Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 81

RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS (Acts 3:21) (1)

[image error]PMW-2018-011 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Acts 3:19–21 is an important passage in the eschatological debate. I have treated this passage on a previous occasion, but continue to get inquiries. So I thought it would be good to offer some insights again.

This is a favorite passage for the dispensational and premillennial search for a special future for Israel in the New Testament record. It is thought to establish the premillennial expectation against all others. This passage reads:

“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (Acts 3:19–21)

Notice the following dispensational references to this text. Several of these are older dispensationalists, thereby showing how long and deeply this had been the dispensational interpretation.

‟But Heaven has only received Him until the time of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all holy prophets (Acts 3:21), when He shall come again, to sit in the throne of His Father David. This again proves His coming to be pre-millennial.” [1]

‟The king is ‛exiled’ in heaven (Ac 3:20-21; 7:55-56). . . . Scripture everywhere repudiates and disproves the doctrine that Christ is now reigning as Prince of peace, seeking through the church to extend His kingdom on earth by means of the gospel.” [2]

‟The declaration is that, if the nation repented and believed, the Messiah would return and establish the promised kingdom.” [3]

‟Acts 3:17-21 shows that Israel’s repentance was to have had two purposes: (1) for individual Israelites there was forgiveness of sins, and (2) for Israel as a nation her Messiah would return to reign,” i.e. in the Millennium. [4]

Amillennialists, of course, hold a fundamentally different conception: ‟Surely the words ‛the times of restoration of all things’ refer not to an intermediate millennial interval but to the final state.” [5]

A preteristic-postmillennial understanding of this passage is more satisfying than either of these views in that it recognizes the over-arching Jewish context in light of covenantal expectations.

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

Contextual Relevance

In the context we must recognize (with the dispensationalist) that Peter is preaching a message most relevant to the Jews of that day: He opens with ‟Ye men of Israel” (Acts 3:12), emphasizing their lineage from ‟Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (3:13a). They are the ‟sons of the prophets” and the sons of ‟the covenant” (3:25). These highly favored people were guilty of crucifying the Messiah: ‟God . . . glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and [you] killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.” ‟Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:13b-15, 17).

Keeping this in mind — along with some additional contextual notations to follow — let us now seek to gain the proper understanding of Peter’s statement.

After pointing out their guilt in the crucifixion of Christ, Peter notes God’s sovereign prophetic ordering of the event (Acts 3:18). Then he exhorts these guilty crucifiers of Christ to ‟repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19a). In essence, Peter urges: ‟Let them repent, for their vast evil has not frustrated God.” [6] This call to repentance from their sins contextually speaks of their horrible guilt in the crucifixion. With an eye to the coming A.D. 70 judgment, he issues a warning from Moses: ‟And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:23). This is reminiscent of his previous allusion to the ‟blood, fire, and smoke” threatened upon Jerusalem and his urging of his Jewish auditors to ‟be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:19-21).

[image error]

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 downloadable mp3 lectures)

by Ken Gentry

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

He then adds to this urgent call: ‟so that [7] times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19b). The ‟times of refreshing” holds forth for Jerusalem the promise of ‟a respite from the judgment pronounced by Jesus, as it brought the Ninevites a respite from the judgment pronounced by Jonah.” [8] These times of refreshing speak of the glorious salvation that God mercifully offers them along with the favor of God that would issue forth from it. This refreshing is especially glorious in being contrasted to the horrible wrath under which they lived and which was soon to crash down upon them.

But where is this leading? I will focus on this in my next article.

Notes

1. W. E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming, p. 47.

2. Charles E. Stevens, in Charles Lee Feinberg, ed., Prophecy and the Seventies (Chicago: Moody, 1971), pp. 102-103.

3. Warren W. Wiersbe, Bible Exposition Commentary, 1:414.

4. Stanley D. Toussaint, “Acts,” in Walvoord and Zuck, Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1:362. Interestingly, Toussaint vigorously argues that this is a re-offer of the kingdom to Israel; Pentecost just as adamantly argues that such a re-offer was impossible until after A.D. 70. Toussaint, “Acts,” p. 361. Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 469-476 and Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, pp. 274-276.

5. Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, p. 185, cp. p. 282.

6. E. M. Blailock, The Acts of the Apostles (Tyndale) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 63.

7. The KJV “when” is most definitely mistaken, as all exegetes are agreed. The Greek hopos on must be translated “that” or “so that.”

8. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. [1980]), p. 91n.

U. S. CHRISTIANITY NOT SHRINKING

[image error]PMT 2018-010 by Glenn T. Stanton (The Federalist)

Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in ‘widespread decline’ so much so that conservative believers should suffer ‘growing anxiety’? Absolutely not.

“Meanwhile, a widespread decline in churchgoing and religious affiliation had contributed to a growing anxiety among conservative believers.” Statements like this are uttered with such confidence and frequency that most Americans accept them as uncontested truisms. This one emerged just this month in an exceedingly silly article in The Atlantic on Vice President Mike Pence.

Religious faith in America is going the way of the Yellow Pages and travel maps, we keep hearing. It’s just a matter of time until Christianity’s total and happy extinction, chortle our cultural elites. Is this true? Is churchgoing and religious adherence really in “widespread decline” so much so that conservative believers should suffer “growing anxiety”?

Two words: Absolutely not.

New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.

Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis.”

What Accounts for the Difference in Perceptions?

How can their findings appear so contrary to what we have been hearing from so many seemingly informed voices? It comes down primarily to what kind of faith one is talking about. Not the belief system itself, per se, but the intensity and seriousness with which people hold and practice that faith.

[image error]

He Shall Have Dominion

(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Mainline churches are tanking as if they have super-sized millstones around their necks. Yes, these churches are hemorrhaging members in startling numbers, but many of those folks are not leaving Christianity. They are simply going elsewhere. Because of this shifting, other very different kinds of churches are holding strong in crowds and have been for as long as such data has been collected. In some ways, they are even growing. This is what this new research has found.

The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent.”

The percentage of such people is also not small. One in three Americans prays multiple times a day, while one in 15 do so in other countries on average. Attending services more than once a week continues to be twice as high among Americans compared to the next highest-attending industrial country, and three times higher than the average comparable nation.

One-third of Americans hold that the Bible is the actual word of God. Fewer than 10 percent believe so in similar countries. The United States “clearly stands out as exceptional,” and this exceptionalism has not been decreasing over time. In fact, these scholars determine that the percentages of Americans who are the most vibrant and serious in their faith is actually increasing a bit, “which is making the United States even more exceptional over time.”

Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview[image error]

Ed. by David Hall

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This also means, of course, that those who take their faith seriously are becoming a markedly larger proportion of all religious people. In 1989, 39 percent of those who belonged to a religion held strong beliefs and practices. Today, these are 47 percent of all the religiously affiliated. This all has important implications for politics, indicating that the voting bloc of religious conservatives is not shrinking, but actually growing among the faithful. The declining influence of liberal believers at the polls has been demonstrated in many important elections recently.

These Are Not Isolated Findings

The findings of these scholars are not outliers. There has been a growing gulf between the faithful and the dabblers for quite some time, with the first group growing more numerous. Think about the church you attend, relative to its belief system. It is extremely likely that if your church teaches the Bible with seriousness, calls its people to real discipleship, and encourages daily intimacy with God, it has multiple services to handle the coming crowds.

Most decent-size American cities have a treasure trove of such churches for believers to choose from. This shows no sign of changing. If, however, your church is theologically liberal or merely lukewarm, it’s likely laying off staff and wondering how to pay this month’s light bill. People are navigating toward substantive Christianity. . . .

To read full article: click

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

REV 17 AND THE BEAST AS “AN EIGHTH” (2)

[image error]PMW 2018-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article I began focusing on Rev. 17:11 which reads:

“The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.”

I pointed out that the idea of the “eighth” pictures a resurrection, a new beginning. But now we must ask: Who is this “eighth,” this resurrection of the beast?

In Rev. 17:9–10 we read:

“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.”

As I have argued in other contexts regarding the seven heads of the beast here in these verses, the “five” are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius who have already “fallen” (i.e., are dead). [1] We know, therefore, that the sixth one “is” (estin) the reigning emperor, Nero. And “the other who has not yet come” is the seventh, Galba, who will only “remain a little while.” And we know that the Roman Civil Wars during the Year of the Four Emperors pictures the beast’s corporate death throes.

So the “eighth” must represent Rome’s revival, its resurrection to new life and strength. But the next emperor after Galba is Otho, one of the inter-regnum emperors who is a part of Rome’s death throes. How can he picture the beast’s resurrection? He is continuing those death throes. Besides, he is the “seventh,” not the “eighth.”

http://www.kennethgentry.com/book-of-revelation-made-easy-book/”>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: http://www.KennethGentry.com”>www.KennethGentry.com;

To resolve this difficulty we should note a couple of factors in the passage. (1) The number of heads on the beast is seven, not eight (Rev 13:1; 17:3, 7, 9). The eighth is a surprising addition, unaccounted for by the beast John sees. This should alert us to some sort of disruption in the counting. (2) In fact, John conspicuously drops the definite article when mentioning the eighth: to therion ho en kai ouk estin kai autos ogdoos estin is translated as “the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth.” The definite article clearly and repeatedly defines the chronological series of the first six heads /kings: hoi pente epesan ho eis estin ho allos oupo elthen (“the five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come”). Thus, this eighth king is”an eighth,” not “the eighth.” But now what does this signify? Two interpretations seem quite plausible.

It could be that this “eighth” is the emperor who causes the revival of the Empire, though he is outside of the originally specified seven kings. In an important sense the revival of the Empire under Vespasian is a “resurrection” under “an eighth” king who is, nevertheless, “of the seven.” Vespasian’s victory in the Roman Civil Wars causes the same Roman Empire to come back to life from the death of the civil wars — not some new empire. [2]

Contrary to the NASB, the angel does not state that “he is one [which would require: heis] of the seven” (cf. NRSV, NIV, NKJB), for Vespasian is not: the Julio-Claudian line of emperors ceases in Nero (Suet., Gal. 1; Tac., Hist. 1:16). Rather: “he is out of [ek] the seven” which indicates he is “the successor and result of the seven, following and springing out of them.” [3]

The phrase ek ton hepta functions as a “genitive of relationship” [4] signifying that he is not an outsider (e.g., a Parthian conqueror as when “the Parthians were almost roused to arms” in those times, Tac., Hist. 1:2). Vespasian is not only a Roman citizen but has a political (though Plebian) standing (Suet., Vesp. 1), even though as an emperor he was “made elsewhere than at Rome” (Tac., Hist). He “became consul in 51” and was later “governor of Africa, and in 67 was appointed commander-in-chief against the insurgent Jews by Nero” [5] (cp. Tac., Hist. 1:10; J.W., Pref. 8; 3:1:3). He was even later deified by the Roman senate. As Josephus expresses it:

upon this confirmation of Vespasian’s entire government, which was now settled, and upon the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin, Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea. (J.W. 4:11:5; cp. Pref. 9)

Yet another interpretation of this “eighth” seems stronger and has caused me to change my former position (the one just stated above). Though it is very similar to the one above, it shifts attention from the specific emperor (Vespasian) to the general emperorship. John appears to be stating that the corporate beast himself is “an eighth,” i.e., is a resurrected entity (remember the parallel with Rev 17:8).

http://www.kennethgentry.com/products/Four-Views-on-the-Book-of-Revelation.html”>Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]https://postmillennialismtoday.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/four-view-rev-e1449764634929.png”; alt=”Four View Rev” width=”93″ height=”145″ />

(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: http://www.KennethGentry.com”>www.KennethGentry.com;

Note that John writes: “the beast which was and is not, is himself [autos, reflexive] also an eighth.” The beast that he is speaking of is the one “which was and is not,” that is, the empire which dies in the Civil Wars. No emperor dies and is himself resurrected — not even metaphorically, as in being banished and then returning (cf. Eze 37:11–12; Lk 15:24, 32; Ro 11:15). Rather, it is the beast which “you saw” (Rev 17:8), that is the corporate beast with all of his seven heads (Rev 17:3). He does not say (as in Daniel’s case with the little horn, Da 7:8): “While I was contemplating the heads, behold, another head, came up among them” (cf. Da 7:20, 24). Again we must note that the NASB is incorrect in adding the word “one,” when it translates the phrase as “and is one of the seven.” Rather, the corporate beast, the Roman imperial government, is renewed in Vespasian’s ascendency; it is “of the seven,” that is, continues imperial rule anew.

In this sense the corporate beast’s being ek ton hepta (“out of the seven”) reflects resurrection language. Jesus prophesies of himself that he “should suffer and rise again from [ek] of the dead” (Lk 24:46; cp. Php 2:11; Eph 1:20). In John’s Gospel Jesus arises on the first/eighth day (Jn 20:1) because he “must rise again from [ek] the dead” (Jn 20:9). The Empire arises, as it were, out of the dead.

