Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 75

HOW THE ANCIENTS HEARD RESURRECTION

[image error]PMW 2018-072 by Brian Mattson (The Calvinist International)

Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart has written an essay on the Pauline terms “spirit,” (pneuma) “soul,” (psuche), and “flesh” (sarx), maintaining that modern readers are greatly (or perhaps completely) hindered in their understanding of them. He lays blame on a kind of “Protestant biblical scholarship” that is allegedly weighed down with all sorts of wrong-headed theological predispositions—presuppositions that preclude any genuine understanding of the “intellectual and spiritual environment of the apostolic church.” He is indicting an entire tradition of biblical interpretation, so his lone example (N.T. Wright) is but an incidental detail, a mere straw placeholder for what turns out to be a much more sweeping agenda.

Hart is here to enlighten us, to lift us out of the lower depths, to scrape off the encrusted barnacles of received-yet-misguided tradition, and to give unique insight into how ancient people certainly “would have” understood Paul. If all that sounds rather gnostic, that is because it is. More on that anon. For the present, he claims there is one main source for our darkened intellectual confusion.

Modern scholarship assumes that Judaism and paganism in late antiquity are essentially distinguishable. That is, as he puts it, that there is an “impermeable cultural partition between them—that is, between the ‘philosophy’ of the Greeks and the ‘pure’ covenantal piety of the Jews.” The results of this kind of predisposition are “sometimes comic,” he writes, but at other times they are “positively disastrous”—nowhere more disastrous than in our reception of Paul’s terms pneyman, psuche, sarx — spirit, soul, and flesh, respectively.

What he means is that “Protestant” biblical scholarship wrongly sets the Hebrew Bible as the background interpretive context for the New Testament. Instead, we should understand the proper backdrop to include the great, wide, dizzying world of intertestamental apocalyptic literature with its “shining hierarchies of spirits and powers and morally ambiguous angels and demi-angelic nefilim.” In other words, the fusion of Jewish apocalyptic speculation and Platonism so amply evidenced in the intertestamental literature is, in fact, the real context for the New Testament’s conceptual world. He writes,

[For] us today, even such words as ‘heavenly’ (epouranios) and ‘earthly’ (choikos) convey practically nothing of the exquisite cosmology—at once concretely physical and vibrantly spiritual—in which the authors of the New Testament lived. And inevitably when we read of ‘spirit,’ ‘soul,’ and ‘flesh’ in the New Testament, the specter of Descartes (even if unnoticed by us) imposes itself between us and the conceptual world those terms reflect: we have next to no sense of the implications, physical and metaphysical, that such words had in the age of the early church.

His repeated use of the first person plural shouldn’t be taken literally: in no way does he intend to include himself in these critiques. What he really means is that everyone other than David Bentley Hart is doubly hampered in their interpretations: not only do they exclude the real conceptual world in which these terms are to be understood, but they are also apparently burdened by an invisible allegiance to 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes, with his “ghost in the machine” dualism. It is this, apparently, that serves to explain the tenacious belief that resurrection involves the reanimation of fleshly bodies.

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

He explains the dynamics by which “we” misunderstand:

Even ‘flesh’ becomes an almost imperfect cipher for us, not only because of the drastic oversimplifications of Christian tradition with which we have been burdened; we think we know—just know in our bones—that the early Christians unambiguously affirmed the inherent goodness of the material body, and that surely, then, Christian scripture could never have meant to employ the word ‘flesh’ with its literal acceptation in order to designate something bad. Thus, as we read along, either we convince ourselves not to notice that almost every use of the word is openly opprobrious, and that the very few that are not are still for the most part merely neutral in intonation, or we acknowledge this fact but nevertheless still insist to ourselves that the word is being used metaphorically or as a lexical synecdoche for some larger conceptual construct like ‘the mortal life in the flesh, stained with sin and lying under divine judgment.’

He holds up as the “cartoonish climax” of this latter strategy the New International Version of the Bible, which translated (over many editions) sarx (flesh) as “sinful nature.” Hart adds a dash of snark: “I would check the exact wording, but that would involve picking up a copy of the NIV.” This translation is, he declares, “utter twaddle.” The word “flesh” emphatically does not mean “sinful nature” or “humanity under judgment” or “fallen flesh.” In fact,

“it just means ‘flesh,’ in the bluntly physical sense, and it often has a negative connotation because flesh is essentially a bad condition to be in; belonging to the realm of mutability and mortality, it can form only a body of death. Hence, according to Paul, the body of the resurrection is not one of flesh and blood animated by ‘soul,’ but is rather a new reality altogether, an entirely spiritual body beyond comprehension or dissolution. And this is how his language would have been understood by his contemporaries.”

Hart leaves us to wonder how he himself is able to “listen with antique ears” and to divine what the interpretive minds of Paul’s contemporaries “would have” understood. He provides no evidence for it. Missing is any exploration of “the implications, physical and metaphysical, that such words had in the age of the early church.” He doesn’t mention, much less cite, any extant work of anyone in the early post-apostolic church. He simply announces that the reason anyone might bristle at his suggestion is because he or she is captive to “the Cartesian picture of things.” You see, “spiritual” does not mean something lacking all extension or consistency, as we imagine. On the contrary, the spiritual in the ancient world is something of ultimate substance; it represents a “kind of life not bound to death or to the irrational faculties of brute nature, inherently indestructible and incorruptible, and not confined to any single cosmic sphere.” And so it is “stronger, more vital, more glorious than the worldly elements of a coarse corruptible body compounded of earthly soul and material flesh.” He has poetic flair, to be sure.

[image error]

Christianity and the World Religions:

By Derek CooperCooper. Examines the rival worldviews found in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, Judaism, Islam, and irreligion. He engages these worldviews from a Christian perspective.

See more study materials: www.KennethGentry.com

After all, Hart observes, Paul himself says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God; neither does perishability inherit imperishability.” Thus, the resurrection involves “nothing less than the transformation of the psychical composite into spiritual complex—the metamorphosis of the mortal fleshly body that belongs to soul into the immortal fleshless body that belongs to spirit.” In sum, in the resurrection the “flesh” (and, he says, possibly the soul) is left behind. There is no “reanimation” of our fleshly body, with its blood and bones. This is true, he argues, of Christ himself, who was able to journey to hidden regions, walk through doors, and so forth “precisely because he was no longer hindered by a carnal frame, but instead now possessed the boundless liberty of spirit.”

Hart criticizes those who refuse to hear the “plain meaning” of Paul’s words: “No matter how clear Paul’s pronouncements are, the plain meaning of his words still seems so terribly ‘pagan’ or ‘Platonic’ or ‘semi-gnostic’ to modern Christian ears, and of course all of those things are usually regarded as being very bad.” And this is why people still cling to the idea that resurrection is “something along the lines of a reconstruction and reanimation of the earthly body.”

Here is what we have thus far: because of modern “Protestant” biblical studies, people refuse to enter the real conceptual world of the ancients (archons, emanations, spiritual hierarchies, etc.) and thus fail to understand the terms. We do not understand that “spirit,” “soul,” and “flesh” describe three distinct and separable principles of human life, arranged in a specific hierarchy from lowest (flesh) to highest (spirit). Indeed, we insist on the “utter twaddle” of reading Paul’s “flesh” as “mortal flesh in its sinful condition” because we refuse to see it as it intrinsically is: lower, base, corruptible, and temporary. Moreover, because we come to the question with invisible “Cartesian” commitments we assume the resurrection involves the reanimation of our fleshly bodies: blood, bones, and all. We just don’t “get” that the resurrection involves an entirely new body—one of spiritual, “heavenly,” “angelic” substance.

Reflecting on John’s language of pneuma (“spirit”) in John 3, Hart writes: “[T]his much is certain: it was widely believed in late antiquity that, in human beings, flesh and soul and spirit were all present in some degree; ‘spirit’ was merely the element that was imperishable by nature and constitution.” The rest is perishable, and thus destined to perish even in the resurrection.

There is one thing we should concede: there were, in fact, ancients who understood these words precisely as Hart insists they must be understood. Most—if not all—of these ancients were gnostics of the Valentinian variety, which means he is quite mistaken when he says “it was widely believed.” These were the very outer fringes of the nominally Christian community, and in the course of time were excluded from that community altogether.

