Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 74

TEMPLE DESTRUCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT (3)

[image error]PMW 2018-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the third and final article in a brief series showing how the destruction of the temple in AD 70 pointed to and even symbolized the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment.

In the last article I noted that the Jews believed the temple was permanent, existing as long as the world would last. So many scholars comment on this religious perspective in Judaism regarding the temple’s relevance to the world order.

The temple’s relation to the world

Lee I. Levine (2002: 246) notes that the temple “was where God dwelled, this was the cosmic center of the universe (axis mundi), the navel (omphalos) of the world that both nurtured it and bound together heaven and earth.”

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Randall C. Gleason (2002: 111) points out that “the Jewish connection between Temple and cosmos was such that the glory of the Temple in Jerusalem symbolized the stability of the Jewish world.”

Shaye J. Cohen (1982: 24) agrees: “the temple was more than a building and more than the home of the sacrificial cult. It was the sacred center of the cosmos, the place where heaven and earth meet.” He continues: “the temple was more than a building and more than the home of the sacrificial cult. It was the sacred center of the cosmos, the place where heaven and earth meet.”

Peter Hayman (1986: 176) cites Sefer Yesira regarding the “edges” of the universe: “the Holy Temple [is] exactly in the middle, and it supports them all.”

The temple’s decor and the world

That the temple’s destruction points to the world’s destruction would be fueled by the temple’s decor itself. For, according to Josephus, the Jews believed that the temple veil and the high priest’s vestments each picture the fact that “God made the universe of four elements” earth, sea, air, and fire (Jos., Ant. 3:7:3 §183-84).

Then later, he explains the colors of the temple veil as “a kind of image of the universe” (J.W. 5:5:4 §212–13; Ant. 3.6.4; 3.7.7). This is because “the Temple, its vessels and even the high priest’s vestments were depicted as representing the entire universe and the heavenly hosts” (Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern 1974: 1: 906). As Seth Schwartz (1990: 42) notes, Josephus’ description of the special temple articles “are said to symbolize parts of the cosmos [and] may imply that for Josephus the Temple as a whole symbolized the cosmos as a whole.”

[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

And this information is not simply a Josephan peculiarity. In Sirach 18:24 we read of the high priest: “on his long robe the whole world was depicted.” Schwartz (1990: 43) argues that this statement “clearly implies the cosmic nature of the priestly vestments.”

Philo agrees, noting that the high priest’s dress seemed to be “a copy and representation of the world” (Spec. Laws 1:16 §84) and was arranged so that it provided “a representation of the universe” (Spec. Laws 1:17 §95). He (Mos 2:24 §122) points out that “some who have studied the subject” see the shoulder stones on the high priest as “emblems of those stars which are the rulers of night and day, namely, the sun and moon.” The twelve stones on the breastplate are emblems of “the circle of the zodiac” (Philo, Mos 2:24 §124).

James Davila (2005, 17) therefore writes that “the Jerusalem Temple is a microcosm of the universe.” D. D. Kupp (1996, 133) agree that “the Jerusalem Temple explained YHWH’s active presence in his created order and functioned as a spiritual and symbolic microcosm of the macrocosm.”

Thus, at Christ’s death the temple veil (picturing the stellar universe) is “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mk 15:38//). The rending of the veil, then, was a “clear sign of impending destruction of the Temple” (Richard A. Horsley 1987: 162). In fact, due to its embroidery with the starry heavens “its tearing would be an apt symbol of the beginning destruction, not only of the temple (which itself even as a whole symbolized the cosmos) but of the very cosmos itself” as the new creation process is begun in Christ’s death (Gregory K. Beale 1997a: 189).

So just as Christ’s overthrowing the moneychangers’ tables pictured the overthrowing of the temple, the destruction of the temple with all of its cosmic imagery pictured the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment. The temple is a microcosm of the cosmos and therefore it destruction symbolizes the destruction of the world itself.

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!

TEMPLE DESTRUCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-081 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part study of the temple’s AD 70 destruction as an historical judgment on Israel that pointed to the Final Judgment on the nations.  The last article set up this and the next article by pointing out: (1) the two-schema structure of history (Heb. 1:1–2) and (2) the nature of the Final Judgment (in Matt. 24:31–46). Having laid this groundwork, we can now start looking at the temple to begin considering how its destruction speaks of the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment

The Olivet Discourse can flow quite easily and most naturally from the destruction of the temple in AD 70 to the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment. We may see this in the very structure of the Discourse itself. Its transition text in Matt. 24:34–36, shifts our attention from the chaotic judgment (vv. 6–7, 9, 11, 16, 19, 21, 29, etc.) in those “days” (plural; vv. 19, 22, 29) to the peaceful setting of the unexpected judgment (v. 26, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50) of that “day” (singular, Matt. 24:36, 42, 50). [1] But it is not only the literary structure of the text that points to the world’s judgment, but the literal significance of the temple for Israel.

Jesus and temple desertion

As I get started I would point out that in Matt. 23:38 Jesus declares the temple “desolate” (“deserted,” i.e., by God). Then in Matt. 24:1a he dramatically leaves it — never to return again. All of his teaching since Matt. 21:23 has been in the temple courts; but now his public ministry is over. Throughout his ministry he had called Israel to repentance, but she refused his loving overtures (Matt. 23:37). He is finished dealing with her (Matt. 23:39).

The disciples were in shock at Jesus’ words regarding the temple. Upon his promptly departing the premises (Gk. exelthon, 2 Aorist participle), the disciples come to point out the temple’s majesty (Matt. 24:1b). They do this while he is in the very process of walking away from it (Gk. eporeueto, imperfect tense). They are not showing him something he has never seen before — he has just walked out of it! They are incredulously reminding him of its majesty, hoping that he might correct his pronouncement. [2] Their pointing out the temple stones is expressed by epideixei (to “point out), which is the Aorist infinitive of purpose.

But Jesus then responds with an even more dramatic statement: “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt. 24:2). In fact, the word that introduces Jesus’ comment (which is translated “and” by the NASB), is the Greek word de. Here it is used as an adversative and should be translated (“but”) in order to correct the disciples (see ESV).

[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

So now we are ready to consider the temple and how its destruction points to the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment. To begin this process we must put ourselves in first-century Jewish sandals. The Jews were enamored of their temple’s strength and magnificence — as we may surmise from the disciples’ perplexity regarding Jesus’ denouncing it (Matt. 24:1b, see above discussion).

The temple and Jewish hope

The Jews believe the temple will last to the very end of history. Consequently, when Jesus pronounces its destruction (Matt. 24:2), the disciples reflexively associate this event with the end of history, “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3b; cp.  Matt. 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). Their thinking has an element of truth in it. But it is a half-truth. The temple’s destruction is associated with the end of the world, though not simultaneously or immediately. Rather its destruction is a typological pointer to that end.

In order to flesh this out, I will focus on two important issues: (1) the Jews view of the temple’s permanence (in this article) and (2) the temple’s decor and its significance (in the next article). Both of these issues will show how its collapse points to the collapse of the universe and the end of history.