Though Vespasian’s ascension brings a reprieve for Christians in that he does not persecute them (Euseb., Eccl. Hist. 3:17) [6] as does Nero (Rev 13:7; Tac. Ann. 15:44; Suet., Nero 16), nevertheless he does resurrect the blasphemous Roman beastly system. He directs “the reconstruction of the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter . . . . and a temple to Peace.” [7] Even while alive the Egyptians proclaim him a god; and the Roman Senate eventually deifies him. [8] Such a blasphemous system cannot help but eventually return to persecuting, as it does thirty years later under Trajan, A.D. 98–117 and later emperors. Therefore, the (corporate) beast is destined “to destruction” (Rev 17:11c); eventually “Eternal Rome” must be destroyed (cf. Da 2:35, 44). [9]

Conclusion

As I conclude this three-part series, I would note that the evidence for the specific identity of the beast being Nero, with the generic identity being Rome, is strong. Though initially the problem of the past tense statement (“the beast which was”) seems to create a problem for the argument, when we more carefully consider it, it does not. Nero is the specific emperor living when John writes. His death in A.D. 68 puts the Roman Empire in death throes, from which it arises after the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68–69). The beast generically considered is in John’s view — not the beast specifically considered. This corporate beast mimics the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Notes

1. For more detail, see my The Book of Revelation Made Easy (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2008), 57–58.

2. Interestingly, according to Levick, Suetonius credits Vespasian with at least eleven miracles, “supporting Vespasian’s claims to power.” And “to the world at large the miracles were a metaphor of the new régime’s healing powers” (Vespasian, 67–68).

3. Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:711.

4. Beale, Revelation, 876.

5. Catherine B. Avery, ed., The New Century Handbook of Leaders of the Classical World (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972), 385.

6. Vespasian did not persecute Christians. Eusebius states regarding Domitian that he “was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us” (Eccl. Hist. 3:17; cp. 4:26). Tertullian skips from Nero to Domitian as a persecuting emperor, omitting any reference to Vespasian (Apol. 5). Augustine calls Vespasian “a most agreeable emperor” (City 413–26).

7. Sir Paul Harvey, ed., The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 445.

8. Barbara Levick, Vespasian (London: Routledge, 1999), 67–71.

9. The Roman Empire is viewed in antiquity as eternal. Otho speaks of “the eternity of our power” [aeternitas rerum]” (Tacitus, Hist. 1:84). Rome is called aeterna urbs in various places, including in the Latin Poet Albius Tibullus (54–19 BC) at 2, 5, 23; Ovid (43 BC–A.D. 17), The Festivals, 3.72. See Frank G. Moore, “Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Shorst,” American Journal of Philology 15:13 (1894): 349.

REV 17 AND THE BEAST AS AN EIGHTH (1)

[image error]PMW 2017-008 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a two-part study of the confusing verses in Revelation 17. I now move on to consider Rev. 17:11 and:

The eighth among seven?

In previous studies I argued that Nero is the personification of the beast. The evidence is quite clear and most compelling. But in Revelation 17:11 we read a statement which causes some difficulties with this interpretation. In fact, it “presents all interpreters with a real difficulty.” [1]

And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. (Rev 17:11)

Of course, the main difficulties have been solved for I show above what he means by “the beast which was and is not” (cf. Rev 17:8). But now who is this “eighth”? How can there be an eighth in a series of seven? And how is he “one of the seven”?

The Bible and eight

In biblical numerics eight seems to be the number of resurrection. [2] In the Old Testament the eighth day follows the day of rest and is the day on which man’s labor begins anew, as a resurrection of sorts (cf. Ex 20:8–11). God saves eight people on the ark to “resurrect” the human race (1Pe 3:20). [3] Leprosy is “regarded as a decomposition of the vital juices, and as putrefaction in a living body, [it] was an image of death.” [4] Thus, in Israel the leper is not admitted back into the holy community as alive until his eighth day sacrifice (Lev 14:10, 23). The menstruous woman is unclean because of her blood flow for seven days, then she is cleansed on the eighth day (Lev 15:29). This cleansing is necessary “unless they die in their uncleanness” (Lev 15:31). Each of these issues is analogous to resurrection.

[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

But most importantly, Christ arises from death on the first/ eighth day (Jn 20:1), which is the first day of a new week. [5] This begins a new creation (2Co 5:17). In Revelation he first appears as “the first-born of the dead” (Rev 1:5), establishes the book’s theme as the “pierced” (slain) one who will return alive to avenge himself (Rev 1:7), appears in its initial vision dressed as a priest (Rev 1:13) proclaiming “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18; cp. 2:8), and dominates the whole drama as the slain but living Lamb (Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; 13:8).

Thus, here in Revelation 17:11 the “eighth” points to the beast’s mimicking Christ’s death and resurrection (cf. Rev 13:3; 17:8). Our text reflects this through an inter-textual parallelism: his coming “up out of the abyss” in Revelation 17: 8a is a form of resurrection reflected in his being “an eighth” (the number of resurrection) in Revelation 17:11 [6]:

Revelation 17:8a                                                  Revelation 17:11

“the beast . . . . was and is not” (hen kai ouk esti)       “the beast . . . . was and is not” (hen kai ouk esti)

“is about to come up out of the abyss”                         “is himself also an eighth”

“to go to destruction” (eis apoleian hupagei)                 “he goes to destruction” (eis apoleian hupagei)

The heart of this parallel is between the phrases “come up out of the abyss” and “an eighth.” In Scripture the “abyss” (abussos) is a part of the three-level cosmology of heaven, earth, and underworld (cf. Php 2:10; Rev 5:3, 13). “In the underworld (abussos) is not only the realm of the dead . . . but also Gehenna, the place of punishment” as well as “the prison of punished demons.” [7] In Romans 10:7 abussos appears in the context of resurrection: “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)” (cp. Ps 71:20).

[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

My study of the difficult statements in Rev. 17 will conclude in my next article. We will see how this “eighth” image functions in the identity of the beast in Revelation.

Notes

1. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Regency, 1976–91), 12:560.

2. Beale, 875; Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse (Boston: Beacon, 1949), 70–72; Gaebelein, “Revelation,” 560.

3. “For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the deluge, i.e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead, for ever the first in power” Justin Martyr, Trypho, 138:1 “The sacramental import of the 8th number, as signifying the resurrection” (Augustine, Januarius, 55). Cp. Augustine, Faust. 19; John of Damascus, Orth. Faith 23.

4. C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 1 in Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1866–91; rep.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2001), 2:384.

5. Barnabas writes: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus arose from the dead” (Barn. 15).

6. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover: Allen, Morrill, Wardwell, 1845), 2:326; Beale 875–76; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (NTC) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 473.

