Postmillennial Worldview

This is my final installment on a brief series of the role of Israel in the Bible and theology. I am responding to the Judeo-centric theology of dispensationalism. Please read the three preceding articles to understand the flow of my argument. I now move on to note that:

9. The new covenant church is actually called “Israel”

Dispensationalists strongly resist the application of “Israel” to the church, asserting that “the Scriptures never use the term Israel to refer to any but the natural descendants of Jacob” [1] But if according to the New Scofield Reference Bible Abraham can have Gentiles as his “spiritual seed,” [2] why may we not envision a spiritual Israel?

In fact, Paul applies the name “Israel” to Christians when he writes: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). Here he is referring to Christians as “the Israel of God.” In the Greek the “and “preceding “the Israel of God,” functions epexegetically. That is, we should translate the verse “peace and mercy upon them, that is, upon the Israel of God.” Thus, according to Paul “as many as walk according to this rule [Christian faith]” are the “Israel of God.”

Dispensationalists see Galatians 6:16 as applying to Jewish converts to Christ, “who would not oppose the apostle’s glorious message of salvation.” [3] But such is surely not the case, for the following reasons. The entire epistle of Galatians opposes any claim to a special Jewish status or distinction: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26–28).
Continue reading →

PMW 2024-011 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my opening installment of this four-part series on Israel, I highlighted the wildly popular dispensational view of Israel, which has a Judeo-centric eschatology. My reader should consult my preceding article in order to understand what I am arguing.

Continuing the idea of the previous article, I would note that though “replacement theology” is a popular charge against non-dispensational, evangelical theology, a better term would be: “fulfillment theology.” Let me demonstrate the biblical warrant for this “fulfillment theology” view.

1. The OT anticipates the expansion of God’s people

The Old Testament writers foresee a time in which God will expand his people by bringing blessings on the Gentiles and including them within Israel. This hope is established early in Israel’s formative history when God establishes his covenant with Abraham: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, / And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:4).

Continue reading →

PMW 2024-010 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Because of the prominence of dispensationalism and the Left Behind phenomenon in evangelical circles, it is important for us to reflect on a fundamental emphasis in contemporary prophecy discussions: Israel. This is also important in that Israel does ver clearly play a prominent role in Scripture. In this brief series I will provide a brief study of the Scripture’s view of Israel from a Reformed perspective both exegetically and theologically

As all Christians know, throughout most of the Old Testament Israel is God’s special people — beginning in seed form with the calling of Abraham in Genesis 12. She is God’s elect nation (Deut 7:7–8 ; 10:15; Zech 2:8; Rom 3:1–3; 11:1) and the focal point of his redemptive mercies in history (Deut 4:7–8; Psa 147:19–20; Amos 3:2; Rom 9:4). Because of her commanding presence in old covenant history and her central role in Old Testament prophecy she becomes a crucial issue in understanding the Bible.

Israel in the Bible and History (9 mp3 lectures)
by Ken Gentry
The people of Israel are the people of God. But the modern church is divided over the nature, call and identity of Israel. This lecture series covers key issues for understanding the biblical concept of Israel.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Continue reading →

PMW 2024-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialists are a people of the Book. We are certainly not people of the Newspapers (dispensationalists argue that current news is contra postmillennialism). So, as committed Christians we are Bible-believing Christians (1 Thess. 2:13). We believe we are sanctified by the Word of truth (John 17:17). We understand that we must diligently feed upon the solid meat of Scripture (Heb. 5:12-14). We happily examine the words of ministers with great eagerness, searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). Consequently, a sign of the committed Christian is his or her well-marked Bible.

I am sure my experience has been that of the vast majority of Bible-carrying, text-marking Christians: I often regret having too hastily jotted indelible notes in my favorite expensive, leather-bound Bible. I still have the first Bible I received upon my conversion at age 16. Needless to say, I have plenty of notes in that Bible that I lament.

Continue reading →

PMW 2024-008 by Milton S. Terry

[Gentry note: This is part 2 of Milton S. Terry’s two-part argument for the early date of Revelation]

Jewish persecution

A fair weighing of the arguments thus far adduced shows that they all, excepting the statement of Irenæus, favor the early rather than the later date. The facts appealed to indicate the times before rather than after the destruction of Jerusalem. And this opinion is corroborated by the further consideration that the persecutions of the time proceed from the Jews (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). We know that the persecutions of the apostolic age came chiefly through Jewish instigation and even at the time of Polycarp, we read in Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 4:15) that the Christian martyr’s death was secured by the fierce zeal of the Jewish population.

Standing temple

The mention, in Revelation 11:1–3, of the temple, the altar, and the court and the mystical designation, in verse 8, of “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified,” implies that the city and temple of Jerusalem were not yet overthrown. It is singularly futile to plead that these expressions are symbolical. For, whatever the mystical significance, the whole manner of statement supposes such a knowledge of the temple and the altar as would be unnatural and out of place if in fact the city and temple were then in ruins. But, on the other hand, if these were yet existing and the time of their utter demolition was near at hand, the allusions would be most natural and impressive.
Continue reading →

PMW 2024-007 by Milton S. Terry

Two different opinions have long prevailed respecting the date of the Apocalypse. One rests mainly on a statement of Irenæus, who seems to place the composition in the latter part of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 96). The other is based upon internal evidence and maintains that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The most recent criticism, which finds documents of different authorship incorporated in the work, assigns some of the documents to an early and some to a later date. Deferring for the present the several hypotheses of the composite origin of the book, we may briefly state the arguments touching the date as follows:

Irenaeus’ statement

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, says that in his boyhood he had conversed with Polycarp and heard him tell of his personal fellowship with the apostle John (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 5:20). In speaking of the name of the Antichrist which is concealed in the mystic number given in Revelation 13:18, he says: “If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that [it or he] was seen (οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοὺ χρόνου ἑωράθη; oude gar pro pollou chronou eorathe), but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign” (Irenaeus, Ag. Here. 5:30).

Continue reading →

PMW 2024-006 by Milton S. Terry

The different opinions respecting the authorship of the New Testament books commonly attributed to John may be stated as follows:

1. John, the son of Zebedee, the disciple and apostle of Jesus, was the author of the Apocalypse, the fourth gospel and the three epistles.

2. John the apostle was the author of the Apocalypse, but not of the gospel and the three epistles.

3. John the apostle was the author of the gospel and the three epistles, but not of the Apocalypse.

Those who adopt this third view attribute the Apocalypse either to:

1. A Presbyter John, who is mentioned in early writings.

2. John Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas.

3. A John whose only monument is this Book of Revelation and who is otherwise unknown.
Continue reading →