Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 76

MATT. 16:27-28: AD 70 AND FINAL JUDGMENT (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the more remarkable brief aside statements by Jesus, which impacts eschatology, is found in Matthew 16:27–28. Jesus’ declaration reads:

[v. 27] For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. [v. 28] Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

As an orthodox preterist, I hold that this passage brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment. [1] As orthodox preterists argue (following most conservative, evangelical theologians in general), the AD 70 destruction of the temple is a dramatic judgment of God in itself. But it is also a typological foretaste of the universal Final Judgment, which it pictures through the local judgment on Israel. [2] (This is much like the Israel’s Old Testament exodus event being an important act in itself, while serving as a type of coming redemption through Christ.)

Thus, many orthodox Christians state that AD 70 and the Final Judgment are linked. However, they are linked theologically, not temporally. That is, they are thematically related though historically distinct. The theological linkage lying behind their historical separation is important for understanding Jesus’ instruction in its context.

[image error]

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 downloadable mp3 lectures)

by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus’ reasoning

Jesus brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment for an important reason. As just noted, Matthew 16:27 refers to the Final Judgment, while v. 28 refers to Jerusalem’s judgment.

But how can this be? And why? These contiguous verses appear on the surface to refer to the same event (the beauty of this observation is only skin deep, as we will see). How can we hold that they actually speak of two distinct, widely-separated historical events? In this and my next blog article I will look carefully at the linguistic wording and the contextual flow of the passage to see what is going on here.

Many scholars see v. 28 as simply repeating v. 27, using different words. They view these two utterances as parallel. Hyper-preterists understand this as do higher-critical liberals: both argue that Jesus is predicting his parousia in the near future. In this view, v. 28 more fully explains v. 27. But whereas the liberal critic sees this as exposing Jesus’ prophetic failure, the Hyper-preterist sees it as undermining the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith, as reflected in the ancient ecumenical creeds.

Yet a close analysis of the passage undermines both the liberal and the cultic interpretations. It shows that these theologically related events are historically distinct, with one referring to the Final judgment while the other refers to the Jewish judgment. Let us consider the nuances of the distinct wording in each verse.

linguistic distinctions

First, in v. 27 the Lord is said to come “in the glory of His Father with his angels.” But in v. 28 we read that he is “coming in His kingdom.” Thus, v. 27 speaks of His Father’s glory whereas v. 28 speaks of Christ’s royal authority. So the first verse emphasizes the Son’s coming in the Father’s glory, while the second emphasizes the Son’s coming in his own kingdom authority.

As exegetical theologian Charles Giblin puts it in his article “Theological Perspective and Matthew 10:23b” (Theological Studies [29:4]: 1968):

In Mt 16:27–28 we find another twofold perspective…. ‘Coming’ is predicated of the Son of Man twice in succession. The first occurrence (16:27) speaks of a coming in the glory of His Father with His angels and clearly indicates the scope of this coming in words referring to judgment (reward according to conduct). The second occurrence, however, which is immediately subjoined (16:28), takes the form of a solemn assurance that ‘some of those standing here’ will not taste death until they have a vision of the Son of Man coming in His (own) kingdom (or kingly power). Mt has reordered Mk 8:34 ff. to present an invitation to disciples to follow Jesus in self-denial in order to receive from Him their reward. But a twofold perspective of reward is indicated in terms of a twofold coming. One coming looks to the final judgment (16:27); the other (16:28), to an experience of the kingly power of the Son of Man prior to that judgment. The reason for regarding the latter coming as a prior coming is not only the reference to ‘some of those standing here’ but the reference to the kingdom of the Son of Man as His kingdom. For it is clear from [Mt 13:36–43] (the apocalyptic explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares) that a certain distinction obtains between the kingdom of the Son of Man and that of the Father. The former involves a process with several stages: the activity of the Son of Man in sowing the word of God, in letting the tares grow with the wheat, and in sending the angels to gather “from His kingdom” all scandals and those who act rebelliously. The kingdom of the Father occurs at the end of the whole process, consequent upon judgment and entailing a kind of transformation (“shining like the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” 13:43; cf. 1 Cor 15:41b, 42). Thus, the kingdom has a complexive aspect, that of its growth and that of its final realization, the latter being the point at which it becomes the kingdom of the Father. More important, the kingdom as involving the coming of the Son of Man has a complexive aspect, covering everything from His public life to the judgment towards which it is ordered and which is par excellence His coming.

These two realities are not contradictory, of course. But they are distinct issues. Both involve Christ’s “coming,” but in different ways, one complexive and one univocal, though for related purposes (as we shall see).

[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

Second, in v. 27 we see the universal nature of his coming: he “will then repay every man.” Thus, all men will be involved in his judgment. This must be understood in terms of Matt. 25:31–46, a powerful pronouncement (distinctive to Matthew) regarding the Final Judgment (I will be demonstrating this in my forthcoming commentary on Matt. 21–25). This should also be compared to Matt. 13:36–43.

But in v. 28 the focus is drawn more narrowly. There Jesus limits the reference to “some of those who are standing here.” This does not imply that only the disciples will witness AD 70, of course. Yet it does show an intentional distinction of audience expectation in Jesus’ instruction. One audience includes all men, the other only the disciples for his present instructional and exhortational purpose.

As Jeffrey Gibbs (Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary) puts it in his book Jerusalem and Parousia (2000): the coming of the Son of Man has a “diversity of reference,” which is applicable in several different historical contexts. He sees v. 27 as referring to the Final Judgment and v. 28 to the AD 70 local judgment. Thus, he points out that in Matt. 16:27 Jesus “speaks of the end-time judgment of this man that will affect every person (‘to each one’),” whereas “in 16:28, Jesus declares that “only some of those standing with him in the story will see the predicted event before their death.”

Third, in v. 27 the coming is indeterminate, simply stating that “the Son of Man is going to come.” Here mello (“be destined to”) is followed by the present infinitive erchomai (“come”). This results in the statement meaning that he “will certainly come.” But it provides no indication of when that might be.