A Late Antique Source: Valentinus

Einar Thomassen writes in his introduction to the 2nd century Valentinian text, The Treatise on Resurrection: “The fact that [the Savior] entered this world and assumed a human body means that he accepted death. When the Savior later rose from the dead, he also freed himself from the body he had put on when he descended into the world and became once more a purely spiritual being.” This is a good summary of what we find in the Treatise itself:

Since we are visibly present in this world, we wear the garment of the world. From the Savior we radiate like beams of light and we are sustained by him until our sunset, our death in this life. We are drawn upward by him, like rays by the sun, and nothing holds us down. This is the resurrection of the spirit, which swallows the resurrection of the soul and the resurrection of the flesh. (The Treatise on Resurrection, 45,23-46,2)

[image error]

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

Presents solid principles and clear examples of biblical interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The author (whom many believe to be Valentinus himself) continues with an exhortation:

So never doubt the resurrection, Rheginus my son […] Why is it, then, that you will not take your flesh with you when you ascend into the eternal realm? What is better than flesh is what animates the flesh. [….] Some inquire further and want to know whether one will be saved immediately, if the body is left behind. Let there be no doubt about this. Surely, the visible parts of the body are dead and will not be saved. Only the living parts that are within will arise. (47,1-30)

The sense is that the lower, fleshly, corruptible, and mortal aspect of human nature will be left behind in the resurrection, and humanity’s higher, spiritual identity will arise and ascend to the Father. This happens to be very similar to Hart’s own explicit view: “The Logos of John’s gospel does, of course, ‘become flesh’ and ‘tabernacle’ among his creatures, but this involves no particular affirmation of the goodness of fleshly life; the Logos descends to us that we might ascend with him, and in so doing, presumably, shed the flesh.”

Shed the flesh. Presumably. Why is this presumable? Is this just naturally what enlightened people unencumbered by the “narrow” scope of the Hebrew Bible and the philosophical musings of Rene Descartes would presume? I suppose it is to Hart’s faint credit that he is only at the stage of “presumably.” The author of the Treatise wanted there to be “no doubt” about it.

The Valentinian Tripartite Tractate explains at great length the distinction between the three “orders” of creation that Hart is emphatically endorsing here: the “spiritual,” the “psychical” (“soul-ish”), and the “fleshly.” Human beings were created as a composite of the three: “The first human, then, is a mixed molding and a mixed creation, and a depository of those on the left [I.e., “material,” “darknesses,” “last ones”] and those on the right [I.e., “psychical,” “fires,” “middle ones”], as well as of a spiritual Word, and his sentiments are divided between each of the two substances to which he owes his existence” (Tripartite Tractate, 106, 25).

This, indeed, is Hart’s own understanding: “[T]his much is certain: it was widely believed in late antiquity that, in human beings, flesh and soul and spirit were all present in some degree; ‘spirit’ was merely the element that was imperishable by nature and constitution.” And the doctrine of salvation in the Tractate involves the dissolution of the lower aspects of “flesh” and (perhaps) “soul,” in favor of a higher “spiritual” substance. I say “perhaps” because the psychical person is the “in between” person, and there are various destinies described in the Tractate for this aspect of the human person. Hart’s own soteriology mimics this, even down to the uncertainty:

In speaking of the body of the resurrection as a ‘spiritual’ rather than ‘psychical’ body, Paul is saying that, in the Age to come, when the whole cosmos will be transfigured into a reality appropriate to spirit, beyond birth and death, the terrestrial bodies of those raised to new life will be transfigured into the sort of celestial bodies that now belong to the angels: incorruptible, immortal, purged of every element of flesh and blood and (perhaps) soul.

Alternative Antiquity: Catholic Christianity

There were, of course, many other ancients who were close students of the Apostle Paul, but Hart neglects to call any of them as actual witnesses for his case. We do well to call them forward and hear their testimony, as they themselves were able, as we are not, to listen “with antique ears.”

Not very much time elapses from the close of the Apostolic age before Christians begin defending the …

To finish reading: click

[image error]

THE IDENTIFICATION OF BABYLON

[image error]PMW 2018-071 D. Ragan Ewing (Lucas Christian Academy)

Gentry note: This article was posted on Bible.org. The full article (of which the material below is but the Introduction) is four chapters long. Ewing is non-covenantal and somewhat dispensational. Yet he argues that the Babylonian harlot in Rev. 17 is an image of first-century Jerusalem. This is an excellent series in itself, but I am posting it to show that the preterist analysis of Revelation is having an influence in dispensational Baptist circles.

The Book of Revelation is perhaps the most notoriously cryptic work of literature ever composed. The history of the interpretation of this book leaves most students with more questions than answers. Commentators have come to little, if any, consensus on the interpretation of many key passages, and many of the best scholars of Christian history have simply thrown up their hands in bewilderment at the challenge of scaling its enigmatic heights.[1]

Thus, approaching the Apocalypse for analysis necessarily requires the possession of a couple of key items: one, an interpretive grid integrating one’s hermeneutics and general theological viewpoint, and two, a healthy dose of respectful reservation. Interpretation of Revelation and dogmatism do not go well together, despite the impression one might draw from the popular literature.

That said, it is the intent of this study to examine what is hopefully a sufficiently narrow issue in the interpretation of the Apocalypse: the identification of “Babylon,” the harlot of chapters seventeen and eighteen.[2] While discussion of this topic will of necessity involve the implementation of perspectives that have been embraced on quite separate grounds, this issue has been chosen for study precisely because it is my conviction at this point that a harmonization of the evidence for Babylon’s identity can potentially go a long way in contributing to the ever tapering “spiral” of one’s hermeneutical approach. If the conclusions of this thesis are correct, proper identification of the harlot may quickly shed light on such issues as general themes of the book, its dating, and interpretations of other problem passages.

[image error]

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In order to fairly acknowledge personal leanings, warranted or otherwise, that influence my interpretation of the text, it will be helpful as we begin to first examine the overall grid from which I am proceeding and the most relevant presuppositions I bring to the discussion. The three most pertinent perspectives to consider for the topic at hand are my understanding of promise/fulfillment issues (i.e., the covenant-dispensational spectrum), my view on interpretation of apocalyptic material, and my take on the book of Revelation as a whole (i.e., futurist, preterist, historicist, or idealist).

Regarding the biblical covenants: to state the matter briefly, while I do not consider myself a dispensationalist by most definitions, I find traditional covenant theology unconvincing as well. I prefer a mediating position along the lines of what some are calling “new covenant theology.” This term is actually claimed primarily by authors at the pastoral level,[3] but the views involved are basically similar to those of such scholars as D. A. Carson,[4] Douglas Moo,[5] Gordon Fee,[6] and others, who see primary fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises as a whole in the present-day new covenant people of God, composed of the remnant of the nation of Israel and Gentile believers who have been grafted into the tree of God’s people. While this does not preclude a future soteriological restoration of the rest of ethnic Israel, I am not persuaded that this will involve a Jewish kingdom or a necessary restoration of the land of Israel for the Jewish people. On the whole, I take these views largely on the basis of Pauline passages such as Rom 2:26–29, Gal 3:6–29, and Eph 2:11–22, which I take to describe the full Abrahamic heirship of believers in Christ, be they Jew or Gentile.

For my handling of apocalyptic material, I derive much of my understanding from the work of N. T. Wright and G. B. Caird.[7] While a thoroughgoing discussion of the complex debate over apocalyptic literature is outside the scope of this thesis,[8] I would summarize the gist of this perspective as the view that in the genre of second-temple Jewish apocalyptic, exalted, cosmic, metaphorical language is used to communicate the theological significance of this-worldly events in history. Unlike the idealist view, which takes the language simply as abstract metaphor, this position regards apocalyptic symbolism as having a focus on actual historical events, but with the full investiture of their salvation-historical significance, which is portrayed by the strikingly colorful rhetoric of the Jewish imagination. In other words, I see in apocalyptic writing the application of stock images from the Jewish worldview (which includes the Creation, the sovereign, universal kingship of Yahweh, the Exodus, the enemy empires of Israel’s past, and the rest of the narrative of her entire history) to major events that manifest the salvation-historical working of God for His people.

This then leaves open the question of whether prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple ways and instances. This question arises from the surprising manner in which the New Testament often uses the Old. For instance in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) we see Christ applying Danielic language to coming eschatological events even though it would seem that some of this material from Daniel originally found its focus in the events surrounding Antiochus Epiphanes’ dealings with the Jewish people in the intertestamental period.[9] This seems to indicate that God’s dealings with history are such that certain events may recapitulate key happenings of the past, perhaps filling out their theological significance in a greater way and a new context. The prophetic imagery of the former events may then be properly recalled with reference to the new situation, especially if historical experience or further revelation apparently indicate that the previous scenario did not exhaust the full range of God’s eschatological intention.

Such a perspective leaves open the possibility that some of the interpretations we propose as we consider Revelation may not be the final say in the matter. It may always be that God’s historical plan will work itself out in such a way that certain prophecies will again find significant realization in a future scenario. However, for the purposes of this study, my intention is to focus on whether or not the human author of the Apocalypse had in mind a specific referent for the Babylon/harlot imagery within the context of his own day of writing, and if so, to whom was this devastating polemic directed?

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

Related to this hermeneutical approach to apocalyptic literature is my take on the Book of Revelation as a whole, which is largely preteristic. There are basically four major angles on the interpretation of the book, namely, historicism, futurism, idealism, and preterism.[10] Historicism looks to the events of the entire Christian era for fulfillment, futurism looks primarily to the future (from our perspective), and idealism regards the images of Revelation as symbolic portrayals of the eternal cosmic conflict between good and evil.

