gospel) about his coming and the end of the age” (p. 63). I whole-heartedly concur with this.

They argue that, especially in Luke’s version, “the destruction of Jerusalem is separated from this cosmic upheaval by an indefinite period, the time of the Gentiles (the past two thousand years, and counting)” (p. 63). But in Matthew, they see the transition from AD 70 to the Final Judgment in Matthew’s version of Olivet as occurring in Matt. 24:23–28. They hold that because of the universal implications of verses 29–31 (cp. Mark 13:24–27; Luke 21:25–28), these verses cannot be applied to AD 70. Thus, they offer a tidy division between the two prophetic foci, unlike many exegetes who deem Matthew 24 as a mishmash that is so inscrutable we can hardly unscrew it.

Despite their careful argument for a separation of AD 70 from the Final Judgment in the Olivet Discourse, their particular presentation fails to convince me. I follow the more detailed exegesis of R. T. France in this regard, which recognizes Matt. 24:34–36 as the transition passage. I feel that the authors of Jesus and the Future too hastily dismiss France (pp. 63–69). (Of course, France’s commentary on Matthew is much larger and more detailed and Köstenberger’s is designed for laymen and avoids technical details.)

What is remarkable about this failure is that their argument against Matt. 24:29 applying to AD 70 is that they themselves recognize that such language can be metaphorical and applied to historical events: “This interpretation is possible and makes good sense” but concludes that “the fact that an interpretation is possible does not necessarily make it probable” (p. 65; cp. p. 68). Indeed, they confess that “these responses by themselves aren’t sufficient to disprove the interpretation offered by N. T. Wright and R. T. France” (p. 69).

Since Jesus and the Future it topically arranged around Jesus’ eschatological teaching, it is necessarily repetitious. However, if we are to fully understand Jesus’ eschatological teaching, studying the distinctive angels of each of the Gospels is important.

One disappointment I have with the book is that it lacks an index. This problem is partly resolved, however, by its offering a “Contents in Full” after its Table of Contents, which they “Contents in Brief.” Another minor problem is that, due to its topical arrangement in the study of each of the Synoptic Gospels, we have much repetition.

I highly recommend this sane treatment of Jesus’ eschatological teaching, even though I cannot agree with one of its key arguments regarding the proper place to divide the Olivet Discourse. The book, nevertheless, has much to offer laymen in our time. And I am glad to see competent scholars recognizing that Olivet speaks to both AD 70 and the Final Judgment without engaging in mishmashic arguments like many of the rabbinical midrashic arguments of old.

The book may be ordered from Weaver Book.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET[image error]

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

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