Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog

PMW 2026-088 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism differs from the other evangelical eschatologies in a very important respect: Postmillennialism is optimistic about the progress of the gospel in history. We believe that Christ’s victory on the cross will exercise a tremendous influence in history — before the end, before the return of Christ.

We see this throughout the Scriptural record. Some amillennialists charge that postmillennialism is built solely on Old Testament texts, and that its optimistic outlook cannot be found in the New Testament. But that is absolutely mistaken. Let us consider one text in Paul as an example of Christ’s victory in history before his return: 1 Corinthians 15.

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 Paul teaches not only that Christ currently sits upon the throne, but also that he rules with a confident view to subduing his enemies in history. (In this discussion I will employ the New International Version as my basic English translation due to its greater fidelity to several particulars of the Greek grammar in this passage.)

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The End

In 1 Corinthians 15:20–22 Paul speaks of the resurrection order: Christ is resurrected as a first fruits promise of our resurrection. In verses 23–24 we read about the sequence of events involving the resurrection: “But each in his own turn: Christ the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come.” We today are currently in the era awaiting Christ’s end-time coming, when all believers will arise in resurrection glory. When Christ comes this will be “the end”! Scripture is clear that the resurrection is a “general resurrection” of both the righteous and unrighteous (John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15), which will occur on the “last day” (John 6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Thus, according to Paul (and Jesus) no millennial age will follow. The resurrection of believers occurs on the “last day,” not 10071 years before the “last day.”

But notice what precedes the end. First Corinthians 15:24 says: “the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father.” Earth history ends “whenever” 2 Christ “hands over” the kingdom to the Father. In the Greek structure before us, his “handing over” (NIV) or “delivering up” (KJV) the kingdom occurs simultaneously with “the end.” Here the timing is contingent: “whenever” he delivers up the kingdom, then the end will come. In addition, he will deliver up his kingdom to the Father only “after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”

So then, the end of history is contingent: it will come whenever it may be that Christ delivers up the kingdom to his Father. But this will not occur until “after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power” (see also: ESV). Consequently, the end will not occur, and Christ will not turn the kingdom over to the Father, until after he has abolished all opposition. Here again we see the gospel victory motif in the New Testament in a way co-ordinate with Old Testament covenantal and prophetic expectations.

Before the End

Notice further that 1 Corinthians 15:25 demands that “He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Here the present infinitive for “reign” indicates an ongoing reign that exists as Paul writes. Christ is presently reigning, and has been so since his ascension. References elsewhere to Psalm 110 specifically mention his sitting at God’s right hand, which entails active ruling and reigning, not passive resignation or anxious waiting. As John informs us, Jesus is now “the ruler over the kings of the earth” and “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever” (Rev 1:5–6; cp. Rev 3:21).

Special Eschatology Studies (3 MP3 downloads)
by Ken Gentry
Includes: (1) Radio interview on the Beast and Daniel 9: WMCA Radio (New York). (2) “The Beast is an Eighth,” a study on the tricky verse Rev 17:11 that is sometimes used to rebut the Neronic date for the writing of Revelation. (3) “The New Creation in Rev 21,” which presents a picture of the glory of the Christian faith as the spiritual phase of the New Creation that anticipates the consummate New Creation. See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11:25 Paul states that Christ must continue reigning as he puts his enemies under his feet. But to what point in time does his reign continue? The answer is identical to our previous conclusion: his reign from the right hand of God in heaven extends to the end of history. We must understand his rule as definitive, progressive, and consummative. That is, during his earthly ministry he awaits his resurrection in order to secure the definitive (legal) right to all rule, authority and power (Matt 28:18; Eph 1:19–22; Phil 2:9–11; 1 Pet 3:21–22). Now that he rules from heaven until he returns, his return is delayed until he progressively (actively, continually) puts “all His enemies under His feet” (Paul’s repeating the fact of his sure conquest before the end is significant). Then consummatively (finally and fully), he will subdue our “last enemy,” death, by means of the final resurrection at his coming.3 Thus, Church history begins with his legal victory at the cross-resurrection-ascension, continues progressively as he subdues all of his other enemies, and ends finally at the eschatological resurrection, which conquers the final enemy, death.

In 1 Corinthians 15:27 Christ clearly has the legal title to rule, for the Father “has put everything under His feet.” This expression (borrowed from Psa 8:6) corresponds with Christ’s declaring that “all authority has been given Me” (Matt 28:18). He has both the right to victory as well as the promise of victory. Psalm 110, especially as expounded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, shows that he will secure historical victory over all earthly opposition before his second advent — in time and on earth.

PMW 2026-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my previous article I began focusing on Rev. 17:11 which reads:

“The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.”

I pointed out that the idea of the “eighth” pictures a resurrection, a new beginning. But now we must ask: Who is this “eighth,” this resurrection of the beast?

In Rev. 17:9–10 we read:

“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.”

As I have argued in other contexts regarding the seven heads of the beast here in these verses, the “five” are Julius, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius who have already “fallen” (i.e., are dead). [1] We know, therefore, that the sixth one “is” (estin) the reigning emperor, Nero. And “the other who has not yet come” is the seventh, Galba, who will only “remain a little while.” And we know that the Roman Civil Wars during the Year of the Four Emperors pictures the beast’s corporate death throes.

So the “eighth” must represent Rome’s revival, its resurrection to new life and strength. But the next emperor after Galba is Otho, one of the inter-regnum emperors who is a part of Rome’s death throes. How can he picture the beast’s resurrection? He is continuing those death throes. Besides, he is the “seventh,” not the “eighth.”

http://www.kennethgentry.com/book-of-revelation-made-easy-book/”>The Book of Revelation Made Easy
(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com”>www.KennethGentry.com

;

To resolve this difficulty we should note a couple of factors in the passage. (1) The number of heads on the beast is seven, not eight (Rev 13:1; 17:3, 7, 9). The eighth is a surprising addition, unaccounted for by the beast John sees. This should alert us to some sort of disruption in the counting. (2) In fact, John conspicuously drops the definite article when mentioning the eighth: to therion ho en kai ouk estin kai autos ogdoos estin is translated as “the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth.” The definite article clearly and repeatedly defines the chronological series of the first six heads /kings: hoi pente epesan ho eis estin ho allos oupo elthen (“the five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come”). Thus, this eighth king is”an eighth,” not “the eighth.” But now what does this signify? Two interpretations seem quite plausible.

It could be that this “eighth” is the emperor who causes the revival of the Empire, though he is outside of the originally specified seven kings. In an important sense the revival of the Empire under Vespasian is a “resurrection” under “an eighth” king who is, nevertheless, “of the seven.” Vespasian’s victory in the Roman Civil Wars causes the same Roman Empire to come back to life from the death of the civil wars — not some new empire. [2]

Contrary to the NASB, the angel does not state that “he is one [which would require: heis] of the seven” (cf. NRSV, NIV, NKJB), for Vespasian is not: the Julio-Claudian line of emperors ceases in Nero (Suet., Gal. 1; Tac., Hist. 1:16). Rather: “he is out of [ek] the seven” which indicates he is “the successor and result of the seven, following and springing out of them.” [3]

The phrase ek ton hepta functions as a “genitive of relationship” [4] signifying that he is not an outsider (e.g., a Parthian conqueror as when “the Parthians were almost roused to arms” in those times, Tac., Hist. 1:2). Vespasian is not only a Roman citizen but has a political (though Plebian) standing (Suet., Vesp. 1), even though as an emperor he was “made elsewhere than at Rome” (Tac., Hist). He “became consul in 51” and was later “governor of Africa, and in 67 was appointed commander-in-chief against the insurgent Jews by Nero” [5] (cp. Tac., Hist. 1:10; J.W., Pref. 8; 3:1:3). He was even later deified by the Roman senate. As Josephus expresses it:

upon this confirmation of Vespasian’s entire government, which was now settled, and upon the unexpected deliverance of the public affairs of the Romans from ruin, Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea. (J.W. 4:11:5; cp. Pref. 9)

Yet another interpretation of this “eighth” seems stronger and has caused me to change my former position (the one just stated above). Though it is very similar to the one above, it shifts attention from the specific emperor (Vespasian) to the general emperorship. John appears to be stating that the corporate beast himself is “an eighth,” i.e., is a resurrected entity (remember the parallel with Rev 17:8).

http://www.kennethgentry.com/products/Four-Views-on-the-Book-of-Revelation.html”>Four Views on the Book of Revelationhttps://postmillennialworldview.com/w... alt=”Four View Rev” width=”93″ height=”145″ />
(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com”>www.KennethGentry.com;

Note that John writes: “the beast which was and is not, is himself [autos, reflexive] also an eighth.” The beast that he is speaking of is the one “which was and is not,” that is, the empire which dies in the Civil Wars. No emperor dies and is himself resurrected — not even metaphorically, as in being banished and then returning (cf. Eze 37:11–12; Lk 15:24, 32; Ro 11:15). Rather, it is the beast which “you saw” (Rev 17:8), that is the corporate beast with all of his seven heads (Rev 17:3). He does not say (as in Daniel’s case with the little horn, Da 7:8): “While I was contemplating the heads, behold, another head, came up among them” (cf. Da 7:20, 24). Again we must note that the NASB is incorrect in adding the word “one,” when it translates the phrase as “and is one of the seven.” Rather, the corporate beast, the Roman imperial government, is renewed in Vespasian’s ascendency; it is “of the seven,” that is, continues imperial rule anew.

