OLIVET’S TRANSITION VERSE RE-VISITED

AD 70, Olivet Discourse, Second Coming July 24, 2018 Comments: 2

PMW 2018-059 by R. T. France

Gentry introductory note:
As I am researching my commentary on Matthew 21–25 (the contextual unit in which the Olivet Discourse appears in Matthew), I have stumbled across a helpful older work by R. T. France: Jesus and the Old Testament. (By the way, I literally stumbled over this work: I already owned, it was in my library, and it fell out when I reached for another book.)

In the Appendix to his study, he gives a brief exegesis of Mark 13, which argues for a transition from AD 70 to the Final Judgment (just as I argue in my work on Matt. 24

He puts the matter well, so I will share it with my readers.

So now, let us hear R. T. France on Mark 13 and the transition from Jesus’ prophecy regarding AD 70 to his prophecy of the Final Judgment. The following is taken from Jesus and the Old Testament  (p. 232): Continue reading →

Advertisements

OLIVET REVISITED

AD 70, Matthew 24, Olivet Discourse, Revelation July 20, 2018 Comments: 5

PMW 2018-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse is a key eschatological passage in the New Testament (which appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In Matthew, it is not only Jesus’ last discourse, but the largest (Matt. 24:3–25:46). Matthew, therefore, sets it as the climax of Jesus’ teaching, which underscores its significance.

I have a special interest in Olivet. This can be seen in that I have written several works dealing with Olivet: Continue reading →

INTERPRETING MESSIANIC PSALMS

Interpretation, Israel, Last Days July 17, 2018 Comments: 3

PMT 2018-057 R. T. France

As I am doing research on my commentary on Matthew 21–24, I am reading R. T. France’s excellent work, Jesus and the Old Testament. He has much that is helpful for the postmillennialist and the (orthodox) preterist. Below I will quote three paragraphs that ought to be an encouragement to my readers. These present to us a helpful hermeneutic approach to many Old Testament passages.

I am sure France did not intend them as postmillennial observations, but they do help us in understanding the postmillennial hope nonetheless. Continue reading →

THE BOOK OF THE “STRONG ANGEL”

Preterism, Revelation July 13, 2018 Leave a comment

PMW 2018-056 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I argued that the strong angel in Rev 10 is Christ. He appears several times in Revelation by means of angelomorphism. In this article I will focus on the open book in his hand.

The strong angel (Christ) of Rev. 10 comes down out of heaven holding a little book which was open: “He had in his hand a little book which was open” (Rev 10:2a). Commentators have long debated the identity of this “little book” (biblaridion) and its relationship to the “book” (biblion) of chapter 5. Though many scholars distinguish the two, a significant number hold that the little book in Revelation 10 the scroll taken by the Lamb in Rev. 5. Continue reading →

REVELATION’S “STRONG ANGEL”

Preterism, Revelation July 10, 2018 Leave a comment

PMW 2018-055 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Rev. 10:1 John records the appearance of a strong angel:

“And I saw another strong angel coming down out of heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire.”

This appears to be Christ himself.

All commentators agree that Christ appears under a variety of symbols in Revelation, including gigantic Christophany (1:13-16), redeeming lamb (5:6; 14:1), glorious Son of Man (14:14-15), and conquering warrior (19:11-16). This opens the possibility that he could also appear in angelic form and that John is reporting what he sees without interpreting it. Continue reading →

CHALLENGING REVELATION’S NEAR-TERM EXPECTATION

Preterism, Revelation July 6, 2018 Comments: 5

PMW 2018-054 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The “near” statements in Revelation befuddle many Christians who only read those sections of Revelation that are exciting, such as those dealing with the beast, Armageddon, the millennium, and so forth. However, those texts occur in a prophetic work that is book-ended with declarations that the events within are near in John’s own day.

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. (Rev. 1:1)

And he said to me, ‘These words are faithful and true’; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. (Rev. 22:6)

But sometimes a thinking Christian (may their tribe increase) will ask a penetrating question in challenging the preterist position on Revelation. One such correspondent asked:

“If Revelation was written in AD 65-66 about events in AD 70, how could John have expected it to be widely circulated in so short a period of time? It seems the book’s grandiose vision would be largely wasted because of the time frame involved. It couldn’t do much good, especially since the bulk of its actions (on your view) occur in Palestine.”

Continue reading →

UPDATING EARLY DATING

Uncategorized July 3, 2018 Comments: 2

PMW 2018-053 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This year is the twentieth anniversary of my last edition of Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. In that work I listed eight full pages of notable advocates for the early dating of Revelation, i.e., a date prior to AD 70. Before too long I hope to update the book altogether. But for now I would like to list some additional early date advocates beyond those found in the book.

More often than not, when a preterist mentions the early date of Revelation he is dismissed with the wave of a hand and the utterance: “the early date of Revelation is held only by a minority of scholars.” That may be true today, but the tide is slowly shifting. Thus, I thought it might be good to put some more scholars’ names in the mix. Of course, counting noses is not the answer to the problem. But it will be helpful in countering a common objection that attempts to cut discussion short. Continue reading →