Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 78

ISRAEL’S NT FAILURE

[image error]PMW 2018-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As John writes the Book of Revelation, Israel has been a part of the Roman regime for almost a century. As such she enjoyed special leagues of “friendship and mutual alliance” which began with Julius Caesar (Jos. Ant. 14:10:1 §185). Her love for Caesar was so great that after he was murdered, Jews wept for many nights at the site of his cremation (Suetonius, Jul. 84:5). Josephus, a priestly member of the Jewish aristocracy, praises Julius and records many of the treaties with the Jews which were established by Caesar and later Roman authorities (Ant. 14:10:2-25 §190-267). He then declares: “there are many such decrees of the senate and imperators of the Romans and those different from these before us” (Ant. 14:10:26).

Israel engages these alignments despite her OT prophets condemning unholy alliances as harlotry (e.g., Hos 7:11). As we read in Rev 13, the exercise of the Land beast’s authority is “in his [the Roman emperor’s] presence” (13:1a). Later in Rev 17 we see Israel’s alliance symbolized by a harlot engaged in a drunken sexual orgy with the sea beast.

The NT repeatedly charges the religious rulers of Israel with rejecting Jesus the Messiah (Mk 8:31; Lk 19:47; 22:52, 54, 66; 23:10; 24:20; Ac 4:8-11; 13:27). As he hangs in agony on the cross “even the rulers were sneering at Him” (Lk 23:35). They do this despite their own Scriptures pointing to him (Mt 13:15-17; Lk 24:25-27; Jn 5:39-40-47). Christ marvels that even the rulers of Israel cannot understand spiritual things (Jn 3:1, 10) and are blind (Jn 9:39-41). They even charge him before Roman authorities with forbidding paying taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2), threatening mayhem against the temple (Mk 14:58), and promoting insurrection against Rome (Mk 15:2-4).

Christ often forewarns his disciples about the religious rulers’ nefarious designs against him. “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day” (Mt 16:21//). “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death” (Mt 20:18//). He foresees the Jerusalem leadership turning him over to the Roman authorities: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon” (Lk 18:31-32).

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

Though these are actual prophetic statements which Christ utters during his ministry, they are recorded in each gospel at a later date as an apologetic for Jesus and Christianity over against the Jewish leadership. As such they would doubtlessly be preached and taught in the church as the struggle with Judaism came to a head. “Full weight must be given to the witness of Mark 6:34 (Matt. 9:36) that in the eyes of early Christians the Jewish people were sheep without a shepherd until Jesus appeared to provide genuine spiritual leadership” (D. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 14).

In John’s Gospel we discover the point in time at which Israel legally becomes apostate: when she chooses Caesar over Christ during his criminal trial. The Jewish religious authorities (“chief priests and the officers,” Jn 19:6; cp. 18:13, 19, 22, 24) go to great lengths to employ Rome’s authority so that they might kill him: they “kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus” even bringing “many false witnesses” (Mt 27:59-60).

In fact, they were “accusing Him vehemently” (Lk 23:1-10, 13-20). The Roman procurator Pilate sees that he is clearly innocent so that he “made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’” (Jn 19:12; cp. Ac 17:7). This “friend [philos] of Caesar” statement reminds us of the Jewish leagues of “friendship” (philian) with Caesar (Ant. 14:10:1 §185). Philo mentions that the Jews are “friends to Caesar” (Embassy 36 §280). So then, “the ‘city of the great King,’ had denounced her rightful King” (Walker, 35). And that denunciation seals her doom (see Jesus’ warnings about his approaching betrayal and death, Mt 21:33-45; 22:2-14).

The chief priests vigorously denounce him before the Roman legal authority: “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Bruce observes: “No doubt they were honest in saying that Caesar was the only basileus they knew; their status and privileges depended on their collaboration with the imperial power” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 365). They even complain to the procurator that Jesus was “misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar” (Lk 23:2). This was not the first time they had rejected God as their king (1Sa 8:5-8, 19-20; 12:12).

[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

As William Milligan (The Book of Revelation, 231) elegantly explains the situation in Jn 19:12-15: “They Caesar’s friends! They attach value to honours bestowed by Caesar! O vile hypocrisy! O dark extremity of hate! Judaism at the feet of Caesar!” Alfred Edersheim states that “with this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representative, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2:581). Marvin Taylor ties this in with Rev 13: “They are entirely infidel, throwing off all allegiance to any but Caesar, and cry that they have no other king. It is purely of the Jews, the whole transaction . . . . This is man’s religion, and it will, in the end, enthrone ‘the Willful One’ and bow to his image (Rev. 13).”

Finally in her assertion of Roman judicial authority that Israel stumbles in her transgression (Ro 11:11-12) leading to her rejection (11:15). It is in the presence of Pilate that she cries out for her own judgment: “And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” (Mt 27:25; cp. Ac 5:28). Operatives of the first beast drove the nails in his hands at the second beast’s insistence (Ac 2:23; 3:13-14); and the dragon is behind it all (Jn 13:2, 27; cp. Col 2:15; Rev 12:4b). Israel’s putting Christ to death is the central theme of John’s drama (1:7) and thus the slaughtered Lamb becomes its leading figure (5:6-13; 13:8). With her glorious heritage and privileges (Ro 3:1-2; 9:1-5) she should have known better than the Gentiles (Lk 23:34; Ac 17:30; Ep 4:17-18).

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.

REV 1:10 AS THE LORD’S DAY (3)

[image error]PMW 2018-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third and final installment of a brief study on Rev 1:10. In this series I have been arguing that John’s “Lord’s day” is a reference to the eschatological “Day of the Lord” which crashes down on Jerusalem in AD 70. For context see the two preceding articles.

Third, John’s phrase is functionally equivalent to the more common one. Though Bauckham rejects this interpretation, according to Aune he “concludes that kuriakos is virtually synonymous with (tou) kuriou.” Thus, kuriakos can, in fact, be a synonym for the more common expression of the day of the Lord. Conceivably, John could simply be rephrasing the eschatological designate by using an adjective instead of noun in the genitive.

