Before Jerusalem Fell

xiv BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Baiting the Hook
This vulnerability was admitted in print by Rev. Gentry in an
early review of Chilton’s book. Like a skilled fisherman baiting his
hook with a bright, shining fly, Rev. Gentry wrote: “Chilton only
gives four superfkially argued pages in defense of what is perhaps the
most crucial matter for consistent preterism: the pre-A.D. 70 date for
the composition of Revelation.” 12 The temptation to take the bait
was just too great for a pair of dispensationalists: H. Wayne House
of Dallas Theological Seminary and Thomas D. Ice, a pastor. They
devoted a dozen pages of their anti-Reconstructionist book to the
question of the date of Revelation. 13 They insisted that the Book of
Revelation had to have been written after A.D. 70. Little did they
know that Rev. Gentry had already completed the bulk of his doctoral
dissertation on the dating of Revelation. Like fish grabbing a
baited hook, the two authors bit hard. This hook is now embedded
in their collective jaw. With Before Jwalem Fell, Dr. Gentry now reels
them in.
Lest I be perceived as indicating that only premillennial dispensationalists
have lost a favorite and easy-to-invoke excuse for not
taking Chilton’s pretenst thesis seriously, let me also say that historic
premillennialists and amillennialists are equally inclined to dismiss
preterism with the same cavalier attitude. The A.D. 96 tradition has
always been convenient for this purpose. One wonders if eschatological
concerns may have been the original reason for the invention of
the A.D. 96 hypothesis. It has heretofore been an inexpensive way
to justifi a refusal to read any detailed and carefully argued alternative
interpretation of this difficult New Testament book.
Conclusion
I regard this monograph as one more nail in the cofiin of
all non-pretenst views of the Book of Revelation, or at least a
nail-remover in what non-preterists had long believed was the
final nail in preterism’s cofh. The news of pretensm’s death, like
Alva J. McClain’s announcement of postmillennialism’s death,
was premature. 14 This book, along with Gentry’s shorter book,
12. Counsel ~Chakedon (June 1987), p. 10.
13. House and Ice, Dominwn 771Ao~, pp. 249-60.
14. Alva J. McClain, “Premillennialism as a Philosophy of History,” in W. Culbertson