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.”
PMW 2017-008 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second in a three-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.” 
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”? Continue reading
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].” Continue reading
PMT 2016-072 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I am frequently asked how postmillennialism can stand since Jesus speaks of the narrow gate to salvation. This is certainly a reasonable question, because it is a biblical one.
Inquirers often challenge me: I just can’t imagine this present world becoming a Christian majority at any point, especially in light of Christ’s wide and narrow gates and many being called, but few chosen, etc. I don’t see that at all. Never has the world been a friend of God and I don’t see a future scene like that at all in Scripture.
This is an important question. Let’s consider how we can resolve the theoretical problem. Continue reading
PMT 1016-004 by Greg L. Bahnsen (edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.)
(Gentry note: This is the fourth in a four-part series on “Misguided Grounds for Rejecting Postmillennialism.” This article was originally written by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, but is presented here as edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. In this article, Dr. Bahnsen considers “Premature Charges.”)
In addition to the misguided and failed attempts to dismiss postmillennialism based on (1) newspaper exegesis, (2) misrepresentation, and (3) the application of two-edged criticism (which applies to the critic as well as the position criticized), there are current day charges against the position which are premature or unfounded. Continue reading
PMT 2016-003 by Greg L. Bahnsen (edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.)
(Ken Gentry note: This is the third in a four-part series on the sad practice of rejecting postmillennialism on faulty grounds. Dr. Bahnsen wrote this material and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., has edited it and offered here. This rejection falls on its own sword in that it involves two-edged criticisms. Let’s see how this is so.)
A third infelicitous way in which postmillennialism has been disposed of is by means of (allegedly) critical considerations which in fact apply as much to the other eschatological positions as to postmillennialism. This is particularly embarrassing as a scholarly lapse. But what do we mean? Continue reading
PMT 2016-002 by Greg L. Bahnsen (edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.)
This is the second in a four-part series on “Misguided Grounds for Rejecting Postmillennialism.” This article was originally written by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, but is presented here as edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. In this article, Dr. Bahnsen considers “Misrpresentation.”
Postmillennialism has not only been discarded in this century on clearly unorthodox grounds; it has also been made a straw man so that modern advocates of the other schools of interpretation can easily knock it down and get on to other interests. The worst possible interpretation is put on postmillennial tenets, or the eccentric aspect of some postmillennial writer’s position is set forth as representing the basic school of thought. Continue reading