Postmillennial Worldview

PMW 2024-070 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Though this is my fifth study on the identity of John’s two witnesses, I come now to my fourth point. This should be read in tandem with the preceding study.

Fourth, further confirming this approach is the two witnesses’ prophetic fire-and-blood imagery (11:5– 6; cp. Eze 21:32; 38:22; Joel 2:30), the joyful reaction to their death by “those who dwell in the Land [of Israel]” (11:7, 9–10), and the “torment” they cause their Jerusalem hearers (11:10; cf. v 8). The temple and Jerusalem will suffer fiery destruction (Mt 22:7; Ac 2:19–20). The witnesses are not simply gospel preachers, or else they would not be deemed tormentors. Rather, they are functioning as covenant-lawsuit prophets challenging the integrity of the central feature of Judaism: the temple. In Revelation the word-group for “torment” elsewhere speaks of extreme pain and agony, not annoyance or frustration. Thus, some scholars argue that “the two witnesses do not symbolize the preaching of the Gospel in general . . . They are the incarnation of the witness which the Church renders to Christ in the face of a Judaism grown obstinate in its unbelief.”

I would add to this observation that their witness promotes the word of Christ against the temple which the Jews so dearly love, and which figures prominently in Christ’s trial (Mt 26:59–61; 27:40; Mk 14:58–59), as well as in Stephen’s (Ac 6:13–14). Another observes in this regard that: “well may we suppose that Christians . . . urged the declarations of the Saviour as to the impending fate of Jerusalem.” He points out (2:227) that the two witnesses “were prophets in the church, predicting the destruction of the temple and the Jewish commonwealth.” Elsewhere we learn that: “putting the synoptic and Johannine evidence together — and the two appear to be independent — we have a strong presumption that Jesus did say something about the destruction and replacement of the temple.” Continue reading →

PMW 2024-069 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am pressing on in a study of the two witnesses of Revelation (see previous entries). Adding to the previous study I now would point out that not long after Paul’s introduction in Acts (Ac 8:1), he quickly becomes its leading character (Ac 9:1ff). And though he will be the missionary to the Gentiles (Ac 13:46; 14:27; 15:7; 18:6; 22:21; 28:28; Ro 1:5; 11:13; 15:16; Gal 1:16; 2:2, 8; Col 1:27; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 4:17), everywhere Paul goes on his Mediterranean mission, even when taken to Rome in chains, he seeks out the local Jewish community to convince its membership that Jesus is their Messiah (13:4; 14:1; 16:13; 17:2–3; 28:23). Regarding the last chapters of Acts, it has been stated: “it has often been observed that in Luke’s narrative world Paul’s arrival in Rome takes place within the period of ‘testimony’ [maturia] in which, like Jesus himself, his followers are hauled before the ‘kings and governors’ (e.g., Agrippa, 25:23-26, 32; Festus, 25:1-12).”

After Saul the persecutor of Christians becomes Paul the proclaimer of Christ (Ac 9), Herod Agrippa I beheads James (the brother of John) in Ac 12:1–2. Though no reason is given (other than “he saw that it pleased the Jews,” Ac 12:3), during the Lord’s earthly ministry he and his brother John want to call fire down upon the Jewish cities who resist his message (Lk 9:54). And since he is one of the original hearers of Christ’s Olivet Discourse against the temple (Mk 13:3), he surely preaches against the temple himself. Later in Ac 13 the Holy Spirit sets apart two men (13:2; Saul [Paul] and Barnabas) for a similar witness to the diaspora Jews (13:5, 14–17, 26–44) — and with similar results (13:44–46a). There Paul announces: “we are turning to the Gentiles” (13:46b–47), because of the Jewish resistance (13:45). Just as Christ commands his prophets to shake off the dust of their feet in testimony against rebellious Israel (Lk 10:11; 9:5; Mt 10:14), Paul and Barnabas do so (Ac 13:51). As the enemies of Christ, the Jews will be (spiritually) bowed down to lick the dust of their feet (cf. Ps 72:9; Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17; cp. Rev. 3:9). Continue reading →

PMW 2024-067 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing my introduction to the mysterious “two witnesses” of Revelation 11. This article should be read in conjunction with the preceding, which it continues. After noting first that the overall drift of Revelation expects their appearance, we must now note:

Second, John records their ministry immediately after Christ prohibits him from measuring the temple, directs him to cast it out, and explains that its host city will be “tread underfoot” (11:2). And once again I would note that their ministry covers the same time period as the temple’s treading (11:2, 3). Their witness is so strongly linked with the period of God’s judgment on Jerusalem and the temple that it must be dealing with that event.

Third, as noted above, Jesus specifically calls these two prophets in Jerusalem (11:8) “my two witnesses” (11:3). This strongly suggests that they preach the same message as Christ in this book which is, in fact, “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1). Due to their redemptive-historical significance, I will spend more time on this point than that of the preceding two and the following five. Continue reading →

PMW 2024-066 by Ken Gentry

The two witnesses of Revelation are a constant source of intrigue for readers of Revelation. Despite their brief appearance in John’s drama, I constantly receive questions about them by email and in conferences. This intrigue is largely due to John’s rather abruptly introducing them, despite not previously alluding to them: “I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days” (Rev. 11:3). We must understand the two witnesses’ redemptive-historical significance in pre-70 Jerusalem and their narrative function in John’s forensic drama.

The sudden appearance of these two as “witnesses” in Revelation should not be altogether surprising. After all, Revelation’s main movement begins with a vision of God on his judicial throne (4:1ff) which quickly focuses on a sealed document (Rev. 5), the opening of which initiates the dramatic judgments to follow (Rev. 6). Revelation is a court drama.

Furthermore, in the first vision that opens the current interlude and vision set (10:1–11:14), Christ formally and dramatically swears an oath to God (10:5–6). In fact, Revelation is a book in which John himself “bore witness” (1:2, cp. 1:9) and in which witnesses frequently appear (2:13; 6:9; 12:11, 17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4), including the chief witness, “the faithful witness” Jesus Christ (1:5; 3:14). The two witnesses here (11:3, 7a) are also “prophets” (11:3, 6, 10), just as John’s entire book is a “prophecy” (1:3; cp. 10:11; 22:10, 18-19). Whether or not we can identify these two witnesses in history (see discussion below), we must at least understand their prophetic witness in a “juridicial and religious” sense. Continue reading →

PMW 2024-065 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Our study of 666 as a reference to Nero, though widely held, is not accepted by all scholars. There are certain problems that some see with the Nero designation. I will mention two of the major ones.

The Silence of Early Church Fathers

It is frequently argued that in one of the earliest treatments of Revelation 13 there is no mention of Nero as a likely candidate. The reference to which we refer was written by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, around A.D. 180.

Not only does Irenaeus not mention Nero, but he mentions other possibilities: Euthanos, Laetinos, and Teitan. [1] If Nero was the actual meaning of the riddle, why did not Irenaeus know this, since he wrote about the matter 100 years later? Why do no other church fathers suggest it?

This would certainly appear to be a reasonable objection to our theory. In fact, it is the strongest argument against it. However, in the final analysis it cannot overthrow the positive evidence for the theory, for two reasons. Continue reading →