The temple’s centrality to Jewish worldview is such that it draws in enormous wealth by means of the free-flowing financial contributions by Jews from all over the Roman empire. The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero (Flac. 28:66-69) notes that “every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of Jews from Italy and from all provinces.” Josephus (Ant. 14:7:2 §110) notes the same: “Let no one wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, since all the Jews throughout the habitable earth, and those that worshipped God, nay, even those of Asia and Europe, sent their contributions to it, and this from very ancient times.”

The temple’s majesty and significance is such that in the OT the Jews believe it to be invulnerable (Psa. 46; 48; 76; Isa. 17:12–14; 29:1–8; Lam. 4:12; cp. Jer. 21:13). Due to Israel’s sin, however, Jeremiah warns them against such pride (Jer. 27:14). Elsewhere he rebukes Israel in this regard: “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord’” (Jer 7:4).

Rather, Israel’s covenantal failure should render any hope of the temple’s inviolability null and void: “And you will say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, “If you will not listen to Me, to walk in My law, which I have set before you, to listen to the words of My servants the prophets, whom I have been sending to you again and again, but you have not listened; then I will make this house like Shiloh, and this city I will make a curse to all the nations of the earth”’” (Jer 26:4-6).

Elsewhere Israel arrogantly declares: “Is not the Lord in our midst? / Calamity will not come upon us” (Mic. 3:11). But God responds: “therefore, on account of you / Zion will be plowed as a field, / Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins, / And the mountain of the temple will become high places of a forest” (Mic. 3:12). The Lord even warns: “What right has My beloved in My house / When she has done many vile deeds? / Can the sacrificial flesh take away from you your disaster, / So that you can rejoice?” (Jer. 11:15).

Thus, Alan Beagley (1987; p. 126) reminds us that “one attitude with which the prophets had to contend time and time again was the belief that Jerusalem was inviolable.” Alan T. Davies points out that “the city came to be regarded as a veritable extension of the Temple” so that “Jerusalem and the Temple . . . became almost inseparable realities” (Davies 1974: 152, 153).

Before Jerusalem Fell[image error]

(by Ken Gentry)

Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing. Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We see this line of thinking in the words of first-century Jewish writers. The Jewish philosopher, Philo (Spec. 1:76) comments on the economic value of the temple in words assuming 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.”

This shows how the Jews expected the end of the world were the temple to be destroyed.

Responding to Josephus’ pleas to surrender to Rome in the first-century Jewish War, 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 widespread confidence of the beleaguered city 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.” The later Christian writer Barnabas (16:1) derides Israel for this: “Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshiped him in the temple.”

Thus, in all of this we can see why there would be a linkage between the temple’s destruction and the end of the world. The Jews were wrong to think there was a direct linkage that required the world to end with the temple’s demise. But we will see that they were correct to see a linkage. But the linkage will be by way of pointing to or symbolizing the Final Judgment.

To be concluded in my next article.

Notes

1. Jesus’ mention of the “days” of Noah (v. 37–38) after the shift at v. 36 is not referring to the “days” of the judgment. Rather it is referring to Noah’s time, drawing attention to the fact in Noah’s time the people were wholly unaware of approaching judgment. The unknown and surprising judgment will come unexpectedly.

2. Despite trusting the Lord as “the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Matt. 16:6), Peter rebukes him when he informs the disciples he must die in Jerusalem (Matt. 16:22).

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!

TEMPLE DESTRUCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-080 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The destruction of the temple in AD 70 not only points to the judgment of God on Israel, but also pictures the judgment of God on the world at the Last Day. We can see this in many ways, one of which is by understanding the temple structure itself — and how it’s meaning pictures the future end of the world.

As noted in previous articles on this site, I am currently working on a commentary on Matt. 21–25 (see conclusion of article below). This section forms a discrete literary unit in Matthew’s Gospel in which we find the Olivet Discourse as its climax. In this commentary I will be demonstrating that the Discourse opens with a prophecy of judgment against the Temple in AD 70, which ends the old covenant era, but then shifts to the Final Judgment of the world, which ends the new covenant era (and history itself). Those who limit all prophecy-fulfillment to AD 70 effectively promote a Jesus who is a Jewish sage, not realizing the fullness of his ministry and the significance of the Olivet Discourse. [1]

In this three-article series I will very briefly offer an interesting insight into the fact that the temple’s judgment not only serves as a judgment on Israel, but also pictures the final judgment upon all nations. But before I do that, I must note the biblical structure of redemptive-history.

Two-stage schema of history

We should understand that Matthew’s Gospel (and other NT writings) presents a two-stage schema of history. And as Bible-believing Christians we should note the appropriateness of dividing all of history into two eras: Before Christ and Anno Domini ( “in the year of our Lord”). [2] This is clearly expressed by Heb. 1:1–2: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1–2a). And is expected in Matt. 11:11–12.

Consequently, we must distinguish the former days from the latter days. The former days are the days of redemptive preparation and prophetic expectation for the coming of the kingdom of God. The latter days are the days of prophetic fulfillment and redemptive conclusion in the establishing and spreading of the kingdom of God on earth (Mark 1:15). Our current redemptive-historical era, then, is known as “the last days” (Isa. 2:2–4; Mic. 4:1; Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3). And as appropriate to a period known as “the last days,” we should expect a “Last Day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).

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

This two-part, macro scheme of history lies behind Christ’s teaching in the Olivet Discourse. This climactic discourse in his teaching ministry deals with Israel’s judgment at the conclusion of the former days, the old covenant era (Matt. 24:4–34). It then shifts to the world’s judgment at the Last Day, the conclusion of the historical new covenant era (Matt. 25:31–46). The shift is made at Matt. 24:36 (which I will abundantly argue in my commentary on Matt. 21–25).

The rationale of Final Judgment

But another unfortunate error of some interpreters involves the rationale of the Final Judgment pictured in Matt. 25:31–46. They trip over Jesus’ teaching, when he says:

“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me’” (Matt. 25:37–40).

Despite popular opinion, this does not focus on general moral behavior or social engagement. That is, it is not establishing the standard of judgment as social concern that operates by giving aid to the needy (vv. 35–36). Though these are certainly Christian values, they are not the contextual point of the Final Judgment scene presented here. I will briefly consider the flow of Matthew as I prepare to look at the temple’s destruction as being a pointer to the destruction of the world at the Final Judgment (which I will get to in my next article).

In Matt. 10:5 and 15:24 Jesus specifically limits the focus of his earthly ministry to the Jews in Palestine, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” forbidding his disciples to “go in the way of the Gentiles.” But then at the end of his ministry, he radically redirects his outreach program when he establishes his global mission through his Great Commission: “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19). Of course, Jesus is not trying one plan, then another, as a hit-or-miss operation. Rather, this two-step understanding is per Old Testament prophetic expectation and is thus his ultimate plan all along.

The Final Judgment in Matt. 25 focuses its particular attention on the long-range, ongoing program of the gospel message through the new covenant. Jesus’ standard of evaluation (Matt. 25:37–40, see above) focuses on how the nations will receive Jesus’ missionaries in history. Note:

First, Jesus’ focus. For Jesus’ current purpose, the Final Judgment as presented here expressly focuses on the Gentiles (plural Gk. ethnoi). Thus, the Greek ethnoi in Matt. 25:31 refers to “Gentiles.” In the Septuagint (LXX) ethnoi is commonly applied to the people outside of Israel, people not descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For example, we see this Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; Exo. 23:27; 33:16; Deut. 7:6–7; Psa. 2:1; Psa. 9:17, 19; 22:27; 110:6; Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:2; Jer. 46:28; etc., etc. [3] This is true in the New Testament, as well (Matt. 4:15; 10:5, 18; Mark 10:33, 42; 13:10; Luke 3:32; 21:24; etc.).

