Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 71

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (4)

[image error]PMW 2019-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my fourth and final presentation in demonstrating that the disciples’ question to Jesus in Matt. 24:3 shows that they are confused. You might say that this is my “final judgment” on the matter.

When the disciples ask their double question in response to his short prophecy on the destruction of the temple, they bring in concepts that are not related to his prophecy. We have been seeing that they are often confused and how Jesus in the Olivet Discourse is seeking to dispel their confusion.

In the preceding article I noted that Jesus directly interacts with their confusion. In this one I will briefly demonstrate that he will clearly distinguish the events that they have merged. The disciples wrongly believe that the destruction of the temple will coincide with the parousia of Christ, bringing about the Final Judgment. But Jesus separates the two elements in their question. You will need to read the first three articles in order to properly understand this one.

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

After dealing directly with the disciples’ confusion regarding the destruction of the temple, Jesus shifts his attention to their second question. This question regards issues they wrongly assume will be associated with the destruction of the temple.

As he begins answering their second question he pointedly notes that no one will know the time of the parousia/final judgment — even though there are both general and specific signs to the approaching destruction of the temple:

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be” (Matt. 24:36–39).

Thus, the parousia occurs suddenly and without warning. No particular signs announce its nearness. It will catch men off-guard, engaging in daily business affairs while being wholly unaware of the catastrophe about to overtake them. They will be casually engaging in mundane life affairs: eating and drinking, getting married (v. 28), working in the field (v. 40), and grinding at the mill (v. 41).

[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

Because of their constant confusion throughout his ministry and their current confusion regarding this prophecy (see previous articles), he emphasizes to them that his parousia will come unexpectedly:

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36).

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42).

“For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will” (Matt. 24:44).

“The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know” (Matt. 24:50).

“Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour” (Matt. 25:13).

Thus, it will be important for his disciples to discern the signs regarding the approaching destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:4–34). However, they will have no warning signs for the approaching parousia, for not even Jesus knows when that will be (Matt. 24:36).

Because of this, they must always “be on the alert” (Matt. 24:42), “be ready” (Matt. 24:44), be “doing” (Matt. 24:46), “be prudent” during the whole time of delay (Matt. 25:4–7), “be on the alert” (Matt. 25:13), be “faithful” through the long delay (Matt. 25:19, 21, 23), be engaged in works of mercy and ministry (Matt. 25:34–36).

Conclusion

In this series, I have shown that one prophetic episode has signs and is near (the destruction of the temple). The other prophetic episode has no signs and is distant (the parousia). Jesus sorts out the issues that the disciples merged together. We would do well to listen to Jesus’ patient instruction!

[image error]

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (3)

[image error]PMW 2019-004 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third installment in a four-part series on the disciples’ two questions to Jesus in Matt. 24:3: “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?'”

I have been showing that throughout his ministry the disciples display confusion regarding his teaching. I believe this explains why they are confused with his short prophecy in Matt. 24:2.

You need to read the two prior articles before reading this one. I will wait a few minutes to give you the time. . . . . There, that should do it.

My previous articles

In the two previous articles I point out:

First, regarding the whole Gospel record: we learn that the disciples have a history of confusion regarding Jesus’ teaching and action. Their confusion is such that they even rebuke Jesus! What is worse, they miss the central point of his First Coming (his incarnation): his redemptive purpose in coming, which requires his death, burial, and resurrection. Sadly, they resist his teaching on the subject. No small mistake!

Second, regarding the Olivet Discourse setting: we see that they import their own thoughts into their questions to Jesus (Matt. 24:3). And their thoughts are not linked to anything he has just stated. Their question brings up his parousia and “the end of the age.” Yet he mentions neither of these in his preceding lengthy denunciation of the Pharisees (Matt. 23), which leads up to the Discourse. Nor do these issues appear in Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction itself (Matt. 24:2), which sparks their inquiry.

[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

In this article we will see how the Discourse which follows deals with their confusion.

Jesus dispels confusion

As the Discourse begins, the Lord’s opening comment in his response to their question is to warn them against being misled. This is vitally important since they are so prone to confusion: “see to it that no one misleads you” (Matt. 24:4). He warns them of coming deception that they must not fall for: false christs who will “mislead” many (Matt. 24:5), wars that do not signal the end (Matt. 24:6), and false prophets who will arise and mislead so many (Matt. 24:11). In fact, he is so concerned for his disciples in light of their frequent confusion that he comes back around to warning them once again of false christs (Matt. 24:23–24), though he has already done that in vv. 4–5.

Significantly, he teaches that the danger at the parousia will not be false christs who will deceive and confuse. Rather, the danger regarding the parousia will be that they have not lived in a state of daily, long-term readiness through obedient service. The danger is not that will be confused about this universal, instantaneous event. Let me explain.

Jesus underscores his warnings regarding the danger of their potential confusion prior to the temple’s destruction. He does this by stating that his parousia will be impossible to miss: “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matt. 24:27). Lightning bolts are not subtle and easily overlooked!

Consequently, the warnings of deception (Matt. 24:4, 5, 11, 24) and statements regarding “when you see” (Matt. 24:15, 33) occur only while answering their first question (that is, these occur before Matt. 24:36). The second section (after Matt. 24:36) will require their long-term, constant, daily readiness because Christ will return without any signs of forewarning (Matt. 24:42, 43; 25:13). “Readiness” translates the Greek gregoreo, which does not mean “to look and see,” but “to be awake, alert and thus prepared.”

[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

So then, he gives the disciples signs to watch for in answering their first question regarding “when these things” (that he has just prophesied, Matt. 24:2) will happen. Two of the signs are quite distinct and greatly emphasized: (1) “When you see the abomination of desolation … standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15) and (2) “then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven” (Matt. 24:30).

Upon mentioning these two key signs, he answers their question as to “when” these things will happen: “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt. 24:32–34 KJV).

Conclusion

Thus, we have further evidence that the disciples are confused about Jesus’ prophecy in Matt. 24:2. And their confusion is shared by many Christians still today. Jesus answers both of their questions in a way that shows they involve distinct periods of time. I will conclude this series in my next article.

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!

