Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog

PMW 2021-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last blog article I began presenting my  book, As It Is Written, which is on creation. Creation necessarily impacts consummation because of the linear progress of history under God’s sovereignty. Therefore the postmillennialist should be interested in creation issues. And Six-day creation is a strong foundation stone for the postmillennial hope.

A rehearsal of the Framework argument

In that last article I pointed out the three exegetical foundations to the Framework Hypothesis, a major evangelical re-interpretive approach to the Creation narrative. I will quickly repeat those here, then provide a brief rebuttal to each. My book should be consulted for a thorough response.

The Framework Hypothesis argues that:

(1) Genesis 1 is structured around a literary triad of days that are not intended to be understood as chronological and historical, but theological and literary. For instance, Framework advocates argue that the creation of light on Day 1 parallels the creation of the sun on Day 4 and are therefore not successive days, but two ways of saying the same thing. The same is true of Day 2 (waters and sky) paralleling Day 5 (fish and birds), as wells as Day 3 (land) paralleling Day 6 (land animals and man).

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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) Genesis 2:5 sets forth the providential nature of creation which rejects any need for “unnecessary supernaturalism.” In the Framework understanding this verse requires that we recognize the operation of slow, normal providence in creation week. They believe this verse is teaching us that there were no plants until it rained, which is the way the world operates today.

(3) The six-days of creation are presented by way of analogy when we recognize a two-register cosmogony (God’s eternal realm v. man’s temporal realm). They see Moses as using man’s seven-day work week as an analogy of God’s altogether different creation work. The six-days of creation are simply a symbolic, not literal, presentation of the fact that the world was created by God.

A rebuttal to the Framework Triad argument

My book, As It Is Written, should be consulted for a detailed rebuttal with full documentation. But just quickly I would note the following problems with the three-fold Framework argument.

Regarding the so-called triad of Genesis 1, with days 1, 2, and 3 paralleling days 4, 5, and 6, we must note that the triad lacks expected symmetry. And if Moses is presenting creation as a literary flourish as if it took God six days, then he failed.

We must recognize that the waters of Day 2 which correspond to the fish of Day 5 were actually created on Day 1 (note Gen 1:2). The seas in which the Day 5 fish swim, are not named as “seas” until Day 3. The seas specifically named on Day 3 have no corresponding agent on Day 6. The birds of Day 5 are associated with both the sky (of Day 2) and the land (of Day 3) according to Gen 1:20 and 22.

Furthermore, the alleged “literary” beauty is marred by God “blessing” on Days 5, 6, and 7, but not on Days 1, 2, 3, and 4. It is also marred by each day being declared “good,” except for Day 2. And Day 3 has two such benedictions.

Faith of Our Fathers (DVDs by Ken Gentry)
Explains the point of creeds for those not familiar with their rationale.
Also defends their biblical warrant and practical usefulness for defending historic, Christian orthodoxy in our heterodox world.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We should also ask whether these occasional elements within the triad can overthrow the majestic march of days in Gen 1. The days of creation are emphasized as sequential with the clear numerical adjectives (first, second, third, etc.) attached to each of the six creation days.

In the final analysis, why would a literary beauty necessarily stand against a literal reality? God is a God of order and beauty. He surely could create the world in the order of the narrative while allowing for such a parallel between the first and second triad of days.

In my next article I will highlight the problem with the Framework view of Gen 2:5. But again, my book presents these matters in great detail.

PMW 2026-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The postmillennial hope looks to the unfolding victory of Christ’s kingdom in history. In fact, the glorious dominance of his kingdom is the very goal of history. God’s plan was for man to exercise dominion over all creation (Gen 1:26–28). Immediately upon Adam’s Fall, God instituted redemption which was designed to crush the head of Satan and his kingdom (Gen 3:15).

Later God informs Abraham of his plan for universal blessing that was to be brought through him: “In you all families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen 12:3b). And King David rejoiced in this prospect:

“All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, / And all the families of the nations will worship before You. / For the kingdom is the LORD’S / And He rules over the nations.” (Psa 22:27–28)

Given God’s plan and his sending his own Son to accomplish that plan, Jesus declared as he faced the cross: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:31–32). Christ fully and confidently expected historical victory for God’s plan, and therefore commissioned us to labor for it:

“Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age’” (Matt 28:18–20).

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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus was confident in his Father’s plan and his own authority. And so should we be.

Creation Is Linked to Consummation

As I point out in my book He Shall Have Dominion, creation and consummation are intrinsically related. In biblical theology, eschatology requires protology. This is because as Genesis commentator John Currid notes: “the Hebrews held to a linear history. They believed there was a beginning to time and creation (cosmogony) and a movement to a consummation (eschatology).” The end is entailed in the beginning.

I am as strongly a Six-day Creationist as I am a postmillennialist. I believe the two go together well, like love and marriage! Both approach Scripture seriously; both help frame-in a holistic world-and-life view; and both are firmly committed to the historical trustworthiness of the biblical record — regardless of what liberals and pagans think. Therefore, both Six-day Creationism and postmillennialism are abhorrent to the unbeliever, but should be admired by the believer.

I have a book published by New Leaf Press. It is titled: As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary? In this work I basically seek to accomplish two ends: (1) Demonstrate the exegetical and theological foundations for Six-day Creation; and (2) Highlight the exegetical and theological errors of the Framework Hypothesis. I believe this is important to do — as a foundation to the postmillennial hope.

I open As It Is Written with the question: Why should we study Creation? I provide a six-point rationale that was presented by theologian Millard Erickson:

1. The Bible stresses this doctrine, even opening with it.
2. The doctrine of creation is in creeds, showing it is an important element in traditional Christianity.
3. The unity of biblical doctrine requires the doctrine of origins: we have eschatology and therefore need protology.
4. The biblical doctrine of creation is distinctively different from other religions and philosophies, and therefore sets Christianity apart from them.
5. Biblical creation confronts modern secular, naturalistic science, which is dominating our culture and is the Christian faith’s leading philosophical enemy.
6. The doctrine of creation is essential to the ultimacy of God: it declares that God alone is creator of universe.

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

The Framework Hypothesis

One of the leading evangelical re-interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative today is the Framework Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that Genesis 1:1–2:3 presents God’s creation as a seven-day week for a literary (theological and symbolic) framework and is not intended to indicate the literal chronology or duration of the acts of creation.

As I show in great detail, the Framework Hypothesis is built on three exegetical foundations:

(1) The triad of days. This argues that the creation of light on Day 1 parallels the creation of the sun on Day 4 and are therefore not successive days, but two ways of saying the same thing. The same is true of Day 2 (waters and sky) paralleling Day 5 (fish and birds), as wells as Day 3 (land) paralleling Day 6 (land animals and man).

(2) The providence of creation. This understand Genesis 2:5 as declaring that God used ordinary, gradualistic providence in Creation week and avoided “unnecessary supernaturalism.” Meredith Kline states regarding this verse that it provides “conclusive exegetical evidence . . . that prevents anyone who follows the analogy of Scripture from supposing that Genesis 1 teaches a creation in the space of six solar days.”

This is drawn from the following biblical statement: “Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.” This, according to the Framework advocates, states that before plants could sprout, rain had to begin — which is the natural way things are today.