As one who prefers a preteristic emphasis, I understand much of the book to be primarily dealing with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 as a judgment from God for covenant apostasy. This dovetails with the topic in question, the identity of the harlot, in that ultimately it will be the aim of this thesis to present the evidence (which I find to be persuasive) that this image is intended by the author of Revelation as a veiled reference to Jerusalem itself. All of this is very much in keeping with my own “spiral” pilgrimage of interpretation, since my primary reason for taking seriously a preteristic interpretation of Revelation is what I consider to be the weight of the internal literary evidence for recognizing Jerusalem in the passage presently under discussion.

Thus, we will proceed to consider the issues surrounding the interpretation of this text. While this solitary issue might seem peripheral, the implications of the view for which we opt on this matter may be of more significance than one might suppose. If the conclusions of this thesis stand up to scrutiny, and Jerusalem is being warned of the coming of judgment through Rome, then the major themes and dating of the book warrant thoughtful reconsideration among scholars. . . .

Gentry note: This is the introduction to a four chapter study. To read all four chapters of this article: click

Notes

1. E.g., Luther and Calvin, neither of whom, despite their otherwise voluminous literary legacies, produced a commentary on the Apocalypse.

2. That is, sufficiently narrow in the sense that we will hopefully not be biting off a larger portion than can adequately be addressed in a work of this size. The scope of this study will also be limited in that the research will be restricted to English sources only.

3. E. g., John Reisinger, Abraham’s Four Seeds (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 1998); Fred Zaspel and Tom Wells, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2001).

4. Cf. D. A. Carson, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and His Confrontation with the World: An Exposition of Matthew 5–10 (Grand Rapids: Global Christian, 1999), 296–99.

5. Cf. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 175, 697–710.

6. Cf. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 870–76.

7. See especially N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), chap. 10; G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980).

8. For more comprehensive study, see D. E. Aune, T. J. Geddert, and C. A. Evans, “Apocalypticism,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000); John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2d ed., The Biblical Resource Series, ed. Astrid B. Beck and David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); D. S. Russell, Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

9. Cf. Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14.

10. For a helpful, concise discussion of these positions, see Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1997), 2–3.

[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

[image error]

 

 

D. Ragan Ewing is Senior Pastor of Celina Bible Church in Celina, Texas. He studied Church Music at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and earned his Th.M. in New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary.

MATTHEW’S OUTLINE; JESUS’ IDENTITY

[image error]PMW 2018-070 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am currently working on a commentary on Matthew 21–25. In this commentary I will be focusing on the Olivet Discourse in its contextual setting. I will be demonstrating this fifth and final major discourse of Jesus (Matt. 5–7; 10; 13; 18; 24–25) not only prophesies the destruction of the temple and God’s judgment on Israel in AD 70, but also the Final Judgment upon all the nations at the end of history.

Jesus’ teaching in this section dramatically declares his universal lordship over both Israel (e.g., Matt. 24:2, 16, 34) and all men and nations (Matt. 25:31–46). Earlier (and uniquely!) in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus specifically limited his mission to Israel (Matt. 10:5–6; 15:24). But now as the narrative of his life unfolds to its climax, he expands his mission to “all the nations” (Matt. 28:19). Thus, in this section he will begin repeatedly emphasizing the inclusion of the Gentiles in his program (e.g., Matt. 21:43; 22:8–10; 24:14, 31; 31–46). This Gospel reaches its appropriate climax in the powerful, open-ended [1] “great commission,” which reads as follows:

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

The Olivet Sub-unit in Matthew

I have chosen to limit my focus to Matthew 21–25 in order to rein in the size of the work, while providing its broader, basic literary setting. These five chapters are a distinct sub-unit within Matthew’s well-structured Gospel. This sub-unit opens with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (by way of Bethany, just 1.5 miles away, v. 6) in preparation for his death (Matt. 21:1). It closes with the completion of his Olivet Discourse (Matt. 25:46), followed up by a clear declaration of his coming crucifixion. Its closing states that he has finished all of his major discourses:

“When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples. You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion” (Matt. 26:1–2)

Thus, he is now relentlessly heading towards Jerusalem for the Passover (v. 2) and his redemptive death (vv. 3, 11).

[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

But this sub-unit is a part of a larger section of Matthew’s macro structure. It appears in the third section of Matthew’s overarching outline. And its placement here will demonstrate the twin facts of the judgment of the Jewish nation — and the Final Judgment on all the nations.

The macro structure of Matthew

Matthew’s Gospel falls into three major parts. After its opening in Matthew 1:1, its outline is marked off with the structuring formula: “from that time Jesus began….” (Gk., apo tote erxato ho Iesous). Each of the three parts ends with a climax asserting Matthew’s fundamental message: that Jesus is the Son of God. And this structuring of the Gospel will highlight Jesus’ lordship over all the nations.

Matthew’s basic, three-point outline is as follows:

I. The Person of the Son of God (Matt. 1:1–4:16)

In this section is recorded the Son of God’s person, beginning with his birth and running all the way to the start of his public ministry. It reaches its climax in God’s own declaration at Jesus’ baptism, after which Jesus enters into his temptation. In his temptation he proves the point that he is “the son of God” (Matt. 4:3, 6). Then it introduces us to his public ministry proper (Matt. 4:12–16).

The climactic statement of the first section is found in God’s own dramatic declaration regarding Christ:

“Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased’” (Matt. 3:17).

Having established Jesus’ person, his true identity as the Son of God, Matthew now focuses on:

II. The Proclamation of the Son of God (Matt. 4:17–16:20)

In this section we have the record of the Son of God’s message regarding the kingdom of heaven/God. It opens with:

“From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 4:17).

The climax of this section comes with Peter’s Great Confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). This is uttered only after Jesus elicits from the disciples what the Jews are saying about his identity, “Some say [you are] John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets” (Matt. 3:14). The disciples now recognize his fundamental identity, though the Jews do not — despite all of his teaching and preaching.

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

Then finally we enter the last section of Matthew, which gives us:

III. The Purpose of the Son of God (Matt. 16:21–28:20)

In this section we come to the Son of God’s mission purpose: his redemptive death on the cross.

“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” (Matt. 16:21).

This will lead to the universal declaration of his being the Son of God (Matt. 28:20), even having the Roman soldier declare it (Matt. 27:54), while the Jews deny it (Matt. 26:63–66; 27:40).

This final section will emphasize Christ’s turning from Israel to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43; 22:8–10; 24:14, 31). It will end with the Great Commission to “all the nations,” which will declare that he is the Son of God:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)

The Great Commission forms an inclusio, bracketing the narrative of Matthew in a remarkably important way. Matthew ends with the promise that “I am with you always, even to the end of the ages” (Matt. 28:20). It opens with Jesus’ birth name declaring that he is “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

In my commentary I will be demonstrating how all of this impacts the Olivet Discourse, showing that it deals with both Israel’s judgment in AD 70 and the world’s judgment at the end of history. Stay tuned!

Notes

1. By “open-ended” I mean that the Gospel ends with a view to the long-term unfolding of history until “the end of the age.” In this open-ended period the Great Commission is to be engaged among all the nations. Matthew was not writing only for the early church in its struggle with Judaism prior to AD 70. Rather he has designed his work for the ongoing mission of the church in the historical long run.

LBGT IDENTITY, REVOICE, AND BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY

[image error]PMW 2018-069 by Albert Mohler

Gentry note:

One of the most surprisingly successful assaults on biblical Christianity, Christian morality, and Western cultural values has been the LBGT movement. In this article Christian theologian Albert Mohler provides an intelligent and important evaluation of Revoice conference, which is causing consternation among many evangelical Christians and may well bring down the Presbyterian Church in America.

For the Revoice conference’s relevance to the PCA, see: click

Torn Between Two Cultures? Revoice, LGBT Identity, and Biblical Christianity

By Albert Mohler

The chaos and confusion which are the inevitable products of the Sexual Revolution continue to expand and the challenges constantly proliferate. The LGBTQ+ revolution has long been the leading edge of the expanding chaos, and by now the genuinely revolutionary nature of the movement is fully apparent. The normalization of the behaviors and relationships and identities included (for now) in the LGBTQ+ spectrum will require nothing less than turning the world upside down.

This revolution requires a total redefinition of morality, cultural authority, personal identity, and more. The revolution requires a new vocabulary and a radically revised dictionary. Ultimately, the moral revolutionaries seek to redefine reality itself. And this revolution has no stopping point. The plus sign at the end of LGBTQ+ is a signal of more challenges sure to come.

Just a few days ago, a conference was held in St. Louis. The “Revoice” conference was advertised as “supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex attracted, and other LGBT Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”

The name was no accident, as the organizers called for a “revoicing” of the evangelical message on issues of sexuality, sexual identity, and beyond.

