Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 77

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:

THE DEAD JUDGED AT THE 7TH TRUMPET (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-051 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The seventh trumpet in Revelation marks a dramatic moment in the flow of visions. And it makes a fascinating point (as often in Revelation) by means of heavenly praise. This portion of Revelation reads (in part):

The phrase’s phrasing

“Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever. And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, saying, We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth.” (Rev. 11:15–18).

Of particular concern when approaching Revelation from the preterist perspective is the phrase: “Your wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged.” I believe this is associated with the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

The Beast of Revelation[image error]

by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

I will consider this intriguing statement in two articles. In this first one I will provide my interpretation. In the next article I will consider Greg K. Beale’s powerful challenge to this view.

The phrase’s function

The phrase “the time came for the dead to be judged” [krithēnai, aor. inf.] (11:18b) is effectively an imprecatory prayer calling down judgment on God’s enemies. With many commentators, Kistemaker (344) sees the dead as encompassing “all those who have died” / “all people.” Though this is perhaps the majority view, I believe a strong case may be made against it, and for a more narrow and more contextually relevant view.

The “dead” being “judged” (krinō) here probably refers to the first-century martyrs slain by the Jews. Those martyrs are being vindicated. In Rev “the dead” can mean either believers (14:13; and probably 1:5) or unbelievers (20:5, 12).

The relevant portion of the elders’ praise of God may be translated: “And the nations were wrathful, that is [kai], your wrath came; that is [kai], the time of the dead to be vindicated.” The two instances of kai are both epexegetical of the phrase: “the nations were wrathful.” That is, “the time for the dead (the martyred servants of God) to be vindicated has come, and this is announced with hymnic celebration” (Musvosvi 169). Moses Stuart (2:243) agrees: “the martyrs, are to be vindicated,” i.e., the martyrs of 6:9–11.

The term krinō can be used of “the judgment of God . . . resulting in the vindication of the innocent . . . and the punishment of the guilty” (BAGD 452). We can see clear examples of this in the LXX at 2Sa 18:19; Ps 10:18; 26:1; 43:1; Isa 1:17. Similarly, the OT outlook is such that “when the Israelite prays to Yahweh to ‘judge’ him, it is as if he says ‘uphold my rights for me! help me!’” (Nielsen 76).

[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

Thus, the elders in heaven declare that the time has come to fulfill the prayers of the martyred saints mentioned in Rev: those who are pleading for God’s wrath against his and their enemies (6:10; 8:3–4; cp. Lk 18:7–8). As with Jesus (Mt 23:35–36) and Paul (1Th 2:14–17), Rev relates Israel’s destruction not only to Christ’s crucifixion, but to his saints’ persecution (16:6; 17:6; 18:20, 24), both of which are instigated by the Jews. After all, the resurrected Lord confronts Paul while he is persecuting the church (Ac 9:1–2), and warns him that the persecution of the saints is the persecution of him: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Ac 9:5). As Jesus teaches, whoever does anything to or for his people, does it to or for him (Mt 25:45). This is just as Jesus warns his disciples: “if they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (Jn 15:20b).

But this is a minority view. Able scholars such as G. K. Beale reject it on several grounds. I will present, consider, and respond to Beale’s objections in my next article (unless the Rapture comes between now and then).

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

ATTEMPTED REBUTTAL OF CREATIONISTS

[image error]PMW 2018-050 by Lita Cosner (Creation Ministries, Int’l)

Gentry: The source of the postmillennial hope is the Bible. Therefore, postmillennialism is strongly committed to the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant word. Consequently, the consistent, logical postmillennialist must be committed to the biblical creation account, which establishes creation in six literal days. I often run articles on six-day creation because of the doctrine’s significance to the Christian worldview and the current Christian witness to the world today. This article provides insightful answers to some objections to biblical creation. The original title to the article is:

UNIFORMITARIAN DOGMA VS THE BIBLE

Chris L., Canada, wrote with several questions:

“There are several points that do not follow logic. You are suggesting a number of ancient scientists supported creationism. The reason for that there was no scientific proof at that time to contradict the theory. In the late 1890’s fossils were found to be very ancient, millions of years old. Your suggestion that these scientists contributed to creationism is therefore unfounded.

There are many conflicting passages in the Bible. I have been told the Bible and scripture were inspired by God. This suggests spiritual channeling or automatic writing was used. Surely this is a big no no in your circles. But let us say the authors were inspired, this brings us to another problem, there are many conflicting passages in the Bible not least of which is the four different accounts of the last days of Jesus. It seems that God, being perfect, would not have inspired four different accounts, surely they would all be the same. This then ponders the question, were they, in fact inspired?”

Lita Cosner, CMI-US, responds:

Thanks for writing in. It was actually James Hutton’s uniformitarianism, popularized by Lyell, that first led some scientists to think that the earth must be millions of years old, and Hutton wrote in the late 18th, not 19th century. In fact, Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology, first published in 1830, which influenced Charles Darwin after Captain FitzRoy gave him a copy on the Beagle voyage. Lyell explicitly wanted to “free science from Moses”.

By the late 19th century, uniformitarianism and a millions-of-years old earth were scientific ‘orthodoxy’. We’ve answered the charge that it is illegitimate to cite scientists like Newton as creationists before: see Newton was a creationist only because there was no alternative? But more than that, what about the scientists today with real scientific achievements who are biblical creationists, like Raymond Damadian, the inventor of MRI; John Sanford, the inventor of the gene gun; Henry Richter, a pioneer of the USA space program, and many others?

[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

Many people claim that the Bible is contradictory, but people who claim that have usually not read the volumes of literature dedicated to showing that in fact such ‘contradictions’ are misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the biblical text. Actually, in many cases, the critic doesn’t even know what a contradiction is, in its proper logical definition. In fact, I have never seen someone substantiate an actual Bible contradiction in my many encounters with skeptics.