(3) The two-register cosmogony. That is, Klinean Framework proponents argue that interpreters must recognize that Gen 1–2 involves two perspectives: the one from above (God’s heavenly world) and the one from below (the temporal, earthly order). They warn that we must recognize some aspects of the Creation narrative present an analogical perspective on creation. That is, it presents God’s work in “creation week” analogically, using man’s experience as an analogy of God’s work. Therefore, Moses employed a seven-day week to present Creation because man has a seven-day week.
In my next article I will briefly demonstrate the error in the three-fold exegetical argument for the Framework. In the meantime, don’t work too hard: don’t engage the Beatles’ suggestion of “Eight Days a Week.” God only gave us seven!

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

PMW 2026-005 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I frequently receive a question regarding the difference between preterism and postmillennialism. Some folks are confused as to whether they contradict each other or whether they are speaking of the same thing. Let me briefly distinguish the two theological concepts.

Preterism

The word “preterist” is the transliteration of a Latin word that means “passed by.” The orthodox preterist sees certain passages as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, though many evangelicals understand these to be speaking of the second coming of Christ at the end of history.

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

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

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

The second coming and the AD 70 judgment of Christ on Jerusalem are often spoken of with similar language. This is because they are theologically related concepts. The AD 70 holocaust is a microcosmic picture of the final day of history when Christ returns in judgment. That is, AD 70 is small, historical picture or advanced sample of what the final judgment will be like.

Preterism has nothing necessarily to do with postmillennialism. There are preterist postmillennialists and there are historicist postmillennialists. Both are true forms of postmillennialism. There are also preterist amillennialists. Thus preterism does not commit one to any particular eschatological system.

Preterism is more of a hermeneutic tool than a theology. That is, it helps us understand certain passages without committing us to a particular theological position.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is a theological position on “the last things” that are to occur toward the end of history, an eschatological school of thought. Postmillennialism is an optimistic eschatological system that believes that Christ’s kingdom is currently present in history and will gradually win a dominant sway over men and nations as the gospel makes fuller progress in the world.

Postmillennialism holds to a future, single, final coming of Christ (with no separate rapture), a general resurrection of the dead (the saved and the lost simultaneously), and a general judgment of the saved and the lost in one setting.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view. Ken Gentry provides the postmillennial contribution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, postmillennialism looks for the growing influence of the gospel in history before the end comes. After a long time of dominance, Christ will return to resurrect and judge all men and end history while establishing the eternal, consummate order.

Conclusion

Consequently, preterism and postmillennialism are altogether different concepts. Preterism is basically a hermeneutic, whereas postmillennialism is a theological system. They may occur simultaneously in one’s worldview, or they may be found in differing systems of thought.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

PMW 2026-004 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this blog I continue the thought introduced in my last one. That is, I am continuing to show that Israel was excommunicated by God in AD 70. This is the third in a series on Rev 11:2, and the second in this two-part installment on excommunication. You will need to read the other installments for context.

Corporate Excommunication

The symbolic impact of the temple’s destruction should reinforce the theological reality of her corporate excommunication, for the loss of the temple indicates the removal of the favorable presence of God (2Ch 7:20; Jer 7:14–15). At the end of Rev we learn regarding “the [new] city” of God that “outside [exō] are the dogs” (22:15; cp. Php 3:2). After the vision of the temple’s call for destruction, John hears the seventh angel declare: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever” (11:15b).

The fact that the temple system and the Jews are symbolized by the “outer court” is significant. Jesus applies the terms ekballe and exōthen (11:2) to the Jews who will be cast outside of God’s kingdom blessings. They will be cast out to where Gentiles dwell: “the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out [ekblēthēsontai] into the outer [exōteron based on exō and related to exōthen ] darkness” (Mt 8:12a; cp. Mt 18:17). Later the Lord uses these two words in his parable regarding Israel’s unworthiness to enter the wedding feast of God’s Son as a sign of judgment. Israel appears in the parable as an improperly dressed intruder: “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast [exbalete] him into the outer [exōteron] darkness” (Mt 22:13).

Thus, 11:1–2 prophesies God’s excommunicating (casting out, ekballein) Israel (cf. Mt 8:12; Gal 4:30) by removing the shadow-copy (external temple structure) — which has become a “den of robbers” (Mt 21:13; cp. Jer 7:11) and was declared “desolate” by Christ (Mt 23:38; cp. Jer 22:5) — so that the essential-real may remain, i.e., the true worshipers and worship, “the remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Ro 11:5). While the measuring of the inner essence of the temple (11:1) signifies God’s protection of Christianity. Those who believe in Christ will not be “cast out,” for “all that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (ekbalō exō , Jn 6:37).

He Shall Have Dominion
(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Christian persecution

In the NT record the Jews are constantly “casting out” Christians either from their synagogues or their cities. And oftentimes for purposes of physical persecution. In his Beatitudes Jesus comforts his followers regarding “when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn [ekbalōsin] your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man” (Lk 6:22). Stephen is “cast out” [ekballō] from Jerusalem before being stoned by the Jews (Ac 7:58). The Jews “drove out” (exebalon) Paul and Barnabas from the city on their first missionary journey (Ac 13:50). The disciples of Christ are constantly having to flee from the Jews (Ac 14:1–6, 19–20; 17:5–9, 13–14; 18:6, 12–17). Before his conversion Paul zealously persecutes believers in Christ in the synagogues and elsewhere (Ac 7:58; 8:1–3; 9:1-9, 21; 22:4–5; 1Co 15:9; Gal 1:13, 23; Php 3:6). John’s Gospel records the fear of the Jews among Christ’s followers during his ministry (Jn 7:13; 19:38; 20:19; cp. 3:1).

Thus, after the Jews spend forty years in efforts to “cast out” believers in Christ, at AD 70 they themselves shall be cast out from God’s presence (Milligan 1903, 180–81). John’s court drama is here implementing the lex talionis. In Dt 19:18–19 God’s law requires that those who press false charges under oath will receive the punishment that would have been due the alleged criminal (cp. Mt 26:60–61). As Rev expresses this irony elsewhere: “Pay her back even as [hōs] she has paid . . . according to her deeds” (18:6). Thus comes the command: “they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it” (16:6).

An irony exists in the measuring imagery in 11:1–2. Jesus warns the Jews during him ministry: “Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured [hō metrō metreite metrēthēsetai] to you” (Mt 7:1–2). Later he informs the chief priests and the Pharisees: “Therefore [dia touto] I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (Mt 21:43).

Conclusion

It ain’t over, til it’s over. Please catch my next blog for the conclusion to this series.

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

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

PMW 2026-003 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In Rev 11:2 we find an important clue to the meaning of the message of Revelation. In this passage we learn that the outer court of the temple is to be cast out. The external court represents the external husk of ancient Judaism, as viewed over against the true essence of Israel. John is here reflecting on Christ’s words in Luke 21:24.

In my last blog article I began a consideration of the significance of the word “cast out” as it applies to the temple’s rejection in AD 70. This is the second installment, highlighting another concept lying behind the image.

Excommunication in Scripture
Scripture employs ekballō for excommunication from one’s faith community (e.g., 3Jn 10). “‘Casting outside’ can also have the nuance of God’s true people who are rejected and persecuted by the unbelieving world” (G. K. Beale). This is important for John in that the Jews are constantly “casting out” Christians either from their synagogues or their cities, as we see in the case of Jesus (Lk 4:29), Stephen (Ac 7:58), and Paul (Ac 13:50). A key issue in Rev is the persecution of believers by the Jews. G. Milligan rightly sees it as “excommunication from the synagogue is in the Seer’s mind,” though he wrongly applies it to “the faithless members of the Christian Church.”