Evangelical Ethics (3d ed)[image error]

by John Jefferson Davis

One of the best treatments of contemporary ethical problems facing Christians. John Jefferson Davis brings mature biblical thought to issues such as homosexuality, genetics, abortion, euthanasia, war and peace, the environment, divorce and remarriage.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The organizers stated plainly that they “envision a future Christianity where LGBT people can be open and transparent in their faith communities about their orientation and/or experience of gender dysphoria without feeling inferior to their straight, cisgender brothers and sisters; where churches not only utilize but also celebrate the unique opportunities that life-long celibate LGBT people have to serve others; where Christian leaders boast about the faith of LGBT people who are living a sacrificial obedience for the sake of the Kingdom; and where LGBT people are welcomed into families so they, too, can experience the joys, challenges, and benefits of kinship.”

They also stated emphatically: “We believe that the Bible restricts sexual activity to the context of a marriage covenant, which is defined in the Bible as the emotional, spiritual, and physical union of a man and a woman that is ordered toward procreation.” And, “At the same time, we also believe that the Bible honors those who live out an extended commitment to celibacy, and that unmarried people should play a uniquely valuable role in the lives of local faith communities.”

They acknowledged that these convictions “constitute the ‘traditional sexual ethic’, because it represents the worldview that the Bible consistently teaches across both the Old and New Testaments and that Christians have historically believed for millennia.”

In other contexts, organizers have identified themselves with “great tradition Christianity,” a recognition of a constant pattern of Christian teaching faithful to Scripture. That theological tradition is the source of the “traditional sexual ethic” acknowledged by the organizers.

The language is important, as language always is. The mission statement and website of the conference refer over and over again to “LGBT people” and uses the language of “sexual minorities” and even “queer Christians.”

The principle organizer of the conference, Nate Collins, told Christianity Today: “We all believe that the Bible teaches a traditional, historic understanding of sexuality in marriage, and so we are not attempting in any way to redefine any of those doctrines. We’re trying to live within the bounds of historic Christian teaching about sexuality and gender. But we find difficulty doing that for a lot of reasons.”

Actually, the signals sent by many involved in the conference are a bit confusing, to say the least. In recent years, some in the evangelical world have urged references to “Side A” and “Side B” Christians who identify as LGBTQ. Side A refers to those who have abandoned the historic Christian teaching about sexuality and marriage and now affirm same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage. The Side A advocates are more associated with liberal Protestant denominations that have long ago abandoned biblical orthodoxy and now preach the sexual revolution.

Side B refers to those who identify as both LGBTQ and Christian, and who affirm the traditional Christian ethic on sexuality and marriage. Revoice seems clearly to identify as Side B, but some of the main organizers and speakers gladly join in common efforts with Side A advocates. LGBTQ identity binds Side A and Side B advocates together.

We should also note that Revoice did not have much of a voice on transgender questions. It is not at all clear, for example, what in the leaders’ minds celibacy or a commitment to “the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality” is supposed to mean for the “T” in LGBT. Even the use of “LGBT” in this context is impossible to square with “historic Christian teaching about sexuality and gender.”

Gregory Coles, author of Single, Gay, Christian, was worship leader for Revoice. In the book, Coles raises the scenario of two women who identify as Christians, one a lesbian married to a woman and the other a “straight” Christian who says she believes in the biblical ethic restricting sex to marriage between a man and a woman, but who is promiscuous in a series of heterosexual relationships. Coles then writes, “Theologically, I am more in agreement with the second friend. But whose life is most honoring to God? Who really loves Jesus more? Who am I more likely to see in heaven? I don’t know.”

Of course, that is a strange and forced scenario. The biblical answer would be that both women are living in sinful violation of Scripture.

Earlier in the book, Coles spoke of being in a room that included some who identify as Side A and some who identify as Side B (as Coles does). But his description of the predicament is telling. When asked to identify as Side A or Side B, Coles writes: “I didn’t want to be reduced to a simple yes or no. I wanted a new side, something further along the alphabet, something full of asterisks and footnotes and caveats. I’ve never been fluent in the language of binaries.”

Several issues press for immediate attention. One is the identification of people as “LGBT Christians” or “gay Christians.” This language implies that Christians can be identified in an ongoing manner with a sexual identity that is contrary to Scripture. Behind the language is the modern conception of identity theory that is, in the end, fundamentally unbiblical. The use of the language of “sexual minorities” is a further extension of identity theory and modern critical theory and analysis. In this context, “sexual minority” simultaneously implies permanent identity and a demand for recognition as a minority. As Kevin DeYoung rightly noted, the use of this language implies a political status.

The larger problem is the idea that any believer can claim identity with a pattern of sexual attraction that is itself sinful. The Apostle Paul answers this question definitively when he explains in 1 Corinthians 6:11, such were some of you. But, writes Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.”

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

There have been Christian believers throughout the entire history of the church that have struggled with same-sex temptation and who have come to know that pattern of temptation as what we now understand as a sexual orientation. Whatever the language we choose to use, Christians do understand that some people come to know a pattern of temptation and sexual attraction that is directed toward others of the same sex. In his book, All But Invisible, Nate Collins argues that the most important element in same-sex orientation is its “givenness.” By that he means that it is an orientation or pattern of attraction that is not chosen but discovered.

But “givenness” in a fallen world does not mean that the orientation — the same-sex attraction itself — is not sinful. The Bible identifies internal temptation as sin. As Denny Burk and Heath Lambert argue, “same-sex attraction, not just homosexual behavior, is sinful.” We are called to repent both of sin and of any inner temptation to sin.

The issues here are bigger than sexuality. As Denny Burk and Rosaria Butterfield rightly explain . . .

To finish the article: click

[image error]

MY CREATIONIST TESTIMONY

[image error]PMW 2018-068 interview by Lita Cosner

Note: This interview of me was conducted and published by Creation Ministries, International. I have a strong interest in and commitment to Six-day Creation as an important feature of the biblical worldview. The interview was conducted by Lita Cosner, Information Officer for CMI.

Dr Ken Gentry has recently retired from the pastorate after 37 years of ministry in conservative, evangelical Presbyterian churches. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 1971. They have three grown children who are all Christians, and six grandchildren.

Ken holds a B.A. in Biblical Studies from Tennessee Temple College (Chattanooga, TN), an M.Div. from Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson), and Th.M. and Th.D. degrees in New Testament from Whitefield Theological Seminary (Lakeland, FL). He has spoken at over 100 conferences throughout America, the Caribbean, and Australia. He is the author of over 20 books, and is committed to the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and a holistic Christian worldview founded in Genesis 1–3.

LC: Would you tell me about your conversion to faith in Christ?

KG: I was saved by God’s grace as a result of my parents’ divorce when I was 16. My uncle (my mother’s brother) was a pastor and saw the turmoil in my life. Consequently, he paid to send me to a one-week youth ranch in Boca Raton, Florida. On the first night that I was there, I heard the first clear presentation of the Gospel I had ever heard, and the Lord used the message to open my heart to Him. As a child I had attended a somewhat liberal church where I only heard the very basics of Scripture, but without any strong call to believe its message.

[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

LC: What led you to become a pastor?

After my parents’ divorce (and my salvation), my mother moved back to her hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. There we joined my uncle’s church where a conservative approach to Scripture was preached. I was very excited about my new life in Christ and became deeply interested in learning about the Bible.

When I graduated from high school, however, I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do with my life or what I should study in college. In my first year I was an art major; in my next two years I was an engineering major. Neither of these endeavours interested me as a life calling though. So I enrolled in a local Christian college (Tennessee Temple College) where I majored in Biblical Studies and eventually received a B.A. degree in that field.

While studying Scripture more academically, I realized how much I wanted to learn more about the Bible so that I might teach it to others. When I graduated from college I went off to seminary with the idea of becoming a professor in a Christian college. But as I studied more deeply in Scripture, the Lord convicted me that I should teach Christians of all ages, not just those of college age.

Through this deep interest and conviction, I prayerfully went into pastoral ministry. I was a pastor for 37 years and retired in March 2016 to engage in full-time research and writing in biblical studies.

LC: Were you always a young-earth creationist, or did you struggle with other views? Was your young-earth view ever challenged in your education?

By God’s grace, my first church as a born-again Christian was strongly conservative and deeply biblical. Therefore I was taught early on in my Christian life and experience the biblical doctrine of six-day creation. I never had committed to evolution, though I was aware of the scientific challenges to the biblical view.

[image error]Understanding the Creation Account

DVD set by Ken Gentry

Formal conference lectures presenting important information for properly approaching the Creation Account in Genesis. Presents and defends Six-day Creation exegesis, while presenting and rebutting the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

It seemed obvious to me that if I accepted the New Testament message of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection that I must also accept the biblical revelation regarding six-day creation. Especially since Jesus himself cited Genesis 1 and 2 in declaring that man was created “from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6–7). If it was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for me.