Thus, with Terry we must ask: “What remarkable difference is there between hemera kuriou and kuriake hemera?” The only other use of kuriakos in the NT refers to the “Lord’s supper” (kuriakon deipnon). This simply defines the sacramental supper as especially belonging to the Lord. This is exactly the significance of the judgmental “Lord’s day” in Rev for it signifies “the wrath of the Lamb” (6:16) and even “the great day of their wrath (6:17), i.e., God and the Lamb’s.

In the OT that judgment day especially belongs to God as a special day designated for his vengeance (Isa 13:9, 11–13; Eze 30:3, 8, 10, 12–16, 19; Zep 1:7–9, 14, 17). Later Origen (John 10:20) remarks on John 2:20 that “the whole house of Israel shall be raised up in the great Lord’s [day]” (Gk: pas oikos Israel en te megale kuriake egethesetai). This surely means the day of the Lord, and not Sunday.

[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

A similar grammatical problem appears in Rev: this one regards the phrase “like to a son of man” in 1:13. Some commentators, such as Swete and Beasley-Murray, take the phrase “like to a son of man” in v 13 as not equivalent to Christ’s self-designation in the Gospels as “the Son of the Man.” This argument rests largely on the structural differences between the phrases: 1:13 leaves out the definite articles, which are found in the Gospels. (Surprisingly, Beasley-Murray contradicts himself by speaking of the same phrase in 14:14 as “the Son of man.”) Yet others, such as Charles and Hendriksen, identify the phrases. Charles even boldly states that the Apocalyptic statement here is “the exact equivalent” of that in the Gospels. Consequently, it would seem that identifying slightly different phrasing regarding the “Lord’s day” / “day of the Lord” would be tolerable here at 1:10, as well.

Fourth, in stating his Lord’s day experience he mentions the voice “as a trumpet (hōs salpiggos) (1:10b). Osborne observes regarding the trumpet that “in almost every NT occurrence it has eschatological significance as a harbinger of the day of the Lord” (e.g., Mt 24:31; 1Co 15:52; 1Th 4:16). We should note the OT backdrop in Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1–2 (cp. Jer 4:5, 9; Hos 5:8; Zep 1:14–16; Zec 9:12–14). This association arises from the paradigmatic theophany at Sinai (Ex 19:16, 19–20) which shows the power of God’s coming and presence on earth. In Ex 19 “the Advent of Yahweh’s Presence at Sinai is the formative event of OT faith” (WBC) which is an “indescribable experience of the coming of Yahweh” (WBC). Hence, there we read of “the sounding of a trumpet to signal Yahweh’s arrival” (WBC); it “was, as it were, the herald’s call, announcing to the people the appearance of the Lord” (Keil and Delitzsch). Thus, later “day of the Lord” references pick up this trumpet sound; and in 1:10 John associates the trumpet with his “Lord’s day.”

[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

Fifth, we discover important parallels between John’s experience in 1:10 and an identical one in 4:2 that strengthens the day of the Lord view. In both experiences John states egenomen en pneumati (“I became in Spirit”), hears a trumpet (1:10; 4:1), sees a member of the Godhead (1:12–18; 4:2–11), and in both contexts learns that God is the one “who was and who is and who is to come” (1:8; 4:8). Then in 1:19 he is directed to write about the things “which shall take place after these things,” while in 4:1 the trumpet voice informs him that “I will show you what must take place after these things.” Now whereas John becomes in the Spirit on the “Lord’s day” (i.e., “the day of the Lord”) in 1:10, in the vision following his transport into heaven at 4:1–2 he sees the slain Lamb (5:6) who takes the seven-sealed scroll (5:7) and opens it (6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12) culminating in “the great day of their wrath” (6:17), i.e., the wrath of “Him who sits on the throne, and the from the wrath of the Lamb” (6:16). Both “in Spirit” visions mention the day of the Lord — if we interpret the phrase thus in 1:10.

Sixth, it is highly unlikely that John received all of the visions in Rev on one day, Sunday. There are too many and they are too vigorous. Again, attached to his statement is the command to write what he sees in a book (1:10b), which is the book of Rev — the whole book of Rev (1:2). In response to this command he not only records the immediately following vision, but the seven letters (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 12, 14), and other visions (10:4; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5). In fact, the command in 1:19 clearly covers the entire work, not just this vision.

[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

Thus, strong evidence supports the eschatological “day of the Lord” interpretation in 1:10. Of course, as we know from the OT there are many “day” of the Lord judgments, each of which is eschatological in orientation (i.e., they reflect the final day of the Lord that concludes history). For instance, in Isa 13 we see OT Babylon (13:1, 19) being threatened by a “day of the Lord” (13:6, 9, 13). This day comes about by the hands of the Medes (13:17) as they devour by the sword (13:15). This is not referring to the final-final eschatological day of the Lord. John’s day of the Lord also is not final, focusing instead upon the AD 70 judgment against the first Jews and their temple.

Commentary on Matthew 21–25 Notice

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.

REV 1:10 AS THE LORD’S DAY (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part study of Rev. 1:10. I am continuing a presentation and defense of the view that John’s “Lord’s day” in Rev 1:10 is referring to “the Day of the Lord.” If this is so, it fits perfectly with the redemptive-historical preterist understanding of Revelation as a drama presenting Christ’s judgment-coming against Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

I will pick up where I left off in the last article. There I presented and briefly rebutted the argument for Rev 1:10 pointing to the Lord’s Day (the weekly day of worship). Now we are ready to look at the positive evidence for it picturing the Day of the Lord, i.e., AD 70.

So then, what evidence supports te kuriake hemera (“the Lord’s day”) as signifying an eschatological “day of the Lord”? I will present six arguments supporting this view.

First, the tone of this judgment-oriented book well suits the concept. In both the OT and NT the day of the Lord is a day of judgment, wrath, destruction, and doom (Isa 13:6, 9; Eze 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Am 5:18–20; Zep 1:14; Mal 4:5). It may even be called “the day of the wrath of the Lord” (Eze 7:19). Thus, it is appropriate that in his opening vision we hear of this dreaded day by way of anticipation. Indeed, attached to this statement regarding “the Lord’s day” is the trumpet voice commanding John to “write in a book what you see” (1:10b–11), which includes “all that he saw” (1:2). This means that the whole of Rev is impacted by this experience, not just the one vision following (1:12–20). And the remainder of Rev certainly presents numerous eschatological judgments.

