Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 92

REVELATION COMMENTARY COVER VOTE

Special Survey

I am interrupting my Postmillennial Primer series for a one-time special survey.

Tolle Lege, the publisher of my forthcoming commentary on Revelation, has typeset vol. 1 and is working on typesetting vol. 2. Not only so, but they are now looking into cover designs.

We are going to test the waters with three options. If you would like to vote on your favorite cover, please let me know which you would prefer. I will only display the cover to vol 1;  the cover to vol 2 would copy the design of the first one while replacing the graphic image with a related one.

Book covers are important because people actually do judge a book by its cover. The cover of a book must capture the eye on a store shelf containing scores of other books. Otherwise, a potential reader/buyer might walk on by, not picking up the book and surveying its Table of Contents to see what it is about. (If they had taken my course on Righteous Writing, they would know how important it is to look at a book’s Table of Contents to help evaluate the book.)

By the way, I will not be posting the high-resolution version. So they will not seem as clear as the final result. But I think you will be able to figure it out.

So here are the three options, along with a brief statement regarding the meaning of the cover.

Do you prefer Cover 1 (for vol. 1):

This option uses a white cover to emphasize the color of the paintings more. Also a more classic clean look for academic sharpness and clarity. Vol. 1 presents a famous painting of Nero burning Christians on poles. This corresponds to the beginning of the tribulation in Revelation (Rev. 1:9). Vol. 2 (not shown) presents a famous painting of the destruction of the temple. This is about the last half of Revelation. Both pictures correspond to the judgment theme of the title, The Divorce of Israel. The pictures depict the two cities of Revelation: Rome and Jerusalem.

[image error]

Do you prefer Cover 2 (for vol. 1):

Vol. 1 shows the most famous symbol of Israel in antiquity, the Menorah. Behind it is the temple stone which will be thrown down in God’s judgment. The Menorah also represents the seven candlestands of the seven first-century churches to which Revelation was sent. The church will take over the function of the temple after the stone temple is destroyed (2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22). The scroll below represents God’s divorce decree against Israel with the flame of God’s judgment beginning to show. This highlights the commentary’s main theme and its title, The Divorce of Israel.

Vol. 2 (not shown) depicts the four horses of the apocalypse and the fire of judgment in full flame. In the first book, the fire is just hinted at behind the scroll, in the second, the fire is all-consuming in judgment.

[image error]

Do you prefer Cover 3 (for vol. 1)?

This option uses a white cover to emphasize the color of the paintings more. Also a more classic clean look for academic sharpness and clarity. Vol. 1 shows the famous painting of Nero burning Christians on poles. This corresponds to the beginning of the tribulation in Revelation (Rev. 1:9).

Vol. 2 has the famous painting of the destruction of the temple. This is about the last half of Revelation. Both pictures correspond to the judgment theme of the title, The Divorce of Israel. The pictures depict the two cities of Revelation: Rome and Jerusalem. Cover for volume 2 not shown.

[image error]

Send in your vote to KennethGentry@cs.com. Use the header: COMMENTARY COVER VOTE.

We look forward to hearing from you. And if you would like to hear from me in a conference on Revelation, I would love to come and minister God’s word at your church.

[image error]

PRIMER ON POSTMILLENNIALISM (2)

[image error]PMT 2017-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article I began considering the distinctive approach to the millennium in the postmillennial view, and as over against amillennialism. Though amillennialism and postmillennialism are closely related, they are distinct.

Defining Postmillennialism

So now: What is the postmillennial outlook? Why is it called post-millennial? And what are its expectations?

Postmillennialism teaches that Christ will return to earth after a long era of gospel progress and worldwide righteousness. As the gospel wins greater influence the world will witness a long era of social stability, economic development, and international peace.

The basic structure of the postmillennial hope is as follows:

First, Christ came into the world in the first century and established his kingdom, the Messianic kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament. We are in that kingdom now (the “millennium,” if you will) (Luke 17:20–21; Col 1:13).

Second, he confronted and defeated Satan while on earth, through his ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Satan is bound from deceiving the nations, so that they are open to the power of the gospel (Matt 12:28–29; Rev 20:3).

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond[image error]

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, he gave the marching orders for his kingdom in the “Great Commission.” This commission is great because it is established on his grant of “all authority,” he command to “make disciples of all the nations,” his directive for us to teach the nations “all that I commanded you,” and his promise that “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” to get it done (Matt 28:18–20).

Fourth, he promised to bless his kingdom with growth, likening it to a mustard seed that begins incredibly small but results in a tree that dominates the garden; and comparing it to leaven that leavens the entire bushel (Matt 13:31–33).

