PMW 2020-097 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Much of this article repeats an earlier article which I think might be helpful once again. I am bringing it up-to-date due to some recent observations I have gathered in the eschatological debate.
As previously noted, I often have people ask me if I am a “preterist.” This is generally asked by someone who does not know what “preterism” means. They are usually fearful of the term because they do not understand what all is involved in the preterist idea. In fact, at a theological exam when entering a new presbytery, I was challenged as being an agent of the Hyper-preterist movement because of my orthodox preterist views. Fortunately, I was able to demonstrate that I am fully orthodox. But this experience showed me the danger of accidental false associations.
This will surprise some of my readers, but I would like to state categorically and unequivocally: I am NOT a preterist. To believe that I am a preterist is quite mistaken. Continue reading
PMW-2020-074 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my last article I introduced my rebuttal to the notion that Rev 20:1–3 (the binding of Satan) recapitulates Rev 12:7ff (Satan’s casting out of heaven). Recapitulation is a common feature within Revelation. But it does not appear everywhere that some think it does.
In this article I am continuing my response to G. K. Beale who argues for recapitulation on Rev 20:1–3. Continue reading
PMW-2020-073 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Revelation is a powerful, intriguing, and confusing book. Some of the confusion arises from its internal structure. John often engages in recapitulation, that is, rehearsing earlier visions in later portions of his work. However, he does not always recapitulate his material.
One significant area of concern for proper interpretation involves the question as to whether Rev. 20:1–3 recapitulates Rev. 12:7ff regarding Satan’s judgment. Continue reading
PMW 2020-067 by R. C. Sproul (Ligonier Ministries)
In the twentieth century, the German biblical scholar Rudolf Bultmann gave a massive critique of the Scriptures, arguing that the Bible is filled with mythological references that must be removed if it is to have any significant application to our day. Bultmann’s major concern was with the New Testament narratives, particularly those that included records of miracles, which he deemed impossible. Other scholars, however, have claimed that there are mythological elements in the Old Testament as well. Exhibit A for this argument is usually a narrative that some believe parallels the ancient Greek and Roman myths about gods and goddesses occasionally mating with human beings. Continue reading
PMW 2020-066 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the final installment of a seven part series on the interpretation of Revelation 1:1 and 3. This is the second and final part of the two-part conclusion of the series, where I focus on the positive evidence for the preterist interpretation. So now let’s consider:
4. Alternative options
Upon reading these several temporal statements we must ask: If John had intended to speak of the events as near, how could he have expressed that more clearly? By eliminating these phrases from his vocabulary we deny him common means of expressing shortness.
Two of these are particularly common expressions for indicating temporal proximity: eggus and tachos/tachu. The word eggus appears frequently in the NT, occurring thirty-one times (11 times in John’s Gospel and twice in Rev). Its verbal form eggizō occurs another forty-two times, with about half of those indicating temporal rather than spatial nearness. This is an important expression in the Gospels for declaring the nearness of Christ’s kingdom which he establishes during his ministry: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt 3:2). “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Mt 4:17). “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Mt 10:7). The words tachos appears eight times and its related term tachus thirteen. Thus, these terms appear a total of ninety-four times. Continue reading
PMW 2020-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I have been doing a survey of various excuses made by scholars who seek to avoid preterist understanding of Revelation. It is incredible how many different interpretations of Revelation 1:1 and 3 have been created.
Now I have come to the end of the survey of views, so I will present the evidence to support the preterist analysis. Why do we believe the bulk of Revelation was near when John wrote? Let’s see.
Revelation 1:1 reads: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon [en tachei] take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.”
PMW 2020-064 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is my fifth study in a survey of the scholarly options for interpreting the introductory verses of Revelation. Those verses are Revelation 1:1, 3. And they read:
1 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, . . . 3 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.
We have looked at seven options among scholars. We are now ready for three more!
8. John speaks from the future
George Beasley-Murray emphasizes “imminence” (Revelation, 168) and “no more delay” (170) but not for the original audience. Actually “in his vision John stands near the close of the period of messianic judgments” (Beasley-Murray 170). Thus, he sees John as speaking from within the future context when the events are about to explode on the seen. Continue reading