Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
10 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL in 1910 that Darling’s list of English works on the Apocalypse contained nearly 54 columns.33 With Carpenter’s observation regarding the literature of the Apocalypse, we are compelled to agree: It is “peflectly hopeless to touch so vast a subject as this.”3 4 Certainly Revelation has captivated the minds of both the intense scholar and the part-time student alike. Although presumption and ima~nation have caused many a commentator to stumble in interpreting Revelation, nevertheless the book has commanded and will continue to command the devout attention of those who love God and His Word. Interpretive Difficulty of Revelation As noted, Revelation has historically generated an intensity of interest unparalleled among any of the books of Scripture. Yet, at the same time — as evidenced by the extreme diversity of the views on Revelation – it has been a most dificult book to interpret. Or perhaps the converse is true: because of the extreme difficulty of interpreting Revelation, it has created an intense interest! As Chilton has observed: ‘ ( Many rush from their first profession of faith to the last book in the Bible, treating it as little more than a book of hallucinations, hastily disdaining a sober-minded attempt to allow the Bible to interpret itself – and finding, ultimately, only a reflection of their own prejudices. “3 5 Too often such a situation is due to the temptations presented by biblical scholars who gear their works for the popular market. This seems to be especially true of dispensational theologians. For instance, Charles Ryrie — an able scholar and probably the leading dispensationalist theologian of the present day – has written of Revelation: “How do we make sense out of all those beasts and thrones and horsemen and huge numbers like 200 million? Answer: Take it at face value. ”36 Later he gives an example of the usefulness of his “face value” hermeneutic in seeking the correct interpretation of Revelation 9:1-12 (the locusts from the abyss): “John’s description sounds very much like some kind of war machine or UFO.. Demons 33. Scha~ Hastoy 1:826. 34. W. Boyd Carpenter, The Revelation of St. John, in vol. 8 of John Charles Ellicott, cd., Ellicott’s Comrm-atap on ttu Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. n.d.), p. 532. 35. David Chilton, Paradtie Re$tored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985), p. 153. 36. Ryrie, T/u Living End, p. 37.
Revelation Studies 11 have the ability to take different shapes, so it is quite possible that John is picturing a coming invasion of warlike UFOS. Until someone comes up with a satisfactory answer to the UFO question, this possibility should not be ruled out.”3 7 Such an interpretation makes one wonder whose face determines the value! Certainly not the first century Christians to whom it was written. Scholar~ Trepidation The would-be interpreter of Revelation must approach the book with extreme caution and in humble recognition of the fact that he is studying a book that has perplexed the finest minds and confused the most godly saints throughout Christian history. The great Latin church father Jerome (A.D. 340-420) lamented long ago that it contained “as many words as mysteries.”3 8 Martin Luther (1483- 1546), the famed reformer and untiring interpreter of Scripture, originally rejected Revelation as non-canonical, complaining, “My Spirit cannot adapt itself to the book.”39 Fellow reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) refused to take a doctrinal proof-text from Revelation.w Even John Calvin (1509-1564) omitted Revelation from his otherwise complete commentary on the New Testament. R. H. Charles (1855- 193 1), in his celebrated magnum opus on Revelation, states that it took him twenty-five years to complete his commentary 41 Contemporary expositor Leon Morris has well noted that “the Revelation . . . is by common consent one of the most diflicult of all the books of the Bible. It is full of strange symbolism. . . . The result is that for many modem men Revelation remains a closed book.”4 2 In order to illustrate the need for caution and to hold rein upon the interpretive imagination – for so much written on Revelation is just that – it may serve well to list observations from a variety of Revelation’s numerous interpreters on the book’s formidability. After 37. Ibid., p. 45. 38. Cited in Schaff, Htitoy 1:826. 39. Cited by Martin H. Franzmann, 7%e Revelation to John (St. Louis: Concordia, 1976), p. 7. Luther was ambivalent with regard to Revelation, as is evident in his gradual and reluctant acceptance of it. See Martin Luther, Luthert Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1957) 24:366 and 35:400. 40. Ibid. 41. R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical CommentaV on th Revelation of St. John, 2 vols. International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 1 :ix. 42. Leon Morris, The Revdatwn ofSL John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 15.
- Page 2 and 3: BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
- Page 4 and 5: BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Dating the Bo
- Page 6 and 7: Dedicated to Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wh
- Page 8 and 9: TABLE OF CONTENTS Publisher’s Pre
- Page 10 and 11: PUBLISHER’S PREFACE by Gary North
- Page 12 and 13: Publish/s Preface xi of Revelation.