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-003 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a four-part series on the disciples’ confusion regarding Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s destruction in Matt. 24:2. In Matt. 24:3 they ask privately: “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” It is important that we recognize that Jesus untangles their confused thoughts in the Olivet Discourse that follows. What the disciples have joined together, the Son of Man has separated, you might say.

In my forthcoming commentary on Matt. 21–25 and very briefly in this blog series, I will be explaining Jesus’ resolution to the disciples’ confusion. I will be showing that the disciples assume the destruction of the temple will occur at the end of history, the end of the age when the Final Judgment is to occur (of which he had taught them earlier, Matt. 13:39–43, 47–50). Though they claim to understand Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 13:51), Jesus will correct their error by unscrewing what to them was inscrutable. That is, though he will affirm the theological linkage of AD 70 and the Final Judgment, he will declare the historical distinction of these two events: one occurs at the beginning of Christian history, the other at the end of human history.

The psychological evidence reviewed

In my last article I showed that the disciples are repeatedly confused over Jesus’ teachings and actions. They even go so far as to rebuke him for his clear teaching based on their confused thinking! This gives us an important insight into the disciples’ psychology of confusion. They long continue in their mental state of disorientation and inability to think clearly — despite being in the presence of the greatest teacher in history!

[image error]Special Eschatology Studies (3 MP3 downloads)

by Ken Gentry

Includes: (1). Radio interview on the Beast and Daniel 9: WMCA Radio (New York). (2) “The Beast is an Eighth,” a study on the tricky verse Rev 17:11 that is sometimes used to rebut the Neronic date for the writing of Revelation. (3) “The New Creation in Rev 21,” which presents a picture of the glory of the Christian faith as the spiritual phase of the New Creation that anticipates the consummate New Creation. See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The disciples’ own lifelong focus on and love of Israel has put Christ’s teaching on the kingdom of God out of focus (e.g., Luke 24:21; Acts 1:6–7; John 1:49). The same can be said of the eleven disciples just before Pentecost (Acts 1:6–7). After his resurrection, Jesus rightly rebukes two of his disciples (Cleopas and an unnamed disciple, Luke 24:18) on this very matter: “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25).

But there is further evidence for the disciples’ confusion that Jesus seeks to dispel in the Olivet Discourse:

Contextual evidence introduced

Now we should note that the disciples incorporate something into their two-part question that does not arise from the context of Jesus’ teaching. Their first question is: “Tell us when will these things happen?”(Matt. 24:3a). This is very contextual, being sparked in direct response to Jesus’ clear prophecy of the temple’s coming destruction (Matt. 24:2). Unfortunately though, their second question does not arise from anything Jesus has just taught. Let me explain.

The disciples’ second question in response to Jesus’ temple-destruction prophecy is: “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3b). But, nothing in the preceding context has mentioned either his “coming” (i.e., his parousia) or “the end of the age.” He says nothing about a “coming” to judge in his lengthy rebuke of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:1–36) and of the Jerusalemites (Matt. 23:37–38). Nor does he mention a “coming” in his prophecy of the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:2). Nor does he mention the arrival of “the end of the age” in either context.

Nevertheless, the disciples are so Israel-focused and Judaically-oriented that they assume “the end of the age” (involving the bodily resurrection of all men and the Final Judgment) must come about at the collapse of the temple.

The temple had been destroyed previously by Nebuchadnezzar in the Old Testament (2 Kgs. 25:8–9; 2 Chron. 36:19; Ezra 5:12). And yet it was later rebuilt — according to biblical prophecy (Ezra 5:1–5; 6:14–15; Hag. 1:1–2). However, Jesus’ rejection of the first-century temple is final, complete, and permanent. This time there will be no rebuilding of the temple, for he himself has spiritually replaced the whole temple system by fulfilling its meaning in his redemptive work — as he teaches his disciples (John 1:14; 2:19–22; Heb. 7:23–24; and elsewhere). The temple system is wholly and permanently fulfilled by his redemptive labors (Heb. 8:13; 9:1–28). There is no room theologically for another temple — even though earth history will continue. And neither Jesus nor the Apostles teach anything about a rebuilt temple.

[image error]Prophecy Studies (4 downloadable mp3s)

by Ken Gentry

Dispensationalism dominates the evangelical market regarding eschatological discussions. But dispensationalism is radically mistaken regarding the eschatology of Scripture. In this series not only is dispensationalism analyzed, but also the postmillennial eschatology of the Psalms, and a preterist analysis of Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The disciples’ problem is rooted in their Sitz im Leben, their first-century “situation in life,” as devout Jews. The fact that they point out the beautiful stones of the building indicates that they assume it will continue as an appropriate and glorious place for worshiping God. Somehow after three and one-half years of Jesus’ teaching ministry, they still do not understand that he is fulfilling and replacing the temple. They do not even remember that early in his ministry he declares temple worship to be ending soon:

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21-25).

The disciples were devout Jews, who were committed to Judaism. And Judaism expected the temple to remain as long as the world remained. The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo (Spec. 1:76) shows this strong belief when he comments on the economic value of the temple. Notice his words that assume the temple’s perpetual endurance:

“The temple has for its revenues not only portions of land, but also other possessions of much greater extent and importance, which will never be destroyed or diminished; for as long as the race of mankind shall last, the revenues likewise of the temple will always be preserved, being coeval in their duration with the universal world.”

Even during the Jewish War with Rome, Josephus pleads with the Jews to surrender. But one of the revolutionaries, John of Gischala, declares that “he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God’s own city” (J.W. 6:2:1 §98). Josephus (J.W. 5:11:2 §459) records the confidence of the beleaguered city with its temple within, when they mock Titus. They believe

“that yet this temple would be preserved by him that inhabited therein, whom they still had for their assistant in this war, and did therefore laugh at all his threatenings, which would come to nothing, because the conclusion of the whole depended upon God only.”

As the Sib. Or. 5:420–23 expresses the matter: the “temple of God [was] made by holy people and hoped by their soul and body to be always imperishable.” Thus Gedaliah Alon (The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age, 49) points out that “there was a strong belief among the people that the Temple was eternal, as indestructible as the nation itself.”

David Flusser (Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 392) adds: “the hope that when the Gentiles invaded the Holy Land, Jerusalem would not fall, was widespread at that time. As we have seen, others that thought even though Jerusalem would be conquered, the Temple would not succumb. This the opinion of the Zealots in the besieged city” (see 1 En. 56:5–8; Sib. Or. 5:106–10). In fact, Roman statesman and historian Dio Cassius (65:5:4) even speaks of the despair of the Roman soldiers due to their “suspecting . . . that the city was really impregnable, as was commonly reported.”

Conclusion

Thus, we see that the disciples import their own confused, Judaic thinking (Matt. 24:3) into Jesus’ clear prophetic pronouncement regarding the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). Jesus has not mentioned his “coming,” his parousia in the previous context. The disciples simply surmise it — because of their life-long training in and commitment to their Judaic faith. Thus, they believe the current temple will last until the end of history, “the end of the age.” Consequently, since Jesus prophesies the temple’s destruction, their psychological reflex is to assume that it will occur as history ends in the Final Judgment brought about by the parousia of Christ.

So again, we see how the disciples are confused (see previous article). But there is more! Stay tuned.

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

THE DISCIPLES’ CONFUSION AT OLIVET (1)

[image error]PMW 2019-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is a popular and important text in eschatological discussions. Indeed, it is Jesus’ largest recorded eschatological instruction.

Unfortunately, verses can be yanked from their context and be used in a seemingly compelling construct that goes against what Christ is actually teaching. This passage in particular requires careful investigation and thoughtful deliberation. For as D. A. Carson notes (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:488): “Few chapters of the Bible have called forth more disagreement among interpreters.” Sentiments such as Carson’s could be multiplied to distraction. (In fact, I am distracted just now, and will go get a Krispy Kreme doughnut. But I will return.)

A part of the scholarly and popular disagreement regarding the Olivet Discourse lies in the widespread tendency to overlook a subtle issue in its narrative introduction. And that issue is: the reasoning behind the disciples’ double question to Jesus.  We read in Matt. 24:3: “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’”

As David E. Garland (among others) insightfully notes (Reading Matthew, p. 235):

“The question implies that the disciples now understand the gravity of ‘these things’ and assume that the destruction of the temple will usher in the end of the age. Jesus’ answer corrects this misperception. The fate of the temple is a quite separate matter from the parousia of the son of man and the end of the age.”

Or as Donald A. Hagner puts it: “The thought of the destruction of the second temple could, so they believed, only signal the time of final judgment, the end of the age” (Matthew 14–28 [WBC], 687–88).

This is a crucial observation in that Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question determines the structure, progress, and outcome of his answer in the following verses. I will focus on the confusion prompting their question in four articles. I do this in order to open up the passage to a more accurate understanding. This will help us recognize that Jesus speaks of two prophetic issues, not one (in that there are two interrogative pronouns, pote [“when”] and ti [“what]).  He speaks of both (1) the near-term temple judgment at the beginning of Christian history and (2) the distantly-future Final Judgment at the end of temporal history (which is double-defined here as parousia + “end of the age”). These two matters are theologically-related though historically-distinct. This is like our spiritual resurrection in our salvation being related to our physical resurrection at the consummation (John 5:25-29).

[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

In this first article I will show that the disciples repeatedly demonstrate their confusion regarding Christ’s teaching and actions. And they continue doing this despite their being in such a close and committed daily relationship with him! We see them asking questions and taking actions that are almost inevitably rooted in their confusion and misunderstanding of Jesus’ words and deeds. This backdrop to the psychology of the disciples will show their confusion, which leads to their asking the very question that prompts the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:2). This will elicit from Jesus a detailed correction to their erroneous thinking, while answering both of their questions.

Samples of their confusion

In Matt. 13:10 the disciples ask: “Why do you speak to them in parables?” Here they challenge Jesus’ intentional, distinctive style of teaching (Matt. 13:34; cp. Mark 4:34; John 10:6; 16:25). Then after Jesus dismisses the crowds, we read: “Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, ‘Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field’” (Matt. 13:36). Or as Mark notes, “as soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables” (Mark 4:10). This elicits a mild rebuke from him: “and He said to them, ‘Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?’” (Mark 4:13). The disciples are confused regarding Jesus’ teaching style.

In Matt. 14:15, when Jesus preaches long into the evening, the disciples challenge him: “This place is desolate and the hour is already late; so send the crowds away.” But Jesus responds that the crowds “do not need to go away,” whereupon he feeds the 5000. The disciples dare to command him to quit teaching. The disciples are confused regarding Jesus’ preaching ministry.

In Matt. 15:12 they warn Jesus of the danger his teaching is creating. They effectively challenge him to tone it down: “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” Then in Matt. 15:23 we read their urging him regarding the demon-possessed woman: “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” The students are rebuking the Teacher — though “a disciple is not above his teacher” (Matt. 10:24)! The disciples are confused regarding whether Jesus is awareness of the danger of the Pharisees.

Jesus’ fourth Major Discourse in Matthew is found in Matt. 18:1-35. This is the “Discourse on True Greatness” (Gibbs, Matthew, 1:45). In Matt. 18:1 his disciples ask him an inappropriate question, sparking the Discourse. This one demonstrates their confusion regarding the central feature of his teaching — the kingdom of heaven! They ask: “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven”? This ultimately leads to James and John requesting (through their mother, Matt. 20:20–23) that “we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in glory” (Mark 10:37). The disciples are confused regarding their role in his kingdom. What is more, this inappropriate question arises on the heels of his second death prediction (Matt. 17:22–23), the leading purpose of his Incarnation!

Later in Acts 1:6 the disciples ask Jesus: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Despite all of his teaching and the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), they still did not understand the universalization of the kingdom. Even after forty more days of teaching after the resurrection when he “was speaking of things concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)! The disciples are confused regarding Israel’s role in Jesus’ kingdom.

[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

Their most egregious confusion

But most significantly, the disciples miss the central point of Jesus’ mission, the very reason for his incarnation! They do not understand two vital issues of his mission: (1) that he must die and (2) that he will be resurrected. And they miss these issues despite his clear and direct teaching (Matt. 16:21; 20:17–19)!

To make matters worse, Peter even rebukes Christ for teaching that he must die! This results in Christ’s surprisingly strong counter-rebuke:

“From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s’” (Matt. 16:21–23).

As Jeffrey A. Gibbs notes (Matthew 1:1-11:1, p. 45).

“Although Israel’s religious leaders continue to oppose him in various ways, Jesus comes into increasing conflict with his own uncomprehending disciples during the chapters that lead up to the entry into Jerusalem (16:21-20:32). Three times Jesus predicts his death and subsequent resurrection (16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19), and three times the disciples quickly oppose the substance and the spirit of what Jesus has just predicted. Jesus’ disciples cannot yet understand that the Christ, who is greatest of all, will show his greatness in utter service and in giving his life as the ransom payment for all.”

In fact, it was only after his death and resurrection are accomplished historically that they understand his clear teaching: “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken” (John 2:22). John later reports that even just shortly after the resurrection: “as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9).

Returning to Gibbs’ Introduction, we see how he links the Olivet Discourse to the structural flow of Matthew as he is preparing to die (p. 46):

This last great discourse prevents Jesus’ disciples (both then and now) from mistakenly conflating terrible events of persecution and the final consummation of the age, the time of which is utterly unknown and the arrival of which will be as evident at lightning.”

Conclusion

As I will be showing, the disciples’ question in Matt. 24:2 arises from their confusion. Their confusion regarding the future, despite Christ’s three and one-half years of instructing them — including the forty additional days of his post-resurrection teaching on the subject of his kingdom (Acts 1:3)! And their confused question in Matt. 24:2 will lead Jesus to sort out their tangled understanding. And ours, if we will listen.

I hope you will join me in my next posting! And bring some doughnuts!

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

2 PETER 3 AND THE CONSUMMATION (2)

[image error]PMW 2019-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

If your watch is set correctly, you will notice that we are in a new year. Thus, I thought it appropriate to offer a study of the new creation as we close out the old year and begin a new one. This is the second in a series on the new creation in 2 Peter 3. In my previous article I began a consideration of 2 Peter 3 and Peter’s reference to the new heavens and new earth. I will conclude the study in this article. I recommend your reading the earlier article first.

Now let us continue:

(2) Peter’s audience (including us!) should expect mockers who scoff at Christ’s promised second advent due to the long wait associated with it (2Pe 3:3–4, 9). This waiting continues to our very day, and thus is truly long. Despite the trials coming soon (2:9), Peter warns that it may be thousands of years before Christ’s return: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (3:8). This fits well with Christ’s “already/not yet” teaching elsewhere — as when he contrasts the short time until the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 23:36; 24:34) with the long time until the second advent and the end of history (Mt 25:5, 14).

(3) The Lord’s longsuffering is due to a process that will take a long time. Nevertheless, they must understand that despite the long delay: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness [braduteta], but is longsuffering [makrothumei] toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2Pe 3:9 NKJV). They must “account that the longsuffering [makrathumian]of our Lord is salvation” (3:15a). This process of calling “all” to “repentance” spans the entire inter-advental era and is still continuing to our very day. This “slowness” (bradutes, v 9) of Christ’s second advent is so that the postmillennial kingdom victory might continue to grow unto full fruition. This comports well with the slow growth of the kingdom like a mustard seed (Mt 13:31–32) and with the necessity of “all the days [palas tas hemeras]” for accomplishing the Great Commission (Mt 28:20).

[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

(4) The destruction of the heavens and the earth that he envisions involves the current material creation. Hence, it refers to the distant consummation and not the approaching AD 70 conflagration, despite certain similarities between the two events (since one is the type of the other). Peter expressly refers to the material creation order: “from the beginning of creation” (2Pe 3:4; cf. Ge 1:1); “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water” (3:5; cf. Ge 1:2, 9); “the heavens and the earth which now exist” (3:7). Thus, he defines the “heavens and earth” to which he refers and which God will replace with a “new heaven and a new earth” (3:10, 13). He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order in AD 70, but the material heavens and the earth at the second advent.

The language describing earth’s destruction seems to go beyond apocalyptic imagery and prophetic hyperbole. The detailed language refers to the actual end-time consummation: “the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up” (2Pe 3:10). “The heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat” (3:12). In the apocalyptic-symbolic passages thought to parallel 2 Peter 3 we find time frame factors and cultural limitations. Furthermore, this destruction terminology does not appear in Isaiah 65:17ff, from where the phrase “new heavens and new earth” derives.

[image error]

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 downloadable mp3 lectures)

by Ken Gentry

Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction. Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In conjunction with “the promise” of Christ’s coming (2Pe 3:4, 9), we will enter the ultimate “new heavens and new earth” (3:13). Here Peter is obviously borrowing terminology from Isaiah 65:17 (which speaks of a spiritual reality, see ch. 14). Yet as an inspired apostle he expands on that truth, looking to the ultimate outcome of the spiritual new heavens and earth in an eternal new heavens and earth. We see this re-interpretive application at various places in the New Testament. For instance, the New Testament writers apply Zechariah 12:10 both to the crucifixion (Jn 19:37) and to AD 70 (Rev 1:7). In Revelation John freely employs Ezekiel’s imagery, while adapting it to his own needs. For instance, he totally transforms Ezekiel’s temple vision (Eze 40–45) into a city vision (Rev 21–22), where a temple is wholly lacking (Rev 21:22).

Second Peter’s new creation, then, is the renovated material world that will succeed the present temporal order. God will purify and refashion it by fire. On this new earth the resurrected saints will dwell forever.

[image error]

2 PETER 3 AND THE CONSUMMATION (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-104 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As we ring out the old year and ring in the new, it might be encouraging for us to consider the biblical concept of the new creation. The key passage presenting the consummate new heavens and new earth is found in 2 Peter 3. Unfortunately, this passage creates much confusion among interpreters.

Some dispensationalists hold that it refers to the earthly millennium, while others argue that it speaks of the consummate new creation (e.g., John Walvoord). Some postmillennialists teach that it refers to the present era introduced by Jerusalem’s destruction (e.g., David Chilton), while others apply it to the consummate new heavens and new earth (e.g., Robert Dabney). Many amillennialists refer all new creation references in Scripture solely to the final consummate order, allowing this passage to control all others (e.g., Philip Hughes). Some hyper-preterists see the spiritual new creation occurring after a literal first century rapture at AD 70 (e.g., J. Stuart Russell).