In this sense the corporate beast’s being ek ton hepta (“out of the seven”) reflects resurrection language. Jesus prophesies of himself that he “should suffer and rise again from [ek] of the dead” (Lk 24:46; cp. Php 2:11; Eph 1:20). In John’s Gospel Jesus arises on the first/eighth day (Jn 20:1) because he “must rise again from [ek] the dead” (Jn 20:9). The Empire arises, as it were, out of the dead.

Though Vespasian’s ascension brings a reprieve for Christians in that he does not persecute them (Euseb., Eccl. Hist. 3:17) [6] as does Nero (Rev 13:7; Tac. Ann. 15:44; Suet., Nero 16), nevertheless he does resurrect the blasphemous Roman beastly system. He directs “the reconstruction of the temple of the Capitoline Jupiter . . . . and a temple to Peace.” [7] Even while alive the Egyptians proclaim him a god; and the Roman Senate eventually deifies him. [8] Such a blasphemous system cannot help but eventually return to persecuting, as it does thirty years later under Trajan, A.D. 98–117 and later emperors. Therefore, the (corporate) beast is destined “to destruction” (Rev 17:11c); eventually “Eternal Rome” must be destroyed (cf. Da 2:35, 44). [9]

Conclusion
As I conclude this three-part series, I would note that the evidence for the specific identity of the beast being Nero, with the generic identity being Rome, is strong. Though initially the problem of the past tense statement (“the beast which was”) seems to create a problem for the argument, when we more carefully consider it, it does not. Nero is the specific emperor living when John writes. His death in A.D. 68 puts the Roman Empire in death throes, from which it arises after the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68–69). The beast generically considered is in John’s view — not the beast specifically considered. This corporate beast mimics the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Notes

1. For more detail, see my The Book of Revelation Made Easy (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2008), 57–58.

2. Interestingly, according to Levick, Suetonius credits Vespasian with at least eleven miracles, “supporting Vespasian’s claims to power.” And “to the world at large the miracles were a metaphor of the new régime’s healing powers” (Vespasian, 67–68).

3. Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:711.

4. Beale, Revelation, 876.

5. Catherine B. Avery, ed., The New Century Handbook of Leaders of the Classical World (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972), 385.

6. Vespasian did not persecute Christians. Eusebius states regarding Domitian that he “was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us” (Eccl. Hist. 3:17; cp. 4:26). Tertullian skips from Nero to Domitian as a persecuting emperor, omitting any reference to Vespasian (Apol. 5). Augustine calls Vespasian “a most agreeable emperor” (City 413–26).

7. Sir Paul Harvey, ed., The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 445.

8. Barbara Levick, Vespasian (London: Routledge, 1999), 67–71.

9. The Roman Empire is viewed in antiquity as eternal. Otho speaks of “the eternity of our power” [aeternitas rerum]” (Tacitus, Hist. 1:84). Rome is called aeterna urbs in various places, including in the Latin Poet Albius Tibullus (54–19 BC) at 2, 5, 23; Ovid (43 BC–A.D. 17), The Festivals, 3.72. See Frank G. Moore, “Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Shorst,” American Journal of Philology 15:13 (1894): 349.

PMW 2026-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second in a three-part study of the confusing verses in Revelation 17. I now move on to consider Rev. 17:11 and:

The eighth among seven?

In previous studies I argued that Nero is the personification of the beast. The evidence is quite clear and most compelling. But in Revelation 17:11 we read a statement which causes some difficulties with this interpretation. In fact, it “presents all interpreters with a real difficulty.” [1]

And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. (Rev 17:11)

Of course, the main difficulties have been solved for I show above what he means by “the beast which was and is not” (cf. Rev 17:8). But now who is this “eighth”? How can there be an eighth in a series of seven? And how is he “one of the seven”?

The Bible and eight

In biblical numerics eight seems to be the number of resurrection. [2] In the Old Testament the eighth day follows the day of rest and is the day on which man’s labor begins anew, as a resurrection of sorts (cf. Ex 20:8–11). God saves eight people on the ark to “resurrect” the human race (1Pe 3:20). [3] Leprosy is “regarded as a decomposition of the vital juices, and as putrefaction in a living body, [it] was an image of death.” [4] Thus, in Israel the leper is not admitted back into the holy community as alive until his eighth day sacrifice (Lev 14:10, 23). The menstruous woman is unclean because of her blood flow for seven days, then she is cleansed on the eighth day (Lev 15:29). This cleansing is necessary “unless they die in their uncleanness” (Lev 15:31). Each of these issues is analogous to resurrection.

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from the preterist perspective.
It sees John as focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

But most importantly, Christ arises from death on the first/ eighth day (Jn 20:1), which is the first day of a new week. [5] This begins a new creation (2Co 5:17). In Revelation he first appears as “the first-born of the dead” (Rev 1:5), establishes the book’s theme as the “pierced” (slain) one who will return alive to avenge himself (Rev 1:7), appears in its initial vision dressed as a priest (Rev 1:13) proclaiming “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18; cp. 2:8), and dominates the whole drama as the slain but living Lamb (Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; 13:8).

Thus, here in Revelation 17:11 the “eighth” points to the beast’s mimicking Christ’s death and resurrection (cf. Rev 13:3; 17:8). Our text reflects this through an inter-textual parallelism: his coming “up out of the abyss” in Revelation 17: 8a is a form of resurrection reflected in his being “an eighth” (the number of resurrection) in Revelation 17:11 [6]:

Revelation 17:8a                                                  Revelation 17:11
“the beast . . . . was and is not” (hen kai ouk esti)       “the beast . . . . was and is not” (hen kai ouk esti)
“is about to come up out of the abyss”                         “is himself also an eighth”
“to go to destruction” (eis apoleian hupagei)                 “he goes to destruction” (eis apoleian hupagei)

The heart of this parallel is between the phrases “come up out of the abyss” and “an eighth.” In Scripture the “abyss” (abussos) is a part of the three-level cosmology of heaven, earth, and underworld (cf. Php 2:10; Rev 5:3, 13). “In the underworld (abussos) is not only the realm of the dead . . . but also Gehenna, the place of punishment” as well as “the prison of punished demons.” [7] In Romans 10:7 abussos appears in the context of resurrection: “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)” (cp. Ps 71:20).

Survey of the Book of Revelation

(DVDs by Ken Gentry)
Twenty-four careful, down-to-earth lectures provide a basic introduction to and survey of the entire Book of Revelation. Professionally produced lectures of 30-35 minutes length.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

My study of the difficult statements in Rev. 17 will conclude in the next article. We will see how this “eighth” image functions in the identity of the beast in Revelation.

Notes

1. Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Regency, 1976–91), 12:560.

2. Beale, 875; Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse (Boston: Beacon, 1949), 70–72; Gaebelein, “Revelation,” 560.

3. “For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the deluge, i.e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eighth day, wherein Christ appeared when He rose from the dead, for ever the first in power” Justin Martyr, Trypho, 138:1 “The sacramental import of the 8th number, as signifying the resurrection” (Augustine, Januarius, 55). Cp. Augustine, Faust. 19; John of Damascus, Orth. Faith 23.

4. C. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 1 in Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1866–91; rep.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 2001), 2:384.

5. Barnabas writes: “We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus arose from the dead” (Barn. 15).

6. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover: Allen, Morrill, Wardwell, 1845), 2:326; Beale 875–76; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (NTC) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 473.

PMW 2026-085 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In previous studies I presented evidence that the sixth head of the seven-headed beast of Revelation was Nero Caesar, the sixth emperor of Rome. Thus, in Revelation the sixth head of the beast represents the then reigning sixth head/king of Rome. But now we must deal with a passage that seems to contradict this identification. In Revelation 17 the interpreting angel states that:

“The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. . . . The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” (Rev. 17:8, 11)

As we focus on these statements, two important questions arise: (1) What is the significance of the beast being the one who “was and is not, and is about to come”? Is this one of the many instances of the beast’s divine pretensions, wherein he parodies divine eternality, which is the view of most commentators? And (2) does this description undercut the early-date position and preterist approach by declaring the beast (Nero) is already dead when John writes? After all, the angel states that he “was and is not [ouk estin].”

