PMW 2018-033 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Gentry Commentary on Revelation
I have just received notice from the publisher that my commentary on Revelation will be released this Summer. It’s title is: The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation. It will be around 1800 pages in two volumes.
I am excited that the long wait for it may be over. A day waiting for one’s book to be published is like a 1000 years. Only more so. I never thought I would interpret a 1000 years so literally!
But what does a used Revelation commentator do in his spare time, such as it is? He gets started on Revelation’s best friend, the Olivet Discourse. After all, Revelation opens with “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1), and has four key passages from Christ that greatly impact its drama, each one taken from the Olivet Discourse.
So now I would like to introduce the, as yet untitled:
Gentry Commentary on Matthew 21-25
I have now begun in-depth research on a new, semi-technical commentary. This one is on a discrete, inter-connected unit in Matthew. It will begin in Matthew 21, where Jesus first enters Jerusalem and begins a final teaching ministry with direct, concentrated challenges to the Jerusalem authorities. It will continue to where he ends his teaching-challenge at the end of Matthew 25, which is followed by his betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection. In this unit he theologically links the coming destruction of the temple and the judgment of Israel in the first century to his final coming and the judgment of all nations at the future Second Advent in the last century.
I will be using the principles of Composition Criticism to show how both AD 70 and the Second Advent are demonstrations of Christ’s authority over Israel and the nations (per Matthew’s point in Matt. 21–25). Composition Criticism approaches a biblical book on the basis of its author’s own theological point. That is, it tends not to randomly pick up on similar verses in other books to determine what the author is saying. Rather it looks at the text we have before us (in this case the Gospel of Matthew) to determine what this author himself (Matthew) was getting at in the way he organizes and edits his material.
Matthew does not simply cite Christ word-for-word. He translates the Lord’s teaching from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek and arranges the material according to his theological concern.
Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)
Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
As is well-known, the Gospels differ on many points, and even in the Olivet Discourse itself. For instance, only Matthew fails to mention the story of the widow’s mite, which leads up to the Discourse (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–6). Only Matthew presents the fuller question from the disciples about the temple’s destruction (Matt. 24:3; cp. Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). Only Matthew has Jesus using the word parousia (and he uses it only four times in his whole Gospel, all in the Discourse, Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39). And in Matt. 21-25, Matthew records the most parables challenging the Jerusalem authorities. Why?
These differences are not due to contradictory traditions or clumsy editing, as per Form Criticism or Redaction Criticism. Rather they are due to the Gospel writers’ particular theological point, which they are making. Those who randomly jump at every parallel phrasing between the Gospels will miss the particular author’s point. This problem has caused many evangelicals to not recognize the theological linking of AD 70 and the Second Advent, while maintaining the historical distinction of these two redemptive-historical events (one is in the first century, the other will be in the last century).
Matthew carefully distinguishes AD 70 (Matt. 24:4–34) from the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46) as he demonstrates the authority of Christ (a main, driving point in this unit of his Gospel). He shows Christ’s authority, first, over Israel (leading to her judgment), then second, over the nations (leading to their judgment). Matthew does not present Jesus as a Jewish sage with a local ministry. Rather he presents him as the universal Lord whose sovereignty is over all the nations, which is his final point in his Gospel (Matt. 28:18–20).
My commentary on Matthew 21–25 will more fully draw out the transition occurring in Matthew 24:34–36 than in my The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. This new commentary will be The Olivet Discourse Made Difficult. Not really. But it will be with great exegetical, theological, and critical depth. To compare it to the Made Easy book, it will be like the television ad that lets you buy something with three easy payments followed by one really hard payment.
Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)
Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com
From the exegetical research that I have already engaged, I can tell this is going to be an exciting, insightful, and instructive challenge. And I am entering into this challenge with enthusiasm!
You Can Help!
So I hope those interested in these things might be willing to support me, so that I can get this project done in a timely manner. The Matthew commentary will not take as long as the Revelation commentary, mainly due to the scope of the material: twenty-two chapters in Revelation, five chapters in Matthew. I am hoping to complete it by the end of 2019.
Click on the following images for more information on these studies: