Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog

PMW 2026-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A Question Presented

A long-time reader has recently sent me a question on this site. Mr. Cardona asks:

“In Hebrews 1:2, how do you understand αιωνας, “worlds,” “ages,” “universe”? I tried looking for how you understand that word in this context, but I can’t seem to find it. And how would you translate it?”

This is an important question for helping to understand Scripture properly. It is especially helpful for understanding scriptural eschatology, which is so easily abused (and I do not just mean by the “Latter-day Saints”). The word aion, which is generally translated either by “age” or by “eternal,” is an important Greek term that is found frequently in the New Testament. I am currently writing a book on “The Two Ages of Redemptive History” in which I will be discussing this word and its Old Testament counterpart olam. This two age phenomenon provides an important Reformed theological insight into the meta-narrative of Scripture, greatly impacting eschatology.

Unfortunately, interpreters committed to the unorthodox hyper-preterist theology err by limiting the interpretive range of aion — as they often do in their attempts at understanding Greek lexicography and grammar (e.g., their well-known misunderstanding of the Greek mello). We find this problem in a new convert to hyper-preterism, who is himself providing a new form of hyper-preterism. Gary DeMar, dogmatically and erroneously asserts that “aion refers to a period of time, not the physical world.” [1]

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

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

Temporal and Spatial

But again in the case of olam, so with aion “occasionally there occurs the meaning of world in the spatial sense” (NIDNTT 3: 829). Cullmann (1962: 45) can rightly argue, then, that aion “like the Hebrew olam, takes on at times a spatial meaning and so comes to mean ‘world’; it thus becomes a synonym of ‘world,’ ‘universe’ (kosmos).” Gaffin (2022: 246) agrees, noting that both the Hebrew and Greek words for “age” eventually “took on the sense of ‘world’ or ‘universe.’ In other words, a comprehensive time word gained an all-inclusive spatial connotation,” i.e., world-age.

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

Likewise, in Ephesians 2:1–2a we may observe this easy transition: “you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course [aion] of this world [kosmos].” Vos (2024: 26–27) notes in this regard:
“Here the supposition is that to the kosmos (conceived as evil) an evil time or life-complexion belongs. The one affects the other and is inseparable from the other. Yet nonetheless, they are conceptually and linguistically distinguishable. On the whole we shall have to say that the world-scheme follows the time-scheme, not the reverse. And this is not without theological importance for the interpretation of the Apostle’s idea of the kosmos as evil.”

Barrett well comments here: “Of this age (aion) and of the world (kosmos) appear to be used synonymously…. This age, in contrast with the other world, are not two completely distinct dualisms.” [2]

Thine Is the Kingdom (ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The Epistle to the Hebrews
This seems clearly the case in Hebrews 1:2: God “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made [poieia] the world [tous aionas].” Here the word “world” is almost certainly the proper understanding of the plural tous aionas (as per most versions, e.g., KJV, ASV, CEB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV). “The word poieia is the same as barah (Gen. 1:1), to bring into being.” [3] As Schreiner (2020: 55) points out while citing the NIV: “the phrase ‘the universe’ (tous aionas) is most often temporal, but here it designates the world God has made (cf. Wis. 13:9), and the author features the Son as the agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16).” [4] Cullmann (1962: 64) highlights this verse as an example of “the spatial use of the word ain, a usage attested elsewhere.” TDNT 1:204 observes that this use of aion “must be understood spatially as ‘worlds’ or ‘spheres.’”

The same is true in Hebrews 11:3, where we read: “by faith we understand that the worlds [tous aionas] were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen [blepomena < blepo] was not made out of things which are visible.” This is a clear allusion to Genesis 1 regarding the physical creation (which is “seen,” blepo). Consequently, the writer of Hebrews “denies the eternity of matter, a common theory then and now, and places God before the visible universe.” [5] As Bruce argues: “Here, as in 1:2, the ‘worlds’ are the aiones (lit. ‘ages’); in both places the universe of space and time is meant.” [6] Ellingworth agrees regarding 11:3: “tous aiones [refers] to the visible world, and thus [is] synonymous with to blepomenon.” [7]

Thus, Greek linguists disagree with the dogmatic assertion that “aion refers to a period of time, not the physical world.” It can and does often refer to the “world” as such.

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

Notes

Gary DeMar, Why the End of the World In Not in Your Future (Powder Springs, Geo.: American Vision, 2008), 198.C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1968), 53. See also EDBT, 13.R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, 1966), 35.Ladd states that “in Heb. 1:2; 11:3 aion is nearly synonymous with kosmos. However, most instances aion retains the temporal idea.” George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 26 n1. Most Hebrews commentators recognize this spatial function of ain here in Hebrews. See commentaries by Gareth Cockerill, George H. Guthrie, Paul Ellingworth, D. L. Allen, Donald Hagner, F. F. Bruce, Peter O’Brien, A. T. Robertson, W. L. Lane, Douglas Moo, P. E. Hughes, B. F. Westcott, and Simon Kistemaker, to name but a few.A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 5: 419. See also Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 401–02.F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 279.Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 569.

PMW 2026-028 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am currently working on a book on the two ages of redemptive history. In this posting I will simply present the key passages demonstrating the two age presence in the New Testament. These verses will be presented in biblical order. I will highlight in bold font the English words translated from the Greek aion.

In my book I will provide full exegetical analysis of these (and other) texts which are misconstrued by hyper-preterists as they have created a new unorthodox — and still evolving and mutating — theological paradigm. I am hoping this book will change the minds of some who are being tempted by hyper-preterism. It would be hard to change the mind of an actual hyper-preterist, because they developed a new (and heretical) holistic worldview. But it can be done and we should pray to that end. Demons can be cast out!

But now what are some of the important texts under-girding the two age doctrine? As I list these, you will see how widespread the phenomenon is in the New Testament.

Two Age Texts in the Gospels

Matthew 12:32: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.” Literally “the age to come” reads simply “the coming [one],” and does not expressly employ the relevant term though it obviously reflects back on it.

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/

Mark 10:29–30: “Jesus said, ‘Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age [literally: “the present time,” kairo], houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.’”

Luke 16:8: “His master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”

Luke 18:29–30: “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time [kairos] and in the age to come, eternal life.”

Luke 20:34–36: “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection’.”

Two Age Texts in the Epistles

Romans 12:1–2: “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world [aion] but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

1 Corinthians 1:20: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

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

1 Corinthians 2:6–8: “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages [ainon, pl. of aion] to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

1 Corinthians 3:18–19: “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness.’”

2 Corinthians 4:3–4: “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world [aion] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel.”

Galatians 1:3–4: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.”

Ephesians 1:21: “which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.”

Ephesians 2:1–2: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world [lit., “age (aion) of this world” (kosmos)], according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.”

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

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

1 Timothy 6:17: “Instruct those who are rich in this present world [aion] not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy.”

2 Timothy 4:9–10: “Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world [aion], has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.”

Titus 2:11–13: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,”

Hebrews 6:4–6: “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”

Two Age Texts Properly Understood by Hyper-preterists

…….

Conclusion

Being aware of the large presence of the two age texts should whet your appetite to see what is going on in the New Testament. The two age doctrine is fascinating and important for understanding God’s redemptive plan for history and his providence in carrying it out.

