Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog

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.

PMW 2025-091 by Gregg Allison

Gentry note:
This article is found on the “Christ Over All” website. It is a helpful study of Christian anthropology and the importance of the material body in defining human life and countering the neo-Gnosticism of Hyper-preterism. Allison is professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is secretary of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Gregg Allison article:
The Embodied Person: Why I Am My Body, Not Just My Soul

Theological anthropology focuses on the doctrine of humanity and explores such topics as the nature and origin of human beings and the image of God. Historically, much discussion has been dedicated to the soul, or immaterial aspect of human nature, with little or no attention given to the body, or material aspect.[1] This essay proposes that the proper state of human beings is embodiment and seeks to rectify some of the historical and (even) contemporary oversight of embodiment. It will pursue this thesis—which I will call the “embodied person” view—by some close interaction with a contemporary theologian, Joshua Farris, and his fine work An Introduction to Theological Anthropology.[2] Both of us hold that humans are composed of soul and body but we emphasize different aspects of that dualist human constitution: Farris, the immaterial; I, the material.

Farris’ View: The Soul Has Priority over the Body

For various reasons, Farris holds to a form of dualism that prioritizes the soul.[3] As he discusses the question “What am I?” Farris articulates a view of human nature that at its core is an immaterial substance.[4] In support, he cites Solomon’s description of death—“the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit [ruah] returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7)—and notes that the description “presupposes this understanding that humans are soul body compounds.” He understands the “dust” to refer to the body, he takes the “spirit” or “breath” [ruah] to refer to “the life that is given . . . to the body to make it alive,” and he identifies the “breath” with the soul.[5]

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

Farris continues with other biblical support for the priority of the soul in his version of dualism. He appeals to biblical passages in which a soul or a spirit is said to do some action, which leads him to draw the conclusion that the soul or spirit, which is distinct in some way from the body, is the essential aspect of human existence. For example:

• Luke 1:46: Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Farris explains that Mary “is referring “to the whole self (in the sense of a merism: by referring to the whole self through its parts), yet she seems to be referring to the subject of her own actions not reducible to the parts therein and not captured by the whole of the parts that she has. Instead, she is referring to some subject that has desires, emotions, thoughts, inclinations, volitional states, and the like. She is neither her body nor the parts of her body. She is, arguably, something other than her body, or at least something higher than the body she inhabits.”[6]

• Psalm 42:11: Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God.” Farris comments, “The psalmist is assuming some distinction between self or soul and body. The psalmist does not reflect on or speak directly to the body or the parts of the body, as if they can respond. Rather, he communicates with his soul or self in an attempt to bring about some causal change in the emotional states he is experiencing.”[7]

He adds two other biblical passages that use the word “spirit” (pneuma):

• Luke 23:46 (Jesus crying out and citing Psalm 31:5): “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
• Acts 7:59 (Stephen crying out): “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Farris concludes: “Conceptually, these and other NT passages point us in the direction of personal persistence after somatic [i.e., bodily] death.”[8]

Problems with Farris’ View

The passages Farris cites, however, can readily be rendered from the first-person perspective, such that these verses would not support the priority of the soul over the body. In fact, if the soul/spirit in these texts is understood as the acting subject, then these passages fit better with an embodied person view:

• Luke 1:46-47: Mary said, “I magnify the Lord and rejoice in God my Savior.” This rendition is certainly less poetic, but it is metaphysically true if Mary is the acting subject in all her offerings of praise to God (see later discussion).
• Luke 23:46 (Jesus crying out): “Father, I yield my life into your hands.” This rendition is clearly not a citation from Psalm 31:5, but it is metaphysically true if Jesus is the acting subject in all his obedient actions directed toward the Father (see later discussion).

Tongues-speaking: Meaning, Purpose, and Cessation

by Ken Gentry

The position presented within is that tongues-speaking allowed the gift person to speak in a known human language without previously knowing it; tongues brought inspired revelation from God; the gift was a sign confirming the apostolic witness and warning of the coming destruction of Jerusalem; and therefore the gift ceased in the first century.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

As for Farris’ interpretation that these passages “point us in the direction of personal persistence after somatic death,” indeed they express hope in post-mortem existence.[9] But is this existence that of a soul or spirit or is it the existence of a disembodied person? I will return to this question.

Specifically, if one marshals biblical passages in this fashion, making much of the word “soul” or “spirit” as that which continues after death, what should one make of the following affirmations?

• Philippians 1:21–24: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.” For the Christian to die and be with Christ is gain and is far better than continuing in this earthly existence, but Paul uses the first-person singular (“I”) and not the words “soul” (“to die is gain for my soul”) or “spirit” (“my desire is for my spirit to depart and be with Christ”).
• 2 Corinthians 5:6–8: “So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” The Christian prefers being absent from the body and being with the Lord, but Paul uses the first-person plural (“we”) and not the words “soul” or “spirit” (“our soul/spirit would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord”).

Accordingly, Farris’ variety of dualism gives priority to the human soul as the primary constituent of human nature, but it is not an airtight position.

My View: Human Beings as “Embodied Persons”

Contrary to Farris, I propose an “embodied person” view grounded on the thesis that the proper state of human existence is embodiment. I can say that “I am my body,” because I rely on my bodily composition for my very existence between my conception and my death. I cannot say “I am only my body” or “I am identical with my body.”[10] Moreover, my “embodied person” view maintains that during this earthly existence, I have a basic and direct experience of myself as an embodied person. I believe that “I am my body” in the following way:

The way I feel about my embodiedness significantly conditions the way I feel about the world.[11]
• I am who I am principally in virtue of the fact that I have the body I have[12]
• If I had a different body— say, that of my spouse or that of my best friend— I would be a different person altogether.
• Without this body I do not exist, and I am myself as my body.[13]

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Furthermore, I intuit that every other person who has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist is an embodied person, perceives him/herself as an embodied person, and can reflect on what it means to be an embodied person. Finally, and foundationally, I believe that persons, not natures, act, make decisions, believe, rebel, and more. Souls do not worship; persons do (Luke 1:46: Mary is the acting subject in all her offerings of praise to God). Spirits do not exercise a will, persons do (Luke 23:46: Jesus is the acting subject in all his obedient actions directed toward the Father). This conviction puts me at odds with Farris’ prioritization of the immaterial aspect of human beings, a view that holds that souls hope and spirits obey. From my perspective, Christian persons hope in the Lord and obey his Word.[14]

Returning, then, to the issue of personal persistence after somatic death/post-mortem existence, I offer two alternatives:

1. this earthly existence is not all there is, but human life extends beyond the grave/death
and
2. there is a soul (immaterial aspect, spirit) that persists after death and is immortal[15]

I affirm (1) that human life extends beyond the grave/after death, not as immortal souls, but as disembodied persons who await the return of Jesus Christ and an accompanying return to full human existence/complete redemption that consist of re-embodiment, that is, the resurrection of the body. Souls do not worship the Lord and rest from their labors in the intermediate state. Souls do not worship or rest; persons do, or, in this case, disembodied persons worship and rest.

Again, this “embodied person” view is grounded on the thesis that the proper state of human existence is embodiment. As a thought experiment, I offer some temporal considerations. A human being will live something like:

• 82 years of embodied personal existence, which begins at birth and ends at death at which I as an embodied person no longer exist in an earthly existence.
• 500 years of disembodied personal existence, which begins at death, persists in the intermediate state, and ends at the return of Jesus Christ (this is not a prophecy!) and the accompanying event of re-embodiment, the resurrection of one’s body.[16]
• An eternity of years of (re-)embodied/resurrected embodied personal existence, which begins at the return of Jesus Christ and the accompanying event of re-embodiment (the resurrection of one’s body) and never ends.