Your comment about ‘spiritual channeling’ or ‘automatic writing’ also indicates you don’t understand what inspiration is. There are different levels of inspiration. Sometimes God tells a prophet, “Write this down”, and the prophet is responsible for writing down what he saw (in the case of a vision) or what God said. In the epistles, the author is clearly teaching from his own thoughts and vocabulary in responses to specific situations in local communities. But the Holy Spirit worked in such a way that the words that the apostle wrote were God’s own words, free from error, authoritative, sufficient, and useful for the church for all of time. Sometimes as in the Psalms, the author is writing out of the overflow of his own heart—no one thinks God told King David, “Write this: The Lord is my Shepherd … ”. Rather, King David was writing poetry based on his own experience as a shepherd and expanding that into a lovely metaphor for God’s loving care. And the Holy Spirit was involved in that process such that what he wrote was Scripture.

You mention the differences between the four Gospels’ accounts of the last days of Jesus. There are several commonalities though that run through them.

1. Jesus had a last meal with his disciples, foreseeing His death was imminent and giving his disciples some last teachings.

2. From there Jesus went to Gethsemane, where he prayed, and where Judas betrayed him.

3. Jesus was arrested and subjected to trials in front of both the Jews and the Romans.

4. Jesus was beaten and crucified, and buried in a tomb.

5. On the third day, Jesus rose. The first witnesses to the resurrection were women who came to the tomb.

6. Jesus appeared after the resurrection to his disciples. So regardless of what details they choose to record, there is a core consistency that we would look for when we examine different accounts of the same event.

[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

So if there is this core consistency, why are they so different in the details? The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record the institution of the Lord’s Supper, while John records the washing of feet. The women named in the group who were the first witnesses of the resurrection differ from one Gospel to another, because different authors had reasons for mentioning particular women or omitting their names. Different Gospels record different sayings of Jesus from the cross—because they were in three languages, as we have explained.

And the accounts of the post-Resurrection appearances are also different. Luke has the Road to Emmaus account, while Matthew has the Great Commission, and John has Jesus cooking breakfast for the disciples. Mark doesn’t even have the resurrected Jesus show up—the women are simply told that Jesus is raised and will appear shortly to his disciples, and Mark leaves us with a ‘cliffhanger’ that …

To continue reading the article: click

[image error]Lita Cosner (CMI as Information Officer)

Lita is a specialist in New Testament studies and obtained a B.A. (summa cum laude) in Biblical Studies from Oklahoma Wesleyan University in 2008. She received an M.A. (cum laude) in New Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 2012. Her thesis is titled “Jesus the Honorable Broker: A Social-Scientific Exegesis of Matthew 15:21–28.”

UNHITCHING JESUS FROM THE OT?

[image error]PMW 2018-049 by Stephen Altrogge (The Blazing Center)

Gentry note: One of the evangelical tragedies of our times is the dismissal of the Old Testament, as if it were God’s word emeritus. Too many in the contemporary church are preaching a truncated gospel based on a truncated Bible. Andy Stanley, son of famous Baptist pastor Charles Stanley, became a tragic case-in-point when he recently declared himself unhitched from the Old Testament. Stephen Altrogge demonstrates the faulty logic of such a declaration in his amusing expose of Stanley’s error.

Following the advice of pastor Andy Stanley, I just unhitched Jesus from the Old Testament. Boy does it ever feel good to be rid of that old thing. It totally cluttered up the first 2/3 of my Bible. And really, it was so irrelevant to modern Christians, am I right?

Plus, have you ever tried to find the book of Habakkuk? It’s like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles, which I can tell you from experience is extraordinarily painful.

I am, however, slightly confused. A few things don’t make sense to me.

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

What’s all this stuff in the book of Hebrews about priests and the Most Holy Place and a guy named Melchizedek? It feels kinda like Old Testament stuff to me, and I’m definitely done with that. That horse has been put out to pasture and shipped to the glue factory (that’s how that analogy goes, right?) I’m thinking I should probably unhitch Hebrews as well.

And honestly, Galatians is a little on the weird side. It’s like, who are Sarah and Hagar, and why are they so mad at each other? What is this, Jersey Shore? Definitely need to unhitch this as well. Farewell, Galatians.

Can we also talk about 2 Corinthians 3? Why does Paul keep going on and on about Old and New Covenants? I’m like, “Dude, we’ve got the resurrection. Why do you keep looking for love in all the wrong places?” Kylo Ren had it right when he said, “Let the past die.” Time to unhitch 2 Corinthians.

We should probably talk about this cryptic genealogy at the beginning of Matthew as well. It’s like something out of a Dan Brown novel. Maybe The Genealogy Code could be his next bestseller. But I certainly don’t need this in my Bible. When I read it, here’s what I see:

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Unimportant person

Unimportant person

Don’t care

Who’s this?

Never even heard this name

Is this guy from Game of Thrones?

JESUS

Excuse me for a second while I unhitch Matthew. . . .

To finish reading the article: click

[image error]Stephen Altrogge is a freelance writer living in Tallahassee, Florida. He writes regularly at The Blazing Center. He is the author of several books on Christian themes.

DEPRAVITY AND WORLDVIEW

[image error]PMW 2018-048 by Joel McDurmon (American Vision)

Man was created in the image of God, to think God’s his thoughts after him and to work God’s works after him. We must now acknowledge that man did not stay this way very long. When presented with a test and an option, mankind chose rebellion and sin. In terms of biblical worldview, we need to look at both the fact of this fall and its consequences for every area of life.

Solomon gives us a single-sentence summary: “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (Eccl. 7:29 KJV).

God told Adam he could eat of any tree in the garden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He assured Adam that if he ate of that fruit, he would “surely die” (Gen. 2:19). Adam and Eve did not abide by that sole command, but ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree. The temptation came in three areas: the tree was good for food, it was a delight to the eyes, and its fruit was said to make one wise (Gen. 3:6).

[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

Adam and Eve were immediately convicted and tormented with guilt and fear. They hid from God when they heard his voice. God confronted them with the truth, and the consequences of the sin manifested even more greatly: blame-shifting. The man blamed both the woman and God himself; the woman blamed the serpent. God pronounced a curse upon all three, as well as the land.