If you would like to support my research, I would invite you to make tax exempt donations through my website: https://goodbirthministries.com/

In fact, even if you would not like to support it, I urge to make a contribution under protest. (I am trying to cover all my bases here.)

GOODBIRTH AND THE TWO AGES
I am currently researching a technical study on the concept of the Two Ages in Scripture. This study is not only important for understanding the proper biblical concept of the structure of redemptive history. But it is also absolutely essential for fully grasping the significance of the Disciples’ questions in Matthew 24:3, which spark the Olivet Discourse. This book will be the forerunner to a fuller commentary on the Olivet Discourse in Matthew’s comprehensive presentation. This issue must be dealt with before one can seriously delve into the Discourse itself.

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! https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4XXFLGKEQU48C&ssrt=1740411591428

PMW 2026-027 BY KENNETH L. GENTRY, JR.

In this posting I will focus on the question as to whether John experienced doubt regarding Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. As I approach this question, I would note that we need to be aware that “there was messianic ferment in the land of Israel in the first century” (Scott 1995: 320). Because of this anticipation, many who meet Jesus or hear him speak and see him perform miracles are convinced he is the expected Christ/Messiah (John 1:41; 4:29; 7:31, 41; 10:24).

Even though Jesus had indeed come as such, he initially warns his own disciples to “tell no one that He was the Christ” (Matt. 16:20). This was due to the problem of widespread apocalyptically-charged anticipation. This could lead to a wrong-headed and dangerous response from the populace. We see this danger operating, for instance, on one occasion when the people tried to “take Him by force to make Him king” (e.g., John 6:15). Indeed, because of the messianic excitability in these times, Jesus warns that “many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many” (Matt. 24:14; cp. vv. 23–24).

JOHN’S DUTY
In the messianicly-charged setting of the first century, John the Baptist is sent by God as the Messiah’s forerunner. Even before he is born, John’s father, Zacharias, is “filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” (Luke 1:67) regarding John: “you child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; / For you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways” (v. 76).

Not only so, but John’s life and ministry have been prophesied in the Old Testament (Isa. 40:3), for we read this in Matthew:
“Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, ‘“the voice of one crying in the wilderness, / ‘make ready the way of the Lord, / make his paths straight!’” (Matt. 3:1–3)

The apostle John also declares the Baptist to be Christ’s forerunner: “There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him” (John 1:6–7). And Jesus himself declares John to be the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi 3:1 (Luke 7:27). And he adds that John himself is a prophet of God (Luke 7:24–26).

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

John clearly recognizes his own divine calling in announcing Messiah’s presence. For when the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem ask him who he is (John 1:19), he quotes Scripture about himself. “Then they said to him, ‘Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?’ He said, ‘I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said’” (John 1:22–23). He proclaims that “I have been sent ahead of Him [Jesus]” (v. 28). Thus, he recognizes prophecy regarding himself (John 3:25–30).

What is more, due to the expectant times in which he lives and his remarkably powerful ministry (Matt. 3:5–6, 7–12; 14:1–4; Mark 1:1–5; Luke 3:7, 10; Acts 13:24–25), many ask John if he himself is the Christ (Luke 3:15; John 1:20; 3:28).

John is not the Messiah, but he very clearly knows who is. For he declares of Jesus “This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me” (John 1:15). When he sees Jesus coming to him, he declares “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). He also baptizes Jesus — though with great reluctance because he knows of Jesus’ superiority (Matt. 3:13–15). God confirms Jesus’ identity to John by the heavens being opened, the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove, and by God’s voice declaring to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased” (Mark 1:9–11; cp. John 1:32–34).

But regardless of all of this, something unexpected happens.

JOHN’S DOUBT
Despite John’s initial confidence in his identifying the Messiah, after he is thrown into prison he wavers with doubt:
“Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, ‘Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?’” (Matt. 11:2–3).

Most modern commentators recognize that John is truly shaken by doubt here. [1] The minority of scholars [2] who doubt John’s doubt (you might say) propose an alternative reason for his question. They usually suggest something along the lines of J. C. Ryle (1856: 79) from a century ago: “This question was not because John doubted Jesus. It was asked for the benefit of his disciples. It was meant to let them hear Christ give his own evidence of his divine mission.”

Or as Excell (1952 ad loc.) puts it: “It will appear odd that John should entertain any doubt, or require any satisfaction about this matter.… John sent this message, not from any doubt which he himself entertained of the matter, but in order that the doubts which his disciples had conceived about it might receive an answer and satisfaction from the fountain head” (1952: ad loc.). In fact, Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241) note that “most of the Fathers convinced themselves that John was inquiring for the sake of his disciples.” (cp. Gibbs 2010: 555).

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

However, John’s grammar strongly suggests otherwise. Gundry (1982: 205) provides some helpful exegetical details in this regard by analyzing John’s question: “Are you the Coming One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matt. 11:3):

“su [‘you’] is emphatic; [and] because of its position, heteron is also emphatic: ‘Are you the Coming One, or should we expect another [heteron]?’ Though Matthew likes allon (14,4—So Luke), here he writes heteron ,,, to emphasize difference: ‘… or should we expect a different kind of Coming One?’”

Here we should understand “the adversative use” by which “heteros points to a pertinent alternative” (EDNT 2:66). Or as TDNT (2: 702) explains: the use of heteros in Matthew 11:3 speaks of “the qualities which Jewish expectations attributed to the Messiah might better fit another than Jesus.” Keener (2009: 335), Gibbs (2010: 555), and Turner (2008: 291) fully agree with this exegetical analysis.

The focus on John’s own problem. The biblical evidence opposing this attempted explanation and defense of John’s question is quite strong. Gibbs (2010: 555–56) argues in his characteristically thorough fashion:

“Grammatically, it is John who is the subject of the verb ‘he said’ (eipen) in 11:3. Further Jesus replies ‘Go and announce to John…’ (11:4). Finally, the closing beatitude is singular and in the first place refers to John himself. Grammatically, Jesus has asked a question, and Jesus has answered him.”

John’s doubt arises, at least partly, due to his own apocalyptic expectations. As Schreiner (2010b: 23) understands the situation:
“John the Baptist voiced doubts about Jesus, presumably because he languished in prison, and his expectations regarding the kingdom were not being realized. John perceived that the political impact of Jesus’ ministry was relatively inconsequential and so began to question whether he was truly ‘the coming one.’”

Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241) explain: “Jesus’ deeds do not match those of the somewhat judgemental figure portrayed by John in Mt 3:10–12. Blomberg (1992: 185; cp. Hagner 1993: 300; Hendriksen 1973: 483) surmises: “John also wondered why there were no signs of the imminent judgment of the wicked that he had predicted (Matt 3:10).”

Green (1997: 295–96) agrees: “apparently, John’s interest lies on the faultline between his eschatological expectations and the realities of Jesus’ performance…. For John (and, no doubt, for others), the nature of Jesus’ activity seems to disqualify any claim he might have” as Messiah. For Jesus was acting in a way “not anticipated by John” (Nolland 1989: 327).

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

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

Thus, Ridderbos (1957: 14) states that “Christ’s appearance and preaching in no way seemed to answer [the] eschatological character of the Kingdom. That is the difference between Jesus and John, and that is John’s problem: ‘Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?’ (Matt. 11:2). For Jesus does not come with a winnowing fork in His hand, but He walks the land as a physician.”

The popular problem. Not only is Jesus behaving in a way that does not match with John’s own expectations, but he acts in a way contrary to apocalyptic expectations. Hendriksen (1973: 483) notes contrary to apocalyptic scenarios, “Jesus’ ‘messiahship’ little resembled the political and military program of liberation many Jews anticipated.” Hill (1972: 197–98) agrees, suspecting that “John’s question may have been prompted by a current conception of an apocalyptic or political messiah” (cp. Keener 1993: 75).

M. Horton (2011: 54) comments on the two age backdrop of John’s doubt: The Pharisees “divided history into this present age, under sin and death, and the age to come, which would be dominated by life and righteousness…. This is one reason why John the Baptist got a little bit impatient and frustrated with Jesus.” Though this doctrinal division of redemptive history, was true, the Jews held that at the time the Messiah comes he will bring the current age to a catastrophic end while establishing the perfect eternal age.

Beasley-Murray (83) points out the widespread nature of such apocalyptically-induced doubt and disappointment: “nor was this true only of John the Baptist; the Pharisees, Zealots, and many other among the Jews had been nourished by an unqualified apocalypticism.””

J. Brown (2018: 112) points out that John is confused about Jesus’ healing actions in that “these do not exactly fit the expectations for messianic claimants in the first-century context.” This is because apocalyptic messianism “casts a vision of a royal, triumphant Messiah who would bring restoration for Israel and vanquish its present enemy, Rome.” She proposes this while citing the apocalyptic work The Psalms of Solomon 17:21–24. Regarding the report of John’s disciples regarding Jesus’ peaceable healing ministry, the healing “may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected” (D. Carlson 1988: 1203).

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

J. Lightfoot (1674: 2:191) expresses the problem rather dramatically: “perhaps [John the Baptist] labored under the dim-sightedness which the disciples of Christ and the whole nation did concerning his earthly kingdom, victories, and triumphs.”

As Gibbs (2010: 555–56) argues, we should be aware that this failure on John’s part should not cause us a problem. For he points out that often men of great faith have been shaken by doubt for a time. For instance, consider Moses when Israel endured suffering under Pharaoh (Exo. 5:22–23), Elijah under Ahab (1 Kgs. 18–19), and Jeremiah when being persecuted by Pashhur the priest (Jer. 20:14–18). Thus, because of his own circumstances and expectations, John “needed further confirmation” (Liefeld 1984: 147). Apocalypticism causes John’s confusion.

NOTES

See for example: G. Beasley-Murray (1986: 81); D. Turner (2008: 291); J. Gibbs (2:555–56); R. Gundry (1982: 305); C. A. Evans (2012: 236); M. Wilkins (2004: 413); D. Carson (1984: 8:261); R. Mounce (1991: 103); J. Nolland (2005: 450–52); C. Keener (2009: 335); F. Beare (254, 256); R. Tasker (1961: 114); Green (1997: 195–96); J. Brown (2015: 119); G. Osborne (2010: 414); W. Hendriksen (1973: 484–85); A. Robertson (1930: 1: 87); M. Horton (2011: 54); D. Garland (2011: 310); Schreiner (2010b: 23); Hare (1993: 120); Hagner (1993: 300); Davies and Allison (1988: 2:241); I. Marshall (1978: 291); Filson (1960: 137); Blomberg (1992: 183–85).Broadus (1886: 236) lists several significant names who do not believe that John is doubting: Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and Maldodnatus. Over against these, Broadus also mentions some notables accepting John’s personal doubt: Neander, Meyer, Bleek, Ewald, Keim, Resuss, Godet, Plumptre, and Schaff. We can also add Lenski (1943: 426) and Excell (1952: ad loc.).

PMW 2026-028 by Jason Bradfield

Gentry note:
Jason Bradfield once again applies devastating logic and destructive grammatical analysis to hyper-preterism. In this article he offers a master class in how NOT to interpret Scripture. He demonstrates this from the hyper-preterism in Gary DeMar’s writings. He also provides a warning regarding the necessity of understanding Greek grammar before writing about it. I highly commend Bradfield’s work and recommend you sign up to receive his new articles on a regular basis. I certainly have! (https://www.reformation.blog)

But now:

“We Who Are Alive” Is Not a Time Text

Among hyper-preterists, one of the more popular arguments for a first-century fulfillment of the resurrection is that Paul’s language in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 functions as a “time text.” The claim runs like this: when Paul wrote, “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,” he was asserting that he personally expected to be among the living when Christ returned. Since Paul was alive in the mid-first century, the parousia must have been a mid-first-century event. Hyper-preterists Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess, among others, have pressed this reading.

“At this point in time, Paul still fully expected to be alive in his earthly body at the parousia of Christ as based on the direct warrant of Christ Himself in texts like Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, and 24:34. This is precisely why Paul deliberately used “we” language in both 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.1″

The argument sounds intuitive on the surface. But it collapses under the weight of Greek grammar, Paul’s own broader testimony, and, most critically, what Paul says in the very next verse. What we are dealing with in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is not a prophetic time indicator at all. It is a category identification, and the difference matters enormously.

The Book of Revelation and Postmillennialism (Lectures by Ken Gentry)

In the first of these three 50-minute lectures Gentry explains Revelation’s judgments to show they do not contradict postmillennialism. In the next two lectures he shows how the Millennium and the New Creation themes strongly support the gospel victory hope found in postmillennialism.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The key phrase in Greek is hemeis hoi zontes hoi. The pronoun hemeis (”we”) is followed by two articular present participles: hoi zontes (”the ones living”) and hoi perileipomenoi (”the ones remaining”). The participles function substantivally, which means they describe a class of people defined by their condition at the time of the event, not at the time of writing. Paul is saying, in effect, “those among us believers who are in the state of being alive and remaining when the Lord comes.” The present tense of the participles is relative to the main action of the sentence (the coming of the Lord), not to the moment Paul picked up his pen. This is a standard use of the articular participle in Koine Greek and there is nothing in the grammar that restricts the referent to Paul and his immediate contemporaries.

To appreciate why this matters, consider the broader context of the passage. Paul is writing to a grieving church. Believers in Thessalonica had died, and the remaining congregation was distraught, apparently worried that their departed brothers and sisters would miss out on the parousia. Paul’s entire argument is pastoral comfort:

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV)

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 structure of Paul’s argument is to divide all believers into two groups: the dead in Christ and the living who remain. He uses “we” because he and his readers are currently alive and naturally fall, as things presently stand, into the latter group. But the whole point of the passage is that the timing is open-ended enough for some believers to have already died. If Paul “knew” the parousia would occur within his lifetime, the Thessalonians’ grief over a few recently deceased believers would be a remarkably trivial crisis to warrant apostolic correspondence. The passage only makes full pastoral sense if the timing genuinely remains unresolved.