Fifth, the world will eventually be converted, becoming a “Christianized” world. At the height of Christ’s kingdom’s development the overwhelming majority of men will be born-again of God’s grace which will lead them a peaceable, worldwide kingdom (Isa 11:9; John 3:17).

Sixth, at the end of history after a long era of gospel victory, Christ will return bodily, visibly, and gloriously (Acts 1:9–11). He will raise the dead in a general resurrection (John 5:29; Acts 24:15) and will conduct the final judgment (Acts 17:31; Rom 2:5–6). He will then end world history and establish the consummate order resulting in a physical new creation (2 Pet 3:10–13).

Thus, postmillennialism teaches that Christ wins the victory in history, before he returns (hence, it is post-millennial). It offers believers the optimistic prospect of earthly victory and historical hope. In fact, postmillennialism is the only evangelical eschatological system that is historically optimistic. Of course, all evangelical systems are optimistic in believing that Christ ultimately wins the victory: premillennialists at his coming when he establishes the earthly millennium; amillennialists at his coming when he ends history by defeating Satan and setting up the eternal order.

[image error]

When Shall These Things Be?

(ed. by Keith Mathison)

A reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.

Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But what I mean by claiming that postmillennialism is the only eschatological system that offers historical hope is: it is the only system offering hope within the continuous, unfolding history in which we presently live. It offers a distinctive hope in three important senses:

First, as systems of gospel proclamation, both amillennialists and premillennialists do not expect a majority influence for the gospel. Whereas postmillennialists believe that the gospel will win the victory in the historical program under which we now live.

Second, as systems of historical understanding, amillennialists and premillennialists expect that history will decline into irresistible chaos and upheaval. Whereas postmillennialists believe that history is moving toward a time of great righteousness and prosperity under the gospel.

Third as systems of evangelistic discipleship, postmillennialists train Christians for wide-scale, cultural, social, and political success in the world.

But now: why do we believe in large-scale historical progress? Obviously in one article I cannot cover the entire biblical argument. In fact, in my 600 page He Shall Have Dominion I even had to cut short the full argument. So I will only briefly highlight why we believe such. I will focus on one Old Testament prophecy, a few verses in Jesus’ teaching, and one important passage in Paul.

(To be continued.)

[image error]

PRIMER ON POSTMILLENNIALISM (1)

[image error]PMT 2017-004 Kenneth L. Gentry,

Postmillennialism and amillennialism are closely related. In fact, they are both “post” millennial in that they believe the current age (the Church Age, if you will) is the “millennium,” and that Christ will return “post” (after) the millennium.

Both Post- and Amillennialists note that the “thousand year” reign of Christ occurs in only one passage in Scripture, Revelation 20:1–6. We further observe that it appears in the most symbolic book in all of Scripture. In Revelation we see a seven-headed beast, fire-breathing horses, locusts with the faces of men and the teeth of lions, a woman standing on the moon, and many more symbolic features. Consequently, we prefer that eschatological discussion begin elsewhere in more didactic portions of Scripture, and that it be controlled by passages other than the apocalyptically-charged, highly-wrought symbolic images in Revelation

The millennial passage in Revelation 20 is prominent in contemporary eschatological discussion today. Indeed, it has given us the eschatological nomenclature highlighting our distinctive eschatological positions as millennial views. Yet I agree with James Blevins in the Mercer Bible Dictionary when he complains: “The millennium becomes the tail that wags the dog.”

[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

As a postmillennialist I do not see Revelation 20 as a key text for eschatological discussion. I do believe it is an important text for the story-line of Revelation. But biblical eschatology begins far earlier than in one of the last books of the Bible. And it is exhibited more clearly in those earlier passages.

In fact, by definition “eschatology” emphasizes end-time events. But Revelation is tied to the first century. John introduces and closes his remarkable vision with clear, near-term expectation statements:

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

“Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (Rev 1:3)

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

“And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’” (Rev 22:10)

Besides this, Revelation 20 (the famed millennial passage) is actually the answer to the cry of the first-century martyrs mentioned earlier (and throughout Revelation). It has nothing to do with all Christians throughout Christian history. We can see this in the shared words and parallel assertions found between Revelation 6:9–10 and Revelation 20:4:

“When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’” (Rev 6:9–10)

“Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4)

Thine Is the Kingdom[image error]

(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We should note that according to the direct statements within Revelation 20:4, John is dealing with those Christians who had been slain because of their commitment to God’s word (thus, he sees “souls” and he declares they were “beheaded”). He also adds that they “had not worshiped the beast” (whom I believe to be Nero Caesar, the first imperial persecutor of the church). Both of these facts fit within the time-frame designates of Revelation, i.e., that the events must “soon take place” (Rev 1:1; 22:6) because “the time is near” (Rev 1:3; 22:10). Both of these facts also militate against a future, earthly millennial reign of all the saints on earth.

