Category Archives: Uncategorized

CHRIST’S RESURRECTION & THE AGE TO COME (Richard Gaffin)

By Richard B. Gaffin (The Gospel Coaltion)

Gentry note: Dr. Gaffin is a noted Reformed theologian who has done much study in the theological two-age construct. Though he is amillennial, postmillennialism and amillennialism share much in common. Indeed, until the early 1900s the two used to be one eschatological option. Below is a helpful article on the topic of the two ages

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AND THE AGE TO COME
By Richard B. Gaffin, Th.D.

Definition

The resurrection of Christ as it relates to the “age to come” and the eschatological resurrection in Scripture.

Summary

This essay will examine the “two age” outlook of the biblical writers and the arrival of the age to come in the resurrection of Christ. In the resurrection of Christ the age to come (future) has come (present) and is shared in the experience of those united to Christ by the Spirit. Continue reading

MY HYPER-PRETERIST FRUSTRATIONS (1)

PMW 2021-011 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Well, I promised myself I would never engage in a land war in Asia. But against my better judgment, here I go. In this two-part series I will briefly respond this one last time to Don Preston’s responses to my series on Matthew 24:3. I will not be interacting much with his exegetical errors, since I am working on a commentary where these should be exposed. Rather, this article and the next one function more as a testimonial on my part. That is, it explains why I do not like interacting with Hyper-preterists.

It is totally frustrating to read their challenges and arguments. They live in a different world and have a whole new theology. And I guess in my Preston-diagnosed “desperation” I fear that they might pull out a ray gun, set it on “phase,” then fire a death-beam at me. Continue reading

Of Sundials, Clocks, and Humans

REVELATION’S DATE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (2)

PMW 2020-109 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I continue my series on the dating of Revelation, I will present two of the leading external witnesses for the late date: Irenaeus and Origen.

Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202)

Undoubtedly the most commonly used and strongest external objection to the early date of Revelation is the famous statement by Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) in book 5 of his Against Heresies. This statement is very early and seems clear and to the point. It occurs at the end of a section in which he is dealing with the identification of Revelation’s “666,” which Irenaeus applies to the Antichrist:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.

Nevertheless, several problems reduce the usefulness of this statement for late date advocacy. Continue reading

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (3)

PMW 2020-062 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is a third installment in my series presenting the various scholarly approaches to John’s all-important opening verses to Revelation. These verses are too easily overlooked by the average Christian trying to get to “the good stuff” about the Beast and the Harlot. But to jump over these is to miss John’s point.

How are we to understand Revelation 1:1 and 3? What else have the scholars attempted with these verses?

These verses 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 are now ready for the fourth and fifth approaches.

4. The events will occur rapidly

The events will unfold rapidly whenever they begin to occur. Dispensationalist scholar John Walvoord (Revelation, 35) understands Rev’s opening comment thus: “That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘soon’ (Gr. en tachei), that is, ‘quickly or suddenly coming to pass,’ indicating a rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke f18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20). A similar word, tackus, is translated ‘quickly’ seven times in Rev.” Charles Ryrie (Revelation, 13) also holds this view. Continue reading

WHAT DO REVELATION 1:1 AND 1:3 MEAN? (2)

PMW 2020-061 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a short series that is presenting the various views of commentators in their understanding of the opening verses of Revelation, specifically Revelation 1:1, 3. These verses introduce the book and are therefore crucial for its understanding. However, commentators disagree on how these verses are to be interpreted.

So now I will be presenting two more view of these verses.

2. John was ambiguous

The events were prophesied to be soon, but as was customary with Israel’s prophets, the special prophetic language is intentionally “ambiguous.” Prophetic ambiguity is intentional and designed to heighten the hearers’ expectations for moral purposes of readiness. Though not applying his discussion to Revelation, we may easily see how Scot McKnight’s understanding of Hebrew prophecy would explain John’s nearness imagery. Continue reading

DISPENSATIONALISM’S LITERALISM FRAUD (2)

PMW 2020-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last posting, I began a studying exposing the error of dispensationalism claimed literalism. Since this is such a big feature in the system and such a drawing card for it, it is important that Reformed Christians be able to refute it. I hope these two articles will be helpful to that end. The more recent form of dispensationalism, known as Progressive Dispensationalism, has largely recognized the problem and made important changes to the system. However, pew-sitting believers are still enamored with dispensationalism and its claim to literalism.

So, let us continue exposing the error.

Ezekiel and Literalism

In The New Scofield Reference Bible at Ezekiel 43:19 we read: “The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally.” How can this be? Indeed, on the opposite side of the issue we should note the dispensationalist treatment of Isaiah 52:15, which reads: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” The New Scofield Reference Bible comments: “Compare the literal fulfillment of this prediction in 1 Pet. 1:1–2, where people of many nations are described as having been sprinkled with the blood of Christ.” Is this literal? When was Jesus’ blood literally sprinkled on the nations? This sounds more like “spiritualizing” than “consistent literalism.” Continue reading