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

Second, Jesus’ people. In the Final Judgment scene, the reference to “these brothers [Gk. adelphoi] of mine” (Matt. 25:40) speaks of Christians, not generically to unbelievers in the world among the “family of man.” In fact, Matthew’s Gospel speaks of spiritual “brothers” as the Christian community (rather than simply to biological brothers in the nuclear family). Emphatic examples of this derive from Jesus’ own words (Matt. 12:48–50; 23:8; 28:10; cp. 18:15, 21, 35). This prevails in other contexts as well (e.g., John 20:17; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11–12).

More particularly though, this reference to “brothers” in Matt. 25:40 focuses specifically on Christian missionaries. These are the ones sent out with the gospel message, as a number of commentators note. [4] The rationale for this understanding is:

(1) The hunger, thirst, poverty, imprisonment, and so forth speak of the persecution of believers, the danger of missionary endeavor, which Jesus warns his disciples about (Matt. 10:9–11, 23, 28; Mark 6:9; 13:9–13; 1 Cor. 4:11–12; 2 Cor. 6:4–5; 11:232–27).

(2) Jesus teaches that those who reject the message of the gospel, which they proclaim, will be subject to hell (Luke 10:10–15), as Matt. 25:41, 46 makes clear. After all, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (Matt. 10:40; cp. Luke 10:16; Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14).

(3) The Gentile mission assumed in Matt. 25 parallels in important respects the earlier Jewish mission. Here in Matt. 25 Jesus is explicating the Final Judgment. We can compare his standard of judgment here with the similar expectations in the Jewish mission (Matt. 10:14–15; cp. 23:34–36). Thus, both the Jews and the Gentiles will be judged for their response to the Christian message and their reception of the Christian messengers bringing that message.

Thus, in all of this Matthew’s Gospel operates from a two-stage schema of history: the Jewish era and the Gentile era (though in each one there will be some of the opposite group involved). For the Jewish message of Christ, he comes to Israel then he judges Israel for rejecting him (the AD 70 judgment, Matt. 24:2–34). For the message to the Gentiles, he sends out messengers to them, then judges those who reject them and their message (Matt. 24:36–25:46).

So now we are finally ready to consider the temple itself, and how it points to the Final Judgment. Stay tuned! My next article will focus on this.

Notes

1. I would note, however, that applying the entirety of the Olivet Discourse to AD 70 is not a matter of heresy. Heresy comes through false theology, denying the fundamentals of the faith. One can have an erroneous understanding of a particular discourse in Scripture, while affirming evangelical doctrine in other texts. Evangelicals who hold that the Olivet Discourse speaks only of AD 70 will affirm the future, physical resurrection of the dead, the Second Coming of Christ, the Final Judgment, and the transformation of the earth for the eternal order. They just do not see any of that in this particular discourse.

2. The historical framing of history in this manner is a source of great annoyance to secularists who believe all of reality is the result of exploding nothingness, which caused our highly-ordered, mathematically-precise Universe. When writing for secular publishers (and some “Christian” ones!), references to B.C. and A.D. are edited to become B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era). Thinking they have swept the matter under the rug, all one has to do is ask: When does the Common Era begin? And why is it the beginning of a calendrical new era? They still have to reckon with the fact of Christ and his impact on history. This is much like feminists who refuse to take their husband’s last name, only to be left with their father’s last name!

3. Note that I have given the LXX references according to our current Christian Bible order. The LXX often has a different order. So if you have a copy of the Septuagint, you will have to adjust the references accordingly.

4. For instance, see Robert Gundry, Matthew, 567; Ulrich Luz, Matthew, 3:280. Grant Osborne, Matthew, p. 934. Blomberg, Matthew, 378. Keener, Matthew, 605.

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.

I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry, so that I may continue this work: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!

CHRISTIANITY DEAD IN EUROPE???

[image error]PMW 2018-079 by John D. Martin (The Federalist)

Gentry note: This is an encouraging article that notes “there have been increasing signs of a real and sustained Christian revival in Europe, hardly reported and barely noticed in press across the pond.” Of course, we know on the basis of Scripture that this will ultimately be the case, but it is good to see signs of that today.

As we can see from the article, with the growth of Christian belief, we need to promote true Christian training in biblical doctrine. The Great Commission not only promotes faith, but training in that faith.

There is an old joke about a Christian lady who was responding to a friend who believed “God is dead.” This humble believer responded: “I know God is not dead! There is no casket big enough to hold him and I am in the family and haven’t been notified.” God is not dead. Neither is belief in God dead.

“Reports of Christianity’s Death in Europe Have Been Greatly Exaggerated”

by John D. Martin

Since the 2007 publication of Philip Jenkin’s God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam and Europe’s Religious Crisis, observers of religious trends in European culture have been keeping a close eye on developments that might validate his sanguine view that Europe could see a revival in Christian belief. Richard J. Neuhaus, in his review of it in First Things at the time, thought the view was “too roseate.”

That was then. In the ten years since Neuhaus taking his final leave of the stage of this world, there have been increasing signs of a real and sustained Christian revival in Europe, hardly reported and barely noticed in press across the pond. Taking a look at the landscape and starting in far west, there are signs of revival in Spain, as Filip Mazurczak noted.

[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

He comments specifically on the growth in the Catholic Church, which is recovering after years of decline in commitment and attendance:

“According to Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS), the proportion of Spaniards attending Mass has increased from 12.1 to 15 percent between 2011 and 2012. In absolute terms, the number of Spanish Catholics attending Mass weekly grew by an astonishing further 23 percent between 2012 and 2013, according to CIS. Meanwhile, between 2007 and 2013 the number of Spaniards contributing part of their taxes to the Church rose from eight to nine million.”

Eastern Europe, barely a generation after the destruction of that atheistic totalitarian monstrosity known as the Soviet Union, is experiencing a renaissance of both Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

What about France? You know, the cradle of modern secularism? That country where raving anti-religious hordes turned wholesale murder by torture of priests, nuns and monks into a spectator sport in the opening days of that glorious “Enlightenment”? Well, let’s hear from someone who lives there, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who wrote this article in The Week back in 2015:

“On a recent Sunday, my family and I only showed up 10 minutes early for Mass. That meant we had to sit in fold-out chairs in the spillover room, where the Mass is relayed on a large TV screen…. This is business as usual for my church in Paris, France.

I point this out because one of the most familiar tropes in social commentary today is the loss of Christian faith in Europe in general, and France in particular. The Wall Street Journal recently fretted about the sale of ‘Europe’s empty churches.’

Could it be, instead, that France is in the early stages of a Christian revival?”

Yes, it could. He adduces further evidence in that the numbers for vocations, calls to the priesthood and religious life in the orders, have stabilized in France and are seeing an increase (which has also been reported in Spain in Mazurczak’s article cited above). The recent growth in evangelical churches in France and Spain also supports answering Gobry’s question in the affirmative.