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

Significantly, the clearest, most detailed, historical example of synagogue excommunication appears in John’s Gospel. There the parents of the blind man whom Jesus heals (Jn 9:1–7) fear (ephobounto) being “put out of the synagogue” (aposunagōgos, v 22). After the Jews confront the man himself, “they put him out” (exabalon auton exō, Jn 9:34–35). John mentions this danger also in Jn 12:42–43 and 16:2, though employing the other, uniquely NT term, aposunagōgos. In 16:2 they believe they are doing God a spiritual service (latreian). Latreia is used of tabernacle/temple service, making it appropriate for our concerns in showing the temple’s judgment (Ro 9:4; Heb 9:1, 6).

Excommunication is particularly significant in that in those days the whole culture and all social relations are governed by ecclesiastical membership. In biblical terms an excommunicant is one who is formally cast outside the boundaries of God’s covenantal love; he is “cut off” from God’s people (Ge 17:14; Lev 7:20; Nu 15:30). Thus, when Jesus speaks of Christian disciplinary procedures within the church, he points out the end result that the excommunicant will “be to you as a Gentile” (Mt 18:17). In 1Co 5:5 Paul speaks of excommunication as delivering one to Satan (showing a conceptual relation to and a reverse image of exorcism). Such ecclesiastical action leads to shunning from one’s community (cf. 2Th 3:14; 1Co 5:2, 13). The problem is quite unlike our modern ecclesiastical anemia where excommunication (if practiced at all) is diluted: excommunicants can simply go to the church next door if they so choose (which would be especially attractive if the new church had a bigger gymnasium).

In fact, excommunication is such a serious matter in ancient Judaism that it can — and often does — involve persecution. “The demise of Jewish membership in the Christian church was hastened by punishment and persecution of Christian Jews within the synagogue, eventually followed by expulsion from the synagogue” (DLNTD). This ecclesiastical exclusion not only involves social ostracizing from family and friends (Mt 10:21, 34-39) but outside the borders of Israel it legally endangers the individual in that “expulsion from the synagogue deprived Christians of the shelter of Judaism and left them vulnerable to the Romans” (C. Setzer). Jesus warns his disciples that in their ministry to Israel they will be dragged before the sunedria (legal courts) and/scourged in the synagogues (Mt 10:16-18). But he promises this persecution will be cut short by his judgment coming against Israel: “But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes” (Mt 10:23; cp. Rev 1:7; 3:9, 11).

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

As indicated above, ekballō is used in contexts where people are removed from their homes and social settings. In that exodus imagery is a recurring phenomenon in Rev, it may be significant that in the OT we read of Pharaoh “casting out [ekbalein, LXX]” (Ex 6:1; 11:1; 12:33) the Jews from his “house,” the “house of slavery” (Ex 13:3, 14; 20:2; Dt 5:6; 7:8). Interestingly, the LXX uses this term of the expulsion of the Canaanites from their land and homes as the result of the exodus: “The Lord will drive out [ekbalei] all these nations from before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you” (Dt 11:23; cp. Ex 23:28-31; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 11:23; 33:27; Jos 24:12, 18; Jdg 6:9; 1Ch 17:21). The Jews are given “houses” and “cities” they did not build (Dt 6:10-11; 19:1; Jos 24:13). But God warns Israel that she herself will be “cast out” from the land if she disobeys him: “The Lord uprooted them from their land in anger and in fury and in great wrath, and cast [exebalen] them into another land, as it is this day” (LXX Dt 29:28; 2Ki 17:20; Jer 7:15; 52:3). In Rev 11:2 the casting out of the temple itself represents Israel’s being cast off God’s property for her disobedience.

Temple Cleansing

Significantly, at both the beginning (Jn 2:15) and end (Mt 21:12 //) of his ministry, Jesus “cast out” (ekballō) Jews from the temple. In both contexts we have clear allusions to the temple’s coming destruction: After cleansing the temple in Jn 2:15 Jesus publicly declares: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19). He is speaking of his body (v 21), of course, but commentators widely agree that this also includes a warning of the temple’s eventual demise. In fact, his statement is surely a double entendre, so that “the spiritual destruction of Israel’s temple occurred decisively at Jesus’ death and resurrection, and its physical demise came finally in AD 70” (Beale).

In the context of his later cleansing in Mt 21:12, he curses the fig tree (vv 19–20) as an enacted parable alluding to Israel’s lack of fruit and her coming demise. Then, Jesus immediately explains that “if you have faith, and do not doubt, you shall not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen (v 21). Since Mount Zion is the location of the temple (Jer 50:28; Mic 3:12), a number of commentators see this also as indicating the temple’s destruction: “The evident proverbial nature of the saying should not disguise the fact that someone speaking of ‘this mountain’ being cast into the sea, in the context of a dramatic action of judgment in the Temple, would inevitably be heard to refer to Mount Zion” (N. T. Wright).

Jesus’ Parable

Jesus also employs the term ekballō in a parable forewarning the Jews of the coming destruction of the temple. This occurs because they “cast out” (exebalon auton exō) the “heir” (Christ) from the “vineyard” (Israel), even though he was the vineyard owner’s (God’s) son (Mk 12:8; Mt 21:37, 39). Jesus points out the consequences of their action: “What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others” (Mk 12:9). This occurs when the Romans “tread under foot the holy city” (Rev 11:2b) after it is “cast out” (11:2a). The “Jerusalem below” is in bondage and will be “cast out” (ekbale, Gal 4:30; cp. Philo, Cher 1:3:9).

Because of their lack of covenant faith (Mt 8:10; cp. Ge 15:6; Heb 4:12) the Jews are being “cast out” of God’s kingdom while the Gentiles are entering in: “Many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast into the outer darkness [ekblēthēsantai eis to skotos to exōteron]; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:11-12).

Stay tuned! I continue this study in my next blog.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

PMW 2021-073 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Rev 11:1-2 is an important passage in John’s drama about Israel’s judgment. There John receives a command to actually engage an action in his visionary experience:

“Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.”

As I argue elsewhere, the “temple of God and the altar” symbolizes the essence of God’s true worship and points to the true Jews (Christian Jews, Rev 2:9; 3:9) and their worship of Christ (Phil 3:3; cp. Rom 2:29; 9:6). And “the court” here is the outer court of the temple, picturing the external matters of the temple. It signifies the actual physical temple which as the heart of Israel represents the old covenant worship of Judaism and its people.

Double-entendre in John

To plumb the depth of this image, we must understand that scholars recognize John’s use of double (and even triple) entendre. According to BAGD 299, scholars recognize “the Johannine love of multiple meaning” (BAGD 299). For instance, in his Gospel we read in Jn 1:5 that the darkness did not “comprehend” the light. The word used here can mean either that the darkness did not overcome the light or the darkness did not understand the light. Both are true. We also see Jesus informing Nicodemus that he must be born “again,” which can also mean be born from “above” (Jn 3:3). “Living water” in Jn 4:10 and 7:38 can mean “running, moving water” or “water that is alive.” In Jn 11:50 the high priest says Jesus must die “for” the nation, which can mean either “in behalf of” or “instead of.” On and on we could go.

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

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

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

Such multiple significance is undeniable in Rev 17:9–10 where the beast’s heads represent both seven mountains and seven kings. This practice seems obviously at work locally in that the two witnesses somehow represent both “the two olive trees and the two lampstands” (Rev 11:4) and both Moses and Elijah (Rev 11:5–6).

Double-entendre also appears in Rev 11:2 as one of the more dramatic instances. What does the command to “leave out” mean? The word translated “leave out” here is ekballo, from ex (out of) and ballo (to throw or cast). Remembering that Revelation is speaking of God’s judgment-coming against Israel in AD 70 for her rejecting Christ, we can discern three implied meanings of the term ekballo in this pasage. I will deal with these three meanings in this and the next three articles.

The meaning of “leave out”

The foundational meaning of ekballo is: “force to leave, drive out, expel” (BAGD 299). Though it only occurs here in Revelation, John employs it in John 2:15 of Jesus casting out the money changers from the temple: exebalen ek tou hierou. In Scripture the term is used in three conceptually related ways that are of particular interest for our understanding of Revelation 11:2, each of which is found in the first definition of the term in BAGD.

The three closely related uses of ekballo all signify forceful removal of someone from a home area. As I focus on ekballo I will note that it signifies some forceful expulsion, either by means of exorcism, excommunication, or divorce. Interestingly, each of these ideas is alluded to in Christ’s original commissioning of his original disciples (one of whom is our author, John, Mt 10:2) before he sends them to the “house of Israel” (Mt 10:6): exorcism of demons (10:8, cp. v. 25); excommunication involving persecution (10:17-19, 23, 28, 34); and divorce involving home disruption (Mt 10:21, 35–36).

In this article I will focus on the use of ekballo in demon exorcism.

The idea of demon exorcism

First, Scripture very commonly uses ekballo for casting out demons (e.g., Mt 12:26, 28; Mk 1:34;16:9; cp. Josephus Ant 6:11:2 §211) from where they dwell in men as if in a house (cf. Mt 12:43-44). This is particularly remarkable given that the first woe (the fifth trumpet) has recently brought demons upon the land (9:1–11). Later an angel declares Babylon (Jerusalem) “the dwelling place of demons” (18:2). Thus, this “cast out” language becomes quite relevant to the flow of the drama.

The use of ekballo for demon exorcism is important for at least two reasons:

(1) John repeatedly notes in his Gospel that the Jewish leaders frequently charge Jesus with being in league with the devil and demons (Jn 7:20; 8:48-52; 10:20). In at least one of these cases they are responding to him for his declaring that they do not keep Moses’ Law (Jn 7:19-20). This issue even results in a major exchange with the Jews regarding the signs of the kingdom. They claim he is in league with Beelzebul (Mt 12:22-29; cp. 10:25), which leads to his warning them that the demons he is clearing out of the Land will come back and be seven times worse (Mt 12:43-45).[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" />

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

(2) It is also significant in that John (alone among the Gospel writers) records Jesus’ charge that the Jews are of their “father the devil” who is “a liar from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Jesus effectively repeats this in Rev when he twice calls the Jewish synagogue a “synagogue of Satan” and charges the Jews with lying about their claim (2:9; 3:9). The outpouring of demons on the land in Rev 9 is just as Jesus warns in Mt 12:45b (cf vv. 43-45a). The verb ekballo in Rev 11:2 echoes Christ’s concern in a startling way: Whereas he cast out demons, their temple (“your house,” Mt 23:38) is to be cast out itself.

Demon exorcism is an important element in Jesus’s ministry in Israel in that his kingdom is invading Satan’s. He specifically commissions his disciples to cast out demons (Mt 10:1, 8) when they are sent into Israel (Mt 10:5-6). In that context he speaks of those Jewish cities rejecting his disciples and their exorcism ministry, warning: “Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Mt 10:15). Interestingly, our context calls Jerusalem “Sodom” (11:8). In that Israel is in league with Satan, she herself will be cast out (as represented here by the outer court of her temple being cast out).

Interestingly, a major back-theme in Rev is the demise of Satan (e.g., 12:9; 20:2, 10), while John focuses on Israel’s judgment (1:7). In his Gospel we read Jesus associating Satan’s overthrow with his own death, which the Jews cause (Jn 19:6-7, 11-12, 15). Despite the evil effort of Satan and Israel, Christ’s death will lead to a new era in which “all men” — not Jews alone — will be drawn to Christ: “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out [ekblethesetai exo]. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (Jn 12:31-32; cp. exposition of Rev 7:9ff). The casting out of the temple (11:2) is spoken of in similar terms. Again, instead of demons being cast out of the Jews, their beloved temple will be cast out from the world and from God’s presence.

Thus, it seems John’s double-entendre here involves Israel’s being cast out of her temple as if by means of demon exorcism. But there is more! See you soon.

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

PMW 2026-001 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As John writes the Book of Revelation, Israel has been a part of the Roman regime for almost a century. As such she enjoyed special leagues of “friendship and mutual alliance” which began with Julius Caesar (Jos. Ant. 14:10:1 §185). Her love for Caesar was so great that after he was murdered, Jews wept for many nights at the site of his cremation (Suetonius, Jul. 84:5). Josephus, a priestly member of the Jewish aristocracy, praises Julius and records many of the treaties with the Jews which were established by Caesar and later Roman authorities (Ant. 14:10:2-25 §190-267). He then declares: “there are many such decrees of the senate and imperators of the Romans and those different from these before us” (Ant. 14:10:26).

Israel engages these alignments despite her OT prophets condemning unholy alliances as harlotry (e.g., Hos 7:11). As we read in Rev 13, the exercise of the Land beast’s authority is “in his [the Roman emperor’s] presence” (13:1a). Later in Rev 17 we see Israel’s alliance symbolized by a harlot engaged in a drunken sexual orgy with the sea beast.

The NT repeatedly charges the religious rulers of Israel with rejecting Jesus the Messiah (Mk 8:31; Lk 19:47; 22:52, 54, 66; 23:10; 24:20; Ac 4:8-11; 13:27). As he hangs in agony on the cross “even the rulers were sneering at Him” (Lk 23:35). They do this despite their own Scriptures pointing to him (Mt 13:15-17; Lk 24:25-27; Jn 5:39-40-47). Christ marvels that even the rulers of Israel cannot understand spiritual things (Jn 3:1, 10) and are blind (Jn 9:39-41). They even charge him before Roman authorities with forbidding paying taxes to Caesar (Lk 23:2), threatening mayhem against the temple (Mk 14:58), and promoting insurrection against Rome (Mk 15:2-4).

Christ often forewarns his disciples about the religious rulers’ nefarious designs against him. “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day” (Mt 16:21//). “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death” (Mt 20:18//). He foresees the Jerusalem leadership turning him over to the Roman authorities: “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon” (Lk 18:31-32).

Israel in the Bible and History (9 mp3 lectures)
by Ken Gentry
The people of Israel are the people of God. But the modern church is divided over the nature, call and identity of Israel. This lecture series covers key issues for understanding the biblical concept of Israel.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though these are actual prophetic statements which Christ utters during his ministry, they are recorded in each gospel at a later date as an apologetic for Jesus and Christianity over against the Jewish leadership. As such they would doubtlessly be preached and taught in the church as the struggle with Judaism came to a head. “Full weight must be given to the witness of Mark 6:34 (Matt. 9:36) that in the eyes of early Christians the Jewish people were sheep without a shepherd until Jesus appeared to provide genuine spiritual leadership” (D. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 14).

In John’s Gospel we discover the point in time at which Israel legally becomes apostate: when she chooses Caesar over Christ during his criminal trial. The Jewish religious authorities (“chief priests and the officers,” Jn 19:6; cp. 18:13, 19, 22, 24) go to great lengths to employ Rome’s authority so that they might kill him: they “kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus” even bringing “many false witnesses” (Mt 27:59-60).