A part of the problem with 2 Peter 3 lies in the fact that the passage employs terminology that sometimes designates the spiritual new creation and at other times the destruction of physical Jerusalem in AD 70. But similarity does not entail identity. This passage does not speak of either the present spiritual new creation (cf. Isa 65:17) or the future Jerusalem conflagration (as does Heb 12:25–29). It points instead to the consummate order which follows the resurrection and the final judgment. Note the following arguments.

[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

(1) Peter’s whole thrust in his second epistle promotes a spiritual perseverance for the historical long run. That is, he writes about a long period in history that finally ends up in the eternal new creation. He is not writing about the spiritual new order arriving shortly after he dies, the new covenant era of the post-AD 70 world.

Peter urges his readers to persevere (2Pe 1:6) and warns against short-sightedness (1:9). He states that Christians may have access to the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ only through long-term perseverance (1:10–11, 19). He does this by presenting Noah and Lot as examples of saints who persevere through evil times (like the evil times his faithful readers are facing). By persevering against their ungodly cultures, Noah and Lot come out on the other end of God’s judgment still upon the earth (2Pe 2:5, 7, 9). So Peter’s readers should expect to come out on the other end of the chaos surrounding them (2:9a) — still on the earth because of God’s power to deliver. God delivers Noah and Lot so that his name will continue on earth through their witness (2:6b; cp. 1:8) and offspring (2:5b) to live into the distant future. Thus, those first century Christians should expect their offspring to continue into the distant future (cp. 1:15). They must persevere even against false teachers who will arise among them (2:1). He is urging the Christians toward a long term commitment, not a short-term expectation.

As a part of his argument in this context, Peter teaches that ever since those judgments in the Old Testament long ago God has kept unrighteous angels in “pits of darkness, reserved for judgment” (2Pe 2:4) and “the unrighteous [tormentors of Noah and Lot] under punishment for the day of judgment” (2:9). That is, though these evil ones suffered temporal judgment long ago, they are still to this day awaiting a final, eternal judgment in the future. Similarly, Peter will be showing his faithful readers that they too have something reserved for them in the future. After they endure temporal judgments in their own time, they can expect something glorious: “we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (3:13). Thus, he parallels God’s reserving future judgment for those evil characters with his reserving future blessing for his faithful Christians — blessings not just a few years away (AD 70), but at a great distance. Indeed, “the present heavens and earth,” he notes, “are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men” (3:7).

[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

So then, while contemplating God’s judgment cleansing of the earth in Noah’s day (2Pe 3:6), Peter urges Christians to many “holy livings” and “pieties” (en hagiais anastrophais kai eusebeiais, 2Pe 3:11). These Greek plurals occur only here in Scripture. This suggests many acts of righteousness over the historical long term. Consequently, the epistle also ends with a call to perseverance (3:15, 17), just as it opens with such (1:6, 9). He calls on them to glorify Christ now and until “the day of eternity” (eis hemeran aionos) begins, whenever that may be (3:18).

Continued in next article. Unless the world ends, in which case I renounce my theories.

THE REAL MEANING OF CHRISTMAS

[image error]PMW 2018-103 by Stephen Nichols (Ligonier Ministries)

One of the most remarkable stories of Christmas comes from one of the darkest moments of modern history. World War I ravaged a continent, leaving destruction and debris in its wake. The human cost, well in the millions, staggers us. But from the midst of this dark conflict comes the story of the Christmas Truce of 1914. The Western Front, only a few months into the war, was a deplorable scene of devastation. Perhaps as if to give the combatants one day to breathe again, a truce was called from Christmas Eve through Christmas Day.

As darkness settled over the front like a blanket, the sound of exploding shells and the rat-tat-tat of gunfire faded. Faint carols, in French or English voices on one side and in German voices on the other, rose to fill the silence of the night.

By morning, soldiers, at first hesitantly, began filing out of the maze of trenches into the dreaded and parched soil of No Man’s Land. There was more singing. Gifts of rations and cigarettes were exchanged. Family photos were passed around. Soccer balls appeared. Up and down the Western Front, soldiers, who only hours before had been locked in deathly combat, now faced off in soccer games.

For one brief but entirely remarkable day, there was peace on earth. Some have called the Christmas Truce of 1914 “the Miracle on the Western Front.”

The Glory of Christ (book by R. C. Sproul)[image error]

From the angels’ revelation of Jesus’ glory to the shepherds outside Bethlehem,

to Jesus’ life-changing revelation of His glory to Paul on the Damascus road, Sproul guides us to a deeper understanding of Christ’s glory.

For more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Anxious to print some good news, The Times of London reported on the events of the Christmas Truce. Soldiers recorded the day in letters home and in diaries. Some of those lines made it to newspapers, while others remained unknown until later brought to light. Here’s one such line from the diary of a German infantryman:

The English brought a soccer ball from the trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvelously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as friends for a time.

“Friends for a time,” “the celebration of love,” “peace on earth”—this is the meaning of Christmas. But these celebrations, these truces, don’t last. After Christmas Day, the soccer balls and the soldiers went back into the trenches. The Christmas carols subsided and the war carried on. And even though World War I eventually ended, a few decades later, Europe’s countryside and cities became the field of battle once again, as did Africa and the Pacific, during World War II.

Events like the Christmas Truce are worth celebrating. But they lack something. They lack permanence. Such impermanent peace is what we often find in our quest for the real meaning of Christmas. If we are looking for permanent and ultimate goodwill, love, and peace, we must look beyond our gift-giving, get-togethers, and office parties. We must look to no other place than to a manger.

We must look to a baby born not with fanfare, pomp, and circumstance, but to poor parents in desperate times. Joseph and Mary, and the Baby Jesus for that matter, were real historical figures. But in a way, Joseph and Mary extend beyond themselves, beyond their particular place and time. They represent all of us. We are all poor and living in desperate times. Some of us are better than others at camouflaging it. Nevertheless, we are all poor and desperate, so we all need the promise bound up in that baby.

We are in need of a way out of our poverty of soul and the desperate state of our human condition. We find it in this child lying in a manger, who was and is Jesus Christ, the long-promised Messiah, Seed, Redeemer, and King.