Consequently, we must understand that biblical eschatology deals with the larger question of cosmic history, rather than narrowly focusing on the trials of the first-century church. Hence, postmillennialists go elsewhere to develop our eschatological outlook.

(To be continued in the next article.)

[image error]

REVELATION COMMENTARY UPDATE

[image error]PMT 2016-003 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A number of my readers have expressed interest in the Revelation commentary I have written. I have finally received notice from the publisher that vol. 1 has been fully typeset. The commentary will be titled: The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation.

The first of two volumes is 880 pages long and covers Introduction through Revelation 9. Of these pages, 208 are the “Introduction.” Introducing the distinctive approach to the commentary is vitally important, hence the depth of the material therein.

For your curiosity the chapter sizes are:

• Rev. 1: 126 pages

• Rev. 2: 104 pages

• Rev. 3: 37 pages

• Rev. 4: 33 pages

• Rev. 5: 60 pages

• Rev. 6: 98 pages

• Rev. 7: 43 pages

• Rev. 8: 37 pages

• Rev. 9: 63 pages

(Be aware: there are a good number of pages cover front material, bibliography, transliteration guide, and so forth.)

As you might expect, and as you can tell from the number of pages, not only is the Introduction to the whole commentary vitally important, but so is the exegesis of Rev. 1. Foundations matter![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

Not only has the typesetting been completed for vol. 1, but the cover designer is not fully engaged in developing a cover. The graphics artist working on this is Brian Godawa, who has designed a number of book covers for me, Greg Bahnsen, Gary DeMar, and others. He is a fine designer with a deep understanding of my approach to Revelation. He will well match the cover image to the commentary approach. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with.

Be aware, they commentary will not be released one volume at a time. It will be released and sold only as a set. So it will still be a while before anything is released. However, the pace has really stepped up and should move much more quickly from here on. I will keep you posted.

I will now be reviewing the typeset version (I have already found a big error in the heading to Part Two!) And I will be working on the indexing from the typeset version.[image error]

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole, then focuses on its glorious conclusion. That conclusion begins transpiring in the first century with the final establishment of the church of Jesus Christ as the new Jerusalem.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So I still appreciate and 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.

Or if you do not need a tax-deduction, or you live outside of the U.S., you may give directly to me for my research by going to my commercial site: KennethGentry.com.

We can take both credit cards and Pay Pal payments. Of course, you may also send a check (made out to “GoodBirth”) to:

GoodBirth Ministries

P.O. Box 1874

Fountain Inn, SC 29644

By the way, another way you can support my research is to invite me to present a conference at your church. I recently spoke in southern California and will be speaking soon in Arkansas and Florida. You can contact me to discuss a conference at: KennethGentry@cs.com.

IN THE SPACE OF SIX PAGES (3)

[image error]PMT 2017-002 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this article I am concluding a three-part study of a Reformed writer’s attempt to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement on six day creation. The paper I am critiquing was written by Dr. Lee Irons.

Irons complains: “assuming that these men almost universally held to a young earth, logically we cannot conclude that the Confession itself affirms or requires the young earth position.” In response we should note:

(1) Irons’ choice of terms unfortunately tends to bias his readers against Hall’s work: once again he speaks of “assuming” something. Hall does not assume the young earth perspective of the divines: he provides what Irons himself calls “a catalogue of quotes”; that is, he documents their views.

(2) But theoretically the young earth viewpoint differs from the six-day position in an important respect in our Confessional debate: the Confession does assert God created “in the space of six days.” The Six-Day Creation view does not require that the Confession asserts a young earth; that position is conceptually distinct.

(3) Irons misses the point of Hall’s citing young earth evidence from the divines. He does not cite the young earth statements in order to demand a young earth perspective for creedal subscription. Rather he is demonstrating from the intellectual context of the divines that their creedal statement “in the space of six days” cannot be extrapolated out into multiple billions of years, as allowed in the Framework Interpretation and evolutionary theory. Whatever the age of the earth is, it did not come to that allegedly advanced age during the creation week, for the Confession directly informs us that that week only covered “the space of six days.”

Adam in the New Testament [image error]

by J. P. Versteeg

Carefully examining key passages of Scripture, Versteeg proves that all human beings descended from Adam, the first man. He argues that if this is not true, the entire history of redemption documented in Scripture unravels and we have no gospel in any meaningful sense.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Irons attempts to undercut Hall’s research by commenting on the debate over the season of the year in which the original creation week occurred, whether it was “in the spring or the fall” (2). He notes that this issue was “not resolved” among Reformed theologians. Then he makes the self-destructive observation:

“Clearly, then, it was a question that could have been debated at the Westminster Assembly and the majority view could have been enshrined in the Confession itself. Yet we find no references to this question in the Confession. Is it not obvious that the Assembly did not consider this issue to be relevant to the Confession’s purpose and scope?”