But here is where the “time text” reading suffers its most decisive blow, and it comes from Paul himself in the very next breath. Without skipping a beat, Paul transitions into chapter 5:

“Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2 ESV)”

The thief metaphor is entirely about unpredictability. A thief does not send you a letter telling you when he is coming. The whole point of the image is that the timing is unknown and unknowable. Jesus used the same metaphor in Matthew 24:43 for exactly that reason, and Peter picks it up in 2 Peter 3:10 the same way. If Paul had just planted a time text in 4:15 telling the Thessalonians that the parousia would occur within their lifetime, why would he immediately pivot to telling them the timing is as unpredictable as a break-in? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say “I’ve just told you it will happen while we’re alive” and then say “but you have no need for me to write about the timing because it comes when no one expects it.” Those two claims work against each other if the first one is really a time indicator. But on the categorical reading, the sequence is perfectly coherent: Paul is saying that whenever this happens, the dead will not miss out, and whoever among us is alive at the time will be caught up with them. As for when that will be, you already know the answer: you don’t know, and you can’t know.

What makes this connection even more devastating to the hyper-preterist “time text” claim is the phrase Paul uses. “The times and the seasons” in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 is ton chronon kai ton kairon. This is the same word pair that Jesus himself used in Acts 1:7 when the disciples asked him about the timing of the restoration: “He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons (chronous he kairous) that the Father has fixed by his own authority’” (Acts 1:7 ESV). The only differences are the grammatical case (accusative in Acts, genitive in 1 Thessalonians, because of their different syntactic positions) and the conjunction (“or” in Acts, “and” in 1 Thessalonians). But it is unmistakably the same phrase.

[image error]For more information and to order click here." data-image-caption="" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." src="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" class="wp-image-209" style="width:91px;height:auto" />

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

Paul is not just making a general point about unpredictability. He is echoing the Lord’s own words. And he is doing it immediately after the passage that hyper-preterists want to turn into a chronological marker. Jesus told the disciples that the timing of these events is not for them to know. Paul then tells the Thessalonians, using the same phrase, that they have no need for him to write about the times and seasons, because they already know the answer: it comes like a thief. They know this because Jesus already told them so. That is not what you write ten seconds after dropping a time text. That is what you write after deliberately not giving one.

The parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 15 reinforces all of this….

To finish reading the article, go to:
https://www.reformation.blog/p/we-who-are-alive-is-not-a-time-text

PMW 2026-027 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As I am working on a new book, tentatively titled The Two Ages of Redemptive History, I am investigating a number of commentaries on Matthew (I do not fly by the seat of my pants as some preterist enthusiasts do!). I have found help in many of them, even when they do not hold to a preterist understanding of Olivet. Yet, several commentaries have become absolutely essential in my investigation. And I highly recommend them to my reader.

In this brief article I will recommend some good commentaries for you. If you are interested in the the Two Ages concept, especially regarding how it impacts the Olivet Discourse in particular  or the Gospel of Matthew in general, you really need to get hold of these.

Helpful Commentaries

R. V. G. Tasker’s commentary, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (1961) in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series is a good, brief commentary. He holds to a preterist approach to Olivet, while recognizing that it begins with AD 70 but ends with Final Judgment. This is essential for understanding Olivet.

Yet Tasker’s treatment of Olivet is quite brief. And I do not believe he makes the break between AD 70 and the Final Judgment at the correct place in the Discourse. So, Tasker is quite helpful, though not essential for studying Olivet. Tasker, I would say, is good.

J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (1971) is not a commentary on Matthew. It does, however, offer a very helpful commentary on the Olivet Discourse. Kik makes a fairly comprehensive case for a shift in focus from AD 70 to the Second Advent at Matt. 24:36. This in itself makes his work valuable for the preterist. I highly recommend Kik. Whereas Tasker is good, Kik is better. And I even have it on-sale on my website.

Nevertheless, if you are interested in serious, fuller commentaries on the Olivet Discourse, you will want to get the works by David E. Garland, R. T. France, and Jeffrey A. Gibbs. Though Tasker is good and Kik is better, these three scholars are Grrreeeeaaat (as Tony the Tiger would say)!

The sooner you get them, the happier you will be. You have already missed Presidents Day, so hurry to purchase one before another celebration slips by and you are left commentariless.

 

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Show the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

So now, let us move on to consider:

Essential Commentaries

The three leading commentaries that I would recommend for studying the Olivet Discourse are:

• David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (1993).
• R. T. France’s, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007).
• Jeffrey A. Gibbs’ three volume commentary, Matthew 1:1–11:1; Matthew 11:2–20:34; and Matthew 21:1–28:20 (2006–2018).

Each of their works on Matthew and Olivet recognizes a fundamental division in the Discourse. They carefully argue by means of sound exegetical principles that Jesus begins with the destruction of the temple, then expands to present the Final Judgment. They see Matt. 24:36 as the hinge or transition text. And they point out that the disciples’ question at Matt. 24:3 is based on their confusion regarding the significance of the destruction of the temple, which is the reason the Discourse takes its particular direction. See my previous study on this matter in my previous four-part series beginning on January 4, 2019 (PMW numbers: 2019-002; 2019-003; 2019-004; 2019-005).

Garland, Reading Matthew. In his commentary on Matthew, France recommends Garland’s work. Thus, it comes with a significant endorsement. Garland’s Narrative Critical treatment of Matt. 23–25 is excellent, carefully providing the theological and historical context for the Olivet Discourse. His work on these chapters is worth the whole book.

However, he is not preteristic on some other passages that I believe refer to AD 70. He sees some of these as having another focus, usually the Second Advent. Also he believes that Matthew was written after AD 70 to a persecuted church, which I believe is mistaken. Thus, he holds to Markan priority and Redaction Criticism, both of which I strongly reject.

France, The Gospel of Matthew. France has written several commentaries that provide excellent material for studying the Olivet Discourse:

• The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT, 2007) (1100+ pages).
• Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentary, 1985).
• The Gospel of Mark (New International Greek Text Commentary, 2002).
• Luke (Teach the Text Commentary Series, 2013).

He has also written a very helpful study on Jesus’ use of the Old Testament: Jesus and the Old Testament (1992). His Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Zondervan, 1989) is another important and helpful work on Matthew.

If you were to buy one commentary on the subject, I would recommend France’s contribution to the NICNT series. He was one of the leading Matthaean scholars until his death in 2012. He is always insightful, even though he does not see every passage that I deem preterist to be referring to AD 70.

France holds that Matthew was most likely written by the Apostle and he holds to an early date for Matthew (mid-60s). Unfortunately, he accepts Markan Priority, though (fortunately!) without any dependence of Matthew on Mark and without an influence for a written Q document. Thus, he is largely free of Redaction Critical errors.

He makes a powerful case for Olivet’s referring to both AD 70 and the Final Judgment, seeing Matt. 24:36 as the transition text. My commentary on Olivet will employ many of his insights and add to them.

Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew (three volumes). Gibbs has produced an invaluable, in-depth, up-to-date commentary on Matthew (completing his set in 2018), totaling over 1600 pages. He also argues strongly for a transition at Matt. 24:36. Plus he holds to an early date (AD 55), and rejects Redaction Criticism with its Markan Priority and Synoptic inter-dependence. He holds to a modified (reduced) form of Narrative Criticism, which emphasizes the historical context and flow of passages.

I especially like Gibbs for his following Jack T. Kingsbury’s outline of Matthew as a whole. I have been persuaded by Kingsbury’s three-part outline to Matthew, which throws a flood of light onto Matthew’s arguing for the authority of Christ. See my brief study of Matthew’s outline and its significance.
This beautifully opens up Olivet to a twin focus, on both AD 70 and the Final Judgment, showing that Jesus has authority not only over Israel (by judging her in AD 70), but all the nations (by judging them at the end of history).