I will deal with these two matters in three consecutive articles. So first we will consider his divine pretensions as indicated in the designation that he “was and is not, and is about to come.” This is an example of the recurring tendency of divine parody in Revelation.

Divine Parody

Regarding the potential parody of God’s eternality, the Roman beast exhibits blasphemous divine pretensions that lead to his worship (Rev 13:8, 12, 15). Revelation probably even alludes to this in our passage in that he is “full of blasphemous names” (Rev 17:3b). The phrase “was and is not, and is about to come” is widely held to present a “devilish antithesis” to the eternality of God as presented in Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:16; and 16:5.[1] For instance, in Revelation 1:8 we read that God is the one “who is and who was and who is to come.” This divine pretension would certainly fit the preterist argument regarding the role of emperor worship in the first century and in Revelation. [2]

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" width="99" height="150" />

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

I have no theoretical problem with this description providing an ironic reversal of the true God in the pretentious beast; after all, John does delight in parody and irony in his drama. Nevertheless, I do not believe the evidence here allows it. This is not mocking “the threefold description of God found already in Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:16; and 16:5,” the “threefold formula for divine eternity.” [3] Rather it mocks the threefold historical experience of Christ emphasized in his initial appearance in Revelation at 1:18 (cp. Rev 2:8): he is “the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (cf. Php 2:8–9). The dramatic irony, though, is that despite his pretensions the beast does not live forevermore, but goes “to destruction” (Rev 17:8a). I will summarily list my objections to this representing a mockery of God’s eternality, then flesh them out.

Argumentative Evidence

(1) The ideas do not really match. Revelation’s references to God expressly state his eternality, whereas the phrase here in Revelation 17:8 does not suggest the beast’s eternality. Rather than “was, is, is to come” the beast “was, is not, and is coming.” It would be very easy for John to declare the beast “was, is, and is to come” did he so desire. But he does not. And he would most certainly never refer to God as “is not” — for God lives “forever and ever” (Rev 4:9–10; 10:6).

(2) The basic element that is repeated and invariable in each of the idea’s three appearances is: “was and is not” (en kai ouk estin) (Rev 17:8a, 8d, 11). This core phrase has nothing to do with parodying eternality; in fact, for someone to be “is not” is the opposite of eternal existence. In Genesis 42:36 we find the deceased Joseph and Simeon spoken of as “is not” (ouk esti). In antiquity ouk esti is a statement declaring one’s death: “I was not, I became, I am not” (hostis ouk emēn, kai egenomēn, ouk eimi).

(3) In each of the phrase’s three appearances, the third element varies both lexically and grammatically, despite being in close proximity syntactically:
The beast “is about to come up [mellei anabanein, pres. act. indic.] out of the abyss” (Rev 17:8a)
The beast “will come [parestai, fut. mid. indic.]” (Rev 17:8d)
The beast “is himself also an eighth [autos ogdoos estin]” (Rev 17:11a)
Again, John could easily lock in the phrasing did he so desire. But something else is going on here, as we shall see.

(4) The point John is emphasizing in this imagery is death. The beast’s inevitable death is in view, for the beast does now exist. Despite the phraseology before us, John sees a woman currently sitting [katoikountes, pres. act. ptcp.] on the (apparently living) beast (Rev 17:3) and the angel expressly declares that the beast is now carrying [bastazontos, pres. act. ptcp.] the woman (Rev 17:7).

Before Jerusalem Fell
(by Ken Gentry)

Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing. Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(5) The fact that the beast “is about to come up out of the abyss” fits the idea of his resurrection from death, not eternality. It shows a mockery of Christ’s experience, not God’s existence.

(6) The reference to the “book of life” alludes to the resurrection, for the book of life is consulted at the eschatological resurrection (Rev 20:12).

(7) The third reference seems peculiar on the surface, but provides a vital clue to the intended meaning: the beast “is himself also an eighth,” which signifies resurrection.

As most commentators agree, the words of Revelation 17:8ff “are in the main reproductive of the imagery of ch. xiii. 1–4.” [4] That being so, we must note that Revelation 13 mimics the historical death and resurrection of Christ (Rev 1:18; 2:8; 5:12; 11:17) rather than the eternal existence of God. This is significant for many dramatic reasons, not the least of which is Christ’s dying at the hands of the Romans under pressure from the Jews (Mt 27:17–26; Lk 23:13–25; Ac 3:13) who manipulate Rome’s power (Jn 19:12, 15): “this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by [dia] the hands of godless men and [“you” implied, aneilate, 2d pers. pl., aor. act. ind.] put Him to death” (Ac 2:23). [5]

All of this comports with John’s overarching theme of the Jewish culpability in Christ’s death (Rev 1:7) in a book which has as its main figure the slain Lamb (Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; 13:8; Cp. Rev 5:8, 13; 6:1; 7:9, 14, 17; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22; 22:1, 3.). The beast imagery here in 17:8 is not mimicking God but Christ; it is mimicking existing, dying, and living again, not eternality. Lazarus certainly does that without any divine pretension (Jn 11:21, 44; 12:1)!

The message which John’s audience needs to hear during their trials is terribly important. True, the beast has great power (he is a carnivore with seven heads and ten horns, Rev 17:7c; cf. Rev 13:2) and remarkable resilience (he was, but is “about to come up,” Rev 17:7a). Yes, he receives his great power from below, the “abyss” (Rev 17:8a; cf. Rev 9:1, 11; 13:1–2), that is, from Satan (Rev 13:2b) the destroyer (Rev 9:11). [6] Nevertheless, John’s driving point is: he is going to “destruction [apoleian]” (Rev 17:8a, 11; cf. the Danielic backdrop, Da 7:11 LXX, therion . . . . apoleto). He is doomed to hell (Rev 19:20; 20:10) — his dreaded power and resilience notwithstanding.

But now what about Rev. 17:11: “And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction”? I will deal with that in my next article.

Notes

1. Martin G. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (New York: Harper, 1940), 345.

2. In my The Beast of Revelation I show this to be a particularly significant demonstration of Nero’s megalomania.

3. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 864.

4. Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary (5th ed: Cambridge: University Press, 1875; Grand Rapids: Guardian, 1976), 4:709.

5. Acts 2:23 literally reads: “this man by the fixed counsel and foreknowledge of God given up through the hand of lawless men fastening you killed [prospexantes aneilate].”

6. Regarding the abyss: “the author’s use throughout” Revelation shows that it “is the place of demons.” Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction with a Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, rep. 1979 [1919]), 697.

PMW 2026-084 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Continuing from my previous article, we now come on the second “age” term to consider as we study the two age doctrine of redemptive history is the Greek noun ain, including its adjectival form ainios. The noun is frequent in the NT, occurring over 100 times, while the adjective appears seventy times. It also occurs in the LXX 450+ times, which includes 150 times in the Apocrypha (NIDNTT 3: 829). This common word is the equivalent (and frequent LXX translation) of the Hebrew ôlâm.

Thus, like ôlâm, the word aion also means “a long period of time” or “a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age” (BAGD 32). It can be defined “as an Indefinite Time … an indeterminate period of time” (EDT 19). Or we may more fully explain it as indicating “a long time, duration of time … an age, epoch, era (of the world)” (NIDNTT 3: 829). As Cullmann (1962: 39) notes it differs fundamentally from the Greek kairos, which “has to do with a definite point of time which has a fixed content, while aion designates a duration of time, a defined or undefined extent of time.”

NIDNTT also adds that aion can mean “eternity.” Significantly however, it notes that eternity is “not necessarily a timeless concept, but the most comprehensive temporal one which the experience of time has produced” (3: 826). Cullmann (1962: 62) expresses this more emphatically:

“To Primitive Christianity, as to Judaism, the Greek manner of distinguishing between time and eternity is quite foreign…. Primitive Christianity knows nothing of timelessness…. [In fact] the word used to express eternity, aion (‘age’), is the same word that is also applied to a limited division of time; otherwise expressed, between what we call eternity and what we call time, that is, between everlastingly continuing time and limited time, the New Testament makes absolutely no difference in terminology. Eternity is the endless succession of the ages (aiones).”

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-211" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="" width="101" height="150" />
Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, the great tribulation, Paul’s Man of Sin, and John’s Revelation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And he reiterates on the next page: “time and eternity share this time quality. Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God” (1962: 63).

In Scripture the word aion can also mean “world.” As Gaffin (n.d.: 1) explains:

“The words for ‘age’ when they are used to make this distinction — in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and subsequently after the New Testament was written, in Latin — also have the sense of ‘world’ or ‘universe’ (e.g., in the New Testament, Heb. 1:2; 11:3). In other words, a comprehensive time word also took on an all-inclusive spatial connotation. The distinction, then, is between this world-age and the world-age to come.

