MATTHEW’S EARLY NEGATIVE EXPECTATIONS

Interpretation, Israel June 4, 2024 Leave a comment

Jerusalem afraidPMW 2024-043 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

When reading Matthew, we should notice its narrative flow. Especially its presentation of Israel and her leaders as they oppose Christ from the very beginning. This flow leads inexorably to the Olivet Discourse and the judgment on the Temple.

MATTHEW 2:1
In Matthew 2:1 the Apostle reports that men “from the east” come to worship Jesus. This historical information is unique among the Gospels and is designed to stress Matthew’s particular thematic concern regarding the demise of Israel and the arising of the Gentiles in God’s plan. “The magi’s actions recall scenes such as those in Isa 60 and Ps 72 in which Gentiles bring gifts to acknowledge the final establishment of God’s reign on Mount Zion.” [1]

Because these Gentiles appear, “all Jerusalem [the capital of Israel and the holy city of the Jews] was troubled” at this news (2:3b). Thus, Matthew includes the story of Herod and the arriving of the Magi to show that “in this narrative the Jews and their king are ranged against the infant Jesus, but Gentiles do him homage.” [2] Continue reading →

NARRATIVE FLOW IN THE GOSPELS

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 31, 2024 Leave a comment

GenrePMW 2024-042 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last posting I noted that an important issue impacting the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew is: narrative flow. We will now briefly consider this matter.

GOSPEL GENRE

To properly recognize Matthew’s redemptive-historical flow, we must understand that the Gospels are not biographies per se. J. K. Brown declares Matthew to be “theological history or theological biography.” This is a helpful observation, though more needs to be said.

Gospel scholar John Wenham notes that “gospel” is a “newly invented genre.” Therefore, Warren Carter states that “because of their theological content and pastoral orientation,” the Gospels are “a unique genre in the ancient world.” Clark Pinnock explains that “these works constitute a new literary phenomenon. They are not biographies as such, for they omit much material normally found in such works.” Continue reading →

PRETERIST IMPULSES

AD 70, Interpretation, Preterism May 28, 2024 Leave a comment

Narrative flowPMW 2024-041 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse that applies its opening portion to first-century Israel is called “preterism.” [1] This theological term derives from the Latin preteritus, which means “gone by, past.” [2] The evangelical, orthodox preterist sees many (not all! [3]) important New Testament prophetic passages as being fulfilled in the first century, thus in our distant past. These prophetic events transpired in the era surrounding the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish temple. These events powerfully, publicly, and permanently close the old covenant, typological era (Heb. 8:13; cp. Matt. 21:33–43; John 4:21–23). Continue reading →

ON MISSING JESUS’ POINT

AD 70, Interpretation, Olivet Discourse May 24, 2024 Comments: 2

Missing the targetPMW 2024-040 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Olivet Discourse has a large presence in the Gospel record (two whole chapters of ninety-seven verses in Matthew, as well as being preserved in Mark 13 and Luke 21). But since so many evangelical Christians are hypnotized by its prophecies of woe (generating multi-million-selling books), and since, as we will see, it is a valuable tool for apologetics in confirming the integrity of biblical prophecy (showing Christ’s ability to prophesy future events), it well deserves our careful consideration in the contemporary eschatological debate.

Unfortunately, Christ’s woe-filled teaching found pointedly here is woefully misunderstood practically everywhere. This is as true among biblical scholars as it is among evangelical students. And it is especially true among self-appointed, back-slapping “prophecy experts” (also known as “televangelists”). Therefore, as Michael Theophilos notes: “It is no understatement to suggest that more ink has been spilt on this chapter, with its synoptic parallels, than on any other in the Gospel narratives.” [1]
Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (3)

AD 70, History, Objections, Revelation May 21, 2024 Comments: 2

Nero redivivusPMW 2024-039 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am continuing a brief series on problems scholars have with the early (pre-AD 70) date of Revelation. I am using his Leon Morris’ book: The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) as my main source. Let’s get to work!

A most unusual phenomenon seems to appear in Revelation, according to Morris. His third argument is very popular among late-date theorists. This evidence regards the very unusual and ancient legend known as the Nero Redivivus myth. Morris briefly explains the myth and confidently employs it: “Again, it is urged that the book shows evidence of knowledge of the Nero redivivus myth (e.g. xvii. 8, 11). After Nero’s death it was thought in some circles that he would return. At first this appears to have been a refusal to believe that he was actually dead. Later it took the form of a belief that he would come to life again. This took time to develop and Domitian’s reign is about as early as we can expect it” (Morris 37). Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (2)

AD 70, Objections, Revelation May 17, 2024 Comments: 4

Roman persecutionPMW 2024-038 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Revelation’s early date is generally held by modern postmillennialists of the preterist variety. I have argued elsewhere positively for the early date. So here I am offering a short series that briefly responds to late-date evidences. I am focusing on Leon Morris’ arguments, due to their cogency, succinctness, and his stature as a Revelation commentator.

