Posted on 01/21/2011 8:20:05 AM PST by dartuser
In 1989, a well-known spokesman for the theonomist camp, Kenneth L. Gentry, published a work devoted to proving that John the Apostle wrote Revelation during the sixties of the first century A.D. Basing his position heavily on Rev 17:9-11 and 11:1-13, he used internal evidence within the book as his principal argument for the early date. ...
Inconsistency marks Gentry's hermeneutical pattern. Predisposition keeps him from seeing the book's theme verse as a reference to Christ's second coming. His explanation of Rev 17:9-11 is fraught with weaknesses, as is his discussion of 11:1-2. Two major flaws mar Gentry's discussion of John's temporal expectation in writing the book. Besides these problems, five major questions regarding Gentry's position remain unanswered.
(Excerpt) Read more at tms.edu ...
Don't take my word. You can read Gentry for yourself here.
>> How could events related to the collapse of the Roman Empire two or three hundred years in the future be considered “at hand,”<<
It’s rather easy when you understand that with God there is no time. Jesus is telling John what will happen but time to Him is not bound by our minds.
>>Don’t take my word. You can read Gentry for yourself<<
You’re the one in here who is defending Gentry. It doesn’t matter who is saying it. If it’s in error it’s in error. Again, you are the one defending and agreeing with his view.
So, IOW, it's God's version of a throw away line. It's meaningless to human. The God who condescended to become man to bring us our salvation and His Word at times speaks in riddles. Do you really believe this?
In this case only as part of the process of pointing out the mistaken representations of the writer. If you want to get into Gentry, as opposed to this writer's imaginative views of Gentry, read the book and ask the questions.
IOW, if it doesn't fit with the dispensational futurist view, then it's error. That's essentially the argument of this writer. At least y'all are consistent.
>>at times speaks in riddles. Do you really believe this?<<
Riddles? No where did I say it was a riddle. It’s not a riddle to understand that God sees time from a different perspective then we do. God isn’t restricted to our understanding of time. We, on the other hand, can understand that when God says that a day is like a thousand years to Him we can understand that when He says soon it could easily mean thousands of years.
>> IOW, if it doesn’t fit with the dispensational futurist view, then it’s error. That’s essentially the argument of this writer. At least y’all are consistent.<<
No, actually he gives Biblical reference as I did. Thomas points out the errors in Gentry’s interpretations and consistencies or lack thereof.
But God is communicating information to His people. He is condescending to speak in our language. That is why He became a man.
The fact is that if we cannot take the words of God at their face value in this matter (when compared to the rest of the Bible), then we cannot take them that way anywhere. If we can arbitrarily apply the vague “God time” of 2 Peter 3:8 in any situation, then we can make the Bible speak anything we wish, chronologically.
From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ." (Matt. 4:17)Perhaps not really at hand. Could mean not for thousands of years. After all, we need to take into consideration God time."The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand . Repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand .Maybe Paul was using God time and really planned to stay around for months or even years.
And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand . (Rev. 22:10)Why not seal up the book if the events in God time are still thousand of years away? Surely the readers were familiar with the words of Daniel:
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." (Dan. 12:4)Why would Daniel be told to seal a book about visions that were, in the main, a few centuries away, while John is told not to seal up visions that were thousands of years away? God must be a riddler.
The deducible internal sitz im Leben (“situation in life”) of the recipients of Revelation also demands the maintenance of the preponderate scholarly lexical and translational consensus. John writes to seven contemporary historical churches (Rev. 1:11 ) facing very real serious, repeated, and intensifying threats (Rev. 2-3). He speaks of his own present enduring of “the tribulation” with them (Rev. 1:9). He notes with concern the expectant cry from the altar: “How long, O Lord?” (Rev. 6:10). Walvoord’s view – that when Jesus eventually comes He will come with great rapidity — would have offered no consolation to these persecuted saints. To interpret this passage to mean that some two or three thousand years in the future Jesus will come with great rapidity would be a mockery of their historical circumstances. Surely “this [...] is the hinge and staple of the book. When the advent of Jesus is hailed as a relief it is no consolation to say that the relief will come suddenly; sudden or not, it must come soon (v. 7), if it is to be of any service.”’ (Gentry, p. 139)
Thru the Historian Flavious Josephus' book War with the Jews we know it had to be prior to the siege of Jerusalem by Titus in AD66, a time when the apostle John was also imprisoned, in Rome.
There you go again. Context is key. You’re still trying to put God in the time box from a human perspective. When Jesus said he kingdom of heaven was at hand in Matthew and Mark He was talking about His kingdom which at that point was not of this world yet but it was at hand in the spiritual sense. In Daniel it was to be sealed until “the time of the end” an expression that is used in other prophecies designating the end of this age and the time of Tribulation and the coming earthly reign of Jesus.