REV 17 AND THE BEAST THAT “WAS, IS, AND IS NOT”

[image error]PMW 2018-007 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In previous studies I presented evidence that the sixth head of the seven-headed beast of Revelation was Nero Caesar, the sixth emperor of Rome. Thus, in Revelation the sixth head of the beast represents the then reigning sixth head/king of Rome. But now we must deal with a passage that seems to contradict this identification. In Revelation 17 the interpreting angel states that:

“The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. . . . The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” (Rev. 17:8, 11)

As we focus on these statements, two important questions arise: (1) What is the significance of the beast being the one who “was and is not, and is about to come”? Is this one of the many instances of the beast’s divine pretensions, wherein he parodies divine eternality, which is the view of most commentators? And (2) does this description undercut the early-date position and preterist approach by declaring the beast (Nero) is already dead when John writes? After all, the angel states that he “was and is not [ouk estin].”

I will deal with these two matters in three consecutive articles. So first we will consider his divine pretensions as indicated in the designation that he “was and is not, and is about to come.” This is an example of the recurring tendency of divine parody in Revelation.

Divine Parody

Regarding the potential parody of God’s eternality, the Roman beast exhibits blasphemous divine pretensions that lead to his worship (Rev 13:8, 12, 15). Revelation probably even alludes to this in our passage in that he is “full of blasphemous names” (Rev 17:3b). The phrase “was and is not, and is about to come” is widely held to present a “devilish antithesis” to the eternality of God as presented in Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:16; and 16:5.[1] For instance, in Revelation 1:8 we read that God is the one “who is and who was and who is to come.” This divine pretension would certainly fit the preterist argument regarding the role of emperor worship in the first century and in Revelation. [2]

[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

I have no theoretical problem with this description providing an ironic reversal of the true God in the pretentious beast; after all, John does delight in parody and irony in his drama. Nevertheless, I do not believe the evidence here allows it. This is not mocking “the threefold description of God found already in Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:16; and 16:5,” the “threefold formula for divine eternity.” [3] Rather it mocks the threefold historical experience of Christ emphasized in his initial appearance in Revelation at 1:18 (cp. Rev 2:8): he is “the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (cf. Php 2:8–9). The dramatic irony, though, is that despite his pretensions the beast does not live forevermore, but goes “to destruction” (Rev 17:8a). I will summarily list my objections to this representing a mockery of God’s eternality, then flesh them out.

Argumentative Evidence

(1) The ideas do not really match. Revelation’s references to God expressly state his eternality, whereas the phrase here in Revelation 17:8 does not suggest the beast’s eternality. Rather than “was, is, is to come” the beast “was, is not, and is coming.” It would be very easy for John to declare the beast “was, is, and is to come” did he so desire. But he does not. And he would most certainly never refer to God as “is not” — for God lives “forever and ever” (Rev 4:9–10; 10:6).

(2) The basic element that is repeated and invariable in each of the idea’s three appearances is: “was and is not” (en kai ouk estin) (Rev 17:8a, 8d, 11). This core phrase has nothing to do with parodying eternality; in fact, for someone to be “is not” is the opposite of eternal existence. In Genesis 42:36 we find the deceased Joseph and Simeon spoken of as “is not” (ouk esti). In antiquity ouk esti is a statement declaring one’s death: “I was not, I became, I am not” (hostis ouk emēn, kai egenomēn, ouk eimi).

(3) In each of the phrase’s three appearances, the third element varies both lexically and grammatically, despite being in close proximity syntactically:

The beast “is about to come up [mellei anabanein, pres. act. indic.] out of the abyss” (Rev 17:8a)

The beast “will come [parestai, fut. mid. indic.]” (Rev 17:8d)

The beast “is himself also an eighth [autos ogdoos estin]” (Rev 17:11a)

Again, John could easily lock in the phrasing did he so desire. But something else is going on here, as we shall see.

(4) The point John is emphasizing in this imagery is death. The beast’s inevitable death is in view, for the beast does now exist. Despite the phraseology before us, John sees a woman currently sitting [katoikountes, pres. act. ptcp.] on the (apparently living) beast (Rev 17:3) and the angel expressly declares that the beast is now carrying [bastazontos, pres. act. ptcp.] the woman (Rev 17:7).

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

(5) The fact that the beast “is about to come up out of the abyss” fits the idea of his resurrection from death, not eternality. It shows a mockery of Christ’s experience, not God’s existence.

(6) The reference to the “book of life” alludes to the resurrection, for the book of life is consulted at the eschatological resurrection (Rev 20:12).

(7) The third reference seems peculiar on the surface, but provides a vital clue to the intended meaning: the beast “is himself also an eighth,” which signifies resurrection.

As most commentators agree, the words of Revelation 17:8ff “are in the main reproductive of the imagery of ch. xiii. 1–4.” [4] That being so, we must note that Revelation 13 mimics the historical death and resurrection of Christ (Rev 1:18; 2:8; 5:12; 11:17) rather than the eternal existence of God. This is significant for many dramatic reasons, not the least of which is Christ’s dying at the hands of the Romans under pressure from the Jews (Mt 27:17–26; Lk 23:13–25; Ac 3:13) who manipulate Rome’s power (Jn 19:12, 15): “this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by [dia] the hands of godless men and [“you” implied, aneilate, 2d pers. pl., aor. act. ind.] put Him to death” (Ac 2:23). [5]

All of this comports with John’s overarching theme of the Jewish culpability in Christ’s death (Rev 1:7) in a book which has as its main figure the slain Lamb (Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; 13:8; Cp. Rev 5:8, 13; 6:1; 7:9, 14, 17; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22; 22:1, 3.). The beast imagery here in 17:8 is not mimicking God but Christ; it is mimicking existing, dying, and living again, not eternality. Lazarus certainly does that without any divine pretension (Jn 11:21, 44; 12:1)!

The message which John’s audience needs to hear during their trials is terribly important. True, the beast has great power (he is a carnivore with seven heads and ten horns, Rev 17:7c; cf. Rev 13:2) and remarkable resilience (he was, but is “about to come up,” Rev 17:7a). Yes, he receives his great power from below, the “abyss” (Rev 17:8a; cf. Rev 9:1, 11; 13:1–2), that is, from Satan (Rev 13:2b) the destroyer (Rev 9:11). [6] Nevertheless, John’s driving point is: he is going to “destruction [apoleian]” (Rev 17:8a, 11; cf. the Danielic backdrop, Da 7:11 LXX, therion . . . . apoleto). He is doomed to hell (Rev 19:20; 20:10) — his dreaded power and resilience notwithstanding.

But now what about Rev. 17:11: “And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction”? I will deal with that in my next article.

Notes

1. Martin G. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (New York: Harper, 1940), 345.

2. In my The Beast of Revelation I show this to be a particularly significant demonstration of Nero’s megalomania.

3. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 864.

4. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (5th ed: Cambridge: University Press, 1875; Grand Rapids: Guardian, 1976), 4:709.