Most commentaries (even France’s excellent work) argue that Matthew’s outline is built around his five great discourses (with the Olivet Discourse being the last). The problem with this structuring device is that it leaves out the passion narrative. And Christ’s passion (involving both his death and resurrection) is obviously the goal of the book. After all, Matthew is introduced by the angel giving the name “Jesus” to the child and explaining that it signifies “he will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

I very much encourage my readers to read all of Gibbs’ Introduction. His presenting of this material is extremely important and very helpful for understanding Matthew’s Gospel.

Though Gibbs powerfully argues for a Matt. 24:36 transition from AD 70 to the Final Judgment, I am not persuaded by all of his observations on Matt. 24:4–32. I generally prefer France on this portion of Matt. 24. And regarding the Matt. 24:36 transition, I encourage consulting Gibb’s excellent work, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel.

Conclusion

These commentaries are not the only ones providing helpful material on Olivet and the two ages. But I believe them to be the most helpful ones currently available. If you find a sound commentary on Matthew that I might appreciate, I hope you will post it in a COMMENT.

PMW 2026-026  by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I am researching a book on the Two Ages of Redemptive History. This issue of the biblical function of “this age” and “the coming age” arose during my research on a new expanded study Olivet Discourse.

In my research I have a large and important section showing how confused were Jesus’ twelve disciples — despite having the best teacher possible! Their confusion plays a large role in their misunderstanding Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2). They ask two questions of him, the second of which shows their confusion. They ask when shall these things be, then they ask what shall be the sign of your parousia and of the end of the age (Matt. 24:3). As per much first century Jewish and apocalyptic expectations, they believed the temple could not be destroyed without history ending and that the Messiah would wage war against pagans.

So, Jesus corrects them by sorting out the issues in his Olivet Discourse (technically known as the Eschatological Discourse). The very structure of his answer shows he is distinguishing the temple’s destruction from the “parousia and the end of the age,” that is, AD 70 is being distinguished from the Second Advent.

The most tragic confusion of the disciples is their inability to understand that Jesus had come into this world for the express purpose of dying and rising again from the dead. And their confusion arises despite the fact he expressly tells them this on three different occasions. And these begin only after he has accepted the title “Christ,” i.e., “Messiah (Matt. 16:15–20): Matthew 16:21; 17:22–33; and 20:17–19). And after each episode we see their confusion and Jesus’ teaching in response. Let’s briefly consider each episode.

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

Matthew 16:21
“From that time Jesus 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.”

This is dramatically clear statement from their Master given to the disciples alone. They were not distracted by large crowds pressing in on them. But because he repeatedly charges them with being of “little faith” (Matt. 6:30 [2]; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8), we should not be surprised that they stumble badly in their response. Notice Peter’s response and Jesus’ rejoinder:

“Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s’” (Matt. 16:23).

Whoa! That is one severe rebuke! Then immediately after and in response to this, Jesus teaches his disciples the life-threatening cost of following him, a cost that virtually matches his own death: “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it’” (Matt. 16:24–25).

Matthew 17:22–23
“And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day.’”

So, once again, a very clear, unambiguous, direct statement regarding his approaching death and resurrection. But let’s look at the preceding narrative context to see what is going on here (I follow narrative criticism over redaction criticism).

Just before this, Jesus casts out a demon that his disciples were unable to cast out. So, they come to him perplexed and disappointed: “the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, ‘Why could we not drive it out?’” Jesus explains that it was because of “the littleness of your faith” (Matt. 17:20) – this problem is the very source of their constant misunderstanding and confusion. Then in that following narrative context we immediately read something quite insightful.

Though they are “grieved” that Jesus said he would die (Matt. 17:23b), they quickly show they have not really understood Jesus teaching. For we read: “At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’” (Matt. 18:1). Jesus had just taught that he was going to be killed. But they were wondering which one of them was going to be the greatest in the kingdom! And we know they still did not understand his approaching death and resurrection because they do not believe it until after it happens (John 20:9).

 

Olivet Discourse Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Verse-by-verse analysis of Christ’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction in Matt 24. Shows the great tribulation is past, having occurred in AD 70, and is distinct from the Second Advent at the end of history.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Matthew 20:17–19
“As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, ‘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, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised.’”

Here he explains that not only will he die, but his death will be an aggravated suffering. He will be mocked and scourged! And that by Gentiles! And what does the context of this passion announcement record for us — immediately? Matthew’s narrative strategy has him immediately record for us: “Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. And He said to her, ‘What do you wish?’ She said to Him, ‘Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left’” (Matt. 20:20–21).

Clearly, the disciples simply were not “getting” Jesus’ teaching! He speaks of his approaching cruel death, but two of his disciples have their mother request a place of prominence for them in his kingdom! Though the mother of John and James asks the question, the other disciples are angry with John and James. This shows that the brothers were responsible for their mother’s request.

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

Conclusion

In my book I will devote an entire chapter to the disciples’ tendency to misunderstand Jesus (e.g., Matt. 8:23–27; 15:15–20; 16:7–11; 16:16–23). This problem is noted by most scholars.[2] And recognizing this problem takes us a long way to seeing how they were confused in responding to Jesus’ prophecy of the coming destruction of the temple. In fact, the first thing Jesus says when the disciples ask him their two questions (Matt. 24:3) shows his concern with their tendency to confusion: “And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘See to it that no one misleads you’” (Matt. 24:4).

Today the semi-gnostic hyperpreterist movement is confusing scores of earnest Christians. Stumbling at the outset of the Olivet Discourse is one part of the problem.

Notes

1. Though the Matthew 6:30 reference is taken from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is expressly teaching his disciples. For the Sermon opens with this announcement about the setting: “When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying…” (Matt. 5:1–2). However, apparently many in the crowds followed and listened, for we read in Matthew 7:28: “When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching.”

2. In Jeffrey Gibbs’, Jerusalem and Parousia (ch. 6) we find abundant material showing the dullness of the disciples even in their question in Matt. 24:3: “In general terms, then, the ‘track record’ of the disciples in Matthew’s story signals the implied reader to distance himself or herself from the eschatological point of view reflected in the disciples’ double question of 24:3….” And “simply put … the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel consistently ‘get it wrong,’ both in general and specifically with respect to eschatological realities” (p. 180). Thus, in his study of another Gospel, R. T. France notes that “Mark’s irreverent portrayal of the disciples as dull-witted and slow to understand is often noticed.” He observes that after Jesus’ announcement of his death, it is “immediately followed by a response from the disciples which reveals their complete failure to come to terms with what Jesus is saying” (Divine Government, p. 49). Jeannine K. Brown wrote her entire doctoral dissertation on Matthew’s presentation of the disciples’ continual confusion: The Disciples in Narrative Perspective: The Portrayal and Function of the Matthean Disciples (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2002). See also: David E. Garland, A Theology of Mark’s Gospel: Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2015), ch. 9 and Kik, Eschatology of Victory, 84ff.

 

PMW 2026-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my final posting on the question of voting for the lesser of evils. The earlier postings should be read in order to understand this one. But now, how does all of my argument thus far square with:

The Question of Scripture

I believe in a Christian worldview rooted in Scripture. But how can we encourage Christians to compromise in their voting while maintaining their worldview? The question of compromise is particularly significant for Christians who are uncompromisingly committed to Scripture. So then, does the question of compromise undermine all the practical arguments brought up by Christian idealists?