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

What about French-speaking Switzerland? Well, it’s home to one of the most dynamic revival preachers in Europe, Jean-Luc Trachsel, whose ministry in Oron is growing steadily and regularly sees conversions in the hundreds. One such revival event in Avignon, France last year reported more than 500 persons declaring faith in Jesus for the first time.

Enthusiasm Is Gaining Traction in Europe

That was just one, relatively small event, though. Europe is rife right now with public mass worship and evangelism events, like Awakening Europe events, in which Trachsel and other international revivalists such as the New Zealander Ben Fitzgerald, the American Daniel Kolenda, Germany’s Reinhard Bonnke and Todd White, another American, participate.

They draw a much younger body of attendees than many large-scale Christian events, and their focus is not on merely building up the faithful, but on empowered evangelism, with outreach on the streets of these major European cities being a key element of each meeting. Last summer’s Awakening Europe saw more than 1,000 declare new faith in Jesus in Prague, the Czech Republic.

That was the third Awakening Europe event. The fourth will be in Riga, Latvia this fall. The second, in 2016, was held in Stockholm, Sweden and saw similar results to those reported, as did the first one, which was held in Nuremberg in 2015. That is to say, all of them had attendance in the thousands and reported conversions in the hundreds or thousands. In Sweden, that alone could rightly be called miraculous.

[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

Along with Awakening Europe, there are numerous other massive public Christian events, such as the Holy Spirit Nights in cities like Stuttgart and Munich and the Allgäu Worship Nights, which routinely draw thousands of Christians and interested non-believers. If one had the resources and inclination, one could attend some massive Christian concert, festival, or large-scale street evangelism event on the continent every week of the year, and in some weeks, a different such event every single day.

Now these events are signs of vitality in the European church, but are there signs of a revival in terms of church growth or even mere stability in their numbers? Here I will focus on the German-speaking nations of central Europe, since I know them best. Here, one can speak of real and growing revival.

Not so much in the state Lutheran Church, the Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands, though there the news for the most recent reporting year, 2016 was also good: In 2016 180,000 new members joined the EKD through baptism and 25,000 through regular acceptance. This marked the first time in three years that the number of those joining the church exceeded those leaving. There was an overall decline in membership, admittedly, of 1.57 percent. Yet the reason for the overall decline was mortality, not voluntary abandonment of church membership. For those who read German, the full report can be found here.

Shake, Rattle, and Roll

In the “free” evangelical churches, especially those on the charismatic and pentecostal end of the non-denominational Protestant spectrum, there is continued growth. In fact, the growth in the Bund Freikirchlicher Pfingstgemeinden (Federation of Evangelical Pentecostal Churches) saw steady growth for half a decade now, with growth in the 6 percent range for the last two reported years (2016 and 2017 see the BFP’s report here for details in German).

Other evangelical churches such as the Bund Evangelisch-Freikirchlicher Gemeinde (Federation of Evangelical Free Churches—mainly Baptists and Brethren) report continued growth, though in the case of the free evangelicals the growth has slowed from previous years. The picture overall is mixed but contradicts the conventional wisdom of a dying Christianity in Europe.

Churches such as New Life Church in Düsseldorf, the Gospel Forum in Stuttgart, and the ICF (International Christian Fellowship) churches in Munich and Karlsruhe all record thousands of members and report regular conversions, with New Life recording on average 100 new converts weekly. Then there’s the Christus Gemeinde in Wuppertal, home church to “Der breiteste Pastor Deutschlands” (“the broadest pastor in Germany,” referring to his shoulders—the guy benches 175 kilos), Marcus Schneider. He’s something of a social media sensation. Don’t mind the tattoos.

These are young, vital, and effective churches, each with international outreach, a focus on life in community, and a strong sense of Christian mission that has been absent from the mainline churches for a generation at least. And they are only part of the story.

Where Prayer Never Ceases

The other part is the 24/7 prayer movement. The movement is driven largely by Christian young people who know the importance of prayer to spiritual life. The movement is at home in Houses of Prayer, which in European terms are inheritors of the Moravian Prayer Movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some of these, such as the Prayer Mountain of the FCJG — the “Free Christian Youth Community” in Lüdenscheid—are long established. . . .

To continue reading: click

[image error]John D. Martin was born and raised in Indiana. He earned his doctorate from the University of Illinois and has written academic articles and articles for the popular press. He lives in Germany with his family.

With the need for better Christian education, I encourage postmillennialists to get engaged in writing. But I also encourage them to write well. If you need some basic training in research and writing, I recommend that you consider my directed-study course.

[image error]

THE NATIONS AND THE GREAT COMMISSION

[image error]PMW 2018-078 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction

An interested reader sent me a question regarding the Great Commission. The question was two pages long, but I will edit it down to a manageable size. He wrote:

I have a question about a certain verse that I believe you use in a certain way…. The Verse is Matthew 28:19…. My question is this: In what sense do you understand Jesus telling His disciples to “make disciples of all nations?” Can you break that down for me and clarify? I know in the KJV it says to “teach” and that has been discovered by many to be wrong and it seems the better translation is “to make disciples of all nations” I always thought that you believed it meant each particular nation would be through the “preaching of the gospel” would be Christianized. Each nation in a universal but limited sense. Not all but the majority of the people of each nation would be made disciples of Christ through the “things that Jesus taught the disciples”….

[The reader cites a scholarly article he has read on the matter. He notes:] The Aorist Imperative form of this verb lends itself to the expression of a simple activity, like the calling to the commitment to follow Jesus, which each one of the disciples who was listening to this commission had previously done. “Baptizing them” would also be understood by these same disciples as being similar to the individual commitment each of them had to make before they were baptized by John the Baptist (cp. Mark 1:5)….

There is another issue in Matt 28:19-20, and that is how to take the participles – “baptizing and teaching” in relation to the main verb “make disciples”. The commentary you quoted interpreted them as participles of means… “Make disciples of all nations BY baptism and BY instruction.” But the word “by” is added for interpretation and is not in the text.

I hope I have saved the relevant portions of his extended question. And I believe I have. So now, to work!

Thanks for reading and thinking through the issues. I recommend your reading my book The Greatness of the Great Commission for a fuller answer.

Ethnos meaning

Regarding the cultural implications of the Great Commission, I would note:

First, it is significant that Jesus chose the word ethnos in his command, rather than basileia (which suggests political kingdoms, national entities) or anthropos (which suggest individual men). My understanding of “nations” (Gk. ethnos) is that it means “men in their cultural [ethnic] relations.” A “culture” is the sum deposit of the normative exercises of men, i.e., it is what results from the normative activities of men in their surroundings. Blomberg (Matthew: The New American Commentary [1992], p. 431) notes of the word that it is “somewhat equivalent to ethnic groups.”

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, this understanding is allowed by Jesus’ use of the word ethnos and it is actually encouraged by his addition of the means of the discipling: by “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). Jesus did not teach stray thoughts on personal spiritual matters, but instruction involving a holistic integration of every thought regarding related matters that create a distinctive worldview orientation (cp. 2 Cor. 10:4–5).

Third, this understanding of ethnos well supplements Jesus’ statement in John 3:17: “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” The kosmos as “a system of men and things” is the goal of the saving work of God in Christ. God did not intend to pluck brands from the fire, but to apply his universal authority (Matt. 28:18) over the whole world. We should note with John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew: New International Greek Testament Commentary [2005], p. 1270) that “Matthew shares the general Jewish impulse to view true religion as involving a way of life and not simply a pattern of beliefs. So what is to be taught is to keep … what has been commanded.” This is culture-creating.