5. Acts 2:23 literally reads: “this man by the fixed counsel and foreknowledge of God given up through the hand of lawless men fastening you killed [prospexantes aneilate].”

6. Regarding the abyss: “the author’s use throughout” Revelation shows that it “is the place of demons.” Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1979 [1919]), 697.

[image error]

OXYGEN, CREATION, AND EVOLUTION

[image error]PMT 2018-006 by Jonathan Sarfati (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note: The sovereign God and his all-controlling plan are the bedrock foundations to the postmillennial hope. Those who deem impossible the postmillennialist’s expectation for the positive outcome of history neglect his power and wisdom. The God of redemption is the God of creation. He does wondrous things and no one can stay his hand or disrupt his plan. Thus, I often engage the theme of creation when I am dealing with the concept of new creation in redemption.

I found this article by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati to be helpful in combating the evolutionary attack on the Genesis creation account.

In 2004, the European Space Agency launched the space probe Rosetta to study asteroids and comets. In November 2014, its lander Philae touched down on comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. The probe also carried a mass spectrometer ROSINA (Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis). This made “the most surprising discovery” about the comet to date, according to Principal Investigator Kathrin Altwegg of the University of Bern, Switzerland.

[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

There was a lot of free oxygen gas (O2) in the comet coma (or atmosphere)—almost 4% as much as the most abundant gas, water vapour.2 In fact, it was consistently high over seven months from September 2014 to March 2015.

However, this poses many problems for evolutionary models of the solar system,3 and was most unexpected. The problem is that oxygen is very reactive, so as Dr Altwegg explains, “We had never thought that oxygen could ‘survive’ for billions of years without combining with other substances.”1

One possible source would be from ultraviolet (UV) light splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. But for most of the comet’s lifetime, it would have been in the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune. UV would be able to penetrate only a few metres to produce oxygen at that distance, but when the comet came into the inner solar system, all that material would have evaporated. So this would remove any oxygen produced during its time in the Belt. So is the oxygen being produced by UV in the comet’s brief time nearer the sun? Apparently not, because we don’t see large changes in oxygen concentration, nor do we find ozone (O3),2 which is produced in our own atmosphere by UV attacking O2 molecules.4

So the only remaining solution is that the oxygen was primordial: incorporated into the comet nucleus when it was formed. The researchers suggest that it came from UV radiation breaking off oxygen from water molecules in ice grains, the oxygen being trapped in voids in the ice, and those grains being incorporated into the comet. However, the researchers say, “Current Solar System formation models do not predict conditions that would allow this to occur.”2

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).[image error]

Sermon series by Ken Gentry

An in-depth sermon series on the opening chapters of the Bible from a Six-day Creationist perspective. Offers many insights into the reason Moses wrote the Creation Account, insights little recognized by the average Christian. This is set 1, which covers Genesis 1.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Implication for chemical evolution

For the last six decades, it has been a widely believed myth that life on Earth evolved in a primordial soup.5 The basic chemicals in the soup were allegedly generated by UV radiation and lightning in a primordial atmosphere unlike the present one. It was allegedly ‘reducing’, meaning it contained hydrogen-rich compounds like methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) and lacked oxygen. Our current ‘oxidizing’ atmosphere would prohibit all this, because oxygen would destroy the so-called building blocks, and indeed prevent their formation in the first place. . . .

To continue reading the full article with footnote documentation, click: here

PRINCIPLES FOR RECOGNIZING THE BEAST

[image error]PMW 2018-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The beast of Revelation is a favorite theme of “prophecy experts.” Unfortunately, they generally do not allow John to establish the principles for the beast’s interpretation in Revelation, preferring instead the news media and radio evangelists. In this article I will mention four key principles that must be kept in mind to reduce the field to biblical proportions, you might say. As is evident from the history of the interpretation of 666, we certainly need something to confine our thinking to the realm of the reasonable.

The necessary limiting principles for analyzing the identity of John’s beast are:

1. The Beast’s number is that of a man.

According to John, the name-number 666 must be “that of a man” (Rev. 13:18b).1 Beckwith argues not only grammatically but logically that the number must be that of “a man” in that any other denotation “would not aid the solution of the problem, for the Beast’s name could be anything, the sum of whose letters amounts to 666, however unlike names known to men. . . . It means then the number denoting a man.”2 Below I will also note that in antiquity the names of men are frequently reduced to numbers. This human designate excludes any interpretation involving demonic beings, philosophical ideas, political movements, or anything other than an individual human person. In fact, the Beast eventually is cast into hell (Rev. 19:20), denoting his personal existence (though this evidence does not exclude his being a supernatural demon).

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

2. The Beast is an evil man of debased character.

Indeed, he must be someone of an evil, idolatrous, and blasphemous nature. His character traits and evil activities outlined in Revelation 13 (particularly verses 4-7) clearly portray him thus. He not only appears under the grotesque imagery of a compound of three wild carnivores (Rev. 13:2) and wages war against the saints (13:7), but demands worship for himself (13:8, 12, 15) while arrogantly blaspheming God (13:5-6). Furthermore, he somehow carries about with him a despicable harlot (17:3-4) drunk on the blood of the saints (17:6; 18:24).

3. The Beast possesses “great authority” (Rev. 13:2, 7).

This certainly demands that he be a political figure, particularly in that upon his heads are “ten diadems” (13:1b) and he posses a “throne” (13:2b). Indeed, his great authority is “over every tribe and people and tongue and nation” (13:7).

These first three principles are fairly widely held among evangelical Revelation commentators. The two remaining ones are largely overlooked, which is almost certainly causes a radical mis-identification of the Beast and his mission. These will be simply listed and stated here. In another article I will establish their veracity.

4. The Beast is one of John’s contemporaries.

John’s temporal expectation clearly requires his contemporary presence. The events of Revelation must occur “shortly” (Rev. 1:1; 22:6); John insists that “the time is at hand” (1:3; 22:10). Numerous other temporal indicators appear within (as I will show in a future article) and fit perfectly with John’s first century imagery. This principle alone will eliminate 99.9% of the suggestions by both prophecy populists and even competent commentators. (Unfortunately, it also eliminates the same percentage of market-share for evangelical publications defending the proper view.)[image error]

Beast of Revelation: Identified (DVD by Ken Gentry)

A biblical and historical argument for Nero being the beast of Revelation. Professionally recorded and edited with Question and Answers session.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

5. The Beast is relevant to the first century Christians.

John writes to Christians in seven historical churches (Rev. 1:4, 11). He expects them to heed what he writes (1:3) and to calculate the Beast’s number (13:18). They are under serious trials (1:9; 2:3, 9-10, 13; 3:10; 6:10-11; 14:13) and would surely be unconcerned with events thousands of years in the future. How could they give heed to John and calculate the identity of the Beast if it were some shadowy figure far removed from their own situation? Sadly, most “interpreters have been concerned to show that the beast has finally arisen in their own day.”3 We should, however, be “suspicious of interpretations that are blatantly narcissistic; this way of understanding the book maintains that the entire course of human history has now culminated in us!”4 Revelation is not, as Thompson warns, “a floating specter”5; rather we must understand him as a figure securely rooted in the first century.

