PMT 2014-008 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Rev. 11:1–2: “Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, ‘Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.’”
Here in Rev 11 a voice commands John to measure the inner temple in the “holy city,” which must be Jerusalem (Isa 48:2; 52:1; Neh. 11:1–18; Mt 4:5; 27:53). This is the place where the Lord “was crucified” (Rev 11:8; cp. Lk 9:22; 13:32; 17:11; 19:28). In Rev 1:7 John states his theme (see earlier article) which is the judgment-coming of Christ against those who pierced him, i.e., the first-century Jews. Continue reading →
PMT 2014-137 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my previous article (PMT 2014-135) I began a brief (two-part) argument that the first portion of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. If you have not read that article, I encourage you to do so before reading this one.
Now we are ready to briefly summarize the evidence for an AD 70 occurrence of the first portion of the Lord’s Olivet Discourse. So then, without further delay, consider the following;
First, in Matt 23:1–33 Jesus issues a long and biting denunciation of the first-century Pharisees. These were the spiritual heroes of the common man and the constant nemeses of the Son of Man. He delivers a seven-fold woe against them here, toward the end of his earthly ministry (Matt 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29 — Matt 23:14 is textually precarious). Continue reading →
PMT 2014-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In this blog article I am offering a brief response to Dr. Charles Hill’s critique of preterism. His objections are generally quite commonly alleged against the preterist approach to Revelation. Hopefully, these will help preterists in their own defenses of their approach to Revelation.
1. Genetic fallacy. Hill opens by poisoning-the-well for several paragraphs. He claims that the Jesuit Alcazar gave “birth” to Revelational preterism in 1619 as a defense of Romanism. Response: (1) This is the genetic fallacy, and totally irrelevant to preterism’s legitimacy. (2) It is erroneous: a thousand years before, the Greek fathers Arethas and Andreas either applied or noted that others applied several Revelation prophecies to Jerusalem’s fall. Just prior to Alcazar, in fact, commentators Hentenius (1547) and Salmeron (1570) provided preterist expositions, though not as fully and systematically. (3) Protestant scholars quickly picked up on preterism: Westminster divine Lightfoot (1658) and Westminster nominee Henry Hammond (1653), as well as Hugo Grotius (1630) and Jean LeClerc (1712). Continue reading →
PMT 2013-037 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
This is my third and final article on the theme of Revelation, which is found in Rev 1:7. I have been presenting evidence that it prophesies the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem and the temple, even though it seems like it is speaking of Christ’s second coming. Let us consider the remaining evidence. Continue reading →
PMT 2013-036 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
In my last article I opened a study of the question regarding the theme of Revelation. I began presenting evidence that John’s theme verse, Rev 1:7, speaks of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which concludes forever the old covenant. Though it sounds like he is speaking of the second advent, this is not the case. I will continue with my seriatim presentation of the evidence supporting the AD 70 interpretation. Continue reading →
PMT 2013-035 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
To understand a book, particularly a difficult one such as Revelation, it is important to discern its theme, its driving purpose. Fortunately, John states his theme in the opening of Revelation. In Rev 1:7 we read his theme:
“Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.”
At first glance it seems that John is speaking of the Second Advent. It certainly does involve language which is quite applicable to the future, glorious, history-ending Second Coming of Christ. Continue reading →