No argument there. And the principle usually works until you bring your preconceptions to the text first. This is the futurist approach to Revelation (and Matthew 24). The books starts off with a fairly clear statement as to the impending nature of the prophecies. But the modern futurist has already determined that Revelation is about events thousands of years in the future from the time the visions were originally seen by John. It's about future Israel as opposed to first century Israel. So they are forced to go back and insist that since the context is future (according to their theology) then the language of “at hand” or “shortly come to pass” must be spiritualized ala the futurist rubric derived from 2 Peter 3:8.
What odd here is that even the early church fathers claimed by the premils as one of their own never took this view of the “at hand”. They truly believed that Christ's return was imminent, “at hand,” not potentially thousands of years in the future. This is fundamentally different from modern futurists who are forced by circumstances to adopt a spiritualized reading of Rev. 1:3.
The use similar reasoning to ignore the plain sense meaning of “this generation” in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Everywhere in the gospels where the phrase is used it's plainly a reference to Jesus' contemporary generation of Jewish brethren.
But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. (Luke 17:25)But strangely when futurists get to Matthew 24:34 they are forced by the convictions of their theology to deny the connection.
So, context is important. That's one thing that makes futurism so difficult to take seriously. It's virtually impossible to interpret the text of the Bible without first overlaying their theological dogmas.
Even is that were true, it does not help with explaining why John was told NOT to seal the book, for the time is at hand. It fact it undermines your theory. The difference in years between Daniel and John is relatively minor compared to Bible times vs. today (or even possibly thousands more years in the future). So if Daniel and John were speaking of the same events (your future “great tribulation”) thousands of years in the future from both perspectives, why is one told to seal and the other not to seal. It makes no sense … unless the events in view are not the end of time absolutely, but the end of the age, that is, the end of the old covenant age.
This makes considerably more sense and one is not forced to distort the time text to fit with preconceived theological dogma.
We have already been told that Jesus appeared at the end of the aeon (Heb. 9:26). The Jews of that day understood the meaning of the phrase. That seems to be lost on modern futurists who can only think in terms of the second coming/end of the world (2 Peter 3:10), and place little if any theological significance on the destruction of the temple, end of the Levitical priesthood, and the passing of the old covenant age.
Ok, lets look at Matthew 24. The disciples ask the question in verse 3, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”
He then describes what will be happening just before and at the end of the world. Clearly He was talking about the “generation” that would be alive when those things begin to happen. Surely you would agree that the end of the world didn’t happen during the lifetime of the apostles.
Now please don’t change your “plainly reference” mantra and begin to tell me that “the end of the world” means something different here. Surely you would maintain your hermeneutics and not divert to the “spiritualized reading” that you accuse us of.
The other day I was fellowshipping with some friends of mine near the ESV display at the Shepherd’s Conference. Scott Hill was seated next to me reading my copy of Kenneth Gentry’s third edition of “Before Jerusalem Fell.” I highly recommend this book even if you already own a previous copy, because the preface of the third edition has Dr. Gentry’s rebuttals to the many critiques of his book including the one’s made by TMS’ own Dr. Robert Thomas. So, we were seated together and guess who happen to walk by our table? Dr. Thomas!…
As we laughed about the whole thing, a conversation sparked about interpretive principles. We asked Dr. Thomas about his issue with the New Testament’s nonliteral interpretations of key Old Testament passages, as he puts it.[1] Dr. Thomas said, “Because Israel rejected the Messiah, the apostles had to reinterpret the Old Testament to open the door for salvation to a new church that included Gentiles.” I could not believe that he said that so I asked him to repeat it… and he did.[2]
Dr. Thomas believes that because the Jews rejected the Messiah the Apostles had to go back into the Old Testament and discover, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, meanings that were not originally understood either by the one who originally wrote it or by the audience who originally read or heard it.
Dr. Thomas believes, “NT writers applied OT texts to situations entirely different from what the corresponding OT contexts entailed. The NT writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they wanted to make. They may have maintained some connecting link in thought with the OT passages, but the literal OT meanings are absent from the citations. …We may call this nonliteral use an “inspired sensus plenior application” of the OT passage to a new situation. Such a usage is “inspired” because the NT writing in which it appears is inspired by God. It is “sensus plenior” in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an application because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.”
Now the gist of what Dr. Thomas is saying is that the OT prophets did not foresee the sufferings of the Messiah or the New Covenant church. In dispensationalism the Church is deemed a new and unprophesied aside to God’s major plan for the Jews. John Walvoord writes of the Church: “There is good evidence that the [Church] age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament. . . . [T]he present age [is] an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned.”‘ Dr. Walvoord clearly asserts that, in his theological opinion, God had a special, Jewish only program in operation in the Old Testament and the present Church age is but an interruption of that program.