The birth of Jesus so many centuries ago might have been a slightly-out-of-the-ordinary birth. Even in ancient times, stalls didn’t typically double as birthing rooms and mangers didn’t typically double as cribs for new-born babies. And that newborn baby was very much out of the ordinary. Of course, in some respects, He was perfectly ordinary. He was a human being, a baby. He got hungry. He got thirsty. He got tired. When He was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes—the ancient equivalent of Pampers.

An infant. Helpless, hungry, cold, and tired.

Yet, this child was the Son of God incarnate. He was Immanuel, which translated means “God with us.” According to the Apostle Paul’s account, this infant created all things. This infant created His own manger. And this infant, this King, brings peace on earth, ultimate and permanent peace.

[image error]Dr. Stephen J. Nichols is president of Reformation Bible College and chief academic officer for Ligonier Ministries, and teaches on the podcast 5 Minutes in Church History.

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (3)

[image error]PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and concluding article in a three-part series highlighting a few samples of Hyper-preterist confusion regarding my writings. Their stumblings here illustrate how they can stumble elsewhere. And how they can confuse their followers so easily: they themselves are confused! Their poor followers are making the mistake that Jesus warned about: “If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). You should read the first two articles before reading this one.

So now, what about:

Gentry’s Exegetical Weakness?

Shortly after the Hyper-preterist comments erroneously suggesting that I created a division in Matthew 24, the writer says: “Gentry’s form of Partial Preterism in the OD is exegetically weak and hermeneutically inconsistent.” In fact, he declares that it is “Eschatological Schizophrenia” and in speaking of me, he criticizes “his [Gentry’s] artificial division theory of Matthew 24-25.” He adds that Keith Mathison “no longer finds any exegetical warrant to Gentry’s eisegesis.”

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

But as already noted in my previous article, my presentation of the transition at v. 36 is not my view. It is not “Gentry’s form” of preterism. I have picked it up from other, very competent scholars. Nor is it “eisegesis.” Nor is it my “artificial division theory.” It not only comes from others, but is rooted in sound exegetical principles, whether you accept its conclusion or not.

The scholars in my last article are notable exegetes who do not engage in “exegetically weak,” “hermeneutically inconsistent” “eisegesis” that result in “Eschatological Schizophrenia.” Consider them and their reputations:

The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary was written by: Robert A. Jamieson, a nineteenth-century Professor of Theology in Aberdeen, Scotland; A. R. Fausset, an academic coach at Trinity College, Dublin; and David Brown, a tutor in philosophy and theology at Oxford. These are not local-yokels arising out of nowhere and pounding the table because they could not pound the facts.

Charles Spurgeon was a nineteenth century, internationally-famed, scholarly, and influential minister in England. He presents his view of Olivet and the transition verse in Commentary on Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom (Banner of Truth).

R. T. France (died 2017) was an internationally-prominent commentator and Research Fellow in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Wales. He has written numerous important commentaries and special studies on the Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew. Among his numerous works as a Matthean scholar are: Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (Inter-Varsity Press); The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary) (Inter-Varsity Press); Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Paternoster); The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Eerdmans); and many other books, including commentaries on Luke and on Mark.

J. Marcellus Kik (1903-1965) was a prominent Canadian minister (born in the Netherlands) who was one of the founding editors of Christianity Today at its beginning, then research editor for years afterwards. He wrote Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition (Presbyterian and Reformed); The Eschatology of Victory (Presbyterian and Reformed); and several other works.

[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: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Jeffrey A. Gibbs is Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. (Not Professor of Eisegetical Theology.) He has written several influential works on Matthew, including Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (Concordia Publishing House, 2000); Matthew 1:1—11:1, Concordia Commentary (CPH, 2006); Matthew 11:2—20:32, Concordia Commentary (CPH, 2010); and Matthew 21:1-28:20, Concordia Commentary (CPH, 2018).

David E. Garland is Professor of Christian Scriptures at George W. Truett Theological Seminary. He is a noted New Testament scholar, having authored, co-authored, and edited 24 books. He has received numerous awards for his writing, including a Silver Medallion from the CBA, the Gold Medallion Award from the ECPA, Award of Merit from Christianity Today. He has written: Reading Matthew: a literary and theological commentary on the first gospel (Crossroad); Mark : from biblical text– to contemporary life. NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan); Mark. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Zondervan); Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Zondervan); and A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Zondervan), to name a few relevant titles.

Alistair I. Wilson is Principal of Demisani Theological Institute in South Africa. He has written: When Will These Things Happen?: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21—25 (Paternoster Biblical Monographs); God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives (Inter-varsity Press); “Philemon” in Ephesians-Philemon. ESVEC (Crossway Books); and other notable works.

Several of these men wrote on the subject of the transition verse long before I did. And all of them are noteworthy scholars with excellent reputations. This, of course, does not prove they were right. But it does show serious reputations holding the view that I adopt.

But now the ridiculous becomes the absurd:

Gentry’s Three Comings Heresy?

The confused Hyper-preterist writer states: “Another ‘argument’ for Kenneth Gentry in his attempts to try and divide the discourse and promote his three comings of Christ heresy.” “For Gentry this is evidence to support his two comings theory separated by thousands of years,” i.e., AD 70 and the Second Advent.

[image error]

Nourishment from the Word

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This is absolutely incredible! I present a view held by numerous noted evangelical scholars (see my last article) that argues Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70 and that he will come in the Final Judgment against all nations at the end of history. And this is “heresy”? I am being charged with heresy by someone who holds heretical views? Is this small movement the determiner of orthodoxy and heresy? Only one other time do I remember something so bizarre. I spoke at a conference on Mormonism, and a Mormon called me a heretic!

What is worse, here the writer betrays his difficulty in distinguishing between a metaphorical judgment-coming (against Jerusalem in AD 70) and the physical Second Coming (in judgment against all nations at the end of history). The judgment on Jerusalem did not literally involve Jesus physically “coming” at all, such as he did in his First (incarnational) Coming (e.g., John 16:28) and as he will do again in his Second Coming to end history (e.g., Acts 1:9-11). Jesus no more came physically in AD 70 than God came literally riding on a cloud into Egypt in the Old Testament (Isa. 19:1). The “coming” against Jerusalem (like God’s coming against Egypt) is a metaphor of divine judgment, whereas the “coming” of Christ at the end of history is a literal coming, truly a Second Coming.