This comment actually strengthens our argument against the Framework Interpretation:

(1) As a matter of fact, the divines did include a statement concerning the length of the creation week. Consequently, on Irons’ own method this is “relevant to the Confession’s purpose and scope.” What is more, the fact of original creation transpiring “in the space of six days” is so important that it not only appears in the Confession of Faith but also in both the Larger and Shorter Catechisms:

Larger Catechism Question 15: What is the work of creation? Answer: The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of six days, and all very good.

Shorter Catechism Question 9: What is the work of creation? Answer: The work of creation is, God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

(2) It exposes the horrendous danger inherent in Irons’ Confessional exegetical methodology. If Irons argues that the absence of a clear statement from the Confession is telling evidence against its significance, then we cannot argue that God created the entire universe! The Confession says nothing about the creation of the universe when it states:

It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.[image error]

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

by Norman Nevin

Thirteen scientists and theologians offer valuable perspectives on evolution for concerned Christians.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image … (WCF 4:1-2a)

Notice that the Confession only mentions the creation of “the world” and the creatures in it (cp. also LC 15). Elsewhere it only alludes to “the beginning of the world” (LC 116; SC 59).

Returning again to his bias against historical exegesis, we may note that Irons writes: “Notice the fallacy of Hall’s argument. ‘The context of Westminster’s original intent’ as defined ‘in their other writings’ must interpret what the Confession itself actually says'” (3). In response I would comment:

(1) Where is the fallacy in this? Is this not common, scholarly historical exegesis? Again Irons’ complaint does not reflect the actual situation in Hall’s work.

(2) Does not Irons himself (1, 5) assert that the language “in the space of six days” is the divines’ response to Augustine’s conception? And how does he know that? On the basis of historical exegesis of the divines’ other writings! “Hall correctly argues that the Westminster divines specifically rejected the Augustinian view in its ‘in the space of six days’ language” (5).

(3) Furthermore, where does the Confession itself allow any other view than that creation transpired “in the space of six days”? The Confession and Catechisms consistently maintain that view. Indeed, the Standards assert that the seventh day sabbath prevailed “from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ” (WCF 21:7; LC 116; SC 59). Obviously the Sabbath is established after the creation process, yet it is deemed extant “from the beginning of the world.” Furthermore, in that man himself is a part of the original creation process “in the beginning,” how can the Framework Interpretation allow a multi-billion year old earth (see footnote 4 above) which places man late in the scheme of things far from “the beginning”? Do the Standards not demand the appearance of man upon the earth “from the beginning” (WCF 8:6; as does Scripture, Mt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6)?

Conclusion

Try as he might, as intelligent a student of theology as he is, Lee Irons fails in his re-interpretive effort regarding the Confession’s clear declaration. The Westminster divines sincerely believed and confessionally-affirmed that God accomplished the creation of the universe “in the space of six days.”

[image error]

IN THE SPACE OF SIX PAGES (2)

[image error]PMT 2017-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part series on the creation statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Six-day creation is an embarrassment to many evangelical and Reformed theologians. It is such an embarrassment that some will even re-interpret historic Reformed statements on the matter. One such re-working of the meaning of the Confession has been attempted by Reformed theological writer Lee Irons. Let’s continue my critique of his effort.

Irons opens his actual response to Hall’s research in the writings of the Westminster divines with this rather surprising comment, a comment that exposes a fundamental flaw in Irons’ effort:

Hall does not seem to have asked himself a pertinent hermeneutical question. Can we assume that these views of these theologians is [sic] ultimately determinative for how we ought to interpret what the Confession itself actually says and does not say? In other words, just because many of the divines held a particular view of the days, does that necessarily imply that the Confession affirms a particular view of the days?

Shortly thereafter he argues: “Studies of intellectual context are only of limited value with respect to the politics of confessional subscription.”

[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

When anyone compares WCF 4:1 with the Framework Interpretation of Genesis 1, it becomes immediately obvious why Irons would want to question Hall’s historical research: the views of the Confession’s framers are incompatible with the Framework Interpretation but perfectly fit the Six-Day Creationist perspective. Irons’ statement here at the very opening of his critique is remarkable in several respects:

(1) By this opening maneuver Irons effectively discounts the scholarly practice of historical exegesis. Yet in order to understand any historical document we must seek to discern the original intent of the author(s). Otherwise the whole interpretive enterprise becomes an exercise in eisegesis, leaving the document at the mercy of future fads and fashions. Hall’s research analyzes the published writings of the framers (and others in their era) to discover their fuller thoughts on the matter before us. Their creedal formulation does not appear out of the blue, but within a particular intellectual context. Irons himself admits Hall “has assisted us in placing the Confession in its intellectual context” and that “Hall has provided many quotes useful for determining original intent” (Irons, 1).