In fact, they were “accusing Him vehemently” (Lk 23:1-10, 13-20). The Roman procurator Pilate sees that he is clearly innocent so that he “made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar’” (Jn 19:12; cp. Ac 17:7). This “friend [philos] of Caesar” statement reminds us of the Jewish leagues of “friendship” (philian) with Caesar (Ant. 14:10:1 §185). Philo mentions that the Jews are “friends to Caesar” (Embassy 36 §280). So then, “the ‘city of the great King,’ had denounced her rightful King” (Walker, 35). And that denunciation seals her doom (see Jesus’ warnings about his approaching betrayal and death, Mt 21:33-45; 22:2-14).

The chief priests vigorously denounce him before the Roman legal authority: “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Bruce observes: “No doubt they were honest in saying that Caesar was the only basileus they knew; their status and privileges depended on their collaboration with the imperial power” (F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 365). They even complain to the procurator that Jesus was “misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar” (Lk 23:2). This was not the first time they had rejected God as their king (1Sa 8:5-8, 19-20; 12:12).

“Jesus, Matthew, and the Rejection of Israel” (downloadable mp3)
by Ken Gentry
Surveys the Gospel of Matthew and highlights the numerous references — direct and indirect — that suggest that Matthew’s Gospel was written (at least in part) to demonstrate that God was rejecting Israel. A great many passages in Matthew are surveyed and briefly elaborated upon.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As William Milligan (The Book of Revelation, 231) elegantly explains the situation in Jn 19:12-15: “They Caesar’s friends! They attach value to honours bestowed by Caesar! O vile hypocrisy! O dark extremity of hate! Judaism at the feet of Caesar!” Alfred Edersheim states that “with this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representative, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2:581). Marvin Taylor ties this in with Rev 13: “They are entirely infidel, throwing off all allegiance to any but Caesar, and cry that they have no other king. It is purely of the Jews, the whole transaction . . . . This is man’s religion, and it will, in the end, enthrone ‘the Willful One’ and bow to his image (Rev. 13).”

Finally in her assertion of Roman judicial authority that Israel stumbles in her transgression (Ro 11:11-12) leading to her rejection (11:15). It is in the presence of Pilate that she cries out for her own judgment: “And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’” (Mt 27:25; cp. Ac 5:28). Operatives of the first beast drove the nails in his hands at the second beast’s insistence (Ac 2:23; 3:13-14); and the dragon is behind it all (Jn 13:2, 27; cp. Col 2:15; Rev 12:4b). Israel’s putting Christ to death is the central theme of John’s drama (1:7) and thus the slaughtered Lamb becomes its leading figure (5:6-13; 13:8). With her glorious heritage and privileges (Ro 3:1-2; 9:1-5) she should have known better than the Gentiles (Lk 23:34; Ac 17:30; Ep 4:17-18).

PMW 2025-094 by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Gentry reminder:
This article continues the one in my previous posting. It continues citing a lengthy excerpt from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s excellent book, Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), pp. 78-92. This is a compelling study of Paul’s confusing statement regarding Christ being a “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45).

And again, I have only included Gaffin’s main text, not his footnotes. You can order this book here: https://www.prpbooks.com/book/resurrection-and-redemption

Now for the conclusion of Gaffin’s material.

The following is all Gaffin who writes:

With this preparatory spadework completed we can now concentrate on the description of Christ as life-giving pneuma in verse 45c. (1) What is the specific reference of pneuma? (2) When did he become life-giving pneuma?

(1) The first question is answered in the light of the correlation between pneuma and the adjective “spiritual” (pneumatikon, vv. 44b, 46), an especially close correlation in view of the overall structure of the passage and the function of verse 45 in providing proof for verse 44b. In Paul’s usage, with the exception of Ephesians 6:12, pneumatikos always has specific reference to the activity of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 1:11; 7:14; I Cor. 12:1; 14:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:3; 5:19; Col. 1:9). This is particularly apparent in 1 Corinthians 2:13-15, the only other place where Paul contrasts pneumatikos with psuchikos. The main emphasis of the immediate context (vv. 10ff.) is the Spirit’s function in revelation (cf. v. 4), and repeated reference is made to his person (v. 10 [twice]; vv. 11, 12, 13, 14). The contrast then, underscores the indispensability of the Spirit’s activity. The phrase at the end of verse 13 (pneumatikois pneumatkia sugkrinontes), whatever its precise meaning, refers to those things and that activity distinguishing the teaching ministry of the Spirit. Accordingly, the “natural man” (psuchikos anthropos) is unable to receive “the things of the Spirit of God” because he lacks the corresponding facility of discerning “spiritually” (pneumatikos) requisite for understanding them (v. 14). In contrast, “the spiritual man” (ho pneumatikos), since he is qualified by the Spirit, possesses such discernment (v. 15; cf. v. 12). All four occurrences in verses 13-15 of “spiritual(ly)” plainly refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Paul’s usage elsewhere, then, favors taking “spiritual” in verses 44 and 46 as a reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is supported in the context by its use in verse 44 to describe the resurrection body. As such it sums up the predicates in verses 42f.: incorruption, glory, and power. These according to Paul are always elements in the closely-knit conceptual network whose core is “Spirit.” They are only found where the Holy Spirit is at work.

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

A combination of factors outside verse 45 inevitably points to pneuma as a specific reference to the person the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is confirmed by the attributive qualifier “life-giving” (zoopoioun). Without reintroducing what has already been said about the inseparable bond between the Spirit and life, uses of this verb (zoopoieo) elsewhere show unquestionably that the Spirit is in view here. God will “give life” to the mortal bodies of believers “through his Spirit” (Rom. 8:11). Even more decisively, II Corinthians 3:6 asserts, with the ring of a general principle: “The Spirit gives life” (cf. John 6:63; I Peter 3:18).

Verse 45c, then, teaches that Christ became life-giving Spirit. From the context where Paul’s perspective, although broad, remains entirely within the sphere of the historical, this identification is plainly not ontological, as if he were here obliterating the personal distinction between Christ and the Spirit. Such a view would be a too-flagrant contradiction of his uniform teaching elsewhere. Rather, the oneness expressed has in view a conjunction between Christ (as the last Adam) and the Spirit dating from a point still to be determined. Christ (as incarnate) experiences a spiritual qualification and transformation so thorough and an endowment with the Spirit so complete that as a result they can now be equated. This unprecedented possession of the Spirit and the accompanying change in Christ result in a unity so close that not only can it be said simply that the Spirit makes alive, but also that Christ as Spirit makes alive. Specifically, this identity is economic or functional, in terms of their activity, and there is no need to discover “more” than this.

(2) If Christ became life-giving Spirit, when did that take place? One may be inclined to say that the overall emphasis of the chapter makes it apparent that the answer is Christ’s resurrection. However, representative Reformed exegesis favors the incarnation, and so an effort must be made to settle the issue.

This can be done most easily by referring to verses 20-22. The close affinity of verse 22 with verse 45 is obvious: both contain not only the same explicit contrast between Adam and Christ but also on the christological side the same verbal idea — “making alive.” Earlier we noted the sequence of amplification in these verses: Verse 21 expands on verse 20 and verse 22, in turn, on verse 21. Consequently, the “making alive” of all in Christ (the resurrection of the dead through him, v. 21) is here grounded specifically in his resurrection and, by inference, what he is by virtue of that resurrection (v. 20). An integral connection exists between Christ as firstfruits and Christ as life-giving Spirit. In fact, because Christ’s resurrection is the indispensable foundation for others to share in resurrection life, he functions as life-giving Spirit only on the basis of his resurrection, only in his resurrected state. Specifically the resurrected Christ is the life-giving Christ. The plain implication, then, is that the last Adam became life-giving Spirit at his resurrection.