Unfortunately, interpreters committed to a hyper-preterist theology err by limiting the interpretive range of aion (as they often do in their attempts at understanding Greek lexicography and grammar, e.g., their well-known misunderstanding of the Greek mello). For instance, a recent convert to the basic principles of hyper-preterism, Gary DeMar, mistakenly asserts that “aion refers to a period of time, not the physical world.”

But again in the case of ôlâm, so with aion “occasionally there occurs the meaning of world in the spatial sense” (NIDNTT 3: 829). Cullmann (1962: 45) can rightly argue, then, that aion “like the Hebrew ôlâm, takes on at times a spatial meaning and so comes to mean ‘world’; it thus becomes a synonym of ‘world,’ ‘universe’ (kosmos).” Bruner (2004: 474) concurs, noting at Matthew 24:3 that it “means world of time and space.” Gaffin (2022: 246) agrees, pointing out that both the Hebrew and Greek words for “age” eventually “took on the sense of ‘world’ or ‘universe.’ In other words, a comprehensive time word gained an all-inclusive spatial connotation,” i.e., world-age. Vos (1930: 13) agrees: “Now this word ‘kosmos’ with Paul occasionally occurs synonymously with ’ho aion hootos,’” and he lists: Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 1:20–21; 2:12; 3:19; 11:32; 2 Cor. 7:1; Philippians 2:15.

Perspectives on Pentecost (Richard Gaffin)
A careful examination of the New Testament teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. Makes a case for the cessation of tongues at the close of the apostolic era. Gaffin is professor emeritus of biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Consequently, on occasion “aion approximates closely to kosmos” as when Paul’s reference to “wisdom … of this age [aion]” (1 Cor. 2:6) can almost immediately be re-phrased as “the wisdom of this world [kosmos]” (TDNT 1:203; cp. EDBT 13; BAGD 33).

Likewise, in Ephesians 2:1–2a we may observe this easy transition: “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course [aion] of this world [kosmos].” Vos (2024: 26–27) notes in this regard:

“Here the supposition is that to the kosmos (conceived as evil) an evil time or life-complexion belongs. The one affects the other and is inseparable from the other. Yet nonetheless, they are conceptually and linguistically distinguishable. On the whole we shall have to say that the world-scheme follows the time-scheme, not the reverse. And this is not without theological importance for the interpretation of the Apostle’s idea of the kosmos as evil.”

Barrett well comments here: “Of this age (aion) and of the world (kosmos) appear to be used synonymously…. This age, in contrast with the other world, are not two completely distinct dualisms.”

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.

For more information on this new Vos work or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos/

This seems clearly the case in Hebrews 1:2: God “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made [poieia] the world [tous aionas].” Here the word “world” is almost certainly the proper understanding of the plural tous aiõnas (as per most versions, e.g., KJV, ASV, CEB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV). “The word poieia is the same as barah (Gen. 1:1), to bring into being.” As Schreiner (2020: 55) points out while citing the NIV: “the phrase ‘the universe’ (tous aionas) is most often temporal, but here it designates the world God has made (cf. Wis. 13:9), and the author features the Son as the agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16).” Cullmann (1962: 64) highlights this verse as an example of “the spatial use of the word aion, a usage attested elsewhere.” TDNT 1:204 observes that this use of aion “must be understood spatially as ‘worlds’ or ‘spheres.’”

The same is true in Hebrews 11:3, where we read: “by faith we understand that the worlds [tous aionas] were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen [blepomena < blepo] was not made out of things which are visible.” This is a clear allusion to Genesis 1 regarding the physical creation (which is “seen,” blepo). Consequently, the writer of Hebrews “denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe.” As Bruce argues: “Here, as in 1:2, the ‘worlds’ are the aiones (lit. ‘ages’); in both places the universe of space and time is meant.” Ellingworth agrees regarding 11:3: “tous aiones [refers] to the visible world, and thus [is] synonymous with to blepomenon.”

THE SIGN OF HIS COMING
A Preterist Commentary on the Mount Olivet Discourse
Newly translated from the Latin, edited by Kenneth Gentry and Jay Rogers

This groundbreaking volume presents the first English translation of Grotius’ Latin commentary on the Olivet Discourse – Matthew 24-25 and the parallel passages
of Mark 13, Luke 17 and 21. This allows modern English readers to encounter firsthand one of the great intellectual architects of early Protestant biblical interpretation.

What makes Grotius unique is not simply that he connected Jesus’ prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Many readers already know that argument. What makes this work extraordinary is the depth of historical insight behind it. Grotius combines mastery of Scripture, Roman history, Jewish sources, geography, classical literature, philology, and prophetic typology in a way few modern commentators can rival. Long before contemporary prophecy debates.

For more information on this new Grotius translation, or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-sign-of-his-coming-a-preterist-commentary-on-the-mount-olivet-discourse/

If you would like to financially support my research on this two age book, I would invite you to give a tax deductible donation at GoodBirth Ministries (www.Goodbirthministries.com).

PMW 2026-083 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Introduction
As noted previously I am working on the book dealing with the two ages in Scripture. These two ages make up the two ages of redemptive history, which is widely misunderstood by dispensationalists and hyperpreterists. I will now provide a brief, two-part series on the two biblical terms that are foundational to the two-age conception.

What are the particular terms framing the Two Age doctrine? Basically two words are used to establish the concept, one from Hebrew/Aramaic texts, the other from Greek texts. Those words are: ôlâm in Hebrew and aiõn in Greek. I will consider the lexical meaning of the older term first. Later we will see how it functions in specific contexts as a theological construct.

The Key OT Term
The “two ages” is not actually presented as a theological construct in the Old Testament. However, the key Old Testament term that eventually comes to designate the two ages concept in late Second Temple Judaism is ôlâm. This common Hebrew word occurs almost 440 times in the OT, with an additional twenty times in its Aramaic portions (TDOT 10: 531). But what is the meaning of this term?

Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
(Thomas Ice v. Ken Gentry)

Debate book on the nature and timing of the great tribulation. Both sides thoroughly cover the evidence they deem necessary, then interact with each other.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

TDOT (10:531) offers the following translations: “long time” or “farthest, remotest time.” Additionally, TLOT (2: 852, 853) states that it speaks of the “most remote time,” even noting that it can refer to the most remote time “either with a view to the past.., to the future, or to both.” TWOT (2: 672) agrees, noting that it speaks of “most distant times,” declaring that it “came to be used to refer to a long age or period.”

Thus, not surprisingly NIDOTTE (3: 345) agrees, noting that ôlâm can express large expanses of time. It begins its definition with: “long time, constancy, for all time.” It can even speak of “unceasingness or perpetuity” (3: 349), signifying eternity, forever — which is quite a long time!

So as we can see, ôlâm lends itself easily to our modern understanding of the English word “age” as a long period of time. This will become significant in late Second Temple Judaism even into Rabbinic Judaism (e.g., Pate 1995: 44; see ch. 2 below). This takes on an important theological use as Judaism begins developing its Two Age theology from seemingly contradictory statements found in the Old Testament.

And though ôlâm almost universally carries a temporal significance, it eventually develops a spatial meaning as well. So, in TDOT (10: 543, 544) we read that in Daniel, it “acquires the meaning of ‘world/age of the world’ … something then developed further in early Jewish literature.” Indeed, in Sirach 3:18 (ms. A) it “means something like ‘world’” (see also Wis. 13:9). Consequently, around 175–90 BC “Sirach stands clearly in a transitional situation with regard to the development of the term ôlâm, with traditional meanings continuing, new ones announcing themselves, and many texts clearly hovering between the old and the new and thus eluding unequivocal determination.”

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission as given in Matthew 28:18-20. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

NIDNTT (3: 829) agrees, pointing out that this development comes to full expression shortly thereafter:

“it is only in rabbinic Judaism at the turn of the era and in the apocalyptic of the 1st cent. A.D. (e.g. 2 Esd.) that one finds a quite new use of ‘ôlâm, which exhibits a spatial significance as well as a temporal one…. The OT statements concerning primal and final time (Isa. 24–27; Joel 2) are here systematized into a doctrine of the two worlds (aeons).”

Vos (2024: 19) observes that “in the Similitudes of Enoch several times ‘the creation of the world’ occurs. Here the idea of creation forbids us to think of ‘age.’ The passages are 48:6–7; 69:16–18; 71:15.” These texts read:

Similitudes 48:6–7: “And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, / Before the creation of the world and for evermore. / And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous; / For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, / Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, / And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits.”

