Kenneth L. Gentry’s new book on the Apocalypse

“A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas …”. Phillip G. Kayser Divorce of Israel, The The Divorce of Israel presents a “redemptive-historical” approach to Revelation. In it John presents a forensic drama wherein God is divorcing his old covenant wife Israel so that he can take a new wife, the new covenant “Israel of God” composed of Jew and Gentile alike. Thus, Revelation presents the vitally important redemptive-historical transition from the land-based, ethnically focused, temple-dominated old covenant economy to its worldwide, pan-ethnic, spiritual new covenant fulfillment. And it does so by highlighting God’s judgment upon first-century geo-political Israel. Hardcover Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. April 23, 2024 A Review of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry ' s New Commentary, The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation Phillip G. Kayser, PhD - August 15, 2024 info@biblicalblueprints.com Biblicalblueprints.com A number of people have asked for my assessment of Dr. Ken Gentry's long-awaited, almost-2000-page commentary on the book of Revelation. I consider Dr. Gentry an ally, and enjoyed reading this commentary (yes, all almost-2000 pages). My overall assessment is that Gentry makes some major advancements to Revelation studies in his research on the book, and that this is the best commentary on Revelation written so far. But I also believe it misses the mark in several critical areas, including: • The main message of the book • The structure of the book • The practical value and application of the book A lot is at stake when it comes to understanding Revelation rightly or wrongly — our doctrine of Scripture and prophecy; whether we walk in fear or confidence about the future; whether we make use of Revelation's amazing amount of practical guidance on civics, economics, personal holiness, spiritual warfare, and a host of other issues. I believe the right understanding of this book unlocks incredible hope, missionality, and confidence in responding to persecution and tyranny. Revelation, understood rightly, is a practical manual on occupying and overcoming in crazy times; truly a book for our times. I have been studying Revelation for most of my adult life; Dr. Gentry's commentary is the 114th full-length commentary I have studied. I have also read several hundred studies that bring light to the interpretation of Revelation, including extensive exegetical studies and very recent discoveries in archaeology, seismology, meteorology, meteoritics, ancient astrology, Jewish idolatry, ancient iconography and other studies that open up the book in a whole new way (many of which studies were apparently not available when Dr. Gentry wrote his commentary). The main message of the book The structure of the book The practical value and application of the book (For those of you wondering about my general theological training, I have an M.Div from Westminster Seminary California, and a PhD from Whitefield Theological Seminary, and am a mentor for Masters level and Doctoral level dissertations in theology.) …. Dr. Gentry and I have similar approaches to the book of Revelation, so I was reading Gentry with friendly eyes and with a receptive spirit to be corrected in my thinking at every point. Indeed, I was hoping that Dr. Gentry's commentary would be the last one needed and that I would not need to finish my layman's commentary and academic commentary on the book. We are still in the infancy of Revelation studies, and the more we can challenge each other as "iron sharpening iron" (Prov. 27:17), the more advancements we will see in our understanding of this book. I am writing this review in that spirit of wanting to keep advancing such studies. I always welcome exegetical challenges to my own conclusions. The text should always dictate the system, not vice versa. Dr. Gentry has promised to follow this commentary up with a layman's edition, and I am hoping he will benefit from the critique below and strengthen his conclusions in his next work. First, the strong points. What I Really Like About This Commentary It's extremely well researched and interacts extensively and fairly with other views Though even more could be said for the contributions and strengths of some eschatological positions than Gentry says, [1] I appreciate that he presents the strengths and weaknesses of all of the other eschatological approaches to Revelation very fairly. Gentry graciously interacts with many eschatological viewpoints (even very obscure ones) and does a good job of dealing with most of their credible arguments. He outlines the options, systematically eliminates the options he disagrees with by presenting detailed exegetical reasons why (in his opinion) they will not work, and then presents his own opinion with strong exegetical proofs. It is a solid enough commentary that academics of all eschatological persuasions will likely need to interact with Gentry's arguments, if for no other reason than to answer his critiques of their positions. It's based on a solid hermeneutical approach • Gentry does a masterful job of showing the Redemptive-historical nature of this book, the Hebraic nature of the book, and Revelation's extensive use of the Old Testament. With regard to John's use of the Old Testament, Gentry approvingly quotes McKelvey saying, "when reading the book of Revelation, one is plunged fully into the atmosphere of the Old Testament. No book of the New Testament is as saturated with the Old as in the Apocalypse" (p. 120). The extensive way that Gentry demonstrates John's uses of earlier books of the Bible makes this commentary well worth owning. Even those who strongly disagree with Gentry's particular brand of partial preterism[2] will benefit from those discussions. • I was pleased to see that Dr. Gentry avoided the interpretive maximalism that marred David Chilton's approach to Revelation. • I was also very pleased that (for the most part) Gentry avoids the kind of dependence on Jewish non-canonical apocalyptic literature that so many commentators have. For the most part, he simply interprets Scripture with Scripture. For example, he denies that Revelation is "steeped in Jewish apocalyptic literature" (p. 119) and correctly states that "When we detect apparent parallels between Revelation and apocalyptic literature, the parallel is due to the common ideological ancestor, the Old Testament" (p. 125). He later states that "the source of Revelation's bold imagery is not first-century Jewish apocalyptic, but Old Testament era canonical apocalyptic prophecy" (p. 184). Though Gentry for the most part stays consistent with this solid hermeneutical approach, I found him to occasionally deviate