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

By Robert Hillegonds

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

Second, in fact, the day of the Lord expressly appears in Rev. In 6:17 terrified men cower before the one who sits on the throne and before the Lamb, crying out: “the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”(6:17). (This fear of standing before the Lord also fits the eschatological day; cf. Eze 13:5; Joel 2:11; Mal 3:2). In 16:14 demons gather the world’s kings “for the war of the great day of God.” Commentators agree that these two passages speak of that eschatological day of the Lord (e.g., Beale; Smalley Osborne).

Interestingly, neither of these obvious references to the day of the Lord uses the common phraseology, hemera kuriou (see: Isa 13:6, 9; Eze 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 31; Am 5:18; Ob 1:15; Zep 1:14; Mal 4:5; Ac 2:20; 1Th 5:2; 2Pe 3:10; cp. hemera tou kuriou, Am 5:20; Zep 1:7; 1Co 5:5; 2Th 2:2). So why may John not use different terminology in 1:10?

In fact, in Scripture the “day of the Lord” appears under a wide variety of expressions other than this leading phrasing. It is called: “the day of His burning anger” (Isa 13:13; cp. Lam 2:1; Zep 2:2, 3), “a day of panic” (Isa 22:5), “that day” (Isa 22:25; 24:21; 27:1; Jer 4:9; 30:8; Hos 2:21; Am 8:9; Ob 8; Mic 5:10; Zec 14:13), “a day of vengeance” (Isa 34:8; 61:2; Jer 46:10), “the day that is coming” (Jer 47:4), “the day of the wrath of the Lord” (Eze 7:19), “the day” (Eze 30:2, 3), “a unique day” (Zec 14:7), “the great and terrible day of the Lord” (Mal 4:5), and so forth.

Even the NT itself refers to it by different expressions, sometimes in the statements or writings by the same person: “his day” (Lk 17:24), “the day” (Lk 17:30; Ro 13:12), “that day” (Lk 10:12; 17:31; 21:34), “the great and glorious day of the Lord” (Ac 2:20), “the day of wrath and revelation” (Ro 2:5), “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Co 1:8), “the day of our Lord Jesus” (2Co 1:14), “the day of Jesus Christ” (Php 1:6), “the day of Christ” (Php 1:10), “the great day” (Jude 6), and so forth.

In Ac 2 Peter quotes Joel 2:31, applying “the day of the Lord” (hemeran kuriou ten megalen) in terms perfectly compatible with the fuller expressions in Rev. Peter’s “day of the Lord” upon Jerusalem points to Rev’s day: “I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the lord shall come” (Ac 2:19–20). Rev bursts with such destruction imagery: “blood,” “fire,” and “smoke,” as well as a darkened sun (6:12; 8:12; 9:2), and a bloody moon (6:12). Interestingly, Peter points to the tongues-speaking (Ac 2:16, cp. vv 2–15) of Pentecost as a sign of the approaching “day of the Lord” (Ac 2:16–17, 20–21). As such, tongues were a sign to non-believing Jews regarding the day of the Lord against them in the first century (cp. 1Co 14:22; cp. Dt 28:49; Isa. 28:11; 33:19; Jer. 5:15).

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

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.

REV 1:10 AS THE LORD’S DAY (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Rev. 1:10 is a verse that I believe widely misinterpreted and misapplied in contemporary discussion. This verse reads: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet.” Contrary to popular opinion, I believe that John is speaking of “the Day of the Lord,” rather than “the Lord’s Day” (Sunday, the Christian day of worship). In this and the two following posts, I will engage the question.

John tells us here that he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s day” (1:10a). Most commentators see the Greek phrase kuriake hemera (“Lord’s day”) as referring to when John received his vision, i.e., on the first day of the week, the Christian day of worship. As the argument goes, quite early in Christian history the word kuriake (“Lord’s”) was used to refer to Sunday (e.g., Did. 14:1; Ignatius, Mag. 9:1; Gosp. Pet. 12:50; Clem. Alex., Strom. 17:12). And we see it with hemera (“day”) in Origen (Cel. 8:22) and Dionysius (cited in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4:23:8).

But not all agree that this was John’s intent. Some commentators (a minority) hold that it refers to an eschatological day of the Lord. Though disagreeing, EDNT (2:331) notes that it is “possibly reminiscent of the OT ‘day of the Lord’ (Joel 2:31 LXX).” Those suggesting that the phrase indicates an eschatological “day of the Lord” include: Milton Terry, F. J. A. Hort, William Milligan, John F. Walvoord, Samuele Bacchiocchi, and Ranko Stefanovic. Others holding this position include: Johann J. Wetstein, C. F. J. Zullig, A. G. Maitland, Vander Honert G. B. Winer, Adolf Deissman, J. B. Lightfoot, E. W. Bullinger, and Walter Scott. Though G. K. Beale calls “attractive,” he ultimately rejects it.

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

The main arguments against kuriake hemera referring to the “day of the Lord” and therefore supporting its application to Sunday (or sometimes: Easter) are basically three: (1) Lexically, in Scripture the day of the Lord is never referred to by the adjective kuriake. (2) Contextually, this statement introduces a vision of the Son of Man walking among the churches, which does not suggest a judgmental day of the Lord. (3) Historically, the term kuriake absolutely and with the noun hemeras are applied later by the Church Fathers to the Christian day of worship.

Nevertheless, I believe John is referring to the “day of the Lord.” I will briefly respond to the arguments brought against this view first, then I will cite the positive evidence supporting it.

First, regarding the fact that Scripture never refers to the day of the Lord by using kuriake, I would point out that this argument cuts both ways: neither does it use the term for the Christian day of worship. In the NT the day of worship is called simply “the first day of the week” (Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:2), never “the Lord’s day.” Even John in his Gospel refers to the day of Jesus’ resurrection (which becomes for that reason, the day of Christian worship) as “the first day of the week” (Jn 20:1, 19).

Second, though the reference introduces the vision of Christ walking among the candlesticks, the day of the Lord interpretation is contextually suitable for several reasons: (1) It follows just three verses after a statement regarding Christ’s judgment-coming on the clouds (1:7), which is most definitely an image of the day of the Lord (cf. Eze 30:3; Joel 2:2; Zep 1:15).