This is an important matter to consider — especially in that it frequently arises in Christian political discussions. Does the Bible have anything to say regarding the question of compromise? Actually it does. It allows realistic, principled compromise. Consider the following examples.

Jesus’ practice. Christ specifically compromised on a matter so as not to cause offense. As the Son of God he was not required to pay the two-drachma tax. Nevertheless we read in Matthew:

“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?’ When Peter said, ‘From strangers,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.’” (Matt. 17:24–27)

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

He could have affirmed his immunity from paying the tax, which would have underscored his claim to his deity. But here he “compromised” on that particular issue and paid the tax — so as not to cause offense.

In fact, consider the following situation. Rome was a pagan nation dominating Israel, and each legion carried an idolatrous Standard (Signums) for their identification. The Jewish historian Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction the Jewish temple in AD 70. He reported that the Romans “carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, there sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator” (Wars 6:6:1). The church father Tertullian (AD 160–220) writes: “The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods” (Apology 16).

Nevertheless, though Jesus interacted with Roman soldiers he never encouraged them to leave the army (Matt. 8:5–13). [5] Neither did John the Baptist when directly asked by soldiers “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).

Jesus employs an illustration in his parabolic teaching that recognizes that we must think in terms of practical solutions and be willing to compromise as we look to larger goals. [6] He taught twin parables on discipleship that employed strategic compromise for securing our ultimate goals.

The Truth about Postmillennialism
By Ken Gentry

A group Bible study guide for explaining the optimistic prophetic hope for this world to be accomplished before Christ’s Second Coming. Establishes the postmillennial system in both the Old and New Testaments. Touches on key eschatological issues, such as creation, covenant, interpretive methodolgy, the great tribulation, the Book of Revelation, the Jewish Temple, and more. It presents and answers the leading objections to postmillennialism.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ [7]

“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.” (Luke 14:28–31)

In the second parable, the king here planning for battle surely has a desire for victory. Yet as he looks realistically at his prospects he realizes the potential for loss. Consequently, he begins working on a compromise to settle the differences with the opposing king.

Likewise, today we do not compromise our conservative principles regarding proper constitutional government. But we sometimes have to alter our action (our vote) for the lesser of evils with a view to maintaining as many constitutional policies and practices as we can.

Our Long-term Strategy

As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

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

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Why should we continually butt our heads against the wall each election cycle? It performs no useful service except for providing a steady drumbeat leading Christians in the march away from long-term influence. But what about those with less grandiose designs who hold that voting for the perfect Christian candidate will at least make “a statement”? More often than not they make the wrong statement: “Let’s lose this one for Jesus.” Their dismal poll numbers can make a statement, but not a very loud one. Sadly, conservative and moderate candidates can split the vote against the dangerous liberal candidate.

Recognizing the necessity of strategic compromise and incremental advance we should be willing to seek smaller political victories in the meantime. And rather than hoping against hope for the perfect presidential candidate to be elected, we will have to accept a tolerable candidate who functions like a finger in the dike effectively buying us more time — and keep us from throwing good money and our political hopes into a losing cause. Change tends to be generational rather than overnight.

We should not expect to change the nation in one fell swoop. Rather we should engage the more manageable work of changing a political party from within. Transforming a political party that is relatively close to several of our positions is easier than trying to change an entire nation that is literally “all over the map.” Like it or not, American government is effectively a two-party system.

If worse comes to worse, we may eventually need to create a new political party from within the established lesser-of-evils party. But this would need to start out on a more local level and build toward higher offices and larger goals in the long run. For instance, today many Christians tend to put too much hope in the presidential election, hoping for the big prize. Turnouts in mid-term elections are generally around 20% small than in presidential elections. We should begin by working locally in small realms rather than trying to leap to the presidency.

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

Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill coined the phrase: “all politics is local.” By that he meant that people tend to vote on matters of local interest and significance. This requires that politicians must recognize the needs of their constituencies. And since this is generally true, it also underscores the significance of learning about local needs by working in lower offices — as training for higher office.

Our nation used to be more acclimated to localism in its early days. Of course, slow transportation and limited communication had much to do with that. Today Christians need to take a greater (not sole) interest in local elections, such as mayoral, city and county councils, county administrators, sheriffs, and so forth. Once we have built success and gained experience in these more local areas, we can move on to state legislatures and governorships. And then to congressional and senatorial office, and on to the presidency. Secure foundations must be laid before a gold dome can be placed on the top.

Conclusion

As conservative, evangelical Christians we are committed to principle at the very core of our being. The doctrinal convictions we hold regarding our holy faith serve as the very foundation for our lives — they are our most basic principles. And as servants of Christ we love and seek the right, just, and good. Consequently, it is difficult for us to compromise since our very lives are rooted in God-given principles.

We do not, of course, compromise our principles themselves. That would make us what we are not. But sometimes we must compromise our methods. In promoting Christian politics in a mixed and antagonistic environment such as we have in America, we must recognize the opposition we face. We must accept as a political principle that we will have to oppose the greater evil by sometimes voting for the lesser good.

In this chapter we have seen how our long term goal for victory must often involve a short term strategy which is painful but necessary. We must recognize the big picture and learn patience in seeking to bring it into proper focus. We saw how even theology and Scripture allow compromise in our methods in seeking the ultimate greater good. Voting the lesser of evils is necessary in a fallen world where all human action is tainted by evil.

Notes (continuing from first article)

By special privilege for Israel, Rome did not bring such images into Jerusalem.The parables themselves are actually teaching the cost of discipleship, and ultimately not calling for compromise. But the illustrations he uses are from the practical world regarding acceptable actions. We are focusing on the real-world illustration rather than the spiritual-life implication of discipleship. As one commentator notes: “Jesus constructs these parables along parallel lines: a hypothetical, demanding enterprise + analysis of the adequacy of existing resources vis-á-vis the requisite resources for achieving a successful conclusion to the enterprise + outcome when available resources fall short.” Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 566.The implied compromise is that the man desiring to build a tower may have to drop the building project because of the likely failure to finish the project. He obviously wanted the tower, but he saw failure looming over the project, so would surely dismiss it.

PMW 2026-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

This is my third in a short series on the question as to whether or not Christians should vote for the lesser-of-evils. We are now ready for the important question regarding the evaluation of our principles.

Third, evaluating our principles. We are considering political issues in this book, and are especially focusing on voting as an important political act that Christians should pursue. As believers we often find ourselves and our principles under assault. One of our principles should be to strive to protect our other principles as best we can against the majority opposition. I am arguing that, given our circumstances, we sometimes have to act as principled realists and vote for the lesser of evils in defending our principles for the long haul. Just as freedoms may be lost incrementally, they may also be re-established incrementally.

Unfortunately, many idealistic Christians will reject any call to voting for the lesser of evils. Sometimes they will ask: “As a Christian why would you vote for the lesser of evils?” The answer, of course is: “Because I want less evil.”

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

Some of these will indignantly rebuke principled-realist Christians by complaining that they should never vote for the lesser of evils. But when considered from a Christian perspective, this position is self-refuting and borders on a messianic conception of politics. After all, Christians should be aware that unless Christ is on the ballot every vote is for the lesser of evils. Does not Jesus say: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18b). In fact, he can even speak to his followers as children of the “heavenly Father” and yet call them “evil”: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13).