The early establishment of Principles 4 and 5 is essential to the correct understanding of the identity of the Beast. With these in mind, you can forget Bill Gates or any other contemporary Pin-the-Horns-on-the-Beast game attempt.

Notes

1. NRSV, NKJV, NASB. See arguments in: Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1979 [1919]), 642-43. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920), 1:364-65. David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 769-70. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 261. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 6:406.

2. Beckwith, Apocalypse of John, 642.

3. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford, 2000), 436

4. Ehrman, New Testament, 434.

5. Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford, 1990), 11.

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

DOES THEONOMY REQUIRE POSTMILLENNIALISM?

[image error]PMW 2018–04 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Dr. T. David Gordon wrote a critique of theonomy several years ago where he intended to dispel the whole notion of theonomic ethics: T. David Gordon. “Critique of Theonomy: A Taxonomy,” in Westminster Theological Journal, 56 (1994): 23-43 (hereinafter abbreviated: CT). I had many problems with his critique. But one angle is particularly frustrating because it frequently arises. He believe that postmillennialism is one of the foundations of theonomy. Though I am a postmillennialist and a theonomist, as was Bahnsen. The two are not mutually dependent, as amillennial theonomists will attest.

I responded to Gordon in my book Covenantal Theonomy. Gordon’s stated objectives are quite worthy in a debate over the question of theonomic ethics. Regrettably though, he fails to meet his own intentions in several respects. I believe it important to note up-front his failure in securing his own objectives. These may help explain his overall inability to damage theonomy.

Gordon’s taxonomic approach is a helpful idea for distilling key issues in the debate. It certainly far excels Kline’s alleged “review” of Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics which failed miserably in its attempt.

But Gordon does not accurately express himself in his endeavor. He states that he will be presenting arguments “first raised by others” and that he will avoid “exclusively new arguments” (CT, 25). Yet on page 27 he writes: “I have never received an answer to this line of questioning from any of the Theonomists with whom I have conversed.” By his own statement this appears to be his own argument (and not “first raised by others”) and as an unpublished argument it is effectively a “new argument” to the public debate. Of course, this does not directly hinder his public critique, but it does expose his tendency to carelessness, even causing him to fail at his own stated intentions — within the span of two page. This is a recurring problem throughout his critique, as I will show.

Gordon wisely determines to deal with “varying arguments” for Theonomy in an attempt to avoid a strawman approach (CT, 24). And when he actually gets to his critique, he does focus on important issues. Yet in his introduction he immediately evidences confusion regarding theonomy when he states “I will not attempt here a refutation of that particular leg of theonomy known as postmillennialism” (CT, 24).

[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

Simply put: postmillennialism is not a “leg of Theonomy.” Postmillennialism deals with eschatology, not ethics; it deals with what will be, not what ought to be. Theonomists can — and do — hold to various evangelical eschatologies. In introducing this comment, Gordon began to “distinguish” theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism in his second paragraph: “2. Distinguishing Theonomy from Christian Reconstruction.” Oddly though, he really has the matter reversed: Postmillennialism and theonomy are actually legs of Christian Reconstructionism. In 1989 Bahnsen noted in House Divided that theonomy is a leg of Christian Reconstruction: “Such beliefs and practices are at the heart of what is labeled ‘Reconstructionism’ today. Its ethical perspective is termed “theonomic,’ and its eschatological outlook is called ‘postmillennial” (p. 3). In No Other Standard (hereinafter: NOS) Bahnsen wrote: “‘Reconstructionism’ popularly names a theological combination of positions which usually includes presuppositional apologetics, a postmillennial view of eschatology, and a theonomic view of ethics” (NOS, 7 n12).

Even non-theonomists recognize this. Bruce Barron writes: “The Reconstructionists’ intricate, complex program weaves together three levels of ideology. . . . Next come their three key theoretical foundations: biblical law, postmillennial eschatology, and presuppositional philosophy.”1 Ron Nash expresses concern about the “confusion” resulting from “a sloppy use” of terms. He then answers the question “What Is Christian Reconstructionism?” by sorting out subsidiary issues such as theonomy and postmillennialism. 2 The Christian Dictionary of Theology in America defines the Christian Reconstructionist “agenda”: “Three foundational ideas underlie the Reconstructionist agenda: (1) a presuppositional apologetic; (2) a belief that Old Testament law applies today, in ‘exhaustive’ and ‘minutial’ detail; and (3) postmillennialism.”3

[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

In the text of TCE (p. xxx) itself Bahnsen declared that it is “illogical, and inexcusable propaganda for some theonomic critics to dismiss it as allegedly . . . demanding postmillennial eschatology.” He clearly noted that “the thesis of theonomic ethics is not logically tied to any particular school of millennial eschatology.” 4 He even deems as a faux pas Richard B. Gaffin’s linking postmillennialism and theonomy (NOS, 52). In By This Standard he reiterated this: “What these studies present is a position in Christian (normative) ethics. They do not logically commit those who agree with them to any particular school of eschatological interpretation” (BTS, 8).

Why does Gordon seize this issue up only to fumble it? And especially since he is responding to Bahnsen, and Bahnsen himself specifically, clearly, frequently, publicly, and dogmatically denies any necessary connection between theonomy and postmillennialism? And strangely, Gordon raises this issue immediately after distinguishing Christian Reconstructionism (which does entail postmillennialism) from theonomy. 5 These sorts of missteps plagued his who formal analysis later, as well. Unfortunately, such miscues still plague opponents of theonomy.

Notes

1. Bruce Barron, Heaven on Earth? The Social & Political Agendas of Dominion Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 23.

2. Ronald H. Nash, Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies That Come Between Christians (Colorado Springs, Col.: NavPress, 1993), 155. See Ch. 8.

3. Daniel G. Reid, Robert D. Linder, et. al, eds., Concise Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1995), 285.

4. Bahnsen, NOS, 51-52. I suspect that Gaffin’s chapter is the source of Gordon’s mistake, since he mentions some dependence on Gaffin and he tends to pick up on the mistakes of his secondary sources.