This conclusion is reinforced by the functioning of the “firstfruits” principle in the immediate context of verse 45. As already noted, verse 45 at the very least introduces Christ, the last Adam, as the model spiritual man. His fuller significance as life-giving inevitably involves that he is the primary exemplification of the spiritual existence which he communicates to the rest of the harvest. Now since the (bodily) spiritual existence of believers begins at their resurrection (v. 44), in view of the solidarity involved, Christ’s spiritual existence, his becoming life-giving Spirit, dates from the resurrection.
[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-209" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" />

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

To argue this point at length only serves to obscure it. It is neither by virtue of his preexistence or because of his incarnation that the last Adam is life-giving Spirit. The final word in this connection has been spoken by Deissner:

“As a matter of fact, it would have made no sense to construct the argumentation in chapter 15 on the resurrection of Christ, if Christ were already qualified as the giver of life by virtue of his
origin or by virtue of his capacity as preexistent heavenly man.”

Conclusions. (1) At his resurrection the personal mode of Jesus’ existence as the last Adam was so decisively transformed by the Holy Spirit that Paul says he has become life-giving Spirit. The Spirit, who raised him up as the firstfruits, indwells him so completely and in such a fashion that in their functioning he is the Spirit who will be instrumental in the resurrection of the full harvest. Further, (a) the life-giving activity predicated of the resurrected Christ, is not predicated directly; the Spirit is an absolutely indispensable factor. Only by virtue of the functional identity of the Spirit and Christ, effected redemptive-historically in his resurrection, is Christ the communicator of life. No principle in Paul’s soteriology is more fundamental. (b) The change in Christ’s person at his resurrection is as real as and commensurate with the transformation to be experienced by the rest of the harvest.

(2) The resurrection of Jesus has more than personal significance. Verse 45 in its immediate context brings into view not only an organic connection with the resurrection of believers but also considerations cosmic in scope. Resurrection is here nothing less than the counterpart of creation. The resurrection of Christ is the beginning of the new and final world-order, an order described as spiritual and heavenly. It is the dawn of the new creation, the start of the eschatological age. In terms of the conceptual framework with which Paul views the whole of history, it is the commencement of the “age-to-come.”

Such a broad perspective has far-reaching implications: (a) In this passage “spiritual,” “last,” and “heavenly” are clearly correlative. Verse 46 in particular expresses the essential tie between the Spirit and the eschatological, heavenly world (cf. Eph. 1:3). The final order is a specifically pneumatic order. Its atmosphere, as it were, is spiritual. So far as individual eschatological existence is concerned, the Spirit is not only active in its inception but completely dominates the resultant state. In fact, Paul’s thought appears to move from the Spirit’s constitutive place in the resurrected life to his role in the act of resurrection, rather than the reverse. Because he so thoroughly conditions the former, he is appropriately instrumental in the latter.

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

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." class="alignright size-full wp-image-211" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="" />
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

(b) Perhaps the most distinctive mark of Paul’s conception of the Spirit and his activity is its eschatological aspect, dominant in this passage. Yet it is often overlooked. Few misunderstandings of Paul are more widespread than the tendency to consider his teaching on the Spirit, particularly the Spirit’s present sanctifying work in the believer, without reference to his eschatology. This tendency seems in large part chargeable to the loci method of dogmatics in confining the locus of eschatology to dealing with the “last things,” understood as all that dates from the second coming of Christ (the lone exception being the intermediate state, treated in individual eschatology). According to this passage, however, “eschatology” dates from Christ’s resurrection. The issue here it not merely semantic. Traditional dogmatics by its very structure obscures the structure and important perspectives of Paul’s theology. It masks the outlook basic not only to Paul but the entire New Testament that the Messiah’s coming is one (eschatological) coming which unfolds in two episodes, one already and one still to come, that the “age-to-come” is not only future but present. It veils the organic connection between the resurrection of Christ (in which, according to this passage, the redemptive-historical significance of the first coming is concentrated) and the bodily resurrection of believers (=second coming). Further, the conventional dogmatic outlook eclipses the eschatological quality of the believer’s present soteriological experience, the integral bond between present and future in the life of those joined to the resurrected Christ.

(3) This passage sheds light on the way Paul relates Christ’s resurrection to his ascension (and heavenly session). Clearly he views them as separate occurrences. In Romans 8:34 being at the right hand of God is distinguished from being raised. The act of ascension as distinct from the act of resurrection is the plain presupposition. The same observation applies in Ephesians 1:20 and 2:6 where being raised and being seated in the heavenlies are distinguished. Accordingly, the same distinction is implicit in Philippians 2:9 where exaltation (without mention of resurrection) is set over against obedience unto death (v. 8).

The resurrection, however, has a more than temporal priority. Verse 45 together with verses 47-49 makes it unavoidably clear that Christ’s resurrection is integral to his subsequent mode of existence. What Christ is and continues to be he became at the resurrection and at no other point. The exalted, pneumatic, heavenly existence of the second Adam is specifically his existence as life-giving Spirit. Ascension and heavenly session are exponential of resurrection. Certainly Paul gives no indication that the former effected changes in Christ’s exalted person not experienced at the latter.

Click on the following images for more information on these studies:

PMW 2025-093 by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

Gentry note:
This and the article that will follow it in a couple of days are excerpts from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s excellent book, Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), pp. 78-92. This is a compelling study of Paul’s confusing statement regarding Christ being a “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). As Peter wrote, Paul could say some things difficult to be understood (2 Pet. 3:16). Stumbling over this text can lead one into various heresies, not the least of which is Hyperpreterism. So, understanding Paul properly is an important issue in today’s evangelical culture.

I have only included Gaffin’s main text, not his footnotes. I highly recommend your getting, reading, and studying this book — with its significant footnotes. I not only desire to offer insightful articles on my site, but also to encourage the reading of important and relevant literature from various theologians.

You can order this book here:
https://www.prpbooks.com/book/resurrection-and-redemption

Now for Gaffin’s material (the following is all Gaffin):

I Corinthians 15:45
Our interest in this verse is the description of Christ as the last Adam, as “lifegiving pneuma” (pneuma zopoioun). However, nowhere in the whole of Paul is a statement more inextricably embedded in both its narrower and broader contexts. In verses 45-49 together with verse 22, “Paul provides us with what is one of the most striking and significant rubrics in all of Scripture.” Compact modes of expression and the density of thought also make it, along with verses 42-44, one of the most difficult Some consideration, then, needs to be given to this contextual factor.

In verse 35 Paul takes up the questions of the mode of the resurrection and the nature of the resurrection body. These questions appear to have been posed by the opponents, probably in a derisive fashion. Paul, however, treats them seriously, making of them a single, compound question which structures his discussion to the end of the chapter. Within this section, the unit of verses 42-49 contains the heart of the argument.

An essential mark of this unit is its carefully implemented antithetical structure. The semantic function of particular clauses or phrases or even words is decisively controlled by their place in the central contrast running through verses 42-49. All too frequently the history of interpretation has failed to recognize this Remembering, then, that our final objective is not the solution of all exegetical difficulties but the explanation verse 45c, what are the central features in the development of the argument?