In opposing the lesser of evils the Christian could not even vote for the Apostle Paul, for he says of himself: “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. . . . For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. . . . I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Rom. 7:14, 19, 21). He even cites the Old Testament’s universal declaration: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).

Because of these realities no conservative Christian can avoid voting for the lesser of evils. A vote for the Apostle Paul would be — on Paul’s own admission — a lesser of evils! No candidate in this fallen world is perfect; all candidates have some flaws, some “evil.” In such a world we cannot escape lesser-of-evils voting.

Taking this a step further, I would argue that an attempt to vote for a “perfect” candidate by voting third-party in national presidential elections is unrealistic, risky, and self-defeating. It is unrealistic because excellent third party candidates fare miserably and embarrassingly in presidential elections. They have absolutely no chance of winning. And as a consequence they project the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.

Openness Unhindered (by Rosaria Butterfield)

Dr. Butterfield goes to great lengths to clarify some of today’s key controversies. She also traces their history and defines the terms that have become second nature today-even going back to God’s original design for marriage and sexuality as found in the Bible. She cuts to the heart of the problems and points the way to the solution.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This can be demonstrated statistically. For instance, in the 2000 election Patrick Buchanan of the Reform Party was deemed by many Christians to be an excellent candidate. However, he was only about to garner 448,895 votes out of 105,405,100 cast! This translates to 0.42 % of all votes. Howard Phillips, a strong Christian representing the biblically-faithful Constitution Party received only 98,020 votes, for 0.09% of the vote.

Tragically, Hitler won Germany on a divided vote. “Hitler became Germany’s chancellor (prime minister) without ever having received more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the elections he had entered.” [4] This shows the risky nature of third party candidacies. Split votes can often produce horrible results. Six million Jews paid with their lives on the basis of a split vote — as ultimately did over 40 million who died in the European theater of World War 2.

Fourth, explaining our principles. The principled realist recognizes the nature of our American political system: it is virtually impossible statistically for a third-party candidate to win. Generally, they only cause one of the two major party candidates to lose, such as Ross Perot in 1992. In 1992 George H. W. Bush was projected to win as much as 55% of the vote, coming off high approval ratings and a rather week unknown governor from Arkansas. But with Perot’s entry into the race and his securing of 18.91% of the vote, Bill Clinton won with only 43.01% of the national vote. Clinton never was elected by a majority vote in either of his two presidential wins.

[image error]For more information and to order click here." data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." src="https://i0.wp.com/postmillennialworld..." alt="" class="wp-image-211" style="width:81px;height:auto" />

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

Some challenge the lesser-of-evils approach by arguing that it is simply a choice of fast poison (the bad candidate) versus slow poison (the tolerable candidate). They ask: “Why prefer slow poison over fast poison?” I would ask: Which would you prefer to accidentally ingest if you were thirty minutes from a hospital? In politics, if we have to vote for “slow poison,” we can at least buy some time to work on a “cure.” After all, the worst candidate often wins when conservative votes are drawn away to dream candidates. By drawing votes away from a tolerable but electable candidate you are actually taking fast-acting poison by default.

Others ask: “Why do we keep voting the same way (for centrist candidate) but expect different results (Christian- principled leaders)?” This question is a two-edged sword for it can be turned on the Christian idealist: “Why do some Christians keep voting for third party candidates and watching their candidate be demolished (receiving less than 1% of the vote), while allowing their votes effectively to be siphoned off to the more liberal candidate?” Beating our head against the wall in small numbers is not a good game plan.

But now we must consider:

The Question of Theology

As Christians living in God’s world, we must understand that we are here in the world for the long run. And as we come to grips with this it will be encouraging to recognize an important method of God’s dealings with man: gradualism, or incrementalism. That is, God generally works gradually over time to accomplish his purpose. We must therefore be willing to labor for our Christian influence in politics over time, not expecting all to be accomplished over night.

This theological principle should buttress our hope for the future. It allows us to seek smaller, stop-loss victories now with a goal to winning larger ones as history unfolds. Thus, this theological principle shows the practical wisdom in accepting compromise in our political actions (not compromise of our principles themselves) in the present time with a view to gaining influence in the long run. Rather than approaching politics as an all-or-nothing venture, we must recognize the significance of incremental victory over time.

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

In Scripture we find the principle of gradualism embodied in the actions of God in history. God works by slow providence over time by means of a “here a little; there a little” gradualism (Isa. 28:10). Indeed, he encourages his people by rhetorically asking: “who has despised the day of small things?” (Zech. 4:10).

For instance, we see divine gradualism at work in various theological issues in the Bible.

Redemption. God promised redemption just after the entry of sin into the human race in Eden (Gen. 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam when Christ comes (Gal. 4:4–5; cp. Eph. 1:10).

Revelation. God did not give us his entire, written revelation all at once. Rather he gradually unfolded his Word to men over a period of some 1,500 years, from Moses’s writings (1450 BC) until the last of the New Testament was written in the first century (Heb. 1:1–2a; cp. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).

Sanctification. Even in God’s gracious salvation he works gradually in our lives. Though our justification brings salvation as a once-for-all act (Rom. 4:2–3; 5:1), God works sanctification within us by an ongoing process throughout our lives (1 Pet. 2:2; cp. Phil. 2:12-13).

It is difficult for us to be patient in a day of freeze-dried this and instant-that where scientists can measure actions in nanoseconds. But God teaches us in his Word to work patiently for the long run. We should not be dismayed if our political activities do not produce instant fruit. Sometimes we must expect less than we would hope for — by voting for the lesser evil.

Notes (continuing from first article)

“Hitler and Germany: 1927–35,” Macro-History and World Report website. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm

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

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

PMW 2026-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article, I noted that we are in an election year in America, and that as Christians we need to consider political issues. But now I want to focus on the vitally important:

The Question of Principle

We need carefully to reflect on the question of principle itself, which I will do under several headings.

First, distinguishing our principles. When we are engaging in politics we must be careful not to place our political actions (e.g., voting) on the same level as our doctrinal commitments (i.e., faith in Scripture). We must be careful not to develop a messianic political outlook. That is, we should not believe that if we can only elect the right candidate he will save our nation.

This problem of viewing political principles as if they are on the same level as doctrinal convictions is quite widespread. For instance, consider the “Defending Contending” website cited above. Notice how the writer (“Pilgrim”) sets up the debate: “true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” This writer is classifying “true” Christians by their voting rather than by their doctrinal commitments and personal lifestyle. This type of thinking apparently believes that “by their votes you shall know them.”

Our doctrinal convictions differ from our political actions in that they are immune from revision. Doctrinal convictions are rooted in the complete and permanent revelation of God in Scripture. Of course, our political positions should be rooted in our understanding of Scripture so that they are relatively secure commitments. But our political actions are not drawn directly from the Bible, and they are caught up in a system built on the necessity of compromise. We do not vote for our doctrinal convictions. Political actions are not on the same level as doctrinal convictions. They also invariably involve a commitment to fallen men and their political promises.