God showed his mercy in that Adam and Eve did not physically (utterly) perish in that day, but they did suffer death in the form of a separation and alienation from God’s presence. God kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and placed angel at its entrance, guarding it with a flaming sword.

The fallen nature metastasized to all the offspring of Adam. Along with it comes also fear, jealousy, envy, malice, and all other personal wickedness. Both the fact of guilt (objective) and the feeling of guilt (subjective) result from this sin.

The curse on the land/ground manifested as God said in the appearance of thorns and thistle, and in the form of hardship in agriculture. This increased not only sweat and toil, but scarcity of goods. It meant also that prosperity would not come without difficult labor. Even with labor, competition for food and resources would increase.

The sin of mankind manifested in the very first offspring of Adam and Eve. When Cain saw that his brother Abel’s sacrifices were accepted by God, but his own were not, he murdered his brother. Why did he react this way? Out of nothing but pure envy: Abel had something precious he did not, and if he could not have it, he would destroy the person who did. So envy drives up to destroy those we envy rather than repent and improve ourselves.

Just as his parents did, Cain did not react to his own sin and condemnation with repentance, but with guilt, fear, and blame. Instead of seeking what is right, Cain cared only for himself and sought to protect himself from the consequences of his guilt. He built the first fortress city and started a dynastic empire. A guilty conscience has no rest, and a fortress has walls for hiding and a constant watch for enemies. Guilt builds walls for protection of self, seeks safety in numbers, and sets out countless eyes of paranoia.

[image error]

Political Christianity (book)

(by Christian Citizen)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Such a city also, however, cannot suppress the image of God and the dominion mandate given to Adam and Eve, but it perverts these things. It seeks to grow, but in its selfish ambition, it seeks domination instead of godly dominion, and self-glory rather than God’s glory. It rules people through subjugation, with fear, manipulation, intimidation, and lust rather than by giving and sacrificial example. In its energy, it advances the arts, science, and technology, but for personal gain and for military might. The sons of Cain therefore developed agriculture, metallurgy, and also arts and entertainment—music. Each of these can be used to the glory of God, but each is also abused for greed, lust, control, destruction, and death. As the sons of Cain prosper in their fortresses of guilt and fear, their wickedness grows from one generation to the next. Lamech not only murdered a man just as his father had, but openly bragged about it, committed polygamy, and boasted that he was seventy times more secure that Cain (Gen. 4:23–24). This is why Paul teaches that the personal suppression of the knowledge of God leads eventually to full cultural burnout (Rom. 1:18–32).

The fall affected every area of life, because the effects of sin corrupt every aspect of our nature and every area of our lives. John asserts that the same three areas by which Eve was tempted are . . .

To continue reading: click

UNBIBLICAL WORLDVIEWS AND LOGIC

[image error]PMW 2018-047 by Jason Lisle (Biblical Science Institute)

Gentry introductory note: Postmillennialism entails a full-orbed biblical worldview. The argument for postmillennialism begins in the Creation Account. A proper view of creation is necessary for a proper view of eschatological hope. Furthermore, the biblical worldview rooted in the orderly creation by God is able to justify the laws of logic, which are so necessary to rationality. This article by Dr. Jason Lisle is helpful for understanding the significance of the biblical worldview in supporting the laws of logic.

We saw previously that the Bible can make sense of laws of logic and their properties, and that the three laws of thought are rooted in the nature of God. However, non-biblical worldviews cannot make sense of laws of logic or their properties. As one example, consider materialism: the belief that all things that exist are physical and extended in space. It is quite obvious that materialism cannot make sense of abstract laws because abstract things are non-material, and the materialist does not allow for the existence of the non-material. But really, any worldview that denies the Bible cannot make sense of the existence and properties of laws of logic. Why should there be abstract laws that govern all correct reasoning? Who decides what these laws are? Why would such laws be universal, and invariant? Even if a person were to presume that laws of logic existed and had all these properties, how could that person possibly know that laws of logic are such? What are some possible ways in which the non-Christian might attempt to account for laws of logic?

Experience

Some people might say that they really can’t explain why laws of logic exist or have the properties that they have, but they don’t need to because they know from experience that laws of logic are as they are. “Who cares why laws of logic exist? We use them because they work.” There are many problems with this answer. If laws of logic were merely based on human experience, then it would be irrational to arbitrarily assume that they will apply to as-yet-unexperienced situations. For example, when people landed on the moon, they expected that laws of logic would work there, and yet no one had ever experienced being on the moon before. Astronomers assume that laws of logic work the same in deep space, even though no one has ever been there to experience it. So, experience cannot justify our expectation that laws of logic will work in as-yet-unexperienced situations or places. And yet we somehow know that logic will work in such situations.

Furthermore, all our experiences are in the past, and yet we somehow expect laws of logic to work in the future – a future that no one has experienced. Why? It is irrational to automatically assume that all things will be in the future like they have been in the past; otherwise you would have to conclude that you are immortal. After all, you have never died in the past. Can you therefore conclude that you will never die in the future? That would be silly, and yet people assume that laws of logic will work in the future just like in the past.

[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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Only the Christian worldview can justify our expectation that laws of logic will work in the future as in the past, and in all locations, because God’s mind controls all of reality. God is sovereign, omni-present, and does not change with time. We know these things because God has revealed them to us in His Word. Therefore, we can be assured that logic, which reflects His thinking, will be the same at all times and locations. But mere human experience just doesn’t cut it.

Creations of People?

Some might claim that laws of logic were created by people. In this view, laws of logic are conventions that people have found useful and therefore chose to obey. Why should we not contradict ourselves? They would answer, “because we have found that when we do, it doesn’t go well for us. The result is always false.” Why follow the law of the excluded middle? They would say, “because we have never found a third alternative – a situation where neither the proposition nor its negation are true.” Some would add that we should follow laws of logic because they are intuitively obvious.

