Kenneth L. GentryBesprekingen

This book is likely to revolutionise the interpretation of the mystery of the Beast and the rest of the Book of Revelation.

Good introduction to four views on the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. It would help to narrow down how one views Revelation, even if taking something from each view; and would also help to subtract those views that seem less viable when compared with the others. Each contributor's critical interaction with the other contributors is very helpful.

Revelation is a real complex and confusing book to understand, so this "Four View" may help arrange the issues in the minding some kind of order too, at least, give one a fundamental base when interpreting the text.

While there is a manner in which these prophetic passages were fulfilled in past historical events, from an Orthodox perspective, these prophecies are also being fulfilled mystically in the ascetic struggle of believers and the purifying, illuminating, and deifying grace of the Holy Spirit at work in the spiritual development of the saints.
Likewise, from an Orthodox vantage point, there is also a manner in which these passages are yet to be fulfilled in the unfolding of world events. Orthodox Christians, however, do not focus their attention on trying to see these prophecies being fulfilled on the world scene, but rather focus their minds on the current spiritual and ascetic battle for the salvation of their souls lest they fall prey to the antichrist forces at work in their personal lives and so deny Christ in word or deed. The view set forth in this film, the Partial Preterist interpretation of prophetic passages, shows us how these prophecies were fulfilled on the stage of Judean history during the first generation of the Christian Church. These past historical fulfillments portray the forces of satanic deception and Divine Grace at work in our own spiritual struggle while, at the same time prefiguring national or world events yet to take place mystically and even visibly on the stage of human history. Although the Preterist view presented in this video denies other possible fulfillments of prophecy in various domains of human existence, a more Orthodox view does not. Rather, an Orthodox perspective would demand that all the various ways of interpreting Scriptural passages must be in harmony with one another and free of dissonance. And, again, the Church encourages us to focus, not so much on past fulfillments and certainly not on future speculations, but on our current spiritual struggles against satanic and antichrist forces that seek the ruin of our souls.

This book presents the book of Revelation from four different perspectives. After about a 30-page overview, four different authors present their insights.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. covers the Preterist view. There are variations of Preterism, but the general idea is that the Bible’s eschatological promises have been fulfilled. Revelation’s bloody war scenes occurred in the first century. Gentry is an established Revelation scholar who writes clearly, but this is not his most lucid writing.

Sam Hamstra Jr. writes about an Idealist view. I would call it a “spiritual” view. Such interpreters find Revelation to be a message of “assurance, hope and victory” in its relevance to today’s struggles.

C. Marvin Pate, who serves also as the book’s general editor, discusses a “progressive dispensationalist” view. The arrival of Jesus 2,000 years ago is the dawning of a the “age to come,” but it is not yet complete; it awaits the Parousia for its consummation.

Finally, Robert L. Thomas lays out the classical Dispensationalist view, the common futuristic interpretation. While there are still many divisions in this category, Thomas strives to present a “typical” belief.

In my opinion, Steve Gregg’s book http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2010/12/book-review-revelation-four-views.html on the same topic is more comprehensive and objective, and also more readable. But it’s also much longer; today’s book should be considered a compact, argumentative introduction by comparison.

I believe this is the book (I read the first version, before its reprint in 2002) that first introduced me to the preterist way of interpreting Revelation. This interpretation posits that most, if not all, of Revelation’s promises were fulfilled in the first century. I was utterly fascinated, and this book still holds a special place in my library.

The book is a condensation of a much larger work by Gentry: Before Jerusalem Fell. It’s broken into two parts. The first half is a description of Nero Caesar and how he fits the beast of Revelation to a T. The second half is an analysis of the dating of Revelation.

Gentry concludes Revelation was written before the great war of 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple leveled by the Romans. I came to disagree with him, as you may know from my own book. Gentry describes his approach: “Holding to an unshakable conviction regarding Scripture’s divine inspiration, I also afford its inherent authority, infallibility, and inerrancy.” Well, there you go, of course a person who studies the first-century message of Revelation, and begins with the assumption that it prophesies the events it describes, would have to conclude that it was written beforehand.

Nevertheless, Gentry is an interesting writer with a fascinating message. That adds up to a very readable book, and earns it five stars.

Gentry, himself, remains for me an enigma who refuses contact. It’s possible I’ve offended him by contradicting his conclusions in my own book, but for whatever the reason, he won’t entertain, for debate or even discussion, theories that contradict his own interpretation. Because he pursues his scholarship in a bubble, his writings must be taken with a grain of salt, yet his perspective definitely deserves attention. This is a book I’m certain will make you think.

Written by one who doesn't drink, due to health concerns, this book takes a non-biased approach to the issue. What does the Bible really say about alcoholic drink? Contrary to the popular opinion of many American evangelical Christians, the Bible does not expressly forbid the drinking of alcoholic drinks, such as wine or "strong drink". Rather, it forbids in no uncertain terms, the abuse of alcohol.

Drunkenness is never viewed as a disease, instead it is incumbent on men not to become drunk with wine. Drunkenness is a sin worthy of eternal damnation. It is expressly forbidden and counseled against. Yet the moderate enjoyment of wine is not only allowed, but encouraged.

Kenneth Gentry deals with each relevant passage exegetically and fairly. He traces the Biblical meanings of the words employed for "wine" and other alcoholic drinks. He reveals the circular reasoning behind the two wine theory, that the Bible has two kinds of wine in view as it uses the same term (alcoholic, and non-alcoholic). The same wine the Bible warns can lead to drunkenness, is the wine the Bible praises as a gift from God for man's enjoyment.

If you care about the truth, and if you care about Scripture, you should pick up this book and read it. The traditions of godly men of old are important, but God's Word is more so. No matter how you conclude on this topic, it would be to your credit to interact with and at least consider what Kenneth Gentry says in this wonderful, carefully written, yet short book on wine. Read my entire review of the book here. And feel free to explore articles on this topic at my blog.

An expanded version of this review is available at CrossFocusedReviews.com, where you can find book excerpts, giveaways, promotional offers, audio reviews and more.

Ken Gentry has collected some of his booklets into book form. A great primer on such subjects as infant baptism, creedalism, and the Book of Revelation.

Excellent, comprehensive, conclusive.

Excellent gentlemanly arguement for Nero to be the beast of Revelation and for the book to have an early date.

A fascinating discussion of the possibility that John's Revelation was written much earlier than most scholars would have us believe (before A.D. 70 versus somewhere around A.D. 95). Gentry does a good job discussing why he supports an early view as well as of answering the most common objections to that view. I find his position quite plausible after having read the book but am not yet willing to say with 100% certainty that Revelation was written prior to the Temple's destruction.

Case 2 shelf 4