(2) In 1:8 God declares that he is the one “who is and who was and who is to come.” Smalley recognizes a relationship between the erchetai in 1:7 and erchomenos in 1:8, observing that “the advent theme of verse 7, centered in the returning Christ, is picked up here once again, and set within the total context of the judgement and salvation brought by the living Godhead.”

[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

(3) In the immediately preceding verse John mentions the “tribulation” which the churches are already enduring and which call for “patience” (1:9). Thus, here in his introductory vision he is encouraging their patience by informing them that though the divine judgments in Rev will “soon take place” (1:1) because “the time is near” (1:3), Christ is among them as their protector as well as their judge. Therefore, they must weather the coming storms by means of his holy presence (2:2–5; 14–16, 19–25; 3:2–4, 11, 15–16, 19) and they can weather the storms because of his powerful presence (2:10, 26–28; 3:5, 8–10, 20–21).

(4) This vision of Christ expressly relates to Christ’s AD 70 judgment-coming for John takes aspects of the vision and applies them to the churches who also are enduring the wrath of “the Jews” (2:9; 3:9) who were the ones who “pierced” him (1:7). The Christ of the vision expressly informs one church (3:7 cp. 1:18b; cf. Beale 283) that he will make the Jews “come and bow down at your feet, and to know that I have loved you” (3:9b).

Third, though the term kuriake was later applied to the Christian day of worship, it never is in Scripture. Almost certainly this language was picked up by the Church fathers not only as appropriate for that day, but as assumed to be referring to it. If we could find this language in the NT as clearly applying to Sunday, this would provide insurmountable evidence. But we do not — and “there is no certainty that the name was generally received from the first” (Hort). Furthermore, Bacchiocchi summarizes an extensive argument showing that one of the leading “evidences” for this view not only does not even qualify the noun hemera (day) when it reads kata kuriaken de kuriou, but it may actually be speaking not of “the time but the manner of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.”

To be continued.

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.

SAME-SEX ATTRACTION CAN CHANGE

[image error]PMW 2018-038 by Jeremiah Keenan (The Federalist)

Gentry note: This is an excellent article on the “instability” of sexual orientation. In that the moral challenge of the homosexual movement is such an enormous issue, it serves the postmillennialist well to be up on the issues. Postmillennialism believes that righteousness shall cover the earth as the waters cover the seadbed. Thus, we believe that eventually homosexuals will be converted to a righteous lifestyle through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This article by Jeremiah Keenan should be helpful to my readers.

While You Probably Think Same-Sex Attraction Is Fixed, Researchers Don’t

Tucker Carlson asked Jordan Peterson last week whether his views on sex and gender were rare in academia. “You can’t be one of many people who has these views where you live and work,” Carlson said.

Carlson was inviting Peterson to complain about leftist homogeneity in the ivory tower, but as usual Peterson refused to take the bait. “I think they’re more common than you think,” he said. “My views on gender, for example, and sex – they’re shared widely among people in the psychometric personality community…. This isn’t contentious; the only people it’s contentious around are gender ideologues. They’ve already lost the scientific battle, and so they’ve taken it to the legislative front to enforce their views.”

Of course, in Canada, where Peterson lives, the most famous example of this is probably bill C16, a law that compels people to verbally support the idea that men can turn into women and vice versa. But Peterson’s comment has general applicability to issues of gender and sexual orientation.

Take, for instance, what is probably still the most prominent accomplishment of the LGBT movement in the United States: the redefinition of marriage in Obergefell v Hodges. In this decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that the plaintiffs’ homosexual “sexual orientation” could not change. Homosexuality was, to borrow Kennedy’s words, “their immutable nature.” As a result, practicing homosexuals were only capable of marrying members of their own sex.

The Evidence Says Same-Sex Attraction Frequently Changes

While many doubt the truth of Kennedy’s statement, almost everyone I meet, liberal or conservative, tends to assume, like Carlson, that the majority of expert opinion somehow backs Kennedy’s claim. Indeed, Kennedy did cite a partisan brief put together by politically active members of the American Psychological Association.

But although this brief confidently combated “stereotype-based rationales that the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prohibit” and was at pains to point out that “most” of the studies and literature reviews it cited had been published in “reputable, peer-reviewed academic journals,” it did not dare to assert that sexual orientation was immutable.

[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

The reason was very simple. There is not only no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is immutable, there is conclusive scientific evidence that most people who experience exclusive same-sex attraction end up developing an interest in the opposite sex over time.

This is so well established by now that scholars are busy publishing methods to measure frequency of sexual orientation change in massive longitudinal studies of youth and young adults. (I.e., How many times in nine years can we expect a homosexual sexual orientation to change? Is the change associated with lifestyle habits? Who changes more frequently: males or females?)

That basic fact was already settled science when Obergefell came before the Supreme Court. Half a dozen rigorous studies could be cited from the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the most noteworthy probably remains a Cornell-led study published in 2007.

A 1 Percent Chance of Consistent Same-Sex Attraction

In this study, Dr. Rich Savin-Williams examined a representative sample of more than 12,000 American youth, following each from the age of 16 to 22. Rather than rely on an individual’s reconstruction of his or her past based on current identity, researchers met with subjects three times throughout the six-year period. Each time, they asked individuals (via a computer, to protect privacy) whether they had had a romantic attraction to a member of the opposite or same sex since their last interview.

For instance, 17-year-old males were asked if, in the past year, they had had a romantic attraction to another male or female. About 1.5 percent reported only having a romantic attraction to other males. Five years later, when that 1.5 percent were asked about their romantic attractions since last interview, the overwhelming majority (70 percent) reported a 180-degree flip in their sexual orientation—they only had romantic feelings for women.

Similarly, among females, about 40 percent switched from exclusive same-sex attraction to exclusive opposite-sex attraction. Most of the rest (45 percent of the total) reported they had feelings for both men and women. Only 1 percent of women who, at 17, reported a full year of exclusive same-sex attraction reported a similar experience in the five years that followed.

Transforming Homosexuality[image error]

What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change

by Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Leftist judges have been bamboozled into basing their legal analysis on the assumption that if an 18-year-old woman has exclusive same-sex attraction, some form of same-sex commitment is her only path to “marriage” because her condition is “immutable.” But, on expert evidence, her condition has only a 1 percent chance of lasting five years!

