PMW 2019-063 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Dispensationalists are prone to boast that Revelation 20 presents their system in clear and certain terms. They often declare that they can go to one text of Scripture and find their system. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This text actually presents them with serious problems. Consider the following.
First, the concluding period of earth history, which experiences the glorious victory of Christ, is a thousand years long, but its length appears in only one chapter of the entire Bible. Continue reading
PMW 2018-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The Problem before Us
Many Revelation commentators argue that the new creation of Rev. 21–22 follows after the final judgment of Rev. 20:11–15. And it certainly is not unreasonable to hold that John’s statement that “the first heaven and the first earth passed away” (21:1) chronologically “follows on the heels of 20:11, where it is said that ‘heaven and earth fled away from the presence [of God], and no place was found for them’” (Beale 1039). This would suggest that ch 21 follows after the final judgment in 20:11–15. Continue reading
PMT 2016-010 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is the second and concluding study on the exaggerated role of the millennium in eschatological studies. It is important for you to read the preceding article before jumping into this one. I am arguing that John’s half-chapter is given too much place in prophetic discussions. This has led many Christians to misunderstand the function of the millennium in Revelation, as well as its length.
Properly understood, the thousand-year time frame in Revelation 20 represents a long and glorious era and is not limited to a literal 365,000 days. Continue reading
PMT 2016-009 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
I am beginning a two-part series on the millennium. I will be highlighting how its significance in eschatological discussions is exaggerated. I am calling for balance on this issue.
Revelation 20:1–6 present us with a time frame that plays a far greater role in the eschatological debate than it warrants. Oddly, Stanley J. Grenz asserts of “evangelical postmillennialists” that “as a millenarian viewpoint, of course, it builds its primary case from a futurist interpretation of John’s vision.” This is simply not so. Continue reading