[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

The proper state of human existence is embodiment, a position that is determined by Scripture (Gen 1:26–28) and personal/human experience and confirmed by the resurrection of the body. Should my personal/human experience believe that I am primarily a soul or hold to the philosophical idea of the immortality of the soul, that idea is corrected by Scripture, which insists that embodied existence is the proper state and re-embodied existence is the true hope and telos of human beings. To clarify, the idea that there is a soul (immaterial aspect, spirit) that persists after death and that is immortal is fine as a commonsense simplification of the truth that humans will exist in a disembodied state, but it falls short of a full articulation of the biblical truth of eternal embodied existence.[17]

By contrast, Farris maintains ….

To read the rest of the article and its footnotes:

The Embodied Person: Why I Am My Body, Not Just My Soul

PMT 2014-052 por Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Gentry note:
Carlos Sanchez Lafuerza has volunteered to begin translating some of my PostmillennialWorldview articles into Spanish. I very much appreciate his willingness to do such, since I receive a lot of interaction from Hispanics and have had several of my books translated into Spanish. For information on Carlos, see the page on this site called “Spanish-translated Articles.” Now for Carlos’ translation of an older article:

En este artículo ofrezco una segunda entrega sobre la cuestión de si el discurso del Monte de los Olivos se centra únicamente en el año 70 d. C. o si también mira hacia la Segunda Venida. Creo que habla de ambos acontecimientos. Lo cual no debería sorprendernos, ya que el año 70 d. C. es un anticipo de la Segunda Venida. Consulte el artículo anterior (PMT 2014-051). Para obtener información más detallada, consulte mi libro The Olivet Discourse Made Easy.

Argumento basado en la distinción demostrativa

En Mateo 24:34-36 se ofrece más evidencia de una transición de tema. Jesús contrasta acontecimientos cercanos y lejanos:
«De cierto os digo que esta generación no pasará hasta que todo esto suceda» (Mateo 24:34).
«Pero de aquel día y hora nadie sabe, ni siquiera los ángeles del cielo, ni el Hijo, sino solo el Padre» (24:36). En este pasaje, «esta generación» se contrapone a «ese día». Con estas palabras, el Señor mira más allá de las señales que acaba de dar para «esta generación» (haute, demostrativo cercano, 24:34) hacia el acontecimiento de «ese día» (ekeines, demostrativo lejano) (24:36). Así, la atención del Señor se centra en su segunda venida por venir al final de la historia.

Argumento basado en perspectivas observacionales

Antes de su declaración en Mateo 24:34, Cristo menciona numerosos acontecimientos que sirven como señales históricas, acontecimientos tales como: «guerras y rumores de guerras» (Mateo 24:6), «hambrunas y terremotos» (v. 7), «falsos profetas» (v. 11), etc. Menciona específicamente una señal preeminente: «la señal del Hijo del Hombre».

Así, informa a sus discípulos (que le hicieron las preguntas) cómo pueden saber el momento del fin del templo; es un acontecimiento predecible. De hecho, el Señor incluso les cuenta una parábola que ilustra cómo se puede saber que el acontecimiento tendrá lugar durante su vida, instándoles a leer correctamente todas las señales:

«Aprended la parábola de la higuera: cuando sus ramas ya se han vuelto tiernas y brotan hojas, sabéis que el verano está cerca; así también vosotros, cuando veáis todas estas cosas, sabed que Él está cerca, a las puertas» (Mateo 24:32-33).

Pero después de Mateo 24:34, Jesús deja de mencionar las señales y la previsibilidad. En cambio, incluye declaraciones que enfatizan la sorpresa absoluta y la imprevisibilidad total:

«Pero de aquel día y hora nadie sabe, ni siquiera los ángeles del cielo, ni el Hijo, sino solo el Padre» (24:36), «No entendieron» (v. 39), «No sabéis» (v. 42), «Si el dueño de la casa hubiera sabido» (v. 43). «vendrá a la hora que no pensáis» (v. 44), «no le espera» (v. 50). «no sabéis» (25:13)

Esto indica que la siguiente sección se refiere a un acontecimiento que tendrá lugar en un momento totalmente desconocido e indeterminable. Ya no está hablando de la destrucción del templo en el año 70 d. C., sino de su segunda venida en un futuro lejano.

Argumento de los múltiples días

Por la propia naturaleza del caso, los numerosos acontecimientos que condujeron a la destrucción militar romana del templo en el año 70 d. C. requerirán varios días. Por lo tanto, en la parte de su discurso anterior a Mateo 24:36, Jesús menciona «esos días [plural]» (v. 19, 29) e incluso consuela a sus discípulos señalando que «esos días» serán «acortados» (v. 22).

Esta mención de los días del período de tribulación contrasta fuertemente con el día singular —de hecho, el momento exacto— de la segunda venida: «Pero nadie sabe el día ni la hora, ni siquiera los ángeles del cielo, ni el Hijo, sino solo el Padre» (Mateo 24:36). Después de esta transición en 24:36, menciona repetidamente el «día» singular (24:42, 50) o «el día» y «la hora» (25:13). La segunda venida no implica una serie de acciones históricas, como es el caso de las operaciones militares romanas contra los judíos, Jerusalén y el templo. La segunda venida es un acontecimiento catastrófico único llevado a cabo por un individuo singular, el propio Cristo.

Argumento basado en el temor al engaño.

En la primera parte del discurso, Jesús advierte repetidamente del peligro del engaño por parte de aquellos que «desvían» (planao):

«Y Jesús les respondió y les dijo: “Mirad que nadie os engañe. Porque vendrán muchos en mi nombre, diciendo: ‘Yo soy el Cristo’, y engañarán a muchos”». (Mateo 24:4-5)
«Y se levantarán muchos falsos profetas, y engañarán a muchos». (24:11)
«Porque se levantarán falsos Cristos y falsos profetas, y harán grandes señales y prodigios, para engañar, si fuera posible, aun a los escogidos». (24:24)

Todo esto sirve como un indicador significativo de un cambio de tema cuando lo comparamos con su enseñanza después de Mateo 24:36. A partir de ese momento, ya no menciona el peligro del engaño: la palabra planao («engañar») desaparece de la narración. De hecho, la segunda venida sorprenderá repentinamente a las personas en medio de sus actividades cotidianas: estarán comiendo, bebiendo y casándose (Mateo 24:38-39). Estarán trabajando en el campo (v. 40). Estarán moliendo en el molino (v. 41). Se sorprenderán tanto como alguien a quien le roban en su casa sin previo aviso (v. 43).

Por el contrario, nadie se sorprendería por la destrucción del templo en el año 70 d. C. Después de todo, los romanos necesitaron cinco meses de implacable guerra de asedio para entrar en Jerusalén y destruir el templo después de rodear Jerusalén en abril del año 70 d. C. E incluso esto ocurre mucho después del inicio formal de la guerra judía en la primavera del año 67 d. C. y de las primeras operaciones militares en Galilea y otros lugares.

Argumento basado en los contrastes sociales

Las circunstancias sociales de la primera parte del discurso del Monte de los Olivos difieren drásticamente de las de la última parte. En la primera sección (hasta Mateo 24:36) todo es caótico, peligroso y confuso. Este período está cargado de guerras y rumores de guerras (Mateo 24:6-7), hambrunas y terremotos (v. 7), traición y persecución (v. 10), anarquía (v. 12) y gran tribulación (v. 21). Así, una desgracia tras otra se abate sobre los hombres en la caótica primera parte del discurso.

Pero en la segunda sección, toda esta agitación y peligro desaparecen. Las actividades sociales parecen tranquilas, permitiendo que todo siga como de costumbre mientras continúan las actividades mundanas de la vida. La gente se casa, come y bebe (Mateo 24:38), trabaja en el campo (v. 40) y muele en el molino (v. 41). El caos generalizado que condujo al año 70 d. C. contrasta fuertemente con las condiciones pacíficas que prevalecerán en el momento de la segunda venida de Cristo.

Continuará. No vayas a vender todo lo que tienes. Hay más por venir.

PMW 2025-090 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In an on-line posting, dispensationalist, Baptist pastor Miska Wilhelmsson (of Finland) has critiqued portions of my Revelation commentary. He does not seem to like it. And if I read it like he did, I would not like it either! One of his articles is titled: “Preterism, Church History, and Kenneth Gentry’s New Revelation Commentary.” I will briefly reply to his concerns.

My critic

Wilhelmsson opens his critique by writing:

“I want to point out a few issues relating to Gentry’s commentary, and how this novel preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7 connects to church history.

“Notice (see picture below from Gentry’s commentary) how after speaking of this preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7, Gentry follows with a paragraph saying ‘This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications. First…Second…Third…Fourth…Fifth…’ And then Gentry follows by saying ‘Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms, including Justin (Dial. 1:35), Origen…, Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 8:18)….’

“So, when the reader reads Gentry’s commentary, how is he supposed to understand what Gentry says regarding these early post-apostolic Christians? Well, it certainly seems that the ‘in these terms’ might suggest that they understood Revelation 1:7 as a preteristic ‘judgment-coming’ event in 70AD, which is what Gentry has been here talking about, right? Well… when we actually read the early church fathers, we find out that they would have NOTHING to do with ‘these terms’ of preterist understanding!”

My response

Unfortunately, Pastor Wilhelmsson misreads my commentary and therefore misunderstands my argument and consequently misdirects his readers.

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

Nowhere (even in Before Jerusalem Fell) have I ever argued that Rev. 1:7 was cited by an early church father as referring to AD 70. And I certainly would have done so had I found such a quote. And I do not do so here in my commentary, where Wilhelmsson thinks I am arguing for such. Rather I am speaking of the actual, factual historical judgment that occurred in AD 70: it (not Rev. 1:7 as a literary text) was widely recognized as God’s judgment on Israel. Hence I write “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications.” Read this again: “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications.” Again I am clearly referring to the AD 70 judgment itself.

Then immediately after my sentence that Wilhelmsson cites, I begin listing my “first” through “fifth” arguments (to which Wilhelmsson refers). These arguments show that the historical event of AD 70 was widely recognized as a divine judgment — not that Rev. 1:7 was widely held in antiquity as signifying this. Mr. Wilhelmsson has misread me. And then rebuked me for his misreading of my argument.

Let me be clear, since Wilhelmsson has so confusedly responded to my argument: I am not arguing that John’s verse itself “brought God’s wrath upon the Jews” (my first point). Nor am I arguing that John’s sentence written at Rev. 1:7 “finally and forever concluded the anticipatory old covenant era (my second point). Nor that this verse, even in the original koine Greek, “dramatically closed down the typological sacrificial system” (my third point). Nor that Rev. 1:7, even in the earliest Uncial manuscripts, “ensured the universalization of the Christian faith” (my fourth point). Nor do I argue that the words chosen by John and related in Rev. 1:7 “vindicated the Christians who were being persecuted by the Jews” (my fifth point). John’s verse relates a powerful message, but does not in itself cause the events. John’s statement did not effect these things; the AD 70 catastrophe effected these things — and was recognized as such by the church fathers that I cited.

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing (459 pp; paperback). Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

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

Note Wilhelmsson’s own abbreviated citation of my commentary reads: “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications. First…Second…Third…Fourth…Fifth…” It was the “judgment” in the AD 70 event that had enormous implication; not Rev. 1:7 as a literary statement. And his next sentence states: “And then Gentry follows by saying “Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms, including Justin (Dial. 1:35), Origen…, Tertullian (Adv.Jud. 8:18…” Yes! I do! Those church fathers do see AD 70 in these terms. But I do not say that they see Rev. 1:7 in these terms. Wilhelmsson is quite mistaken in declaring “ it certainly seems that the ‘in these terms’ might suggest that they understood Revelation 1:7 as a preteristic ‘judgment-coming’ event in 70 AD.” That was not my point at all.

In fact, nowhere in my writings do I cite an early church father as teaching that Rev. 1:7 refers to AD 70. Not even in my carefully researched Before Jerusalem Fell, which cites many church fathers as evidence for the early recognition of the reason for the AD 70 catastrophe, i.e., God was judging the first century Jews for killing their Messiah and calling down his blood upon themselves and their children (Matt. 27:25).

I do cite Thomas Whittemore’s 1856 commentary on Rev. 1:7 as stating that “This coming of Christ was that virtual display of divine power which was seen at the overthrow of Jerusalem and the abolition of the Mosaic religion.” This is similar to Talmudic scholar John Lightfoot’s 1654 Revelation commentary, which states (as I cite on p. 319):

“Speaking of Christ’s ‘coming with clouds,’ from Dan. vii.13, and from the words of Christ himself [e.g., Mt 24:30], he at once teacheth that he takes at Daniel, and speaks of Christ’s coming and reigning, when the four monarchies were destroyed; and especially referreth to the first most visible evidence of his power and dominion, in coming to destroy his enemies, the Jewish nation, and their city.” (Lightfoot 1654: 3:333)

But these two men are not “early church fathers.”

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

In my citing the early church fathers after listing my five points, I clearly state that “Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms” (emphasis added). Note I say that they “saw AD 70 in these terms,” not that they saw Rev. 1:7 in these terms. “These terms” refers to my five points which Wilhelmsson has just listed, none of which is speaking of Rev. 1:7. These five points are highlighting the enormity of the historical collapse of the temple system in AD 70. Again I do not say early church fathers saw Rev. 1:7 in this light, despite Wilhelmsson’s misreading, which he emphasizes by his underlining. I cannot cite an early church father in direct support of my view of Rev. 1:7. Nor can Wilhelmsson cite any early church father presenting the dispensational system, which arose in the early nineteenth century.

My purpose in providing my five-point argument was to show why I would believe that Rev. 1:7 refers to AD 70. I am showing the several enormous implications of the AD 70 event as a means of explaining why I believe Rev. 1:7 would apply to them. Thus, I offer references to the church fathers in order to show how AD 70 was understood by many in the early church. Not how Rev. 1:7 was interpreted back then.

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

Translation of PMT 2014-051 por Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Gentry note:
Carlos Sanchez Lafuerza has volunteered to begin translating some of my PostmillennialWorldview articles into Spanish. I very much appreciate his willingness to do such, since I receive a lot of interaction from Hispanics and have had several of my books translated into Spanish. See the page on this site titled “Spanish-translated Articles” for a brief bio of Carlos.

Now for his translation of my older article, numbered PMT 2014-051

And now for Carlos’ translation of PMT 2014-051:

El discurso del Monte de los Olivos (Mateo 24-25) es uno de los cinco discursos principales de Jesús que estructuran el Evangelio de Mateo. Está motivado por la dramática denuncia de Jesús contra Jerusalén y el templo (Mateo 23:37-38), su ceremonial partida definitiva del templo (Mateo 24:1a), la confusa pregunta de sus discípulos sobre el templo como un hermoso lugar de culto (Mateo 24:1b) y su declaración de su inminente destrucción (Mateo 24:2).

En este discurso, Jesús profetiza la destrucción del templo en el año 70 d. C. Pero hace más. Consideremos la cuestión de si también se refiere a la segunda venida de Cristo.

Como sostienen J. A. Gibbs (Jerusalén y Parusía), R. T. France (El Evangelio según Mateo) y otros, el discurso del Monte de los Olivos tiene una estructura en dos partes que se corresponde con las dos preguntas de los discípulos en Mateo 24:3:

«Mientras estaba sentado en el monte de los Olivos, los discípulos se le acercaron en privado y le dijeron: «Dinos, ¿cuándo sucederán estas cosas, y cuál será la señal de tu venida y del fin de la era?»».

Su primera pregunta es «cuándo» ocurrirá la destrucción del templo: se responde en los versículos 4-31. Su segunda pregunta se refiere a «cuál» será la señal de «tu venida»: se responde en 24:36-25:46.

Pero, ¿cómo sabemos que esta es la estructura prevista del pasaje? Una cosa es declarar una estructura en dos partes y otra muy distinta es demostrarla.

Veamos ahora las pruebas de que Jesús está desplazando su atención de la destrucción del templo en el año 70 d. C. a su segunda venida al final de la historia. En este artículo y en los siguientes, presentaré más de una docena de argumentos a favor de la transición en Mateo 24. Para obtener información más detallada, consulte mi libro: The Olivet Discourse Made Easy.

Argumento basado en la declaración final

Según todas las apariencias, Mateo 24:34 funciona como una declaración final; parece poner fin a la profecía anterior: «De cierto os digo que esta generación no pasará hasta que todo esto suceda».

¿Por qué se insertaría tal declaración en la cuarta parte del discurso si este tratara en su totalidad de acontecimientos que iban a ocurrir en «esta generación»? Eso no tendría sentido. Sería como si alguien diera un discurso y, después de quince minutos, dijera: «En conclusión», y luego continuara el discurso durante otros cuarenta y cinco minutos.

Por consiguiente, debemos entender que Mateo 24:34 sirve para cerrar una parte del discurso. En este punto, Jesús está anunciando que ha respondido a la pregunta de los discípulos sobre «cuándo» sucederán estas cosas (Mateo 24:3). Todavía tiene por delante la siguiente pregunta. Esto significa entonces que el material siguiente se refiere a acontecimientos que no ocurrirán en «esta generación». Por lo tanto, todas las profecías anteriores al versículo 34 se cumplirán dentro de la propia generación de los discípulos del siglo I.

Argumento del indicador de transición

En Mateo 24:36 nos encontramos con un dispositivo de transición del tema: «Pero nadie sabe el día ni la hora». La frase introductoria aquí en griego es: peri de («pero de, sobre, en cuanto a»). Esta estructura gramatical sugiere una transición en el pasaje que implica un cambio de tema. Podemos ver esta frase con frecuencia marcando material nuevo, como en Mateo 22:31; Hechos 21:25; 1 Tesalonicenses 4:9 y 5:1.

France señala que el versículo 36 «marca un cambio deliberado de tema». En otra parte afirma que es una «fórmula retórica para un nuevo comienzo». John Nolland (El Evangelio de Mateo) está de acuerdo cuando afirma que peri de funciona en Mateo 24:36 como «una pieza introductoria para 24:37-25:30».
Es más, Gibbs demuestra que la preposición peri por sí sola puede tener una fuerza resumida. Es decir, peri («relativo a») puede retomar un tema abordado anteriormente en una narración, sirviendo como señal de que el hablante vuelve a tratar ese tema una vez más.

Así, en Mateo 24:36, peri se remonta a la segunda pregunta de las dos que plantearon los discípulos en el versículo 3. Tras haber respondido a la primera pregunta en los versículos 4-35, ahora vuelve a considerar la segunda. Por esta estructura del pasaje, vemos que el versículo 36 introduce material nuevo que difiere de los versículos 4-35. En este punto, se aleja de su profecía del año 70 d. C. y comienza a hablar de su segunda venida al «fin de los tiempos», que tratará en 24:36-25:46.

Argumento de la limitación en la humillación

Centrándonos una vez más en Mateo 24:36, leemos: «Pero nadie sabe el día ni la hora, ni siquiera los ángeles del cielo, ni el Hijo, sino solo el Padre». Aquí Cristo afirma que, en su estado de humillación (el período desde el momento de su concepción terrenal en el vientre de María hasta su glorificación en la resurrección), él mismo no sabe cuándo ocurrirá «ese día y esa hora». Pero, ¿de qué «día y hora» está hablando?

Debe estar hablando de su futura segunda venida, porque en la sección anterior de su discurso les dice a sus discípulos que se darán numerosas señales, pero que «el fin [del templo] aún no ha llegado» (Mateo 24:6). Esto indica que él sabe con certeza cuándo ocurrirá ese evento. También les enseña dogmáticamente que estas cosas anteriores sucederán sin duda en «esta generación» (24:34). Por lo tanto, como señala Nolland: «hay un contraste deliberado entre el tono confiado de los materiales predictivos hasta ahora en el capítulo, que culmina en el versículo 34, y la insistencia actual en que solo el Padre lo sabe».

Argumento basado en marcadores temporales

Al continuar analizando Mateo 24:36, también observamos que carece de marcadores de transición temporal que lo vinculen con los acontecimientos anteriores. No tiene ninguna conexión con el material anterior en términos de progresión temporal. Esto es sorprendente, ya que en el material anterior vemos un progreso histórico bien conectado con declaraciones recurrentes de «entonces» (24:9, 14, 16, 21, 23, 30), así como una declaración de «inmediatamente después» (24:29).

Pero cuando Cristo hace la declaración en Mateo 24:36, no oímos nada que la vincule con el material anterior. No oímos absolutamente ningún «entonces» o «después», ni ningún otro indicador de progresión temporal. Por lo tanto, como señala France: «su contenido se separa de la secuencia histórica descrita hasta ahora». Esto se debe a que está muy alejado de los acontecimientos del año 70 d. C. Continuará (a menos que se produzca el Rapto, en cuyo caso se lo explicaré mientras subimos).

PMW 2025-089 by Barry Cooper (of Ligonier)

Gentry note:
From time-to-time I like to present postmillennial articles from other writers. This one is brief but to the point. It was published on Ligonier’s website last year. I am glad postmillennialism is still alive and well at Ligonier.

If you’re a follower of Christ, how optimistic are you about the future of this world we’re living in?

Many of us seem to grow more disillusioned about the prospects as we grow older. And I have to say, this is only amplified if you’re English. For nearly half a century now, I’ve watched our national team get repeatedly knocked out of major sporting tournaments on penalties, so in general, the English psyche has been carefully conditioned to always expect the worst. Our natural, ingrained tendency leans toward the pessimistic.

But postmillennials are defiantly optimistic, at least where it comes to the future of our world.

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 talked about this in the episode about the Millennium, but biblically speaking, there are three main positions on how the world will end: premillennial, amillennial and postmillennial.

The three positions differ on when Jesus will return. So you’re premillennial if you believe Jesus will return before the millennium. (The millennium is the period of time described in Revelation when Christ will reign with His saints.) You’re amillennial if you don’t believe there will be a literal earthly millennium before Jesus returns. And you’re postmillennial if you think Jesus will return after the millennium, after the world has been successfully evangelized.

So those are the three main views on when Jesus will return.

Which of those three views you take will depend on your view of Revelation. And there are basically four ways to approach Revelation: Futurist, Historicist, Idealist, and Preterist.

Broadly speaking, the futurist – as you might expect – believes that the fulfilment of the prophecies in Revelation will happen exclusively in the future.

The historicist believes that the prophecies of Revelation have been gradually fulfilled across church history, starting with the time of John (who wrote Revelation) and proceeding up to the present day and on into the future until Jesus returns.

House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology
By Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry

This book presents and defends Christian Reconstruction theology, particularly theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology. It does to by responding to dispensationalism’s social and exegetical theology.

For more educational materials: www. KennethGentry.com

The idealist takes the view that the events of Revelation aren’t tied to particular historical events, but symbolically represent the ongoing struggle between good and evil.

The preterist believes that many or all of the events described in Revelation were in John’s immediate future – the first century AD in fact – and have therefore already been fulfilled in our past (the word preterist comes from the Latin meaning “past”.)

So-called “full” preterists believe that all the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in AD70, at the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The problem with that, of course, is that this view implies there’s no future resurrection, and no future second coming of Christ. “Partial” preterists, by contrast, believe that most of the Revelation prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, but that there are still some events to come in the future, including the bodily resurrection of all believers, and the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. This partial preterist view often coincides with a belief in postmillennialism.

Postmillennialism is an optimistic view of the future, and how the world will end. Postmillennials believe that the great commission – make disciples of all nations – is actually going to be fulfilled; that the nations will overwhelmingly turn to Jesus before He returns.

When a postmillennial prays the Lord’s Prayer, there is the real expectation that the following line will come to pass before Christ returns: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

One early statement of this postmillennial view comes in the the Savoy Declaration of 1658:

In the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, the churches of Christ—being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace—shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable, and glorious condition than they have enjoyed.

This optimistic postmillennial view has been held by a number of theological heavyweights, including John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Hodge.

To finish reading this article: https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/postmillennialism

PMW 2025-088 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I received this question from a reader. I think it might be helpful to other blog readers for me to answer it. Here is the question:

“As I’ve been reading your whole series on Revelation, I have come realize more and more how much we A-Mill Folks agree with you Post Mill Guys. But how does the loosing of Satan coincide with your postmillennial preterist hermeneutic? This seems to be the only area where I have a problem from the Preterist Viewpoint. Please advise where this fits.”

This is a good question that touches on an issue that seems to confront both preterism (Satan’s loosing occurs after 1000 years in a book set to transpire shortly) and to undermine the idea of the universal conquest of the gospel expected by postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is a theological construct whereas preterism is a methodology, rather than a theology. Both merge well in my understanding of postmillennialism. Let me explain.

First, regarding the loosing of Satan after the 1000 year reign of Christ and how it impacts the preterist hermeneutic:

I would point out that although the vast majority of Revelation focuses on events that will occur “soon” (Rev 1:1, 3), Rev 20 presents us with a period of a 1000 years which appears to begin shortly (thereby fitting into the preterist expectation). But it is not necessary for it to be completed shortly, i.e.,  before AD 70. By necessity, 1000 years extends into the distant future. Otherwise, if we could compact 1000 years into a short time frame (“shortly come to pass,” Rev 1:1), then why can we not just as legitimately declare that all the events that are to “shortly come to pass” speak of issues 1000 years or more years distant?

Satan Issues
A two-message consideration of Satan. Actually one of the messages exposes a misunderstanding about Satan (he is not Lucifer), while the other demonstrates that Satan was bound by Christ in the first century.
See more study materials at: http://www.KennethGentry.com

Yet is seems very clear that Revelation insists that its judgments are approaching in the very near future (Rev 1:1, 3; 6:9–11; 10:6c; 22:6, 10). This is a continuing drumbeat in Revelation. It must be speaking of the near term. That is, the main body of Revelation focuses on the near term.

But preterism is a hermeneutic insight, not a theological observation. Hermeneutically, Revelation’s main point comes to pass “soon” because “the time is at hand” (Rev 1:1, 3). Nevertheless, while its judgment prophecies are largely approaching, the preterist hermeneutic does not prohibit a glance at the long term implications of the near term events. That is, the great majority of judgments in Revelation will occur in the context of AD 70. But history does not end with AD 70; there are consequences to those judgment events. And those consequences look into the distant future.

Second, regarding the loosing of Satan after the 1000 year reign of Christ and how it impacts the postmillennial eschatology:

The very idea of a final rebellion of Satan fits easily into the postmillennial outlook. For in the first place, the idea of his loosing to initiate a rebellion indicates that until then he has not been able to exercise such an influence. It presupposes that he has been constrained, which is exactly what postmillennialism expects. (See earlier study on the binding of Satan.)

During the time of his binding, the gospel will go forth and gradually gain a greater and growing influence. Postmillennialists expect that the world will come under the dominant influence of the gospel which will remain a dominant influence for a long period of time.

Yet, according to God’s revelation in Scripture, the Lord will release Satan toward the very end so that he can gather out those who are merely “culturally Christian” but not truly regenerate. He will prompt these to revolt against the Christian majority in an attempt to disestablish the Christian faith. But as Revelation 20 shows, Christ’s return will crush him and the eternal state will begin in earnest.

In the Days of These Kings: The Book of Daniel in Preterist Perspective
by Jay Rogers
This orthodox preterist analysis of Daniel is not a book, but a library. Extremely helpful for the postmillennial orthodox preterist.
For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com/

The fact that he has an army as large as “the sand of the seashore” (Rev 20:8b) should not make us believe that this is the vast majority of the human race. This is a hyperbolic statement in an enormously symbolic book. And this figure is a common ancient image used of large-scale armies in (Jos 11:4; Jdg 7:12; 1Sa 13:5; 2Sa 17:11), various local populations (1Ki 4:20; Isa 10:22; 48:19; Jer 15:8; 33:22; Hos 1:10), the patriarchs’ offspring (Ge 22:17; 32:12), and so forth. In fact, the 1 Sam 13:5 reference specifically mentions only 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen accompanying Philistia’s army. In 2 Sam 17:11 the writer is referring to early Israel’s own army, which could hardly approach this enormous number literally. In Jeremiah God speaks against Jerusalem warning that “their widows will be more numerous before Me / Than the sand of the seas” (Jer 15:8a). Sandy (2002: 41) notes that prophets often “express emotion rather than exactness . . . in order to shock listeners.”

Thus, the loosing of Satan after a 1000 year period does not undermine either the preterist hermeneutic or the postmillennial theology.

PMW 2025-087 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my preceding article I began a brief study of Matthew 16:27 and 28. I am providing evidence that Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man” as applying to his Second Coming at the Final Judgment to end history. Upon declaring this, he adds a note about his near-term coming, which demonstrates his authority at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. This article will conclude the argument by providing my fourth point, following upon the preceding three.

So now we must note not only the wording of the passage, but its flow, setting, and purpose.

In v. 28 Jesus inserts the “truly I say to you” formula (v. 28), which he often uses. He always uses this formula as a bold underscoring of something he has said. So? How does it function here? This will explain his rationale in the setting of his current instruction.

The contextual setting

As I will be demonstrating in my forthcoming commentary on Matthew 21-25, we should interpret Matthew in terms of Composition Criticism. That is, we must consider the full contextual flow of the whole Gospel of Matthew as he himself presents his material. We should do this rather than trying to piece together his oral and written sources, as per Redaction Criticism. The macro context of Matthew (Matthew’s whole Gospel itself) has the overarching story moving from a narrow Jewish focus to a broad “all nations” outreach. Local contexts (such as here in Matt. 16) must be understood in terms of their own broader context. [1]

But here in the local context, we must note that these two verses do not appear in an eschatological discourse, such as in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25). Rather, they appear as an eschatological appendix to an exhortational statement. Verses 27 and 28 are concluding Jesus’ warning that discipleship is costly (Matt. 16:24–26). Let’s look at this matter closely.

After Peter declares Jesus to be “the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13–19), Jesus warns the disciples not to openly tell others of this, i.e., of his Messianic identity (v. 20). Why?

The Lord normally avoids the term “Messiah,” preferring the largely unused and somewhat ambiguous designation “the Son of Man.” He does this intentionally because of the Zealot tendency among many first-century Jews who were chafing under Roman dominance. They wanted a political deliverer (cf. John 6:15; cp. Luke 19:11; 24:21; John 18:36; Acts 5:34–37). They desired glory for their nation (Acts 1:6), not redemption from their sin.

But Jesus wants to complete his own redemptive interpretation of his Messiahship. He does not want to let widespread, political notions confuse the people. In fact, just such a problem is evidenced in Peter’s rebuking Jesus for saying he will die (v. 22). Peter’s ill-conceived response results in Jesus’ immediate and vigorous rebuke, warning them not to prefer the Jews’ interests over God’s meaning (v. 23). True Messiahship is redemptive, not political (Matt. 26:51-54; John 12:23–26; 18:33-37). He will carefully instruct the Emmaus Road disciples regarding his true meaning and ministry after his resurrection (Luke 24:18–27). At that time they will be forced to reckon with the reality and necessity of his death (John 2:22; 12:16; 20:9).

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

So Jesus now warns the disciples that they are not to look for a political goal in his ministry; they are not to take up the sword to fight for him (cp. Matt. 25:52; John 18:36). Thus, now in Matt. 16, for the first time (“from that time Jesus began,” v. 21a), he unambiguously informs them that he must die to secure his goal (“He must … suffer … and be killed,” v. 21b). Earlier he had only alluded to his death in veiled ways (e.g., Matt. 9:15; 12:40).

But here, after saying he must die as the Redeemer, he explains an important truth: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (v. 24). He adds that “whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it” (v. 25). This is directly relevant to their first-century setting vis-à-vis the Jews, who will persecute Jesus’ followers (Matt. 10:16-23; 23:34-35; cp. Acts 7:58–59; 9:1–2; 12:1–3).

Christ then puts the matter in the form of a rhetorical question, showing the eternal consequences involved: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (v. 26).

The contextual point

Then Jesus presents the two statements that lie before us in Matt. 16:27 and 28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

What he is saying is this: commitment to him is of enormous consequence. The “for” (Gk., gar) in v. 27 introduces the reason that giving up one’s life for him is wise. It is of eternal significance — because all men will eventually be judged by him at the Final Judgment (v. 26; cp. Matt. 25:31–34). For when Jesus comes again he will “repay every man according to his deeds.” Thus, the “for” here explains the significance of his call to discipleship. Consequently, he presents the call to discipleship in the light of eschatological realities.

But then Jesus immediately adds as an emphatic demonstration of this truth:

“Truly [Gk., amen] I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (v. 28).

With the words of vv. 27 and 28, he is effectively declaring:

“It is wise for you to forfeit your life for me, because a man’s relationship to me will determine his eternal destiny (v. 27). This is because when I return ‘in the glory of the Father’ at the Second Advent, I will judge all men; no one will escape judgment (Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rev. 20:11–13; cp. John 5:22, 27). And historical evidence of this long-term, ultimate reality will be confirmed to you in the near term. For you will see me coming in kingdom authority in the near-term event involving my judgment upon Jerusalem (v. 28). You will soon have a demonstration of my kingdom authority to judge!”

[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-254" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyperpreterism" width="95" height="150" />

When Shall These Things Be?
(ed. by Keith Mathison)
A Reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.
Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

In several places in the Gospels, Jesus alludes to Dan. 7:13–14, as he does here. This important Messianic text speaks of the Son of Man’s coming to God to receive dominion and a kingdom:

I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

Therefore, this Danielic passage speaks of Christ’s vindication and exaltation by the Father, not of his coming to the earth. This passage is particularly applied to the AD 70 judgment upon Israel in Matt. 24:30. But its initial fulfillment will be at his resurrection, whereupon he declares “all authority has been given to Me” (Matt. 28:18; cp. Rom. 1:4; Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:8-11). The Great Commission clearly echoes Dan. 7:13–14, justifying it in terms of Old Testament prophecy. [2]

So then, Jesus’ warning of the long-term, eternal consequences of not following him (v. 27) is backed up by a near-term, physical consequence: the judgment on Jerusalem (v. 28). AD 70 is a picture of, a pointer to, a proof regarding the Final Judgment. Thus, AD 70 will be a dramatic warning of the reality of that Final Judgment, which Jesus presents here to emphasize the reality of the Final Judgment based on one’s relationship to him. The disciples will see a powerful vindication of this truth in their own experience in AD 70, for it will “verify, authenticate, and underscore the validity of the statement in 16:27” regarding the Second Advent (Jeffrey Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia) .

As Gibbs further states: “Even before the day when this man [the Son of Man] comes in his Father’s glory to repay each according to his or her work, some present with Jesus in the story of Matthew’s Gospel will not die until they see that this man is coming with royal power.” Thus, Jesus intentionally links the Jerusalem Judgment and the Final Judgment: theologically, not historically; as type and anti-type; as proximate and as ultimate. AD 70 is a particular event with a typological significance. Jesus is the Lord of Israel and the Lord of history.

Notes
1. Though this is beyond the concern of the present blog article, I must note that as evangelical Christians we should also recognize the theological context of the full New Testament (and Old Testament!) message. God’s revelation is a consistent whole that presents a coherent theology (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). We approach Scripture as Christians, committed to the unified doctrine of Scripture. The tendency of liberalism is to discount historic orthodoxy as an encumbrance to scholarly analysis. The tendency of cultism is to move out of the orbit of Christian orthodoxy as necessary for creating a new theological world of its own. All people approach particular texts of Scripture with certain presuppositions. One presupposition is the inspired and inerrant character of any biblical text. Thus, as interpreters our hermeneutic reflexes should be Christian, rather than secular, cultic, Jewish, Islamic, or whatever.

Consequently, in my last article I included a lengthy footnote citing several older Christian scholars declaring a distinction of referent between Matt. 16:27 and 28. I did not present this information as a proof of the distinction between the referents. Rather, I gave the information to serve as evidence of something else: my being within historic Christian orthodoxy. My understanding of the Matt. 16:27-28 passage cannot be dismissed as, “Oh, that’s just Gentry talking.” Actually, it is the interpreter who is outside of historic Christian orthodoxy who should be on the defensive, not the orthodox believer offering an interpretation within the bounds of orthodoxy. See my opening chapter in Keith L. Mathison, ed., When Shall These Things Be?, which is also re-used as the opening chapter in my book, Have We Missed the Second Coming. I would not want anyone to complain: “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who is Gentry?” (Acts 19:15). I strive to represent the historic Christian faith, not myself.

2. In Matthew, Jesus frequently either directly references or subtly echoes Dan. 7:13-14. We see this especially in Matt. 16:28; 19:28; 24:30-31; 25:31-34; 26:64. Daniel’s Son of Man passage does not speak of Christ’s Second Coming to the earth, but rather of his entering into the presence of God in heaven, in order to receive authority over the nations and vindication over his enemies. Nevertheless, it certainly has applicational significance for the Second Coming, for it presents his grant of authority at God’s throne, which gives him the right to rule and to judge the world system (cp. John 5:27; Acts 10:42). Thus, this heavenly grant of authority allows him to return in judgment over all nations (as we see elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel, e.g., Matt. 25:31-46; cp. Matt. 13:41-43).

Dan. 7:13-14: “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

PMW 2025-086 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

One of the more remarkable brief aside statements by Jesus, which impacts eschatology, is found in Matthew 16:27–28. Jesus’ declaration reads:

[v. 27] For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. [v. 28] Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

As an orthodox preterist, I hold that this passage brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment. [1] As orthodox preterists argue (following most conservative, evangelical theologians in general), the AD 70 destruction of the temple is a dramatic judgment of God in itself. But it is also a typological foretaste of the universal Final Judgment, which it pictures through the local judgment on Israel. [2] (This is much like the Israel’s Old Testament exodus event being an important act in itself, while serving as a type of coming redemption through Christ.)

Thus, many orthodox Christians state that AD 70 and the Final Judgment are linked. However, they are linked theologically, not temporally. That is, they are thematically related though historically distinct. The theological linkage lying behind their historical separation is important for understanding Jesus’ instruction in its context.

Introduction to Postmillennial Eschatology (10 downloadable mp3 lectures)
by Ken Gentry

Lecture presentations and some classroom interaction. Very helpful definition, presentation, and defense of postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus’ reasoning

Jesus brings together the AD 70 judgment and the Final Judgment for an important reason. As just noted, Matthew 16:27 refers to the Final Judgment, while v. 28 refers to Jerusalem’s judgment.

But how can this be? And why? These contiguous verses appear on the surface to refer to the same event (the beauty of this observation is only skin deep, as we will see). How can we hold that they actually speak of two distinct, widely-separated historical events? In this and my next blog article I will look carefully at the linguistic wording and the contextual flow of the passage to see what is going on here.

Many scholars see v. 28 as simply repeating v. 27, using different words. They view these two utterances as parallel. Hyper-preterists understand this as do higher-critical liberals: both argue that Jesus is predicting his parousia in the near future. In this view, v. 28 more fully explains v. 27. But whereas the liberal critic sees this as exposing Jesus’ prophetic failure, the Hyper-preterist sees it as undermining the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith, as reflected in the ancient ecumenical creeds.

Yet a close analysis of the passage undermines both the liberal and the cultic interpretations. It shows that these theologically related events are historically distinct, with one referring to the Final judgment while the other refers to the Jewish judgment. Let us consider the nuances of the distinct wording in each verse.

linguistic distinctions

First, in v. 27 the Lord is said to come “in the glory of His Father with his angels.” But in v. 28 we read that he is “coming in His kingdom.” Thus, v. 27 speaks of His Father’s glory whereas v. 28 speaks of Christ’s royal authority. So the first verse emphasizes the Son’s coming in the Father’s glory, while the second emphasizes the Son’s coming in his own kingdom authority.

As exegetical theologian Charles Giblin puts it in his article “Theological Perspective and Matthew 10:23b” (Theological Studies [29:4]: 1968):

In Mt 16:27–28 we find another twofold perspective…. ‘Coming’ is predicated of the Son of Man twice in succession. The first occurrence (16:27) speaks of a coming in the glory of His Father with His angels and clearly indicates the scope of this coming in words referring to judgment (reward according to conduct). The second occurrence, however, which is immediately subjoined (16:28), takes the form of a solemn assurance that ‘some of those standing here’ will not taste death until they have a vision of the Son of Man coming in His (own) kingdom (or kingly power). Mt has reordered Mk 8:34 ff. to present an invitation to disciples to follow Jesus in self-denial in order to receive from Him their reward. But a twofold perspective of reward is indicated in terms of a twofold coming. One coming looks to the final judgment (16:27); the other (16:28), to an experience of the kingly power of the Son of Man prior to that judgment. The reason for regarding the latter coming as a prior coming is not only the reference to ‘some of those standing here’ but the reference to the kingdom of the Son of Man as His kingdom. For it is clear from [Mt 13:36–43] (the apocalyptic explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares) that a certain distinction obtains between the kingdom of the Son of Man and that of the Father. The former involves a process with several stages: the activity of the Son of Man in sowing the word of God, in letting the tares grow with the wheat, and in sending the angels to gather “from His kingdom” all scandals and those who act rebelliously. The kingdom of the Father occurs at the end of the whole process, consequent upon judgment and entailing a kind of transformation (“shining like the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” 13:43; cf. 1 Cor 15:41b, 42). Thus, the kingdom has a complexive aspect, that of its growth and that of its final realization, the latter being the point at which it becomes the kingdom of the Father. More important, the kingdom as involving the coming of the Son of Man has a complexive aspect, covering everything from His public life to the judgment towards which it is ordered and which is par excellence His coming.

These two realities are not contradictory, of course. But they are distinct issues. Both involve Christ’s “coming,” but in different ways, one complexive and one univocal, though for related purposes (as we shall see).

Postmillennial Lectures
By Ken Gentry

These six DVDs contain sixteen lectures. They were given as a full, formal seminary course developing and defending postmillennial eschatology. Generally follows the outline of He Shall Have Dominion. Covers entire range of cosmic eschatology. Excellent material for college, seminary, or church classes.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second, in v. 27 we see the universal nature of his coming: he “will then repay every man.” Thus, all men will be involved in his judgment. This must be understood in terms of Matt. 25:31–46, a powerful pronouncement (distinctive to Matthew) regarding the Final Judgment (I will be demonstrating this in my forthcoming commentary on Matt. 21–25). This should also be compared to Matt. 13:36–43.

But in v. 28 the focus is drawn more narrowly. There Jesus limits the reference to “some of those who are standing here.” This does not imply that only the disciples will witness AD 70, of course. Yet it does show an intentional distinction of audience expectation in Jesus’ instruction. One audience includes all men, the other only the disciples for his present instructional and exhortational purpose.

As Jeffrey Gibbs (Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary) puts it in his book Jerusalem and Parousia (2000): the coming of the Son of Man has a “diversity of reference,” which is applicable in several different historical contexts. He sees v. 27 as referring to the Final Judgment and v. 28 to the AD 70 local judgment Thus, he points out that in Matt. 16:27 Jesus “speaks of the end-time judgment of this man that will affect every person (‘to each one’),” whereas “in 16:28, Jesus declares that “only some of those standing with him in the story will see the predicted event before their death.”

Third, in v. 27 the coming is indeterminate, simply stating that “the Son of Man is going to come.” Here mello (“be destined to”) is followed by the present infinitive erchomai (“come”). This results in the statement meaning that he “will certainly come.” But it provides no indication of when that might be.

But then in v. 28 the (theologically-linked!) “coming” (which is spiritual or metaphorical [3]) is quite precisely limited. Here he states very specifically that “some of those who are standing here will not taste death until….” This shows that it will happen toward the end of the lives of the disciples. This fits nicely with Matt. 10:23 and their mission to Israel: “whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”

We are seeing subtle evidences that Jesus is distinguishing his AD 70 (spiritual, metaphorical) coming from his (literal, glorious) Second Coming to effect the Final Judgment. In my next article I will present the “clincher” to this argument. This will involve the specific flow of the larger context. Stay tuned!

Notes

1. This view is not new to our time. Matthew Henry (in 1721) understands v. 27 to be referring to “his second coming to judge the world” (p. 240), while seeing v. 28 as “the near approach of his kingdom in this world” (p. 241). Thus he writes: “At the end of time, he shall come in his Father’s glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom … which included “the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews…. Many then present lived to see it” (p. 241). So does David R. Bauer, The Gospel of the Son of God, p. 303. See the next note on Henry Alford, writing in 1844, who agrees with Henry.

John Gill (writing his commentary on the New Testament in 1746–48) sees this passage as referring to either “a second time to judgment at the last day, in the same glory as his father” or “in his power, to take vengeance on the Jewish nation” (p. 189).

Thomas Scott (1747-1821) follows suit in his Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The New Testament. Of v. 27 he writes: “he assured the, that he would at length appear ‘in the glory of his Father,’ displaying the divine perfections … exercising a  sovereign authority over all creatures; and attended with the holy angels as his servants [even] though this event was distant” (p. 77). But of v. 28 he writes: “this referred especially to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the abolition of the Mosaic dispensation, when Christ came in his kingdom to destroy his most inveterate enemies” (p. 78).

Daniel Whitby, in his Commentary on the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (1848), writes of v. 27: “I do not think that there is any necessity of interpreting these words of the destruction of Jerusalem, to make them comport with the verse following: they seem more plainly to relate to the day of judgment” (p. 126). Then of v. 28 he states: “this is spoken of Christ’s coming after forty years, to the destruction of Jewish church and nation, and to render to them according to their works; for this was to happen in that generation (Matt. xxiv. 34)” (p. 127).