Instability of Sexual Orientation Persists

Now, one might argue that this extraordinary instability of sexual orientation is only true for young people. This is a weak objection, considering that court decisions must be understood to apply to people at least as young as 18. Besides, an immutable characteristic does not fluctuate wildly in early adulthood (“Oh, at 17 I was white; by the time I was 22, definitely black, now quite settled into brown…”). . . .

To read the remainder of the article: click

IS WINE FORBIDDEN IN LEVITICUS 10?

[image error]PMW 2018-037 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the recurring images of the postmillennial advance of the kingdom in Scripture is of the joy exhibited by use of wine. We see this in Isaiah 25:6; 55:1; Joel 2:19; 2:24; 3:18; Amos 9:13; and Zechariah 10:7.

Unfortunately, there are Christians who oppose any consumption of alcohol (even in moderation) and who therefore miss the beauty of this image. And they have several Scriptures they bring to the debate. One frequently cited passage in Leviticus 10:8–11:

The LORD then spoke to Aaron, saying, “Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you come into the tent of meeting, so that you may not die — it is a perpetual statute throughout your generations — and so as to make a distinction between the holy and profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and so as to teach the sons of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them through Moses.”

Original function

This passage clearly institutes as a “perpetual statute” that members of the Aaronic priesthood should not drink alcoholic beverages when they enter the tabernacle. Nevertheless, against those attempting to use this passage in the present debate, we must note two important qualifications.

(1) This prohibition applies only to the priest in the priesthood (Aaron and his sons). And (2) it only forbids the use of alcoholic beverages when actually engaging in the priestly function.

Josephus notes that “as for the priests, [Moses] prescribed to them a double degree of purity” (Ant. 3:12:1). This special purity includes the following: “nor are they permitted to drink wine so long as they wear those garments” (Ant. 3:12:2). The priests only wore their “sacerdotal garments” (Ant. 3:12:2) while ministering: “when he enters the holy place” (Exo. 28:2-4, 29), “when he goes in before the Lord” (Exo. 28:30), “when he ministers” (Exo. 28:35), “when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place” (Exo. 28:43).

[image error]

God Gave Wine (by Ken Gentry)

A biblical defense of moderate alcohol consumption. Considers all key biblical passages and engages the leading objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Apparently God provides this legislation as a safety valve for the priesthood, to prevent any accidental profanation of the tabernacle service. The context seems to demand such an interpretation, for in Leviticus 10:1 we read: “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.”

Verses 2 and 3 give the result of such profaning of the priestly function, and God’s reason for such severe punishment:

And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the LORD spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’” So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.

Nadab and Abihu died because they offered things on the altar God did not command. Consequently, the priest must be extremely careful that he follow God’s stipulations in the holy service. Were the priest allowed to drink just before or during a priestly service, his mind might not carefully follow God’s order of service (cp. Hos 4:11).

Thus, this passage has nothing to do with us today, since we are not of the Aaronic priesthood, which has passed away (cf. Hebrews 9 and 10).

Contemporary employment

Despite these observations some argue that this prohibition remains incumbent upon New Testament era believers because we are “kings and priests” (cf. e.g., 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). I will cite the arguments of two representatives of this strained but widespread position. One is prohibitionist Stephen Reynolds; the other is an abstentionist, Gleason L. Archer; both are evangelical scholars of great knowledge. In Reynolds’s case the focus is not on the present passage, but on Proverbs 31:4-5, which forbids kings to drink. The manner and assumptions of the arguments of both men are the same, however.

Referring to Revelation 1:6 (which teaches that believers are “kings and priests”), Stephen Reynolds states: “It follows, if we accept this reading [i.e., the Textus Receptus], that all Bible believers must be abstainers, since what was required of kings in the Old Testament is required of kings under the New.” In the next paragraph he adds: “If ancient kings were warned not to drink intoxicants lest they forget the law, modern believers who wish to keep God’s law in their heart, should accept this prohibition as binding on themselves.” [1]

In a similar vein, and with an identical spiritual non sequitur, Archer informs us that “this has implications for the New Testament priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9) and suggests that they may be seriously handicapped in carrying on the work of soulwinning if they personally indulge in the use of alcohol.” [2]

[image error]God Gave Wine Lectures

By Ken Gentry

Professionally-produced, four-part doculecture series, engages a hotly-debated issue within the Christian church: the question of the Christian and alcoholic beverages. Presents and defends the case for a moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians.

For more biblical studies, see: KennethGentry.com

Inappropriate method

This methodology is inappropriate due to a number of problems. A few brief observations will illustrate the spurious nature of such an application of Scripture:

First, if such methodology were proper, both of these provisions (relating to both priests and kings) would witness against our High Priest and King of kings, Jesus Christ. As I show in the preceding chapter, Jesus does partake of wine. This evidence alone exposes the argument’s reductio ad absurdum.

Second, even in the Old Testament this spiritual truth (that believers are kings and priests) is true. The Old Testament background for both 1 Peter 2:5, 9 and Revelation 1:6 is Exodus 19:6, which reads: “You shall be a kingdom of priests” (italics added). Yet the Old Testament clearly permits Israelites to manufacture, sell, and drink wine.

Third, both the priestly and kingly prohibitions have implied limitations: the prohibition is in effect during the actual exercise of official powers. Leviticus 10:9 particularly commands: “Do not drink wine or strong drink . . . when you come into the tent of meeting.” A similar limitation is strongly implied in the rationale for the prohibition upon kings in Proverbs 31:5: “Lest they drink and forget what is decreed, and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.” The perversion of rights could only come about with official sanction, i.e., while acting magisterially or judicially. God prohibits wine-drinking in these limited contexts in order to prevent the frequent corruption of justice brought about by kings who function magisterially while intoxicate (e.g., Isa. 28:7). Biblical law does not forbid wine to kings permanently and universally (cf. Gen. 14:18-20).

The most we can say of such an argument is that while in the process of carrying on the work of soul-winning, the believer as a priest to God should not drink. Or while elders are judicially pursuing church discipline, they are acting as kings and should not imbibe.