But then in v. 28 the (theologically-linked!) “coming” (which is spiritual or metaphorical [3]) is quite precisely limited. Here he states very specifically that “some of those who are standing here will not taste death until….” This shows that it will happen toward the end of the lives of the disciples. This fits nicely with Matt. 10:23 and their mission to Israel: “whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”

We are seeing subtle evidences that Jesus is distinguishing his AD 70 (spiritual, metaphorical) coming from his (literal, glorious) Second Coming to effect the Final Judgment. In my next article I will present the “clincher” to this argument. This will involve the specific flow of the larger context. Stay tuned!

Notes

1. This view is not new to our time. Matthew Henry (in 1721) understands v. 27 to be referring to “his second coming to judge the world” (p. 240), while seeing v. 28 as “the near approach of his kingdom in this world” (p. 241). Thus he writes: “At the end of time, he shall come in his Father’s glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom … which included “the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews…. Many then present lived to see it” (p. 241). See the next note on Henry Alford, writing in 1844, who agrees with Henry.

John Gill (writing his commentary on the New Testament in 1746–48) sees this passage as referring to either “a second time to judgment at the last day, in the same glory as his father” or “in his power, to take vengeance on the Jewish nation” (p. 189).

Thomas Scott (1747-1821) follows suit in his Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The New Testament. Of v. 27 he writes: “he assured the, that he would at length appear ‘in the glory of his Father,’ displaying the divine perfections … exercising a  sovereign authority over all creatures; and attended with the holy angels as his servants [even] though this event was distant” (p. 77). But of v. 28 he writes: “this referred especially to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the abolition of the Mosaic dispensation, when Christ came in his kingdom to destroy his most inveterate enemies” (p. 78).

Daniel Whitby, in his Commentary on the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (1848), writes of v. 27: “I do not think that there is any necessity of interpreting these words of the destruction of Jerusalem, to make them comport with the verse following: they seem more plainly to relate to the day of judgment” (p. 126). Then of v. 28 he states: “this is spoken of Christ’s coming after forty years, to the destruction of Jewish church and nation, and to render to them according to their works; for this was to happen in that generation (Matt. xxiv. 34)” (p. 127).

John A. Broadus in his Commentary on Matthew (1886) continues this line of interpretation, noting of v. 27 that it is “the first distinct intimation of his second coming” (p. 367). But then he speaks of v. 28 thus: “the most reasonable explanation, especially when we comp. ch. 24, is to understand a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, forty years afterwards. This providentially lifted the Messianic reign to a new stage” and this is so despite “the sudden transition from the final coming for judgment (v. 27) to this nearer coming at the destruction of Jerusalem (p. 368).

John Peter Lange in his Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical (1865-1880), comments similarly on Matthew’s parallel passage in Luke 9:26-27 that regarding v. 26 “it is scarcely to be doubted that the Saviour directs His eye towards His last parousia, at the sunteleia tou aionos. But before the thought of its possibly great distance could weaken the impression of the warning, He concludes with a near revelation of His kingly glory” (p. 150) Then of Luke 9:27 he notes: “it cannot be difficult to decide which coming of the Saviour He wished to be immediately understood by this saying. He has here in mind, as in Matt. xxvi. 64, the revelation of His Messianic dignity at the desolation of the Jewish state, which should take place within a human generation” (p. 150).

A. Lukyn Williams writing in The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew (1889) agrees (see footnote 2 below).

Alfred Plummer (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, 1922) argues in Luke’s version of the text under consideration (Luke 9:26-27 = Matt. 16:27-28), that v. 26 refers “to the parousia … and is the first mention of it by Lk. of Christ’s promising to return in glory” (p. 249). Then of v. 27 he argues that it speaks of both the Transfiguration and “the destruction of Jerusalem” (p. 250).

R. C. H. Lenski, in his The Interpretation of Matthew (1943), holds that Matt. 16:27 speaks of “the final, public judgment … of the entire universe” (p. 648) and that the promise in v. 28 “refers to the destruction of Jerusalem with a definite transfer of the offer of the gospel from the obdurate Jews to the receptive Gentiles. The Parousia of Christ is here viewed in the wider sense and thus includes the divine judgment on the Jewish nation” (pp. 648-649). He then observes that “because v. 27 speaks of the judgment on the last day we are not compelled to make v. 28 do the same” (p. 649).

2. Regarding AD 70 as a theological type, we can note several older writers.

As Henry Alford (Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 1, Part 1 Matthew-Mark [London: Oxford, 1844]) put this in 1844: This refers to “the destruction of Jerusalem, and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity; which event, in this aspect as well as in all its terrible attendant details, was a type and earnest of the final coming of Christ…. The interpretation of Meyer, &c., that our Lord referred to His ultimate glorious parousia, the time of which was hidden from Himself (see Mark xiii. 32: Acts i. 7), is self-contradictory on his own view of the Person of Christ. That our Lord, in His humanity in the flesh, did not know the day and the hour, we have from His own lips: but that not knowing it, He should have uttered a determinate and solemn prophecy of it, is utterly impossible” (p. 177). Alford also sees Christ linking but distinguishing AD 70 from the Final Judgment in these verses: “our Lord doubtless joined the two” (p. 176).

A. Lukyn Williams, The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew (1889), p. 141 agrees that “the destruction of Jerusalem … was a type of the second advent, the two being closely connected by Christ with himself.”

Regarding Luke’s version of our text, Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (1922), states that “the destruction of Jerusalem was a type of the end of the world.”

Also regarding Luke’s parallel passage, John Peter Lange, in his Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical (1865-1880), states that AD 70 “is at the same time a type and symbol of His last parousia, that mentioned vs. 26″ (p. 150).

3. Williams, The Pulpit Commentary (see note 1 above) puts it thus regarding AD 70: “Not that he will personally appear, but his mystical presence will be seen by its effects, the judgment on the Jewish nation, the establishment of a spiritual, yet visible kingdom in the place of the old covenant” (p. 141).

 

[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!

ISRAEL FULFILLED IN THE CHURCH

[image error]PMW 2018-060 by R. T. France

Gentry introductory note:

In my last blog posting I presented several chapters from R. T. France’s important book, Jesus and the Old Testament. That posting dealt with the transitional function of Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36, showing Jesus shifting his focus on the destruction of the temple in “this generation” to the final judgment on “that day.”

In this posting post material appearing just a few pages later, showing that the Christian church typologically fulfills the hope of Israel. These few observation provide us with a wealth of understanding of the relationship of the Church to Israel.

The following is taken from p. 238 of France’s, Jesus and the Old Testament.

So without further comment, here is R. T. France on Mark 13:27/Matt. 24:31:

To many, a reference to the Parousia and the end of the world is confirmed by this description of the angels gathering in the elect. This impression is derived from the English version rather than the original. While aggelos does indeed mean “angel,” its primary meaning is “messenger.” This is found with reference to human messengers in Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25, and in the three synoptic quotations of Malachi 3:1 (Mk. 1:2; Mt. 11:10; Lk. 7:27). The subject-matter of the New Testament inevitably gives to the secondary meaning “angel” a larger numerical majority over this primary meaning, but this does not necessarily create a presumption in favour of the former; the context must decide.

If our argument hitherto has been correct, the context favours strongly the primary meaning. For this verse describes the sequel to the fall of Jerusalem. The Jews are no longer the people of God; now the true people of God, chosen from all nations, “from the four winds,” will be brought in. The agents of this “gathering of the elect” will be the preachers of the gospel, God’s messengers, his aggeloi.

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

by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The language of the latter part of the verse is a compilation of Old Testament phrases concerned with the dispersion and regathering of the people of Israel. The sources seem to be Deuteronomy 30:4 and Zechariah 2:10 (EVV verse 6), with a further reference to Isaiah 27:13 in the “loud trumpet call” of Matthew. In such passages it is virtually impossible to distinguish between those which envisage a historic regathering of the exiles with no eschatological implications, and those which see this regathering as an accompaniment of the “day of Yahweh.” But among such prophecies both Deuteronomy 30:4 and Zechariah 2:10 are as free as any from eschatological language, and the context in both suggests a simple prediction of a historical regathering of Israel from exile and dispersion. Isaiah 27:13 falls in a more eschatological passage, but still speaks in specifically local terms of those exiled in Assyria and Egypt returning to worship at Jerusalem. The Old Testament sources, therefore, do not demand any eschatological sense in this verse. As we have seen, they are typologically applied ot the gathering of the Christian church, the true Israel; the events of AD 70 demonstrate that the Jewish nation has forfeited its special status, and it is I the community of Jesus’ followers that the hopes of Israel are to be fulfilled.

We maintain, therefore, that while [Mark 13:27] would bear an eschatological reference, it is not less applicable to the historical gathering of the church in the years following AD 70. In so far as the Old Testament passages alluded to are concerned with a historical gathering of Israel, this reference is perhaps the easier.

[image error]“Jesus, Matthew, and the Rejection of Israel” (downloadable mp3)

by Ken Gentry

Surveys the Gospel of Matthew and highlights the numerous references — direct and indirect — that suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least in part) to demonstrate that God was rejecting Israel. A great many passages in Matthew are surveyed and briefly elaborated upon.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Gentry concluding note:

France’explicates the typological fulfillment of Israel in the Church in many places. Basically, his book is arguing that Jesus uses the Old Testament differently from first-century Judaism. That explains why they did not accept Jesus as their Messiah. And this typological understanding is one of the results.

OLIVET’S TRANSITION VERSE RE-VISITED

[image error]PMW 2018-059 by R. T. France

Gentry introductory note:

As I am researching my commentary on Matthew 21–25 (the contextual unit in which the Olivet Discourse appears in Matthew), I have stumbled across a helpful older work by R. T. France: Jesus and the Old Testament. (By the way, I literally stumbled over this work: I already owned, it was in my library, and it fell out when I reached for another book.)

In the Appendix to his study, he gives a brief exegesis of Mark 13, which argues for a transition from AD 70 to the Final Judgment (just as I argue in my work on Matt. 24

He puts the matter well, so I will share it with my readers.

So now, let us hear R. T. France on Mark 13 and the transition from Jesus’ prophecy regarding AD 70 to his prophecy of the Final Judgment. The following is taken from Jesus and the Old Testament  (p. 232):

Given this context, it would take a quite incontestable exegesis of [Mark 13:] 24–27 in terms of the Parousia [i.e., the Second Advent] to shake the conviction that the reference must be to the fall of Jerusalem. As we shall see, such exegesis is not forthcoming.

We maintain then that unless the wording demands it, the introduction of a reference to the Parousia into this chapter before verse 31 is quite gratuitous, and destroys its natural sequence of thought. There is, of course, a reference to the Parousia in Matthw2 24:27, but this is with the express purpose of differentiating it from the events under consideration, stating that it is not to be confused with the events at the siege and fall of Jerusalem: it will be no localized event, but universally and unmistakably recognized. The reference to the Parousia here, therefore, further confirms that in this section of the chapter the Parousia is not being described.

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

In verse 32 (Mt. 24:36) we are introduced, it seems to a new subject. There is, first, the fact that whereas the preceding verses have describe an event shortly to occur, and definitely within a generation, this verse introduces an event of the date of which Jesus explicitly disclaims any knowledge. Further, the phrase de tes hemeras ekeines (‘but of that day’) is a clearly as possible setting the day it describes in contrast with what has preceded. The phrase he hemera ekeine (‘that day’) is a new one in this chapter. The events of AD 66–70 have been described as tauta panta (‘all these things’), and as ekeinai hai hemerai (‘those days’) (verses 17, 19, 24; and Mt. 24:22), but the singular has not yet occurred. The inference is clear that a new and distinct day is being described.

In both Mark 13:32ff., therefore, and, more obviously still, Matthew 24:36ff., we come to a new section, in which the fall of Jerusalem is left behind, and the Parousia introduced, thus answering the second half of the Matthean version of the disciples’ question. In Matthew 24 this section is greatly expanded …, and continues without a break into the peculiarly Matthean chapter 25 with its parables of judgment. Thus Matthew 24:36–25:46 is a unity in that it all refers to the final judgment, which coincides with the Parousia.”

[image error]

Matthew 24 Debate: Past or Future?

(DVD by Ken Gentry and Thomas Ice)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We conclude, then, that the context suggests strongly that verses 24–27 [of Mark 13] will describe the fall of Jerusalem, and not the Parousia; indeed, unless the wording makes such an exegesis quite impossible, we might say that the context demands it. But in fact the wording not only allows, but even encourages such an interpretation, when seen against its Old Testament background.

Gentry concluding note:

I highly recommend the exegetical works of R. T. France. I do not always agree with him, but he is always insightful and usually correct!

 

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!

