PMW-2020-111 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The postmillennial hope looks to the unfolding victory of Christ’s kingdom in history. In fact, the glorious dominance of his kingdom is the very goal of history. God’s plan was for man to exercise dominion over all creation (Gen 1:26–28). Immediately upon Adam’s Fall, God instituted redemption which was designed to crush the head of Satan and his kingdom (Gen 3:15).
Later God informs Abraham of his plan for universal blessing that was to be brought through him: “In you all families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3b). And King David rejoiced in this prospect:
“All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, / And all the families of the nations will worship before You. / For the kingdom is the LORD’S / And He rules over the nations.” (Psa 22:27–28)
Given God’s plan and his sending his own Son to accomplish that plan, Jesus declared as he faced the cross: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31–32). Christ fully and confidently expected historical victory for God’s plan, and therefore commissioned us to labor for it:
“Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age’” (Matt 28:18–20).
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
Jesus was confident in his Father’s plan and his own authority. And so should we be.
Creation Is Linked to Consummation
As I point out in my book He Shall Have Dominion, creation and consummation are intrinsically related. In biblical theology, eschatology requires protology. This is because as Genesis commentator John Currid notes: “the Hebrews held to a linear history. They believed there was a beginning to time and creation (cosmogony) and a movement to a consummation (eschatology).” The end is entailed in the beginning.
I am as strongly a Six-day Creationist as I am a postmillennialist. I believe the two go together well, like love and marriage! Both approach Scripture seriously; both help frame-in a holistic world-and-life view; and both are firmly committed to the historical trustworthiness of the biblical record — regardless of what liberals and pagans think. Therefore, both Six-day Creationism and postmillennialism are abhorrent to the unbeliever, but should be admired by the believer.
I have recently written a book that has been published by New Leaf Press (February 2016). It is titled: As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary? In this work I basically seek to accomplish two ends: (1) Demonstrate the exegetical and theological foundations for Six-day Creation; and (2) Highlight the exegetical and theological errors of the Framework Hypothesis. I believe this is important to do — as a foundation to the postmillennial hope.
I open As It Is Written with the question: Why should we study Creation? I provide a six-point rationale that was presented by theologian Millard Erickson:
1. The Bible stresses this doctrine, even opening with it.
2. The doctrine of creation is in creeds, showing it is an important element in traditional Christianity.
3. The unity of biblical doctrine requires the doctrine of origins: we have eschatology and therefore need protology.
4. The biblical doctrine of creation is distinctively different from other religions and philosophies, and therefore sets Christianity apart from them.
5. Biblical creation confronts modern secular, naturalistic science, which is dominating our culture and is the Christian faith’s leading philosophical enemy.
6. The doctrine of creation is essential to the ultimacy of God: it declares that God alone is creator of universe.
Adam in the New Testament
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
The Framework Hypothesis
One of the leading evangelical re-interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative today is the Framework Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that Genesis 1:1–2:3 presents God’s creation as a seven-day week for a literary (theological and symbolic) framework and is not intended to indicate the literal chronology or duration of the acts of creation.
As I show in great detail, the Framework Hypothesis is built on three exegetical foundations:
(1) The triad of days. This argues that the creation of light on Day 1 parallels the creation of the sun on Day 4 and are therefore not successive days, but two ways of saying the same thing. The same is true of Day 2 (waters and sky) paralleling Day 5 (fish and birds), as wells as Day 3 (land) paralleling Day 6 (land animals and man).
(2) The providence of creation. This understand Genesis 2:5 as declaring that God used ordinary, gradualistic providence in Creation week and avoided “unnecessary supernaturalism.” Meredith Kline states regarding this verse that it provides “conclusive exegetical evidence . . . that prevents anyone who follows the analogy of Scripture from supposing that Genesis 1 teaches a creation in the space of six solar days.”
This is drawn from the following biblical statement: “Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.” This, according to the Framework advocates, states that before plants could sprout, rain had to begin — which is the natural way things are today.
(3) The two-register cosmogony. That is, Klinean Framework proponents argue that interpreters must recognize that Gen 1–2 involves two perspectives: the one from above (God’s heavenly world) and the one from below (the temporal, earthly order). They warn that we must recognize some aspects of the Creation narrative present an analogical perspective on creation. That is, it presents God’s work in “creation week” analogically, using man’s experience as an analogy of God’s work. Therefore, Moses employed a seven-day week to present Creation because man has a seven-day week.
In my next article I will briefly demonstrate the error in the three-fold exegetical argument for the Framework. In the meantime, don’t work too hard: don’t engage the Beatles’ suggestion of “Eight Days a Week.” God only gave us seven!
Click on the following images for more information on these studies: