PMW 2021-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my previous three postings I have been noting the significance of Milton Terry’s commentary as I plan to bring it back into print. Thankfully, Biblical Apocalyptics has remained in print over the years and has included “The Apocalypse of John” as a major portion of it. But the published versions have been created by merely scanning the original text, then printing it “as is.” No attempt at resetting the type was engaged. Thus, the quality of reproduction was quite low.
Though we are not changing any of Terry’s positions, we are editing it for a modern readership. In our newly typeset version of Terry’s The Apocalypse of John the reader will find the following improvements. Continue reading
PMW 2021-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
As noted in the two previous postings, Jay Rogers and I will soon be re-publishing Milton S. Terry’s commentary on Revelation. As Christians who are deeply interested in Revelation, it is with great pleasure that we will soon be releasing it as a stand-along commentary. Since its initial composition in 1898, it has always appeared as a part of his larger volume dealing the leading apocalyptic passages in Scripture: Biblical Apocaclyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures.. The commentary was the largest chapter in that work, consuming almost fifty percent of the book: 228 pages of its 512 pages. Continue reading
PMW 2021-015 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I frequently receive a question regarding the difference between preterism and postmillennialism. Some folks are confused as to whether they contradict each other or whether they are speaking of the same thing. Let me briefly distinguish the two theological concepts.
The word “preterist” is the transliteration of a Latin word that means “passed by.” The orthodox preterist sees certain passages as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, though many evangelicals understand these to be speaking of the second coming of Christ at the end of history. Continue reading
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 2020-066 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