OLIVET REVISITED

[image error]PMW 2018-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is a key eschatological passage in the New Testament (which appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In Matthew, it is not only Jesus’ last discourse, but the largest (Matt. 24:3–25:46). Matthew, therefore, sets it as the climax of Jesus’ teaching, which underscores its significance.

I have a special interest in Olivet. This can be seen in that I have written several works dealing with Olivet:

• Perilous Times (has two chapters on the Discourse)

• The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (my debate book with Thomas Ice focuses on Olivet, which covers 224 pages — half of which are my thoughts)

• The Olivet Discourse Made Easy (has nine chapters, 142 pages)

• The Divorce of Israel (my commentary on Revelation due out in late Summer, wherein I emphasize that John’s Revelation is a visionary expansion of Olivet

[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

Olivet and Revelation

In Revelation we find three logia of Jesus clearly taken from the Olivet Discourse and its context. These are embedded at crucial places within Revelation:

Rev. 1:7 = Matt. 24:30

Rev. 11:2 = Luke 21:24 (Luke’s version of Olivet)

Rev. 18:24 = Matt. 23:35

Not only so, but both Olivet and Revelation are specifically anchored in first-century events (Matt. 24:2, 16, 34; Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). My commentary (due out by late Summer/early Fall, 2018) will point out other allusions to Olivet.

These correspondences have led numerous scholars to recognize Olivet’s influence on Revelation. For example, Milton S. Terry, F. W. Farrar, J. M. Kik, Cornelis Vanderwaal, Adela Y. Collins, J. M. Ford, Robert L. Thomas, David Chilton, G. K. Beale, and Paul T. Penley, to name but a few. Friederich Düsterdieck even speaks of “the undoubted relationship between the Apoc. and the eschatological discourses of our Lord, especially Matt. xxiv., and the analogy of N. T. prophecy in general.”

My current research in Olivet

I am currently deeply engaged in the research necessary to produce a commentary on Matt. 21–25. This is the literary context of the Olivet Discourse, which is necessary to understand in order to flesh out the full meaning of Jesus’ prophecy. Olivet functions as the Lord’s Farewell Discourse, which demonstrates its importance for Jesus’ disciples, and us today.

My commentary will be focusing on Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse, which is much longer than either Mark’s or Luke’s. I will be arguing that Matthew’s version intentionally gives us a fuller record of Jesus’ words.

In doing this Matthew is keeping with his distinctive angle on Jesus’ ministry. For instance, his is the only Gospel to record Jesus’s statements limiting his earthly ministry to Jews in Israel (Matt. 10:5–6; 15:24). And his Gospel ends with the Great Commission to all the nations, without any reference to the ascension that follows it (e.g., Luke 24:50–53). This shows a change in Jesus’ mission and a great interest in the Gentiles, as he looks to the future and the unfolding of his kingdom among the nations.

The extended portion of Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse involves not only an important focus on the destruction of the temple in AD 70, as he judges Israel, causing the old covenant to conclude. But also a clear reference to his Second Coming to judge the nations (Matt. 24:36–25:46). By this (and other means), Matthew will be showing that Jesus is the Lord of the nations — not just the Lord of Israel.

[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

AD 70 and the Final Judgment

Matthew offers a distinctive, fuller report of the disciples’ question regarding the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3 cp. Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). He will also give Christ’s fuller answer that corrects their confusion, which they believe must bring about the end of history. In the full record of the Discourse (which is twice as long in Matthew), Jesus will intentionally establish a link between the destruction of the temple as a local, Jewish event and the Final Judgment as a universal, all-nations event. But that linkage is theological, not historical; it involves similarity, not identity.

The AD 70 event that ended biblical Judaism (Heb. 8:13) is a microcosm of the Final Judgment that ends human history. AD 70 is a display of the gravity of God’s judgment within history, which anticipates the enormity of God’s judgment that ends history. The AD 70 event is another of the several “day of the Lord” events in Scripture, each of which anticipates and leads to the consummate day of the Lord event at the end of temporal history. Matthew wants to make it clear: just as Israel could not escape the judgment of God, neither will the nations. Their day will come!

In presenting my argument I will demonstrate Matthew’s priority, rather than the commonly accepted Marcan priority. That is, I will build the case that Matthew was the first Gospel written rather than Mark. Matthew presents the fuller report of the Discourse, whereas Mark gives a a more summarized report, in keeping with his own approach to Jesus’ ministry.

I will avoid the errors both of Form Criticism and of Redaction Criticism. Form Criticism attempts to take the Gospels apart and trace back the “original” of the “sayings” of Jesus that are compiled therein. This is done to discover their true historical context and original meaning. Form Criticism seeks to distinguish what Jesus actually said from what the church claims he said as the church began to develop its theological outlook.

Much of Redaction Criticism (especially as promoted by liberal critics) assumes that the differences between the Gospels involve real contradictions. These are traceable to the fabrication by the different authors who are attempting to press their own theological agendas. Though there are good principles within some of Redaction Criticism, they must be used with care.

I will be working more along the lines of Composition Criticism, a subset of Narrative Criticism. Composition Criticism does not deal with the question of the origins of the various statements by Christ. It accepts the validity of the Gospels as we have them, with a predisposition to accept them as they stand. Then it treats each Gospel as an intelligible whole, from which we may discern the reason why each writer chose the material and presented it as he did.

As I present Matthew’s distinctive, overall structure and focus on the immediate local context in his entering Jerusalem (Matt. 21–25), I will show that the Olivet Discourse does in fact deal with both AD 70 and the Final Judgment. As such, I will demonstrate the orthodoxy of biblical preterism, as well as its significance for understanding the destruction of the temple.

Funding my research

If you are interested in helping me to do the research, I invite you to support me by tax-deductible giving to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Those who give will receive occasional updates on my progress, and brief studies of the issues that are being engaged. I would also appreciate your prayers as I diligently engage the tedious research necessary to explaining Olivet properly.

GoodBirth Ministries

P.O. Box 285

Chesnee, SC 29323

[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

INTERPRETING MESSIANIC PSALMS

[image error]PMT 2018-057 R. T. France

As I am doing research on my commentary on Matthew 21–24, I am reading R. T. France’s excellent work, Jesus and the Old Testament. He has much that is helpful for the postmillennialist and the (orthodox) preterist. Below I will quote three paragraphs that ought to be an encouragement to my readers. These present to us a helpful hermeneutic approach to many Old Testament passages.