God’s Law Made Easy

(by Kenneth Gentry)

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

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Evangelical Christian theologian J. I. Packer has wisely observed:

“Political compromise, the basic maneuver [of politics], is quite a different thing from the sacrificing of principles. Whatever may be true in the field of ethics, compromise in politics means not the abandonment of principle, but realistic readiness to settle for what one thinks to be less than ideal when it is all that one can get at the moment. The principle that compromise expresses is that half a loaf is better than no bread.” [3]

Second, establishing our principles. Those Christians who argue that we must vote for the “right” candidate because of our principles overlook an important issue: the problem of competing principles. What do I mean?

Let us take as one example a commitment to “constitutional government.” Usually conservative Christians desire a candidate who will operate on constitutional principle. Now suppose three candidates are running for a particular office. Candidate A is promoting a platform based on strong constitutional commitments. Candidate B has some strong positions but is weak in other areas. Candidate C has little interest in maintaining constitutional policies and is promoting a platform clearly antithetical to the Constitution. But now suppose (as is often the case) that Candidate A has dismal poll numbers that indicate a virtually certain landslide loss.

The strongly-committed Constitutionalist Christian now faces a dilemma. He loves Candidate A’s platform, but recognizes that he almost certainly will go down to defeat. He knows that if he votes for Candidate A, then he is ultimately helping Candidate C by drawing off pro-Constitutional voters. Consequently, he decides to vote for semi-Constitutional Candidate B over anti-Constitutional Candidate C. By this action he is acting in a lesser-of-evils manner. But is he thereby acting in an unprincipled manner? No! Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Let me explain.

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

Since the Christian voting for the lesser of evils has strongly-held pro-Constitution principles, his basic political commitment is to defend and promote constitutional government. Therefore, in light of the very real circumstances he is facing, he is acting on virtually the same principle as the Christian who would only vote for Candidate A. That is, he is voting to support the Constitution by recognizing that if Candidate C were elected he would radically undermine it. He is voting therefore to limit the damage done to our Constitutional form of government. Therefore, by voting for Candidate B his principles regarding Constitutional government have led him to defend the Constitution as best he can in the current circumstances by opposing the greater, more dangerous enemy of the Constitution. Had he voted for Candidate A (who was certain to lose), then Candidate C would effectively be gaining a vote which would allow him to gain more anti-Constitutional influence in the long run.

By voting for the lesser of evils, the Christian is operating in terms of principled realism. The other Christian who will only vote for the “pure” candidate is voting in terms of idealism. The principled realist engages in a stop-loss voting with a long-term hope for the day when more greatly committed Constitutionalists will be able to win an election. Voting for a sure loss is like saying: “Be warmed and filled.” Your heart (i.e., principle) is right but your actions (i.e., voting) are unhelpful (even harmful).

Let me provide a helpful illustration of how principled realism (lesser of evils voting) can lead to a better outcome than idealism, while attempting to hold the line. Let us say that two bills are presented in the House of Representatives regarding abortion. Both of these bills are being offered in our current legal climate which allows abortion-on-demand (abortion for any and all reasons) throughout the nation. Bill A takes a strong pro-life position by making all abortions illegal. Bill B takes a largely pro-life position by declaring most abortions illegal except in the case of the potential death of the mother or rape or incest.

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

Now suppose that a straw vote has clearly shown that the strongly pro-life Bill A would go down to a resounding defeat, but that the largely pro-life Bill B could win the House vote. For which bill should the Christian Congressman vote? He wants to stop abortion. But if he votes for Bill A which is destined to defeat, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land. If, however, he votes for Bill B then abortions will be largely curtailed. Tragically, if he stands on his idealism and refuses to vote for the lesser bill, he will have consigned tens of thousands of pre-born babies to death. On principle.

Surely as Christians we should strive to do what we morally can to resist evil. In fact, this should be one of the basic principles of Christian social concern. But consider our a position today: we usually have voting choices that are imperfect, but nevertheless have the opportunity to vote against the “greater evil.” Since the very best candidate often has no chance of winning, should we not vote in a way that effectively opposes the greater evil? Is this not a good principle — in light of our circumstances? Why let the greater evil have the victory because we approach politics as an all-or-nothing proposition?

Notes (continuing from first article)

J. I. Packer, “How to Recognize a Christian Citizen,” Christianity Today Institute in Christianity Today, 29: 7 (April 19, 1985), 7.

PMW 2026-022 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As we move closer to our important off-year elections, American Christians need to think carefully about the options before us. As postmillennialists we recognize that we are in a socio-political struggle. For the long run. Therefore, we must act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is a mess. And when its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

America is a republic, not a democracy. Rather than being a democracy run directly by the people, we are a republic in which we elect our officials and empower them to make decisions on our behalf. Every adult citizen of the United States (unless he is a felon) has the right to vote. And as Christians our worldview obligates us to vote so that we might exercise a righteous influence on the governance of the nation.

Political Issues Made Easy by Kenneth Gentry Christian principles applied to practical political issues, including the importance of borders, the biblical warrant for “lesser-of-evils” voting, and more. A manual to help establish a fundamentally biblical approach to politics. Impressively thorough yet concise. See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But now the rub. Though Christians are well-represented in America, two problems reduce our influence: (1) we do not represent a majority of the population, and (2) we are not in agreement among ourselves regarding political matters.

As a consequence of our present circumstances, we have few really good candidates from which to choose for our leaders. What are we to do? How shall we operate in such a mixed political environment? I would like to offer direction for what we as Christian citizens should do. As I begin I will first consider:

Our Current Dilemma

Because there are so few candidates operating on strongly-held biblical principles, and because more often than not those few good ones have little chance of winning a general election, we find ourselves facing a dilemma. The voting quandary we face is known as “the lesser of evils” problem. That is, if we as voters are in a political election involving several candidates and we realize that the best candidate cannot win, what are we to do? We face the prospect of either voting for our preferred candidate, knowing that he will lose, or voting for an alternative, more viable but less acceptable candidate with the hope that he will defeat the other even lesser qualified candidate. In this case the alternative candidate becomes the “lesser of evils” remaining among those who have a good chance of being elected.

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

Many devout Christians even urge us not to consider voting for the lesser of evils. For instance, a website called “Defending. Contending” states: “my current position is that true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” [1] Peter Diezel puts it more forcefully: “I just can’t get myself to believe that it is good to vote for evil. The last I heard, the lesser of two evils is still evil.” [2]

These are strong words representing vigorous evangelical challenges to Christians considering voting for a candidate lacking the full panoply of conservative convictions. Yet we certainly must bring our firmly-held Christian worldview to bear upon the political order. What are we to think of these challenges? How are we to respond to the challenge of the lesser of evils?

I believe that though these comments are well-intended, and though they have a surface plausibility, they ultimately fail as a proper Christian response to our predicament. Let me explain from a conservative-political and a Bible-based Christian perspective why I would say this.

In allowing the lesser-of-evils approach to voting from a Christian perspective, I would have us first note the principles involved, then consider their theological and biblical justifications. I present the question of principles first to introduce the argument; then I will show why I believe we can endorse it from within a Christian worldview. But this must await my next posting!

Notes

“Pilgrim” on the “Defending Contending” website (June 6, 2009). http://
defendingcontending.com/2011/06/09/sh...- two-evils/2 Peter Diezel, “Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is Evil.” “Word of His Grace” website (May 9, 2008). http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/evilisevil.htm