(2) Such historical research as Hall provides us becomes absolutely indispensable in situations like those currently before us. Long after the framing of the Confession’s article on creation, an entirely new view of the whole creation process has arisen. This new view directly contravenes the very clear and historically recognized language of the Confession. The Framework Interpretation informs us that the days of Genesis do not instruct us on the passing of time as we now experience it. Rather Genesis speaks of something altogether different. In fact, rather than creation transpiring “in the space of six days,” the Framework Interpretation urges that “with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.” Irons is correct in noting that “the Confession is what is binding, not the views of individual authors” (2). The problem arises in that through Irons’ sleight-of-hand, the Confession is being evacuated of its original intent. Such a maneuver demands that we research the wider body of literature produced by the divines to discover what they meant. The necessity of Hall’s research, then, becomes all the more urgent due to the re-interpretive process necessary to make room for the Framework Interpretation.

(3) This historical research becomes especially necessary in that the document in question is a creedal document. As the Latin etymology of “creed” instructs us and as creedalism has historically operated, a creed is a statement of belief, a pronouncement of commitment to a particular theological position. The whole purpose of a creed is to “lock-in” a particular theological viewpoint, to stand against the eroding tides of shifting fashion. Consequently, a creed must be understood in terms of its original intent or else it fails of its purpose, in that it does not secure a particular theological construct as a “platform for unity” (Irons, 2). The Six-Day Creation Interpretation vigorously and unashamedly proclaims that God created the universe “in the space of six days,” just as does the Confession; the Framework Interpretation argues that God most definitely did not create in such a compacted time frame, due to God’s use of natural providence in the creation process (based on insights derived from Gen. 2:5).

[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

(4) Furthermore, despite Irons’ assertion, Hall’s research does not “assume” the views of the framers of the Confession: it documents them. And it documents them in the light of the specific and clear statement within the Confession they framed. In various places in Irons’ paper we find that certain of the views of the Westminster divines do not appear in creedal form in the Confession of Faith: the young earth, the date of the creation, the season of the creation. Yet in 4:1 we do discover their view on the time-frame of the creational activity of God.

(5) Ironically, Irons himself allows historical exegesis to demonstrate that “the Westminster divines specifically rejected the Augustinian view. . . . There can be no doubt that ‘in the space of six days,’ both in Calvin and the Confession, was intended to rule out the instantaneous creation view”5. Though he complains of Hall’s “selective” use of historical argument (see the next point), it seems that Irons himself is selective in his denouncing the use of historical exegesis.

(6) A little later in his paper Irons makes a startling statement that as seriously misrepresents Hall’s research as it does misconstrue the nature of the historical exegetical enterprise:

Hall’s appeal to the weight of church history is arbitrary. On the one hand, he wants us to avoid the hubris of the modern mindset which rejects the ancient in favor of the new, and which always assumes that newer is better. But on the other hand, he selectively decides which ecclesiastical traditions are allowed to count. The traditions of 19th century American Presbyterianism and Old Princeton are dismissed as being too recent. But by what authority does Hall determine the cut-off point of legitimate ‘old’ traditions?”

This remarkable error cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. Note that:

(a) Hall’s appeal to church history is not in the least “arbitrary.” Hall is engaged in historical exegesis for the purpose of determining original intent. Consequently, he cites from the “intellectual context” (to use Irons’ own phrase, 1) in which the Confession was framed. The problem before us is that later observations and re-interpretations of the Confession have evacuated the Confessional statement of its historical meaning. Perhaps diachronically mapping out the development of Confessional interpretations would prove an interesting study, but this is not the issue before us.

(b) Contrary to Irons’ assertion Hall is not interested in the least with “old” v. “new,” but with original intent v. contemporary re-interpretation. The two concerns (old/new v. original/contemporary) are not equatable in the least. At times in Irons’ paper he seems to understand this, but then he appears to forget the matter when drawing conclusions.

Returning to the same paragraph on Irons’ page 1 (regarding “the pertinent hermeneutical question”), Irons continues his assault upon historical exegesis of the Confession: “Just because many of the divines held a particular view of the days, does that necessarily imply that the Confession affirms a particular view of the days?” In response let us note the following:

(1) Irons admits that “many of the divines” hold the natural day view of Genesis 1. He confesses that Hall “has located a large number of quotes from the 17th century Reformed theologians which indicate the possible presence of a consensus on several points relative to the days of creation” (1). In point of fact, Hall not only provided us a large array of evidence in this direction in his original paper, but he has since added several new references from the divines: the body of evidence is growing.5 How can we dismiss the divines’ convictions on the Genesis creation account when interpreting their Confession? Especially when a proposed interpretation counters those convictions?