I am sure France did not intend them as postmillennial observations, but they do help us in understanding the postmillennial hope nonetheless.

On p. 86 of France’s Jesus and the Old Testament, we read:

[The Royal Psalms], like the “Messianic” prophecies referred to above, arise out of, and have a primary reference to, historical situations, but this does not diminish the fact that they have a true, intended, eschatological reference. “The Sitz im Leben [“situation in life”] is not a kind of ceiling above which the thought of the pertinent Old Testament passages cannot rise, but is a springboard from which the though leaps beyond the immediate occasion” [citing R. H. Gundry].

[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

Thus the eschatological hopes of the Old Testament are not confined to passages which specifically mention “the day of Yahweh,” etc. Both in the prophets and in the psalms it is not only legitimate, but true to the intention of the author, to see in many passages, whose primary reference is to contemporary history, the hopes of that glorious future which was to be brought about by the decisive act of God, when the ideal would be realized.

But eschatology, even in the pre-exilic prophets, is not confined to this secondary application. From Amos to the Exile, and beyond, we find frequent explicit predictions of the “day of Yahweh.” Expressions such as “in that day” and “the days are coming” give further evidence of a continuing expectation of the day of Yahweh, a decisive time of judgment (on the nations, and on Israel herself) and restoration.

While similar phrases sometime refer to definite acts of judgment in the near future, this cannot be said of expressions like “in the end of days” [Hos. 3:5; Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Eze. 38:8, 16], nor of the pictures of the coming golden age such as occur in Isaiah 11:1–9 or Zephaniah 3:11–20; the universal character of the work of God so described demands an eschatological frame of reference. It may not be easy, or even desirable, to separate the historical from the eschatological; ;the immediate and the distant future are generally tantalizingly telescoped in a single perspective. But at many points there can be no doubt that what the prophet looked for was the end of the present order of things and a new beginning, brought about by a decisive act of God; and that is eschatology.

[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

Gentry comment:

Elsewhere in this work, France shows that prophecies such as the gathering of Israel actually refer to the formation of the new Israel of God, the new covenant church (cf. pp. 55ff, 74ff). France is always a worthwhile read. I highly recommend him to you.

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!

THE BOOK OF THE “STRONG ANGEL”

[image error]PMW 2018-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I argued that the strong angel in Rev 10 is Christ. He appears several times in Revelation by means of angelomorphism. In this article I will focus on the open book in his hand.

The strong angel (Christ) of Rev. 10 comes down out of heaven holding a little book which was open: “He had in his hand a little book which was open” (Rev 10:2a). Commentators have long debated the identity of this “little book” (biblaridion) and its relationship to the “book” (biblion) of chapter 5. Though many scholars distinguish the two, a significant number hold that the little book in Revelation 10 the scroll taken by the Lamb in Rev. 5.

I believe that the two books of Revelation 5 and 10 are the same. This is significant because the book in Revelation 5 is God’s divorce decree against Israel. Now that decree is fully opened against her. I believe these two books are to be identified for the following reasons:

(1) Revelation’s flow suggests it: the earlier heavenly scenes present the “book” (Rev 5) and only gradually unseal it (Rev 6-8). It would now properly be open at this juncture. Its being open is mentioned twice (10:2, 8), apparently for emphasis.

[image error]

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

By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.

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

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) Previously, in heaven Christ alone could take the book to open it (5:3-8); here Christ descends from heaven holding it open and in his hand (10:2). Thus, in both chapters Christ is in control of the heavenly book(s). In fact, the last time we see it he has it in his hand (5:7-8; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9; 8:1).

(3) Both chapters paint their scenery with the same images: a “strong angel” who cries out loudly (5:2; 10:2), a “lion” (5:5; 10:3); the prominent taking of the book from the heavenly hand (5:7; 10:8-9); and references to heaven, earth, and sea (5:13a; 10:6b) and to God’s eternality (5:13b; 10:6a). This strongly links the two passage.

(4) Both passages make obvious allusion to the narrative in Ezekiel 2–3. Rev 5:1 describes the scroll as written inside and on the back, as does Eze. 2:10, which is unusual for scrolls are not usually written on the backside. Rev. 10:19 John is commanded to eat the scroll which will taste like honey (3:1) and which contains a bitter message for Israel.

By bringing the book of Revelation 5 back into view, we learn of the theological consequences of the opening of that book, i.e., the redemptive-historical results of the judgments upon Israel. In the preceding context John notes that Israel does “not repent” under God’s judgments after the book had already been unsealed (8:1; 9:21-10:1). Nevertheless, the larger purpose of God is not thereby thwarted. As Revelation will ultimately demonstrate, John agrees with Paul: “I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (Ro 11:11).

The Early Date of Revelation and the End Times: An Amillennial Partial Preterist Perspective

By Robert Hillegonds[image error]

This book presents a strong, contemporary case in support of the early dating of Revelation. He builds on Before Jerusalem Fell and brings additional arguments to bear.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We will discover in the following verses in this chapter and in later chapters (chs. 20-22) that the devastation of Israel in A.D. 70 leads to the full, permanent, and final inclusion of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. With this judgmental affirmation the debates of Acts 11, 15, and Galatians are dramatically and resoundingly resolved forever: the Gentiles are now numbered among the people of God and are not subject to old covenant ceremonial strictures.

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!

REVELATION’S “STRONG ANGEL”

[image error]PMW 2018-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Rev. 10:1 John records the appearance of a strong angel:

“And I saw another strong angel coming down out of heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire.”

This appears to be Christ himself.

All commentators agree that Christ appears under a variety of symbols in Revelation, including gigantic Christophany (1:13-16), redeeming lamb (5:6; 14:1), glorious Son of Man (14:14-15), and conquering warrior (19:11-16). This opens the possibility that he could also appear in angelic form and that John is reporting what he sees without interpreting it.

His appearing in Scripture as an angel is not without precedent. The famous “Angel of the Lord” passages in the OT are pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. And the book of Revelation bears a most definite OT cast, suggesting the appropriateness of such a prominent OT figure. Elsewhere in Revelation Jesus appears angelomorphically: in the “son of man” vision in 14:14-15 and (probably) in 20:1-2 where an angel binds Satan (which is Christ’s work). Furthermore, presenting him in angelic form would fit the context, in that he comes with a message in his hand (angelos means “messenger”). That John falls down to worship an angel elsewhere in Revelation (19:10; 22:8), suggests that he has already seen Christ as an angel in Revelation.