Unfortunately, there are many problems with this view. If laws of logic were created by people, then these laws could not have existed before people. And yet, it is absurd to think that the law of noncontradiction didn’t exist at one point. Was there ever a time – before human beings – when both a proposition and its negation were both true? If so, what was that proposition? Laws of logic were discovered by people, but they existed before people and were therefore not created by people.

Furthermore, if laws of logic were merely conventions that people find useful (like the metric system), then other people and cultures would have developed different laws of logic, just as some cultures use the British system rather than the metric. When you drive from the United States to Canada, you must stop thinking in terms miles and start thinking in terms of kilometers. But laws of logic are not like that. They don’t change from one nation to the next. They are universal. Laws of logic apply even in places that no human being has ever visited – such as the Andromeda Galaxy.

Nor would we expect laws of logic to be invariant if they were invented by people. After all, laws created by people change from time to time. There was a time when the national speed limit in the United States was 55 miles per hour. But that law was repealed. On the other hand, the law of noncontradiction will never be repealed. It was not created by humanity and cannot therefore be repealed by humanity. Thus, laws of logic cannot merely be humanly stipulated conventions.

[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

Reflections of the Universe?

Some people have suggested that laws of logic are simply a reflection of the way the physical universe is. In this view, we discover laws of logic much the way we discover laws of nature, such as the law of gravity. We learn from experience that this is simply the way the universe is. Such people ask, “Why invoked God?”

This view also has its problems. First, it merely pushes the problem back. Namely, why should a chance universe obey any sort of laws at all? How can you have laws without a law-giver? Why is the universe constrained to obey the law of noncontradiction, and the law of the excluded middle? Nor does this view account for the properties of laws of logic. Why should they by universal, invariant, and abstract?

After all, the universe is very different in different places. . . .

To continue reading: click

To support Dr. Lisle’s research and writing ministry, Biblical Science Institute, click

[image error]

[image error]Dr. Jason Lisle is a Christian astrophysicist who researches issues pertaining to science and the Christian Faith. He has a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado in Boulder. There, he used the SOHO spacecraft to analyze the surface of the sun, and made a number of interesting discoveries, including the detection of giant cell boundaries. A popular speaker and author, Dr. Lisle presents a rational defense of a literal Genesis, showing how science confirms the history recorded in the Bible. Brought up in a Christian family, at a young age he received Christ as Lord. Since then Lisle has always desired to serve the Lord out of love and gratitude for salvation, and to spread the Gospel message to all people.

THE BROKEN PROPHECY CLOCK

[image error]PMW 2018-046 by Gary North (Remnant Review)

Gentry introductory note: Gary North is always an entertaining and insightful read. And this article needs to be read for both insights and entertainment. It is funny how dispensationalism is addicted to continually predicting the Rapture, the great tribulation, the antichrist, and the gullibility of the Christian book-buying public.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the political creation of the State of Israel.

This fact is crucial for American fundamentalists. This is because most of them believe in something their pastors call “the clock of prophecy.” It started ticking on May 14, 1948, or so they have been told by a generation of pastors and authors. But there is a problem. It was not supposed to keep ticking longer than 70 years — the normal lifespan of one generation.

Before I explain all this, I want you to understand that American fundamentalists are almost all dispensationalists. This is called pre-tribulation dispensationalism, and at least 99% of dispensationalists are pre-tribulation dispensationalists. They believe that Christians will be pulled out of history prior to the horror known as the Great Tribulation, which will come mainly on Jews living in the State of Israel after the Rapture.

American fundamentalism’s 70-year unwavering political support for the State of Israel has been based on the doctrine of the Rapture.

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?

(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Rapture is the term that fundamentalists use to describe the supernatural transfer of residency of all living Christians from earth to heaven without death as the gate of passage. This essence of belief can be summarized by a variation of the famous “go directly to jail” card in the board game, Monopoly: “Go directly to heaven. Do not pass death.” Christians would thereby cheat the collectors, mortgage lenders, credit card debt, and even college debt. Above all, their heirs would evade morticians.

The Rapture was to have taken place no later than 2011, according to popular dispensationalism’s interpretation of Bible prophecy. All Christians were to have been pulled out of history into heaven. The Great Tribulation for Jews in Palestine was to have begun then. Jesus and His angels should have returned yesterday to set up a one-world Christian government run by immortal Christians accompanying Jesus.

It didn’t happen. Popular dispensationalism now has a major theological problem to answer. It is also a practical problem. It is also a psychological problem. For the last 70 years, the popular interpretation of Bible prophecy among dispensationalists has been this: the clock of prophecy began ticking again on May 14, 1948. It had 70 years to run. The clock has stopped.

Now what?

The Clock of Prophecy

What is the clock of prophecy? It is a metaphor. The Bible does not speak of such a clock. The idea was invented by dispensational theologians about a century ago. It has to do with the prophecy by Jesus in Matthew Chapter 24 regarding grim things that He described as taking place in Judaea before He returns to judge the world.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened (Matthew 24:15-22, King James Version).

This, He said, would take place in what He said was “this generation.”

[image error]

Dispensational Distortions

Three Lectures by Kenneth Gentry. Reformed introduction to classic dispensationalism, with analysis of leading flaws regarding the Church, kingdom, redemptive history, and Christ. Helpful for demonstrating errors to dispensationalists.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled (verses 32-34).

It is obvious that this did not take place literally during the lifetimes of those people who were listening to Him. Beginning in the second century A.D., church theologians explain this seeming delay in terms of a non-literal fulfillment. A common explanation was that it was fulfilled with the Roman army’s destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. I published David Chilton’s cogent little book on this, The Great Tribulation, in 1987. You can download it for free here.

Dispensational theologians say that Bible prophecies must be interpreted literally. Therefore, they reject the church’s ancient interpretation that Jesus’ prophecy referred to the fall of Jerusalem, which did occur in the lifetimes of some of those who heard His words. Dispensational theologians have argued that the prophecy of the Great Tribulation was not meant for those listening to Him. This warning applied to a future generation. It applied to the generation that would be alive when the literal events had to take place. So, they argued that the clock of prophecy stopped ticking sometime before the end of the first century A.D. But because of dispensationalism’s self-proclaimed literalism, the clock would have to start ticking again in order to allow for a literal fulfillment of Jesus’ warning. The generation of Jews alive when the clock starts ticking will be “this generation” of Jews whom Jesus was warning.