Fourth, if we allow such a hermeneutic, what sense could we make of Paul’s requirements for the eldership and diaconate? Earlier we saw how the prerequisites specifically exclude only those “addicted to much wine” (1 Tim. 3:8) and those “addicted to wine” (v. 3). Furthermore, how could we understand Paul’s “be not drunk with wine”? Why did he not say, “Do not drink wine”?

Conclusion

Leviticus 10 does not contain a prohibition of moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians. Thus, the biblical image of Christ’s kingdom being represented by wine is not a problem.

Notes

[1] Reynolds, Alcohol and the Bible, 34. 78. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 148.

[2] Archer, Encyclopedia, 148. See also: Jerry G. Dunn, The Christian in a Drinking Society (Lincoln, Neb.: Back to the Bible, 1974), 11-12.

[image error]

THE SONS OF GOD IN GENESIS 6 (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article, I presented part 1 of a study on the sons of God in Genesis 6. This is an intriguing and much debated portion of Scripture. In the previous article I briefly presented and critiqued the angel view regarding the “sons of God” thee. In this article I will present the view that I believe to be the proper one.

The backdrop for Genesis 6

The proper interpretation sees in this episode the inter-marrying of the godly line of Seth with unbelievers, particularly represented by the depraved line of Cain. This fits perfectly with the contextual flow of Genesis to this point. Genesis is structured by toledoths (“genealogies”) showing its interest in genealogical progress (see note at Gen. 2:4). In fact, the two genealogies surrounding Gen. 6 are found in Gen. 5 and Gen. 10–11. They are specifically designed to link Adam to Noah, then Noah to Abram whose genealogical offspring will dominate Genesis from ch. 12 to 50.

The Cainite line begins with Cain whom God rejects due to his sinful attitude (Gen. 4:5). He murders his brother (Gen. 4:8), lies to God (Gen. 4:9), then is “cursed from the ground” (Gen. 4:11), and finally “went out from the presence of the LORD” (Gen. 4:16). This line is traced to and concludes with Lamech who boasts of murdering a man (Gen. 4:23–24).

[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

After introducing Cain’s evil line the context quickly shifts to Seth’s line, which is when “men begin to call upon the name of the LORD” (Gen. 4:25–26). Seth’s godly line (Gen. 5:3ff) not only flows from worshipful men (Gen. 4:25) but includes long-lived men (cp. Gen. 5:5, 8, 11), whereas the ages of Cain’s descendants are not mentioned. Among these godly men we find not only Seth and Enosh who publically worship God (Gen. 5:6–9), but also Enoch who “walked with God” and was taken into heaven (Gen. 5:22, 24) and Noah (Gen. 5:29) who “found favor in the eyes of the LORD” (Gen. 6:8).

Genesis is tracing the redemptive line that leads to Abram (Gen. 11:2) from whom will come the Savior of the world Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:1; Acts 3:20–26; Gal. 3:16; Heb. 2:14–16; cp. John 8:56). The Genesis narrative shows the difficulties facing the seed-line, with Abraham (Gen. 17:17–19; 21:5), Isaac (Gen. 24:1–4; 25:12), and Jacob (Gen. 28:1–2; 29:21–25; 30:1) having trouble continuing it.

The interpretation of Genesis 6

Now in Gen. 6 the godly line of Seth (“the sons of God”) begins intermarrying with the godless Cainites. Those women are simply deemed “daughters of men” without any spiritual or ethical traits mentioned. The “sons of God” here speaks of God’s people, as does the concept in Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Psa. 73:15; and Hos. 1:10 (the word “sons” [ben] occur in the Hebrew of these verses).

Why Do We Baptize Our Children? (DVD)[image error]

By Richard Pratt

This lesson promotes mutual understanding and respect among believers regarding infant baptism, even as they come to different conclusions. The simple but in-depth presentation provides practical perspectives for new believers and mature believers alike.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Previously in Seth’s line we see “sons and daughters” appearing (Gen. 5:4, 17, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26). But just as Eve was tempted to take the forbidden fruit in Eden partly because it “was a delight to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6), so here the Sethites begin choosing women simply because they were “beautiful.” They took “whomever they chose” on this external basis (Gen. 6:2). The redemptive line is being corrupted; its final issue hangs in the balance. Ultimately only Noah and his family will remain in the godly seed line, leading God to destroy the world (Gen. 6:5–8, 13–18; 9:1; cp. Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5).

In Scripture God wants his people to avoid marrying outside the faith community (Gen. 27:46; 28:1ff; Exo. 34:16; Deut. 7:3–6; Josh. 23:12; 2 Cor. 6:14). This is so serious an obligation that it leads Ezra to command the men of Israel to divorce their non-Jewish wives when they return from exile to the land (Ezra 9:2; 10:3, 10–19).

[image error]

THE SONS OF GOD IN GENESIS 6 (1)

[image error]PMW 2018-035 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The episode occurring in Gen. 6:1–4 is quite difficult to interpret and has been the subject of much debate. Though there are several interpretations of this passage, historically two views have dominated the debate: (1) the angelic offspring view and (2) the human seed-line view.

Though the seed-line view is the traditional Christian understanding, perhaps the oldest view in extra-biblical antiquity is the angel-human interpretation. It is found as far back as 200 B.C. in the non-biblical book of 1 Enoch (6:11–7:6) as well as in the first-century book by Josephus called Antiquities (1:3:1). This view holds that fallen angels came down to earth and engaged in sexual relations with women who then bore giants as their offspring.

The seed-line view holds that the godly line of Seth (Gen. 4:25) that has been the focus of Genesis since Gen. 5:3 is beginning to intermarry with unbelieving women (“whomever they chose” without reference to their faith. These women would be largely represented by the Cainite line (Gen. 4:17ff). This appears to be the proper interpretation due to its fitting the context and avoiding bizarre results.

[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

The angel view presented

The angel interpretation is based on the following main lines of evidence:

(1) The “sons of God” is a reference to angels, as we can see in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Thus, this designation can easily apply to angels.

(2) The word nephilim (Gen. 6:4) signifies giants, which may be the case in Num. 13:33. This term, though debated, can fit this presentation in Genesis 6.

(3) Passages such as 1 Pet. 3:19–20; 2 Pet. 2:4; and Jude 6–7 support this interpretation. Advocates of the angel-view of the “sons of God,” find what they believe to be confirmation of their view in these three NT passages.