But what evidence do we have for this angel in Rev. 10 portraying Christ? Chapter 10 links to Christ’s appearance in chapter 1 in significant ways involving the cloud imagery (1:7; cp. 10:1a) and the several Son of Man features (1:13-15; cp. 10:1b).

[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

First, this angel is clothed with a cloud. In Scripture one clothed with clouds is always either God or Christ. More directly, though, in Revelation clouds are first mentioned in Rev. 1:7. That verse directly associates them with Christ in his judgment-coming against Israel — which is the overarching theme of Revelation. Interestingly, immediately after the strong angel vision in Rev. 10 we read John’s clearest pronouncement of the temple’s judgment (Rev. 11:1-2).

Second, the rainbow which is upon his head echoes the throne vision of God in Rev. 4, which is not only John’s only other reference to a rainbow but the only other use of the term in the NT: “there was rainbow around the throne” (4:3). Unlike in 4:3, the definite article appears in 10:1 before “rainbow” (iris) which is probably the article of previous reference, reminding us of the rainbow in 4:3. Here the rainbow from God’s throne now covers Christ “to signify that Christ has taken over the reins of the Father’s plan” (Beale, The Book of Revelation, 528).

Third, his face was like the sun is very close to the phraseology in 1:16 which is the first appearance of the sun shining in Revelation and serves as a clear indication of the Son of Man’s deity. Furthermore, the language in 10:1 is identical to the transfiguration statement where Jesus’s divine glory shines through his mortal veil (Mt 17:2). Paul’s own blinding vision of Christ reminds us of this picture, as well (Acts 26:13; 2Co 4:6). These helioprospoic (face-as-sun) references all appear to refer to divinity.

Fourth, John sees his feet like pillars of fire. This is similar in effect to Rev. 1, where we read: “His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been caused to glow in a furnace” (Rev. 1:15). In that fire pictures judgment twenty-four times in Revelation, it surely connotes judgment here. In the letter to Thyatira, the imagery of Christ from chapter one is applied; he mentions the “eyes like a flame of fire” and feet “like burnished bronze” (Rev. 2:18) which had been “caused to glow in a furnace” (Rev. 1:15).

[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

Fifth, later in Rev. 10:3 the angel speaks as when a lion roars. The lion’s roar is often (but not always) a metaphor for God’s call (Jer 25:30; Hos 11:10; Joel 3:16; Am 1:2; 3:8). This reminds us of the “Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). But, of course, Revelation also associates the lion with one of the four living creatures (4:7) — and even the beast (13:2). The beast is out the question, however, for obvious reasons. This would leave the possibility that this “mighty angel” could be either: (1) One of the four living creatures (but they seem always to be designated as “living creatures” elsewhere). Or (2) another of God’s angels, since they can be associated with lion features (4:7). Still, the other lines of evidence quite suggestively point to Christ.

In Rev. 1:11 and 19 the Son of Man commissions John to speak to the Seven Churches. Here, he commissions him to prophesy to “many people and nations and tongues and kings” (Rev. 10:11).

But there is more to this angelomorphic appearance of Christ. And I will touch on that in my next blog article.

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!

CHALLENGING REVELATION’S NEAR-TERM EXPECTATION

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

The “near” statements in Revelation befuddle many Christians who only read those sections of Revelation that are exciting, such as those dealing with the beast, Armageddon, the millennium, and so forth. However, those texts occur in a prophetic work that is book-ended with declarations that the events within are near in John’s own day.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John. (Rev. 1:1)

And he said to me, ‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. (Rev. 22:6)

But sometimes a thinking Christian (may their tribe increase) will ask a penetrating question in challenging the preterist position on Revelation. One such correspondent asked:

“If Revelation was written in AD 65-66 about events in AD 70, how could John have expected it to be widely circulated in so short a period of time? It seems the book’s grandiose vision would be largely wasted because of the time frame involved. It couldn’t do much good, especially since the bulk of its actions (on your view) occur in Palestine.”

This is a good question that should be considered. However, this concern tends to evaporate on closer consideration.

[image error]

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

John’s knowledge

First, we do not believe John knew the exact date the events would play out. It is not like he thought: “Well, it is now AD 66. I had better get to work on this book because these events are going to start up in earnest in AD 68 and will be over in AD 70.” Remember, he said the dates were “at hand” and “soon.” He did not say: “They will begin on March 15, A.D. 68.”

John’s target

Second, nevertheless, Revelation is directed specifically to seven particular churches who could have easily gotten it quickly enough. These were the ones John was directly addressing and specifically concerned with. In fact, according to the majority of commentators, including dispensationalists Robert L. Thomas and John F. Walvoord (at Rev 1:11 in their commentaries), the order of appearance of those churches shows that they were arranged according to a Roman postal road. They would fairly quickly receive Revelation since they were on this known postal road.

Too many Christians act as if John wrote Revelation for the 21st Century church. We need to understand that he wrote this prophetic work for sorely beleaguered church that was in danger of being wiped out. He wrote it to encourage them for the long run, despite their short-term challenges.

John’s usefulness

Third, Revelation’s usefulness does not evaporate with the occurrence of the events of the Jewish War. Consider Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2 they do not cease to be useful when Christ is finally born of a virgin in Bethlehem. Does Paul’s letter to the Corinthians about their particular problems (divisions among followers of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos; a man marrying his father’s wife; and so forth) have no meaning for us today? Most of the NT epistles are “occasional letters.” That is, they were written to address specific issues on certain occasions. Yet their authority and applicability still remain for us today as we apply the principles embodied therein.

Regarding Revelation, even after Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed, Christians would need to know what happened and why — since God had worked for so many centuries through Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. Revelation presents these events in dramatic fashion to underscore the vitally important redemptive-historical truths involved of the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. The destruction of Jerusalem was no accident of history; it plays into the plan of the Lamb who had been slain as he avenges himself and his people against his assailants.