Given my conversion as a teenager, my membership in a Bible-believing church, my enrolment in a conservative Christian college, and my early calling to ministry, I did not have any struggles with biblical creation. It was a part of my salvation outlook and Christian academic training. Of course, I have learned much more about the proper exegesis of Genesis through my deeper studies, so some of my earlier interpretations were altered by strengthening.

LC: As a pastor, why do you think it is important for Christians to understand biblical (six-day) creation and a global Flood?

To continue reading: click

[image error]

MATTHEW ENDS AS HE BEGINS

[image error]PMW 2018-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am currently working on a new commentary. This one will be on Matthew 21–25, the immediate context for the Olivet Discourse. This is a discrete literary unit set off from the rest of the Gospel.

Structural unity

In Matthew 21:1 Jesus heads toward Jerusalem, where he will be finally and fully rejected by the Jews. Just after the conclusion to this discrete unit, we read Matthew’s note that Jesus has ended his formal, public teaching and is now ready to be killed by Israel:

Matt. 26:1–3: “When Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, ‘You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be handed over for crucifixion.’ Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth and kill Him.”

In my commentary I am going to be demonstrating how Matthew’s gospel is driving to its glorious conclusion in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20). In doing such he will shift the disciples’ ministry from a local, Jewish focus (Matt. 10:5–5; 24:15) to a broad outreach to “the nations” (Matt. 28:19). This setting will show that his last, largest, and only fully-eschatological statement at the Mount of Olives speaks of both: (1) his judgment upon Israel (by destroying her capital city and her central temple) (Matt. 24:4–35) and (2) his final judgment upon the nations (Matt. 24:36–24:45).

[image error]

The Christ of the Prophets (by O. Palmer Robertson)

Roberston examines the origins of prophetism, the prophets’ call, and their proclamation and application of law and covenant.

www.KennethGentry.com

My commentary will show what Matthew is presenting: Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus was not a Jewish sage interested solely in a local event in Judea (Matt. 24:16), as important an event as that was. Rather, because of his redemptive work and the completion of his mission, he has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” with a view to “the nations” (Matt. 28:18–19). Therefore, the nations too must be judged, as he sits “on His glorious throne” with “all the nations gathered before Him” for the purpose of judgment (Matt. 25:34–46).

A major feature in my commentary is to highlight not only Matthew’s theological concern, but his literary skill in demonstrating that concern. In this brief blog article, I will provide a brief insight into his literary craftsmanship. This is to whet your appetite not only for my commentary, but for a deeper understanding of and appreciation for Matthew.

Literary bracketing

The ending of Matthew’s Gospel is linked to its beginning through a technique known as “bracketing” or “book-ending.” In this case, the bracketing is a large-scale macro bracketing of his entire, sizeable Gospel. Let’s consider his beautiful anticipation of the end of the Gospel that is found in it s beginning.

In Matthew 28:20 Jesus promises his disciples “I am with you always.” This picks up on an early, fundamental theme declared to Joseph when the angel informs him of the identity of the baby in his wife-to-be. In Matthew 1:23 the angel says: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’” So both the beginning of Christ’s earthly life and at its end, we learn of the theological fact that God is with us.

[image error]

Getting the Message

(by Daniel Doriani)

Presents solid principles and clear examples of biblical interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In Matthew 28:19 the disciples are directed to go to “all the nations” to proclaim the gospel. This picks up on early hints in the book that the nations will be involved in God’s dealings with man. We see this early anticipation in several ways.

In Matthew 1:1 Jesus’ genealogy opens with a statement that he is “the son of Abraham.” The Abrahamic Covenant has as its remarkable significance, the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s blessings. For in the pre-covenantal promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3) we hear God declare: “I will bless those who bless you, / And the one who curses you I will curse. / And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). This Abrahamic hope continues throughout the Genesis record (Gen. 22:18; 26:4; 27:29; 28:14).

Not only so, but this truth is underscored in Matthew’s selectivity in presenting Jesus’ genealogy. For in the genealogy we have three Gentile women included (Matt. 1:3, 5, 6). Not only so, but in Matthew 2 we have magi from the east (Matt. 2:1) coming to worship Christ (Matt. 2:2), while all Jerusalem fears (Matt. 2:3).

Interestingly, we even discover verbal echoes of Matthew 2 in Matthew 28. In Matthew 2:11 when the magi “saw” the child, they bowed down to “worship” him” (Matt. 2:2, 8). This is reflected in Matthew 28:17 where the disciples “saw” Jesus and “worshiped” him.

In addition, both the story of his birth and that of his resurrection feature angels in remarkable ways. Angles are involved at his birth (Matt. 1:20, 24) and early childhood (Matt. 2:13, 19), as well as at his resurrection (Matt. 28:5).

Thus, Matthew insures that his readers will get the message literally coming and going, as they open and close his Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel is a sophisticated literary work that is pressing home important theological truths.

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!

HOW DID YOU COME TO POSTMILLENNIALISM?

PMW 2018-066 by PostmillennialWordlview readers

On  Facebook I recently asked postmillennial friends to give a brief statement regarding how they came to postmillennialism. Here are several of their testimonies. God uses different means for reaching different people!

[image error]Hector Falcon

I read the Great Commission and considered its extent with regard to the mission of the church. We have our mission statement given by Jesus prior to him returning to the father’s side. We work to complete that mission and extending God’s kingdom on earth until we die in this life.

 

 

Postmillennialism[image error]

By Keith Mathison

The promises of the gospel offer hope of a brighter future for the families and nations of the earth. Mathison’s an optimistic eschatology supported by biblical, historical, and theological considerations.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

 

[image error]Caesar Arevelo

I have been evangelical for more than twenty years and youth pastor for five years, during that time I was dispensationalist. As evangelical I worked with different denominations including Pentecostal and Baptist churches. All of these groups espoused a pre-millennial dispensationalist view of eschatology. However, things started changing after came to my hands reformed literature.

After reading profusely about Christian history on the end of times issue, I came to realize that many of the most important theologians and Christian leaders were not dispensationalist like Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield and others. I found to my surprise that none of them ever spoke of “the rapture.” This is because they were either postmillennialists, amillennialists or historical premillennialists.

So, after I abandoned evangelicalism and became a Reformed Presbyterian Christian, my search for truth became increasingly strong and I went from a amillennial view to a post-millennial one. It was a complete process and one of the main texts, among other ones, was the one on 1 Cor. 15:20-28:

“But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

[image error]

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

[image error]Robert Hays

I came to postmillennialism by (1) listening to scholars I trusted, but much more so by (2) reading the Bible. Readers’ Digest version: Jesus didn’t come to lose; Jesus didn’t come to fight to a draw; Jesus came to win, and one day the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14). And how is that? Deep and wide!

 

 

[image error]Jolee Miller White

Having grown up in the shadow of the original Calvary Chapel, I heard about the rapture and read on the wall of their offices “Jesus is coming soon” for decades. But in college, we sang at each graduation ceremony (music school; lots of music and all students participate in every graduation), a setting of that text from Habakkuk 2:14. It started me questioning. And when they painted over that “coming soon” sign I thought, about time after 40 years!

 

[image error]Scott Nichols

Heard someone talk about the “gates of hell” and the Kingdom of God. Growing up my church taught that the devil would never be able to get to the church. We would be nearly defeated, but in the end Jesus would bail us out. We just needed to hold on and hold out. This particular speaker said we had it wrong. It’s not the church in peril, but hell itself. He taught that Jesus said the kingdom of the devil would continue to fall before the advance of the Gospel. We are invited to join the conquering Christ in victory.

 

[image error]John Stephen Brown

Our LORD JESUS CHRIST used a Free Methodist man, who later became a Baptist, to introduce me to the LORD JESUS. Within 2 weeks the LORD called me to preach in a Jack Van Impe citywide crusade. Graduated from Tennessee Temple University with a BRE in pastoral studies. So the first 18 years of my journey on the path of righteousness was with the Independent Fundamental Baptists. Twenty-seven years ago God used a personal friend, John Weaver, a Baptist preacher from Fitzgerald, Georgia to consider reading Gary North’s book Backward, Christian Soldiers? Also Rousas John Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law (vols. 1, 2, 3). Furthermore, Gary DeMar’s Last Days Madness; Gary North’s Rapture Fever; Dave McPherson’s books: The Great Rapture Hoax and The Incredible Cover-up; Dwight Wilson’s Armageddon Now!; and Ken Gentry’s books: The Beast of Revelation, Before Jerusalem Fell, and He Shall Have Dominion. By the way. I put away all of the dispensational footnoted Study Bibles and began using a wide margin Bible.

[image error]

Jimmy Smythe

Back in the early 1970’s I was dispensational, but by the mid-70’s I came into the reformed faith by God’s grace, and flirted with post-millennialism, but gravitated to amillennialism. By the late ‘80’s, into the early ‘90’s I added partial preterism to my eschatological beliefs. So, although I remain amillennial, your books on partial preterism (Before Jerusalem Fell and The Beast of Revelation), have been a help to me in reinforcing my eschatological position.