from this stance. [3] It is my contention that Revelation is not apocalyptic literature at all, but prophetic literature in the genre of Old Testament prophecies. When closely examined, the two genres are quite different. Because of the confusion that can result from the different definitions of "apocalyptic literature," I prefer to avoid the term "apocalyptic" altogether. But Gentry is certainly within mainstream thought when he uses the term. In contrast to Gnostic apocalyptic literature, the images found in Biblical prophecies are grounded in actual, literal, historically verifiable events — a fact that Gentry from time to time notes. It's solid on authorship His arguments for the Apostle John being the author are spot-on, and he deals well with all the objections. I highly recommend his argumentation on this subject. It's solid on dating and immanence clues Another strength of the book is that it insists that there must be an imminent fulfillment (or at least a partial fulfillment) of all the major sections of Revelation [4] since John insists that these speak about events that are "soon," "near," or "about to happen" (v. 1i; cf. 1:3,7,19; 2:5,10,16; 3:10,11; 6:11; 11:14; 22:6,7,10,12,20). …. Gentry dates the composition of the book of Revelation to somewhere between AD 65 and 66, a position that I also hold. This makes his constant refrain of "imminent fulfillment" much more credible than the distant historical "fulfillments" proposed by the bulk of historicist and futurist commentaries. While I believe he pushes the imminence of fulfillment way too far by overapplying almost the entire book to AD 66-70 (see my critique below), any other approach will have to deal with his numerous arguments that the repeated phrases, "soon" and "the time is at hand," are literally true. It's open to the symbols being literal historical events I appreciate the fact that Gentry repeatedly insists most of the symbols [5] in the book also likely took place in a literal way in history. On page 874 he rightly notes: Nevertheless, Barr (1998: 199) is surely wrong to assert that 'everything in this story is symbolic.' Not everything in it is symbolic, for if it were we would not be able to understand it at all. Symbolic images require a point of contact with literal realities for them to convey meaning, and John certainly intends to convey meaning to his audience (1:3). (p. 874) On page 708 he says, "A symbolic sum does not demand a symbolic people, whereas a symbolic sum can apply to a literal people." With regard to a prophesied famine, he says, "the symbolic nature of Revelation does not prohibit all literalism" (p. 756). Gentry sadly misses the documentation for many of the literal fulfillments because his chronology is messed up (by over-applying virtually everything to AD 66-70. More on this later.). In those situations he has to go to great lengths to explain why a literal fulfillment is unnecessary and impossible, even though there are many historical, seismological, meteoritic, and other proofs that the "impossible" actually did happen in history. In Gentry's defense, much of this evidence has been rediscovered in the years since he finished his commentary. (As I understand it, most of his writing was finished in September 2005, and about six years ago Dr. Gentry handed his work to Jay Culotta, to do final editing and layout. Sadly, Jay died with the password to his computer unknown to anyone else. This meant that everything Jay had done needed to be redone.) But even though he misses the literal fulfillment of numerous prophecies, he is at least usually correct on the symbolic import of the prophecies. Overall, I appreciate his openness to a literal fulfillment of many prophecies that might appear to be hyperbolic. And his exegetical uncovering of what was symbolized is usually correct and helpful. It's strong on the meaning of γῆς To understand where the action happens in the book of Revelation, you have to interpret γῆς well. γῆς is usually translated as "earth" in most translations, but Gentry recognizes that in Revelation it's usually better translated as "land," and refers specifically to Israel. He rightly sees "all tribes of the land" as being a reference to the tribes of Israel (in light of the quote from Zech. 12:10-14). The whole book makes more sense when you read the word γῆς/γῆ this way. However, as will be seen below, Gentry fails to see that many of Revelation's prophecies are spoken against Gentile nations (including Rome). [6] As a result, his interpretation does not adequately show how Revelation's judgments establish a pattern for Christ's redemptive judgments against Gentile nations throughout New Covenant history. It's beautifully laid out and printed and a pleasure to read This two volume set (consisting of 1764 pages of commentary, 98 pages of bibliography — one of the best bibliographies out there — and 106 pages of index: a total of 1968 pages!) is beautifully laid out. The two volumes have a Smyth Sewn binding, which will not only make the book last a lifetime, but will also make it a pleasure to read. Moreover, despite its length (and the depth of the academic research), this is a very readable commentary. Dr. Gentry writes in accessible language even when dealing with difficult concepts. He even occasionally throws in a bit of dry humor. I found it a pleasure to read. The Weak Points of this Commentary I will not take the time to list all of the areas of disagreement that I have with Dr. Gentry, but the following will show why I consider the commentary to be majorly marred. Complete fail on the structure of the book First, Gentry admits that he doesn't know the exact structure of the book. Of course, he insists that no one else has managed to come up with an adequate structure either (pp. 170-173). So he chose to avoid structural controversies altogether. He says: In light of all the apparently insoluble difficulties in discerning Revelation's structure, I will not attempt a formal, detailed outline. Basically, I will proceed through Revelation verse-byverse, noting significant structural questions as they arise. Thus, as I follow the order of Revelation's text, I will employ only the most basic framework structured around John's four "in Spirit" (en pneumati) experiences (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10), three of which are closely aligned with the visionary "come and see" commands (4:1; 17:1; 21:9). (pp. 173-174) Why does this matter? I believe the structure is critical to understanding Revelation since the structure of a Biblical book always influences the interpretation of that book, and Revelation's structure in particular provides interpretive clues to many of the trickiest parts of the book, and reveals the main message of the book. …. [Etc.]