Similitudes 69:160–18: “And these are the secrets of this oath, and they are strong through this oath, and Heaven was suspended, before the world was created, and forever. And through it the earth was founded upon the water, and from the hidden recesses of the mountains come beautiful waters, from the creation of the world and perpetually. And through that oath the sea was created, and as its foundation, for the time of anger, he placed for it the sand, and it does not go beyond it, from the creation of the world and for ever.”

Similitudes 71:15: “He shall proclaim peace to you in the name of the world that is to become.”

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history. Provides exegetical reasons for a transition from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matthew 24:36.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Gaffin (2019: 284) notes in this regard that “the two-aeon distinction as it emerged in Second Temple Judaism involved a semantic development experienced by the Hebrew ôlâm … and aion [see next article] in Hellenistic Judaism…. What in each instance was originally a time word took on a spatial meaning…. These words, as they are employed in the two-aeon scheme, can mean either ‘age’ or ‘world.’” DJBP (p. 9) agrees.

If you would like to financially support my research on this two age book, I would invite you to give a tax deductible donation at GoodBirth Ministries (www.Goodbirthministries.com).

PMW 2026-082 by John Broadus

Gentry introduction:
As I am working on my Two Ages of Redemptive History book, I have come upon the Kingdom Parables in Matthew 13 as an invaluable feature of my research. The Kingdom Parables were given near the middle of Jesus’ ministry and for an important reason: Jesus is working against the Jewish apocalyptic expectations that were so wide-spread in the first century.

By and large, the Jews expected the end of the age in their lifetime. And this would be brought about by the dramatic coming of the Messiah to overthrow the Gentiles (Romans), banish the unrighteous and establish a worldwide rule of peace and prosperity for Israel.

Because of these apocalyptic expectations, Jesus begins disappointing the Jews by his meek and lowly approach to ministry. In Matthew 11:2 John the Baptist becomes confused, wondering if Jesus was the “coming one” or should they look for “another” (Gk. heteros, “another of a different kind”)? The Jews in John 6:15 tried to take Jesus and make him king by force (John 6:15). Even the disciples were confused, thinking that Jesus’ prophecy of the temple’s coming destruction would bring about “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3).

So, Jesus gives the Kingdom Parables in order to explain that his Messianic ministry is not yet to be what the Jews expected. Their apocalyptic hopes would come about, but at the end of history, at “the end of the age.” But until then the kingdom takes a different form. It begins small as a mustard seed. It includes a mixture of the righteous and unrighteous, i.e., tares among the wheat. And so forth.

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This is a collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned Reformed theologian Geehardus Vos. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his layout style according to modern publishing conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs). We did this without changing any of Vos’ arguments.

For more information on this new Vos work or to order it, see:
https://www.kennethgentry.com/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos/

In this article I will be basically clipping some quotes from John A. Broadus’ 1886 commentary on Matthew, and providing a few explanatory comments. These notes should provide a taste of what is to come in my book. And these observations should be helpful for beginning to understand the two age concept that I will be presenting. I hope these excerpts are helpful.

Broadus on Matthew 13

Broadus (1886: 285) on Matt 13:3: “The Messianic reign, its beginnings and growth, ch. 13 [are] given about the middle of our Lord’s ministry.” Gentry: this humble beginning directly conflicts with the Jewish apocalyptic hope of judgment on the Gentiles, as noted in my introduction above.

The Jews will not understand Jesus’ ministry in that it comes in two stages: the first coming in the first century and the second coming in the last century. Broadus (1886: 286) explains the point of the sower and the call to have ears to hear in Matt 13:9: “not all were likely to understand it.” In fact the Jews were dismayed at Jesus’ meek approach.

Broadus (1886: 286-87) 13:10–17: “As parables in general were apt to be obscure unless the application was given, they wondered why the Teacher was employing them.… He had previously given scattered parables, though not without indicating the application.… We can see a special fitness in his dwelling on this reason upon the present occasion, for it was the day on which the Scribes blasphemously accused him of league with Beelzebul (see on 12:24 and 13:1); and he was now surrounded by great and excited crowds, whose enthusiasm he knew was largely superficial and short-lived — rocky-ground hearers. Not very long after this (14:34-36), he had to dispel illusions among fanatical followers by the searching discourse of John 6:26-66…. [He cites Godet:] ‘He is not deceived by the sight of the crowd, which is apparently so attentive; then to put his disciples on their guard against the expectations which such a large concourse might create in their minds’.”

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" width="99" height="150" />

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Broadus (1886: 287 regarding mysteries, as mentioned in Matt 13:11:
“in the New Test. use, it uniformly denotes that which we could not know unless revealed, whether it be in its own nature simple or profound. Paul’s favorite application of it is to the great fact that the Gentiles were to share in the salvation of the gospel on equal terms with the Jews, a fact always before kept in silence and secrecy, but now manifested by God, and to be everywhere proclaimed (Rom. 16:25. f; Eph. 3:4-6; Col. 1:28 f.; 1 Tim. 3:16).…” Gentry comment: This “mystery” is why the Jews are so confused, ultimately rejecting Christ.

Broadus (1886: 287): “we must frequently recall the popular Jewish errors in regard to the character of that reign – errors from which the disciples themselves were not entirely free – in order to see the precise aim and point of the discourse.”

Broadus (1886: 295) on the tares at Matt 13:24ff:
“This parable and that of 22:2, are in themselves particularly unlikely to have been given by any previous teacher, being so utterly at variance with current Jewish thought and feeling.” Gentry note: Again. The expectation of judgment and the removal of unbelievers is crushed under Christ’s kingdom message.

Broadus (1886: 296) at Matt 13:31–33 on the parables of the mustard seed and leaven: “some critics wonder why other parables were introduced between the parable of the Tares and the interpretation of it. Do not these, in correcting a common Jewish error, help to prepare the mind for understanding the important correction and instruction given by the parable of the Tares?”

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Broadus (1886: 297) on Matt 13:31 regarding the mustard seed “the disciples and other Jews, clinging to the notion of a vast and splendid earthly kingdom, would think it very strange that Messiah’s reign should begin so quietly, and on so small a scale… Though small in its beginnings, the Messianic kingdom was destined to attain a vast extent. If the disciples were discouraged by the blasphemous accusation of that morning, and by the parables of the Sower and the Tares, which indicated that but few would become subjects of Christ’s reign, these other two would re-assure them.”

Broadus (1886: 299) on 13:36 regarding the tares interipretation: “the Jews, including our Lord’s disciples, would naturally think, with their rooted notions of Messiah’s reign, that he would promptly destroy all those who did not submit to his authority.… Their views and feelings are illustrated by the wish of James and John to call down fire from heaven and consume the Samaritan village, for refusing to receive Jesus. They might strengthen themselves… in this view by supposing that the Messianic discrimination predicted by John the Baptist (3:10-12) would be the first part of the Messianic work, and would be performed in a wholesale fashion. The contrary has already been intimated by the parable of the Sower, and by those of the Mustard-seed and the Leaven, all showing that the Messianic operation would be gradual.… While the Messiah does not at once destroy those who refuse him allegiance, but suffers righteous and wicked to live on together in the world, and intertwined in the relations of life (v. 29), yet he will hereafter effectually separate them, and deal with each class according to their deserts. The Messianic discrimination is to take place not at the beginning, but at the end of the present dispensation, when the unmixed wheat will be gathered into the garner.”

Broadus (1886: 302) on Matt 13:41 and the tares: “To separate them now, and destroy the wicked – as the Jews might naturally expect of Messiah – to make now the Messianic discrimination (3:10–12) would be to break up the whole framework of society.”

The Book of Revelation Made Easy
(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Broadus (1886: 303) on Matt 13:41 regarding stumbling: “The idea here may be, all those who cause men to sin in general, or specifically, all those who cause men to doubt and question the reality of Christ’s reign, from his allowing such persons to live on in the world.”

Broadus (1886: 308) on Matt 13:51: “If the messianic reign had turned out only what the Jews expected, its Scribes would not have been able to produce any new truths about it… The Jewish Scribes gloried in teaching only old things, but the Christian Scribe learned such new lessons as these parables have just been giving, and so could fling out things new and old. [Here we have] the fulfillment of many old prophecies, the explanation and new extension (3:17) of many precepts, the more correct understanding of the old Messianic hope.”

Conclusion
I am sorry for the clipped nature of this article, but I am simply providing some pointers for understanding the Kingdom Parables as Jesus’ rebuttal to the apocalypticism of the first century Jews and their expectation of the end of the age in their lifetime. I will fuller studies later, and especially deeper studies in my book.

If you would like to financially support my research on this two age book, I would invite you to give a tax deductible donation at GoodBirth Ministries (www.Goodbirthministries.com). In fact, even if you would not like to do this, I would invite you to do so.

PMW 2026-081 by John Calvin

In that day shall Israel. Isaiah concludes the promise which he had briefly glanced at, that the Egyptians and Assyrians, as well as Israel, shall be blessed (Isa 19:24).