Thus, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown distinguish this properly by speaking of the Second Advent as the “Second Personal Coming of Christ” (emph. added). Big difference! Kik agrees, titling a chapter in his book: “No Personal Coming During the Siege” (emph. added). In fact, all reputable commentators who engage this debate recognize the difference between a metaphorical/spiritual coming in AD 70 and a bodily/public coming in his Second Advent. They recognize this fact even if they don’t hold to the preterist interpretation.

As the noted seventeenth-century biblical scholar John Gill states in his commentary on Matthew writes (at Matt. 24:34): “Not any thing that is said before, is related to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and end of the world; but that all belong to the coming of the son of man, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to end the Jewish state” (emphasis added). Note that he speaks of “the second coming of Christ” while holding to the judgment-coming of Christ against Jerusalem. He does not speak of three comings of Christ. This odd nomenclature is a peculiar error of Hyper-preterism.

Nor does Kik find it necessary to imagine “three comings” of Christ while speaking of the “judgment-coming” of Christ in AD 70. He speaks of both AD 70 as a “coming” as well as a future “Second Coming”  (An Eschatology of Victory, pp. 36-37, 67-70). He states of Matt. 24:27: “This verse stands in contrast to the previous verses, for it speaks of Christ’s second coming rather than his invisible coming in in judgment upon Jerusalem” (p. 124). When he speaks of Christ’s distant, final coming at the Final Judgment, he calls it his second coming. He knows nothing of the concept of a “third coming.” In fact, all of the scholars cited in my last article, who hold to the preterist view of Matt. 24:30 as a judgment “coming” also hold only a “Second Coming” in the future. Second. Not Third.

Kik even argues: “Had the disciples been told that all the signs previously given were of a personal visible coming, then the declaration ‘Lo, here is Christ, or there,’ would would not always signify a false Christ. Christ is speaking in this passage of an invisible, impersonal coming — a coming in judgment upon Jerusalem” (p. 123; emph. added).

John Wenham (Christ and the Bible, 3d. ed.) speaks of the “Second Coming” (p. 71), even though he calls the AD 70 judgment “the Son of Man coming” (p. 76).

So then, I humbly confess that the arguments I present in my books have been gleaned from others (as my footnotes there point out). Consequently, I will re-cast my critic’s arguments by substituting the appropriate name in the proper place. My critic is saying: Dr. R. T. France, world-renowned Matthean scholar and internationally-famed theologian, is “schizophrenic” in imposing an “artificial division theory” on Matthew 24-25. And he therefore presents an argument that is “exegetically weak and hermeneutically inconsistent” as he engages in “eisegesis.” Furthermore, he must charge him with the notorious “three comings of Christ heresy.” Remarkably, this argument has been made by someone without any academic credentials!

In concluding this series, I would note that Hyper-preterists not only have difficulty interpreting Scripture. They also stumble when trying to read and understand the writings of orthodox Christians. In my case, they try to cordon me off from my mentors (Spurgeon, Kik, France, Gibbs, Wilson, etc.) so that I will appear as a lone voice crying in the wilderness — as if I am making it up as I go. But I stand unashamedly within Christian orthodoxy, even while holding to a preterist hermeneutic.

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!

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-102 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part series highlighting several Hyper-preterist confusions regarding my writings. Hyper-preterists stumble here just as they do in their attempted exegesis of key passages of Scripture. You should read my first article before reading this one.

In the previous article I pointed out that my arguments for a transition in Matthew 24 between AD 70 and the Final Judgment are not my (distinctive, self-created) arguments. I picked them up from others. In this article I will point out the arguments from those other writers, my predecessors.

For instance, the following commentators see Matt. 24:36 (or its parallel Mark 13:32) as shifting the focus of the Discourse from the near-term (“this generation”) AD 70 destruction of the temple to the distant (while “delaying,” Matt. 25:5) Second Advent and Final Judgment at the end of history. This, of course, does not prove that the shift is true, but it will prove that the argument for a shift at v. 36 was not created by me. I will list a few of these scholars:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (Critical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible; 1871).

They present the following headings in Mark 13 (the parallel to Matt. 24): “Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem (v. 5–31)” and “Warnings to Prepare for the Coming of Christ Suggested by the foregoing Prophecy (v. 32–37).”

The JFB commentary notes: “It will be observed that, in the foregoing prophecy, as our Lord approaches the crisis of the day of vengeance on Jerusalem and redemption for the Church—at which stage the analogy between that and the day of final vengeance and redemption waxes more striking—His language rises and swells beyond all temporal and partial vengeance, beyond all earthly deliverances and enlargements, and ushers us resistlessly into the scenes of the final day. Accordingly, in these six concluding verses [Mark 13:31–36] it is manifest that preparation for ‘THAT DAY’ is what our Lord designs to inculcate.”

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

Charles Spurgeon (Commentary on Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom, 1893).

On Matthew 24:3 Spurgeon writes: “There are here two distinct questions, perhaps three. The disciples enquired first about the time of the destruction of the temple, and then about the sign of Christ’s coming, and of ‘the consummation of the age.’”

Later he writes: “The answers of Jesus contained much that was mysterious, and that could only be fully understood as that which he foretold actually occurred. He told his disciples some things which related to the siege of Jerusalem, some which concerned his Second Advent, and some which would immediately precede ‘the end of the world.'”

On Matthew 24:36 Spurgeon notes: “There is a manifest change in our Lord’s words here, which clearly indicates that they refer to his last great coming to judgment: ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man’…. Christ, in his human nature, so voluntarily limited his own capacities that he knew not the time of his Second Advent. It is enough for us to know that he will surely come, our great concern should be to be ready for his appearing whenever he shall return.”

J. Marcellus Kik (An Eschatology of Victory, 1948, rep. 1971).

Kik observes: “The first thirty-four verses of Matthew 24, along with verse 35 in which Jesus confirms the certainty of his prophesies [sic], deal with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. . . . Now with verse 36 Christ commences a new subject, namely, his second coming and the events preceding it. This verse may be termed the ‘transition text’ of the chapter.”