Thus, I believe all cultures as cultures are to be “discipled,” i.e., brought under Christian instruction and influence. The cultures and the world will be discipled one person at a time, to be sure, but they will be discipled as cultures in all their defining implications.

In the Apostolic church we see the problem of the tendency of Jewish culture (with its ceremonial demands and distinctive social markers) attempting to restrict and govern the gospel (Acts 15; Galatians). This must be overcome — through discipling. The gospel must produce not simply individual converts, but converts governed in all their life relations by the universal authority of Christ.

Participle significance

Regarding the question of the significance of the participles and their functioning as “means,” I believe that these participles are in fact examples of the “participle of means.” As Daniel Wallace notes in his Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (p. 629) the “participle of means could be called an epexegetical [explanatory] participle in that it defines or explains the action of the controlling verb.” He adds that “the participle of means is almost always contemporaneous with the main verb.” Thus, the making of disciples is to be done by baptizing and teaching them. He lists Matt. 28:19–20 as examples of the participle of means (p. 630).

[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

Later on p. 645, Wallace observes regarding the Great Commission participles (baptizing; teaching) that “they obviously make good sense as participles of means; i.e., the means by which the disciples were to make disciples was to baptize and the to teach.” Charles Quarles (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament [2017], p. 352) sees these participles as either participles of means or attendance circumstances (i.e., coordinate with the main verb). R. T. France agrees (The Gospel of Matthew: NICNT [2007], p. 1115), noting that these participles “spell out the process of making disciples.” Davies and Allison (Matthew: International Critical Commentary [1997], p. 686) agree, noting that the “general imperative … is filled out … by what follows: baptism and instruction in obedience.” David L. Turner (Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [2008], p. 689) concurs, noting that the participles explain “how disciples are made.”

As Craig Keener (The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [2009], p. 718) puts it: “one should make disciples for Jesus by going, baptizing, and ‘teaching.’” Craig Blomberg (Matthew: The New American Commentary [1992], p. 431) agrees: “The verb ‘make disciples’ also commands a kind of evangelism that does not stop after someone makes a profession of faith. The truly subordinate participles in v. 19 explain what making disciples involves: ‘baptizing’ them and ‘teaching” them obedience to all of Jesus’ commandments.”

According to Charles Quarles (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Matthew [2017]), the aorist imperative of matheteuo “expresses urgency” (p. 351). He also notes that the participles “baptizing” and “teaching” are expressed by the “ptc. of means,” thus implying the understanding of “by.” Though it is not crucial to add “by” to the translation because the statement could be read literally as: “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, etc.”

Regarding the statement that the “Aorist imperative form of this verb lends itself to the expression of a simple activity, consider the following (very briefly!). Charles Quarles (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Matthew [2017]), notes instead that the presence of the aorist imperative of matheteuo “expresses urgency” (p. 351).

Though he was not postmillennial, A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1:245) speaks of the Great Commission as “the campaign for world conquest.” I believe he has captured the sense of Jesus’ command.

I hope this has been helpful. Keep studying!

[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

JESUS AND GOD’S LAW (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article I began a study of Jesus’ teaching on God’s Law. This is important because postmillennialism expects God’s righteousness to prevail in the affairs of men, not just a general peace among men. The postmillennial hope involves a specific righteousness defined by God. And Jesus teaches that God’s Law prevails.

In this article I will continue the previous study of Matt 5. In doing so we will notice that the kingdom is central to Jesus’ presentation. We have already seen much in Jesus’ few words in Matt 5:17–19. But there is more!

The word “for [gar]” (Matt 5:18) introduces an explanation of verse 17. That which follows (vv 18ff), then, will justify the preceding statement (v 17). Furthermore, here when Christ says “truly” (amen), he is emphasizing the importance of the following statement. The Lord often uses this word to draw his hearers’ attention to an important observation he is about to make (e.g., Matt 5:26; 6:2, 5, 16; 8:10; 10:15). Thus, here he forthrightly declares: “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” He is here comparing the stability of the Law to that of the Universe (cp. Matt 24:35; Luke 16:17; cf. Eccl 1:4; Psa 104:5; 119:90). The Law cannot be disannulled until the material heavens and earth pass away.

Once again underscoring his teaching on the Law Jesus states: “not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18b). The phrase “smallest letter or stroke” refers to the smallest Hebrew letter (the iota, which looks like our letter “i” ) and the ornamental strokes on the letters (we might say: crossing the “t” and dotting the “i”). Christ is concerned to show that God’s Law in its totality is being promoted by him. In the Greek he repeats the word “one” before “the smallest letter” and also before “stroke.” This provides even stronger emphasis: “not even one of the smallest letters nor one of the smallest strokes on a letter. . . .”

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

When he says this will be so “until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18) we may literally translate it: “until all things are accomplished.” This statement parallels “until heaven and earth pass away.” In other words, not the smallest letter or stroke of the law will pass away before history ends.

As if he needs more emphasis Jesus backs up and reiterates what he has just stated: “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:19). The phrase “one of the least of these commandments” repeats the emphasis of the smallest aspects of the Law in order to show its binding significance. If the least things are so important, how much more the large aspects of the Law?

In fact, the one who “annuls one of the least of these commandments” contradicts his teaching in this regard and is considered “least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:19). This denunciation impacts that person’s status in the very kingdom which Jesus comes to establish on earth in the first century. John the Baptist (Christ’s forerunner, Matt 11:10–11) comes on the scene preaching: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:2). When Jesus begins his ministry not long after John, he also preaches this message of the nearness of the kingdom and therefore urges repentance: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 4:17b). He later commissions his disciples to preach the same (Matt 10:7).

Jesus sees John as the last of the Old Testament prophets, the last of the old covenant representatives. Thus, those who follow Jesus begin entering the kingdom of heaven (the new covenant) which he is establishing (Matt 11:11–12). As Luke’s version puts it: “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since then the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it” (Luke 16:16). Many of the Lord’s parables deal with the kingdom of heaven (e.g., Matt 13; 18:23 19:12–23; 20:1–16; 22:1–14).

Following this strong statement of the Law’s validity and its importance to his kingdom, Christ decries scribal distortions of the Law through adhering to the oral interpretation of tradition rather than the faithful exposition of Scripture (Matt 5:21–48). Though a cursory reading of his following comments might suggest Jesus is speaking against God’s Law, this cannot be the case for several reasons:

(1) Christ would not contradict his own teaching. He has just vigorously asserted that he is not opposed to God’s Law, that it would continue in effect until history ends, and that anyone who claims to follow him and annuls the least of the commandments will himself be deemed the least in his kingdom (Matt 5:17–20). Surely he would not boldly and massively contradict himself beginning in the very next sentence (Matt 5:21).

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) Jesus would not contradict basic morality. Consider the first example in his list: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you. . . .” (Matt 5:21–22a). Surely Jesus is not repealing the law against murder.

