Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

The Con.temporay lntegri~ of the Temple 175 rod in hand and his gathering the worshipers together to measure them. Even fellow premillennialist Mounce notes: “The measuring of the temple is a symbolic way of declaring its preservation.”4 7 It seems quite apparent that the symbolic mixture involves a contrast between that which is outer and external to the worship of God (i.e., “the court which is outside the Temple” and Jerusalem, v. 2) and that which is internal and essential to the worship of God (i.e., the vcY6g [the Temple proper], the altar and the worshipers: the Church). The mixture of figurative and literal is neither unprecedented nor uncommon in Scripture (e.g., 2 Kgs. 21:12, 13; Amos 7:8, 9; Isa. 34:1 1; Lam. 2:8; Rev. 18:9-10). Furthermore, although it is recognized on all sides that there is an obvious involvement of the symbolic in the passage (e.g., the measuring of the va6q or the innermost portion of the Temple: the Temple proper, Rev. 11: 1), there surely must be some reality that forms the basis of the symbol. After all, the symbolic names “Egypt” and “Sodom” refer to the historical city Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8). If John wrote about literal Jerusalem (“where also their Lord was crucified” ) twenty-five years after the destruction of the literal Temple (as per the evangelically formulated late date argument), it would seem most improbable that he would speak of the Temple as if it were still standing. The symbol would be confusing in its blatant anachronism. The Temple is required to be standing for the symbolical action of the vision to have any meaning. John uses the future tense when he speaks of the nations’ treading down the city. As just stated, this is not a reminiscence of a past event, but rather a future expectation. All of this becomes all the more apparent when the theme of the book is recalled: Christ is judging Israel for the sin of rejecting Him. Christ-rejecting, Church-persecuting Israel is to be humbled and destroyed. Revelation 11:1, 2 clearly corresponds to the prophecy of Christ as recorded in Luke 21:24. That prophecy (like its parallels in Matt. 24 and Mark 13) is widely held to refer to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. It is the Lucan record of the Olivet Discourse that specifically speaks of the dismantling of the Temple by terms reflective of those in Revelation 11. In Luke 21:24 we read: “and they will fall by the edge of the 47. Mounce, Revelation, p. 219.

176 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jeru.ralem will be trampled underfoot by tb Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” Revelation 11 :2b reads: “it [i.e., the holy city, Rev. 11:1] has been given to the nationq and they will tread under>ot the fw~ tip for forty-two months.” Here the correspondences are so strong, they bespeak historical identity rather than mere accidental similarity: Luke 21:24 / Revelation 11:2 Gentiles (~evfiv) = nations (g@dEv) trampled underfoot (~a~ov@vq) = tread under foot (nanjooucnv) It is evident that John’s Revelation and Luke’s Gospel look to the same events. And these events were literal occurrences that happened to historical institutions and structures, and that had not already occurred, but that lay in the future for both Jesus (whose words Luke records) and John (in Revelation). The context of Luke demands a literal Jerusalem (Luke 21 :20) besieged by literal armies (Luke21 :20) in literal Judea (Luke 21:21) – which as a matter of indisputable historical record occurred in the events leading up to A.D. 70. Objections to the Thesis Despite the above observations, it is frequently argued by many that the Revelation 11 indication of the Temple’s existence does not demand a pre-A.D. 70 date. And this for several reasons. 77w Objection>orn Ck-ment of Ronw Both Guthrie and Mounce,4 for example, argue that Clement of Rome spoke of the Temple as still standing, even though he wrote around A.D. 90+. Clement’s relevant statement is as follows: “Let each of you, brethren, in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness. Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone. And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the alta.q and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers, after that the victim to 48. Guthrie, Introdutwn, p. 960; Mounce, Revelation, p. 35.

The Con.temporay lntegri~ of the Temple 175<br />

rod in hand and his gathering the worshipers together to measure<br />

them. Even fellow premillennialist Mounce notes: “The measuring<br />

of the temple is a symbolic way of declaring its preservation.”4 7<br />

It<br />

seems quite apparent that the symbolic mixture involves a contrast<br />

between that which is outer and external to the worship of God (i.e.,<br />

“the court which is outside the Temple” and <strong>Jerusalem</strong>, v. 2) and<br />

that which is internal and essential to the worship of God (i.e., the<br />

vcY6g [the Temple proper], the altar and the worshipers: the Church).<br />

The mixture of figurative and literal is neither unprecedented nor<br />

uncommon in Scripture (e.g., 2 Kgs. 21:12, 13; Amos 7:8, 9; Isa.<br />

34:1 1; Lam. 2:8; Rev. 18:9-10).<br />

Furthermore, although it is recognized on all sides that there is<br />

an obvious involvement of the symbolic in the passage (e.g., the<br />

measuring of the va6q or the innermost portion of the Temple: the<br />

Temple proper, Rev. 11: 1), there surely must be some reality that<br />

forms the basis of the symbol. After all, the symbolic names “Egypt”<br />

and “Sodom” refer to the historical city <strong>Jerusalem</strong> (Rev. 11:8). If<br />

John wrote about literal <strong>Jerusalem</strong> (“where also their Lord was<br />

crucified” ) twenty-five years after the destruction of the literal Temple<br />

(as per the evangelically formulated late date argument), it would<br />

seem most improbable that he would speak of the Temple as if it<br />

were still standing. The symbol would be confusing in its blatant<br />

anachronism. The Temple is required to be standing for the symbolical<br />

action of the vision to have any meaning. John uses the future<br />

tense when he speaks of the nations’ treading down the city. As just<br />

stated, this is not a reminiscence of a past event, but rather a future<br />

expectation.<br />

All of this becomes all the more apparent when the theme of the<br />

book is recalled: Christ is judging Israel for the sin of rejecting Him.<br />

Christ-rejecting, Church-persecuting Israel is to be humbled and<br />

destroyed. Revelation 11:1, 2 clearly corresponds to the prophecy of<br />

Christ as recorded in Luke 21:24. That prophecy (like its parallels<br />

in Matt. 24 and Mark 13) is widely held to refer to the destruction<br />

of the Temple in A.D. 70. It is the Lucan record of the Olivet<br />

Discourse that specifically speaks of the dismantling of the Temple<br />

by terms reflective of those in Revelation 11.<br />

In Luke 21:24 we read: “and they will fall by the edge of the<br />

47. Mounce, Revelation, p. 219.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!