Isaiah concludes the promise which he had briefly glanced at, that the Egyptians and Assyrians, as well as Israel, shall be blessed (Isa 19:24).

Formerly the grace of God was in some measure confined to Israel, because with that nation only had the Lord entered into covenant. The Lord had stretched out a cord over Jacob (Deut 32:9,) as Moses speaks; and David says, “He hath not done so to any nation, and hath not made known to them his judgments.” (Psa 147:20).

In a word, the blessing of God dwelt solely in Judea, but he says that it will be shared with the Egyptians and Assyrians, under whose name he includes also the rest of the nations. He does not mention them for the purpose of shewing respect, but because they were the constant enemies of God, and appeared to be more estranged from him and farther removed from the hope of favor than all others. Accordingly, though he had formerly adopted none but the children of Abraham, he now wished to be called, without distinction,” father of all nations.” (Gen 17:7; Exo 19:5; Deu 7:6).

Israel shall be the third blessing.

Some render it, Israel shall be the third I do not approve of that rendering; for the adjective being in the feminine gender, ought to be construed with the noun berachah, “blessing,” and blessing means here a form or pattern of blessing.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation
(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Because the Lord of hosts will bless him (Isa 19:25)

He assigns a reason, and explains the former statement; for he shews that, through the undeserved goodness of God, the Assyrians and Egyptians shall be admitted to fellowship with the chosen people of God. As if he had said,” these titles belonged exclusively to Israel, they shall likewise be conferred on other nations, which the Lord hath adopted to be his own.” There is a mutual relation between God and his people, so that they who are called by his mouth” holy people” (Exo 19:6), may justly, in return, call him their God. Yet this designation is bestowed indiscriminately on Egyptians and Assyrians.

Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands.

Though the Prophet intended to describe foreign nations as associated with the Jews who had belonged to God’ household, yet he employs most appropriate marks to describe the degrees. By calling the Egyptians” people of God,” he means that they will share in the honor which God deigned to bestow in a peculiar manner on the Jews alone. When he calls Assyrians the work of his hands, he distinguishes them by the title peculiar to his Church. We have elsewhere remarked that the Church is called” workmanship” of God (Eph 2:10), because by the spirit of regeneration believers are created anew, so as to bear the image of God. Thus, he means that we are” work of God’ hands,” not so far as we are created to be men, but so far as they who are separated from the world, and become new creatures, are created anew to a new life. Hence we acknowledge that in “newness of life” nothing ought to be claimed as our own, for we are wholly “the work of God.”

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And Israel my inheritance.

When he comes to Israel, he invests him with his prerogative, which is, that he is the inheritance of God, so that among the new brethren he still holds the rank and honor of the first-born. The word inheritance suggests the idea of some kind of superiority; and indeed that covenant which the Lord first made with them, bestowed on them the privilege which cannot be made void by their ingratitude; for” gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” as Paul declares, (Rom 11:29), who shews that in the house of God they are the first-born (Eph 2:12). Although therefore the grace of God is now more widely spread, yet they still hold the highest rank, not by their own merit, but by the firmness of the promises.

Gentry note: Thus, endeth the exposition of John Calvin. Be warmed and filled! And while you are at it, Go, and sin no more.

PMW 2026-080 by John Calvin

Isaiah 19:18ff is an encouraging prophecy that relates the postmillennial hope of the gospel conquering the world. It shows the gospel will even overwhelm the historic enemies of God. Calvin’s exposition of this passage is extremely helpful for encouraging the postmillennial outlook. I am continuing citing Calvin’s material, beginning now with Isa 19:21.

And the Lord shall be known by the Egyptians (Isa 19:21).

Isaiah now adds what was most important; for we cannot worship the Lord, or call upon him, till we have first acknowledged him to be our Father. “ How” says Paul, “ can they call on him whom they know not?” (Rom 10:14.) We cannot be partakers of the gifts of God for our salvation without previously having true knowledge, which is by faith. He therefore properly adds, the knowledge of God, as the foundation of all religion, or the key that opens to us the gate of the heavenly kingdom. Now, there cannot be knowledge without doctrine; and hence infer, that God disapproves of all kinds of false worship; for he cannot approve of anything that is not guided by knowledge, which springs from hearing true and pure doctrine. Whatever contrivance therefore men may make out of their own minds, they will never attain by it the true worship of God. We ought carefully to observe passages like this, in which the Spirit of God shews what is the true worship and calling of God, that, having abandoned the inventions to which men are too obstinately attached, we may allow ourselves to be taught by the pure word of God, and, relying on his authority, may freely and boldly condemn all that the world applauds and admires.

The Egyptians shall know. It is not without good reason that he twice mentions this knowledge. A matter of so great importance ought not to be slightly passed by; for it holds the chief place, and without it there is nothing that can properly be called worship.

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

And shall make sacrifice and oblation. This passage must be explained in the same manner as the former, in which he mentioned an altar. What would have been the use of sacrifices after the manifestation of Christ? He therefore describes metaphorically confession of faith and calling on God, which followed the preaching of the gospel. Here he includes everything that was offered to God — slain beasts, bread, fruits of every description, and all that was fitted to express gratitude. But we must attend to the difference between the Old and New Testaments, and under the shadows of ceremonies we must understand to be meant that” worship” of which Paul speaks (Rom 12:1) .

And shall vow vows to the Lord and perform them.

What he adds about vows is likewise a part of the worship of God. The Jews were accustomed to express their gratitude to God by vows, and especially they rendered thanksgiving by a solemn vow, when they had received from God any extraordinary blessing. Of their own accord also, when any one chose to do so, they made vows on various occasions (Deu 12:6). And yet every person was not at liberty to make this or that vow according to his own pleasure; but a rule was laid down (Num 30:3). Whatever may be in that respect, it is evident that by the word vows the Prophet means nothing else than the worship of God, to which the Egyptians devoted themselves after having learned it from the word of God; but he mentions the acts of devotion by which the Jews made profession of the true worship and religion.

Hence the Papists draw an argument to prove, that whatever we vow to God ought to be performed; but since they make vows at random, and without any exercise of judgment, this passage lends no aid to defend their error. Isaiah foretells what the Egyptians will do, after having embraced and followed the instruction given by God. In like manner, when David exhorts the people to vow and to perform their vows, (Psa 76:11,) they think that he is on their side; but be does not therefore exhort them to make unlawful and rash vows (Ecc 5:2). There always remains in force the law of vows, which we are not at liberty to transgress, namely, the word of God, by which we learn what he requires from us, and what he wishes us to vow and perform. We never received permission to vow whatever we please, because we are too much disposed to go to excess, and to take every kind of liberty with regard to God, and because we act more imprudently towards him than if we had to deal with men. It was therefore necessary that men should be laid under some restraint to prevent them from taking so great liberties in the worship of God and religion.

Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This being the case, it is evident that God permits nothing but what is agreeable to his law, and that he rejects everything else as unacceptable and superstitious. What a man has vowed of his own accord, and without the support of the word, cannot be binding. If he perform it, he offends doubly; first, in vowing rashly, as if he were sporting with God; and secondly, in executing his resolutions wickedly and rashly, when he ought rather to have set them aside and repented. So far, therefore, is any man from being bound by vows, that he ought, on the contrary, to turn back and acknowledge his sinful rashness.

Now, if any one inquire about the vows of Papists, it will be easy to shew that they derive no support from the word of God. If those things which they highly applaud and reckon to be lawful, such as the vows of monks, are unlawful and wicked, what opinion must we form of the rest? They vow perpetual celibacy, as if it were indiscriminately permitted to all; but we know that the gift of continence is not an ordinary gift, and is not promised to every one, not even to those who in other respects are endued with extraordinary graces. Abraham was eminent for faith, steadfastness, meekness, and holiness, and yet he did not possess this gift (Gen 11:29). Christ himself, when the apostles loudly commended this state of celibacy, testified that it is not given to all (Mat 19:11). Paul states the same thing (1Co 7:7). Whosoever, therefore, does not possess this gift of continence, if he vow it, does wrong, and will be justly punished for his rashness. Hence have arisen dreadful instances of want of chastity, by which God has justly punished Popery for this presumption.

They likewise vow poverty, as if they would have nothing of their own, though they have abundance of everything beyond other men. Is not this an open mockery of God? The obedience which they vow is full of deceit; for they shake off the yoke of Christ, that they may become the slaves of men. Others vow pilgrimages, to abstain from eating flesh, to observe days, and other things full of superstition. Others promise to God toys and trinkets, as if they were dealing with a child. We would be ashamed to act thus, or to pursue such a line of conduct towards men, among whom nothing is settled till it has been agreed to on both sides by mutual consent. Much less is it lawful to attempt anything in the worship of God but what has been declared by his word. What kind of worship will it be, if the judgment of God has no weight with us, and if we yield only to the will of men? Will it be possible that it can please God? Will it not be “ will-worship,” which Paul so severely censures? (Col 2:23). In vain, therefore, do they who make such vows boast that they serve God; and in vain do they endeavor to find support in this passage; for the Lord abhors that kind of worship.