After May 14, 1948, a growing number of dispensational preachers and authors began to identify that date as the date when Jesus intended His prophecy to begin to apply literally. They began to use the phrase “the clock of prophecy.” It was said to have begun ticking with the advent of the State of Israel.

Pop Dispensationalism’s warning to Jews in Israel

This interpretation of the clock of prophecy was so common prior to 1988, when the 40 years associated with one generation ran out, that it sold millions of books. Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late, Great Planet Earth (1970) sold over 35 million copies. He and his long-term ghost writer Carole C. Carlson were quite explicit. . . .

To finish reading the article: click

THE TEMPLE’S FAILURE AND DECLINE (3)

[image error]PMW 2018-045 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As we conclude our focus on Israel’s temple (see previous article), we must note that Jesus prophesies the temple’s destruction so clearly (Jn 2:19-20; Mt 24:1ff) that the Jews mock him on the cross regarding the matter (Mt 27:40//). Later they recall this statement against his disciples (Ac 6:14). After cursing the fig tree as representing Israel (Mt 21:19) he declares that the temple mount will be cast into the sea (Mt 21:21//) (Morna Hooker The Gospel according to Mark 269). His trials specifically recall his statements about the temple’s destruction (Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61), though falsely claiming he said he would personally destroy it. Late in his ministry he presents a major discourse on the temple’s coming destruction (Mt 24:2ff //).

At his death the temple veil is “torn in two from top to bottom” (Mk 15:38//). “Jesus’ references to the temple hitherto in this gospel have concerned its destruction and replacement, and the tearing of the more visible and magnificent outer curtain would more naturally pick up this theme. Following the jibe of [Mk 15:29-30], this would be a particularly appropriate divine riposte: the process of the temple’s destruction and replacement has indeed begun, even as Jesus continues to hang on the cross” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, 657). The rending of the veil, then, was a “clear sign of impending destruction of the Temple” (Richard Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 162).

[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

In fact, due to its embroidery with the starry heavens, [1] “its tearing would be an apt symbol of the beginning destruction, not only of the temple (which itself even as a whole symbolized the cosmos) but of the very cosmos itself” as the new creation process is begun in Christ’s death (G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 189). Consequently, this pictures “the inbreaking destruction of the old creation and inauguration of the new creation, which introduces access for all believers to God’s holy presence in a way that was not available in the old creation” (Beale, 190). The church Fathers often link the Temple’s destruction with Christ’s death. [2]

As the very heartbeat of their religion, the temple is a key element in the self-sufficient pride of the Jew. Rabbis proudly exclaim: “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never in his life seen a beautiful structure” (B. Bat. 4a; cf. Mt 24:2; Lk 21:5; Philo, Spec. 1, 72, 73; Jos., Ant. 15:11:3 ). Even the Lord’s disciples were enamored of the temple’s majesty (Mt 24:1//). The revolutionaries in Israel during the Jewish War are confident God’s temple would survive the assault of Rome — even as they endure seducers and false prophets (J.W. 6:5:2 §285-86). Even during the war the Jews think the city of Jerusalem where God’s temple resides could not be defeated: ““the fighting men that were in the city were lifted up in their minds, and were elevated upon this their good success, and began to think that the Romans would never venture to come into the city any more; and that if they kept within it themselves, they should not be any more conquered” (J.W. 5:8:2 §)

Prior to AD 70 the temple’s significance is such that it was the very “foundation and focus of national worship,” one of “the three great pillars of popular Jewish piety,” “the cardinal postulates” of the Jewish faith, which includes also the Land and the Law (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 9:336, 337). And given the structure of ancient life in merging religious and political outlooks, “the function of the Temple was more extensive and central in Jewish society than the typical modern theological reduction to the religious dimension allows” (Horsley, 286).

Along with pride in their national shrine the Jews boast of their physical descent from Abraham, as Paul strongly indicates: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2Co 11:22). [3] This involves a trusting in the flesh (Gal 4:23, 39; 1Co 10:18 [Gk]). They pride themselves in physical circumcision (Ro 2:25-29; Gal 5:11; 6:12-13; Php 3:2-3; Tit 1:10). Indeed, they trust in all their ritual traditions as Paul’s testimony shows: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Gal 1:14). When he defends his apostleship against his opponents he writes: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2Co 11:22).

Postmilllennialism and Preterism[image error]

Four lectures by Ken Gentry (downloadable 4 mp3s).

(1) Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?

(2) The Identity of the Beast of Revelation.

(3) The Resurrection of the Dead.

(4) The Great Tribulation is Past.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We see Judaism’s strong ritual concern early in the post-Pentecost Christian witness. In Ac 6:14 Stephen is charged with an attempt to “alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” Scharlemann (Stephen: A Singular Saint, 102) observes that “the word translated as ‘customs’ reads ethē in Greek; and this, in turn, is a translation of the Hebrew minhāgot. It was used to cover the whole complex set of ritual prescriptions and religious obligations assumed by the Jew when he took upon himself the yoke of the kingdom. It was the word used to refer to carrying out the requirements of the oral tradition.”

Jewish pride ultimately leads them to engage war with Rome, vainly believing they hold “God as their only Lord and Master” (J.W. 7:10:1 §410). The Zealots particularly affirm “an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord” (Ant. 18:1:5 §23). John of Gischala responds to Josephus’ calls to surrender, noting that “he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God’s own city” (J.W. 6:2:1 §98). This repeats the error of their fathers before the first temple’s destruction. According to the Mishnah: “Upon three things the universe stands: upon Torah, and upon the Temple service, and upon deeds of lovingkindness” (Avot 1:2:).

