GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (4)

PMW 2020-012 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the fourth installment of an eight-part series on the crucial imagery involved in Revelation’s seven-sealed divorce decree.

In Jeremiah’s new covenant promise, God complains of Israel’s unfaithfulness noting that they broke his covenant, though “I had mastered [ba’l] them as a husband” (Jer 31:32). This verb derives from a root meaning “to become master.” Therefore, as Old Testament scholars note, it means to marry “with an emphasis on the rights and authority the husband exercised,” cp. Genesis 20:3; Numbers 5:19–20, 29; Deuteronomy 21:13; 22:22. Whereas the word for “husband” (‘hś) “is apparently an endearing expression”, ba’l “emphasizes the legal position of the husband as lord and ‘owner’ of his wife.” The legal relation and subsequent obligation is clearly in view. Continue reading

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (3)

PMW 2020-011 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third article on the identity of the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation. In this article I will deal with covenantal marriage, which is essential for understanding the covenantal divorce transpiring in Revelation.

We must recognize at the outset that Revelation is an extremely Hebraic book that draws heavily from the Old Testament. And we should understand that John’s theme verse warns of Christ’s judgment-coming against the Jews. Continue reading

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (2)

PMW 2020-010 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my second installment on the identity of the seven-sealed Scroll in Revelation. This symbol is crucial to understanding Revelation’s point. I will begin where I left off last time (sounds logical, doesn’t it?).

(10) In Revelation 10 we see the scroll fully opened and in a strong angel’s hand (Rev 10:2). This is Christ appearing as the “Angel of the Covenant” who is expected in Malachi 3:1 for the purpose of bringing judgment upon Israel. He appears here in angelic form, because he is a “messenger” [aggelos] swearing an oath as a legal witness (Rev 10:1, 5, 6). This vision appears just before Revelation’s clearest statement regarding the earthly temple in Jerusalem: Revelation 11:1–2 (see next point). Continue reading

GOD’S DIVORCE DECREE IN REVELATION (1)

PMW 2020-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am beginning a new series of studies that will present a detailed case for identifying the seven-sealed scroll in Revelation. Revelation is performative drama that employs forensic rhetoric. The succession of scenes will increasingly inform the audience of the legal action undertaken within. The identity of this scroll will exercise a large interpretive influence over the later chapters of Revelation.

By way of introducing this court-drama I will trace in broad strokes Revelation’s interesting legal plot-line, then I will backup and provide the particular evidence that leads me to this understanding. Continue reading

LUKE 17 VS. MATTHEW 24?

PMW 2020-017 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this blog I have previously investigated the apparent problem involved when comparing Matthew 24 and Luke 17. See: “Orthodox Preterism and Luke 17.”

There I note that Matthew separates the local judgment-coming prophecies regarding AD 70 from the global ultimate-coming prophecies of the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Many prominent evangelical preterist scholars recognize Matthew’s clear structure. Scholars such as:

J. M. Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (originally published as an article in 1948)

• R. V. G. Tasker, Matthew (Tyndale Bible Commentary) (1961)

• David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (1993)

Alistair I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen: A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25 (2004)

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (2007)

R. C. Sproul, Matthew: An Expositional Commentary (2013)

Jeannine K. Brown, Matthew (Teach the Text Commentary Series) (2015)

• Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20 (vol. 3 of the Concordia Commentary on Matthew) (2018)

See my blog article: Best Matthew Commentaries. Thus, this view is not “Ken Gentry’s view,” as I frequently hear from Hyper-preterists. I got it from others. It is a well-known, highly-regarded view published by a number of reputable scholars.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, this clean separation is quite evident in Matthew 24:34–36. There Matthew’s peri de (“but concerning”) narrative transition-formula shifts his attention away from the known time of his local (metaphorical) judgment-coming against the Temple (Matt. 24:2) in Judea (Matt. 24:16), which was to be in “this generation” (Matt. 24:34). He shifts his attention to “that day and hour,” which timing neither he nor the angels know (Matt. 24:36, 50; 25:13). [1] Continue reading

THIS AGE / THE AGE TO COME

PMT 2015-077 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

An important eschatological issue involves the New Testament principle of “this age” and “the age to come.” Christ himself speaks of “this age” and another “age to come” (Mt 12:32; Mk 10:30; Lk 18:30; 20:34–35). The present age is sin-laden present in which we live. The “age to come” brings eternal life of the eternal order (Lk 18:30); it involves resurrection and will not include marrying (Lk 20:34–35). It is truly consummate and final.

From the linear perspective of the Old Testament, ancient Israel believes that the “age to come” will be the Messianic era that would fully arrive after their current age ends. Yet in the New Testament we learn that the “age to come” begins in principle with the first century coming of Christ. It overlaps with “this age” which begins in Christ. Thus, we are not only children of “this age” (present, sin-laden temporal history), but are also spiritually children of “the age to come” (the final, perfected eternal age). We have our feet in both worlds. Or as Geerhardus Vos put it: “The age to come was perceived to bear in its womb another age to come.” Continue reading

JESUS AND ARMED CHURCH MEMBERS

By Gary DeMar (American Vision)

In September of 2019, Joe Biden criticized a new Texas law that permitted church members to be armed while attending church services.

It is irrational, with all due respect to the Governor of Texas, it’s irrational what they’re doing. … And we’re talking about loosening access to have guns? Being able to take them into places of worship, store them in schools, it’s just absolutely irrational.

Biden and other Leftists seem oblivious to the fact that evil people don’t obey laws. If they are hell-bent on killing people, what makes anyone think they are going to obey gun laws? Continue reading