- Page 14 and 15: Publisher’s Preface . . . X111 Po
- Page 16 and 17: Publisher’s Preface xv Th Beret o
- Page 18 and 19: . . . Xvlll BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL I
- Page 20 and 21: PART 1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
- Page 22 and 23: 4 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Thus, both
- Page 24 and 25: 6 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Regarding t
- Page 26 and 27: 8 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL noted a qua
- Page 30 and 31: 12 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL all, as Re
- Page 32 and 33: 14 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Milo Conni
- Page 34 and 35: I 16 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL In the s
- Page 36 and 37: 18 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL the two ge
- Page 38 and 39: 20 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Regarding
- Page 40 and 41: 22 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL conviction
- Page 42 and 43: 24 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL to exclude
- Page 44 and 45: 26 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL The proble
- Page 46 and 47: 28 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL was in tur
- Page 48 and 49: 30 Source Documentation We will cit
- Page 50 and 51: 32 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Heinrich B
- Page 52 and 53: 34 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Hermann Ge
- Page 54 and 55: 36 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL James M. M
- Page 56 and 57: 38 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Moses Stua
- Page 58 and 59: 3 INTRODUCTION TO THE EXTERNAL EVID
- Page 60 and 61: Introduction to the External Eviden
- Page 62 and 63: 4 IRENAEUS, BISHOP OF LYONS As we b
- Page 64 and 65: Irenaas, Btihop of Lyons 47 nounced
- Page 66 and 67: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyn.s 49 (i.e.,
- Page 68 and 69: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 51 have b
- Page 70 and 71: along the lines of Chase’s: Irena
- Page 72 and 73: Irenaeu.s, Bishop ofLpns 55 accept
- Page 74 and 75: Irenaeu-s, Bishop of Lyons 57 tian
- Page 76 and 77: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpn.s 59 rule.
10 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
in 1910 that Darling’s list of English works on the Apocalypse contained<br />
nearly 54 columns.33 With Carpenter’s observation regarding<br />
the literature of the Apocalypse, we are compelled to agree: It is<br />
“peflectly hopeless to touch so vast a subject as this.”3 4<br />
Certainly Revelation has captivated the minds of both the intense<br />
scholar and the part-time student alike. Although presumption and<br />
ima~nation have caused many a commentator to stumble in interpreting<br />
Revelation, nevertheless the book has commanded and will<br />
continue to command the devout attention of those who love God<br />
and His Word.<br />
Interpretive Difficulty of Revelation<br />
As noted, Revelation has historically generated an intensity of<br />
interest unparalleled among any of the books of Scripture. Yet, at the<br />
same time — as evidenced by the extreme diversity of the views on<br />
Revelation – it has been a most dificult book to interpret. Or perhaps<br />
the converse is true: because of the extreme difficulty of interpreting<br />
Revelation, it has created an intense interest! As Chilton has<br />
observed: ‘ (<br />
Many rush from their first profession of faith to the last<br />
book in the Bible, treating it as little more than a book of hallucinations,<br />
hastily disdaining a sober-minded attempt to allow the Bible<br />
to interpret itself – and finding, ultimately, only a reflection of their<br />
own prejudices. “3 5<br />
Too often such a situation is due to the temptations presented<br />
by biblical scholars who gear their works for the popular market.<br />
This seems to be especially true of dispensational theologians. For<br />
instance, Charles Ryrie — an able scholar and probably the leading<br />
dispensationalist theologian of the present day – has written of Revelation:<br />
“How do we make sense out of all those beasts and thrones<br />
and horsemen and huge numbers like 200 million? Answer: Take it<br />
at face value. ”36 Later he gives an example of the usefulness of his<br />
“face value” hermeneutic in seeking the correct interpretation of<br />
Revelation 9:1-12 (the locusts from the abyss): “John’s description<br />
sounds very much like some kind of war machine or UFO.. Demons<br />
33. Scha~ Hastoy 1:826.<br />
34. W. Boyd Carpenter, The Revelation of St. John, in vol. 8 of John Charles Ellicott,<br />
cd., Ellicott’s Comrm-atap on ttu Whole Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. n.d.), p. 532.<br />
35. David Chilton, Paradtie Re$tored (Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985), p. 153.<br />
36. Ryrie, T/u Living End, p. 37.
Change language