Scharlemann comments: “How badly Jerusalem and its High Council needed to hear Stephen’s [Ac 7] warning can be demonstrated from the fact that, at almost the very moment when the temple was about to be destroyed by Roman soldiers, in August A.D. 70, a prophet was able to persuade many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they ought to resort to the courtyard of the temple on the conviction that the God of Israel would never permit this sanctuary to fall into the hands of Gentiles.”

During his ministry the Pharisees called for Jesus to rebuke his disciples for praising him at the Triumphal Entry. Jesus warns that the temple’s destruction will result when Israel fails to accept him: “And He answered and said, ‘I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!’” (Lk 19:40). This means that “if the disciples do not speak, if they do not proclaim Jesus as the redeemer of Israel and the bringer of peace, then the eloquent message of the tumbled stones of a destroyed city will cry out to the survivors that Jerusalem should have repented” (Lloyd Gaston, No Stone On Another, 359). This becomes clear four verses later when he declares that their enemies “will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation” (Lk 19:44).

DeYoung has provided a careful and insightful analysis of the role of Jerusalem as a feature in the NT polemic against Israel. Paul castigates Jerusalem, the home of the temple, in Gal 4:21-31. In that passage Paul provides “a description of the hollow religious residue to which Jerusalem tenaciously clung after she rejected the salvation offered by Christ: a religion of servitude to the law” (DeYoung, 103). That is, Israel clings to the ceremonial strictures of the old covenant economy as if that was the very heart of true religious devotion. Paul is showing “that Judaism, with its center in Jerusalem, was practicing a religion of bondage to the [ceremonial] law. This he does first of all by characterizing Hagar, then charging that by virtue of these characteristics she and Jerusalem have a basic similarity” (DeYoung, 104). Jerusalem has become a “slave woman” (Gal 4:22-23). This whole passage “represents, perhaps, the sharpest polemic against Jerusalem and Judaism in the N.T. It must have been quite a shock to the Jews to have their holy city linked up with ‘Hagar and her seed” (DeYoung 106).

Continuing his analysis, DeYoung (109) notes that in Heb 10-13 “there can be little doubt that the author intended these verses as an exhortation for his readers to break all ties with the Judaism of his day centered at Jerusalem. He has produced two of the most powerful arguments available. Jerusalem has lost all redemptive significance for the Christian because Christ has made the final sacrifice for sin outside the gates of Jerusalem, and redemption can only be found where he is — without the camp. Jerusalem has lost all eschatological significance; there is no abiding city on earth; hence the Christian, like Abraham, looks for the city which is to come (13:14), the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22) whose builder and maker is none other than God himself.”

Charles E. Hill cites J. B. Lightfoot’s observations on the significance of Stephen’s sermon. Hill writes “it was Stephen, the ‘martyr of liberty’ and acknowledged ‘forerunner’ of the apostle Paul, who ‘was the first . . . to sound the death-knell of the Mosaic ordinances and the temple worship” (Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 9). In fact, according to Delbert Weins’ (Stephen’s Sermon and the Structure of Luke-Acts, 51) reflections on Acts 6:11, “the charge of abandoning Moses could soon be turned against the officials hearing and judging Stephen.” This is because Stephen points out that their own fathers themselves turned against Moses (Ac 7:39-40), even making the golden calf (7:41). And they were as guilty as their fathers (7:52-53). Scharlemann (16) notes that Stephen’s sermon is the longest speech in Acts and that “its very length suggests that the author of Acts intended it to reflect some important facet of primitive church life.”

Notes

1. Philo QE 2:85; Mos. 2:87-88; Jos. J.W. 5:5:4 §212-14; Ant. 3:6:4 §123, 183.

2. Barn. 5:11-13; Justin, 1 Apol. 35; 38; 40; 47; Dial. 108; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13:14; Apol. 26; Origen, Ag. Cels. 1:47; 4:22; it. 1:1; 7:25.

3. Cp. Lk 3:8; 16:24, 30; Jo 8:39, 53, 56; Ro 2:17ff; cp. Ro 1:16; 2:9-10; 10:12; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.

Commentary on Matthew 21–25 Notice[image error]

I am currently raising funds to engage research and writing on a commentary on Matthew 21–25, which contains the Olivet Discourse. This commentary will provide a Composition Critical approach to this textual unit in Matthew. In doing thus, it will show why Matthew presents Jesus’ Olivet Discourse as he does, in a way that differs in several respects from Mark and Luke. This commentary will demonstrate that the Olivet Discourse deals with both the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the Second Advent (which is anticipated by AD 70). This is important for presenting Christ as more than just a Jewish sage concerned for one nation.

If you would like to support this, please see my GoodBirth Ministries website, where you can give a tax deductible gift and receive a free occasional newsletter updating donors on my research. Thanks for your help! Click: GoodBirth Ministries.

THE TEMPLE’S FAILURE AND DECLINE (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-044 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief study on the Jewish temple’s decline through abuse, showing the necessity of its destruction under God’s wrath in AD 70. My previous article should be consulted for context.

Interestingly, on several occasions before Christ’s coming, the temple undergoes cleansings because of profanations by Ahaz (2Ch 29:12ff), Mannaseh (2Ch 34:3ff), Tobiah (New 13:4-19), and Antiochus (1Mac 4:36ff; 2Mac 10:1ff). The temple of Christ’s day is also corrupt, for Christ himself symbolically cleanses it when he opens his ministry (Jo 2:13-17) and as he closes it (Mt 21:12-13) — even though it is under the direct, daily, fully-functioning administration of the high priesthood.

As Richard Horsley (Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 163) well notes: “Once in Jerusalem, [Jesus] moves directly into the symbolic and material center of the society, the power based of the ruling aristocracy” to challenge it. In fact, Horsley (300) argues, “Jesus attacks the activities in which the exploitation of God’s people by their priestly rulers was most visible.” Thus, “Jesus’s action is a clear condemnation of the priestly authorities, who have permitted these practices: the result is that ‘the chief priests’ join ‘the scribes’ in plotting his death (cf. 3:6)” (Morna Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 268).

