Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
11 THE CONTEMPOIURY INTEGRITY OF THE TEMPLE Another noteworthy historical datum in Revelation is found in Revelation 11 where we discover a reference to the Temple. Verses 1 and 2 of Revelation 11 contain the relevant temporal indicators: And there was given me a measuring rod like a stat and someone said, “Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it. And leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under fmt the holy city for forty-two months.” The Significance of Revelation 11 A good number of competent scholars have long recognized the significance of this passage for the interpretation and the dating of the book. Bleek notes the existence of the Temple as a significant indicator “with tolerable clearness” of Revelation’s historical era: “As to the time ofun-iting, there are several statements which indicate this with tolerable clearness, and to which we have already referred. In the first division (ch. xi. 1-14) . . . Jerusalem and the temple are spoken of as still standing.” 1 Dusterdieck writes with deep conviction regarding Revelation 11:1 ff.: “It is sufficient for chronological interest, that prophecy depends upon the presupposition that the destruction of thz Holy City had not yet occurred. This is derived with the greatest evidence from the text, since it is said, ver. 2, that the Holy City, i.e., Jerusalem, is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. . . . This testimony of the Apoc., which is completely indisputable to an unpreju- 1. Johannes Friedrich Bleek, An Introduction to tlw Nsw Tatamsnt, 2 vols., 2nd cd., trans. William Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870) 2:226. 165
166 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL diced mind, can still be misunderstood only with great difficulty.”2 Weiss concurs: “The time of the Apocalypse is also definitely fixed by the fact that according to the prophecy in chap. xi. it was manifestly written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in xi. 1 is only anticipated.”3 Writing at about the same time, Macdonald expresses a similarly strong conviction: “It is difficult to see how language could more clearly point to Jerusalem, and to Jerusalem as it was before its overthrow.”4 More recently we can note that Torrey depends upon the usefulness of this passage for the dating of the book: “A most important passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning (the first two verses) of chapter 11. . . . This was written before the year 70, as all students of the book agree.”5 Even more recently still, Robinson has written of this critical passage: “It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh.”G Robinson, indeed, regards the whole matter of the destruction of the Temple as a critical issue for the dating of the entire New Testament. Two excerpts from his important work will illustrate his (correct, we believe) view regarding the significance of the destruction of the Temple for New Testament studies: It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at [i.e., as a past fact – KLG]? 7 2. I+ieclrich Diisterdieck, Critical and E.egetzcal Handbook to the Revelation of John, 3rd cd., trans. Henry E. Jacobs (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1886), pp. 46-47. 3. Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New i%tanwnt, trans. A. J. K. Davidson, 2 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1889) 2:82. 4. James M. Macdonald, i% L@ and Writings of St John (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1877), p. 159. 5. Charles C. Torrey, T/u Apoca~pse of John (New Haven: Yale, 1958), p. 87. It is lamentable that Torrey, speaking as a liberal, overstates his case when he avers that “all students of the book agree” that this passage “was written before the year 70. ” 6. John A. T. Robinson, Redatixg the Ntw Testanwrzt (Philadelphia Westminster, 1976), pp. 240-242. 7. Robinson, Redating, p. 10.
