# Just got a series of 16 lectures by Ken Gentry



## shackleton (May 29, 2008)

I am taking classes at Whitefield Theological Seminary and currently up to the class on Eschatology. When I got the lectures in the mail saw that Ken Gentry was teaching the class. 

For books I have :
Postmillinnialism by Keith Matthison
Before the Temple Fell by Gentry 
He Shall Have Dominion by Gentry
and the section on Eschatology in Reymond's Theology

List of Lectures:
Doctrine of the End Times
Millennial Views
Biblical Eshc. 1-3
Goal of Redemption
Creedal Matters
Final judgment
Great Tribulation
Revelation/ Theme and Flow of Revelation
Dispensatinalism
Historical Distortions
Daniel's 70Weeks
Major Texts

It should prove to be interesting. Since I have discovered Gentry I am also going to read God Gave us Wine.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 29, 2008)

Awesome!!!


----------



## bconway52 (May 29, 2008)

I bought these lectures to supplement a course on eschatology in college. They are wonderful!


----------



## Calvin'scuz (May 29, 2008)

These are very good lectures. You'll find that as you listen through them they'll begin to match up closely with Gentry's book "He Shall Have Dominion." It's almost as if he used his outline for that book to guide his lectures (but you don't really notice it until maybe the 3rd or 4th lecture). You might want to read HSHD before you begin listening to the lectures. I'm at Whitefield also (MAR program) and reading it before listening/outlining the lectures really helped me to get more out of them and save time as well. God's speed as you go through your studies. It's a lot of work, isn't it?


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 8, 2008)

[video=youtube;CkhtW-W9KpI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhtW-W9KpI&feature=related[/video]


----------



## shackleton (Jun 8, 2008)

Calvin'scuz said:


> These are very good lectures. You'll find that as you listen through them they'll begin to match up closely with Gentry's book "He Shall Have Dominion." It's almost as if he used his outline for that book to guide his lectures (but you don't really notice it until maybe the 3rd or 4th lecture). You might want to read HSHD before you begin listening to the lectures. I'm at Whitefield also (MAR program) and reading it before listening/outlining the lectures really helped me to get more out of them and save time as well. God's speed as you go through your studies. It's a lot of work, isn't it?



It is indeed very time consuming but very beneficial. In talking to pastors I have noticed that the depth of theological training is lacking. WTS definately has a strong emphasis on theology, which is good and why I choose to take classes there.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 8, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> YouTube - The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (4 of 25) by Ken Gentry


That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

blhowes said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (4 of 25) by Ken Gentry
> ...



I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 8, 2008)

Interestingly enough his scholarship on Revelation being written prior to AD 70 is actually gaining some ground in more "academic" circles. I plan on reading his book in the future.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

If the Canon was not completed prior to 70 AD then when was it completed? Surely the NT had to be completed before the Old Covenant system was publicly and finally abolished with the Destruction of Jerusalem.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> If the Canon was not completed prior to 70 AD then when was it completed? Surely the NT had to be completed before the Old Covenant system was publicly and finally abolished with the Destruction of Jerusalem.



Agreed.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.


Why?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

blhowes said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > I do. I believe that the canon of Scripture had to be completed prior to the end of the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants.
> ...



So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.


 Are there scriptures (there must be, I just don't know which ones) that talk about when the NT scriptures were to be completed - ie., something that tells us that AD 70 would be the cutoff point?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

blhowes said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > So that the NT church would have the complete Canon of Scripture before the Old Covenant system was finally ended - thus signifying the end of the period of transition.
> ...



It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.


Never thought about it before. I'll have to sleep on it and ponder the strangeness. It does seem like a nice way to "wrap things up".


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 9, 2008)

blhowes said:


> That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?



There is strong internal and external evdence for an early date in my opinion, but I am not completely convinced.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 9, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.



I'm just wondering, if the destruction of the temple publicly signified the end of the OT/old covenant, then what was the temple there for between the times of the cross, torn curtain, & ressurrection and 70 A.D.? Between the tearing of the curtain and the resurrection, wouldn't that be the most public it could get?

These aren't statements disguised as questions - I really am just wondering.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > It's a conclusion that is more based upon inference, as it would seem strange to say the least that the NT church would not have the completed NT before the period of transition between the OT and NT came to an end.
> ...



With the completion of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, the sacrificial worship of the Temple was defunct. However, prior to 70 AD there was a period of transition for the Jews to adapt to the New Covenant. But this came to an end with the destruction of Jerusalem which further testified to the reality that the OT system was publicly and finally abolished. Once this happened, the period of transition was over, and the Jewish Christians could no longer involve themselves with Apostate Israel's worship.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > That was interesting. Do you guys/gals agree with him that Revelation was probably written between 65 AD and 70 AD?
> ...



As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 9, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.



I have been re-reading Matthison's book on Postmillennialism, on the whole I would agree with his arguments. The preterist argument for Revelation I find quite convincing as it provides a great deal of exegetical control instead of the "each man to his own" approach of the other methods of interpretation. I am broadly sympathetic to the preterist interpretation and an early date but further study is required.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > As it is not a soteriological issue, or even a confessional issue, it is not something we can be ultra-dogmatic about.
> ...



Ken Gentry has a whole book on the early date called _Before Jerusalem Fell_ (which I think was his ThD. thesis). I have not read it myself, but have heard that it is very good. I liked Keith Mathison's arguments when I read the book (over 6 years ago), but my commitment to historicism kept me from fully embracing it. That commitment has since been abandoned.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 9, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ken Gentry has a whole book on the early date called _Before Jerusalem Fell_ (which I think was his ThD. thesis). I have not read it myself, but have heard that it is very good.



I have read it mate, hence I was able to say "There is strong internal and external evidence for an early date"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Gentry has a whole book on the early date called _Before Jerusalem Fell_ (which I think was his ThD. thesis). I have not read it myself, but have heard that it is very good.
> ...



That makes sense.  _Before Jerusalem Fell _gets cited a few times in _A Conquered Kingdom_ (chapter 5 - Christianity versus Statism), though I found Ken Gentry's other book _The Beast of Revelation _very good in its analysis of the Roman Emperors and relied heavily upon it for the section dealing with Roman Statism.


----------



## shackleton (Jun 9, 2008)

I am just becoming privy to the whole notion of the destruction of the temple being judgment for the sins of the Jews and the whore of Babylon referring to the Jews. The Jews are the ones who have killed all the prophets, including their own Messiah, so it makes since that they are the ones being referred to. 

The notion in scholarly circles is to deny a lot of what the bible teaches about the Jews because of the holocaust. The Jews killed Christ, persecuted the early church by killing all the prophets and apostles. They were doing this long before Nero. (By the way, the History Channel has a good documentary about Revelation where they argue for Nero be 666 and make strong arguments against Dispensational and even show how and where it got started). The Jews did say, "Let his blood be on us and our children," (that line was originally in the Passion but he was forced to remove it because it was considered to be anti-Semitic). If one takes the OT into account with all the bad things that happened to the Jews then, all the bad things that happened to them since they crucified their own Messiah make since. Then right after the biggest punishment, the holocaust, they got their land back. (I feel like I am breaking some law just saying that)

Does anyone know of any other books that talk a lot about the destruction of the Temple being judgment for the sins of the Jews?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 9, 2008)

David Chilton's commentary on Revelation _The Days of Vengenance_.


----------