Thus, there is apparent biblical warrant for this interpretation. Nevertheless, the evidence for this angelic interpretation is unpersuasive for the following reasons.

The angel view evaluated

(1) The concept “sons of God” can certainly mean angels, but it can also refer to God’s people (Exo. 13:15; Jer. 3:19; Gal. 3:26; see further discussion below). Besides, Genesis has not mentioned angels to this point, so that their sudden appearance would be surprising. But in the final analysis, the beings in Gen. 6 could not be fallen angels and associates of Satan, for they would not be called “sons of God.”

[image error]Consider the Lilies

A Plea for Creational Theology

by T. M. Moore

Moore calls us to examine the biblical doctrine of general revelation from the perspective of what he calls creational theology. In this artful introduction to creational theology, Moore helps us develop the skills and disciplines for doing theology as we look upon and interact with the world around us.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) The word “Nephilim”(a rare term occurring only three times in Scripture) literally means “fallen ones” and can therefore apply to notorious sinners. Its verbal form (“fall”) occurs scores of times suggesting its ethical meaning.

(3) The New Testament passages do not mention any cohabitation of angels with women, and certainly not their marrying them. 1 Pet. 3:19 does not mention angels, but is referring to the evil men in Noah’s day. The other two New Testament passages refer back to the original fall of angels, not something that occurs later in Gen. 6.

(4) The fact of giants being mentioned in the context of the Nephilim does not help the argument. We see other giants in the Bible, such as the Emim (Deut. 2:10–11), the Zamzummim (Deut. 2:20–21), king Og of Bashan (Deut. 3:11), Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4–7), and more, yet no one claims that they were the offspring of angels.

The following additional problems arise for the angelic view:

(1) Jesus teaches that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25), though Gen. 6:2 speaks of these “sons of God” taking wives (cp. Gen. 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 31:50). Gen. 6 is not speaking of fornication, but of settled marriage. Only in this one difficult passage in Scripture do we have anything suggesting angels marrying humans.

(2) Angels are a different order of being in that they are spiritual beings (Heb. 1:14). When they assumed visible, tangible form they would do so only for a time and surely would not possess human DNA allowing for procreation while dwelling on the earth.

(3) In Gen. 6 God’s judgment is directed against men, not the alleged angels (Gen. 6:3, 5–6, 13).

Thus, it appears that the angel-food does not have a sure footing in Scripture. But what about the human seed-line view? I will deal with that in my next article.

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

THE JUDGMENT STRUCTURE OF REVELATION

[image error]PMW 2018-034 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

With the publisher’s notice that my commentary on Revelation due out this coming Summer, my thoughts return to John’s glorious drama. And with my current research for a commentary on Matthew 21–25, which will involve this passage’s structure and flow, my interest in outlining biblical narratives is re-kindled.

The Determination of Revelation’s Outline

Unfortunately, Revelation is an extremely difficult book to outline. As we might expect from both its cascading judgment visions and its climacteric spiral movement, analyzing its intricate structure is a difficult task that has tested the mettle of John’s most devoted students. Most would agree with Richard Bauckham that “the book of Revelation is an extraordinarily complex literary composition.” David Aune concurs: Revelation is “an elaborately designed and ingeniously crafted literary work.” Indeed, its structure is extremely complicated, quite fascinating – and vigorously debated.

Thus, as Grant Osborne observes: “outlines of Revelation vary perhaps more than any other book of the Bible.” E. S. Fiorenza laments that “one can almost find as many different outlines of the composition as there are scholars studying the book.” After my own several years of researching Rev, I disagree with Fiorenza and Collins: there seem to be more outlines than interpreters!

Aune (notes that “the problem of the literary analysis of Revelation, despite many proposals, remains a matter on which there is no general consensus among scholars.” F. J. Murphy comments that “even today, almost two thousand years after its writing, scholars continue to propose new analyses of Revelation’s structure, but there is still no general consensus on many aspects of its principle organization.”

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

Eugenio Corsini wisely notes that “the reason for these difficulties is obvious, as we do not have the slightest indication of how the original author wished to subdivide his work.” W. J. Harrington agrees: “Beyond some obvious indications (the septets, for instance) it is not possible to be sure of any structural intent of the author.”

David Barr highlights a likely problem in this regard: “Whereas our concern is to divide the book, John’s concern was to bind it together.”

The Development of Revelation’s Outline

In my commentary I employ only the most basic framework structured around John’s four “in Spirit” (en pneumati) experiences (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10), three of which are closely aligned with the visionary “come and see” commands (4:1; 17:1; 21:9). This structure highlights the simplest structural feature, presenting the material in four primary visions indicate “major transitions within the whole vision” (Bauckham).

This simple structuring of the book avoids the complexities of wrestling with highly debated framework arguments. Instead, it picks up on this distinctive phrasing that highlights John’s prophetic experience (1:10; 4:2) and Spirit-transport (17:3; 21:10). As M. C. Tenney notes this phrase is significant in that “each occurrence of this phrase locates the seer in a different place.” I select this very basic structuring because it reflects Rev’s drama-form (suggesting the four most important scene changes) and judicial character while avoiding unnecessary complexities and debatable assertions. Let me explain.

The first “in Spirit” section. As he traces the prophetic lawsuit motif in Revelation, Alan Bandy insightfully argues for the judicial implications of John’s “in Spirit” experiences. He points out that the first “in Spirit” section (1:9-3:22) shows John under judicial censure on Patmos to where Rome banishes him. While there Christ directs him to write Revelation and send it to the seven churches (1:11). In the following seven letter-oracles Christ will engage an investigative judgment of the churches.

We may discern this from both Christ’s visionary appearance and his oracles. He appears as the Son of Man with flaming (i.e., dross-burning, searching) eyes and a two-edged (i.e., penetrating) sword (1:14, 16; 2:18, 23; cp. Heb 4:12); then he criticizes and warns the churches (2:4, 5, 14, 16, 20, 24; 3:2-3, 17, 19). Christ’s judicial criticism is designed to show “all the churches” that “I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according your deeds” (2:23). Bandy observes that “the first vision corresponds to the covenant lawsuit speech designed to promote repentance and faithfulness.” Furthermore, I would add that his “in Spirit” experience proleptically involves him in the Day of the Lord judgment (see exposition at 1:10; cp. 6:17; 16:14).