(2) Irons does not offer even one countervailing assertion by a Westminster divine. There appears to be no dispute among the divines as to the nature of the creation days. The dispute is a modern cavil that has suspiciously arisen since the appearance of scientific evolutionism and its demand for enormous time-frames (not that Irons, Kline, or their associates are sympathetic to evolution).

(3) The extra-Confessional statements of the divines do not imply that the Confession “affirms a particular view of the days.” Rather the Confession itself (as we shall see in a little more detail shortly) affirms God created “in the space of six days,” thereby fitting perfectly with the framers’ other writings.

To be continued!

IN THE SPACE OF SIX PAGES (1)

[image error]PMT 2017-096 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The power of God and the clarity of his revelation are on trial in the courtroom of Reformed theological opinion. Despite the clarity of the statement on creation in the venerable Westminster Confession of Faith, some theologians attempt to re-interpret it to allow for evolution. In this three part series I will analyze one effort to this end.

Lee Irons has provided us with a Framework Interpretation response to David Hall’s important speech to the PCA General Assembly a few years back. In that speech Hall dealt with the Confessional meaning of creation “in the space of six days.” In his response titled “In the Space of Six Days: What Did the Divines Mean?”1 Irons mounts a vigorous assault on Hall’s historical research into the original meaning of the Confession of Faith’s statement.

Though Irons extends admirable academic courtesy to Hall’s diligent labor (Hall’s work is “an excellent service,” “useful,” a “good beginning,” “interesting,” and so forth), he is not very impressed with the results. In fact, he deems Hall’s extensive research largely unhelpful to the traditionalist viewpoint and, worse still, even counterproductive to it. He speaks of Hall’s “wrong conclusions,” exposes the “fatal flaw in Hall’s reasoning,” mentions his “methodologically unsound” procedure, and notes the “fallacy of Hall’s argument” as well as its “arbitrary” nature. In short, “Hall’s own evidence backfires.”

Irons’ assault is vigorous and unrelenting. But in the final analysis it serves to unmask the quiet desperation of the Framework Interpretation and illustrate its ultimate Confessional failure. What is worse, Irons’ argument provides a clear example for us of the dangerous hermeneutical engine driving the Framework Interpretation. As I shall show in this brief response, Irons’ paper suffers from dialectical tension, conceptual confusion, and methodological absurdity. This is fortunate, however, in that had he sustained a successful argument he would have undermined the whole purpose of creeds themselves by evacuating the meaning of creedal assertions.

[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

Basically, Irons attempts two bold and important ventures in his paper: (1) He strives to demonstrate the Confession’s statement that God created the world “in the space of six days” is ambiguous. The Confession, he argues, merely parrots Scriptural language, thereby leaving the interpretation of the “six days” of Creation to the individual subscriber. (2) He further argues that historical exegesis of the Confession proves that this ambiguity is intentional. By this maneuver he attempts to open the door to the Framework Interpretation, while undercutting the literal six-day creation argument.

The Framework Interpretation would earn more respect among its opposers were its proponents to admit that the language of the Confession means what it actually says and then simply declare an exception at that point.

As we shall see, Irons fails both of his primary goals in his paper. In an effort to conserve space, I will proceed through his article in a seriatim fashion. But before I actually begin my response we must note the nature of the debate between the Framework Interpretation and the Six-Day Creation Interpretation.

The section of the Confession in dispute is found in chapter 4, paragraph 1:

“It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”

Here the Confession presents Presbyterian Framework theorists with an immediate and embarrassing problem. The almost universal and historical consensus recognizes the Confession’s statement “in the space of six days” as defining the timeframe of the original creative acts of God. The average English reader doubtlessly recognizes these words as setting temporal limits upon the original creative work of God. And herein is exposed the dangerous implications of the Framework Interpretation: Not only does the Framework view discount the temporal delimiters structuring the Genesis 1 record itself (“evening/morning,” solar function, ordinal prefixes, serial enumeration2 ), but it sets about refashioning the very simple and obvious language of our Confession.

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

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

The Framework Interpretation would earn more respect among its opposers were its proponents to admit that the language of the Confession means what it actually says and then simply declare an exception at that point. But when we witness the attempt at re-interpreting the clear language before us, deep and serious concerns boil up. Where will this methodology lead? What elements within the Confession are safe from the re-interpretive hermeneutic? And for how long are they safe once this interpretive approach is unleashed?

To be continued….