Later he writes: “It  becomes apparent that in Matthew 24:36 Christ passes from the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, or his judgment against the Jewish nation, to his second coming at the end of the age when he would judge the world.”

R. T. France (The Gospel of Matthew, 2002)

France comments: “After Jesus has answered the first part of the disciples’ question, ‘When will these things [the destruction of the temple] happen?’ he now turns to the second part of the question, ‘What will be the sign of your parousia and the end of the age?’ and that question provides the agenda for the whole of the rest of the discourse, which culminates in a majestic depiction of the final judgment in 25:31–46.” He adds: “Several features in the wording of v. 36, and of the following passage, make it clear that a new subject is taken up at this point.”

[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

Jeffrey A. Gibbs (Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel, 2000).

“MATTHEW 24:36: THE HINGE VERSE OF THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DISCOURSE. The second major section of the ED [Eschatological Discourse] begins with the hinge verse, 24:36…. In the first major section of the ED, Jesus has answered the first question of the disciples regarding the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem. Now Jesus focuses on the second question in 24:3, ‘What will be that which shows your Parousia and the consummation of the age?’”

David E. Garland (Reading Matthew, 1992).

“The key to the structure of this discourse on the Mount of Olives is the disciples’ double question in 24:3. (1) The answer to the first half of the question, ‘When will these things be’ is given in 24:4–35. ‘These things’ refer to Jesus’ announcement about God’s judgment on the temple and Jerusalem…. (2) The answer to the second half of the disciples’ question about the parousia and the end of the age is given in 23:36–25:46.”

Alistair I. Wilson (When Will These Things Happen?, 2004).

“Transitional Statement (24:36) . . . “Along with the technical term tes hemeras ekeines kai horas signals the beginning of a new subject.” Several pages later: “Jesus distinguished the events to fall upon Jerusalem from his Parousia (as I believe Matthew indicates in his narrative).”

Conclusion

Thus, when all is said and done: the transition at Matt. 24:35 is not “per Postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry,” as if I created this idea to save face for my commitment to orthodox doctrine. Rather, it is a view that was promoted (long before me!) by a number of scholars, as well as many contemporary ones.

I will conclude this mini-series on Hyper-preterist mistakes in my next article. See you “soon” (literally!).

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!

HYPER-PRETERIST CONFUSIONS (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-100 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Hyper-preterism is an heretical view of eschatology that denies the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith. (Don’t mention this to them, though, for they want by themselves to determine what the church of our Lord Jesus Christ should believe.)

Specifically, the four leading (but not only!) Hyper-preterist errors involve their denying important biblical doctrines:

1. They deny a future, physical resurrection of all men. Some even deny the continuance of Christ’s physical resurrection after he left the earth!

2. They deny a future, visible, glorious, physical return of Christ.

3. They deny a future, universal, final great judgment of all men.

4. They deny a future end to temporal history and the beginning of the final, physical, consummate, reconstructed new creation order (which is anticipated in the spiritual new creation existing now in the gospel, 2 Cor. 5:17). In their view, history continues forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. Thus, God must forever endure a sinful universe without any final judgment and removal of sin. God’s created order will continue in a sinful estate.

Thus, this contemporary Internet movement of Hyper-preterists is attempting to replace the historic, universal Christian view with their new innovations in doctrine created by untrained, self-proclaimed “theologians.” This small band of brothers is attempting to upend historical Christianity after 2000 years so that they can replace it with a altogether new construct. Fortunately, their numbers are small — and apparently declining. In this, Hyper-preterism is unlike Mormonism that presented an altogether new (and bizarre!) theology and yet has somehow grown to remarkable proportions — even more than the Jehovah’s Witnesses (with their confused eschatology) and the Church of Scientology (at least they admit they were founded by a science-fiction writer).

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

A part of the lure of Hyper-preterism is its proud, pompous, pulpit-pounding pummeling of orthodox believers who “foolishly” hold to historic Christian theology. Unfortunately, they too often misunderstand and therefore misrepresent the facts. In this brief study I will present just a few illustrations of their overzealous confidence regarding some of my work. This is not by way of offering a theological or exegetical refutation (I offer that elsewhere, and will be offering more in my forthcoming commentary on Matthew 21–25). Rather, in this and my next two posts, I will simply demonstrate a few of their confused, boastful misunderstandings.

Gentry’s Peculiar Errors?

To begin, I must note that I believe Jesus refers to both the AD 70 destruction of the temple in Olivet’s opening section (Matt. 24:4–35) and the Second Coming and the Final Judgment in its latter section (Matt. 24:36–25:45). The Lord theologically links these two, even while historically separating them. That is, the AD 70 judgment of the temple is a local preview of the universal final judgment involved in Christ’s Second Coming.

[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

For instance, one Hyper-preterist writer interacts with my understanding of the Olivet Discourse by stating: “But what of [Matthew 24] verse 35 which addresses the ‘heaven and earth’ passing away? Surely that is referring to the end of planet earth and a ‘transition’ to the physical and final Second Coming event described for us in Matthew 24:35—25:31-46 (per Postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry)?”

Actually, my argument does not involve this use of Matt. 24:35. As I note in several places, Jesus’ statement in v. 35 is simply affirming the certainty of his prophetic word: it is more stable than the universe. Verse 35 is closing Christ’s opening prophecy of AD 70, whereas the transition to the Second Advent/Final Judgment begins at v. 36. There Jesus provides a transitional introduction to the second portion of his Olivet Discourse: “But of that day and hour,” etc.

Not only so, but this same writer leaves his readers with a false impression: that I am a lone innovator who is stumbling along all by myself. Yet the understanding of Matt. 24:36 (and/or its counterpart in Mark 13:32) as opening the transition in the Discourse, is not “per … Gentry.” The writer speaks in the same posting of the “Partial Preterist division theories of Kenneth Gentry” and of “his artificial division theory of Matthew 24-25.” But I have picked up my understanding from others. These are not my views, personally created by me. Those who follow my exegesis are not picking up a distinctive view that I made up.

In my next posting, I will document my sources. Stay tuned.

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!