(3) Jesus would not contradict biblical revelation. We should note that Christ is actually contrasting that which is “written” over against that which “the ancients were told,” i.e., he is contrasting God’s Word with rabbinic tradition. Note what he states elsewhere: “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’” (Matt 15:3b). When Jesus refers to God’s Law in its true, undistorted sense, he declares: “It is written” (e.g., Matt 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 21:13; Mark 7:6; Luke 4:17ff; Luke 10:26; 20:17; 21:22; 22:37; John 8:17; 10:34; 15:25; etc.).

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

JESUS AND GOD’S LAW (1)

[image error]PMW 2017-076 by Kenneth L. Gentry. Jr.

Postmillennialism is an optimistic eschatology. In its definition (as I give it my “Definition” page of this website), one expectation of postmillennialism is that “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.”

Contrary to some opponents of postmillennialism, it is essentially social-gospel liberalism. However, the postmillennial hope of righteousness and peace prevailing on the earth is a concrete expectation. Not just any sort of “righteousness” and peace will do. Postmillennialism expects God’s grace to change men so that they will live in terms of God’s Law.

Not only so, but this hope destroys any notion that we are now at the height of the postmillennial progress, because the gospel has touched so many nations. Some postmillennialists have suggested this. But we do not see God’s Law prevailing in the affairs of men and nations.

Christ is obviously the central figure in Christianity, and therefore in the postmillennial hope. And he strongly proclaims God’s Law as the continuing new covenant standard of righteousness. In this brief series I will present the basic argument that Jesus affirms God’s Law as necessary for the kingdom of God.

Several lines of evidence instruct us in Jesus’ affirming God’s Law for his new covenant people. In no way does he undercut the validity of the Law when he comes. In fact, he affirms, expands, and promotes it.

[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

 

 

Jesus confirms God’s Law most clearly and powerfully in his first major discourse, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7). Significantly, this major Sermon focuses much on the kingdom. He strongly ties his teaching to the “kingdom of heaven,” which phrase appear eight times in the sermon (Matt 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 13, 33; 7:21).

So let us see how he affirms God’s Law as the standard of kingdom righteousness.

In this Sermon we read:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:16–20)

In this and the following article I will give a brief, running commentary on exegetically significant points in this passage. I urge you to keep your Bible open for consultation as I make the following observations.

Early in the Sermon the Lord urges his followers to glorify God by doing good works: “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:16). And then immediately he begins discussing God’s Law. His next words are: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17). By this close association he is linking “good works” with God’s Law, just as we would expect based on our study in the previous chapter.

The statement “do not think” (Matt 5:17) is an ingressive aorist verb that means: “do not begin to think.” As he opens his ministry he instructs his hearers that nothing he will say should make them even begin to suppose that he might be opposed to God’s Law. He does not want to be misunderstood as he corrects distortions and abuses of the Law that have arisen in Israel. In this Sermon (and elsewhere) he is correcting the abuse of the Law, not rejecting the use of the Law.

Furthermore, when he says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17), he uses the Greek word kataluo which means to “dismantle, abrogate, dispose of thoroughly.” This word is used in his prophecy of the Temple’s stone-by-stone destruction: “Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down [katalutetai]” (Matt 24:2; cp. Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). This word also appears in 2 Corinthians 5:1 where it speaks of the rotting away of the physical body in death.

Rather than allowing his hearers even to begin to think this, he announces that he is seeking the opposite: “I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill” (Matt 5:17b). The conjunction “but” here is known as the strong adversative (Gk: alla). It provides sharp contrast, as in Matthew 10:34 which exactly parallels Matthew 5:17 in form and structure: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” Notice the strong contrast between the idea of “peace” and that of a “sword”; they are exact opposites. Likewise in Matthew 5:17 Jesus contrasts the idea of destroying the Law with fulfilling it; the ideas are juxtaposed as opposites. As Nolland observes: “‘Fulfill’ must be taken in a manner that allows it to be an appropriate counterpart to ‘annul.’”

The word “fulfill” (pleroo, Matt 5:17b) which the Lord uses here cannot mean or even imply one of its common meanings: “to bring to a designed end” (BAGD 828). This is true even though sometimes the word does mean just that (see: Matt 1:21; 2:15, 17; Acts 3:18; 13:27). If this definition were employed here, though, it would teach us that Christ lived out the requirements of the Law so as to complete its purpose and do away with it. But it surely does not mean that or anything equivalent to it because he contrasts this word with “destroy.” And if we interpret “fulfill” to mean “fulfill so as to bring to a designed end,” it would effect the very thing Christ denies: the abrogation of the Law. “Fulfill” here, then, must mean something different from this possible meaning.

In this context, then, the term pleroo must be understood in terms of another of its definitions: “to make full, fill (full)” (BAGD 828 [1]). That is, it is used here to mean “to fill up to full measure.” This would indicate restoring it to its true, God-intended meaning in opposition to Pharisaic distortions that have emptied it of that meaning. This would mesh well with all that we have studied regarding the Law to this point. In fact, Romans 3:31 (though using a different verb) states: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.” He appears to be paralleling the sentiment of Christ’s statement here. Clearly then, according to Paul the New Testament confirms or establishes the Law rather than abolishes or removes it.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including “lesser-of-evils” voting.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We find support for this interpretation just a few verses later in Matthew 5:20: “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds [perisseue . . . pleion] the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (cp. Matt 15:3– 9; 23:23). Jesus’ words emphasize this by bringing together two terms, perisseue [“full, abundant”] and pleion [“more”] which literally means “to be full more than.” Thus, his disciples must fill up the Law more than the scribes and Pharisees — for they effectively empties it.

As the leading teachers in Israel the Pharisees so redefine the Law by their own teaching that they virtually empty it of its true meaning. Consequently, Christ teaches that he comes to restore, to fill back up the Law to its original, divine intention, thereby rescuing it from the Pharisees and their emptying it. Nolland comments in this regard: “The fulfillment language represents a claim that Jesus’ programmatic commitment, far from undercutting the role of the Law and the Prophets, is to enable God’s people to live out the Law more effectively.”

To be continued.

[image error]

GREAT COMMISSION AND CULTURAL MANDATE (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-075 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part series looking into the relationship between the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26–28). Both mandates feed the postmillennial hope.

There are a few evangelicals who disassociate the Creation (or Cultural) Mandate from the Great Commission, which has also been called the New Creation (or Evangelistic) Mandate. This is an unfortunate mistake that detracts from the greatness of the Great Commission and a proper engagement of the Christian calling in the world. Nevertheless, the two mandates are intimately related. This may be seen from several considerations.

Both Mandates are Granted at Strategic Times

In its setting, the Creation Mandate occurs as the “swelling of jubilant song” at the accomplishment of God’s creative activity. At that time, the creation had just been completed and pronounced “very good” (Gen. 1:31-2:2). Genesis declares that “God finished His work.” The Greek word for “finished” here is suntetelesen, which is based on the root word teleo. On the basis of the completion of God’s work, the joyful declaration is given.

The New Creation Mandate, too, occurs at the climax of divine labor. It was given at the completion of Christ’s work in securing man’s redemption, not long after He declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30). His statement in the Greek is tetelestai, which is based on the root word teleo, the same root found in the statement in Genesis 2:2.

Because of the work of Christ, a “new creation” has begun; there are several verses that speak of salvation as a new creation. The old creation involves the material world in which we live; the new creation involves the spiritual world, which governs the life we live as saved creatures. Consequently, the old creation and new creation correspond to one another. Thus, the Creation Mandate and the New Creation mandate supplement each other, as well.