John A. Broadus in his Commentary on Matthew (1886) continues this line of interpretation, noting of v. 27 that it is “the first distinct intimation of his second coming” (p. 367). But then he speaks of v. 28 thus: “the most reasonable explanation, especially when we comp. ch. 24, is to understand a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, forty years afterwards. This providentially lifted the Messianic reign to a new stage” and this is so despite “the sudden transition from the final coming for judgment (v. 27) to this nearer coming at the destruction of Jerusalem (p. 368).

John Peter Lange in his Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical (1865-1880), comments similarly on Matthew’s parallel passage in Luke 9:26-27 that regarding v. 26 “it is scarcely to be doubted that the Saviour directs His eye towards His last parousia, at the sunteleia tou aionos. But before the thought of its possibly great distance could weaken the impression of the warning, He concludes with a near revelation of His kingly glory” (p. 150) Then of Luke 9:27 he notes: “it cannot be difficult to decide which coming of the Saviour He wished to be immediately understood by this saying. He has here in mind, as in Matt. xxvi. 64, the revelation of His Messianic dignity at the desolation of the Jewish state, which should take place within a human generation” (p. 150).

A. Lukyn Williams writing in The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew (1889) agrees (see footnote 2 below).

Alfred Plummer (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke, 1922) argues in Luke’s version of the text under consideration (Luke 9:26-27 = Matt. 16:27-28), that v. 26 refers “to the parousia … and is the first mention of it by Lk. of Christ’s promising to return in glory” (p. 249). Then of v. 27 he argues that it speaks of both the Transfiguration and “the destruction of Jerusalem” (p. 250).

R. C. H. Lenski, in his The Interpretation of Matthew (1943), holds that Matt. 16:27 speaks of “the final, public judgment … of the entire universe” (p. 648) and that the promise in v. 28 “refers to the destruction of Jerusalem with a definite transfer of the offer of the gospel from the obdurate Jews to the receptive Gentiles. The Parousia of Christ is here viewed in the wider sense and thus includes the divine judgment on the Jewish nation” (pp. 648-649). He then observes that “because v. 27 speaks of the judgment on the last day we are not compelled to make v. 28 do the same” (p. 649).

2. Regarding AD 70 as a theological type, we can note several older writers.

As Henry Alford (Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, vol. 1, Part 1 Matthew-Mark [London: Oxford, 1844]) put this in 1844: This refers to “the destruction of Jerusalem, and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity; which event, in this aspect as well as in all its terrible attendant details, was a type and earnest of the final coming of Christ…. The interpretation of Meyer, &c., that our Lord referred to His ultimate glorious parousia, the time of which was hidden from Himself (see Mark xiii. 32: Acts i. 7), is self-contradictory on his own view of the Person of Christ. That our Lord, in His humanity in the flesh, did not know the day and the hour, we have from His own lips: but that not knowing it, He should have uttered a determinate and solemn prophecy of it, is utterly impossible” (p. 177). Alford also sees Christ linking but distinguishing AD 70 from the Final Judgment in these verses: “our Lord doubtless joined the two” (p. 176).

A. Lukyn Williams, The Pulpit Commentary: St. Matthew (1889), p. 141 agrees that “the destruction of Jerusalem … was a type of the second advent, the two being closely connected by Christ with himself.”

Regarding Luke’s version of our text, Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (1922), states that “the destruction of Jerusalem was a type of the end of the world.”

Also regarding Luke’s parallel passage, John Peter Lange, in his Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical (1865-1880), states that AD 70 “is at the same time a type and symbol of His last parousia, that mentioned vs. 26″ (p. 150).

3. Williams, The Pulpit Commentary (see note 1 above) puts it thus regarding AD 70: “Not that he will personally appear, but his mystical presence will be seen by its effects, the judgment on the Jewish nation, the establishment of a spiritual, yet visible kingdom in the place of the old covenant” (p. 141).

JESUS, MATTHEW, AND OLIVET
I am currently researching a commentary on Matthew 21–25, the literary context of the Olivet Discourse from Matthew’s perspective. My research will demonstrate that Matthew’s presentation demands that the Olivet Discourse refer to AD 70 (Matt. 24:3–35) as an event that anticipates the Final Judgment at the Second Advent (Matt. 24:36–25:46). This will explode the myth that Jesus was a Jewish sage focusing only on Israel. The commentary will be about 250 pages in length.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!

PMW 2025-085 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is the second and concluding study on the exaggerated role of the millennium in eschatological studies. It is important for you to read the preceding article before jumping into this one. I am arguing that John’s half-chapter is given too much place in prophetic discussions. This has led many Christians to misunderstand the function of the millennium in Revelation, as well as its length.

Properly understood, the thousand-year time frame in Revelation 20 represents a long and glorious era and is not limited to a literal 365,000 days. The figure represents a perfect cube of ten, which is the number of quantitative perfection (as Augustine argues long ago). The thousand here is no more literal than that which affirms God’s ownership of the cattle on a thousand hills (Ps 50:10), or promises Israel will be a thousand times more numerous (Dt 1:11), or measures God’s love to a thousand generations (Dt 7:9), or expresses the desire for a thousand years in God’s courts (Ps 84:10), or compares a thousand years of our time to one of God’s days (Ps 90:4). Terry even surmises that “it may require a million years.”

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.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The millennial designation, then, is John’s visionary portrayal of Christ’s kingdom, which the Lord establishes at his first coming. Revelation 20:1 clearly presents the passage as a vision; John opens with: “and I saw” (Rev 20:1a). This strongly suggests its symbolic import and is evidence against a strictly literal interpretation of the one thousand years. In addition, the first event we see in the vision is Satan’s binding with a chain, which surely is not literal (especially since his binding appears as a spiritual event elsewhere: Mt 12:29). And what kind of key would unlock “the abyss” (Rev 20:1)? And where would it be kept? Surely the key is a symbol of control, as when Christ holds “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev 1:18). May we really imagine that the Lord holds physical keys that control death and Hades?

Revelation 20:4–6 speaks of the saints living and reigning with Christ, which appears elsewhere as a spiritual reality in the present experience of God’s people (1Co 3:21–22; Eph 1:3; 2:6; Col 3:1–2). In Revelation 20:6 we read that “they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years,” whereas in Revelation 1:6 John applies this same imagery to John’s first century audience: “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father.” This reigning of the saints with Christ on thrones pictures the kingdom of Christ, which is already established (cf. ch. 10). His kingdom, then, is defined chronologically as a complete and perfect, long-lasting period. Warfield approvingly cites William Temple: “The church is still in its infancy. Two thousand years are as two days.” As James Adderley expresses it: “Christianity is a very young religion” and “we are only at the beginning of Christian history even now.”

The Climax of the Book of Revelation (Rev 19-22)

Six lectures on six DVDs that introduce Revelation as a whole, then focuses on its glorious conclusion. Provides an important, lengthy Introduction to Revelation also.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Besides, elsewhere Christ’s second coming occurs at “the end” (1Co 15:23–24) and brings in “the last day” resurrection (Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54). “Therefore, in view of the total absence of supporting evidence from the New Testament, it is exceedingly hazardous to claim that a thousand years intervene between Christ’s coming and the end of the world on the grounds that Revelation 20 teaches a millennium.”

The millennial era has already lasted almost 2,000 years; it may continue another 10,000 or more for all we know. It is the perfect time of Christ’s rule in his kingdom (Rev 1:5–6) — a time that shall eventually result in the subduing of all nations.

Now that we have had this two-part study of the abuse of the millennium: “Go. And sin no more.”

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