Morris discovers “indications that Revelation was written in a time of persecution.” This evidence is felt to accord “much better with Domitian.” [1] W. G. Kümmel is quite confident that “the picture of the time which the Apocalypse sketches coincides with no epoch of the primitive history so well as with the period of Domitian’s persecution.” [2] Morris, Kümmel, and a number of other scholars list this as among their leading arguments for the A.D. 95-96 date. Continue reading →

EARLY DATE DIFFICULTIES (1)

Uncategorized May 14, 2024 Leave a comment

Objections, Preterism, Revelation

Emperor worship 5

PMW 2024-037 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Preteristic postmillennialists hold that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. We argue this on historical and exegetical grounds. We do not argue for an early date for Revelation on purely theological grounds in order to defend our long-range hope against John’s enormous judgment scenes.. I have argued the case of the early date of Revelation in several places, most especially in my doctoral dissertation published as Before Jerusalem Fell. In this brief series of articles I will respond to four leading arguments against the early date.

The modern case for the late date of Revelation concentrates upon four basic arguments. These have been ably and succinctly summarized by noted evangelical scholar and late-date advocate Leon Morris in his commentary, The Revelation of St. John (2d. ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). I choose to investigate Morris’s approach for three basic reasons.

(1) He has rightfully earned an international reputation among both evangelical and liberal scholars. (2) He has a demonstrated competence in the field of New Testament studies, having even produced an excellent commentary on Revelation itself. (3) His presentation is succinct and focused, which lends itself to blog analysis. The order of my listing of these evidences will follow Morris’s, which is based on his scholarly estimation of their priority.

Beast of Revelation

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

Morris begins with what he calls “the principal reason for dating the book during” Domitian’s reign, which is: Revelation “contains a number of indications that emperor-worship was practised, and this is thought to have become widespread in Domitian’s day” (p. 35).Earlier than Morris, James Moffatt insisted that the role of emperor worship in Revelation was virtually conclusive: “When the motive of the Apocalypse is thus found in the pressure upon the Christian conscience exerted by Domitian’s emphasis on the imperial cultus, especially as that was felt in Asia Minor, any earlier date for the book becomes almost impossible.” [1]

This argument regarding emperor worship is also held by Robert H. Mounce, R. H. Charles, H. B. Swete, Donald B. Guthrie, W. G. Kümmel, M. Eugene Boring, William Barclay, and many others. References in Revelation which seem to reflect emperor worship are found in scattered places. See especially Revelation 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4. The most noteworthy statements re found in Revelation 13, where worship of the “beast” is compelled.

Unfortunately, for this view emperor worship dates back to Julius Caesar in the last century before Christ. And it is endorsed by Nero, the emperor who commissions Vespasian to put down the Jewish rebellion (which results in the destruction of the temple). The emperor cult had a prominent role in the political and social life of the Roman empire well before Domitian, and even before Nero.

Although it is true that historical development continued to introduce new features and requirements into the practice, nevertheless after 30 B.C. “we can observe a swift spread of the emperor cult throughout the Roman Near East.” [2] As even late-date advocate James Moffatt wrote: “The blasphemous title of dims, assumed by the emperors since Octavian (Augustus = sebastos) as a semi-sacred title, implied superhuman claims which shocked the pious feelings of Jews and Christians alike. So did theos [god] and theou huios [son of god] which, as the inscriptions prove, were freely applied to the emperors, from Augustus onwards.” [3]

Before Jerusalem Fell Tyler

Before Jerusalem Fell Lecture (DVD)
DVD by Ken Gentry

A summary of the evidence for Revelation’s early date. Helpful, succinct introduction to Revelation’s pre-AD 70 composition.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The appearance of emperor worship in Revelation is held by many late-date theorists as the strongest evidence for a date during the last year of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). It is true that Domitian required people to address him as “Lord and God.” Certainly the emperor cult was prominent in his reign. Yet when we scrutinize the relevant historical evidence we discover abundant testimony to emperor worship at various stages of development well before both Domitian and Nero. Indeed, such clear statements exist of so many aspects of the emperor cult, it is surprising that this argument is used at all against the early date. One wonders why it is deemed “the principal reason” (Morris) that makes it “almost impossible” (Moffatt) for the early date view to stand is wholly incredible.

Notes

  1. James Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, vol. 5 in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1980), 317.
  2. Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 278.
  3. Moffatt, Revelation, 429. See also: Aune, Revelation 1-5, lxviii; Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (New York: Oxford, 1990), 104-190.