Christ calls the temple they are controlling a “robbers’ den” (Mt 21:13) only to later have the “chief priests and the elders” demand the release of the robber Barrabas over him (Mt 27:40; Jn 18:40). [1] In fact, they ask him on what authority he drives out the moneychangers and teaches in the temple, since they had not commissioned him to clean up the corruption (Mt 21:23). As Julie Galambush (The Reluctant Parting, 68) observes: “It is no coincidence that Matthew’s extravagant assertions of Jesus’ authority are placed in the context of confrontations with the Pharisees.”

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

James DeYoung (Jerusalem in the New Testament, 63) argues that Christ’s actions are not an effort at reform but a testimony against the present cultus. This is evident in that in the first cleansing he alludes to its destruction (Jn 2:19) and in the immediate context of the second he curses the fig tree as symbol of Israel’s corruption (cf. Hos 9:10, 16; Mic 7:1). Ferdinand Hahn (The Titles of Jesus in Christology, 155) agrees: “The procedure of Jesus in the temple precincts can only be understood as a symbolic action proclaiming judgment and punishment on the Jewish sanctuary if it is connected with the cursing of the fig tree, as it is in the present redactional context.”

N. T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God, 416) well summarizes the evidence that Christ was symbolically declaring its judgment: “Virtually all the traditions, inside and outside the canonical gospels, which speak of Jesus and the Temple speak of its destruction. Mark’s fig-tree incident; Luke’s picture of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem; John’s saying about destroying and rebuilding; the synoptic traditions of the false witnesses and their accusation, and of the mocking at the foot of the cross; Thomas’ cryptic saying (‘I will destroy this house, and no one will be able to rebuild it’); the charge in Acts that Jesus would destroy the Temple: all these speak clearly enough, not of cleansing or reform, but of destruction.”

The temple authorities, including especially the high priests, were irrevocably corrupt long before the Jewish War. Indeed, the high priest in Jesus’ day was Anna, of whom Raymond Brown (The Gospel according to John, 1:121) notes: “the corruption of the priestly house of Annas was notorious.” According to Josephus: “The principal high-priestly families, with their hired gangs of thugs, not only were feuding among themselves, but had become predatory, seizing by force from the threshing floors the tithes intended for the ordinary priests” (Ant. 20.180, 206-7).

The Babylonian Talmud laments: “Woe is me because of the house of Boethus; woe is me because of their staves! . . . Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi; woe is me because of their fists! For they are High Priests . . . and their servants beat the people with staves” (Pesah. 57a). “Starting by about 58 or 59, the high priests began surrounding themselves with gangs of ruffians, who would abuse the common priests and general populace” (Horsley, “High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine,” 45). In fact, “the high priests and royalists actually contributed to the breakdown of social order through their own aggressive, even violent, predatory actions” (Horsley, 24).

Completely frustrated at the high priests’ continuing collaboration with the Romans, “a group of sages/teachers called Sicarii or ‘Daggermen’ turned to assassinating key high-priestly figures (B.J. 2.254-57). . . . The population of Jerusalem was as dependent on the Temple-high-priesthood system as the high-priestly aristocracy was on their Roman sponsors” (Horsley, Galilee: History, Politics, People, 73-74). In fact, “when the Roman troops under Cestius finally came to retake control of Jerusalem . . . the priestly aristocracy attempted to open the gates to them . . . (November 66; B.J. 2.517-55)” (Horsley, Galilee 74).

[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

Jesus preaches against the temple’s degenerate condition when he mentions the death of the son of Berechiah who was “murdered between the temple and the altar” (Mt 23:35). When we last hear Christ publicly referring to the temple he calls it “your house” rather than God’s house (Mt 23:38). Then he declares it “desolate” and ceremoniously departs from it (Mt 23:38-24:1). And it “is extremely significant that the declaration of abandonment (v. 38) is preceded by the seven woes upon the religious hierarchy of Jerusalem (vv. 13-36)” (DeYoung, Jerusalem in the New Testament, 91). The Qumran community existed largely because of their disdain for the corruption of the temple.

During the interchange regarding his temple actions, Jesus refers to John Baptist who calls Israel to repentance (Mt 21:24-25). John calls the people out of Jerusalem into the wilderness to repent, thereby effecting a reverse exodus (Mt 3:1-5) — as if Jerusalem is now Egypt and must be left (cp. Rev 11:8; 18:4). And he turns down the religious leaders, the Pharisees and Sadducees, demanding that they bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance” instead of basking in their pride supposing “that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Mt 3:7-9). Christ even denounces Israel’s religious elite as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Mt 12:38-39).

Furthermore, Jesus intentionally supplants the temple cult ceremonies in his ministry (see Gaston, ch 3). He proclaims that he is “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). He teaches that loving God and neighbor “is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mk 12:22). He authoritatively declares the leper cleansed (Mk 1:40-45) instead of directing him to go to the priests in order to secure cleansing (Lev 14:2ff). He touches the unclean woman, but is not made unclean himself (Mk 5:25-34; cp. Lev 5:2-3). He declares that food does not make one unclean (Mk 7:15; cp. Lev 11:4ff). He does not even pay the temple tax except on the occasion when it might cause offense (Mt 17:24-27). And then he does not pay it out of his own purse and by means of a unique miracle. In this context “Jesus’ declaration that ‘the sons are free’ thus appears to have provided an unmistakable declaration of independence from the Temple and the attendant political-economic-religious establishment” (Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 282).

This study will continue in my next article.

Note

1. Eventually the Jews would be overrun by robbers: “As for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude” (Josephus, Ant. 20:8:5). We should remember that the Gospels are written awhile after Christ and record information to assist Christians in that later time. That Christ denounces the temple as a robber’s den should strike a sympathetic chord with Jewish Christians a few decades later. Josephus notes that the highpriests abuse the people and take away the tithes (Ant. 20:9:2), even making seditious attacks in Jerusalem (Ant. 20:9:4).