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This commentary is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book. It takes an orthodox preterist approach, giving serious attention to the details of John’s many visions.

Click: The Divorce of Israel
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Therefore Jehovah will smite Egypt (Isa 19:22)

From what has been already said the Prophet draws the conclusion, that the chastisement which he has mentioned will be advantageous to the Egyptians, because it will be a preparation for their conversion; as if he had said, that it will be for the good of Egypt that the Lord will punish her. Those who translate the words,” will strike with a wound that may be healed,” misinterpret this passage, and greatly weaken the Prophet’ meaning; for it means that the wounds will be advantageous to them, and that by means of these wounds the Lord will bring them back. Hence we ought to conclude, that we must not refuse to be chastised by God, for it is done for our benefit (Pro 3:11; Heb 12:5). Exemption from punishment would cherish a disposition to sin with less control. As men are exceedingly prone to give way to their own inclinations, whenever God spares them for a little, it is necessary on this account that the Lord should prevent this danger, which he does by chastisements and stripes, which excite and arouse us to repentance. A remarkable instance of this is here exhibited in Egypt, which abounded in superstitions and wickedness, and went beyond all nations in idolatry, and yet experienced the mercy of God.

For they shall be turned to Jehovah.

We must attend to the manner of its accomplishment, which is, their conversion to God. It is the explanation of the former clause; as if he had said, “ will heal the Egyptians, because they shall be converted.” The copulative vav signifies for. Hence we infer that conversion may be said to be a resurrection from eternal death. We are utterly ruined so long as we are turned away from God; but when we are converted, we return to his favor, and are delivered from death; not that we deserve the favor of God by our repentance, but because in this manner God raises us up, as it were, from death to life. To repentance is added a promise, from which we conclude, that when we sincerely repent, we do not in vain implore forgiveness. Now, when the Prophet says that the Lord will be gracious and reconciled to the Egyptians, he at the same time shews, that as soon as they have been converted, they will obtain forgiveness. It will therefore be a true conversion when it is followed by a calling on God. But without faith (Rom 10:14) it is impossible to call on God; for even the ungodly may acknowledge sin; but no man will have recourse to the mercy of God, or obtain reconciliation, till he be moved by a true feeling of repentance, which is likewise accompanied by faith.

And will heal them.

He does not repeat what he had said, that God strikes in order to heal; but he promises healing in another sense, that is, that God will cease to inflict punishments. The former healing, which he mentioned a little before, was internal; but the latter relates to stripes and wounds. In short, he means that it will be a speedy remedy for all their distresses. After having been reconciled to God, there is nothing in us that calls for punishment; for whence comes punishment but on account of guilt? and when guilt is pardoned, exemption from punishment will quickly follow. And if we be chastised, it is an evidence that we are not yet sufficiently prepared for repentance.

In a word, let us remember this order, which the Prophet points out to us; first, that stripes prepare men for repentance; secondly, that they are healed, because they are delivered from eternal destruction; thirdly, that when they have been brought to the knowledge of their guilt, they obtain pardon; fourthly, that God is gracious and reconciled to them; fifthly, that chastisements cease after they have obtained pardon from God. There is no man who ought not to acknowledge in himself what Isaiah here declares concerning the Egyptians, in whom the Lord holds out an example to the whole world.

In that day (Isa 19:23).

The Prophet now foretells that the Lord will diffuse his goodness throughout the whole world; as if he had said,” will not be shut up in a corner, or exclusively known, as it formerly was, by a single nation.” Here he speaks of two nations that were the most inveterate enemies of the Church, and that appeared to be farther removed than any other from the kingdom of God; for much more might have been expected from distant nations, because the nations here mentioned openly made war with God and persecuted his Church. And if the Lord is so gracious to the deadly enemies of the Church, that he pardons and adopts them to be his children, what shall be the case with other nations? This prophecy thus includes the calling of all nations.

There shall be a highway. Now, when he says that, in consequence of a highway having been opened up, there will be mutual access that they may visit each other, he describes brotherly intercourse. We know that the Egyptians carried on almost incessant wars with the Assyrians, and cherished an inveterate hatred towards each other. He now foretells that the Lord will change their dispositions, and will reconcile them to each other, so that they will have mutual communications, mutual coming in and going out, in consequence of laying open the highways which were formerly shut. Here we ought to observe what we formerly remarked at the fourth verse of the second chapter, namely, that when men have been reconciled to God, it is likewise proper that they should cherish brotherly kindness towards each other. Strife, quarreling, disputes, hatred, and malice, ought to cease when God has been pacified. We need not wonder, therefore, that he says that a highway to Egypt is opened up for the Assyrians; but this ought undoubtedly to be referred to the reign of Christ, for we do not read that the Egyptians were on a friendly footing with the Assyrians till after they had known Christ.

And the Egyptians shall serve the Assyrians (or, with the Assyrians). This clause may be rendered,” serve God;” but as the name of God is not expressed here, it may refer to the Assyrians, which is also pointed out by the particle eth. It may therefore be explained thus. They who formerly burned with a desire to injure one another will be changed in their dispositions, and will desire to shew kindness. In short, the fruit of true repentance will be made evident, for they who formerly distressed each other in mutual wars will lend mutual aid. And this opinion will agree very well with those words of the Prophet with which they stand connected. Yet I do not set aside another interpretation which is almost universally adopted, namely,” who formerly worshipped other gods will henceforth acknowledge one God, and will assent to the same confession of faith.” I leave every one to adopt that interpretation which he thinks best. If the latter interpretation be preferred, the Prophet makes brotherly love to flow from godliness, as from its source.

Stay tuned for the finale of Calvin’s exposition of Isa 19:18–25.

PMT 2015-002 by John Calvin

I am continuing my citation of John Calvin’s postmillennial-like exposition of Isaiah 19:18ff. Calvin does not excellent job on these important verses.

In that day shall there be an altar in the midst of the land of Egypt (Isa 19:19).

Isaiah continues what he had said in the former verse, and states more clearly that the aspect of Egypt will be renewed, because there true religion will flourish, the pure worship of God will be set up, and all superstitions will fall to the ground. He employs the word altar to denote, as by a sign, the worship of God; for sacrifices and oblations were the outward acts of piety. By the midst of Egypt he means the chief part of the whole kingdom, as if he had said, “the very metropolis,”or, “the very heart of the kingdom.”

And a statue to the Lord. Let it not be supposed that by statue are meant images which carry the resemblance of men or of saints; but memorials of piety; for he means that they will be marks similar to those which point out the boundaries of kingdoms, and that in this manner signs will be evident, to make known to all men that God rules over this nation. And indeed it usually happens that a nation truly converted to God, after having laid aside idols and superstitions, openly sets up signs of the true religion, that all may know that the worship of God is purely observed in it.

Interpreting Revelation (5 CDs)
by Ken Gentry
Lectures on Revelation discussing its date of writing,
preterist interpretation, and leading features.
Very helpful, basic introduction to Revelation.
Includes question and answer sessions.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Josephus relates (Ant. 13:3:1) that Onias perverted this passage, when he fled to Ptolemy Philometor, whom he persuaded that it would be advantageous to erect an altar there, on which the Jews who dwelt in that country might sacrifice; and he brought forward this passage, alleging that what the Prophet had foretold ought to be accomplished. The wicked and ambitious priest persuaded the king to do this, though it was openly opposed by the Jews; for the king looked to his own advantage, and that scoundrel, who had been deprived of his rank, sought to obtain additional honor and advancement; so that no entreaty could prevent the execution of that wicked counsel. But Isaiah simply describes the pure worship of God under the figure of signs which were then in use; for he has his eye upon his own age and the men with whom he had to do. This passage, therefore, was wickedly and maliciously perverted by Onias.

But not less impudently do the Popish doctors of the present day torture a passage in Malachi to defend the sacrifice of the Mass. When he says that “pure oblation will everywhere be offered to God, (Mal.1:11), they infer that it is some sacrifice different from the ancient sacrifices, because oxen and sheep must no longer be sacrificed, and therefore that it is the Mass. A witty and ingenious argument truly! Now, it is evident that under the legal figure Malachi describes nothing else than the pure worship of God, as Isaiah does here; and we ought carefully to observe such forms of expression, which are frequently employed by the prophets.