Both Mandates Claim the Same Authority

The ultimate authority of the Triune God specifically undergirds both the Creation and the New Creation Mandates. The Creation Mandate was given directly from the mouth of God, who had just created all reality by means of His spoken word (Gen. 1:26-31). This was the very God who said, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26), thus indicating His Trinitarian being.

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The activity of the later New Creation Mandate is to be performed “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the Triune God (Matt. 28:19). It also was uttered by the very mouth of God: God the Son, who holds “all authority in heaven and earth” (Matt. 28:18) and by whom the universe was created.

Both Mandates are Given to Federal Heads

The Creation Mandate was initially under the federal headship of Adam. By “federal” is meant that Adam did not act just for himself, but for us. When he was tempted in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16-17) and fell (Gen. 3:6ff), he did so in our stead, as our federal head (Rom. 5:14ff). We are all born sinners on the basis of this federal connection with Adam. We do not earn our sinful estate; we are born into it.

The New Creation Mandate is under the continuing headship of the Last Adam, Christ. When Christ lived according to God’s Law through all His trials (Heb. 4:15) and died under that Law (Gal. 4:4), He did so in our behalf, as our federal head (Rom. 5:14ff). Christians are all born again on the basis of this federal headship connection with Christ. We do not earn our righteous standing; we are born into it.

Both Mandates Engage the Same Task

Both the Creation and New Creation Mandates are designed for the subduing of the earth to the glory of God. The Creation Mandate was to begin at Eden (Gen. 2:15) and gradually to extend throughout all the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). It was restated after the Great Flood (Gen. 9:1-7).

The New Creation Mandate, which supplements, undergirds, and restores man ethically to the righteous task of the Creation Mandate, was to begin at Jerusalem (Luke 24:47) and gradually to extend throughout the world (Matt. 28:19). As we will show in the following chapters, the Great Commission sets forth the divine obligation of the true, created nature of man. It seeks the salvation of the world, the bringing of the created order to submission to God’s rule. This is to be performed under the active, sanctified agency of redeemed man, who has been renewed in the image of God.

Both Mandates were Originally Given to Small Groups

The Creation Mandate originally was given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27), and then renewed to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1). The New Creation Mandate was given to Christ’s disciples (Matt. 28:16) for all ages (Matt. 28:20).

Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview[image error]

Ed. by David Hall

No other Christian teachings in the past five hundred years have affected our Western culture as deeply as the worldview of John Calvin. It extends far beyond the theological disciplines.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It is clear from the New Testament that the few original disciples, though initially intimidated by the resistance to Christ from their native countrymen, eventually overcame their cowardly hesitance. Upon witnessing the resurrection of Christ, they became convinced of the power of God. They received the command to “disciple all nations” on the basis of “all authority in heaven and on earth.” They accepted the obligation to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15).

Both Mandates Require the Same Enablement

As I have shown above, the Creation Mandate establishes a close connection between the interpretive revelation regarding man’s being created in God’s image (Gen. 1:26a, 27) and His command to exercise rule over the creation order (Gen. 1:26b, 28). Man lives up to His creational purpose as He exercises righteous dominion in the earth. God has implanted within man the drive to dominion. The entrance of sin, however, perverted godly dominion into a desire to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5).

The New Creation Mandate provides the essential restoration of the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). The Creation Mandate is consequently undergirded by the restorational activity of God by means of the New Creation power.

Conclusion

A major foundation of the Great Commission is found firmly placed upon the bedrock of Scripture and creation in Genesis. An awareness of man’s divinely ordained task in the world is essential to grasping the greatness of the Great Commission. The Great Commission is a corollary of the Creation Mandate.

[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

GREAT COMMISSION AND CULTURAL MANDATE (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-074 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Great Commission is a key text for framing in the postmillennial hope. Postmillennialism believes in the victory of the gospel throughout the world. And the Great Commission shows that Christ expected that very thing.

In this first contribution to a two-part study, I will be examining the Great Commission in the light of the Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26–28). Postmillennialism not only expects the gospel to win the souls of men, but also their very lives and labors.

The Christian faith is concerned with the material world, the here and now. The Christian interest in the material here and now is evident in that: (1) God created the earth and man’s body as material entities, and all “very good.” (2) Christ came in the flesh to redeem man. (3) His Word directs us in how to live in the present, material world. (4) God intends for us to remain on the earth for our fleshly sojourn, and does not remove us upon our being saved by His grace. As is obvious from these four observations, we have a genuine concern with the here-and-now. Just as obvious is it that this concern is necessarily in light of the spiritual realities mentioned: God, redemption, revelation, and providence.

At death all men enter the spiritual world, the eternal realm (either heaven or hell). But prior to our arrival in the eternal state, all men live before God in the material world, which He has created for His own glory, as the place of man’s habitation. The Great Commission necessarily speaks both to the present state (by giving our duty in the material world) and to the eternal state (by showing the means of our entry into heaven). In other words, it speaks to issues regarding body and soul.

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Both of the foundation stones for our study of the Great Commission are found in Genesis. In fact, the very foundations of all of reality, revelation, and redemption are laid in the book of Genesis, which makes that book of primary significance to the Christian faith. The very title “Genesis” is derived from the Greek translation of Genesis 2:4a: “This is the book of the generation [Greek: geneseos] of heaven and earth.” The word geneseos means “origin, source.” And it is in the opening chapters of Genesis (chs. 1-3) that we find the essential elements of these foundational truths.

The Mandate Explained

The Creation Mandate was given at the very creation of the earth and mankind upon it: on the sixth day of the creation week. Consequently, the Mandate serves an important purpose in distinguishing man from the animal, plant, and protist kingdoms: only man is created in “the image of God” (Gen. 1:26; 9:6), a little lower than the angels (Psa. 8:5). One vital function of this image is that of man’s exercising dominion over the earth and under God. As is evident in their close relation in Genesis 1:26, the dominion drive (“let them rule”) is a key aspect of the image of God (“Let us make man in Our image”) in man.

Thus, man has both a basic constitutional urge to dominion as a result of his being created in God’s image and a fundamental responsibility to do so as a result of his being commanded in the Creation Mandate. Man’s distinctive task in God’s world in accordance with God’s plan is to develop culture. Culture may be defined as the sum deposit of the normative labors of man in the aggregate over time. Adam was to “cultivate” the world (Gen. 1:26-28), beginning in Eden (Gen. 2:15).

Interestingly, early fallen man was driven to cultural exploits well beyond the expectations of humanistic anthropologists and sociologists. We see the effect and significance of the Creation Mandate very early in history in the culture-building exploits of Adam’s offspring. In the Bible, man is seen acting as a dominical creature, subduing the earth and developing culture, even despite the entry of sin. Man quickly developed various aspects of social culture: raising livestock, creating music, crafting tools from metal, and so forth (Gen. 4:20-22). In that man is a social creature (Gen. 2:18), his culture building includes the realm of political government, as well; this is evident in God’s ordaining of governmental authority (Rom. 13:1-2). Upon his very creation, not only was man commanded to develop all of God’s creation, but he actually began to do so. Culture is not an accidental aside to the historical order. Neither should it be to the Christian enterprise.