[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

John’s application

Fourth, we can (and should! and must!) draw lessons from Revelation for all times. For example:

Like Paul warns in Rom 11, God judges his people and we should not boast against the branches because we might be broken off. Wasn’t Israel God’s special people for so long? But look at what he did to them when they became unfaithful to him, and finally rejected and killed their own Messiah!

Revelation shows that Jerusalem’s destruction was no accident of history. It shows that behind the historical scenes, spiritual forces are at work as God works his plan in history.

Revelation shows very clearly that God in the NT era also exercises wrath. He is not the liberal God-of-love that we hear so much about. Liberals often try to distinguish the OT conception of God from the NT conception. The God of Scripture is a God of love and wrath, controlled by righteousness. Revelation clearly undercuts the attempt of liberals.

Revelation shows that God upholds his people in their trials. He answers their prayers — in his time and according to his plan. Though the Jews and Romans were persecuting our first-century fathers, God upheld them. He will uphold you as well. After all, in each of the seven letters he urges upon the broader church: “He that has ears to hear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Revelation shows that despite the might of Nero and Rome, when God opposes them, they are doomed. His people should not fear earthly forces arrayed against them.

Revelation shows that God’s redemptive forces have been established (the redemptive new creation, cp. Rev 21:1-2 with 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15-16) in time and on earth, and that they will gloriously impact the outcome of history. This occurs as the new creation forces gradually (like a mustard seed or like leaven!) flow out into the world. God is at work in history and moving it toward its goal which is already unfolding around us.

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET

I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse [image error]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!

UPDATING EARLY DATING

[image error]PMW 2018-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This year is the twentieth anniversary of my last edition of Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. In that work I listed eight full pages of notable advocates for the early dating of Revelation, i.e., a date prior to AD 70. Before too long I hope to update the book altogether. But for now I would like to list some additional early date advocates beyond those found in the book.

More often than not, when a preterist mentions the early date of Revelation he is dismissed with the wave of a hand and the utterance: “the early date of Revelation is held only by a minority of scholars.” That may be true today, but the tide is slowly shifting. Thus, I thought it might be good to put some more scholars’ names in the mix. Of course, counting noses is not the answer to the problem. But it will be helpful in countering a common objection that attempts to cut discussion short.

Thus, below I will list some early date advocates not presented in my earlier work. Some of these are earlier writers, some more recent. I will put in bold type the dates of the ones that were published after the first edition of my book, Before Jerusalem Fell (1988). I hope this is helpful to my readers. And if any of you come across some names that I may not know about, I hope you will “Reply” with the bibliographic information.

Beasley-Murray, George R., Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1993).

Boxall, Ian, The Revelation of Saint John (BNTC) (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2006).

Daly, Robert J., ed., Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2009), 90n.

Eckhardt, K. A., Der Tod des Johannes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961) (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (WBC) (Dallas: Word, 1997), lviii)

Ellis, E. Earle, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Boston: Brill, 1999).

Garrow, A. J. P., “‘That Is and What Is to Come’: The Serialized Story in the Book of Revelation” (unpublished: M. Phil. thesis: Coventry University, 1994).

Gumerlock, Francis X., Revelation and the First Century: Preterist Interpretations of the Apocalypse in Early Christianity (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2012).

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

Hadorn, D. W. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, IHKNT 18 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1928). (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997, p, lvi)

Hartenstein, Karl. Der wiederkommende Herr: eine Auslegung der Offenbarung des Johanes für die Gemeinde (Stuttgart: Evangelische, 1953).

Hughes, Philip E., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).

Kelly, Douglas, Revelation (Cornwall, Eng.: Mentor, 2012).

Marshall, John W., Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier , 2001), 88–97.

Moberly, R. B., “When Was Revelation Conceived?”, Biblica 73 (1992): 376–93.

Newman, B., “The Fallacy of the Domitian Hypothesis: Critique of the Irenaeus Source as a Witness for the Contemporary-historical Approach to the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” NTS (1963–64), 133-138.

van Kooten, George H., “The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The ‘Pro-Neronian’ Emperors Othos and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome,” JSNT 2007 (30:2): 205–48.

Payne, J. Barton, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 592–93.

Robinson, Bernard P. “The Two Persecuted Prophet-Witnesses of Rev. 11,” Scripture Bulletin 19 (1988): 14–19.

Rojas-Flores, Gonzalo, “The Book of Revelation and the First Years of Nero’s Reign,” Biblica (2004): 375–92.

Slater, Thomas B., “Dating the Apocalypse of John,” Biblica (2003): 252–58.

Sloan, Robert B. “Revelation, the Book of,” Holman Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman, 1991), 1183.

Smalley, Stephen S., The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005).

Smalley, Stephen S., Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community (Milton Keynes, Eng.: Word, 1994), 49.

Stolt, J. “Om dateringen af Apokalypsen,” DTT 40 (1977). (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997], lvi)

[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

Trudinger, Paul, “The ‘Nero Redivivus’ Rumour and the Date of the Apocalypse of John,” St. Mark’s Review, 131 (1987): 43–44.

Wilson, J. C., “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation, NTS 39 (1993): 597–605. (Cited in David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 [Dallas: Word, 1997], lviii)

Wilson, Mark, “Revelation”, in Clinton E. Arnold, ed., Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 4:247.

Roland H. Worth, Jr., Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture (New York: Paulist, 1999), 90, 179, 205.

Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 358ff.

THE DEAD JUDGED AT THE 7TH TRUMPET (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-052 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part study of the debated phrase in Rev. 11:18b, which reads: “and the time came for the dead to be judged.” In my last article I argued that it refers to the vindication of the first-century saints who were being severely persecuted by Israel and Rome alike. In this article I will respond to objections to the interpretation presented by the leading evangelical commentator on Revelation today, G. K. Beale.

Regarding kirthēnai which I translate “vindicated,” Beale (617–18) presents an extended argument against the preterist view which, he believes, “stumbles” here. He argues that “without doubt . . . this passage is a description of the last judgment” (615). I will summarize his argument first, then reply to it point-by-point.

Beale argues: (1) BAGD does not offer this “vindication” option for krinō (618n). (2) Rev 6:17 presents “heightened descriptions of the consummated kingdom and judgment” (617). (3) The other eight examples of krinō in Rev “all refer to judgment of the ungodly” (618). (4) Had John intended to speak of vindication, he could have used ekdikeō “which explicitly has that meaning and is used in that way in 6:10 and 19:2″ (618). (5) Rev 20 appears to parallel this passage, but it speaks of the judgment against the wicked (618). (6) Ps 2 is the backdrop for 19:15-21 and probably so here (618).