This will be clearly explained by a passage in Joel, which we shall quote as an example. “sons and your daughters,”says he, “prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”(Joel 2:28.) Peter shews (Acts 2:16) that this prediction was fulfilled, when the apostles spoke various languages through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Having formerly been uneducated men, they began to be qualified for declaring the mysteries of God. On that occasion we perceive no “”so that it might be thought that Peter quoted that passage inappropriately; but it is evident that Joel there describes nothing else than prophecy, and for the purpose of adorning it, he mentioned “and dreams,”by means of which the Lord anciently held communication with the prophets (Num12:6). He kept in view the ordinary custom of that age; for otherwise the Jews would have found it difficult to comprehend the gifts of the Spirit which at that time were unknown. Having been reared under that preparatory instruction of the Law, they could rise no higher than where they were conducted by sacrifices, ceremonies, sacraments, and signs. So then the prophets addressed them as children, who ought to have nothing set before them beyond what they can learn in a homely style by custom and experience.

This doctrine will unfold to us various passages, the obscurity of which might lead to much hesitation. It is plain that the Prophet speaks of the kingdom of Christ, and that these things were not fulfilled before his coming. We must therefore take away the shadows and look at the reality of things, in order that by the altar we may understand a true and sincere calling on God. But by these signs the Prophet likewise shews that the worship of God cannot be maintained without external acts of devotion, though we have no right to lay down rules for them. Away with the inventions of men, that we may listen to God alone on this subject.

And he will send them a Savior (Isa 19:20).

We cannot serve God unless he first bestow his grace upon us; for no one will dedicate himself to God, till he be drawn by his goodness, and embrace him with all his heart. He must therefore call us to him before we call upon him; we can have no access till he first invite us. Formerly he shewed that they must be subdued by various afflictions in order that they may submit to God, and now he repeats the same thing; for men never deny themselves and forsake idle follies any farther than the scourge compels them to yield obedience. But he likewise adds another kind of invitation, that, having experienced the kindness of God, they will freely approach to Him.

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 mp3 lectures)
Southern California Center for Christian Studies seminar.
Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction.
Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com 

They will cry unto the Lord. The cry of which he speaks proceeds from faith, for they would never resort to this refuge till they had been allured and delighted by the goodness of God. When the Lord promises that he will send a Savior, by whose hand the Egyptians will be delivered, this can mean no other than Christ; for Egypt was not delivered from its distresses before the doctrine of Christ reached it. We read of various changes which that country suffered for four hundred years, foreign and civil wars by which it was wasted and almost destroyed; but when we would be ready to think that it is utterly ruined, lo! it is converted to the Lord, and is rescued from the hand of enemies and tyrants. Thus Christ delivered that country, when it had begun to know him. In like manner, we must be brought to the knowledge and worship of God, that, where we have suffered various afflictions, we may learn that salvation is found in him alone. Would that the world would now learn this lesson, having suffered so many calamities that it appears to be on the brink of ruin! For what can be the issue but that it shall either perish or by repentance acknowledge that it has been justly punished for so great wickedness?

That he may deliver them. When he adds these words, we ought to draw from them a profitable doctrine, that God assists us through Christ, by whose agency he gave deliverance to his own people from the beginning. He has always been the Mediator, by whose intercession all blessings were obtained from God the Father; and now that he has been revealed, let us learn that nothing can be obtained from God but through him.

And the Lord shall be known by the Egyptians (Isa 19:21).

Isaiah now adds what was most important; for we cannot worship the Lord, or call upon him, till we have first acknowledged him to be our Father. “How”says Paul, “they call on him whom they know not?” (Rom10:14). We cannot be partakers of the gifts of God for our salvation without previously having true knowledge, which is by faith. He therefore properly adds, the knowledge of God, as the foundation of all religion, or the key that opens to us the gate of the heavenly kingdom. Now, there cannot be knowledge without doctrine; and hence infer, that God disapproves of all kinds of false worship; for he cannot approve of anything that is not guided by knowledge, which springs from hearing true and pure doctrine. Whatever contrivance therefore men may make out of their own minds, they will never attain by it the true worship of God. We ought carefully to observe passages like this, in which the Spirit of God shews what is the true worship and calling of God, that, having abandoned the inventions to which men are too obstinately attached, we may allow ourselves to be taught by the pure word of God, and, relying on his authority, may freely and boldly condemn all that the world applauds and admires.

The Egyptians shall know. It is not without good reason that he twice mentions this knowledge. A matter of so great importance ought not to be slightly passed by; for it holds the chief place, and without it there is nothing that can properly be called worship.

And shall make sacrifice and oblation. This passage must be explained in the same manner as the former, in which he mentioned an altar. What would have been the use of sacrifices after the manifestation of Christ? He therefore describes metaphorically confession of faith and calling on God, which followed the preaching of the gospel. Here he includes everything that was offered to God — slain beasts, bread, fruits of every description, and all that was fitted to express gratitude. But we must attend to the difference between the Old and New Testaments, and under the shadows of ceremonies we must understand to be meant that “worship”of which Paul speaks. (Rom 12:1.)

And shall vow vows to the Lord and perform them. What he adds about vows is likewise a part of the worship of God. The Jews were accustomed to express their gratitude to God by vows, and especially they rendered thanksgiving by a solemn vow, when they had received from God any extraordinary blessing. Of their own accord also, when any one chose to do so, they made vows on various occasions (Deut 12:6). And yet every person was not at liberty to make this or that vow according to his own pleasure; but a rule was laid down (Num 30:3). Whatever may be in that respect, it is evident that by the word vows the Prophet means nothing else than the worship of God, to which the Egyptians devoted themselves after having learned it from the word of God; but he mentions the acts of devotion by which the Jews made profession of the true worship and religion.

Hence the Papists draw an argument to prove, that whatever we vow to God ought to be performed; but since they make vows at random, and without any exercise of judgment, this passage lends no aid to defend their error. Isaiah foretells what the Egyptians will do, after having embraced and followed the instruction given by God. In like manner, when David exhorts the people to vow and to perform their vows, (Psa 76:11), they think that he is on their side; but be does not therefore exhort them to make unlawful and rash vows (Eccl 5:2). There always remains in force the law of vows, which we are not at liberty to transgress, namely, the word of God, by which we learn what he requires from us, and what he wishes us to vow and perform. We never received permission to vow whatever we please, because we are too much disposed to go to excess, and to take every kind of liberty with regard to God, and because we act more imprudently towards him than if we had to deal with men. It was therefore necessary that men should be laid under some restraint to prevent them from taking so great liberties in the worship of God and religion.

This being the case, it is evident that God permits nothing but what is agreeable to his law, and that he rejects everything else as unacceptable and superstitious. What a man has vowed of his own accord, and without the support of the word, cannot be binding. If he perform it, he offends doubly; first, in vowing rashly, as if he were sporting with God; and secondly, in executing his resolutions wickedly and rashly, when he ought rather to have set them aside and repented. So far, therefore, is any man from being bound by vows, that he ought, on the contrary, to turn back and acknowledge his sinful rashness.

Now, if any one inquire about the vows of Papists, it will be easy to shew that they derive no support from the word of God. If those things which they highly applaud and reckon to be lawful, such as the vows of monks, are unlawful and wicked, what opinion must we form of the rest? They vow perpetual celibacy, as if it were indiscriminately permitted to all; but we know that the gift of continence is not an ordinary gift, and is not promised to every one, not even to those who in other respects are endued with extraordinary graces. Abraham was eminent for faith, steadfastness, meekness, and holiness, and yet he did not possess this gift (Gen 11:29). Christ himself, when the apostles loudly commended this state of celibacy, testified that it is not given to all. (Matt 19:11). Paul states the same thing (1 Cor 7:7). Whosoever, therefore, does not possess this gift of continence, if he vow it, does wrong, and will be justly punished for his rashness. Hence have arisen dreadful instances of want of chastity, by which God has justly punished Popery for this presumption.

They likewise vow poverty, as if they would have nothing of their own, though they have abundance of everything beyond other men. Is not this an open mockery of God? The obedience which they vow is full of deceit; for they shake off the yoke of Christ, that they may become the slaves of men. Others vow pilgrimages, to abstain from eating flesh, to observe days, and other things full of superstition. Others promise to God toys and trinkets, as if they were dealing with a child. We would be ashamed to act thus, or to pursue such a line of conduct towards men, among whom nothing is settled till it has been agreed to on both sides by mutual consent. Much less is it lawful to attempt anything in the worship of God but what has been declared by his word. What kind of worship will it be, if the judgment of God has no weight with us, and if we yield only to the will of men? Will it be possible that it can please God? Will it not be “will-worship,” which Paul so severely censures (Col 2:23)? In vain, therefore, do they who make such vows boast that they serve God; and in vain do they endeavor to find support in this passage; for the Lord abhors that kind of worship.