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It is important to realize that the Cultural Mandate was not withdrawn with the entry of sin into the world. The mandate appears in several places in Scripture after the Fall: Genesis 9:1ff; Psalm 8; Hebrews 2:6-8. But the new factor of sin did necessitate divine intervention and the supplementation of the original Mandate with the new factor of redemption.

Immediately upon the fall of Adam into sin, God established the covenant of grace, which secured man’s redemption. Genesis 3:15 promises the coming of a Redeemer (“the seed of the woman”), who will destroy Satan (“the seed of the serpent”). This verse is often called the “protoevangelium,” or the “first promise of the gospel.” The gospel of God’s saving grace began at this point in history.

And it is the Great Commission which comes in as the capstone of this proto-redemptive promise.

I will continue comparing the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate in my next article.

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

MATTHEW 24:28 “EAGLES” OR “VULTURES”?

[image error]PMW 2018-073 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In the opening section of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25), Jesus deals initially and significantly with the approaching AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Roman imperial forces (vv. 4–34). We may easily surmise this from the local context. After all, the Discourse is introduced by Jesus’ prophesying the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2), then linking his prophecy to the temple locale (“the holy place,” v. 15), warning the local residents to flee from the area (Jerusalem is in Judea, v. 16), and informing them generally when it will occur (in “this generation,” v. 34). [1]

The Roman eagle

Matt. 24:28 is an interesting verse embedded in this context. But its frequent mistranslation dulls the cutting edge of Jesus’ warning about the Roman invasion. For instance, the NASB renders this verse: “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” And the ESV, NIV, NRSV, and NJB agree. Clearly the “corpse” here is an vivid, dramatic image of Jerusalem as destroyed (cf. v. 22).

[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

Yet the word translated in our text is aetos, which means “eagle,” not “vulture” (as the NASB footnote allows). When properly translated as “eagle” it becomes a clear and compelling image of the Roman army, for the eagle was a symbol of Rome. For instance, Josephus comments on the marching order of the Roman legions:

Then came the ensigns encompassing the eagle [aeton], which is at the head of every Roman legion, the king, and the strongest of all birds, which seems to them a signal of dominion, and an omen that they shall conquer all against whom they march; these sacred ensigns are followed by the trumpeters.” (J.W. 3:6:2 [123]; cp. Suetonius, Galba 13) ….

All these came before the engines; and after these engines came the tribunes and the leaders of the cohorts, with their select bodies; after these came the ensigns, with the eagle [aieton].

Thus, the Lord’s imagery highlights the devastating rapacity of the Roman legions with their auxiliary troops. The translation “eagles” is preferred over “vultures” in that it highlights first-century Roman power, which is most relevant to Jesus’ warning of the temple’s stone-by-stone destruction (Matt. 24:2).

A potential difficulty

But a problem moves some exegetes to translate this word as “vultures” rather than “eagles.” The supposed problem is the birds’ relationship to the “corpse”: “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Matt. 24:28). It is argued that a major difference between eagles and vultures is that eagles are hunting birds that capture live prey to devour, whereas vultures are scavengers that feast on prey that has already died. And generally this is true.

However, this is not always true. A quick search of the Internet will show that eagles also are opportunistic feeders. They will wrest carrion from other birds of prey or come down upon road kill carcasses to feed. In fact, there are even videos of them doing this. Besides, the Romans are the ones who kill Jerusalem. They are not coming after some other agent killed her, in order to look for leftovers. Thus, there is no necessity for translating aetoi as “vultures” due to its relationship to the corpse.

[image error]

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In fact, two additional problems undermine the vulture argument.

First, in the OT eagles depict God’s use of pagan powers to inflict punishment on Israel, which Jesus does here in Matt. 24. OT passages that employ eagles in this way, show them being sent from afar against Israel for judgment. For instance, in the covenant curse passages, include Deut. 28:49 mentions eagles being sent against Israel for her unfaithfulness (this is a generic warning). In Eze. 17:1–10 we have two parables that picture Babylon then Egypt coming as destroying eagles. In Hos. 8:1 the Assyrian (v. 9) invasion is symbolized as an eagle coming against the house of the Lord.

The swift, powerful movement of the eagle is a symbol of the swift, powerful invasion by an empire from far away. It does not picture a local neighbor tribe of Israel rising in battle against her.

Second, and more importantly, Greek has another word for “vulture,” and this is gups. This word does not appear in the NT. But it is used in the Greek OT, the Septuagint. See: Lev. 11:13; Deut. 14:11; Job 6:7; 15:23; 28:7; 39:27. [3] And the Septuagint is abundantly used in Matthew and the other Gospels, so would be well-known to first-century Christians and Jewish.

Furthermore, the leading non-biblical writers in antiquity who mention both eagles and vultures keep them distinct. For example, Aristotle (Historia Animalium 6:5, 6) and Aelianius (Historia Animalium 2:46; 10:22).[2]

Jesus’ rationale

Now why does the Lord portray this judgment as eagles gathered around the carcass? It is interesting that he chooses the word “eagle” (aetos) here. He could have chosen a more generic term such as orneon (“fowl”), such as John employs in a similar context in Revelation 19:21. Or peteinon which usually speaks of wild birds (Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom 1:23; Jms 3:7), and is a term Jesus frequently uses (Matt 6:26; 8:20; 13:4, 32; Luke 12:24). Or even korax which represents a flesh-eating bird, the raven (Luke 12:24). Instead, he selects a term that reminds us his audience of the greatest military power of the day: the Roman Empire.

Josephus records the ultimate act that lies behind the imagery here:

“The Romans, now that the rebels had fled to the city, and the sanctuary itself and all around it were in flames, carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, there sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator” (J.W. 6:6:1 [316 ]).

As already noted the Roman ensigns bear the eagle as the symbol of Rome. In fact, to the Roman legionaries these were “sacred emblems” (J.W. 3:6:2 [124]). Thus, when Jerusalem dies, Jesus pictures the instrument of her death: the Roman legions, under the symbol of eagles.

Notes

1. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus’ attention shifts from AD 70 to the Final Judgment between Matt. 24:34 and 36 (Olivet Discourse Made Easy). However, I will be providing much more evidence in my new book on the Olivet Discourse that this shift of focus in the latter portion of the Discourse (Matt. 24:36–25:46) is required for both exegetical reasons and their theological implications. But before Matt. 24:34 the focus is clearly on events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

2. For abundant, compelling evidence supporting my interpretation, see Warren Carter, “Are There Imperial Texts in the Class? Intertextual Eagles and Matthean Eschatology as ‘Lights Out’ Time for Imperial Rome (Matthew 24:27–31), JBL 122/3 (2003): 467–487. Unfortunately, though he provides overwhelming evidence that “eagle” is the required translation in Matt. 24:28, he then misinterprets what Jesus is talking about. He argues that it is a reference to Rome’s destruction, just as Babylon and Assyria were used by God against Israel, and then judged themselves. He sees Matt. 24 as eschatological rather than historical.

3. I would note that the LXX reading of Job 5:7; 15:23; and 39:27 are quite different from the Massoretic Text, and therefore from our modern translations. But the Greek gup occurs in these passages there, and this was the basic OT text often used by Jesus and the Apostles.

[image error]JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET

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!