I would offer this seriatim response:

Legitimate possibility

First, Beale admits that “vindicate” is “theoretically possible” (618n). What is theoretically possible cannot be dismissed out-of-hand and may well be the case. In fact, when explaining the “reward” (misthon, 6:18c) for God’s people, Beale notes that it “includes vindication” (615). Significantly, he also says that the action in this text seems to answer the cry of the saints in 6:9–11 (Beale 616; cp. Smalley 292). I would note here (as I will do in my forthcoming commentary at 6:9–11), though, that the martyrs are promised 2000 years ago that they should wait only a “little while longer [chronon mikron]” (6:11). And this near-term expectation is reiterated in the oath scene immediately preceding the temple-judgment episode: “there shall be delay no longer” (10:6). In 6:10 the martyrs plea for God to no longer “refrain from judging and avenging our blood.” Note that “our blood” is not only “judged,” but “avenged.”

[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

Furthermore, BAGD (568) offers several options allowing the preterist interpretation of krinō. It mentions Dt 32:36 (LXX) “where the judgment of God is spoken of, resulting in the vindication of the innocent.” This fits perfectly with the preterist interpretation. It also can mean “to engage in a judicial process, judge, decide, hale before a court” as a technical term “in a forensic sense” (BAGD 568). If krinō can be a “judicial process,” then 11:18 could speak of the martyrs receiving their “day in court,” as it were. After all, it is “the time” when they are given “their reward [misthon]” (11:18c). Misthon speaks of reward or wages for work accomplished, it is “based on what a person has earned or deserves” (Aune 644; e.g., Jas 5:4). John uses the term in this sense in 22:12: “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (cp. 2:23).

In the final analysis, Beale seems to overlook the sixth meaning in BAGD (569): “to ensure justice for someone, see to it that justice is done.” Here BAGD references Isa 1:17 where Israel is directed to “seek justice” for the orphan and the widow, not to judge and punish them. David calls for God to “judge” (krniō) him, i.e., vindicate him (Ps 43:1; cp. Ps 10:18; 26:1; 54:1). Thus, with the collapse of the temple, the Jewish-Christian martyrs will see justice done, they will be vindicated.

Unfortunate concession

Second, Beale’s statement that 6:17 involves “heightened descriptions of the consummated kingdom and judgment” is not necessarily so. In the hyperbolic tendency of apocalyptic drama, the destruction of the temple (which brings to a final conclusion of the whole old covenant world) can warrant just such an “heightened,” earth-shaking description. Should we not expect such elevated expressions since the kingdom of Christ comes in the first century (Mk 1:15; 9:1; Mt 12:28)? In the apocalyptically-framed OT prophecies, various historical judgments against ancient peoples are described as a the collapsing stellar universe (Isa 13:10 [cp. v 1]; Eze 32:7 [cp. v 2]; Joel 2:10 [cp. v 1]; 3:15 [cp. v 4]).

Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Rare usages

Third, regarding the eight other examples of krinō in Rev I would make two observations:

(1) Rare uses of terms (such as I am suggesting in this case) do occur. We surely cannot say a rare usage can never be warranted: that would render them non-existent, not “rare.” Perhaps this is the one use which breaks the pattern in Rev.

(2) Beale is mistaken when he claims all other uses of krinō in Rev “refer to judgment of the ungodly” (618). One of the passages he himself lists contradicts his statement when he explains its later: “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds” (20:12). Notice that two books are opened, one being the “book of life.” Note also that the dead were judged from the things written in the “books” plural. Only the righteous are listed in the book of life (3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15) for it is “the Lamb’s book of life (20:15; 21:27).

Rev has a strong reward theme regarding the deeds of the righteous (2:26; 14:5, 13; 19:8; 22:11, 12) — before the very same throne of God (14:3-5; 19:4-8) where Israel is judged. Beale even recognizes that this krinō judgment in Rev 20 includes both “the unrighteous and the righteous” (Beale 1032), involving “an all-inconclusive [sic, it should read “all-inclusive”] reference to both believers and unbelievers” (Beale 1033). He (1034) admits that “it is possible that the believing dead are included among those ‘judged according to their works.’”

Word choice

Fourth, Beale notes that John chooses not to use the clearer word for “vindication”: ekdikeō. I have already shown that krinō can serve that function, so it becomes simply a matter of word choice. But perhaps John prefers the term that more strongly indicates judgment in that “the time” comes not only for the vindication of the saints by “reward,” but also “to destroy those who destroy the earth” (11:18d). Thus, krinō contains within it both results (Stuart 2:243).

Parallel passage

Fifth, does Rev 20 parallel our passage, so that it must refer to the judgment against the wicked? We should note, first, that earthly, temporal judgments are pointers to the final eternal judgment; they are sign-posts along the way. Both types of judgment are judicially related, though the historical forerunners are on a smaller scale. I believe the AD 70 judgment is a reflection of the distant, greater final judgment. As Beale (978) argues elsewhere on another passage, AD 70 is one of the recurring “inaugurated fulfillments continuing over extended periods of time and followed by consummative fulfillment” (Beale 978). This judgment in 11:18 appears in the context of the first-century destruction of the temple and Jerusalem (11:2 a, b), is immediately relevant to John’s audience (1:9, 11), and is near (as per 10:6d), occurring at the end of a forty-two month period (11:2, 3). However, the final judgment occurs in the distant future after the “thousand years” (20:2–6).

OT backdrop

Sixth, Ps 2 is the backdrop for 19:15–21 and probably so here (618). But this no more proves the final judgment than does the use of Ps 2 in Ac 4:25-26. There the apostles apply it to the first-century crucifixion of Christ by the gathering of Herod and Pontius Pilate against him (cf. Beale and Carson 2007: 553). Contrary to Beale’s expectations regarding 1:7 (196), John can use Zec 12:10 also of the crucifixion (Jn 19:37). After all, “there is unanimous consensus that John uses the OT with a high degree of liberty and creativity” (Beale 81) so that “we may viably speak of changes of application” (85).

Thus, I believe a strong case may be made and defended for the preterist view of this tricky phrase in Rev. 11:18.

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