Postmillennialism Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Basic introduction to postmillennialism. Presents the essence of the postmillennial argument and answers the leading objections. And all in a succinct, introductory fashion.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The contrast as begun in verses 42f. is between the dead body of the believer and his resurrection body and his resurrection body. Although, strictly speaking, the corpse of the believer is in view (the four-fold repetition of ‘it is sown’ [speiretai] makes this clear), implicitly present as well is the somatic condition of the believer prior to physical death. For Paul elsewhere refers believers to their mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12, 8:10f.; II Cor. 4:10f.; cf. here esp. vv. 53f.) and speaks of his own body at the time of writing as a “body of death” (Rom. 7:24). Even at the outset, then, the scope of the contrast is broadened by implication. At any rate, the one body is characterized by perishability, dishonor, and weakness, the other by imperishability, glory, and power. The prepositional phrases indicate circumstances or qualities of the subject rather than the manner in which the action of the verb takes place. Even at these subordinate points of contrast the balanced, antithetical parallelism is carefully maintained. perish/imperish, etc.

Verse 44a summarizes what precedes. The single terms used to describe in a comprehensive and distinguishing fashion the bodies being contrasted are “natural,” “psychical” (psuchikon) and “spiritual,” respectively.

Careful attention to grammar discloses an important turn in the argument at verse 44b. The contrast up to this point carried out by a series of contraposed main clauses is continued instead by joining an apodosis to a protasis (“If there is a psychical body, there is also a spiritual body”). In other words, verse 44b is itself an argument. Without destroying the balanced parallelism, the rigid and pointed antithesis of verses 42-44a is suddenly softened. Paul now reasons directly from the psychical body to the spiritual body. The former is made the condition for the latter; the latter is postulated on the basis of the former.

Verse 45 supports verse 44b by an appeal to Scripture. “Thus it is written” makes this clear. The particular use of Scripture is itself one of the striking features of this verse, for Paul in citing Genesis 2:7 which mentions only the creation of (the first) Adam, finds there also a reference to the becoming of the last Adam. Two considerations show this: (1) Verse 45 functions to establish the argument in verse 44b. This it can do only as the appeal to Scripture covers the entire proposition, not just the protasis. (2) The syntax of verse 45 shows the close bond between 45b and 45c. The two clauses are joined asyndetically, their respective structures are closely parallel, and “become” (egeneto, from the quotation) in the former is plainly to be read in the latter.

How Paul arrived at this formulation is difficult to say. Although a certain similarity exists with the paraphrases of the Targums, there is no evidence of borrowing. Original with him, it is best understood as an annotation of Scripture equated with Scripture itself.

As verse 45 grounds the argument of verse 44b, then, the references to the first Adam as “living soul” (psuche zosa) and the last Adam (Christ) as “life-giving pneuma” (pneuma zoopoioun) serve to establish a frame of reference for understanding “psychical” (psuchikon) and “spiritual” (pneumatikon), respectively. Whatever else may be in view, the two are representatives or primary exemplifications. Adam is ho psuchikos, Christ ho penumatikos par excellence.

He Shall Have Dominion
(paperback by Kenneth Gentry)

A classic, thorough explanation and defense of postmillennialism (600+ pages). Complete with several chapters answering specific objections.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The trend of Paul’s argument and his broadened perspectives on the resurrection of the body now begin to emerge. The contrast initiated between bodies has been expanded to include whole, living persons, persons who represent others. Moreover, on the one side, where the corpse of the believer was the point of departure, the scope has been expanded to include the person of Adam by virtue of creation.

Recognizing this expansion facilitates understanding verse 44b as an argument. At first glance, Paul’s reasoning is apparently a fortiori: if there is a psychical body characterized by corruption, dishonor, weakness, then all the more must there be a spiritual-powerful, glorified, incorruptible-body. A major difficulty with this view, however, is that death and the qualities of the psychical body in verses 42f. are for Paul always the result of sin (Rom. 5:12; 6:16, 21, 23; cf. Rom. 1:32; 8:6, 13; I Cor. 15:56; Gal. 6:8); and when he argues a fortiori from sin and condemnation to grace and salvation the form he regularly employs is: “if … much more….” (ei … pollo mallon …, Rom. 5:15, 17; cf. II Cor. 3:7f., 9, 11). Moreover, apparently all a fortiori arguments in Paul involving a protasis with ei have this form (or its equivalent) in the apodosis (cf. Rom. 5:10; 11:12). Paul’s usage elsewhere, then, favors taking verse 44b as not containing a disqualifying element in the protasis and so as reasoning directly from the psychical body to the spiritual body.

This conclusion, however, is apparently faced with an insuperable difficulty of its own. How can Paul say that the resurrection body with its attributes may be predicated on the basis of the body placed in the tomb with its attributes? Is Paul saying that death and life are so related synthetically that the latter can be directly inferred from the former? Such a notion is in flat contradiction with Paul’s uniform teaching elsewhere. Romans 5:12-21 demonstrates clearly that life and death are no more capable of being positively correlated and postulated from each other than are righteousness and sin (cf. Rom. 6:20-23; 8:2, 6; II Cor. 2:15f.).

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This long-awaited commentary has now been published. It is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book.

Click: https://www.kennethgentry.com/the-divorce-of-israel-2-vols-by-gentry-pre-publication-offer/

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

A way out of this dilemma, which at the same time does justice to the requirements of the text, is to recognize that “psychical” in verse 44b has a significantly broader reference than in verse 44a. The psychical body of verse 44b is the prefall, creation body, to which the characteristics (corruption, dishonor, weakness) of the psychical body of verse 44a do (not belong). This inference is supported by Paul’s appeal in verse 45 to the creation of Adam. In fact, these two factors — the argument of force the view that the psychical body of verse 44b is the 44b and the use of Genesis 2:7 in verse 45 — together enforce the view that the psychical body of verse 44b is the prefall body.

Why does Paul, when asked about the nature of the resurrection body and after beginning to contrast the believer’s dead body with his resurrection body, suddenly expand the comparison to include the creation body? Apparently his interest is to show that from the beginning, prior to the fall, a higher or different kind of body than the body of Adam, the psychical body, is in view. Adam, by virtue of creation (not because of sin), anticipates and points to another, higher form of somatic existence. The principle of typology enunciated in Romans 5:14 is present here, albeit somewhat differently: the creation body of Adam is “a type of the one to come.” This suggestion of typology helps to illumine the use of Genesis 2:7 in verse 45, especially the addition in 45c.

If at verse 45 the contrast has been expanded to include the persons of Adam (prior to the fall) and Christ as representative of others, then its scope is really even broader; it includes the environments of which Adam and Christ in their respective (bodily) existences are necessarily exponential. That Paul actually introduces such an extended horizon emerges in verse 46. Whatever may be the reason that Paul here momentarily departs from his parallel structure, the contrast is not blunted but continued in significantly more general terms, and “psychical” and “spiritual” now describe two comprehensive states of affairs, two orders of existence contrasted temporally. The one follows upon the other and together they encompass the whole of history. Verse 46 is a compressed overview of history. As the era of the first Adam, the psychical order is the preeschatological aeon, the incomplete, transitory, and provisional world-age. As the era of the last Adam, the pneumatic order is the eschatological aeon, the complete, definitive, and final world-age. “to pneumatikon and to psuchikon in verse 46 are generalizing expressions, after which it would be a mistake to supply soma; they designate the successive reign of two comprehensive principles in history, two successive world-orders, a first and a second creation, beginning each with an Adam of its own.” The perspective from which Paul views the believer’s resurrection, then, is nothing less than cosmic.