[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

The second “in Spirit” section. The second “in Spirit” experience escorts John into heaven (4:1-2a) where he sees God’s throne and heavenly courtroom (4:2b-4). There we see the lightning and thunder (4:5) which signify the terrifying theophany from which the judgments flow out against God’s enemies (4:1-16:21) – with important interludes protecting God’s people (7:1-17; 10:1-11:19). While there in the Spirit John witnesses a session of the divine council (4:1-5:14).

The third and fourth “in Spirit” sections. The third (17:1-21:8) and fourth sections (21:9-22:5) have strong introductory parallels, establishing a clear relationship between them and a climax to the whole judicial procedure.

The third section has John “in Spirit” while an angel transports him into the wilderness where he will hear the harlot’s sentence and witness her judgment. The harlot is drunk on the blood of the saints (17:6; 18:24) and intoxicates the nations with her passion to destroy (18:3), so that she deserves a double payback (18:6). Her destruction is sure because “the Lord God who judges her is strong” (18:8, 20). Heaven will praise God’s judgments against her (19:1-3). Her judgment ultimately comes from Christ who appears as the divine warrior (19:11-19).

The fourth “in Spirit” section has one of the seven judgment angels carrying John to a great high mountain where he sees the vindication and reward of the saints (21:9-22:5). In their reward they inhabit the strong, well-protected heavenly Jerusalem come down to earth.

My Decision on Revelation’s Outline

Employing the preceding observations, and since virtually all commentators agree that Revelation has a prologue (1:1-8) and an epilogue (22:6-21), my basic outline will be:

Part I. Introduction (1:1-8)

Part II. In the Spirit on Patmos (1:9-3:22)

Part III. In the Spirit in Heaven (4:1-16:21)

Part IV. In the Spirit in the Wilderness (17:1-21:8)

Part V. In the Spirit on the Mountain (21:9-22:5)

Part VI. Conclusion (22:6-21)

This judicial structuring fits nicely with my understanding of Revelation as focusing on God’s divorce and Israel and his taking of a new bride, the universal Church of Jesus Christ.

GENTRY COMMENTARIES

[image error]PMW 2018-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Gentry Commentary on Revelation

I have just received notice from the publisher that my commentary on Revelation will be released this Summer. It’s title is: The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation. It will be around 1800 pages in two volumes.

I am excited that the long wait for it may be over. A day waiting for one’s book to be published is like a 1000 years. Only more so. I never thought I would interpret a 1000 years so literally!

But what does a used Revelation commentator do in his spare time, such as it is? He gets started on Revelation’s best friend, the Olivet Discourse. After all, Revelation opens with “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1), and has four key passages from Christ that greatly impact its drama, each one taken from the Olivet Discourse.

So now I would like to introduce the, as yet untitled:

Gentry Commentary on Matthew 21-25

I have now begun in-depth research on a new, semi-technical commentary. This one is on a discrete, inter-connected unit in Matthew. It will begin in Matthew 21, where Jesus first enters Jerusalem and begins a final teaching ministry with direct, concentrated challenges to the Jerusalem authorities. It will continue to where he ends his teaching-challenge at the end of Matthew 25, which is followed by his betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. In this unit he theologically links the coming destruction of the temple and the judgment of Israel in the first century to his final coming and the judgment of all nations at the future Second Advent in the last century.

I will be using the principles of Composition Criticism to show how both AD 70 and the Second Advent are demonstrations of Christ’s authority over Israel and the nations (per Matthew’s point in Matt. 21–25). Composition Criticism approaches a biblical book on the basis of its author’s own theological point. That is, it tends not to randomly pick up on similar verses in other books to determine what the author is saying. Rather it looks at the text we have before us (in this case the Gospel of Matthew) to determine what this author himself (Matthew) was getting at in the way he organizes and edits his material.

Matthew does not simply cite Christ word-for-word. He translates the Lord’s teaching from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek and arranges the material according to his theological concern.

[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

As is well-known, the Gospels differ on many points, and even in the Olivet Discourse itself. For instance, only Matthew fails to mention the story of the widow’s mite, which leads up to the Discourse (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–6). Only Matthew presents the fuller question from the disciples about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3; cp. Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). Only Matthew has Jesus using the word parousia (and he uses it only four times in his whole Gospel, all in the Discourse, Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39). And in Matt. 21-25, Matthew records the most parables challenging the Jerusalem authorities. Why?

These differences are not due to contradictory traditions or clumsy editing, as per Form Criticism or Redaction Criticism. Rather they are due to the Gospel writers’ particular theological point, which they are making. Those who randomly jump at every parallel phrasing between the Gospels will miss the particular author’s point. This problem has caused many evangelicals to not recognize the theological linking of AD 70 and the Second Advent, while maintaining the historical distinction of these two redemptive-historical events (one is in the first century, the other will be in the last century).

Matthew carefully distinguishes AD 70 (Matt. 24:4–34) from the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46) as he demonstrates the authority of Christ (a main, driving point in this unit of his Gospel). He shows Christ’s authority, first, over Israel (leading to her judgment), then second, over the nations (leading to their judgment). Matthew does not present Jesus as a Jewish sage with a local ministry. Rather he presents him as the universal Lord whose sovereignty is over all the nations, which is his final point in his Gospel (Matt. 28:18–20).

My commentary on Matthew 21–25 will more fully draw out the transition occurring in Matthew 24:34–36 than in my The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. This new commentary will be The Olivet Discourse Made Difficult. Not really. But it will be with great exegetical, theological, and critical depth. To compare it to the Made Easy book, it will be like the television ad that lets you buy something with three easy payments followed by one really hard payment.

[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

From the exegetical research that I have already engaged, I can tell this is going to be an exciting, insightful, and instructive challenge. And I am entering into this challenge with enthusiasm!

You Can Help!

So I hope those interested in these things might be willing to support me, so that I can get this project done in a timely manner. The Matthew commentary will not take as long as the Revelation commentary, mainly due to the scope of the material: twenty-two chapters in Revelation, five chapters in Matthew. I am hoping to complete it by the end of 2019.

So then: I need your support! Please remember that you can give to my research as a tax-deductible donation, if you give through the GoodBirth Ministries website: www.goodbirthministries.com.

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