Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

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.

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!