[image error]

“JOY TO THE WORLD”

[image error]PMT 2016-095 by Jordan Wilson

Public Service Announcement:

“Joy to the World” is a Christmas song. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for singing it all year round, but I think it is especially appropriate to sing at Christmas.

To my fascination, I’ve seen a couple articles floating around which essentially misinterpret the song by forcing their own eschatological presuppositions and “poo poo” its traditional characterization as a Christmas song. Those of us who understand it in the sense of being a celebration of the first advent are then issued a slap on the wrist along with a disapproving tsk tsk.

If we fail to understand that postmillennialism was the dominant eschatology in the 18th century during which this hymn was written, and that author Isaac Watts himself was an ardent postmillennialist, one could see how it could be assumed that Christ’s second coming was Watt’s intent behind the Christmas hymn “Joy to the World” and not his first coming.

But first, simply notice the tense of the song is not future. Watts could have easily written, “Joy to the world the Lord will come” or “the Savior will reign” or “He will rule the world”, but he didn’t. The fact that he chose not to, fits perfectly with his inaugurated postmillennial eschatology. The song is intentionally written to highlight and celebrate the present, earth redeeming imperatives of Christ’s first advent. The Old Testament picture we are given by the prophets of Christ’s first appearing is that it was a cosmic event, forever altering the course of history.

[image error]

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

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

For more Christian educational materials:

www.KennethGentry.com

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” Isaiah 9:6-7

Secondly, we need to keep in mind that from Watt’s postmillennial perspective, the Kingdom and the reversal of the curse itself was inaugurated at Christ’s first coming. We see this playing out in Christ’s earthly ministry as he displayed power to roll back sickness and disease and over nature itself. In fact, from a postmil perspective, every imperative in the hymn is an implication of Christ’s first advent.

“The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8

So while it’s always a good idea to look forward to Christ’s return at the consummation of history, we can also look back and rejoice as the angels did at Christ’s first coming! An event which set the whole world in motion towards the consummation….

To continue reading this article:

http://www.datpostmil.com/stop-saying-joy-world-isnt-christmas-song/

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

A KING IS BORN

[image error]PMT 2016-094 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

If you reading this on the date  of its original posting: Merry Christmas! If not, then Happy Whatever.

The original Christmas was a time fully anticipating the postmillennial hope in history. Not only are many of our Christmas hymns very postmillennial, but they are so because the biblical narrative presenting Christ’s birth is!

But now to work!

In paradigmatic, biblico-theological fashion, in the first chapter of his gospel Luke draws upon and arranges the old covenant expectations that arise in response to the announcement of Christ’s birth. As he brings the Old Testament expectations over into the New Testament, he rephrases the prophecies in terms of their New Covenant fruition. Interestingly, most of these are in poetic-song format, indicating the joyousness of the expectations (Lk 1:46–55, 67–79; 2:14, 29–32).

The angelic annunciation

In the angelic annunciation to Mary, we hear of God giving Christ David’s throne and promising that he will rule endlessly: “‘He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end’” (Lk 1:32–33). This is surely an “echo of the sublime prediction” in Isaiah 9:6–7 [David Brown, “Matthew,” Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary, 2:97].

We should remember that Isaiah 9:6–7 ties in kingdom dominion with the birth of the king as historically successive realities. We also see that Daniel 7:13 equates Christ’s coronation with his historical ascension. Daniel 2 also speaks of his kingdom coming in the days of the fourth kingdom, Rome (Da 2:40–45). The New Testament pattern is: humiliation followed immediately by exaltation (Jn 7:39; Lk 24:26; 1Pe 1:11). Furthermore, the New Testament shows that he presently rules as Messianic king and that his rule never ends. Christ receives “David’s throne” as per Old Testament prophecies (Ac 2:29–36; 3:13–15; 5:29–31; Rev 3:7).

New Testament Survey (47 mp3 lectures)[image error]

by Ken Gentry

Forty-seven formal Christ College course lectures in mp3 format. Includes class interaction. Lecture material demonstrates all four Gospels were written prior to AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The reference in Luke 1:33 to Christ’s ruling over “the house of Jacob” is significant. Jacob is the father of the “twelve tribes of Israel” (Ge 35:22–27). Thus, this we should understand this as alluding to the totality of the “Israel of God,” which includes all of the redeemed, Jew and Gentile alike. Luke’s companion, Paul, makes this especially clear (Gal 3:29; 6:16; Eph 2:12–22).

Mary’s Magnificat

Mary’s praise to God in Luke 1:46–55 reverberates with the victory theme. In verses 47 and 48, she exalts the Lord as Savior, recognizing God’s glorious blessing upon her: “From this time on all generations will count me blessed.” Why this universal homage? Because “the Mighty One” (v 49) is now moving in history in a powerful way and using Mary for his glory. This declaration receives its impulse from the prophetic victory theme; it counters any notion of despair, any tendency to lamentation, any expectation of perpetual suffering.