- Page 130 and 131: The Role of Intemtal Euiderwe 115 l
- Page 132 and 133: Tb Role of Internal Euidence 117 an
- Page 134 and 135: The Role of Internal Evio%nce 119 t
- Page 136 and 137: 8 THE THEME OF REVELATION Although
- Page 138 and 139: Tb Theme of Revelation 123 import i
- Page 140 and 141: The Theme ofl?evelation 125 you als
- Page 142 and 143: Tb Th of Revelation 127 Clearly, th
- Page 144 and 145: Tb Thm of Rmelatwn 129 And in this
- Page 146 and 147: The Thaw of Revelation 131 substanc
- Page 148 and 149: 9 THE TEMPORAL EXPECTATION OF THE A
- Page 150 and 151: Inadequate Views Tb Tmporal Expecta
- Page 152 and 153: The Tm.oral Expectation of the Auth
- Page 154 and 155: The Temporal Expectation of the Aut
- Page 156 and 157: Tb Temporal Expectation of the Auth
- Page 158 and 159: Th Tmporal Expectation of tlu Autho
- Page 160 and 161: Th Tmporal Expectation of the Autho
- Page 162 and 163: Th ldenti~ of th Sixth King 147 in
- Page 164 and 165: Th Identi~ of th Sixth King 149 req
- Page 166 and 167: Th Identi@ of th Sixth King 151 he
- Page 168 and 169: The Identip of th Sixth King 153 Ga
- Page 170 and 171: The Idh.tip of the Sixth King 155 t
- Page 172 and 173: The Identip of the Sixth King 157 T
- Page 174 and 175: Th Identip of the Sixth King 159 by
- Page 176 and 177: The ldenti~ of tb Sixth King 161 to
- Page 178 and 179: The Zci2n.ti~ of t/w Sixth King 163
- Page 182 and 183: Th Contempora~ Integrity of th Temp
- Page 184 and 185: The Conte-mPora~ lntegri~ of the Te
- Page 186 and 187: The Contemporary Integtip of the Te
- Page 188 and 189: Th ContemPora~ Integrip of the Temp
- Page 190 and 191: The Con.temporay lntegri~ of the Te
- Page 192 and 193: The Contempora~ Integri~ of the Tem
- Page 194 and 195: T4.e Contempora~ Integrigv of the T
- Page 196 and 197: Tb Contempora~ Integrip of tb Templ
- Page 198 and 199: The Contemporap Integrip of the Tmp
- Page 200 and 201: The Contemporary Integrip of tfw Tm
- Page 202 and 203: Tb Contempora~ Integtip of the Temp
- Page 204 and 205: The ContemPora~ Integtip of the Tem
- Page 206 and 207: Tb Contanpora~ Integrip of the Tmpl
- Page 208 and 209: 12 THE ROLE OF NERO CAESAR In an ea
- Page 210 and 211: The Role of Nero Caesar 195 In Suet
- Page 212 and 213: The Role of Nero Caesar 197 051 all
- Page 214 and 215: The Role of Nero Caesar 199 666. An
- Page 216 and 217: T/w Role of Nero Caesar 201 them co
- Page 218 and 219: Th Role of Nero Caesar 203 the Beas
- Page 220 and 221: The Early Fathers The Role of Nero
- Page 222 and 223: I’%e Role ofNero Caesar 207 ‘Ti
- Page 224 and 225: Th Role of Nero Caesar 209 represen
- Page 226 and 227: Tb Role of Nero Caaar 211 between l
- Page 228 and 229: The Role of Nero Caaar 213 Hellenis
11<br />
THE CONTEMPOIURY<br />
INTEGRITY OF THE TEMPLE<br />
Another noteworthy historical datum in Revelation is found in<br />
Revelation 11 where we discover a reference to the Temple. Verses<br />
1 and 2 of Revelation 11 contain the relevant temporal indicators:<br />
And there was given me a measuring rod like a stat and someone<br />
said, “Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those<br />
who worship in it. And leave out the court which is outside the<br />
temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations;<br />
and they will tread under fmt the holy city for forty-two months.”<br />
The Significance of Revelation 11<br />
A good number of competent scholars have long recognized the<br />
significance of this passage for the interpretation and the dating of<br />
the book. Bleek notes the existence of the Temple as a significant<br />
indicator “with tolerable clearness” of Revelation’s historical era: “As<br />
to the time ofun-iting, there are several statements which indicate this<br />
with tolerable clearness, and to which we have already referred. In<br />
the first division (ch. xi. 1-14) . . . <strong>Jerusalem</strong> and the temple are<br />
spoken of as still standing.” 1 Dusterdieck writes with deep conviction<br />
regarding Revelation 11:1 ff.: “It is sufficient for chronological interest,<br />
that prophecy depends upon the presupposition that the destruction<br />
of thz Holy City had not yet occurred. This is derived with the greatest<br />
evidence from the text, since it is said, ver. 2, that the Holy City, i.e.,<br />
<strong>Jerusalem</strong>, is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. . . . This testimony<br />
of the Apoc., which is completely indisputable to an unpreju-<br />
1. Johannes Friedrich Bleek, An Introduction to tlw Nsw Tatamsnt, 2 vols., 2nd cd.,<br />
trans. William Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870) 2:226.<br />
165