[image error]

 

Ben Bohannon

I grew up dispensationalist and had begun to shift amil after listening to Riddlebarger and others. But one night I was listening to Jeff Durbin’s Mormonism videos on Youtube. I was just letting it run in the background, then eventually it begun playing his videos on The kingdom. I don’t remember what grabbed my attention, but it just made sense. After that I have searched the scriptures and listened to others and it just makes sense.

 

[image error]David McPhillips

I am from Australia, I didn’t really hold any eschatolical position prior to postmillennialism. But I listened to a video series on Matthew 24 by Gary De Mar and all of a sudden I came to understand the Olivet Discourse. I then happened upon Bahnsen’s book on postmillennialism; I think it was called Victory in Jesus. Finally I bought Before Jerusalem Fell, and I was sold!

 

 

[image error]Devan Gladden

I held no strong eschatological position, but I eventually read Kim Riddlebarger’s The Case for Amillennialism,”and so afterwards considered myself Amil. I eventually listened to Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s “Why I Am A Postmillennialist” and saw for myself its consistency with Scripture and how the Postmill position had been misrepresented. Other books like Victory in Jesus and House Divided further convinced me of how unbiblical, pessimistic and defeatist were the alternatives were for the church and the proclamation of the Gospel.

[image error]James Coleman

Too many false predictions of the Return became embarrassing. The rendering of 666 into 616 as an alternative interpretation was early enough to make me look twice. I also noticed that the majority of the teachers conflate the “Ancient of Days” with Christ’s Return. The Ancient of Days cloud direction was UPWARD for the coronation. Christ’s Return cloud direction was DOWN TOWARDS THE EARTH. Dispensational teachers ironically know Book of Revelation is symbolic yet they resist symbolic interpretations. They don’t pay attention to the genre.

[image error]

 

Kim Johnson

I read the Bible in context.

(Kim doesn’t beat around the bush. She gets right to the point of the fundamental argument for postmillennialism! Ken Gentry)

 

 

[image error]Brent J Hebert

I had spent 25 years in a Dispensational preaching church. I didn’t know anything of postmil, amil or any other eschatological system out there. I was convinced that there was only one system, Premil-Pretrib. However I listened to a sermon on “Who Confirmed the Covenant” based on Daniel 9:27. It was the beginning of the end of Dispensationalism for me. I wrestled with this peace treaty made by the antichrist and Israel at the beginning of the tribulation. There was only one problem, this is absolutely nowhere found in Scripture. Another troubling passage was the rider of the white horse in Revelation 6 being the antichrist and the crazy justification given by dispensational preachers whay this couldn’t be Christ Himself. In 2009, we left the IFB and joined a Free Presbyterian Church that taught Historic Postmillenialism. The Scriptures became very clear that the church is destined for victory and that Christ shall reign until he makes all his enemies his footstool. It gives the power and growth of the gospel to the work of the Holy Spirit, not limited to man’s endevours. The overspreading of Christianity will dominate over the course of history, not an immediate result. Postmil gives the church hope, although it will face times of persecutions and judgments because of its disobedience, God will ultimately get the victory.

[image error]James Middleton

I was a child when the Left Behind series was published . My church and self included were caught up in the books and studies. It wasn’t until my early twenties that I began watching/listening to R.C. Sproul. Through his book “The last days according to Jesus” and a brief summation from you in a book that gives the three main millenial positions I switched to believing postmil. (Also, actually reading scripture). There’s a lot of prayer and wrestling with the Spirit that came with it all. Thank God.

 

[image error]Victor Coutour

Phillip Kayser, my floor leader at Prairie Bible Institute, challenged my mind to seriously consider Calvinist thought (beyond mere instinct of faith). This was furthered through the ministry of Harrell Knox, Judge William C. Beers, Jerry Butler, and Reformation Covenant Church founder Dennis Tuuri. I was immersed in the scripture-wrought works of Calvin, Luther (Bondage of The Will), Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Van Til, Gentry, North, Jordan, & Chilton). Reconstructionist Conferences were a big part of my life, in the 80s and 90s. I had been sidetracked by dispensationalism; however, the sure reminder of the Holy Spirit’s winning sovereignty of my faith resonated through my ‘postmil’ findings in Revelation.

[image error]Caleb Davis

I was strongly rooted in my belief of the sovereignty of God even at a young age, but I was nonetheless influenced by the confusion of American Dispensationalist culture with it’s defeatist eschatology. By God’s good Providence, I was given a friend, who was a Postmillennialist, that was very patient with me even while I was most obstinate in my belief that he subscribed to a pernicious error that needed refuting. I could never grasp why there could be any hope of a glorious future of God’s people on earth prior to His second advent because of all the terrors described in Revelation.

Ironically, through my efforts to demonstrate from the Scriptures that Postmillennialism was wrong, I became a convert of the very thing I sought to refute. It was through the worldview shattering doctrine of partial-preterism (Rev. 1:1-3) that I was released from the shackles of fear and despair for Christ’s church, and given the freedom of glorious hope which is found in the promises of Christ (Mat. 28:16-20), in that His great Commission would be fulfilled in time because He is with us always and that He would sit to the right of the Father on His throne until all of His enemies were made His footstool (Acts 2:33-35), and only then would He come (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

[image error]Juan Jose Sanchez

I do not live in the United States. However, Mexico has had a huge influence from American theology, including eschatology. So, most Mexican churches have a dispensationaI theology. Thus, I grew up a dispensationalist. However, after having been presented with postmil by a Reformed friend, I realized how much more biblical sense it made. Also, I realized that a Christian could hold either view. Nevertheless, if it were reduced to a pragmatic choice (which is not the case), I would rather think that society will be conquered by the gospel and I can spread the Gospel and change the culture, than to think that everything will go worse and worse, and that there’s nothing that can be done to change the cultural trends.

[image error]Philip Kayser

The Lord rescued me from dispensationalism in 1977 when I became puzzled by OT kingdom passages that the New Testament said were “fulfilled.” I wondered how they could be fulfilled if we were not in the kingdom. I looked the NT passages up in my Dispensationalist commentaries, and their explanations of why the real fulfillment was still future were so lame that I took the time to look up every passage that had “fulfilled” in it. It blew me out of the water that the hermeneutics I was using was not the hermeneutics of Christ and the apostles. I knelt by my bed and repented of Scripture twisting and asked the Lord for guidance. Not knowing any alternatives to Premillennialism (I was told in Bible school that Amils and Postmils were liberals), I became a historical Premil. But that didn’t make sense either, so I became an Amil. But I felt the tension of the “Already/not yet” paradigm in Amillennialism. It was hard to wrap my head around that. I had never considered Postmillennialism because it seemed ludicrous on the surface that things were getting better and better. But one week I set out to read Greg Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” in order to refute it. Big mistake. I was converted to theonony 1/4 way through the book. Further into the book I read a footnote that simply listed all the Scriptures that spoke of nations embracing God’s law, and it was like there were a series of clicks as pieces of the puzzle fell into place and I became an instant Postmillenialist. If Calvinism was my second blessing, and presuppositionalism my third blessing, theonony and postmillennialism were the fourth and fifth blessings that revolutionized my life. Theonomy gave the structure. Postmillennialism gave the faith and trajectory to shoot for. Calvinism gave me the backbone. And Presuppositionalism gave me the weapons. By the way, some of your books were used to help me along the way. Thanks for your work brother. I’ve been following you since you wrote on the Lordship Salvation controversy in the 70s in Baptist Reformation Review. Yeah, Ken Gentry goes way back. Love you brother.

[image error]Doug Hitzel

I was born late (45) into a Feministic DisPen Armenian Church, found STUDYLIGHT.ORG right away and my first bible study was Galatians. Could not square with thier side, I was reading Matthew Henry and M Luther. Then I started listening to D.A Carson and he did this series on use of OT in NT, very good series, but it got me looking.

I got into looking myself at Ps 110 and then Ps 2 and then re-reading all the NT looking at the OT quotes. What it brought to the party. It made me look over and over again. I finally gave up on DisPen after reading O. P. Roberson’s Christ of Covenant. I Left Dis Pen then Left PreMill but was confused on Amil/Post mill. I read the 4 views and like the idea that Christ wins.. It made more sense than the world falls … But i really solidified my view on your book on Post Mill. Then Kik’s book. Then it continues.

Barry Will

My story is similar to that of Brian Godawa’s. I became disenchanted with Premillenialism during the 90s through to early 20-teens, feeling there had to be a an eschatology that revealed the true doctrine in the Bible concerning the Last Days. I started claiming the promise given in Matt. 24 “Let the reader understand” and soon after, God sent a friend who was a young aspiring officer in the Air Force to explain partial preterism to me and gave me several resources. I quickly learned this new approach to interpretation and adopted it in place of. Dispensational teaching. Interest in Postmillenialism soon followed and I am trying to sharpen myself in that eschatology now.