5. On p. 24 of CT Gordon urges his reader to consider refutations of postmillennialism in the writings of Gaffin and other Vosian scholars. I have challenged their arguments in several places: Gentry, “Whose Victory in History,” in Gary North, ed., Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 207-230. Gentry, “A Postmillennial Response to Robert B. Strimple,” in Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 130-142. Gentry, “Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist” and “Victory Belongs to the Lord” in Gentry, ed., Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., ed., Thine Is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope (Vallecito, Calif.: Chalcedon, 2003), 83-176.

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

LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS?

[image error]PMW 2018-003 by Gary Bates (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note:

Postmillennialism entails not simply a “world” view, but a “universe” view. That is, it involves the entirety of creation, including the whole universe from the smallest atomic particle to the farthest flung galaxy. Consequently it impacts the question of UFOs. This helpful article from Creation Ministries, Intl. provides important insights into the question.

Many people, Christian or otherwise, struggle with the notion that the earth is the only inhabited planet in this enormous universe. In short, is there life on other planets?

Those who believe life evolved on the earth usually see it as virtual ‘fact’ that life has evolved on countless other planets. Discovering life on other planets would in turn be seen as confirming their evolutionary belief.

But even many Christians think, ‘God must have created life elsewhere, otherwise this enormous universe would be an awful waste of space.’ In my experience, this seems to be the major underlying reason why people think that there must be other life ‘out there’. However, our thinking should be based on what God said He did (the Bible), and not what we think He would, should or might have done.

Firstly, since God is the one who made the universe, it can scarcely be ‘big’ to Him. Humans struggle with its vastness because our comprehension is limited to the created time/space dimensions within which we exist, and it is mind-bending to try and comprehend anything beyond our dimensional existence. Size is only relative to us as inhabitants of this universe. And size and time are related somewhat. Because the universe is big to us we consider how long it would take us to travel across it, for example. But, time itself began with the creation of the physical universe, so how can we comprehend what eternity is, or might be? What was ‘before’ the universe? Similarly, how do we imagine how ‘big’ God is? We cannot use a tape measure that is made of the very atoms He made to measure Him. One example of this might be if you were asked to build a small house and you did. Now you are asked to build a large house. In our dimensions, for you to build the larger house it would require more effort and take more time. So, is it harder, or does it take longer for God to build a big universe compared to a smaller one (according to our perspective on what constitutes large or small of course)? Of course not, because He isn’t bound by time and space (which He created). Isaiah 40:28 says; ‘… the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow weak nor weary …’.

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).[image error]

Sermon series by Ken Gentry

An in-depth sermon series on the opening chapters of the Bible from a Six-day Creationist perspective. Offers many insights into the reason Moses wrote the Creation Account, insights little recognized by the average Christian. This is set 1, which covers Genesis 1.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We are impressed that God made billions of galaxies with billions of stars in them and suitably so, because that is one of the reasons for making them. But as mentioned, size is not an issue for God. Stars are relatively simple structures as they are just great big balls of gas. It would take more ‘creative input’, in that sense, for Jesus’ miracle of feeding the five thousand than for the creation of countless quasars (there is immense genetic complexity in the structure of even a dead fish).

The Bible and ETs

It is often asked, ‘Just because the Bible teaches about God creating intelligent life only on Earth, why couldn’t He have done so elsewhere?’ After all, Scripture does not discuss everything, e.g. motorcars. However, the biblical objection to ET is not merely an argument from silence. Motor cars, for example, are not a salvation issue, but we believe that sentient,intelligent, moral-decision-capable beings is, because it would undermine the authority of Scripture. In short, understanding the big picture of the Bible/gospel message allows us to conclude clearly that the reason the Bible doesn’t mention extraterrestrials (ETs) is that there aren’t any.1 Surely, if the earth were to be favoured with a visitation by real extraterrestrials from a galaxy far, far away, then one would reasonably expect that the Bible, and God in His sovereignty and foreknowledge, to mention such a momentous occasion, because it would clearly redefine man’s place in the universe.

1. The Bible indicates that the whole creation groans and travails under the weight of sin (Romans 8:18–22). The effect of the Curse following Adam’s Fall was universal.2 Otherwise what would be the point of God destroying this whole creation to make way for a new heavens and Earth—2 Peter 3:13? Therefore, any ETs living elsewhere would have been (unjustly) affected by the Adamic Curse through no fault of their own—they would not have inherited Adam’s sin nature.

2. When Christ (God) appeared in the flesh, He came to Earth not only to redeem mankind but eventually the whole creation back to Himself (Romans 8:21, Colossians 1:20). However, Christ’s atoning death at Calvary cannot save these hypothetical ETs, because one needs to be a physical descendant of Adam for Christ to be our ‘kinsman-redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20). Jesus was called ‘the last Adam’ because there was a real first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22,45)—not a first Vulcan, Klingon etc. This is so a sinless human Substitute takes on the punishment all humans deserve for sin (Isaiah 53:6,10; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), with no need to atone for any (non-existent) sin of his own (Hebrews 7:27).

3. Since this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12), some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the earth. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity.3 Christ is not going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets.

4. The Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species, any more than to redeem fallen angels (Hebrews 2:16).

[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

Fitting them in there … somehow!

One attempt to fit ETs in the Bible is on the basis of a word in Hebrews 11:3: ‘Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.’

The word ‘worlds’ appears in the KJV translation and some others, and some claim that it refers to other inhabitable planets. However, the word is aion, from which we derive the word ‘eons’. Thus modern translations render the word as ‘universe’ (entire space-time continuum) because it correctly describes ‘everything that exists in time and space, visible and invisible, present and eternal’. Even if it was referring to other planets, it is an unwarranted extrapolation to presume intelligent life on them.

It should also be remembered that expressions like “the heavens and earth” (Genesis 1:1) are a figure of speech known as a merism. This occurs when two opposites or extremes are combined to represent the whole or the sum of its parts. For example, if I said “I painted the whole building from top to bottom.” One would understand this to mean everything in the whole building. Similarly, biblical Hebrew has no word for ‘the universe’ and can at best say ‘the all’, so instead it used the merism “the heavens and the earth”. It is clear that New Testament passages like the aforementioned Romans 8:18–22 and Hebrews 11:3 are pointing back to the Genesis (“heavens and earth”) creation, and thus, everything that God made and when time as we know it began. Jesus’ teaching was causing division among the Jews, because they always believed that salvation from God was for them alone. Jesus was reaffirming that He would be the Saviour of all mankind.

Another is the passage in John 10:16 in which Jesus says, ‘I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.’ However, even an ET-believing astronomer at the Vatican (thus a ‘hostile witness’ to the ‘no ETs cause’), a Jesuit priest by the name of Guy Consalmagno, concedes, ‘In context, these “other sheep” are presumably a reference to the Gentiles, not extraterrestrials.’4 Jesus’ teaching was causing division among the Jews (vs. 19), because they always believed that salvation from God was for them alone. Jesus was reaffirming that He would be the Saviour of all mankind.