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

While verses 47-49 resume the balanced, antithetical parallelism, the contrast, up to this point expressed by psuche and pneuma, with their adjectives, is continued instead by the pair “earth-heaven” (ge-ouranos) and related adjectives. Although these two sets of terms are not synonymous, they are plainly correlative here and have the same frame of reference. This introduction of expressly cosmological language makes explicit the comprehensive dimensions of the contrast.

Verse 47 closely parallels verse 45 by contrasting Adam and Christ, the difference being that now the one is “from earth, earthly,” the other “from heaven.” These prepositional phrases (ek ges, ex ouranou) are predicates and have qualitative force. The latter no more refers to the coming of Christ out of the state of preexistence at his incarnation than the former means that preexistent Adam “came” out of the earth at creation. Besides, such notion applied to Christ would contradict the principle just laid down in verse 46: not first the pneumatic, but first the psychical then the pneumatic. The parallelism also excludes the notion that “from heaven” refers to the second coming. This qualitative interpretation is confirmed in verses 48 and 49 by the application of the adjective “heavenly” (arising from the use of the prepositional phrase) to believers as well as Christ. It can hardly mean that the former have come out of heaven. Verses 45 and 47 describe states resulting from a becoming that for Adam took place at his creation, for Christ at a point yet to be determined. Whether or in what condition Christ existed prior to that point is here outside Paul’s scope.

Verses 48 and 49 make plain that Adam and Christ are being compared not simply as individuals. Associated with Adam as the earthly one (ho choikos) are those of the earthly order; associated with Christ as the heavenly one (ho epouranios) are those of the heavenly order. Moreover, not only their representative capacity but also the constitutive nature of their primacy is prominent here. “The earthly ones” are such only as they in solidarity with “the earthly one” bear his image; “the heavenly ones” are such only as they in union with “the heavenly one” bear his image. Verse 49b both brings to a climax the contrast begun in verse 42 and expresses the focal consideration in answer to the questions in verse 35: the mode of the resurrection and the nature of the resurrection body are to be explained in terms of union with Christ, the last Adam, as the heavenly one, the life-giving pneuma.

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

Our findings to this point may be summarized as follows: The contrast between Adam and Christ as living soul and life-giving pneuma, respectively, is not only pointed but also comprehensive and exclusive. They are in view not only as individuals but primarily as heads representing and constituting the existence of others, and hence as representatives of two contrasting orders of life, two aeons, two world-periods, in a word, two creations — the one psychical and earthly, the other, pneumatic and heavenly. Moreover, as the one follows the other, they together span the flow of time. The order of Adam is first (cf. protos, v. 45); there is none before him. The order of Christ is second (cf. deuteros, v. 47); there is none between Adam and Christ. The order of Christ is last (cf. eschatos, v. 45); there is none after Christ. He is the eschatological man; his is the eschatological order.

Gentry note: To be continued!

PMW 2025-092 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Along with many evangelical Christian leaders, I am deeply concerned with the small, but growing number of people defecting from the orthodox Christian faith by adopting Hyperpreterism. Simultaneously though, I am greatly encouraged by the number of emails and personal contacts I receive from folks who say my writings had helped them escape the addiction of Hyperpreterism.

THE SAD PROBLEM

I often receive worried emails from family members having to endure the Hyperpreterism addiction in a loved one. One recent email lamented their spouse’s attraction to Hyperpreterism. The writer asked how they might best be able to respond to their spouse’s theological error.

Of course, this is not something that can be quickly dealt with in one article — or even several. Such is the permeating nature of Hyperpreterism and its tendency to cause theological rot in someone who formerly was an orthodox believer in Christ. But my quick response to my correspondent was as follows (though the following is slightly edited).

Have We Missed the Second Coming:
A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error
by Ken Gentry

This book offers a brief introduction, summary, and critique of Hyper-preterism. Don’t let your church and Christian friends be blindfolded to this new error. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

I have been amazed at how addictive toying with Hyperpreterism can be. Once they get the idea in mind, it seems to take the victim in all different directions — even leading to corruption of the doctrine of Christ. For example, they deny the continuing incarnation of Christ, holding that Christ’s resurrected body vanished after the ascension, being replaced by a spiritual body. Thus, Christ was only united with us for 30 years of his earthly experience, despite his incarnation being a key factor in his ongoing mediatorial role representing us to the Father (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5).

In addition, HPs believe that God will have to endure a rebellious creation for eternity, since all prophecy has been fulfilled so that we must expect all things to continue forever as they are now. On and one I could go highlighting the many doctrinal errors created by Hyperpretists.

[image error]Why I Left Full-Preterism (by Samuel M. Frost)

Former leader in Full Preterist movement, Samuel M. Frost, gives his testimony and theological reasoning as to why he left the heretical movement. Good warning to others tempted to leave orthodox Christianity.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

A HELPFUL BEGINNING

One place to begin exposing their error is with their denial of the future bodily resurrection of believers. And the best place to do that is one place where they make their biggest mistakes: 1 Cor. 15. They think “spiritual body” speaks of the composition material of the resurrected body, whereas it actually speaks of the Holy Spirit’s perfect control of the resurrected believer. If you have the time and can expend the effort, I would highly recommend reading James Ware’s The Final Triumph of God. It is written on a scholarly level, but even the non-scholar can see the powerful nature of his argument for a physical resurrection.

You might want to check out my presentation of the Foreword to Ware’s book at:

“THE FINAL TRIUMPH OF GOD” REVIEW

You should also read my three-part series on 1 Cor 15 and Hyperpreterism, noting how it undermines the very gospel of our salvation:

HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (1)

HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (2)

HYPERPRETERISM VS. THE GOSPEL (3)

I would also recommend reading:

“FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD”?

STAND FIRM IN THE RESURRECTION HOPE (1)

Understanding the Olivet Discourse 
By Ken Gentry
This 5 DVD lecture set was filmed at a Bible Conference in Florida. It explains the entire Olivet Discourse in Matt. 24–25 from the (orthodox) preterist perspective. This lecture series begins by carefully analyzing Matt. 24:3, which establishes the two-part structure of the Discourse. It shows that the first section of the Discourse (Matt. 24:4–35) deals with the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70. This important prophetic event is also theologically linked to the Final Judgment at the end of history, toward which AD 70 is a distant pointer.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

A THEOLOGICAL FAILURE

One serious problem HPs have (among many) is their not understanding the Already/Not Yet principle of biblical theology. They do not realize the biblical logic behind the fact we already possess in principle the glory of the future fullness of salvation. That is, we are now new creations in anticipation of the ultimate new creation, we now enjoy the spiritual resurrection in anticipation of the ultimate physical resurrection (note how Christ links the two in John 5:25-29), we now enjoy sanctification, in anticipation of the ultimate perfection of sanctification, we now enjoy eternal life (though we will die!) in anticipation of the ultimate securing of permanent, full eternal life, we are now justified in anticipation of our ultimate final, full justification at the final judgment. Etc., etc.

As the writer of Hebrews notes, we “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5), though we have not received the full final power of the eternal order.

There are so many problems in the HP hermeneutic that leads to an HP theology. Partial preterism is a hermeneutical tool required in certain, select passages of Scripture. Hyperpreterism is a whole new, unorthodox theology that continually gets worse over time. This is especially due to its mutating under the direction of largely untrained theolouges musing over the several preterist texts and extrapolating a new theological construct from them.

Keep studying! And don’t cast out 2000 years of Christian orthodox belief for this new, wholesale reconstructing of theology.