Mary recognizes that in the soon-coming birth of Christ, God will do “mighty deeds with His arm” for he will “scatter the proud” (Lk 1:51). He will “bring down rulers” and “exalt those who are humble” (v 52). He will fill “the hungry with good things” (v 53). He will do it through his people (v 54) in keeping with the Abrahamic Covenant (v 55). This glad song reverberates with hope and contains absolutely no intimation of defeat.

Zacharias’ prophecy

Zacharias continues the hope-filled joy, for he sees Christ’s birth as bringing glad tidings of victory for God’s people over their enemies (Lk 1:68–71). This again fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant (v 73; cf. Ro 15:8–12). Christ is the sunrise that will “shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death” (vv 78–79). Elsewhere this refers to the Gentiles (Isa 9:1, 2; Mt 4:16).[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

Later in the New Testament we see this light as a positive force, dispelling darkness in the present age (Ro 13:11–13; 1Jn 2:8). Because Christ has come, he will bring “peace on earth” (Lk 2:14a). His birth at his first coming insures peace on earth — not his second coming (although in the consummative new earth this peace will come to perfect, eternal realization).

[image error]

CHRISTMAS AND POSTMILLENNIALISM

[image error]PMT 2016-093 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

We are in the Christmas season and heading toward a new year. We must not forget the message of Christmas; we must take it with us through the season and into the new year God is granting us. You might remember that Bing Crosby sang: “I’m Dreaming of a Postmillennial Christmas.” Whereas Elvis was apparently an amillennialist when he sang: “I’ll Have a Blue Christmas.”

Postmillennialists can easily use Christmas texts to present the postmillennial hope. In doing such, they show that Christmas should not simply create a momentary joy as we turn our attentions away from our problems for a brief period. Rather Christmas is deeply embedded in the postmillennial hope.

One of the key prophetic texts that speaks of the coming incarnation and the resulting story of Christmas is Isaiah 9:6-7. There we read:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.”

Christmas Theology

21 mp3 Reformed messages on Christmas by Ken Gentry

Includes studies of images of Christ in manger scenes, consideration of the legitimacy of celebrating Christmas, Christmas miracles (incarnation, conception, and revelation), Christmas and the new creation, and more. Excellent for personal study or pastoral ideas.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

To understand this passage contextually, we must note the close connection between the birth of “the son” (his redemptive humiliation, v 6) and his receiving universal government (at his exaltation at the resurrection/ ascension). The promise is that this kingdom will grow, issuing forth in peace (v 7). When Messiah comes into the world he does so to receive a kingdom. The preceding context points also to Christ’s first coming as inaugurating this prophecy’s fulfillment. The reference in verse 2 to the people in darkness who see a great light is fulfilled in Christ’s ministry (Mt 4:16). In fact, the great light is Christ who is the light of the world (Jn 8:12; 12:46).

In Isaiah 9:3 the Lord promises to multiply his people Israel. This is according to the Abrahamic Covenant’s promise of a great seed and influence among the nations. God will accomplish this by calling the Gentiles to be the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29). This involves their ingrafting into Israel’s stock (Ro 11:16–19), the merging of Jew and Gentile into one body (Eph 2:11–17). The increase of Israel’s joy (v 3) indicates the joy in the Savior’s coming (Lk 2:10; Jn 3:29). According to the New Testament, Christ brings joy to his people (Jn 15:11; 16:20ff); and where Christianity goes, joy follows (Ac 8:8; 13:52; 15:3; Ro 14:17; 15:13; 1 Pe 1:8; 1Jn 1:4). As in Isaiah 2:3–4 Christ’s coming results in oppression and war ceasing (vv 4–5), which Isaiah portrays in the burning of soldiers’ garments as a symbol that they will no longer be needed. This is similar to the earlier casting off of swords (Isa 2:4).

Christ’s reign over his kingdom begins at his first coming (Mt 4:17; 12:28) and will gradually increase over time (Mt 13:31–33). In prophecy Christ appears as the son or branch of David (Jer 23:5; 33:13), or as David himself (Jer 30:9; Eze 34:23, 23; 37:24; Hos 3:5). After his resurrection he ascends to David’s throne (Ac 2:30–31), which represents God’s throne (1Ch 28:5; 29:23). His reign brings peace, for he is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6). Calvin puts it well in his commentary on Isaiah (vol. 1, p. 96). This peace grows incrementally through history in that Christ “extends its boundaries far and wide, and then preserves and carries it forward in uninterrupted progression to eternity.”

[image error]