Robert J. Macauley

I read The Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaff – twice. Followed it up with Revelation Made Easy by Kenneth Gentry – twice. Began watching anything on “You Tube” I could find by Hank and Ken. Discovered N.T. Wright. Have never turned back. Dispensationalism never set right in my mind.

I would be interested in hearing from others by your putting a “comment” on this page. God bless!

[image error]

 

 

GATHERING THE ELECT (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article I introduced a “problem” that arises in some Christians’ minds regarding the first-century fulfillment of the opening section of the Olivet Discourse. One problem that confuses many is Matt. 24:31, which reads:

“And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

We must note that just three verses later Jesus unequivocally declares: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). This clearly demands that the statement before us must come to pass in the first century. And as we shall see, so it does!

The last article focused on the typology of the Jewish Jubilee Year, which is embodied in this language. In the current article I will complete the interpretation of Matt. 24:31, showing how it applies to the first century.

It is particularly after the fall of Jerusalem that the new covenant, Christian Church (the new Israel of God) is freed from its bondage to Judaism. This occurs so that she might become a truly universal Church, rather than a racially-focused, geographically-confined people. A major problem plaguing the pre-AD 70 church is its Judaizing tendencies, as is evident in Acts 10, 11, 15, Galatians, and Hebrews. This is a serious threat to the universality and the advance of the Christian message. As J. M. Boice notes in his commentary on Galatians, if this Judaizing tendency continues “Christianity would lose its distinctive character and soon become little more than a minor sect of Judaism.”

[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

Though the mission to the Gentiles actually begins before Jerusalem’s fall, Christ highlights AD 70 as the ultimate spark to the worldwide mission. Indeed, the events of AD 70 finally separate Christianity from Judaism. As Gibbs notes in his Jerusalem and Parousia, this pattern of Israel-judgment-then-Gentile-mission appears in several of Jesus’ parables. To illustrate this let us consider two parables.

The parabolic evidence

In Matthew 21:38–45 the Parable of the Landowner teaches that Israel’s religious leaders who condemn Christ will be brought “to a wretched end” so that the owner of the vineyard can then “rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers” (Matt 21: 40–41). Jesus interprets this to Israel’s religious authorities: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (21:43).

In Matthew 22:1–14 the Parable of the Marriage Feast teaches that the gospel was first offered to Israel but that she refused it (22:2–4). Then when Israel mistreats the gospel messengers “the king was enraged and sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast’” (22:7–9).

The “heaven” statement

So then, through gospel preaching by faithful messengers (“angels”), God gathers the elect into his kingdom from “the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other” (Matt 24:31b). In some English versions such as the KJV and NRSV the phrase “from one end of the sky to the other” is translated as “from one end of heaven [Gk.: ouranos] to the other” (e.g., KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV). This rendering suggests that the elect are being gathered from heaven itself, so that it would seem to require a miraculous, eschatological, supernatural activity.

But this use of ouranos does not indicate that the action occurs in heaven above. Note two interpretive clues: (1) This language parallels the preceding phrase: “from the four winds” (i.e., the four points of the compass). (2) In Scripture such language often signifies simply “from horizon to horizon” (Deut 30:4; Neh 1:9; cp. Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28–29). In fact, the LXX version of Deuteronomy 30:4 reads: “from the end of heaven to the end of heaven.” Hence, in Matthew 24:31 the phrase “from one end of the sky to the other” means from one direction where we see the sky “touch” the horizon, to the opposite direction where the sky “touches” the other horizon.

So then, here these two world-encompassing phrases speak of evangelistic success spreading throughout the earth. Consequently, this statement picks up on the theme presented in the parables of the landowner and the marriage feast in Matthew 21 and 22 and anticipates the coming “Great Commission” (Matt 28:19). These phrases hold forth the promise of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, such as Psalm 22:27: “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, / And all the families of the nations will worship before Thee.” And Psalm 2:8: “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, / And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession” (See also: Psa 65:5, 8; 66:4; 67:7; 72:8; 86:9; 98:3; Isa 45:22; 66:23; Mic 5:4; Zeph 9:10).

[image error]

Postmillennial Lectures

By Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The “gathering” statement

The “gathering together” is the translation of the Greek episunaxousin which is the future tense of episunago (you will recognize the word “synagogue” is related to this word). This word only appears three times in Matthew. Besides this use in 24:31 it appears two times in 23:37 where Jesus laments:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather [episunagagein] your children together, the way a hen gathers [episunagei] her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Obviously the second usage regarding gathering chicks is intended to illustrate the first. Here Jesus longs to gather disciples to himself from Jerusalem. This gathering of disciples is the same meaning in 24:31.

The word episunago also appears in Hebrews 10:25, where it urges Jewish converts (hence, “The Epistle to the Hebrews”) not to forsake “assembling together” . . . in the church. That is, he is warning them not to leave Christianity and return to Judaism, especially in that they should “see the day drawing near,” i.e., the day of Israel’s judgment in AD 70. James 2:2 uses the root sunagoge in speaking of a church assembly: “If a man comes into your assembly [sunagoge]. . . .”

Thus, we must realize the significance of the collapse of Jerusalem in AD 70. Not only does it dramatically conclude the old covenant (cp. Heb 8:13; cf. John 4:21–23; Gal 4:21–31). . . . Not only does it judge Israel for rejecting her Messiah (Matt 21:33–45; 22:1–14; 23:37–24:2) . . . . But it effectively removes a major hindrance to the spread of the Christian faith.

We see this particularly in two respects:

First, the Jewish ceremonial laws confuse many early Christians — since the earliest Christians were Jewish. Circumcision is particularly troublesome in that some deem it necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1; Gal 5:1–6; Phil 3:1–3). The growing danger exists that Christianity will be a mere sect of Judaism, as the Roman imperial government originally assumes. With the Temple’s destruction, this tendency will subside as it becomes evident Christianity is now a distinct religion.

Second, the first persecutors of the faith are the Jews (Acts 8:1ff). With the AD 70 demise of the Jews’ strength and the decline in their legal status with Rome, Christianity receives less resistance from them. Jewish persecution of Christians does not cease altogether (Polycarp is a dramatic case in point), but it is greatly hampered.

[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

GATHERING THE ELECT (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is a fascinating eschatological discourse given by the Lord to his disciples. It is the largest discourse of Christ recorded in Matthew (Matt. 24:4–25:46), the only one given over to issues beyond the temporal boundaries of Matthew’s storyline (which ends shortly after Christ’s resurrection, Matt. 28:1–7), and is his last (therefore, climactic) discourse in Matthew (Matt. 26:1). Hence, for Matthew it is clearly significant for his theological point (which I will be discussing in a new book I am working on, see note at the end of this article).

The key to understanding the first portion of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:4–35) is to recognize its local, first-century focus. We see this from several angles: (1) The Discourse is prompted by Jesus’s declaration of the approaching destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2), which we know happened in AD 70. (2) It is clearly a local event, for the tribulation surrounding it can be escaped by fleeing from Judea (Matt. 24:16). And (3) it will happen to the first-century generation of Jesus and his disciples (Matt. 24:34), the same generation in which the Pharisees resisted Christ’s earthly ministry (Matt. 23:36; cf. vv. 29–35). I have dealt abundantly with the Olivet Discourse in other blog articles.

However, some Christians become confused because of Matthew 24:31. This text seems to look beyond the first-century events associated with the temple’s collapse. That text reads:

“And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.”

But a close consideration of this text will shows that it fits beautifully within a first-century understanding of Christ’s ministry and the progress of redemptive history. Let us see how this is so.

[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

The statement regarding the great trumpet and angelic gathering should not be interpreted in a pedantic, literalistic fashion. Rather, it symbolically announces the arrival of the ultimate Jubilee Year. With the fulfilling of the old covenant in Christ’s person and work, the temple is no longer relevant and will soon pass away (Heb. 8:13; cp. John 4:23).

That is, because of the completion of Christ’s redemptive work, man’s ultimate debt is forgiven: his sin debt to God. Because “it is finished” (John 19:30), the “day of salvation” has come and now the good news will spread to the nations. Let me explain the Jubilee typology in this article, then show in the next how it serves as Jesus’ backdrop as he teaches his Jewish (old covenant) disciples.