A novel approach

A more recent idea to allow for ETs arose out of a perceived need to protect Christianity in the event of a real alien visitation to Earth. Michael S. Heiser is an influential Christian UFOlogist/speaker with a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages. He claims that the arguments put forward earlier might not apply to God-created aliens. Because they are not descendants of Adam they have not inherited his sin nature, and thus, are not morally guilty before God. Just like ‘bunny rabbits’ on the earth, they do not need salvation—even though they will die, they are going to neither heaven nor hell.

On the surface this seems a compelling argument. . . .

To finish reading the article: click

THE HOUSE OF GOD

[image error]PMT 2018-002 by L. Michael Morales (Tabletalk)

Gentry note:

God created man in his image and then came and dwelled with him in Eden. Due to man’s sin, God expelled him from Eden. But God lovingly and mercifully returns to dwell with man in the tabernacle, based on sacrifice and forgiveness. After Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, the tabernacle/temple reality begins gradually unfolding in the world through the process of new creation in Christ. Postmillennialists expect the gospel-based new creation to expand and envelope the whole world. This article from Tabletalk magazine provides remarkable insights into the relationship between the original creation and the tabernacle, then the new creation. It is insightful and may easily be adapted to the postmillennial hope, especially when we realize the new creation exists now (2 Cor. 5:17).

When the fiery cloud of God moved from the summit of Mount Sinai to the newly constructed tabernacle, covering God’s house with smoke and filling it with His glory (Ex. 40:34), a pinnacle in God’s dealings with humanity was realized. In this majestic scene, the book of Exodus ends with a resolution, albeit temporary and intermediate, to the story of humanity’s exile from Eden narrated in Genesis 3. Moreover, the glory-filled tabernacle also foreshadowed God’s ultimate solution to that primal expulsion through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

As we consider the significance of the tabernacle (and later temple) in Scripture, it will be helpful to keep two points in mind. First, the tabernacle was the house of God, the place of His dwelling. Blue, purple, and scarlet-threaded curtains, abundant use of pure gold, and a veil partitioning its two rooms mark the tabernacle as the palace of the most holy King.

Second, the tabernacle was also the way to God, its sacrificial rituals providing the atonement and cleansing needed to dwell with God. A simplified overview of the sacrificial system presents the way to God as involving a threefold movement into God’s presence, a “journey” traced through the ritual order of three primary sacrifices. Worship often began with the purification offering, with its emphasis upon blood underscoring humanity’s need for atonement, that is, to be forgiven and cleansed by God. Then followed the whole burnt offering that, with its emphasis on burning the whole animal apart from its skin, symbolized a life of total consecration to God. The liturgy would conclude with a peace offering in which the worshiper feasted upon a sacred meal with family and friends in God’s presence. Atonement, so the journey of sacrifice teaches, leads to sanctification, and sanctification grows into joyous communion with God.

[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

In sum, Israel’s relationship with God was preserved and cultivated by the sacrificial system of the tabernacle, enabling the Maker of heaven and earth to dwell with His people in fellowship. To understand the depth and wonder of such a purpose, we will reflect upon the meaning of the tabernacle first within God’s goal for creation and then as the heart of God’s covenant with His people-a purpose taken up and fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

Creation and the Tabernacle

Perhaps the key insight into the role and purpose of the tabernacle begins with understanding that originally, the cosmos itself was created to be God’s house wherein humanity would enjoy fellowship with God. Only when that house became polluted by sin and death did a secondary and provisional house—the tabernacle—become necessary. One would, therefore, expect a measure of correspondence between the tabernacle and creation, and that is precisely the case.

The creation account of Genesis 1:1–2:3 depicts God as a builder who makes a three-story house (heaven, earth, and seas) in six days, and then, upon its completion, takes up residence within it, enjoying Sabbath rest. Indeed, throughout Scripture the cosmos is often portrayed as God’s house, His sanctuary or temple. The psalmist says, for example, that God stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of His chambers in the waters (Ps. 104:2–3; cf. Isa. 40:22). Both ancient and contemporary interpreters have also noted significant parallels between the creation and tabernacle accounts of the Pentateuch, including the language of blessing and sanctification used to describe their completion.

Also, while creation is recounted in seven paragraphs (for seven days), culminating in the Sabbath, there are, similarly, seven divine speeches recounting the instructions for the tabernacle (Ex. 25–31), the seventh speech culminating with Sabbath legislation that refers directly to God’s Sabbath of Genesis 2:1–3 (see Ex. 31:12–18). The “Spirit of God” enables the construction of both God’s house as cosmos (Gen. 1:2) and God’s house as tabernacle (Ex. 31:1–5).

Moreover, though it is typically lost in English translations, the creation account uses tabernacle terminology, particularly on the central fourth day described in Genesis 1:14–19. The Hebrew word for “lights,” referring to the sun and moon, planets and stars, is the same word for the “lamps” that elsewhere in the Pentateuch always refer to the lamps of the tabernacle lampstand. Similarly, the Hebrew word for “seasons” for which the lights or lamps function as markers is a term that in the Pentateuch becomes synonymous with Israel’s feasts or cultic festivals.

[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

These features, along with the Sabbath day that concludes the account, serve to portray the cosmos as a grand temple in which humanity has the priestly privilege of drawing near to God in worship and fellowship—with all of creation, including the sun, moon, and stars, serving as a call to worship. The cosmos as a three-storied house of heaven, earth, and seas is mirrored in the tabernacle’s threefold structure, with the Holy of Holies corresponding to God’s heavenly throne room. The purpose of creation, then, is for God and humanity to dwell in the house of God in fellowship. As humanity’s “chief end,” Sabbath day communion with God is highlighted since the seventh day is the only object of sanctification in the entire book of Genesis (2:3).

In the Eden narratives (Gen. 2:4–4:16), the tabernacle imagery develops richly, with the garden of Eden portrayed as the original Holy of Holies. The lushness of Eden is captured in the fullness of life associated with the tabernacle, including the lampstand, a stylized tree that some have compared to Eden’s tree of life (and the vision of Ezekiel’s temple includes a river of life as well; Ezek. 47:1–12). The Lord’s presence in Eden, described as “walking,” is presented similarly with the tabernacle (Gen. 3:8; Lev. 26:11–12). Also, the portrayal of Adam’s work in the garden, translated better as “to worship and obey” (Gen. 2:15), is used elsewhere only to describe the work of the Levites at the tabernacle (Num. 3:7–8). Even the language for God’s clothing of Adam and the woman reappears later in Moses’ clothing of the priests (Gen. 3:21; Lev. 8:13). . . .

To finish reading: click