Commentary on Matthew 21–25 Notice[image error]

I am currently raising funds to engage research and writing on a commentary on Matthew 21–25, which contains the Olivet Discourse. This commentary will provide a Composition Critical approach to this textual unit in Matthew. In doing thus, it will show why Matthew presents Jesus’ Olivet Discourse as he does, in a way that differs in several respects from Mark and Luke. This commentary will demonstrate that the Olivet Discourse deals with both the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the Second Advent (which is anticipated by AD 70). This is important for presenting Christ as more than just a Jewish sage concerned for one nation.

If you would like to support this, please see my GoodBirth Ministries website, where you can give a tax deductible gift and receive a free occasional newsletter updating donors on my research. Thanks for your help! Click: GoodBirth Ministries.

THE TEMPLE’S FAILURE AND DECLINE (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

AD 70 is an important date in redemptive-history. In that year the ancient temple of Israel was destroyed, never to be rebuilt. This catastrophe is anticipated in the OT. Over and over again the temple cult is disparaged by the OT prophets when Israel falls into sin: Isa 1:10-17; 29:13; 43:23-24; Jer 6:20; 7:1-6, 21-22; 11:15; Eze 20:25; Hos 6:5-6; Am 4:4-5; 5:21-25; 9:1; Mic 6:1-8; Mal 1:10. Jeremiah even presents God as dramatically denying he ever directed Israel to sacrifice: “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you’ “ (Jer 7:22-23).

The problem with the temple cult arises not from the God-ordained ritual, but those who minister the ritual. Consequently, “from at least the time of Malachi there had been protests about the priests, whose corruption meant that the sacrifices offered in the temple were neither pure nor pleasing to the Lord (Mal. 3:3f.). Similar complaints are found in the Psalms of Solomon (2:3-5; 8:11-13), at Qumran (1Qp Hab. 8:8-13; 12:1-10; CD 5:6-8; 6:12-17) and the Talmud (B. Pes. 57a), while Josephus describes the way in which the servants of the priestly aristocracy stole tithes from the ordinary priests (Antiquities XX.8.8; 9:2)” (Morna Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, 264).

[image error]

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Twenty-four careful, down-to-earth lectures provide a basic introduction to and survey of the entire Book of Revelation. Professionally produced lectures of 30-35 minutes length.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In the Gospel record Jesus’ subtle conduct and overt teaching prepare us for the removal of the temple as both theologically unnecessary and as spiritually corrupt. John’s Gospel is especially interesting in this regard: In Jn 1:14 Christ appears as God’s true “tabernacle” (eskēnōsen en ēmin). [1] This theme of Jesus replacing the religious features of Israel recurs repeatedly in his ministry: In 1:51 he, rather than the temple or high priest, is the nexus between heaven and earth because “the angels of God [are] ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” In 2:19-21 he declares his body the true temple. In 4:21-23 he tells the Samaritan woman the physical temple will soon be unnecessary.

When he attends the festival of Tabernacles (Jn 7:2ff), in 7:37-39 he himself becomes the living water which is associated both with the festival reminder of Moses producing water from the rock (Ex 17:1-7; Nu 20:8-13) and the temple promise (Zec 14:8; Eze 47:1-11). In 8:12 he calls himself “the light of the world,” which reflects the festival ceremony (Sukkah 5:1). In the “I am” debate in Jn 8:13-59 “Jesus was appropriating to himself . . . the whole essence of the Temple as being the dwelling-place of the divine Name” (P. W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 168).

In Jn 10 Christ comes to the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, which celebrates the Maccabean victory in reclaiming the temple and re-consecrating the altar and temple. There Jesus does not enter the temple, but comes only to Solomon’s portico (10:23; cp. Jo 11:56). He declares himself to be the one “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world” (10:36). In 12:41 while referring to Isa 6:5 Christ becomes the Shekinah glory of the temple. Walker (172-73) argues that the upper room episode (Jn 13-17) reflects a “Temple-experience” beginning with foot-washing as an initiation ritual (Jn 13:3ff) and ending with the “high-priestly prayer” (Jn 17). Thus, it appears “John’s over-riding message is that the Temple has been replaced by Jesus” (Walker, 170).

[image error]

Keys to the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)

Provides the necessary keys for opening Revelation to a deeper and clearer understanding.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

On and on I could go. In fact, in all the Gospels “there was no denial of its previous theological status, but that status was now appropriated by Jesus” (Walker, 164). As Brown (The Gospel of John, 1:122) observes: The Gospel of “John belongs to that branch of NT writing (also Hebrews; Stephen’s sermon in Acts vii 47-48) that was strongly anti-Temple.” He even notes that this may explain why he is called a “Samaritan” in Jn 8:48, in that they reject the Jerusalem temple.

By Jesus’ appropriating the temple’s status, it is rendered unnecessary. But at the same time, its corrupted employment by the Jews required its destruction, not simply the removal of its status, allowing it to remain as an empty shell. And its destruction is a key issue in the NT revelation. In the next few articles I will be considering this matter. Stay tuned!

Notes

1. The writer of Hebrews critiques the temple in terms of the transitory tabernacle. He does this because the old covenant and all of ritual is “becoming obsolete and growing old” and “is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13). God is about ready to shake “created things, in order that those things which cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb 12:27). The “created things” are the physical implements of the temple (Heb 9:11, 24).

Commentary on Matthew 21–25 Notice[image error]

I am currently raising funds to engage research and writing on a commentary on Matthew 21–25, which contains the Olivet Discourse. This commentary will provide a Composition Critical approach to this textual unit in Matthew. In doing thus, it will show why Matthew presents Jesus’ Olivet Discourse as he does, in a way that differs in several respects from Mark and Luke. This commentary will demonstrate that the Olivet Discourse deals with both the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the Second Advent (which is anticipated by AD 70). This is important for presenting Christ as more than just a Jewish sage concerned for one nation.

If you would like to support this, please see my GoodBirth Ministries website, where you can give a tax deductible gift and receive a free occasional newsletter updating donors on my research. Thanks for your help! Click: GoodBirth Ministries.