The Jubilee Year in the Old Covenant

In the Old Testament, the sabbath year was a God-ordained year of rest for the land, which was to occur every seventh year:

Speak to the sons of Israel, and say to them, “When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the Lord. . . . During the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.” (Lev 25:2, 4)

Built on this sabbath year of rest was the Jubilee Year. This Jubilee was the year that followed after seven consecutive sabbath years. That is, the Jubilee occurs after the passing of seven sevens, or after forty-nine years. Under this law every fiftieth year was to culminate all of the sabbatical tokens of rest. In the Year of Jubilee, all of Israel was to experience release from bondage and debt:

You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, and each of you shall return to his own property, and each of you shall return to his family. You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in from its untrimmed vines. For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field. On this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his own property. If you make a sale, moreover, to your friend, or buy from your friend’s hand, you shall not wrong one another. (Lev 25:10–14)

The typology of redemption contained in the Jubilee legislation lent it a beautiful prophetic utility. Isaiah employs Jubilee imagery to prophesy of the coming ultimate Jubilee:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God. (Isa. 61:1–2)

[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

Since the full redemption typified in the Jubilee comes through the work of Jesus Christ, he introduces its fulfillment in his ministry. He does this in the synagogue in Nazareth when he preaches from the Isaiah 61 passage stated above:

And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to preach the acceptable year of the LORD.” Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:17–21)

The Jubilee Year in the Olivet Discourse

Now back to Matthew 24:31. When Jesus employs imagery drawn from the Year of Jubilee legislation in Leviticus 25, he is speaking of the final stage of redemption which he brings to pass. This redemptive culmination begins in his earthly ministry, as we may surmise from such passages as Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Thus, Christ’s ministry introduces “the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:19), “the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:6), which the righteous of the Old Testament longed to see (Matt 13:17).

This is why Jesus mentions the sounding of the “trumpet” in Matthew 24:31. It was the means for announcing the Jubilee, for we read in Leviticus 25:9: “You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land.” Thus, according to the imagery of Matthew 24:31, when the Temple order collapses Christ’s “angels” will go forth into all nations joyfully trumpeting the gospel of salvific liberation: “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” The strong word of God may be expressed as a “voice like a trumpet” (Isa 27:13; 58:1; Jer 6:17; Rev 1:10; 4:1).

The word for “angel” here is aggelos in the Greek. It can be translated “messengers,” signifying human messengers, as in Matthew 11:10 and several other places in the New Testament (e.g., Mark 1:2; Luke 7:24, 27; 9:52). Here in Matthew 24:31, it does not seem to refer to the supernatural heavenly beings. Rather the idea here is that those who know Christ as Savior will go forth into all the earth proclaiming the message of full salvation, the removal of man’s sin debt to God.

But even if we interpret this as a reference to angels, it could then refer “to the supernatural power which lies behind such preaching,” as R. T. France argues. Upon this interpretation it would teach that the angels of God attend the faithful proclamation of the gospel message. The Scriptures teach that God’s angels are interested in and involved with his saving work among men (Luke 12:8–9; 15:10; Acts 8:26; 10:3–6, 22; 1 Pet 1:12; Rev 14:6).

But now what about the gathering of the elect from one end of the sky to the other? This will be my topic in the next article.

[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!

CULTURAL ELITES AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

[image error]PMW 2018-063 by Alastair Roberts (The Gospel Coaliton)

Gentry introduction:

The postmillennial worldview expects a time in which righteousness and peace will spread across the globe (Isa. 11:9). This will result from the gospel making its way more deeply into the hearts of men and more fully into human society and culture (John 3:17). But though our world is instant-this, freeze-dried that, biblical eschatology operates slowly over the long term. Just as the first promise of the gospel occurred thousands of years before Christ (Gen. 3:15) and finally came to fruition in his birth, just so the progress of the gospel promised in both testaments only gradually moves toward victory.

Recently we have been witnessing the wholesale and seemingly unrelenting collapse of morality and virtue in world culture. And this is occurring in America, which claims that it is “One Nation Under God” so that our motto has been “In God We Trust.” The radical leftist agenda has asserted itself and has won the day in terms of the homosexual movement. Of course, God is greater than our sin, and greater than all sinners (1 John 4:4). So this too will pass for Christ has promised: “if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32).

But in the meantime, we do well to arm ourselves with knowledge of the situation transpiring around us so that we might understand and expose the works of darkness (Eph. 5:11). This review article of an important secular work on our cultural collapse provides us valuable insights that we would do well to notice.

Why American Elites Support Same-Sex Marriage

by Alastair Roberts

Over the last 20 years, there has been a vast and decisive shift in society’s opinions on same-sex marriage. Within a remarkably short period of time, same-sex marriage has moved from being virtually unthinkable to an unassailable cultural orthodoxy. How can we account for such a dramatic transformation? In his new book, From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage, Darel E. Paul presents a compelling case for the role played by America’s elite class in effecting this change.

Conventional accounts of this social transformation typically focus on the work of activists and the moral evolution they helped advance, yet fail to attend to the specific shape the same-sex marriage movement took or account for some of its contingent features (e.g., why has a normalization of same-sex couples occurred, rather than a recognition of them as a radical “queer” alternative?). As a professor of political science at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, Paul seeks to address this deficit, particularly focusing on why American businesses and elites—not traditionally recognized as a vanguard of the left—played such a critical role in the movement’s success.

Transforming Homosexuality[image error]

What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change

by Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

Is same-sex attraction sinful, even if it is not acted on? Denny Burk and Heath Lambert challenge misconceptions on all sides as they unpack the concepts of same-sex orientation, temptation, and desire.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Examining Elite Support

To explain this phenomenon, Paul must first demonstrate its existence. Much of the book describes and substantiates the critical role played by America’s elites. Whether through their corporations, churches, universities, or cultural production, Paul shows that these elites were pioneers for same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality.

Paul’s argument contains close analysis of data, using a more sophisticated array of statistical methods than the typical layperson will probably be familiar with (e.g., multiple correspondence analysis). While perhaps occasionally forbidding for the uninitiated, this statistical sophistication is one of the more impressive features of Paul’s case—especially in chapter 5, where it enables him to demonstrate significant clusters of practices and values representing distinct social classes.

The title of Paul’s book foregrounds the importance of the distinction between “tolerance” and “equality.” Tolerance refers to the indulgence and protection of people and practices we find objectionable on moral or other grounds: “for a person to ‘tolerate’ something, she actually has to believe the object in question is deficient, false, or wrong in some way” (70). However, the assertion of equality denies the appropriateness of the negative judgment presupposed by toleration; “it demands public affirmation backed by state power and restricts the private scope for negative judgment to the narrowest range possible” (8). While attitudes to gay and lesbian persons even a decade ago among America’s elites were largely marked by tolerance, in the push for “marriage equality”—marriage being society’s sanctioning, celebrating, and privileging of certain sexual relations—a fundamental move toward approval was galvanized.

The inrushing tsunami of transformed elite opinion seemed to sweep away all before it. Heretics within their ranks, such as Brendan Eich and Mark Regnerus, were mercilessly denounced and expelled. Political leaders such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton—who once claimed to oppose same-sex marriage—rapidly “evolved” on the issue, becoming its prominent cheerleaders.

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Same-Sex Marriages Embody Elite Values

Paul compares this shift to the dramatic collapse of a taboo whose rationale had been forgotten. The plausibility of the taboo failed, not least because same-sex marriages increasingly resembled the elites’ own marriages and symbolized their aspirations for the wider marriage culture.

Marriages between two persons of the same sex represent the dislodging of the gendered hierarchy in marriages between men and women. Same-sex marriages are less a shared commitment to the demands of a natural institution ordered toward the bearing and raising of children, than they are a potent symbol of individual autonomy, self-realization, and expression. When marriage isn’t a male-and-female reality, gender stereotypes associated with parenting and labor can be undermined. Indeed, for these and other reasons, in many quarters elite opinion swiftly moved to present same-sex marriages as the ideal, not just an exception to be tolerated.

Paul suggests that perhaps one of the greatest factors informing elite support for same-sex marriage is their own low fertility. Through his analysis of the data, he reveals that fertility is “the fulcrum around which family models turn” (109). The more children a couple have, the less likely they are to be sexually progressive. Conversely, by far the highest support for the normalization of same-sex relations is found in those groups with the lowest fertility, for whom sex detached from reproduction is most normalized.

Procreation is the elephant in the room of all of our cultural conversations about sex, sexuality, gender, and marriage. To the extent that it can be suppressed in our awareness by technological and ideological means, sex, sexuality, gender, and relationships can float weightless and ungrounded in a gravity-less vacuum.

Particularly important for understanding the support for same-sex marriage is its nullification of the father figure, who, though prominent in the high-fertility family, becomes increasingly dispensable as marriage and procreation are detached from each other. Paul writes that:

those most opposed to women taking their husband’s name are generally those most supportive of same-sex sexual relations, of defining gay and lesbian couples as a family, of same-sex couple adoption, and of same-sex marriage. Vice versa, those most supportive of married women taking their husband’s name are the least supportive of normalization. (109)

With low-fertility families and the advance of contraception, sterilization, and abortion (to which one could probably add the considerably reduced dependence on male economic provision due to government welfare and women’s increased activity as wage earners), the patriarchal social power of the traditional father figure can be steadily undermined. . . .

To complete the article: click

[image error]Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University in England) works for the Theopolis, Davenant, and Greystone Institutes. He participates in the Mere Fidelity and Theopolis podcasts, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.