Furthermore, Dr. Thomas contends that the OT was written with the intention of having only one “meaning” and that “meaning”, as far as OT prophecies are concerned, being in its grammatical-historical sense is Premillennial. Now something about all of this just doesn’t add up in my mind. Dr. Thomas implies that the New Covenant church is “entirely different” from what the Old Testament was anticipating, that all the OT prophets were Premillennial, that the promises of God were for national Israel. And it is hard for me to believe that Jesus and the Apostles “re-interpreted” the Old Testament after prophecies didn’t work out just right.
[Read more at Does the Bible Mean What It Says .]
[1] Dr. Thomas commonly now refers to such interpretations as “inspired sensus pleanor” or “charismatic exegesis.” Also see his use of this phrase in this article.[2] “Fourthly, someone might ask, “Why did the NT writers attach these sensus plenior meanings to OT passages?” In most instances, if not every instance, the new meaning given to an OT passage relates to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent and the consequent opening of the door of salvation to a new people, the church (see Romans 9-11). The new people consist of both Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of Christ, a mystery not revealed in the pages of the OT (cf. Eph 3:1-7). New meanings through special divine revelation were necessary to relate this new program to what God had been doing throughout the OT period.” Robert Thomas, New Evangelical Hermeneutics and Eschatology, 2003 Pre-Trib Study Group.
Will you first admit that everywhere else in the NT the phrase “this generation” refers to Jesus' first century contemporaries?
I have prioritized my time (I am currently in the middle of 3 other books and one formidable commentary) by looking at the section dealing with the Iraneaus quote (in my mind this is where the most fruit will be found, in the external evidence). I find the way he builds his case to be very contradictory and confusing, and thus unconvincing.
He spends alot of time developing the "could haves." He quotes lots of work to support the notion that the Latin and Greek translations could be wrong, the Latin translator was probably a moron, and that the Greek text is second hand. Further, and where I believe he makes an error, he goes on to try to convince the reader that Iraneaus is very confusing in many points in his expression and in his historical facts; but then he goes on to synthesize a "Sitz im Leben" and expects us to accept the results as a another point of a solid argument.
If Irenaeus’s famous statement is not to be re-interpreted along the lines of the argument as outlined above (although the present writer believes it should), it may still be removed as a hindrance to early date advocacy on the following grounds. These grounds may not be so substantial when considered individually, but when their combined weight is added to the above translational problem, they tend to render Irenaeus’s statement of questionable significance.
His approach and his conclusions, leave much to be desired and they often read with an aire of desperation (as it should be).
His bibliography is quite scholarly and provides lots of background work for those who wish to investigate further; for this we are all indebted to him.
PS: I am currently in the middle of
1. Biblical Eldership by Strauch (Sunday night mens Bible study)
2. The Exemplary Husband by Scott (Sat morning mens study)
3. George Muller, Man of Faith and Miracles by Miller
4. The Epistle to the Romans by Moo (he's also a post-trib), this work is massive.
What are you currently reading? If I can finish 2 of the first 3 I plan on putting Kik in the hopper. I have been doing a little part time background on his theology (I was actually saved in a Presbyterian church and discipled by the assistant pastor), it looks more interesting than most of that persuasion.
That is an incorrect translation. The correct one is “end of the age.” The Greek word used here is aeon, not kosmos.
Now, you were saying …
>>So if Daniel and John were speaking of the same events (your future “great tribulation”) thousands of years in the future from both perspectives, why is one told to seal and the other not to seal.<<
Again, it’s rather simple. When Daniel was written there were many years before the time of Christ and the death of all the apostles. Revelation was the last book written by those that were direct students of Christ. Daniels prophecy was sealed because God did not want the people prior to Jesus to understand but those of us after Revelation should know because it was us who it was written for.
>>We have already been told that Jesus appeared at the end of the aeon (Heb. 9:26).<<
You’re right, He did appear at the end of that age. That would reinforce what I said above. Revelation was written at the end of that age when no more apostolic writing would be available.
>>That seems to be lost on modern futurists who can only think in terms of the second coming/end of the world (2 Peter 3:10)<<
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
This verse is talking about the end of the millennium not the “coming in the clouds”. At the battle of Armegedon there will be no doubt about who is coming and what is happening.
I appreciate time constraints. But let me respectfully suggest that if you want to pick on Gentry, albeit by proxy via Dr. Thomas, then you at least have the courtesy to read the book to get the impact of the entire argument. Perhaps you can do a better job of understanding things than Dr. Thomas apparently did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.